Can we Finally Now Turn the Page?

Every dictatorship needs a devil.  And the dictatorship that is the modern Democrat Party – with several Republican allies – has their devil in Russia.

By Wallace Brushweiler and William Palumbo

When it comes to President-Elect Donald J. Trump and his swift-acting transition team, day-to-day politics are being criminalized.  Every occurrence is another outrage, an unparalleled indignity for the country with no precedent in modern history.*

For example, Trump’s own businesses.  Everybody knew long before Trump ran for President that he was a billionaire with a sprawling, worldwide commercial empire.  But now that he has won the election and in the process of disentangling himself from the Trump Organization, his enemies are already speculating about impeachment over precisely the issue emoluments.  (Just out of curiosity: did these same people consciously overlook the Clinton Foundation during Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State… yes!)

That’s but only one outrage among the left movement today.  The latest two manufactured, melodramatic and plain silly outrages both predictably cite a common devil shared by the Democrats and many in the Republican establishment: Russia.

Rex Tillerson vs. John Kerry

Mr. Rex Tillerson is the CEO of ExxonMobil, one of, if not the, largest companies in the world.  The company he directs has energy-related projects across the world’s continents and around its oceans, including in Russia.  In 2012, Russian President Vladimir Putin awarded Tillerson the Russian Order of Friendship.

Now you might be thinking: Why is this Russian connection of Tillerson more disqualifying than the Bush family’s close association with Saudi monarchs, or ExxonMobil’s own interests in Qatar, two known sources of terrorist financing?  Excellent question.

Speaking of terror states, let’s get to the source.  John Kerry, who unfortunately is the current Secretary of State, is related by family links to his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif.  Iran is the number one sponsor of Islamic terrorism around the world.  Thanks to John Kerry, they also find themselves with more influence, money, and international acceptance than they have since the days of the western friendly Shah Mohammad Reza.

Do you remember hearing the media, the pundits, or Washington establishment complain John “Ketchup” Kerry’s close connections to the regime that chants “Death to America!” each Friday afternoon?  This relationship is more substantial than some government-given honor.  It’s all in the family … and some.

Up until now, nothing negative has been announced about Tillerson.  The same cannot be said about Kerry and his gang.

Russian Hack Attack?  So says Barack Hussein Obama and John Brennan

Ever looking to discredit and cast aspersion on the impending Trump presidency, the CIA has concluded that Russia hacked its way to a Donald Trump victory.  The so-called evidence?  Allegedly, Russia also hacked the Republican National Committee, but did not release the information to WikiLeaks, like they (allegedly) did with DNC information.  Ergo, Vladimir Putin’s government unfairly advantaged Donald Trump.

There’s just one small problem with this manipulative story: RNC Chairman Reince Priebus denies they were ever hacked in the first place.  The “hack” of the DNC was an inside job by some disillusioned Democrats .

One may be tempted to call this Russian fear mongering modern day McCarthyism – seeing “Reds under the Bed.”  Yet, do you recall Putin every calling for world revolution and the destruction of Western civilization, like his predecessors in the U.S.S.R.?  Do they chant this every Sunday morning after mass, like they do in Iran on Friday’s after mosque?

Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham, predictably soft, joined their Democrat counterparts in the Senate – among them, the poisonous propagandist Chuck Schumer – and issued the following statement:

“Recent reports of Russian interference in our election should alarm every American … Democrats and Republicans must work together, and across the jurisdictional lines of the Congress, to examine these recent incidents thoroughly and devise comprehensive solutions to deter and defend against further cyber-attacks.”

Reminder: These are the same two Republican Senators who acted as special pleaders, in concert with Barack Hussein Obama, today’s sitting president, for the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi.  Morsi’s first trip abroad as President of Egypt was to Iran, to visit Kerry’s buddies in the Iranian government.

Luckily for posterity, the FBI conducted a thorough examination of Russian interference into the election and declared there was no evidence to support the claim.

Politicized DOJ, Politicized CIA

The election of 2016 proved that our federal institutions have become discouragingly politicized.  The Department of Justice bent into a pretzel folded like a double helix while attempting to rationalize their reluctance to prosecute of Hillary Clinton.

Obama, while bogged down in swamp of actual scandals in 2014, famously referred to them as “phony scandals.”

Would the CIA under John Brennan, former National Security Advisor to Obama, dare to misinform the American public with a truly phony scandal, and raise the specter of Russian intelligence active measures where there were none?  Is Attorney General Loretta Lynch blind in her pursuit of justice?

To believe the Democrats, some Republicans, and the entire media today, is to believe that Trump going, unannounced, to dinner with his family is not only scandalous, but downright perilous to our democracy.

Speaking of phony, you know what really is?  Obama, and his thoroughly fraudulent administration.  Kindly, we have not covered the Podesta travesty here.

Note to those who are undermining the incoming President – Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary, and the rest of the gang – you are just a bunch of crying baby losers.

* Unless comparable to another so-called devil, the disproportionally maligned Richard Nixon.

The 28th Amendment

Just six weeks away from retiring the worst president in U.S. history, many Americans are justifiably concerned about what Barack Obama will do to occupy his time when he is no longer in the Oval Office.  Is there any chance that he will pass quietly  and gracefully into retirement as Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush (41), and Bush (43) have done?  Or will he follow the example of Democrats such as Carter, Clinton, and Gore, men who found it impossible to abandon the national spotlight?

As a presidential usurper who did great damage to our republic during his eight years in the White House, will Obama have the decency to simply accept his less than admirable place in history?  Not likely.  Instead, he will likely hang around Washington “like stink on a skunk,” offering up his opinions on every conceivable issue and burnishing his tarnished image.

Under that circumstance, it behooves Republicans… in Congress and in the White House… to give Obama something to think about.  And since Democrats have resurrected the “birther” issue during the recent campaign… charging that President-elect Trump is somehow unfit to serve because he once raised questions about Obama’s birth certificate… we are left with a bit of unfinished business.  What greater service could Republicans provide than to bring some much-needed clarity to the issue of presidential eligibility so that we will never again be confronted with the possibility of being governed by a bogus president?  The most direct way of achieving that much-needed clarity is through the adoption of an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Article II. Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, states that, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  We know that Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal were all at least thirty-five years of age, and we have sufficient evidence that they had all been U.S. resident for at least fourteen years, but were they “natural born” U.S. citizens?  What is a “natural born” citizen, and why did the Framers limit access to the presidency only to “natural born” citizens?

When the Founders met in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787, to approve the final draft of the U.S. Constitution, the physical scars of the War of Independence from Great Britain were still visible all around them and a deep-seated animosity toward all things British colored every aspect of their daily lives.  So is it even remotely conceivable that, just five years and eleven months after General Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, the Founders would have presented to the states for ratification a Constitution that would allow an individual with divided loyalties – e.g. an individual with dual US-British citizenship – to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy?  It is a thoroughly preposterous notion on its

face.  To believe that they would have done so requires a willing suspension of reason.

For example, in a July 25, 1787, letter from John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, addressed to General George Washington, president of the Constitutional Convention, Jay expressed his concern over the prospect of allowing an individual with any form of potential foreign allegiance to serve as president of the United States and commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy.  He wrote:

“Permit me to hint whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the commander-in-chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen.

Further expressing the prevailing concerns of the time, and as an expression of the fear of foreign influence that motivated and inspired the Founders, Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers,

“These most deadly adversaries of republican government (cabal, intrigue, etc.) might actually have expected to make their approach from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.  How could they better gratify this than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?”                                                                 

The Founders rightly understood that the most influential factor in a child’s upbringing is the parenting he/she receives as a child, and that the cultural, philosophical, political, and religious influence of a child’s parents fundamentally establishes the direction of his/her future conduct and intellectual development.  Accordingly, what the Founders feared most, and what caused them to limit access to the presidency only to the “natural born,” was the concern that a future president… during his formative years and during the years in which he was developing intellectually… would be exposed to an environment or an ideology in which he might come to reject the values and the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

Taking into account those concerns, it is easy to understand why the Founders produced a draft Constitution under which only two (2) jobs in the entire United States of America… public sector and private sector combined… require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens.  Those two jobs are president and vice president of the United States.

At the time the Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, there were three types of citizens:

  1. The former British subjects who, having renounced all foreign allegiances, became citizens of a sovereign American nation on July 4, 1776,
  2. The post-Declaration children of those who became U.S. citizens on July 4, 1776, the first “natural born” citizens of the United States, and
  3. A class of citizens comprised of those who were naturalized after July 4, 1776, having

taken a loyalty oath and having renounced all foreign allegiances.

In addition to being a “natural born” citizen and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years, the Constitution required that those who would seek the presidency must be at least thirty-five years of age.  However, the only “natural born” citizens available on June 21, 1788, the day the Constitution was ratified, were children under twelve years of age.  To solve that problem, the Framers added a “grandfather clause,” making it possible for newly-minted citizens… all U.S. residents for at least fourteen years and all at least thirty-five years of age, but none of them “natural born” because they were born to parents who were British subjects prior to July 4, 1776… to lead the nation.  This was necessary until such time as a body of individuals, born to US citizen parents after the Declaration of Independence, reached age thirty-five.

For example, our first seven presidents… George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Andrew Jackson… were all “citizens” because they were born in what later became the United States of America, but they were not “natural born” citizens because their parents were all British subjects at the time they were born.  All were “grandfathered” and made eligible under the phrase, “or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…”

Were that not the case, and had the Framers intended that the terms “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” be considered synonymous, they would simply have written, No Person except a Citizen of the United States shall be eligible to the Office of President…”

Martin Van Buren, our eighth president, was born at Kinderhook, New York on December 5, 1782, six years and five months after the Declaration of Independence.  Unlike his predecessors, he was not just a “citizen,” he was a “natural born” citizen… the first president, at least thirty-five years of age, who was born to U.S. citizen parents after July 4, 1776.  Every U.S. president since Van Buren… with the exception of Republican Chester A. Arthur, whose Irish father was reportedly a British subject at the time of his birth, and Democrat Barack Obama, whose Kenyan father was also a British subject at the time of his birth… has been a “natural born” U.S. citizen, as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

For all of the above reasons, and to clarify and validate the original intent of the Founders, the Republican members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, should introduce a Joint Resolution for an amendment to the United States Constitution, as follows:

Amendment XXVIII

For purposes of Article II, Section 1 of this Constitution, the term “natural born Citizen,” as it applies to candidates for President or Vice President of the Unites States, shall mean an individual born to parents, both of whom were U.S. citizens at the time of the candidate’s birth.  Nor shall any person be eligible to the office of President or Vice President who has at any time in his or her lifetime been a citizen of a foreign nation or a dual citizen of the United States and any foreign nation.

Inasmuch as millions of Republicans threw their support behind Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, and Governor Bobby Jindal, without assuring themselves of their presidential eligibility, congressional Republicans need not make the case that the amendment is intended to correct a great wrong that has been perpetrated against the American people during the Obama years.  However, if Barack Obama and other Democrats take it personally, they have every right and every reason to do so.  Only they can feel the guilt associated with having elected and served a usurper president who did nothing but take up space during his eight years in the White House.  Only they can know the shame of having added a large asterisk to the history of U.S. presidents.

PODCAST: Trump’s Generals And The Real ‘Fake News’

With his nomination of General John Kelly (Ret.) to head the Department of Homeland Security, Donald Trump has added a third retired general to his would-be cabinet. Already the left is claiming that Trump is forming a military dictatorship of some sort. But their predictable crowing aside, our country today needs firm, experienced leadership. These men, who will inform Trump on security matters foreign and domestic, have proven backgrounds of courage, valor, and discipline.

Our disgusting mainstream media has a new phrase that they launch at the new generation of conservative/nationalist websites and media platforms: “fake news.” Yet aren’t these the same clowns who didn’t see Brexit coming? Who then predicted Brexit would destroy the UK economy? Who then didn’t see Trump coming? Who predicted his election would tank the capital markets? Who were proven to collaborate with the Democrats during the election?

We ask – who is the REAL fake news?

Topics of Discussion:

  • Trump’s Pre-Office Presidency
  • Cabinet appointments and Gen. John Kelly
  • Pundits of Propaganda: Pushers of Fake News
  • Italian referendum and the effect it will have on France and Germany
  • Harry Reid’s ignominious exit and the one gift he leaves us

and more . . .

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may listen to USA Transnational Report live on JJ McCartney’s Nightside Radio Studios and on Red State Talk Radio. Anyone may subscribe to USA Transnational Report podcast on iTunes here.

Republicans sweep Louisiana — Kennedy, Johnson, Higgins add to Congressional Majority

WASHINGTON, Dec. 10, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins, a former Louisiana legislator, released the following statement congratulating John Kennedy on his election to become Louisiana’s next U.S. Senator and also Clay Perkins and Mike Johnson who won their races for the U.S. Congress. Johnson will represent Louisiana’s 4th congressional district and Higgins Louisiana’s 3rd congressional district.

“I am grateful that Louisianans voted overwhelmingly to send Mike Johnson and John Kennedy to Congress.

“After 8 years under the Obama administration, our freedoms have never been more endangered. With leaders in Congress like Mike Johnson and John Kennedy, we now have an opportunity to make freedom mean something again.

“I’m excited that Mike Johnson will represent Louisiana in Congress. I’ve seen first hand Mike’s consistent commitment to the tenets that have made our state and our nation great: faith, family and freedom. In Congress, I know he will be a champion for religious liberty just as he was in the state legislature. Mike has demonstrated not only a deep understanding of the U.S. Constitution but also a commitment to upholding and defending it.

“I congratulate John Kennedy for winning his race and I’m confident that he will stand for faith, family, and freedom in the U.S. Senate. John has committed to not just talking about the important issues, but actually addressing them. I know John will work to confirm justices who will respect the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. He will be an advocate for the unborn, our individual liberties, and for family values.

“I look forward to working with both Mike and John to impact Louisiana and our great country,” concluded Perkins.

“I congratulate Clay Higgins for winning the race to represent Louisiana’s 3rd district.  I’m confident that he will be an advocate in Congress for faith, family, and freedom.  He is dedicated to preserving the integrity of the Constitution, and will work to restore the freedoms that have been lost over the last 8 years under the Obama administration.  I look forward to working with Clay to positively impact both our state and our country,” concluded Perkins.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Republicans cement control of U.S. Senate in Louisiana runoffs, ending 2016 elections

REVEALED: Michigan Recount Uncovers Serious Voter Fraud in Detroit- VOTES COUNTED UP TO 6 TIMES

Restoring Free Speech: The Trump Effect

Years ago, Rush Limbaugh coined the term, “Low-info Voters.” The term perfectly describes Americans, like 95% of my family, who only get their news from the mainstream media. Consequently, low-info voters do not know that the mainstream media is not fair and balanced. The mainstream media has become strong-arm enforcers of political correctness and operatives of the Democrat Party; 100% focused and committed to furthering the socialist/progressive agenda.

Yes, I remember when I was a kid my black Baltimore City firefighter dad told me, “The Republicans are for the rich and the Democrats are for the little guy; the working man.”

A few years ago, I was able to convince my 89 year old dad that this “ain’t” his Democrat Party of his youth. Dad’s Democrat Party has been hijacked by old hippies. They reject Christianity while vowing to arrest anyone speaking badly of Islam. They use public schools to teach our kids to despise all things traditional, wholesome,  and good.

They are the ones who have, for the most part, made it criminal to publicly say you believe marriage should remain as it has been for thousands of years and how God intended; between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24). They are the ones banning Nativity scenes and banning saying “Merry Christmas.” 

They are the ones banning teachers addressing students as boys and girls, claiming gender distinctions are intolerant, discriminatory and bigoted. They are the ones pushing the extinction of blacks via a disproportionate high number of black abortions. This it why it continues to frost me when low-info idiots in my black “Christian” family continue to pledge their brain-dead loyalty to Democrats while calling me their Uncle Tom relative.

The Left uses a highly effective tactic. They brand any push-back to them cramming their progressive agenda down our throats “extremism.” This tactic works great with so many low-info voters.

Here is how it works. The Left says they want burly men with beards, dressed like lumberjacks to be permitted to use women restrooms if they inwardly feel like a woman that day. Husbands, fathers and brothers across America politically said, No-way. We are not allowing grown men in restrooms with our little girls, wives and mothers.

Government mandating this insane restroom policy and Leftist businesses like Target embracing it has led to rapes and molestation in women restrooms. And yet, guess who the mainstream media and Democrats attack, calling them extremist? Answer: All who oppose men in women restrooms. In an attempt to demonize and silence American’s common-sense disagreement, the Left claims anyone opposing men in women restrooms hates homosexuals and want to see them tortured and murdered.

If you oppose the Left removing crosses from memorials, removing the Ten Commandments from public buildings, banning Nativity scenes and banning saying “Merry Christmas”, the Left claims you’re an extremist who hates homosexuals, suppresses women and want to cram your religion down everyone’s throat. Do you see how the Left’s extremism tactic works? They are the aggressors, but call you an extremist when you simply say, “No.”

Clearly, the Left has launched a pedal-to-the-metal campaign to cram their progressive agenda down our throats. For example: A Zales jewelry TV commercial featured a lesbian wedding. Homosexuals are only 2% of the population. So why is featuring a lesbian wedding necessary? Fearful to admit it, most Americans still instinctively know marriage is between one man and one woman. But if they dare say it out loud, the Left will try to destroy them by branding their belief in tradition and biblical teaching extreme; outrageously claiming they hate homosexuals and want to see them tortured and murdered.

The Left’s tactic of branding the slightest opposition “extremism” has silenced many. I believe Trump in the WH has already begun liberating Americans from the Left’s tyranny of political correctness; muzzling free speech. I realize the Left will distort my statement to mean Trump has opened the flood gates to express hate. Nonsense.

The truth is Leftists are the ones who boldly and relentlessly spew hate against Jesus, Christians, Republicans, Conservatives (black and white), white people and police. Heck, Leftists have even given marching orders to their minions, declaring it open season on killing whites and police. Have you heard the slightest rebuke from the mainstream media? No.

All I am saying is Trump has Americans timidly coming out from the shadows; feeling a little less afraid of exercising their Constitutional right to express their religious and political views.

And that brothers and sisters is good for all Americans.

Honeymoon over for Canada PM Trudeau’s 35,000 Syrian refugees who can’t find work

This time last year Canada began ‘welcoming’ thousands of Syrian refugees who were flying in by the planeload as the young new Prime Minister had promised when he was elected weeks before.  As a result, Justin Trudeau became the darling of the world’s humanitarians who were clamoring for America to do the same!

Now, one year on, my alerts today are filled with stories like these—panic sets in as one year of government support ends and Syrians can’t find jobs to support their families!

From The Star:

Bedrettin Al Muhamad and his wife, Mariam [featured family—ed] have been taking English classes and making every effort to immerse themselves in Canadian culture since arriving here from Turkey in February.

[….]

But the honeymoon will soon be over, as the Mississauga couple ponders quitting their English classes and starting to look for jobs to support their five children, Hanan, 13; Hasan, 11; Azzam, 9; Mohammad, 8; and Rahaf, 6.

“We are scared we are not going to find jobs. It’s a cause of stress. How are we going to pay for our ($1,735) rent when money stops coming in?” asked Al Muhamad, 37, whose family’s monthly government refugee resettlement assistance ends on Feb. 12.

[….]

For many of the 35,000 Syrians who have arrived in the country — 15,000 in Ontario — since Canada started bringing in planeloads of newcomers last Dec. 9, what is commonly known in the refugee resettlement circle as “Month 13” is looming.

After a year of being warmly welcomed into local communities across the country, the 12-month financial commitment to these refugees by Ottawa and private sponsorship groups will start to come to an end.

trudeau-bearing-coat

Trudeau in December 2015: I come bearing coats (no jobs) but we have coats for this year at least!

And, here is another story (with another featured family) from The Guardian:

Canada had previously granted asylum to a small number of Syrian refugees. But one year ago this week, 163 Syrian refugees were greeted at the airport by Justin Trudeau, Canada’s prime minister, in scenes that contrasted sharply with the hostile rhetoric emanating from some US politicians, including then Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Thousands more refugees would arrive in Canada the following months, supported either by the federal government or by private citizens who committed to covering their expenses for their first year in Canada.

[….]

But the one-year mark means an end to the monthly living allowance from the government that has, along with food banks and donations, sustained their new lives. From February onwards, the family must either support themselves – a seemingly monumental task considering the parents’ search for jobs have so far been fruitless – or enroll in the province’s social assistance program, in which they would likely receive less of an allowance than what they’re currently receiving.

“All the Syrians say the same thing, we’re worried about what happens after one year. We don’t know. With no stipend, how are we going to live?” Alsakni said through a translator. “It’s like we’re blindfolded. We don’t know what is coming.  [This is the mother in the family speaking, she is the only adult in the family to begin to learn English, but she still needs a translator!—ed]

There are many more stories like this in my alerts today.

It is a good thing we have Germany and Canada as models for what NOT to do about Syrian refugees!

For our complete Canada category, go here.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Senate voted (and Obama signed) the Continuing Budget Resolution overnight, refugee program comes up short

America’s Refugee Admissions Program a dumping ground, Krikorian has it exactly right!

Was Nebraska student diagnosed with TB in November a refugee?

Which refugees have gone to Missoula, Montana’s new resettlement office?

Marijuana causes psychotic behavior and violence — Trump to the rescue

In the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, marijuana was classified as a Schedule I drug because it was considered to have no “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” Recently John Bolton, one of the candidates on Donald Trump’s short list for Secretary Of State, said on the Fox News program “Out Numbered” that all of the States laws that legalize marijuana are unconstitutional.

The drug treatment organization Caron website says this about marijuana:

The short term signs of marijuana use include impaired coordination; skewed sensory and time perception; difficulty thinking, concentrating and problem solving; shortened attention span and distractibility; decreased alertness; impaired learning and memory; and euphoria. Additionally, marijuana can cause disturbed thoughts and worsen psychotic symptoms in schizophrenics.

A long-term marijuana problem often results in lowered motivation and an impaired ability to function in daily life. Some also experience anxiety, panic attacks, respiratory illnesses and increased heart rate and risk of heart attack. Though research is not definitive, chronic marijuana use has been linked to mental illness such as anxiety, depression and schizophrenia. [Emphasis added]

Learn more about marijuana…

Accuracy in Media’s Cliff Kincaid writes:

Deranged potheads, some of them Islamists, are killing people in a series of violent and terrorist incidents on American soil.

In a recent case in Massachusetts, 15-year-old Mathew Borges has been charged with first-degree murder in the decapitation death of a classmate. But you have to read deep into the articles about the case to discover a motive. Police said he told them that he and his victim, Lee Manuel Viloria-Paulino, went away together to “smoke marijuana.”

[ … ]

Dr. Christine Miller, who has written about the relationship between marijuana and mental illness, says the documented links between the heavy use of marijuana and psychosis in some people may help explain the gruesome murder in Massachusetts.

Ironically, Massachusetts was one of those states that approved the legalization of “recreational” marijuana on November 8 [2016].

[ … ]

Miller cites another case out of Oregon where a pothead decided out of the blue to drive his car over another person he feared and considered a threat. Moments before he struck and killed a man with his car, the suspect in the fatal hit-and-run incident had smoked marijuana in his car and then intentionally sped toward the victim, officials on the scene said.

On November 8th, Floridians approved Amendment 2, which legalizes use of marijuana for medical purposes in the Sunshine state’s constitution. The concern of many Floridians is that the amendment will lead inextricably to recreational use as “pot shops” spread across the state.

Kincaid adds the warning, “Don’t expect our liberal, pro-drug media to draw the obvious connections between marijuana, psychosis and violence.”

The Trump administration may change the trend toward legalizing marijuana. Federal law forbids the use of marijuana for recreational use. Kincaid reports:

In the states where legalization has occurred, Miller says, marijuana usage rates have gone up. She says that because marijuana is an intrinsically dangerous drug, the most serious results of increased use are chronic psychosis (increased five-fold in regular users) and suicide (risk for suicide increased seven-fold in regular users).

But Dr. Miller and other anti-drug advocates, such as Calvina Fay of the Drug Free America Foundation, are optimistic that President-elect Donald J. Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), will turn things around.

The Soros-funded drug legalization lobby is now scared. “This is looking really bad,” Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said about Trump’s cabinet picks. “First Sessions for Attorney General, then [Rep. Tom] Price at HHS, and now yet another old-style drug war character for Homeland Security [General John Kelly]. It looks like Donald Trump is revving up to re-launch the failed drug war.”

Michael Collins, deputy director of the Drug Policy Alliance’s office of national affairs, denounced Kelly as “a big-time drug war zealot,” adding, “As head of Southern Command he demonstrated that he is a true believer in the drug war, and it’s incredibly worrying that he could now head up Homeland Security.”

President-elect Donald J. Trump has never used alcohol nor does he use drugs. He abhors the use of drugs and has repeatedly said that border security will help stop the flow of drugs, like marijuana, into the United States.

Watch out drug users. Looks like there is a new sheriff in town.

RELATED ARTICLE: ANABOLIC STEROIDS — SAFE OR SAVAGE?

Question for Megyn Kelly: Is it ‘hateful’ to stand for Freedom of Speech?

Megyn Kelly attacked Donald Trump Wednesday night for his statements criticizing the free speech event in Garland, Texas in May 2015, of which I was co-organizer and co-sponsor with Pamela Geller, and one of the speakers. Trump was wrong, no doubt, and Kelly correctly explains why.

But in the course of doing so, she says that “Pam [sic] Geller…no question is a hateful person.” Why? Apparently because “she’s a provocateur and she’s not a fan of anyone who’s Muslim from the sound of what she says.” That puts her on par, as far as Kelly is concerned, with Westboro Baptist Church, which Kelly describes as “as hateful as they come. But for years I defended them on the air because they have the right to show up at these funerals. It’s horrible, but they do – and say the hateful, vile things they say.”

The Westboro Baptist Church shows up at military funerals with signs such as “Soldiers Die God Laughs” and “Pray For More Dead Soldiers.” Other signs include “God Hates Fags,” “God Hates You” and “You’re Going to Hell.” Hateful and vile is right. But on what grounds does Kelly put Pamela Geller in the same category? Because “she’s a provocateur and she’s not a fan of anyone who’s Muslim”? Even if that were true, how is it remotely comparable to the cruelty, contempt and schadenfreude of the Westboro Baptist Church? In reality, Kelly’s claims aren’t remotely true: Pamela Geller’s work has been devoted entirely to defending the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law, and individual rights. She has stood for people the “human rights” establishment steadfastly overlooks: apostates from Islam, Muslim girls in danger of honor killing for refusing to wear the hijab, and many others. The only reason why Kelly thinks she is “hateful” is because the Leftist establishment that Kelly is courting so assiduously thinks that she is. What qualifies her as a “provocateur”? In January 2015, Islamic jihadis murdered the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists because they drew Muhammad. In the face of that, free people have two choices: draw Muhammad or submit to this violent intimidation. Pamela Geller and I chose the former; for this, Kelly says she is “hateful” and a “provocateur.”

Clearly, despite her words in defense of the freedom of speech, Kelly still doesn’t understand that freedom, and doesn’t realize what was happening or what was at stake in the Charlie Hebdo massacre and at Garland. What she characterizes as “hateful” is precisely the defense of the freedom of speech that she says is justified. She says, “This is America. We’re allowed to draw whatever we want.” Yet because of what Geller chose to draw, even though her point wasn’t about drawing Muhammad at all but about defending the freedom of speech and standing up against violent intimidation, Kelly says she is “hateful” and a “provocateur.” One may say that Kelly is simply defending Geller’s freedom of speech while disapproving of how she did it, in line with the old adage “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” That certainly applies to the Westboro Baptist Church: one may defend their freedom of speech while disapproving of messages such as “Pray For More Dead Soldiers.” But that doesn’t apply here. Kelly isn’t just disagreeing with what Geller says; she is contradicting herself by simultaneously defending and excoriating Geller for the same action. For Kelly, drawing Muhammad makes one a hateful provocateur, and drawing Muhammad also makes one a defender of the freedom of speech. She doesn’t realize that she has already internalized the stigma upon this activity that Islamic jihadists and supremacists have placed upon it by their threats. She is already halfway to Sharia compliance.

Megyn Kelly, Fox New “The Kelly File”

Here are Kelly’s full remarks on this:

You know, on the, you know, like the flag burning, it’s – we did a segment on it, just one segment. It’s a no-brainer. The Supreme Court has been very clear on this. The First Amendment – Donald Trump and the First Amendment – it’s not a beautiful match. It’s not a match made in heaven, you know, between the free speech rights that he has not defended and the freedom of the press which he has not defended. It’s problematic. And, I mean, I called him out on this back before he even declared his candidacy because he was going after Pam Geller, who there’s no question is a hateful person, who held this Draw Muhammad contest down in Texas. Remember this? And they got attacked by two terrorists. Now she’s a provocateur and she’s not a fan of anyone who’s Muslim from the sound of what she says, but this is America and she has the right to say those things. And she has the right to have a contest like that. And he was one of the ones out there arguing she invited her own attempted murder.

Now, that’s just nonsense. This is America. We’re allowed to draw whatever we want. And if you’re offended, what the Supreme Court has said the answer to speech you do not like is not less speech, it’s more speech. There are many people in the country who don’t get that. I mean, like, the Westboro Baptist Church is another example – as hateful as they come. But for years I defended them on the air because they have the right to show up at these funerals. It’s horrible, but they do – and say the hateful, vile things they say. Now there can be time, place and manner restrictions, but you can’t shut down the speech altogether. I don’t know that Donald Trump fully appreciates that or cares. I think he is truly a populist. And if the popular thing to do is to say you have to ban flag burning, even if it ultimately means we’re compromising a core principle of who we are as a republic, I don’t think he really thinks that that deeply into it.

Here is Pamela Geller’s able takedown of Kelly:

“Pamela Geller: Megyn Kelly Says ‘No Question’ That I’m a ‘Hateful Person,’” by Pamela Geller, Breitbart, December 8, 2016:

In hitting President-elect Trump and supposedly defending the freedom of speech, Megyn Kelly on NPR Wednesday night referred to “Pam [sic] Geller, who there’s no question is a hateful person, who held this Draw Muhammad contest down in Texas.”

Kelly said this in the context of defending the freedom of speech: “Now she’s a provocateur and she’s not a fan of anyone who’s Muslim from the sound of what she says, but this is America and she has the right to say those things. And she has the right to have a contest like that.” But in smearing me as “hateful,” she demonstrates that she doesn’t really know what was at stake when Islamic jihadis attacked our free speech event in Garland.

Why am I hateful for standing for the First Amendment? Is she copying the tactics of Islamic propagandists, smearing as “hateful” those of us who refuse to submit to the most brutal and extreme ideology on the face of the earth?

And I’m a “provocateur”? Why? The Garland attack was part of a longstanding jihad war against the freedom of speech. Those who say I provoked the jihadis don’t remember, or care to remember, that as jihadis were killing the Muhammad cartoonists in Paris, their accomplice was murdering Jews in a nearby kosher supermarket. Were the Jews “hateful”? Did they “provoke” the jihadis?

I held the event in the same venue where Muslim leaders held a conference in support of the sharia, in support of the ideology behind the Charlie Hebdo jihad massacre. Was that provocative? Should we submit to the devout Muslims who use violence to impose the speech laws under the sharia?

Drawing Muhammad offends Islamic jihadists? So does being Jewish, as many anti-Semitic attacks have proven. How much accommodation of any kind should we give to murderous savagery? To kowtow to violent intimidation will only encourage more of it.

Megyn Kelly should know that….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Source: Fox is ‘Sick’ of Megyn Kelly; ‘Fox News Needs to Cut Her Loose’

“Go ahead and cut my head off. It’s ok. Cut my head off. I’m not racist.”

Dutch Secret Service investigated Geert Wilders’ ‘ties to Israel and their possible influence on his loyalty’

Breathtaking. This shows how thoroughly the Dutch establishment has been compromised by its avidity to appease Islamic supremacists and pretend that the massive influx of Muslim migrants is not transforming Dutch society for the worse. Like dhimmi Middle Eastern Christians who adopt the Muslim perspective on Israel, they, too, have adopted the notion that support for and alliance with Israel is something nefarious, something to be investigated.

Many swamps are in dire need of draining.

“Report: Dutch Secret Service Investigated Far-right Leader’s Ties to Israel,” by Shlomo Papirblat, Haaretz, December 5, 2016:

BRUSSELS – Geert Wilders, leader of Holland’s far-right anti-Muslim Party of Freedom, was investigated in the past by the country’s General Intelligence and Security Service (AVID) over his “ties to Israel and their possible influence on his loyalty.”

Wilders, whose party is leading the polls ahead of the upcoming election in March, is likely to be a key figure in the next government.

The undercover investigation was exposed over the weekend by the veteran daily De Volkskrant. According to the article, AVID agents conducted the investigation from 2009 to 2010, with its existence and results remaining unknown until now. The Dutch central intelligence organization is in charge of safeguarding internal national security, handling non-military dangers to the country and preventing espionage.

An investigation of this kind into an active politician is an exceptional occurrence in Holland, the newspaper noted. If conducted, it is only in cases in which there are very reasonable grounds for suspicion. Wilders was a member of parliament at the time, with his party supporting the right-center coalition government from the outside and enabling it to remain in power.

The reason for the investigation, according to the newspaper, was concern in the Dutch security service about “the possibility that Geert Wilders is influenced by Israeli factors,” with whom he had close ties. He visited Israel at the end of 2008, meeting with “Gen. Amos Gilad in his office in the main military headquarters in Tel Aviv, and regularly attended meetings with Israel’s ambassador to Holland at the time,” according to De Volkskrant….

RELATED ARTICLE: Hizballah top dog: “Christians and Muslims together oppose the challenges presented to them by Israel and the infidels”

Guess who’s blocking Congressional Term Limits — can you say Mitch?

A term limits amendment is about to be introduced in the U.S. House and Senate.

The Hill reports:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) say they want to help President-elect Donald Trump “drain the swamp” by imposing congressional term limits.

The two conservative lawmakers said in a Washington Post op-ed Friday they plan to introduce a constitutional amendment next month to limit members of Congress to three terms in the House and two in the Senate.

[ … ]

“We believe that the rise of political careerism in modern Washington is a drastic departure from what the founders intended of our federal governing bodies. To effectively ‘drain the swamp,’ we believe it is past time to enact term limits for Congress,” Cruz and DeSantis wrote.

The pair argues that imposing term limits would help prevent stagnation on Capitol Hill.

Read more…

But Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is promising to block any floor vote on term limits.

We’ve made incredible progress with our “two-track” strategy for slapping term limits on Congress.

The President-elect of the United States is on board. 

We have teams of staffers and volunteers in the states working overtime to pass the Term Limits Convention legislation in 34 states.

House Speaker Paul Ryan supports term limits and has asked for help passing legislation through the House.

Over 80% of Americans now support term limits.

Even Jeb Bush says he now supports convening the Term Limits Convention!

We’ve never been closer to imposing term limits on Congress.

But the Mitch McConnell and scores of other professional politicians are still standing in our way.

Just because Speaker Ryan or even President-Elect Trump want term limits doesn’t mean the rest of the Congress will go along. Just because the American people want term limits doesn’t mean Mitch McConnell won’t keep blocking our legislation.

Please help us redouble our efforts to pass term limits.

As I just mentioned, our term limits legislation is about to be introduced in both houses of Congress. We need to make sure our legislation isn’t changed or modified into a phony term limits measure that gives the professional politicians cover back home.

Then we need to rally the American people behind this bill. Please give anything you can to this emergency effort. We need to flood Capitol Hill and the targeted state capitals with petitions. We need to promote term limits nationwide. We need more ads and rallies and press events.

We can do this. But we must bulldoze right over the professional politicians like Mitch McConnell to get a vote on term limits.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Term Limits Would Infuse Congress With ‘New Blood,’ Lawmakers Argue

Here’s What the Founders Thought About Term Limits

EDITORS NOTE: Those who wish to “Drain the Swamp” may support Congressional Term Limits by donating here.

Watch What Iran Does, but also Listen to What They Are Saying — ‘Death to America’

President-Elect Trump will be tested by the Islamic state of Iran soon after taking office on January 20. It could come the very day of his inauguration with an enormous (if superficial) head-fake, as they gave President Reagan by releasing our U.S. diplomat-hostages the very minute he swore the oath of office. Or it could come later, in a less benign form.

But this much is certain: that test will come, and the foreign policy establishment in Washington will fail to see it coming and mistakenly interpret it once it occurs. Again.

Establishment analysts focus on Iran’s actions. In itself, that is not a bad thing, but it’s kind of like buying a peach at an American supermarket because of its wonderful good looks, only to cut it open at home to find it wooden and tasteless.

In addition to examining Iran’s actions, we need to pay close attention to what the Islamic regime’s leaders say. We need to understand their ideology, and their goals. Above all, we must not assume – as most analysts do – that they think using the same cost-benefit calculus we do.

This is a regime driven by ideology, fueled on a vision of the end times just as our sun is fueled by its magma. Only rarely does the fuel erupt and become a measurable “event,” although when that happens, it can be deadly. Scientists have warned for years that our electric power grid is vulnerable not only to man-made Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), but to a massive coronal ejection from the sun.

In the same way, the United States remains vulnerable to a massive event, potentially devastating, caused by the confluence of the Iranian regime’s ideology and its military capabilities. Like EMP or a massive coronal ejection, such an occurrence will be a low probability-high impact event. Will we detect that confluence before it happens? If the past record of our intelligence community and our political leaders is any guage, the answer is a resounding no.

Here’s why.

Even the best analysts of the foreign policy establishment limit their analysis to the actions and capabilities of the regime. They note, for example, that when the United States Navy retaliated by sinking Iranian warships after the regime’s unpredicted and confusing decision to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, the regime leadership backed off.  Operation Praying Mantis is still viewed as a resounding success.

They mistakenly took this to mean that the ruling clerics and the fanatical Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) who serve them respected American power; specifically, that they can be deterred.

They discount the chants of “Death to America” the regime leaders have instilled in the generations of the revolution as so much hot air. It’s just bombast. Nothing to see here. Move along, the analysts say.

As proof there is nothing to this relentless inculcation of the regime’s ultimate goal they point to similar claims involving the military. For decades, military leaders have claimed they were building indigenous fighter jets, helicopters and tanks; none have ever moved beyond a few prototypes.

Iranians are prone to exaggeration, they say. How can you tell an Iranian is lying? Because his lips are moving. I have heard respected U.S. intelligence analysts make such a silly – and dangerous – claim.

And of course, Iranians are prone to exaggeration. That much is true. But even in those exaggerations, they reveal their goals and aspirations, and we simply dismiss them as hot air.

For nearly thirty-five years, IRGC leaders and their clerical puppet-masters have boasted they would drive the United States from the Middle East.

“I can remember my father telling me after the Beirut attack on the U.S. Marines that Iran had won,” the son of former IRGC commander Maj. Gen. Mohsen Rezai told me after he defected to the United States. “He said, with a single bomb, we have forced the Americans to pull out of Lebanon. With a few more bombs, we will force them out of the region entirely.”

Such was their goal at that time, and it remains their goal today—except that they are a lot closer to fulfilling it. What once was a long-term aspiration, which nobody in the Washington policy establishment believed, has become a tactical goal whose accomplishment Iran’s leadership can see on the near horizon.

Ever since October 1983 when the regime ordered its proxies to murder 242 U.S. Marines, they have been probing our weaknesses. That is the only way you can explain the outrageous violation of international law in January 2016 when IRGC gunboats captured U.S. sailors gone adrift at sea and humiliated them in front of cameras.

That’s the only way you can understand the installation of Chinese made C-802 ship-killing missiles on the Red Sea coast of Yemen, where IRGC crews actually fired on a U.S. warship in October.

They are testing us, probing our defenses and our willingness to accept pain. They are constantly evaluating our political resolve to resist their goal of driving us from the region.

Under Obama, of course, they found us sorely lacking. From his first days in office, President Obama told the Iranians openly he would end the long-standing U.S. “hostility” toward the Islamic regime. He wanted to “open a channel” for talks, and did.

Iran’s ruling mullahs quickly decided to test Mr. Obama. When three million Iranians took to the streets of Tehran and other cities to protest the stolen “re-selection” of President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as President, they held up signs in English for the CNN cameras. “Obama are you with us?” they said.

When Obama failed to respond or provide even lip-service to the yearning for freedom of the Iranian people, the regime responded on cue. Regime officials went on state television, pointing to photos of the U.S. president.“Obam’ast,” they said, turning his name into a play on words. “He’s with us.”

And Obama showed by his actions that he was with them. As Congress imposed an ever-rigorous set of sanctions aimed to reducing Iran’s oil exports and access to international financing, Obama initially waived their application. Only a relentless bi-partisan push-back caused him to allow the sanctions go into force – with devastating impact on Iran’s economy.

By 2014, the regime was scrambling, fearful that income from reduced oil exports would not be enough to cover subsidies on basic foodstuffs to the poor, leading their most faithful supporters to revolt.

That is when Obama carried out the most astonishing, unnecessary, unilateral capitulation since Chamberlin went to Munich in 1938, offering to remove the sanctions for a temporary reduction in Iran’s nuclear programs.

The traditional foreign policy establishment and its ally, the pro-Tehran lobby, is holding seminars and writing opeds and whispering into whatever ears they can find that President-Elect Trump must hold on to the nuclear deal.

Why? It’s all about actions, and can be measured. They do not want the President-Elect or his advisors focusing on the intentions and goals of Iran’s clerical leaders and their IRGC enforcers. Because to do so would reveal not just the folly, but the tremendous danger inherent in the nuclear deal, which legitimizes the Islamic state of Iran as a nuclear power ten years down the road.

What’s ten years, when you are staring at all eternity? That’s how Ayatollah Khamenei and the IRGC generals think. That’s how their successors will think, if the current regime remains in power.

Their goal was and remains to erase Israel from the map (or “from the pages of history,” if you want to get literal), and to bring about Death to America. And yet, if there’s any effort underway to measure their progress toward those goals in our intelligence and policy establishment, none of our political leaders have taken it seriously.

We ignore the ideology of the Tehran regime and its long-term goals at our peril. President-Elect Trump needs strategists who think outside the box, one reason I am thrilled by the appointments of Lt. General Mike Flynn as National Security advisor and General James T. Mattis as Secretary of Defense.

The Iranians know there’s not a moment to lose. Do we?

EDITORS NOTE: This column first appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

What Made America Great?

It’s over, done, finished. All the energy that was poured into the U.S. Presidential election for over a year, has finally come to an end. It’s time to stop all the whining, blame, complaint, negativity and victim consciousness. It’s time to speak freely once more without worrying about “political correctness”. It’s time for everyone to come together to make America great again. We may differ on how that’s to be achieved, but surely we can all agree on the goal.

What are the qualities and values that made America the richest and greatest country in the world: the country that was, and is, a beacon of hope for people everywhere? The first and most important thing is freedom; freedom from fear, oppression, tyranny, dictatorship and from government interfering into the personal lives of it’s citizens. The American Constitution was the first to put the individual ahead of the government. “We the People”. The Founding Fathers had escaped from political and religious oppression, therefore they wanted to create a system of checks and balances that would limit government power. The Statue of Liberty is a symbol of what America stands for–Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These values were enshrined in the Constitution and made America unique in the history of the world.

Another factor our Founding Fathers thought important was religious freedom. They recognized the existence of a supreme Being and the need for each person to worship that God in whatever way they expressed their faith. (At that time it was mainly the Christian faith, but it has expanded since). Religion, the Christian work ethic and prosperity were closely aligned. The phrase, “In God We Trust”, is printed on all American bills. One of the most beautiful songs is Irving Berlin’s, “God Bless America”.

Another right that was important was the right to keep the fruits of one’s labor; which meant private property and free enterprise. If the government could confiscate what one worked for, then the aforementioned guarantees would be meaningless. Freedom meant nothing if there wasn’t also economic freedom. Small, limited government with laissez-faire capitalism was the atmosphere which fostered and encouraged growth and wealth.

The American Dream was all about raising oneself above a subsistence level, which had been the level for the majority for all of history, and still is for most of the “Third World” countries. America was pioneered and made great by people who had confidence, who believed in themselves, who worked to better themselves and improve their circumstances. These people didn’t believe or accept that poverty was a static condition or permanent station in life. They aspired to more: to them the future was unlimited. They were surrounded by examples of people who had risen as far as their imagination, creativity, talents and intelligence could take them. This was reflected materially in the big cars, houses, businesses and skyscrapers that were built. Individual people in a climate of little or no government interference, made America great. Free market Capitalism raised the standard of living for everyone. Even relatively poor people in America today have a house, a car, television,computer and cellphone. That’s not the case in other countries, where people are envious of our democracy and wealth.

America used to be a melting pot, where people came from all over the world to create a better life for themselves and their children. Some came to escape persecution or poverty, some came by boat or suffered great hardship, but they were all glad to come to America. They were happy and proud to be American. People knew and appreciated the fact that this country offered greater opportunity than the country they left. They considered themselves first and
foremost Americans.The flag, oath of allegiance and national anthem meant, and hopefully still means something.

Yet, there are some Americans who are not satisfied and complain about “Capitalism” and “consumerism”, as if they’re dirty words. In America, people have a choice of how, what or if they are going to spend their earned money on something, that in other countries would be considered unimaginable luxuries. There is a simple law of supply and demand. If there wasn’t the demand then the goods would go unsold and the business would go bankrupt. For those who argue that the “demand” is created by advertising or the media, that only speaks to the ignorance, gullibility and powerlessness of those who make that argument; that they are somehow so easily manipulated and so helpless that they can’t think for themselves and cannot make the simple choice to buy or not to buy. Again, this is an example of “victim consciousness”.

Most of the programs for conservation, the environment, social welfare etc., costs money. Where is that money to come from if not from those who are successful and financially well off. The government can only get money either through taxation or printing more, which leads to inflation. The voters demand and politicians promise to create jobs. But where are these jobs to come from if not from entrepreneurs, small business and corporations; the very ones who have been criticized and condemned as being greedy and heartless, the very ones who have been considered politically incorrect.

It is ironic that some immigrants to America have a greater appreciation for the United States, than some people who were born here. For those who are discontent, unhappy or would rather live in some other country or under some other system, there is another American freedom and that is the freedom to leave. There is no wall or iron curtain preventing anyone from leaving to go to another country that they think might be better than the greatest country on earth. The facts show that there are millions of people who would gladly take their place in a heartbeat. America is still a beacon of hope for those who crave democracy and cherish the values that this country represents.

Sure the United States can be improved, but rather than negativity, blame and complaint, let’s use our energy, passion and patriotism now to improve ourselves and make America greater than ever. If the individual succeeds and prospers, the country benefits.

It’s time to be proud again to be an American.

WANTED: Criminal Illegal Aliens for Rape and Murder

Doing the same thing and expecting different results is a form of insanity. Democrats are all in for sanctuary cities. Obama protected and increased the numbers of illegals and refugees coming to America. Hillary Clinton’s campaign website states:

Hillary has been committed to the immigrant rights community throughout her career. As president, she will work to fix our broken immigration system and stay true to our fundamental American values: that we are a nation of immigrants, and we treat those who come to our country with dignity and respect—and that we embrace immigrants, not denigrate them.

Note that Obama, Democrat majors of sanctuary cities and Hillary Clinton never mention the words “illegal alien.” If you come here illegally then you have broken America’s laws, rewarding those who break the law leads to lawlessness and deadly consequences. Here are two current examples.

Fox News reports in a column titled “Illegal immigrant accused of killing 2 in hit and run had been deported 8 times“:

The illegal immigrant wanted for allegedly killing two people in a hit-and-run case in Kentucky had been deported eight times, the Department of Justice has confirmed.

Miguel Angel Villasenor-Saucedo, 40, is wanted for the Oct. 22 drunken car crash that killed two women in Louisville. Villasenor-Saucedo was most recently deported in 2013.

“Villasenor-Saucedo fled the scene and [Louisville police] officers later obtained a criminal complaint from the Jefferson County District Court charging Villasenor-Saucedo with leaving the scene of a fatal hit and run accident,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “A warrant has been issued for Villasenor-Saucedo’s arrest.”

Read more…

In an article titled “Illegal Immigrant Rape Suspect Wanted in Louisiana” John Binder writes:

FARMERVILLE, Louisiana – An illegal immigrant suspected of raping pre-teen girls is currently being searched for by Louisiana law enforcement after he was released by federal immigration officials.

Illegal immigrants from Mexico, Christian Ramirez and Mario Rameriz, were both arrested and charged with aggravated rape of pre-teen girls in the northern Louisiana town of Farmerville in 2013, according to KNOE News.

At the time, Mario Rameriz was prosecuted and convicted on the rape charges, as he is now serving a 12-year sentence. Union Parish Sheriff Dusty Gates told KNOE Rameriz was prosecuted quickly “due to the seriousness of the charges.”

Christian Ramirez was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) while awaiting trial for the rape charges in 2014.

That is when ICE mistakenly released Ramirez.

Read more…

President-elect Donald J. Trump has said this during his illegal immigration speech in Dallas, Texas:

Time to enforce our immigration laws, strengthen our Southern border security and deport criminal illegal aliens.

Time to make America safe again.

RELATED ARTICLE: Mississippi Governor: Don’t send us any Syrians until Washington D.C. ‘welcomes’ them

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Trump supporters protesting outside the Luxe Hotel, where Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was expected to speak in Brentwood, Los Angeles, California, United States July 10, 2015. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson – RTX1JYHC

VIDEO: ‘Madness’ — Geert Wilders’ comment on conviction for ‘incitement’ by Dutch Court

The BBC reported the conviction of Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party by the Hague District Court:

Dutch anti-Islam political leader Geert Wilders has been convicted of insulting a group and inciting discrimination.

But no penalty was imposed by the court near Amsterdam on Wilders, whose party is leading in polls ahead of parliamentary elections in March.

Wilders was also acquitted of inciting hate over telling supporters in March 2014 he would ensure there were fewer Moroccans in the Netherlands.

He called the guilty verdict “madness” in a tweet posted a short time later.

He said he would appeal.

Watch this video by Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV), following his wrongful conviction for alleged violation of Dutch racial hatred laws. A conviction based on the thin reed of his remarks at a 2014 Hague local political campaign rally about “fewer Moroccans.”

We have criticized this Kafkaesque show trial heard before a biased panel of judges as it was patently politically motivated. It was brought  based on a petition signed by 6,400 Dutch Moroccan émigrés and leftist political allies on the basis of laws enacted following the significant loss of Dutch and foreign Jews during the Holocaust in WWII. Wilders had successfully overturned a similar case seeking to deny his free speech in an Amsterdam District Court case in May 2011.

As Wilders points out in this video reaction to his conviction Moroccans, let alone Muslims or Jews are a race.  Dutch Moroccan Muslims are over-represented in criminal activity and the country’s prison population. Moreover,  a Dutch Moroccan, Mohammed Bouyeri, murdered Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in November 2004 on the streets of Amsterdam, allegedly because of the latter’s short film, “Submission”, about treatment of women under Islam based on a script written by ex-pat former Dutch Somali politician, Hirsi Ali. Van Gogh was in the process of completing a film of the 2002 murder of anti-Islam Rotterdam Mayor Pim Fortuyn by a Green party member. Wilders in this video reaction to his conviction by The Hague district court referred to the recent attack by Dutch Moroccans in Emmen indicative of their lawlessness.

Wilders’ controversial stands have resonated with millions of Dutch citizens: opposing normative Islam, mass Muslim immigration, securing the country’s sovereign control over its borders from the broken Schengen borderless system, NExit- leaving the EU with its control by unelected Brussels bureaucrats. That is reflected in the consistent first position of the Freedom Party in weekly political polls taken in The Netherlands. Thus, it is not lost on many that this trial was aimed squarely at prevented Wilders’ and the Freedom Party from contesting against the parties in the current ruling  coalition of current Dutch Prime Minister Rutte in the looming  March 2017 general elections.  That is why Wilders and his legal team will vigorously pursue appeals of this Hague district court conviction.  Notwithstanding,  Wilders’ is determined that his message will not be deflected by this wrongful conviction and that should his Freedom Party be the first past the post in those upcoming 2017 general elections that he may be asked by King Willem-Alexander to form a new government in the Tweeder Kamer, the Hague Parliament.

Wilders’ rhetoric and speech cadences have often been compared to those of Sir Winston Churchill. Perhaps Wilders in light of today’s injustice rendered by the  Hague district court may recall what Sir Winston Churchill said at Harrow in October 1941 during the darkest days of the Nazi onslaught during WWII: ““Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense.”  Onward to victory.

Meet Code Pink for Peace: The Face of Anti-Americanism, Anti-Semitism and Socialism

When Code Pink: Women for Peace was launched on November 17, 2002, the organization described itself as a “grassroots peace and social justice movement” whose mission was “to end the war in Iraq, stop new wars, and redirect our resources into healthcare, education and other life-affirming activities.” Rejecting “the Bush administration’s fear-based politics that justify violence,” the nascent group called instead “for policies based on compassion, kindness and a commitment to international law.” The group’s name was intended to mock the Bush administration’s “Code Orange,” “Code Red,” and “Code Yellow” designations for the various levels of terrorist threats that, in the government’s estimation, existed at any given time.

Code Pink was founded principally by four radical activists: Jodie Evans, Medea Benjamin, Diane Wilson, and a Wiccan spiritualist calling herself Starhawk. (Approximately 100 additional female activists also participated in getting the organization off the ground.) Evans was, and remains, the nominal leader of the group, which works closely with Ms. Benjamin’s Global Exchange and Leslie Cagan‘s United For Peace and Justice. According to a Capital Research Center report, Code Pink members “subscribe in varying degrees to strands of Marxist, neo-Marxist, and progressive left-wing thought, and their ideas belong to a long and complex history of radical politics going back to the early Bolsheviks.” The group views America as an irremediably “racist” and “sexist” society whose political and economic systems, by their very nature, breed war, poverty, and injustice.

According to the Capital Research Center, “Code Pink is the business name for a nonprofit called Environmentalism through Inspiration and Non-Violent Action.” The name “Code Pink” was selected to parody the Bush administration’s color-coded security alerts regarding terrorist threats—alerts that Code Pink said “were based on fear and were used to justify violence.” By contrast, the “Code Pink Alert”—signifying “the color of the roses … the color of the dawn of a new era when cooperation and negotiation prevail over force”—warned that the Bush administration posed “extreme danger to all the values of nurturing, caring, and compassion that women and loving men have held.” Proclaiming that “women have been the guardians of life … because the men have busied themselves making war,” Code Pink called on “women around the world to rise up and oppose the war in Iraq … to be outrageous for peace.”

Code Pink strove, from its earliest days, to portray itself as a politically nonpartisan organization composed not of seasoned activists, but of ordinary, peace-loving women with no political ax to grind. In truth, however, the group’s founders and leading members had long histories of radical left-wing and pro-socialist activism. For example, a number of Code Pink’s prominent figures were previously, in the 1980s, ardent supporters of the Communist Sandinista regime of Nicaragua. Indeed, both Medea Benjamin and Code Pink organizer Kirsten Moller worked in eighties with the Institute for Food and Development Policy, which aided the Sandinistas. Similarly, Code Pink spokeswoman Sand Brim—who told reporters in January 2003 that she was merely an average woman with reservations about war—had likewise tried to help Central American Communists during the eighties. As executive director of the organization Medical Aid, Brim in 1985 flew an American neurosurgeon to San Salvador to operate on the battle-injured hand of Nidia Diaz, Commander of the Marxist Revolutionary Party that had claimed responsibility for the murders of four U.S. Marines and nine civilians.

Other early and current Code Pink members previously, in the 1990s, helped organize anti-free-trade protests across the globe, targeting large corporations with high-profile campaigns and multi-million-dollar lawsuits. Still others were cutting their radical teeth in the fields of environmentalism and eco-terrorism during the nineties. Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans, for one, today sits on the directors’ board of the Rainforest Action Network, an anti-capitalist, anti-corporate coalition of environmental groups.

From its inception, Code Pink’s principal modus operandi has been street theater. During each of its first 100 days, the organization staged all-day antiwar vigils in front of the White House. Moreover, it initiated a campaign to present pink slips (women’s lingerie)—a word play on the paper-variety “pink slips” that are given to employees as notification that their jobs are being terminated—to President Bush and other pro-Iraq War officials. During one Washington, DC demonstration, a group of Code Pink activists, garbed entirely in pink, marched up the Capitol steps, unfurled their anti-war banners, and stripped down to their undergarments, shouting: “We’re putting our bodies on the line … you congresspeople better get some spine! We say, stand back, don’t attack—innocent children in Iraq. We don’t want your oil war, peace is what we’re calling for!”

Arguing that the Iraqi resistance against the U.S. troops who had invaded that country in March 2003 was well-justified, Evans said in an August 2003 interview: “Basically what the Americans did was destroy any form of infrastructure that could have held the country together—like the Iraqis say, to wipe anything that could hold the country together off the map…. There isn’t an Iraqi you meet who doesn’t feel that they’re being disrespected, that this is being done on purpose. It’s made them hate the American government, hate it. They just think it’s stupid and cruel and mean and thoughtless and everything you can think of…. What’s cool about the resistance is that the Iraqis don’t back down.”

In conjunction with Global Exchange and United For Peace and Justice, Code Pink in 2004 helped establish Iraq Occupation Watch (IOW) to monitor potential American abuses—including “possible violations of human rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly”—during the reconstruction of war-torn Iraq. Code Pink’s and IOW’s common objective was to thin out U.S. forces in Iraq by persuading soldiers to seek discharges and be sent home as conscientious objectors.

On the domestic front, Code Pink endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Also in 2004, Code Pink was a signatory to a letter urging members of the U.S. Senate to vote against supporting Israel’s construction of an anti-terrorist security fence in the West Bank, a barrier that Code Pink has described as an illegal “apartheid wall” that violates the civil and human rights of Palestinians. To view a list of fellow signers, click here.

In late December 2004, Code Pink’s Medea Benjamin and Jodie Evans participated in a delegation to Iraq that also included representatives of Global Exchange, International Occupation Watch, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Families for Peace. These delegates delivered more than $600,000 in cash and medical supplies (many of which were donated by Middle East Children’s Alliance and Operation USA) to the families of the insurgents who were fighting American troops in Fallujah, Iraq. Senator Barbara Boxer, Rep. Raul Grijalva, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, and Rep. Henry Waxman provided diplomatic courtesy letters to help facilitate the transport of this aid through Customs. The organizations sponsoring the delegation were Code PinkGlobal Exchange, the Middle East Children’s AlliancePeace ActionPhysicians for Social Responsibility, Project Guerrero Azteca for Peace, United for Peace and Justice, and Voices in the Wilderness.

For much of 2005, Code Pink staged weekly protests outside of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, where many wounded U.S. soldiers were being treated. The protesters displayed signs bearing slogans like “Maimed for Lies” (by the Bush administration) and “Enlist here and die for Halliburton.” At one of these rallies, Gold Star Families for Peace founder Cindy Sheehan, who began to work closely with Code Pink as her public persona grew, told the five-year old son of Laura Youngblood, whose husband, a United States Navy Corpsman, had recently been killed in Iraq: “Your daddy died for a lie.”

In July 2005, Code Pink joined a coalition of individuals and organizations demanding the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention center and an “immediate independent investigation into the widespread allegations of abuse taking place there.” Among the coalition’s members were Eve Ensler, Gloria Steinem, Not In Our Name, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Culture Project, and United For Peace and Justice.

Also in 2005, Code Pink published a book titled Stop the Next War Now, which included essays by such notables as Medea Benjamin, Phyllis Bennis, Becky Bond, Leslie Cagan, Barbara Ehrenreich, Jodie Evans, Eve Ensler, Randall Forsberg, Kit Gage, Janeane Garofalo, Amy Goodman, Julia Butterfly Hill, Arianna Huffington, Naomi Klein, Barbara Lee, Wangari Maathai, Cynthia McKinney, Nancy Pelosi, Arundhati Roy, Cindy Sheehan, Helen Thomas, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Alice Walker, and Lynn Woolsey.

As the Iraq War continued to rage, Code Pink launched an aggressive Counter-Recruitment campaign aimed at dissuading young men and women from joining the U.S. military. According to the organization, this project represented a way of “standing up to these warmongers and liars” in the Bush administration. To this day, Code Pink continues to maintain:

“Counter-recruitment is a national movement to resist the recruitment of young people into the US military. Counter-recruitment has several components: informing youth of the realities of military service; resisting recruitment through the schools via JROTC and testing; taking action on military sexual trauma; offering career alternatives to the military; vigiling and protesting in front of military recruiting offices; giving support to war resisters and veterans; and building awareness of militarism in our culture.”

Depicting the financial cost of the Iraq War as a drain on resources that would have been better spent on programs to combat the racism, sexism, poverty, corporate corruption, and environmental degradation that were allegedly decimating domestic life in the United States, Code Pink lamented that: “[M]any of our elders … now must choose whether to buy their prescription drugs, or food. Our children’s education is eroded. The air they breathe and the water they drink are polluted. Vast numbers of women and children live in poverty.” The threat of distant terrorists, claimed Code Pink, was insignificant when compared to the “real threats” that Americans faced every day: “the illness or ordinary accident that could plunge us into poverty, the violence on our own streets, the corporate corruption that can result in the loss of our jobs, our pensions, our security.”

In July 2006, Code Pink sponsored “Troops Home Fast,” a 28-day hunger strike against the Iraq War. This action was conducted as a “rolling fast,” where each participant abstained from eating for one day. Among the participants were such luminaries as Cindy Sheehan, Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover, Ed Asner, Willie Nelson, Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, and Cynthia McKinney.

In August 2006, a 12-person delegation of American radicals—including Cindy Sheehan, Tom Hayden, Medea Benjamin, Jodie Evans, and Judith LeBlanc—traveled to Jordan to meet with 11 members of the Iraqi parliament. According to Benjamin, the parliamentarians, impressed by the spirit underlying the aforementioned 28-day “fast,” had personally invited the delegates.

Upon their arrical In Jordan, the American delegates met with Sheikh Ahmad al-Kubaysi, a Baghdad-based cleric who:

The prime sponsor of the Code Pink-led delegation was the Iraq National Dialogue Front, a coalition headed by Saleh al-Mutlaq, a Sunni who:

  • opposed the new, post-war Iraqi constitution because it guaranteed the establishment of an autonomous region for the Shi’ites;
  • condoned armed “resistance” against American forces;
  • offered to join the Iraqi “insurgency”;
  • regularly called upon the United States to disarm itself in the face of terrorism;
  • derided “the biased people [who] are trying to … to brand as terrorists the honorable national resistance movements”; and
  • demanded the release of all Iraqi prisoners—including a massive number of foreign jihadists and Saddam loyalists—on grounds that all of them were being held “on the basis of suspicions and false reports.”

By the time their meetings with the Iraqi parliamentarians were over, the Code Pink delegates had accepted virtually the entire terrorist platform, saying:

“The common thread among this diverse group of Iraqis and Americans was a desire to set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, ensure no permanent bases in Iraq, and secure a U.S. commitment to pay for rebuilding Iraq. Other issues that emerged in two-days of intensive talks include the need to dismantle militias, provide amnesty for prisoners and the various armed groups, compensate victims of the violence, revise the Constitution and preserve the unity of Iraq, and reverse U.S.-imposed de-Baathification and economic policies. We left this historic meeting with a commitment to make sure that the voices of these Iraqi parliamentarians are heard here in the U.S., and we will bring a group of them to the U.S. in the Fall.” (Emphasis in original.)

In 2006, Code Pink leaders Cindy Sheehan, Jodie Evans and Medea Benjamin traveled to Venezuela to meet personally with that country’s Communist dictator, Hugo Chavez. After the meeting, Evans reported that Chavez had “called Cindy [Sheehan] ‘Mrs. Hope’” Further, Evans said of Chavez: “He was a doll. Generous, open, passionate, excited, stimulated by the requests and happy to be planning with us. He was realistic but willing to stretch.” In a similar spirit, Medea Benjamin praised Chavez’s policies and stated that “George Bush—and [former Democratic presidential candidate] John Kerry for that matter—could learn a thing or two from Hugo Chavez about winning the hearts and minds of the people.”

In December 2007, when Pakistani President (and American ally) Pervez Musharraf was under pressure to step down from power, Medea Benjamin and Tighe Barry of Code Pink traveled to Pakistan to help America’s enemies increase the pressure on Musharraf. Both were arrested and deported by Pakistani authorities.

In September 2008, a number of Code Pink leaders met personally with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York City. Soon thereafter, Code Pink launched an aggressive pro-Hamas, anti-Israel campaign. That November, Jodie Evans and a Code Pink contingent visited Iran at the personal invitation of Ahmadinejad. Davood Mohammad Niar, head of the U.S. Desk of Iran’s Foreign Ministry, escorted the group on a visit the holy city of Qom.

In 2009 Code Pink further escalated the intensity of its international campaign to stop the blockade that Egypt and Israel had imposed on Gaza (to prevent the importation of weaponry) after Hamas‘s 2006 election as the region’s dominant political entity.

In December 2009 Code Pink led an international delegation of anti-Israel leftists to Gaza, where they delivered “tens of thousands of dollars in humanitarian aid” as a gesture of defiance against Israel’s blockade. Hamas protected the demonstrators during their two-day stay in Gaza by tightly controlling their movements and contacts, and by having them stay in a Hamas-owned, Five-Star hotel that one demonstrator described as “the nicest hotel I’ve ever stayed at.” Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh addressed the activists in Gaza via cell phone, while other Hamas officials spoke to them in person.

Next, the demonstrators prepared to go to Egypt, to participate in a Hamas-organized “Gaza Freedom March,” again to protest Israeli policy. Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin told the media that Hamas “has pledged to ensure our safety” in Egypt. Joining Code Pink on the trip were former Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

Code Pink’s trip to Gaza and Egypt was timed to mark the one-year anniversary of Israel’s December 2008 defensive action against Hamas terrorists in Gaza, who had fired some 3,300 rockets into Israel during the preceding few months. Hamas marked the anniversary by launching a number of rockets into Israel while the organization hosted the Code Pink delegation.

Also during the trip, Code Pink endorsed the “Cairo Declaration to End Israeli Apartheid” authored by pro-Hamas leftists who likewise had gathered for the “Gaza Freedom March.”  The declaration called for a wide-ranging boycott of Israeli economic, travel, academic, and cultural endeavors.

When the Code Pink excursion to Gaza and Egypt was over in early January 2010, the organization’s website proudly announced that the delegates had focused “worldwide attention on the [Israeli] siege”; “lifted the spirits of the isolated people of Gaza”; “put the spotlight on the negative role Egypt is playing in maintaining the siege”; “forced the Egyptian government to make a concession by etting 100 delegates into Gaza”; and “signed on to a lawsuit against the Egyptian government for building a wall to block off the tunnels that have become the commercial lifeline for the people in Gaza.”

Between 2008 and 2010, Code Pink made nine trips to Egypt in a campaign to undermine the Egyptian government, which was on friendly terms with Israel and was helping to enforce the Israeli blockade against Gaza. Then, when riots erupted in Egypt in late January 2011—ostensibly protesting the autocratic and corrupt regime of Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak—Code Pink representatives were on the ground in Cairo from the very start of the uprising. In early February 2011, Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin reported that her organization had already raised more than $10,000 for the anti-Mubarak protesters. In an effort to augment that sum, Code Pink issued an emergency appeal for an additional $5,000 to fund “the next big uprising” against the Egyptian government.

On January 10, 2015, Code Pink activists forced their way through a security fence at the McLean, Virginia home of former Vice President Dick Cheney and stormed his front porch, displaying signs that bore slogans like “Wanted: For Torture and War Crimes.”

During a January 28, 2015 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on U.S. national security strategy in the face of global challenges, testimony was given by three former Secretaries of State: 91-year-old Henry Kissinger, 94-year-old George P. Shultz, and 77-year-old Madeleine Albright. During the proceedings, a number of Code Pink protesters — bearing signs that read “Kissinger War Criminal” and “Cambodia” — rushed up behind the former diplomat at the witness table and tried to arrest him for “war crimes.”

On March 1, 2015, Code Pink participated in an anti-Israel protest at the site of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in Washington, DC. The demonstration featuredHezbollah flag flying overhead; chants that “BDS is the best” (Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement); chants that “The State of Israel’s Got to Go”; a banner bearing a Star of David and the slogan, “The Blood Is On Your Hands”; and a sign likening Israel to the Islamic State terrorist organization.

Code Pink is an organizational supporter of the Free Gaza Movement. It is also a member organization of the Abolition 2000After Downing Street, and United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalitions, and a member of the National Council of Women’s Organizations.

Code Pink has received financial support from the Benjamin Fund, Global Exchange, the New Priorities Foundation, the Streisand Foundation, the Threshold Foundation, and the Tides Foundation.

Code Pink identifies dozens of left-wing organizations as its “allies.” Among these are Adalah-NY, Alternet, CommonDreams, Democracy Now, the Feminist Majority Foundation, Global Exchange, Gold Star Families for Peace, the Huffington Post, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Jewish Voice for Peace, MADRE, Military Families Speak Out, The Nation, the National Priorities Project, the New Priorities Network, the Peace Majority Report, Pacifica.org, the Rainforest Action Network, the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, United For Peace and Justice, Veterans For Peace, Women in Black, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and Zmag.

As of 2006, Code Pink consisted of at least 250 chapters in the U.S. and elsewhere around the world. In November 2011, Jodie Evans reported that the organization had “about 100 local chapters,”andthat some 200,000 people received its e-mails each week.

Code Pink’s current issue priorities are:

  • Ground the Drones: “Drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) have become the signature weapons of the Obama administration’s air strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Drones scout over the two countries, launching Hellfire missiles into the region, missing their intended targets, [and] resulting in the deaths of many innocent people including children.”
  • Peace with Iran: “Faced with the specter of another catastrophic war, CODEPINK is putting pressure on politicians—and their wives—to use diplomacy, not bombs.”
  • Women Occupy: Deriving its name from the Occupy Wall Street movement, Code Pink urges its members to “focu[s] women’s issues, as well as racism and classism.”
  • War Criminals: “Thus far the U.S. has failed to prosecute anyone up the chain of command for abuses that have occurred in the highest offices of the United States of America [during the George W. Bush administration], setting a precedent for future leaders to repeat the same crimes. That is why CODEPINK is modeling citizen justice … by holding the former Bush administration, Obama administration and others accountable for leading us into unjust and illegal military interventions.”
  • Palestine and Israel: “CODEPINK stands in solidarity with Palestinian and Israeli nonviolent activists and human rights advocates working to hold Israel accountable for its violations of international law and to promote the rights of Palestinians. In addition, we work here in the United States to educate Americans about the realities of Israel’s occupation and to change U.S. foreign policy in the region. We feel personally implicated in Israel’s violations of human rights and international law because our tax dollars—$3 billion annually in military aid—subsidize Israel’s occupation.”
  • Boycott Sodastream: “SodaStream markets itself as an environmentally friendly product to ‘Turn Water Into Fresh Sparkling Water And Soda’… but there is nothing friendly about the destruction of Palestinian life, land and water resources! SodaStream is an Israeli corporation that produces all of its carbonation devices in an illegal settlement in the West Bank. All Israeli settlements exist in direct contravention to international law! This settlement company obscures its true illegal origin by marking its products ‘Made in Israel,’ however ‘made in an illegal Israeli settlement’ is more like it.”
  • Bring Our War $$ Home!: “Spread the truth about how our taxes are being wasted on militarism and war, and help get a bigger piece of the budget pie for our needs at home!”

For additional information on Code Pink, click here.

1247 E St, SE
Washington, DC
20003
Phone :(202) 248-2093
Email :
medea@codepink.org
URL: Website