128 Radical Islamic Professors who teach on 69 American Campuses

Marshall-Polston2-400x267

Marshall Polston

Recently we wrote about Marshall Polston a college student in Florida who questioned his adjunct professor Areeje Zufari, who said the “crucifixion of Jesus Christ was a hoax and that his disciples did not believe he was divine.” On March 26th Polston was suspended for confronting Zufari and then reinstated on April 3rd, 2017.

In an  article published by the Central Florida Post on March 28, 2017, Jacob Engels reported:

Zufari is accused by Rosine Ghawji, the wife of the Maher Ghawji, of trying to indoctrinate Rosine’s two children with fanatical Islamic beliefs. Zufari had been engaged in an affair with Maher and was possibly involved in a secret marriage ceremony in Central Florida with Mr. Ghawji, according to the court documents.

Maher Ghawji has been tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, donated thousands to charities that funneled money to Al-Qaeda, and was even under surveillance by the F.B.I. at one point for his involvement with terrorist groups in the Middle-East.

In our column Orlando’s Muslim Professor Areeje Zufari — Profile of a ‘Radical Islamic Supremacist’ we noted that Zufari is Director of Media and Communications for the Islamic Society of Central Florida. Zufari’s superior is Imam Muhammad Musri, who oversees seven mosques from the Islamic Society of Central Florida. Musri believes that Arab Christians claiming to have converted from Islam “are lying and . . . were actually Christians all along.” “They are using tales of conversion,” he says, “to get financial backing from evangelical ministries.” Taking a jab at Christianity’s many Protestant denominations, he adds, “We don’t want the Muslims to end up with 700 determinations of Islam.”

Is Zufari unique in her beliefs or are there others serving a professors in other universities with similar view?

The Canary Mission has found that there are many Zufaris in higher education with the same beliefs who support views like hers or worse. The Canary Mission has documented (below) the cases of 128 professors in 69 American colleges and universities who “are promoting hatred.” The work to expose those who are promoting hate on U.S. college campuses is ongoing. These 128 professors are just the tip of the Islamic supremacist iceberg system (isis).

Perhaps the best thing that has come out of the Zufari incident is the exposure of those like minded Islamic supremacist professors on U.S. campuses.

In his inaugural address, President Donald Trump vowed to fight “radical Islamic terrorism” and “eradicate it from the face of the earth.”

Perhaps one of the places the President needs to start is on our own college campuses?

ABOUT THE CANARY MISSION

The Canary Mission database was created to document the people and groups that are promoting hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews on college campuses in North America.

Every individual and organization has been carefully researched and sourced. If you appreciate the work of the Canary Mission, please help us continue to expose hatred by alerting us to anti-Semitic activity on your college campus, or donating.

RELATED ARTICLE: BDS Activist at JVP Conference Urges ‘Guerilla Disobedience’ Against Israel

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a popular rock at Youngstown State University in Ohio that was vandalized with pro-Islamic State (ISIS) messages. Photo: Screengrab/WKBN-TV


Professor Directory by Campus

American University of Beirut
Rami Khouri
Steven Salaita

Antioch University Seattle
Nada Elia

Barnard College
Nadia Abu El-Haj
Neferti Tadiar

Brandeis University
Robert “Bob” Lange

Brooklyn College
Corey Robin
Samir Chopra

Brown University
Nina Tannenwald
Naoko Shibusawa

California State University – Los Angeles
Mohammed Abed

California State University – Northridge
David Klein

California State University – Stanislaus
As’ad Abukhalil

City University of New York – Graduate Center
Corey Robin
Samir Chopra

City University of New York – Staten Island
Sarah Schulman

Columbia College Chicago
Iymen Chehade

Columbia University
Gil Anidjar
Hamid Dabashi
Lila Abu-Lughod
Rashid Khalidi
Mahmood Mamdani
Joseph Massad
Brinkley Messick
George Saliba
Bruce Robbins
Katherine Franke

Duke University
Miriam Cooke
Omid Safi

Exeter
Ilan Pappe

Georgetown University
Elliot Colla
John Esposito
Melani McAlister
Fida Adely

George Mason University
Craig Willse

George Washington University
Shira Robinson

Harvard
Ajantha Subramanian

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis
Edward Curtis
Ian McIntosh

Institute for Advanced Study
Joan Wallach Scott

Kent State University
Julio Pino
Joshua Stacher

Lethbridge
Anthony Hall

Oberlin College
Joy Karega

Ohio State University
Pranav Jani
Vidar Thorsteinsson

McGill University
Rula Abisaab
Michelle Hartman
Jon Soske

Michigan State University
Salah Hassan

New York University
Lisa Duggan
Nikhil Pal Singh

Northeastern University
M. Shahid Alam
Denis Sullivan

Northwestern University
Arthur  Butz
Jessica Winegar

Pennsylvania State University
Courtney Morris

Purdue University
Tithi Bhattacharya
Bill Mullen

Rhodes College
Yasir Qadhi

Rutgers University
Deepa Kumar
Jasbir Puar
Thea Abu El-Haj

Saint Martin’s University
David Price

San Francisco State University
Rabab Abdulhadi
Jess Ghannam

San Jose State University
Noam Perry
Roberto Gonzalez

Scripps
Lara Deeb

Stanford University
Joel Beinin
David Palumbo-Liu

State University of New York, Plattsburgh
Simona Sharoni

Southwestern University
Banafsheh Madaninejad

Swarthmore College
Sa’ed Atshan

Syracuse University
Chandra Talpade Mohanty

Tufts University
Thomas Abowd
Amahl Bishara

University of California – Berkeley
Hatem Bazian
Judith Butler
Daniel Boyarin

University of California – Irvine
Mark Levine

University of California – Davis
Sunaina Maira
Magid Shihade

University of California – Los Angeles
Sarah Haley
Robin D.G. Kelley
Saree Makdisi
Gabriel Piterberg

University of California – Riverside
David Lloyd

University of California – San Diego
Curtis Marez

University of California – Santa Cruz
Sami Abed
Lisa Rofel

University of California – San Francisco
Jess Ghannam

University of California – Santa Barbara
Avery Gordon

University of Denver
Nader Hashemi

University of Delaware
Muqtedar Khan

University of Florida
Malini Schueller

University of Hawaii at Manoa
Cynthia Franklin

University of Illinois at Chicago
Barbara Ransby

University of Illinois – College of Law
Francis Boyle

University of Maryland
Solomon Commissiong
Zein El-Amine
Charles Manekin

University of Michigan – Ann Arbor
Juan Cole

University of Michigan – Dearborn
David Skrbina

University of Pennsylvania
Ian Lustick

University of Southern California
Alireza Tabatabaeenejad

University of Texas – Austin
Snehal Shingavi
Melissa Smyth

University of Toronto
Rebecca Comay

University of Washington
Chandan Reddy

Vassar College
Kiese Laymon
Joshua Schreier

Wesleyan University
J. Kehaulani Kauanui

RELATED ARTICLES:

Arizona State U Prof Lets Students Organize Anti-Trump Protest Instead of Taking Final Exam

Claremont University Students Shut Down Conservative Speaker

College May Punish Students Who Disrupted Conservative’s Speech

The Cancer Eating Away at College Campuses

Black Lives Matter Leader Rachel Gilmer: ‘Zionism at its core is white supremacy’

John Rossomando in an IPT News article “Panelists Prove Jewish Voice for Peace is Neither” reported:

jewish voices for peaceThere’s a simple way to end global oppression, racism and immediately create a world overflowing with “equality, dignity and human rights,” panelists agreed Saturday [April 1st, 2017] morning during a Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) Conference in Chicago.

Simply eliminate Zionism from the planet.

“Arguing for a softer, less harsh, nicer version of capitalism, colonialism and racism won’t do it,” said Black Lives Matter leader Rachel Gilmer. “Many liberal Zionists believe that the problem with Israeli apartheid is simply a few bad policies, or Netanyahu, or the wall, but the problem is with the ideological foundation of the state itself: Zionism. Zionism at its core is white supremacy.” [Emphasis added]

Read more…

So who is Black Lives Matter leader Rachel Gilmer?

The Canary Mission published a profile of Gilmer:

Rachel Gilmer is the chief of strategy for Dream Defenders (DD) and a supporterof the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

In May 2016, Gilmer participated in a DD trip to Israel in support of the BDS movement.

On August 2, 2016, Gilmer co-authored the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) Policy Platform which endorsed BDS and accused Israel of committing a “genocide” against Palestinians. The platform and DD’s defense of it are discussed further below.

But is gets worse. According to Canary Mission:

On May 16, 2016, Gilmer appeared in a photo wearing a t-shirt supporting the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a designated terrorist organization by the European Union, Canada, the United States and Israel.

The PFLP shirt featured a quote from the late PFLP leader Ghassan Kanafani stating: “Don’t die without being a rival.” The quote in Arabic — لا تمت قبل ان تكون ندا — is used by the PFLP and its supporters.

Gilmer wore the PFLP shirt while in the Dheisheh Refugee Camp (Dheisheh) near Bethlehem while on the May 2016 DD trip. Dheisheh is known as a PFLP stronghold.

On March 2016, DD produced an educational series that glorifies the PFLP. Intended for sixth to eleventh graders, the curriculum titled “Blacked Out History – Rebellion Curriculum Toolkit,” preaches violence under the euphemism of “struggle” (page 6).

The curriculum mentions various violent PFLP strategies (page 25) such as “hijackings, assassinations, car bombings, suicide bombings, paramilitary operations against civilian and military targets” and concludes “[t]hey want to be free from global imperialism. They want liberation. They want equal rights. Just like the Dream Defenders” (page 26).

Gilmer Supports Violence

On July 18, 2016, Gilmer shared a post defending two minors who stabbed a security guard on a Jerusalem train on October 10, 2015.

On November 7, 2016, Gilmer shared a post whitewashing attempted murderer Ahmad Manasra who joined his cousin in an Jerusalem stabbing attack over one year earlier. They critically wounded a 13 year-old Israeli boy and moderate wounded a 25 year-old man. Manasra admitted “I went there to stab Jews.”

These attacks came during a wave of religiously incited violence, known variously as the “Knife Intifada” or the “Stabbing Intifada” when Palestinian radicals across Israel stabbed scores of Israeli civilians. The attacks were sparked and fueled by the libel — often spread by Palestinian leaders — that Israel intended to desecrate the Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

On September 9, 2016, Gilmer shared an article on Facebook defending violent agitator Issa Amro, who is known for attacking Israeli soldiers and vandalism.

What is ironic is that Rachel Gilmer was raised Jewish. 

Sam Kestenbaum in a column titled “How Did Black Lives Matter Come to Charge Israel with Genocide?” notes:

Rachel Gilmer, a 28-year-old African American who was raised Jewish, has long been involved in black-Palestinian solidarity work. Gilmer is associated with the activist group Dream Defenders, which has been on the forefront of recent black-Palestinian solidarity efforts, such as bringing high-profile delegations of African-American activists to Israel and the West Bank.

Born to an African-American father and a white Jewish mother, Gilmer was raised as a Jew and participated as a teen in Young Judaea, the Zionist youth group. There, she rose to become a leading member of her local group. But Gilmer later distanced herself from organized religion.

Read more…

Why do some Jews, like Gilmer, eat their own? Why did Gilmer become a Judenrat?

RELATED ARTICLE: BDS Activist at JVP Conference Urges ‘Guerilla Disobedience’ Against Israel

EDITORS NOTE: Here are Gilmer’s close connections: Ahmad Abuznaid, Nadia Ben-Youssef, Maria Castro, Jonel Edwards, Nyle Fort, Steven Gilliam, Kimberly Gonzalez, Janaya Khan, Ramah Kudaimi, Didier Ortiz,  Steve Pargett, Umi Selah, Ciara Taylor

Rollins College reinstates student Marshall Polston but…

Rollins College has reinstated student Marshall Polston.  Florida Family Association sent out an email alert on March 29, 2017 that encouraged people to send emails to Rollins College board of trustees.  The email encouraged thousands of people to send emails to a dozen trustees urging them to reinstate student Marshall Polston and reprimand Professor Areeje Zufari.  That March 29, 2017 email alert is posted below.

Professor Areeje Zufari should be terminated for slandering Mr. Polston, acting against what was academically best for Rollins’ students and for filing false reports with the college and police.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges Rollins College’s Board of Trustees to terminate Professor Areej Zufari based upon her defamatory actions toward Mr. Polston, grossly unprofessional conduct and filing false reports to the college and police.

March 29, 2017 email alert:

A Rollins College Muslim professor who defended anti-Semitism and aided lover in radicalizing children has a Christian student suspended for voicing concern about anti-Christian and brutal Sharia comments made in class.

Rollins College suspended student Marshall Polston after he voiced concern during two classes about the Muslim professor’s derogatory statements about Jesus and a Muslim student’s brutal condemnation of homosexuals.

  • Marshall Polston’s Muslim Professor Areej Zufari allegedly taught “that the crucifixion of Jesus was a hoax and that his disciples did not believe he was God.”
  • A Muslim student in the class advocated that homosexuals should be decapitated pursuant to Sharia law.
  • Muslim Professor Areej Zufari gave straight A student Marshall Polston an F on an essay after he vocalized his opposition to the professor’s and student’s Islamist statements.
  • Muslim Professor Areej Zufari has Marshall Polston suspended after he sent her an email inquiring about the reason why she have him a failing grade.  She claimed he threatened her but the only threat he made was to make public what she was doing if she did not stop her harassment toward him.
  • Muslim Professor Areej Zufari filed a false police report against Marshall Polston.

The following article published by the Central Florida Post on March 28, 2017 reports many troubling facts regarding Professor Areej Zufari.

Rollins Professor Defended Anti-Semitism, Aided Lover In Radicalizing Children

Middle Eastern & Muslim Humanities Professor Areej Zufari’s past includes allegations of radicalizing her lover’s two sons, fundraising for a man connected to the WTC bombing in 1993, and defending “Death To All Jews” statements.

By Jacob Engels

On Saturday, the Central Florida Post reported on the suspension of Rollins College student Marshall Polston, who clashed with Professor Zufari over radical hate speech uttered by another student during class.

Polston says that the student was responding to a question posed about how Sharia Law should be interpreted.

“He said it should be followed to the letter. Whatever punishment was just for anything from homosexuality to stealing, it was to be followed and interpreted as such. It was very concerning to hear,” reiterated Polston.

Weeks before this incident, Zufari had given Polston a failing grade without explanation, after the two disagreed over Zufari proclaiming during the first class that the Crucifixion of Christ was a hoax… as was the idea that Jesus’s disciples did not think he was “divine.”

Polston reached out and demanded an explanation from the professor, but she instead reported him to the Dean of Safety for making her feel “unsafe.”

The straight-A student would ultimately be suspended on March 24th and then face outlandish allegations by Zufari, later that day.

She accused him of skulking around in the brush outside the classroom, but video surveillance from a Dr. Phillips restaurant and neighborhood gate cameras prove Polston was nowhere near the school at the time.

Now the Central Florida Post has uncovered a lawsuit filed in Orange County, FL in 2007 that contains bombshell allegations against Zufari and provide insight into her radical Wahhabi leanings.   Lawsuit is posted at this Central Florida Post article.

Zufari is accused by Rosine Ghawji, the wife of the Maher Ghawji, of trying to indoctrinate Rosine’s two children with fanatical Islamic beliefs. Zufari had been engaged in an affair with Maher and was possibly involved in a secret marriage ceremony in Central Florida with Mr. Ghawji, according to the court documents.

Maher Ghawji has been tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, donated thousands to charities that funneled money to Al-Qaeda, and was even under surveillance by the F.B.I. at one point for his involvement with terrorist groups in the Middle-East.

The court documents also point to trips made by Zufari and Mr. Ghawji to Seatlle, where the court documents allege the two conducted “targeting and surveillance” of American interests.

Ms. Ghawji was not some vengeful housewife who was looking for a big divorce settlement — she actually worked with the F.B.I. as a source for years to inform on her husband’s email activity and conversations with contacts in the Middle East.

That activity proved contact with groups that were listed as terrorist organizations and letters from his brother talking about how he needed to make sure the children were raised as radical Muslim extremists.

It seems Professor Zufari was of that mindset as well, as she is seen throughout the court documents providing assistance to Maher Ghawji and his attorneys.

Zufari’s paramour exhibited Anti-Semitic hate speech under oath in a 2004 proceeding, where he also confirmed he was a Wahhabi Muslim. Ghawji told his wife he did not want Jews in his house.

“Correct, I said I don’t.” He then stated that in his religion, there is an “angel” that will help Muslims and they will “fight the Jew”.

Anti-Semitism could have drawn Zufari and Ghawji together, as she previously defended a Sheikh who appeared on Saudi television and said that Jews needed to be “annihilated.” He continued by referring to Jews as “the scum of the human race, the rats of the world, the killers of prophets, and the grandsons of monkeys and pigs.”

Professor Zufari was a leader in the Central Florida Muslim community during that time and was leading the effort to bring the Sheikh to Kissimmee for a three day conference. Several anti-hate groups opposed the visit and said that Sheikh Abdur-Rahman Al-Sudais should be banned from entering America to attend the event.

When confronted with his comments, she deflected and claimed it would be “un-American” for authorities to stop his planned appearance. The Sheikh has also called for the death of Americans in the past.

Also under her watch at the Islamic Society of Central Florida, Zufari promoted an event with Brooklyn Imam Siraj Wihaj, who had been listed as a co-conspirator by the U.S. Attorney in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

Zufari not only defended Jew hating comments reminiscent of the Third Reich, but also hosted a fundraiser for a man who was listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC terrorist attack.

How did Rollins not do a proper background check on Areej Zufari before they hired her? Her past is a clear indicator of an intense personal bias, one that has apparently motivated her to malign a student and even falsify a police report.

She even went as far as enlisting a student to lie in the report as well, meaning multiple people could face charges for filing a false police report.

After we published our initial report, Marshall Polston says a student from his class informed him via a private Facebook message that “they” were organizing against him.

“I told her that the only person who has committed a crime here is Professor Zufari, who blatantly lied to the police.”

The female student continued by encouraging Mr. Polston to file a counter-report.

Read more

TAKE ACTION:

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send that urges Rollins College’s Board of Trustees to reinstate student Marshall Polston and terminate Muslim Professor Areej Zufari.

To send your email, please click the following link, enter your name and email address then click the “Send Your Message” button. You may also edit the subject or message text if you wish.

Click here to send your email that urges Rollins College’s Board of Trustees to reinstate student Marshall Polston and terminate Muslim Professor Areej Zufari.

CONFIRMED: Department of State is going back to ‘normal refugee admission numbers’

Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily received word from a US State Department spokesperson that YES, as the HuffPo reported yesterday, the Administration is going to admit 900 refugees a week for the remainder of the fiscal year which ends September 30th.

As of yesterday, that would mean that 62,482 could be the expected total.  The average since 9/11 has been around 64,000.  (See all admission numbers since 9/11 here.)

So big deal! The Trump team would be admitting only a small number below the average of George Bush and Barack Obama years.  The Dems, the Open Borders Left, the contractors with fat salaries, the Chamber of Commerce and RINO big business lackeys are surely all jumping for joy.

Some have suggested that all we have is Donald Trump, so I need to tone it down.  You aren’t going to hear me making excuses for him.

He is either being rolled by the bureaucrats or he (or Tillerson) has been convinced that businesses need the cheap labor.  Either way, it doesn’t look good!

Fortunately, since no one pays me for my work and my writing, I don’t have to tone anything down!

Here is what Hohmann learned from a “State Department Spokesperson” yesterday:

The U.S. State Department is ramping up refugee admissions back to more normal levels after it had slowed to a trickle over the past month under President Donald Trump.

WND has confirmed through a State Department spokesperson that the administration is set to more than double the number of refugees arriving in U.S. cities from the current 400 per week to 900 per week.  [Frankly I was surprised that they were even bringing, or planned to bring 400 a week—ed]

On March 15 a federal judge, Derrick Watson in Hawaii, issued a nationwide injunction stopping the State Department from enforcing or implementing sections 2 and 6 of President Trump’s March 6 executive order. Section 6[b] lowers the cap on refugee arrivals to 50,000, down from the 110,000 level set by President Obama.

After the court’s ruling, which was upheld Wednesday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the cap reverts back to the Obama level of 110,000.

Consequently, the State Department continues to accept refugees and this includes scheduling travel for refugees who have been screened and are otherwise approved for travel.

“The Court Order issued on March 15 prohibits the enforcement or implementation of Section 6 of the EO,” the State Department spokesperson told WND. “Section 6 of the EO includes a cap on refugee admissions into the United States of 50,000 for FY 2017. In accordance with the Court Order, and consistent with both our operational capacity and our capacity under available funding, we have increased the current pace of refugee arrivals to approximately 900 individuals per week. ” [So this means they must have lots of your money still available (or is coming from Congress!) to spend on admitting refugees!—ed]

Do the math, this comes out to approximately 62,482!

….the 62,482 is not a historically low number. In fact, it’s just barely under the per-year average of 64,000 since 2002.

Continue reading here.

Do NOT believe the lie that they have to aim to bring in 110,000 refugees just because Obama set a ceiling for FY2107 for that number.  That was not a normal number. It was by far the highest ceiling Obama had ever proposed.

Bill Frelick

And, there is nothing MANDATORY about that number.  They are trying to fool us and the media!

I am repeating this section of a recent postThe contractors have been for decades trying to turn the President’s ceiling into a target to be achieved, now Trump is helping them do that!

Bill Frelick of Human Rights Watch: There is no requirement that the U.S. must admit a single refugee. 

…look at this chart (below) very carefully.   When I found it at Wrapsnet, the last year, 2016, was not complete.  (Know that we ultimately brought in just short of the 85,000 ceiling (a rare occurrence)).

The federal refugee resettlement contractors have long wanted the president’s ‘determination’ each year to be a GOAL (a target) not a CEILING! But, the law says it is a ceiling. Look at the column for CEILING and the column for the number actually admitted!

What do you see?  Rarely does the number admitted reach the CEILING.

In FY2006, they were 28,777 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2007, they were 21,718 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2008, they were 19,809 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2009, they were 5,346 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2010, they were 6,689 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue the President?
In FY2011, they were 23,576 below the CEILING.

Did anyone sue President Obama because he didn’t reach the ceiling? No!

In FY2012, they were 17,762 below the CEILING. Did anyone sue President Obama for leaving thousands “stranded in war-torn countries”? No!

You need to let the President know what you think.  Click here for the White House comment page. After you tell Donald Trump how disappointed you are, then be sure to let your voice be heard in the offices of your Member of Congress and U.S. Senators!

One last thing, even if the Justice Dept. has hopes of successfully appealing the rogue judge’s decisions on the USRAP ceiling, there is no reason that they must open overseas processing at this time and jerking a lot of people around all over the world!

This post is filed in our Trump Watch! category as well as ‘refugee statistics’ and ‘where to find information.’

RELATED ARTICLE: Muslim refugee jailed after he thought ‘raping a 10-year-old boy was okay’ | Daily Mail Online

Pope Maker: Soros partners with Vatican to push UN Climate Agenda

Pope Maker: The Soros Syndicate

Written by 

your puppet

Over a decade ago, with typical hubris, George Soros bragged, that he “is the Pope’s boss, now.” It appears that his boast became a self-fulfilling prophecy in the Francis pontificate.

The two most powerful men in the world joined forces to form a curious and troubling alliance. One of them, often referred to as the most dangerous man in the world, the other, the Vicar of Christ.

Within a few short months of Argentine Bergoglio’s papal election, the Soros inner circle was firmly entrenched at the Vatican, calling the shots, drafting documents, setting the Soros political agenda with the power and moral persuasion of the Vatican. The global eco movement finally found their critical missing component, the voice of moral authority. The greenies can now deposit their feckless leaders, Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio and Michael Moore in the recycle bin.

As the recent WIKILEAKS Soros data dump demonstrates, the billionaire Soros’ tentacles entangle policies and create chaos in countries around the globe through his legions of operatives at his Open Society philanthropies. His money funds extremist groups seeking to topple capitalism, and promote radical environmentalism global order. His coterie of advisors spans the globe in positions of influence and power, carrying out his radical agenda.

yore un

UN Secy Gen Ban Ki Moon, George Soros and Jeffrey Sachs.

Although Open Society funds radical Catholic groups, Soros was unable to capture the papacy as his ultimate prize in world domination because the two previous conservative Popes steadfastly opposed his radical agenda. Until now.

The environmental movement desperately needed a new dazzling demagogue to bolster its sputtering global warming cause and silence its critics under pain of criminal felonies or mortal sin.

On March 13, 2013, with the sudden and unexpected regime change in Vatican City, Soros and his UN operatives understood that the climate instantly warmed and opportunities abounded with the new leftist Argentine pontiff. George Soros could not have imagined a more perfect partner on the world stage, one he has been searching for his entire career: a major religious leader pontificating as the moral authority for the environmental, borderless countries, mass migration, and pro-Islamic movements.

your pope

UN Secy. Gen. Ban Ki Moon, Bishop Sorondo and Pope Francis.

Enter, Jorge Bergoglio, the smiling, all merciful Argentine.  Within weeks of the Francis election, Soros’ collaborator, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon paid the obligatory courtesy visit to the new pontiff, and Moon knew something had dramatically changed at the Vatican. After his papal visit, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon announced to the world, “We discussed a need to advance social justice and accelerate the world to meet MDGs and the Sustainable Development Goals. (SDGs) We also talked about the need for all of us and the world to advance the dignity and human rights, especially for women and girls.”Shockingly, the newly elected Vicar of Christ seemingly blessed the radical pro-abortion MDGs and SDGs, but this was only the beginning of the Soros coup at the Holy See.

In the words of UN Foundation (another Soros beneficiary) Vice Chair Timothy Wirth, famously known for his condom tree at his previous State Department post said: “We’ve never seen a pope do anything like this. No single individual has as much global sway as he does. What he is doing will resonate in the government of any country that has a leading Catholic constituency.”

The friendly papal reception resonated among the global elites. Alleluia! Francis gave the green light to the controversial abortion laden, gender bending, feminist driven Millenium Development Goals(MDGs) and their offspring, the SDGs.

Jeffrey Sachs, Special Advisor to UN Secretary General on the MDGs also enjoys a 30 year long economic relationship as a Soros stalwart, close advisor and grantee of Soros’ millions. Sachs headed to the Vatican to craft the blueprint for the Vatican’s rollout of the theology of global warming.

Immediately, the UN, through its Soros-infused stable of experts, began to dominate the Vatican agenda by silencing and banishing any opposing views on the science of global warming. Happily for Soros and the UN, Pope Francis only wanted to “dialogue” with one side of the climate debate.

longsackof

George Soros      Jeffrey Sachs      Joseph Stiglitz

The Soros Brain Trust at the Vatican-The Green Dream Team: Jeffrey Sachs, Economist, Director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, Special Advisor to the U N Secretary General, and long time Soros collaborator and beneficiary.

Since 1989, economist Jeffrey Sachs has served as Soros’ peripatetic globe trotting expert, promoting his controversial “shock therapy” by lifting currency and price controls, and various other fast paced tactics to introduce countries into the free market economy with mixed results. Sachs rebounded with the assistance of Soros and heads the Earth Institute at Columbia U and reconfigured his skill sets as the UN poverty czar directing the Millenium Villages project, with the assistance of $50 million from Soros. Now firmly transformed as a poverty expert, and environmental guru, Sachs built his fiefdom at the United Nations with Soros dollars and transformed into a poverty expert and environmental alarmist, as master of global warming catastrophe handwringing.

Within three months of the Bergoglio election, Jeffrey Sachs, close Soros confidante, is featured as the premiere Vatican speaker, expert, author, and cheerleader of the Francis Eco Theology.    Sachs became a perfect fixture at the Vatican, with 10 Vatican addresses promoting the SDGs. Sachs orchestrated the Vatican environmental agenda, by building momentum and consensus for the SDGs. With the input of many other Soros acolytes at the Vatican, they wrote the Vatican’s radical climate change manifesto, Climate Change and Our Common Home in anticipation of the coup de grace, the Papal Encyclical, Laudato Si.

Seemingly overnight, the Holy See became Ground Zero behind UN Sustainable Development agenda as climate change gained new spiritual status as the Francis theology of environmentalism.

Joseph Stiglitz, Economist, Soros Co-Author and Collaborator and Open Society Grantee, Member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences

He has been called the Soros economist and his point man. Not surprisingly, he and Soros co-authored books together. He is Joseph Stiglitz, who heads the Soros-funded Initiative for Policy Dialogue, which promotes the institution of “a new international currency” and of an international taxation system. Stiglitz also serves a key role in the Francis/Soros Eco Revolution as a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PASS) which housed and operates as the command center for the Papal Eco Plot. Stiglitz, like Sachs, serves as a long time Soros collaborator, consultant. Soros and Stiglitz often serve as co-panel members at major global conferences, and Soros provided seed money for another radical organization, Stiglitz’s Socialist International Group. Stiglitz and Sachs also co-wrote the Vatican’s radical environmental manifesto, Climate Change and the Common Good with other Soros allies.

Interestingly and significantly, Stiglitz also serves as the longtime economic advisor to Argentine President Cristina Kirchner and her husband, the former President, fellow Peronists along with Pope Francis.   

Successfully embedded at the Vatican lurk George Soros’ closest collaborators to carry out his radical leftist global environmental strategy with the blessing and assistance of the Holy See. Yet, more Soros acolytes populated the Vatican.

The Soros/Vatican Mission Control:  Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences

The Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences serves as the Vatican’s Academic Think Tank. Its Chancellor, Argentine Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, a radical progressive, was suddenly empowered to carry out his extremist agenda when his fellow Argentine Bergoglio assumed the Seat of Peter.

During 2013-2015, the Academy frenetically and effectively provided cover for the UN/Soros/SDGs plot that was hatched and implemented under Sorondo’s leadership as he opened wide the doors for the Soros allies.

Bishop Sorondo deflected criticism over the Vatican’s sudden and unusually cozy UN relationship. The testy Sorondo remarked in response to serious concerns that the Vatican was letting itself become a platform for the United Nations to promote its own agenda. Bishop Sorondo defended the UN and remarked, “the United Nations is not thedevil. Rather, quite the opposite.”

Sorondo seems to imply that the UN is on some mission from God. But, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details and the details include George Soros’ team.

The Soros Brain Trust of Sachs and Stiglitz led the papal revolt to promote the UN/Soros climate change agenda with the help of the other Soros benefactors.

The Soros/UN/ Cronyism at the Vatican

Climate Change, not Catholicism, on the Vatican Agenda

Sachs and his Soros allies timed their work at the Vatican with strategic precision. On May 25, 2015, the Pope released his eagerly anticipated environmental exhortation, Laudato Si, which called for the passage of the SDGs. On September 25, 2015, the UN scheduled Pope Francis to address the United Nations General Assembly, urging approval of the SDGs, which fortuitously passed on that date.

Francis proudly boasted that he hoped his environmental encyclical, Laudato Si, would be used to promote the passage of the UN Sustainable Development Goals in September 2015, and followed by the passage of the Paris Climate Treaty (Cop 21) in December 2015. Jeffrey Sachs acknowledged that Pope Francis and his encyclical “Laudato Si made the adoption of both the passage of the UN Sustainable Development Goals in Sept. 2015 and the Paris Climate Agreement in December 2015 possible.”

An eleventh commandment is declared: Thou must reduce thy carbon footprint.

By the end of 2015, the Soros syndicate had delivered to its patron, George Soros, a 185 page global warming papal encyclical, passage of the SDGs, and most importantly, the green light to begin the implementation of the Paris Climate Treaty, global redistribution of wealth through carbon taxes on the industrialized world.

Mission Accomplished, Mr. Soros.

Soros and Bergoglio–a match made in the celestial ecosystems. Their carbon footprints align on many political issues. George Soros is the largest landowner in Argentina (half a million hectares) with more than 150,000 head of cattle, and he also owns massive Argentine financial assets. Jorge Bergoglio, the first Latin American Pope, the Peronist Argentine with a deep concern for the struggling Argentine economy. Two sides of the Argentine peso, one native born pontiff with deep Vatican Bank pockets, the other, a global billionaire power broker with even deeper pockets.

Both love power and chaos; Francis known for his infamous refrain “make a mess, create chaos,” and Soros for his cryptic “discern the chaos and become rich.” Both men understand that they emerge more powerful when institutions and governments are destabilized.

Jorge and George, identical political globalist ideologues: environmentalists, pro-Iran, pro-UN, pro-Cuba, pro-Argentina, pro-mass migration, pro-borderless world, anti death penalty, and, anti-Trump.

George Soros is now the boss of Pope Francis.Special Report: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate

It’s an inconvenient truth.

ABOUT ELIZABETH YORE

Remnant columnist, Elizabeth Yore, served on the Heartland Institute Delegation that traveled to the Vatican in April 2015 to urge Pope Francis to re-examine his reliance on UN population control proponents who promote climate change. We feature her work both here on our website and in our print edition.  To make sure you don’t miss any of it, subscribe to The Remnant right now.

RELATED ARTICLES:

THE POPE’S BOSS?! — Wikileaks reveals Pope and Soros An Unholy Alliance

Special Report: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate

Sanctuary Cities: Where Hypocrisy Rules

It should be commonsense that a nation’s security begins and ends at its borders.

The primary mission of the military is to keep America’s enemies as far from its shores as possible.

There is a stirring Navy commercial “America’s Navy – The Shield” in which numerous members of the United States Navy from a wide array of divisions appear on screen and a voice says, “To get to you they’d have to get past us.”

Indeed, the valiant members of our armed forces from all five branches routinely go in harm’s way to defend America and Americans.

However, as we saw all too clearly on September 11, 2001, in this era of asymmetrical warfare, America’s enemies are likely to not come to our country in a warship but on an airliner.

Indeed, on that horrific day more than 15 years ago, 19 men from the Middle East carried out the deadliest terror attack ever mounted on American soil.  The casualties of 9/11 surpassed the number of casualties that the Japanese fleet inflicted on the United States at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

The 9/11 Commission was convened to determine the vulnerabilities that the terrorists successfully exploited to attack the United States.  Among the most fundamental vulnerabilities were those that pertain to the various components of the immigration system.

I addressed these issues in my article “The 9/11 Commission Report and Immigration: An Assessment, Fourteen Years after the Attacks.”

Immigration Law Enforcement Is Not About Xenophobia But Commonsense:

To be clear, our immigration laws have nothing to do with race, religion or ethnicity but everything to do with preventing the entry of aliens who suffer dangerous communicable diseases or mental illness as well as aliens who are criminals, spies, human rights violators, fugitives from justice, war criminals and terrorists.

The federal government created the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of those terror attacks to better protect America and Americans from the threat of international terrorism.  The enforcement of our immigration laws was moved into that new department because it was understood that border security and the enforcement of our immigration laws from within the United States back-stops the efforts of the military to prevent the entry and embedding of terrorists and criminals in the United States.

You would think that across America our nation’s leaders, irrespective of party affiliations, would all be in agreement about the need to prevent the entry of terrorists and criminals into the United States.

You would think there would be universal agreement to prevent contraband such as narcotics and dangerous weapons from entering the United States in this perilous era.

It would also seem that these concerns would be of particular focus for the political leaders of New York City, the city that bore the brunt of the hellacious attacks of 9/11 especially when you realize that there had been a previous deadly terror attack committed at the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 and still other attacks in New York.

Certainly Mayor DeBlasio and New York Senator Chuck Schumer make frequent note of those terror attacks to demand that Washington provide additional funding to protect New York City from international terrorists.

However, over time, the nexus between immigration and national security has been, by design, gradually expunged from the narrative.

Over time, beginning with President Jimmy Carter’s strategy of blurring the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens, the term alien has been replaced by the term immigrant.

Any effort to distinguish lawful immigrants from illegal aliens is now met with accusations of racism, xenophobia, nativism and other such insults.

The complicit mainstream media has come to refer to anyone who calls for securing our borders against illegal entry as being “Anti-Immigrant” while immigration anarchists have been re-branded “Pro-Immigrant.”

By blurring the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens has tragically conditioned many Americans to believe that the term “Immigrant” is synonymous with “law violator” when nothing could be further from the truth.

The Trump administration is not seeking to deport true “Immigrants” unless, of course a lawful immigrant commits certain serious crimes.

One progressive organization, Credo Action, posted this petition with the bogus premise: Senate Democrats: Block Trump’s attacks on immigrants.

The push for the deportation of illegal aliens must not be confused with the bogus narrative of the politicians who say that they will prevent President Trump from deporting immigrants.  The administration is not attempting to deport immigrants but is attempting to deport illegal aliens, especially when they have committed serious crimes and pose a threat to public safety the same way that criminals living in public housing pose a threat to public safety.

Not content with simply declaring NYC a “Sanctuary City” DeBlasio has provided hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with municipal identity documents that help illegal aliens embed themselves in NYC and provide them with a level of credibility they should not have.

After Donald Trump was elected president, ABC News reported, Mayor Says If Trump Tries To Deport Undocumented Immigrants He’ll Destroy IDNYC Data.

Following the attacks of 9/11 politicians from both parties stood in front of forests of microphones at news conferences and demanded to know, “Why did no one connect the dots?”

Now Mr. DeBlasio has unbelievably threatened to erase potential dots, thereby obstructing governmental administration in matters involving national security.

When I have attempted to explain immigration law enforcement in a way that most folks could relate to, I have come to say that the difference between an immigrant and and illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

When I provided a deposition to the law firm retained by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to help in their defense against the Obama DOJ lawsuit over SB 1070 (Arizona’s immigration law that largely paralleled our federal immigration laws) I noted that “During the first four years of my career with the INS when I served as an immigration inspector at JFK International Airport in New York City, you could say that I had my eye to the peephole to America’s front door.”

I believe the analogy of comparing our homes with our nation and how reasonable people take whatever measures they can to protect themselves and their homes by locking their doors at night and being careful about letting strangers into their homes or apartments parallels the mission of immigration law enforcement for the United States.

That analogy works quite well and is worth considering today considering that on March 29, 2017 Spectrum News published a report, “NYPD and NYCHA Need to Do More to Remove Criminals from Public Housing, DOI Says.”

That report prompted me to do a bit of research on the issue of how, in New York City, residents of public housing become subject to eviction when they are convicted of committing certain serious crimes and may be excluded from living in public housing permanently.

I found a December 2015 New York Times article, “Report Details ‘Systemic Failures’ in Communication Between New York Police and Housing Authority” that contained a quote from none other than New York City’s Mayor DeBlasio.

Here is the pertinent segment of the news article:

The issue of excluding violent offenders from public housing gained new attention after the fatal shooting of Officer Randolph Holder near the East River Houses in Upper Manhattan on Oct. 20. The authorities have said the officer was killed by a man, Tyrone Howard, who should have been barred from public housing long before based on his criminal history.

Without mentioning the investigation or its findings, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s office issued a news release last week promising improved interagency communication and strategies “aimed at quickly and accurately identifying individuals who pose a serious risk to public safety and taking appropriate action.”

“Improved N.Y.P.D. and Nycha communication and process will shorten eviction and exclusion proceedings from public housing to weeks, as opposed to months, for serious offenders,” Mr. de Blasio said in the statement.

This is absolutely stunning.

Mr. DeBlasio has shown commonsense about keeping criminals out of public housing the same way that DeBlasio’s mayoral predecessor and proponent of Sanctuary Cities, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, demanded that police officers patrol public housing and arrest anyone who would trespass on public housing because, he stated, such trespassers pose a threat to the safety of those who live in public housing.

However, while DeBasio is all for evicting criminals from public housing to keep the residents of those housing developments safe, he determined to prevent the deportation of criminal aliens from the United States.

The hypocrisy is startling. and provides evidence of Theft By Deception: The Immigration Con Game.

On March 15, 2017 Newsday quoted the Speaker of the New York City Counsel in an article, NYC’s Mark-Viverito: Trump deportation plan ‘ethnic cleansing.’

The term depravity come to mind in contemplating her reckless, incendiary and outrageous allegations.  Could you imagine if President Trump had said anything that even approached that insane statement?

In “Sanctuary Cities” public safety, law, reason, commonsense and morality are mere speed bumps to be overcome to create immigration anarchy.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Case Against Immigration | Foreign Affairs

RELATED INFOGRAPHICS:

 

Sanctuary-Cities-Map

Map of sanctuary cities and counties.

list of top 12 sanctuary cities

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

CULTURE WATCH: Looking Through the Black Hole in the Big Bang

And now for something completely different — yes, that’s an obscure reference to the random craziness of Monty Python — we jump from the political and social deceptions of today to something that in the big scheme of things swamps them all. But still regarding seeking truth.

Origins.

Where did we come from and how? It’s an age-old, universal query. Everyone has wondered about this. Many have sought for the answer

Of course, we have the Big Bang Theory as the working idea for the origins of the universe. We’ll place aside for a moment the something-from-nothing conundrum predating the Big Bang, and consider this working theory that is largely accepted in scientific circles and in the broader culture.

There is a huge, nagging massive black hole in the theory that is essentially philosophic, and as such cannot by definition be solved through science. The only question is whether it is fatal to the theory. You decide.

The theory of the Big Bang

Here’s a brief layman’s rundown on the Big Bang Theory.

During the first second or so of the universe, protons, neutrons, and electrons — the building blocks of atoms — were formed. Photons collided, turned their energy into mass, and the four forces split into their separate identities. The temperature of the universe cooled during this second from 100 million trillion trillion degrees to about 10 billion degrees.

Things continued to cool and drift apart. At about 300,000 years after the initial second of the big bang, the universe cooled to 3,000 degrees. This allowed the formation of neutral atoms. About one billion years later, stars and galaxies began to form. Since then, the universe continued to grow larger and cooler and created the right conditions for life, as the theory goes.

Professor Stephen Hawking, one of the top physicists in the world, sums it up this way:

“The Big Bang theory describes how the universe was created from the Big Bang singularity, where all matter and space is contained in a single point of infinite density. At the moment of creation of the universe — the Big Bang — all matter, space and time came into existence, before that time did not exist. Our universe could not exist without time, and time could not exist without the universe, they are different components of the one entity.”

So it all begins with the singularity — a word now ubiquitous in science fiction shows.

It’s widely accepted and taught as accepted in schools everywhere. Should it be?

Supermassive theory black hole

But this is the question. It’s just so obvious, yet everyone stares blankly at me when I ask it.

Where exactly was the singularity?

Remember, Professor Hawking said, “…the universe was created from the Big Bang singularity, where all matter and space is contained in a single point of infinite density.”

All matter. That means everything, the entirety of the universe, all of physical reality. A single point. There was nothing except the singularity. So, where was it? Where was it located? It in itself was physical matter. All of physical matter, according to the theory. So it had to be located somewhere. But if it contained all of material existence within it, where could that have possibly been?

It is a conundrum. Perhaps scientifically, it’s a paradox.

Further, all of time is theorized to be contained in the singularity. Hawking: “At the moment of creation of the universe — the Big Bang — all matter, space and time came into existence, before that time did not exist.”

We can use the math within the general theory of relativity to work backwards from the expanding universe to come up with the beginning of the universe at 13.8 billion years. The time forward is easy at least to understand. But in addition to where was the singularity located comes the question: How long had it been there? For no time? For all of time?

Or did it exist outside of time? This actually seems to fit best, if time was contained within the singularity and there was no time before it.

Perhaps the laws of physics break down for a reason

The question of what was before the Big Bang of course has been a ponderment since the theory was first proposed nearly 100 years ago. We always run into this, “But where did that come from?”

It would appear that science definitionally cannot determine that, if indeed time and space were contained within the Big Bang. Remember, the requirement for science — and it absolutely must do this to be considered science — is to explain what we can observe, measure it, predict accurately with it and do this consistently in every case.

“Before” and “outside” the singularity of the Big Bang would seem to be beyond the pale of science. Physicists around the world can see this.

“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” said Ahmed Farag Ali, of Egypt’s respected Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology.

Perhaps the laws of physics “break down” there because they were not in place there. If the laws flow from the existence of the physical, and there was no physical, then there were no laws. And without any such laws, science has nothing to work with.

A paradox solution

There is one conceptual “beginning” that does work, and must be the answer in the most general sense. The only true beginning must be from something which could not even philosophically, theoretically have had a beginning — something which by definition would have no beginning, could have no beginning. That definition would inevitably have to be: something which always existed.

The claim by atheists and others for many years was that the universe always existed. Albert Einstein held to that thought for the self-admitted reason that he wanted to. But science rescued us from that apparent error by discovering how the universe is seemingly expanding outward in all directions. Extrapolating backwards gives us the Big Bang Theory and an approximate timeline, but also eliminates the idea that the universe always existed.

If it always existed, then it could not have a beginning, and that would be the only way to not go further back to find a “beginning.” As long as there is a Big Bang, there is a definite beginning, meaning something preceded it, making it not the ultimate beginning.

If the solution is something that could not have a beginning, then that alone must be the beginning — inasmuch as the word “beginning” has much meaning in this context. Such backwards-eternalness benefits from being a logical point from which time and space would come.

Because time and space could not truly come from nothing — hence the singularity is posited — but they could theoretically come from something which always has been, and itself required no beginning, there is a pathway to solving this paradox.

Maybe not ironically, the Judeo-Christian Bible defines God in exactly this way,

“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” (Psalm 90:2).

Worth pondering.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

AHCA was NOT Obamacare Repeal or Replacement by Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX)

The following was contained in an email from Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX District 1)to his constituents:

Republicans have been promising to repeal Obamacare for seven years now. Some of us have proposed bills that had good provisions that would repeal Obamacare. In fact, we voted on a bill that would have been more of a repeal than this one through the House and Senate last year and put it on then-President Obama’s desk for signature. He vetoed the bill. But let’s be clear: the bill last week was NOT a repeal. It was NOT a replacement. It was an Obamacare tweak giving additional power to the federal government in hopes that our Republican Health and Human Services Secretary could make good changes.

Most east Texans are not in favor of giving the federal government MORE power to solve the problem of the federal government having too much power over our health care. If a true history of the rise and demise of the greatest, freest country in history is written, a chapter will detail how decade after decade, good ol’ go along folks kept providing more and more authority to the federal government rather than reining it in. But we still have a window to stem the tide and get back on track.

In closed meetings we were assured, if we will just give my friend Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price this extra power, he can weaken Obamacare substantially, though he could not repeal it administratively. However, no one could give an adequate answer regarding all that additional power in the hands of the next liberal Democrat who will one day take the reins at that behemoth department. The answer is obvious: the next liberal Secretary of HHS would bring back Obamacare with gusto, never to be repealed until it does its job—to hand over full control of your health care decisions to the government, paid for by crushing tax burdens.

There were a myriad of reasons to vote against Speaker Ryan’s rejected bill. It would hit people between the ages of 50-64 with additional costs for premiums and deductibles—in addition to what Obamacare does now. In addition to the original $716 Billion that Obamacare cut from Medicare, this bill was going to hit our seniors yet again.

Most troublesome to me was that in our own Republican meetings we heard from experts who believed that this bill would not bring premiums, deductibles or co-pays down at all and they would most likely be increasing for the next two years, though there was hope costs MIGHT come down 10% three years from now.

From what I hear from my constituents in east Texas, they are really overwhelmed with health insurance and healthcare costs. They need help, and they cannot afford to wait three years. They need help now.

Some of us were exceeding concerned about a new “tax credit” entitlement scheme that did not require proof of citizenship, not even legality, before the U.S. Treasury sends a check.  This entitlement was another transfer of wealth from those who work hard and pay taxes to those not legally present in this country.

The bill also assured that nearly 1% of your hard-earned money would be paid for a Medicare tax to be sucked out of your paycheck that already has a tax of 2.9%, half paid by you and half by your employer.

To help east Texans with the higher premiums this bill would bring, my Freedom Caucus friends and I twice agreed to vote FOR the bad bill, if the Speaker would take out a few of the requirements that were going to increase premiums. We were convinced by knowledgeable analysts that removing these provisions would drive premiums down.

Please understand, we agreed to let the “pre-existing condition” provision in Obamacare remain, though some falsely reported that we refused. We agreed to let children stay on their parents’ plans up to age 26, though I would agree to a higher age or no age limit if you are still living with your parents.

There were numerous other provisions that caused some heartburn, such as giving authority to HHA to create, for the first time ever, FEDERAL high risk insurance pools at the cost of billions of new dollars. We were told not to be alarmed, and that the hope was to eventually devolve that responsibility back to the states. As President Reagan warned, however, the closest thing to eternal life in this world is a new federal program.

Even though I was called an uncompromising “purist,” I was willing to compromise significantly if we could just get the premium costs down for my constituents.

People should also be aware that if the vote had been taken, there would have been as many moderate Republicans voting “No,” which some believe is why the vote was pulled in the first place. Republican leaders would not have been able to lay blame unfairly on conservatives when it was clear within our conference that at least as many moderates were concerned about the bill as conservatives.

The House Freedom Caucus reached an agreement to vote for the bill twice with President Trump, only to have Reince Priebus or Speaker Ryan notify us that such a compromise could not be put in the bill because, they told us, it would risk violating the budget reconciliation rules in the Senate and kill the bill.

Repeatedly we were told by our Republican leadership that the Senate Parliamentarian could not tell us in advance how she would “rule” on whether we could include our requested language in the bill without killing the bill. Late last week, we learned that the reason they could not find out was because they simply had not asked her, as Senator Mike Lee reported.

Yet the whole truth of the matter is that the Parliamentarian never “rules” on anything. She or he may only whisper a recommendation into the ear of the Senate President, either Vice-President Mike Pence or a designee of the Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who sits in the chair with the gavel on the Senate floor. It is the President of the Senate who “rules” on admissibility, not the Parliamentarian. And if 51 Republican Senators support the ruling of the presiding officer, his or her ruling stands untouchable.

This letter offers just a glimpse of the many reasons that the last two weeks played out as they did. It is very disappointing that despite the several compromises that were offered by conservative members, we still were not near fulfillment of our promise to truly and completely repeal Obamacare. That is a promise I did not make lightly, and I will continue the fight to honor my pledge to my constituents and the American people by working aggressively to make sure we get a good bill, get it passed, and signed into law.

Faithfully Yours,

Congressman Louie Gohmert
First District of Texas

RELATED VIDEOS: Gohmert: ‘I Can’t Support a Bill That Does More Damage Than Good’

Gohmert on AHCA: For My Constituents – a 10% Drop Will Not Be a Help

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Freedom Caucus Is an Ally, Not an Enemy in Draining the Swamp

After Trump Threatens to ‘Fight’ Freedom Caucus, Conservatives Vow to ‘Keep Promises’

Three-Pronged Approach to Repeal and Replace Obamacare | whitehouse.gov

The Great ‘Christian Terrorist’ Unicorn Hunt

It’s amazing how stupid smart people can seem when intent on putting a square peg in a round hole. This is seen continually when certain apologists try to dig Islam out of its hole — the one dug deeper every time there’s another terrorist act.

Khalid Masood

Khalid Masood. Photo: Daily Mail.

Consider the recent London jihadist attack by Muslim convert Khalid Masood. Globe & Fail columnist Doug Saunders, proving he missed his calling as a contortionist, actually tweeted that Masood, like the “authors of UK’s other big Jihadi attacks, was not a Muslim. Born Adrian Elms.”

He explained his “reasoning” in a second tweet: “Not Muslim by background. The question is where extremists are coming from — in UK, often Christian families.” In other words, relevant to Saunders is the faith Masood was “born into,” which he had no choice in, not the beliefs he consciously chose to embrace as an adult.

Question: If a godless child of atheists converted to Christianity and committed terrorism, would Saunders blame the act on atheism?

Then, I’m sure Saunders isn’t fond of Ronald Reagan and his policies. Does he blame Democrats for them because Reagan came from a Democrat family and was one well into adulthood?

Obviously, if Christianity were the issue in terrorism, we’d see actual professed Christians committing such acts — not just Muslims, a few of whom once were Christian.

Moreover, anyone with a lick of understanding knows that converts make the most zealous believers. Who is more passionate about chess? Someone born to chess-loving parents who is indifferent about the game or a person who decides as an adult to play it three hours a day?

But human pretzels abound. On the Friday edition of HBO’s Real Time, Heat Street columnist and former Conservative member of the U.K. Parliament Louise Mensch echoed Saunder’s rationalization. She then responded to host Bill Maher’s statement that Masood was motivated by his religion with, “It has nothing to do with Islam, the same way Timothy McVeigh had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism.”

Aside from how telling it is that jihadi apologists must reach back 22 years for an example of significant non-Muslim domestic terrorism — McVeigh bombed a government building in 1995 — we can be sure his act had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism: McVeigh was an atheist.

Another Real Time guest, MSNBC host Chris Hayes, responded to a Maher point about there being no Christian armies like ISIS with, “The IRA that blew up London for 15 years!” What’s tragic is that a media personality could say something so inane without blowing up his career.

The Irish Republican Army, as its name suggests, was defined by being Irish Republicans (not Christian), just as the Islamic State is defined by being Islamic. The IRA had three well-defined goals:

  • It sought the end of British rule in Northern Ireland, not the end of other religions.
  • It desired the reunification of Ireland, not the unification of the world under one faith.
  • And it sought the establishment of a republic, not a theocracy. Its terrorists didn’t scream “Christ is King!” while committing violence; in fact, many of its early members were those atheist ideologues known as communists.

Moreover, the IRA was devoted to fighting one government in one place; it wasn’t a worldwide movement seeking to subdue all of humanity. Equating it with the Islamic State is, quite frankly, stupid.

While Maher deserves credit for standing up to this head-in-sand lunacy, his defense was lacking. His main response was to point out that the events cited by his pitiful panel were in the past; he also contributed to the problem by citing the “Inquisition” as also being analogous to Muslim terrorism. Yet this is like saying that today’s “Human Rights Tribunals” are also terrorist entities.

First, realize that it’s hard to find a civilization that didn’t have laws against heresy. Pre-Christian pagan civilizations such as the Romans and Greeks sure did; in fact, one of the crimes legendary philosopher Socrates was executed for was “mocking the gods.” There also were Protestant inquisitions along with the well-known Catholic ones.

But consider: the first inquisition wasn’t instituted until the 12th century. What happened to heretics for the first 1,100 years of Christian history?

Answer: they were judged by the government. They’d be brought before the local lord, who likely had little training in law or theology and who might want to dispose of the case before dinner.  Consequently, his judgments were often arbitrary and capricious, and many people were unjustly convicted.

As a response, the Church instituted inquisitions — the first being in southern France in 1184 — for the purposes of bringing order and justice to the process. People forget that “inquisition” means “inquiry,” and that was the tribunals’ job: to inquire into the validity of heresy charges.

The result? Most defendants were acquitted or received light punishments — and none were executed by the inquisitions. This is because heresy was not a capital crime under Church law, only under government law. In fact, the now notorious Spanish Inquisition was considered in its time the best run court in Europe, with jails so good that criminals in state custody were known to purposely blaspheme in order to be transferred to them.

For more information, read my essay on the matter, that of medieval scholar Professor Thomas Madden, or watch the below BBC documentary, “The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition.”

Of course, Americans generally don’t appreciate thought-police bodies, but that’s not the point. The aforementioned Human Rights Tribunals — which render “hate speech” judgments — are inquisitions. Yet I don’t think Bill Maher would equate them with the Islamic State.

It’s only surprising that Maher’s panel didn’t also mention the Crusades, defensive wars that were designed to stave off Muslim aggression and which, quite possibly, saved Western civilization. It’s usually thrown in there when people are making up anti-Christian history.

Of course, it goes without saying that Christians did at times use violence, yet when done unjustly this violates the faith itself. And is sin surprising? Christians are just imperfect people trying to live up to a perfect standard. As G.K. Chesterton put it,

“Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”

It’s also true that, on occasion, Christianity has been enforced with an iron fist. Charlemagne certainly did this. But what hasn’t been? Why, we spread democracy at a bayonet’s tip when invading Arab lands and engaging in “nation building.”

The reality, though, is that the Christian norm has been to spread the faith by the word; the Muslim norm has been conversion by the sword.

And perhaps this was reflected in a very interesting German study involving 45,000 young people. Released in 2010, it found that while increasing religiosity made Christian youth less violent, it made Muslim youth more violent.

There simply is no Christian analogue, in all of history, to today’s Islamic terrorism. It only exists in the minds of quislings who, wittingly or not, have become the propaganda arm of global jihad.

(Hat tip: American Thinker’s Rick Moran.)

RELATED ARTICLE: The National Library has uncovered a telegram written by Heinrich Himmler and sent to Mufti al-Husseini, in which the Nazi leader expressed his support of the Palestinian struggle against the Jews.

EDITORS NOTE: Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke) is a traditionalist media personality whose work has been published widely online and in print, appearing at outlets such as The Hill, Observer, The American Conservative, WorldNetDaily and American ThinkerContact Selwyn Duke or log on to SelwynDuke.com

TAKE ACTION: Vimeo removes Christian ministry videos, closes account

If Jesus has changed your life and set you free from homosexual practice, your testimony is not welcome on Vimeo – not now, not ever. And if you see homosexuality as another aspect of sexual brokenness, something for which Jesus died and something from which you can be healed, your opinion is not welcome on Vimeo. Case closed, door shut, end of subject.

Pure Passion Ministries is a much respected friend of AFA and many other national ministries. Their videos have helped countless sexual abuse victims, people who have been sex trafficked, those who are addicted or in any other condition that causes them distress.

Sign the Petition to Vimeo!

us-appletv-1-pure-passion-tvOn March 24, Vimeo removed all 850 Pure Passion videos and closed its account.

Why? As Vimeo explained to Dr. David Kyle Foster, director of Pure Passion Ministries and himself a former homosexual,

To put it plainly, we don’t believe that homosexuality requires a cure and we don’t allow videos on our platform that espouse this point of view…We also consider this basic viewpoint to display a demeaning attitude toward a specific group, which is something that we do not allow.”

Did you catch that? Vimeo is guilty of the very same intolerance they claim Pure Passion has. Read the entire exchange between Pure Life and Vimeo here.

But Foster’s ministry is not the first to be unfairly censured by Vimeo. In 2015, Vimeo unpublished an announcement for an upcoming “Hope Conference.” The conference was sponsored by Restored Hope Network, which is an association of ministries that help people deal with unwanted same-sex attractions. Early last year, Vimeo shut down Restored Hope’s entire account. Every single video. Gone.

Vimeo also shut down the account of NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, which is an association of psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, and therapists who have had the temerity to stand up to the PC establishment and who refuse to celebrate LGBT activism.

You can see why Foster described Vimeo’s move as “pure religious bigotry and censorship.”

Vimeo takes a hostile view towards groups and videos that espouse the Bible when it comes to human sin and brokenness.

Vimeo takes a callous approach towards groups and videos that preach the gospel of transformation when it comes to homosexuality.

TAKE ACTION

This is an outrage, and it needs to be addressed. Here’s what you can do today:

  • Sign our petition to Vimeo asking them to restore immediately the account of Dr. David Kyle Foster and Pure Passion, stating politely that this is tantamount to religious censorship and bigotry.
  • Share this information with family, friends and on social media.
  • Pray that the message of freedom and liberty in Jesus – from ALL brokenness and sin – would be proclaimed even more loudly and powerfully in the days ahead. Pray that Vimeo’s efforts to silence a powerful ministry (along with other excellent ministries and organizations) result in the amplifying of this ministry’s message.

TAKE ACTION NOW!

EDITORS NOTE: If AFA’s mission resonates with you, please consider supporting their 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.

People of the Rope vs People of the Ladder

Dinesh D’Souza has a wonderful way of explaining complex issues using simple analogies. In the video below D’Souza, speaking at Columbia University, describes the difference between Republicans and Democrats using the analogy of a rope and a ladder.

Ayn Rand used “Textbook of Americanism” to explain in the simplest terms possible what made America unique and great. She opens with an explanation of two starkly contrasting ideas.

What Is the Basic Issue in the World Today?

The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism. Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.

Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body and his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems. The basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.

Read ‘Textbook of Americanism’

churchill quote on socialismRand built her case for limiting the power of the collective, for the difference between arbitrary law and moral law, and for the meaning of rights. She summarized the proper role of government — the smallest conceivable and essential functions — and the moral imperative not to initiate force. She clarified that individualism and collectivism are exclusive terms, that any “mix” is a breach against individualism.

Finally, Rand issued a warning: Compromising individual rights will lead to society’s destruction.

D’Souza’s “people of the ladder and people of the rope” analogy describes what Ayn Rand warned us about. The rope that Democrats are throwing to their supporters is actually a nose that will hang them and lead to the equal sharing of misery.

RELATED ARTICLE: The False Compassion of Liberalism

VIDEO: UNCHAINED — Dinesh D’Souza at Trinity University

In another #onlyatYAF lecture, Dinesh D’Souza blasts the left for their fascist roots and anti-minority bigotry, two things they have become adept at throwing at the right. In fact, the history of the Democratic Party is a history of corruption, bigotry, and totalitarianism.

Dinesh D’Souza is UNCHAINED at Trinity University.

Watch to see more!In his shocking new film, Dinesh D’Souza exposes the secret history of the Democrats and the true motivations of Hillary before the election this year. What are these Democrats hiding? “Hillary’s America” is available on DVD, Blu-Ray, and Digital HD now! Order your copy here: http://hillarysamericathemovie.com/#dvd.

EDITORS NOTE: Learn more about Young America’s Foundation: YAF.org. Readers wishing to connect with Dinesh D’Souza online for more hard-hitting analysis of current events in America? Here’s how:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DSouzaDinesh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/DineshDSouza
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dineshjdsouza/
Email: http://www.dineshdsouza.com/email-upd…

Trigger-warning Tyrants

People like thinking the best of themselves, which is partially why we have “trigger warnings,” “microaggressions” and claims of “taking offense” — so these complainers don’t have to come to terms with the fact they’re spoiled, self-absorbed, tyrannical brats.

Here’s how it works: When accusing you of “microaggressing,” the truth is that, generally, these snowflakes just don’t happen to like what you’re saying. But shouting “Shut up! I hate that type of expression!” makes you seem intolerant. So to preserve your image and self-image, you use the ploy of shifting the onus onto the one whose speech you want to suppress.

Note that actual ideas are often targeted. Examples are “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” and “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough,” which academia has identified as “racial microaggressions.” The principle is: If you can’t refute it, boot it.

Since coining psychobabble terms is in today, I’ll label this onus-switching “Oppression Transference.” The snowflake oppressor stifles the speech of his victim by making the latter seem the oppressor — a microaggressor, an agent of triggered feelings or offender in chief.

Another major factor is that, lacking the power of the state, the snowflake has to use social pressure to impose his will. He might just put you in a gulag were he a Stalin, but he’s not, so he shackles you with political correctness.

Since snowflakes pride themselves on tolerance, it should be emphasized that they don’t even understand the concept. “Tolerance” always implies the abiding of a perceived negative. You’d likely never have to tolerate a fine car or delectable meal, but you would have to tolerate a stubborn cold or bad weather (unless you’re a masochist).

In other words, if, let’s say, you like homosexual behavior or just don’t care about it, that’s not called tolerance; it’s called affinity or indifference. A prerequisite for tolerating it is considering it a negative.

Thus, the true measure of tolerance is how well you handle things you don’t like. And pro tip: If you’re so triggered by “Where are you from?” and “You speak English really well” — which are also labeled microaggressions — that you participate in a Stalinesque effort to purge such things from discourse, you’re not just not tolerant; you’re not even tolerable.

Snowflakes are also pathetically self-centered and self-absorbed. If your feelings are hurt by the terms “black hole” or “man up,” well, you need to man up. If you think The Great Gatsby, Mrs. Dalloway or The Merchant of Venice needs a trigger warning, you’re not just a sniveling little wimp. You also haven’t learned an important life lesson once imparted during toddlerhood: Your feelings just aren’t that important.

There are seven billion people on this planet with seven billion sets of feelings. When snowflakes demand their feelings be the arbiters of policy, they’re saying that their emotions should be preeminent, with others who feel contrary being subordinate. Worse still, they’re saying that their feelings, which are subjective, should trump what should be the yardstick for policy: the objective, principles such as the imperative of encouraging the expression of Truth.

This is the crux of the matter. Saying that something originating within you (feelings) should take precedence over Truth, which exists outside of you, is a universal and is meant to be feelings’ arbiter, is the epitome of self-centeredness.

There is the occasional academic who stands against the snowflake phenomenon, such as Oklahoma Wesleyan University’s great president, Dr. Everett Piper, who penned an open letter to his students titled “This is Not a Daycare. It’s a University!” But modern universities, which now resemble dens of iniquity where all the hookers have Ph.Ds, are generally the problem.

For instance, the term “microaggressions” was popularized by a Columbia University professor, Derald Wing Sue, who got the idea from a more original Ivy League lunkhead. Brown University was content to let students establish “a ‘safe space’ that offered calming music, cookies, Play-Doh and a video of frolicking puppies to help students cope…,” reported the Telegraph. And institutions of lower learning have created charts of microaggressions so all us bigots can know what not to say. An example is the following from the University of Wisconsin:

microaggressions

As for trigger warnings, there’s an interesting thing about them. The people complaining about the “graphic violence” in The Great Gatsby weren’t raised in a cloistered Amish cocoon; they grew up imbibing the most violent, perverse Hollywood fare imaginable. So I suspect that what really bothers them is something else — such as the more traditional paradigm for society older works portray.

Tragically, the “educators” facilitating snowflakism are ignorant of the harm they do. The University of North Carolina warns that saying to a woman “I love your shoes!” or “[i]nterrupting a female-identified colleague…” can be a microaggression. So can saying to “a person of African descent: “Can I touch your hair?’” because it sends the message “Your appearance is exotic and foreign to me.”

Okay, but what if my appearance really is exotic and foreign to the person? When I was 19, I visited a rural Taiwanese town, a place where homes still had straw roofs. I was brought to the elementary school, and it just so happened that the children had recess. Circling around me curiously, it was plain they’d never personally seen a blondish white person before. The friend I was with told me they wanted to shake my hand, and, after extending it, it wasn’t long before I had a dozen Chinese lads on each arm screaming and pulling me like it was a tug-of-war. It was a fun experience I’ll never forget.

The point is that this curiosity is normal. And here’s another life lesson: If you can’t understand that or are offended by it, you’re abnormal. Thankfully, this abnormality can be cured.

But here’s where the harm lies. Is a couple, or two friends, closer when there’s nothing they can’t discuss? Or when many subjects are off limits and they must walk on eggs?

By creating the latter situation, the snowflake enablers are actually building walls between people. When you can’t acknowledge obvious differences among people — whether they relate to race, ethnicity, sex, religion or something else — you’re playing pretend. Another word for this is pretense, which has as a synonym “charade.”  Also note one of its antonyms: honesty.

How do you combat trigger-warning tyranny? Stop being defensive. The people effecting it are trying to shut you up as they purge Truth from your tongue. They’re using social warfare against you, so strike back; fight fire with fire and put the onus on them. Call them what they are: intolerant, spoiled, self-centered, evil tyrants. Take no prisoners.

Only when these oppressors masquerading as victims are stilling their tongues, fearing the scorn, ostracism and possible career destruction threatening sane people today, will we know we’ve made America great again. Remember, people who cannot be reasoned with, can only be fought.

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

RELATED ARTICLE: This $56,199-Per-Year Campus Offers ‘Self-Identified White Students’ A Safe Space To Feel Guilty

RELATED VIDEO: Microaggression: A Beginner’s #SJW Guide!

French Presidential Campaign: Why It Matters

Why should you be interested in the French presidential campaign? Because it might as well be going on next door to you. We are facing the same major challenges in a similar state of confusion. The differences are circumstantial, the stakes are the same. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Our freedom is on the line.

Besides, this cliffhanging French campaign is a fascinating mixture of Shakespear, Greek tragedy, soap opera, and courtly intrigues.

First, a brief summary of the overall situation:

The incumbent Socialist president, François Hollande, didn’t dare run for reelection. His 5 year-term has been a disaster, the Socialist party is in a shambles, the winner of the (Belle Alliance Populaire) primary, Benoît Hamon, is a Kinder Surprise with goodies for all the small people paid for by the Big Bad Rich. He has no chance of getting to the 2nd round. ID: Socialist

The callow 38 year-old Emmanuel Macron, generally assumed to make it past the first round (April 23) to confront and defeat Marine Le Pen in the second round (May 7), is running on a vacuous Somewhat Right Somewhat Left platform. How did the fabulously unpopular François Hollande manage to place his alter ego in pole position while standing aside in studied absence as the cream of the Socialist party boards Macron’s cruise ship? ID: En Marche

François Fillon, who served for five years as Nicolas Sarkozy’s prime minister, came out of the Primaries (Right and Center-Right) with a strong mandate, upsetting the media’s favorite Alain Juppé, and polling above Macron and Le Pen. Then, out of the blue, Fillon was hit with a sensational smear campaign and a judicial ton of bricks that would have crushed a weaker constitution. The character assassination putsch against Fillon is the centerpiece of an extraordinarily dramatic campaign. It will be treated briefly below and more amply in Part 2 of this ongoing series. Fillon’s platform is built on a Thatcherite revolution aimed at releasing France from decades of stagnation and double digit unemployment, and a resolute combat against Islamic Totalitarianism at home and abroad. ID: Les Républicains.

And then there is Marine Le Pen. ID: Front National

The top issue on the list of voter preoccupations in February, whether expressed directly or indirectly, was Islam. They wanted to know where candidates stood on the question. Would it be sweet submission or tough resistance? Instead of the issue-based campaign they clearly wanted, voters have been dragged into the quicksand of moralizing purification-aimed at eliminating François Fillon-and thrown a lifesaver attached to the gossamer rope of the Little Prince Emmanuel Macron.

The Polls

The one thing we cannot know before the 7th of May is the name of the winner. We don’t even know which of the current frontrunners-Le Pen, Macron, Fillon- will make it to the second round. Despite constant reminders of recent prediction flops, commentators are hooked on the fortune-teller syndrome. They watch Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron peddle uphill and careen around hairpin curves as if it were the Tour de France. Last week the media thought they had pushed François Fillon over a cliff and into the abyss, but he held firm. He’s only a few points behind the other two…in the polls, that is. Big Data Analysis gives a different picture, substantially more favorable to Fillon. But that’s not the media’s storyline…

So what about Marine Le Pen? Isn’t she the fourth act of the Trump/Brexit/Wilders divine surprises?

Marine Le Pen’s reputation as The Anti-Islamization Candidate goes back to the early 2000s, when she forcefully expressed the exasperation of the lower classes that were bearing the brunt of Islamic encroachment on French society. Immediately branded as xenophobe, Islamophobe, and racist she turned the disapproval into an advantage, gathered steam, and racked up a series of impressive electoral results. The Front National went from pariah to legitimate party. And Le Pen was handed ownership of anything that could be deemed hostile to Islam. Whenever a politician takes a stand on issues of immigration, Islam, law and order, or homegrown jihadis, he is accused of leaning to the far right, picking issues off the National Front’s plate, disgracing himself…

Foreign media have generally relayed this caricature, fueling widespread ignorance of other aspects of Marie Le Pen’s program and her embryonic party’s structural weaknesses.

Desperate to burnish her foreign policy credentials, Le Pen found no better destination than Lebanon. She opted out of an audience with the Mufti, by refusing to wear a veil. This put her head and shoulders above the Swedish ladies wrapped in hijab that had paraded in front of Iranian president Rohani as if they were merchandise at a slave market. She did not, however, veil her defense of Bashir al Assad, “the only solution for Syria,” or dissimulate her good relations with Michel Aoun, the Christian outsider that became an insider by making an alliance with Hezbullah. Madame Le Pen graciously suggested she might exempt French-Lebanese from her promised ban on extra-European dual nationality. How about French-Israelis? Hardly! Marine Le Pen wants French Jews to sacrifice the kippa in support of an across the board prohibition of religious garb in public. Her envoy, Nicholas Bay, was snubbed during a recent foray into Israel. The presidential candidate herself did not get any further than the Trump Tower coffee shop on a “recreational” weekend in New York.

The Assad connection is longstanding. Marine Le Pen’s friend and associate Frédéric Chatillon, handles PR for both the National Front and Assad.  Her father Jean-Marie badmouthed Muslims domestically while entertaining a close friendship with Saddam Hussein. I reported extensively in 2014 on the dubious alliances of the National Front.

The European Union accuses National Front eurodeputies of fraudulent use of EU parliamentary assistant salaries for a total of close to a million euros. Frédéric Chatillon is under investigation for tricky: campaign financing, Marine Le Pen is accused of faulty financial declarations, her cabinet chief is also under investigation and that’s just the tip of an iceberg that has virtually no effect on her faithful supporters. Nevertheless, the sudden flurry of activity on cases that have dragged on for years is questionable. As is the absence of coverage of the party’s unsavory dealings with neo-Nazis and Islamic Jew haters.

Under Marine Le Pen’s leadership, emphasis has been subtly shifting the from Islam to the economy, with a French brand of  national socialism: restored sovereignty, protected borders, increased welfare benefits and jobs for the French-French, zero immigration, law & order at home, no foreign entanglements abroad. Her rhetoric is anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-globalization and, of course anti-EU. She promises a referendum to get France out of the EU and the Eurozone; if voters choose to remain, she will resign.

Sloppy comparisons with the unexpected victory of Donald Trump in the U.S. ignore the fact that Trump was able to hitch the Republican Party to his runaway wagon; Marine Le Pen rules over a heteroclite skeleton party that can’t be fleshed out by alliances-all the other parties are devils in FN theology. If she does make it to the second round, she has virtually no chance of winning and no hopes of forming an operational government. The idea that hordes of politicians from the Parliamentary right would pour into her administration is far-fetched.

Emmanuel Macron is a former banker (Banque Rothschild) who served as François Hollande’s Minister of the Economy while freelancing as the founder of En Marche [On the go], a movement that wears his initials like a signet ring. Never before elected to public office, Macron teased his movement into a presidential election machine. He is now jockeying with François Fillon for 2nd position… the polls again. In a cheap version of Richard the Something, Macron made an end run around Manuel Valls, who remained the faithful Prime Minister while Hollande delayed announcing he wouldn’t run for reelection. Subsequently defeated in the primaries, Valls stands back while Socialists big and small go over to Macron. I expect François Hollande will join them at the opportune moment.

Macron is the feel good candidate. Just enough labor reform to look modern, a heavy dose of welfare to reassure the weak and make the strong feel generous. He talks high tech, floats a few inches above the ground, throws out ideas like flowers to lovely maidens, does Black is Beautiful photo-ops and makes affirmative action commitments in the banlieue, visits a police station to show he knows people want security, and declares, in Algeria, that the French colonization was a “crime against humanity.” That was followed by a rally in a Front National stronghold with a large population of “pieds noirs,” former French residents of Algeria, where he unashamedly declared “Because I want to be president, I hear you, I love you.” (borrowed from Général de Gaulle). Macron ruffled feathers with a hymn to multiculturalism: “There is no French culture, there is a culture in France.” That was followed by a long-winded exposé of his “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” project for France.

On his way back from Algeria, the startup candidate stopped in London where he addressed an enthusiastic crowd of expats. In a shocking feat of erroneous reporting, The Guardian turned Macron’s Algerian bomb into a modest statement that “human rights abuses” were committed during the colonization of Algeria. No, my friends, he said “crime against humanity.”  We heard elsewhere that the British government was not pleased by Macron’s invitation-extended in front of 10 Downing Street-to bankers, engineers, scientists, and other desirables fleeing the Brexited UK to settle in France.

Melodrama

February 22: 4-time defeated presidential candidate François Bayrou solemnly declared: “l’heure est grave” [the situation is serious]. The long-winded, pedantic, moralizing politician-professor performed a public act of abnegation-he wouldn’t be running for president-and heroically offered an alliance with Emmanuel Macron. Who immediately accepted. Bayrou maintains his hallmark pose of disinterested superiority: He never seeks fame, fortune, power or prerogatives. His mission is to save the nation from electing someone other than himself or a candidate he has sanctioned. Will he be an addition or a subtraction to Macron’s campaign? I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pull out before mid-April. But I might be wrong.

François Fillon

We can safely assume that François Fillon has not been accused of corruption at any point in his 36-year political career; if he had been, we would be hearing about it from morning to night. Tragically, Fillon stood straight and tall on his clean reputation in the primary campaign, going so far as to ask, rhetorically, “Could we imagine Général de Gaulle mise en examen (under investigation)? This was an obvious poke at his rival Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been repeatedly mise en examen since François Hollande took office. No matter that all the cases ended in acquittal, mise en examen has come to mean “presumed guilty.” When the scandal, maliciously labeled “Penelopegate,” broke in February, Fillon was so certain of his innocence that he said he would drop out of the race if he were mise en examen.

The opening shot was sensational: “Penelope Fillon earned 500,000 euros for doing nothing.” Zionists are familiar with this type of operation. Nothing that is said or done afterward will erase the initial shock effect. François Fillon’s lawyer, Antonin Levy (the son of the famous philosopher and activist Bernard Henri Levy), says he has filed more than 600 pages of evidence of madame Fillon’s effective assistance to her husband, why should anyone believe him? The story gets the post-modern treatment of verification by repetition.

Fillon’s platform and the relentless effort to keep him from reaching the second round, where he might defeat Le Pen or Macron, will be explored in depth in Part 2.

The outgoing Prime Minister and Interior Minister made a brief statement to the press shortly after the thwarted attack at Orly airport this morning. The assailant, they said, tried to grab the Famas assault rifle from a (female) aviator on patrol. But she held onto it. This was repeated several times. He couldn’t get the gun, but he was a danger to her and the passengers. He was shot dead by a fellow Air Force man in the patrol. A few hours later a photo of the dead assailant was published. The gun is lying across his chest.

RELATED ARTICLES:

French Nationalist and Presidential Contender Is Schmoozing With Putin

61% of French adults say Islam is incompatible with their society and 79% support banning headscarves in universities, new poll shows

Eastern European countries join forces! Refuse to take refugees Brussels is pushing on them

France’s Hollande says his final mission is to ensure that “populism, nationalism and extremism cannot win”

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC: 61% of French say Islam is incompatible with their secular society.

french islam poll

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Family Security Matters. Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

How to Destroy America from Within

Richard D. Lamm was a Democrat who served as governor of Colorado for twelve years from 1975 to 1987. Below is an account regarding his speech on the perils of multiculturalism by a person who was there for his speech.

A Frightening Analysis

mexifornia book coverWe all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration — both legal and illegal — was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said,

“If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.’”

“Here is how they do it,”

Richard_D._Lamm_Colorado

Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm

Lamm said:

First to destroy America, “Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”

Lamm went on:

Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third,

“We could make the United States a ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved! Not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’”

Lamm said,

“I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.

A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.

“E. Pluribus Unum” — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”

“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘x! xenophobes’ halt discussion and debate.”

“Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”

There was no applause.

A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America — take note of California and other states — to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast.

It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy are deeply in trouble and worsening fast.

If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.