New reforms give Muslim migrants with more than one wife extra benefits

/in , , , , , /by

Paying for something will only encourage more of it, and there will even be conversions to Islam by people who want to take advantage of this. Britain’s Islamization is proceeding nicely, and anyone who raises a dissenting voice is ruthlessly silenced, so all is well and all manner of thing shall be well.

“Wives With Benefits: Immigrants With More Than One Spouse Win EXTRA Payments Under New Reforms,” by Simon Kent, Breitbart, January 24, 2016:

Immigrants with many wives stand to make substantial financial gains under looming changes to Britain’s welfare system.

Polygamous marriages, which form a common thread in Islam, are recognised in Britain but only if they take place in countries where they are legal. Now a House of Commons library paper, published earlier this month, has highlighted a loophole that will allow additional wives coming to the UK to claim a full single person’s allowance while the husband and his first wife still receive their respective benefits.

At present additional wives receive reduced individual income support, meaning the husband and his first wife receive up to £114.85. Subsequent spouses living under the same roof receive a reduced allowance of about £40 each.

The foreshadowed changes mean some polygamous households may receive more under universal credit than under the present benefit and tax credit system. The paper said:

“The Government decided that the universal credit rules will not recognise additional partners in polygamous relationships,” the paper states.

“This could potentially result in some polygamous households receiving more under universal credit than under the current benefit and tax credit system.

“Treating second and subsequent partners in polygamous relationships as separate claimants could in some situations mean polygamous households receive more under universal credit than they do under the current rules for means-tested benefits and tax credits.

“This is because the amounts which may be paid in respect of additional spouses are lower than those which generally apply to single claimants.”

The news comes as universal credit (UC), introduced in April 2014, is applied to more Jobcentre areas, including Kent and Leicestershire, from tomorrow. More, including Cambridge and Hull, are set to introduce it before April this year.

UC is to replace all means-tested benefits and tax credits for families of working age and is gradually being introduced to new claimant groups and areas including those in polygamous unions.

This is not the first time that Islamic marriage traditions have been highlighted in the UK.

As Breitbart London reported, last year Britain’s first female sharia law judge stated that the “government cannot ask Muslims not to have more than one wife”.

That revelation came on the back of a report by the Times newspaper which claimed that Britain is experiencing a “surge” in Sharia marriages, as young British Muslims adopt a more hardline religious stance than their parents.

According to The Times:

“As many as 100,000 couples are living in such [sharia] marriages, which are not valid under UK law, experts said. Ministers have raised fears that women can be left without the right to a fair share of assets if the relationship ends, while others are forced to return to abusive “husbands”.

“A leading Islamic family lawyer warned that the increase in Sharia ceremonies among the 2.7 million-strong Muslim population in Britain was also behind a growth in ‘secret polygamy’.

“Probably a quarter of all couples I see involve polygamy issues,” Aina Khan told The Times. “There has been a huge rise in recent years because people can have a secret nikah [Islamic marriage] and no one will know about it.”

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions told the Daily Express: “The previous system accommodated polygamous marriages but this Government has done away with it. Under new rules any additional partners who are unemployed have to claim benefits independently and will need to sign a claimant commitment, and look for work like anyone else. They will also not get benefits for housing costs if they are living together.”

It has been claimed that Muslim men are having up to 20 children each because of polygamy and the rise of “religiously-sanctioned gender discrimination” under Sharia Law.

Baroness Cox, a cross-bench peer, has highlighted a series of “shocking” examples of the impact of Sharia law on Muslim women in Britain as she called for them to be given greater protection.

Bigamy in the UK is a crime under Section 57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 however in 2008, the Blair government gave the go-ahead for husbands with multiple wives to claim extra welfare benefits, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal (as is permitted under Islamic law).

RELATED ARTICLES:

Palestinian media celebrates terror and murder

British Leftists lead violence as they aid Muslim migrants to invade Calais

Italy: Islamic State jihadi arrested; talked of “fastening belt to reach heaven”

Pope’s envoy warns of ‘silent genocide’ and ‘biggest terrorism in the world’

/in , , , , /by

“A silent genocide” and “the biggest terrorism in the world.” Did Charles Maung Bo mean the Muslim persecution of Christians that has eradicated ancient Christian communities in Iraq, while Catholic bishops in the West stand by silently afraid to harm their precious and utterly useless “dialogue” with Muslim leaders? Did he mean the terrorism that has claimed committed over 27,000 jihad terror attacks worldwide since 9/11, and more every day, and boasts about its imminent conquest of Rome and the entire West?

No, of course he doesn’t mean that silent genocide or that terrorism. He means poverty and injustice — in other words, he means that the West needs to give more money to Third World nations. That the West might collapse utterly from jihad activity, Muslim migration, Sharia supremacism, etc., well, Catholic prelates don’t speak of such things. To do so would be to “provoke” Muslims and “poke them in the eye,” when they know that “respect” (i.e., cringing, shivering fear combined with appeasement) is the order of the day.

Catholic bishops today are failing their people, failing the Church, failing the world, and helping pave the way for a catastrophe of proportions they will find unimaginable when it engulfs them, but at that point it will be far too late.

Charles Maung Bo and Francis

“Pope’s envoy warns of ‘silent genocide’ and ‘biggest terrorism,’” by Nestor Corrales, Inquirer.net, January 24, 2016:

CEBU CITY – “A silent genocide” and “the biggest terrorism in the world.”

The Pope’s envoy at the 51st International Eucharistic Congress (IEC) made that analogy to describe starvation, poverty and injustice in the world.

Citing a data from the United Children’s Nation’s Fund (Unicef), Charles Maung Cardinal Bo of Myanmar said 20, 000 die of starvation and malnutrition everyday, totaling to more than seven million a year.

In a powerful homily on Sunday, Cardinal Bo urged Catholics to declare a “third world war” against poverty and break the “chains of injustice.”

“In a world that continues to have millions of poor, the Eucharist is a major challenge to humanity,” he said.

“What is the greatest mortal sin? Seeing a child dying of starvation,” the cardinal added.

In a press conference on Monday, Bishop Mylo Hubert Vergara said the papal legate’s homily was a challenge to the Catholic faithful to make fighting poverty and injustice “a priority.”

“To make it as urgent, to become a priority in us,” Vergara told reporters.

He said social justice is a responsibility of everyone.

“We want to make social justice realized, to live it out. And it is a responsibility for all of us.” he said.

Vergara said Cardinal Bo’s statement was an urgent call “just to make us realized that we really have to fight for poverty, graft and corruption.”…

Maybe it would be better to fight against them, but whatever you say, Mylo — who am I to question a bishop?

RELATED ARTICLES:

India: Gandhi statue defaced with Islamic State slogan and threats

Islamic State in West Africa attacks 5 Nigerian villages, murders 36 people

Teenage Muslim migrant stabs refugee worker to death

/in , , , , /by

It is all over the alternative media, so you’ve probably seen it (in more graphic detail) than The Guardian gives us.  Here is The Guardian story which should be headlined: ‘Migrant situation in Sweden completely unsustainable, police resources strained.’

An employee at a refugee centre in Sweden has been stabbed to death.

Sweden-Stefan-Lofven

Paris 2015! How about Sweden 2016! Prime Minister Stefan Lofven visits the bloody scene of the attack. More to come?

Police spokesman Thomas Fuxborg said the alleged assailant was a young man living at the centre for unaccompanied asylum seekers aged between 14 and 17 in Molndal, near Gothenburg on Sweden’s west coast.

He did not give details about the suspect’s age or nationality but said the man had been arrested for murder. Swedish news agency TT said he was 15 years old.

The victim was a 22-year-old woman, and the motive was not immediately clear.

“These kinds of calls are becoming more and more common. We’re dealing with more incidents like these since the arrival of so many more refugees from abroad,” said Fuxborg.

The Swedish prime minister, Stefan Lofven, visited the area in the aftermath of the death.

The attack came as the national police commissioner, Dan Eliasson, requested 4,100 additional officers and support staff to help fight terrorism, carry out migrant deportations and police asylum facilities.

[….]

“Many of the problems we are now facing help to prove the point that Swedish police have long been underfunded and under-staffed,” Lena Nitz, the director of the police union, told TT.

“It is obvious that the migrant situation is a great strain. It has become clear that the situation is completely unsustainable.”

See our complete archive on Sweden by clicking here.  It has always been my first choice guess for which country in Europe will fall first to the Muslim migration.

By the way, next time you hear refugee contractors and the globalists talk about refugees bringing economic prosperity, ask if they have factored in the cost of crimes and the need for increased crime prevention (and the cost of imprisonment!).

Send us links for more updates on this story—-is it one more sexually motivated attack?

RELATED ARTICLE: Refugee contractor (IRC) criticized in Huffington Post story as Syrian refugee pleads for more $$$

Better than You Think: The Middle Class, 1971-2014 by Chelsea German

/in , , , , /by

We’ve all heard it said that the “rich are getting richer” while the middle class suffers. Political figures on both the right and left frequently speak about the need to “bring back” or “restore” the “disappearing” middle class. Pew Research Center just put out a report that calls those ideas into question, according to a recent Washington Post opinion piece.

The report shows that from 1971 to 2014, middle-income households (meaning three-person households making from $41,869 to $125,608 annually in inflation-adjusted dollars) decreased from 61 to 50 percent of U.S. households. Why the 11 percentage point difference?

Seven of those 11 percentage points can be explained by households moving into a higher income bracket. High-income households grew from 14 percent to 21 percent of all households during the same period.

The Pew report also stated that all income groups have typically made double-digit pre-tax income gains since the 1970s:

Middle-income household income increased by 13% in the 1970s, 11% in the 1980s, and 12% in the 1990s. Lower-income households had gains of 13% in the 1970s, 8% in the 1980s and 15% in the 1990s. Upper-income households registered a 10% gain in the 1970s [and] 18% in both the 1980s and 1990s.

Then the Great Recession struck in the late 2000s. But even the Great Recession only removed 6 percentage points from the gains made by the middle class. In 2000, an average middle-income household earned 40 percent more than in 1970. In 2014, an average middle-income household earned 34 percent more than in 1970.

The Washington Post piece opines that “We’ve mistaken what is plausibly a one-time setback — the response to the Great Recession — for long-term stagnation. People have understandably but wrongly taken their recent experience and projected it onto the past.”

We cannot predict the future, but it certainly seems as though the middle class has fared better than many people believe.

Cross-posted from HumanProgress.org.

Chelsea GermanChelsea German

Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

The Rise and Fall of American Growth by Emily Skarbek

/in , , , , /by

Diane Coyle has reviewed Robert Gordon’s new book (out late January), The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War.

Gordon’s central argument will be familiar to readers of his work. In his view, the main technological and productivity-enhancing innovations that drove American growth in the early to mid 20th century — electricity, internal combustion engine, running water, indoor toilets, communications, TV, chemicals, petroleum — could only happen once, have run their course, and the prospects of future growth look uninspiring. For Gordon, it is foreseeable that the rapid progress made over the past 250 years will turn out to be a unique episode in human history.

Coyle zeros in on the two main mechanisms to which Gordon attributes the slowing of growth. The first is that future innovation will be slower or its effects less important. Coyle finds this argument less convincing.

What I find odd about Gordon’s argument is his insistence that there is a kind of competition between the good old days of ‘great innovations’ and today’s innovations – which are necessarily different.

One issue is the extent to which he ignores all but a limited range of digital innovation; low carbon energy, automated vehicles, new materials such as graphene, gene-based medicine etc. don’t feature.

The book claims more recent innovations are occurring mainly in entertainment, communication and information technologies, and presents these as simply less important (while making great play of the importance of radio, telephone and TV earlier).

While I have yet to read the book, Gordon makes several similar arguments in an NBER working paper. There he gives a few examples of his view of more recent technological innovations as compared to the Great Inventions of the mid-20th century.

More familiar was the rapid development of the web and ecommerce after 1995, a process largely completed by 2005. Many one-time-only conversions occurred, for instance from card catalogues in wooden cabinets to flat screens in the world’s libraries and the replacement of punch-hole paper catalogues with flat-screen electronic ordering systems in the world’s auto dealers and wholesalers.

In other words, the benefits of the computer revolution were one time boosts, not lasting increases in labor productivity. Gordon then invokes Solow’s famous sentence that “we [could] see the computers everywhere except in the productivity statistics.” When the effects do show up, Gordon says, they fade out by 2004 and labor productivity flat lines.

Solow’s interpretation (~26 mins into the interview) of where the productivity gains went is different, and more consistent with Coyle’s deeper point. In short, the statistics themselves doesn’t capture the full gains from innovation:

And when that happened, it happened in an interesting way. It turned out when there were first clear indications, maybe 8 or 10 years later, of improvements in productivity on a national scale that could be traced to computers statistically, it turned out a large part of those gains came not in the use of the computer, but in the production of computers.

Because the cost of an item of computing machinery was falling like a stone, and the quality was at the same time, the capacity at the same time was improving. And people were buying a lot of computers, so this was not a trivial industry. …

You got big productivity gains in the production of computers and whatnot. But you could also begin to see productivity improvements on a national scale that traced to the use of computers.

Coyle’s central criticism is not just on the interpretation of the data, but on an interesting switch in Gordon’s argument:

Throughout the first two parts of the book, Gordon repeatedly explains why it is not possible to evaluate the impact of inventions through the GDP and price statistics, and therefore through the total factor productivity figures based on them — and then uses the real GDP figures to downplay modern innovation.”

Coyle’s understanding of the use and abuse of GDP figures leads her to the fundamental point:

While the very long run of real GDP figures (the “hockey stick of history”) does portray the explosion of living standards under market capitalism, one needs a much richer picture of the qualitative change brought about by innovation and variety.

This must include the social consequences too — and the book touches on these, from the rise of the suburbs to the transformation of the social lives of women.

To understand Coyle’s insights more deeply, her discussion with Russ Roberts gives a fascinating discussion of GDP (no, really!).

In my view, it seems to come down to differing views about where Moore’s Law is taking us. The exponentially increasing computational power — with increasing product quality at decreasing prices — has never happened at such a sustained pace before.

The technological Great Inventions that Gordon sees as fundamental to driving sustained growth of the past all were bursts of innovation followed by a substantial time period where entrepreneurs figured out how to effectively commodify and deliver that technology to the broader economy and society. What is so interesting about the pattern of exponential technological progress is that price/performance gains have not slowed, even as some bits of these gains have just shown signs of commodification — Uber, 3D printing, biosynthesis of living tissue, etc.

There are good reasons to think that in the past we have failed to capture all the gains from innovation in measures of total factor productivity and labor productivity, as Gordon rightly points out. But if this is true, it seems strange to me to look at the current patterns of technological progress and not see the potential for these innovations to lead to sustained growth and increases in human well-being.

This is, of course, conditional on the political economy in which innovation takes place. The second cause for low future growth for Gordon concerns headwinds slowing down whatever innovation-driven growth there might be. Here I look forward to reading the relative weights Gordon assigns to factors such as demography, education, inequality, globalization, energy/environment, and consumer and government debt. In particular, I hope to read Gordon’s own take (and others) on how the political economy environment could change the magnitude or sign of these headwinds.

The review is worth a read in advance of what will likely prove to be an important book in the debate on development and growth.

This post first appeared at Econlog, where Emily is a new guest blogger.

Emily SkarbekEmily Skarbek

Emily Skarbek is Lecturer in Political Economy at King’s College London and guest blogs on EconLog. Her website is EmilySkarbek.com. Follow her on Twitter @EmilySkarbek.​

Muslim Migrants Gone Wild: Time for Buckshot and Hollow Points?

/in , , , , , /by
muslim rioters mob

Muslim mob in Europe.

Those who come to this country to rape and plunder should not be tolerated…by government or citizens.

Now The End Begins writes on Pinterest:

Thousands Of Jews Flee France And Germany As Muslims Become The New Nazis- Europe has become like the dark days of 1938 Nazi Germany- Mob of Muslim youths shout “Death to Jews” in Paris- In Germany: “They pursue the Jews in the streets of Berlin as if we were in 1938.”- An imam of a Berlin mosque allegedly called on Muslims to murder ‘Zionist Jews’

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of a Muslim mob burning cars and rioting in Europe is from Pinterest.

Muslim ‘Migrants’ not finding Germany to their liking and want to go home!

/in , , , , , , /by

Invasion of Europe news….

In this story (burly fighting age) Iraqis are getting ready to make their move to Germany. One of the best things the EU could do (to save itself) is to craft a PR campaign to be broadcast in the Middle East and N. Africa featuring unhappy “refugees” who say they are sorry they came and want to go home!

Just as U.S. federal refugee resettlement contractors are gearing up their massive PR campaign that America should embrace a hundred thousand Syrians and bring them to your towns, thousands of those (supposedly seeking asylum) who flooded into Germany in the last year want to go home!

Why? To put it simply:  Not enough welfare goodies and culture shock (“open attitudes” about sex).  So much for fear of war.

Be sure to see a post we wrote last August where a Syrian American says that many of those fleeing Syria see Europe as El Dorado (a mythical city of gold) and don’t want to be left out of the gold rush.

The Wall Street Journal has a really good story yesterday:

BERLIN—In October, Amer sold all his belongings in Syria and took his family to a safer life in Germany. Four months later, he wants to return to a country still at war.

Once in Germany, Amer discovered an unexpected reality: Instead of the small house he was hoping for and money to help him open a business, he was given a bare room in an old administrative building turned into an emergency shelter. Now he is packing his bags again.

“I came to Germany because everyone was saying it was heaven. Now I regret that decision,” said the 30-year-old from Damascus.

[….]

But many who arrive find the country doesn’t match their often inflated expectations. They balk at modest benefits, poor job prospects, and harsh treatment at immigration offices, and voice other complaints ranging from bland food to Germans’ open attitudes about sex.

The Merkel myth about jobs, just that, a myth (or, how the greedy globalists are destroying western civilization).

Ms. Merkel has said the best path to integration is through work, but most migrants face a long road from the cots of emergency shelters to finding housing and employment.

Economists have warned that migrants with low skills, like Amer, stand little chance of ever finding jobs. While some political leaders say the new migrants will help offset a dearth of German workers in the future,critics say they could become a long-term burden on German taxpayers.

Read it all.

Maybe the fighting back home isn’t so bad after all!

See our complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive here.  And, read all about Germany and crazy Mama Merkel, by clicking here.

What Are Your Odds of Making It to the 1%? by Chelsea German

/in , , , , /by

Your odds of “making it to the top” might be better than you think, although it’s tough to stay on top once you get there.

According to research from Cornell University, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives. Over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners (i.e., people making at minimum $332,000) for at least one year.

How is this possible? Simple: the rate of turnover in these groups is extremely high.

Just how high? Some 94 percent of Americans who reach “top 1 percent” income status will enjoy it for only a single year. Approximately 99 percent will lose their “top 1 percent” status within a decade.

Now consider the top 400 U.S. income-earners — a far more exclusive club than the top 1 percent. Between 1992 and 2013, 72 percent of the top 400 retained that title for no more than a year. Over 97 percent retained it for no more than a decade.

HumanProgress.org advisory board member Mark Perry put it well in his recent blog post on this subject:

Whenever we hear commentary about the top or bottom income quintiles, or the top or bottom X% of Americans by income (or the Top 400 taxpayers), a common assumption is that those are static, closed, private clubs with very little dynamic turnover. …

But economic reality is very different — people move up and down the income quintiles and percentile groups throughout their careers and lives.

What if we look at economic mobility in terms of accumulated wealth, instead of just annual income (as the latter tends to fluctuate more)?

The Forbes 400 lists the wealthiest Americans by total estimated net worth, regardless of their income during any given year. Over 71 percent of Forbes 400 listees — and their heirs — lost their top 400 status between 1982 and 2014.

So, the next time you find yourself discussing the very richest Americans, whether by wealth or income, keep in mind the extraordinarily high rate of turnover among them.

And even if you never become one of the 11.1 percent of Americans who fleetingly find themselves in the “top 1 percent” of US income-earners, you’re still quite possibly part of the global top 1 percent.

Cross-posted from HumanProgress.org.

Chelsea German

Chelsea German

Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

The Trump Love Affair Explained in Terms Even Beltway Pundits Can Understand

/in , , , , /by

Donald Trump’s rise this election season has been historic, amounting to something heretofore unseen in the annals of American politics. Given this, it’s perhaps not surprising that many are still befuddled by the phenomenon. Pundit Charles Krauthammer is bewildered, saying that “for some reason” Trump “is immune to the laws of contradiction.” (In reality, Democrats get away with contradiction continually; the only difference is that the media actually report on Trump’s.) Also in the news recently is that some find his appeal among evangelicals “inexplicable.” Of course, it’s all quite explainable.

In an earlier piece — which I strongly urge you to read — I expanded on certain factors evident in the Trump phenomenon. Trump is:

  • tapping into anger against the Establishment and over immigration and is a plain-spoken breath of fresh air.
  • sounding a nationalistic note in an age where treason is the Establishment norm.
  • not campaigning as conservative but a populist, which, almost by definition, tends to make one popular in an era of mass discontent.
  • a crusader against hated political correctness, which has stifled tongues and killed careers nationwide. And in being the first prominent person to defeat the thought police (at least for now) — and by not cowering and apologizing to them — he has become a hero.

And as I wrote, “[W]hen you have a hero, leading the troops in the heat of battle against a despised oppressor, you don’t worry about his marriages, past ideological indiscretions or salty language. You charge right behind him.” This is largely why Trump’s contradictions don’t matter. Yet more can be said.

I often mention the fault of “mirroring,” which most everyone exhibits and is when you project your own ideals, values, priorities and mindset onto others. It’s particularly amusing when pundits and politicians comment on the electorate and speak as if everyone is a politics wonk who analyzes issues logically within the context of a broad knowledge base (pundits themselves often lack erudition and reason; of course, they’re blissfully unaware of it when thus guilty and nonetheless consider those qualities ideals). But man is not Mr. Spock, and logic and reason play less of a role in people’s decision-making than most of us care to think.

This brings us to what Trump now has. It’s something all successful politicians have to a degree and that every iconic one has in spades: an emotional bond with his supporters.

Trump has been criticized for speaking in vague generalities and not providing specifics on the campaign trail. This misses the point. If advertising a product on TV, do you willingly provide mundane details about its ingredients or describe the intricacies of its manufacturing process? That’s more the stuff of documentaries, and, insofar as the vendor goes, would only be found on an Internet product-information page (tantamount to a politician’s policy-position page) provided for those interested. No, you say “Look 15 years younger!” or “Lose 20 to 30 pounds in 6 weeks!” Or think of the circa 2000 Mazda commercial with the young boy whispering “Zoom, zoom!” It was advertising an expensive, hi-tech machine but was invoking the unbridled joy of childhood, thus endeavoring to pique people’s passions. And that’s the secret: capture your audience on an emotional level and they’re yours.

Or think about affairs of the heart. If you’re truly bonded and in love with your wife, it’s not because you first looked at her and, rendering a logical analysis, thought “Well, she’s vibrant and seems to have good genes, so we’d likely have healthy kids; and she’s a darn good cook, and I relish a fine pot roast.” Rather, a true romantic bond is somewhat inscrutable, an emotional phenomenon, not an intellectual one. And it’s powerful enough to cause a woman to follow a man into a life of faith or a life of crime (Bonnie and Clyde); it explains the enduring good marriages — and the bad ones.

Likewise, playing on emotion is not the sole province of morally bad or good politicians — only of successful ones. Hitler did it and Churchill did it; Huey Long did it and Reagan did it. When a candidate stands on a podium expounding upon policy nerd-like or has little to say beyond touting his “accomplishments” (John Kasich comes to mind), they’re proving they don’t get it. Create an emotional bond with the people, and they’re yours. And they will remain yours in the face of others’ intellectual appeals for their affections, for, to paraphrase Jonathan Swift, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.” Note that while this relates the futility of trying to shake a person from passionately embraced error, people can also have an emotional attachment to correct beliefs, for the right or wrong reasons and with or without an intellectual understanding (e.g., Plato spoke of inculcating children, who are too young to grasp abstract moral principles, with an “erotic [emotional] attachment” to virtue).

And this is what Trump does so masterfully. When he repeats his slogan “Make America Great Again,” says we’re going to “win” under his administration or speaks of building a border wall and getting “Mexico to pay for it,” it’s silly to wonder why it resonates despite the lack of detail. He’s marketing, not doing R&D; he’s not trying to appeal mainly to the intellect, but the emotions. And you do this with the slogan, not by reciting the list of ingredients. Again, this isn’t a commentary on the validity of his recipe, only on the principles of effective campaigning.

Having said this, if a candidate is the real McCoy, he’ll also have a quality product with a list of ingredients (again, a policy-position webpage) for the discriminating shopper. But if he’s smart he’ll understand that most people are impulse buyers with relatively short memories and recognize the importance of branding himself. Coca-Cola has “Coke is it!” Nike “Just do it!” and Barack Obama had “Yes, we can!” (no, he couldn’t — but it worked). Now, can you think of a GOP candidate other than Trump identifiable by way of a catchy and popular slogan? And it’s no coincidence that “Make America Great Again” was also Reagan’s slogan in 1980.

Of course, stating the obvious, to connect with people emotionally you must capitalize on something appealing to them emotionally. Trump’s bold nationalism does this. What do the others offer? Jeb Bush is associated with saying that illegal migration is “an act of love” and John “Can’t do” Kasich with “Think about the [illegals’] families, c’mon, folks!” which might appeal to illegal migrants if they could speak English. And none of the others will even support suspending Muslim immigration — despite deep and widespread fear of Muslim terrorism — which certainly will appeal to Da’esh (ISIS).

It’s as if Trump is courting Lady America with wine, roses and his alpha-male persona, while the Establishment candidates are lead-tongued nerds promising a tent with NSA surveillance, a bowl of soup and squatters on a burnt-out lawn.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Conservatives Should Back Trump

Writing on the Wall for the GOP? Part I: A Slow Train Coming

University of South Florida divests from companies doing business with Israel

/in , , , , /by

USF Hillel in a January 22nd, 2016 press release states:

USF Hillel is saddened by the Student Senate decision to pass a resolution calling for the University Foundation to divest from companies that do business in Israel.

It must be known however, that this resolution does not reflect in any way the values of the University Administration, the vast majority of USF Faculty and Staff, nor the vast majority of USF students. This resolution does not reflect the values of USF of mutual respect, inclusivity and pluralism.

There is a wonderfully robust relationship between USF and Israel through many academic and research institutions across the country. We are proud that USF students can study abroad at any university in Israel and get full USF credit. We are proud that the USF Medical School’s Center for Advanced Medical Learning & Simulation (C.A.M.L.S.) uses cutting-edge Israeli technology. We are proud that academic partnerships exist between many USF faculty members and faculty of Israeli colleges and universities. There is so much to be proud of when it comes to USF and Israel!

This non-binding resolution was brought forward by a block of students in the Student Senate who used USF Students’ goodwill and lack of information, to demonize the only Democratic Society in the Middle East. What USF student would not sign a petition in the name of Dr. Martin Luther King, calling on the University to have a policy of ethical investing? What USF student would not want to stop funding companies involved in human rights violations?

In reality the divestment resolution is part of the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movements (BDS) which seeks to isolate Jews and anyone who supports Israel on campus through misinformation and intimidation. This is a “Goliath” organization which is well-financed and highly sophisticated. We at Hillel are fully supporting Israel and, as always, advancing our mission of providing safe, positive and meaningful Jewish experiences for our students. What we need from our parents, alumni and local community is funding to support the training of as many Student Israel Advocates at USF as possible at $1,500 each for a year. Even a $36 check from every member of our community would allow us to build a strong cadre of knowledgeable, capable student Israel Advocates who would be willing and able to deal with anti-Israel activity on many fronts. We could also use funding to bring in pro-Israel speakers and programming.

USF Hillel stands by our statement that this resolution, while passed under the guise of concern for human rights, is nothing more than a very clever and cynical manipulation of the truth. Yet once you get beyond the “Whereas and Wherefores” of the resolution, the resolution states that the only human rights violator on the entire planet worthy of mention and divestment is Israel. The resolution does not see fit to mention the human rights violations of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, The Palestinian Authority, Hamas, Lebanon, Afghanistan, China, Russia or a score of other countries…Only Israel. That is a double standard; and THAT…Is anti-Semitism. The Goal of the international BDS movement is to demonize, delegitimize and ultimately destroy the State of Israel, the only Jewish State in the world; and THAT…is Anti-Semitism. Let us be clear: USF is not anti-Semitic. However, the global BDS movement which sponsored and supported this resolution is.

This is historical fact: The Land of Israel has been the homeland of the Jewish People for more than 3,000 years. We also recognize however, that Palestinians have been on the land for hundreds of years and also consider it their home.

USF Hillel is Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestine and Pro-Peace. We hope for a solution to the conflict which will see the establishment of Two States for Two Peoples: An Independent Arab State of Palestine alongside the Jewish State of Israel. The Road to Peace is not paved with Boycotts, Divestments, Sanctions, Demonization or Terrorism. The road to peace will be carved out of mutual recognition and acceptance.

USF Hillel is proud to be part of the University of South Florida. We are proud of our Jewish students. We are proud of the great achievements that President Genshaft has made leading our university. We are proud of the growth of vibrant Jewish life on campus, and we WILL continue to be a positive force for the entire USF Community. And…we hope to see many, many more Jewish students enroll at and receive their diploma from USF. Go Bulls!

Massive Protests in Holland against Muslim Migrant Invasion

/in , , , , , /by

The New York Times covered a protest rally Saturday by Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party in The Hague Parliament in the Dutch community of Spijkenisse handing out cans of pepper spray. That was a send up on the Muslim male migrant misogyny in Cologne Germany and other German and European cities by what he calls: “Islamic testosterone bombs”.  As if to verify this threat the Imam in Cologne, Germany said the women who suffered sexual assaults and worse on New Year’s Eve by upwards of 1,000 Muslim males gathered at the main railway station brought upon themselves: “they were half naked and wore perfume.” Absurd! They were attired in warm clothing. Doubtless, the Imam thought they should have been immured in tip to toe niqabs. We had posted on the threats facing Dutch and other European women when Wilders and a fellow PVV Hague parliamentarian raised questions of the ruling coalition led by PM Mark Rutte were doing to protect Dutch women.

geert wilder facebook post protestThe New York Times report chronicled this latest protest rally by Wilders, “Dutch Lawmaker Wilders Gaining Support Amid Migrant Crisis:”

Wilders, surrounded by bodyguards and police, visited a market in the largely blue-collar town of Spijkenisse on Saturday to hand out the sprays, which contained red paint. Amid stalls selling vegetables, fish, flowers and bicycle parts, Wilders got a rock-star welcome from dozens of supporters, while a small group of protesters chanted and waved placards including one that read, “Refugees are welcome, racism is not.”

The publicity stunt fits into Wilders’ uncompromising anti-immigrant, anti-Islam rhetoric that has propelled him to the top of Dutch opinion polls, just over a year away from parliamentary elections.

In between shaking hands and posing for selfies with supporters, the Freedom Party leader said that, if elected, he would, “close the borders immediately and have no more asylum seekers. We just cannot afford to have more. The Dutch people in a big majority don’t want it and we cannot afford it and it makes our people and women only more unsafe.”

His message is gaining traction here amid the Europe-wide migrant surge and following attacks by Islamic extremists in Paris last year. It echoes Republican front-runner Donald Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States and is similar to other populist, nationalist groups in Europe like Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France.

“The tendencies across Europe are very similar,” said University of Amsterdam political science professor Wouter van der Brug. “Across Europe, right-wing populist parties are picking up support as a result of the asylum crisis that we’re facing now, and also as a result of terrorist attacks.”

Leontine Maris was one of the first women to get a spray from Wilders on Saturday.

The 53-year-old said she votes for him though she disagrees with some of his more extreme comments. She said she was afraid not just of migrants, but also Dutch men.

“The whole society is going down the drain,” she said.

As Wilders’ popularity soars on the back of such disenchantment, Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s two-party coalition is in a slump, losing ground mainly to Wilders.

“Wilders is getting support across different layers of society,” Van der Brug said.

Whether Wilders is able to parlay his current popularity into parliamentary seats next year and a tilt at power in the splintered Dutch parliament remains to be seen. He propped up Rutte’s first administration, a minority coalition of the Liberal Party and Christian Democrats, from 2010-2012, but walked out amid drawn out negotiations over austerity measures. Two days later, the government collapsed.

That decision could yet come back to haunt Wilders.

“The only logical coalition he could form would be with the same parties again and I think it’s quite unlikely they will do this again with him because of the negative experience they have in the past,” Van der Brug said. “They don’t really trust him.”

Rutte has ruled out cooperating with Wilders unless the Freedom Party leader takes back comments made in 2014 that he would see to it that there were fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands. Those same comments also landed Wilders in trouble with Dutch prosecutors, who plan to put him on trial on charges of discrimination.

Continue reading the main story

Despite the political naysayers, Dutch voters have come out in support of Wilders. There have been protests at Dutch reception centers amid reports that some migrants have left the Netherlands because they did not receive a warm welcome and had problems trying to apply for family reunification. The estimated annual cost of handling the flood of Muslim migrants in Holland fleeing conflicts from hotspots in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa is nearly 1 billion Euros. Wilders’ Kafkaesque show trial in The Hague occasioned by his “fewer Moroccans” comment at a 2015 campaign rally is scheduled for March 2016.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

U.S. Anti-Semitism in 2015: 302 Incidents at 109 Colleges in 28 States

/in , , , , /by

Credit Tammi Rossman Benjamin of University of California – Santa Cruz with establishing the AMCHA Initiative – an on-line data base reporting anti-Semitic incidents occurring with rising frequency  on US college campuses. The Initiative was created to protect  Jewish students  and  staff on campuses. The 2015 AMCHA report cite more than 302 incidents at 109 campuses in more than 28 states. Several more incidents were recorded on campuses in January 2016.  It is a chronicle of Jew hatred fostered by the alliance of the extremist Students for Justice in Palestine, Boycott, investment and Sanctions (BDS)  and neo-Nazi groups plaguing college campuses. Yesterday, we posted on the Florida State Senate unanimously passing legislation against companies boycotting Israeli companies. We understand a major  motivation for the anti-BDS  legislation being promoting across the country during current legislative sessions  was to address the virulent BDS anti-Israel protests on college campuses in the Sunshine and other major states.

map of anti semitic incident us college campuses

Map of 2015 Anti Semitic Incidents on US College Campuses. Source: AMCHA Initiative

Crossing-The-Line-1-620x328

Students chant “Allahu akbar” and “We are Hamas!” (Image source: Crossing the Line 2)

This Washington  Free Beacon report by Adam Kredo presents some troubling examples of campus Jew hatred that looks eerily like what happened in the 1930’s in Nazi Germany, “Anti-Semitic Incidents on U.S. College Campuses Spike:”

The array of incidents were recorded at many universities and often included Nazi imagery, slurs calling Jews “evil,” and calls for Jews be murdered, according to a report published by the AMCHA Initiative, an organization that seeks to protect Jewish students.

The organization created an online database that logs in real time reports of new anti-Semitic incidents at colleges across the nation. Several anti-Semitic incidents have been recorded in the first month of 2016.

Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, AMCHA co-founder and director, warned that anti-Semitism on campus is growing as a result of highly aggressive anti-Israel student movements such as the group Students for Justice in Palestine, which has used Nazi imagery in its campaign to demonize Israel.

“There is a clear correlation between anti-Israel activism—particularly BDS campaigns—and the anti-Semitic targeting of Jewish students,” Rossman-Benjamin told the Washington Free Beacon. “For instance, acts of anti-Jewish harassment, discrimination, and defamation are higher in schools where BDS activity is high. The connection between BDS and campus anti-Semitism is undeniable.”

Some of the incidents recorded at universities were violent in nature, according to the report.

At the University of Oregon, for instance, a man yelling anti-Semitic slurs threatened to shoot a Jewish student.

At Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn, New York, an Orthodox Jewish student “was punched in the face and told ‘Leave the school, you Jew,’” according to the report.

Students also used social media networks such as Twitter to threaten Jewish students.

One female student-athlete at Delaware Valley College came under scrutiny for tweeting, “Can I kill all the [expletive deleted] Jews in Lakewood pleeeasse?!?!!”

Nazi-style demonstrations also were held on campuses in 2015.

Thirty members of a group called the Traditionalist Youth Network at Indiana University “marched on campus holding anti-Semitic signs and wearing Nazi memorabilia,” according to the report.

In a similar incident at the University of California at Santa Cruz, members of the Students for Justice in Palestine group—which has been shut down on some campuses for its virulent anti-Semitism—established mock checkpoints around campus and forced Jewish students to “show ID cards.”

At least 15 college campuses—including George Washington University, the University of Maryland, and Tufts University—had incidences of anti-Semitic graffiti, including swastikas and anti-Semitic slurs.

“Jews—the root of all evil” was written on a wall in the Brooklyn College campus library, the report found.

Other incidents across the country include mezuzahs being vandalized, swastikas being scrawled on school buildings, and convicted terrorists being invited to speak on campus.

At Towson University, one vandal repeatedly went across campus writing, “Hitler was right” and “with Jews you lose.”

Similarly, a the University of California at Berkeley, “Zionists should be sent to the gas chamber” was found “etched on school property,” according to the report.

Leila Beckwith, an AMCHA co-founder and professor emeritus at the University of California at Los Angeles, warned that college officials often dismiss discrimination against Jews.

“Anti-Semitism, what many of us thought only a decade or so ago was a sad part of our history, continues to rear its ugly head on campuses from coast to coast,” Beckwith said in a statement. “What those of us that monitor cases on a regular basis know is today’s anti-Semitism not only includes swastikas and historical anti-Jewish slang.”

RELATED ARTICLE: How Europe’s Radical Refugee Shakeup Could Push Britain Out of the EU

RELATED VIDEO: Crossing the Line 2: The New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus:

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image of a college student holding an Israeli flag with swastika is courtesy of Crossing the Line 2.

Idaho: Citizens defeat pro-Muslim Migrant resolution

/in , , , , , , /by

Increasingly city and county governments are making themselves heard on the issue of UN/US State Department refugee resettlement for their communities.  We told you here recently about Craven Co. North Carolina considering a resolution opposing more refugees. And, then here in Montana, the Missoula County Commission opened the door for the resettlement of third-worlders from the Middle East and Africa.

In Idaho, a heated public meeting of the Sandpoint City Council in Bonner County in the far northern reaches of the state resulted in the withdrawal of a resolution to support refugee resettlement to the community.

The federal government and their paid resettlement contractors (listed here) will be quick to say that local governments have no right to say whether refugees are seeded there or not.  However, they do frequently say they will not place refugees where the refugees would be “unwelcome”

If Congress was doing its job there would be a major movement to rewrite the Refugee Act of 1980 (or scrap it all together) in order to give local communities a say in what happens to their counties, cities and towns.  I predict there will be increasing tension in towns across America on the controversial issue.

And, it’s not just about the prospect that Islamic terrorists might be in the refugee stream, there are very serious economic costs involved as refugees (as a special immigrant class) are able to access most forms of welfare available only to American citizens. They also add to the shortage of low income housing often pushing poor and disabled Americans to the back of the line.

From Boise Weekly:

Sandpoint mayor

Sandpoint Mayor Shelby Rognstad

Sandpoint City Council members voted Wednesday night to withdraw a resolution supporting refugee resettlement, bringing an end to a heated, month-long controversy.

Cheers erupted from the audience when newly elected Sandpoint Mayor Shelby Rognstad asked the council to withdraw the resolution from consideration. A measure meant to counter statements from Bonner County commissioners and Sheriff Darryl Wheeler opposing the resettlement of refugees, the resolution was intended to restate Sandpoint’s commitments to human rights, according to Rognstad.

“This resolution has only served to divide us and this community,” said Rognstad, as he requested the withdrawal. “That saddens me.”

Once again, anti-refugee activists turned out in force to oppose the resolution and, once again, the council meeting procedure was punctured by applause and shouts. When Rognstad called for order, the crowd responded with catcalls.

There is much more, continue reading here.

We have an extensive archive on Idaho, learn more by clicking here.  Both Boise and Twin Falls are already large resettlement sites.

Be sure to learn more about Jan Reeves who is responsible for refugees going to Idaho.  He was a 2013 Obama Champion of Change, see here.

‘Humanitarianism’ is a cover for big business drivers of more immigration.

For citizens of Idaho and everywhere being confronted with this issue, please be sure to investigate and find out what large industries are driving the resettlement where you live.  Big business including BIG MEAT, Chobani Yogurt, and other manufacturing companies are looking for cheap immigrant labor and the federal resettlement contractors act as ‘head hunters’ for them.

The big business pays low wages and the remainder of the refugee family’s support comes from the taxpayer via welfare, education and medical care.

Also, find out which elected officials are receiving campaign donations from those companies.  Expose them!

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. Asylum fraud a growing problem; will success of European Muslim invasion inspire more?

Muslim refugee in California was “eager to see blood,” wanted to learn “long range shooting,” said “Allah has facilitated” his travels

Germany: New Years Eve sexual assaults much worse than previously reported; involved Syrian refugees

Philadelphia: Muslim Cop-Shooter who Pledged Allegiance to ISIS Visited Egypt and Saudi Arabia

Danish message to migrants: we eat pork!

Now Toronto wants a pause in Syrian refugee flow to city!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the audience cheering as Sandpoint Mayor Shelby Rognstad withdraws resolution. Boise Weekly Photo: Ben Olsen

Busting Myths about Income Inequality by Chelsea German

/in , , , , /by

Politicians speak often about income inequality. But that doesn’t mean they are well-informed. Indeed, they propagate four myths about the issue.

  1. Most often, those vying for elected office describe income inequality as static — as though the people who make up each income group do not change.
    The “top 1 percent” or the “top 10 percent” of income-earners are portrayed as exclusive clubs that seldom accept new members or see old and current members leave. No fluidity, no change.
  2. Political figures also have a tendency only to blame income inequality on factors like trade, immigration, an insufficiently high minimum wage, inadequate taxes on the wealthy, or the vague concept of “greed.”
  3. They typically ignore the sizeable role of choices under an individual’s control.
  4. They downplay the role of regressive government regulations.

Reality is much more interesting than soundbites.

Americans often move between different income brackets over the course of their lives. Indeed, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives, and over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners for at least one year.

Fortunately, a great deal of what explains this income mobility are choices that are largely within an individual’s control. While people tend to earn more in their “prime earning years” than in their youth or old age, other key factors that explain income differences are education level, marital status, and number of earners per household. As AEI’s Mark Perry recently wrote:

The good news is that the key demographic factors that explain differences in household income are not fixed over our lifetimes and are largely under our control (e.g. staying in school and graduating, getting and staying married, etc.), which means that individuals and households are not destined to remain in a single income quintile forever.

According to the U.S. economist Thomas Sowell, whom Perry cites, “Most working Americans, who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent.”

While people move between income groups over their lifetime, many worry that income inequality between different income groups is increasing. The growing income inequality is real, but its causes are more complex than the demagogues make them out to be.

Consider, for example, the effect of “power couples,” or people with high levels of education marrying one another and forming dual-earner households. In a free society, people can marry whoever they want, even if it does contribute to widening income disparities.

Or consider the effects of regressive government regulations on exacerbating income inequality. These include barriers to entry that protect incumbent businesses and stifle competition. To name one extreme example, Louisiana recently required a government-issued license to become a florist. Lifting more of these regressive regulations would aid income mobility and help to reduce income inequality, while also furthering economic growth.

If our elections were more about the substance of serious public policy issues, rather than demagoguery and soundbites, achieving reasonable solutions could move from the land of make-believe to our complex, dynamic reality.

This article first appeared at CapX.

Chelsea GermanChelsea German

Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

Is Trump Trustworthy? Is Cruz Likable?

/in , , , , , /by

A puzzling mindset has emerged in some conservatives regarding Cruz. A publisher who usually publishes my articles rejected one touting Ted Cruz for president. The publisher politely lectured me about my support for Cruz; calling it misguided and even non Christian. I love the way when people know you are Christian they try to use your faith to manipulate you. (smile)

Conservatives choosing to perceive Trump as they want him to be is a reflection of their anger, frustration and fear of losing their country. I witnessed this phenomenon when Trump first announced his campaign. An evangelical minister attempted to convince me that Trump is a committed Christian. I was a bit taken aback. While I do not think poorly of Trump, it never occurred to me to use the words “Trump” and “Christian” in the same sentence. My Evangelical brother’s effort to make Trump a strong Christian confirmed that Conservatives are desperate. Pure and simple.

The reality is many conservatives will follow anyone promising “real” change in Washington. Given the betrayal, heartache and disappointment that the GOP has put tea partiers/patriots through, I cannot criticize my patriot brothers and sisters who support Trump. It kind of offends me when I hear conservative pundits trashing Trump supporters; in essence, beating up on the victims.

I will state again that if Trump becomes our GOP nominee, I will wave “Vote Trump!” signs on street corners. However, I do have concerns about the man. I am not talking about the mainstream media, Democrats and RINO’s accusations about Trump.

As a matter of fact, please allow me to digress for a moment. I heard a report that British politicians have half a million signatures on a petition supportive of banning Trump from the UK because of his proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from the U.S. Folks, this infuriated me. I thought, “Just because you idiots have surrendered to political correctness and allowed Muslim terrorists to dominate your country, does not mean we should do the same in the US!”

Back to my issues with Trump. My dad said a snake can swim under water a very long time just like a fish. However, it eventually has to come up for air because it is not a fish, it is a snake. Folks, I am not calling Trump a snake. I am simply saying while Trump has touted conservative values during his campaign, Trump’s history is not conservative. Perhaps, Trump has had a road to Damascus conversion and is now a rabid conservative. Who knows? But why risk it?

A wise person said, “The best predictor of future behavior is… past behavior.” Folks, I suspect that there is very little doubt in your mind as to who Ted Cruz is and what he will do as president. Cruz has a history of rock solid conservatism.

And dare I mention the “C” word, character. Cruz proudly proclaims his Christianity. Real religious conviction affects ones character/behavior. I want my president to believe that there is a God and that it is not him.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom…” Proverbs 8:10

William Bradford, the Christian who lead the pilgrims on the Mayflower to the new world, seeking religious freedom, knew this scripture to be true. Bradford was very outspoken about his belief and trust in God to lead them to their new home in the new world; built on the unique concept of individual freedom.

What I found most distressing about SCOTUS, in essence, making same sex marriage the law of the land is the Left’s successful effort to make normal what has been considered deviant since the beginning of time. SCOTUS’s decision opened the floodgates not for tolerance, but for Americans to be bullied into embracing anti-biblical behavior. Why do same sex couples force Christian businesses to service their weddings rather than going to businesses with flashing neon signs, “We Service Homosexual Weddings”? Clearly, their agenda is not about getting a wedding cake and all about the Left’s intolerance of Christians.

It still blows my mind that Christians are actually being thrown into jail in the United States of America for not embracing sodomy. Ted Cruz has vowed to defend religious freedom. I know he will.

A tea party group leader said they feel like Cruz is lecturing them when he speaks. I thought, “Excuse me. With a morally bankrupted anti-America scoundrel like Barack Obama running our country for eight years, America desperately needs a leader/Commander-in-Chief of the highest character and moral standards”. No way, would I reject such a candidate because I feel a bit intimidated in their presence. In a field of two-faced, say-whatever-necessary-to-win candidates, I say praise God for a candidate who truly stands for something (conservatism).

When I was a child, I assumed all US presidents were exceptional people of the highest character. Man, was I wrong. Americans long for a great trustworthy and moral leader. America desperately needs Ted Cruz.

RELATED ARTICLE: What Trump and Sanders Said about Oil Prices 4 Years Ago