The Indivisible Team planning to use ‘Aggressive Tactics’ to ‘Destroy’ Trump Presidency

/in , , , /by

The Indivisible Team (IT) was established by a group of five former Democratic congressional staffers in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the November 2016 presidential election. One of the five founders, IT board president Ezra Levin, had previously served as associate director of government affairs at the Corporation for Enterprise Development, and as an AmeriCorps VISTA employee in the Homeless Services Division of the San Jose Department of Housing. Another key founder, IT board secretary Angel Padilla, had worked as an immigration policy consultant at the National Council of La Raza, and as an adviser to Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Illinois) from 2009-11.

IndivisibleGuide_2016-12-31_v1-1-232x300Upon its inception, IT’s first order of business was to launch a website devoted to providing leftists and liberals with strategies for countering the “radical, racist, and sexist” objectives of President Trump. This website features a tool kit for local IT organizers, a daily calendar that lists national events and calls-to-action, and most importantly, the group’s signature publication, Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda. During December 2016 and January 2017, this Guide was downloaded more than 1 million times.

Rejecting the very legitimacy of Donald Trump’s presidency, the IT Guide portrays him as “the biggest popular-vote loser in history to ever call himself President-Elect.” And because Trump “will attempt to use his congressional majority to reshape America in his own racist, authoritarian, and corrupt image” despite the fact that he “has no mandate” from the voters, IT pledges to “stand indivisibly opposed to Trump and Members of Congress [MoC’s] who would do his bidding.”

The tactics and strategies advanced in the IT Guide are modeled on those of the conservative Tea Party movement that came to prominence during President Barack Obama‘s first term in office. Though the principles of the Tea Party are anathema to IT, the Guide points out that “we saw these activists take on a popular president with a mandate for change and a supermajority in Congress.” “If a small minority in the Tea Party can stop President Obama,” IT reasons, “then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump.”

Specifically, the IT Guide advises leftists to follow the Tea Party model of being “locally focused” rather than attempting to appeal to people across broad geographic areas, and “almost purely defensive” – meaning that they should expend their energies chiefly on opposing Trump rather than on “developing their own [alternative] policy agenda.” “Defining a proactive agenda,” said IT in December 2016, “is time-intensive, divisive, and, quite frankly, a distraction, since there is zero chance that we as progressives will get to put our agenda into action at the federal level in the next four years.” The goal, therefore, should be to “stall the Trump agenda by forcing [Congressional Republicans] to redirect energy away from their priorities,” on the theory that “a day that they spend worrying about [rowdy IT-affiliated protesters] is a day that they’re not ending Medicare, privatizing public schools, or preparing a Muslim registry.”

A related objective of IT is to “sap Representatives’ will to support or drive reactionary change.” “Every time your MoC signs on to a bill, takes a position, or makes a statement,” says the Guide, “a little part of his or her mind will be thinking: ‘How am I going to explain this to the angry constituents who keep showing up at my events and demanding answers?’”

The IT Guide advises progressive activists to form local groups of people who reside in the same congressional district, to fight “the racism, authoritarianism, and corruption” of the Trump agenda which “explicitly targets immigrants, Muslims, people of color, LGBTQ people, the poor and working class, and women.” “We strongly recommend making a conscious effort to diversify your group,” adds the Guide, “and particularly to center around and defer to communities of people who are most directly affected by the Trump administration’s racism, xenophobia, transphobia, homophobia, and antipathy toward the poor.” As of January 27, 2017, IT claimed that “more than 4,500 local groups” had already been formed “in nearly every congressional district in the country.”

In addition, the IT Guide instructs progressives to attend local “town halls” or public listening sessions held by Republican MoC’s, where they should each try to ask at least one prepared question designed to put the MoC on the defensive. The Guide recommends that the IT members in attendance should: (a) sit separately in different sections of the room, so as to avoid the appearance of collaboration and to “reinforce the impression of broad consensus”; (b) applaud in response to one another’s questions and/or comments; (c) collectively boo in response to things said by the MoC; and (d) “record everything” with a smart phone or video camera, and subsequently post those clips on social media or make them available to reporters.

The IT Guide also encourages activists to attend other local public events where MoC’s sometimes appear, such as parades, infrastructure groundbreakings, etc. To “optimize visibility,” says IT, these confederates should “stick together as a group, wear relatively similar clothing / message shirts, and carry signs in order to be sure that [their] presence is noticeable.” Further, they should “be prepared to interrupt and insist on [their] right to be heard”; chant slogans about an issue of concern; try to speak with reporters who are present at the scene; and threaten to hold local sponsors of the event accountable with bad publicity if they support MoC’s who back the Trump agenda.

Moreover, the IT Guide exhorts progressives to visit their MoC’s District Office, where they can either meet with the MoC directly or with staffers, and to subsequently publicize their visits via social and traditional media. Similarly, IT advocates the use of mass telephone and email campaigns targeting the offices of MoC’s.

On January 2, 2017, Ezra Levin, Angel Padilla, and fellow IT founder Leah Greenberg co-authored a New York Times op-ed introducing their fledgling organization to the American public. While characterizing the Tea Party’s political success as “a disaster for President Obama’s agenda and for our country” because the movement’s “ideas were wrong” and its “often racist rhetoric and physical threats were unacceptable,” the authors noted that the Tea Partiers “understood how to wield political power.” Specifically, said Levin et al, Tea Party activists had “rattled our elected officials” by: (a) waging “a relentless campaign to force Republicans away from compromise and [to] tank Democratic legislative priorities”; (b) “ensur[ing] that legislation that did pass, like the Affordable Care Act, was unpopular from the start”; and (c) “hijack[ing] the national narrative and creat[ing] the impression of broad discontent with President Obama.” The Indivisible Team would seek to use these same tactics against President Trump and the Republicans.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s Organizing for Action Partners with Soros-Linked ‘Indivisible’ to Disrupt Trump’s Agenda

How Obama is scheming to sabotage Trump’s presidency

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Discover The Networks.

Honor The Earth: Trashing Capitalism in the Name of the Environment

/in , , , /by

honor the earth posterHonor The Earth (HTE) was established in 1993 by Winona LaDuke and the Indigo Girls music duo, Amy Ray and Emily Saliers. LaDuke has served as the group’s executive director since its inception.

HTE’s twofold mission is to “create awareness and support for Native environmental issues,” and to “develop needed financial and political resources for the survival of sustainable Native communities.” Reasoning from the premise that capitalist economic policies are inherently harmful to the natural environment and to poor people, the organization maintains that “a sustainable world is predicated on transforming economic, social, and political relationships that have been based on systems of conquest, toward systems based on just relationships with each other and with the natural world.” Favoring a blend of socialism and radical environmentalism, HTE aims to “restor[e] a paradigm that recognizes our collective humanity and our joint dependence on the Earth.”

“With climate change quickly becoming a reality,” says HTE, “Indigenous peoples around the globe are feeling the [e]ffects of droughts, floods and other climate catastrophes.” To address these matters, the organization calls for the rapid development of “renewable energy” technologies in the form of wind and solar power, so as to “transform a highly inefficient and exploitative energy production system into one that is safe and clean, a transformation that would signify an era of energy justice.”

HTE condemns “the rise of a highly inefficient American industrial society on our lands,” a reference to mining enterprises in the heart of Anishinaabe territory in the Keewenaw Bay (an arm of Lake Superior) and the Mesabe Iron Range of Minnesota. Noting, in a similar vein, that the regions of Diné Bii Kaya, the Crow Nation, the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, and the Powder River Basin are “home to one-third of all western coal reserves,” HTE complains that “this land has been exploited for over fifty years for coal mining.” HTE also opposes the oil and gas extraction method known as fracking, because “methane and [other] dangerous materials are released” in the process, potentially “pollut[ing] the aquifers that sustain the life of our communities in a way that can’t be fixed.” Describing the United States as a “highly extractive” society whose “highly inefficient” energy policies have rendered the earth irreparably “scorched” and damaged, HTE “is interested in the transition from this destructive economy and way of life, back towards land-based economics,” where “intergenerational and inter-species equity are valued.”

HTE strongly opposes the construction and/or expansion of oil pipelines — some of which would pass through Indian reservations — in various places across North America. Most notable among the projects rejected by HTE are the Dakota Access Pipeline (from North Dakota to Illinois); the Sandpiper Pipeline (from North Dakota to Wisconsin); the Alberta Clipper Pipeline (from Alberta, Canada to Wisconsin); the Keystone XL Pipeline (from Alberta to Nebraska); and the MinnCann Pipeline (in Minnesota).

HTE claims that “there is an epidemic of sexual violence being perpetrated [by oil-industry workers] against indigenous women in the Great Lakes region, driven by extreme extraction in the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota and the Tar Sands of Alberta.” The “context” of “this epidemic,” says HTE, is America’s “history of colonization, genocide, and systemic violence against Indigenous peoples, which has always disproportionately affected women and girls.” To address the problem, HTE “is working with a coalition of women’s and Native American organizations to convene ongoing hearings and investigations.” As its first action, this coalition requested a formal intervention by the United Nations Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Important past campaigns conducted by HTE include the following:

  • The “Standing Strong for Carbon Regulation in New Mexico” campaign sought to severely restrict the degree to which utility, oil, and gas companies – which were allegedly “taking advantage of New Mexico families, low-income families, and minority communities by poisoning the air” – could “bur[n] coal and other fossil fuels” and thereby “releas[e] mass amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air.” To address the matter, HTE supported a petition that had been filed before the Environmental Improvement Board, calling for a 25 percent reduction (by 2020) in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels.
  • The “Dooda Desert Rock” campaign aimed to prevent the construction of a proposed 1,500-megawatt mine-mouth plant in the Four Corners Region of the Navajo Reservation. By HTE’s telling, “Desert Rock would … emit 12.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, the primary greenhouse gas causing global warming. Along with greenhouse gases, the plant would emit pollutants associated with asthma, pulmonary disease, increased rates of heart attack and stroke and increased rates of birth defects and developmental delays.”
  • The “Stop The Tar Sands” campaign called for an end to the extraction of crude oil from the tar sands in Alberta, Canada, on the premise that the extraction process was highly destructive to the environment and to public health. Said HTE: “The downstream Indigenous community of Ft. Chipewyan has unheard-of rates of rare cancers. The fish are not safe to eat, and the land is littered with toxic ponds and craters.”
  • The “Stop The Big Stone II Plant” campaign pressured the Otter Tail Power Company to withdraw its commitment to the construction of a proposed 580-megawatt coal-fired power plant called “Big Stone II” in South Dakota. By HTE’s telling, the plant’s coal emissions would inevitably “poison the air and water of the nearby Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate [tribes]”

RELATED ARTICLE: Winona LaDuke: Protecting “Mother Earth” with Identity Politics

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Discover The Networks.

‘Indivisible’: Teaches Young Americans to Love Big Government

/in , , , , /by

Indivisible is an organization that seeks to persuade Americans – particularly young people – to believe that big, centralized government can benefit society in a multitude of ways that the private sector cannot. In short, Indivisible’s objective is to “energiz[e] and infor[m] Americans about government’s potential” to ensure “a safe, healthy, just and prosperous future” for all. Asserting that “too much time is taken up debating big government versus small government,” Indivisible contends that “what we need to be discussing is how our government works well,” and why it is indispensable for “accomplishing big things.”

In an effort to “inspire a cultural shift in how Americans think about the role of government in America,” Indivisible is committed to “disrupting and reframing negative media discourse about government,” “creating a network of champions to change the conversation about government in their communities,” and “training the next generation of civic-minded leaders.” Toward these ends, the organization has created an Indivisible Institute that administers a leadership-development program for young people “who share a passion for reclaiming government as our unique tool for addressing tomorrow’s challenges and opportunities.” These “emerging leaders” are taught how “to help … build a new American culture” wherein “the potential and promise of government” is axiomatic.

One of Indivisible’s major projects is its “Pave the Way” video contest, whose name derives from the notion that government is “literally paving our way with road construction and interstates.” This contest offers cash prizes to young people who produce quality videos of interviews wherein small-business owners tell “how government paved the way for their business’ success” by means of things like the GI Bill, the Affordable Care Act, Small Business Administration loan programs, and infrastructure spending.

Another key initiative of Indivisible is its “I Love My” program, which offers information and talking points designed to highlight the many benefits of government. On the premise that “it’s amazing how much government is doing behind the scenes to make our lives better every day,” Indivisible argues that the media should make a special effort to “show [that] our public systems and structures [are] usually so well run that we don’t notice them at all.” One such structure, says Indivisible, is the U.S. Postal Service, which “makes our businesses better,” “helps our communities function,” “makes our democracy work,” and “is the reason our country works at all.”

Similarly, another section of the “I Love My” program teaches people to how to speak about taxes in a way that emphasizes their usefulness in helping government to serve “the common good,” rather than in a way that casts them in a negative light. “Don’t talk about taxes as a ‘burden‘ or something from which we need ‘relief,’” Indivisible advises. “These [terms] are inherently negative and they cue up the dominant thinking that taxes are bad. Instead, talk about taxes as ‘loads’ to be carried or shared.” Moreover, says Indivisible: “Don’t call people ‘taxpayers‘ – it limits the conversation to only one side of the ledger (costs, not benefits). Instead, talk about people as ‘residents’ or ‘citizens’ or ‘member[s] of our community’ – it highlights that we are all people who both contribute to and benefit from public systems and structures.”

Indivisible’s “My Take” program features interviews where “real people” are asked to articulate “their feelings [about] government” and their various interactions with it. For example, the interviewees are asked: (a) “What is your favorite thing that government does?” (b) “Who is your government hero who is not an elected official?” (c) “What thing that government does do you think would surprise most Americans?”

Indivisible’s “Reality Check” program seeks to “expos[e] the reality behind myths and misunderstandings about government,” which ultimately serves as “our tool to help us solve big problems together.”

Reclaiming Government for America’s Future is an Indivisible research project consisting of reports, videos, and webinars that aim to counter the popular notion that government “is too big, intrusive, untrustworthy, and controlled by powerful elites” who have little interest in using it as “a tool for the common good.” Topos Partnership conducted this research on behalf of Indivisible, Public Works, and a number of partner organizations in Oregon, North Carolina, Nebraska, Michigan, Arkansas, and Colorado. The overarching objective of the project is to spell out ways in which progressives can effectively “shift conversations and begin to change the cultural common sense about government.”

RELATED ARTICLE: The Indivisible Team Plans to Use Aggressive Tactics to Destroy Trump’s Presidency

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Discover The Networks.

Democratic Treachery

/in , , /by

“Good news: In two years, we’ll have a new president. Bad news: If we make it that long.

Kathleen Parker, Washington Post, February 13, 2017

“Ladies and gentlemen, we were attacked on Dec. 7, 1941, we were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and we were attacked on Nov. 8, 2016. That most recent attack didn’t involve a horrible loss of lives, but it was devastating in its own way.  Our entire intelligence community concluded that Russia hacked our election by deliberately breaking into Democratic National Committee computers and then, drip-by-drip, funneling embarrassing emails through WikiLeaks to undermine Clinton’s campaign…”

Thomas Friedman, New York Times, February 14, 2017

It seems clear that, to the extent they are still hanging around the White House, engaged in presidential transition duties, former Obama administration staffers are doing whatever they can to damage the Trump presidency. They may also be aided by a few “never Trump” Republicans and their allies in the “hanger-on” class.  Whatever the truth of the matter, Washington appears to be all but immobilized with “Trump derangement” and “Russian dirty tricks derangement.”

Thus, after publishing a column under the title, “Democratic Deceit,” it seems only reasonable to follow it up with a column exposing Democratic treachery. Democrats are so deranged over the question of Russian interference in our U.S. elections that some have even suggested that we are experiencing a full-scale assault on our democratic institutions.  There may be some truth in that assessment, but, if so, how did it happen?  When did it start and who started it?

Russian attempts at influencing the outcome of U.S. elections are nothing new, although they rarely, if ever, attempted to help Republicans.  During the Cold War era the Soviet Union carried on an intensive program to influence American public opinion, and hence, the outcome of elections. Their methodology is fully outlined by two veteran journalists, Robert Moss, former editor of Foreign Report, and Arnaud de Borchgrave, former chief foreign correspondent for Newsweek magazine, in their fact-based novel, The Spike (New York: Crown Publishers, 1980).

However, it was not until the declassification of Soviet era KGB archives during the early to mid-‘90s that the full extent of Democratic treachery was exposed.  For example, one archived 1980 KGB document stated that Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) offered to condemn President Jimmy Carter’s policy toward the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in exchange for KGB help in his campaign to unseat Carter.  News accounts of that period prove that Kennedy did, in fact, criticize Carter’s Afghanistan policy.

Even more surprising, Carter himself was willing to jump into bed with the Soviets.  KGB files show that, in the closing days of the 1980 General Election, while Carter trailed Reagan in the national polls, Carter sent a political ally, industrialist Armand Hammer, to a secret meeting with Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin at the Soviet embassy in Washington.  Hammer asked the Soviets to help Carter win votes in key states by allowing Jewish “refuseniks” to emigrate to Israel.  The Soviets refused to go along with the scheme.

KGB files show that, in January 1984, Carter approached Dobrynin in person.  In an effort to derail Ronald Reagan’s defense buildup, Carter asked for Soviet help in defeating Reagan in his bid for reelection.  It is not known whether the Soviets gave him what he wanted.

But Carter, Kennedy, and Hammer weren’t the only Democrat who sought Soviet political help. Declassified KGB files show that, in 1984, House Speaker “Tip” O’Neill (D-MA) privately told Dobrynin that it was in “everyone’s best interests” if the Soviets would help Democrats keep “that demagogue Reagan” from being re-elected.  O’Neill warned Dobrynin that the “primitive instincts” of this “dangerous man” would plunge the world into war.

It must have amazed Dobrynin that those prominent liberals – Ted Kennedy, Armand Hammer, Jimmy Carter, and Tip O’Neill – all viewed Reagan as more dangerous than any Communist dictator.

Historian Paul Kengor observed that the Soviet archives showed “the lengths to which some on the political left… were willing to go to stop Ronald Reagan.”  In his book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, Professor Kengor quotes the text of a May 14, 1983 memorandum uncovered in the declassified Soviet archives by Herbert Romerstein, a well-known authority on the Venona Papers and the Soviet archives.

According to the memorandum, written by Viktor Chebrikov, Chairman of the Committee on State Security of the USSR (KGB), to Yuri Andropov, General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR, he (Chebrikov) was visited by former U.S. Senator John Tunney (D-CA) on May 9-10, 1983.  Tunney, a private citizen, was on a highly sensitive mission for his former University of Virginia law school roommate, a close friend and former senate colleague, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA).  The purpose of his mission was to enlist the Kremlin in a grand scheme to defeat Ronald Reagan and other Republicans in the 1984 U.S. elections.

In his memorandum, Chebrikov quoted Tunney as saying that Kennedy was convinced that the chilly relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union were due to Reagan’s unwillingness to modify his strategic plan to win a final Cold War victory over the Soviet Union. As Tunney described Kennedy’s frustration with the state of American politics, Reagan was able to rely on the results of his highly successful “Reaganomics” policies – reduced inflation, reduced taxes, increased productivity, a healthy business climate, and declining interest rates – to support his political standing with the American people, making it difficult for Democrats to attack him on foreign policy issues.

As Tunney described Kennedy’s view to the Soviet spymaster, the only possible threat to Reagan was rooted in issues related to war and peace and Soviet-American relations.  With the active participation of the Soviets, those issues could become the most critical of Reagan’s 1984 reelection campaign. As Chebrikov wrote to Andropov, “Kennedy believes that, given the current state of affairs… it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps” to counter Reagan’s policies:

  1. Kennedy asked Andropov to consider inviting him (Kennedy) to Moscow for a personal meeting in July 1983. The primary purpose of the meeting would be to provide Soviet officials with “talking points” related to problems of nuclear disarmament so that they’d be “better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.”
  1. Kennedy felt that, in order to influence the American people, it would be helpful to have Chairman Andropov submit to a series of television interviews with American TV networks.  He felt that a direct appeal by the General Secretary of the Communist Party to the American people would, without doubt, “attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country.”

Tunney assured Chebrikov that, “if the proposal is recognized as worthy,” Kennedy and his political allies would take the necessary steps to have representatives of the major U.S. networks contact Andropov to schedule interviews.  Specifically, he suggested that the head of ABC, Elton Raul, and “television columnists Walter Cronkite or Barbara Walters could visit Moscow.”

Kennedy also suggested a series of televised interviews, in the U.S., in which members of the Soviet military could convince the American people of the “peaceful intentions of the USSR.”

Chebrikov prepared a memorandum and sent it to Chairman Andropov, and the memorandum found its way into the KGB archives.  It is not known if additional negotiations took place between Kennedy and the Soviets, but one thing is certain: Kennedy did not expect that Reagan would ultimately win the Cold War, that the Soviet empire would disintegrate, or that Americans would one day find themselves reading of his treachery in documents taken from the archives of the KGB.

If Kennedy was unsure of a Democratic victory in 1984, with all the forces of the labor unions, teachers unions, public employee unions, trial lawyers, radical environmentalist, plantation blacks, pro-abortion activists, gays, lesbians, and transvestites at their disposal, how better to insure a Democratic victory than by enlisting the aid of the KGB and the Soviet leadership?  That was Kennedy’s principal motivation, and what a cheap, un-American motivation it was.

If a Republican member of the U.S. Senate, or a senior aide to a Republican president, had engaged in the same kind of treachery, he or she would still be staring out from behind the bars of a federal prison.  Even a retired three-star general, slated for a top post in the White House national security staff, would be forced to resign in disgrace if he engaged in unofficial talks with a senior Russian official… no matter how innocent or insignificant the subject matter of the conversations.  One also wonders how Democrats view the role played by the notorious Sidney Blumenthal who, as a private citizen, gathered bits and pieces of information from across the Middle East and forwarded it, along with policy recommendations, to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in frequent email exchanges.

If Donald and Melania Trump are now finding Russians hiding under every bed in the White House, it’s because the Democrats invited them in and never got around to showing them the door.

RELATED ARTICLE: Allen West: Folks, what I just witnessed in DC is TREASONOUS

The Secret Radical Islamic Document found in Darfur, Sudan

/in , , , /by

Background

President Bashir April 2016 AP

Sudan President Omar al-Bashir in Power since 1989.

In a January 18, 2017 FrontPage Magazine article, “Obama Lifts Sudan Sanctions”, we reported on the lifting of 20 years of sanctions against the regime of President Omar al-Bashir for making progress against counterterrorism in the Sudan. All while he was preparing to launch a Jihad army of 150,000 recruited from across the Sahel region and the Middle East, including the Islamic State.  Many of those jihadists were recruited from Islamic terrorist groups from Libya, neighboring Chad, the Central African Republic, Mali and Niger. They were undergoing training in 16 camps around Khartoum. These cadres were composed of formations of Janjaweed/Rapid Support forces now renamed ‘Peace Forces’.  By early February 2017, the Bashir regime completed training of 34,000 ‘Peace Force’ militia at the Kerere and Fatasha camps near Khartoum.  2,500 of these Peace force militia, equipped with heavily armed militarized Hi-Lux Toyota pickup trucks, are already at the Jadeed al Sail training camp in the North Darfur capital of Fashir.  Bashir’s jihad army is already on the attack in Darfur.

To understand the Jihad doctrine behind Bashir’s strategy we are presenting the underlying doctrinal strategy found in a captured secret document, the Arab Coalition Guresh 1 and 2. Guresh is the name for the Prophet Mohammed’s tribe in Arabia, used by the people for themselves.

The Arabic Language version of a Sudan Arab Coalition document of 11 pages was captured during the fighting between the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) (Reorganized Janjaweed Militias) and Darfur rebels in October 2014 in Donky Hush, North Darfur. The document was found in an abandoned military truck belonging to the RSF. It was translated by Lt. General Abakar N. Abdallah, Chairman of the Sudan United Movement in April 2015 to document the genocidal Jihad doctrine underlying the ethnic cleansing of Darfur, the Nuba Mountains Blue Nile Region and South Kordofan.

The document, containing different Guresh statements of the Sudan Arab Coalition project, was created in 1987 by former Sudan Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi who founded the Janjaweed militias.  Al Mahdi and the late Islamic reformer Hassan al-Turabi had drafted in the 1960’s the Islamic manifesto to rule Sudan under Sharia Islamic law creating the Arabization and Islamization policies. Those policies are currently being implemented by his usurper, indicted war criminal President Omar al-Bashir. They form the core of the Jihad doctrine found in the Arab Coalition document.

Al-Mahdi is the great grandson of Muhammad Ahmad, who declared himself the Mahdi, “the guided one” in Arabic, who would rule until the Day of Judgment under Islamic doctrine.  The Mahdi established a Sharia ruled Caliphate in the Sudan in 1881 directed at invading Egypt seeking to overturn the infidels; the Khedive Egyptian ruler and his British allies. The Mahdi’s army conducted a siege at Khartoum resulting in its capture and the death of valiant British Major General Sir Charles Gordon in 1885.  The Mahdi’s Caliphate ended with the reconquest of the Sudan by a combined British – Egyptian force under General Sir Herbert Kitchener at the Battle of Omdurman on September 2, 1898 that defeated an army led by the Mahdi’s successor Abdullah al-Taashi.  The Sudan campaign was chronicled in Sir Winston Churchill‘s The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan. The British subsequently reached a settlement with the Al-Mahdi family in 1910 bestowing on them a fortune of 110,000 pounds Sterling.

The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan established in 1902 ended with the declaration of the Republic of Sudan in 1956. Almost immediately a more than half century civil war broke out between the Arab north versus the indigenous African tribes in the South resulting in the creation of South Sudan as a new nation in 2011.  Notwithstanding, the genocidal campaign, articulated in the Arab Coalition document, Jihad continued with open warfare against resistance forces in the Darfur, Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile region in South Kordofan.

Sadiq Al-Mahdi, an Oxford graduate, was overthrown in 1989 by then General now President Omar al-Bashir.  Al-Mahdi went into exile for several purposes: 1) to gain credibility of opposition groups and militias; 2) to obtain popular support both in Sudan and externally; 3) to obtain support from Arab countries; 4) to eradicate armed rebellions to defend Arab supremacy in Sudan; and, 5) to rally opposition forces to weaken the regime. He returned in 2017 at the age of 80 to exploit current weaknesses of the Bashir regime seeking to replace it as the main Arab regime in Khartoum.

Objectives of the Arab Coalition Document

The Arab Coalition document carries forward the basic Jihad doctrine through the latest available edition in 2014. The central objective of the Arab Coalition document is to eradicate the people of Darfur and occupy the land by 2020. The most important part of this document is the evaluation of 2014 in which they distributed the entire Darfur region to different Arab tribes with the intention of completing their project by 2020.  If the Arab Coalition plan is left unchecked by resistance forces, then Janjaweed militias will commit more genocidal atrocities in Darfur to complete their task.

The essential document declaring the creation of the Arab Assembly against Darfur was issued in March 1987. It was renewed following the evaluation of its advantages and disadvantages as well as the objectives that had been achieved in 1992. After 11 years, the implementation of the document was renewed in 2003. However, the objective of ethnic cleansing Darfur and other parts of Sudan was hampered by internal problems occurring between the Arab tribes: lack of adequate resources, the starting of rebellion in the Darfur region from non-Arab tribes, and the support of the international community to the Darfur cause. Sudan had been placed on the list of state sponsors of terrorism.  An indictment was prepared by the International Criminal Court at The Hague directed against Sudan government officials accusing them of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in Darfur. Among those indicated were President Omar al- Bashir, Musa Hilal, Ahmed Haroun, and Ali Kosheeb.

Other problems emerged to prevent achievement of the Arab Coalition objectives.  Some members diverted the funds collected for the purpose of executing this plan for personal benefits. Some tribes who initially agreed to support the project withdrew when they perceived that this project was not in their interest in the long term. They were effectively executing plans that at the end would destroy them.

Note these objectives listed in the Arab coalition document:

  • Seize all livestock and resources from indigenous tribes;
  • Kill their representatives, educated leaders and confine the rest of indigenous tribes in big cities, prisons, or kill them whenever there is an opportunity;
  • Keep all government resources that can assist people on making complaints, or can be used in emergence cases, transportation, or communication so that they could not communicate between one another;
  • Place camps of Arab fighters (Janjaweed) on high mountains so that the attackers cannot approach them; and
  • Attack areas that have strong resistance with large forces.

According to the Arab Coalition document The Higher Committee of the Arab Assembly carried out the following tactical program to achieve jihad objectives:

  • Create difficulties in the way of the regional governments and use all resources available so as not to be able to execute their policies and programs of development; ?
  • Do everything possible to disrupt government services in the areas occupied by non-Arab tribes in order to make them feel the government weakness and its failure to provide necessary means for life; ?
  • Increase the volunteers in areas occupied by non-Arab tribes to create insecurity problems, stop production and kill their leaders; ?
  • Create disputes between non-Arab tribes to prevent unification. ?

The members of the Assembly occupying senior positions are obliged to do the following:

  • Concentrate on providing services to the areas of the Arab Assembly;
  • Do not employ non-Arabs in important positions;
  • Create obstacles for those non-Arabs who occupy positions and work in administration;
  • Try by all means to create instability in schools in non-Arab populated areas; and
  • Whenever there is an opportunity kill them.

The projected timetable to achieve the Jihad war objectives in Darfur was six years from 2014 by which time the Arab Assembly was to finish the ‘ jihad project’ in 2020.  As the Arab Assembly had not been able by 2014 to execute the project, the Executive Committee divided the rest of the areas of the Darfur region.  That would allow new comers to settle in and work fast to complete the project; meaning replacement of indigenous African tribes with Arab settlers.

You may read the translated Arab Coalition document here.

ABOUT LIEUTENANT GENERAL ABAKAR N. ABDALLAH

Lt. Gen. Abakar N. Abdallah is Chairman of the Sudan United Movement. He is a native of North Darfur who joined the Sudan Liberation People’s Army (SPLA) in 1984 and became active in the Nuba Hills and Darfurian resistance. In 1989 he joined the Patriotic Salvation Movement in neighboring Chad based in Darfur. He served as an officer in the Chadian army for 23 years. He held senior intelligence and counterterrorism posts including as Coordinator of the Multi-National Joint Task Force of Nigeria, Chad and Niger. He is a December 2002 graduate of the Intelligence Officers’ Advanced and Combating Terrorism Courses, US Army Intelligence Center and Schools, Fort Huachuca, Arizona. He was a Graduate Terrorism Fellow and is a Graduate of the College of International Security Affairs, National Defense University, Washington, DC, 2005. He was an International Fellow and Graduate of the US Army War College, Class of 2008.

ABOUT DEBORAH MARTIN

Deborah Martin is a long-term American Sudan human rights advocate having lived in both North and South Sudan conducting development projects as a professional engineer and linguist in a team with her late husband. She has worked on research linguistics of Jieeng, Nuer, Bari, Jumjum, Masalit, Nubian, Luwo, Reel, Madi and Moro. She has been working in North and South Sudan for 35 years as a linguist and cultural consultant following the situation as it developed. Her interview skills have brought the story even when media reporting has been limited.

Muslim Refugee charged with Assault at DeVos ‘protest’

/in , , , , /by

Just like Europe, they are bringing the war here. And the left is only to happy to join any cause that seeks to destroy America. Just how incestuous is the leftist/Islamic axis? This violent Afghan wrote a piece last month for NPR. I kid you not.

Bilal Ahmed Askaryar was the man charged with assault, according to Politico, in the effort to block Betsy DeVos from entering a public school.

Refugee Charged With Assault After Blocking DeVos From Entering School

Sec. of Education Betsy DeVos, left, escorted away from protesters / Twitter video screenshot

Sec. of Education Betsy DeVos, left, escorted away from protesters / Twitter video screenshot.

A refugee from Afghanistan has been charged with assault after blocking Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos from entering a Washington, D.C. public school on Friday.

Bilal Ahmed Askaryar came to the United States with his family when he was five years old and became a citizen in 2000, the Washington Examinerreports.

The charges against Askaryar are misdemeanors. Politico obtained the police report which states that Askaryar pushed an individual and was given several orders to move out of the way of a vehicle.

Askaryar’s biographical information can be found in a piece he wrote for NPR in January where he tells his family’s story of leaving Afghanistan and the Taliban. The piece was a response to President Donald Trump’s travel ban.

The issue of allowing refugees into the United States has become a dominating issue in politics. Trump’s ban on travel from seven Muslim countries in the Middle East was struck down by federal courts, leading to speculation over what Trump would do next.

Correction: This piece incorrectly stated Afghanistan was one of the seven nations included in the travel ban.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report.

Omar Jamal: The ‘Jesse Jackson’ of the Somali Ummah [community] in America

/in , , , , /by

This is so funny.

If you have followed RRW for the last almost ten years, you will recognize the name Omar Jamal.  I call him the ‘Jesse Jackson’ of the Somali ‘community’ in America.

When Somalis are in ‘crisis’ (when aren’t they in crisis!), here comes Jamal to direct lazy and gullible reporters so that they spin their stories to involve him and his view of the ‘community.’

I wish I had the time to go over the many many posts we have on Jamal who was originally found guilty of immigration fraud (he snuck in here from Canada!) but was never deported.  He apparently speaks English well, so reporters glom on to him and he helps them get their story straight—the way he sees it! He is good!

Just to give you an idea before you read about his take on the supposed flood of desperate Somalis heading to Canada across the Minnesota border (remember readers those Somalis headed to Canada are in the U.S. ILLEGALLY), here is one post I wrote in 2008.

In 2009, even Minnesota Public Radio had him pegged as a Somali “talking head.”

Denver dead Canadian Somali story!

Here in 2008, Jamal helped spin the media about something you have long forgotten or maybe never knew.

A Canadian Somali was found dead in a Denver hotel just before the 2008 Democratic Convention there.  He had enough cyanide to kill hundreds.  Jamal jumped in to the story (from Minneapolis) to say the guy was just a nut, nothing to see, move along, and the media did!

Here is our complete archive on Omar Jamal, the Somali spin-meister!

So here he is again, in his element, fielding media questions about the poor Somalis headed to Canada and the possibility that they could freeze to death (sniffling! dabbing eyes!).

From a CBC News at a Somali website:

Omar Jamal is dealing with a crisis. [ROFLMAO—ed]

Jamal is the executive director of the Somali Community of Minnesota, and for months now, he has seen people whose U.S. asylum claims have been rejected end up in Minneapolis, home to one of the largest Somali communities in the country. [Rejected asylum claim means they are NOT refugees—ed]

From there, they make arrangements to sneak into Canada, where they can file refugee claims.

Jamal has become used to this, but today he is fielding non-stop calls about a car full of refuge seekers and their driver who appear to have gone missing after leaving Minneapolis.

The plan was to drive the seven hours north to the Canadian border and cross the border on foot.

But they’re nowhere to be found.

“I’m getting calls from family members and I’m meeting relatives and as we speak right now, we are trying to figure out what happened to them and where are they? Are they still alive?” says Jamal.

You can read for yourself the long discussion about the missing Somalis (found o.k.) and the driver who took them to the border.

They’re making their way back to Minneapolis.

As a result of their attempted crossing, they’ve been flagged as a flight risk by U.S. immigration authorities. [Heck, Trudeau loves diversity, let Canada have them!—ed]

“They’re really worried, they’re scared,” says Jamal.

“The thing is, when they came [to the U.S.], they psychologically believed that they left everything behind, the bad things. But actually the place they’ve got here now doesn’t look much different than the place they came from.

“It’s a continuation of crisis and suffering and not being settled… That saga is still ongoing,” he says. “They left their country and they’re still on the run.”

Before too long, Jamal has moved on to the next phone call, the next request for help.

He knows this flood of asylum seekers won’t stop any time soon, and he has a message for his neighbours to the north.

Of course, then he sends his message telling Canada to welcome these illegal alien Somalis.

Read it all! Filed in my ‘Laugh of the day’ category!

Trump defends immigration pause as Trudeau says he won’t ‘lecture another country’

/in , , , /by

“Trudeau said he would focus on governing “in such a way that reflects Canadians’ approach.”

Trudeau also said:

“The last thing Canadians expect is for me to come down and lecture another country on how they choose to govern themselves.”

Oh really, Mr. Trudeau?

One wonders what may have influenced Trudeau’s last-minute change of heart before meeting Trump. After all, just over three weeks ago, it was reported:

Justin Trudeau has responded to Donald Trump’s immigration ban by saying Canada welcomes refugees who have been rejected from the US.

The Canadian Prime Minister also said he intends on talking to Mr Trump about the success of the refugee and immigration policy in Canada.

And contrary to Trudeau’s comment about “Canadians,” the Ottawa Citizen published a few demands and assertions that indicated a few “expectations” from “Canadians”; the article was entitled “Trudeau must push Trump on Muslim ban and refugees”:

Trudeau’s record on refugees means that he has a special responsibility when he comes to the U.S.: he’s in a unique position to call on Trump to revoke his executive order.

Trudeau must use his meeting with Trump not only to convey the concerns of Canadians but also the global ripple effects his hardline and cruel policies have had on other countries…..

As Trump’s policies have been exposed for what they are – irrational and inhumane – the American public has rejected them and wants Congress to do the same…..

The misuse of the word “Canadians” to define the thoughts of an entire population is illogical and transparent, as is the collective use of the phrase “the American public.” Those terms tend to be routinely exploited by leftists in an attempt to appear as an overwhelming majority.

Trump rightly stated:

“We cannot let the wrong people in and I will not allow that to happen during this administration.”

Trump and Trudeau voiced their hope to “continue strengthening the relationship between their two countries.”

Trudeau’s decision to respect Trump’s leadership is a step in the right direction, aside from his possible motives. Now he faces criticism from his own leftist camp for being too passive with Trump, beginning with the CNN article below.

“Trump defends travel ban as Trudeau looks on”,  by By Jeremy Diamond and Kevin Liptak, CNN , February 13, 2017:

Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump offered an unapologetic defense of his travel ban during a joint news conference Monday with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, saying the US “cannot let the wrong people in.”

Trudeau, meanwhile, made clear that he holds a different view of the issue but said it was not his place to come to the US and “lecture” Trump on the controversial policy.

Both leaders, though, were careful not to critique each others’ fundamentally divergent approaches, and instead sought to focus on their shared goal of improving cross-border trade.

Trump called his executive order — now stalled in court — “common sense,” adding he would continue to fight to keep “the wrong people” out of the US, even at the risk of casting too wide a net. Trudeau, meanwhile, touted Canada’s acceptance of tens of thousands of Syrian refugees and made clear he differs with Trump on the issue.

But he stated it was not his place to come to the US and “lecture” Trump on the controversial policy.

“I’m just doing what I said I would do,” Trump said, referring to his hardline immigration policies.

The two leaders, who are ideologically at odds on a range of issues, played a delicate dance Monday as they sought to focus on the commonalities between their two countries, rather than the chasm between their personal philosophies and politics.

“There have been times where we have differed in our approaches and that has always been done firmly and respectfully,” Trudeau said. “The last thing Canadians expect is for me to come down and lecture another country on how they choose to govern themselves.”

Trudeau said he would focus on governing “in such a way that reflects Canadians’ approach.”

His comments came after Trump defended his action to ban citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and put a stop to the entry of refugees into the US — a ban that has been stalled by a federal court.

“We cannot let the wrong people in and I will not allow that to happen during this administration,” Trump said. “We’re going to give ourselves every bit of chance.”

Both Trump and Trudeau said they hoped to continue strengthening the relationship between their two countries and both remarked on the important trading relationship the two countries share.

Referring to his pledge to renegotiate NAFTA, Trump said the two leaders would be “tweaking” their trade relationship, but he emphasized that the US’s bones with the free trade deal were mostly centered on the US trading relationship with the third country in the deal: Mexico.

“It’s a much less severe situation than what’s taking place on the southern border,” Trump said, after calling the US-Canada trading relationship “very outstanding.”

Trudeau made clear that the Canadian economy is “very dependent” on its relationship with the US and sought to draw closer to Trump’s populist rhetoric by noting that both men were “elected on commitments to support the middle class, to work hard for people who need a real shot at success.”

The remarks came after the two leaders shared their first in-person meetings together at the White House Monday, which included a roundtable discussion with women business executives — which included Trump’s daughter Ivanka — and the launching of a joint council to advance female entrepreneurship and leadership in business.

Their first in-person meeting came amid Trump’s first series of diplomatic forays, following his weekend bonding session with Japan’s prime minister and just two days before the Israeli prime minister arrives at the White House.

In his previous US visits, Trudeau found a leader almost exactly aligned with his liberal worldview and youthful image. In return, then-President Barack Obama met with Trudeau often, counseling his younger ally on how to best advocate for the progressive agenda he championed.

Trudeau has arrived to a very different White House. He sought to balance the need to maintain close ties with a mandate from anxious Canadians to press Trump on his more controversial views.

The meeting is Trump’s third official visit from a head of government at the White House. In his first three weeks in office, he’s also welcomed the British and Japanese prime ministers, and will host Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday.

Trump’s previous bilateral sessions were marked by comity and a focus on shared priorities. But in Trudeau, Trump encountered a leader further apart from him in both age and global outlook than his previous two visitors…..

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslim found with pipe bomb in luggage was allowed to fly again days later

Sweden’s “first feminist government” dons hijabs in Iran

Former Obama officials, loyalists waged secret campaign to oust Flynn to preserve Iran deal

/in , , , /by

“Former Obama Officials, Loyalists Waged Secret Campaign to Oust Flynn,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, February 14, 2017:

The abrupt resignation Monday evening of White House national security adviser Michael Flynn is the culmination of a secret, months-long campaign by former Obama administration confidantes to handicap President Donald Trump’s national security apparatus and preserve the nuclear deal with Iran, according to multiple sources in and out of the White House who described to the Washington Free Beacon a behind-the-scenes effort by these officials to plant a series of damaging stories about Flynn in the national media.

The effort, said to include former Obama administration adviser Ben Rhodes—the architect of a separate White House effort to create what he described as a pro-Iran echo chamber—included a small task force of Obama loyalists who deluged media outlets with stories aimed at eroding Flynn’s credibility, multiple sources revealed.

The operation primarily focused on discrediting Flynn, an opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, in order to handicap the Trump administration’s efforts to disclose secret details of the nuclear deal with Iran that had been long hidden by the Obama administration.

Insiders familiar with the anti-Flynn campaign told the Free Beacon that these Obama loyalists plotted in the months before Trump’s inauguration to establish a set of roadblocks before Trump’s national security team, which includes several prominent opponents of diplomacy with Iran. The Free Beacon first reported on this effort in January.

Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon requested anonymity in order to speak freely about the situation and avoid interfering with the White House’s official narrative about Flynn, which centers on his failure to adequately inform the president about a series of phone calls with Russian officials.

Flynn took credit for his missteps regarding these phone calls in a brief statement released late Monday evening. Trump administration officials subsequently stated that Flynn’s efforts to mislead the president and vice president about his contacts with Russia could not be tolerated.

However, multiple sources closely involved in the situation pointed to a larger, more secretive campaign aimed at discrediting Flynn and undermining the Trump White House.

“It’s undeniable that the campaign to discredit Flynn was well underway before Inauguration Day, with a very troublesome and politicized series of leaks designed to undermine him,” said one veteran national security adviser with close ties to the White House team. “This pattern reminds me of the lead up to the Iran deal, and probably features the same cast of characters.”

The Free Beacon first reported in January that, until its final days in office, the Obama administration hosted several pro-Iran voices who were critical in helping to mislead the American public about the terms of the nuclear agreement. This included a former Iranian government official and the head of the National Iranian American Council, or NIAC, which has been accused of serving as Iran’s mouthpiece in Washington, D.C.

Since then, top members of the Obama administration’s national security team have launched a communications infrastructure after they left the White House, and have told reporters they are using that infrastructure to undermine Trump’s foreign policy.

“It’s actually Ben Rhodes, NIAC, and the Iranian mullahs who are celebrating today,” said one veteran foreign policy insider who is close to Flynn and the White House. “They know that the number one target is Iran … [and] they all knew their little sacred agreement with Iran was going to go off the books. So they got rid of Flynn before any of the [secret] agreements even surfaced.”

Flynn had been preparing to publicize many of the details about the nuclear deal that had been intentionally hidden by the Obama administration as part of its effort to garner support for the deal, these sources said.

Flynn is now “gone before anybody can see what happened” with these secret agreements, said the second insider close to Flynn and the White House….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama’s Shadow Presidency

Why does General Flynn hate Iran? – The Duran

James Mattis’ 33-Year Grudge Against Iran

Islamic State video shows two young boys blowing themselves up as jihad suicide bombers

Robert Spencer: Answering an Islamic apologist (Part V)

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

PODCAST: ISRAEL — A Leading Power in the World

/in , , , , /by

Israel a leading power in the World? Listen to Rod Bryant and frequent contributor Jerry Gordon to find out the reasons behind this development – high tech brain power, attracting global investments in innovative technology from the strong horse militarily in the troubled Middle East facing a nuclear Iran, proxy Hezbollah, Hamas and ISIS. Also listen to a report from the Emunah World Tour on the road in Colombia with co-host Ira Michaelson and Rabbi Dror Casuto.

RELATED ARTICLE: J Street’s Dead End

Dear Conservative Members of Parliament: Is Canada Planning to make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

/in , , , , /by

Honorable Conservative MPs:

Canada already has laws against inciting violence. Canada already has laws to protect ALL Canadians against discrimination based on their faith. It is shocking that The Parliament of Canada is endorsing a petition to “condemn all forms of Islamophobia” (Petition e-411) and will hold a vote on a motion (Motion M-103) by portraying “Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination” based on that petition.

Isn’t “Phobia” a type of mental disorder? Isn’t the “Islamophobia” motion which was ‘unanimously’ passed by the Canadian Government which calls for limiting the rights of Canadians to criticize Islam, contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

I have a Rational Fear of Radical Islam.

Is Canada Planning to Make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

The definition of Islamophobia from a Google search is dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force.

What exactly has the Parliament of Canada petitioned against? Criticism of Islam? Criticism of Muhammad? Criticism and condemning the Islamic State and all Islamic terrorist groups affiliated with radical Islamic ideology? Petitioning against those Canadians who Condemn Sharia law? If Canadians criticize Islam or convert from Islam, will they now be considered an “Islamophobe” by Canada?

What’s next? Sending Iran and Hamas type morality police to the doorsteps of Canadians critical of Islam, while radical imams continue to spew openly radical Ideas in schools and mosques? What about Canadians who are suspicious of others plotting possible terrorist activities – will they be afraid to report it to authorities in case they are wrong?

The petition the Parliament of Canada recently passed a motion was initiated on June 8, 2016 by Samer Majzoub, President of the Canadian Muslim Forum condemning Islamophobia in “all” forms.

The details in the petition which was sponsored by the Liberal MP are extremely sketchy to say the least- e-411 for the parliamentary petition:

“We, the undersigned, Citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to join us in recognizing that extremist individuals do not represent the religion of Islam, and in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”

Again I say, please keep in mind Islamophobia’s definition.

canadian flag islamIs Canada Planning to Make Criticizing Islam Illegal?

It seems that many Western politicians, the “Mainstream Media”, and our political elites use the term “Islamophobia” without even knowing what is in Islam. There might be a lot to be rationally  “phobic”, or simply fearful, about.

Since Trudeau Liberals came to power, Canadians have been constantly reminded that to speak negatively about Islam is supposedly acting as a fear-mongering, racist, xenophobic, “Islamophobe”.

It is far more probable that they are none of those things; rather that it is the accusers who are racist (Quran: 2;65; 2.89 (Allah transforms Jews into apes); 3:110-112; 4;160, and on and on); Xenophobic really does not apply to Jews, Christians, Yazidis, Hindus, Kurds, Baha’is , Zoroastrians, and a few different sects of Islam; it is truly the other way around.

These people are rightfully afraid of harm coming to them from Sharia law and radical Islam. I am a living example of one who has experienced harm from radical Islamic Sharia law. I was imprisoned at age 16 by the Iranian Regime for simply expressing my disagreement with their policies. They held me prisoner for 18 months in their notorious Evin Prison; I miraculously escaped the murder and rape I heard every day in that dark place.

The memories of that season still haunt me today. And, their threats still follow me today, to this great land of Canada. Therefore, I have a reasonable fear of radical Islam. To call my fear a phobia, an irrational fear, lacks compassion and fails to recognize the true reality of the same present danger living close to me once again. I am on their hit list. It was reported that the highest commander of the IRGC very recently said they would soon kill all dissidents living abroad.

People who are jittery about radical Islam and Sharia law are this way for many a reason: They look at how Sharia law is practiced in Saudi Arabia, Iran, by The Islamic State and Nigeria’s Boko Haram, and are concerned quite justifiably.

As a professional and Women’s Rights Advocate working for over twenty five years in the settlement sector in Canada, I have told many stories by Muslims who have been victimized and harassed by their Muslim neighbors and peers in schools for not wearing the hijab, for not fasting during the fasting month, for not eating halal, for owning a dog, or simply for wearing a pendant of Muslim Shiite Imam Ali while going to the restroom. I also met a Syrian refugee who was physically attacked for buying vegetables and fruits from a Shiite vendor in Ottawa; moderate Muslims being harassed for not forcing their daughters to wear the hijab, or even for writing with their left hand, to name a few, as I mentioned above. Also of concern is the hatred rising between mosques demonstrated in the recent mosque shooting in Quebec City.

The Islamic Cairo Declaration of 1990, written as a direct refutation to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, states that all human rights are predicated on Islamic Sharia Law. Therefore, according to this view, beheading, stoning, flogging, slavery, child marriage, wife-beating, amputations, and a woman’s worth considered half of a man’s are all human rights. Is that what we want for Canada, or in Canada? Or, in and for any country?

All that these purported critics are doing is pointing out what is in Islam’s Sharia law if anyone cared to look. And, when it comes to concern with quality of life, people should care to look. What is it that these extremists are so eager to cover up?

To those of us who have experienced Islamic sharia law first-hand, protecting Western values – free speech, common law, equal justice under the law, democratic (“man-made”) governance; individual freedoms, separation of church and state, an independent judiciary, to name just a few – is indeed cause for concern. Every single one of them is contradicted by Islamic Sharia law or radical Islam.

Why should it be against the law to outspokenly disagree with aspects of a different religion or culture? Especially if it outspokenly threatens one’s own?

Interesting to note, there are no such terms as Christianophobia, or Judeophobia, that define a dislike or prejudice against a Judeo Christian worldview and Jews and Christians, especially as a political force. And, when Googling anti Zionism, a photo appears of Islamist Muslims condemning Jews and a State of Israel. What if Christians and Jews petitioned for anti Christianophobia and anti Judeophobia motions condemning “all” forms of these? Would we all put duct tape on our mouths? And, it is true that Christians and Jews would never be allowed to petition for this in any Middle Eastern country on the face of the planet.

Canadians are worried that with the Rise of Islamic Extremism In Canada , the country is on its way to becoming like Europe, with no-go zones. That is why we must keep the secular state and religion completely separate, so that no one’s religion, and in Islam’s case religious ideology, is given special treatment or singled out.

Our goal is, and must remain, equal treatment for all. Equality and pluralistic respect can only be achieved when the government acts constitutionally without bias or favoritism towards any particular religion or religious ideology. Our Western Constitution is one that is founded upon the notion that all men, and women, are created equally, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; free from the harassment of oppressive tyranny inspired by dogma of any sort; religious or political.

It is also important to know who sponsors such articles in the media and why politicians lack information to make accurate assessments and informed conclusions.

For more information, please read about Politics of ‘Islamophobia’ – source of, and purpose of the term.

In Islam, politics and religion are inseparably intertwined. For this reason, apostasy in Islam is equivalent to treason. A notable expression in Islam says it all, “Islam is a religion and a state.” The Penal Code of The Islamic Republic of Iran Mandates Death for Converts. Article 225-1 of this code reads, “Any Muslim who clearly announces that he/she has left Islam and declares blasphemy is an Apostate.” In the Qur’an, Bukhari (52:260) repeats this view clearly: “The Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’” According to Ayatollah Khorasani, a prominent Shiite leader in Iran, “The promotion of Christianity in Iran must be stopped and stated that The Bible (The Gospel) is distorted and the Bible is not the Word of God.” (Farsi)

The Ayatollah’s views are directly of a mind with statements found in the Quran. Verses supporting death for apostates in the Qur’an are: 2:217, 9:73-74, 88:21, 5:54, and 9:66.

Article 19: Universal Declaration of Human Rights States:” Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Canadians must have the right to critique any ideology or religion. Preventing Canadians from speaking about Islam, is about denying Canadians the right to warn about a potential threat to their nation. A warning is not treason, but preventing a warning is. Isn’t this government sponsored Petition against the laws of the Constitution of Canada? CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982 PART I

If the government prevents us the right to criticize any ideology, our government overrides our most basic freedom—the freedom of speech—and at the same time will undermine diversity, the “value” the Trudeau Liberals take pride the most in.

“Islamophobia” is used as a tool by political Islam to shut down criticism of Islam. At what point does western civilization demand that as a free society, all ideological matters conform to some common ground?

Can Canada simply ignore what is happening particularly in Europe, no-go-zones? Many places in Europe have become a breeding ground for radical Islam where they enforced their own sharia law.

Again, Canadians are worried that with the Rise of Islamic Extremism In Canada, the country is on its way to becoming like Europe, with no-go zones.

That is why we must keep the secular state and religion completely separate, so that no one’s religion, and in Islam’s case religious ideology, is given special treatment or singled out.

Our goal is, and must remain, equal treatment for all. Equality and pluralistic respect can only be achieved when the government acts constitutionally without bias or favoritism towards any particular religion or religious ideology.

Our Western Constitution is one that is founded upon the notion that all men, and women, are created equally, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, free from the harassment of oppressive tyranny inspired by dogma of any sort; religious or political.

In reference to the above, I urge you to take the time and read the following article by Canadian investigative journalist, Christine Williams – “Canadian parliament passes anti-Islamophobia motion!”

M-103 does NOT define Islamophobia and is Not inclusive but will only endanger and silence Canada’s freedom of speech. I urge you and all Parliamentarians to vote against Motion M-103 and to rescind Petition e-411.

Respectfully,

Shabnam Assadollahi, Ottawa, ON.
Award-winning Human Rights Advocate; Former Child prisoner of Evin imprisoned by the Islamic Republic of Iran

REPLY FROM MP PETER KENT

Shabnam:

I will be voting against Motion M-103 for the following reasons:

1)      Abundant protection against discrimination and hate already exists in the Criminal Code of Canada and The Human Rights Act
2)      The word “Islamaphobia” is a confected term that has a wide range of meanings and interpretations.
3)      A “phobia” is a medical term that relates to an anxiety disorder.  It is inappropriate to apply in Parliamentary debate.
4)      Finally, I don’t believe the study proposed in Motion M-103 is worthy of a standing committee’s time or budget.

When I participated as a founding-member of the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism, MPs agreed that it’s study would be conducted as a special, all-party committee, responsible for its own funding but reporting to Parliament.

Thank you for taking the time to write me expressing your genuine concerns for Motion-103.  E-411 is an electronic petition and closed for signatures October 6, 2016.

Sincerely

CANADIAN MP PETER KENTHon. Peter Kent, P.C., MP
Thornhill, ON
House of Commons
Chambre des communes
Critic, Foreign Affairs                               
                    Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs

MY REPLY TO MP PETER KENT

Dear MP Peter Kent,

Thank you for taking the time, reading my open letter and responding to it.

Did you know that the Quebec, and Ontario imams say apostates are to be executed by The Islamic State? I am an apostate—I left Islam when I was in my early teens in Iran and I am a convert from Islam to Christianity.

Here is my terrifying story.

The article “Quebec, Ontario imams say apostates to be executed by The Islamic State” published by CIJNews documents that Since 2015 Sheharyar Shaikh serves as the Imam of the Islamic Society of Kingston, Ontario and he also served as the President of the North American Muslim Foundation and the Imam of Masjid Qurtabah in Scarborough, Ont. In recent years, he also took part in Dawah (introducing Islam to disbelievers) with activists affiliated with the Islamic booth at Toronto’s Dundas Square.

Supporter of the establishment of a Caliphate, or (The Islamic State), Sheharyar Shaikh believes that the Islamic Law (Sharia Law) is essential to maintain a healthy and moral society which can be achieved by using the Islamic punishments (execution, amputation, hanging , flogging etc.) as effective deterrents against potential criminals. In this regard he emphasized that punishment for apostates, Muslims who left Islam, is execution. The following are excerpts from a sermon entitled “There Is No Compulsion In Islam” which was delivered in English in 2013 (29:47-31:46):”

Please read the article and watch the Imams statements:  http://en.cijnews.com/?p=199556

I have never heard in modern times of a Jew or Christian being killed for leaving their faith! It certainly is NOT common like it is in the Islamic world or the western world where there are enough “honor” killings to prove the barbarity of the sharia law.

Calling for the execution, or killing of anyone in Canada or abroad based on religion or faith should be a crime against humanity and included in our laws. Any and all Canadian imams caught saying or promoting this must be charged and deported if they hold dual citizenship.

Where are Prime Minister Trudeau, The Parliament of Canada, RCMP,  Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, the Police, the Premieres, and those who are enforcing M-103 on all the “hate speech” coming from these quarters lately?

Why can’t we have a motion in parliament to remove this excrement from the country rather than punishing those who criticize this ideology?

Ms. Iqra Khalid should have tabled a motion requesting a study on why some Muslims insist on breaking our Canadian laws, promoting violence and demand preferential treatment. One illegal migrant crossing into Manitoba told CBC, “We need more sanctuary cities to protect us.” The US illegals just arrived here illegally and are demanding governments to change and accommodate more for the Islamic faith!

Shouldn’t everyone share equal rights? In Iran, under the Islamic laws women are denigrated as second class citizens. I openly share my personal story, along with comprehensive and troubling examples of the reality that all Iranian women face in my article published by Mackenzie Institute:  “Islamic Sharia Law Vs Liberty, Equality and Democracy”. I stated: “As a defender and advocate for human rights, I strongly condemn Islamic Sharia Law, which is opposed to democracy, having the ultimate purpose to destroy liberty and dominate the world.” This article will leave one asking if enough is being done in the fight for the rights and freedoms of Iranian women compared to women in the West.

To read my article, please click here.

“Islamic Sharia Law Vs Liberty, Equality and Democracy” A comprehensive look at Islamic shariah law may surprise you. It could be closer to home than you think.

All cultures are NOT equal and anyone who respects a culture who bases their entire ideology and laws on “Honor Killings”, female genital mutilation, child brides as young as 8 years old, rape, marital rape, molestation, pedophilia and torture is to say that you respect the atrocities that it perpetrates. They can call themselves, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Taliban, Al-Shabob, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, devout, extremist, etc. The common denominators are always Islam, the Quran, the Hadith and Sharia, which violates our Canadian Constitution and should not be practiced on Canadian soil and Islam’s sharia and ideology cannot coexist with our culture or constitution.

Please read my Op-ed: “Trudeau’s Multiculturalism”

Islam is far more of a political system than a religion. Islam is in the guise of a religion is actually a militant political ideology intended for conquering the world for the imaginary, Allah… It is indeed an open ended war against Jews and Christians until we convert to Islam, or are murdered, or enslaved. Historical record shows what happened to Persia, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey, to name a few.

  • There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir (non-Muslims, apostates or infidels).
  • Islam’s ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule.
  •  Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution.
  • The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them.
  • The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Quran in a Muslim’s daily life….

Canada already has laws against inciting violence. Canada has laws to protect Canadians against discrimination based on their faith. Motion M-103 does NOT define “Islamophobia”, is Not inclusive, and will endanger Canada’s freedom of speech. Motion M-103  is undemocratic, immoral and unacceptable. This biased motion is a trait of totalitarian governments and not Canadian democracy!

I urge you and all Conservative Parliamentarians to please defeat Motion M-103 without ANY amendments and rescind Petition e-411 and sincerely I hope and trust that this biased Motion will be voted down and put to rest, permanently. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Shabnam Assadollahi

White pins to raise awareness of white privelege

/in , , , /by

Students told to wear white pins to remind them of white privilege

For the next month, white students at Elizabethtown will wear white puzzle piece pins to raise awareness of their own white privilege.

The campaign was launched over the weekend by the Elizabethtown College Democrats, who say it aims to make students at the small and private liberal arts college in Pennsylvania more introspective about issues of race, especially in their predominantly white region of Lancaster County.

“Discussions about race are often perceived as being only open to people of color, but I think it is just as important for white people to partake in conversations about race,” Aileen Ida, president of the College Democrats, told The College Fix via email.

Ida said white people are continually allowing for a societal system of oppression to occur unless they work against it. The white puzzle piece pin represents racial struggles of all sorts.

“No matter how accepting someone is, that doesn’t stop them from being part of a system based on centuries of inequality,” she said, adding the campaign transcends politics.

Asked if all white students are privileged, Ida responded “yes,” but clarified that she doesn’t think all whites are socioeconomically privileged. Ida declined to cite specific examples of white privilege.

She also clarified that it’s not just white students who can wear the pins, that students of all races should take part to start a campuswide discussion that crosses racial divides.

Next month they should come by the tractor barn so they can wear something from the tool room…

Red Square  commented, “This reminds me of another time when some students were told to wear puzzle pieces on their chests as a sign of alleged privilege, except then the color was yellow.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

The Left’s ‘Rabid’ Campaign against President Trump Will Fail

/in , , , /by

I’ve heard that making sausage is a pretty messy, ugly and unpleasant process to witness. Well so is implementing real change in Washington D.C. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I believe God gave us Trump because I do not believe a pro-politician could pull off dismantling so many Leftist sacred cow strongholds at the lighting speed at which Trump is moving.

I remember Bahamian actor Sidney Poitier saying when he came to America he simply pursued his dream, undeterred by supposed limits for blacks. Consequently in 1964, Poitier became the first black to win an Academy Award for Best Actor.

Political outsider Trump is cleaning up the mess, undeterred by corrupt DC establishment procedures designed to continue the status quo. Consequently, we have Scott Pruitt fixing the overreaching anti-business tyranny of the EPA. We have Jeff Sessions who will implement equal justice for all Americans, unlike Obama’s attorneys general. One said he would not prosecuted fellow blacks. The other supports Black Lives Matter’s infamous lie that cops are racist. Leftists’ heads are exploding because new Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos vows to ensure that every child receives a quality education.

While some of the rude, crude and violent illegal actions of Leftist anti-Trump protesters is organic, the vast majority of it is paid for by America hating billionaire, George Soros. From the airport protests to the Women’s March to Black Lives Matter murdering cops and numerous other incidents of chaos in our streets, Soros is the money man behind the curtain. Soros is also tied to the Left’s campaign to impeach Trump. 

Even before Trump took his oath of office, the Left launched their immoral, unethical and lawless 1,460-day (four-year) plan to destroy Trump. The Left intends to block Trump from implementing everything we elected him to do.

Despite Leftists cautioning their side to tone down their over-the-top hysteria, the Left’s rabid opposition to Trump continues to escalate to absurd levels. It’s a bright sunny day. If Trump comments about it, the Left will try to convince the public that it is raining, and Trump lied about the sun.

I submit that the Left can not tone down their brain-dead emotion-driven foot-stomping temper tantrums because it is who they are. It is like the old joke, “I helped you because you promised not to bite me. Why did you bite me?” The snake replied, “I’m a snake. It’s what I do.”

When Education Secretary Betsy DeVos showed up for work, she was attacked by protesters. One jerk even stood in front of DeVos’ car when she tried to leave. Folks, the Left is going to pull this crap every day for the next 4 years. When Leftists push free speech to breaking the law and destroying public and private property, I say lock their derrieres up! Thank God. Finally, a Republican administration that is doing just that. 

The Left’s goal is to cement their lie that a majority of Americans regret voting for Trump and hate his agenda. In other words, they hope to “Bush” Trump. Relentless unchallenged distortions and lies about President George W. Bush caused his approval to plummet to 33% when he left office. Clearly, the Left has begun their triple-the-intensity campaign to do even worse damage to Trump’s approval.

All seeking to see America made great again (patriots) must pull out all the stops, using their creativity and every tool at their disposal to counter the Left’s tsunami of anti-Trump and anti-Trump agenda lies.

The Left relentlessly and creatively sold us their far-left-radical Trojan Horse disguised in the form of an articulate black man. From Greek columns in the background when he spoke, extra reverb on his microphone to kindergartners mandated to sing of his greatness, the Left practically branded Obama a deity. As part of Black History Month indoctrination, kindergartners were taught to sing, “Barack Obama is the man” and “He’s our man, yes we can!” 

In celebration of capitalism and the entrepreneur spirit, it would be fun to see kids start Trump Lemonade stands.

Folks, the Left still does not get it. They do not understand the Trump Revolution. I realized something was amiss during the campaign. I witnessed thousands of Americans of all stripes from well-dressed white seniors to black bikers covered in tattoos waiting in line, enduring 85 degree Florida heat and sun, hoping to get into the Trump rally at Daytona Beach Convention Center.

If we are relentless in expressing our support for Trump implementing his 100 day plan, the Left’s efforts to “Bush” Trump via chaos in our streets, fake news and violence with fail.

Oh, one last point. I’ve heard concerns that the Left will react violently if we resume Trump rallies. Well, I am sorry folks, but freedom “ain’t” free. As a matter of fact, God has designed life in such a way that anything worth having requires backbone and risks.

Are you guys ready? Great! Let’s roll!

With Flynn leaks, the White House ‘shadow warriors’ draw first blood

/in , , , /by

The rogue weasels have struck. Terrified that Lieutenant General Michael T. Flynn would tear them out root and branch, they connived and colluded, anonymously of course, to leak highly-sensitive intelligence information to destroy Flynn before he could destroy them.

This type of operation is not new. I wrote a whole book about it in 2007. I called them, the “shadow warriors.”

Then as now, the shadow warriors excelled at covert operations. After all, they lived in the darkness in a universe of lies.

Their technique “involved deep penetration of a hostile regime by planting a network of agents at key crossroads of power, where they could steal secrets and steer policy by planting disinformation, cooking intelligence, provocation, and outright lies.”

As I wrote at the time, this effort “involved sophisticated political sabotage operations, aimed at making regime leaders doubt their own judgment and question the support of their subordinates… It was war — but an intelligence war, played behind the scenes, aimed at confusing, misleading, and ultimately defeating the enemy. Its goal was nothing less than to topple the regime in power, by discrediting its rulers.”

These are powers and skills most Americans ascribe to our nation’s clandestine intelligence services, right? Don’t we want to have spies at the heart of the Iranian Supreme Leader’s entourage? Or planted next to whichever Kim is ruling his North Korean hermit kingdom? Isn’t that the type of capability we spending more than $80 billion a year to develop?

Alas, none of those very real targets is the target of these rogue weasels. Their target is the president of the United States.

flynn 1

The shadow warriors began leaking even before President Trump was sworn into office.

“According to a senior U.S. government official, Flynn phoned Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak several times on Dec. 29… What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the U.S. sanctions?” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote on January 12.

Later, news reports surfaced with more information about the calls, quoting “three sources familiar with the matter.”

But that wasn’t enough. To hound Flynn out of office required a full court press, and so last week the rogue weasels came out of the shadows and all began talking to the same reporters.

By the time these scribes had assembled their indictment (for that’s what it was), they now had heard the story corroborated from “nine current and former officials, who were in senior positions at multiple agencies at the time of the calls,” and who spoke, of course, “on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.”

In so doing, they exposed a sensitive, ongoing signals intelligence operation to intercept the electronic communications of the Russian ambassador. Who cares, right, if your goal is to sabotage the president?

flynn 2

What sets off this particular episode of the shadow warriors is the willingness of former top officials to leave their fingerprints behind.

Call it, payback. It began with Sally Yates, the Obama administration deputy attorney general who the Trump transition team improvidently named as acting attorney general while awaiting the confirmation of Senator Jeff Sessions — the same Sally Yates who was summarily fired by President Trump when she refused to support and defend his executive order calling for a temporary moratorium on immigration from seven Middle East countries.

Yates “informed the Trump White House late last month that she believed Michael Flynn had misled senior administration officials about the nature of his communications with the Russian ambassador to the United States,” the Washington Post wrote on Monday.

The scribes added: “In the waning days of the Obama administration, James R. Clapper Jr., who was the director of national intelligence, and John Brennan, the CIA director at the time, shared Yates’s concerns and concurred with her recommendation to inform the Trump White House.”

Brennan and Clapper knew they were on the way out, and so arguably had nothing to lose by going public. But clearly, both intelligence chiefs also knew they had seeded their agencies with loyalists — career officials who they could rely on to leak sensitive information to them in the future that would embarrass or confuse President Trump.

Government officials take an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies — foreign and domestic.

No one says you have to like the president or his policies. But senior officials are expected to serve him and carry out lawful orders.

When domestic enemies rear their head and seek to undermine the president and his lawful orders, that’s called sedition.

General Flynn made the mistake — perhaps inadvertently, as he says – of not telling the truth about these calls to the Vice President. That is a mistake.

But the leakers disclosed to the public — and our enemies — sensitive and classified information. That is illegal.

It’s time for the Attorney General to launch a thorough investigation to unmask the leakers, before the damage gets worse.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill.

Legislative Override of the Judiciary: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

/in , , , , /by

Florida Representative Julio Gonzalez (R-District 74) has taken a bold position on judicial overreach. In an email Representative Gonzales writes:

With great regularity, we are witnessing the increasingly aggressive and activist posture of our nation’s judiciary.  This month, the issue came to a head with Judge James Robart’s extra-constitutional act of staying a significant portion of the President of the United States’ foreign policy initiative and the subsequent affirmation of that stay by the unabashedly activist Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Those of us who value the restrictions placed upon government by the Constitution cannot help but worry over the implications of these unprecedented confrontational actions and the effects they will have upon our Republic.  Indeed, we are left with the troubling question of whether there is any solution to this latest assault upon the fabric of our Constitution.

But perhaps there is.

Last month, I filed a bill in the Florida House of Representatives [HR 121] that proposes a legislative override provision to Florida’s Constitution.  I also filed an accompanying memorial suggesting that Congress consider a similar addition to the United States Constitution.

To see why such a provision would be necessary, a review of our nation’s constitutional history regarding the judiciary is warranted.

Article III of the United Sates Constitution gave the courts “Judicial Power” over all cases and controversies arising out of the Laws of the United States and the Constitution, but it did not assign to the Supreme Court plenary authority regarding the constitutionality of laws.  This power was actually seized by the Supreme Court in its sentinel Marbury v. Madison decision of 1803.  In it, John Marshall singlehandedly declared,

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

Consequently, any law the court determines is repugnant to the Constitution will be void.

Although the Congress of the day did not react to this action, by 1820, the consequences of the resulting change in the relationship between the three branches of government caught the attention of Thomas Jefferson who warned in a letter to Jarvis Williams,

“to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [would be] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

The Civil War and its associated amendments set the stage for the fulfillment of Jefferson’s prognostications.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution included Due Process and Equal Protection clauses that would be subsequently employed by federal judges to force their will and power upon the states.  With the appointment of progressive judges during the twentieth century, the Supreme Court engaged in the laborious work of redefining the various passages of the Constitution in manners neither foreseen nor intended by the Framers.

With their new powers, the Supreme Court applied the First, Second, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the states, provisions that were initially conceived to apply only to the federal government.  In so doing the federal Supreme Court was able to remove prayer from schools, remove religious symbols from public places, and restrict the manner in which adults prayed in public meetings.  Through its divined interpretation of privacy protections, the Court then imposed new abortion laws upon the states, removing what was traditionally a state-based body of law and placing it at the feet of the federal courts.  It also imposed requirements on the state’s death penalty laws, and removed the power of the states to enact term limits upon its congressional delegates and senators, among countless other power-hoarding engagements.

Each of these actions was the result of decisions made by unelected officials permanently sitting upon the nation’s benches that would forever change the fabric of the Constitution and of the nation.

And what recourse did the people possess to check the Supreme Court as it interpreted the Constitution in a manner inconsistent with their will?

Operationally, the answer, of course, is none. There is no amendment that will ever be passed to specifically overturn a Supreme Court opinion ruling that a crèche may not sit in a public building during Christmas; nor does Congress possess the authority to pass a law that would overrule the Court when the latter speaks on issues of constitutionality, even if the matter were so obvious to Congress that it would have unanimously voted against the ruling of the Court.

Clearly, the ability of the Court to craft a binding opinion on any subject that no one else could overturn is wholly inconsistent with the system of checks and balances the Framers crafted.  In fact, in the same 1820 letter to Jarvis, Jefferson observed, “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”  Yet this is the situation in which we find ourselves today with the Supreme Court, both in the various states and within the federal government.

So how do we rectify this unchecked runaway judiciary?

Recognizing a similar threat to its democracy, Canada instituted Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in 1982 to allow for a legislative override.  Under this provision, if a Canadian legislative body should find the opinion of the court inconsistent with the views of the electorate, the legislature could override or nullify the court’s ruling.  And Canada is not alone in its possession of such a provision.  Australia, Israel, and England, among other great democracies, allow their respective legislatures to override even the highest rulings of their courts.  The reason for this is self-explanatory: no one in a republic ought to have plenary authority on practically any policy matter affecting the country, much less on ones defining the nature its foundational document.  Doing so would not only mean subjecting that society to the despotic rule of one branch of government, but even more importantly, it would mean relinquishing control of the very fabric and ownership of its constitution to that group.

Recognizing this flaw in our national Constitution, I have crafted a proposed amendment that would permanently address this problem.  It reads:

Any law, resolution, or other legislative act declared void by the Supreme Court of the United States or any District Court of Appeal may be deemed active and operational, notwithstanding the court’s ruling, if agreed to by Congress pursuant to a joint resolution adopted by a sixty percent vote of each chamber within five years after the date that the ruling becomes final.  Such a joint resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.

It is my concerted view that a legislative override provision, if enacted, would curtail activist judges.  Of equal importance, it would allow the people of the United States to take back control of their Constitution.  It would also force the people to engage the legislature in enacting rectifications to current laws that they see as objectionable or flawed, rather than run to the courts to impose their unconvincing will upon Americans.  In short, a legislative override provision to our Constitution would represent the clearest and most effective correction to the unchecked actions of an overzealous activist court.  Indeed, a legislative override provision would place our nation closest to the vision shared by President Washington in his Farewell Address when he said:

If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates.  But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

A legislative override provision would prevent such usurpations from taking place and would, ultimately, save our free government.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Case for the Legislative Override by Nicholas Stephanopoulos University of Chicago Law School

Legislation would allow lawmakers to override judges’ rulings

representative julio gonzalezABOUT FLORIDA REPRESENTATIVE DR. JULIO GONZALEZ:

Dr. Julio Gonzalez is an orthopedic surgeon and lawyer living in Venice, Florida.  He is the author of The Federalist Pages and serves in the Florida House of Representatives in District 74.  Dr. Gonzalez may be reached through www.thefederalistpages.com. Representative Gonzales is former member of the United States Navy Reserve, as part of the United States Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program. He has made two deployments: Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf during conflicts in Yugoslavia, Gulf Storm, and Somalia. He attended the University of Miami School of Medicine, M.D., 1990; Navy’s Flight Surgery School in Pensacola, Florida, Aviation Medicine, earned wings, 1992; University of Florida’s University Medical Center, Jacksonville, Florida, 1995-2000; Stetson University College of Law, J.D., 2013.