Reason to Build the Wall: Mexico second deadliest country in 2016

Americans are bombarded with news about protests against building a wall on the southern border. The Democrat Party is doing everything it can to stop the wall from being built. Certain judges, appointed by the previous administration, are hindering efforts to build a wall.

So, why is it necessary to build a wall along America’s southern border?

Perhaps one reason is that there is a war going on in Mexico and it is spilling over our southern border into our towns and cities. But the media does not report how this violence, primarily from drug cartels and gangs like MS13, are causing crime and violence to rise in our major urban areas.

CNN’s Elizabeth Roberts in an article titled Report: Mexico was second deadliest country in 2016 wrote:

It was the second deadliest conflict in the world last year, but it hardly registered in the international headlines.

As Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan dominated the news agenda, Mexico’s drug wars claimed 23,000 lives during 2016 — second only to Syria, where 50,000 people died as a result of the civil war.

In comparison, there were 17,000 conflict deaths in Mexico in 2015 and 15,000 in 2014 according to the IISS.

The Mexican government lashed out at the report’s writers. In a statement posted to its website, the government criticizes the report’s characterization of Mexico having a non-international armed conflict, saying the military’s policing of criminal gangs does not equate to what goes on in other countries. It also disagreed with the report’s methodology.

Read more…

And Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries in the world to be a journalist.

Here are the top 5 countries for killings in 2016:

  1. Syria                             50,000 [Est.]
  2. Mexico                         23,000
  3. Iraq                               17,000
  4. Afghanistan                16,000
  5. Yemen                          7,000

Note that four of these “dangerous countries” are on President Trump’s travel ban, which several judges have stopped.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Corruption in Mexico to Blame for Human Smuggling Racket

Mexico: Muslim stabs priest at the altar of Mexico City’s Metropolitan Cathedral

How This Maryland Police Department Is Combating the MS-13 Gang

ICE arrests 55 people in Arizona in connection to gangs, serious crimes

ICE removes Guatemalan national wanted for murder

Mexican Town Angry About Illegal Immigrants Bringing Crime to Their Streets (VIDEO)

Honduras: Exodus After Texas Enacts Anti-Sanctuary Law | The Daily Caller

DUI Hit-and-Run Suspect Previously Deported 15 Times | LifeZette

Six Republican Senators question Trump refugee admissions, appear to want MORE refugees admitted to the US

U.S. Catholic bishops complicit in Muslim persecution of Christians

Recently I was interviewed about the persecution by Catholic bishops of Catholic priests who enunciate unpopular truths about Islam.

“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

“Islamic Expert: US Bishops Complicit in Muslim Persecution of Christians,” by Anita Carey, ChurchMilitant.com, May 8, 2017:

DETROIT (ChurchMiltant.com) – A prominent Islamic expert is comparing the bishops’ silence on terrorism to sex abuse cover-up. Robert Spencer, an Islamic terror expert and author of 16 books on Islam, released an editorial Sunday excoriating the U.S. bishops’ actions to punish clergy and schoolteachers who speak out against Islam, including Spencer himself.

“The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops moves actively and swiftly to silence and demonize voices that tell the truth about the Muslim persecution of Christians,” Spencer noted, naming various bishops who’ve refused him, as well as other Muslim critics, a platform in their dioceses.

“You can reject every element of the Nicene Creed and everything the Church teaches, and still the U.S. Catholic Bishops will consider you a Catholic in good standing,” he continued. “But if you believe that Islam is not a religion of peace, you have no place in the U.S. Catholic Church.”

Church Militant spoke with Spencer on his thoughts regarding the reasons why the U.S. bishops are so reluctant to speak out against the evil of Islam.

CM: At what point do you think the bishops started to pander to a politically correct agenda?

RS: This is an outgrowth of the confusion that overtook the Church in the wake of Vatican II, and the popular but erroneous idea among liberal Catholics that the Church had discarded its tradition and dogmas and essentially embraced the leftist agenda. This idea took root in earnest in the 1960s, but began germinating long before that.

CM: Knowing the historical conflicts between Islam and Christianity, why would the bishops be so quick and severe toward those who are informing the laity? Why would they want the laity ignorant?

RS: This mystifies me, but my best assessment is that this is an outgrowth of the spirit of Vatican II, which called upon Muslims and Christians to set aside ancient antagonisms and find common ground. There is a general assumption among the bishops that just as Christianity has changed since the time of the Crusades, so also has Islam, and dialog will iron out any remaining differences.

In reality, this is an unfounded assumption, as Islamic teaching has not changed, and still contains an imperative to wage war against Christians and subjugate them under the rule of Islamic law. I would expect that most bishops, however, would dismiss the idea that Islamic teaching contains such an imperative as an “Orientalist” and “Islamophobic” false claim. They, however, are the ones who are ignorant.

CM: What do you think the bishops’ problem is with your talks and position on Islam?

RS: I’m told that Bp. Nicholas Samra believes that I am “spreading hate,” and since I was a member of his diocese, he himself told me that many bishops had approached him at the USCCB conference telling him that he had to “do something” about me. They apparently believe that I am harming the dialog they are conducting with Muslims, and they apparently also think that this dialog is producing results, even though Muslim persecution of Christians has increased exponentially since it began.

For my part, I reject the charge that I am spreading hate, and challenge Samra or any other bishop to quote a single hateful statement from my work. I am exposing facts that many would prefer to keep concealed; the “hate” charge is simply an attempt to make people of good will turn against my work.

CM: If the bishops do start to speak out against Islam, will it make Christian persecution worse or start an all-out war? 

RS: In Islamic law, Christians must live in subservience and submission to Islamic law. If they speak out about their plight, it will get even worse for them, and their lives could be forfeit. Thus they generally adopt an attitude of publicly praising and siding with those who persecute them, so that it won’t get even worse for them. This is the attitude that the bishops now appear to have adopted as well: Samra himself told me that I shouldn’t speak out against Muslim persecution of Christians, as doing so would only make matters worse for Middle-Eastern Christians.

While I am aware of that possibility, at the same time to dissimulate about the nature and magnitude of that persecution only misleads Christians outside the Middle East into complacency. It also just validates and reinforces violent intimidation. It is incumbent upon the bishops as messengers of the truth to tell the whole truth about what is happening to the Christians of the Middle East, and to reject a submission to Islamic intimidation that would condemn our children and our children’s children to slavery. To accept that intimidation and lie or remain silent because of it is only to encourage more such intimidation. They could speak out while working to ensure that the United States and other powers do everything they can to protect the remaining Christians in the Middle East from further persecution.

CM: What can the faithful do to influence the bishops or fight back against the liberal media?

RS: Call them to tell the truth. When they issue statements about Islam that are dishonest and misleading, challenge them. I have been severely criticized for criticizing bishops. Many Catholics seem to think that to do so is disloyal to the Church. On the contrary, I believe that not to call out bishops when they are sinful and wrong is even more disloyal to the Church. It is the kind of thinking that led to the pedophilia scandals.

RELATED ARTICLE: Video: The globalist agenda and President Trump’s immigration ban

RELATED VIDEO: Vice President Pence — ISIS Guilty Of Genocide Against Christians.

Dethrone the FBI, Not Just Comey by James Bovard

President Trump’s firing of FBI chief James Comey provides a welcome chance to dethrone the FBI from its pinnacle in American politics and life. Last September, Comey denounced Twitter “demagoguery” for the widespread belief that the FBI was not “honest” or “competent.”

But the FBI has a long record of both deceit and incompetence. Five years ago, Americans learned that the FBI was teaching its agents that the bureau “has the ability to bend or suspend the law to impinge on the freedom of others.” This has practically been the FBI’s motif since its creation.

Dirty Deeds

J. Edgar Hoover, who ran the FBI from 1924 until his death in 1972, built a revered agency that utterly intimidated official Washington. In 1945, President Truman wrote: “We want no Gestapo or secret police. FBI is tending in that direction. … This must stop.”

But the bureau’s power soared after Congress passed the Internal Security Act of 1950, authorizing massive crackdowns on suspected subversives. Hoover compiled a list of more than 20,000 “potentially or actually dangerous” Americans who could be seized and locked away at the president’s command. “Congress secretly financed the creation of six of these (detention) camps in the 1950s,” noted Tim Weiner in his excellent 2012 book, Enemies: A History of the FBI.

From 1956 through 1971, the FBI’s COINTELPRO (counterintelligence programs) conducted thousands of covert operations to incite street warfare between violent groups, to get people fired, to smear innocent people by portraying them as government informants, and to cripple or destroy left-wing, black, communist, white racist and anti-war organizations.

FBI agents also busied themselves forging “poison pen” letters to wreck activists’ marriages. COINTELPRO was exposed only after a handful of activists burglarized an FBI office in a Philadelphia suburb, seized FBI files, and leaked the damning documents to journalists.

FBI haughtiness was on display on April 19, 1993, when its agents used armored vehicles to smash into the Branch Davidians’ sprawling, ramshackle home near Waco, Texas. The tanks intentionally collapsed much of the building on top of the huddled residents. After the FBI pumped the building full of CS gas (banned for use on enemy soldiers by the Chemical Weapons Convention), a fire ignited that left 80 children, women and men dead.

The FBI swore it was blameless for the conflagration, but six years later, an investigation revealed that the FBI fired incendiary cartridges into the building before the blaze erupted. No FBI agents were penalized or prosecuted for their fatal assault against American civilians.

21st Century Scandals

Before the 9/11 attacks, the FBI dismally failed to connect the dots on suspicious foreigners engaged in domestic aviation training. Though Congress had deluged the FBI with $1.7 billion to upgrade its computers, many FBI agents had old machines incapable of searching the Web or emailing photos. One FBI agent observed that the bureau ethos is that “real men don’t type. …The computer revolution just passed us by.”

The FBI’s pre-9/11 blunders “contributed to the United States becoming, in effect, a sanctuary for radical terrorists,” according to a 2002 congressional investigation. (The FBI also lost track of a key informant at the heart of the cabal that detonated a truck bomb beneath the World Trade Center in 1993.)

In the late 1990s, the FBI Academy taught agents that subjects of investigations “have forfeited their right to the truth.” This doctrine helped fuel pervasive entrapment operations after 9/11.

Trevor Aaronson, author of The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism, estimated that only about 1% of the 500 people charged with international terrorism offenses in the decade after 9/11 were bona fide threats. Thirty times as many were induced by the FBI to behave in ways that prompted their arrest.

The bureau’s informant program extends far beyond Muslims. It bankrolled an extremist right-wing New Jersey blogger and radio host for five years before his 2009 arrest for threatening federal judges.

And then there are the other scandals — the perpetual false testimony from the FBI crime lab, its use of National Security Letters and other surveillance tools to illegally vacuum up Americans’ personal info, its whitewashing of every shooting by an FBI agent between 1993 and 2011, and its operation of dozens of child porn websites (another entrapment operation gone awry).

Unleashed Power

The FBI’s power has rarely been effectively curbed by either Congress or federal courts. In 1971, House Majority Leader Hale Boggs declared that the bureau’s power terrified Capitol Hill: “Our very fear of speaking out (against the FBI) has watered the roots and hastened the growth of a vine of tyranny. … Our society … cannot survive a planned and programmed fear of its own government bureaus and agencies.”

Boggs vindicated a 1924 American Civil Liberties Union report warning that the FBI had become “a secret police system of a political character” — a charge that supporters of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would have alternatively cheered last year.

If Trump fired Comey to throttle an investigation into Trump administration criminality, that is an impeachable offense. Otherwise, Comey’s fall provides an excellent opportunity to take the FBI off its pedestal and place it where it belongs — under the law.

It is time to cease venerating a federal agency whose abuses have perennially menaced Americans’ constitutional rights.

Reprinted from USA Today.

James Bovard

James Bovard

James Bovard

James Bovard is the author of ten books, including Public Policy Hooligan, Attention Deficit Democracy, and Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty. Find him on Twitter @JimBovard.

The Moral Case for High-impact Industries

Yesterday, I got the opportunity to speak at the annual conference of The Association of Union Constructors. I was particularly excited to speak at this conference because the attendees’ unions represented a combined 3 million employees from groups such as iron workers, boilermakers, electricians, etc.

RELATED VIDEO: The moral case for fossil fuels:

imageOne hour before the speech, everyone has a book waiting for them.

The moral case for fossil fuels is crucial to these industries for two reasons.

First, they rely on cheap, plentiful, reliable energy from fossil fuels–and when that energy is restricted their industries suffer terribly.

Second, because they mostly work in high-impact industries–industries that create value by visibly transforming our environment–they especially benefit from reframing the debates over their industries in pro-human terms.

I got to meet many bright, thoughtful, passionate people at the book signing after my speech.

I already have several plans to talk to attendees about educating their many members.

Thanks so much to TAUC for inviting me.

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

1. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications.

Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.

2. Hold a free Lunch-and-Learn (inside or outside the industry).

This program contains one of my favorite debates along with some “cheat sheets” to help you make the moral case for fossil fuels in your professional and personal life more easily than you thought possible. You can have access to the entire program right now. By the end of the session you and your team will:

  • gain a deeper sense of meaning from their work
  • be able to turn fossil fuel skeptics into fossil fuel supporters
  • learn the secrets to having constructive conversations about energy instead of frustrating fights

Click here to sign up for the free program.

3. Hire me to speak at your next event.

If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate. If you’d like to consider me for your event, just reply to this message and put “Event” in the subject line.

Click here for a PDF copy of the Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

How has Delaware dodged the refugee bullet for decades? Answer: Joe Biden

There is a short news item at Delaware Public Media about how a Jewish refugee agency in Delaware is waiting for seven families (likely Muslim families based on their country of origin) they hope they will soon be settling in Delaware—the First State.  So I thought I might revisit a topic I haven’t discussed for a long time and that is the origin of the Refugee Act of 1980.

Senators Biden and Kennedy are responsible for the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program. See list below of other Senators deeply involved in 1979.

But, first here is a portion of the short piece at Delaware Public Media:

The state of Hawaii’s stay on Trump’s second travel ban suspends the FY17 cap for refugees – currently set at 50,000.

That opens the door for refugee families from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Eastern African country of Eritrea in line to come to the First State, but none of them have travel plans in place yet.

Jewish Family Services of Delaware Refugee Resettlement Coordinator Sarah Green says that currently, the families are stuck in Jordan and Ethiopia.

“It’s hard to know what’s happening,” Green said. “We just have to wait and see. We get a very limited view of what’s happening over there.”

She says her agency is taking the approach that these families could arrive any day – and working to ensure they’ll be comfortable when they reach Delaware.

[….]

There’s reason to expect they could arrive soon. According to the U.S. State Department, 900 flights for refugees to the U.S. are being scheduled every week.

As of this morning, 831 new refugees arrived in the US in the past week (5/5-5/12) according to Wrapsnet. And, that puts us at 44,072 this fiscal year.

At this rate the Trump Administration will hit 50,000 in about 7 – 8 weeks. Will they stop at 50,000 which should happen around the first week of July? That is the question!

Delaware, in some ways, is more interesting to me than some of the other very low refugee admission states (LOL! including Hawaii).  See chart below.

And that is because then Senator Joe Biden was one of the chief sponsors of the Senate-generated Refugee Act of 1979 (S.643) which became the Refugee Act of 1980 when Jimmy Carter signed it in to law the following year.  You can learn more about it here.  Pay special attention to the part about how states were NOT to be burdened with welfare costs of refugees.

Here are the co-sponsors of S.643 another of Senator Ted Kennedy’s swamp-America-with-immigrants bills:

So how is it that Delaware is in the bottom ten locations for refugee seeding when then Senator and now former Vice President Joe Biden is that state’s most prominent political figure?  Did he welcome refugees to America in 1979, but keep them from swamping Delaware with diversity for decades?

Wrapsnet data only goes back to FY2003, but that gives us enough years to see a pattern. (For researchers more diligent than I am, you can go back through all the previous annual reports and put the data together from the very beginning, but I expect the pattern is similar in the early years.)

So from FY03 through today (in FY17) we admitted 886,324 refugees to America (not including asylum seekers) and Delaware got a whopping 139 of them!

In the years Joe Biden was Vice President, Delaware got only 50 refugees.

Here are the last ten locations for refugee placement from FY03 to the present. What the heck is “Unknown State?” Does that mean 68 refugees were placed secretly somewhere? Yikes!

If Delaware Public Media really wanted to do some important work, reporters there should try to find out exactly why and how Delaware dodged a bullet for so many years when their claim to fame, Veep Joe Biden, sponsored the original law and then apparently kept diversity-seeding from the state! (It is not because of the state’s small size since Rhode Island got thousands more than Delaware).

For new readers, this post is filed in mywhere to find information’ category and in ‘Refugee statistics.’

Acting FBI Director McCabe needs to go because of his wife Jill

The New York Times, Chicago Tribune and CNN all reported that the acting FBI Director Andrew G. McCabe contradicted the White House’s assertion that James B. Comey had lost the support of rank-and-file FBI agents. So why are these news organizations highlighting McCabe? Perhaps it is because of his wife Dr. Jill McCabe, who ran for the Virginia state Senate as a Democrat?

What these news outlets fail to tell you about his wife Dr. Jill McCabe is her connection to long time Hillary Clinton supporter and governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe.

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe campaigning with his wife Jill.

Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe campaigning with his wife Jill.

In The Daily Signal article Here Are 12 Possible Comey Replacements at FBI Fred Lucas reports:

Andrew McCabe, the acting FBI director who was the deputy director under Comey, testified on Capitol Hill Thursday. He is also reportedly a contender for the job, but could be challenged due to potential conflicts.

McCabe served as an FBI special agent since 1996, and was elevated to the No. 2 spot in 2016. However, while he was moving up in the FBI during the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server, his wife Dr. Jill McCabe ran for the Virginia state Senate in 2015, with a financial boost of almost $500,000 from Common Good VA. The political action committee is controlled by longtime Clinton ally Gov. Terry McAuliffe.

In a statement to The Wall Street Journal last year, the FBI said, “Months after the completion of [his wife’s] campaign, then-Associate Deputy Director McCabe was promoted to deputy, where, in that position, he assumed for the first time, an oversight role in the investigation into Secretary Clinton’s emails.”

“It needs to be somebody independent,” said Ron Hosko, the FBI’s former assistant director of the criminal investigative division and now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund. “With McCabe, this day and age, even the appearance of impropriety is a problem … An appearance can be fatal—maybe not to a career—but to advancement.”

Hillary Clinton campaigning with long time ally Terry McAuliffe, governor of Virginia.

Hillary Clinton campaigning with long time ally Terry McAuliffe, governor of Virginia.

The Daily Beast reports:

The news [of Dr. Jill McCabe’s McAuliffe connection] drew calls for McCabe to publicly recuse himself from anything involving the bureau’s investigation into Clinton’s email scandal. But he didn’t do that, and conservatives haven’t forgotten.

“He should be removed as acting director and then either fired or demoted,” Mark Corallo, spokesperson for John Ashcroft when he was Attorney General, told The Daily Beast. “When he did not recuse himself from the investigation despite knowing his wife received major campaign contributions from Terry McAuliffe, he broke the ethics rules and tainted the investigation. Time for him to go.”

It appears the reason McCabe is defending Comey and wants the Russian investigation to move forward may be because he is complicit in the failure by the FBI to indict Hillary Clinton and those implicated in creating, maintaining and scrubbing the email server, which contained classified information.

Mr. McCabe needs to go.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Here Are 12 Possible Comey Replacements at FBI

Trump Has Vowed to Eradicate MS-13. What You Need to Know About This Violent Gang

Here’s the Action Trump Is Taking to Investigate Voter Fraud

James Comey and the Stinking Fish Factor

Hungary Takes EU To Court Over Migrant Demands

The Eastern European nations that refuse to destroy their countries will be the only places of refuge and sanctuary for infidel refuseniks in the coming bloody wars.

islam harvest shariahHUNGARY TAKES EU TO COURT OVER MIGRANT DEMANDS

By Jacob Bojesson, Daily Caller, May 10, 2017:

HUNGARY AND SLOVAKIA ADDRESSED THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE WEDNESDAY IN A JOINT CASE AGAINST THE EUROPEAN UNION’S REFUGEE DISTRIBUTION SCHEME.

The EU Council has moved to distribute hundreds of thousands of refugees across Europe to lighten the burden on Italy and Greece. The Hungarian government has opposed the move from the start and proposes a new mechanism to mass deport migrants instead.

“We have complied a ten-point list of reasons we believe this decision to be illegal,” Hungary’s Justice Minister Laszlo Trocsanyi told German newspaper Die Welt. “The decision to assign quotas also sends the wrong signal to potential migrants.”

Trocsanyi said the current message from the EU is “Go ahead and come to Europe, we will handle the distribution.”

So far, less than 18 percent of the 100,000 migrants have been relocated under the quota system. A ruling in the case is expected this fall and Trocsanyi said Hungary will accept the outcome.

“Hungary abides by the law and fulfils its duties,” he told Die Welt.

Zoltan Kovacs, a spokesman for the Hungarian government, told The Daily Caller News Foundation that Hungary’s disputes with the EU is rooted in the country’s refusal to give up elements of sovereignty.

“We would like to retain the elements of sovereignty, which are there by law, and we are against a stealth way of taking away elements of your sovereignty,” Kovacs told TheDCNF in a recent interview.

Hungary argues the “four freedoms” of the EU project — the free movement of goods, capital, services and people — can only be ensured if the outer borders are protected.

“You can not defend the achievements of Schengen from within. It has be done at the borders,” Kovacs said.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

America is Not Racist, According to Millions of Eager African Immigrants

Like any other country that is truly multicultural — and few if any are as diverse as the United States — America has its race-based challenges. Some are real and some are politically ginned up, but they all become hurdles to a more unified country.

However, maybe the best measure of where America really stands in the world comes from the choices of black African immigrants. Native Sub-Saharan Africans, by their actions of free movement, seems to have judged that America is not racist — or is perhaps the least racist country in the world offering the greatest opportunities.

This conclusion stems from one breathtaking fact: America is the most popular immigration destination for Africans. More than European nations, than Asia nations, than South American nations. More than any other country in the world. It’s not even close. Further, America is becoming geometrically more popular with black Africans every decade.

The New York Times did a story on the phenomena, but either missed or ignored the import of what the actually data means. Their angle was how the immigration was affecting the makeup of New York City boroughs, and they ran it in the New York Region section, not nationally. In fact, you rarely see this data as national news. You decide why.

A shocking slavery comparison

However, the Times story did make this jarring and rather astounding number comparison:

“Between 2000 and 2010, the number of legal black African immigrants in the United States about doubled, to around one million. During that single decade, according to the most reliable estimates, more black Africans arrived in this country on their own than were imported directly to North America during the more than three centuries of the slave trade.”

What? Yes. More black Africans voluntarily chose to come to America in one decade than were forced to during 300 years of slavery. That hardly sounds like a nation with terrible race-relations — at least in contrast to the rest of the world.

And that is the important caveat.

America’s race relations definitely need to improve — and it is on all races to make that happen. But throughout history this has been a global problem. So today, according to the people who have choices of where to immigrate, the fact that they choose the United States in increasing droves suggests that compared to all the rest of the world, we may have the best race relations. Certainly the best race relations and economic opportunities combo.

Geometric rise in black immigration to America

According to a new study from the Pew Research Center, as of 2015, there were nearly 2.1 million people living in the U.S. who were born in Africa. That number is up from 880,000 in 2000 and only 80,000 in 1970. By 1970 Jim Crow was completely eliminated in the South and the Civil Rights Acts were passed.

Monica Anderson, a research associate and the author of the study, said the numbers are doubling every decade, and she expects that trend to continue.

“In 1980 only 1 percent of refugees admitted to the U.S. were from an African country and today that share is about 37 percent,” she told Voice of America in an interview. Consider that. The rate of Africans immigrating to the United States as a portion of our immigrant, legal immigrant, population is 37 times higher than it was less than 40 years ago.

Interestingly, guess which state is the top destination for black African immigrants? California? No. New York? No.

Texas.

Why a southern, conservative state like Texas, which is supposedly anti-immigration? Specific reasons were not given in the research. But it does not seem hard to surmise.

Still the land of opportunity

Opportunity matters.

Immigrants, legal immigrants, don’t come here looking for handouts and government benefits. They still see America as the land of opportunity, where they can make a better life for themselves and for their children. And Texas is one of the best states for immigrants who want to work hard to get ahead and seize opportunities.

This is all completely countervailing to the views of many in elite American institutions, such as the media, Hollywood and the federal government in D.C. In those circles — and among those they influence — America continues to to be an ultra racist country that elected Donald Trump based on racism.

You can see such stories on virtually a daily basis in national news, online mainstream media sites and in your local media outlets. But they are at odds with this immigration reality — which they all but ignore.

Seeing America as ultra racist considering the state of the world has long seemed fictitious, a political opportunity for many to pit the races against each other in search of money, power and votes. It worked well for some black “leaders” such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Jr. and new black lives matter leaders such as Deroy Murdock and others. But it is not true. Other causes are driving poverty and violence in many American cities.

And now we can see in black people’s actual life choices from the African continent, it appears even more clearly not to be true.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act. Readers may subscribe to The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube channel by clicking here.

The news for Target is getting worse and worse

Despite the deep financial losses, its stores looking like ghost towns, and unprecedented backlash by consumers, Target appears content with its sprint into self-destruction.

Target’s leadership problems are so deep, stockholders are questioning whether or not the company is in qualified hands. So much so, it has recently fired five top executives and has slashed CEO Brian Cornell’s pay by one-third.

And that’s the tip of the iceberg for the gasping retailer, when you consider these recent headlines:

While AFA’s boycott is focused on Target’s bizarre and dangerous dressing room and bathroom policy, the company has a history of distaste for traditional family values. For example, Target has abolished “boys” and “girls” signs from its toys and bedding departments in an effort to remove references to gender. On multiple occasions, Target has supported state and national legislative efforts that would force Christian business owners to violate their religious convictions.

Then, there’s Target’s all out love affair with the LGBTQ. For the past two years, Target stores have entire sections dedicated to products normalizing homosexuality. In many instances, profits from the sale of the products are donated to gay advocacy groups for the promotion of the lifestyle to children in public schools.

TAKE ACTION

  1. Most effective: Make a personal comment on Target’s Facebook page here.
  2. Share this tweet on your Twitter account: Hey @Target, men don’t belong in women’s restrooms and changing areas. #BoycottTarget http://bit.ly/2q3wUnJ
  3. Call your local manager and politely remind them that you are still boycotting Target. Find your local Target store number here.

On May 23, I will hand deliver more than 500,000 signatures to Target’s corporate headquarters in Minnesota. These signatures are in addition to the one million I delivered to CEO Brian Cornell less than a year ago.

Pray that Target’s leadership will realize it gravely misjudged the 1.5 million families who have signed a pledge to boycott its stores for allowing men to enter women’s dressing rooms and restrooms.

If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.

Harvard students holding ‘Blacks only’ graduation ceremony — Jim Crow Racism?

In an eHeadlines.com column BREAKING: Harvard University Organizes SHOCKINGLY Racist Event On Campus…Reminiscent Of Jim Crow [VIDEO] 

Harvard University will be holding a special separate graduation ceremony this year for black graduate students, with plans to expand the new tradition to include black undergraduate students.

The special ceremony and subsequent reception will feature some 125 black students, who raised upwards of $27,000 themselves to cover the ceremony and party, The College Fix reported. It is worth noting that these students will also be taking part in the regular Harvard graduation ceremony for all students.

From Conservative Tribune

The ceremony, first reported by The Root, was scheduled to take place May 23 and intended to “acknowledge the struggles and resilience that black students have had to possess in order to thrive in higher education,” especially in a predominately white environment like the campus of Harvard.

“This is an opportunity to celebrate Harvard’s black excellence and black brilliance,” said Michael Huggins, soon to graduate with a master’s in public policy from the Harvard Kennedy School. “It’s an event where we can see each other and our parents and family can see us as a collective, whole group. A community.”

“This is not about segregation,” Huggins added. “It’s about fellowship and building a community. This is a chance to reaffirm for each other that we enter the work world with a network of supporters standing with us. We are all partners.”

Except that graduation ceremonies already provided a venue where parents, family and friends could celebrate the achievement and take note of the “network of supporters” without regard to race, color or creed.

It also would seem that Huggins was unclear on the definition of “segregation,” as the Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it: “(T)he separation or isolation of a race, class, or ethnic group by enforced or voluntary residence in a restricted area, by barriers to social intercourse, by separate educational facilities, or by other discriminatory means,” as well as, “(T)he separation for special treatment or observation of individuals or items from a larger group.”

A blacks-only ceremony would seem to fit both definitions, but, moving right along …

Read more…

RELATED ARTICLE: The Ugly Racism of Karl Marx

The suppression of expression on campus needs to stop

As I have noted many times, and experienced firsthand in the last few weeks at the University at Buffalo, Truman State University, and Gettysburg College, colleges and universities today are not institutions of higher learning, but factories of hard-Left and pro-jihad indoctrination, propagandizing and brainwashing students into becoming ugly little fascist shock troops for twenty-first century totalitarians. Administrators, as I have also experienced firsthand, not just at the University at Buffalo but also in the past at Temple University, Saint Anselm College and DePaul University, actively aid and abet all this.

Public universities and colleges must cease to be indoctrination centers for the hard-Left, and ensure that dissent from the Leftist line is not censored and the dissenters brutalized, or they should receive no taxpayer funding of any kind, and required to include in all promotional literature a statement to the effect that they don’t receive any public funding because of their intolerance of all intellectual dissent. If they are private universities or colleges, they should be required to include a warning label on all their promotional literature: “Warning: this institution does not tolerate views that deviate from the mainstream Leftist line. Enroll at your own risk.”

“Editorial: The suppression of expression on campus needs to stop,” Daily Commercial (Leesburg, Florida), May 5, 2017:

President Donald Trump has rattled some in our political chattering class with overtures to some of the ruthless dictators stalking our globe. We’ve lived for months with unsupported speculation about Trump’s bromance with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump has exacerbated the hand-wringing recently by positive references directed at the likes of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Egypt’s Abdel ¬Fatah al-Sissi.

One chief complaint from the president’s critics is that Trump is inappropriately extending goodwill to strongmen with weak records of tolerating dissent, free expression and human rights.

Perhaps we would better served if those who questioned the president’s attitude toward the world’s worst authoritarians would stop tolerating homegrown forces who emulate their behavior.

Last week outspoken conservative pundit and author Ann Coulter was slated to shake up the hallowed halls at California’s premiere state university in Berkeley, which prides itself on uninhibited expression. Invited by a pair of conservative student groups, Coulter was expected to talk about her support for Trump and his immigrati0n views. It didn’t happen.

University administrators cancelled her April 27 appearance in mid-April, a few days after an unrelated brawl broke out in downtown Berkeley between pro- and anti-Trump forces. The college then offered to reschedule for Tuesday (when classes would be out). Coulter rejected the offer and vowed to come to Berkeley on the original date, and then watched as her sponsors bailed, leading her to ditch the idea for good.

The reason provided by the university and Coulter’s sponsors was the same: the atmosphere on campus had become so poisonous that neither side could guarantee the safety of Coulter or, presumably, her fans or the protesters.

Yet Coulter’s was the third appearance by a conservative at the supposed birthplace of the Free Speech Movement that was cancelled because of fear about the violent reaction of those who despise the president. In February UC-Berkeley dropped former Breitbart News editor Milo Yiannopoulos after an anti-Trump protest devolved into a riot.

The College Republicans at Berkeley then invited David Horowitz, a UC-Berkeley grad and one-time apologist for the Black Panthers who converted to conservatism, to his alma mater in mid-April as a substitute for Yiannopoulos. The group pulled the plug on that after campus police declared that, in order to diminish the threat of violence, Horowitz could only speak in the afternoon, not in the evening, and only to students. The event was cancelled, the College Republicans’ president wrote, because the police rules left only one venue, located some seven blocks from campus, and would have cost the group several thousand dollars for security.

Such ill-tempered, anti-Trump fretting has been occurring again and again on campuses of all sizes.

Earlier this year conservative author Charles Murray’s attempt to speak at Middlebury College in Vermont sparked a brawl that left Murray’s campus sponsor in the hospital with a concussion, and him writing afterward that he feared for his safety.

Another conservative writer, Heather Mac Donald, was not allowed to speak publicly at Claremont McKenna College in California, but instead was ushered to a private room, where she gave her talk via livestream as demonstrators pounded on the windows of the room and hurled expletives at police.

At New York University, a protest of conservative journalist Gavin McInnes turned ugly, with demonstrators fighting police, pepper-spraying McInnes himself and nearly a dozen people arrested.

At the University of Buffalo this week, Robert Spencer, a conservative speaker who discusses Islamic terrorism, was shouted down and denounced as a Nazi by critics. No violence occurred, but audience members told reporters they feared the tension created by his appearance could have prompted it….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Colorado: Muslim who kept sex slave refuses to speak with female therapists, says doing so would be un-Islamic

Australia: Muslim teen accused of murder threatens to rape and murder prison guards in the name of Allah

On this Europe Day, Let’s Oppose the EU for the Right Reasons by Bill Wirtz

The 9th of May is supposed to mark a celebratory day for the European Union, congratulating itself for peace and unity in Europe. On May 9th 1950, Robert Schuman, then Foreign minister of France, set out his so-called Schuman Plan, which suggested that Germany and France should ease the sharing of strategic resources like coal in order to make a war between the two countries virtually impossible. This policy led to the European Community on Coal and Steel: a forerunner in the creation of what would become the European Union in the early 1990’s.

While the EU might celebrate the legacy of Robert Schuman’s free trade advocacy, its political structure has degenerated into something far more invasive than the mere easement of political dialogue. It actively combats the free market. For instance, the EU constantly considers tax harmonisation and over-regulates people’s personal habits (the EU recently introduced heavy regulation regarding e-cigarettes).

While trade barriers inside the EU have been abolished, the EU acts like a protectionist block when it comes to non-EU members: it subsidises European farmers, sets very high food standards (which keep African goods off the market) and imposes import taxes.

Anglo-Saxon Euroscepticism

“Only a fourth of all Brexit voters support UKIP”, said the conservative Member of the European Parliament (MEP) Daniel Hannan in a speech in Strasbourg last July. And indeed, while public perception of the European continent classifies many Brexit fans as anti-immigration and, all too often, as racists and bigots, there is a genuine Anglo-Saxon euroscepticism out there, which relies on the following principles:

  • Localism (the belief that the policymakers should be as close to citizens as possible, so that many important decisions should actually be taken on the local level),
  • Small government (a palpable scepticism towards big government and its tendency to constantly grow), and
  • Free markets (the opposition to government interfering in prices and interactions on the labour market).

These principles, while sometimes forgotten by certain governments, have been engrained in the Anglo-Saxon spirit for a long time and they have driven the Brexit spirit. Without the British small-government opposition to the EU, Brexit never would have happened. In fact, by illustrating that the union has lost its free trade roots (and become a poster child for social democracy), Brexiteers should be an inspiration to the political personnel in Brussels.

Don’t Be that Populist

Meanwhile, the eurosceptic movement, including that inside the liberty movement, has been infested with a different kind of opposition to the Brussels bureaucracy. These members of the new political right are not allies to the liberty movement, as they reject the EU for the one reason: they believe that the immigration that the EU allows for is to the detriment of the European culture.

We could point out that the European Union’s immigration policy guides movement inside of its own borders, while immigration from outside is left up to its member states, but, more important than setting the facts straight, we need to address one important point: The enemies of our enemies aren’t our friends.

When we shout ‘power to the people’ we defend individualism, the power of the people to govern themselves, not the power of the people to bully their neighbours, even if they have different reasons than those who are already in charge. We may agree with advocates of different political agendas, but let us not forget what their motivations are.

Europe Day is a day when we should remind officials in Brussels that the EU was a project of mutual cooperation, not that of crushing regulation, instead of burning the EU flag in an attempt to gain attention.

If the European Union does fail in the end, it will need advocates of small government and free markets to replace the void with liberty, not nationalists who wish to replace the EU with another brand of big government.

Lovers of liberty, in the United Kingdom or abroad, need to understand that we don’t oppose the European Union because we are contrarians, or because we enjoy the rush of being the negating viewpoint, but because our belief in small government is sincere. International organisations should not have the vast power to interfere in the life of individuals.

And neither should anyone else.

Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz

Bill Wirtz studies French Law at the University of Lorraine in Nancy, France.

Any ‘Immigration Reform’ Must Put Americans First

Political compromise must not jeopardize national security, public safety, or the well-being of Americans.

“New and Improved” is a label often slapped on products to swindle consumers out of money.

Several years ago my local grocery store hung up banners declaring that they had permanently lowered the price of bags of sugar. I was impressed. I grabbed a couple of bags of sugar thinking I would save some money. Then I checked a bag and discovered that they no longer contained five pounds of sugar, but four pounds. Instead of saving money, the new bags cost more per pound.

Politicians employ similar tactics. They have elevated the use of Orwellian Newspeak to a true art form. Consider the con game known as “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”

The issue of immigration reform reemerged after President Trump’s first speech before a joint session of Congress:

I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security, and to restore respect for our laws.

If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens, then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.

President Trump’s statement and his views on true immigration reform — putting Americans first — contrasts significantly from “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” — a program that would put the interests of illegal aliens before the national interest, which politicians have attempted to foist on Americans for decades.

Politicians know that American citizens are adamantly opposed to any “amnesty.” They make the bogus claim that if illegal aliens pay back taxes and learn English, then it is not an amnesty program. Legalizing illegal aliens forgives them for violating the law and provides them with the authority to work legally.

Scamming politicians (forgive the redundancy) from both political parties, accompanied by pollsters, pundits, leaders of industries, and special interest groups, continually claim that our “immigration system is broken,” citing the presence of millions of illegal aliens in the United States, and the need for “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”

Essentially their “fix” would legalize nearly all of the illegal aliens and, in the short term, the U.S. would no longer have millions of illegal aliens. This isn’t a new approach to “fixing” the “broken immigration system.”

A massive amnesty program to provide unknown millions of illegal aliens with lawful status was tried by the Reagan Administration in 1986 when the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was enacted, with disastrous results. It incentivized the subsequent illegal entry of millions of illegal aliens.

The Reagan Administration estimated that roughly one million illegal aliens would come out of the “shadows.” This supposedly one-time measure provided more than 3.5 million illegal aliens with lawful status, including terrorists and criminals.

Massive numbers of aspiring illegal aliens were obviously encouraged by the Reagan amnesty. It would likely be repeated in the future. Since IRCA was enacted three decades ago, the number of illegal aliens went from nearly zero to the current officially estimated 11 million.

However, in 2007, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the U.S. had 12 million illegal aliens.

It is entirely likely, as we saw with the Reagan amnesty, that at least three times as many illegal aliens would participate in Comprehensive Immigration Reform. This could mean that 30 to 40 millions illegal aliens might well participate in any legalization program that would be an integral component of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Notwithstanding the failures of IRCA, politicians, pundits, pollsters, and leaders of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, not to mention a wide array of special interest groups, have insisted that “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” would purportedly fix the “broken immigration system.” Deriding any claim that securing our borders and effectively enforcing our immigration laws would deter illegal immigration, these critics argue that, inasmuch as we cannot deport all illegal aliens, we should accept that they are here and provide them with pathways to legalization.

Officials who wield political power actually seek to encourage such law violations, flooding America with cheap foreign labor. This not only applies to illegal aliens, who take economic bottom-rung jobs, but also to holders of the ever-expanding numbers of non-immigrant work visas and investor visas that have flooded America’s middle class high-tech professions as well.

In fact, one provision of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” would greatly increase the number of H-1B visas for high-tech foreign workers. Alan Green-span, in testimony before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee in 2009, urged Congress to enact “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” He supported a provision that would no longer shield American workers from foreign competition. Greenspan outrageously referred to high-skilled American workers as the “privileged elite” — those who were earning a “wage premium.”

In virtually any other area of law enforcement, when large numbers of individuals commit violations of significant laws, the usual (rational) reaction is to ramp up enforcement efforts to identify law violators, increase penalties for those caught breaking the law, and flood media with public service announcements warning that law violators will be identified and punished severely.

This approach not only punishes the violators, but deters others from violating the law. I refer to this as “deterrence through enforcement.”

This enforcement-based deterrence has targeted impaired drivers, who operate their motor vehicles under the influence of alcohol. The combined use of administrative sanctions, such as longer suspensions and costly fines, and harsh legal penalties has reduced alcohol-related crashes and fatalities over the past three decades. Does anyone seriously believe that such progress would have been possible if alcohol-impaired drivers received little if any punishment?

Where massive violations of immigration laws are concerned, a very different approach has been tried repeatedly, and, not surprisingly, the number of illegal alien law violators has increased exponentially. Most people would consequently say that this strategy is a failure.

For the globalist immigration anarchists in both political parties, and for globalists in a wide array of industries and special interest groups, however, this failure is actually a huge success; they are getting precisely what they want — a virtually limitless supply of cheap labor, foreign tourists, and foreign students.

Universities have been able to enroll ever-increasing numbers of foreign students, who are also likely to be granted temporary employment opportunities, which displaces highly skilled American workers and creates wages suppression for those who keep their jobs.

A massive amnesty program would greatly increase the labor force by providing unknown millions of foreign workers with an equal standing in America’s overflowing labor pool.

The immigration system’s lack of integrity mirrors our political system’s lack of integrity.

As the saying goes, “Follow the money.”

Even the fact that the 9/11 Commission identified multiple endemic failures of the immigration system as being the underlying root cause that repeatedly enabled terrorists (and not only those who participated in the attacks of 9/11) to enter the U.S. and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations has not persuaded immigration anarchists to abandon their duplicitous position on immigration.

Democrats generally seek pathways to citizenship for illegal aliens, while Republicans, who claim to be “tough” on immigration, say we should “only” provide lawful status and permission to work.

This “all or nothing” approach to law enforcement is unique to immigration. Most laws are only enforced a fraction of a percent. Yet no one ever suggests that laws which cannot be enforced 100 percent of the time not be enforced. Immigration is the odd exception.

For the most part, the only thing that Comprehensive Immigration Reform would accomplish is to make it easier for huge numbers of aliens to enter the U.S. and acquire lawful authority to work.

All that this has done is to encourage millions of aspiring illegal aliens from around the world to head for the U.S., enter unlawfully, and take advantage of our economic and political system. They have become convinced that, once here, nothing will be done to identify them, whether they run our borders or violate the terms of their lawful admissions.

Furthermore, all of the calls for a massive legalization from leaders of both political parties add another powerful incentive to these foreign nationals, convincing them that sooner or later all illegal aliens will be granted lawful status.

However, Donald Trump has thrown a huge monkey wrench into the plans of the globalists by declaring that he would not only build a wall to secure our southern border, but triple the number of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents to effectively enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the U.S.

President Trump has, through his executive orders, addressed virtually all of the vulnerabilities I identified when I testified before numerous Congressional hearings in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

President Obama declared wide categories of illegal aliens were “off limits” to ICE agents. This served to intimidate those beleaguered agents into not making arrests. Back when I was an INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) special agent, we had an expression worth considering, “Big cases, big problems; little cases, little problems; no cases, no problems!”

One of the issues addressed by President Trump’s executive orders is the fact that while the emphasis of ICE will be to locate and arrest aliens who have criminal histories, no illegal alien is off limits. This is extremely important because it helps restore integrity to the immigration system and also inserts “randomness” into the immigration law enforcement program. Terrorists in hiding can no longer be confident that they won’t be arrested.

This also deters many illegal aliens from coming to the U.S. because they can no longer expect that their immigration law violations will likely be ignored. This is likely why, in March 2017, the Border Patrol reported that illegal entries were down by 40 percent.

President Trump has called for truly reforming the immigration system by focusing not on family reunification, but on a merit-based system. He has also made it clear that he wants American workers to do the jobs in America.

While it goes without saying that truly exceptional immigrants should be encouraged to enter the country legally, hundreds of thousands of ordinary foreign workers are hardly exceptional.

No massive legalization system should ever be implemented for unknown millions of illegal aliens.

There would be no way to interview the likely tens of millions of illegal aliens and certainly not to conduct field investigations into their applications. Therefore there would be no way to determine who they are, their true backgrounds, and any affiliations with criminal or terrorist organizations.

The entry of aliens who run our borders is known as Entry Without Inspection (EWI). Since there is no record of the entry, it is impossible to verify if they entered the U.S. seven years ago or seven days ago.

Think of how often politicians, pollsters, and pundits support granting lawful status to illegal aliens, who are not violent felons. No one ever raises the question about how their true entry data could be verified.

This would create an open invitation for fraud.

Flooding the labor pool with millions of authorized foreign workers would displace American and lawful immigrant workers and drive down wages.

Finally, an issue that has never been reported by the media is that, if an amnesty was enacted, all heretofore illegal aliens would have the absolute right to petition the government to allow their spouses and minor children to enter under “family reunification.” Given the propensity of Third World families to have many children, it is possible that more children would be subsequently admitted into the United States than the number of illegal aliens who would be legalized.

This would impose a huge challenge on America’s already struggling education system. Indeed, in a report issued in 2007, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that it costs 20 to 40 percent more to educate children who are not literate in the English language.

How on earth would the already beleaguered American education system cope with the influx of unknown millions of foreign students of whom many would likely lack English language proficiency?

How carefully could all of those alien minors be vetted to make certain that they are truly the children of the newly legalized aliens? How carefully could they be vetted to determine if they have affiliations with gangs or terrorist groups in their home countries?

There is nothing “compassionate” about exploiting foreign workers, displacing American workers, and driving down wages.

There is nothing “compassionate” about depriving American children of their American Dreams.

There is nothing “compassionate” about leaving America and Americans vulnerable to international terrorists and transnational criminals.

Our immigration laws were originally enacted to save American lives and the jobs of American workers — it is time to go back to the future.

For once and for all, the well-being of Americans must be the government’s top priority.

Connecting the Dots: Islamism — Socialism — Globalism

The word globalism is often used in its narrowest context to mean global trade, which obscures its broader political intention to internationalize nation states and ultimately impose one-world government.

Similarly the word Islamism is often used in its narrowest context to mean a religion like any other which obscures its broader political intention to reestablish the caliphate and impose sharia law worldwide.

Both are supremacist, expansionist socio-political movements intent on world dominion.

Islamists like Globalists believe themselves and their supremacist tenets to be morally superior to all others. The Islamist cloaks his supremacy in religious fervor and the disingenuous conviction that Islam is a “peaceful” religion because peace to an Islamist means when all the world is Muslim.

The Globalist cloaks his supremacy in a parallel and equally disingenuous conviction that Globalism is “tolerant” because tolerance to a globalist means tolerating those who LOOK different, not those who THINK differently.

Both systems are tyrannical in their demand for absolute conformity to their proscribed rules of behavior – for Islamists it is religious sharia law and for globalists it is secular political correctness.

The Islamist and the Globalist are both soldiers in their parallel wars seeking totalitarian rule of the world. The difference between Islamists and Globalists is the difference between communism and socialism described by Ayn Rand:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMUNISM AND SOCIALISM, EXCEPT IN THE MEANS OF ACHIEVING THE SAME ULTIMATE END: COMMUNISM PROPOSES TO ENSLAVE MEN BY FORCE, SOCIALISM — BY VOTE. IT IS MERELY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MURDER AND SUICIDE.”

Islamism and Globalism appear to exist on opposite sides of the political spectrum but they share a common enemy – the nation state. Nationalism is the single greatest obstacle to the religious caliphate of Islamism and to the secular one-world government of Globalism. The ancient proverb “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” explains the counter-intuitive common cause and intersectional alliance between Islamists and Globalists today.

Disinformation is a deliberate tactic of war. The Islamist fiction that the annihilation of Israel will bring peace to the middle east is a unifying disinformation tactic of war designed to demonize Israel, manipulate public opinion, and garner intersectional support from left-wing liberal lemmings against Israel. Islamist disinformation has a name – TAQIYYA – lying in the service of Islam. It is a deceitful strategy that deflects attention from the Islamist end game of eliminating all infidels including the gullible left-wing liberal infidels who support them. Similarly, the disinformation campaign supporting the fiction that Socialism will bring justice to the United States also has a name – ALINSKIYYA – lying in the service of Socialism. The hippies and anarchists of the 60’s did not go quietly into the night. They have reconstituted themselves as the professors, administrators, politicians, activist judges, and policy-makers adhering to well-defined Tavistock Institute principles of social engineering and mass indoctrination designed to disinform, destabilize, and destroy America from within. Whoever controls the information controls society – and whoever controls the educational curriculum controls the future.

Islamists and Globalists follow the same expansionist playbook codified by Saul Alinsky in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals, Rule #12:

“PICK THE TARGET, FREEZE IT, PERSONALIZE IT, POLARIZE IT. DON’T TRY TO ATTACK ABSTRACT CORPORATIONS OR BUREAUCRACIES. IDENTIFY A RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL. IGNORE ATTEMPTS TO SHIFT OR SPREAD THE BLAME.”

Israel and America have been demonized, targeted, personalized, and polarized because both are unapologetic and unwavering in their commitments to their national sovereignty. The war against Israel and America is a war against nationalism. Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign Jewish state is actually being debated as is America’s right to exist as a sovereign democratic nation. The left-wing liberal narrative courtesy of Barack Hussein Obama has reformatted American education and American entertainment to reflect the dreams from his father – a Kenyan radical socialist who considered America an evil colonial power. The information war waged by the colluding mainstream media, academia, and the entertainment industry foments American self-loathing, demonizes President Donald Trump the symbol of America-first nationalism, and glorifies socialism, anti-semitism, and presents internationalism as the panacea that will bring social justice to the masses.

Socialism has never worked in the long-run in any country in the world because as Margaret Thatcher pointed out “Eventually you run out of other people’s money.” Socialism has only had limited success in the short-run in very small homogenous populations because socialism and pluralism are antithetical to each other. Socialism’s greatest success is in destroying a nation’s prosperity and in sacrificing individual citizen’s rights to government control. Ayn Rand explains that socialism even robs an individual of his right to exist:

SOCIALISM IS THE DOCTRINE THAT MAN HAS NO RIGHT TO EXIST FOR HIS OWN SAKE, THAT HIS LIFE AND HIS WORK DO NOT BELONG TO HIM, BUT BELONG TO SOCIETY, THAT THE ONLY JUSTIFICATION OF HIS EXISTENCE IS HIS SERVICE TO SOCIETY, AND THAT SOCIETY MAY DISPOSE OF HIM IN ANY WAY IT PLEASES FOR THE SAKE OF WHATEVER IT DEEMS TO BE ITS OWN TRIBAL, COLLECTIVE GOOD.

The essential question is WHY the Left is promoting communist values. The left-wing liberal agenda seeks to destroy the socio-political capitalist infrastructure of American democracy and transform it into a dependent socialist state with cradle to grave control by the government. Their strategy is to destroy the traditional American institutions of family, religion, and education that promote independence, adulthood, individualism, and ego strength – all the qualities that made America great. The entire narrative of the Left is designed to induce regression through educational indoctrination and the media – as Hillary Clinton famously remarked they need “an unaware compliant public.” Unaware and compliant are the hallmarks of childhood. The sales pitch might sound good to a childish mind who is seduced by candy from a stranger but the adult mind understands the sinister end-game. Once the public is entirely dependent on the government they lose all individual rights and national sovereignty and the newly socialized state is poised to become part of an internationalized one-world government. That is the long-game of the globalist elite and the motivation for indoctrinating America toward socialism.

The problem is that the left-wing liberal lemmings are too arrogant to understand that they are participating in their own destruction – they are just the useful idiots. The Left has been successfully indoctrinated to believe they are fighting for “social justice” when in fact they are helping to establish the dystopian nightmare of one-world government where there is no middle class, no upward mobility, no national sovereignty, and absolutely no individual freedoms. There is only the master ruling elite and the enslaved population who service them. The left-wing liberal lemmings should take a break from marching and “resisting” and start reading Bertrand Russell’s The Impact of Science on Society written in 1952. They will learn that their script was written 65 years ago by the globalist elites who dreamed of their own one-world government – a binary socio-political system of masters and slaves. The globalist elite’s New World Order is antithetical social justice – it is the elite’s self-serving answer to the Malthusian problem of the earth not having enough resources to sustain the population growth.

Tavistock Institute was exported to America after WWII with the specific purpose of indoctrinating Americans via education and the media – particularly television – the greatest vehicle for mass social engineering ever invented. The Hollywood glitterati and the protesting hoards should take a pause and understand there is no place for them in the New World Order – they are simply useful idiots who will be destroyed. The aristocratic Lord Bertrand Russell and the late David Rockefeller had no moral problem with eliminating the useless eaters anymore than Hitler had with exterminating Jews, Islamists with slaughtering infidels, or the Chinese Emperors with burying their concubines alive to service them in the afterlife. The point is elitism is supremacist – there is no social justice or egalitarian respect for human life only the pretense of humanitarian considerations. The Left and the Islamists have common cause in trying to destroy America from within – but it is the globalist elites who finance and disingenuously facilitate both groups because the social chaos they each engender is a prerequisite for imposing globalist one-world government. For the globalist elite the Left and the Islamists are BOTH useful idiots.

The globalist elite are playing chess while the Islamists and Leftists/Socialists are playing checkers.

The Left’s Assault on Civil Discourse

The left often supports anti-western radicalism the way their predecessors supported Communist dictatorships.

left anarchistsDonald Trump’s presidency has exposed deep divisions in American society which are being exploited by zealots seeking to suppress speech and quell dissent.  In aping European-style social democracies that are imploding under the weight of unsustainable economic programs and collectivist mediocrity, foot soldiers of the left are hawking an agenda that leaves no room for debate.  They claim diversity as a virtue but reject diversity of opinion, and seek to impose oppressive homogeneity on popular culture through stultifying political correctness.  They also display contempt for western values – often expressed as knee-jerk affinity for anti-western radicalism – in much the same way their intellectual forebears shilled for Communist dictatorships during the last century.

It seems useful idiocy never goes out of style.

It’s not opposition to Trump that’s the problem.  Indeed, American citizens are free to support or oppose him as they will.  Rather, it’s the demonization of all who disagree with the progressive establishment and mainstream media – and the absence of civility in political discourse.  Conservatives may have disagreed with Barack Obama’s policies, but they never took to the streets in violent protest or delegitimized the institutions of government.  And they never took direction from a partisan press or academic elites who use the classroom to indoctrinate, intimidate, and stifle originality.

The left has a penchant for labeling opponents as fascists, but seems itself possessed of the worst totalitarian impulses.  Progressive intolerance for dissent has evolved pursuant to a dictatorial philosophy which demands that individualism yield to the collective will and seeks to enforce ideological conformity through suppression and shaming.  Though progressives claim to champion the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution, their attempts to squelch opposing viewpoints are antithetical to the ideals for which it stands.

Regulation of speech often starts surreptitiously with seemingly principled initiatives like hate-crime legislation.  Such efforts may be well-intended, but they open the door to censorship while doing little to reduce crime and lawlessness.  There is no inherent logic, for example, in viewing homicide instigated by bigotry as somehow worse than that motivated by personal animus, hatred, or greed.  Murder is socially abhorrent regardless of impetus.  When statutes base gradation of offense on the presence of hateful intent, however, it becomes unclear whether their goal is to curb objective conduct or control abstract thought.  Or whether the definition of hateful intent could be manipulated by partisan hacks to criminalize speech with which they disagree.  The interdiction of even odious language can pave the way for repression of political speech and the free exchange of ideas.

Those who don’t believe government would ever seek to curtail speech should consider the constraints imposed by the Federal Communications Commission, whose regulatory enforcements have often been criticized as discretionary and capricious.  Or the now defunct “Fairness Doctrine,” which required media networks to run opposing viewpoints to counterbalance their own editorial opinions (particularly conservative ones), and effectively constituted regulation of content.

Though hate-crime statutes are at least subject to legislative debate and judicial review, street censorship through progressive intimidation, disapprobation, and bullying is not.  The latter is far more insidious because there is no oversight for political correctness, which elevates favored interests over groups and ideas that progressive society deems unworthy of protection or respect.

Rejecting the sacred cows of liberalism invites slander and abuse.  Those who criticize Black Lives Matter, defend the State of Israel, or question the revisionist Palestinian narrative, for example, are condemned as racists and bigots by a left-of-center establishment that increasingly excuses – and often endorses – intellectual and physical thuggery.  Moreover, mainstream liberals are often reluctant to condemn a leftist flank that rationalizes progressive anti-Semitism as political expression, defends Islamism as the voice of indigeneity, sanctions violence against police as legitimate protest, and denies the right to express opposing views.  The recent violent protests on American college campuses highlight the dangers of progressive indulgence and suggest the fascist threat comes from the left, not the right.

When students rioted at the University of California Berkeley and Middlebury College to protest appearances by conservative speakers, they engaged in vandalism, caused property damage, threatened or perpetrated physical assaults, and generally behaved like Nazi Brownshirts.  Rather than being condemned for anarchic excess, they have been defended by many as exemplifying the spirit of American protest – just as they are lauded for engaging in political anti-Semitism, including Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (“BDS”) and Israel Apartheid Week activities.  But what they really represent is a tyrannical millenarianism bent on eradicating individuality and original thought in favor of collectivist similitude.  Their mob mentality does not evoke visions of the Founding Fathers as media advocates and Democratic operatives claim, but rather the “Reign of Terror” unleashed by Robespierre and the Jacobins in eighteenth century France.

The words of Robespierre in 1794 have an eerie relevance today.  In his “Report on the Principles of Political Morality,” he extolled the use of political terror thus:

“If virtue be the spring of a popular government in times of peace, the spring of that government during a revolution is virtue combined with terror: virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is only justice prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country … The government in a revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.”

Though it is doubtful many of today’s college demonstrators have bothered to study the French Revolution (having eschewed western studies as culturally insensitive), their Jacobin-style intimidation and persecution of dissenters cannot be ignored.  They haven’t brought back Robespierre’s guillotine; but their terror tactics should be recognized as representing the same twisted character.

In the political arena, this malevolent spirit has fostered legislative obstructionism for its own sake, with the left seizing control of the Democratic Party and discouraging conciliation and compromise.  The goal of many Congressional Democrats is not to seek common ground, but to impede and disparage the Republican majority; and if their intent is to emulate the turmoil and fecklessness of European social politics, they have succeeded all too well.  Obstructionism has become a political end, not a means, and progressive extremism has made for some very strange bedfellows, as illustrated by the “red-green” alliance between Islamists and the left.

Whereas progressives tend to disparage religion, they are protective of Islam and accepting of its radical manifestations based on the twin premises that (a) Muslims are a persecuted class with legitimate grievances against the West, and (b) Islam is an indigenous voice wherever it exists.  This obtuse viewpoint ignores that the global Muslim population numbers more than a billion (hardly a minority) and that the Islamic world has a long history of religious war against non-Muslims – including Europeans, who were targeted for jihad starting in the eighth century.  However, the real reason the left embraces Islamism is a shared hatred of western culture, though this hatred springs from distinct, irreconcilable ideologies.  How else to explain progressive support for proposed anti-blasphemy laws seeking to criminalize criticism of Islam?

Indeed, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2010 voiced support for the UN’s “Defamation of Religions Resolution,” which would have undermined free speech where discussion of Islam was concerned.  Few if any liberal civil rights organizations, moreover, seemed perturbed by the prospect of an international mandate overriding our Constitutional liberties.  The willingness to subjugate their own interests to Islamist sensibilities illustrates the ignorance of secular progressives, who excuse Islamic radicalism while condemning any perceived intrusion by other religions on secular society.

The religious left goes even further by making radical chic and opposition to Israel doctrinal virtues, as evidenced by the extreme policies endorsed by some mainline Christian denominations.  Many Presbyterians, Methodists, and Unitarian Universalists, for example, engage in anti-Israel activism (including BDS) and support the Kairos Palestine Ecumenical Declaration, which delegitimizes the Jewish State.  While political anti-Semitism is a natural extension of repugnant replacement theology, it is also consistent with the embrace of progressive “social justice” as a faux religious creed.

Not surprisingly, the religious left has made opposing Trump an article of faith, though he has supported faith-based initiatives over the years.  And Jewish progressives have attempted to label him anti-Semitic despite his respectful treatment of Israel and historical support for Jewish institutions.  If liberals are now so concerned about Jew hatred, why were they silent when more than seven-thousand acts of anti-Semitism were being committed during Obama’s administration (much of it by progressives and Islamists) without clear condemnation from the president?  Where was their outrage when Obama used implied stereotypes to demean opponents of his Iran deal, or when his proxies invoked anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to portray its critics as a chauvinistic minority with divided loyalties?

The liberal silence was deafening – and deeply disturbing.

Though reality seems inconvenient for leftists whose partisan goals include historical revisionism and legislative obstruction, they nevertheless have every right to criticize Trump, his policies, and his gaffes.  However, their denunciations of him as inherently evil are getting tiresome, and their efforts to project their own intolerance onto him are hypocritical and perhaps pathological.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Intimidation Game

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Israel National News.