Remind me again, why are Somalis our problem?

Invasion of Europe news….

I told you just last month that we are admitting 750 Somalis a month to the U.S. right now adding to the well over 100,000 you have been supporting with your tax dollars for decades.

And, here we learn that thousands more are bailing out of Somalia and heading north to Europe. The spring migration has begun!

Map 2016 Europe

But, what is the number one reason for the mass migration of Somalis out of THEIR country? It is due to the corrupt government and lack of jobs (not first a fear of al-Shabaab!).

From Bloomberg:

“Some say it’s because of insecurity, but others rationalize their departure due to rampant unemployment,” the head of Somalia’s immigration and naturalization department, Abdullahi Gafow Mohamud, said in an interview.

That’s the case for Ali Hassan Abdi, who graduated from university two years ago and hasn’t found a job. The 25-year-old says endemic graft — Somalia is ranked joint-bottom with North Korea on Berlin-based Transparency International’s global Corruption Perceptions Index of 168 countries — is “the number-one cause of mass migration.”

So tell us again why we need to be moving the population of Somalia to the American heartland?

See the latest Somali US terror trial, here.

All of our ‘Invasion of Europe’ news is here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Top language of refugees entering the US since 2008 is still Arabic

Breitbart: UN chief tells us what the Syrians really want!

Have Reno’s elected officials seen document setting up refugee plan for their city?

Ditch College, Get a Real Skill, Live a Good Life by Jeffrey Tucker

Aveda and others show new way to follow your passion.

Scene one: I needed a haircut and someone suggested I go across the street to the Aveda Institute. Fine. My hair was cut by a student who was grateful to be working on a regular person, not a manikin. She had another six months in training to before she could become a certified cosmetologist with a credential to work at any salon, cosmetics counter, or spa in the country. It was my first exposure to this institution that was founded initially as a cosmetics line.

Scene two: I met a brilliant young woman with top scores and a great chance for admission to a top college. Her goal from childhood had been to become a physician. Then one day she realized that this future actually sounded miserable. She didn’t want to hang out in dingy operating rooms, struggling with bureaucracy. What she really loved was hair, makeup, and fashion. Why not follow her dream? Instead of college, she enrolled in the Aveda Institute. She can’t be happier.

Scene three: I’m getting my haircut somewhere else and I ask the lady cutting my hair where she moved from. Washington, D.C., came the answer. How did she end up cutting hair here? It was closest to her house that she bought in Atlanta because she liked the neighborhood and the house was affordable. So she could choose to work anywhere she wanted? Yep. Why? She graduated from Aveda, which is the best credential she can have in this industry.

So I’m thinking about this. Here is a school (there are dozens around the country) at which enrollment lasts about one year and costs between $15-20K to attend. This compares to the four years and $100-400K you will spend on a college degree. Many people who leave college are lost and confused, with few skills, no work experience, and no network to tap into for jobs. Aveda graduates have real skills, can work anywhere, and tap into a vast network.

It was the first I’ve heard of this school. The more I look at it, the more it seems inevitable that such models are going to replace college for many people in the years ahead. It makes no sense to spend all that time and money getting a degree that has marginal benefit in the job marketplace. Yes, it is necessary if you are pursuing a career in medicine, law, accounting, engineering, or academia.

That accounts for a small percentage of people who pay for college degrees. We keep hearing about how a college education is connected with higher earning power but the cause and effect relationship here is complicated at best. Some people argue that it is entirely illusory. Meanwhile, real-life experience in fields outside those requiring college credentials is showing something very different.

Meanwhile, Aveda seems to be thriving, and its students and graduates seem very happy, with as much upward mobility as they desire. The one in Atlanta that I visited was teeming with male and female students, all working very hard to master a trade. There are others in New York, D.C., Chicago, Nashville, and many other parts of the country.

I thought I could easily do some research on when these schools started and how many people attend them. Not so. Not even the Wikipedia entry on Aveda mentions their highly successful training programs. It seems to be flying beneath the radar, growing based on industry reputation alone. I’m sure their products are great, but the schooling is the disruptive innovation here.

Scene four: I was invited to attend a data science meetup in Atlanta. It was held at the headquarters for the General Assembly, which is a training camp for the management of digital properties. The meetup was fun, but what really stood out was the very existence of this institution. General Assembly teaches front-end development, project management, beginner website creation, social media skills, and high-level coding. Their classes range from one evening to three months. The pricing of the service depends on the class. The resulting credential is impressive on the resume, and, like Aveda, you tap into a vast network of people.

Unlike the typical university, General Assembly seeks close connections with the surrounding business community. They host socials a few times per week. They bring in business leaders and technicians to give lectures. Many of the teachers here are actually workers in real world enterprises around town. General Assembly is there to facilitate an exchange of knowledge between practitioners and aspirational workers.

It turns out that there are other such institutions in town, including Iron Yard. And around the country there are Code Camps. The tech industry is the fastest moving and among the most profitable in the country, so it makes sense that the industry would demand actual credentials and skills, none of which are provided by the stodgy old-world institutions of colleges and universities.

The tech industry may have given rise not only to all the wonderful new technologies that have changed our lives so fundamentally but also to a new form of education itself. These camps could point the way toward a new path after high school. Why precisely should a person spend yet another four years sitting in a desk, listening to a lecturer, when he or she could be working while training and getting better at a skill for which there is a real market demand?

We all know people in their twenties who look back at their college years and wonder why it all happened. For many of them, the time they took off to get their degree was misspent. Many graduated without any real awareness that jobs actually do require people to bring value to the firm. No one is going to pay for an undergraduate degree. Employers pay for services rendered, not a resume. The only purpose of the resume is to signal the highest likelihood of success at doing a real job.

Stay in School?

For a very long time, young people have been told that the key to success is to “stay in school.” But what happens when life experience begins to tell them the opposite? Or perhaps the definition of what constitutes school needs to change. Work can be school. Education can be combined with work. Education should be structured not just to impart abstract “knowledge,” but actual know-how. And what if it turns out that doing things differently also turns out to be more fun in any case, not to mention more financially rewarding?

By analogy: for generations, Americans were also told that the single greatest and safest investment they could ever make was to buy a house. That illusion blew up in 2008. Now people see houses for what they are: good for some purposes, bad for others, and by no means a guarantee of high future income.

So it is for college. The difference is that most people don’t know it yet. Meanwhile, these many institutions offering real training for the real world are thriving as never before.

Jeffrey A. TuckerJeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email.

‘Illogical’ Defines Obama’s Refugee Resettlement Program

When looking at Obama’s policies it isn’t difficult to come to the conclusion that all, and I mean all, of his executive orders and strategies are to undermine the Judeo/Christian principles on which this country is founded. This is also the case when focusing on the ramifications of the Refugee Resettlement Program.

If someone were to apply the least amount of common sense to the “refugee crisis” we are experiencing due to the warring Islamic countries of the Middle East and Africa, it would mirror the Obama Administration’s Refugee Resettlement Program.

The latest casualty on Obama’s Illogical Tour is Rutland, Vermont, home to socialist Bernie Sanders. According to Leo Hohmann of World Net Daily some 100 Syrians were resettled in the small northern town without any public discussion of the matter, just a quick announcement of acceptance by the Rutland Mayor relaying his town’s positive outlook on receiving the immigrants.

Hohmann reports,

“In fact, when residents of Rutland, Vermont, found out about the secretly negotiated deal to seed their community with migrants from a Middle Eastern hotbed of Sunni radicalism, they were livid.

They packed a local library for an “informational” meeting Thursday night. At least 20 of them stood outside with protest signs, demanding that their mayor explain why he negotiated the entire deal with the federal resettlement contractors behind closed doors and outside the purview of public scrutiny.”

Hohmann’s article goes on to quote a local resident, David O’Brien, on his thoughts concerning the lack of input from the local citizens about the resettling of the refugees in his town. O’Brien stated,

“Something like relocating 100 refugees, especially from a very tough part of the world, war-torn Syria, is something you would just logically think you would have a discussion about,”

This is what O’Brien and the rest of the tax-paying American citizens need to understand. Obama doesn’t care what you think about his plan to relocate hundreds of thousands of immigrants into the country, nor does he care about the negative ramifications of such a program to the local townspeople’s way of life. Most importantly, his plan follows no sound judgement for the protection of American’s security or livelihoods.

Several of the nonsensical points of this program are:

  • Who, in their right mind, would even consider bringing thousands of refugees from a hotbed of Islamic terrorism into small towns and communities and consider it sound judgement? Our top national security officers have testified that it is impossible to vet even the Syrians. According to Michael Cutler, a former border control official with over 40 years of experience, one cannot expect a perfect result from a flawed vetting process. It can’t be done, period.
  • A refugee is one that would normally seek temporary shelter until dangerous situations have passed in order for that refugee to return to their home country. So, logically it makes more sense to settle the refugee in close proximity to their home country, not spend twelve times the amount of money to relocate the individual with virtually no chance of them buying a ticket back to their country of origin.
  • Since our country was founded on Judeo/Christian principles, it would make sense for us to seek out those authentic refugees that have been singled out due to their religion, the Christians. These Christians in Syria, Iraq, and other warring Islamic countries are afraid to venture into the strictly Islamic environments that characterize the United Nations camps, of which 95% of our refugees are from. So, Obama’s program leaves out the most vulnerable and deserving refugees.
  • Obama’s Refugee Program brings to America, by the hundreds of thousands, the very Muslims who carry with them the exact ideology of the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, al-Nusra, and Boko Haraam. Any Muslim who doesn’t denounce the Sharia should be considered a “sleeper-cell” for Islamic jihad. Undoubtedly bringing them into the heart of our country doesn’t make us safer. It would then make sense to ban any more Muslims from entering our country during this climate of global Islamic terror.
  • Once the refugee steps foot on our soil they can apply for all Federal, State and Local welfare programs. If a refugee is over 65 they are eligible for Social Security benefits. How is this helping our national debt? In addition, the refugees don’t have a right, nor do they deserve our hard-working tax dollars.
  • There are some 93 million Americans out of work, and yet this program, has the hearty support of big corporations, the US Chamber of Commerce and the Volunteer Resettlement Agencies (VOLAGS). For example, Tennessee’s Neil MacDonald of the Chamber says this about bringing in immigrants and refugees, “If we want to compete on an international basis, it’s essential we continue our growth in diversity.” See RRW for full story. How about we start giving jobs to skilled Americans who have been tossed out of their careers by foreign workers, which would make sense.
  • The rape capitol of the West is Sweden. If the Muslim male population in that country is roughly 2% with 77% of the reported rape cases committed by Muslims, it would make sense to take into account that Muslim culture is against womens’ rights, and place a ban or limit on Muslim men entering our country as refugees.

One could continue the list of why the Refugee Program is harmful to America in its present form. Until Americans get up off the couch and decide to actually do something, we will suffer the destruction of many plans enacted by this treasonous president to change America forever.

Go to RestoretheUSA.net, download the petition, and hand carry it to your legislator to demand they defund Obama’s program.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guide to the George Soros Network

The Peace & Security Funders Group: Funding the War Against the War-On-Terror

Remind me again, why are Somalis our problem?

Top language of refugees entering the US since 2008 is still Arabic

Islam: Reform & Other Options

New Republican Party: The Red, Purple and Parchment Troika

In my column New Democrat Party: The Red-Green-Rainbow Troika we took a look at the Democratic Party and how President Obama has fundamentally changed it by forming political alliances, creating a Troika. The members of the Red-Green-Rainbow Troika are certainly strange bedfellows but politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Now let’s look at the Republican Party.

Who has fundamentally changed it, why and is it for the better or worse? Who are members of the New Republican Party Troika (NRPT)? These are questions that may help voters understand what happened during the presidential primary of 2016 and what will happen in the lead up to November 8th.

Just like the Democratic Party, the GOP is make up of a Troika. The Republican Troika consists of three major factions:

  1. Conservative Republicans (a.k.a. the reds). These are the Grand Old Party elite (GOPe). They joined the party after the Goldwater years and have gained in power and prestige due to their unwavering party loyalty. They normally vote the Republican ticket.
  2. Republicans In Name Only (a.k.a. the purples or RINOs). These are individuals who joined the Republican party solely to win a political seat or appointment. A perfect example is former Florida Governor, former Republican and now Democrat Charlie Crist. The purples do not hold conservative values, rather they change as does the weather in the Sunshine State. The RINOs will not necessarily vote for the Republican ticket. Some have joined movements to undermine Republican nominees for president dating back to the days of Barry Goldwater.
  3. Constitutional Conservatives (a.k.a. the TEA Party). They embrace the parchment upon which the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written and signed by the Founding Fathers. This group includes Libertarians.

What differentiates these three factions is their commitment to “conservative values”, which are defined differently by each faction.

Arizona Republican Senator Barry Goldwater and presidential candidate in his book “The Conscience of a Conservative” wrote:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

This statement, to many Republicans, defines Conservative values at every level of government. The idea of limited government as envisioned by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution. States rights are paramount and trump efforts to impose government laws and regulations upon the population.

But not all members of the Troika embrace Goldwater’s statement. For you see there has been no true Conservative leader of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. How do we know? The American Enterprise Institute’s  in a column titled A reality check about Republican presidents measured the growth of government (i.e. regulations) over the past fifty years. Murray writes:

…I think it’s useful to remind everyone of the ways in which having a Republican president hasn’t made all that much difference for the last fifty years, with Ronald Reagan as the one exception.

First, here’s the history of the most commonly used measure of growth in the regulatory state, the number of pages in the Federal Code of Regulations.

murray_05132016

We can fairly blame LBJ’s Democratic administration for the initial spike in regulations, and Jimmy Carter’s years saw another steep rise. But using number of pages as the measure understates what happened during the Nixon years, when we got the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, plus much of the legislation that gave regulators the latitude to define terms such as “clean” or “safe” as they saw fit.

After the Carter years, the slope of the trendline was shallowest in the Reagan and Clinton administrations (with the Clinton result concentrated in his second term, when a Republican House imposed a moratorium on some new regulations). The increase during the Obama years remained on the same slope as the one during George W. Bush’s years. And if you’re thinking about the Democrats’ most egregious regulatory excess, Dodd-Frank in 2010, recall that Sarbanes-Oxley passed in 2002, when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.

I should add that presidents don’t bear a lot of blame for failing to reduce regulation — their power to restrain the activities of the regulatory agencies is limited — but neither has electing a Republican president done any good, with Reagan as a partial exception.

Read more.

With the GOP nominee process ending and Donald Trump as the nominee, what has changed? Who is now the leader of the GOP?

Many would say Trump, as the nominee, will be driving the policy and politics of the Republican Party. However, their are those who write and speculate that their remains an internal discord within the party between one of the three factions. The most likely faction to cause this discord are the purples/RINOs. The other two factions have begun uniting behind Trump.

Ayn Rand wrote, “The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

What are the uncontested absurdities of the Republican Party elite? Here’s a short list:

  1. Fear. Republican elites fear being called out by Democrats, the media and at times by fellow Republicans. The fear is palpable.
  2. Political correctness. Republicans succumb to the pressures of being politically correct (see #1 above).
  3. Compromise. Republicans are prone to compromise their values when it is unnecessary or by dint of constant pressure from the Democrat Troika. Compromise is the art of losing slowly. Something the GOPe is accustomed to.
  4. Elitism. The Republican elite (GOPe) has consistently ignored the voices of primary voters in 2008, 20012 and in 2016.
  5. Old guard career politicians. The old guard is not focused on retaining the core values of the party of Abraham Lincoln, rather it is focused on winning re-election.
  6. Lack of leadership. The GOP has controlled Congress for the past 4 years yet has failed to stop the agenda of the Democrat Troika. The leadership of McConnell/Boehner and now McConnell/Ryan have failed to make headway.
  7. Politics by press release. Republicans have become the party of the press release. They send out press statements that sound good on the surface but seldom become political reality, law or have an impact on public policy or Main Street Americans.
  8. Ignoring the base. The GOPe believe they can win presidential elections with old guard, politically correct, compromising, career politicians.
  9. Going along to get along. The best way to win re-election is to go along with the GOPe and Democrats. Shutting down the government to keep from increasing the national debt or reducing the size of government spending goes against the grain of the GOPe.
  10. The GOPe eats its own. The GOPe in the name of items #1-#9 will attack candidates and elected Republicans. Moderate means purple.

So what’s the solution to all of these Republican absurdities? As Newt Gingrich wrote in an article in The Washington Times on January 8, 2016 titled “Donald Trump”:

You’re sick of politicians, sick of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and sick of illegal’s. You just want this thing fixed. Trump may not be a saint, but doesn’t have any lobbyist money influencing him, he doesn’t have political correctness restraining him, all you know is that he has been very successful, a good negotiator, he has built a lot of things, and he’s also not a politician, so he’s not a cowardly politician. And he says he’ll fix it. You don’t care if the guy has bad hair. You just want those raccoon’s [rabid, messy, mean politicians] gone. Out of your house!

Donald J. Trump has changed the political paradigm. Will the purples follow or become the thorn in the side of Trump. That is the question.

lincoln quote

RELATED ARTICLES:

House Republicans to Move Forward on Spending Without a Budget Number

An Economist Explains Why America Is Moving Toward Totalitarianism

List of Attendees for Zuckerberg’s Facebook Meeting are all Members of #NeverTrump Movement

Drafting Women: Do We Believe in Equality or Don’t We?

With Congress poised to possibly require women to register for the draft, reaction from the conservative pundit class has been swift and severe. WND’s Jane Chastain calls it “worse than cowardly,” while radio host Mark Levin ferociously railed against the proposal on his Friday show.

But I have just one question: Do we believe in equality or don’t we?

For the record, I’m a traditionalist best described as Mayberry meets the Middle Ages. I believe in a papa bear, mama bear and baby bears and no mixing of roles considered unbearable in a Norman Rockwell illustration. And drafting women wouldn’t be an issue in my world because they wouldn’t be in the military in the first place. But this isn’t my world. It’s a bizarro world where we believe in Equality™. At least, that’s our story and we’re stickin’ to it.

I’ve also pointed out that our equality dogma is a con.

Equality is not a thing of this world; in fact, in the realm of nature and man, inequality is the norm. And most of human history reflected this reality, with equality dogma born of the so-called Enlightenment and further minted as a faux virtue by socialists (Karl Marx must dance in his grave every time we mindlessly bellow “Equality!”). I’ve even stated that the term equality should never be used in reference to people, but, as in the Bible, be reserved for weights and measures. Here’s the problem:

I’ve rarely, if ever, heard a conservative reject equality dogma in principle.

Instead, reinforcing yesterday’s liberals’ social victories, they sometimes take pains to point out that they believe in Equality™ — just like the Left.

Yet like the Left, they don’t really believe in equality, but in some non-traditional form of inequality branded “equality.”

Calls for equality are issued selectively — in other words, unequally — and only when they serve to destroy tradition. Even though the intersex pay gap is caused by the sexes’ different lifestyle choices and not unjust discrimination, politicians vow to stamp it out. There also have been complaints that women in Hollywood earn far less than the men, but you know what we hear about how female fashion models greatly out-earn their male counterparts? Crickets. As for the military, women are supposed to have all the opportunities the men do, but not the burden of being drafted if the call is issued. And other examples abound.

This is where a good conservative might say, “The difference is that liberals believe in equality of outcome; we only believe in equality under the law.” But the law states that men must register for selective service. Well….?

So like children, we’re playing a game — the Equality Game. And like children, we only want to play it when it pleases us. As soon as it doesn’t feel right, we take our ball and go home.

So within the context of our faux-equality society, I have no problem with drafting women into the military. For to use a twist on an Abraham Lincoln line, the best way to eliminate a bad social code is to enforce it strictly. In fact, noting that female athletes have often lobbied for the prize money/salaries their male counterparts command (women soccer players most recently), I advocate eliminating separate tours, leagues and teams for women/girls. With the mile record for 15-year-old boys surpassing the women’s world record, it would be an excellent object lesson in the realities of equality. As it stands right now, though, it’s no surprise feminists are all in for “equality” — they’re some of the people more equal than others.

Speaking of which, here’s a question for those advocating equality in principle but against drafting women. One of the arguments for giving 18-year-olds the vote was that if you’re man enough to make the ultimate sacrifice — perhaps having to fight and die for your country — you’re man enough to vote for those who may send you to war.

The idea is that with responsibility comes authority.  We don’t give children adult authority, but they also don’t have adult-level responsibility (this is one reason they aren’t punished as harshly for crimes). Yet isn’t it also true that with authority comes responsibility? If women are “man enough” to vote for those who may send Americans off to war, should they not be considered man enough to have to make that ultimate sacrifice? Some might even say our current status quo ensures that women, especially single women without military-age male family members, will have little or no skin in the game.

None of this means that I, Mr. Mayberry Meets the Middle Ages, subscribe to all these arguments, mind you. I’m more role-oriented. But the inconsistencies in our thinking should be addressed. And what should be said unabashedly is that equality dogma must die. What has it wrought? The Left is now even using it to justify allowing men to use women’s/girls’ locker rooms (the Charlotte, NC, ordinance). Note, too, that this is based on nothing but feelings: so-called “transgender” individuals (a designation invented by psychiatrists) feel they’re actually members of the opposite sex, and they feel uncomfortable using the facilities for their own. But what of the great majority of people who feel uncomfortable having them in their sex-specific facilities? Why should the feelings of less than 1 percent of the population take precedence over the feelings of more than 50 percent of the population? Some feelings are more unequal than others, too, apparently.

You may now say that we have to try harder to apply the principles of equality. You’re not paying attention. Since equality is not a thing of this world, it’s unachievable; moreover, unless you like drafting women and letting 10-year-olds vote, buy alcohol and enter into contracts, you should know it’s undesirable. It’s always just a matter of what version of inequality will be accepted or implemented. Will it be fact-based or fraud-based? We can accept that having persistent feelings that you’re a member of the opposite sex (“gender dysphoria”) — just like having strong feelings that a body part should be amputated (Body Integrity Identity Disorder) — is inferior to a normal state of being. Or we can entertain fantasies. But it’s yet another fantasy to expect fantastical thinkers to be able to conceptualize what true equality would involve — or to give us the just version of inequality.

As for our latest bad policy proposal, we should stop fighting to draft women — just as soon as we stop fighting for that poison pill of leftist inequality wearing the pretty Equality label.

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

RELATED: Backgrounder: Women and the Draft – U.S. Selective Service System

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of the U.S. Selective Service System.

London’s Muslim Mayor wants to Educate Donald Trump on Islam by Hugh Fitzgerald

TrumpMuslimBan-65%The new golden boy of multicultural politics and Moderate Islam, Mayor Sadiq Khan of London, fresh from his electoral triumph, told an interviewer on May 13 that he would like to “educate” Donald Trump about Islam. Certainly Trump, like many of those who oppose him, could stand to be educated about Islam, but what he needs to know is not what Sadiq Khan surely has in mind. Sadiq Khan plans for his tutorial a few innocuous verses from the Qur’an that are always trotted out by the “moderates”: 2:256 and 5:32 without 5:33 (we’ll be getting to them later on). He also no doubt plans to offer Trump a potted history of Islam’s conquests, and a sanitized version of Muhammad’s biography, that will leave out as much of the gory bits as he, Sadiq Khan, thinks he can get away with omitting. And a good time will be had by all, if by all we mean Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Bill de Blasio. It won’t do.

It is not that Trump has been misinformed, but that he has not been sufficiently informed to do more than speak in dismissive generalities about Islam. He knows there is something worrisome about Islam, and thinks – sensibly – that it might be a good idea to put a stop to Muslim immigration “until we figure out what is going on.” Who could disagree? Well, apparently a great many of those people who, knowing so little about Islam, assume they know all they need to know, and believe there is nothing more to “figure out” – they could and do disagree with the “islamophobic” Donald J. Trump.

Now instead of softening his previous statements by re-labelling them as “suggestions,” Trump might have held off and done what Muslims fear most, which is to educate himself, and without their “help,” about Islam. He’s a combative sort, and were he to put in hours of study of the canonical texts (and Robert Spencer has published a verse-by-verse exegesis, Blogging the Qur’an, that Trump would find most useful) – and not allow himself to be scared off by the usual claims, e.g., that non-Muslims simply can’t understand the Qur’an because they don’t know Arabic, or can’t interpret a verse or a Tradition (Hadith) correctly unless they know the “context,” the results could be salutary and bracing. Imagine that Trump, fortified with his new knowledge, came out from his corner quoting, able to clarify for his rapt audience what the Qur’an contains, and what the Hadith are, and why both matter to Muslims as sources of authority. Imagine a Trump able to explain how, through the interpretative doctrine of naskh, or abrogation, Muslims are able to reconcile contradictory passages in the Qur’an by abrogating the earlier, “softer” verses in favor of the later, more uncompromising verses. Imagine a Trump who could focus attention (and he now garners far more attention than any other candidate) on a few dozen or so of the most disturbing “Jihad verses” that are cited by ISIS and other terrorists as the textual justification for their behavior. When ISIS smites the necks of the Infidels, its killers are not silent; they tell us they are simply following 8:12 and 47:4 (or other relevant verses for other atrocities). In lieu of uttering general and sometimes vague remarks, Trump can locate his worries in specific verses. “Until we figure out what is going on,” while reasonable, is not as forceful as “so, we need to take a look at those verses Muslim killers keep quoting, such as 8:12 and 47:4 and 9:5 and 9:29 – lemme just read out some of these to you…(here Trump quotes Qur’anically ad libitum).” Trump could force the issue, and brusquely deal with the expected excuses: “Yeah, somebody told me because I don’t know Arabic I can’t really understand these verses, but 80% of the world’s Muslims don’t know any Arabic – and no one says that they can’t possibly understand Islam” or “Don’t go telling me these verses can only be understood in a particular historical context — Muhammad is the ‘perfect man’ (al-insan al-kamil) for all time.” I cannot imagine any candidate except Trump daring to hold up for inspection Muhammad’s marriage to little Aisha, or Muhammad’s expression of pleasure at hearing of the assassinations of Asma bint Marwan and Abu ‘Afak. But he needs to learn, and be ready to deploy in his forthright fashion, these facts and more. This would enrage Muslims, and other defenders of the faith, precisely because Trump would be adducing those biographical episodes (about little Aisha, the Khaybar Oasis, the Battle of the Trench, the poetess Asma bint Marwan, the sex slave Safiyya bint Huyayy) that Muslims, however much for granted they take these things, also know that among the Unbelievers such “details” could be a source of deep embarrassment.

Sadiq Khan, now sensing that Trump is on the defensive (having re-characterized his blunt remarks as “suggestions”), will likely have the chutzpah to continue to insist that “Islam” means “peace.” He will certainly quote 5:32, possibly even as it appeared in Obama’s 2009 remark: “Mr. Trump, perhaps you’ve forgotten – even though your own president Barack Obama quoted verbatim – what the Koran says about killing at 5:32. He said, and I quote, ‘The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.’” But then Trump, properly prepared, could come back immediately with: “Hey, you forgot 5.33. Remember? Here it is: ‘The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.’ That doesn’t sound so peaceful to me.”

And there is still that other Qur’anic verse always trotted out in defense of a kinder, gentler Islam: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2.256). Imagine Sadiq Khan quoting that staple of Muslim propaganda with smug assurance, convinced that Trump will not have ready a Retort Plausible. And imagine what Trump’s reply could be if he has been properly prepped about the Jizyah: “Oh no, Sadiq? You think the Jizyah-tax is nothing? What if everyone in Europe had to pay 50,000 euros a year in order to stay alive and avoid having to convert to Islam? Just how many people do you think would pay the 50,000 euros? Come on! If that isn’t ‘compulsion,’ I don’t know what is.” What could Sadiq suavely respond?

Sadiq Khan, his smooth front now furrowed, may want to wait a while for a rematch. He’s got a lot on his plate, determined as he is to show those doubting Infidels how moderate he is, and Islam, too, if rightly understood. He’s planning a trade mission to Tel Aviv, which presumably is meant, in its obvious “some of my best friends” way, to signify that all those charges of Muslim antisemitism are baseless. And he’s certainly got to make time to reply to his many well-wishers, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and Bill de Blasio, and so many others whose congratulations are also self-congratulations.

As for Donald J. Trump, hope that he burns the midnight oil, with Qur’an and Hadith and the right guides to both, in order that he might put his combativeness, and even his studied outrageousness, as imagined here, to their best and highest use.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Danish professor: Wrong to see Muslims as victims, they act according to the Qur’an

Petraeus calls for self-censorship to avoid offending Muslims

From Proposal to Policy: Fine-Tuning Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban by Ralph Sidway

“In light of [the] data, a good argument can be made that the US should allow Muslim immigration—but primarily, and perhaps solely, from Islamic sects and not Sunnis Let’s adapt Trump’s plan and put a moratorium on Sunni immigration.”

This policy discussion by Islamic historian Timothy Furnish may seem to run counter to the position of those of us who believe a complete moratorium on Muslim immigration “until we can figure out what the heck is going on” is the proper approach, but it is at the very least a serious attempt to undergird Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban with factual and functional analysis. Serious discussion leads to serious policy, and serious results. Let’s have this discussion.

“An Islamic Historian’s Response to Donald Trump’s Proposed Muslim Immigration Ban”, by Timothy R. Furnish, History News Network, May 13, 2016:

Donald Trump’s call to temporarily ban Muslim immigration to the US, floated last December, provoked a predictable firestorm of criticism both domestically and abroad, and recently the presumptive Republican nominee for President has moved to moderate his stance.

Many if not most on the Left have not only dismissed his idea out-0f-hand, but condemned it as “racist,” while many on the Right support itContra the political extremes of both Left and Right, however, I think Trump has a point, if the plan were fine-tuned. Some Muslims should probably be banned (which almost certainly would be legal), but not all; and to differentiate those categories requires honest research and analysis, not emoting and propaganda.

The starting point for this evaluation is whether adherents of the world’s second-largest faith are more prone to violence than those of other religions.

Far too many liberals, and most Muslims of course, vehemently deny any such connection. But facts are stubborn things.

Of the 59 groups currently on the US State Department foreign terrorist list, 41, or 69%, are Muslim. Every single one of the 82 groups on the United Arab Emirates’ terrorist list is Islamic. (Does that make the UAE “racist” one wonders?) There are 104 groups on the database of the University of Chicago Project on Security & Terrorism (CPOST), which tracks terrorism between 1982 and 2015; at least 80 of the groups therein, or 77%, are Muslim. Twenty-one of the top 25 groups whose members killed people in that same time-frame are Muslim. Also, in that 33-year period, suicide attacks by Muslims far outnumber those Christians, by 300:1. Yes, there was exactly one suicide attack by a Christian in the 33 years that CPOST has tracked the data.

For more historical analysis of this topic, may I suggest my latest book Sects, Lies, and the Caliphate, as well as anything written by Raymond Ibrahim—in particular “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?” and “ ‘Scientific’ Claim: Christian Bible More Bloodthirsty than Quran.”

The historical and empirical evidence is clear for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear: Islam promotes violence against those not in its club (which, yes, often includes those who claim to be Muslims, as well) far more than any other belief system does against non-adherents.

But as the howls of “Islamophobia” begin to rise, let me add that not all branches of Islam are equally culpable for this global problem.

As I argue at length in my aforementioned book (especially pp. 193-209), it is primarily Sunnism—the largest branch, alas—that promotes a literalist reading and application of the Qur’an and the Hadiths (the alleged sayings and practices of Islam’s founder, Muhammad). This means that canonical Islamic endorsement of beheading, stoning, and violent jihad, inter alia, must apply across space and time; they are not subject to, say, allegorical interpretation or chronological consignment to the 7th century AD.

And such Sunni literalism has sunk deep roots: majorities of Muslims in many countries (according to Pew empirical data) support stoning for adultery and execution for “apostasy” (converting from Islam to another religion). This is why I said on a recent TV special that ISIS is indeed Islamic, and why it is so difficult for other Muslims to actually delegitimize it. 

However, wooden and, frankly, brutal Sunni literalism—which holds sway not only in terrorist groups but also in broader movements like Saudi Wahhabism and South Asian Deobandism—it is not the only understanding of Islam.

There are minority sects of Islam which do not take the Qur’an 100% literally and are thereby not yoked to slavish imitation of the texts, with all their problematic repercussions: the Ahmadis of South Asia; the Isma’ilis, the second-largest Shi`a sect; the syncretistic Alawis and Druze of Syria and Lebanon; many Sufi, or Islamic mystical, orders (which are actually not sects so much as, in a sense, charismatic Muslims); and, believe it or not, the Twelvers—the Shi`is of Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon and Azerbaijan—who unlike the Sunnis never abandoned ta`wil, or “(allegorical) interpretation” of the Islamic texts.

All of these groups are, to varying degrees, persecuted by Sunnis in most places for their heterodox—if not downright heretical—views, at least from the Sunni perspective.

Note, I am not saying all sects are peaceful and Sunnis are always vicious. What I am saying is that Sunnis and their theology are far more often the problem, because a literal understanding of Qur’an and Hadiths is the only one allowed therein; sects, even Twelver Shi`is, allow for much more leeway in interpretation.

Consider: only two of the groups on the US State Department list adduced earlier are Twelver Shi`i; ditto for the CPOST terrorist list. There are no examples of Ahmadi, Isma’ili or Alawi terrorists (although Alawis, in the guise of the al-Assad regime, do hold on brutally to power—largely in order to stave off the inevitable religicide that would ensue were they to lose to the Syrian Sunni jihadists). Twelver Shi`i Iran is a state sponsor of mainly Sunni terror, but in order to geopolitically hobble its enemies Saudi Arabia and Israel, not out of Twelver theological imperatives. Sufis can and have been violent in the past and today (they fight Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabab in Somalia), but only one Sufi group—Jaysh Rijal al-Tariq al-Naqshbandi, which works with ISIS—is terrorist today.

In light of this data, a good argument can be made that the US should allow Muslim immigration—but primarily, and perhaps solely, from Islamic sects and not Sunnis.

But the Obama Administration is doing the exact opposite.

Between November 2015 and February 2016, just over 600 Syrian refugees were admitted to this country; 93% were Sunni, while just a handful were sectarians. In April of this year another 451 Syrians were brought in, almost all Sunni. (And not being covered in this article is the criminally-low number of Christians being admitted—under 1%.)

Yes, ISIS persecutes other Sunnis, but far less cruelly, and less frequently, than it does Alawis, Druze, Isma’ilis (or, as noted, Christians and members of the Yazidi faith). If the US really wants to help those being brutalized by ISIS, members of those sects should be preferred—not just for the humanitarian reason that they bear the brunt of Sunni fundamentalist ire, but for the utilitarian, pro-American one that members of such sects will almost certainly not engage in terrorism on American soil….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats introduce bill to oppose Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban

Video: Muslim speaker in Canada calls for “full implementation of Islam,” says migrant influx helps build caliphate

Muslims: BBC is ‘too Christian’! Are ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX and CNN next?

So says a report by Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC’s head of religion and ethics. It is no surprise that Aaqil Ahmed would have come to this conclusion, and it will be no surprise when Lord Hall, the BBC’s director general, adopts his recommendation.

Britain is in full surrender and appeasement mode, and this is just one of many, many demands that will be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, the idea that the viciously anti-Christian and anti-Western BBC is “too Christian” is ridiculous, but watch for an even more pronounced bias in favor of Islamic supremacists on the BBC than what already is regularly featured there.

“BBC is ‘too Christian’ and ‘could broadcast Muslim prayers’ to reflect growing multi-culturalism,” by David Barrett, Telegraph, May 15, 2016:

The BBC’s religious output is too Christian, an internal review by the Corporation has concluded, opening the way for more programmes on other faiths.

A report by Aaqil Ahmed, the BBC’s head of religion and ethics, has suggested Muslim, Hindu and Sikh faiths should get more airtime.

One Muslim leader suggested the review could lead to Friday prayers from a mosque being broadcast in the same way that Christian church services currently feature in the BBC’s schedules.

The report is now being considered by Lord Hall, the director general, who could make changes to make religious output less “disproportionate”, the Sunday Times (£) reported.

Mr Ahmed told a Commons meeting on religious literacy he had written a report for Lord Hall that would answer criticisms from non-Christian faiths that they were under-served.

Mr Ahmed said in a statement: “Christianity remains the cornerstone of our output and there are more hours dedicated to it than there are to other faiths.

“Our output in this area is not static, though.

“It has evolved over the years and we regularly assess it.”

He added: “We do look at the number of hours we produce, and measure that against the religious make-up of society.”

The number of Muslims in Britain has doubled in a decade to three million.

Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said the BBC could televise Friday prayers from a mosque and extend coverage of Eid….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats introduce bill to oppose Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban

Yemen: Islamic State murders 37 policemen in former al-Qaeda bastion

Democrats introduce bill to oppose Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban

“Beyer said the legislation is an attempt to ‘appeal to hope rather than fear.’” In our pusillanimous and puerile age, “fear” is not just a weakness of character, but a moral flaw: if you fear being beheaded or blown up by Islamic jihadists, you’re an evil person. And to be sure, fear is never to be encouraged or given into, but its opposite is not hope, it’s courage and resoluteness.

Beyer is not offering courage or resoluteness. He is proposing a ban on using someone’s religion as a reason for blocking them from entering the country based on the politically correct fiction that Islamic jihad terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that therefore to be concerned about jihad terrorists entering the country along with peaceful Muslim refugees is simply a manifestation of bigotry, racism and “Islamophobia.”

What Beyer is offering is “hope” and a rejection of “fear.” We should “hope” that there will be no jihadis among the immigrants. We should “hope” that there will not be another jihad attack a la San Bernardino perpetrated by another refugee like Tashfeen Malik, the San Bernardino jihad murderer who had passed five separate background checks from five separate U.S. government agencies. We should “hope” that the Islamic State will not make good on its threat to send jihadis into Europe and North America among the refugees. We should “hope” that we can continue to pursue self-destructive and suicidal policies without suffering any negative consequences.

To reject all of Beyer’s “hopes” would be, in his view, to succumb to “fear,” and remember: fear is morally wrong.

Don Beyer

Rep. Don Beyer, D-Virginia

“Democrats Introduce Bill That Would Oppose Trump’s Proposed Immigration Ban on Eve of His Capitol Hill Visit,” by Margaret Chadbourn, ABC News, May 11, 2016:

A group of Democrats on Capitol Hill are using Donald Trump’s visit to Washington this week to highlight their opposition to the presumptive Republican nominee’s immigration policies, including his past calls to ban Muslims from coming to the United States.

On Wednesday, they introduced legislation, which is just one paragraph, that would restrict the United States from using someone’s religion as a reason for blocking them from entering the country. The new bill, known as the Freedom of Religion Act, would do so by keeping religious tests out of the immigration process.

“It’s very narrow in scope. We’re not going to discriminate when it comes to immigration based on religion,” Rep. Don Beyer, D-Virginia, who authored the bill, told ABC News.

Following the December shootings in San Bernardino, California, Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” His comments were condemned by Democrats and Republican congressional leaders, but he has not backed down on this stance.

Beyer said the legislation is an attempt to “appeal to hope rather than fear.”

The bill has little chance of advancing in the Republican-controlled House, but Democrats say that’s not the point. “At the very least, having the bill out there gives encouragement out there to Americans that Donald Trump’s ideas are not ruling the day on this issue,” Beyer said. “We’re pushing back with a strong, clear voice.”

Trump will hold high-profile meetings in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, including with House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, who is so far withholding his support for Trump, saying he wants learn more about how the candidate will unite the party after a divisive primary.

Democrats don’t want to let his visit go to waste and are trying leverage the attention surrounding the trip to score some political points.

“We didn’t plan it based on his visit but I think it is a coincidence is a fortuitous one,” Beyer said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Democrat Party: The Red-Green-Rainbow Troika

“Expert”: Muslims “radicalize” because they find it hard to criticize government

BBC is “too Christian” and “could broadcast Muslim prayers” to reflect growing Islamic presence in Britain

One Company Proudly Bringing Back the ‘Made in America’ Label

“The American manufacturing industry has been an icon for over a century – accounting for nearly 35% of the American economy and nearly $6 trillion dollars of GDP. Recently, we put together a video over at Liberty Tabletop that highlights many of the environmental and economic statistics American manufacturing has to offer,” states Phoebe Parlade, content manager for Liberty Tabletop.

Is it again time for consumers to buy only Made in America products?

Here is the video Parlade refers to which tells a chilling story that Made in America is not what it used to be:

Liberty Tabletop website notes:

Cheap products, imported from overseas, which so many Americans have bought in recent decades have not only cost jobs, and seen millions of overseas workers slave away in horrific conditions on unlivable wages, but are a big factor in the the shipping industry contributing to almost 5% of the whole world’s pollution.

Every time an American citizen buys an imported product, our trade deficit widens. Forbes calls it the ‘destroyer of jobs’. Every year, because we import more than we export, 3% of our economy and wealth is lost overseas. That doesn’t sound like much, but it soon adds up. Over the last 39 years we’ve lost 8 TRILLION dollars. All of that translates into lower wages, lower profits, weaker markets and more unemployment at home when we don’t support American made products.

There’s more than just the money we’ve lost forever, though. The health and safety of foreign workers is much less of a consideration in many developing manufacturing economies. Not only the health and safety of the workers though, your health and safety is put at risk too. We’ve seen radioactive steel and poisonous drywall as well as poisonous flooring imported to the US in recent decades. Our home-grown manufacturers share your values, and obey our laws, and are subject to some of the strictest, and most rigorous rules in the developed world. I know which spoon I’d rather feed my baby with!

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: Resource Guide: Buy American, Buy Union-Made

The Cruelty and Carnage of the Minimum Wage: The Case of Tad by Jeffrey Tucker

Not having a job means not participating in the fullness of life.

If your goal is to ruin the lives of young and marginalized population groups, raising the wage floor to $15 an hour is a good plan. Already, much of the current problem with youth unemployment is due to the high minimum wage increases we’ve seen over the last eight years.

After all, the original purpose of the minimum wage was to disemploy undesirables. Not having a job means not participating in the fullness of life. It’s a big deal.

A wage floor of any sort traps people in the economic basement. The higher the floor, the larger the basement. Today, millions are rattling around down there, unable to find their way out. Millions more will find themselves there once all this legislation goes through.

I feel a particular frustration with this issue, and it’s not only because of the economics texts I’ve read.

My first real job was working maintenance at a department store. I was 15 (yes, I lied about my age; you could get away with that back then). My job was to clean toilets, crush boxes, pick pins out of the dressing room closets, wax the floors in the china shop, vacuum the place, and shine the glass.

It was a great job. I mean, truly great. I loved it because it was a hugely important job. If I didn’t clean the bathrooms well and replenish the toilet paper and towels, customers the next day might be grossed out and never come back. I played a big role in ensuring the profitability of this store.

My Coworker Tad

I especially loved my co-worker. His name was Tad. The department store would close, leaving just the two of us to have so much fun doing all this wonderful work. We would sing together, thrill to the danger of the wax machine, gross out at the mucky bathrooms, and just have that wonderful feeling that comes with having a real work partner.

You see, Tad was not a normal kid. He had some physical deformities. His face was oddly shaped and had what looked like a large stain on half of it. He couldn’t move around that well, really. I had to help him and assign tasks carefully. He was also mentally retarded. He spoke in a muffled way, and you had to be very clear about instructions.

But I tell you what, when he was happy, it made me happy. To see that big smile come across his face when I would praise the way he shined up a counter just gave me a huge lift. Every day I would try to find ways for him to be both delighted and productive. We were a wonderful team. I wanted it to stay this way.

One day, a poster appeared in the workroom. It was from the Department of Labor. The minimum wage was going up by 40 cents. Tad pointed the sign out to me. He said, “Look, we are getting a raise!”

I was a bit suspicious. I was pretty sure that the boss was the one who set the wage, not some weird distant government thing. I didn’t quite believe it was true. Still, I was happy that he was happy.

The next day, I showed up at the usual time after school. I was getting the mop ready, running hot water in the pail and prepared to do my thing.

Tad wasn’t there. I asked the boss, “Where’s Tad today?”

Well, he explained that he had hired Tad only because he was a boy he knew from church. He needed work. He knew that he would require a lot of help, which was one reason he was excited that I was able to work with him. In the end, he said, this was charity, because he knew that I could do the job by myself. It worked for us to be together so long as he could afford it. But this new minimum wage changed things. The store’s profit margins were very thin, and the wage requirement applied to the whole staff. So he had to make a hard decision.

The long and short of it: Tad had to be let go.

The Death of Tad

I was devastated. I stared at the Department of Labor sign again. Cursed thing! That sign just ruined a kid’s life. It stopped a great act of charity. And look what it did to me. I now had to work alone.

I suddenly felt guilty about my own job. I kept mine at his expense. And why? It was pure accident of birth.

Management left, the lights dimmed, and I heard the familiar click of the doors leading outside. I would have to clean alone today. I did all the tasks I had to. But there was no more music, no more laughter, no more clowning around, and no more beautiful smiles. Tad was somewhere else, probably at home, confused and sad.

I didn’t call him. I was too embarrassed and I didn’t know what to say. So I let our friendship go.

He died a few years later.

This is what the minimum wage means to me. So you can say that I have a vendetta. When the president announces that he is raising wages to make everyone better off, I can’t help but think of the millions of Tads that will lose that opportunity to do wonderful things in this world and with their lives.

Jeffrey A. TuckerJeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Minimum Wage Should Be Called the Robot Employment Act – Wall Street Journal

Government Shouldn’t Decide Who Uses Which Bathroom by Doug Bandow

There’s Simply No Single Right Answer.

The North Carolina legislature voted in March to require that people use the bathroom designated for their biological sex. The state was criticized for violating gay and transgender rights. The Obama administration may cut federal education, housing, and transportation aid to North Carolina in response.

Bathroom use has been an issue in other states, including Illinois, Texas, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Kansas, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee, and South Dakota. Legislation proposed and passed differs by state on how to define gender — ranging from chromosomes to birth certificate to anatomical sex. Obviously, people can’t change their chromosomes. They can, however, change their gender identity and its associated physical traits, which is where the controversy begins.

The president’s position appears to be that people have a legal right to use the bathroom of their choice, regardless of their gender, however defined. With the club of federal funding, he is attempting to socially engineer America.

This is central planning run riot.

Good people should approach anyone in the midst of gender change with humility and compassion. For most of us, it is unimaginable what would cause someone to desire to shift genders. It is a personal issue of the most profound nature. It shouldn’t be debated and decided in the public square.

And politicians aren’t doing a good job addressing the question. It may not make sense to most people for someone who looks like a guy to use the ladies room, however he sees himself, but neither does it seem right to force someone who looks like a guy to use the ladies room because he was born female. And it certainly makes no sense to let one person or group of people force everyone else to comply with their preference, even when that group is a majority of voters.

Bathroom use shouldn’t be a question for bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers, or judges to answer.

Who should use which bathroom? If it’s in your home, you decide. Likewise, a private company or other private organization should set the rules for its building. What does the owner want? What do customers or members prefer? What is the best way to balance competing interests given the community’s dominant moral sense?

Most people in most places probably believe that people should use the bathroom that matches their physical characteristics, whether changed or not. And we know from the current debate that many (if not most) people prefer not to share a bathroom with someone who appears to be of the other sex, irrespective of the gender with which he or she identifies.

However, one can imagine a “progressive” individual, business owner, or group deciding otherwise. And whether that decision reflected special solicitude for vulnerable individuals or a desire to shape public attitudes, it would be no cause for complaint.

There’s simply no single right answer — and no justification for government to intervene in such intimate, private decisions.

What about bathrooms in public facilities, such as a government office, school, airport, or military base? These are all theoretically “owned” by everyone. Everyone has a stake in the issue — and thus a “right” of some sort — but there’s no accepted, overarching principle that determines with whom you must share a bathroom. A local majority may need to rule in such cases, but someone will always be unhappy with the result, especially if the relevant decision-makers are far away, protected from the consequences.

For Washington pols to insist that, say, teenage girls in a small town in downstate Illinois accept as a bathroom mate a child who appears to be a boy is an act of extraordinary chutzpah. The girls’ refusal to do so does not necessarily reflect malevolent discrimination; it may simply be an understandable reaction to basic biology. Politicians have no right to impose their particular agenda.

Of course, differing opinions don’t justify ignoring the interests of those in the midst of gender change, whether it involves surgery or not. Access to a bathroom is critical for almost everything people do — going to school, working outside your home, going shopping, and traveling. Some kind of accommodation should be made. But what kind?

Again, there’s no single solution that fits every public establishment, let alone private entity, across the country. Larger buildings could offer more options, such as separate bathrooms, like family-friendly single facilities. Communities and student bodies differ in attitudes and openness. Even those who are transgender may desire different outcomes in different circumstances.

Most important, all participants need to demonstrate understanding and sensitivity. No one of goodwill wants to add to the distress of someone changing gender. At the same time, those going through the process should not try to use government to impose their preference on schoolmates, neighbors, coworkers, and others. People should look for alternatives and compromises to work it out. Compromise, compassion, private property rights, and decentralized decision-making are enough to resolve this issue.

Politicians already control education, manage health care, provide social services, and underwrite businesses — and now they even decide who should use which bathroom. It’s time to return life’s most important decisions to the people. A good place to start would be keeping government out of our bathrooms.

Doug BandowDoug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of a number of books on economics and politics. He writes regularly on military non-interventionism.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Democrat Party: The Red-Green-Rainbow Troika

What will happen when a Muslim girl showers with a male who thinks he’s a girl?

Three reasons why Trump’s support of transgender bathrooms is wrong

EDITORS NOTE: Congressman Vern Buchanan (FL-District 16) did an email survey of constituents on the issue of transgender bathrooms. Here is the question and responses as of May 16th, 2016:

Do you support the new Obama administration directive requiring all public schools to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice?
  • Strongly support
 23.16%
  • Somewhat support
  8.39%
  • Somewhat oppose
  5.59%
  • Strongly oppose
 62.84%

When Christianity is Removed All Hell Breaks Out

bus-640x480Just recently, when perusing news stories, I happened upon a most heartbreaking story headline.  It proclaimed “London’s iconic red buses to declare glory to Allah.”  After getting over the initial shock I was a bit embarrassed.  Considering the massive evil in-roads the devoted Muslims have made making deep intrusions into British society for decades, I should not have been shocked one little bit.

The dangerous habit of western societies to sacrifice their own well-being just to appease those who have pledged to convert them or destroy them is miles beyond stupid. Britain’s largest Islamic charity says it wants to “break down barriers” and portray Islam positively by launching a new advertising campaign which will slap the phrase “glory to Allah on the sides of London buses.  Muslims reading the advertisements are told to “gather the rewards of Ramadan,” that they must donate Islamic relief.  That is a Muslim organization which used to have an account with banking giant HSBC.  The accounts were closed due to major “concerns that cash for aid could end up with Muslim terrorist groups throughout the world.”

Public transport has been chosen for the Islamic re-branding in London, Manchester, Leicester, Birmingham, and Bradford.  All of the locations have large growing bigoted Muslim populations.  That the announcement of the new campaign came a day after London “foolishly” crowned it’s first Muslim mayor Sadig Khan.  Islamic Relief called it a “nice irony” that the two events coincided.  “Uh yeah”  Imran Madden, a British traitor “cough” convert to Islam and director of Islamic Relief’s United Kingdom branch said, “there is a lot of negativity around Muslims at the moment involving things such as counterterrorism issues.  “We want to change for the better the perception of Islam.  The London bus campaign is about breaking down barriers and challenging misconceptions.”

I could only laugh at Mr. Imran Madden’s little message about changing the perceptions of Islam.  Because, if Muslims were serious about changing the perception of Islam, they would have to stop being Muslims.  Because Muslims are instructed in the little quaran’ that it is permissible to be cruel to non Muslims.  Whether it is through DHIMMI status, where in Muslim cultures, non-Muslims are not allowed to build new places of worship, not possess arms; they have to allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings.  That is only three out of the 20 major restrictions against non-Muslims who reside where Muslims have taken over.

Ironically, Christian groups have fared less well when it comes to advertising on London buses.  For example, Former London mayor Boris Johnson stepped in to ban a positive message by a Christian organization in response to a pro-homosexual advertising Campaign.  After it is all said and done, Christian groups have for many years been denied access to purchase advertising space on London buses and elsewhere.

The sad thing about all of this that for too long, Christians have been a soft touch in London, throughout Europe, Africa and America.  Unfortunately, Christians have bought into the misnomer that loving your neighbor and turning the other cheek means allowing yourself to be abused and pushed around.

Both Great Britain and the United States at one time were greatly influenced by Christian principles.  Thus both nations were blessed beyond compare.  In fact, at one time the saying was “the sun never sets upon the British Empire.”  Her land holdings spanned entirely around the globe.  Before the ascent of the United States, Great Britain was the standard of the world.  But something very foolish happen in 1957.  Stupidity overtook wisdom and England gave up it’s major Seagate, the Suez Canal which opened the door to the ultimate destruction of British invincibility.  At the same time the Brits  turned away from the God of Christianity as fast as someone turns their nose away from a bottle of bleach.  Thus the decline of Britain became etched in stone.

In life, if you move your feet, you lose your seat.  Or if you give up your God given wisdom and authority, someone else becomes the boss.  It is plain to see that the good elements that paved the way toward building the great city of London and the once mighty empire of Britain have been replaced.  In their place are the deceptive, brutish and nation killing elements that are disintegrating one of the greatest civilizations in human history.  In many cases, both the British and Christians have no one to blame but themselves for the horrors British society is experiencing today.  Gosh do I miss the likes of the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher.

Until Britain and the United States decide to stand up for themselves and reconnect with the principles and the influences of the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob they will continue to be torn down by the followers of the death God of Islam.

Gird your loins Nevada: Ready or not Muslim migrants on the way to Reno

I’ve been reporting in recent weeks about the new sites being targeted for refugee seeding by the the UN/US State Department Refugee Admissions Program (most recently yesterday it was Rutland, VT***).

Carina-Black-main

Carina Black

It is my educated guess that the federal resettlement contractors are wearing out their welcome in the 190 or so places in the US where refugees are already being resettled(and in many cases have been resettled for decades) and that perhaps one of the limiting factors is government-funded housing (not to mention other important things like lack of jobs!) and are thus scouting fresh territory.

Also, remember that Obama has upped the refugee stream to America this year from the 70,000 number of recent years to 85,000 by September 30th.

Starting October 1, Obama says he will be recommending 100,000 for FY2017 (even though he will be out of the White House for most of it).

Digressing for a minute, Congress will have a huge role to play in September when Obama makes his final determination about the number of refugees coming for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 and we will be watching to see if the gutless Congress does anything about it!

So back to Reno (and other sites) which are being prepped for the even bigger wave of refugees expected to begin October 1. By the way, I’m wondering if the low-skilled refugees will compete with Nevada’s large Hispanic population for jobs.

From KUNR radio:

The U.S. State Department has greenlighted a Northern Nevada nonprofit to help resettle refugees escaping hotbeds of conflict around the globe beginning this fall.

Carina Black, executive director of the Reno-based Northern Nevada International Center, says their application to become an official resettlement agency was approved in February. They’ve since been laying the groundwork, and building a stakeholders’ network, before those first few families arrive.

Those stakeholders include people from the health industry, from education, from ESL… people in the faith communities have been coming forward and showing a huge interest in helping us,” she says. “So we’re still basically conducting a lot of training…and getting ready for this new endeavor.”  [Remember readers that you are a stakeholder too! Maybe since you are paying for all of it, the biggest stakeholder of all!—ed]

Black says initially about two families — approximately 10 people — could arrive by September. For the federal fiscal year running Oct. 2016 through 2017, they’ve asked to resettle at most 75 refugees.

[….]

The full list of countries include: Cuba, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Eritrea, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

El Salvador and Guatemala have never been refugee-sending countries, that is, until Obama magically turned the unaccompanied alien minors from Central America into refugees.  He was re-writing the Refugee Act of 1980 without Congress and Congress let him get away with it!

The mayor had concerns.  It is up to citizens of Reno to speak up NOW if you have similar concerns!

Mayor Hillary Schieve was quoted last November saying she would prefer a “pause” on the program, following the terrorist attacks in Paris, but Black says she’s since had productive meetings with Schieve and other city council members to assuage their concerns.

Recently we told you that sites are getting ready to open in Ithaca, NY, Missoula, MT, and Rutland, VT.  I’m betting there are at least 30 new sites in the works where plans are being made in secret to bring the joys of multiculturalism to your neighborhood.  The only way you or I will know if your town is next, is if it appears in a local news story like this one. And, you can bet you will not see any of this in the mainstream media or cable news!

You might want to visit ‘Ten things your town needs to know‘ by clicking here.

***The major refugee contractor for both Rutland and Reno is the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (more to come on this!).  Stay tuned!

RELATED ARTICLES:

These Palestinians are illegal alien criminals, not heroes for trekking across the world to get here

Vermont: Rutland citizens say, let’s take care of our own first!

One more Somali terror trial underway in Somali capital—Minneapolis

Socialist Lies: From Stalin to the Clintons, Obamas, and Sanders

social lies book cover simona pimpkoIn my new book I explain that the Soviets are alive and well and to survive the young people have to know our enemy and the rest of the world should know it too. The young people are our future and the vast majority of them are not aware that our foremost enemy is constantly attacking us. Moreover, the absence of truth has allowed political crooks and intellectually dishonest educators to deceive and seduce our youth.

We live in a world driven by a hideous ideology: if you do not know this you are blind, deaf, and defenseless and need to open your eyes to what is happening.

chronicles the last seven years of catastrophic world events during the Obama administration and points out its secret collaboration with socialism worldwide and Russia in particular. Socialist Lies is a quick read that’s hard to put down, showing the aggressive role Russia plays in its war against Western civilization and how the Democratic Party is destroying its free enterprise legacy and adopting socialism. Meanwhile, the Republican establishment is being shaken to its core by member anger at its inaction on critical issues.

This nonfiction work chronicles the last seven years of catastrophic world events during the Obama administration and points out its secret collaboration with socialism worldwide and Russia in particular. Socialist Lies is a quick read that’s hard to put down, showing the aggressive role Russia plays in its war against Western civilization and how the Democratic Party is destroying its free enterprise legacy and adopting socialism.

Meanwhile, the Republican establishment is being shaken to its core by member anger at its inaction on critical issues.

I set the stage with the prologue, a firsthand narrative from her unique childhood under socialism in Russia. I then demonstrate how Marxist theory, which opened a Pandora’s Box in the nineteenth century, marched across the globe to the twentieth century. I call Marxism a combination of fraud with a Utopian concept, which has been used by adventurers, charlatans, and criminals to acquire power. The leader who exemplified all these characteristics was Joseph Stalin.

A dogmatic Marxist, brought up within the Islamic culture, Stalin invented the marriage of communism and Islam—the reason we have been dragged into war today; it is the ideology I called Soviet Fascism.

Stalin laid out the agenda for a One World Government under the Kremlin auspices—the agenda of WWIII against Western civilization.

To purchase Socialist Lies: From Stalin to the Clintons, Obamas and Sanders click here.