Think Progress in a Tizzy over Trump’s Description of the Diversity Visa Lottery at Ohio Rally

He just loves twisting their tails as he did in the Ohio rally two nights ago. And, I am so glad he brought up the truly insane Diversity Visa Lottery.

Here we have Think Progress, a preeminent Progressive website that’s been around for nearly 15 years (but losing its luster we see) attempting to get your minds right on how the Diversity Visa Lottery really works (according to them) and how Trump is a dummy.

If you missed it, you might first go back and see my post of last week where I told you that the big winners of the insane green card lottery this year were Russia and Egypt—WTH! We don’t have enough Russians and Egyptians in the US yet!

Here is Think Progress on Trump in Ohio,

Trump reveals he has no idea how the diversity visa lottery works

At a campaign rally in Cincinnati, Ohio, Thursday night, President Donald Trump painted a wildly inaccurate picture to his supporters of how the diversity visa lottery program works.

The diversity visa lottery program awards roughly 50,000 green cards each year to citizens from various underrepresented countries to legally live and work in the United States. In turn, lottery recipients “diversify” the U.S. population: in order to qualify for the lottery, an individual must meet a number of merit-based factors, including a certain level of education or comparable work experience.

Stop right there.  In that Miami Herald article I quoted last week, we learned that:

Overall, the winner must have at least a high school diploma or its equivalent, or two years’ work experience over the past five years in an eligible occupation that requires at least two years of training or experience.

Can you imagine how easy it would be to falsify that type of information when the applicants are coming from hellhole third world countries!

Think Progress goes on:

In Trump’s mind, however, the diversity visa lottery functions as some kind of Powerball for criminals.

“And you pick people out of the lottery,” Trump said Thursday night, gesturing as if he were picking names out of a hat. “Well let’s see, this one is a murderer, this one robbed four banks, this one I better not say, this one another murderer, ladies and gentlemen, another murderer.”  [LOL! A Trumpian description sure to make Leftwingers heads explode!—ed]

Oh good security screening!

Because the diversity visa lottery is self-selecting, it is not up to individual countries — as Trump appears to believe — to decide which of its citizens can be considered for a green card. In addition to the education requirements, all recipients of the visa undergo background checks, health examinations, security screenings, and interviews by consular officers before their arrival in the United States.

And, much to my surprise in the very next paragraph reporter Rebekah Entralgo confirms exactly what Trump is saying:

Trump has frequently railed against the diversity visa lottery program, even threatening to eliminate the program altogether in 2017, after a lottery recipient from Uzbekistan carried out an extremist attack in New York City, killing eight people.

See Fox News on November 1, 2017:

NYC terror attack suspect, Sayfullo Saipov, entered US through Diversity Visa Program

Need I say more? So much for security screening!

Tell the President he is right-on—Democrat lottery system it surely is!—and it must go!

RELATED VIDEO: Trump campaign rally in Cincinnati, Ohio. – PBS NewsHour

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

Middle America: It’s time to make your 2ndVote count

Starbucks. Nike. Amazon. Facebook.

To millions of Americans, these companies embody our nation’s entrepreneurial spirit. However, they also represent the takeover of leftist values in our nation’s largest and most influential corporations – all on the backs of Middle America’s second vote
consumers.

  • Starbucks (1 – Liberal) is perhaps most famous for its opposition to religious liberty – a position which contradicts America’s Judeo-Christian traditions in favor of the LGBT agenda. It also supports gun control and open borders. Facebook (1 – Liberal) blocks
    and removes pro-life videos while promoting Planned Parenthood’s life-ending agenda.
  • Amazon (1.3 – Liberal) recently removed books promoting the scientifically-sound principle that people with same-sex attractions don’t have to engage in the LGBT lifestyle. (Of course, Amazon has no problem selling books celebrating pedophilia or Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf.)
  • And Nike (1.9 – Liberal). They support taxing Middle America to pay for left-wing environmental projects and they back putting bureaucrats in charge of your kids’ education. Worst of all, they pushed racial strife by endorsing Colin Kaepernick’s view that America’s law enforcement is racist instead of dedicated to public safety.

As second vote Americans, you have the power to change this! You have the power to tell these corporations that they should stick to providing their product or service instead of being political actors.

The best way to do this is to use your dollars wisely. Talk with your wallet and your feet.

Shop at Peets (3 – Neutral) and Green Mountain (3 – Neutral) for your coffee instead of Starbucks. Go to Champs (3 – Neutral) and Under Armour (2.3 – Lean Liberal) for your active apparel. Tell Amazon to take a hike by shopping at Overstock.com (4 – Lean
Conservative) when you can.

Facebook, of course, presents a different challenge. They are the dominant player in their space, and Twitter (2.1 – Lean Liberal) is no better at representing your values. You can still stand up to them by e-mailing CEO Mark Zuckerberg and urging him to
stand up for true diversity – not of race or sex, but of thought. Tell him that keeping conservatives off of Facebook hurts his bottom line and even more importantly violates the social media principle of open and free sharing of ideas.

The Company Contrast – Google

Each week 2ndVote will be taking a look at a popular company that scores poorly on the 2ndVote scoring system, and then providing some better alternatives for you to easily align your shopping dollars with your values. This series is called The Company Contrast, and the company we will be focusing on today is Google (1 – Liberal).

Google is a search engine and technology company, and continues to be the most visited website in the world year in year out. Google is the parent company of the following brands: YouTube (1 – Liberal), Nik Software, AdMob, ITA Software, and Kaggle. Even though Google is the largest and most used search engine in the world, using their services and products undermines your values based on their continual contributions to the liberal leftist movement.

Google scores a 1 on 2ndVote’s scoring system because of their contributions to organizations such as Center for American Progress, Planned Parenthood, Human Rights Campaign, and many more leftist organizations. To see all of the reasons Google scores so poorly, you can click on their company score page here

Fortunately, when you need to use a search engine, but don’t want to sacrifice your conservative values, there are better alternatives out there. Brave (3 – Neutral), and Reagan (3.3 – Lean Conservative) both offer great options to search the internet without funding the left’s agenda. These websites’ neutral stance on issues and commitment to providing quick and accurate web searches is why 2ndVote has deemed them better alternatives to Google.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2nd Vote column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Germany: Muslim who murdered man with sword in broad daylight is ‘Palestinian’ claiming to be Syrian ‘refugee’ [Video]

“War is deceit,” said Muhammad (Bukhari 4.52.268).

“Breaking: sword murderer apparently lived under false identity in Germany,” translated from Eilt: Schwertmörder lebte anscheinend unter falscher Identität in Deutschland,” JournalistenWatch, August 1, 2019 (thanks to Searchlight Germany):

Stuttgart – The alleged murderer who attacked and killed a 36-year-old German with a sword on Wednesday evening in broad daylight is said to be a Palestinian who claims to have been a Syrian refugee.

According to Stuttgarter Zeitung, the 30-year-old alleged sword killer is said to be a Palestinian known to the police, who has acquired a Syrian identity. Once again, the German state has apparently accepted his data completely unchecked. The “Syrian” is said to be living in Germany for four years and is registered with the authorities as Issa M. (28). The authorities will now determine whether the perpetrator really is another person, according to the Stuttgarter Nachrichten. The “Syrian” Issa M. yesterday slaughtered a man with several blows and stabs in a block of flats in Stuttgart after a quarrel his former roommate in front of numerous eyewitnesses. And we say again: Thank you, Mrs. Merkel.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamists like These States.

Pence Speaks Out In Defense Of Christian Woman Punished In Iran For Converting From Islam

Just a Few Questions for Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch

NATO ally Germany refuses to back U.S. in Gulf out of fear of Iran

RELATED VIDEO: Maryland — BDS Occupies Takoma Park.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

California: Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter had “reading material on white supremacy and radical Islam”

He railed against “Silicon Valley white twats,” so it’s unlikely that he was a white supremacist, contrary to establishment media claims. But although he had material on jihad, he doesn’t seem to have been a committed Muslim, or a Muslim at all; he is more likely to have been a hate-filled individual with a thirst to do people harm than a committed jihadi.

In any case, it is characteristic of the establishment media to ignore the Islamic material that Legan had and play up the white supremacist material, as you can see in the SFGate’s headline.

Report: White supremacist materials found in Gilroy Garlic Festival shooter’s home,” by Katie Dowd, SFGate, July 31, 2019:

A search of the home of Santino Williams Legan, the man law enforcement says shot and killed three people at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, has turned up materials on white supremacy and radical Islam, according to a report from the San Francisco Chronicle.

Federal law enforcement sources told the Chronicle that the makings of “massive attack” were found in the Walker Lake, Nevada rental home where the shooter was staying. Among the items found were a gas mask, “numerous” hard drives, a bulletproof vest and “reading material on white supremacy and radical Islam.”

An Instagram account purportedly belonging to the shooter also referenced white supremacist ideology, recommending “Might is Right” by Ragnar Redbeard.

Written under a pseudonym in the late 1800s, the book is a defense of Anglo-Saxon and male supremacy, and argues that weakness shows moral inferiority. It is also full of anti-Semitic rhetoric….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Just a Few Questions for Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch

NATO ally Germany refuses to back U.S. in Gulf out of fear of Iran

RELATED VIDEO: Maryland — BDS Occupies Takoma Park.

EDITOR NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Quebec’s Totalitarian Moment and Loss of Catholic Culture

Rev. Dr. Andrew Bennett: The government says, “We want you, but not your faith. Just your cultural and economic value to the state will do.”


In 1981, while ushering in Canada’s new Charter of Rights and Freedomsthen Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau remarked that “The Golden Thread of Faith is woven throughout the history of Canada from its earliest beginnings up to the present time.” Now, in Trudeau’s home province of Quebec, we are witnessing the unraveling of that thread and the prospect of its complete sundering.

On June 16, 2019, the Quebec National Assembly passed the Coalition pour l’Avenir du Québec government’s Bill 21: An Act Respecting the Laicity of the State. At ten pages, the law is brief in length, but broad and troubling in scope. It affirms that Quebec is a “lay state,” characterized by the “separation of State and religions . . . the religious neutrality of the state . . . the equality of all citizens . . . and freedom of conscience and religion.”

Based on these mutually contradictory premises, the law prohibits the wearing of religious symbols by public servants when they are exercising their functions.

Caught in this web are, among others, legislators, justices of the peace, prosecutors, peace officers, and school teachers. Even religious freedom advocates will be unlikely to quarrel with the ban on full-face and head coverings for police officers and school teachers.

But the law goes too far in suppressing all outward symbols of religious faith, including religious Sikhs who wear a turban, orthodox Jews who wear a kippah, Muslim women in hijab, and Christians who wear visible crosses. Worse, the prohibitions extend to private institutions that are under agreement with the government to provide health and social services.

The exclusive focus on religious garb is indeed troubling. One suspects the ultimate goal of the National Assembly is to use the force of law to remove religion from Quebec’s public life, a process ongoing elsewhere in Canada.

The right of public religious expression entails more than wearing religious symbols. It also means the right to operate faith-based institutions in a manner consistent with religious teachings, to refrain from participation in activities that are incompatible with religious belief, and – in a democracy of equal citizens – the right to engage in debates over law and public policy with religion-based arguments.

The logic of the law could easily be wielded to justify future restrictions on these more substantive areas of expression.

Nevertheless, the law is deeply troubling on its face, demanding that public servants in Quebec present incomplete versions of themselves when performing their duties in the public domain. Anticipating the intense opposition this law would elicit, the government of Quebec invoked section 33, the so-called “notwithstanding clause” of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982. That clause permits Parliament – or any provincial legislature – to enact legislation notwithstanding the provisions in sections 2 and 7-15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which includes freedom of conscience and religion) for a period of five years.

To each her religion

The Quebec government is seeking to do an end-run around the Charter, openly flaunting the suppression of fundamental freedoms, while baldly asserting that the secular state protects the equality of citizens and their freedom of conscience and religion.

The new law reflects anti-Muslim attitudes prevalent in rural Quebec. But ultimately it flows from a statist understanding of the role of government and from the gnostic impulses of Quebec’s secular elites. They view themselves as guardians of the knowledge of good and evil and arbiters of how the state is to be served. This amounts to a fundamental reordering of representative democracy.

The new law can also be characterized as a project of certain Québécois elites to cling to the political and cultural values of the 1960s and 1970s. During those years, French Quebec came to reject longstanding Catholic nationalism in favor of an avowedly secular progressive nationalism – Quebec’s so-called Quiet Revolution.

The Second Vatican Council unfolded during the early 1960s, but Quebec’s elites, like other Western Catholics, never understood the teachings of Dignitatis Humanæ concerning the human person and the utter necessity of religious freedom for all. Instead, the culture that emerged is an alien French laïcité – the use of the state to control and privatize religion –which historically has not been the stuff of French-Canadian society.

Indigenous First Nations, English, Scottish, Irish, Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews, Lebanese, Italians, Haitians, and North Africans, among many others, have long come together in Quebec (though not without discrimination along the way). Quebec’s government has almost exclusive control over immigration to the province. It welcomes immigrants, especially Francophone immigrants, from around the world to help build French civilization in North America.

This is a laudable project. Yet the government is now telling those it has welcomed: “We want you, but not your faith. Just your cultural and economic value to the state will do.” This represents a narrow, utilitarian, and fundamentally anti-Catholic understanding of the human person.

Hence the stunning hypocrisy of the government’s claim to uphold freedom of conscience and religion in the new law. Religious freedom is the right of every person, and every religious community, to live their faith through religious observance and public action. Religious freedom is necessary for individual and social flourishing. Like all other inalienable rights, it is not a gift of the state. It should be protected and defended by the state.

So why this law? The answer is that the secular elites of la belle province do not really believe in pluralism and diversity. This new law is a gross violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It represents a significant legal step in the removal of religion from the public life of this historically Catholic province.

Legal challenges are pending, of course, and some people of faith in Quebec, along with some public institutions, such as municipalities and school boards, may decide to respond with civil disobedience. If so, will the Quebec government arrest observant Sikhs, Jews, and Muslims while they fulfill their duties as public servants? We must wait and see.

COLUMN BY

Rev. Dr. Andrew Bennett

The Rev. Dr. Andrew P.W. Bennett serves as Senior Fellow and Director of the North American Action Team of the Religious Freedom Institute. He is a Ukrainian Greek-Catholic deacon of the Eparchy of Toronto and Eastern Canada. He previously served in the Canadian foreign service as Canada’s first Ambassador for Religious Freedom and Head of the Office of Religious Freedom from 2013 to 2016. He holds a B.A. Hons. in History (Dalhousie), an M.A. in History (McGill), and a Ph.D. in Politics (Edinburgh).

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

PODCAST: Are Muslims ‘Slaves’ Under Islam? Listen to the Debate

In the podcast below, former ISIS bride Tania Joya (now an ex-Muslim) and Muslim reformer Shireen Qudosi answer the question: Are Muslims slaves under Islam?

Joya and Qudosi met up on Capitol Hill where both were discussing Clarion Project’s new film, Kids: Chasing Paradise.

Joya appears in the film and Qudosi is Clarion’s national correspondent. In this provocative interview by The Hill, Qudosi is also asked to defend Clarion Project from accusations by the Southern Poverty Law Center that Clarion Project is a hate group.

Listen:

RELATED STORIES:

Test Case for Trump: US ISIS Bride Wants to Come Home

Tania Joya: How I Was Radicalized

Muslim Reform Movement Kicks Off in Washington, D.C.

Gillette Comes within a Whisker of Disaster

“Your stupid boycotts will never make a dent in a company like P&G,” one liberal scoffed back in January. Turns out, they didn’t just make a dent. After a string of male-bashing, transgender shaving ads, the parent company of Gillette got nicked so badly, market experts wonder if the brand will survive. Gillette’s CEO insists the radical activism was “worth the price.” Let’s hope so — because so far, that price is a whopping $8 billion dollars.

To most customers, a razor company dabbling in gender politics never made sense in the first place. Gillette used to be “the best a man can get.” Now the company can’t even acknowledge what a man actually is! Things for the brand started to unravel earlier this year when P&G gave the green light to a controversial commercial about the culture’s “toxic masculinity.” The idea, CEO Gary Coombe said at the time, was to reach millennials. Weeks into the flop, even he admitted it backfired.

But instead of ditching its politically-charged messages, Gillette dug in deeper. On Father’s Day, the company finally went too far, launching an ad about a dad teaching his “son” — who happens to be a biological girl — how to shave. That did it. Conservative groups like One Million Moms activated, warning customers that unless they wanted their money to support an ideology Pediatricians call “child abuse,” they’d better find another razor.

Based on this quarter’s report, an astonishing number of Americans did. “P&G reported a net loss of about $5.24 billion, or $2.12 per share, for the quarter ended June 30, due to an $8 billion non-cash writedown of Gillette. For the same period last year,” Reuters explains, “P&G’s net income was $1.89 billion, or 72 cents per share.” At least for now, the company’s executives are refusing to blame their liberal politics. Instead, CFO Jon Moeller found another culprit: Beards. That’s right. P&G is actually writing off its monumental fail on the rise of facial hair. “Lower shaving frequency has reduced the size of the developed blades and razors market,” he tried to justify on a call with analysts.

Some shareholders might buy that, but most shoppers agree — it’s time for companies like Gillette to look in the mirror. Political activism never pays. Just look at the fanatics at Target and Nike, whose stocks took a nose-dive for offending Americans’ basic sense of decency and patriotism. Even so, some companies are pressing forward despite the fallout. Just last month, grocery giant Whole Foods surprised everyone by sponsoring drag queen story hour. Even Nabisco’s most famous cookies — Oreo and Chips Ahoy — have spent 2019 waving the transgender flag. But the reckoning isn’t just coming. It’s here.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that shopping your values doesn’t work, or one person can’t possibly make a difference, remember Gillette. It only takes a handful of committed shoppers to send a message. As former Walmart CEO Bill Simon explained on “Washington Watch,” the “very, very best way you can communicate your concern is with your wallet.” Companies are in the business to make money.

“When [a] company does something that you don’t agree with — or their product represents something that you don’t agree with — the simple answer is to not buy it or not participate. And that’s honestly the loudest voice that a customer can deliver to a company is, ‘I choose not to buy your product.'”

“A three percent change in sales of a company or a five percent change in the sales company will make a huge statement. It doesn’t take a lot of people to stop buying product or to stop going to a retailer or a restaurant — or whatever it is — for them to notice, because a couple of percentage points is win or lose for a company.”

** The Washington Update is taking its own August recess — but we’ll make sure you stay informed and up-to-date with our Action Alerts! You can also keep up with what’s happening by tuning into “Washington Watch” Monday through Friday at 5:05 p.m. (ET) and by downloading FRC’s Stand Firm App. The daily Update will return in September. **


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

The Woke Capitalism List: 50 Times Huge Companies Sided With The Social Justice Warriors

Navy Unmoored by Latest SEAL Scandals

Google’s Firing Squad Sacks Conservative

FRC in the News…

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with podcast is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Christian Nationalism? The Left’s Latest Attempt to Silence Believers

By FRC’s David Closson, Director of Christian Ethics and Biblical Worldview

A coalition of left-leaning church leaders recently launched a project “Against Christian Nationalism.” In their statement they cite “Christian nationalism” as a “persistent threat to both our religious communities and our democracy.” At best, the project is a solution in search of a problem — at worst, it’s an attempt to drive conservative Christians out of the public square.

According to the statement, “Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian.”

As David Barton, president of Wall Builders, pointed out on “Washington Watch” Tuesday, the problem with this statement lies in how “Christian nationalism” is defined. Clearly, these left-leaning church leaders (which includes Jim Wallis who advised President Obama and Tony Campolo who advised President Clinton) are seeking to redefine nationalism in a way that implies something sinister about conservative Christians who love their country.

No one is seriously arguing that “to be a good American, one must be a Christian.” This points to the insincere motives of this movement; simply put, theologically liberal Christians are fearful of the gains social conservatives have made in the last few years, and they are attempting to sideline faithful Christians by creating what Barton describes a “radioactive term” to sully their reputation.

But Christians who love their nation have nothing to apologize for; in fact, they should be emboldened to enter the political arena with the courage of their convictions. As David Barton points out, the vast majority of Americans do love their country and identify as Christian. In short, patriotism is a virtue, not a vice. As Barton notes, quoting one of the Declaration of Independence signers, “The Declaration says that patriotism is a religious and moral duty because if you love your country, you will want what’s best for it. And if you want what’s best for it, that’s going to bless everyone who lives in the nation… loving your country and seeking what’s best for it is a blessing.”

However, a broader point about “Christian Nationalism” and the idea of America as a Christian nation is raised by this story which deserves further comment. Is belief that America is a “Christian nation” equivalent to Christian Nationalism? To answer this question, it is important to carefully define terms.

First, if by “Christian nation” we mean America was influenced by Christian principles at the founding, it is difficult to argue the reverse. Clearly, Christianity provided the principles of equal rights and human dignity that motivated the founders. Moreover, the majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians who generally believed in the truth of the Bible. Christianity remains the largest religion in the United States. Finally, Christian beliefs still provide the intellectual background for many of our cultural values such as respect for human dignity, the need to care for the disadvantaged, and respect for the rule of law. In all of these senses, America could be called a “Christian nation.”

However, in another sense — surveying the cultural landscape today — we are not. Are the majority of Americans Bible-believing, born-again Christians? No. Do Christian values dominate the perspective promoted by the government, media, and universities in America? No. Does the government compel people to follow a Christian church? No, because this would violate the first amendment of the Constitution. Do people have to profess Christian faith to be citizens or have equal rights under the law in this country? No. Are Christian ideas welcomed and accepted by many in “elite” circles of public opinion? No. In these senses, America is not a “Christian nation.”

The irony is that many of the activists behind this attempt to demonize conservative Christians participating in politics see an “evangelical bogeyman” under every rock, and still proceed to argue that Christians somehow overwhelmingly dominate the culture. The reality is far different.

Thus, in conversations about “Christian nationalism,” it is important to define the terms. When someone alleges that America is or is not a “Christian nation” it is important to determine what they mean by the phrase. Clearly, America is indebted to Christian morality in significant ways.

All Bible-believing Christians reject “white supremacy” and “racial subjugation” which backers of the “Against Christian nationalism” campaign claim is inherent to Christian nationalism. However, this is a redefinition of terms and an attempt to drive patriotic Christians from the public square at a time when social conservatives are making tremendous gains on life and religious liberty at the state and federal level.

Christians ought to affirm God’s providential working in history. The material blessings of the United States are not unconnected from the Christian morality that has under girded our country, and Christians should continue to exert their influence at all levels of government, while allowing a free marketplace of ideas that allows for open debate and religious freedom.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Baltimore Ravings: The Remedy for America’s Cities

Libs Screech at Mario Lopez’s Honesty

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

CAIR Islamophobia Report: A First-Class Fraud

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has jumped in on the effort to paint its opponents as “Islamophobes,” the latest twist in the Left’s never-ending effort to smear opponents with names like “racist,” “xenophobe,” etc. And while this repulsive strategy makes a mockery of the First Amendment and has reduced American political dialogue to infantile, elementary school name-calling, its true goal is to marginalize, deplatform and defund its opponents, especially those that pose a threat to its subversive agenda. This paper exposes for all to see, just how transparently dishonest and hypocritical CAIR and its allies in the Red-Green Axis truly are in this their latest “Islamophbia” report, and links them to the worldwide effort of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to impose blasphemy laws against anyone who would speak ill of any aspect of Islam.

CAIR Islamophobia Report- A First-Class Fraud PDF

The Left has become increasingly aggressive about silencing its critics. In late June 2019, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released its latest undercover video showing Google’s frightening institutional bias and its apparent intention to manipulate public opinion to influence the 2020 elections. Google is just one of many on the Left seeking to mislead, discredit, defame, and silence the Left’s opponents. But they are not alone. In what we have called the Red-Green Axis, Islamic groups in the U.S. and abroad have partnered with the Left to silence anyone who questions any aspect of Islam, including Islamic terrorism. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) recently published its latest effort in a piece titled Hijacked by Hate: American Philanthropy and the Islamophobia Network.

It would be a joke, but it isn’t funny. “Islamophobia” is the latest in a long list of contrived “phobias” invented by the Left and its Muslim allies to continue the Left’s time-honored vilification tactic. It is an unscrupulous, intellectually dishonest way of dealing with legitimate criticism that has reduced political discourse in the U.S. to infantile, elementary school name-calling. The Left owns this outcome, but the Muslims are catching up.

First, we must ask: what is “Islamophobia?” Well, CAIR doesn’t exactly say. That is understandable, because if they told you what it means, you would laugh out loud. But one of their collaborators was honest enough to put it in a Facebook post (which wasn’t blocked by Facebook, BTW, unlike some posts critical of Islam). Here’s a screen shot of the post.

Meanwhile, we have Boko Haram’s gruesome mass slaughters in Nigeria, Al-Shabaab engaged in mass terror attacks in Somalia and Kenya, Abu Sayyaf kidnapping and murdering in the Philippines, countless individual and group acts of barbaric terrorism throughout the West, and the Islamic State beheadings everywhere – all doctrinally justified by the Qur’an, Sunna and Islamic Law (shariah).

If this is not Islam, then Islam is the most misunderstood religion in world history. There is literally no parallel in any other religion—although it should be noted that, according to a widely-used textbook in U.S. madrassas (Islamic schools), indeed, “Islam is not a religion,” but rather a complete way of life. And while we struggle to cope with this deadly onslaught, CAIR and its proxies are aggressively inserting Islamic teachings in public schools (while Christianity is equally aggressively banned), engaging in relentless lawsuits attempting to insinuate Islamic Law into U.S. courts, colluding with the Left in its various acts of subversion and sedition, and viciously attacking anyone who protests.

No, Esam, we are not the haters. You are! And your list is a bad joke, especially as it contains terms like jihad and terrorism that are to be found throughout the Islamic canon (notably the Qur’an itself!), as well as the perfectly doctrinal assertion about Islam not being a religion.

But it’s no joke. He is serious. And this is not just anyone. Esam Omeish is “Chief of General and Laparoscopic Surgery” at INOVA Alexandria Virginia hospital. Omeish is a former leader of the Muslim Students Association (MSA) and the Muslim American Society (MAS) — both prominent Muslim Brotherhood groups. He is also a founding board member of the Dar al Hijra mosque in Falls Church, VA.

Dar al Hijra’s former Imam is the infamous Anwar al-Awlaki — mentor to Fort Hood terrorist, Nidal Hassan and others. Al-Awlaki was later killed in a CIA drone strike in Yemen. Hassan, along with two of the 9-11 terrorists, attended the mosque during 2001, when Awlaki was Imam. Another attendee was Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, an al-Qaeda member convicted of attempting to assassinate President George W. Bush.

Can we say Islamic Terrorists?

If we do, we are… wait for it… Islamophobes! It turns out that this compendium merely details what the Organization for Islamic Cooperation defines as Islamophobia. The OIC is the world’s largest Islamic group, and the second largest intergovernmental organization in the world — including 56 nations and the Palestinian Authority. It wields substantial influence over the United Nations, and was able to convince the U.N. to insert its blasphemy definitions into UN Resolution 16/18Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.

Would that include “negative stereotyping” or violence against Christians and Jews? Ah, no. It is all about Islam, the only “religion” the U.N. has ever cared about.  And according to Islamic Law, anything that gives offense to Muslims by criticizing Islam in any way whatsoever, whether true or false, is slander – a criminal, even capital, offense against Islam. If, for example, you criticize Islam for Islamic terrorism, you are guilty of “incitement to violence.” So Islamic terrorism is our fault! According to the OIC, this kind of talk should be criminally prosecuted under Islamic blasphemy & slander laws, and while Resolution 16/18 pays lip service to free speech concepts, its true goal is to criminalize speech critical of Islam.

These people are the real haters. Let’s be clear about that. And they express their hate by trying to destroy those who expose them, meanwhile living comfortably in the most generous, free, affluent nation in the world. They define the term “parasite.”

So, let’s expose this “Islamophobia” report for the fraud it is. Its purpose is to attack those foundations providing income for CAIR’s enemies, the so-called “Islamophobia Network,” to starve them out of existence. As Center for Security Policy (CSP) Vice President for Research and Analysis Clare M. Lopez wrote in May 2019, “the clear intent of the report and the list is to provide a target list of philanthropic organizations to be shamed, shunned, and ultimately pressured into divesting from support of those groups deemed by CAIR to be “Islamophobic.”

CAIR claims that this network benefits from donations made through shadowy organizations called Donor-advised Funds. There are numerous such funds, including Fidelity, Schwab, Tides, Proteus, Vanguard, and others. These funds allow donors to remain anonymous. In today’s hyper-partisan atmosphere, where the Left and its Muslim allies are constantly seeking to expose, doxx and threaten donors, who can blame them?

But how can CAIR criticize others? CAIR gets money from Schwab and Proteus, according to Foundation Search. And while it has not received anything from Fidelity or Vanguard recently, many of its Muslim Brotherhood allies have. The Islamic Society of North America has received $176,600 from Fidelity, and $79,500 from Vanguard. The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), also receive donations from Fidelity and/or Schwab.

In fact, Vanguard, Schwab, Fidelity, Tides and other donor-advised funds are major financiers of the Left, and donations to non-Left groups are tiny by comparison. CAIR’s characterization of these funding sources is a fraudulent misdirection in this report. CAIR’s true goal in publishing this screed is to intimidate those funds from offering any money at all to CAIR’s political enemies.

CAIR’s Xenophobe Network

CAIR’s report claims that 39 xenophobic “hate” groups comprise a nefarious network receiving “billions” in “dark money” from those evil donor-advised funds. Never mind their definition. This is an absurd exaggeration, and it is factually incorrect:

  1. There were 46 groups listed in the report, not Can CAIR even count? NPR endorsed this report: Can NPR count? Did they even bother?
  2. Collectively, these 46 groups received approximately $1.4 billion over three years – about $450 million in one year, not “billions.”
  3. Two-thirds of this income was received by one organization, Pat Robertson’s Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN).

Hard to fathom, but yes, CAIR considers the 700 Club to be part of a vast, dark “Islamophobia” network.

But let’s consider: if CBN’s annual income is removed, the other 45 receive an annual total of $145.1 million/year. It becomes immediately apparent why CBN was included. Without it, CAIR cannot us the “B” word, and even with it they have to count up three years. Of course, the CAIR report does not break the numbers out by organization, so you wouldn’t automatically know that most of this “network” was in fact the 700 Club.

Spread across the 45 organizations, excluding CBN, gives an average annual revenue of $3.2 million each. Literally, a hill of beans in the non-profit world, and nothing like the billions in funding received by the Left.

See the table below. Figures are taken from each organization’s nonprofit tax returns (linked in the table). While they pay no taxes, they are still required to file, but sometimes file quite late. All of the figures in the table below and the other tables in this report for that matter, were taken from the most recent tax return, usually 2016 or 2017, but a few were for 2018.

CAIR’s $1.5 Billion Xenophobe Network
  Net
Revenues Assets
1 Christian Broadcasting Network $308,099,729 $142,691,721
2 American Future Fund $29,401,632 $2,838,387
3 American Center for Law and Justice $22,801,099 $1,224,787
4 American Family Association $19,068,393 $28,683,191
5 Foundation for Defense of Democracies $9,039,436 $18,973,604
6 Center for Security Policy $6,548,493 $1,967,835
7 Middle East Media Research Institute $6,262,533 $1,532,913
8 David Horowitz Freedom Center $5,976,459 $650,572
9 National Review Institute $5,689,857 $9,660,370
10 Concerned Women for America $5,596,942 $191,832
11 Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting $5,363,477 $7,632,375
12 Middle East Forum $4,361,751 $5,463,633
13 American Civil Rights Union $3,119,465 $1,250,047
14 Clarion Project $3,005,986 $2,074,817
15 Gatestone Institute $2,159,819 $120,750
16 Investigative Project on Terrorism $2,056,982 -$137,257
17 Eagle Forum & Defense Fund (10 Chapters) $1,810,441 $29,351,809
18 Religious Freedom Coalition $1,529,083 $438,276
19 Lawfare Project $1,392,062 $790,780
20 American Freedom Law Center $1,276,078 $530,871
21 Christian Action Network $1,098,170 $80,590
22-46 All Others $8,298,096 $7,045,532
TOTAL $453,955,983 $263,057,435

Most of these groups are involved in many and different issues: so, to call them part of any kind of “network” is absurd. Consider the National Review (NR) for example. Founded by William F. Buckley, NR is one of the oldest conservative publications in the U.S. Except for a few writers, it is also one of the last Never-Trump holdouts. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)? How about the American Future Fund (AFF)? AFF turns out to be a group that promotes “conservative, free market ideals.” That does not sound “Islamophobic” to me.

Besides being groups that CAIR/SPLC hates there is actually little, if any connection, among these 46 groups. Not a “network” of any kind, let alone “dark.”

Only four make over $10 million/year. Most struggle just to keep their doors open.  More than half (represented by line 22-46) are not even worth mentioning separately. Combined, these 25 organizations realized just $8.3 million in their latest year. That averages out to about $332,000 each. Some earn less than $100,000. Two take in nothing at all. Most have only one or a few staff members. This vast network looks more and more like a guppy the closer you look.

Finally, the role of donor-advised funds is exaggerated. For example, of approximately $24 million CBN has received from various donors since 1999 according to Foundation Search, less than 18 percent came from donor-advised funds. Most of the rest came from individual family foundations, Christian foundations, and others. Conversely, CAIR’s network of conspirators, which I have dubbed the Red-Green Axis, thrives on donor-advised dollars.

So, CAIR’s characterization of this “Xenophobe network” is fraudulent on its face. It is also indicative of the group’s shoddy workmanship — alone enough to mistrust its assertions. So, let’s now take a look at CAIR’s Red-Green Axis network. This really is a multi-billion-dollar network. And you don’t even have to add years.

CAIR’s Multi-Billion Dollar Red/Green Axis Network
Annual Net
Islamic Groups Revenues Assets
ACCESS $27,488,567 $37,871,650
CAIR & CAIR Foundation $14,026,522 $11,663,463
Islamic Circle of North America $8,351,219 $20,337,153
International Institute of Islamic Thought $7,559,412 $963,220
Muslim American Society $4,381,563 $3,676,152
Muslim Legal Fund of America $3,576,412 $71,496
Islamic Society of North America $3,481,603 $1,601,028
Muslim Advocates $2,376,533 $1,553,085
MPAC Foundation $2,093,657 $1,084,022
Pillars Fund $1,906,122 $2,015,940
Constitutional Law Center for Muslims $1,700,636 $17,225
Muslim Public Affairs Council $1,552,024 $417,529
North American Foundation of Islamic Services $1,248,598 $814,284
Council of Islamic Organizations $937,397 $611,099
EMGAGE Foundation $740,752 $199,613
Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America $330,871 $384,048
U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations $100,795 $3,434
Washington Trust Foundation, Inc. $13,896 $4,923,358
North American Islamic Trust* NA $300,000,000
Subtotal $81,866,579 $388,207,799
 
Collaborators & Supporters
American Civil Liberties Union $380,810,055 $470,408,742
ACLU Foundation $146,251,550 $342,625,524
Southern Poverty Law Center $136,373,624 $449,834,593
Anti-Defamation League $65,971,077 -$16,541,031
Industrial Areas Foundation $6,028,449 $4,792,009
TOTAL $817,301,334 $1,639,327,636
* Assets estimate based on news reports. No public information exists.

Compare and contrast this network with CAIR’s contrived Xenophobe “network.” Virtually all of the listed Muslim groups are Muslim Brotherhood fronts. Many, including CAIR, are also named by the Justice Department as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror financing trial — the largest of its kind in the U.S.

The SPLC and ACLU work hand in glove with CAIR all the time. In fact, SPLC’s Heidi Beirich contributed to the CAIR report. No wonder it is such shoddy work. The ALCU’s conservative counterpart is Jay Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice. The ACLJ received $22.8 million, according to its most recent IRS filing. The ACLU amassed over $500 million in the same year, 23 times that of ALCJ. Kind of like Sasquatch being attacked by a gnat. Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation and even the ADL are now working with these Islamic groups as well.

The Six “Islamophobes” CAIR Really Hates

CAIR singles out six “Islamophobe” groups for particular animus. CAIR claims in the report that they have collectively received $125 million from various funders (including those evil donor-advised funds). Where did they get all that money? CAIR provides no citations or explanations in the report. You just have to take their word for it. These groups receive nothing like that, even if you add up multiple years. Here are the facts from each organization’s most recent tax return:

CAIR’s $125 Million Islamophobia Network
Net
Revenues Assets
ACT for America $128,631 $1,053,938
American Freedom Defense Initiative $405,658 $516,119
American Freedom Law Center $1,276,078 $530,871
Center for Security Policy $6,548,493 $1,967,835
David Horowitz Freedom Center $5,976,459 $650,572
Middle East Forum $4,361,751 $5,463,633
TOTAL $18,697,070 $10,182,968

Whoops! Not quite $125 million, eh? Unlike CAIR, you can check my work by simply clicking on the hyperlinks in those tables. Most of these groups are living on a shoestring budget. CAIR knows this but purposely doesn’t mention it.

So how much does poor little CAIR take in annually? Look at the Red-Green Axis table. All by itself, CAIR receives $14.0 million annually through its foundation and network of offices, and has amassed $11.6 million in net assets, more than the six “Islamophobes” combined.

Additionally, an organization called the Washington Trust Foundation, holds another $5 million in real estate assets owned by CAIR. In its own words, the Washington Trust’s purpose is “To support the purposes of CAIR Foundation, Inc….” And guess who runs the Trust? None other than “Islamophobe” expert Esam Omeish.

But why single out these six small organizations for particular attention? That’s where the rubber meets the road, because while almost all of the 46 organizations listed in the Islamophobia Network table focus on a broad range of issues, and are not “networked” in any meaningful way, those six singled out for particular vilification are the ones that have been very effective at exposing and pushing back against CAIR’s subversive onslaught.

Take David Yerushalmi’s American Freedom Law Center (AFLC). It has battled CAIR in court numerous times and has never lost a case against them. This tiny organization with half a million in assets, has forced CAIR to pony up millions for its misguided lawfare.

For example,  CAIR has agreed to pay significant legal fees and other compensation to plaintiffs in two cases represented by the AFLC:  a June 2019 Virginia case and  an April 2019 case in Oklahoma. Both cases revealed CAIR engaging in significant fraud against the plaintiffs. And each time, CAIR relented when it became clear that the alternative was to carry the case to trial. Going to trial would expose CAIR to a close examination of its terrorist connections and subversive agenda. CAIR demurred.

CAIR is plainly not a “social welfare” organization, a designation required for 501.c.3 tax-exempt designation. They are afraid of losing it, and these six organizations are a major threat. They have been effectively exposing CAIR’s association with terrorists (especially the Palestinian terrorist group, HAMAS), and the subversive agenda that follows the Muslim Brotherhood “Civilization Jihad” plan for the Brotherhood in America, specifically:

The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

In response, what is CAIR’s vile, unethical answer? Savage these groups and their funders in an attempt to starve them of funding. What would CAIR do if it had the unbeatable political power it is hoping to obtain with the Left’s help? One shudders to think.

With the media, Hollywood, the education establishment, and a major political party totally owned by the hard Left and more than willing to echo your messages, destroying your opponents through defamation is a pretty good business model, too. All you need do is abandon all ethics, integrity, morality, and any interest in the truth. Right up Nihad Awad’s alley, and he has made $723,000 over the past three yearsdoing so.

Branches and off-shoots of the Muslim Brotherhood are responsible for virtually all Islamic terrorism in the world. In a declassified secret FBI memo, an informant disclosed that the Muslim Brotherhood’s “ultimate goal is to enforce, by ‘violence if necessary,’ the Islamic Revolution on all non-Islamic Governments,” including the United States.

This Islamophobia report is just the latest in a long line of assaults by CAIR and Co. against their political enemies. It is a form of pre-violent-stage terrorism that does not yet kill individuals directly but attempts to destroy their ability to earn an income and continue their work, while intimidating would-be allies.

A not insignificant number of individuals associated with CAIR have been convictedof terrorism-related charges over the years, although the Muslim Brotherhood has chosen to avoid terrorism in favor of subversion in the U.S. because it is a more effective strategy for the moment. CAIR’s Awad has publicly allied himself with both the PLO and HAMAS terrorist groups in the past, and CAIR refuses to denounce HAMAS.

As urgent as international threats undeniably are and will continue to be, top level U.S. national security leadership attention must be turned to the domestic insurgency threat posed by the subversive, jihadist agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood and the rest of the Islamic Movement in this country. CAIR is undoubtedly the lead Brotherhood front group driving this threat, but its top position within the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO) and, in turn, its close working relationship with the pro-Muslim Brotherhood, HAMAS-supporting regime of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, add a further and foreign dimension to the threat that must not be ignored.

To counter this threat, the U.S. government must reverse the Great Purge of 2011-2012, which, under Brotherhood supervision, removed all training curricula as well as language from official USG usage that accurately identified the inspirational/motivational role of Islamic doctrine for all Islamic terrorism. The professional instructors who once taught this enemy threat doctrine and their courses must be restored government-wide, with USG backing and funding.

Finally, the declassification of PSD-11 (Presidential Study Directive 11), which reportedly in 2010 laid forth the blueprint for the Obama administration’s new supportive relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood, is an absolute priority. Absent its declassification, it will remain impossible for those responsible to be held fully to account and very difficult to reverse its ongoing malign effects on our national security.

The Trump administration must confront the Muslim Brotherhood’s many tentacles in the U.S. Federal law enforcement should begin a renewed effort to investigate Brotherhood groups in the U.S. and at the very least, revoke CAIR’s tax exempt status. It is plain from this report that CAIR is not a “civil rights” organization, but one intent on imposing the Muslim Brotherhood’s malevolent “…grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…

PODCAST: Tulsi’s Last Stand? Dem Candidates Call For More Than $200 Trillion in Spending!

GUESTS

W. James Antle III, editor of The American Conservative. A former Senior Writer at TAC, Antle also previously served as managing editor of the Daily Caller, editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation, and associate editor of the American Spectator. He is the author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped? Antle has appeared on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR, among other outlets, and has written for a wide variety of publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Politico, the Week, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the Daily Beast, the Guardian, Reason, the Spectator of London, The National Interest, and National Review Online. He is also senior advisor to Defense Priorities.

TOPIC…Tulsi’s Last Stand?

Charles Lehman is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. He writes about policy, covering crime, law, drugs, immigration, and social issues.

TOPIC…Dem Candidates Call For More Than $200 Trillion in Spending.

Lawsuit Filed Challenging Constitutionality of California Law Requiring Trump’s Tax Returns

SAN DIEGOAug. 1, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente, a California native and candidate for the 2020 Republican Party nomination for President of the United States, has filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Southern District of California challenging California Senate Bill 27, or the so called “Presidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act” signed into law on July 30 by Governor Gavin Newsom.

De La Fuente, who is challenging President Trump for the 2020 Republican Presidential nomination, said,

“all Republicans must stand united in demanding that state officials be held to account when they threaten fundamental rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.”

California’s law would require presidential candidates to file their 5 most recent tax returns in order to appear on California’s presidential primary election ballot. In his pleadings, De La Fuente argues that this violates the Qualifications Clause of Article II, section 1, clause 5 of the United States Constitution and federal statutory law which guarantees that federal income tax returns remain confidential.  He also argues that this violates the First Amendment guarantee that state governments cannot force speech, even of political candidates.

De La Fuente, who prevailed in lawsuits against other states relating to unconstitutional ballot access laws and regulations during his independent bid for President in 2016 says,

“If voters want a candidate to release their tax returns, voters are free to withhold their vote from candidates who do not. Personally, as a candidate seeking the Republican nomination for President, I will be releasing my last 5 years of tax returns voluntarily. However, California’s requirement to make federal income tax returns public as a condition of ballot access is unconstitutional. It is not a valid ‘ballot access’ restriction, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the proper regulation of the ballot, such as preventing frivolous candidates from appearing, or to ensure that elections are conducted in an orderly manner.”

In the Politico column Trump lawyer to California: See you in court Jeremy B. White reports:

President Donald Trump’s lawyers immediately signaled today they will challenge a California law requiring Trump to disclose his tax returns if he wants to appear on primary ballots in the state.

“The State of California’s attempt to circumvent the Constitution will be answered in court,” Trump attorney Jay Sekulow said in an emailed statement shortly after Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill into law.

California has become a theatre of the absurd.

UPDATE: (Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of four California voters to prevent the California secretary of state from implementing a new state law requiring all presidential candidates who wish to appear on California’s primary ballot to publicly disclose their personal tax returns from the past five years (Jerry Griffin et al. v. Alex Padilla (No. 2:19-cv-01477). The suit alleges that the law unconstitutionally adds a new qualification for candidates for president. Judicial Watch’s clients include a registered Independent, Republican, and Democrat California voter. Read more.

© All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Dr. Andrew Bostom on Islamic antisemitism. A crushing blow to apologists for Islam

This is really very good. He covers the history of antisemitism as a central dogma of Islam from Mohammad to present day with such perfect scholarship that never again will you have to endure a dhimmi or Muslim attempt to explain that its just “extremists” or some perversion or hijacked form of Islam.

Please give it a listen. Large files like this sometimes do not play non stop on D tube but the more who try, the better it should work. If it doesn’t play well, please leave a comment and I will try another upload tomorrow hoping it will work better. Click here for a link to the video.

INTEL REPORT: Emerati Delegations visit arch enemy Iran

On 30 July 2019 www.aljazeera.net reported that in spite of the rising tensions in the Gulf, an Emirati military delegation visited Iran for the 2nd time in two weeks.

These visits by delegations from the Emirati Coast Guard had to do with discussing “cooperation” on border issues between the two countries and cooperation concerning “unlawful entry into each other’s territories.”

Of course, the only border the two countries share is that in the Arab/Persian Gulf, so these meetings obviously had to do with the security of international shipping through the Gulf.

What I find interesting about this, is that these visits come on the heels of the Sultanate of Oman recently declaring that it and Iran are the ones best suited to provide security for the shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz and nearby areas.

Since the Sultanate of Oman’s territories are not contiguous with the Strait of Hormuz, and since Iran and/or its proxies are the only culprits attacking civilian ships in the region, I find that doubly amusing–except that there might be something else going on especially when seen in light of the above-mentioned Emirati visits to Iran (especially since it is the UAE’s territory that is contiguous with the Strait.

A little background on the Sultanate of Oman might explain why.

The Sultanate of Oman is neither Sunni nor Shi’a.  They follow a brand of Islam called ‘Abadi and claim that they broke off from the rest of the Muslims prior to the split between the Sunnis and Shi’a.  Among the unique features of their religion, is the non-belief in Jihad.  As a result, throughout the Middle Ages they were persecuted by both the Sunnis and the Shi’a and were forced down into the remote southeast tip of the Arabian Peninsula.  Insulated by the world’s largest continuous sand desert to the north, and rugged mountains to the west, they were able to survive into the 20th century.

Due to their unique religion (and their relative geographic isolation) , they were able to always stay neutral during Sunni-Shi’a disputes, however, during the 20th century, while the pro-western Shah was ruling in Iran, they tended to be closer to Iran than to their fellow Arab (but Sunni) neighbors.

Since the Iranian revolution in 1979 they distanced themselves from Iran somewhat, but still maintained their strict traditional neutrality.  Because of their unique position in the region, they have been offering their services as “intermediaries” during the current disputes between Iran on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia and its allies on the other.    They have also tried to intercede vis-à-vis the U.S. and Iran on the nuclear deal after Trump pulled out of the Obama atrocity.

Thus, when the Omani Foreign Minister recently visited Iran and made the above-mentioned statement about sharing responsibility with Iran for the security of international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and environs, I began to wonder if  this was not some sort of “soft soap” operation to assuage Iran’s ego prior to (hopefully) getting it to agree to lessen tensions in the Gulf.

The above-mentioned UAE security visits might be a part of that process.

RELATED ARTICLE: Israel Preemptively Strikes Iranian Missiles in Iraq

VIDEO: Maria Elvira Salazar running for Congress in Florida District 27

Maria Elvira Salazar has announced that she is running for Congress in Florida District 27. Ms. Salazar is running against incumbent Donna Shalala.

In an email Ms. Salazar states:

We are now seeing politicians in Washington behave like corrupt banana republic dictators.

Not only are they peddling a disturbing, socialist agenda that threatens our freedoms, they’re openly spewing hateful, anti-Semetic rhetoric against Israel, our great American ally.

And South Florida’s own Donna Shalala remains silent.

Ms. Salazar goes on to say:

Florida knows what socialism does to a country. Many of us saw first hand how it ruined the countries from which many of us escaped.

Many exiles, like my own parents who came to this great country from Cuba, know the pain of  leaving behind your life’s work and starting anew with only five dollars in your pocket. And we know how important it is to preserve the freedoms that we came to America to pursue.

I grew up hearing about the horrors and injustices of the socialist Castro regime which instilled in me a deep faith in and a desire to pursue the American Dream.

My career as a journalist has taken me all over the world – including to Latin America where socialism has run rampant for decades. There, I confronted dictators with questions they did not want to hear – and much less wanted to answer.

Despite the dangers to my own life I covered the wars in Central America because I am committed to the truth and bringing a voice to those who cannot be heard. This is a principle I stuck by when I returned to South Florida. I dedicated my tv career to providing an outlet for the voices of my community, Miami. I wanted us to be heard.

But politicians like Donna Shalala callously continue to ignore people like us.

For that reason, I am more committed than ever to bringing our fight to Washington. I will not be invisible. I will not remain on the sidelines. I will not be silent.

ABOUT MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR

Born in Miami’s Little Havana to Cuban parents, who emigrated to the United States, fleeing Cuba due to the arrival of Fidel Castro to power. With only five dollars in their pockets, the pursuit for freedom and the American dream was instilled in María Elvira Salazar at an early age by her parents. While being raised in Miami and Puerto Rico, Salazar listened as her parents told stories of the oppressive communist regime from which they escaped. Becoming American citizens at the Freedom Tower, Salazar’s parents wanted a better life for their family; they wanted freedom.

READ MORE.

© All rights reserved.

The Real Existential Threat: Race And Class Warfare. Ask History.

“There is no essential moral difference between class-warfare and race-warfare, between destroying a class and destroying a race.”

That’s from Paul Johnson, maybe the preeminent historian of the 20th Century and as non-political as you can get, from his history book, “Modern Times: The World From The Twenties To The Nineties.”

After another two-night marathon of Democratic debates, it has come back to me as I am reading Johnson’s excellent, if dense, history tome.

A large part of the country has just accepted that we hammer each other on race and income. It’s just politics. No, it’s not. It’s both personal and eventually fatal. It is exactly — and I mean exactly — what Lenin did in creating and sustaining the Soviet Union during and after the Russian Revolution. In fact, that is who Johnson is describing in the above sentence, the killing machine of Lenin in 1919 who set the stage for one of the world’s greatest killing machines, Stalin.

That is not where we are, of course. But we can see what is coming up ahead around the bend by knowing what has happened when we’ve gone around this bend before. Violent eruptions don’t materialize for no reason. There are always preceding causes, usually growing over time.

Here’s the key takeaway: Irresponsible American politicians aided by an irresponsible media continue to create hyper-divisions in our country. Far from all the inane platitudes of “unity in diversity,” they actively seek to divide us from one another, then pit those divisions against one another for personal or philosophic gain.

I know some will be sputtering, but, but, but Trump!!! This just really needs to be understood. Trump is a reactionary figure, meaning he is reacting to what preceded him. I never predicted Trump, but I’ve been predicting something like Trump and certainly the clash at Charlottesville for decades. After Charlottesville, I reminded my wife that I had said this was coming, and there will be more if we don’t back off the race warfare. It’s as assured as gravity.

You cannot tell an entire race of people (whites now) that they are the root of our problems (CNN anchor Don Lemon literally did a few months ago stating, “We have to stop demonizing people and realize that the biggest terror threat in this country is white men” — I know, the irony) and not expect at some point there will be a reaction and it won’t be pretty. The reaction may be wrong, but it is predictable.

President Obama certainly played a role in fanning racial flames when he could have calmed them. Instead, he jumped to racial conclusions in Cambridge, Ferguson, New York, Baltimore and Trayvon Martin in Florida (claiming white racism in every one.) But let’s be honest, this long preceded him, too. He just made it worse.

Affirmative action and minority quotas in the 1970s really started this inevitable resentment ball rolling. It’s become much, much worse though as every single election cycle, Republicans and their supporters are labeled as racists and hating poor people. White Republicans want to put black people back in chains (Biden in 2012) and push grandma off a cliff (multiple Democrat ads.) Pretty astonishing but just commonplace — like the black plague was commonplace.

The class warfare of many Democrats, most notably New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (“I’ll tax the hell out of the wealthy”) but essentially all of them on stage the past two nights talking about “fair share” for the wealthy paying more, a misnomer if there ever was one. This whipped up division creates animosity to gather votes and power, using the American people as discardable pawns.

Karl Marx understood this formula. Lenin and Trotsky understood it. Stalin understood it. Mao understood it. Castro understood it. For that matter, and I hate to use the name, but Hitler understood it. They all played to the most base and ugly parts of human nature — the other guy is causing my problems!

This is a dangerous and deadly road, already well-traveled in history.

So let’s be clear. No one man is an existential threat to the nation, as the hyperbolic Democrat/media establishment is fond of saying today of Trump. That’s just nonsense. Our framers, who are also out of favor with the left, set up too great a foundational system of checks and balances for that.

But fanning race and class warfare is an existential threat, because it has the ability to destroy the foundations. We were headed in the right direction for a brief moment in the 1950s and 1960s (Martin Luther King’s dream that his children would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character) but for a much longer time we have been going backwards, and it’s really speeding up. Class warfare is running in tandem.

This can end in no good place for our country if the foot is not removed from the accelerator of race and class divisions. History makes very, very clear that we are heading for a cliff. The thing is, we’re all in the vehicle together.

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