This is quite a good document on selective enforcement in the USA where well known and powerful democrats not only are not charged with major crimes, or if charged of a lesser crime, or when arrested, its gentle and private rather than a squad of armed men at the door early in the morning with a freaking CNN crew broadcasting it live.
H/T PePi
A little clip on the state of journalism with Lara Logan which seems singularity appropriate at this time:
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Vlad Tepes Bloghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngVlad Tepes Blog2019-07-08 12:28:022019-07-08 12:28:38VIDEOS: Molyneux on Epstein with Cernovich
Trinity-St. Paul’s United Church is “provid[ing] a space” for the Ghassan Kanafani Resistance Arts Scholarship Launch being held by the Palestinian Youth Movement (PYM), reported The Jerusalem Post.
Kanafani was the spokesman for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) at the time the terrorist group claimed responsibility for the massacre of Lod (now Ben Gurion) Airport in Israel in which 26 civilians were killed, including one Canadian and 17 Christians visiting from Puerto Rico. Another 80 were injured in the attack.
The events will “showcase the winners of the Ghassan Kanafani Resistance Arts Scholarship,” writes the PYM on its Facebook page.
A year ago, PYM praised Mohammad Tareq, a 17-year old Palestinian terrorist responsible for stabbing three Israelis in July 1918. Below is a copy of their Facebook post honoring Tareq after his “martyrdom”:
In a letter to the Toronto church, the Jewish organization B’nai B’rith Canada, wrote, “We will not tolerate the open glorification of terrorists and murderers, particularly in a place of worship … Churches should be places of peace, not places where violence and/or terror are glorified.”
B’nai B’rith CEO Michael Mostyn said, “Trinity-St. Paul’s spokesperson claimed that the PYM had provided a statement that it did not promote or condone violence.”
He further condemned the decision, saying, “The United Church’s insistence on facilitating this event is shameful and grotesque … Canadians expect churches to be places of peace and mutual respect, not altars for the glorification of violence and terrorism.”
The PFLP became known in the late 1960s and early 1970s for a series of grisly terrorist attacks and aircraft hijackings. Their Abu Ali Mustapha Brigades also claimed responsibility for several suicide attacks during the “Second Intifada,” the Palestinian uprising that began after the year 2000.
B’nai B’rith has started a petition against the Toronto church hosting the event. You can click here to sign the petition.
If it weren’t already clear where her loyalties lie, the contrast between these two messages should remove any doubts anyone may still have.
“Ilhan Omar Sends Somber Fourth Of July Message Days After Celebrating Somali Independence Day,” by Molly Prince, Daily Caller, July 5, 2019:
Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar urged Americans to celebrate the Fourth of July by reflecting on “how much further we have to go,” standing in contrast to her joyful celebration of Somali Independence Day four days prior.
“Today gives us all a chance to reflect on how far we have come as a country and how much further we have to go to achieve full equality for all people,” Omar tweeted July 4. “We are at a tipping point for progress right now.”
“Happy 4th of July,” she added.
Today gives us all a chance to reflect on how far we have come as a country and how much further we have to go to achieve full equality for all people.
We are at a tipping point for progress right now. ✊????
Omar’s congressional office also tweeted a Fourth of July message, stating that Independence Day is a time to celebrate American values such as freedom of the press, equal protection of all minorities and America’s role in guaranteeing human rights worldwide.
While there was no mention of America’s independence from Britain, the tweet listed the Constitution, despite the holiday actually celebrating the Declaration of Independence.
Omar’s congressional office also included “freedom from foreign influence” as a reason to celebrate the Fourth of July. Omar faced massive backlash in February after she suggested Jews’ support of Israel is paid for. She later denied the age-old anti-Semitic canard contending she was simply referring to “the political influence in this country that says it is okay to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”
“We must continue to strive to make our union even more perfect,” Omar’s office added to the Independence Day tweet.
The message of reflection comes only days after Omar posted a video of herself joyfully dancing along during a Somali Independence Day celebration.
“Happy Independence Day Somalia,” Omar tweeted July 1 before adding “Somalia hanoolaato,” which translates into “Long live Somalia.”
The congresswoman’s celebratory tweet also included a passage from Somali’s previous national anthem that translates roughly into English as “Somalis, wake up, wake up and support each other. Support your country. Support them forever.”
Omar, a Somali immigrant, became one of America’s first Muslim congresswomen when sworn into office in 2018. Her time in office has been embroiled in allegations of anti-Semitism and anti-American sentiments….
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2019-07-08 09:07:272019-07-08 09:08:10Ilhan Omar’s 4th of July message is critical of US, after she celebrates Somali Independence Day
When the USSR collapsed in 1991, long-secret archives of the Communist International were thrown open to western researchers for the first time. Many previously unknown details of communist history have been revealed–including the 1935 Comintern orders directing Communists to begin work in Hawaii. These were uncovered by veteran researcher Herbert Romerstein in Moscow.
The transcription is below, the pdf of the original as recovered is HERE (p 35-36).
Many of the names of the Comintern’s “Anglo-American Secretariat” members meeting about Hawaii on February 17, 1935 are aliases of British, Russian, and other European communists. Some are unidentifiable. But one, “Sherman”, was much closer to Hawaii and in a position to begin carrying out the Comintern dictates contained in this document.
Romerstein, author of The Venona Secrets, describes “Sherman” as:
“William Schneiderman, who, in the 1930s, was an agent of the Soviet foreign spy agency NKVD, code-named “Nat” (Venona transcripts), with an alias of “Sherman.”
He was later made head of the Communist Party of California, where he would come into contact with individuals as significant as J. Robert Oppenheimer, the chief scientist at the Manhattan Project. (Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel, The Venona Secrets, Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000, pp. 258-68.)
The Comintern’s February, 1935 discussion was followed by a July 7, 1935 “Letter to the CPUSA on Hawaii.” That led to quick action on the part of American communists. Bob Krauss, in his book, “Johnny Wilson, First Hawaiian Democrat” (p 170) writes:
On the Honolulu docks, a tough little German-Hawaiian from Kalihi, Maxie Weisbarth, spoke for seamen as business agent for the Sailor’s Union of the Pacific. A six-page, free-swinging, semi-weekly newspaper called the Voice of Labor began publication on November 4, 1935.
One week before this date, a rawboned young seaman named Jack Hall landed in Honolulu from the Mariposa to begin a career as a union organizer that would make him the most powerful labor leader in Hawaii. He eked out a living on less that $20 a week working for Weisbarth distributing pamphlets….
Communist infiltration of labor unions apparently did not worry Johnny (Wilson), although Hall’s friends said Hall read nothing but Communist literature. Johnny said later, “I knew as far back as 1936 that there were Communists here in Hawaii….”
It was 3 ½ months from issuance of the Comintern’s “Letter to the CPUSA on Hawaii” to the arrival of Jack Hall in Honolulu. Koji Aiyoshi, who would go on to assist Mao Zedong as a spy in China during WW2, describes in his memoir “From Kona to Yenan” (p27), the beginnings of his recruitment to communism (without acknowledging it as such) in 1936 Honolulu.
Hall would eventually lead the ILWU which was controlled by the Communist Party and which would in turn control the Democratic Party. Ariyoshi would edit the ILWU’s communist-line Honolulu Record from 1948-58. Both Hall and Ariyoshi would be among the 1953 “Honolulu Seven” Smith Act defendants. In 1948 Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis would arrive from Chicago and become[s] a Honolulu Record columnist under Ariyoshi. Davis would from 1970-79 become a mentor to the young Barack Obama.
In 1954 the Democrats took control of the Territorial Legislature. Between the 1950 beginning of the Korean War and 1959 Statehood, most Hawaii Communists would leave the Party, but not necessarily leave behind Stalinist organizational methods or socialist economic ideas.
As Hawaii’s first elected Democrat State Governor Jack Burns would point out later:
“Every guy in the ILWU was at one time or another a member of the Communist Party of America. This is where they got their organizational information and how to organize, and how to bring groups together and how to create cells and how to make movements that are undetected by the bosses and everything else…I know what they were about. I said this was the only way they are going to organize.”
The document is transcribed below. Embedded links have been inserted to provide more information about organizations and individuals named in the document. Sections in [brackets] are not visible on the original and a presumed text has been inserted when possible based on context and spacing.
QUESTIONS DISCUSSED:
1. Hawaiian question.
Reporter: Flake.
Speakers: Shermann, Nehring, Mingulin, Naumann.
DECISIONS:
1. To discuss the question with the American and Japanese comrades. To draw up a document which analysis the situation and the revolutionary tasks in Hawaii.
Responsible: Commissor composed of comrades Flake, Mingulin, Porter, Sherman, representative of Eastern Secretariat.
Responsible for Commission: Com. Sherman.
Signed,
(Illegible)
July 7, 1935 LETTER TO THE CPUSA ON HAWAII
The growing discontent of the masses of the population in the Hawaiian Islands with the regime of colonial oppression and the exploitation of American imperialism with its policy of militarization of the Hawaiian Islands makes it essential for the CP USA to give every possible assistance to the development of the mass revolutionary movement in Hawaii, so that the foundations will be laid for the formation off a Communist party as the leader of the emancipation movement in Hawaii. Due to the altogether insufficient information at present available, it is not possible at present to completely formulate all of the tasks of the revolutionary movement, which further investigation and discussion of this question should be conducted by the American Party.
The political slogans of the Hawaiian revolutionary movement should be based on the developing of the agrarian, anti-imperialist revolution, the struggle against the yoke of American imperialism, and the bourgeois landlord system, and for a workers’ and farmers’ republic. Although the slogans of the national liberation struggle cannot be exactly predetermined and will have to grow out of the creation and development of the national liberation movement itself, it is the first and foremost task of the American party to assist this process and raise the slogan of “Right of Self-determination of the Peoples of Hawaii, up to the Point of Separation”, to demand the withdrawal of the US armed forces, and to expose the policy of the militarization of Hawaii as part of the war plans of American imperialism.
The CP USA should discuss with the Hawaiian comrades what are the basic tasks of the agrarian anti-imperialist revolution, especially the solution of the land question, which, according to the material available, presents itself as the task of destroying the semi-feudal remnants, the confiscation of the big plantations which predominate in Hawaii (and are mainly owned by foreign imperialists), and the division of the land among the people.
In addition to the main political slogans of the national liberation struggle, the Hawaiian revolutionary movement should consider raising the following immediate partial demands, the struggle for which should receive the full support of the CP USA:
1) Full democratic rights for the people — against the terror; freedom of speech, press, assembly, and the right to organize and strike; full electoral rights [for] the disenfranchised masses and the American soldiers and sailors.
2) Equal rights for all [nationalities and an end to] discrimination against the coloured people (Hawaiian, [Japanese], Filipino, etc.)
3) Eight hour day for industrial and agricultural workers
4) Abolition of the con.. .. ..labour.
5) Establishment of a .. .. ..ay for
…. the coloured .. .. ..
6) [Une]mployment and .. .. ..
7) Cancellation of [the debts of small farmers] and sharecroppers.
8) Reduction or can[-cellation of re-]nt for small farmers and share-croppers.
The CP USA should [make a prior]ity of establishing a central newspaper (by [combining] the central organs publish by various groups, or making one [of the existing newspapers into the] central organ),
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Hawaii Free Presshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngHawaii Free Press2019-07-08 08:19:112019-07-08 08:26:19July 7, 1935: Moscow orders first Communists to Hawaii
Jennifer Zeng grew up admiring the Communist Party of China and adhering to its stringent rules. But her life changed forever when she embraced religion and was swept up in a government crackdown on Falun Gong. Arrested four times as a young adult and held in as a prisoner in a labor camp, she quickly woke up to the horrors of living in a socialist state. After being subject to brutal torture, Zeng managed to escape China and now tells about the evils of socialism and communism.
At a time when more Americans are embracing Karl Marx’s teachings, Chris Wright has helped Zeng share her story as part of a network called the Anticommunism Action Team. They recently spoke to The Daily Signal along with Darian Diachok, who escaped from Soviet-era Ukraine as an infant and has helped former Soviet satellite states democratize and overcome their failed communist systems.
The full audio is below, along with a lightly edited transcript. Some of the content is graphic and not suitable for small children.
Rob Bluey: We are joined by Chris Wright, Darian Diachok, and Jennifer Zeng. Darian and Jennifer both have experience with communism and have graciously agreed to share their stories. Chris Wright is doing phenomenal work in getting the message out about the horrors of communism through the Anticommunism Action Team. Welcome to all three of you, and thank you for being with us.
Chris Wright: Thanks for having us, Rob.
Bluey: Chris, I’d like to begin with you. Can you tell us about the Anticommunism Action Team and the work that you do?
Wright: In 2013, my Alexandria Tea Party had a big program and Dr. Lee Edwards from The Heritage Foundation was one of our speakers, and it was all about survivors of communism.
I went on to form a separate entity, the Anticommunism Action Team, in 2014 to formalize the activity. We added the speakers bureau in 2016. We have survivors of communism from Cuba, Bulgaria, Vietnam, China, Ukraine, as well as subject matter experts who now appear on the radio in several states.
We’ve been in front of classrooms and groups, and my speakers have a very powerful message. We’ve been down the socialist road, and we know what’s at the end of it, so Americans better wake up.
Bluey: Chris, we are living in a time when socialism is getting a lot of attention, or democratic socialism is, as some people prefer to call it. You have described to me Marxist theory and how socialism fits in the realm of that theory, and how it is the step before communism. Can you explain?
Wright: Marx saw stages of history, inevitable stages of history, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and communism. Socialism is the stage before the final stage. Socialism is characterized by the common ownership of the means of production.
Communism is when the state withers away because there’s no more dominant class, no more private property. You don’t need a state because there’s no more economic exploitation, and so that’s a great fantasy, but it’s never happened anywhere.
One of our speakers from Ukraine has a joke about all this. He says, “What comes after socialism? Communism. What comes after communism? Alcoholism.”
Bluey: We have with us two people who have told incredibly personal stories. They are, in many cases, heart-wrenching and tragic. I really thank you both for being willing to share and talk about your experiences.
Jennifer, I’d like to begin with you. You’re somebody who was born in China. You were arrested four times. You were held as a prisoner in a labor camp. You were able to escape that camp and leave China.
Can you tell our listeners what it was like, that experience, how you ended up in that camp? Then we’ll get to your ability to escape and now share your story with millions of people across the world.
Jennifer Zeng: I was arrested, like you said, four times and sent to the Beijing Female Labor Camp for practicing a spiritual practice called Falun Gong. It is a spiritual practice based on truth, compassion, forbearance, and plus five sets of gentle exercises, including meditation.
Because it’s very obvious health benefit, within seven years, there were more Falun Gong practitioners in China than Communist Party members.
At that stage, in 1999, the party decided to crack down on it. So, I ended up in the Beijing Female Labor Camp.
The first day was feeling like going directly into the hell.
For the first moment, we were forced to squat under the baking sun for 15 hours, and whenever someone couldn’t endure it and fainted away, they were shocked by electric batons so that they could wake up.
Every day, in the camp, it was a battle between life and death.
On June 17, I was in London at the Independent China Tribunal. They handed out their final judgment about this organ harvest and transplant, and they gave the verdict that the Communist Party is guilty of anti-humanity crime.
I only realized that I had a very narrow escape from being a victim of this organ harvesting because I had Hepatitis C.
While I was in the camp, apart from torture every day, apart from hard, forced labor, we were also given repeated physical checkups so that if anyone need an organ we could be killed on demand if we were a match.
Fortunately, I told the doctor I had Hepatitis C before I practiced Falun Gong. I was able to be exempted from becoming a victim of organ harvesting.
Bluey: In the camp you experienced both brainwashing and mental torture and physical torture. Many of the people in the camp were sexually assaulted and raped. Can you share what some of those things that you observed and endured were like?
Zeng: Yes. Actually, on the second day of me in the camp, two police officers dragged me from the cell to the cold, threw me on the ground, and applied two electric batons all over my body until I lost consciousness.
The torture I experienced and I saw was beyond description.
I saw a female Falun Gong practitioner tied to a chair, and she was shocked by four or five male police guards on her head and on her private part until she lost control of her bowel movement. As a result, she couldn’t walk for several months.
They also would tie four toothbrushes together and with the sharp end outside and push this inside the vagina of female Falun Gong practitioners and twist it, twist it until they saw blood came out.
The police would also throw females into the male prisoners’ cells to have them repeatedly gang-raped. So, this kind of thing happened in the camp.
I think the worst part for me in the camp is the brainwashing part. Because the police made it very clear, the only purpose for you to be sent there is to get you reformed, which means to change our minds toward Falun Gong.
So, we were forced not only to give up our beliefs in truth, compassion, and tolerance, but also to help the police to torture our fellow Falun Gong practitioners in order to prove that we were transformed.
After I think I spent six months in the camp, I suddenly developed such a strong desire to write a book to expose this all because when I was there, I couldn’t believe this was happening in the 21st century.
I thought this could only happen in a Nazi concentration camp. This should have already become part of the history. It couldn’t be present, but it is still happening.
To write a book, I have to get released. But, if I don’t prove to the police I had been transformed, I couldn’t be released.
So, every day, the struggle was in my mind of whether to transform or not to transform nearly killed me for another 1,000 times.
Little by little, I was forced to do all these things the police asked me to do in order to prove that I have reformed.
Little by little, I feel like becoming empty in a human shell. Actually, it was my very essence of a human being being taken away like your thoughts, your soul, your free will, and your human dignity. I feel like a non-human being and doing whatever they force us to do.
That was a very, very disgraceful process. Worst deal, after I was released, they still expected me to go to the brainwashing centers to be used as example of reform and to continue to help them to do their reform job. So, I had to escape from my own family only five days after I was released.
Bluey: It’s just terrible. You were able to get asylum, though. How were you able to flee China and escape this terror?
Zeng: I think in this regard I was luckier than many of my fellow practitioners. I had a very good education. I graduated from Peking University with a master of science degree. I spoke good English.
I met an Australian couple who went to China to teach English. I told them how terrible my situation was and how terribly I needed to leave China. They were able to help me to get out of China, so I sought asylum in Australia and was granted refugee status.
Bluey: We are so blessed that you’re with us today. We’re going to get back to your book and the movie and the work that you’re doing.
I do want to ask Darian to share his story. Darian, you were able to escape from Ukraine as an infant. You’re somebody who’s also witnessed communist governments through your work with USAID. Tell us about your own experience and what it is that helped you to understand about communism.
Darian Diachok: Actually, I have two sources of experience with communism.
The first one was through my extended family. We escaped from the Red Army as the Red Army was closing in toward the end of World War II.
We were extremely lucky to have made it to the United States because I think the statistics are that only one out of about 12 people who were escaping from eastern Europe actually made it to the West. They were picked up everywhere.
The [People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs, abbreviated NKVD] had forward units waiting for people. Matter of fact, my parents ran into a forward NKVD unit but were able to give them the slip. So, we were extremely fortunate to have made it to the states.
Once we got here, people started telling stories, I guess, every Christmas, every Easter, escapees would get together and just talk to anyone about their experiences, how lucky they were, how something happened like they got on the last train or a pistol didn’t fire or something, how they were all able to escape.
My brother and I listened to these stories over the years, and my wife, who’s not Ukrainian, as I told her one of the stories, she said, “You should write a book about this.” So, I decided to do that.
Bluey: Your book is called “Escapes,” for those listeners who might be interested.
Diachok: Right, and the book is interesting in that my extended family … were represented pretty much in every aspect of World War II.
My father was a Polish officer fighting against the Germans. I had two uncles who were in the Red Army. I had another uncle who was picked up by the Reds and tortured and all of that. So, we have direct experiences with the communist takeover.
There was one particular day in which everybody was invited or actually ordered into the town square for a major announcement. No one knew what it was for. I hadn’t been born yet. My parents didn’t know what it was for.
They brought out all of the town leaders, the postmaster, the mayor, the vice mayor, everybody who was in the town council, and they shot them in front of everybody.
They announced the new era where all of your bourgeois tormentors have been taken care of, and now we will live in a new communist system. So, they had experienced things like that.
That’s one aspect. The other aspect is returning to the former Soviet Union later as part of the reform effort from USAID and other international agencies, and to discover what the devastation was and what the Soviet system left behind after it collapsed.
Not only in the infrastructure that didn’t work, not only in the environment that was ravaged, but also in people’s thinking, and also in the lack of institutions, the daily institutions, which we take for granted, all of which were broken and destroyed under communism, just the total human devastation in a way.
We saw the effects of what it was, of what the communist system actually did. We were faced with what do we do next, what do we do first.
Bluey: The picture that sometimes we see on the outside that’s painted by the state-run media or that those communist countries like to project is quite different from what you have experienced up close and personal. Can you share with us an experience that may come to mind that would help us better understand why it’s not so rosy, the picture that sometimes is painted?
Diachok: At USAID, we had counterparts. We had local counterparts. I was in energy, so I had an energy counterpart.
One day, he was called off. He got a phone call that his daughter was bitten in school. … We were very concerned that she was hurt.
He left, and we later learned that he had to apologize and to pay a huge fine because obviously, in a communist society, dogs represent power. They represent the authority, and if the dog bit the girl, she must have been misbehaving.
That was such a shock. We couldn’t imagine this.
On a more professional level, what we were discovering was that there was an overall pervasive sense of corruption. It came from the system, which didn’t work, and so people had to be corrupt in order to satisfy their daily needs.
In a centrally planned economy, everybody’s needs are supposed to be taken care of, and the central authorities cannot make any mistakes. They are infallible. So, you have to make do with what they have planned for you.
The centrally planned economy always has difficulty in finding out exactly what people’s needs are, how many people need what, what people’s shoe sizes are, everything else. In a centrally planned economy, all those kinds of things simply cannot be done efficiently.
Consequently, people do not get what they need, and they have to learn to barter for things. They have to do things under the table.
You’re not allowed to barter for anything because that’s going against the state. If you barter for anything, that means that you are a private entrepreneur who is working against the state.
So you’re not allowed to barter, but you have to provide for your family. Your family needs milk. They need food, and it’s not available, so you have to wheel and deal.
The whole system became completely corrupt. People learned to be corrupt. That’s on a daily consumer level. People learn to be corrupt.
On a more professional or a more, let’s call it, a more industrial level … every company, every firm had quotas that they had to reach. If they didn’t reach those quotas, the consequences were horrendous. They could be sent to Siberia. They could be shot, so meeting your quotas was … life and death.
The central planning system never gave you exactly what you needed to make the quotas, for the same reasons I had discussed earlier.
The central planning system couldn’t foresee the needs of every single, let’s say, radio manufacturer. They didn’t get it right, but yet you had the quota.
So, people learned to wheel and deal, to barter under the table in order to make the quotas.
The whole system also became corrupt in the sense that they were working against the communist system to satisfy the communist system. It got to the point where people just found shortcuts in order to satisfy the system.
If you were supposed to produce things in tonnage, like you had to produce a certain number of tons of irons or radios or any kind of household equipment, they would add huge amounts of metal to it just simply to increase the weights so that they would meet the quotas.
Everybody knew that they were producing junk, but yet the quotes were made. No one really took their job that terribly seriously. The object was to make the quota and not to produce anything of value.
There were really weird examples, too, in the Soviet Union where people would have quotas to produce certain kinds of trucks, and the next factory over needed broken-up trucks, needed wrecks.
So, they would take these trucks straight off of the assembly line, drive them a mile, and then destroy them, and deliver them to the next factory, which needed junked trucks.
People did not question that. If you question that, you were questioning the wisdom of the party, and that was punishable by all sorts of things.
The whole system became crazy, and this is what people learned. This is the environment in which people learned to operate so that when we got there, the ex-Soviets that we were working with were very, very attuned to what the party wanted because missing that was life and death.
So when we were talking to them, they were very attuned to what they thought we wanted to hear. They pretended to be on board with us, but then, at the first opportunity, they would go around us and try to exploit the system for everything it was worth.
Bluey: Darian, thank you so much for sharing those real-life experiences. That is just incredible to hear, and it’s disheartening on some level that the generational effects are still there.
I want to ask both of you about the books that you’ve written. And, Jennifer, in your case, also the documentary. Can you tell us about those books, and not only what is contained in them, but how we can go about learning more about them?
The U.S. version is available on Amazon, so people can search for that. I also have a Chinese version. … It’s also available on Amazon.
The Australian version is available on my publisher’s website, Allen & Unwin.
There is also a documentary about my story called “Free China.” It’s at freechinamovie.com. You are able to watch the documentary on the front page of that website.
I think, up to now, my book is the only available one in English to detail what happened to Falun Gong practitioners inside the labor camp.
Actually, this year marked the 20th anniversary of what’s happening in China, and the scale of the persecution is so huge, 100 million Falun Gong practitioners, plus their families.
Now, we are hearing about millions of Uighurs also be detained in Xinjiang camps.
Because, I think, the world failed to stop the persecution of Falun Gong, now the party has the ability to expand that to other minority groups and to the entire nation. The entire nation is under very strict monitoring of the party.
I think my book has a very significant importance to be the firsthand account of what’s really happening inside the camp. It is current, and it is helping the world to know what’s really happened.
For example, several days ago, I saw a program by BBC. They and several other major media were allowed after many years of calling to go inside one of the reeducation camps in Xinjiang to film. They ended up making a film of about eight minutes.
After watching that movie, as someone who had been in one of very similar places, I knew how fake that program was and how you should look at them.
I did a YouTube program about myself to discuss three small stories, especially about how the police managed to fake everything inside the camp.
When I was there, no foreign reporters were allowed inside the camp, but they even deceive their fellow police officers from other camps.
So, if they are even deceiving their fellow police officers and their supervisors from the neighbor camp system, would you expect them to show you the real thing of the neighbor camp to a foreign journalist?
I think my book and my story is still very, very relevant because this is still happening on a very large scale in China.
I hope more people can learn my story, and understand how serious this situation they are. It’s really millions of people’s lives at stake. I hope the world can stop this.
Bluey: Thank you for having the courage to share it and to tell that story. It is incredibly powerful.
Darian, I want to ask about your book. It’s called “Escapes.” Tell us about why you chose to write it.
Diachok: Yes, thank you.
We were passing a building that reminded me very much of the train station from which my parents escaped, and I began reminiscing to my wife on the way to a New Year’s Eve party about how my parents had to stand four days and four nights [for] the last train that was available before the Red Army closed in, and how the train was attacked by a Red fighter.
Some of the wagons were actually caught on fire. I was telling her this story, and she said, “My goodness. Don’t let that go to waste. That has to be put down. That has to be recorded for history.” That’s how it started.
Bluey: Let me ask you, at a time when it seems that there is an increasing interest in socialism, particularly among young people here in the United States of America, what is your message to them based on your own experience?
And what would you like them to know and think about and reflect upon as you’ve experienced these horrors of communist governments that embrace the principles of socialism?
Diachok: My father once said that communism is like a bouquet of flowers with a hidden dagger.
I think it discussed many phenomena of how the specter of communism is using both violent ways and nonviolent ways to try to rule this world. In the West, they are trying to change their names into different names, but the essence is the same.
As someone who was a victim of the communism, I really want people to know if you really adopted communism what life could be. That is what I had experienced.
I think in the early days when the Communist Party was just founded in China, they also talked about freedom, talked about equality, talked about everybody living in heaven-like communities and society.
Many young people also got deceived. They went to … the sacred place of communism.
If you look at the history, many of them ended up being killed by the party, and all their families, all their children, they all suffered for generations, after generations they suffer.
Under the Communist Party in China, 80 million people died of unnatural death. That’s all the result of communism.
Like Chris said, socialism is only the primary stage of communism. Actually, officially, or theoretically, China now is not a communist country yet. It’s still socialism with Chinese characteristics. Officially, China is now a socialist society.
If you look at what the people have suffered there … This year is the 70th anniversary of the CCP came to power in China, so the 70 years were full of killing, full of tyranny.
If you want communism or socialism, I think you should read more about China. You should read my story first to know what the socialism really is.
I think many young people, they are very easy to be attracted by those rosy, empty words, or the rosy description of how beautiful those things are, but the reality is just the opposite.
If they know what those damage or how people have suffered, more than, I think, one-half of the population of Chinese people have suffered one kind of persecution or another, they would stop having those rosy dreams about communism or socialism.
I think it is exactly because what they already have in this society, actually ensured not by the socialism, but by the fundamental principles of a free society, they forgot how cherishable, how valuable this is, and they start dreaming of those very unfortunate, I think, elusive things.
I hope people can learn the reality of communism and socialism.
Bluey: In some respects, it seems like it’s on display in Hong Kong, that resistance to China’s aggression and what it is trying to do. What are your observations about what’s taking place there now?
Zeng: I think the West, I hope all the young people can choose to really pay more attention to what’s happening in Hong Kong.
The young people in Hong Kong, they really experienced what life was really about when the Communist Party tried to erode their own freedom.
Some of them got so desperate up to now in these several days that there were three suicide cases of young people jumping out of the building to protest against this so-called extradition bill, and, I think, essentially, against the Communist Party’s erosion of Hong Kong’s freedom. They knew what life was like.
So, the Hong Kong people are really waking up to the illusion of this so-called one country, two system society, and they knew how valuable their initial freedom and the rule of law was.
They are really fighting with their life against the Communist Party’s erosion of Hong Kong. I think they deserve more help from the West, especially from the United States and the United Kingdom. We owe them support.
Bluey: Chris, I want to finish this with a comment from you. There may be some who say, “Why are we having this conversation? Why is it relevant to all of the things that are going on today?” Can you share with us why it is important that we focus on these stories?
Wright: Why is communism still relevant today? It’s just all in the dustbin of history.
We’ve reached the end of history and communism lost, so why are we still talking about this? Well, there are still five captive nations in the world, starting with China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea. That’s 1.5 billion people. It’s still relevant to them. That’s a lot of people.
Also, there’s an elected communist government in Nepal. Things are not going well there. The intelligence agencies are being weaponized. The press is being shot down. Communists are doing what they do everywhere. So, it’s relevant to the people in Nepal.
There have already been 300 people who have attempted to escape from Cuba on rafts so far this year. It’s relevant to them. It’s also relevant because, in the 2018 elections, there were 50 openly socialist candidates running for political office in the United States.
Also, there’s an openly declared socialist candidate running for president this year. The Denver City Council, there was just a woman elected there who promised that she would bring in common ownership. There it is, the quintessential definition of socialism, common ownership by any means necessary.
So, we’re entering into a period in the United States where socialism is on the rise again.
Bluey: Chris, how can our listeners find more about the work that the Anticommunism Action Team does? If a college student wants to bring some of these speakers to their campus, how do they get in touch with you?
We have a weekly roundup of anticommunism news that people can sign up for through the email address or through the website. Our Speakers Bureau speakers, wonderful speakers like Jennifer and Darian.
We have both subject matter experts and people who have survived communism who are available all over the country through video conferencing.
We’ve been on four college campuses so far this year, and we’re happy to do this anywhere in the country to a group that you think could benefit from this message.
Bluey: Chris, thank you for the work that you’re doing. Jennifer and Darian, we appreciate you sharing your stories with us.
Rob Bluey is executive editor of The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Rob. Twitter: @RobertBluey.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
Pete asks what happened in the 60s to bring such chaos to the USA.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Bill Finlayhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngBill Finlay2019-07-07 17:47:492019-07-07 17:47:49VIDEO: Asbestos Pete and The 60’s Revolution
“A higher minimum wage is sold as a way to help millions out of poverty. The reality is that it only benefits a small minority to the cost of everyone else.” – Paul Boyce
If wages for those at the bottom are high, you may naturally expect low poverty rates. No matter how you define it, higher wages would most logically relieve poverty levels. This is also the argument made by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). An increase in the minimum wage may very well reduce poverty in the short-term. However, there will be adjustments. In reality, a higher minimum wage changes the types of people living in poverty rather than the overall number.
Effect on Economic Mobility
A higher minimum wage will help those who have a job but not those who are unable to find employment. This favors more skilled and experienced employees who are generally more productive. To an employer, it is more justifiable to employ someone with experience. They are generally able to produce a greater level of output with a higher degree of quality. At the same time, this creates a trap. To the employee, there is less incentive to move on to more productive and higher paid positions.
What we see is the employee getting paid more. What we don’t see is the loss of their potential output. Not only is there reduced incentive, but there is also reduced opportunity. Many businesses are already moving to flatter business structures. This means fewer opportunities to progress to managerial positions. We are already seeing the likes of Walmart and McDonalds moving toward this kind of structure.
Though employees on the minimum wage are getting paid more, social mobility suffers. For example, research by Neumark and Nizalova found negative long-term effects from the minimum wage. Their study concluded that the minimum wage had two restricting effects. First, it restricts teens and young adults by deterring their employment. This means they are unable to acquire the necessary employment skills at a young age. Second, employers compensate for the higher wage by reducing their investment in training. Once again, this reduces the long-term skills that teens and young adults gain. Consequently, the ability to move onto more meaningful employment is restricted.
Furthermore, research by Clemens and Wither also found significant declines in economic mobility as a result of the minimum wage. Their study reiterates the conclusions of Neumark and Nizalova. The reduction in upward mobility is largely due to the reduction in opportunities for accumulating work experience.
Declining Poverty
The minimum wage reduces social mobility, but does it reduce poverty? Media outlets like CNBC are quick to highlight that the minimum wage hasn’t kept up with inflation. If it had, it would be nearly $11. So the minimum wage has lost much of its value since its peak in 1968. If there were a link between the minimum wage and poverty, we would expect higher poverty rates today. However, the opposite is true.
The African-American poverty rate declined from 34.7 percent in 1968 to 21.4 percent in 2016. For whites, it declined from 10 percent to 8.8 percent in the same period. The main contributing factor to this decline is economic growth and the availability of jobs, not a higher minimum wage.On occasion, the minimum wage has been negatively correlated with poverty. If the minimum wage increases in real terms, poverty also decreases. If we look at the increases in 1997, the minimum wage increased in real terms. The poverty rate subsequently fell from 13.3 percent to 11.3 percent in 2000. This was surely a win for the minimum wage argument, right? Well, this came during a period of remarkable economic growth. When people are employed, they generally escape poverty. When jobs become more available, poverty decreases. The economy grows despite the minimum wage—not because of it. In fact, the empirical evidence provides little support for claims that minimum wages boost economic growth or alleviate poverty during downturns.
Working Poverty Minimum Wage Workers
Data from the US Census Bureau stated that 12.3 percent of the population lived in poverty in 2017. That’s roughly 39.7 million people. Of those, 17.2 percent, or 6.9 million people, were considered “working poor.” However, when only those who were continuously employed over the previous year were included, it fell to 5.3 million. Of those, 3.2 million were in full-time work below the poverty level.
The minimum wage was raised three times between 2007 and 2009. However, this came during one of the worst recessions on record. The last economically stable period where the minimum wage increased was 1996 to 1997. It increased to $5.15 in 1997, equal to $7.87 in 2017 prices. While the inflation-adjusted rate declined, the rate of in-work poverty also declined. The number of workers who were employed all-year round but still in poverty fell from 1.96 percent of the population in 1998 to 1.64 percent in 2017.
The percentage of people in working poverty is at record lows despite the minimum wage remaining stagnant at the federal level. This has not detracted from the prominence of the debate. Over the last 20 years, however, there has been an adjustment among the “working poor.” That adjustment has been a shift toward part-time work. While 30 percent of the working poor worked part-time in 1998, 40 percent did in 2017. The majority of this has come through voluntary means, which is to say that people are classified as suffering from “in-work poverty” through their own free will. Usually, this is because their household income is actually in excess of the poverty level. The minimum wage job is therefore but a supplementary income.
Raising the minimum wage won’t help those on part-time work out of poverty. It won’t help the other 34.4 million, either. Many of those are either disabled, unemployed, or children. In fact, it may very well make the situation worse. Employment is the best way out of poverty, but raising the minimum wage makes it that much more difficult for low-skilled workers to obtain that employment.A higher minimum wage is sold as a way to help millions out of poverty.
Single-mothers and their children are most at risk of falling into poverty. Many require job flexibility to fit around child care. Raising the minimum wage will make it easier for businesses to pick workers who are more able to fit around their working hours, leaving single mothers without employment.What’s more, many of those 3.2 million in working poverty include tipped workers. The trouble with this is that it overestimates the figure. All tipped workers earning below the minimum wage will be included, but so will those who are actually earning above the poverty rate. The number of people in working poverty falls further when we include tips. Furthermore, such statistics do not include cash transfers such as tax credits or housing benefits. Once these are included, the actual figure falls further. So, the statistics provided are often misleading and drastically overstate the problem. This is an important point because a higher minimum wage is sold as a way to help millions out of poverty. The reality is that it only benefits a small minority to the cost of everyone else. Even then, that small minority will see their hours reduced as a result, leaving everyone worse off.
EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-07-07 15:49:312019-07-09 07:11:31Why the Minimum Wage Can’t Solve the Poverty Problem [+Video]
Here is the real collusion. But as always, the establishment media and the political elites will protect Omar from any political consequences, should she take such donations.
“Turkish media calls for Turks to fund, support Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s campaign,” MEMRI, July 2, 2019:
(July 2, 2019 / MEMRI) Tarek Cherkaoui, the manager of the Turkish state-run news channel TRT World’s research center, wrote an article in April calling upon Turks to donate to the campaign fund of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). The article was widely reprinted in the Turkish media.
The article, written for the English-language website of the Turkish pro-government daily Yeni Şafak and published on April 1, 2019, was titled “Media Flak Directed At Ilhan Omar No Surprise At All.” At least seven other Turkish media outlets ran the article, in both English and in Turkish.
It should be noted that U.S. federal law prohibits foreign nationals from donating to political candidates.
In the article, Cherkaoui wrote that “donating money to Omar’s campaign fund would be an adequate way of denying powerful organizations the power to censor alternative voices.”
It is difficult to calculate the reach this call has had among Turkish readers, but Yeni Şafak’s Turkish-language website is one of Turkey’s most popular news websites, and as of Sept. 2018 its Turkish print edition had a weekly circulation of 111,622. Given Omar’s popularity in Turkey, and the fact that the article was published in Turkish as well as in English, it is likely that some Turks have sought to donate to her campaign fund….
RELATED VIDEO: David Wood and Robert Spencer on the Tommy Robinson verdict in the UK.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2019-07-07 08:10:252019-07-07 08:11:16Turkey: State-run media calls upon Turks to donate to Rep. Ilhan Omar’s campaign fund
A recent survey by the Jewish Electorate Institute indicates that 71% of registered Jewish voters disapprove of the way President Trump handles anti-Semitism and 73% feel less secure since he took office. Clearly, many associate him with bigotry in spite of his staunch support for Israel, warm relationships with Jewish colleagues and family members, and policy of challenging Jew-hatred at the United Nations and around the globe.
Though Jewish Democrats can disagree with Mr. Trump’s politics, personality, or confrontational style, he has no known connections to anti-Semitic or anti-Israel organizations, churches or ideologues – unlike Barack Obama, whom they pronounced “good for the Jews” despite a questionable background that would have disqualified any Republican in their eyes. Curiously, they expressed little concern when thousands of anti-Semitic acts and hate-crimes were committed, and violent assaults against Jews nearly doubled, during Mr. Obama’s presidency.
The fears voiced by Jewish Democrats regarding Mr. Trump’s supposed bigotry seem disingenuous considering their party’s tolerance for anti-Israel advocacy and progressive anti-Semites. And in advocating a partisan agenda that impugns Israel’s national integrity and rationalizes ancient stereotypes as political expression, they betray heritage, tradition, and common sense. Many define themselves through identity politics, but the identity they assert is not really Jewish. Instead, they espouse a grievance-based platform that glorifies radicalism, devalues Jewish history, and fosters hatred against their people and ancient homeland.
Democratic Party membership today includes BDS activists and classical conspiracy theorists who are not shy about pushing their anti-Israel agenda, and yet liberal Jews continue sitting in the same tent. They were ambivalent during the 2016 election cycle as party radicals burned Israeli flags, and they remain so today when Congressional Democrats spew hateful or ignorant rhetoric.
True, some expressed outrage when Ilhan Omar asserted classical stereotypes against Jewish organizations, Rashida Tlaib questioned the allegiance of pro-Israel legislators and claimed Palestinians gave “safe haven” to Holocaust survivors, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asserted the Israeli “occupation” myth and praised anti-Semitic British politician Jeremy Corbyn. But their umbrage was short-lived, and there was no outcry when Democrats stripped a House resolution of language solely and specifically condemning anti-Semitism. Party leaders have only compounded the problem by labeling as racist, Islamophobic, or misogynistic those who criticize House Reps. Tlaib, Omar, Ocasio-Cortez and others for such egregious comments.
Though liberals accuse Trump of prejudice, today’s epidemic of Jew-hatred began under Obama, who pandered to anti-Semitic progressives and validated the BDS movement. In contrast, claims of pervasive conservative bias have been exposed by surveys indicating far less Jew-hatred – and far greater support for Israel – among Republicans than Democrats. Consistent with these findings, Congressional voting patterns reflect solid support for Israel from House and Senate Republicans. Conversely, there is no dispute that anti-Israel movements, programs, and events (e.g., BDS, Israel Apartheid Week) are endorsed by Democrats, progressives, and Islamists, but spurned by conservatives and Republicans.
Those who accuse Trump of anti-Semitism are hard-pressed to corroborate their claims. His relationships with Jews and Jewish institutions over the years have been positive, and his treatment of Israel exemplary. In contrast, Barack Obama had a troubling record that Jewish Democrats simply ignored. He sat in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s church for twenty-two years, reportedly hobnobbed with members of Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam in Chicago, counted among friends and colleagues people like Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said, and treated Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu disrespectfully throughout his presidency.
The tendency of liberals to ignore Democratic anti-Semitism suggests they are not serious about confronting it. If they were, they would make a priority of denouncing bigotry on the left as conservatives have done on the right since the 1990s. Their obsession with phantom Republican prejudice stems from their flawed understanding of Jewishness as progressive metaphor and endorsement of ideologies that contravene traditional Judaism as authentically Jewish. The resulting absurdity is exemplified by their reluctance to condemn Democratic bigots the way British Jews have denounced Corbyn and the Labour Party. They prefer to blame Republicans for anti-Semitism – much of which comes from the left – over putting their own house in order.
Jewish progressives cannot tolerate Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu, whom they despise, but this disdain reflects the projection of their political values onto an Israeli society that has far different priorities. Likewise, though the Reform and Conservative movements elevate “social justice” over traditional observance, most Israelis question their relevance. And whereas Americans believe that excoriating Trump and adulating Obama are Jewish mandates, Israelis tend to disagree. In fact, many appreciate Trump’s admiration for Israel and stance against global anti-Semitism, but wonder how US Jews could have supported Obama despite his relationships with Israel haters, apologetic views on radical Islam, and apparent disdain for the Jewish State. More fundamentally, many are baffled that American Jews would trade ancestral loyalty for political causes that are extraneous to or inconsistent with traditional Judaism (e.g., transgender activism, Palestinian advocacy).
As observed by the late Prof. Daniel J. Elazar more than twenty years ago, most non-Orthodox Israelis, whether identifying as traditional or secular, incorporate observance into their lives to varying degrees. And while some might not oppose official recognition of liberal Judaism, “except for a minuscule handful, they do not seek it for themselves nor do they respond to it positively,” he wrote then, noting further: “It is not just that the religiously Orthodox Jews in Israel have not found satisfaction in those two diaspora-originated movements [i.e., Reform and Conservative], but, perhaps especially, neither have the religiously moderate traditional or secularist Jews.” (“Why Reform and Conservative Judaism have Not Worked in Israel.”) Though not all Israelis are stringently observant, most seem to accept the validity of Jewish tradition.
These observations are no less relevant today, as American liberals and their movements have distinguished themselves by (a) seeking to impose sociopolitical standards on Israel that most Israelis find irrelevant and (b) promoting causes that many believe threaten their country’s sovereignty and Jewish character. Nothing illustrates this more than the liberal American propensity for dialoguing with Islamist front groups posing as moderate, supporting organizations like J Street, and legitimizing Palestinian national claims that negate Jewish history – all while demanding that Israel kneel before the altar of progressivism.
Not surprisingly, many Israelis reject liberal Judaism for its ethical relativism as much as its lenient ritual orientation.
Unlike their Israeli counterparts, US Jews seem to suffer from identity erosion influenced by declining observance, substandard Jewish education, and the sacralization of liberal politics. Though many claim their Jewishness requires them to reject Trump, they conflate identity with secular ideals that defy Jewish tradition. Liberals can dislike Trump for any reason or none at all, but they cannot claim their disdain is Judaically-mandated. Nor can they ignore how Trump has reversed his predecessor’s course of demeaning Israel, enabling Islamic radicalism, empowering Iran, and whitewashing leftist anti-Semitism.
Jewish history is replete with examples of those who rejected heritage and community. During the Hellenistic period, many emulated Greek culture and repudiated their ancestors, while during medieval times some accepted baptism and sought to lead others astray. The apostate Nicholas Donin in 1240 denounced the Talmud to Pope Gregory IX, inflamed Dominican ire, and instigated public disputations and Talmud burnings. Similarly, Johannes Pfefferkorn in 1509 advocated expelling Jews from German lands, kidnapping and baptizing their children, and burning Hebrew texts. During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, many joined European radical movements, abandoned Judaism, and discouraged education and observance.
Whereas yesterday’s apostates renounced religion and culture, today’s progressives claim fealty to tradition while falsely equating Jewish identity with non-Jewish priorities. They misuse terms like “tikkun olam” and “Mussar” to imply Judaic authenticity, though doing so only illustrates their distance from tradition. True tikkun olam involves the promotion of societal harmony through Halakhic observance, while authentic Mussar calls for ethical character development through Torah study, mitzvah observance, and personal introspection. Neither promotes ideals that are alien to Judaism.
Many American Jews today know little of their heritage and attempt to fill the gaps with agendas that bear no resemblance to the Judaism of their ancestors. Though Jewish voters can certainly support any policies their consciences may dictate, tradition does not require them to be liberal Democrats – or conservative Republicans.
As for President Trump, they can support or oppose him for any reason. But they cannot claim that hatred for the man reflects Jewish virtue – and certainly not in light of his support for Israel and condemnation of global anti-Semitism. Nor can they oppose him based on dubious claims of prejudice, especially when they ignore or excuse flagrant anti-Semitism within the Democratic Party. Whatever moral authority they claim to possess is only diluted when they condemn Jew-hatred where it doesn’t exist but grant a pass where it does.
EDITORS NOTE: This Israel National News column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
We had our own people (thank you Darlin|<) check the translation from the soft coded titles in the YouTube version of this and it checked out. It is too important an interview to get this wrong. So here it is:
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Vlad Tepes Bloghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngVlad Tepes Blog2019-07-07 07:24:292019-07-07 08:29:20VIDEO: Vladimir Putin on Liberalism and Mass Migration to the West
The death of the so-called Gang of Eight bill in the House of Representatives in 2014 marks the point at which the Democratic establishment dropped any pretense of support for immigration enforcement. The last week in June 2019 will almost certainly mark the point at which the party’s leaders declared not only their unconcealed hostility to immigration enforcement, but their rejection of the very notion that the United States should even have immigration laws.
The week began with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the party’s highest ranking elected federal official, declaring “A violation of status is not a reason for deportation. That’s just not so.” 8 U.S. Code Section 1325 says otherwise, but why let a little thing like a federal statute stand in the way of a political agenda? Pelosi went on to tout a House supplemental appropriation to deal with the humanitarian fallout from the border crisis, “We have legislation to go forward to address those needs,” and also stated clearly her view that anyone who makes it into the country, however they got here, should be allowed to remain. “[I]n terms of interior enforcement, what is – what’s the point?”
But Pelosi’s musings were just the Democratic locomotive approaching the sharp curve at high speed. Just a few days later, the two dozen or so presidential contenders who hope to supplant her as the nation’s highest ranking elected Democrat held their first debate over two nights. That’s where their positions on immigration really went off the rails in the opinion of some high profile opinion columnists whose opinions tend to lean toward the Democrats’ world view.
Andrew Sullivan, writing in New York Magazine, and Jeff Greenfield in Politico, were both left wondering whether the Democrats had lost all touch, not just with reality, but with voters outside of the bubble of the party’s increasingly radical base. “I suspect that the Democrats’ new position — everyone in the world can become an American if they walk over the border and never commit a crime — is political suicide,” wrote Sullivan. Similarly, Greenfield noted, “These candidates aren’t explicitly advocating open borders, but taken together, the policies advocated amount to almost the same thing.” And not just advocating for open borders, observed Greenfield, but also all manner of “’free stuff’ to millions of people who broke the law to get here in the first place.”
Former Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Julian Castro, who apparently is familiar with Section 1325 openly called for its repeal. He also conceded that many of the people who are now violating Section 1325 are really economic migrants. “A lot of folks that are coming are not seeking asylum — a lot of them are undocumented immigrants,” who should be allowed to remain here anyway, Castro said.
While there was some disagreement among the presidential wannabes about whether we should care if people cross our borders without permission, there was none when it came to the question about what expensive benefit programs illegal aliens should be entitled to. All. When the debate moderator asked the candidates on stage if they agreed with South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttitieg’s suggestion that illegal aliens be made eligible for federal health insurance benefits, every hand went up. The cost of such a plan? Apparently it would be crass to even calculate the cost of allowing everyone who shows up here to exercise their “right” to health care at the American taxpayer’s expense.
Whether last week’s assertions by the Democratic leadership amount to “political suicide,” as Sullivan suggests, will be determined by the voters in 16 months. What is clear is that the week was a definitive turning point. As Greenfield conclude, “Right now, it seems clear that if either of the past two Democratic presidents had shown up Thursday and advocated their positions from five or 20 years ago—the ones that helped them win a general election—they would have been booed off their own party’s stage.”
Ira joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 1986 with experience as a journalist, professor of journalism, special assistant to Gov. Richard Lamm (Colorado), and press secretary of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. His columns have appeared in National Review, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, and more. He is an experienced TV and radio commentator.
EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR column is republished with permission. All rights reserved
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Federation for American Immigration Reformhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFederation for American Immigration Reform2019-07-07 07:14:162019-07-08 07:21:55The Democrats’ Positions on Immigration Are Starting to Worry a Lot of Democrats
The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.
War makes strange bedfellows, and the current Leftist/Islamist alliance against America-first President Donald Trump is worth examining.
Islamic sharia law with its misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, pedophilia, female genital mutilation, and wife beating is diametrically opposed to leftist Democrats’ proclaimed principles of women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, children’s rights, and anti-bullying. How can Leftists partner with Islamists whose norms are diametrically opposed to their own stated principles?
The answer is that Leftists are staggeringly hypocritical when it comes to their principles. Leftist metrics of inclusion are myopic – they only consider what a person thinks and ignore what a person does. The left embraces every color, every sexual orientation, every religion, every deviant behavior as long as its members THINK alike. Leftist anti-American anti-Trump group think is completely intolerant of any individual divergence of thought.
The demand for conformity among Leftists is no different from any religious orthodoxy. Orthodoxy requires conformity for membership in the group. Leftist tenets of political correctness, moral relativity, and historical revisionism are incontrovertible.
Islamic tenets of misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, pedophilia, female genital mutilation, and wife beating are ignored as long as these sharia-compliant Muslims are anti-American anti-Trumpers. Any anti-American anti-Trump Islamist is welcomed into the Leftist tribe because they are all warriors in the Culture War against America. America-first President Donald Trump is the existential enemy of the Culture War and the target of the Leftist/Islamist alliance.
Islamists unapologetically tell the world their goal is world domination and the establishment of a supremacist Islamist caliphate ruled by sharia law. There is nothing humanitarian about Islamists or their condescending attitude that insists they are doing the West a favor by freeing us from our freedoms, and settling America by imposing their savage medieval sharia law. Islamists do not recognize the authority of the United States Constitution.
Leftists are equally condescending in their arrogant insistence that Leftism’s superior socialism will bring social justice and income equality. Socialism has never kept these promises anywhere in the world that it has ever been imposed. Regardless, Leftists insist they are doing us a favor by freeing us of our Constitutional freedoms and replacing them with socialism. Leftists do not recognize the authority of the United States Constitution.
In America, freedom of religion and the separation of church and state means that the government is prohibited from establishing a state religion. But what happens when a political ideology is practiced with religious zealotry?
Red is the color of communism and Marxist socialism. Green is the color of Islam. When you mix red and green you get yellow – the color of cowardice. The Leftist/Islamist alliance is a cowardly consortium that rejects the United States Constitution and the meritocracy with its free and open debate of ideas. The anti-American Leftist/Islamist alliance requires force, violence, propaganda, and indoctrination – the classic tools of tyranny.
The red/green alliance has the singular strategic goal of shattering the United States Constitution. The longer the Leftists remain aligned with the Islamists, the more their strategic tactics resemble those of Islamic jihad. The Culture War against America has multiple fronts. Let’s take a closer look.
Political jihad – there is no tolerance for competing ideas in Islamism or Leftism, both systems require absolute conformity to their ideological tenets. The tyranny of both insists the opposition must be eliminated entirely, the difference between them is the punishment for dissent. Islamist sharia law demands the murder of infidels and apostates. Leftists in America encourage social shunning, verbal abuse, spitting, imprisoning political opposition, and even Antifa violence.
Physical jihad – Imams, mullahs, and Leftist Democrat political leaders encourage violence because their systems cannot survive rational scrutiny and must be imposed on populations through fear and violence. Political violence is normative in Islamic theocracies, Leftists in America are making political violence normative by abandoning America’s civilized competitive free market of ideas in favor of lawlessness and the physical threat of Antifa violence. Antifa, an abbreviation for anti-fascists, is the biggest hoax of all since they actually are today’s fascists. Like Muslim jihadis, Antifa thugs wear face masks to hide their identities – violence requires a face mask.
Education jihad – targeting education with political indoctrination to propagandize students is a powerful stealth war tactic of Islamists and Leftists.
Taqiyya – lying in the service of Islam. Radical socialist Saul Alinsky introduced the concept to America in his 1971 book Rules for Radicals when he instructed his students to cut their hair, put on a suit, and blend in so that no one would suspect they were trying to overthrow the government of American capitalism and impose socialism. There is no equivalent word in the English language for this deliberate deception so I have coined the new word Alinskiyya.
Lawfare – activist judges trying to stop or at least stall President Trump’s America-first policies is the current tactic of Islamists and Leftists. Disingenuous accusations of Islamophobia, and activist judges interfering in lawful executive orders have become routine in America.
Victim identity – Islamists and Leftists self-identify as victims to deceitfully engage the compassion of humanitarian citizens and to divert attention from their underlying goal of shattering the Constitution.
Economic jihad – Islamist Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel is embraced by Leftists in a coordinated effort to demonize and destroy the economy of the only Democratic nation state in the middle east. The Leftist/Islamist alliance also targets conservative media outlets by pressuring sponsors to drop their ads from conservative programs in an effort to silence opposing voices who support President Trump and his America-first policies.
Media jihad – Islamists and Leftists are supported by the mainstream media, Hollywood, and Internet behemoths that censor and curate content to manipulate public opinion. It is coordinated social engineering on a massive scale. Media content is deliberately anti-American, anti-Trump, antisemitic, anti-Christian, and pro-Islamic. Political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism are primary tactics used to deliver the content designed to destabilize and destroy America.
Islamists have a 1400 year history of destruction and conquest. An essential element of Islamic conquest is the complete destruction of any adversary’s history and culture including religious and historical icons. Churches are destroyed and replaced with mosques. Historical statues are smashed and paintings defaced. Leftists in America are busy destroying American history and its representations too. Historical statues are being toppled and paintings defaced.
San Francisco is scheduled to spend up to $600,000 to paint over George Washington High School’s historic wall mural, “The Life of Washington” painted by muralist Victor Arnautoff during the Depression. The San Francisco School Board’s outrageous decision denies the historical fact of slavery in the world including the United States. It also diminishes the historical facts that the United States abolished slavery while the Islamic nations continue its horrific practice.
Our nation celebrated its 243rd birthday on July 4, 2019 at the glorious Salute to America festivities. In violent protest, members of the Revolutionary Communist Party lit an American flag and threw the burning flag on a Uniformed Division Secret Service Officer! Burning a flag was deemed constitutional in the 1989 landmark Supreme Court case Texas Vs Johnson. On July 3,2019 the Revolutionary Club’s infamous Gregory “Joey” Johnson announced his intention to burn the flag in protest at the Salute to America celebration. Burning American flags is commonplace in Islamic theocracies – throwing a lit flag at another human being has taken Leftism beyond the savagery their Islamic mentors.
Be careful the company you keep.
As society becomes increasingly intolerant it becomes increasingly violent. The red/green alliance rejects the authority of the Constitution and the Constitutional legitimacy of our duly elected President Donald Trump. The red/green alliance objective to unseat POTUS has included all tactics of the Culture War and ranged from stealth jihad and Antifa violence to an attempted coup against the sitting President of the United States.
Americans who value their freedom must seriously consider the danger of coups and culture wars. What has distinguished the United States of America for 243 years is our peaceful transfer of power. Patriotic law-abiding Americans do not resort to coups or culture wars – we vote and we accept election outcomes. We debate the merits of ideas, abide by the Constitution, and pass laws that reflect our changing norms when merited. Any American, regardless of his or her political views must seriously consider the tyranny of the Leftist/Islamist axis, because without the Constitution we are just another lawless third world banana republic enslaved by the conceit of autocratic rulers.
The humanitarian hoax of Leftism is its dishonest promises of social justice and income equality. Free stuff is never free – you pay with your freedom. What Leftism and Islamism are selling is a medieval return to feudalism where the middle class is destroyed and the masses are ruled by the few rulers. Just ask the Venezuelans.
EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Linda Goudsmithttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLinda Goudsmit2019-07-07 06:43:532019-07-07 07:03:46The Humanitarian Hoax of Leftism: Killing America With Kindness
If someone from the 17th century came back to life, he or she would be surprised, most of all, by the means of transport and communication tools we use now.
Probably, the most familiar things would be hospitals and schools.
Personally, I think that there is something that would very surprise a person from those times even more: the fact that Governments take away individuals’ earnings compulsively.
In fact, contrary to what many people think, income tax is a rather recent “invention,” created—in most cases—as an emergency tax to deal with extraordinary expenses, which later survived as a way to finance the growing fiscal deficits of Governments increasingly mismanaged, corrupt, and in debt.
We will review two significant examples.
United Kingdom
After centuries imposing specific, eccentric taxes (e.g. chimney tax, window tax, malt tax, among others), Income Tax was first introduced by William Pitt in the United Kingdom in 1798, and it started to be charged in 1799. The aim was not to finance original expenses of the State but the Napoleonic Wars.
At the time, no other country levied a tax over the earnings produced by its citizens. The United States, for example, would only start charging it, intermittently, some 60 years later, and definitively in 1913.
The non-taxable minimum in the United Kingdom of the late 1700s would be equivalent to £6,000, and the maximum rate was ten percent. Only local income was susceptible to taxing, which was quite logical.
At the time, the malt tax covered approximately ten percent of the Government’s budget.
This first version of the Income Tax was in force only for three years, as it was annulled (logically) upon the signing of the Treaty of Amiens.
Henry Addington, who had succeeded Pitt in 1801 and had eliminated the tax when the peace with France was signed, reestablished it in 1803 when new difficulties appeared with that country. It was kept in force until the Battle of Waterloo. When the tax was annulled again, every document that referred to it was burnt, due to the sense of shame associated with having established and charged this tax.
From 1817 to 1842 there was no Income Tax in the United Kingdom or any other country.
Although he criticized the tax during the 1841 campaign, Prime Minister Robert Peel reestablished it in 1841, not to finance a war but to cover the Government’s deficit.
This time, the non-taxable minimum was over twice the previous one and the rate was around three percent.
The First World War was the perfect excuse to increase the rates. So, they were increased to 17.5 percent in 1915, 25 percent in 1916 and 30 percent in 1918.
For context, the only other country with an income tax at the time was the United States, which, as said above, had reestablished it in 1913, with a rate of 1 percent for incomes above $20,000.
The system was modernized as years went by, but the rising trend did not slow down, with a notorious record of 99.25 percent (yes, that is correct) during the Second World War.
Contrary to what one might believe, in the following two decades there was a minor reduction, but the tax remained over 95 percent.
During the 1970s and 1980s there were further decreases, but not very significant.
Only upon the election of Margaret Thatcher and the growth and increased sophistication of the offshore jurisdictions did the rates start to decrease substantially.
In 1988, for example, after three consecutive reductions, the basic rate was 25 percent.
Nowadays, that rate (the basic rate) is even lower: 20 percent and the maximum rate is 40 percent.
Let’s have a look at what happened on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.
United States
Although the United States became independent from the United Kingdom in 1776, after a conflict arising precisely from a taxing issue, it was not until 1861 that the country imposed the first income tax. And, just like in the United Kingdom, this was not done to finance the ordinary expenses of the State but the Civil War.
In other words, for over a century and 15 presidential terms, the State was financed without needing to take away from taxpayers a part of their income. Moreover, when it was finally done, those funds were not used to finance original expenses, but a civil war.
And even in that emergency situation (1862), the rate was between three percent and five percent, depending on the income level. That is to say, there were just two tax brackets, as is the case today, for example, in Paraguay.
In 1872, the income tax was annulled, basically due to the pressure of taxpayers, who deemed it expropriatory, like the majority of Congress.
In 1894, the income tax was incorporated again, but the next year, when ruling in the case 158 U.S. 601 (Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Company), the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. The exact date of the ruling was May 20, 1895, and the main argument put forward by the majority of the justices was that a direct tax was not constitutional if there was not a proportional way to distribute it among the states forming the Union, based on a census carried out to this end. The decision was made with five votes in favor and four against.
In 1909, the creation of this tax was proposed again, and in the presidential election of 1912, the three principal candidates—the president at the time, William H. Taft; the former president, Theodore Roosevelt; and the candidate who eventually won, Woodrow Wilson—supported the legalization of the income tax.
The 16th Amendment
The 16th Amendment was introduced precisely to achieve this goal. Paradoxically, Wyoming—now one of the states where non-residents frequently establish their foreign trusts—was the 36th state to pass the Amendment, which led to the tax being in force.
In particular, this Amendment established that Congress shall have the right to create and collect taxes over income, whichever source they may be from, without apportionment between the different states and without the need for a census.
As said above, the tax bracket for most of the population was 1 percent.
So, when did everything become more complicated for taxpayers? With the establishment of the Revenue Act of 1918 (WWI), which raised this tax to 77 percent, a rate over twice as much as that of the United Kingdom.
From looking at the way in which the public sector has been financed in the United States, the following can be seen:
between 1890 and 1920, all internal revenue came from foreign trade, in the form of custom duties;
between 1920 and 1940, the greatest part of the revenue came from corporate income tax, followed by personal income tax and custom duties; and
between 1940 and the year 2000, custom duties tended to disappear, and the personal income tax overtook the corporate income tax.
Tax Havens, Fiscal Wilderness
As mentioned above, in time, more and more countries started adopting this new type of tax, especially countries with growing deficits.
As an example, Switzerland imposed it in 1840, France in 1872, Spain in 1900, Norway in 1911, Russia in 1916, Canada in 1918, Brazil in 1924 and Argentina in 1932.
As a result, inhabitants of these countries began to look for ways to legally elude these unfair taxes, often using structures in jurisdictions that continued to consider these taxes as expropriatory.
In that context, countries that expected (and expect) to charge this tax (which they deemed unethical not so long ago) turned against the rest and accused them of being “unfair fiscal competition.”
In other words, they unilaterally changed the rules and then attacked those who simply maintained the status quo.
Later, they gathered in small cartels (e.g. OECD, G20, and others) to lend more legitimacy to these claims. That is how the first “black lists” of “tax havens” appeared, and how the pressure against them increased.
When they realized that these organizations were not achieving their goals, they started to use other arguments, more amenable to the general public (money laundering, terrorism financing).
Offshore jurisdictions were not created to capture the investments of fiscal residents of other countries, but it was these other countries which drove away their own fiscal residents by creating taxes on their income (first) and their assets (later), taking the tax burden to untenable limits.
Reality indicates that the very concept of “tax haven” was created by high-tax countries which, not being able to compete, tried (unfairly) to get the most efficient countries out of the competition.
As usual, he who does not want to compete is the least competitive one. No wonder.
Lessons Learned
What learnings can we derive from the British and American experience?
Several:
Firstly, there is a possibility that States finance themselves without receiving funds from the income or revenue of their inhabitants (or taxing these).
Secondly, until not long ago, all governments agreed that imposing taxes over income or revenue was expropriatory, and therefore could only be done under extraordinary circumstances. To impose this kind of tax was frowned upon, and those who were forced to do so were embarrassed.
Finally, were it not for the “fiscal wilderness” there would be no “tax havens”. If high-tax countries really wanted to “vanquish” tax havens, they should strive to provide legal security and reduce taxes, instead of lobbying through discredited, decadent multilateral organizations, which they have been doing for decades without any results.
Martin Litwak is the founder and CEO of @UntitledLegal, a boutique law firm specialized in investment funds and international estate planning, and the first Legal Family Office in the Americas. Martin Litwak is the author of the book “How the wealthiest people protect their assets and why we should do the same”.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2019-07-06 16:21:172019-07-06 16:22:12Life Before the Income Tax: What learnings can we derive from the British and American experience with the income tax?
“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” George Orwell, 1984
The algorithmic Memory Hole has arrived.
In doing some research recently, I found that I could no longer quickly locate items on Google that were at the top of the first page in the past year or so. These topics, such as the Obama administration keeping children separate from adults, are almost impossible to locate now. Articles “debunking” Obama’s policies being similar to Trump’s are everywhere.
And when looking for a current news item, I got a litany of first-tier and second-tier news and commentary outlets, all on the left, such as CNN (frequently the first option on news) the New York Times, Slate, Salon, BBC, London Guardian and so on — page after page and some repeated several times, before getting to even one on the right, usually Fox News.
I’m a reasonably advanced searcher. I was using the concept of Boolean string searches before Google. So I understand at 30,000 feet how their algorithm works. And yet I cannot find items at all that I previously found quickly.
There’s a good reason for this and you probably know what it is: They have changed their algorithm to emphasize “trusted” sources, by which they mean left-wing sources that reflect Google’s leftwing worldview.
There was last week’s news from Veritas interviewing whistleblowers at Google and leaking documents showing that Google is intent on not letting another Trump ever happen again. We know they’ve been placing their thumbs the scales for awhile, but this is a whole new level.
If you search “google whistleblower” you get all the appropriate results. Today. But what will be the results in six months or a year? Will you get the Daily Wire, Newsmax, the Spectator? Will you find Dave Rubin’s take? Or will it be Slate and Salon and CNN spinning Veritas as acting illegally and using controversial methods? Methinks think the latter.
And I realized with sudden clarity that here sat before me what we all have been reading about, but in an entirely new light: This is the algorithmic version of the Memory Hole made infamous in George Orwell’s dystopian 1984 novel. This is the modern step in how you erase history and alter people’s opinions in real time. Eventually, many things will just never have happened.
“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.” George Orwell, 1984
Google employees become a little army of Winston Smiths coding away to fill up the memory hole.
They are not alone, of course. The social media giants of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram (owned by Facebook) Pinterest and Youtube (owned by Google) have all been squeezing out conservatives through shadow-banning, demonetizing, de-platforming and outright banning. It’s not just whackadoodles like Alex Jones. When it gets to comedians like Steven Crowder who was actually trying to follow all of YouTube’s rules and the mainstream pro-life outfit Live Action, you know the digital noose is tightening.
Banks and credit card companies have begun closing the accounts of people based on those people’s opinion. It starts with the awful Proud Boys group and the neo-Nazi Stormfront site, but it never stops there.
Here’s my prediction on the final step, which may start before 2020 or after, but it sure feels as though it will eventually happen.
Once the noose has been tightened around conservatives, forcing them off social media and onto only their own websites, WordPress, Godaddy and other web hosting sites will eventually just start pulling the plug because of offensive this and offensive that.
And then they will have totally shut up conservative voices, and we will have a totalitarian leftist country.
But it won’t end there. Not really. Heed the wise words of Martin Niemoller:
“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
In the end, as in 1984, liberals and progressives will also become the victims, because only the state will matter. They think that is what they want. They don’t.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2019-07-06 15:58:302019-07-06 16:00:28Welcome To The Algorithmic Memory Hole
Recently, the American rap musician A$AP Rocky visited my home country of Sweden to perform a concert.
Walking around the streets of Stockholm together with his crew, a couple of what seems to be immigrants (likely Afghans. Most of them originate from Iran, not Afghanistan, which really makes them economic migrants, not refugees) started to stalk him, obviously looking for trouble, perhaps trying to rob him or at least force him to give them something they were asking for.
This is very common in Sweden today. Immigrants from Northern Africa, Afghanistan, and other non-European places, roaming around the streets stealing and robbing as well as harassing and raping women (in 2017 a couple of Afghan migrants living in Sweden live-streamed a rape on Facebook), threatening those who are weaker than themselves.
Swedes are generally not used to this kind of behavior. Additionally, Swedes in general also prefer to calm the situation down by taking a step back or agreeing to some sort of compromise in order to avoid a conflict. Therefore, these kinds of people usually know that they can get what they want from Swedes.
What they apparently didn’t understand was that A$AP Rocky and his friends weren’t Swedes. They were Americans, probably raised in even rougher neighborhoods than the immigrants in question. As such, when the immigrants continued their stalking of the rap artist, A$AP Rocky and his crew kicked their asses.
Here is the clip when the Swedish immigrants stalk them:
And here is the clip where they get beaten:
In a speech February 18, 2017 President Trump made an offhand remark about Sweden. He said:
“We’ve got to keep our country safe. You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this. Sweden. They took in large numbers. They’re having problems like they never thought possible. You look at what’s happening in Brussels. You look at what’s happening all over the world. Take a look at Nice. Take a look at Paris. We’ve allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country and there was no way to vet those people. There was no documentation. There was no nothing. So we’re going to keep our country safe.”
The Swedish establishment politicians and journalists laughed at him. What did he know about Sweden? Former Prime Minister Carl Bildt tweeted: “What has he been smoking?”
The American journalist Tim Pool visited Sweden to conduct some research. At first, Pool came to the conclusion that Trump was wrong. But eventually he realized that Trump probably was right and that Swedish media covered up the increasing violence and unsecurity in Sweden following mass immigration, primarily from Muslim majority countries. Here is a clip where Pool visits Rinkeby, an immigrant suburb of Stockholm.
Most recently, it was the American rap artist A$AP Rocky, who without any intention of doing so, proved that Donald Trump was right about Sweden.
Sweden is changing rapidly.
This is a fact and something a lot of us here in Sweden know despite our politicians refusing to admit it. However, it’s time for the world to know the truth.
The romantic northern country of Sweden that most Americans would think of when they hear the name of this nation, is appearing less and less like Sweden. Instead, Sweden looks and feels increasingly more like the Middle East.
That’s the reality no one wants to talk about.
About a week ago, an illegal Afghan refugee murdered a 69-year-old Swedish woman. Stefan Löfven, Prime Minister of Sweden, commented that ”We need to allocate more resources to our mental health system.”
However, the problem is not the mental health system; the problem is the overwhelming legal and illegal immigration that drain the resources. And political leaders who do not understand that their main mission should be to protect their own citizens.
This is Sweden. Welcome to Democratic Socialism, America!
After the latest incident, A$AP Rocky was arrested, because that’s what Swedish authorities do: they arrest law abiding citizens for not adapting to our new multicultural reality. However, A$AP Rocky and his team should really be given an award. He did what most Swedes would have wished they had the courage to do, but never would have done.
So thank you America for raising this issue: from Donald Trump to Tim Pool to A$AP Rocky.
Ronie Berggren is a Swedish Conservative who runs Sweden’s most active podcast about American politics:American News Analysis. His lifelong ideological inspiration is Thomas Jefferson. This article is cross-posted from Ronie.se.
RELATED VIDEO: Lopez Moment: Erdogan’s Turkey and U.S. Muslim Brotherhood Alliance.
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with videos is republished with permission. All rights reserved.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2019-07-06 06:47:432019-07-06 06:57:37VIDEO: A$AP Rocky proves that Donald Trump was right about Sweden
