Jewish Advocacy Oraganization Partners with Islamic Supremists — Sleeping with the Enemy?

Is the oldest Jewish Advocacy Organization sleeping with its sworn enemy? It would seem so from a recent email titled “Muslim and Jewish Pioneers” from AJC Impact.


ACJ Advisory Council logo. Note the Star of David is impaled by the Muslim crescent.

The email from AJC Impact notes the formation of an AJC and ISNA Muslim/Jewish Advisory Council. Here is AJC’s announcement:

This week, AJC announced the launch of the Muslim-Jewish Advisory Council, a new national group of leading Muslim and Jewish Americans. Convened by AJC and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council will, among other things, develop a coordinated strategy to address anti-Muslim bigotry and anti-Semitism in the U.S. Initial members of the Council include prominent rabbis, imams, members of Congress, and business leaders. See the full list.

One of the names on the list is that of Sayyid Syeed. Sayyid Muhammad Syeed is the Secretary General of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization that enforces Wahhabi theological writ in some 1,200 mosques in America. Counter-terrorism expert Stephen Schwartz describes the ISNA as “one of the chief conduits through which the radical Saudi form of Islam passes into the United States.” Dallas Morning News editorial writer and columnist Rod Dreher stated, after he and the rest of that publication’s editorial board questioned Saeed about extremists within his organization, that “Dr. Saeed and his ilk are no friends of moderation and tolerance.”

According to the AJC website:

About AJC

Who We Are

For more than a century, AJC has been the leading global Jewish advocacy organization. With offices across the United States and around the globe, and partnerships with Jewish communities worldwide, AJC works to enhance the well-being of the Jewish people and to advance human rights and democratic values for all.

[ … ]

Interreligious and Intergroup Coalition Building

Through establishing important local and global alliances among diverse ethnic and religious groups, AJC builds coalitions to advance issues of common concern.

So what is ISNA?

According to Discover the Networks:

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was established in July 1981 by U.S-based members of the Muslim Brotherhood who also had a background as leaders of the Muslim Students Association (MSA). As author and terrorism expert Steven Emerson puts it, ISNA “grew out of the Muslim Students Association, which … was founded by Brotherhood members.” Indeed, Muslim Brothers would dominate ISNA’s leadership throughout its early years, when the Society was highly dependent upon Saudi funding. ISNA’s founding mission was “to advance the cause of Islam and serve Muslims in North America so as to enable them to adopt Islam as a complete way of life.”

[ … ]

Based on a mid-1980s investigation, the FBI concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood members who founded U.S.-based groups had risen to “leadership roles within NAIT [North American Islamic Trust] and its related organizations,” including ISNA, “which means they are in a position to direct the activities and support of Muslims in the U.S. for the Islamic Revolution.” Expanding on this, a late-’80s FBI memo said:

“Within the organizational structure of NAIT, there have been numerous groups and individuals identified as being a part of a covert network of revolutionaries who have clearly indicated there (sic) support for the Islamic Revolution as advocated by the Ayatollah Khomeini and his government as well as other fanatical Islamic Shiite fundamentalist leaders in the Middle East. This faction of Muslims have declared war on the United States, Israel and any other country they deem as an enemy of Islam. The common bond between these various organizations is both religious and political with the underlying common goal being to further the holy war (Islamic Jihad).”

Declassified FBI memos indicate that ISNA was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front as early as 1987. “The entire organization is structured, controlled and funded by followers and supporters of the Islamic Revolution as advocated by the founders” of the Brotherhood in Egypt, said one source. In August 1988, that same source furnished the FBI with a private ISNA document “clearly stat[ing] that ISNA has a political goal to exert influence on political decision making and legislation in North America that is contrary to their certification in their not-for-profit tax returns as filed both with the State of Indiana and with IRS.” And a 1988 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood document bluntly identified ISNA as part of the “apparatus of the Brotherhood.”

Read more…

It would appear that AJC is now sleeping with its sworn enemy.

The Betrayal of Lawful Immigrants by Open Borders Anarchists

The goal of open borders anarchists is to eliminate the distinction between those who enter the country illegally and those who come legally.

Aliens may be admitted into the United States as immigrants or as nonimmigrants, depending on whether they have been granted lawful immigrant status. Lawful immigrants, in entering the U.S., hope to become a part of the magnificent tapestry that is America, to begin their lives anew to build their futures and, consequently, the future of our nation. Their U.S. presence is sanctioned by our immigration laws.

Illegal aliens, on the other hand, are aliens who enter the U.S. without inspection and aliens who enter legally but violate the terms of their admission and are thus subject to removal (deportation) because their presence violates our immigration laws.

There is a clear distinction, and one that must not be blurred, between aliens who are legally present and aliens who are illegally present.

Illegal aliens have become emboldened to demand “their rights” to receive in-state tuition and a host of other costly government-sponsored programs and services, often through raucous and even violent demonstrations. They demand work in the U.S., driver’s licenses and, in general, treatment the same as, or perhaps even better than, true immigrants who entered the country legally.

Many journalists fuel this lunacy. Those who insist that the federal government secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws are labeled by the media as “anti-immigrant,” a pejorative. Those who oppose measures to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws are “pro-immigrant.”

So-called sanctuary cities shield illegal aliens from detection by the federal government and often even refuse to honor ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) detainers filed with prison authorities to enable ICE to take illegal aliens into custody after they serve prison sentences for committing felonies.

Mayors of these cities have decided that politics and narrow political agendas trump national security and public safety. This was the premise behind my recent article, “‘Sanctuary Cities’ vs. National Security and Public Safety.”

Most news coverage of these issues has ignored the impact this has on U.S. citizens. Another group of people also has been left out of the discussion and debates. That is lawful immigrants. Many of these people have waited for years to be issued their visas and have spent significant funds to file their applications for those visas. Those who blur the distinction between lawful immigrants and illegal aliens have blithely ignored how this impacts these lawful immigrants who must truly feel foolish and betrayed.

To provide a bit of clarity, the difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and burglar. Sanctuary city mayors have ignored the fact too that frequently the victims of transnational criminals are the immigrants who reside in those same ethnic immigrant communities where the transnational criminals live and ply their “trades.”

Additionally, huge numbers of Americans have become resentful of failures of the federal government to secure the borders and enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the U.S. Part of that failure translates directly to jobs. Americans, in increasing numbers, have lost their once middle-class jobs to foreign workers who have been lawfully admitted with H-1B visas and other visas.

It is understandable that Americans who reside in sanctuary cities resent the sanctuary policies that have cost many innocent people their lives and permit violent transnational gangs to set up shop in towns across the country, peddling heroin and other narcotics in unprecedented quantities.

The Obama administration has facilitated the human tsunami of illegal aliens in violation of our immigration laws that are fundamental to the protection of the lives and jobs of Americans. The upset victory of Donald Trump in the Presidential election was the manifestation of American anger and resentment from a broad political and ethnic spectrum.

Because journalists insist that all aliens be identified as “immigrants,” lawful immigrants all too often are lumped into the same category as illegal aliens and may face frustration and resentment of Americans because of the Orwellian use of terminology begun by Jimmy Carter during his administration.

Presuming the incoming administration lives up to campaign promises, one of the first groups of people likely to feel the most immediate benefit will be the beleaguered lawful immigrants who have suffered terribly under the madness foisted on the U.S. by the Obama administration and the open borders anarchists.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Californians for Population Stabilization website.

Elites Reserve the Right to Decree What is ‘Fake’ and What is ‘News’

Legacy media corporations like the New York Times and Washington Post have big problems right now.

Consumption of their product is dropping. Public confidence in them has tanked. And in front of the nation and the world, they blew the biggest political story in decades by continually pushing the falsehood that Donald Trump had no chance to win the presidential election.

Any rational thinker might take some time for introspection and consider a course correction.  But rational is rarely a word used to describe the legacy media.

So it’s no surprise that in response to their spectacular fall from a once lofty position of prestige and credibility, news outlets like the Washington Post are doubling down by insisting that the elite must continue to assert themselves as the ultimate arbiter of what is real and what is news.

For example, the Washington Post recently spent a considerable amount ink publicizing the conclusions of “independent researchers” who insist that Donald Trump was swept into office by a “flood” of “fake news” spread by a “sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign.”

These efforts, moreover, supposedly “exploited American-made technology platforms [such as Facebook] to attack U.S. democracy at a particularly vulnerable moment, as an insurgent candidate harnessed a wide range of grievances to claim the White House.”

The Post article goes on to detail the work of an organization, PropOrNot, which it describes vaguely as “a nonpartisan collection of researchers with foreign policy, military and technology backgrounds.” This entity – the membership and funding of which have not been publicly disclosed – published a “Black Friday Report” and website, which amplify these assertions. “[T]his propaganda is undermining our public discourse by providing a warped view of the world,” it states, “where Russia can do no wrong, and America is a corrupt dystopia that is tearing itself apart.”

PropOrNot’s prescription to the Red Menace that it identifies is to “[o]btain news from actual reporters,” in particular, “NPR, the BBC, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Buzzfeed, VICE, etc, and especially your local papers and local TV news channels.” Its website also contains a list of “related projects” (initially identified as “allies”) some of which will be familiar (and not in a good way) to those who follow the debate over gun laws in America. These include Snopes and Politifact, among others.

Now, we wouldn’t necessarily discourage anybody from getting their “news” from any of the “reporters” mentioned by PropOrNot.

But the days when any thinking American will uncritically swallow whatever “facts” such outlets report (to say nothing of their opinion or analyses pieces) are long gone, and well they should be. Examples of their arrogance, ethical breaches, bias, and outright political collusion are now so numerous that their reporting, especially on politically charged issues like firearm policy, cannot simply be accepted at face value.

Of course, no example is so brutally obvious as the inability of outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post to comprehend that Donald Trump was a legitimate and viable contender for the White House. Not only did they formally endorse his competitor, Hillary Clinton, they portrayed Trump – and even those who would dare support him – in a relentlessly negative light, to the point that “normalizing” the man Americans would eventually choose as their president itself became a sort of journalistic sin. As it became increasingly obvious to most Americans that Trump would win, anchors and commentators for a number of news network could only react with incredulity, anger, and even tears, completely negating any pretense of journalistic detachment.

“Fact-checkers” have repeatedly and notoriously botched firearm-related claims. After Hillary Clinton said the Supreme Court was “wrong” on the Second Amendment and pledged to make that case “every chance” she got, Politifact rated “false” Trump’s claim that Clinton wanted to abolish the Second Amendment. The organization based its analysis largely on the premise that Clinton had not called for an outright repeal of the amendment, dismissing the fact that if the Supreme Court were indeed “wrong” about the provision, it would not protect an individual right to armed self-defense. Later, Politifact rated “mostly false” NRA’s claim that Clinton said gun confiscation was “worth considering,” even though Clinton said exactly that about Australia’s program of forced firearm surrender. As another news source put it, “NRA says Clinton said something she said. Politifact says NRA claim ‘mostly false’.”

News stories have also prominently misidentified firearms or demonstrated rank ignorance about simple firearm-related concepts. Several stories on the federal “assault weapon” ban (which of course concerned semiautomatic firearms) were dramatized on television news with footage of actual machine guns in action. More recently, Rolling Stone (currently subject to a sizable defamation judgment arising from a false story about gang rape on a college campus) breathlessly (and laughably) exposed the five most dangerous types of firearms as pistols, revolvers, rifles, shotguns, and derringers.

And reporters and news organizations have repeatedly been caught deceptively editing stories that deal with firearms or self-defense. Katie Couric is currently the subject of a defamation lawsuit for the misleading editing of an interview with a pro-gun group for an antigun documentary. The final cut of the film portrays the group as stunned into silence by a supposedly penetrating question, when in fact taped audio of the exchange proved the group’s members readily offered answers and rebuttals. NBC was caught blatantly doctoring the 911 call in the highly-charged case of George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida, to promote the false impression that Zimmerman volunteered information about Trayvon Martin’s race as a basis for suspicion. In fact Zimmerman did no such thing and was only responding to a direct question about the subject’s race from the police dispatcher.

Throughout his campaign, Trump’s opponents sought to delegitimize him and his supporters. This effort continues, now that he has been elected. If anyone doubts this, try the simple experiment of attempting to find any positive coverage of the president elect in a major mainstream news source, especially any of those that formally endorsed Hillary Clinton.

The fact that newspapers like the Washington Post would try to pull the same stunt on their upstart competitor news sources is hardly surprising.

So read often and widely, but just remember that those who are now pointing fingers have plenty to be ashamed of themselves. And be especially critical of any news source that supports the regulation and investigation of its competitors, while exempting itself from those recommendations. If that reminds you of how the elites approach gun control, it should.

DNC Chair Frontrunner Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is an Anti-Second Amendment Radical

It appears that those gun rights supporters hoping that the leaders of the Democratic Party would engage in a moment of self-reflection following their historic defeat in the 2016 election may be left wanting. Despite having been routed in contests throughout the middle of the country, Democrats are on the verge of electing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), an avowed opponent of gun rights, to Chair the Democratic National Committee. Ellison has made clear that he believes the Democratic Party should not only pursue a litany of severe gun control measures, but that the party should also directly attack the Second Amendment.

During an appearance on the March 21, 2014 episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, Ellison explained his position on firearms. During a discussion on the efficacy of gun control, Maher challenged Ellison on the Second Amendment, which resulted in the following exchange:

View Related Articles

Maher: Then why doesn’t your party come out against the Second Amendment? It’s the problem.

Ellison: I sure wish they would. I sure wish we would.

Maher: Really? Because I never hear anybody in the Democratic party say that. But they say, ‘I am also a strong supporter.’

Ellison: You’ve got to check out the progressive caucus. We have come out very strong for common-sense gun safety rules.

The lawmaker went on to further characterize the type of gun control he supports by telling Maher, “what it means is that if you want to have grandpa’s shotgun, have it, but get rid of the crazy military-style assault weapons.”

Ellison’s long history of working against the rights of gun owners stretches back to the time he spent in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003-2007.

In 2003, Minnesota became a Right-to-Carry state with the passage of the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act. This was accomplished when the Minnesota House amended a Senate natural resources bill by adding Right-to-Carry language. The bill was subsequently approved by the Minnesota Senate and signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Ellison voted against the House amendment that added the Right-to-Carry language and the entire bill. Further, during Minnesota’s 2003-2004 legislative session, Ellison served as an author, or was the chief author, of numerous bills to encumber the Right-to-Carry, along with legislation to repeal the Minnesota Citizens’ Personal Protection Act entirely.

Following passage, opponents of Minnesota’s new Right-to-Carry law filed suit, claiming among other things that the addition of the Right-to-Carry language to a natural resources bill violated the Minnesota State Constitution’s requirement that legislation be limited to a single subject. After a lower court struck down the law, the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling in April of 2005.

In response to the court ruling, the Minnesota Legislature enacted a new Right-to-Carry law in May, 2005. Making clear that his opposition to the 2003 legislation was not a principled stance for the Minnesota Constitution, but rather an expression of his disdain for the right to keep and bear arms, Ellison opposed the new Right-to-Carry legislation at every turn.

As the 2005 legislation was making its way through the Minnesota Legislature, Ellison attempted to weaken the bill by offering an amendment that would have prohibited carry at various locations, including sports facilities, convention centers, and movie theaters, unless “expressly permitted by the management or operator of the facility.” Ellison also voted in favor of an amendment that would have permitted business owners to prohibit lawfully possessed firearms from parking areas, an amendment that would have forced business owners who did not prohibit firearms on their premises to post a “conspicuous sign at every entrance” notifying the public that that they allow firearms on the property, and yet another amendment that would have undermined Minnesota’s firearms preemption statute.

Of course, Ellison also voted against final passage of the 2005 Right-to-Carry bill.

In 2006, Ellison was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Since joining the U.S. Congress, Ellison has cosponsored a wide array of anti-gun legislation and has acted as a fierce advocate for harsh gun restrictions.

Ellison has supported bills that would ban commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, ban magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds, ban popular types of ammunition, require gun owners to purchase liability insurance, and expand the categories of individuals prohibited from possessing firearms.

Ellison is also a cosponsor of H.R. 3830, the “Reducing Gun Violence in our Neighborhoods Act of 2015.” This misleadingly-titled bill would impose an additional $100 tax “upon the sale by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of any firearm.” This legislation also threatens the privacy of gun owners by forcing them to report lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement for inclusion in a federal database.

Of the numerous gun control measures Ellison supports, three in particular serve to illustrate the severity of Ellison’s anti-gun fervor.

Ellison is a cosponsor of H.R. 3411, the “Fix Gun Checks Act of 2015”, and H.R. 3051, the “Background Check Completion Act.” H.R. 3411 would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by forcing individuals to conduct nearly all firearms transfers through a Federal Firearms Licensee and subject to a background check. H.R. 3051 would eliminate a vital protection that permits a gun dealer to transfer a firearm to a prospective transferee three business days after a NICS background check has been initiated, as long as the FBI has not notified the dealer that the transferee is prohibited. This safeguard prevents the federal government from indefinitely suspending a firearm transfer without proper reason.

Ellison supports these background check measures despite being a staunch critic of the federal government’s ability to conduct accurate background checks. On August 2, 2013, Ellison introduced H.R. 2999, the Accurate Background Check Act, which sought to place safeguards on FBI background checks conducted for employment purposes. In a press release that announced the legislation, Ellison lamented, “Up to 600,000 Americans are wrongfully denied a job every year simply because the information on their background checks is wrong.” Explaining a provision of the legislation that provided a safety valve for prospective employees, Ellison stated, “Under the ABC Act, the FBI will have ten days to find missing and incomplete information on rap sheets. If they can’t find final outcomes of arrests and court orders, the FBI will be required to remove the information from the background check.”

In June, Ellison participated in the widely-publicized gun control “sit-in” on the House floor. A purported goal of the protest was to force a vote on unconstitutional so-called “no fly, no buy” legislation that would permit the federal government to eliminate an individual’s Second Amendment rights without due process of law based on their placement on a secret government list. Minneapolis-based online newspaper MinnPost quoted Ellison as saying, “If law enforcement has deemed you to be so dangerous that you can’t get on an airplane, then maybe you shouldn’t be able to go get a gun… I’m happy to suspend your right to get a gun to sort out whether you should be in that program or not.”

Ellison is acutely aware of the problems inherent in using secret government lists as a tool to restrict rights, as he authored an April 9, 2014 letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson that took issue with the accuracy of the federal government’s secret watch lists and the lack of opportunity for redress. In a news release that accompanied the letter on Ellison’s website, the congressman acknowledged that his own constituents have faced difficulties stemming from their placement on a secret government watch list.

The fact that Ellison seems to understand the problems attendant to government background checks and secret government watch lists in certain civil liberties contexts, but not as they pertain to Second Amendment rights, underscores the congressman’s anti-gun zealotry.

Ellison’s radical anti-Second Amendment positions will not win the Democratic Party favor with the American people. Polls show that the overwhelming majority of Americans support the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Recent surveys have also revealed that majorities oppose a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and understand that more Americans exercising their Right-to-Carry makes the country safer.

Following past defeats, the more rational leaders of the Democratic Party worked to steer the party away from the gun control issue in order to improve the Democrats’ electoral prospects. Choosing Ellison to lead the party would be doubling down on an anti-gun strategy that has failed time and time again.


Keith Ellison’s Disinformation Campaign by Steven Emerson – IPT News

Jewish opposition grows to Keith Ellison’s bid to head Democratic National Committee

The U.S. Government’s Proof that CAIR is HAMAS

Washington, D.C. – Since its founding in 1993, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has presented itself publicly as a benign Muslim American “civil rights organization.”  From that time to this, however, the United States government has known that CAIR actually is an entity founded by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian franchise: Hamas, a group officially designated since 1994 as a terrorist organization.

Evidence of CAIR’s true character as a U.S.-based instrument for political warfare and fundraising for Hamas – and the federal government’s certain knowledge of the truth – did not come to light until the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history: the 2007-2008 Holy Land Foundation prosecution.  In the course of that trial, FBI Agent Laura Burns testified about, and helped explain, the transcripts of wiretap surveillance conducted in the course of two planning sessions leading up to the organizational meeting of CAIR held in Philadelphia in October 1993 and during the meeting itself.  Specifically, she presented proof that CAIR’s mission was to assist “Sister Samah,” its founders’ hardly opaque code-name for Hamas, as the prospect of its terror designation loomed

Annotated highlights of the CAIR transcripts are now available for the first time, complete with relevant excerpts from Agent Burns’ testimony, in the latest product of the Center for Security Policy’s “Muslim Brotherhood Archival Series”: CAIR Is Hamas: How the U.S. Government Proved that the Council on American Islamic Relations is a Front for Terrorism. As with the first two publications in this series – “An Explanatory Memorandum”: From the Archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in America and Ikhwan in America: An Oral History of the Muslim Brotherhood in their Own Words, this new product from CSP Press is making accessible original source material together with professional analysis concerning the inner workings of the network the Muslim Brotherhood has operated in America for more than fifty years for the stated purpose of “destroying Western civilization from within.”[1]

Upon the release of CAIR is Hamas, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney observed:

The production of this proof of CAIR’s jihadist nature is especially timely as legislatures in states around the country are considering resolutions seeking to discourage their agencies from interacting with this Hamas front and as the U.S. Congress considers legislation calling for the designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. CAIR is Hamas should be required reading for lawmakers, other officials at every level of government, the press and ordinary Americans misperceiving CAIR’s true jihadist and subversive nature.

CAIR is Hamas is available for purchase in Kindle and paperback format at As with all editions of the Archival Series, this one can also be downloaded for free at

[1] From the Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal of the Group in North America (see “An Explanatory Memorandum,” p. 16,

About The Center for Security Policy

The Center for Security Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan national security organization that specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that are vital to American security and then ensures that such issues are the subject of both focused, principled examination and effective action by recognized policy experts, appropriate officials, opinion leaders, and the general public. For more information visit

VIDEO: Students ask me anything about The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels

A few months ago, Professor Ed Ireland of Texas Christian University asked me if I would do a remote Q&A with his Energy MBA students, all of whom had read The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

I am always grateful and excited when professors assign The Moral Case so I agreed, asking students to bring their toughest questions. The result is a wide-ranging discussion that I think you’ll find interesting. If you do, please share it with others

VIDEO: Alex Epstein Q&A with TCU Energy MBA class.

Socialist Alternative: A Key Force Behind the Anti-Trump Protests

Inspired by the example of the United Kingdom-based group known as Militant Tendency, Socialist Alternative (SA) is a Trotskyist revolutionary political party that first emerged in the U.S. as “Labor Militant” in 1986. A decentralized entity with branches of varying sizes and levels of activity in almost 50 American cities, SA proudly claims to be “in political solidarity” with the Committee for a Workers’ International, which is a worldwide socialist organization with a presence in nearly four dozen countries. On the premise that “the global capitalist system” is “the root cause” of “poverty,” “discrimination,” “war,” “inequality,” and “environmental destruction,” SA aims to promote the creation of “a socialist United States and a socialist world.” Asserting that “the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were [unfortunate] perversions of what socialism is really about,” SA instead advocates a form of “democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over [their] daily lives.”

In the late 1990s, SA tried to help the now-defunct U.S. Labor Party to advocate for electoral opposition to Democratic Party politicians, whom SA viewed as being too moderate.

SA was particularly active in the anti-globalization movement from 1998-2002, and it continues to speak out against free trade and capitalism today.

In 2004, SA members initiated Youth Against War and Racism (YAWR), a project that sought to persuade high-school students to resist military recruitment efforts and oppose the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beginning in September 2011, SA supported the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. Early the following month, SA issued a statement of solidarity with OWS.

In the fall of 2011 as well, SA endorsed a national “Jobs Not Cuts” campaign in response to proposed congressional budget cuts. This initiative was endorsed by Noam Chomsky, Cindy Sheehan, Jill Stein, Veterans for Peace, the American Federation of Teachers, Students for a Democratic Society, and the International Socialist Organization, among others.

On the premise that “the Republicans and Democrats are both parties of big business” and are thus unworthy of holding political power, SA seeks to “build an independent, alternative party of workers and young people to fight for the interests of the millions, not the millionaires.” In 2013, SA for the first time ran, on its own ticket, two openly socialist candidates – Ty Moore and Kshama Sawant – in carefully selected political races. The results were encouraging for SA: Moore lost his bid for a Minneapolis city council seat to Democrat Alondra Cano by a mere 229 votes, while Sawant won a seat in the Seattle city council by defeating longtime Democratic incumbent Richard Conlin by more than 1,000 votes. Two years later, Ms. Sawant was re-elected.

In the wake of Republican Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the U.S. presidential election of November 2016, SA helped organize massive, sometimes violent, anti-Trump protests in cities across the United States. Other notable organizers of these disruptions included the ANSWER Coalition, the Occupy Movement, and

Professing an uncompromising commitment to “fighting for the 99%,” SA supports measures that would: raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour “as a step toward a living wage for all”; provide “free [taxpayer-funded] … public education for all from pre-school through college”; ensure “free … health care for all” in a system of “fully socialized medicine”; forbid any “budget cuts to education and social services”; impose “a major increase in taxes on the rich and big business”; ensure “a minimum guaranteed weekly income of $600/week for the unemployed, disabled, stay-at-home parents, the elderly, and others unable to work”; “shorten the workweek with no loss in pay and benefits”; and institute “public ownership” of “bankrupt and failing companies” as well as “the top 500 corporations and banks that dominate the U.S. economy.”

To promote “environmental sustainability,” SA demands that America’s federal and state governments “fight climate change” by minimizing the greenhouse-gas emissions associated with human industrial activity. Toward that end, the organization recommends “massive public investment in renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies to rapidly replace fossil fuels”; “a major expansion of public transportation”; and “democratic public ownership of the big energy companies, retooling them for socially necessary green production.”

In its “Equal Rights for All” initiative, SA supports the Black Lives Matter effort to “build a mass movement against police brutality and the institutional racism of the criminal justice system.” Further, SA favors massive “invest[ment] in rehabilitation, job-training, and living-wage jobs, not prisons”; the abolition of the death penalty; the “immediate, unconditional legalization and equal rights for all undocumented immigrants”; “free reproductive services, including… abortions”; “at least 12 weeks of paid family leave for all”; and “universal … publicly run child care.”

With regard to national security and defense issues, SA demands that the federal government “slash the military budget” of the United States, shut down the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, and repeal the PATRIOT Act.

To help promote and disseminate its ideological precepts and political agendas as effectively as possible, SA publishes a newspaper out of its New York City location.

SA supported the presidential campaigns of Green Party candidate Ralph Nader in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. In 2012 the organization supported Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and in 2016 it backed Bernie Sanders.


Understanding “Black Lives Matter”

Kellogg Foundation Provided Nearly $1 Million to Support Black Lives Matter

Freedom First International: Promoting Social Change Through Liberation Theology

The International Development Exchange: Partnering with “Black Lives Matter”

Ten Reasons to Criminalize Islam

Ten Reasons to Criminalize Islam:

  1. Islam is not a religion. Islam is a political, economic, and military ideology that uses religion as a tool to covertly spread Islam and sharia law throughout the world.
  2. Islam advocates child marriages. Prophet Mohammed is the pure example of Islam to all Muslims and he married an innocent six year old girl and raped her repeatedly while she was a child.
  3. Islam dictates that no man made law is above Sharia law. Islamic scholars routinely teach young Muslim children to hate America and the U.S. Constitution.
  4. Islam scholars demand Muslims show no allegiance to any country, specifically America and Israel. Muslim children in America are taught to not stand for the American flag.
  5. Physical jihad is advocated toward all non Muslims and non Muslim countries.
  6. Islamic scholars distribute materials through their mosques and Islamic book stores advocating the overthrow of America and the total destruction of Israel.
  7. There are Islamic organizations in America that advocate Muslims to kill Jews and Christians (and apostates of Islam) wherever they find them, and specifically in America.
  8. Mosques are safe havens for Islamic terrorists and their materials for war. We saw this in Iraq and it is being conducted in America.
  9. Numerous mosques distribute manuals to their worshippers advocating killing U.S. Law enforcement officers and how to go underground to escape apprehension. This manual is originated in Brooklyn, NY, and placed in mosques throughout America.
  10. There are Islamic terrorist supporters throughout our government at all levels, there are Islamic terrorist supporters in our liberal media, law enforcement, and military.

We must understand the goal of Islam is to dominate the entire world and place all countries under shariah law

Protect our children by advocating the criminalization of Islam in America. Instead of designating various Islamic groups as terrorist organization, designate Islam as the enemy and a criminal organization.

The people who run Islam are part of the organized crime unit known as the Muslim Mafia.


Germany Submits to Sharia Law

Muslim-Americans Support Trump Against Terror

EDITORS NOTE: If you are interested in helping Dave investigate Islamic based terrorism in America please go to and donate.

Donald Trump’s Secretary of Defense: A General Mattis Christmas Story

A couple of months ago, when I told General Krulak the former Commandant of the Marine Corps, now the chair of the Naval Academy Board of Visitors, that we were having General Mattis speak this evening, he said, “Let me tell you a Jim Mattis story.” General Krulak said, when he was Commandant of the Marine Corps, every year, starting about a week before Christmas, he and his wife would bake hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of Christmas cookies. They would package them in small bundles

Then on Christmas day, he would load his vehicle. At about 4:00 a.m., General Krulak would drive himself to every Marine guard post in the Washington-Annapolis-Baltimore area and deliver a small package of Christmas cookies to whatever Marines were pulling guard duty that day. He said that one year, he had gone down to Quantico as one of his stops to deliver Christmas cookies to the Marines on guard duty. He went to the command center and gave a package to the lance corporal who was on duty.

He asked, “Who’s the officer of the day?” The lance corporal said, “Sir, it’s Brigadier General Mattis.”

And General Krulak said, “No, no, no. I know who General Mattis is. I mean, who’s the officer of the day today, Christmas day?”

The lance corporal, feeling a little anxious, said, “Sir, it is Brigadier General Mattis.”

General Krulak said that, about that time, he spotted in the back room a cot, or a daybed. He said, “No, Lance Corporal. Who slept in that bed last night?”

The lance corporal said, “Sir, it was Brigadier General Mattis.”

About that time, General Krulak said that General Mattis came in, in a duty uniform with a sword, and General Krulak said, “Jim, what are you doing here on Christmas day? Why do you have duty?”

General Mattis told him that the young officer who was scheduled to have duty on Christmas day had a family, and General Mattis decided it was better for the young officer to spend Christmas Day with his family, and so he chose to have duty on Christmas Day.

General Krulak said, “That’s the kind of officer that Jim Mattis is.”

RELATED ARTICLE: I Served With James Mattis. Here’s What I Learned From Him

EDITORS NOTE: The story above was told by Dr. Albert C. Pierce, the Director of the Center for the Study of Professional Military Ethics at The United States Naval Academy. He was introducing General James Mattis, who gave a lecture on Ethical Challenges in Contemporary Conflict in the spring of 2006. This was taken from the transcript of that lecture.

A Republic Is Not Mob Rule

There has been renewed talk, mostly from the left, about the problem with our Electoral College as it pertains to electing a President.

The leftist are upset that their candidate, Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote (although that is not actually the case due to known voter fraud) yet lost to Donald Trump in the Electoral College count.

They scream that it’s not fair.  That the Electoral College is out dated, old fashioned and has no place in a modern Democracy.

Well that is the problem right there.  We are not a pure Democracy.  We are a Representative Republic.  And that means our representatives have to be elected via the entire population in which that representative represents.

Let me simplify.

In local elections, it’s easy to elect via popular vote.  Local elections are small compared to the whole of the nation.  So it makes sense that the popular vote prevails in small amounts. 

But since we are a UNION, not an actual and technical COUNTRY, you cannot simply elect the Union’s Representative via a simple popular vote. 

Example: let’s say you have 7 people, 3 women and 4 men.  Let’s assume that there is a referendum in front of these seven people.  The referendum is about sex.  Let’s say that the referendum is that men can have sex with any woman they want at any time and the women have to happily capitulate.

By a simple vote, it might go down as 4 men say yes and 3 women say no.  Mob rule, the women lose.  But now let’s say that the men represent a portion of the population and the women represent another portion of the population.

Let’s say that in order for this referendum to pass, they need 10 points or delegates.  Those delegates are distributed by population numbers.  The men have 4 points and the women have 6 points in total. 

Now let them vote.  The men all vote for the referendum and thus garner 4 points.  The women decide they don’t like it and vote against.  They represent a larger percentage of the population in total even though they are in the minority in voting numbers.  They vote no.  They have 6 points. 

The women have defeated the referendum even though there were fewer of them.  This means the mob of men cannot run rough shod over the women.

This is how the Electoral College works.  But instead of men and women, we are talking states.  So in other words, large states cannot run rough shod over small states simply because the large states have a larger population. 

The Electoral College is there to make things fairer.  To make all states more equal on a national level.  So if you believe in FAIR elections then there is nothing more fair than to try and treat all states in the Union as equal as possible.

And that, boys and girls, is why the Electoral College system is not outdated.  But a brilliant way to make the Union more fair for everyone. 

Republican Victory! Nancy Pelosi Re-Elected House Minority Leader

Narcotics Anonymous “Basic Text,” released in November 1981, states, “Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results.”

Democrats appear to be addicted to Nancy Pelosi.

A full 70% of the House Democrats voted to keep Pelosi as their leader. This is being hailed as a victory for the Republican Party.

No single figure, other than discredited former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, has created more negative press for Democrats than Nancy Pelosi.

Here are a few things that Nancy Pelosi has said:

  • ObamaCare’s Implementation Is “Fabulous”
  • “I don’t think [Obama’s] Ever Done Anything For Political Reasons”
  • [President Obama] “has been … open, practically apolitical, certainly nonpartisan, in terms of welcoming every idea and solution.”
  • “It Is Almost A False Argument To Say We Have A Spending Problem.”
  • “ObamaCare Will Lower Everyone’s Rates”
  • “I Don’t Remember Saying ObamaCare Would Lower Everyone’s Premiums”
  • There is no more [spending] cuts to make.
  • “We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It”
  • “ObamaCare Is Lowering Costs And The Deficit”
  • “I don’t think [Obama’s] Ever Done Anything For Political Reasons”
  • “I do think that none of us should be negotiating on the debt limit. It should just be lifted”

Nancy Pelosi actually compared ObamaCare with Independence Day.

Republicans understand how out of touch Pelosi and Democrats are with what is really important to Americans. Her re-election as minority leader proves it.

American Islamist Group Preps for Jihad Against Trump

Multiple confidential sources in the powerful jihadi group say they have been told to arm them-selves in anticipation of raids by a Trump Admin.

Multiple confidential sources inside of a powerful jihadist group within the United States have informed the Christian Action Network and the Clarion Project that members have been told to arm themselves in anticipation of raids by the Trump Administration.

The Pakistan-based spiritual leader of Muslims of America (MOA), Sheikh Gilani, told top MOA officials (known as “khalifas”) to order all unarmed members to obtain firearms, licenses and hunting permits in order to resist raids on the group’s approximately 22 compounds that they expect to happen under the Trump Administration. Additional “security” was also called up and assault rifles have been mentioned as desirable.

The group now expects the FBI “to reopen its cases against them as a homegrown terrorist organization,” one of the confidential sources told Martin Mawyer of the Christian Action Network and Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project.

The sources independently stated that members across the country were told of instructions from Sheikh Gilani to “be prepared to fight.” The message reportedly relayed to members was to “hear and obey,” using language identical to the oath of allegiance members sign when they join the group. He predicted, “You will be tested.”

The members believe that President-elect Trump is part of a satanic-Zionist conspiracy to destroy Islam, and that he is fulfilling apocalyptic End Times prophecies. Any action taken against MOA is seen as part of a war on Islam, a situation that permits violent jihad.

The preparations for armed confrontation are described as “self-defense measures,” but one source cautioned that the group could decide to take “offensive” action if it believes armed conflict is imminent.

MOA, previously known as Jamaat ul-Fuqra, refers to its compounds as “Islamic villages,” with its headquarters in New York known as “Islamberg.” Clarion Project’s Ryan Mauro obtained footage of women getting guerilla training at the site, which was filmed in or around 2002. The group has a history of terrorist and criminal activity.

MOA members have a long history of terrorism, extremism and criminal activity including weapons trafficking. A 2007 FBI report obtained by Ryan Mauro of the Clarion Project states:

“The documented propensity for violence by this organization supports the belief the leadership of the MOA extols membership to pursue a policy of jihad or holy war against individuals or groups it considers enemies of Islam, which includes the US Government.”

It warned that MOA “possesses an infrastructure capable of planning and mounting terrorist campaigns within the U.S. and overseas.”

Orders were also issued for members released on parole to stay off the compounds and to minimize associations with other MOA members that live on the lands. Many members are on parole for crimes like distributing drugs, running illegal guns, fraud and counterfeiting.

Because parole officers can enter homes or come onto properties without a search warrant, MOA officials are concerned that the presence of a parolee on their land could be used for intelligence-gathering and to find a pretext for a raid.

Multiple independent sources emphasized that MOA membership is not confined to the camps and reported a peculiar scattering of members into areas of the U.S. that previously had no MOA presence.

The sources warned that some MOA members have been in violent drug gangs, sometimes in a covert capacity where the gangs are not informed of their MOA ties. They express concern that non-MOA criminals could be utilized so as to minimize traces to the group.

A public statement by Sheikh Gilani published on November 14 appears peaceful, but these sources say that the wording has frightening implications that outsiders would fail to detect.

“I foretold the disastrous results should this man be elected as the American President. He has come as a test and trial for the faithful adherents of the holy books. There is no reason to cry, weep or despair over this current difficulty,” it reads.

Gilani is referring to his prophecies that a “tyrant” would take control of the White House during the End Times, shortly before an apocalyptic battle happens that ushers in final victory for Islam (as he interprets it).

MOA believes that this “Doomsday” will happen under the reign of Gilani’s successor, known as the 7th Sultan. Gilani is understood by members to be on the cusp of death. Sources reported last monththat Gilani has transferred his title of “imam of MOA” to his son in the U.S., Sultan Ahmed Gilani, who may be separate from the prophetic 7th Sultan.

Khalifa Hussain Abdallah, known as “K1”.

Khalifa Hussain Abdallah, known as “K1” within the group for his top ranking as an original founder, is said to be a key supervisor of these preparations for armed conflict.

The sources urged Mawyer and Mauro to be on alert, as MOA members believe they are responsible for the forthcoming crackdown. Law enforcement has been informed of the danger and should consider MOA the immediate suspect if any harm is done to them.

The Christian Action Network and Clarion Project challenge Sheikh Gilani to prove his alleged commitment to non-violence by publishing an unequivocal forbiddance of any violent action against Mawyer and Mauro by any MOA supporter under any circumstances.


Martin Mawyer is the founded the Christian Action Network (CAN). Mawyer has directed three documentary films and has appeared on top television and radio programs in the U.S. His four books include:  Silent Shame: The Shocking Story of Child Sexual Abuse in America; Pathways to Success: First Steps for Becoming a Christian in Action; Defending the American Family and Twilight in America: The Untold Story of Islamic Terrorist Training Camps Inside America.

Ryan Mauro is’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.


Young, Radicalized Man From NC Planned Mass Casualty Attack

Four Simple Reasons Not to Trust Iran

Ohio State Stabbing: Playing Into ISIS’ Hands

What If Your Holiday Parade Was a Terror Target?

What do nine bloody attacks in 18 months have in common?

Just now I posted some of the news generated by the Ohio State Somali slasher attack two days ago. But, I still have three other news reports that are connected with the Islam-inspired attack that I want to say more about.

This is the first…..

Don’t miss Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily where he tells us there is a connection between nine violent attacks carried out on American soil in the last 18 months.

Law enforcement, from the local level on up to the FBI, said they did not know what could have motivated the young Muslim student to act in such a premeditated, violent way against his fellow students on a chilly Tuesday morning in Columbus.

Artan, an 18-year-old freshman at OSU, had immigrated from his native Somalia through Pakistan, arriving in Columbus at the invitation of the U.S. government, which considered him a “refugee.”

But the media failed to connect any of the dots with a host of similar attacks on U.S. soil, let alone the even larger number of strikingly similar attacks in Europe committed by migrants from Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa.

Go to World Net Daily where Hohmann connects the dots and see the list of nine violent attacks in the U.S.!  What do they have in common?

An aside: Every time one of the Islam-inspired killers goes on a rampage (showing Islam’s violent propensities), I wonder if the Islamists who are working day and night to take us over through immigration, through the Hijra (detailed in Hohmann’s new book), are furious at the punk with no patience.


News roundup: More Somali Slasher news

Security Expert: Ohio State Attack Further Evidence Jihadis Worldwide Mimic Palestinian Terror Tactics

How many white refugees did we take from South Africa last month?

Laugh of the day: see what Soros is spending money on to help refugees

EDITORS NOTE: Mr. Hohmann’s new book will be available in January 2017. Please click here to order an advanced copy of Stealth Invasion.

4 Reasons Trump Drives Lifetime High In Stock Market

After posting 9 straight lows in a row, and the market bottoming on election night, concerns have faded away in the rear view mirror as Trump drove the stock market to hit lifetime highs on November 21st. Three main things are happening that few people are talking about in what is affectionately being called “Trump Effect” by many experts. Either way, most people out there are on pace to beat their average 401k returns this year.

But what are these magical forces?

Let’s break them down one-by-one.

1. The Possibility Of A Stimulus To Help Lift Manufacturing

In the weeks leading up to the election, people were confused and concerned. Investors had no idea what to think. Now, however, with Trump at the helm and a the Republican lead house and Senate as his right and left hand men, the general consensus is that things are looking up for American manufacturing. The business community as a whole is feeling good about the possibility of a stimulus package focused on manufacturing to help struggling companies like Caterpillar and US Steel.

Such a stimulus would not only help those companies but benefit the many other industries closely tied to manufacturing. Investors are seeing this as an opportunity to buy before the stimulus is announced and enacted.

2. Infrastructure Funding Possible Boost For Economy

How many times did Trump say the airports in the US are like a third world country during the campaign? That’s rhetorical; obviously nobody can count that high. Regardless, that’s definitely something he focused on and is passionate about. He can’t land the Trump Force 1 in any old run-down airport.

Airports, bridges, buildings, highways, and a whole host of other items are on his fixer-upper list. This will require money, but more importantly it will require businesses in the private sector to get involved. That is good for the economy, which in turn is good for business again.

The point?

The economy is going to improve with someone at the top who is a successful business owner if not for any other reason than he sees the world through business-colored glasses. Business, and investors, like that. It’s not rocket science.

3. Deregulation, Including Obamacare, Has Businesses Optimistic

Perhaps Trump’s second favorite topic on the stump was repealing and replacing Obamacare. Whether or not that will be as easy as he initially thought it would be, it is certainly the direction he is headed. Whether it’s repealed, modified, added to, or modified in any other way, a safe bet is that it will be more business friendly. That compared with some of the talk of financial reform and going after the EPA and IRS has Corporate America excited about the options.

After all, American’s don’t necessarily like uncertainty. Election nights are always volatile events where nobody knows what is going on but, usually, calmer heads prevail. Usually.

After the 2012 election of President Obama, however, the stock market went into a tailspin. Here’s a fun fact from

Dow Jones’s data team says the average change on the day after Election Day is negative 0.9%, with the top 5 declines arriving in the wake victories by Democratic presidents.

4. The Trade War With China And Mexico

A fourth, perhaps less important, reason for this increase in prosperity is the promise of an end to countries like China and Mexico taking advantage of the US. This would greatly increase the value of American-made products like an old fashioned Winchester safe or a set of craftsman tools.

I think we’ll find, going forward, that Trump will be very good for the people holding a lot of stock.

Pope warns Trump: Do not back away from UN climate pact

Pope Francis has issued a climate change challenge directly to President Elect Trump. The Pope, in thinly veiled speech, urged Trump not to withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations Paris agreement reached in 2015. The UN treaty has been said by critics to be “history’s most expensive treaty’,” with a “cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually.”

Pope Francis warned of the “crisis of climate change.”  “The ‘distraction’ or delay in implementing global agreements on the environment shows that politics has become submissive to a technology and economy which seek profit above all else,” Francis said, in what Reuters described as “a message that looked to be squarely aimed at” Trump.

Trump pledged to pull the U.S. out of the UN Paris climate agreement and defund and withdraw from the UN climate process. See: Trump wins U.S. Presidency! Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Set to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda!

Speaking to a group of scientists, including physicist Stephen Hawking, the pope said in his speech that scientists should “work free of political, economic or ideological interests, to develop a cultural model which can face the crisis of climatic change and its social consequences”. The Pope has previously urged Catholics to pray for a UN climate agreement. See: Pope urges prayers for passage of UN climate treaty! Tells faithful ‘to ask God for a positive outcome’ for Paris UN agreement 

(Pope Francis greets Stephen Hawking (R), theoretical physicist and cosmologist, during a meeting with the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Vatican, November 28, 2016. Osservatore Romano/Handout via Reuters)

Pope Francis also called for “an ecological conversion capable of supporting and promoting sustainable development.” In 2015, the Pope issued an encyclical on climate and the environment titled “Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home.”

In a 2015 Climate Depot Special Report revealed the Pope’s inner climate circle were. See: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate

The report noted: “The Vatican relied on advisers who are the most extreme elements in the global warming debate.  These climate advisers are so far out of the mainstream they even make some of their fellow climate activists cringe…The Vatican advisers can only be described as a brew of anti-capitalist, pro-population control advocates who allow no dissent and are way out of the mainstream of even the global warming establishment.”

Climate Depot also released the 2015 report: The Climate Skeptic’s Guide To Pope Francis’: Talking Points About The Pope & Global Warming – & See: Pope is a ‘climate lobbyist’ – Listen: Morano: ‘Pope is serving as chief religious lobbyist for man-made global warming & UN’

Climate experts who have looked at the UN climate agreement think Trump is correct to dismantle it. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.”

Lomborg added that Trump withdrawing from the UN treaty “will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end” because even if you accept the climate claims of the UN, the agreement “will matter very little to temperature rise.”

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack  has also noted: “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

Climate Depot Note: “In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!”

Francis has faced considerable criticism for his climate activism from both inside the Vatican and out.

See: No Consensus inside the Vatican: Skeptical Vatican Cardinal takes a swing at Pope’s climate encyclical: The Catholic Church has ‘no particular expertise in science’ – The Vatican’s financial chief, Cardinal George Pell,

Flashback: Fox’s Andrew Napolitano: Pope Francis is ‘somewhere between a communist with a lowercase ‘c’ and a Marxist with an uppercase ‘M’

Climate Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs was blunt in his criticism of the Pope’s climate claims. “The Pope Is Wrong About Global Warming,” Briggs declared.

“The Pope declared it would by ‘sad, and I dare say even catastrophic,’ were particular interests to prevail over the common good at the upcoming climate conference in Paris.” It would be sadder if we signed over to politicians even more control than they already have to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. That would really hurt The Poor™. So why does the Pope believe all these demonstrably false things? Bad advice, in part,” Briggs wrote in 2015.

Related Links: 

Special Report: ‘Unholy Alliance’ – Exposing The Radicals Advising Pope Francis on Climate

Flashback: The Climate Skeptic’s Guide To Pope Francis’: Talking Points About The Pope & Global Warming

Pope is a ‘climate lobbyist’ – Listen Now: Morano: ‘Pope is serving as chief religious lobbyist for man-made global warming & UN’

Listen Now – Full 10 minute interview: Morano on the Pope on SRN News radio (9-23-15): ‘This is all about ideology and central planning and the Pope is now serving as the chief religious lobbyist for man-made global warming and the UN. And this is a very ill-conceived role for any pope to play. It’s hard to say the pope is being used, because he is willingly allowing himself to be used by the media and by the UN as a climate lobbyist.’

Pope turns lobbyist?! Urges prayers for passage of UN climate treaty! Tells faithful ‘to ask God for a positive outcome’ for Paris UN agreement – Pope Francis: ‘We believers cannot fail to ask God for a positive outcome to the present discussions, so that future generations will not have to suffer the effects of our ill-advised delays.’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano comment: “No matter how nuanced and faithful to Catholic teachings this encyclical attempts to be, this passage where the Pope urges Catholics to ‘ask God for a positive outcome’ to the current UN global warming treaty process, will overpower every other message. The Pope is clearly endorsing a specific UN political climate treaty and essentially declaring he is on a mission from God to support a UN climate treaty. He even conjures up the comical concept of climate ‘tipping points’.” See: Flashback: Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: Climate Depot Factsheet on Inconvenient History of Global Warming ‘Tipping Points’ — Hours, Days, Months, Years, Millennium

Bloomberg Pope poll shows climate lowest of all issues: Only 33% of Americans agree with Pope’s warmism –

Bloomberg Poll: America Loves Pope Francis, But Not His Stance on Climate Change – Bloomberg Poll reveals 56% of U.S. Catholics believe the Pope’s ‘climate change’ push is a ‘bad direction’ for the church. Only 33% think it amounts to a ‘good direction.’

Study: Papal letter, Laudato Si’ fails to inspire Catholics on ‘climate change’ – “While Pope Francis’ environmental call may have increased some individuals’ concerns about climate change, it backfired with conservative Catholics and non-Catholics, who not only resisted the message but defended their pre-existing beliefs by devaluing the pope’s credibility on climate change,” says Nan Li, lead author of the study.


Podesta Emails: ‘Pope Is the Real Deal’ on Climate
THE POPE’S BOSS?! Wikileaks reveals Pope and Soros Forged An Unholy Alliance On ‘Global  – ‘In 2015, the Soros operatives, embedded in the Vatican, directed Pope Francis’ Environmental Agenda, by delivering for Soros and the UN, an Apostolic Exhortation on Climate Change, and a prized papal endorsement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Pope’s apostolic blessing on the Paris Climate Treaty. Soros won the environmental trifecta sealed and delivered by Pope Francis.’


Pope Maker: The Soros Syndicate Partners With Vatican to Promote UN Climate Agenda

Pope Maker: The Soros Syndicate Partners With Vatican to Promote UN Climate Agenda – On March 13, 2013, Soros and his UN operatives understood that the climate instantly warmed and opportunities abounded with the new leftist Argentine pontiff. George Soros could not have imagined a more perfect partner on the world stage, one he has been searching for his entire career: a major religious leader pontificating as the moral authority for the environmental, borderless countries, mass migration, and pro-Islamic movements.

Climate Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs: ‘The Pope Is Wrong About Global Warming’ – The Pope declared it would by “‘sad, and I dare say even catastrophic,’ were particular interests to prevail over the common good at the upcoming climate conference in Paris.” It would be sadder if we signed over to politicians even more control than they already have to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. That would really hurt The Poor™. So why does the Pope believe all these demonstrably false things? Bad advice, in part.

Leonardo DiCaprio Meets With Pope Francis On ‘Need for Immediate Action on Climate Change’

Bjorn Lomborg: On climate change, Pope Francis isn’t listening to the world’s poor – Lomborg: ‘Those who claim to speak for the poor and say that climate change is the world’s top priority are simply wrong. The world has clearly said it is the least important of the 16 priorities the UN focuses on. And when those campaigners suggest the poor don’t know what’s best for them because carbon cuts will stop global warming from making all other problems worse, they’re wrong again. The poor are typically much better helped directly rather than via climate aid.’

No Consensus inside the Vatican: Skeptical Vatican Cardinal takes a swing at Pope’s climate encyclical: The Catholic Church has ‘no particular expertise in science’ – The Vatican’s financial chief, Cardinal George Pell, has taken the unusual step of criticizing Pope Francis’ groundbreaking environmental encyclical, arguing the Catholic Church has “no particular expertise in science.” Nearly 18 months after Pell was brought to the Vatican by Pope Francis and given a mandate to reform the city-state’s banking affairs, the Australian cardinal gave an interview to the Financial Times, whacking his boss’ landmark document.  “It’s got many, many interesting elements. There are parts of it which are beautiful,” he said. “But the church has no particular expertise in science … the church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters. We believe in the autonomy of science,” Pell told the Financial Times.

Cardinal George Pell on global warming: If it’s science, where’s the evidence?

Kudos! A religious leader who gets it! Flashback 2006: Catholic Cardinal George Pell: ‘In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel gods. Today they demand a reduction in Co2 emissions’

Claim: Pope Francis Part of Amicus Brief Filed in Support of Teen’s Landmark Climate Change Lawsuit

Watch: Video of climate activists at Papal rally in DC reveals they don’t believe in God – ‘I’m more involved with the nature religions’ – ‘The best part, most of those in attendance didn’t even believe in God! And they certainly were not convinced by the Pope’s position on climate to think more critically about other matters faith and Catholic teaching, such as issues like abortion. If the Pope and the Vatican think that by taking a step closer to the left on climate change they would make people more open to serious matters of faith and morality, they are flat out wrong.’

UK Sun newspaper: Pope Francis committing ‘Holy Wrong’ – ‘He has no business banging on about climate change’ – ‘Stick to religion, Your Holiness’

Alabama’s climatologist Dr. John Christy: I would give the Pope some homework on global warming – Regs ‘will actually do nothing to change what the climate is going to do’

‘We have never lived in better times’: Aussie Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer: Heaven and Hell, the Pope condemns the poor to eternal poverty – This book criticises the Encyclical and shows that we have never lived in better times, that cheap fossil fuel energy has and is continuing to bring hundreds of millions of people from peasant poverty to the middle class and that the alleged dangerous global warming is a myth.

‘Only when Third World children can do homework at night using cheap coal-fired electricity can they escape from poverty.’

Pope Francis, Vatican Officials and Climate Skeptics Have a Common Enemy in United Nations Global Warming Agenda

Robert Redford: The Pope is right about climate change – Redford: ‘Flooding, drought, wildfires, and hurricanes – all you have to do is open your eyes to see the damage being done, and it’s going to get worse. We can no longer claim ignorance as an excuse for inaction. The jury is no longer out – climate change is real. It is not just a threat for the future, but happening here and now. And as Pope Francis so eloquently points out, climate change is a moral imperative that transcends politics.’

UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After Trump Event – SHREDDED UN Climate Treaty at Summit – Full Video of UN Climate Cops Shutting Down Skeptics

Climate Report to UN: Trump right, UN wrong – Skeptics Deliver Consensus Busting ‘State of the Climate Report’ to UN Summit

Trump wins U.S. Presidency! Climate Skeptics Rejoice! Set to dismantle & Defund UN/EPA climate agenda!

Bjorn Lomborg: Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all – Clexit ‘will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end’ – ‘So Trump’s promise to dump Paris will matter very little to temperature rises, and it will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end’