UN ‘Green Climate’ Program Is a Slush Fund for Dictators by Marian L. Tupy

Wherever you stand on the subject of global warming, pay close attention to one under-reported aspect of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference or Paris Agreement. I am referring to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which is a financial mechanism intended “to assist developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change.”

According to the current estimates, developed countries will be obliged to contribute up to $450 billion a year by 2020 to the GCF, which will then “redistribute” the money to developing countries allegedly suffering from the effects of global warming.

Lo and behold, Zimbabwe’s government-run daily “newspaper” The Herald reported that “Southern Africa is already counting the costs of climate change-linked catastrophes… In Zimbabwe, which has seen a succession of droughts since 2012, a fifth of the population is facing hunger… Feeding them will cost $1.5 billion or 11 percent of … the Gross Domestic Product.”

No doubt Robert Mugabe, the 91-year-old dictator who has ruled Zimbabwe since 1980, is salivating at the prospect of some global warming cash. Beginning in 2000, Mugabe started to expropriate privately-held agricultural land. The result of what is euphemistically called “land reform” was a monumental fall in productivity and the second highest bout of hyperinflation in recorded history.

Some three million of Zimbabwe’s smartest people, including tens of thousands of doctors and lawyers, have left the country. Most of those who have remained behind are subsistence farmers with very little wealth. There is, in other words, very little loot left for the government to steal.

Thankfully for the Zimbabwean dictator, there are plenty of gullible Westerners willing to believe that the frighteningly vile, comically incompetent government isn’t at the root of Zimbabwe’s food shortages, but that global warming is to blame.

Of course, this is pure nonsense. Botswana and Zimbabwe share a border and their climate and natural resources are exceptionally similar. Yet, since 2004, food production has increased by 29 percent in Botswana, while declining by 9 percent in Zimbabwe. It is not drought but government policies that make nations starve!

As befits a dictatorship, Zimbabwe is one of the most corrupt places on earth. The notion that GCF funds will be will used for environmental “adaptation and mitigation” is a dangerous fantasy.

Like much foreign aid before it, most of the “green aid” money will likely end up in the pockets of some of the cruelest and most corrupt people on earth. Congress must stand firm and refuse to appropriate any money for the fund.

This post first appeared at Human Progress.

Marian L. TupyMarian L. Tupy

Marian L. Tupy is the editor of HumanProgress.org and a senior policy analyst at the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Prime Minister Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe departing after a state visit to the U.S.

Why a Rock-Ribbed Conservative Like Me Supports Donald Trump 100%

I’m watching the fierce South Carolina primary contest among the six remaining candidates for POTUS and a few things strike me as astounding.

The first is that all the seasoned politicians on stage––Governors Bush and Kasich, Senators Cruz and Rubio––have been relegated to straggler status by the non-politician in the race, billionaire businessman Donald Trump. (Dr. Ben Carson, the other non-politician, is hanging in there but not lighting any fires).

Second is that only Mr. Trump is raising the biggest issues facing our country, among them:

  • Closing our borders, which are being flooded with un-vetted illegal aliens who number, by now, into the millions
  • Bringing both corporations and jobs back to America
  • Fixing our Mt. Kilimanjaro of debt and Mt. Everest of unemployment
  • Strengthening our military

Third is that he is challenging our longtime and ridiculous policy of military intervention for the purpose of nation-building in exchange for…nothing! Why haven’t we taken our enemy’s oil or exacted other prices for the blood we’ve spilled and the honor we’ve spent?

Fourth is that he is saying out loud what most Americans have been thinking and feeling for almost eight years, specifically that as a result of our thunderously ineffective “leadership,” we have utterly failed to destroy ISIS and the other Islamic terrorists who spend every waking hour figuring out how to obliterate America, which they call “the great Satan,” and our staunchest ally, Israel, “the little Satan.”

ISIS has about 50,000 adherents, maybe even 75,000. In one week, the American military could obliterate this murderous sect from the face of the earth. But Barack Obama seems to have a peculiar aversion to fighting the enemies of America, hence the rise of this homicidal cult and the escalating threat it poses to our country.

And fifth is the degree to which Mr. Trump is already negotiating with both domestic and foreign leaders. He is letting American politicians know that deals can and will be made but that all of them must benefit America! And he is telling the entire world that the vacation that overseas leaders have had from true American leadership will be over the very second he enters the Oval Office.

All the while, Mr. Trump’s competitors and critics carp and whine about his “bluster,” “naiveté,” and “crudeness.” Wasn’t President Teddy Roosevelt accused of bluster? Wasn’t President Ronald Reagan accused of being naive? Wasn’t the liberals’ hero LBJ accused of crudeness? These are trifling criticisms, as are the accusations that Mr. Trump is “not a true conservative” and that in the past he was, gasp, a liberal. Well, we’ve given the self-described conservatives the entire House and Senate and they’ve failed us, so it’s time to give a born-again conservative a chance!

Once in office, I have full confidence, Mr. Trump would glassify ISIS into oblivion, take the oil they’ve stolen and give it to the families who have been destroyed by these psychotics. He would overturn and replace Obamacare in record time, build an impenetrable wall in record time to keep out the swarms of illegals who, again, Mr. Obama seems fatally attracted to. He would get rid of a half-dozen or more bloated government departments, reduce the tax code to less than 25 pages, and overturn all the Executive Orders Mr. Obama has inflicted on the nation in his eagerness to bypass the U.S. Congress and spit on the U.S. Constitution. Most important, Mr. Trump would immediately build up our military and promptly reverse the preposterous, Obama-dictated Rules of Engagement (i.e., don’t shoot unless the other guy shoots first).

How do I know this? Because I come from a business background where people actually get things done! Where executive decisions are made decisively, political correctness is considered the silly indulgence of people with too much time on their hands, accountability is the order of the day, and outcomes are regularly measured to gauge success––all of which is the polar opposite of how our government works, which is why both Mr. Trump and the American people hold our government and its current leadership in such contempt.

Those who point to Mr. Trump’s business failures purposely fail to mention the personal courage and financial risks it takes to pursue new, bold, entrepreneurial ventures, or the resilience it takes to weather failure, to rebound, and to go on to even greater heights. They also forget that a man who heads an incredibly successful organization with over 20,000 employees, who surrounds himself with talented experts, and who does business in dozens of countries (including Mexico, Canada, Mumbai, Philippines, Dubai, Turkey, Panama, et al) knows better than any of his rivals––in fact, better than any politician––how to run a complex bureaucracy, and a tight ship!

The political criticisms Mr. Trump has been receiving from the establishment wonks at National Review, Rupert-Murdoch’s puppets at Fox News, the hysterical and frenzied Republican National Committee, and leftists all over the place, are from people who operate in the rarefied and self-congratulatory realms of academia, the media, and of course Washington, D.C.–– including the politicians who go out for drinks every night with the lobbyists they depend on to support their reelection campaigns and pay them enough to live quite richly in retirement. In common parlance, they’re known as whores!

That same American public, through their earnest efforts, managed to elect a Republican-controlled Senate and House in the 2014 midterms, only to realize that the people they elected have caved in to every Marxist initiative of the Saul-Alinsky-driven regime in power. We’ll never know to what degree threats, intimidation, and bribes played in this craven capitulation, but Americans finally understand they’ve been betrayed––hence the overwhelming support for a candidate who is absolutely impervious to bribes, threats, and intimidation.

TRAITS

There are certain qualities I’m looking for in the next president of the United States, which I can sum up in the acronym TRAITS.

Track Record

I want the next POTUS to have an impressive track record of accomplishment, not simply a laundry list of rosy promises. Now that Mr. Trump has effectively quashed the rest of the competition and is ahead by double digits in the South Carolina primary contest to be held on Saturday, February 20th, he may just run the table. Unlike everyone else in the race, he has run a gigantic corporation with immense success, a business that has required him to deal with titanic problems.

As Steve Cuozzo has written in the New York Post, long before The Donald considered running for president, he had already helped save New York City by being “New York’s most important and bravest real-estate developer.”

And Mr. Trump’s daughter Ivanka remarked recently to Breitbart, “From day one, my father set the agenda for what the whole party is talking about.”

That is called Leadership!

I trust that Mr. Trump will come into office on Day One with the world’s biggest broom!

Appearance

I remember watching the JFK-Nixon debates in the presidential contest of 1960. It was the first presidential debate of the fledgling TV era and it had a profound effect on the entire country.

Previous televised hearings about organized crime were held by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) in 1950 (the year my family actually bought our first TV), and about the infiltration of Communists into our government and military (sound familiar?) held by Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-WI) in 1954.

JFK was a dashing and articulate Harvard graduate, and Nixon a sort of awkward, looking-for-the-right-word graduate of Whittier College, whose wife Pat was slim, blond and beautiful, as were his two young daughters. But who on earth could compete with Jackie, the breathy, willowy, gorgeous 30-year-old who had graduated from the tony Miss Porter’s School, Vassar College, and the Sorbonne, and had two adorable babies?

All the glamour of the Kennedys was featured in print by besotted newspaper editors across the country, and blared on TV by leftist anchors at the three networks that existed at the time: CBS, NBC, ABC. All of them, of course objectively, touted the always-intriguing ingredients of youth, glamour, sexiness, romance, scandal, and wealth of the “Camelot” couple. And guess who won the presidency?

However, it turned out that Kennedy, who had been in the Senate for seven years––longer than Obama, Cruz, or Rubio––was not as equipped as his rival Nixon would have been to deal with the Bay of Pigs invasion in April, 1961, which strengthened the position of the Communist Fidel Castro’s leadership and his relationship with USSR, and the disastrous Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, which was the closest the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia came to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war.

In that era, Kennedy’s appearance proved to be just that, appearance.

Appearances still matter and certainly Mr. Trump and his family are amazingly glamorous, appealing, photogenic and wealthy. And his worldly business experience supersedes and eclipses that of his rivals by light years. Also, the billionaire mogul looks presidential! He’s big, like America. He’s bold, like our Founders. And he’s masculine, not one of the sissified, metro-sexual men of today who have been cowed into tiptoeing through the tulips of political correctness, too afraid to say what they think for fear of offending the perpetually aggrieved, oh-so-sensitive, hothouse-flower special-interest groups among us.

Who can forget when right out of the gate, Mr. Trump said he would close the borders and ship all the illegal aliens back to where they came from, including anchor babies? When a self-important reporter told him that the “anchor baby” term was offensive, Mr. Trump said, “That’s what I say, anchor babies.” Slam dunk.

That is called Leadership!

Ideas

Barack Obama came into office intent on turning our country into his childlike utopian version of social-justice paradise, the better to cut down to size what he and his far-left cronies believe is the big, bad colonialist power known as the United States of America.

Using the Cloward-Piven strategy, outlined in 1966, to bankrupt the country through gargantuan expenditures, Obama increased welfare costs (through the importation of millions of illegal aliens), increased our debt to $19-going-on-$20-trillion, and financed a great number of phony-baloney schemes like Solyndra, which received a $536 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009 and then went broke in 2011. Ever wonder into whose now-bulging pockets all those millions went?

In contrast, Mr. Trump came on the scene and immediately said he would stop the tsunami of illegal aliens crossing our border by building a fence that Mexico would pay for! He then cited the Muslim jihadists and their carnage in San Bernardino and said he would immediately suspend all Muslims coming into this country until the U.S. Congress figured out what was going on.

That is called Leadership!

True Patriot

A Gallup poll of February 7th indicates quite persuasively that America is overwhelmingly conservative. The poll, wrote Bruce Walker in the American Thinker, reported that the number of states “in which conservatives outnumber liberals has been as low as 47 states and as high as 50 states. This ought to be a very big story, but Gallup, like nearly every other polling organization, tilts left ideologically.”

That’s exactly what people and pundits say about Mr. Trump, that he tilts left ideologically. So how can a rock-ribbed conservative like me possibly support him?

Simple! I gave birth to my first child when I was 18. Right there and then, practically when I was still lying on the delivery room table, I knew what my job was. It was not to give my beautiful little boy the most nutritious meals or the best education or a fancy home or the shiniest tricycle. It was to keep him safe! Without safety, everything else is moot. In fact, more than moot, non-existent! If you’re not safe, nothing else matters.

And here comes Mr. Trump, a non-politician, who gets it, who deeply understands that if we don’t close our borders and continue to let un-vetted aliens into our country, we are de facto not safe!

And how is the safety of our country secured? Only through the overwhelming strength of our military and local and national law enforcement agencies, which the current occupant of the Oval Office has systematically tried to decimate, right up to this month, when he issued an order––in keeping with his fetish about the hoax of global warming––that no military action can be taken without first assuring that no harm comes to the environment. Hard to believe, but true.

To compound the stupidity of this policy, consider that former CIA director, Michael Morrell recently admitted that concerns about contaminating the environment have prevented the White House from bombing oil wells that finance the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which Barack Obama calls ISIL, the “L” standing for Levant, an area that includes Israel. Translated: Obama––as we know by now–– considers Israel the enemy!

Can you imagine a President Trump not bombing our enemies because of a few trees? As my fellow New Yorkers would say, gimme a break!

STRENGTH

Before he formally announced his candidacy in June 2015, Mr. Trump attended the Iowa Freedom Summit the previous January, where he received a standing ovation when he said that he could “make this country great again.”

He said he believed that “any credible American foreign policy doctrine should be defined by at least seven core principles”:

  1. American interests come first. Always. No apologies.
  2. Maximum firepower and military preparedness.
  3. Only go to war to win.
  4. Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies.
  5. Keep the technological sword razor sharp.
  6. See the unseen. Prepare for threats before they materialize.
  7. Respect and support our present and past warriors.

That is strength…that is Leadership!

Don Fredrick, the creator of The Complete Obama Timeline, says that “the establishment is frightened to death that Trump will win…you can be certain that if an establishment candidate wins in November 2016, America loses.”

Former Navy SEAL and writer Jim O’Neill says that “Trump is a true-blue patriot…” He cites Harlem Pastor James Manning who says that Trump speaks truth to power.  Trump “knows full well that Big Business, Big Media, Big Banking, and Big Government are all in bed together,” O’Neill adds, “and like no other major political figure that I can recall from my lifetime, he calls them on it. His love for the United States is obvious, deep-seated, and true.”

As for me, I’m as conservative as it gets, but Conservatives have failed me and our country. I’m counting on Mr. Trump to fix what’s been broken, to keep our country safe and employed and on the road back to a spectacular recovery!

Donald Trump keeps charging — Ted Cruz keeps denying

Senator Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz (R-TX), a leading candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination, was born on December 22, 1970, at the Foothills General Hospital in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.  His parents were Eleanor Elizabeth (Wilson) Cruz, a U.S. citizen, born in Wilmington, Delaware, and Rafael Bienvenido Cruz, a native of Matanzas, Cuba.

Cruz’s Canadian birth certificate, first uncovered and released by the Dallas Morning News on August 18, 2013, nearly eight months after he was sworn in as the junior senator from Texas, shows that his birth was registered with the Division of Vital Statistics in Edmonton, Alberta, on December 31, 1970.  When Ted was three years old his father returned to Texas, leaving his wife and son in Canada.  Several months later the parents reunited and the Cruzes moved to Houston.

In a February 11, 2016, recap in the Dallas Morning News, questioning whether Cruz is eligible to serve as president of the United States, campaign spokeswoman Catherine Frazier attempted to put the best possible face on the issue.  Ignoring the existence of his Canadian birth certificate, Frazier said, “Senator Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen.  To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship.”

However, Ms. Frazier’s statement is at odds with Canadian law.  When contacted by Dallas Morning News reporter Todd Gillman, spokeswoman Julie LaFortune, of the Canadian Ministry of Health, said, “Generally speaking, under the Citizenship Act of 1947, those born in Canada were automatically (Canadian) citizens at birth… unless their parent was a foreign diplomat.”

So it is clear that, in spite of official “spin” from the Cruz campaign, Ted Cruz was born with Canadian citizenship… which he officially renounced in 2014 when his presidential ambitions reached critical mass.  In spite of being a learned lawyer, Cruz apparently felt that he could, at age 43, miraculously acquire status as a “natural born” U.S. citizen.  It apparently did not occur to him, or to his legal advisors, that it is no more possible for one to gain “natural born” status at any time beyond the instant of birth than it is for a mother of three to regain her virginity later in life.  Either we are “natural born” citizens at birth, or we are not.  It cannot be acquired at a later date in the same manner that one would become a “naturalized” citizen.

What is not clear is whether Ted Cruz has ever acquired U.S. citizenship.  Spokeswoman Frazier insisted that, shortly after his birth, Cruz’s mother registered his birth with the U.S. Consulate in Calgary, and that he was granted a U.S. passport in 1986, at age fifteen.  If true, it would tend to confirm that Cruz’s birth was, in fact, registered with the U.S. Consulate in Canada and that he was recognized as a U.S. citizen at birth.  However, to register a birth at a U.S. Consulate in a foreign country is not quite as simple as Ms. Frazier makes it sound.

According to the U.S. State Department, Bureau of Consular Affairs, the U.S. citizen parent(s) of a child born on foreign soil must obtain a Consular Report of Birth Abroad (CRBA, Form FS-240) at some time prior to the child’s eighteenth birthday if the parent desires to pass on their U.S. citizenship to their offspring.  Published rules of the Bureau read as follows:

“If you determine that the child born abroad qualifies for U.S. citizenship, please follow the instructions below in order to complete the required forms, prepare the necessary documents, and make an appointment at the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal.  All applicants will need to provide the following forms and documents:    

  • Completed Form DS-2029 (50KB PDF). Please complete the form, but do NOT sign.
  • Completed Application for a Social Security Number (Form SS-5-FS).
  • Child’s original civil birth certificate.                  
  • Proof of parent’s or parents’ U.S. citizenship (i.e. U.S. passport, Certificate of Naturalization and Citizenship, Consular Report of Birth Abroad, etc.).
  • Proof of identity of parents and child (i.e. passports, regardless of nationality).
  • Parents’ original civil marriage certificate.
  • Termination of any previous marriages of either parent (i.e. divorce decree, death certificate, etc.) if applicable.
  • Fee of US$100 payable in cash (U.S. or Canadian), or Visa, Mastercard.
  • If only one parent is a U.S. citizen, evidence of his/her physical presence in the United States sufficient to transmit citizenship to the child (as indicated in http://canada.usembassy.gov/consular_services/birth-abroad.html).
  • Make an appointment online before you show up at the Consulate.
  • All children must appear in person with the parent signing.

Please bring a return Canada Post Express Post envelope with you to your appointment so that we can mail your Consular Report of Birth Abroad to you when it is ready.  Alternatively, you can pick it up two weeks later during our public hours.”

In other words, it is not simply a matter of stopping off at the nearest U.S. Consulate with a newborn infant to announce that you are a U.S. citizen, that the child was born on foreign soil, and that you would like to insure that your American citizenship is passed on by descent to the child in question.

So the question arises, did Ted Cruz’s parents assemble all the necessary documents and then  drive or fly to the office of the U.S. Consulate General in Montreal, a distance of 2,196 miles?  Or did they simply rely on the fact that his mother was a U.S. citizen, assuming that her U.S. citizenship would be automatically passed on to her son?

Everyone, including the top leadership of the Democratic Party, knew as early as the summer of 2008 that Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen and was, therefore, ineligible to serve as president of the United States.  Yet, Democrats were so blinded by their ambition to win back the White House that every one of the 365 Democrat members of the 2008 Electoral College violated their electoral oaths and cast their electoral ballots for Obama.

Now, in early 2016, ten months before the 2016 General Election, the “shoe appears to be on the other foot.”  Millions of conservatives and Republicans, supporters of Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, appear unwilling to even question whether or not these men are eligible to serve in the office they seek.  If they would prefer not to be compared favorably in the historical record with the Obama Kool-Ade drinkers, they should demand that Cruz produce a copy of his CRBA (Form FS-240), proof of his foreign-born U.S. citizenship.

Although Barack Obama has put a tight seal on every personal document relating to his past… from birth through his January 20, 2009 inauguration as president of the United States… we cannot allow a Republican presidential candidate to thumb his nose at the American people and the rule of law in the same manner.  It is only a matter of time before Donald Trump discovers that it is not the place of Ted Cruz’s birth that raises questions about his eligibility.  Rather, it is the citizenship of his parents on the day of his birth that brings his eligibility into question.

It would be a simple matter for a member of the United States Senate to obtain a copy of his own citizenship documentation from the U.S. State Department… if such documentation exists.  So one must ask why Cruz has not produced his CRBA Form FS-240.  Why does he allow the speculation to rage on if he is able to prove conclusively that he became a U.S. citizen at birth?

However, the production of a CRBA Form FS-240 would prove only that he is a “citizen” of the United States, eligible to serve as a governor, a state legislator, a member of Congress, or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Form FS-240 does not, and cannot, establish that Cruz came into the world on December 22, 1970 as a “natural born” U.S. citizen.

It is not clear precisely when Cruz’s father renounced his Cuban citizenship in favor of Canadian citizenship.  However, what is clear is that he did not apply for U.S. citizenship until 2005.  So if it can be shown that his father was not yet a naturalized U.S. citizen on the day he was born, it is clear that he cannot meet the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 standard of a “natural born Citizen” and is, therefore, ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

When the Founders drafted the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they were not concerned that the day would come when a three-year-old Ted Cruz would be uprooted from his Canadian birthplace and transplanted in Houston, Texas, fully committed to the Canadian single-payer healthcare system and other peculiarities of Canadian governance.  What did concern them, greatly, is the possibility that a child such as Ted Cruz, whose father was a supporter of Fidel Castro during the Cuban revolution and who could easily have been a deep-cover Soviet or Cuban agent, could have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the orthodoxy of the international communist conspiracy throughout his childhood and his formative years… the perfect “Manchurian candidate.”

Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution specifies that all members of Congress shall be at least twenty-five years of age and a citizen of the United States for at least ten years when sworn into office.  So the question arises, can Ted Cruz produce a U.S. State Department Consular Report of Birth Abroad?  If not, he may be able to meet the ten year residency requirement, but if he cannot produce documentary proof showing that he is a U.S. citizen, born abroad, then his eligibility to serve in the United States Senate becomes equally questionable.

Iran to Russia: Take $14 Billion and Build us a Modern Army

russia iranThe Debka File reports:

Iran’s Defense Minister Gen. Hossein Dehghan arrived in Moscow this week at the head of a large military delegation and laid before President Vladimir Putin and his Defense Minister Gen. Sergei Shoigu a $14 billion check. Now, make our Revolutionary Guards Corps and regular forces into an up-to-the-minute war machine, he said.

The plan to make over and upgrade Iran’s military was first approved by Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It is to be paid for with funds released by newly lifted sanctions against the Islamic Republic. The ayatollah aspires to rebuild the two branches – the IRGC with 150,000 troops and the regular army of 420,000 – as the most powerful armed force in the Middle East.

The fee on offer to Moscow covers the best-quality arms purchases and the foundation of a wide-ranging military industry for turning out Iran’s requirements of warplanes, tanks and other high-grade systems.

The entire project as presented to Russian leaders is estimated to unfold over 10 years, during which relations between Tehran and Moscow should grow progressively stronger.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: Afshin Norouzi, a criminal in Germany and Japan, a “refugee” in Montreal

Bunny Ranch ‘Sex Workers’ Endorse Hillary Clinton For President – Bill excited!

hookers for hillaryCARSON CITY, Nev. /PRNewswire/ — In advance of this weekend’s Nevada caucuses, prostitutes at Dennis Hof’s world famous “Moonlite Bunny Ranch” legal brothel in Carson City, Nevada are banding together to announce their support of the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.  Following Clinton’s formal announcement last year, the sex workers launched their “Hookers For Hillary” initiative, drafting a four point platform to explain their endorsement:

*Protecting health care reform

Hillary Clinton, as part of her husband’s administration, envisioned health care reform in the 1990s, long before President Obama was able to sign it into law.  The Affordable Health Care Act made health insurance available for the first time ever to the 500 independent contractors employed by Dennis Hof.  With any Republican nominee likely to work for its repeal, the bunnies want to protect the quality health coverage that they now enjoy.

*Foreign policy experience

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton gained invaluable experience negotiating with foreign leaders, and the bunnies can definitely relate to negotiating through a language barrier.  The Bunny Ranch entertains customers from all around the globe, and the girls have great respect for any woman who can take powerful men from oppressive cultures and make them bend to her will.  With her eye on the international landscape, the bunnies are confident that President Hillary Clinton would also avoid a repeat of the Secret Service’s Colombian prostitution scandal by making sure that her detail “buys American.”

*Support for agencies that protect the public’s health

Nevada’s mandatory testing of legal prostitutes for sexually transmitted diseases is a successful example of effective government regulation.  While Republican candidates have questioned the need for agencies like Health and Human Services (HHS) & the Food And Drug Administration (FDA), the bunnies applaud Hillary’s recognition of the fact that responsible government oversight is a key to protecting the public’s health from widespread disease.

*Prevention of a return to supply side economics

Bill Clinton presided over the most prosperous time in Bunny Ranch history, which coincided with a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans, like brothel owner Dennis Hof.  The bunnies recognize that thriving economies are built from the bottom up, where the vast majority of their clients originate.  A return to relying on the disproven theory of trickle down economics would only serve to exclude the vast majority of hard working Bunny Ranch clients from having the discretionary income to enjoy with their favorite bunny.

Hundreds of legal prostitutes that are employed by Hof’s seven legal brothels will be out in force all overNevada this weekend in support of Clinton.

RELATED ARTICLE: Hillary Clinton just can’t win: Democrats need to accept that only Bernie Sanders can defeat the GOP

Super PAC Helping Elect Republicans Supporting a Conservative Clean Energy Agenda

CHARLOTTE, N.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Conservative philanthropist Jay Faison today announced the formation of ClearPath Action, a new independent expenditure-only political action committee being established to help elect Republicans to public office and advance a conservative clean energy policy agenda for GOP lawmakers.  Faison is also the CEO and founder of ClearPath, a private non-profit foundation dedicated to accelerating conservative clean energy policy solutions.

“No one is currently providing enough support to candidates who embrace conservative clean energy principles and feel compelled to talk about clean energy as part of their campaign,” said Faison in announcing the effort.  “We’re forming this committee to make an impact, provide support, and help Republicans this election cycle and in future election cycles.”

“We know that Democrats are using clean energy as a wedge issue and we’re committed to fighting back and going on offense for the GOP,” added Faison.  “We don’t have to agree on climate change to agree that Republicans can support a conservative clean energy platform that provides energy security, creates jobs and boosts our economy, and reduces pollution.”

clearpat actionABOUT CLEARPATH ACTION

ClearPath Action is building a sophisticated campaign infrastructure with plans to help support multiple Republican candidates throughout the country in 2016.

For more information on ClearPath Action, visit www.ClearPathAction.org.

Confirmed: Islamic State Used Mustard Gas to Attack Kurds

Independent experts confirmed that attacks on Kurdish fighters in Iraq last August used mustard gas, in addition to previous attacks in Syria.

The Islamic State used mustard gas in attacks on Kurdish fighters in Iraq last year, Reuters reported it has now been confirmed.

An independent analysis of samples from the battlefield confirmed mustard gas was used in an attack last August in which 35 Kurdish soldiers were poisoned and showed symptoms of the chemical agent. Mustard gas is a chemical weapon first used in World War I, which burns the lungs and eyes.

The analysis was carried out by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The tests confirmed the gas was used by the Islamic State, an unnamed diplomat told the press on condition of anonymity.

The OPCW also found evidence that sarin gas has been used in Syria, although it is unclear in what circumstances.

Confirmation of the attack in Iraq follows proff that the Islamic State used mustard gas in Syria last October.

One diplomat speculated ISIS had captured its chemical weapons from the Syrian regime. “If Syria has indeed given up its chemical weapons to the international community, it is only the part that has been declared to the OPCW and the declaration was obviously incomplete,” the diplomat told Reuters.

Another theory is that ISIS is manufacturing its own mustard gas. “I’m pretty convinced that the mustard IS are using in Iraq is made by them in Mosul,” chemical weapons specialist Hamish de Bretton-Gordon told Reuters. “They have all the precursors at hand from the oil industry and all the experts at hand to do it.”

Watch the original report from August about the attacks:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Will Assad Retake Raqqa and Is It a Good Idea?

You Won’t Believe What’s Happened Since Friday…

Syrian Christian Escapes to Germany; Sees ISIS Tormentor

Three Americans Kidnapped in Baghdad

RECOMMENDED READING
The Psychology of Radicalization and Terrorism

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RADICALIZATION AND TERRORISM

By Willem Koomen and Joop Van Der Pligt

A unique and systematic approach to a vital topic, integrating knowledge from diverse literatures, and using social psychology as a basis for comprehending human behaviour. Essential reading for students and researchers from all disciplines seeking a greater understanding of terrorism and violent political conflict in all its forms.

Buy Now

 

What You Can (and Can’t) Say in Europe Today

The decline of free speech in Europe today pits blasphemy laws and political correctness against freedom of expression.

Chalk Up a Victory for Violent Islamists

The editor of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo announced the magazine will no longer publish cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed. Six months earlier, IslamistA victim of the Charlie Hebdo attack (Photo: © Reuters) A victim of the Charlie Hebdo attack (Photo: © Reuters) gunmen slaughtered 12 people in the magazine’s offices, including the magazine’s editor, senior staff and cartoonists.

The magazine’s most prominent cartoonist, Rénald “Luz” Luzier, said earlier he would no longer draw the Prophet Mohammed since it “no longer interests me.” He quit the magazine altogether.

Denmark Drags Out Its Blasphemy Laws to Prosecute Speech Against Islam

Unlike Norway and Iceland, Denmark decided to not to cancel old laws against blasphemy, despite the fact the European Union published guidelines protecting freedom of religion and belief. The guidelines state the “right to freedom of religion or belief, as enshrined in relevant international standards, does not include the right to have a religion or a belief that is free from criticism or ridicule.”

A year after the February 14-15, 2015 shooting attacks in Copenhagen by Islamists — one at an event called “Art, Blasphemy and Freedom of Expression” — the Danish government convicted and fined Danish citizen Flemming Nielsen, for a November 2013 Facebook post critical of Islam.

The Gates of Vienna Investigating “Denigration of Religion”

Geert WildersGeert Wilders Controversial Dutch politician Geert Wilders in under investigation by Austrian authorities for a speech he made in Vienna recently that compared the Quran with Hitler’s Mein Kampf and suggesting the former be banned as is the later.

Wilders, whose party is has been at the top or nearly at the top of the polls in Netherlands for many years, made the comments in the context of arguing that members of parliaments of a nation that are accepting immigrants should have a say in the immigration policies.

In 2007, Wilders was acquitted of an accusation of hate speech for remarks he made that were critical of Islam.

 A “Grossly Offensive Message”

James-McConnell-InsideIn Ireland, evangelical Pastor James McConnell, 78, is being prosecuted for a sermon he gave Pastor James McConnell criticizing Islam. McConnell has been charged on two counts: improper use of a public electronic communications network (the sermon was live-streamed on the internet) and causing a grossly offensive message to be sent by means of a public electronic communications network.

His lawyers have argued the sermon was legal under the statues of freedom of expression. The judge declined to throw the case out of court saying that he was not convinced there were not any circumstances under which the pastor could be found guilty.

Sharia Patrol? Germany Gov’t Says It’s “Halal

A German court decided that nine Salafist Muslims who were arrested in Germany for setting up asharia patrol will not be prosecuted. The group wasThe sharia patrol of WuppertalThe sharia patrol of Wuppertal patrolling the streets of Wuppertal in western Germany telling passersby that the area was a “Sharia-Controlled Zone,” which meant alcohol, drugs, gambling, music and concerts, pornography and prostitution were prohibited. Despite the fact that the group was dressed in in bright orange vests labelled “Sharia Patrol” and intimidating the public, the court announced that the group had not violated any German law.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The ISIS Genocide: While America Waits, Europe Acts

Hezbollah Cell Arrested for Selling Cocaine to Buy Arms

Europe’s Climate of Denial: Sexual Assaults and Vigilante Groups

Leading European Police Officer Warns of Fresh Terror Attacks

Weaving a Stronger Sunni Axis

By Gallia Lindenstrauss and Yoel Guzansky:

Gallia LindenstraussYoel Guzansky

Saudi Arabia’s declared objective, driven in part by sectarian fervor, is to stop Iran’s growing influence in the region. To those in charge of making the necessary adjustments to Saudi Arabia’s security and foreign policy in light of regional developments, Turkey is a key player. From Riyadh’s perspective, Turkey is a Sunni regional power that has not realized its potential because it has failed to adopt a more aggressive policy toward Iran. For Turkey, Russia’s military involvement in Syria and the crisis in Turkish-Russian relations following the downing of the Russian fighter jet prompted an adjustment of Ankara’s foreign policy. More specifically, these developments, as well as Ankara’s  diplomatic isolation in the region, have accelerated Turkey’s drive toward a closer alignment with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. Should Saudi Arabia succeed in leveraging the economic assistance it provides to Egypt and mediate effectively between Cairo and Ankara, this could lead to stronger relations between Turkey and other Gulf states, and thereby help weave a stronger Sunni front in the region.

Topics:

Gulf States, Turkey

The nuclear deal signed between Iran and the P5+1 and the initial lifting of the economic sanctions on Iran in January 2016 were formative events for Saudi Arabia that strengthened the supporters in the kingdom of a proactive policy against Iran. Indeed, Saudi Arabia’s declared objective, driven in part by sectarian fervor, is to stop Iran’s growing influence in the region. To those in charge of making the necessary adjustments to Saudi Arabia’s security and foreign policy in light of regional developments, Turkey is a key player. From Riyadh’s perspective, Turkey is a Sunni regional power that has not realized its potential because it has failed to adopt a more aggressive policy toward Iran. For Turkey, Russia’s military involvement in Syria and the crisis in Turkish-Russian relations following the downing of the Russian fighter jet prompted a adjustment of Ankara’s foreign policy. More specifically, these developments have accelerated Turkey’s drive toward a closer alignment with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states. This process reached new heights with the deployment of Saudi fighter aircraft at the Turkish air base Incirlik (which may expand to the deployment of ground forces as well) – officially as part of the struggle against the Islamic State, but in effect, to signal inter-state unity.

Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu (l) with Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz (r) in Riyadh, January 31, 2016. Photo: AFP / SPA / HO

Since King Salman Bin Abdulaziz ascended the Saudi throne in January 2015, there have been noticeable attempts to forge closer relations between Riyadh and Ankara. Already during President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to Riyadh in December 2015 (which was the Turkish President’s third visit to the kingdom that year), Turkey and Saudi Arabia decided on the establishment of a council for strategic cooperation. Soon after, Saudi Arabia executed Saudi Shiite cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, and for Riyadh, a nation’s reaction to the execution was akin to a loyalty litmus test. Speaking of the execution, Erdogan said it was “an internal [Saudi] legal matter,” and Ankara condemned the subsequent arson at Saudi Arabia’s missions in Tehran and Mashhad, calling the fire-bombings “unacceptable.” Beyond the rhetorical support for Riyadh, Turkey joined the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism, announced in December 2015 by Saudi Arabia, which includes 34 nations – but not Iran. In addition, as part of their attempt to balance Iran’s influence in Iraq, Turkey and Saudi Arabia have exhibited more public support than in the past for the autonomous Kurdish government in northern Iraq; this month Saudi Arabia will opening a consulate in Irbil (Turkey has had a consulate there since 2010). Furthermore, Turkey supported Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen and did not criticize the action’s negative humanitarian repercussions.

Following the late January 2016 visit to Saudi Arabia by Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, who was accompanied by several ministers and the head of the secret service, there was renewed speculation about a possible strengthening of cooperation between the two nations.  Particular emphasis may lie on coordinating positions in the (currently suspended) third round of talks in Geneva on efforts to end the civil war in Syria. It seems that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are frustrated with US policy on Syria, in part because it does not completely rule out Syrian President Bashar al-Assad retaining his position, at least for an interim period, and are trying to use one another to change this policy. Pressure on the United States has already resulted in some success: the decision that representatives of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), though the dominant element among Syria’s Kurds, would not be among those invited to the Geneva talks. This reflects Turkey’s contention that the PYD is an extension of the PKK, the Kurdish underground operating in Turkey, and therefore unacceptable. Moreover, both Ankara and Riyadh are frustrated by Russia’s military intervention in Syria, not only in that this intervention prolongs Assad’s tenure, but also threatens the opposition forces supported by Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the ability to send supplies and other assistance.

Along with its increased closeness with Riyadh, however, Ankara has called on Saudi Arabia and Iran to return to the diplomatic channel and work on reducing tensions between them, evidence of Turkey’s desire to maintain correct relations with Iran and its reluctance to become overly involved in the Riyadh-Tehran conflict. This is not surprising, given Turkey’s need for  energy imports from Iran, especially natural gas (after Russia, Iran is the second most important provider of gas to Turkey; in 2014, Turkey imported about 18 percent of its natural gas from Iran), and Turkey’s desire to increase the scope of trade with Iran with the lifting of the economic sanctions.

While Turkey’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood and its opposition to President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s regime in Egypt are an obstacle to closer relations with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states, Saudi Arabia itself is at present exhibiting a more pragmatic approach than in the past toward the Muslim Brotherhood. From its point of view, Iran’s expansionism is the greatest threat, leading it to desire a large, cohesive Sunni bloc in the region. Moreover, alongside the parties’ geostrategic considerations, the Gulf states – especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar – are significant investors in the Turkish economy.

For some years now, Turkey has enjoyed closer relations with Qatar; these reached a new peak in December 2015 when the nations announced the construction of a Turkish military base in Qatar for the stationing of some 3,000 troops. Although Turkey has soldiers stationed in northern Iraq, the construction of the Qatari base and the scope of forces to be stationed there set new precedents in terms of a Turkish military presence in the Middle East. Turkey also committed itself to continue military training for Qatar’s army. In addition to this strategic security cooperation, the two enjoy joint economic and energy ventures. Indeed, Turkey would like to increase the amount of liquefied natural gas it buys from Qatar, but the size of its existing facilities makes this problematic.

Turkey is also making efforts to rebuild its relations with the UAE, and in particular to ease the same tensions that existed with Saudi Arabia, namely Ankara’s intense criticism of Sisi and Turkish support for the Muslim Brotherhood and, conversely, the UAE’s support for the toppling of Mohamed Morsi in Egypt in July 2013. Manifestations of these tensions are the standstill in the scope of trade between Turkey and the UAE (compared to the growth in trade between Turkey and the other Gulf states) and the fact that there has been no UAE ambassador appointed to Ankara for a long time, both prima facie evidence of Abu Dhabi’s dissatisfaction with Ankara’s policy. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu recently stated that he intends to visit the UAE soon, apparently in an attempt to turn over a new leaf.

Another reason for Ankara to want to forge closer relations with the Gulf states concerns its diplomatic isolation in the region. Turkey currently has no ambassador in Israel, Egypt, and Syria. Should Saudi Arabia succeed in leveraging the economic assistance it provides to Egypt into mediating between Egypt and Turkey, which would be manifested by the return of the ambassadors to Ankara and Cairo, this could lead to stronger relations between Turkey and other Gulf states, and thereby help weave a stronger Sunni front in the region. At the same time, some kind of rapprochement between Ankara and Cairo could also allow Israel to rebuild its own relations with Turkey. Currently, one of the deterrents to a normalization agreement between Israel and Turkey is the Egyptian concern that in the context of concessions Israel would provide Turkey, Ankara would gain a more significant role in Gaza, which would strengthen Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. A stronger Saudi-Egyptian-Turkish bond might mitigate some of that concern.

Download PDFPrint

Related Publications

December 16, 2015 The Islamic State: How Viable Is It?

December 09, 2015 Clash of the Titans? Turkish-Russian Relations on a Slippery Slope

See Something, Say Nothing

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

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

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

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

By 2004, what DHS saw was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump: America’s Champion

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

We need a strong champion of our national security.

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

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

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

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


trump embraces american flagCapitalism Is Freedom; Socialism Is Slavery

By John Hawkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what socialism offers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blacks Are Searching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Rubio Faltered: TEA Party Treason

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Columbus, Ohio Muslim machete man still a mystery

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

So who is he?

Hany-Baransi-of-Israel-now-Ohio

Nazareth restaurant owner Hany Baransi.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Nebraska bill would place financial responsibility on refugee resettlement contractors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s whether we will.

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

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

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

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

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

A nation of laws, not lawyers.

Laws — not judicial decisions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Fight to Replace Scalia Proves Supreme Court Has Become Too Powerful

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

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