VIDEO: White Privilege
I’m still waiting for my white privilege to arrive.
RELATED ARTICLE: Liberal Hypocrisy on White Privilege Brutally Exposed In EPIC Meme
True Charity and Bureaucracy Don’t Mix by Elizabeth Melton
“A bureaucracy never dismantles itself.”—Daniel Hannan, British MP
When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, over $2.5 billion was donated to the Red Cross by private donors. It was a record-breaking relief response, but not the only notable example of humanity to take place.
Along with all of the people who wrote a check or made an online donation, there were countless others who helped on a more human level.
Spontaneous Charity
People opened their homes to complete strangers who now found themselves homeless. Others loaded up trucks with water and groceries and drove to the outskirts of the devastation to directly contribute to those in need.
These spontaneous outpourings of goodness were a bright spot in the darkness of the time, particularly so when compared to the grim results provided by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other government agencies.
In a community, a person is an individual; in a bureaucracy, a person is a number.
Those who possess a mindset of freedom have a horrible reputation with social progressives when it comes to matters of compassion. “A voluntary society would never work!” they exclaim. “What about the poor, the weak, the sick, the disadvantaged?” They then proceed to describe a dystopian society where all but the smartest and strongest languish in abject poverty, misery, and enslavement–think, Dickens, meets Lord of the Flies, meets Pinocchio’s Paradise Island.
This wasteland of a society is where we would certainly all find ourselves if not for the “benevolent” hand of government—which reaches out to pamper and protect our most vulnerable.
This melodramatic way of looking at liberty is uninformed, to say the least. I would go as far as to suggest that not only could a voluntary society care for its needy, but that it would, in fact, do a much better job than our current government-run system.
Community Service
In a community, a person in need is an individual; in a bureaucracy, a person in need is a number.
A community recognizes the needs of its members without investigation. There is no need to fill out forms or sign paperwork that threatens incarceration should any of the facts not fall within the rigid parameters required for eligibility.
The rules within a community are flexible and take into account the changing circumstances of those in need. Everyone knows when Mr. Jones is back on his feet again and no longer needs his grass cut or when Mrs. Smith has gone back to work and no longer needs casseroles.
The current system, good intentions or not, has done nothing but create a caste system of societal outcasts and relieved individuals of any feeling of responsibility for their fellow man.
Families are ripped out of what should be economically diverse communities and herded into “housing projects.” The residents of these “projects” then tend to view themselves as disadvantaged, rather than as an essential part of a broader community.
This creates an atmosphere of “us” versus “them,” rather than an atmosphere of community and mutual cooperation.
The situation is worsened by the fact that any efforts to improve oneself through meaningful work or by building a more stable family structure are punished by losing the housing upon which one has now come to depend.
Lack of meaningful work can lead to frustration, anger, and depression which, in turn, can lead to violence. Lack of a stable family structure deprives those individuals of much-needed support.
The current system damages those outside of the “projects” as well. These individuals no longer feel a responsibility to personally reach out to the needy as now there are “programs for that.”
In the same way that the residents have lives empty of meaningful work, the non-residents have lives empty of meaningful altruism. Most people want to give and need to give. The very people who advocate for this type of system in the name of humanity are robbing our society of humanity.
When elderly school bus monitor Karen Klein was bullied by four middle school boys, the viral video which captured it inspired gifts of over $700,000.00 to send her on vacation. She, in turn, used a portion of that money to start an anti-bullying foundation. If people would come together in this way for her, I hardly believe they wouldn’t come together to help other people in need.
There are so many examples of this kind of generosity. Animal shelters are left entire estates by generous benefactors. Certainly, people would come through for their fellow human beings as well were there not the perception that government was already meeting those needs.
“But this is so random and spontaneous!” the naysayers cry. “Wouldn’t people fall through the cracks?” Of course they would, just as they do now. One need only walk down a downtown sidewalk or peek under an interstate bridge to find countless examples of those who have “fallen through the cracks.” Such is the quality of life—bad things will always happen and there will always be suffering in the world.
Perhaps if we did not have this bureaucracy, churches would get back to the business of caring for the poor and downtrodden, rather than building mega-churches.
There was a time when there was an extensive network of Catholic hospitals that turned no one away regardless of their religious affiliation, or lack of one. Mutual aid societies created a safety net within communities and a traveler who belonged to an organization could find assistance among members in other towns and cities, should they find themselves in need.
Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
Last, but most important, was that building block of society known as “the neighborhood” where neighbors looked out for one another and worked out problems among themselves. A helping hand from a neighbor was not considered charity but part of a cycle of caring for others or being cared for.
The beauty of the community is that one does not have to change anything politically to make it viable. Anyone can go knock on the doors of their neighbors and get to know them. No one needs government permission to mentor a student that needs help but can’t afford it. A group of citizens can start a community garden to provide fresh produce in the midst of a food desert.
Do you have rental property? Any rental property owner who is concerned with fair and affordable housing can offer fair and affordable rent. Any physician who is concerned with equal access to quality health care can opt out of bureaucratic insurance plans and start charging a simple, reasonable fee. The money saved in paperwork filing would certainly help to make up the difference.
If we want to change the culture of our society to one which truly cares for all of its members, we can all start doing it today. There is no need to tear down the cold and uncaring bureaucracy that currently holds sway. A bureaucracy cannot remain if there is no one there to use it. By strengthening the village (the true village, not the government-constructed one) the bureaucracy might crumble and cease to exist.
Elizabeth Melton
Elizabeth “Roxy” Melton is a writer and farmer with a passion for freedom.
School Choice Can Save Our Stagnating Economy by Julian Adorney
In the Huffington Post, Dale Hansen sums up many liberals’ views when he claims, “The recent appointment of Betsy DeVos has proved one thing – conservatives are far more concerned about politics than they are about educating children.” But the competitive education reforms that Devos champions are essential to giving kids the skills to thrive in a global economy.
Median wages in the US have stagnated, but liberals who decry this fact ignore a root cause: a mismatch between the skills that students acquire in school, and the skills that they need to thrive in the workplace. Jobs in many sectors keep commanding higher salaries: IT wages rose 18.4 percent from 2011 to 2015.
Adapting Education
The problem, as renowned economist Tyler Cowen notes in Average Is Over, is that our economy leaves behind people who lack the skills to compete in these sectors. And traditional public schools are still focused on outdated classes like cursive writing, in lieu of preparing students for the economy of the future.
The U.S. needs an education system that’s as dynamic as the market our kids will enter, where new technologies can spring up overnight and render old ones obsolete. The warehouse model of one teacher lecturing to 20-30 students, which has remained almost unchanged since its importation from Prussia in the 19th century, is no longer working.
Unfortunately, traditional public schools are structurally opposed to adaptation. Investing in new teaching methods and technologies is expensive, and public schools have little incentive to innovate so long as they have a captive audience of students.
Innovation also requires displacement; the process of creative destruction requires tearing down the old in order to build something new. This process is difficult when impossible-to-fire bureaucrats benefit from the status quo.
Finally, adaptation requires the freedom to experiment. But public school systems are monopolies with top-down controls, from No Child Left Behind to Common Core. When a handful of political appointees in DC set education policy for 56 million students, it reduces the potential for innovation.
Public school teachers, who can be mediocre or extraordinary, are hardly to blame for this situation. It’s the consequence of a bureaucratic system in which incentives favor the status quo.
Other Options
By contrast, private schools and charter schools, both of which DeVos has championed, have more freedom to experiment with new ideas. AltSchool, founded by a former Google executive, uses cutting-edge technology and individualized lesson plans to help kids pursue their passions. Other schools focus on Socratic dialogue or self-paced learning. KIPP charter schools create remarkable results by expanding the school day and requiring parental buy-in.
The result is students who are better educated and more prepared for a dynamic economy. Students in charter schools in Florida, for instance, earned an average of 12 percent more by their mid-twenties than students in traditional public schools; even after controlling for selection bias.
Studies also consistently show that charter and private schools offer a fuller education than public schools because they’re directly accountable to parents —who have the most investment in their kids’ education.
Where it Hurts
Unfortunately, our current system erects barriers to these innovations. Without private school voucher programs, parents who want to send their kids to private schools like AltSchool pay twice: once to the government, and once to the institution that actually educates their children. This artificially raises the price of private schools, diminishing enrollment. Similarly, states that outlaw charter schools deny students access to these often cutting-edge educational models.
This phenomenon even hurts public schools. According to the Friedman Foundation for School Choice, of 33 studies that analyzed the effect of competition on public schools, 31 found that public schools improved. When institutions have to earn their audience, they find ways to improve; when they’re protected from competition, they stagnate.
Betsy Devos’ reforms will reduce these barriers and create a more level playing field in the education market. The resulting competition will give our kids their best chance at thriving in a dynamic and rapidly-evolving economy.
Reprinted from Townhall.
Julian Adorney
Julian Adorney is a Young Voices Advocate and a FEE 2016 Thorpe Fellow. He currently works at Colorado SEO Pros.
President Trump Orders EPA To ‘Zero Out’ Global Warming Programs
By Michael Bastasch – Via Daily Caller
The White House is pushing for significant cuts to EPA programs and staff levels, giving a glimpse of how the Trump administration plans on devolving more control to the states.
The budget plan sent from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to EPA leadership calls for eliminating dozens of programs, including at least 16 that have to do with global warming and implementing former President Barack Obama’s climate agenda.
OMB also requested a 30 percent cut in grants to states and a 20 percent reduction in EPA’s workforce through buy-outs and layoffs. In total, President Donald Trump is calling for a roughly 25 percent cut to EPA’s budget — about $2 billion.
The cuts are laid out in a letter sent by William Becker, the executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), to his group’s member state and local regulators. Becker said NACAA received the “pass back” budget information sent from OMG to EPA Monday, according to InsideEPA.
Here are all the programs NACAA said OMB wants “zeroed out”:
Alaska Native Villages
Beach and Fish programs
Brownfield projects
Clean Power Plan implementation
Climate Voluntary partnership programs‹there are 14 separate ones
Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
Endocrine grants
Energy star grants
Environmental education
Environmental justice
Geographical programs for lake [Champlain], L.I. Sound, S.F. Bay and South Florida
Global Change Research
Mexico Border grants
Multi-purpose grants
Office of Public Engagement
Radon
Star Research grants
Small minority businesses
State indoor radon
Targeted air shed grants
U.S. Mexico Border
Water Sense
Democrats and environmentalists have opposed Trump’s budget cuts, and EPA union leaders are hemming and hawing about cutting staffing levels. Even some Republicans aren’t on board with cutting so much from EPA’s budget.
“They are operating at 1989 staffing levels. So you really want to be sure you are not cutting the meat and muscle with the fat,” Oklahoma Republican Rep. Tom Cole, who is on the House Committee on Appropriations, told Inside EPA.
“There’s not that much in the EPA, for crying out loud,” Idaho Republican Rep. Mike Thompson told The Washington Post. Thompson formerly chaired the appropriations committee’s subcommittee dealing with EPA.
What’s unsurprising is Trump wants to get rid of more than a dozen global warming programs at EPA, including funding to implement the Clean Power Plan (CPP).
RELATED ARTICLE: We Shouldn’t Always Have Paris: The case for pulling out of Obama’s global climate accord – WSJ
EDITORS NOTE: Climate Hustle is now available on Video On Demand (& DVD). Go to www.ClimateHustle.com to watch.
Also, Watch: Climate Depot’s Marc Morano on Fox News debating EPA & Climate: ‘This is the end of superstition in Washington’ – Morano: “What EPA chief Scott Pruitt really represents — you see my smile here — This is the end of superstition in Washington! And it’s actually going back to science and actual cost benefit analysis. It’s very simple: The EPA climate plan is the signature Obama executive order — he couldn’t get it through Congress so he bypassed democracy. But this plan wouldn’t even impact global CO2 levels, let alone global temperatures or storms. Yet Obama administration officials like John Podesta actually sold the regulations as as way to prevent storms and we need this because the storms are getting worse.” “If you want to rescind Al Gore’s nobel prize — give it to fracking industry. they had the greatest effect. U.S. emissions now are at a 25 year low in the first half of 2016 due to fracking taking over for coal.”
Time for the U.S. Department of Justice to crack down on Marijuana
President Trump said during his address to a joint session of Congress,
I have further ordered the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, along with the Department of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to coordinate an aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that have spread across our Nation.
We will stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth — and we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted.
[ … ]
As we speak, we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens. Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight and as I have promised.
In The Daily Signal article “How Trump’s DOJ Can Start Enforcing Federal Marijuana Law” Cully Stimson reports:
On Thursday last week, White House press secretary Sean Spicer said he “believe[s] that we will see greater enforcement” of the federal laws against recreational marijuana.
While he acknowledged that the question to which he was responding was better directed to the Department of Justice, Spicer said that state legalization of recreational marijuana “is something the Department of Justice, I think, will be further looking into.”
Spicer’s comments are welcome news for those advocating commonsense drug policy.
Scientists agree that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and no major national medical organization advocates legalization. Whether you agree with that or not, marijuana remains illegal for good reason.
Thorough scientific reviews by President Barack Obama’s Food and Drug Administration and Drug Enforcement Administration—as well as drug classification reviews by federal judges—have affirmed that marijuana should remain a Schedule 1 drug. Such drugs are defined as having “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
As I have written here and here, the predictable consequences of marijuana legalization are beginning to emerge in states like Colorado and Washington.
Annual reports from the Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, and the Colorado Department of Public Safety have analyzed the negative impact that marijuana legalization has had on health and public safety in Colorado.
President Trump, unlike his predecessor, has not used drugs and does not drink. President Trump is concerned about the social cost of a society that finds the use, and expected abuse, of drugs and alcohol to be wrong on many levels.
Stimson presents eleven (11) commonsense recommendations which are consistent with an interest in public health and safety of all Americans.
This President can turn the tide on drug abuse and the debilitating effects and crime that accompany it. Crimes such as human trafficking, murder, sale of heroin and cocaine and death.
RELATED STUDIES:
Stages and pathways of drug involvement: Examining the gateway hypothesis
Muslim Deputy DNC Chair does not stand to honor Navy SEAL widow
During his address to a joint session of Congress President Donald Trump honored Carryn Owens, widow of William “Ryan” Owens, the US Navy SEAL killed in a late January raid in Yemen. Mrs. Owens received two standing ovations from those in the chamber. The first recognizing her lasted a short time. The second lasted 2 minutes.
There were three members of the Democrat Party who refused to stand to honor Ryan’s widow during the long second standing ovation. One of them was the Deputy Chair of the Democratic National Committee and Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison. Ellison is an Islamic supremacist and is accused of being antisemitic by his fellow Democrats.
Here is a photo of Ellison, a Muslim, along with Democrat Representative from Florida Debbie Wassermann-Schultz, a Jew, sitting during the second longer standing ovation honoring Carryn Owens, widow of William “Ryan” Owens, the U.S. Navy SEAL:
Democrats sat during the bulk of President Trump’s speech, with a few exceptions, so they can’t be tired from standing and sitting and standing and sitting. Many have characterized their refusal to stand as part of their hate campaign against the President and his agenda to make America great, again. But there is more to this story. More than the media is telling us.
FrontPage Magazine’s Paul Sperry in a column titled “NEW DNC DEPUTY KEITH ELLISON’S ISLAMIC AGENDA FOR CONGRESS: And he has a plan to make it happen, says former CAIR intern” reported:
“In the summer of 2008, I was working as an intern at CAIR,” Chris Gaubatz recalled in an exclusive interview with FrontPageMagazine.com. “During a Friday prayer at the Capitol Building, Ellison was talking about the second Muslim congressman being elected (Andre Carson) and said, “Insha’allah (Allah willing), next election we will have four Muslim congressman, and insha’allah, after that eight, and insha’allah, after that 16.’ ”
He said he also envisioned a Congressional Muslim Caucus that would rival the Black Caucus in size and influence, and push for “Muslim-friendly public policies,” such as gutting the Patriot Act, criminalizing the profiling of Muslims in terrorism investigations, and preventing the surveillance of mosques.
Legal scholar and Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz said that he would leave the Democrat Party if Keith Ellison was elected Chairman. After the election Dershowitz broke his promise as Israeli National News reporter Gary Willig noted:
Dershowitz had earlier announced that he would leave the party if Ellison, a former member of the Nation of Islam movement who stated at a fundraiser in 2010 that US foreign was “governed” by Israeli interests and who voted against providing funding for Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system, was elected the DNC chairman.
While Ellison was narrowly defeated by former Labor Secretary Tom Perez, Perez immediately announced that he was appointing Ellison his deputy.
Ellison’s appointment was not enough to prompt Dershowitz to leave the Democratic party. Instead he pledged to ““remain and fight hard for it to move toward the center and away from the anti-Israel and far-Left trends” which have seeped into the Democratic party.
In my December 2015 column “The neo-Democrat Party: Devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed” I wrote:
Numerous writers and political pundits have written on President Obama’s pledge to “fundamentally transform America” when elected in 2008.
I believe what President Obama has truly done is fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party of JFK to the Democrat Party of BHO. I use the word Democrat because the Party of Obama is not Democratic, as envisioned by Thomas Jefferson. The membership of the neo-Democrat Party are made up primarily of the devout followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed.
Those who oppose Obama and the neo-Democrat Party, including JFK Democrats, are subject to ridicule, rejection and bullying.
The likes of Alan Dershowitz will be ridiculed, his effort to moderate the party will be met with rejection and his fellow Jewish Democrats will be bullied into staying with the party, no matter what.
The neo-Democrats are now the party of Marx, Mohammed, Manning and Meryl.
The ideal of collectivism is alive and well in the neo-Democrat Party. Collectivism is what drives the followers of Marx, Mohammed, Manning and Meryl. They make up the core of the neo-Democrat Party.
How they present themselves publicly is proof in the pudding. Here is a tweet by a former Hillary Clinton campaign volunteer Dan Grilo.
Grilo removed this tweet after he received comments against it.
As President Trump said during his inaugural speech, “When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. The Bible tells us, How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.”
The neo-Democrats and alt-left have closed their hearts to patriotism and have let in prejudices that are leading to disunity.
God will hold them accountable for their hate.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Democrats Wear White at State of Union: Remember when Democrats wore white before?
House Democratic women are wearing white — a symbol of women’s suffrage — to Trump’s speech”
Democratic women in Congress made a bold statement at President Trump’s address to Congress Tuesday night by wearing white, a symbol of the suffragist movement.
The effort was led by Rep. Lois Frankel (D-FL), chair of the House Democratic Women’s Working Group. That working group includes all 66 Democratic women members and delegates of the US House of Representatives, many of whom participated in the action.
“We wear white to unite against any attempts by the Trump administration to roll back the incredible progress women have made in the last century, and we will continue to support the advancement of all women,” Frankel said in a statement. “We will not go back.”
So what exactly are these women protesting? These women in white already have the right to vote, not only in elections but on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Perhaps they should help President Trump do some of the things he said during his address to the United States Congress.
President Trump began his remarks with a commitment to civil rights:
And citizens of America, tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of black history month, we are reminded of our nation’s path toward civil rights and the work that still remains to be done. Recent threats — Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms.
President Trump stated during his Remarks to Congress that he set up a council with the Prime Minister of Canada to focus on women entrepreneurs. President Trump emphatically stated:
And with the help of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we have formed a counsel with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out their financial dreams.
He also talked about the plight of mothers living in inter-cities and the education of children who live there. President Trump drew attention to one young woman who fought against a broken public education system and succeeded despite the odds against her. The President recognized Denisha Merriweather with these words:
Joining us tonight in the gallery is a remarkable woman, Denisha Merriweather. As a young girl, Denisha struggled in school and failed third grade twice. But then she was able to enroll in a private center for learning, great learning center, with the help of a tax credit, and a scholarship program. Today, she is the first in her family to graduate, not just from high school, but from college. Later this year, she will get her master’s degree in social work. We want all children to be able to break the cycle of poverty just like Denisha.
President Trump pointed out the violence that harms women and children stating:
But to break the cycle of poverty, we must also break the cycle of violence.
The murder rate in 2015 experienced its largest single-year increase in nearly half a century. In Chicago, more than 4,000 people were shot last year alone –- and the murder rate so far this year has been even higher. This is not acceptable in our society. Every American child should be able to grow up in a safe community, to attend a great school, and to have access to a high-paying job.
Perhaps it is time for Democrats in general, and women who are Democrats and members of Congress to work with President Trump. Wearing white is not the answer. This act creates division when unity is needed to make America great, again.
Watch President Trump’s full speech to the America people:
RELATED ARTICLES:
What Trump Got Right in His Speech to Congress
Trump Outlines Agenda for ‘New Chapter of American Greatness’
Rep. Maxine Waters Is Boycotting Trump’s Speech
On Education, the Left Protects a Miserable Status Quo
EDITORS NOTE:
According to Wikipedia:
Suffragist is a more general term for members of the suffrage movement. The term “suffragette” is particularly associated with activists in the British Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU), led by Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst, who were influenced by Russian methods of protest such as hunger strikes. The WSPU It was best known for hunger strikes (and forced feeding), for breaking windows in prominent buildings, and for night-time arson of unoccupied houses and churches.
In the United State the suffragette movement was a feminist movement. According to Wikipedia:
Women’s suffrage in the United States, the legal right of women to vote in that country, was established over the course of several decades, first in various states and localities, sometimes on a limited basis, and then nationally in 1920.
The Fakestream Media is at it again: Ignore Blacks focus on a Couch
On Monday, February 27th, President Trump met with leaders of black colleges at the White House. The Washington Post published the below YouTube video of the meeting.
The President having black leaders of black colleges is the big story, right? Wrong!
In a column titled “The ‘Kellyanne Conway on the couch’ controversy is so incredibly dumb” WaPo’s Chris Cillizza reports:
The photo [below] , taken Monday, shows White House counselor Kellyanne Conway perched on a couch in the Oval Office as President Trump stands behind his desk and representatives of a number of historically black colleges and universities gather around him.
Conway is kneeling on the couch. Other pictures of the same moment show she has her shoes on.
This has, of course, inflamed the (mostly liberal end of the) Internet.
THE HORROR.
SHE IS DISRESPECTING THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
HOW COULD SHE.
And so on and so forth.
This tempest in a teapot is, in a word, dumb. In two words: incredibly dumb.
[Kellyanne Conway kneeled on a couch. The Internet went insane.]
Here are the photos of Kellyanne Conway and a montage of Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the Oval Office:
RELATED ARTICLES:
‘The Golan is ours’ — Israel Sovereignty and American National Security
A momentous joint press conference was held at the White House with President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu on February 15, 2017. For the first time in recent memory, a U.S. President was not demanding that Israel relinquish sovereign territory that had been granted under international law. That meant that the Jewish nation was entitled to negotiate secure borders in the land west of the river.
Things appear to be changing in the Middle East among the Sunni Arab monarchies, Emirates and states recognizing that America’s democratic ally is the proverbial strong horse opposing the hegemonic aspirations of the Shia Islamic Republic of Iran. An Iran that in consort with its proxy Hezbollah is actively engaging in creating a Shia crescent from the Persian Gulf via Iraq and Syria to the Mediterranean Coast of Lebanon. Moreover, Iran has control of two world maritime choke points in the oil trades; the Straits of Hormuz and the Bab al Mandab (at the mouth of the Red Sea).
The Golani tree symbol of the IDF Golani Brigade of the Northern command.
For Israel there is evidence that Iran’s IRGC Qods force and its proxy Hezbollah are ranging across the vital Golan Heights frontier. That is reflected in clashes that resulted in the deaths of IRGC Generals and a Hezbollah commander, son of the terrorist mastermind Imad Mughniyah. A frontier that is also witnessing the expansion of ISIS militia on the southern portion of the Golan frontier.
The Golan is strategic to Israel’s national security reflected in its annexation by Israel’s parliament the Knesset in 1981. Yet, there have been efforts at the UN suggesting that Israel’s sovereign claim to the Golan is questioned. That despite it being included in the original Palestine Mandate granted to Great Britain at the Sam Remo conference in 1920. After two climatic wars fought in 1967 and in 1973, Israel is not about to give up its sovereign claim to the Golan.Further, Israel’s ears on the Middle East can be found on the summit of Mount Hermon at the base of the frontier monitoring digital communications. IDF Golani units are deployed on the heights of this important bastion. The UNDOF force in the demilitarized has been routed during the six plus years of the Syrian civil war. Israel has provided humanitarian aid and medical assistance to Syrian civilians and casualties of opposition militias often treating them in field hospitals and in emergency cases sending them to hospitals in central Israel. The Syrian frontier on the Golan divides the Druze community, the Israeli branch of which are loyal citizens and yet understand the predicament of their cousins across the frontier.
There has been talk of establishment of so-called safe zones in southern Syria at the apex where Israel, Jordan and Israel meet. At issue is what international forces would staff it. Given the record of the UN peacekeepers it is dubious that it could effectively defend the suggested safe zones. Israel’s experience in the Lebanon wars indicates that it is not about to take on the responsibility of a security zone in Syria. The one in Lebanon ended disastrously in the pell mell withdrawal from the Southern security zone in 2000.
That apex at the conjunction of the three counties frontiers is now the target of the Islamic State. A recent Jewish Press report confirms the activity of Islamic State Salafist militia overrunning the apex area of Southern Syria, Jordan and Israel threatening the Golan frontier. It reports that the ISIS militia is lead by a Palestinian Salafist. While the IDF Chief of Staff Eizenkot would like the UNDOF to block further movement by the ISIS, their track record has been abysmal. Thus his assessment is that the IDF on the northern frontier could see intense fighting occur this spring.
Jonathan Schanzer and Marc Dubowitz crystallized in a Wall Street Journal article, “Golan,” stressing the vital importance of Israel’s sovereignty. They noted:
Benjamin Netanyahu has achieved his primary objective of resetting ties with the U.S. after eight years of tensions. True, the Israeli prime minister and Donald Trump still need to bridge the gap on issues such as Palestinian-Israeli diplomacy and West Bank settlements. But they seem to be on the same page on a broad range of regional matters.
That could lead to a breakthrough on an issue of strategic importance to Israel. According to reports of the two leaders’ meeting on Wednesday, Mr. Netanyahu asked for U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
The move makes sense for both sides. It would provide the Israeli government with a diplomatic win while helping the Trump administration signal to Russia and Iran that the U.S. is charting a new course in Syria.
[…]
By recognizing Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan, the Trump administration would signal to Russia that, while Washington may now coordinate with Moscow on activities such as fighting Islamic State, it doesn’t share Russia’s goals for Syria.
Moreover, it would show that the U.S. will take a tougher line on the provision of arms and intelligence to Iran and Hezbollah.
Recognition of Israel’s Golan claims would acknowledge that it needs these highlands to hold off a multitude of asymmetric and conventional military threats from Syria—and whatever comes after the war there. Israel continues to target Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah to prevent them from establishing a base of operations on the Syrian Golan.
Recognizing Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan would also soften the Palestinians’ core demand for a state within the 1967 borders. If an international border can be revised along the Syrian border, the Palestinians will have a harder time presenting the 1949 armistice line along the West Bank as inviolable.
Against this background we reached out to someone who knows the strategic importance of what Messrs. Schanzer and Dubowitz have espoused, Ambassador Yoram Ettinger former Israeli emissary in Washington involved with Congressional liaison.
Mike Bates
Mike Bates: Good afternoon welcome back to Your Turn, this is Mike Bates. We continue with our conversation, our Middle East round table discussion. With me in studio is Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review and his blog the Iconoclast.
Jerry Gordon
Jerry Gordon: Glad to be back.
Bates: And joining us by telephone from Israel is Yoram Ettinger, former Israeli Congressional Liaison.
Yoram Ettinger: Thank you very much.
Former Ambassador Yoram Ettinger
Bates: Ambassador Ettinger, from your perspective as a former Israeli Emissary involved with Congressional relations, how significant was the outcome of the joint press conference at the White House on January 15th?
Ettinger: I would say that the outcome of the meeting between the leaders of the US and Israel is very significant. It signals reconnection of the US administration with Middle Eastern reality after eight years – and more years – of assuming that the Palestinian issue is the core cause of regional turbulence and the crown jewel of Arab policymaking. Now there is an Administration that realizes, with all due respect, the Palestinian issue is not the primary or secondary, not even tertiary issue when it comes to Middle East priorities. The current administration seems to focus on the major threats to the US as well as to Western democracies and the regional and global stability. These are: Iran’s megalomaniacal aspirations and its aim to become a major nuclear power. Second is Islamic terrorism and third, the need to minimize the clear and present danger to every pro- American Arab regime in the middle east, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Bahrain and Oman.
On all of those issues – Iran, Islamic terrorism, and the need to stabilize the pro- American Arab regimes – Israel plays a very unique role. The question is, are you going to sacrifice the very essential cooperation between US and Israel on the altar of the Palestinian issue? It seems to me that President Trump and his advisors may or may not go along entirely with Israel’s view of the Palestinian issue. They are not going to sacrifice dire American national security interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue, which is not, is not, a core cause as far as Arab policymaking is concerned.
Bates: Ambassador Ettinger, I realize Israel is a democratic country, and like every democratic country, the people are not unified in their view of the world any more so in Israel as it is in the United States. But I’m curious. If you can generalize, what is the sense of the Israeli people to President Trump versus what we had for the previous eight years, President Obama?
Ettinger: Certainly Israel is highly diversified as far as ideology, as far as world view, even as far as Judaism is concerned. However, one should note that a major factor in Israel is a sense of patriotism. We see that on the occasion of wars, on the occasion of conflicts with Arab countries, and recently on the issue of the Palestinians. We see coalitions of all the big groups in Israel. In fact, something which is not common in the US. The majority of our special operation forces are very Dovish, and I emphasize very, very Dovish in their world view, and the majority of Israel’s combat pilots are also very Dovish.
And, their worldview has nothing to do with the fact that they are first to be called to serve during wartime, and they serve superbly.
When it comes to President Trump, the perception in Israel is that he is supportive of Israel. The public has accorded him at this point very significant support, unlike the case of the eight years with President Obama – when many Israelis sympathized with him as far as personality is concerned, maybe as it was reflected by television, newspapers, radio – but most Israelis were aware that as far as President Obama was concerned, Israel was not exactly one of his top positive priorities. When it comes to President Trump, the sense is that he does regard the Jewish State as a cardinal, positive element on his agenda.
Gordon: Ambassador, what is the danger of having a Palestinian state adjacent to the Jewish nation of Israel?
Ettinger: When it comes to Israel, the clear and present lethal threat is highlighted at this time of global instability, violence, and intolerance, tenuous agreements, tenuous regimes and policies. With a Palestinian state, Israel would be once again constrained to an eight-to-fifteen mile sliver along the Mediterranean, over-towered and dominated by the mountain ridges of the West Bank of Judea and Samaria. This is not exactly a prescription for long life expectancy. It’s a prescription for suicide, I believe.
But the key point is not what it means for Israel. For your American listeners, the issue is what would the impact be on America’s national security. And Americans should know when it comes to a Palestinian State, based on its track record, we are talking about a definite erosion of America’s authority in the Middle East and definite injury to very important American national security interests. For instance, there is the American-supported Hashemite monarchy in Jordan. A Palestinian State on the one hand and Hashemite regime in Jordan east of the Jordan River constitute an oxymoron.
Top Jordanian military officers made it very clear to their colleagues in Israel that the top priority of the Hashemites is to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Now the issue is not merely one more, or one less pro- American Arab regime. A change in regime in Jordan would cause tectonic ripple effects, which would not be limited only to Jordan, but a definite spill- over southward to Saudi Arabia and from Saudi Arabia to the rest of the pro- American Arab Gulf states.
This means that a Palestinian state could trigger ripple effects all the way into the Persian Gulf area, playing into the hands of Iran, also possibly into the hands of Russia and China and certainly adversely effecting America’s interest. It could create an Iranian block from Iran through Iraq, Jordan, all the way to fifteen miles from the Mediterranean. That would mean loss of pro- American control of two critical waterways, the Bab el Mandab and Hormuz Straits in the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf, two of the most critical waterways for oil tankers, which would have an impact on the global economy and American economies.
You might also find a guarantee of naval rights, landing rights for the Russian, possibly Iranian, maybe Chinese, naval and air force, in the eastern flank of the Mediterranean, which once again would undermine vital American interests.
All this is based on the track record of Palestinians, which includes the waves of terrorism in the 1920s, 30s, 40s; collaboration with the Nazis during the Second World War; collaboration with the USSR after the war; collaboration with Ayatollah Khomeini after the demise of the Shah of Iran; and very close ties with Russia, North Korea, China, Cuba, and Venezuela.
Bates: Ambassador Ettinger there was a recent The Wall Street Journal op-ed by Jonathan Schanzer and Mark Dubowitz of the Washington DC based Foundation for Defense of Democracies drew attention to the possibility of Israel asserting sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Why did Israel annex the Golan Heights in 1981 and what geo-political and national security significance does it have given the threats on the frontier from Iran’s proxy Hezbollah and Syrian Islamic opposition and ISIS?
Ettinger: First of all, the Golan Heights is not foreign terrain for the Jewish state. The Golan Heights is part of the Jewish homeland going back some 3,500 years . As far as contemporary strategy is concerned, there are only two options when it comes Golan: will it be part of Israel, controlled by Israel; or will it be a platform for rogue organizations, rogue regimes. There is no other option, although again in the wishful la-la land of some western policymakers, one could transform it into an international, neutral area. Certainly when you look at the Middle East there is no such thing as a neutral element or neutral space.
As far as the impact of the Golan Heights, once again on the region as a whole and on Israel. One can go back to 1970 when Syria was a major military Arab power, Syria invaded Jordan. With the US bogged down in Southeast Asia, there was no way it could stretch military hand and help the pro- American late King Hussain. They called Israel. Israel mobilized its troops and the following day – without firing a single shot, only through the posture of deterrence of the presence of Israel – the Syrian military withdrew back to Syria. That was possible because Israel controlled the Golan Heights in 1970, which meant we were at the point where we could reach Damascus and basically take over Syria.
Should Israel be off the Golan Heights, and once again there is violence which threatens pro-American Arab regime in Jordan, without the Golan (and certainly there would already be a Palestinian state), Israel would be in no position, have no power to exert any posture of deterrence to assist the US, assist pro-American Arab regimes. We are talking today about the proliferation of Islamic terrorist organizations, many of which operate in Syria, which means with proximity to the Golan Heights and should Israel get off Golan Heights, the only question would be: which rogue regime, which rogue organization, will then control the Golan Heights.
Bates: There is no question that the Golan Heights are critical to the security of Israel. I made a day trip through Golan Heights when I was in Tiberius a few years ago. It’s beautiful, sparsely populated area. It is of massive strategic importance. Why doesn’t the United States recognize the Golan Heights as part of Israel’s sovereign territory and is there any chance that will change under a Trump presidency?
Ettinger: It’s true that Golan Heights is critical for Israel’s national security, but it’s also true that it is very important for America’s own national security, America’s own posture of deterrence in the Middle East. Israel on the Golan Heights, Israel on the mountain ridges of Judea Samaria extends the strategic hand of the USA. With Israel off the Golan Heights and certainly off the mountain ridges of the West Bank, Israel is going to be transformed from a national security asset to a national security liability and a burden on the US. And the US is facing, in my mind, intensifying, and not reduced, threats due to the current trends in the Middle East and throughout the world. The US cannot rely on Europe which has lost its will power gradually – and is also losing its muscle. Israel is the only element in the Middle East upon which the US can rely. It is probably the most effective force anywhere in the world upon which the US can rely on.
Bates: No, question about it Ambassador.
Gordon: Ambassador, what is behind Israel’s emergence as a world leader in high tech global investments and its impact on the country’s economy?
Ettinger: Out of necessity, due to the attempt to strangle Israel territorially, militarily, economically; due to various attempts to boycott and sanction Israel; and due to real lack of natural resources, Israel had to rely on its brain power. We have managed not only to survive but we have managed to develop – I would say next to the US – a major global, high tech technological country, both commercially and militarily. Today, in Israel, we have 250 research and development centers operated by global high tech giants, most of them American, some European. These are the centers that develop for Intel and Microsoft, and Apple and Google, and other giants, the latest innovative technologies. Israel contributes to research and development in America, to the competitiveness of American industries in the global competition, and to America’s foundation of employment.
Bates: It is a huge benefit, Ambassador. We have been speaking with Jerry Gordon of the New English Review and its blog the Iconoclast and with Ambassador Yoram Ettinger. You can find Ambassador Ettinger online at www.theettingerreport.com.
Thanks so much for joining us this afternoon on 1330amWEBY
Listen to the broadcast, here.
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.
The Truth about the termination San Antonio ACT for America Chapter Leader — LTC Roy White
This column exposes how the ACT for America National leadership decided to terminate their ACT San Antonio, Texas chapter leader LTC Roy White, USAF (Retired).
DISCLAIMER: Over ten years ago I was ACT chapter leader in Sarasota County, Florida. I worked with the former senior staff of ACT including Guy Rogers and Kelly Cook, both of whom have left ACT. LTC White has been a contributor to this publication and we have obtained information from LTC White and other sources which detail how his termination was handled.
Readers may come to their own conclusions about this termination of a highly successful volunteer, ACT chapter leader and its impact on ACT for America national leadership and goals.
This column is based upon what actually happened in real time. It is a jumping off point for a further investigation and a discussion of the mission, vision and role of ACT for America national.
The Cause for LTC White’s Firing
On Thursday, February 23rd, 2017 ACT for America San Antonio scheduled its monthly meeting. The speaker was Karen Lugo, Constitutional attorney and author of the book Mosques in America. Ms. Lugo is a recognized speaker based upon her experiences of how building codes, zoning ordinances are often not adhered to when it comes to Islamic facilities under construction and how citizens can learn from these experiences. The promotion for the event may be found here and here.
On Thursday, February 23rd LTC White was removed as the San Antonio Chapter Leader of ACT for America for failing to follow Mr. J. Craig, ACT for America’s Director Field Operations, recommendation to “cancel the meeting.”
Read Mr Craig’s letter terminating LTC White here.
The Changing Narrative for LTC White’s Firing
Text messages from January 21st to January 24th between LTC White and Mr. Craig show the reasons for directing LTC White to cancel the meeting changed over time:
- “Bad messaging”, “looks bad with the media” perceptions created by the CAIR press release (phone conversation between Mr. Craig and LTC White)
- “Shutting down mosques” are words used by Mr. Craig but not by LTC White in two emails.
- “Legal action against ACT”.
Resignation Notification to ACT for America
According to LTC White:
“I informed Mr. Craig I would be resigning from ACT for America upon my return home from my meeting on the evening of February 23rd via text message at 1:12 PM. Accepting my resignation would’ve resulted in far less ammunition being given to the Islamists.”
LTC White texted Mr. Craig, “After I return tonight I will submit my letter of resignation. You want have to fire me. No hard feelings.”
Observations
This link is to a few of the nearly 200 persons who attended the actual event.
Brigitte Gabriel has inspired thousands of persons over the years to stand up to CAIR and the Islamists who continue to push their Sharia compliant agenda. It seems something has changed at ACT.
When one of ACT’s most capable and loyal chapter leaders is subsequently fired for putting those words into action, it is clear they don’t want leaders, they want “puppets” for ACT National to use as donor collection sites to fund a never ending thirst for money and donors.
Brigitte has preached against political correctness (PC) speech about Islam for years. There is nothing more non-PC than holding meetings despite CAIR press releases. ACT is undergoing change. This shift occurred at the same time a $500,000 anonymous donation was made in late 2016. Has that donation come with strings attached?
LTC White noted:
“I expect taking criticism from CAIR and other Islamic groups. I just never thought I’d receive such vicious attacks from my own organization.
A veteran of 20 years, I’ve met as many or more great patriots in my last seven years as I did with the patriots I served with in my twenty years as a veteran.
It is an honor to call John Guandolo, Clare Lopez, Lt Gen Michael Flynn, Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, Steve Coughlin, Jim Simpson, Nonie Darwish, Mayor Beth Van Duyne, Karen Lugo and too many more as friends. To have them share their perspectives with my San Antonio members is something I will continue to do.
I add to this list all of the great patriots, Chapter Leaders, mentors, former ACT National staff and most importantly my local ACT for America members who have loyally made our Chapter so strong and a target for CAIR. You have my undying respect for being in the fight.”
What Donors Should be Asking
- ACT for America needs less “cult-like” mentality and more transparency. Donors should ask what is actually being accomplished by ACT for America. Merely following a fiery speaker because he or she has a great stump speech is of little long term value to this country.
- Donors should demand to see real results, not speeches that provoke emotion. Demand transparency.
- Determine if the leadership or the National staff is directly involved in those “wins” or merely cheerleaders on the sideline taking credit for the victories by their unpaid volunteers. Those successes are then touted by National in mailings to gain dollars that never return to the local level but go into the National coffer.
ACT’s New Buzzword: “Messaging” – What it Really Means is “Political Correctness”
It is my assessment that political speak had crept into the ACT lexicon ten years ago and most recently “messaging” has replaced the very unpopular phrase “political correctness” at ACT national. Conference calls and Chapter Leader emails provide a chilling narrative of controlling the “message”. In LTC White’s case telling the truth about Islam and mosques. In this case ACT treated LTC White like the enemy because he wanted the truth to be told to his members and brought a nationally recognized speaker on mosques to speak to them about the threat.
ACT for America accomplished what CAIR and the SPLC wanted to accomplish, eliminate one of ACT’s most outspoken and effective chapter leaders.
It is no surprise CAIR attempts to intimidate religious leaders to shut down ACT meetings in San Antonio by asking religious leaders such as Rabbi Scheinberg of Rodfei Shalom Synagogue (link here) or Pastor Steve Branson of Village Parkway Baptist Church (link here) to deny ACT a meeting location. It is a credit to these fine men and congregations they don’t back down from CAIR.
What I, as a former ACT chapter leader nor LTC White, didn’t expect is to have ACT for America, via Mr. Craig, kowtow to CAIR and shut down the truth from being spoken.
Leaders who lean forward and have earned the organization’s trust with a proven track record shouldn’t be fired for telling the truth. LTC White was an ACT Mentor for the last two years. He traveled thousands of miles sharing ACT’s vision including visits with the author. Yet because CAIR sends out a press release, Mr. Craig and ACT National demands demanded that LTC White cancel a meeting for bad “messaging?”
ACT can regain some credibility among its members and donors by doing the following:
- Immediately remove those key persons from leadership positions who executed this decision or have those above them accept responsibility publicly. LTC White was willing to resign over his decision, ACT national leadership needs to be willing to do the same. From conversations with ACT members (click here to read letters from ACT members) a consensus is forming that National leadership should be removed as their trustworthiness and credibility with members and chapter leaders has dramatically declined. What chapter leader wants to stick his or her head out only to have it chopped off by ACT national?
- Recall the February 23rd message sent to ALL CHAPTER LEADERS. A new message acknowledging ACT’s rush to judgement in firing LTC White and an apology restoring his honor and credibility in the eyes of ACT Chapter Leaders needs to be sent out.
- Recall press releases that dealt with this situation and send out an acknowledgement of ACT’s rush to judgement in firing LTC White and announcing his departure from ACT as a loyal and patriot in the fight against the spread of Islamic ideology that threatens the U.S. Constitution.
I believe ACT for America has the potential to do great work in protecting the U.S. Constitution but it won’t meet that potential without internal changes.
ACT for America is nothing without its donors, members and Chapter Leaders. They should demand the following actions be taken. If not taken by June 1st, 2017 with a completion of all tasks by August 2017, members and chapter leaders should re-consider their support of ACT for America. Here are some thoughts:
- Ask for Chapter Leader volunteers (not ACT National staff or leaders) to create a poll asking a series of questions, a “Climate Survey”, of what is right and what is wrong within ACT. This would include reorganization and allocation of resources to those areas that support the local ACT Chapter much more directly than current practices. Publish those results with an action plan with dollars attached to that action plan. Present those results and the plan to donors and members so they can see if ACT is serious about changing course.
- Devise a 2-3 month long training program with the help of Chapter Leader Mentors for potential ACT Chapter Leaders that upon successful graduation new Chapter Leader applicants are awarded a chapter certification increasing the chances of success for their chapter, a suggestion previously made by me but was never approved.
- Provide a more accurate account to members, the public and to donors the number of chapters in ACT for America. The 1000+ number includes inactive chapters and inactive chapters are worthless except when it comes to making false claims about how large an organization claims to be. ACT for America must become more transparent and that means being honest. To be listed as an ACT for America chapter on the website a chapter must do one of the following:
- At least quarterly conduct an actual meeting with speakers or action oriented activities, (lobby in the State Capitol, attend an interfaith dialogue event…it doesn’t have to be just a speaker).
- Conduct an online conference call, live Facebook, YouTube presentations or web conference calls to those in each chapter area.
- Produce a local newsletter, email or publication related to ACT for America on a quarterly basis.
Donors, members and Chapter Leaders will have to decide on whether to stay with ACT for America or not if these recommendations are not accepted and accomplished. If chapter leaders can’t trust national leadership, what’s the point?
However, here is hope beyond ACT. As the saying goes, God works in mysterious ways.
Iran is home to the fastest growing Evangelical Christian growth in the world at nearly 20%. Afghanistan is the second fastest at 17% thanks to men like Dr. Hormoz Shariat at Iran Alive Ministries and other non-profits like Open Doors, The Voice of the Martyrs and many other religious groups who are risking their lives everyday.
In the U.S. groups like Dr. Mark Pfeiffer at The Christian Institute for Islamic Studies or Reverend Joe Carey at Radical Truth are providing the knowledge to Christians who are fighting to win the souls of Muslims in bringing them to the Lord and training church congregations on how to do that in their own community.
LTC White believes that, “The most successful way to keep anyone from becoming a Jihadist is to introduce them to the Lord but that takes a special skill and these groups and others are on the front lines teaching congregations how to win the most important battle, the one for their souls. The most effective way to keep a prevent a non-Sharia compliant Muslim to become a Sharia compliant jihadist is to touch their spiritual nature through Christ. Would Jews be upset if a Muslim leaves a ideology that teaches to kill Jews and Christians who converts to a faith that says to love all persons, Jews, Christians and Muslims? I would think my persons of all faith would be quite happy about that change of heart.”
ACT doesn’t have to do what these other groups do but ACT members who wish to share this information shouldn’t be stifled to talk about the spiritual battle going on at their meetings nor discouraged from bringing in guest speakers who can provide hope in this area.
Pastor Hibbs, a great spiritual leader and who understands Islam very well, spoke at last year’s ACT National Conference and was a refreshing voice. If it’s fine for him to speak at a National conference then local chapter speakers should be encouraged to do the same. ACT touts “43 bills passed in 22 states” as its badge of honor of accomplishments. Those thousands of volunteers who worked hard to make that happen but that all pales when compared to the number of souls saved by Christian groups like those above.
In closing, this the timeline of events and communications between Mr. Craig and LTC White. The emails referenced above are for those interested in the getting into the weeds. This column is an attempt to lay out the changing narratives and the behavior of Mr. Craig. In his defense, he may only be the messenger.
LTC White said, “I have no ill feelings toward Mr. Craig or anyone at ACT for America. He comes from a background of political campaigning and insulating a candidate from negative publicity is understandable, even if the truth is being told. That can never be the standard we use in this fight…the truth is all we have and it is all we need.”
The source for ACT for America’s strength in its members and chapter leaders.
LTC White concluded our interview saying his strength,
“Comes from my abiding faith in my God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
The journey I started in 2009 that led me to begin studying Islam after my time as serving the children of Snowball Express as President and Chairman has been a true blessing. I’m thankful and appreciative of ACT for America and Brigitte Gabriel for adding to my wealth of knowledge.
This baptism of fire has made me a stronger believer and made me realize the spiritual battle is the only way to truly win this war.
In fact, the great victories against Islam are occurring on the spiritual battlefront.” [Emphasis added]
RELATED DOCUMENT: Personal Message from Brigitte
RELATED VIDEO: Lieutenant Colonel Roy White’s presentation at the AFA Conference, August 21, 2016.
Carbon Dioxide is the ‘Elixir of Life’
Kevin Mooney in his column “Group Defends Carbon Dioxide as ‘Elixir of Life’ in Climate Change Debate” reports:
Forget everything government officials, many media outlets, and “activist scientists” have warned about the damaging effects of carbon dioxide, because in reality there’s no cause for alarm, a group called the CO2 Coalition urges.
Scientists, engineers, and policy analysts who are part of the nonprofit organization turned out in force Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, outside Washington.
“Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant, it is in fact the very elixir of life,” Craig Idso, a science adviser to the CO2 Coalition, said during a panel discussion at CPAC exploring the benefits attached to higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
The CO2 Coalition, founded in 2015, describes its mission as “educating thought leaders, policymakers, and the public about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy.”
[ … ]
“Adding CO2 to the atmosphere enhances plant water use efficiency,” he said.
Increased levels of carbon dioxide could boost plant growth and make plants more resistant to droughts, he said. This could lead to increased food production, which in turn could offset projected food shortages.
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore testified before the U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on February 25, 2014. During his statement for the record Dr. Moore said:
‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.
‘Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species…It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.’
Earth’s Geologic History Fails CO2 Fears: ‘The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming…When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.’
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore also stated that oil is the ‘most important source of energy to support our civilization.’ Dr. Moore said, “If it is the aim of ‘environmentalists’ to stop fossil fuel production and use, end fracking, end coal mining, end use of oil, then they are promoting a policy that would have disastrous consequences for human civilization & the environment. If we stopped using fossil fuel today, or by 2020 as Gore proposes, at least half the human population would perish & there wouldn’t be a tree left on planet within a year, as people struggled to find enough energy to stay alive…”
The New American (TNA) interviewed Princeton University Professor William Happer on the notion that CO2 is a pollutant and is the cause of climate change, formally known as global warming. TNA reports:
Physics Professor William Happer discredits the negative effects of CO2 on the planet and whether or not climate change is man-made. He also goes into detail of why the United Nation’s models are incorrect despite their overwhelming confidence that significant warming is taking place due to human activity.
John Casey, author and former NASA rocket scientist, has taught me three facts about the climate:
- The climate changes.
- The changes are cyclical.
- There is nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles.
As John notes the only thing that mankind can do is prepare for these changes using good science and the best climate prediction tools to warn us of the coming changes.
End of story. Let the real science begin!
RELATED VIDEO: Tucker Carlson versus Bill Nye (Feb. 27, 2017).
VIDEO: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. thinks President Trump ‘can be the greatest president in history’
CNN’s Don Lemon started by asking Robert f. Kennedy Jr. how he felt about comparisons between the Trump family and the Kennedy’s. Of course Lemon assumed that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would shoot down that line of thinking down.
Lemon wasn’t prepared for what came next.
“Well I think Donald Trump can be any kind of president he wants. He has this extraordinary opportunity because he’s coming into office less burdened by obligation than probably any president in our history, with the possible exception of Andrew Jackson,” Robert f. Kennedy Jr. said.
“Both of them, Jackson and Trump, came in, people were sickened, people were outraged, and he became, unless you were an American Indian, a very good president at defending the country against corporate power, and really democratizing American in many ways.
“He said to Leonardo di Caprio that he wants to be the next Teddy Roosevelt, and he can easily do that.“
Lemon was in shock at this point, and wasn’t sure how to fill the final seconds of the interview. He stumbled and asked a question that didn’t even make sense: “Do you think the new Kennedys, do you think that’s a fair competition?”
“Like I said, I think he can be any kind of president he wants, I think he can be the greatest president in history,” Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said.
A liberal environmental lawyer praising Trump? And he’s a top Democrat and a Kennedy? It doesn’t get any worse for CNN and liberals.
RELATED ARTICLE: Jacksonian Ideas That Would Make America Great Again
Hollywood Elites become Major Propaganda Arm for the Islamic Republic of Iran
My two cents worth!
To get an Oscar award, keep silent toward the inhumane acts of the Islamic Republic of Iran but slam the American government, you get an Oscar without even deserving it.
Islamic Republic of Iran’s film director, Asghar Farhadi who would not protest against the atrocities by the Islamic Republic of Iran in the last 38 years, sends a warning letter to Trump condemning U.S. Immigration ban.
Asghar Farhadi (right) with Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei.
Has Mr. Farhadi ever sent a strong letter to Khamenei condemning crimes against humanity in Iran and the Middle East by the Islamic Republic?
The Islamic Republic of Iran’s Asghar Farhadi was awarded once again by Hollywood but the voiceless people of Iran were again and completely abandoned. Was this Oscar sponsored by the Islamic Republic of Iran for the waste of time movie “salesman”?
Iranian film director Asghar Farhadi took advantage of Western democracy and our freedom of speech to verbally attack President Trump with Anger and hate and a politically motivated message, but had Mr. Farhadi the same courage in Iran he would be immediately get arrested by the same regime he has been defending.
This is how sinister the pawns of the Islamic republic of Iran are: This article proves how Asghar Farhadi used the last OSCAR to campaign for Iran regime’s Nuke Deal and be their mouthpiece while in “America”.
This year, Asghar Farhadi was awarded with an Oscar to ONLY slam President Trump and to avoid the human rights violations by the Islamic Republic of Iran, the leading State sponsor of terrorism, and number one in the world with its human rights violation records.
Neither Asghar Farhadi nor Ms. Anousheh Ansari had the courage to stand for the voiceless people of Iran, especially people in Khouzestan where the entire WORLD could hear their message, but Instead Farhadi’s message was directed against Trump and was filled with hate and anger just like the language of the regime.
Farhadi had not even tried to obtain visa to USA but instead Iran lobby NGO, NIAC paved the road to an Oscar for him and their supported regime, so the Islamic republic of Iran could be on the spotlights and be cherished.
This Oscar was a political showcase that had done nothing to do with Farhadi’s film itself but a political action taken by anti-Trump Liberal Hollywood against President Trump.
Muslim Iranian Farhadi calls it an“inhumane” law that bans immigrants to the U.S.” Farhadi should be reminded that immigration to the U.S. or visiting the U.S. is not a right but a privilege. Mr. Farhadi needs to be reminded what his own Government is doing to his own people and that many dual citizen Iranians are taken as hostage by the Islamic Republic and are banned from leaving Iran. Farhadi needs to be reminded what the Islamic republic of Iran’s been doing to religious and ethnic minorities and Afghan refugees living in Iran.
Anousheh Ansari
The Iran regime lobby has been advocating for the Islamic republic through the educated Iranian Americans such as Ms. Anoosheh Ansari and Dr. Firouz Naderi who carry the bidding of the Islamic Republic but failed to acknowledge that many Iranian nationals are banned entry to Iran by the very same regime.
Let those Iranians who lack principals and ethics be proud of Mr. Farhadi and the Government he represents but it is obvious that this Oscar was only a defiance, and a political agenda using Farhadi against Trump not because Farhadi really deserved the award. If Iranians living abroad had shown so much enthusiasm, unity and support they are showing for an Iranian film director, I bet Iran would have been freed decades ago sand maybe the nation could also HOST an Oscar.
Watch Mark Dice, Author and Media Analyst speaking about the propaganda of Hollywood and Islamic Republic of Iran at this year’s OSCAR.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Actresses Emma Stone and Dakota Johnson Promote Planned Parenthood at the Oscars
RELATED VIDEO: Tackling the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Moral Clarity: Get the Feds Out of Bathrooms
Sometimes it is astonishing to see where we are as a country, that somehow we cannot find moral clarity on the idea that a man should not be allowed to use women’s or even girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms and showers.
But that is where we are.
First, perhaps, it would be good to clarify what transgender actually refers to. This will take a moment, because even on this point, clarity is elusive.
According to Wikipedia’s rather extensive entry on transgenderism, there is this to get the enlightenment rolling:
“…in addition to including people whose gender identity is the opposite of their assigned sex (trans men and trans women), it may include people who are not exclusively masculine or feminine (people who are genderqueer, e.g. bigender, pangender, genderfluid, or agender). Other definitions of transgender also include people who belong to a third gender, or conceptualize transgender people as a third gender. Infrequently, the term transgender is defined very broadly to include cross-dressers, regardless of their gender identity. Being transgender is independent of sexual orientation: transgender people may identify as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, etc., or may consider conventional sexual orientation labels inadequate or inapplicable.”
Ok, there really is no clarifying the absolute hash we’ve made of gender identities and sexual proclivities deemed alternatively acceptable.
However, there is some moral clarity to be had on this issue.
Fundamental right and wrong
Common sense dictates this most obvious of all statements: A male with all the physiological package of a male should use the male bathroom and locker room facilities, regardless of how he feels about himself at any given moment. Science, decency and “well, duh” normal thinking dictate this truth.
Alas, that is not what President Obama thought when he ordered the schools to open up bathrooms, locker rooms and showers — the news accounts just focus on the bathrooms — to transgender people. I suspect most Americans are not buying into this, at the moment, but enough activists are that they provided cover for friendly media coverage for the policy.
However, all we need to do is think this through clearly, stepping away from power politics and emotional appeals based on a tiny number of people, to find clarity.
These laws pose an existential threat to women and girls. The threat does not have to come from transgenders, although it may. The laws themselves open pedophile portals, avenues for voyeurism and worse. Despite what you may hear, be guided by this reality: Most teen girls are not going to be comfortable changing and showering with anatomical boys — regardless of how the boy may identify.
Rights right and wrong
The media coverage of Trump overturning Obama’s Title IX guidance on transgenders using the bathroom of their choice, and other single-sex school facilities (which would be politically translatable beyond schools) is labeled transgender rights or LGBT rights. So naturally, Trump is seen as taking away rights.
But that is the wrong label, even wrong concept.
The word “rights” invokes powerful feelings and desires. There are rights we have as humans. Thomas Jefferson and other founders called them “unalienable rights,” meaning they cannot be separated from the person. They saw them as given by God to every man (yes, a huge error, now corrected, was committed on the point of slavery for the sake of colonial unity) and government cannot give or take those kinds of rights. They are inherent in being human.
The founders embedded this understanding in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
The founders did not see governments as granters of rights, but as the largest threat to squash rights. They had, and still have, history on their side in that assessment.
Government makes laws determining what is legal and illegal. Sometimes, they make something legal that abridges the rights of others. Society at times agrees that this tradeoff is worth it (taxes, for instance) while other times society is rancorously divided (legalized abortion) for instance.
These laws are not unalienable. What government can give (Obama’s guidance) government can take away (Trump’s reversal) because those are simple executive policy decisions. No one’s rights were infringed on the reversal.
However, we have changed our definition of rights in recent years — often for political gain — and split rights into special subgroups. That resulted in pitting some groups’ rights against other groups’ rights through laws and policies. Gay rights conflict with religious people’s rights. Transgender rights conflict with women’s and children’s safety rights. And so on. This has created tremendous conflict in our nation — to the benefit of a select few.
If we could return to basic rights as unalienable from every person — no subgroups — we would be in a better place to judge what is best for all in laws and policies, and gain the added benefit of increased unity.
Clarity becomes easy
With this understanding, we return to the question of transgenders — and whoever else — being allowed to use bathroom facilities opposite of their genital package.
Realistically, women using men’s bathrooms and showers would be extremely rare, and it would be even more rare to be seen as threatening to men if they did. So the real danger is men using women’s facilities, and this is where there actually is a potential rights infringement.
Under the rubric of “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,” being comfortable in the bathroom is not a right. It is not unalienable, and being uncomfortable does not undermine the Declaration’s declaration. This is true for transgenders in bathrooms and it is true for non-transgenders in bathrooms with someone of the opposite sex. It simply doesn’t fall in the rights category.
However, any man or men being allowed in the same changing and showering facilities with women, does pose a very real physical threat. As much as we might want it to not be the case, everything we know tells us that a statistically significant percentage of men are sexual predators, primarily against women and girls, but sometimes against boys, too. The percentage of women in this category is not zero, but is negligent.
Government legally allowing potentially predatory males into women’s facilities presents a very real physical-harm threat against women and girls. That becomes an infringement of a basic human right to life, ensconced in the Declaration, throughout the Constitution, and accepted by the American public.
On this basis alone, allowing transgenders — but understand, please, that means any man who chooses — to have access to women’s bathrooms violates basic human rights we all agree on. And on that basis alone, Trump was right to reverse Obama’s policy.
RELATED ARTICLE: Plumbing the Depths of the Bathroom Debate
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.
VIDEOS: An Incomprehensible and Vexing Question
This is an incomprehensible and vexing question. If you know the answer I look forward to your enlightening me.
The minds of the liberal American Jews are especially incomprehensible and vexing, but so are the minds of black Americans, who have been screwed by Democrats since the days of slavery on, only switching to soft bigotry in 1965.
Suppose the Communists had deposed Hitler and were hunting the Nazis down, killing them or shipping them off to gulags (meaning “concentration camps”). And suppose a great many Nazis managed to flee the country. Would the Jews have besieged the government and the media pressuring the government to allow unlimited numbers of them to enter to the U.S. as refugees? After all, “we too have been refugees.” Would that have even been rational?
That is exactly what most American Jews today are doing, but the Nazis this time are Islamo-Nazis, literally. The Muslim Brotherhood is the Islamic branch of the Nazi Movement, unrepentant and unpunished. The founder of the Brotherhood, Hassan al-Bannah, teamed up with the Nazis in the early 1930’s and grew under Nazi tutelage. Google the parameters bannah nazi and read what comes up.
Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin el-Husseini meeting with Adolf Hitler.
The infamous Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Haj Amin el-Husseini, had connected to the Muslim Brotherhood in the early 1930’s and was the undisputed creator and leader of the Palestinian national movement. He went to Berlin in 1941, was received by Hitler personally, and forged an alliance with him. He raised Islamic divisions for the Waffen SS and was to rule the Middle East under Hitler when Germany should conquer it, and he was to be the one to carry out the Final Solution to the Jewish Question in the Middle East. He and the Muslim Brotherhood taught the Nazis how to address their message to the Muslim world and, for their part, they imbibed the full range and richness of European Jew hatred. There is a reason why the Islamic terrorist organizations use the Nazi salute. They are, quite literally, Islamo-Nazis.
Not all Muslims are Islamo-Nazis, but polls show that the percentage of Muslims living in Islamic majority countries who have “unfavorable views of Jews” ranges from 60% to 100%. They are assiduously and intensely taught, from infancy, to hate Jews and that Jews should be killed for the fact of being Jews. The result is described quite well, by Pat Condell, A Special Kind Of Hate.
In truth, this is nothing new and it applies especially to Jews but not only to Jews. Mass murder of all non-Muslims is endemic to Islamic rule. Islamic rule in India is emblematic. It is an on-going phenomenon. Here is a more recent example.
The Islamic fundamentalist jihadis are driving the Jews out of Europe. Are Jews in America so sure they will not do the same in America that they view it as repugnant racism to even vett them for terrorists? The Jews seem to be so deeply brainwashed that they cannot see the difference between the Muslim “refugees” and their own grandmothers fleeing the Holocaust.