U.S. Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt joins Cam to announce newly opened areas for hunters and fishers. Originally aired on Cam & Co 06/05/2019.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Guy Relford: Coward From Broward Arrested for Fatal Neglect
On June 6, 2019 Senator Marco Rubio joined Guy Benson on his new Fox News Radio show: The Guy Benson Show. They touched on Senator Rubio’s op-ed in Fox News titled “Warren’s ‘economic patriotism’ plan simply not possible with a progressive agenda” that talks about why Elizabeth Warren’s “economic patriotism” plan isn’t compatible with the progressive agenda.
Partial transcript:
Benson: You’ve got an op-ed at Fox News.com today. You write: “Warrens economic patriotism plan is simply not possible with a progressive agenda” this coming on the heels of what you put out your calling it an investment report, what’s your argument?
Rubio: I actually give her credit she is the first Democrat to kind of lay out the argument that American economic policy should put American workers and American businesses first.
I think where she’s going to have big troubles is what it’s actually going to take to actually do that is going to run smack into the demands of the progressive radicals, radical progressives that dominate the party she is trying to become the nominee of. They demand cultural warfare, they demand the demonization of corporations that are large, they demand all sorts of things that matter to upper middle class people living in certain coastal areas of the country and in the pockets of prosperity. They demand that those things are to be put in front of the hard choices that need to be made to reorient our policy.
Frankly, if she decides that she wants to have a policy that achieves what she’s talking about she is not going to have a home in the Democratic party. That’s not what they want from their nominee.
Benson: What are those hard choices that need to be made in terms of reorienting policy?
Rubio: Well I think at first it begins by recognizing that you can’t have a healthy economy with high paying jobs without companies and corporations that are doing well.
Look I’ve beat up on big corporations because I don’t think they have Americans interests at heart most of the time. I was reading an article yesterday about these big companies leading boycotts and all sorts of social activism. These are the same companies who on the other hand ask us not to put sanctions on China, or they want us to lift sanctions on Russia, or they want us to get back in to the JCPOA so they can do business in Iran. So they seem to be very tolerant of dictators and authoritarians all over the world but are prepared to boycott states because they don’t like some law passed by the democratically elected legislature of that state. So I’ve beaten them up pretty good.
On the same token, you know we do need big business in America we also need a lot of small businesses. We need them both, and some of the key things we need success for in our country cannot be achieved if we have a climate that’s negative to these companies.
The other choices that have to be made frankly would require us to take on some of the orthodoxies in the Republican party and that includes this notion that we have become this party almost dominated by the needs of the financial markets. The financial markets, the stock market, Wall Street, investor class… They are an important part of the economy, but they are not the economy. So what you end up happening is you have corporations today who basically feel that their number one objective is to return value to shareholders and as a result many are committing corporate suicide in the long term. They are not investing, and that has an economic implication for this country. The more and more that this investment deteriorates the likelier it is that the great innovations, the great companies, the great industries of the 21st century are going to be located somewhere else, but not in America and not for Americans.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Repealing the Tax Cuts Would Hit Middle Class and Workers
Scott Rasmussen Explains Pollsters’ Flaws on Trump, Socialism
Conditioned responses are funny things. One of them, the statement that they’re “probably all nice people” — oft used when discussing illegal migrants — is also a dangerous thing.
That very line was uttered, reflexively, by Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson Monday night while discussing how one percent of Guatemalans have left for our country in just the last year. It’s a qualifier reflecting that one has been put on the defensive — in a losing position.
No, this isn’t an attack on Carlson, who’s the best mainstream cable news and commentary host in the business. Rather, it’s a cautionary tale: That an intrepid culture warrior such as Carlson can be conditioned to behave defensively — when he should be unabashedly taking the offense (the best defense) — speaks volumes about the effectiveness of leftist conditioning.
Of course, the quoted statement is illogical. No large group contains members who are “all” nice people. Moreover, as Carlson himself pointed out last year, citing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (video below), illegals do, unsurprisingly, commit an inordinate amount of crime. Nice people?
Of course, it follows that those migrating illegally — making a conscious decision to violate another nation’s sovereignty and laws — would include an inordinate number of not-so-nice people.
That said, let me be clear: I couldn’t care less, and it’s wholly irrelevant, whether those invading our country are or aren’t Nice People™. I’m not God; my job isn’t to judge their souls. (Interestingly, many who’ll scold “Do not judge lest you be judged” when hearing others judge people as bad will themselves judge the same people as good. But if one can’t judge hearts, that would include positive judgments.)
I simply want them to stay the heck out of my country — and be expelled if they’ve already invaded.
If you can’t say this, unabashedly, you’ve already lost the migration debate. Realize that the Left, some in whose vanguard are master manipulators, has conned us into apologizing for doing what’s right, for enforcing just laws. But what other crime do we address so sheepishly, qualifying our opposition to it with notions that the perps are “just seeking a better life” and may be “nice people”? Why, I met counterfeiters who were nice people. What’s niceness got to do with it?
This is no small point. It’s safe to say that most of the German soldiers — being average young men conscripted into service — invading Poland in 1939 and the U.S.S.R. in ‘41 were “nice people.” Should they have been given blankets; lawyers; court dates; handouts; and, ultimately, invitations to stay?
Then, a family hosting me in France years ago one day brought me to the home of a friend who was a communist — but a nice person. (He really was. He had an easy smile and said he realized the ideology didn’t work, so perhaps he was a sort of theoretical communist.) I liked him, and do to this day, but I still wouldn’t want a few million like him in my country.
This is the point, too. “Nice” is irrelevant. Nice doesn’t save civilization. Nice never won a war, hot or cold, actual or cultural. Theological correctness informs that man is good by nature — though that nature is fallen — because he was made by God and for God. Reflecting this, most people want to do good, though often don’t know what good is. “Nice” is not unique.
And it’s neither good nor nice to invite into our midst people who, well intentioned or not, will irrevocably alter our culture for the worse, transforming our land into something more closely resembling what they left. Relevant here is that 70 to 90-plus percent of these illegals, not to mention the same percentage of (legal) immigrants, vote for leftists upon being naturalized (and sometimes before). Why do you think the Democrats want them here? Because they’re “nice”?
So let’s stop with the nice-illegals qualifier. It doesn’t matter if they’re nice, only that they’re here and not where they’re supposed to be: at home building up their own darn countries.
After all, if they can’t make their own lands better, why should we think they wouldn’t make ours worse?
Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com
During a Fox News townhall Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) was ask about stopping gun violence. In her reply she called the National Rifle Association (NRA), “the worst organization in the country.” Watch:
A friend sent me a link to a letter dated September 19, 2008 sent by then Congresswoman Gillibrand to the NRA. Here are some excerpts:
To begin with, I want to be very clear that I always have and always will believe that the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it applies to an individual’s right to carry guns, and does not apply generally to the National Guard or a group of individuals in a State. Moreover, I do not believe that public housing authorities should have the right to ban firearms by people living in their homes. Not only is this discriminatory, but it violates the right of citizens living in their homes.
On the question of outright banning certain firearms for cosmetic features, bullets of an random size, or banning magazine holding an arbitrary number of cartridges, I am adamantly opposed and do not believe that laws should be based on random limits just for the sake of limiting gun ownership or usage. Furthermore, the attempt to limit the purchase of firearms to arbitrary time periods – such as “one-gun-a-month” – will not solve any crimes and will only curtain the Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. I share your concerns about these and other attempts to that could contribute to the slippery slope of government confiscation of people’s firearms based on the arbitrary whims of politics and public opinion.
[ … ]
Lastly, I agree with the NRA that sportsmen should be allowed to hunt on federally-owned lands and that we need to do all we can to create more hunting lands. I even authored an amendment to the Farm Bill to provide matching grants to local communities that want to buy land to provide sportsmen and women.
I appreciate the work that the NRA does to protect gun owners rights and I look forward to working with you for many years in Congress.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Kirsten E. Gillibrand
Member of Congress[Emphasis added]
Read the full letter to the NRA by clicking here.
Oh, how the worm turns.
The Democrats and main stream media are currently consumed with impeaching President Trump, particularly as we approach the 2020 elections. Frankly, they are fooling nobody but themselves regarding their agenda. Even if the Democrats in the House passes charges of impeachment, they will inevitably fail in the Senate which is under Republican control.
Only two U.S. presidents in our history were impeached: Our 17th president, Andrew Johnson, in 1867, and Bill Clinton in 1998-1999. Let’s be clear, impeachment means charged with misconduct only. A trial is then conducted by the Senate to determine guilt or innocence. In the cases of Johnson and Clinton, both were found not-guilty by the Senate. President Richard Nixon resigned as opposed to having the country suffer through impeachment proceedings. Of the presidents, let us compare and contrast Presidents Nixon, Clinton, and Trump, as they are the most recent presidents to undergo this treatment.
INTRO
Richard Nixon – 37th president, Republican, served in office 1969-1974
Bill Clinton – 42nd president, Democrat, served in office 1993-2001
Donald Trump – 45th president, Republican, serving in office 2017-present
Mr. Nixon was the first and only president to resign from office before his term was over. He was succeeded by VP Gerald Ford, also a Republican.
POLITICAL CLIMATE
President Nixon worked with the 93rd Congress where both chambers were controlled by the Democrats.
President Clinton faced the 106th Congress where both chambers were controlled by the Republicans.
President Trump faces the 116th United States Congress which is split, with the Democrats controlling the House of Representatives, and the Senate controlled by the Republicans.
Mr. Nixon was elected as a “law and order” president to bring stability from the chaos of the 1960’s and promising to end the Viet Nam war. Although not a favorite among liberals, he easily won over Hubert Humphrey who served as LBJ’s Vice President.
Mr. Clinton was elected because of the perception he was more youthful and full of ideas than incumbent President George H.W. Bush, who presided over a faltering economy.
Mr. Trump was elected as an alternative to career politicians and to correct the liberal policies of President Obama. Democrats were shocked that Trump won as they believed Hillary Clinton would easily win. Their shock turned into hysteria and a resistance movement to obstruct every decision he made.
RELATIONS WITH THE PRESS
Perhaps the only president to earn such hatred from the press, other than Mr. Trump, was Richard Nixon, going back to when he was Vice President in the 1950’s (see Checkers speech of 1952) and helping to defeat him in the 1960 presidential election, losing to JFK. In 1962, he ran for governor of California, losing to Pat Brown. In his concession speech, he made the following statement which indicated his displeasure with the press, stating, “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.” He obviously returned to public life with his presidential victory in 1968.
President Clinton had a warm relation with the press during his two runs for president. They portrayed him as young and vibrant, and Republican candidates George H.W. Bush and Sen. Bob Dole were portrayed as old and stodgy.
President Trump has had a feud with the press ever since his first presidential campaign. He coined the term “Fake News” to describe the spin of the press.
In all three situations, the press played an important role in impeachment. There is no doubt they have a demonstrative record supporting Democrats over Republicans.
CHARGES
President Nixon was accused of covering-up the break-in at the DNC Headquarters at the Watergate Complex. There was no evidence to indicate he had any role in initiating the break-in, just the cover-up. The House spent considerable time sifting through evidence as presented by the FBI and the media, particularly The Washington Post. The president eventually resigned as opposed to facing the embarrassment of impeachment.
As for President Clinton, the House relied on the findings of an extensive investigation by independent Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, which included 11 charges, mostly lying under oath and obstruction of justice.
In terms of Mr. Trump, the country awaited a two year investigation by Independent Counsel Robert Mueller whereby no charges were presented. This did not satisfy the Democrats in the House who continue to investigate alleged improprieties by the president.
PUBLIC SUPPORT
President Nixon’s public support can be described as shaky at best. It eroded as evidence continued to pile up, particularly disclosure of the White House tapes which contained damning evidence as to Mr. Nixon’s involvement in the cover-up.
In terms of President Clinton, everyone seemed to know he was guilty, including the Democrats, but they didn’t believe the punishment fit the crime. Although he remained popular among members of his party, he also became a political liability, which explains why his endorsement is no longer sought.
As to President Trump, his support among Republicans and many independents appears to be on solid ground, much to the chagrin of the Democrats.
SUMMARY
If we have learned anything about impeachments over the years, it is they are always political, and always divisive. It used to be impeachment was considered a last resort to take, but it is rapidly turning into a common political tool, which is disturbing and hints at the desperation of the party pressing the issue. If the Democrats think such a move is going to unify the country, they are sadly mistaken. Impeaching President Trump is a risky political maneuver as it will only energize his base, particularly since the Mueller investigation produced no sign of wrong-doing. This is substantially different than Nixon and Clinton. Consequently, the American people will see President Trump’s impeachment as the charade that it is.
From the perspective of the Republicans, an impeachment of the president will be the best thing that could happen as the American populace will strongly re-elect the president and drive the Democrats out of office in the House. This will damage the Democrats for years to come.
The Democrats insist we have a “constitutional crisis” at hand. I agree, but not for the same reasons. I perceive them as undermining the Constitution by wanting to eliminate the Electoral College, changing the composition of the Supreme Court, and changing our fundamental rights and freedoms, such as speech and to bear arms.
So, why are the Democrats doing this? They know Mr. Trump has strong support from the populace thanks in large part to his economic policies. As such, they hope to distract voters by simply besmirching his character.
One last thing to consider, under Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the Congress kept on working and produced considerable legislation. Unfortunately, this is not true today. Because of their preoccupation with trying to stop President Trump, the Congress has come to a standstill. In all likelihood, the 116th Congress will go down in history as one of the most incompetent sessions, doing nothing for the American people they are supposed to serve.
Just remember, in our nearly 250 years of existence, no sitting U.S. president has ever been removed from office through impeachment. In the cases of Presidents Johnson and Clinton, they both returned to work after being found not guilty, and completed their term in office.
Keep the Faith!
EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies. All rights reserved.
Democrat Governor J.B. Pritzker (Ill.) swore he would make Illinois the most extreme state in the country on abortion. And right now, he’s one signature away from succeeding.
No one thought an abortion law more radical than New York’s was possible, but the Land of Lincoln is proving everyone wrong. In an astonishing move that sweeps away every possible barrier, Governor Pritzker is about to make history by allowing any kind of abortion, at any time, for any reason. Gone is the state’s partial-birth abortion ban, its protection for newborn survivors, its conscience rights, and parental consent. Of all the similarities to the New York law, though, one stood out — and that’s how elated liberals were to pass it.
To most people, that’s astounding. According to a new Harvard Center for American Studies poll, only six percent of the country sides with the Pritzker and the 2020 Democratic candidates on infanticide. And the number who agree with third-trimester abortions is just as miniscule at eight percent. Officials like Pritzker who think this barbaric new crusade is a winning strategy are kidding themselves. Even local Democrats — more than 140 of whom have voted with pro-lifers on state bills — can’t stomach the extremism seeping out of places like Washington. In Illinois, one of the bluest states in America, six Democrats voted against their own party. Four others voted “present.”
Maybe they were as upset as the Republicans about how low Chicago Democratic Rep. Kelly Cassidy had to stoop just to get the chamber to consider her proposal. Believe it or not, Illinois’s bill was so controversial that she had to take a completely irrelevant measure, gut it, and add this abortion language at the last minute. Everyone knew: Cassidy’s bill was in limbo for a reason — it didn’t have enough support to push it through the regular process.
Ironically, the day after liberals proclaimed victory on their “Reproductive Health Act,” a local pastor was asked to open the legislative in prayer. It was with that tragic backdrop that Cory Musgrave from New Beginnings Church in Fairfield offered a passionate plea for God’s forgiveness. “God, none of our evil actions have been hidden from You. You see everything,” he prayed. “Lord, You have told us those things which You hate, and among them are hands that shed innocent blood. I stand here in this House, in this high place in Illinois, and ask You, O God, creator of Heaven and Earth, if there is anything more innocent than a baby that is being created in the womb.”
Musgrave quoted Psalm 139 and then explained that pro-lifers have tried to be “a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves as You have commanded us,” Musgrave went on. “Those appeals were denied, but we have one final appeal left and that is to the courts of Heaven… I ask you to rise up, God, and judge Illinois for the sanctioned destruction of the innocent unborn. In this House, I pray for justice to roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty river.”
When FRC’s Sarah Perry talked to Pastor Musgrave about the prayer on “Washington Watch,” he explained that he’d been invited back in February, long before the abortion debate exploded. He’d gotten instructions a week before from the clerk not to proselytize, but when he saw what the chambers had done, Pastor Musgrave knew: he couldn’t let the moment pass by.
“I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but Sunday night in the last week of the legislative session, they pulled this bill back out. It had been shoved back in subcommittee. They had a rigged committee hearing where they had very limited debate. They give the Republican side one hour’s notice, [and] they call it on a Sunday evening. And they decided to push that bill through. And as I sat there and watched that and heard what they were doing, it broke my heart that we are allowing this in my state.”
During the prayer, he found out later, five liberals walked out of the room. Others turned their backs to him. How did he take that, Sarah asked? “Well, I was focused on praying… I was unaware of it until after it was over. Also, someone who was standing up there with me, they said there was a discernible hiss from the crowd. But I was just focused on praying to God. My prayer was not to them it was to God.”
What an exercise in courage! Let’s hope there are other pastors and Christians out there who hear Cory’s story and are encouraged to be just as bold as he has been.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Religious Tolerance Translates in Egypt
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with podcast is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
Jeff Crouere is a native New Orleanian and his award winning program, “Ringside Politics,” airs at 7:30 p.m. Fridays and at 10:00 p.m. Sundays on PBS affiliate WLAE-TV, Channel 32, and from 7-11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990-AM & www.Wgso.com. He is a political columnist, the author of America’s Last Chance and provides regular commentaries on the Jeff Crouere YouTube channel and on www.JeffCrouere.com.
TOPIC…HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS HAVE GEORGIA ON THEIR MIND!
Melissa Henson, Parents Television Council Program Director. Ms. Henson is a noted expert on entertainment industry trends and the how the impact of entertainment affects children and the American popular culture at large. She previously supervised the research and program content analysis operations of the PT and produced a number of groundbreaking PTC studies that document the levels of graphic sex, violence and profanity on television. Some of those reports include: The Ratings Sham I & II, Dying to Entertain, Faith in a Box, The Sour Family Hour, The Blue Tube, and TV Bloodbath.
TOPIC…Netflix Accountable for Teen-Targeted Suicide Drama!
Roger D. Klein, MD JD is an Expert with the Federalist Society Regulatory Transparency Project’s FDA & Health Working Group, a former HHS Advisor to FDA, CMS and CDC, and a leading authority on public policies related to the implementation of precision medicine. A physician and an attorney, he is a frequent guest on national radio and television programs and a regular opinion contributor to The Hill, the Daily Caller, Real Clear Health, Investor’s Business Daily, and other periodicals.
TOPIC…Fraud Alert: Genetic Testing Scam.
Ever heard of Alpha Leo? No? Well he was a Democratic Party candidate for president in 2016. Alpha Leo, Deon J. Jenkins, has thrown his hat in the ring to take on Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Deon is the reparations candidate.
The Deon D. Jenkins for President website states:
Oprah Winfrey, Jay Z, and Bob Johnson are more delusional for Black American life, and the aspirations of an individualistic concept of black success is even more delusional because American wealth is controlled by the codification of white supremacy. Black Americans have been sold the American dream, but are stuck as permanent underclass citizens, and our willingness to get deceived by the notion of individualism garners the root cause for our failures. [Emphasis added]
PRNewswire has this from Deon J. Jenkins’ (D) reparations platform:
Platform – D.M.L.G: Defense, Money, Land, Grants:
“A new generation of voters dominate the Black constituency, and it seems as if we finally have a reparations agenda, and refuse to fall for the sixty-year trend of benign neglect politics. I decided to give the people an idea for what a genuine campaign should look like. It is a very precise Reparations package. I call it D.M.L.G: Defense, Money, Land, Grants.
“The very first element of reparations is Defense. Our rights are not protected in this country which is a violation of the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth amendment is a Constitutional legislation giving former slaves who were set free after the Civil War unalienable rights as citizens of this country. Enforcement agencies must get established that specifically enforce this legislation. This enforcement encompasses black armed forces, black federal agencies, and black citizens who can equip self-protection.
“The next element is Money for black descendants of slavery. There are roughly 300 million people recorded in the United States. Let’s say that the black people who can prove that they descended from slavery are 10 million people. The Gross Domestic Product, (GDP), is $20 trillion dollars annually. The breakdown of what’s owed should equate with the population size of blacks who descended from slavery, so we equate to at least three percent of the population. Three percent of the GDP of $20 trillion dollars a year is $60,000 dollars a year.
“I think that we are also owed a lump sum of money for all of the years that the United States missed on compensation since the slavery ending of 1865.
“The third element is Land, because we were promised 40 acres and a mule, so if you multiply 40 acres times 10 million people will equate to over 400 million acres of land.
“And finally, we need Grants specifically for banks, businesses, hospitals, schools, science, and technology.
“Be sure to vote: Primary elections are soon coming to your state.” [Emphasis added]
In April, 2019 Grace Segers from CBS News reported:
In a CNN town hall in March [2019], Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren became the latest candidate to bring one of the most controversial political topics in America into the spotlight: “I believe it’s time to start the national full-blown conversation about reparations in this country.”
At a townhall PBS News asked the Essential question:
How might the opinions of the 2020 candidates on the issue of reparations make a difference to voters?
The below video titled “What 2020 Democrats think about reparations” takes on this Democratic Party issue:
As Ayn Rand wrote,
The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.
Democrats running for president support:
Add to this policy pile Deon J. Jenkins’ “reparations” platform. And what do you have? Uncontested absurdities on steroids.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Open Borders Gang Launches Major Push to get Immigrants Ready to Vote in 2020
After weeks of more or less peaceful demonstrations by the quwa al-horeeya w-at-tagheer (Freedom and Change forces) with the exception of an unknown individual(s) shooting at the demonstrators, which was blamed on “deep state” holdovers from the
al-Basheer regime, this past weekend saw the regular Sudanese armed forces open up intense fire on crowds demonstrating. Dozens were killed and hundreds more were wounded.
Most of the talking heads on al-jazeera Arabic have been blaming Egypt, Saudi Arabia (KSA), and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for the shooting, saying that they pressured the current ruling military junta to squash the protests because they hate the idea of Democracy taking root in any Arab or Islamic country.
As if to direct more hate towards the Sudanese Junta and by extension its regional backers (Egypt, KSA, and UAE), al-jazeera Arabic has been playing clips of the most brutal scenes from the weekend’s slaughter over and over and over again. And, 90% of their news coverage the past several days has been of that recent episode in the Sudan.
Al-jazeera’s website www.aljazeera.net has also reported that the junta has recently made a decision to escalate the situation vis-à-vis the “Freedom and Change forces.”
And, there might be some truth to that contention. Saudi-owned media such as al-hadeth TV, and al-arabiyya TV have reported that the junta has decided to postpone elections possibly for up to nine months.
ANALYSIS
Previously on this column I reported that there were more than one faction among the protesting groups, that while Egypt and its allies supported the removal of the former clownish (and Islamist) dictator al-Basheer, they also supported at least one of the factions among the protestors. Meanwhile Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) supported one of the other factions, which is the hard core Islamist faction.
Therefore, in view of recent developments, I suspect that the “Freedom and Change Forces” as a whole have been taken over by the MB/Turkey-supported faction. This in turn has caused Egypt and its Gulf allies to throw their support behind the current military junta as the lesser of two evils. It isn’t Democracy as such that Egypt and its allies fear so much as it is the possibility of the MB and Turkey gaining control of a key country like Sudan. Egypt’s life blood for the nearly 6,000 years of its history has been the Nile river. And, Sudan controls the entire flow of the Nile as it enters Egyptian territory. Therefore, Egypt must have a strong, stable government in Sudan.
Finally, given the way that al-jazeera has been covering the Sudan issue recently, that would seem to lend strong support to Egypt’s contention that Turkey and the MB (because of Qatar’s and al-Jazeera’s alliance with Turkey and the MB) have gained control of the “revolution,” so best to support the junta regardless of what ever warts it might have in terms of how it goes about squashing the rebellion.
The end result for Sudan, in my view, is a fracturing based on tribal lines in Africa’s largest country in terms of geographical extension. In some of these regions chaos will reign. Some of the vast territories of Sudan can be expected to become excellent staging and training grounds for the likes of ISIS and al-Qaeda or some time to come.
Iran in the past has threatened to close off the Hormouz strait, through which all Gulf oil and natural gas passes, by sinking a ship or two at strategic choke points if is threatened. Iran had never previously specified what sort of ship they would sink whether it would be a military or civilian vessel, an oil tanker, or not, or a foreign vessel, or one of their own that they could sink in the strategically right place to choke off all transport through the straights.
Egypt’s al-ahram has reported that Iran is now specifically threatening to sink American ships if they are attacked. According to this report, Iran is claiming that any military conflict between the U.S. and Iran will result in the global price of oil to rise to more than 100 dollars a barrel. They are also claiming that their missiles can take out any foreign ship that enters the Gulf.
The al-Jazeera website, www.aljazeera.net, has reported that Saudi Arabia is planning to execute three religious scholars. The gist of this article is about a petition that some 80 prominent Muslims in the West have signed begging Saudi Arabia to refrain from executing these three religion scholars.
ANALYSIS
Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, the defacto ruler of KSA, has given the impression to the outside world that he thinks that the Islam of KSA, by nature, is a kind, tolerant religion. Perhaps he even believes that fantasy himself. When a reporter once asked him what he’s going to do about “Wahhabism” (the strict, fundamentalist brand of Islam that has dominated the Arabian peninsula since the late 1700s). His answer was “what Wahhabism?”
The implication of that being that he is trying to pretend that “Wahhabism” does not exist, and that any radicalism that has arisen in the KSA is entirely the fault of the 1979 Iranian revolution and the influence it has had on Arab youth (he has said as much).
Bin Salman’s arresting, and executing, radical fundamentalist, or “Wahhabi” preachers should be seen as his attempt to stamp out fundamentalism so that the “Disneyland” form of Islam he believes in will be the only Islam left in the KSA.
Like Sudan, Algeria has been undergoing and Arabic Spring 2.0 for the past several weeks. And, like in Sudan, the reigning Dictator for life and a handful of his cronies have been forced to step down. Meanwhile, the military officers have assumed control of the administration to keep things running, and to prevent total chaos until elections can be held.
But, like in Sudan, the crowds are chanting that they want elections now, they want a “civilian” government now. They want all vestiges of the old regime (including, apparently, the Military officers) to step down and get out of the way.
According to the al-jazeera article, many in Algeria are complaining about the “pro France” factions in their country. In this regard they blame the military and intelligence personnel for their historical close relationships with the French military and intelligence.
In this context al-jazeera noted that there are six million French citizens who have dual French and Algerian citizenship, and that this huge number has had a profound effect on French elections.
ANALYSIS
The implication of there being six million with dual citizenship is that these French-Algerian connections would also strongly influence Algerian politics.
Westerners, however, should look at these numbers through a different lens. The six million figure of those with dual citizenship does not count the 2nd and 3rd generation Algerian Muslims who are citizens of France and no longer hold dual citizenship with Algeria. Nor does it count any of the Muslims from other countries who now reside in France. What this means is that the Muslim population of France is likely closer to 15% than it is to 10%. And, they are making their presence felt in very tangible ways, to put it lightly.
The wife of a senior associate of ISIS chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi gave Americans information that could have killed Baghdadi, but the military brass at the time declined to act on it, The Guardian reported.
Later, U.S. officials reportedly said the information was correct.
Nisrine Assad Ibrahim (a.k.a. Umm Sayyuf), 29, was married to Fathi Ben Awn Ben Jildi Murad al-Tunis (Abu Sayyaf), a close friend of al-Baghdadi’s who served as both as ISIS’ media chief and oil minister.
Her own family was highly connected to al-Baghdadi as well. When al-Baghdadi would stay in Mosul, it was Umm Sayyuf’s aunt that found him shelter and ran a network of safe houses for him.
Umm Sayyuf was captured in a Delta Force raid in May 2015 in the Omar oil field – a raid that killed her husband. She was sentenced to death for horrific crimes, including the enslavement and of American aid worker Kayla Mueller and facilitating her rape by al-Baghdadi as well as the enslavement of a number of Yazidi women and girls, all of whom were raped by senior ISIS leaders.
Her captors at a prison in Erbil, Iraq where she is being held allowed The Guardian to interview her, the first media interview since her capture.
For more than a half a year, Umm Sayyuf refused to cooperate with her captors, but by early 2016, she began revealing crucial intelligence information about the terror group. In particular, she revealed how al-Baghdadi operated and how he was able to travel around from location to location, information she was particularly privy to.
Because her husband was ISIS’ media chief and a close confidante, al-Baghdadi was often in Umm Sayyuf’s home. In fact, Baghdadi’s trademark audio tapes were recorded in her home a number of times.
“He used to do that in our sitting room in Taji [a town in central Iraq],” she said. “My husband was the [ISIS] media chief then, and Baghdadi would visit often.”
In February 2016, Umm Sayyuf identified an area on the western side of Mosul where she suspected al-Baghdadi was hiding. A Kurdish intelligence officer explained how this information was used:
“They used to put their guards on the street, these were the internal security people, who only hang around when someone important is there. Soon, we zeroed in on the house, and we were very confident that Baghdadi was there. We told the Americans and asked them to act, and they said they had other things on. Baghdadi moved houses quite quickly and we missed him. Later, the Americans came back and said we were right.”
U.S. officials had nixed an airstrike on the house that night for a combination of factors: there was a lot of activity in the skies that night, making the mission dangerous for the airmen, and there was a fear of civilian casualties in the highly congested neighborhood.
Last month, al-Baghdadi released a video message for the first time in five years. As to where the self-styled ISIS caliph is now, Umm Sayyuf believes he is somewhere in Iraq.
“He never felt good in Syria, he always wanted to be in Iraq. He would only come to do something and leave,” she said.
Human rights lawyer Amal Clooney has advocated for the extradition of Umm Sayyaf from Iraq to the U.S., where she wants to she her put on trial for her crimes.
Testifying before the UN Security Council last April, Clooney said of Umm Sayyuf that she locked captives “in a room, instigated their beatings and put makeup on them to ‘prepare them for rape.’”
Umm Sayyuf’s comments published in The Guardian did not include any questions to why she decided to cooperate with the American and Kurdish militaries.
Even taking into consideration her cooperation, officials say she will never be released. “We will not let her go,” said a senior intelligence official. “She comes from a very radical environment, and if she returned to them, she would become like them.”
RELATED STORIES:
Mauro: Baghdadi Has Lost Control of ISIS
I find it ironic that Hollywood is bullying the state of Georgia to protest its new law to protect unborn children. The heartbeat law stipulates that an abortion cannot be performed in the Peach State if the fetal heartbeat can be detected.
Agence-France Presse reports (5/30/19), “WarnerMedia, Sony Pictures and NBC Universal on Thursday joined a growing number of major studios threatening to pull their productions out of Georgia should a controversial abortion law in the southern US state go into effect.”
In his End of Day Report (5/31/19). Gary Bauer notes, “Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, has joined the left-wing assault on Georgia’s new pro-life law. He said it would be ‘very difficult’ for Disney to continue working in Georgia if the heartbeat law remains in effect.”
So an entertainment giant geared toward children is unhappy with a law to protect unborn children? Bauer adds, “Walt Disney must be rolling over in his grave.”
Netflix is reported to be working with the ACLU to try and legally stop the Georgia law. This is the same Netflix that seems to have no problem with filming productions in some Middle East countries with serious human rights violations.
And on it goes.
I asked Evangelist Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a champion of civil rights for the unborn, her opinion on the Georgia controversy. She told me, “There are many filmmakers who are producing lovely movies without supporting killing as an option for solutions to life’s challenges. As a US citizen of Georgia, and as a black woman who has suffered from the scourge of abortion, I suggest to Hollywood and the world at large that healing will always trump killing. #istandwithga4life.”
First of all, why is Hollywood even making movies in Georgia and not in Hollywood? Tax breaks. I don’t blame them for that.
But I do blame them for attempting to bully Georgia for passing a humane law to deal in a humane way with a gross violation of human rights.
Hollywood claims to stand foursquare against bullying, as well they should. A smattering of Hollywood movies dealing with the issue of bullying include: “Carrie” (1976), “The Karate Kid” (1984), “Back to the Future” (1985), “Mean Girls” (2004), “Never Been Kissed” (1999), “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” (2010).
I remember how poignant, how “consciousness-raising,” was an anti-bullying scene in “Never Been Kissed” with Drew Barrymore, where, as I recall, she was about to go on a date. She was so excited. But it turned out to be a cruel hoax to set her up for humiliation, as bullies stop their car, pelt her with eggs, and then drive off in laughter. It’s a powerful scene demonstrating the cruelty of bullying.
Yet at the same time, Hollywood supports the ultimate bullying in our society—abortion. Can you think of anyone more vulnerable than a preborn child?
Look at every single method of abortion. Every single one. They are inhumane. They mete out cruel and unusual punishment to the most innocent, defenseless amongst us. Sometimes the children are killed through chemicals—human pesticides. Sometimes, their limbs are torn apart in utero. Sometimes, they have their brains sucked out first and are then delivered (dead), breach style.
The most common form is via a gigantic vacuum. It is as if the unborn baby experiences a tsunami. Abby Johnson, an eight-year veteran with the Planned Parenthood chapter in Bryan, Texas, worked her way up to management. One day she actually saw through a sonogram what an abortion does to the unborn, and her eyes were opened. She left the clinic. Today she is playing for the other side. And her story has even been told in a surprise-hit movie, Unplanned.
Abby Johnson told D. James Kennedy Ministries television that seeing the suctioning of the preborn baby was quite disturbing: “I saw [the child] begin to move its arms and legs, and I saw it begin to move away from that instrument. And I was just in shock …. I saw the child’s body begin to go through that tube. For those few moments I was watching this child fight hard for its life. It didn’t have a chance. We had all those instruments and all that technology, and that little baby didn’t have a fighting chance—and it did fight.” [Emphasis added]
This is why I say abortion is the ultimate bullying. Indeed, the preborn do not have a chance.
Jesus said, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” What a golden rule. Why can’t this golden rule be applied to the preborn child? We were all once preborn children—even people in Hollywood. Would we have wanted our lives snuffed out by the ultimate bullies?
RELATED ARTICLE: GOP rep asks pro-abortion actress if an abortion survivor has a right to life—and she refuses to answer
A number of Republicans in the Senate are standing with President Donald Trump over his threat to apply tariffs to Mexico on Tuesday after several party members spoke out against it.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that “there is not much support in my conference for tariffs” and he is hoping that the tariffs are not implemented. Other Senators also decided to speak out against Trump’s threat.
Utah Republican Sen. Mitt Romney said he will not support applying a tariff to Mexico, saying he “would not be inclined to vote [for] a tariff against a friend,” Politico reported Tuesday.
Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford reportedly also criticized Trump’s threat, saying the White House “is trying to use tariffs to solve every problem but HIV and climate change.”
However, a number of Republicans are in favor of applying tariffs to Mexico, such as Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who said in a tweet Wednesday:
I don’t generally like tariffs either. But what alternative do my GOP colleagues have to get #Mexico to secure its southern border, use the Isthmus of Tehuantepec to screen northbound rail cars & vehicles & act on intel we proved on human traffickers?
Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis also defended Trump’s move, saying “I think it’s more likely the tariffs go on,” and that it would be “foolish” for Republicans to try to block the presidents move, in an appearance Tuesday on Fox News.
“I don’t think they’ll do that. If they do, it’s foolish. There is nothing more important than borders,” he continued.
Another senator who has supported Trump’s proposal to apply tariffs to Mexico, is Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby. He told reporters on Capitol Hill Monday he is “not a tariff man,” but that he thinks “if it leads to a better trade agreement, I can understand his strategy.” Shelby also said, “well, if it doesn’t work you are right where you are. Probably have nothing to lose.”
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy defended Trump, according to the president, who tweeted a quote attributed to McCarthy.
RELATED ARTICLES:
‘Full-Blown Emergency’: Southern Border Arrests Surge
Democrats (Again) Side With Criminal Illegal Aliens in Amnesty Bill
Another Obama-Era Official: Yes, There’s a Serious Crisis at the Southern Border
GOP Divided On Trump’s Mexico Tariff Threat
Here Are The Seven House Republicans Who Voted For Amnesty Bill
EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
In this edition of “Judicial Watch On Issue,” Senior Attorney James Peterson explains the issue of illegal immigration & its impact on the United States.
How many victims of childhood sexual abuse lived as the objects of sexual torture experiments funded and promoted by Indiana University’s Alfred Kinsey has never been revealed; but Kinsey is lauded unashamedly throughout the State of Indiana, with his victims never receiving compensation for their fears and tears and years of diabolical human experiments performed by men devoid of conscience, one such man being a Nazi SS officer, who furnished Kinsey, at his request and cost, with sexual experimental data on Holocaust children.
Although Kinsey died before being brought to human justice, his SS cohort was sentenced to prison. Also on the Bloomington Indiana University campus was the budding career of Jared Fogle, whose pornography business was operated from his campus room and then succeeded by a lucrative role as spokesman for Subway fast foods, ending in a federal prison sentence for abusing boys and girls for years and years worldwide, despite a decade of credible reports filed against him.
Jared was raised in Indianapolis, where his family vigorously supports him and maintains high status at the Indy Jewish Community Center, frequented by convicted predators, with easy access to children. For reporting child abuse at the Indy JCC by one of its counselors, my family and I were targeted by attorney Robert W. York, a hearing officer for the Indiana Supreme Court, receiving tens of thousands of dollars paid by Hoosier taxpayers.
When Robert York threatened my husband, York’s associate attorney, that he would be fired unless my husband and I would be silent about the abuse I had witnessed at the JCC, York’s years-long vendetta against our family began, continuing through today.
At the top of Indiana’s legal system, housed nearby to USA Gymnastics and USA Diving, which also concealed years of sexual abuse complaints, is the Indiana Supreme Court and its justices, including Steven David, who fined me, when he was a trial judge just north of Indianapolis, $60,000 for attempting to subpoena the mother of a convicted child molester to testify under oath about more victims that her son had contacted weekly for six years. Robert W. York serves the Indiana Supreme Court despite his intimidation of an eyewitness to child abuse, which intimidation and persecution of our family are well known to Indiana’s justices and follow the patterns of retribution seen against the families reporting abuse of their gymnasts and divers.
In Columbus, Ohio, the Heartland Ohio State University concealed decades of reports against its official physician, who is believed to have molested thousands of young male athletes, required to be examined by him in order to play sports at OSU. As an OSU family, we denounce this university in the strongest of renunciation for its inestimable harm to the youth on its teams. OSU, with full knowledge of credible reports against its physician, promoted him to positions of high repute, heartlessly sacrificing young lives.
Cradled in America’s Heartland, in its corporations, courts, and universities, is a golden triangle, like the Bermuda Triangle, where babies, children, and youth enter and never emerge the same.
By Dwight Adams, dwight.adams@indystar.com
Note: This story contains graphic descriptions of sexual abuse that may be offensive to some readers or painful to survivors of sexual assault. We think it is necessary to report this information as a warning and a reminder of what comprises sexual abuse.
Former USA Gymnastics team doctor Larry Nassar was sentenced Wednesday to 40 to 175 years in prison, after pleading guilty to sexual assault.
But what did Larry Nassar actually do to his victims?
►Empowering: Some of the most powerful Larry Nassar victim testimony
►His sentencing: Here’s how long Larry Nassar could spend behind bars
►Ripple effect: Impact IndyStar investigation into USA Gymnastics and Larry Nassar
His specific crimes
Nassar, 54, was a doctor of osteopathic medicine and performed osteopathic manipulation, in which a doctor uses his or her hands to move a patient’s muscles and joints with techniques that include stretching, gentle pressure and resistance.
For more than a year after being accused in criminal complaints of sexual abuse, Nassar maintained he was performing legitimate medical procedures.
This is news you aren’t going to see on cable TV or in the mainstream media. After a decade of legal wrangling, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) was finally facing a jury trial (to begin in September) in a case that alleged they had hired a phony lawyer to help clients with their immigration status among other legal matters.
A prospect of a public trial likely pushed the Muslim ‘rights’ organization to quietly settle the case in favor of the victims and their attorneys.
From the American Freedom Law Center (hat tip: Joanne),
Washington, D.C. (June 4, 2019) — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has settled a case originally filed 11 years ago in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit against CAIR was brought by the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) on behalf of five victims of a massive fraud perpetrated by a CAIR lawyer, Morris Days.
CAIR’s decision to finally settle the case came only after two very adverse court decisions. The first decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed an earlier dismissal of the lawsuit brought by AFLC Co-Founders and Senior Counsel David Yerushalmi and Robert J. Muise. The Court of Appeals’ decision, the second appeal in this long-standing case that had included allegations of criminal racketeering by CAIR, mandated that the federal district court permit the case to go to a jury trial, set for September 2019.
The second court decision was by the trial court which refused to dismiss the consumer fraud statute count, which meant that AFLC’s clients would receive attorney’s fees irrespective of the amount the jury awarded as long as the jury found CAIR liable. Given the aggressively fought litigation over the past decade, CAIR was looking at a possible judgment approaching one million dollars just for attorney’s fees.
It is thus no surprise that at a mediation conducted in the U.S. District Court in D.C. by U.S. Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey in late May, CAIR agreed to a settlement. As is often the case, the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement are confidential, but the plaintiffs’ lead lawyer, David Yerushalmi, remarked:
“Our clients are extremely happy with the settlement and, in fact, they are so happy, they have authorized me to declare publicly that they have no problem disclosing all of the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement if CAIR agrees. It is unlikely CAIR would agree, of course, because it is unlikely CAIR wants the public to learn the terms of the settlement.”
[…]
The lawsuit began after CAIR hired for its Virginia offices a fake lawyer, Morris Days, who defrauded dozens if not hundreds of CAIR clients. Once the fraud began to unravel, CAIR engaged in a massive cover-up, closing down the Virginia offices, firing the lawyer, and claiming to the CAIR victims that Days was not actually a CAIR lawyer. As alleged, CAIR knew of this fraud and purposefully conspired with Days to keep the CAIR clients from discovering that their legal matters were being mishandled or not handled at all.
This is the kind of news you need to get around to your social networks (assuming you haven’t been given the boot from facebook and twitter yet!) because otherwise this good news favoring the little guy will be lost.
RELATED ARTICLE: Bangladeshi Illegal Aliens Skyrocketing at the Southern Border