Must Read Archives - Page 310 of 436

Islamic influx: Why a Religious Test for Immigrants is Moral and Wise

November 20, 2015/in Culture War, Immigration, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Religion/by Selwyn Duke

With the Paris terror attack and flooding of Western nations with Muslim migrants, Senator Ted Cruz and others have proposed limiting Muslim immigration into the U.S. In response, Barack Obama and John McCain have said that having a “religious test” for newcomers would be un-American. It’s a belief betraying dangerous philosophical juvenility.

Before getting to the deeper issues, it doesn’t take an Aristotelian mind to grasp the following: If one million Chinese Christians immigrated to our nation, the probability is decent that not even one of them would turn to terrorism. The same cannot be said of Muslim newcomers. And as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, if 1/10th of 1 percent of 1,000,000 of them are terrorists, that’s still 1,000 dangerous jihadists. Terrorism today is a Muslim phenomenon.

Even more dangerous, though, is the modernistic phenomenon of false moral equivalence. Would you say it was un-American to apply an ideological test to immigrants and deny entry to Nazis or communists? People will say that’s different; on an instinctive level, we view our ideology as superior to others and some ideologies as downright evil. But what is the substantive difference among them? It’s that they espouse different values. And unless we’re moral relativists, we understand that because of this they cannot all be morally equal.

Now consider: Different religions also espouse different values. This is largely why we can call them “different” religions. Conclusion?

They cannot all be morally equal.

You’ll only say otherwise if, again, you’re a moral relativist. But if relativism is “reality,” it then follows that no ideology can be better than another, either. If Christianity and Hinduism were equal despite their different values, so would liberalism and conservatism be; if Judaism and Islam were, so would libertarianism and Nazism be. “Values” are either relative or they’re not — you can’t have it both ways.

What follows from this is that religions, like ideologies, can run the gamut from the good to the bad to the ugly, from the ethereal to the excremental. The Aztecs’ religion, like so many pagan ones, required human sacrifice on a massive scale, and the Christian religion put an end to it. The Romans’ pagan religion allowed for the brutality of the arena, and the Christian religion put an end to it. I’ve heard many conservatives say “Islam is not a religion,” but the truth here is a bit simpler: similar to ideology, religion isn’t bad, but there is bad religion.

In point of fact, the distinction between “secular” and “religious” is, in the most important sense, a false one. Many today, awash in militant “secularism,” talk and behave as if the labels “secular” and “religious” alone are enough to qualify an idea for or disqualify it from the public square and the stuff of laws. This notion has no basis in reason and ignores the only distinction that really matters.

What would this be? Well, if Marxism is a destructive lie (in sum), what is more significant, that it’s labeled “secular” or that it’s untrue? If God’s existence is a reality, what is more significant, that we label the idea “religious” or that it is true? There’s only one distinction of any consequence whatsoever: the true and the untrue. Everything else is water-muddying, pseudo-intellectual verbiage.

In other words, at bottom people don’t believe in “ideologies,” “religions” or “philosophies.”

People believe in things.

Some of those things are good and true, others are bad and false. And if what people believe is bad and false — whatever water-muddying label it wears — there’s every reason not to vote for them. There also may be good reason not to befriend or hire them, depending on the degree and nature of the badness. There may be reason to keep them out of your home.

And there certainly may be reason to keep them out of your national home.

It should be noted that when Charles Martel saved Europe from a Muslim invasion in 732 A.D. and when the responses to Islamic aggression known as the Crusades were launched in 1095, people understood the above well. In fact, the earliest known uses of the terms “religious” and “secular” were, respectively, 1200 and 1300; even so, they didn’t have their current meanings. “Secular” as in “in reference to humanism and the exclusion of belief in God from matters of ethics and morality,” only dates from 1850.

Thus, during Christendom’s formative years, adolescence and rise to dominance, people did in fact view the world more clearly in the most important sense: they understood that there was simply the true and untrue. Maybe now we can understand why Pope Benedict XVI identified the 13^th or 14^th century as the West’s high water mark.

So what changed? Why are we confusing ourselves with terminology? Well, a prerequisite for believing something is “true” or “untrue,” in a real sense, is believing there is a yardstick for thus measuring things, namely Truth. And most contemporary Americans (and other moderns), as this 2002 Barna Group study shows, don’t believe in it. They are relativists.

Since many well-meaning readers occupy this group, I ask you to bear with me and consider the following carefully. Here’s how I always explain this matter: who or what determines what we call right and wrong? There are only two possibilities: either man does or something outside of and above him does — namely God (if the agency outside us weren’t above us, there’d be no reason to defer to its “law”). Consider the implications of each position. If an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect and benevolent being that created the Universe — the physical reality we see — also created moral reality (Truth), then we can say right and wrong is a real thing, unchanging, nonnegotiable and inerrant. It’s not merely a matter of “perspective” or feelings.

But what if, as the ancient Greek Protagoras said, “Man is the measure of all things”? Well, if you learned that the vast majority of the world liked vanilla but hated chocolate, would this make chocolate “bad” or “evil”? Of course not. We know it’s merely a matter of taste.

Alright, but how is murder any different if the only reason we believe it’s “wrong” is that the vast majority of the world dislikes the idea of killing others in a way they consider “unjust”? If it’s merely consensus preference — if there’s nothing more we can cite as evidence of this thing called “wrongness” — then it occupies the same category as flavors: taste.

Some may now say, “C’mon, Duke, we’re talking about finishing off people, not dessert! This is a moral issue.” Again, though, absent Truth, the category of “moral issues” would also be man’s invention, also just a result of the consensus preference that some preferences should be classified differently from other preferences. And, hey, to echo that popular relativist refrain, “Don’t impose your values on me, dude.”

This helps explain why many people subscribe to the ObaMcCain no-religious-test notion. We have become so relativistic that we, at bottom, view religions merely as flavors of the day. Why don’t we apply the same to ideologies, whose “values” would also be relative? Simply because, absent a belief in Truth, people’s tendency to operate based on emotion is exacerbated. And emotion isn’t logical. Most relativists haven’t truly thought their ideas through carefully and applied them consistently. If they had and nonetheless wouldn’t dispense with their relativism, they’d conclude what Friedrich Nietzsche and occultist Aleister Crowley had, expressed by the latter as “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” (And in this case they’d realize they, logically, could treat “religion” and “ideology” differently because relativism dictates that consistency can be no better than inconsistency. Few people would make this logical but foolish decision, though, as opposed to the millions who can be influenced wrongly by emotion.)

And why do people’s emotions today influence them toward the double standard in question? First, people again are creatures who believe “things”; they need something to give their lives meaning, real or illusory. And in this godless age, “ideology” has taken the place of “religion,” which is why we see leftist protesters exhibiting jihadist-like fervor. Second, people often see how “ideology” affects them, the connection between it and how they’re governed. They know that putting liberals or conservatives in office can make a difference.

What they unfortunately don’t realize is that world view, “First Things,” influence whether one will be liberal or conservative — or something else. It’s no coincidence that the Founding Fathers were Christian. It’s no coincidence that the mass-murdering Marxists were atheists. It’s no coincidence that the Nazis were neo-pagans. And it’s no coincidence that the Muslim world never birthed democracy. It makes a big difference whether your credo is “Do what thou wilt,” “Do what Jesus wilt” or “Do what Allah wilt.”

So, yes, a religious test, if not in law but in citizens’ minds, is appropriate for lots of things. And immigration is no exception.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Mali: ‘Allahu Akbar’ screaming terrorists take 170 hostage, kill non-Muslims, free those who know Koran

In ‘First Step’ to Address Terrorism Fear, House Easily Passes Bill to Toughen Screenings of Syrian Refugees

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Muslims from Pakistan, Afghanistan Illegally Entering Arizona via Mexico

November 20, 2015/in Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D.

The Southern Arizona Border remains an attractive route for smugglers, drugs, Syrian, and other Middle Eastern illegals coming into America. Mentioned below are the latest interdiction of highly questionable and concerning illegals.

FBI CONFIRMS: 6 Men from Pakistan, Afghanistan Busted Illegally Entering Arizona from Mexico

by Bob Price and Brandon Darby

UPDATE: After the publication of this article, a local NBC affiliate contacted the FBI for confirmation. The FBI confirmed that the six men were apprehended after illegally entering the United States in Arizona.

Original article:

A highly trusted federal agent working under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has confirmed to Breitbart Texas that a group composed of 5 Pakistani men and 1 man from Afghanistan was captured by U.S. Border Patrol agents after having illegally crossed the porous U.S.-Mexico border in the Tucson Sector of Arizona.

The six men were traveling in a group and were captured roughly 16 miles into the state of Arizona, specifically, near the small picturesque town of Patagonia, Arizona.

The apprehension of the group occurred late on Monday night, November 16, 2015.

Border Patrol agents were unable to do extensive interviews with the six Middle Eastern men because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) took over the matter. The aliens were immediately transferred to Tucson where the FBI took custody.

Read more.

1,070 Iraqis admitted to U.S. since October 1st — 85% are Muslim

November 19, 2015/in Immigration, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Ann Corcoran

Since my two previous posts are so popular—the first is on Syrians admitted to the U.S. in FY 2016 (which began on Oct. 1) and the second on Somalis admitted in those same 6 weeks, I thought you might like to know about the Iraqis who have been coming into the US (over 100,000 since Obama took office. Here is one summary through 2013 and a large portion of 2014. I’ll get more complete numbers later).

My Somali post made it to Drudge! What an honor!

This is where the 1,070 have gone in the last six weeks. Top five Iraqi resettlement states so far this year are: Texas, California, Michigan, Washington and Colorado.

And here is how their religions break down (directly from the Refugee Processing Center data base, these are their categories and spelling):

Atheist: 3

Catholic: 69

Christian: 24

Moslem: 44

Moslem Shiite: 427

Moslem Suni: 435

Orthodox: 20

Yazidi: 40

Interesting isn’t it! When you see almost equal numbers of Shiites and Sunis don’t you wonder why we are bringing in both sides of the warring factions?

Supposedly the bill being supported by Speaker Paul Ryan that seeks to get administration assurance that no terrorists are getting in through the refugee stream to America only involves Syrians and Iraqis. What about Somalis? And, isn’t it a bit late considering we have admitted over 100,000 Somalis and over 100,000 Iraqis to live in your towns and cities?

Anyone want to write a book on the Iraqi resettlement, we have 673 previous posts going back 8 years on that resettlement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Babin Bill to suspend Refugee Admissions Program has 74 co-sponsors as they get on board after Paris

France 24: Eight suspected terrorists arrested in Turkey posing as “refugees”

White House secret: Governors (even Democrat govs) can’t find out where refugees are being resettled

WND: Ryan plotting ‘meaningless show-vote’ on refugees

VIDEO: The ‘Country Un-Safe Refugee Theory’

November 19, 2015/in Culture War, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Defend The Border

Yoella Wells, who studied at the University of Oxford, is a war trauma specialist, clinical psychologist and neuropsychologist working for many years with refugees from all over the world. The United West‘s Damon Rosen in this exclusive interview with Yoella Wells explains the theory of the “Country Un-safe” in creating refugees worldwide.

Governments or a governmental lack of the ability to protect its citizens creates refugees.

What we experiencing today is a clear example of that.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here’s How the U.S. Refugee Program Works

French President Hollande: Saint-Denis Raid Proves We Are at War With ISIS

Churchill’s ‘The River War’ and the War against the Islamic State

November 19, 2015/in Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Jerry Gordon

winston churchill river war book cover Manhattanite Dan Friedman sent an email to his list today with a famous quote on Islamic fanaticism from Sir Winston Churchill’s engrossing chronicle, The River War: an account of the Reconquest of the Sudan. It prompted me to do something I had wanted to do after reading the book this summer, given the shambles of the U.S. war strategy against the Islamic State. A strategy now upended by the Islamic State massacre in Paris on November 13, 2015 that took the lives of 129 innocent civilians, injuring more than 352, 99 critically.

Today’s battle between French riot police and military against Islamic State holdouts in the predominately Muslim suburb of St. Denis, with 2 killed, 8 detained, four police wounded and the destruction of an apartment building followed a virtual declaration of War by French President Hollande. What followed was swift retaliation in Russian and French air raids against targets in Raqqa, Syria, the alleged capital of the self-declared Caliphate, the Islamic State.

I sent out to my email list a comment on the relevance of Churchill’s chronicle of the long battle to reclaim the Sudan from the Mahdi, and his followers, the Islamic State of fin de siècle 19th Century. Brig. Gen. (ret.) Ernie Audino, former U.S. Army Combat Adviser to the Kurdish Peshmerga in Iraq said it was, “well put”. American Israeli, Dan Diker wrote from Jerusalem, “this is so relevant”. Diker is Fellow and Project Director, Political Warfare, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Research Fellow, International Institute for Counter Terrorism. Then there was this from former Canadian Forces member, who spent time in the Middle East and Latin America, counterterrorism expert, Royce de Melo:

We just need the same resolve like they had in the 19th century to do the job we need to do today. We in the West have been neutered in every aspect of our society, politics, foreign policy, work, behavior, attitudes, empathies, sentiments, way of thinking, etc. has resulted in the situation we have today.

There’s something I wrote to some friends today and my closing line has now become a favorite quote for some of these friends, “…appeasement, denial and complacency are the allies of evil.”

“We can keep ignoring the warnings of great people, but at some point it doesn’t matter because history won’t bend to the will of the fools who deny it.” – Dan Friedman

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” – Sir Winston Churchill; (Source: The River War, first edition, Vol II, pages 248-250 London).

Dan: Have you read Churchill’s The River War: An Account of The Re-conquest of the Sudan? You should. It illustrates what the British with assistance of the Egyptian Khedive did to eliminate the Mahdi (Ahmed Mohammed) and his 19th century version of ISIS in the Sudan. It is a fascinating tribute to the herculean tasks overcoming logistical hurdles that included shipping for Britain armored river steamers, railway engines, rails and ties and railway engineering troops down the lower to build a railroad skirting the Upper Nile to supply British, Egyptian and Sudanese units with arms, food, water to crush the Mahdi’s forces at the keystone battle of Omdurman on September 2, 1898. Churchill, as a journalist participated in that critical battle armed with his trusty German Luger pistol. The River War victory against the Mahdi fanatics also settled the spheres of influence between the French, Belgians and British in equatorial Africa. However, it took the British almost 13 years following the collapse of the year long siege at Khartoum on January 26, 1885 and the unfortunate death and beheading of my last name sharer, Maj. Gen. Sir Charles Gordon aka “Chinese” Gordon, the Governor General of Sudan appointed by the Khedive. Gordon had earlier achieved fame when he and British officers put down the Taipeng Rebellion in Imperial China in 1862 with nothing more than his fabled walking stick and a host of Chinese warriors. The wildly popular Gordon among the British polity was sent to put down a rebellion and free Sudanese slaves, only to be virtually abandoned by British Prime Minister William Gladstone. Think of Obama as the equivalent of Gladstone.

Go watch the 1966 epic film, Khartoum, on-line starring the late Charleton Heston as Gordon and Sir Laurence Olivier as the Mahdi, Ahmed Mohammed. Or better yet, pick up Churchill’s River War for his view of the long tough slog to victory and the vanquishing of the 19th Century version of the Islamic State. Proves that with resolve, discipline and splendid field generalship of Field Marshal H.Herbert Kitchener, abetted by modern technology, in that case ,Maxim machine guns, Sunni Salafists were defeated. It is a different time now, with different war making technology. However, the lesson from re-reading of Churchill’s River War, is if you don’t resolve to lead a war against jihadists, whether the Mahdi at Khartoum or ISIS at Raqqa,, you will fail as a world power.

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

American Medical Association Warning: Don’t Use Pot when Pregnant!

November 19, 2015/in Culture War, Healthcare, Must Read, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

CBS News reports:

Warning: Marijuana use during pregnancy and breast-feeding poses potential harms.

That message would be written on medical and recreational marijuana products and posted wherever they’re sold if the nation’s most influential doctors group has its way.

The American Medical Association agreed Monday to push for regulations requiring such warnings be written on medical and recreational pot products and posted wherever they’re sold. The decision was made based on studies suggesting marijuana use may be linked with low birth weight, premature birth and behavior problems in young children.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Colorado: Do New Medical Marijuana Rules Improve on “Angry Tone” of First Draft?

Colorado Governor Hickenlooper Issues Executive Order to Declare Tainted Pot a Threat to Public

Marijuana in America, 2015: A Survey of Federal And States’ Responses to Marijuana Legalization and Taxation

After Paris, National Security Issues Lead Democratic Debate

November 18, 2015/in Elections, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Clarion Project

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bernie Sanders

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

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

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

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

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

Sen. Tom Cotton: U.S. Discriminates against Christian Refugees

November 18, 2015/in Culture War, Immigration, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Jerry Gordon

Arkansas U.S. Senator Tom Cotton “broke news” today that the U.S. “inadvertently” discriminates against Christians among Syrian Refugee Admissions.

Map of States Opposing Syrian Refugees Daily Signal Heritage Foundation 11-17-15

At least that is the impression lent by the Washington Times, report this morning, “U.S. ‘discriminates’ against Christian refugees, accepts 96% Muslims, 3% Christians:”

Less than 3 percent of the Syrian refugees admitted to the United States so far are Christian and 96 percent are Muslim, the result of a referral system that Republican Sen. Tom Cotton says “unintentionally discriminates” against Christians.

State Department figures released Monday showed that the current system overwhelmingly favors Muslim refugees. Of the 2,184 Syrian refugees admitted to the United States so far, only 53 are Christians while 2,098 are Muslim, the Christian News Service reported.

Mr. Cotton and Sen. John Boozman, both Arkansas Republicans, called Monday for a moratorium on resettlements, a White House report on vetting procedures, and a re-evaluation of the refugee-referral process.

“[T]he United States’ reliance on the United Nations for referrals of Syrian refugees should also be re-evaluated,” said Mr. Cotton in a statement. “That reliance unintentionally discriminates against Syrian Christians and other religious minorities who are reluctant to register as refugees with the United Nations for fear of political and sectarian retribution.”

The current system relies on referrals from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Syria’s population in 2011 was 90 percent Muslim and 10 percent Christian, CNS said.

Mr. Cotton and Mr. Boozman called Monday for a temporary moratorium on resettlements and “a requirement that the President certify the integrity of the security vetting process as a condition of lifting the moratorium.”

“The American people have long demonstrated unmatched compassion for the world’s persecuted and endangered. But when bringing refugees to our shores, the U.S. government must put the security of Arkansans and all Americans first,” Mr. Cotton said. “No terrorist should be able to take advantage of the refugee process to threaten the United States.”

This confirms what Mike Bates and I reported in our June 2015 New English Review with Ann Corcoran. See: Trojan Horse Federal Refugee Program. Note this exchange:

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.

That pattern of Christians avoiding UN refugee camps was also cited in our interview with Joseph Kassab of the Iraqi Christian Advocacy and Empowerment Institute in the November NER, Iraqi Christians Face Extinction:

Gordon: What are the current conditions of Iraqi Christian refugee camps in the Kurdish Region and what kinds of assistance are they receiving?

Kassab: The current conditions for Iraqi Christian IDPs are very chaotic and horrific. The Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) is doing its best to provide for them. However, they are unable to absorb more than 3 million refugees from Syria and Yazidis in their region. The Iraqi government has done nothing for its citizen IDPs. Corruption is very high among the Iraqi government officials and that by itself makes distribution of relief to its IDPs very poor. The UN and humanitarian local and international NGOs are unable to function properly due to lack of coordination and efficient capacity. Therefore people are losing hope and are availing of any opportunity to escape abroad. Christians are urban refugees-IDPs meaning that they do not live in UN refugee camps. Instead they seek shelter with relatives, in unfinished buildings, parks and churches. Overall, this support can be very short lived because volunteering always has a sunset.

Nina Shea of the Washington, DC-based Hudson Institute Center for Religious Freedom in a separate Fox News.com report added:

The UN is basically unloading; it’s emptying out its camps. It’s not seeking those who are outside its camps, much less giving affirmative action for those who are facing genocide. It’s just an expedience measure for those who are in their own camps, so non-Muslim minorities are poorly represented among them.

What is confounding was the petulant response of President Obama at his Antalya G20 Summit press conference on this matter. His remarks were allegedly directed at US Texas Senator Ted Cruz for having the effrontery to suggest that Syrian Christians and other threatened non-Muslim minorities be granted some preference for Refugee Admissions and Muslims sent to Muslim majority countries. The Washington Timesreported that, “at his G20 news conference Monday in Turkey, President Obama described as ‘shameful’ the idea of giving religious preferences to refugees.”That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion,’ Mr. Obama said.”

We would suggest that the President bone up on how the UN controls who gets admitted as humanitarian refugees in America. That American taxpayers are funding this plenary program run by executive fiat under the Refugee Act of 1980 co-authored by Vice President Biden and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. It is time for Congress urged on by more than 27 Governors concerned about admission of possible terrorist refugees to do something. That is why US House Speaker Pat Ryan proposed a “pause” in the Syrian Refugee Program. If you listen to Deputy National Security Adviser, Ben Rhodes, Anne Richards, assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, they would have you believe that the 10,000 Syrian Refugees bring brought here in the current fiscal year were all vetted.

This morning I listened to a news conference convened by Voluntary Agencies and NGOs to combat the concerns of the more than two dozen governors. They represented that the UNHCR has an advanced retina scanning biometric system capable of capturing information to track the millions of displaced Syrian refugees in their camps. That DHS is capable of checking the records of these Syrian refugees despite evidence that documents may either not exist or are forged. Further, that if the Governors of states do not participate in resettlement programs that these very same Voluntary agencies stand ready to make more money to distribute them. Moreover, that if states deny those benefits to refugee clients, the clients with their green cards can simply pick up like any other US citizen and move to another state. To top things off, they represented that no terrorists have been admitted as refugees. They obviously forgot about the refugee Tsarneav brothers who perpetrated the bloody Boston Marathon bombing. Or the two Iraqi asylees, caught in a 2011 FBI sting in Kentucky purchasing weapons to be sent to Al Qaeda. Then think of the dozens of Soimali emigre youths recruited by radical Imams to fight and die for Al Shabaab in Somalia. Consider the Somali emigre aircraft cleaner who had the run of the Twin Cities airport who left to fight and die for ISIS in Syria. Listen to this Syrian Refugee Admissions press conference.

Yesterday, we reported that Florida Governor Rick Scott sent a letter to US House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell suggesting that for all intent and purposes state governors have no legal standing to contest the Refugee Admissions Program, but that Congress does. He wrote:

It is our understanding that the state does not have the authority to prevent the federal government from funding the relocation of these Syrian refugees to Florida even without state support. Therefore, we are asking the United States Congress to take immediate and aggressive action to prevent President Obama and his administration from using any federal tax dollars to fund the relocation of up to 425 Syrian refugees (the total possible number of refugees pending for state relocation support at this time) to Florida, or anywhere in the United States, without an extensive evaluation of the risk these individuals may pose to our national security.

As the federal elected body that exercises oversight and authorizes federal spending, please take any action available through the powers of the United States Congress to prevent federal allocations toward the relocation of Syrian refugees without extensive examination into how this would affect our homeland security.

Note what my Florida State House Representative, Mike Hill, a graduate of the US Air Force Academy and veteran said in a Pensacola News Journal article on the Governor’s action:

If they come from a country that fosters, supports or defends terrorism as a legitimate activity to achieve a goal, then it doesn’t matter if there is a small number or large number of refugees coming from those nations. We must refuse them entry without a robust vetting process, which we currently do not have.

The first test of that may come on Thursday at a House Immigration Sub Committee Hearing Chaired by Rep. Trey Gowdy. The lineup of witnesses includes:

‘Ms. Anne C. Richard (Invited)
Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, United States Department of State

Ms. Barbara L. Strack (Invited)
Chief, Refugee Affairs Division, Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

Mr. Seth Jones
Director
International Security and Defense Policy Center, RAND Corporation

Mr. Mark Krikorian
Executive Director
Center for Immigration Studies

Mr. Mark Hetfield
President and Chief Executive Officer
HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, one of nine federal resettlement contractors)

Let’s see if the US Refugee Admissions Program executives at the State Department and DHS/ICE show up for this House Immigration Committee hearing. Stay tuned for developments.

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

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

November 18, 2015/in Elections, Must Read, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

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

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

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

98% of Syrians entering U.S. are Sunni Muslims

November 17, 2015/in Culture War, Immigration, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Ann Corcoran

Here is where the 291 Syrians who have entered the U.S. in FY2016 have been placed. California, Texas, Kentucky, Arizona and Ohio make the top five. (I selected for my search October 1, 2015 to November 15, 2015 and assume the data base is up to date to the 15th, but can’t know that for sure).

The flood gates have been opened and they will arrive hot and heavy now (will the governors have any power?).

At the Refugee Processing Center (click on reports and select interactive reports, you will be able to figure it out!) you can also check the religions of arriving refugees. Here is the breakdown for the 291 so far this fiscal year (assuming data base is up to date as of November 15th, two days ago):

3 Catholics

1 Christian

1 Orthodox

286 Sunni Muslims

As we have reported many times, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees picks most of our refugees and in the case of the Syrians they come from UN camps populated by mostly Muslims. He has 20,000 chosen for us already. At a recent immigration conclave in Washington, DC, we were there to hear him say that the Syrian Christians are not persecuted because the “regime” (Assad) was protecting them.

As long as the UNHCR is choosing most of our refugees, I don’t expect the percentage of Muslims in the stream to change much.

One other bit of confusion flying around in the mainstream media is that somehow we will be getting Syrians who have flooded into Europe, we won’t be (at least not in any great number for now).

RELATED ARTICLES:

In first six weeks of FY2016 we resettled 827 Somalis; all but one are Muslim

In Wake of Paris Attacks, Here’s a Map of the States Shutting Their Doors to Syrian Refugees

After Paris, Obama’s Abandonment of Leadership

What Congress Can Do to Stop Obama From Resettling Refugees

ISIS Just Named D.C. As Possible Target for Terrorist Attacks. Has the Risk Increased?

Florida Governor: Stop Funding Syrian Muslim Resettlement in the Sunshine State

November 17, 2015/in Culture War, Immigration, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Taxes/by Jerry Gordon

Florida Governor Rick Scott requested a halt to federal funding of the scheduled resettlement of 425 Syrian Refugees in the Sunshine State. This follows similar actions by Republican gubernatorial colleagues in Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts Michigan, and Texas. He sent a letter this afternoon to U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell and all members of the Florida U.S. Senate and Congressional delegation outlining his concerns.

states taking syrian migrants cnn

He adds his concerns regarding the ability of the Administration to vett Syrian refugees to prevent the possible infiltration of ISIS jihadis as occurred last weekend in Paris. The Syrian passport of a suicide bomber or shahids (martyr) was found at the Paris soccer stadium a check of which revealed his entry into the EU via Greece in early October, 2015

In his letter to House Speaker Ryan and Senate Majority Leader McConnell, Governor Scott expressed his concerns:

Several organizations have requested that our state Department of Children and Families support the relocation of 425 possible Syrian refugees to Florida, as they receive federal funding to house these refugees in our state. Following the terrorist attacks by ISIS in Paris that killed over 120 people and wounded more than 350, and the news that at least one of the terror attack suspects gained access to France by posing as a Syrian refugee, our state agency will not support the requests we have received.

More importantly, however, it is our understanding that the state does not have the authority to prevent the federal government from funding the relocation of these Syrian refugees to Florida even without state support. Therefore, we are asking the United States Congress to take immediate and aggressive action to prevent President Obama and his administration from using any federal tax dollars to fund the relocation of up to 425 Syrian refugees (the total possible number of refugees pending for state relocation support at this time) to Florida, or anywhere in the United States, without an extensive evaluation of the risk these individuals may pose to our nationalsecurity.

As the federal elected body that exercises oversight and authorizes federal spending, please take any action available through the powers of the United States Congress to prevent federal allocations toward the relocation of Syrian refugees without extensive examination into how this would affect our homeland security.

My office stands ready to provide any available information regarding this request for your immediate action.

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

Social Justice versus the Left by Sandy Ikeda

November 17, 2015/in Culture War, Elections, Must Read, Policy, Politics/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

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

Jamelle Bouie of Slate tries to explain it this way:

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

Scarce Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Market Is a Positive-Sum Game

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

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

Politics Is a Zero-Sum Game

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

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

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

Social Justice Is Also a Zero-Sum Game

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sandy Ikeda

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

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

November 16, 2015/in Culture War, Elections, Immigration, Must Read, National Security, Politics, Religion/by Jihad Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

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

Madam President: Can The MSM Pull It Off Again?

November 16, 2015/in Elections, Must Read, Politics/by Lloyd Marcus

Please forgive me if I am stating the obvious. Clearly, the mainstream media plans to use the same evil dirty trick to elect Hillary it used to elect Obama. The media’s trick is to simply block voters from knowing who Hillary really is as a person, her criminal activities and true ideology. The media knows if elected, Hillary will continue Obama’s far left radical transformation of America. Rather than race, gender will be Hillary’s ever-ready trump card to silence all opposition.

It is truly repulsive watching the mainstream media’s all consuming efforts to leave no stone un-turned and even fabricating stories to destroy Republican presidential candidates. The MSM’s shock-and-awe attempted character assassination of Dr Ben Carson who is a remarkable human being is beyond reprehensible. Though widely reported, Dr. Carson did not lie about attending West Point. The MSM attacks have backfired, igniting even more support for Dr Carson; the political outsider.

Meanwhile, Hillary’s multiple scandals, crimes and misdemeanors are hidden in plain sight. She has been caught lying and breaking the law repeatedly. Hillary Clinton is figuratively dancing naked in the middle of Times Square waving smoking guns in both hands. And yet, the MSM’s response to Hillary is move-on, nothing-to-see-here. The MSM’s behavior is glaringly hypocritical; favoring Democrats and biased against Republicans.

This is why it is so frustrating to watch conservatives give these MSM hit-squad attacks credibility. I yelled at my radio upon hearing a conservative pundit applauding Obama for making fun of the Republican presidential contenders for complaining about the biased CNBC debate moderators. The conservative joined the liberal media and Obama in calling the GOP contenders wimpy whiners. Why on earth would this conservative leader side with our evil dishonest opponents who have no intention of playing fair?

Conservatives attempting to find common ground with the Left (Democrats and MSM) is as wacko as the Left relentlessly accusing Israel of an unwillingness to compromise with the Palestinians. The Palestinians’ ultimate goal is to push the Israeli people into the sea. How do you negotiate with people who want you dead? You do not. You defeat them. The Democrats and MSM want the GOP/Conservatives politically dead. Conservatives/Republicans must defeat them.

So lets recap boys and girls. Seven years ago a black guy gifted in the art of deception delivered a celebrated speech at the Democrat National Convention. Democrats/Leftists after promising her the White House, kicked Hillary to the curb. The shiny new well-spoken black Trojan Horse offered the Left a golden opportunity; a chance to implement every socialist/progressive idea of their wildest dreams. Anyone daring to disagree with the first black president on any issue will be branded with an “r” on their forehead for racism. It was perfect!

Americans embraced the MSM’s black messiah crying a river of hopeful tears at his inauguration. Obama received 96% of the black vote. However, blacks are only 12% of the population. Therefore, mega-millions of white voters saw fit to entrust a black presidential candidate (a radical Leftist posing as a moderate) with the key to the Oval Office. Millions of whites naively thought, we will never be accused of being a racist nation again.

Seven years into Obama’s presidency, race relations are horrible; set back decades – open season on killing whites and police. The idiotic evil Black Lives Matter movement is running rampant polluting the streets of America with the absurd insidious lie that every 28 hours a unarmed black is murdered by cops.

Despite white America electing a black man to run their country, the Left would have us believe that blacks are still treated in America as they were in the 1950s.

Meanwhile, the Left (Obama, Democrats and MSM) have successfully used the terms “racism” and “bigotry” to get everything they want. Manipulating Americans with accusations of racism and bigotry have been so successful, the Left has taken their exploitation of the terms to absurd levels.

Here are just a few examples. The Left has decreed that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, reading bedtime stories to your kids and the new “Peanuts” movie are racist. Leftists have even decreed that the term “hard worker” is racist. Disapproval of sodomy is bigotry.

Over the past seven years, conservative media and the Tea Party have grown in influence. Therefore, I do not believe the MSM will be able to pull off fooling us again; selling Hillary to the American people as “Hillary: Heavenly Goddess” – the long awaited sequel to “Obama: Black Messiah.”

Learning from being duped into electing the first liberal black president, we can expect more of the same upon electing the first liberal woman president. The false premise of an American/Republican War on Women will skyrocket rather than subside, birthing a #VaginasMatterMovement. I am not over the top folks. Let us not forget the feminist 1996 episodic play titled “The Vagina Monologues.”

Yes, males of America, expect the Left to accuse you of hating your moms, wives, sisters and daughters every time you disagree with President Hillary signing an executive order implementing another socialist/progressive agenda item against the will of the American people.

While the MSM peddles Hillary for president, the rock song by The Who comes to mind. We “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”

Tampa, Florida: Terrorist Supporting Al Qassam Mosque

November 15, 2015/in Immigration, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Alan Kornman

Muslim terrorist Dr. Abdul Mawgoud Dardery was invited to speak on November 11 and 13, 2015 at the Al-Qassam Mosque – Islamic Community of Tampa (ICT), 5910 E. 130th Avenue, Tampa, FL 33617, 813-985-9433.

Dr. Dardery is the foreign relations committee spokesman for the Egyptian Revolutionary Council (ERC). The ERC according to their website exists to overthrow the current Egyptian government and replace it with Egypt’s past president Mohammad Morsi, a self declared Muslim Brotherhood leader.

Dr. Dardery is an exiled Muslim Brotherhood Shura Council member and Egyptian Parliamentarian with a history of open support for Hamas, a US designated foreign terrorist organization.

Dr. Dardery is a ‘terrorist’ because the ERC is an arm of The Muslim Brotherhood which was designated a terrorist organization by Egypt, Bahrain, Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.

Al Qassam Mosque Born Out of Hate And Intolerance

The infamous convicted Florida terrorist Dr. Sami Al-Arian in his Hamas funding trial USA v. Al-Arian,03-CR-77, “Exhibit A” said the ICT-Al Qassam Mosque was named after Izzedin al-Qassam. Izzedin al-Qassam was so loved by Muslim terrorists he was the inspiration for the Islamic Jihad movement, says Palestinian scholar Ziad Abu Amr.

The ICT-Al Qassam Mosque was incorporated by convicted terrorist Sami Al-Arian in 1992. Federal investigators say that, at the time, Al-Arian was the North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

In this video clip Sami Al-Arian openly says,”…Jihad is our path, victory to Islam, Death to Israel…”

Sami Al-Arian doubled down on his hate speech calling Jews “monkeys and pigs” and warned against recent peace efforts aimed at ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, at a 1991 Islamic Committee for Palestine Conference in Chicago, IL, Steve Emerson reports.

To date no member of the Al-Qassam Mosque has publicly condemned Sami Al-Arian for his hate filled rhetoric and funding of Islamic terrorism.

The bigotry and hate Sami Al-Arian founded the ICT Al-Qassam Mosque on years ago, was reaffirmed with the invitation of the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist Dr. Abdul Mawgoud Dardery.

The current owners of the ICT Al Qassam Mosque, according to Hillsborough County records, is the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT). NAIT’s terrorist ties to the Muslim Brotherhood were exposed during the largest terrorist funding trial in American history, United States v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, et al. Richardson, Tx.

NAIT holds title to approximately 70% of the Mosques in the United States. Including Imam Mohammad Musri’s notorious Islamic Society of Central Florida Mosque in Orlando, FL. In June of 2009, Mohammad Musri’s Mosque was caught on film hosting a Hamas fundraiser.

Conclusion

Qassam rockets

The next time you hear about Hamas firing their Qassam rockets at Israeli civilians imagine the pride emanating from the Islamic Community of Tampa Al Qassam Mosque.

If the Muslims of Tampa were not proud of the all the dark, bigoted, and hate filled associations the word Al Qassam generates, why would they name their most revered place of worship the Al Qassam Mosque?

I propose the current Al Qassam Mosque leadership take sensitivity training classes because they have no idea how offensive everything associated with the Al Qassam Mosque founding and terrorist sympathies are to America’s freedom, liberty, and Representative Republic.