Florida Rep. Ray Pilon files legislation returning power to parents, teachers and school boards

Florida Citizens Alliance (FLCA) has been working on both a comprehensive bill to restore local K-12 education control and a focused curriculum bill to fix the loopholes in SB 864, passed in 2014 as FS 1006.283.

FLCA in a press release states:

We are very pleased to report that Senator Alan Hays and Representative Ray Pilon are championing companion bills to fix FS 1006.283 and its loopholes:  SB 1018 and HB 899.

The purpose/intent of the original SB 864 was to assign constitutional responsibility for all instructional materials to school boards, and require a transparent policy/process for school boards and parents to remove objectionable materials. Due to several loopholes in FS 1006.283, the spirit and intent of the original bill are currently being ignored by many school districts in Florida.

Here is a brief summary of the loopholes that the two companion bills (SB 1018 and HB 899) that are intended to “fix” FS 1006.283.

FLCA in an email states:

Please use the petition at right to send a “shout out” to Senator Hays and Representative Pilon, thanking them for their leadership, and to urge your Florida House Representative and Florida Senator to co-sponsor their respective versions of these bills.  The petition is also copying your local school board, asking them to aggressively support these companion bills.

FLCA is urging Florida parents, students and teachers to call their house representative and senator to ask that they co-sponsor these bills. Here are FLCA talking points you can use in your call.  Use these links to get appropriate phone numbers for the Florida House and Florida Senate. We strongly suggest that you call now (before Christmas) and again in January as the legislative cycle begins.

Passage of these companion bills will require an aggressive and sustained set of actions to garner support. Here is an expanded set of 5 actions that FLCA urges parents, students and teachers to put into practice in support of these companion bills.

ABOUT THE FLORIDA CITIZENS ALLIANCE:

The Florida Citizens’ Alliance (FLCA) is a coalition of citizens and grassroots groups working together through education, outreach and community involvement to advance the ideals and principles of liberty.  We believe these include but are not limited to individual rights, free markets, and limited government.

VIDEO: Knife-brandishing Muslim threatens Donald Trump

This video is certain to convince ol’ Trump that Islam is a Religion of Peace, and that he should, as Bah Ebou demands, show some more “respect.” Or else.

If Trump is circumcised, will he change his mind about Muslim immigration?

WARNING: Strong language, high emotions, and a certain paucity of calm, rational argumentation.

Video thanks to Tea Partyer.

RELATED ARTICLE: Some Muslims in U.S. irritated by Obama’s call for them to root out “extremism”

EDITORS NOTE: Will U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch arrest this Muslim for violent talk?

Study: Internet now the ‘driving force’ in creating political power, voter influence and accountability

LOS ANGELES, CA /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Move over, television – the Internet has become a driving force behind politics and political campaigns.

The Center for the Digital Future has found that large and growing percentages of Americans now view the Internet as vital in key aspects of politics – for conducting campaigns, for generating political power, and for making elected officials more accountable.

The Center’s study found that 74 percent of all respondents agree that the Internet has become important for political campaigns, up from 71 percent in the previous study and a new high for the Digital Future studies that began in 1999.

“The Internet has become a vitally important tool for users seeking political information during campaigns,” saidJeffrey I. Cole, director of the Center for the Digital Future and creator of the World Internet Project.

“Fifty years ago, television surpassed newspapers as the primary communication medium for people seeking information for political campaigns,” said Cole.  ” Now the Internet is assuming a much more prominent role in political communication – for learning more about candidates, for sharing political views, for mobilizing constituents, and especially for fundraising.”

“And we have found significant changes in the number of users who believe that the Internet can become a tool for political power and voter influence,” Cole said.

The findings on the role of the Internet in the political process are featured in the thirteenth edition of the Digital Future Report, released today by the Center.  The 171-page report for 2015 explores more than 100 issues involving the impact of online technology in the United States.

New high levels of agreement about the Internet in the political process

All of the following are the highest levels to date for the Digital Future Project:

  • Sixty-seven percent of users agree or strongly agree that going online can help people better understand politics, up from 63 percent in 2013.
  • Forty-two percent of users agree or strongly agree that by using the Internet, people like them can have more political power, an increase from 37 percent in 2013.
  • Forty-two percent of respondents believe that by using the Internet, public officials will care more about what people like them think, up from 32 percent in 2013.
  • Forty-one percent agree or strongly agree that the Internet gives people more say in what the government does, up from 32 percent in 2013.

“These trends are clearly demonstrated in recent political campaigns,” Cole said.  “In 2008, the Republicans did not pay attention to social media, but Barack Obama used digital communication in his first presidential campaign as a primary tool in developing his power base.  Now social media is integral to all campaign strategies – Democratic or Republican.”

2015 Digital Future Report: Background

The Digital Future Report has been produced annually by the Center for the Digital Future since 2000, and is the first to develop a longitudinal panel study of the views and behavior of Internet users and non-users in the United States.  The survey, conducted from October 2014 to January 2015, has a margin of error of +/- 3.0 percent.  The annual report of survey findings, now in its 13th edition, is the longest continuing study of its kind.  The study’s broad categories include:

  • Internet Users And Non-Users: Who Is Online? What Are Users Doing Online?
  • Media Use And Trust
  • Consumer Behavior
  • Communication Patterns
  • Social Effects

To view the report and findings from previous studies, visit www.digitalcenter.org.

The Center for the Digital Future

Since 1999, the Center for the Digital Future (digitalcenter.org) in the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism has examined the behavior and views of a national sample of Internet users and non-users in major annual surveys of the impact of the Internet on America.  The center also created and organizes the World Internet Project, which includes similar research with 37 international partners.

About the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism

Located in Los Angeles at the University of Southern California, the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism is a national leader in education and scholarship in the fields of communication, journalism, public diplomacy and public relations. With an enrollment of more than 2,200 students, USC Annenberg offers doctoral, master’s and bachelor’s degree programs, as well as continuing development programs for working professionals across a broad scope of academic inquiry. The school’s comprehensive curriculum emphasizes the core skills of leadership, innovation, service and entrepreneurship and draws upon the resources of a networked university located in the media capital of the world.

“Racial” and “Religious” Profiling Now — or Death Later

“If You See Something, Say Something™” the DHS slogan goes (yes, it is trademarked). “It takes a community to protect a community,” the feds continue. “Informed, alert communities play a critical role in keeping our nation safe.” No doubt. But the best information in the world is of little use if social pressure prevents one from disclosing it. Such was the case before the San Bernardino tragedy, when a man living near terrorist Syed Farook’s Redlands home noticed suspicious-looking Middle Eastern men in the area. But he “decided not to report anything,” wrote CBS Los Angeles, “since he did not wish to racially profile those people.” Ah, the power of a lie — to silence. And to kill.

And it’s time to kill that lie. This starts with grasping a simple truth: There is no such thing as “racial profiling” or “religious profiling” per se. There is only good criminal profiling and bad criminal profiling. The good variety considers all relevant factors, based on sound criminological science, regardless of political concerns. The bad kind discriminates unjustly among those factors and only allows greater suspicion and scrutiny of people who aren’t politically favored.

For example, I’m a member of one of the most profiled groups in the nation: males. Police view men much more suspiciously than women because men commit an inordinate amount of the crime. If this is just, however, shouldn’t we apply the exact same standard to all other groups that commit an inordinate amount of crime? And if considering racial factors is “racial profiling” and must be eliminated, isn’t considering sexual factors “sex profiling”? Shouldn’t it also be forbidden?

Of course, racial factors are considered all the time. If a white man is cruising a bad neighborhood in an expensive car, the police may stop him because they know the probability is relatively high he’s there to buy drugs. And at one time part of the profile of someone in the methamphetamine trade was “white,” as white motorcycle gangs used to be its main players.

Profiling is simply a fancy name for the “application of common sense.” As economist Dr. Walter Williams has pointed out, it’s a method by which we can make determinations based on scant information when the cost of obtaining more information is too high. For example, an Israeli airport-security agent could make far better judgments if he could spend a month living with every prospective traveler, getting to know him and his family. But since this is unrealistic, the agent has to assess probabilities based on the little information he has. And rest assured that the Israelis scrutinize young Muslim men far more closely than elderly Norwegian grandmothers.

We all engage in profiling, as it’s necessary for survival. If a person avoids a group of rough-hewn young men walking down the street, refuses to buy a car off a sleazy-looking used-car salesman, or if a child is wary of petting a strange dog, the individual has engaged in “profiling.” To refuse to thus act would be as silly as a cat not avoiding dogs because there are the odd canine-feline friendships. It could win you the year’s Darwin Award.

Doctors practice profiling, too, when they assess the diseases and conditions for which a patient should be screened. To use some examples Dr. Williams has cited, Pima Indians have the world’s highest diabetes rate; black men have a prostate cancer rate twice that of white men; and physicians check women and not men for breast cancer even though men occasionally develop it, and recommend prostate exams for men over 40. When a doctor does this, is he guilty of “racism,” “sexism” and “ageism”?

Reality: if he didn’t consider these relevant racial, sex-related and age-related factors when conducting his duties, he’d be a bad doctor. In light of this, let’s finish the following sentence: If a policeman doesn’t consider relevant racial, sex-related and age-related factors when conducting his duties, he’s _ ___ _________.

Oh, note that any politician, activist or voter who encourages him to be a _ ___ _________ is a bad citizen.

And there are many relevant group-related factors for authorities to consider. Men account for 81 percent of all violent-crime arrests; those aged 15–24, though only 14 percent of the population, account for approximately 40 percent of all arrests; and 96 percent of all crime in NYC is committed by blacks and Hispanics. Should these facts be ignored by authorities?

There are belief-oriented factors in crime as well. There was quite a bit of terrorism in the 1970s, perpetrated mainly by left-wing groups such as the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Army, anti-Vietnam War protesters and the Black Panthers. Thus, harboring these groups’ beliefs was part of the terrorist profile. Today, almost all the terrorism bedeviling us is committed by Muslims. Should authorities in 2015 play the three-monkeys game and ignore a clear-cut and consistent belief-oriented association with terrorism?

FACT: “Muslim” is now the most relevant factor in the terrorist profile. Anyone who denies this in political correctness’ name is hurting our country and should be shamed, stigmatized and ostracized. He should hear: “You’re a bad person. You’re a malefactor. And you’re aiding and abetting terrorism.”

Mind you, even those who rail against good profiling — using the propaganda term “racial profiling” — profile using racial factors. They just do it all wrong. Immediately after the San Bernardino shooting, MSNBC suggested it might be the work of pro-lifers (profile: “white”). CNN opined that it could have been perpetrated by militia types (profile: “white”). It was the kind of dishonesty inspiring some leftists to claim that white people are our biggest terror threat. Yet this assertion uses a raw-numbers comparison of murderers from a group representing 62 percent of the population with those from a group representing less than 2 percent of it, conflates a category with a creed (non-ideological mass killings with Islam-inspired incidents), and confuses acts of deranged minds with global jihad. Moreover, as I illustrated last year using statistical analysis, it’s a myth that whites commit in inordinate percentage of mass shootings.

Despite this, we’re supposed to believe criminal profiling is criminal itself when applied to some of the most criminally inclined groups. You can profile men. You can profile the young. You can profile whites. But profile Muslims or some other thought-police favored group, and you’re told you’re bigoted. It isn’t consistent application of good criminological science that indicates prejudice, however. Rather, that’s reflected in refusing to do so, in discriminating when applying that science — in contravention of its own findings.

During a presidential debate years ago, Ambassador Alan Keyes, a black man, was asked by a moderator if he’d be upset if a policeman stopped him because he was black. Keyes responded (I’m paraphrasing), “Yes, I’d be upset. I’d be upset at all of the young black men who committed crimes and caused authorities to look upon me more suspiciously.” We can all get offended, or pretend to be offended, by reality. But since I as a man want to be safe from crime, I accept that “male” will often be part of a criminal profile. If a young person wants to be safe from crime, he’ll accept that “young” will often be part of a criminal profile. If a black person wants to be safe from crime, he’ll accept that “black” will often be part of a criminal profile. Now, here’s another sentence to finish: If a person calling himself Muslim wants to be safe from terrorism, he’ll accept that “______” __ ____ __ ___ _________ _______.

If a politician can’t fill in those blanks, then that’s precisely what he’s shooting in the war against Muslim terrorism.

RELATED ARTICLE: President Jimmy Carter Banned Iranians from Coming to U.S. During Hostage Crisis

EDITORS NOTE: Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com. The following countries ban the entry of Jews: Algeria, Bangladesh, Brunei, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

The Paris Energy Poverty Summit

I recently wrote a series of articles for prominent newspapers around the country on why we should carefully watch the ongoing anti-fossil fuel negotiations in Paris. The summary:

“The heads of 190 countries, including President Obama, are meeting for the United Nations Conference on Climate Change.Their goal is to reach an international agreement that will stall – or even reverse – human progress.”

The article has been picked up by 22 newspapers in more than a dozen states and still counting…

The Montgomery Advertiser (AL)
The Waco Tribune (TX)
The Santa Fe New Mexican (NM)
The Alaska Dispatch News (AK)
The Delaware News Journal (DE)
The Detroit News (MI)
Tulsa World (OK)
The Ft. Myers News Press (FL)
The Knoxville News Sentinel (TN)
The Charleston Daily Mail (WV)
The Orange County Register (CA)
The New London Day (CT)
The Nashua Telegraph (NH)
The Richmond Times Dispatch [VA]
The Buffalo News (NY)
The Las Vegas Review Journal (NV)
The Colorado Springs Gazette [CO]
The Sun Sentinel (South FL)
The Tampa Tribune (FL)
The Reno Gazette Journal (NV)
The Northwest Indiana Times (IN)
The Lansing State Journal (MI)

How to Win Hearts and Minds on Energy, Part 3: From Champion to Thought-Leader

In part two of this series, I discussed how an energy advocate can become an energy champion. An energy champion is “An individual with a high level of clarity, confidence, and motivation who reaches dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of others.

If you have a “regular job” as against being a full-time writer/speaker/advocate/activist, I think being an energy champion is both a rewarding and achievable goal.

If you want to go a level beyond that, though, it’s important to know that such a level exists–the thought-leader.

Energy thought-leader: An individual whom one of more significant audiences regard as a go-to thinker on energy issues.

Many different organizations and groups are actively interested in energy issues. To take just a handful: university professors, high school students, the Silicon Valley tech community, coal industry employees, energy-related think-tanks, churches, college students, Hollywood, chambers of commerce, political parties.

Ask yourself: what groups am I most interested in or connected to? And could I possibly be a thought-leader in those groups? Or–could I influence a thought-leader in those groups?

The second is usually much, much easier than the first. In the last installment I gave the example of my friend Chad Morris recommending The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels to business thought-leader Dan Sullivan; Sullivan loved the book and his thought-leadership exposed it to thousands of high-level entrepreneurs. Do you know of any thought-leaders you might be able to influence? If you do and want books or materials to send to them, just let me know.

But maybe you want to become a thought-leader yourself. I certainly did. And I think that full-time energy writers, thinkers, and advocates should at least aspire to this. So how is it done?

I don’t know of an exact formula, but here are some things that have helped me.

  • Get clear on your target audience or target audiences–and recognize that they are very, very different. For example, my first target audience for my energy ideas was college students. There are many distinctive features of college students: they tend to be more idealistic than average, they tend to be more inculcated in ideas opposite to mine, they tend to be “taught” a lot of things that are never explained very clearly, they tend to be receiving a lot of political propaganda, they tend to know nothing about energy or its value.
  • Once you are clear on your target audience, think about what unique value you can offer to be positioned as the go-to person. In my case, I was aware that I could provide unique value by doing several things no one else was doing, such as: explaining how energy worked very, very clearly; having a positive, infectiously enthusiastic approach to oil and other forms of energy; being idealistic myself; focusing on human progress as my goal, not being partisan politically or in favor of one particular form of energy.

This only scratches the surface of what it takes to become a thought-leader, but I think it’s a helpful lead. The concept of positioning is crucial. As yourself: am I positioned in the audience’s mind in such a way that they want to hear what I have to say vs. what others have to say? The worst form of positioning is to be a commodity: to be seen as interchangeable with everything else.

Good news: because the moral case for energy abundance is both new and clarifying, learning and promoting that view will greatly improve your positioning in people’s minds–and therefore your influence.

I’m interested in your thoughts on this issue, so I hope you write and let me know if this helps.

News: We just released How to Talk to Anyone About Energy. Check out the intro video. I promise that it will make influencing others so much easier.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘Green’ Cronyism on Full Display In Paris

Paris Conference Leaders Want You to Think the Planet Is Facing a Climate Change Crisis. That’s Not True.

Jessica Jones, Free Will, and Leviathan by Jeffrey A. Tucker

A subtext of most of the superhero genre of fiction is that government has failed. It doesn’t provide the security people need. Superheros (Batman, Superman, Spiderman, et alia) have to step in. The portrayal of the police and public servants in this genre ranges between incompetent and corrupt. At its best, the public sector can get out of the way and let the superhero do his or her job.

Jessica Jones, the acclaimed new series on Netflix (based on a Marvel Comics character), takes this approach to a new and much deeper level, particularly in its portrayal of the pathological villain Zebediah Kilgrave. Jones, a private investigator, spends the entire series trying to capture him. Kilgrave’s character allows us to think through an extraordinary issue. What if someone’s wish really were his command? What would happen to him, and what would be the social effects?

Jones is only a reluctant user of her superpowers, which are highly limited. She can run a 4-minute mile. She is strong enough to break locks with her hands. She can throw a punch that kills. And she can jump what appears to be about 15 feet in the air. Beyond that, she is as human as anyone else. Too much so.

The series adopts a 1940s-style film noir feel. Jessica (played by Krysten Ritter of Breaking Bad fame) has troubled personal relationships. She is alone by choice. She keeps a strange schedule and looks disheveled most of the time. She drinks too much. She is crabby, sometimes crude, often impolite, and constantly vexed.

The Problem of Kilgrave

Mostly, she is haunted by a past horror. A murderous villain named Kilgrave once abducted her, but not in a physical sense. His extraordinary power is causing people to give up their personal will. With just one word, he brings about the total surrender of his victim’s wishes to his own. He can ask for someone’s coat and get it. He can tell a dad to abandon his son and he will do it. He can tell a girl to kill her parents, and it is done. His control over others is limited by time (perhaps one day) and proximity, but otherwise, he gets his way.

He did this to Jessica. She spent some period of time under his control. During this period, she committed egregious acts. She feels deep guilt for this, continually assuring herself that she was not personally responsible because she was not in control. As she encounters other victims, she assures them they are not responsible either. A main plot device of the show concerns her desire to rescue one victim, who similarly did terrible things, from several life sentences in prison.

The trouble is that there is some ambiguity about the question of personal responsibility. Kilgrave’s victims describe feeling irresistibly drawn to follow his instructions. But they also report having some sense in the back of their minds that what they are doing is wrong. They find it impossible, however, to cause their inner conscience, never entirely blotted out, to rise above the Kilgrave-imposed will.

What If You Could Fully Control Others?

The character of Kilgrave raises some interesting questions. What if you had the ability to get your wish with everyone around, even strangers? Your words cause people to do exactly what you want them to do. You do not have to rely on persuasion or consent. You cause a core human trait, individual volition, to recede into the background.

If you had that power, would you use it? It would require a person of extraordinary moral character not to do so. You are at Starbucks and you could say: “add an extra shot at no charge,” and it would be done. You could tell your boss: “give me a 10% raise,” and you’d have it. If you tell someone “let’s go to dinner,” there would be no question. To imagine the power is to peer over the edge of a slippery slope.

In Kilgrave’s case, this power has had an extraordinarily corrupting effect. He rapes, he kills, he controls, he poisons. He feels no remorse. The social effects are catastrophic, causing all sorts of people to commit terribly anti-social actions that otherwise make no sense. His demand is always the same: people must not resist his orders. Thus do they lose their will, and thus do they lose their humanity. As for his own soul, the darkness is boundless.

Who has the power to delete the human will? By tradition, not even gods have this power. They have granted human beings the free will to make choices between good and evil. Gods can manipulate events, give clues, prod circumstances to prompt people, and even punish for wrong choices, but do not typically use their power (even if they have it in theory) to override human volition itself.

Choice is Baked Into Nature

Such power would certainly be abused, even by the gods. Surely it is not something that should even be granted to a fallible human being. Such power is fundamentally contradictory to the mental workings of the human person. Like all animals, we resist the cage. Those who try to override that impulse corrupt their own souls and finally fail.

Any parent who begins parenting with the intent of total control eventually learns that this is impossible. Perhaps as children there is a point at which we can become completely compliant. But the inner life matures, and by the time we become teens, the sense of independent decision takes hold. It might begin as an internal commitment, but, in time, it grows to be a life pattern.

Societies that function well must respect individual autonomy: the right to control our own lives. This is why Kilgrave’s powers are so terribly frightening. The effects are bad enough when such powers rest in just one person. But imagine a total social system in which everyone had the capacity for full control of everyone else. The results would be immediately and irredeemably devastating.

Power and the Human Will

Watching Jessica Jones causes us to reflect on modern policing via the public sector. Browse YouTube’s archives of police abuse. Think on what happens when you are stopped on the road for a traffic violation. Police are trained to demand total submission. Any evidence of insubordination is treated as a threat and a crime in itself.

For the duration of the interaction, your will means nothing and their will is all that matters. It is not surprising that this power leads to abuse; it’s surprising that it doesn’t lead to it more often.

The Kilgrave Society and the Right to Decide

We can extend this analysis to the public sector at large. The distinguishing mark of the state is its encroachment on individual volition. Its one weapon, its only method, is the promise of violence. But this is not enough to bring about stable rule, as the history of revolution and political upheaval show us. The longing to blot out human choice is ultimately untenable, and the attempt alone is deeply corrupting of both individuals and institutions. Kilgrave is the paradigmatic case.

In contrast, notice that private security takes a different approach. The foremost goal is to assure order and peaceful outcomes, not to bring about a perfect state of nonresistance. If the problem goes away, all is well and the job is complete. Such services know better than to try for total control.

In Jessica Jones, as with modern politics, there is some ambiguity associated with the attempt to erase the decision making of others. In the recesses of our mind, we maintain our own understanding and beliefs, and that alone makes us feel some degree of responsibility for acts committed under the influence of others. To overcome requires steely determination and resolute desire to think independently and live on our own terms.

Jessica Jones can’t leap tall buildings, can’t fly, and can’t run faster than a locomotive. But she has a power that is even more impressive. She possesses that determination to defend the right to think for ourselves. It’s not only the most precious human right: It is the right than makes the social order function toward everyone’s benefit.

Jeffrey A. Tucker
Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE, CLO of the startup Liberty.me, and editor at Laissez Faire Books. Author of five books, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

VIDEO: Protesters, police, chaos! Climate Hustle ‘staged its triumphant world premiere’

Watch Exclusive Video of Climate Hustle Premiere in Paris:

More on CFACT’s Climate Hustle coverage:

Breitbart Review: ‘Climate Hustle is dynamite’ – ‘The Perfect Antidote To Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth’

James Delingpole review: Climate Hustle ‘staged its triumphant world premiere in Paris last night.’

‘Climate Hustle is dynamite – at least it will be to most viewers, especially younger ones – because what it says is so totally at odds with almost every documentary, TV programme and film that has ever been made on the subject of global warming.’

‘Every person who has ever been exposed to the lies of An Inconvenient Truth should watch Climate Hustle immediately afterwards an antidote.’

Climate Hustle is a ‘jaunty, likeable, fact-rich journey through the history of the ‘global warming’

‘Morano – even if he does look and dress a bit like a junior Mafiosi – makes a funny, engaging, no-nonsense presenter.’

‘One of the most powerful sections of the documentary is the one where various scientists and academics who have dared speak the truth about global warming describe how they have suddenly found themselves ostracised by their peers.’

Breitbart News: Climate Hustle ‘staged its triumphant world premiere in Paris last night’ – ‘Police turned up’

“Howl! Howl!” bayed two men dressed as giant spoons.

‘Then the police turned up and in characteristic no-nonsense French style forced the protestors to disperse before the stars – including 92-year old rocket scientist Fred Singer and Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore – in black tie arrived in their stretch limos and walked up the red carpet. It was the perfect launch for Marc Morano’s climate skeptical movie Climate Hustle – the skeptics’ long-awaited answer to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth – which staged its triumphant world premiere in Paris last night.’

Screen Shot 2015-12-08 at 10.34.47

Politico features Morano & Climate Hustle movie premiere in Paris: ‘Warmists see us as the turd in the punch bowl’

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Embedded image permalink

Will he do perp walk?! Morano ‘WANTED’ posters for being a ‘Climate Criminal’ go up in Paris on eve of ‘Climate Hustle’ premiere

RELATED ARTICLES:

NYT features ‘Climate Hustle’ Red Carpet Premiere – Film to ‘go on as planned’ in Paris despite ‘criminal’ status

E&E on Climate Hustle Premiere: The mood was ‘festive’ – ‘Skeptics donned tuxedos & walked the red carpet’

Breitbart Review: ‘Climate Hustle is dynamite’ – ‘The Perfect Antidote To Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth’

VIDEO: Terrorist Supporter Nihad Awad attacks Trump’s call for banning Muslim Migration to U.S.

CAIR’s Nihad Awad has a problem with Donald Trump’s statement on no more Muslim immigration to the U.S.

But Awad has no problem supporting the designated TERRORIST group HAMAS!

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Jimmy Carter Banned Iranians from coming to the United States during the Hostage Crisis

7 Ways Barack Obama Created Donald Trump

Islamic State Papers: How ISIS is building its state

Daily Kos a paper tiger! Most respondents say “too dangerous” to admit Syrian refugees

Indiana: Various social justice/peace groups ‘welcome’ Syrian Muslims to live among them

U.S. Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul use the “M” word! MORATORIUM! Trump follows with ban!

Be still my beating heart!  There it is, out there—the M-word!  Several of them in fact!  Moratorium on Muslim Migration!

moratorium-logo-update-blk

I started to write this post yesterday, then spent the day running out to the doctor (nothing is fast with doctors these days, have you noticed that) and as I’m trying to read news on my phone, the Cruz and Paul news was eclipsed by The Donald news when he jumped on the bandwagon.

However, all of the news reports I was reading and hearing claimed Donald Trump was alone in his call for a ban on Muslim migration to America.  He was actually the third Presidential candidate to make that call. Trump called it a “ban,” but that sounds like moratorium to me.

This is what I started to write about yesterday from Julia Hahn at Breitbart.   She has Senator Cruz uttering the word and I heard Senator Paul say it on Fox News yesterday morning!

trump paul cruz ap ap reuters

Presidential candidates Sens. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) are demanding a halt to immigration from Muslim nations with jihadist movements.

Their fellow contender, Sen. Marco Rubio, did not call for curbs to Muslim immigration in his live response to the President address on Fox News – a response promoted by Rubio’s campaign.

Cruz tweeted that if elected president, “I will shut down the broken immigration system that is letting jihadists into our country.” Cruz elaborated in a statement:

The President should place an immediate moratorium on refugees from countries with a significant al Qaeda or ISIS presence, such as Syria. I’ve introduced legislation to make this happen; it is not a desired step, but a necessary step for the security of the United States.

Similarly, Rand Paul tweeted, “While ‪@POTUS paid lip service to this fight, he plans to keep failed rules in place & allow tens of thousands of refugees to enter the US.”

“Immigration visas & refugees from countries with active terror networks must be halted while we determine how to better secure our borders,” Paul in a separate tweet. “His administration is focused on gun laws that won’t stop terrorists while pushing policies that will let more of them in the country,” Paul wrote.

Continue reading here.

Go here to see the ten Senators who might be counted on to support these calls.

Action Alert!  It is not too late, go here and follow instructions to call Congress today!  Stopping the funding for refugee resettlement is the surest way to get the job done immediately!  Details can be worked out once the money is cut off!  If they can cut off the visas too, more power to them!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Dick Cheney don’t get it! Bring in the Muslims!

Homeland Security Committee Chairman McCaul: ISIS has tried to infiltrate refugee stream to U.S.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz is by AP/John Locher/Reuters/Carlos Barria/Photo montage by Salon.

Florida Sheriff: ‘Be Ready And Be Armed For Active Shooter Incidents’ [Video]

iveySome very wise suggestions from a Law Enforcement Leader who get’s it.  while not stepping into politics steps away from those who march lockstep in the effort to disarm and render defenseless law abiding citizens.

It’s telling to note this man’s honesty and understanding when he refers to himself as an armed citizen.

The Florida Family Association reports in an email titled “CAIR plays roll in President Obama’s lecturing Americans over Islamophobia”:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release hours before President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address titled “CAIR Asks President Obama to Condemn Islamophobia During Address to Nation on Terror. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, is calling on President Obama to include a condemnation of rising Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation …

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a news release immediately following President Obama December 6, 2015 address titled “CAIR Welcomes President Obama’s Rejection of Islamophobia in Oval Office Address. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), today welcomed President Obama’s rejection of Islamophobia during tonight’s prime-time address to the nation … President Obama repudiated the view that there should be a war on Islam, acknowledged that the vast majority of the victims of terrorism are Muslims and that extremists are a “tiny fraction” of Muslims worldwide …

Islamization and radicalization are two distinct Islamist movements which threaten America. Islamization is the process of infiltrating and changing American public policy to conform to Sharia. Radicalization is the manifestation of the violence advocated by the Quran and perpetuated by Imams. Unfortunately, while radicalization garners the headlines the president and many elected officials, including Republicans, and a multitude of media moguls, including talking heads at Fox News, give Islamization a dangerous pass out of political correctness.

Politically correct public officials and media moguls call Islam a peaceful religion and say that most Muslims are moderate. However, the facts reported in the following surveys contradict such political correct supposition:

  • Eighty one (81%) percent of respondents to Al Jazeera survey say they support ISIS. In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region. The poll, which asked in Arabic,“Do you support the organizing victories of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?” has generated over 38,000 responses thus far, with only 19% of respondents voting “NO” to supporting ISIS.
  • Center for Security Policy “Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad” was released on June 23, 2015.Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of this country. According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.   The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., is the president of the Center for Security Policy.
  • Study finds that Sharia minded Imams recommended studying violence-positive texts in 84.5% of United States mosques. The study was conducted by Dr. Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi, Esq. who are highly regarded experts on Sharia. David Yerushalmi, Esq. who runs the American Freedom Law Center with Robert J. Muise, Esq. is called The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement … by the New York Times. Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population. Survey abstract: A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.

During President Obama’s December 6, 2015 national address he irresponsibly scolded American’s who dare be afraid (ie Islamophobic) of Muslims who want to eliminate them simply because they are infidels. Obama’s scolding of rational American’s concern over Radicalization and Islamization reinforce political correctness which is dangerous to the public safety of all Americans. A neighbor of the two Islamists in San Bernardino witnessed them receiving suspicious packages which turned out to be used in their Jihad on innocent American citizens. The neighbor did not report the suspicious behavior out of fear of being labeled an Islamophobe. President Obama’s irresponsible address gave greater weight to erring not to be an Islamophobe over the public safety of Americans.

VIDEO: Political Correctness — The Islamic State’s Weapon of Mass Destruction

The Islamic State’s new weapon of mass destruction: political correctness.

It’s time for a real conversation about Radical Islam. Visit: http://go.clarionproject.org/numbers/

Freedom for Venezuela

On Sunday Venezuela completed its legislative  election for 2015.  Current Communist President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro has acknowledged defeat from Sunday’s elections.

This was the worst beating for the ruling “Chavismo” movement since Hugo Chavez took power in 1999.

Somebody dropped a banana down his pants and let a monkey lose.

The freedom forces on Sunday crushed the Communist forces controlling Venezuela.

They have won the legislature for the first time in 16 years giving them the power to bury Comrade President Nicolas Maduro’s oppressive Cuban style rule.

The opposition Democratic Unity coalition won 99 seats to the Socialists’ 46 in the 167-national National Assembly, the election board said, with some districts still to be counted.  Capitalism has been restored in the state legislature.

Thousands of Fireworks were set off in celebration. The Communists had on only once choice and that was to shut down their planned victory parties pack up their Hammer and Sickles and head home.

Patriots, time is drawing near quickly when the opposition leadership in Venezuela being held in jails modeled after Fidel’s Castro’s gulags will be free.  This is good news.

Last month Argentina fired its Communist leadership.

Next November President Obama, the Communist sitting in Washington D.C. and his Democrat Party  will face the same slap in the face and hopefully will face prosecution for his crimes against the Republic.

Whether from his gun running operation to the Mexican Cartels,  or for shipping weapons to the Islamic State in Syria via the U.S. Mission in Benghazi, Libya and the list goes on.

This prosecution for crimes against the U.S. Constitution and freedom loving people in this great republic  will be accomplished  from the new Justice Department.

This will be implemented by President Trump.  Plans are already in the works. Mr… Obama should probably start looking to hire attorneys now.

I would encourage the GOP led congress and its leadership to send a letter of congratulations to the Democratic Unity coalition leadership and to send a letter to
President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro demanding the immediate release of all political prisoners from Venezuelan jails.

Mizzou Crew: The Liars Who Hate the Lie of Academic Freedom

FreeSpeechZoneIt could occur to one that the difference between “safe spaces” in today’s U.S. and yesterday’s U.S.S.R., other than the name, is the size. Here they’re tiny areas on some college campuses.

In the Soviet Union they were every place apart from the tiny areas called gulags.

One could also ponder how, while the Soviets were somewhat less euphemistic than their American progeny, it’s no stretch to say their insane asylum outside the gulags was also a “safe space.” To exist, any lie-based ideology needs a sheltered area — even if it’s only inside a person’s own cranium — that is safe…from Truth.

Alarm at the Safe Spacers’ space-between-the-ears ideology is wholly justified. In recent times we’ve heard statements such as “What really bothered me is, the whole idea is that at a liberal arts college, we need to be hearing a diversity of opinion. I don’t think we should be tolerating conservative views because that dominant culture embeds these deep inequalities in our society.” That was one Erin Ching, a Swarthmore College student reacting to a campus debate last year between leftist Princeton professor Cornel West and renowned conservative Princeton professor Robert George. Then there’s this: “If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?” …When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.” That was Harvard Crimson editorialist Sandra Korn writing in 2014.

Korn also opines, “[T]he liberal obsession with ‘academic freedom’ seems a bit misplaced to me.” But it shouldn’t. For there is no “liberal obsession” with academic freedom as a principle — only as a ploy. More misplaced is the conservative defense of “academic freedom” because, like Charlie Brown ever trying to kick the football, rightists are ever the victims of that ploy.

The cry “Academic freedom!” has so often been the last modern refuge of a scoundrel. If you want to justify a professor’s advocacy of some loony left-wing idea wholly destructive to society, shout it and fetid faculty and sullied students will circle the wagons. Yet the notion passes nary a liberal’s lips when the matter is the persecution of a conservative academic. Ask Cal State University Northridge English professor Robert Oscar Lopez, a wonderful man with whom I’ve corresponded, about that. The Safe Spacers have pinned a bull’s-eye on him because he dares question the homosexual agenda.

Thus, one of the only differences between the Safe Spacers and the liberal establishment (LIBe) they’re now tormenting — examples of members of the latter being the University of Missouri president and chancellor forced to resign in a purge — is that the former may be a tad more honest. They don’t pay lip service to academic freedom.

And the defense of the LIBe’ers consumed by the demon they themselves spawned is often mounted by conservatives, well-meaning football-kickers they so often are. Commentator Jonah Goldberg, for instance, a wonderful writer and intrepid culture warrior, penned an op-ed last year in which he took Ching and Korn to task while defending academic freedom. Titled “Attacking Diversity of Thought,” it expresses common conservative laments. Yet pondering this struggle between the attackers and defenders of academic freedom brings to mind a G.K. Chesterton observation: “I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid.”

In reality, in defending “academic freedom” conservatives are doing what they always, quite unwittingly, do:  defend yesterday’s liberals’ successful social-revolution-born norms from attacks by today’s liberal social revolutionaries. They are again being the caboose to the leftist engine of change.

As to this, the aforementioned Korn, in a broken-clock moment of philosophical rectitude, did utter a truth when defending her position in saying, “After all, no one ever has ‘full freedom’ in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities.”

For many this is an uncomfortable fact, but the reality is that everyone draws lines. Would we want a professor teaching that pedophilia can be beneficial (as Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues did), that encouraging bestiality was positive because it would help reduce the birth rate, or that Hitler’s extermination camps were a good thing? Or how about an academic who aggressively advocates Nazism or Marxism in the classroom? Note that pushing the latter could cost you your job in the 1950s.

Some will now say “We don’t want McCarthyism in the schoolhouse!” This is a knee-jerk reaction. Every civilization has its version of “McCarthyism”; it’s just a matter of whether it’s the right or wrong kind. Socrates was forced to drink the hemlock partially for, the allegations went, corrupting the young via his teaching and for “mocking the gods.” During the Second Sophistic period in Rome, Latin rhetorical studies were banned in favor of Greek rhetorical studies. Miron Wolffson, a professor at Moscow University, was expelled from the institution in 1932 for teaching Menshevik ideas. Mathematician William Whiston lost his professorship at the University of Cambridge for taking anti-Trinitarian positions. And some nations, such as Colombia, banned the teaching of utilitarian philosophy in universities in the 19th century.

Some will now counter that this is contrary to the American ideal. But is it? If you dared espouse the kind of libertinism routine today in early America or violated obscenity laws — in school or elsewhere —  you could be “warned out of town” or worse. To be human is to have standards, and to have standards is to exclude.

Of course, they could be the double ones or the wrong ones. And there is only one way of avoiding this: having standards oriented toward Truth.

Oh, I know, this is where moderns wax relativistic and, echoing Pontius Pilate, ask “What is Truth?” After all, today only a minority of Americans even believe in it. But there’s only one alternative to standards oriented toward Truth: standards oriented toward a lie. And we’ll never formulate the proper standards if we distract ourselves from that sacred task with talk of “academic freedom.” As Chesterton also wrote, in his 1905 book Heretics, “We are fond of talking about ‘liberty’; but the way we end up actually talking of it is an attempt to avoid discussing what is ‘good.’ …The modern man says, ‘Let us leave all these arbitrary standards and embrace unadulterated liberty.’ This is, logically rendered, ‘Let us not decide what is good, but let it be considered good not to decide it.’”

For sure. People yearn for simple formulas for understanding others and arranging and governing society. Leaning on mythical academic freedom is easy; embracing some standard merely because it’s popular or feels right (as the Left does) is easy. Far more difficult, but necessary for civilizational health, is figuring out what Truth is and adhering to the limits it places on us.

Lines must be drawn by someone, in academia and everywhere else. And there are only two ways of governing: by eternal principles or ephemeral personal preferences. The Mizzou crew and their proximal targets — the yesterday liberals in power today — give us the latter. And we’re not going to defeat a Machiavellian lie with a well-meaning misconception.

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

A Sad Day for Free Speech in America

The day after a horrific shooting spree by what appears to be a radicalized Muslim man and his female partner in San Bernardino, California, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged to a Muslim advocacy and lobbying group that she would take aggressive action against anyone who used “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence.”

Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use ‘Anti-Muslim’ Speech That ‘Edges Toward Violence’:

Lynch failed to describe what constitutes speech that “Edges toward violence”. No one wants to see incitement to violence. But the non-standard enunciated by Lynch is so ambiguous that  anything Lynch or the Obama administration decides they don’t like may be defined as “edging toward violence” and could subject a person to prosecution. This is also a violation of the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Brandenburg vs. Ohio 1969 which held that free speech is protected unless the speech leads  to “Imminent Lawless Action” or is a “Clear and Present Danger”. Edges toward violence does not meet this standard. It is no standard at all. Under Lynch’s non-standard the Obama administration could find it actionable if a person notifies the authorities that a Muslim might be involved in terrorist activities but it turns out to be inaccurate.

This is a sad day for the rule of law and free speech in America and only used to happen in totalitarian countries.

The FBI and police are already overwhelmed by the number of Muslims under investigation. Allowing Muslim refugees and other Muslims into the country without more thorough and accurate vetting than in the past will only exacerbate the problem. It is sad that Muslim clerics and the Muslim population don’t publicly call for changes in the interpretation of their ‘Supremacist Religion’ and expose Radical Islamists before they act.

It is no secret that Radical Islamic terrorists generally live and emerge from the bowels of the Muslim population. They are the only ones who can effectively fight extremism.

Read more: Loretta Lynch Vows to Prosecute Those Who Use ‘Anti-Muslim’ Speech That ‘Edges Toward Violence’

RELATED ARTICLES:

Egyptian TV Host On California Terror Attack: Americans Should Stick Obama On An Impalement Rod

Muslim bangs on cockpit door, threatens to down plane, “wanted to see Allah”

Robert Spencer in Italy’s Libero: “Occidente remissivo fino al suicidio”

Florida: Mosques giving Muslims weapons training — What is wrong with this picture?

Nezar-Hamze-VoicesCAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR operatives have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements. A California chapter distributed a poster telling Muslims not to talk to the FBI, and a Florida chapter distributed pamphlets with the same message. CAIR has opposed every anti-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented, and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates.

And now Hamas-linked CAIR’s Nezar Hamze is giving active shooter training in Florida mosques. What could possibly go wrong?

Hamze is also helping the mosques get DHS money: “Hamze also is helping the mosque with prevention techniques and also helping the leaders apply for grants given by Homeland Security to religious institutions to beef up their own security.”

All this is based on the false assumption that mosques are under some kind of violent threat. The real threat is coming from the mosques, not going toward them, but no one seems concerned about that.

For some background, see this Newsmax show from last May, featuring Hamze and me, along with a relentlessly hostile and pro-Hamas-linked CAIR Ed Berliner.

“Active shooter training inside a Sarasota Mosque,” by Jonathan Petramala, WTSP, December 5, 2015 (thanks to Anti-CAIR):

Places of worship are only holy to the faithful.

“We think about it that way, but for somebody who wants to hurt somebody, for him, it’s not a holy place,” said Noureddiae, a member of the Islamic Society of Sarasota-Bradenton.

In the back of the prayer room, Nezar Hamze showed that. He pulled out two fake blue guns, and started firing. For over a minute, members of the mosque stared in shock and were frozen.

“Unfortunately this is exactly what is happening everywhere. People are just not prepared,” Hamze said.

Hamze travels the state for CAIR Florida, giving training to Islamic Centers about active shooting scenarios and self-defense.

“We need to make sure that the communities are trained and have a plan to deal with active shooters,” Hamze said. “Everyone in this country has to wake up. I think the entire country needs to get out of the victim mentality [because] it’s happening everywhere.”

That’s rich, coming from an official of an organization whose entire purpose and mission is to cultivate the victim mentality in Muslims in the U.S.

Hamze told the members about what to do. Run first. Hide if you can. But if you must…fight.

“You need to be thinking about these things. If you choose to fight, you need to realize you are probably sacrificing your life,” Hamze said.

Hamze also is helping the mosque with prevention techniques and also helping the leaders apply for grants given by Homeland Security to religious institutions to beef up their own security.

Hamze says he offers his training to anyone, and has already been asked to go into two synagogues and a church….

RELATED ARTICLES:

NY Daily News’ Linda Stasi justifies SB jihad murders, says victim was “male equivalent of Pamela Geller”

SB jihad murderer’s father: killer “supported the creation of the Islamic State. He was also obsessed with Israel.”