U.S. Judge: ‘No Discrimination’ in Muslim Prayer Lawsuit

A group of Muslim factory workers sued their company for religious discrimination after they were fired for demanding prayer breaks.

A group of around 80 Somali Muslim meat packing workers in Nebraska were fired in 2008 when they staged a walkout after negotiations over prayer time breaks broke down. In 2010, a suit was later filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the JBS Swift meatpacking plant alleging religious discrimination.

According to The Grand Island Independent, Union representatives and senior management of the plant attempted to negotiate a settlement in which Muslim employees would be able to take prayer breaks while working at the plant. Options floated included changing meal times so they would align with prayer times.

The factory turned down the request believing it violated a pre-existing agreement about mealtimes which the company had with the union.

A group of employees then staged a walk-out, leading to the factory granting a mass prayer break at sunset.

However, a group of Hispanic non-Muslim employees then staged a walk-out, enraged that the Muslim employees had been granted what they perceived as preferential treatment. In order to stop that strike, the company reneged on its previous agreement with the Muslims.

It was at this point the company warned its employees that the next group of people to strike would be fired.

The next evening, a group of Somali Muslims staged a demonstration in the cafeteria followed by a workout, having been riled by senior management’s perfidy in forsaking its pledge to allow Muslim employees a mass break.

As a result, close to 80 Somali Muslim employees were terminated.

Now, eight years later, a Judge in Omaha has ruled that the termination was not motivated by discrimination.

This case is illustrative in a number of key ways:

Firstly, it shows that the U.S. takes religious discrimination seriously, and companies that do not make efforts to grant reasonable religious requests face legal action.

Secondly, it shows that not every religious request can be worked out. In this case, the judge ruled against the Muslim employees. Although we do not know the details of the case or the specifics of the union agreements, we can see that it’s not always going to work out in favor of the religious person.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, it shows that what one person might see as a reasonable religious request, another might see as unfair preferential treatment.

As America becomes increasingly diverse, these issues will continue to arise. Delicacy and a keen awareness of the laws surrounding religious discrimination are and will continue to be essential skills for employers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Leaked FBI Docs Show 7,700 Terrorist Encounters Last Year

Obama Turns Blind Eye to Iranian Offenses in UN Speech

Clarion’s Role in Exposing ISIS-Linked Imam in Maryland

Clarion’s Ryan Mauro: Rahami’s NJ Mosque Linked to Pro-Caliphate

10 examples of men abusing Target’s dangerous policy

The overwhelming evidence continues to pile up against Target’s policy to allow men into women’s restrooms and dressing rooms it its stores.

Target says, “[W]e welcome transgender team members and guests to use the restroom or fitting room facility that corresponds with their gender identity. …Everyone deserves to feel like they belong.”

This means a man can simply say he “feels like a woman today” and enter the women’s restroom…even if young girls or women are already in there. Target’s policy is exactly how sexual predators get access to their victims. And the proof keeps mounting.

Clearly, Target’s dangerous policy poses a threat to wives and daughters. Over 1.4 million people have pledged to boycott Target stores until protecting women and children is a priority.

Here are 10 examples that show Target should immediately rescind their dangerous policy and keep men out of women’s bathrooms and dressing rooms.

  1. Man wanted for taking photos inside Target changing room
  2. Transgender woman caught filming in Target changing room
  3. Man seen reaching under stall with phone in Target dressing room
  4. ‘Peeping Tom’ reported in Target dressing room
  5. Teen girl reports dressing room peeper at Target
  6. Police Looking for Target Peeper
  7. Target peeping Tom pleads guilty
  8. Man Arrested for Taking Photos of Woman in Target Bathroom
  9. Peeping tom caught filming women in Brentwood Target dressing rooms
  10. ‘Peeping Tom’ took pics of people in Target bathroom

TAKE ACTION

1. Help Target understand the problem. Copy and paste this link (http://bit.ly/2d9KvWV) of 10 examples to Target’s Facebook page.

2. Sign the #BoycottTarget pledge. Encourage family and friends to sign the pledge, too.
3. Share the boycott information on social media and be sure to use #BoycottTarget

If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

RELATED ARTICLES:

It’s Not Fake News: Predators Are Taking Advantage of Target’s Fitting Room Policy

When Transgender Inclusion Moves From Bathrooms to Basketball Courts

George Soros funded ReThink Media pushed ‘Islamophobia’ lies after ISIS San Bernardino slaughter

“ReThink Media, funded in part through NSHR grantee the Security and Rights Collaborative, distributed a set of talking points to organizations working to combat Islamophobia and arranging a series of conference calls to discuss messaging and crisis communications tactics.”

For years I have wondered why every single mainstream media reporter I have ever encountered was completely in the tank for the “Islamophobia” myth, and wholly unconcerned about jihad terrorism. Now we know why: they were bought and paid for. These revelations should bring the whole elite media superstructure tumbling down. It won’t, but every new push brings it closer to collapse.

Soros

“Hacked Memos: George Soros Network Hyped ‘Islamophobia’ After Muslim Terror Attacks,” by Aaron Klein, Breitbart, September 28, 2016:

NEW YORK – In the wake of Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.S. and abroad, grantees of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations mobilized to counter anti-refugee and anti-Muslim immigration sentiment while using the attacks to push gun control and advocate against the surveillance of Muslims in major U.S. cities such as New York.

Hacked Foundations memos reviewed by Breitbart Jerusalem betray the symbiotic relationship between Soros’ grantees and prominent politicians, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in working to push these agendas.

One December 3, 2015 document, titled “Aftermath of ISIS attacks,” outlined a network of grantees that immediately sprung to action pushing specific policy agendas immediately after the December 2, 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California.

“Anticipating a backlash against Muslims, advocates swung into high gear,” the memo relates.

The grantee actions included attacks on those who spoke against immigration from Islamic countries, a push for gun control, and a speech by Attorney General Lynch at the annual dinner of a grantee, Muslim Advocates.

Here are some actions, as cited in the document:

*ReThink Media, funded in part through NSHR grantee the Security and Rights Collaborative, distributed a set of talking points to organizations working to combat Islamophobia and arranging a series of conference calls to discuss messaging and crisis communications tactics.

*Muslim Advocates was set to host a conversation with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on efforts to battle hate speech and anti-Muslim discrimination at its annual dinner in Washington DC.

* Advocates of greater gun control took to Twitter, chiding the parade of politicians who sent “thoughts and prayers” without taking concrete steps to improve public safety. The Center for American Progress convened calls on mass gun violence—one of a number of efforts to follow through on President Obama’s exhortation to revive efforts to enact new controls, such as universal background checks or a ban on assault rifles.

* The National Security Network released a new policy report entitled Mainstreaming Hate: The Far-Right Fringe Origins of Islamophobic and Anti-Refugee Politics in their handling of the Syrian refugee resettlement.

* The Refugee Council USA and some of its members issued calls to action to safeguard the Syrian refugee resettlement program.

After the Lynch event, a second Foundations’ memo boasted, “Appearing at the annual dinner hosted by grantee Muslim Advocates, Attorney General Loretta Lynch vowed that her department would vigorously investigate claims of hate speech that could lead to anti-Muslim violence.”

The first document relates a specific rapid response deployment of Foundations grantees to combat calls for restrictions on the visa waiver program after it was made public that Tashfeen Malik, one of the San Bernardino attackers, passed three background checks by U.S. immigration officials and was granted a K-1 visa to immigrate from Pakistan as the fiance of attacker Syed Rizwan Farook.

The document reveals:

Following the San Bernardino shootings in December by a U.S. citizen and his Pakistani spouse, there were additional proposals to limit the immigration of foreign nationals from specific Muslim countries, including restrictions on the visa waiver program.

US Programs’ Reserve Fund request, already in pipeline since the Syrian refugee crisis erupted last summer, received tentative approval. This request, which includes both c3 and c4 components, will provide communications capacity and advocacy support to refugee groups. It will also bolster immigrant rights groups’ ability to respond to anti-Muslim and anti-refugee rhetoric, which has been prominent in the race for the Republican 2016 presidential nomination.

The issue of refugee resettlement is central to the Open Society Foundations’ domestic aims. As recently reported by Breitbart News, hacked Soros documents state that the billionaire and his foundation helped to successfully press the Obama administration into increasing to 100,000 the total number of refugees taken in by the U.S. annually. The documents reveal that the billionaire personally sent President Obama a letter on the issue of accepting refugees.

Meanwhile, another document, titled, “ISIS Attacks Aftermath” and dated November 17, 2015, lamented that “Tuesday brought a more concerted effort to push back against efforts, fueled by key leaders in Congress and governors in over half the states, to bar Syrian refugees from resettlement in whole swaths of the U.S.”

According to that memo, among the prescriptions from grantees was:

Cities United for Immigration Action, a coalition of nearly 100 mayors, municipalities and counties organized by New York City’s Bill de Blasio, sought to counter the wave of governors opposed to allowing in Syrian refugees with a message of welcome and inclusion. “We should not close our borders to any group of people fleeing the atrocities and horrors of terrorism,” said Mayor de Blasio.

Yet another document listing grantee response to Islamic State attacks, dated January 7, 2016, addressed grantee opposition activism to the domestic surveillance of Muslims. The actions, the document states, included a lawsuit “contesting the NYPD’s surveillance of Muslims in New Jersey, brought by grantees Muslim Advocates and the Center for Constitutional Rights.”

RELATED ARTICLE: French Jews targeted by Muslims, flock to Israel

Men who took NYC Muslim’s unexploded bomb out of suitcase were ‘Egyptian tourists’

“The NYPD insists they are being sought only for questioning, and officials said Wednesday the men are considered witnesses, not suspects.”

What a coincidence! Two men from an overwhelmingly Muslim country just happen to discover — totally by accident! — a bomb left on a New York City street by an Islamic jihadist. They just happen — what a coincidence! — to remove the bomb from the bag and leave with the bag, almost as if they were dropping the bomb at its intended explosion point. And then — what a coincidence! — they have left the country and can’t serve as “witnesses.”

two-suspects74

The New York City Police Department and FBI said they are seeking these two men wanted for questioning in regards to the Chelsea bombing on Saturday night, Sept. 17, 2016. Photo Credit: NYPD

“Two men who took unexploded bomb out of suitcase identified,” by Jamie Schram and Chris Perez, New York Post, September 28, 2016:

The two men who found the unexploded pressure cooker bomb in Chelsea are reportedly believed to be Egyptian tourists who have since returned to their homeland.

Authorities had been trying to track them down since they were caught on surveillance video on West 27th Street removing the device from a duffel bag and then leaving with the bag on Sept. 17.

Law-enforcement sources told The Post that investigators had identified the pair, but wouldn’t release their names.

The men are believed to be employees of an Egyptian airline, according to ABC News.

The NYPD insists they are being sought only for questioning, and officials said Wednesday the men are considered witnesses, not suspects.

According to USA Today, both had failed to make themselves known to authorities after the FBI released a formal alert Sept. 21 — four days after Ahmad Khan Rahami allegedly detonated a bomb on West 23rd Street, injuring 31 people….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Swedish journalist calls opponents of Muslim migrant influx “human brown rats,” calls for them to be exterminated

Denmark: Muslim migrant may be expelled for praising Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Ahmad Khan Rahami, 28, who was taken into custody after a shootout with police in Linden, N.J., Monday morning, Sept. 19, 2016. Rahami is accused in the September 17th explosion in Manhattan’s Chelsea section, of the City of New York. Photo Credit: UCPO; AP / Craig Ruttle

Video: The Human Cost of Denying the Islamic Motivation of Terrorists

On September 24, 2016, I addressed the Young America’s Foundation’s 38th annual National Conservative Student Conference.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama: “There’s no religious rationale that would justify in any way any of the things” jihad terrorists do

Swedish journalist calls opponents of Muslim migrant influx “human brown rats,” calls for them to be exterminated

Expert Makes Presidential Prediction Based on Hair — Trump/Pence Dominate

dr-william-yates

Dr. William Yates

CHICAGO, IL /PRNewswire/ — Dr. William Yates, author of Hair Matters and a national leader in hair restoration, announced research results about the correlation between successful presidential candidates and the oval office.  Since the 1960’s, when television became a huge part of the political campaign process, a candidate’s appearance and hairline started to play a significant role in voter’s decision making.

For an excerpt on Dr. Yates’ chapter, “Of Politics and Presidents,” click here.

“Studies show that framing of the face is a subconscious trigger that portrays the perception of superior strength, youthfulness, vitality and decisiveness, all qualities Americans look for in their Commander-in-Chief,” Yates said.  “It’s not about the most hair or the best styled hair, having hair is as much of a requirement as being 35-years-old and a naturally born citizen,” he added.  The only president that was balding in the last 50 years was Gerald Ford, who assumed office by default.

In 1960, a handsome John F. Kennedy took over well-known rival Richard Nixon and hairline has played an important role in nearly every election contest since. From Carter to Regan and the salt and peppered Bill Clinton to Obama, Americans make hair a requirement for the oval office.  However, according to Yates’ research, there is nothing citizens like more than seeing their president’s hair turn grey while they’re in office representing wisdom and their unrelenting work ethic.

In this year’s republican primary contest, Yates says candidates with thinning hair such as Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee were eliminated by this subconscious phenomenon.  When it comes to hairline wars on the democratic side, Hillary Clinton clearly dominated over Bernie Sanders windblown combover.

In the general election, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both have hair with hairlines that give them framing of the face.  Even though Donald Trump’s hair and his hairstyle have been a frequent source of jokes for late night TV, the fact remains he still has hair and his face is adequately framed.  Givetn two presidential candidates that have adequate framing of the face with near equal popularity, Dr. Yates research says the subliminal evaluation defaults to the Vice Presidential candidates.  While they are close in favorability, between Tim Kaine and Mike Pence, he says the republican dominates in this hairline contest.

Based on the political ticket with the best hair, Yates predicts Donald Trump is poised to be our next President.  Bet you never thought you’d hear “best hair” and “Trump” in the same sentence before.

A Personal Message to my Christian Friends who Hate Trump

I Will Never Follow You Into Battle…

Look, I love my Christian friends who for “ethical” reasons are deciding NOT to vote for Donald Trump, I just will NEVER follow them into battle, any kind of battle anywhere, ever, NEVER.

Once these “proof-texting” buddies allowed their Biblical exegesis to incapacitate their decision making process in a real-world binary context and they conclude that the best action which most honors the God of the Universe (who by-the-way, has to make really tough decisions about every millisecond) is NO action, the “I-just-can’t-morally-vote-for-Trumpers,” forfeit their right to ever lead anyone anywhere.

Yeah, that sounds a bit tough, especially on my friends, but hey, what are friends for if I can’t tell them that, analogously, this is as if they were leading their squad of soldiers behind enemy lines and they came to a fork in the road where one way was certain death and the other was possible death, they froze, stopped, decided to pray about the direction they should go and God (or their fear) told them, don’t go anywhere, in fact, tell your fully-strapped boys that you have chosen to be completely ineffective in providing any leadership in this extremely difficult situation… which, by-the-way, is what leadership is all about!

When so many have lived and died to assure our right to cast a vote that has electoral meaning, not some sort of spiritual protest and when we live in a political system that requires your participation to function in a moral way and you freeze at the point of need, really, how can you expect anyone ever to follow your lead anywhere ever?

Oh, and if I read the Bible correctly and history, it seems that your Boss, the Big Guy, the Grand Pu-bah Himself actually voted for some pretty whacked out dudes as leaders at unique times and many of them would up becoming heroes of the Faith.

I dunno know, maybe that’s something to think about?

mike-huckabee-quote-on-trump

How To Succeed In The Wind Energy Fight

I was asked to speak as a NY town board meeting this week. They were quite interested in how to best protect their community from the threat of a proposed wind project. This is a condensed version of what I said…

Since an industrial wind project is something you may have to live with for 20± years, it seems wise to carefully, objectively, and thoroughly investigate this matter, ahead of time

After working with 100± communities throughout the US, my conclusion is that your absolute best and first line of defense, is a well-written, protective set of wind energy regulations.

The focus of these regulations should be to protect the health, safety and welfare of the community.

These regulations can be in a stand-alone law, or part of a more comprehensive zoning document. (Where they appear is significantly less important than their content.)

Note that writing these regulations is not about excluding wind energy development — but rather it’s about protecting the citizens, small businesses, the economy, the military, and the ecosystems of your community.

So, how do you go about creating proper wind energy regulations? Well, you have two very different choices…

1 – Option One is to figure out what needs to be done, on your own. 

Since this is an extremely complex technical matter (with wide-spread ramifications), you’ll need to find the following local people: physicist, electrical engineer, civil engineer, acoustical engineer, physician, financial PhD, hydro-geologist, ecologist, bat expert, ornithologist, EMF expert, real estate appraiser, and last but not least, a technically competent lawyer. That would be your team.

In addition, each of those local people need: 

a) to have an interest in this matter, 

b) to be supportive of citizen rights, and 

c) to have the time available to assist the community. 

After you’ve collected these experts (that meet those three qualifications), make sure to also allow for at least a year to do research, to have multiple meetings, etc., etc.

The fundamental question is: do you have all those resources in your community, and the time? 

If you are missing any of those experts (or don’t have the time), the wind regulations that result will likely leave you not properly protected, and very vulnerable to a wind project getting built…

2 – Option Two is to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before you.

Many are not be aware of it, but some 250 communities in the US have had to deal with industrial wind energy. Every case is different, but a few were fortunate enough to have the necessary cross-section of experts living nearby. Some were proactive, so they had the luxury and time to do more research. Etc.

In any case, in every one of the 250± other communities, there are lessons to be learned — both what to do, and what not to do. One of my beliefs is that it rarely makes sense to reinvent the wheel — and particularly not in a complex technical matter like industrial wind energy.

That’s the point of my free citizen advocacy service, and my website (WiseEnergy.org), and my monthly Newsletter (which now has some 10,000 readers). All of these are intended to sort out, and then pass on to you, the best ideas out there. 

As we announced several months ago, to help those who want to go the Option Two route, we are advocating a model local wind law. (The explanation and supporting data behind it is found on the Key Documents page of our website.)

When all is said and done, it’s your community — so it’s your call how to deal with any proposed wind project. 

We’ve simply tried to make it easier to be successful in dealing with this extraordinary challenge — by giving you the Science perspective, and by sharing with you some of the wind energy experiences of numerous other communities.

Let me know any questions you have, or suggestions to improve our services by leaving a comment below.

Trump Represents Americans Suffering from the Failed Policies of Career Politicians

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, observed that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump “accomplished his main goals last night.  He stood on the debate stage with a career politician who has been in Washington for decades.  He voiced the anxiety of American workers who feel as though they are staring into an economic abyss.  And Trump repeatedly pointed out that Hillary Clinton has virtually no accomplishments.

Hillary Clinton was at the center of the chaos that led to the Iranian nuclear deal, deteriorating conditions in theMiddle East, worsening race relations here at home and the gutting of America’s manufacturing base.  Trump reminded voters watching at home that Hillary Clinton has sat in Washington, D.C., like it was a luxurious hot tub, raking in millions of dollars trading off her celebrity, while hard-working Americans suffered.

“Voters who want real change this election will not get it from a career politicians like Hillary Clinton,” said Bauer.

Bauer served all 8 years of the Reagan Administration, as under secretary of education and as President Reagan’s chief domestic policy advisor, later running in the 2000 Republican presidential primaries. TheGuardian called Bauer “one of the leading campaigners in the U.S. on pro-life and pro-traditional family issues.” Bauer is available for satellite interview via a VideoLink ReadyCam studio. To book call VLGuru.com at 617-340-4100 or 571-244-6324.

Learn more at https://www.cwfpac.com.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Donald Trump supporters, from left to right: Susan Bates, Royce Barnes, Sabrina Kim, Maya Brudnay, and Arthur Robertson. (Photographs by Michelle Frankfurter, Ricky Rhodes, and Josh Ritchie)

Paid for by Campaign for Working Families, PAC. www.cwfpac.com, and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Love Him or Hate Him, Donald Trump Has Transformed Politics Forever

As my readers know, I don’t pay much attention to polls. I think they are a total waste of time and have proven to be extremely inaccurate over the past few years. According to polls, Mitt Romney should have been president after the 2012 elections.

Just as the polls have been egregiously wrong in predicting election results, so have most of the pundits in discussing the “Trump Phenomenon.”

Republican pundits attribute Donald Trump’s rise to his out sized personality, but if they really faced facts, they would find the roots of his success in the mirror. The Republican establishment is so out of step with the base of the party and they also seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance—the inability to see what they don’t believe.

The base of the party doesn’t want amnesty for those in the country illegally, they don’t want all these trade deals that hurt American donaldtrump2016workers, and they don’t want us involved in wars all over the world.

Donald Trump comes along advocating a simple platform: no amnesty for illegal immigrants and a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border; trade deals that put Americans first; let other countries protect themselves, unless there is a clear overriding American security interest at state.

These seem like very reasonable positions to me, notwithstanding Trump’s sometimes bombastic rhetoric in expressing his vision for America.

Democratic pundits attribute Trump’s rise to his “racist appeal to low-educated White voters.” In the immortal words of legendary singer Michael McDonald of the Doobie Brothers, “what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away; what seems to be is always better than nothing at all.”

These Democrats have no choice, but to blame Trump’s rise on “racism.” They are terrified of the lack of enthusiasm Blacks are showing for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. According to every economic indicator, Blacks have regressed during Obama’s two terms in the White House and Democrats refuse to blame it on their failed liberal policies; so they fall back on their tried and true—the race card!

I have warned the Republican Party incessantly of this quadrennial exercise by the Democratic Party, but, as usual, Republicans are yet again unprepared.

There are many areas of legitimate criticism one could place at Trump’s feet, but I am amazed that no one is willing to give him credit for a tectonic shift in the body politic that is unheard of for a Republican presidential candidate.

Donald Trump has been roundly criticized for his cynical approach of outreach to the Black community. I, too, have been one of his critics in this regard. Trump is just another example of a Republican trying to do the right thing, but doing it the wrong way.

Trump has single-handedly laid out in stark detail the devastating impact that liberalism has had on the Black community more than any Republican since Richard Nixon. He has mentioned the Black community more than the sum total of all of our presidential candidates combined over the past generation.

He has been roundly ridiculed by the D.C. punditocracy for this, but I challenge anyone to name another Republican in recent memory that has devoted this much time in their speeches to the Black community.

His solutions to some of the pathologies affecting the Black community are: school choice and vouchers; increased access to capital for small businesses; and more funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). This is a pretty good start.

Trump has shifted the conversation from the Republican Party ignoring the Black vote to arguing about how much of the Black vote Trump is going to get.

This is where the tectonic shift in the political landscape has taken place and no one is even talking about it.

In marketing, this is considered the “proof of concept stage”; where one has moved beyond whether you have a viable product to how viable the product is. No one is arguing whether anyone will buy an electric car; the question is now how many will be sold.

Donald Trump’s actions regarding the Black vote have now shifted the conversation from not whether, but how much of the Black vote he will get. This is truly transformational.

If Donald Trump had “real” Black operatives around him who were Republican, he could truly gain a decent amount of support from the Black community; but he, unfortunately has surrounded himself with Blacks who are not up to the task.

Blacks are begging the Republican Party to give them a reason to vote Republican. The door is still cracked just a little for this to happen this cycle, but there must be a more substantive approach to the Black community by Blacks, who have credibility both in the party and in our community.

This has been the missing ingredient. If Donald Trump can correct this in short order, double-digit support from within the Black community is not out of the question.

Leaked FBI Docs Show 7,700 Terrorist Encounters Last Year

Documents obtained by Breitbart-Texas logged 7,712 encounters between law enforcement and “known or suspected terrorists” in the US.

Documents leaked from the FBI’s Terror Screening Center and obtained by Breitbart-Texas show that between July 20, 2015 and July 20, 2016, law-enforcement operatives had 7,712 encounters with known or suspected terrorists. What criteria the FBI use to determine who qualifies as a “known or suspected terrorist” was not obtained along with the documents.

The 10 leaked pages were used in a “Known or Suspected Terrorist (KST) Encounters Briefing” at the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center. The documents were marked “Unclassified/Law Enforcement Sensitive.” Nine of the pages were released by Breitbart-Texas and the tenth was kept back as it contained contact information.

The states with the most encounters were mainly border states: California (879), Texas (585), Florida (569), Illinois (411), Michigan (414) and New York (827).

The documents did not detail the specific ideologies or groups motivating those encountered. They did however go into detail about Arizona, showing that the majority of terrorists or suspected terrorists encountered in Arizona were either Sunni (89) or Shia (56) Muslim extremists. A further 70 were listed as non-specific “Other International Terrorist Groups Or Affiliates,” leaving just 52 listed as “Domestic Terrorism.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama Turns Blind Eye to Iranian Offenses in UN Speech

Clarion’s Role in Exposing ISIS-Linked Imam in Maryland

Clarion’s Ryan Mauro: Rahami’s NJ Mosque Linked to Pro-Caliphate

Clarion on Fox: Clear Intel Failure in NYC/NJ Bombings

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of an FBI SWAT team. (Photo: © Creative Commons)

Defining and Understanding Liberalism

When the term “liberalism” (derived from the Latin word liberalis, meaning “pertaining to a free man”) first emerged in the early 1800s, its hallmarks were a belief in: individual rights (which included civil liberties, political equality, freedom of conscience, and freedom of thought); the rule of law; limited government; private property; and laissez faire economics. Moreover, liberalism favored a pluralistic secular state and opposed all efforts to link religion to the government. It also believed strongly in the idea of progress, but stressed, unlike socialism, that progress should take place by means of orderly, legal procedures rather than by revolutionary upheaval; in other words, liberty could not be separated from the means used to attain it. These would remain the defining characteristics of liberalism throughout the liberal epoch, generally identified as the period of 1815-1914. It was a time of industrial development, unprecedented growth in both population and living standards, expansion of individual liberties and social tolerance, the abolition of slavery and serfdom, a reprieve from major wars, and the waning of political authoritarianism.

The foregoing liberal ideals did not coalesce in a vacuum. Classical liberalism grew out of the 17th-century Age of Reason and the 18th-century Enlightenment. This was a period when:

  • Western culture broke its long-held faith in the presumptive and everlasting authority of the past, and embraced instead the notion that human beings were capable of progressing beyond the knowledge and insights of ancient scholars and writers;
  • skepticism gained unprecedented prestige, making it acceptable to doubt every tenet of conventional wisdom or tradition that could not be readily justified by a valid criterion of truth;
  • man’s willingness to admit his ignorance about things that could not be proved by scientific method, was seen as a proper humility, preferable to feigned certainty;
  • legislators, philosophers and the common man alike endeavored to devise better ways of governing and of treating their fellow citizens;
  • the culture came to believe that “natural” human motivations such as the pursuit of happiness — which eventually would be enshrined in the Declaration of Independence — were every bit as constant and predictable as the natural laws that governed the orbits of the planets;
  • the West came to understand that each person’s knowledge and beliefs were limited to his experiences and surroundings, a realization that promoted tolerance for other cultures, faiths, and worldviews;
  • it was widely believed that a commercial, secular, and religiously diversified state was much to be preferred over a state dominated by the elite of any single faith; and
  • a free-market, laissez faire economy was seen as the system best suited for the creation of wealth.

These views were proposed and advanced by a host of giants in the fields of philosophy, economics, and science — among them Francis Bacon, Rene Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, the Baron de Montesquieu, David Hume, Joseph Butler, Denis Diderot, and Adam Smith.

No figure was more important than Locke, whose observation that all knowledge and ideas arise from human experience paved the way to classical liberalism’s humility about the limits of our knowledge, its respect for freedom of thought and of religion, and its admonition against sudden, revolutionary breaks with established tradition. Locke also identified the vital link between political liberty and private property; indeed, history has since shown that only when a government acknowledges the right of the individual to own private property, does that government understand that there are boundaries to its own power.

When the American colonists issued their Declaration of Independence in 1776, that document was steeped in liberal Lockean themes. Most notably, its assertion of the right of every man to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” echoed Locke’s claim that everyone had a right to defend their “life, health, Liberty, [and] possessions.” The Declaration’s notion that governments should be abolished and replaced if they become abusive of people’s natural rights, is yet another Lockean idea.

1776 also saw the publication of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, the foundational work of free-market economics. Embodied in that book, and in the Declaration of Independence, was a liberalism that was evolving from the proposals of philosophers into the policy of governments — thereby setting the stage for the century-long liberal epoch that would soon commence.

Since the end of that epoch, however, “liberalism” has been gradually transformed from a term denoting Jeffersonian domestic liberty, into a synonym for the welfare state; from a term advocating limited government, to a shill for expansive statism.

Tracing the cause of this semantic shift, the economist Joseph Schumpeter says: “As a supreme, if unintended, compliment, the enemies of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate its label” (i.e.,”liberalism”). In the early 20th century, for instance, the education reformer John Dewey marveled at the achievements of Soviet Bolshevism and urged Americans “to give up much of [their] economic freedom,” to abandon their “individualistic tradition,” and to recognize “the supremacy of public need over private possessions.” And yet Dewey called himself not a Marxist but a liberal — a “new” liberal; similarly, he referred to his ideas not as collectivism but rather as individualism — a “new” individualism.

Over the ensuing years and decades, leftists, progressives, and socialists have routinely championed crusades and ideals bearing ever-less resemblance to classical liberalism, yet they invariably have identified both themselves and their evolving causes as “liberal.” Programs that were in fact leftist and socialist were enacted by legislators and social reformers in the name of “liberalism,” whose reputation as a guardian of human freedom served not only to shield those programs from public criticism, but in fact to win wide public approval of them.

In terms of both semantic usage and governmental policy, “liberalism” today is most widely associated with a single concept: the mixed economy, i.e., a state that is neither completely capitalist (laissez faire) nor entirely socialist (totalitarian). It is a union of conflicting — liberal vs. anti-liberal — elements. As Friedrich Hayek, the great twentieth-century scholar of liberalism, observed, such inconsistencies raise a host of vital questions:

  • If we have the redistribution of wealth, then what of private property?
  • If we enact biased laws to effect economic (or “social”) equality, then what of political equality?
  • If we regard the collective as the essential entity, then what of the primacy of the individual?
  • Precisely what is the mix of the mixed economy?
  • When is it capitalist and when is it socialist?
  • When does it protect property and when does it confiscate it?
  • When does it leave people alone and when does it coerce them?
  • When does it adhere to the ethics of individualism and when does it obey the code of collectivism?

Mixed practices (such as the mixed economy) imply mixed principles, which in turn imply mixed, and therefore irrational, premises. And it is precisely that jumble which constitutes the modern “liberal” welfare state. Its exemplar is the “liberal” who supports laissez faire for social issues but statism for economic issues.

Contemporary “liberalism,” then, is a parody of its predecessor. It is leftism in disguise. Specifically, it is a stalwart champion of:

  • group rights and collective identity, rather than of individual rights and responsibilities (e.g., the racial preference policies known as affirmative action, and the left’s devotion to identity politics generally);
  • the expansion of government rather than its diminution (favoring ever-escalating taxes to fund a bloated welfare state and a government that oversees virtually every aspect of human life) (also a disregard for the separation of powers, as evidenced by the executive and judicial branches usurping the legislative authority of Congress);
  • the redistribution of wealth (through punitive taxes and, again, a mushrooming welfare state) rather than its creation through free markets based on private property; and
  • the circumvention of law rather than the rule of law (as exemplified by the flouting of immigration laws and nondiscrimination laws, or by a preference for judicial activism whereby judges co-opt the powers that rightfully belong to legislators, or by permitting certain individuals to be above the law and its penalties).

With regard to the fourth item listed above, Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell has identified a number of ways in which President Obama has taken steps to impose his own political agendas on the American people, rather than abide by existing law. For example, writes Dr. Sowell:

  • “To have a law [ObamaCare] that can cost an organization millions of dollars a year either apply or not apply, depending on the whim or political interest of the President of the United States, is to make a mockery of the rule of law. How secure is any freedom when there is this kind of arbitrary power in the hands of one man? What does your right of freedom of speech mean if saying something that irritates the Obama administration means that you or your business has to pay huge amounts of money and get hit with all sorts of red tape under ObamaCare that your competitor is exempted from, because your competitor either kept quiet or praised the Obama administration or donated to its reelection campaign?” [NOTE #1: As of November 2012, the Obama administration had issued waivers from Obamacare’s onerous financial burdens to more than 2,000 favored companies and unions.] [NOTE #2: In the summer of 2013, it became widely reported that Obamacare, which did not exempt members of Congress or their staffers from its reach, included a provision that should have cost each member of Congress and each staffer $5,000 to $11,000 per year. Many staffers were threatening to quit their jobs as a result. At that point, Obama got personally involved in working to circumvent the problem. On August 1, 2013, the President announced that taxpayers would cover 75% of those extra costs.]
  • “You do not have a self-governing people when ‘czars’ are created by Executive Orders, so that individuals wielding vast powers equal to, or greater than, the powers of Cabinet members do not have to be vetted and confirmed by the people’s elected representatives in the Senate, as Cabinet members must be.”
  • “You do not have a self-governing people when a so-called ‘consumer protection’ agency is created to be financed by the unelected officials of the Federal Reserve System, which can create its own money out of thin air, instead of being financed by appropriations voted by elected members of Congress who have to justify their priorities and trade-offs to the taxpaying public.”
  • “You do not have a self-governing people when laws passed by the Congress, signed by previous Presidents, and approved by the federal courts, can have the current President waive whatever sections he does not like, and refuse to enforce those sections, despite his oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed. Barack Obama, for example, has refused to carry out sections of the immigration laws that he does not like, unilaterally creating de facto amnesty for those illegal immigrants he has chosen to be exempt from the law.” [NOTE #1: Bloomberg.com notes that in the summer of 2012, “Obama directed immigration agencies not to deport some illegal immigrants who were brought to America as children, and to give them work-authorization permits. In effect, he implemented much of the DREAM Act that Congress has long debated, but never enacted.” In fact, Congress had rejected the measure more than 30 times over the years.] [NOTE #2: In August 2013, President Obama instructed immigration agents to refrain from arresting and deporting illegal immigrant parents or primary providers of minor children.]

Another noteworthy feature of today’s “liberalism” is that, unlike classical liberalism, it is intolerant of opposing viewpoints, favors the promotion of group-think, and interprets as treason any deviation from its own intellectual orthodoxy. We see this phenomenon manifested with particular clarity by self-identified black “liberals” who excoriate black conservatives as “race traitors,” “house slaves,” “Oreos,” and “Uncle Toms.”

ACTION: Tell Congress to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Organization

I had the opportunity to attend a showing of Trevor Loudon’s new documentary film “The Enemies Within” hosted by the Sarasota Patriots.

At the end of the showing Loudon made one thing perfectly clear, that the U.S. Congress must designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

Loudon referred repeatedly to the U.S. House and Senate Bill – Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015. The Bill reads:

Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015

Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) the Muslim Brotherhood has met the criteria for designation as a foreign terrorist organization, and (2) the Department of State should so designate it.

Requires the State Department to report to Congress within 60 days whether the Muslim Brotherhood meets the criteria for foreign terrorist designation and, if not, which criteria have not been met.

Loudon asked everyone in the audience to contact their U.S. Senator and member of the House of Representatives to co-sponsor this important bill.

The Clarion Project prepared an e-mail and will send it to your elected officials. The Clarion Project asks every American to make your voice count! It takes less than a minute. Click here to preview the email the Clarion Project has prepared for those interested in contacting their members of Congress. The Clarion Project email system allows readers to preview and personalize the e-mail prior sending it.

CLICK HERE TO SEND AN EMAIL TO YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

In his documentary Loudon exposes how the Marxists and Islamists have taken control of the political apparatus in our nation to the highest levels and how over 60 legislators and others within our administrative government could not pass a background check due to these ties. Sharia Law is the goal.  This documentary names the names, gives the history and current events.

Islamic saying “First Comes Saturday; then Comes Sunday!” meaning:

“First we kill the Jews; then we kill the Christians”

To learn more visit EnemiesWithinMovie.com

CLICK HERE for “The Enemies Within” schedule of showings.

First official trailer:

Second official trailer:

the_enemies_within_communists_socialists_and_progressives_in_the_u-s-_congressABOUT THE DOCUMENTARY FILM ENEMIES WITHIN

 The Enemies Within maps the socialist takeover and subsequent Marxist/Islamist Alliance within our nation and how these forces are working to subvert America from within.  Goal is Sharia Law and takeover of USA from within.

“The Enemies Within” zooms in on the best-kept secret of modern politics. Almost no one is aware of the fact that fewer than 20,000 U.S. communists, socialists and extreme “progressives” are able to influence the politicians and even write the laws that control the lives of over 300 million Americans.

At least 100 current members of the House of Representatives and 20 members of the U.S. Senate and others within our government could not qualify to obtain a basic security clearance. This documentary names the names. It is shocking to know that many U.S. Congressmen are sympathetically and politically aligned with groups who owe their allegiance to the non-liberty loving countries of Russia, China, Cuba and Venezuela and even Iran and North Korea. See the interviews.

RELATED VIDEO: IPT’s Pete Hoekstra Testimony, “Defining the Enemy: Radical Islamist Terror”

DEPLORABLE: The Smearing of the Middle Class by Pseudo-Intellectuals

Long before Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank claimed to have the “statistics” to prove Hillary Clinton’s assertion that half of Donald Trump supporters are “deplorables,” a liberal outlets that has repeated such slurs — the New York Times — published an article titled “Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated.”

That was back in April 2010, a year after the rise of the “Tea Party movement,” a movement inspired by the “rant” of Rick Santelli in 2009 over Obama’s massive “stimulus” spending on infrastructure (sidewalks that went nowhere), “green energy” (Solyndra), and bribes to governors to participate in the federal takeover of education (Common Core).

The 2010 New York Times poll found that most Tea Party members held views that were typical of the general public. Reporters wrote that their responses to questions “are like the general public’s in many ways.” Most described the amount they paid in taxes as “fair,” most sent their children to public schools, and most believed that Medicare and Social Security are worth the cost. In fact, the poll found that most Tea Party members had higher incomes and were better-educated than the general public.

But they did have three major concerns: “the recent healthcare overhaul, government spending, and a feeling that their opinions are not represented in Washington.”

In other words, these are well-informed middle-class Americans. They are concerned about federalism and spending and believe in representational government.

Such a presentation of the Tea Party was short-lived. The Tea Party was soon transmogrified into an old stereotype: bigoted and uneducated white Southerners.

Their disagreements with Barack Obama’s policies were translated into “racism.”

The journalists had the help of academics, such as those ensconced at the left-wing Berkeley Center for Right-Wing Studies, where the “right-wing” label is applied without distinction to Mussolini and the Tea Party.

In the fall of 2010, the Center hosted a conference and then produced a collection of essays by participants titled: Steep: The Precipitous Rise of the Tea Party. Contributor Charles Postel of San Francisco State University claimed that “’right-wing rage’” leads to a seeking of solutions in the free market, embodies the concerns of older, white Americans, and is a re-emergence of the Cold War’s “apocalyptic fears of communism.”

The pseudo-scholarship of such centers was employed by reporters to cast Tea Party members as irrational and crazed.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on PJ Media.

Donald Trump is ‘in his strongest-ever position’ to win on November 8th

Well, folks, this is getting tight. Donald Trump is in his strongest-ever position in FiveThirtyEight’s polls-plus forecast, which gives him a 46 percent chance of winning the election. Trump’s chances are about the same, 45 percent, according our polls-only forecast, his best standing since it showed him with a 50 percent chance in the midst of his convention bounce.

Our models have been on the move toward Trump for roughly six weeks. But with dozens of polls coming out over the past few days, he’s no longer much of an underdog at all. Hillary Clinton leads narrowly — by 1.5 percentage points — in our projection of the popular vote. But polling weakness in states that Clinton probably needs to win, particularlyColorado and Pennsylvania, makes the Electoral College almost even.

I’m aware that there’s a lot of consternation and/or excitement out there about our forecast. But there’s nothing particularly deep going on here — our numbers are just reflecting what the recent polls are saying. First, here’s a list of the 10 national polls that we’ve added to our database since Saturday. I’ve shown both the current result and — since this is how our model’s trend-line adjustment works — how it compares to the average of other polls conducted by that pollster throughout the year:

POLLSTER NEW POLL AVG. OF PREVIOUS POLLS TREND
ABC News/Washington Post Clinton +2 Clinton +6 Trump +4
CVOTER International Clinton +1 Clinton +1
Monmouth University Clinton +4 Clinton +7 Trump +3
Morning Consult Trump +1 Clinton +4 Trump +5
Quinnipiac University Clinton +1 Clinton +4 Trump +3
RKM Research Clinton +2 Clinton +2
Selzer & Company Trump +2 Clinton +11 Trump +13
SurveyMonkey Clinton +5 Clinton +4 Clinton +1
USC Dornsife/LA Times Trump +4 Trump +1 Trump +3
YouGov Clinton +3 Clinton +3
National polls added since Sept. 24

On average, Clinton is ahead by only 1.3 percentage points in these polls — right where our forecast shows the race. And the trend lines are mostly negative for her, with Clinton polling an average of 2.6 points below the previous editions of the same polls.

Meanwhile, here are the state polls we’ve added since Saturday. The list excludes the latest editions of the Ipsos/Reuters and CVOTER International 50-state tracking polls, which our model uses but assigns a relatively low weight.

STATE POLLSTER NEW POLL AVG. OF PREVIOUS POLLS TREND
Ariz. Data Orbital Trump +2
Colo. CNN Trump +1
Colo. Gravis Marketing Trump +4 Clinton +1 Trump +5
Colo. YouGov Clinton +1 Clinton +1
Fla. Cherry Comm. Clinton +2 Trump +4 Clinton +6
Ga. JMC Enterprises Trump +6 Clinton +7 Trump +13
Ga. Landmark Comm. Trump +4 Trump +1 Trump +3
Iowa Loras College Trump +1 Clinton +13 Trump +14
La. JMC Enterprises Trump +10 Trump +16 Clinton +6
Maine U. of New Hampshire Clinton +4 Clinton +7 Trump +3
Mass. YouGov Clinton +13
Minn. SurveyUSA Clinton +7
Minn. Gravis Marketing Tie
Mo. YouGov Trump +9
N.H. Amer. Research Group Clinton +4 Clinton +5 Trump +1
N.Y. Marist College Clinton +21 Clinton +29 Trump +8
N.C. High Point University Clinton +1
N.C. Gravis Marketing Clinton +1 Trump +1 Clinton +2
Ohio Gravis Marketing Trump +1 Clinton +2 Trump +3
Ohio TargetSmart/Wm. & Mary Clinton +3
Pa. CNN Clinton +1
Pa. Harper Polling Clinton +2 Clinton +5 Trump +3
Pa. Gravis Marketing Clinton +3 Clinton +2 Clinton +1
Pa. Mercyhurst University Clinton +1 Clinton +8 Trump +7
Pa. Muhlenberg College Clinton +2 Clinton +7 Trump +5
Utah Dan Jones & Associates Trump +9 Trump +7 Trump +2
Va. Christopher Newport U. Clinton +6 Clinton +9 Trump +3
Va. YouGov Clinton +8 Clinton +12 Trump +4
W. Va. Just Win Strategies Trump +27
State polls added since Sept. 24

These tell pretty much the same story. On average among this weekend’s polls in what we consider swing states, Clinton leads by only 1.2 percentage points. And the trend has moved in Trump’s direction by an average of 2.9 percentage points. Again, that’s right in line with what our forecast shows.

Unfortunately for Clinton, her state-by-state polls are configured in a way that makes her Electoral College position relatively vulnerable. Particularly problematic for Clinton were the numbers in Colorado, where two of the three new polls this weekend had her trailing Trump. A couple of those pollsters (Gravis Marketing and CNN) have Trump-leaning house effects, but still, it’s a close race there, and Clinton leads by only 1.6 percentage points in our Colorado forecast. Without Colorado in her column, Clinton would need to win a state that she currently appears to trail in, such asNorth Carolina or Florida.

There were also five polls of Pennsylvania that showed Clinton ahead by only 1 to 3 points there. She leads in Pennsylvania by 2.4 percentage points in our forecast.

Not every poll was bad for Clinton: She led fairly comfortably in two new polls of Virginia, although they showed negative trend lines for her. She got relatively good polls in Florida and Ohio. And as with any long list of polls, this one contained a mix of good and not-so-good pollsters. But there was no clear pattern of better pollsters showing better numbers for Clinton, or vice versa. For instance, the single poll that hurt Clinton the most in our forecast was a national survey from Selzer & Co. on behalf of Bloomberg Politics, which showed her trailing Trump by 2 percentage points. Selzer is one of our highest-rated pollsters and had shown strong numbers for Clinton earlier in the cycle.

Recently, FiveThirtyEight has shown better better odds for Trump than other models have, for several reasons. First, our model is generally quicker to update than others, because of its use of the trend-line adjustment. That allows us to make inferences about how the polls are moving in every state, even when they haven’t been polled recently. For instance, the model correctly anticipated significant tightening in Colorado and Pennsylvania, even after we went a long stretch without many new polls there.

A good test of whether a model is too conservative, too aggressive or “just right” is whether it does a good job of matching new polls as they come out in a state. So far in this election, the FiveThirtyEight and Daily Kos Elections model — which also uses a trend-line adjustment — have done a good job of this, while other models sometimes lag behind the trend.

A good, related question is whether polls are mean-reverting. Clinton has generally led Trump by more than the 1 or 2 percentage point lead she has now. Does that mean she’s more likely to gain ground than to lose ground from this point onward?

Our polls-only model makes no assumptions about this, instead taking the polls at face value. Polls-plus does account for mean reversion, but it assumes that polls revert toward a mean established by an index of economic conditions, rather than the long-term average of polls. Because economic conditions project a very close race right now, the polls-plus forecast is about the same as polls-only.

One could argue for reverting polls toward a long-term average instead, as at least one other forecaster (Princeton Election Consortium) does. We’re not totally sold on the empirical case for this, but theoretically it’s perfectly sound: A model could have the race as a dead heat in the event of a hypothetical election held today but nonetheless have Clinton favored onNov. 8.

FiveThirtyEight’s models also generally account for more uncertainty than other models — or at least they do in this election because the presence of a large number of undecided and third-party voters, who contribute to polling volatility. That helps Trump’s odds, since he’s (narrowly) the underdog in our forecast.

Another difference is whether one uses the version of the polls with third-party candidates included, as FiveThirtyEight’s forecasts do. Clinton’s leads are often slightly larger in two-way matchups. But those two-way matchups describe a hypothetical election — in actuality, Libertarian Gary Johnson will be on the ballot in every state, and the Green Party’s Jill Stein will be on the ballot in all but a handful of them. That’s why we prefer the version of the polls that include their names. It’s up to Clinton and Trump to earn those votes and not up to us to make assumptions about how those voters will behave.

So to summarize:

  1. FiveThirtyEight’s models are faster to incorporate new data and identify trends than most others. For the time being, this helps Trump, since he’s been gaining in the polls.
  2. FiveThirtyEight’s models account for more uncertainty than most others. For the time being, this helps Trump, since he’s the underdog — although it potentially also means we give Clinton a better chance of a landslide than other models do.
  3. FiveThirtyEight’s models use the version of the polls that include third-party candidates. For the time being, this helps Trump, since he’s losing less to third-party candidates than Clinton is.

None of these will necessarily help Trump permanently, however. It hasn’t always been the case that third-party candidates so disproportionately hurt Clinton, for instance. And if Clinton gains following the debates, FiveThirtyEight’s models will probably be among the quicker ones to detect it.

For now, however, the polls show a very close race. Clinton leads in the majority of national polls, but not by much, and there are several that have Trump ahead. Likewise, she leads in the narrow majority of swing state polls, but there are many Trump leads in the swing state polls as well, and Clinton does not have clear leads in enough states to win the Electoral College. Therefore, the race is close. This ought to be clear whether you’re looking at relatively simple averages like those at RealClearPolitics or considering more complex methods like FiveThirtyEight’s.

Check out our 2016 election forecasts.