Marvel’s Mightiest Muslim by Sarah Skwire

/in , , , /by

Last year, the crew at Marvel Comics rebooted Ms. Marvel — formerly a scantily clad blonde superheroine — as a teenaged Desi Muslim high school girl living in Jersey City. Reboots of old, familiar characters are always complicated, and they are all the more so when the reboot seems suspiciously like politically correct pandering.

But Kamala Khan, the new Ms. Marvel, is a huge hit. And she’s not a hit because she’s some kind of mouthpiece for popular pieties. She’s a hit because she’s a great character, a believable teenager, and — in the style of the best superheroes — a symbol that lets us rethink our own identities while we watch her learn to balance hers.

When Kamala’s story begins, she is the mildly rebellious 16-year-old daughter of parents who have immigrated to America from Pakistan. While she chafes at some of their restrictions, she is a “good kid” — a girl who may sneak out to a party, but who spits out alcoholic punch when someone tricks her into trying it. On her way home from the forbidden party, Kamala is caught in a strange chemical mist that gives her visions of her favorite superheroes — Ironman, Captain America, and her idol, Captain Marvel, the superheroine formerly known as Ms. Marvel. (If you’re picturing the guy who says, “SHAZAM!” and turns into the Earth’s Mightiest Mortal, that’s a hero from another comic book company. Marvel Comics has a different history using the same name.)

The dream avatar of Captain Marvel asks her, “Who do you want to be?”

Kamala replies, “I want to be you.”

Captain Marvel promises her “the kind of total reboot most people only dream about.”

When Kamala wakes, she has transformed into the 1970s-style Ms. Marvel — blond hair, skimpy costume, thigh-high boots, and all. As she morphs uncontrollably back and forth between this new self and her old self, she wonders, “This is what I asked for, right? So why don’t I feel strong and confident and beautiful? Why do I just feel freaked out and underdressed?”

In this moment, as in many others throughout the comic, Kamala’s reactions to her new self are not just reactions to new superpowers. They are the reactions of a young Muslim woman wrangling with the idea that the modesty with which she has been raised, and against which she has chafed, may well have a point to it. But they are also the reactions of all young people to an unpredictably changing body that is suddenly sexy and scary in ways that it never was before.

For me, this triple layer of reactions is the strength of the Ms. Marvel reboot. Kamala is never just a superhero. And she’s never just a Muslim-American superhero. She’s a kid — smart, brave, loyal, and moral — trying to protect the people and places she loves, to learn a new identity, and to be true to herself at the same time.

As Kamala’s story develops, we discover that she is an “Inhuman” — part of a superhuman race that attains its powers when exposed to that chemical mist that Kamala wandered into after the party. Sometimes heroic and sometimes villainous, the Inhumans occupy a complicated place on the edge of the superhero world and even farther on the edge of the human world.

When a young man whom Kamala’s parents introduce her to as a potentially acceptable suitor turns out to be an Inhuman, all Kamala’s identities come into play again. The rebellious Muslim teenager wants to reject her parents’ suggested suitor out of hand. The 16-year-old girl thinks he’s completely dreamy. The superhero finds herself faced with a group of Inhumans who consider humans to be an inferior subspecies.

And you can’t quite tell if it’s the geeky teen, the post-9/11 Muslim, or the superhero who tells the Inhumans, “It’s always the same. There’s always one group of people who think they have special permission to terrorize anybody who disagrees with them. And then everybody else who looks like them suffers.”

It could be a horribly preachy moment, but somehow, it’s not. Somehow, Kamala’s three identities, and writer G. Willow Wilson’s ability to convey the naïveté and insight that come along with young adulthood, make the moment feel honest.

When Kamala follows up her comment with a massive comic book punch, we cheer for her. And when she follows up her punch with the sickening awareness that she almost killed her adversary, we panic with her.

The careful balance that Kamala must maintain as a character, and that Wilson must maintain as she writes Kamala’s story, means that each of the elements that make Kamala special is always in play.

I’m particularly fond of the cover images for the graphic novel collections of Ms. Marvel. On the first, Kamala wears a Ms. Marvel fan T-shirt and carries a US history textbook and a collection of hadith. On the second, she slugs a bank robber while checking her cellphone, wearing a new costume she has fashioned out of the burqini she refused to wear. And on the third, she punches through glass with one hand and flashes a peace sign with her other mehndi– decorated hand while a stack of vintage Ms. Marvel comics flutters away in the background.

Always, she is equally a teenager, a Muslim, and a superhero. I find the combination makes for compelling reading. Even more so, I suspect it will make for compelling reading for my daughters. I want them to think about Kamala’s multiple identities and the challenges of balancing them. And I want them to hear the surprising lecture she gets from the youth leader at her mosque when Kamala comes close to telling him about her secret identity. “If you insist on pursuing this thing you will not tell me about, do it with the qualities befitting an upright young woman: courage, strength, honesty, compassion, and self-respect.”

And if she can do all that while still writing fan fiction about the X-Men? I’ll keep reading with interest.

The fourth volume of the Ms. Marvel graphic novel collections comes out on December 1.

Sarah SkwireSarah Skwire

Sarah Skwire is the poetry editor of the Freeman and a senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc. She is a poet and author of the writing textbook Writing with a Thesis.

EDITORS NOTE: Kamala breaks the Islamic doctrine that women are inferior, second class citizens, to Muslim men. Kamala violates shariah law by not wearing traditional Muslim clothing, going out to parties and flashing the peace sign. She is the anti-Muslim Muslim girl. She wants to fit in and do good rather than perpetrate evil as we see daily in the news. Perhaps Kamala will become a figure for young Muslim girls to break away from being a devout Muslim to being a human being?

The Denmark Delusion by Scott Sumner

/in , , , /by

Progressives like to point out (correctly) that the GOP tax plans are sheer fantasy. But as I often point out, talking politics immediately lowers your IQ by 25 points. And I’m afraid that when progressives start talking about Bernie Sanders they completely lose touch with reality.

They say, “He’s not really a socialist, he just favors the Scandinavian economic model.” But they don’t seem to know any thing about that model.

Let’s look at taxes, for instance. Here are the top rates on income (plus payroll) taxes:

And then here’s an indicator of progressivity:

In Denmark the top rate kicks in at 1.2 times average income. In the US, that would be around $60,000.

And then there are the VATs:

Denmark collects about 9.6 percent of GDP through the VAT, Norway collects about 7.8 percent, and Sweden collections about 9 percent of GDP. All three countries have VAT rates of 25 percent.

The United States does not have a national sales tax or VAT. Instead, states levy sales taxes. The average rate across the country is about 7 percent. The much lower rate only collects about 2 percent of U.S. GDP in revenue.

Bernie Sanders says he doesn’t want to raise taxes on the middle class, rather he wants the rich to pay more. Later he grudgingly concedes the middle class would pay a higher payroll tax for the nationalized heath care, but still doesn’t mention the 25% VAT.

Nor does Bernie mention that the Scandinavian countries have far lower corporate tax rates than America:

Nor does he mention this:

Finally, it is worth noting that the only Scandinavian country with an estate or inheritance tax is Denmark.

So the only way to finance a Nordic economic model is with massive (and regressive) taxes on the middle class, because that’s where the money is.

What about those 90% tax rates from the Eisenhower era that you often read about? There’s a reason the Nordics don’t use that policy: they collected very little revenue.

And I haven’t even mentioned that the Nordic countries are really big on privatization and deregulation. How often do you hear progressives calling for those things? When was the last time you heard a progressive advocating Sweden’s 100% nationawide school voucher program?

And it’s even worse. Sanders doesn’t tell us whether he likes the Swedish model of 1990, or the Swedish model of today. I’m pretty sure that back in 1990 he was telling people that he loved the Swedish model.

But that model failed, leading Sweden into economic crisis. It responded by dramatically downsizing its government relative to 1990 (admittedly, it’s still very big in absolute terms.) But I never hear the Sanders supporters telling us whether they like the 1990 socialist Sweden, or the 2015 neoliberal version? Ditto for Denmark.

And they never tell us how this European social welfare state is supposed to work in a big diverse continent like the US, when it doesn’t even work in a big diverse continent like Europe (especially not in Eastern and Southern Europe.)

Matt Yglesias says that places like Sicily are poor and dysfunctional because they have a bad culture. I don’t know if that’s right, but let’s say the progressives are right to “blame the victims” of poverty in Europe. Can we really be confident that our many diverse cultures are so superior to Sicily and Greece and Naples and Bulgaria and Romania?

Can we be sure that the poor Hispanics of East LA, the poor Native Americans of western South Dakota, the poor African Americans of Detroit, and the poor whites of West Virginia have Nordic-style cultures, and not southern and/or Eastern European-type cultures. Seriously? The Latin American country that tried the high-tax model is Brazil. Does the US ethnic makeup remind you more of Brazil or Denmark?

Sorry, but I can’t take seriously anything progressives write about Sanders. Those on the left are correct in ridiculing the tax ideas of Trump, and even the tax plans of the more “serious” GOP candidates do not raise enough revenue. I get that. But when evaluating their own side of the spectrum they lose all touch with reality.

Here’s Paul Krugman:

So now we have candidates proposing “wildly unaffordable” tax cuts. Can we start by noting that this isn’t a bipartisan phenomenon, that it’s not true that everyone does it?

Hillary Clinton isn’t proposing wildly unaffordable stuff; Bernie Sanders hasn’t offered details about how he’d pay for single-payer, but you can be sure that he would propose something.

Seriously? Sanders says he wants a Scandinavian style welfare state, without raising taxes on the middle class. And we are supposed to treat that seriously?

Then the left wonders why working class blacks and Hispanics are not flocking to Sanders. Maybe those minorities are smarter than then these puzzled pundits assume.

Maybe a Hispanic family with two people each making $30,000 to $35,000 doesn’t want to face a 60% income tax, plus a 25% VAT. Maybe they moved from some place like Brazil, and know what happens to all that money once a non-Nordic government gets their hands on it. Maybe they’d rather spend their own money.

Someone should go into working class black and Hispanic neighborhoods, with all the data on income and sales tax rates in Denmark, and ask people if they also want to pay those rates. You might be surprised by what you find.

A version of this post first appeared at the Money Illusion, where Scott blogs.

Scott SumnerScott Sumner

Scott B. Sumner is the director of the Program on Monetary Policy at the Mercatus Center and a professor at Bentley University. He blogs at the Money Illusion and Econlog.

How the State Keeps You Working Long Hours by Iain Murray

/in , , , /by

Entrepreneur Tim Ferriss found he had a mega-hit on his hands with his 2007 book, The 4-Hour Workweek, a paean to a new attitude toward work. In it, Ferriss recommends a four-step approach to balancing work and life in a way that leads to a more rewarding lifestyle. We are now nearing the day when his concepts can be applied to the economy as a whole.

Ferriss directly challenges notions of the firm and employment that are fundamental to how we think about — and regulate — work. While he doesn’t directly mention them, Ferriss puts Ronald Coase’s and F.A. Hayek’s theories to use in a way that CEOs, regulators, and legislators should follow.

Ferriss advises a four-step framework for rethinking your work life, which goes by the acronym DEAL (though for many people it will be DELA). The steps are as follows:

  • Work out what you really want from life (“What excites you?”) and what it will take to get you there.
  • Eliminate tasks that take up time for little result; be effective rather than efficient.
  • Automate not just tasks but income streams as well.
  • Work when and where you want to by liberating yourself from the 9-to-5 routine and the physical office location (through remote working arrangements and flexible scheduling).

While Ferriss aims his framework at individuals trying to escape drudgery and live their dreams, there’s a lot here for a CEO to ponder. In fact, a lot of startups aim to be 4-hour companies.

Entrepreneurs, after all, launch businesses to follow a dream. Few companies are started without a vision of something greater — the definition. But failure to achieve the next three steps often drags a business down.

Companies can become burdened with processes that make them not just inefficient but ineffective. Tasks that should be automatic become lengthened with other processes. The business’s physical location and workday rules can also become burdens.

Why does this happen? To answer that, we need to turn to Coase and Hayek.

Coase and Transaction Costs

It was Ronald Coase’s insight that firms exist because the costs of market transactions are often higher than those of an employment relationship.

Employment, since its origins as a form of contract in common law, has always been seen as a master-servant relationship, where the employer instructs the employee. Because of this understanding, firms have mostly gravitated toward a command-and-control structure (which was encouraged by Frederick Winslow Taylor’s The Theory of Scientific Management).

Hayek and the Knowledge Problem

Yet we also know from Hayek that command-and-control structures suffer from a knowledge problem, because the commanders cannot possibly know as much as they need to know to make rational decisions.

To counteract this knowledge problem, companies often introduce complex procedures and feedback loops that can be inefficient or ineffective. Managers opt to “fight the last war,” introducing procedures to prevent a problem from recurring, only to see new problems arise while laying the groundwork for unintended consequences in the future.

In the end, Ferriss notes, they succumb to the Pareto principle — also known as the 80-20 rule, where 80 percent of a company’s activities produce only 20 percent of its output.

The Knowledge Problem versus Transaction Costs

The solution to the knowledge problem, says Hayek, is to use markets, which contain the sum of information necessary. But then we run into the problem Coase identified — transaction costs are higher in markets than in firms. If they weren’t, firms wouldn’t exist. Firms exist until their transaction costs get too high, and then they collapse. Some large companies have avoided this fate by using market-based processes within their organizational structures. The franchising business model also introduces these processes.

The emerging economy, however, goes beyond the master-servant relationship, as I noted in “Depression-Era Laws Threaten the Sharing Economy.” Increasingly, people want an employment relationship more like what Ferriss describes.

The Sharing Economy to the Rescue?

Contractual relationships aided by technology can reintroduce market processes into a corporation. Smart contracts can automate those processes. Ineffective processes can be eliminated, and the entire company can be liberated from physical offices and fixed hours.

The fact remains, however, that regardless of the actual work arrangement, the overriding legal and regulatory structure assumes a master-servant employment relationship within a firm. And these days, the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board are going out of their way to freeze old-economy rigidities in place by punishing firms that use contractual relationships as part of their business models. That may be why, despite all the changes in technology and attitude, the traditional firm continues to dominate the employment market.

The 4-hour company and the 4-hour workweek are feasible — but only if the government allows them. Until then, they remain tantalizingly out of reach.

Iain MurrayIain Murray

Iain Murray is vice president at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Trump: University of Missouri leadership ‘weak, ineffective’, student’s demands ‘crazy’

/in , , , , /by

The university has been plagued with racial protests over the past few weeks, which have lead to the resignation of university president Tim Wolfe. Wolfe’s resignation was followed by Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin announcing he would leave office at the end of the year due to mounting pressure.

Trump said the leaders stepping aside was a “weak” move.

“I think the two people that resigned are weak, ineffective people,” he said. “I think that when they resigned, they set something in motion that’s going to be a disaster for the next long period of time. They were weak, ineffective people.”

“Trump should have been the chancellor of that university. Believe me, there would have been no resignations,” he added.

He also said the demands from the student-protest group, Concerned Student 1950, were “crazy.” These demands include that the university increase its percentage of black faculty and staff by 10 percent and a mandatory “comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum.”

“By the way, did you look at their demands?” Trump said. “Their demands are like crazy. The things that they are asking for, many of those things are like crazy. So it’s just disgraceful.”

Trump’s never been quiet about the political correctness running rampant in the country and he’s not going to let this protest slide by.

We can’t let these kinds of protests undermine the institutions and foundations that this country was founded on.

Senator Ted Cruz to attend ‘Rally for Religious Liberty’ on November 14th, 2015

/in , , , /by

no fear by tony perkinsWASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Tomorrow, Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins will join Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at the “Rally for Religious Liberty” in Greenville, SC. The rally will call attention to recent government attacks on the religious liberties of Americans.

Perkins, who is also author of the new book No Fear: Real Stories of a Courageous New Generation Standing for Truth, will share the book’s stories of young believers who, despite incredible opposition, courageously stood up for God’s truth. Perkins made the following comments:

“I am honored to join my friend Ted Cruz in defending America’s First Freedom. Last month I was privileged to join Gov. Mike Huckabee in Kentucky for a rally in support of Kim Davis, who had been jailed for exercising her religious freedom. I am grateful for these leaders who are willing to stand boldly not only for Americans’ freedom to believe, but the freedom to live according to those beliefs.

“I will stand with any presidential candidate who will stand for our First Freedom. Never before in the history of this country has religious freedom been more endangered than it is today under the policies of the Obama administration. I look forward to being with Senator Cruz at Bob Jones University,” concluded Perkins.

WHO: Tony Perkins, president, Family Research Council Action
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Jason and David Benham, entrepreneurs and former Major League baseball players
Steve Deace, talk show host and columnist

WHAT: Rally for Religious Liberty

WHERE: Bob Jones University, 1700 Wade Hampton Blvd in Greenville, South Carolina

WHEN: TOMORROW, November 14, 2015

Doors open at 10:30 AM EST, and the event will take place from noon to 2 PM EST.

British MPs Urge United Nations to Cancel Visit of Iran’s President Rouhani

/in , , , /by

LONDON /PRNewswire/ — On November 12, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom (BPCIF) wrote to the Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, to express its disappointment over the invitation extended to Iranian president,Hassan Rouhani, to speak before such a respected organisation next week.

In the letter, the co-Chair of British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom (BPCIF), Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, wrote, “For a respected UN organisation to invite the representative of an oppressive theocracy that is considered world’s number one executioner per capita and the leading state sponsor of terrorism, stands not only in contrast to the core objectives of UNESCO to promote peace and security but also legitimises a regime playing a destructive role in the Middle East.”

The letter points out that “the UN Secretary-General, the UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iran and respected International NGOs, like Amnesty International, have all expressed concerns over the recent spike of executions in Iran while regretting that the human rights situation in the country has deteriorated in several areas during Rouhani’s tenure compared to that of his predecessor Ahmadinejad.”

The letter also highlights that “barbaric punishments such as amputations, flogging and public hangings, are enshrined in Iran’s penalty-code and that its current constitution calls for active promotion and spreading of religious fundamentalism not only in the region but also in the world.”

Taking into account these harsh realities and Tehran’s unacceptable behaviour internationally, the British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom (BPCIF) urges UNESCO to revoke its invitation to Hassan Rouhaniat this moment because nothing in Tehran’s behaviour suggest the theocratic regime is ready to contribute constructively to promoting international peace and universal respect for human rights, which are the core objectives of UNESCO.

lord-carlile-portrait-300x300

Lord Carlile of Berriew QC CBE

Lord Carlile of Berriew QC CBE,

Co-Chair of British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom and the UK government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation from 2001 until 2011

British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom 12 November 2015

The Alinsky Affect Taking Hold in America

/in , , , /by

It can be pretty depressing to witness more and more Americans protesting in favor of oppression and against liberty.  Yes indeed, increasing numbers of Sovereign citizens want the government boot-heel on their necks or the lash on their backsides.  A primary root of this trend can be traced directly to the mega, one size fits all, government school system.  For over fifty years, government school educators have been used to fundamentally change America. This has been accomplished by systematically lowering some standards and eliminating others altogether.

American history courses have been degenerated to nothing more than anti United States of America propaganda dogma.  The Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and Federalist Papers are mere mentions without credible or in depth study.  The education system or more appropriately, the dens of indoctrination are wasting an average of $15 thousand dollars per student in cities like Detroit, where at least a forty percent literacy rate is not uncommon at many schools.

So now, America is lumbering along with at least two generations of students who believe that the communist inspired concept of the common good trumping individual rights or rational self-interest is the way to go.  That is why bigoted progressive political marxists like Hillary Clinton openly state that “they’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Another indication of Americans preferring in this case indirect oppression over liberty, whether self-induced or directly from the government, was a recent episode of Late Night hosted by progressive host Stephen Colbert.  His guest that particular Friday night was Ohio governor John Kasich.  He is a moderately conservative republican who has overseen the Buckeye States successful economic recovery.  He also eliminated the Ohio budgetary deficit and increased economic activity has fostered a two or three billion dollar surplus.

But the major focus of Colbert’s interest was presenting nagging questions about the voters of Ohio choosing not to approve the legalization of marijuana for medicinal or recreational use.  That is indicative of the progressive elitist democrats and some rino republicans want Americans to have.  In other words, they would prefer that we light up and not focus on concrete issues like illegal immigration, or higher gasoline taxes coming in 2017 for Michigan residents.  The progressives don’t want us to remember that president Obama has not made one concrete decision that would benefit America economically, morally, militarily, constitutionally, environmentally, or educationally.

When one reads the numerous quotes of the founding fathers, it is quite apparent that they were concerned about the possibility of the United States evolving from the land of the free and home of the brave, into the land of the dominated and home of the cowardly.  Neither you or I can accurately tell how many times we have heard that according to certain pols, Americans support gun control and gender neutral bathrooms for example.  Many other such wedge issues on the progressive agenda ae promoting illegal immigration, false allegations of racism and supposedly hating the poor.

Those wedge issues have a certain prominence because people have been dumbed down to a lower level of thinking politically, morally and economically.  If Americans were properly schooled on the benefits of our constitution and economics, along with virtue, I seriously doubt that the federal government would be so bloated and working to implode our nation on behalf of the United Nations and muslims.

Properly informed or schooled Americans would not entertain the fool-hearty concept that one is xenophobic because they simply want people to obey our laws and immigrate into the United States legally.  Also, perhaps American voters would not have twice elected an individual who literally wants to bring tens of thousands of American hating muslims into our country to try and change our American culture into a bastion of rights inhibiting sharia law.

In order to rescue the United States from utter ruin, we must make genuine efforts to teach Christian virtues, real United States history, critical thinking, real math, etc. to the up and coming generations.  If not, our beloved republic will simply end up slip, slipping away.  Despite the current troubles and travails throughout the land I am still optimistic that America the beautiful will be truly great again.  Our cities will once again be undimmed by human tears.  She will of course soon reestablish a closer walk with the one who shed His grace upon her and benefit from His Providential guidance.

Do you believe?

Brandwatch: Tracking the Presidential Candidates’ Social Buzz

/in , , , /by

NEW YORK /PRNewswire/ — Brandwatch, the industry flagship for social intelligence, today launched its 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Data Visualization which analyzes, illustrates and interprets the public’s online conversation around each presidential candidate.

The 2016 Presidential Election Visualization – which will be updated in real-time at http://react.brandwatch.com/uselection16 – will allow the general public to examine:

  • Individual Candidate Conversations: Each candidate’s conversation will be broken down across sentiment and volume of mentions to showcase fluctuations in their respective campaigns.
  • Candidates Within Their Party: As candidates fight to win their party’s nomination, the visualization will reveal how each candidate’s social presence compares to those against whom they are currently running.
  • Popular Issues: Major topics and issues being addressed within each party will be highlighted to expose which platforms and policies the candidates and their supporters address the most online.
  • Momentum Shifts: Each graphic will allow viewers to adjust the data timeframe between three months, two weeks or the past day to show how each candidate’s conversation has gained or lost momentum online.

Brandwatch’s live visualization will allow anyone to witness the public social media reaction to every aspect of a modern day presidential campaign. For example, statements and comments to the media, new campaign and social ads, late-night television appearances and debate commentary will be reflected in the data visualization.

In addition, Brandwatch will publish a monthly newsletter summarizing the major trends in online conversations for each candidate and political party. It will provide subscribers with a month-over-month look at how each candidate is fairing online, and who is losing or gaining ground in their pursuit of the Oval Office. To subscribe to the monthly 2016 Election Social Intelligence newsletter, contact react@brandwatch.com.

“Social media is becoming a new way to poll, even more so with accurate voter panels based on built-in demographics in our Brandwatch platform,” said Nate Walton, Director of Professional Services, Brandwatch. “Polling with social data gives us an edge over survey or phone data because it allows us to discover trends and dissect topics in near real-time. In social the panel doubles as a focus group, telling us what to look for while also providing insights. Favored candidates, political villains, and the issues touching a nerve change minute to minute, day to day. Our 2016 election data visualization will run for the entire year leading up to election night. The goal is to accurately, and beautifully, analyze this social election.”

Visit the Brandwatch 2016 Presidential Election Visualization, here: http://react.brandwatch.com/uselection16.

ABOUT BRANDWATCH

Brandwatch is the world’s leading social intelligence company. Brandwatch Analytics and Vizia products fuel smarter decision making around the world.

The Brandwatch Analytics platform gathers millions of online conversations every day and provides users with the tools to analyze them, empowering the world’s most admired brands and agencies to make insightful, data-driven business decisions. Vizia distributes visually-engaging insights to the physical places where the action happens.

The Brandwatch platform, ranked highest in customer satisfaction by G2Crowd in the Spring 2015 social media monitoring report, is used by over 1,200 brands and agencies, including Cisco, Whirlpool, British Airways, Sony Music, and Dell. Brandwatch continues on its impressive business trajectory, with more than 50 percent of revenues now from North America and strong tech industry backing from venture capitalists including Partech Ventures, Highland Europe, Nauta Capital, Gorkana and independent investors.

GOP Debate: No-Fly Zones, Military Spending, Confronting Putin

/in , , , , , /by

Military spending, the implementation of a no-fly zone over Syria and policy towards Russia were hot topics at the November 10th Republican presidential debate. The following is a summary of what each candidate said in regards to national security, as well as Lindsey Graham who was denied participation but commented online.

Donald Trump

Trump stood out as the only candidate to support Russia’s military intervention in Syria, even going so far as to say he gets along with Russian President Putin. Trump said he has no issue if Putin wants to “knock the hell out of ISIS, apparently unaware that the primary targets of Russian airstrikes are not ISIS or Al-Qaeda. He said he’d tell other countries like Germany to defend Ukraine instead of U.S. taxpayer money being spent.

Trump and Rand Paul were the only two candidates to call for the U.S. to stay out of the civil war in Syria. Trump said he was told by a U.S. general recently that we don’t know who the Syrian rebels are and so he opposes arming forces that could be worse than the Assad regime.

He supported increased military spending, arguing that the deterrence it creates will save money.

Trump is currently the frontrunner. He is leading nationally with a polling average of 25%; an increase of 2% since the last debate. He is tied for the lead in Iowa with 24% (3-point increase); New Hampshire with 27% (3-point decrease) and South Carolina with 29% (4-point decrease). You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Ben Carson

Carson supports President Obama’s deployment of 50 special operations personnel to Syria to train “moderate” rebels, saying that it is better than nothing. He said the U.S. needs a presence in the area to counter Russia and China.

Carson made an important point about the need to make the Islamic State (ISIS) “look like losers” because the appearance of success is what drives their strength. The Clarion Project has written about how jihadists rely upon success to validate their ideology. He said that the U.S. military should help retake an Iraqi outfield outside of Anbar Province to begin destroying the Islamic State caliphate.

Carson is currently the runner-up. He is in second place nationally with a polling average of 24%. He ties Trump for the lead in Iowa with 24%; is in second in New Hampshire with 15% and is in second in South Carolina with 23%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Marco Rubio

Rubio’s biggest clash was with Rand Paul over his proposal to increase defense spending by $1 trillion, with Rubio deriding him as a “committed isolationist.” He had another big moment when he said that Islamist terrorists do not hate the U.S. just because of its support for Israel, but because of its values such as allowing women to drive.

Rubio called for countering Russian influence in the Middle East and described Putin as an organized crime figure.

Rubio is in third place nationally with a polling average of 12%, a 3-point increase since the last debate. He is in third in Iowa with 13% (3-point increase); third in New Hampshire with 10% (2-point increase) and tied with Cruz for third in South Carolina with 10% (2-point increase).

Ted Cruz

Cruz shined during the discussion about increasing the defense budget by saying there’s a middle path where the cost is paid for by cutting government spending on programs like subsidies. He said, “If you think defending the country is expensive, try not defending it.”

Cruz is in fourth place nationally with a polling average of 10%. He is in fourth place in Iowa with 12%; in sixth place in New Hampshire with 7% and tied with Rubio for third place in South Carolina with 10%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Jeb Bush

Bush said that Islamic terrorism is the biggest threat with the Islamic State caliphate growing to the size of Indiana. Bush supports using the U.S. military to implement a no-fly zone over Syria and arming the remnants of the Free Syrian Army, an umbrella of “moderate” Syrian rebels. He said that creating safe zones inside Syria would stem the flow of refugees.

Bush is in fifth place nationally with a polling average of 6%. He is in fifth place in Iowa (6%); fifth place in New Hampshire (7%) and fifth place in South Carolina (7%). You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Rand Paul

Paul spoke out the strongest against having the U.S. military impose a no-fly zone over Syria (which he mistakenly referred to as Iraq) and pointed out that Russia already owns the skies over the country. He said that supporters of a no-fly zone would have to be willing to shoot down Russian aircraft and to send their children to possibly die in another Middle East war.

He also blamed his competitors who support arming “moderate” Syrian rebels for contributing to the rise of ISIS. Paul pointed out that the rebels are allies of Al-Qaeda.

He criticized Rubio’s plan for a $1 trillion increase in military spending, mentioning that the U.S. defense budget is more than the next 10 countries combined. Rubio responded by calling him a “committed isolationist.” He criticized Fiorina for saying she would not speak to Russian President Putin, at least for awhile.

Paul is tied for sixth place nationally with Fiorina and Kasich at 3% in the polling average. He is in 11th place in Iowa with 2%; ninth place in New Hampshire with 3% and 10th place in South Carolina with 1%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

John Kasich

Kasich spoke in favor of a no-fly zone along the Turkish and Jordanian borders that could potentially shoot down Russian aircraft if there were multiple violations. He would also counter Russia by providing weapons to Ukraine and working with Finland and the Baltic States.

Kasich said he would end all public criticism of Israel and be committed to keeping the Jordanian monarchy in power “for 1,000 years.” He praised Egypt as a “moderate” force along with Bahrain. He would demand that Saudi Arabia stop its funding of radical clerics around the world, but continue to work with the Saudis in areas of mutual interest.

He also would have a policy of responding to cyber attacks with retaliation to destroy the attacker’s mechanisms.

Kasich is tied for sixth place nationally with Paul and Fiorina at 3%. He is in 10th place in Iowa with 2%; fourth place in New Hampshire with 9% and seventh place in South Carolina with 2%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Carly Fiorina

Fiorina clashed with Rand Paul when she said she would not talk to Putin, but then clarified to say she’d be willing to speak to Russia after a period of time where strength had been established. She expressed support for a no-fly zone over Syria and for providing increased aid to Arab allies to fight the Islamic State.

Fiorina said that Jordanian King Abdullah has been denied requests for bombs and material aid and Egypt has been denied intelligence-sharing and that she’d grant both. She would grant requests for arms to the Kurds and ally with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, as well.

To pressure Russia, she would rebuild the 6th Fleet, assemble anti-ballistic missile systems in Poland, conduct military exercises in the Baltic States and possibly send a few thousand troops to Germany.

Fiorina is tied for sixth place nationally with Paul and Kasich at 3%. She is in sixth place in Iowa at 5%; seventh in New Hampshire with 6% and sixth in South Carolina with 4%. You can read our factsheet on her stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Mike Huckabee

Huckabee’s brightest moment came when he was discussing the Syrian refugee crisis. He said that only one of five refugees in Europe is actually Syrian and accepting large amounts of is a security and economic risk.

Huckabee said the U.S. should instead provide humanitarian aid to the refugees to keep them closer to their home, instead of bringing them into America where they may have trouble assimilating. He is open to accepting refugees who are fully vetted.

He blamed the administration’s Middle East strategy for creating the refugee crisis and allowing Christians to be slaughtered and not helping the Kurds enough. Huckabee said he’d pressure neighbors like Saudi Arabia to take care of the situation.

Huckabee is tied with Christie for ninth place nationally at 2%. He is in eighth place in Iowa with 3%; 12th place in New Hampshire with less than 1% and eighth place in South Carolina with 2%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Chris Christie

Christie’s biggest moment on security came when he discussed how he’d respond to cyber attacks from adversaries like China. Christie said he is a victim of Chinese hacking and that they stole his social security number and fingerprints when they hacked into governmental personnel data.

Under his administration, “They’re going to see cyber warfare like they have never seen before” if they did it again. Christie would respond by hacking into the Chinese government and publishing incriminating information like corruption for its population to see. This is a policy that Christie would presumably apply to other countries involved in cyber attacks on the U.S. like Iran and North Korea.

Christie is tied with Huckabee for ninth place nationally at 2%. He is in ninth place in Iowa with 3%; eighth place in New Hampshire with 5% (a 2-point increase) and 11th place in South Carolina with 1%.

Bobby Jindal

Jindal made no significant statements regarding national security policy.

Jindal is tied with Santorum for 11th place nationally with 1%. He is in seventh place in Iowa with 3%; tenth in New Hampshire with less than 1% and 13th place in South Carolina with less than 1%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Rick Santorum

Santorum made no significant statements regarding national security policy.

Santorum is tied with Jindal for 11th place nationally with 1%. He is in 12th place in Iowa with 1%; 13th place in New Hampshire with less than 1% and 12th place in South Carolina with 1%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

Lindsey Graham

Graham did not qualify for either debate, but commented online during the event. He mocked Rand Paul for opposing increases to the defense budget, saying that the Army is on track to be the smallest it’s been since 1940 and the Navy will be the smallest since 1945.

Graham also made some interesting comments about Egypt. He said that “so goes Egypt, so goes the Middle East,” and that he would help President El-Sisi confront radical Islam but pressure him to avoid strong-arm tactics to maintain power and to permit free press and rule of law.

“To win the war against radical Islam, there has to be economic and social justice,” Graham wrote online.

Graham is in 14th place nationally with less than 1%. He is in 13thplace in Iowa with less than 1%; 15th place in New Hampshire with less than 1% and ninth place in South Carolina with 2%. You can read our factsheet on his stances related to Islamist extremism here.

George Pataki & Jim Gilmore

George Pataki and Jim Gilmore did not qualify for either debate. You can read our factsheet on Pataki’s platform here and our factsheet on Gilmore here.

You can read the Clarion Project’s factsheets on each candidate’s positions related to Islamist extremism here.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

National Security Highlights From First Democratic Debate

The Dems Should Practice What They Preach

/in , , , , /by

A few weeks ago I was speaking with some neighbors at a community HOA meeting and a gentleman named Jim approached me with some suggestions. Jim was visibly frustrated at the direction of the country under the policies of President Barack Obama and suggested the Democrats should practice what they preach. When I asked him what he meant, he mentioned a series of proposals the Democrats should consider for their national convention. At first, I laughed with Jim, not at him, but then I thought to myself, “Jim is right.”

If the Democrats really believe in the things Jim mentioned, there is no good reason for them to not take a leadership role and implement the following 4 suggestions at their convention:

  1. The Democratic National Convention should be declared a “gun-free” zone. The Democrats have largely coalesced behind a gun-control legislative strategy that makes public safety contingent on a criminal’s adherence to the rule of law. The gun-control wing of the Democratic Party is trying to convince law-abiding Americans that our current set of firearm laws, which criminals ignore, can be supplanted by a new set of firearm laws, which the criminals will surely obey. The Democrats should experiment with this theory at their convention. After all, if criminals are willing to change their behavior through a new government edict then they will surely change their behavior if the very same politicians and bureaucrats get together and declare the convention to be “gun-free.” Although the United States Secret Service, my former employer, is charged with securing the event, they can save the time, and expense, by forgoing magnetometers and leaving their weapons in the office because the “gun-free” status of the event will deter any criminal or terrorist from entering the event with a firearm.                                                                                  
  2. The Democratic National Convention should waive any photo identification requirements for entry to the event. The Democratic Party’s fight against voter ID laws is premised on the idea that voter fraud is a non-existent problem and that being asked to provide an identification at the polls is an unnecessary obstacle. If Democrats believe providing an identification when deciding the future of our country is too high of a hill to climb, then asking for identification at a glorified political rally such as the Democratic convention is completely unnecessary. As a member of the Secret Service assigned to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I received a very expensive and sophisticated credential used to access the event. Looking back on this, I now see what a waste of taxpayer money these credentials were. We should have just followed the lead of the Democratic Party and declared the event an “identification-free” zone.

To read more, click here.

Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror by Ryan Mauro

/in , , , , /by

The remaining three Democratic presidential candidates participated in a forum with MSNBC last Friday and it exposed very important divisions within the party about the sources of Islamist terrorism. One side sees it as an ideological battle and the other sees it as a repercussion of Muslim grievances against American policy.

Senator Bernie Sanders described the war with the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) as a battle for the “soul of Islam” whose primary participants must be Muslim. Because he sees it as a Muslim-on-Muslim conflict where the West is caught in the crossfire, Sanders thinks it is counterproductive for the U.S. to take the lead in fighting the Islamic State.

Sanders said he disagrees with President Obama’s decision to send ground troops to Iraq to aid the Iraqi security forces. The U.S. should play a supporting role, he argued, but the surrounding Muslim countries should be the only ones to send in ground forces to fight it out with the Islamic State.

The viewpoint of Sanders about the nature of the war puts him more in line with Clinton than with Martin O’Malley.

“Jihadist groups are governing territory. They will never stay there, though. They are driven to expand. Their raison d’etre is to be against the West, against the Crusaders, against the fill-in-the-blank—and we all fit into one of these categories,” Clinton said in an interview withThe Atlantic in August 2014.

She also said the U.S. needs to have an ideological strategy like it had during the Cold War, when we had “a kind of overarching framework about what we were trying to do that did lead to the defeat of the Soviet Union and the collapse of Communism.”

The difference between her and Sanders is in how to respond to the ideological threat. Clinton is far more interventionist and believes in pro-actively promoting democratic values, whereas Sanders sees the threat as something that is mostly in the hands of the Muslim world to solve.

O’Malley separated himself from the two at the Democratic forum by claiming that military experts have informed him that the two biggest recruiters for Al-Qaeda and ISIS are the presences of U.S. military forces on the ground in the Muslim world and the failure to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for terrorists.

The statement means that O’Malley sees Islamist terrorism as a byproduct of perceived mistreatment of Muslims by U.S. policymakers. This puts him more in the camp of former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul (whose son, Rand Paul, is currently running) and President Obama. This viewpoint is contradicted by the words of Islamist terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and basic logic.

The three candidates represent three different camps within the Democratic Party: An interventionist view that sees the Islamist threat as ideological (Clinton); a more non-interventionist view that sees the Islamist threat as ideological (Sanders) and a non-interventionist view that blames “blowback” from U.S. policy for sparking the Islamist threat (O’Malley).

Click here to read the Clarion Project’s fact sheets on each presidential candidate’s positions related to Islamism.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

National Security Highlights From First Democratic Debate

Carson Calls on IRS to Terminate CAIR’s Tax-Exempt Status

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Democratic Candidate (L to R): Marin O’Malley, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders

Dr. Ben Carson on the Islamic State: We must ‘destroy them before they destroy us’

/in , , , , /by

“We’re talking about global jihadists, and their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life….our goal is not to contain them but to destroy them before they destroy us.” Why is it so rare to hear presidential candidates make such simple, obvious and commonsensical statements?

“Carson on ISIS: ‘Destroy Their Caliphate,’” by Jordan Schachtel, Breitbart, November 10, 2015 (thanks to Bulldog):

…Carson was asked by Fox Business host and debate moderator Maria Bartiromo if he supports President Obama’s recent initiative to place 50 special ops forces in Syria, and leave 10,000 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

“Well, putting the special ops people in there is better than not having them there because they — that’s why they’re called special ops, they’re actually able to guide some of the other things that we’re doing there, and what we have to recognize is that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin is trying to really spread his influence throughout the Middle East,” Carson responded….

“You know the Chinese are there as well as the Russians, and you have all kinds of factions there. What we’ve been doing so far is very ineffective.”…

“But we can’t give up ground right there. We have to look at this on a much more global scale,” Carson said. “We’re talking about global jihadists, and their desire is to destroy us and to destroy our way of life.”…

“So we have to be saying, ‘How do we make them look like losers,’ that’s the way they’re able to gather a lot of influence, and I think in order to make them look like losers, we have to destroy their caliphate,” he stated.

“And you look for the easiest place to do that, it would be in Iraq. Outside of anbar in Iraq there’s a big energy field. Take that from them, take all of that land from them, we could do that, I believe, fairly easily, I’ve learned from talking to several generals, and you move on from there, but you have to continue to face them, because our goal is not to contain them but to destroy them before they destroy us,” Carson concluded.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Al Nusra’s Lion Cubs Religious Academy: “All the Christians and a message to America, your grave is in Syria”

UK Muslims claim to be “negatively affected” by counter-terrorism policies

VIDEO: Young Frankensteins at the University of Missouri

/in , , , /by

Radical students at the University of Missouri are turning on the university which created them. They are neo-Frankensteins.

Michael A. Kline from Accuracy in Academia writes:

Most of the coverage of recent college demonstrations has been largely sympathetic to the demonstrators. Indeed, few sources were consulted who would speak any evil of them.

mizzou president tim wolfe

Nevertheless, our November author’s night speaker—William Barclay Allen—saw in them the culmination of a disturbing trend. “I have spent my whole life in academia and I can tell you I have witnessed the deterioration over the course of time,” Dr. Allen, a professor emeritus at Michigan State University, said in November. “It is no longer to be assumed that freedom of speech prevails on a university campus.”

“Instead, there are codes of speech.” Dr. Allen is the former chairman of the U. S. Civil Rights Commission.

“What I am suggesting to you is not that there are outliers, a few extremists who at college campuses especially in elite institutions who the rest of us can look at as perhaps, in their own way, testaments to our virtue because they are so unlike us,” Dr. Allen said. “No that is not the case.”

Read more.

Here is a different perspective on the problem.

RELATED ARTICLES:

College Demonstrators Aren’t Outliers

MIZZOU STUDENT JOURNALIST: Files Charges Against Prof. Melissa ‘More Muscle’ Click

U. of Missouri professor under fire in protest flap

Why Is There a Protest at the University of Missouri?

VIDEO: The Collective suicide of Europe — The Muslim Migrant Invasion

/in , , , , , /by

This video was produced by The Death of Nations and is titled “With Open Gates: The forced collective suicide of European nations.”

Breitbart reports:

Although the 19-minute film may feel like a dispatch from the future, it is cut entirely from recent news reports, police camera footage, and interviews. Kicking off with scenes of a modern car ferry disgorging thousands of illegals into Greece, the film then cuts to dozens of aerial shots of columns of migrants marching north into Europe.

The film then changed to the harrowing testimony of one young Greek woman who was unable to hide her horror and despair at the scale of the migrant crisis sweeping over her home island of Lesbos. Just six miles from the Turkish coast, the island was subjected to migrant riots in September as newcomers turned on their hosts for not moving them to mainland Europe fast enough.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: In first six weeks of FY2016 U.S. resettled 827 Somalis; all but one are Muslim

EDITORS NOTE: If you wish to support the producers of this video you may do so with Bitcoins/BTC at
1ybX49kKFNN7hKnrzaegnha4Fy9WrFATu. The music used in the video is titled”Invasion A.D.” by Carpenter Brut (Google Play • AmazonMP3 • iTunes)

Refugee Resettlement [or] Treason?

/in , , , , , /by

Atop the list of very hot topics in the USA circa 2015 is the topic of refugee resettlement, the importing of problem children from parts of the world that do not like America much. And in a post 9-11 America, with the free world still at war with “radical Islam” all over the globe, why shouldn’t it be a hot topic?

Americans must get the facts on U.S. Refugee Resettlement

The first U.S. refugee resettlement policy was established by President Truman in 1948, when the USA took in more than 650,000 displaced Europeans in the wake of World War II. The original intent of the policy was to provide political asylum for foreign citizens not only displaced by war, but still at risk in their home countries due to their objections to political circumstances at home.

In 1975, the Democrat controlled 94th congress expanded that policy to include a broadening definition of “refugee” – “A refugee is someone who has fled from his or her home country and cannot return because he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution based on religion, race, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” The “social engineering” aspect of the policy was now in place…

The Democrat controlled 96th congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980, adopting the United Nations (UN) ever changing definition of refugee and allowing the UN to standardize the resettlement services for all refugees to be admitted to the U.S., under the powers of the Executive Branch, administered by the US State Department.

This means that refugee resettlement is in no way associated with “immigration” under the legislative control of congress, at present. US refugee resettlement is being controlled by the United Nations, through the US Executive Branch and State Department.

Refugee resettlement in the USA has been systematically altered from that of its original humanitarian intent, to a full-blown “social engineering” program designed to forever “fundamentally change” the United States by simply importing foreign anti-American interests, planting anti-American cells across America and altering the political demographics of the United States.

YES… resettled refugees get to VOTE! And so can “illegal immigrants”

The current Obama refugee resettlement policies are even worse… The unbridled UN run refugee resettlement program is now being used to import what could easily be described as “Islamic sleeper cells” from all over the Middle East to cities all across the United States. In short, our “generosity” in the world is being used to destroy the United States, again…

Working through the following “volunteer organizations” which are “highly paid” for their “volunteer services,” our Federal Executive Branch sworn to uphold the Constitution, faithfully execute the laws as created by Congress, and provide for the “common defense” of the nation and its legal citizens,” is intentionally “aiding and abetting” known enemies of the United States via the refugee resettlement program.

  • Church World Service
  • Ethiopian Community Development Council
  • Episcopal Migration Ministries
  • HIAS
  • International Rescue Committee
  • Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service
  • U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants
  • United States Conference of Catholic Bishops/Migration and Refugee Services
  • World Relief

These organizations referred to as Voluntary Agencies (volags) or Resettlement Agencies, all actively participate in “aiding and abetting known enemies of the United States,” acting in concert with the Obama Administration and US State Department, as Congress sits idly silent… and all of these organizations are receiving billions in taxpayer funding from our Federal government to carry out this mission.

Obama’s refugee policy meets that of the UN, but violates that of the U.S. demonstrating once again, Obama’s affinity for Global Interests at the expense of U.S. sovereignty and security. Obama is the greatest threat to all U.S. interests here and abroad and he must be dealt with swiftly and completely.

Both illegal and legal immigration are a huge problem in the United States, due to Executive Branch refusal to faithfully execute the standing immigration laws passed congress, and fraudulent court opinions regarding all sorts of “citizenship” issues designed to undermine the rule of Constitutional Law in America, and support “social change” via “social justice.”

U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions is ringing the alarm! But who is listening?

“The U.S. has already taken in four times more immigrants than any other nation on Earth. Our foreign-born population share is set to break every known historical record. Since 9/11, we have permanently resettled approximately 1.5 million migrants from Muslim nations inside the U.S.  Ninety percent of recent refugees from the Middle East living in our country are receiving food stamps and approximately 70 percent are receiving free healthcare and cash welfare.  All of the nearly 200,000 refugees the Administration is planning to bring over the next two years would be entitled to these same benefits the moment they arrive.  Since we are running huge deficits, every penny of these billions in costs will have to be borrowed and added to the debt.  This refugee expansion would be in addition to the 1 million autopilot green cards handed out each year by the government to mostly low-wage migrants, including a large share from Middle Eastern nations.”

“Our schools, job markets and public resources are already stretched too thin. And, even at current rates, we have no capacity to screen for extremist ideology, as we have seen with the surge of ISIS recruitment in Minnesota’s Somali refugee community.”

Hence, the massive top-down push to teach Islam in American schools via the Common Core curriculum.

Betraying one’s country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government, or “fundamentally change” the demographics of society or systems of self-governance under a Constitutional Republic, a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state, the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery, tyranny and aiding and abetting known enemies of the country in an overt effort to destroy the country from within, these are all crimes in the United States, a crime which falls under thelegal definition of treason.

Despite rhetorical claims of a “peaceful religion” seeking “equality” in the free world, the basic tenet of Islam remains a global caliphate, the Islamization of the free world. This is exactly what folks like Valarie Jarrett’s father-in-law were writing about in 1979, in “Islamic Purchase of the U.S. Presidency.”

Even Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee Tulsi Gabbard recently accused Obama & Co. of aiding and abetting known enemies of the United States in an HBO interview with Real Time host Bill Maher, who had no choice but to agree, based on the inescapable mountain of evidence.

As the FBI steps up a full scale criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s active role in the attacks in Benghazi, The Washington Times reports “A federal appeals court said President Obama’s own words claiming powers to “change the law” were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn’t have blanket powers to waive them.”

Every bit of this is public confirmation from even some of the most unlikely sources, that the entire Obama regime is criminally corrupt and acting in a manner that can only be described as treason…

When an administration acts in such a manner, the U.S. Constitution says we should immediately Impeach, try, convict, remove from office and then proceed to a full scale criminal prosecution once the individuals involved are private citizens subject to criminal charges.

The North American Law Center (TNALC.org) drafted proper proposed Articles of Impeachment against Obama and released them to House Republicans and the public in July of 2014. Over a year later, no action has been taken, as almost every American, now including many Democrats, are talking about Obama crimes daily, in the open…

As patriot writer Rick Wells asks, “Where are all the Patriots” who are the only people in America who can or will hold these criminals accountable for their intentional destruction of the United States.

If “the people” are no longer interested in holding elected officials accountable for even treason, then the United States of America is already dead and gone…

It isn’t refugee resettlement…. It is TREASON! If “the people” won’t act on treason, there is nothing they will act on.