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

VIDEO: Pastor Jack Martin Running for Congress in Florida’s 11th District

/in , , , , , , /by

Florida’s 11th Congressional District includes Sumter, Citrus and Hernando counties and most of Marion county. The current representative of the 11th Congressional District is Richard B. Nugent (R). Nugent is retiring at the end of his current term.

Pastor John “Jack” Martin has decided for God and country to run for Nugent’s seat. Here is a video of Jack Martin speaking at a Second Amendment rally:

Guns Across America Florida Rally Pastor Jack Martin from Jack Martin on Vimeo.

Pastor Marin’s history is that of a 33 year pastor. He is a member of the Black Robe Regiment and Preacher from The Pulpit. He has been standing up, speaking out and attending various events throughout the State of Florida to Washington D.C. He has always felt that a position as a statesman, U.S. Congressional Rep. to represent The People was his next calling in life.

Martin on his website lists six major crises Americans face:

  1. The National Debt – Over 18 Trillion Dollars
  2. Our Borders – Unprotected and being flooded daily with those entering illegally from many nations.
  3. Our Military both Veterans and Active Duty treated poorly.
  4. Obamacare – Needing to be repealed and replaced.
  5. Israeli / American Relationships – Need to be restored.
  6. Our Judeo Christian Ethics – under heavy attack.

Jack Martin speaking on the Black Robe Regiment at a Deland, Florida Rally in December 2015:

Pastor Martin has been endorsed by William Finlay, Wild Bill for America, also a Black Robe Regiment member among others.

Supporter Deb Howard states, “Pastor Jack is well known for his candor of Gods word and the application in conjunction with today’s times that we face. His deliveries are captivating. I am attaching one in particular that I believe delivers Jacks beliefs as he does walk the walk. There is no denying that people are pleasantly surprised as the preacher from the small country church is ready willing and able to face the evil in D.C. unafraid to be heard and willing to fight the mass corruption within our Halls!”

“Pastor Jack is also acquainted with Geoff Ross, Senior Chief, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Michael McCallister, Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.), Ann Murrin, PoliticoChicks, Rodney Conover (writer and radio host), Joe The Plumber and numerous others who are supporting, covering the campaign trail and publishing information about him, ” said Howard.

Howard notes, “Our attempt to make Pastor John Martin a household name not only in District FL-11 but nationwide as he is challenging pastors to step out and off of the pulpit and guide congregations to comprehend the true nature of their work. As Black Robe Regiment Pastors joined in leading with George Washington to fight for our independence in the Revolutionary War, so stands John Martin.”

EDITORS NOTE: Readers wanting more information may visit the Jack Martin for Congress website.

Duck Dynasty’s Willie Robertson Endorses Donald Trump for President

/in , , , , , /by

Duck Dynasty Willie Robertson Publicly Endorses Donald TrumpLAS VEGAS, Nevada /PRNewswire/ — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump garnered another major endorsement of his campaign when Duck Dynasty star and outdoor lifestyle advocate  Willie Robertson – during an appearance at the Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channel’s Outdoor Sportsman Awards in Las Vegas at the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT Show) and Conference – appeared and announced his support for the GOP frontrunner.

Robertson, who along with Trump was a guest at the 16th Annual Outdoor Sportsman Awards show, is part of a constituency in the United States that numbers 134 million strong in advocating and participating in outdoor lifestyle activities. Robertson’s endorsement comes on the heels of Sarah Palin, who recently hosted Sportsman Channel’s Amazing America with Sarah Palin. Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channel are the world’s leading messengers in providing outdoor lifestyle content.

“He’s not afraid to tell it like it is,” said Robertson. “He’s a friend of the Second Amendment…the man I’m standing behind to be the next President of the United States – Donald Trump.”

Robertson and his family started their television careers on Outdoor Channel with their Buck Commander show. Since then, the family has found wild television success on A&E with Duck Dynasty, which recently began airing Seasons 1-6 in syndication on Outdoor Channel (Mondays at 7 p.m. ET). Willie Robertson continues to commandeer Buck Commander on Outdoor Channel, as well.

Considered the Emmy Awards® of outdoor lifestyle programming, the Outdoor Sportsman Awards serve as the hallmark event to recognize outstanding programming created by Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channeltalent and production teams during the previous year. The ceremony feature 17 awards including Fan Favorite Host(s) awards for Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channel.

About Outdoor Sportsman Group

Outdoor Sportsman Group is comprised of the world’s foremost media and entertainment brands for outdoor adventure enthusiasts. It includes three leading multichannel networks: Outdoor Channel, Sportsman Channel and World Fishing Network. The Group also consists of a number of established integrated media assets: 15 outdoor magazines, such as Guns & Ammo, Petersen’s Bowhunting and Florida Sportsman, and 17 top websites, including BassFan.com. Additionally, Outdoor Sportsman Group includes television production operations, Winnercomm, as well as aerial camera businesses, SkyCam and CableCam.

About Outdoor Channel

Outdoor Channel has been taking viewers across America and around the world on unparalleled adventures since 1993. Dedicated to the outdoor lifestyle and conservation, the independent cable network is a division of Outdoor Sportsman Group and provides a complete spectrum of riveting hunting, fishing, shooting and adventure entertainment. Outdoor Channel is the largest outdoor TV footprint in the country and is available in more than 50 countries internationally. Outdoor Channel can be viewed in HD and is accessible by broadband and mobile platforms. For program times and other information, visit www.outdoorchannel.com. Follow us onTwitter, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube, and download our iPhone and iPad app. #WhatGetsYouOutdoors

About Sportsman Channel

Launched in 2003, Sportsman Channel/Sportsman HD is a television and digital media company fully devoted to honoring a lifestyle that is celebrated by millions of Americans. A division of Outdoor Sportsman Group, Sportsman Channel delivers entertaining and informative programming that showcases outdoor adventure, hunting and fishing, and illustrates it through unique and authentic storytelling. Sportsman Channel embraces the attitude of “Red, Wild & Blue America” – where the American Spirit and Great Outdoors are celebrated in equal measure. Stay connected to Sportsman Channel online at thesportsmanchannel.com, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

About World Fishing Network
World Fishing Network is North America’s only television network, online and mobile platform dedicated exclusively to fishing and outdoor enthusiasts with programming that covers instruction, tips, tournaments, travel, food, boating, outdoor lifestyle and more. Available to cable, satellite and telco subscribers throughoutthe United States, Canada and the Caribbean, our lineup includes a selection of the best international series and the most diverse species coverage of any TV channel hosted by some of the top anglers from North America and across the globe. For more information, please visit WorldFishingNetwork.com and follow us atFacebook and Twitter.

About Outdoor Sportsman Group – Integrated Media

As a premier destination for the most avid outdoors enthusiasts, Outdoor Sportsman Group’s Integrated Media division is widely recognized for its strong special-interest multichannel brands, including Petersen’s Hunting, Guns & Ammo, In-Fisherman, North American Whitetail, Game & Fish and 10 other leading magazines that reach more than 26 million readers. Its network of 17 websites, including BassFan.com, attract more than 38 million annual unique visitors, and hundreds of TV episodes of original branded hunting, sport shooting and fishing programming that airs on Outdoor Sportsman Group’s broadcast entities. Visit http://outdoorsg.com for more information.

 

British Parliament Moves Against the Real Threat: Donald Trump

/in , , , , , /by

In FrontPage today I discuss how the British Parliament went into full Sharia mode as it debated banning the Presidential candidate for his unwelcome opinions.

Say goodnight, Winston. Sayonara, Shakespeare. It’s light’s out in the United Kingdom. In Britain, it’s all over but the Sharia. This was made abundantly clear on Monday, when the British Parliament held a three-hour debate on whether or not to ban Donald Trump from the country.

It used to be that only serious criminals, severe threats to the public order, were ever banned from countries. Ostensibly, that is still the case, but the idea of who and what constitutes a threat to the public order has changed. Multitudes in Britain want to keep Trump out of their green and pleasant land not because he absconded with the church funds, or plotted bomb attacks in the London Tube, but because he said that in light of the jihad terror threat and the impossibility of distinguishing Islamic jihadists from peaceful Muslims, there should be a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the U.S.

For that, the learned Parliamentarians debated banning Trump from Britain, and in the process, heaped abuse upon him, calling him a “fool,” a “buffoon” and a “wazzock,” which is apparently a word more properly applied to those who voted for David Cameron. One thing that never became clear during the entire three hours of heated discussion, however, was what terrible results the foes of Trump thought might ensue from his entry into the Sceptered Isle. Did they think that if he repeated his call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration on British soil, that Muslims, those notorious shrinking violets, would retreat to psychologists’ couches in such droves that the British mental health system would be overwhelmed?

More likely, the unspoken fear was that if Trump entered Britain, Muslims would riot. And so those British politicians who have insisted that Islam is a Religion of Peace moved to ban him, knowing but afraid to admit that the adherents of the most famous peaceful religion in the world could quite easily become violent if crossed. To avoid crossing them was their highest of priorities – and as Sharia forbids criticism of Islam and offense to Muslims, they eagerly became Sharia-compliant, eagerly anticipating the electoral rewards that were certain to follow in the wake of their submission.

The whole thing looks now as if it was just a chance for Trump’s foes to do a bit of grandstanding and show their Muslim masters how solidly they were in their corner, but seriously, why not ban Trump? After all, I myself was banned from entering Britain for saying that Islam “is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society.”

The anti-Trump movement in the UK implied that Trump might escape due punishment for his heinous crimes because he is rich: “If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the ‘unacceptable behaviour’ criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.” But that’s a lot of hooey. The “unacceptable behavior” criteria is already applied unfairly. Just days before Pamela Geller and I were banned, the British government admitted Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arefe. Al-Arefe has said:

“Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”

That was acceptable in Britain. My work, which has consistently denounced violence and been in defense of the equality of rights of all before the law, was not. That’s a fair application of the “unacceptable behaviors” criteria?

If I can get banned for making a manifestly true observation about Islam, then Trump can certainly be banned for calling for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration in view of jihad terror. The UK continues to demonize and stigmatize resistance to jihad terror, and will probably continue to do so until it is far too late: the last free Briton will be congratulating himself that he was not “Islamophobic” as the knife slices through his neck.

As Britain continues to make itself an international laughingstock, transgressing its core principles by banning people for holding unpopular opinions, there is one thing that can be said for that once-great nation: as Sharia states go, it is a hell of a lot funnier than Saudi Arabia or Iran.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Muslim migrants grope Swedish woman, demand she “make sex”

Islamic State razes to ground 1,400-year-old Christian monastery

ShariAmerica: Islam, Obama and the Establishment Clause

/in , , , , /by

The U.S. government condemns burning the Qur’an. Yet the U.S. government burns Bibles. This is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Senate Democrats kill the Syrian Refugee SAFE Act — use Trump as excuse

/in , , , , , , /by

Senate Democrats showed their abject fear of Donald Trump by bringing him into the debate as they did.

As we told you a couple of days ago, the federal refugee resettlement contractors were whipping their forces to tell their Senators to oppose a bill that had passed the House in November with broad bipartisan support.  The contractors were so afraid of losing their Muslim ‘clients’ (a large portion of those for which they are paid by the head to bring to your towns).

 

Yesterday, the Senate failed to get cloture and move the bill with enough votes to assure Obama would not veto it.  From insiders we learned that the bill, if it ever passed and was signed by Obama, would have been a fig leaf and not done much to keep us safe from terrorists getting into your neighborhoods from places like Syria and Iraq.

The vote, however, was informative.  All Democrats except Bernie Sanders who missed the vote, and two brave souls, voted to kill the bill. Republicans including the three US Senators running for President voted to move the bill.

The two Dems who bucked the party (and the grassroots working for contractors) were West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin and North Dakota Senator Heidi Heitkamp.

Here is the roll call vote.

This is what Reuters says about the vote:

U.S. Senate Democrats on Wednesday narrowly blocked legislation that would slow the entry of refugees from Syria and Iraq to the United States in a contentious vote cloaked in presidential election-year politics.

Manchin and Heitkamp

Democratic Senators Manchin and Heitkamp.

The vote was 55-43, with “yes” votes falling short of the 60 needed to advance the Republican-backed measure in the 100-member Senate. No Republicans voted against the bill, and only two Democrats backed it.

Among other things, the bill would halt the admission of refugees and require high-level U.S. officials to verify that each refugee from Iraq and Syria posed no security risk before being allowed into the United States.  [This is the part of the bill that was so weak because the Obama Administration (and a Hillary one too) would simply verify that screening was adequate.—ed]

Republicans said the tighter screening was essential to ensure the safety of Americans and prevent attacks within the country by Islamic State and other militant groups.

“This bipartisan bill would allow Washington to step back, take a breath and ensure it has the correct policies and security screenings in place,” Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said in the Senate before the vote.

[….]

All three Senate Republican 2016 presidential hopefuls, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, backed the bill. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders missed the vote.

Dems tried and failed to bring Donald Trump into the debate.  Who in their right mind would have gone along with this trick!

Democrats also sought to play politics. They tried and failed to reach a deal with Republicans to set up a vote on an amendment establishing a religious test for would-be immigrants.

That vote was planned to see if Republicans would side against presidential candidate Donald Trump, who has advocated barring Muslims from entering the United States.

The Syria refugee bill passed the House by a large margin days after the Nov. 13 Islamic State attacks in Paris. The bill was supported by dozens of Democrats who defied Democratic President Barack Obama’s veto threat.

There is mention in the story that refugees are screened for 18-24 months which is a joke.  They are briefly screened, then they wait for their plane tickets and their assignments to your towns!

Conclusion!  Democrats, except those in West Virginia and North Dakota, are on the side of flooding America with refugees from terror-producing countries.  That is pretty clear.

And, it is also pretty clear that there is much work ahead (Congress is not going to save us!) during Election 2016 to educate the public through whatever means possible about the Refugee Admissions Program which is being effectively directed by the United Nations choosing America’s refugees.

RELATED ARTICLE: How Nearly 500,000 Visa Overstays Will Impact the Immigration Debate

Geert Wilders: ‘Welcome, Donald Trump’ to the land of thoughtcrimes

/in , , , , , , /by

Britain: the cradle of freedom, now the land of thoughtcrime.

“Exclusive–Geert Wilders: Delusional Britain Would Rather Ban Donald Trump Than Confront Unpleasant Facts,” by Geert Wilders, Breitbart, January 19, 2016:

Deja-vu. It is not an English word, but French. However, the word immediately springs to mind when hearing about yet another Western politician or Islam critic, whom some British politicians want to ban from entering their country. Welcome, Donald Trump, in the company of Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and myself.

Both Pamela, Robert and myself have been banned from entering the United Kingdom. In my case, it happened on February 12, 2009. Two highly respected members of the British House of Lords, Lady Caroline Cox and Lord Malcolm Pearson, had invited me to show my 2008 documentary Fitna to members of the House in a conference room of the parliament building in Westminster. Fitna is a movie, juxtaposing Koranic versed calling for violence with footage of terrorist attacks and other violent deeds these verses inspired.

Fitna, as well as my view that Islam, rather than a religion, is primarily a totalitarian political ideology aiming for world domination, has resulted in several death threats against my person. I am on the death list of Al-Qaeda, ISIS and the Pakistani Taliban. Since 2004, I have been living under round-the-clock police protection, but I have a mission: Speak the truth about Islam.

However, a Pakistani-born Islamic member of the House of Lords, one Nazir Ahmed, demanded that the then British Labour government ban me from entering the UK. He threatened that he would personally mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent me from entering the Upper House. The government complied and had me banned. Though a member of the Dutch parliament, invited by British colleagues, I was locked up in a detention room upon arrival at Heathrow Airport. Three hours later, I was put on the next flight to Amsterdam.

The British authorities said that my “presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society.” My statements as expressed in Fitna and elsewhere were said to “threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.” Lord Ahmed boasted of his victory in the Pakistani media. He termed the decision “a victory for the Muslim community.”

However, I challenged the ban before the British Asylum and Immigration Tribunal. On October 12, 2009, this tribunal overturned the ban. In March 2010, I returned to London and showed my movie to my colleagues in Westminster. There were no incidents and no disturbances of Britain’s “fundamental interests,” “community harmony,” or “public security.” The bans served but one goal: It was an attempt to shut me up for speaking the truth about Islam.

Yesterday, Pamela Geller wrote on this website that in June 2013, she and Robert Spencer, too, were banned from the UK because their presence was “not conductive to the public good” and a “threat to security of our society.” It sounded eerily familiar, as did the arguments of those who want Donald Trump to be banned from Britain for advocating a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the US. Fortunately, they did not succeed.

When the great Ronald Reagan visited the British Parliament in 1982, he told the British parliamentarians that “if history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly.” This is an advice that politicians everywhere should take at heart.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK jihadis laugh as they watch Islamic State execution video in restaurant

Hugh Fitzgerald: Sticking to the Details

Teens Who Use Marijuana at Risk of Schizophrenia

/in , , , , , /by

In a pre-clinical study, researchers from Western University in Ontario, Canada, studied the effects of long-term exposure to THC in both adolescent and adult rats.

They found changes in behavior as well as in brain cells in the adolescent rats that were identical to those found in schizophrenia. These changes lasted into early adulthood long after the initial THC exposure.

The young rats were “socially withdrawn and demonstrated increased anxiety, cognitive disorganization, and abnormal levels of dopamine, all of which are features of schizophrenia,” according to the article. The same effects were not seen in the adult rats.

“With the current rise in cannabis use and the increase in THC content, it is critically important to highlight the risk factors associated with exposure to marijuana, particularly during adolescence,” the researchers warn.

Read Medical News Today story here. Read study abstract in the journal Cerebral Cortex here.

Government Caused the ‘Great Stagnation’ by Peter J. Boettke

/in , , , , /by

Tyler Cowen caused quite a stir with his e-book, The Great Stagnation. In properly assessing his work it is important to state explicitly what his argument actually is. Median real income has stagnated since 1980, and the reason is that the rate of technological advance has slowed. Moreover, the technological advances that have taken place with such rapidity in recent history have improved well-being, but not in ways that are easily measured in real income statistics.

Critics of Cowen more often than not miss the mark when they focus on the wild improvements in our real income due to quality improvements (e.g., cars that routinely go over 100,000 miles) and lower real prices (e.g., the amount of time required to acquire the inferior version of yesterday’s similar commodities).

Cowen does not deny this. Nor does Cowen deny that millions of people were made better off with the collapse of communism, the relative freeing of the economies in China and India, and the integration into the global economy of the peoples of Africa and Latin America. Readers of The Great Stagnation should be continually reminded that they are reading the author of In Praise of Commercial Culture and Creative Destruction. Cowen is a cultural optimist, a champion of the free trade in ideas, goods, services and all artifacts of mankind. But he is also an economic realist in the age of economic illusion.

What do I mean by the economics of illusion? Government policies since WWII have created an illusion that irresponsible fiscal policy, the manipulation of money and credit, and expansion of the regulation of the economy is consistent with rising standards of living. This was made possible because of the “low hanging” technological fruit that Cowen identifies as being plucked in the 19th and early 20th centuries in the US, and in spite of the policies government pursued.

An accumulated economic surplus was created by the age of innovation, which the age of economic illusion spent down. We are now coming to the end of that accumulated surplus and thus the full weight of government inefficiencies are starting to be felt throughout the economy. Our politicians promised too much, our government spends too much, in an apparent chase after the promises made, and our population has become too accustomed to both government guarantees and government largess.

Adam Smith long ago argued that the power of self-interest expressed in the market was so strong that it could overcome hundreds of impertinent restrictions that government puts in the way. But there is some tipping point at which that ability to overcome will be thwarted, and the power of the market will be overcome by the tyranny of politics. Milton Friedman used that language to talk about the 1970s; we would do well to resurrect that language to talk about today.

Cowen’s work is a subversive track in radical libertarianism because he identifies that government growth (both measured in terms of scale and scope) was possible only because of the rate of technological improvements made in the late 19th and early 20th century.

We realized the gains from trade (Smithian growth), we realized the gains from innovation (Schumpeterian growth), and we fought off (in the West, at least) totalitarian government (Stupidity). As long as Smithian growth and Schumpeterian growth outpace Stupidity, tomorrow’s trough will still be higher than today’s peak. It will appear that we can afford more Stupidity than we can actually can because the power of self-interest expressed through the market offsets its negative consequences.

But if and when Stupidity is allowed to outpace the Smithian gains from trade and the Schumpeterian gains from innovation, then we will first stagnate and then enter a period of economic backwardness — unless we curtail Stupidity, explore new trading opportunities, or discover new and better technologies.

In Cowen’s narrative, the rate of discovery had slowed, all the new trading opportunities had been exploited, and yet government continued to grow both in terms of scale and scope. And when he examines the 3 sectors in the US economy — government services, education, and health care — he finds little improvement since 1980 in the production and distribution of the services. In fact, there is evidence that performance has gotten worse over time, especially as government’s role in health care and education has expanded.

The Great Stagnation is a condemnation of government growth over the 20th century. It was made possible only by the amazing technological progress of the late 19th and early 20th century. But as the rate of technological innovation slowed, the costs of government growth became more evident. The problem, however, is that so many have gotten used to the economics of illusion that they cannot stand the reality staring them in the face.

This is where we stand in our current debt ceiling debate. Government is too big, too bloated. Washington faces a spending problem, not a revenue problem. But too many within the economy depend on the government transfers to live and to work. Yet the economy is not growing at a rate that can afford the illusion. Where are we to go from here?

Cowen’s work makes us think seriously about that question. How can the economic realist confront the economics of illusion? And Cowen has presented the basic dilemma in a way that the central message of economic realism is not only available for libertarians to see (if they would just look, or listen carefully to his podcast at EconTalk), but for anyone who is willing to read and think critically about our current political and economic situation.

The Great Stagnation signals the end of the economics of illusion and — let’s hope — paves the way for a new age of economic realism.

This post first appeared at Coordination Problem.

Peter J. BoettkePeter J. Boettke

Peter Boettke is a Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University and director of the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

RELATED ARTICLE: 5 Reasons Why America Is Headed to a Budget Crisis

Political Correctness and Barack Obama

/in , , , , /by

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on January 12, 2016 was criticized by many. For us, the people of the former Socialist countries, it had been a very familiar political theater. The carefully choreographed speech was brought from the stratosphere of illusion and a calligraphy of misleading, which had nothing to do with the reality on the planet Earth. We were not surprised—we are used to the political theater of Stalinist’s ideology, the only achievement of Soviet Socialism. President Obama’s speech represented a quintessential form of the Stalin’s Political Correctness, which has been nourished by the liberals in America for the last several decades.

You won’t find a person in America’s social media who doesn’t use the term Political Correctness every day and many times a day. In his interview with Fox, the former FBI deputy director Kostrome said to Judge Jeanine: “Political correctness is killing us.” He is right, PC was designed to harm and destroy Western civilization. Yet, I am not sure that all the people using the term are familiar with its agenda, etymology, and creator. The author and architect of the term is Joseph Stalin and knowing this fact will help many to grasp the world politics of the 21st century.

Barack Obama forces me to return again to this subject. When I read that 76 per cent of the American people loath Political Correctness (PC), my love for those people tripled. They did not know that PC was a Stalinist ideological invasion into their culture, they just felt it intuitively. I also knew that they are the fairest people in the world and their dislike for PC shows them to be very sensitive to the adversarial and harmful actions against American interests.

Political Correctness is the Ideological Tool of Soviet Socialism.

Political Correctness is the major method in fighting the war against Western civilization and implementing the ideology of Soviet Socialism, the topic I have been writing about for the last twenty years. I called this war WWIII. There are four main components in my definition of an asymmetrical WWIII. They are the following: Recruitment, Infiltration, Drugs, and Assassinations. Recruitment and Infiltration are inextricably connected. Neither could have been achieved without Political Correctness, which is falsely projects tolerance.

A famous Russian dissident Vladimir Bukowski once said: “when a Socialist comes to power, you can expect concentration camps.”  He was right—violence is the main feature of Socialism. The perspective for the future Socialist world was expressed by Karl Marx in his slogan Proletarian of the world unite, which meant a violent world war. One hundred years later Joseph Stalin developed the Socialist intent in a more politically pronounced manner by camouflaging violence: One world Government under the Kremlin auspices. He used Political Correctness.

We, the former citizens of the Socialist countries went through that development, called Soviet Socialism. It was a war by the government against its own citizens–a multi-faceted war with different fronts, methods, shapes, and forms. Speaking different languages and living in different countries, we all came to America from a collective microcosm of Political Correctness—a false narrative to alter the nature of the Truth. There is no surprise that the American people are angered and frustrated—this is a response to Obama’s war against the population. He is following the same way Stalin did to build his Soviet Socialism, which had never worked.

Yet, many Americans are still infected by the virus of Stalin’s Socialism. The question is – how it was possible that a fraud, as I identified Stalin’s ideology of Socialism, survive for almost a century and still seduce a lot of people in the world today? The question I have been researching and investigating for many years discussing multi-faceted methods of the Stalin’s social model—one of them is Political Correctness.

Does anybody in America or the world know the architect of PC, its concept or the fundamental agenda behind it? Does anybody know the nature and crucial role those two words played in their lives for decades? The answer to the question will unite us: the former citizens of the Socialist countries and all of the people in the 21st century, as we all together in different times have been manipulated and brainwashed by these two words—Political Correctness.

It seems that the nature of those two words, is very neutral indeed. In fact, those words are not peaceful, on the contrary they represent the psychological tools or methods which are used to transform a political system by fraud, while simultaneously fighting its ideological opponents. To my knowledge Stalin was the author of those two words that were published for the first time in the Soviet newspaper Izvestia (News) in 1933, the time when major transformation was going on within the Soviet Union. Stalin called “Politically Incorrect” the leaders of the opposition. The American educator Herbert Kohl confirms my opinion:

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

Writing about Stalinism and watching its ubiquitous application in the 21st century, I have offered my version of the matter several times before:

“… Political Correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design of quintessential system of lies, the long-term strategy of war against Western civilization and creation of One World Government.”

And again I’d like to remind you about Stalin’s incredible ability to mislead, lie, and defraud. Stalin was so skillful at political intrigue that vast majority of people in the Soviet Union not only believed him, but adored him as a Messiah. Nobody could compete with him in the art of intrigue. Political Correctness had no opponents and reigned in the country—we lived inside a gigantic network of falsehood… And so lives America in the 21st century.

Look at America today. Due to the constant efforts of the Obama administration America is drastically transformed, like us, living in the Soviet Union, America lives today inside a gigantic network of falsehood created by Political Correctness. And this is not the end of the resemblances: our economy is going down the tube, the harm Obama has done to economy counts in billions, our morals are at their lowest level ever. All of this has a logical result—Socialism has never worked anywhere, it ended by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The history of the 20 century repeats itself in the 21st when manipulation and brainwashing of human minds goes undetected in America. We can’t continue down the path of “Democratic Socialism”: it is an oxymoron–Democratic can’t be Socialist and Socialism can’t be democratic. We must return to the values of our Founding Fathers. Now is the time to see clearly where we are going under the leadership of the party, called Democratic: Even the name is a false one. I am not sure that Trump, like the vast majority of Americans knows about source of PC, yet, with his magnetic and unique personality, he symbolizes them all. We are witnessing an uprising against the bureaucracy of the Washington political class.

“I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist, terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron currently in the White House!” – Clint Eastwood