The Secret Radical Islamic Document found in Darfur, Sudan

/in , , , /by

Background

President Bashir April 2016 AP

Sudan President Omar al-Bashir in Power since 1989.

In a January 18, 2017 FrontPage Magazine article, “Obama Lifts Sudan Sanctions”, we reported on the lifting of 20 years of sanctions against the regime of President Omar al-Bashir for making progress against counterterrorism in the Sudan. All while he was preparing to launch a Jihad army of 150,000 recruited from across the Sahel region and the Middle East, including the Islamic State.  Many of those jihadists were recruited from Islamic terrorist groups from Libya, neighboring Chad, the Central African Republic, Mali and Niger. They were undergoing training in 16 camps around Khartoum. These cadres were composed of formations of Janjaweed/Rapid Support forces now renamed ‘Peace Forces’.  By early February 2017, the Bashir regime completed training of 34,000 ‘Peace Force’ militia at the Kerere and Fatasha camps near Khartoum.  2,500 of these Peace force militia, equipped with heavily armed militarized Hi-Lux Toyota pickup trucks, are already at the Jadeed al Sail training camp in the North Darfur capital of Fashir.  Bashir’s jihad army is already on the attack in Darfur.

To understand the Jihad doctrine behind Bashir’s strategy we are presenting the underlying doctrinal strategy found in a captured secret document, the Arab Coalition Guresh 1 and 2. Guresh is the name for the Prophet Mohammed’s tribe in Arabia, used by the people for themselves.

The Arabic Language version of a Sudan Arab Coalition document of 11 pages was captured during the fighting between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) (Reorganized Janjaweed Militias) and Darfur rebels in October 2014 in Donky Hush, North Darfur. The document was found in an abandoned military truck belonging to the RSF. It was translated by Lt. General Abakar N. Abdallah, Chairman of the Sudan United Movement in April 2015 to document the genocidal Jihad doctrine underlying the ethnic cleansing of Darfur, the Nuba Mountains Blue Nile Region and South Kordofan.

The document, containing different Guresh statements of the Sudan Arab Coalition project, was created in 1987 by former Sudan Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi who founded the Janjaweed militias.  Al Mahdi and the late Islamic reformer Hassan al-Turabi had drafted in the 1960’s the Islamic manifesto to rule Sudan under Sharia Islamic law creating the Arabization and Islamization policies. Those policies are currently being implemented by his usurper, indicted war criminal President Omar al-Bashir. They form the core of the Jihad doctrine found in the Arab Coalition document.

Al-Mahdi is the great grandson of Muhammad Ahmad, who declared himself the Mahdi, “the guided one” in Arabic, who would rule until the Day of Judgment under Islamic doctrine.  The Mahdi established a Sharia ruled Caliphate in the Sudan in 1881 directed at invading Egypt seeking to overturn the infidels; the Khedive Egyptian ruler and his British allies. The Mahdi’s army conducted a siege at Khartoum resulting in its capture and the death of valiant British Major General Sir Charles Gordon in 1885.  The Mahdi’s Caliphate ended with the reconquest of the Sudan by a combined British – Egyptian force under General Sir Herbert Kitchener at the Battle of Omdurman on September 2, 1898 that defeated an army led by the Mahdi’s successor Abdullah al-Taashi.  The Sudan campaign was chronicled in Sir Winston Churchill‘s The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan. The British subsequently reached a settlement with the Al-Mahdi family in 1910 bestowing on them a fortune of 110,000 pounds Sterling.

The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan established in 1902 ended with the declaration of the Republic of Sudan in 1956. Almost immediately a more than half century civil war broke out between the Arab north versus the indigenous African tribes in the South resulting in the creation of South Sudan as a new nation in 2011.  Notwithstanding, the genocidal campaign, articulated in the Arab Coalition document, Jihad continued with open warfare against resistance forces in the Darfur, Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile region in South Kordofan.

Sadiq Al-Mahdi, an Oxford graduate, was overthrown in 1989 by then General now President Omar al-Bashir.  Al-Mahdi went into exile for several purposes: 1) to gain credibility of opposition groups and militias; 2) to obtain popular support both in Sudan and externally; 3) to obtain support from Arab countries; 4) to eradicate armed rebellions to defend Arab supremacy in Sudan; and, 5) to rally opposition forces to weaken the regime. He returned in 2017 at the age of 80 to exploit current weaknesses of the Bashir regime seeking to replace it as the main Arab regime in Khartoum.

Objectives of the Arab Coalition Document

The Arab Coalition document carries forward the basic Jihad doctrine through the latest available edition in 2014. The central objective of the Arab Coalition document is to eradicate the people of Darfur and occupy the land by 2020. The most important part of this document is the evaluation of 2014 in which they distributed the entire Darfur region to different Arab tribes with the intention of completing their project by 2020.  If the Arab Coalition plan is left unchecked by resistance forces, then Janjaweed militias will commit more genocidal atrocities in Darfur to complete their task.

The essential document declaring the creation of the Arab Assembly against Darfur was issued in March 1987. It was renewed following the evaluation of its advantages and disadvantages as well as the objectives that had been achieved in 1992. After 11 years, the implementation of the document was renewed in 2003. However, the objective of ethnic cleansing Darfur and other parts of Sudan was hampered by internal problems occurring between the Arab tribes: lack of adequate resources, the starting of rebellion in the Darfur region from non-Arab tribes, and the support of the international community to the Darfur cause. Sudan had been placed on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.  An indictment was prepared by the International Criminal Court at The Hague directed against Sudan government officials accusing them of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Darfur. Among those indicated were President Omar al- Bashir, Musa Hilal, Ahmed Haroun, and Ali Kosheeb.

Other problems emerged to prevent achievement of the Arab Coalition objectives.  Some members diverted the funds collected for the purpose of executing this plan for personal benefits. Some tribes who initially agreed to support the project withdrew when they perceived that this project was not in their interest in the long term. They were effectively executing plans that at the end would destroy them.

Note these objectives listed in the Arab coalition document:

  • Seize all livestock and resources from indigenous tribes;
  • Kill their representatives, educated leaders and confine the rest of indigenous tribes in big cities, prisons, or kill them whenever there is an opportunity;
  • Keep all government resources that can assist people on making complaints, or can be used in emergence cases, transportation, or communication so that they could not communicate between one another;
  • Place camps of Arab fighters (Janjaweed) on high mountains so that the attackers cannot approach them; and
  • Attack areas that have strong resistance with large forces.

According to the Arab Coalition document The Higher Committee of the Arab Assembly carried out the following tactical program to achieve jihad objectives:

  • Create difficulties in the way of the regional governments and use all resources available so as not to be able to execute their policies and programs of development; ?
  • Do everything possible to disrupt government services in the areas occupied by non-Arab tribes in order to make them feel the government weakness and its failure to provide necessary means for life; ?
  • Increase the volunteers in areas occupied by non-Arab tribes to create insecurity problems, stop production and kill their leaders; ?
  • Create disputes between non-Arab tribes to prevent unification. ?

The members of the Assembly occupying senior positions are obliged to do the following:

  • Concentrate on providing services to the areas of the Arab Assembly;
  • Do not employ non-Arabs in important positions;
  • Create obstacles for those non-Arabs who occupy positions and work in administration;
  • Try by all means to create instability in schools in non-Arab populated areas; and
  • Whenever there is an opportunity kill them.

The projected timetable to achieve the Jihad war objectives in Darfur was six years from 2014 by which time the Arab Assembly was to finish the ‘ jihad project’ in 2020.  As the Arab Assembly had not been able by 2014 to execute the project, the Executive Committee divided the rest of the areas of the Darfur region.  That would allow new comers to settle in and work fast to complete the project; meaning replacement of indigenous African tribes with Arab settlers.

You may read the translated Arab Coalition document here.

ABOUT LIEUTENANT GENERAL ABAKAR N. ABDALLAH

Lt. Gen. Abakar N. Abdallah is Chairman of the Sudan United Movement. He is a native of North Darfur who joined the Sudan Liberation People’s Army (SPLA) in 1984 and became active in the Nuba Hills and Darfurian resistance. In 1989 he joined the Patriotic Salvation Movement in neighboring Chad based in Darfur. He served as an officer in the Chadian army for 23 years. He held senior intelligence and counterterrorism posts including as Coordinator of the Multi-National Joint Task Force of Nigeria, Chad and Niger. He is a December 2002 graduate of the Intelligence Officers’ Advanced and Combating Terrorism Courses, US Army Intelligence Center and Schools, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. He was a Graduate Terrorism Fellow and is a Graduate of the College of International Security Affairs, National Defense University, Washington, DC, 2005. He was an International Fellow and Graduate of the US Army War College, Class of 2008.

ABOUT DEBORAH MARTIN

Deborah Martin is a long-term American Sudan human rights advocate having lived in both North and South Sudan conducting development projects as a professional engineer and linguist in a team with her late husband. She has worked on research linguistics of Jieeng, Nuer, Bari, Jumjum, Masalit, Nubian, Luwo, Reel, Madi and Moro. She has been working in North and South Sudan for 35 years as a linguist and cultural consultant following the situation as it developed. Her interview skills have brought the story even when media reporting has been limited.

Omar Jamal: The ‘Jesse Jackson’ of the Somali Ummah [community] in America

/in , , , , /by

This is so funny.

If you have followed RRW for the last almost ten years, you will recognize the name Omar Jamal.  I call him the ‘Jesse Jackson’ of the Somali ‘community’ in America.

When Somalis are in ‘crisis’ (when aren’t they in crisis!), here comes Jamal to direct lazy and gullible reporters so that they spin their stories to involve him and his view of the ‘community.’

I wish I had the time to go over the many many posts we have on Jamal who was originally found guilty of immigration fraud (he snuck in here from Canada!) but was never deported.  He apparently speaks English well, so reporters glom on to him and he helps them get their story straight—the way he sees it! He is good!

Just to give you an idea before you read about his take on the supposed flood of desperate Somalis heading to Canada across the Minnesota border (remember readers those Somalis headed to Canada are in the U.S. ILLEGALLY), here is one post I wrote in 2008.

In 2009, even Minnesota Public Radio had him pegged as a Somali “talking head.”

Denver dead Canadian Somali story!

Here in 2008, Jamal helped spin the media about something you have long forgotten or maybe never knew.

A Canadian Somali was found dead in a Denver hotel just before the 2008 Democratic Convention there.  He had enough cyanide to kill hundreds.  Jamal jumped in to the story (from Minneapolis) to say the guy was just a nut, nothing to see, move along, and the media did!

Here is our complete archive on Omar Jamal, the Somali spin-meister!

So here he is again, in his element, fielding media questions about the poor Somalis headed to Canada and the possibility that they could freeze to death (sniffling! dabbing eyes!).

From a CBC News at a Somali website:

Omar Jamal is dealing with a crisis. [ROFLMAO—ed]

Jamal is the executive director of the Somali Community of Minnesota, and for months now, he has seen people whose U.S. asylum claims have been rejected end up in Minneapolis, home to one of the largest Somali communities in the country. [Rejected asylum claim means they are NOT refugees—ed]

From there, they make arrangements to sneak into Canada, where they can file refugee claims.

Jamal has become used to this, but today he is fielding non-stop calls about a car full of refuge seekers and their driver who appear to have gone missing after leaving Minneapolis.

The plan was to drive the seven hours north to the Canadian border and cross the border on foot.

But they’re nowhere to be found.

“I’m getting calls from family members and I’m meeting relatives and as we speak right now, we are trying to figure out what happened to them and where are they? Are they still alive?” says Jamal.

You can read for yourself the long discussion about the missing Somalis (found o.k.) and the driver who took them to the border.

They’re making their way back to Minneapolis.

As a result of their attempted crossing, they’ve been flagged as a flight risk by U.S. immigration authorities. [Heck, Trudeau loves diversity, let Canada have them!—ed]

“They’re really worried, they’re scared,” says Jamal.

“The thing is, when they came [to the U.S.], they psychologically believed that they left everything behind, the bad things. But actually the place they’ve got here now doesn’t look much different than the place they came from.

“It’s a continuation of crisis and suffering and not being settled… That saga is still ongoing,” he says. “They left their country and they’re still on the run.”

Before too long, Jamal has moved on to the next phone call, the next request for help.

He knows this flood of asylum seekers won’t stop any time soon, and he has a message for his neighbours to the north.

Of course, then he sends his message telling Canada to welcome these illegal alien Somalis.

Read it all! Filed in my ‘Laugh of the day’ category!

Researcher finds over 50 million Muslims support radical Islamic terror attacks

/in , , , /by

Bring in more Muslim migrants! What could possibly go wrong?

“More than 50 million Muslims are willing to support those who carry out terror attacks to defend their religion, migration expert warns the EU,” by Allan Hall, MailOnline, February 13, 2017:

A migration expert warns that there are more than 50 million Muslims willing to accept violence and support those who carry out terror attacks to defend their religion.

Professor Ruud Koopmans of the Netherlands warned the EU on Monday to block the entry of any refugees whose identity cannot be categorically confirmed.

Koopmans said that of the 1billion adult Muslims in the world, ‘half of them are attached to an arch-conservative Islam which places little worth on the rights of women, homosexuals, and people of other faiths’.

In an interview with a German news website he claimed that of these 500million conservative Muslims, at least – and probably more – than 50million are willing to sanction violence.

Koopmans, who is a professor of sociology and migration research at the Humboldt University of Berlin and the director of integration research at the WZB Berlin Social Science Centre, stressed that not every one of them was ready to exert violence directly.

But he added: ‘They support the radicals, they encourage them and provide them shelter or simply keep their mouths shut when they observe radicalization.’

He says he considers his own estimate of 50million ‘an understatement’, citing studies that show eight per cent of German Muslims agreed to the use of violence against ‘Infidels,’ while in his own country 11 per cent of Muslims agreed with the statement: ‘There are situations in which it is acceptable for me from the perspective of my religion, that I use violence’.

In several Islamic countries, 14 per cent of local Muslims think suicide attacks against innocents are ‘sometimes’ or ‘often’ justified to defend Islam, said Koopmans, citing a study by the US-based Pew Research Center.

‘I’m very conservative with my estimate of 50million violent Muslims,’ added Professor Koopmans.

The expert sees a ‘clear difference’ between anti-Islam baiting and justified criticism of Islam.

He went on: ‘There is nothing wrong with foreign cultures, as long as they are looking for the connection to the majority in society and actually enrich our countries.

‘But those who are here to spread their medieval beliefs, which are unfortunately widespread in Islamic countries, must be met with zero tolerance’….

That greasy Islamophobe!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

FBI contacting newly arrived Syrian refugees, is the FBI doing this on its own?

Robert Spencer: Answering an Islamic apologist (Part IV)

Denmark: 16-year-old Muslima plotted jihad bombings at schools, including Jewish school

Trump defends immigration pause as Trudeau says he won’t ‘lecture another country’

/in , , , /by

“Trudeau said he would focus on governing “in such a way that reflects Canadians’ approach.”

Trudeau also said:

“The last thing Canadians expect is for me to come down and lecture another country on how they choose to govern themselves.”

Oh really, Mr. Trudeau?

One wonders what may have influenced Trudeau’s last-minute change of heart before meeting Trump. After all, just over three weeks ago, it was reported:

Justin Trudeau has responded to Donald Trump’s immigration ban by saying Canada welcomes refugees who have been rejected from the US.

The Canadian Prime Minister also said he intends on talking to Mr Trump about the success of the refugee and immigration policy in Canada.

And contrary to Trudeau’s comment about “Canadians,” the Ottawa Citizen published a few demands and assertions that indicated a few “expectations” from “Canadians”; the article was entitled “Trudeau must push Trump on Muslim ban and refugees”:

Trudeau’s record on refugees means that he has a special responsibility when he comes to the U.S.: he’s in a unique position to call on Trump to revoke his executive order.

Trudeau must use his meeting with Trump not only to convey the concerns of Canadians but also the global ripple effects his hardline and cruel policies have had on other countries…..

As Trump’s policies have been exposed for what they are – irrational and inhumane – the American public has rejected them and wants Congress to do the same…..

The misuse of the word “Canadians” to define the thoughts of an entire population is illogical and transparent, as is the collective use of the phrase “the American public.” Those terms tend to be routinely exploited by leftists in an attempt to appear as an overwhelming majority.

Trump rightly stated:

“We cannot let the wrong people in and I will not allow that to happen during this administration.”

Trump and Trudeau voiced their hope to “continue strengthening the relationship between their two countries.”

Trudeau’s decision to respect Trump’s leadership is a step in the right direction, aside from his possible motives. Now he faces criticism from his own leftist camp for being too passive with Trump, beginning with the CNN article below.

“Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on”,  by By Jeremy Diamond and Kevin Liptak, CNN , February 13, 2017:

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump offered an unapologetic defense of his travel ban during a joint news conference Monday with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, saying the US “cannot let the wrong people in.”

Trudeau, meanwhile, made clear that he holds a different view of the issue but said it was not his place to come to the US and “lecture” Trump on the controversial policy.

Both leaders, though, were careful not to critique each others’ fundamentally divergent approaches, and instead sought to focus on their shared goal of improving cross-border trade.

Trump called his executive order — now stalled in court — “common sense,” adding he would continue to fight to keep “the wrong people” out of the US, even at the risk of casting too wide a net. Trudeau, meanwhile, touted Canada’s acceptance of tens of thousands of Syrian refugees and made clear he differs with Trump on the issue.

But he stated it was not his place to come to the US and “lecture” Trump on the controversial policy.

“I’m just doing what I said I would do,” Trump said, referring to his hardline immigration policies.

The two leaders, who are ideologically at odds on a range of issues, played a delicate dance Monday as they sought to focus on the commonalities between their two countries, rather than the chasm between their personal philosophies and politics.

“There have been times where we have differed in our approaches and that has always been done firmly and respectfully,” Trudeau said. “The last thing Canadians expect is for me to come down and lecture another country on how they choose to govern themselves.”

Trudeau said he would focus on governing “in such a way that reflects Canadians’ approach.”

His comments came after Trump defended his action to ban citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and put a stop to the entry of refugees into the US — a ban that has been stalled by a federal court.

“We cannot let the wrong people in and I will not allow that to happen during this administration,” Trump said. “We’re going to give ourselves every bit of chance.”

Both Trump and Trudeau said they hoped to continue strengthening the relationship between their two countries and both remarked on the important trading relationship the two countries share.

Referring to his pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, Trump said the two leaders would be “tweaking” their trade relationship, but he emphasized that the US’s bones with the free trade deal were mostly centered on the US trading relationship with the third country in the deal: Mexico.

“It’s a much less severe situation than what’s taking place on the southern border,” Trump said, after calling the US-Canada trading relationship “very outstanding.”

Trudeau made clear that the Canadian economy is “very dependent” on its relationship with the US and sought to draw closer to Trump’s populist rhetoric by noting that both men were “elected on commitments to support the middle class, to work hard for people who need a real shot at success.”

The remarks came after the two leaders shared their first in-person meetings together at the White House Monday, which included a roundtable discussion with women business executives — which included Trump’s daughter Ivanka — and the launching of a joint council to advance female entrepreneurship and leadership in business.

Their first in-person meeting came amid Trump’s first series of diplomatic forays, following his weekend bonding session with Japan’s prime minister and just two days before the Israeli prime minister arrives at the White House.

In his previous US visits, Trudeau found a leader almost exactly aligned with his liberal worldview and youthful image. In return, then-President Barack Obama met with Trudeau often, counseling his younger ally on how to best advocate for the progressive agenda he championed.

Trudeau has arrived to a very different White House. He sought to balance the need to maintain close ties with a mandate from anxious Canadians to press Trump on his more controversial views.

The meeting is Trump’s third official visit from a head of government at the White House. In his first three weeks in office, he’s also welcomed the British and Japanese prime ministers, and will host Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday.

Trump’s previous bilateral sessions were marked by comity and a focus on shared priorities. But in Trudeau, Trump encountered a leader further apart from him in both age and global outlook than his previous two visitors…..

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslim found with pipe bomb in luggage was allowed to fly again days later

Sweden’s “first feminist government” dons hijabs in Iran

Former Obama officials, loyalists waged secret campaign to oust Flynn to preserve Iran deal

/in , , , /by

“Former Obama Officials, Loyalists Waged Secret Campaign to Oust Flynn,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, February 14, 2017:

The abrupt resignation Monday evening of White House national security adviser Michael Flynn is the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.

The effort, said to include former Obama administration adviser Ben Rhodes—the architect of a separate White House effort to create what he described as a pro-Iran echo chamber—included a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn’s credibility, multiple sources revealed.

The operation primarily focused on discrediting Flynn, an opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, in order to handicap the Trump administration’s efforts to disclose secret details of the nuclear deal with Iran that had been long hidden by the Obama administration.

Insiders familiar with the anti-Flynn campaign told the Free Beacon that these Obama loyalists plotted in the months before Trump’s inauguration to establish a set of roadblocks before Trump’s national security team, which includes several prominent opponents of diplomacy with Iran. The Free Beacon first reported on this effort in January.

Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon requested anonymity in order to speak freely about the situation and avoid interfering with the White House’s official narrative about Flynn, which centers on his failure to adequately inform the president about a series of phone calls with Russian officials.

Flynn took credit for his missteps regarding these phone calls in a brief statement released late Monday evening. Trump administration officials subsequently stated that Flynn’s efforts to mislead the president and vice president about his contacts with Russia could not be tolerated.

However, multiple sources closely involved in the situation pointed to a larger, more secretive campaign aimed at discrediting Flynn and undermining the Trump White House.

“It’s undeniable that the campaign to discredit Flynn was well underway before Inauguration Day, with a very troublesome and politicized series of leaks designed to undermine him,” said one veteran national security adviser with close ties to the White House team. “This pattern reminds me of the lead up to the Iran deal, and probably features the same cast of characters.”

The Free Beacon first reported in January that, until its final days in office, the Obama administration hosted several pro-Iran voices who were critical in helping to mislead the American public about the terms of the nuclear agreement. This included a former Iranian government official and the head of the National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, which has been accused of serving as Iran’s mouthpiece in Washington, D.C.

Since then, top members of the Obama administration’s national security team have launched a communications infrastructure after they left the White House, and have told reporters they are using that infrastructure to undermine Trump’s foreign policy.

“It’s actually Ben Rhodes, NIAC, and the Iranian mullahs who are celebrating today,” said one veteran foreign policy insider who is close to Flynn and the White House. “They know that the number one target is Iran … [and] they all knew their little sacred agreement with Iran was going to go off the books. So they got rid of Flynn before any of the [secret] agreements even surfaced.”

Flynn had been preparing to publicize many of the details about the nuclear deal that had been intentionally hidden by the Obama administration as part of its effort to garner support for the deal, these sources said.

Flynn is now “gone before anybody can see what happened” with these secret agreements, said the second insider close to Flynn and the White House….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s Shadow Presidency

Why does General Flynn hate Iran? – The Duran

James Mattis’ 33-Year Grudge Against Iran

Islamic State video shows two young boys blowing themselves up as jihad suicide bombers

Robert Spencer: Answering an Islamic apologist (Part V)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Dear Conservative Members of Parliament: Is Canada Planning to make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

/in , , , , /by

Honorable Conservative MPs:

Canada already has laws against inciting violence. Canada already has laws to protect ALL Canadians against discrimination based on their faith. It is shocking that The Parliament of Canada is endorsing a petition to “condemn all forms of Islamophobia” (Petition e-411) and will hold a vote on a motion (Motion M-103) by portraying “Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination” based on that petition.

Isn’t “Phobia” a type of mental disorder? Isn’t the “Islamophobia” motion which was ‘unanimously’ passed by the Canadian Government which calls for limiting the rights of Canadians to criticize Islam, contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

I have a Rational Fear of Radical Islam.

Is Canada Planning to Make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

The definition of Islamophobia from a Google search is dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

What exactly has the Parliament of Canada petitioned against? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muhammad? Criticism and condemning the Islamic State and all Islamic terrorist groups affiliated with radical Islamic ideology? Petitioning against those Canadians who Condemn Sharia law? If Canadians criticize Islam or convert from Islam, will they now be considered an “Islamophobe” by Canada?

What’s next? Sending Iran and Hamas type morality police to the doorsteps of Canadians critical of Islam, while radical imams continue to spew openly radical Ideas in schools and mosques? What about Canadians who are suspicious of others plotting possible terrorist activities – will they be afraid to report it to authorities in case they are wrong?

The petition the Parliament of Canada recently passed a motion was initiated on June 8, 2016 by Samer Majzoub, President of the Canadian Muslim Forum condemning Islamophobia in “all” forms.

The details in the petition which was sponsored by the Liberal MP are extremely sketchy to say the least- e-411 for the parliamentary petition:

“We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

Again I say, please keep in mind Islamophobia’s definition.

canadian flag islamIs Canada Planning to Make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

It seems that many Western politicians, the “Mainstream Media”, and our political elites use the term “Islamophobia” without even knowing what is in Islam. There might be a lot to be rationally  “phobic”, or simply fearful, about.

Since Trudeau Liberals came to power, Canadians have been constantly reminded that to speak negatively about Islam is supposedly acting as a fear-mongering, racist, xenophobic, “Islamophobe”.

It is far more probable that they are none of those things; rather that it is the accusers who are racist (Quran: 2;65; 2.89 (Allah transforms Jews into apes); 3:110-112; 4;160, and on and on); Xenophobic really does not apply to Jews, Christians, Yazidis, Hindus, Kurds, Baha’is , Zoroastrians, and a few different sects of Islam; it is truly the other way around.

These people are rightfully afraid of harm coming to them from Sharia law and radical Islam. I am a living example of one who has experienced harm from radical Islamic Sharia law. I was imprisoned at age 16 by the Iranian Regime for simply expressing my disagreement with their policies. They held me prisoner for 18 months in their notorious Evin Prison; I miraculously escaped the murder and rape I heard every day in that dark place.

The memories of that season still haunt me today. And, their threats still follow me today, to this great land of Canada. Therefore, I have a reasonable fear of radical Islam. To call my fear a phobia, an irrational fear, lacks compassion and fails to recognize the true reality of the same present danger living close to me once again. I am on their hit list. It was reported that the highest commander of the IRGC very recently said they would soon kill all dissidents living abroad.

People who are jittery about radical Islam and Sharia law are this way for many a reason: They look at how Sharia law is practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, by The Islamic State and Nigeria’s Boko Haram, and are concerned quite justifiably.

As a professional and Women’s Rights Advocate working for over twenty five years in the settlement sector in Canada, I have told many stories by Muslims who have been victimized and harassed by their Muslim neighbors and peers in schools for not wearing the hijab, for not fasting during the fasting month, for not eating halal, for owning a dog, or simply for wearing a pendant of Muslim Shiite Imam Ali while going to the restroom. I also met a Syrian refugee who was physically attacked for buying vegetables and fruits from a Shiite vendor in Ottawa; moderate Muslims being harassed for not forcing their daughters to wear the hijab, or even for writing with their left hand, to name a few, as I mentioned above. Also of concern is the hatred rising between mosques demonstrated in the recent mosque shooting in Quebec City.

The Islamic Cairo Declaration of 1990, written as a direct refutation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that all human rights are predicated on Islamic Sharia Law. Therefore, according to this view, beheading, stoning, flogging, slavery, child marriage, wife-beating, amputations, and a woman’s worth considered half of a man’s are all human rights. Is that what we want for Canada, or in Canada? Or, in and for any country?

All that these purported critics are doing is pointing out what is in Islam’s Sharia law if anyone cared to look. And, when it comes to concern with quality of life, people should care to look. What is it that these extremists are so eager to cover up?

To those of us who have experienced Islamic sharia law first-hand, protecting Western values – free speech, common law, equal justice under the law, democratic (“man-made”) governance; individual freedoms, separation of church and state, an independent judiciary, to name just a few – is indeed cause for concern. Every single one of them is contradicted by Islamic Sharia law or radical Islam.

Why should it be against the law to outspokenly disagree with aspects of a different religion or culture? Especially if it outspokenly threatens one’s own?

Interesting to note, there are no such terms as Christianophobia, or Judeophobia, that define a dislike or prejudice against a Judeo Christian worldview and Jews and Christians, especially as a political force. And, when Googling anti Zionism, a photo appears of Islamist Muslims condemning Jews and a State of Israel. What if Christians and Jews petitioned for anti Christianophobia and anti Judeophobia motions condemning “all” forms of these? Would we all put duct tape on our mouths? And, it is true that Christians and Jews would never be allowed to petition for this in any Middle Eastern country on the face of the planet.

Canadians are worried that with the Rise of Islamic Extremism In Canada , the country is on its way to becoming like Europe, with no-go zones. That is why we must keep the secular state and religion completely separate, so that no one’s religion, and in Islam’s case religious ideology, is given special treatment or singled out.

Our goal is, and must remain, equal treatment for all. Equality and pluralistic respect can only be achieved when the government acts constitutionally without bias or favoritism towards any particular religion or religious ideology. Our Western Constitution is one that is founded upon the notion that all men, and women, are created equally, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; free from the harassment of oppressive tyranny inspired by dogma of any sort; religious or political.

It is also important to know who sponsors such articles in the media and why politicians lack information to make accurate assessments and informed conclusions.

For more information, please read about Politics of ‘Islamophobia’ – source of, and purpose of the term.

In Islam, politics and religion are inseparably intertwined. For this reason, apostasy in Islam is equivalent to treason. A notable expression in Islam says it all, “Islam is a religion and a state.” The Penal Code of The Islamic Republic of Iran Mandates Death for Converts. Article 225-1 of this code reads, “Any Muslim who clearly announces that he/she has left Islam and declares blasphemy is an Apostate.” In the Qur’an, Bukhari (52:260) repeats this view clearly: “The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’” According to Ayatollah Khorasani, a prominent Shiite leader in Iran, “The promotion of Christianity in Iran must be stopped and stated that The Bible (The Gospel) is distorted and the Bible is not the Word of God.” (Farsi)

The Ayatollah’s views are directly of a mind with statements found in the Quran. Verses supporting death for apostates in the Qur’an are: 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66.

Article 19: Universal Declaration of Human Rights States:” Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Canadians must have the right to critique any ideology or religion. Preventing Canadians from speaking about Islam, is about denying Canadians the right to warn about a potential threat to their nation. A warning is not treason, but preventing a warning is. Isn’t this government sponsored Petition against the laws of the Constitution of Canada? CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 PART I

If the government prevents us the right to criticize any ideology, our government overrides our most basic freedom—the freedom of speech—and at the same time will undermine diversity, the “value” the Trudeau Liberals take pride the most in.

“Islamophobia” is used as a tool by political Islam to shut down criticism of Islam. At what point does western civilization demand that as a free society, all ideological matters conform to some common ground?

Can Canada simply ignore what is happening particularly in Europe, no-go-zones? Many places in Europe have become a breeding ground for radical Islam where they enforced their own sharia law.

Again, Canadians are worried that with the Rise of Islamic Extremism In Canada, the country is on its way to becoming like Europe, with no-go zones.

That is why we must keep the secular state and religion completely separate, so that no one’s religion, and in Islam’s case religious ideology, is given special treatment or singled out.

Our goal is, and must remain, equal treatment for all. Equality and pluralistic respect can only be achieved when the government acts constitutionally without bias or favoritism towards any particular religion or religious ideology.

Our Western Constitution is one that is founded upon the notion that all men, and women, are created equally, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free from the harassment of oppressive tyranny inspired by dogma of any sort; religious or political.

In reference to the above, I urge you to take the time and read the following article by Canadian investigative journalist, Christine Williams – “Canadian parliament passes anti-Islamophobia motion!”

M-103 does NOT define Islamophobia and is Not inclusive but will only endanger and silence Canada’s freedom of speech. I urge you and all Parliamentarians to vote against Motion M-103 and to rescind Petition e-411.

Respectfully,

Shabnam Assadollahi, Ottawa, ON.
Award-winning Human Rights Advocate; Former Child prisoner of Evin imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran

REPLY FROM MP PETER KENT

Shabnam:

I will be voting against Motion M-103 for the following reasons:

1)      Abundant protection against discrimination and hate already exists in the Criminal Code of Canada and The Human Rights Act
2)      The word “Islamaphobia” is a confected term that has a wide range of meanings and interpretations.
3)      A “phobia” is a medical term that relates to an anxiety disorder.  It is inappropriate to apply in Parliamentary debate.
4)      Finally, I don’t believe the study proposed in Motion M-103 is worthy of a standing committee’s time or budget.

When I participated as a founding-member of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism, MPs agreed that it’s study would be conducted as a special, all-party committee, responsible for its own funding but reporting to Parliament.

Thank you for taking the time to write me expressing your genuine concerns for Motion-103.  E-411 is an electronic petition and closed for signatures October 6, 2016.

Sincerely

CANADIAN MP PETER KENTHon. Peter Kent, P.C., MP
Thornhill, ON
House of Commons
Chambre des communes
Critic, Foreign Affairs                               
                    Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs

MY REPLY TO MP PETER KENT

Dear MP Peter Kent,

Thank you for taking the time, reading my open letter and responding to it.

Did you know that the Quebec, and Ontario imams say apostates are to be executed by The Islamic State? I am an apostate—I left Islam when I was in my early teens in Iran and I am a convert from Islam to Christianity.

Here is my terrifying story.

The article “Quebec, Ontario imams say apostates to be executed by The Islamic State” published by CIJNews documents that Since 2015 Sheharyar Shaikh serves as the Imam of the Islamic Society of Kingston, Ontario and he also served as the President of the North American Muslim Foundation and the Imam of Masjid Qurtabah in Scarborough, Ont. In recent years, he also took part in Dawah (introducing Islam to disbelievers) with activists affiliated with the Islamic booth at Toronto’s Dundas Square.

Supporter of the establishment of a Caliphate, or (The Islamic State), Sheharyar Shaikh believes that the Islamic Law (Sharia Law) is essential to maintain a healthy and moral society which can be achieved by using the Islamic punishments (execution, amputation, hanging , flogging etc.) as effective deterrents against potential criminals. In this regard he emphasized that punishment for apostates, Muslims who left Islam, is execution. The following are excerpts from a sermon entitled “There Is No Compulsion In Islam” which was delivered in English in 2013 (29:47-31:46):”

Please read the article and watch the Imams statements:  http://en.cijnews.com/?p=199556

I have never heard in modern times of a Jew or Christian being killed for leaving their faith! It certainly is NOT common like it is in the Islamic world or the western world where there are enough “honor” killings to prove the barbarity of the sharia law.

Calling for the execution, or killing of anyone in Canada or abroad based on religion or faith should be a crime against humanity and included in our laws. Any and all Canadian imams caught saying or promoting this must be charged and deported if they hold dual citizenship.

Where are Prime Minister Trudeau, The Parliament of Canada, RCMP,  Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, the Police, the Premieres, and those who are enforcing M-103 on all the “hate speech” coming from these quarters lately?

Why can’t we have a motion in parliament to remove this excrement from the country rather than punishing those who criticize this ideology?

Ms. Iqra Khalid should have tabled a motion requesting a study on why some Muslims insist on breaking our Canadian laws, promoting violence and demand preferential treatment. One illegal migrant crossing into Manitoba told CBC, “We need more sanctuary cities to protect us.” The US illegals just arrived here illegally and are demanding governments to change and accommodate more for the Islamic faith!

Shouldn’t everyone share equal rights? In Iran, under the Islamic laws women are denigrated as second class citizens. I openly share my personal story, along with comprehensive and troubling examples of the reality that all Iranian women face in my article published by Mackenzie Institute:  “Islamic Sharia Law Vs Liberty, Equality and Democracy”. I stated: “As a defender and advocate for human rights, I strongly condemn Islamic Sharia Law, which is opposed to democracy, having the ultimate purpose to destroy liberty and dominate the world.” This article will leave one asking if enough is being done in the fight for the rights and freedoms of Iranian women compared to women in the West.

To read my article, please click here.

“Islamic Sharia Law Vs Liberty, Equality and Democracy” A comprehensive look at Islamic shariah law may surprise you. It could be closer to home than you think.

All cultures are NOT equal and anyone who respects a culture who bases their entire ideology and laws on “Honor Killings”, female genital mutilation, child brides as young as 8 years old, rape, marital rape, molestation, pedophilia and torture is to say that you respect the atrocities that it perpetrates. They can call themselves, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban, Al-Shabob, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, devout, extremist, etc. The common denominators are always Islam, the Quran, the Hadith and Sharia, which violates our Canadian Constitution and should not be practiced on Canadian soil and Islam’s sharia and ideology cannot coexist with our culture or constitution.

Please read my Op-ed: “Trudeau’s Multiculturalism”

Islam is far more of a political system than a religion. Islam is in the guise of a religion is actually a militant political ideology intended for conquering the world for the imaginary, Allah… It is indeed an open ended war against Jews and Christians until we convert to Islam, or are murdered, or enslaved. Historical record shows what happened to Persia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey, to name a few.

  • There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir (non-Muslims, apostates or infidels).
  • Islam’s ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule.
  •  Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution.
  • The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them.
  • The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Quran in a Muslim’s daily life….

Canada already has laws against inciting violence. Canada has laws to protect Canadians against discrimination based on their faith. Motion M-103 does NOT define “Islamophobia”, is Not inclusive, and will endanger Canada’s freedom of speech. Motion M-103  is undemocratic, immoral and unacceptable. This biased motion is a trait of totalitarian governments and not Canadian democracy!

I urge you and all Conservative Parliamentarians to please defeat Motion M-103 without ANY amendments and rescind Petition e-411 and sincerely I hope and trust that this biased Motion will be voted down and put to rest, permanently. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Shabnam Assadollahi

With Flynn leaks, the White House ‘shadow warriors’ draw first blood

/in , , , /by

The rogue weasels have struck. Terrified that Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn would tear them out root and branch, they connived and colluded, anonymously of course, to leak highly-sensitive intelligence information to destroy Flynn before he could destroy them.

This type of operation is not new. I wrote a whole book about it in 2007. I called them, the “shadow warriors.”

Then as now, the shadow warriors excelled at covert operations. After all, they lived in the darkness in a universe of lies.

Their technique “involved deep penetration of a hostile regime by planting a network of agents at key crossroads of power, where they could steal secrets and steer policy by planting disinformation, cooking intelligence, provocation, and outright lies.”

As I wrote at the time, this effort “involved sophisticated political sabotage operations, aimed at making regime leaders doubt their own judgment and question the support of their subordinates… It was war — but an intelligence war, played behind the scenes, aimed at confusing, misleading, and ultimately defeating the enemy. Its goal was nothing less than to topple the regime in power, by discrediting its rulers.”

These are powers and skills most Americans ascribe to our nation’s clandestine intelligence services, right? Don’t we want to have spies at the heart of the Iranian Supreme Leader’s entourage? Or planted next to whichever Kim is ruling his North Korean hermit kingdom? Isn’t that the type of capability we spending more than $80 billion a year to develop?

Alas, none of those very real targets is the target of these rogue weasels. Their target is the president of the United States.

flynn 1

The shadow warriors began leaking even before President Trump was sworn into office.

“According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29… What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote on January 12.

Later, news reports surfaced with more information about the calls, quoting “three sources familiar with the matter.”

But that wasn’t enough. To hound Flynn out of office required a full court press, and so last week the rogue weasels came out of the shadows and all began talking to the same reporters.

By the time these scribes had assembled their indictment (for that’s what it was), they now had heard the story corroborated from “nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls,” and who spoke, of course, “on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.”

In so doing, they exposed a sensitive, ongoing signals intelligence operation to intercept the electronic communications of the Russian ambassador. Who cares, right, if your goal is to sabotage the president?

flynn 2

What sets off this particular episode of the shadow warriors is the willingness of former top officials to leave their fingerprints behind.

Call it, payback. It began with Sally Yates, the Obama administration deputy attorney general who the Trump transition team improvidently named as acting attorney general while awaiting the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions — the same Sally Yates who was summarily fired by President Trump when she refused to support and defend his executive order calling for a temporary moratorium on immigration from seven Middle East countries.

Yates “informed the Trump White House late last month that she believed Michael Flynn had misled senior administration officials about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States,” the Washington Post wrote on Monday.

The scribes added: “In the waning days of the Obama administration, James R. Clapper Jr., who was the director of national intelligence, and John Brennan, the CIA director at the time, shared Yates’s concerns and concurred with her recommendation to inform the Trump White House.”

Brennan and Clapper knew they were on the way out, and so arguably had nothing to lose by going public. But clearly, both intelligence chiefs also knew they had seeded their agencies with loyalists — career officials who they could rely on to leak sensitive information to them in the future that would embarrass or confuse President Trump.

Government officials take an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies — foreign and domestic.

No one says you have to like the president or his policies. But senior officials are expected to serve him and carry out lawful orders.

When domestic enemies rear their head and seek to undermine the president and his lawful orders, that’s called sedition.

General Flynn made the mistake — perhaps inadvertently, as he says – of not telling the truth about these calls to the Vice President. That is a mistake.

But the leakers disclosed to the public — and our enemies — sensitive and classified information. That is illegal.

It’s time for the Attorney General to launch a thorough investigation to unmask the leakers, before the damage gets worse.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill.

Legislative Override of the Judiciary: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

/in , , , , /by

Florida Representative Julio Gonzalez (R-District 74) has taken a bold position on judicial overreach. In an email Representative Gonzales writes:

With great regularity, we are witnessing the increasingly aggressive and activist posture of our nation’s judiciary.  This month, the issue came to a head with Judge James Robart’s extra-constitutional act of staying a significant portion of the President of the United States’ foreign policy initiative and the subsequent affirmation of that stay by the unabashedly activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Those of us who value the restrictions placed upon government by the Constitution cannot help but worry over the implications of these unprecedented confrontational actions and the effects they will have upon our Republic.  Indeed, we are left with the troubling question of whether there is any solution to this latest assault upon the fabric of our Constitution.

But perhaps there is.

Last month, I filed a bill in the Florida House of Representatives [HR 121] that proposes a legislative override provision to Florida’s Constitution.  I also filed an accompanying memorial suggesting that Congress consider a similar addition to the United States Constitution.

To see why such a provision would be necessary, a review of our nation’s constitutional history regarding the judiciary is warranted.

Article III of the United Sates Constitution gave the courts “Judicial Power” over all cases and controversies arising out of the Laws of the United States and the Constitution, but it did not assign to the Supreme Court plenary authority regarding the constitutionality of laws.  This power was actually seized by the Supreme Court in its sentinel Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803.  In it, John Marshall singlehandedly declared,

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Consequently, any law the court determines is repugnant to the Constitution will be void.

Although the Congress of the day did not react to this action, by 1820, the consequences of the resulting change in the relationship between the three branches of government caught the attention of Thomas Jefferson who warned in a letter to Jarvis Williams,

“to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [would be] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

The Civil War and its associated amendments set the stage for the fulfillment of Jefferson’s prognostications.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution included Due Process and Equal Protection clauses that would be subsequently employed by federal judges to force their will and power upon the states.  With the appointment of progressive judges during the twentieth century, the Supreme Court engaged in the laborious work of redefining the various passages of the Constitution in manners neither foreseen nor intended by the Framers.

With their new powers, the Supreme Court applied the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the states, provisions that were initially conceived to apply only to the federal government.  In so doing the federal Supreme Court was able to remove prayer from schools, remove religious symbols from public places, and restrict the manner in which adults prayed in public meetings.  Through its divined interpretation of privacy protections, the Court then imposed new abortion laws upon the states, removing what was traditionally a state-based body of law and placing it at the feet of the federal courts.  It also imposed requirements on the state’s death penalty laws, and removed the power of the states to enact term limits upon its congressional delegates and senators, among countless other power-hoarding engagements.

Each of these actions was the result of decisions made by unelected officials permanently sitting upon the nation’s benches that would forever change the fabric of the Constitution and of the nation.

And what recourse did the people possess to check the Supreme Court as it interpreted the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with their will?

Operationally, the answer, of course, is none. There is no amendment that will ever be passed to specifically overturn a Supreme Court opinion ruling that a crèche may not sit in a public building during Christmas; nor does Congress possess the authority to pass a law that would overrule the Court when the latter speaks on issues of constitutionality, even if the matter were so obvious to Congress that it would have unanimously voted against the ruling of the Court.

Clearly, the ability of the Court to craft a binding opinion on any subject that no one else could overturn is wholly inconsistent with the system of checks and balances the Framers crafted.  In fact, in the same 1820 letter to Jarvis, Jefferson observed, “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”  Yet this is the situation in which we find ourselves today with the Supreme Court, both in the various states and within the federal government.

So how do we rectify this unchecked runaway judiciary?

Recognizing a similar threat to its democracy, Canada instituted Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in 1982 to allow for a legislative override.  Under this provision, if a Canadian legislative body should find the opinion of the court inconsistent with the views of the electorate, the legislature could override or nullify the court’s ruling.  And Canada is not alone in its possession of such a provision.  Australia, Israel, and England, among other great democracies, allow their respective legislatures to override even the highest rulings of their courts.  The reason for this is self-explanatory: no one in a republic ought to have plenary authority on practically any policy matter affecting the country, much less on ones defining the nature its foundational document.  Doing so would not only mean subjecting that society to the despotic rule of one branch of government, but even more importantly, it would mean relinquishing control of the very fabric and ownership of its constitution to that group.

Recognizing this flaw in our national Constitution, I have crafted a proposed amendment that would permanently address this problem.  It reads:

Any law, resolution, or other legislative act declared void by the Supreme Court of the United States or any District Court of Appeal may be deemed active and operational, notwithstanding the court’s ruling, if agreed to by Congress pursuant to a joint resolution adopted by a sixty percent vote of each chamber within five years after the date that the ruling becomes final.  Such a joint resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.

It is my concerted view that a legislative override provision, if enacted, would curtail activist judges.  Of equal importance, it would allow the people of the United States to take back control of their Constitution.  It would also force the people to engage the legislature in enacting rectifications to current laws that they see as objectionable or flawed, rather than run to the courts to impose their unconvincing will upon Americans.  In short, a legislative override provision to our Constitution would represent the clearest and most effective correction to the unchecked actions of an overzealous activist court.  Indeed, a legislative override provision would place our nation closest to the vision shared by President Washington in his Farewell Address when he said:

If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.  But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

A legislative override provision would prevent such usurpations from taking place and would, ultimately, save our free government.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Case for the Legislative Override by Nicholas Stephanopoulos University of Chicago Law School

Legislation would allow lawmakers to override judges’ rulings

representative julio gonzalezABOUT FLORIDA REPRESENTATIVE DR. JULIO GONZALEZ:

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives in District 74.  Dr. Gonzalez may be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com. Representative Gonzales is former member of the United States Navy Reserve, as part of the United States Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program. He has made two deployments: Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf during conflicts in Yugoslavia, Gulf Storm, and Somalia. He attended the University of Miami School of Medicine, M.D., 1990; Navy’s Flight Surgery School in Pensacola, Florida, Aviation Medicine, earned wings, 1992; University of Florida’s University Medical Center, Jacksonville, Florida, 1995-2000; Stetson University College of Law, J.D., 2013.

Organizing for Action: Obama’s Army of 32,500+ Soldier Anarchists

/in , , , , , , , /by

Discover the Networks reports:

OFA logoOrganizing for America (OFA) is a project of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). The American public first heard about OFA on January 17, 2009, when President Barack Obama announced that the organization would soon open its doors for business. Two months later, in mid-March, OFA was officially launched.

Basing its operations on the third floor of the DNC’s Capitol Hill headquarters, OFA consists of a vast network of volunteers whose mission is to “let their friends and neighbors know about the President’s plan to invest in America’s future, improve health care and education, create green jobs, reduce our dependence on foreign oil and cut the deficit in half over the next four years.”

A New York Times report describes OFA as “an army of [Obama] supporters talking, sending e-mail and texting to friends and neighbors as they try to mold public opinion.”

Read more…

OFAction logoThe Office of Barack and Michelle Obama website lists Organizing for Action as its primary political activist organization.

It appears that Organizing for America has now morphed into Organizing for Action (OFA).

It was and continues to be Barack Obama’s army of activists and, in some cases, violent anarchists. The OFA website states:

OFA is committed to mobilizing and training the next generation of progressive organizers and leaders, because real, lasting change doesn’t just happen on its own—it requires a program, it requires organizing, and it requires people like you.

With grassroots chapters in neighborhoods across the country, OFA volunteers are building this movement from the ground up, person to person, community by community—because democracy isn’t a spectator sport. [Emphasis added]

Organizing for Action has more than 250 local chapters around the country. According to it’s website OFA has the following six policy objectives:

  1. Turning up the heat on climate change deniers, because the stakes are too high not to act. [silencing science]
  2. Calling for lawmakers to stop standing in the way of comprehensive immigration reform. [open borders]
  3. Telling the stories of the millions who are seeing the life-saving benefits of Obamacare. [“resist” the repeal and replacement of ACA]
  4. Rallying around the simple principle that love is love and that no one should ever be discriminated against because of who they are or whom they love. [radical homosexual agenda]
  5. We organize because too often a woman’s health care is debated as a political issue, not as a basic right. [abortion]
  6. And we believe that anyone who works hard and plays by the rules deserves a fair shot at the American dream. [amnesty]

Paul Sperry writes in the New York Post:

When former President Barack Obama said he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests, he was sending a message of approval to his troops. Troops? Yes, Obama has an army of agitators — numbering more than 30,000 — who will fight his Republican successor at every turn of his historic presidency. And Obama will command them from a bunker less than two miles from the White House.

In what’s shaping up to be a highly unusual post-presidency, Obama isn’t just staying behind in Washington. He’s working behind the scenes to set up what will effectively be a shadow government to not only protect his threatened legacy, but to sabotage the incoming administration and its popular “America First” agenda.

He’s doing it through a network of leftist nonprofits led by Organizing for Action. Normally you’d expect an organization set up to support a politician and his agenda to close up shop after that candidate leaves office, but not Obama’s OFA. Rather, it’s gearing up for battle, with a growing war chest and more than 250 offices across the country.

Read the rest of the article here.

As Sperry points out, “Run by old Obama aides and campaign workers, federal tax records show ‘nonpartisan’ OFA marshals 32,525 volunteers nationwide. Registered as a 501(c)(4), it doesn’t have to disclose its donors, but they’ve been generous. OFA has raised more than $40 million in contributions and grants since evolving from Obama’s campaign organization Obama for America in 2013.”

Shadow government, anti-Trump protests, OFA, anarchist army, Barack Obama, the media, Democrats and sabotage are all united against President Donald J. Trump.

So, what’s new? These efforts may border on sedition.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy reads:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Obama’s Shadow Presidency

The Left Is Self-Destructing: Stand Back and Enjoy It

OBAMA’S PERMANENT PROTEST: Why the rise in rioting and civil unrest under Obama is no coincidence, but part of the plan

How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency

Sabotage: Obama is commanding an Army of 30,000 anti-Trump activists from his home 2 miles from the White House

EDITORS NOTE: Paul Sperry is the author of “The Great American Bank Robbery,” which details the link between race-based housing policies and the mortgage crisis.

Advice for Jared Kushner: ‘Stick to your principled positions and don’t haggle’

/in , , /by

Last night I attended a Pensacola Jewish presentation at a Cafe Israel event by our beautiful and talented Schlicha Yael Teperman on Israel as a Start Up Nation,a send up on Dan Senor’s best selling book. Teperman’s were Russian immigrants. She revealed in a slide she flashed on the screen that her father was a 25-year veteran of Intel’s major chip fabrication operation in both Oregon in Israel. She had put in three years in intelligence in the fabled Unit 8200. She has aspirations, after her current Jewish Agency stint in Pensacola, FL to finally attend University and ultimately become a lawyer and maybe a politician. So, why do we raise this?

Because also attending the event was a young Jewish Naval officer his wife and cute daughter who are about to leave service after a decade to enter the family real estate business in central New Jersey. That brought up the discussion about the Kushner family, whom they had some acquaintance with Jared’s brother Josh, and knew about the father’s travails.

So that is why when I cracked open today’s Wall Street Journal, I found Bret Stephens’ column on suggested rules that Jared Kushner might consider following in approaching any possible negotiations for a peace deal between the Palestinians and Israelis, that appears infinitesimally unlikely.

Stephens suggests following four rubrics from accomplished former White House and State Department officials. There is Harry Truman’s aide, Clark Clifford’s rule: “do nothing”. Advice that Bill Clinton didn’t follow in 2000 at Camp David, Condoleeza Rice botched in 2006 and Kerry didn’t in 2014 that erupted in Operation Protective Edge.

There’s the Kissinger rule of don’t do small stuff, go big in this context boost Israel as the strong horse in the Middle East along with Sunni Kingdoms, emirates and states to block Iran, and forget about the recalcitrant Fakestinians.

There is  the Bush Rule reflected in his April 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon, that said the 1949 Armistice line adopted in the December 2016 UN Security Resolution 2334 was bogus and dangerous. Don’t give the Golan or sovereignty of the disputed territories of Judea and Samara.

Finally, there is the Schultz Rule of Reagan’s Secretary of State: “stick to your principled positions and don’t haggle.” Good advice for not only Jared, but also Ms. Yael Teperman Shlicha a future high tech Israeli lawyer and future politician of note.

Mideast Rules For Jared Kushner
Global View columnist Bret Stephens has peace-process advice for the Trump White House: Forget peace talks. Work on building an alliance of moderates and modernizers.
WSJ.COM|BY BRET STEPHENS

Visualizing the Flow of Asylum Seekers Into the Industrialized World

/in , , , , /by

Based on data from the UN Refugee Agency, approximately 4.4 million asylum applications were submitted to 44 industrialized countries between 2013 and 2016. The map below shows the flow of these asylum seekers from their country of origin to the country in which they applied for asylum. Each point represents 500 asylum seekers.

To navigate around the map with a mouse:

  • Pan: left mouse button + drag
  • Rotate: right mouse button + drag
  • Zoom: both buttons + drag / two-finger touchpad scroll

Full screen version / Youtube video

Asylum seeker vs refugee

An asylum seeker is someone who has requested sanctuary from persecution in their home country. If the request is granted, the asylum seeker then becomes a refugee. In some cases, a host country may not have a formal process for evaluating asylum requests for all migrants crossing its border seeking refuge, in which case these displaced persons become “prima facie” refugees.

The map above displays the flow of asylum seekers into industrialized nations, which makes up only a small piece of the global refugee crisis. As of the end of 2015, there were about 16 million refugees globally, and a much larger number of displaced persons who did not qualify as refugees under the U.N. statue.

The countries hosting the largest number of refugees are all in the developing world. No industrialized nation features in the top 10.

Which countries host the largest refugee populations?

This map shows how the world’s 16 million refugees are distributed by country. To take a closer look, see the interactive map.

refugees map

The seven largest refugee populations are in Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia, Jordan, and Kenya, respectively. Together they host more than half the world’s refugees.

Credit:

My latest project is launching soon: Blueshift, a platform for designing and publishing dynamic maps for the web. If you’d like to give it a try, request a pre-launch invitation.

PROMISES TO KEEP: The ‘Law and Order’ President hits the ground running

/in , , , , , , /by

During his campaign for the presidency Donald Trump frequently disdainfully scowled when he spoke about how most politicians were “All talk and no action.”

Candidate Trump promised that immigration would be a primary focus of his administration.

President Trump has indeed focused on multiple aspects of the immigration crisis that go well beyond building a wall along the U.S./Mexican border.

His selection of Senator Jeff Sessions to be his Attorney General was the best possible choice for this important position.

Sessions had chaired the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest.

Consider that on February 25, 2016 that subcommittee conducted a hearing on the topic, “The Impact of High-Skilled Immigration on U.S. Workers.”

When the Obama administration conducted meetings for “Stakeholders” on the immigration issue corporate leaders were invited to attend as were immigration lawyers representing illegal aliens and special interest groups that advocate for illegal aliens.

However, no one in attendance represented the “average American.”

Even the union leaders representing the Border Patrol, ICE agents and the adjudications officers were barred from participating in those meetings.

On February 9, 2017 President Trump held a news conference in the Oval Office to conduct a public swearing in ceremony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Immediately after Vice President Pence swore in Jeff Sessions, President Trump signed three executive orders:

  1. Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking
  2. Presidential Executive Order on Preventing Violence Against Federal, State, Tribal, and Local Law Enforcement Officers
  3. Presidential Executive Order on a Task Force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety

President Trump promised to be the “Law and Order” President and he has certainly hit the ground running.

His executive order to prevent violence against law enforcement officers is tangible evidence of his keeping his promise to look out for law enforcement officers.

Let’s next consider how he articulated the purpose for his executive order on enforcing federal laws to attack transnational criminal organizations:

Section 1.  Purpose.  Transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including transnational drug cartels, have spread throughout the Nation, threatening the safety of the United States and its citizens.  These organizations derive revenue through widespread illegal conduct, including acts of violence and abuse that exhibit a wanton disregard for human life.  They, for example, have been known to commit brutal murders, rapes, and other barbaric acts.

These groups are drivers of crime, corruption, violence, and misery.  In particular, the trafficking by cartels of controlled substances has triggered a resurgence in deadly drug abuse and a corresponding rise in violent crime related to drugs.  Likewise, the trafficking and smuggling of human beings by transnational criminal groups risks creating a humanitarian crisis.  These crimes, along with many others, are enriching and empowering these organizations to the detriment of the American people.

A comprehensive and decisive approach is required to dismantle these organized crime syndicates and restore safety for the American people.

That statement underscores his understanding of how important immigration law enforcement and border security are to combatting transnational criminals.

What is unfathomable is how many politicians who have to understand this issue have opposed Trump at every opportunity.  Only they can explain their conduct.  However, I have to conclude that those who would oppose President Trump’s efforts to secure our nation’s borders and effectively enforce our immigration laws are siding with the cartels and transnational criminal organizations.

This certainly apply to mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” and governors who want to create “Sanctuary States.”

Sanctuary Cities should be called “Magnet Cities” because they attract criminal aliens including members of transnational gangs, fugitives and international terrorists.

The politicians’ claims that by shielding vulnerable illegal aliens from immigration law enforcement they would be willing to come forward when they fall victim to criminals is a blatant lie that ignores that Sanctuary Cities Endanger – National Security and Public Safety.

Sanctuary policies attract more violent criminals who are likely victimize members of the ethnic immigration communities.  However the false narrative serves to vilify valiant ICE agents who go in harms way every day they report for duty, seeking to protect national security and innocent lives.

Statutorily, U Visas are available for victims of human trafficking and other crimes if they come forward and assist with law enforcement efforts to apprehend the criminals.  Similar visa programs are available for illegal aliens who provide assistance to criminal investigations.

If those duplicitous politicians really wanted to assist illegal alien victims of crimes they would bring them to immigration offices and urge them to cooperate with the investigations of their criminal assailants.

That way everyone would win.

But then the politicians would not get their campaign contributions from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of special interest groups, and who know who else, who are literally and figuratively making out like bandits by exploiting the immigration system.

In continuing to consider Trump’s executive order on trafficking I call your attention to two of the key elements of this executive order are proverbial “music to my ears.”

(e)  develop strategies, under the guidance of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to maximize coordination among agencies — such as through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), Special Operations Division, the OCDETF Fusion Center, and the International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center — to counter the crimes described in subsection (a) of this section, consistent with applicable Federal law; and

(f)  pursue and support additional efforts to prevent the operational success of transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations within and beyond the United States, to include prosecution of ancillary criminal offenses, such as immigration fraud and visa fraud, and the seizure of the implements of such organizations and forfeiture of the proceeds of their criminal activity.

I speak from extensive experience when I say that this task force approach to identifying, investigating and dismantling international drug trafficking organizations is extremely effective.  I spent the final ten years of my career with the INS as a Senior Special Agent assigned to the OCDETF program in New York City.

As for immigration fraud and visa fraud, these two issues are elements of “Extreme vetting” that Trump promised when he campaigned for the presidency.

On May 18, 2004 I testified at a hearing by the House Immigration Subcommittee on the topic of Pushing the Border Out on Alien Smuggling: New Tools and Intelligence Initiatives that addressed the issues of visa fraud and also the strategy of providing visas for illegal alien informants.

On May 20, 1997 I testified before the House Immigration Subcommittee on the topic, Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.

That hearing was predicated on two deadly terror attacks carried out in 1993 at the CIA and first World Trade Center Bombing.

In one way or another, all of those involved with those attacks had gamed the visa system and/or the immigration benefits program.

The Clinton administration’s failures to address these vulnerabilities of visa fraud and immigration fraud that enabled these two deadly attacks to be conducted on American soil literally and figuratively, left the door open to the deadly terror attacks of 9/11.

The report, “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States” included this excerpt found on pages 46 and 47:

In addition, Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the attack, and Ahmad Ajaj, who was able to direct aspects of the attack despite being in prison for using an altered passport, traveled under aliases using fraudulent documents. The two of them were found to possess five passports as well as numerous documents supporting their aliases: a Saudi passport showing signs of alteration, an Iraqi passport bought from a Pakistani official, a photo-substituted Swedish passport, a photo-substituted British passport, a Jordanian passport, identification cards, bank records, education records, and medical records.6

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.” Mohammed Salameh, who rented the truck used in the bombing, overstayed his tourist visa. He then applied for permanent residency under the agricultural workers program, but was rejected. Eyad Mahmoud Ismail, who drove the van containing the bomb, took English-language classes at Wichita State University in Kansas on a student visa; after he dropped out, he remained in the United States out of status.

In the years since the terror attacks of 9/11 more terror attacks were carried out in the United States while other attacks, for one reason or another, failed.  Most of those attacks involved aliens who committed visa fraud and/or immigration fraud.

Trump’s executive orders address our immigration vulnerabilities and Attorney General Sessions will provide the legal horsepower.

All Americans should be thrilled that this President is keeping his promises.

RELATED ARTICLE: Federally-funded refugee resettlement contractor, HIAS, organized NY rally against Trump

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Does President Trump know he can cap the refugee program today?

/in , , , /by
tillerson-and-trump

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and President Donald J. Trump.

You have surely heard all the numbers flying around this morning about how many refugees from the seven originally banned countries have entered the U.S.  The numbers vary somewhat based on what day (and even time of day) one checks the State Department data base at Wrapsnet.

We heard a couple of days ago from Stephen Dinan at the Washington Times that 77% of the refugees admitted in the week following Judge Robarts’ decision are from the banned countries.

By the way, when I did numbers yesterday I went back to the day after the EO was issued (January 28th until yesterday) and the percentage was less than 50% from the 7 originally banned countries, so in recent days the Department of State has rushed in more from the seven targeted countries increasing the percentage.

Trying to recreate Dinan’s numbers for 2/3 to 2/9 I get 75% not 77%.  But, that small discrepancy doesn’t matter because it depends on when in the day on the 9th or even the 8th Dinan ran numbers.

But, that is not the point of this post!  

Just this morning Donald Trump tweeted that 72% came from those 7 terrorist-infested countries.

screenshot-276

Does the President not know that it is the UN and his own State Department (DOS) admitting them? Does he not know that he has the power to reduce the cap (the ceiling) on the entire program right now?  He did reduce Obama’s proposal of 110,000 to 50,000, but he could go lower and stop this rush in from these countries.
As of today we are at 34,430! Cap it now at 35,000!

(35,000 is not that far off of Bush’s post 9/11 number of 39,554, see here)

This reduction, across the board, was not addressed in the recent court wrangling because Trump clearly has the power! (LOL! Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and Jimmy Carter gave it to him in 1980!).

Of course a lowering of the ceiling won’t stop all those coming in from the seven terrorist hotspots, but the majority of those entering the US from Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Iran are through the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program.

Where is Tillerson? Where is Trump’s White House staff? Would someone tell him!

After all, the majority of Americans are on Trump’s side with this EO.

This post is filed in our Trump Watch! category as well as ‘refugee statistics’ and ‘where to find information.’

RELATED ARTICLES: 

GOP shifting on immigration

Waiting! Will Trump lower refugee ceiling further?

African gangs running amok in Australia

Senator Grassley to White House: Declassify Australian refugee deal!

97 companies file opposition to Trump’s immigration order | TechCrunch

NYT allows wealthy British subject to lecture U.S. about ‘fundamental American values’

/in , , , , , /by
david-miliband-and-hillar-001

David Miliband with Hillary Clinton.

I want to scream!  I missed this op-ed from January 27th, but the International Rescue Committee is re-tweeting it this morning and it caught my eye.

Here we have David Miliband, the former Labour Party British Foreign Secretary lecturing Donald Trump about “fundamental American values” after Trump announced his Executive Order to keep America safe by temporarily halting immigration from known terrorist hotspots.

And, to make matters worse Miliband’s organization pulls in over $450 million in government grants every year (click here). Some of that money is used to quietly place refugees in American towns and cities and give George Soros Freedom Awards!

Miliband’s annual salary as CEO of the IRC is a whopping $591,846!  But, Leftist media like the NYT never reports any of this!

Here is Miliband’s NYT Op-ed:

President Trump’s executive order suspending the entire resettlement program for 120 days and banning indefinitely the arrival of Syrian refugees is a repudiation of fundamental American values, an abandonment of the United States’ role as a humanitarian leader and, far from protecting the country from extremism, a propaganda gift to those who would plot harm to America.

The next paragraph of Miliband’s Op-ed is a prime example of the selective information people like Miliband put out in their propaganda.

Yes, he is right that most of the refugees entering the U.S. from Iran are non-Muslims (I say most because we do admit some Muslims, why from Iran?). However, he doesn’t tell you that almost 100% of the Syrians admitted to the US are Muslims of both Islamic sects, and only a tiny handful of the persecuted Christians are admitted.

In my data report, here yesterday, I told you that of a recent group of 402 Syrians admitted only 2 are Christians! 

Miliband continues…

The order also suggests that the resettlement program should make persecuted religious minorities a higher priority, implying that they have been neglected in the past. This is incorrect; existing law already places strong emphasis on religious persecution among the criteria for resettlement. For example, most of the refugees from Iran — a Muslim-majority country — who are resettled by my organization are not Muslim.

And, here we go again with this 36 month c***!  18-24 months was the number they previously used and now they are talking about 36 months for refugees waiting (not being screened for 18, 24, or 36 months).  And, in fact, in April 2016, the Obama Administration reduced the Syrian screening down to 3 months, see here.

They never mention that in October 2015 FBI Director Comey said here that there is no way to thoroughly screen the Syrians (and I maintain the Somalis either!) because they come from a failed state with NO RECORDS!

And, here, in September 2016, Senator Sessions and Cruz pulled testimony out of the Obama USCIS head that they must often RELY ON THE STRENGTH OF PERSONAL STORIES because they have no data on the refugee.

Nevertheless, Miliband continues to spin his propaganda!

Compared with other types of immigrants, refugees are the most thoroughly vetted group to enter the United States. The resettlement process can take up to 36 months and involves screenings by the Department of Homeland Security, the F.B.I., the Department of Defense, the State Department and the National Counterterrorism Center and United States intelligence community.

There is more, continue reading here if you want to get fired up for the day!

See our growing archive on Miliband here.

Majority of Americans support Trump immigration ‘ban’ from terror hotspots

/in , , , , , , /by

You are not alone!

Check it out!  Vox (the website that featured my work recently, here) reports that the majority of Americans support President Trump’s Executive Order to keep us safe from immigrants coming from certain parts of the world—keep us safe from terrorists trying to enter the country.

But, if the pollsters throw in mumbo-jumbo about “refugees” and phrases like “in keeping with US’s founding principles” they get more respondents to oppose the order.   The key message that resonates is one that uses the word “terrorism.”

Read it here.  Very interesting as Vox sends a message to its mostly Leftwing and Open Borders readers on how to use certain language to make their case.

I haven’t seen anything like this on mainstream cable media have you?

immigration poll supports trump ban

POLLS ON TRUMP EOS

Don’t waver Donald!

CNN and other Left-leaning news sites will show us non-stop clips of protesters opposing this EO making us all believe that we are in the minority, but never reveal that average Americans agree with Donald Trump on this! It is, as Trump says, “common sense!”

Sick of it? You can join like-minded Americans at upcoming rallies.  Go here (Spirit of America Rallies) and see if one is scheduled near you!

RELATED VIDEO: Pamela Geller on Trump’s “gorgeous” executive order is NOT a “Muslim ban.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Does Donald Trump know he can cap refugee program now?

The Trump Effect

Bloomberg: Trump’s refugee ceiling of 50,000 could hurt BIG MEAT

The Ninth Circuit Ignores Precedent and Threatens National Security – Wall Street Journal

Trump White House Says All Legal Options Still Being Considered, Ninth Circuit Court Judge Calls For En Banc Hearing

Krauthammer: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘A Disgraceful Conclusion’ – VIDEO

Hundreds Of Syrian, Iraqi Refugees Admitted To U.S. Since Trump Order Halted

Why the 9th Circuit Order Was Wrong, and What Trump Should Do About It

BREAKING: New Poll Shows SURPRISING Numbers For Trump….Liberals DUMBFOUNDED [VIDEO]