VIDEO: Russian Hacking in 3 Minutes by Stefan Molyneux

/in , , , , , /by

In this video Stefan Molyneux  addresses the issue of Russian hacking in just 3 minuted.

Molyneux states:

Many Democrats believe that Russian hackers targeted the Democratic National Committee and John Podesta, providing private information about Hillary Clinton to Wikileaks which ultimately swung the U.S. Presidential election to Donald Trump. If we accept this theory as true, Stefan Molyneux puts it into the proper perspective and highlights it’s outright absurdity.

RELATED ARTICLE: A Russia collusion story worth pursuing

EDITORS NOTE: Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com

Run, Hide, Perish – Survival Do’s and Don’ts from Across the Pond

/in , , , , /by

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) advises persons at risk of harm from an active shooter to “Run, Hide, Fight” (in that order), recommending “fight” – incapacitating or “attempt[ing] to take the active shooter down” – if all else fails.

In the United Kingdom, police and counter-terrorism authorities like the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the London Metropolitan Police promote a different version for surviving a firearms or weapons attack at home (and recently, abroad). The last step in their “Run, Hide, Tell” directs victims to turn off their cell phones and only call the police once it’s safe to do so.

This is peculiar advice even in a jurisdiction that gives its subjects almost no legal options for arming and defending themselves (here, here, here and here). What if running or hiding aren’t safe or even available alternatives? How will a person in hiding know when it’s safe to call the police? What if law enforcement doesn’t arrive quickly or find the victims in time?

The London Bridge attack last month offers a real-life example of how such violence may unfold. The attack began when terrorists drove their van at high speed into unsuspecting pedestrians on the pavement along the bridge. After mowing down several people, the three van occupants embarked on a stabbing spree through bars and restaurants in the heart of London. News reports confirm that police officers arrived within eight minutes or so of the first call to emergency services and eventually shot dead the three attackers, but not before the assailants had killed eight people and injured 48 others.

In the interim, several individuals fought back. In one restaurant, Roy Larner, armed with just his bare hands and his resolve, fended off all three attackers, a tactic that allowed the other patrons to escape. (Perhaps mindful of the official security directive, Larner’s friends brought him a jogging magazine captioned “Learn to run” to enjoy while recuperating in hospital.) Construction worker Gerard Vowls, who intervened when he saw the terrorist trio stabbing a young woman, described how he “pick[ed] up bottles, threw a chair at them, [bar] stools, [pint] glasses, anything I could get my hands on.” Although his desperate actions didn’t save that young woman, two other women claim his actions enabled them to get safely away.

Even as violent crime rates in England and Wales climb upward – with “double digit” increases in murder, sexual offense, robbery, and knife crimes reported in 2016 – local politicians reacted in horror to the mere suggestion that it was worth examining the possibility of registered firearms licensees using their guns to defend themselves or to assist the police during a terrorist attack.  On the same day that the Devon and Cornwall Police and Crime Commissioner offhandedly commented that this could be something to explore officially – without actually approving or endorsing the notion – the Devon and Cornwall Police released an official statement denouncing the remarks. “Under no circumstances would we want members of the public to arm themselves with firearms… Our message to the public is a simple one: to run, to hide and to tell.”

Interestingly, the statement adds the qualification that British police services “will require an uplift in resources in response to the unprecedented threats we are currently facing.” In much the same vein, earlier this year the then Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, warned that the surge in crime, along with resource constraints, meant law enforcement would be forced to prioritize service delivery, with “rationing” of police responses and officer deployments.

Unfortunately, with no legal recourse to self-defense products, there’s not much except the police to keep ordinary individuals from becoming potential victims of violent crime. “Run, Hide, Tell” is pointless if there’s no one to “tell” and the police are busy dealing with other emergencies.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down DC’s Concealed Carry Restriction

Court to Texas College Professors: Your Irrational Fear of Gun Owners Is Not Legally Addressable

Gun Control Groups: Good at Gloating, Bad at Counting on Advancing National Reciprocity Effort

Commerce Subcommittee Chairman John Culberson Steers Pro-Gun Spending Bill to House Floor

Court to Texas College Professors: Your Irrational Fear of Gun Owners Is Not Legally Addressable

/in , , , /by

Last Thursday, a federal judge in Austin, Texas, dismissed a lawsuit by several professors who sought to block the University of Texas from implementing a state law that provides for the lawful carrying of concealed handguns on campus. The case is Glass v. Paxton.

In a filing with the court, one of the professors claimed that the presence of armed students in their classrooms would impede their “ability to create a daring, intellectually active, mutually supportive, and engaged community of thinkers.” The court, however, noted the plaintiffs did not specify what subject matter or point of view they expected to be suppressed. Instead, the judge wrote, they appeared to claim that they would censor their own opinions for fear that an armed student would harm someone.

Yet the judge stated that the professors’ “subjective fear” that an unnamed, unknown student would be moved to future violence because of a differing opinion was based on “mere conjecture.” The judge accordingly ruled that the plaintiffs had not articulated enough of an injury for the court to have standing to hear the case.  Stripped of its legal jargon, Thursday’s ruling basically states that the professors’ own rank biases against law-abiding concealed carriers does not constitute a legally addressable injury. 

Because the judge ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing, he did not opine on the substance of their novel First and Second Amendment claims. We had discussed the implausibility of those claims at length in a prior article on the case. It’s particularly notable that the learned professors hoped to convince the court that the Second Amendment itself REQUIRES the university to BAN law-abiding students from possessing firearms on campus.

Stripped of its legal jargon, Thursday’s ruling basically states that the professors’ own rank biases against law-abiding concealed carriers does not constitute a legally addressable injury. The UT professors bootstrapped their claims essentially by insisting that their own irrational prejudice of lawful concealed carriers was so acute that it would cause the professors to avoid expressing opinions they themselves believed would be offensive. The court in this case wisely chose not to entertain or dignify this self-delusion.

This makes sense. Campus carry is hardly a new or isolated phenomenon, and there is no evidence (or intuitive force) to support the idea that differences of academic opinions will lead otherwise law-abiding carriers to suddenly become violent toward classmates or instructors. Indeed, as economist and former university instructor John Lott recently reiterated, concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding of Americans. It’s ironic that a group of professors supposedly taking a stand for academic freedom did so with such a paucity of empirical or evidentiary support and on such highly emotional grounds.

Unfortunately for the Constitution and for whatever legitimacy remains in higher education, Thursday’s ruling may not be the end of the case. The plaintiffs could still ask the judge to clarify or reconsider his decision or appeal it to a higher court. Considering their unique legal claims, we don’t expect the professors will be deterred from doing so by the sound legal reasoning of the judgement against them.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Run, Hide, Perish – Survival Do’s and Don’ts from Across the Pond

Gun Control Groups: Good at Gloating, Bad at Counting on Advancing National Reciprocity Effort

Commerce Subcommittee Chairman John Culberson Steers Pro-Gun Spending Bill to House Floor

VIDEO: Who Fights For Black Gun Rights?

/in , , , , /by

The Black Lives Matter movement began as a way to shed light on what they saw as the unjustified killings of black men by police officers. Millions of dollars from liberal organizations and billionaires like George Soros later, they’re attacking the NRA and taking on extreme leftist issues that have nothing to do with the original purpose of #BlackLivesMatter.

So Colion Noir asks them: What are you really fighting for?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Run, Hide, Perish – Survival Do’s and Don’ts from Across the Pond

Court to Texas College Professors: Your Irrational Fear of Gun Owners Is Not Legally Addressable

Gun Control Groups: Good at Gloating, Bad at Counting on Advancing National Reciprocity Effort

Commerce Subcommittee Chairman John Culberson Steers Pro-Gun Spending Bill to House Floor

Huma Abedin Emails Show Clinton Donors Receiving Special Treatment

/in , , , , /by

New Clinton/Abedin Emails Revealed!

Our understanding of the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton’s State Department continues to expand as more of her illicit server’s emails are revealed.

This week we released 448 pages of documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing new incidents of Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, providing special State Department treatment to major donors to the Clinton Foundation and political campaigns.

The heavily redacted documents from Abedin’s non-government account include an email from Hillary Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, to Abedin revealing that he acted as a go between for a Clinton Foundation donor, Richard Park. And they reveal Clinton Foundation executive Doug Band instructing Abedin to “show love” to Clinton donor Andrew Liveris.

The documents included six Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 439 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to the State Department.

The documents are in response to a court order from a May 5, 2015, lawsuit filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) for: “All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-‘state.gov’ email address.”

A number of emails show the free flow of information and requests for favors between Clinton’s State Department and the Clinton Foundation.

In July 2009, in reference to the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue, Clinton Global Initiative head Doug Band told Abedin that she “Need[s] to show love” to Andrew Liveris, the CEO of Dow Chemical. Band also asked for Liveris to be introduced to Hillary, “and have her mention both me and wjc”.  Dow gave between  $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative.  Band also pushes for Clinton to do a favor for Karlheinz Koegel, a major Clinton Foundation contributor, who wanted Hillary Clinton to give the “honor speech” for his media prize to “Merkel.”

The emails reveal that on June 19, 2009, Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, passed a long a letter for Hillary Clinton for Clinton donor Richard Park.  Park donated $100,000 to Bill Clinton as far back as 1993 and is listed by the Clinton Foundation as a $100,000 to $250,000 donor.

The Washington Examiner reported:

In March 2012, Bill Clinton received an invitation to speak at the Kaesong Industrial Complex in North Korea…. Richard Park’s friendship with Tony Rodham earned him a direct line to Hillary Clinton while she served as secretary of state. In January 2013, the Korean businessman sent Rodham an email and asked him to “forward this to your sister.”

On November 14, 2009, Clinton donor Ben Ringel, who has appeared in numerous prior emails asking for favors, emailed Abedin to get help in getting an Iranian woman a visa to come to the United States. He writes: “We need to get her clearance even only temporary to be with her granddaughter.” Abedin forwarded the request to Lauren Jiloty, asking her “Can U help Monday with consular affairs?” Jiloty replies, “Sure. Will look into it.”  Ringel donated between $10,000 and $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.  In May, Band, working through Abedin, attempts to help Canadian concert promoter and Foundationdonor Michael Cohl with the processing of a visa. Abedin passes the request to Monica Hanley, Clinton’s “confidential assistant.”

The emails show that the Clinton Foundation operative Band was involved in personnel matters at the Clinton State Department.  In a May 2009 email exchange between Band and Abedin, a “career post” to East Timor for someone is discussed. Abedin explains to Band that Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s then-chief of staff, was working on the situation “under the radar.”

In August 2009, Band tells Abedin of someone who wants to be the ambassador to Barbados. Abedin replies: “I know, he’s emailed a few times. But she wants to give to someone else.”

The emails also show that Abedin received advice from her mother, Saleha Abedin (a controversialIslamist activist), on whom the Obama administration should appoint as the US Envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.   She notes that she has obtained a recommendation from “Hassan” (NFI), and that she’d reached out to “Ishanoglu”. This is presumably Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, a Turkish academic and the former Secretary-General of the OIC. Ihsanoglu famously called on the West to enact anti-Islamic blasphemy laws.

On Monday, June 8, Clinton emails her aide Lona Valmoro and Abedin asking to attend a cabinet meeting: “I heard on the radio that there is a Cabinet mtg this am. Is there? Can I go? If not, who are you sending?” Valmoro answers: “It is actually not a full cabinet meeting today – those agencies that received recovery money were invited to attend/participate. We were welcome to send a representative though, not sure if we have anyone going.”

Other emails found in Abedin’s unsecure email account appear to show additional instances of the Clinton State Department’s lax approach to protecting national security.

On July 4, 2009, U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Jonathan “Scott” Gration sent Abedin an email that the State Department has classified in part and redacted because the information deals with “foreign governments” and “national defense or foreign policy.” Abedin forwarded Gration’s email to her personal, unsecure email account.  In his email, Gration related his meeting with Libyan president Muammar Qadafi, saying: “I conveyed our appreciation for Libya’s role to improve relations between Chad and Sudan … Leader al-Qadafi promised to continue his nation’s close collaboration with the United States … and is eager to meet you and President Obama.…” Gration would later be fired for, among other things, using personal email accounts to send government information.

A document titled “HRC PRIVATE LINE BLOCK” gives the planned whereabouts for President Obama for Thursday, June 4, 2009: “Attend POTUS Foreign Policy Speech at Cairo University.” In another example of lax concern for security, Valmoro forwarded Clinton’s detailed daily schedule for July 15, 2009, to officers of the Clinton Foundation, including Doug Band and Justin Cooper. Again, on July 26 Valmoro forwarded Hillary’s detailed, sensitive daily schedule to numerous Clinton Foundation officials.

In other examples of lax concern for security, on June 11, there is a reference to testing the “Federal preparedness and response for an international terrorist threat to the United States. [Principal-Level Exercise] will be a scenario-driven discussion for Cabinet Secretaries, agency Directors and Administrators, senior officials in the Executive Office of the President, or their approved representatives.” A document in Abedin’s unsecure email account dated May 2009 is titled “The Secretary’s Phone Call with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang” is marked sensitive but unclassified and fully redacted, as is a document titled “The Secretary’s Phone Call with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.”

I’m not sure how much more evidence of pay for play, classified information mishandling, and influence peddling from Clinton’s email server one would need to show for a serious criminal investigation is required.

More emails to come soon, so stay tuned….

RELATED ARTICLE: A New Clinton Email Emerges In Which Clinton Camp Brags About Killing An Unflattering Story On Uranium One

Trump/Obama Travel Numbers Released

As we continue to monitor the cost to taxpayers of presidential perks, we have received new numbers on President Trump’s travel.

We have obtained records from the U.S. Department of the Air Force in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and a lawsuit for Trump administration travel records.

The new records show new expenses totaling $2,301,527.02. As a result of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, the following records were produced:

  • Melania Trump flew to Mar-a-Lago between February 3-6 on a C-37B military jet at an operating cost of $10,075 per hour for six hours. The total comes to $60,450.
  • Vice President Pence flew Air Force Two 5.58 hours to Houston for the Super Bowl between February 3-6 at an operating cost of $15,994 per hour, for a total of $89,246.52.
  • Melania Trump flew from New York to Washington DC on February 10 to join her husband on Air Force One for the trip to Mar-a-Lago. She departed on February 12 for New York on a C-37A jet for a weekend total of 7.09 hours at $10,075 per hour, bringing the cost to $71,431.75.
  • President Trump flew Air Force One 5.7 hours to Mar-a-Lago between February 17-21 at an operating cost of $142,380 per hour, for a total of $811,566.
  • Melania Trump flew from New York to Mar-a-Lago between February 17-21. One leg she flew 5.63 hours on a C-37B military jet at an operating cost of $10,075 per hour for a total of $56,722.25 and on the other leg she flew 5.57 hours on a C-40B jet at $5,450 per hour for a total of $30,356.50. The grand total is $87,078.75.
  • President Trump flew 4.1 hours on Air Force One to Mar-a-Lago between March 17-19 at $142,380 per hour, for a total of $583,758.

In response to a Judicial Watch FOIA request, the Air Force produced the following record:

  • President Trump entertained Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at Mar-a-Lago between February 10-13 where they played a round of golf. They flew Air Force One 4.2 hours at $142,380 per hour for a total of $597,996.

We previously released documents showing travel expenses of $1,281,420.

We also closely tracked Obama family travel costs throughout his presidency.  In response to a June 19, 2014, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Judicial Watch recently received documents from the Secret Service related to Michelle Obama’s March 2014 trip to China. The total Secret Service expenses adds up to $389,931.71:

$288,662.07 in hotels
$72,701.14 in car rentals
$5,020.52 in cell phone charges
$4,282.65 in rental reproduction equipment
$393.52 in printers and toners
$1,010.63 in cell phone rentals
$199.17 in supplies
$11,266.38 in overtime/per diem pay
$1,265.13 in miscellaneous services by another government agency
$5,130.50 in Air/Rail

Added to the previously released flight costs from the Air Force ($362,523.53) and the total for the trip comes to $752,455.24. Obama family travel cost taxpayers at least $100,104,459.53 during his two terms.

Presidential travel is racking up millions of dollars in expenses paid by taxpayers. The liberal media did not much care about our reporting on President Obama’s abusive travel but now are keenly interested in President Trump’s trips.

The Trump administration should do what the Obama administration did not do – move reforms through to get these expenses under control for this and future presidents.  In the meantime, the bureaucracies should release the travel numbers rather than requiring us to go to court to get accountability for taxpayers.

Media Ignores Virginia Governor’s Role in Green Car Scandal

When we last looked in on Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe he was trying to influence the 2016 presidential election in Hillary Clinton’s favor by abusing his office to restore voting rights for 206,000 convicted felons. As an aside, it’s interesting to note that he assumed criminals would choose to vote for Clinton.

Now we find the Teflon governor looking over his shoulder as some of his shady dealings pursue him. The media has apparently been too busy criticizing Ivanka Trump’s dress to cover this story fully. But our Corruption Chronicles blog has the details.

An electric car company that folded after taking millions of taxpayer dollars was founded by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and former Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, but the mainstream media is ignoring this pertinent fact.

The Mississippi-based company, GreenTech, shut down in January but is back in the spotlight because this week the state’s auditor demanded the firm repay $6.4 million in public funds. Only a small Richmond, Virginia, newspaper prominently reported McAuliffe’s ties to the scandal, stating in the headline that, “Mississippi auditor demands $6.4M repayment from McAuliffe’s former electric car company.”

Most mainstream news outlets ignored the story altogether and a few kept McAuliffe’s name out the minimal coverage. Washington D.C.’s mainstream newspaper went with a lengthy wire service story that matter-of-factly mentions McAuliffe in the very last sentence. “Among former insiders is Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe,” the end of the article states. “He resigned as the firm’s chairman in December 2012 and said he divested his interest.” How convenient! The article omits that, as GreenTech founder, McAuliffe brokered the deal in which the company got millions in public funds by promising to invest $60 million locally and creating hundreds of new full-time jobs. That never happened and instead taxpayers got fleeced. Now Mississippi State Auditor Stacey Pickering is ordering that the money be repaid with interest and investigative costs. The exact figure is $6,360,019.60.

McAuliffe is a renowned Democratic fundraiser who made a fortune with shady investments in a telecommunications giant that went bankrupt. He started his fundraising career in Jimmy Carter’s 1979 reelection campaign and has raised big bucks for Democrats over the years, but not without controversy. McAuliffe was investigated for campaign-finance abuses during the 1996 presidential election and was deposed by the Senate committee investigating the matter. 

In 2002 the Virginia governor was investigated for his role in an unprecedented case of political profiteering for turning a $100,000 investment in telecommunications giant Global Crossings into an $18 million profit. The company later made the fourth-largest bankruptcy filing in history and McAuliffe insisted he only did “political work” for the company’s founder who, incidentally, donated $1 million to Bill Clinton’s Presidential Library.

In 2013, McAuliffe appeared on Judicial Watch’s most corrupt politicians list, and last year Judicial Watch sued the governor on behalf of Virginia voters for signing an executive order to restore voting rights to about 206,000 convicted felons. In court proceedings, Judicial Watch argued that the blanket restoration of rights to felons violates “provisions of the Virginia Constitution mandating that voting rights may only be restored on an individual basis, following a particular, individualized review and a finding of sufficient grounds for restoring such rights.” Plaintiffs alleged that their votes and the lawful votes of other Virginians will be cancelled out or diminished by felons who are not eligible to vote under Virginia’s laws and constitution.

Though his pals in the mainstream media are keeping his name out of the GreenTech scandal, McAuliffe could still be in serious trouble. The Virginia paper that reported his key role in the bankrupt electric car company points this out: “McAuliffe’s office has said the governor has had no involvement with the company since stepping down as its chairman and divesting his financial stake. But the escalating standoff in Mississippi raises the likelihood that the business deal McAuliffe brokered could be headed toward a bitter end in court. Ending his four-year term as governor with a higher national profile and record as an exuberant pitchman for Virginia, GreenTech’s unraveling could dog McAuliffe amid speculation about a 2020 presidential bid.”

Hawaii: Rogue judge once again rules for the Imam, attempts to thwart Trump on refugees

/in , , , , /by

Judge Derrick Watson

This latest was predicted and reported here by Michael Leahy at Breitbart two days ago.

Judge Derrick Watson took advantage of the mess the Supreme Court made in its recent ruling (as Justice Thomas predicted) to once again attempt to stop President Trump from carrying out a simple 120-day moratorium on refugee resettlement in order to analyze the program and determine whether security screening is sufficient.

The Supreme Court literally unconstitutionally legislated when it created a way to go around a Presidentially-determined ceiling as defined by over 3 decades of refugee law and said refugees with a “bona fide relationship” to a family member or to an “entity” could come in over the 50,000 ceiling reached yesterday (here).

BTW, today we have now exceeded the 50,000 ceiling by 168. We are at 50,168 this morning.

Before I give you Politico’s version of the judge’s decision in Hawaii yesterday, let me be clear!

The US State Department under Sec. of State Rex Tillerson must ignore this decision!

(They should have ignored this rogue judge’s earlier decision as well! You should write to the White House and tell Trump to stand against this runaway judiciary!)

One Hawaiian judge deciding for one Imam (and the refugee-rejecting state of Hawaii!) should not be the one to define “bona fide” a wholly new legal term and a new construct for resettlement thanks to the overzealous SCOTUS.  Where the hell is Congress, btw? Writing law is their job!

Here is Politico:

A federal judge in Hawaii ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to allow grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles and other relatives of people in the U.S. to circumvent the travel ban policy, dealing a temporary blow to one of the president’s signature initiatives.

Along with the State of Hawaii, Imam Ismail Elshikh is a plaintiff in the case.

In an order issued Thursday evening local time in Honolulu, Judge Derrick Watson also prohibited the administration from blocking refugees with a commitment from a resettlement agency in the U.S., a move that could revive the flow of refugee admissions this year.

The decision was a victory for opponents of the travel ban, who hoped to broaden the universe of people who could bypass the president’s policy, which temporarily bars travelers from six majority-Muslim nations and suspends the refugee resettlement program.

The Supreme Court issued an order on June 26 that allowed the embattled measure to go into effect, but included the caveat that affected travelers with “bona fide” ties to a person or entity in the U.S. should not be subject to the ban.

[….]

In the realm of refugee resettlement, the administration stood by the contention that a connection to a resettlement agency alone would not meet the criteria to avoid the ban.

[….]

The federal judge added that a refugee with a commitment from a resettlement agency met the standard for a “bona fide” relationship spelled out in the Supreme Court order.

[….]

“It is formal, it is a documented contract, it is binding, it triggers responsibilities and obligations, including compensation, it is issued specific to an individual refugee only when that refugee has been approved for entry by the Department of Homeland Security, and it is issued in the ordinary course, and historically has been for decades,” he wrote. [Don’t let the refugee contractors*** fool you, here we have it, this is about their compensation by you, the American taxpayer!–ed]

“Bona fide does not get any more bona fide than that.”

[….]
On Twitter, an attorney for the plaintiffs, the state of Hawaii and a local imam, celebrated the momentary legal win, which could be met with appeals by the federal government.

Appeals! The Administration better simply ignore this single judge and the Imam!

This post is filed in my ‘Supreme Court’ category, click here for other stories on the hash the Supreme Court has made of refugee law.

***Federal contractors/middlemen/lobbyists/community organizers paid by you to place refugees in your towns and cities.  Because their income is largely dependent on taxpayer dollars based on the number of refugees admitted to the US, the only way for real reform of how the US admits refugees is to remove the contractors from the process.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump puts brakes on Obama immigration plan

Trump favors Christian refugees over Muslims, 50%-38%, says State data

Germany reaping the whirlwind of infectious diseases admitted to the country along with the migrants

VIDEO EXPOSE: Is Hatem Bazian the most dangerous professor in America?

/in , , , , /by

Today we released a damning new exposé on the man behind Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and American Muslims for Palestine (AMP), Professor Hatem Bazian.

Nablus-born Hatem Bazian is the founder of radical organizations Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and American Muslims for Palestine (AMP). He calls for intifada [violent uprising] in the USA, has a ‘project’ to re-write history, blames Jews for both Islamophobia and anti-semitism and spreads anti-semitic conspiracy theories.

Is Hatem Bazian the most dangerous professor in the USA?

REPORT: CanaryMission.org/hatem-bazian/

We expose that Nablus-born Hatem Bazian:

  • Calls for intifada [violent uprising] in the USA
  • Has a ‘project’ to re-write history
  • Blames Jews for both Islamophobia and anti-semitism
  • Spreads anti-Semitic conspiracy theories

Canary Mission, has documented over 1300 students and professors promoting hatred of the USA, Israel and the Jewish people, on North American college campuses. Almost all of them have been influenced by University of California, Berkeley Professor Bazian.

Bazian’s brainchild, SJP, which he started in 2001, has spread his anti-American, anti-Jewish, pro-terrorist rhetoric onto now over 190 North American campuses.
Considering the extent of his influence, the danger has gone largely unnoticed by the general public.

We need your help! Please promote these videos and the report through social media, email, newsletters, to your local media outlets and community organizations. Help us create awareness of Bazian’s agenda.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may help the Canary Mission to continue to expose this dangerous radicalism through giving a generous donation.

Fewer Muslim refugees entering U.S. since President Trump inaugurated

/in , , , , , , /by

UN camp for DR Congolese ‘refugees’

Pew Research Center has done some useful number crunching using the data available to you as well at Wrapsnet.

DR Congo tops the list!

Here are their findings in two simple graphs.  Readers should know that the flood of refugees coming in from the DR Congo are part of a five year plan agreed to during the Obama Administration to clean out the UN camps housing ‘refugees’ from the DR Congo. We reported this news in June 2013, here.

We agreed to take 50,000 over five years!  As of today we have admitted 40,204!

The group contains many women with mental health issues and children (very costly to the US taxpayer). And, if other UN camp clean outs are any indication, we won’t stop at 50,000!

Last fall we showed you where 33,000 from the DR Congo were placed in America. Most from the DR Congo are not Muslims.

From Pew Research:

I have two categories that might be useful to readers wanting to dig in to data. One is entitled ‘refugee statistics’and the other is ‘Where to find information,‘ but I warn you both are huge.  This post is archived in both.

Watch: Morano confronts Gore with ‘Climate Hustle’ DVD in Australia! Gore refuses to accept, departs in SUV

/in , , , /by

MELBOURNE, Australia — Former Vice President Al Gore was confronted by climate skeptic Marc Morano at the EcoCity World Summit in Melbourne Australia on July 13th. Morano presented a DVD copy of his film ‘Climate Hustle’. During the inconvenient encounter, Gore refused to accept the DVD of the film and walked on by to his waiting Lexus RX450h SUV “hybrid.”

Gore’s visit to Australia to promote his new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel”, is coinciding with the Australian premiere of the skeptical film “Climate Hustle,” which screened on July 12th in Melbourne at the Village Roadshow Theater at the State Library of Victoria. Climate Hustle will premiere in Brisbane and Sydney as well. See: Warmists Upset: ‘Notorious Climate Denier Marc Morano Flying to Australia’ For Climate Hustle Screenings

Al Gore’s waiting Lexus SUV at climate summit.

Transcript of Gore’s Inconvenient Encounter With Marc Morano

Morano: “Hi Mr. Gore.”

Gore: “Hey.”

Morano: “Marc Morano, I used to work for Senator James Inhofe.” (Gore shakes hands with Morano)

Gore: “Oh, nice to see you. Yeah. Thank you.”

Morano, holding up DVD: “It’s actually my film, Climate Hustle. Would you take a copy of it, please? No? Thank you.”

Gore walks on by and outside to his waiting Lexus SUV.

Security: “Can I ask how you got access to this area?”

End Video.

This was not the first time Morano and Gore met. They first met in 1992 while Morano was on assignment for Rush Limbaugh, The Television Show. And again in 2007. See: Climate Clash: Gore Rebuffs Morano 37000 feet over South China Sea in 2007 – ‘You all attack me all the time’

December 14, 2007 – 37,000 over South China Sea – Former Vice President Al Gore rebuffed Senator James Inhofe’s spokesman during the return flight from the Bali UN climate conference.

Gore, in front of excited passengers posing with photos, revealed he was not happy with the criticism that he has endured “You all attack me all the time,” an agitated Gore said.

Morano responded, “Yes.  We do.”

After a long stare, Gore refused to have photo taken and walked off. Inhofe has been one of Gore’s harshest critiques. Inhofe’s website mocks Gore for hypocrisy and  maintains a running counter of how many days since Gore has refused to pledge to use no more than the average electricity use. 

The incident occurred at approximately 5:55 ET on Friday December (2 hours into flight)

Flying between Singapore and Manila over the South China Sea.
(Flight CX 784. Or 554mph. 37000 feet)

Climate Hustle Debuts in Australia

The Climate Hustle film will also be shown in Brisbane and Sydney later this week and next week.

July 15– Brisbane, Australia – Sponsored by the Australian Institute for Progress

New Farm Cinema – Doors open at 4:30 PM – Get Brisbane Tickets Here
July 18– Sydney, Australia – Club Five Dock
Doors open at 7:00 PM – Get Sydney Tickets Here

See: Get ready Australia! Climate Hustle Movie, Craig Rucker and Marc Morano in Australia & Warmists Upset: ‘Notorious Climate Denier Marc Morano Flying to Australia’ For Climate Hustle Screenings

Morano: “We are taking a quick hop to Australia to help export the awesomeness of what is currently happening in the U.S. when it comes to climate policy.”

“There is no reason we climate skeptics in the U.S. should not be exporting our good fortune of rejecting the UN Paris pact. Climate skeptics in the U.S. have been grinning ear to ear for months now. We have lots to get done in Australia. At the top of the list is helping to spread a global Clexit — Climate exit from UN Paris Pact,” Morano added.

Craig Rucker said: “CFACT has a lot of fans and followers in Australia who have long wanted us to make a trip. We were beckoned to come and are excited to premiere our film Climate Hustle.” More on Climate Hustle film here: The Reviews Are in! ‘Climate Hustle’ is ‘the most dangerous documentary of year’ – ‘Wickedly effective use of slapstick humor’ – ‘Lays waste to Gore’ – ‘Brutal & Extremely Funny’

Marc Morano and Joanne Nova during Q&A after Melbourne screening on July 12.

Gore praises policies that led to energy blackout

Since arriving in Australia, Gore has praised the blackout plagued state in Australia for “leading the world” in green energy. 

Gore’s new sequel film premiered to bad reviews in January 2017 when it opened on the film festival circuit.

Sampling of Reviews Al Gore’s new sequel:

Warmist review of Gore’s Sequel: ‘Convoluted & diluted’ – Film plays ‘like a social media booster for Mr. Gore’

Vox.com review of Gore’s sequel: ‘Unfortunately, the filmmaking is, alas, not very good…like watching taped lectures’

‘Superhero tragedy disguised as end-times environmental doc’ – Gore ‘sequel is a superhero movie about a sad Al Gore’ – ‘The film doesn’t have an official rating, but I would suggest PG for dad jokes, dated political humor, and PowerPoint slides that belong in a junior-high science class.’

But prominent scientists are on record in Climate Hustle panning Gore’s first film ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’

Prominent Ivy League Geologist Robert Giegengack, who voted for Gore, was ‘appalled’ after viewing his first film in 2006.

VIDEO: Israel Loves Trump, On-The-Street Interviews from Tel Aviv

/in , , , /by

Join me as I talk with Israelis and tourists at one of Israel’s most beautiful beaches in Tel Aviv. We asked:

  • Will there ever be peace between the Israelis and Arabs?
  • Should President Trump move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem?

The answers will surprise some because much of what you will hear would be edited out by the liberal media in America.

Here at The United West we bring you the news of the day unfiltered.

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may help The United West continue bringing unique programming like this video by donating generously. Contact Tom@TheUnitedWest.org for more information.

Coal got knocked out in California, now natural gas is on the ropes…

/in , , , /by

Donald Trump’s election sent shock waves through the American liberal, progressive (code for European Socialists), and global Elite fraternities. Within days of Mr. Trump’s election a concerted, well organized and funded assault began to render Mr. Trump and his administration ineffective, and even impotent to change the Socialist Agenda seductively introduced since Bush, Sr. took the reins from Ronald Reagan. The percolating socialist/Marxist minions of the Democrat Party have boiled over into a spectacle of considerable venomous hatred since the national elections this past November. No longer even maintaining an appearance of civility, the progressives across America are in full speed ahead mode implementing their agenda; which agenda, is not remotely similar to the beliefs and values of the America many of us have known and loved. The State of California is such an example.

Over the past five months, I have been involved with multiple and complicated dimensions intrinsic to the energy industry; not on the technical side, but bringing together elected and appointed officials, as well as First Nation leaders – all with a common purpose: Save the economies, employment, community fabric, and energy production across the western states. The bullseye is the Navajo Generating Station in Page, Arizona. The environmental cabal targeted the largest coal-fired energy producing plant west of the Mississippi for a total shutdown. Upon closure…five additional plants in Arizona, and then across seven western states are targeted for quick shuttering. The mantra is the same from east coast to west; “coal is bad…coal is a severe pollutant…coal is criminal.”

The answer according to whacked-out environmental ideologues is natural gas, and throw in some solar for good measure. Do NOT concern yourself with the falsehoods of such reason and language just do it, and do it now! This is part of the movement to collapse America’s economy and relocate Americans. These well-funded and rabid environmentalists seek elected officials of the same mind-set to process their agenda through legislation and the governmental system. Do NOT confuse me with the facts of true science and double blind studies, simply listen to my rage and see my tears, and then do it!! Shut down the mines, the coal fired energy producing plants, and all other facets of conventional energy production. These same near out-of-control ideologues shout, “We want gas…we want natural gas…throw in some solar and wind power, and enjoy what we have created!”

Well…look at what now has emerged in California. This is not a laughing matter; although, some of the protesters are quite a site. California elected officials are following a socialist/Marxist script in so very many ways running that once magnificent state into the abyss. Shutting down energy production is one more example of the out-of-control, ideologue only focus, and lack of reasoning people who have gotten their hands on the levers of power.

Pray President Trump is successful returning America to her foundational beliefs and principles. Pray he is able to ride the political storms and withstand the character assassination diatribes, and help make America Great Again! The alternative is way too unimaginable, and we were well on our way to the abyss as a nation, as a people.

Coal got knocked out in Calif. Now, gas is on the ropes

Debra Kahn, E&E News reporter

Energywire: Wednesday, July 12, 2017

A wave of regulatory reconsiderations of natural gas-fired power plants in California has renewables advocates cheering.

The state’s grid operator is expected to release a study next month on whether the Puente Power Project, a gas-fired plant planned for the Southern California coast 60 miles west of Los Angeles, might be supplanted by solar panels, energy storage or demand response.

The California Public Utilities Commission approved Southern California Edison’s contract with NRG Energy Inc. to build the 262-megawatt plant in June 2016 as a replacement for a larger plant on the same site. The Puente plant fit into the state’s goal to boost renewables to 50 percent; as a fast-ramping facility, it could smooth out intermittent wind and solar power, which has a tendency to produce choppy resources.

Now, as politicians are considering moving to 100 percent “zero-carbon” resources by 2045 — as a bill being considered this week in the state Legislature would do — regulators are tapping the brakes on Puente and a number of other gas-fired plants planned for the Southern California region.

Since the state has no coal-fired plants and is already planning on shutting down its remaining nuclear plant, natural gas is the next resource in line to be phased out in favor of renewables.

“In general, it’s going to be renewables in, gas out, so you’ve got that sort of long, slow good-night of lots of gas,” said Jim Caldwell, a senior technical consultant with the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, a Sacramento think tank that has been advocating for regulators to reconsider their grid policies to better account for renewables and climate change. “We think Puente is right at the tip of that spear. … The gas industry and the gas generation industry is facing a big problem, and they know it.”

Read more.

American Eagle Outfitters uses oppressive Islamist symbol in its advertising

/in , , , , /by

It is predominantly the ignorant, greedy, and/or leftist part of the American market place that is helping Islamist Sharia doctrine to advance in the United States.  Whether attempting to appear politically correct to their leftist customers or deliberately targeting Islamist customers, their embracement and glamorization of Islamist tenets advances Sharia law in America.

American Eagle Outfitters hijab.

American Eagle Outfitters used photographs of Halima Aden wearing a hijab in its latest product promotion.  Halima Aden is the Muslim woman who wore a hijab on the cover of allure magazine.

American Eagle Outfitters’ product promotion is pushing the hijab which symbolizes and epitomizes Islamist oppression of women and is rejected by 57% of the Muslim women living in America.

Two Muslim women, Asra Q. Nomani and Hala Arafa, wrote a column titled “Wearing the Hijab in Solidarity Perpetuates Oppression” that was published on January 14, 2016 by The New York Times.  The column states in part:

In the eight times the word hijab, or a derivative, appears in the Koran, it means a “barrier” or “curtain,” with spiritual, not sartorial, meaning. Today, well-intentioned women are wearing headscarves in interfaith “solidarity.” But, to us, they stand on the wrong side of a lethal war of ideas that sexually objectifies women as vessels for honor and temptation, absolving men of personal responsibility.   This purity culture covers, segregates, subordinates, silences, jails and kills women and girls around the world.

Pew Research found that only forty three percent (43%) of American Muslim women wear hijabs according to an article published by NPR on April 21, 2011.  The NPR article states in part,

“The split between women who’ve covered and women who’ve never done so has existed for decades. But now a generation of women is taking off the headscarf, or hijab.” Therefore, after six years of “a generation of women taking off the hijab” the number of Muslim women now wearing the hijab in America is likely even less than forty three percent.  NPR reports:   Rasmieyh Abdelnabi, 27, grew up attending an Islamic school in Bridgeview, Ill., a tiny Arab enclave on Chicago’s southwest side. It’s a place where most Muslim women wear the hijab.  Abdelnabi explains why she stopped wearing the hijab.  She says that Islam teaches modesty — but wearing the hijab is taking it a step too far.  “I’ve done my research, and I don’t feel its foundation is from Islam,” she says. “I think it comes from Arab culture.”

The majority of Muslim women in America reject the hijab because:

  • The hijab symbolizes Islamist oppression.
  • These Muslim women live in America where the law of the land gives them that right.
  • These Muslim women want to Americanize their appearance and blend in not stand out.

American Eagle Outfitters certainly has the right to use whatever content it chooses in its advertising campaigns.  Likewise, you have the same right to express disappointment and patronize companies that do not promote symbols of Islamist doctrine.  Please urge American Eagle Outfitters to use advertising content that embraces the liberties of the United States Constitution instead of Islamist tenets that oppress women and minorities.

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to urge American Eagle Outfitters (DSW) officials to discontinue inclusion of women wearing hijabs, a symbol of Islamist oppression, in its advertising campaigns.

Click here to send your email to urge American Eagle Outfitters (DSW) officials to discontinue inclusion of women wearing hijabs, a symbol of Islamist oppression, in its advertising campaigns.

Contact information:

Jay Schottenstein, Executive Chairman, DSW, Inc
CEO American Eagle Outfitters
jayschottenstein@dswinc.com

Roger L. Rawlins, CEO
rogerrawlins@dswinc.com

Jared Poff, CFO
jaredpoff@dswinc.com

MediaRelations@dswinc.com
rawlins@dswinc.comd

Laurie Bibbo Zuckerman
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.
BibboL@ae.com

First time in history the Presidential refugee ceiling has been exceeded thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court

/in , , , , , /by

And, you can thank the Supreme Court for unconstitutionally legislating in its decision late last month. Refugees arriving after today are the responsibility of nine unelected justices.

I showed you here over the weekend that no ceiling has been exceeded in the over 35 year history of the program.

My worry is that what SCOTUS has done has been to literally obliterate the responsibility for refugees the law gives to the President and to Congress by defining a new standard for admittance—to those with “bona fide” relationships—ceiling be damned!

Even if one argues it is temporary, it is still an outrage!  How dare the Supreme Court say that those in a newly coined category—those prospective ‘refugees’ with bona fide relationships—are not a security threat to us!  That is the President’s job! Did the justices even read the Refugee Act of 1980?

But, how do you challenge the Supreme Court?  And, are the contractors secretly cheering because they have longed for the day when the CEILING would become meaningless.

To top it off, there is another legal challenge before the rogue Hawaii judge that might further gum up the works (see Breitbart’s Michael Leahy on that potential legal quagmire, here).

Chaos and confusion reign, just as Clarence Thomas (with Alito and Gorsuch) predicted.

And, this was completely unnecessary because the Trump Administration could have simply lowered the ceiling when they came in to office without any Executive Order.  The most they had to do was notify Congress!

As of yesterday afternoon, we have admitted 50,086 refugees to the US in this fiscal year.

Here is where the 50,086 were placed.

Alaska got 55 and Hawaii got 3.

Here are the top ten ‘welcoming’ states.  LOL! Hawaii is near the bottom as always with 3 whole refugees!

So much for Texas removing itself from the USRAP!

All of my posts on the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision are archived here.

There are many stories in the media today about the ceiling having been exceeded, if there is anything useful (other than the same old babble), I’ll update this post.

Trump-Russia Media Coverage: A Parody of Dumb and Dumber

/in , , , /by

Donald Trump, Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya

The media has taken upon itself the quest to deliberately exaggerate anything of no consequence when it comes to Donald J. Trump and his family. This deliberate exaggeration has turned comedic in the media’s quest to find collusion, betrayal or any link between any member of the Trump family and anything remotely linked to Russia.

The media has gone through various stages of mocking and lampooning to what Byron York describes as a “Scandal That Ate Cable TV.” Referring to the meeting between Donald Trump, Jr. and Natalia Veselnitskaya.

The Media is now infected with “Tabloid Thinking.”

Tabloid Thinking makes the media think something is simple because it keeps the media from looking at the complicating details. The media prefers quick summaries and likes to put things in a nutshell. The media stereotypes people or issues with simple phrases. They have deep-set emotions toward those people or issues and like to describe them with catchy phrases.

In an article title “Dear CNN: Russian Lawyer Veselnitskaya Pictured With Obama’s Ambassador To Russia — Is That News?” Clash Daily reports:

The photograph is striking: There sits Natalia Veselnitskaya, the Russian lawyer who met with Donald Trump Jr. and others at Trump Tower in Manhattan on June 9, 2016, seated a few days later in the front row of a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing at which witnesses discussed U.S. sanctions against her country.

The day before, Veselnitskaya was at Washington’s Newseum, attending the screening of a film that criticized U.S. sanctions.

Source: The Washington Post

Here’s the video of Veselnikskaya at the hearing:

Clash Daily says “But wait!”

MORE— That looks like Emin Agalarov sitting next to Natalia Veselnitskaya. He was mentioned in Donald Trump Jr’s statement this morning. Emin helped set up the meeting with Veselnitskaya.

Emin Agalarov sitting next to Natalia Veselnitskaya (circled in red).

Veselnitskaya was also connected to Fusion GPS, the DNC opposition research firm that produced the fraudulent and discredited Trump Dossier.

Source: The Gateway Pundit

The UK Independent reports:

The Russian lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr and allegedly offered to supply damaging information about Hillary Clinton, is apparently linked to a firm that helped compile the notorious dossier of wild and unproven allegations about the US President…

…In a statement, Mark Corallo added: “Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier.”

In The Hill’s article “Exclusive: DOJ let Russian lawyer into US before she met with Trump team” John Solomon and Jonathan Easley report:

The Russian lawyer who penetrated Donald Trump’s inner circle was initially cleared into the United States by the Justice Department under “extraordinary circumstances” before she embarked on a lobbying campaign last year that ensnared the president’s eldest son, members of Congress, journalists and State Department officials, according to court and Justice Department documents and interviews.

This revelation means it was the Obama Justice Department that enabled the newest and most intriguing figure in the Russia-Trump investigation to enter the country without a visa.

[ … ]

The Moscow lawyer had been turned down for a visa to enter the U.S. lawfully but then was granted special immigration parole by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch for the limited purpose of helping a company owned by Russian businessman Denis Katsyv, her client, defend itself against a Justice Department asset forfeiture case in federal court in New York City.

Read more.

If this isn’t a clear example of not connecting the dots by the media, I don’t know what is.

Clearly, the media is infected with the viral “Tabloid Thinking.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Russian Lawyer Who Met with Donald Trump Jr. Worked with Democrats for Years

Why the latest Russia story is just another Trump witch hunt

When The Clinton Campaign Worked With a Foreign Government to Undermine Trump’s Candidacy

FACT CHECK: Did Donald Trump Jr. Commit Treason?

Antidote to Trump Derangement Syndrome

This day in “collusion” hysteria

Muslims for Same-Sex ‘Marriage’?

/in , , , , /by

Der Feind vor den Toren (the enemy at the gate).

William Kilpatrick notes the passage in Germany of a law legalizing same-sex “marriage.” Curiously, all Muslims in the Bundestag voted yes. The question is: why?

The German parliament just voted in favor of same-sex “marriage,” and to the wonder of all, all six Muslim members of the Bundestag also voted in favor.

Well, make that to the wonder of all the “rubes.” Sophisticated people wouldn’t be astonished. They’ve always contended that Muslims will have no problem assimilating into Western culture, even with all its oddities. For example, after the vote, activist Felipe Henriques tweeted, “Most Germans and all Muslim MPs believe in equality. Who needs integration?”

“Who needs integration?” The implication is that Muslims are by and large already integrated into German society. In other words, they’ve learned to go with the flow. And the flow, judging by the 393-226 vote in the Bundestag, is in the direction of sexual license.

So according to one sophisticate, Muslim MPs voted for same-sex marriage because they believe in equality. That’s one way of looking at it. But is it possible that they could have had another motive?

Did the 387 non-Muslim MPs stop to think that the legalization of same-sex “marriage” is just a step on the way to the legalization of polygamy? The arguments that are used to justify SSM can just as easily be used to justify multiple-partner marriages. If marriage is no longer to be confined to one man and one woman, why not allow one man and four women?

Italy’s largest Muslim umbrella group, the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations, has already demanded the legalization of polygamy on the grounds that Italian law permits same-sex civil unions.

Could it be that the Muslim MPs in Germany who voted “for” had something else in mind besides equality for gays and lesbians? In the long run, the decision will work to the advantage of Muslims, even those Muslims who are adamantly opposed to same-sex “marriage.”

Some believe the advantage is a demographic one. For instance, the founder of the aforementioned Italian Islamic union has stated that polygamy will increase the population. That’s not necessarily so, because polygamy for some men acts to squeeze other men out of the marriage market altogether, thus potentially cancelling out the higher birth rates of polygamous families. Whatever the case, there are other more subtle advantages that will accrue to the Muslim community if polygamy is legitimized.

Click here to read the rest of Mr. Kilpatrick’s column . . .

William Kilpatrick

William Kilpatrick

William Kilpatrick is the author of Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West, and a new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, The Turning Point Project

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is titled Feind am Tor. [Enemy at the Gate.]