TAKE ACTION: Put the brakes on the refugee resettlement program

/in , , , , , /by

Thanks to reader Denise for making a very cool flyer to remind you to call your Washington representatives to counter the lobbying campaign by the refugee industry this week.  They are ginning-up thousands of calls to Congress in advance of World Refugee Day tomorrow.

This is a very handy way to get the phone numbers for your representatives.  I just tried it, and in addition to my reps in Washington, I received phone numbers for my state reps too!

Post is filed in ‘What can you do’ because you asked!

RELATED ARTICLE: 117 Leftwing groups/refugee contractors oppose bill to BEGIN to reform refugee program

The Loophole in Background Check Thinking: Criminals Obey the Law

/in , , , , , , /by

Gun control groups expend an awful lot of ink, time and money advocating for “common-sense public safety laws” like “universal” background checks because such restrictions, they claim, will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people.

It’s peculiar, then, that many of these entities don’t do a better job of background-checking their own adherents and associates. Not too long ago, then-California state senator Leland Yee (D), whose staunch support of gun control measures earned him a spot on the Brady Campaign’s “Gun Violence Prevention Honor Roll,” was accused of committing various felonies, including illegal firearms trafficking and money laundering offenses. Following a plea agreement in which he acknowledged his participation in a firearms trafficking conspiracy, among other offenses, Yee was sentenced to five years in jail.

Members of the Michael Bloomberg-founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), now reconfigured as Everytown for Gun Safety, popped up in the news with such embarrassing regularity due to arrests and convictions for crimes, including gun crimes, that the New York Post ran an editorial in 2013 titled “Illegal mayors against guns.”

And last month, a criminal complaint filed in federal court in Illinois alleges that a certain Francisco Sanchez violated a federal gun law that prohibits possession of a firearm by a felon. The snag is that at the time, Mr. Sanchez (a.k.a. “Smokey”) was apparently working as a supervisor at CeaseFire Illinois, as highlighted in a February feature by the Everytown-funded website, The Trace.   

The affidavit in support of the criminal complaint states that Mr. Sanchez was convicted of murder and aggravated battery in 1986, and adds the more disturbing allegation that he is the “national leader of the Gangster Two-Six Nation,” a street gang “prevalent throughout Chicago” and in other states. Mr. Sanchez’s arrest occurred as part of a larger federal investigation of gang-related gun and drug trafficking in which other suspected gang members or associates were apprehended and over 100 firearms were seized.

Of course, the complaint contains only allegations, not evidence, and Mr. Sanchez and his fellow defendants remain innocent until proven guilty. However, the arrests – which took place shortly before the Memorial Day weekend – coincided with a drop in gun homicides as compared to last year’s holiday weekend.

We’ve written before about how criminals get guns, including this study at Chicago’s Cook County Jail that concluded criminals bypass legal sources in favor of guns obtained from “family, gang members, or other social connections.”

Expanded background check laws won’t stop criminals because criminals ignore the law. Nonetheless, Everytown and others of its ilk will continue to call for ever-increasing restrictions and laws affecting law-abiding gun owners in the name of prohibiting felons, violent criminals, and gang members from obtaining guns. Honest gun owners will continue to do what they’ve always done: obey the law.

Europeans Are Paying to Subsidize Jihadists by Barry Brownstein

/in , , , , , , , /by

Does the European welfare system promote hate by allowing people to avoid learning the lessons of mutual dependence and cooperation that the workplace teaches?

All Men Are Brothers

Consider for a moment how little we can do for ourselves. The food we eat, the clothes we wear, the fuel we burn are mostly obtained through the efforts of others. Would we not perish in short order without what Rose Wilder Lane calls the “brotherhood of man”?

Rose Wilder Lane was the daughter of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Rose played a crucial role in bringing her mother’s Little House on the Prairie books to life. Lane’s deep understanding of the human condition shines through in her classic book, The Discovery of Freedom.

Since we cannot survive on our own, Lane explains, “All men are brothers, of one blood, of one human race. They are brothers in one imperative desire to live, in one desperate necessity to combine their energies in order to live.” Thus, “The brotherhood of man is not a pretty phrase nor a beautiful ideal; it is a fact.”Lane adds pointedly, “Men who behave as if the brotherhood of man were not a fact, are alive to do so only because it is a fact.”

In other words, those who harm others are themselves able to thrive only because the efforts of others.

Work is one way through which we learn to create value for others. At work, we are unlikely to succeed if we don’t experience the common humanity we share with our colleagues and customers.

Become a Stranger to Humanity

Now, consider the consequences when able-bodied individuals are paid to not work.

When we don’t work because taxpayers are supporting us, it is easier to lose touch with our common humanity with others. Without creating value for others, we may never develop the facility to appreciate the “brotherhood of man” that keeps us alive.

When individuals no longer must cooperate with each other to thrive, they have perverse incentives to act against the natural brotherhood of man. In Europe, jihadists and potential jihadists are paid to separate themselves from the brotherhood of man.

Consider these facts:

  1. According to The Telegraph, the Manchester bomber Salman Abedi “is understood to have received thousands of pounds in state funding…even while he was overseas receiving bomb-making training.” Abedi never held a job in his life.
  2. Danish citizens who have been granted a “disability” pension have gone to Syria to fight on behalf of ISIS. Other Danish jihadists are receiving unemployment benefits.
  3. When the German newspaper Bild “ran an analysis of the 450 German jihadists fighting in Syria, it found that more than 20% of them have received benefits from the German state.”
  4. Before the notorious radical Islamist preacher Anjem Choudary was convicted and jailed on terrorism charges in 2016, taxpayers in England had funded his hate-filled sermons for over two decades. Choudary had been receiving more than 25,000 pounds a year in benefits and was living in a home worth over 300,000 pounds. (Note, the English pound is worth more than the U.S. dollar.)
  5. Choudary encouraged his followers to not work and instead to live off government benefits: “The normal situation is to take money from the kuffar [non-believers]. You [the kuffar] work, give us the money, Allahu Akhbar.” In Choudary’s warped world, he and his fellow jihadists are entitled to live off the labor of others.

Undermining the Brotherhood of Man

A basic economic law is that you get more of what you subsidize. The more you pay a person to not work, the more isolated, the more alienated that individual can become.

Are subsidized and alienated individuals more receptive to messages of hate? If the subsidized embrace hatred, their thoughts of hatred may go unchallenged by the realities of work life that demand cooperation, not conflict, with others.

If we understand our existence depends on our brothers, we understand the truth of Lane’s observation: “Any man who injures another, injures himself, for human welfare is necessary to his own existence.”

The jihadist living off the sweat of others has no such understanding. Jihadists may believe God is on their side, but radical jihadism is at odds with the truth of the brotherhood of man.

The great divide is not between Muslims and non-Muslims. The great divide is between those who respect the brotherhood of man and those obsessed with hatred.

Why is Europe undermining the brotherhood of man by subsidizing those who hate?

Reprinted from Intellectual Takeout.

Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein

Barry Brownstein is professor emeritus of economics and leadership at the University of Baltimore. He is the author of The Inner-Work of Leadership. He delivers leadership workshops to organizations and blogs at BarryBrownstein.com, and Giving up Control.

It Would Have Been a Massacre by Jeffrey A. Tucker

/in , , , , , , /by

The horrifying scene at a practice field in Alexandria, Virginia, at which Congressman Steve Scalise was shot in a shocking flurry of gunfire, could have been much worse. Rand Paul pointed out that “it would have been a massacre” had a member of the House leadership not been there. His presence guaranteed that the heavily armed Capitol Police could take him down. Many others present expressed similar feelings. They were sitting ducks. If the offensive gunfire could not be met by defensive gunfire, the bloodshed would have been far worse.

As this case shows – and there are millions more like this one – force must be met with force to stop the violence.

The aftermath will include all the usual questions. What were the gunman’s motivations? Shooter James T. Hodgkinson’s Facebook page shows that he is a supporter of Bernie Sanders and socialism generally. Where did he get the gun? Did he obtain it legally with all the appropriate background checks? What does this scene imply about gun regulations and controls on distribution?To some degree, all these questions are beside the salient point. As this case shows – and there are millions more like this one – force must be met with force to stop the violence. If a murderous monster has the most firepower in the space, everyone else’s life is in the balance. The calls for gun control refuse to deal with this reality. To the extent they succeed in restricting people’s rights to defend themselves and others, they bear moral culpability for an increasingly violent society.

Defense Use

What happened at the baseball park was a classic case of defensive gun use. In the entire debate over guns, this is the point I find most compelling in a practical sense. Despite being raised in a gun-owning family, and having spent many hours at gun ranges and owning some myself, they are not my favorite things, which is to say I don’t really like them. I have no romantic attachment to them at all. I would rather live in society without them.

There is a strong reason for people like me to hope for a wide distribution of guns and firing skills.

And yet a society without guns is not an option. Given this, there is a strong reason for people like me to hope for a wide distribution of guns and firing skills. It is precisely because of my attitude, and others like me, that I hope that there are plenty of others out there, who have my back in case like this.The use of guns for defensive purposes makes the strongest case there is for liberalization of gun laws. Trevor Burris comments:

The prevalence of defensive gun use (DGU) is one of the most hotly debated issues in gun control policy. In the words of one study produced by the National Research Council, measuring DGU “has proved to be quite complex, with some estimates suggesting just over 100,000 defensive gun uses per year and others suggesting 2.5 million or more defensive gun uses per year.” That’s quite a range, but if it falls anywhere in that range then it is still a lot of DGU.

The dispute about the number of DGUs centers primarily on the definition of defensive gun use and the method of counting it. When the Bureau of Justice Statistics performs the National Crime Victimization Survey they ask about DGU, and they generally reach a number around 100,000. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck and others have criticized that method because many people are understandably unwilling to tell a government agent that they have brandished or fired a weapon in self-defense. They may not know if what they did was legal, and they may illegally possess the weapon, to name just two concerns. Thus Kleck performed surveys designed to reach just defensive gun use without creating biased concerns in his subjects. Through that method he reached the number 2.5 million.

Feeling Safe

This is why the prevalence of private owners carrying guns makes me feel safer. To be sure, there are bad actors but the best foil to them are good actors who serve as a counterforce. Once you pay attention, you see examples everywhere.

Knowing that there is no way for government to ban guns — there is a black market in nearly every country with severe restrictions — the best protection for everyone is for ownership to be widespread and distributed through the population.

So I would like to make a plea to my fellow citizens: please buy guns. Carry them. Keep them in your homes and cars. It’s especially important to do this in public places, where freak murderers could conceivably lurk. The weapons should be loaded and dangerous, capable of killing with one shot.

I want every robber around every corner to hold the expectation that anyone he mugs is carrying a deadly weapon.

I especially desire this, because I don’t want to do this. I don’t like them. I don’t want them in my home. I don’t like shooting at the range. I don’t like looking at them, shopping for them, cleaning them, or even thinking about what they do to others. I loathe violence of all sorts, and hope to never have to use it. I’m a pacifist in spirit.The only way I can really hope to get away with indulging my temperament here is if others are willing to pick up the slack. I want burglars, kidnappers, thieves, and would-be mass murderers of all sorts to believe that every home in my neighborhood is heavily armed and populated by fearless gun owners – and for them to believe that my home is among them.

I want every robber around every corner to hold the expectation that anyone he mugs is carrying a deadly weapon. I would like to sit in theaters, airplanes, and restaurants where the trolls and scum among us believe that they could pay the ultimate price for savagery.

The thing is that I do not want to personally contribute to this cause in any way. I’m not up to it.

For Every Jew a 42

A friend who grew up in Brooklyn in the 1960s said this was a common slogan in his neighborhood: “For every Jew a 42.” It was commonly understood that if the Jews had been heavily armed in Germany, instead of systematically disarmed by the state as they were, the rise of the Nazis would have been checked, and perhaps the Holocaust could have been prevented. Neither he nor his friends were particularly interested in doing this but the point was clear. Today, he too hopes to be a free rider on gun nuts. I’m with him on this point.

What the law is should have nothing to do with our own personal choices about what we like or dislike, do or do not do.

As regards guns, as with marijuana and prostitution, what the law is should have nothing to do with our own personal choices about what we like or dislike, do or do not do. This view seems nearly extinguished in our world today. If you don’t drink sodas, you are happy to ban them. If you don’t like heroin, you think others should be prevented from consuming it. If you don’t like guns, you want them banned.Stand Up For Rights

That’s not how the free society works. The preservation of freedom requires that we be willing to stand up for the rights of others to own and do things we do not like but which harm no one, or, in the case of guns, actually save lives.

For this reason, I have far more respect for the teetotaler who favors a free market in liquor than I do for the heavy drinker who favors them same. Non-smokers should stand up for the right to smoke. And so too should people who do not own guns and have no desire to own guns stand up for the right to possess and carry.

Especially in the case of guns, those of us who do not want to handle guns have a special and personal interest in defending not only gun rights but also the proliferation of weapons among the citizenry. It’s the only way that we can truly deter crime and stop crime in public places when it is unleashed.

The only real means to prevent the emergence of a world safe for criminals and government is to see the proliferation of guns among everyone else. I’m sorry, but I will not do my part in this respect. But I will defend the rights of others to do so, with a sincere hope that they will own, train, and be ready. Yes, I’m a free rider, but gun owners need to know that I’m truly grateful.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Jersey Democratic Strategist Defends Shooting Republicans

The Shameful Response of the Left to Attempted GOP Massacre

Leftists Know No Shame As Writer Posts Most Vile Tweet EVER About Alexandria Shooting

Australian Prime Minister mocks Trump at journalist gathering in Canberra

/in , , , /by

Check out the news here at Australia’s Nine News.

So here’s my idea!

Nauru refugees in Australia

Donald Trump could get the last laugh by cancelling the “dumb deal” Obama agreed to that would bring up to 1,250 of Australia’s unwanted so-called ‘refugees’, presently held in offshore detention facilities, to (your!) American towns.

Bringing them here would save Turnbull’s political neck, while American taxpayers foot the bill and risk our lives! Some deal!

See my post yesterday about the deal! (A deal implies both sides get something!).

Looking for something you can do? 

Contact the White House and tell them to scrap the “dumb deal” with Australia!

Click here.

Then tell your Congressman too!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

BIG MEAT wants the cheap refugee labor, no wonder Congress won’t reform law

Refugees do NOT bring in more tax dollars than they consume in social services

EU launches legal action against 3 countries refusing refugees

Profile of Terrorist James T. Hodgkinson: From disbelief to anger to violence to mayhem to mass murder [Videos]

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Steve Scalise, the majority whip of the House of Representatives. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times

For Democrats free speech has morphed into hate speech. Hate speech has morphed into violence and mayhem in the streets and on college campuses across America. Hate speech then morphed into action. Action became a politically motivated mass shooting at a baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia with five wounded and the shooter dead. Among those critically wounded was Steve Scalise, the Republican majority whip of the House of Representatives.

All of this carried out by armed Democrat James T. Hodgkinson who specifically targeted unarmed Republicans, their families, children and supporters.

The below video was taken at the Republican Congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Virginia:

The narrative from Democrats is two fold. Deny this act of pure hate was politically motivated. Point to anything other than the individual who carried out this crime against humanity, i.e. focus on the gun. The proper responses to what James T. Hodgkinson, with malice and forethought, did are blame the shooter for the shooting, the terrorist for terrorism.

James T. Hodgkinson

Democrats are relentlessly yelling “fire” in a crowed political theater. The predictable result is assassination for political purposes.

18 U.S. Code § 871 – Threats against President and successors to the Presidency states:

Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Alex Jones notes,

“Days ago a standing ovation for the simulation of the assassination of the President of The United States. And now, a baseball practice loaded with Republican congressman and staffers became a live mass shooting event. James T. Hodgkinson was identified as the shooter that railed off over 50 shots at the 100 year old traditional event that included children. He was killed by Capitol Police. House Majority Whip was shot in the hip and transported to the hospital along with four others.”

Here is a short video and pictorial profile of a loyal “Democrat Socialist”, supporter of Senator Bernie Sanders, member of “Terminate Republican Party” and now known terrorist James T. Hodgkinson.

James T. Hodgkinson in 2011 at Occupy Wall Street rally:

Social media posts by James T. Hodgkinson:

Responses by liberals to the mass shooting:

RELATED ARTICLES:

20 Liberal Calls For Violence Against Conservatives in Quotes

James T. Hodgkinson Belonged to ‘Terminate the Republican Party’ Facebook Group

Hodgkinson Was Occupy Protester, Attacked the “One Percent”

Shooter Was Bernie Bro Who Joined ‘Terminate Republican Party’ Group

Shooting turned GOP baseball practice into ‘killing field’

After shooting, soul-searching on United States’ polarization

Gunman attacks GOP lawmakers

Leftists Know No Shame As Writer Posts Most Vile Tweet EVER About Alexandria Shooting

Qatar – the end of the road?

/in , , , , /by

Analysis: The Saudis and their Arab allies have had enough of Qatar and its media proxy al Jazeera’s behavior. They intend to win this fight.

The Emirate of Qatar is a peninsula that juts out from Saudi Arabia into the Persian Gulf. The only overland route out of Qatar is by way of Saudi Arabia and if that route is blocked, the only way to reach Qatar or leave it is by air or sea. However, flights to and from Qatar pass over Saudi air space part of the time and ships from or to Qatar have to pass through Saudi territorial waters. This means that Saudi Arabia can in effect declare a total blockade on Qatar if it so desires. It has never done so before, but it began the process on June 5th.

In addition to a blockade, the Saudis, joined by the United Emirates, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Mauritius, the Philippines and the Maldives, cut off diplomatic and consular relations with Qatar.  Egypt, Libya and the Emirates declared that they would ban Qatari plans and ships from their air space and territorial waters. In 2014, these countries took much milder steps in order to punish Qatar, cancelling them once Qatar agreed to accept the dictates of the Umma and signed the Riyadh agreement along with the rest of the Arab nations.

The reasons provided by the countries involved for the unprecedented severity of the current steps against Qatar included: “Qatar aids the Muslim Brotherhood and other terror organizations such as Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS and Jebhat al-Nusrah” and “The Emir of  Qatar has declared that Iran is a good nation” as well as “Qatar destabilizes our regime,” as well  as ” Qatar provides hiding places and shelter to Muslim Brotherhood leaders who fled there from Egypt,” and “Qatar is giving aid to  the Houthi rebels (read Shiites) in Yemen.”

Another and most subtle reason, whose source is a Kuwaiti commentator, appears on al Jazeera‘s site: “Qatar refused to meet Trump’s financial demands.” This odd remark relates to a rumor on Facebook and other social network sites claiming that before Trump agreed to come to the Riyadh Arab League Conference, he demanded the Gulf Emirates purchase US arms in the legendary sum of one and a half trillion dollars, to be divided among Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Emirates. The three agreed, but Qatar pulled out at the last minute, causing the Emirates to follow suit, and leaving the Saudis holding the bill demanded by Trump.   The falling through of this deal, the largest in history, may have been the reason for Trump’s noticeably grim face in Riyadh.

Claiming that Qatar causes the destabilization of regimes is a veiled hint referring to al Jazeera which broadcasts from Qatar. Every since it began broadcasting in 1996 from the capital city of Qatar, Doha, al Jazeera has infuriated Arab rulers because it constantly carries out a media Jihad against them also aimed at others such as  Israel, the US, the West and Western culture. The channel also promotes and supports the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots such as Hamas, al Qaeda and the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel headed by Sheikh Raad Salah. Al Jazeera‘s media strategy is determined by Qatar’s Emir and is carried out down to the last detail by its very professional leading broadcaster and editorial policy setter, Jamal Rian, a Palestinian born in Tul Karem in 1953, who moved to Jordan where he was active in the Muslim Brotherhood until expelled by King Hussein.

Every so often other Arab regimes, chief among them Egypt under Mubarak, attempted to close down al Jazeera‘s offices in their countries after overly harsh criticism was aimed at the ruling government, only to reopen them when al Jazeera simply stepped up its attacks

The general feeling is that any government official – or anyone at all – who opposes a ruling regime (and there is no shortage of these people in any Arab country) leaks embarrassing information to  al Jazeera all the time, so that the channel is always poised to expose the information when the time is ripe and especially if the now-cornered victim has been unfriendly to it and to Islamists. The thought of this happening is enough to paralyze every Arab leader who would like to clamp down on al Jazeera in his country.

Every time a conflict erupts between Israel and Hamas, al Jazeera comes out in favor of the terrorist organization because of Qatar’s support of it. Hamas leader Haled Mashaal, makes his home in Qatar and the Qatari Emir is the only Arab leader so far to visit Hamas-ruled Gaza. The Emir has give billions to Hamas, enabling the organization to develop its  terror infrastructure.

Qatar has budgeted half a billion dollars to “buy” organizations such as UNESCO (whose next head will, unsurprisingly, be from Qatar), as well as media, academic and government figures to advance the goal of removing Jerusalem from Israeli hands. Al Jazeera runs a well publicized and organized campaign in order to ensure this outcome. This is the face of media jihad.

Saudi Arabia has never allowed al Jazeera‘s reporters to work from within the country, but does allow them to cover special events once in a while, mainly the Hajj. The Saudis know exactly what the Emir had up his sleeve when he founded a media network that would rule over Arab monarchs by means of recording their slip-ups, taking advantage of the Arab obsession with avoiding public humiliation by broadcasting from a satellite that can reach every house in the Arab world with no way of blocking it.

The last reports are that the Saudis blocked access to the al Jazeera internet site from their territory.  It is harder to block al Jazeera‘s satellite channel reception legally and it can still be accessed throughout the monarchy. Arab media attribute the blockage to declarations supportive of Hamas and Hezbollah made by the Emir of Qatar after Trump’s speech in Riyadh in which the US president included Hamas and Hezbollah in his list of terror organization, equating them with al Qaeda and ISIS.

Sorry, but I do not buy that story. Declarations about third parties (Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah) are ordinarily not the reason a public dispute erupts between Iranian monarchs. In my opinion, the reason for blocking the al Jazeera site in Saudi Arabia is a photograph posted on the al Jazeera site while Trump was in Riyadh.

This photo shows King Suleiman of Saudi Arabia awarding the Gold Decoration, the highest honor of the Saudi monarchy, to Donald Trump, but that is not the reason it was posted on al Jazeera. The reason has to do with the woman appearing in it and standing between Suleiman and Trump. I do not know what her name is, but she accompanied Trump during his entire stay in Riyadh standing just behind him and carrying a briefcase. Perhaps she is an interpreter. She is carrying a briefcase filled with important documents that have to be with Trump all the time in one picture as he, of course, would not be seen carrying a briefcase and standing be

What is interesting about this woman is that she spent the entire time in the royal palace with her hair uncovered, like Melania Trump, the First Lady, did, even though women with uncovered hair are not to be seen in Saudi Arabia. In the palace, women are also not allowed to b e seen in the company of men. Al Jazeera posted this photo intentionally, in order to embarrass the king who granted Trump an award even though he was accompanied by women who, like those in the picture, who do not cover their hair. That photo of the king was the last straw and the Saudis blocked al Jazeera.

Qatar is now under great pressure. The nations that broke off relations with Qatar have stopped recognizing the Qatari Rial as a viable currency and have confiscated all the Qatari Rials in their banks. As a result, Qatar cannot purchase goods with its own currency and must use its foreign currency reserves. The supermarket shelves in Qatar have been emptied by residents hoarding food for fear that the blockade will not allow food to be imported. Long lines of cars can be seen trying to leave for Saudi Arabia to escape being shut up in the besieged, wayward country.

Qatar is trying to get the US to help improve the situation. The largest American air force base in the Gulf is located in  Qatar and it is from there that the attacks on ISIS are generated. Qatar also hosts the US Navy Fifth Fleet as well as the Central Command and Control of US forces in that part of the world. Qatari media stress the US concern about the siege that the Saudis have put on Qatar.

As part of its efforts to enlist US aid, Qatar has begun a counterattack: Qatar media have publicized that the U.A.E. ambassador, Yousef Al Otaiba , said on US election eve: “What star could make Donald Trump the president?” This is intended to cause a rift between the US and the Gulf Emirates, but will certainly not improve Qatar’s own relations with the Emirates.

Meanwhile, the Saudis and the Emirates have ejected Qatar from the coalition fighting the Houthis in Yemen, and there are rumors that they will also remove Qatar from the Council for Cooperation in the Gulf. The Saudis could suspend Qatar’s membership in the Arab League and other organizations if this dispute continues, raising the pressure on the Emir’s al-Thani clan.

The next few days will decide Qatar’s future. There  is a distinct possibility that the foreign ministers of Qatar and the Arab nations taking part in the boycott against it will meet in some neutral spot, perhaps Kuwait, Qatar will give in and new rules will be set by Arab leaders, that is by King Suleiman, to keep Qatar in line. They would include: toning down al Jazeera and perhaps even switching its managerial staff, ending the support for the Muslim Brotherhood and other terror organizations, ending cooperation with Iran and above all, listening to what the Saudi “Big Brother” says about issues, especially those having to do with financial dealings with the US. Once the conditions for Qatari surrender are agreed upon, we can expect the ministers to meet the press, publicize a declaration on the end of the intra-family dispute, shake hands before the cameras and smile – until the next crisis.

There is, however, another scenario: Qatar does not give in, the Saudis and its allies invade, their armies eject the Emir and Mufti of Qatar, and also Jamal Rian, the guiding brain behind Al Jazeera’s  policies. They would then appoint a new Emir from the ruling family, one who knows how to behave, one who listens to the Saudis.  No one except for Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas would oppose this solution, and the soft-spoken condemnations will not succeed in hiding the world’s joy and sighs of relief if the Saudis actually carry out that plan.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva, translated by Rochel Sylvetsky, Op-ed editor and senior consultant Israelnationalnews.com.

RESULTS: 420 of 439 companies (96%) stop advertising on Huffington Post

/in , , , /by

Florida Family Association’s communications with advertisers informs them about the fake news of Islamophobia pushed by the Huffingtonpost.com and the harm to public safety that it can influence.  While we are opposing a media outlet’s propaganda we are also educating corporate officials on who the players are and why they should not do business with them.

The Florida Family Association office has communicated with four hundred thirty nine (439) companies since April 2016 regarding their advertising at Huffingtonpost.com as of May 31, 2017.

  • A total of four hundred twenty (420) companies stopped advertising.  Ninety six percent (96%) f the companies did not advertise again after receiving emails from the Florida Family Association office or after receiving emails from thousands of people in response to Florida Family Association’s online campaigns.  The names of the Companies that Have Not Advertised Again and Companies that Continue to Advertise are listed at the bottom of this article.
  • Four hundred one (401) companies stopped advertising after receiving communications from the Florida Family Association office.
  • Nineteen (19) companies stopped advertising after being profiled in an online campaign at Floridafamily.org.
  • Nineteen (19) companies continued to advertise.

The following chart shows the progress of this campaign.

Number of Percentage of
Companies companies that companies that Number of companies
Contacted stopped advertising stopped advertising that kept advertising
September 211 150 71% 61
October 231 190 82% 41
November 270 237 87% 33
December 310 281 91% 29
January 323 298 92% 25
February 372 351 94% 22
March 398 369 93% 29
April 422 400 95% 22
May 439 420 96% 19

Why is it important to urge companies to stop advertising at Huffingtonpost.com?

•    Islamophobia propaganda is the top tool Islamists use to influence Americans to ignore advancement of Sharia doctrine in the United States.  Unfortunately, it intimidates people to the point of stifling free speech in a manner that hurts public safety.  Labeling people or groups as Islamophobes is intended to influence them to stop criticizing Islam.   Fear of being branded an Islamophobe played a role in suppressing communications that may have had different results for the lives of 63 people in San Bernardino and Orlando.

  • One article wrongfully places the blame on Christians and Jews in a manner that creates contempt for Christianity and Judaism.
  • The reports published by the news media do influence the political positions of the public.  Huffingtonpost.com is one of the largest liberal progressive media outlets in America.
  • Florida Family Association’s opposition campaign educates hundreds of officials at American companies about the harm caused by erroneous Islamophobia propaganda.  The thousands of emails that company officials receive reveal that there are many Americans who find Islamophobia propaganda deceitful, harmful and offensive.

Fourteen examples of Huffington Post’s Islamist propaganda articles are posted at the bottom ofthis article.

In many cases, Florida Family Association is the only organizations in the country that is deploying email campaigns to confront Corporate America regarding Islamist issues.  We are able to do this because we do not rely on web advertising dollars or contributions from Corporate America to fund our operations.  Instead, our operations depend totally on donations from individuals.  This makes us independent and free to address issues involving any company.

Your support makes it possible for us to take on these tough issues.  If you would like to support Florida Family Association’s efforts with a gift please click here.

Ninth Circuit rules, HIAS crows as Judicial coup is confirmed

/in , , , , , /by

It is not a surprise that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against the President and his legal Constitutional power to keep America safe.

I’m in a hurry this morning to get to my chores, so just want to give you Daniel Greenfield’s reading of the decision here at FrontPage magazine:

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Announces It Is In Charge of Determining National Interests

Here is his opening paragraph:

The Judicial coup against democracy rolls on. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals announced with its latest ruling that it has the powers of the executive branch. To understand how insane the latest illegal and unconstitutional judicial effort to block common sense migration reform is, here are the powers that the 9th has decided it possesses.

Continue reading his excellent analysis.

As I have said till I’m blue in the face, I regret the fact that the 50,000 CEILING was announced in an Executive Order when the President already had the power to admit any number under the 110,000 CEILING set by Obama last September without even mentioning any cap.  He could have quietly slowed the flow the minute he took office.  At that time we had admitted just over 30,000 refugees in this fiscal year.  Now, the Trump State Department is approaching 50,000 with months yet to go.

But, more troubling is the utter confusion created by proposing a complete ‘travel ban’ from six countries in the same EO as an announcement on refugee admission numbers and a temporary moratorium from across the world (across all nationalities and all religions).  What a mess!

Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society cheers along with two other federal resettlement contractors which have a financial stake in keeping numbers of refugees high—they are paid by the head to place them in your towns and cities.

HIAS was joined in its amicus brief by the International Rescue Committee and the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants—all multi-million dollar federal resettlement contractors who have a pecuniary interest in the outcome.

HIAS press release yesterday begins:

WASHINGTON—Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the challenge to President Trump’s March 6 executive order barring the resettlement of refugees for 120 days, banning the entry of people from six Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, and cutting the overall number of refugee admissions for the year by more than half. The challenge was initiated by the State of Hawaii on behalf of individuals impacted by the executive order, and supported by HIAS and other refugee and human rights advocates in the public and private sector.

After hearing oral arguments before a three-judge panel on May 15, the court has affirmed the injunction on the parts of the order that would suspend entry of nationals from the six designated countries, suspend refugee admissions for 120 days, and cap the number of refugees to be admitted this fiscal year at 50,000. This ruling will allow refugees to continue finding safety in the United States through the refugee admissions program, unless the Supreme Court chooses to reverse the Ninth Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit case does not address the 50,000 CEILING issue. So, let’s hope that lawyers for the Justice Department are doing their homework and separating the CEILING issue from the ‘travel ban.’

And, HIAS knows they are on shaky ground regarding the President’s power to limit the numbers from all over the world (all religions/all ethnic groups) and so they continue to mix the ‘Muslim travel ban’ issue with the 50,000 cap to confuse their donors and the uninformed public.

If you missed it, see (here) how far below the CEILING other Presidents have gone—even Obama was tens of thousands below some of his earlier CEILINGS.

Also, see that HIAS, a federal contractor dependent on millions of your tax dollars, organized an anti-Trump rally, here in February.  There ought to be a law—federal contractors shouldn’t be able to stage anti-government protests!  Did they use any federal dollars???

Imagine the outrage if a military contractor was staging demonstrations because they wanted more federally-funded work!

Islam Is The Enemy

/in , , , , /by

Islam is the enemy.

Apparently these four words are the most difficult for anyone in elected positions to utter, yet they hold the key to victory over an entrenched adversary who intends to destroy our way of life.

Those Americans who understand the necessity of honestly naming the enemy are increasingly frustrated by the willful blindness on the part of leadership to address an indisputable Islamic strategy of global conquest. This blindness thus handicaps the majority of elected officials and their advisors. No wonder we see them stumbling in the dark trying to find politically correct adjectives so as not to offend the liberals, establishment, and Muslim advocacy groups.

When Islam is not named as the enemy, it results in the placement of Muslims and others complicit and/or ignorant of their doctrine into sensitive jobs. Some of these jobs actually entail overseeing what is acceptable training for our law enforcement and military. One weighty example was when John Brennan took advice from a Muslim woman, Ms. Farhana Khera, regarding specific training given to those groups just mentioned.

Ms. Khera, president and executive of Muslim Advocates, wrote a letter to Brennan who was then the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism and Deputy National Security Advisor to Obama. In the letter, dated October 19, 2011, she proceeded to lay out all the “offensive” material the FBI and military trainers were using, and demanded they be purged.

Fifty-seven Muslim groups signed Khera’s letter, the same number of members in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). This is probably no coincidence; but, someone would have to understand the Islamic movement to recognize it. Those working to undermine our Constitution in order to pave the way for a Caliphate don’t normally act randomly, but with purpose.

Brennan obliged Khera like a dutiful subordinate, and purged what any rational person would agree to be factual teaching, not biased, false, or offensive. If the material had been allowed to remain within law enforcement and military training, it would have undoubtedly saved American lives.

Obviously leadership that goes along with the Islamic Movement narratives, don’t seem to do any homework on Islam itself, or they wholly are in line with its objectives of subversion. See John Brennan’s response to Khera here.

Some objections of Khera were quotes in an Army Command and General Staff College report dated May 21, 2009, which states:

“Moderate Muslims are not exercising moderation; they are simply applying other means to accomplish the same goal of establishing global Islamic dominance.”

And, “Islamic doctrine is based upon the establishment of its culture in dominance of all others. In essence, all other cultures must not only accept, but convert or submit, to Islam.”

The Koran 9:29 proves those statements have relevance as it states,

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

And in Koran 60:4, which was used by Bin Laden to remind other Muslims what their relationship should be with non-Muslims, or infidels says,

“We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us-till you believe in Allah alone.”

Few elected officials, like Senator Ted Cruz, have educated themselves on these issues. He presided over a Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts in June of 2016, called, “Willful Blindness: Consequences of Agency Efforts to Deemphasize Radical Islam in Combating Terrorism.”

“Willful Blindness,” was taken from the title of a book by Andrew McCarthy, federal prosecutor and lead investigator of the Blind Sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman. McCarthy sat on the panel of expert witnesses.

The description of the hearing included the qualifier, “radical,” even though McCarthy’s work revealed to him that these mastermind terrorists were simply following Islamic doctrine, not some bastardized version. Strangely enough, in addition to McCarthy and notable others on the panel, was the very Ms. Khera who had written the infamous letter that was largely responsible for the cleansing of factual training necessary to understand our enemies.

“Radical”, “extreme”, and other words used to describe Islam allow for an established premise.  The premise is based on an assumption that something in Islamic doctrine is being hijacked, or used against its original intent. However, this is not so. For instance, the Koran has over one hundred verses advocating violence against non-Muslims or kaffirs. Muslims are to behave just like Mohammad did, and follow their doctrinal books to the letter, which necessarily places them in the category of our enemy.

How can we rely upon leadership to make the right decisions for America when they are uninformed, willfully blind, to the threat Islam poses to our free Republic?

There are brave counter terrorism experts who’ve researched and studied this threat – why won’t our elected representatives (at all levels of government) accept their assistance rather than relying on the afore mentioned Islamic advocacy groups?

These experts spend their lives studying this enemy and desire to protect our Constitution, something authentic Muslims are working directly to undermine. Any reasonable person briefed on the reality of Islam has no other choice but to come to the conclusion that Islam is the enemy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Political Correctness and the Bloody Hands of Manchester

The Palestinian-North Korean Connection

America’s Ramshackle Marijuana Laws

/in , , /by

I was speaking to a legislator this week readying himself for his vote on Florida’s medical marijuana legislation when he posed an interesting question: How can we defend voting in favor of any medical marijuana legislation if in so doing we are essentially passing a state law that is prohibited by federal law?

It’s a great question! Not only because it cites a potential and obvious quandary, but also because it speaks of matters of preemption and federal supremacy.

Article I, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution reads that the Constitution and laws of the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” and clear as it may appear, it took a Civil War and hundreds of thousands of American deaths to settle this question. But although the question has been settled conceptually, controversies still arise about the extent of that doctrine and the limitations of its scope.

Enter the medical marijuana debate.

Clearly unconstitutional, but…

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA), first passed in 1970, is very clear in Congress’s intent to cover the field of regulating mood-altering drugs such as marijuana.

Citing the lack of any medically accepted use, its high risk of abuse, and its lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, the Food and Drug Administration classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. As such, the use, possession, or manufacture of marijuana is a federal criminal offense, except when used as part of a federally supported research project. There is no exception in federal statutes for any medical use of marijuana.

It would appear, then, that federal law is completely clear on its prohibition of medical marijuana.

So, how is it possible that a state can pass a law, or even a constitutional amendment legalizing marijuana, for any purpose?

The short answer, of course, is that a state may not do so. The closest case to directly address this matter was decided by the Supreme Court of Colorado in 2015; Coats v. Dish Network, LLC.  In it, the Colorado Supreme Court summarized the concept of federal supremacy and said that an activity deemed lawful under state law, but unlawful under federal law, cannot be construed to be a lawful activity.

In other words, just because the state says medical marijuana is legal does not make it legal because such a declaration is superseded, and preempted, by federal law.

This being the case, it should be easy to argue that any state law, whether it is mandated by the state’s constitution or passed by a state legislature is unconstitutional because it would be offensive to the Supremacy Clause.

Maybe not unconstitutional

But here’s the rub.

In 2014, Congress passed the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to keep a state from implementing laws relating to the use, possession, distribution or cultivation of medical marijuana. As a result, the federal government, specifically the DOJ, cannot interfere with a state sanctioned medical marijuana program.

So, is medical marijuana legal in a state that has implemented such a program? Odd as it may sound, the best answer I can give you is that it is not legal, but Congress has decided not to do anything about it — for now, or maybe forever.

Is it Constitutional under the Supremacy Clause? This question has not yet been decided, and it is ultimately up to the courts to make the call, but I will give you my opinion. In order for a law to be offensive to the Supremacy Clause, Congress must act in a manner that makes clear its intent to preempt all conflicting laws. Although the Controlled Substance Act qualifies as such a law, the injection by Congress of the medical marijuana provision in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act gave the states the autonomy they need to regulate medical marijuana.

As a result, if asked, I believe the courts will rule that state laws relating to medical marijuana are not unconstitutional despite the prohibition in the Controlled Substances Act.

Clear as mud!

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Soros Watch and new Clinton emails

/in , , , /by

President Obama “weaponized” the agencies of our government to advance his leftist agenda both at home and abroad.  Little reporting was done regarding his funneling of tax dollars to an organization run by George Soros that sought to impose left-leaning policies on other nations.  We’re in the lead in shedding some light on that misdeed.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for records relating to their funding of the political activities of the Soros Open Society Foundation – Albania (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (No. 1:17-cv-01012)).

We sued last week here in DC after both State and USAID failed to respond to our requests for:

  • All records relating to any contracts, grants or other allocations/disbursements of funds by the State Department (USAID) to the Foundation Open Society-Albania (FOSA) and/or its personnel and/or any FOSA subsidiaries. Such records shall include, but is not be limited to proposals, contracts, requests for funding, payment authorizations, invoices, and similar budget records, as well as any and all related records of communication between State Department officials, employees, or representatives and officials, employees, or representative of the U.S. Agency for International Development.
  • All records of communication between any officials, employees or representatives of the State Department (USAID), including but not limited to U.S. Ambassador Donald Lu, and any officials, employees or representatives of Foundation Open Society-Albania, its subsidiaries and/or affiliated organizations.
  • All assessments, evaluations, reports or similar records relating to the work of Foundation Open Society-Albania and/or its subsidiaries or affiliated organizations.
  • All records of communications transmitted via the State Department’s SMART system sent to or from any employee of the U.S. Government operating under the authority of the Chief of Mission in Tirana that pertain to Foundation Open Society-Albania, its subsidiaries and/or affiliated organizations.

In a March 14, 2017, letter to Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson, six U.S. Senators (Sens. Lee (R-UT), Inhofe (R-OK), Tillis (R-NC), Cruz (R-TX), Perdue (R-GA) and Cassidy (R-LA)) called on the secretary to investigate the relations between USAID and the Soros Foundations and how U.S. tax dollars are being used by the State Department and the USAID to support left-of-center political groups who seek to impose left-leaning policies in countries such as Macedonia and Albania.

In the letter, the senators reference USAID funding of Soros activities in Macedonia and then cite similar activities in Albania:

Much of the concerning activity in Macedonia has been perpetuated through USAID funds awarded to implement in entities such as George Soros’ Open Society Foundations. As the recipient of multiple grant awards and serving as a USAID contractor implementing projects in this small nation of 2.1 million people, our taxpayer funded foreign aid goes far, allowing Foundation Open Society-Macedonia (FOSM) to push a progressive agenda and invigorate the political left…

This problem is not limited to Macedonia, but appears to follow a pattern of alarming activity in this volatile region. Respected leaders from Albania have made similar claims of US diplomats and Soros-backed organizations pushing for certain political outcomes in their country. Foundation Open Society-Albania (FOSA) and its experts, with funding from USAID, have created the controversial Strategy Document for Albanian Judicial Reform. Some leaders believe that these “reforms” are ultimately aimed to give the Prime Minister and left-of-center government full control over judiciary power.

Soros’ association with the State Department in Albania goes back at least to 2011 when Soros urged Hillary Clinton to take action in Albania over recent demonstrations in the capital of Tirana. Fox News reported on August 17, 2016, that:

Newly leaked emails and other files from billionaire George Soros’ web of organizations are shedding light on the liberal powerbroker’s extensive influence in political and diplomatic affairs.

One email chain shows the Wall Street titan in 2011 personally wrote then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, urging intervention in Albania’s political unrest. Within days, an envoy he recommended was dispatched to the region.

In May 2016, USAID announced that it was providing $9 million for the “Justice for All” project in Albania “to improve the performance of Albanian courts by introducing comprehensive judicial standards for efficiency, transparency, accessibility, and accountability.” According to the announcement, the project “will be implemented by USAID Contractor East-West Management Institute” (EWMI). According to EWMI’s 2011 financial report, it has received funding from the Soros Economic Development Fund: “loans … of up to $1,000,000.”

This is our second FOIA lawsuit to uncover the truth about the scandal of the Obama administration’s siphoning of tax dollars to the Soros operations in Europe. We expect the Trump administration to finally let the sunlight in on this gross politicization of our tax dollars.

On April 19, 2017, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) for records and communications relating to the funding and political activities of the Foundation Open Society-Macedonia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (No. 1:17-cv-00729)).

In February, we reported:

The U.S. government has quietly spent millions of taxpayer dollars to destabilize the democratically elected, center-right government in Macedonia by colluding with leftwing billionaire philanthropist George Soros, records obtained by Judicial Watch show. Barack Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to Macedonia, Jess L. Baily, has worked behind the scenes with Soros’ Open Society Foundation to funnel large sums of American dollars for the cause, constituting an interference of the U.S. Ambassador in domestic political affairs in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

Here’s how the clandestine operation functions, according to high-level sources in Macedonia and the U.S. that have provided Judicial Watch with records as part of an ongoing investigation. The Open Society Foundation has established and funded dozens of leftwing, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Macedonia to overthrow the conservative government. One Macedonian government official interviewed by Judicial Watch in Washington D.C. recently, calls it the “Soros infantry.” The groups organize youth movements, create influential media outlets and organize violent protests to undermine the institutions and policies implemented by the government. One of the Soros’ groups funded the translation and publication of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” into Macedonian. The book is a tactical manual of subversion, provides direct advice for radical street protests and proclaims Lucifer to be the first radical. Thanks to Obama’s ambassador, who has not been replaced by President Trump, Uncle Sam keeps the money flowing so the groups can continue operating and recruiting, sources in Macedonia and the U.S. confirm.

I’ll be sure to report to you as appropriate if and when we finally get documents on this scandal (I worry the money is still flowing—even under the Trump administration).

Judicial Watch Uncovers Shocking New Clinton Emails

Let’s remember that amid the miasma of charges and accusations hovering over Washington the real scandal of the Clinton email scheme is being exposed – without fanfare in the press – as bureaucrats reluctantly relinquish the evidence to the only game in town when it comes to fighting and exposing government corruption – Judicial Watch!

This week JW released 2,078 pages of documents revealing yet more instances of the former secretary of state sending and receiving classified information via an unsecured email server. They also show Clinton’s daughter Chelsea and others involved with the Clinton Foundation receiving special favors from Huma Abedin, the former secretary’s deputy chief of staff.

The records were obtained in response to a court order from a May 5, 2015, lawsuit filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) after it failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking: “All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-‘state.gov’ email address.”

The new documents include 115 Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 432 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department. These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.

On December 6, 2010, Secretary Clinton shared classified information with non-U.S. government employees Justin Cooper, then-aide to President Clinton who helped manage Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email system, and Clinton Foundation director Doug Band (neither of whom held security clearances). The email instructs her aide Oscar Flores to “print for Bill” (presumably Bill Clinton). The email exchange, which involved allegations of the theft of foreign aid by Bangladeshi banker and major Clinton Foundation donor Muhammad Yunus, started with an email from an unidentified person to State Department official Melanne Verveer, who forwarded her exchange on to Hillary Clinton, who then sent it on to Flores, Cooper and Band.

Yunus was accused of embezzling $100 million from the Grameen Bank he founded and was removed from it, although the charges were never proven, and Yunus reportedly returned the money. Subsequently, Clinton’s State Department was accused of threatening IRS action against the Bangladesh prime minister’s son in an attempt to stop a Bangladesh government investigation of Yunus.

In a similar instance on March 14, 2011, State Department official Maria Otero emailed Clinton information about the Grameen Bank/Foundation that was again deemed classified as Confidential by the State Department and redacted under FOIA exemption B1.4(D) – “Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy … Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.” Clinton then responds to Otero using her HDR22@clintonemailcom account and copies Abedin on Abedin’s unsecure email account, huma@clintonemail.com.

In a May 21, 2011, email exchange sent to Abedin’s unsecure account, then- Ambassador Princeton Lyman sent information relating to his conversation with South Sudan President Salva Kiir Mayardit that is also redacted and classified as “Confidential.”

On July 17, 2012, Abedin forwarded to her private email account for printing a call briefing sheet for Clinton’s upcoming call with Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan, which was classified Confidential and redacted under FOIA exemption B1.4(D).

The new Abedin emails also reveal additional instances in which Clinton’s then- scheduler Lona Valmoro forwarded the former secretary of state’s detailed daily schedule to top Clinton Foundation officials.

The new emails also reveal a number of favors that were requested and carried out.

In May 2010, Ben Ringel, whose donations to the Clinton Foundation Judicial Watch previously documented, asked Abedin to intervene in an employment dispute on behalf of a USAID employee. Abedin agreed, telling Ringel to forward the woman’s documents to her official State Department email account.

Also in May 2010, Abedin tells Band that she has “hooked up” people from the Russian American Foundation with “the right people” at the State Department after Abedin received a request from Russian American Foundation Vice President Rina Kirshner, forwarded by Clinton Foundation donor Eddie Trump (no relation to President Trump).

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Huma Abedin <Huma@clintonemail.com> wrote:
Hi Rina – wanted to connect on meeting at state department. Eddie trump passed on your email. Will be in touch soon

From: Rina Kirshner
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:29 AM
To: Huma Abedin
Subject: Re: Eddie Trump/Doug Band

Ms. Abedin,

Just wanted to follow up and express our gratitude. I was contacted today by Ms. Christina Miner who invited us to be part of the US-Russia Cultural Sub-Working Group meeting next week. Thank you very much for all your assistance – if there is any way we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,

Rina Kirshner

From: Huma Abedin [Huma@clintonemail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:19:12
To: Doug Band
Subject: FW: Eddie Trump/Doug Band

fyi – we hooked her up with the right people here

The Russia-American Foundation, which was staffed by Clinton political supporters and operatives, received over $260,000 in grants for “public diplomacy” from the Clinton State Department, and its leadership was supportive of Obama’s Russia policies.

In July 2011, when Chelsea Clinton, using the alias Diane Reynolds and the email address dreynolds@clintonemail.com, was planning to fly to Germany to see the U.S. women’s soccer team play, her travel agent asked Abedin to confirm that Chelsea’s travel costs could be placed on her parents’ credit card. In response, Abedin tells the agent that she can “stand down” from making arrangements to get Chelsea to Germany, as Chelsea and Bari Luri, Chelsea’s Clinton Foundation chief of staff, would be made part of the “official delegation” going to the match and she would “fly on official govt plane both ways and they will take care of hotels and all transportation.” Chelsea was a fully employed Clinton Foundation executive at this time.

In July 2011, Hillary Clinton tells Abedin that she doesn’t wish to fly on the same airplane with Michelle Obama on their way to Betty Ford’s funeral: “I’d be honored to speak. Is it ok that we and Mrs. O take two separate planes?”

A December 15, 2012, email chain shows that a committee of Clinton staffers, including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines, was required to draft a “doctors statement” as to why Hillary supposedly fainted due to “dehydration,” causing her supposedly to hit her head and suffer a “concussion” in December 2012. The same committee then prepared a “discharge statement” when Hillary was released from the hospital.

These shocking new Clinton emails show why the Justice Department should reevaluate, reopen, or reinvigorate Clinton, Inc. investigations. The casual violation of laws concerning classified material and noxious influence peddling show the Clinton State Department was “corruption central” in the Obama administration. No wonder Clinton’s allies in the State and Justice Departments have been slow-walking and hiding these emails.

There are more emails to come, so check back often over the next few weeks and months.

The Amazing Arrogance of the Paris Climate Agreement by Jeffrey A. Tucker

/in , , , , /by

It was December 12, 2015, when headlines in the world’s leading newspapers, in implausibly bold type, celebrated the “historic” agreement in Paris between all nations of the world to curb carbon emissions and thereby stop climate change: or so they said, as if elites get to say what is and is not historic.

The spin, like the agreement itself, was crammed down our throats.

I read the stories that day, and the next and the next, and the continuing coverage for weeks that nearly every reader – apart from a few dedicated activists and permanent regime bureaucrats – ignored. The stories appeared on the international pages and didn’t touch the business pages. Energy stocks weren’t affected in the slightest.The stories had all the signs of dutiful public service announcements – “fake news,” as they say today – and they contained not a single quote from a single dissenting voice, because, of course, no respectable news outlet would give voice to “climate deniers.”

Deniers?

Let me pause to protest this “denial” language. It attempts to appropriate the widely shared disgust toward “Holocaust denial,” a bizarre and bedraggled movement that belittles or even dismisses the actual history of one of the 20th century’s most egregious mass crimes against human rights and dignity. Using that language to silence questions about an attempt to centrally plan the energy sector is a moral low that debases the language of denial.

This rhetorical trick reveals all you need to know about the desperate manipulation the climate planners are willing to engage in to realize their plot regardless of popular and justified skepticism concerning their regulatory and redistributionist policies.

And what are the specifics of that agenda? The Paris Agreement is a “voluntary” agreement because its architects knew it would never pass the US Senate as a treaty. Why? Because the idea of the agreement is that the US government’s regulatory agencies would impose extreme mandates on its energy sector: how it should work, what kinds of emissions it should produce, the best ways to power our lives (read: not fossil fuels), and hand over to developing world regimes billions and even trillions of dollars in aid, a direct and ongoing forcible transfer of wealth from American taxpayers to regimes all over the world, at the expense of American freedom and prosperity.

And you wonder why many people have doubts about it.

The Trumpist Reaction

Consider what else was going on December 12, 2015. Donald Trump was in the midst of a big battle for the Republican nomination. He started with 16 challengers to beat. He was widely considered to be a clownish candidate, a guy in it just to get press attention to build his business brand. Surely the American system of electoral politics, largely but imperfectly managed by responsible elites, would resist such demagogues. Besides, the media that trumpeted the Paris Agreement would be on hand to shame anyone who supported him. He couldn’t win.

The press mostly pretended that he wasn’t happening. The Huffington Post put coverage of his campaign in the humor section.

And so President Obama came home from the Paris meetings to the acclaim of all the right people. He alone had made the responsible choice on behalf of the entire country: every business, every worker, every consumer, every single person living within these borders who uses some measure of this thing we call energy. He would be our master and commander, ruling on our behalf, fresh off cocktail parties in Paris where the best and brightest – armed with briefcases full of government-funded science – decided to give the Industrial Revolution its final comeuppance.The exuberant spokespeople talked about how “the United States” had “agreed” to “curb its emissions” and “fund” the building of fossil-free sectors all over the world. It was strange because the “United States” had not in fact agreed to anything: not a single voter, worker, owner, or citizen. Not even the House or Senate were involved. This was entirely an elite undertaking to manage property they did not own and lives that were not theirs to control.

The Backlash

And then Trump spoke. He said that this Paris bit was a bad deal for Americans. We are already in a slow-growth economy. Now these global elites, without a vote from Congress, are presuming to mandate massive controls over the economy, hampering its productive sector which benefits everyone and transferring countless billions of dollars out of the country, with the acquiescence of the party in power.

He spoke about this in a way that bested all his opponents. The entire scenario fed his America First worldview, that the global elites were operating as parasites on American prosperity and sovereignty. His answer was to put up the wall: to immigrants, to trade, to global managerial elites, and reclaim American sovereignty from people who were selling it out. It was another flavor of statism (globalism and nativism are two sides of the same coin), but it tapped into that populist vein of the voting public that looks for a patriotic strongman to save them from a distant ruling class.Everything about the Paris Agreement seemed structured to play into Trump’s narrative of how the world had gone mad. And then he won the nomination. Then he won the presidency. None of this was supposed to happen. It wasn’t part of the plan. History took a different course from what the power elite demanded and expected to happen. Not for the first time.

How Dare Anyone Dispute Our Plans?

But the “globalists” of the type that tried to make Paris work have a stunning lack of self-awareness. They pretend to be oblivious to the populist resentment they breed. They act as if there is not a single legitimate doubt about the problem, their analysis of cause and effect, the discernment of their selected experts, or their proposed coercive solution. And there certainly isn’t a doubt that their mighty combination of power, resources, and intelligence can cause all the forces in the universe to adapt to their will, including even the climate that King Canute himself said could not be controlled by kings and princes.

As with countless other statist plans over the last hundred years, they figured that it was enough to gather all the right people in one room, agree to a wish list, sign a few documents, and then watch the course of history conform to their wishes.The Paris Agreement is no different in its epistemological conceit than Obamacare, the war on drugs, nation-building, universal schooling, or socialism itself. They are all attempts to subvert the capacity of society to manage itself on behalf of the deluded dreams of a few people with power and their lust for controlling social and economic outcomes.

Rejecting Elite Politics

How far are the Democrats from recognizing what they have done? Very, very far. John C. Williams, writing in the New York Times, has decried the “The Dumb Politics of Elite Condescension”:

“As a progressive, I am committed to social equality – not just for some groups, but for all groups… Everyone should have access to good housing and good jobs. That’s the point… Too often in otherwise polite society, elites (progressives emphatically included) unselfconsciously belittle working-class whites. Democrats should stop insulting people.”

That would be a good start. But it is not only about rhetoric. Policy preferences have to change. A global agreement that somehow binds entire countries to centrally plan and regulate the whole of a crucial sector of economic life that supports all economic advances of our time – at the very time when the energy sector is innovating its own solutions to carbon emissions in the cheapest possible way –  is certainly going to breed resentment, and for good reason. It is a bad and unworkable idea.

Continued reliance on undemocratic, uneconomic, imposed strategies such as the Paris Agreement will only further feed the populist revolt that could end in the worst possible policy combinations of strong-man nationalism, nativism, protectionism, closed borders, and backwards thinking in general. No good can come from this. The backlash against globalism can be as dangerous as globalism itself.You might think that the election of Trump would offer some lessons. But that is not the way the arrogant minds behind the climate agreement work. They respond by merely doubling down on disdain, intensifying their commitments to each other, heaping more loathing on the workers and peasants who have their doubts about these deals.

Trump and his ilk abroad, backed by voting masses with pitchforks and torches – and not a managed transition from fossil fuels to clean energy – are their creation.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s Pull Out from Paris Accords Puts America First and Multinational Banks and Corporations Last

EDITORS NOTE: Get trained for success by leading entrepreneurs.  Learn more at FEEcon.org

Canada to expedite asylum claims from Yemen and Egypt

/in , , , , , , /by

That is what Refugees Deeply is reporting here.  (To learn more about the pro-more-refugees site, go here.)

Trudeau and Trump earlier this year.

Obama junior (Justin Trudeau) is ‘welcoming’ the Muslim world to Canada while President Donald Trump has appealed the so-called travel ban case to the Supreme Court.

One of the countries whose citizens Trump would at least temporarily ban (as Trudeau welcomes them!) is Yemen.

Canada to Expedite Entry of Refugees From Yemen and Egypt

Canada has added war-torn Yemen and repressive Egypt to its fast-track asylum list. The inclusion of the two countries will mean swifter decisions on refugee status for nationals of those countries.

Egyptians and Yemenis seeking asylum will still have to secure a tourist or other visa to reach Canada and apply. It will mean a smaller hearing and quicker decision once they make it there.

Petra Molnar, a migration researcher, told the Middle East Eye that the expedited country list aims to recognize that conditions in certain countries may “require a faster processing.”

Canada’s existing expedited list includes Syria, Iraq and Eritrea, with Burundi and Afghanistan also expected to be added this month. [Yikes!–ed]

A claimant from one of the designated countries still has to prove his or her need for protection.

Yemen is in a state of civil war that has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters, with 19 million of its 28 million people in need of aid. Egypt under the government of Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has locked up hundreds of thousands of people in a crackdown on all forms of opposition.

Readers, most of those al-Sisi is trying to control are the Muslim Brotherhood agitators.  The ‘Brothers’ are banned in Egypt.  At one point Donald Trump talked tough about banning them here as well.

I have 196 previous posts on Canada, go here to learn more about what is happening north of our unsecured border.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

UN High Commissioner for Refugees in U.S. to lobby Trump Admin; needs more of your money

NYT: How Tyson Foods and its greedy demand for cheap immigrant labor ‘saved’ an Iowa town

Finally, Conservatives are Fighting Back!

/in , , , /by

For years, I have been extremely frustrated with my fellow Republicans and Conservatives allowing Leftists/Democrats to dictate how we’re allowed to fight for our ideas. Meanwhile, Leftists/Democrats can promote whatever violence inciting lie they deem necessary. Remarkably, despite overwhelming evidence proving otherwise, Leftists are still promoting the lie that black criminal Michael Brown was gunned down by a white racist cop while surrendering with his hands up.

Leftists can say and do disgusting things publicly in front of innocent children outrageously decreed by fake news media to have the moral high ground.

Here are just a few examples of what I am talking about. On Trump’s Inauguration Day at the anti-Trump Women’s March in D.C.,thousands wore what they crudely called p***y hats. My late mom would have been shocked and extremely embarrassed. Madonna boldly proclaimed her desire to blow up the White House. Fakes news media would have demanded the immediate prosecution of a tea party person saying the same.

In 2010, over a million Tea Party Americans gathered in Washington DC to oppose Obamacare. The peaceful polite crowd left the place cleaner than they found it. Fake news media despicably told our country it was a mob of haters against their black president. Leftists routinely trash the cites of their rallies.

Democrats countered the Tea Party with their own fake spontaneous movement called Occupy Wall Street. The assorted groups of anti-American fruits and nuts in attendance were highly praised by Democrats and fake news media. They were allowed to break the law; leaving mountains of trash and committing crimes which included rapes. Occupy Wall Street operatives disgustingly dumped a bucket of feces into the lobby of a public building.

With no rebuke from fake news media, Black Lives Matter protesters marched down a New York street chanting, What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now!!!” 

Recently, the California Democrat Chair instructed his audience, “All together now, f*ck Donald Trump!”

As a black Tea Party activist who has participated in over 500 Tea Party rallies, never have I witnessed such language toward President Obama.

Rush Limbaugh created a fake news media firestorm and was deemed a traitor when he courageously said because he loves his country he hoped Obama’s mission to transform America failed. And yet, fake news media celebrates the Democrats’ “Resistance Summer” movement against Trump. Is it a stretch to say that Leftists openly attempting to block Trump’s efforts to make America great again is an act of treason?

Vile Leftist activist Kathy Griffin published a disgusting photo of her holding the bloody beheaded head of President Trump. Imagine the tsunami of fake news media outrage had a Tea Party person published such a photo holding Obama’s bloody head.

Rabid Leftist Trump hater and TV host Bill Maher made mean-spirited incest jokes about Donald and Ivanka Trump. Again, imagine the furious anger and dire consequences had a conservative made such jokes about Obama and his daughters.

Do you see the pattern folks? Leftists lay down all kinds of rules for us, while they are allowed to behave without laws or rules of human decency.

Leftists’ ultimate goal is to silence all opposition to their mission to transform America. Emboldened by their successful removal of big-fish Bill O’Reilly from Fox News, Leftists are going after powerful conservative TV and radio host Sean Hannity.

Thank God, finally, conservatives are waking up and fighting back. Brian Maloney and Melanie Morgan have declared it time to stop the scalpings, launching “Operation Fight Fire With Fire.” I love it! Atop their list of extreme Leftists to push back against their lies is Rachel Maddow. Folks, I know you join me in thinking, “It’s about time!”

Candidly, I am still basking in the after glow of Trump’s election, thanking and praising God for delivering us from the edge of losing our country had Hillary won. But, we must stay engaged in the battle to preserve our victory. Freedom ain’t free folks. Enraged Leftists have cranked up their no-holds-barred opposition to Trump setting us free from Obama’s legacy to unprecedented levels. Even treason against their country is deemed an acceptable tactic to remove Trump from office to resume Obama’s transformation of America.

As God gives me strength, that ain’t happenin’ on my watch.