5 Takeaways From Israel’s Massive Intelligence Operation on Iran

/in , , /by

The Israeli government on Monday unloaded a massive intelligence data dump that demonstrated Iran’s efforts to hide its nuclear weapons program.

The revelations come weeks before an anticipated decision by the U.S. to “fix or nix” the Iran nuclear deal.

Reactions to the Israeli intelligence revelations ranged from “ding-dong the deal is dead” to “nothing to see here, move along people.” Neither of these extreme assessments accurately characterize the likely impact this intelligence data will have on the final U.S. decision.

Here are five takeaways from the intelligence dump that the Trump administration will no doubt take to heart.

1. Trust but verify.

The information is true. It is highly unlikely that Monday’s briefing from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the first the administration has heard about the Israeli intelligence operation. U.S. officials have already confirmed the veracity of the documents. That doesn’t happen so immediately without prior contact.

Sure, the White House knows the Israeli government dumped the information at a strategic time so as to add pressure to the White House to dump the deal. That doesn’t make the intelligence any less true.

2. Measure means and intent.

The documents don’t necessarily prove that Iran has violated obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (i.e. the Iran nuclear deal) negotiated by the Obama administration. But the documents do conclusively prove the regime lied when it said it had no interest in building a nuclear weapons program, and it shows they clearly have the technical knowledge to pursue a program in the future.

3. The nuclear deal is not enough.

These revelations will only strengthen the administration’s belief that the Iran nuclear deal is inadequate to derail Iran’s nuclear threat.

Reports that suggest the U.S. is trying to amend the deal are accurate. What the administration wants is agreement from Germany, France, and the United Kingdom to add more demands and restrictions to the deal. If those European partners don’t agree, then the U.S. will nix the deal and press on.

4. Put Jack back in the box.

Israel’s intelligence and offensive actions in Syria targeting Iranian assets are a reminder of how dangerous Iran has become since the Iran deal was signed.

Iran has sought to build a strategic land bridge to the Israeli border and equip Hezbollah with precision-guided long range missiles, which could overwhelm Israeli missile defenses. There is no question the potential for a larger war is real, unless the Iranian regime is put back in its box and deterred from its destabilizing activities.

5. The U.S. must lead.

There is a simple cause and effect at play in the Middle East. When the U.S. backs off, Iran runs wild. When the U.S. steps up, everyone else gets the backbone to join, and Iran backs down.

The Iranian regime is fragmented. Iran’s economy is in free-fall. Its people are protesting in the streets. Other nations in the region want to the U.S. to step up.

In private, even Germany, France, and the U.K. will admit that President Barack Obama negotiated a weak deal. If the U.S. leads, there is a chance to put things right. If not, things will only get worse.

However the White House acts on the deal, don’t bet there is a serious voice in this administration that doesn’t take these five truths to heart.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of James Carafano

James Carafano

James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Podcast: US Should Leave Iran Deal

Trump Proclaims Netanyahu Announcement on Iran Shows ‘I’ve Been 100% Right’

Russians Sold Uranium To Iran After Buying Uranium From Hillary Clinton

Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announcing on Monday his government had seized 110,000 documents from Iran on its nuclear program. (Photo: Polaris/Newscom)

The Left Is Merciless at Keeping Conservatives in the Closet

/in , , , , /by

The dominant force in America and many other Western countries today is fear of the left.

This is a result of the fact that the most dynamic religion of the past 100 years has been neither Christianity nor Islam. It has been leftism. Whoever does not recognize this does not understand the contemporary world.

Leftism—in its incarnations, such as Marxism, communism, and socialism; expressed through egalitarianism, environmentalism, and feminism; in its denigration of capitalism and Western civilization, especially America and Israel; in its supplanting of Christianity and Judaism; through its influence on Christianity and Judaism; in its celebration of race; and in its replacing of reason with romanticism—has almost completely taken over the news and entertainment media and institutions of education.

There is a largely (though not entirely) nonviolent reign of ideological terror in America. In almost every area of life, people fear antagonizing the left.

Last week, before my speech at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, a man employed by the university (I will not say in what department) walked over to me, looked around to see whether anyone was watching and whispered in my ear, “I’m a conservative.”

This happens just about everywhere I speak. People whisper—yes, whisper—that they are conservative or they support President Donald Trump. The last time I experienced people looking around to check whether they were seen speaking to me was with dissidents in the Soviet Union.

People call my radio show from all over the country to say that their fellow musicians, nurses, teachers, or employees do not know that they are conservative, let alone that they support the president.

I have called contemporary conservatives in America Marranos, the name given during the 15th-century Spanish Inquisition to Jews who hid their Judaism while appearing to be Catholics, lest they be persecuted. I do not compare the consequences: Losing one’s friends or employment is not the same as losing one’s home or one’s life. But otherwise, the label is apt.

Because of my widely covered conducting of the Santa Monica Symphony Orchestra at the Walt Disney Concert Hall last summer, members of some of the most prestigious orchestras in America have opened up to me, telling me they are conservative but would never reveal this fact to their fellow musicians. They fear either losing their position or, more likely, being socially ostracized.s

Why are so many Democrats shocked when a Republican is elected president? Because, as they themselves say, they “don’t know anyone” who voted for the Republican. The primary reason for this is the people in their life who voted for Trump—professional colleagues, and even friends and relatives—are afraid to tell them.

There are two reasons the left labels most conservatives and all Trump supporters “white supremacists,” “neo-Nazis,” and “racists.” One is to defeat conservatives without having to defeat conservative ideas. The other is to instill fear: Speak out and you will suffer the consequences.

Parents call my radio show and ask what they should tell their children at college when they ask whether they should risk receiving a lower grade for divulging their conservative politics in a paper or on an exam.

It is becoming more and more common for leftist mobs to gather in front of a conservative’s home, scream epithets at the conservative’s family members, and vandalize the home. Just last week, the Associated Press reported:

Protesters are targeting the northern Virginia home of the National Rifle Association’s top lobbyist … Chris Cox … as well as his wife’s nearby decorating business. … Libby Locke, a lawyer for the Cox family, said the vandalism included spraying fake blood and defacing the home with stickers.

Left-wing student mobs routinely take over the offices of university deans, professors, and even presidents. The few non-left-wing professors on any campus understand their lives will be made miserable if they speak out. The widely reported case of liberal biology professor Bret Weinstein at Evergreen State College in Washington is directly on point.

In May 2017, professor Weinstein was surrounded by about 50 left-wing students, who screamed curses at him outside of his classroom for refusing to participate in an event during which white people were asked to leave the campus for a day.

On May 24, 2017, Weinstein tweeted: “the police told me I am not safe on campus. They can not protect me.”

Within a few months, left-wing students and the left-wing Evergreen administration made life so miserable for the lifelong liberal professor he left the university.

Since the left began spreading the lie that a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, shot a black youth because he, like most police officers, is a racist, police officers in many cities have feared taking proactive measures to prevent violent crime in black neighborhoods. They fear the left-wing mob known as the news media will ruin their reputation and end their career.

In the recent case of a Philadelphia Starbucks manager who asked two black men to purchase something before giving them the code to the restroom, Starbucks immediately appeased the left-wing mob. The company didn’t wait until any facts came out; it simply abandoned the manager and announced it would close every U.S. store one day in May to educate all Starbucks employees about “unconscious bias.”

These are only a few examples of the left-wing intimidation that dominates much of American life.

It does so in large measure because liberals are either too afraid to confront the left or they don’t understand that the American left, not the American right, is the mortal enemy of liberalism.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager

Dennis Prager is a columnist for The Daily Signal, nationally syndicated radio host, and creator of PragerU. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Can a Conservative Conduct an Orchestra?

Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a student-led group protesting against a conservative gathering at the University of Washington in Seattle, Feb. 10, 2018. (Photo: Paul Christian Gordon/Zuma Press/Newscom)

The Real Costs Of Florida’s Hasty Parkland Legislation Are Coming Out

/in , , , , , , /by

This is the price of letting the mob, even one led by sympathetic teens, rule over sound principles: the loss of Constitutional rights and wrecked budgets.

After the deadly shooting of 17 people at a Parkland, Florida high school earlier this year that resulted in huge protests fronted by students of the school, the GOP-dominated Florida Legislature caved to the emotional mob and passed laws violative of Americans’ Second Amendment rights while causing havoc with the budgets of every School District and Sheriff’s Office in the state.

It’s the dirty little secret largely being ignored. This was not a well-thought-through, studied, principled piece of legislation. And it was not necessary. It would not have prevented Parkland.

Most of the news coverage focused on guns, guns, guns. The media narrative was all zeroed in on how much would the Republican Florida Legislature go against the wishes of the NRA in a pro-gun state. Quite a bit it turns out, particularly when activists bring uninformed teens into the chambers for gimmicky procedural votes specifically designed to elicit an emotional response.

The portion of the law most people know about is the one restricting gun ownership for those under 21 and requiring a three-day waiting period to buy all guns. So you can be in the military and go to war, you can be in law enforcement and engage bad guys, you can enter into contracts, you can drive trucks, you can get married and start a family — but you cannot do what the Constitution of the United States expressly protects your right to do: own a gun.

“This bill punishes law-abiding gun owners for the criminal acts of a deranged individual,” said the NRA-ILA’s executive director Chris Cox. The NRA is suing on Constitutional grounds, which will cost plenty of money, as they have a strong case are not apt to back down.

The second part of the Parkland legislation news coverage was over whether “we should arm teachers” — as the media framed the verbiage. This provision allows districts to voluntarily create a program where educators can volunteer to be trained on an ongoing basis and then allowed to carry a weapon on campus to defend students and others. Of course, this was roundly opposed by the guns, guns, guns crowd and it appears only a handful of rural school districts will opt in to the program.

But given very little coverage was the requirement to beef up law enforcement at the schools by requiring a school resource officer in every Florida school that did not opt for allowing school personnel to conceal carry. This is a generally popular response, despite the total collapse of law enforcement in Broward County at Parkland — where there was a school resource officer who stayed outside during the slaughter.

This is an extraordinarily expensive provision given the size of Florida as the nation’s third largest state.

There are 4,000 public schools in Florida. Law enforcement figures each school resource officer costs about $100,000 in salary, benefits, supplies and general overhead. So putting one at every school represents a $400 million endeavor statewide, towards which the state only committed $100 million. This is an ongoing, $300 million expense, every year.

And there’s the rub. The Legislature responded to the Parkland tragedy and difficult environment with not only a bad law, but one that shoves its badness down to the local level for payment.

This has created a mini crisis among school districts, sheriff departments and the counties that fund them around the state. An average-sized school district in Florida (they are all countywide) would need to find $3 million to $5 million to accomplish this task. The big districts would need much more.

Again. Every year. While safe schools are felt to be an urgent need, what this means is taking funding from elsewhere in the operating budget — the largest single cost of which are teachers. So districts are hoping that local sheriffs will either cover all or part of the costs. But sheriffs have their own budget constraints and resource demands, including the desire of the population not inside a school building to be safe.

So this hasty legislation has pitted school districts against sheriffs when those relations were traditionally quite strong and cooperative.

Worse, it may prove impossible to even meet outside the financial constraints. Most sheriff departments have openings they cannot fill because there are not enough qualified applicants. Florida’s economy is so strong and unemployment so low (3.7 percent) that neither sheriff departments or private security companies can maintain full strength, and they are competing with each other for the few candidates that come available.

The guardian program could solve this, as it is much less expensive to train school personnel and they are already on campus, but professional school administrators prevent most from even considering it.

The Legislature’s action means finding thousands of new sheriff deputies to be trained as school resources officers; or reducing the number of deputies patrolling the streets, making the rest of the community potentially less safe — including students when they are not in school.

This damaging legislation should never have been rammed through so quickly, despite the unconscionable way anti-gun activists marshalled and organized sympathetic students for their cause.

RELATED ARTICLE: Same Policies That Failed to Stop Florida Shooter Exist in School Districts Nationwide

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please visit The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube Site.

Sanctuary Cities Protect Crooked Employers & Human Traffickers: Exploitation of the vulnerable is anything but ‘compassionate’

/in , , , , , , /by

We have all heard the bogus claim that “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” protect the “immigrants” from ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents and that the mayors of sanctuary cities are being compassionate.

There is no compassion to be found in exploitation

In reality, politicians who create and support sanctuary policies are every bit as disgusting and exploitative of illegal aliens as are human traffickers and unscrupulous employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens and benefit by sanctuary policies and, indeed those human traffickers and employers of illegal aliens are being provided with “sanctuary” and are being shielded from detection by ICE.

Mayors and governors of “sanctuary” jurisdictions are actually “partners in crime” with human traffickers and exploitive employers.

Before we go further, however, it is imperative to lay waste to that the false claim that mayors of sanctuary cities protect immigrants from immigration law enforcement agents.

Lies about sanctuary policies being motivated by “compassion” creates a hostile environment and antipathy for ICE agents and Border Patrol agents that impedes them from locating and arresting aliens who violate our immigration laws, but also makes it far more difficult for ICE and Border Patrol agents to engage with the public to develop actionable intelligence.

This hostility also endangers their safety (reportedly physical attacks on immigration law enforcement personnel have more than doubled in the past couple of years).

Let’s be clear, Immigrants need no protection from immigration law enforcement authorities.

Lawful immigrants and nonimmigrant aliens who have been admitted for a temporary visit under the aegis of various forms of visas, need no protection from immigration law enforcement authorities unless they violate the terms of their admission. They were lawfully admitted into the United States by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors in the first place.

Lawful immigrants who were have been granted lawful permanent residence in the United States and/or nonimmigrant (temporary visitors) who abide by their terms of lawful admission need no protection from immigration law enforcement officers.

Lawful immigrants only become subject to deportation (removal) is if they are convicted of committing serious crimes.

However, aliens who evade the inspections process conducted at ports of entry enter the United States without inspection should be fearful of detection, arrest and deportation (removal).

In point of fact, the fundamental law that underlies the decisions made by CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors at ports of entry as to whether or not to admit a foreign visitors into the United States is Title 8 U.S. Code § 1182 – Inadmissible aliens.

That section of law is contained within the Immigration and Nationality Act and enumerates the grounds for excluding aliens from the United States and includes aliens infected with dangerous communicable diseases, suffer from extreme mental illness and are prone to violence, aliens who are criminals, human rights violators, war criminals, spies or terrorists.

Finally that list also includes aliens who would likely become public charges or provide unfair competition for American workers and would either displace American workers or cause suppression of wages and have a deleterious impact on working conditions.

Nothing in that statute that makes any distinctions about the race, religion or ethnicity of aliens.

Aliens who evade the inspection process conducted at ports of entry do so because they know that they fall into one or more categories of aliens who, by law, would be inadmissable.

In the past I have written about how Sanctuary Cities Betray America and Americans and that by shielding illegal aliens from detection by ICE agents prevents those agents from discovering the human traffickers and other criminals who enabled those aliens to gain entry into the United States and perhaps, in the parlance of the 9/11 Commission, embed themselves in communities around the United States.

Sanctuary jurisdictions attract large number of illegal aliens including transnational gang members, international terrorists or fugitives from other countries because they know that local police, in those jurisdictions, will not report them to immigration law enforcement authorities even if they are arrested for committing crimes in those jurisdictions.

Transnational gangs invariably set up shop among immigrants from their home countries who live within the ethnic immigrant communities,  This is not only true for gangs from Latin America but from all over the world.  Human nature is universal and criminals can be found within every ethnic immigrant community.

In point of fact, the most likely victims of the crimes of these pernicious gangs are the members of these ethnic immigrant communities who often immigrated to the United States to get away from these very same criminals, only to find that they are now, once again, forced to live with them.

Sanctuary Cities also attract huge numbers of foreign workers who, because of their desperation, are willing to take whatever risks that they must in order to evade detection from the United States to take jobs in the United States, confident that sanctuary policies will shield them from ICE.

This incentivizes illegal immigration and, consequently, overwhelms Border Patrol resources to secure our borders.  This further undermines national security and public safety in violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1324 which, deems the following actions to constitute felonies:

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v)

(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts, shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

When I was an INS agent, particularly when I was assigned to the Anti-Smuggling Unit in New York City many of the female illegal aliens we encountered told me that they took birth control pills for several months before they made their attempt to run our borders because they anticipated that they would be raped by the smugglers.

Today the level of violence perpetrated against these smuggled aliens by human traffickers has increased exponentially as the drug cartel and violent gangs became more involved in human trafficking, virtually cornering the market of this pernicious and violent “trade.”

Considering the extreme that these illegal aliens will go to in order to enter the United States, it is clear that they will also endure extreme exploitation by employers who intentionally hire them.

Sanctuary Cities provide a veritable “army” of readily exploitable illegal alien workers who are sought after by unscrupulous employers who eagerly hire alien workers they can exploit, paying them substandard wages under substandard, indeed, dangerous conditions that lawful immigrants and American workers would never tolerate.

The obvious question then, that must be asked, is why would a mayor or governor declare his/her city or state to be a “Sanctuary” given that this runs contrary to law, commonsense, morality and even the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission that determined that multiple failures of the immigration system enabled foreign terrorists to enter the United States and then embed themselves in communities around the U.S.

A good place to start looking for the answer to that question can be found in the headline of a February 28, 2018 Breitbart news report, NY City Officials Hide Huge Workforce of Illegal Immigrants from ICE Enforcement.

Clearly sanctuary policies attract huge numbers of illegal aliens who entered the U.S. without inspection and often with the assistance of human traffickers- at great risk and expense, to seek illegal employment.

Employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens do so, not out of compassion, but out of greed.

Such unscrupulous employers hire illegal aliens because they know that these aliens will work for significantly substandard wages under substandard, indeed, often illegally hazardous working conditions.  Exploitation is not a demonstration of compassion.

Alan Greenspan included in his prepared testimony at an April 30, 2009 Senate Immigration Subcommittee hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform chaired by Sen. Schumer, the following:

Some evidence suggests that unskilled illegal immigrants (almost all from Latin America) marginally suppress wage levels of native-born Americans without a high school diploma, and impose significant costs on some state and local governments.

Greenspan blithely neglected to note that “marginally suppressing wages” of those American workers all too often causes them to become homeless.

Furthermore, as was noted in the Breitbart article which focused on NYC,

The huge labor force of illegals has successfully kept food-industry wages extremely low, according to 2017 state data, despite the high cost of living in the city.

The report went on to state:

The taxpayers’ cost of this illegal immigration is high, partly because of the very low wages. In 2009, New York city’s support for illegal immigrants — including aid, education, housing — cost taxpayers roughly $9.5 billion, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

On December 6, 2007 the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) issued a report, The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments.

Cheap labor is anything but cheap and, as the saying goes, there is no such thing as a “free lunch.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

More than 56 per cent of crimes in German town are committed by asylum seekers

Syrian refugees sue landlord and feds over housing complaints

Washington Should Be More Concerned About the Next Generation Than the Next Election

/in , , , /by

It’s no secret that Americans are fed up with Washington’s lack of results. Less than 20 percent of respondents in a recent Gallup survey said they trust the federal government to do its job.

You know what, they’re right.

Somebody has to be responsible for the mess in Washington. For too long, career politicians have focused more on advancing their own careers than helping the people they were elected to serve. The Washington bubble and an unending cycle of gridlock stand in the way of real results at a time when our country is facing both a national debt crisis and a global security crisis.

Now, more than ever, we should usher in the return of the citizen legislator. It is finally time that we impose term limits on members of Congress.

Politicians should go to Washington, do their best, and then come home to live under the laws they’ve passed. It’s just that simple. Our Founding Fathers never imagined the rise of the career politician. They envisioned citizen legislators. Elected office was never meant to be a career, nor was it meant to be a vessel for the centralization and maintenance of federal power.

Yet right now, 60 members of the U.S. Senate have held elected office for more than 20 years and 36 have held office for more than 30 years.

The broken seniority system in Congress rewards years in power, not results produced. Because of that, Washington has no sense of urgency or focus on results. Too little is being done to deal with our national debt, restore our standing in the world, and roll back the regulations crippling our free enterprise system.

When I ran for the U.S. Senate in 2014, I promised Georgians I would fight to pass term limits for members of Congress. Immediately after being sworn in last year, I co-sponsored a constitutional amendment doing just that: two six-year terms in the Senate and six two-year terms in the House. I personally have pledged to serve no more than two terms in the U.S. Senate.

For too long, career politicians have focused more on advancing their own careers than helping the people they were elected to serve.

Imagine citizen legislators coming to Washington—from all walks of life—fighting for the priorities that truly represent the interests of folks back home. They would bring fresh ideas and a new sense of urgency to finally begin to deal with the crises jeopardizing our country’s future.

Citizen legislators could work outside the political establishment to bring a fresh perspective to how burdensome government policies negatively affect people’s everyday lives.

They could apply their practical experience to solving our nation’s toughest problems, and because they would only serve a short time, citizen legislators could approach solving problems with a sense of urgency instead of kicking the can down the road for the sake of political security.

Support for term limits is bipartisan. Another Gallup survey showed that 75 percent of voters—Republicans and Democrats alike—back legislation limiting the time people can serve at the highest levels of government. Given the polarizing climate crippling Washington today, there is something to be said about an idea that overwhelmingly unites both parties.

Enacting term limits will be an uphill battle because those currently in power thrive on the status quo. There is growing support in Congress, however, for term limits and many members on both sides are committed to going forward, no matter how long it takes.

Career politicians created this moment of crisis America faces today. They aren’t the ones who are going to solve it.

Term limits will help break this vicious cycle of gridlock that is stopping Congress from getting things done. It’s time to finally make sure Washington is more concerned about the next generation than the next election.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Sen. David Perdue

Sen. David Perdue

David Perdue is a Republican senator from Georgia and the only Fortune 500 CEO in Congress. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of President Donald J. Trump is by Olivier Douliery/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom.

What Trump Calls ‘Right Message’ to North Korea After Evidence Iran Cheats on Nukes

/in , /by

President Donald Trump, without saying he would pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, said Monday that he is open to signing a better agreement with the Islamist regime.

Commenting after Israel accused Iran of cheating on the deal, Trump also rejected the premise that by pulling out the U.S. would jeopardize a separate nuclear deal with North Korea.

“No. I think it sends the right message,” Trump said of his possible move during a joint press conference with Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari in the Rose Garden of the White House.

The month of May could prove to be monumental for the Trump administration and global politics.

The United States has until May 12 to decide whether it will remain in the 2015 multilateral deal, led by the Obama administration, to temporarily delay Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

The president said he will meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un in late May or early June.

“I’m not telling you what I’m doing, but a lot of people think they know,” Trump said regarding Iran. “Before the 12th, we will make a decision. That doesn’t mean we won’t negotiate a real agreement.”

Trump’s comments came after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the case in a televised address that Iran was cheating on the terms of the nuclear deal and “brazenly lying” about its compliance with the agreement its negotiators call the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.

Netanyahu talked about how Israeli intelligence had discovered that Iran has a program called “Project Amad” to develop a nuclear weapon.

Trump said the new revelations proved he was correct in criticizing the Iran deal.

“If anything, what’s happening today and what’s happened over the last little while and what we’ve learned has really shown that I’ve been 100 percent right,” Trump said.

Under the current agreement, the president noted, Iran could move relatively soon once again to develop nuclear weapons:

You know, in seven years, that deal will have expired and Iran is free to go ahead and create nuclear weapons. That’s not acceptable. Seven years is tomorrow. That’s not acceptable. … They are not sitting back idly. They are setting off missiles, which they say are for television purposes. I don’t think so.

Last week during visits with Trump at the White House, French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged Trump to remain in the Iran nuclear deal. These two countries, along with Great Britain, China, and Russia joined the United States in the deal.

Regarding his expected meeting with the North Korean leader, Trump said he is interested in doing so in the Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ, the border dividing North and South Korea.

Trump said he talked about this with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, and South Korea conveyed the message to North Korea.

“There is something I like about it because you are there, where if things work out, there is a great celebration to be had on the site, not in a third-party country,” Trump said.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED VIDEO: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu on Iran Lying.

Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Donald Trump discussing Iran and North Korea during remarks Monday in the Rose Garden of the White House. (Photo: Ron Sachs – CNP/Sipa USA/Newscom)

VIDEO: Control the Words, Control the Culture

/in , , , , /by

The culture war is first and foremost a war of words – and the left is winning. The consequences can be seen everywhere: in politics, in education, in media. In this video, Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show, explains why we should not cede another syllable.

KILLER CLERICS: Absolutely no excuse — period.

/in , , , , /by

As you have probably heard by now, little Alfie Evans died on Saturday in the early morning hours at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool, England. The case of the now-killed, little Alfie Evans has so much evil swirling around it that volumes could be written, from the British law usurping the natural-law rights of his parents, to the callousness of the hospital administrators in refusing to cooperate with other hospitals willing to take over the case, to the British courts in cold-heartedly just declaring flat-out that “There is also no reason for further delay.”

It would be hard to imagine the Nazi death-camp doctors speaking in more gruesome terms. There were plenty of reasons to not put the nearly two year old to death. His parents said “no.” A Roman hospital said “no.” Other doctors around the world said “no.” Parents in similar situations around the world said “no.” Even the pope said “no” — do not kill him.

But perhaps most disturbing in all this is the response of the numerous bishops and clerics in England and Rome. “Kill him” essentially sums up their opinion. The archbishop of Liverpool, Malcolm Patrick McMahon, not only publicly supported the hospital’s death sentence but couldn’t even get the most basic facts right in his statement when he said the parents of Alfie weren’t Catholic.

The father, Tom Evans, is a baptized Catholic, as was little Alfie — a shameful and revealing gross error. But McMahon was only following the lead of Abp. Vincenzo Paglia in Rome, ironically the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life, who voiced public support for the death of little Alfie. He was even confronted in the airport in Italy by a faithful laywoman who said he should be ashamed of his statement. He brushed her aside and ordered an aide to handle her. Paglia was probably in a rush to get back to the homoerotic paintings featuring himself that he commissioned for his cathedral church. Once Pope Francis came out publicly supporting Alfie and pleading for his life, the homoerotic-painting-loving archbishop suddenly reversed course and supported Alfie.

But most troubling perhaps of all is the support given to the death merchants and deniers of parental natural law rights by the bishops of England and Wales who piled on little Alfie, approving of his killing by the hospital, doubling down on the Paglia-McMahon stance and in public defiance of the pope. These men are among the most vocal, along with many of their ilk, when calling for mercy. But there were no calls for mercy for little Alfie, even though he did not have a fatal disease, and in fact, the cause of his condition was largely unknown.

It’s astounding when you consider that the establishment of Great Britain was cheering and supporting the killing of one child on one side of England when cheering and supporting the life of another child born on practically the same day Alfie was killed — the newborn prince of William and Kate — Louis. That little royal better hope he doesn’t develop some serious medical condition and then turn to the nation’s Catholic bishops for support in saving his life.

Almost 500 years ago, the Catholic bishops of England supported the spiritual death of England in turning the country over to the wishes of an adulterous, murderous king. Five-hundred years later, it appears they are just as happy to continue in the losing streak in turning over to the Establishment the physical lives of sick children — even in defiance of a plea by the pope.

Parents, not governments, have the natural-law right from Almighty God to make these decisions for their children, not the state and certainly not errant-misguided-duplicitous-disobedient-killer clerics. Little Alfie Evans — dead — just two weeks before his second birthday. Please stay tuned for today’s Download where the panel will discuss all this in much greater detail.

National Day of Repentence

/in , , , , /by

Jason Yates, CEO of My Faith Votes sent out the following about April 30th:

Today is an important day.

It dates back to 1863 when the United States Senate was witness to one of the darkest hours in American history – the Civil War.

The South seemed to be winning and the nation seemed as if it would not prevail united, and so the Senate passed a resolution requesting President Abraham Lincoln appoint a national day of prayer and fasting. On March 30th, 1863 President Lincoln designated April 30th, 1863 a national day of prayer and humiliation – the day we now call the National Day of Repentance.

The following July, the Union forces defeated the Confederate troops at Gettysburg and America began to chart a new course.

Many might say the victory was because tens of thousands of people of faith were on their knees confessing repentance for the sins of slavery and racism in our nation.

America is again in a dark hour. There is a spirit of division that has taken root in the heart of our nation. We are divided today just as we were during the Civil War but this time it’s not a division created by battle lines or troops.

This time it’s a deep political division between red and blue. The quest for truth seems to have been replaced by a political battleground.

What’s the solution to the division we now witness? Repentance.

Just as it was the solution in 1863 it remains the solution for America today.

The answer for our land to be healed and united is the repentance for our sins. The U.S. Senate of 1863 and President Lincoln didn’t come up with this idea, it’s outlined in 2 Chronicles 7:14 and repeated over and over again throughout scripture: repent and obey.

I’ve heard the calls for repentance before and I would guess you have as well. But I must confess I don’t always actively take the time to repent. Today that must change.

For the sake of healing in our nation and our communities filled with division – we must humble ourselves, seek God’s face and turn from our wicked ways.

I encourage you to please take some time today to read through our simple guide on repentance and spend time humbling yourself before the Lord.

Healing for our nation will begin with us. This is our moment in history to humble ourselves just as people of faith did in 1863.

President Lincoln said, “And whereas, it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history: that those nations only are blessed whose God is Lord.”

As Ravi Zacharias prayed, “We ask forgiveness for our sins and strength for the journey. We ask for peace in the land and a return to your truths for our lives. We need You more than ever.”

A Guide to Repentance

VIDEO: The Safest Space on the campus of Yale University

/in , , , , /by

In 2015 Yale University students voiced their concern about the lack of a “Safe Space” on campus. The incident took place because of Halloween costumes worn by some students were considered “culturally insensitive.” The students tensions boiled over in the confrontation below, in which a crowd of students encircled Nicholas Christakis the Master of Silliman, one of Yale’s residential houses.

This confrontation came to mind as more and more students are demanding and more and more colleges and universities are providing “Safe Spaces” for their students. The Yale confrontation in 2015 is also important because it was sparked by costumes worn on Halloween. Halloween or All Hallows Evening is a Christian celebration that comes before “All Hallows Day” a celebration of all Christian saints.

According to Wikipedia:

Halloween or Hallowe’en (a contraction of All Hallows‘ Evening), also known as Allhalloween, All Hallows‘ Eve, or All Saints’ Eve, is a celebration observed in a number of countries on 31 October, the eve of the Western Christian feast of All Hallows‘ Day.

All Hallows Day is:

All Saints’ Day is a celebration of all Christian saints, particularly those who have no special feast days of their own, in many Roman Catholic, Anglican and Protestant churches. In many western churches it is annually held November 1 and in many eastern churches it is celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost.

So what does All Hallows’ Day have to do with Safe Spaces?

Yale has had a “safe space” since 1757. This safe space is named The University Church of Yale. According to the University Church of Yale’s website:

The University Church in Yale is the oldest university congregation in America, starting at Yale in 1757.  Today, we are a student-focused church welcoming Christian students of all backgrounds, as well as staff, faculty and New Haven neighbors.   Our church life is centered around Sunday worship in Yale’s historic Battell Chapel, which features beautiful music, challenging and thoughtful preaching, and the prayer of a diverse, faithful community.   We share our love of God with our neighbors through a commitment to service and advocacy for the hungry and homeless in New Haven.  And we have lots of fun together with retreats, study groups, meals, concerts, lectures and other events.  Whether you’re a lifelong Christian or exploring church for the first time, you are welcome here.

A church is truly a safe space. Luke 6:31 commands each and every person to:

Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.

What is safer? To be in a room with like minded people or to be in a church with a community of people who want to treat you as they want to be treated?

Most university and college campuses have churches or chapels available to students and faculty. Here is a link to a list of the thirty most beautiful college cathedrals and churches.

Perhaps the safest space is where your faith is?

As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Colleges: Anti-Diversity and Pro-Exclusion

Who hired the potty mouth woman for the White House press dinner? Answer: Another woman!

/in , , , , /by

It is always interesting to note how visceral hate exposes itself in the most unusual places. The most recent was at the White House Corespondents Association dinner held in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, April 28, 2018. The dinner is put on by the White House Corespondents Association (WHCA). According to the WHCA website:

We share the belief, held by our country’s Founders and enshrined in the First Amendment, that an independent news media is vital to the health of the republic.

The White House Correspondents’ Association exists to promote excellence in journalism as well as journalism education, and to ensure robust news coverage of the president and the presidency.

According to the WHCA, “White House Correspondent’s Association holds an annual dinner to raise money for WHCA scholarships and honor the professional recipients of the WHCA’s journalism awards.”

The news after the dinner was not about how the WHCA’s support for the First Amendment. The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Margaret Talev

So who hired a woman to use foul language to attack another woman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is the Press Secretary to the President of the United States?

What make this doubly egregious is that the President of the WHCA is a woman. Here name is Margaret Talev. Talev is a political corespondent for Bloomberg. After the dinner Talev posted the following on the WHCA Twitter account:

Dismay indeed!

Is Profanity Protected Speech?

 The Newseum Institute’s  wrote the following in a column titled “Remember Profanity Isn’t Always Protected Speech“:

The First Amendment often protects the profane word or phrase — but not always.

The First Amendment protects a great deal of offensive, obnoxious and repugnant speech. As Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote 40 years ago in Cohen v. California, “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.” In that decision, the Court ruled that an individual had a First Amendment right to wear a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft.”

So a general law that prohibits all profanity will run into serious First Amendment hurdles, as recognized this week by the suburban Chicago city of Park Ridge, Ill. Perhaps in the spirit of the Cohen ruling, the city rid its books of a law that made it illegal to use profanity on streets, alleys and other public places. The police chief of the suburb told the Associated Press that free-speech concerns formed part of the reason for erasing the law.

Park Ridge’s move has much to commend it. But people shouldn’t mistakenly believe that the First Amendment always protects profanity. It doesn’t.

Certain categories of speech are not entitled to First Amendment protection, including fighting words, true threats and incitement to imminent lawless action. If a person engages in profane fighting words or utters a true threat with profanity, those words may not be protected speech.

Likewise, a speaker who uses profanity to stir up a crowd to immediate lawless action (like a riot) may have crossed the line from protected speech into unprotected incitement.

Furthermore, though you may have a right to curse on the street, don’t assume you have a right to curse at your public employer or at your public school. Context — as well as content — is important in First Amendment law. The government has greater power to regulate speech when it acts as employer or educator than it does when it acts as sovereign.

The monologue at the WHCA dinner was profanity writ large. Was the intent “to stir up the crowed to immediate lawless action?”

Was the monologue “unprotected incitement?” Was the attack against the Press Secretary “profane fighting words?”

Profanity is the most common form of bullying.

The Bible says this about profanity:

Colossians 3:8

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

Ephesians 4:29

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Matthew 12:36-37

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak, for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”

We report you decide.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Who Was Worse—Michelle Wolf or Her Audience?

There is nothing funny about abortion

By The Numbers: Trump-Kanye Axis Could Mark A Tectonic Political Shift

/in , , , , /by

Something just happened that may launch a political disruption that completely upsets the traditional calculation for political elections. And that’s not an overstatement, because the margins are so close in so many states that a small shift in the current predictable alignment could have a major impact.

What happened? Grammy Award-winning rapper and producer and publicity hound Kanye West tweeted.

His initial tweet was simply “I like the way Candace Owens thinks.” Candace Owens is a black, conservative woman who believes in personal responsibility, opposes blacks blaming whites for all of their problems and thinks blacks should not be stuck on the “Democratic Party plantation.” So by the mainstream media narrative, she’s “controversial.” In fact, she just thinks black should think independently as humans, not collectively as a race.

The political left naturally melted down with everything from Kanye turning his back on blacks to having mental health issues to pulling a publicity stunt (the last of which would be totally believable except for what followed.) Kanye went on a pro-Trump tweet storm of epic proportions concluding with a signed, red MAGA hat. He and Trump had a relationship of some sort before the election.

White and black liberals, including singers such as John Legend, went to great lengths to attack, undermine and explain away his tweets. On Twitter, on every major leftist website, on Facebook, on Youtube, Kanye was pounded. So he caved? No. Kanye is not a conservative in any traditional sense, and is arguably a contributor to the decline of the culture. But he also is not one to run from controversy and is about as far from politically correct as possible. He just kept tweeting.

Then his wife, Kim Kardashian, jumped to support her husband on Twitter: “He’s a free thinker, is that not allowed in America?” Oh my!

This isn’t peanuts. Kanye West has 28 million followers on Twitter, and pretty substantial engagement from them. Kim Kardashian has even more, at 60 million. For comparison, President Trump has 51 million followers — but totally different followers from Kanye and Kim. They reach people who rarely give Trump or politics much thought.

But this was far from over. Chance The Rapper tweeted. Chance (Mr. The Rapper?) is a public critic of Trump, but posted: “Black people don’t have to be democrats.” He later made clear again that he doesn’t like Trump. But the latter is not nearly so important as the former. Chance has 7.7 million Twitter followers. This created an entire meme of peoples and groups that declared they don’t need to be Democrats. They’re pretty awesome.

“Jewish people don’t have to be democrats either,” tweeted Times of Israel blogger and Daily Wire writer Elliott Hamilton.

“Gay people don’t have to be democrats either,” tweeted gay and Jewish author Chad Felix Greene.

“Immigrants don’t either. I’m a proud Conservative Republican,” tweeted Anna Khait.

“Union Members don’t have to be Democrats either,” tweeted HBwriterMike

“Teachers don’t have to be democrats, either. #PoliticalFreedom,” tweeted RoguePhilosophy

“Native Americans don’t have to be democrats,” tweeted Apache Paul

“If you’re #Mexican you don’t have to be a #Democrat,” tweeted IncredibleDeplorable.

Does this really matter? Yes. In raw politics anyway. Maybe more. Of course, it’s always possible it could just blow over in a few weeks, because this age is supremely difficult to predict. But the frantic reaction suggests at least some see the threat of a Trump-Kanye axis making it OK for blacks to not have to be Democrats.

The reality that is largely unstated is that Democrats need black votes far more than blacks need Democratic leadership. A pretty strong case can be made that Democratic leadership has been fairly awful for blacks, and that is beginning to become obvious.

So here are the numbers. In 2008, 95 percent of black Americans voted for Obama, while 93 percent did in 2012. That’s above the modern average, but not by much. Blacks have generally been close to or at 90 percent voting for Democrat presidential candidates. The lowest it has been in modern times is 85 percent, way back in 1976.

That’s a colossally monolithic voting bloc, and an absolute necessity to Democratic success nationally. And it may be cracking, which is the tectonic part. If 80 percent of blacks vote Democratic, it’s possible Democrats become a permanent minority party. If 70 percent vote Democratic, its guaranteed — even if blacks do not vote Republican. Chance suggested the next president would be an Independent.

This has been a ticking bomb for Democrats for awhile.

Just last month, NPR was reporting that, “Black Voters Need More Convincing From Democrats In 2018.” Part of this is the fallout of seeing that eight years of a black Democratic president did nothing to improve the lives of blacks (or any other Americans, for that matter.) And part is the growing sense that Democrats have taken the black vote for granted and really only pay attention to them during bi-annual election seasons.

Newsweek was reporting the same in December, “Black Voters are the Democratic Base, but Dems are Awful to Them.”

The Washington Post reported last year a Power of the Sisterhood survey that found sharply declining support for Democrats among black women (outside of the unique conditions of Alabama Senate vote with Roy Moore.)

According to the survey: “The belief that the Democratic Party best represents the interests of Black women has dropped significantly, from 85 percent to 74 percent. In fact, more Black women think that none of the political parties represent them, up to 21 percent from 13 percent in 2016.”

In fact, this has been a theme for awhile in the mainstream media, perhaps to wake up Democrats. This does not mean the disenchanted will become Republicans, but if they do not vote Democrat, that party no longer has national electoral power.

Here’s what happens when black voters stay home. A recent analysis in the New York Times estimated that 36 percent of the 4.4 million people who voted for Obama in 2012 and stayed home in 2016 were black — although blacks make up less than 12 percent of the electorate. The percentage of blacks who voted in 2012 was 66 percent, but fell to 59 percent in 2016. And Trump won.

The so-called blue wave seemed to be changing that direction, at least heading into the midterms. It seems unlikely that the Kanye-Kim-Chance-Candace free-thinking breakaway from the Democratic stranglehold could affect November. But if such high-profile, popular members of the black community are willing to talk publicly about it, and not just fall into lockstep based on skin color, the ramifications for Democrats could be fatal.

They simply cannot win without about 90 percent of black voters. And some huge black names just said that blacks don’t automatically have to vote Democrat.

That is potentially tectonic.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act. Please visit The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube Site.

VIDEO: Nikki Haley Slams HAMAS Use Of Human Shields

/in , , , /by

The US Ambassador to the United Nations decries the use of women and children as human shields by HAMAS and Hezbollah.

RELATED ARTICLE: DOJ, DHS Report: Three Out of Four Individuals Convicted of International Terrorism and Terrorism-Related Offenses were Foreign-Born

DOJ, DHS Report: Three Out of Four Individuals Convicted of International Terrorism and Terrorism-Related Offenses were Foreign-Born

/in , , , , /by

Departments of Justice and Homeland Security Release Data for the First Time on Terrorism-Related Activity

Today, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report, revealing that three out of every four, or 402, individuals convicted of international terrorism-related charges in U.S. federal courts between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2016 were foreign-born. Over the same period, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed approximately 1,716 aliens with national security concerns. Further, in 2017 alone DHS had 2,554 encounters with individuals on the terrorist watch list (also known as the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database) traveling to the United States.

This report was required by Section 11 of President Trump’s Executive Order 13780, Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, which declared that “it is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks, including those committed by foreign nationals,” directed a series of actions to enhance the security and safety of the American people. The actions directed by Executive Order have raised the baseline for the vetting and screening of foreign nationals, prevented the entry of malicious actors, and enhanced the safety and security of the American people.

“This report reveals an indisputable sobering reality—our immigration system has undermined our national security and public safety,” said Attorney General Sessions.  “And the information in this report is only the tip of the iceberg: we currently have terrorism-related investigations against thousands of people in the United States, including hundreds of people who came here as refugees.  Our law enforcement professionals do amazing work, but it is simply not reasonable to keep asking them to risk their lives to enforce the law while we admit thousands every year without sufficient knowledge about their backgrounds.  The pillars of President Trump’s immigration policy—securing our porous borders, moving to a merit-based immigration system that ends the use of diversity visas and chain migration, and enforcing our nation’s laws—will make their jobs easier and make the United States a safer place.”

“My top priority as Secretary of Homeland Security is to ensure the safety and security of the American people,” said Secretary Nielsen. “This report is a clear reminder of why we cannot continue to rely on immigration policy based on pre-9/11 thinking that leaves us woefully vulnerable to foreign-born terrorists, and why we must examine our visa laws and continue to intensify screening and vetting of individuals traveling to the United States to prevent terrorists, criminals, and other dangerous individuals from reaching our country. Without legislative change, DHS will continue to see thousands of terrorists a year attempt to enter the United States, and while we must be right every time, the terrorists only need to be lucky once.  Therefore, DHS has personnel deployed around the world and along our borders working with our global and domestic law enforcement partners to stop terrorists before they enter the homeland.”

The report reveals that at least 549 individuals were convicted of international terrorism-related charges in U.S. federal courts between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2016.  An analysis conducted by DHS determined that approximately 73 percent (402 of these 549 individuals) were foreign-born.  Breaking down the 549 individuals by citizenship status at the time of their respective convictions reveals that:

  • 254 were not U.S. citizens;
  • 148 were foreign-born, naturalized and received U.S. citizenship; and,
  • 147 were U.S. citizens by birth.

According to information available to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), since September 11, 2001, there were approximately 1,716 removals of aliens with national security concerns.

As mentioned above, in FY 2017, DHS encountered 2,554 individuals on the terrorist watchlist (also known as the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database) traveling to the United States. Of those individuals, 335 were attempting to enter by land, 2,170 were attempting to enter by air, and 49 were attempting to enter by sea. Where consistent with the law, such individuals are denied entry into the United States, while in some cases law enforcement authorities are notified and can take appropriate action.

From October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2017, a total of 355,345 non-U.S. citizen offenders, were administratively arrested after previously being convicted of an aggravated felony, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), or two or more crimes each punishable by more than one year (felony offenses).  During that same period, a total of 372,098 non-U.S. citizen offenders were removed from the United States after conviction of an aggravated felony or two or more felonies.

Data from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate shows that between 2007 and 2017, USCIS referred 45,858 foreign nationals who applied for immigration benefits to ICE for criminal or civil enforcement action, based on information indicating that such foreign nationals had committed egregious public safety-related offenses within the United States.

Between FY 2010 and FY 2016, CBP identified and prevented the boarding of 73,261 foreign travelers on flights destined for the United States, who may have presented an immigration or security risk.

In October, the Trump Administration sent to Congress a list of legislative priorities that would enhance our national security—such as eliminating the diversity visa lottery and extended family chain migration, funding the wall, closing loopholes in our asylum system, combatting visa overstays, and closing other loopholes in existing law that potentially benefit aliens who pose threats to our national security.

Background on the Executive Order

Section 11 of Executive Order requires the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, to collect and make publicly available the following information:

  1. Information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation with or provision of material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national-security-related reasons;
  2. Information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and who have engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States;
  3. Information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including so-called “honor killings,” in the United States by foreign nationals; and,
  4. Any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.

Why Should Whites be Happy about Becoming a Minority?

/in , , , /by

White people are finding it “difficult to adjust” to becoming a minority, goes the premise of a new AP history textbook — with the implication that this reflects some kind of character defect. Responding to this, conservative writers have generally denied the claim, sometimes calling it a “Marxist lie.” But a different point should be made.

Imagine that a history book presented European colonization of North America by asserting, with the same character-defect implication, that Indians found it “difficult to adjust” to becoming a minority. Would people be left scratching their heads? Might this even be called offensive? I think the only response really necessary would be “duh.”

So a question for libs: Can you cite for me one group, in all of history, that was happy about becoming a minority in what had been its homeland? Just one. I’ll be waiting.

Did the Ainus, the Japanese islands’ original inhabitants, jump for joy when being overrun and say, “Yay, now we can become a minority! Maybe we’ll even be subsumed!” (which did happen, for the most part)?

Did the Formosan aborigines cheer when the Chinese began outnumbering them and exclaim, “Yippee! Perhaps one day we’ll be just two percent of this island’s inhabitants” (which they are now)?

Did the population of Byzantine North Africa, faced with seventh-century Muslim invasion, declare, “Oh, joyous times! Maybe we can look forward to the day when these lands are entirely Arab and Muslim!” (which came to pass)?

We could go on forever. European history alone is replete with tribes — Alamanni, Franks, Angles, Vandals, Gepids, Burgundians, Lombards, etc. — that no longer exist as distinct peoples.

Now, I always fancied myself as having a keen grasp of man’s nature, but maybe I’m out of touch. Perhaps all these groups really did make merry over coming minority status or, even, exult at possible extinguishment. I’ve never heard of such a case, though.

Why would a group not be alarmed at the prospect of being reduced to minority status? Leftists themselves never tire of stressing how minorities have ever been persecuted; “progressive” histories are narratives of minority struggle against majority oppression (though liberals love impugning the West on this score, they do sometimes speak of the same phenomenon occurring elsewhere).

As usual, the reality is precisely the opposite of what leftists claim: Sleepwalking into cultural and demographic irrelevancy, there has never been a group less concerned about movement toward minority status than whites.

This is partially explainable by the fact that there has never before been a civilization as just as the West. For example, whites probably weren’t the first to practice slavery.

But they certainly were the first to end it.

Whites might not have been the first to violate human rights.

They are, however, the only reason we even talk about such violation — because they birthed our whole modern concept of human rights to begin with.

The West is unique. There simply has never been a civilization that has secured so much prosperity and so many rights for all its citizens, including minorities. In fact, it now often subordinates majority well-being to minority whim (e.g., that of the sexual “devolutionaries”). Thus, you truly might see no reason to fear becoming a minority if the modern West is your only frame of reference.

Yet this is an area where we actually should listen to the Left and be mindful of their warnings about minorities’ historical plight. If whites were more concerned about being reduced to minority status, their nations — gradually losing their Western character due to multiculturalism and the influx of unassimilable, non-Western foreigners — wouldn’t be so imperiled (though our growing immorality would still plague us).

The reality expressed in this article eludes most because of conditioning: The double standard, the prejudice, is ingrained. Whites are simultaneously portrayed as uniquely inhuman and something more than human, in that they’re supposed to be above normal human concerns (desire to retain one’s own culture, etc.). They’re cast as singularly oppressive for exhibiting the same moral failings as every other group, such as having practiced slavery, but as strikingly unexceptional despite taking unprecedented steps to mitigate those moral failings. They’re condemned as “cultural appropriators” merely for using foreigners’ food recipes, but given no credit for birthing a recipe for civilizational success copied the world over (which is why Western technology and economic practices are ubiquitous).

Lamentably, though, whites are uniquely successful in another way as well. Those most effectively peddling the anti-white propaganda — and most efficiently destroying the West — are white themselves.

Whoever guessed that modern Westerners’ perhaps final triumph would be reaching the very heights of self-flagellation?

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com