Iowa Poll: Trump and Clinton Surge 10 Days Before the Caucus — Cruz & Sanders Faltering

/in , , , /by

trump clintonBOSTON, MA /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In a new, statewide Iowa poll, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have surged to 9 and 10 point leads in Iowa with just 10 days before the first in the nation voting begins. Clinton receives 52% of the vote and Sanders at 43%. Trump leads his Republican rivals with 33%, followed byTed Cruz at 23%, Marco Rubio (14%), and Ben Carson (9%) round out the top four with the rest of field under 6%; Rick Santorum — who won the 2012 Iowa GOP Caucus with 25% of the vote — has less than 1% of Iowans this time around, and Mike Huckabee who won the 2008 Iowa Caucus is at 2%.

The survey began January 18, the day after the latest Democrat debate, and concluded January 20, the day following Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Donald Trump.

“At this point, while both Trump and Clinton have significant leads in their own primaries the electorate appears volatile, and it is still up in the air as to who will win,” said Henry Krause, a Senior Political Communication major at Emerson College, who helped oversee the project. The data fluctuated on the three days of polling on both sides with Clinton holding a 14 point lead on Monday, dropping to 9 points on Tuesday and was at 1 point, 48% to 47% on Wednesday. Trump also sees variability over the three days watching a 13 point lead on Monday drop to 4 points on Tuesday and rebounding on Wednesday to 12 points 35% to 22% over Cruz.

Iowa voters, however, are not thrilled with their 2016 Presidential options. The top three GOP candidates all have negative favorability numbers with Trump at 37% favorable to 55% unfavorable, Rubio at 37% favorable to 47% unfavorable and Cruz is worse at 34% favorable to 54% favorable. Clinton has the highest favorable rating at 42% but also carries a high unfavorable rating of 53%.

In the Democrat Primary, Clinton holds the support of registered Democrats 54% to 42% over Sanders, while Sanders holds a 44% to 36% lead among registered Independents. On the Republican side Trump holds a 34% to 24% over Cruz among registered Republicans and extends his lead to 15 points among Independents 30% to 15% over Cruz.

The survey also found that 66% of Iowan voters did not know a person of Muslim faith and that 28% said they did not have a Hispanic friend of acquaintance.

Caller ID

The ECPS poll was conducted from Monday, January 18 at 6:00 p.m., through Wednesday evening January 20. The polling sample was a random selection of registered voters purchased through Aristotle Inc. Likely primary voters were classified through a screening question. For non-completes with a working residential phone line, at least five callbacks were attempted. The Democratic and GOP Presidential primaries consisted of 258 and 271 adult registered likely primary voters in Iowa, with a margin of error of +/-6.1% and +/-5.9% respectively at a 95 percent confidence level, was used for the additional statewide questions. Data was collected using an Interactive Voice Response system and weighted based on 2012 General Election voting to reflect likely voter populations in Iowa. The full methodology and results can be found at www.theecps.com

RELATED ARTICLE: One Week Out: The Problem With Polling Iowa

Santorum: Obama Caused SEAL Team Six Deaths in Afghanistan

/in , , , /by

In a shocking interview, Rick Santorum places the deaths of 15 Special forces operators and 15 members of SEAL Team Six squarely upon the Obama/Clinton Administration Rules of Engagement Policy.

When asked, “Who do you think is responsible?” for the deaths of the largest single one day loss of special forces in U.S. history.

Senator Santorum stated, “It comes from the top. It comes from the politically correct war we are fighting with this President who believes that the worst thing we can do is kill anyone on the battlefield who is an innocent civilian.”

With Clear Eyes and a Very Cold Heart – The Assassination of Alexander Litvinenko

/in , , /by

It was always going to be the case that Sir Robert Owen’s inquiry into the death of the Russian exile and former spy Alexander Litvinenko, in London in 2006, was going to be controversial. But few could have imagined a dramatic outcome of the kind seen this week.

It is one thing for the masses to have believed that Vladimir Putin ordered Litvinenko’s poisoning with polonium-210, a radioactive material made only at Russian nuclear facilities. Quite another for a senior British judge to have formally concluded that Russia’s President “probably” approved the murder through his FSB secret service agency – “probably” in this case being the legal equivalent of “as close to definitely as can be, absent a formal written or verbally recorded order.”

For all Russia’s immediate bluster that this verdict reflects “the theatre of the absurd”, the Kremlin will be aware that the lifting of the veil on the Litvinenko killing will cause real damage to Russia’s reputation. And just at a time when Mr Putin was counting on his insertion into the Syrian
conflict as being his path to escape the international opprobrium justly earned through his invasion of Ukraine.

For Britain’s Prime Minister David Cameron, the crisis occasioned by the Report could help define a new Western response to Putin’s repeated acts of aggression, both near and far. Mr Cameron has conceded that the UK will have to go on having “some sort of relationship with them [Russia]” because of the Syria crisis, but it would be done with “clear eyes and a very cold heart”. But if the UK response is simply a ritualistic addition of a few travel bans to stop those implicated in the murder from travelling to London, then he will have flunked the test before him. Much sterner action – whether increased sanctions, asset seizures or some form of targeting of Russian state entities – will be required to show Russia that state-sponsored nuclear terrorism on foreign soil will not be tolerated. And that Russia’s repeated crossing of internationally acknowledged red lines has real consequences.

Long before it was fashionable to do so, The Henry Jackson Society recognised that Mr Putin was not a man who the West could do business with, but rather a kleptocrat and autocrat whose strangulation of Russian domestic opposition would eventually lead him into conflict with democracies near and far, and encourage him to take increasingly desperate measures to prop up his own rule. And thus it has proven.

Those within the international community who think that Putin is somehow our salvation in the Syrian quagmire should look at the Litvinenko Report and take stock. Placing trust in Mr Putin is the road to perdition. Perhaps Mr Cameron can yet show us a path to salvation.

mendozahjs

From the Director’s Desk 

Unnoticed by many, an energy revolution is under way in the Eastern Mediterranean. Natural gas finds by countries like Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus and Egypt look likely to transform not only their own energy dependency status, but also the source of imports for European countries customarily forced to deal with Russia and Qatar, with all the attendant baggage those countries bring to the negotiating table.

But as energy expert Mona Sukkarieh explained to a Henry Jackson Society audience this week in the House of Commons, while the relatively small size of the new discoveries will not mean that Europe’s energy dependency problems are solved overnight, the Mediterranean gas fields have the potential to effect a more fundamental change within the region itself through their impact on geopolitical considerations.

This is already happening. In Cyprus, part of the incentive for Greek and Turkish Cypriots to unite is the knowledge of the shared economic bonanza that awaits through their gas discoveries. Consequently, the two sides are closer than ever before to an agreement, as the Cypriot High commissioner noted in person.

In the case of Israel, although its burgeoning ties with Egypt have security as its core, these have been solidified by a gas trading relationship that means the two countries have more in common. While the economic balance between them will change when Egypt’s own field comes on stream, meaning it will no longer need to import gas, their shared interest in trading stability will incentivise each to work with the other. Equally, it is no secret that despite openly embracing Hamas and attacking Israel at every opportunity, Turkey’s President Erdogan sees Israel as an important trading partner, with the gas relationship having contributed to a recent thaw in relations. It may even be possible to see a time when Lebanon’s absurd official policy of not recognising Israel but also criminalising direct contact with any Israeli is swept aside by the need to engage in direct discussions over not just gas territorial demarcations – currently being mediated by the USA – but how regional neighbours can manage their energy assets in the regional interest.

While we may be a long way off form the formation of an “East Mediterranean Gas Community” to mirror the original “European Coal and Steel Community” that formed the basis of the European Union, stranger things have been known to happen. And in the Middle East, they frequently do.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

VIDEO: 50 Trump Campaign Promises in under 2 Minutes

/in , , , /by

Here are some of the most memorable campaign promises Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has made since he declared his candidacy in June 2015. Video by Sarah Parnass from The Washington Post.

Jenna Johnson in a column titled “Here are 76 of Donald Trump’s many campaign promises” writes:

Most presidential candidates are careful to not promise too much on the campaign trail. That’s not at all the case for Republican front-runner Donald Trump. Listed below are 76 things that Trump has said he would do if elected, or has predicted would occur as a result of his election. If he were to win the White House, Trump has promised to:

1. Build a wall along the southern border that’s taller than the arenas where Trump holds his rallies, taller than any ladder and one foot taller than the Great Wall of China. This “artistically beautiful” wall will be constructed out of hardened concrete, rebar and steel, and it will be “the greatest wall that you’ve ever seen” — so great that the nation will likely one day name it “The Trump Wall.”

2. Make Mexico pay for the wall. If Mexico refuses, then the United States will impound all remittance payments taken from the wages of illegal immigrants, cut foreign aid, institute tariffs, cancel visas for Mexican business leaders and diplomats, and increase fees for visas, border-crossing cards and port use.

At a campaign event at Liberty University in Lunchburg, Va., Donald Trump compared his proposed border wall to the Great Wall of China. (Reuters)

3. “If I become president, we’re all going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again.”

Read more.

Busting Myths about Income Inequality by Chelsea German

/in , , , , /by

Politicians speak often about income inequality. But that doesn’t mean they are well-informed. Indeed, they propagate four myths about the issue.

  1. Most often, those vying for elected office describe income inequality as static — as though the people who make up each income group do not change.
    The “top 1 percent” or the “top 10 percent” of income-earners are portrayed as exclusive clubs that seldom accept new members or see old and current members leave. No fluidity, no change.
  2. Political figures also have a tendency only to blame income inequality on factors like trade, immigration, an insufficiently high minimum wage, inadequate taxes on the wealthy, or the vague concept of “greed.”
  3. They typically ignore the sizeable role of choices under an individual’s control.
  4. They downplay the role of regressive government regulations.

Reality is much more interesting than soundbites.

Americans often move between different income brackets over the course of their lives. Indeed, over 50 percent of Americans find themselves among the top 10 percent of income-earners for at least one year during their working lives, and over 11 percent of Americans will be counted among the top 1 percent of income-earners for at least one year.

Fortunately, a great deal of what explains this income mobility are choices that are largely within an individual’s control. While people tend to earn more in their “prime earning years” than in their youth or old age, other key factors that explain income differences are education level, marital status, and number of earners per household. As AEI’s Mark Perry recently wrote:

The good news is that the key demographic factors that explain differences in household income are not fixed over our lifetimes and are largely under our control (e.g. staying in school and graduating, getting and staying married, etc.), which means that individuals and households are not destined to remain in a single income quintile forever.

According to the U.S. economist Thomas Sowell, whom Perry cites, “Most working Americans, who were initially in the bottom 20 percent of income-earners, rise out of that bottom 20 percent. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain in the bottom 20 percent.”

While people move between income groups over their lifetime, many worry that income inequality between different income groups is increasing. The growing income inequality is real, but its causes are more complex than the demagogues make them out to be.

Consider, for example, the effect of “power couples,” or people with high levels of education marrying one another and forming dual-earner households. In a free society, people can marry whoever they want, even if it does contribute to widening income disparities.

Or consider the effects of regressive government regulations on exacerbating income inequality. These include barriers to entry that protect incumbent businesses and stifle competition. To name one extreme example, Louisiana recently required a government-issued license to become a florist. Lifting more of these regressive regulations would aid income mobility and help to reduce income inequality, while also furthering economic growth.

If our elections were more about the substance of serious public policy issues, rather than demagoguery and soundbites, achieving reasonable solutions could move from the land of make-believe to our complex, dynamic reality.

This article first appeared at CapX.

Chelsea GermanChelsea German

Chelsea German works at the Cato Institute as a Researcher and Managing Editor of HumanProgress.org.

No, the Rest of the World Doesn’t Use ‘Single Payer’ by Eli Lehrer

/in , , , , /by

There’s plenty of reason for free marketers to be skeptical of proposals, like the ones emanating from Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and hinted at by Republican Donald Trump, that would create a single-payer healthcare coverage system in the United States.

But, if only because these proposals have resonance with the public, they’re certainly worth debating. A rational debate depends on getting the facts straight and there’s one fact that both left and right often get wrong: “single payer” healthcare of the sort Bernie Sanders proposes isn’t universal in the developed world and the US system isn’t particularly free-market by the standards of peer nations.

Although definitions vary slightly, a single payer healthcare system is one where a single entity — a government-run insurance plan — pays all bills for a variety of medical care, and private payment for these same services is more-or-less banned.

Among the G-7 countries, only one nation, Canada, actually maintains such a system. One other, Italy, has a pretty similar system but allows much more private payment, and, because of the low standards of public hospitals, nearly everyone who can afford private insurance carries it.

Japan maintains a government-run healthcare plan, but it has so many gaps that most families find a need to carry private insurance to cover things like cancer-treatment related costs the public system excludes.

Germany, like the United States, has an employer-state hybrid system with heavy regulation of insurance companies.

France has a “dominant payer” system, where one quasi-governmental entity (CNAMTS) pays many bills, but about 90 percent of the population maintains private coverage as well, and most people pay something out of pocket each year.

The United Kingdom, finally, directly administers almost all medical personnel and facilities through a single governmental entity in each of the home countries. This is a “single provider” system.

Except in the United Kingdom, furthermore, there are significant numbers of people in all of these countries who report problems paying for needed medical care. This percentage is higher in the United States and Germany, intermediate in France, and lower in Canada. The UK only achieves its apparently enviable results because of long waiting lists for many procedures and health care rationing systems that are pretty close to the fictional “death panels” some conservatives claimed were part of Obamacare.

The American system as it exists isn’t unusually free market either. The German, French, and Japanese systems — where consumers much more frequently shop around for insurance plans they like rather than having the government or an employer chose — offer more consumer choices than most Americans enjoy. Even though taxpayers pick up a very large portion of the bills, the French practice of publically providing the prices of medical procedures makes that system feel a lot more like a free market than anything most Americans see day-to-day.

There are lots of valid criticisms of the United States’ healthcare system. The difficulty the poor or uninsured sometimes have in getting needed medical care is one of them. Some problems of the US health care system stem from lifestyle and cultural factors that organization and payment mechanisms can’t impact. But the lack of a single-payer system in the United States isn’t unusual in the slightest nor is the system we have particularly free-market.

Any debate should start by acknowledging both of those facts.

Eli LehrerEli Lehrer

Eli Lehrer is president and co-founder of the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank.

What Trump and Sanders Said about Oil Prices 4 Years Ago by Daniel Bier

/in , , , , /by

Remember when complaining about the price of gas was all the rage? The public discourse was awash in pseudo-psychology, hand-wringing about “peak oil,” and an array of conspiracy theories to explain why oil cost so much.

There was much ado about corporate “greed” (the cause of all life’s problems), hissing about “speculators,” nationalist chest-thumping about OPEC, self-proclaimed experts warning that Earth was out of oil, and many inarticulate suspicions about George Bush and Barack Obama.

Economists were pretty sure that the price of oil was related to supply and demand, but what did they know? One cantankerous socialist knew the truth:

Pump prices spiked 5% in the past month… Crude oil prices stood at $108 on Friday, up from only double digits at the beginning of the month. …

What’s the cause? Forget what you may have read about the laws of supply and demand. Oil and gas prices have almost nothing to do with economic fundamentals.

Fortunately, when he wrote that in 2012, Sen. Bernie Sanders was ahead of the game, having never read anything about supply and demand at all. Unencumbered by basic economics, he was able to see that Big Oil “gouging” and Wall Street “speculators” were to blame.

Remarkably, right around the time of the fracking revolution, the price of oil and gas started tumbling. I guess Wall Street’s heart grew three sizes that day.

But Sanders didn’t have the only theory. One super smart billionaire figured out that Saudi Arabia was the real problem:

Look at what’s going on with your gasoline prices. They’re going to go to $5, $6, $7 and we don’t have anybody in Washington that calls OPEC and says, “Fellas, it’s time. It’s over. You’re not going to do it anymore.”

When Donald Trump diagnosed this problem in 2011, his solution wasn’t just to “call Saudi Arabia” and tell them “you’re not going to raise that f***ing price!” No, he had a practical measure: seize Iraq’s oil fields. “To the victor belong the spoils. You go in. You win the war and you take it.”

It’s worth remembering this mass hysteria, although the situation today is somewhat different. The price of oil is below $30 a barrel. The International Energy Agency has warned that the world is now “drowning” in oil.

This week, the price for a particularly low-quality type of oil briefly dipped to negative fifty cents a barrel. That is, producers actually had to pay the refinery to take their oil. Has greed been abolished from the land? Maybe. But there’s also a sensible explanation: the high-sulfur oil is expensive to transport and refine, but the producers still had to get rid of it somehow.

But just a few years ago, it would have been almost unthinkable for refineries to actively discourage oil production. At $140 a barrel, almost any kind of oil is worth refining. And here’s the upshot: it was precisely those high prices that prompted the massive investment in production, exploration, and innovation that led to fracking, the shale revolution, and today’s tumbling prices. It was greedy, profit-seeking oil companies who drove the price of oil down over 80% from its peak in 2008.

It’s important to grasp these lessons now, because at some point, the price of oil — or some other commodity — will rise again, and we will be greeted by the same parade of doomsayers, conspiracy theorists, and would-be regulators that we endured for the last decade.

They’re not gone, they’re not even hiding — they’re leading the race for president.

Bonus economics of gas story: On Monday, local news in Michigan reported that a bidding war between a couple of gas stations briefly resulted in prices below 50 cents a gallon. To understand just how weird this is, the wholesale price of gasoline is about $1.

Is this another sign of irrational generosity sweeping the petroleum industry? No. Gasoline is retailed at razor thin margins; gas is typically about 70% of a station’s revenue, but only 30% of its profit. Gas stations actually make most of their money selling food, cigarettes, and bottled water inside.

Occasionally, gasoline is used as a loss leader: stations will sell gas for cheap (even at a loss) to bring people to the pump, where they can then make more money selling high-margin items like bottled drinks and tobacco.

Daniel BierDaniel Bier

Daniel Bier is the editor of Anything Peaceful. He writes on issues relating to science, civil liberties, and economic freedom.

Is Trump Trustworthy? Is Cruz Likable?

/in , , , , , /by

A puzzling mindset has emerged in some conservatives regarding Cruz. A publisher who usually publishes my articles rejected one touting Ted Cruz for president. The publisher politely lectured me about my support for Cruz; calling it misguided and even non Christian. I love the way when people know you are Christian they try to use your faith to manipulate you. (smile)

Conservatives choosing to perceive Trump as they want him to be is a reflection of their anger, frustration and fear of losing their country. I witnessed this phenomenon when Trump first announced his campaign. An evangelical minister attempted to convince me that Trump is a committed Christian. I was a bit taken aback. While I do not think poorly of Trump, it never occurred to me to use the words “Trump” and “Christian” in the same sentence. My Evangelical brother’s effort to make Trump a strong Christian confirmed that Conservatives are desperate. Pure and simple.

The reality is many conservatives will follow anyone promising “real” change in Washington. Given the betrayal, heartache and disappointment that the GOP has put tea partiers/patriots through, I cannot criticize my patriot brothers and sisters who support Trump. It kind of offends me when I hear conservative pundits trashing Trump supporters; in essence, beating up on the victims.

I will state again that if Trump becomes our GOP nominee, I will wave “Vote Trump!” signs on street corners. However, I do have concerns about the man. I am not talking about the mainstream media, Democrats and RINO’s accusations about Trump.

As a matter of fact, please allow me to digress for a moment. I heard a report that British politicians have half a million signatures on a petition supportive of banning Trump from the UK because of his proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from the U.S. Folks, this infuriated me. I thought, “Just because you idiots have surrendered to political correctness and allowed Muslim terrorists to dominate your country, does not mean we should do the same in the US!”

Back to my issues with Trump. My dad said a snake can swim under water a very long time just like a fish. However, it eventually has to come up for air because it is not a fish, it is a snake. Folks, I am not calling Trump a snake. I am simply saying while Trump has touted conservative values during his campaign, Trump’s history is not conservative. Perhaps, Trump has had a road to Damascus conversion and is now a rabid conservative. Who knows? But why risk it?

A wise person said, “The best predictor of future behavior is… past behavior.” Folks, I suspect that there is very little doubt in your mind as to who Ted Cruz is and what he will do as president. Cruz has a history of rock solid conservatism.

And dare I mention the “C” word, character. Cruz proudly proclaims his Christianity. Real religious conviction affects ones character/behavior. I want my president to believe that there is a God and that it is not him.

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom…” Proverbs 8:10

William Bradford, the Christian who lead the pilgrims on the Mayflower to the new world, seeking religious freedom, knew this scripture to be true. Bradford was very outspoken about his belief and trust in God to lead them to their new home in the new world; built on the unique concept of individual freedom.

What I found most distressing about SCOTUS, in essence, making same sex marriage the law of the land is the Left’s successful effort to make normal what has been considered deviant since the beginning of time. SCOTUS’s decision opened the floodgates not for tolerance, but for Americans to be bullied into embracing anti-biblical behavior. Why do same sex couples force Christian businesses to service their weddings rather than going to businesses with flashing neon signs, “We Service Homosexual Weddings”? Clearly, their agenda is not about getting a wedding cake and all about the Left’s intolerance of Christians.

It still blows my mind that Christians are actually being thrown into jail in the United States of America for not embracing sodomy. Ted Cruz has vowed to defend religious freedom. I know he will.

A tea party group leader said they feel like Cruz is lecturing them when he speaks. I thought, “Excuse me. With a morally bankrupted anti-America scoundrel like Barack Obama running our country for eight years, America desperately needs a leader/Commander-in-Chief of the highest character and moral standards”. No way, would I reject such a candidate because I feel a bit intimidated in their presence. In a field of two-faced, say-whatever-necessary-to-win candidates, I say praise God for a candidate who truly stands for something (conservatism).

When I was a child, I assumed all US presidents were exceptional people of the highest character. Man, was I wrong. Americans long for a great trustworthy and moral leader. America desperately needs Ted Cruz.

RELATED ARTICLE: What Trump and Sanders Said about Oil Prices 4 Years Ago

VIDEO: Pastor Jack Martin Running for Congress in Florida’s 11th District

/in , , , , , , /by

Florida’s 11th Congressional District includes Sumter, Citrus and Hernando counties and most of Marion county. The current representative of the 11th Congressional District is Richard B. Nugent (R). Nugent is retiring at the end of his current term.

Pastor John “Jack” Martin has decided for God and country to run for Nugent’s seat. Here is a video of Jack Martin speaking at a Second Amendment rally:

Guns Across America Florida Rally Pastor Jack Martin from Jack Martin on Vimeo.

Pastor Marin’s history is that of a 33 year pastor. He is a member of the Black Robe Regiment and Preacher from The Pulpit. He has been standing up, speaking out and attending various events throughout the State of Florida to Washington D.C. He has always felt that a position as a statesman, U.S. Congressional Rep. to represent The People was his next calling in life.

Martin on his website lists six major crises Americans face:

  1. The National Debt – Over 18 Trillion Dollars
  2. Our Borders – Unprotected and being flooded daily with those entering illegally from many nations.
  3. Our Military both Veterans and Active Duty treated poorly.
  4. Obamacare – Needing to be repealed and replaced.
  5. Israeli / American Relationships – Need to be restored.
  6. Our Judeo Christian Ethics – under heavy attack.

Jack Martin speaking on the Black Robe Regiment at a Deland, Florida Rally in December 2015:

Pastor Martin has been endorsed by William Finlay, Wild Bill for America, also a Black Robe Regiment member among others.

Supporter Deb Howard states, “Pastor Jack is well known for his candor of Gods word and the application in conjunction with today’s times that we face. His deliveries are captivating. I am attaching one in particular that I believe delivers Jacks beliefs as he does walk the walk. There is no denying that people are pleasantly surprised as the preacher from the small country church is ready willing and able to face the evil in D.C. unafraid to be heard and willing to fight the mass corruption within our Halls!”

“Pastor Jack is also acquainted with Geoff Ross, Senior Chief, U.S. Navy (Ret.), Michael McCallister, Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.), Ann Murrin, PoliticoChicks, Rodney Conover (writer and radio host), Joe The Plumber and numerous others who are supporting, covering the campaign trail and publishing information about him, ” said Howard.

Howard notes, “Our attempt to make Pastor John Martin a household name not only in District FL-11 but nationwide as he is challenging pastors to step out and off of the pulpit and guide congregations to comprehend the true nature of their work. As Black Robe Regiment Pastors joined in leading with George Washington to fight for our independence in the Revolutionary War, so stands John Martin.”

EDITORS NOTE: Readers wanting more information may visit the Jack Martin for Congress website.

Anti-BDS Bill Unanimously Passes Florida Senate

/in , , , , , /by

The Florida  State Senate in Tallahassee yesterday unanimously passed on Third Reading an anti-BDS bill SB 38 on “scrutinized companies” directed at companies boycotting Israeli companies.  See the Florida Senate Legislation Tracker for the tally of those State Senators who cast the unanimous vote. The ‘scrutinized companies” Florida legislation would:

Require the State Board of Administration to identify all companies that are boycotting Israel or are engaged in a boycott of Israel in which the public fund owns direct or indirect holdings by a specified date; requiring the public fund to create and maintain the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List that names all such companies; prohibiting a state agency or local governmental entity from contracting for goods and services that exceed a specified amount if the company has been placed on the Scrutinized Companies that Boycott Israel List.

The legislation is modeled on one that passed in South Carolina, last session in Columbia, spearheaded by State Rep. Alan Clemmons. It has the support of the Israel Allies Foundation in Washington, which is seeking to see it adopted in other jurisdictions across the US. A companion bill, in the Florida House HR 527 passed its first stop, the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Wednesday, January 20, 2015.  The Florida anti-BDS legislation has the support of the Florida Christian Families Coalition.

Listeners to the weekly Lisa Benson Show that airs Sunday on KKNT 960 The Patriot out of Phoenix heard South Carolina Rep. Clemmons discuss the model legislation during an interview on December 6, 2015. LISTEN to the podcast here.

The AP had this report on the progress of the Florida anti-BDS legislation, “Boycott of companies that boycott Israel sought in Florida:”

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) — Florida wouldn’t be able to invest in companies that boycott Israel under a bill unanimously passed by the state Senate.

The Senate passed a bill Thursday that would force the State Board of Administration to identify companies that boycott Israel and then notify them they are on a “scrutinized companies” list. The board is responsible for managing the state’s retirement fund.

If the companies continue to boycott Israel, the board would not be allowed to invest in those companies.

It would also place limits on state agencies from contracting with companies on the list.

A similar House bill has two more committee stops before it’s ready for a floor vote.

RELATED ARTICLE: Israel and Florida: A Strong and Growing Economic Partnership

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Duck Dynasty’s Willie Robertson Endorses Donald Trump for President

/in , , , , , /by

Duck Dynasty Willie Robertson Publicly Endorses Donald TrumpLAS VEGAS, Nevada /PRNewswire/ — Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump garnered another major endorsement of his campaign when Duck Dynasty star and outdoor lifestyle advocate  Willie Robertson – during an appearance at the Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channel’s Outdoor Sportsman Awards in Las Vegas at the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show (SHOT Show) and Conference – appeared and announced his support for the GOP frontrunner.

Robertson, who along with Trump was a guest at the 16th Annual Outdoor Sportsman Awards show, is part of a constituency in the United States that numbers 134 million strong in advocating and participating in outdoor lifestyle activities. Robertson’s endorsement comes on the heels of Sarah Palin, who recently hosted Sportsman Channel’s Amazing America with Sarah Palin. Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channel are the world’s leading messengers in providing outdoor lifestyle content.

“He’s not afraid to tell it like it is,” said Robertson. “He’s a friend of the Second Amendment…the man I’m standing behind to be the next President of the United States – Donald Trump.”

Robertson and his family started their television careers on Outdoor Channel with their Buck Commander show. Since then, the family has found wild television success on A&E with Duck Dynasty, which recently began airing Seasons 1-6 in syndication on Outdoor Channel (Mondays at 7 p.m. ET). Willie Robertson continues to commandeer Buck Commander on Outdoor Channel, as well.

Considered the Emmy Awards® of outdoor lifestyle programming, the Outdoor Sportsman Awards serve as the hallmark event to recognize outstanding programming created by Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channeltalent and production teams during the previous year. The ceremony feature 17 awards including Fan Favorite Host(s) awards for Outdoor Channel and Sportsman Channel.

About Outdoor Sportsman Group

Outdoor Sportsman Group is comprised of the world’s foremost media and entertainment brands for outdoor adventure enthusiasts. It includes three leading multichannel networks: Outdoor Channel, Sportsman Channel and World Fishing Network. The Group also consists of a number of established integrated media assets: 15 outdoor magazines, such as Guns & Ammo, Petersen’s Bowhunting and Florida Sportsman, and 17 top websites, including BassFan.com. Additionally, Outdoor Sportsman Group includes television production operations, Winnercomm, as well as aerial camera businesses, SkyCam and CableCam.

About Outdoor Channel

Outdoor Channel has been taking viewers across America and around the world on unparalleled adventures since 1993. Dedicated to the outdoor lifestyle and conservation, the independent cable network is a division of Outdoor Sportsman Group and provides a complete spectrum of riveting hunting, fishing, shooting and adventure entertainment. Outdoor Channel is the largest outdoor TV footprint in the country and is available in more than 50 countries internationally. Outdoor Channel can be viewed in HD and is accessible by broadband and mobile platforms. For program times and other information, visit www.outdoorchannel.com. Follow us onTwitter, Instagram, Facebook and YouTube, and download our iPhone and iPad app. #WhatGetsYouOutdoors

About Sportsman Channel

Launched in 2003, Sportsman Channel/Sportsman HD is a television and digital media company fully devoted to honoring a lifestyle that is celebrated by millions of Americans. A division of Outdoor Sportsman Group, Sportsman Channel delivers entertaining and informative programming that showcases outdoor adventure, hunting and fishing, and illustrates it through unique and authentic storytelling. Sportsman Channel embraces the attitude of “Red, Wild & Blue America” – where the American Spirit and Great Outdoors are celebrated in equal measure. Stay connected to Sportsman Channel online at thesportsmanchannel.com, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

About World Fishing Network
World Fishing Network is North America’s only television network, online and mobile platform dedicated exclusively to fishing and outdoor enthusiasts with programming that covers instruction, tips, tournaments, travel, food, boating, outdoor lifestyle and more. Available to cable, satellite and telco subscribers throughoutthe United States, Canada and the Caribbean, our lineup includes a selection of the best international series and the most diverse species coverage of any TV channel hosted by some of the top anglers from North America and across the globe. For more information, please visit WorldFishingNetwork.com and follow us atFacebook and Twitter.

About Outdoor Sportsman Group – Integrated Media

As a premier destination for the most avid outdoors enthusiasts, Outdoor Sportsman Group’s Integrated Media division is widely recognized for its strong special-interest multichannel brands, including Petersen’s Hunting, Guns & Ammo, In-Fisherman, North American Whitetail, Game & Fish and 10 other leading magazines that reach more than 26 million readers. Its network of 17 websites, including BassFan.com, attract more than 38 million annual unique visitors, and hundreds of TV episodes of original branded hunting, sport shooting and fishing programming that airs on Outdoor Sportsman Group’s broadcast entities. Visit http://outdoorsg.com for more information.

 

13 Hours – Secret Soldiers of Benghazi a Stephen Coughlin Video Moment

/in , , , , /by

This special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Stephen Coughlin Moment with Stephen Coughlin, the co-founder of UnconstrainedAnalytics.org and the author of the new book, Catastrophic Failure.

Stephen discussed 13 Hours – Secret Soldiers of Benghazi, focusing on a few crucial things not covered in the film.

And make sure to watch The Stephen Coughlin Moment: The “Countering Violent Extremism” Deception, in which Stephen unveiled how the CVE narrative was fostered by the Muslim Brotherhood -– and how it negates countering terror: CLICK HERE.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim migrant: “German girls are just there for sex”

Hugh Fitzgerald: Sticking to the Details

EDITORS NOTE: The Glazov Gang is a fan-generated program. Readers may donate through The Glazov Gang Pay Pal account, subscribe to their YouTube Channel and LIKE them on Facebook.

British Parliament Moves Against the Real Threat: Donald Trump

/in , , , , , /by

In FrontPage today I discuss how the British Parliament went into full Sharia mode as it debated banning the Presidential candidate for his unwelcome opinions.

Say goodnight, Winston. Sayonara, Shakespeare. It’s light’s out in the United Kingdom. In Britain, it’s all over but the Sharia. This was made abundantly clear on Monday, when the British Parliament held a three-hour debate on whether or not to ban Donald Trump from the country.

It used to be that only serious criminals, severe threats to the public order, were ever banned from countries. Ostensibly, that is still the case, but the idea of who and what constitutes a threat to the public order has changed. Multitudes in Britain want to keep Trump out of their green and pleasant land not because he absconded with the church funds, or plotted bomb attacks in the London Tube, but because he said that in light of the jihad terror threat and the impossibility of distinguishing Islamic jihadists from peaceful Muslims, there should be a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the U.S.

For that, the learned Parliamentarians debated banning Trump from Britain, and in the process, heaped abuse upon him, calling him a “fool,” a “buffoon” and a “wazzock,” which is apparently a word more properly applied to those who voted for David Cameron. One thing that never became clear during the entire three hours of heated discussion, however, was what terrible results the foes of Trump thought might ensue from his entry into the Sceptered Isle. Did they think that if he repeated his call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration on British soil, that Muslims, those notorious shrinking violets, would retreat to psychologists’ couches in such droves that the British mental health system would be overwhelmed?

More likely, the unspoken fear was that if Trump entered Britain, Muslims would riot. And so those British politicians who have insisted that Islam is a Religion of Peace moved to ban him, knowing but afraid to admit that the adherents of the most famous peaceful religion in the world could quite easily become violent if crossed. To avoid crossing them was their highest of priorities – and as Sharia forbids criticism of Islam and offense to Muslims, they eagerly became Sharia-compliant, eagerly anticipating the electoral rewards that were certain to follow in the wake of their submission.

The whole thing looks now as if it was just a chance for Trump’s foes to do a bit of grandstanding and show their Muslim masters how solidly they were in their corner, but seriously, why not ban Trump? After all, I myself was banned from entering Britain for saying that Islam “is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society.”

The anti-Trump movement in the UK implied that Trump might escape due punishment for his heinous crimes because he is rich: “If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the ‘unacceptable behaviour’ criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.” But that’s a lot of hooey. The “unacceptable behavior” criteria is already applied unfairly. Just days before Pamela Geller and I were banned, the British government admitted Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arefe. Al-Arefe has said:

“Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”

That was acceptable in Britain. My work, which has consistently denounced violence and been in defense of the equality of rights of all before the law, was not. That’s a fair application of the “unacceptable behaviors” criteria?

If I can get banned for making a manifestly true observation about Islam, then Trump can certainly be banned for calling for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration in view of jihad terror. The UK continues to demonize and stigmatize resistance to jihad terror, and will probably continue to do so until it is far too late: the last free Briton will be congratulating himself that he was not “Islamophobic” as the knife slices through his neck.

As Britain continues to make itself an international laughingstock, transgressing its core principles by banning people for holding unpopular opinions, there is one thing that can be said for that once-great nation: as Sharia states go, it is a hell of a lot funnier than Saudi Arabia or Iran.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Video: Muslim migrants grope Swedish woman, demand she “make sex”

Islamic State razes to ground 1,400-year-old Christian monastery

Islamic State Cuts Terrorist Salaries by Half by Daniel Bier

/in , , , , /by

Documents leaked to CNN from inside the Islamic State show that the terrorist insurgency/quasi-state is undergoing massive budget cuts, cutting salaries for its fighters and staff by 50 percent across the board.

ISIS soldiers earn between $400 and $1,200 a month, plus a $50 stipend for their wives and $25 for each child, according to the Congressional Research Service.

But running a state at war is expensive. And recent victories for the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS mean that the Islamic State can’t afford to pay its soldiers quite as much as it used to.

“On account of the exceptional circumstances the Islamic State is facing, it has been decided to reduce the salaries that are paid to all mujahideen by half, and it is not allowed for anyone to be exempted from this decision, whatever his position,” the ISIS’ government wrote in a memorandum.

Much of the financial pressure on ISIS may come from US and Russian airstrikes targeting cash stockpiles, oil resources, and other assets. ISIS also has to pay for a semi-functioning state, maintaining infrastructure, running schools, subsidizing bread, fighting a war, and, of course, murdering vast numbers of people for imaginary crimes.

But the Islamic State might have a revenue problem as much as a spending problem. ISIS gets most of its money by taxing people in conquered territory, but, as Dan Mitchell has pointed out, the terrorists have recently been discovering the Laffer Curve.

Quoting Adam Chodorow at Slate,

ISIS’s taxes are now so onerous that large numbers of people, who were apparently willing to tolerate ISIS’s religious authoritarianism, are fleeing Syria and Iraq to escape them. …

ISIS is … constrained by a lack of administrative resources and the simple reality once sketched on the back of a cocktail napkin by the economist Arthur Laffer: that tax rates can only get so high before they actually drive down government revenues.

Given current conditions, ISIS may be near or at the limits of its ability to tax, even if it can recruit jihadi tax accountants to its cause. Thus … it’s not clear how much room the group has to grow internal revenues. More important, its efforts to do so may do more to damage its prospects than outside forces can accomplish.

No matter how much violence they use, there is no escaping the basic economic reality of incentives: In addition to creating refugees of war and violence, ISIS is now also creating tax exiles.

As people flee Syria and Iraq, businesses close, and the economy dies — and ISIS’s ability to tax and sustain its war effort is slowly being bled out. This is probably one reason that the Islamic State views refugees as traitors, as they have not only abandoned the one true caliphate, but they’ve taken their incomes with them.

Even if they really believe in the cause, if ISIS fighters are at all motivated by money, cutting their pay in half will have a huge impact on recruitment and desertion. Incentives matter, even in a theocracy.

Daniel Bier

Daniel Bier

Daniel Bier is the editor of Anything Peaceful. He writes on issues relating to science, civil liberties, and economic freedom.

ShariAmerica: Islam, Obama and the Establishment Clause

/in , , , , /by

The U.S. government condemns burning the Qur’an. Yet the U.S. government burns Bibles. This is a clear violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.