The Cross Still Stands Amid the Ruins of Destruction

Europe is no longer Europe, it is Eurabia, a colony of Islam, where the Islamic invasion does not proceed only in a physical sense, but also in a mental and cultural sense.  Italian Journalist Oriana Fallaci

Free speech is the soul of our nation and the foundation of all our other freedoms. If we can’t speak out against injustice and evil, those forces will prevail. Freedom of speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, a tyrant can wreak havoc unopposed, while his opponents are silenced.  Pamela Geller, FATWA: Hunted in America

One of the most marvelous cathedrals in the world, Notre Dame of Paris, an absolute jewel, has been partially destroyed!  Yet the Cross of Christ still stands amid the ruins.

The cathedral was built on a small island called the Île de la Cité, in the middle of the Seine and is consecrated to the Virgin Mary. Construction began in 1163, during the reign of King Louis VII, and was completed in 1345. It is considered a jewel of medieval Gothic architecture. It is the most famous of the Gothic cathedrals of the Middle Ages and is distinguished for its size, antiquity, and architectural interest.

Notre Dame Cathedral is part of the World Heritage site of “Paris, Banks of the Seine” inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1991.  UNESCO is the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. UNESCO’s programs contribute to Sustainable Development Goals defined in UN Agenda 2030, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015.  World Heritage sites are land grabs controlled by the United Nations.  Link

The burning of this magnificent structure brought tears, not only to the eyes of all Christians, but to all architectural historians as they watched the destruction of this gothic French cathedral.

Videos posted on social media show a segment of the French population rejoicing over the burning of Notre Dame Cathedral on Monday, including laughing and smiling emojis by users with Arab names.  Thousands of Muslims on Twitter rejoiced.

France’s Churches Vandalized

One wonders how many refugee Muslims were working on the restoration and refurbishing of the 850-year-old cathedral.  Isn’t that a question that should be asked inasmuch as the fire started in two different places according to LCI, a French TV station, and during Christians’ Holy Week?  During nine centuries there was never a single fire in Notre Dame.

While Notre Dame is undoubtedly the most well-known landmark to be affected, Paris’ second largest church, Saint Sulpice, briefly burst into flames on March 17, the fire damaging doors and stained glass windows on the building’s exterior. Police later reported that the incident had not been an accident.  An illegal Muslim immigrant had tried to burn down Saint Sulpice.

In 2016, two veiled Muslim women tried to detonate a car filled with explosives in front of Notre Dame.

In mid-March, an illegal Muslim immigrant tried to burn down the organ of the Saint-Denis basilica, (another jewel) and destroyed stained glass.  Link

European Destruction

Countless churches throughout Western Europe are being vandalized, defecated on, and torched.  In France, two churches are desecrated every day on average. According to PI-News, a German news site, 1,063 attacks on Christian churches or symbols (crucifixes, icons, statues) were registered in France in 2018.

Similar reports are coming out of Germany. Four separate churches were vandalized and/or torched in March alone. “In this country,” PI-News explained, “there is a creeping war against everything that symbolizes Christianity: attacks on mountain-summit crosses, on sacred statues by the wayside, on churches…and recently also on cemeteries.”

Who is primarily behind these ongoing and increasing attacks on churches in Europe? The same German report offers a hint: “Crosses are broken, altars smashed, Bibles set on fire, baptismal fonts overturned, and the church doors smeared with Islamic expressions like ‘Allahu Akbar.’”

For similar examples in other European countries, please see Austria, Rome, Italy, and Spain, and so many others.

Free Speech Terminated by Fox News

Ahh yes, the newsroom narrative never touched on arson of this beautiful Notre Dame cathedral.  Instead, it had to be an accident, probably because of renovation.  Somewhere a spark from some tool ignited the cathedral in two different places, and this beautiful place of worship went up in flames while the world watched.  Yeah, sure!

Not surprisingly, but wholly choreographed, two Fox News anchors actually prevented guests from discussing the recent rash of churches being attacked which included arson. Both Shephard Smith and Neil Cavuto cut off their guests.

Bill Donahue, President of the Catholic League in the United States was speaking with Neal Cavuto.  Donahue commented that we don’t know that it was an accident, “But forgive me for being suspicious. Just last month a seventeenth century church was set on fire in Paris. We’ve seen tabernacles knocked down, crosses have been torn down, statues have been smashed.”  Cavuto cut him off, but Donahue continues saying, “But I’m sorry, I mean, when I find out that the eucharist is being destroyed and excrement is being smeared on crosses.”  Then Cavuto hangs up the phone on Bill.  Watch the video of the three-minute exchange.

Shephard Smith’s guest was French media analyst and former elected official Philippe Karsenty, who said the blaze burning at the Parisian landmark was “like a 9/11.”  Smith interrupts him and states they are not going to speculate. But Karsenty continues, “The church was there for more than 850 years. Even the Nazis didn’t dare to destroy it.”

He said there have been churches “desecrated each and every week in France, all over France” in recent years. “So, of course, you will hear the story of the political correctness which will tell you it’s probably an accident,” Karsenty said before Smith interrupted and cut him off.  Philippe Karsenty took to twitter to share the harsh and censored interview.  Link

Any logical discussion of an anti-Christian or anti-Catholic arson was terminated.  As Diana West stated in her recent article, “Given what we have all been through as veterans of the jihad, lo, these nearly 18 years, it is the pathetic height of absurdity to try to stop a rational being from wondering whether there is an Islamic connection to the burning of Notre Dame — amid all of the other possibilities, including criminal negligence on an epic scale.”

Media are no longer willing or able, to robustly defend their Judeo-Christian roots.

French Catholics Speak Out

Frenchman Maxime Lepante believes Islam represents a mortal danger for all non-Muslims.  “And when our churches, our cathedrals, our cemeteries, our monuments, are destroyed by Muslim immigrants, Macron uses our policemen to protect…the mosques!  Macron is an absolute criminal; he supports the Muslim invaders who are slaughtering us and destroying our country!”

Former French President, Francois Hollande will be infamously remembered for the November, 2015 Muslim terrorist slaughter in the Bataclan Café in Paris.  The Islamic State terrorists who attacked the Bataclan theater in Paris not only killed scores of innocents — they also gouged out the eyes and sliced up the genitals of some of the victims, according to testimony in a disturbing French report.

Some victims’ bodies from the second floor of the theater had been beheaded, eviscerated and otherwise mutilated, according to two secondhand accounts reported to a parliamentary commission set up to investigate the attack.

Now France’s President Macron will also be remembered in history for the very destruction of Notre Dame Cathedral by his beloved Muslim thugs.

Islamic Destruction of Historic Artifacts

Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci is a legend and was one of the bravest souls who wrote the truth of Islam.  The Rage and the Pride and The Force of Reason were books written by a woman who fought fascism in Italy as a kid, as an adult was shot three times and left for dead by police in Mexico City, went to Viet Nam to personally report on the war and was ultimately the recipient of an imam’s “fatwa” – a fatwa designed to permanently silence Fallaci’s criticism of Islam.

The fearless journalist interviewed Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. Forced into a chador in order to enter the Ayatollah’s presence, she ended up in a row about why women should be forced to wear such a garment, and became so enraged that she stood up and ripped off “this stupid medieval rag,” letting it fall to the floor “in an obscene black puddle.”  The Ayatollah rushed out…afraid of a woman with chutzpah!

Oriana interviewed Henry Kissinger in 1972 and he confessed in his memoirs that this interview was one of the most disastrous decisions of his career. But I digress…

In her 2001 book, The Rage and the Pride, she exposed the destruction throughout the world of historic artifacts demolished by Islam. She took up her pen to write this book after the horrors of 9-11. She told of the ruination of archeological monuments…the Bamiyan’s Buddhas of Afghanistan blown up by the Taliban on order of Mullah Omar.

It was the verdict of the Islamic Supreme Court of Kabul and their pronouncement that every pre-Islamic statue will be destroyed, every pre-Islamic symbol will be wiped out, every idol condemned by the Prophet to be pulverized.

It was pronounced on the 26th of February 2001, the same day in which the Taliban regime authorized the public hangings in the stadiums, and the last women’s rights were withdrawn.  Islamic decimation of historic architecture and documents continues, and is unabated despite being declared UNESCOs Sustainable Development World Heritage sites. Link

Fallaci tells how these people invade a country, how they live in the heart of a society that hosts them without that country questioning their differences and how the country is forced to capitulate to their so-called “religious” demands because of their own laws.

She tells of a synod held by the Vatican in October 1999 to discuss the rapport between Christians and Moslems, and an eminent Islamic scholar addressed the stunned audience declaring with placid effrontery: “By means of your democracy we shall invade you, by means of our religion we shall dominate you.”

The report was given by one of the participants, His Eminence monsignor Giuseppe Bernardini, archbishop in the Turkish Diocese of Smyrna.

Oriana says, “Dealing with them is impossible.  Attempting a dialogue, unthinkable.  Showing indulgence, suicidal.  And, he or she who believes the contrary is a fool.  The moment you give up your principles, and your values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period.”

Heed her words…she is right!


European churches are vandalized, defecated on, and torched every day, historic monuments in the Middle East are destroyed, sharia law is forced on host countries who have allowed Islamic “refugees” to enter into their sovereign nations.

As for our country, the United States has been infiltrated thoroughly.  Robert Spencer in his book, Muslim Brotherhood in America, told that the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration of the Washington establishment is remarkable by any standard. Former FBI Special Agent John Guandolo of UnderstandingtheThreat noted in October 2011, “What we’re seeing not just inside the White House, but inside the government entities, the national security entities, the State Department – is a strong push by the Muslim Brotherhood to get their people not just into operational positions, but policy positions – deeper, long term, bureaucratic positions.”

In 2016, hundreds of Islamists were elected to local, state, and federal government, the invasion continues, and with it will come the destruction of our culture and our heritage and our historic monuments.

At the siege of Vienna in 1683, Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.  We are in a new phase of a very old war.

VIDEO: President Trump Vindicated

President Trump has been vindicated. The Mueller investigation failed to find any evidence to support the big lie that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government and failed miserably to prove any obstruction.

We’re pleased that Attorney General Barr saw through the 448-page smear of President Trump by highlighting the simple conclusion that there is no collusion and no obstruction.

Neither Mueller, the Obama FBI, DOJ, CIA, State Department, nor the Deep State ever had a good-faith basis to pursue President Trump on Russia collusion. Russia collusion wasn’t just a hoax, it was criminal abuse, which is why Judicial Watch has fought and will continue to fight for Russiagate documents in federal court.

The targeting of President Trump served to protect Hillary Clinton and her enablers/co-conspirators in Obama administration from prosecution. Attorney General Barr can begin restoring the credibility of the Justice Department by finally initiating a thorough investigation of the Clinton email and related pay-to-play scandals and the abuses behind the targeting of President Trump.

We have long called for the shutdown of the Mueller special counsel operation and have pursued dozens of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits in connection with the illicit targeting and other abuses of President Trump. Judicial Watch FOIA litigation exposed, for example:

  • The Dossier-based Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications targeting President Trump
  • Eleven FBI payments to Christopher Steele
  • FBI firing of Steele
  • Extensive DOJ (Ohr) collusion w/Steele, Simpson, Fusion GPS
  • No court hearings by defrauded FISA courts before warrants were issued
  • Anti-Trump bias by Mueller deputy Andrew Weissmann

You can be sure your Judicial Watch will continue to “investigate the investigators”! We already have over 40 FOIA lawsuits on Obama/Clinton/Deep State effort to illegally spy on and overthrow President Trump. This assault on our Republic is the worst corruption scandal in American history and Judicial Watch is on it – no matter what Congress or the Justice Department does.


Can the Media Survive Mueller?

Judicial Watch Statement on the Mueller Report

Mueller’s Report Speaks Volumes

Mueller Shouldn’t Have Taken the Job

U.S. Intelligence Institutionally Politicized Toward Democrats

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column with video is republished with permission.

PODCAST: Mueller Report Proves Russian Collusion Claim Is a Hoax

The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky analyzes the redacted report about the findings from special counsel Robert Mueller, and why it’s time to investigate why President Donald Trump was ever suspected of collusion in the first place. Read the transcript, posted below, or listen to the interview in the podcast:

We also cover these stories:

  • Democrats are trying to get Mueller to testify in May.
  • North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed a bill that protects the lives of abortion survivors.
  • New York City is actually losing residents for the first time in recent years.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunesSoundCloudGoogle Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at Enjoy the show!

Kate Trinko: Joining us today to discuss the newly released Mueller Report is Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky, a legal expert. Hans, have you looked at the report? What are your takeaways?

Hans von Spakovsky: Yes, I’ve been skimming through it all day, putting my speed-reading lessons to work.

Trinko: It’s only 400 or so pages, right?

von Spakovsky: Right. The key thing that I get out of it is that, remember when the Attorney General William Barr sent his letter to Congress in which he basically gave what the conclusions of the report were? One, there was no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and two, there was no obstruction of justice.

There were a lot of claims by Democrats, including people like Jerry Nadler, who’s head of the Judiciary Committee, that, “Oh, well, we don’t believe you. We think you’re leaving things out.”

Well, reading through the report, it’s very clear that Barr was 100% accurate in his summary of it and that the two-volume report—half of which is the Russian collusion claim, the other half is the obstruction of justice claim.

No one can read that and come to any conclusion other than the whole Russian collusion claim was a hoax. There was just nothing to that at all. And none of the actions that were taken by the president could be considered obstruction of justice.

Now, it’s very clear when you read it, and you see they relate some of the internal conversations in meetings at the White House about this, it’s clear the president was very angry. But that is a sentiment that I think most people would share if they’ve been falsely accused of a crime and that’s exactly the situation here.

The key thing is that he took no official actions of any kind that could in any way actually be considered obstruction of justice.

Daniel Davis: Yeah. On that point, the report says that he gave orders to do things that were not obeyed, so Mueller says, quote, “The president’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the person declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”

So it’s kind of a moot point then because it didn’t happen, but is that even a crime if he tried to get them to break the law but they didn’t?

von Spakovsky: No, I don’t think so, particularly because, and this is something that General Barr and others have talked about, is that it’s very clear when you read the report that he had no corrupt intent.

And what I mean by that is it’s one thing if you act because you’re innocent and you don’t believe the government should be investigating you because you haven’t committed a crime. That’s very different from having a corrupt intent to interfere with an investigation because, in fact, you did commit a crime and you want to cover it up.

Davis: So legally there’s a distinction there?

von Spakovsky: There is a distinction and they talk about the fact that the president’s anger over this makes it clear to General Barr that there was no corrupt intent with any of his hot talk, if I can call it that, over what Bob Mueller and others were doing.

And again, key point there, remember there were no restrictions placed on Bob Mueller. He had all the resources he needed, he had 19 lawyers, 40 FBI agents, and he did a very comprehensive, wide-ranging investigation.

I’ve already heard some folks claiming, “Well, he didn’t have everything he needed to do a complete investigation.” Again, that’s just not correct.

Trinko: The report says that President Trump did try to remove Mueller, or presumably a special council, but that people didn’t follow his orders … it didn’t happen. Is that telling or significant?

von Spakovsky: I don’t think so when it comes down to the obstruction of justice charge. It didn’t happen and the investigation was completely and thoroughly done. So again, I just don’t see how you could bring an obstruction of justice charge and the attorney general agrees with that assessment.

Davis: The report also said that Trump was asked a lot of written questions by Mueller and that Mueller was sort of unsatisfied with those answers.

I’ll just read from the report here. Mueller says, “The President stated on more than 30 occasions that he does not recall or remember or have an independent recollection of information called for by the questions. Other answers were incomplete or imprecise.”

It sounds like maybe he just got good legal advice.

von Spakovsky: It could be, and so what that Mueller wasn’t satisfied with that? That’s just Mueller’s claim. He hasn’t proved in a court of law that somehow those answers were untruthful. So again, I don’t pay much attention to accusations by a prosecutor who in the end concludes there’s not enough evidence for a prosecution.

Trinko: Liberals are calling for Mueller to testify before Congress—

von Spakovsky: Right.

Trinko: … in May. Is that a good idea? Is that something he should do? What do you think?

von Spakovsky: Well, he can do it, but if Democrats think they’re going to somehow get something out of it more than they’ve already gotten in his report, I think they’re going to be sadly disappointed.

If they believe that Mueller’s going to come up with some kind of smoking gun that’s not in the report, I just don’t believe that. I think Mueller put everything he could into that report and they’re just not going to discover anything else.

Trinko: That’s a real problem for all the liberals with the Mueller tattoos and all that other stuff, there’s going to be no smoking gun.

Davis: But it seems like there’s enough in this report for both sides to really build a narrative. Trump clearly has the no collusion and no criminal charges, no indictment, but Democrats do have what seemed like the president potentially trying to undermine the investigation, although that didn’t happen. What do you think is the political fallout?

von Spakovsky: I actually don’t think, from the standpoint of an ordinary American, that there’s going to be much fallout because I think the ordinary American will look at what happened and say, “Boy, if I was falsely accused of a crime in my neighborhood or at my work, I would have been just as angry and just as frustrated as the president.” And I also probably would have wanted to tell off the prosecutor who was investigating me with no valid reason to do so.

Davis: In light of the fact that they found no collusion despite two years of efforts, a huge amount of manpower, and financial resources, frankly, applied this, they’re talking about looking into further the spying on the Trump campaign and how this whole thing began.

Do you think there needs to be much more of a investigation and why they even thought there was collusion to investigate in the first place?

von Spakovsky: The answer to that is yes, and the reason being that people should not forget that this did not start off as a regular law enforcement investigation, it started off as a counterintelligence operation. Because, in fact, what the FBI did is they went to the secret FISA Court. That’s the court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

That’s the court that our intelligence agencies and the FBI go to when they suspect there’s a foreign spy in the United States and they want to, for example, initiate secret electronic surveillance.

There are certain evidentiary standards you have to meet to justify that and never before in the history of the United States has a counterintelligence operation been opened, sanctioned by a court against a presidential campaign.

And now that we know that in fact there was no basis for the claims that were being made and the claims that were used to open up the investigation, we need to find out: Was there actually a sufficient basis? Was there sufficient evidence for them to open up the investigation?

If there wasn’t, then people at the FBI and DOJ abused their law enforcement powers and not only do they need to be punished for that, but we need to be sure that never happens again.

Davis: As Sen. Lindsey Graham has pointed out, usually when those FISA investigations happen, it’s to protect the American entities and they will notify them and say, “Hey, these Russians or whoever are trying to spy on you,” but that never happens. So, it certainly allows for the possibility that there was some foul play.

von Spakovsky: Yeah. I have to say I heard the senator say that and I have to agree with him, that makes what happened highly suspicious to me.

If the FBI had knowledge that Russians were contacting the campaign, and as we now know in many efforts, there were many efforts where they were disguising themselves and trying to fool folks into not realizing they were Russian, why didn’t they go to the campaign and warn them about it?

Davis: Right. So how does this investigation into the FISA warrant happen? Does the attorney general now launch this or does Senator Graham have a special investigation?

von Spakovsky: Well, they both could happen at the same time because obviously the Senate and the House intelligence committees, and the judiciary committees, potentially, have jurisdiction over this.

But, in fact, if I was the attorney general, I would appoint a special inside task force. Not a special council, but a group of lawyers on the inside who can take a look at this and examine all the documents, interview the FBI agents and original DOJ lawyers involved, and find out did they actually have a real basis for opening up the investigation?

Trinko: Hans, thanks so much for making time and pulling away from the 400-page tome to talk to us today.

von Spakovsky: Sure, thanks for having me.


Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal PodcastSend an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.


‘Russian Collusion’ a Giant Smokescreen to Obscure DNC Leaker?

Publisher of DCLeaks Contradicts the Mueller Report

Key Takeaways From the Mueller Report on Trump and Russia

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal podcast and column is republished with permission.

BREAKING: CRC Exposes Left-Wing Dark Money Network

As presidential candidates promise to refuse so-called “dark money” and Members of Congress decry the role of money in politics, a Special Report from CRC dispels one of the biggest myths in political discourse: the Left doesn’t use “dark money.”

CRC’s report by investigative researcher Hayden Ludwig, Big Money in Dark Shadows: Arabella Advisors’ Half-billion-dollar “Dark Money” Network, profiles four nonprofit organizations, all controlled by senior leaders at Arabella Advisors, a for-profit consultancy.

Read the full report here and find the executive summary of Big Money in Dark Shadows below.

Executive Summary

The political Left often criticizes—and the mainstream media frequently report on—the network of center-right nonprofits funded by billionaire entrepreneurs Charles and David Koch. But few politicos know of a left-wing leviathan in Washington, D.C., with a reach rivaling that of the Koch network.

This study by the Capital Research Center documents a shadowy web into which nearly $600 million flowed in 2017, the most recent year for which tax returns are available. Operating under the aegis of “philanthropy,” this network is housed in and staffed by a for-profit, privately held consultancy called Arabella Advisors, LLC.* Arabella manages four nonprofit entities—the New Venture FundSixteen Thirty FundWindward Fundand Hopewell Fund—each of which shares an address and interlocking officers with Arabella.

The Arabella Advisors network includes over 340 different entities/projects.

Philanthropic advising is lucrative for Arabella, in part because its clients are so wealthy: it claims its donors’ assets are worth more than $100 billion. Between 2007 and 2017, Arabella’s four nonprofit Funds paid a combined $76 million in management fees to Arabella Advisors. Some of the nation’s largest grantmaking institutions, including the Rockefeller, Packard, and Kellogg Foundations are donors to the funds managed by Arabella. It remains unclear why such large and powerful institutions seek outside philanthropic consulting, but presumably a significant part of Arabella’s appeal lies in its ability to obscure large financial transactions.

The line between philanthropy and political advocacy at Arabella is blurry indeed. Most of the projects hosted by the four Funds and financed by Arabella’s donors advocate for controversial positions on social issues, for the expansion of government—or both. Yet thanks to the unique financial arrangements of the network and the lack of donor disclosure, it is impossible to trace which organization pays for the various campaigns and political movements spawned by Arabella’s Funds.

According to the nonprofit organizations’ tax returns, between 2013 and 2017, the Arabella network received a staggering $1.6 billion in contributions, which it has used to advance its donors’ agendas through dozens of “front” groups and “astroturf” initiatives. The Arabella network of funds is also growing rapidly: from 2013 to 2017, the network’s revenues grew by an incredible 392 percent. Arabella’s network often plays host to highly influential groups on the Left. For example, the Democracy Alliance, a network of donors co-founded by billionaire George Soros, has used the New Venture Fund and Sixteen Thirty Fund to host at least eight projects that don’t disclose their original funders. While financial information for the 2018 election year has not been disclosed, the Arabella network will likely show continued steep revenue growth.

Revenues of the nonprofit entities managed by Arabella Advisors: New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Windward Fund, and Hopewell Fund. These organizations collected a combined $1.6 billion in revenue from 2013-2017. Between 2016 and 2017, revenues jumped 41 percent.

The mainstream media rarely mention any part of the Arabella empire, but in 2018 a Politico report on the Sixteen Thirty Fund—which is exempt under section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code—described that portion of the empire as a “liberal secret-money network” in which nonprofit groups spend millions of dollars to shape elections and policy “even while criticizing ‘dark money’ and its effects on politics. . . . They have aired 6,885 broadcast TV ads [during the 2018 election campaign], according to Advertising Analytics, a TV tracking firm—more than the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and almost as many as [the Koch-supported] Americans for Prosperity, two of the five biggest nonprofit political advertisers focused on the House and Senate in the first half of this year.”

Despite the vast scope of Arabella’s influence, its “dark money” network goes largely ignored by media outlets. In the last year, mainstream outlets published 47 stories about Arabella Advisors or its four funding vehicles—most mentioning the network only in passing. In contrast, the Koch network appeared 189 times in the same outlets, and the coverage included much more thorough reporting than anything written on Arabella.**

The size and scope of the Arabella network of funds demonstrates that far more “dark money” exists on the left side of the political spectrum than has been previously admitted. Before left-of-center politicians and activists demand laws to increase government disclosure of donors who fund campaigns and public policy advocacy, they should consider voluntarily disclosing their own donors.


* “Arabella Advisors, LLC” is organized in Virginia and was originally named “Arabella Philanthropic Investment Advisors, LLC.” Despite the name change, as of April 1, 2019, the Certificate of Authority to do business in the District of Columbia is still under the original name. In addition, according to the online records of the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Arabella Advisors, LLC (under either name) does not have a general business license to conduct business in the District of Columbia, as is required by D.C. Code §47-2851.03d(a).

**  A LexisNexis search of the terms “Arabella Advisors,” “New Venture Fund,” “Sixteen Thirty Fund,” “Hopewell Fund,” and “Windward Fund” in major media outlets showed nine results when refined for duplicated content. Using LexisNexis to search “Koch” within three words of “network” of the same media outlets showed 189 stories with no obvious duplicate entries. Both searches were limited in time span from March 22, 2018, to March 22, 2019.

† This is the number of individual projects/campaigns CRC has been able to identify.

The New Venture Fund lists the number of its various projects here.

Unless otherwise noted, all revenue, expenditure, and growth figures come from Form 990’s filed with the IRS by the nonprofit organizations from 2013 to 2017.

Read the full report here.

The Natural Limits of Identity Politics

Economist Herbert Stein’s old adage—“If something cannot go on forever, it will stop”—still holds.

Take illegal immigration.

There are currently somewhere from 11 million to 15 million immigrants living in the United States without legal authorization.

Last month, nearly 100,000 people were apprehended or turned away while trying to illegally cross the southern border. Some experts suggest that at least that number made it across without arrest. At that rate, the United States would be gaining a fairly large city of undocumented arrivals each month.

Most of the people who enter the United States illegally arrive without fluency in English, a high school diploma, competitive job skills, or money. The majority will require support subsidies, and collectively they will require increased legal and law enforcement investments.

At some point, American social services will be so taxed that the system will be rendered dysfunctional—as is already occurring in areas of the American Southwest. Or, some regions of America will so resemble the countries illegal immigrants abandoned that there will be little point in heading north.

Either way, the current border chaos will find its own self-correcting mechanisms, even if that means there will be no border at all—or northern Mexico and the southern United States will become indistinguishable.

Currently, the national debt is $22 trillion and growing at a rate of nearly $1 trillion a year due to staggering annual budget deficits. The George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations roughly doubled the debt they inherited, and the Donald Trump administration may be on schedule to do the same.

More importantly, the national debt is now over 100% of the gross domestic product.

Presidents and Congress like to spend and to spread money to voters. They fear politically suicidal recessions if they cut back. But over the last 20 years, the government has mostly exhausted traditional economic stimuli such as larger budget deficits, near-zero real interest rates, and expansion of the money supply.

Common sense would dictate that in the present boom cycle, the president and Congress would get together to reduce discretionary spending and at least curb the growth of entitlements before we enter the next inevitable recession.

Otherwise, history outlines a lot of near-automatic solutions to unsustainable government borrowing. Sometimes massive inflation ensues, as the government is forced to print currency to pay bondholders with play money, eroding the assets of those who are thrifty and put cash savings in the bank.

Sometimes more desperate governments simply renounce their obligations to bondholders, on the principle that such creditors are well off anyway and can afford the losses.

Another solution has been simply to slash defense spending and entitlements, and hope that neither a war abroad nor civil strife at home breaks out.

The common result of all these draconian solutions is a general distrust of government. The big fear is an ensuing Venezuela-like nightmare, with shortages, violence, black markets, mass flight, corruption, and hatred of elected officials.

For history’s rare multiracial and multiethnic republics, an “e pluribus unum” cohesion is essential. Each particular tribe must owe greater allegiance to the commonwealth than to those who superficially look or worship alike.

Yet over the last 20 years we have deprecated “unity” and championed “diversity.” Americans are being urged by popular culture, universities, schools, and government to emphasize their innate differences rather than their common similarities.

Sometimes the strained effort turns comical. Some hyphenate or add accents or foreign pronunciations to their names. Others fabricate phony ethnic pedigrees in hopes of gaining an edge in job-seeking or admissions.

The common theme is to be anything other than just normal Americans for whom race, gender, and ethnicity are incidental rather than essential to their character.

But unchecked tribalism historically leads to nihilism. Meritocracy is abandoned as bureaucrats select their own rather than the best-qualified. A Tower of Babel chaos ensues as the common language is replaced by myriad local tongues, in the fashion of fifth-century imperial Rome. Class differences are subordinated to tribal animosities. Almost every contentious issue is distilled into racial or ethnic victims and victimizers.

History always offers guidance to the eventual end game when people are unwilling to give up their chauvinism. Vicious tribal war can break out as in contemporary Syria. The nation can fragment into ethnic enclaves as seen in the Balkans. Or factions can stake out regional no-go zones of power, as we see in Iraq and Libya.

In sum, the present identity politics divisiveness is not a sustainable model for a multiracial nation, and it will soon reach its natural limits one way or another. On a number of fronts, if Americans do not address these growing crises, history will. And it won’t be pretty.



Victor Davis Hanson

RELATED ARTICLE: 3 Keys to Understanding the Attorney General’s Move to Curb ‘Catch and Release’

Dear Readers:

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.

The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

Colorado Sex Ed Bill Would Force Kids to Learn LGBT Ideology, Ban Talk of Abstinence

Colorado’s wildly controversial, comprehensive sex ed legislation has ignited national discussions about how far Americans want to expose their children to a radical social agenda.

More than a few eyebrows were raised when Colorado passed its mandatory comprehensive sex education law in 2013, which required students undergo “culturally sensitive” lessons.

“Culturally sensitive” meant that sex ed lessons would incorporate minority perspectives on sex that had not previously been represented in sex-ed—including LGBT individuals, but also other groups. (In practice, this meant teaching and affirming more diverse kinds of sex.)

Though many parents were concerned, those concerns were appeased by the fact that students could discuss their moral, ethical, and religious beliefs on sex and sexuality in the classroom. It also allowed some schools to be excused from provisions of the law, if requested.

Yet, just five years later, Colorado’s Democrat-controlled General Assembly thinks the 2013 law is no longer good enough to address the sexual education of teens.

Enter HB 1032.

HB 1032 would do away with all the “concessions” included in the 2013 law and would specifically prohibit religious, moral, and ethical perspectives on sex from being discussed in the classroom.

The bill demands that schools teach about the relational and sexual experiences of LGBT teens. It would forbid any emphasis on abstinence and sexual-risk avoidance as the only foolproof method against pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and even declares that saying so in the classroom is against the law.

HB 1032 would strip teachers, administrators, and school boards of the ability to choose the content of their comprehensive sex ed curriculums and would no longer allow schools to be excused from the requirements of the bill.

The bill is almost militant in its stringent requirements and prohibitions, thoroughly censoring the speech of teachers and crushing parental rights and religious freedom in the classroom.

Currently, only two states in the country (California and Louisiana) prohibit schools from speaking about religious beliefs regarding sex. The majority of states—including Colorado currently—allow abstinence to be stressed or emphasized to teens as the only foolproof method against sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.

Yet, HB 1032 would flat-out ban speech that suggests abstinence is the best and healthiest choice. That’s despite the fact that the majority of American teens are choosing abstinence, and Colorado teens have a lower rate of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted teen pregnancies than the national average.

HB 1032 would flat-out ban speech that suggests abstinence is the best and healthiest choice.

Prohibiting emphasis on abstinence isn’t the only instance of the Colorado Legislature attempting to place words into the mouths of teachers and ideology into the hearts of our children. HB 1032 would also require that teachers who discuss pregnancy outcomes, like adoption and parenting, also discuss abortion.

If passed, Colorado would become only the third state in the country to have that, after Vermont and California.

Clearly, the vast majority of American parents, teachers, and schools believe adoption and abortion are not morally or ethically equivalent options. The bill brazenly refers to teaching abortion as an example of “objective, unbiased” instruction, despite abortion being one of the most contentious issues of our time.

It probably comes as no surprise that Planned Parenthood lobbies across the nation for comprehensive sex education bills to be enacted, and Colorado was no exception.

It certainly isn’t coincidence that Planned Parenthood is one of the world’s largest providers of comprehensive sex education materials in the world, peddling radical content that even the most liberal among us might find too shocking for our taste.

Planned Parenthood’s ready-made sex education curriculum just happens to fit the exact requirements HB 1032 would impose on local school districts. Its materials often promote virtually any type of sexual exploration and experimentation as a “safe and healthy” part of any relationship, no matter the child’s age or biological sex, just as long as you “say yes.”

Planned Parenthood’s ready-made sex-education curriculum just happens to fit the exact requirements HB 1032 would impose on local school districts.

That last point is certainly the provision of Colorado’s sex education bill that garnered the most heartfelt protests from parents during the 20-odd hours of public testimony. Parents tend to take issue with the government mandating teaching elementary school students the definition of “consent.” They already know the answer.

In Colorado, as in most other states, the definition of consent for elementary students is: Illegal. Criminal. Unsafe.

Parents have been rightfully confused on how teaching young children about consent could possibly protect them from predators. How did decades of “No Means No!” education become upended to be “Yes Means Yes”?

Young children are certainly capable of voluntarily saying the word “yes” to acts that might feel good but are nonetheless deeply harmful and traumatic. It is a parent’s job to protect their children from an agenda that has shifted sex education dialogue from being one of protection to one of pleasure, from prevention to gratification.

Unfortunately, HB 1032’s sponsors and supporters have downplayed the tens of thousands of parents clamoring for the bill to die as well as the national dialogue the bill has ignited on how parents can guard their children’s hearts and minds in today’s schools.

HB 1032 has already been passed through a state House committee, the House floor, and its first state Senate committee, despite the overwhelming outcry. The bill is currently being considered in a Senate fiscal committee, which will soon vote on whether $1 million will be allocated from the general fund to schools to help them pay for implementing the burdensome legislative requirements.

If passed out of committee, the full Senate will vote on the bill, and then it will be off to the desk of Colorado’s openly gay governor, Jared Polis, for signature.

It is a parent’s job to protect their children from an agenda that has shifted sex-education dialogue from being one of protection to one of pleasure, from prevention to gratification.

Families in states such as Arizona, Massachusetts, and Texas are fighting controversial provisions similar to Colorado’s. Tennessee, Alaska, Idaho, and other states are taking proactive measures to ensure family values are respected in the classroom.

Washington state parents recently took a page from Colorado parents’ book and successfully stopped their own appalling comprehensive sex education bill, as did parents in New Mexico.

But the threat isn’t limited to state legislatures. The U.S. House of Representatives will be voting soon on the deceptively named “Equality Act,” which could lead to federal courts ordering schools to implement curriculums on sexual orientation and gender identity.

We hope the outcry in Colorado continues to encourage parents in other states around the country to stay informed about what’s being taught in their children’s classrooms—and to do everything they can to protect their children from harmful ideology.


Stephanie Curry is the policy manager for Family Policy Alliance.

Dear Readers:

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.

The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?


RELATED ARTICLE: California Parents Object to New Sex Ed Program in Public Schools

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

Maryland: Legal Immigrant Attacked for Wearing MAGA Hat

I said I would write about American crooks and criminals from time to time, and so I am with this post.

In my previous post I warned readers about jogging or walking alone, and it appears one is in double trouble walking alone while wearing this hat!

First, here is the bare bones story from WTOP in Montgomery County, MD thanks to reader Cathy for sending it.

Man in ‘Make America Great Again’ hat harassed, assaulted and robbed in Germantown

Two men are charged with attacking and robbing a man in Germantown, Maryland, who was wearing a red “Make America Great Again” hat.

Montgomery County police said the victim was walking on Cottage Garden Drive on Saturday when he was approached by the men.

The two began harassing the victim and asking why he was wearing the MAGA hat.

The victim replied that he was entitled to his own views, and kept walking.

But police said the two men attacked the victim, told him to take off the hat, and hit him until he fell to the ground.

The victim was then robbed, and the two men fled.


The charges against 27-year-old Jovan Crawford, of Germantown, and 25-year-old Scott Roberson, of D.C., include robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery and second-degree assault.

What no hate crime? No photos of the perps? And, who was the victim who dared to wear a MAGA hat in the peoples’ republic of MoCo, Maryland?

I wanted to know more and this is what I found….

I found photos and details here at Pacific Pundit.  I had not previously heard of the site, but there is no pulling punches here!


Meet Jovan Crawford and Scott Roberson, two left wing communist thugs. They have been arrested after attacking a legal immigrant from the nation of Togo. WHy did these two thugs attack the immigrant? Because he was wearing a MAGA hat in Maryland. Don’t expect this story to get any national media attention. In fact, the few local media outlets reporting sparsely on this story don’t even give the name of the man who was attacked by this (sic) two communist thugs. They only refer to him as an immigrant from Togo.

Pacific Pundit posted this tweet from an ABC News reporter.  ABC!  Therefore this isn’t fake news, right!

More here.

Bottomline, two African American thugs were arrested in the assault and robbery of a legal new American so it’s likely a story to be swept under the rug!

I wanted to know a little about Pacific Pundit and in the process found this site called Media Bias/Fact Check that is obviously a Leftwing attempt to silence views on the right calling those they disagree with “fake news.”  It labels Pacific Pundit an extreme Rightwing site.  Therefore you should add Pacific Pundit to your reading list if the Leftwingers are so worried about it!

Question: Laughing to myself, how soon do you think our borders would be closed to immigrants if all coming in had the same political views as the man from Togo?

Answer:  In a nanosecond, if the Dems had their way!


NJ Rape and Murder of Jogger by Illegal Alien is Reminder to All

Arrests Made in Lewiston, ME Death of White Man at the Hands of a Gang of African Refugees

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

Top Ten State Sponsors of Terrorism

The criteria used for making these selections were:

  • Does the country actually operate terrorist groups in the territory of other countries?
  • Does the country finance 3rd party terrorist groups operating in the territory of other countries and/or provide military equipment and/or training to said terrorist groups.
  • Does the country support other known state sponsors of terrorism either through the sale  of weapons to them, the sending of cash, and/or providing military protection for said state sponsors of terrorism.
  • Does the country provide diplomatic cover for other state sponsors of terrorism.
  • Does the government of said country allow international terrorist groups to recruit freely within its borders and/or allow the front groups of known terrorist groups to collect donations which are sent to 3rd party countries for terrorist acts there.

Using this criteria, the first three selections were rather obvious, and easy.  Numbers 4 through 10 were much more difficult and perhaps interchangeable. But with all of this in mind, here is the list as of April 2019.


Turkey.  Turkey served as the incubator for ISIS, then once they had launched ISIS into action in neighboring Iraq, and then Syria, they continued to help finance it by selling its stolen oil on the black market, and by providing transportation to jihadi wannabes from all over the world to facilitate their joining up with ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

Turkey provided medical care for wounded ISIS fighters, including its chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.  Turkey also smuggled al-Baghdadi into Libya where he would be safe from allied attacks.

Turkey continues to arm ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Muslim Brotherhood militias in Libya, and has formed its own militias composed of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Muslim Brotherhood personnel with which to ethnic cleanse portions of northern Syrian.  Turkey remains as one of the primary supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood international.

Egyptian sources claim that ISIS’s stolen millions are safely stashed in Turkish banks.

The Turkish fascist Grey Wolves terrorist group, once outlawed by the Turkish state,

and which tried to assassinate Pope John Paul, is now a part of Turkish mainstream, and a favorite group of Erdogan.  In addition to harassing and terrorizing minorities inside Turkey itself,  Turkey has established numerous cells and franchises of this group all over the world.  In Germany and other West European countries, the Grey Wolves have enough clout, through the threat of violence, etc., to hold Europe nearly hostage to Erdogan’s whims.

Turkey also supports the Maduro regime in Venezueala which has become a chief transit point for Middle Eastern terrorists to enter the new world, interface with Latin drug cartels, and smuggle personnel, drugs, and God knows what else, into the United States.

#2 – IRAN

Some would place Iran in the top slot based on the sheer volume of terrorist activities it supports.  But, I felt that Turkey edged Iran out of first place due primarily to its extensive involvement with ISIS, the most vile terrorist entity in history.  Iran, nonetheless has an impressive record in its own right.

Iran’s own Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) conducts terrorist activities in Iraq and Syria, and via its al-quds (Jerusalem) brigade, it trains numerous other terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah and is active across the globe.

Iran and/or its IRGC and al-quds units have staged bombings in Europe, Asia, and South America.

Iran also operates terrorist training camps in the Tri-border region of South America, and is one of the leading rogue nations that supports the failed Maduro regime in Venezuela, which Iran then uses as a funnel for launching terrorist personnel towards the United States.

Iran supports far leftist and revolutionary entities across Latin American, and in Europe as well–not to mention the U.S. Democrat Party since the 1990s.  Iranian money aided Spain’s Marxist podemos party to win seats in Spain’s parliament.  Podemos used the slogan si se puede to gain supporters.  The literal translation of si se puede is “it can be done,” but is usually translated as “Yes we can.”

This was the slogan used by the mass murderer Che Chevara, and by the Democrat candidate for the U.S. presidency in 2008, Barack Obama.

Shi’a Iran coordinated with Sunni terrorist group al-Qaeda in the run-up to 9/11, and has since maintained a close working relationship with it.  For example, Iran has allowed, and still allows, al-Qaeda to use its training camps in South America where Hezbollah also trains.

#3 – QATAR

This tiny natural gas rich country not only is a close ally of the top two state sponsors of terrorism above, but has earned impressive credentials of its own.

Qatar is the primary state financial supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood International.

Qatar also finances and arms al-Qaeda and other MB spin off groups in several countries, chiefly Syria and Libya.

Qatar is paying Tariq Ramadhan 35,000 Euros per month.   Who is Tariq Ramadhan, and why is this important?  Tariq Ramadhan, who has been under trial in France for sexual harassment and rape, is the grandson of MB founder Hasan al-Banna.  I doubt seriously that Qatar would be paying him that much just out of nostalgia for his grandfather.  He has to be doing a heck of a lot for Qatar and the MB cause.

Qatar flies out-of-region jihadis into Libya to join ISIS, al-Qaeda, and MB groups there.

Egyptian reporting indicates that Qatar’s ministry of defense might be actually training terrorist militias in Libya.

Qatar’s penetration of the American political and media arenas, and its influence over the American political decision-making have prevented that giant from declaring the MB to be a terrorist group, and helps to prevent the United States from taking any action to unravel the ideological and theological underpinnings of terrorism.


This country has made tremendous progress under the Trump regime, moving from the lofty first place it held under the Obama regime (refer to Ch. 15 in Confessions of an (ex) NSA spy for details), down to fourth by 2019.  Unfortunately, much more house cleaning needs to be done.

The United States thus continues to cling to the 4th spot for the following reasons:

  • The U.S. continues to coddle Turkey and Qatar, two of the top three state sponsors of terrorism, by selling weapons to both countries, and refusing to call them out for their own support of international terrorism, thus providing them with diplomatic cover for their activities.
  • The United States also continues to maintain large military bases in both countries which serve as a “shield” protecting these state sponsors of terrorism from any possible military retaliation by any of the countries they are abusing by supporting terrorism in these 3rd party countries.
  • In Syrian and Egyptian quarters, the United States is blamed for Turning Erdogan and the MB loose against the Arab World.  Even with Obama gone, this resentment still holds true after two years of Trump, because of Trump’s apparent encouragement of Erdogan’s conquests of N. Syria, and his lack of action against the MB.
  • The Trump administration also recently sold weapons to the ruling regime of Nigeria some of which are used by the Islamic Fulani tribesmen against minority Christian groups in Nigeria.
  • The U.S. continues to allow dozens of front entities for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood to recruit large fan bases, to propagandize, and to collect funds for use overseas.  These entities are also deeply entrenched in the U.S. political system and exert tremendous pressure to silence free-speech so their activities may go undetected and uninterrupted.

So, while the United States leads the world in fighting the War on Terror with one hand, with its other massive hand it (perhaps unwittingly) continues to ensure that Terrorism will flourish across the face of the planet for a long time to come.

#5 – U.K.

The U.K is still a part of Europe as I write this, but may soon be out.  At any rate, they deserve special attention because it is considered to be the capital of the Muslim Brotherhood International, edging out Turkey and Qatar for that dubious title.

This is based on the absolute freedom of operation that MB members are allowed in the UK, and the vast amount of sums from donations that the MB and its allies are able to collect and use for terrorist purposes in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Huma Abadin’s brother, a high official in the MB, resides in the UK.

The UK also shares in the sins of the EU which are mentioned below.

The UK, like the U.S., is one of the leaders in terms of physically fighting the War on Terror, while at the same time it pursues bone headed policies that guarantee that the planet will be plagued by the cancer of terrorism for may years to come.


The EU coddles and trades with all of the top three state sponsors of terrorism.

The EU has placed itself in a near hostage situation vis-à-vis state sponsor of terrorism number one, Turkey, while also coddling Iran, and continuing to trade with it while sometimes paying lip service to Trump’s call for re-instating the boycott.

As a pseudo hostage to Erdogan, the EU allows the Turkish fascist terrorist group the Grey Wolves to roam freely throughout the continent where they can harass and intimidate Turkish ethnic groups there to support Erdogan policies, collect funds, and pressure European governments to adhere to pro-Erdogan policies.

The EU also allows the MB to operate freely within its member countries, resulting in huge sums flowing from Europe to Middle East terrorist entities.

The EU also tends to take hostile political and diplomatic positions towards any Middle Eastern state that takes measures to halt religious extremism and jihadism.  The EU thus helps to perpetuate the cycles of violence in the Middle East, and in Europe itself.


Lebanon has been taken over by Iran’s puppet terrorist group the Lebanese Hezbollah.

Lebanon itself, has thus become a state sponsor of terrorism–even though the majority of the Lebanese people (primarily the Christian and Sunni elements) are peace-loving, anti-terrorists individuals.


The Pakistani intelligence service has long been divided 50/50 on whether to support the U.S. in the War on Terror, or to be active participants . . . on the side of al-Qaeda, etc.

That ambivalent attitude is pervasive throughout the Pakistani military and government.

As a result, Pakistan has done less than nothing to root out the al-Qaeda and ISIS cells that operate more or less freely in its territory.

Pakistani intelligence entities themselves run terrorist activities in India’s Kashmir province, and in India proper, such as the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Pakistan also allows Balochi tribesmen resident in the SW corner of Pakistan, to conduct terrorist attacks against Iranian interests across the border (not that we should care about that little bit of shenanigans).

#9 – SUDAN

While Sudan does not actually run terrorist operations on the soil of other countries soil (except for one exception to be mentioned shortly), it has always been a safe haven for groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS to set up shop, recruit volunteers, and collect funding.

With neighboring Libya in a state of chaos with over 300 militias operating just across its borders, Sudan could not resist sending its own personnel to operate one or more of these militias.

#10 – RUSSIA

While Russia is the one state most responsible for turning the tide on ISIS in Syria, it, like the U.S., UK, and EU, continues to support terrorism in other ways.

Russia diplomatically supports the number two state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, and sells weapons to it.

Russia has recently added the number one state sponsor  of terrorism to the list with weapons sales to Turkey.  Expect to see more such arms deals in the near future.

Russia also supports the Maduro regime, having sold weapons to it and offered training to its military and security personal so that they can better terrorize the Venezuelan population.  Russia also lends diplomatic support to the Maduro regime allowing it continue to function as a terrorist transit depot.

Russian state institutions have done nothing to reign in Russian Mafia activities, either at home or abroad.  The Russian mafia is now reputed to be the most powerful of crime cartels in Mexico, and thus plays a role in the crime/drugs/terrorism nexus  on the U.S. border.


Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, China, Iraq, Cuba

If I have left anyone’s favorite country off of this list, I apologize for the oversight

Let’s Be Real: Mexico Is A Bad Neighbor

President Trump’s threat to close the southern border indefinitely because of the growing crisis is another reminder that despite the fluffy official rhetoric over the years, Mexico remains a bad neighbor — and getting worse. Honesty would go a long way in building good policy here.

Of course, there won’t be an honest discussion, because such a pronouncement as the above — even followed by all of the actual data and evidence below — will inevitably result in charges of racism, white nationalism, fear of others and more nonsense because rational thinking is directly under attack.

Let’s make this point perfectly clear: Mexicans as individual humans are not the problem. Trying to escape crushing poverty on top of crime-ridden regions and government corruption is natural enough — particularly when the bright, shining city on a hill is right next door. In the Christian worldview, Mexicans like every human on earth are made in the image of God and have desires and drives for a better life for themselves and their progeny. That should be just acceptable as reality for decent people. From the traditional American view, they have inalienable rights from God.

But their government, and the culture that produces that problematic government, does not recognize such a dynamic as individual inalienable rights because man is made in God’s image. And so it causes no end of headaches and threats to the United States for precious little in return.

That the Mexican government and leadership in general continues to operate as a quasi Third World corruptocratic country while living right next door to the most prosperous and free nation ever is disgraceful. The example for how it’s done has been staring them in the face for two centuries and yet they don’t change. Given that broad swaths are controlled by drug cartels and corrupt police, they may be even worse than they were. That’s on Mexico.

Of course, just the opposite is what Americans are treated to in virtually every media story fretting and warning about America being a bad neighbor because of Trump’s policies. America is racist, afraid of people who look different and overflowing with white nationalists. Along with the media pushing this narrative there are the large tech companies, which are of the same worldview as the Democratic Party and the media. If you google ‘Mexico is a bad neighbor’ all you get are endless stories about the U.S. being a bad neighbor.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is hogwash. Let’s revisit what I wrote almost a year ago.

“If these critics really cared about Mexico’s well-being — and the well-being of Mexicans — they would be more critical of the corruption and culture that has left a fertile land with a great climate, access to two oceans and next door to the greatest economic power in history, in impoverished misery. They would be calling on Mexicans’ better angels, calling them to change and actually become more like the United States with individual liberties and market economics and accountable government. Trashing America is nothing more than political expediency and opponent demonization that causes yet more division.”

Here’s the tale of the tape on who is the better neighbor.

• Do good neighbors or bad neighbors send their problems next door? Mexico has an undeniably de facto policy of illegally exporting their poorest citizens north to the United States to deal with. Additionally, they allow the poorest residents of neighboring countries to pass through in caravans, frequently aided by Mexico, to also be shipped to the United States. This is what is causing the crisis at the border today.

The 22 million illegal aliens in the United States today almost universally came here poor, uneducated and untrained — unwanted by Mexico’s leadership. The poorest in a country are always a burden, so Mexico encourages them to head north and does nothing — literally nothing — to stop them at the border. The trains of migrants from Guatemala or Honduras or other Central American countries overrunning our southern border cannot be successful without the active participation of Mexican authorities. These authorities don’t want the burden of those poor people in their country — their culture and government creates too many — so they usher them on to America.

How is this possibly being a good neighbor? Canada doesn’t do any of this.

• Do good neighbors or bad neighbors attack your moral character for locking your doors? A nation’s borders are like a family’s home exterior. Homeowners only let in people they want and keep out others. If someone breaks in it’s called breaking and entering and they are arrested. When America does this with its borders — like every other nation, including Mexico on its southern border, Mexico openly criticizes us for doing so. President Trump ran on securing our border with Mexico (because the northern Border does not require this level of security) and he won election as Americans understand a sovereign nation needs borders and the ability to determine who comes in and out. Yet Mexican leaders were publicly hostile, criticizing Trump.

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox said the U.S. was returning to the “era of the ugly American” and repeatedly called it a “useless wall”? Why useless? Because Mexican authorities will continue to find ways to ship the poorest, uneducated residents to their neighbor? They don’t want a wall because they don’t want those Mexicans in Mexico. They do want them in the United States where they are useful in sending $28 billion annually in remittances back to Mexico from America. How is that being a good neighbor? Canada doesn’t do any of this.

• Do good neighbors who have received so many benefits by living next to a generous neighbor openly criticize that neighbor? Absurd, yet that is exactly what Mexican authorities do regularly. Whether it is beefing up our southern border security, to increasing citizen IDs to deporting those we find to be here illegally who have broken more U.S. laws, Mexican authorities criticize the U.S. No gratefulness for unburdening them from their poorest citizens. Just criticism. Canada doesn’t do this.

• Do good neighbors take generous donations to help them with ingratitude, disdain and belittling your morals because you did not give even more? The U.S. gifts Mexico $320 million annually in aid. Yet there is not gratefulness for this generosity? Nothing apparent. Not a thank-you note. Nothing. They take the money and spend it and then criticize us. Canada receives $26 million, but that is all for joint environmental issues that affect both countries. We work together on habitats crossing the border — like good neighbors cooperating with each other.

No. The case is overwhelming that the Mexican government is the bad actor in this relationship. The U.S. is the good, generous, protective neighbor.

In fact, America has demonstrated repeatedly that it is the best neighbor.

A good neighbor accepts some of Mexico’s poorest people and provides them with healthcare, schooling and opportunities that they had no chance of getting in their home country. We even teach the children of families that break into our country — in their own language. Now that’s being a ridiculously good neighbor.

A good neighbor provides $320 million annually in direct financial aid to Mexico. The largest chunk goes to security issues and drug cartel fighting, but also to education and infrastructure.

An absurdly good neighbor allows people who broke in to transfer back to their country $28 billion, taken out of the American economy and put into Mexico’s, without taking one penny of it.

Just their proximity to such a great neighbor makes Mexico safer from foreign predators. Knowing they are at no risk from the gentle giant next door, the Mexican military can be used mostly for domestic use because they are a U.S. ally and neighbor. The U.S. essentially acts as a deterrent for anyone who would be aggressive against Mexico.

In this neighborhood, even this cursory look at who gives the most and who receives the most in the relationship demonstrates that the United States is a very good neighbor, and that Mexico is clearly not.

I would not do this story except it’s tiresome and counterproductive to hear the constant drumbeat by the American left and the media that America is the bad neighbor.

It would be refreshing if American politicians and their supporters could actually appreciate America more — a lot more — and stop painting an unrealistically romantic picture of Mexico and a near demonic picture of America.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Rachel Maddow Exposed

The Clarion Project published this commentary and video by Ryan Mauro.

Ryan Mauro exposes the hypocrisy within the media. He points out that by directing the discussion, Rachel Maddow is skewing the conversation.

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column with video is republished with permission.

Are Democrats Pushing Islamic Sharia Law?

A fan thought I exaggerated when I wrote Sharia Law will spread like wildfire across America if Democrats win the White House. She feared my over-the-top statement about the spread of Islam will damage my credibility.

My statement is not an exaggeration. For crying out loud, the federal government illegally funded a national curriculum titled, “Access Islam”. This indoctrination program outrageously teaches students how to become a Muslim – how to pray as a Muslim – how to perform Islamic “daily worship” and how to perform the “core duties” of being a Muslim. 

A California school banned all Christian-based books from its library, including books by Christian authors. Superintendent Dr. Kathleen Hermsmeyer says they do not allow “sectarian materials” on their state-authorized lending shelves. Public schools are celebrating Islam while banning Christmas.

Public education is the battlefield of the culture war. Democrats use public schools to normalize the LGBTQ agenda in the hearts and minds of our kids. Upon infiltrating public schools, LGBTQ activists began molding and shaping students into their image beginning in pre-k. Democrats continue to up the ante, expanding deviancy. Students are being indoctrinated to embrace numerous dangerous sexual perversions under the umbrella of “healthy sex education”; BDSM, rimming, anal sex, asphyxiation, gender-bending and more.

Beginning with portraying pedophiles as victims of our closed-minded society, Democrats are pushing to legalize pedophilia along with 11 other perversions. Civil unions granted homosexuals the same benefits as marriage. And yet, Democrats chose to use activist judges to destroy God’s sacred union of marriage. This is a long way down the road from LGBTQ activists claiming they simply wanted tolerance. Today, many Americans quake in fear opposing any demand of LGBTQ activists. Democrats want government to mandate that Christians throw away their Bibles to fully embrace Democrats’ anything-goes-sexually society.

Now Democrats are using government mandates to instill Islam in public schools while rooting-out Christianity. Remember Democrat AG Loretta Lynch threat to jail anyone caught speaking badly of Islam? Lynch’s boss, Obama, was the most pro-Islam and anti-Christian president in U.S. history

Democrats use blacks, women, homosexuals and Muslims as useful idiots to further their extreme radical leftist agenda. For example. Democrats and fake news said that opposing Obama’s punish-America policies was racist. Had Hillary won, opposing her leftist agenda would be branded sexist. If homosexual Democrat presidential candidate Mayor Pete wins the White House, opposing his extreme radical leftist ideas will be branded homophobia. If one of the antisemitic Democrats win the presidency, opposing their hate-Israel rants will be branded Islamophobic. This tactic is called “Shaming”. Democrats and fake news routinely use shaming to silence all opposition, while forcing their anti-American and anti-Christian agendas down our throats.

Judge Jeanine Pirro’s TV show was taken off the air for two weeks for daring to tell the truth about Muslim Democrat Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s rabid bold antisemitism. Rather than strongly rebuking Omar’s hatred for our ally, Israel, every Democrat presidential candidate decided to give Israel their middle finger by refusing to attend AIPAC. 

Can you believe there are “Muslim Community Patrol” cars in Brooklyn New York which look exactly like police cars? Disturbed residents are questioning why this is necessary because the NYPD is extremely diverse. These Muslim patrols are allowed to stealthily enforce Sharia Law in their neighborhoods; no homosexuals, no women wearing short skirts and so on. 

Respecting Islam, a California public school caved to Sharia Law by forbidding students to draw images of Mohammed. And yet, Democrats defended the NEA funding “Piss Christ” which featured a crucifix submerged in urine.

My late dad was a Methodist pastor. Dad said every year for decades LGBTQ activists brought ordaining homosexuals to the table at their annual conference. Due to the Bible’s clear rebuke, ordaining homosexuals was voted down. Then one year, it passed. We are seeing this same persistence tactic used to further Sharia Law.

Thank God Texas turned back the establishment of the first official Sharia court in America. Do not become complacent folks. These people will never give up and will keep coming back at us.

Traditions, principles and values everyday Americans and Christians hold dear are under relentless attack by Democrat enemies-within. As a Christian, I view Democrats’ aggression as the Spirit of Anti-Christ. Jesus proclaiming himself our savior and Lord is as repulsive to leftists as is showing Dracula the cross. This is why even though Islam clearly hates homosexuals and suppresses women, Democrats overwhelmingly prefer Islam over Christianity. Democrats are banning Christianity in public school while quietly replacing it with Islam.

No, I do not believe Sharia Law will overtake America. But if Democrats take the White House, Sharia Law will swiftly gain government-protected dramatic strongholds across America.

PODCAST: Julian Assange There Are No Coincidences

Julian Assange was arrested last Thursday [April 11, 2019] in London and faces a charge in the United States of conspiring to hack into a Pentagon computer network in 2010. He has been holed up in Ecuador’s embassy in Britain to avoid capture as the U.S. unseals the hacking conspiracy Indictment.

Coincidence or Part of the Plan?

So do you think it is by accident, by mere coincidence that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested? I believe not. It is part of the plan as the de-classification has begun. The investigators are being investigated. The deep state is in panic mode. Julian Assange is being sought after for the alleged conspiring with Bradley (Chelsea) Manning in the hacking of government computers. Some consider Assange to be guilty of espionage and many others, including Ron Paul, consider Assange to be a hero. I am in the hero camp.

We have begun to witness many events rapidly unfolding since the Comey collusion delusion hoax has proven to be a failed treasonous coupe d’ etat attempt against this great and duly elected President Donald Trump. One such event, is the arrest of Julian Assange, which will prove to be a monumental event. Why? Because once under oath in the United States, Assange will reveal and confirm what we have known all along. Assange has the goods. Assange has the e-mails, the source files, the evidence and he will reveal all we need to know under oath.

Will we hear under oath and review such documents surrounding uranium one? Russia and the dems? The revelation of the e-mails? Will we come to learn just who put the hit on Seth Rich? Seems to me Assange being returned to the U.S courts is in line with what the President is doing as a multi-faceted de-class mission. Even if Assange is somehow found guilty (he may not be), in the court of law, as I understand it, the sentence for this act could be five years. If this is the outcome, I would suspect that President Trump will pardon him. Again, time will tell. Stay tuned. It’s just begun.


Assange Dumps All Wikileaks Files As Stated During Arrest – Here They Are!

Finally, Assange Will Face the Legal Cases Against Him

Income Is Determined by the Scarcity of Your Contribution, Not the Value of Human Worth

In a few months’ time, my wife and I will send our second child to daycare. Like all parents, nothing is more precious to us than our children. So it’s surprising that the people whom parents trust to take care of their kids—childcare workers and preschool teachers—get paid median salaries of just $22,290 and $28,990 a year.

This seems more than unfair. It seems perverse. Why would people trusted to take care of infants and toddlers 40-50 hours a week be paid the same as dog walkers and janitors? Why should people with such important jobs be paid so little?

There’s a lot of popular misperception concerning why some people make more than others. Most recently, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, citing the “value of human worth,” tweeted confusion over why people resist a $15 minimum wage when an airport croissant costs $7. Such confusion stems from the Marxist labor theory of value, a theory that economists have thoroughly debunked.

Popular misperception of how wages are determined is understandable because even the introductory economics course explanation of “productivity” doesn’t help much. “More productive workers get paid more” is a fine approach for the classroom but ultimately incomplete for the apples-to-oranges comparisons people like to make. Are people who take care of your children really as productive as dog walkers and janitors?

Here’s a better explanation, one that accounts for essentially all income differences:

Your income is determined by the scarcity of your contribution.

That’s it. There is no trick here, no intellectual gymnastics to perform. This is the grounding explanation for why some people make more than others. If you want to understand income inequality, or you simply want to make a lot yourself, this is the explanation you should always keep in mind.

Consider childcare again. Taking care of a room full of kids is exhausting. Like all jobs, it’s not inherently fun, which is why you have to pay people to do it. But it’s certainly more appealing than most jobs. There’s no work to take home and no grading to do. The hours are regular and, if the weather is nice, the work is outside. Many find the work meaningful.

It’s not only a relatively enjoyable job, but the skills required are also relatively easy to acquire. Evolution demands that most people be able to do the job of early childhood educators. Applicants might not always have the credentials, but its essential elements are no mystery. Most people have a lot of practical experience with their own children.

Even though childcare work is incredibly valuable, capable workers are relatively abundant. Pay falls accordingly because wages are determined not only by value or by availability. Wages are determined by scarcity.

Wages (or compensation, to include benefits) are prices of labor, and like all prices, wages measure scarcity. Scarcity is the operative word here. Scarcity is not just a matter of how much there is of something (supply) but also considers how much people want something (demand). The higher the price, the greater the scarcity. The lower the price, the lesser the scarcity.

For example, lots of people want water, but there is so much available, the price of water is low. At the same time, if I made a sculpture it would be the only one that exists, but no one would want it. Its price would also be low. Honestly, its price would probably be zero: even one David Youngberg original would be too many.

Labor markets are like any other market, and wages are like any other price. To illustrate, consider how crucial cashiers are to any grocery store. Though self-checkouts have taken away some of their necessity, most stores absolutely need cashiers. Yet cashiers make just $10 an hour, and their pay was low even in the time before self-checkouts, when a store literally couldn’t function without them.

Now compare cashiers to other grocery store jobs. Floristsbutchers, and bakers aren’t nearly as critical to the store, but their median pay is $12-$15 an hour. You don’t need a flower shop or deli or bakery to sell most groceries, so why are cashiers paid so little?

Scarcity is why. It’s not just about how much employers want to hire (demand) but how many people are available to hire (supply). Anyone can do a cashier’s job, as evidenced by the proliferation of self-checkouts. Florists, butchers, and bakers require more training and a greater degree of conscientiousness. Even though a cashier is more “productive,” other workers are much scarcer and are paid accordingly.

The “incomes as scarcity of contribution” explanation is merely descriptive; it is not a commentary on the justness of the outcomes. Luck can suddenly render a useless skill relevant or a valued skill redundant. That’s unfortunate, even unfair, for the people on the losing end of that change, but it’s how the world works.

There’s no avoiding the underlying reality of the competitive pressure of markets.More commonly, the level of scarcity is politically manipulated. Licensing creates barriers to entry, making jobs like hairdresser and interior designer scarcer than they otherwise would be. Other regulations drive up the wages of providers in industries like health care and law. Corporate subsidies, including farm subsidies, drive up demand and artificially increase scarcity. Just because income is determined by the scarcity of the contribution doesn’t mean all levels of scarcity are natural.

Contribution is a wholly different concept from hard work. Some work hard doing low-value activities, and others can create a lot of value with little effort. There’s a correlation between effort and contribution, but it’s noisy. As the saying goes: work smarter, not harder.

Nor is your “worth” as a person the same as your income—it probably doesn’t even correlate. “Contribution” describes only market activity. Many people add a great deal of value to society, from stay-at-home parents to volunteers to very good friends. That they don’t get paid for this contribution only means that people are more than what they do for a living. They are valuable in some larger sense, but you only get paid for market activity. People are much more than their income.

This last point is the hardest to internalize. There are many people who have contributions that are so relatively abundant, they have a difficult time purchasing their basic needs. It’s easy to fall into a trap that the world thinks little of them because of their income.

The low salary of preschool teachers, janitors, and cashiers only tells us that what they contribute to economic activity isn’t that scarce. It says nothing about their worth as people. When you understand that wages are just measurements of scarcity, deriving from natural differences in work and people, the absurdity of minimum wage increases become clear.


Bank of America Donated over $20,000 to SPLC in 2017

Over 60 organizations are currently considering legal action against the Southern Policy Law Center (SPLC) over the falsely applied “hate group” designation. However, the most recent available financial documents show Bank of America has increased its financial support for SPLC in recent years.

The Bank of America Foundation is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization that serves as Bank of America’s charitable giving arm. The foundation’s 2017 Form 990 reports $20,518 in contributions to SPLC for the purpose of “program/operating support” in that year.

Similar contributions for previous years fall with the range of $2,000 to $5,000.

The spike in funding corresponds with an increase of corporate partnerships with SPLC beginning in 2017. Corporations like GuidestarFacebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google, and Paypal have implemented SPLC’s “hate” designation as an authority for excluding or labeling organizations on their platforms. Companies like Apple specifically solicited donations for SPLC from their customers and CNN republished SPLC’s data to create a list of alleged “hate groups” without explaining the origin until called out by conservative groups.

However, recent events suggest SPLC’s operations have less to do with fighting “hate,” and more to do creating political animosity for the purpose of fundraising. Conservative groups like the Family Research Council, Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Family Association, and more have all been tagged as “hate groups” for simply upholding traditional marriage in accordance with Judeo-Christian values. Yet, entering 2017, SPLC reported nearly $450,000,000 in net assets.

Jeremy Tedesco, an attorney with ADF, told PJ Media:

Today’s SPLC has zero credibility and its ‘making hate pay’ business model should be rejected. Whether or not this opens the SPLC to future lawsuits, it is clear this group has defrauded the public for long enough.

[ … ]

Today’s SPLC is a corrupt fundraising scheme that capitalizes on fear by mixing legitimate societal concerns with baseless allegations against its ideological opponents. The media commits journalistic malpractice when it cuts and pastes the SPLC’s unfounded allegations and lies as fact.

Given that Bank of America has pumped tens of thousands of dollars into SPLC’s coffers, shouldn’t stockholders be concerned a “zero credibility” organization that has “defrauded the public” is receiving corporate funds? Bank of America customers should certainly be offended that a portion of their banking fees and return on investment is being used to prop up a “corrupt fundraising scheme.”

Customers and investors should contact corporate offices immediately and demand Bank of America change its charitable giving policies. Remember, Bank of America’s annual meeting is on April 24th—shouldn’t these activities be addressed?

Send Bank of America an Email!

Reach Out to Bank of America on Facebook!

Help us continue providing resources like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission.

MOVIE REVIEW: The Pro-Nazi Film ‘Aftermath’ Fails because of its Immoral Relativism

The film Aftermath is set in Hamburg, Germany. The fictitious events presumably take place five months after the fall of Nazi Germany.

Zero Media posted this Fox Search Light/BBC Films trailer for Aftermath:

The film fails because of its pro-Nazi, pro-immoral relativism theme.

The film primarily takes place in and portrays the destruction of Hamburg, Germany. The film begins with British Colonel Lewis Morgan picking up his wife Rachael at the Hamburg train station. Colonel Morgan is the regional commander of British forces in Hamburg. Colonel Lewis and Rachael, en-route to their new quarters, pass through the bombed out streets of Hamburg. Colonel Lewis tells his wife that more bombs were dropped on Hamburg by the British in a single weekend than all the bombs dropped on Great Britain by the Nazi Luftwaffe.

This is a lie.

BBC News reported, “Some 30,000 tonnes of bombs were dropped overall and more than 40,000 people killed…The largest bombs dropped on Britain were almost 4,000lb (1,800kg) devices nicknamed Satans.” Wikipedia reports, “In total, the RAF dropped 22,580 long tons of bombs on Hamburg…The Allied bombing of Hamburg during World War II included numerous attacks on civilians and civic infrastructure. As a large city and industrial centre, Hamburg‘s shipyardsU-boat pens, and the Hamburg-Harburg area oil refineries were attacked throughout the war.”

Colonel Lewis and his wife move into a home owned by a German architect named Siegfried Leitmann. Leitmann has a teenage daughter. We learn during the film that Leitmann’s wife was killed in one of the Allied bombing raids. We also learn later in the film that her family owned the shipyards in Hamburg, where the U-boat pens were most likely located. This would mean that Leitmann and his wife would have been close to the Nazis, if for no other reason than her family’s ownership of key strategic assets critical to the Nazi war effort in Northern Germany. During the film we also learn that Colonel Morgan and his wife Rachael lost their son during a Nazi bombing raid in England.

The film depicts the aftermath, which is the “resistance” by those still loyal to Adolph Hitler. Sound familiar? The writers of Aftermath, Joe ShrapnelAnna Waterhouse, appear to push the theme that it is morally necessary for the Nazis to resist because of the destruction caused by the Allied bombing of Hamburg and the aftermath of British forces occupying Hamburg. If you just change the plot to be about a Palestinian family and the Israeli occupiers of Judea and Sumeria after the Six Day War you could have the next Fox Search Light/BBC Films movie titled “Aftermath II?”

Those in the resistance have the number “88” burned into their skin. According to the Anti-Defamation League,

88 is a white supremacist numerical code for “Heil Hitler.” H is the eighth letter of the alphabet, so 88 = HH = Heil Hitler.

Leitmann’s daughter befriends one of the “88” Hitler youth members because she is angry that her mother was killed in an Allied bombing raid followed by the British confiscating her father’s home. The daughter provides information (spies) on Colonel Lewis, which leads to an assassination attempt. Her father, while Colonel Lewis is away, seduces Colonel Morgan’s wife. In the end Rachael fully submits to this sinful affair, making plans leave her loyal husband and run away with Leitmann.

The symbolism is stark in that the Leitmann is asked if he knew about the Nazi Neuengamme death camp located in Bergedorf district of Hamburg. The Neuengamme camp eventually became the largest concentration camp in Northwest Germany. Under questioning Leitmann states that he did not know about the German death camp. But how could he not know, given the status of his wife’s family to the Nazis and his estate located on the outskirts of Hamburg?

It is interesting that the main character is named Rachael. Rachael is an important figure in the book of Genesis. Rachel is the younger daughter of Laban and wife of Jacob, Rachel is the mother of Joseph and Benjamin, who become two of the twelve tribes of Israel (Gen 35:24; 46:15–18). We do not know if Colonel Lewis’s wife Rachael is Jewish.

When watching “Aftermath” it is important to understand that the producers and director are pushing pro-immoral relativism messages. The first is that cheating on your husband, while sleeping with the enemy, is acceptable. The second message is that Great Britain bombed Nazi Germany and Nazi Germany bombed Great Britain so both are equally at fault. Denigrating the Allied efforts to stop Nazi Germany is akin to recent efforts, by a past U.S. administration and our European allies, to allow Iran to continue to develop nuclear weapons in order to bring death to America and Israel.

The message that should have been emphasized in Aftermath is “Never Again!”