Homeschoolers: The Enemy of Forced Schooling by Kerry McDonald

I was born in 1977, the year John Holt launched the first-ever newsletter for homeschooling families, Growing Without Schooling. At that time, Holt became the unofficial leader of the nascent homeschooling movement, supporting parents in the process of removing their children from school even before the practice was fully legalized in all states by 1993. Today, his writing remains an inspiration for many of us who homeschool our children.

Mass schooling is, by its nature, compulsory and coercive.

Holt believed strongly in the self-educative capacity of all people, including young people. As a classroom teacher in private schools in both Colorado and Massachusetts, he witnessed first-hand the ways in which institutional schooling inhibits the natural process of learning.

Holt was especially concerned about the myriad of ways that schooling suppresses a child’s natural learning instincts by forcing the child to learn what the teacher wants him to know. Holt believed that parents and educators should support a child’s natural learning, not control it. He wrote in his 1976 book, Instead of Education:

“My concern is not to improve ‘education’ but to do away with it, to end the ugly and anti-human business of people-shaping and to allow and help people to shape themselves.”

Self-Determined Learning

Holt observed through his years of teaching, and recorded in his many books, that the deepest, most meaningful, most enduring learning is the kind of learning that is self-determined.

As “the enemy,” we homeschoolers reject the increasing grip of mass schooling.

One of his most influential books, originally published in 1967, is How Children Learn. This month, it was re-published in honor of its 50th anniversary, with a new Foreword by progressive educator and author, Deborah Meier. In her early days as an educator, Meier says, she was influenced by Holt’s work and was particularly drawn to his revelation that even supposedly “good schools” failed children through their coercive tactics. Meier writes in the Foreword:

“While following Holt’s deep exploration of how children learn I therefore wasn’t surprised to discover Holt had joined ‘the enemy’—homeschoolers. His little magazine, Growing Without Schooling, was the most useful guide a teacher could ever read. As time passed I began to change my views of homeschooling. I’m still first and foremost working to preserve public education but homeschoolers can be our allies in devising what truly powerful schooling could be like. If we saw the child as an insatiable nonstop learner, we would create schools that made it as easy and natural to do so as it was for most of us before we first entered the schoolroom.”

Compulsory Education is Always Coercive

The trouble with Meier’s line of reasoning is that it presumes this is something schools can do. Mass schooling is, by its nature, compulsory and coercive. Supporting “an insatiable nonstop learner” within such a vast system of social control is nearly impossible.

Holt said so himself. In his later books, as he moved away from observations of conventional classrooms and toward “the enemy” of homeschoolers, Holt acknowledged that the compulsory nature of schooling prevented the type of natural learning he advocated. He writes in his popular 1981 book, Teach Your Own:

“At first I did not question the compulsory nature of schooling. But by 1968 or so I had come to feel strongly that the kinds of changes I wanted to see in schools, above all in the ways teachers related to students, could not happen as long as schools were compulsory

Holt continues:

“From many such experiences I began to see, in the early ‘70s, slowly and reluctantly, but ever more surely, that the movement for school reform was mostly a fad and an illusion. Very few people, inside the schools or out, were willing to support or even tolerate giving more freedom, choice, and self-direction to children….In short, it was becoming clear to me that the great majority of boring, regimented schools were doing exactly what they had always done and what most people wanted them to do. Teach children about Reality. Teach them that Life Is No Picnic. Teach them to Shut Up and Do What You’re Told.”

While progressive educators like Meier may have the best intentions and believe strongly that compulsory schools can be less coercive, the reality is quite different. Over the past half-century, mass schooling has become more restrictive and more consuming of a child’s day and year, beginning at ever-earlier ages. High-stakes testing and zero tolerance discipline policies heighten coercion, and taxpayer-funded after-school programming and universal pre-k classes often mean that children spend much of their childhood at school.

Compulsory schooling cannot nurture non-coercive, self-directed learning.

As “the enemy,” we homeschoolers reject the increasing grip of mass schooling and acknowledge what Holt came to realize: compulsory schooling cannot nurture non-coercive, self-directed learning. Holt writes in Teach Your Own: “Why do people take or keep their children out of school? Mostly for three reasons: they think that raising their children is their business not the government’s; they enjoy being with their children and watching and helping them learn, and don’t want to give that up to others; they want to keep them from being hurt, mentally, physically, and spiritually.” Today, those same reasons ring true for many homeschoolers.

It’s worth grabbing the anniversary copy of John Holt’s How Children Learn. His observations on the ways children naturally learn, and the ways most schools impede this learning, are timeless and insightful. But it is also worth remembering that Holt’s legacy is tied to the homeschooling movement and to supporting parents in moving away from a coercive model of schooling toward a self-directed model of learning. After all, Holt reminds us in Teach Your Own:

“What is most important and valuable about the home as a base for children’s growth in the world is not that it is a better school than the schools but that it isn’t a school at all.”

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald

Kerry McDonald has a B.A. in Economics from Bowdoin and an M.Ed. in education policy from Harvard. She lives in Cambridge, Mass. with her husband and four never-been-schooled children. Follow her writing at Whole Family Learning.

Using the ‘Benedict Option’ to fight Relativism and Secularism

Howard Kainz: By establishing preconditions for dealing with value disagreements, we will arrive at the vestibule of Aquinas’ classical precepts.

We hear much these days about the “Benedict Option,” inspired by Rod Dreher’s book by that name. Some Catholics surrounded by “nones” and liberals – and confronting public schools sexualizing students, local parishes preaching a watered-down hand-holding Catholicism, etc. – are seeking various forms of community as a defense against anti-Christian currents.

Some have changed parishes or neighborhoods, or even moved their families to locations bordering Benedictine monasteries! Some may find TheCatholicThing.org and similar Catholic Internet sites to be their “cyberspace” Benedict Option.

The general idea is to take steps of self-preservation in a world imbued with relativism and secularism, get support from like-minded persons, and keep ourselves and our children from succumbing to a social environment gone berserk.

Rod Dreher got the inspiration for his book from a short final paragraph of Alasdair Macintyre’s 1981 book, After Virtue, where Macintyre concludes, comparing our age with the late Roman Empire of the original Benedict, “this time . . . the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers; they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament. We are waiting not for a Godot, but for another – doubtless very different – St. Benedict.”

In a later interview, Macintyre confided that he regretted writing that paragraph, thus giving rise to the impression that he was advocating a strategy of withdrawal.

Macintyre’s book received – and deserved – a lot of attention. I came across it at a time when I was doing research for my book Ethics in Context, and was impressed by his brilliant critique of attempts to formulate viable ethical theories in the aftermath of the Enlightenment – especially two theories that still appear in college classrooms in various revisions and reincarnations: utilitarianism and Kant’scategorical imperative.

One thing, however, that Macintyre does not go into: both of these influential theories were Enlightenment attempts to replace natural-law theory, which had previously enjoyed pride of place among Catholic philosophers and also some Protestant philosophers.

Click here to read the rest of Professor Kainz’ column . . .

Howard Kainz

Howard Kainz is emeritus professor of philosophy at Marquette University. His most recent publications include Natural Law: an Introduction and Reexamination (2004), Five Metaphysical Paradoxes (The 2006 Marquette Aquinas Lecture), The Philosophy of Human Nature (2008), and The Existence of God and the Faith-Instinct (2010).

Elizabeth Warren Urges Democrats to Champion Gun Control, Shut Down Debate

Just as many in the Democratic Party are seeking to moderate their message in order to once again compete as a national political party, some high-profile Democrats are urging the party to lurch further left with an even firmer embrace of gun control.

On June 13, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) addressed those gathered at the “progressive” Netroots Nation conference in Atlanta, Ga. In her usual frenzied style, Warren used the forum to attack those Democrats who would moderate the party’s message, including those who would temper the party’s stance on guns.

Going further than most anti-gun activists and politicians, her command for Democrats to champion gun control included a call to shut down discussion on the topic. In doing so, Warren seemed to liken the issue of gun control to that of global warming, which many activists have long-attempted to put beyond the scope of legitimate debate.

During her wide-ranging diatribe, Warren stated,

It’s time for us to say: Democrats are on the side of science.

We’re done arguing about whether climate change is real – and we’re going to fight it with everything we have.

We’re done arguing about whether trickle-down economics works – and we’re going to fight to build this economy so it works for working families.

We’re done arguing about gun safety – and we’re going to fight for the common-sense reforms the overwhelming majority of Americans want.

First, there is nothing remotely close to a scientific consensus on the efficacy of gun control advocates’ most favored proposals. A 2013 memo from the Department of Justice’s National Institute for Justice surveyed the research on several gun control measures. In relation to a restriction on the private transfer of firearms, the NIJ determined that such a measure would be ineffective unless coupled with an onerous registration regime. Addressing restrictions on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, NIJ determined, “Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence.” So-called “smart guns” were found “Unlikely to affect gun crime.”

Moreover, earlier reviews of gun research and controls by the National Academies have made clear that the senator’s absolutist statement is unwarranted.

Second, while gun control proponents are quick to point to polls showing public support for restrictions on the private transfer of firearms as a justification for trampling gun rights, actual experience paints a different picture. In 2016, anti-gun activists’ most-touted gun control measure was on the ballot in two very different “blue” states, Maine and Nevada. When given the opportunity to vote on this legislation, Mainers rejected further gun control, while Nevadans narrowly passed a misleading and unenforceable background check initiative by less than a 1 percent margin. Not exactly evidence of an “overwhelming majority.”

If there is any positive aspect to Warren’s recent anti-gun statement, it is that the senator was so forthright in her attack on our Second Amendment rights. For many years, gun control advocates and anti-gun politicians have implored lawmakers and the nation to have a much-needed “conversation” on gun control. Of course, the country has been embroiled in a nearly ceaseless national debate on the topic since the 1960s.

This tactic is always an anti-gun ruse. Rather than an earnest debate on the merits of a given proposal, those using this language are exclusively concerned with achieving their preferred policy outcomes. While Warren is incorrect that the argument over gun control has been decisively determined in her favor, at least she has dropped the ridiculous pretext of wanting a serious debate.

Warren’s hardline anti-gun position might play well in Massachusetts, a state where the fanatical attorney general has been permitted to willfully misinterpret state law to attack law-abiding gun owners and local law enforcement have discretion over who may possess even a single-shot shotgun. Given Hillary Clinton’s fervent support for the most radical gun control measures and her subsequent ascent to the Democratic presidential nomination, it’s obvious that militant anti-gun messaging is also attractive to some of the more statist elements of the Democratic Party. However, there is strong evidence that if the Democrats are interested in competing nationally, a more moderate stance on Second Amendment rights is the way forward.

Democratic Party leaders, and Democratic candidates running in competitive elections, will have to decide whether to follow the lead of someone likely bolstering her left-wing credentials to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020, or look to history and recognize the wisdom in former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chair Rahm Emanuel’s determination that Democratic candidates should “reflect” their constituents.

EDITORS NOTE: Thomas Jefferson, the founder of the Democratic Party, wrote, “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

VIDEO: Dinesh D’Souza on ‘The Big Lie About Charlottesville’

Dinesh D’Souza has a new book out, The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left, which I’ll be reviewing later. And considering the violence in Charlottesville, the timing was perfect for him to come on the Glazov Gang, the show hosted by our very own Jamie, to discuss the Big Lie About Charlottesville and how his thesis applies to the latest outbreak of outrage.

Jamie has an extended segment taking a deep dive into The Big Lie and discussing how the left’s lies still drive conflict in this country today.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Poll Shows Lots Of Support For Trump’s Stance On Charlottesville

ProPublica (recipient of Soros $) works with CAIR and SPLC to silence speech

Democrats Launch Website: “I Stand with Maria” After Far Left Lawmaker Calls for Assassination of President Trump

Epidemic? Leftist vandalism of monuments spreads

Calls for Dem State Senator to Resign Surge After Trump Assassination Post; Secret Service Investigates

Division in America: Don’t Blame Donald Trump

The Left and Anti-Americanism

Justice Department Terminates and Repudiates Operation Chokepoint

This week the Department of Justice made clear that the Obama Administration’s underhanded attack on the gun industry using the banking system – better known as Operation Chokepoint – is over. In a strongly-worded letter to U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) dated August 16, Assistant Attorney General Stephen E. Boyd assured the chairman that the operation has been terminated and that “it will not be undertaken again.”

Initiated in 2013 and involving the Justice Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Operation Chokepoint sought to deter banks from conducting business with companies that engaged in commerce that the Obama administration viewed as undesirable. To do this, the Obama administration categorized certain types of businesses as being “associated with high-risk activity” in a banking guidance document used by the FDIC. Some of the types of businesses targeted by the operation were engaged in illegal or fraudulent activity, like “On-line Gambling” or “Ponzi Schemes.” However, also targeted in this operation were legal businesses that engaged in lawful commerce such as “Tobacco Sales,” “Coin Dealers,” “Ammunition Sales,” and “Firearms Sales.”

Current Justice Department leadership and Boyd should be commended for their forceful statement on this matter. This unequivocal repudiation of Operation Chokepoint should make a return to such political persecution unpalatable for all but the most debased public official.

This targeting of lawful businesses produced a strong response from some in Congress. In 2014, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigated the operation and issued a 
scathing report
. In 2016, the U.S. House passed H.R. 766, the ‘‘Financial Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015,” which sought to eliminate Operation Chokepoint. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced companion legislation in the Senate, declaring Operation Chokepoint an attack on Second Amendment rights.

In a decision worthy of praise, Boyd did not mince words when describing the Obama-era policy. The letter described Operation Chokepoint as a “misguided initiative conducted during the last administration.” Making clear that the new administration intends to reestablish the integrity of the Justice Department, Boyd wrote, “The Department is committed to bringing enforcement actions only where warranted by the facts and the applicable law without regard to political preferences.” Leaving no doubt about the current Justice Department’s position, Boyd concluded, “We reiterate that the Department will not discourage the provision of financial services to lawful industries, including businesses engaged in … firearms-related activities.”

Current Justice Department leadership and Boyd should be commended for their forceful statement on this matter. This unequivocal repudiation of Operation Chokepoint should make a return to such political persecution unpalatable for all but the most debased public official.

The NRA thanks President Trump for finally putting an end to Operation Chokepoint and thanks Attorney General Jeff Sessions and others in the Justice Department for seeing through the termination of this misguided program.

Socialism – Not Oil Prices – Is to Blame for Venezuela’s Woes by Kristian Niemietz

So the Left is finally talking about Venezuela again. That is a good thing. For about a decade, large sections of the Left were in the grip of VenezuelamaniaWe would not hear the end of it. Venezuela’s version of socialism was their shining example, the model which the rest of the world should emulate.

When the country’s meltdown could no longer be denied, they dropped it like a hot potato. And a long period of silence ensued. But recent events have forced the issue back on the agenda again.

The Double Life of Oil Prices

The responses vary. Commentators on the Stalinist Left now sound like a copy of the Pravda from the 1930s, fabulating about saboteurs and counter-revolutionaries undermining the economy. The more media-savvy sections of the Left, however, realise that they are unlikely to win many people over if they sound too much like the villain in a Cold War movie.

So they have adopted a more innocuous-sounding line, blaming Venezuela’s woes primarily on the decline in oil prices. Of course, Venezuela is doing badly, they argue. Any economy that is so dependent on commodity prices would do badly under those circumstances. It has nothing to do with socialism.

It sounds superficially plausible. But do you remember which prominent Chavista said this during the oil price boom:

Of course Venezuela is doing well. Any economy that is so dependent on commodity prices would do well under those circumstances. It has nothing to do with socialism.”

You guessed right: none of them. Oil prices lead a double life in the Chavista-Corbynista mindset. When oil prices skyrocket, the ensuing boom is proof that social works, but when they fall again, the ensuing decline has nothing to do with socialism.

It is true that low oil prices would hurt Venezuela’s economy. But here’s the thing: we don’t currently have low oil prices. We had abnormally high oil prices in the decade leading up to 2014/15. Oil prices have not “collapsed”. They have merely reverted to a level which is more in line with the long-term average. More precisely, they are back (in real terms) to where they were in 2004, about the time when Venezuelamania started. And they are still noticeably higher than they were in the two decades before then.

When Oil Prices Were Peaking

Perhaps more important, though, the problems that we commonly associate with Venezuela, especially shortages of basic essentials like food and medicine, predate the drop in oil prices. Take this description:

…of milk, eggs, sugar and cooking oil there was no sign. Where were they? … Welcome to Venezuela, a booming economy with a difference. Food shortages are plaguing the country at the same time that oil revenues are driving a spending splurge … Milk has all but vanished from shops… eggs and sugar are also a memory.”

This is from a Guardian article, published in 2007 – when oil prices were about to reach their historic all-time peak. Or this one, from a year before the drop in oil prices:

…food shortages in Venezuela have not only peaked but they have lasted longer than ever. … Venezuela’s central bank … has been publishing a scarcity index … [It] puts this year’s figure at [a level which] is similar to countries undergoing civil strife or war-like conditions.”

There are a handful of alternative history novels in which the fall of the Berlin Wall never happens, and the German Democratic Republic still exists today. It is a fascinating thought experiment, but the authors all face a problem in creating that backdrop: when the Wall fell, the GDR was not just politically, but also economically finished. How do you get around this, if you want your alternative history to be at least somewhat plausible?

Two authors have found a simple, but seemingly effective solution: in their version, the GDR regime discovers oil reserves just off the Baltic coast. The GDR is soon swamped with petrodollars; it becomes a socialist, Northern European version of Saudi Arabia.

The authors’ thinking must have been: “Let’s just give them oil reserves. Surely oil revenue can make any economy work, even a socialist one.”

I like the idea. But Venezuela’s experience shows that the authors were over-optimistic.

Oil Isn’t Enough

Socialists have always argued that socialism will eventually work, it just needs the right circumstances. They are now effectively saying:

Of course socialism works. All you need is the world’s largest proven oil reserves, the longest oil price boom in history, and the highest oil price level ever recorded in history. That boom must obviously go on forever. Even then, you will have constant shortages of food, medicines and other basic essentials. But on the plus side, you will have Western intellectuals lining up to tell you how lucky you are.”

It doesn’t quite cut the mustard, does it?

Reprinted from CapX.

Kristian Niemietz

Kristian Niemietz

Dr. Kristian Niemietz is the Institute for Economic Affairs’ Head of Health and Welfare.

RELATED ARTICLE: Venezuela: Wave of Arrests As Government Turns Against Elected Opposition

A Choice of One

Chautauqua Institution, originally a cultural center, is now a disseminator of Islamic messaging to reach out to uninformed Christians and Jews programmed to accept multiculturalism. Featured speaker Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic Center for Middle East Policy, is part of the worldwide movement financed by oil money.

On August 9, he spoke of American anxiety, incongruously blaming occasions such as buying jam at the grocer’s, where, alas, so many choices will cause regret that he hasn’t purchased the best option. He sees no beauty in the many fruits, flavors or quality, or why, if one manufacturer makes jams and employs and pays a decent wage to improve life for himself and his neighbors, another cannot do the same in another locality.  Why must ingenuity be stifled?

Blind to possibilities, Hamid is instead guided by Islamic rules, allowing only one jam, or having one of his housebound wives make it.
He prefers that leadership dictate one’s lifestyle by force; create one nation, the Ummah; one law, sharia; and one goal, world domination.

Where democratic nations have excelled in science and technology, medical advances, improvements in agriculture and water technology so that humanity may flourish, the Islamic culture is based on shame and honor, and a high illiteracy rate to impede progress.  Their greatness will come when all vestiges of advanced societies are destroyed.

He described the universal condition as a “struggle,” but he meant “jihad,” as struggle is rarely part of the Western vernacular.  Hamid is a moderate, unweaponed jihadi, hoping to conquer by message, to convince his conditioned audience that his culture is superior, and particularly to reach those who have chosen the altar of liberalism over Judaism and Christianity, from which derived those freedoms, morals and ethics imperative to happiness and peace. Judaism and Christianity do not struggle for meaning; struggle is a proclivity of all forms of fascism, because authoritarianism provides no contentment.

The divisiveness that Hamid sees in America comes not from democracy, but from those who seek its destruction. Our laws provide respect for human rights, religious freedom, worker rights, a secure peace by combating international terrorism, stability, prosperity, open markets and economic development, improvement in the global environment and human health, and the enemy hopes to use our laws to defeat us. Arab-American author Nonie Darwish penned a warning, “America must protect its democracy, culture, and sovereignty from nations with aspirations of conquering us from within.”

We need only look to the Islamic Middle East to see Hamid’s “rich tapestry of traditions and contentment” – the rampant violence that has now created a “lost generation” of Middle East men – 30,000 suicides, 35,000 deaths from interpersonal violence, a ten-fold increase of fatalities from HIV/AIDS in 25 years (a side effect of FGM on women), and 144,000 deaths from wars in 22 Islamic nations.

Other twisted threads of this vintage brocade constitute the sharp increase in non-communicable diseases in the Eastern Mediterranean region – depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia. The death toll from Islamic terrorists since 9/11, at 31,546 (to date), is born of, but also affects, the families from which these terrorists are woven.

The speaker educated his audience that Mohammed, a prophet, was also theologian, politician, head of state, and state builder, but his list was incomplete.  He was also a warmonger, conqueror, murderer, beheader, enslaver, rapist and pedophile. Hamid imperiously denounced the Bible as not being the entire word of G-d, but tells us that the Koran is – of a god who wreaks pain and havoc on his children.

While also insinuating that the Hebrew Scriptures are superseded by the Christian Scriptures (although the former provides the foundational doctrines for the latter), he added that the Koran supersedes the Christian.  In a few words, he has delegitimized the basis for all Western civilization, slighting the most compassionate laws by which humans live in comparative harmony.

Interestingly, Hamid acknowledged that Islam is also a political doctrine.  He cannot distinguish the role of religion from state because Islam is a theocracy, and their deity, Allah, the sole source from which all authority is derived.

The rule of conquest is carried out by both armed terrorists and self-styled moderates working within the framework of the invaded country to insinuate their laws in increments, gradually and differently, according to the workings host culture.

The speaker closed with the usual feigned victimization, a plea for “peaceful disagreement if there must be disagreement.”  This is taqiyyah, holy deception, “a strategy to make Islam dominant; a persistent tactic of the skilled to deceive the non-Muslims and downplay the threat of Islam.”  Yet the reality is that while mosques are being erected throughout the US, Christians and Jews are not demanding churches and synagogues in Saudi Arabia. While American school cafeterias are accommodating Moslem students with the removal of pork, Jews are not demanding kosher foods anywhere.  While our textbooks have been revised to contain whitewashed Islam, Americans are being robbed of their own history.

Of all the ethnic groups that have come to America, Moslems are the only ones who require accommodation, and create neighborhoods and school areas that exclude others. His is the group that will use our laws to enact theirs for dominion.

Dear reader, his was not an extemporaneous speech by a neophyte. Hamid’s words were judiciously chosen, with a lesson to be derived from his explicit example of achieving contentment from only one jar of jam.  He cares not a whit about quality, flavor, or your preference; he wants only one choice of jam and one choice of religion – Islam.  In 1400 years, Islam was unable to produce the quality and flavor of Western civilization, but if they could succeed in annihilating Western civilization, ah, then Islam would finally be the best.

This is civilizational jihad.  This guest is one of many who comes to indoctrinate the uninformed in Chautauqua, that fewer choices mean fewer worries. Life is not made better, but infinitely simpler when you do as you’re told, eat what you’re given, and dare not complain. It is more than just a “Shadi” deal; it is bondage.

We are witnessing two extremes in America. Both are fascist.

We are witnessing two extremes in America. Both are fascist.

One is called Alt-Right and the other the Alt Left. Neither is conservative or liberal they both represent the growth of Fascism, Socialism and Communism in America. Unfortunately the liberal media and to a great extent the Democrat Party and Democrats have aligned themselves with the so called Alt-Left.

The removal of statues, pictures or other historical items is comparable to the ‘book burning’ in Nazi Germany during that 1930’s. Hitler was intent on erasing German and Western history and culture. In America today we see a similar movement against the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and other slave owners.

Does this mean we should remove pictures and statures of George Washington and many of our other forefathers who wrote the Constitution. Should we erase George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from Mt. Rushmore with jack hammers? Does this mean we should burn the U.S. Constitution which was written by slave owners? Does this mean we should outlaw the Democrat Party which fought to preserve slavery?

Question: Where does this all end?

Please read an interesting article by Melanie Phillips–“How totalitarianism is winning in the West”.

HOW TOTALITARIANISM IS WINNING IN THE WEST

Credit to the left-leaning Atlantic magazine for running a piece by Peter Beinart, who has actually looked at what is happening in American society and reached an uncomfortable conclusion which would be hard to find elsewhere in the media – and which is all-too pertinent in the wake of Charlottesville.

For Beinart warns that the left is lurching into totalitarianism and violence. “Antifa” purport to be anti-fascist. But they define as fascist anyone they disagree with including mainstream conservatives. Hence their violent suppression of commentators and scholars such as the conservative columnist Ann Coulter, the Breitbart controversialist Milo Yiannopoulos and the political scientist Charles Murray.

What Antifa most certainly do not do is defend democracy, freedom and liberal values. As Beinart observes:

“Since antifa is heavily composed of anarchists, its activists place little faith in the state, which they consider complicit in fascism and racism. They prefer direct action: They pressure venues to deny white supremacists space to meet. They pressure employers to fire them and landlords to evict them. And when people they deem racists and fascists manage to assemble, antifa’s partisans try to break up their gatherings, including by force.”

If this was just a bunch of anarchists, the problem wouldn’t be so bad. What takes this onto a different level altogether is the fact that the mainstream left does not disavow Antifa but tolerates, sanitises and condones it. Referring specifically to the assault last January on the white supremacist Richard Spencer, Beinart continues:

“Such tactics have elicited substantial support from the mainstream left. When the masked antifa activist was filmed assaulting Spencer on Inauguration Day, another piece in The Nation described his punch as an act of ‘kinetic beauty.’ Slate ran an approving article about a humorous piano ballad that glorified the assault. Twitter was inundated with viral versions of the video set to different songs, prompting the former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau to tweet, ‘I don’t care how many different songs you set Richard Spencer being punched to, I’ll laugh at every one.’

“The violence is not directed only at avowed racists like Spencer: In June of last year, demonstrators – at least some of whom were associated with antifa – punched and threw eggs at people exiting a Trump rally in San Jose, California. An article in It’s Going Down celebrated the ‘righteous beatings.’”

As I wrote in The Times (£) yesterday, this has produced an unholy alliance between the left and the far right:

“A white supremacist called Richard Spencer invented the blanket term ‘alt-right’ to associate his ilk with conservatives seeking merely to defend American identity and core values. Through this tactic, Spencer intended to boost the far right and simultaneously smear and thus destroy regular conservatives.

“The left has seized upon this smear with unbridled joy, routinely using the ‘alt-right’ term to try to destroy the national identity agenda by bracketing it with white supremacism. The result is a powerful boost for the far right. From deserved obscurity, they suddenly find the left are transmitting their every utterance to the world. The phrase “useful idiots” comes inescapably to mind.”

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: Poll Shows Lots Of Support For Trump’s Stance On Charlottesville

RELATED VIDEO: Connecting-The-Dots Between Charlottesville, Soros, Hillary Clinton and McCain:

First They Came for Confederate Monuments…

It’s a story as old as civilizations passing away, history looping without end…

First they came for the Confederate monuments, because they represented those who fought to maintain slavery.

Then they came for Confederate flags, because banning them would alleviate the hurt of slavery they represented.

Then they came for Confederate names on buildings, on schools and on streets. That which causes offense is not acceptable in our society.

Then they came for the history textbooks, which were revised to avoid causing pain to students confronted with the ugly past in their own country. How could the children endure this?

After a time, they had erased all memories of the Confederacy from the public square and the books — sent them down the memory hole — and all was good with race relations. All would now prosper and feel safe from the offense of history.

But…

Some Founders were slaveholders. And this is intolerable to even think about. So they came for those Founders who owned slaves, most prominent of whom were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

They came for the Jefferson and Washington Monuments in the nation’s capital and all statues of Washington and Jefferson, for they caused deep offense. Slaveowners looking down on us!

Then they came for schools named after Jefferson and Washington. Then they came after streets and towns named after Jefferson and Washington. That which causes offense is not acceptable in our society.

Then they came for the history textbooks, which were revised to avoid causing pain to students confronted with the slaveholding realities of the nation’s forefathers. How could the children endure this?

And finally they came after the Capital of the United States, because it was named after a slaveholder. How offensive to every citizen!

After a time, they had erased all memories of every founder who was a slaveholder from the public square and the books — sent down the memory hole — and all was good with race relations. All would now prosper and feel safe from the offense of history.

But…

It was soon remembered that all of the Founders agreed to keep women from being able to vote, to treat them as second-class citizens. This included those who were not slaveholders and those who opposed slavery.

So they came after all of the rest of the Founders not already erased, because they were sexist and diminished women. Hated women. Such sexism can never be celebrated!

Then they came for the monuments to Founders such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine and the rest for they caused offense, they made some women feel “less than.” Sexist males looking down on us!

Then they came for schools named after Adams and Hamilton. Then they came after streets and towns named after Adams and Hamilton. That which causes offense is not acceptable in our society.

Then they came for the history textbooks, which were revised to avoid causing pain to students confronted with the ugly, sexist past of all of the Founders of their own country. How could the children endure this?

After awhile, they had erased all memories of every Founder — racist and sexist — from the public square and the books — all sent down the memory hole — and all was good with race and gender relations. All would now prosper and feel safe from the offense of history.

But…

Oh, there was so much more still to erase! The impurities!

They came for Christopher Columbus because he brought plagues to the natives and stole their lands and resources. Erase him!

They came for U.S. presidents before the Civil War because they appeased the South with compromises, allowing slavery to expand into more new states in the Union. Erase them!

They came for the Presidents who did not uphold treaties with Native Americans. Erase them!

They came for the 19th century building titans who constructed the Transcontinental Railroad because they paid the Chinese slave labor wages for their work. Erase them!

They came for every corporate baron enriched during the industrial revolution, some of which had used child labor, all of whom had mistreated workers. Erase them!

They came for U.S. Supreme Court justices who upheld slavery in the Dred Scott ruling. Erase them!

They came for the once-revered Woodrow Wilson because he was an overt racist and acted colonially when he began the U.S. occupation of Haiti. Erase him!

They came for Franklin Roosevelt because he put Japanese-Americans in internment camps in World War II. What an offense to have to be faced with! Erase him!

They came for Harry Truman because he used atomic weapons against Japanese civilians — but not Germany — showing his bigotry. Erase him!

They came for Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush. None withstood the next wave of erasure. “Erase them all!” they cried in their purifying fever.

Like the great Eraser’s of kingdoms past from Assyrians to Soviets, they took down all predecessors, all remnants that might remind people of the offensive, unacceptable, unauthorized national history. They erased them all.

In the end, they stood around, panting heavily from their long labors and paused. And then they came for themselves, because such was the voracious appetite to purify history from offense that none could meet the test of purity.

Not even the Erasers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What the Attacks on our Monuments Truly Means: It’s certainly not about history – Huffington Post

Who’s To Blame for the Events in Charlottesville? Charlottesville!

The Imperative of Defending Liberty After Charlottesville

Charlottesville Violence Only The Beginning Unless We End Identity Politics

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Beware the False Reporting on Trump, Charlottesville, and the Need to Erase History By Destroying Statues

The tag line and mission of Bolduc and Bracci is to “Level a Tilted Playing Field.”  This references the well-known fact that there is an extreme leftist-liberal bias in the media.  Presently, the media complex is working in lockstep to destroy President Trump, and is using Charlottesville as its new front.  Through false reporting, the media is working to paint Trump as a white racist bigot, despite his decades-long career in the public eye showing he is anything but that.

It is difficult to put this issue into words, but writer Dov Fischer, self-described as a Jew from Manhattan, does a good job of stepping back and putting today’s issues into perspective, discussing the truth about what Trump actually said in totality, and providing real history references.   His article at Spectator.org  is titled “And Yet President Trump, In His Classically Inartful Way, Was Absolutely Right.”

That article is linked here: (click)

Fischer on Trump’s statements:

I just did something fascinating. I just watched the President’s entire 14-minute impromptu news conference at Trump Tower on Monday that sparked all the latest barrage of anti-Trump screeds from the left media that will criticize him every day, no matter what he does, augmented by the “Never Trump” Republicans and neo-conservatives who will not rest until they can re-conquer the political party they lost because of three terms of two failed Bush presidencies, followed by the two failed Presidential candidacies of Sen. John McCain and of Gov. Mitt Romney.

Not the reportage about the conference, but the entire 14 minutes unedited, uninterrupted. I found myself agreeing with his every word. I did not find his tone or demeanor “unpresidential” in the least. He sharply and explicitly condemned the Nazis and White Supremacists unequivocally. He also condemned the extreme leftists who premeditatedly came armed with weapons to smash up a demonstration that, rightly or wrongly, had been granted a legal permit. (I personally wish that ACLU liberals were not so proactive in advancing the right of Nazis to get permits to rally at public venues, but the demonstration had a permit. Meanwhile, the Antifa Alt-Left thugs came with flame-throwers, bats, and shields, and they came to fight.) All the while, the police did nothing for much too long. Chaos and violence ensued.”

With all of the misreporting about what Trump has actually said, and who actually participated at the Charlottesville protest, articles such as Fischer’s are needed to level the playing field on an issue that continues to be used politically to further gin up public divide in our country, and to isolate our president by creating a false image painting him as a racist.**

**Note:   This isolation tactic is akin to our local Naples Daily News editors and writers who paint Collier County school board member Kelly Lichter as “boisterous” (click for prior report) because Lichter simply wants the school district to focus on education in the classroom — and to eliminate the Superintendent’s mission drift into the collectivist, “collaborative” projects which our community’s so-called “leaders” and “non-profits” find so endearing.  Threatened by Lichter, our local establishment and the media they control seek to destroy her.

Fischer’s article goes beyond Trump into the issue of destroying statues that have stood for decades if not centuries in our country.  Yes, it is understandable how some may find those statues offensive if they take them only as symbols of a southern culture protecting slavery.  But where does this end, and to what extent might those statues be symbols of other things, such as the principle of Federalism wherein state’s rights are paramount to the federal government?  Cannot those states honor soldiers and military officers who fought not for “slavery,” but to defend state’s rights?  If Florida sought to secede from the U.S. today, and an actual war was occurring, would you or your children fight to defend your family, your home, and your neighbors — or would you join the federal army, and seek to destroy your own family members?  This is not to decide one way or another, but to consider the reality of the choices that those citizens of southern states had to make when civil war erupted.  In that context, might there be some understanding of the citizens of those states honoring their own fallen heroes who fought not to protect “slavery,” but to protect their own family members during a time of war?

Not everything deemed “offensive” needs to be cleansed from society.  That is a very dangerous concept.  Free speech is protected not to ensure the “popular” speech, but to preserve “unpopular” speech.  Many important free speech and land use decisions by our U.S. Supreme Court involve protecting the rights of those who society finds least respectable.  (Think the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 1988 Florida Supreme Court, defending Larry Flynt’s First Amendment free speech rights).  Our U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the rights of these people to speak their minds — not because the Supreme Court agrees with those thoughts, but because it is dangerous to squelch free speech, as to do otherwise will lead to tyranny.

Is the destruction of Civil War statues not the same thing, only in “symbol” or “image” form?

On that point, Fischer states the following:

There is no easy answer for the statue issue. I have seen that issue for years and years, long before it became the Issue du Jour. In my travels for several months through the South and at the great Civil War battlefields, I saw the monuments everywhere: in main thoroughfares along Monument Row in Richmond, at the State Capitol in Nashville, at street corners. At the South Carolina state capitol in Columbia, they have preserved the broken walking stick attached to the monument of George Washington, so as never to forget how Sherman’s men ransacked the state and even desecrated the monument of Washington. Similarly, they have refused to repair Union cannonball damage to the building, preferring instead to cover gaping holes with metal patches that starkly remind visitors of the attack that happened there. I have seen the aesthetic beauty and passion that went into sculpting those monuments, and I have read the inscriptions that breathe not a word about slavery nor the social injustices of the Confederacy but of brave young boys, who never owned a slave — the vast majority of Southerners never owned slaves — but who gave their lives for their communities, for their honor, in some cases even for their women.

As a Jew hailing from the North, whose persecuted East European ancestors did not even arrive in this country from Russia and Poland until a quarter century after the Civil War, I also perceived that those monuments constitute a horrible daily insult and vile dishonor to African Americans and, frankly, an incomprehensible curiosity for a country that had defeated the Confederacy and had reunited. What indeed were all those monuments to the losing side doing all over the place? I came to a sense that perhaps those monuments should be moved to Civil War museums, to the great preserved battlefields at Antietam/Sharpsburg, Chancellorsville, Bull Run/Manassas, Fredericksburg, The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Shiloh, Lookout Mountain, Cold Harbor, Vicksburg, and Petersburg. (Gettysburg already has its full complement.) Perhaps move them to cemeteries where Confederates lie buried.

But I do believe, as President Trump tried to say in his way, that many of those at the demonstrations indeed were decent people motivated solely by wanting peacefully to preserve the heroes of their history, oblivious to the ramifications — that, sadly, their history includes much that is shameful, even if Lee solely was motivated by a soldier’s rules of honor and service, as taught at West Point; even if Jackson was motivated solely by that same code of a soldier’s honor and service, amplified by a religious believer’s sense that he had a duty to country.

President Trump sadly is correct. George Washington owned slaves. So did Thomas Jefferson at Monticello and James Madison at Montpelier. So did many who signed the Declaration of Independence. Shall we take down the Washington Monument? Shall we rename the nation’s capital and the state where the liberal Democrats of Seattle govern? Should we tear down the Jefferson Memorial? Is there now yet another reason to change the name of the Washington Redskins!

And, while at it: How about encouraging some violent street-fighting in Manhattan, tearing down the Peter Stuyvesant statue in Manhattan and renaming that eponymous public school? He was the most vicious anti-Semite of pre-independence America.

As Trump says, where does all this end?  Take, for instance, this report that Vice Magazine now decries “Let’s Blow Up Mr. Rushmore”  (click here):

Vice Magazine’s call to “blow up Mt. Rushmore.”

The racial division presently occurring in this country is indeed worrisome; equally worrisome, however, is the use of that issue to justify the squelching of speech — in oral, written, or symbolic form.  Either of these issues could ultimately lead to the demise of our nation and the symbol of freedom for which it stands.

RELATED ARTICLE:

In Their Own Words: The Radical Political Goals Of ‘Anti-Fascists’ by Peter Hasson

In the days since violent clashes at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville culminated in a neo-Nazi sympathizer driving his car into a crowd of counter-protesters, journalists have mainstreamed the self-described “anti-fascists” (or “antifa”) at the rally — largely ignoring their involvement in the escalating political violence in this country.

Many establishment political figures insisted the far-left actors were just like American soldiers on D-Day. But these “anti-fascists’”  own statements show they’re nothing like American soldiers on D-Day.

They aren’t interested in protecting America’s system of government, according to their own statements — they’re interested in destroying it.

From the very start of the Trump administration, far-left actors declared their intention to use massive demonstrations to disrupt the American political process as much as possible.

A common mantra among far-left groups beginning shortly before the inauguration: make America “ungovernable.”

“We need to make this country ungovernable,” declared a female leader for Refuse Fascism shortly after the inauguration. “We need to do what the German people should have done when Hitler was elected.”

Refuse Fascism was a driving force behind the violent, politically motivated riots in Berkeley. Right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos — who at the time was an editor at pro-Trump website Breitbart — was scheduled to speak at the University of California’s Berkeley campus. He was forced to cancel the speech after mobs of protesters started fires, assaulted bystanders and pepper sprayed suspected Trump supporters as part of an organized effort to shut down the speech.

View image on Twitter

Protests against Milo at UC Berkeley. Protesters chanting “This is what community looks like.” Source: Twitter Shane Bauer @shane_bauer

Refuse Fascism was among the left-wing groups advertising the Charlottesville rally and urged confrontation with the white nationalists: “Drive them OUT of Charlottesville and out of power!”

Refuse Fascism was far from the only left-wing fringe group at Charlottesville.

One anarchist group that was at Charlottesville, CrimethInc, holds that anarchism is necessary to destroy white supremacy, which the group says cannot be fully extinguished in a democracy.

“Anarchism is one of the most thoroughgoing forms of opposition to fascism, in that it entails opposition to hierarchy itself. Virtually every framework that countenances hierarchy, be it democracy or ‘national liberation,’ enables old power imbalances like white supremacy and patriarchy to remain in place, hidden within the legitimacy of the prevailing structures,” the group explains.

They similarly want to destroy law enforcement and capitalists.

“We must identify the forces underlying their laws and their order—white supremacy, patriarchy, policing, capitalism, and the state. We have to work together to keep ourselves safe and reimagine the world without them,” the group states in an article, which was reposted on popular antifa website It’s Going Down.

Another far-left group at Charlottesville last weekend: the Workers World Party, a group of Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries who have declared their support for Kim Jong Un’s murderous dictatorship in North Korea. Workers World’s publication has consistently published propaganda-like screeds supporting Venezuela’s murderous regime.

The communist group “sent many of its members to Charlottesville, Va., to beat back the Nazis and Klan who marched there,” according to a post recapping the group’s participation in the weekend’s violence.

The Daily Caller News Foundation confirmed Workers World’s presence at the Charlottesville rally.

The group took credit for organizing the vandals who toppled a city-owned Confederate statue in Durham, North Carolina this week.

Workers’ World’s stated goals are classic Marxism, including igniting an international socialist revolution and “the shutdown of the Pentagon and the use of the war budget” — that is, the funding for the Department of Defense — “to improve the lives of the working class and especially the oppressed peoples.”

While Workers World is currently fighting (literally) with white nationalists, the group is opposed to all in the “ruling establishment” who the group explains hide “behind a veil of ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights.’”

“Those in the ruling establishment who see their reputation in tatters are appalled by what happened [at Charlottesville], but not for the right reasons,” read a Workers World post after Charlottesville. “They want to continue to exploit and dominate most of the world, but behind a veil of ‘democracy’ and ‘human rights.’ The people are showing by their actions that only by taking the fight for justice into their own hands, with no confidence in the organs of state power, can they make progress.”

The post concluded: “Long live the independent struggle of this new progressive movement against the fascists, the cops and the capitalist establishment!”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Far-Left ‘Antifa’ Agitators on the Rise in the Age of Trump

Who was responsible for the violence in Charlottesville? Here’s what witnesses say – Chicago Tribune

Ivy League Professor And DNC Platform Member Tied To Berkeley Rioters

Twelve Memorials that Must Be Removed if Democrats Are Serious About Erasing Racism

CNN’s ‘Hate Groups’ Map Puts Conservative Lives at Risk

Democrat Senator Proposes Removal of All Confederate Statues From U.S. Capitol Building

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Daily Caller. According to Wikipedia CrimethInc., also known as CWC, which stands for either “CrimethInc. Ex-Workers Collective” or “CrimethInc Ex-Workers Ex-Collective”—is a decentralized anarchist collective of autonomous cells.

Fearing Trump Haitians heading to Canada found in possession of child porn

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been saying, even before Trump was actually elected, that Canada would take ‘refugees’ the US didn’t want.  So gosh, what did those darn refugee rejects (the Somalis and now the Haitians) do?  They took his word for it and are heading en masse to the land of maple syrup.

From Canada24News (hat tip: Joanne):

Multiple refugee claimants have been found in possession of child pornography at or near the Quebec border crossing where an influx of hundreds of asylum seekers crossing from New York state has led the Canadian government to set up a border camp, Global News has learned.

The reference is to the expiring ‘Temporary Protected Status’ for Haitians who were allowed to stay in the US TEMPORARILY after the Earthquake there in 2010. They are not legitimate refugees escaping persecution.

Watch the video of the Haitians arriving in Canada:

In a memorandum to officers of the Canadian Border Services Agency this week, acting CBSA assistant director Daniel St-Arnaud outlines a set of guidelines for officers at and near the St-Bernard-de-Lacolle crossing to deal with the illicit material. The guidelines will “come into effect immediately” and remain until national guidelines are put in place.

According to a source, officials in St-Bernard-de-Lacolle have in recent months found “four or five” refugee claimants from Haiti in possession of child pornography, which prompted the memorandum.

A spokesperson for Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Ralph Goodale confirmed two cases have resulted in criminal proceedings. “We can confirm that, following an investigation, two people have been charged by the Quebec Direction des Poursuites Criminelles et Pénales with possession and importation of child pornography,” said Dan Brien. “The matter remains under adjudication.”

[….]

Last week, the Canadian government deployed soldiers to set up tents near St-Bernard-de-Lacolle, which sits across the border from Champlain, New York, in order to temporarily house hundreds of asylum seekers, most of which are Haitians who fear deportation by the United States government. The city of Montreal, which is 60 kilometres from the border point, last week said it is receiving between 250 and 300 asylum claimants who crossed the Canada-U.S. border every day — the number is up from 50 per day in the first half of July.

[….]

Rempel [Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel], said the border arrests comprised one part of broader concerns that the opposition has about the government’s management of Canada’s refugee system. Earlier this month, Global News reported on a CBSA document which suggested that Somalis with criminal records, deported by the U.S., have crossed illegally into Canada and made refugee claims under false identities.

“This is a troubling pattern where we’re seeing people with criminal records or involved in criminal activity come across the border,” added Rempel. “I think that Justin Trudeau has been irresponsible in his language around how Canada’s asylum system should be accessed. I think he needs to be much more clear that you shouldn’t be entering Canada illegally and he should be more clear about the expectations that our system has in terms of legitimate claims so that our asylum system can be focused on helping the world’s most vulnerable.”

More here.

See my Canada archive here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Washington state Somali shot dead by police was refugee from Dadaab

Australia deal: Homeland Security returns to Manus Island to continue screening wannabe refugees

Trump Admin reining-in Obama plan to get more Central American children to US

Good luck getting data on refugee welfare usage when Congress can’t get it!

IOM: Over 1.2 million Syrians have returned home in last two years

VIDEO: The U.S. forces facing down North Korea ‘Ready to fight’

The threat from North Korea isn’t just a war of words for the troops of U.S. Pacific Command.

For “CBS News: On Assignment,” correspondent Vladimir Duthiers goes inside the Air Force, Army and Navy operations where American service members are preparing to respond with “rapid, lethal, and overwhelming force” if called upon to fight.

RELATED ARTICLE: North Korean shipments of chemical weapons to Syria intercepted

Lawsuit Ends in Free Speech/Religious Freedom Victory for the Catholic League

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, today announces that the closing chapter in a lawsuit has ended with a victory for Bill Donohue and free speech, as the time for appealing TMLC’s win in the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court has passed.

Bill Donohue, President and CEO of the Catholic League, is considered by most Americans as the fiercest defender of the Catholic Church in the world. He is often called to appear on national TV to respond to controversial attacks made against the Church. So, when he asked the Thomas More Law Center to defend him and the Catholic League in a defamation lawsuit filed because of comments in a press release, without hesitation we agreed.

Beginning in 2014, the case wound its way through both the state and federal courts. On April 18, 2017, the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming a lower court decision which ruled in favor of Bill Donohue and the Catholic League by dismissing all claims in the lawsuit, including the defamation claim. The 90-day window for asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals decision has now lapsed.

You can read the 8th Circuit Court opinion here.

Erin Mersino, who handled the case on behalf of the Thomas More Law Center always contended that lawsuit filed by Jon David Couzens, Jr. lacked legal merit and required dismissal.  Although she no longer works for TMLC, Erin recently commented on the final end of case:

“The plaintiff’s decision not to appeal the case further vindicates this important victory for free speech. The Thomas More Law Center and the Catholic League are two heroic organizations that vigorously fight for religious freedom in our culture today. It has been a true honor representing Bill Donohue, the President and tenacious captain of the Catholic League.”

What is the Catholic League?

The Catholic League is the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization. Founded in 1973 by the late Father Virgil C. Blum, S.J., the Catholic League defends the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.

Motivated by the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment, the Catholic League works to safeguard both the religious freedom rights and the free speech rights of Catholics whenever and wherever they are threatened.

The Catholic League is listed in the Official Catholic Directory and has won the plaudits of many bishops.

Somalis heading for Canadian border

When one sees stories titled like this one: Somalis With Criminal Records Are Heading for Canadian Border

One immediately assumes this story has to do with changing U.S. refugee policy under Donald Trump’s presidency, but check this out, they were already heading to Canada under Obama.

From Alpha News:

The usual route.

Fear of deportation is causing some Somalis with criminal records to head for the Canadian border, according to a new report from Global News.

A Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) intelligence brief from January 2016 obtained by Global News shows an increase in Somali nationals with criminal records crossing the border into Canada.

According to the report, 16 Somalis with “serious” criminal records crossed the border into Canada between 2012 and 2015. Of the 16, 11 had criminal records in Minnesota. Most of the asylum seekers crossed the border near Emerson, Manitoba.

The CBSA believes the asylum seekers are attempting to avoid deportation by U.S. immigration authorities by claiming refugee protection in Canada. Somali deportations began to rise under former President Barack Obama during the same time Canada saw an increase of asylum seekers with criminal records.According to data from the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 65 Somalis were deported in 2014, 120 in 2015, and 198 in 2016.

The number of deportations has continued to increase under President Donald Trump. As of early May 2017, about half way through the fiscal year, 259 Somalis had been deported. Of the 259, 80 were deported from the St. Paul ICE office. About one quarter of those deported have criminal records.

Alpha News has a nice graphic showing an uptick in Somali deportations from the U.S.

The CBSA intelligence report does not reveal data for 2017, however, border patrol officers in Emerson, Manitoba have reported a significant increase of asylum seekers with criminal records. Jean-Pierre Fortin, National President of the Customs and Immigration Union in Manitoba, told CBC News border officers in Emerson estimate as many as 50 percent of asylum seekers have a “serious criminality record.”

No official data, but Reuters is happy to produce some for 2017 anyway!

As Alpha News previously reported, Canada is seeing an influx of refugees that once found a home in Minnesota. Reuters reports nearly 3,500 have walked into Canada from the U.S. between January through May of this year.

Yahya Samatar swam in to Canada in 2015 to escape deportation by Obama.

More here.

A case study—Yahya Samatar

As I researched the above news I came across Samatar’s story.  So his impoverished Somali family “scraped together” $12,000 usd to pay his way across the world (Somalia to Ethiopia to Brazil to Central America to Mexico and illegally across our southern border!), and we are expected to believe they found that much money through legal means in Africa.

Who is paying these illegal aliens? pirate money? An NGO? Someone like Soros?

From Hiiraan Online :

(original story from Winnipeg Free Press)

Samatar hopes he’s at the end of what has been a year-long survival odyssey.

He fled Somalia in August of last year when he became a target because he does aid work with a non-governmental organization and had no one to protect him.

“There’s no functioning government,” Samatar said. “As long as your clan has not a lot of power, you’re at risk.” Militia groups and Al Shabaab are active and night-time attacks are common, he said.

Samatar said he and his family scraped together US$12,000 to pay smugglers to get him to Ethiopia, then Brazil, and help him make his way by land through Central America to the U.S. border at Matamoros, Mexico. “I took buses and walked in the jungle for one month,” he said.

Was the Obama Administration, after a court failed to grant him asylum, letting him go with tacit approval to make a run for the border?

In the U.S., he was apprehended as an illegal alien and spent six months in a detention centre in Texas and another 10 weeks in a centre in Louisiana. After his refugee claim was formally rejected, he was released to await deportation back to Somalia. Desperate to set down roots in some place safe, he headed north. A contact in Minneapolis’s huge Somali community rented a car and drove Samatar and his companion close to the border crossing at Pembina, N.D., he said.

Continue reading here.

We have a large and growing archive on Canada, click here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Washington state Somali shot dead by police was refugee from Dadaab

Australia deal: Homeland Security returns to Manus Island to continue screening wannabe refugees

Trump Admin reining-in Obama plan to get more Central American children to US

Good luck getting data on refugee welfare usage when Congress can’t get it!

IOM: Over 1.2 million Syrians have returned home in last two years