The liberal view of women’s rights ‘a load of horse manure’

Fantasy Christian oppression vs. very real Muslim oppression: which do you think the Left is more upset about? That’s right.

“Laura Perrins: Islamism poses the real threat to the sisterhood,” by Laura Perrins, The Conservative Woman, April 29, 2017 (thanks to Inexion):

The novel, The Handmaid’s Tale by Canadian author Margaret Atwood, has been scaring the bejesus out of women since 1985. I am not going to give you the full summary – you know it. The US becomes a big evil Christian theocracy and after widespread infertility hits, only the few fertile women that are left must become Handmaids to the better families, bearing them children.

Fornication is punished by death, women cannot work and have to be covered and suffer from all round horror at the hands of the patriarchy (and evil conservative women).

The book is everything that feminists want women to believe is ‘just around the corner’.

What a load of horse manure. Thankfully, the only thing that came into being since 1985 is that we pay for everything electronically. If memory serves me right in the dystopian book the Government transfers unilaterally all the wealth held by women to the bank accounts held by their nearest male relative, something that was easy to do given the lack of cash.

But that does not stop numerous TV adaptations of The Handmaid’s Tale, the latest being this.

The book and adaptations generate many think pieces, warning us that we are just a Trump presidency away from such a theocracy even though Trump is the least socially conservative Republican president ever and the Christian Right was split on his election.

But sure, why should we let the facts get in the way of a good propaganda campaign, especially against Christians? And this book has been the most effective form of propaganda to keep women scared into submission and voting Democrat ever, I do believe….

But as this piece demonstrates, the liberals are too terrified to examine where the real threat to women’s rights comes from.

Tell, me again which extremist ideology executes gay men by throwing them off buildings?

What theocracy demands women must be covered and refuses to let them drive? What girls are at high risk of female genital mutilation? Are they the Mormons and Roman Catholics or hardline Lutherans?

No. The real threat to women’s rights comes from Islamism. But you will be waiting a long time before you read a feminist dystopian novel about the threats to American women from such a theocracy. If you did it would be immediately slammed as Islamophobic.

RELATED ARTICLE: Belgium PM: Vote for Saudi Arabia to UN women’s rights panel was “regrettable diplomatic mix-up”

The Catholic Church has given up its ministry to the government

The Catholic Church is in decline. Why? Because it has failed  perform its primary mission to minister to and provide for the sick and needy. It has surrendered to government that role that once was the sole dominion of the church.

Bishop DewaneI recently read a statement by Bishop Frank J. Dewane of Venice, Florida, Chair of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development for the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops. Bishop Dewane states:

“It is deeply disappointing to many Americans that, in modifying the American Health Care Act to again attempt a vote, proponents of the bill left in place its serious flaws, including unacceptable modifications to Medicaid that will endanger coverage and affordability for millions of people, according to reports,” said Bishop Dewane. “Sadly, some of the recently proposed amendments-especially those designed to give states flexibility-lack apparent safeguards to ensure quality of care. These additions could severely impact many people with pre-existing conditions while risking for others the loss of access to various essential coverages.”

His concern should not be about what the government is doing with healthcare. His concern should be that government should not be dictating to the states nor the people, who should or should not be covered. Particularly people of faith.

Bishop Dewane and the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops should not be casting the first stone, for they are not without sin. Government taking over healthcare has harmed the Catholic church, its institutions and is congregations.

Let’s look at the Little Sisters of the Poor. The December 2016 edition of the Atlantic reported:

[T]he Supreme Court decided to tackle the case of the Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of nuns who believe, along with some priests, a Roman Catholic Archdiocese, and several universities, that the government is compelling them to violate their beliefs. Their claim: The so-called birth-control mandate of the Affordable Care Act places a burden on their religious exercise, even with an accommodation from the government.

[ …]

The Affordable Care Act requires all U.S. insurance plans to cover 20 varieties of FDA-approved contraceptives at no cost to patients. This affects employers at both for-profit and non-profit organizations, because they have to provide coverage for contraception in their insurance plans. Immediately following the passage of the law in 2010, a number of organizations objected, saying that some of the approved forms of contraception are the equivalent of abortifacients, or drugs that cause abortion. If they refused to provide the coverage, they would face heavy fines.

Note the words “some priests” and a “Roman Catholic Archdiocese.” This is what happens when the Catholic church fails to stop the government from imposing itself on the lives of the faithful with mandates such as killing the innocent via abortifacients.

Perhaps Bishop Dewane would better serve his Archdiocese and Florida’s Catholics by working to get government totally out of healthcare?

GotQuestions.org notes:

The Roman government taxed the Jews unjustly and many of the tax collectors were thieves. When asked about this dilemma, Jesus took a coin and said, “‘Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?’ ‘Caesar’s,’ they replied. Then he said to them, ‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s’” (Matthew 22:20-21).

But remember that the Roman Empire fell not because of external pressure but because of internal rot.

EDITORS NOTE: Following oral argument on the Little Sisters of the Poor case, the U.S. Supreme Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners’ employees, through petitioners’ insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.” Post, p. ___. Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible. Petitioners have clarified that their religious exercise is not infringed where they “need to do nothing more than contract for a plan that does not include coverage for some or all forms of contraception,” even if their employees receive cost-free contraceptive coverage from the same insurance company. Supplemental Brief for Petitioners 4. The Government has confirmed that the challenged procedures “for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court’s order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.” Read more.

Research Shows Murders are Heavily Concentrated in Small Fraction of Counties

This week, a new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) revealed just how concentrated murders are in the U.S. Citing county level data from 2014, researchers determined that a small fraction of all counties are responsible for a majority of the murders in the U.S.

According to the report, just 2 percent of all of the counties in the country account for 51 percent of the nation’s murders. The top 5 percent of counties account for 68 percent of all murders. Further, 69 percent of all counties experienced one murder or less in 2014.

Map-US-Murder-Fixed

It is correct to expect that counties with large population centers are going to necessarily account for more murders. However, as the report details, the most dangerous counties account for an outsized proportion of murders given their population. The report noted,

“The worst 1% of counties have 19% of the population and 37% of the murders. The worst 5% of counties contain 47% of the population and account for 68% of murders.”

CPRC also pointed out that murders are often highly concentrated within a given county. Citing Los Angeles County, which experienced 526 murder in 2014, CPRC showed that there were wide swaths of the county with virtually no murders.

CPRC’s data dovetails with other research on the concentration of criminal violence. In recent years, researchers from Yale University have studied the concentration of violence in certain social networks. In a 2015 piece for the Hartford Courant that succinctly outlines some of this research, Yale Ph.D. candidate Michael Sierra-Arévalo explained that Yale University sociologists determined “70 percent of all shootings in Chicago can be located in a social network composed of less than 6 percent of the city’s population.”

Sierra-Arévalo also cited a study from researchers at Harvard and Yale, that examined violence perpetrated with guns in Boston. This research showed that violence is heavily concentrated even within a given city, determining that “between 1980 and 2009, 89 percent of Boston streets never experienced an episode of gun violence,” and that “more than half of all the gun violence during the almost 30-year period occurred in only 5 percent of the city’s streets.”

Given that criminal violence is highly concentrated, efforts to tackle this discrete problem with ham-handed restrictions on the conduct of the public at large are inappropriate. Rather than further burden the law-abiding, federal, state, and local officials should target known areas of violence with vigorous enforcement of existing state and federal law.

Press Basks in Self-Pity as President Skips Media Event to Engage with America

President Trump has a busy schedule this week. On Friday, he becomes the first sitting president since Ronald Reagan in 1983 to address the members of the National Rifle Association during our Annual Meeting and Exhibits in Atlanta, GA. The next day he will hold a rally at the PA Farm Show Complex and Expo Center in Harrisburg to mark the 100th day of his presidency.

One event he will not be attending is the 103rd Annual White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) Dinner in Washington, D.C.  Here, too, he shares a parallel with Ronald Reagan, who was the last president to skip the event in 1981 (albeit because he was still recovering from a recent assassination attempt). Before Reagan, both Presidents Jimmy Carter (1978 and 1980) and Richard Nixon (1972 and 1974) skipped the dinner of their own volition.

The mainstream media have made no secret of their opposition to President Trump. Articles have openly questioned the “legitimacy” of his presidency, and some within the media have even admitted they do not believe ordinary journalistic ethics or practices apply to him. As a writer for the New York Times acknowledged during the election: “[L]et’s face it: Balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy.”

Meanwhile, the American people who voted the president into office have made no secret of their disgust with the media. During the election, an annual Gallup poll showed Americans’ trust and confidence in the mass media “to report the news fully, accurately and fairly” dropped to its lowest level since the organization first began asking the question in 1972. Nearly 70% of the poll’s respondents found the media untrustworthy.

It cannot be said often or emphatically enough: the media elite just don’t get it. First, they blew the biggest political story of the 21st Century by failing to recognize the momentum of Trump’s presidential campaign. Then – rather than recognize and begin addressing their own colossal professional failure – they simply re-dedicated themselves to opposing his presidency. Even Poltico recently acknowledged that Trump’s election was “not just as an embarrassment for the press but … an indictment” and made clear “the national media just doesn’t get the nation it purportedly covers.”

The press’ reaction to Trump’s decision to skip the WHCA Dinner reinforces this negative view. Criticizing Trump for reaching out to the ordinary Americans who elected him, rather than the press figures who despise him, a former WHCA board member made clear in statements to The Hill that reporters really do continue to believe it’s all about themselves.

“I feel bad, because a lot of White House reporters are going to have to go and cover [Trump’s Pennsylvania rally] and not come to our own dinner,” she said. “It’s one thing for him to stay home, and that was fine. And he can just tweet about us and be mean, and that would be kind of funny, and it would feel right. But for him to stage a competing event — we just can’t even have our dinner? We just can’t even do that?”

This is a remarkable admission. They have to go to work “out there” in America, rather than gather in the Washington, D.C. Hilton with their like-minded colleagues and a bevy of like-minded Hollywood celebrities for a night of self-congratulation and mutual regard.

And as The Hill article noted, even for those who will attend, it won’t be like the good old days when Barack Obama was president and the real Tinseltown A-Listers flocked to bask in his presence. “That really mushroomed during the Obama years,” the WHCA board member told The Hill, “because celebrities love Democrats and big party-givers love celebrities.”

Most Americans probably have better things to do than to give the WHCA Dinner much thought at all.  And the press can at least look forward to the public re-emergence of Barack Obama, who a USA Today writer called “the ultimate media President” because he “made the media feel good.”

Obama reappeared on Monday to give a speech to a friendly crowd at the University of Chicago, where he used to teach in the law school.

The news also broke this week that Obama will follow in the footsteps of Hillary Clinton by accepting $400,000 to address a gathering of Wall Street investment bankers. In a shocking display of pay inequity, however, his fee will be nearly twice what Clinton charged private businesses for similar events. This follows on last month’s announcement that the former president and first lady landed a $65 million book deal – the largest ever – for the publication of their presidential memoirs.

Of course, it’s natural for people to gather with their friends and supporters. For Trump, that means the hardworking Americans who do the necessary but mostly unglamorous work of growing, building, moving, and fixing things the country relies on for our daily lives. For the media, it means each other. And for Barack Obama, it lately means “young people” and rich bankers at whom he sometimes wags his finger but from whom he always gladly accepts large sums of money.

Here at the NRA, we look forward to seeing the president in Atlanta.

As for the surly press corps that will begrudgingly covering the events while their colleagues feast in the Nation’s Capitol, consider it an opportunity to visit that part of America that you should at least know exists, even if you remain determined to misunderstand it.

Climate Skeptics Denied Media Credentials by People’s Climate March

Update 8:30 AM EST: March for Silence?! The People’s Climate March has officially rejected issuing press credentials to our producer despite us being pre-registered for media passes and meeting all requirements. March organizers informed us that we were “not a credible” news outlet and were therefore being denied media credentials which would have granted us access to speaker and VIP areas of the march. Prior to being told we were rejected, the organizers had given no indication that we were was any kind of issue. After submitting our registration for media passes, we received regular media updates throughout the week. Developing…

Update 9:03 AM EST: March for Conformity?! CFACT’s billboard truck was refused entry into the People’s Climate March official parking lot at RFK Stadium in D.C. The truck featured two giant banners refuting man-made climate change claims. CFACT pre-registered and paid for the parking spot at the lot, but when the truck arrived at the parking lot the truck was turned away. March officials told us “why are you trying to cause trouble?” and “You can’t park here, you have to leave.” Developing…

Update 9:24 AM EST: Can’t We All Get Along? Climate activist Bill McKibben seeks Morano out at the march and has cordial meeting. Bill declines to help us get press credentials.

Skeptics To Attend People’s Climate March – Will Feature Billboards Rejecting Premise of March and Hand Out New Report Debunking Marchers’ Claims

Contact: Marc Morano – 202-536-5052 – Morano@ClimateDepot.com

WASHINGTON DC, April 29, 2017 – Climate skeptics from the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) will be in attendance at the “People’s Climate March” in our nation’s capital on Saturday April 29 and will be bringing large billboards countering the premise of the march.

Images of billboards that will be at the march below: 

 

The skeptics will also be handing out a newly released report “How to Talk Climate Change Issues 2017” offering a virtual A-Z debunking of the climate claims that will be heard at the march.

Click here for full report: “How to Talk Climate Change Issues 2017”
The “Talking Points Memo,” by veteran climate journalist Marc Morano of CFACT’s Climate Depot, is a complete skeptics’ guide for elected officials, media and the public on how to discuss global warming backed up by dozens of citations to peer-reviewed research.

“We look forward to wading into the crowds at the march and presenting the scientific facts to counter this utter nonsense, ” Morano said. “Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition,” he added.

The need for a “Talking Points Memo,” according to Morano, became evident after several government officials fared poorly in their attempts to defend a skeptical view of climate change in recent high-profile media interviews.

“It is obvious that many in Washington badly need information on how to articulate the case against man-made climate change fears,” he said.

Many of the arguments put forth by global warming advocates either embellish or distort the scientific facts on a host of issues, ranging from rising sea levels and global temperatures to polar caps to extreme weather and polar bears, among others. The “Talking Points Memo” is designed to arm people with important facts so they can better engage in climate change debate with those advocating the UN/Al Gore position. Footnotes are provided to substantiate all the claims made in the document.

The Talking Points Memo is available at ClimateDepot.com and CFACT.org

CFACT produced the 2016 theatrically released film Climate Hustle. The film is now available on DVD, Blu-Ray and streaming download at www.ClimateHustle.com

Image result for climate hustlehttp://www.ClimateHustle.com

Related Links: 

Gore, DiCaprio to descend on DC to protest Trump on ‘global warming’

Gore, DiCaprio to descend on DC to protest Trump on ‘global warming’

People’s Climate March: ‘A Demonstration Of First World Madness’
Analysis; ‘The People’s Climate March Is a Farce’ – ‘Activists don’t want to prevent a climate catastrophe; they want to force mankind to stop using fossil fuels by pressuring political leaders.’

Climate march in Denver to feature a ‘die in’: ‘People wearing black will lay on the ground as if they are dead’

Cheers! On eve of climate march, EPA removes climate change page from website
Up to 2 Foot Snow Blast Putting ‘Global Warming’ Protests On Ice In Colorado

Gore effect timed to UN climate summit in Qatar: Globe Seized By Bitter Cold – Arctic Sees Record Refreeze – UK Faces 100-Year Winter – Snow In New Zealand!

Gore Effect: The threat of a major snowstorm is already putting Denver-area climate marches on ice. With the Washington Postreporting on how the “sweltering heat” in our nation’s capital is providing a relevant backdrop for the “People’s Climate March” tomorrow, the foot of snow expected in Colorado tomorrow has already postponed one of the several planned protests in the state…But one out of the twelve protests in Colorado has already been postponed due to an impending snowstorm. The National Weather Service’s winter storm warning projects six to 12 inches of snow, but there is potential for up to two feet in the Denver Metro Area. … In December, a small group of Colorado activists protesting global warming were similarly met with extreme cold.

Image result for gore shining

Factsheet on the ‘Gore Effect’– ‘Happens when global warming-related event, or appearance by Gore is marked by exceedingly cold weather/snow’

Climate activist Laurie David quits retirement after Trump win: ‘After the election, it took me two weeks to just stop crying’ – Hollywood’s Laurie David, the Crying Activist & producer of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”: “After the election, it took me two weeks to just stop crying. I was just anticipating what was to come and what has come was worse than what I was crying about,” David told The Hollywood Reporter. “We lived through George Bush, we lived through Newt Gingrich, but that is nothing compared to what is happening.” With two national marches planned over the next seven days – the Science March on Saturday and the People’s Climate March a week later – David is back in action and renewing her efforts.

Flashback 2006: Crying Activist Part 2: UK Guardian: Laurie David cried for 3 days when John Kerry lost the presidency in 2004.‘What she did do was take to her bed and cry. For three days and three nights.’

Flashback 2007: Crying Activist Part 3: NPR: Laurie David on her climate awakening: ‘I remember crying every day at five in the afternoon’

It’s Déjà vu all over again? Middle Easterners being trained to fly in Venice, FL!

At times we forget that three of the 9/11 hijackers, including their leader Mohammed Atta, learned to fly in Venice, Florida.

Sixteen years later two citizens have discovered that Florida Flyers European US Flight School, Inc. in Venice, FL is, once again, training men from the Middle East to fly.

As American professional baseball catcher, manager, and coach Lawrence Peter “Yogi” Berra said, “It’s déjà vu all over again!”

Senior writer for the Venice Gondolier Bob Mudge took exception to this investigative journalism by two citizens. But did Mudge do his homework as a the “senior writer” for the Gondolier? Did he look into who actually owns the Florida Flyers Flight Academy? Did he look into the owner Rainer Hueckels Loeffeck? In his column on the work of these two citizen journalists Mudge wrote:

Florida Flyers Flight Academy is a relatively new Venice business, with its principal facility in St. Augustine established in 2008. State records show the president is Rainer Hueckels Loeffeck.

[ … ]

Florida Flyers Flight Academy has good connections in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Indeed, its website shows it has an office in Egypt.

florida flyers flight academy

Florida Flyers European US Flight School, Inc. facility in Venice, FL

Egypt, home to the Muslim Brotherhood, and Saudi Arabia, home of many of the 9/11 hijackers?

Our research found that The Florida Flyers European US Flight School, Inc. (aka Florida Flyers Flight Academy) is owned by president Rainer Hueckels Loeffeck and vice president Bettina Ruhrmann. According to public records, Rainer Hueckels Loeffeck has been reigstered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an airmens license. Loeffeck lives at 3355 State Road 13, Switzerland, FL. In 2013 Loeffeck was given an FAA Airline Transport Pilot Certificate (ATP), which is required to fly a commercial airliner.

Loeffeck was also the registered agent of Stellawinx, Inc. which filed as a Domestic for Profit Corporation in the State of Florida. Stellawinx, Inc,’s corporate entity was filed on Thursday, August 29, 2013 as recorded in documents filed with Florida Department of State. The president of Stellawinx, Inc. was Alexander Krueger who lives at Rheingaustr. 167 Wiesbaden, Germany. Stellawinx, Inc. is no longer active. Records show that Alexander Krueger is now the president of Winx Aviation GmbH located in Wiesbaden. According to MoneyHouse.de:

The company Winx Aviation GmbH is the commercial register at the Wiesbaden District Court under the number HRB 27560 registered. The registered legal form is limited liability company. The main activity is in the range with financial services related activities . The domicile is located in Wiesbaden. The registration took place on 17 May 2013. The Board is Alexander Krueger commissioned.

Is Krueger feeding foreign students from the Middle East to Florida Flyers European US Flight School, Inc.’s two schools in Florida?

Ziad Jarrah flying in Florida in 2000.

9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah flying in Venice, Florida in 2000.

Mudge, to make the point that this is much to do about nothing in his article quotes Arne Kruithof, owner of Florida Flight Training Center at the Venice airport, writing:

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) application requires personal information about place of birth, nationality, citizenship, residences and employment; a copy of the applicant’s passport; and, at the end, fingerprints taken by law enforcement of an approved agency.

The applicant must come on a student visa and begin training within 180 days of getting approval and finish within 360.

The flight school is involved throughout the process but “we’re not allowed to teach them at all” before the TSA gives its approval, Kruithof said. Before these new restrictions were put in place, he said, there was far less oversight. The TSA didn’t exist and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and flight schools were concerned about pilot safety, not national safety. [Emphasis added]

But Mudge didn’t fully do his research. 

9/11 Research did a profile on one of the hijackers Ziad Jarrah and the people who trained him. One is named Arne Kruithof:

Ziad Jarrah was a student at his school from 27 June 2000 to 13 January 2001. His flight instructors were Dorothy Anke Heidecke (a German national who moved to Argentina) and Frank R Martin. Jarrah lived at 400 Base Street, Suite, 221 Venice, Florida. His flatmates were Marcel von der Bruggen and Anja Ludwig. Mr Kruithof saw Jarrah at a flight school in Essen germany in Feb 2001

Although he has described himself as “the boy from Rotterdam,” according to the 911 Commission’s interview with Arne Kruithof, in 2004, Mr. Kruithof is a German national.

He describes himself on his website as follows: “Arne Kruithof, principal of Venice Aircraft Sales, has been in the aviation industry since 1988. As a former airline pilot, he has extensive knowledge of aircraft and aircraft maintenance having operated a flight school and maintenance service for almost twenty years.”

Read more…

Arne’s background is much like Rainer’s.

Mudge wrote:

The attitude among flight school owners at he time was “my job is to teach them how to fly,” he said.

That attitude is what enabled Atta and al-Shehhi — as well as Ziad Jarrah, who trained at FFTC — to get licensed despite questionable backgrounds.

Now, he said, the TSA, the FAA and the schools work together, and the fact no incidents involving student pilots or domestic flights have occurred since 9/11 is proof the system works.

But is the system working?

In a July 2012 U.S. News and World Report article titled Report: Terrorists Could Be Learning to Fly at American Flight Schools Jason Koebler reported:

More than a decade after 9/11, a new Government Accountability Office report has found significant loopholes that could allow terrorists to learn to fly in U.S. flight schools.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the TSA created the Alien Flight Student Program, a screening process that requires non-citizens or permanent residents to undergo a “security threat assessment” before being cleared to attend flight school.

The government watchdog found that of the 26,000 foreign nationals who completed flight training in the U.S. between January 2006 and September 2011, “some … had not applied to the AFSP or been vetted by TSA before taking flight training and receiving an FAA airman certificate” and that others “had not been successfully vetted or received permission from TSA to begin flight training.”

People in the country illegally are theoretically not allowed to be cleared to attend flight school, but the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has found flight schools that were training illegal immigrants. In 2010, ICE discovered that TJ Aviation, a Boston-area flight school, was training students who “consisted primarily of visa overstays and illegal aliens,” according to John Woods, a top investigator for ICE. [Emphasis added]

Read more…

According to Koebler, “Woods told the House Committee on Homeland Security that his agency has found ‘several other schools’ in the past few years that were training illegal immigrants. ‘We do find problems,’ he said.”

Remember that the The Florida Flyers European US Flight School, Inc. was established in 2008 by Loeffeck and Ruhrmann.

It appears to this writer that Mr. Mudge may be ignoring the truth that a company owned by foreigners is training men from the Middle East to fly. The question is: For what purpose?

Why these Middle Easterners want to learn to fly is open to further investigation. It appears that it will be citizen journalists who will be doing the work of people like senior writer Mr. Mudge. Mudge wrote, “Florida Flyers Flight Academy, which didn’t respond to a request for comment.” I wonder why?

Bravo to these citizen journalists, who are outdoing “senior writers” like Mudge.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

RELATED ARTICLES: 

TSA Let 25 Illegal Aliens Attend Flight School Owned by Illegal Alien

TSA Replays 9-11: Authorizes Illegals To Learn To Fly

June 27-28, 2000: 9/11 Hijacker Jarrah Enters the US; Begins Flight Training in Violation of Immigration Status

Trump’s America: 100 Days Later

Here we are folks, 100 days into Trump’s presidency. My “Never Trump” friends are still itching for Trump to betray us so they can say, “I told you so.” Well, if Trump betrays us tomorrow, we are still winners; light years down the road to making America great again than where we would be had another Republican won.

I was accused of betraying conservatism when I jumped aboard the Trump train after my candidate Ted Cruz dropped out. For me it was a no brainer. Hillary in the Oval Office would have ended America as founded. I care more about saving my country than saving conservatism.

I have also come to realize that Trump is you and me. While I have voted Republican ever since Ronald Reagan, I never got involved in politics until the Tea Party. As a rookie, political experts instructed me to walk-on-eggshells during media interviews, less the press brand our side mean and racist.

My Baltimore projects instincts kept nagging me; why please dishonest bullies who don’t care about truth and only seek to destroy you? When Trump entered the political arena, he blew up everything I was taught about how to deal with fake news media. I cheered Trump on feeling vindicated and liberated.

NeverTrumps are still embarrassed by Trump and Press Secretary Spicer. It is like NeverTrumps are in high school and fake news media are the cool kids they want to like them. I do not give a rat’s derriere about what Leftists think about me. I am focused on defeating their evil agenda. Therefore, Trump is you and me.

I suspect it has been eye-opening for our non-ideological president to see how insanely and viciously Leftists have responded to him doing common-sense things in the best interest of our country. Conservatives are the every day common-sense thinking Americans. Leftists are the extremist and wackos who are out-of-touch and out-of-sync with American values and culture.

So, while Leftists continue to have foot-stomping, pulling-out-their-hair, temper-tandems in frustration, here are several of Trump’s incredible reversals of Obama’s mess in only 100 days.

Trump ended Obama’s War on coal, bringing back jobs.

Trump reversed various Obama attempts to disarm Americans

Trump has begun rolling back Obama’s nonsensical climate change regulations.

Trump reversed Obama’s dangerous mandate for public schools to allow boys into girl’s restrooms and locker rooms. 

Trump ended Obama’s policy of forcing us to pay for abortions overseas

Trump ended Obama’s iron-fist mandate that states fund Planned Parenthood

Trump has begun unclogging Obama’s overreaching EPA water rules

Trump is fixing Obama’s awful deal in which he funded the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Thus far, Trump has signed 37 orders reversing Obama’s Make America Last policies/agenda.

Meanwhile, fake news media relentlessly promotes their false narratives; Trump has backtracked on all of his crazy/naive campaign promises; his supporters are dispirited; his administration of bulls in Washington DC’s china shop cannot get anything done.

Oh how they lie and lie and lie. Congrats Mr President on your amazing first 100 days. We are all behind you, looking forward to tax reform and repealing Obamacare.

Trump Administration Steps Up to the Plate with Tax Reform Plan

The big news on taxes this week was the Trump administration releasing its tax reform proposal.

The U.S. Chamber’s tax expert welcomed it, calling it, “the start of the conversation.”

Releasing the plan shows the administration is “stepping up to the plate and engaging and working towards pro-growth tax reform,” Caroline Harris, chief tax council and vice president for tax policy, told Bloomberg.

Harris brought up three principles of tax reform: Permanence; moving to a territorial system; and appropriate transition rules.

  1. “Businesses want certainty; they want permanence,” Harris said. Knowing what to expect will help companies determine how to best deploy investments and hire workers.
  2. “We need to shift to a territorial system, which is something we heard from the Trump White House talk about,” Harris explained. “If you have a territorial system you’re not subjecting cash to that extra layer of tax when you bring it back to the United States, and it frees that capital up going forward.”
  3. “Businesses also need time to change how they operate to respond to changes in the tax code,” said Harris. Reform should avoid causing unnecessary business disruptions.

[Here is the U.S. Chamber’s list of principles for pro-growth tax reform.]

To keep the momentum going, Harris said President Trump is “going to have to start having conversations with Chairman Brady in the House, Hatch in the Senate, with leadership—with Speaker Ryan—with Leader McConnell and parse out what they want to do and how we can have the most pro-growth tax code.”

Also, all sides need to be involved in the conversation. Republicans, Democrats, the White House, Congress, and the business community have to work together. “Everyone has to come to the table. This has to be a group effort,” she emphasized.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Steven Mnuchin, Treasury secretary (right), and Gary Cohn, director of the U.S. National Economic Council. Photo credit: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg.

Trump’s Tax Plan Is Brilliant Politics and Even Better Economics by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Donald Trump’s tax plan seems to mark a new chapter in his presidency, from floundering around with strange and sometimes scary policies (bombings, border closings, saber rattling) to focusing on what actually matters and what can actually make the difference for the American people and the American economy.

Under Trump’s plan, taxes on corporate profits go from 35% to 15%. They should be zero (like the Bahamas), but this is a good start. Taxes on capital gains go from 23.8% to 20%. Again, it should be zero (as with New Zealand), but it is a start. Rates for all individuals are lowered to three: 10%, 25%, and 35%. The standard deduction for individuals is doubled (politically brilliant). The estate tax and the alternative minimum tax is gone. Popular deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest are preserved. The hare-brained idea of a “border adjustment tax” is toast.

All of this is wonderful, but the shining light of this plan is the dramatic reduction in taxes on corporate profits. The economics of this are based on a simple but profoundly true insight. Economic growth is the key to a good society. This is where good jobs come from. This is how technology improves. This is what gives everyone a brighter outlook on life. If you can imagine that your tomorrow will be more prosperous and flourishing than today, your life seems to be on track.

Tax Capital, Wreck Prosperity

Where does economic growth come from? For decades dating back perhaps a hundred-plus years, people imagined that it could come from government programs and policy manipulation. Surely there are some levers somewhere in the center of power that can cause this thing we call economic growth. We just need solid experts with power, resources, and intelligence to manage the system.

This turns out to be entirely wrong. It hasn’t worked. Since 2008, government has tried to mastermind an economic recovery. It has floundered. We are coming up on a full decade of this nonsense with economic growth barely crawling along. We are surviving, not thriving, and income growth, capital formation, and entrepreneurial opportunity restricted and punished at every turn.

The Trump tax plan is rooted in a much better idea. Economic growth must come from the private sector. It must come from investment in private capital. The owners of this capital who are doing well and earn profits should be allowed to keep them and invest them. This creates new job opportunities. It allows for more complex production strategies. It expands the division of labor.

The crucial institution here is capital. Sorry, anti-capitalists. It’s just true. Capital can be defined as the produced goods for production, not consumption. It is making things for the purpose of making other things. Think about it. Without capital, you can still have markets, creativity, hard work, enterprise. But so long as you have an absence of capital, you are forever floundering around just working to make and sell things for consumption. This is called living hand to mouth.Without capital, and the private ownership of capital, and security over your property rights, you can’t have economic growth. You can’t have complex production. You can’t raise wages. You can’t live a better life. Every tax on capital, capital formation, capital accumulation, and business profit reduces the security of property rights over capital. This is a sure way to attack economic growth at its source.

And this is precisely what American policy has done. The rest of the world has been wising up about this, reducing taxes on capital for the last 15 years. But the US has languished in the mythology of the past, regarding capital not as a font of prosperity but rather a fund of stagnant resources to be pillaged by planners in government. It is not surprising that this strategy results in slow growth and even permanent recession.

What This Can Do for Growth

I have no regression to present to you but this much I can say out of experience and intuition. If this tax plan goes through, the entire class of entrepreneurs, investors, and merchants will receiving a loud signal: this country is safe for you to realize your dreams and make the dreams of others come true.It wouldn’t surprise me to see GDP growth go from an anemic 1-2% to reach 4% and higher in one year. There is so much pent-up energy in this country. This tax cut will unleash it. And think what it means for the next recession or financial crisis. It prepares the entire country to weather such an event better than we otherwise would.

The beauty of unleashing the power of private capital is that the brilliant results will always be surprising. We don’t know what kind of experimentation in investment and business expansion this will create. This is the nature of a capitalist economy rooted in the freedom of enterprise. It defies our every expectation. No model can forecast with precision the range of results here. We only know that good things will come.

Now, of course, the opponents will talk of the deficit and the national debt. What about the lost revenue? The problem is that every revenue forecast is based on a static model. But an economy rooted in capital formation is not a static one. It is entirely possible that new profits and business expansion will produce even more revenue, even if it is taxed at a lower rate.If you want to cut the deficit, there is only one way: cut spending. I see no evidence that either party wants to do this. Too bad. This should change. But it is both economically stupid and morally unsound to attempt to balance the budget on the backs of taxpayers. Letting people keep more of what they earn is the right thing to do, regardless of government’s fiscal problems.

In the meantime, these pious incantations of the word “deficit, deficit, deficit,” should be seen for what they are: excuses to continue to loot people of their just earnings.

The Politics of It

Already the opponents of this plan are kvetching in the predictable way. This is a tax cut for the rich! Well, yes, and that’s good. Rich capitalists  – sorry for yet another hard truth – are society’s benefactors.

But you know why this line of attack isn’t going to work this time? Take a look at the standard deduction change. It is doubled. Not a single middle-class taxpayer is unaware of what this means. This is because they are profoundly aware of how the tax system works. If you take the standard deduction from $6,200 to $15,000, that means people are going to keep far more of their own money. There is not a single taxpayer in this country who will not welcome that.

This is why it strikes me as crazy for Democrats to inveigh against this plan. Doing so only cements their reputation as the party of pillage. Do they really want the United States to be outcompeted by every other nation in the OECD? What they should do is rally behind this, forgetting all the ridiculous pieties about the deficit and the rich and so on. Do they favor the interests of the American people are not?It’s also fantastic politics to retain the deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest. These are popular for a reason. They are two of the only ways that average people can save on their tax bill. It always pained me when the GOP would propose a “flat tax” that eliminated these provisions. People are very aware: taking away an existing tax break is a terrible foreshadowing of bad things to come. So this Trump plan dispenses with all that. Good.

As for compliance costs of the current system, the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax will do worlds of good.

What I love most about this plan is its real-world economic foundation. It embraces a truth that so many want to avoid. If you want jobs, rising wages, and economic growth, you have to stop the war on capital. You have to go the other way. You need to celebrate capital and allow rewards to flow to those who are driving forward economic progress.

It’s a simple but brilliant point. Finally, we’ve got a tax proposal that embraces it.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

‘The Catholic Church…has become one of Islam’s loudest boosters’

In this excellent piece, George Neumayr refers to the rupture of relations between the Vatican and al-Azhar that took place during the time of Pope Benedict. As I explained here, that rupture took place because Pope Benedict dared to speak out about the Muslim persecution of Christians.

By contrast, Francis energetically defends Islam, and leaves the persecuted Christians twisting in the wind, so he is acceptable to al-Azhar.

The worst part about this is the fact that because this man is Pope, all too many Catholics, including some in positions of high authority, treat him as if he were a divine oracle, his every utterance to be revered, respected, studied, and followed. Because of the statement of Vatican II that “religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra,” and “must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will,” Catholic leaders and publications tend to think that they must adhere to anything the Pope says about anything.

This leads them into impossible positions. When Pope Benedict XVI appeared to criticize the aspects of Islam that incite and justify violence, they allowed for criticism of Islam. When Francis showed himself to be an Islamic apologist, they became Islamic apologists. All too many Catholic leaders and institutions, in other words, are more interested in being papists than in being truthful. They would rather show loyalty to the Pope, no matter how damaging his utterances, than stand for the truth on the own against the Pope.

The contradiction is clear, and absolute. If the Catholic Church has become one of Islam’s loudest boosters, then those who are aware of the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, rooted in Islamic texts and teachings, have to make some hard decisions about where they stand.

“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

POPE-ISLAM-NON-VIOLENT“The Papal Propagandist for Islam Heads to Egypt,” by George Neumayr, American Spectator, April 26, 2017 (thanks to Lookmann):

As the prototypical progressive Jesuit, Pope Francis prides himself on his “ecumenism.” He oozes enthusiasm for every religion except his own. At the top of his list of favorite religions is the Church’s fiercest adversary — Islam.

He often sounds more like a spokesman for CAIR than a Catholic pope. After jihadists cut off the head of a French priest in July 2016 — yelling “Allahu Akbar” over the priest’s slit throat — Pope Francis rushed to the defense of Islam. “I don’t like to talk about Islamic violence, because every day, when I read the newspaper, I see violence,” he said, before ludicrously blaming the rise of terrorism on the “idolatry” of free-market economics: “As long as the god of money is at the center of the global economy and not the human person, man and woman, this is the first terrorism.”

As Europe turns into Eurabia, Pope Francis is picking up honors and awards from progressives, including, hilariously, the 2016 “Charlemagne Prize” for his Islamic apologetics. It is hard to imagine a Christian leader less like Charlemagne. Pope Francis is energized not depressed by the disappearance of Christian Europe. “States must be secular,” he told La Croix. Christian states, he said, “end badly” and go “against the grain of history.” He added that “when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful.” It also takes on “colonialist overtones,” he complained.

The most liberal pope ever, of course, sees no irony in shilling for the most illiberal religion on Earth. On his anti-colonialist scorecard, Islam wears the white hats and Christian Europe, the black ones. After jihadists gunned down ten journalists at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, Pope Francis rushed to Islam’s defense again, in effect rebuking the dead journalists for incitement: “You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.” Those who do, he continued, should “expect a punch.”

This week Pope Francis takes his pro-Islamic apology tour to Egypt. Previewing the trip, which starts on Friday, he said he seeks to “offer a valid contribution to inter-religious dialogue with the Islamic world.” Francis’s fawning media courtiers are already rolling out the propaganda for it, predicting that it will “build bridges to moderate Islam.”

“A main reason for the trip is to try to strengthen relations with the 1,000-year-old Azhar center that were cut by the Muslim side in 2011 over what it said were repeated insults of Islam by Francis’s predecessor, Pope Benedict,” according to Reuters. “Ties with the center were restored last year after [Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb] visited the Vatican. Tayeb, widely seen as one of the most moderate senior clerics in Egypt, has repeatedly condemned Islamic State and its practice of declaring others as apostates and infidels as a pretext for waging violent jihad.”

Being “one of the most moderate senior clerics in Egypt” is about as meaningful a distinction as being one of the most chaste Kardashian sisters. Useful idiots in the West call Tayeb moderate, but anyone paying attention knows that he is not, unless calling for the killing of apostates now counts as “moderate.”…

Past popes regarded Islam as a font of poisonous heresies. Dante placed Muhammad in hell. St. Thomas Aquinas said Muhammad peddled “fables and doctrines of the greatest falsity” and sardonically remarked upon the perverse basis for his claim of divine favor: “Muhammad said that he was sent in the power of his arms — which are signs not lacking even to robbers and tyrants.”What has changed? Nothing. Islam remains as violent as it started. But one thing is new: The Catholic Church, under the death-wish progressivism of Francis, has become one of Islam’s loudest boosters.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Europe: What Happens to Christians There Will Come Here

Robert Spencer, PJM: Florida Diocese Punishes Teacher Who Quoted Saint’s Critique of Islam

Austrian President: Day will come when we ask all women to wear headscarf

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:

islam graphic

Why I Left Islam: An Iranian-American Speaks

“I see a lot of love in Christianity, I see a lot of anger and hate in Islam,” stated my anonymous Iranian-American interlocutor to me in his condominium building manager’s office. My interview partner related a revealing personal spiritual and geographic journey away from his boyhood Islamic faith and Iranian homeland to an adult Christian conversion in America.

The son of personally pious Muslim Iranians, “Martin” lived in Iran until 1974, when his parents sent him away at the age of 16 to England for high school. Without any coercion from his parents, his own devotion had prompted him at the age of 12 to attend Quran classes and undertake the Islamic regimen of five daily prayers. Yet Islamic law only requires that boys begin these prayers at the age of 14.

Top 50 countries - Christian persecution

Top 50 countries where Christians are persecuted.

Martin ended his Quran class visits and daily prayers shortly before leaving after the ninth grade for England, where the juxtaposition of his Islamic faith and life in the West created a personal crisis. “I was living in England, all the classes are mixed, boys and girls,” he recalled. “As a Muslim I am not supposed to shake hands with women, I am not supposed to date, I am not supposed to drink, and I couldn’t do that in England.” To violate Islamic strictures in a country like the United Kingdom, “it doesn’t necessarily even have to be sex. But your normal daily life — you can’t do it.”

Seeking to solve his personal dilemma, Martin recalled from his religious training that “in Islam they have different classes of sins,” some minor and forgivable (saghira), others grave and unforgivable (kabira). Among the latter, being a munafiq or hypocrite, the “way I learned Islam, is never forgiven by God. Assume that you are an atheist and you repent towards the end of your life, God will forgive you.” “But if you are a Muslim and you are a munafiq, God will never forgive you,” such that Martin wanted to avoid declaring himself a Muslim while flouting Islamic norms. “I became an atheist out of selfish reasons, because at least there was a chance for me to get forgiven.”

Martin remained an atheist through his college years, graduate school studies, and subsequent life in the United States until 2003 when he married his second wife. This Christian woman wanted a Christian wedding, and he professed his atheism to her pastor during prenuptial counseling. “I was really truly impressed by the way he handled it. You go to a Muslim mullah, try to marry, and say I am an atheist, they will kick you out right away,” yet the pastor did not object and married his congregant to Martin. After he began attending his wife’s church services, the pastor asked Martin to attend Christian education classes, beginning a process that led to his 2013 baptism.

Martin offers interesting reflections upon his personal understanding of the differences between Christianity and Islam. “In Christianity you are loved no matter what by God. The pastor who married us, a perfect example, right, even though I was atheist he was the most respectful person to me.” Additionally, “in our church, for example, when we pray, we pray for other faiths, we pray for people who do not even believe in God….You never see that in Islam, they only pray for themselves.”

By contrast, Martin recalls from his Iranian Quran classes that “most of the Quran is how God will punish you.” In Islam God often “gets angry at you. If you read the Quran, it’s all if you do this you will burn forever, if you do this you will be with snakes,” a vengeance all the more terrifying given Islam’s numerous legalisms. “Christianity is not a rigid religion, whereas Islam tells you what to eat, what not to eat, what to wear, what not to wear, how to make love, how not to make love, how to go to the bathroom, they just have laws for every single thing you do.” Martin recalled Islamic toilet etiquette demanding that a person enter a bathroom with the left leg and not relieve himself facing either towards or away from Mecca.

Martin’s personal joy in becoming a Christian contrasts with the depressing development of his homeland since the 1979 Iranian revolution established Iran’s Islamic republic. Remembering his devout yet tolerant parents, he notes that “I have a problem with Islam as a politics, as an ideology, not as a religion.” “There are two types of Muslims. There are religious Muslims, that is a private matter, it’s for themselves, and there are these political Muslims, which is this new breed since the Iranian Revolution.”

Martin has good memories of the “shah’s generation” in an Iran where the ruling Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi drank champagne and did not force women to veil. “Under the shah, you wanted to go to mosque, you could; you wanted to go to discotheque, you could,” and his father, “as religious as he was, he never forced anybody not to drink, it was their business.” He had Jewish clients at his Tehran carpet shop, indicative of a past more tolerant Iran in which Martin befriended people from Iran’s various religious minorities.

infochristian-persecution2The personal experience of Martin’s first wife, an Iranian Baha’i whom he met and later divorced in the United States, exemplified the Islamic Republic of Iran’s repression after the shah’s overthrow. Islamic doctrine considers this religious community founded in Iran heretical and therefore “najis” or unclean. His choice of wife was therefore not uncontroversial, and “there was some resistance, even from my parents, but they grew to love her.”

The grandmother of Martin’s wife died in 1981 and the Islamic Republic’s harsh repression of the Baha’i also extended into death. Depressing for the wife, Iran’s Islamic laws prohibited public funerals and tombstones for Baha’is, meaning that ‘basically you have to bury them as unknown.” Among various discriminations against the Baha’i in the economy and education, the “most cruel thing is you cannot even bury your dead with respect.”

Martin’s various visits to post-revolutionary Iran have hardly discovered an Islamic paradise:

Now there are more alcoholics in Iran then under the shah, because people are making it in their own homes. The kind of things that are happening in Iran, anti-Islamic things, like sex before marriage, drinking, drugs, you name it, it was nothing like that under the shah. Basically their rigid laws, sharia laws, have backfired bigtime.

Martin remembers that the shah’s Iran was far more developed than South Korea, but since 1979 South Korea has developed into a modern society while Iran has stagnated despite its enormous oil wealth. He last visited in 2002 for his mother’s funeral, but the sight of social malaise such as widespread drug addiction and adolescent girls turned into prostitutes moved him to never return. Additional concerns of being arrested and used as a political pawn like other Iranian dual-nationals such as Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian only strengthened his vow that “I have no desire to go back….I have lost Iran, to me Iran is dead.”

Two of Martin’s sisters have added to his loss by using his Islamic apostasy against him in Iranian legal proceedings in order to claim his inheritance. As noted by his lawyer, his sisters stated in court that their brother is now a kafir, or infidel, making him ineligible for inheritance under Islamic sharia law (his unwillingness to return to Iran only worsened his legal case). These sisters, one of whom used to enjoy dancing in clubs, have bewildered him with their new-found piety after the revolution and their current strong support for Iran’s hardline Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

After a drawn-out 11 year legal process following his mother’s death, Martin’s lawyer was able to only win for him about one-twentieth of his inheritance. His sisters “felt justified cheating me because according to them I am infidel.” “Their God might even reward them basically for cheating a Christian person because according to them right now I am not their brother anymore, I am done. And believe me, if they could, they would kill me.”

iran police beat citizens

Shariah patrol

Back home in the United States, Martin is “afraid of Muslims becoming powerful here, as they have in Europe,” where incidents of Islamic vigilantism like Germany’s “sharia patrols” have appeared. He “had to kick somebody out of my house” when a Muslim visited with a group of Martin’s friends. The Muslim “said, why are you serving alcohol? I said this is my house; this is none of your business. I said, you don’t like it, get out.”

Martin warns that with sharia-observant Muslims “this is how they start. Oh, could you be respectful, it’s against my religion.” “These Muslims, they say, oh we are a religion of peace and everything. The only reason they say that is because they are in a minority. They want to impose their way of life.” He considers Khamenei’s predecessor, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, whose 1989 fatwa called for killing British writer Salman Rushdie; “where is the peace in that?”

Martin correspondingly views American converts to Islam with deep skepticism and reproaches them for naiveté concerning their new faith. “All these young kids here that convert to Islam, any chance I get I ask them, that is fine, that is your free will, but what is going to happen to you if you change your mind.” Any apostasy for them “would be signing their own death sentence” in any circumstances where the traditional Islamic death penalty for apostasy would be applicable such as in Iran’s Islamic Republic; “that is the true Islam.” “It really breaks my heart when I see young kids here converting to Islam not knowing what they are getting into.”

Martin’s isolated optimistic observation notes that, despite severe repression, many Iranians are converting in precisely the opposite direction and swelling Iran’s growing ranks of underground church members:

The reason they are going to Christianity is basically my reason, is love….They have experienced 38 years of rigid sharia law, which is hate really, nothing else, there is no love involved, and people are showing resistance….They have seen what Islam can do.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Half of Prominent Jihadis Tied to “Non-Violent” Islamism, New Study Shows by IPT News

Europe: What Happens to Christians There Will Come Here

Reunion Island: Muslim shoots and wounds two French cops as they try to arrest jihadi

Germany: Number of migrant criminal suspects soars by more than 50% in 2016

President Trump has admitted 12,218 refugees since Inauguration Day: 1,472 Syrians, 1,359 Somalis

Since we are coming up on 100 days I was anxious to see how Trump was doing with his campaign promise to (at least) put a moratorium on the UN/US Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days to review how refugees are vetted and look to assure “extreme vetting” was put in place.

My guess about the flip-flop: His friends in the hotel and food production industries told him they needed this steady supply of low wage refugee laborers whose wages you supplement with welfare payments. Great business model!

Ho hum! Isn’t happening! And, I don’t want to hear of one defender who says he was stymied by judges. He never had to place a refugee slowdown in an Executive Order!  The Refugee Act of 1980 gives the President enormous powers.

Here (below) is a screenshot map of where the 12,218 were placed since Inauguration Day up until this morning’s data at Wrapsnet.

This puts the number for the fiscal year, as of today, at 42,235.

Trump also said he was capping the number for the year at 50,000, but at the present rate of admission, he will surpass 60,000 (an average number since 9/11).

Top resettlement countries included:

  • Burma (1,497) 401 of these are Rohingya Muslims who, like Syrians, cannot be vetted.
  • DR Congo (1,866) We are well on our way to reach 50,000 we promised the UN we would scatter across America.
  • Iraq (1,503) Over 122,000 have been admitted since 2009.
  • Somalia (1,359) We have admitted well over 100,000 over past 20 years, will it ever end?
  • Syria (1,472) Remember Trump said he would stop them completely, even said he would send some back, ha! ha!

How many Trump refugees did you get?

Alaska got 23 while the diversity-lovers in Hawaii got a big fat zero (again!). LOL! Of course, D.C. got none. And, for new readers wondering about Wyoming, it is the only state in the nation to have never joined the program.

Biggest tests for Trump come in September. 

If he throws billions of taxpayer dollars to the refugee industry in the 2018 budget and doesn’t drastically cut refugee admissions for the upcoming year, then we will know for sure that the United Nations/US Refugee Admissions Program will never be reformed.

EndNote:  I was just reminded of the story from yesterday about Ivanka Trump’s views on Syrians, here.  Sure hope Daddy isn’t listening to Ivanka (again!).

All extreme weather is either declining or at or near record lows

The federal government has just released yet another key piece of scientific data that counters the man-made global warming narrative. The federal U.S. Drought Monitor report shows that droughts in the U.S. are at record lows in 2017. See: Feds: U.S. drought reaches record low in 2017 as rain reigns – Sees lowest levels of drought ever monitored

“Drought in the U.S. fell to a record low this week, with just 6.1% of the lower 48 states currently experiencing such dry conditions, federal officials announced Thursday. That’s the lowest percentage in the 17-year history of the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor report,” USA Today reported on April 27. (Ironically, climate activists had declared California to be in a permanent drought: Flashback 2016: Warmist wrong claim: ‘Thanks El Niño, But California’s Drought Is Probably Forever’)

But it is not just droughts that are at or near record levels. On almost every measure of extreme weather, the data is not cooperating with the claims of the climate change campaigners. Tornadoes, floods, droughts, and hurricanes are failing to fit in with the global warming narrative. 

Below is a complete rundown of the very latest on extreme weather conditions: Update data from the 2016 Climate Depot report: Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit

Extreme Weather: Scientist to Congress in 2017: ‘No evidence’ that hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes are increasing – Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. of University of Colorado

Tornadoes: NOAA Tornado data revealing 2016 as ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ and below average for 5th year in a row

Hurricanes: 1) Inconvenient NOAA report: ‘It is premature to conclude (AGW has) already had a detectable impact on’ hurricanes & 2) NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major (Cat 3+) Hurricane Strike & 3) 30 peer-reviewed scientific papers reveal the lack of connection between hurricanes & ‘global warming’

Floods: ‘Floods are not increasing’: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams ‘global warming’ link to floods & extreme weather – How does media ‘get away with this?’ – Pielke Jr. on how extreme weather is NOT getting worse: ‘Flood disasters are sharply down. U.S. floods not increasing either.’ “Floods suck when they occur. The good news is U.S. flood damage is sharply down over 70 years,” Pielke explained.

Heavy Rains: 1000 year rainfall study suggests droughts and floods used to be longer, worse

Extreme weather used to be blamed on ‘global cooling’ in the 1970s and early 80s Flashback NOAA 1974: ‘Extreme weather events blamed on global cooling’ – NOAA October 1974: ‘Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world’

Full Report on Extreme weather:

Below are more detailed data and information about the lack of extreme weather. Updated from the 2016 Climate Depot report: Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit

Extreme Weather:

Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer in 2016: “Global warming and climate change, even if it is 100% caused by humans, is so slow that it cannot be observed by anyone in their lifetime. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and other natural disasters have yet to show any obvious long-term change. This means that in order for politicians to advance policy goals (such as forcing expensive solar energy on the masses or creating a carbon tax), they have to turn normal weather disasters into “evidence” of climate change.”

New 2015 paper finds global warming reduces intense storms & extreme weather – A paper published in Science contradicts the prior belief that global warming, if it resumes, will fuel more intense storms, finding instead that an increase in water vapor and strengthened hydrological cycle will reduce the atmosphere’s ability to perform thermodynamic Work, thus decreasing the formation of intense winds, storms, and hurricanes.

25 New Papers Confirm A Remarkably Stable Modern Climate: Fewer Intense Storms, Hurricanes, Droughts, Floods, Fires…

Study in Journal Climate: Climate change does not cause extreme winters – Cold snaps like the ones that hit the eastern United States in the past winters are not a consequence of climate change. Scientists at ETH Zurich and the California Institute of Technology have shown that global warming actually tends to reduce temperature variability.’

PROF. ROGER PIELKE JR: TESTIMONY ON THE CURRENT STATE OF WEATHER EXTREMES: ‘It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally’

Link to full testimony of Roger Pielke Jr. to Congress: ‘It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases’

“Globally, weather-related losses ($) have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%) and insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.”

Have we Advanced? Report: Extreme Weather Extreme Claims: ‘In Little Ice Age, witchcraft was blamed for the devastating climate

Climate Skeptics turn tables on ‘attribution’ studies – Ask: Is ‘global warming’ causing a decrease in ‘extreme weather’ events?

‘We never hear the absence of extreme weather analyzed.’ Is ‘global warming’ causing less ‘extreme weather?!’

How Do They Explain ‘The Extreme Weather Events That Did Not Happen’

Climate Astrology: Flashback CIA 1974: Moscow Drought And Midwest Floods Caused By — Global Cooling

Flashback 1974 – CIA blamed extreme weather on global cooling and expanding Arctic ice

Global Cooling Causes More Extreme Weather–World Meteorological Organisation 1975

The 1970’s Global Cooling Alarmism: ‘Extreme weather events were hyped as signs of the coming apocalypse & man-made pollution was blamed as the cause’

CIA 1974 National Security Threat: Global Cooling/Excess Arctic Ice Causing Extreme Weather

NCAR 1974: Global Cooling And Extreme Weather Is The New Normal (National Center for Atmospheric Research)

Extreme weather used to be blamed on ‘global cooling’ in the 1970s and early 80s!

Flashback 1981: Climatologists blame recurring droughts & floods on a global cooling trend that could trigger massive tragedies for mankind’ – Flashback 1981: Climatologists now blame recurring droughts and floods on a global cooling trend that could trigger massive tragedies for mankind’ – Chicago Tribune – Nov. 25, 1981  http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1981/11/25/page/27/article/perspective …

Heavy Rain Used To Be Caused By Global Cooling, But Now Caused By Global Warming: Time Mag. 1974: ‘During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries’

Flashback NOAA 1974: ‘Extreme weather events blamed on global cooling’ – NOAA October 1974: ‘Many climatologists have associated this drought and other recent weather anomalies with a global cooling trend and changes in atmospheric circulation which, if prolonged, pose serious threats to major food-producing regions of the world’

Droughts: 

Feds: U.S. drought reaches record low in 2017 as rain reigns – Sees lowest levels of drought ever monitored

Flashback 2016: Warmist wrong claim: ‘Thanks El Niño, But California’s Drought Is Probably Forever’ –Wired Mag Claim:  – May 2016: “Despite the snow in the Sierra Nevada, the water filling Lake Shasta, and the rapids in the Kern River, California is still in a state of drought. For now, maybe forever. Even the governor thinks so. On May 9, Jerry Brown issued an executive order that makes permanent certain emergency water cuts from the past few years.”

2017 Reality Check:

What “permanent drought”? New all-time 2017 rainfall record set for California

California’s governor says ‘never-ending drought’ is officially over

False ‘Permanent Drought’ Alarm: California’s Rainy Season in 2017 Now Ranks 2nd All Time In 122 Years Of Records

Lessons learned from the end of California’s ‘permanent drought’
Permanent drought?! ‘How LA went from bone-dry to 216% above average rainfall in 4 months
‘Permanent drought’ update 2017: UC Davis Prof.: ‘We certainly don’t have a statewide drought right now’ in California -California storms add 350 billion gallons to parched reservoirs

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., a Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), revealed in 2016 that droughts were not getting worse.

Is U.S. drought getting worse? No,” Pielke wrote and revealed this EPA graph:

Pielke authored the 2014 book “The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change.”

New Study: Megadroughts in past 2000 years worse, longer, than current droughts – A new atlas shows droughts of the past were worse than those today — and they cannot have been caused by man-made CO2. Despite the claims of “unprecedented” droughts, the worst droughts in Europe and the US were a thousand years ago.

Even the recent California’s drought is not related to climate change. Much more severe California droughts occurred with lower allegedly ‘safe’ CO2 levels. According to the data, “past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years.” “Researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years – compared to the mere 3-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe mega-droughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.”

Scientists: ‘Severe droughts experienced recently…can no longer be seen as purely natural hazards’ – Land use & water management contribute

Flashback: Experts Blamed ‘Global Cooling’ For The Widespread Droughts Of The 1970s

DROUGHT CONDITIONS ACROSS THE U.S. VERY LOW – Limited to only 1.6% of continental US

False ‘Permanent Drought’ Alarm: California’s Rainy Season Now Ranks 2nd All Time In 122 Years Of Records
California’s governor says ‘never-ending drought’ is officially over
The below is excerpted from the 2016 Climate Depot report: Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit

Floods:

‘Floods are not increasing’: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams ‘global warming’ link to floods & extreme weather – How does media ‘get away with this?’ – Pielke Jr. on how extreme weather is NOT getting worse: ‘Flood disasters are sharply down. U.S. floods not increasing either.’

“Floods suck when they occur. The good news is U.S. flood damage is sharply down over 70 years,” Pielke explained.

In a message aimed at climate activists and many in the media, Pielke cautioned: “Remember, disasters can happen any time and they suck. But it is also good to understand long-term trends based on data, not hype.”

Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. Rips flooding claims using UN IPCC quotes: ‘No gauge-based evidence has been found for a climate-driven, globally widespread change in the magnitude and frequency of floods’

Pielke Jr.: What did UN IPCC AR5 conclude on trends in flooding? 5..4..3..: ‘There continues to be a lack of evidence & thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude &/or frequency of floods on a global scale.’

Pielke Jr.: But doesn’t more extreme precipitation mean more floods? Again the SREX authors in 5..4..3: ‘Despite the diagnosed extreme-precipitation-based signal, and its possible link to changes in flood patterns, no gauge-based evidence has been found for a climate-driven, globally widespread change in the magnitude and frequency of floods during the last decades.’

Pielke Jr. : ‘How about IPCC SREX authors on floods? 5..4..3..: ‘A direct statistical link between anthropogenic climate change and trends in the magnitude/frequency of floods has not been established”

“Floods have not increased in the US in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of US GDP have dropped by about 75% since 1940”

Feds declare no climate link to floods in 2015 – South Carolina’s ‘1000 year flood’ only a 10 year flood! U.S. Geological Survey: ‘No linkage between flooding & increase in GHGs’

Dr. Robert Holmes, USGS National Flood Hazard Coordinator:  ‘The data shows no systematic increases in flooding through time’ – ‘USGS research has shown no linkage between flooding (either increases or decreases) and the increase in greenhouse gases. Essentially, from USGS long-term streamgage data for sites across the country with no regulation or other changes to the watershed that could influence the streamflow, the data shows no systematic increases in flooding through time.’

1000 year flood? ‘The majority of USGS streamgages had flood peaks that were less than 10-year floods.’ –  ‘Analysis show NO indication that a 1000-year flood discharge occurred at any USGS streamgages’

Heavy Rains:

NOAA bastardizes science in Louisiana rain modeling study – Climatologists, data, & history refute NOAA’s claims

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. slams NOAA study as ‘manipulation of science for political reasons.’ ‘NOAA should be embarrassed.’

Pielke Sr.: ‘From under reviewed paper to NOAA PR to USA Today. A dismaying example of manipulation of science for political reasons.’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano on new NOAA study: “No matter how hard federally funded climate activist scientists at NOAA try to bend and twist models and data to make it appear the invisible hand of ‘global warming’ has a role in almost every weather event, the facts refute their claims.”

Real Climate Science website’s Tony Heller’s analysis: NOAA rain modeling study ‘has no scientific basis, and ignores all available actual data’ – ‘Man-Made Modeling Abuse Increases The Odds Of NOAA Fraud’ –  ‘The NOAA study has no scientific basis, and ignores all available actual data. Software models can be written to produce any result the author wants to produce. They are not evidence of anything other than deep corruption at NOAA.’ – ‘There has been no increase in heavy rains in Louisiana.’

1000 year rainfall study suggests droughts and floods used to be longer, worse

Tornadoes:

NOAA Tornado data reveals 2016 as ‘one of the quietest years since records began in 1954’ and below average for 5th year in a row, the federal agency is hyping statistics which allegedly show an increasing number of tornadoes.

Meteorologist Bastardi: ‘Extreme lack of tornadoes. Will need ‘second season’ to stop it from being quietest year on record!’

Flashback 2015: NOAA: Number of major tornadoes in 2015 was ‘one of the lowest on record’ – Tornadoes below average for 4th year in a row – ‘The year finished with 481 tornadoes of EF-1 strength or greater, the fourth year in a row that has been below average. Perhaps more significantly, the number of EF-3 and stronger tornadoes was one of the lowest on record. You have to go back to 1987 to find fewer. There were no EF-5s at all, and only three EF-4s.’

Hurricanes:

NOAA: U.S. Completes Record 11 Straight Years Without Major (Cat 3+) Hurricane Strike

But Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano pointed out that those who predicted more major hurricane activity due to climate change now want to change the definition of a major hurricane because their predictions have fallen short of reality. “With a new metric, warmists can declare every storm ‘unprecedented’ and a new ‘record’,” Morano said.

30 peer-reviewed scientific papers reveal the lack of connection between hurricanes & ‘global warming’

Extreme Weather Expert in 2016: ‘Incredible streak of no-US major hurricanes (Cat 3+) continues – 4,001 days & counting – Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. has done one very important climate thing today – he’s updated his now famous graph of hurricane drought.

He writes:

Extreme weather expert Professor Pielke Jr. noted: “US hurricane landfalls (& their strength) down by ~20% since 1900” and reveals this graph.

Weather Channel Founder Says Hurricane Matthew Is ‘Nature Not Mankind’

Clip from the film ‘Climate Hustle’: Extreme weather claims debunked – Climate Hustle now available on DVD!

US Atmospheric Scientist Sees No Link Between Hurricanes And Global Warming Over Past 30 Years

In fact Klotzbach’s plot above shows that there has even been a modest decline.

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. slams ‘global warming’ link to floods & extreme weather – How does media ‘get away with this?’

Pielke Jr. on how extreme weather is NOT getting worse:

‘Flood disasters are sharply down. U.S. floods not increasing either.’

‘Is U.S. drought getting worse? No.’

‘U.S. hurricane landfalls (& their strength) down by ~20% since 1900.’

‘Recent years have seen record low tornadoes.’

Professor Pielke Jr. also noted: “US hurricane landfalls (& their strength) down by ~20% since 1900” and provided this graph.

2016 season: U.S. Hits Record 127 Months Since Major Hurricane Strike

Tuesday marks a record 127 months since a major hurricane has made landfall in the continental United States, according to statistics compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Hurricane Research Division, which keeps data on all the hurricanes that have struck the U.S. since 1851.

The current drought in major hurricane activity is a “rare event” that occurs only once every 177 years, according to a study published last year by researchers at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) entitled The Frequency and Duration of U.S. Hurricane Droughts.

The Real ‘Consensus’: Global Warming Causes FEWER Hurricanes

Obama Longest-Serving President Not to See a Major (Cat 3 +) Hurricane Strike The U.S.

Obama has seen just four hurricanes make landfall on his watch, none of them classified by NOAA as major storms. Three were Category 1 storms (Irene in 2011; Isaac and Sandy in 2012) and just one was a Category 2 hurricane (Arthur in 2014).

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. rips NYT’s Coral Davenport for ‘false claims’ about typhoons: ‘Tropical cyclones, including the most powerful ones, have not become more common in the Philippines’

New paper finds strong hurricanes were much more common than thought during low-CO2 period 1851-1898 – Published in the Journal of Climate

 Flashback: FEMA Dir. Craig Fugate said hurricanes cyclical, not linked to Climate Change 

Flashback: Scientists reject Sandy/Climate Link — Warmists Go Full ‘Tabloid Climatology’ & Claim Sandy Speaks! — Round Up of Hurricane Sandy Reactions

Flashback 2014: PROF. ROGER PIELKE JR: TESTIMONY ON THE CURRENT STATE OF WEATHER EXTREMES: ‘It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally’ — Link to full testimony of Roger Pielke Jr. to Congress: ‘It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases’  Globally, weather-related losses ($) have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25%) and insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.

• Hurricanes have not increased in the US in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since at least 1900. The same holds for tropical cyclones globally since at least 1970 (when data allows for a global perspective).

A Peace Summit Sullied

Arab leaders met in Egypt for the Arab League Summit ostensibly to start a peace process with Israel, the same peace process that the Arabs have, without exception, always declined in the past.  This time, they hope that our new President Trump will support a two-state solution, one that would give Israel a contiguous border with her avowed, homicidal enemy. They also expect to negate Trump’s campaign promise to move America’s embassy to Israel’s capital, Jerusalem, in keeping with the construct of violence that the Mohammedans have scorched into the history of every vanquished territory.

Arab recognition of Israel’s right to exist was part of the 1948 peace plan, yet this is what the Arabs sidestep. 

They want a Palestinian state not alongside, but in place of, Israel. Since the Arabs lost their aggressive war of June 1967 against Israel, they have sought to obtain the territory by other means – if not through warfare then through demographic jihad – the overwhelming of the small Jewish State by those who fled in 1948 together with their progeny, a total of 4.3 million.  What do they promise in return?  Nothing.  Not to stop the riots, violence, intifadas.  Not to stop teaching hate in their schools.  Not to strive for real peace with their neighbor state, Israel. Ever.

Meanwhile, an Islamic State (IS) jihadist, Abu Baker Almaqdesi, revealed their “big operation” to encircle Israel’s borders, and attack and expel the Jews from “occupied Palestine.” Concurrently, the Jerusalem Postreported that UNESCO is considering a resolution that will contest Israel’s sovereignty over western Jerusalem, home to all of Israel’s governing bodies.

Washington Post reporter and Cairo bureau chief Sudarsan Raghavan wrote about the Arab League Summit on March 29, in his article, “In a message to Trump, Arab leaders renew calls for a Palestinian state,” but strategically omitted crucial information!  He said that the Arab League called for fresh peace talks with reconciliation if Israel returns the “Arab lands it has occupied,” but the premise is completely fallacious.  The territories to which he refers, the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and eastern Jerusalem are not “Arab lands” or Palestinian lands, but lands in dispute by both parties because the Palestinians are challenging the internationally accepted rule that the aggressor has no lawful claim to land.  Raghavan has not the authority to exchange the designations of ‘disputed territories’ for ‘occupied Arab lands.”  Repeating the assertion does not bestow validity.

The United Nations defines an act of aggression as being in contravention of the UN Charter, ruling that a war of aggression is always wrong.  Further, the UN states that territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is always unlawful.

The Jews have maintained ties to their historic homeland for more than 3,700 years; if not for foreign conquerors, an independent Jewish state would, today, be 3,000 years old.  Even after Jewish exile, small Jewish communities remained for 2,000 years, and in the early 20th century, returning Jews developed the land from a largely uninhabited wasteland with malarial swamps into a thriving, dynamic, productive society, recognized by legal documents.  Only then did the Arabs begin to show an interest in the land.  There has never been an independent Palestinian state; the allegations are yet another warfare strategy.

By design, Raghayan does not clarify that Israel’s control of these disputed areas came from fighting and winning a defensive war; the Arabs were the aggressors. For example, after Germany’s defeat in World War I, the Treaty of Versailles placed punitive conditions on Germany, with significant financial reparations, loss of territory, humiliation and war guilt, yet the Arabs, despite their aggression and loss, are permitted to demand territory!  Further, had Jordan not joined the war, it would not have lost the West Bank or eastern Jerusalem – over which it reigned for a mere 19 years. As the victorious defenders, Israel has no obligation to withdraw to the 1967 borders, to negotiate and offer compromises, particularly as the Palestinians continue their terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli citizens.

Jordan’s King Abdullah has repeatedly blamed the region’s instability on the Palestinian cause, yet history confirms that the Middle East has, to this day, suffered from 7th century backwardness, ignorance, countless civil wars, sharia law’s brutality, and the rise of ISIS, none of which are related to Israel.  The King’s focus on the Palestinian issue in the midst of so much internal strife in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, is undoubtedly calculated to give the White House a false impression of Arab unity and agreement.

Raghavan’s article suggests that Israel is inflexible, but Israel offered the Palestinians a contiguous state, withdrawal from 95% of the West Bank and 100% of Gaza, and to dismantle more than 100 of her own communities.  Israel had also offered religious sovereignty over the Temple Mount and a right of refugee return with reparations, yet the Arabs rejected negotiations in 2000, 2001, and 2008.  Neither does the bureau chief address Israel’s very legitimate security concerns.

If Israel were to cede the Golan Heights, it would give ISIS the elevation advantage to shell Israeli citizens below and attack Tel Aviv and Israel’s major airport with impunity.  In the past, Israeli children had been forced to sleep in bomb shelters.  The Palestinian Authority was supposed to renounce terror and prohibit lethal weapons and violence on Israel, yet they give access to shiploads of explosives to arm the P.L.O. and Hamas, and continue their classes and summer camps, where they indoctrinate the Palestinian public and children to seek martyrdom by killing Israelis.  Their teachings violate the letter and spirit of the peace agreements.  They continue to be deadly partners for peace.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s campaign promise of relocating the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is on hold.  As with all ideas repugnant to Islam, the proposal is countered with threats of anger and violence.  The Koran contains at least 109 versus that call Muslims to war for the sake of Islamic rule.  Mohammed’s own martial legacy against all of “Infideldom” and the Koran’s stress of violence continue their trail of misery and death across 14 centuries of world history.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said a two-state solution was the “only path to ensure [that] Palestinians and Israelis can realize their national aspirations and live in peace, security and dignity.” Regrettably, he has no concept of their true national aspiration.  If we learned anything from Islamic history, it is that a partial conquest today means another claim for tomorrow, until Israel is dedicated to Allah.  Because despite the Arab infighting, all factions of Islam agree on one thing – that Israel – and the West – have no right to exist.

The President’s Tax Plan Massacres the 1%ers in the 10 States with Highest-Tax Rates

As the media slices and dices the proposed tax plan offered by President Trump’s Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on April 26th, one thing is clear – the rich will pay more in taxes than the working class.

In the Daily Signal article How Trump’s Tax Plan Would Affect High-Tax States Like California, New York Fred Lucas writes:

High-income earners in high-tax states would see a federal tax rate cut, but may pay more in the end if they’re unable to deduct state and local taxes under President Donald Trump’s tax reform proposal announced Wednesday.

The White House released the contours of his tax reform proposal that would lower tax rates and reduce the number of tax brackets. However, the plan would also reduce the number of tax deductions.

When a reporter asked if deducting taxes on state and local income taxes would also be eliminated, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin answered, “Yes.”

U.S._Democratic_Party_logo_(transparent).svgSo, Democrats should be very excited about taxing the rich, so will the 99%ers, like Occupy Wall Street, who have been for taxing the rich. This has been the mantra of the Democrat Party – Tax the Rich!

So which are the states with the highest tax rates? The national average for state income taxes is 9.9%. According to the 2017 Tax Guide published on BankRate.com the 10 highest taxed states are:

  1. New York – Tax burden: 12.7%

  2. Connecticut – Tax burden: 12.6%

  3. New Jersey – Tax burden: 12.2%

  4. Wisconsin – Tax burden: 11%

  5. Illinois – Tax burden: 11%

  6. California – Tax burden: 11%

  7. Maryland – Tax burden: 10.9%

  8. Minnesota – Tax burden: 10.8%

  9. Rhode Island – Tax burden: 10.8%

  10. Oregon – Tax burden: 10.3%

President Trump’s plan does what Democrats have made the goal of their platform. Make the rich pay more. But wait!

Lucas reports, “House Republicans were already reportedly considering eliminating the deduction on state and local taxes, which could disproportionately affect wealthy people in high-tax blue states such as New York and California.” The question is: Why?

The President’s tax plan would put pressure on the ten states listed above to lower their state income tax rates. Isn’t this ultimately good for the successful working class people of New York and California? The 99%ers!

This provision, among the other key policy shifts in the President’s tax plan are bold and make good on his promise to cut taxes, just not on the rich, many of whom have said they are happy to pay more in taxes.

Seems like a win-win to me. How about you.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump goes big on tax reform

Trump tax plan prompts GOP fears about deficit

Trump Tax Plan Cheat Sheet | Fox Business