French Presidential Campaign: Why It Matters

Why should you be interested in the French presidential campaign? Because it might as well be going on next door to you. We are facing the same major challenges in a similar state of confusion. The differences are circumstantial, the stakes are the same. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Our freedom is on the line.

Besides, this cliffhanging French campaign is a fascinating mixture of Shakespear, Greek tragedy, soap opera, and courtly intrigues.

First, a brief summary of the overall situation:

The incumbent Socialist president, François Hollande, didn’t dare run for reelection. His 5 year-term has been a disaster, the Socialist party is in a shambles, the winner of the (Belle Alliance Populaire) primary, Benoît Hamon, is a Kinder Surprise with goodies for all the small people paid for by the Big Bad Rich. He has no chance of getting to the 2nd round. ID: Socialist

The callow 38 year-old Emmanuel Macron, generally assumed to make it past the first round (April 23) to confront and defeat Marine Le Pen in the second round (May 7), is running on a vacuous Somewhat Right Somewhat Left platform. How did the fabulously unpopular François Hollande manage to place his alter ego in pole position while standing aside in studied absence as the cream of the Socialist party boards Macron’s cruise ship? ID: En Marche

François Fillon, who served for five years as Nicolas Sarkozy’s prime minister, came out of the Primaries (Right and Center-Right) with a strong mandate, upsetting the media’s favorite Alain Juppé, and polling above Macron and Le Pen. Then, out of the blue, Fillon was hit with a sensational smear campaign and a judicial ton of bricks that would have crushed a weaker constitution. The character assassination putsch against Fillon is the centerpiece of an extraordinarily dramatic campaign. It will be treated briefly below and more amply in Part 2 of this ongoing series. Fillon’s platform is built on a Thatcherite revolution aimed at releasing France from decades of stagnation and double digit unemployment, and a resolute combat against Islamic Totalitarianism at home and abroad. ID: Les Républicains.

And then there is Marine Le Pen. ID: Front National

The top issue on the list of voter preoccupations in February, whether expressed directly or indirectly, was Islam. They wanted to know where candidates stood on the question. Would it be sweet submission or tough resistance? Instead of the issue-based campaign they clearly wanted, voters have been dragged into the quicksand of moralizing purification-aimed at eliminating François Fillon-and thrown a lifesaver attached to the gossamer rope of the Little Prince Emmanuel Macron.

The Polls

The one thing we cannot know before the 7th of May is the name of the winner. We don’t even know which of the current frontrunners-Le Pen, Macron, Fillon- will make it to the second round. Despite constant reminders of recent prediction flops, commentators are hooked on the fortune-teller syndrome. They watch Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron peddle uphill and careen around hairpin curves as if it were the Tour de France. Last week the media thought they had pushed François Fillon over a cliff and into the abyss, but he held firm. He’s only a few points behind the other two…in the polls, that is. Big Data Analysis gives a different picture, substantially more favorable to Fillon. But that’s not the media’s storyline…

So what about Marine Le Pen? Isn’t she the fourth act of the Trump/Brexit/Wilders divine surprises?

Marine Le Pen’s reputation as The Anti-Islamization Candidate goes back to the early 2000s, when she forcefully expressed the exasperation of the lower classes that were bearing the brunt of Islamic encroachment on French society. Immediately branded as xenophobe, Islamophobe, and racist she turned the disapproval into an advantage, gathered steam, and racked up a series of impressive electoral results. The Front National went from pariah to legitimate party. And Le Pen was handed ownership of anything that could be deemed hostile to Islam. Whenever a politician takes a stand on issues of immigration, Islam, law and order, or homegrown jihadis, he is accused of leaning to the far right, picking issues off the National Front’s plate, disgracing himself…

Foreign media have generally relayed this caricature, fueling widespread ignorance of other aspects of Marie Le Pen’s program and her embryonic party’s structural weaknesses.

Desperate to burnish her foreign policy credentials, Le Pen found no better destination than Lebanon. She opted out of an audience with the Mufti, by refusing to wear a veil. This put her head and shoulders above the Swedish ladies wrapped in hijab that had paraded in front of Iranian president Rohani as if they were merchandise at a slave market. She did not, however, veil her defense of Bashir al Assad, “the only solution for Syria,” or dissimulate her good relations with Michel Aoun, the Christian outsider that became an insider by making an alliance with Hezbullah. Madame Le Pen graciously suggested she might exempt French-Lebanese from her promised ban on extra-European dual nationality. How about French-Israelis? Hardly! Marine Le Pen wants French Jews to sacrifice the kippa in support of an across the board prohibition of religious garb in public. Her envoy, Nicholas Bay, was snubbed during a recent foray into Israel. The presidential candidate herself did not get any further than the Trump Tower coffee shop on a “recreational” weekend in New York.

The Assad connection is longstanding. Marine Le Pen’s friend and associate Frédéric Chatillon, handles PR for both the National Front and Assad.  Her father Jean-Marie badmouthed Muslims domestically while entertaining a close friendship with Saddam Hussein. I reported extensively in 2014 on the dubious alliances of the National Front.

The European Union accuses National Front eurodeputies of fraudulent use of EU parliamentary assistant salaries for a total of close to a million euros. Frédéric Chatillon is under investigation for tricky: campaign financing, Marine Le Pen is accused of faulty financial declarations, her cabinet chief is also under investigation and that’s just the tip of an iceberg that has virtually no effect on her faithful supporters. Nevertheless, the sudden flurry of activity on cases that have dragged on for years is questionable. As is the absence of coverage of the party’s unsavory dealings with neo-Nazis and Islamic Jew haters.

Under Marine Le Pen’s leadership, emphasis has been subtly shifting the from Islam to the economy, with a French brand of  national socialism: restored sovereignty, protected borders, increased welfare benefits and jobs for the French-French, zero immigration, law & order at home, no foreign entanglements abroad. Her rhetoric is anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-globalization and, of course anti-EU. She promises a referendum to get France out of the EU and the Eurozone; if voters choose to remain, she will resign.

Sloppy comparisons with the unexpected victory of Donald Trump in the U.S. ignore the fact that Trump was able to hitch the Republican Party to his runaway wagon; Marine Le Pen rules over a heteroclite skeleton party that can’t be fleshed out by alliances-all the other parties are devils in FN theology. If she does make it to the second round, she has virtually no chance of winning and no hopes of forming an operational government. The idea that hordes of politicians from the Parliamentary right would pour into her administration is far-fetched.

Emmanuel Macron is a former banker (Banque Rothschild) who served as François Hollande’s Minister of the Economy while freelancing as the founder of En Marche [On the go], a movement that wears his initials like a signet ring. Never before elected to public office, Macron teased his movement into a presidential election machine. He is now jockeying with François Fillon for 2nd position… the polls again. In a cheap version of Richard the Something, Macron made an end run around Manuel Valls, who remained the faithful Prime Minister while Hollande delayed announcing he wouldn’t run for reelection. Subsequently defeated in the primaries, Valls stands back while Socialists big and small go over to Macron. I expect François Hollande will join them at the opportune moment.

Macron is the feel good candidate. Just enough labor reform to look modern, a heavy dose of welfare to reassure the weak and make the strong feel generous. He talks high tech, floats a few inches above the ground, throws out ideas like flowers to lovely maidens, does Black is Beautiful photo-ops and makes affirmative action commitments in the banlieue, visits a police station to show he knows people want security, and declares, in Algeria, that the French colonization was a “crime against humanity.” That was followed by a rally in a Front National stronghold with a large population of “pieds noirs,” former French residents of Algeria, where he unashamedly declared “Because I want to be president, I hear you, I love you.” (borrowed from Général de Gaulle). Macron ruffled feathers with a hymn to multiculturalism: “There is no French culture, there is a culture in France.” That was followed by a long-winded exposé of his “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” project for France.

On his way back from Algeria, the startup candidate stopped in London where he addressed an enthusiastic crowd of expats. In a shocking feat of erroneous reporting, The Guardian turned Macron’s Algerian bomb into a modest statement that “human rights abuses” were committed during the colonization of Algeria. No, my friends, he said “crime against humanity.”  We heard elsewhere that the British government was not pleased by Macron’s invitation-extended in front of 10 Downing Street-to bankers, engineers, scientists, and other desirables fleeing the Brexited UK to settle in France.

Melodrama

February 22: 4-time defeated presidential candidate François Bayrou solemnly declared: “l’heure est grave” [the situation is serious]. The long-winded, pedantic, moralizing politician-professor performed a public act of abnegation-he wouldn’t be running for president-and heroically offered an alliance with Emmanuel Macron. Who immediately accepted. Bayrou maintains his hallmark pose of disinterested superiority: He never seeks fame, fortune, power or prerogatives. His mission is to save the nation from electing someone other than himself or a candidate he has sanctioned. Will he be an addition or a subtraction to Macron’s campaign? I wouldn’t be surprised to see him pull out before mid-April. But I might be wrong.

François Fillon

We can safely assume that François Fillon has not been accused of corruption at any point in his 36-year political career; if he had been, we would be hearing about it from morning to night. Tragically, Fillon stood straight and tall on his clean reputation in the primary campaign, going so far as to ask, rhetorically, “Could we imagine Général de Gaulle mise en examen (under investigation)? This was an obvious poke at his rival Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been repeatedly mise en examen since François Hollande took office. No matter that all the cases ended in acquittal, mise en examen has come to mean “presumed guilty.” When the scandal, maliciously labeled “Penelopegate,” broke in February, Fillon was so certain of his innocence that he said he would drop out of the race if he were mise en examen.

The opening shot was sensational: “Penelope Fillon earned 500,000 euros for doing nothing.” Zionists are familiar with this type of operation. Nothing that is said or done afterward will erase the initial shock effect. François Fillon’s lawyer, Antonin Levy (the son of the famous philosopher and activist Bernard Henri Levy), says he has filed more than 600 pages of evidence of madame Fillon’s effective assistance to her husband, why should anyone believe him? The story gets the post-modern treatment of verification by repetition.

Fillon’s platform and the relentless effort to keep him from reaching the second round, where he might defeat Le Pen or Macron, will be explored in depth in Part 2.

The outgoing Prime Minister and Interior Minister made a brief statement to the press shortly after the thwarted attack at Orly airport this morning. The assailant, they said, tried to grab the Famas assault rifle from a (female) aviator on patrol. But she held onto it. This was repeated several times. He couldn’t get the gun, but he was a danger to her and the passengers. He was shot dead by a fellow Air Force man in the patrol. A few hours later a photo of the dead assailant was published. The gun is lying across his chest.

RELATED ARTICLES:

French Nationalist and Presidential Contender Is Schmoozing With Putin

61% of French adults say Islam is incompatible with their society and 79% support banning headscarves in universities, new poll shows

Eastern European countries join forces! Refuse to take refugees Brussels is pushing on them

France’s Hollande says his final mission is to ensure that “populism, nationalism and extremism cannot win”

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC: 61% of French say Islam is incompatible with their secular society.

french islam poll

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Family Security Matters. Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

Smoke Rises over the Russian Influence Campaign

When FBI Director James Comey appeared before the House Intelligence Committee on March 20th, he made an announcement that the national law enforcement agency was investigating allegations of possible Russian influence during the 2016 Presidential Election campaign.  It was a veritable thunderclap.  It was unexpected, as the primary purpose of the House Intelligence Hearings was to focus on whether FBI Director Comey and NSA chief Admiral Rogers could confirm Trump tweet allegations about possible unauthorized wire taps at Trump Tower during the campaign and transition.

Both Comey and Rogers could find no such evidence, despite the President and White House spokespersons doubling down insisting that there was surveillance. The five hour public hearing evidenced what appeared to be partisan bickering over the Comey Russian investigation with Intelligence Chairman, Devin Nunes (R-CA), a member of the Trump Transition, tangled with Ranking Member Adam Schiff, (D-CA)  a former federal prosecutor and other minority members.

Nunes took it on his own recognizance to meet late Tuesday night, March 21st with unnamed National Security officials in the secure setting of the White House Eisenhower Executive Office Building where he allegedly received confidential information indicating that there was evidence of incidental surveillance of members of the Trump transition as part of an authorized FISA order concerning a third party foreign government, but not Russia.

Moreover, Nunes alleged subsequent to briefing the President the following day about the contents of the information, without providing it to Ranking Member Schiff and both Republican and Democratic members of the Committee,  that several members of the Trump Transition had been unmasked in the process, especially former National Security Director General Michael Flynn.  That gave rise to calls from Senate Democrat Minority Leader Schumer (D-NY) and House Intelligence Ranking Member Schiff that Nunes should recuse himself from the Hearings. Nunes retaliated with changing the upcoming Hearing on the Russian investigation to a confidential one that FBI Director Comey said he declined to participate in. Nunes was under a cloud of his own making as a partisan supporter of the President. Many found his behavior inexplicable. Despite calls for his removal, House Speaker Paul Ryan, himself under a cloud given the withdrawal of pending House  Health reform  legislation on Friday, March 24th, said that he still had confidence in Nunes as Intelligence Committee Chairman.

The Senate Intelligence Committee  appeared more bi-partisan in conducting its own investigation into the Russian campaign influence charges.  There was unanimity of purpose from both Chairman Burr (R-NC) and Ranking Member Mark Warner (D-VA). They made their own shocking revelation. They were inviting Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner to testify about his encounters during the Trump campaign and transition with the head of a  sanctioned Russian State Bank.  Reuters reported on Monday, March 27th, “Trump son-in-law met executives of sanctioned Russian bank; will testify:”

Kushner previously acknowledged meeting the Russian ambassador to Washington last December and only on Monday did it emerge that executives of Russian state development bank Vnesheconombank (VEB) had talks with Kushner during a bank roadshow last year.

The bank said in an emailed statement that as part of its preparing a new strategy, its executives met representatives of financial institutes in Europe, Asia and America.

It said roadshow meetings took place “with a number of representatives of the largest banks and business establishments of the United States, including Jared Kushner, the head of Kushner Companies.” VEB declined to say where the meetings took place or the dates. U.S. officials said that after meeting with Russian Kislyak at Trump Tower last December, a meeting also attended by Flynn, Kushner met later in December with Sergei Gorkov, chairman of Vnesheconombank.

White House spokeswoman Hope Hicks confirmed the meetings, saying nothing of consequence was discussed.

[…]

Gorkov was appointed head of VEB in early 2016 by Russian President Vladimir Putin. He graduated from the Federal Security Service, or FSB, Russia’s internal security agency. He was awarded the Medal of the Order of Merit for Services to the Fatherland, according to the bank’s website.

According to two congressional staffers, some Senate investigators want to question Kushner and Flynn about whether they discussed with Gorkov or other Russian officials or financial executives the possibility of investing in 666 Fifth Avenue in New York or other Kushner Co or Trump properties if the new administration lifted the sanctions.

preet bharara

Preet Bharara, former U.S. Attorney for Southern District of New York.

Simply meeting with a sanctioned bank is not a federal crime. However, there is more to Vnesheconombank activities in the US. Russian foreign intelligence service (SVR) agents  were using the bank as cover for conducting economic espionage.  A guilty plea deal in March 2016 with a Russian spy was announced  by former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York,  Manhattan, Preet Bharara. Bharara was  fired by Trump Attorney General Sessions, on March 10, 2017, along with 45 other US attorneys appointed by President Obama. This despite President Trump suggesting in a meeting at Trump Tower in November 2017, that he wanted to keep the talented prosecutor on. The basis for the plea deal had been  an investigation by the FBI Counterintelligence Division into the activities of the Russian spy ring.  A news release by The U.S. Department of Justice on March 11, 2016 reported, “Russian National Pleads Guilty in Connection with Conspiracy to Work for Russian Intelligence“:

Evgeny Buryakov, a.k.a. Zhenya, 41, pleaded guilty today to conspiring to act in the United States as an agent of the Russian Federation without providing prior notice to the Attorney General.

“An unregistered intelligence agent, under cover of being a legitimate banker, gathers intelligence on the streets of New York City, trading coded messages with Russian spies who send the clandestinely collected information back to Moscow,” said U.S. Attorney Bharara.  “This sounds like a plotline for a Cold War-era movie, but in reality, Evgeny Buryakov pled guilty today to a federal crime for his role in just such a scheme.  More than two decades after the end of the Cold War, Russian spies still seek to operate in our midst under the cover of secrecy.  But in New York, thanks to the work of the FBI and the prosecutors in my office, attempts to conduct unlawful espionage will not be overlooked.  They will be investigated and prosecuted.”

Here are some of the details of the Russian spy ring that sound like a scenario for the AMC acclaimed cable TV series, “The Americans:”

Buryakov worked in New York with at least two other SVR agents, Igor Sporyshev and Victor Podobnyy.  From on or about Nov. 22, 2010, to on or about Nov. 21, 2014, Sporyshev officially served as a trade representative of the Russian Federation in New York.  From on or about Dec. 13, 2012, to on or about Sept. 12, 2013, Podobnyy officially served as an attaché to the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations.  The investigation, however, showed that Sporyshev and Podobnyy also worked as officers of the SVR.  Sporyshev and Podobnyy were charged along with Buryakov in January 2015, however, Sporyshev and Podobnyy no longer lived in the United States at that time and were not arrested.

The directives from the SVR to Buryakov, Sporyshev and Podobnyy, as well as to other covert SVR agents acting within the United States, included requests to gather intelligence on, among other subjects, potential U.S. sanctions against Russian banks and the United States’ efforts to develop alternative energy resources.

During the course of their work as covert SVR agents in the United States, Buryakov, Sporyshev and Podobnyy regularly met and communicated using clandestine methods and coded messages in order to exchange intelligence-related information while shielding their associations with one another as SVR agents.  Sporyshev was responsible for relaying intelligence assignments from the SVR to Buryakov.

On or about March 28, 2014, Sporyshev was recorded telling Buryakov that he needed help researching the “effects of economic sanctions on our country,” among other things.  A few days later, on April 2, 2014, Sporyshev called Buryakov and stated, in an intercepted conversation, that he had not seen Buryakov in a while, and asked to meet Buryakov outside VEB’s office in New York in 20 minutes.  A court-authorized search of Buryakov’s computer at VEB revealed that, at around the time of this telephone call, Buryakov conducted the following internet searches: “sanctions Russia consequences” [sic] and “sanctions Russia impact.”

[ … ]

In the summer of 2014, Buryakov met multiple times with a confidential source working for the FBI and an FBI undercover employee, both of whom purported to be working on a casino development project in Russia.  During these meetings, Buryakov accepted documents that were purportedly obtained from a U.S. government agency and which supposedly contained information potentially useful to Russia, including information about U.S. sanctions against Russia.

Unlike the other spy ring operatives who escaped prosecution, Buryakov was sentenced on May 25, 2016 to serve 2.5 years in a federal prison.

Thus, the smoke rises over the Trump White House and Chairman Nunes about relations with sanctioned Russian Banks engaged in economic espionage amid concerns about a possible 2016 Russian influence campaign during the 2016 Presidential election. What did Alice say in Chapter two, “Down the Rabbit Hole “ in Adventures in Wonderland, “curiouser and curiouser.”

RELATED ARTICLE: The Surveillance on Donald J. Trump and Others

Flashpoints

Throughout history, mankind has confronted many major crises and turning-points, both positive and negative, man-made and naturally-occurring.  For purposes of this essay I prefer to divide those crises into just two major categories: 1) man-made and natural disasters, from which it has always been possible to either fully or partially recover, and 2) “flashpoints,” those major crises and world events from which a satisfactory recovery has never been possible.

Crises of the first category…. such as World War I and World War II, where combatants in those bloody conflicts eventually became allies… are far too numerous to mention.  However, crises of the “flashpoint” variety are rare.  And while it can be argued that the greatest “flashpoint” of all time has been the birth of Mohammed, the American people now confront no less than three such crises:

  1. The legislative branch of the United States government, the wealthiest and most powerful nation in world history, is now broken.
  2. The judicial branch of the U.S. government, the custodians of the rule of law, is now broken and the people have lost faith in the concept of equal justice under the law. And,
  3. Two of the most dangerous nations in world history… ruled by men who are sufficiently unbalanced as to speak openly of preemptive nuclear strikes against their enemies… are now on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons capable of reaching Europe, Israel, Japan, South Korea, and the United States.

In recent days, the American people have been witness to one of the greatest failures of representative government in U.S. history.  In a nation in which advances in medicine and medical technology have lead the world for more than a century, the difference between healthcare costs and what people can afford to pay has grown wider and wider.  In fact, while politicians continue to promote the fiction that it is possible to make the world’s best healthcare available to all, at affordable prices, it is fair to say that the United States now has a Rolls-Royce healthcare system, serving a population that can afford little more than used pickup trucks.

And although Republicans have been calling for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare for the past seven years… promising that they would fix our broken healthcare system if only we would elect a courageous Republican president and give them majorities in both houses of Congress… we find that they are unable to agree on even the first step toward healthcare reform.

While the Congress is made up of 435 members from all fifty states, the members have found it necessary to create no fewer than 222 special interest caucuses.  No better example can be found than the Congressional Black Caucus, an organization of African-American members founded in

March 1971, whose motto is, “Black people have no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests.”  Oh, yeah?  Try telling that to black Republicans such as J.C. Watts (R-OK), Tim Scott (R-SC), Will Hurd (R-TX), or Allen West (R-FL), none of whom were considered “black enough” to be welcomed into the Black Caucus.  Only Congresswoman Mia Love (R-UT) has had the courage and the patience to waste her valuable time trying to carry the conservative message to the 46 single-minded black Democrats of the caucus.  No “permanent friends?”  Democrats would be shocked and surprised to hear that.  No “permanent enemies?”  The caucus sees everyone who is not a Democrat as an enemy of black people.

On the Republican side thirty conservative Republicans, comprising the Freedom Caucus, have banded together to defeat the Republican alternative to the Affordable Care Act.  Insisting on a “perfect” bill that met all of their requirements, and unwilling to see Senate amendments to the bill or the product of a House-Senate conference, the members of the Freedom Caucus stood united against the bill.  Were the caucus members representing the interests of their constituents?  Or were they merely bowing to the peer pressure exerted by their fellow caucus members?

In our republican form of government, we are all entitled to have representatives in Washington and in the state capitals who will exercise their best judgment on behalf their constituents.  By yielding to the wishes of special interest caucuses, regardless of the likes or dislikes of their constituents, they are, in many cases, turning their backs on those who elected them.

In the U.S. Senate, once referred to as the world’s “greatest deliberative body,” liberals and Democrats have played such vicious political games with Senate rules that we now find it all but  impossible to confirm a ninth justice to the U.S. Supreme Court… unless that individual is one who is “mainstream” in his/her judicial philosophy.  By that, Democrats mean a nominee who sees the U.S. Constitution, not as the Founders intended, but as a “living” document that can be twisted to meet what they see as the political, social, or economic needs at any given moment.

ice agent womanIn recent weeks, three liberal district judges… two Obama appointees and one Bush appointee…  have taken it upon themselves to write new immigration law by issuing temporary restraining orders against two Trump executive orders restricting the issuance of visas to individuals from six countries in which radical Islamist terrorism is rampant, and where it is impossible to vet any of its citizens.  This, in spite of the fact that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Public Law 82-414 (the McCarran-Walter Act), Section 212(a), enacted two years prior to the Communist Control Act of 1954, provides no less than 31 criteria under which “classes of aliens shall be ineligible to receive visas and shall be excluded from admission into the United States.”

That body of law gives every U.S. president the absolute authority to bar any foreign person or group of persons from receiving entry visas if he deems it necessary, for any period of time that he chooses, in order to protect the lives and property of the American people.  Yet, three federal judges attempt to endow foreign immigrants and refugees with U.S constitutional rights.

The Trump administration has vowed to appeal those decisions all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.  But what if Senate Democrats are able to prevent a cloture vote on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch?  In that event, a Trump Administration appeal would go before an eight-member Supreme Court.  And if that court produced a 4-4 decision, that ruling would then revert to the lower court and their decision would be upheld.  What then?

In such an event, and since Trump’s understanding of the law is irrefutable, he may wish to emulate President Andrew Jackson who, in 1832, refused to follow the dictates of the Supreme Court’s Worcester v. Georgia ruling, affirming the sovereignty of the Cherokee Nation… a decision that lead to the forcible relocation of some 15,000 Cherokees from Georgia to what is now Oklahoma.  In that instance, Jackson is reported to have said, “(Chief Justice) John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

As Daniel Greenfield writes in his March 27 column The Civil War Is Here for FrontPage magazine,

“Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority.  The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.  The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans.  It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it (sic) decisions don’t accord with its agenda.  It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.  It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.”

Those of us who are seventy years old, or older, will remember the days when, as children, we were subjected to periodic nuclear attack drills.  It was a time when the United States and the Soviet Union were the only two nations on Earth armed with enough nuclear warheads to literally destroy all signs of life on planet Earth.  And while we could never be totally certain that the Soviets would never launch a preemptive nuclear strike against us, we were reasonably certain that the Soviet leadership was just as averse to a devastating nuclear exchange as we were.  As a result, there was little chance that either side would ever launch such a first strike against the other.  It was a standoff that was referred to throughout the Cold War as “mutually assured destruction,” or MAD.

wilders deislamizeHowever, the same is not true of today’s enemies.  The bloodthirsty Islamist dictators in the Middle East and the brutal communist madmen in North Korea are all just insane enough to welcome a nuclear war with the West.  And while the North Korean leader, Kim Jung Un, has never shown the slightest regard for the well-being of his starving people, the leaders of al Qaeda and ISIS are just crazy enough to think that death is their greatest earthly reward… not to mention the seventy-two virgins that await each of them in Paradise.

These are the “flashpoints” that we now face.  And unless we take immediate steps to restore representative government and respect for the rule of law in America, and unless we take all the matches away from the maniac in North Korea before he burns our house down, then the crises we now face are truly flashpoints from which we will never recover.  To parody a verse from Tennessee Ernie Ford’s hit song, Sixteen Tons:

What happens in Washington is a cryin’ shame,
The people hold elections, but it’s all just a game.
The Democrats betray us, at home and on The Hill,
If the Commies don’t get us, then the Muslims surely will.

If Daniel Greenfield is correct in his assessment, then civil war is truly upon us.  Let the games begin.

RELATED VIDEO: Trump Rally Huntington Beach – ANTIFA Rocked By Trump Supporters – ANTIFA Beat Up by The Red Elephants.

How to Destroy America from Within

Richard D. Lamm was a Democrat who served as governor of Colorado for twelve years from 1975 to 1987. Below is an account regarding his speech on the perils of multiculturalism by a person who was there for his speech.

A Frightening Analysis

mexifornia book coverWe all know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, filled to capacity by many of American’s finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, “Mexifornia,” explaining how immigration — both legal and illegal — was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America. The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States. He said,

“If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that ‘An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.’”

“Here is how they do it,”

Richard_D._Lamm_Colorado

Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm

Lamm said:

First to destroy America, “Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”

Lamm went on:

Second, to destroy America, “Invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. I would make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences. I would make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

Third,

“We could make the United States a ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved! Not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’”

Lamm said,

“I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”

“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity! Unity is what it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic Games.

A common enemy Persia threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to over come two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell.

“E. Pluribus Unum” — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we can balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”

“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits ~ make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘x! xenophobes’ halt discussion and debate.”

“Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book Mexifornia. His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”

There was no applause.

A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Every discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America — take note of California and other states — to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast.

It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy are deeply in trouble and worsening fast.

If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

‘Religious Left’ on the rise in response to President Trump’s people and policies

Are they organizing in your name?

This is a Reuters story highlighting the phrase ‘Religious Left’ something we have been talking about on these pages for years.  Entitled of course to their political views, what has grated on me for so long is the FACT that many of the organizations working on the ‘Religious Left’ receive large pots of federal grant money that is not sufficiently accounted for.

The ‘Religious Right’ has not tapped in to the US Treasury as the Left has done!

Also, I believe churchgoers (Catholics and Protestants) should know what is being done in their names.

Here are some snips from the story featured at Drudge yesterday:

Rev. Serene Jones, a leader of the Religious Left

(Reuters) – Since President Donald Trump’s election, monthly lectures on social justice at the 600-seat Gothic chapel of New York’s Union Theological Seminary have been filled to capacity with crowds three times what they usually draw.

In January, the 181-year-old Upper Manhattan graduate school, whose architecture evokes London’s Westminster Abbey, turned away about 1,000 people from a lecture on mass incarceration. In the nine years that Reverend Serene Jones has served as its president, she has never seen such crowds.

“The election of Trump has been a clarion call to progressives in the Protestant and Catholic churches in America to move out of a place of primarily professing progressive policies to really taking action,” she said.

Although not as powerful as the religious right, which has been credited with helping elect Republican presidents and boasts well-known leaders such as Christian Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson, the “religious left” is now slowly coming together as a force in U.S. politics.

This disparate group, traditionally seen as lacking clout, has been propelled into political activism by Trump’s policies on immigration, healthcare and social welfare, according to clergy members, activists and academics. A key test will be how well it will be able to translate its mobilization into votes in the 2018 midterm congressional elections. [They better darn well not use taxpayer dollars for their vote mobilization!—ed]

[….]

Some in the religious left are inspired by Pope Francis, the Roman Catholic leader who has been an outspoken critic of anti-immigrant policies and a champion of helping the needy. [These reports NEVER mention that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities receive millions of tax payer dollars every year!—ed]

Although support for the religious left is difficult to measure, leaders point to several examples, such as a surge of congregations offering to provide sanctuary to immigrants seeking asylum…

[….]

The number of churches volunteering to offer sanctuary to asylum seekers doubled to 800 in 45 of the 50 U.S. states after the election, said the Elkhart, Indiana-based Church World Service, a coalition of Christian denominations which helps refugees settle in the United States – and the number of new churches offering help has grown so quickly that the group has lost count.

Arab American Association's Linda Sarsour, the Chief Executive Director of Bend the Arc Stosh Cotler, President of Union Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. Serene Jones talk about how communities of faith are reacting to xenophobia and fear around Muslims and refugees.

Arab American Association’s Linda Sarsour, the Chief Executive Director of Bend the Arc Stosh Cotler, President of Union Theological Seminary Rev. Dr. Serene Jones talk about how communities of faith are reacting to xenophobia and fear around Muslims and refugees.

You need to know that “asylum seekers” are illegal aliens until their cases are settled by an immigration judge. The Left uses the phrase to put a veneer of respectability on illegal aliens who may or may not have a shot at being granted asylum and thus being deemed a legitimate refugee.

Church World Service!

As we said here earlier in the month, CWS, got nearly a HALF A BILLION tax dollars during the Obama years. Why doesn’t Reuters ever mention this!

There  should be a law! Any non-profit sucking this kind of money out of the US Treasury should be prohibited from running anti-Trump (or anti-any President) campaigns!

Donald Trump needs to nip this in the bud through the budget process. Will he?

Are you being used by the Religious Left?  Are they working in your name?

I recommend that you check with your ministers and pastors!

See the churches that are affiliated with Church World Service and its progressive policies:

Member Communions

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service “cautiously hopeful” refugee ceiling will return to 110,000

Nonprofits Help Illegal Immigrants With $291M Taxpayer Boost | The Daily Caller

RELATED VIDEO: Muslim College Professor on Tucker Carlson.

#MAGA Questions Requiring Immediate Answers

By Wallace Bruschweiler & William Palumbo…

Last week, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives failed to pass the one thing they have consistently preached since 2010: a repeal of Obamacare.  It was the latest (and most severe) setback since President Trump took office just two months ago.

MAGAThe fallout of this failure is a fiasco for Republicans and, in particular, President Trump.  Before another Republican failure finds itself on the doorsteps of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, below are some questions for your, and the administration’s, serious consideration.  To the following questions we offer no answers.  It is the job of those in official positions to have solutions, and act on them urgently.

  • What exactly have Paul Ryan and the Congressional Republicans been doing for the last seven years, if not figuring out a viable replacement for the monstrosity of Obamacare? Really, what were they doing there?
  • Who additionally in Congress, besides Ryan, thought that a complex (in 3 separate parts, no less!), non-free market health care bill would have conservative support and ultimately succeed? Let’s be serious.
  • Why were Senator Rand Paul’s ideas and suggestions utterly disregarded and ignored?
  • What are we paying Congress for, if not to write legislation to benefit the American people?
  • Were the Republicans in Congress expecting to lose the Presidential election, and therefore were totally unprepared to govern when Donald Trump actually won?
  • Who really supports Ryan, the leader of the RINO faction who seemingly can’t count votes, in his position as Speaker of the House (second in presidential succession after the Vice President)? Again, let’s be serious.
  • Republicans control Congress, the White House, and will soon add an additional conservative to the Supreme Court – why then, with Trump having won the election and delivered them power, is Congress unable, unprepared, and/or unwilling to legislate?
  • Why did the Trump White House not immediately consider the firing of all political appointees, wherever they are in the federal bureaucracy, a top priority? They represent and operate today as a well-oiled, prepared fifth column.
  • When will the inner circle surrounding President Trump attain the level of “firmness” required to neutralize and eliminate the proliferating, and up until now successful, fifth column?
  • When will the Trump administration finally identify the leakers and abusers of classified information (i.e., unmasking of U.S. citizens)? When will these criminals be brought to justice?
  • What finally caused the pundits to begin calling for Speaker Ryan’s replacement? He opposed Trump through the election – why the change of heart now?  What happened that they finally saw the light?

There is one more question, one to conclude the story if you will, and one for which we will hazard a guess: Who is right now laughing most at Trump and the so-called and hapless Republican Party?

The answer is a complex yet simple one: George Soros, Barack Hussein Obama, Valerie Jarrett, and Hillary Clinton.

VIDEO/PHOTOS: Atrocities Against Christians in Pakistan

GENEVA, Switzerland/PRNewswire/ — European Organization for Pakistani Minorities hosted a 3-day exhibition in to highlight the issue of atrocities against Christians in Pakistan. The exhibition was from 20th – 22nd of March 2017 at Onex, Geneva, Switzerland.

The objective of the exhibition was to raise awareness on the complete lack of basic social and political rights for Christians in Pakistan and portray how the increasing influence of Islamic radicalism in the country has resulted in regular incidents of violence against the community. The Pakistani Christian community’s struggle for survival was graphically displayed through posters that formed the major part of the exhibits.

A documentary on the condition of Christians in Pakistan administered Kashmir informed visitors about the discrimination faced by Christians in every walk of life including education, jobs, voting rights and even in the absence of graveyards to bury their dead.

The exhibition was well attended, with visitors showing keen interest on the issue.

For all photos and videos please visit the website http://www.eopm.org

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Unknown men murder Christian rickshaw driver, police labels killing as ‘suicide’

Christian Persecution in Pakistan

The Legalized Distrimination of Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan

ABOUT EUORPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR PAKISTANI MINORITIES (EPOM)

EOPM is a Human Rights Organization that strives to focus the attention of the international community on human rights violations blatantly perpetrated in Pakistan and help raise a unified voice against the atrocities committed on minorities in a country known to encourage and protect acts of religious fanaticism. We endeavour to create and develop new strategies to stop human rights abuses and to ensure improvement in the political, educational, social and economic conditions of all minority communities in Pakistan. EOPM brings to the attention of the UN and other intergovernmental regional organizations, cases of human rights violations in Pakistan in order to confront hate and terrorism and promote human rights and dignity for minorities in the country.

While most of the world welcomed 2014 with celebrations, Pakistan rang in the New Year with a deadly suicide bombing in Quetta on January 1, 2014 when a vehicle loaded with explosives rammed into a bus in the outskirts of the Balochistan capital carrying Shia pilgrims returning from Iran. This atrocity illustrates that while years and dates may change, very little changes in the wave of religious and sectarian terrorism in Pakistan. The killing of an Islamabad leader of the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, Munir Muawia, in the federal capital on 3rd January, 2014, is yet another bloody footnote in the once-again simmering sectarian wars and the state’s inability to control them. It is not surprising anymore that a drive-by shooting can occur in Islamabad and that the assassins can simply melt away. Helplessness seems to be the only reaction of the heavily financed and resourced capital police. If the heart of the capital city Islamabad cannot be made safe by security officials, then what hope is there for Peshawar, Quetta, Karachi or the rest of Pakistan?

The number of incidents related to attacks on minorities in Pakistan is continuously increasing in the country. A suicide attack on the historic All Saints Church in Peshawar in northwestern Pakistan on September 22, 2013, killed at least 85 Christian worshippers and left more than 100 injured in one of the deadliest attacks on the Christian minority in Pakistan. Suicide attacks on minorities in Pakistan have not only resulted in the death of a large number of people across the country but the number of suicide attacks in Pakistan also rose by 39 per cent in 2013. 46 suicide attacks were reported in 2013 compared to 33 in 2012. Of these, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) witnessed 18 suicide attacks in 2013 while 12 attacks occurred in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Furthermore, nine suicide attacks occurred in Balochistan, five in Sindh and one each in Rawalpindi and Azad Kashmir. This was revealed in the ‘Pakistan Security Report 2013’ launched by Pak Institute for Peace Studies (Pips), a think-tank based in Islamabad which is engaged in research to understand ongoing conflicts such as militancy, extremism, radicalisation and insurgency.

Orlando’s Muslim Professor Areeje Zufari — Profile of a ‘Radical Islamic Supremacist’

Areej Zufari photo

Areeje Zufari

This column provides the background of Professor Areeje Zufari, a Professor of Humanities and Coordinator of the Humanities Speakers Series at Valencia College located in Orlando, Florida. Zufari gained attention when she told her students “that the crucifixion of Jesus was a hoax and that his disciples did not believe he was ‘divine.’”

But there is much more to this story.

Joe Kaufman, an investigative journalist for FrontPage Magazine and Chairman of Americans Against Hate a civil rights organization and terrorism watchdog group, filed an affidavit No. CT-003545-04 naming Professor Zufari and her then husband Maher Ghawji a medical doctor based in Memphis, Tennessee. The affidavit reads in part:

8. Maher Ghawji has admitted to his wife of being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, a violent political movement whose members are sworn to “defend Islam” with their “blood.” He accepted this status with a group of friends, during a trip they had made to Cairo, Egypt (Exhibit 1). He left Syria around 1982, the year a government-led massacre took place in the town of Hama – a Brotherhood stronghold – which resulted in the deaths of 10,000 to 40,000 people (Exhibit 2). Following the massacre, members of the Brotherhood fled Syria, some leaving for the U.S. or Europe, some joining up with Osama bin Laden to fight in Afghanistan (Exhibit 3).

9. During his court deposition, on June 4, 2004, Maher Ghawji admitted to the court and to his wife of being a Wahhabi, an adherent to a fanatical religious form of Islam emanating from Saudi Arabia (Exhibit 4 – page 26).

[ … ]

11a. Maher Ghawji’s son, Louis, has written about how his father wants to “get rid” of all Jews and how his father wants him [Louis] to become a suicide bomber. In an e-mail he sent to a friend on June 24, 2004, he wrote, “And because he [Maher Ghawji] wants to get rid of all Jews and everybody should be muslim and if not all others are idiots and blah blah blah muslim allah blah blah blah wants me to go blow up myself so he would be proud of me…” (Exhibit 5).

11b. Both of Maher Ghawji’s sons have discussed how their father hates Jews. In the July 2, 2004 chambers interview with Louis and K.K. Ghawji, the children state the following: K.K. Ghawji: “So, but also, when he watches the TV and hears about Jews, he doesn’t – he’s like saying I hate the Jews, it is – ” Louis Ghawji: “He’s always wondering like every time there is one Jew dead, it is always a big fuss…” (Exhibit 5).

12. About Palestinians becoming suicide bombers, Maher Ghawji stated in his June 2004 deposition, “I think this will generate this, I’m not sure, spirit of blowing themselves up or feeling in despair; and when you’re in despair evidently like they live, and these people has no education, fifty percent jobless, have no running water after the invasion of Israeli to the Gaza Strip and West Bank, destroy all their infrastructure, evidently they feel miserable; and I said these people — I don’t see why not.” (Exhibit 4 – page 82).

Read the full affidavit…

Areej-with-Maher-at-Wedding

Areeje Zufari at her wedding to Dr. Maher Ghawji. Photo: Joe Kaufman.

According to Jacob Engels from the Central Florida Post:

…Zufari had given Polston a failing grade without explanation, after the two disagreed over Zufari proclaiming during the first class that the Crucifixion of Christ was a hoax… as was the idea that Jesus’s disciples did not think he was “divine.”

Polston reached out and demanded an explanation from the professor, but she instead reported him to the Dean of Safety for making her feel “unsafe.”

The straight-A student would ultimately be suspended on March 24th and then face outlandish allegations by Zufari, later that day.

She accused him of skulking around in the brush outside the classroom, but video surveillance from a Dr. Phillips restaurant and neighborhood gate cameras prove Polston was nowhere near the school at the time.

Now the Central Florida Post has uncovered a lawsuit filed in Orange County, FL in 2007 that contains bombshell allegations against Zufari and provide insight into her radical Wahhabi leanings. SEE THE LAWSUIT BELOW.

Read more…

Zufari Lawsuit by Jacob Engels on Scribd

EDITORS NOTE: Ms. Areeje Zufari Amazon.com profile notes:

Professor and writer Areej Zufari was born in the United States to Middle Eastern parents. Her interest in Middle Eastern culture began during her childhood in Arkansas where she also discovered her love for writing and painting. She earned a Masters degree in Liberal Studies from Rollins College and a Bachelors degree from Southern Methodist University. After 2001, she took on the demanding role of Director of Media and Communications for the Islamic Society of Central Florida. Her experiences speaking in the media revealed to her the numerous misconceptions Americans hold about the Middle East and Islam. Inspired by the importance of education to promote peace, Zufari enrolled in Hartford Seminary and earned a graduate certificate in Islamic Chaplaincy. Now, as a professor at Valencia College in Orlando, Florida, Zufari teaches Humanities courses full-time and writes during her weekends and summers. [Emphasis added]

Discover the Networks reports:

Imam Muhammad Musri, who oversees seven mosques from the Islamic Society of Central Florida, believes that Arab Christians claiming to have converted from Islam “are lying and . . . were actually Christians all along.” “They are using tales of conversion,” he says, “to get financial backing from evangelical ministries.” Taking a jab at Christianity’s many Protestant denominations, he adds, “We don’t want the Muslims to end up with 700 determinations of Islam.” Musri’s speeches are sold and distributed by the Islamic Society of North America.

Ms. Zufari’s Faculty FrontDoor profile reads:

arab-spring 22

Ms. Zufari’s Faculty FrontDoor profile picture titled “Arab Spring”. Graphic courtesy of Ms. Zufari and Valencia College.

Welcome! I am a Professor of Humanities at Valencia Community College’s East Campus.

I teach the Middle Eastern Humanities, 20th Century Humanities, Renaissance & Baroque Humanities.

Human creativity is one of the most fascinating subjects, and Humanities courses allow us to jump into the creative fields in an integrative manner.

My courses emphasize student interaction and critical thinking. If you are interested in taking one of my courses, please send me an email. I would love to hear from you.

Phone: 407-582-2349

Email:azufari1@valenciacollege.edu

Office: East Campus

Ms. Zufari’s elective Middle Eastern Humanities course syllabus reads:

Course Description:

The course covers topics such as Middle Eastern religions, philosophy, literature, architecture, visual arts, music, and the effects of modernity on the Middle East.

Major Topics:

Students will have the opportunity to study the culture of the Middle East in an integrated manner that focuses on the dominant ideas and major trends, including:

  • Characteristics and Distinctions of Middle Eastern Culture
  • Themes, styles, and impact of Middle Eastern Literature
  • Concepts and impact of the religion of Islam
  • The effects of religion on Middle Eastern peoples
  • Characteristics and trends in Middle Eastern Art
  • Characteristics of Middle Eastern Architecture
  • The Effects of Modernity on the Middle East

Texts:

  • Beyond the Headlines: A Deeper Look at Middle Eastern Culture by Areej Zufari

RELATED ARTICLES: 

HERE’S EPIC EMAIL SUSPENDED CHRISTIAN SENT MUSLIM PROF: ‘There’s something seriously wrong and depraved about you’

Christian Student Challenge’s Muslim Prof’s Claim Jesus Wasn’t Crucified, Gets Suspended

Iowa State University asks students to write about 9/11 jihad attacks from jihadis’ perspective

Georgetown University and Radical Islamists: It’s a Family Affair – IPT News

Georgetown University and Radical Islamists: It’s a Family Affair

The case of Yale

‘This Is Not a Debate’ – Yale’s fight for free speech

Australia: Muslim leader says people who leave Islam should be put to death

Somali refugee sentenced to 3 years for attempted sexual assault of mentally disabled woman

When we first reported this case, it was learned through an apparent miscommunication by lawyers for the defendant that he had only arrived in the country the week before the incident occurred in July of last year. Now we learn he was a wandering Somali who had first been resettled in Idaho three years ago and had drifted from state to state ever since.

Before this case hit the news we had heard about the mayor there supporting the proposed opening of a direct resettlement site in Aberdeen and that citizens were upset. Click here for our first story on Aberdeen.  I then visited the city during my travels throughout the Midwest and West last summer where I was mostly interested in seeing meatpacking towns that were being changed with the influx of refugee laborers.

mike-levsen-mayor

Aberdeen Mayor Mike Levsen

Here is what happened in an Aberdeen court yesterday, from Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily:

Liban Mohamed, a 39-year-old Somali refugee living in Aberdeen, South Dakota, was sentenced Monday to three years for attempting to sexually assault a severely mentally handicapped woman at a group home.

Speaking through an interpreter, Mohamed said he didn’t know English. Yet, he was seen communicating with his lawyer in English.

Judge Richard Summers sentenced Mohamed to five years, with two years suspended for a total of three years and gave him credit for time served of 228 days. Mohamed is not a U.S. citizen, but he has been living in the United States on a green card.  [I assume there was no order for deportation after he finishes his sentence, will he be wandering to your state in three short years?—ed]

The incident happened July 30, 2016, just three days after Mohamed had arrived in Aberdeen to work at the Demkota Ranch beef-processing plant. He’d been in the country for about three years at that point, having been first resettled in Idaho. He then moved to Missouri, Kansas and on to South Dakota.

It’s not the only case recently of a Somali refugee running afoul of the law. Another man from Somalia, 24-year-old Abdirhman Noor, was charged with the attempted murder of two men on July 8, 2016, outside the Foxridge Apartments in Aberdeen. Noor jumped bail, failing to show up for a pretrial hearing in February. He has been missing ever since.

Still, the mayor of the small city, Mike Levsen, supports the continued arrival of refugees, many of whom are put to work in the local meatpacking plant and at a molded fiberglass plant.

The Liban Mohamed case was also notable for the way it was handled by the local media in and around Aberdeen.

Despite the facts – that a helpless woman was preyed upon by a refugee who had arrived in town just days earlier – coverage by the local newspaper, the Aberdeen News American, and local TV was non-existent until WND brought it to light.

When it did finally report the story, the News American refused to tell its readers that the perpetrator, Mohamed, was a refugee and buried the story on page 3.

The Brown County Sheriff’s Office refused to give WND a mugshot of Mohamed.

There are many more details.  Continue reading here.

I wonder what his arrest, his legal counsel, his interpreters and his incarceration is costing the taxpayers of South Dakota? So much for refugees adding to local economies!

Aberdeen citizens might wish to review the ‘Rutland model’ regarding mayors.

Mayor Levsen gave a state of the city address last month. Note: “immigrants” adding to Aberdeen population.

VIDEO: Miami-Dade School District Diverts Funds from Teacher’s Salaries to Construction

Alllchemist posted a video exposing collusion between the United Teachers of Dade union and the Miami-Dade School District to divert funds from teacher’s salaries to pay for construction projects.

According to alllchemist:

Why Has UTD Been Silent About MDCPS Failure to Fund Teacher Salaries?

For over a decade, United Teachers of Dade has echoed the claim that MDCPS “just didn’t have the money” to honor contractual raises.

Teacher Shawn Beightol has pointed out that Tallahassee has increased funding to MDCPS for years, but MDCPS has lowered local taxes (to promote political careers as “tax cutters”), creating its own pseudo-crisis.

UTD has done nothing.

In fact, UTD has colluded with MDCPS to convince the public that a financial crisis prevented the raises.

In the fall of 2015, MDCPS and UTD together unlawfully changed a legislatively designated “grandfathered salary schedule.”

A group of teachers incorporated as “The Grandfathered Inc” to challenge MDCPS’ and UTD’s unlawful collusion in court and to set the record straight.

In September 2015, MDCPS Superintendent Carvalho spoke at the
Kendall Federation of HOAs.

The Grandfathered Inc was there to publicly challenge MDCPS’ campaign to impoverish teachers.

Teacher Shawn Beightol asked Mr. Carvalho a series of questions including:

  1. Haven’t other taxing entities claimed a surplus from increased property values? (yes)
  2. Hasn’t MDCPS issued letters to employees explaining how to apply for foodstamps & welfare? (yes)
  3. Hasn’t MDCPS actually LOWERED its tax rate (millage) to create a pseudo-financial crisis? (yes)

The superintendent answered “No” to the first and last questions and ignored the second question.

Watch the video to read the transcript of the court hearing in which we destroy MDCPS’ claim that they cannot honor the contract because of financial shortages.

The Grandfathered Inc has clearly shown that MDCPS and UTD together have deprived teachers of their raises by deliberately under-taxing the county, by diverting hundreds of millions in salary money to construction, by failing to access $750 Million in millage available, and by failing to access sales tax funds available.

We, the Grandfathered Inc, are pushing our lawsuit forward by filing the class action lawsuit in civil court this month (March 2017). We need you to help by signing on to our class and by donating to our cause. You can take these two actions by visiting our facebook page “Grandfathered Lawsuit”

Index finds Rallying Home Purchase Market in 2016

Today, AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk (ICHR) and First American Financial Corporation release the AEI/First American National Housing Market Index (NHMI), the first index ever to analyze sales transaction volume for the entire home purchase market.

The national housing market continued its rally in the fourth quarter of 2016. On an annualized basis, 5,810,000 sales transactions were reported, which is up 350,000 transactions, or 6.4 percent, from 2015.

  • 2015 had already seen demand grow by 340,000 transactions or 7.6 percent from 2014.
  • The home purchase market also closed out 2016 with strong growth as transactions increased 9.1 percent in the fourth quarter compared to a year ago.
  • Cash sales continued to trend down accounting for only 29 percent of all transactions in 2016, down from 30 percent in 2015 and 36 percent in 2013.
  • Filling its void was government-backed lending, which accounted for 55 percent of all transactions in 2016, up from 53 percent in 2015 and 50 percent in 2013. 
  • The AEI/First American National Housing Market Index (NHMI) is the first index to report on the entire home purchase market.
  • Transaction numbers are also available on the state and metro area level for unprecedented geographical detail.

The NHMI combines ICHR’s data on the federal agency market (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Housing Association, Veterans Affairs, and Rural Housing Services) with data provided by First American via DataTree.com for the private side of the mortgage market and for cash and non-institutionalized lender sales. The combined data set nearly covers the volume of the entire market at the national, state, and metro levels. To account for the small amount of incomplete data, housing data are scaled to estimate total volume at the various reported levels.

In contrast to existing estimates of home sales, the AEI/First American NHMI is based on comprehensive loan- and transaction-level data and does not involve extrapolations from a survey or sample of the housing market. Other published data are based on surveys or samples, necessitating assumptions about the entire market. The NHMI is the only metric that (i) compiles data from virtually the entire housing market, (ii) provides views into the data from many key perspectives, and (iii) is published quarterly with minimal time lag.

The AEI/First American NHMI is released quarterly by AEI’s ICHR. It provides counts for home purchase transactions undertaken with institutional financing or other financing, as well as cash sales. In addition, dollar volumes, loan counts, average loan amounts, and market shares for primary owner and secondary owner/non-owner tenure types will be provided at the national, state, and metro area level for each of the five loan agencies (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHA, the VA, and Rural Housing Services), as well as for the private (non-agency) loan sector in order to give an accurate and detailed picture of activity in the home purchase and the mortgage loan markets. Today’s release reports on transactions from the fourth quarter of 2016. The quarterly time series tracks housing data back to the fourth quarter of 2012 and is based on almost 23 million home purchase transactions. The number will grow with each additional quarter of data.

“The NHMI-Primary Owner Purchase Loan volume index rose to 141 in 2016: Q4, as compared to 124 in 2015:Q4 and 116 in 2014:Q4,” noted Edward Pinto, co-director of the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI’s) International Center on Housing Risk. “Based on these and other data, I expect 2017 purchase originations to continue to grow robustly.”

“The total value of residential purchase transactions in the U.S. housing market approached $1 trillion in 2016, coming in at $965 trillion for the year. The share of cash sales continues to decrease, but remains a significant portion of the overall market at 29 percent,” said Mark Fleming, chief economist at First American. “Entering the busy spring home buying season, I expect prices to continue to rise and transaction volumes to continue to grow, spurred on by the strong sellers’ market and increasing Millennial, first-time homebuyer demand.”

The NHMI for the first quarter of 2017 will be released on June 26, 2017.

To arrange an interview with Ed Pinto, please contact AEI Media Services at mediaservices@aei.org or 202.862.4870.

To arrange an interview with First American Chief Economist Mark Fleming, please contact First American’s corporate communications team at 714-250-3298. Mark Fleming’s unique research and analysis of real estate, mortgage risk and housing trends is available at www.firstam.com/economics.

About First American

First American Financial Corporation (NYSE: FAF) is a leading provider of title insurance, settlement services and risk solutions for real estate transactions that traces its heritage back to 1889. First American also provides title plant management services; title and other real property records and images; valuation products and services; home warranty products; property and casualty insurance; and banking, trust and investment advisory services. With revenues of $5.6 billion in 2016, the company offers its products and services directly and through its agents throughout the United States and abroad. In both 2016 and 2017, First American was recognized by Fortune® magazine as one of the 100 best companies to work for in America. More information about the company can be found at www.firstam.com.

About AEI

AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk provides research, commentary, and new tools for measuring housing and mortgage market trends. Mr. Pinto is the codirector of the ICHR, a resident fellow at AEI, and a former executive vice president and chief credit officer for Fannie Mae.

VIDEO: Muslim members of UN asked — ‘Where are your Jews?’ Hypocrisy exposed!

These countries exiled nearly a million Jews in 1948, and now they are posturing about Israel’s supposed “apartheid” policies, when Arab Muslims in Israel serve in the Knesset. The hypocrisy is astounding, and generally never noted.

Bravo to Hillel Neuer for calling out these self-righteous hypocrites.

“UN Watch Fires Back at Countries Accusing Israel of Abuses, ‘Where are your Jews?,’” by Jack Heretik, Washington Free Beacon, March 24, 2017 11:16 am

UN Watch Executive Director Hillel Neuer shot back at countries accusing Israel of apartheid and violence against Palestinians, asking them where the Jewish populations in their countries have gone.

During a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council on Monday, several Middle Eastern countries took turns bashing Israel, saying that it has imposed apartheid and violence against Palestinians. A Palestinian representative was joined by Qatar, Sudan, Syria, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in criticizing Israel.

Neuer was then recognized to respond to the accusations from the representatives, as well as those from a UN report.

“Everything we just heard, from the world’s worst abusers of human rights, of women’s rights, of freedom of religion, of the press, of assembly, of speech, is absolutely false and indeed Orwellian,” Neuer said….

“Israel’s 1.5 million Arabs, whatever challenges they face, enjoy full rights to vote and to be elected in the Knesset, they work as doctors and lawyers, they serve on the Supreme Court,” Neuer said….

“How many Jews live in your countries? How many Jews lived in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco?” Neuer pointed out. “Once upon a time, the Middle East was full of Jews.”

Neuer went through a list of those countries asking, “Where are your Jews?” after stating how many Jews used to live there.

“Where is the apartheid, Mr. President?” Neuer asked.

“Why are we meeting today on an agenda item singling out only one state, the Jewish state, for targeting? Where is the apartheid, Mr. President?” Neuer said.

For a substantial amount of time following Neuer’s remarks, the council was silent.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Muslim Brotherhood, Fountain of Islamist Violence – Middle East Quarterly

Texas public high school defends its Islamic prayer room after warning from state deputy attorney general

Australia: Muslim slaughtered wife for opposing his desire to join Islamic State, wanted children to learn Qur’an only

Why Single-Payer Health Care Delivers Poor Quality at High Cost by Daniel J. Mitchell

I shared last year a matrix to illustrate Milton Friedman’s great insight about the superior results achieved by markets compared to government.

Incentives explain why markets work best. When you spend your own money on yourself (box 1), you try to maximize quality while minimizing cost. And that drives the businesses that are competing for your money to constantly seek more efficient ways of producing better products at better prices.

This system generates creative destruction, which sometimes can be painful, but the long-term result is that we are vastly richer.

Governments, by contrast, don’t worry about efficiency or cost (box 4).

Today, though, let’s use Friedman’s matrix to understand the shortcomings of the US health care system. Way back in 2009, I opined that the most important chart in health care was the one showing that American consumers directly paid for less than 12 percent of health expenditures.

For all intents and purposes, instead of buying health care with their own money, they use other people’s money (box 2), a phenomenon known as third-party payer. And because most of their health expenses are financed by either government (thanks to Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, etc) or insurance companies (thanks to the tax code’s health care exclusion), consumers focus only on quality and don’t care much about cost.

That 2009 column was written before Obamacare’s enactment, so let’s see if anything has changed.

Well, we know health care has become more expensive. But do we know why?

The answer, at least in part, is that consumers are directly financing an even smaller percentage of their health care expenses. In other words, the distortions caused by third-party payer have become worse.

Here’s the most-recent data from the federal government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (specifically the National Health Expenditures by type of service and source of funds, CY 1960-2015). Consumers are now paying only 10.5 percent of health care costs.

Now let’s consider the issue of efficiency.

Are we getting better health care for all the money that’s being spent?

That doesn’t seem to be the case. Here’s another chart from the archives. It compares per-capita health spending in various nations with average life expectancy.

As you can see, the United States is not getting more bang for the buck. And I very much doubt an updated version of those numbers would show anything different.

Heck, we even have more government spending on health care, per capita, than many nations with fully nationalized systems.

So if we’re not buying better health outcomes with all this money, what are we getting?

The blunt answer is bureaucracy and inefficiency. Here are some excerpts I shared years ago from a column by Robert Samuelson.

There are 9 times more clerical workers in health care than there are physicians, and twice as many clerical workers as registered nurses. This investment has not paid off in superior outcomes or better customer service, however. …Every analysis of medical care that has been done highlights the significant waste of resources in providing care. Consider a few examples: one study found that physicians spent on average of 142 hours annually interacting with health plans, at an estimated cost to practices of $68,274 per physician (Casalino et al., 2009). Another study found that 35 percent of nurses’ time in medical/surgical units of hospitals was spent on documentation (Hendrich et al., 2008).

Let’s close with a chart from a left-wing group that wants a single-payer system.

And this chart clearly makes a compelling case that the current approach in the United States is very wasteful.

For what it’s worth, I’m slightly skeptical about the veracity of the numbers. Why, for instance, would there be a sudden explosion of administrators starting about 1990?

But even if the data is overstated, I’m sure the numbers are still bad. We see the same thing in other areas of our economy where government-instigated third-party payer enables waste and featherbedding. Higher education is an especially shocking example.

The real issue is how to solve the problem. Our leftist friends think a single-payer health care system would solve the problem, but that would be akin to nationalizing grocery stores to deal with the inefficiencies created by food stamps and agriculture subsidies.

The real answer, as Julie Borowski explains in this video, is unraveling all the government interventions that caused the problem in the first place.

And if you want another video on the topic, here’s a Dutch expert making similar points. I also recommend this clever cartoon video that explains third-party payer. And this Reason video on how costs are lower when actual markets operate.

And if aren’t already numbed by lots of data, Mark Perry and Devon Herrick have more evidence of lower costs when third-party payer is reduced.

Republished from International Liberty.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

RELATED ARTICLE: GOP Defeat. Conservative Victory.

Real vs Fake Health Care Reform, and How to Tell the Difference by Jeffrey A. Tucker

You want to know why the “freedom caucus” has balked at passing the Trump-backed Ryancare health care proposal?

Because the package does not address the core problem of the existing system. They are leaning – correctly – on a brilliant insight from F.A. Hayek.

Let’s think this through.

What was the most fundamental problem with Obamacare? It attempted to set up an artificial market that lacked the most salient feature of markets: genuine competition. Real competition. I don’t mean teams struggling for control. I mean an institutional setting in which producers can innovate. They face free entry and exit. Their well-being depends on serving the consumer.Obamacare has flopped because it disabled what remained of the competitive system with defined benefits packages, mandates that everyone be covered, requirements that everyone must purchase, and geographic limits on service provision. All these together took health care out of the realm of markets and made it a form of central planning.

And so: Obamacare resulted in soaring premiums, soaring deductibles, shoddy access, and ever-increasing bureaucracy. It became untenable. Objecting to it doesn’t have to be a matter of ideology. The contraption just didn’t work.

The core insight of the “freedom caucus” comes from Hayek and his fascinating piece “The Meaning of Competition”:

It is only through competition that we can assume that these possible savings of cost will be achieved. Even if in each instance prices were only just low enough to keep out producers which do not enjoy these or other equivalent advantages, so that each commodity were produced as cheaply as possible, though many may be sold at prices considerably above costs, this would probably be a result which could not be achieved by any other method than that of letting competition operate …

Yet the current tendency in discussion is to be intolerant about the imperfections and to be silent about the prevention of competition. We can probably still learn more about the real significance of competition by studying the results which regularly occur where competition is deliberately suppressed than by concentrating on the shortcomings of actual competition compared with an ideal which is irrelevant for the given facts.

I say advisedly “where competition is deliberately suppressed” and not merely “where it is absent,” because its main effects are usually operating, even if more slowly, so long as it is not outright suppressed with the assistance or the tolerance of the state.

The evils which experience has shown to be the regular consequence of a suppression of competition are on a different plane from those which the imperfections of competition may cause. Much more serious than the fact that prices may not correspond to marginal cost is the fact that, with an entrenched monopoly, costs are likely to be much higher than is necessary …

Competition is essentially a process of the formation of opinion: by spreading information, it creates that unity and coherence of the economic system which we presuppose when we think of it as one market. It creates the views people have about what is best and cheapest, and it is because of it that people know at least as much about possibilities and opportunities as they in fact do. It is thus a process which involves a continuous change in the data and whose significance must therefore be completely missed by any theory which treats these data as constant.

Let me paraphrase and apply: no, there will not be a perfect world. Total freedom is not a political option right now. So what’s the priority for any reform? The most crucial institutions in any society are the signaling systems of prices that reflect existing knowledge and possibilities.

When those are malfunctioning, nothing else works. Costs go up, quality goes down, innovation stops, and the sector starts to atrophy.

Competition Restoration Means Health Care Restoration

The first priority is that competition must be restored through some measure of deregulation. The mandates must go. The pre-set benefits packages must die. Insurers must gain control over their business affairs and customers have to be able to shop and choose.

We must regain flexibility to inspire innovation and achieve profitability. This must happen or else premiums will keep going up. This is a requirement. Obamacare failed because it disabled the market. Any reform must restore that market. This is more important than any other feature of reform.Trumpcare or Ryancare or whatever you want to call it does not do that. It replaces a mandate to buy with a tax incentive to buy. Otherwise it leaves the problem of the absence of genuine competition in place. True, the alternative doesn’t do anything about the transfer of payments, but, if you follow Hayek, you know that these are less important to eliminate than are the barriers to competition.

The restoration of competition will discover for us things we do not know about service provision: treatments, plans, new institutional arrangements, new forms of insurance, new methods for serving the public. Competition will grow the market and make profitability the test of success or failure.

If that does not happen, premiums will keep increasing, quality will go down, access will continue to shrink, and public anger will grow as a result.

Now is the time. Again, it is not about ideology. It is about a system of health care insurance that actually works to serve the common good.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Trump Sabotaging Obamacare? – POLITICO Magazine

RELATED VIDEO: Senator Rand Paul Doesn’t Want the GOP to Fail at Obamacare Replacement Plan.

EDITORS NOTE: Learn real skills from successful entrepreneurs at FEEcon: June 15-17 (Register by May 15).

It’s Fake News to Call the ‘Freedom Caucus’ the ‘Rebellious Far Right’ by Jeffrey A. Tucker

My hope is that this article will settle this nonsense once and for all. It won’t. Fake news outlets will persist as long as they are allowed to get away with it. It’s a smear and an outright lie but it goes on often, especially recently.

The Background

First of all, as you undoubtedly know, there is a faction within the House of Representatives gaining consciousness of the great task of our time: to get government out of the way of the productive forces of freedom, and to do this in every area of life. It is called the “Freedom Caucus,” and their influence just brought down the false alternative to Obamacare that preserved all its essential features.

Given the upheaval in the Republican Party, these people are developing a new understanding of themselves. They stood up to Trump. Clearly, they don’t exist on the common left/right spectrum.In how they handled the great Obamacare/Ryancare debacle, they should be called “libertarians,” because this is the word that has emerged to describe them in our times.

But more correctly, they should be called “liberals,” because they are the successors to the great cause of human liberation that began in the late Middle Ages, extended through the Enlightenment, drove the revolutions against power in the 18th century, ended slavery and the subjugation of women in the 19th century, and fought socialism and fascism in the 20th century. In the 21st century, they’ve championed digital innovation, privacy, and technological progress.

Here is good tutorial.

What They Believe

This group, which is undergoing a revival in many forms in our times, is trending toward being a consistent force of freedom. It’s not there just yet but the trend line is unmistakable and good. It’s not just about lower taxes, though they do desire that. They also want free trade, free migration as an ideal, free speech, deregulation, penal and prison reform, and an end to wars of all sorts. In short, they see the free society as the answer and government as the problem.

They have few connections to what is called the Left, except in areas like prison reform, drug decriminalization, and free speech. But neither do they share the values of the emergent far Right we’re seeing in Europe or the United States. They reject authoritarians of all sorts, which is why they are not reliable friends of the Trump administration. They will back him when he is right but fight him when he is wrong. They are independent in this way, recognizing that both Right and Left are forms of statist ideology, two flavors of the same cause.They are often called “conservatives” in American political lexicon, and sometimes they too have to embrace this term because it has resonance with the media and the voters. But they don’t like it, and it doesn’t really describe them. They do not want to conserve any old habits of government. They want government out of the way precisely so market forces and society in general can discover new and better ways of doing things.

Now, having described the Freedom Caucus in the House as best I can, consider what the New York Times says. The article “Trump Becomes Ensnared in Fiery G.O.P. Civil War” is by Glenn Thrush (twitter.com/GlennThrush) and Maggie Haberman (twitter.com/maggieNYT). Here is what they write:

In stopping the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the Republican Party’s professed priority for the last seven years, the rebellious far Right wing of his party out-rebelled Mr. Trump, and won a major victory on Friday over the party establishment that he now leads.

You see that? The “rebellious far Right wing.”

The Real Far Right

Any reader would equate that designation with Marine Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary, Norbert Hofer in Austria, and so on. Actually, you can read all about the rise of the far Right in Europe in a very authoritative source: the New York Times, in an article published only a few months ago.

Their policies are by now predictable. They want protectionism, restricted immigration, some form of industrial economic planning, a strong welfare safety net, and, very often, they favor national health care systems.In fact, even in the United States, the most highly-trafficked Nazi website (please forgive me for not linking) came out with a front page editorial on the day of the Republican vote that came out explicitly for nationalized health insurance.

These policies are not pro-freedom. They have more in common with an interwar-style fascism. Most people who hang out on Twitter know them well. They are masters of the troll, self-proclaimed edge lords who tweet racist, anti-semitic, and nativist slogans and memes all day and all night. There are whole packages of software designed to block them.

Libertarianism is different, very different, from the alt-right, the far Right, the fascist right, the Nazi right, and so on.

Rebellious, Yes; Far Right, No

With health care, in particular, you see a striking difference. The Freedom Caucus opposed the Trump/Ryan plan because it preserved the statist features of Obamacare. It did not introduce market competition. They knew, as a matter of personal conviction and experience, that the replacement would not work. They acted out of principle but also out of a genuine knowledge of the sector, what has broken it, and how it must be fixed.

These reporters really must find a way to clean up their language, or risk sowing a very dangerous confusion. It is ridiculously misleading to persist in these old habits of describing any non-Leftist as associated with the “far Right.” It smacks of propaganda. These reporters have to do better if they want to describe the emergent liberal faction of the Republican party with any accuracy.On a personal note, I adore the New York Times. I read it thoroughly every day. I don’t agree with it, but I find it an indispensable source of news. I would like to see the ideological reporting of this paper improve.

If you tweet to these reporters, please be nice. No trolling. They are human beings. They are trying to do their best. They just need a bit of help. It is crucial they get this right.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Trump Sabotaging Obamacare? – POLITICO Magazine

RELATED VIDEO: Senator Rand Paul Doesn’t Want the GOP to Fail at Obamacare Replacement Plan.

EDITORS NOTE: Learn real skills from successful entrepreneurs at FEEcon: June 15-17 (Register by May 15).