See Something, Say Nothing

see something say nothing book coverFormer Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agent Phillip B. Haney has written a book titled,  “See Something, Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad.” The book is co-authored by Art Moore and is now available for pre-order on Amazon.com.

The book details how DHS has been fundamentally transformed by President Obama. DHS is now an oxymoron, because its mission is not to secure the homeland. At least not from those who are truly planning and plotting to do our nation unspeakable harm.

The March 2003 founding certificate, signed by former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, states the Department of Homeland Security is:

Dedicated to preventing terrorist attacks within the United States, reducing America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimizing the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters.’

By 2004, what DHS saw was:

  1. Several prominent Muslim organizations in America were directly affiliated with the global Muslim Brotherhood network (a.k.a. the MB, Jamaat Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun, or simply Ikhwan), that
  2. The Muslim Brotherhood was the originator of the modern Islamic revivalist movement, which has brought Jihad back into the imagination of today’s global Islamic community, that
  3.  These Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations were actively involved in the promotion of stealth Jihad in America, and that
  4. They were working with the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) to provide financial and/or material support to Hamas, a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Organization (SDGT).

Nearly all of these prominent MB front groups are still operating today, while individuals affiliated with them pass freely in and out of America.  Moreover, instead of prohibiting their activities, Federal agencies have adopted the policy of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), which not only sanitizes the connections between these organizations and the ideology of the Global Jihadist Movement, but has adopted them as trusted partners and advisers in U.S. domestic and foreign Counter Terrorism (CT) policies.

The Department of Homeland Security is now sleeping with America’s enemies.

This new book exposes the truths about how dedicated DHS agents, like Haney, were stopped from doing their sworn duty to see something, say something and do something to secure, protect and defend the homeland. Today DHS agents when they see something, the official policy is to say nothing.

I highly recommend pre-ordering this book. Its revelations will change how you view the Obama administration, sadly for the worse.

RELATED VIDEO: Whistleblower Says His DHS Investigation Could Have Stopped Attack – The Kelly File

Donald Trump: America’s Champion

At this crucial moment in our nation’s history, America needs a hero.

We need a strong champion of our national security.

We need an unapologetic promoter of economic prosperity that’s made possible by free enterprise capitalism.

We need a bold defender of our Constitutional rights, including our freedoms of speech, religion and right to bear arms to protect ourselves from criminals and rogue terrorists.

We need a courageous fighter to stop Democratic Party socialists from destroying our country with their failed policies and actions.

Capitalism Is Freedom; Socialism Is Slavery” is the title of the below article by John Hawkins which demonstrates clearly why I stand with Donald J. Trump, the champion America needs to make our country great again.


trump embraces american flagCapitalism Is Freedom; Socialism Is Slavery

By John Hawkins

“The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both.” — Milton Friedman

“If there is ever a fascist takeover in America, it will come not in the form of storm troopers kicking down doors but with lawyers and social workers saying, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” – Jonah Goldberg

In a time where consumers have almost unlimited choices of music, movies, websites and every product you can imagine in the supermarket, socialism is an outdated economic system that no longer fits with the world we live in. Socialism requires the intervention and control of the marketplace by an overwhelmingly powerful centralized government. It penalizes high achievers, rewards laziness and stifles choice.

Socialism is a government regulation that stops you from creating a successful business. It’s the Bureau of Land Management or the EPA making arbitrary decisions about what you can do with your own land. It’s the IRS taking the money you busted your butt to earn and giving it to people who didn’t work as hard as you did.

Almost every socialist policy requires taking resources from someone who’s earned them and giving them to someone who hasn’t. Even programs that are supposed to be self-funding rarely are because the juice is never quite worth the squeeze. The real reason we’re so deeply in debt is because if the middle class was forced to choose between paying for what our government is spending or dramatically cutting back, our government would already be much smaller than it is – and no wonder.

What does our government do well anymore? Do you trust the IRS? FEMA? Are our borders secure? How does the customer service of the post office or DMV compare to, let’s say Apple or Amazon? Who wants to live in government housing? Who wants a minimum wage job? Who wants to answer to bureaucrats, jump through their hoops and do as he’s told by people who see him as a nameless, faceless slob dependent upon them for his livelihood?

This is what socialism offers.

Socialism will take something from someone else who earned it and give it to you and in return, you will do what socialists want you to do. If you’re irresponsible, lazy, have a habit of making poor decisions or just need a master, this can seem like a good deal. You can work a menial job and get paid more than you’re worth! You can go to college and you don’t have to pay for it! Someone else will give you a place to live, food stamps, welfare and health care! In return, you just have to give up on your pride, your dreams and control of your own life.

People who can take care of themselves don’t need socialism and most of those who have difficulty taking care of themselves would still be better off under a more capitalistic system. The more capitalistic an economy is, the faster it grows. The faster an economy grows, the more jobs and wealth are created.

Eighty percent of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. Meanwhile, 96% of the poor in America have televisions, 93% have microwaves and 81% have cell phones. Ultimately, it’s the economic growth produced by capitalistic policies that has allowed America’s poor to do so well compared to the poor in more socialistic nations. Paradoxically, the more we move towards socialism in the name of “helping” the poor, the less poor Americans will ultimately have. That’s because the more regulations, the more taxes and the more GOVERNMENT a country has, the slower its economy grows.

Socialism requires a gargantuan government so it can confiscate property, control behavior and manage an always growing list of programs to achieve “fairness.” Unfortunately, “fairness” is a will-o’-the-wisp that can never be caught because human beings have different levels of talent, skill and effort.

The factory worker who spent 30 years working his way through the ranks to become regional sales manager should make more than the new guy who just started yesterday. The man who spent 10 years building his own successful business should make more money than his employees.

The man who invested every extra dime he had and does well should make more money than the fellow who used all his extra money to buy a bigger car and nicer furniture for his house. Socialists say, “Not so fast. Maybe those guys should make more money, but they’re making too much money. We should control how much they make. We should decide how much of their money they get to keep. We should control how much of their money is given away and to whom.”

On the other hand, capitalism is freedom. Capitalism says you should do what you want to do with your own time and either suffer the consequences or reap the rewards. Sure, we might all cooperate to create a military and a police force along with building sewage systems, roads, street lights and stop signs and a few other necessities, but beyond that, let everyone rise and fall as he deserves.

If you want to get a four year degree in women’s studies at an Ivy League university? Great, pay for it yourself. You want to live cheaply and work a second job so you can save up money? You should be able to do that and someone else shouldn’t get the benefits from your hard work. If you want to spend your twenties as a beach bum, surfing all day and sleeping in a tent at night, you can do that, but no one else should be asked to help pay for your lifestyle.

Having real freedom means you get to make real choices and when that happens, some of those choices will work out better than others. The only way to change that is to build a massive government apparatus that makes everyone poorer in return for reducing the amount of natural inequality that will happen when people are allowed to pursue their wildly differing hopes and dreams.

Capitalism is not perfect, but it won’t bankrupt the country, it doesn’t reward failure and it can’t control you like socialism. To the contrary, in a capitalist system, businesses benefit from voluntary transactions. Do you want to get rich in a capitalist system? Find a way to give people what they want. If you’re just okay at it, you can make a decent salary. If you’re as good at it as Henry Ford or Bill Gates, you can become rich beyond imagination.

Do you want to get rich in a socialist system? Be well connected. Make friends or just pay off people who can give you government contracts. Make contributions to politicians so they’ll change the laws to help you and hurt your competitors. Get the government to take money from other people and give it to you as part of a bailout.

Which sounds more admirable? Which sounds healthier for our country? When you give the government unlimited power to create “equality,” you also give it the power to tilt the playing field towards corrupt businesses that have every incentive to try to take advantage of it.

At the end of the day, socialism is for slaves who are willing to give up their freedom for promises that they’ll be given some minimal level of support no matter what. On the other hand, capitalism is for people who want the freedom to rise or fall based on their own effort. If you know which type of person you are, then you know whether you should be a capitalist or a socialist.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the author Frances Presley-Rice with Donald Trump.

Blacks Are Searching

This past weekend I had the chance to be part of a historic event in Washington, D.C.

Black Americans for a Better Future (BAFBF) hosted their fourth annual Black Republican Trailblazer Awards Luncheon at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel.  We had a packed house for both the Saturday evening VIP reception with the honorees, as well as for the Sunday luncheon awards presentation.

We honored six phenomenal trailblazers:  Ambassador Harold Doley, Fred D. McClure, James Jones, Allegra McCullough, Jennifer S. Carroll, and Robert L. Woodson.

The audience was totally mesmerized by the honorees and their stories about their personal and political journeys.  These honorees truly met our definition of a trailblazer.

A true trailblazer is like a candle; the more light a candle gives out, the less it becomes.  Likewise, each of our honorees has given of themselves to make America, the Republican Party, and the Black community better.

For two days the honorees hung out with the attendees and simply took photos and signed autographs for everyone.  Business people made connections with like-minded entrepreneurs that will lead to business collaborations.

Multi-Grammy Award winning songwriter/producer, Carvin Haggins produced a night of entertainment that was extraordinary.  The entertainment began with up and coming R&B songstress, BriaMarie.  She is such a phenomenal talent.  You will hear great things from her.

The headline artist was none other than the “Songstress of Sensuality,” Algebra Blessett.  She is a multi-Grammy Award winning singer and more importantly, just a good person.

I have worked around many A-list entertainers, but none is more delightful than Algebra.  Many artists, after they perform, go immediately to their room or if they have friends in town will go hang out with them.

But not with Algebra.  After her performance, she stayed in the ballroom mingling and talking with people and signing autographs and taking what seemed like a million pictures.  As if that wasn’t enough, she went to her room to change clothes and then hung out with the attendees at the hotel bar.

But one comment summed up the whole weekend kind of nicely.  A member of Algebra’s staff said to me, “I am a big Hillary Clinton supporter.  I have never been around a group of Black Republicans; but if this is how Black Republicans are, I could get used to this.  You all are a lot of fun.”

Black Republicans are rarely seen in a positive light and the party seems incapable of using its vast resources to change this dynamic.  Therefore, we at BAFBF will fill the void.  In the next couple of months we will be announcing several major names in sports, entertainment, business, and politics who will for the first time publicly declare their party registration as Republican.

They will be joining and working with BAFBF to go into the ten battleground states that will determine the next president.  We will use their celebrity to get people registered to vote and to engage with BAFBF.

BAFBF will initiate a media campaign where we can begin to change how Black Republicans are viewed within the Black community.

Blacks have absolutely no relationship with Hillary Clinton nor Bernie Sanders.  The Black vote is very much in play if the Republican Party were to finally get serious about cultivating a real relationship with the Black community.

Every Black should be embarrassed and angry at the members of the Congressional Black Caucus who endorsed Clinton’s campaign for president last week.  They are totally out of sync with the majority of the Black community.

Hillary can’t point to one substantive thing she has ever done relative to the Black community.

BAFBF has already begun to work on doing a business summit here in DC with our congressional leadership.  We also have the backing of several Republican governors who are willing to host their own business summit with some of the most successful Black entrepreneurs in the country.

A representative of the African Diplomatic Corps announced that they will be hosting a reception for BAFBF to bring together one hundred Black entrepreneurs to DC to cultivate relations centered on building business relationships bilaterally.

We will also be sponsoring a series of basketball and football camps this summer for kids in under served communities with our friends in the NBA and NFL.

As we begin to have our surrogates engage in the media, engage with our congressional leadership, and engage with our governors in a substantive matter; the Republican brand will slowly begin to be rebuilt.

But it will not take place from within the party; it can only take place outside of the party structure.  Those inside the party structure have no clue on how to cultivate relations within the Black community.

All I know is that when the Black community engages with “real” Black Republicans, they are open to joining the cause to make America great again.

If you have any doubt, simply talk to anyone who attended our trailblazer event.  Truly, the harvest is ripe, but the laborers are few.

Why Rubio Faltered: TEA Party Treason

According to Jack Oliver, legislative director of Floridians for Immigration Enforcement, Senate Bill 744 would have given work permits and legalization to over 11 million illegal aliens, doubled authorized immigration to 22 million over the next decade, and added millions to welfare and entitlement rolls.  Oliver called it “amnesty first and a promise for enforcement later.” He contended that the bill never would have gotten through the Senate without Rubio acting as the immigrant “poster child” of the sponsoring “Gang of Eight.” The immigration bill would change demographics forever, with Democrats fast-tracking the newly legalized immigrants to citizenship and voting rolls.

Going into the Republican debate of February 13 there was much speculation about whether Senator Marco Rubio could recover from his faltering at Chris Christie’s cross-examination about immigration during the debate in New Hampshire. The punditry ascribed Rubio’s “robotic” performance, the repetition of the line that Obama “knows exactly what he’s doing,” to having a “bad night.”  Rubio’s campaign used the same spin, as a day-after fundraising email indicated, by claiming he had “dropped the ball,” that it would “never happen again.”  He also claimed to know about “tough times,” based on his father’s life story.  He used the example of having to move to Las Vegas when his father lost his job as an apartment manager, but then had to start over as a busboy before he went on to become a bartender again.

But it does not appear that Marco Rubio ever had to compete with an illegal alien for a job such as busboy or construction laborer. Little was said about the substance of the questions that unnerved Rubio so much in New Hampshire.

Moments after the February 13 debate, Rubio supporters skirted the immigration debate again.  Congressman Trey Gowdy told Fox News that Rubio had had the “courage” to change his mind about immigration, which is what Rubio had tried to say once when Christie pressed him about not pushing his own bill, the “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013,” Senate Bill 744.  Rubio had claimed that he did not back the immigration bill once he learned that the “American people” did not like it.  Actually, if Rubio were walking back his immigration position, he would be going back to his original position, if we could believe what he told Florida tea party members as he sought their support for his bid for Senate in 2010.

Perhaps the reason Rubio faltered so badly under Christie’s cross-examination was because he heard the sound of “traitor” ringing in his ears, the shouts of these fellow Floridians, whose hands he had shaken as he promised to stand firm on immigration.

The occasion was the Americans for Prosperity Foundation conference, on Labor Day weekend, 2013, in Orlando.  As the shouts of “traitor” came from the audience of 2,000, Rubio continued on with his speech, but became visibly flustered and faltered.

I was at that event in 2013 and wrote about it.  I talked to one of the protestors in the hallway wearing bright pink t-shirts emblazoned with “Pink Slip Rubio.com,” Jack Oliver, legislative director of Floridians for Immigration Enforcement, who felt betrayed by Rubio, who had shaken his hand and promised that he would never support comprehensive reform, legalization, or the Dream Act.

Oliver began his career in construction as a plasterer laborer in 1968, a time when such a trade could support a family, but saw his wages drop 30 percent under George W. Bush’s lax immigration policies. As a field superintendant he saw that construction workers were making less in actual dollars than what they had been making in the 1980s.  The black community had been especially hard hit as construction labor jobs were taken over by illegal aliens.

According to Oliver, Senate Bill 744 would have given work permits and legalization to over 11 million illegal aliens, doubled authorized immigration to 22 million over the next decade, and added millions to welfare and entitlement rolls.  Oliver called it “amnesty first and a promise for enforcement later.” He contended that the bill never would have gotten through the Senate without Rubio acting as the immigrant “poster child” of the sponsoring “Gang of Eight.” The immigration bill would change demographics forever, with Democrats fast-tracking the newly legalized immigrants to citizenship and voting rolls.

And lest anyone dismiss these opinions as those of a mere tea party activist/construction worker, Emory political science professor Alan Abramowitz, said the same thing in Atlanta the previous year as he predicted a Democratic victory due to changed demographics.  The importation of Democratic voters helped in Obama’s reelection as did the fact that disgusted white middle class voters simply did not vote.  Similarly, conservative Hispanics do not vote for those who adopt the policies of the left.

Yes, as Rubio says, Obama knows exactly what he is doing when it comes to “transforming” this nation.  Obama promised to do that when he campaigned.  A large part of that transformation is coming from opening the borders to illegal aliens.  Entire neighborhoods have been transformed and not for the better as I saw as I drove through Florida in 2013.  For the most part, these illegals do not resemble the legal immigrants of earlier generations. Schools have decayed.  Welfare rolls have exploded.  Crime has risen.

Those who helped put Rubio in the Senate were not in the debate room on Saturday night and could not shout “traitor” at him again.  Nor are they privy to backroom deals or to what Rubio tells other Spanish speakers.  On February 13, when Ted Cruz attacked Rubio for his “Rubio-Schumer amnesty plan” and for going on Univision and speaking in Spanish, Rubio mocked Cruz by implying he couldn’t speak Spanish.  It was a telling moment.

Unfortunately, Cruz fell for it, and said something in Spanish that hundreds of millions of Americans couldn’t understand.  Among these millions are those who have lost their jobs to illegal aliens and to new positions that require bilingual speakers.  They are fed up with Obama’s executive orders that bypass the laws and allow in “undocumented” aliens who bring with them criminal records, diseases, and illiteracy. They are disgusted when Obama tells them to learn Spanish.  They are fed up with having to “press one for English” and watching illegal aliens shouting protest slogans in front of state capitols.  That is why Donald Trump’s message has been resonating.

Cruz would do himself a favor by reminding Rubio of the manners that generations of immigrants learned: one does not exclude certain people by having a side conversation in his native language.

To do so, to similarly go to foreign-language media as a senator, might make voters think that you have something to hide.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research website. The feature image is of Jorge Ramos of UNIVISION interviewing Senator Marco Rubio

Columbus, Ohio Muslim machete man still a mystery

It turns out that early reports about the African man who attacked diners in a restaurant belonging to an Israeli-born Christian may not be a Somali as first reported.  See our first report by clicking here.

So who is he?

Hany-Baransi-of-Israel-now-Ohio

Nazareth restaurant owner Hany Baransi.

Here, in a story about the restaurant re-opening, World Net Daily writer tells us that mystery still surrounds the machete man:

More than four days after the attack, little is known about Barry, a 30-year-old immigrant from Africa. Neither the FBI nor the Columbus police have released any information on his immigration status, when he came to the U.S. and from what country, under what circumstances he came, or whether he was a legal or illegal resident of this country.

According to reports, Barry led police on a five-mile chase before losing control of his car and careening off the road. He exited the vehicle with his machete and another knife, and allegedly lunged at the officers.

“He yelled, ‘Allahu Akbar!’ and then he attacked them with the machete, and that’s when they shot him and killed him,” Baransi [the restaurant owner—ed] told Tower magazine.

Please read the whole article about how Baransi is not going to cower.

If you read Ann Coulter’s book, ‘Adios America,’ she tells us much about the code of secrecy (by police/FBI) surrounding crimes committed by immigrants.  So, it is not surprising that nothing is being released so far on his immigration status.

And, by the way, in my last eight year of following stories like this one, I have never seen any mention of Gov. John Kasich of Ohio showing one bit of concern for the colonization, by the UN/U.S. State Department, of Ohio.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Nebraska bill would place financial responsibility on refugee resettlement contractors

Pittsburgh: Jewish agency and Islamic Center working together to bring more Syrians to the city

Muslim Migrant Surge: GOP Worried about Thousands Obama is “Interviewing” in Jordan to Bring Here

Shariah (Islamic) Law: Four Rape Victims Stoned to Death for Adultery

Iran rules “decadent” Valentine’s Day celebrations a crime

German asylum centers: Muslim migrants tear up Bibles, assault Christians, sexually abuse women and children, beat up gays

Did Justice Scalia Already Give Us the Solution to the Problem of Filling His Seat?

The death of the intrepid Justice Antonin Scalia has shaken the political world. If his successor’s appointment cannot be delayed until the next presidency, it’s assured that an unassailable hard-left majority will control the Supreme Court. This will mean, conservatives warn, the end of significant Second Amendment rights, curtailment of many religious freedoms and a consistent rubber-stamp for the “progressive” agenda.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of replacing Scalia — the court’s pre-eminent legal mind — with even a pale imitation is slim. For it to happen

  • the Senate will have to exhibit fortitude and delay the confirmation of a successor.
  • a Republican will have to win the presidency.
  • the GOP will have to retain the Senate in Nov., and 24 GOP seats but only 10 Democrat ones are up for grabs.
  • the Republican president in office will have to nominate someone not a wolf in constitutionalist’s clothing; the chances of this alone happening are likely less than 50 percent.

The probability of all four of the above coming to pass isn’t great. And, regardless, while we will fill the great Scalia’s position, we’ll never fill his shoes. Yet perhaps the real solution to this problem lies with something Scalia himself said — just last year.

The real issue here is not whether Scalia’s successor will abide by the Constitution.

It’s whether we will.

Consider: in a representative republic of 320 million people, we’re all now talking about how one appointment of one unelected lawyer can radically change the face of American law, rights and freedoms. Anything wrong with this picture?

This isn’t to say that a civilization’s fate being radically altered by one man’s death and another’s ascendancy hasn’t been humanity’s norm. Autocracy has been humanity’s norm. The king would pass on and people might lament, “You mean Aylwin, that kid who drools on his cloak, is next in line? How shall we be ruled?” But does this sound like a concern in a land of, by and for the people? The fact is that a government cannot be stable if one man’s fancies and fortunes can have such a great impact on it and the wider society. Did the Founding Fathers — who were most concerned about avoiding the aggregation of power by any one entity — really devise such a flawed system?

This brings us to Scalia’s comment, made in his dissenting opinion in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges (marriage) ruling. To wit: with “each decision…unabashedly based not on law” the Court moves “one step closer to being reminded of [its] impotence,” he warned his colleagues. To what was he referring?

Obviously, the Court has neither army nor police to enforce its judgments; it is government’s executive branch — headed by the president on the federal level and governors in the states — with the constitutional warrant to enforce law. And whatever executive branches don’t enforce doesn’t happen, period, no matter how much black-robed lawyers stamp their feet.

But is this just a matter of might makes right? Aren’t we to be a nation of laws? For sure.

A nation of laws, not lawyers.

Laws — not judicial decisions.

There is a difference. Note that Scalia complained of decisions “unabashedly based not on law,” clearly drawing a distinction between decisions and laws. Conclusion? An executive branch upholding illegal decisions is, by definition, not safeguarding the rule of law.

And an executive branch that defies ignores illegal court decisions is preserving the rule of law.

“Defies” is crossed out above because that term can connote resistance to authority. But the Supreme Court is not the Supreme Being. What “authority” over all and sundry does it have? Some will now answer, “Judicial supremacy!” Let’s examine that.

The legislative branch has the power to make law because the Constitution grants it. The executive branch has the power to enforce law because the Constitution grants it. And the courts exercise judicial supremacy — where its decisions constrain not just its own branch but the other two as well, making it not a “co-equal” branch but a super-legislature/über-executive — because ____________?

The answer has nothing to do with the Constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court unilaterally declared the power in the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling.

That’s right: Like an upstart seizing the reins in a palace coup, the Supreme Court assigned the Supreme Court its oligarchic power, all without the force of arms. It’s a nice con if you can pull it off.

This isn’t how our system is meant to work. A governmental branch derives its power from the Constitution — not from itself. And how dangerous is this usurpation? Founding Father Thomas Jefferson warned in 1819 that judicial supremacy’s acceptance would do nothing less than make “our constitution a complete felo de se” — a suicide pact. He explained:

For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this [judicial supremacy] opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation…. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.

Abraham Lincoln, who ignored the Dred Scott decision, also agreed. As Princeton University professor Robert George put it while conducting a December interview with Senator Ted Cruz, Lincoln said “that to treat unconstitutional court rulings as binding in all cases, no matter what, no matter how usurpative, no matter how anti-constitutional, would be for the American people — and I quote now the Great Emancipator — ‘to resign their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’” Jefferson was even more pointed, writing in 1820 that judicial supremacy is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.” And so it has come to pass. We’re now reduced to arguing about how the next appointed oligarch will shape us wax people.

Satirist Jonathan Swift wrote, mocking the legal profession in Gulliver’s Travels, that it is a maxim among lawyers “that whatever has been done before, may legally be done again…,” no matter how preposterous. Just as bad, however, is when we abide by judicial supremacy again and again, simply because it has been done before. Part of what motivates this deference is ignorance and (bad) habit, and part is cowardice and political expediency. After all, hiding behind unconstitutional court rulings allows politicians to avoid making difficult decisions. When Ohio governor John Kasich said last June after Obergefell that faux marriage is “the law of the land and we’ll abide by it,” he was essentially stating “Hey, don’t look at me. The Court did it!” Of course, he also said that now “it’s time to move on,” which he was more than happy to do. He has got his political career to consider — Constitution be damned.

Any president, governor or legislator worth his salt would do his duty and tell usurpative judges to go pound sand. Some will say that this would set off a “constitutional crisis,” but newsflash: we’re already experiencing a constitutional crisis. This occurs not when the Constitution is protected by bringing to heel those who trample it, but when that trampling goes unanswered.

By the way, you know who else apparently questions judicial supremacy? Barack Obama. He has shown willingness to ignore the courts; in fact, he has been so dismissive that a federal appeals court actually ordered the administration in 2012 to submit a letter stating whether or not it recognized the judiciary’s “power.”

Of course, Obama will defy constitutional laws; in contrast, “conservatives,” being conservative (as in reluctant to take bold action), won’t even ignore unconstitutional rulings. It’s an old story. Liberal-controlled localities have been nullifying (ignoring) federal immigration and drug laws for decades. But conservatives consider nullification — even in the defense of legitimate freedoms — some kind of radical action, despite Jefferson’s calling it the “rightful remedy” for all federal usurpation. And “conservative” justices tend to feel constrained by “precedent,” even the unconstitutional variety, yet don’t expect any liberal Scalia replacement to bat an eye at overturning constitutional precedent that contradicts the leftist agenda. Is it any wonder conservatives never saw a cultural or political battle they couldn’t lose?

One might say conservatives fight by Queensbury rules while liberals operate no-holds-barred, but it’s not even that. Though conservatives are allowed to throw punches, they prefer to stand and block and be a punching bag — while the liberals throw sand in their eyes and kick off their kneecaps.

Calling the Court a “threat to American democracy,” Justice Scalia wrote in his Obergefell dissent, “[I]t is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court.” We won’t talk the court out of its power-mad, usurpative bent. Only power negates power. It’s time to stop acting like impotent fools and start showing the Court how impotent it really is.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

What the Constitution Tells Us About Confirming Obama’s Judicial Nominees

Fight to Replace Scalia Proves Supreme Court Has Become Too Powerful

Next President, Not Obama, Should Pick Scalia’s Successor

How Scalia’s Death Will Impact Cases on Immigration, Abortion, Religious Liberty

Are we faced with a Nightmare Scenario Regarding the Future of the Supreme Court?

By Wallace Bruschweiler and William Palumbo –

Now that Justice Antonin Scalia has been found dead with a “pillow over his head,” the showdown is set between the administration of Barack Hussein Obama and the GOP-controlled Senate.  Who will Obama nominate, and will he or she be approved by the Senate?

Consider the history of this present administration, coupled with what constitutes a “qualified” résumé for the Supreme Court – at least on paper.

Who is a possible, perhaps even likely, nominee?

  • Was it not the Department of Justice (DoJ) that ordered that the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers be dismissed – why?
  • Was it not the DoJ stonewalling justice in the ATFE gun-running scandal known as Fast and Furious – why?
  • In fact, was not the DoJ regarded as the supreme gatekeeper of the scandal-ridden Obama administration?
  • In August 2014, Barack Hussein Obama flew back from Martha’s Vineyard to Washington for a mysterious 48-hour trip for what the White House claimed to be a series of important meetings. Who were these meetings with, what was discussed, and specifically promised?
  • Strangely enough, a month later, in September 2014, Eric Holder announced his resignation as Attorney General. Could he have been the mysterious person involved in the meetings the month before?
  • Today, Eric Holder is successfully employed by a private law firm as partner specializing in “complex investigations and litigation matters … that are international in scope and involve significant regulatory enforcement.” Would he be willing to leave this comfortable, plushy, and cushy job?
  • Potential scenario from the point of view of Barack Hussein Obama – if he nominates Eric Holder to the Supreme Court, he would achieve simultaneously two major objectives: 1) To politicize the Supreme Court beyond description for years to come, and 2) As a means to reward his long-time ally and personal friend.

Is this the unfortunate and inevitable scenario we are faced with?

Keep in mind that this year the Supreme Court is scheduled to judge critical cases that will decide issues related to race in college admissions, abortion, union rights, gun control, immigration and the status of illegal aliens, as well as religious freedom.

In today’s political environment, do you think that the above scenario is really far-fetched?

RELATED ARTICLES: 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia Had Secret Texas Meeting With Obama Just Hours Before His Death

What the Constitution Tells Us About Confirming Obama’s Judicial Nominees

Fight to Replace Scalia Proves Supreme Court Has Become Too Powerful

Next President, Not Obama, Should Pick Scalia’s Successor

How Scalia’s Death Will Impact Cases on Immigration, Abortion, Religious Liberty

Young Alchemists Make a Patriotic Invitation to All Presidential Candidates

HOUSTON, TX /PRNewswire/ — The Young Alchemists Foundation, a patriotic nonprofit organization for planetary healing, has written a letter to the President and to all presidential candidates inviting them to join their global movement to plant the seed of patriotism in the hearts and minds of our youth. The American children are losing their culture and no one is doing anything to prevent it.

This patriotic campaign has been initiated by the Young Alchemists, a group of extraordinary teenagers that in a fun way will educate, protect, inspire and entertain the youth of America!

young alchemists logoTo the President and all Presidential Candidates
United States of America

Dear Mr. President and Presidential Candidates,

The Young Alchemists Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization for planetary healing-guardians of our youth, protectors of the planet and defenders of World Peace, has initiated a global movement to educate, inspire and entertain the youth of planet earth in a fun way. This movement was born in the United States and it is for this reason the first mission of the Young Alchemists Foundation is to help revive the American spirit and restore the Spirit of God and Patriotism in the hearts of all American children without distinction of race, culture or religious affiliation.

The young Alchemists are here to remind Americans and immigrants from all over the world that they live in this land of freedom.  As parents and citizens of this nation, their duty and responsibility is to teach their children to love and respect God and the ideals, culture and traditions that made the United States of America the greatest nation in the world. The Young Alchemists Foundation has created this patriotic movement because the American children are losing their culture and we must educate and protect them from negative influences determined to win their hearts and persuade them to betray their country, themselves, their families and all humanity.

As president and presidential candidates of the United States of America and role models for the American children, with much love and respect, we ask you to join our cause and become Alchemist Knights and American patriots; support our movement and help the Young Alchemists Foundation to teach our American children respect for their country, its culture and for the American heroes and martyrs that have contributed to make our nation the greatest nation in the world. 

If you agree with our movement, help us to remind the world that the American Spirit is alive in our hearts and in the hearts of our children our future leaders and our only hope for a better world.

Remember, it’s great to help children around the world; however it will be a great disgrace for the future of this nation if we neglect our own.

Sincerely,

Norma Pastor
Founder, Young Alchemists Foundation
WWW.TYAF.CO

The Young Alchemists Foundation
2135 Hill Canyon CT
Sugar Land Texas 77479
Tel: 281 781 4385

Kurds with Russian Support Cross Turkey’s “red lines” in Syria

The Munich Communique reached by 20 countries last week imposed a cessation of hostilities by the opposing forces in the Syrian civil war with its mounting death toll. It has been breached by Erdogan, Russian backed Assad regime forces and their allies, Iran and proxy Hezbollah. The latter have successfully blocked Syrian opposition forces in both Latakia and Aleppo provinces. There are enough holes in the Agreement to permit freedom of action by Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.

This weekend   brought news concerning Turkey’s cross border shelling of Syrian Kurdish YPG/PYD forces with Russian air support violating Erdogan’s “red line” crossing the Euphrates and seizing another strategic  air field.  This occurred despite Obama’s Special Middle East envoy in the war against the Islamic State (IS),  Brett Mc Gurk, meeting with Syrian Kurdish YPG/PYD forces in Syria and Vice President Biden’s meeting with Erdogan and Premier Davutoglu in Ankara last week.  Erdogan considers the YPG/PYD forces as an extension of the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) that Turkey, the EU and US consider as a ‘terrorist group”. This despite his breaking a cease fire agreement with PKK head Abdullah Ocalan under house arrest.  Erdogan’s security forces have a real battle on their hands in predominately Kurdish Southeastern Turkey trying to subdue stubborn urban resistance, a change from the 30 year war with Turkey’s Kurds. The advent of a Kurdish party, the Peoples’ Democratic Party, the HDP, in the Ankara parliament, that Erdogan has endeavored to isolate but failed to vanquish. is a reflection of the growing Kurdish minority flexing its political strength.

These developments in both Syria and Turkey underline the Administration’s virtual abdication of the countervailing power vacuum in the Middle East that Putin has seized possibly bolstering the regional Kurdish aspirations for a long sought independent resource rich state.  This might be viewed as further pushback against the Islamist AKP regime of Turkey’s Erdogan.  All of these developments arose following Turkey’s shoot down of a Russian SU -24 bomber in October 2015 and dramatic break off in relations and joint economic projects between Russia and Turkey. Now, there are rumblings from Russian Prime Minister Medvedev in an interview indicated that the rising conflict with Turkey might possibly lead to “new Cold War era.”  Frederica Mogherini, EU Foreign Relations Commissioner downplayed that saying she had seen any evidence of that  in the last few days. Meanwhile both Poland and the Baltic States aren’t so sanguine. Turkey is a NATO member which can invoke an Article in the Charter of the mutual defense group requiring all members to come to its aid should there be an alleged attack by Russia.

Note this background  in a EUobserver report, “Turkey clashes with allies over attack on Syria Kurds:”

France and the US have urged NATO ally Turkey to stop firing on Kurdish groups in Syria, putting at risk a new “cessation of hostilities” accord.

The French foreign ministry appealed on Sunday (14 February) for an “immediate halt to bombardments, by the [Syrian] regime and its allies in the whole country, and by Turkey in Kurdish zones”.

It added that the “absolute priority is the implementation of the Munich communique” – a deal to pause fighting agreed by almost 20 states at a security congress in Munich last week.

The White House said US vice president Joe Biden had made a similar appeal to Turkish PM Ahmet Davutoglu by phone on Saturday.

“The vice president noted US efforts to discourage Syrian Kurdish forces from exploiting current circumstances to seize additional territory near the Turkish border, and urged Turkey to show reciprocal restraint by ceasing artillery strikes in the area,” it said.

Brett McGurk, a US special envoy on the fight against Islamic State (IS), said on Twitter: “We have … seen reports of artillery fire from the Turkish side of the border and we have urged Turkey to cease such fires.”

Turkey warns Kurds have crossed its red lines in Syria:

The appeals came after Turkish howitzers shelled Kurdish PYD and YPG groups in northern Syria, killing dozens of people, after Kurdish fighters, helped by Russian air strikes, seized territory including the Menagh air base near the Turkish border.

The US and EU powers see the Kurdish militias as allies in the fight against IS. But Turkey says they are a branch of the PKK, a Kurdish group designated by the US and EU as a terrorist entity, which has been fighting a 30-year insurgency against Turkish authorities.

The Turkish leadership has refused to back down.

Davutoglu told German chancellor Angela Merkel over the phone on Sunday that his forces “gave the necessary response and will continue to do so”, according to his office.

He added that the PYD-YPG offensive was aimed “not just at Turkey but also the European Union” and that it would prompt a “new wave of hundreds of thousands of refugees” from Syria.

Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, speaking in Munich to the Sueddeutsche Zeitung daily, urged the US and EU to back safe zones for refugees inside Syria if they wanted to stem the flow of people.

Turkey’s deputy PM, Yalcin Akdogan, told the Kanal 7 TV broadcaster:.

“The YPG crossing west of the Euphrates is Turkey’s red line.”

The comments follow strident words by Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan last week, who told the US: “Are you together with us, or are you with the PYD and YPG terror groups?

The February NER featured a discussion with Dan Diker and Shoshana Bryen  about what motivated Putin’s entry into Syria,Russian Intervention in Middle East Conflicts .” One is the ability to attack radical Sunni Islamists; the other is achievement of  Russian national  security and economic interests. Further,  as pointed  out the alliance with Iran and proxy Hezbollah is tentative at best.

Obama in his final year in office has abdicated the traditional Sunni alliances creating a power vacuum via the rapprochement with Islamist Iran to achieve a fragile equilibrium in the Middle east.   Putin allegedly has no intentions of threatening Israeli national security on its northern frontier or engaging in support of Palestinian aspirations.

The Russian  aerial assault on Turkmen and rebel Sunni forces supported by Turkey and  Saudi Arabia in Syria’s north sealing off  Sunni rebel opposition groups and supporting  Syrian Kurds is also part of Russian strategic moves in the region.   It threatens Erdogan’s and US aspirations of creating a no fly zone to stem the tide of further Sunni Muslim refugee  flight to Turkey and hence to Europe. It may also enable the closure of the remaining gap in the northern frontier of Syria between the autonomous Kurdish enclaves of Rojava and Afrin. This would cut off the open border through which foreign Sunni jihadis and smuggled oil and other trade with Turkey from ISIS has poured. Erdogan is also under enormous economic pressure given Russian economic sanctions and the suspension of the gas pipeline deal struck in 2014.

Erdogan has euchred baksheesh in billions of Euros from the EU to stop Muslim migration to no avail. Erdogan blusters about invading Syria to block irredentist Kurdish aspirations in Syria while conducting an inflammatory counterterrorism campaign against stubborn Kurdish resistance in the urban centers of the country’s Kurdish dominant Southeast. Putin is poised to support Kurdish autonomy aspirations on both sides of the Syrian/Turkish border as leverage against Erdogan.

That would enable the Syrian Kurdish forces to vanquish Sunni rebel and ISIS forces in Syria’s north blocking the Islamic state. This offensive operation might set the stage for a massive Russian aerial campaign against the Caliphate. That is something the US led coalition has failed to achieve because of the Administration’s rules of engagement and failure to supply both Iraqi Peshmerga and Syrian Kurdish forces with heavy arms. Thus, Putin is using his playbook from the seizure of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine in the Middle East. Russia is fast becoming the strong horse that Israel, the Gulf Sunni States and the Saudis must come to some form of accommodation.  Netanyahu’s trip to Moscow in September 2015 enabled the Jewish nation to exercise its sovereign national security interests attacking Iranian supply of strategic arms to proxy Hezbollah. Netanyahu’s security concerns on his northern frontiers are complicated with Russian support of Assad operations aimed at retaking Daraa in the country’s south not far from the Golan frontier with Israel.  That might raise the possibility of Iranian Basij paramilitaries and Quds Force based along the Syrian side of the Golan threatening cross border terrorist actions. That would add to the mix of threats there including al Nusra and ISIS units.

This is the 21st Century version of the classic great game that Czarist Russia played in the 19th Century against imperial Britain in Russia’s march to the Far east and Pacific that failed to achieve warm water ports in the Mediterranean and South Asia.  See:  Peter Hopkirk’s, The Great Game: The Struggle for Empire in Central Asia.

The difference in the 21st Century is that Putin has his warm water bastions in the naval and air bases he has built on the Mediterranean coast of the Alawite Latakia province in Syria.

As to the blustering statements made by Republican Presidential hopeful Donald Trump during primary debates suggesting a strategic alliance between Russia and the US in the Middle East, that awaits the outcomes of the fractious nomination process for both the Republican and Democratic parties in the run up to the 2016 elections in the US. Suffice to say 2016 exemplifies the ancient Chinese curse. May you live in interesting times.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Kurdish YPG fighters: Seen as allies by the US and EU, but as PKK-linked terrorists by Turkey. Photo: Kurdishstruggle.

What Marx Got Right about Redistribution – That John Stuart Mill Got Wrong by Alan Reynolds

The idea that government could redistribute income willy-nilly with impunity did not originate with Senator Bernie Sanders. On the contrary, it may have begun with two of the most famous 19th century economists, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill. Karl Marx, on the other side, found the idea preposterous, calling it “vulgar socialism.”

Mill wrote,

The laws and conditions of the production of wealth partake of the character of physical truths. There is nothing optional or arbitrary about them. … It is not so with the Distribution of Wealth. That is a matter of human institution only. The things once there, mankind, individually, can do with them as they like.

Mill’s distinction between production and distribution appears to encourage the view that any sort of government intervention in distribution is utterly harmless — a free lunch. But redistribution aims to take money from people who earned it and give it to those who did not. And that, of course, has adverse effects on the incentives of those who receive the government’s benefits and on taxpayers who finance those benefits.

David Ricardo had earlier made the identical mistake. In his 1936 book The Good Society (p. 196), Walter Lippmann criticized Ricardo as being “not concerned with the increase of wealth, for wealth was increasing and the economists did not need to worry about that.”

But Ricardo saw income distribution as an interesting issue of political economy and “set out to ascertain ‘the laws which determine the division of the produce of industry among the classes who concur in its formation.’

Lippmann wisely argued that, “separating the production of wealth from the distribution of wealth” was “almost certainly an error. For the amount of wealth which is available for distribution cannot in fact be separated from the proportions in which it is distributed. … Moreover, the proportion in which wealth is distributed must have an effect on the amount produced.”

The third classical economist to address this issue was Karl Marx. There were many fatal flaws in Marxism, including the whole notion that a society is divided into two armies — workers and capitalists. Late in his career, however, Marx wrote a fascinating 1875 letter to his allies in the German Social Democratic movement criticizing a redistributionist scheme he found unworkable.

In this famous “Critique of the Gotha Program,” Marx was highly critical of “vulgar socialism” and considered the whole notion of “fair distribution” to be “obsolete verbal rubbish.” In response to the Gotha’s program claim that society’s production should be equally distributed to all, Marx asked,

To those who do not work as well? … But one man is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time. … This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor… It is, therefore, a right to inequality.

Yet Marx offered a glimmer of utopian hope about the future in which things would become so abundant that distribution would no longer be a matter of concern:

In a higher phase of communist society … after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly — only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banner: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

That was not a prescription but a warning: For the foreseeable future Marx knew nothing would work without work incentives. If income were equally distributed to “those who do not work,” why would anyone work?

Contemporary public economics — “optimal tax theory” and the newest of the “new welfare economics” — also teaches that to tax a man “according to his abilities” would give able men a very strong incentive to use their skills to hide their earnings (and therefore their abilities) from tax collectors. This predictable response to tax penalties on high earnings is confirmed by economic research on the elasticity of taxable income.

Distributing government spending “to each according to his needs” must likewise give potential recipients a strong incentive to exaggerate their needs. People who got caught doing that used to be called “welfare cheats” and considerable cheating still goes on in food stamps, Medicaid, etc. The Earned Income Tax Credit, for example, gives low-income working people an extra incentive to not report cash income from tips, casual labor or illicit activities.

In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford rightly notes that “when economists say the economy is inefficient, they mean there’s a way to make somebody better off without harming anybody else” (called “Pareto optimality”). But argues that Nobel Laureate Kenneth Arrow figured out a way to efficiently redistribute income with “appropriate lump-sum taxes and subsidies that puts everyone on equal footing.” As Harford says, “a lump-sum tax doesn’t affect anybody’s behavior because there’s nothing you can do to avoid it.”

Unfortunately, Harford says “an example of a lump-sum redistribution would be to give eight hundred dollars to everybody whose name starts with H.” That simply shows that if the subsidies were not ridiculously random then the subsidies will affect behavior and will not be lump-sum. The government could collect a lump-sum tax of $800 from every adult and then send a lump-sum subsidy of $800 to every adult with no net effect, for example, but why do that? If the government tried to tax people on the basis of abilities or to subsidize on the basis of needs, even Marx knew that would have a terrible effect on incentives.

The whole idea was curtly dismissed by another Nobel Laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, in his 1994 book Whither Socialism? (p. 46): “The ‘old new welfare economics’ assumed that lump-sum redistributions were possible,” wrote Stiglitz; “The ‘new new welfare economics’ recognizes the limitations on the government’s information.”

The reason governments cannot simply take money from some people according to how able they are, and give it to others according to how needy they are, is because people who were aware of that plan would not be foolish enough to accurately reveal their abilities and needs.

Actual taxes and transfer payment distort behavior in ways that undermine economic progress and commonly produce results (such as trapping people in poverty) that are the opposite of their stated intent.

This post first appeared at Cato.org.

Alan ReynoldsAlan Reynolds

Alan Reynolds is one of the original supply-side economists. He is Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and was formerly Director of Economic Research at the Hudson Institute.

Ohio Muslim Machete Attacker Was Known to FBI

Police officers say they identified the man who carried out a machete attack in Ohio as 30 year old Mohamed Barry. Barry attacked four people with a machete in a restaurant in Columbus Ohio then fled the scene in a car February 10.

He was shot and killed after police officers gave chase. After they forced him from his vehicle, Barry tried to stab one of the officers with the machete and was shot twice.

He also reportedly asked where the owner of the restaurant was from and began his attack upon finding out the restaurant was owned by an Israeli.

The FBI had been investigating Barry four years ago in connection with radical views. Although his name remained in a database, he was not being monitored at the time of the attack.

RELATED ARTICLES:

World Hijab Day Debuts in American Schools

U.S. Intel Chief: Islamic Terror Threat Biggest in History

Senate HS Chair Endorses Bill to Name MB as Terrorists

Charged: ISIS Leader’s Wife Complicit in Death of American

U.S. Congress Unanimously passing Sanctions won’t stop North Korea from building Nuclear ICBMs

What a week it has been. No, we are not talking about the New Hampshire primary results or Saturday’s South Carolina debate, but rogue North Korea stealing the oxygen out of the international media’s lungs. It started with the second successful satellite launch since 2012 on Sunday, February 7, 2016 nearly over shadowing the Broncos victory in the 50th Super Bowl.  As we wrote in an NER Iconoclast post on February 8, 2016, this game changer demonstrating the rogue regime’s ICBM technology and America’s inadequate ballistic missile defense, especially on our vulnerable heartland coast on the Gulf of Mexico:

Launched in a southerly direction, the 200 kg observational satellite is in polar orbit. That means it passes over the US every 95 minutes, perhaps providing imagery and GPS coordinates for possible later use. Yesterday, it missed the window of opportunity, by an hour, to pass over the stadium for 50th Super Bowl Championship game with tens of thousands of fans intent on watching the Denver Broncos beat the North Carolina Panthers for the title

“it’s great that the US has THAAD and ship borne X band radar floating in the Pacific and both ship and shore based Aegis installations in Eastern Europe (Romania) protecting us from missiles fired towards the East Coast. However, we have nothing in place to provide missile defense our vulnerable Gulf of Mexico coast.”  Ambassador Hank Cooper, the Reagan era SDI chief, warned about the absence of Aegis missile defense installations on our Gulf coast in November 2015 and most recently in a Feb.2, 2016 High Frontier alert.

He argues that that our ballistic missile defense shield  on the Gulf coast lacks the means to combat the threat of a possible North Korean bomb in a satellite (Fractal Orbital Bomb) or missiles launched from either ships in the Gulf or those silos that allegedly Iran has been building in the Paraguana Peninsula in Venezuela. Ex-CIA director R. James Woolsey and Dr. Peter Pry discussed in a July 2015 article the threat from FOBS that could trigger an Electronic Magnetic Pulse (EMP) effect over the US sending us back to the dark ages of the 19th Century before the advent of electricity.

north korean missile distance chartOn Friday, February 12, 2015 CNN reported the rotund Kim Jong Un played another round of the Pyongyang version of the Games of Thrones with the dramatic execution of another high military officer, General Ri Yong-gil for, “factionalism, misuse of authority and corruption.”  The young Kim family successor may yet set the record for summary execution of North Korean military officials surpassing that of his father and grandfather.   The same day in Washington, the US Senate and House overwhelmingly passed a new round of North Korean sanctions. Reuters reported:

Lawmakers said they wanted to make Washington’s resolve clear to Pyongyang, but also to the United Nations and other governments, especially China, North Korea’s lone major ally and main business partner.

The package includes sanctions targeting North Korea and “secondary sanctions” against those who do business with it.

The vote was 408-2 in the House, following a 96-0 vote in the Senate on Wednesday.

Impatient with what they see as Obama’s failure to respond to North Korean provocations, many of his fellow Democrats as well as the Republicans who control Congress have been clamoring for a clampdown since Pyongyang tested a nuclear device in January.

Pressure for congressional action further intensified after last weekend’s satellite launch by North Korea.

Obama is not expected to veto the bill, given its huge support in Congress.

Earlier Fox News reported Gordon Chang expressing skepticism that more sanctions would not achieve the end of punishing North Korea for violating UN and US sanctions against missile development. We wrote:

Chang holds that sanctions don’t work with North Korea. Instead He suggested that we might control the aid to North Korea endeavoring to separate the people from the autocratic ruling Kim family. He also suggested that South Korea move 143 companies out of the Kaesong industrial shared with North Korea.  He noted that after the January 6, 2016 nuclear test, no further sanctions were proposed at the UN because China would effectively block them. China he pointed out does a fair amount of banking with North Korea.

North Korea must have paid attention to Chang’s comments, as they seized jointly owned companies in the Kaesong industrial park.  Deutsche Welle reported South Korea cutting off the power to the Kaesong complex on Friday, February 12, 2015.  Effectively it was shutting the cross border industrial park down in retaliation for the North’s nuclear and missile tests in January and February 2016.  South Korean News agency, Yonhap, reported on Sunday, February 14, 2014 the South Korean Unification Minister accusing the Hermit State of using funds to develop weapons systems:

In a television appearance, Unification Minister Hong Yong-pyo said “70 percent” of the money that flowed into the Kaesong Industrial Complex has been used by the ruling Workers’ Party to bankroll weapons development.

“Workers at Kaesong are paid in cash (U.S. dollars), but the money doesn’t go directly to these workers. It goes to the North Korean government instead,” Hong said.

“Any foreign currency earned in North Korea is transferred to the Workers’ Party, where the money is used to develop nuclear weapons or missiles, or to purchase luxury goods.”

Last week, South Korea shut down the industrial park in response to the North’s recent nuclear test and long-range rocket launch. Opened in 2004, the complex had long been a big cash cow for North Korea.

North Korea, in turn, expelled all South Korean nationals on Thursday from the complex and froze factory assets by South Korean firms, further driving the last remaining symbol of inter-Korean reconciliation to the brink.

For the last two weeks, the National Security Task Force of America (NSTFA) of the Lisa Benson Show has been running twitter rallies directed at the media and Republican Presidential hopefuls on one issue: our vulnerable Ballistic Missile Defense. The NSTFA sent out tweets and retweets at the rate of 400 to 600 an hour.   The first NSTFA twitter rally, occurred before the New Hampshire primary debates, caught the attention of a South Carolina supporter of Texas Senator Ted Cruz who relayed the information to his campaign staff.  Those NSTFA tweets focused on the most vulnerable area of the US exposed to a possible North Korean ICBM launch, the lack of any missile defense on our Gulf of Mexico.  The result was that Cruz raised the issue during the debates.  The second NSTFA twitter rally occurred Thursday, February 11th producing more than 6,000 twitter impressions.  One of those Republican hopefuls targeted by the NSTFA twitter rally was Florida Republican Senator Rubio. Rubio’s platform statement on rebuilding and modernizing our military noted his missile defense proposals:

  • Expand missile defense by speeding up deployment of interceptors in Europe, deploying a third site in the United States, and ensuring that advanced programs are adequately funded.
  • Work interoperably with allies on missile defense – we should encourage the spread of missile defense technology as a solution to the spread of ballistic and cruise missiles.
  • Increase the Missile Defense Agency’s Research & Development budget and create a rapid-fielding office to focus on fielding directed energy weapons, railguns, UAV-enabled defenses, and other means to defeat a threat missile across its entire flight trajectory.

The  Wall Street Journal  (WSJ) lead editorial in the  Presidents Weekend edition on February 13-14, 2016, “The Rogue-State Nuclear Missile Threat,“ resonated some of the Rubio and others concerns about the US vulnerability to North Korean  and possible Iranian missile strikes.   The WSJ editorial noted, “North Korea can now threatens most of the continental US:”

Americans have been focused on New Hampshire, Iowa [and South Carolina}, but spare a thought for Los Angeles, Denver and Chicago. Those are among the cities within range of the intercontinental ballistic missile tested Sunday by North Korea. Toledo and Pittsburgh are still slightly out of range, but at least 120 million Americans with the wrong zip codes could soon be targets of Kim Jong Un.

The WSJ editorial went on to contrast the Bush versus the Obama Administration actions on missile defense:

You can thank the George W. Bush Administration for the defenses that exist, including long-range missile interceptors in Alaska and California, Aegis systems aboard U.S. Navy warships and a diverse network of radar and satellite sensors. The U.S. was due to place interceptors in Poland and X-Band radar in the Czech Republic, but in 2009 President Obama and Hillary Clinton scrapped those plans as a “reset” gift to Vladimir Putin.

Team Obama also cut 14 of the 44 interceptors planned for Alaska and Hawaii, ceased development of the Multiple Kill Vehicle (an interceptor with multiple warheads) and defunded the two systems focused on destroying missiles in their early “boost” phase, when they are slowest and easier to hit. By 2013 even Mr. Obama partially realized his error, so the Administration expanded radar and short-range interceptors in Asia and recommitted to the 14 interceptors for the U.S. West Coast. It now appears poised to install sophisticated THAAD antimissile batteries in South Korea.

Yet the Administration has failed to support a third East Coast site (to protect against Iranian and Russian threats) and provide adequate funding. Budgets are down about 25% from the Bush Administration’s roughly $10 billion a year. Mr. Obama’s final budget proposal released Tuesday would cut another $800 million from the Missile Defense Agency, nearly 10% from last year’s total.

The WSJ editorial concluded:

The overarching lesson of North Korea is the folly of arms control, starting with the 1994 Agreed Framework that first tried to buy off Pyongyang with energy and food aid. The U.S. would be safer today if it had moved to topple the Kim regime before it got the bomb. But having failed to act when the costs were lower, it is now necessary to buttress defenses in East Asia and the U.S. in what is fast becoming a new age of nuclear and missile proliferation.

From last Sunday’s Super Bowl game in Denver to Valentine’s Day, the evidence is piling up that Chang presciently opined; unanimous sanctions passed by Congress this past week will not deter North Korea from building nuclear ICBMs.  Rather, it is the ironical proposal for a preemptive strike against North Korean missile launches by present Obama Pentagon chief Ashton Carter and former Clinton Era Secretary of Defense William Perry in a 2006 Time Magazine article.

The conclusion in our February 8, 2016 NER/Iconoclast post appears equally prescient:

The North Korean satellite launch coupled with the January 6, 2016 nuclear test exposes the vulnerability of the US to possible missile attack by rogue regimes like North Korea and ally Iran. The lack of a Ballistic Missile Defense demonstrated by this latest successful North Korean satellite launch now vaults the issue to the top of national security issues along with Islamic terrorism for serious discussion in the 2016 Presidential campaign.

RELATED ARTICLE: North Korea Set to Deploy KN08 Ballistic Missile

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

Obama Administration: Europe facing ‘existential threat’ from Muslim migration

These people have got to go!  Imagine this: Obama Secretary of State John Kerry is confirming what we all know: Europe is in very serious trouble as over a million migrants have flooded in over the last year because ‘leaders’ such as Germany’s Angela Merkel have welcomed them with open arms.

Secretary of State John Kerry with his Assistant Secretary of State Anne Richard are the duo who are responsible for refugee resettlement in every one of our towns.

Obama is doing the same to America!

We have thousands upon thousands of Unaccompanied Alien Children walking in to our country (or riding trains) and claiming asylum, refugee numbers have been increased (from countries that hate us!) and foreign workers are invited in by the hundreds of thousands to take Americans’ jobs, even Cubans (from a country supposedly now free!) are swarming in to the US from everywhere.

And, Kerry says the very same things (sans Cubans) pose an existential threat for Europe!  What about us?

Here is The Blaze yesterday:

Though just months ago President Barack Obama excoriated and mocked Republicans who oppose offering Syrian refugees resettlement in the U.S., Secretary of State John Kerry on Saturday characterized the flood of refugees entering Europe as a “threat” of “near existential” proportions to the continent.

“The United States of America understands the near existential nature of this threat to the politics and fabric of life in Europe,” Kerry told the Munich Security Conference Saturday, according to the the State Department’s transcript of his remarks.

The top U.S. diplomat said that half of those trying to get into Europe aren’t even Syrian and that there’s “a whole industry” designed to move them over borders, echoing arguments made by those who want a more stringent vetting process before allowing migrants claiming to be Syrian refugees into the U.S.

“As we know, 50 percent of the people now knocking on the door of Europe — with a whole industry that’s been created to try to help move them and some very perverse politics in certain places that turns the dial up and down for political purposes — half of them now come from places other than Syria. Think about that — Pakistan, Bangladesh***, Afghanistan,” Kerry said. [We have admitted tens of thousands from those same countries to the US over the years—ed]

The secretary of state said that the “staggering humanitarian crisis” is posing “unprecedented challenges” and affecting “the social fabric of Europe.”

Yet, Kerry is so dense he doesn’t get-it that we see what is happening to Europe and DO NOT want it here!  

We want our social fabric left alone!

Continue reading.

People ask me all the time, what can I do to fight this—the invasion of America.

Not for the first time, I am going to beg someone to begin a blog or website about the Diversity Visa Lottery (Green Card Lottery).  If you think refugee resettlement is outrageous you haven’t seen anything yet!

Every year we admit 50,000 new permanent residents to the US (through a lottery!) for the sole purpose of increasing our diversity!  

I’ve highlighted Bangladesh, which is now ineligible for the program because in a previous five year period over 50,000 Bangladeshis entered the US!  Bangladesh is a safe Muslim country.  These people are not refugees!

And, for goodness sake, if anyone you know (or a political candidate or elected official) says, “I am fine with legal immigration, just not illegal immigration,” then hit them upside the head! (figuratively).

These people have got to go!

If you are in one of the early primary states where the 2016 Presidential candidates are everywhere in your state, you MUST be hitting them on refugees and on immigration generally everywhere you find them!  Tell them we don’t want to be Europe!

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Cologne Attacks: A Look at Europe’s Future

Understanding the Caliphate Curve

Canada to resume financial support to a surrogate for terrorist organizations

Twitter Enlists H&Ls [Homos & Lesbos] as ‘Thought Police’

French Enlightenment writer, historian, and philosopher François-Marie Arouet, known by his nom de plume Voltaire wrote,

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Well it appears that Twitter plans to rule over those who Tweet criticism of homosexuals, lesbians, transgenders and bisexuals. GLAAD, which serves as the communications epicenter of the LGBT movement, will now be monitoring your Tweets for anti-gay microagression.

Will GLAAD block all Tweets from Islamic countries, Muslims and the Islamic State?

Matt Barber, founder and editor-in chief of BarbWire.com, in a column titled “Twitter Enlists ‘Gay’ Thought Police” writes:

This cannot be good for free speech and the open exchange of ideas. Not for Christians and conservatives anyway.

Twitter announced on Wednesday that it has assembled a new “Twitter Trust & Safety Council” to “ensure that people feel safe expressing themselves on Twitter.”

Who’s for safety?

Yay safety!

Still, we need only look to the so-called “safe space” craze on America’s college campuses to gain a glimpse into what Twitter undoubtedly means here. Understand that, for the left, the word “safe” has nothing to do with, well, safety, and everything to do with censorship.

Read more.

Tweet this story, if you wish.

Russia hit 1,888 targets in Syria in a week — U.S. count? Just 16

The Russians have often accused the Obama Administration of just pretending to go after the Islamic State by mounting a few airstrikes just for show. And here we are.

Putin7

“Russia hit 1,888 targets in Syria in a week; US count? Just 16,” by Matthew Schofield, McClatchy, February 12, 2016:

BERLIN — In the seven days before the announcement early Friday that a cease-fire might go into effect in Syria in another week, Russian forces hit more than 100 times as many targets within the embattled nation as a military coalition that includes the United States.

Exactly how the cease-fire proposed at an international conference in Munich would work is still being decided. The agreement announced by Russian and U.S. officials said “a nationwide cessation of hostilities … should apply to any party currently engaged in military or paramilitary hostilities” except the Islamic State, al-Qaida’s Syrian affiliate — Jabhat al Nusra — “or other groups designated as terrorist organizations by the United Nations Security Council.”

Since Russia considers any organization attacking the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad a terrorist group, the question arises of just how its efforts might change.

And those efforts are substantial, as a weekly report by the Russian Ministry of Defense makes clear. In a report posted Thursday on its website, the ministry noted that its jets flew 510 combat sorties and hit 1,888 “terrorist objects” in Syria. The previous week’s report claimed 464 sorties that hit a total of 1,354 “terrorist objects.”

Daily reports from the U.S. military for the same period indicate a much lower level of activity: 16 targets struck in Syria. The reports also said those forces hit 91 targets in Iraq.

The reports suggest Russia has been far more aggressive than the United States has leading up to the cease-fire proposal.

The most recent Russian report, for instance, notes, “During air duty mission, Su-25 attack aircraft detected three hardware columns transporting militants, armament and munitions along the highway al Qaryatayn-Homs. The strike resulted in elimination of nine heavy trucks with munitions and more than 40 militants.”

A Feb. 9 report from U.S. Central Command gave that day’s actions this way: “Near Kobani, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit. Near Manbij, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit. Near Mar’a, one strike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyed an ISIL fighting position.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Muslim shouts “inshallah” as he rapes student, then asks her if she enjoyed it

Pope and Patriarch of Moscow decry persecution of Mideast Christians, don’t name persecutor, call for dialogue

RELATED VIDEO: