Here It Comes: Obama’s Final Assault on the Second Amendment

The Justice department is moving forward with a flurry of new rules. according to list of rules the agency has proposed to enact before the end of the Obama administration.

HERE IT COMES FOLKS!

The Hill Reports:

The regulations range from new restrictions on high-powered pistols to gun storage requirements. Chief among them is a renewed effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable or have been convicted of domestic abuse.

Gun safety advocates have been calling for such reforms since the Sandy Hook school shooting nearly three years ago in Newtown, Conn. They say keeping guns away from dangerous people is of primary importance.

FULL STORY HERE:

Administration preps new gun regulations | TheHill

Federal Refugee Program Brings Jihadi Threat to America

According to the Pew Research Religion and Public Life Project (Pew Research) there are an estimated 2.7 million Muslims in America. Pew Research reported in 2013 over I million legal immigrants entered the U.S. of which 100,000 were Muslim. More than 1.3 million Muslims have been brought into the U.S. via the billion dollar U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (U.S. RAP). Annually the U.S. RAP brings in 70,000 refugees allotted by the UN High Commissioner of Refugees (UNHCR). These annual USRAP allotments are virtually controlled by the UNHCR, which designates refugee populations most at risk. The current USRAP allotment exceeds that of all other countries combined. Separate from the U.S. RAP are other legal avenues for Muslim immigration that include the asylum program that converts illegal border crossers into legal immigrants with benefits equivalent to refugees, the Diversity “Green Card” Lottery and the investor EB-5 Visa Program.

According to Ann Corcoran, editor of the Refugee Resettlement Watch  (RRW) blog,  this UN refugee agency “virtually calls the shots”  for the U.S. RAP that provides legal refugee immigrants with a veritable smorgasbord of cash welfare, Social Security benefits for elderly refugees, Medicaid, educational  assistance and a pathway to ultimate citizenship. Including both federal and state level benefits; some experts estimate that the annual total cost of the U.S. RAP could be upwards of $12 to $20 billion annually.

The tripartite US RAP is administered by: the US Department of State, Bureau of Population Refugees and Migration (BPRM) that admits and contracts with voluntary agencies to process refugees; the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that allegedly screens refugees abroad; and the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) of the US Department of Health and Human Services that funds grants to program contractors and refugee ethnic groups for community absorption. The President, upon advice from the State Department BPRM, sends Congress an annual directive conveying these UNHCR refugee allotments that are virtually “rubber stamped” by immigration and border security subcommittees of Congress. A network of 9 major religious and secular voluntary agencies (VOLAG), supported by 350 subcontractors places refugees in more than 190 cities, often without any opportunity for review by localities. These contractors include:

  • Church World Services (CWS)
  • Ethiopian Community Development Council (ECDC)
  • Episcopal Migration Ministries
  • Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
  • International Rescue Committee (IRC)
  • U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants
  • Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services (LIRS)
  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
  • World Relief Corporation (WR).

Based on 2012 IRS Form 990 submissions, the top U.S. RAP funded Volag was the IRC that received more than $332 millions in federal grants and contracts accounting for more than 73% of annual revenue. Next in rank was the USCCB that received $71 million in federal grants and contracts accounting for 98% of their annual revenue.

The Congress has never exercised effective oversight of the Refugee Admissions Program through hearings and recommendations. The U.S. RAP has been used punitively against political critics. One example is the assignment of large numbers of Somali refugees to the Congressional District of former US Rep. Michelle Bachmann in St. Cloud, Minnesota

The U.S. RAP has been fraught with fraud facilitating the entry of Muslim Jihadis from countries that hate us; Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia and Kosovo. Rampant fraud was detected from DHS DNA samples taken among Somali applicants for screening under the State Department Family Reunification P-3 Visa Program resulting in the shutdown of the program for three years. 20,000 fraudulently admitted Somali refugees were never pursued or ejected. Given the world’s attention on the problem of illegal migrants crossing the Mediterranean, the State Department refugee program let in to the US hundreds of Somalis who fled to the Island of Malta without any clearances.

Poised to add to this troubling mix is a stream of 17,000 Syrian refugees, who are predominately Muslim, discriminating against admissions of endangered Middle East Christians. Doubtless they and growing number of Muslim refugees from elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia will be “seeded” in American cities under the Fostering Community Engagement and Welcoming Communities Project of theORR with the Soros-backed NGO, “Welcoming America.“

There are rising concerns over Muslim refugee resettlement under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program that has operated for 35 years. These concerns have arisen since the Refugee Act of 1980 was passed and signed into law by former President Jimmy Carter. The law was introduced by the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and then Senator, and now Obama Vice President, Joe Biden. Corcoran of RRW believes that it is overdue for a major overhaul and reform. By virtue of admitting hundreds of potential Jihadis among refugees from Muslims lands, the program constitutes a significant national security risk.

Now there is pushback by American cities, as witnessed by concerns expressed in letters to Secretary of State Kerry by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), chairman of the House Judiciary Sub Committee on Immigration and Border Security. Both The House Subcommittee and the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) hold annual hearings over refugee allotments. Gowdy’s letter of April 13, 2015 was prompted by constituent complaints in Spartanburg, South Carolina over the establishment of a VOLAG office dedicated to the processing of Syrian refugees. He wrote Secretary Kerry seeking answers as to why the office was being established and had not been reviewed with state and local agencies.

The US RAP is a virtual Trojan Horse facilitating immigration under the Islamic doctrine of Dar al Hijra- immigration that constitutes civilizational jihad. This is the subject of a book by former Islamic jurist and convert to Christianity, Sam Solomon, and co-author E Al MaqdisiModern Day Trojan Horse; The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration – accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam?  The authors drew attention to the Islamic imperative behind migration allegedly attributed to the prophet Mohammed:

Migration cannot be ended as long as there is kufr (unbelief) or as long as there is an enemy that resists (kenz al Umak 4627). In other words, as long as there are communities out there that are non-Muslim, where Islam is not regarded as a supreme system, then jihad must continue.

Hence, Mohammed made it clear that migration is a duty that needs to be upheld forever or until the earth has submitted to the Islamic hegemony.

The authors note that the hadith (alleged sayings of Mohammed) demand that Muslim migrants not assimilate and remain separate adhering to Sharia “advancing the cause of Islam”:

In other words: “no integration with the host country.” Now if one’s entry visa or livelihood is based on showing some kind of integration … then it must be in appearance only and temporary until the Islamization objective is achieved.

Corcoran is featured in a brief video on the problematic Muslim refugee resettlement in the US produced by the Center for Security Policy. It has gone viral since posted on YouTube April 20, 2015. As of May 29, 2015 the Corcoran video had more than 537,122 hits which continue to climb every day. Clearly, Corcoran’s message has resonated among concerned Americans. Watch it on YouTube:

The CSP YouTube video is a complement to her recently published book on the problems confronting America over the threat of Muslim migration that has transformed Europe and now troubles grass roots America, Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America.”

Corcoran and her RRW team of activists chronicle news and developments about this issue on the blog where she is editor, Refugee Resettlement Watch. In our May 2015 NER interview with Erick Stakelbeck ofCBN’s The Watchman program, ISIS Threat to America, he drew attention to the Somali refugee communities in the American heartland sending jihadi terrorists to Somalia and Syria. He spoke of young Somali émigré men who have joined up with Al Shabaab in Somalia, and now the Islamic State. We have drawn attention to the problems of Somali Refugee Resettlement in NER articles and Iconoclast posts over the past eight years. They have covered severe cultural and integration problems in the American heartland in places like Shelbyville, TennesseeEmporia, KansasGreeley , ColoradoMinneapolis, MinnesotaColumbus, Ohio, and Lewiston, Maine.

The Somali émigré jihadis aren’t the only terrorists among admitted refugees. Six Bosnian refugees were arrested in January 2015 and charged with providing material support to the Islamic State. Think of the brothers Tsarnaev who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013. See our NER article, “Refugee Jihad Terror in Boston.” An ABC investigation reported that dozens of terrorists have been admitted fraudulently under the U.S. RAP.

Another example was two Iraqi refugees, al Qaeda operatives, arrested in Bowling Green, Kentucky in 2011 and convicted in 2013. They were charged with sending weapons and cash to Al Qaeda. They lied on their Federal Refugee Admission forms about their prior terrorist involvements in Iraq. One had constructed IEDs, involved in killing four members of a Pennsylvania National Guard unit in 2006 in Iraq. A check of fingerprints on the shards of the IED caught the perpetrator. Watch this 2013 ABC Report. Recently, one of those convicted, Mohanad Shareef Hammadi, filed a motion seeking to overturn his conviction because his counsel said he wouldn’t get life. That episode briefly raised the ire of Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY).

In late May 2015 Democrat Senators Durbin of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and 12 others have signed a letter calling for the Obama Administration to admit a flood of 65,000 Syrian Muslim Refugees “suggested” by UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR):

The group letter noted the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) wants to resettle 130,000 Syrian refugees over the next two years and has thus far submitted more than 12,000 resettlement cases to the United States for consideration.

On the same day, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) called the resettlement effort a “serious mistake” because of the security risks it poses.

Adam Kredo of The Washington Free Beacon reported May 23, 2015 that the DHS admitted that several hundred terrorist supporters entered the U.S. illegally, and subsequently were admitted as refugees giving rise to Congressional demands for information and a likely hearing:

Congress is demanding that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) release documents detailing how many foreigners seeking asylum in the United States have been found to have ties to terror groups, according to a recent letter sent to the agency by leading lawmakers.

The letter comes on the heels of revelations by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that at least 638 aliens seeking asylum in America have been found to have connections to terrorists.

Against this background, we arranged to interview Ann Corcoran of RRW.

Mike Bates

Mike Bates:  Good afternoon and welcome back to Your Turn. This is Mike Bates. This half hour is a special conversation about a topic that I think is safe to say almost no one in America is aware of. Certainly the percentage of people who are aware is in single digits. Joining me, Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review and its blog, The Iconoclast. Welcome, Jerry.

Jerry Gordon

Jerry Gordon:  Good to be here, Mike.

Bates:  And joining us by telephone is Ann Corcoran. She’s editor of Refugee Resettlement Watch, and the author of the book Refugee Resettlement and the Hijra to America. Ann. Welcome.

Ann Corcoran:  Thank you so much for having me.

Bates:  Ann, I’d like to build this pyramid from the ground up with a very broad based question. What refugee resettlement are you watching?

Corcoran:  I’m watching a very complicated, secretive program, where we bring in approximately 70,000 refugees a year from various countries around the world, and the U.N. is basically calling the shots as to who gets into the country.

Bates:  Are you concerned about refugees from the entire planet, or a specific segment that is of greater concern?

Corcoran:  I can tell you the truth; it’s quite shocking for most people to realize that we are bringing in tens of thousands of refugees every year from countries where people hate us; Somalia, Iraq and soon Syria will be on the list. It is those refugees that I’m most concerned about.

There are also economic reasons why we should cut the numbers of refugees, generally.

Gordon:  Ann, I want to read you a quotation from Mo, our friend, the Prophet Mohammed.

Bates:  May peace be upon him.

Gordon:  This is courtesy of one of the more reliable commentators, Bukhari. “Accordingly, there can be no Hijra – which means migration – after the conquest, but Jihad and a desire or an intention, and if you settle, then spread out.”

How important is this Islamic doctrine behind the mushrooming effect of Muslim immigration to America?  There have been roughly 350,000 to 400,000 Muslims who have come to the U.S. as refugees from some of these countries you just enumerated that hate us; 100,000, for example, originally from Somalia; another 100,000 from Iraq, and another 100,000 from Bosnia.

Out of these groups have emerged “known or lone wolves or terrorists against us.” We saw that in the case of the Chechen refugees, the Tsarnaev brothers who perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing. Then in Bowling Green, Kentucky, you had not one, but two Iraqis who came in as refugees lying on their admission forms who were actually Al Qaeda operatives. They were trying to ship weapons and money to Al Qaeda.

One of them, amazingly, got fingered, literally, because his prints were on the shards of IED’s that he made in Iraq. Are there hundreds if not thousands of these folks among these “refugees from countries that hate us”?

Corcoran:  Well there certainly could be. One of my larger concerns, aside from the terrorists who are getting in here, is we can’t properly screen them. Recently the FBI testified in the House Homeland Security Committee that they can’t screen the Syrians because they are coming from a failed state. Which is only common sense as you wouldn’t be able to screen people from countries that don’t have records of them; particularly countries like Somalia. I’m also concerned about the civilizational Jihad; the pressure that comes on our western societies when Islamic population reaches certain levels. It doesn’t even have to reach high levels for the pressure to be put on for us to accommodate Sharia, Islamic law and the Islamic way of life.

Bates:  Jerry cited the instruction from the Prophet Mohammed – may peace be upon him – so I completely understand why the Muslims’ wish to immigrate to the United States. But why are we taking them? Is this something that we’re doing voluntarily? Is this a policy of this administration? Is this a long standing policy of the United States? Why are we allowing so many refugees into the U.S.?

Corcoran:  This is a program that has been in place for 35 years; most people are surprised to find that out.  The Refugee Act of 1980 was the brain child of -this won’t surprise you – the late Senator Ted Kennedy and former Senator, now Vice President Joe Biden. Jimmy Carter signed it into law.

This has been going on as I said for 35 years, with the United Nations calling the shots more and more. In recent years, we are seeing more refugees being taken from countries in the Middle East – of course, that’s where much of the turmoil is – and from Africa.

We all know there are millions of refugees in the world. We could be taking them from other places if we so chose. However, we are taking a large number now from Iraq, Somalia and soon Syria.

Bates:  I know that the Refugee Act of 1980 allows the United Nations to designate the number of refugees to be resettled in certain countries – they get to call the shots. But do we as a sovereign nation have the ability to say no to what the U.N. says we have to do?

Corcoran:  We absolutely do. However, I’m afraid to say the United States and the U.S. State Department does whatever the U.N. tells it to do. This is not just something that occurred in the Obama administration. This was going on during the Bush administration as well.

I have only been following the refugee program since 2007. That was triggered when refugees landed in my rural county in Maryland and I wanted to understand how this worked. Each year the President sends a determination letter to Congress and designates how many refugees from each part of the world we are going to receive.

Congress could come back and say, “No we aren’t.” However, they never do. They just rubber stamp it and the President concurs on how many come from which parts of the world based on what the United Nations is pressuring us to do.

Gordon:  Recently we had an outburst of concern about the acceptance of Syrian refugees that triggered a series of letters between US Rep. Trey Gowdy to Secretary of State Kerry. We know Gowdy because of his involvement with the Benghazi affair and other matters. What role does he play in the House in terms of reviewing these determinations about how many refugees enter this country, and what was the concern?

Corcoran:  Trey Gowdy is Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security of the House Judiciary Committee. His Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Refugee Act of 1980 and how it is administered; and they could be holding oversight hearings.

In my years of following this, I’ve never seen Congress lift a finger to examine this program. Now Gowdy is involved because refugees were – surprise, surprise – being planned to enter his Congressional district.

We saw the U.S. State Department do this in other Congressional Districts; most notably Michele Bachmann’s district in St. Cloud, Minnesota. Now, they are planning to, bring in refugees to Gowdy’s district and so he is now involved, thank goodness.

So, we would love for him to hold hearings. I think that is what needs to be done now for this program.

Bates:  Is there a concern in Congress beyond just Trey Gowdy?

Corcoran:  Is anybody concerned in Congress? Anyone else besides Trey Gowdy? No.

Bates:  We don’t hear much about it. I don’t hear very many people complaining about it. I think most of the country is ignorant about it. Are most Congressmen ignorant about it?

Corcoran:  Yes, they are frankly ignorant about it. I had one of my activists, contact Senator Enzi from Wyoming. One of Enzi’s staff wrote back about a completely different immigration program. They didn’t even understand what the refugee program is. I found that to be the case all over the place. There has been a virtual silence out of Congress on this program.

Gordon:  Ann, who is placing these refugees that we just talked about in communities like Spartanburg, South Carolina, Shelbyville, Tennessee, Minneapolis, Minnesota or Greeley, Colorado? Which groups are actually involved with setting up offices, screening and processing them and making money out of it?

Corcoran:  That is the part that shocks the public the most when they learn this. The U.S. State Department brings in the refugees that the U.N. has largely chosen for us, and Homeland Security are supposed to screen them. I mean, how do you screen somebody from a failed state when you don’t even know who they are? Then, these are divvied up, literally, between nine major contractors that include groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, World Lutheran Service and Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. There are six of them that are supposedly religious charities, exclusively funded by the U.S. taxpayer. They then divide up their allotment of refugees among 350 subcontractors in 190 U.S. cities. They literally compete with each other for these refugees, because money comes along with each refugee.

Gordon:  Ann there is a new wrinkle in the seeding of refugees in these communities. It has to do with a group out of Atlanta called “Welcoming America,” which has been, funded in part by none other than George Soros.  What is their angle and who are they contracted with?

Corcoran:  I first came across “Welcoming America” in 2013 when I went to an Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) stakeholder meeting. Now stakeholders are everybody who has a piece of this refugee resettlement program. It doesn’t mean the average citizen can normally go to these events held in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

When I first heard about “Welcoming America” at the ORR stakeholder meeting and I heard the phrase used by the federal program presenter about “pockets of resistance forming in America.” To deal with these “pockets of resistance” the Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) funded “Welcoming America” with a grant to go around the country and make sure these pockets of resistance were straightened out.

Gordon:  Ann, what kind of benefits are these refugees receiving, and are they on some sort of fast track towards citizenship?

Corcoran:  Refugees are the only category of legal immigrants that can come right into the country and be signed up for various social service programs. I’m talking about food stamps, subsidized housing, education for the kids, and health insurance right from the start.

Most legal immigrants have to be here for a number of years before they can access those welfare benefits. Even elderly refugees receive Supplementary Security Income (SSI) from Social Security as well. On the matter of fast track for citizenship, within a year following their entry into the US, they are given green card like permanent resident aliens. That allows them to be processed for citizenship. These same contractors that I’m talking about, the nine voluntary agencies and their 350 subcontractors receive grant money from the federal government to help them guide refugee clients through the citizenship process, literally holding their hands.

Gordon:  When you and I were first writing about this “secret program,” there was an event that occurred that shut down the Family Reunification Visa Program for nearly three years. It concerned fraud in Somali refugee camps prior to coming here. Can you tell us about that?

Corcoran:  In 2008, the U.S. State Department discovered – surprise surprise – that Somalis applying to enter the U.S. to reunite with their families here were not related to the families here in the first place.

The U.S. State Department had to shut down the whole P-3 Visa program for Family Reunification for about three or four years to try to get this straightened out. Teams from the DHS did sample DNA tests and discovered the massive amount of fraud that was going on.

At one point the U.S. State Department was saying 20,000 Somalis got into the United States illegally and nothing was ever done to find them and remove them.

Now, the P-3 Visa program is back up and running and we’re bringing Somalis into the United States at the rate of 700 to 800 a month. I’d like you to consider why we are bringing any Somalis into the United States at all. We are bringing them in at a rate almost on par with the Bush Administration, which saw the highest rates of Somalis entering the US.

Bates:  They’re not just coming into the country for temporary refugee status. This is permanent relocation. Given that we do not have any clue where these people are coming from? Are they terrorists? Does this pose a national security problem for the United States?

Corcoran:  It absolutely does pose a national security problem. Who are these people that we are bringing in? They say they screen them, but how can they screen them? One of the great shocks that I discovered a few years ago was illegal migrants coming across the Mediterranean that we are now reading about in our news.

Many illegal Somali migrants got to the tiny island nation of Malta in the Mediterranean. Starting in the Bush administration we were bringing in 700 to 1,000 of those illegal Somali migrants who got to Malta to the United States as refugees.

How on earth do we know who these people are who got on boats and came across the Mediterranean and then we brought from Malta to the US? It makes absolutely no sense.

Gordon:  Ann, prior to this interview we were speaking about why countries in the Gulf region, the wealthy Emirates, Saudi Arabia, aren’t backing this refugee program setting up camps in their locale. You mentioned what happened to a group of Somalis who made it to Saudi Arabia. What happened in that case?

Corcoran:  Actually, there was more than one case. Any Somalis who have entered illegally into Saudi Arabia are immediately put on a plane and sent back to Mogadishu, and the United Nations hasn’t said a word about this.

You can just imagine what ruckus would be made in the media if the United States decided to start rounding up Somalis putting them on a plane and sending them back to the failed state of Somalia. But Saudi Arabia can do it and there’s not a word out of anyone, whether at the UN or here in the US.

Bates:  What I find so disconcerting about this is twofold: one, are they terrorists because so many in the Muslim world are, and the other aspect of it is culturally. It used to be that immigrants would come to America and they would assimilate into the culture, but most of these refugees are not assimilating into the culture.

They are just forming their own distinct neighborhoods living very deliberately separate from the American culture. Is that not a problem?

Corcoran:  Yes, it’s definitely a problem. By the way, assimilate is a dirty word now. The Obama administration has basically banned the word. It is not allowed. The Obama administration has a taskforce on new Americans where they literally discuss seeding American towns with immigrants, but the word assimilation is verboten.

It is only, the soil or the community that must change to accommodate the seedling. So, the term assimilation is not allowed any longer.

Bates:  This is incredibly foolish. It is a Trojan horse of the worst kind, given the problems with mass Muslim immigration and the lack of assimilation of Muslim communities in Europe that are, in many cases, violent.

I don’t just mean Charlie Hebdo and the Jewish bakery in Paris attacks, but even the protests and other kinds of violence that is occurring there. Of course it’s always reported as youth but never Muslim youth.

It’s not like we don’t know where this is going. Europe has done this to its own detriment. Why do we follow in the footsteps of this foolishness?

Corcoran:  I wish I had an answer to that question because, it blows my mind. All you have to do is to look to Europe to see what might be our future. Why? Probably, because we have no leadership that is able to stand up to this. They’re all so afraid of being called racist xenophobes or Islamophobes.

To be frank, we have no leadership in Congress. We have no one who is going to stand up to this, speak about what’s happened in Europe and say, “Let’s not have it happen here.” Let me say what one of the other things that I am annoyed about with this program. That is the secrecy behind which communities in America are being slated to receive refugees and yet they are not included in the process at all.

I contend that if this was such a fabulous program, put all the cards on the table in every community the State Department and ORR is targeting for refugees. Explain where they will be living, going to school, working and what impacts and costs are involved. But the federal and voluntary agencies involved with the refugee programs appear not to be able to resolve the problems without being secretive about it.

Gordon:  Ann, one of the most disturbing parts of this U.N. controlled program is the patent discrimination against endangered Christian refugees, legitimately, from places like Syria, Iraq and other locations. What is the evidence of that?

Corcoran:  Let’s just take the Syrian refugee issue. So far the State Department has brought in a small number of Syrians, relatively speaking, into the country. One would think that we would be choosing first and foremost the Christians who are in real danger. But we are bringing mostly Sunni Muslims. There were about 800 Syrians who have been brought into the country in the last few years. Now the State Department and the U.N. have 11,000 in the pipeline waiting to come into the U.S.

But of the 800 that have come in so far, approximately 700 are Sunni Muslims, there were only 43 Christians among the Syrian refugees that have come in so far. That translates to approximately 92 percent of refugees coming in from Syria are Muslims.

I’m told that that is mostly because we are bringing them in from U.N. camps, where the Muslims are found.  Christians do not go to the U.N. camps, but to Turkey if they get out of Syria at all, where they’re taken care of by the Syriac church.

Gordon:  You talked about possible options for reform of this secretive program administered by the State Department and Department of Health and Human Services. What are the top of the list alternatives that we could possibly consider to rein in this program?

Corcoran:  You mean if I were queen for a day and I could wipe out the whole program? That would be one way to start. Clearly the refugee program has to be completely revamped. This whole system of turning these refugees over to these non-governmental organizations that are calling the shots is just outrageous.

I would go back to a day when we resettled refugees, with the help of individual churches and other civic groups. Where a civic group or a church would have to take a refugee family under its wing for a year or two, get them assimilated and settled, and without tapping into taxpayer funds to accomplish it.

That is what I would like to see if, we were going to continue the refugee program. There are serious questions about whether the numbers of refugees are too high from countries that hate us. Perhaps the first thing one could do is to limit the countries from which refugees could come.

There is a lot that could be done to reform this program if there was leadership brave enough to do it.

Bates:  Much more to discuss, Ann, but not much more time. We’ve barely scratched the surface, so I would encourage our listeners to go to your website which is www.refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com. Ann Corcoran. Thank you very much for joining us. Thank you Jerry for arranging this important interview.

Listen to the 1330am WEBY interview with Ann Corcoran, here and here.

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

Anthrax Released: Should we be concerned?

US Army Dugway Proving Ground Main GateThe abrupt news that live anthrax samples  had been shipped from the U.S. Army Dugway proving ground to laboratories in the U.S., an air base in South Korea and possibly Australia came as a reminder to Americans and the world that biological warfare  training exercises might lead to troubling inadvertent releases. Fortunately, 22 military personnel exposed at the south Korean  airbase are being treated with the antibiotic Cipro. However, this latest release of a BW agent has caused both the U.S. Army bio-warfare directorate and the CDC to review safety precautions, packaging and procedures for the transmission of possible live anthrax spores and why samples had not been made inert?

The BBC reported that the U.S. military has ordered a review of how it handles anthrax after discovering more cases of live samples being accidentally sent to labs:

Live anthrax samples were believed to have been sent to a total of 24 labs, in 11 U.S. states as well as South Korea and Australia, the Pentagon said.

The Pentagon says that there is no known risk to the general public.

Experts in bio-safety have heavily criticized the lapse and called for improved precautions.

Symptoms of anthrax exposure include skin ulcers, nausea, vomiting and fever, and can cause death if untreated.

News of the live shipments first emerged on Wednesday, as the U.S. said it had accidentally shipped live anthrax spores from Utah to labs in Texas, Maryland, Wisconsin, Delaware, New Jersey, Tennessee, New York, California and Virginia, as well as an air base in South Korea.

Those shipments took place between March 2014 and April 2015, a U.S. official said, according to Reuters.

On Friday, the Department of Defense said it had identified “additional inadvertent live anthrax shipments”, including a suspect sample sent to Australia from a batch of anthrax from 2008.

It is not clear when that sample was shipped to Australia.

The military has ordered all of its labs that have previously received inactive anthrax samples to test them. In addition it is advising all labs to cease working with these samples until told otherwise.

Shortly after 9/11, the American public concern over bio-terrorism was raised  by the release of Anthrax in powdered form in letters sent to members of Congress and randomly to private persons. 22 persons were sickened, 5 died, the U.S. Senate building was shut down and inspected.  Anthrax exists naturally, but more powerful variants have been developed synthetically by dual use laboratories in rogue states like Iran, North Korea and Assad’s Syria.  Bio-warfare laboratories have been established by Al Qaeda and ISIS has been rumored to have obtained access to materials in Syria, as well. Remember the arrest in Afghanistan, prosecution and conviction in the U.S. of Brandeis University and MIT trained scientist, “Lady Al Qaeda”, Aafia Siddiqui .  There is also evidence that Iran’s terrorist proxy, Hezbollah may have been transferred BW capabilities and agents  by Syria that could be deployed against America’s ally , Israel and globally through major transportation nodes in Europe.

Jill Bellamy van Aalst(3)

Dr. Jill Bellamy

We asked Dr. Jill Bellamy, noted expert on biological warfare and threat reduction about this latest incident.  We have published articles by Dr. Bellamy on Syrian, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and Iranian BW programs in both the NER and our blog the Iconoclast.

She commented:

Clearly from a bio-safety perspective this is a very serious breach of protocol and demands a full and transparent investigation. As anyone who works with inactivated anthrax would be routinely vaccinated with AVA, exposure from a clinical perspective is probably not as much of a concern as the general public may believe. Of course if anyone outside military labs the live anthrax was sent to and persons who have not been routinely vaccinated were exposed, this would be concerning. I would worry about the time frame from exposure. It appears from the reports that we are talking about several weeks or months during which the anthrax was shipped. It is probably a good sign that none of the labs has reported a laboratory acquired disease or LAD. If exposure is known Cipro (ciprofloxacin hydrochloride) is given for inhalation anthrax and usually a 60 day course is advised. The lab workers in these labs  would surely  have all been vaccinated, so how much of a health risk it poses is debatable.

The bio-safety side is more worrying. CDC and a number of other labs have previously had exposures from the accidental handling of live anthrax. There are very stringent regulations in place for the shipping and transport of live agents. It is doubtful there was any risk to public health during the transport as this would be handled by the military. What is more problematic is that the research done  at US Army labs and Dugway proving ground  are critical to national security.  Incidents like this feed an uninformed section in non-proliferation circles who then call for the closing of these labs or hype the danger they pose to the general public. It makes it more difficult to assure the public that such labs are a vital aspect to protecting citizens from BW attacks and ensuring vaccines and therapeutic countermeasures are available and stockpiled in the event of a deliberate attack. Hopefully this is an incident we will learn a great deal from in terms of bio-safety training, protocols and bio-security.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of  microscopic anthrax spores. Source: Reuters.

Rubio: Obama’s Strategy for the Middle East has Backfired

In a Washington Post op-ed piece Florida Senator Marco Rubio wrote:

The fall of the Iraqi city of Ramadi to the Islamic State and recent gains by the group in Syria are the latest signs that President Obama’s strategy to defeat this brutal terrorist group is failing. But the problem is far bigger than that. The president’s entire approach to the Middle East has backfired.

The Middle East is more dangerous and unstable than when Obama came into office — a time when Iraq and Syria were more stable, the Iranian nuclear program was considerably less advanced and the Islamic State did not yet exist.

Much of this instability is a result of Obama’s disengagement from the region, best symbolized by the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011. The vacuum created by America’s pullback has been filled by bad actors, including terrorist extremists, both Sunni and Shiite, who have flourished in the absence of U.S. leadership.

On one side are the radical Sunni extremists of al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and affiliated groups. The Islamic State has capitalized on the political grievances many Iraqi Sunnis have with their sectarian Shiite leaders, as well as the divisions between Syrian Sunnis and the brutal Alawite-dominated Assad regime, which is supported by Iran. The Islamic State’s black banner is now spreading as far afield as Libya and Afghanistan.

On the other side is Iran, a country run by a militant Shiite clerical regime that is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and has as its primary goal regional domination and the export of the Iranian revolution. As the Obama administration has focused on negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran, Tehran has exploited U.S. weakness and expanded its reach into Syria, Iraq and Yemen, among other countries.

To begin to deal with the challenges we face, we need a reassertion of U.S. leadership in the region and specifically in the fight against the Islamic State.

Keep reading here.

Group Seeks To Stop Pornography and Religious Indoctrination in Florida Public Schools

The Florida Citizens’ Alliance (FLCA) is a coalition of citizens and grassroots groups working together through education, outreach and community involvement to advance the ideals and principles of liberty.  FLCA “believes these include but are not limited to individual rights, free markets, and limited government.”

On its website the FLCA asks:

Do you know what your children are reading this summer? And are you aware of the Islamic religious indoctrination that is being infused into our students’ textbooks?

On May 27th, the Collier County Public School (CCPS) district was caught AGAIN recommending pornographic material to K-12 students on their summer reading lists. These lists have been on the CCPS trusted website for several weeks. There have been numerous examples of the district using similar age-inappropriate materials, which have been called to their attention over the past months by citizen watchdog initiatives.

Here are examples from the recommended summer reading lists for students as young as 6th grade!

Beautiful Bastard” by Christina Lauren

This book contains graphically descriptive text, including a rape on a conference room table.

EDITORS NOTE: To avoid offending anyone with the actual text, the FLCA has put an excerpt from this book in a separate post so that readers may choose whether to view it or not.  The Editorial Staff suggests you do, because this is what one of our school boards was recommending that Florida children should read!

The Truth about Alice” by Jennifer Mathieu

Click on image for a larger view.

From page 1 of the book:

Textbooks

“My World History – 6th grade”
Authors: Krull and Karpeil
Published by Pearson, PLC

The following is a recent book review from Lee County’s Citizen Action Committee:

This book comes from a British company, Pearson PLC, with a record of failed performance and law suits that is pages long.  The company’s major stockholders include the Arabic Banking Corporation, and the Government of Libya.  This book contains 31 pages, Chapter 18, on Islam.  Never mentioned is Jihad, marriage of up to 4 women, female mutilation, the Jizyah, death penalty for gays, or growing their religion by bloody conquest.  The fact that Muhammed personally murdered and led murdering troops to convert other religions to Islam or face death was not mentioned, nor was the fact that the youngest of his many wives, Aisha, was 9 years old.  Instead, the entire chapter portrays Islam as just another nice religion like Christianity or Judaism, and in fact, superior to them. … [full review]

The critical question:  Does your school District have in place an aggressive, transparent process required by statute to thoroughly vet all text books and online materials?

Florida State Statute 1003.42 provides the legal requirements for factual instructional materials, and the recently passed SB 864 bill requires a transparent parent-oriented process for reviewing and removing inappropriate materials.  The school boards ultimately are accountable! Create a watchdog citizen action group in your county.

For more information on FLCA Contact them and they will connect you with a mentor to help.

RELATED ARTICLE: How schools and libraries across the country bring in hardcore pornography through commercial databases. Under the radar of parents!

Israel’s Gas Pains Relieved

Great business news from Israel this week. Israel has become a veritable cyber ware super power.  According to Ha’aretz, sales of computer and network security technology reached more than $6 billion in 2014, accounting for 10% of the global $60 billion market place. The other great news was the resignation on Monday, May 25th of Dr. David Gilo, head of the independent Israel Antitrust Authority.  In his statement Gilo said:

My decision is a result of a number of considerations, most importantly the report that the cabinet, particularly the Prime Minister’s Office, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of National Infrastructure, Energy, and Water Resources, will do everything they can to push forward the currently emerging structure in the natural gas sector. I am convinced that such a structure will not lead to competition in this important market, and could possibly detract from the independence of the Antitrust Authority, a matter of public importance, and harm its ability to carry out unilateral measures

 He had single handedly  brought to a halt the development of Israel’s important off shore gas fields by the Israel-US partnership, Delek Group Ltd. (TASE: DLEKG) and Houston based Noble Energy , Inc. (NBL-NYSE) . The partnership had put up $6 billion in risk capital to develop the country’s offshore gas fields, achieving energy security, creating a potential wealth producing export market.   Gilo stopped development of the giant Leviathan field in December 2014 when he reneged on a compromise deal reached earlier last year involving selling two existing smaller fields developed by the partners offshore in the country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).      While he resigned on Monday, May 25th, he won’t be departing until the end of August, 2015.  Allegedly that would give him time to clean up his other consumerist initiatives.  However, many believe based on his statement his real agenda was to take pot shots at the compromise plan being floated by the Ministries of Finance, Energy and Infrastructure, backed by Prime Minister Netanyahu for good and sound national security reasons.   A legal opinion from the State’s attorney General provided authority for the government to develop and conclude the proposed agreement with the development partners.    According to Globes, Israel Business, the compromise plan:

Requires Delek Group, Ltd. to sell all of its holdings in the Tamar natural gas reservoir within six years. Noble Energy, Delek Group’s partner will be required to reduce its holdings in Tamar from 36% to 25%, and will be barred from marketing gas from the Leviathan reservoir to Israel. At the same time, the agreement leaves Noble Energy with control of both reservoirs as the company operating them.

As we have written in both NER articles and Iconoclast posts Gilo was seeking to do the impossible. To create competition by forcing the sale of one of the two major fields, the Tamar, hoping to induce foreign competitors to make investments for the completion of the giant Leviathan gas field and thereby lowering energy prices through competition. Problem with that misguided view was there were few if any takers. Further, it put into jeopardy signed agreements for delivery of gas from the existing Tamar field with the Palestinian Authority, Egypt and Jordan. Moreover the government killed a potential minority investment by Australian energy development firm, Woodside, PTY for development of LNG from the Leviathan field and delivery to the Asian market. As a result, Nobel is presently working with the Republic of Cyprus to develop an LNG processing and distribution complex to link up with the Republic’s Aphrodite offshore gas field adjacent to that of Israel’s Leviathan.

In the run up to the March 17th, Knesset elections, it was apparent that Gilo was grandstanding perhaps hoping that the Zionist Union opposition might win. If that occurred he could pursue his consent decree proposal accusing the partners of being a monopoly in violation of Israeli basic law. Instead, Gilo and entourage took off for a junket to Holland to see how the Netherlands handled their off shore gas fields development.

It quickly became apparent that the Netanyahu government was not going to abide by this high handed patently political move by Gilo.  At stake is more than $76 billion in potential tax revenues that might be used to offset burdensome national and other social program expenditures .

Prior to Gilo’s resignation, the Netanyahu government  reached out to Professor Eitan Sheshinski at Hebrew University who had developed the original tax plan in 2010 to produce revenues from oil and gas developments both onshore and offshore. Sheshinski was appointed as adviser to Energy Minister Yuval Steinitz, who he had worked with in the development of the original tax plan. He suggested in a Globes Israel Business interview that liquidation of the Tamar field ownership would not lower prices.  Additionally he said that Gilo’s original intent of controlling prices was unproductive.  Sheshinski was cited by Globes saying:

All in all, today’s price is reasonable by the standards of Europe, and certainly at the level of the Far East.  The price of gas in Europe is $8-10 per energy unit, and is about $15 in the Far East. Delek Drilling Limited Partnership (TASE: DEDR.L) and Avner Oil and Gas LP (TASE: AVNR.L) today reported that the average gas price in Israel in the first quarter of 2015 was $5.45 per energy unit.

Sheshinski also asserted that controls over natural gas prices might do more harm than good. “Controls give a lot of authority to a bureaucratic system, and experience does not justify optimism,” he said, adding, “I don’t see how the regulator in Israel can adapt himself to the many changes occurring worldwide in gas prices. You have to keep this as far as possible from the bureaucratic and political system.”

Globes noted the Finance Ministry’s compromise proposal for ‘soft pricing’:

The state proposed that the price of gas in future contracts be a weighted average of gas prices in the contracts that have already been signed in Israel.

Sheshinski’s assessment of the Gilo’s objective , liquidating the monopoly, that a duopoly would enhance price competition was wrongheaded:

Both global experience and economic theory explicitly state that anyone who thinks that a duopoly will cause perfect competition is wrong. In this matter, you also can rely on our experience in Israel. In a duopoly, the controlling shareholders have a common interest… some claim that a duopoly’s prices are even worse than those of a monopoly.

He went on to address the current international markets impacted by a spike in US oil and gas fracking production:

In my opinion, the goal is to ensure that gas prices in Israel are not different from those prevailing in similar countries around the world. A revolution is now taking place in global energy prices. The US is becoming the world’s biggest oil producer, and both oil and gas prices are on a downtrend. In my opinion, this trend will continue, and our goal should be not to pay more than the reasonable prices of countries in a similar situation with respect to gas reservoirs.

Another expert who happened to be in Eilat,  Israel  at an international conference  this week was a law partner from the Washington, DC firm of Greenberg Traurig, Global Energy & Infrastructure Practice co-chairman, Kenneth Minesinger,  “legal advisor of the Alaska state government in its negotiations with the oil and gas companies.”   Minesinger had these comments in a Globes interview:

I’ve been advising the Alaskan government how to negotiate with the gas companies for decades. Like in Israel, two major reservoirs were discovered in Alaska: Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson. The population there is small, and the gas industry is controlled by three companies.

Both Alaska and Israel are now trying to find out how to negotiate with the gas companies in a way that will safeguard the interests of the state and its residents, together with the gas companies’ interests.

I think that it’s necessary to act quickly in order to ensure development of the Leviathan reservoir, but hasty action motivated by panic isn’t the right way. What’s involved is an agreement that will ensure Israel hundreds of billions of shekels in revenue over the years, and serious consideration and the necessary time must therefore be devoted to this matter. In contrast to Alaska, the development project for the Leviathan reservoir is simple, but it is still difficult for an inexperienced country like Israel.

Minesinger pointed out that long term contracts must include development of a network   of adequately sized pipelines connecting fields that are developed.  Further, he suggested that pricing in such agreements should be formulaic and not based on a fixed single point basis. To overcome suspicions that developing companies might earn excessive profits Minesinger suggested distribution of profit sharing checks to Israel’s citizens akin to what Alaska presently does. He has also proposed to Alaska possible consideration of a state owned gas company.

The final comment on this week’s developments in the wake of the resignation of IAA head, Gilo, came in a Globes op ed from Norman Bailey, former Reagan national security aide and Haifa University policy expert, citing lessons learned:

The resignation of Prof. Gilo as head of the Antitrust Authority is undoubtedly good news. His reneging last December on the agreement he had made with the natural gas companies Noble, Delek and Ratio the preceding March had thrown the whole development of Israel’s offshore natural gas resources into confusion. The matter had already been badly handled by the government, which had driven out the Australian company Woodside, and Gilo’s retraction had put at risk the economic, financial and geo-political benefits of the gas discoveries. The government, after an unacceptable earlier draft, finally crafted a new, acceptable proposal over Gilo’s objections, which prompted his resignation. The lessons to be learned here are twofold: regulation is necessary but should not dominate at the expense of other relevant considerations; and agreements made should be honored, unless circumstances change fundamentally, which was not the case. Israel as a magnet for investment has been preserved.

We await announcement of an acceptable compromise plan to the parties involved to end this episode once again illustrating that  rule of law must reflect economic market realities.

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

Islamic State has 30,000 foreign jihadis from over 100 countries

30,000: that’s an awful lot of Muslims who fell for this Nothing-To-Do-With-Islam form of Islam. How to explain so many misunderstanders? After all, none of them existed in a vacuum before they joined the Islamic State. They learned their Islam somewhere. Are we to believe that the slickness of the Islamic State’s video presentations alone was enough to induce this throng to throw over the true, peaceful Islam it learned down at the corner mosque and join up with the hijackers of their religion? We live in an age of infantile analysis.

“ISIS has 30,000 foreign fighters from more than 100 countries,” by Abdelhak Mamoun, Iraqi News, May 29, 2015:

(IraqiNews.com) According to a report to the UN Security Council, nearly 30 thousand foreign fighters were recruited currently in the ISIS ranks. They came from 100 countries around the world including countries that had been untouched by the activity of terrorist groups such as Chile and Finland.

The members of the Security Council will meet on Friday to discuss a report on “foreign terrorist fighters” and consider possible measures to combat this threat.

This is the first report of its kind in the United Nations, which addresses the issue of “foreign fighters”, and includes countries such as Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq, in addition to North African countries such as Libya.

The report indicated that the number of recruits in ISIS ranks has increased by about 70% during the past nine months.

This sudden rise poses concern about the spread of extremism phenomenon globally, and breadth of its geographical scope to include several countries experiencing the stability, including European countries.

The report indicates that the flow rate of foreign fighters into Iraq and Syria is currently higher than ever before, with the emergence of signs of an accelerating growth of ISIS organization in Libya.

US officials said earlier this year that 3,400 people from Western countries, including 150 from the United States have traveled to Iraq and Syria to join militant groups.

British officials have estimated that more than 700 British have traveled to Syria during the past three years, nearly half of them returned to their country.

The report describes Iraq, Syria and Libya as “real finishing school” for terrorists, pointing out that Tunisia, Morocco, France and Russia, in particular, may contribute in terrorist attacks in the future due to the number of fighters from these countries.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Minneapolis Muslims prefer Sharia, want blasphemy laws in US

Graphic: The carnage committed in the name of Allah

The True Cost of the Snowden Revelations

More words have been spilled about the Snowden affair than almost any other story of recent years. The fall-out may disappear from the daily papers for weeks at a time, but on the internet in particular debates on ‘government spying’ and the leaking of government secrets, it has probably exceeded any other story of our time.

One reason is that the idea of being “spied upon” by the government is not only a subject which seems plausible to people who spend their life on the internet, but is an idea that flatters them. The idea that the U.S. or British government is specifically trying to find out what you have written in an email to your mother is a trend which plays not just into the conspiratorial trends of our time but also into its narcissism. Here, just maybe, is a story that can plausibly be said to be all about “me, me, me.”

It is also a subject which in a misreported form has united opinion on the political right and left. Libertarian right-wingers among others have seen the Snowden revelations as a demonstration of government over-reach, and many seem intent on destroying the national security infrastructure of the world’s leading democracies in order to win their arguments.

In fact, as Surveillance After Snowden: Effective Espionage in an Age of Transparency (released this week by The Henry Jackson Society) shows, there has been a massive amount of public misunderstanding about what the Snowden revelations actually contained. And more significantly – as our report shows for the first time – the whole affair has comprised a colossal own-goal at a critically important juncture.

The advantage in signals intelligence enjoyed by the “five eyes” has been severely damaged by this affair. Many observers have commented that the Snowden affair could have a deleterious effect on our critical security infrastructure, but this week’s new HJS report demonstrates for the first time just how serious it is, with specific examples and case studies. The analysis, which is based partly on interviews with leading practitioners, reveals how terrorist groups, in the wake of the Snowden revelations, have changed their behaviour including their communication methods. It shows how the affair has damaged British and American security capabilities overseas. And it shows how the leaks have perhaps irrevocably damaged the hitherto vital relationship between communication service providers and the state.

All these relations, and all these capabilities, are vital for ensuring the safety and security of citizens in our countries. There are debates to be had about privacy and excessive surveillance and we have had that debate feverishly, and fairly un-informatively, over the last several years. But a more useful debate to now have is over what citizens ought to accept needs to be done in order not just to ensure their own security but to ensure the ongoing security of our societies in an increasingly dangerous era.


 

mendozahjsFROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

If there is one thing we can all agree about in the Middle East, it’s that the so-called war against the Islamic State (IS) is not going well.

Limited international coalition airstrikes have produced very limited results. IS may well have been pinned back in certain areas, but as the twin captures of Palmyra in Syria and Ramadi in Iraq have shown, the terrorists remain a potent force still capable of taking the offensive. This is bad news for those Syrians and Iraqis already chafing under the burden of brutal IS rule, as well as for those of us in the West worried about how a ragtag band of criminals fending off our military might may well inspire more Western jihadists to join their ranks.

I cite military might, but the reality is vastly different. For we are treating the war against IS as nothing more than a minor distraction from the running down of our armed forces and intent to use them. Britain has the unenviable record of participating in an average of under one air strike a day in Iraq. We are not even allowed to be engaged in Syria, so fearful are we of isolationist attitudes among our Members of Parliament. The new intake of MPs has yet to be tested on this issue, but it is safe to say there is no clamour for increased intervention against this menace. Meanwhile, we hear rumours of further cuts to our already diminished armed forces.

The U.S. is in no better a situation. In the midst of its own armed forces reduction, President Obama was reportedly agonising this week over whether to introduce the very modest element of US ground target spotters to assist in air softies against the enemy. Target spotters are rather useful in situations where the terrain means that enemies can hide and correspondingly avoid being engaged. Yet even this basic requirement for limited air warfare seems beyond the desire of the US President to accede to, so transfixed he is with terror at the idea of ground troops returning to Iraq.

As long as this sad state of affairs continues, IS will have free reign to maraud and murder. We still have the power to change this horrific equation. Can we muster the will to use it?

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society

Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

Experts Reverse-Engineer Obama’s Speech-Making Template

President Obama’s recent commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy, in which he called climate change “a serious threat to national security” and linked bad weather to terrorism, revealed a pattern that some analysts say is very similar to the President’s earlier speeches, in which he linked terrorism and major security threats to quite different things and events, such as, a YouTube video, Republican budget cuts, the previous administration, and George W. Bush personally.

This has led experts to believe that there exists a speech-making template, probably in Microsoft Word, which allows Obama to insert any buzzword on his agenda in order to create a dramatic presentation that can shift the blame from himself, rally his audiences against the said buzzword, and call for immediate action.

Below are excerpts from several of President Obama’s speeches that led analysts to conclude there may have been a template involved and, in fact, to reverse-engineer parts of this template for further research.

CLIMATE CHANGE

obama climate change

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you very much. Everybody, please have a seat.

And this brings me to the urgent need to address climate change. Climate change is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people. This cannot be subject to the usual politics and the usual rhetoric.

Confronting climate change is now a key pillar of American global leadership. When I meet with leaders around the world, climate change is often at the top of our agenda — a core element of our diplomacy. Around the world, climate change increases the risk of instability and conflict. Globally, we could see a rise in refugees, mass migrations and new tensions caused by climate change. So, increasingly, our military will need to factor climate change into plans and operations.

Now, I know there are still some folks back in Washington who refuse to admit that climate change is dangerous. But our analysts in the intelligence community know climate change is a threat. The science is indisputable. Denying climate change, or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces.

Climate change will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I’m here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.

(Applause.)

YOUTUBE VIDEO

obama climate change

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you very much. Everybody, please have a seat.

And this brings me to the urgent need to address a certain YouTube video. This YouTube videois a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people. This cannot be subject to the usual politics and the usual rhetoric.

Confronting the YouTube video is now a key pillar of American global leadership. When I meet with leaders around the world, the YouTube video is often at the top of our agenda — a core element of our diplomacy. Around the world, the YouTube video increases the risk of instability and conflict. Globally, we could see a rise in refugees, mass migrations and new tensions caused bythe YouTube video. So, increasingly, our military will need to factor the YouTube video into plans and operations.

Now, I know there are still some folks back in Washington who refuse to admit that the YouTube video is dangerous. But our analysts in the intelligence community know the YouTube video is a threat. The science is indisputable. Denying the YouTube video, or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces.

The YouTube video will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I’m here today to say that the YouTube video constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.

(Applause.)

REPUBLICAN BUDGET CUTS

obama climate change

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you very much. Everybody, please have a seat.

And this brings me to the urgent need to address Republican budget cutsRepublican budget cuts are a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people. This cannot be subject to the usual politics and the usual rhetoric.

Confronting Republican budget cuts are now a key pillar of American global leadership. When I meet with leaders around the world, Republican budget cuts are often at the top of our agenda — a core element of our diplomacy. Around the world, Republican budget cuts increase the risk of instability and conflict. Globally, we could see a rise in refugees, mass migrations and new tensions caused by Republican budget cuts. So, increasingly, our military will need to factor Republican budget cuts into plans and operations.

Now, I know there are still some folks back in Washington who refuse to admit that Republican budget cuts are dangerous. But our analysts in the intelligence community know Republican budget cuts are a threat. The science is indisputable. Denying Republican budget cuts, or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces.

Republican budget cuts will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I’m here today to say that Republican budget cuts constitute a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.

(Applause.)

MY RESPECTED OPPONENT (PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES)

obama climate change

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you very much. Everybody, please have a seat.

And this brings me to the urgent need to address my respected opponent My respected opponent is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people. This cannot be subject to the usual politics and the usual rhetoric.

Confronting my respected opponent is now a key pillar of American global leadership. When I meet with leaders around the world, my respected opponent is often at the top of our agenda — a core element of our diplomacy. Around the world, my respected opponent increases the risk of instability and conflict. Globally, we could see a rise in refugees, mass migrations and new tensions caused by my respected opponent. So, increasingly, our military will need to factor my respected opponent into plans and operations.

Now, I know there are still some folks back in Washington who refuse to admit that my respected opponent is dangerous. But our analysts in the intelligence community know my respected opponent is a threat. The science is indisputable. Denying my respected opponent, or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces.

My respected opponent will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I’m here today to say that my respected opponent constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.

(Applause.)

TRY IT YOURSELF

obama climate change

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you very much. Everybody, please have a seat.

And this brings me to the urgent need to address [BUZZWORD]. [BUZZWORD] is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people. This cannot be subject to the usual politics and the usual rhetoric.

Confronting [BUZZWORD] is now a key pillar of American global leadership. When I meet with leaders around the world, [BUZZWORD] is often at the top of our agenda — a core element of our diplomacy. Around the world, [BUZZWORD] increases the risk of instability and conflict. Globally, we could see a rise in refugees, mass migrations and new tensions caused by [BUZZWORD]. So, increasingly, our military will need to factor [BUZZWORD] into plans and operations.

Now, I know there are still some folks back in Washington who refuse to admit that [BUZZWORD] is dangerous. But our analysts in the intelligence community know [BUZZWORD] is a threat. The science is indisputable. Denying [BUZZWORD], or refusing to deal with it endangers our national security. It undermines the readiness of our forces.

[BUZZWORD] will impact every country on the planet. No nation is immune. So I’m here today to say that [BUZZWORD] constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security. And so we need to act — and we need to act now.

(Applause.)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Los Angeles Shows Us the Real Reason Why Unions are Pushing for Minimum Wage Increases

Unions like the SEIU have spent millions funding “worker centers” that stage “grassroots,” “Fight for $15” minimum wage protests.

In Los Angeles, they scored a win. However, unions want to be exempted from the wage hike:

Labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.

The push to include an exception to the mandated wage increase for companies that let their employees collectively bargain was the latest unexpected detour as the city nears approval of its landmark legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020.

For much of the past eight months, labor activists have argued against special considerations for business owners, such as restaurateurs, who said they would have trouble complying with the mandated pay increase.

But Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.

On the surface it seems odd that labor unions being big proponents of raising the minimum wage would want an exemption.

But it’s not when you understand the push isn’t about raising workers’ wages; it’s about boosting union membership, as Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute explains:

Although the union-funded Raise the Wage campaigned so vociferously in favor of a $15.25 minimum wage, unions are seeking exemptions from the higher wages for their members. The exemption, or escape clause, would allow them greater strength in organizing workplaces.  Unions can tell fast food chains, hotels, and hospitals that if they agree to union representation, their wage bill will be substantially lower.  That will persuade employers to allow the unions to move in.

There’s a reason minimum wage protesters often use the phrase, “Fight for $15 and a union!”

With more union members will come more union dues and bigger budgets, Furchtgott-Roth writes:

Once the higher minimum wage bill is signed into law, with the exemption for unions, then organizing becomes a win-win for employers and unions. Unions get initiation fees of about $50 per worker and a stream of dues totaling 2 percent to 4 percent of the workers’ paychecks.

As a minimum wage increase in the Bay Area has shown, there will be pain. Businesses there have had to cut workers’ hours or close because of the additional labor costs.

Unions haven’t found a way to reverse the decades-long trend of declining membership. So instead of finding new ways of convincing workers to join unions, they come up with scheme to raise the minimum wage then demanding carve outs for themselves.

It’s blatantly obvious these minimum wage campaigns are cynical efforts for expanding union rolls.

Meet Sean Hackbarth  @seanhackbarth Follow @uschamber

RELATED ARTICLES:

Who’s Hurt Most by Los Angeles’ $15 Minimum Wage

The SEIU’s Latest Plot to Destroy the Franchise Business Model

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of protesters holding signs at a rally in support of minimum wage increase in New York City. Photo credit: Victor J. Blue/Bloomberg.

Is the U.S. State Department Taking Reports of North Korea-Iranian Nuclear Cooperation Seriously?

At today’s State Department Daily Press Briefing, spokesperson Jeff Rathke was asked by Matt Lee, AP White House correspondent about reports by the Paris-based Iranian dissident group, the National Council of Resistance in Iran (NCRI) about alleged North Korean meetings in Iran alleging discussions over nuclear program cooperation an ICBM developments.  Reuters reported the NCRI group allegation that:

Citing information from sources inside Iran, including within Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Paris-based NCRI said a seven-person North Korean Defense Ministry team was in Iran during the last week of April. This was the third time in 2015 that North Koreans had been to Iran and a nine-person delegation was due to return in June, it said.

“The delegates included nuclear experts, nuclear warhead experts and experts in various elements of ballistic missiles including guidance systems,” the NCRI said.

In response to AP’s Lee question Rathke said, “We are taking these allegations very seriously” citing various UN Security Council Resolutions sanctioning the proliferation behavior of the DPRK. That led Lee and other correspondents to inquire whether this would impact the current P5+1 negotiations in Vienna seeking to conclude a comprehensive Joint Plan of Action by June 30th.  We posted  yesterday that France’s Foreign Minister demanding that Iran agree to  UN IAEA inspectors be  given  full access to military facilities for verification of prior developments.

Watch this C-SPAN video clip on the exchanges between State Department Jeff Rathke and AP’s Lee and other reporters at today’s Press Briefing:

Satellite Image of the Sohae Launch Facility, North Korea

North Korean Sohae Missile Launch site, November 2012. Source: Space.com

The Reuters report gave indications of previous unverified reports about such cooperation between the DPRK and Iran:

The NCRI said the North Korean delegation was taken secretly to the Imam Khomenei complex, a site east of Tehran controlled by the Defense Ministry. It gave detailed accounts of locations and who the officials met.

It said the delegation dealt with the Center for Research and Design of New Aerospace Technology, a unit of nuclear weaponization research, and a planning center called the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, which is under U.S. sanctions.

Reuters could not independently verify the allegations.

“Tehran has shown no interest in giving up its drive to nuclear weapons. The weaponization program is continuing and they have not slowed down the process,” NCRI spokesman Shahin Gobadi said.

U.N. watchdog the IAEA, which for years has investigated alleged nuclear arms research by Tehran, declined to comment. North Korean officials were not available for comment.

Several Western officials said they were not aware of a North Korean delegation traveling to Iran recently.

A Western diplomat said there had been proven military cooperation between Iran and North Korea in the past.

North Korean and Iranian officials meet in the course of general diplomacy. On April 23, Kim Yong Nam, North Korea’s ceremonial head of state and Iran’s president held a rare meeting on the sidelines of the Asian-African summit in Jakarta.

My colleague Ilana Freedman and this writer have reported on Iranian and DPRK on both nuclear and ICBM developments and nuclear tests in NER and Iconoclast posts.  In a March 2014, NER, article, “Has Iran Developed Nuclear Weapons in North Korea”, we cited Freedman reporting:

According to my sources, Iran began moving its bomb manufacturing operations from Iran to North Korea in December 2012. Two facilities near Nyongbyon in North Pyongan province, some 50 miles north of Pyongyang, have become a new center for Iran’s nuclear arms program.

Over the last year, Iran has been secretly supplying raw materials to the reactor at Nyongbyon for the production of plutonium. At a second facility, located about fifteen miles north and with a code name that translates to ‘Thunder God Mountain’, nuclear warheads are being assembled and integrated with MIRV platforms. MIRVs are offensive ballistic missile systems that can support multiple warheads, each of which can be aimed at an independent target, but are all launched by a single booster rocket. Approximately 250-300 Iranian scientists are now reported to be in North Korea, along with a small cadre of IRGC personnel to provide for their security.

According to the reports, the Iranian-North Korean collaboration has already produced the first batch of fourteen nuclear warheads. A dedicated fleet of Iranian cargo aircraft, a combination of 747′s and Antonov heavy-lifters, which has been ferrying personnel and materials back and forth between Iran and North Korea, is in place to bring the assembled warheads back to Iran.

In a June 2014, Iconoclast post, “Does Iran/ North Korean Nuclear & ICBM Development Preclude A P5+1 Agreement?” we cited a Wall Street Journal report by  Claudia Rosett, journalist in residence at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Iran Could Outsource Its Nuclear –Weapons Program to North Korea. Rosett commented:

The pieces have long been in place for nuclear collaboration between the two countries. North Korea and Iran are close allies, drawn together by decades of weapons deals and mutual hatred of America and its freedoms. Weapons-hungry Iran has oil; oil-hungry North Korea makes weapons. North Korea has been supplying increasingly sophisticated missiles and missile technology to Iran since the 1980s, when North Korea hosted visits by Hasan Rouhani (now Iran’s president) and Ali Khamenei (Iran’s supreme leader since the death of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1989).

Rosett in the WSJ oped lays out the case for what the NER article demonstrated was a plausible means of evading sanctions. The evidence for that we noted was North Korean/ Iranian cooperation with Assad’s Syria creating a plutonium reactor on the Euphrates at Al Kibar destroyed by Israel’s Air Force in September 2007. We drew attention to Iranian/ North Korean joint development of large rocket boosters sufficient to loft nuclear MIRV warheads and the likelihood that Iran might have that capability within a few years. In June 2014, The Algemeiner reported an Iranian official announcing that it possessed a 5,000 kilometer (approximately 3,125 miles) range missile that could hit the strategic base of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean:

“In the event of a mistake on the part of the United States, their bases in Bahrain and (Diego) Garcia will not be safe from Iranian missiles,” said an Iranian Revolutionary Guard adviser to Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Majatba Dhualnuri.

In an April 15, 2015, Iconoclast post, “Obama Administration Knew of Illegal North Korea Missile Technology Transfers to Iran During Talks” we reported:

Bill Gertz has a blockbuster expose in today’s Washington Free Beacon of something we have been hammering away for years: the technology transfer of missile and nuclear technology between North Korea and the Iran, “North Korea Transfers Missile Goods to Iran During Nuclear Talks.”  The stunning disclosure was that U.S. intelligence has known about the illegal transfer in violation of UN arms sanctions, as apparently did the Obama Administration. You recall the statement that Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman made before a Senate hearing in early 2014. Sherman said, “that if Iran can’t get the bomb then its ballistic missiles would be irrelevant.”

Gertz went on to report:

Since September more than two shipments of missile parts have been monitored by U.S. intelligence agencies as they transited from North Korea to Iran, said officials familiar with intelligence reports who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Details of the arms shipments were included in President Obama’s daily intelligence briefings and officials suggested information about the transfers was kept secret from the United Nations, which is in charge of monitoring sanctions violations.

While the CIA declined to comment on these allegations claiming classified information, others, Gertz queried said that “such transfers were covered by the Missile Technology Control Regime, a voluntary agreement among 34 nations that limits transfers of missiles and components of systems with ranges of greater than 186 miles.”

One official said the transfers between North Korea and Iran included large diameter engines, which could be used for a future Iranian long-range missile system.

The compilation of these reports and today’s exchange at the State Department Press Briefing clearly raises the ante as to why in one reporter’s query, ‘our negotiators” haven’t simply asked  Foreign Minister Zarif in Vienna  is there such cooperation going on, backed up by the intelligence reports cited by Gertz and others?  Our suspicion is that French Foreign Minister Fabius has better feed on Iranian nuclear and ICBM developments than our CIA.  Or more likely is the Obama West Wing suggesting not to believe those lying reports in the President’s  Daily Intelligence Briefing? After all, President Obama, Secretary Kerry and Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman want nothing to stand in the way of an agreement with Iran, even it means evading the truth. Stay tuned for developments.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is from the official site of the President of The Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Black-O-Scope TV Show: A Different Look at Race in the U.S.A.

“The Black-O-Scope Show With Teddy Lane, Jr.” is a mock cable news program that tells the truth in a satirical, humorous way and expands the view of the African American community by showcasing a wide range of conservative opinions.

The show’s first guest is Oya Thomas who discusses her new book “The 5 Star Points for Success” and performs an inspiring song from her new album “Spirit of Oya.” The show’s pilot will be broadcast on Newsmax TV on June 13th and 14th, 2015 and local listings should be consulted for exact broadcast times.

The show is produced by Block Starz Music Television LLC, the company that also created the following films:

Oscar Micheaux: The Czar of Black Hollywood” is a Black Reel Award-nominated documentary film chronicling the early life and career of African-American filmmaker Oscar Micheaux (1884-1951).

“Profiles of African-American Success: A Celebration of Black Entrepreneurs Who Succeeded Against the Odds” presents ten African-American entrepreneurs who overcame incredible obstacles and achieved success against the odds in the late 19th century and early 21th century and who are brought to light with archival footage and voice-over narratives.

“Victor Young: Lamborghini Merchant & Media Mogul” profiles the life and career of African-American Victor Young who embodies the American entrepreneurial spirit, achieving remarkable success and entering the Lamborghini super car dream world, while overcoming tremendous obstacles.

“Alpha Kappa Alpha: A Legacy of Sisterhood and Service Since documents how, in 1908, on the fifteenth of January at historically-black Howard University in Washington, D.C., nine coeds, led by Ethel Hedgeman, courageously broke with tradition and founded the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated, or “A-K-A”, the first college sorority started and incorporated by African American women.

“Kenny Gamble & Leon Huff: The Sound of Philadelphia” presents the story of the writer-producer duo who founded Philadelphia International Records in 1971 which became the second largest black-owned music company in America, just behind Motown. Their songs exuded the sweet and stirring sexiness that became best known as the “Sound of Philadelphia.”

“Sylvia Robinson: The Mother of Hip Hop & Real Cookie Lyon” is a documentary about Sylvia Vanderpool-Robinson who was a singer and record executive and who revolutionized the music industry and became known as the “Mother of Hip-Hop.”

“The Million Man March: Day of Atonement” recounts how, on October 16, 1995, African American men from across the United States convened on the mall in Washington, DC in a mass rally that was a spectacular display of unity and the March’s powerful message echoed throughout America.

Now under production:

“In the Hour of Chaos” documents the little-known story of the Reverend Martin Luther King Sr. (1899-1984) – or “Daddy King” as he was known to loved ones – and his inspirational ability to persevere despite the tragic loss of his firstborn son, Martin Jr., to an assassin’s bullet in Memphis, the mysterious drowning of his youngest son Alfred and the shocking murder of his wife Alberta. While deeply emotionally wounded by this hate-inspired triple tragedy, Daddy King teamed with Jewish lawyer Murray Silver and, together, they destroyed the political career of arch segregationist Lester Maddox, ending racial segregation in the South and changing life in America forever.

ABOUT BLOCK STARZ MUSIC TELEVISION, LLC

Block Starz Music Television, LLC is an American independent film and television company based in Sarasota, Florida. The studio is best known for its documentary film “Oscar Micheaux: The Czar of Black Hollywood” that was nominated for a Black Reel Award as the “Outstanding Independent Documentary” by the Foundation for the Advancement of African-Americans in Film (FAAAF). The studio is also a leader in developing and distributing online video and original web series. Block Starz Music Television LLC was founded by independent record executive and filmmaker Bayer L. Mack as The BlockStarz.Tv Network in 2013 and organized as Block Starz Music Television LLC in 2014.

What really happened in Ireland’s election: Massive U.S.-funded “gay marriage” blitzkrieg as never seen before. Are other countries next?

Last Friday’s 62% vote in Ireland to legalize “gay marriage” has been hailed as a triumph of progressive thinking by the mainstream media and the political establishment. The outcome shocked many in the pro-family movement. But what the mainstream press isn’t reporting is even more shocking.

The well-funded propaganda blitz in full swing.

There is no question that the secularization of Ireland, the weakness of the Catholic Church and refusal of the Pope to intervene, the corrupt political class, and the relentless pro-gay media were all contributing factors to the “gay marriage” vote.

But the “Yes” vote would still have most likely failed if it had been a normal Irish election. Those same general conditions existed in many places here in the U.S. from California to Maine where “gay marriage” failed to win a popular vote.

This “culture war” election was conducted under extraordinary conditions that have never been seen anywhere before in the West. As we described in our pre-election article virtually all of the effort to pass “gay marriage” in Ireland came from massive funding from the United States – primarily a billion-dollar pro-gay foundation, Atlantic Philanthropies –  in a sophisticated campaign spanning over a decade.

Background: Years of referendum losses by the LGBT movement

To understand how this Irish election was won, a bit of history from the U.S. is in order.

Most of us forget that for over 20 years, the idea of a “gay marriage” referendum passing anywhere seemed next to impossible. From 1998 to 2009, there were 31 statewide votes to completely ban “gay marriage.” All of them won. Some won by majorities as high as 80%. Even in Massachusetts, the LGBT lobby fought furiously to keep a “gay marriage” ban from coming to a vote. Their own leaders had come to believe that the only way they would make any “progress” in the U.S. was through the courts.

The big LGBT turnaround in 2012

Then, after the their 2009 “gay marriage” referendum defeat in Maine, the homosexual movement decided to craft an entirely new approach toward elections.

They brought together groups of political strategists, psychologists, pollsters, organizing experts, and various “think tank” types. They meticulously studied the data and their election experiences and designed a new set of strategies and tactics to win against their “right wing” adversaries.

They created a sophisticated propaganda campaign. They shipped thousands of activists into key voting areas to canvass door to door. In order to soften the average people toward homosexuality and create an animus against traditional religious values, they resurrected many of the “big lie” techniques used by the 20th century totalitarian movements. For example, people were told over and over that not allowing “gay marriage” was bad for the economy and that only backward, ignorant, and superstitious people still were against it. Homosexuality was said to be the next phase of the Civil Rights movement. A key talking point was that by supporting “gay marriage” you are “on the right side of history” – a Marxist concept (later used by the Third Reich).

Fundraising became a major part of the strategy. For earlier elections they had casually raised about the same amount (or less) than the pro-family side. But now, they would tap the “gay” moneymen for very large sums of money.

And it all worked. In November 2012 they won all four statewide “gay marriage” referendum votes: Maine (a re-vote), Minnesota, Maryland, and Washington. In those races they spent between five and ten times as much as the pro-family side. Their propaganda was shrewd – for instance, putting forward friendly faces of “gay” couples who seemed just liked everyone else. Their winning margins were not large (between 51% and 53%), but they won.

Shortly after the 2012 wins, the LGBT movement published an article in a Maine newspaper describing much of their “turnaround” process. And since then, they’ve been virtually unstoppable.

Laying the groundwork in Ireland over a decade earlier

Funded primarily by Atlantic Philanthropies, the Irish LGBT lobby groups started laying the groundwork over a decade in advance. Their ambitions multi-year plan (which they later outlined HERE) included a very sophisticated and aggressive lobbying effort targeting Ireland’s key politicians, which resulted in a long string of “incremental” parliamentary successes for the LGBT movement.

The National Catholic Register recently published a very good article chronicling this.  Also, the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts has compiled a complete list of the major anti-family political actions over the past decades that helped bring Ireland to the state it’s in.

However, from the beginning the main goal from all of this for both the Irish LGBT groups and their American funders was to soften up the Irish citizenry to eventually win a nationwide “gay marriage” vote, which for constitutional reasons had to be done by a nationwide referendum. The referendum finally took place on May 22, 2015.

Ramping up for a nationwide “gay marriage” vote in Ireland

It’s one thing to get a country’s parliament to chip away at the moral underpinnings through legislation. But it’s a much different challenge to get a country with a thousand-year Catholic culture to accept “gay marriage” through a nationwide vote.

So to take on the Irish election, the LGBT movement ramped up their effort tremendously over what they did for the elections back in the U.S.

The total LGBT funding to achieve “gay marriage” in Ireland has been estimated at between $17 and $25 million – roughly 50 times what was raised and spent by the pro-family side. Their execution was planned and focused rather than scattered and haphazard as our side’s tended to be.

The campaign with lengthy and intense (and expensive) nationwide propaganda using psychological manipulation techniques to pound the entire country. The average person could barely grasp the force that was coming at him. And that was just the beginning.

The arguments were not rational or truthful, but completely emotional.

People were told over and over that those opposed to “gay marriage”:

  • Are opposed to democracy
  • Will damage lives
  • Are against human rights
  • Will hurt Ireland’s international reputation
  • Will hurt Ireland’s economy
  • Are in favor of discrimination
  • Are against love
  • Are hateful and bigoted
  • Are stupid and backwards

This all had a horrible effect on our side while galvanizing their supporters. It got to a point where people who persisted in holding these “backward” beliefs were considered inferior humans by the supporters. One could literally lose his job over it. A particularly nasty venom was directed at religious believers and the Catholic Church. Many of our people became frightened and confused, while the other side became bolder and more vicious.

The “big lie” techniques were alive and well in Ireland.

Ireland gets a lesson in ‘election mechanics’

As the election neared, the polls showed a 78% “Yes” vote coming up. But the homosexual movement knew they still weren’t safe.

Their brain trust realized early on that a great many people would simply “go underground” with their views and would vote their conscience on election day, but would respond to pollsters in a “politically correct” manner. They also knew that the bulk of hardcore “gay marriage” supporters were young people who had a terrible record of voting or even being registered.

They could still lose if those they really needed (those responding emotionally) didn’t register or vote. So months before the election – with the help of the country’s police force – they set up pro-gay marriage voter registration areas at college campuses. According to eyewitness reports, these booths illegally skipped required steps in the registration in order to process more people.  Over 50,000 college students were registered in this manner, and others already registered were identified. In addition, according to reports, they also had paid canvassers make sure that their likely supporters in the cities were registered to vote.

Then on election day, using sophisticated social media and other techniques, they had the most massive “get-out-the-vote” effort ever seen in Ireland. As a result, over 90% of  known pro-gay marriage supporters voted, and 95% of registered college voters, according to one report. On the other hand, many pro-family people, we were told, feeling overwhelmed and beaten down by the psychological techniques used against them and with no overall get-out-the-vote organization, never made it to the polls.

Nobody in Ireland had ever seen anything like this. There is no question that if the election had been conducted on an even playing field from the beginning (or even with just a 2-1 funding advantage) the “Yes” side would not have prevailed. As one Irish voter observed, “If usual voing patterns had prevailed this would have been easily defeated.”

The pro-family Irish opposition – a valiant stand

Given the odds against them and the terrible psychological battle focused against religious believers, the Irish pro-family people stepped up quite admirably. But they were on their own. “These groups received their funding from personal donations by private individuals. There was no big financial backing coming from anyone,” we were told by one of the Irish pro-family people.

This issue is very powerful — and frightening — over in Europe.

They put up as many signs as possible, even though a great many were vandalized. They passed out many thousands of leaflets in cities and also went door to door in rural areas. one organization distributed over 91,000 pamphlets. A group of 12 Baptist churches put some ads in newspapers.

We were told that the Catholic Church was very weak on this issue and did not officially call for a “No” vote. According to the Catholic Action League, at least 15 priests publicly endorsed the “Yes” campaign and at least one bishop criticized the pro-family “efforts. Nevertheless, many individual Catholic priests were outstanding in their outrcy for a “No” vote.

Lacking sophisticated planning, there was no unified message. “Every child needs a mother and father” was the common refrain, which has a much stronger meaning in Europe because of outrage over the child trafficking. Others used MassResistance information on what “gay marriage” brings to the schools and other social institutions. A few focused on the dangers of homosexual behavior.

Across the country the “No” side was much more creative.

Can this be stopped in the future?

There is talk about Italy being their next “gay marriage” target. They are also eying some of the African countries that have been holding out on “LGBT rights”.

Can this juggernaut be stopped? Of course it can – with proper resources. Everything the other side does can be picked apart and be countered. Plus, working with the truth normally has a big natural advantage. Their lies, irrationality, and thuggish tactics only work because there’s no effective opposition.

Their biggest triumph has been the LGBT movement’s ability to cut off the  money supply to frontline groups. The millionaires and billionaires ostensibly on our side could easily donate many times the money necessary to fight this effectively. But they have virtually all become emasculated by fear of the “gay mafia”. It’s quite pathetic to see, and it has had terrible consequences. So we need to create new methods of funding. Average people are more becoming more important than ever.

Also, many people in the  pro-family movement (and many donors) still do not see this as a “war” to subvert society, but as a kind of religious/secular disagreement among individuals. This often causes our tactics to be skewed and usually only marginally effective. So even when we have the money, it often gets squandered on dumb things.

Let’s hope that we can all learn something from what happened in Ireland on May 22.

This militant movement is just getting started.

Biker’s Demonstration at Phoenix Mosque

The information contained in this report is tentative and still evolving. Some aspects already aired on social and conventional media are sensationalized. The coordinators of this rally have openly discussed with media that they, and at least 160 others, are coming together outside the same mosque in Phoenix that launched the two shooters in the Garland, Texas incident on May 3rd simply because they are sick and tired of Islamic elements pushing their beliefs, codes, and general way of life onto Americans without any respect for the American culture, Constitution and Rule of Law, and values.

There is a developing belief among citizens responding to this rally cry that Americans better begin to stand for their rights and way of life, or lose them altogether! There is vocal palpable anger from citizens directed toward the growing aggressive Muslim behavior to instill Sharia Law onto Americans doing away with our judicial system. A separate national group with an Arizona Chapter, “Banners across America” has sent communications within Arizona looking to join this rally. Additional information is mentioned below:

Two organizers — Jon Ritzheimer and Flash Nelson — are the organizers of what’s billed as a peaceful demonstration outside the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix. This is the former site of worship for Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, who were killed after opening fire outside a May 3 contest featuring cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in suburban Dallas. Many Muslims consider depictions of Mohammed blaspheme. This event, scheduled for 6:15 p.m. Friday, has urged attendees to take full advantage of their Second Amendment right to carry weapons.

Here’s the Facebook post in full, verbatim:

ROUND 2!!!!!!! This will be a PEACEFUL protest in front of the Islamic Community Center in Phoenix AZ. This is in response to the recent attack in Texas where 2 armed terrorist, with ties to ISIS, attempted Jihad. Everyone is encouraged to bring American Flags and any message that you would like to send to the known acquaintances of the 2 gunmen. This Islamic Community Center is a known place that the 2 terrorist frequented. People are also encouraged to utilize there [sic] second amendment right at this event just incase [sic] our first amendment comes under the much anticipated attack.

1. Date will be Friday May 29th @ 6:15pm. This is when they normally host a large prayer.

2. Bikers wil [sic] meet at the Denny’s located at 9030 N Black Canyon Hwy Phoenix, AZ 85051@ 5:00pm. Kick stands up at 6pm.

3. There will be a Muhammad Cartoon Contest and the winner will be announced at the After Party. Participants must show cartoon at the Rally.

4. We will not have food vendors at this event because we don’t want this to turn into a carnival. People can bring snacks and water but please keep the neighborhood clean.

5. There will be an after party starting at 8:30pm at Wild Bills located at 6840 N. 27th Ave Phx, AZ.

Thank you all for your Support.

The rally is a follow-up to one earlier this month, which drew little attention. Facebook reveals little about Nelson, but Ritzheimer’s posts show him to be virulently anti-Muslim. On his personal page, Ritzheimer has photos of him waving an American flag while wearing a “Fuck Islam” T-shirt. He identifies himself as a former Marine and states he works with Dysfunctional Veterans, a group that appears to be a community for former soldiers. He told media in Arizona, “I’m a Marine, and I am far from politically correct.… I’m outspoken, and I’ve just had it.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Armed Bikers Plan to Draw Cartoons of Mohammed Outside a Mosque in Arizona

How Government Turned Baltimore into Pottersville by James Bovard

Baltimore’s recent riots are not surprising in a city that has long been plagued by both police brutality and one of the nation’s highest murder rates. Though numerous government policies and the rampaging looters deserve blame for the carnage, federal housing subsidies have long destabilized Baltimore neighborhoods and helped create a culture of violence with impunity.

Yet just last week, Baltimore officials were in Washington asking for more. Given the history, it defies understanding.

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was created in 1965, and Baltimore received massive subsidies to build housing projects in the following years. Baltimore’s projects, like those in many other cities, became cornucopias of crime.

One 202-unit sprawling Baltimore subsidized housing project (recently slated for razing) is known as “Murder Mall.” A 1979 HUD report noted that the robbery rate in one Baltimore public housing project was almost 20 times higher than the national average. The area in and around public housing often becomes “the territory of those who do not have to be afraid — the criminals,” the report said. Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke in 1993 blamed maintenance problems at one public housing projects on drug dealers who refused to let city workers enter the buildings.

In the 1990s, the Baltimore Housing Authority began collecting lavish HUD subsidies to demolish public housing projects. But critics complained that HUD was merely replacing “vertical ghettos with horizontal ones.” Baltimore was among the first cities targeted for using Section 8 vouchers to disperse public housing residents.

HUD and the city housing agency presumed that simply moving people out of the projects was all that was necessary to end the criminal behavior of the residents. Baltimore was one of five cities chosen for a HUD demonstration project — Moving to Opportunity (MTO) — to show how Section 8 could solve the problems of the underclass.

But the relocations had “tripled the rate of arrests for property crimes” among boys who moved to new locales via Section 8. A study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that boys in Section 8 households who moved to new neighborhoods were three times more likely to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder and behavioral problems than boys in the control group.

A 2009 research project on Section 8 published in Homicide Studies noted that in the one city studied, “Crime, specifically homicide, became displaced to where the low-income residents were relocated. Homicide was simply moved to a new location, not eliminated.”

Ed Rutkowski, head of a community development corporation in one marginal Baltimore neighborhood, labeled Section 8 “a catalyst in neighborhood deterioration and ghetto expansion” in 2003.

Regardless of its collateral damage, Section 8 defines Valhalla for many Baltimoreans. Receiving a Section 8 voucher can enable some recipients to live rent-free in perpetuity. Because recipients must pay up to a third of their income for rent under the program, collecting Section 8 sharply decreases work effort, according to numerous economic studies.

Last October, when the local housing agency briefly allowed people to register for the program, it was deluged with 73,509 applications. Most of the applications were from families — which means that a third of Baltimore’s 241,455 households sought housing welfare. (Almost 10% of Baltimoreans are already on the housing dole.) Section 8 is not an entitlement, so the city will select fewer than 10,000“winners” from the list.

HUD’s Federal Housing Administration also has a long history of destabilizing neighborhoods in Baltimore and other big cities. A HUD subsidized mortgage program for low-income borrowers launched in 1968 spurred so many defaults and devastation that Carl Levin, then Detroit City Council president and later a long-term U.S. senator, derided the program in 1976 as “Hurricane HUD.

In the late 1990s, more than 20% of FHA mortgages in some Baltimore neighborhoods were in default — leading one activist to label Baltimore “the foreclosure capital of the world.” HUD Inspector General Susan Gaffney warned in 2000: “Vacant, boarded-up HUD-owned homes have a negative effect on neighborhoods, and the negative effect magnifies the longer the properties remain in HUD’s inventory.”

The feds continued massive negligent mortgage lending in Baltimore after that crisis, creating fresh havoc in recent years. In late 2013, more than 40% of homes in the low-income Carrollton Ridge neighborhood were underwater. Reckless subsidized lending in Baltimore and other low-income areas helped saddle Maryland with the highest foreclosure rate in the nation by the end of last year. One in every 435 housing units in Baltimore was in foreclosure last October, according to RealtyTrac.

President Obama said the Baltimore riots showed the need for new “massive investments in urban communities.” What Baltimore needs is an investment in new thinking. The highest property taxes in the state and oppressive local regulation often make investing in jobs and businesses in Baltimore unprofitable. Only fixing that will produce a stable community. Shoveling more federal money into the city is the triumph of hope over experience.

James Bovard

James Bovard is the author of Public Policy Hooligan. His work has appeared in USA Today, where this article was first published.