Socialist Alternative: A Key Force Behind the Anti-Trump Protests

Inspired by the example of the United Kingdom-based group known as Militant Tendency, Socialist Alternative (SA) is a Trotskyist revolutionary political party that first emerged in the U.S. as “Labor Militant” in 1986. A decentralized entity with branches of varying sizes and levels of activity in almost 50 American cities, SA proudly claims to be “in political solidarity” with the Committee for a Workers’ International, which is a worldwide socialist organization with a presence in nearly four dozen countries. On the premise that “the global capitalist system” is “the root cause” of “poverty,” “discrimination,” “war,” “inequality,” and “environmental destruction,” SA aims to promote the creation of “a socialist United States and a socialist world.” Asserting that “the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were [unfortunate] perversions of what socialism is really about,” SA instead advocates a form of “democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over [their] daily lives.”

In the late 1990s, SA tried to help the now-defunct U.S. Labor Party to advocate for electoral opposition to Democratic Party politicians, whom SA viewed as being too moderate.

SA was particularly active in the anti-globalization movement from 1998-2002, and it continues to speak out against free trade and capitalism today.

In 2004, SA members initiated Youth Against War and Racism (YAWR), a project that sought to persuade high-school students to resist military recruitment efforts and oppose the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beginning in September 2011, SA supported the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. Early the following month, SA issued a statement of solidarity with OWS.

In the fall of 2011 as well, SA endorsed a national “Jobs Not Cuts” campaign in response to proposed congressional budget cuts. This initiative was endorsed by Noam Chomsky, Cindy Sheehan, Jill Stein, Veterans for Peace, the American Federation of Teachers, Students for a Democratic Society, and the International Socialist Organization, among others.

On the premise that “the Republicans and Democrats are both parties of big business” and are thus unworthy of holding political power, SA seeks to “build an independent, alternative party of workers and young people to fight for the interests of the millions, not the millionaires.” In 2013, SA for the first time ran, on its own ticket, two openly socialist candidates – Ty Moore and Kshama Sawant – in carefully selected political races. The results were encouraging for SA: Moore lost his bid for a Minneapolis city council seat to Democrat Alondra Cano by a mere 229 votes, while Sawant won a seat in the Seattle city council by defeating longtime Democratic incumbent Richard Conlin by more than 1,000 votes. Two years later, Ms. Sawant was re-elected.

In the wake of Republican Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the U.S. presidential election of November 2016, SA helped organize massive, sometimes violent, anti-Trump protests in cities across the United States. Other notable organizers of these disruptions included the ANSWER Coalition, the Occupy Movement, and MoveOn.org.

Professing an uncompromising commitment to “fighting for the 99%,” SA supports measures that would: raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour “as a step toward a living wage for all”; provide “free [taxpayer-funded] … public education for all from pre-school through college”; ensure “free … health care for all” in a system of “fully socialized medicine”; forbid any “budget cuts to education and social services”; impose “a major increase in taxes on the rich and big business”; ensure “a minimum guaranteed weekly income of $600/week for the unemployed, disabled, stay-at-home parents, the elderly, and others unable to work”; “shorten the workweek with no loss in pay and benefits”; and institute “public ownership” of “bankrupt and failing companies” as well as “the top 500 corporations and banks that dominate the U.S. economy.”

To promote “environmental sustainability,” SA demands that America’s federal and state governments “fight climate change” by minimizing the greenhouse-gas emissions associated with human industrial activity. Toward that end, the organization recommends “massive public investment in renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies to rapidly replace fossil fuels”; “a major expansion of public transportation”; and “democratic public ownership of the big energy companies, retooling them for socially necessary green production.”

In its “Equal Rights for All” initiative, SA supports the Black Lives Matter effort to “build a mass movement against police brutality and the institutional racism of the criminal justice system.” Further, SA favors massive “invest[ment] in rehabilitation, job-training, and living-wage jobs, not prisons”; the abolition of the death penalty; the “immediate, unconditional legalization and equal rights for all undocumented immigrants”; “free reproductive services, including… abortions”; “at least 12 weeks of paid family leave for all”; and “universal … publicly run child care.”

With regard to national security and defense issues, SA demands that the federal government “slash the military budget” of the United States, shut down the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, and repeal the PATRIOT Act.

To help promote and disseminate its ideological precepts and political agendas as effectively as possible, SA publishes a newspaper out of its New York City location.

SA supported the presidential campaigns of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. In 2012 the organization supported Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and in 2016 it backed Bernie Sanders.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Understanding “Black Lives Matter”

Kellogg Foundation Provided Nearly $1 Million to Support Black Lives Matter

Freedom First International: Promoting Social Change Through Liberation Theology

The International Development Exchange: Partnering with “Black Lives Matter”

Latino Coalition applauds Trump’s picks for Secretary of HHS and Transportation

WASHINGTON, D.C.  /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Latino Coalition (TLC), the leading national non-partisan advocacy organization representing Hispanic businesses and consumers, issued the following statement today regarding President-Elect Donald J. Trump’s appointments of Chairman Tom Price, M.D. (R-GA) as Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary:

“The Latino Coalition applauds President-Elect Donald J. Trump’s appointments for Secretary of HHS and Transportation Secretary,” said Hector Barreto, The Latino Coalition Chairman and former U.S. Small Business Administrator.  “The appointments of these two outstanding individuals should give the American people the utmost assurance that the President-Elect is considering only the best for his Cabinet.”

“Chairman Tom Price has been a loyal advocate and remarkable partner of The Latino Coalition.  Price has made health care his life’s work, making him uniquely qualified for the position of Secretary of Health and Human Services.  As an orthopedic surgeon for most of his career, Price knows first-hand what true patient-centered health care should look like. He has been a fierce leader in the development of health policies and he will work arduously to reduce excessive regulatory burdens and repair this nation’s health care system. We urge Dr. Price’s swift confirmation,” Barreto added.

“President-Elect Trump’s nomination of Elaine Chao as Transportation Secretary should be commended,” said Barreto. “Chao’s story is that of the American Dream.  As the first American woman of Asian descent to be appointed to a President’s Cabinet in our nation’s history, Chao achieved great results as Secretary of Labor.  She is not only an exceptional choice with extensive experience in public service that will serve her well; she is a strong leader that will focus on the critical transportation issues needed to ensure U.S. economic growth and prosperity.  We congratulate Elaine and look forward to working with her to strengthen our nation’s infrastructure for years to come.”

ABOUT THE LATINO COALITION

The Latino Coalition (TLC) was founded in 1995 by a group of Hispanic business owners from across the country to research and develop policies solutions relevant to Latinos. TLC is a non-profit nationwide organization with offices in California, Washington, DC and Guadalajara, Mexico. Established to address and engage on key issues that that directly affect the well-being of Hispanics in the United States, TLC’s agenda is to create and promote initiatives and partnerships that will foster economic equivalency and enhance and empower overall business, economic and social development for Latinos. Visit www.thelatinocoalition.com.

In Defense of Trump Foreign Policy Adviser, Dr. Walid Phares

Dr. Walid Phares is American of Lebanese origins, a noted scholar and author with a clear vision of the dynamics of the Middle East. He is also a friend of Israel of longstanding. Earlier today we posted on an emerging jihad in the Sudan that Dr. Phares had spoken of in his capacity as a Middle East Advisor to President-elect Trump. In 2012, he was a foreign policy advisor to Republican candidate former Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney, currently under consideration by the Trump transition team as a possible nominee for Secretary of State in the new Administration. Dr. Phares by my own acquaintance is a Lebanese patriot and opponent of Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah involvement that has plagued the unique political structure of the confessional politics of his homeland.

Following the Trump victory in early November, the long knives were out from Iranian and leftist sources in both the US and Israel publishing defamations of Dr. Phares’ character that were patently false. The object was to smear his reputation and discredit him from holding a significant advisory role in the Trump transition and Administration focused on the Middle East.  The leftist Mother Jones published a hit piece by Andrew Serwer, a supporter of the Iran nuclear pact that was quickly piled on by provocateurs in social media.

Perhaps  one of the most vitriolic of the later was a piece published by Ben Lynnfield in The Jerusalem Post on November 16, 2016,  “Who is Walid Phares, Trump’s Mideast Adviser”.  It was a farrago of untruths.

On November 20, 2016, Sarah Stern of EMET-Endowment for Middle East Truth in Washington, DC published a rebuttal of the Mother’s Jones allegations, “Villyfying Walid Phares, “in which she called Phares, “a living national treasure” for his scholarship and astute observations and advices on how we should make sense of the troubling Middle East in the thrall of barbaric Islamist doctrine.   A doctrine aimed at the destruction of Christians, Jews and other non-Muslim minorities in the region.

It was left to Israeli Col. Yair Ravid to author a devastating rebuttal to the leftist attackers on Dr. Phares endeavoring to impugn his character.  The Jerusalem Post published it on November 28, 2016 appropriately titled, “In Praise of Professor Phares.” Ravid is in a unique position to author this rebuttal. He was a long serving Israeli intelligence officer who held the Beirut operational post for Mossad and knew intimately the confessional political system, dynamics of Lebanon and the facts on the ground during the long Israeli withdrawal culminating in the seeming pell mell leave-taking in May 2000. Some of that is described in a book published in May 2016, Window to the Backyard: The History of Israel-Lebanon Relations – Facts & Illusions.

Here are some of the facts that Ravid marshals to destroy the lies of the leftist enemies of Dr. Phares.

Accusation by Serwer of Mother Jones: Phares was an “ideologue of Lebanese militiamen during the civil war in the 1980s.”

Ravid:  One of the quoted persons, Toni Nisei, has himself slammed the far-left media for lying about him: “Regrettably Mother Jones selected three sentences from an almost four-hour… conversation with Serwer about the Lebanese resistance against Syrian occupation. Serwer maliciously distorted the form and core of what was discussed in a cheap and repulsive attempt to attack Professor Walid Phares and create an absurd and ludicrous connection between Professor Phares’ academic, political and intellectual roles [as a] contribution to educate the high cadres of the Lebanese Christian resistance [is] deplorable and unacceptable.”

Accusation: “Phares advocated that Lebanon’s Christians work toward creating a separate, independent Christian enclave.”

Ravid:  This of a man who has published books since 1979 while he was at law school, and hundreds of articles, all focusing on a federal solution to the crisis in Lebanon.

Accusation:  Lynnfield quoted far-left Mother Jones stating “that he was a close adviser of Samir Geagea, a Lebanese- Christian warlord.”

Ravid:   Tunic Hindi, a Lebanese politician today, has already crippled this charge in an interview where he wondered why Phares’ critics insist on this falsehood since Hindi himself was the adviser to Geagea, not Phares.

Accusation:  The Post piece goes on to claim that in the 1990s, Phares tried “to lobby the Israeli government to carve out a state for Christians in the security zone Israel maintained in southern Lebanon, despite the fact that Israel had been burned badly when it allied with Lebanese Christians in 1982, that most of zone’s inhabitants were Shi’ite Muslims and that Israel already had its hands full dealing with an insurgency by Hezbollah.”

Ravid:  This is utterly false. At the time Phares, along with his NGO colleagues, lodged a demand at the United Nations Security Council in New York to issue a resolution to establish international protection for a “free zone” in south Lebanon, to replace the Israeli military. The plan was that Christians, Muslims and Druze together would control their own destinies under a federal system. They wanted to see local police stations and municipalities act as a functioning local government until Syria had withdrawn and Hezbollah had been disarmed.

Accusation:  Former Mossad director Efraim Halevy opines on Phares’ mischaracterized position: “To think in 1997 of creating a Christian enclave in the South, an area of preponderant Shi’ite presence, is esoteric bordering on the ridiculous.” Yossi Alpher, former director of the Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies (now the Institute for National Security Studies), wrote: “Even in Israeli terms, he represents an attempt to subvert our good intentions and exploit us militarily so that we spill our blood for the Maronites. This ended very badly and he is a reminder of this.”

Ravid: None of that was found in Phares’ arguments at the time. Precisely the opposite: the Lebanese-American scholar argued that Israeli forces should withdraw but surrender the area not to Hezbollah and Assad, but to local municipalities’ forces protected by the UN. In fact his plans then are the same as what is being discussed today for areas in Iraq and Syria.

Accusation:  Alpher continues: “His association with the Lebanese Forces is very problematic… He was a prominent ideologue indoctrinating people who went out and murdered people and he has never accounted for that.”

Ravid:  Alpher’s ignorance is abysmal. Walid Phares was never a combatant and never headed a Lebanese Forces military command. He wrote books and articles and offered lectures. Sadly, Hezbollah propaganda has now been able to manipulate Israeli expertise.

Accusation:  anti-Israel Abed Ayoub, the national legal and policy director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, libeling Phares: “If you look at his history, he was a warmonger and he shouldn’t be near the White House. He was part of a militia that committed war crimes and, if anything, he should be tried for war crimes.”

Ayoub partially quotes Phares as saying, “The only military strategic option remaining to the Jewish state in the medium and long term, if it is to maintain its balance of power with the northern threat, is obviously the nuclear deterrent. But Lebanese and Israelis alike know all too well the consequences of a blast anywhere in Lebanon….”

Ravid:  These were parts of conversations that anyone in the field of defense and military studies has had, but to use a discussion about Iran’s military advance in the region, select half a sentence and paint Phares as developing a nuclear doctrine is not just silly, but low. No one knows the Arab world and Lebanon better than Phares. When he and others were part of conversations about establishing a so-called mini-entity alongside Israel, like the Kurds actually did in northern Iraq and in Syria, they wanted to express their belief at the time that minorities in the region could count on each other.

Ravid concludes his rebuttal observing:

What concerns me in The Jerusalem Post piece is historical veracity. We cannot as Israelis rewrite the history of our northern neighbor to please the terrorist network that dominates it at this point in time. Phares is a public figure in the US with most of his adult life dedicated to public service. His work during his 20s in his ancestral homeland is to be praised, not condemned, and above all described accurately. For demonizing is a prelude to ostracizing and we in this country know exactly what that means. It is unfortunate that a segment of our own academic and media elite has fallen for the games of Iranian and Islamist propagandists.

What we know and what we saw are very different from the vapid and erroneous writing of critics and the comments they quoted. When it comes to history let’s be serious and not reproduce chimeric tales concocted by Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood in order to meddle in US politics.

American Islamist Group Preps for Jihad Against Trump

Multiple confidential sources in the powerful jihadi group say they have been told to arm them-selves in anticipation of raids by a Trump Admin.

Multiple confidential sources inside of a powerful jihadist group within the United States have informed the Christian Action Network and the Clarion Project that members have been told to arm themselves in anticipation of raids by the Trump Administration.

The Pakistan-based spiritual leader of Muslims of America (MOA), Sheikh Gilani, told top MOA officials (known as “khalifas”) to order all unarmed members to obtain firearms, licenses and hunting permits in order to resist raids on the group’s approximately 22 compounds that they expect to happen under the Trump Administration. Additional “security” was also called up and assault rifles have been mentioned as desirable.

The group now expects the FBI “to reopen its cases against them as a homegrown terrorist organization,” one of the confidential sources told Martin Mawyer of the Christian Action Network and Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project.

The sources independently stated that members across the country were told of instructions from Sheikh Gilani to “be prepared to fight.” The message reportedly relayed to members was to “hear and obey,” using language identical to the oath of allegiance members sign when they join the group. He predicted, “You will be tested.”

The members believe that President-elect Trump is part of a satanic-Zionist conspiracy to destroy Islam, and that he is fulfilling apocalyptic End Times prophecies. Any action taken against MOA is seen as part of a war on Islam, a situation that permits violent jihad.

The preparations for armed confrontation are described as “self-defense measures,” but one source cautioned that the group could decide to take “offensive” action if it believes armed conflict is imminent.

MOA, previously known as Jamaat ul-Fuqra, refers to its compounds as “Islamic villages,” with its headquarters in New York known as “Islamberg.” Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro obtained footage of women getting guerilla training at the site, which was filmed in or around 2002. The group has a history of terrorist and criminal activity.

MOA members have a long history of terrorism, extremism and criminal activity including weapons trafficking. A 2007 FBI report obtained by Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project states:

“The documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the US Government.”

It warned that MOA “possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns within the U.S. and overseas.”

Orders were also issued for members released on parole to stay off the compounds and to minimize associations with other MOA members that live on the lands. Many members are on parole for crimes like distributing drugs, running illegal guns, fraud and counterfeiting.

Because parole officers can enter homes or come onto properties without a search warrant, MOA officials are concerned that the presence of a parolee on their land could be used for intelligence-gathering and to find a pretext for a raid.

Multiple independent sources emphasized that MOA membership is not confined to the camps and reported a peculiar scattering of members into areas of the U.S. that previously had no MOA presence.

The sources warned that some MOA members have been in violent drug gangs, sometimes in a covert capacity where the gangs are not informed of their MOA ties. They express concern that non-MOA criminals could be utilized so as to minimize traces to the group.

A public statement by Sheikh Gilani published on November 14 appears peaceful, but these sources say that the wording has frightening implications that outsiders would fail to detect.

“I foretold the disastrous results should this man be elected as the American President. He has come as a test and trial for the faithful adherents of the holy books. There is no reason to cry, weep or despair over this current difficulty,” it reads.

Gilani is referring to his prophecies that a “tyrant” would take control of the White House during the End Times, shortly before an apocalyptic battle happens that ushers in final victory for Islam (as he interprets it).

MOA believes that this “Doomsday” will happen under the reign of Gilani’s successor, known as the 7th Sultan. Gilani is understood by members to be on the cusp of death. Sources reported last monththat Gilani has transferred his title of “imam of MOA” to his son in the U.S., Sultan Ahmed Gilani, who may be separate from the prophetic 7th Sultan.

Khalifa Hussain Abdallah, known as “K1”.

Khalifa Hussain Abdallah, known as “K1” within the group for his top ranking as an original founder, is said to be a key supervisor of these preparations for armed conflict.

The sources urged Mawyer and Mauro to be on alert, as MOA members believe they are responsible for the forthcoming crackdown. Law enforcement has been informed of the danger and should consider MOA the immediate suspect if any harm is done to them.

The Christian Action Network and Clarion Project challenge Sheikh Gilani to prove his alleged commitment to non-violence by publishing an unequivocal forbiddance of any violent action against Mawyer and Mauro by any MOA supporter under any circumstances.

ABOUT MARTIN MAWYER

Martin Mawyer is the founded the Christian Action Network (CAN). Mawyer has directed three documentary films and has appeared on top television and radio programs in the U.S. His four books include:  Silent Shame: The Shocking Story of Child Sexual Abuse in America; Pathways to Success: First Steps for Becoming a Christian in Action; Defending the American Family and Twilight in America: The Untold Story of Islamic Terrorist Training Camps Inside America.

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:

Young, Radicalized Man From NC Planned Mass Casualty Attack

Four Simple Reasons Not to Trust Iran

Ohio State Stabbing: Playing Into ISIS’ Hands

What If Your Holiday Parade Was a Terror Target?

What do nine bloody attacks in 18 months have in common?

Just now I posted some of the news generated by the Ohio State Somali slasher attack two days ago. But, I still have three other news reports that are connected with the Islam-inspired attack that I want to say more about.

This is the first…..

Don’t miss Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily where he tells us there is a connection between nine violent attacks carried out on American soil in the last 18 months.

Law enforcement, from the local level on up to the FBI, said they did not know what could have motivated the young Muslim student to act in such a premeditated, violent way against his fellow students on a chilly Tuesday morning in Columbus.

Artan, an 18-year-old freshman at OSU, had immigrated from his native Somalia through Pakistan, arriving in Columbus at the invitation of the U.S. government, which considered him a “refugee.”

But the media failed to connect any of the dots with a host of similar attacks on U.S. soil, let alone the even larger number of strikingly similar attacks in Europe committed by migrants from Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa.

Go to World Net Daily where Hohmann connects the dots and see the list of nine violent attacks in the U.S.!  What do they have in common?

An aside: Every time one of the Islam-inspired killers goes on a rampage (showing Islam’s violent propensities), I wonder if the Islamists who are working day and night to take us over through immigration, through the Hijra (detailed in Hohmann’s new book), are furious at the punk with no patience.

RELATED ARTICLES:

News roundup: More Somali Slasher news

Security Expert: Ohio State Attack Further Evidence Jihadis Worldwide Mimic Palestinian Terror Tactics

How many white refugees did we take from South Africa last month?

Laugh of the day: see what Soros is spending money on to help refugees

EDITORS NOTE: Mr. Hohmann’s new book will be available in January 2017. Please click here to order an advanced copy of Stealth Invasion.

State Department Nominee Must Tame The Bureaucratic Beast

The way the media is discussing the choice facing President-Elect Trump over his State Department nominee, you would think it’s a choice about stocking-stuffers. Should I give Mitt the slide whistle, the chocolate truffle, or the lump of coal?

The answer is: none of the above. And as Kellyann Conway noted on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday, Trump loyalists are wondering why Mitt Romney thinks he deserves to hang his stocking on our mantle to begin with.

Secretary of State is one of three key national security positions, but even more than the National Security advisor or the Secretary of Defense, this is the person who becomes America’s face and voice to seven billion people around the planet. This is the person who will personify American values, who will hold high the flag of freedom.

And most important of all, this is the person who will ensure that President Trump’s agenda actually gets carried out by an unruly, often recalcitrant bureaucracy at the Department of State, filled with partisan Democrats who have burrowed their way into career track jobs to avoid getting automatically axed come the inauguration.

Mitt Romney may be willing to recant his harsh attacks on Donald Trump’s character during the campaign, and Mr. Trump may be willing to forgive him. But the real issue – and it applies to any potential nominee – is this: can he or she ascend to the seventh floor and tame the bureaucracy?

After President Bush was elected to a second term in November 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell called a town meeting of his employees. “We live in a democracy,” he said. “As Americans, we have to respect the results of elections.” Bush had received the most votes of any president in U.S. history. Everyone in this building was constitutionally obligated to serve him, he said.

As I recounted in my 2008 book, Shadow Warriors, one of Powell’s subordinates returned to her office suite, shut the door, and held a mini town meeting of her own. After indignantly recounting Powell’s remarks to her assembled staff, she commented: “Well, Senator Kerry receive the second highest number of votes of any presidential candidate in history. If just one state had gone differently, Sen. Kerry would be President Kerry today.”

The employees of her regional bureau owed no allegiance to the president of the United States, especially not to policies they knew were wrong, she told them. If it was legal, and it would slow down the Bush juggernaut, they should do it.

I fully expect the next Secretary of State will face the same type of open insubordination from political hold-overs, many of whom weathered eight years of George W. Bush. They will use every ruse to undermine President Trump’s policies, especially where those policies conflict with their elitist, globalist agenda – which will be just about everywhere.

Want to slash the $1 billion funding to promote “climate change” initiatives? All of a sudden, that money will get buried in another budget line. Want to stop spending U.S. taxpayer dollars to promote an LGBT lifestyle overseas? The next secretary will get blank stares when he or she gives such an order to the bureaucrats.

And these are relatively small matters. What about moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, a policy Congress has made law and Donald Trump promoted during the campaign? I guarantee you, the shadow warriors at State will find legal excuses where none exist, and magnify the objections of regional partners who never set foot in Israel anyway.

The State Department has many talented, career professionals, who understand that their job is to promote the policies of the United States of America as defined by the President and his Secretary of State. But it also has many secret and not-so-secret partisans, who believe their duty is to act as so many Edward Snowden’s inside the belly of the beast, leaking to the media and to President Trump’s political enemies.

The next Secretary of State cannot close his eyes to this fact. He must tame the bureaucracy and, like the Swedes, not fear to send those he cannot fire to the “elephant’s churchyard” in the basement.

That’s what happened to Greg Hicks, the deputy chief of mission under Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya, after Hicks had the temerity to testify before Congress that his superiors back in Washington had denied scores of requests for additional security in Tripoli and Benghazi.

The media will scream, and Senator Chuck Schumer will join them, calling the Secretary a vicious partisan, vindictive, or – heavens! – unfair. We need a Secretary of State who will not flinch at the slings and arrows of the president’s political adversaries, who can sweep them away with skill, good humor, and firm resolve.

Do you see Mitt Romney doing that?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the DailyCaller.com.

VIDEO: A Word to the Criminal Migrant — We’ve had enough, the tide is turning

Truth Revolt posted the latest video from Pat Condell, stating:

Commentator Pat Condell is back with another hard-hitting short video, this time about the Islamic tide sweeping the West pretending to be “refugees.” If you’ve seen Pat before, you know he pulls absolutely no punches and tells it like it is. This one is no exception.

Check out Condell’s list of related links below:

Multikultistan: A house of horrors for ordinary Germans
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/…

Germany descends into lawlessness. “We are losing control of the streets”
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/92…

German police union chief: “Migrants laugh at our justice system”.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/…

Mass sexual assault in Sweden covered up by the media.
http://nyheteridag.se/exposing-major-…

See more….

Trump and Rubio: ‘Evil’ ‘Brutal Dictator’ Caused ‘Unimaginable Suffering’

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said on Saturday that his administration, which takes office Jan. 20, would “do all it can” to help boost freedom and prosperity for Cuban people after the death of Fidel Castro.

“Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.

“While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve.

“Though the tragedies, deaths and pain caused by Fidel Castro cannot be erased, our administration will do all it can to ensure the Cuban people can finally begin their journey toward prosperity and liberty. I join the many Cuban Americans who supported me so greatly in the presidential campaign, including the Brigade 2506 Veterans Association that endorsed me, with the hope of one day soon seeing a free Cuba.”

Senator Marco Rubio issued the following statement regarding the death of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro:

“Fidel Castro seized power promising to bring freedom and prosperity to Cuba, but his communist regime turned it into an impoverished island prison. Over six decades, millions of Cubans were forced to flee their own country, and those accused of opposing the regime were routinely jailed and even killed.

“Sadly, Fidel Castro’s death does not mean freedom for the Cuban people or justice for the democratic activists, religious leaders, and political opponents he and his brother have jailed and persecuted. The dictator has died, but the dictatorship has not. And one thing is clear, history will not absolve Fidel Castro; it will remember him as an evil, murderous dictator who inflicted misery and suffering on his own people.

“The future of Cuba ultimately remains in the hands of the Cuban people, and now more than ever Congress and the new administration must stand with them against their brutal rulers and support their struggle for freedom and basic human rights.”

Fidel Castro’s death sparked celebrations in Miami:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

After Castro’s Death, Trump Seeks ‘Concessions’ From Cuba

The Left’s Appalling Whitewashing of Castro’s Legacy

Fidel Castro May Be Dead, but Tyranny Remains in Cuba

Migrants looking for economic opportunity and running from gangs/violence are NOT refugees

Immigration activists are urging Obama to release them all before January 20th!

Next time you hear the Left whining about Jeff Sessions, Kris Kobach and Steve Bannon remember that President Barack Obama had Cecilia Muñoz (La Raza), and senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett by his side for nearly 8 years working day and night to change U.S. immigration policy and seed your towns with diversity. Now the pendulum swings back!

They are surging north by the tens of thousands since Trump won the Presidential election on November 8th. See news at Drudge yesterday, here.   And it isn’t just Mexicans and Central Americans, as Pamela Geller told us here two days ago, that want to get in to America before Donald Trump is inaugurated.

President Barack Obama, flanked by Cecilia Muñoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, left, and senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, June 24, 2013, during a meeting with CEOs, business owners and entrepreneurs to discuss immigration reform. Obama hosted the meeting to discuss the importance of commonsense immigration reform including the Congressional Budget Office analysis that concludes immigration reform would promote economic growth and reduce the deficit. Sitting next to Obama are . (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Cecilia Muñoz (La Raza), Barack Obama and senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett

Most are NOT REFUGEES! although most will be requesting asylum (and most are being cared for on the taxpayer’s dime).

While we focus so much energy on the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program, the asylum portion of the Refugee Act of 1980 is going berserk!  The Open Borders activists have latched on to it in order to make up for the numbers they might lose in the normal refugee program. I mentioned it recently when I wrote about Doris Meissner.

In the normal process we write about all the time, refugees are selected abroad and flown here on your dime (they are supposed to repay the airfare, but no one, outside the government, knows how much they do repay).

With asylum seekers, they get here on their own either by crossing the border illegally or illegally overstaying a visa and then requesting asylum, which is supposed to offer protection from PERSECUTION.

In either case legitimate “refugees” must prove that they fear persecution if returned home, according the 1951 Convention on refugees….

Article 1 of the Convention, as amended by the 1967 Protocol, defines a refugee as this:

“A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it..”

What has been happening is that the definition is being expanded (really by the Open Borders lobby and their media mouthpieces) beyond the idea of persecution to include anyone who is running from anything that makes them unhappy!

Bloomberg: Let all asylum-seekers go free before January 20th:

Now, back to the article that caught my eye a few days ago at Bloomberg (where else!): Obama being urged to let all asylum-seekers go free.  But, remember! most of the tens of thousands of Unaccompanied Alien Children who entered the US illegally are already free to roam America!

Immigration advocates are asking the Obama administration to release thousands of detained Central American women and children who want asylum in the U.S., citing concerns that Donald Trump will deport them after his inauguration in January.

Representatives of groups including the Women’s Refugee Commission and the American Immigration Lawyers Association met with White House officials last week to discuss a host of immigration issues, including the fate of about 4,000 Central American detainees, some as young as two years old, who have fled violence in their home countries. They’re housed in jail-like facilities in Texas and Pennsylvania, some for more than a year, as they wait for the government to process their asylum pleas.

Immigration advocates want the president to either end the practice of detaining families altogether, as they’ve been requesting for years, or direct Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to release families with a notice to appear before a judge on their own recognizance.

They are NOT refugees! But, see here below, that the media calls them that already. In order to be a refugee they must make an asylum claim and be granted asylum!  In most states they are not eligible for welfare until the asylum claim has been approved.

The plight of the Central American refugees, who fled violence and gangs in their home countries, is one of several 11th-hour immigration conundrums Obama faces as he prepares for Trump to enter the White House. The Republican campaigned on promises to crack down on undocumented immigrants and to build a wall on the Mexican border, and immigration advocates fear a government that has struggled under Obama to humanely handle a crush of asylum-seekers at the southern border will turn markedly more hostile under his successor.

More here if you care to read it!

The vast majority of so-called ‘refugees’ invading Europe now are claiming asylum and are not legitimate refugees, and shouldn’t be referred to as ‘refugees’ until their claims have been approved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

German court: Syrian ‘refugees’ may not be refugees by definition

Maine immigration lawyer: we are too old and too white!

Sore Loser Liberals Turn to Attacking Trump’s Cabinet Picks

Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton. Republicans engaged in voter suppression tactics nationwide. Clinton won the popular vote. Trump’s chief strategist and senior counselor Steve Bannon is a bigot. Senator Jeff Sessions, Trump’s pick for Attorney General, is a racist.

These are all Democratic talking points describing all things Trump and Republican. Just as sure as the sun rises and sets, liberal Democrats, especially Blacks, will call anyone a racist, if they don’t agree with them on any range of issues.

According to liberals, if you don’t support open borders, you are a racist; if you don’t support homosexuality, you are a racist; if you don’t believe in global warming, you are a racist; if you support voter ID laws, you’re a racist; if you support separate bathrooms for men and women, then you are a racist.

And because Trump wants Bannon in the White House, then he must be a racist.

Well, I say that if Steve is a racist, then we need to have a lot more racists in America.

Most of the people who are trying to tear down Bannon have never met nor had any conversations with him. Steve is an extremely serious and insightful political operative and I have especially enjoyed working with him in pursuing one of my signature goals: getting more Blacks involved in the Republican Party.

Over the past year, Steve has been very helpful to me in this regard. Steve has always been responsive and available to me, when I needed to use him as a sounding board. His working understanding of many of the dynamics going on within the Black community, relative to the Republican Party and conservatism, is astonishing. His understanding of these dynamics are more insightful than many of our so-called media appointed “Civil Rights” leaders, who simply want to be patted on the head by the likes of Obama and Hillary Clinton and be told “atta boy.”

Senator Sessions is going to be a great U.S. Attorney General. I worked his first U.S. Senate race back in 1996. Again, if Jeff is a racist, please, can we have more racists like him?

Sessions is labeled a racist by radical leftist groups like the NAACP, the ACLU, and the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, to name a few. Sessions is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, believes those in the country illegally should be deported and he actually believes in the rule of law. So, what makes him a racist?

This is Exhibit A in how intellectually depraved liberals react to those who have a different worldview than they do. It also shows how morally bankrupt they are also.

How can anyone argue that Sessions is a racist when he, as a young lawyer in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Alabama, desegregated their school system, literally put the KKK out of business, and then had their leader sentenced to death in a civil rights murder case?

Liberalism accepts nothing short of 100 percent fealty to its radical ideology or it will use all the might of its liberal media machine to brand you a racist, a xenophobe,homophobe, etc.

It is totally incompatible with the liberal mind construct that a person can disagree with them and yet still be a good person. To them, it’s a zero sum game.

As a Trump supporter and a lifelong Republican, I will do everything within my power to make sure Sessions is confirmed as Attorney General and has solid ties within the mainstream of the Black community; not the radical left that groups like the NAACP, the National Urban League, and the Congressional Black Caucus represent.

I have already received several phone calls from respected Blacks with Alabama roots, who are ready to come out front in support of Sessions’ nomination. Of course liberals conveniently ignore lifelong friends of Sessions who don’t align with the racist narrative they are using to attempt to destroy him.

One of the most successful Black businessmen in the state of Alabama, Don Watkins, is one of Sessions’ friends who had nothing but glowing things to say about the congressman. So, according to these Black liberals, I guess Watkins is a racist and a sellout, huh?

I plan on doing everything I can to work with Trump’s transition team to help with the racial issues the NAACP, the National Urban League, and the Congressional Black Caucus are going to throw at Sessions and by extension team Trump.

I strongly implore the Trump transition team to unleash outside advocates like me and others to work with them to vigorously defend good people like Steve Bannon and Jeff Sessions.

I know Bannon and Sessions feel they have no need to respond to these lies being pushed by liberals. Trust me, as one who makes a living from communications, you do need to respond, or at a minimum, have supporters with credibility in the Black community to respond on your behalf.

A lie that is oft repeated becomes the truth.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in BlackPressUSA.

Al-Qaeda now favors immigration and ‘outbreeding non-Muslims’ to destroy U.S.

“Muslim terror groups had a much bigger plan to crush America than just through attacks like 9/11. Instead, the plan is to fill the country with like-minded Muslims through the country’s easy immigration laws and by having babies, and then using the U.S. legal and welfare system to turn the country into a system like Iran.”

“Warming to the topic, KSM smiled and said the media, either on purpose or without realizing it, would promote Islam’s cause and champion tearing down the measures put in place to protect the American people after 9/11. He said the media would promote al-Qaeda’s cause by framing the war against Islam (his characterization, not mine) as morally wrong, impossible to win, and fraught with unacceptable losses. He said the media’s response was one of Allah’s ‘gifts,’ one of the ways Allah preordained for Americans to set aside those things which kept us safe and prevented attacks in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.”

This is so close to what actually happened that it sounds like prophecy-after-the-fact. Or maybe Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is an unusually insightful human being. In any case, this is exactly what is happening.

“9/11 mastermind: Al Qaeda favors ‘immigration’ to defeat USA,” by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner, November 23, 2016:

The jailed architect of 9/11 revealed that al Qaeda’s plan to kill the United States was not through military attacks but immigration and “outbreeding nonmuslims” who would use the legal system to install Sharia law, according to a blockbuster new book.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed also predicted that intelligence officials using so-called “enhanced interrogation” techniques such the waterboarding he experienced would eventually come under attack from weak-kneed U.S. politicians and media.

In Enhanced Interrogation, CIA contractor James Mitchell tells for the first time about his role interrogating al Qaeda principals, many like KSM still jailed at Guantanamo Bay. He details accounts of waterboarding and other interrogation sessions of the nation’s most notorious enemies.

None more so than Mohammed. Among the most facinating aspects of the book are chatty discussions between KSM and Mitchell long after the waterboarding and before he was delivered to the prision at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he clammed — and lawyered — up.

In his book, Mitchell is not pushing for a return to waterboarding, especially for run-of-the-mill battlefield prisoners. He does, however, back aggressive interrogation the worst terrorists trained or willed to not cough up any secrets because he said it worked….

Snippets obtained by Secrets from the book set for release next Tuesday from Crown Forum show that Muslim terror groups had a much bigger plan to crush America than just through attacks like 9/11.Instead, the plan is to fill the country with like-minded Muslims through the country’s easy immigration laws and by having babies, and then using the U.S. legal and welfare system to turn the country into a system like Iran.Consider this passage in the book, Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying to Destroy America, where KSM reveals the plan to Mitchell:

“It would be nice,” he said, if al Qaeda or like-minded Islamists could bring America to its knees with catastrophic attacks, but that was unlikely to happen; “not practical” is the wording he used. From his perspective, the long war for Islamic domination wasn’t going to be won in the streets with bombs and bullets and bloodshed. No, it would be won in the minds of the American people.

He said the terror attacks were good, but the “practical” way to defeat America was through immigration and by outbreeding non-Muslims. He said jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United States, taking advantage of the welfare system to support themselves while they spread their jihadi message. They will wrap themselves in America’s rights and laws for protection, ratchet up acceptance of Sharia law, and then, only when they were strong enough, rise up and violently impose Sharia from within. He said the brothers would relentlessly continue their attacks and the American people eventually would become so tired, so frightened, and so weary of war that they would just want it to end.

“Eventually,” KSM said, “America will expose her neck to us for slaughter.”

Since the attacks, and during President Obama‘s two terms, Muslims from several countries that harbor terrorists have flooded into the U.S. And Obama has promised to open the borders for Syrian refugees whose backgrounds are difficult to investigate. President-elect Trump has vowed to reverse Obama’s plans.

In talks with the terrorist, Mitchell said that KSM discussed waterboarding and other interrogation techniques and said that if the tables were turned, “he would do the same thing to protect his way of life.”

He also predicted the downfall of the techniques and persecution of those involved.

From the book:

KSM wagged his finger professorially at us and warned, “Soon they will turn on you.” He prophetically predicted that the press and some members of my own government would turn on me and Bruce and others like us who took aggressive action to prevent the next 9/11 attack and save American lives.

Warming to the topic, KSM smiled and said the media, either on purpose or without realizing it, would promote Islam’s cause and champion tearing down the measures put in place to protect the American people after 9/11. He said the media would promote al-Qaeda’s cause by framing the war against Islam (his characterization, not mine) as morally wrong, impossible to win, and fraught with unacceptable losses. He said the media’s response was one of Allah’s “gifts,” one of the ways Allah preordained for Americans to set aside those things which kept us safe and prevented attacks in the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

KSM said, “Your own government will turn on you. Your leaders will turn on you. They will turn on you to save themselves. It will play out in the media and strengthen the hearts of the brothers. It will recruit more to Allah’s cause because the press coverage will make the U.S. look weak and divided.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

One Year After Paris, What The West Still Needs To Learn About Islamic Terror

9/11 Mastermind says the goal of Al-Qaeda is to takeover America through immigration

Amsterdam mosque leaders suspected of jihad terror activity

Austin, TX “Support Our Muslim Neighbors” event tries to “ease anxiety of local Muslims following Trump’s election”

Latest on Scientist who Mainstreamed Pedophilia by Bob Unrah

Alfred Kinsey is known in the United States as the researcher who released the influential books on human sexual behavior in the 1940s and 1950s, regarded as catalysts for the sexual revolution.

The National Institutes of Health notes his studies as a college teacher on the gull wasp failed to earn him a desired promotion, so he jumped on a new academic pursuit of marriage and the family, titillating students with “the mechanics of intercourse” and teaching them that “nearly all so-called sexual perversions fall within the range of biological normality.”

Ultimately, he claimed that children, even infants, are sexual from birth and that the answer to what’s appropriate for human sexuality is just about anything. Even the left-leaning New York Times admitted author James Jones revealed Kinsey “had affairs with men, encouraged open marriages among his staff, stimulated himself with urethral insertion and ropes, and filmed sex in his attic.”

The truth about the man who has been called the “father of the sexual revolution” actually goes beyond that.

reisman-book-coverJudith Reisman, Ph.D., who long has researched Kinsey and his work, has announced that one of her books about Kinsey, “Stolen Honor Stolen Innocence,” is being published later this month in the French language.

It is being published by a pro-family organization in France that called out Kinsey’s work as “a weapon of mass destruction against the family.”

Her book, “Sexual Sabotage,” was published in Croatian in 2014, and another French group is planning to release that work in French in 2017.

Reisman is a scientific adviser to the California Protective Parents Association, former president of the Institute for Media Education and has consulted for four U.S. Department of Justice administrations. She also has worked with the U.S. Department of Education as well as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and has seen her work translated into many languages.

Her conclusion is that Kinsey almost assuredly violated children sexually and based his writings on the testimony of criminals who sexually assaulted children.

How else, she wonders, would anyone come up with the data in his infamous Table 34?

There, Kinsey claimed that an 11-month-old child experienced 10 orgasms in one hour, another 11-month-old had 14 in 38 minutes, a 2-year-old child had 11 in 65 minutes, a 4-year-old had 26 in 24 hours. A 10-year-old had 14 in the same time, and a 12-year-old had three in three minutes. Because someone wasn’t sure of those results, the experiment was repeated on the 12-year-old, who then reportedly experienced nine in two hours.

According to David Kupelian, author of “The Marketing of Evil,” Reisman found Table 34 “purports to be a scientific record of ‘multiple orgasm in pre-adolescent males.’”

Wrote Kupelian: “Reisman wondered: How did Kinsey and his associates obtain this ‘research’ that infants as young as five months of age enjoyed sex? Child sexual abuse is a felony – how could such research be conducted legally? Why had nobody raised this issue before?”

Reisman herself explained: “Kinsey solicited and encouraged pedophiles, at home and abroad, to sexually violate from 317 to 2,035 infants and children for his alleged data on normal ‘child sexuality.’ Many of the crimes against children (oral and anal sodomy, genital intercourse and manual abuse) committed for Kinsey’s research are quantified in his own graphs and charts.”

In a commentary, Reisman and Mary McAlister wrote that the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University still is protecting Kinsey’s legacy, acting as a purveyor of his research, with the latest developments including reports the university was caught paying $200 for parts of aborted infants.

“This is the legacy of Alfred Kinsey,” they wrote. “While Kinsey’s work is lauded and quoted by the elites of American law and academia, other nations are beginning to understand Kinsey’s malevolent impact on the world’s people.”

Her work to expose Kinsey’s disturbing activities has included “Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences,” “Sexual Revolution” and “Stolen Honor, Stolen Innocence.”

And it’s making an impact. After she provided information in a trial, Croatia’s high court stunned sex-education experts by rejecting curriculum based on the work of Kinsey.

judithoneShe had pointed out that Kinsey’s two books, known as the “Kinsey Reports,” were “based on a nonrepresentative group of Americans – including hundreds of sex offenders, prostitutes, prison inmates and exhibitionists.”

Reisman documents how some of Kinsey’s conclusions were based on data from serial pedophiles.

“Prisoners, prostitutes, homosexuals ‘1,400 sex offenders,’ ‘feeble minded’ and other such World War II ‘stay-at-home’ persons, rounded out the men who were to represent the average American.”

Explained Reisman: “Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger was a colleague) and legal power elitists joined arms to, as the French organization said, destroy the family, to merchandize and objectify women and children as products.

“That merchandizing is now coming full circle as unborn babies are divided and sold to the highest bidder at illustrious universities. This moral abyss has devolved naturally into live babies increasingly being sexual victimized by peers and pedophiles.”

table34

She called on Congress to begin an investigation of Indiana University and its Kinsey Institute, and, if it is appropriate, to begin prosecutions.

“There still are victims, well over 80 years [old], willing to testify to their Kinsey-monitored child rapes, with cinema, to investigators. Such ‘scientific’ child sex abuse that reshaped law and public policy, should be at least as important as the sex abuse by Catholic clergy,” she wrote.

“The children of Table 34, and the millions of victims of the mantra, ‘children are sexual from birth’ finally deserve justice! We must at last know the truth of why and how we came to be a culture of adulterated adults, merchandisable children and exchangeable individuals. ”

Reisman has lectured at Princeton, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Pepperdine, Johns Hopkins, the FBI, the U.S. Air Force Academy, the University of Jerusalem, the University of Haifa and Tel Aviv University. She has been cited by the London Times, Time, Newsweek, the New York Times and the Washington Post. She has appeared on “Entertainment Tonight,” “Larry King Live,” “Donahue,” the “Today” show and “Crossfire.”

She’s been listed in “The World’s Who’s Who of Women.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on World Net Daily. See Judith Reisman’s research about Alfred Kinsey at the WND Superstore.

How to Make America Great by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen

Venerable Fulton J. Sheen on the importance of religion in America: “Once a nation ceases to believe it begins to obey.”

Our Found­ing Fathers intended that no particular religion should be the national religion, but they never intended that the State should be devoid of religion. It never entered their minds that we would grow up to be an irreligious nation, nor did they ever think that education would be divorced from religion and morality.

This is evident from the fact that no signer of the Declaration of Independence was educated in a non-religious school. For a century the United States did not have a President who was educated in a non-religious school. It is true that the First Amendment of the Constitution forbade the establishment of any religion as a national religion. This was because there was an established religion in ten of the thirteen colonies: The Congregational religion in three; the Episcopalian in seven. But the same amendment ordered that Congress should make no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

In the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, our Government insisted that “schools and the means of edu­cation shall forever be encouraged,” because “religion, morality, and knowledge” are necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind. Nor is the insinuation true that religious schools are not American schools. A Lutheran school which teaches religion, or a Baptist school which teaches religion, or a Cath­olic school which teaches religion, even though they are maintained at the expense of these religious groups, are public schools.

Why is it more important now than at any other time to restore religion and morality to education? Because we are entering into a new era of history wherein the grave threat to man’s freedom is from the Omnipotent State. Once a nation ceases to believe it begins to obey. As William Penn warned: “Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.”

The choice before the world is this: Truth or Power, that is, either live by God’s Truth or exist under State Power. We are coming into the days of Omnipotence where we will live under the Omnipotence of God or squirm under the Omnipotence of Power.

When Hitler came into power in 1933, the first to capitulate were the professors, and the one force which has never capitulated is re­ligion, as the Catholic bishops and pastor Niemoeller bear witness. It was the professors who allowed the independent administration of the universities to be abolished, the universities offering no objections to State elected “Rektoren” and “Dekane” who were forced upon them.

rockwell_thanksgiving-1

It was a bitter disappoint­ment for all who considered the German universities the defenders of right and justice; but when one considers that specialization had been carried so far, and a unified philosophy of life so universally abandoned, there was no one idea around which they could rally.

Given a crisis in any country in the world in which Totalitarianism in any form threatens the liberty of its citizens, and the first to capitu­late will be the non-religious edu­cators. How could it be otherwise, for without a faith, how could they oppose a faith? It will be only those schools which give a moral and re­ligious training which will challenge the right of the State to dominate the soul of man.

That is why the safeguard of American democracy and freedom is in the extension of religious and moral training, and not in its suppression through excessive burdens. There is no reason in the world why any school in the United States which teaches religion and morality should be penalized for being pa­triotic, or why it should bear all the expenses for giving to the na­tion the two supports without which, as Washington told us, a nation cannot endure.

It is not fair, it is not democratic, to cater only to the non­religious in education. A child who goes to a religious school may walk on streets maintained by public funds, but in many instances may not ride to school in a bus operated at public expense.

The State will build a chapel for citizens when they get into a penitentiary; how about building a few schools to pre­vent them through moral discipline from getting into a penitentiary?

We are preparing an army of ten million men to defend Christian liberty and justice on the battle­fields. Shall we not tell them something about that Christian lib­erty before we give them a gun?

A government “of the people, for the people, and by the people,” should respect the will of those who believe in religion and morality, even though they be in the minority for democracy is not the custo­dian of majority privileges, but the preserver of minority rights.

Would it not be a good idea for America to cease talking about the right to worship, and to begin talking about the duty to worship? . . .For 150 years we have been celebrating our Bill of Rights. How about celebrating our Bill of Duties? The first ten amend­ments to the Constitution are our Bill of Rights; the Ten Commandments of God are our Bill of Duties.

God grant that America will not be blind to its duties to God Who has given us our rights; that parents will realize that when God made each of their children, He made a crown for each in heaven, and that a vacant crown is their unfulfilled responsibility and their severe judgment; that children will harken to the call of Him Who said: “Suffer the little children to come unto Me. . . .For such is the King­dom of heaven.” (Mark 10:14)

Given another generation of God­less education and we will have tyranny; given religion and moral­ity in education and we will be the most potent national influence for peace in the world. Then shall America be great. And we will love it not because it is great; it will be great because we will love it in the name of God and that makes anything great.

EDITORS NOTE: This column from a 1943 radio broadcast by Archbishop Fulton B. Sheen originally appeared in The Catholic Thing.

 

Trump’s Chief-of-Staff calls aspects of Islam ‘Problematic’ — Are They?

The Trump administration is about to make huge decisions based on the answer. My latest in PJ Media:

President-elect Trump’s new chief of staff Reince Preibus touched the political third rail Sunday when he enunciated a truth that is almost universally denied. Even those who know it to be true seldom dare speak it in public.

Aspects of Islam are … “problematic.”

Priebus uttered this momentous word when he was asked on ABC about remarks made by Trump’s choice for national security advisor, Michael Flynn, about political aspects of Islam. Priebus responded:

Clearly, there are some aspects of that faith that are problematic and we know them, we’ve seen it. It certainly isn’t a blanket for all people of that faith, but Mike Flynn is one of the most highly respected intelligence officers in America. Certainly no one can deny that.

Certainly not, but many people do deny that anything about Islam is “problematic.” Hillary Clinton famously declared the following in 2015:

Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.

Clinton wasn’t just stating her own opinion. She was repeating official Obama administration policy — and what certainly would have been the policy of her administration, had she become president.

Priebus’ “problematic” comment comes after a campaign during which Trump repeatedly criticized Clinton for refusing to name the enemy as “radical Islam.” Clearly, the Trump administration intends to take a new direction regarding the jihad threat.

We can be just as certain that the Leftist political establishment and media will excoriate Trump for supposedly alienating peaceful Muslims and driving them towards jihad by calling their religion “problematic.”

So, major policy decisions are about to turn on this question: is anything about Islam actually “problematic”?

Certainly, jihad terrorists routinely — or primarily — invoke the Qur’an and Muhammad’s example to justify their actions and to recruit peaceful Muslims.

Abdullah Azzam — who, along with Osama bin Laden, co-founded al-Qaeda — wrote in his book length exhortation to jihad, Join the Caravan, that “the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen” who “used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.”

Are Muhammad’s “military expeditions” in any way “problematic”? Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd explains:

If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is NOT possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms.It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants, in their lengthy apologia for 9/11, explicitly depicted it as an Islamic jihad attack:

Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.

Indeed, Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud declared:

Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfill God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.

So, these terrorist leaders certainly found Islam to be “problematic.” Are these terrorists “extremists”?

Well — even though they were all devout Muslims determined to follow their religion properly — we should first turn to the authoritative sources in Sunni Islam, the schools of Sunni jurisprudence (madhahib), to answer that question.

Shafi’i school:A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, perhaps the leading authority in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy.

When discussing jihad, that manual stipulates that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians … until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.”

It added a comment from Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya) … while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.8).

Of course, there is no caliph today, unless one accepts the claims of the Islamic State, and hence the oft-repeated claim that Osama, et al are waging jihad illegitimately, as no state authority has authorized their jihad.

However — they explain their actions in terms of defensive jihad. Defensive jihad needs no state authority to initiate it, and becomes “obligatory for everyone” (Reliance of the Traveller, o9.3) if a Muslim land is attacked.

And the defensive jihad is not declared over when peaceful coexistence with non-Muslims as equals is achieved. Reliance of the Traveller specifies that the warfare against non-Muslims must continue until “the final descent of Jesus.”

After that? “[N]othing but Islam will be accepted from them, for taking the poll tax is only effective until Jesus’ descent” (o9.8).

Sounds problematic.

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions.It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons. From the call to Islam,

“ … the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However:

“[I]f the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II. 140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes:“[In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.”

In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as “radical” or “fundamentalist” Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist.He directed:

“[S]ince lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”

This is also taught by modern-day scholars of Islam. Majid Khadduri was an Iraqi scholar of Islamic law of international renown. In his book War and Peace in the Law of Islam, which was published in 1955 and remains one of the most lucid and illuminating works on the subject, Khadduri says this about jihad:

“The state which is regarded as the instrument for universalizing a certain religion must perforce be an ever expanding state. The Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world

The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state. (P. 51)”

Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, is an assistant professor on the faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes Twelfth Century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd:

“Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book (the Jews) … is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.”

Nyazee concludes:

“This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation.”

The authoritative sources from these four schools of Islamic jurisprudence not only claim that Islam has “problematic” aspects, they claim that the “problematic” aspects are not “radical” commands — they are in fact central to Islam.

Further, this is to say nothing of the many, many passages of the Qur’an exhorting believers to wage war against unbelievers.

It would be illuminating if Hillary Clinton or John Kerry or Pope Francis or one of the others who maintain that Islam is a religion of peace produced some quotations from Muslim authorities they consider “authentic.”

Also, they would need to explain why the authorities I’ve quoted above, and others like them, are inauthentic.

While no single Muslim authority can proclaim what is “authentic” Islam, and thus it would be prudent not to make sweeping statements about what “authentic Islam” actually is, clearly many Muslims believe that authentic Islam sanctions violence against non-Muslims — and they can offer centuries of common, popular Islamic literature to back their belief….

Read the rest here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Keith Ellison headlined fundraiser for Muslim activist who called for “Palestinians” to embrace “The Jihad Way”

Obama administration in its death throes still covering up key details of Iran deal

‘Sanctuary Cities’ vs National Security and Public Safety

Why ‘sanctuary city’ mayors should be given an MVP Award by ISIS and drug cartels.

The lunacy of the immigration executive orders and other actions of the Obama administration to block the enforcement of our immigration laws and immigration anarchy will be brought to a screeching halt on the day that Donald Trump replaces Mr. Obama in the Oval Office.

However the “Immigration All-Clear” will not be sounded across the United States in cities and states that have been declared “Sanctuaries” by the mayors and governors who have created a false and very dangerous narrative that equates immigration law enforcement with racism and bigotry.

This insidious false claim has been heartily embraced by the demonstrators who are rampaging across the United States to protest the election of Donald Trump and his promises to secure the U.S./Mexican border and enforce our immigration laws.

This is the false narrative that has enabled mayors of so-called “Sanctuary Cities” to foist this lunacy on the residents of their cities and was the focus of my article, “Terrorism, Enclaves and Sanctuary Cities: How sanctuary cities facilitate the growth of terror enclaves in America.”

The challenge for the Trump administration and for all Americans, is to eliminate these enclaves of lawlessness.

Sanctuary cities are highly attractive to illegal aliens and the criminals, fugitives and likely terrorists among them who entered the United States by evading the inspections process conducted at ports of entry by the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors and are vulnerable to arrest and removal (deportation).

Sanctuary cities, however, certainly do not provide “sanctuary” for the residents of those cities who, all too often, fall victim to the crimes committed by these criminal aliens.  However, what is generally not understood is that Sanctuary Cities endanger every person in the United States, no matter where they live.

Terrorists would most likely seek to set up shop in sanctuary cities to evade detection and arrest.

They can use the security provided by such “leaders” as Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel and New York’s Bill de Blasio as a staging area for attacks they might carry out in the cities where they live or in other cities they could easily travel to on the day of an attack.

While politicians from both parties often claim that the “Immigration system is broken” as a way of justifying their positions of advocacy for massive amnesty programs and the creation of these dangerous “sanctuaries” for criminals, fugitives and terrorists, in reality, this is “Immigration Failure — By Design.”

America’s borders and immigration laws are our first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists, transnational criminals, fugitives from justice and those foreign nationals who would displace American workers wrecking havoc on the lives of those Americans and their families when they lose their jobs and their paychecks.

A quick review of a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)- Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182 would quickly dispel the bogus claim that equates the enforcement of our immigration laws with racism.

That section of law enumerates the categories of aliens who are to be excluded. Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies are to be excluded as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges.

It is vital to note that our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.

The Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is a multi-agency federal task force that operates under the aegis of the FBI.  While, as might be expected, the FBI contributes the greatest number of enforcement personnel to that effort, the second largest contingent of agents assigned to the JTTF are special agents of  Immigration and Customs Enforcement / Homeland Security Investigations (ICE/HSI).

The majority of international terrorists also commit immigration law violations including visa fraud, immigration benefit fraud and a list of other crimes which include immigration law violations.

To provide you with such an example, consider my commentary, “Immigration Fraud Linked To San Bernardino Jihadist’s Family: Alleged supplier of material support now also charged with marriage fraud.”

This quote from the official report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel” identifies the nexus between systemic failures of the immigration system and vulnerability to terror attacks in the United States.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

That quote also underscores the importance of enforcing our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States and how failures of such efforts create deadly vulnerabilities for the United States.  This concern was the focus of my recent article, “Immigration and the Terrorist Threat: How our leaders are spawning catastrophe.”

As an INS agent I investigated and arrested aliens from countries from around the world.  My colleagues and I did not single out violators of immigration laws on the basis of race, religion or ethnicity.

For about three years I was assigned as the Marine Intelligence Officer for the INS New York District Office.  I was responsible for joining members of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs in boarding ships in and around the New York City area to search for contraband, stow-ways and ship-jumpers (crew members who absconded and failed to return to their vessels before they departed from the United States.)

While such vessels provided individuals from many countries the opportunity to gain illegal access to the United States, the majority of crew members who went “missing” were citizens of Greece.

As part of my duties I was responsible for tracking down those aliens wherever they lived and worked and took the into custody to arrange for their deportation from the United States.

Members of the Greek community frequently complained to me that the INS was only concerned about Greeks.

When I worked on several investigations concerning organized crime, we often heard members of the Italian immigrant community complain that we were targeting Italians.

When we partnered with the Public Morals Division of the NYPD to raid brothels to shut down those locations in China Town, local resident grumbled about how unfair this was to the Asian community.

In reality the “targeting” that we did at the INS involved law violators irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity.

Period.

However, because of the utterly false and irresponsible Orwellian narrative created by the open borders immigration anarchists, incredibly, many gullible and misinformed Americans have been conned into believing that opposing fair and effective enforcement of our immigration laws is an act of heroism and a way of fighting prejudice and bigotry.

On November 14, 2016 NPR reported, “Mayor Rahm Emanuel: ‘Chicago Always Will Be A Sanctuary City’.”

That report began with the following paragraphs:

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel added his voice to the chorus of big-city mayors who say theirs will remain “sanctuary cities” in response to President-elect Donald Trump’s hard-line positions on illegal immigration.

Surrounded by immigration activists, business leaders and state and federal lawmakers, Emanuel sought to reduce the fear of immigrants living in this country without authorization.

“To all those who are, after Tuesday’s election, very nervous and filled with anxiety … you are safe in Chicago, you are secure in Chicago and you are supported in Chicago,” said Emanuel at a news conference called to publicize the expansion of mental health services for people anxious over the election results.

“Chicago has in the past been a sanctuary city. … It always will be a sanctuary city,” the mayor said.

His comments come on the heels of Trump’s appearance Sunday on CBS’s 60 Minutes, in which the president-elect promised to deport all immigrants with criminal records.

You would imagine that the mayor of any town would be thrilled to have criminal aliens deported to end the concern of recidivism and keep the residents of those cities safe.

Many mayors do see things that way and support cooperative efforts between their police departments and ICE.

However, the mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” and the governors of Sanctuary States have “done the math” and have, unbelievably decided that achieving political objectives is far more important than protecting innocent lives and the security of our nation.

Such politicians must not find “sanctuary” in the voting booth come their election day.

RELATED ARTICLE: In 2006, These Democrats Still in Office Voted to Build a Wall

EDITORS NOTE: This column first appeared on FrontPage Magazine.