Culture War Archives - Page 899 of 1071

Video Documentary: Death By China — One Lost Job at a Time

August 25, 2016/in Culture War, Economy, Elections, Policy, Video/by Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

A Global shift is well underway, and it is scheduled for the United States of America to lose on multiple levels. Already America is no longer the only or premiere reserve currency, a position by which all economies and currencies in the world have been measured since 1945.

Mr. Trump is correct in stating American professional politicians have given away our Nation’s economic strengths in multiple dimensions, from manufacturing to technology; from educational instruction of critical thinking to science even health care and more, America is very rapidly sinking to second and even third tier status.

Our economy is close to depression levels, and our unemployment rates are already at depression range with an unemployment level more realistic at 25%, and getting worse. China has been chosen to become the world-wide economic engine and reserve currency…but how did this occur, and what evidence is there to support my premise?

The below film: “Death by China – One Lost Job at a Time” is a very good place to begin the study of how, and to look at the growing evidence to support the premise I just declared. Watch this film and ponder what it all means, and how will you fair given what you are about to see?

Now before you begin your journey after viewing this film, may I add a closing thought?

Chinese workers

The Chinese people are far more kind and gracious, hardworking and sincere than what is being broadcast. To really grasp the world wide shifting taking place before our eyes, you must come to a full appreciation, if not understanding that the Global Elites care nothing about national sovereignty or political parties or people for that matter, and they are calling the shots. For the most part the Elites share a common philosophy of absolute Marxism, and view the world in simple terms; Elites and privilege verse slaves to keep the Elites and privileged well fed and well taken care of. That’s it!

The Elites are the same regardless of where they might currently live; from Russia or China, to Africa the Middle East, to Europe and America the Elites live a far different life style with a far different view and thinking; after-all they are the Elite and the rest of us are their slaves, some of us more useful than others, but still all expendable. Such are the Chinese Government officials who are the beneficiaries of the decision to make China the premiere economic engine.

The people of China are still, for the most part, treated as indentured servants beholding to the government. At the same time a strong and very real outpouring of God’s love is taking place among the people of China. There truly is a remarkable move of the Holy Spirit and true Christian birth occurring, quite similar to what is recorded in the Book of Acts in the Bible. House churches coming alive and multiplying, out-of-the-way meeting rooms where sincere and deep heart-felt prayer is taking place.

God is on the move through China, and the people, the hard working and giving people are responding with their hearts, and in many ways with their lives. I wish America were experiencing the same resurgence in walking with the Lord and declaring: “How blessed is the nation whose God is Adonai, the people He chose as His heritage” (Pslam 33:12).

VIDEO: John Hopkins Study — ‘Gay gene’? No scientific evidence for it!

August 23, 2016/in Culture War, Healthcare, Must Read, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

Homosexuals have been looking for any genetic reason for their behaviors. A person who changes their sex is violating biology, science and genetics. Homosexuality is a choice, one that does not demand special rights, rather homosexuals require treatment for their abnormality.

OneNewsNow reports:

A new study should convince academics and the general public that there is no “homosexual gene.”

Two distinguished scholars at Johns Hopkins University have released a lengthy, three-part report concluding that there’s not sufficient evidence to prove homosexuals and transgenders are born in that condition – in other words, there is no “gay gene.”

“The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biologically fixed property of human beings – the idea that people are ‘born that way’ – is not supported by scientific evidence,” states the executive summary.

“The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex – that a person might be ‘a man trapped in a woman’s body’ or ‘a woman trapped in a man’s body’ – is not supported by scientific evidence,” it adds.

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality offers his comments on the report to OneNewsNow.

“Homosexual activists have been desperate to try to say they’re ‘born that way’ because they believe this absolves them of their moral responsibility for their sexual behavior,” he shares. “And they know that if the public believes that people are – quote – ‘born gay,’ then the public is much more accepting of homosexual activism. And that’s exactly what we’ve seen in the culture.”

LaBarbera argues that the culture is getting false information from liberal academics and liberal media that present the “gay gene” theory as truth when study after study confirms there’s no such thing.

“I think the evidence is becoming so overwhelming that there is no gay gene that even liberal-minded academics are forced to concede this point,” he adds. “The homosexual lobby and a lot of people in it banked on the gay gene theory to win sympathy. It worked … but the evidence continues to mount against that theory.”

The 143-page report recognizes a corollary between same-gender attraction and sexual abuse as a child.

The Johns Hopkins experts also emphasize that sexuality is fluid – which means homosexuals can change; and many have, mostly through Christ. See video summary below:

The Center for Disease Control’s latest report states:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men made up an estimated 2% of the population but 55% of people living with HIV in the United States in 2013. If current diagnosis rates continue, 1 in 6 gay and bisexual men will be diagnosed with HIV in their lifetime, including 1 in 2 black/African-American gay and bisexual men, 1 in 4 Hispanic/Latino gay and bisexual men, and 1 in 11 white gay and bisexual men.

In 2014:

Gay and bisexual men accounted for 83% (29,418) of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total estimated new diagnoses in the United States.

Gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 92% of new HIV diagnoses among all men in their age group and 27% of new diagnoses among all gay and bisexual men.

Gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 54% (11,277) of people diagnosed with AIDS. Of those men, 39% were African American, 32% were white, and 24% were Hispanic/Latino.

Zulu Witchcraft and Liberals (and, No, This Isn’t Racist)

August 23, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Elections, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Dr. Mary Grabar

Zulus and Liberals (and, No, This Isn’t Racist) by Malcolm Allen, Professor of English at the University of Wisconsin-Fox Valley and a longtime commiserater with and supporter of Dissident Prof, as well as contributor to Exiled: Stories from Conservative and Moderate Professors Who Have Been Ridiculed, Ostracized, Marginalized, Demonized, and Frozen Out. British spellings have been retained–Mary Grabar, Posted August 22, 2016

In odd moments I am reading Donald R. Morris’s The Washing of the Spears (1965), the helpful subtitle of which is The Rise and Fall of the Zulu Nation. Amazon.com no less helpfully tells us that “this unsurpassed history details the sixty-year existence of the world’s mightiest African empire—from its brutal formation and zenith under the military genius Shaka (1787-1828), through its inevitable collision with white expansionism, to its dissolution under Cetshwayo in the [Anglo-]Zulu War of 1879.”

History buffs will remember the names of that war’s two famous battles, Isandhlwana, according to Wikipedia the “single greatest defeat for the British Army at the hands of a native army,” and Rorke’s Drift, a brave British hold-out against an overwhelmingly superior force that enabled the preservation of some national self-respect. It was followed by the awarding of eleven Victoria Crosses, the highest British award for valour in the face of the enemy, an act perhaps having a slightly politic component. Movie enthusiasts will remember Zulu Dawn (1979), a not very commercially successful film about Isandhlwana, and Zulu (1964), a hit about Rorke’s Drift. I am no historian, and am, anyway, presently much nearer the beginning of Morris’s book than the end but it seems superb, a vigorous narration of an absorbing, if finally tragic, tale.

The first chapter, after a “Prologue,” is entitled “The Bantu.” Morris describes what we know about Bantu provenance, which apparently isn’t very much (“No one knows from whence the Bantu came, and by the time modern man turned a scientific scrutiny on the problem a century ago, the layers of evidence were irrevocably tangled”), their social structure (subdivisions divided into clans, and kraals “inhabited by a single family”), and their sometimes self-destructive superstitions (a warrior who killed an enemy soldier had to undergo an elaborate “cleansing process” that involved going back to his own kraal, so military campaigns tended to be short). But what stopped me in my tracks were four paragraphs about Bantu, i.e. Zulu, belief in the strength and ubiquity of witchcraft. The italics in what follows are mine.

Witchcraft was universal. All illness, and indeed all evil, was caused by . . . wizards who made use of primal forces. . . . The unfortunate host would be quite unaware of the parasite until a witch doctor pointed it out . . . .

An accusation of witchcraft was fatal; once the wizard had been smelled, no defense was possible, and because the host was quite unwitting, no plea of ignorance, purity of action, or innocence of action could stand. Whenever the presence of [a wizard] was suspected, the chieftain would summon the entire male membership of the clan, which assembled in a large circle with the witch doctors in the center. These worthies . . . paused in front of each man, sniffing and howling, passing on and suddenly darting back to terrorize anew someone just starting to breathe again . . . . The volume [of the witch doctors’ chant] peaked as [they] passed, and died away beyond the suspect. . . . [They] were merely sounding out public opinion, cleverly reinforcing nuances of sound until they were certain their choice met with popular approval—a rich but miserly kraal head, or the transgressor of some social taboo. The witch doctors would pass him and return, until finally they were leaping and screaming before some poor wretch on his knees. Bounding clean over him, they flicked him with a gnu’s tail, whereupon he was at once dragged off to have sharpened stakes pounded up his rectum, while an impi [“regiment” or “army”] was dispatched to exterminate his family root and branch, destroy his crops, and burn his kraal.

Finally, “Witch doctors also waxed fat on private practice. They were called in as consultants for every form of minor crisis, and rarely failed to secure the payment of at least a goat. The vicious grip in which they held the people was made possible by an implicit and universal belief in magic; not even the victim of a smelling-out was indignant. He might register horror or fear or remorse, but not even in his final painful moments did he doubt the existence of the wizard that had possessed him.”

“The Ubiquity of Irrational Fear”: Doubtless you can see where I’m going with this. The ubiquity of an irrational fear, the catastrophic consequences of being found the unwitting host of an evil parasite, the submission of the victims to the onslaught against them, a priestly class that acquires and keeps material goods and power by means of officious intervention. Sounds like the West over the last forty years or so, does it not? It sounds in particular like elite segments of government, the university, and the media.

A few examples. My account of the first is taken pretty closely from Wikipedia, which is trustworthy for this sort of thing at least. Notoriously, in 1999, David Howard, an aide to the mayor of Washington, D.C., used the word “niggardly” in reference to a budget. A black colleague heard the word, or claimed to have heard it, as a racial slur, and made a formal complaint. “Howard tendered his resignation, and [the mayor] accepted it” (my italics again). After a public brouhaha, Howard was offered his old job back; he refused the offer but agreed to accept another position with his former boss, “insisting,” in the words of Wikipedia, “that he did not feel victimized by the incident. On the contrary, Howard felt that he had learned from the situation. ‘I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind; that’s naïve, especially for a white person, because a white person can’t [sic for “can”] afford to be colorblind. They don’t have to think about race every day. An African American does.’” It must be conceded that many commentators found the controversy absurd, the head of the NAACP, no less, saying, “David Howard should not have quit. Mayor Williams should bring him back—and order dictionaries issued to all staff who need them.” But then again this was seventeen years ago.

Woodstock

Two more contemporary examples, and when I say contemporary I mean occurring over the last month or so (I’m writing this in mid-August). A certain Rohini Sethi, vice president of the Student Government Association of the University of Houston, so far forgot the environment in which she lives and the nature of some of those amongst whom she lives as to post on Facebook, “Forget #BlackLivesMatter; more like #AllLivesMatter” after five Dallas police officers were shot dead during a BLM rally. Blake Neff’s article in The Daily Caller (31 July) reports “numerous UH students denounced [the comment] as incredibly offensive or even hateful,” one of them, Nala Hughes, going so far as to observe, “Just for her to say, ‘forget Black Lives Matter,’ is a punch in the stomach.’” Sethi made an attempt to combine an apology with a justification of her words: “My response has caused enormous pain for many members of our community, and I think it is high time that I clarify my statement. . . . Let’s create the possibility of a culture rooted in open discussion” (Bob Price, Breitbart, 1 August). Although some students defended her, there followed a maliciously careful and detailed attempt to impose upon Sethi a protracted public humiliation. Shane Smith, president of the SGA, was allowed to sidestep the usual procedures and come up with a five-part punishment. I quote Neff again:

• A 50-day suspension from SGA starting August 1. This suspension will be unpaid (she currently receives a stipend of about $700 a month).
• A requirement to attend a three-day diversity workshop in mid-August.
• A requirement to attend three “UH cultural events” each month from September through March, excluding December.
• An order to write a “letter of reflection” about how her harmful actions have impacted SGA and the UH student body.
• An order to put on a public presentation Sept. 28 detailing “the knowledge she has gained about cultural issues facing our society.”

Furthermore, “If Sethi refuses or fails any of the requirements, she will be kicked out of SGA entirely.” Sethi commented, “I disagree with the sanctions taken against me by my SGA . . . . I have apologized for my words . . . . Even so, I will abide by the sanctions for as long as they are in place.”

Last example. It will be remembered that nine black mothers whose children had died, some in circumstances involving the police, were invited onto the stage at the Democratic National Convention. Bob Goosman, his feelings doubtless exacerbated by the fact that he was then a meteorologist in the Dallas area, took to Facebook: “As many of you have probably noticed, I’ve stayed away from politics on FB. The DNC parading the mothers of slain thugs around on their stage has me furious.” Two days later he was out of a job. I have found two sets of comments made by Goosman about his use of the word “thug,” published within a day of each other. Although this appears second (1 August, gop.usa, but originating in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram), perhaps it was made first: “It was frustration that I believe the DNC party will do anything, like using these mothers, to garner votes . . . . Some have said the word ‘thug’ is a racial term. [But] it means a violent person, as in a criminal. It does not mention color. Anyone can become a thug. If some want to make this statement out to be something else, I cannot control that.” The second (theblaze.com 31 July) is more sensitive to contemporary susceptibilities:

Regarding his use of the term ‘thugs,’ Goosman said he wasn’t aware it carried racial overtones for some.

‘I thought a thug was just a violent person. The definition of thug does not mention any race . . . . I will say that I talked with an African American acquaintance and he told me that he feels like when he hears the word, it is in reference to an African American individual. I had NO IDEA.’

Goosman confirmed his resignation as well but said he would’ve been fired ‘and rightly so.’

‘What I say online, no matter where, reflects upon my station and employer. KRLD is a great station . . . and I am sorry if they have had to deal with all the repercussions.’

Professor Malcolm Allen

Brought to heel. For what it’s worth, I’ve lived in the US for twenty-seven years and thought I understood American English. I too had NO IDEA that the word “thug” implies an African American but then “The unfortunate host would be quite unaware of the parasite until a witch doctor pointed it out.”

My three examples above all deal with race, a subject of notorious sensitivity in today’s US. A couple of months ago I was in a local convenience store. The guy behind the counter, picking up on my English accent, asked me if I’m interested in soccer. He then immediately assured me that he wasn’t being “racist.” (Oh, and I “happen to be” white, incidentally.) I understood him. Say the wrong thing, no matter how innocently, and you could lose your livelihood, as Bob Goosman found out (he apparently doesn’t intend to try for another job in the media), and perhaps your savings, and your house, and your reputation. Our society’s “witch doctors” are vigilant, and getting far more for their pains than the occasional goat. But I could easily have chosen three, or three dozen, illustrations of the dangers of misspeaking about what I’m apparently supposed to call gender: feminism, homosexuality, and, nowadays, transgenderism. On another occasion, perhaps.

Let’s look on the bright side. Howard and Sethi and Goosman have been taught their place, doubtless a cause of grim satisfaction or even unabashed jubilation to their tormentors. However, they haven’t had sharpened stakes hammered up their arses. But that’s just because the aforementioned tormentors haven’t thought of that yet.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Zulu Diviners. Photo by Wizzy – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Make Babies, and Don’t Let the Greens Guilt Trip You about It by Steven Horowitz

August 23, 2016/in Culture War, Economy, Environment, Policy, Politics, Science/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Several years back, the economist Bryan Caplan wrote a wonderful book called Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids. Caplan argued that most parents underestimated the benefits of larger families and were engaging in costly parenting strategies that yielded few real benefits. Thus, he said, if you love kids, you should have lots of them.

From NPR this week comes a story that might well be called “anti-Caplan” in every dimension. It is a profile of bioethicist Travis Rieder and others like him who argue that it is immoral to have many children, if any at all, because of the burden that additional children place on the Earth’s ecosystem. Given that we are already, Rieder claims, on the road to climate disaster, adding more children will both make matters worse and condemn those children to a horrible life on a worsening planet. His argument might well be called “Altruistic Reasons to Have Fewer Kids.”

More specifically, he argues that children are what economists call negative externalities: “We as parents, we as family members, we get the good. And the world, the community, pays the cost.” As it turns out, that claim is almost entirely wrong. It is parents who pay most of the costs of having children and the rest of us who reap the benefits.

I am not going to contest some of the claims about climate change Rieder and others in the article invoke. He does tend to take the most extreme predictions of climate models as gospel truth when the recent data have suggested that reality is closer to the much more modest predictions. However, even if the worst case scenarios are true, Rieder misses a number of important points about population growth that need to be considered.

Human Beings are Producers

He, like so many environmentalists, sees human beings only as consumers of resources. So one core statistic he trots out is that the amount of CO2 saved by not having a child is roughly 20 times what we can save through traditional things like driving hybrids and recycling. Therefore, he and the other people discussed in the story conclude, if we really want to “save the planet,” we should have fewer, if any, children.

But this is single-entry economic and moral bookkeeping. This view ignores the idea that humans are also producers. As Julian Simon reminded us so often, more people not only means more hands to work and more minds to create, it means more different people with different ideas. Increases in population not only deepen the division of labor and productivity by their sheer numbers, they also take advantage of the fact that each of us is unique which leads to new ideas and innovation.

Human progress depends upon the increasing productivity that comes from a finer division of labor and new ways of doing things. And those are the result of more people.

It’s not, as a student in the article suggests, that one of those kids that isn’t born might have come up with a “solution for climate change,” but that each and every one of those kids that isn’t born would have contributed to greater economic growth, which is nothing more than the more effective and efficient use of the resources we have.

Such growth is what has made it possible for the Earth to sustain 7 billion lives of increasing length, comfort, and quality. Reducing the population might mean we use up more resources by losing the efficiencies that come from a larger population’s greater ability to innovate and productively specialize.

The benefits of having more kids are not primarily to the parents involved, though as Caplan points out there are many. More people means we are better able to beat back omnipresent scarcity and carve out a more inhabitable planet for more people who live longer, better lives.

This is the most fundamental error of so many environmentalists, especially those arguing for reductions in the population: they see humans only as consumers of resources and not the source of the very innovations that enable us to use resources more effectively and the riches that enable us to have a cleaner, healthier planet.

Demographic Transition

The other crucial point Rieder and people like him miss is that the Earth’s population is already in the process of stabilizing. One of the most agreed upon empirical facts of history is the so-called “demographic transition.” As societies become wealthier and more industrialized, the incentives facing parents change and family size falls. Once mom and dad, or perhaps only one of them, can earn enough income to support a family, and there’s no farm or cottage industry that requires the whole family pitching in, the need for many children is much less and parents seek to control their fertility.

The Western world began to go through this transition over a century ago, and the rest of the world has followed in turn. Most of the Western world is dealing with fertility rates that are below replacement, and rates of population growth in all but a handful of countries worldwide have fallen in the last few decades.

Thankfully Rieder does not want to use Chinese-style coercion to limit family size, but he’s not afraid to tax larger families more heavily. Even that isn’t necessary given the reality of the demographic transition: in a free society, human beings naturally limit their fertility as they get wealthier. Again, the best way to save the planet is not to have fewer kids, but to have as many as you can afford and let their productivity enable us to use resources with more efficiency and create more progress.

Anti-Life, Anti-Human

The radical wing of environmentalism is, as Ayn Rand said decades ago, “anti-life” and “anti-human” in its belief that humans are the scourge of the planet and not the source of its progress. After all, if the important thing is saving the planet by reducing our carbon footprint, why stop by persuading people to not have kids?

Why not persuade currently living people, especially young ones, to reduce their lifetime carbon footprint by killing themselves? The logic is no different.

That they don’t make that argument suggests that “saving the planet” really isn’t the overriding issue here. Like so much else in the Green movement, this seems to be about protecting their own comfortable lives against what they think will happen when everyone else is able to live lives like they have. They got their progress and health and children, but everyone else needs to sacrifice for the sake of the planet. That Rieder does have a child is some evidence of this point.

Not only is Rieder’s argument deeply immoral and reactionary in how wrong it is, it turns out to be far less altruistic than it first seems. Nothing could capture the total failure of radical environmentalist anti-natalism better than calling it “selfish reasons everyone else should have fewer kids.” Let’s hope, for the sake of both actual humans and the planet we live on that these environmentalist arguments are as infertile as their proponents wish humans were.

Steven Horwitz

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Hayek’s Modern Family: Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions.

He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

Miami-Dade Teachers Union backed State Senator Dwight Bullard linked to Terrorists

August 23, 2016/in Culture War, Education, National Security, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

MIAMI, Fl. (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — The grassroots group Miami United Against BDS (MUAB) is demanding that Florida State Senator Dwight Bullard immediately resign his seat in the Florida State House and end his bid for re-election. Reports surfaced this week that Bullard took a trip in May to territories under Palestinian control where he met with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), an organization listed by the State Department since 1997 as a foreign terrorist organization.

Bullard, according to his campaign website, is a teacher. He teaches at Coral Reef Senior High School and Coral Gables Adult in Miami-Dade public schools. Bullard is a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) and at one time was a union representative. Senator Bullard is a UTD backer and beneficiary.

Florida State Sen. Dwight Bullard, wearing a Palestinian kaffiyeh, or headscarf, at the Democratic National Convention, July 2016. (Ben Sales)

Bullard was photographed with a member of the PFLP, and those images were shared on social media by the group which coordinated Bullard’s trip to the Middle East. During his visit, Bullard also met with a co-founder of the anti-Israel BDS movement Omar Barghouti, and images of them together also circulated on social media. BDS, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, is a campaign aimed at singling out Israel for economic warfare.

Earlier this year, Florida passed a bill to prevent the state from doing business with companies participating in boycotts of Israel. Similar anti-BDS bills have also passed in a dozen other states across the country.

MUAB called upon the Florida Democratic Party to condemn this meeting with terrorists and urge Dwight Bullard to resign and end his reelection campaign. They also asked Equity Florida Action PAC, Florida Planned Parenthood PAC, Florida AFL-CIO, SAVE Action PAC, AFSCME Florida, 1199 SEIU, the International Association of Fire Fighters, the Democratic Progressive Caucus of Florida and United Faculty of Florida to immediately withdraw their endorsements of Bullard based upon his interactions with a terrorist organization and others whose ideology and actions make them enemies of the United States and its ally Israel.

One of the leaders of Miami United Against BDS, Joseph Daniels (a registered Democrat) said: “By meeting with supporters of terrorist organizations Dwight Bullard has shown himself to be completely unfit for office. We will not sit back and be silent when an elected official from Florida meets with a terrorist group that has murdered innocent civilians in Israel.”

Nilsa Alvarez from Comunidad Cristiana Pembroke Pines (Christian Community of Pembroke Pines) said, “BDS is the best example of racism and discrimination applied to business and the global market. BDS is the modern yellow star, aimed at financially persecuting the Jewish community in a baseless effort to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel and her rights to flourish as a democratic republic in a sea of politically unstable countries seeking to undermine her freedom to be.”

Said Rabbi Uri Pilichowski, Director of Israel Advocacy for Southern NCSY, “Elected officials have a responsibility to learn the truth and not take positions until they know the facts. Rep. Bullard did not do his due diligence about the reality in Israel and found himself on the side of hate. Now, the students of Florida are taking it upon themselves to teach Rep. Bullard the truth about Israel. His statements are a pure example of the hypocrisy these BDS groups are all about.”

Joe Zevuloni, Founder of Miami United Against BDS stated: “State Senator Bullard is so concerned about Palestinian civil rights, but he should start condemning some of the same people he is trying to “defend.” Why doesn’t he condemn groups such as the PFLP, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organization that carry out attacks and openly persecute Christians and members of the LGBT community? Within the Palestinian areas women cannot run for political office let alone participate fully in civic life. On the other hand, Israel is a vibrant democracy and the only true U.S. ally in the Middle East. Israel is America’s best friend and friends stand up for each other. All Americans from every background should step up and join us to help defeat BDS.”

Zevuloni added: “MUAB is vehemently opposed to the anti-Semitic BDS movement and we condemn all who support it. It is unconscionable that Bullard would meet with Omar Barghouti and other Israel detractors who advocate targeting Israel with economic warfare.

“In recent days Mr. Bullard has also expressed his unwillingness to endorse the two-state solution for Israeli-Palestinian peace, which puts him squarely on the side of those who advocate a one-state solution, which in practical terms amounts to destroying the Jewish state of Israel,” added Zevuloni.

MUAB Founder Joe Zevuloni concluded: “As South Floridians who champion the values of democracy, human rights, open dialogue and respect for human life, it is unthinkable to accept that there is someone in the Florida legislature who is willing to meet openly with terrorist groups and other hateful organizations whose values are diametrically opposed to those of Floridians and all Americans. It is our duty to condemn this form of hate and defeat it.”

Musings of a Muslim father

August 23, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Elections, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Tabitha Korol

Raising American Muslim Kids in the Age of Trump was a meditative essay penned by Wajahat Ali in the New York Times. During these years of Obama and Hillary, he has been comfortable knowing that no one would question his allegiance to Islamic law (sharia) over the American Constitution. Despite Islam’s record of subversion and violence, he and his coreligionists need not have been overly concerned if their children were caught rioting in the name of Allah, damaging or looting property, or burning tires or American and Israeli flags, For nearly eight years, this has been a Land of the Freedom to Run Amok and cause damage; to join boycotts against a country, Israel, that is falsely accused of the decadence and immorality widespread in Islamic countries; to march and rally against an emasculated police force; to brazenly masquerade an ideology of conquest as a religion of peace, and to be believed!

As Mr. Ali ruminates about his toddler son and new baby daughter, he shares his concerns if Donald J. Trump were to become president, and the extreme vetting that could restrict others’ entry to America, regardless of possible aggression. He fears that his friend’s son might be deported and he muses that his daughter could be sent to a “concentration camp” by the only presidential candidate who expresses his intense loyalty to our laws! Has Ali not studied the Constitution and Bill of Rights? Has he not heard Trump iterate that he wants America restored and that his favors cannot be bought? Ali fears a president who upholds the Constitution, but would be comfortable with a Clinton-Kaine administration that will continue to promote the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, endanger our homeland security with additional hordes of unvetted immigrants, betray Israel, and grant positions of power in exchange for payments, resulting in the stealthy imposition of sharia into government.

With pensive reminiscence, he speaks of the beauty of celebrating Eid-al Fitr, an elaborate dining festival that ends the Islamic month of Ramadan, and suggests that he could be denied his celebrations and food preparations under new leadership. This is pure fantasy and fear-mongering, as no other religious group has ever been thus denied – unless, of course, he misses the cattle preparation of his forebears, the men who walk in the streets with their cattle purchases, and intentionally stab and torture the docile animals with picks and knives until they bleed out and bleat their last breath. Does he fear being questioned about his loyalty to the Constitution? Does he fear the prospect of living in a country that does not countenance the torture and abuse found in the Koran?

If, indeed, this new father truly hopes his daughter will grow up in a safe country, why not demand and relish the extreme vetting to verify the identity and ideology of the applicants who will walk our streets and encounter our daughters? Under Hillary and Kaine’s continued penchant for multiculturalism from Islamic lands, we might well become an Islamic-majority nation, where no girl or woman is safe – perhaps as Sweden, which has become the rape capital of the world; or Australia and Canada, which share the title of kidnapping capitals of the world, or Germany, where Angela Merkel’s news that one hundred women were raped on New Year’s Eve, 2016, was finally admitted to be as many as 1200 women raped by vicious gangs of 2,000 Muslim men. We could also become as Israel, where knifings, car jammings, explosions and rock-throwings that cause deadly car accidents, along with rocket launchings, are a daily threat, along with boycotts and legal tactics to delegitimize her very existence. Trump has announced his goal of increasing and strengthening our police forces to ensure that our communities are safe, and that America’s daughters will never require a related male escort to leave the house or to cover themselves in full-blown tents – or the latest assault on women, muzzles! Does he find this troubling?

With babe in arms, the writer added a fear about Trump’s extreme vetting might include a database, but there is already an established database of our school children as part of this administration’s imposition of the Common Core curriculum, contrary to the wishes of their parents. American law, rooted in the Judeo-Christian heritage, protects the welfare and security of our citizens and this is in constant need of adjustment so that security is never sacrificed for humanity, and vice versa. A good example is the suspension of naturalization proceedings, and the addition of registration requirements and restricted mobility for Italian, German and Japanese immigrants a day after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. Islam is at war with America, on par with Nazism and communism. Its declared aim is to destroy Western civilization from within and to ultimately establish a global Islamic caliphate.

Not to be ignored was Ali’s subtle accusation of “bigotry” against Americans for their reaction to 9/11 – a bona fide reaction, I might add, to the sudden, spectacular and tragic death of three thousand people and the ineradicable pain of loss to their families, when 19 Muslims crashed planes into Pennsylvania, the Pentagon, and Manhattan’s World Trade Center, the personification of financial success to the backward Islamic nations. Is it also ‘bigotry” when we see and hear the adherents of Islam proclaim their intent to destroy America, when we see them stoning or hanging or burning people alive, and when we recoil in horror and grief to learn of the 29,065 (8/21/16) Islamic attacks on Americans and the world since 9/11. Is it bigotry when polls show that the majority of Muslims prefer the ideology and laws of Islam over the laws of the land to which they have made the al-hijra, the Islamic doctrine of immigration?

Ali took this opportunity to enhance the propaganda against Khizr and Ghazala Khan, parents of US Army Captain Humayun Khan who was killed in Iraq in 2004, 12 years ago. Why the choice of this man, and not a more recent military loss, has become clear: Khizr Khan has strong ties to the Saudi government and its huge donations to the Clinton foundation, and he received $375,000 to his immigration law firm for the political tribute he paid his son at the DNC. We are also aware that Khan’s former employer manages the Clintons’ taxes and has a patent on Hillary’s infamous email-filtering program. Khizr’s son’s heroism is not in question, but the father’s integrity is.

A self-described “spiritual nomad,” Ali is nevertheless investing in a project, “Make space” in Virginia, to introduce selected aspects of Islam to their children. We might wonder what the “unmosqued” adherents will use instead of the Koran, with its 109 open-ended verses of commands to violence. America has been home to people of all nations who practice their many religious rites, but being religions, not ideologies, they have been able to assimilate and become part of American society, something that Islam’s ideology cannot do by its very nature. American law and sharia law are profoundly antipathetic to one another and will bring incurable division to America. “A house divided against itself cannot stand,” and we will lose America if Clinton and Kaine, academia and the media continue their efforts to negate Christianity and Judaism, and further depreciate our freedoms of speech, assembly, and the right of self-protection.

The BBC reported that 95% of its viewers admit that multiculturalism is a failure, and a “leaked German intelligence document” described by The Gatestone Institute says: “We are importing Islamic extremism, Arab anti-Semitism, national and ethnic conflicts of other peoples, as well as a different understanding of society and law.” British police are monitoring more than 3,000 homegrown Islamic extremists willing to carry out attacks on the UK, and 80 percent of the 3,000 mosques in America are known to have deep ties to extremism, including to the Muslim Brotherhood.

If Mr. Ali hopes to safely raise his family in America, he has to live and vote so that all may celebrate the holidays of their choosing, and be suspicious of the mother of three who espouses “Islam has to trump them all.” She is not raising her children to be loyal Americans; rather, she is imbuing them with Islamic supremacism – to inspire them to jihad. Muslims are safe here, but statistics prove that Jews and Christians are now targets in America and throughout the world.

The applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and “attached to the principles of the Constitution.” It is neither bigotry nor unconstitutional to enact laws to promote national security and national interests – to keep our citizens safe. Article Four, Section Four, known as the Guarantee Clause, states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” Therefore, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

Trudeau’s Multiculturalism!

August 21, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Shabnam Assadollahi

Canada’s Liberal Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau is building his legacy as the Western leader who promotes Islam as compatible with Western secular societies ¹ and opens the door for massive Muslim immigration. In my opinion, this agenda of Mr. Trudeau and his government might be exploited by radicals to destabilize both the US and Canada and that Canada may develop into a security threat for the US.

One of the centre pieces of the Trudeau Liberals’ policies is its agenda regarding refugees, immigration and citizenship. Space doesn’t allow me to enumerate but it has raised concerns of many people including the Americans. The rapid influx of so-called refugees (perhaps as many as 20,000 are pre-qualified immigrants included in the 25,000 total to make the numbers and timing look good) out of camps in Lebanon is causing some angst because of the manner in which this operation is being carried out. Cost estimates to the Canadian taxpayer are already spiraling out of control and the budget deficit is doubling and tripling as I write this.

Canada is a multicultural society made up of many expatriates from troubled areas who came to Canada to escape tribalism and medieval cultures as well as threats to their personal freedom and safety.

In Canada, we see a government that appears to be encouraging the kind of cultural changes and the promotion of ideologies that many who fled communism, dictatorship regimes, and escaped Sharia law ruled by Islamic constitutional regimes and find it very threatening and hoped to never experience ever again. Changes to the immigration laws definitely pose a threat to women and allow the possibility of abuses and loopholes that the former Conservative government had been trying to close.

Changes to citizenship laws also invite abuses to family reunification laws and security: reopening Iran’s embassy and allowing their diplomats and spies to enter Canada, where they have political immunity and will walk freely in our communities, whereas in the past they had created an atmosphere of horror and fear among the Iranian Canadian nationals; Canada normalizing relations with the current regime in Iran without regard to their daily human-rights violations, executions of juveniles and sponsorship of state terrorism throughout the middle east – disregarding international law violations and the welfare of Iran’s own population and those in it seeking reforms and greater freedoms – not to mention the fact that their embassy opens a door to infiltration of Canada’s own security apparatus.² ³ Canada, likewise is increasing its support of terrorist states and abandoning those who are looking to Canada – like Egypt and Israel.

With Mr. Trudeau opening the floodgates to those whose politics clash with liberal democracies and whose stated purpose is to change our way of life rooted in a Christian Judeo heritage, Canadians are rightly concerned about the impact and possibility of 50,000 people bringing their old way of life and the grievances associated with it to this relatively peaceful freedom-loving nation – especially when as many as 94% of refugees prefer to stay in their own country and Canada can support 12 refugees in Lebanon for the same cost as they can support one refugee in Canada.

Americans, too, are concerned about the Canadian border and the fact that the rapid citizenship process will allow many of these ‘refugees’ to cross into the United States with a simple visa or in some cases no visa.

Mr. Trudeau is also introducing the hated Carbon Tax which cost them a previous election and will cost Canadians the loss of jobs and lowering family income – affecting low income earners the worst.

Trudeau Liberal government is also trying to stop the sorely needed Canadian east, west and south gas/oil pipelines, relying on unethical oil from Saudi Arabia on its east coast and cutting off increased exports via US and British Columbia routes. This has depressed an industry which affects 40% of Canada’s resources and thousands of jobs. The pipeline could add billions to Canada’s economy and change the whole economic picture for Canadians for decades to come – also making Canada more energy efficient and independent.

Mr. Trudeau has been called Canada’s Obama for his lack of experience, socialist philosophy and tendency to circumvent parliamentary debate and approval of the representatives of the people of Canada. His father’s legacy was tax-and-spend putting Canada into the highest debt in history (similar to Obama), from which we have never recovered. Trudeau junior hasn’t fallen far from the tree. His compiled debt will be left to future generations yet unborn to pay – and already Canadians pay a third of their taxes in interest towards the national and provincial debt and that’s at a low debt interest rate. We could well go the way of Greece if interest rates rise.

This short space doesn’t permit me to list the litany of damaging and dangerous activities this government is bent on undertaking so this will have to do for starters.

Trudeau’s multiculturalism – opportunity or threat?

In addition to the urgent political and economic issues, President Obama may want to discuss with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau the ramifications of the accelerated multiculturalism in Canada to the security of the US.

In a video message to the annual Reviving the Islamic Spirit convention held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre Mr. Trudeau said: “The Reviving the Islamic Spirit [RIS] convention… is also about celebrating our shared beliefs in justice, fairness, equality of opportunity and acceptance. The work you do in communities across the country is what builds the and strengthens our multicultural fabric.” ⁴

Trudeau has won the hearts and minds of Canadian Muslims by joining the ‘maghrib’ prayer in Ramadan, defending women’s right to wear the niqab, portraying the Islamic values as Canadian, opening Canada’s doors to massive Muslim immigration and stating that his mission is to educate Canadians that Islam is compatible with Western secular societies like Canada. No wonder he was called by leading Canadian imam al-Janashi of our era.⁵

American lawmakers are worried. Trudeau’s policy is being interpreted as gullible, mistaken and a golden opportunity for the radical Islamic movements to change the face of Canada forever. Trudeau fails to read the writing on the wall and the American signals. He will probably be asked to answer tough questions.

As to what Mr. Obama might suggest to Mr. Trudeau regarding his Canadian opponents; “do what I do – use executive privilege and ignore the constitution”, in Canada that amounts to greater powers than the monarchy since even the monarchy can’t interfere with parliament.

It appears that the Trudeau liberals neither like free speech or freedom of press nor wish to consult the public on policies they are rapidly changing. Would they soon try to silence the voice of the people? As a Canadian from Iranian origin, I feel I have lost my Canadian identity since Mr. Trudeau won his majority Liberal regime in Canada.

EDITORS NOTE: This op-ed column originally appeared on the Mackenzie Institute for Security Matters website.

NPR: ‘We should protect our kids from global warming — by not having kids!’

August 20, 2016/in Culture War, Environment, Policy/by Marc Morano

‘U.S. environmentalists are taking a page from China’s mandatory one-child policy even as China abandons the policy. If these wacky climate activists believed their own literature they would realize that ‘global warming’ may lead to less kids! (See: Climate Change Kills the Mood: Economists Warn of Less Sex on a Warmer Planet) The warmists have now graduated from regulating our light bulbs, coal plants and SUVs to regulating our family size. Let’s keep ‘global warming’ out of the bedroom! Let’s give families the freedom to choose how many kids they want!’

NPR article: ‘The climate crisis is a reproductive crisis’ – Solution? ‘A carbon tax — on kids’ – Philosopher claims ‘Climate Change” is “affecting the morality of procreation.’

‘Scientists warn that a catastrophic tipping point is possible in the next few decades’ (Climate Depot note: Really? Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989!)

“Philosopher Travis Rieder asks how old they will be in 2036, and, if they are thinking of having kids, how old their kids will be. “Dangerous climate change is going to be happening by then,” he says. “Very, very soon.”

“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” Rieder says.

“I’m not ready to have children because I don’t know what the climate’s gonna be like in 50 years’

Bringing down global fertility by just half a child per woman “could be the thing that saves us,” he says.

Rieder proposes that richer nations do away with tax breaks for having children and actually penalize new parents. He says the penalty should be progressive, based on income, and could increase with each additional child. Think of it like a carbon tax, on kids.

Sierra Club: ‘Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license’

Full article: http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change

August 18, 201611:09 AM ET

Heard on All Things Considered

By JENNIFER LUDDEN – Jennifer Ludden is a correspondent on NPR’s National Desk

Full NPR program:

Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder (a philosopher with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University) tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many.

He’s at James Madison University in southwest Virginia to talk about a “small-family ethic” — to question the assumptions of a society that sees having children as good, throws parties for expecting parents, and in which parents then pressure their kids to “give them grandchildren.”

Why question such assumptions? The prospect of climate catastrophe.

For years, people have lamented how bad things might get “for our grandchildren,” but Rieder tells the students that future isn’t so far off anymore.

He asks how old they will be in 2036, and, if they are thinking of having kids, how old their kids will be.

“Dangerous climate change is going to be happening by then,” he says. “Very, very soon.”

Big Data Predicts Centuries Of Harm If Climate Warming Goes Unchecked

Rieder wears a tweedy jacket and tennis shoes, and he limps because of a motorcycle accident. He’s a philosopher with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and his arguments against having children are moral.

Americans and other rich nations produce the most carbon emissions per capita, he says. Yet people in the world’s poorest nations are most likely to suffer severe climate impacts, “and that seems unfair,” he says.

There’s also a moral duty to future generations that will live amid the climate devastation being created now.

“Here’s a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them,” Rieder says.

His arguments sound pretty persuasive in the classroom. At home, it was a different matter.

Toward a Small Family Ethic: How Overpopulation and Climate Change Are Affecting the Morality of Procreation

When she imagines raising a child, Ferorelli says she can’t help but envision the nightmare scenarios that have dogged her since she first heard the term “global warming” in elementary school. “Knowing that I gave that future to somebody is something that just doesn’t sit very well,” she says.

Full NPR article here: http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change

Daily Caller: Sierra Club: ‘Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license’ – By Andrew Follett – Daily Caller – Energy and Environmental Reporter – There are entire environmental groups dedicated to the view that humans should stop having kids due to global warming and environmental issues. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, for example, claims that “voluntary human extinction is the humanitarian alternative to human disasters” and believes that humanity should commit species suicide rather than continue damaging the environment…Mainstream green groups, such as The Sierra Club, also hold a more limited version of the view that the freedom to have kids should be restricted to save the planet. “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing” David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club, stated in an interview.

Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who advised both Pope Francis and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, claims that the maximum number of people Earth can support is a mere 1 billion people. As of 2016, there are more than 7.3 billion humans on Earth, making the question of which 6.3 billion people are supposed to die a fairly important one.

Dire predictions of greens have consistently failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The quality of life of the average person has also immeasurably improved.

Climate-change activists call for tax policies to discourage childbirth

NPR Lectures About Selfish Moms Having Kids in ‘Age of Climate Change’

Skeptics Mock: ‘Having less babies might cool the world. There are no kids in Antarctica, and there’s no warming there either. How many non-babies does it take to stop a flood in Bangladesh? Perhaps the IPCC has an App for that.’

Related Links:

Warmist Mike Hulme: Since 1979, China’s ‘one-child’ policy’ has ‘avoided’ 300 million births — Reducing ‘about 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 from being emitted annually to global atmosphere’ – Warmist David Appell mocks Overpopulation/climate fears: ‘On the other hand, maybe one of those 300 Million people would have invented a technique for massive noncarbon energy production’

China may relax its one-child rule

Paging Discredited Doomster Paul Ehrlich: Long-hated one-child rule may be eased as ‘demographers warn that China is facing the opposite problem: not enough babies’

Flashback: Fred Pearce on ‘The overpopulation myth’: ‘Population growth is slowing…The idea that growing human numbers will destroy the planet is nonsense’

‘Sexism’ at the Olympics? How’s This: Why do Women’s Sports Even Exist?

August 20, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Policy/by Selwyn Duke

My, my, there those feminists go, complaining again. This time the whining concerns supposedly “sexist” Olympics coverage. Their problem?

Many journalists are, we’re told, using different language when talking about female athletes than when speaking of male ones. Oh, the humanity!

There’s the guy who credited a female swimmer’s husband/coach for her success, the talk about a six-foot-three-inch South Korean woman volley ball player’s difficulty finding a boyfriend, and a reporter who called an equestrian rider “blondie.” Putting aside the female teacher who once called me blondie when I was 13, let’s have a reality check. Do you really think sports commentators don’t look for storylines, often infused with frivolity, relating to male athletes? And insofar as the treatment is different, so what? As even über-liberal Bill Maher once observed (I’m paraphrasing), “We have two standards because there are two sexes.” But speaking of standards and differences, let’s get to a quintessential feminist complaint in a recent (very) Lost Angeles Times piece about “sexist Olympics coverage.”

Citing a Cambridge University Press study, writer Julie Makinen tells us, “The research, which analyzed multibillion-word databases of written and spoken English language, found that in general, men are referenced twice as often as women, but when the topic is sports, the ratio is about 3 to 1.” Male athletes earn more money as well, which also irks the feminists.

Of course, this is much like complaining about how heavyweight boxers get more press than lightweights or, speaking of lightweights, like kvetching about Barack Obama getting more exposure than a state legislator from Lakeview. Has Makinen ever heard of “market forces”?

Yet there’s a simple reason why men are referenced in sports three times as much as women — and if I don’t say it, no one will.

Women’s sports aren’t exactly a quality product.

Oh, female athletes look great compared to a weekend warrior or a feminist scribe’s writing. But how much coverage should they get? And if unequal press and pay are your bugaboo, here’s a cause for you: high-school boy athletes get far less coverage than the women, and no pay at all. Is that fair?

Oh, there’s no comparison? That’s true, as the following illustrates:

In May, the Australian women’s soccer team, the Matildas — ranked five in the world — played an under-15 boys team.

The women lost — 7-0.

Lest you think this a fluke, the U.S. Women’s National Team (ranked number one in the world) lost 8-2 to the under-17 U.S. boys’ team in 2012. And these things actually happen all the time, everywhere, as the women regularly scrimmage with quality boys — and lose.
The world’s best women’s hockey team, the Canadian Women’s Olympic Team, played in the Alberta AAA Midget Hockey League (boys 15-17) during the 2013-2014 season. They finished dead last.
The mile record for 15-year-old boys is faster than the women’s world record.

Other examples abound, but the point has been made.

Now, given the above results, it’s ironic that soccer’s U.S. Women’s National Team actually filed a wage-discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Can the boys file a complaint, too?

As for skill levels, there’s a heck of a lot of daylight between boys whose voices recently cracked and top-tier men’s competition. How many rungs down on the ladder are the women, really?

So with this perspective, let me rephrase my earlier question: how much coverage (and money) should a 10^th-rate sporting realm get? (Is this Farxism {feminist Marxism}: from each according to his abilities, to each according to her moaning and groaning?) Answer: forget comparisons with the men.

It would be far more appropriate if women athletes got the coverage and pay of the 15-year-old boys.

Speaking of which, why is it that people watch women’s sports, anyway (to the extent they do), instead of, let’s say, watching superior high-school boys’ competitions? Shouldn’t better athletes draw bigger audiences than lesser ones?

Women’s sports have the success they do largely because of political correctness. This has three basic effects:

There’s a general feeling that since men have a vibrant professional athletics arena, it’s only fair if the women do, too; this leads to institutional impetus to create, perpetuate and subsidize (e.g., the WNBA) professional women’s sporting opportunities.
Decades of feminism and politically correct portrayals of the sexes have led people to believe that female athletes are far better than they actually are. Do you really think women’s sports would enjoy even their current limited commercial success if the average person knew their athletes paled in comparison to high-level high-school boys?
Owing to the above, professional women’s sports are now institutionalized and, at least for some people, have become “a thing to watch.” It’s as with actors or singers. Commercial success requires not that you be the best (or second, third or seventh best) — only that you have a market. This, of course, also explains the careers of most politicians and journalists.

Any complaint about sex inequality in sports should be met with one simple response: if the women want the men’s press or purses, there’s an easy way to get them.

Compete in — and succeed — in the men’s arena. You’ll be the talk of the town.

Isn’t it a little odd, though, complaining about unequal treatment while supporting a system that’s inherently unequal; namely, having separate and protected tours, leagues and teams for women? It’s a bit like forming a basketball league exclusively for short Jewish guys and then bellyaching that they don’t command the salaries of the NBA stars. As The Federalist’s Denise McAllister wrote last year, “If we’re going to have equal pay, then we need to have equal play.”

Instead, people just play at Equality™. Second-rate pay for a tenth-rate arena may not be “fair,” but not in the way feminists think. And if they still don’t agree, I know some 15-year-old boys they can talk to about that.

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

Bloomberg School of Public Health Professor: Take Granny’s Gun

August 20, 2016/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Gun Rights, Policy, Politics/by NRA Institute for Legislative Action

Gun ban advocates, knowing their goals aren’t especially popular with the American people, have in recent years tried to couch their agenda in more innocuous-sounding terms. They don’t want to ban all guns, they’ll say, they just want to keep them out of the wrong hands. But once you start paying close attention to their claims, you realize that the “wrong hands” might be closer and more numerous than you think … and might even include the more senior members of your family.

Breitbart News recently pointed out that an “expert” who works at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (BSPH) is sounding the alarm about firearm possession amongst the elderly. Perhaps not coincidentally, that “expert” also claims that firearm ownership is most common in America for those aged 50 or older.

Dr. Shannon Frattaroli of the Bloomberg School told New America Media that the typical gun control focus on crime and mass shootings leaves out the risks of firearm possession among older Americans. “[A]ny conversation about guns has to include a conversation [about] gun ownership among older adults,” she said. “There’s definitely more to be done on that issue in the United States.”

Frattaroli believes depression, frailty, dementia, grandchildren, and the risks of accidental shootings all counsel against senior citizens keeping firearms in their homes, as she claims, “they would harm someone coming into the home who’s not there for a home invasion, someone there for a legitimate purpose like a caretaker.”

One solution, the New America Media article suggests, is “competency tests for gun owners,” which would be similar to “requiring motorists to prove their proficiency behind the wheel as they grow older.” Another, according to Frattaroli, is allowing a concerned “loved one or neighbor” to obtain a court order to disarm gun owners whom the petitioner considers a risk to themselves or others.

It takes a true gun control extremist to paint Grandma with the same brush as others who are categorically prohibited from possessing firearms, such as felons or those who are addicted to illegal drugs like heroin or methamphetamine.

And while Dr. Frattaroli’s views may seem extreme, she is far from alone in suggesting the aged have a dark side that weighs against trusting them with firearms. Even the Social Security Administration, as we’ve reported, is looking to get into the gun control business by reporting certain of its beneficiaries to the FBI as “mental defectives.”

But lest gun control advocates like Dr. Frattaroli be accused of age discrimination, college students fair no better in their eyes. A spirited classroom discussion is likely to provoke murderous rage, they insist. And if academic debate doesn’t lead to homicide, they argue, binge drinking or other degenerate behavior surely will.

What about adults with children? Shouldn’t someone responsible enough to oversee the well-being of another human being be responsible enough for possessing an inanimate object like a firearm? No, gun control advocates argue. The safest course is for them to forgo guns as well, because the children will find them.

Perhaps single women, then? No, gun controllers will tell you, because they’re too weak to hold onto the gun and too incapable to use it if they do. They’d be better off with whistles to summon help.

Even in an age of advanced political correctness, apparently no stereotype is too offensive to be employed in the pursuit of banning guns. And when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of “dangerous people,” even the Bridge Club or the Shuffleboard League could prove just a little too high-risk to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Twitter bans Breitbart bad boy Milo, but not Islamic State-linked London imam

August 19, 2016/in Culture War, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Jihad Watch

Revealed here: the priorities of the hard Leftists who control Twitter, and of Leftist social justice warriors who in general turn a blind eye to the jihad and consider it “Islamophobic” to stand against it.

Anjem Choudary

“Bias alert: Twitter bans Breitbart bad boy, but not ISIS-linked London loudmouth,” Fox News, August 18, 2016:

The Twitterverse has more to fear from a gay conservative than a fire-breathing ISIS recruiter if the social media giant’s treatment of a pair of prolific and provocative posters is to be squared.

Twitter banned Breitbart tech editor and openly gay conservative Milo Yiannopoulos for life last month after his followers tweeted objectionable comments targeting African-American “Ghostbusters” star Leslie Jones, but a recent case in London’s Old Bailey shows Twitter took a hands-off approach to the poisonous posts of Anjem Choudary.

Jurors in the United Kingdom were told this week that British authorities repeatedly sought to get Choudary’s Twitter posts and YouTube videos taken down after his pledge of allegiance to ISIS surfaced online. Choudary, who in interviews with Fox News and other media has for years made no secret of his embrace of Shariah law and Islamic radicalism, was convicted Tuesday of “inviting support for a proscribed organization,” namely ISIS. He faces up to 10 years in prison when he is sentenced next month.

During the trial, prosecutors complained that despite Choudary’s incendiary Tweets and YouTube videos, they had no power to force social media companies to remove the material.

It’s a sharp contrast to the treatment Twitter last month afforded Yiannopoulos, who was banned from the 140-character forum after his “Ghostbusters” tweets, but says the ban is a reaction to years of conservative posts.

“An Islamic hate preacher convicted of inciting terrorism: fine,” Yiannopoulos told FoxNews.com. “A gay man expressing concern about Muslim immigration: not fine. Welcome to the new, Shariah-compliant Twitter.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Expert warns terrorists may be setting wildfires across American West

Russia: Muslim cleric says “all women should be circumcised”

Robert Spencer, PJM: Creeping Sharia: Kentucky Firefighter Forced Out for Burning a Qur’an

German asylum seekers refuse to work: ‘We are Merkel’s guests’

August 19, 2016/in Culture War, Featured, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Jihad Watch

Decisions on Muslim migration made by leftist politicians have become a scourge on the German people and other European citizens, who have witnessed the slow metamorphosis of their peaceful communities while they pay with their tax dollars for the recklessness of their leaders such as Angela Merkel. Tens of thousands of crimes and assaults have been committed by Muslim migrants in Germany, but these are less of a concern to the politicians who walk with their security detail and their bank accounts intact.

Even in the midst of the Muslim migrant crisis in Germany, Mayor Bernd Pohlers of the eastern town of Saxony Waldenburg, where the asylum seekers refused to accept work, stated his concern about this latest piece of news playing “into the hands of those opposing the mass migration,” evincing yet again the all too familiar stench of political posturing and a cruel disregard for those who cast their votes in trust.

“German asylum seekers refuse to work insisting ‘We are Merkel’s GUESTS’”, by Siobhan McFadyen and Monika Pallenberg, UK Express, August 18, 2016:

ASYLUM seekers in Germany are refusing to undertake work to counteract boredom – using Chancellor Angela Merkel’s generous hospitality as an excuse.

According to mayor Bernd Pohlers of the eastern town of Saxony Waldenburg, the asylum seekers refused to accept the work that was offered to them after they arrived in the country.

The local council spent £600 arranging for the men to have uniforms but were stunned when they were told they would not complete it because they were “guests of Angela Merkel”.

While asylum seekers are not allowed to work under immigration rules within the EU, they are allowed to do voluntary work.

However officials in the district of Zwickau came up with a plan to help encourage those without employment to get back to work and to help them become more accepted within the local community.

In order to do this they created voluntary jobs which included a nominal payment of £18 for 20 hours work.

But all of the male residents of the local refugee accommodation who initially agreed to get involved in the charitable activities quit after discovering there was a minimum wage £7.30 (€8.50) in Germany.

The men had been picked up and offered transportation from their paid-for housing where they are also given food and then dropped home.

Mayor Pohlers said: “It was subsequently argued by these people that they are guests of Mrs. Merkel and guests do not have to work.

“Furthermore, they were of the opinion that there is a minimum wage (€8.50) in Germany, and that this had to be paid by the City Waldenburg.”

Despite attempts at mediation the asylum seekers refused to return to work.

Mayor Pohlers added: “In a specially convened meeting with an interpreter the authorities explained the rules again.

“Unfortunately, no agreement could be reached on the continuation of the measure.”

Now all seven of the jobs have been scrapped.

The mayor spoke out in a bid to highlight the issue of the asylum crisis in Germany.

He said he is aware his statements could play into the hands of those opposing the mass migration.

However after having raised money from the local community to help aid the asylum seeker’s transition into the community, he felt compelled to speak out…..

Refugee Resettlement NOT about Humanitarianism, but about Supplying CHEAP LABOR

August 19, 2016/in Culture War, Economy, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Ann Corcoran

I had plenty of confirmation on my recent 30-day swing through cities and towns of the west and mid-west that it is industries looking to boost their bottom lines that drive most refugee resettlement in America.

Chris Kantosky

It is food processing/meat packing, manufacturing, and the hotel industry that have discovered they can enjoy the cheap labor (while refugees continue to bolster their income with welfare*** of all sorts) at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer and at the expense of the cultural and social upheaval communities experience.

Here is one more piece of news to support what I have been saying for years. And, remember as you read this that Bowling Green is Senator Rand Paul’s home town.

At one time, Paul was questioning the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program. That was in the wake of the arrests and ultimate conviction of two Iraqi refugees found to be terrorists living and working there (so much for security screening!). He is nowhere to be seen on the issue now.

I want to urge all of you, as you to do your research on your refugee overloaded city (or city about to become a ‘welcoming’ city), to research the campaign contributions of your elected officials right down to the local mayor and council level. Find out their business connections and expose them!

And, don’t allow yourselves to get bogged down by the open borders Left trying to tell you that the driver for the seeding of your towns with diversity is a humanitarian desire to help the downtrodden of the world (tell them to help our own poor people first!).

From the Bowling Green Daily News (hat tip: Robin). What! Kentucky has no more Americans who want jobs?

You should know that the International Center is a subcontractor of USCRI, that is the same federal contractor working in Twin Falls, Idaho and wishing to start an office in Rutland, VT and Reno, NV.

Resettled refugees are being sought at a greater frequency to fill local jobs, Chris Kantosky, chief operations officer of The International Center of Kentucky told the Barren River Area Development District board on Wednesday.

“There are 650 open manufacturing jobs in Warren County alone,” Kantosky said. The International Center also has worked to help fill a 75-job need in Barren County, and within two weeks 50 of the jobs were filled by refugees, he said.

“They are coming to Bowling Green and Warren County because we have jobs, a great educational system, a low cost of living, the community is safe and there is an opportunity to excel,” said Kantosky, who has been working with refugees for the past 26 years.

[….]

A one-time allocation of $1,125 federal funds per refugee, or about $5,600 for a family, is used to finance resettlement logistics. The money needs to be spent in about 30 days to buy everything from a clock radio to beds, furniture and food to outfit the apartment selected for the refugees to stay. By the time the individuals reach the Nashville International Airport from their home country, they are a car ride away from a hot meal in their new home.

What Mr. Kantosky isn’t telling you in the previous paragraph is that his agency gets approximately another $1000 per head to spend on themselves!

Now this is incredible. I knew the contractors sat around in D.C. and divvied up the refugees as they came in (LOL! I envision many squabbles as they bid for bodies! But, has it come to this—a lottery!). So where are the real reporters at places like the New York Times and Washington Post—why aren’t you demanding entry to the weekly lottery meeting! I would like to know if any industry lobbyists are in those weekly meetings!

Bowling Green News continues:

Refugee resettlement locations are determined by a weekly lottery in the nation’s capital. “A refugee can only go back to their home country if their country is re-stabilized,” Kantosky said.

And, about this bit about not going home—many refugees who get here are unhappy and want to go home, but they are trapped because most can’t afford the airfare home. This is the part of this program that makes many of us think about slave labor!

Click here to see our extensive archive on Bowling Green and the many problems they have had there over the years in addition to the Islamic terror scare a few years ago. And, mosques are springing up everywhere to accommodate the growing Muslim refugee population.

***Most refugees are on welfare of some sort which makes anyone who employs them eligible for the federal Work Opportunity Tax Credit. An employer thus has a greater incentive to hire a refugee than some American who is struggling, but doesn’t want to be on welfare (including food stamps). A refugee’s salary is subsidized by the US taxpayer, while an average American’s job isn’t. I’ve wondered if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was somehow involved in creating this system.

Any ambitious researchers out there who would like to dig deeper into this program which incentivizes hiring refugees and write a guest post, let me know! Email: refugeewatcher@gmail.com

EDITORS NOTE: Chris Kantosky is the COO of the International Center of Kentucky. He must have told the BGN reporter that they are choosing which refugees come to which city by a weekly lottery system in Washington, D.C.

It Is Time For The Right Direction

August 19, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Policy, Religion/by Ron Edwards

The great Frederick Douglas was born into slavery in 1818 and later died one of the major pillars of American history in 1895. He had a natural desire to seek the truth. Douglas also refused to except the bonds of physical, mental, or either spiritual slavery. Unfortunately, today far too many of our countrymen and women have fallen prey to the slavery of self defeat and bitterness, which in turn negatively affects our republic. Meanwhile, the United States as a whole has suffered a major decline because many sovereign individuals are achieving far below their positive potential. I am amazed at how Frederick Douglas focused upon and obtained his own freedom, long before Lincoln freed the slaves. Mr. Douglas lived a full life as an author, statesman and abolitionist. He was arguably the greatest orator of the 19th century.

His skills as a public speaker were so refined that many of his white abolitionist pals became offended. They did so because, although they wanted Blacks to be free, they most certainly did not believe that a Black man should out shine them in the area of public oratory. Some were actually known to say that the excellence of Frederick Douglas as a speaker was just going a bit too far and that he needed to tone it down a bit. Many abolitionists believed blacks to be victims who would always need help. That is the way progressive democrat party liberals views black Americans today. Whereas, Douglas argued that blacks were just as capable as everyone else to fend for themselves. He was certainly proof of that assessment.

Douglas’s mode of thinking offended others who refused to accept the concept of reaching the upper realm of accomplishment. That sort of reminds me of the progressives of today who believe that Blacks and almost everyone else should simply exist under the control of others who want to rule over us from cradle to grave. My belief is that if Frederick Douglas could ascend to the level of success he enjoyed, then today unless one is dead, or totally disabled there is no excuse to simply exist and seek to help destroy America through Black Lives matter monkey business. The only other exception to that rule is if the government throttles the economy into retraction through over-regulation, high taxes or stupid international trade deals. Thus making it impossible to create more opportunities via jobs or entrepreneurship.

I believe that a seed of greatness is placed within each of by our loving creator. Unfortunately, there is an ambitious class of leftist/globalist thinkers who want to stunt the growth and achievement of certain people, especially black men. The founders of our republic had hoped to create a long lasting republic form of government of free men who would sustain and expand the concept of a society that recognized the unalienable God given rights of everyone. Not unmotivated wards of the state, who’s government drones want to tell us what doctor to see, or what we may or may not teach our own children. I personally believe that America will return to her position of greatness. For as my father often said, “that a nation is no greater than the path taken by her people.” I believe many Americans will turn away from the present path of doom for the United States and merge forge a new path of ascension for our republic.

As we remember the importance of and celebrate patriotism, we must not forget morality. In fact, Thomas Jefferson stated,

The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society. He, meaning God has taken care to impress it’s precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effected by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus, and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in his discourses.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, Americans all, with each passing day that our great, but troubled republic drifts just a bit further from the principles rooted in moral strength, courage and God’s living word. We are witnessing a temporary deterioration of affairs both foreign and domestic.

Yes, there is still a lot to be admired, love and be thankful for in being able to call America home. But we cannot afford to allow her to remain on the present dismal course leading away from her Biblical foundation toward utter disaster. Our liberty and right to be able to promote the Bible, Christmas, the Constitution, and traditional marriage has been disintegrating precipitously. Mainly because of our unwillingness or inability to boldly steer the United States away from the grip of those who’s only mission is to fundamentally change our worthy nation into a worthless, Muslim dominated dictatorship.

Government schools, along with the dragon media and even major Christian denominations were handed over to those who do not have our nation’s best interest at heart. As a result, several generations of young Americans have been indoctrinated away from the moral, intellectual and spiritual glue that holds our nation together. So now, for the first time in our republic’s history, most government school and college graduates desire communism more than liberty and capitalism. Our seventh president, Andrew Jackson, also known as Old Hickory said concerning the Bible, “That book sir is the rock upon which our republic rests.” Unfortunately, today America is sinking in a newer foundation of sand.

But we do not have to settle for this. Because as we improve, America regenerates. There is a clear and present course we can embark upon that begins with prayer.

Just as our founding fathers knew the power and purpose of prayer to almighty God. There is a process: within the God given wisdom of our founding documents, we have been granted clear and certain processes for bringing about change concerning what we perceive as wrong for our land.

We must participate: Participating within the process for change is the ultimate key to our success. It is foolish to gripe and complain about what one considers wrong or unjust in our republic and not participate in the process of changing it for the better.

No one said the battle would be easy. But we need to persevere if America is to be great again. Let’s you and I connect every Friday on AM 1180 KCKQ or www.americamatters.us at 2:00 PM PST, 5:00 PM EST. The discussion will be lively, informative and more than worth your time. For more information on yours truly go to theronedwards.com.

Donald J. Trump versus the Ideology of Soviet Fascism

August 18, 2016/in Culture War, Immigration, Labor & Unions, National Security, Policy, Politics/by Simona Pipko

History is the Mother of all sciences. I have been writing about Soviet/Russian subversive activities and interference in our elections for many years, while others have slept under the illusion of the USSR’s collapse. Therefore don’t let the title of this article surprise you. I am a former Soviet attorney who has written on the subject of Soviet Socialism, which I called Soviet Fascism for twenty years, published three books and written over 50 articles on the topic. You haven’t heard of me because our Intelligence Agencies didn’t want to aggravate the situation vis-à-vis Russia and blocked the information about my books and articles. Our government hasn’t responded properly to Soviet Fascism and as a result the world is shocked by revelations of criminal activities by the Russian/KGB government today. I said it twenty years ago and I repeat it today, Wake up America!

A few days before the Democrat Party Convention, I published an article about Hillary’s collaborations with Russian President Putin that continued during her entire tenure as Secretary of State of America. Please read it to learn the ‘real’ agenda of the Democrat leadership. Yes, it was an alliance of the Democrat leadership with the Russian/KGB government to the detriment of our country. Read my latest book Socialist Lies to become acquainted with the Obama/Putin joint venture to see how it sabotaged American interests around the globe for years. Obama and Hillary deserve each other—as they implement their promised transformation of America, they have become stealth enemies of Reagan’s America the Beautiful.

In fact, we see a purposely organized actions to transform America’s Capitalist, market-based economy to Soviet-style socialism. The rising level of political corruption, lawless tricks and violence to prevent Trump’s presidency resembles Stalin’s Russia. Consider the words of a person, who is not a supporter of Trump: What I See Happening In a Trump Presidency, By Bill Bennett: “They will kill him before they let him be president. It could be a Republican or a Democrat that instigates the shutting up of Trump. Don’t be surprised if Trump has an accident. Some people are getting very nervous: Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton and Jon Corzine, to name just a few…” Bill Bennet is right, he is identifying the ideology of Soviet Fascism and the Clinton Mafia that I have been warning you about in all my books. Violence? YES! Consider the three Democrat staffers associated with DNC that were murdered in the run up to the opening of the Democrat Convention to cover up the truth…

I see more and more the practices of Soviet Fascism in America. Look at the key topics of discussion in the current presidential campaign–they are crucial to our very existence. Do you know that all of them derived from the same source? For instance, Trump’s recent statement, identifying Obama and Clinton as the co- founders of ISIS deserves more attention, because Trump is wrong only in numbers. There are three co-founders of ISIS—the third one is the Kremlin. Knowledge of Russia is dismal in the contemporary America, we have been dragged into WW III and we flail away at an enemy we can’t clearly recognize.

These circumstances force me to present my opinion on the subject.

Yes, history is the Mother of all sciences. My knowledge of the Soviet history is pretty solid—I lived through it and I’ll discuss the recent events involved in the presidential campaign using this knowledge:

American economy is shackled—our GDP is 1.2 per cent. Political Correctness and its inventor—Stalin’s war against capitalism
Terrorism, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood—Stalin’s teaching.
The Clinton Foundation—an appendix of the Soviet Mafia in America.
Fifty GOP analysts are against Trump and CENTCOM manufacturing data.
The American economy has been shackled for the last several decades because the Socialist system advocated and incrementally implemented by the Democrat Party isn’t productive—it is a fraud invented by Stalin. Please, read Socialist Lies: From Stalin to Clintons, Obamas, and Sanders. The key point in the book is Stalin’s invention of the Socialist machinery including Political Correctness. The Socialist machinery is a continuation of Marx’s fraud, quadrupled by Stalin. Being the first Soviet leader who “designed” the state of the Soviet Socialist machinery, Stalin created ever more fraud, deceits, and lies delivering to the people a never ending process (struggle) instead of the promised result.

Stalin designed his model of socialism by substituting the result with the process. To do so, he used two key Marxist concepts: promises and an indefinite time span to fulfill the promises. The deception mechanism started there. Using time, while promising “a bright future,” private property was confiscated and nationalized throughout Russia. Stalin was the first leader in the world who had successfully transformed the Russian social strata and built a new socialist economic system–a strictly regulated centralized system, served by the army of a huge bureaucracy, subordinated to him.

Hence, the birth place of Soviet Fascism is Russia, and the author and architect is Joseph Stalin. Do you not recognize those elements being implemented here? Tens of thousands of regulations on our economy, placed there by a huge federal bureaucracy! Hence the knowledge of the Soviet history and the activities of the Soviet Academy of Science under the KGB auspices is crucial for every politician and mandatory for those dealing with the domestic and foreign policy today.

To cover up his fraud, Stalin invented a method of manipulating the human mind—Political Correctness. Stalin had an incredible ability to mislead, lie, and defraud, he was so skillful at the politics of fraud that nobody could compete with him in the art of intrigue. Political correctness (the Communist Party line) had no opponents (he killed most of them) and reigned in the country, giving Stalin absolute POWER. Unprecedented personal destruction of his opponents with the help of the Soviet media, which all belonged to the government and was totally subordinated to Stalin. This ubiquitous machinery of Stalinist Socialism is now applied by many foreign leaders who fight Western civilization. Just watch an organized, vicious assault on Trump by our liberal media, then consider this history of Political Correctness:

“In the early-to- mid 20th century, contemporary uses of the phrase “Politically Correct” were associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between formal communists (members of the Communist Party) and socialists. The phrase was a colloquialism referring to the communist party line, which provided for “correct” positions on many matters of politics, according to American educator Herbert Kohl writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s.”

This Stalinist practice has spread across the world. You wouldn’t find a TV station, radio, any public or private discussions where these two words are not pronounced hundreds times every day. The term has become so familiar to our ears that we are using it and had never thought about its origin, let alone about its author. I am not sure that even those who came to America from the socialist countries new the origin of the term. Only a few did.

Actually Political Correctness was presented as the official policy of the Russian Government in the newspaper Izvestia in 1933. The arrogant American Left armed with Stalin’s PC is changing the very character of our America the Beautiful, destroying the American dream. The best illustration of that is the Democrat Party Convention, with a skillfully crafted system of devious lies. I am not surprised that Obama, the community-organizer/radical activist, promised to transform America, and he is using Stalinist tricks and methods to achieve the result. You saw many times the Democrats lying to cover up the fraud like Stalin did… Socialist Lies, pp. 18-24

Terrorism, ISIS, The Muslim Brotherhood—Stalin’s teaching

I have to start again with history of Stalin. He was the first Soviet leader, who was brought up and educated in Muslim culture. In his war against capitalism, he noticed the similarity in agendas of Islam and Communism. At the end of WW II the opportunity came to formally unite the two, when Nazi Germany was defeated and the leaders of Muslim Brotherhood moved from Berlin to Moscow. Stalin married Islam with Communist ideology using the Muslim Brotherhood in his agenda against capitalism. The marriage gave birth to the ideology of Islamism and a political Jihad—and the KGB was a parent of both. Infiltration to the Middle East began with recruitment of Arafat in the 1950’s became global and never ended since. All terrorist groups and ISIS are the logical continuation of KGB policy in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood today. They are fighting WW III. Socialist Lies, by Simona Pipko, Xlibris, 2016

If you follow Obama’s foreign policies, you will find an incredible similarity with Stalin’s policy toward the Muslim Brotherhood: Obama advocated and helped the criminal thug Morsi to build so-called “democracy” in Egypt, providing him with American foreign aid in the form of high-tech planes, arms military equipment and ammunition. What Stalin began in the end of 1940’s was continued by all consequent Soviet leaders during the 20th century. The Democrats and Obama with Russian help brought that policy to the 21st century. Yet, Obama wasn’t the first American President collaborating with Russia—Bill Clinton preceded him…

The Clinton Foundation—an Appendage of the Soviet Mafia in America

I have written many pages about the Soviet Mafia that ran Stalinist Socialism and spread itself across the globe. For this reason I called the Clinton Gang, the Clinton Mafia. I have had a dislike for Bill Clinton ever since I saw him among a group of the Russian youngsters, organized by the KGB in the 1970s. Then, I found out that Clinton lived with the family of a KGB member in Moscow. Knowing what I know about the KGB presented me a real picture of that man.

Later it was the election, where a suspicious threat to Ross Perrot made Bill Clinton the U.S. President in 1992. His connection with Russia has always alarmed me. His presidency just doubled my dislike for him, as enormous harm had been done to America. Later, in writing my third book and researching Bill Clinton again, I found out an interesting fact that, perhaps will convince you of the validity of my suspicions.

Researching Bill’s whereabouts, I read about Bill Clinton and his visit to Moscow. On June 9, 1991, two-and- a half months before announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Bill Clinton flew to Moscow. The True Story of the Bilderberg Group, by Daniel Estulin, Trine Day LLC, 2009, p.52. Moreover, some people knew about it. The Arkansas Democrat ran the story under the headline Clinton Has Powerful Buddy in the U.S.S.R.—New Head of KGB.

I am not asking why Clinton flew to Moscow. I know why. Knowing the KGB and its suspicions of any foreigner, my question is – who provided the secret means of communication with the Russian Security Services (the KGB) to enable an American plane to land without any complications to the Moscow airport? In the light of the recent Hillary Clinton scandals involving foreign money, you should consider the means of communication. It can bring light on Benghazi and many other unsolved scandals—it is at the crux of the matter in the upcoming election.

“The FBI has now enlisted Bharara’s office in part for his aggressiveness that many career DOJ attorneys may lack. Over the years the Clinton Foundation has collected $2 billion in donations from all over the world that sparked FBI suspicion, as well as the general public. In its 15 years, the Clinton Foundation has taken in more than $2 billion in donations from around the world, the Daily Caller reported. At stake is how did Hillary Clinton use her position as Secretary of State to influence foreign donors in what is commonly referred to as a “Pay for Play” scheme. “FBI, US Attorney Launch Probe Into Clinton Foundation, By Mark Swanson Friday, 12 Aug 2016.

A “Pay for Play” scheme is the essence of the Soviet Mafia activities – poker ante in Putin’s playbook. Moreover, donations from corrupt countries and terrorists have led many to believe that Bill and Hillary could be the founders/abettors of disgusting terrorist groups including ISIS. They are. Therefore, practical knowledge of today’s Russia is a must in any such investigation…Yet, I am afraid that Mr. Bharara will wind up dead before he even finds anything. You have to know Soviet Fascism to survive…

The Clinton Foundation is much more than what you know about it. Representative Michele Bachmann said, “The Clinton Foundation was nothing more than an international money laundering ring.” I would say the Clinton Foundation is more than that: it is the eyes and ears of the Kremlin. Writing about America’s politics vis-à-vis contemporary Russia is my routine for the last few decades and I am constantly addressing the subject of organized crime as a part of the Soviet Mafia to emphasize how the institutionalized corruption spreads across the globe. The Clinton Foundation is an appendix of the Soviet Mafia in America.

There is another event that deserves attention and deep thinking about the Clinton Mafia. Do you remember Monica’s “blue dress?” I have found an interesting chronology connected to the “blue dress” in 1998. The FBI asked for Clinton’s blood sample to compare it with the sperm’s stain on the “blue dress,” three days later the terrorists committed two tragic blasts of American Embassies in Africa. Coincidence? Don’t tell me about the coincidences in life. It is the “work” of the Russian connection to divert attention from Clinton and “the blue dress.” This is a segment in the Clinton collaboration with the Russian KGB government. Clinton is not the only one…

As a matter of fact, while writing Socialist Lies, I have introduced a new term—Obama/Putin joint venture named Destruction of the American Republic, pp.191-193. It was done at the time of the Nuclear Agreement with Iran, boosted by Russia. You have as a result two Democrat American Presidents with a failed Progressive Policy that has brought America to the point of no return. I hope you agree with me: Knowledge is Power—knowledge of history a must in the 21st century. Liberalism is the most destructive force in our country: liberals destroyed the Democrat Party of Harry Truman, and now they are destroying America the Beautiful…

Fifty GOP analysts against Trump and CENTCOM is manufacturing

What I said in the preceding paragraphs are a partial answer to this segment. But in addition, look attentively on the recent history of our Intel. We are constantly losing our Western culture and the traditional values of civilization. The most crucial loss is our system of government left to us by our Founding Fathers. Our Federal Government is responsible to defend us from our enemies foreign and domestic. One of the most important ways the government does that is through intelligence gathering and analysis. For the past couple of decades our Intel has failed miserably to do their job:

Some of those 50 GOP analysts were consulting George W. Bush on Putin’s soul— they legitimized him and his action– you know the result.
Some of those 50 analysts are blocking information on my books and articles. My computer is checked 24/7, my phone is tapped, my mail is arrested. I was kicked out from two universities, because I was teaching, speaking and writing the truth about Stalin and Russia. Our Intel left America blind and naked against the enemy in the current WW III.
Those 50 GOP analysts missed all anti-American activities of the left during the last decades. The best example is a criminal connection of our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Iranian President Ahmadinejad in 2009. The law forbid any dealing with terrorists. You know the result—it is Obama Nuke Deal with Iran, the biggest sponsor of terrorism after Russia…
George Soros is the enemy, freely working against our interest for the last decades and our Intel had not been able to expose him, though there were multiple opportunities to show who he is and his real face.
Our Intel has missed a criminal deal of Obama, Putin, and Sarkozy toward Libya. We are paying a dear price for this deal. Socialist Lies, pp. 125-126.
Our Intel has missed another criminal deal of the Clinton administration in the 1996 election. The criminal deal was executed by Rahm Emanuel and governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell in the 1996 election—Pennsylvania voted Democratic…The fix was in and the same trick was repeated in the 2012 election, when, as we found out after the fact, not one person voted for Romney in Philadelphia…

These are only a few examples to save the time. However, another result of Intel’s miserable failure is the infiltration of our enemies into all strata of our society and government, especially military. CENTCOM’s alteration of real ISIS data is one result of that, yet, it is only one example—the consequences of the infiltration will be more dramatic and deadly in the future. We are dealing with Soviet Fascism.

Look at our media—everybody is talking about ideology, but nobody named it, despite the fact that I have written about Soviet Fascism for the last twenty years. We are dealing with a public media that serves one party’s interest—the Democrat Party. Hence, our Intel and the incompetent mainstream media are responsible for all these failures. Just a couple of days ago Trump clearly pointed out that under

Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, ISIS achieved unprecedented success in a short time because of the environment the Democrat leadership had created. He is right, but you saw the media negative reaction and perversion. Please, read my description of the events, confirming his statement. Socialist Lies, pp. 191-193

We are at war in WW III waged by Soviet fascism. Alas, my beloved America can’t recognize it…

To be continued at www.simonapipko1.com.