Who Is Doing More for Affordable Education: Politicians or Innovators? by Bryan Jinks

With a current outstanding student loan debt of $1.3 trillion, debt-free education is poised to be a major issue leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has come forth with his plan for tuition-free higher education.

Senator Elizabeth Warren supports debt-free education, which goes even further by guaranteeing that students don’t take on debt to pay other expenses incurred while receiving an education.

Democratic Party front-runner Hillary Clinton is expected to propose a plan to reduce student loan debt at some point. And don’t forget President Obama’s proposal to provide two years of community college to all students tuition-free.

While all of these plans would certainly increase access to higher education, they would also be expensive. President Obama’s relatively modest community college plan would cost $60 billion over the next decade. What makes this an even worse idea is that all of that taxpayer money wouldn’t solve the most important problems currently facing higher education.

Shifting the costs completely to taxpayers doesn’t actually reduce the costs. It also doesn’t increase the quality of education in a system that has high drop-out rates and where a lot of graduates end up in low-paying jobs that don’t use their degree. Among first-time college students who enrolled in a community college in the fall of 2008, fewer than 40% earned a credential from either a two-year or four-year institution within six years.

Whatever the other social or spiritual benefits of attending college are, they don’t justify wasting that so much time and money without seeing much improvement in wages or job prospects.

Proponents of debt-free college argue that these programs are worth the cost because a more educated workforce will boost the economy. But these programs would push more marginal students into college without any regard for how prepared they are, how likely they are to graduate, or how interested they are in getting a degree. If even more of these students enter college, keeping the low completion rates from falling even further would be a challenge.

All of these plans would just make sure that everyone would have access to the mediocre product that higher education currently is. Just as the purpose of Obamacare was to make sure that every American had a health insurance card in their wallet, the purpose of debt-free education is to make sure that every American has a student ID card too — whether it means anything or not.

But there are changes coming in higher education that can actually solve some of these problems.

The Internet is making education much cheaper. While Open Online Courses have existed for more than a decade, there are a growing number of places to find educational materials online. Udemy is an online marketplace that allows anyone to create their own course and sell it or give it away. Saylor Academy and University of the People both have online models that offer college credit with free tuition and relatively low examination fees.

Udacity offers nanodegrees that can be completed in 6-12 months. The online curriculum is made in partnership with technology companies to give students exactly the skills that hiring managers are looking for. And there are many more businesses and non-profits offering new ways to learn that are cheaper, faster, and more able to keep up with the ever-changing economy than traditional universities.

All of these innovations are happening in response the rising costs and poor outcomes that have become typical of formal education. New educational models will keep developing that offer solutions that policy makers can’t provide.

Some of these options are free, some aren’t. Each has their own curriculum and some provide more tangible credentials than others. There isn’t one definitive answer as to how someone should go about receiving an education. But each of these innovations provides a small part of the answer to the current problems with higher education.

Change for the better is coming to higher education. Just don’t expect it to come from Washington.

Bryan Jinks

Bryan Jinks is a ?freelance writer based out of Cleveland, Ohio.

Supreme Court: No More Lifetime Appointments by Doug Bandow

Democrats and Republicans alike have turned Supreme Court appointments into a partisan slugfest. No wonder: while the judiciary has long been described as the least dangerous branch of government, the court has become instead a continuing constitutional convention. Just five votes can turn the Constitution inside out.

The latest Supreme Court term was seen as a shift to the left. The high court rewrote Obamacare to save the president’s landmark legislation to socialize American health care and completed a social revolution by nationalizing gay marriage. These decisions set off a flurry of promises from Republican Party presidential candidates to confront the judiciary.

Extreme Measures

Jeb Bush said he would only appoint judges “with a proven record of judicial restraint,” even though previous presidents claiming to do the same chose Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and John Roberts, among many other conservative disappointments.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) called for judicial retention elections. Such a change at the federal level would require a constitutional amendment, though it would mimic the practices of some 20 states. Even more controversially, Cruz suggested that only those whose case was brought before the justices had to respect Supreme Court rulings.

Extreme measures seem necessary because a simultaneously progressive and activist judiciary has joined the legislature and executive in forthrightly making public policy.

Should Justices Serve for Life?

The influence of judges has been magnified by their relative immunity from political pressure. Although the courts sometimes follow the election returns, in many cases — such as abortion and gay marriage — judicial decisions have short-circuited normal political discourse.

That fact alone makes judicial appointments important. Their significance is magnified by judges’ life tenure.

Lose the battle over filling a Supreme Court slot and you may suffer the consequences for decades. Gerald Ford’s unelected presidency merits little more than a historical footnote, but his Supreme Court legacy long persisted through Justice John Paul Stevens, a judicial ideologue hostile to liberty in most forms. Republicans going back to Dwight Eisenhower publicly lamented the evolution of their appointees, and every one of them made at least one choice that ultimately advanced a big-government agenda. Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts fill that role today.

Lifetime tenure has other consequences. The appointment process is endlessly arbitrary, as judges hang on, irrespective of advancing age. Although instances of obvious infirmity are few — the last clear Supreme Court case was William O. Douglas, who served more than 36 years before retiring in 1975 — outcomes should not be affected by actuarial tables. A gerontocratic court differs dramatically from the society on behalf of which its members purport to speak. The lack of turnover also may deaden court debate, reinforcing established patterns of thinking.

Life tenure is enshrined in the Constitution and rooted in history. The justification for lifetime appointment is to insulate the courts from transient political pressures. Some such protection is necessary if judges are to feel free to make unpopular decisions upholding the nation’s fundamental law.

Yet, judicial independence does not require lack of accountability. Judges are supposed to play a limited though vital role: interpreting, not transforming, the law. The dichotomy of activism versus restraint is the wrong prism for viewing judges. They should be active in enforcing the law, striking down legislation, and vindicating rights when required by the Constitution. They should be restrained in substituting their policy preferences for those of elected representatives.

When jurists violate this role, as do so many judges, they should be held accountable. Unfortunately, many of the proposed responses are more dangerous than the judges themselves. For instance, limiting court jurisdiction or impeaching errant jurists, oft proposed in the past, provides obvious opportunities for abuse. Worse is Cruz’s idea that most people should ignore the Supreme Court. Where government branches collide, someone must have a final say, or else the result will be enduring political conflict and limited legal legitimacy.

Ignore the Court?

More important, Cruz would presumably not want politicians to ignore court rulings with which he agreed. After all, as originally conceived, the judiciary was tasked with the critical role of holding the executive and legislative branches accountable, limiting their propensity to exceed their bounds and abuse the people. For instance, Alexander Hamilton imagined independent courts playing a “peculiarly essential” role to safeguard liberties and being an “excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.” Indeed, he contended, the judiciary would “guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals” from “the people themselves.”

Thomas Jefferson argued that judges would provide a “legal check” on political majorities. James Madison, often viewed as the father of the Constitution, predicted that

independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of [Bill of Rights guarantees]; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.

Of course, all too often the judiciary fails to fulfill this role today. No less than the presidents and congressmen, judges have become avid advocates of statism. Jurists as well as politicians should be held accountable. Unreviewable power is always dangerous.

Throw the Bums Out?

Some 20 states have implemented Cruz’s second idea, of retention elections. Few judges are defenestrated, but on occasion, the results are dramatic. Three decades ago, California voters ousted three state supreme court jurists who had effectively repealed the death penalty. In 2010, Iowa voters defeated three state supreme court judges who ruled in favor of gay marriage.

National judicial elections, however, would be far more problematic. Should the decision be made via national vote or by a majority of state votes? Moreover, it is hard to believe that Americans who today choose their president based on 30-second television spots would pay serious attention to esoteric legal issues and make the fine distinctions characteristic of legal and constitutional analysis. Worse, judicial votes might reinforce the reigning political consensus, allowing majorities to remove justices most prepared to enforce the constitution against those in power. Unfortunately, further politicizing the judiciary would be an uncertain means of counteracting the problem of a politicized judiciary.

There is a better alternative.

The Solution: Fixed Terms

The Constitution should be amended to authorize fixed terms for federal judges. Perhaps one term of 10 or 12 years for Supreme Court justices, though Federalist Society founder Steve Calabresi suggested 18-year terms. Another option would be a renewable term of 6 or 8 years. Staggering terms would ensure every president at least a couple of appointments. Mixing short and long terms would expand diversity.

Such an approach would offer several advantages. While every appointment would remain important, judicial nominations would no longer be as likely to become political Armageddon. The new justice’s service would be bounded with his exit from office already set, and another appointment would be due a couple of years later.

Term limits also would ensure a steady transformation of the court’s membership. New additions at regular intervals would encourage intellectual as well as physical rejuvenation of the court. No longer would justices attempt to desperately hang on in order to outlast a president of another party. Law rather than health would determine the pace of judicial appointments.

Most important, fixed terms would establish judicial accountability. Justices still would be independent, largely immune to political retaliation for their decisions. Thus, if so inclined, they still could “resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.”

Nevertheless, abusive judges would no longer serve for life. Elective officials could reassert control over the court without destroying the judicial institution. There would be no court-packing, a la Franklin Delano Roosevelt, as transformation would take time, over two or three presidencies.

The Supreme Court has become as consequential as the presidency in making public policy. Indeed, contrary to their originally envisioned role, judges have become as likely as politicians to push to expand state power and limit individual liberty. It is necessary to find a way to impose accountability while preserving independence. Appointing judges to fixed terms would simultaneously achieve both objectives.

Doug Bandow

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of a number of books on economics and politics. He writes regularly on military non-interventionism.

Pamela Geller: Halt Refugee Resettlement Program — Southern Poverty Law Center a “smear machine”

Yesterday, Pamela Geller writing at World Net Daily urged readers to contact their members of Congress to support Rep. Brian Babin’s bill to suspend the UN/US State Department Refugee Resettlement Program until the costs were thoroughly analyzed and the security issues were fully addressed.

We urge you to read her entire commentary here, but bring your attention to what she says about the Southern Poverty Law Center(SPLC) which has been called upon by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) to expose this blog and anyone who questions the program as “racists.”   (See my previous post, LOL!, HIAS is obviously using Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals for guidance!).

Here is what we said last summer about the HIAS report (Resettlement at Risk: Meeting Emerging Challenges to Refugee Resettlement in Local Communities) siccing the SPLC on us.

And, before I get to what Ms. Geller says, I just saw yesterday that Melanie Nezer of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (author of the report!) is presently chairing the lobbying consortium for the refugee contractors (Refugee Council USA aka RCUSA) and some of their NO Borders friends in Washington.

Melanie Nezer

Melanie Nezer is author of the HIAS report calling on the SPLC to smear us and is presently chairing the refugee resettlement industry’s lobbying arm in Washington.

Longtime readers know that Ms. Nezer is one of the first to call for 15,000 Syrian Muslims a year to be admitted to the US.   Now, RCUSA (and the newly re-branded HIAS) have upped the ante and are behind the drive to admit 65,000 Syrians to your towns and cities by the time Obama leaves office!

We have also learned from inside sources that RCUSA put out an alert to their member resettlement contractors (and mentioning me by name!) to NOT give out any information to any of you calling your local contractor’s offices.  What are they hiding?

Back to World Net Daily and what Pamela Geller says about the SPLC (emphasis is mine):

The only thing more dangerous than the jihadists in our midst are their patrons and benefactors.

WND reported that “the refugee resettlement industry, which includes legions of immigrant rights advocates, lawyers and community organizing groups funded by George Soros, the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, among others, churned out a document in 2013 on how to deal with so-called ‘pockets of resistance.’ The document, authored by the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, one of the nine government contractors doing resettlement work, advised refugee advocates to research the backgrounds of local people who oppose resettlements and turn them over to the Southern Poverty Law Center for public shaming as ‘racists’ and ‘anti-Muslim’ bigots.”

This is further proof that the Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, is nothing more than a smear machine designed to destroy the forces of good. These are the tactics of totalitarians and supremacists. And this is who the media turns to for comment on the work of my colleagues and me. There is not one mainstream media outlet that does not quote the SPLC libels when reporting on my work.

Freedom-loving Americans must understand that this is what every one of us, the individual, is up against: a billion-dollar machine of destruction and hate. Churchill said of Islam: “No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.” And I would add one thing.No stronger retrograde force exists in the America today than the left.

Continue reading here.

Alert!  The most important thing any of you could do right now is to get your member of Congress to co-sponsor the Babin bill.  Who supports Babin’s modest approach, and who doesn’t! is going to tell you all you need to know about your member of Congress!

RELATED ARTICLE: Bob Enos of Willmar, MN speaks, won’t be deterred!

The Eye, Ear, and Mind Principle

A few weeks ago I wrote a column titled, “Republican Presidential Candidates Lack Diversity.”  I called out Republican presidential campaigns for not having any Blacks on staff or as consultants.  I received several phone calls from various campaigns with them expressing their “disappointment” in my piece; they didn’t deny the facts of my piece, just the fact that I criticized Republicans.

These campaigns and the party, as usual, are missing the point.  While diversity within a presidential campaign is extremely important; the optics are even more important for 2016.  In the immortal words of my good friend John Travolta from the movie Swordfish, “What the eyes see, and the ears hear; the mind believes.”  I have dubbed this the eyes, ear, and mind principle (E.E.M.).

Can you name me one Black who has been publicly validated by the leaders of the Republican Party?  I am speaking in terms of a Black who is known and respected both in the Black community, as well as the White community; a Black who is well regarded in both communities simultaneous.

Have you seen one Black get out of the car or off the plane with any of our candidates for president?  Have you ever seen one Black with House Speaker John Boehner or Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell?

Since Blacks are not seen in the party, nor heard in the party; it is understandable why in the mind of Blacks we believe there is no place in the Republican Party for us; the E.E.M. principle in effect.

Issues of race will be one of the top three issues going into next year’s elections and the Republican Party is totally unprepared to deal with anything with a racial component.  Look no further than the anemic response our presidential candidates have given to issues like Ferguson, Baltimore, or South Carolina.  How do you expect these campaigns to adequately respond to these issues when they have all White staffs, consultants, and pollsters?

The National Urban League’s annual convention last week provided a great teachable moment for Republicans; but I doubt very seriously that they will learn from it.

I have been telling Republicans for years that they should never attend or speak to any of the major Black organizations unless they are given certain concessions.  I am speaking about groups like the National Urban League, the NAACP, the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), etc.

These Black groups are all very liberal in their orientation and rarely if ever have Black Republicans on any panels during their conventions.  So why would any Republican go there and give a speech, only to have the group’s members constantly criticize the Republican messages; if there are no Black Republicans on various panels to push back on this criticism then the speech is a total waste of time?

JEB Bush spoke at the Urban League’s conference last week only have Hillary Clinton thoroughly eviscerate Bush and Republicans and we had no one to refute Hillary’s bogus speech.  Bush’s speech said absolutely nothing of relevance to the audience or the Black community; and I can guarantee you that the speech was written by a white staffer with no input from any Blacks that understand communications and the Black community.  So Bush got what he deserved.

Republicans go to these groups simply out of fear.  They are terrified of being called a racist, so they go to these groups with hat in hand because they have no Blacks around them who are willing to take a hard line with these liberal Black groups.  If these groups refuse to have Black Republicans participate in their conferences, why would party leaders agree to speak?

The Black community is not hearing anything of any relevance to them from these presidential candidates specifically or the party in general.

If Blacks don’t see anything, or hear anything of relevance to us; then the mind will tell us Republicans don’t give a damn about our vote.

The Republican Party has a brand problem within the Black community and until they decide to deal with the eyes, ears, and mind they will never make any gains in our community.

Rand Paul deserves some credit for attempting to engage with the Black community, but his execution was horrible at best; incompetent at worst.

Isn’t it amazing that Republicans have done absolutely nothing to build relationships with the Black business community?

Not only are they an invaluable source for policy input; but they are also a great source for potential political contributions.

Even with the upcoming presidential debate on Thursday with FOX News, you have all white journalists asking the questions.  Why would FOX not at least have Kelly Wright (my fellow Oral Roberts alum) or Juan Williams as one of the questioners since they both work for FOX?

To my knowledge, I don’t think either party has ever had a journalist from a Black newspaper ever participate in a presidential debate.

Why?  There are over 200 Black newspapers in the U.S.  I hope the Republican Party will mandate a least one journalist from a Black newspaper be chosen to participate during one of the many upcoming Republican debates.

I will continue to write about these issues of diversity until the party finally begins to look like America.  But too often Republicans try to do the right thing; but they do it the wrong way.

Exposed: America’s Enemies Within


Partial birth abortion.

My 87 year old black Dad called to say he wanted to congratulate me for my perseverance. “You finally have me and all your siblings (4) agreeing with you.”

My deep desire is to alert my son, daughter and other non-political hard working Americans of the moral, spiritual and cultural evil threatening to overtake our great nation. No longer are we simply engaged in a battle of ideas – republican vs democrat – liberal vs conservative. America’s choice of governing has become far more daunting – light vs darkness – good vs evil. “Choose ye this day, whom you will serve.”

Despite Leftist merchants of evil using big words and arrogant condescension to convince us that morality is relative, we instinctively know some things are good and some things are bad. Equally annoying is Leftists’ air of superiority – claiming to care more than us commoners about equality, saving the planet and all life; their evil intentions hidden beneath a shroud of faux compassion.

Leftists have what I call their no-pictures-please policy. They get fuming mad whenever anyone accurately describes, visualizes or shows pictures of procedures and behaviors the Left has demanded that Americans embrace. For example: Leftists want women to freely kill their babies all the way up to moments before birth. The last thing they want the public to see is video of the partial birth abortion procedure

Yes, I am unequivocally saying liberals/Democrats (Leftists) are forcing their evil agenda down America’s throat. “Forcing” is exactly what the Left is doing. Americans typically vote against Leftists’ desire to make abhorrent behavior mainstream and transforming America into a welfare state. Leftists send in their activist judges to overturn the will of We the People. After verbally slapping us around calling us racist, sexist and homophobic, Leftist judges make what the people voted against into law.

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, …, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” As I lay out the facts, you judge for yourself.

stemexpress logoVideos exposing Planned Parenthood’s inhuman thriving baby-body-parts-are-us business have horrified the nation. Americans are demanding that government stop giving PP $500 million a year of taxpayers’ money. 

Well, guess where the majority of PP chop shops are located? Black neighborhoods. PP founder Margaret Sanger pulled no punches. PP was started to deal with “the negro problem.” Sanger believed blacks were inferior and bred too often. Black abortions are disproportionately higher than whites.

Blacks who have not been seduced by the dark side are sounding the alarm letting blacks know they are aborting themselves into extinction. A billboard in a black neighborhood read, “The Most Dangerous Place for An African-American Is in the Womb.” Guess who was outraged and demanded the billboard be taken down? Al Sharpton and other assorted Leftists who claim to be advocates for blacks.

Sharpton is leading the charge in the hate inspired “Black Lives Matter” movement; founded on the lie that white cops routinely murder blacks. I guess black baby lives do not matter to Sharpton when they are killed by his Leftists homeys at PP.

Here’s another thing that causes one to scratch their head. Leftists are fanatical about protecting the rain-forest. They say it may hold a cure for AIDS. And yet, most Leftists are obsessed with killing babies. Even after a baby survives a failed abortion, Leftists demand that medical staff let the baby die. Amazingly, a law had to be passed to end this barbaric practice. Why haven’t Leftists considered the possibility that the doctor or researcher with a cure for cancer, AIDS and other diseases may have been among the 55 million babies aborted in America since 1973

Leftists are defending PP black marketing baby body parts. And yet, these same Leftists are tearfully outraged over the death of a furry animal and fight to their death to protect trees and imprisoned cop killers. There is something seriously wrong in people who possess such a mindset.

Good morning Ma’am. We appreciate your patronage over the years. However, our religious conscience prevents us from baking a wedding cake for your marriage to a woman. I imagine this is pretty much how the conversation went. Well, all heck broke loose. Christian bakers Aaron and Melisa Klein had to close down their shop and state ordered to pay a lesbian couple $135,000 in absurd damages.

Check this out folks. America rallied behind the Kleins and started a donations account. When the account reached $100,000, homosexuals pressured Go-Fund-Me into shutting down the account – claiming Go-Fund-Me was supporting hate.

Okay, so first homosexual activists fined the Kleins $135k. Then, they attempted to block efforts to pay the fine. So, the fine is not about paying the lesbian couple, it is about destroying the Kleins. In essence, Leftists want to hang the Kleins’ economically bloody carcass in the public square as a warning to Christians who refuse to betray their faith. Can you say an assault on Christians’ constitutional “free exercise of religion”, boys and girls?

Scripture says “no weapon formed against us shall prosper” and “what they meant for evil, God meant for good.” The Kleins’ account has reached $372,000, thus far. Praise God!

The Kleins have five kids with whom they planned to leave their business. Leftists have other plans for the Klein family.

Dad calling me about his and my siblings’ conversion was really cool. However, I am constantly thinking and praying for wisdom to awaken fellow blacks and other Americans continuously played by Leftists. I rest in the knowledge that surrendering to evil is the only way we fail.

Interviewers have asked on numerous occasions, “How do you endure the name calling and hate you receive as a black conservative Republican?” I reply, “It is easy because I know I am on the right side….God’s.”

RELATED ARTICLE: REPORT: Aborted Baby Parts Being Used to Grow Human Organs in Rodents

After Chattanooga: Refusing to See the Writing on the Wall by Tarek Fatah

For 15 years now the question, “How to combat Islamism” has been avoided in the West so as not to offend the powerful urban Islamist lobbyists and vote banks.

It has been almost two weeks since the Chattanooga terrorist Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez issued the equivalent of an Islamic declaration of war on the United States in a text message before killing four U.S. Marines and a Navy petty officer.

Yet there are still some Americans refusing to see the writing on the wall, and wondering about the 24-year-old jihadi terrorist’s “real” motives.

On July 15, the night before the mass murder, Abdulazeez texted a declaration on behalf of Allah, quoting from Prophet Mohammed’s sayings in the Hadith titled “The loyal friends of Allah”.

It reads: “Whosoever shows enmity to a friend of Mine, I [Allah] will indeed declare war against him.” This particular Hadith is from a collection of the 40 most important sayings of Prophet Mohammed.

The text message was not the only clue to Abdulazeez’s jihadi frame of mind. In a “manifesto” posted in early July, the mass murderer quoted Prophet Mohammed as saying for Muslims, life on earth should be seen as a life in a prison, but for non-believers (Christians, Jews, Hindus, pagans and atheists) earth is the Paradise.

This is a common call by Islamists when recruiting suicide bombers or jihadi fighters for the Islamic State, al-Qaida, the Taliban and Boko Haram.

In essence, they claim earth is merely a transit lounge in a journey that will take Muslims to eternal life in Paradise, surrounded by all things that were forbidden to them in this world. Abdulazeez mocked Muslims (like me) who separate Islam from politics, saying such a separation was contrary to Islamic practice.

He wrote in his manifesto:

“So this picture that you have in your mind that the Prophet’s companions were people being like priests living in monasteries is not true. All of them [were] leaders of an army at the frontlines … very involved in establishing Islam in the world … Every one of them fought Jihad for the sake of Allah. Every one of them had to make sacrifices in their lives.”

All of this evidence stares us in the face, yet we are now being asked to believe a statement from Abdulazeez’s family claiming that their son was a depressed youth on drugs.

The family claim they sent him to Jordan, so he could get away from the influence of the bad company he kept.

I find that hard to believe given Abdulazeez’s own declarations, plus the fact his father was investigated twice by the FBI for sending money to questionable charities in the Middle East — he was eventually cleared — and wanted to marry a second wife in the Palestinian Territories, saying this was allowed by Islamic law.

There is something wrong in America when as senior a person as Tom Fuentes, former assistant director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is unwilling to conclude the mass murderer was a Muslim.

John Berman of CNN asked Fuentes “Now that we have the name (Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez) the key questions are what?” Fuentes replied, “I know … what the name sounds like, but we don’t know that it’s a Muslim name. We know it’s an Arabic name. On the opposite side are those like former Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark, who has proposed the internment of U.S. Islamists identified as anti-American.

For 15 years now the question, “How to combat Islamism” has been avoided in the West so as not to offend the powerful urban Islamist lobbyists and vote banks.

Here are three suggestions that the United States, Canada and Europe should implement:

  1. Interview and debrief every adult male arriving alone from Arab countries, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Somalia, irrespective of religion, colour or nationality.
  2. Tell every mosque in North America and Europe to end any and all derogatory references to “kufaar” (Christians, Jews, Hindus and atheists) including in ritual prayers, or lose their charitable status.
  3. End cash donations in mosques and overseas donations from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Arab sources.

If the West does not take these steps now, there will eventually be a very large appetite for Clark’s harsh prescription to prevent Islamist terror on Western soil.


Tarek Fatah, is a Canadian writer, broadcaster and anti-Islamist Muslim activist. He is the author of Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State and the founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress.


Exposé: Jewish Foundations That Fund Boycotts of Israel

Fight with Islamic State at ‘Stalemate’: US Intel

Life Under ISIS: Where Sexuality Marks a Women’ s Total Value

Islamists Told Teen She Could See Her Dead Mother Again

Ayatollah Khamenei Publishes Book on How to Destroy Israel

Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA

Dr. James Hansen of NASA, has been the world’s leading promoter of the idea that the world is headed towards “climate disaster.” There is little evidence to back this up.

In 2008, Hansen wrote about “stabilizing” the climate:

Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 and climate requires that net CO2 emissions approach zero, because of the long lifetime of CO2

Yet in 1999, he made it quite clear that past climate was not stable, and that there was little evidence to support that idea that the climate was becoming unstable.

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

In that same 1999 report, he showed that US temperatures peaked in 1934, and declined through the rest of the century.

NASA fig1x.gif (500×182)

In 1989, NOAA and the UK’s leading expert agreed with Hansen that [the] U.S. had not warmed.

February 04, 1989

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period.

Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.

Global Warmth In ’88 Is Found To Set a Record – New York Times

But in the year 2000, NASA and NOAA altered the historical US temperature record, which now shows that there was about one degree centigrade US warming during the century before 1989.

NASA Fig.D.gif (513×438)

The animated image below shows the changes which Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934.

Hansen’s recent temperature data tampering is not limited to the US. He has done the same thing all over the planet. Below is one recent example in Iceland, where he dramatically cooled the first half of the century, and warmed the present. He appears to be trying to erase evidence that there was a very warm period in much of the Arctic around 1940.

Original version  Altered version

The changes in Reykjavik, Iceland were particularly heinous – because they were specifically objected to by the Icelandic Met Office. Meteorologist Mark Johnson contacted  the senior expert at the Icelandic Met Office and asked him about NASA data tampering in iceland. Here is their exchange :

 1) Are you happy with the adjustments as they stand right now?

No, I am not happy with the adjustments as they stand, but I might no be quite up to date. I don’t know if they have been making additional changes during the last 2-3 weeks.  

2) Have you or any of your staff contacted or been contacted by anyone from NASA Goddard Space Institute officials?

No, but we made some contact with them about 5-6 weeks ago.  Best wishes, 

Trausti Jónsson senior meteorologist Icelandic Meteorological Office

The altering of Icelandic data by NASA was particularly troubling, because the cooling from 1940 to 1980 was a well known and difficult historical period in Iceland. NASA  erased Iceland’s history, without even the courtesy to contact Iceland’s experts.

Additionally, we know that there was tremendous warming in the Arctic prior to the 1940s, which Hansen has erased from the historical record in Iceland, Greenland and elsewhere.

In 1947, noted geophysicist Dr. Hans Ahlmann reported to the University of California Geophysical Institute that the Arctic had warmed ten degrees since 1900.

31 May 1947 – Warmer Arctic Climate May Raise Ocean Levels

Arctic warming was well known as early as 1922.

Many leading experts prior to the Hansen era, agreed that the earlier Arctic warming was real, and quite dramatic.

CLEVELAND, Feb. 16 (A.A.P.) Dr. William S. Carlson, an Arctic expert, said to-night that the Polar icecaps were melting at an astonishing and unexplained rate and were threatening to swamp seaports by raising the ocean levels.

Leading Arctic expert from 1953

The glaciers of Norway and Alaska are only half the size they were 50 years age. The temperature around Spitsbergen has so modified that the sailing time has lengthened from three to eight months of the year,”

Leading Arctic expert from 1952

LONDON (A.P.).-The earth is getting warmer. The oceans are getting deeper. The glaciers are getting smaller. Even the fish are changing their way of life.

All this and more is going on because of a vast, unaccountable, century-by-century change, in climate. In his study at Bedford College in London, Britain’s distinguished geographer, Professor Gordon Manley, is worrying about it.

Leading geographer from 1950

Dr. Ahlman urged the establishment of an international agency to study conditions on a global basis. Temperatures had risen 10 degrees since 1900. The navigable season along Western Spitzbergen now last- ed eight months instead of three.

Leading Arctic expert from 1947

it was concluded that near Polar temperatures are on an average six degrees higher than those registered by Nansen 40 years ago. Ice measurements were on an average only 6½ feet against from 9¼ to 13 feet.

Russian report from 1940

Similarly NASA temperature records for Antarctica have also been altered. In 2005, NASA showed most of Antarctic on a long term cooling trend, but in 2007 they changed it to a long term warming trend – despite the fact that 2007 was the year of record sea ice in Antarctica.

The map below from 2005 shows long term cooling.

SVS Animation 3188 – Antarctic Heating and Cooling Trends

In 2007, they replaced the image above with a different one which incorrectly showed long term warming.

Disintegration: Antarctic Warming Claims Another Ice Shelf : Feature Articles

NASA has been altering data and changing the historical record from one pole to the other. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of these changes have trended towards more warming than the original thermometer readings indicated.


In 1988, Hansen made three very famous forecasts (shown below) of temperature rise, based on high, medium and very low (Scenario C) CO2 production.

His forecasts were very poor, and indicate that he has greatly overestimated the effect of CO2 on the climate. The graph below overlays the most recent NASA global temperatures (red line) on Hansen’s predictions from 1988. The red circle shows 2012 temperature anomalies so far.

NASA reported temperatures show more of an increase than satellites do, but even the NASA temperatures fall below Scenario C – which essentially assumes that people stopped producing CO2 in the year 2000. Hansen’s own data invalidates his theory, yet he continues to ramp up his claims about the magnitude of global warming. This is the mark of a very poor scientist.

Sea Level

Now, on to his claims about sea level. Hansen has consistently made sea level forecasts far above the upper bounds of those from the IPCC (18-59cm.) In 2007, he forecast sea level rise up to 25 metres to the US Senate, which is nearly fifty times higher than the IPCC’s highest forecast.

Antarctic blues and the Australian drought 

In 1988, Hansen told (sympathetic) journalist Bob Reiss that the West Side Highway in Manhattan would be underwater within 20 or 30 years (2008-2018). In 2001, he confirmed and reiterated that claim.

While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.

Didn’t he also say that restaurants would have signs in their windows that read, “Water by request only.”

Under the greenhouse effect, extreme weather increases. Depending on where you are in terms of the hydrological cycle, you get more of whatever you’re prone to get. New York can get droughts, the droughts can get more severe and you’ll have signs in restaurants saying “Water by request only.”

When did he say this will happen?

Within 20 or 30 years. And remember we had this conversation in 1988 or 1989.

Does he still believe these things?

Yes, he still believes everything. I talked to him a few months ago and he said he wouldn’t change anything that he said then.

Stormy weather – Global Warming – Salon.com

Dr. Hansen has also been making wildly exaggerated forecasts about a wide variety of topics for almost three decades, like this one from 1986

The News and Courier – Google News Archive Search

In March 2006, he forecast a “Super El Nino” which went against the opinion of the expert community, and never materialized.

We suggest that an El Niño is likely to originate in 2006 and that there is a good chance it will be a “super El Niño”, rivaling the 1983 and 1997-1998 El Niños, which were successively labeled the “El Niño of the century” as they were of unprecedented strength in the previous 100 years.

– Prometheus: Out on a Limb with a Super El Niño Prediction Archives

In March, 2011 – he again predicted a strong El Nino which never materialized.

Based on sub­sur­face ocean tem­pera­tures, the way these have pro­gres­sed the past sever­al months, and com­parisons with de­velop­ment of prior El Niños, we be­lieve that the sys­tem is mov­ing toward a strong El Niño start­ing this summ­er. It’s not a sure bet, but it is pro­b­able.


In 2012, the NASA model is once again predicting a strong El Nino, which no one else is forecasting.

Why does James Hansen keep incorrectly predicting strong El Ninos? The reason is simple – they bring the temperature up, and he expects to see that. A very unsophisticated, lazy and ineffective basis for science.

Antarctic Ice

In 1984, Dr. Hansen predicted a large amount of ice loss in Antarctica as CO2 increases. The image below forecasts 40% albedo loss in the Ross Sea (after a doubling of CO2) which corresponds to loss of white, reflective sea ice.


Contrary to Hansen’s forecast trend, Antarctic sea ice has steadily increased – particularly in the Ross Sea.

seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png (1122×912)

S_daily_extent.png (420×500)

Excess ice in the Ross Sea shown in the red circle above. This is the region which Hansen forecast peak ice loss.

Conspiracy Theorist?

Dr. Hansen has alluded on several occasions  to the idea that there is a well funded group of people working to intentionally ruin the climate.

James Hansen, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist | Environment | The Guardian

“There is a very concerted effort by people who would prefer to see business to continue as usual. They have been winning the public debate with the help of tremendous resources.”

Scientist hits climate change skepticism – UPI.com

Hansen has never provided any evidence to support the idea that skeptics are either well funded or intentionally misleading the public, yet he frequently repeats this claim.

Dr. Hansen has suggested that fossil fuel corporation CEOs are intentionally committing high crimes against the planet – because they don’t believe his spectacularly failed mispredictions.

Hansen went on to say: “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

James Hansen: Try Fossil Fuel CEOs For ‘High Crimes Against Humanity

Additionally Dr. Hansen has been arrested several times for committing crimes in “defense of the planet”

 Other NASA climate failures

Dr. Hansen is not the only climate scientist at NASA making spectacular mispredictions. Five years ago another NASA scientist predicted a possible ice-free Arctic in 2012

NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

Arctic ice extent is now within a couple percent of normal, and Alaska has the most extensive sea ice ever recorded.

N_timeseries.png (1050×840)

University of Illinois – Cryosphere Today


For the past 30 years, NASA climate scientists under the leadership of Dr. Hansen have demonstrated nearly complete incompetence in forecasting, and they have tampered with data to try to hide their mispredictions.

james hansen El nino 2011 prediction

Our Nuclear Energy Options — An Overview by Euan Mearns

With a few exceptions [1], environmental lobbies have tended to oppose nuclear power with a vengeance similar to their opposition to coal and natural gas. In certain quarters [2] this has changed with the promise of abundant, cheap and safe electricity that may be produced using thorium (Th) fuelled molten salt reactors. This guest post by French physicist Hubert Flocard places the status of molten salt reactor technology within the historical context of how the nuclear industry has evolved and examines some of the key challenges facing the development and deployment of this magical and elusive energy source. We have both written the extended summary below based on Hubert’s article that follows on after the summary. Hubert’s impressive bio is at the end of the post.

[1] James Lovelock, The Revenge of Gaia
[2] Baroness Worthington, Why Thorium Nuclear Power Shouldn’t be Written Off

Extended Summary

The world nuclear industry currently runs on Generation II and Generation III reactor technology. The presently active reactors (whether moderated by pressurised water – PWR – or boiling water – BWR) are said to belong to the GII generation while more modern versions such as the EPR or the AP1000 correspond to GIII. At the beginning of the twenty first century a forum was convened to establish an international collaboration to prepare the next generation of reactor technology (GIV). A number of design options were on the table (see below) among them molten salt reactors.

1) Liquid Sodium Fast Reactor (SFR)
2) Helium Cooled Fast Reactor (HeFR)
3) Liquid Lead Fast Reactor (LFR)
4) Supercritical Water Fast Reactor (SCFR)
5) Molten Salt Fast Reactor (MSFR)
6) Very High Temperature Thermal Reactor (VHTR)

With the exception of the MSFR, that is specifically designed to run on Th fuel, all other technologies will run on U fuel. It is also worth noting that 5 of the 6 designs are fast breeder reactors designed to consume any nuclear waste that they may produce and to extend the life of the global inventory of U and Th that is available to us.

Periodic table from Web Elements.

To appreciate the evolution of reactor technology it is important to understand a little bit about the natural elements on Earth which can be made to fission following the capture of neutrons. They are the actinides located at the bottom of the periodic table. Everyone has heard of uranium (U), thorium (Th) and plutonium (Pu) but are less aware of elements like protactinium (Pa), americium and curium. Some of these less common actinides do exist in nature in minute quantities for brief periods as part of the natural radioactive decay of U to Pb. Others result from the nuclear reactions happening in reactors or at laboratory accelerators.

The isotopes of interest are 235U, 238U and 232Th. Presently, the 235U isotope is by far the most useful because it is the only one which can easily be made to fission, releasing a substantial amount of energy. Thus 235U is described as fissile while 238U and 232Th are described as fertile. Today, 99.3 % of natural U is 238 and only 0.7 % is 235. That is because most of the 235U has already decayed away to stable Pb.

Out of these three isotopes only fissile 235U can be used to initiate a nuclear chain reaction such as those that occur in nuclear reactors or atomic bombs. To achieve a chain reaction it is necessary to enrich the uranium in its 235 isotope. For nuclear power, enrichment is typically about 3.7 %, i.e. a five-fold uplift in concentration as compared to natural uranium. For atomic bombs, the enrichment is much higher, but the same procedure is used, hence concern over civilian nuclear programs in certain countries.

While fissile 235U is required to initiate a chain reaction, the fertile 238U that makes up 96.3 % of the fuel participates also in the energy production since some of it is converted to fissile 239Pu. In this respect all U based reactors breed fissile fuel by tapping into the fertile resource. Breeder reactors are simply designed to breed more fissile fuel than they consume.

Three important points need to be made before continuing. The first is that an MSFR can’t start by using only 232Th. The reactor will first require that either natural 235U or man-made 239Pu be added to initiate the fission chain reaction, since fertile 232Th cannot achieve criticality on its own. The second is that the MSFR is a breeder reactor and environmentalists have in the past opposed breeder technology. In a breeder of any design, fertile 238U or 232Th isotopes are converted to fissile isotopes like 239Pu (U cycle) or 233U (Th cycle). A MSFR will run exclusively on the thorium cycle (i.e. without addition of U5 or Pu9) when it will have bred enough 233U to maintain the chain reaction. It will take time. The “clean” label that some attach to MSFRs derives from the fact that ultimately they are designed to work in a closed cycle as opposed to the present open cycle strategy adopted for most of presently active reactors. In other words, the spent fuel is reprocessed and fissioned again and again until a stable regime is reached in which as many fissile isotopes are created than are destroyed. It has little to do with the fact that 232Th is used as the breeder fuel stock. A uranium cycle fast breeder will also burn its “waste”. And as already mentioned, the idea underlying breeding is to greatly expand the fissionable resource by converting the abundant fertile isotopes (238U as well as 232Th) into the fissile variety.

This leads to a misconception about the quantities of nuclear waste generated by an MSFR. An MSFR burning 232Th fuel will not produce significantly smaller amounts of “waste” than a fast reactor burning 238U. It is just that as already detailed, recycling the breeder isotopes eventually removes them from the environment and stabilises the inventory within the reactor.

A further misconception is that MSFR technology employing 232Th as the fertile proto- fuel will eliminate risks of nuclear proliferation. While it is true that the 232Th cycle does not produce plutonium that may relatively easily be enriched to weapons grade 239Pu, it does produce 233U instead which may also be weaponised. Anyhow a 232Th MSFR started today will require either 235U or 239Pu to initiate the fission reaction. Any country with the appropriate enrichment facilities could divert the use of these isotopes and convert them to weapons grade material if they so wish. Recent history has also shown that one does not really need a reactor to manufacture a bomb. It is enough to have efficient centrifuges.

In conclusion, the technical challenges of MSFR technology need to be considered. The molten fluorine based salts that are envisaged need to work at temperatures in the region 500 to 800˚C and containment vessels and pumps need to be designed which resist erosion, corrosion and the neutron flux from this high temperature salt. An MSFR requires a fuel reprocessing plant and for the Th cycle no such plant has thus far been designed built, tested and approved by safety authorities. Finally, there are well-understood safety protocols for GII and GIII reactors. The radical new approach offered by MSFR technology means that a whole new set of safe design principles needs to be developed.

At the end of the 1960s The Oak Ridge National Laboratory built and ran an experiment MSR-E designed to pave the way for the MSFR technology. The experiment ran for 4 years. Apart from that realisation, MSFR with a thorium-based fuel is a concept yet to leave the drawing board. It is worth pursuing, but the claimed virtues of near inexhaustible resource, enhanced safety, less waste and elimination of weapons proliferation still need to be demonstrated.


There are people who believe that, within this century and probably even before 2050, nuclear energy should become a major component in the energy production system, if not for the entire world at least for a large group of countries. They point to some valuable features of nuclear energy (centralized production of electricity and/or heat, reasonably low cost of final energy, a production that can easily be adjusted to society needs, low CO2 emissions, small footprint, etc.). They are also well aware of some of its disadvantages (global bad image in the public inducing significant unpredictable political interventions, limited availability of the natural resource, radiotoxicity of the waste, plant accidents with a related risk of releasing radioactivity, security against terrorist attacks, heavy capital investment only reimbursed over a long period, etc.). They just think that given the energy and climatic problems the world is facing now or is going to face in a not too distant future, the advantages more than balance the liabilities.

However, not all these people have the same nuclear energy on their mind.

For some, the basis of a sensible nuclear program for this century must rely first on the extensive experience accumulated on thermal-fission reactors for which the terms Generation II or Generation III (shortened in GII and GIII) have been coined and second on the already significant experience gained on fast-fission reactors. “Improvement and Optimisation” is their motto while Uranium (U) is their fuel. I belong to this group to which the adjective “conservative” can certainly be attached.

GII and GIII water-cooled and water-moderated reactors are the workhorses of the present nuclear-electricity production. If not stopped for political reasons, they will be performing their job for many more decades. On the other hand, the “fast” reactors cooled with liquid sodium have been tested successfully in many countries and together have already accumulated several hundred years of operation. They have reached a prototype status and even the pre-industrial stage. The main world safety authorities have already a thorough knowledge of the related safety questions. These reactors have also demonstrated their potential on issues such as electricity production, breeding of the fuel (a key to solve a future uranium resource shortage) and waste transmutation.

However, no western world safety authority – and therefore no utility – would consider today that their safety is such that they can be deployed at the industrial level. To simplify, one can say that they have not yet demonstrated the safety level achieved by GIII reactors which is now becoming the standard. Moreover, given the present very low price of natural uranium, they are not economically competitive.

For this reason, in the middle of the first decade of this century, a forum, the “Generation IV International Forum” (GIF), was launched associating the major nuclear industrial nations of the world (with the notable exception of India – a country named “Europe” allows also some nations, such as Germany, to participate in the activities of GIF without having to state explicitly that they are a GIF member). These nations gave themselves the task of defining the next generation of nuclear fission reactors (GIV).

According to GIF, the goals assigned to GIV reactors are the following: 1) Durability which involves a better usage of the natural resource and a minimisation of waste radiotoxicity 2) Economic performance 3) Safety and availability 4) Resistance to nuclear proliferation.

GIF identified six main lines of work suitable for an international cooperation: 1) liquid Sodium Fast Reactor (SFR); 2) Helium cooled Fast Reactor (HeFR); 3) liquid Lead Fast Reactor (LFR); 4) Super Critical water Fast Reactor (SCFR); 5) Molten Salt Fast Reactors (MSFR); 6) Very high temperature thermal reactor (VHTR). Except for MSFR all systems under study envisage uranium as their fuel. The MSFR will use thorium (Th) as a major component of its fuel. Option N°6, VHTR, being a thermal reactor precludes breeding from the start and thus very long term durability as far as the uranium resource is concerned. The rationale for keeping it within GIF is that working at high temperature and thus high Carnot efficiency, such systems will considerably extend the availability of the U resource. It should be added that other thermal-reactor options using uranium fuel and either supercritical water or molten salt as coolants are also being considered on the side-lines of GIF.

As a matter of fact, the selection of the GIV reactor options reflects as much the evaluation of their intrinsic interest as the willingness of at least a fraction of the international expert community to work on them (many more nuclear options do exist). Not too surprisingly, presently, the main effort is focused on the SFR (liquid Sodium Fast Reactor) which appears closer to reach the GIF stated goals than any of its competitors. Of course, since the Fukushima accident, which has set nuclear energy research and industry on the defensive and modified its priorities, activities have considerably slowed down within the GIF.

All the GIF-retained options other than SFR can certainly be called “innovative” (as opposed to my definition of “conservative”). Among them, the one using molten salt and thorium based fuel (MSFR) has gained many supporters in the public, if not necessarily within the community of experts. I believe that some of the enthusiasm for thorium and MSFR is misplaced in view of the present scientific and technical situation – keeping in mind that I am concerned with energy production for the 21st century, not for the centuries beyond. Because the text that follows tries to show that, for me, some supporters wave too simplistic arguments, I would like to make it clear that I think that, MSFR and Thorium fuel is definitely worth both consideration and intensive research.

First, the fact that the MSFR was retained by the international community of experts working within the programme of GIF is a sure sign of its viability. Second, thorium and molten salts have an old history dating almost from the end of the second world-war and some significant advances have been made. The main achievement was realised by the Oakridge National Laboratory (ORNL) with the successful MSR-E experiment (which used uranium fuel). Then, over the seventies, ORNL teams worked on the design of the MSBR, a 1GWe system which intended to have Thorium within its fuel (the B stands for “breeder” and the “e” is here to indicate the expected electric power which is of course lower than the thermal power). However, at the beginning of the eighties, in the US-breeder competition, the MSBR system lost to the SFR. The decision was a complex one but the smaller breeding capacity of the MSBR had a part in it. At that time, a review conducted by the French utility EDF and the French nuclear atomic commission (CEA) analysed the MSBR project and concluded that nothing could be identified which would eliminate the option either from the point of view of chemical or material science, or of nuclear and thermal-hydraulics technology. There were still many difficult open questions but no obvious showstoppers.

Therefore, keeping molten salts and thorium as an open research option for the future makes sense today as it did earlier. There are many good reasons to investigate it that I am not going to enumerate. Here, after this long introduction, I will make a survey of what I believe are the false justifications (myths) and the many unsolved problems which make it doubtful that MSFR and Thorium can play a significant role in the global power generation of this century.

Some myths concerning thorium and molten salt reactors

Myth 1: specificity of an “inexhaustible” Th natural resource

Only elements of the actinide region of the Mendeleyev periodic table can be made to fission following the capture of a neutron. As they fission, in turn, they emit neutrons allowing a chain reaction to be established under appropriate physical and technical conditions. Of all the actinides which existed when the Earth was formed, about 4.65 billion years ago, only two have survived in sizeable quantities: thorium and uranium. Thorium only exists today as the isotope 232 (232Th shortened as Th2). From its very large radioactive half life, one can infer that almost all the Th2 which existed at the birth of the Earth is still around us. Natural uranium contains two isotopes 238U (U8) and 235U (U5). While half of the original U8 is still there, only 1/100th of the original U5 has survived, the rest has disappeared via natural radioactive decay processes ending at a stable Pb isotope. This is reflected in the present natural uranium composition: 99.3 % U8 and 0.7 % U5. When nuclear engineers or opponents of nuclear energy talk about a limited uranium resource, what they have in mind is U5, not natural uranium (or U8) which is a hundred times more abundant.

For nuclear engineers, Th2 and U8 which have an even number of neutrons belong to the same category: the “fertile” isotopes while U5 is said to be “fissile”. To be started, any reactor needs a fissile element. As a matter of fact, for the vast majority of reactors in activity the concentration of U5 within natural U is not sufficient, hence the need for enrichment typically up to 3.7 %. Note that a few billion years ago, the ratio U5/U8 was larger than today, so that natural reactors could operate spontaneously as happened for instance at the Oklo site in Gabon. In today’s reactors, the presence of fertile U8 within the fuel pins is also important for energy production. Indeed, a small fraction of this U8 swallows one neutron and is transmuted (in two steps) into the isotope 239 of plutonium (Pu9) which because it is also fissile can contribute to the chain reaction which ultimately produces energy. In other words some small amount of “breeding” is already occurring in thermal reactors.

Th2 is the nuclear equivalent of U8 (233U or U3 plays for Th2 the role that Pu9 plays for U8). Because there is no fissile isotope present within natural thorium, in order to start a thorium-fuelled reactor one must add first some fissile material. Since it can’t be U3 which does not exist on Earth it could be U5 (from the same natural uranium which provides the fuel of today reactors) or Pu9 (coming for instance from the burnt fuel of standard reactors) or other fissile materials to be found for instance in the radioactive waste of standard reactors. In other words Th2, like U8, only acquires the status of an energy resource when breeding is envisaged. The only available natural resource to initiate breeding is U5.

In some presentations to the public, “breeding” appears to perform a sort of miracle: “producing more fuel than was present within the input”. It should rather be described as “producing more fissile material than was present within the input”. It is the energy potential of a fertile isotope (Th2 or U8), a kind of “fission-proto-fuel”, which is then exploited following an appropriate transmutation into either U3 or Pu9.

The U8 resource appears almost as inexhaustible as the Th2 resource (a factor 2, or 4 less does not really modify the issue, given the geology-related uncertainties). In addition, over the years, the U8 resource has acquired a significant advantage: it does not have to be mined anymore. It is already on the shelves in large quantities at least in countries which have a nuclear enrichment industry and its commercial value is zero, if not negative. As a matter of fact U8 is sometimes considered as a sort of “waste” extracted from natural uranium to obtain the U5-enriched fuel for standard reactors. Indeed for each U8 nucleus still kept in the fuel of a GII or GIII reactor, about four U8 nuclei have been removed from natural uranium and stored away. As an illustration, presently, the stock of U8 stored in France corresponds to about one thousand year of this country’s present energy production in fast reactors. Note that the former French rare-earth chemical industry has also left on the shelf a quantity of Th2 amounting to about 100 years of nuclear energy production in a MSFR. The “nuclear-fertile” resource, Th2 as well as U8, is plentiful.

In fact if there is to be a resource shortage preventing a future GIV breeder-reactor generation to replace the reactors of GII and GIII generations, it will certainly not be one of fertile isotopes (Th2 or U8) but rather a shortage of fissile elements and more specifically one of Pu9. It also appears that only those countries which have exploited PWR or BWR reactors for a long time will have produced enough Pu9 within the burnt fuel of their GII and GIII reactors to be in position to start reactors of the GIV generation at a significant level.
Myth 2: the waste of Th fuelled reactor waste is less dangerous.

There are few points to keep in mind when one discusses nuclear waste:

1) How to define nuclear waste is not simple when breeding and recycling is involved (always the case with Th). Indeed, the only unambiguous waste produced by a nuclear reactor consists of the fission products. All elements, Th, U, Pu or other isotopes generally classified as “minor actinides” present in the burnt-fuel when it is discharged from the reactor vessel still have potentially an energetic value if they can be made to fission. It is thus a matter of technical, safety and political decisions to consider whether they belong in the waste or whether they are a fuel to be recycled in the next stage of the operation of the nuclear system.

2) To illustrate this last sentence we can, for instance, consider how most countries today define the nuclear waste resulting from the operation of their GII or GIII reactors. These countries have opted for the “open-cycle” or “once-through” strategy: there is no reprocessing; the fuel pins and their casing discharged from the reactor are considered to be a waste and destined to an ultimate repository. A typical composition of the burnt fuel of a GII reactor is: fission products 5 %, fissile isotopes 1.5 %, and fertile isotopes 93.5 %. Thus 95 % of what is today defined as a nuclear waste has, “fissionwise”, an energetic potential. One can also note that the ratio of the mass fissile output (U5 plus Pu9) over that of the mass fissile input (only U5) is close to 40 %. The choice has thus been made to send to the waste a significant amount of fissile isotopes which on the other hand are known to be necessary to start any reactor and also cost energy to produce via enrichment of natural uranium. In a sense, the corresponding waste underground repository can also be caricatured as a “man-made plutonium mine”.

3) In a comparison of the thorium-cycle versus the uranium-cycle, the radiotoxicity of the fission fragment waste which dominates the total radiotoxicity for the first centuries can be set aside. It is roughly the same for both cycles. Thus any difference between the two cycles will only be visible after a few centuries have passed, say 500 years.

4) How to define the danger associated with a waste which has been sent to a permanent underground storage is also a matter of discussion. One can consider the total radiotoxicity of what is being stored. This is the radiotoxicity that, for instance, would be encountered by somebody, not too expert in questions of geology, searching for oil at the wrong place, who drills right into the underground nuclear waste repository. After a few centuries, this radiotoxicity is dominated by the actinide content of the waste. Since it is not the same for the two cycles, we shall return to that point later. On the other hand one may consider the small radiotoxicity – often smaller than natural radiotoxicity – which after many millenniums escapes to the surface through the geological barrier (the repository is typically few hundred meters below the Earth surface). Since the mobility of actinides in the ground is very small, the very-long-term escaping radiotoxicity will mostly correspond to some long lived isotopes of very mobile fission-fragment elements (for instance Zr or I). Here again there won’t be much difference between the thorium and uranium cycle. For this reason, from then on, I will only discuss the radiotoxicity associated with the actinide elements, namely that which would be met by somebody who breaks into an underground nuclear waste storage.

5) Full recycling means that all the actinides coming out at one stage are reinserted into the fuel of the next stage. Thus the large radiotoxicity within the burnt fuel does not vanish; it is just made to move around circularly from the reactors to the separation cells to the fuel production factories and back to the reactors within the diverse nuclear-industry components. On the other hand, if the recycling process (whether for the U-cycle or Th-cycle) is perfect there won’t be any radiotoxic waste stream other than that of the fission products.

6) After each pass through the reactor, recycling implies that a chemical separation is performed on the burnt fuel. Because no chemical process is perfect, the stream of actinides effectively going out to the waste and determining its middle-to-long term radiotoxicity (short term is governed by fission fragments) depends on the efficiency of the chemical separation techniques. For the uranium-cycle, efficiencies above 99.9 % have been demonstrated. The corresponding figures for the thorium cycle are not known.

7) Full recycling is also not currently envisaged for the U-Pu SFR technology. It is generally considered that only plutonium will be recycled while minor actinides such as americium (Am) and most certainly curium (Cm) will be sent to the waste. This strategy along with the efficiency of the chemical separation determines the time evolution of the radiotoxicity of the waste stream of SFR reactors. It is several orders of magnitude below that of the burnt-fuel stream of today’s reactors. I will come to that point later because I believe it gives a misleading image of the benefit of recycling as concerns waste reduction (see 10 below).

8) Assuming that the not-yet-known chemical separation efficiencies for the thorium cycle are the same as those already demonstrated for the uranium cycle, it can be shown that the radiotoxicity of the actinide waste stream of a MSFR reactor when it is working in its “asymptotic” regime, that is a system relying exclusively on the Th2-U3 cycle, is lower by at least an order of magnitude than that of a SFR reactor working exclusively within the U8-Pu9 cycle and sending americium and curium to the waste. However, this good point should also be taken with a grain of salt.

9) Indeed, while following a long period of production with GII and GIII reactors, one can envision extracting from their stored burnt fuel all the Pu9 necessary to start immediately an “asymptotic” SFR reactor. This is not possible for a MSFR. The U3 resource does not exist. No “asymptotic” MSFR reactor can be started today. The first MSFR reactors will have to use either U5 or Pu9 – or some other isotopes of higher elements – to be started. Via transmutation they will therefore produce the same undesirable elements (Am and Cu) and thus the same kind of waste as SFRs. It will take almost a century before a MSFR breeds enough U3 to avoid tapping into the U5 and Pu9 resource and thus become “asymptotic”.

10) Finally, many presentations on the actinide waste generated by fast reactors implicitly assume that mankind will rely on them forever. In other words, these presentations only consider the radiotoxicity of the waste stream which leaves the chemical reprocessing factories while electricity is still being produced by reactors. In such a case, the radiotoxic gain over the present situation (the nuclear burnt fuel is disposed without reprocessing into the long term repository as it leaves the reactor) is indeed large (several orders of magnitude). On the other hand, if one day, fusion becomes an economically viable option or if there is a major breakthrough on the energy storage question rescuing renewable intermittent energies, humans may decide to stop producing electricity via nuclear fission. At that point, all the radiotoxic isotopes present within the system – reactors, chemical and fuel fabrication factories – become a waste that must be added to the stream of the earlier electricity production period. If one assumes for instance that it will take 200 years of operation of breeder reactors before one reaches this “end of the game” situation, one finds that it is the addition of this “in-cycle” radiotoxicity which mostly determines the radiotoxic evolution of the waste during the following millenniums. Then, the radiotoxicity of the total MSFR waste will only be slightly lower than that of a SFR. There will also still be a small gain over the present strategy in which only GII and GIII reactors are used and their burnt-fuel is disposed without reprocessing. Typically we are talking here of decreases by one order of magnitude if everything in the complicated recycling scheme works optimally.

11) It is doubtful that such a small gain can suppress the opposition to the usage of nuclear energy of somebody whose main concern is the very-long-term radiotoxicity of the waste. It will also not enable societies to find a stable and long-term safe waste management solution if only for containing the radiotoxicity of the fission fragments. One can say that the nuclear waste issue – and the need for underground repositories – is not going to be removed by SFRs or by MSFRs. At most, it will be alleviated, which certainly is a plus. In addition, one may note that at least, it will be up to the countries which have benefitted from the associated electricity production to solve their own nuclear waste problem. This appears more ethically defendable than the fossil-fuel-powered electricity production in which the CO2 emitted by the beneficiaries of the electricity is graciously “offered” to the rest of the world.

12) To conclude this section on nuclear waste, one should not forget that volume, chemical properties and short-term heat production also play an important role when it comes to designing a repository.

Myth 3: The thorium cycle will eliminate the nuclear proliferation issue

A bomb needs fissile material. Neither U8 nor Th2 are good materials for making bombs. It is certainly the case that no bomb has been produced using U3 since there is no U3 available. Whether that will still be the case when U3 becomes plentiful and is routinely handled in reprocessing units is certainly not clear to me. Discussions about larger or smaller critical masses are essentially irrelevant here. In addition, as was discussed above, for a very long time a MSFR will be using U5 or Pu9, which means that the possibility of diverting these isotopes for a dangerous purpose will remain.

I believe one should not count on the physics (Th vs U) or the technology (MSFR vs SFR) to stop humans from doing foolish things. Non-proliferation has certainly technical aspects which require nuclear expertise to be present and heard in international discussions but, for me, proliferation is mostly a political issue.

Problems still to be solved problems for a molten salt thorium fuelled reactor

Here, I list some of the problems still faced by the MSFR technology.

Problem 1: Design and Material science.

The associated questions concern the salt, the vessel and the heat exchanger.

  • In a MSFR, the salt acts both as a heat carrier and nuclear fuel carrier. It also has some moderating (i.e. slowing down neutrons) effect which precludes for instance its usage for breeding with the uranium cycle. The salt must stay stable within a wide range of rather high temperatures (typically from 500°C to 800°C). A family of fluorine based salts is presently being considered. These salts should resist the high neutron fluxes within the vessels (their chemical structure must remain intact and their elements should not suffer transmutation). They should dissolve the actinides of the fuel at the required concentrations and keep them dissolved all along the circuits of the reactor (vessel, heat exchanger and connecting pipes) in variable temperature and fluid velocity conditions so as not to create unwanted deposits of nuclear material.
  • The material for the vessel and the heat exchanger (Ni-based alloys are being considered) should resist both mechanical and chemical corrosion by the salts on the inside surface and oxygen corrosion at high temperature on the external surface.
  • Salt is not as good a heat carrier as liquid metals. The design of heat exchangers capable of rapidly (typically less than 10s) extracting heat while resisting the mechanical corrosion by a fast moving salt is still a challenge.
  • The demonstration that valves and pumps capable of working reliably for many years with such salts under the planned temperature and fluid velocity conditions is not yet done.
  • The most harmful fission fragments that can poison the reactor must be eliminated on-line via the helium bubbling technique. This has not yet been demonstrated in situations close to those that will exist in a future MSFR. The material for the vessel and the heat exchanger (Ni-based alloys are being considered) should resist both mechanical and chemical corrosion by the salts on the inside surface and oxygen corrosion at high temperature on the external surface.

Each of these points should reach a status such as to receive an agreement from the safety authorities.

Problem 2: Chemistry of the combined uranium and thorium cycles

A thorium-fuelled molten-salt reactor has to be coupled to a highly efficient chemical unit to reprocess the fuel and the salt. The element-separation efficiencies should be as high as those which have already been reached at units designed for reprocessing within the uranium cycle. Presently, the scientific knowledge and technological knowhow needed to build a working prototype of a Th-cycle reprocessing unit with such performances does not exist.

Two reasons for this situation can be advanced. First the amount of man-year work on the thorium cycle is minuscule compared to that already spent for the uranium cycle. Second, the chemistry is different. First, some oxidation-potential properties of Th are not as favourable as those of U. Second, since U3 is not available and because the U5 resource is limited, one generally presents the first MSFRs as “nuclear waste burners” which will use (and destroy) the plutonium of the waste of GII and GIII reactors (some even mention higher actinides) as their initiating fissile isotope. This makes the chemistry more complicated since it must be able to handle simultaneously elements belonging to the Th and U cycles.

Problem 3: Design of a global strategy for safety

The general philosophy underlying the safety scheme of today’s reactors was elaborated over many years. It relies on the so-called “in depth defence” which requires the existence within the reactor of three barriers which have to be breached before some radiotoxic material is released to the outside world. Typically, in GII and GIII reactors, they correspond in succession to the metallic envelope of the fuel pins, the boundary of the primary circuit (vessel, primary heat exchanger) and finally the reactor building.

Even when reprocessing is performed (the situation in France) so that other sets of safety regulations have to be defined (approved and enforced) for the chemical separation unit, and the fuel-pin fabrication factory, this does not affect the general safety programme for the reactor itself. Indeed, there is still a clear physical separation between these three components of the global nuclear system. This means that the safety scheme as it exists today for GII and GIII reactors and is understood jointly by the designers of reactors, the electric utilities operators and the members of safety authorities can also be applied to SFRs. These three groups of experts may certainly argue over the implementation of the various safety items and their performance levels but at least they agree on the goals and they share a common safety language.

Nothing of the sort exists for the MSFR in which at least one barrier is a priori missing (the metallic envelope of the fuel) and which combines on the same site the reactor and the chemical reprocessing unit whose activities directly affect each other. It is my guess that no significant work has been done to define a safety scheme for molten salt reactors since the MSBR was abandoned in the first half of the eighties. What competence on this subject existed at that time is probably either obsolete today in view of the steady reinforcement of nuclear safety or simply lost. This competence has to be rebuilt, something which today appears rather problematic.


In my opinion, Thorium and molten salt reactors technologies belong definitely in the domain of research. They certainly have a potential which deserves scientific and technical investigation. On the other hand, given the present situation of the nuclear energy research institutes of the western world and the general decline in their enrolment of high-quality well-trained young engineers, it is improbable that much work will be invested into such an innovative, far-reaching but also risky option. Therefore if nuclear energy is to provide a significant contribution to the world energy mix of the 21st century, it is doubtful that thorium and molten salt technologies will be ready in time to take part.


[1] The adjective « thermal » refers here to the average kinetic energy of neutrons as they impact the heavy nuclei in the nuclear fuel. They are close to 1/40 eV (or 273°K or 0°C). On the contrary, in a “fast” reactor, the fission-neutrons are not slowed down by water so that their kinetic energy remains in an MeV range that is a factor of 107 above that in a thermal reactor. Without getting into nuclear physics details, it suffices to say here that only fast neutrons allow efficient breeding at least for the uranium cycle. The situation is different for the thorium cycle which can breed over a wide range of neutron kinetic energies, albeit less efficiently that in a fast U-Pu reactor.

Short Bio for Hubert Flocard

A former student of the Ecole Normale Supérieure (St Cloud) Hubert Flocard is a retired director of research at the French basic science institute CNRS. He worked mostly in the theory of Fermi liquids with a special emphasis on nuclear physics. He has taught at the French Ecole Polytechnique and at the Paris University at Orsay. He was for several years a visiting fellow of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and he spent a year as visiting professor at the theory department of MIT (Cambridge). He has worked as an editor for the journals Physical Review C and Review of Modern Physics (APS, USA) and Reports on Progress in Physics (IoP, UK). He has chaired the nuclear physics scientific committee INTC at CERN (Switzerland). When the French parliament asked CNRS to get involved in research on civilian nuclear energy, he was charged to set up and to manage the corresponding CNRS interdisciplinary programme. He still acts as a referee to evaluate research projects submitted to Euratom.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on the Energy Matters website. The featured image is of the inner working of a Molten Salt Fast Reactor.

PODCAST: Iran Nuclear Deal ‘worthless’ with ‘theocratic, totalitarian, genocidal imperialists’

It was a fast paced discussion on the August 2, 2015 Lisa Benson Show on National Security with guest, former CIA director, Ambassador R. James Woolsey. Ambassador Woolsey is Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Washington, D.C.-based Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. See his full bio, here. Host Lisa Benson was joined by Michael Weiser, foreign policy analyst and this writer.

The  discussion addressed  threats  not currently  covered by the media arising from the Iran nuclear pact  announced on July 14th and unanimously endorsed on the University Security Council on July 22nd. Ambassador Woolsey  called pending  Iran pact “ a worse than useless agreement “ and deemed the Iranian Islamic regime, “theocratic, totalitarian, genocidal , imperialists”. He contends that Iran may be less than a few months away from developing a nuclear weapons but less than the year the Administration believes would be delayed by a decade. When asked about what options Congress to prevent implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), he suggested that an informed public has to get behind an effective campaign to get the message across to Congress to  overwhelmingly reject it

Among the important issues discussed in the Lisa Benson Show with Ambassador Woolsey were:

  • The Electronic Magnetic Pulse threat posed by Iran with a nuclear equipment missile to the US;
  • What  is required to protect the country’s vital electrical grid under the provisions of the  Critical Infrastructure Protection Act of 2015 (CIPA);
  • The Administration gutting  Ballistic Missile Defense against an Iranian Missile Attack;
  • What constitutes a better deal, without a military option; and,
  • How a Flexible Fuel strategy could upend  the OPEC Cartel, especially Russia, Venezuela and Iran.

The controversial Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)  has been the subject of Hearing with Administration witnesses before both Senate and House  Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees before last Thursday summer recess. Disquieting information was revealed in those  regarding secret side deals between the UN Watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and  Iran, lifting of $150 billion in sanctioned funds $150 billion in sanctions relief ,retention of key parts of the nuclear infrastructure, 24 day prior notice inspections of known facilities, obligations to protect Iranian nuclear facilities against sabotage, and  lifting of conventional arms and ballistic missile sanctions. One of the disturbing revelations in Congressional  hearings on the Iran nuclear pact was the lifting of sanctions on 800 persons and institutions in Iran that included Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani  who  is responsible for  more than 500 deaths and hundreds casualties of American Service personnel in the Iraq War from Iranian developed IEDs .

These and hints of other undisclosed information by the Administration in those Congressional hearings have caused an estimated majority of Americans in recent polls to urge Senators and Representatives to reject the Iran nuclear deal. Congress will make a decision on whether to accept or reject the pact by mid-September vote under the threat of a possible veto by President Obama if rejected. 13 undecided Democrat Senators and 30+ Democrat members of the House hold the key to the outcome.

Here were some of the points raised by Ambassador Woolsey.

On  the Electronic Magnetic Pulse Threat and Requirements for Protection of the National Grid

Ambassador Woolsey  warned that  Iran or North Korea needs only launch a missile with  a low yield nuclear weapon to generate  sufficient gamma radiation in a low altitude explosion to knock out the critical several hundred strategic transformers and data control network for the national grid. That would paralyze critical industrial, communications, financial and medical networks in this country producing significant  mass casualties. Given the recent House passage of CIPA he was asked for how much time might be entailed to harden those key elements, Ambassador Woolsey suggested several months to a year at most. Further he drew attention to  Russia, China, North Korea and Iran planning to harden their grids against a possible EMP threat, whether natural or man-made.

The Gutting of Ballistic Missile Defense

When asked about the absence of a Missile Defense shield on the vulnerable East and Gulf coast of the US  Ambassador Woolsey noted the Administration’s decision withdrawing over the horizon radars and interceptors from  allies in NATO, Poland and Czechoslovakia. He noted the possible capabilities of  North Korea and Iran to launch Fractional Orbital Bombardment Systems,, developed by Russia, in southerly polar directions that would make a surprise attack extremely difficult to detect.

The  lack of a military option to force a better deal

When asked about the Hobson’s choice of conventional versus other means for Israel or the US as an option, Ambassador Woolsey responded, “there are  other approaches, and that we  and the Israelis are not entirely without means”.  However he noted that “the Administration took the threat of possible violence off the table” and “our government willing to use such measures”. That he said has unfortunately “made the Mullahs very happy.”

The Strategic Flex Fuels Weapon the US could Use against the Oil Cartel

While citing Iranians involvement with the drug cartels threatening our borders, he also raised a means of  attacking Iran, Venezuela  and Russia and the rest of the OPEC Cartel.  It has to do with the US energy revolution in producing natural gas from fracking. Ambassador Woolsey suggested that the Administration might adopt Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency credits for vehicle producers for producing so-called flex fuel powered vehicles, Vehicles powered by Methane produced from the abundance of cheap supplies of natural gas produced by fracking. That might have the effect of driving the price of oil below $40 a barrel.

Listen to this Soundcloud  discussion with Ambassador R. James Woolsey from the August 2, 2015, Lisa Benson Radio Show on National Security:

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Veterans of Foreign Wars concerned about Economic & Social Costs of Somali Immigrants

If you had no idea what was going on in St. Cloud, this story from the St. Cloud Times would not be very useful to bring you up to speed!

You might want to first start by reading our post from Thursday, here.

Union organizer, Jane Conrad, did some serious backpedaling after first planning a rally against a local VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars for our readers elsewhere in the world!) that hosted local citizens wanting to hear about the economic and social costs of resettling more refugees in St. Cloud, MN.  As we reported, she and a faculty member from St Cloud State University were clearly aiming to intimidate the Granite VFW Club for daring to allow diners to speak freely over their meal.  There is more at WND, here.

Obviously, quickly seeing the error of taking on a venerable veterans group, she and her Somali supporters moved their demonstration down town.  You can read all about their tiny rally here at the St. Cloud Times where Conrad claims they are protesting a Minnesota citizen, Bob Enos, for talking about sharia law.

You might think Enos was some two-headed monster to listen to Conrad.  I wonder did the Times reporter seek comment from Enos?

Here is Mr. Enos giving a thoughtful presentation to a local government body recently.

Meanwhile the Times, other than a few photos tacked on at the end of the ‘news’ story, doesn’t tell readers about the huge and friendly gathering of veterans and friends supporting the VFW (which remember was the original target of Ms. Conrad and Professor Mark Jaede).

And, what a coincidence the St. Cloud Times also published a pro-more-Somali-refugees opinion piece at the same time!

SC Times columnist Patrick Henry, who previously said this, is trotted out for the occasion!  How convenient is this timing!

”Minnesota’s 5th District Rep. Keith Ellison’s taking his oath of office on Jefferson’s copy of the Quran was a quintessential American moment…..the portrait of America as a Christian nation is groundless.”

Guess we know where he is coming from!

I have no time or energy to rebut yesterday’s opinion piece by Patrick Henry, retired executive director of the Collegeville Institute for Ecumenical and Cultural Research who has zero understanding of the finances involved with federal refugee resettlement grants and contracts and that is precisely why Mr. Enos’ call for serious fiscal studies is vitally important now.

Patrick Henry

Patrick Henry, St. Cloud Times columnist.

Here is how the St. Cloud Times opens its ‘news’ story today:

A group of St. Cloud-area residents took to the stairs in front of the Stearns County Courthouse to protest an anti-immigration speaker who visited St. Cloud earlier this week.

Jane Conrad, a field representative for the East Central Area Labor Council, planned the rally after Bob Enos, of Willmar, appeared at an event booked at the Veterans of Foreign Wars speaking out against refugees and Sharia, the Islamic law.

“We know we have issues in our community and we know they exist, but we don’t need people coming in and mixing it up and creating more problems,” Conrad said. “You’re welcome to come in and be a part of our community, but don’t create division.”

Worried that some citizens may be confused that Conrad and her group were speaking out against the VFW, Conrad made it clear they support troops and veterans and were strictly protesting Enos.

Enos, oh right!  It is all about Enos!

Develop alternative media!

I guess what I am trying to say to all of you:  It is time, past time! for the citizens of St. Cloud to develop their own alternative media.  And, this applies to all of you in ‘Pockets of Resistance’.  You do not have to depend on the local biased newspaper to reach like-minded people.  I started RRW when my local paper wouldn’t publish FACTS about refugees and the cost to our community.

One of the first things I would post at your new publication are the financial facts about Lutheran Social Service of MN that clearly Patrick Henry has no clue about!

Write a website or a blog to put out your research and your opinions!  Maybe find another small newspaper that is willing to publish your information.  Definitely use conservative talk radio.  Put papers like the St. Cloud Times out of business, or at least begin to diminish their readership!

Or, consider this!  Concerned citizens in Twin Falls, ID  (a pocket of resistance) are printing up literature and taking it door-to-door to get around their own biased press!

This post is filed in our new category Pockets of Resistance’ to help all of you better understand the tactics that will be used against you and how to counter them.


Mothers of Children Killed by Illegals Demand Democrats Censure Luis Gutierrez

Huntington Park, CA: City Council Appoints 2 Illegal Aliens As Commissioners

U.S. To Issue More New Green Cards In Next Ten Years Than Populations of IA, NH and SC – COMBINED

EDITORS NOTE: The city of St. Cloud is a UN/U.S. State Department preferred resettlement site right along with Minneapolis and St. Paul in Minnesota.

Senator Jeff Sessions Lays Out Winning Immigration Argument for GOP Presidential Candidates

As I have previously wailed—can’t we draft Senator Jeff Sessions to run for the Presidency of the U.S.!

Here is a 2014 Senate floor speech, just eight minutes long, which has the elements in it that should serve as the core of any argument being made on the immigration issue for 2016.  Hat tip:  Richard at Blue Ridge Forum.

This is not just about illegal immigration, but about how our LEGAL immigration numbers are too high and hurting American workers!

Who are those “Masters of the Universe?”  Watch and find out!:


Europe’s refugees: Here come the infectious diseases

Is Wyoming Republican Senator Barrasso willing to colonize Wyoming with migrant workers? Sure sounds like it

Asylum seekers want to go home, say Germany more dangerous than Syria

St. Cloud, MN: AFL-CIO operative using intimidation tactics, stirs racial unrest….

Canada: How Multiculturalism Thwarts Religious Freedom [Video]

Ezra Levant is not your typical Canadian. He is outspoken and driven to seek out the truth about dangers to free speech and homeland security in our neighbor to the north. Fortunately for Canadians his truth telling appears nightly on his program, The Source on the Sun News Network. His opinion pieces frequently appear as columns in Sun Media publications. Starting in law school in the Province of Alberta in the 1990’s Levant was involved in the Reform Party and the “unite on the right” that morphed into the Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservatives. The Party is now led by incumbent PM Stephen Harper. Levant had filed to run in a West Calgary riding as a Conservative candidate in 2002. He withdrew at the behest of party leaders in favor of Stephen Harper who ultimately became Canada’s Prime Minister in 2006. Levant maintains cordial relations with the Harper family and was a volunteer in the Harper 2008 election.

In February 2006, he had the courage to publish the Mohammed cartoons from the Danish newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten, in The Western Standard. That action, while lauded by many Canadians, became the subject of  complaints brought before the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC) by Syed Soharwardy of theIslamic Supreme Council of Canada (ISCC) and the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities (ECMC). Levant shrewdly requested permission to videotape an interview by an investigator from the AHRCC that he uploaded on YouTube. That may have brought pressure on Soharwardy to withdraw his complaints before both the Commission and the Calgary police. Ultimately, the ECMC compliant, identical to the one filed by Soharwardy and the ISCC, was dismissed by the AHRCC.  Levant’s dramatic and successful defense of free speech coincided with complaints brought before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Ontario Human Rights Commission by the Canadian Islamic Congress against McLeans Magazine and columnist Mark Steyn over an excerpt published from Steyn’s book America Alone. Levant roundly criticized these various human rights bodies in his 2009 book, Shakedown: How our government is undermining democracy in the name of human rights. In 2011, Shakedown won the Writers’ Trust of Canada and Samara Best Political Book of the last 25 Years competition. His 2010 book Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada’s Oil Sands advanced the view that development of the low sulfur Athabascan bitumen deposits would reduce Canada’s dependence on imported oil from countries with notorious human rights records. This development would contribute to competition in the world’s energy markets and would be environmentally sound. It was given the National Business Book Award in Canada in 2011. Following the re-election of President Obama in the US in November 2012, Levant proposed an Eight Point plan to “Innoculate Canada’s  Economy” from economic problems in the US  through  paying off of its external debt, directing energy resources by trading with Asia and adopting positive immigration and economic development policies to foster economic growth.

Levant vigorously opposed the return of Canadian Al Qaeda terrorist, Omar Khadr from U.S. detention at Guantanamo Bay in October 2012. Khadr had killed U.S. Amy Special Forces medic Sgt. Christopher Speer in Afghanistan in 2002. Levant criticized PM Harper’s cabinet for consenting to the deal with the Obama Administration – a deal that reduced a 40 year conviction at a 2010 Military Trial in Guantanamo to eight years with seven years of the commuted sentence to be served in a Federal Canadian prison with eligibility for parole in 2013. In his 2011 book, The Enemy Within: Terror, Lies, and the Whitewashing of Omar Khadr, Levant relied heavily on the expert evidence of renowned American forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Michael Welner, presented at the Guantanamo Tribunal. See our June 2012 Iconoclast article on the Sun News The Source presentation of “Welcome Back Khadr?” with Dr. Welner.

Watch this Sun News presentation  by Ezra Levant on the return of Omar Khadr to Canada on October 1, 2012:

Jerry Gordon:  Ezra Levant, thank you for consenting to this interview.

Ezra Levant:  Thank you for inviting me.

Gordon:  What was your background in fostering the merger of the Reform Party with the Progressive Conservative Party an antecedent to the Canadian Alliance?

Levant:  I don’t want to overstate my role in that merger, which was the result of many people working over several years. But it is true that while I was in law school, along with a couple of other conservatives, I helped organize a convention to “unite the right” in Canada — to lay the groundwork for the merger of the two parties. It was attended by dozens of key conservatives, including Stephen Harper, currently the Prime Minister.

Gordon:  You stepped aside in the 2002 contest for the Calgary Southwest riding under pressure from the Canadian Alliance leaders to facilitate the election of Stephen Harper, Canada’s current PM. What relationship did you subsequently have with PM Harper?

Levant:  I have kept in touch with Stephen Harper and Mrs. Harper, and with his staff. I occasionally visit them, and in the 2008 election I was a full-time volunteer in the Conservative Party’s election headquarters.

Gordon:  In the late 1990’s you were an advocate for granting Quebec separatism. Given the renaissance of the Bloc Quebecois do you still hold the same opinion and why?

Levant:  I wrote one column in 1995, slightly tongue in cheek, pointing out how the rest of Canada would benefit from Quebec secession. The Bloc Quebecois is nearly defunct federally. The provincial win by the Parti Quebecois was with the slimmest margin, and it is a minority government. No-one believes they have a mandate for secession.

Gordon:  What prompted your founding of The Western Standard in 2004?

Levant:  The demise of the Alberta Report left a void for a conservative magazine, and I sought to fill it. Given the rise of the Internet, the idea was likely obsolete before it was even started.

Gordon:  In 2006, The Western Standard published the Jyllands Posten Danish newspaper cartoons of Mohammed. What was the reaction in Canada that became the subject of your award winning bookShakedown?

Levant:  Most of our subscribers loved it – we were the only magazine (or newspaper or TV show) in the country to treat our readers as adults – that is, to show them what the fuss was about for them to make up their own minds about it. The general public reaction was similar – people were sick of political correctness. Most journalists were supportive of us, as they had been restricted from doing the same thing. A small minority of journalists opposed what we did, either out of political correctness or out of a sort of jealousy or embarrassment.

Gordon:  How did your actions during the Alberta Human Rights Commission hearings expose the threat to Free Speech by Islamist groups in Canada?

Levant:  By videotaping my interrogation and putting the videos on YouTube, and by blogging about the investigation, I was able to shine a light of public scrutiny on a shadowy kangaroo court that was not well known or understood by the public. I sought to denormalize the human rights commissions, and put it on trial in the court of public opinion.

Gordon:  Were Islamist groups also behind the complaints brought by the Canadian Islamic Congress  before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and Ontario Human Rights Commission against former Macleans columnist Mark Steyn?

Levant:  The complaints against Mark Steyn were brought by the Canadian Islamic Congress, led at the time by Mohamed Elmasry. Different Islamic groups complained about me.

Gordon:  Did the cost of your defense during the Alberta Human Rights Commission (AHRC) hearings result in a decision to sell the remaining assets of The Western Standard?

Levant:  No. The prosecution did not help The Western Standard financially, but it had been in financial duress even before the AHRC investigation.

Gordon:  When did you begin your new career as a daily commentator for the Sun News and how much editorial freedom do you have?

Levant:  I have written for the Sun newspapers on and off since 1995. I started up again in the summer of 2010 and have had a daily TV show on Sun News Network since April of 2011. I believe I have tremendous freedom, and in fact I call myself the freest journalist in Canada.

Gordon:   In 2008, you testified before the US Congressional Human Rights Coalition about radical Islamist groups’ Lawfare effectively stifling free speech. Do you view UN Human Rights Council Res.16/18 on Combating Religious Intolerance as an attempt to insinuate Shariah blasphemy codes suborning protected speech here and in Canada?

Levant:  I believe that the United Nations is a threat to free speech in the U.S. and Canada, because it is dominated by countries that do not respect freedom of speech as much as we do. However, there are other domestic organizations in the U.S. that are also actively undermining free speech. Campus speech codes are one example.

Gordon:  Four states in the US (Arizona, Louisiana, Tennessee and Kansas) have adopted anti-Sharia statutes. Would the Harper Government in Ottawa consider adopting something similar at the federal level?

Levant:  I can’t speak for them of course. I doubt that a stand-alone bill would be proposed like that, unless there was a specific problem of Sharia law taking root. Right now in Canada, there is a growing problem with so-called “honor killings”, which is receiving increasing media attention. It is more likely that a pressing problem like that would receive some sort of policy attention.

Gordon:  Muslim immigration in Canada has witnessed significant growth under both Liberal and Conservative governments. There is concern in Canada about radical Muslim growth. Do you support a moratorium on immigration from “extremist producing countries”?

Levant:  I think we ought to screen immigrants for Canadian values, including non-violence, equality of men and women, pluralism, etc. There are obviously some truly liberal Muslims who wish to flee authoritarian regimes and to adopt a Canadian lifestyle.

Gordon:  In your book, The Enemy within: Terror Lies, and the Whitewashing of Omar Khadr, you made a compelling case as to why the Canadian –born al Qaeda Terrorist should not have been returned to Canada. What was your position based on and why in your opinion did the Harper Government consent to his return to Canada in October 2012?

Levant:  Omar Khadr is lawfully detained until the war on terror is over. He is analogous to a German soldier captured in 1940: he can be detained until hostilities cease. In addition to that indefinite detention, he was tried and convicted for war crimes including murder, for which a jury gave him 40 years in prison.

The U.S. government pressed Canada to accept a transfer of Khadr after just one year (with paperwork it turned out to be two years). This was clearly against the will of the Conservative government (and of the previous Liberal government) but it was something insisted upon by the Obama Administration.

Gordon:  What dangers could there be in Canada if Khadr is released under existing parole laws?

Levant:  Khadr is an unrepentant terrorist, he is more fundamentalist than ever, and all of his peers — his family in Canada, and his friends and connections from Guantanamo Bay — support terrorism. This makes it quite likely that he will be dangerous. That is also the unrebutted testimony of Dr. Michael Welner, the forensic psychiatrist who testified at Khadr’s sentencing hearing.

I do not know if Khadr will engage in violence again. I think it is likely that he will be an Al Qaida poster boy — fundraising, recruiting, and generally engaging in public relations for Al Qaida, which is more valuable to them.

Gordon:  In the wake of the Obama re-election you have advocated that Canada take advantage of its natural energy resources, international trade and immigration policies. Why do you hold these views?

Levant:  In short, Canada can no longer count on hitching an economic ride with the U.S. If the American economy continues to stagnate, and if President Obama continues to block an important oil pipeline from Canada, than we must take steps in our own economic self-interest. These include increased trade with Asia, including selling our oil there.

Gordon:  Why has the Harper Government been the best friend of Israel in the West?

Levant:  Stephen Harper and his cabinet take a principled view of foreign affairs that supports democracies and liberty and countries that share our western values. That makes supporting Israel a natural fit.

Gordon:  What should Canadians do to preserve Free Speech?

Levant:  Canadians need to adopt an attitude of non-compliance with regards to censorship. At every opportunity, they ought to take steps to incrementally expand the scope of free speech – and to stare down those who would censor them, and who have come to expect obedience and compliance.

Most normal people will not encounter censorship in their lives. But some will – students on campus facing a speech code; some government bureaucracy’s internal “equity committee” telling you what words you can say and what you can’t, etc.

I found, in my fight with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, that censors are typically bullies who are good at attacking, but not good at defending – especially if their censorship is dragged into the spotlight of public scrutiny.Gordon:  Ezra Levant thank you for this timely interview.

Levant:  Thank you for this opportunity.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

How to Overturn the Iran Nuclear Pact

July 28th, Secretary Kerry was asked at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing by Wisconsin, Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI) why the Iran nuclear deal wasn’t subject to advice and consent by the Senate as a treaty. Kerry suggested emphatically “that you can’t pass a treaty anymore.” As evidence that you could, it was pointed out that Kerry himself, acting as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman in 2010, secured the approval of the Start 2 nuclear treaty with Russia. Testimony, both at last week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA) and at the House Foreign Affairs Committee INARA hearing, raised questions about several options to overturn the Iran nuclear pact. We refer to proposals raised by former US prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy, Caroline Glick, David Rivkin and Lee Casey as well as Robert Sklaroff.

McCarthy and Glick suggested Congress reassert its review prerogatives, ditch INARA and pass a resolution to treat the JCPOA as a treaty and schedule a vote. Rivkin and Casey further suggest asserting individual state Iran sanction laws to effectively nix the deal, should the President successfully override a vote under INARA. Sklaroff suggests that the Congressional intent under INARA was violated due to the dropping of sanctions on conventional arms. He cites as a precedent the 1912 B. Altman v US case which allowed for direct SCOTUS appeal if there is any possibility an agreement is a “treaty.”

Let’s review what happened at the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. A CNSNews.com, report on the Hearing by Patrick Goodenough, reported the Administration’s justification for treating this as a political agreement, Kerry: Iran Deal Not a Treaty ‘Because You Can’t Pass a Treaty Anymore’. Witness these exchanges between Kerry and Republican Ribble and Democrat Brad Sherman (D-CA):

Rep. Reid Ribble (R-WI) recalled Kerry saying earlier in the hearing that if Congress rejects the JCPOA, other countries will in the future not trust the U.S. since rather than negotiating with an administration they will in effect be doing so with 535 members of Congress.

“For 228 years the Constitution provided a way out of that mess by allowing treaties to be with the advice and consent of 67 U.S. Senators,” he said. “Why is this [Iran deal] not considered a treaty?”

“Well Congressman, I spent quite a few years ago trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate,” Kerry replied. “And frankly, it’s become physically impossible. That’s why.”


“Let’s say Congress doesn’t take your advice, and we override a veto,” Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) put to Kerry. “And the law that’s triggered then imposes certain sanctions. Will you follow the law, even though you think it violates this agreement clearly, and even if you think it’s absolutely terrible policy?”

Kerry said he would need to consult with President Obama before answering such a question.

“So you’re not committed to following the law?” Sherman asked.

“No, no, I said I’m not going to deal with a hypothetical, that’s all,” Kerry retorted.

Watch this MRC video of Kerry’s remarks at the House Foreign affairs Committee Hearing:

Now let’s review briefly the various proposals suggesting means by which Congress and others might endeavor to overturn the Iran Nuclear pact.

Andrew C, McCarthy in a July 17th, NRO Corner article suggested:

While the administration is refusing to yield, the Congress can get busy enacting a Constitution-tracking resolution: one that affirms that Congress has the power to insist that international agreements be treated as treaties, or at least regular legislation, if they are to be legally enforceable. If they are not thus approved by a two-thirds super majority of the Senate or an act of Congress, they have no standing as binding law — they are mere executive agreements that can be abandoned at any time by either the president who makes such an agreement or by a future president. The Democrats would be expected to fight this, of course, and Obama would veto it (just as he would veto a Corker “resolution of disapproval”). But especially now that we know what is in the Iran deal, many Democrats may not want to be seen as carrying not just Obama’s water but the mullahs’. Moreover, Congress would not be rejecting Obama’s deal; it would be saying that the deal needed to comply with the Constitution to become enforceable — a proposition that should not be controversial. There has to be a better chance of overriding an Obama veto on a resolution that asks Democrats simply to endorse their own indisputable Constitutional powers than on a resolution that asks Democrats to reject their president’s deal.

Following the President’s end run of Congress submitting the Joint Plan of Action to the UN receiving a resounding Security Council endorsement, Caroline Glick, published her jeremiad in Real Clear Politics and other outlets on How to kill the Iran nuclear agreement, basically affirming McCarthy’s proposal:

As former US federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy argued in National Review last week, by among other things canceling the weapons and missile embargoes on Iran, the six-power deal with Iran went well beyond the scope of the Corker-Cardin law, which dealt only with nuclear sanctions relief. As a consequence, Congress can claim that there is no reason to invoke it.

Rather than invoke Corker-Cardin, Congress can pass a joint resolution determining that the deal with Iran is a treaty and announce that pursuant to the US Constitution, the Senate will schedule a vote on it within 30 days. Alternatively, Congress can condition the Iran deal’s legal stature on the passage of enabling legislation – that requires simple majorities in both houses.

Dan Darling, foreign policy adviser to Republican Senator and presidential hopeful Rand Paul wrote July 20th that senators can use Senate procedure to force the Foreign Relations Committee to act in this manner. Darling argued that House Speaker John Boehner can either refuse to consider the deal since it is a treaty, or insist on passing enabling legislation under normal legislative procedures.

David B. Rivkin and Lee Casey in a Wall Street Journal Op-ed offered possible relief via existing state Iran sanctions laws directed at barring companies from investing or doing business with the Islamic Republic.  A proposition that Breitbart News had earlier promoted:

On July 22, Breitbart News was the first to point out that the states have the power to block significant portions of the Iran deal, whether or not it passes Congress. That is because most states have enacted legislation divesting from Iran, and some, like New York, have even harsher legislation that prevents the state from doing business with the regime or with companies that do so.

In an op-ed in the July 27th Wall Street Journal, constitutional lawyers David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey agree: the states are “free to impose their own Iran-related sanctions.”

Rivkin and Casey review the various ways in which the Iran deal skirts both U.S. Constitutional and international law. They then note: “The administration faces another serious problem because the deal requires the removal of state and local Iran-related sanctions. That would have been all right if Mr. Obama had pursued a treaty with Iran, which would have bound the states, but his executive-agreement approach cannot pre-empt the authority of the states.”

Rivkin and Casey agree: “The Constitution’s Commerce Clause prevents states from imposing sanctions as broadly as Congress can. Yet states can establish sanctions regimes—like banning state-controlled pension funds from investing in companies doing business with Iran—powerful enough to set off a legal clash over American domestic law and the country’s international obligations. The fallout could prompt the deal to unravel.”

Regardless of whether they add new sanctions, states are unlikely to unravel their sanctions any time soon. (Notably, many of the states that have Iran sanctions are not “red” states, but are actually “blue” states where Democrats have taken a firm line against the Iranian regime.)

Robert Sklaroff in an article published July 29 in The Hill raises the alternative of possible litigation on the basis of executive overreach:

A lawsuit must be based upon the “legislative intent” criterion that was determinative when the SCOTUS validated Obamacare. This filing would jointly seek a temporary restraining order, for the lawsuit reasonably could prevail and, otherwise, implementation of the pact would render it moot. Disapproval of any component of the pact would invalidate the entire agreement because neither the bill nor the pact contains a “severability” clause.

Thus, based upon public statements issued by the executive branch, the legislative branch adopted this bill–emasculating black-letter limitation of presidential hegemony–under the pretense that it would only deal with nuclear-warfare, and not conventional-warfare.

Therefore, just as the House’s litigation challenges Obama Care’s overreach, the Senate should restrain a lawless POTUS. The judicial branch must ultimately issue a landmark decision that will rebuke Obama’s autocratic “legacy.”

While each of these options have both merits and daunting thresholds for implementation, the reality is that the Administration has played a weak hand in conducting less than rigorous due diligence on representations and concession demands by the Iranian negotiating team between the adoption of the Framework on April 2nd, the announcement on July 14th and the preemptive UN Security Council Resolution endorsing the JCPOA on July 22nd.

Evidence of further cupidity by the Administration emerged from a trip to Vienna by Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.). Their discussions with representatives of the IAEA revealed secret side deals with Iran that demonstrated that the systemic verification, inspection and monitoring regime will unlikely reveal conclusive information on previous military developments. Nor will those side deals address external covert nuclear weapons development with rogue partner North Korea.

It will be impossible to conduct rigorous due diligence on many aspects of this political agreement with Iran in exchange for release of upwards of $150 billion of sequestered funds. Hence, while these ways to override the nuclear pact have intriguing aspects, the question arises as to whether Congress has the will to do what McCarthy and Glick propose, or default to state Iran sanctions as a last resort. Independent Congressional litigation on demonstrable Constitutional legal grounds regarding executive overreach may be an alternative solution. If the Senate was granted standing on direct appeal, based on the B. Altman SCOTUS ruling, it might result in a predisposed SCOTUS rendering a positive ruling thus quashing the Iran nuclear pact. Further, the ruling might unfetter the hands of any successor to President Obama on inauguration day in 2017 to undertake remedial actions. Such actions might reduce the current existential threats to both the U.S. and Israel. However, Norman Podhoretz contends, in his July 29th Wall Street Journal op-ed, there is only a Hobson’s choice for Israel: either a conventional war against Iran now or a possible nuclear war with Iran later.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Secretary of State Kerry testifying before House Foreign Affairs Committee, July 28, 2015. Source: AP/Andrew Harnik. Also see Jerry Gordon’s collection of interviews, The West Speaks.

Peace Processing Iran

The principle is similar: faced with an enemy that repeatedly declares its genocidal hatred, acts on it wherever possible, constantly strives to improve its ways and means, you peace process. Why was it successful with Iran and not with the “Palestinians”? Perhaps because the comical P5 + 1 applied the pressure to itself in the case of Iran, leaving no one to resist. The same pressure applied to Israel since 1993 has failed to produce total surrender. Drastic concessions were proposed but the enemy insisted on the right of return of “refugees” down to the third, fourth, and forever generations that would spell the elimination of the Jewish state. There were no significant limits to the concessions made by the P5+1 and no expectation that the deal will yield anything other than itself. The deal is that there’s a deal.

The devil is not in the details it is in the evil, the collusion with evil. Antisemitism in its modern form of antizionism is the ultimate perversion: choosing death over life, it reverses good and evil. The perverse subject embraces evil while proclaiming his goodness. The Iran “deal” is not the result of American government naiveté, faulty negotiating skills, or realpolitik. It has nothing to do with slowing Iran’s nuclear arms development. It is an international seal of approval for Iran’s genocidal project. A wink of complicity.

What better proof than the hasty visit of German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel accompanied by a regiment of businessmen? Germany of all nations, still heavy with the weight of the Shoah, had to demonstrate immediately that the deal is a practical matter of trade and polite relations. But the truth bled through the window dressing and, as befits perversion, was expressed in an outright lie: Gabriel reminded his Iranian counterparts that they must not question Israel’s right to exist. “That is unacceptable,” he declared, accepting it as if it were a second helping of ham hocks. Italy’s molto simpatico PM Matteo Renzi reassured his amico grandissimo that his country would always be there to defend Israel. With what? French MFA Laurent Fabius who distinguished himself during negotiations by taking a strong position—before caving in to pressure—waited an extra week for his sober visit, sans traveling salesmen but bearing a missive from President Hollande inviting President Rohani to visit him in November. What could be more grotesque, more obscene than these frantic gestures laced with hollow excuses?

Obama&Kerry are trying to force, cajole, intimidate, manipulate Congress and public opinion to approve the phony agreement that will, they claim, slow down Iran’s nuclear arms project while giving the Islamic Republic (they don’t pronounce its real name for good reasons) time to become the friendly partner they deserve. All the concrete evidence proves the contrary. So what have they really accomplished?

While talking up the deal domestically, with special emphasis on Jewish organizations, they sent Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to dangle yummy defensive military goodies in front of the Israeli government as a consolation prize. What have they wrought? Kerry, grilled by the Senate Foreign Relations committee, is scolded for being duped. If his only fault was a failure to get better terms from those crafty Persians, then the honor of America’s chief negotiator and aspiring Tour de France cyclist would be intact. Now, fearing the slick sale pitches will not do the trick, the Secretary of State has moved on to sinister threats. Invited by the Council for Foreign Relations to defend the deal, he warned that if Congress should vote against it, “Israel will be more isolated and more blamed [sic].”

So that’s the win-win? If the agreement is approved, Israel will be in greater danger, if it is rejected, Israel will be blamed. In fact, it doesn’t matter. The collusion agreement with Iran has nothing to do with foreign policy or non-proliferation of nuclear arms. It is a call to ratify the genocidal equation: Iran is deserving of trust, Israel can be thrown to the dogs. Good and evil are reversed. The damage is already done.

While Europeans were creeping to Iran like worker ants, each with a few crumbs to sell, the EU parliament was mulling over a measure that would stigmatize products from the Israeli “colonies.” Grotesque perversion. Iran, by virtue of the deal, instantly becomes a suitable trading partner while Israel, an apartheid state guilty of Occupation, is unfit for human consumption. Gays swinging from the hangman’s rope, political prisoners tortured to death, arms and treasure flowing to jihad forces that wreak havoc throughout the Middle East and sow subversion in the rest of the world… all disappear with the lethal narrative fed to global media by the wire services. After months of negotiation…a historic agreement…Iran forgoes nuclear arms development in exchange for removal of sanctions and the dawn of normal relations with the well-behaved world. Unprecedented inspections regime. Money-back guarantee. Snap-back sanctions. Diplomacy trumps war.

Death to America, Death to Israel. Our plan to erase Israel from the face of the earth is not negotiable. We will never abandon our right to develop nuclear arms and advanced delivery systems, we will arm our allies, no American will be included in the inspection teams, our military sites are forever off limits, allahu akhbar, flag burnings and raucous bloodthirsty cries… Secretary of State Kerry proves he’s a good sport by briefly admitting that if Death to Israel Death to America were actually a statement of policy, it would be worrisome. But it’s just rhetoric.

The once-free world, draped in virtue to exclude Israel from the concert of nations, mired in perversity to welcome Iran with open arms, dives into the abyss. And a significant percentage of American Jews, apparently, buy into this perversion. Out of the goodness of their hearts they become deaf, dumb, and blind to Iran’s words and deeds, and reserve their severity for an Israel they could accommodate if it would stop throwing monkey wrenches into the global jamboree.

Vainglorious President Barack Hussein Obama, displaying his major diplomatic exploit—bouncing up and down the stairs of Air Force One—makes his victory lap in Kenya, where he lectures the locals on, of all things, clean government, democracy, and homosexual rights. Tell it to yer mulla’, brotha’!

Though the personal responsibility of Obama, Kerry, Mogherini, and other grinning negotiators is enormous, it won’t help to blame them because they are upheld by populations that are themselves captive. People who sincerely believe in their own decency and wish to do no harm recoil at the very sound of the name “Israel.” Americans, who win all the polls for loving Israel, dumbly follow their twice-elected president though he made his intentions clear from the first step of the primaries. How many American Zionists repeat the absurd fairy tale about how Iran will be contained, mollified, and magically turned over to the freedom-loving youth they see on BBC news? British Prime Minister David Cameron interjects “Islam is a religion of peace” into a forceful defense of the nation against Islamist ideology. France, still reeling from the latest beheading/impalement incident sails into a new plot to behead a naval officer. The denial machine tries to photoshop the Chattanooga jihad attack against a military base. The body count in Syria rises inexorably, Bashir al Assad thanks Iran and Hezbollah for their invaluable support, the Middle East, with the exception of Israel, is being ethnically cleansed of Christians, and the good news is that Iran signed something? With disappearing ink.

“It starts with the Jews but it doesn’t end with the Jews.” This isn’t an incidental geopolitical fatality. It starts with the Jews because it is the triumph of evil and death over goodness and life. Judaism is the source of the ethics on which our civilization is founded. Antizionism, the contemporary variety of antisemitism, is a lethal perversion. When the genocidal hatred of the Islamic Republic is validated by an international agreement piloted by the United States of America, when every single concrete detail is clearly available for public information, when every public statement by governments that defend the deal is patently false, when the “alternative to war” is a virtual onslaught against Israel’s existence, when the immoral United Nations is invested with powers stolen from democratically elected governments, we have reached the catastrophic level of perversion.

Rational arguments will be useless unless this perversion is understood, exposed, and confronted.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. Nidra Poller’s book Karimi Hotel is now available in English and Al Dura: long range ballistic myth is available in paperback and on Kindle.

Dear Liberals: America Doesn’t Need Your Input on Who’s Conservative

Are you as tired as I am of media elites attempting to pick our GOP candidates for us?

The media tries this same magic trick during every presidential election where they feign allegiance to the least conservative GOP candidate or candidates and then, when the Democratic nominee has sealed the Party nomination, they quickly, and viciously, turn on their “favorite son” GOP candidate.

Well, they’re up to the same hijinks again. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank recently penned an absurd piece in his regular opinion column where he viciously attacked Texas Senator and presidential candidate Ted Cruz for having the “temerity” to call a lie a lie, to ask that the Iranians recognize Israel’s right to simply exist, and to defund the monstrous Planned Parenthood. Dana Milbank, the far-left ideologue disguising himself as a mildly credible opinion journalist in a major newspaper, has absolutely no business commenting on who should, or should not, be blacklisted by American conservatives – the very group he despises and makes no effort to otherwise understand the movement.

After reading the Milbank piece I thought the best way to respond to him and the media/Democratic Party complex would be to return the favor and write an open letter to the Left explaining which Democratic candidates should be shunned, and why. If you’re on the Left and reading this and getting angry, now you have a mild understanding of what conservatives go through every day when the left-leaning media lectures us about who the “non-angry, acceptable conservatives” are.

Here goes:

Dear American Left,

How can you support Hillary Clinton for President? Hillary Clinton claims to be a champion of the middle class but she openly advocates for policies that will decimate your quality of life. She supports Obamacare, which has dramatically hiked your insurance premiums through its reliance on community rating and guaranteed issue. She supports an enormous hike in the capital gains tax that will dramatically reduce investment in the economy and, as a result, reduce middle class wages which rely on capital investment to increase economic productivity. And, critically, she fights furiously against school choice and will destroy any chance you have of getting your child a quality education if you live an area with subpar public schools.

And Bernie Sanders? How can you support a man who describes himself as a socialist? Do you realize that Senator Sanders is guided by a political ideology that will steal away from you the freedoms you claim to cherish? Socialism claims to be an ideology of equality but, the so-called “equality” they wish to bring to the United States is an equality of misery because government doesn’t possess the ability to enforce equality of outcomes. As legendary political economist Friedrich Hayek noted in The Constitution of Liberty:

From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.

Finally, how can you support Martin O’Malley? O’Malley is a man with so few convictions that when challenged by left-wing extremists on his seemingly innocuous statement that “all lives matter” at the Netroots Nation conference he APOLOGIZED. O’Malley cowardly walked back his comments by saying “That was a mistake on my part and I meant no disrespect.” Disrespect? For saying “all lives matter”? If this is the kind of character you are seeking in your Democratic nominee for president then your Party is lost at sea with no chance for rescue. I hope you consider my comments on your candidates before entering the voting booth in 2016.

Thanks for your time,

Dan Bongino

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Conservative Review. The feature image is by Earl Gibson III | AP Photo.