GOP Debate: Winners and Losers on National Security by Ryan Mauro

/in , , , , /by

American voters’ concern about Islamist extremism is at the highest level since 2002, with 66% of Republicans, 56% of Independents and 48% of Democrats describing it as a “critical threat.” National security is a major issue that received significant attention at last night’s Republican presidential debate.

The following is Clarion Project National Security Analyst Ryan Mauro’s compilation of the candidates’ expressed stances on fighting Islamist extremism at the debate and his personal assessment of the contest’s winners and losers among national security voters.

Winners

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina is widely considered the biggest winner of the debate overall. Her performance included details on national security policy.

She criticized rivals who oppose the nuclear deal with Iran without presenting a broader strategy. She said she’d inform Iran that the regime would be prevented from moving money through the global financial system until it agrees to anytime-anywhere inspections.

Fiorina said the U.S. should not negotiate with Russia because it is on the side of Iran. She said she’d provide intelligence to Egypt and armaments to Jordan to fight the Islamic State, in addition to arming the Kurds.

She advocated a military buildup that includes increasing the 6thFleet, military exercises in the Baltic States, installing anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland, modernizing all three legs of the nuclear triad, increasing the Navy to 300-350 ships and adding 50 Army brigades and 36 Marine battalions.

Fiorina is currently in 8th place in an average of national polls with 3 percent. She is in 6th place in Iowa (5%), 4th place in New Hampshire (8%) and 6th place in South Carolina (4%).

South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham

Graham is the winner of the undercard debate that featured the bottom four candidates and virtually every answer of his related to national security. Of all the candidates, he was the most impressive on dealing with the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). He explicitly said he is running for president to “destroy radical Islam.” Graham said he would “rip the caliphate up by its roots” and “will kill every one of these [ISIS] bastards we can find.”

Graham’s standout moment was challenging every candidate to state whether they support increasing troop levels in Iraq from 3,500 to 10,000 to fight the Islamic State, asserting that anyone who refuses to do so lacks the seriousness to be commander-in-chief. Graham’s overall plan calls for increasing U.S. troop levels to 20,000, split between Iraq and Syria.

He argued that the Islamic State grew in Syria and then propelled into Iraq because the Obama Administration rejected his recommendation that the U.S. military establish a no-fly zone in Syria and support the Free Syrian Army rebel force before it became too late.

Graham said there is no one left to train inside Syria, so the only option is a U.S.-backed regional army that includes Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others. He said the only solution to the refugee crisis is the removal of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

He pointed out that he’s the only candidate who has served in the military (he was in the Air Force for 33 years). Graham has spent 140 days on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan over the course of 35 trips to those countries.

Graham is currently in 14th place nationally (0.3%). He is in 14thplace in Iowa (0.3%); 12th place in New Hampshire (0.8%) and 7thplace in South Carolina (4%).

Florida Senator Marco Rubio

Rubio gave the most detailed and articulate answers about foreign policy during the debate. He argued for a more interventionist U.S. policy that includes supporting democratic activists, such as by meeting with opponents of Putin in Russia.

He argued that the Syrian revolution began as a popular uprising and the Islamist terrorist presence could have been minimized if the U.S. had armed moderate rebels in the beginning of the conflict.

Rubio said that the Russian military movement into Syria is part of an overall strategy to “destroy NATO,” save the Syrian dictatorship and convince countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to ditch the U.S. for Russia.

He is currently in 5th place nationally (5%). He is in 5th place in Iowa (5%); 8th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 5th place in South Carolina (4%).

Rubio explained that he opposed giving President Obama authority to launch airstrikes on the Syrian regime after it used chemical weapons because the plan involved “pinprick” airstrikes. He said that he would only support military action that has victory as an objective.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

Christie struck a chord when he spoke about his experience on 9/11 and prosecuting terrorists after the attack when he was the U.S. Attorney for the state of New Jersey. He defended the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks when Carson’s opposition was brought up. He also pledged not to have deals with or meet with leaders like those in Iran who chant “Death to America.”

He is currently in 11th place nationally (2%). He is in 11th place in Iowa (2%), 9th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 12th place in South Carolina (2%).

Losers

Businessman Donald Trump

Trump failed to show any grasp on foreign policy or to outline a strategy towards Islamist extremists when pressed. When he was asked about an embarrassing interview where he appeared not to know what the Iran-linked Al-Quds Force are and the names of prominent terrorist leaders, he simply stated that he’d hire a strong team that would keep him informed on national security.

He boasted of opposing the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. He said the U.S. should stay out of the Syrian civil war and criticized President Obama for declaring that the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons would be an intolerable “red line.” Trump said that Rubio, Paul and Cruz should have supported President Obama’s request for authority to militarily enforce the “red line.”

Trump also expressed confidence that he could work well with Russian President Putin. Fiorina, on the other hand, said the U.S. should not negotiate with Russia.

He is currently in 1st place nationally (31%). He is in 1st place in Iowa (28%), 1st place in New Hampshire (30%) and 1st place in South Carolina (34%).

Dr. Ben Carson

Carson did not display an impressive knowledge of foreign affairs and national security. Serious damage may have been done when the moderator asked about his opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 after the 9/11 attacks. Carson explained that he told President Bush to focus instead on energy independence, which Christie politely took him to task for.

Carson also made sure to point out that he opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

He is currently in 2nd place nationally (20%). He is in 2nd place in Iowa (23%), 2nd place in New Hampshire (15%) and 2nd place in South Carolina (19%).

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul

Paul repeatedly stated his anti-interventionist view and said that U.S. military operations often backfire. A new poll shows that 69% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats and 57% of Independents favor having America active abroad.

Paul boasted that he “made a career” out of opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq and argued that the U.S. should not topple secular dictators because they are replaced by radical Islamic forces. Paul and Trump were the only candidates to express opposition to a policy of overthrowing Syrian dictator Bashar Assad. He also said that U.S. backing of Syrian rebels would mean arming enemies of America.

He said it is “absurd” to immediately scrap the nuclear deal with Iran unless the regime violates it. He spoke in favor of continued diplomacy with Iran and Russia, pointing out that President Reagan met with the leaders of the Soviet Union.

Paul also said he opposes using U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State, but supports continued airstrikes and arming Kurds.

He is currently in 7th place nationally (3%). He is in 9th place in Iowa (4%), 7th place in New Hampshire (5%) and 11th place in South Carolina (2%).

Ohio Governor John Kasich

Kasich damaged his chances by refusing to say that he’d scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. He argued that the U.S. should move in coordination with allies and not withdraw from the agreement unilaterally. He said that the U.S. should sanction Iran if they violate the deal or sponsor terrorism. Rand Paul likewise said maintenance of the agreement would depend upon Iranian compliance.

He was also twice criticized by Graham during the undercard debate for supporting the closure of some U.S. military bases. Graham countered that he’d increase the number of bases.

He is currently in 10th place nationally (3%). He is in 10th place in Iowa (3%), 3rd place in New Hampshire (10%) and 8th place in South Carolina (4%).

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush

Bush criticized rivals who focused on their pledges to scrap the nuclear deal with Iran. He would not commit to doing so and said that the discussion needs to be about an Iran strategy rather than a strategy to tear up the deal.

Bush encouraged viewers to review his 9-point plan for fighting the Islamic State and the Syrian regime.

He is currently in 3rd place nationally (8%). He is in 4th place in Iowa (5%), 5th place in New Hampshire (8%) and 3rd place in South Carolina (7%).

Other Candidates

Texas Senator Ted Cruz

Cruz’s standout moment was when he promised to “rip to shreds” the “catastrophic” nuclear deal with Iran.

Cruz said that he opposed giving President Obama authority for airstrikes on the Syrian regime in response to its use of chemical weapons because vital national security interests were not at stake. He said that the administration could not answer his questions about how Syrian weapons of mass destruction would be prevented from falling into the hands of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

He is currently in 4th place nationally (7%). He is in 3rd place in Iowa (8%), 6th place in New Hampshire (6%) and 4th place in South Carolina (6%).

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee

Huckabee spoke passionately against the nuclear deal with Iran and said every candidate should announce that, if elected, he or she will not honor it and, as president, will “destroy” it.

He is currently in 6th place nationally (5%). He is in 8th place in Iowa (4%), 11th place in New Hampshire (1%) and 10th place in South Carolina (3%).

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal

Jindal’s standout moment was when he said that Muslim leaders must move beyond generic condemnations of terrorism and condemn terrorists by name. He called on Muslim leaders to preach that these terrorists do not qualify as “martyrs” and are destined for hell.

Jindal said that U.S. policy should be to force Syrian dictator Bashar Assad out of power.

He is currently in 13th place nationally (1%). He is in 11th place in Iowa (3%), 14th place in New Hampshire (0.3%) and 13th place in South Carolina (1%).

Former New York Governor George Pataki

Pataki said he would immediately scrap the nuclear deal with Iran and provide Israel with Massive Ordinance Penetrators (MOPs). However, he may have damaged himself by refusing to endorse Santorum’s call to target Iranian nuclear scientists. He also gave a vague answer about how he’d fight the Islamic State and expressed disagreement with Graham’s plan for a ground offensive with U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria.

He is currently in 15th place nationally with less than a single percent of support. He is in 15th place in Iowa with less than one percent, 13th place in New Hampshire (0.3%) and in 15th place in South Carolina with less than one percent.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum

Santorum boasted that he authored legislation to sanction Iran and Syria when he was in the Senate. The moderator mentioned his past declaration that the U.S. should target Iranian nuclear scientists, which George Pataki refused to endorse.

He described the Iranian regime as an “apocalyptic death cult” and claimed that two-thirds of Iraqi and Iranian Shiites believe that the end of the world will happen in their lifetime. Santorum was making the point that the Iranian regime exports its radical ideology.

Santorum said he supports increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq to 10,000 to fight against the Islamic State and that he’d support Lindsey Graham’s proposal for 20,000 troops if necessary. He stated that the legitimacy of the caliphate is based on its holding of territory.

He is currently in 12th place nationally (1%). He is in 12th place in Iowa (2%) and in 15th place in both New Hampshire and South Carolina with less than one percent.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker

Walker’s comments on foreign policy focused on criticizing the nuclear deal with Iran, which he promised to scrap during his first day in office.

He is currently in 9th place nationally (3%). He is in 7th place in Iowa (4%), 10th place in New Hampshire (3%) and 9th place in South Carolina (3%).

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore

Gilmore failed to make the cut for the debate because he scores less than 1% in national polls. He registers less than a single percent in each of the three early states.

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:

Scientist, Activist, Beauty Queen – Meet Fabiola al-Ibrahim

Getting Personal: The Ayatollah’s Agitprop Video Against the US

Danish Teen Murders Own Mother After ISIS Radicalization

Keep the Beard or Lose Your Head: New Draconian ISIS Rules

EXPOSED: The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood “political party” dedicated to civilizational jihad

/in , , , , /by

The U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s stated goal in America is to “destroy the Western civilization from within.” Star-Spangled Shariah: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Party shows the newest weapon in their arsenal for doing so – a self-described “political Party” called the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO). This new monograph “connects the dots” between the Brotherhood’s secret plan to impose Shariah here and the insidious use it intends to make of our democratic political system to that end.

The USCMO understands that in order for it to succeed, the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood must be galvanized to the execution of the “Civilization-Jihadist Process” – a term taken from a key 1991 Brotherhood document, An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America, submitted as evidence by the Justice Department in the landmark 2008 U.S. v Holy Land Foundation, et al. HAMAS terror funding trial:

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers, so that is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” 

By its nature, the object of such a stealthy form of jihad is to ensure that the target community remains unaware of the extent of the threat until it is too late. It is our purpose with this volume and the other monographs of the Center’s Civilization Jihad Reader Series to raise the alarm and to engage the American people and their elected representatives in countering this threat while there is still time.

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said of the new Civilization Jihad Reader:

The Muslim Brotherhood agenda for the United States demonstrably seeks through subversive infiltration of American institutions the triumph of shariah. We are now on notice that U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations is simply the leading edge of the jihadist movement in this country. While the USCMO seeks to cloak itself in red, white, and blue, it is only for the purpose of accomplishing what can aptly be described as “Star Spangled Shariah.”

The Center for Security Policy/Secure Freedom is proud to present this monograph as a superb addition to its Civilization Jihad Reader Series .  Star-Spangled Shariah: The Rise of America’s First Muslim Brotherhood Party is available for purchase in kindle and paperback format on Amazon.com.

Click here for a full PDF of the newly released monograph.

spangled2

About The Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit www.securefreedom.org

Is Pope Francis coming to U.S. to lecture Donald Trump on immigration?

/in , , , , /by

It sure sounds like it!  How dare he! And, who invited him to insert himself into our political system?

Oh, no surprise no surprise John Boehner*** invited him!

Previously we learned that Democrats are going to use the Pope’s visit to advance their goal of admitting 100,000 Syrians to the U.S. in the next year!

Is Boehner working for Obama and the Democrats (just asking!)?

Citizens concerned about saving Western Civilization should be out in New York and Washington, DC protesting the message the Pope, we are told, will be spewing!   According to the editor of a Catholic magazine he may even quote that historically inaccurate Emma Lazarus poem to guilt-trip you.  Please spare us that lecture!

In 2013, Pope Francis helped fuel the invasion of Europe by welcoming illegal aliens to the island of Lampedusa.

If you can’t be out with a protest sign next week, every Catholic who disagrees with this Pope on immigration should pen a letter to your local paper that begins with:

This Pope does not speak for me!

This is the news featured at Drudge earlier this morning!

And the church wonders why so many of us have left it!

From the Financial Times:

When Pope Francis makes his maiden visit to the US next week, he will accomplish something that has eluded the 2016 presidential contenders — overshadowing Donald Trump, the front runner for the Republican nomination.

US television networks ​will provide wall-to-wall coverage of the visit, which will include the first speech by a Pope to Congress. [Thanks John Boehner!—ed] But while the pontiff will steal some of Mr Trump’s media thunder, he is also expected to wade into ​a debate about immigration — an issue that has helped propel the brash real estate magnate to the front of the Republican pack.

Trump at the border

Since losing the 2012 election, party leaders have talked about the need to appeal to Hispanics, who are the fastest growing segment of the US electorate. But Mr Trump has upended that plan by campaigning against illegal Mexican immigrants, some of whom he has called “rapists”, and reopening a polarizing debate that the Republicans ​had ​hoped to avoid in 2016.

Vatican officials say Pope Francis will focus heavily on immigration during his visit, which would insert him into the middle of presidential politics and could unsettle conservatives even more than his critiques of capitalism and environmentalist rhetoric.

“The Pope obviously has a very soft spot in his heart for immigrants,” said one Holy See insider. “He won’t say, ‘open all borders’, but there’s no two ways about it, he will say, ‘let’s give our immigrant brothers and sisters a fair chance’.” [So, if not all borders, how many, whose borders, and how wide?  They will never answer those questions.—ed]

Give me a break!  Emma Lazurus blah! blah! blah!

Robert Mickens, the Rome-based editor-in-chief of Global Pulse, the Catholic magazine, said that concern for migrants had been “one of the central themes” of Pope Francis’ social teaching. “He doesn’t need to scold the lawmakers but I think he will challenge them not to abandon America’s long history of welcoming immigrants,” Mr Mickens said.

“I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Pope were to quote those evocative line’s from Emma Lazarus’s poem that adorns the Statue of Liberty — ‘give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore’.”

There is more if you can stand it, click here. (Update:  Looks like the Financial Times may only let you in one time, but its o.k. we snipped the important part)

And, one more thing!  The Pope has made no appeal to put the persecuted Syrian Christians ahead of Sunni Muslims for protection by western countries.  Correct me if I am wrong!

Here, Hungarian Bishop tells Pope he is wrong on Syrians arriving in Europe, calls them invaders.

***Is Boehner keeping the lid on the House Judiciary Committee on the Syrian refugee question until after the Pope leaves?  Hmm!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Vatican Welcomes Iran Deal, Pressures Israel to Give Up Nukes

HuffPo poll: Only 27% of respondents think we have any responsibility to take in Syrians

Saudi Arabia claims it has taken in 2.5 million Syrian refugees — Prove it!

/in , , , , , /by

No they haven’t taken refugees.  They may have tens of thousands of foreign workers there on a temporary basis, but they are not resettling any ‘refugees’ on a permanent basis.  And, I doubt the number of Syrians is in the millions.

Go here and here to see how this controversy began.  Where is the UN High Commissioner for Refugees confirming or denying these claims?

Here is Alarabia:

Saudi Arabia’s King Salman on Monday chaired a cabinet session in which “false and misleading accusations” over the Kingdom’s response to the Syrian refugee crisis were addressed.

Almost 2.5 million Syrians have been received by Saudi Arabia since the start of the civil war, state news agency SPA reported.

We have been chronicling Saudi Arabia’s mean-spiritedness toward its fellow Muslims for years.  Go here for our complete archive on S.A.’s treatment of refugees.

And, I just found a post here from 2008, written by blog partner Judy, in which she reports that S.A. takes no refugees on a permanent basis because they don’t want them to have any voting power in the future.

Just a reminder that you will be hearing from western advocates for refugee resettlement that the countries of Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon have an “unfair” burden because they have millions of Syrians in camps there.  Always remember that those ‘refugees’ are there on a temporary basis and that when we take in refugees they will be here PERMANENTLY (and we will admit their family members) after the Syrian civil war is long forgotten.  The comparison is not a legitimate one.

RELATED ARTICLES:

German political party: Merkel has made “an unparalleled historical mistake”

Arab groups say Jewish contractor HIAS a big help in getting more Syrian Muslims admitted to US

EDITORS NOTE: In 2013, Saudi Arabia loaded up tens of thousands of Somali and Ethiopian asylum seekers and shipped them back to Africa said Human Rights Watch. The featured image is of Africans boarding buses to the airport for deportation flights to Addis Ababa.

Progressivism Is Illiberal: Modern Liberalism Is at Odds with Peaceful Interaction by Sandy Ikeda

/in , , , , , , /by

A New York magazine article headline declares, “De Blasio’s Proposal to Destroy Pedestrian Times Square Is the Opposite of Progressive.”

That’s Bill de Blasio, the current mayor of New York City, who was elected in 2013 after running unabashedly as the progressive, socially democratic candidate. I find it interesting that people are surprised by the mayor’s illiberal stands on many (though not all) of the major issues he has faced in his short time in office.

One of the latest is his proposal to return cars to Times Square Plaza, in the heart of Midtown Manhattan, by razing the outdoor space created by the administration of his Republican predecessor, Michael Bloomberg. You see, Mayor Bill says he doesn’t like the goings-on there, which lately include women soliciting topless on the street and people dressed as Elmo hustling tourists. His solution? We can’t control all the hucksterism, so let’s shut the whole thing down!

Justin Davidson, the author of that New York magazine article, says it well:

If de Blasio really believes that the best way to deal with street performers in Times Square is to tear up the pedestrian plaza, may I suggest he try reducing homelessness by eradicating doorways and subway grates?

My point goes beyond Times Square Plaza, of course, although that controversy is instructive, as are others (such as his recent attempt to rein in Uber).

The approach the mayor takes in this and similar matters is characteristic of any political ideology that views unrestrained political power as a legitimate tool of social change. That includes neoconservatism and other modern political ideologies, including progressivism.

While it’s a caricature to say that what progressives would not forbid, they would make mandatory, they show a pattern of using force to ban what they don’t like and of mandating what they do. If you think that sounds illiberal, you’re right. Progressivism isn’t liberalism, especially of the classical variety. But even the watered-down liberalism of campus radicals of the 1960s paid more heed to the principle of tolerance than progressives today do.

Progressivism versus Liberalism

Progressivism today goes beyond the liberal position that, for example, same-sex marriage should have the same legal status as heterosexual marriage, to the belief that the state should threaten physical violence against anyone who refuses to associate or do business with same-sex couples.

Progressives have a low tolerance for opposing points of view. Unfortunately, so do some libertarians, but for the most part libertarians do not endorse using political power to eradicate what they believe are disagreeable public activities. Libertarians are much closer to genuine liberals than progressives are.

To a genuine liberal, tolerance means more than endorsing a wide range of beliefs and practices. It means allowing nonviolent people to say and do things that we strongly disagree with, disapprove of, or find highly offensive. It means not assuming our own moral superiority over the wickedness or stupidity of our ideological opponents. English writer Beatrice Evelyn Hall captured that liberal spirit when she (and not Voltaire) wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

The plaza and the streets it encompasses were, of course, the creation of government, so we’re not talking about the municipality bulldozing private property. But it’s not the government-created structure the mayor is objecting to; it’s the purely voluntary — “unregulated” — activities going on in it that he doesn’t like and wants to wipe out with heavy hands and hammy fists.

Closing the Gap Economy

The activity in Times Square Plaza is related to what I called in a recent column the “gap economy,” which refers to the unregulated, money-making activities that arise in the free spaces left open by government regulation and that complete with businesses that have adapted themselves to the mixed economy. Progressives like Mayor de Blasio seem to fear what they cannot regulate and control. They don’t understand that in the free market, there is regulation and that the regulatory principle is not coercion but persuasion, competition, and reputation.

Progressives profoundly mistrust the spontaneous, especially when it’s the result of people acting out of self-interest. But that’s the hallmark and the essence of urban life. New York Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman sees it this way:

Time and again, Mr. de Blasio leaves an impression that he understands very little about the dynamics of urbanism and the physical fabric of the city — its parks and plazas, its open spaces, libraries, transit network and streetscape, which all contribute to issues he cares most about, like equity and social mobility.

He doesn’t understand because he probably thinks in terms of specific, static objectives (such as his so-called “Vision Zero,” which I write about in “Um, Scarcity?”) rather than what Kimmelman rightly refers to as “the dynamics of urbanism.” As the urbanist (and libertarian friendly) Jane Jacobs explained, those dynamics are messy and inherently unpredictable.

It doesn’t seem to matter to the mayor that ordinary people have demonstrated their preference for Times Square Plaza by showing up in record numbers, just as it doesn’t matter that ordinary New Yorkers have gained from gap-economy activities such as Uber or Airbnb. What concerns progressives like the mayor is that it’s not happening the way they want it to happen. (In the case of Uber, thank goodness, the truly liberal elements of New York soundly defeated the progressive forces.)

Davidson writes,

I understand that the mayor doesn’t care for the carnival atmosphere at Times Square — neither do I. But eradicating a pedestrian plaza because you don’t like who’s walking there is like blasting away a beach because you object to bikinis or paving a park because you hate squirrels. It represents such a profound misunderstanding of public space that it makes me question the mayor’s perception of what counts as progressive.

It’s not the mayor Davidson should be questioning so much as the principles that motivate him. De Blasio just happens to illustrate progressivism in a particularly glaring way.

Sandy IkedaSandy 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.

RELATED ARTICLE: Lessons Learned From Kim Davis About Religious Liberty and Government Accommodation

Pope admits danger of Islamic State infiltration among refugees, still wants parishes to accept them

/in , , , , , /by

What could possibly go wrong? Last February, the Islamic State promised to flood Europe in the near future with as many as 500,000 refugees. And an Islamic State operative recently boasted that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had entered Europe. “They are going like refugees,” he said, but they were going with the plan of sowing blood and mayhem on European streets. As he told this to journalists, he smiled and said, “Just wait.” He explained: “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.”

Is societal suicide really a requirement of Christian charity? So many Christian clerics seem to think so — either in regard to this refugee influx or in regard to accepting Islamic blasphemy restrictions on the freedom of speech — that apparently I am a misunderstander of Christianity.

“Pope: ‘I trust the young politicians. Corruption is a global problem,’” by Aura Miguel, Renascença, September 14, 2015 (thanks to Angemon):

But this challenge to welcome these refugees who are making their way into Europe, in your point of view, could it be positive for Europe? Could it be beneficial, a provocation? Is Europe finally waking up, changing track?

It may be. It’s true, I recognize that, nowadays, border safety conditions are not what they once were. The truth is that just 400 kilometres from Sicily there is an incredibly cruel terrorist group. So there is a danger of infiltration, this is true.

Which could reach Rome…

Yes, nobody said Rome would be immune to this threat. But you can take precautions, and put these people to work. But then there is another problem, that Europe is going through a very big labour crisis. There is a country… In fact, I am going to mention three countries, although I will not name them, but some of the most important in Europe, in which unemployment for under 25 year olds is, in one country 40%, in another 47% and in a third 50%. There is a labour crisis, young people can’t find work. So it is a mixture of things and we can’t be simplistic. Obviously, if a refugee arrives, despite all the safety precautions, we must welcome him, because this is a commandment from the Bible. Moses said to his people: “welcome the foreigner, because you also were a foreigner in the land of Egypt”.

But the ideal would be that they didn’t need to flee, that they could remain in their lands?

That’s right, Yes.

Your Holiness, during the Sunday Angelus you made this very concrete challenge to welcome refugees. Have there been reactions? What do you expect, exactly?

What I asked was that in each parish and each religious institute, every monastery, should take in one family. A family, not just one person. A family gives more guarantees of security and containment, so as to avoid infiltrations of another kind. When I say that a parish should welcome a family, I don’t mean that they should go and live in the priest’s house, in the rectory, but that each parish community should see if there is a place, a corner in the school which can be turned into a small apartment or, if necessary, that they may rent a small apartment for this family; but that they should be provided with a roof, welcomed and integrated into the community. I have had many, many reactions. There are convents which are almost empty…

Two years ago you had already made this request, what answers did you get?

Only four. One of them from the Jesuits [laughs]; well done, the Jesuits! But this is a serious subject, because there is also the temptation of the god money. Some religious orders say “no, now that the convent is empty we are going to make a hotel and we can have guests, and support ourselves that way, or make money”. Well, if that is what you want to do, then pay taxes! A religious school is tax-exempt because it is religious, but if it is functioning as a hotel, then it should pay taxes just like its neighbour. Otherwise it is not fair business.

And you have already said that you will be taking in two families, here in the Vatican…

Yes, two families. I was told yesterday that the families have already been identified, and the two Vatican parishes have undertaken to go and search for them.

They have been identified?

Yes, yes, yes, they have. Cardinal Comastri dealt with that – he is my vicar-general for the Vatican – along with Monsenhor Konrad Krajewski, who is the Apostolic Almoner, and who works with the homeless and was in charge of installing the showers underneath the colonnade, and the barbers – truly marvellous. He is the one who takes the homeless to see the museums and the Sistine Chapel…

And how long will these families be staying?

As long as the Lord wants. We don’t know how this will end, do we? Nonetheless, I want to say that Europe has opened its eyes, and I thank it. I thank the European countries which have become opened their eyes to this.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Immigration Lowers Educational Achievement, Survey finds

Refugee Crisis Has European Union Grappling With Its Destiny

Lawmakers Push to Declare ISIS’ Targeting of Christians ‘Genocide’

Pope Francis: “No religion is immune from its own fundamentalism,” and fundamentalists “kill, destroy and defame”

The Illegitimate Pope: Election of Jorge Bergoglio as Pope Francis was contaminated by lobbying in violation of papal laws

Danish police relax laws in Sharia zone to avoid “constant conflict”

Islamic State map of countries it plans to dominate by 2020

What has Rand Paul done?

/in , , , , , /by

One of my readers recently replied to me that he had been a Rand Paul supporter but really couldn’t see what Rand had done that was consistent with what he talks about.

Here’s a recent campaign speech, given in Boise, Idaho, about 2 weeks ago, August 27th:

After watching Rand’s speech, I noticed a comment from viewer “Nate Dawg”. I was rather impressed and, after some fact-checking, editing, personalizing and adding a few links, I am happy to answer my reader’s concerns:

Is Rand Paul really a consistent and principled liberty lover? Let’s take a look at his history in the senate:

  1. Introduced a 5-year balanced budget by cutting spending and not raising taxes.
  2. Filibustered for 13 hours to stop Obama/Holder’s illegal drone strikes on Americans – and succeeded.
  3. Filibustered for 11 hours to kill the PATRIOT Act – and succeeded.
  4. Sued the Obama Administration/Justice Department for illegally collecting all Americans’ phone records, as they are still doing under the so-called FREEDOM Act.
  5. Consistently advocates for social issues to be left to the states, just as his father did.
  6. Only Senate Republican who opposed the efforts to bomb Syria in late 2014.
  7. Opposed the US-funded war in Libya.
  8. Detailed specific plans to form a coalition with Kurds, Turks, and Iraqis to defeat ISIS without ever putting U.S. boots on the ground.
  9. Introduced sweeping criminal justice reform legislation (knows how to actually work with the other side).
  10. Introduced groundbreaking legislation in the Senate that would begin to tear down the, totally failed, War on Drugs, making marijuana a schedule 2 drug (allows vital research to be done on THC and CBD, as well as reduces the penalties for possession), and allowing medical marijuana and recreational marijuana in states that legalize it.
  11. His plans for making social security and other entitlements solvent are crystal clear, phasing in raising the age of eligibility and means tests for wealthier recipients. (This would solve the massive deficit coming out of SS and, most likely, lead to privatization in the form of personal accounts, which is a good thing.)
  12. Released a detailed tax plan that would massively reduce the corporate tax rate (ours is the highest IN THE WORLD at 35%) and the personal rate to a flat 14.5% with a family of four, making less than $50K paying nothing. (Not the “Fair Tax”, which I support, but still a “radical” plan, clearly laid out.)
  13. Consistent top ratings from all three major gun rights advocates groups (NRA, GOA NAGR).
  14. Rated as “the most conservative candidate” with a, “10C” conservative record (the highest available and higher than Ted Cruz), AND is rated better than ALL the major Democratic candidates, when it comes to Civil Liberty issues.
  15. Opposed the Iraq Invasion of 2003 (this was before he was elected to the Senate).
  16. And, last but not least, he has some fun in the process.

This is a direct quote from Nate Dawg:

“He’s not perfect, nobody is. But he’s exactly what this country needs. Not another charlatan hurling vague, vitriolic rhetoric at anyone who challenges him, but a clear-minded, sober, logical problem-solver who presents common-sense solutions to systemic issues.”

I, whole-heartedly, agree. And, Rand Paul’s actions line up pretty darn clearly with his talk…

EDITORS NOTE: Please click here for Tad MacKie’s YouTube page.

Congressional Report: Iran Spends Billions to Foment Global Terror

/in , , , , /by

Responding to a request from Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL), the Congressional Research Service prepared a report detailing monies spent by Iran supporting terrorist organizations in the Middle East.

The report, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon, outlined the massive expenditures by the Iranian regime on Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias Syria and Iraq, the Assad government, the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, as well as Iran’s own military program.

These expenditures will only increase with the expected release of $150 billion in sanctions relief due to the current nuclear agreement between Iran and the world powers.

Iranian Military Spending

Although in May 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama stated Iran’s military budget was “$15 billion compared to $150 billion for the Gulf States,” Press TV, an Iranian-owned media outlet, reported in March the Iranian parliament had approved a $300 billion budget for the military for 2015.

The report names the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Quds Force as the main vehicle that carries out terrorism for the regime, citing one study that claims the actual funding for the force is “much greater” than the amount allotted to it in the official budget “as the group’s funds are supplemented by its own economic activities.”

Assad Government

Iran provides an estimated $6-20 billion per year in aid to the Assad regime in Syria. One source estimated in 2013 Iran was giving $600-700 million per month to Syria, while another says that the amount has since doubled. The money funds militias, weapons and military training as well as the purchase of subsidized oil from Iran and other commodities.

Although Iran claims to be cash strapped because of international sanctions, this past July, Iran extended $1 billion in additional financial credit to the Syrian regime.

Shiite Militias in Syria

Iran provides training for Iraqi Shiite militias who are fighting for the Assad regime in Syria. An estimated 5-10,000 Iraqi Shiites are said to comprise these forces that fight alongside Hezbollah and form sniper teams, lead ambushes, establish checkpoints and provide infantry support for Syrian armored corps. Iran also recruits fighters for the Assad regime from Afghanistan and from within Syria itself. Iran pays each fighter an estimated $500-1,000 per month.

Shiite Militias in Iraq

One Iranian cleric cited in the congressional report estimates Iran has spent more than $1 billion in military aid to Iraq since the Islamic State swept through the country and captured large swathes of territory in the north last summer.

The militias Iran funds in Iraq are theose that fought against the United States between 2003 and 2011. Iraqi intelligence officials say just one of these militias, As’aib Ahl Al Haq (League of the Righteous), receives between $1.5 and $2 million per month from Iran.

A report published by Amnnesty International in 2014 titled Absolute Impunity: Militia Rule in Iraq documented the horrific kidnapping and murder of Sunni men by these Shiite paramilitary groups.

Hezbollah

The latest State Department Country Report on Terrorism (2014) states Iran provided Hezbollah with “training, weapons, and explosives, as well as political, diplomatic, monetary, and organizational aid.” The Department of Defense estimates Tehran gives Hezbollah between $100-200 million in aid per year.

Iran-Khamenei-Nasrallah-Kiss-IP_0

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah kisses Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Photo: © Reuters)

Hamas

In 2006, it was estimated Iran was providing Hamas with $20-25 million per month to cover its governing budget as well as supplying the Gaza-based terror group weapons, technical assistance and military training.

In the years following, it was reported the aid had been cut, while at the same time Iran began sending more assistance to an alternate terror group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Most recent media reports say Iran has resumed its support of Hamas, providing “tens of millions of dollars” to Hamas’ military efforts including the rebuilding of tunnels destroyed the 2014 Israel-Gaza war, the replenishment of rockets and the salaries of fighters.

Houthi Rebels

Over the past number of years, Iran has been increasing its activities in Yemen. The Islamic republic is currently supporting the Houthi rebels who are fighting against the Saudi-backed Yemeni government, providing them with “tens of millions of dollars.”

The infusion of $150 billion dollars in sanctions relief due to the current nuclear agreement with the world’s powers, in addition to monies garnered through vast business dealings with the West, will provide Iran will more fodder as it fans out its terrorist fires across the globe.

Meira Svirsky is the editor of ClarionProject.org

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘New drone technology can target any American airbase that threatens Iran’

Pew Poll: Only 21 Percent of Americans Support Iran Deal

Texas Teenager Arrested for Aborted Attempt to Join ISIS

Khamenei: No Deal If Sanctions Are Only Suspended, Not Lifted

Legality of Lifting Sanctions Against Iran Called Into Question

Saudi Arabia: Has Taken Zero Refugees but has Air Conditioned Empty Tents for 3 Million People

/in , , , , , /by

Paul Joseph Watson from InfoWars.com reports:

While European countries are being lectured about their failure to take in enough refugees, Saudi Arabia – which has taken in precisely zero migrants – has 100,000 air conditioned tents that can house over 3 million people sitting empty.

The sprawling network of high quality tents are located in the city of Mina, spreading across a 20 square km valley, and are only used for 5 days of the year by Hajj pilgrims. As the website Amusing Planet reports, “For the rest of the year, Mina remains pretty much deserted.”

The tents, which measure 8 meters by 8 meters, were permanently constructed by the Saudi government in the 1990’s and were upgraded in 1997 to be fire proof. They are divided into camps which include kitchen and bathroom facilities.

The tents could provide shelter for almost all of the 4 million Syrian refugees that have been displaced by the country’s civil war, which was partly exacerbated by Saudi Arabia’s role in funding and arming jihadist groups.

However, as the Washington Post reports, wealthy Gulf Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and others have taken in precisely zero Syrian refugees. Although Saudi Arabia claims it has taken in 500,000 Syrians since 2011, rights groups point out that these people are not allowed to register as migrants. Many of them are also legal immigrants who moved there for work. In comparison, Lebanon has accepted 1.3 million refugees – more than a quarter of its population.

While it refuses to take in any more refugees, Saudi Arabia has offered to build 200 mosques for the 500,000 migrants a year expected to pour into Germany.

Read more.

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim Immigration and How to Handle It

ISIS Flag Among Refugees in Germany Fighting the Police

Archbishop of Canterbury: UK plan to take 20,000 Syrians discriminates against Christian refugees

Democrats plan to use Pope’s visit to guilt-trip America into taking vast numbers of Syrian ‘refugees’

Op-ed: The “Candy” the Mullahs Gave to Obama

Eastern Europe: Protesters tell Muslim migrants to ‘Go Home’

/in , , , , , /by

Another sign read:

“Multiculturalism is a utopia, don’t open the borders”.

slovenia-map-2-current

Some of these countries have a better understanding of totalitarianism and thus want no part of Merkel’s form of it (or the Islamic version of it either)?

From Samaa.TV:

BRATISLAVA: Thousands of people joined anti-migrant protests in three eastern European capitals on Saturday after leaders from the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia opposed an EU scheme to fix refugee quotas.

In the Polish capital Warsaw, nearly 5,000 people, many chanting anti-Islamic slogans, marched through the city, an AFP correspondent said. “Islam will be the death of Europe”, one of the banners said.

Organisers claimed the demonstration drew 10,000 people but police refused to confirm the figure.

“We’re here so that the government hears our voice and abandons any plans to welcome Muslims,” shouted one of the organisers after starting the march with prayers which identified the participants as Roman Catholics.

Members of far-right fringe parties and football supporters chanted “Poles against migrants” and “Migrants today, terrorists tomorrow”.

More here…

And go here for our ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive.

RELATED VIDEO:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats plan to use Pope’s visit to guilt-trip America into taking vast numbers of Syrian ‘refugees’

ISIS Flag Among Refugees in Germany Fighting the Police

Muslim migrants fake being Syrian to claim European asylum

/in , , , , , /by

Leggeri said: “Faced with the influx, registration systems are overwhelmed. We have an idea of nationalities, but not a clear picture of who is entering and the real profile of these migrants.”

Indeed. How many jihadis are among them? No one knows, and many think it is “Islamophobic” to raise the question.

“Economic migrants FAKE being Syrian to claim EU asylum and head for Britain,” by Rebecca Perring, Express, September 10, 2015:

A huge influx of shameless migrants have lied about their nationality to be sure they have a better chance of crossing the European borders into countries including Britain and Germany.

And passports buried in bushes just metres away from Serbia’s border with Hungary provides evidence that migrant’s fleeing poverty are dumping their own documents and, instead, posing as refugees fleeing raging war and persecution in Syria as the surest route to asylum.

It comes after Prime Minister David Cameron announced the UK would accept up to 20,000 refugees from Syria over the next five years.

Mr Cameron suggested Britain would not be taking refugees currently making their way through the Balkan states or across the Mediterranean to Europe – but people from existing refugee camps in neighbouring countries such such as Turkey and Jordan.

Concerns over the regulation of registering migrants at the main entry points into Europe are growing amid the revelation dubious markets selling fake Syrian passports have sprung up across Turkey.

Serbian border police say that around 90 per cent of those arriving from Macedonia, around 3,000 per day, claim they are Syrian – although they have no documents to prove it.

Border police officer Miroslav Jovic said: “You can see that something is fishy when most of those who cross into Serbia enter January 1 as the date of their birth.

“Guess that’s the first date that comes to their mind.”

The head of Europe’s border agency Frontex said that trafficking in fake Syrian passports had increased.

Fabrice Leggeri called for more guards to help register migrants at the main entry points.

He said: “There are people who are in Turkey now who buy fake Syrian passports because they know Syrians get the right to asylum in all the member states of the European Union.

“People who use fake Syrian passports often speak Arabic. They may come from North Africa or the Middle East but they have the profile of economic migrants.”

Mr Leggeri added: “Faced with the influx, registration systems are overwhelmed. We have an idea of nationalities, but not a clear picture of who is entering and the real profile of these migrants.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

ISIS Flag Among Refugees in Germany Fighting the Police

UK: Muslim teacher got children to write letters to jihadi “heroes and role models”

Muslim NYU prof: Jihadis hate the U.S. because of Israel

Progressive group We Welcome Refugees: ‘We will be bringing politics to your pulpits starting tomorrow!’

/in , , , , , /by

No surprise, but you need to be ready to speak up!

If this new group, with its lobbying campaign, shows up in your church, ask them how many CHRISTIANS and other religious minorities they are proposing to save!

I can’t emphasize enough that the present invasion of Europe is being led by mostly Muslim migrants and that the US State Department has admitted 95% Sunni Muslims in the Syrian refugee stream to the US so far.

If you don’t believe me, here, run the numbers for yourself here.

So if you are being pressured from the pulpit tomorrow—ask your pastors and priests: HOW MANY CHRISTIANS ARE THEY SAVING?  Pin them down, make them say they are saving Christians first!

Ann Voskamp

Ann Voskamp

From ‘We Welcome Refugees’ new website (hat tip: Kelly):

This Sunday – September 13, 2015 we are inviting all churches and Christian Leaders to take a moment in your services and gatherings to discuss the incredible humanitarian tragedy and faced by largely Syrian Refugees.

[….]

This is a place for you to say: We Welcome Refugees – and get to live out those words. A place for your church, your people, your community, to have a practical, tangible, real way to welcome in the stranger in Christ’s name, a place hosted by World Relief, The Justice Conference, and Ann Voskamp, with more partners to be added soon. (If you are already Welcoming Refugees and would like to partner with us, click on the link below or email welcome@wewelcomerefugees.com).

Learn more here.

By the way, World Relief is one of the nine federal refugee resettlement contractors being paid by the head to resettle refugees working in your towns, here.  As such they are one of those groups lobbying the Obama Administration to admit 100,000 Syrian refugees (which translates into 95,000 Muslims and 5,000 Christians and other minorities at the present rate). They are among those wailing right now as Obama has signaled 10,000 Syrians are “welcome” for this coming year.

See a list of World Relief partner churches, here.  World Relief is the federal contractor working to bring refugees to Spartanburg, SC (Trey Gowdy’s district!).

RELATED ARTICLES:

Europe returns to the 1930s — eerie echoes from the past

What the refugees really seek in Europe

Migrant crisis isn’t just Europe’s problem; it’s America’s, too

The invaders continue to arrive in Germany

Hungarian Catholic Bishop tells Pope he is wrong, not refugees but invaders!

The wailing has begun! Refugee contractors furious that Obama ‘only’ admitting 10,000 Syrians this coming year

Senator Jeff Sessions: 90% of Middle Eastern refugees get some form of welfare

/in , , , , , , /by

Yesterday we told you about the Center for Immigration Studies analysis of data indicating that legal immigrants (which include refugees) are using our social safety net at a higher rate than native born Americans, now we learn that Middle Eastern refugees are using welfare assistance at an even higher level than other legal immigrants.

Sessions and Trump at Alabama rally August 21

Senator Jeff Sessions with 2016 Presidential hopeful Donald Trump at August 21st rally in Alabama.

From Breitbart (presumably these numbers include all Middle Eastern refugees no matter which religion they practice) Hat tip: Joanne.

The numbers are much more shocking than those we had previously obtained!

More than 90 percent of recent refugees from Middle Eastern nations are on food stamps and nearly 70 percent receive cash assistance, according to government data.

According to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) data highlighted by the immigration subcommittee staff of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest — in FY 2013, 91.4 percent of Middle Eastern refugees (accepted to the U.S. between 2008-2013) received food stamps, 73.1 percent were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and 68.3 percent were on cash welfare.

Middle Eastern refugees used a number of other assistance programs at slightly lower rates. For example, 36.7 percent received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 32.1 percent received Supplemental Security Income (SSI), 19.7 percent lived in public housing, 17.3 percent were on General Assistance (GA), and 10.9 percent received Refugee Cash Assistance (RCA).

The high welfare rates among Middle Eastern refugees comes as the Obama administration considers increasing the number of refugees — who are immediately eligible for public benefits — to the U.S., particularly Syrian refugees.

ORR defines refugees and asylees from the “Middle East” as being from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen.   [Hah! And these figures don’t include the Somali welfare usage numbers!—ed]

More here….

Shortly after a meeting with Sessions on Capitol Hill, saying we need to take care of our own problems, Trump expressed reservations about plans to resettle Syrian refugees in the US.

Addendum: Senator Jeff Sessions was the leader of the opposition to the Gang of Eight’s amnesty bill and here in 2013 called out “meatpackers” as among the big industry lobbyists pushing for a greater supply of cheap immigrant labor.  Long time readers here know the large role the meatpackers are playing in changing small town America by encouraging the resettlement of refugees.

RELATED ARTICLE: If you want to save Syrian Christians, do not take refugees from UN camps!

An Electoral Strategy for 2016

/in , , /by

To be elected president or vice president of the United States requires a total of at least 270 votes in the Electoral College.  Through the strategic spending of other people’s money, especially among minority populations in our major urban areas, Democrats have fashioned an electoral map that gives them a relatively firm base of 22 blue states with a combined total of 257 of the needed 270 electoral votes.  Of the remaining 281 electoral votes, they only have to pick up 13 in order to elect a president and a vice president.

Republicans, on the other hand, have a firm base of 23 red states with a combined total of 191 electoral votes, leaving a total of 6 swing states… Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia… with a combined total of 90 electoral votes.  In order for a Republican to win in 2016, and beyond, he/she must carry all 23 of the red states, plus at least five of the six swing states.  They could afford to lose either Colorado’s 9 electoral votes or Iowa’s 6 electoral votes, but not all 15.  To lose both Colorado and Iowa, while carrying Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia would leave them with a total of just 266 electoral votes, four short of an electoral majority.  It appears to be a nearly insurmountable obstacle for Republicans, but is it?

With a bit of foresight and strategic planning, Republicans could do a great deal between now and November 2016 to mitigate the Democrats’ electoral advantage.  In a December 7, 2012 column, titled, Real Electoral College Reform, I analyzed what would happen to the political balance of power in the United States if all 50 states were to adopt the Maine-Nebraska method for allocating electoral votes.

In the Electoral College, each of the 50 states are allotted two at-large electoral votes, one for each of their two U.S. senators, and one vote for each of the state’s congressional districts.  With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, the winner of the popular vote in each state takes all of the state’s electoral votes.  In Maine and Nebraska, however, the candidate who wins the statewide popular vote is allotted that state’s two at-large electoral votes, while the remainder of the electoral votes are allocated based on the winner of the popular vote within each of the state’s congressional districts.

If the Maine-Nebraska formula had been in effect in all 50 states in 2012, and assuming that the vote for the presidential candidates of each party would roughly approximate the votes for the congressional candidates of the respective parties in each congressional district, Obama would have lost 115 of his 332 electoral votes to Mitt Romney in the twenty-six states, plus DC, in which he won a majority of the popular vote.  On the other hand, in the twenty-four red states carried by Romney-Ryan, they would have lost only 39 electoral votes to Obama-Biden.

The end result?  In 2012, instead of a 332 to 206 vote victory for Obama-Biden in the Electoral College, the Maine-Nebraska system would have produced a comfortable 282 to 256 vote victory for Romney-Ryan, an outcome that would have been far closer to expressing the will of the people than the present winner-take-all system.

To understand this phenomenon one need only look at the county-by-county electoral map of the United States with the counties colored either red or blue.  It is reflective of: a) the preference for Republican principles among a substantial majority of the people, and b) the overwhelming size of the vote for the Democratic “sugar daddy” in the inner city precincts.  The electoral process is disproportionately skewed by the fact that, in the heavily-populated inner-city precincts, the vote is nearly always 95-110% for Democratic candidates, while in the suburbs and the rural areas the vote is nearly always within the 60-40 range, one party over the other.

If it is true that “all politics is local,” as the late House Speaker Tip O’Neill once remarked, then to replace the current winner-take-all system with the Maine-Nebraska electoral system would help to bring political decision-making much closer to the people because of the increased interest generated in local and congressional elections.

The Maine-Nebraska electoral system would deemphasize the key battleground states such as Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia and require candidates to campaign in all fifty states.  As matters now stand, presidential candidates spend little time in states such as California, New York, Oklahoma, and Texas because the outcome of presidential voting in those states is almost always a foregone conclusion.  Had the Maine-Nebraska system been in place for the 2012 General Election, Obama would have found it necessary to defend the 15 votes that Romney could have won in California and the 6 votes he could have won in New York, while Romney could not have ignored the 12 electoral votes that Obama might have captured in Texas.

Liberals and Democrats are notorious for expressing appreciation for whatever they see as being most “democratic.”  But is there a chance that Democrats in the bluest of blue states… such as California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon… would agree to such a reform once they figured out that the Maine-Nebraska system would cause them to lose a significant number of electoral votes to Republicans, and that the Maine-Nebraska system would all but guarantee that no Democrat could be elected president or vice president for many years to come?  Among liberals and Democrats, when it come to a choice between what is best for the country and what is best for their party, the country will always come out on the “short end of the stick.”

So, while we cannot expect to ever see an electoral system in which all 50 states utilize the Maine-Nebraska formula, is there something that can be done now to level the playing field a bit?  The answer is yes, and it can easily be accomplished in advance of the 2016 General Election.  Here’s what must be done:

At the present time, there are 11 states with a total of 139 electoral votes that were carried by Barack Obama in 2012 which now have Republican governors.  Of those 11 states, the states of Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin now enjoy Republican majorities in both houses of their legislatures.  What this means is that, if the governors and legislative leaders in those 5 states understood what could be accomplished, they would take immediate steps to repeal the winner-take-all electoral system and adopt the Maine-Nebraska system.  With Republican majorities in both houses of their legislatures, Democrats would be powerless to stop them.

Even if Democrats should win the popular vote in each of those 5 states in 2016, as they did in 2012, the Maine-Nebraska formula would create a much different scenario than the winner-take-all system:  Instead of winning all 29 of Florida’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 12 and Republicans would win 17; instead of winning all 16 of Michigan’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 7 votes and Republicans would win 9; instead of winning all 6 of Nevada’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 3 and Republicans would win 3; instead of winning all 18 of Ohio’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 6 and Republicans would win 12; and instead of winning all 10 of Wisconsin’s electoral votes, Democrats would win 5 and Republicans would win 5.

Applying these totals to the expected blue state and red state totals, the Democrats’ expected advantage would increase from 257 electoral votes to 258, while the Republican disadvantage would move from 191 electoral votes to 237.  As matters now stand, Democrats have to take only 13 (14%) of the 90 swing state votes while Republicans have to take 79 (88%) in order to win the presidency.  On the other hand, if Republicans in those 5 states were to adopt the Maine-Nebraska system in the current legislative sessions, Democrats would have to take 12 (28%) of the remaining 43 swing state votes to win, while Republicans would have to take 33 (76%) of the remaining 43.  Taking 76% of 43 votes is easier than taking 88% of 90 votes.

But what if many of the low-information Obama voters in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Wisconsin decide to stay home in November 2016, giving Republicans popular vote victories in all 5 states?  After 8 years of disastrous Obama-Biden-Clinton-style governance, it is a distinct possibility.  Under that scenario, Republicans could put another 10 electoral votes in their column.  Democrats would have 248 electoral votes and Republicans 247 electoral votes before the 43 electoral votes of Colorado (9), Iowa (6), North Carolina (15), and Virginia (13) were won or lost.  Democrats would have to win 22 (51%) of the remaining 43 swing state votes, while Republicans would have to win 23 (53%).  The playing field would be substantially leveled.

However, in order to greatly increase their chances of victory, Republicans should not hesitate to target Minnesota, with 10 electoral votes; New Hampshire, with 4 electoral votes; New Mexico, with 5 electoral votes; and Pennsylvania, with 20 electoral votes… all winner-take-all states, and all states that Obama carried with less than 53% of the vote in 2012. After eight years of Obama-Biden, at least 5% of the good people in those four states should be anxious for a change.

In the meantime, those readers who live in the states of Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Michigan might wish to place copies of this analysis into the hands of their governors and their legislative leaders.  With seven states utilizing the Maine-Nebraska system we may witness the  beginning of a trend as other blue states follow suit.  The question is, do Republican leaders in Washington and in the state capitals have the political sense to recognize the advantage they enjoy?  Given their past history, we know that they are not always quick to act when political advantage falls into their laps.  It may be necessary to lean on them a bit.

Are Law Enforcement Officers Above the Law?

/in , , , /by

Few people will write an article that even comes close to being critical of our U.S. law enforcement officers. Americans are due a non biased review of why law enforcement officers (LEO) are either treated with enormous respect or in many cases are despised by the people they are sworn to serve.

I can effectively write on this issue because my background includes serving almost two decades as a U.S. Federal Agent. I had the opportunity to work with dozens of law enforcement agencies around America.  This included local, state and federal agencies. I am happy to give our LEO a pat on the back when they do as they have been sworn to do, or write a critical article for the one’s who have forgotten they are not above any U.S. law.

In America the media and politicians have groomed us to always put LEO on a throne above all other professions aside from our military personnel.  LEO are not owed any higher allegiance to their careers than a plumber, factory worker, insurance salesman, athlete, or doctor.  People who apply for LEO positions do so because this career is very stable and the pay covers their bills and provides for their families. The popular belief is that LEO enter law enforcement to ‘serve’ the people.  This is so far from the truth that no further explanation is needed. For the vast majority it is for a paycheck and for many it feeds their ego’s.

The LEO who enter law enforcement to feed their adrenaline and ego are the one’s who believe they are one step ahead of other Americans.  The one’s who do this job for a paycheck are the honest officers and they serve the people because that is what they are paid to do.  These officers are the LEO that show respect to all Americans regardless of their wealth status, race, or religion.

The LEO who show disrespect for the people they serve are the one’s who believe some laws apply to them, but not all laws.  A few examples:  In a busy city it is more likely you will see a police officer in his/her patrol car breaking traffic laws than you will see from citizens. There are some officers who strongly believe it is their job to let citizens know they have the absolute power to make or ruin a person’s day, and in some cases have been known to alter the truth and evidence.

There are LEO who believe they are not subject to the laws of assault and battery. In most states, an assault/battery is committed when one person: 1) tries to or does physically strike another, or 2) acts in a threatening manner to put another in fear of immediate harm. Many states declare that a more serious or “aggravated” assault/battery occurs when one: 1) tries to or does cause severe injury to another, or 2) causes injury through use of a deadly weapon. Throughout America an assault by a police officer on a suspect or prisoner in a jail or prison happens much more regularly than ever reported by the media.

Technology has started to bring many assault cases by police officers into the limelight.  Seldom in our past history does a person making a complaint about officer abuse were shown even the courtesy of listening to them.  Today with cameras on every corner and many officers being required to wear body cameras the truth is being revealed.  Do you think most police officers are in favor of having to wear a body camera? No.  Even officers who are not inclined to assault a person often berate suspects to the point of the suspect admitting to crimes he/she did not commit.  In spousal or child abuse experts have shown emotional abuse of the innocent person is often worse than physical abuse.  The same applies in law enforcement.

There are two famous words every law enforcement officer is quickly taught in the academy and throughout their career. ‘Stop Resisting’ Often you will hear these two words being shouted even while a suspect may be docile. They are safety words for the officers. Without cameras it is hard to contradict an officers testimony if he/she testify they shouted this command ten times!

In conclusion citizens and police officers must be taught that mutual respect and courtesy must be shown at all times to one another.  Of course there are citizens who are serious troublemakers and deserve to be put through the legal system, but there are indeed LEO who abuse their authority.  An LEO is not above the law in America.  If you have ever been pulled over or had the police respond to your home/business on a criminal complaint, you likely did not have a pleasant experience.  These encounters of course should not be fun, but they should not be used by an ego cop to demean a person who has not been convicted of a crime.

Respect is an earned reward and not given out due to intimidation.  

An LEO doesn’t and should not believe since he/she  was hired by a police department that they automatically have earned respect from the people they serve.  If a plumber is hired by a company does he/she automatically earn the respect of the customers he serves?  Of course not.  It is only when the plumber treats the customer with courtesy and completes the job as he is being paid to, will he begin to progress in his career and earn respect from the person he/she serves.