Women are so despised and devalued in Islamic culture that it leads to this sort of thing. And even though this article says that Muslim clerics and the Taliban object to the practice, the Qur’an says that in Paradise, the blessed will be attended not only by the famous virgins, but by boys like pearls as well:
“Those are the ones brought near in the Gardens of Pleasure, a company of the former peoples and a few of the later peoples, on thrones woven, reclining on them, facing each other. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal with vessels, pitchers and a cup from a flowing spring.” — Qur’an 56:11-18
“And they will be given to drink a cup whose mixture is of ginger, a fountain within Paradise named Salsabeel. There will circulate among them young boys made eternal. When you see them, you would think them scattered pearls. And when you look there, you will see pleasure and great dominion.” — Qur’an 76:17-20
And the U.S. military leadership was so intent on pursuing our futile, fruitless, wasteful, pointless misadventure in Afghanistan that they became accessories to this behavior. The whole lot of them should be dishonorably discharged.
“Navy analysis found that a Marine’s case would draw attention to Afghan ‘sex slaves,’” by Dan Lamothe, Washington Post, September 1, 2016:
Last fall, the Navy Department had a controversial disciplinary case before it: Maj. Jason C. Brezler had been asked by Marine colleagues to submit all the information he had about an influential Afghan police chief suspected of abusing children. Brezler sent a classified document in response over an unclassified Yahoo email server, and he self-reported the mistake soon after. But the Marine Corps recommended that he be discharged for mishandling classified material.
The Navy Department, which oversees the Marine Corps, had the ability to uphold or overturn the decision. However, rather than just looking at the merits of the case, Navy officials also assessed that holding new hearings on the case would renew attention on the scandal surrounding child sex abuse in Afghanistan, according to military documents newly disclosed in federal court.
The documents, filed Tuesday in a lawsuit by Brezler against the Navy Department and Marine Corps, also show that Marine and Navy officials in Afghanistan were aware in 2012 of allegations of abuse against children by the Afghan police chief but that the chief was allowed to keep his position in Helmand province anyway. This became a major issue after a teenage boy who worked for the chief — and allegedly was abused by him — opened fire on a U.S. base Aug. 10, 2012, killing three Marines and badly wounding a fourth.
The five-page legal review, written last October by Lt. Cmdr. Nicholas Kassotis for Vice Adm. James W. Crawford III, the judge advocate general of the Navy, recommended that the Marine Corps’ actions against Brezler be upheld. Calling for a new administrative review, known as a Board of Inquiry, would delay actions in the case another six to nine months and possibly increase attention on the case, “especially in the aftermath of significant media attention to the allegations regarding the practice of keeping personal sex slaves in Afghanistan,” Kassotis wrote. A month later in November, acting assistant Navy secretary Scott Lutterloh upheld the Marine Corps’ decision.
Brezler’s case has drawn new attention in recent months as critics of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton have compared her email controversy to Brezler’s, noting that the officer’s military career is on the brink of being over. He sued the Marine Corps and Navy Department in 2014, saying that he was a victim of reprisal for discussing his case with a member of Congress, and it has languished in court since. Brezler wants to block his dismissal, which is now on hold.
Navy and Marine Corps officials declined to discuss the case or the new documents filed in it, citing the pending litigation. A spokesman for the Justice Department, which is handling the lawsuit for the government, also declined to comment.
The Navy Department’s observation about Brezler’s case was made as another U.S. service member’s career was in jeopardy because of his response to alleged child sex abuse in Afghanistan. In that instance, Army Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland made headlines after the Army decided last year to involuntarily separate him from the service because of a reprimand he had received for hitting an Afghan Local Police (ALP) official in 2011 after the man laughed about kidnapping and raping a teenage boy. The Army overturned its decision in April and allowed Martland, a Green Beret, to stay in the military after Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.) intervened.
The Martland case opened a dialogue in which numerous veterans of the war in Afghanistan said they were told to ignore instances of child sex abuse by their Afghan colleagues. The Defense Department’s inspector general then opened an investigation into the sexual assault reports and how they were handled by U.S. military officials who knew about them.
Brezler’s attorney, Michael J. Bowe, said Wednesday in an email that his client is entitled to a “real review” of his case — “not a whitewash designed to avoid uncomfortable press stories about child rape by our ‘partners’ in Afghanistan.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/child-rape-afghanistan-e1473073338483.png376640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2016-09-05 07:02:272016-09-05 07:02:27Military Commanders told U.S. soldiers to ignore child sex abuse by Afghan ‘allies’
“The Islamic Organization of the Southern Tier worries the wording could encourage hatred toward Muslims living in the area, painting all Muslims with the same brush.”
This is an oft-used and tired talking point. How does identifying the motivating ideology of the 9/11 attackers paint all Muslims with the same brush? Does referring to the Italian mafia amount to calling all Italians mafiosi? Does referring to German Nazis mean that one is calling all Germans National Socialists?
This is just an attempt to deflect attention away from the ideology of the 9/11 hijackers, and to keep people ignorant and complacent regarding the fact that those hijackers were working from Islamic principles that are embedded within the Islamic texts that are read and studied and taught by the Islamic Organization of the Southern Tier.
“Group in southern New York town takes issue with writing on 9/11 memorial monument,” WWMT, September 1, 2016 (thanks to Blazing Cat Fur):
OWEGO, N.Y. (NEWSCHANNEL 3) – A 9/11 memorial monument is causing controversy in a small town in southern New York state.
A group has taken issue with the writing, which calls the perpetrators Islamic terrorists.
The Islamic Organization of the Southern Tier worries the wording could encourage hatred toward Muslims living in the area, painting all Muslims with the same brush….
The Islamic group has asked that the monument just read, “terrorists” or even “Al-Qaeda terrorists.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Islamic-Terrorist.jpg350640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2016-09-05 06:52:522016-09-05 06:52:52Muslims enraged that 9/11 monument in small New York town calls perpetrators ‘Islamic terrorists’
Has the Libertarian a Party been hijacked by the globalists and the Democrats?
Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson became visibly upset during an interview Wednesday after being asked about “illegal immigration.”
While speaking with Townhall’s Guy Benson, Johnson, a former New Mexico governor, began demanding that the term “undocumented” be used in lieu of “illegal.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Libertarian-Gary-Johnson.jpg392641Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-09-05 05:43:462016-09-05 05:44:20VIDEO: Alex Jones Exposes Pro-Amnesty Libertarian Gary Johnson
I like many others have since 9/11/2001 studied Islam and tried to understand what it really is, and how to define it. Is it a Geo-political system set on world dominance? Is it a religion? Is it an ideology? Is it peaceful or violent? Is it all of the above?
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn said, “You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists.” General Flynn is referring to those in the U.S. government and world leaders who refuse to use the label “radical Islam.”
But will using the label “radical Islam” actually help defeat this enemy?
I had a transformative discussion with one of our contributors Selwyn Duke. His take on Islam is unique and powerful.
I sent an email to Selwyn noting, “The statement ‘Islam is the religion of peace’ has two big lies bundled into one sentence. Lie one: Islam is not a religion it is a global ideology focused on world domination. Lie two: there is nothing peaceful about how Islam establishes its caliphate.”
Selwyn responded with:
With respect to Islam, the point people miss is not that Islam seeks to govern a person’s whole life; Christianity is meant to do that as well, in that we’re obligated to be Christians at all times and in all things.
The problem with Islam is that it is evil. And because at heart people believe “things,” it really matters not if we label Islam a religion or ideology; in other words, religious or secular.
People believe it’s significant because they’ve accepted the secular/religious dichotomy, and they seem to think that labeling it an ideology will help us combat it. Perhaps it will help us win some battles. But while I’ve heard people claim that it would allow the criminalization of Islam, this is an odd notion. Our First Amendment not only protects freedom of “religion” but also of speech. Thus, even the Nazis and communists can try and spread their beliefs.
So while re-branding Islam would allow us to remove its tax-exempt status, it wouldn’t stop its adherents from proselytizing.
We didn’t defeat the Nazis via re-branding. We accepted that Nazism was evil and took it from there. The label we need to attach to Islam is not “ideology,” but “evil.”
Just as Ronald Reagan labeled the former Soviet Union as evil, so too must the United States and the free world label Islam as evil.
That is how one defeats any and all enemies of the free world.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/islamic-mineret-christian-cross-e1472984292801.jpg334640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-09-04 06:19:252016-09-05 05:34:34Once you understand that Islam is evil, only then can it be defeated
People who tell pollsters that they own guns: Now you see them, now you don’t. A new poll from Pew Research has found that 44 percent of American households own guns, up a whopping 29 percent from the figure reported in a poll conducted for the same organization two years ago.
Impressed by the incredible trend, the Washington Examiner reported, “more homes are reporting having a weapon inside,” while Bearing Arms said that the poll showed that there is “an increasing number of gun-owning households in the United States.”
However, what these polls really show is that folks shouldn’t put too much faith in polls. It’s no more true that gun ownership has risen 29 percent in the last two years than it declined 26 percent over a two-year period in the early 1990s, as Gallup polling found at the time.
The “decline” a generation ago just happened to take place right as gun control restrictions were being imposed at the federal level. As we explained in July, “Ever since the early 1990s, when then-President Bill Clinton pushed the Brady bill, the federal so-called ‘assault weapons’ and ‘large’ ammunition magazine ‘ban,’ and regulations that drove many gun dealers out of business, many gun owners have not identified themselves as such during the surveys.”
Gallup recognized as much, saying, “A clear societal change took place regarding gun ownership in the early 1990s, when the percentage of Americans saying there was a gun in their home or on their property dropped from the low to mid-50s into the low to mid-40s and remained at that level for the next 15 years. Whether this reflected a true decline in gun ownership or a cultural shift in Americans’ willingness to say they had guns is unclear.”
With President Obama unable to impose gun control during his last months in office, with Americans increasingly supporting gun ownership rights, and with gun control propaganda having been discredited by recent events at home and abroad, some previously cautious gun owners may now be willing to tell a complete stranger on the phone that they own guns. However, such complacency may change in a hurry, if Hillary Clinton is elected and begins using the power of the presidency to undermine gun owners’ interests.
At the end of the day, no one knows what percentage of American households own guns, and no one should know. Even in our present technological age, when some seem eager to reveal things about themselves to anyone who will pay attention, the rest of us surely can understand that there is nothing to be gained, but perhaps something to be lost, by informing complete strangers that we own something of value, be it guns, jewelry, a big screen TV, a stamp collection, or anything else.
If, for that reason, future polls show artificially low numbers of gun owners, as they have for most of the last 25 years, so be it. The only polls that count are the ones that are conducted on Election Day. If enough of us do our civic duty in November, the message we will send will be anonymous, but the whole country will it receive loud and clear.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/woman-baby-and-shotgun-e1580218176230.jpg293397NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2016-09-04 05:38:342016-09-04 05:38:34PEW poll: 44 percent of American households own guns
This week, pro-gun members of Congress responded to the Obama administration’s attempt at backdoor gun control through the U.S. State Department (DOS) with strongly worded letters demanding corrective action.
In July, we reported on an ill-advised attempt by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls of DOS (DDTC) to “clarify” who is a regulated firearms “manufacturer” for purposes of the Arms Export Control Act and its implementing rules, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
As we noted in that report, DDTC’s “guidance” document creates far more confusion than clarity and threatens to chill lawful behavior and put small commercial gunsmiths who cannot afford ITAR’s heavy compliance costs out of business.
DDTC’s move is all the more egregious, considering the fact that the Obama Administration has for years pledged to remove most firearms and ammunition from ITAR’s scope, in favor of the more business-friendly jurisdiction of the Commerce Department.
This so-called Export Control Reform (ECR) initiative was originally aimed at “building higher walls around a smaller yard” by strengthening controls on America’s most sophisticated defense technologies, while reducing unnecessary restrictions and regulations on less sensitive items.
Firearms and ammunition – among the most common and least sophisticated defense technologies and technologies with obvious and legitimate markets in the private sector – were supposed to be the first categories to be moved over from DDTC’s jurisdiction to that of the Commerce Department.
But because of President Obama’s antigun politics, they remain among the last of the “munitions” categories to be amended. Meanwhile, as DDTC’s ECR website notes, the agency has already reviewed such categories as “Toxological Agents,” “Spacecraft and Related Articles,” and “Directed Energy Weapons.” For DDTC to suggest firearms and ammunition already present in tens of millions of American homes are somehow more militarily sensitive than those items is absurd on its face.
To make matters worse, DDTC has been building the “higher walls” on ITAR’s remaining items, meaning that the firearms and ammunition that remain under ITAR’s control will be even more stringently regulated than in the past.
Fortunately, pro-gun members of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate are aware of the problems and sent Secretary of State John Kerry strongly-worded letters this week expressing their concerns and urging DDTC to complete the process of Export Control Reform. Dozens of senators and well over one hundred representatives signed onto the letters.
According to the letters, “the last thing [the affected small businesses] need is an edict from the federal government imposing crippling fees and requirements which are wholly unnecessary and nonsensical.” They also ask for a specific date by which the administration will finish the process of Export Control Reform.
In the meantime, NRA is working with industry representatives on corrective legislation, should DDTC prove nonresponsive.
We thank U.S. Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) and U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) for their leadership in this critical effort.
Stayed tuned for further updates on this developing situation.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/e-pluribus-unum-eagle-e1472981521348.jpg360640NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2016-09-04 05:32:202016-09-04 05:32:20Pro-Gun Members of Congress Respond to State Department’s Disastrous Manufacturing “Guidance”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/bloddy-iranian-flag.jpg361640Clarion Projecthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngClarion Project2016-09-03 11:35:292016-09-04 05:25:04VIDEO: Top 10 Innocent Women Who Were Executed in Iran
Trump’s visit to Mexico this week was a watershed moment in the presidential campaign season. In one daring move, Donald J. Trump proved that his rhetoric as a candidate is already producing desired diplomatic and policy effects. Moreover, it shows that Mexico considers a Trump presidency a very real possibility.
Meanwhile, John Kerry suggests that the media should cease covering terrorism.
Abroad, Obama’s best pal – Turkey’s Recep Erdogan – has once again stepped up the vicious targeting and ethnic cleansing of Kurds. This pits two official U.S. allies against each other in parts of (what left of) Syria and Iraq. And on our recent trip we encounter “refugees” in the old Athens International Airport.
Topics of Discussion:
Trump’s Trip to Mexico and Speech on Immigration
Hillary’s 18 hour daily naps
Turkey targets the Kurds – again
Soros’ poisonous effect on 2016 election
Refugees occupy old Athens International Airport
and more…
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-mexico-transnational-report.jpg364640Wallace Bruschweilerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngWallace Bruschweiler2016-09-03 10:39:092016-09-03 10:39:57PODCAST: Trump In Mexico, Turkey vs. Kurds, Muslim Refugees Occupy old Athens Airport
It can be a good thing to be idealistic. But you’d better make sure you have the right ideals. As to this, the modern West is quickly becoming something non-Western — precisely because our ideals are now far less than ideal.
It has often been noted that some among us use our freedoms to destroy our freedoms. George Soros, a real-life James Bond villain, comes to mind; other leftist entities such as the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center also qualify, as they sue Americans into shedding Americanism. Another example is a group they aid and abet: Muslim conquerors bent on winning the West for Dar al-Islam. And since this is not just an American phenomenon but a Western one, it has recently been addressed by a French academic — in strikingly blunt language.
Jean-Louis Harouel, professor emeritus of the History of Law at the University of Paris, recently criticized a French court’s decision to strike down a burkini (Islamic swimsuit) ban that had been instituted by dozens of the nation’s municipalities. Here are some of his words, as translated by Jihad Watch’s Hugh Fitzgerald:
[T]he Conseil d’Etat [the court] failed to take into account the fact that France is now engaged in a clash of civilizations, that just in the past year has cost it hundreds of deaths on its own territory, and which made it necessary to maintain the State of Emergency. “Islamism” is now making war on France, and there is no real boundary-line between Islam and Islamism.
The Conseil d’Etat failed to take into account the shock felt by the French people on seeing burkinis deliberately appearing on the beaches so soon after terrible massacres had been committed in France by Muslims acting in the name of their god. So soon after the carnage on the promenade in Nice and the slitting of the throat of a priest while he was fulfilling his priestly duties, such an increase in the flaunting of Muslim identity is truly indecent.
The Conseil d’Etat failed to take into account the fact that at present a silent conquest of Western Europe is underway. This conquest finds its source in the Qur’an where one can read that Allah has promised to give to the Muslims as the spoils of war the lands of the Infidels. That’s how sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradawi, one of the leaders of the UOIE (Union of Muslim Organizations in Europe), the French branch of which is the UOIF (Union of Muslim Organizations in France) put it: “With your democratic laws, we will colonize you. With our Koranic laws, we will dominate you.”
The Conseil d’Etat refused to see that the conquest of our beaches by these burkinis is only one stage in the taking over of France by the forces of political Islam. The Conseil d’Etat refused to see that those wearers of the burkini – like all those who wear variations on the Muslim veil — are the foot-soldiers, whether deeply convinced or merely docile, of a civilizational jihadism which is now trying to conquer our country by stealth.
To speak simply, the “rule of law” too often means condemning the peoples of Europe to helplessness when confronted by the mass immigration that is submerging them, and the aggressive Islam that is in the process of conquering their countries. To be able to react, it will be necessary to give the “rule of law” a bit of a shove, as it is currently being imposed on Europeans in this positively suicidal fashion by the secular religion of human rights.
In this confrontation with Islam, to conceive of the principle of “laicite” as being neutral in regard to different faiths will not work. For Islam is only secondarily a religion in the sense given to that word in Europe. In our country, Islam is now an aggressive civilization that is at war with our own and claims to replace it. Now, facing another civilization bent on our conquest, we cannot be neutral: we have to defend ourselves and counter-attack.
The main point is this: a Muslim living in Europe should not expect to be able to live as he would in a Muslim country. Muslims who have settled on European soil have constantly to be reminded that they are not in Dar al-Islam but, rather, in the land of the Infidels where, even their own sacred texts tell them, they should keep a low profile. If the Muslims living in Europe come to feel that they are living in Dar al-Islam, that will mean the end of Europe.
And it is leading to the end of Europe, just as our suicidal immigration regime — wherein 85 percent of our newcomers hail from the Third World and Asia — is contributing to the death of Western culture in the U.S.
When considering these suicidal policies, it occurs to me that our Western liberals are like children playing at government. Our second president, John Adams, said in 1798,
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
How many of us understand the true meaning of that statement? And how many of us are willing to contemplate its implications?
We could, of course, convince ourselves that Adams didn’t know what he was talking about. Yet he was merely echoing great thinkers, men such as Irish philosopher Edmund Burke, who warned “It is written in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” Benjamin Franklin likewise observed, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”
Once we recognize the validity of Adam’s statement and that he uttered it not just because, hypothetically, there could in some alternate universe be peoples lacking the moral foundation for healthy representative government, some striking matters must be pondered:
Peoples unfit to live under our form of government do exist in this world.
Given this, it’s dangerous to the republic to allow them, as a group, into our country.
It’s also dangerous to have cultural institutions — the media, academia and our entertainment realm, for instance — that breed “men of intemperate minds.”
Then there’s this question: since foreign peoples “inadequate” to our form of government exist, who might they be? Pro tip: when people empower vile socialists in their native lands or think Sharia law should be preeminent, it’s a clue.
Of course, much of this could be solved if we actually adhered to our Constitution. Note that the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (emphasis added). The founders specified “Congress,” thus constraining only the federal government’s legislative branch. States were meant to have more power in this area, and, in fact, prior to 20th-century, incorporation-theory jurist fantasies, this was recognized.
Were it still, states could conceivably prohibit, oh, let’s say, a religion wholly incompatible with Western civilization. Instead, we don’t even have a correct understanding of “establishment,” which is why a Satanist was recently allowed to give an invocation before an Alaskan municipal legislature. I suspect, by the way, that these days Satan is a big civil libertarian.
If our current ideals don’t allow us to exclude people who vow, “With your democratic laws, we will colonize you,” then those ideals are only for schlemiels.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/death-by-freedom.jpg333640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2016-09-03 07:10:222016-09-03 07:25:04Islam and the West’s Death by “Freedom”
For more than a year, pundits have wondered what the “once-in-a-lifetime” deal that President Barack Obama claims he has made with Iran was really about.
It now seems certain that there really was no deal: Obama merely danced around the nuclear issue.
What he wanted was a smoke screen behind which he could help the Iranian theocracy negotiate its way out of a severe political and economic crisis in exchange for endorsing Obama’s claim that he had prevented “yet another war” in the Middle East. He wanted a photo op with another long-time enemy of the US, another Nobel Prize — or at least justification for the one he already has.
He failed on all fronts.
“Iran’s nuclear program remains intact,” asserts Ali-Akbar Saleh, the man who heads the Iran Atomic Energy Agency. “We have done nothing that could not be undone with the turn of a screw.”
The Islamic Republic of Iran made yet another anti-American propaganda film.The Iran regime Forces believe their Mahdi will come and defend them in WWIII fighting with USA. MEMRI TV Institution released the film showing young Iranians destroying U.S. ships with battle their battle cries:
This propaganda film titled “Steadfastness 2” was produced by the Organization of Islamic Information, an office under the supervision of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
According to the pro-Khamenei website Javan, the production of the seven-minute film took two years. It shows the Iranian response to a U.S. attack in the Persian Gulf, with young men brandishing the Iranian flag and and vanquishing the American aircraft carriers with their battle cries.
The film drew the ire of a pro-government website, asriran.com, which stated that the story-line was “weak” and that the video-clip was like “a ridiculous Bollywood movie,” which, moreover, “ignores Iran’s military capabilities.”
The propaganda film appeared on the Javan website on August 21 and was posted on the Asriran website, along with the criticism, on August 24.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Steadfastness-2-iran-film.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-09-03 06:34:372016-09-03 06:50:24Did U.S. taxpayers help fund Iran’s latest anti-American propaganda film?
On August 22, 2016, U.S. News & World Report published the sobering article, “Dream On:Growing inequality has made the American ‘rags to riches’ story more myth than reality.”
While the Labor Department boasts about an unemployment rate of approximately 5 percent, the reality is that the statistic ignores the plight of tens of millions of working age Americans who have given up looking for work and are therefore not a part of the labor force.
Furthermore, that 5 percent unemployment figure does not note how many American workers are underemployed or working at part-time jobs.
The original concept of the “American Dream” depended on the growing middle-class where anyone who was willing to acquire a good education and work hard might write the next “American success story.”
Prior to World War II, the immigration laws of the United States were enforced by the Labor Department and were designed to shield American workers from foreign competition. The politicians of “The Greatest Generation” understood that for America to succeed, Americans needed to succeed.
Back then, major U.S. corporations saw in American school children their future employees and made certain to provide scholarships and training programs to entice American students to pursue studies in what is now referred to as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) disciplines.
Today, most major corporations have morphed into multinational companies that no longer say a “Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag and to the republic for which it stands…” but to the bottom line.
The result has been to make it more difficult for American workers to move up the economic ladder to attain their thin slice of “The American Dream.”
This is not limited to unskilled and semi-skilled workers either.
Consider this excerpt from the U.S. News & World Report article that was predicated on a recent study by Michael Carr and Emily Wiemers of the University of Massachusetts, published at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth:
“Many factors probably contribute to the slow but significant decrease in mobility. These same factors reduce the value of college education, even as the cost of college has increased greatly. Globalization reduces the earning power of even educated workers, for example as computer programming moves offshore. Changes in work structures take earning power away from even the most highly educated: For example individual physicians earn less than they did, while more goes to the large health care providers that employ them. Even knowledge-intensive jobs can be automated, with investment advisers now facing competition from computer programs that allocate capital. Finally, with growing inequality, the rungs on the economic ladder are farther apart, so it takes a bigger increase in earnings to jump from one rung to another.
“As inequality mounts, and our society slowly becomes more stratified, political unrest will increase. This unrest has transformed the presidential election campaign. Regardless of who wins, the pressure will grow to find more equitable ways to expand opportunities and to share the wealth that results.”
While the report noted off-shoring of high-tech jobs as a contributing factor, it must also be pointed out that, increasingly, more foreign high-tech workers with H-1B visas and foreign students who are provided with increasing time in which to work in the U.S. under the guise of “optional practical training” are displacing ever more American workers and suppressing the wages of all of these professionals.
The only thing “exceptional” about these foreign workers is that they are willing to work for exceptionally low wages under exceptionally adverse conditions.
While Americans at the top of the economic food chain benefit most from profits of their companies, most other Americans find themselves running up a “down economic escalator” that is accelerating.
Consequently more Americans than ever before are finding it increasingly difficult to succeed. They are losing their disposable incomes.
It is not unusual for journalists on talk shows to question why the U.S. economy has not improved. Perhaps the answer they are seeking can be found in the destruction of the middle-class consumer base that traditionally formed the foundation for the demand for goods and services that kept the American economy humming.
This is a classic example of “killing the goose that laid the golden egg.” In point of fact, Americansmust do well for America to do well.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/globalism-1-e1472828932431.jpg369640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2016-09-02 11:09:002016-09-15 07:49:54Globalism and the Death of the American Dream
Last week, San Francisco 49ers football player Colin Kaepernick disrespected the United States, the NFL and his team by refusing to stand during the playing of our national anthem in a pre-season game.
Now we learn that he has also demonstrated a great disrespect for police officers. According to cbssports.com, since at least August 10, Kaepernick has been wearing socks during practice sessions that show a pig in a police hat. At right is a photo of Kaepernick wearing the sock.
As a player who wears a professional football uniform, Kaepernick is a public representative of the National Football League and the San Francisco 49ers football team. His actions continue to embarrass all professional sports and bring reproach on his team.
America is also stunned at his overt disrespect for the nation that guarantees him the freedom to earn millions of dollars each year.
It is important for the NFL to take necessary steps to insure that its players, coaches, and teams show proper respect for our country and our police officers. If Kaepernick is allowed to continue his deeply offensive actions, it will only lead to other such movements by other players in the future.
TAKE ACTION
Sign the petition calling on the NFL to take disciplinary action against Colin Kaepernick for his disrespectful actions while engaged in official NFL activities.
EDITORS NOTE: Readers may wish to support the American Family Association financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/colinjpg-e1472813030925.png355640American Family Associationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAmerican Family Association2016-09-02 06:44:312016-09-12 04:31:28Sign the Petition to the NFL: Discipline Colin Kaepernick
Hillary doesn’t want a fair fight. Or even an unfair fight. She wants to cripple the GOP so it can’t fight at all. It’s the ultimate rigged election…
We’re a little more than two months from the November 8th election and everyone knows that all Democrats, a good number of Republicans and conservatives, and almost the entire media have been agonizing over and militating against the fact that billionaire businessman Donald Trump is the last man standing in a contest that pits him against Crooked Hillary for the presidency of the United States.
But why are no professional political commentators—on TV, radio, or in print—explaining exactly why Mr. Trump is such a mortal threat? After all, he has proven himself to be an upright citizen, a wildly successful businessman, the bestselling author of over a dozen books, a philanthropist, the father of five respectful and loving children the eldest of whom are also impressively contributory members of society, the representative of every value Republicans and conservatives traditionally stand for—low taxes, fewer regulations, secure borders, a strong military, strict conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, et al—and significantly a person who has never been accused of being complicit in the deaths of U.S. servicemen, under the ominous investigation of the FBI, or operating an international money-laundering slush fund that compromises the national security of the United States.
Here is the answer: It’s all about the deal!
Underneath the veneer of “service” our elected politicians purport to be driven by, underneath the “ethical standards” our financial centers pretend to operate, and underneath the gauzy illusion of objectivity the media pretend they represent, the so-called culture of the D.C.-Wall St.-media complex is all about cozy arrangements that inevitably line the pockets of those engaged in the following kinds of local, regional, national and international deals, to name but a few:
You get the picture. In all these “arrangements,” either people with limited power (meaning with limited money, like most politicians when they start out) always get “persuaded” (meaning bought) to do what they know is wrong, but they just can’t resist the irresistible aphrodisiacs of money and power; or people with piles of money engage in schemes that increase their wealth and power exponentially. Some deals are actually legitimate, but too many dealmakers are involved in cynical collusion or corrupt collaborations.
In the political world, with notable—but pitifully few—exceptions, there is little difference between a “strict conservative” like Paul Ryan and a far-left ideologue like Nancy Pelosi. Whether it’s a deal that’s bad for America like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the dumbed down so-called standards of Common Core, or facilitating the building of nuclear bombs by the terrorist state of Iran, both left and right somehow find ways to bathe in the same swamp.
MEDIA COLLABORATORS
Speaking of journalists, who exactly are these seekers of truth, intrepid investigators and earnest news readers who so often seem unable to control the impulses to blurt out their own leftwing two-cents worth (read CBS’s Norah O’Donnell, the entire staff of NBC and MSNBC, Fox’s Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith, the staff of Reuters, et al)? How can they get away with their biases with such total impunity?As “Deep Throat” advised The Washington Post journalists Bob h4Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, “follow the money.” It’s always about the money.
It’s because, as Ashley Lutz at Business Insider reports, only six organizations are now responsible for 90 percent of all of the “news” we read, watch and listen to. That’s right—in 1983, there were 50 media companies, today only six! They include:
GE (Comcast, NBC, Universal Pictures, Focus Features).
NewsCorp (Fox, Wall St. Journal, NY Post, et al).
Disney (ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Miramax, Marvel Studios)
Viacom (MTV, Nick Jr., BET, CMT, Paramount Pictures)
Time Warner (CNN, HBO, TIME, Warner Bros.)
CBS (Showtime, Smithsonian Channel, NFL.com, Jeopardy, 60 Minutes)
In other words, the Shepard Smiths and Norah O’Donnells of the media world are simply obedient servants to the tastes, political predilections, and often greed of their bosses, who all happen to be globalists engaged in the massive, multibillion-dollar deals described above. They only reflect the biases of their owners, the people who pay their salaries.
The media, however, seem to be in a downward spiral. Most national news magazines are in their death throes, as is the entire dinosaur newspaper industry, including The NY Times, which still gets mention on the nightly news, but has utterly lost the credibility and cachet it once had.
What about TV’s influence, including cable? If the ratings NBC received for its Olympics coverage is any sign, this medium is being eaten alive by the likes of Netflix and other media alternatives. Gary North writes about the statistical irrelevance of cable news, citing the fact that The Drudge Report gets about one-billion page views a month. In contrast, the approximately 115,000 households in the U.S., which account for roughly 225-million adults, give cable shows like MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show and Fox News’ The Kelly File a paltry 400,000 viewers apiece—a literal drop in the viewership ocean.
“Are we supposed to believe,” Mr. North asks, “that either Ms. Maddow or Ms. Kelly has any significant influence, or even marginal relevance, for the American body politic, or body anything else?” Their audiences offset each other, he says, but “even if they reinforced each other, we could not hear them. They would still be background noise.”
Emmett Tyrell Jr., founder and editor of The American Spectator, sums it up quite neatly: “With the trashing of Donald Trump and the “celebration of a career criminal, the mainstream media have become passé.”
But they keep trying, as we see from the insults, outbursts, lies, character assassination, and general hysteria being hurled in Trump’s direction every day. The entire establishment is running scared. NY Times reporter Jim Rutenberg was all in knots a few weeks ago when he wrote—clearly with the blessing of his editors—journalists were justified in writing openly “oppositional” articles about Trump—objectivity out, bias in. Now why do you suppose those editors approved of this journalistic malpractice?
Because the Times is in on the globalist deals—big time! As are the hedge-fund moguls, the wolves of Wall Street, the political establishment both right and left, the Big Pharma honchos, all those foreign princes and sultans and tin-pot dictators, both friends and enemies of the U.S., as well as all the donors to the Clinton Foundation slush fund, who are all slurping from the same trough.
Shamefully, of the 154 meetings Ms. Hillary had during her tenure in the State Department, 85 were with donors to the Clinton Foundation—to the tune of $156 million dollars! That is how the crooked system worked quite seamlessly until Donald Trump questioned, challenged, and damned it!
A DIRE PREDICTION FOR THE “IN” CROWD
Robert Smith explains in AmericanThinker.com that a Trump victory in November “won’t end well for the global elites” who inhabit “New York, DC, Boston, and San Francisco—or wherever else ivory towers, mahogany-paneled offices, pricey secured buildings, and gated communities are found. Trump’s election would have reverberations overseas, too, in London, Paris, Berlin…”
Smith continues: “The worldview among many of our elite is anti-nation—dare we say—anti-American, anti-law and order, anti-tradition, anti-faith (with exceptions carved out for Islam), anti-durable values and enduring truths, like marriage between a man and woman, and family, as defined by a man, woman, and children. The elite, so very cosmopolitan, have evolved past antique beliefs and ways.”
In other words, a Trump victory would utterly destroy the global monopolies these poohbahs have built up over the past several decades—all those cozy deals shot to hell!
Not if Hillary wins, says Smith. “A Hillary victory means…a doubling-down by the elite, as they act with renewed zest to secure their interests—versus the national welfare. Divide to conquer.” [my bullet points below, but Smith’s words):
But if Trump wins, the nightmare for the globalists and the ones they take orders from, particularly billionaire radical leftist George Soros, is that Donald Trump is onto all the tricks and sleights-of-hand and financial hocus-pocus involved in their massive accumulation of wealth and power, and therefore will be highly successful in dismantling them.
They are terrified because TRUMP-OWES-THEM-NOTHING- HE-CANNOT-BE-BOUGHT!
One more thing: Trump—looking 20 years younger than his 70 years and exhibiting tireless energy and passion—is on the campaign trail non-stop and not depending on the self-glorifying media to get his message across.
In stark and rather pathetic contrast is 68-year-old Hillary, who most of the time looks exhausted, her hair matted, her face haggard, her outfits wildly inappropriate—such as the wool winter coat and long black slacks she wore to a fundraiser in 100-degree heat on Martha’s Vineyard—her horrific screech-owl voice producing more cringes than applause.
While numerous websites, including liberal ones, show pictures of her being helped upstairs, losing her balance, and zoning out in the middle of sentences, and articles insist that she has Parkinson’s disease, a neurological malady, or early dementia, I don’t join that chorus. As an R.N. with clinical experience, I believe that people with cancer or Parkinson’s or Type A diabetes or any number of maladies can lead active, productive, responsible lives. But her stubborn refusal to release her medical records fuels the suspicion not only that she’s hiding something but that she is simply not up to the job.
And now, publisher and editor of AmericanThinker.com, Thomas Lifson, writes in his blog that Hillary has no scheduled events until September 26th!
“Just how frail and exhausted is Hillary Clinton?” Lifson asks. “Surely, she does not need 5 weeks of rest to prepare for her presidential debate. If she did, that would be a terrible indicator of fitness for office. If you look at [her] campaign calendar… there are 15 listed events. However, if you really look at it, what you notice is that Secretary Clinton is not actually attending 14 of these events; they are being attended by surrogates. Go check for yourself.”
ALMOST—BUT NO CIGAR
The craven cabal of the Obama regime—or cartel as Trump calls them—has almost gotten away with opening our borders to anyone who crosses them, including jihadists whose only goal is to murder Americans, but who Democrats plan to register to vote by the millions.
They’ve almost gotten away with socializing our medical and our educational systems, both of which seem to be imploding on their own, thank you.
They’ve almost gotten away with trampling on the Judeo-Christian moral foundation that has elevated our country to among the loftiest in the world; demoralizing the heroic police forces that protect us day and night, 365; undermining our once-vibrant and strong military into a laboratory of preposterous, politically-correct positions and postures; spitting consistently on our magnificent Constitution; and compromising our once-flourishing system of capitalism and free markets. This is the short list.
I say almost because the forces I’m describing are essentially incompetent, as proven by their utter failures for over five decades! They’ve tried. They’ve had the media on their side. They’ve had untold billions backing their anti-American (and did I mention anti-Semitic?) schemes.
And yet, one man comes along, throws their p.c. speech out the window, speaks truth to power, exposes their malevolent plots, and all of them squeal like stuck pigs and double down on their efforts to keep the old corrupt network in place by defeating him in November. Don’t tell me you haven’t noticed that every Trump event attracts multi-thousands of enthusiastic supporters, while Ms. Hillary has trouble attracting even 100 probably-paid-for supporters. Does the media report this dramatic disparity? Never.
THE ART OF THE STEAL
But liberals are an obdurate lot, and their goal is not to win but to steal the election. After all, who but Democrats have elevated election fraud to a virtual art form? Every time they’re losing, they magically find several bags of uncounted votes to put their candidate just barely over the top.
Remember ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), the crooked group that received $53 million in federal funds and engaged in massive voter fraud, including registering dead voters or voters with the names of various Disney cartoon characters? The group was finally outed by conservative activists Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe who used hidden cameras to expose ACORN employees advising them how to avoid taxes, et al. The U.S. Congress cut ACORN’s funding and the group eventually disbanded, but continued to operate—to this day—under new names.
Clearly, this is one organization the Trump organization should watch with eagle-eyed vigilance!
Grimes and Barth report the massive election fraud that took place during the California primary in June (2016).
Thousands upon thousands of California voters showed up at their designated polling stations only to discover that their party registration had been changed, or they were dropped entirely from the rolls. And it was evident this was done from within the state’s electronic voting system.
“A group from Princeton needed only seven minutes and simple hacking tools to install a computer program on a voting machine that took votes for one candidate and gave them to another,”
Recent DNC delegate manipulations made it so nearly every primary and caucus magically favored Hillary Clinton, despite the millions of winning votes going to Sanders” [and the probability that he won].
Recently, three liberal federal judges (two appointed by Pres. Clinton, one by Barack Obama) overturned voter-ID laws—in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Texas—claiming they were racially discriminatory.
Of course, we all know what happened in the fiasco of a 2012 presidential election, largely as a result of liberals’ aversion to voter identification cards. According to writer Rev. Austin Miles:
Voting machines, supplied by George Soros, were rigged to automatically receive an Obama vote, no matter who the voter actually voted for.
In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).
In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.
NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.
Barth says: “If the DNC was willing and able to rig a primary election, what would prevent them from doing the same in a national election—-especially in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin”?
She cites a study on Democrat fraud in multiple states, the conclusion of which was that election fraud is occurring and benefitting Hillary Clinton—especially in states that use unaccountable, electronic voting machines.
The Heritage Foundation has published a detailed list of approximately 200 cases of voter fraud from across the country.
Sit down for this one: “What’s more, two of the three companies that control the electronic voting machine market, Dominion Voting and H.I.G. Capital (i.e. hart Intercivic) are on the list of big money donors that donated to the Clinton campaign, as shown by the DNC documents leaked by Guccifer 2.0.”
These stories are nowhere to be found in the mainstream media. Either is this video of a Diebold machine spitting out incorrect votes.
Here’s another stunner. According to Dean Garrison at dcclothesline.com, not only did Reuters rig a major poll to show Hillary winning when Breitbart News was reporting a 17-point swing towards Trump and away from Hillary, but now we learn that Thomas Reuters, owner of the Reuters News Service, is among the top-tier donors ($1.5 million) to the Clinton Foundation!
Reuters is not alone. When was the last time you heard a poll result from ABC-TV that had Trump in the lead? Yet look at this report from the network itself, posted less than two weeks ago, on August 17, 2016.
This is why Donald Trump’s warnings about possible voter fraud in November are right on target.
This is why Donald Trump’s warnings about possible voter fraud in November are right on target.
DESPERATION
So far, in spite of the virtual assault on Donald Trump by the media, nothing has worked to diminish his popularity. So desperate are the powers-that-be to maintain the corrupt status quo, and to defeat the biggest nemesis they’ve ever faced, that they’ve enlisted the top tech companies in the world—Apple, Twitter, Google and Instagram—to defeat the dreaded Donald Trump, writes Liz Crokin in Observer.com.
“Apple isn’t the only corporation doing Clinton’s bidding. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said Clinton made a deal with Google and that the tech giant is `directly engaged’ in her campaign.” She says that Eric Schmidt—chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google—is also on board with the Clinton machine. Assange claims this was to ensure Clinton had the “engineering talent to win the election.”
“Twitter is another culprit,” Crokin says, by banning conservatives and Trump supporters and changing “its algorithms to promote Clinton while giving negative exposure to Trump.”
Buzzfeed, too, is in on the biased reporting, and Instagram “has also banned accounts that depict Clinton in a negative light.” Then there is Facebook, which “has a long history of shutting down pages and blocking conservative users while promoting progressive voices…”
CNN, of course is a leader of dishonest reporting. The other day, Crokin reports, “CNN set aside nearly half of its air time…to various recent controversies involving the Trump campaign—1 hour, 24 minutes, and 18 seconds over three hours.” In contrast, the program only devoted 27 seconds to news that the Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran, or that “the payment was sent on `an unmarked cargo plane.’ [CNN], therefore, devoted over 187 times more coverage to Trump than to the millions to Iran.”
WHAT TO DO
And Mr. Trump should remember what writer Daniel Greenfield spells out in exquisite detail:
“Hillary Clinton has never won an honest election. And she isn’t about to start trying to win one now. Her favorite kind of race is rigged. Deeply unpopular and deemed untrustworthy by huge numbers of voters, she plans to win by panicking Republicans into abandoning Trump to `save’ themselves. Her weapon of choice is the media.”
Greenfield continues, “Hillary doesn’t want a fair fight. Or even an unfair fight. She wants to cripple the GOP so it can’t fight at all. It’s the ultimate rigged election….
“The game has been rigged in all the familiar ways, from media bias to voter fraud, but only Republican defeatism can hand her the White House.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/hillary-black-background.jpg350641Joan Swirskyhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJoan Swirsky2016-09-02 06:36:072016-09-02 11:03:41The Art of the Steal
How did a burkini ban imposed in more than 30 seaside municipalities become the center of international scorn? France, reeling in the aftermath of allahu akhbar mass murders, suddenly becomes the bad guy? Videos, some of them staged provocations, of innocent Islamically dressed women, victims of “police brutality” on French beaches replace the horrifying reality of the dead and the maimed on the Promenade des Anglais in Nice, and hardly anyone notices the paradox?
First of all, it’s not a burkini. The catchy misnomer is good marketing but it does not describe the hijabathing suit that covers a woman from head to toe, leaving only the face, the hands, and the feet exposed. Unless it’s supposed to mean a transition from burqa to bikini? More likely vice versa! As it stands today, it’s nautical miles away from a bikini and the gaggles of ladies performing in front of the French embassy in London and similar locations are paddling in bad faith. “No one can tell me what to wear,” they declaim, echoing sharia -friendly slogans we’ve heard before. Europe is pockmarked with neighborhoods controlled by sharia promoters who most certainly do tell women what to wear. And punish them if they do not comply. In one of countless “honor” murders in France the parents of a young man who burned a woman alive defended him with this straightforward explanation: she wore makeup.
Hala Gorani (CNN International) invited two Muslim women to comment on the French burkini ban. One, dressed in Western clothes, is against the burkini and against the ban. Walking in a neighborhood in Bradford she heard men who did not know she understood their language tearing her apart for showing her face. The other guest, her head and neck enclosed in an opaque winding sheet and the rest of what must be her body hidden inside a thick-skinned jilbab, summed up the French burkini ban as “white men telling brown women what to wear.” The current French government is a stickler for parity but that doesn’t penetrate the young woman’s hijab. From her viewpoint, the president is a white man, the male and female cabinet ministers are a white man, the naughty burkini ban is a white man’s insult to Muslim women.
Islamically correct neighborhoods in our modern Western countries are modelled on Islamic nations in which women are most vehemently told what they can wear. Tourists, businesswomen, wives of heads of state, female politicians, and journalists cover their arms and legs and wrap their heads in scarves more accurately described as hijab when they tread those grounds.
Fallacious sisterhood
Daughters or granddaughters of bra-burners frolic on a makeshift beach in front of a French embassy, arm in arm with their Muslim sisters whose mothers or grandmothers fled oppressive Islamic lands. Egged on by the usual battalions of reporters in prestigious media, they scold the intolerant French. Nobody can tell you what to wear? Tell me, American and British sisters, can you go topless on your beaches? Can you wear street clothes in the swimming pool? Of course not, and everyone knows. It’s my choice to cover myself? Women who “freely choose” to hide their bodies also accept a wide range of constraints and impositions that may include genital mutilation and purdah. But this ad hoc Sisterhood equates the choice of Islamically hiding one’s body with Women’s Liberation! Contraception, abortion, sexual freedom, the right to be a bus driver, party all night, stay alone in a hotel without being branded a prostitute…and the right to swathe my body in yards of fabric to stifle its improper sexual invitation.
What’s not French about a burkini? asks one sassy progressive. Didn’t Victorian bathing costumes cover women from head to toe?
All the right-thinking commentators, newspapers of reference, international TV networks, and cutesy protestors shook fingers of reprobation at the French, repeating the same storyline, the same clichés, being shocked by the same (probably staged) incident, and not daring to dip a toe into the ocean of evidence that stretches out to the horizon.
The basic premise is: everything Islamic is by definition harmless, benevolent, justified, justifiable, and totally disconnected from that nasty “terrorism” mistakenly connected to the noble religion of Islam and its Muslim populations. There is nothing reprehensible about encouraging or forcing women to hide their bodies, the choices of Muslims are always free and compatible with life in modern democracies, any suggestion to the contrary is a disgraceful stigmatization and, what’s more, feeds the flames of “terrorism.”
It follows that the burkini ban is an act of gratuitous hostility by right wing mayors. The honorable ladies and gentlemen of the Human Rights League (a paragon of anti-Zionism) and the (questionable) Collective against Islamophobia rightfully challenged the shameful ban. Decent people everywhere sighed with relief when the highest administrative court, le Conseil d’Etat, suspended the ban in one commune, Villeneuve-Loubet. Case closed? Not so fast. Most of the mayors are maintaining the ban. The plaintiffs will have to challenge all of them collectively or each one individually. The debate has not ended with the August 26th decision, it has just begun. Lawmakers are preparing bills that will stand up to scrutiny by the Courts. Despite the lack of support from his own administration, Prime Minister Manuel Valls has not backed down. 64% of French people polled in the heat of the controversy support for the ban. By next summer France will have a president from the Républicains party. And Islam will be a decisive issue in the elections.
What’s wrong with France?
Disgusting racists, far right extremists, xenophobes, retrograde repressive stubborn fools that don’t understand where the world is going? Diversity is the marching order. Respect for differences, moving over and making room for refugees and immigrants, appreciating their rich cultural heritage, living side by side in peace and harmony, that’s the way to go. So why don’t a majority of French people want to go there?
Is it because they’re hooked on laïcité? If ostentatious religious symbols are really the issue, the municipal decrees would really target the kippa, the cross, a priest’s collar, a nun’s headdress and, who knows, certain tattoos and esoteric symbols. Religious outfits don’t disturb the peace. I never saw an Orthodox Jewish woman in long sleeves and thick stockings on a French beach, but if she did spread a towel and roast in the sun, would it bother anyone? The problem is not religion it’s Islamic conquest, animated by genocidal hatred. And the Collective against Islamophobia is a bad actor in this drama.
Religiously speaking, the burkini is haram for the sharia compliant. See “the True Salaf” for precisions on how the female should be covered and cloistered. Incidentally, this long-winded repetitive contemporary guide sheds light on the free choice vaunted by covered Muslim women. Abu Hammad al Hayiti explains that it is Allah, not a father or a brother or a husband that prescribes hijab/jilbab. And the young ladies cherished by TV cameras dutifully inform us that no one is forcing them to dress that way. Though the burkini is definitely not sharia compliant its use can be condoned strategically as a step in the right direction. Hence the difficulty faced by French society in formulating sociologically and legally the terms of their resistance.
The burkini ban did not come out of a clear blue sky.
In the past 16 years, France has been the target of incessant and increasing Islamic hostility. First directed against Jews and then gradually extended to law enforcement, medical personnel, firefighters, teachers, institutions, and now undifferentiated civilians targeted in mass murders committed by European-born Muslims. Successive governments have tried awkwardly and ineffectively to protect citizens while bending over backwards at every blow to maintain social cohesion. Counter-productive foreign and domestic policies have, to say the least, contributed to this vulnerability to attack and subversion. The breaking point was reached in January 2015 and exacerbated by the massacres in November of that year, then Nice in July 2016, followed by the slaughter of a priest in a Normandy church, not to mention dozens of other atrocities springing from the same source, and dire warnings of more to come.
The Tunisian (with a French residence permit) who killed 86 and maimed or wounded more than a hundred in Nice on the 14th of July, came from Mkasen, a hotbed of Islamism a short distance from Sousse. The jihadi who gunned down 38 people, mainly British tourists, on a beach in Sousse in July 2015 also came from Mkasen. Daesh promised to perpetrate the same kind of executions on French beaches this summer. Heavily armed policemen and soldiers have been patrolling major beaches. All over France, festivals have been cancelled for security reasons. Tourism has dropped radically.
An event organized in a waterpark outside of Marseille open exclusively to women in burkini and children-girls of any age, boys up to the age of ten-blithely disregarding laws against discriminatory separation of men and women, was ultimately cancelled. It would take an entire volume to list all the occasions when this kind of disrespect for French law was tolerated. This time, with nerves still raw from the shock of Nice, the affront was too great.
On August 13th, the court validated a burkini ban imposed by the mayor of Cannes on July 28th. This kind of decree formulated by a local authority responsible for law and order is not a sophisticated text intended to stand for eternity. That same day, three Maghrebi brothers from Bastia (Corsica) decided to privatize a little beach in Sisco so the women could swim in full Islamic dress. They are accused of chasing other beachgoers away with physical and verbal abuse. Two Sisco men stood their ground. It ended with a huge fight, cars were burned, a man from Sisco was stabbed with a harpoon, it took several hours and 100 policemen to restore order.
Opinion makers and decision makers know about this. But most prefer to disconnect. They disconnect the Islamoswimsuit from the Salafists that prey on the Muslim community, strong arm imams, push their way into mosques, occupy territory, and exert relentless pressure for compliance. They disconnect the hijabathing suit from those nice Muslim men that no one would have suspected who turn out to be jihad mass murderers. They disconnect the escalation of Islamic dress that covers more and more Muslim women, by stages, from loose unrevealing clothes, to hijab, plus jilbab, and all the way to the niqab. And even though the niqab is banned in France, some defiant women continue to wear it, and small riots break out if the police intervene. Opinion makers disconnect the credible threats of beach massacres, the riot at Sisco, isolated assaults at other beaches and vacation spots this summer. They wrap the whole story in the image of a smiling attractive Muslim in a bright blue hijabathing suit, just doing her thing.
Inoffensive. That’s what the tolerant Western mind thinks. Everyone should be free to do as he pleases as long as it doesn’t harm the other. But that is not the meaning of hijab for those who impose it on Muslim women. A woman in hijab is “closed” and women with bared heads are consequentially “open,” the face & hair are the sex, and a bared “sex” is an invitation to penetration. Inoffensive? What of the countless “honor” killings? Women savagely murdered by family members because they were Westernized. Education Minister Najat Vallaud Belkacem, in frontal opposition to the prime minister, decried the burkini ban that “stigmatizes Muslims and fans the flames of racism.” The minister has just presided over a program of mass murder & hostage drills in public schools because she knows, the government knows, people with sharp intuition know Daesh is planning to attack French schools. In full atrocity mode.
International public opinion, enflamed by what is perhaps a well-orchestrated campaign to portray France as shamefully Islamophobic, has practically ignored the Allahu Akhbar murder of a beautiful Eurasian from the UK by a French national named Smail Ayad. Mia Ayliffe Chung, Ayad, and two other men shared a small room with four bunk beds in a backpacker’s hostel in Queensland (Australia). The killer, who was reportedly infatuated with her, flew into a rage because she rejected his advances and took part in a glamour photo shoot. Backpackers at the hostel say he had been threatening for two weeks to massacre all of them. They thought it was a joke.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/islamoswimsuit-e1472809626754.jpg367640Nidra Pollerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNidra Poller2016-09-02 05:47:572016-09-02 11:00:05Islamoswimsuits don’t float in France
Our special guest on Enemies of the State is Ann Corcoran an expert on the United Nations refugee resettlement program and fellow at the Washington, D.C. based Center for Security Policy. We discuss Donald Trump’s immigration policy statements, the impact of criminal immigration and refugee resettlement to the U.S.
Please take the time to view this special interview with Ann. Learn and then take action!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ann-corcoran.png363640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2016-09-02 05:29:022016-09-02 11:01:33VIDEO: On Donald J. Trump, Criminal Immigration and Refugee Resettlement
While the Labor Department boasts about an unemployment rate of approximately 5 percent, the reality is that the statistic ignores the plight of tens of millions of working age Americans who have given up looking for work and are therefore not a part of the labor force.
Daughters or granddaughters of bra-burners frolic on a makeshift beach in front of a French embassy, arm in arm with their Muslim sisters whose mothers or grandmothers fled oppressive Islamic lands. Egged on by the usual battalions of reporters in prestigious media, they scold the intolerant French. Nobody can tell you what to wear? Tell me, American and British sisters, can you go topless on your beaches? Can you wear street clothes in the swimming pool? Of course not, and everyone knows. It’s my choice to cover myself? Women who “freely choose” to hide their bodies also accept a wide range of constraints and impositions that may include genital mutilation and purdah. But this ad hoc Sisterhood equates the choice of Islamically hiding one’s body with Women’s Liberation! Contraception, abortion, sexual freedom, the right to be a bus driver, party all night, stay alone in a hotel without being branded a prostitute…and the right to swathe my body in yards of fabric to stifle its improper sexual invitation.