VIDEO: Top Clinton Aide lovefest with Muslim Migrants

Best-selling author and award winning video journalist James O’Keefe has just released undercover video of two related events dealing with Syrian refugees. The first of these is at a Hillary Clinton fundraiser for women, where top Clinton aide Huma Abedin states that we cannot turn the Syrian refugees away. While attendees were told not to record Abedin’s statements, our undercover reporter secretly videoed them anyway. The other footage is of Syrian refugees in Greece expressing their support of Hillary Clinton.

Last week, Project Veritas released footage of three Syrian refugees in Greece who were caught on hidden camera talking about using fake passports to get to Europe and the US. They talked about using the same route as one of the terrorists who perpetrated the attack in Paris last week. One also added that that is how a lot of Syrians come to the US and that there are a lot of Syrians in France.

In the second video of this series, Project Veritas Action ties the Syrians in Greece to the Hillary Clinton campaign. Last Wednesday evening, the Clinton campaign held a fundraiser for women in Manhattan.  After the audience was warned not to record or post video of the event, an undercover Project Veritas Action journalist managed to obtain footage of Abedin’s speech as well as her responses to informal questions afterwards.

From the stage, Abedin spoke of a life-long Republican who allegedly stated, “You know what I realized when I started listening to Ben Carson and Donald Trump and Ted Cruz?   You have to prove you are a Christian to be a refugee in this country.”

“We are a country of immigrants,” continued Abedin. “We welcome people and when you listen to the Republicans – and this is my battle cry – it is really scary on the other side.”

After her speech, our undercover journalist asked Abedin to promise that if Clinton is elected, “she is going to do everything she can to let these Syrians in.”

“Absolutely right,” responded Abedin. “…We need to have leadership on this…we cannot turn these people away.”

The video then moves to Greece, where two undercover journalists suggest to the Syrian refugees who are possibly traveling under fake documents that they must hate Hillary Clinton. “No, we don’t hate Hillary Clinton,” one responded. When asked to confirm, they stated that they like Clinton.

“Due to our videos, there are multiple ongoing investigations into the use of illegal foreign campaign donations and the voter registration of illegal immigrants by the Clinton and other Democrat campaigns,” stated Project Veritas Action president James O’Keefe. “Perhaps that’s why Clinton supports Syrian refugees. Or perhaps the reason is far more nefarious.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Obama’s distorted Islamic State strategy by Admiral James A. Lyons, U.S. Navy (Retired)

Katniss vs. Power: The Hunger Games Finale by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Now that the final movie in the series is out, we know that The Hunger Games is not just a pop movie series for young adults, a fantasy tale about about a young girl’s heroism. It is far more sophisticated than that: It is a political allegory, one of the best known of our time, about power and the complications of its displacement.

In this way, it covers the same intellectual terrain as Aristotle’s Politics, Machiavelli’s The Prince, and de Jouvenel’s On Power, but in a way that is more penetrating for readers and viewers, and particularly relevant for our times.

The final installment is a fitting and dramatic end to the tale. It deals with the greatest conflict in history, that between liberty and power. Those who have followed the story until the last movie might have supposed that the problem was rather stark. One man, President Snow, held all the power. He was a cruel man and he used every means to keep his power. He sat at the center of a capital city that pillaged the districts of resources and held power through fear.

If that is all there is to the problem, the solution would be clear: President Snow has to be killed. The source of the problem out of the way, all will be well.

The Plot Thickens

This was the thinking of heroine Katniss Everdeen for most of the series. And one can see why she would believe this. Snow was a ghastly figure, and he was personally responsible for vast cruelty and crimes. He deserved to be overthrown and for justice to prevail.

Plus, she supposed that everyone she knew shared her vision: a normal life without oppression, without violence, without pillaging, without rigid geographic and caste classifications, and without televised death matches orchestrated to instill fear in the population.

Previous installments had strong hints, however, that there was more going on beneath the surface. The capitol city Panem was an autocracy but also the center of a nation-state, which is to say that the bureaucracy, the administrative apparatus, a standing military, and its methods of rule could survive the death of the leader. This is the difference between a personal state and a nation state. The power apparatus of the nation state seeks immortality, a continuing life regardless who happens to head it.

The problem of creating a world without power, then, is more complicated than the overthrow of the existing autocrat. In every revolutionary situation, those who are most motivated to achieve the aim are those who seek to hold power themselves. So long as the machinery of legal violence exists, there will be those who seek to control it — and, as Hayek said, it is usually the worst who make it to the top. Therefore, it is not just those who rule but also those who seek to rule who constitute a threat to liberty. This is how the existence of powerful nation-states end up creating multiple layers of dangers.

Revolutionaries as Bad as the Regime?

Anyone who seeks to end oppression has to keep his or her eye out for those who would use the chaos and confusion of political upheavals to seize and exercise power in the future. This is what Katniss learns, as she gradually discovers that her one-time allies had become skilled in the conduct of war, appreciative of the status that comes with leadership, and lusty for exercising state power themselves.

She learned that great lesson of history: It is not just despots who need to be kept at bay but also those who most passionately seek to overthrow despots. In order to realize liberty, you need more than just loathing of those in charge; you need the ascendance of the love of true liberty itself.

Once Katniss catches on to what is happening around her, she has to make a decision. Does she comply with the dictate of the increasingly centralized revolutionary forces or take a different turn and go her own way? The urgency of this decision is what turns The Hunger Games from being a simple Manichean struggle between one good and one evil into a real-life version of a Massive Multiplayer Online game.

US Foreign Policy

Let us apply this principle.

In the 1980s, the US sought to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan by supporting Islamic fundamentalists, who were then called “freedom fighters,” and they were given weapons and massive logistical support. After the Soviets left, the rebellion gradually metastasized into the Taliban, who ruled with an iron hand, and were then overthrown after 9/11, leading to 15 years of US occupation, which has stirred resentment among the population.

This saga coincided with a similar situation in Iraq after 2003, following a decade of embargoes, intermittent bombing, and harsh sanctions. The overthrow of the brutal dictator Saddam Hussein brought to power not liberty-loving constitutionalists, but rather a Shiite majority that oppressed in turn on the Sunni minority that Hussein had represented.

The Sunni insurgency against the Iraqi state caused a bloody civil war in Iraq that eventually spilled over into the rebellion against Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and mutated into the Islamic State. Over the course of 25 years, Iraq went from a defeated and relatively quiescent state to a seething hotbed of poverty, violence, and hatred.

Fast forward to the Libyan case where the overthrow of another evil dictator Muammar Gaddafi sparked a grim populist blowback. Combined with all the other interventions, and alongside a surreptitious attempt to boot the Syrian overlord, we’ve seen the spread of ISIS into a region-wide insurgency that truly intends to rule through bloodshed.

Such is politics. You think that getting the bad guy will end the problem. What this doesn’t consider is the possibly that something even worse is waiting in the wings. This is not a case for tolerating tyranny, but it is a case for a good dose of humility to go with revolutionary impulses.

The Problem of Democracy

And it’s not just about foreign regimes. A famous trait of democracy is that the urge to kick out one group of leaders is necessarily tied to bringing another group into power. The latter are often no better and sometimes worse than the former. This is one of the reasons for so much political nostalgia in US politics: a look back almost always provides a better picture than a look at the present.

I can’t count the number of times I heard people tell me how much they long for the good old days of Reagan or Clinton — people who loathed them at the time… until their replacements came along. Or think of the number of people who believed that getting rid of Bush and replacing him with Obama would lead to peace, prosperity, and understanding, only to find that the new regime continued the practices of the old. And heads up: it seems like this history is likely to repeat itself in the case of Obama.

The simple lesson of The Hunger Games is that powerful people can do terrible things. We must resist in order to stop them. The more complicated lesson is that powerful institutions themselves corrupt, and that there will always be those lacking in moral scruples who are willing to assume the mantle of power.

At the end of the movie, we see Katniss out of battle gear, sitting in the grass, at her home, being bathed by sunlight, tending to her own life, cultivating her own personal vision of freedom, out of the limelight. Ruling herself, not others. Perhaps that scene offers the best lesson of all.

Jeffrey A. TuckerJeffrey A. Tucker

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

D.C. Is Artificial by Richard Lorenc

As a part of my job, I travel to Washington, DC, fairly often. (More and more, it seems like everyone’s business is centered in that place.)

The monuments and museums are impressive, and the city life is vibrant, but I can never shake the feeling that the nation’s capital is a fake city.

Compare Washington to Chicago, America’s “second city” and my favorite.

It’s not that my trips there are bad. I see a lot of friends and colleagues, meet new people, and usually have pleasant and productive meetings. I’ve enjoyed walking around Georgetown, and I even got a behind-the-scenes tour of the Capitol Building by a friend who works there.

Rather, it’s that, as a city, DC is a place removed from reality. It’s a dream world, where the main economy really is zero-sum, and where people who work for, around, or on government are required to avoid practicing politeness.

Allow me to contrast DC with Chicago along three dimensions: geography, economy, and society.

Chicago exists where it does because it is accessible by water routes. The Chicago River, Lake Michigan, and others made it easier for people and goods to locate to this spot many decades ago.

The District of Columbia, although it too is located on a river, is situated where it is because of a political compromise between the North and the South. It sits between Virginia and Maryland so that no one geographic faction could too easily commandeer the levers of the federal government. DC was not located where it is because that place was the best place to build a city where people wanted to live or make things. It was spawned from contentious political wrangling over issues such as slavery.

Ask yourself whether so many people would live in the DC area were it not for all the power we’ve ceded to the federal government. Chicago, on the other hand, exists because its location offered unique advantages to people engaged in serving their fellow man. Washington is sited through human design; Chicago through human action.

Then there are the cities’ economic differences. Chicago’s economy was based originally on commodities such as fur and meat. It moved to manufacturing, printing, and trading to become the center of finance, banking, and education it is today. Each of these industries emerged locally because people specializing in them here made their services valuable to others. The city’s economy changed because people stopped needing fur so much, meat became cheaper to produce elsewhere, and Chicago was no longer the best place for manufacturing.

Chicago’s economy adapted and evolved according to the demands of others, while Washington’s has not. Its economy has largely remained static, unchanging, and uncreative. That’s not to say its economy hasn’t grown — per capita income in the DC area is now highest among the 50 states, by far. This is because the federal government has amassed more and more power, money, and human capital as the years have passed.

Some time ago, I hadn’t been to DC for a few years, and when I returned, I was shocked at how many ads I saw that aimed to persuade people in power to use your money and mine to fund private energy and agricultural companies. Unlike Chicago, Washington’s economy is not based on creating true value for others. Rather, it is based on redistributing the wealth of the country and skimming some from the top. That skimming represents billions of dollars of wasted resources that might have been used to grow the economic pie had they remained available to those who create value, rather than fueling the ambitions of lobbyists, politicians, and government staffers.

But the most important contrast between Washington and an organic American city: society. Although five of Chicago’s top six employers are government entities, most people and businesses here don’t make their livings by dipping into a Niagara Falls of tax revenues.

That means business dealings are done much more on the basis of voluntary decisions. People expect to receive something valuable when they decide freely whether to exchange their money for something else. Likewise, the seller accepts the buyer’s money because it is worth more to him than what he is peddling. If either condition isn’t met, these people won’t meet again. But when they are met — which is every time you buy a coffee from Starbucks — you have the opportunity to practice politeness with someone with whom you may have never interacted otherwise.

Voluntary exchange gives us the chance to act decently with people of different backgrounds and opinions. Of course, there is voluntary exchange in DC, and there are many opportunities for people to behave civilly outside of their work: concerts, museums, theatre, sports. But given that Washington’s primary industry is government, these opportunities occur with less frequency there.

For example, if I am a staffer who works for Senator Red and you are one who works for Senator Blue, it’s likely we’ll regard the other with suspicion or contempt if we ever meet. Because government can only redistribute wealth created elsewhere, the government-centric economy really is zero-sum: if you win, I lose. Although some of this exists everywhere that government takes from some to give to others, it is most acute in Washington.

I admire the ornate buildings and monuments in Washington as much as anyone else. They’re impressive feats of artistic and architectural expression. They remind us of our history. In those ways, they are valuable. But I am saddened when I think about how they inspire reverence toward government power as the means solve every problem.

DC is an artificial city. Chicago is real.

Richard LorencRichard Lorenc

Richard N. Lorenc is the Chief Operating Officer of FEE and Publisher of the Freeman.

Hillary: Muslims “have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism”

How will President Hillary Clinton have the slightest chance of defeating the Islamic State when she is so divorced from reality as to say something like this?

“Hillary: Muslims ‘Have Nothing Whatsoever To Do With Terrorism,’” by Guy Benson, Townhall, November 20, 2015:

Behold, the woman who shall soon be crowned Queen of the endlessly self-righteous and self-congratulatory “Reality Based Community:”

Clinton Muslims Nothing To Do with Terrorism

This is pure claptrap. Everyone understands that the West is not at war with Islam broadly, and that an overwhelming percentage of Muslims reject violent extremism. It’s been beaten into our heads by politicians of all stripes since 9/11, and we’re generally bright enough to draw the relevant distinction: “These Muslims over here are just peaceful, faithful people living their lives, whereas those Muslims over there are radical and seek to impose a toxic strain of their faith via terror and violence. We have no quarrel with the former group, which thankfully represents the large majority; the latter group must be confronted and defeated.” This dynamic isn’t hard. It can be quickly and easily explained, yet we are constantly bombarded with dumb, sanitized denialism like Hillary’s second sentence above. Instead of treating us like adults, we’re infantilized. And to what end? Muslims are peaceful and tolerant, we’re instructed, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. This last bit is insultingly preposterous. Some Muslims have quite a lot to do with terrorism, actually. Like the ones who were led by their hardcore theology to kill 3,000 people on 9/11. Or blow up trains in Spain. Or target London’s public transit system with bombs. Or slaughter students at a Kenyan university. Or Devastate a nightclub in Indonesia. Or shoot up a shopping mall in Nairobi. Or lay siege to a hotel in Mumbai. Or terrorize Nigerian schoolgirls. Or, you know, take hostages in Mali. I could go on for some time. But those aren’t real Muslims, our Thought Leaders inform us. Islamists loudly beg to differ — and wouldn’t they know a lot more about their motives and religious teachings than Western purveyors of bumper sticker feel-goodery? Try this: Ask someone who’s convinced jihadists shouldn’t be considered Muslims whether or not Osama bin Laden’s corpse should have been discarded with no regard for Islamic traditions. Or whether the terrorists at Gitmo should be deprived of prayer mats, or Halal meals, or Korans. Maybe some enterprising reporter will ask Hillary these questions someday. In any case, the “nothing to do with terrorism” line is plainly nonsense. The more difficult part is the “peaceful and tolerant” phrase. It’s absolutely true that a huge preponderance of Muslims worldwide abhor and reject religious violence. But as I explored in a piece after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, there is a worrisomely sizable strain of abject illiberalism that runs through mainstream Islam. Data from Pew, a respected global pollster, gathered two years ago:

Pew death penalty for apostasy

Shall we count the 86 percent of Egyptian Muslims, or 62 percent of Malaysian Muslims, or the 17 percent of Turkish Muslims who believe leaving Islam is punishable by death among the “tolerant”? Do the millions of Muslims who express support for suicide bombings against civilians “in defense of Islam” qualify as “peaceful”? Or mustn’t we ask such questions when there’s a vapid slogan to be spouted, or a politically-correct tweet to be disseminated? The concern, of course, is that leaders who are unable or unwilling to comprehend and properly identify a threat will be ineffective in neutralizing it. Hillary’s defenders will say that President Bush also refrained from directly naming the enemy. True, but the current administration of which Mrs. Clinton was a part has taken euphemism-deployment to another level….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Utah homework: make propaganda poster for terror group

UK: Muslims attack convert from Islam to Christianity with pickaxe

VIDEO: On Dr. Ben Carson, Syrian Muslim ‘Rabid Dogs’ and Liberals

Liberals are more offended by Ben Carson’s “rabid dogs/Syrian refugee” metaphor than they are with a Syrian rebel eating his enemies organs!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Alleged Ringleader of Paris Attacks Abaaoud Killed in Saint-Denis Raid

Islamic State says bomb in soda can brought down Russian airliner

Hamas-linked CAIR complains of post-Paris anti-Muslim “backlash”

Florida: Osceola County Republican Executive Commitee endorses Term Limits Convention

Mark_Oxner_1

Osceola REC Chair Mark Oxner

In an overwhelming voice vote, the Osceola Republican Executive Committee on Nov. 19 passed a resolution urging the Florida legislature to officially call for the Congressional term limits convention.

Their action follows a similar lopsided (79-1) endorsement from the Palm Beach County REC in October.

The resolutions are particularly potent after the Term Limits Convention bill in the Senate, SM630 introduced by Sen. Aaron Bean, has started an early advance through the committee maze that is expected to lead to a floor vote during the 2016 session. SM630 passed the Ethics and Elections Committee 5-4 on Tuesday and is headed to the Senate Rules Committee.

The House bill, Rep. Larry Metz’ HM417, has not been heard yet, but has already picked up five cosponsors: Reps. Frank Artiles, Matthew Caldwell, Debbie Mayfield, Marlene O’Toole, Charles Van Zant and John Wood.

The bills are official applications for a convention of states under Article V of the U.S. Constitution explicitly limited to Congressional term limits. If two-thirds of the states (34) call for such a convention, Article V states that Congress ‘shall’ convene it. There, delegates from all the states will craft a Congressional term limits amendment proposal that would be submitted to the states for ratification. If three-quarters (38) of the states do so, Congressional term limits will be added to the U.S. Constitution.

The Sarasota REC considered a Term Limits Convention resolution Nov. 19 and is likely to take a floor vote at their January meeting. State Rep. Ray Pilon announced his support and likely co-sponsorship during the discussion.

Poll: Trump Lapping the Field in Florida — Clinton Trails GOP Frontrunners

fau polling initiative logoBOCA RATON, Florida /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Donald Trump has doubled the votes of his nearest challenger in Florida, where Hillary Clinton trails in matchups with several GOP frontrunners, according to a new poll by the Florida Atlantic University Business and Economics Polling Initiative (FAU BEPI).

The survey was conducted in Florida from Nov. 15-16, immediately following the latest Democratic debate.

Trump leads the GOP field with 36 percent, followed by Marco Rubio at 18 percent, Ben Carson at 15 percent and Ted Cruz at 10 percent. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush placed fifth with just 8.9 percent, down more than two points from BEPI’s poll in September when he took 11.3 percent of the vote in Florida.

“Despite conjecture that Donald Trump has plateaued, his support in Florida remains very strong and could be growing,” said Kevin Wagner, Ph.D., associate professor of political science at FAU and a research fellow of the Initiative.

While Clinton holds a 43-point lead (65.5 percent to 22.4 percent) over Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side, she continues to trail in head-to-head matchups with the GOP frontrunners, with Carson holding the biggest margin at 9.7 points (50.2 percent to 40.5 percent). Trump leads Clinton by 8.7 points (49.2 percent to 40.5 percent).

“While Clinton is losing in all the trial heats, she is winning among females,” said Monica Escaleras, Ph.D., director of the BEPI. “Thus it appears that her strategy of targeting women is working.”

Regardless of their poll numbers, the favorability ratings for many of the candidates are low. Trump has a favorable rating of just 41 percent among all voters, while 51 percent have an unfavorable impression of him. Clinton also suffers from negative name recognition, with 41 percent of all voters giving her a favorable rating, compared with 54 percent saying they have an unfavorable impression of her.

The polling sample for the Democratic and the Republican primary consisted of 297 and 355 likely Floridavoters, respectively, with a margin of error of +/-5.6 percent and +/-5.2 percent at a 95 percent confidence level. The General Election Sample consisted of 829 registered voters with a margin of error of +/-3.3 percent and a 95 percent confidence level.

After Paris, National Security Issues Lead Democratic Debate

The format of the Democratic debate was altered at the last minute to give each candidate time to give a statement about the Paris terror attacks at the beginning of the debate.

Speaking first, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said that, “Together, leading the world, this country will rid our planet of this barbarous organization called ISIS.” However, it remains to be seen how Sanders would lead this fight since he advocates a non-interventionist approach and says that theU.S. should only have a very limited supporting role in the fight in Syria. Sanders believes that the fight against the Islamic State can only be effectively waged by Muslims.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly identified the enemy as jihadists, rejecting the non-descript terminology used by the Obama Administration who calls them “violent extremists.” Clinton made no sweeping promises as Sanders. Rather she said she would be laying out “in detail what I think we need to do to with our friends and allies — in Europe and elsewhere — to do a better job of coordinating efforts against the scourge of terrorisim.” She stressed that “all the other issues we want to deal with depend on us being secure and strong.”

In his opening statement, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley said that the events in Paris spoke to the new face of “conflict and warfare” in the 21st century, and as such, required “new thinking, fresh approaches.” O’Malley remarked that “we have a lot of work to do to better prepare out nation and to better lead this world into this new century.”

Polling shows that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dominated last night’s Democratic presidential debate, particularly on national security.

Public Policy Polling came out with the first post-debate poll that showed 67% of Democratic primary voters declaring Clinton the overall winner of the second presidential primary debate and 75% saying they most trust her on national security of the three candidates. The following is a summary of the national security positions taken by each candidate during the debate:

Hillary Clinton

She aligned herself closely with President Obama throughout the debate but presented three areas of difference on Islamist extremism: Identification of the enemy; support for Syrian rebels and an implicit criticism of President Obama for suggesting that “containment” of the Islamic State is a sign of success.

Right off the bat, Clinton repeatedly used Islamic terminology to define the enemy as “jihadist.” She also seemed to understand that the root of violent jihad is in the Islamist ideology, which she emphasized is not subscribed to by most Muslims. She described the adversary as “Islamists who are jihadists,” but she did not discuss whether she believes that “moderate Islamists” like the Muslim Brotherhood should be embraced as allies against “jihadists” like the Islamic State.

The second point of difference came when she was asked about President Obama’s claim that the Islamic State is “contained” shortly before the Paris attacks. While Clinton avoided criticizing the president directly, she rejected containment as a measure of success, saying it is impossible to contain a group like the Islamic State and only its defeat is acceptable.

The third point of difference was on Syria. She explained that she urged President Obama to equip moderate Syrian rebels in the beginning of the civil war to prevent jihadists from creating a safe haven. Clinton believes that developing allies on the ground in Syria would have given us a valuable ally today.

Clinton also suggested a tougher approach towards the Gulf states and Turkey. She said it is time for them to “make up their mind about where they stand” on the fight against jihadism.

On the topic of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq that preceded the rise of the Islamic State and the collapse of Iraqi security forces, Clinton said that the withdrawal was in compliance with a U.S.-Iraqi agreement signed by the Bush Administration. After U.S. forces left, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki decimated the Iraqi security forces with his sectarianism and cronyism. This, combined with the civil war in Syria and other regional variables, enabled the Islamic State to seize large parts of Iraq.

She defended the NATO military intervention in Libya to topple Gaddafi by pointing out the large amount of American blood he had on his hands from supporting terrorism. Clinton also mentioned how the Libyans elected moderate leaders after he fell. She addressed the civil war in Libya by saying the U.S. should provide more support to the current moderate Libyan government.

On the topic of Syrian refugees, Clinton said she agrees in principle with bringing 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. (as O’Malley advocates) but only if they are completely vetted. Her tough language on vetting suggested that she envisions overhauling the process to become stricter, but she did not present a specific proposal.

Unlike Sanders, she would not commit to cutting the defense budget but promised to closely review military spending. She cited Chinese moves in the South China Sea and the increased aggressiveness of Russia, such as its broadcasting of a new drone submarine that can be equipped with tactical nuclear weapons.

Clinton is currently the frontrunner by a mile. She leads nationally with 55% in an average of polls; leads Iowa with 54%; is in second behind Sanders in New Hampshire with 43% and leads in South Carolina with 65%. You can read our factsheet on Clinton’s positions related to Islamism here.

Bernie Sanders

As we mentioned in our coverage of the recent Democratic forum, Sanders views the threat as being rooted in an Islamic ideology but—unlike Clinton—advocates a non-interventionist approach. His argument is that the U.S. should only have a very limited supporting role because the fight against the Islamic State can only be effectively waged by Muslims. He again stated that the fight with the Islamic State is part of a “war for the soul of Islam.”

Sanders rejected a strategy of pursuing regime change, apparently referring to the Syrian dictatorship and the removal of the Gaddafi regime in Libya when Clinton was Secretary of State. He cited U.S.-backed regime changes in places like Chile and Guatemala as counterproductive mistakes.

He spoke out in favor of cuts to the defense budget. He argued that U.S. military spending is far too high and that much of the excess costs are not even necessary for fighting terrorism.

Sanders is currently in second place overall. He is the runner-up nationally with 33%; is in second place in Iowa with 30%; leads in New Hampshire with 44% and is in second place in South Carolina with 17%. You can read our factsheet on Sanders’ positions related to Islamism here.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley

At the recent Democratic forum, O’Malley embraced the camp that believes Islamic terrorism is a byproduct of political grievances against the U.S. He did not repeat his ludicrous claim that U.S. troops overseas and the operation of Guantanamo Bay are the chief reasons for the strength of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

However, during the Saturday night debate, he acknowledged that the threat comes from an Islamic ideology. Unlike Clinton who defined the enemy as “jihadism,” O’Malley defined it as “radical jihadists”—which begs the question: What is a “non-radical jihadist?”

In describing where the Islamic State threat emerged from, O’Malley pointed to the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and especially the disbanding of the Iraqi army. He said that many of ISIS’ current members used to be a part of the Iraqi military until we fired them. There is truth to that statement, but it seems to suggest that O’Malley remains committed to the belief that the “root cause” of the Islamic State and other Islamist terrorists are mistreatment and political grievances, rather than ideology.

O’Malley continued to embrace a non-interventionist strategy, saying that the U.S. should not be trying to overthrow dictators. He then seemed to contradict himself when he said the U.S. should take the lead in fighting “evil.”  He said his “new” foreign policy would be one of “engagement” and “identifying threats” as they gather.

On several occasions, O’Malley cited the need for human intelligence sources as part of his strategy—but that’s nothing new and it’s not a strategy. Everyone agrees that more human intelligence is needed.

He reiterated his support for bringing 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S., up from the current 10,000 that President Obama plans to bring in. He did not address how they would be vetted and taken care of, especially when a poll of Syrian refugees found that 13% feel positively or somewhat positively towards the Islamic State.

O’Malley is in last place among the three remaining candidates. He is in last with 3% nationally; last in Iowa with 5%; last in New Hampshire with 3% and last in South Carolina with 2%. You can read our factsheet on O’Malley’s positions related to Islamism here.

You can read the Clarion Project‘s comprehensive factsheets on each party’s presidential candidates’ positions related to Islamism by clicking here.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

No-Fly Zones, Military Spending, Confronting Putin: GOP Debate

Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

Poster of the Week: Can’t Be Bought Trump

I feel sure our friends at VDARE won’t mind if I post Maryland grassroots warrior Ed Hunter’s letter to VDARE about what happened on Friday evening when the indefatigable Hunter unfurled one of his highway overpass banners for French TV.

Here is Hunter’s banner for this week, but you can see others of his novel campaigns to circumvent the mainstream media and get his message directly to American citizens, at Blue Ridge Forum.

This is what happened on Friday evening as a French TV crew filmed him (from VDARE where you should go for links).  In Ed’s words, but emphasis is mine:

Last week the Washington desk of the French TV station “France 2” contacted us at the Maryland Tea Party and said they wanted to go up on the overpass and conduct an interview on the Donald Trump phenomenon***. About 2 PM we arrive at the bridge over I-95 Northbound, and we set up the banners and are waving to people on the interstate below.

Ed Hunter shows how to get his message directly to citizens and around the MSM.

The rush hours is beginning and the traffic is starting to slow down as it passed under us. The French TV crew arrives about an hour later around 3 PM. They get out their big expensive TV camera, and the French reporter Valerie begins asking questions.

Some of them were hard to answer such as “What does Donald Trump mean?” or “Is this a popular provocation?” (The usual French stuff. How can you answer those types of questions?) Anyway, they get around to the subject of immigration and I can sense I am up against the usual PC wall as they try to get “racist” stuff out of me. So she says “Okay just try to summarize Trump in a way that makes sense to people in France.” So I said “Donald Trump is an American version of Marine Le Pen.” Then she asked if I supported Le Pen and I said, “Absolutely”.

I told her that Muslim immigration will be the end of France and Europe.

Then I asked them (off camera) if they felt that way, and they replied “Oh no…it is all a stunt, we do not have a immigration problem in France. These Muslims are French. They came to France to help us rebuild France. I said. ”French built France. Why can’t you rebuild it yourself?”

They looked at me as the typical redneck American. So as we are talking the noise from the honking from the interstate is rising to a crescendo. The honking and cheers for the Trump banners are getting so loud we can’t continue the conversation. The French say goodbye and get into their car and leave. I am asking myself “What is going on? Why is everyone reacting to the banners, which read ‘CANT BE BOUGHT…VOTE TRUMP’?” The whole Interstate has erupted. Everyone below as far as I can see is going nuts and cheering and leaning on their horn and screaming out the windows “Donald! Donald!” And we are waving back and this is going on for about an hour. And we can’t figure it all out. So it’s 5:30 PM and getting dark and cold. We take down the banners and drive to Starbucks for coffee when someone calls with the news about the Paris attacks.

The very moment that the French media elites were repeating the PC leftist party line… “We do not have an immigration problem. We are multicultural” etc., the news of the Paris attacks is hitting the car radios of the people on the highway below and they are going nuts in support of Trump and his defiance of the political, media and academic elites.

I called Valerie the French reporter and she had just heard the news. All she could say is “I am so shocked…so shocked!!” I said ”Why? You had to know this was coming, you were told a million times—”. At which point she hung up. The next morning I read Ann Coulter in Mediaite: “Donald Trump Was Elected President Tonight.” And I believe he was.

I saw it happen. I watched an almost physical wave of noise and cheering and honking roll up I-95 from as far as I could see south towards DC, to where it disappeared over the horizon to the north, up towards Baltimore, New York and points beyond.

All of this only confirms again for me—for middle class Americans, immigration is THE issue of 2016.  And, I urge all of you to find your place in the battle to save us—to save America.  You might not have Ed’s guts to get up on a highway overpass, but find your talent and put it to work to save us from becoming Europe!

***One last thing….when we attended the Georgetown Law School pro-open borders gathering in DC a couple of weeks ago, attendees were in complete shock over what they described as the “Trump phenomenon” here.

This post is filed in a category we hope to use more often—-called creating a movement.’

Addendum! Angry about Paris?  READ THIS POST and do it!  Tell Congress to stop the funding for the Refugee Admissions Program NOW!

Family Research Council Action: On the Suspension of Bobby Jindal Campaign

frc logoWASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins, a former Louisiana legislator, released the following statement regarding the decision by LouisianaGovernor Bobby Jindal to suspend his campaign for president:

“There is no question that Governor Bobby Jindal played a key part in shaping the 2016 presidential primary. Governor Jindal’s keen intellect, combined with his passion to uphold the principles and ideals that have made America an exceptional nation, made him an attractive candidate for president. But as Bobby said today, it is not his time.

“I look forward to working with Governor Jindal as he will no doubt continue to have a shaping influence on American politics and the Republican Party,” concluded Perkins.

Black Businessmen Are Open to the Republican Party

I am sick and tired of Republicans constantly telling me that they “can’t find Black Republicans” to hire for their presidential campaigns or they “don’t know where to find Black entrepreneurs to engage with.”

Well, you find them the same place you find Biff and Buffy to hire for your campaigns; and you find Black entrepreneurs the same way you find Chuck and Shane.

Most people call their friends for recommendations when looking to hire someone.  They call people they know and trust.  I’ll let you decide what that says about all these Republicans who constantly tell me they don’t know where these Black Republicans are.

This frustration has led me to create Black Americans for a Better Future (BAFABF), the first and only Super PAC established to get more Blacks involved in the Republican Party.  Our focus is strictly on the Black entrepreneur.

Far too many Republicans think they know more about the Black community than a Black person; consequently, they think the gateway to the our community is the preacher or issues like criminal justice reform, abortion, or crack/cocaine disparities.

As I tell these Republicans, “I have been Black most of my life” and I know what issues are most important to my community; and the issues above are not it.

In the Black community, the businessman is the gateway to us.  He is typically the chairman of the board of trustees at our church and in many cases the head of the deacon board. If you get the entrepreneur on your side, he will bring you the pastor and the pastor will bring you the congregation.

It’s that simple!

If Republicans understood this, they would gain more traction within the Black community.  Not one presidential candidate has met with any Black Republican businessmen.  Our congressional leadership has never convened a meeting of Black Republican businessmen.

Why?

These businessmen have the wherewithal to write political checks, but they see no value in doing so because they believe they are not welcomed in the Republican Party.

BAFABF will have several major announcements in regards to solving these issues very soon.

I have met with several presidential candidates and they have indicated a serious willingness to engage with us to address some of these concerns.

BAFABF has hosted a series of dinners across the country with some of the top Black businessmen in the country—Democrat, Republican, and Independent; none are opposed to engaging with the Republican Party.  The question is, “is the Republican Party ready to engage with them?”

Is the Republican Party ready to deal with the devastation Obama has wreaked on the small and minority business community?  Under Bush, Blacks received 8% of all loans coming from the Small Business Administration (SBA); under Obama, that number is now only 1.8%.  What are Republicans willing to do to address this issue?

Obama has totally destroyed the Historically Black Colleges and University (HBCU) community.  This directly impacts an entrepreneur’s ability to grow his business if he can’t find people with the right skill set to hire.  What are Republicans willing to do to address this issue?

Obama’s excessive regulations are smothering the small business community.  What solutions will Republicans offer to remedy this situation?

If Republicans are willing to engage with the Black business community based on solving real problems; you won’t have to worry about how they will vote or where they will give their money.  They are problem solvers and enthusiastic supporters of capitalism and the American Dream.

BAFABF will be a conduit that will bring together the brightest and the best businessmen to engage with our party’s leadership; and if they would only make them feel welcomed into this party, they will be pleasantly surprised at the many things they both have in common.

Our PAC will serve not only as their PR firm; but also their booking agent when groups are looking for speakers.  This will include placing them in the media and all the talking head TV shows.

Unfortunately, there is no surrogate program in place anywhere within the Republican Party to showcase this phenomenal talent that is sitting on the sidelines.   We already have surrogates in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Alabama, Georgia, Virginal, and Florida, just to name a few.

We have already begun to roll them out into both local and national media.

I find it astonishing that there is no surrogate program by the party to push back on all the liberal orthodoxy being propagated by all the liberal groups into the Black community. There are no credible Black Republicans on MSNBC, CNN, FOX NEWS, etc.  A lie that is repeated enough becomes the truth.

Our surrogates are not seeking to make the party feel “comfortable” with them, but rather people who will tell the truth.  Our surrogates are Blacks who actually have personal ties and relationships within their own community; not the Blacks Republicans typically get to do media who have absolutely no connection or credibility within the Black community.

These Black media whores that certain Republicans constantly promote do more damage to the cause than anything liberal Democratic policies could ever dream of.

Our goal at BAFABF is to make America’s future brighter by uplifting and showcasing the true leaders in the Black community—the entrepreneur.

Social Justice versus the Left by Sandy Ikeda

Why are demonstrators from the Black Lives Matter movement interrupting the campaign rallies of Bernie Sanders? After all, Sanders is the presidential candidate who is farthest to the left, making him the most likely to be sensitive to the concerns of an organization known for its radical activism. Wouldn’t it make more sense to disrupt and co-opt the public appearances of candidates perceived to be the least sympathetic, such as Rand Paul?

Jamelle Bouie of Slate tries to explain it this way:

Bouie may be right, but I suspect there’s something more fundamental going on here.

Scarce Resources

The left is full of sincere, concerned people who, like many on the right, hope to use political power to advance their particular agendas.

Political power requires physical violence or the threat of physical violence to achieve particular ends. 

Black Lives Matter is self-described as “an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise.” The organization tries to draw attention and public resources to the problems of police brutality and social injustice toward African Americans.

Environmentalists on the left want to use political power to protect our natural resources and battle global warming. (I’ve always found it curious that leftist environmentalists seem to recognize the scarcity of natural resources, yet don’t appear to be aware that the resources required to protect nature are scarce, too.)

The Labor Party pursues political power to promote the interests of certain workers. And more traditional socialists seek to use political power to achieve “collective justice and individual freedom” — two goals that are not exactly compatible.

And the wish list from the left — feminists, Marxists, social democrats, progressives — goes on and on. Nevertheless, the resources needed to reach these objectives, if they are even reachable, are scarce.

The Market Is a Positive-Sum Game

In a free market — where there is private property, free association, reciprocity, and fair play — exchange will only take place if both parties believe they will be made better off by it. Of course, one or both parties may be wrong, and losses do happen, but it’s in everyone’s self-interest to engage in trades that make themselves better off. In that sense, trade in a free market is a positive-sum game — one that allocates scarce resources in a way that both parties gain.

Politics is the opposite. Unlike markets, political power requires physical violence or the threat of physical violence to achieve particular ends. That’s because the only way one person can gain from a political encounter, regulatory or redistributive, is for the other side to lose.

Politics Is a Zero-Sum Game

For example, every year, federal, state, and local governments take income from us in the form of taxes to be used in ways we usually don’t know about and probably wouldn’t approve of. Most of the time, the tax revenue collected this way isn’t earmarked for a particular purpose — we don’t pay separate foreign-invasion taxes, or corporate bailout taxes. Special interests vie for a piece of this pie or, even better, for the power to decide how the pie gets sliced.

Politics doesn’t have markets where buyers peacefully compete with buyers and sellers compete with sellers in trades that generate prices that reflect the relative scarcity of inputs and outputs (PDF). Instead, politics has special interests claiming that their political agendas are more important than everyone else’s.

Environmental sustainability andredressing racial injustice and making America safe for democracy can’t all be the nation’s top priority. Why should the mere opinion of environmentalists prevail over those of labor-union leaders? Natural beauty and pristine wilderness is our most valuable resource? Really? Says who?

Social Justice Is Also a Zero-Sum Game

The free market generates order in a way that is largely unplanned. It’s true that some participants gain more than others owing to effort, alertness, resourcefulness, good connections, and good luck. But the overall outcome, where intervention and cronyism are absent, is not the result of anyone’s design. No person or group is responsible for the particular pattern of consequences in a free society, including inequalities in wealth or income. And as Angus Deaton, the most recent recipient of the Nobel prize in economics, has argued, such inequalities can be and have been narrowed more effectively through greater economic freedom and growth than through political redistribution.

But in a redistributive society, things are fundamentally different. Only when state authorities decide who, in their opinion, should control resources does the question of social justice, in the sense of seeking redress against those responsible, even make sense. That’s because it’s only when the distribution of resources is the result of conscious planning that there’s actually someone to blame: the planners.

I’ve borrowed this way of framing the problem of social justice from F.A. Hayek, most recently in my entry on the dynamics of interventionism in the just-published Oxford Handbook of Austrian Economics, edited by Peter J. Boettke and Christopher J. Coyne. I term it the “self-fulfillment thesis,” in which “the abstract idea of social justice … only becomes coherent once the state becomes involved in redistribution.”

So, why do marginalized groups on the left choose to bother candidates on the left, such as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, who are most favorable to redistributive policies?

There’s more going on here than the better media exposure or consciousness raising that Bouie suggests. It’s a naked grab for power — the essence of politics. The activists see those candidates as most likely to expand political power enough to forcibly redistribute the massive resources needed to achieve large-scale redistributive goals.

The problem for those on the fringe is that Sanders and Clinton have different goals than they do. And that’s the trouble with zero-sum games.

Sandy Ikeda
Sandy Ikeda

Sandy Ikeda is a professor of economics at Purchase College, SUNY, and the author of The Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism.

After Paris bloodbath, Lindsey Graham wants to double funding to bring Syrian ‘migrants’ to U.S.

The time for this suicidal idiocy is long past. Graham is a presidential candidate? He ought to be laughed off the presidential debate stage, made to resign from the Senate, and barred from ever holding public office again. And if he succeeds in expanding the “refugee” program, he ought to be made to house the increased numbers of “refugees” in his home and Senatorial office.

states taking syrian migrants cnn

“Forget Paris: Lindsey Graham to double funding for ‘refugees,’” by Leo Hohmann, WND, November 15, 2015:

In the wake of the deadly Paris attacks by ISIS, some GOP presidential candidates such as Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and even Marco Rubio are calling for an end to Syrian refugee resettlement in the U.S.

Most of the others have been silent or vague on the issue of Syrian refugees – about 2,000 of whom have already arrived in the U.S. despite warnings from the FBI that it’s impossible to vet their backgrounds.

But there is one candidate who is clearly on the record wanting more Syrian Muslims to pour into American cities and towns as “refugees,” despite the fact that at least one of the seven attackers in Paris had a Syrian passport and entered France as a “refugee.”

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who positions himself as a war hawk against ISIS, is co-sponsoring legislation with Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to nearly double the amount of funding Washington spends on resettling refugees from Syria.

On the day after the multi-pronged shooting and bombing attacks on Paris, which killed 129 civilians and injured 352, Graham pounced again on the theme that ISIS must be attacked at its core in Syria and destroyed, or there would be more attacks on Western cities.

One of Graham’s favorite talking points is, “If we don’t stop them over there, they are coming over here just as sure as I stand here in front of you.”

It’s curious, then, say his critics, that he would be pushing for escalating the importation of more Islamic refugees into U.S. cities and towns from the world’s most notorious hotbed of jihadist activity – Syria.

Graham’s press secretary did not respond to requests for comment from WND.

Without giving a number, Graham has said the U.S. should accept its “fair share” of Syrian refugees.

His bill provides some insight on what that number might be.

According to the Hill, the legislation doesn’t specify how many Syrian refugees should be accepted into the United States but the amount of funding requested would allow for the resettlement of up to 100,000 Syrian refugees over two years, Leahy’s office said.

Even President Obama has never explicitly said this many Syrians should be allowed into the U.S, although that could be his plan given the vague nature of his statements. Obama’s State Department has called for 10,000 Syrians to be admitted in 2016 and “many more” in 2017….

RELATED ARTICLES:

In first six weeks of FY2016 U.S. resettled 827 Somalis; all but one are Muslim

Main target in Paris jihad attack: Jewish-owned Bataclan Theater, frequent target of Muslims and BDS groups

U.S. Embassy in Paris turned away Americans who sought shelter there during jihad attacks

Bernie Sanders: Climate change is directly related to the growth of Muslim terrorism

“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS.” That is true. However, it contradicts Sanders’ other claim, that climate change, that is, “limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops,” led to the rise of terrorism. If it were really all about fights over diminished resources, then these jihad groups would have arisen even without the U.S. taking out Saddam Hussein, no? In any case, if climate change has given rise to terrorism, why don’t we see Arab Christian or Yazidi terrorists? After all, they lived in Iraq and Syria alongside the Muslims. So why weren’t they driven by the lack of water and land to form their own terrorist groups?

It is astonishing that a man this deluded could be taken seriously as a candidate for President. But his view here is a mainstream Democrat Party position.

“Bernie Sanders: Climate Change is Directly Related To Terrorism,” by Michelle Fields, Breitbart, November 15, 2015:

Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said on Saturday that climate change is directly related to terrorism.“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” said Sanders.

“And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see counties [sic] all over the world…they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”

Sanders said at the second Democratic debate in Iowa that climate change poses the biggest threat to America’s national security and to security of the world.

Sanders also argued that the growth of national terrorism and instability in the Middle East was caused by the invasion of Iraq.

“I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unraveled the region completely and led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS,” Sanders said.

When Sanders was asked his thoughts about Hillary Clinton’s vote for the Iraq war he added: ” I don’t think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now.”

“I think that was one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the more than history of the United States,” hr [sic] claimed.

RELATED ARTICLES:

In the wake of the Paris jihad attacks, France says it’s “essential” to combat…climate change

FBI top dog won’t release motive in Chattanooga jihad shootings: “We don’t want to smear people”

Minnesota Democrat Party candidate: ‘The Islamic State isn’t necessarily evil’

Dan Kimmel has withdrawn from the race, and for that we can be grateful, but his statement, with all of its moral equivalence and toleration of evil, is a succinct expression of what hamstrings our ability to face the Islamic State and defeat it. This is why the Islamic State will be plaguing free people worldwide for years to come.

“Minnesota State Representative Candidate Withdraws From Race After Saying ‘ISIS is Not Evil,’” by Kaitlyn Schallhorn, Daily Caller, November 15, 2015:

A Democrat candidate for a state representative seat in Minnesota has withdrawn from the race after he drew ire from many — including those in his own party — with a controversial tweet following the Paris terrorist attacks.

“ISIS isn’t necessarily evil,” Dan Kimmel, a candidate for a Minnesota state representative seat tweeted Saturday. “It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though.”

The Islamic State has taken responsibility for the terrorist attacks in Paris Friday that claimed the lives of more than 120 people and injured hundreds of others. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, French President Francois Hollande said he viewed the attack as an “act of war” and promised a “pitiless” response.

Kimmel, 63, asserted in a follow-up that he “deplores” the Islamic State’s actions and was not defended them. However, the candidate still drew the ire of many on social media, including the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party leaders.

In a post on his campaign website, Kimmel said his tweet was “poorly worded” and thus announced the end of his candidacy.

“I am folding up my campaign tent,” Kimmel said, adding an apology for those who volunteered or donated to his campaign.

“I do think the attacks in Paris yesterday, along with other ISIS terrorist actions, are cowardly and despicable. My heart breaks for the people of France, of Paris, the families of those wounded or killed and the casualties themselves,” Kimmel said. “My thoughts are with them. I condemn the attacks, as I condemn all violence.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Two of the Paris jihad murderers came into Europe as refugees

In the wake of the Paris jihad attacks, France says it’s “essential” to combat…climate change

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Dan Kimmel. Kimmel is the one on the left..