Helpful Wives: Ted Is An ‘Immigrant’ and Kenya Is Barack’s ‘Home Country’

I had planned to do a piece on why I (and countless other staunch Conservatives) support Donald Trump, but then I heard Heidi Cruz talk about her husband, saying, “Ted is an immigrant. He is Hispanic.” and I had to weigh in.  Hearing her tout this immediately brought to mind Michelle Obama’s betrayal of her own husband’s apparent birth place when she proudly offered, while speaking to the LGBT Delegate, The World as it Should Be, “Barack has led by example. When we took our trip to Africa, and visited his ‘home country’ in Kenya, we took a public HIV test.”

The latter, of course, was confirmed by Obama’s publicist, Dystel & Goderich, in official brochures in both 2003 and 2007, which noted that “He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago.”

This was only further corroboration of the fact that virtually the entire African continent claimed the then-new U.S. President as its own native son…but I digress!

Referring once more to Heidi Cruz’s offering, spokeswoman Catherine Frazier later explained: “As she has in numerous speeches over and over, Heidi was referring to Ted as being the son of an immigrant.”  Fair enough. “Jane, Joan, whatever!” – for those who remember the 1995 Bud Light commercial (well worth watching again!).

Some years back I heard Ayn Rand Institute President, Yaron Brook, speak at the Tea Party Annual Conference, held in Phoenix, AZ.  He said something that should resonate with ever Constitutional Conservative, when he pointed out that, “Before Congress ever considers taking up any law, the members should ask themselves one question: Do we, under the Constitution, have the authority to consider this?”

While that is a paraphrase from memory, the rationale for asking such a question is undeniable. With respect to a Presidential Candidate, I’d suggest that we ask a similar question, before asking anything else:  Is he or she eligible, under the Constitution, to hold this high office?  I suggest that the rationale for asking this question is also undeniable.

The Left (and now, apparently, many on the Right) prove the overriding significance of the stiffer requirements for becoming Commander in Chief, by referring to Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5, as the “stupidest,” or “worst” provision in the Constitution,” etc., etc.

In his 1995 article, found in the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, Professor Robert Post, Dean of the Yale Law School (not Harvard, but close) transparently reveals the following: “Without doubt Joseph Story correctly identified the purpose of this prohibition as cutting ‘off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.’ ” (That is taken from Joseph Story’s celebrated, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, page 541.)

So, while Dean/Professor Post seeks to dismiss this as the “Constitution’s Worst Provision,” he helpfully, at least, points out its precise and, frankly, self-evident purpose; something only mentioned by the clause’s current detractors (mostly on the “Right” these days) in a derogatory fashion, as does the good professor here.  In other words, these constitutional “scholars” never mention the clause’s obvious and critical purpose – to prevent a person with potentially-divided (“foreign”) loyalties from becoming “the Command in chief of the american army” (in the words of John Jay) – except to deride it.

As a particularly relevant aside, I will note that the current occupant of the Oval Office – who has, for the most part succeeded in “fundamentally transforming” the once-greatest nation on earth, mocking and destroying its spiritual foundations, wrecking its economy, trampling on its Constitution/laws, and decimating its military – would have been the very poster child for the type of man the framers were seeking to preclude from ever becoming our Commander in Chief…in spite of his great “love” for America. As a further aside, if Mitt (short for Mittens?) Romney had ever had the courage to lash out at Michelle’s Barack in that manner, he may well have been the nation’s 45th President, rather than the man he has recently excoriated…a little too much, but also too late!

So let’s end this by answering the question:  Is Heidi’s Ted eligible to hold the highest office in the land?  While it seems that a preponderance of courageous “Conservatives” have taken up the pen to pronounce Mr. Cruz’s eligibility “settled science,” we can dismiss this assertion by answering a single question:  If the higher constitutional bar of “natural born citizen,” set exclusively for the President and Commander in Chief [Senators and Congressmen need only be “citizens”], can be met by one born of not two, but only one U.S. citizen parent, in a foreign land, outside of our national boundaries, then what could possibly be the lower citizenship bar included in the Constitution?

Well, that is simple. The only possible lower bar would be for one to be born outside of the United States to no U.S. citizen parent.  That, of course, can be done, via the process of naturalization…but there were yet no “naturalized” citizens at the time of the writing or the adoption of the Constitution, and yet the Constitution itself recognizes two other distinct types of citizens in its language (including that of Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5): normal, if you will, “citizens,” and “natural born citizens.”

Clearly one born abroad of only a single U.S. citizen parent would not qualify as the clearly more exclusive class of “natural-born citizens.” So that is essentially all a reasonable person needs to know about the “settled science” of this critical issue…and if the constitutional eligibility of the Commander in Chief of the United States military is not an important issue, or matter of grave concern, I can’t honestly imagine what would be!

RELATED VIDEO: Michelle Obama states that her husband Barack’s home country is Kenya – full statement:

trump and the media book coverEDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Western Journalism. The featured image is of Heidi Cruz and Michelle Obama.

To learn more about this critical issue, please read the author’s most recent book, Trump vs. The Political/Media Establishment: The Establishment vs. The Rule of Law.  Author T. M. Ballantyne Jr. has written a half-dozen previous books, including Oh Really, O’Reilly! and Uncommon Sense…Apparently! – also available on Amazon.

A Trump Executive Speaks: ‘The Trump Family That I Know’ [Video]

Lynne4A black woman who is an executive with the Eric Trump Foundation posted a YouTube video titled, “The Trump Family That I Know.” Here name is Lynne M. Patton.

Ms. Patton [pictured right] is the Director of The Eric Trump Foundation and an Assistant to Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

Her responsibilities include acquiring ETF’s celebrity entertainment, high-end donations and overseeing the planning all major fundraising events for The Eric Trump Foundation.  Lynne Patton also identifies and develops viable partnerships/research projects with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and played a critical role in ETF’s decision to donate $20 million dollars specifically for the construction of The Eric Trump Foundation Surgery & ICU Center.  Lynne oversees all social media responsibilities for The Eric Trump Foundation and assists the Trump family with respect to the same.  Lynne played a primary role in helping to cast the 2012 & 2014 seasons of The Celebrity Apprentice, as produced by Mark Burnett Productions, NBC and Trump Productions.  Prior to joining The Trump Organization in 2009…

Read more about Lynne M. Patton.

‘Climate Hustle’ attacked by ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel, drops ‘F-Bomb’ – I Challenge Him to Watch Film & Apologize

It is obvious Mr. Kimmel has not seen ‘Climate Hustle’ or he would have known better than to recite the same propaganda litany of climate ‘facts’ which the movie deals with head-on. Using a video of cursing scientists warning of a tired litany of doom, using terms like ‘apocalyptic’; ‘catastrophic’; and ‘extremely dire’ was bland and predictable and the very reason that ‘Climate Hustle’ was made.

Apparently, Kimmel thinks failure to believe in man-made global warming fears is akin to not believing in gravity or yogurt. Odd.

Mr. Kimmel, I challenge you to watch ‘Climate Hustle’ and issue an apology for your climate pabulum that you spewed to viewers. ‘Climate Hustle’ was made to counter the very boilerplate rants that you, Mr. Kimmel, engaged in. The public needs to view ‘Climate Hustle’ if, for no other reason, than to hear Mr. Kimmel’s climate talking points dismantled. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

By Craig Bannister – May 3, 2016

When critics trash a film, they’ve usually actually seen it – but, not ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel. So, the filmmaker of movie debunking climate hysteria is challenging Kimmel to attend a private screening.

The “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” host used seven minutes of his Monday show to mock a climate skeptic’s film he obviously hadn’t seen – since he repeats the very alarmist talking points the film debunks.

Kimmel bashed “Climate Hustle,” a climate skeptic film that aired in 400 theaters nationwide Monday, by making misleading, unsupportable, and inaccurate claims, and personally attacking Gov. Sarah Palin for supporting the film.

He then aired a two-minute climate change advocacy “message” featuring scientists dropping the “F-Bomb” to insult anyone skeptical of man-made climate change.

Kimmel’s rant against “Climate Hustle” displays a complete ignorance of the content of the film – and deploys the same shopworn deceitful and mean-spirited tactics the film exposes and addresses.

In “Climate Hustle”:

  • Former U.N. Climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. explains how, since alarmists can’t debate the facts, they attack the messenger (as Kimmel personally insults Palin and the scientists drop the F-Bomb on skeptics),
  • The “97% scientific consensus” claim Kimmel cites is revealed to be the product of slanted methodology – one of which didn’t even poll 97 scientists,
  • Kimmel’s “hottest years ever” claim is dismantled and debunked,
  • The Big Money driving climate influence is shown to be on the activist side – in terms of grants, research funding, alarmist advocacy, etc. – not, as Kimmel claims, coming from corporate “polluters,” and
  • Renowned dissenting scientists (including a Nobel Laureate and a moon-mission astronaut) share data and analysis debunking climate hysteria – not the ignorant, average slobs Kimmel accuses his dissenting viewers of being.

In response to Kimmel’s uninformed, agenda-driven rant on national television, “Climate Hustle” producer, writer and host Marc Morano is challenging Kimmel to view the film.

Morano tells MRCTV:

“It is obvious Mr. Kimmel has not seen ‘Climate Hustle’ or he would have known better than to recite the same propaganda litany of climate ‘facts’ which the movie deals with head-on. Using a video of cursing scientists warning of a tired litany of doom, using terms like ‘apocalyptic’; ‘catastrophic’; and ‘extremely dire’ was bland and predictable and the very reason that ‘Climate Hustle’ was made.

“Apparently, Kimmel thinks failure to believe in man-made global warming fears is akin to not believing in gravity or yogurt. Odd.

“Mr. Kimmel, I challenge you to watch ‘Climate Hustle’ and issue an apology for your climate pabulum that you spewed to viewers. ‘Climate Hustle’ was made to counter the very boilerplate rants that you, Mr. Kimmel, engaged in. The public needs to view ‘Climate Hustle’ if, for no other reason, than to hear Mr. Kimmel’s climate talking points dismantled.

“Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.”

“If Jimmy Kimmel is actually interested in the facts, he’ll step up and watch the film, instead of continuing to recite inaccurate, fear-mongering clichés on blind faith,” Morano added.

Jimmy Kimmel Transcript: 

“2014 was the warmest year ever until 2015 became the warmest year ever. Now 2016 might turn out to be even warmer than either of those. You know how you know climate change is real? When the hottest year on record is whatever year it currently is.

“A huge majority of climate scientists say climate change is happening. They say we’re causing it and we need to do something about it before it has a terrible effect on all of us. There’s no debate about the greenhouse effect, just like there’s no debate about gravity. It someone throws a piano off the roof, I don’t care what Sarah Palin tells you. Get out of the way, because it’s coming down on your head.

“Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree on this. And 97 percent of scientists don’t agree on much. Even one out of five dentists don’t believe in sugarless gum for their patients that chew gum.

But Almost half our representatives in Washington apparently know more about science than our scientists, or they pretend to because big corporations give them a lot of money to make sure they can keep doing the destructive things that they do. And the idea that this is some kind of left wing conspiracy is — what if I decided to deny the existence of yogurt? Think about it. I’ve seen the containers, I just don’t believe there’s anything in them. I believe yogurt is a conspiracy created by John Stamos. You’d think I was insane, and I would be insane, but this is not that different from that. To me the big question is, either you believe in science or you don’t. Why do we believe scientists when it comes to molecules and the speed of light and Cialis, but not this? Because members of Congress, who we don’t even like, by the way, because people who take money from companies that make pollution for a living told us not to worry about it. Now, and I know I’ll get beaten over the head by every wacko website, and I know there will be a lot of what the hell do you know, go back to girls jumping on trampolines. This is not about what I know, this is about what scientists know. So I hope that for the next two minutes, put your political leanings aside, forget about whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, forget the labels, and pay attention to the following message. Decide for yourself, the people you’re about to see are scientists, they’re Americans, they’re not part of some imaginary conspiracy, they’re just a smarter version of us. Watch this, and if at the end you disagree, while we’re all underwater I hope you’ll be that last one that gets a snorkel.

[BEGIN VIDEO]

ARADHNA TRIPATI: Hi, I’m Aradhna Tripati, I’m a paleoclimatologist and isotope geochemist.

ALEX HALL: Hi, I’m Alex Hall, and I’m a climate scientist.

JEREMY PAL: I’m Jeremy Pal, and I’m a hydroclimatologist.

NINA KARNOVSKY: I’m Nina Karnovsky, and I’m a polar ecologist.

CHUCK TAYLOR: I’m Chuck Taylor, and I’m an environmental analytical chemist.

JOHN DORSEY: I’m John Dorsey, and I’m a marine environmental scientist.

KARNOVSKY: Over the past 40 years, thousands of scientists have studied climate change.

TAYLOR: Definitely happening.

TRIPATI: And it’s caused by human beings.

PAL: That’s you and me.

HALL: And the consequences could be extremely dire.

DORSEY: Catastrophic.

KARNOVSKY: Apocalyptic.

TRIPATI: And here’s the thing, when we tell you all this, we’re not f***ing with you.

PAL: We’re not f***ing with you.

TAYLOR: Definitely not f***ing with you.

DORSEY: Why would we f*** with you?

PAL: Think about it.

HALL: If I wanted to screw with people, do you think I would have gone into climate science?

DORSEY: If we were f***ing with you I’m sure we could do a lot better than anthropogenic climate change.

TRIPATI: I’d probably tell you that a meteor was coming, and then try to sell you a helmet.

RELATED LINKS:

The Reviews Are in! ‘Climate Hustle’ is ‘the most dangerous documentary of year’ – ‘Wickedly effective use of slapstick humor’ – ‘Lays waste to Gore’ – ‘Brutal & Extremely Funny’

Bill Nye, ‘The Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!’: Nye entertains idea of jailing climate skeptics for ‘affecting my quality of life’ (Exclusive Video)

Variety Mag. Exclusive: Sarah Palin Backing ‘Climate Hustle’ Film – May 2nd Nationwide Theatrical Release

‘Climate Hustle’ goes to DC: Skeptical film to premiere on Capitol Hill; Panel with Gov. Sarah Palin, Brent Bozell & Appearance by Warmist Bill Nye

Skeptical ‘Climate Hustle’ Film Coming to Theaters Nationwide May 2, for a One-Night Event

It’s Coming….’Climate Hustle’ film hits Theatres May 2nd! One night national theater event! – Watch New Trailer – Popcorn & Climate

Protesters, police, chaos! Climate Hustle ‘staged its triumphant world premiere’ – ‘Police cordoned off the road’ – Exclusive Video/Photos

Trump has an 83 percent chance of winning Indiana

trump indianaThe Indiana Primary is today, and it’s in many ways the beginning of the end — one way or the other — of the #NeverTrump campaign.

A clean win for Cruz in the state is a win for the anti-Trump forces within the GOP, and a win for Donald J. Trump is a massive setback and potential death knell for the forces opposing the real estate magnate.

According to FiveThirtyEight polls-plus forecast based on nine polls, Trump has an 83 percent chance of winning the statewide vote.

Click here to veiw the odds and polls for presidential primaries and caucuses, updated daily.

EDITORS NOTE: FiveThirtyEight forecasts don’t produce a single expected vote share for each candidate, but rather generate a range of possible outcomes, shown here. The range will be wider or narrower under certain circumstances: For instance, it narrows as the election gets closer. The FiveThirtyEight estimate of each candidate’s chance of winning the state is based on these ranges.

Iran hosts terrorist delegation to expand the war against Israel

Will a Labour Party representative be present?

In any case, there is no doubt that Iran, flush with cash courtesy Barack Obama, will find a few ways to strengthen the intifada.

Palestinian jihadi

Palestinian terrorist.

“Islamic Jihad delegation visits Iran to ‘discuss ways to strengthen intifada,’” by Maayan Groisman, Jerusalem Post, May 1, 2016 (thanks to Lookmann):

Islamic Jihad representatives are visiting Iran to discuss ways to strengthen the intifada in the West Bank and Jerusalem, Palestinian media reported on Sunday.

The delegation, headed by the organization’s Secretary- General Ramadan Abdullah, will visit Iran for a few days, according to a statement issued by the terrorist organization.

The delegation will meet Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani, Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani and Supreme National Security Council chief Ali Shamkhani.

Islamic Jihad announced that “the delegation visiting Tehran has met with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, as well as other senior Iranian officials.”

In these meetings, the parties discussed the circumstances prevailing in the Islamic world and especially the issue of Palestine and the ways to bolster the intifada in the West Bank and Jerusalem against “Zionist expansionism.”

Additional subjects discussed were the attempts to “Judaize al-Aksa mosque” and the need to support the steadfastness of Gazans in light of the 10-year blockade.

In a press statement, Islamic Jihad’s secretary-general underscored the importance of Iran’s support for the Palestinian people, and expressed chagrin over what he called “the Arab indifference toward Palestine and its oppressed people.”

Ali Akbar Velayati, the head of the Strategic Research Center of Iran’s Expediency Council, met with Abdullah on Saturday.

Velayati told the Islamic Jihad leader that “the West’s attempts to divide the Islamic world will fail. Iran will support the Palestinian people and continue fighting against terror and the Zionist entity, together with all Muslim states.”…

Not that this has anything to do with, you know, Islam.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Russia: Explosives found in illegal mosque, detonated by authorities

U.S. Muslims recruiting for Islamic State in Syria killed in airstrike

Islamic Law versus Liberty, Equality and Democracy

“If you wish to know how civilized a culture is, look at how they treat its women.” Bacha Khan

Taliban_beating_woman_in_public_RAWATreatment of Women Under Islamic Sharia Law

If feminism means: “The advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men, and is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities”, why have national feminist organizations in Canada not condemned oppression and atrocities against women living under Islamic Sharia Law?

There has been intensive research and many articles and interviews containing testimonial evidence that women in societies and countries governed by Islamic Sharia Law —  a medieval and barbaric legal framework incompatible with modern values and basic human rights – have limited rights and freedoms compared to women in the West.

In countries and societies ruled by Islamic Sharia Law, women essentially have no rights and no equality. Under Sharia Law women have fewer inheritance rights compared to men and lesser status as witnesses. Women in Islamic countries ruled under Sharia Law are subject to harsh penalties for violation of modesty laws and have no choice but follow the modesty laws such as ‘dress modesty’. In Iran modesty law and activities of country’s modesty police has been handed over to Iran’s current president, Hassan Rouhani’s Ministry of the Interior. Failure to comply with modesty laws has been subject to extreme violence from modesty police in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Sudan.

These violations frequently result in state-sponsored violence against women (even death) in Islamic countries. As well, female foreigners travelling to Islamic countries governed by Sharia Law are advised to dress modestly (wearing the hijab, head cover and Islamic garment) and not travel unaccompanied by a man.

A prime example of such embedded inequality is exemplified in marital relations: a man is entitled to have up to four wives. A husband, in divorcing one of his wives, need only make a declaration in front of an Islamic judge without the woman’s consent or even the requirement of her presence. However, if a woman wishes to divorce her husband, his consent is required. Men are allowed to have “temporary” marriages, a form of legal Islamic prostitution where it can even last less than half an hour – a situation allowed by some religious scholars. Temporary marriage is also known as a “pleasure marriage,” called Mutah which was established within Islam by the Muslim prophet Mohammed himself as a way to reward his jihadists for services rendered to Allah. A report by the Gatestone Institute. reveals such occurrences even in the United Kingdom. A minimum marriage age for girls set as young as 12 or 13 is not uncommon in Muslim-majority countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Yemen, to name a few. In Yemen and Afghanistan there are cases where eight-year-old girls died of internal injuries suffered on their wedding night. According to a report by Al Jazeera, “Nearly 14 percent of Yemeni girls married before the age of 15 and 52 percent before the age of 18.”

In Iran, under Sharia Law women are denigrated as second class citizens. Sex outside of the marriage is at times punished by the brutal practice of stoning to death. From the inception of the Islamic republic of Iran in 1979, the women of Iran resisted the Islamic Regime’s introduction of Sharia Law. Iranian women have been demanding changes to the laws that set the legal age of maturity for girls at 13 years old and 15 years old for boys. This means that 13-year-old girls can be married to men decades their senior, with merely the consent of her male guardian, as provided by Article 1041 of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Civil Code.

The Islamic Republic of Iran’s laws limit a girl to receiving only half the inheritance a boy receives. The inheritance that a wife receives from her husband is even less than half. Such laws cannot be condoned by women who, by official counts, occupy 70% of the university seats in Iran.

One case I would like to highlight in order to emphasize the travesty of inequality for women under Sharia is that of Reyhaneh Jabbari. The University student and interior designer, was found guilty of murder in 2009 for killing her rapist in self-defence, and sentenced to death by hanging. She was executed at age 27 after eight years of imprisonment and torture to obtain a confession.

After meeting Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi, a member of the Iranian Intelligence Service, while having coffee one day, her whole life changed forever. Overhearing her phone conversation about her work, he convinced her to meet with him for advice on renovating his office. When he picked her up for their scheduled appointment he instead took her to a rundown house, brought her inside and locked the door telling her she could not escape, then attempted to give her a drink with sedatives so he could rape her. After a struggle she stabbed his shoulder and managed to escape. Regardless of an international outcry and a petition of over 200,000 signatures, proper testimony, evidence, and confession by authorities privately to Reyhaneh that Morteza’s murder was actually set up by them for political reasons, Reyhaneh became their scapegoat, was convicted of the murder by stabbing, and received her sentence.

I was one of four campaigners to stop Reyhaneh’s execution which had been brought to our attention by her family. Our group launched a petition and collected more than 200,000 signatures. We gave media interviews, organized worldwide events and through our campaign, the international community had supported our campaign and tried to pressure the Iranian officials to stop her execution. Unfortunately, the barbaric and undemocratic practices of Sharia Law under the Islamic constitution in Iran allowed this unjust action by the Iran regime. Reyhaneh Jabbari was executed October 25, 2014.

Aside from the notorious executions of Iranian political dissidents, sexual violence is also routinely committed by the Islamic regime in Iran: Rape and gang rape by prison guards and interrogators is a common practice in the Islamic regime’s prisons. In Iranian prisons, it is common for young girls and virgins to be raped, even, as a final indignity, right before being executed. A disturbing finding of a U.N. Report of the Economic and Social Council was that virgin women condemned to death were forcibly and temporary married to officials on the eve of their execution. This continues to be a horrible reality that many women live with every single day in the prisons of Iran.

Officials would rape these women so that they would not be virgins when they die. There is a sinister and malign religious dogma behind this practice: According to the Iranian regime’s Islamic belief system, a Muslim woman who dies a virgin goes to heaven and therefore, they do not permit female political dissidents to be killed without first getting raped and losing their virginity to Iranian officials prior to their execution, to prevent their receiving a heavenly reward.

Iranian Ayatollah Mesbah has declared that if a woman is sentenced to be executed, “raping her would be as rewarding as going to Mecca on the Hajj-Islamic Pilgrimage.” However, he noted that even if she was not given a death penalty, “raping her will be as rewarding as going on a Karbala pilgrimage.” No doubt this Ayatollah is a theocratic savage.

Iranian women have suffered much due to Sharia Law: A 16-year-old girl was hanged for having had sexual relations with a 50-year-old married taxi driver. Under Islamic law in Iran, the cheating husband would be executed by the reprehensible act of stoning; however, he was not punished. Yet, 16-year-old Atefeh Sahaaleh was executed.

Closer to home, according to American gynaecologists Kavita Shah Arora and Allan Jacob, female genital mutilation should be legal in its mildest forms. They say “procedures that slightly changed the look of a girl’s genitalia without damaging them were comparable to male circumcision or cosmetic procedures in Western countries like labiaplasty.” The two American gynaecologists have stated that countries which have banned female genital mutilation (FGM) should allow less invasive practices such as small surgical nicks to girls’ genitalia as a compromise.  CBC Canada This proposal was strongly criticized by activists against FGM where they stated that it would undermine global efforts to eradicate the internationally condemned barbaric practice.

According to a report published by  CIJ News, “Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, a Canadian and Toronto-based Muslim scholar clarifies the Islamic Law regarding the popular practice in Muslim countries of circumcising the girls. Bilal Philips asserts that Islam prohibits female genital mutilation, but permits female circumcision, which is a “slight” cut that does not affect the ability of women to achieve sexual satisfaction.”

At least 200 million girls and women have been subjected to FGM in over 30 countries, according to U.N. estimates. (For reference, please see the slide show and the Petition concerning FGM in Somalia.)

In Iran, women have resisted for 37 years these very Sharia Laws that are now being incorporated in the West in the name of ‘multiculturalism.’

woman raped acid faceActivism Against Sharia Law

A few Muslim Feminists have different opinions about the interpretations of Sharia law oppressing women and argue that it has no basis in Islam and basically consists of man-made interpretations of the Qur’anic texts. “I argue that Muslim family laws are the products of sociocultural assumptions and juristic reasoning about the nature of relations between men and women. In other words, they are ‘man-made’ juristic constructs, shaped by the social, cultural and political conditions within which Islam’s sacred texts are understood and turned into law.”

One Muslim imam who is defending violence against women in the name of Islamic law states that laws protecting women from violence are un-Islamic.

Maryam Namazie, an outstanding Iranian Feminist from the UK who is an outspoken activist against Sharia law said in a recent speech: “For me, ‘Islamic feminism’ is an oxymoron like ‘Islamic human rights;’ they are antithetical to each other. If there are better laws for women in some countries where Islam plays a role, it is not because of Islam but because of secular movements calling for the separation of religion from the state and its laws. Why must Maryam Namazie take on the left in her critiques of Islamic extremism?” In an interview podcasted by Feminist Current, “Namaze who is an atheist, a leftist, a feminist, a critic of Islamic extremism, and co-founder of the British Council of Ex-Muslims is routinely attacked and disallowed a platform — not only by Islamic groups, but by feminists and leftists, who call her Islamophobic.”  Is there an explanation for why feminists and leftists take this stance?

‘Women on The Front Line’ is a documentary film written and produced by Sheema Kalbasi​, an award-winning eminent Iranian-American filmmaker and poet. This documentary, about life under Sharia Law, unveils injustice and focuses on women fighting for equality and freedom in Iran.

Iranian Canadian Homa Arjmand has experienced life under Law in Iran where she was arrested and many of her friends either arrested or executed under Islamic law in Iran. “In 1989 Homa, her husband and their two small children escaped by a grueling trip on horseback through the mountains. Today, she lives in a suburb northeast of Toronto. Her job is helping immigrant Muslim women in distress. And now she is battling the arrival of Sharia Law in Canada.”

In an interview given to  Jerusalem Online, Iranian-Canadians Dr. Sima Goel, author of Fleeing the Hijab, Dr. Avideh Motmaen-Far and I explained the plight of Iranian women after Rouhani’s presidency under Islamic law and Iran’s discriminatory laws against women under Islamic Penal Code where woman’s testimony in court is half that of a man’s and a woman’s life is half that of a man’s. I was imprisoned as a teenager in Iran’s most notorious Evin prison and paid the price for not accepting the Sharia Law which enforced by the Khomeinist regime.

I was in my early teens when Khomeini came into power. Overnight, all women, including elementary school girls, were forced to cover their bodies from head to toe and were ordered to only wear dark colors.

We were no longer allowed to attend school with the opposite sex. Our once- praised school curriculum was now replaced by Arabic and Islamic studies, including the Quran, which most of us simply loathed. It was at this time that I had an awakening and started my activism. I was robbed of my teen years by a radical regime that sought to force its values on the masses by devastating force. My childhood memories were replaced by a reality created by a regime where women were now treated as second class citizens, and even the most mundane detail of our lives was strictly controlled by the regime’s Revolutionary Guards Forces and morality police.

Like most teenagers in high school, I spoke my mind about the changes that were happening in my country. In a modern society, teenagers attend school, openly spend time with friends, listen to their favorite music and do all the things that teenagers do.  I was arrested by five very large, heavy-set guards. I remember distinctly four vehicles that came to our house to take me away, a 16 year-old girl who barely weighed 90 pounds. The terror I experienced may be unfathomable to the Western imagination, but this was to be my reality for the next 18 months.

In my young mind full of trust, I did not think that a simple conversation — having an opinion and simply expressing it — would put my life in danger. As a teenager, I never considered the possibility of being tortured and that I would be reminded of this torture every time I would look in the mirror and see the scar on my face, a result of being beaten with a very heavy piece of iron while being interrogated. As a teenager, I did not consider that my life would be forever changed.

The United Nations supports equal rights for women and in November 2011 adopted a new campaign aimed at ending violence against women. The UN Declaration of Human Rights includes equal rights for women and calls on Islamic countries to follow these regulations.  But the Muslim Brotherhood issued a statement in March 2013 condemning this UN declaration for violating Islamic Sharia Law principles.

In The Name Of ‘Multiculturalism’

The West, instead of fighting against Shariah Law, standing in solidarity with the victims of Islamist oppression and enabling the integration of Muslims into the West, is actually defending misogyny in the name of standing up for the perceived underdog: Even the possibility that Sharia Law could supplant or become part of a two-tiered legal system is a strong indicator that multiculturalism is a huge failure.

It is very important to remember that the entire foundation of multiculturalism was based on the theory that, if we allowed immigrants to keep their culture, (multiculturalism) would end after their generation: their children would obviously want to be Western and would neatly adopt our societal norms. We didn’t count on radical or fundamentalist Islam and closed or isolated Islamic communities that intentionally separate themselves from the rest of society in order to preserve and grow their culture.

Eliminating this type of injustice will only happen if we exert inescapable pressure on local, national, and international governments and organizations. Rights and freedoms are never given, they are taken. Although these rights are inherent, they are not freely honoured, and so strife and relentless effort is the only way to emerge victorious from the ashes of defeat. With the love, dedication and help of people—not men, not women, but human beings—gender equality will be the prevalent principle by which all humanity will abide.

Over the years the mandates of women’s organizations have changed. They started in the 1920s fighting for basic rights in a male-dominated society and in the 1970s fighting for equal rights in the workplace. More recently, with the change of focus from the advancement of women – to networking and supportive fellowship – there seems to have arisen a false sense of security that our right to equality is now static and no longer fragile.

Mass immigration from countries with political and social regimes that increasingly subjugate women creates a highly-visible minority community of women whose understanding of their role is very different than our own North American and western standard. With little to no feminist activity for nearly two generations, our women’s organizations are ill-equipped to stand up for our own culture, to insist on integration and egalitarianism, and speak out against Sharia Law. Instead, they have been groomed to support and nurture the perceived underdog, not realizing that the underdog is now actually us.

Most women’s organizations do not support Sharia Law, and are placing their faith in our government to ensure that it doesn’t pass into fruition by political action or by political stealth. Without a strong feminist backbone or experience strategizing unified messages of assertion, they are extremely uncomfortable speaking out against the political culture of this wave of women, and instead default to being “nice”, “accommodating”, and aligning themselves with the perceived “misunderstood” newcomers. As the newcomers praise them for their understanding and kindness, the women’s organizations feel that they are being “diverse”, “open minded” and “helpful”. They don’t have the capacity to see the big picture, so they focus on the one being shown to them instead.

To defenders of human rights, such as myself, it never occurred that radical or fundamental Islam whose ethics are anathema to ours, would be welcomed by a Canadian government.  We have been brainwashed by the concept of “diversity’ and “political correctness” to the point that we can’t find a women’s organization to stand up and take a hard line of Sharia. They’re not used to it. Rather they are used to bending over backwards to accommodate minority groups.

According to a petition written by the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action (FAFIA), Canada was reviewed by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in July 2015. The Committee was assessing Canada’s compliance with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. “The Human Rights Committee has highlighted violations of Women’s Covenant- protected human rights that may result from state-imposed regulations on the clothing women wear in public. It specifically includes among the rights endangered by such regulations, a woman’s rights to freedom of religion, to manifest in public her religious beliefs, and to be considered equal before courts and tribunals.” In their petition FAFIA protests attacks on the rights of Muslim women and states: “Feminists understand well that patriarchy demands or encourages women, depending on differing religions or cultures, to either cover or uncover our bodies, or parts of our bodies. We do not all agree about the implications for equality of covering or uncovering. But we women need to control our own bodies, including what we wear, rather than being dictated to by political leaders, and being punished by losing access to our human rights.”

National Canadian front feminist organizations do little to prevent violence caused by Shari’a Law. Take the Ottawa Hijab Day, World Hijab Day, where such “Feminist” organizations encourage non-Muslims to try on the Islamic covering, almost promoting it. Then there is the attempt to make the hijab a fashion statement by designers and having hijab-wearing dolls for young girls.

Muslim Canadian author, Suhail Kapoor in his book,  Balancing Life and Beyond, advocates that within the tenets of Islam, it is permissible to “lightly” strike your spouse if she exhibits serious moral misconduct. In a chapter entitled “Does Islam Allow Wife Beating?” Kapoor outlines the circumstances under which it is appropriate for a man to punish his wife using “light” slaps on the wrist with a small wooden stick.” In a statement to QMI Agency (March 12, 2013) Suhail Kapoor said the permission to reprint his book was granted by the Ottawa-Centre MPP,  Yasir Naqvi’s office. (MPP Naqvi is a Pakistani born Canadian and the Ontario Liberal Government House Leader. Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.)

The UN, the world’s most powerful human rights defender NGO, is affiliated with the dictatorships and human rights basket cases in its leadership roles and positions that entail responsibilities diametrically opposed to their qualifications. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is also an adviser or affiliated with many of these commissions. Their view of Human Rights is based on Sharia Law and of course it’s not the same as our understanding of Human Rights and Gender Equality. 28

As a defender and advocate for human rights, I strongly condemn Islamic Sharia Law which is opposed to democracy, having the ultimate purpose to destroy liberty and dominate the world.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Improving Canada’s Defence Procurement Strategy in the 21st Century

Europe’s Migration Crisis: No End in Sight

RELATED VIDEO: Women on the Front Line

References

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khan_Abdul_Ghaffar_Khan
  2. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10446613/Iran-to-ban-morality-police-from-targeting-women.html
  3. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4996/britain-islamization
  4. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/13/yemen-investigatesreported8yearoldchildbridedeath.html
  5. https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Catherine_Ashton_Ban_Ki_Moon_Ahmad_Shaheed_Save_26_year_old_woman_from_being_hanged_in_Iran/?fgoyhhb; http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4743/reyhaneh-jabbari-execution; http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/world-news/around-the-globe/iran-executes-woman-for-allegedly-killing-attempted-rapist-9115
  6. http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/world-news/around-the-globe/iranian-ayatollah-praises-the-rape-of-political-prisoners-13405
  7. http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/reports/iran-the-last-executioner-of-children?page=11
  8. http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/female-genital-mutilation-legal-1.3459379
  9. http://en.cijnews.com/?p=30357
  10. https://secure.avaaz.org/en/fgm_somalia_ban_loc/?slideshow
  11. http://www.countercurrents.org/sikand070210.html
  12. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pakistan-women-idUSKCN0W51O9
  13. http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2016/03/01/secularism/
  14. https://www.podcat.com/podcasts/fDmo9y-feminist-current/episodes/3rXmt2-why-must-maryam-namazie-take-on-the-left-in-her-critiques-of-islamic-extremism
  15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXP8AXpPIuA
  16. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/life-under-sharia-in-canada/article743980/
  17. http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/03/12/book-on-islam-condoning-hitting-wives-features-letter-from-ontario-labour-minister-yasir-naqvi
  18. http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/world-news/around-the-globe/analysis-the-plight-of-iranian-women-under-rouhani-19917
  19. http://m.clarionproject.org/blog/iran/teenager-evin-prison-my-terrifying-story
  20. http://www.un.org/en/women/endviolence/factsheets.html
  21. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html
  22. http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=30731
  23. http://allafrica.com/stories/201603161054.html
  24. http://fafia-afai.org/en/muslim-womens-rights/
  25. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7464/ottawa-hijab-day
  26. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hijab_Day
  27. http://www.ottawasun.com/2013/03/12/book-on-islam-condoning-hitting-wives-features-letter-from-ontario-labour-minister-yasir-naqvi
  28. http://www.jerusalemonline.com/news/world-news/the-israeli-connection/op-ed-the-un-represents-the-theater-of-the-absurd-19858

Young Austrian Patriots Are High Speed, Low Drag

Last week a few members of the Austrian Identitare, an anti-mass migration youth movement, chose an Adrenalin-filled way to protest a pro-migrant play at the Burgtheater in Austria. Bourne-like footage show the two agile climbers scaling the front of the centuries old stone building with ropes and ladders in broad daylight, hanging a banner at the apex, dropping leaflets, and repelling to the ground while capturing it on video.

More impressive than the feat itself is the fact these young people appear to have a better grasp on reality than the seasoned democratic, left-leaning leadership of Austria. It seems to be plain to Identitare that the massive influx of mostly Muslim immigrants is becoming a very real threat to their safety and identity as a nation. I guess Washington, DC isn’t the only place in the world that sucks common sense out of a person’s brain, but simply surrounding oneself with others who are saturated in political correctness tends to have the same outcome.

Previously, the same play was performed at the University of Vienna when members of the youth group protested by going on stage, interrupting the play, and pointing out the hypocritical ways of those in political power who continue to open the gates to immigrants regardless of the consequences to the citizens themselves.

In response to the play being disrupted, Ms. Bures, president of the  Parliamentary National Assembly, invited the drama team to conduct the play at the Burgtheater, under honorary protection. Three days later a 21 year old University student was brutally gang-raped by three Afghani refugees. This time Identitare showed up to the theater, as the video shows, with a large banner with the word “Hypocrite” which was hung in order to call attention to the political leaders whose actions don’t protect Austrian’s women and children.

Austrian Identitare leader, Martin Sellner can be heard in the video addressing the leadership stating,

“You hypocrites, where are your tears and plays for the victims of terrorism and immigration.”

The youth group is apparently having some sway in the current Austrian election, as the leading right candidate may have gotten a bump from the group’s previous activism. Freedom Party of Austria candidate, Norbert Hofer, recently pulled way ahead in round one of the voting, up some 36%. He sounds somewhat like Trump with his strong border and anti-Islamic stances. Breitbart reports,

“Although Hofer has already declared he would be a President ‘for all Austrians’ and that none would have to fear from his election, it seems likely he would be one of Europe’s most robustly Eurosceptic, and anti-mass migration heads of state. Campaigning under the slogan ‘Austria First’, he has said Austria must stop taking refugees and that ‘I do not want this to become a Muslim country’.”

In addition to Austria’s youth movement, a powerful video was also put out by the German Identitare, called “Future of Europe”. The video displays numerous clean-cut 20 somethings making truthful statements and plausible demands regarding their disappearing European identity as a result of years of multiculturalism, diversity and immigration placed upon them by liberal policies.

Some of the statements mirror our own here in America as we see the European Union breaking down before our eyes as a direct result of those policies and programs that continually put the citizens’ well-being behind immigrants and refugees.

One cannot read the following quotes without identifying with them. They state:

“You do politics which sacrifice our values and traditions for a multicultural Utopia.

You love and support the foreign and hate and fight what is our own.

Identity is costly, we are becoming aware of it again.

You turn people into commodities, children into objects and declare genders and families obsolete.

You create yourselves a new people and turn us into foreigners.”

Their demands are just. Here are a few:

“We demand an end to an educational system which wants to instill us into shame and self-hatred.

We demand the end of societal mainstream in which common sense yields to political correctness.

We do not want a standing place in the parlor. We want the end of a party.”

This all sounds very familiar with the ideological battles we wage here on a daily basis. We need American youth ready to lead like these young people. They are out there, and are needed now to stand up and voice truth in a country not far behind Europe.

Jihad Defined

Islamic scholarship divides the world in two: the House of Islam (dar al-Islam, nations ruled by Sharia law) and the House of War (dar al-harb, nations in rebellion against Allah). It is incumbent on dar al-Islam to make war upon dar al-harb until all nations submit to the will of Allah and accept Sharia law.

“He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” — Koran 61:9.

Jihad is the force that gives Islam meaning.

In his book, Lights Out: Free Speech, Islam and the Twilight of the West, Mark Steyn wrote: “These are the books we will never read, the plays we will never see, the movies that will never be made… The lamps are going out all over the world – one distributor, one publisher, one silenced novelist, one cartoonist in hiding, one sued radio host, one murdered film director at a time.” Preventing free speech worldwide is Jihad,but the Jewish people are Islam’s perpetual target.

In the 7th century, the prophet Mohammad struck the infamous ten-year hudna, with the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, who rejected his claim of prophethood. He broke the agreement over a minor infraction, conquered Mecca, and extirpated the last remaining major tribe of Jews in Medina, the Qurayza, because they rebuffed his faith. Preferring bloodshed to mercy, Mohammad’s 3,000 Muslims set the paradigm of merciless inhumanity for future generations. The brutal annihilation of entire communities is Jihad, and modern-day Israel remains in the spotlight of Islam and her many accomplices.

Allah endorses Islam in battle, celebrates slaughter and enslavement (Sura 33:25-27), and sanctions the capture and beheading of Jews and plundering their property. Jewish experience has shown that Land for Peace has brought nothing but violence and bloodshed from their Muslim neighbors. The concept cannot succeed because land is not returned when the peace agreement fails and becomes a base of operations against Israel.

Truces and treaties with Islamic regimes is another opportunity for Jihad. 

A similar spirit now infects the nations. The Jews have been a presence in the Golan Heights since Biblical times. After many attacks by Syria, Israel won and, in 1979, Syria signed a disengagement agreement; Israel then democratized the Golan Heights. Although Syria continues supporting terrorism, the Golan is flourishing under Israeli civilian law – with infrastructure, electrical and water services, agricultural improvements and job training, and health clinics for 46,000 Jewish and Druze residents. Israel’s protection has brought welfare and social security programs, schools, freedom of worship, industry and tourism. Yet now, Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Syria and the UN are calling for the return of the Golan to Syria. While thousands of people are being massacred in Syria, the UN Security Council together with Israel’s enemies are focused on Israel.

Intimidation and coercion for land is Jihad.

Again joining the Jihad war of 1948/49 to enlarge her territory, Jordan occupied Judea, received Samaria from Iraq (renaming the region West Bank), and expelled the Palestinian activists. Another Arab attack against Israel in 1967 became what is now known as the Six Day War, in which Israel regained Judea and Samaria. These wars had nothing to do with Palestinians, yet Obama and Putin are now demanding that Israel abandon the area to the Palestinians.

Betrayal by unreliable “allies” is Jihad.   

Although Israel is the only homeland for the Jewish people and the only nation whose values and deeds help other countries through every form of natural disaster, and provide agricultural advancements, hi-tech and medical innovation and treatments for even her enemy; and although Mahmoud Abbas brought his wife to Tel Aviv for surgery, and his brother chose an Israeli medical center for his cancer treatment, the Palestinian leader continues the war of lies against Israel. And the world continues to accuse Israel of her enemies’ depravities.

False judgment is Jihad.

Israel’s permanent mission to the US and the organization, StandWithUs, submitted a thirteen-panel exhibition, Israel Matters, to the UN in early April, ‘16. The Jerusalem Panel describes the Jewish people as indigenous to Israel, the city as the focus of Jewish life and religion for three millennia, and its holiness to Christians and Muslims. The Arab-Israel Panel describes Arabs as the largest minority (20+ percent) in Israel and as equal citizens under the law in Israel. The Zionism Panel defines “the liberation movement of the Jewish people . . . to overcome 1,900 years of oppression and regain self-determination in their indigenous homeland.” However, Israel was told by the UN Department of Political Affairs that these three Panels were censored for being “inappropriate.”

Suppression of the truth is Jihad. 

The next step after suppression of truth is the invention of a false narrative. The most recent resolution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is their de-legitimization of Israel, calling Israel an “occupying power” and giving Arabic names to the Temple Mount and Western Wall, the Jewish holiest site. Thus, they deny the Jewish attachment to the Temple Mount, and ban Jewish worship on the Mount, falsely claiming that Israel is threatening to prohibit prayer to Muslims so as to incite continued deadly attacks by Palestinian. The UN is also planning an egalitarian prayer service space near Robinson’s Arch with restricted access to the site during Muslim holidays (destined for full restriction of all dhimmis).

Supporting or inventing a false narrative is Jihad.

Other UN condemnations include Israel’s blockade against Hamas-controlled Gaza and Israel’s control over her historic landmarks, the Tomb of the Patriarch and Rachel’s Tomb, which the UN is renaming and usurping for Palestinians. The UN calls for stopping Israel’s historic excavations, which continues to yield evidence of Jewish history, while never denouncing Palestinians’ continuous destruction of archaeological artifacts beneath the Al Aqsa mosque compound.

Destroying Israel’s history is the Machiavellian strategy of Jihad. 

The Pentagon has just approved aggressive American airstrikes against the Islamic State, disregarding civilian casualties or the “proportional force” concept. Yet this very disproportionate defense is a frequent accusation against Israel, despite her more serious threat from Hamas and their use of women and children as shields. Although verification of Israel’s extraordinary care and morality exists, the Obama administration invariably faults Israel for “excessive” collateral damage – sheer hypocrisy and, worst of all, destroying Israel’s credibility is Jihad.

Closer to home, anti-Israel activity on American college campuses includes Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns in an effort to isolate, delegitimize, and dismantle Israel, using a tactic of falsely accusing the State of Israel of apartheidism. Additionally, two American academic associations, the American Studies Association and the Asian American Studies Association, passed resolutions to boycott Israel.

Boycotts against democratic Israel, but not against despotic regimes, is Jihad.

HarperCollins, publishing giant, omitted Israel from its Middle East map, a powerful tool in delegitimization, saying their maps would otherwise not have been acceptable to their customers. A subsidiary, Collins Bartholomew published its Primary Geography Atlas for the Middle East, without Israel, and its fallacious Palestinian Narrative of History. Thea Stilton and the Blue Scarab Hunt, published by Scholastic, also contains a map without Israel. Palestinian textbooks make no mention of Israel and NPR (National Public Radio) omitted Israel from its Middle East map, labeling it Palestine instead. Denying Israel’s existence is Jihad.

To collaborate with Jihadists is to become one.

Black Liberals are Hypocrites When It Comes to the N-word

Once again, two nights ago, liberal hypocrisy was on full display at the White House Correspondents’ Association’s (WHCA) annual dinner. The dinner was begun in the early 1920s and usually the incumbent president and vice president of the United States attend. It is supposed to be a time of merriment and humor; but over time, it has become more and more of a liberal lovefest for the journalistic community in Washington, D.C.

Members of this group brag about their supposed storied history, but as is habit with liberal journalists, they only tell you what they want you to know. The first thing one should do is take special note of is the first word in its name. I rest my case.

What’s not included in their own historical narrative is the fact that they didn’t allow women to join until 1962. WHCA leaders were forced to change that policy figuratively at gunpoint.

In 1962, iconic journalist, Helen Thomas urged President Kennedy not to attend the dinner unless the WHCA changed their policy on female membership in the organization. They agreed and Kennedy attended the event.

The other thing the WHCA won’t tell you is that in their more than one century of existence, they have never had a Black journalist to head the group and have only had one Black on their board (April Ryan, White House correspondent and Washington bureau chief for American Urban Radio Networks).

In recent years, WHCA has begun to hire noted comedians to provide the entertainment for their dinner. They have hired comedians like Sinbad, Jay Leno, Jon Stewart, and Al Franken, to name a few.

For this year’s dinner, they hired comedian Larry Wilmore (who is Black), the host of “The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore” on Comedy Central.

Wilmore was an unmitigated disaster. But what was even more disastrous than Wilmore’s performance was the deafening silence from liberals to his act.

You can view his unedited performance on C-SPAN’s website. His ending was what got everyone’s attention and not in a good way.

Speaking directly to President Barack Obama, Wilmore said,

“But behind that joke is the humble appreciation for the historical implications for what your presidency means. When I was a kid, I lived in a country where people couldn’t accept a Black quarterback. Now think about that. A Black man was thought by his mere color not good enough to lead a football team. And now to live in your time, Mr. President, when a Black man can lead the entire free world. Words alone do me no justice. So, Mr. President, if I’m going to keep it 100, Yo, Barry, you did it, my nigga!”

Obama grinned from ear to ear and gave Wilmore a bear hug.

If a White comedian, especially a conservative one, had called the first Black president “my nigga” he would have been immediately excoriated and rightfully so.

When Trump questioned Obama’s birth certificate, the media gave the issue wall to wall coverage. The Democratic National Committee (DNC), the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the National Association of Colored People (NAACP), the Urban League, Al Sharpton, Joy Reed, Melissa Perry, etc. all demanded every Republican official to immediately “repudiate” Trump; and if they didn’t, these liberal groups and individuals implied that these Republicans somehow agreed with Trump’s position.

I find it totally hypocritical now that these same liberal groups and individuals have all come down with a severe case of laryngitis.

As of this printing, the WHCA has not issued so much as an apology to the president or the American people for the total and incomprehensible disrespect Wilmore showed towards our first elected Black president.

What have we, in the Black community done, to create an environment where a person, let alone a Black person, feels comfortable calling the president of the United States “my nigga?”

If we can’t condemn a Black for using this insidious word, how can we justify criticizing others for doing the same thing?

How can we criticize Jennifer Lopez or the Quentin Tarantino, the director of the cult classic “Pulp Fiction” and “Django Unchained” for using it? How can we criticize former West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd for using it on the senate floor or during an interview with “60 Minutes?”

Instead of Obama nervously laughing at Wilmore’s description of him, he should have immediately taken to the microphone and denounced Wilmore on the spot.

So, to all my liberal media friends, especially the Black ones, the next time Trump makes a statement you disagree with, I don’t want to hear your moralizing lectures about racism and civility.

The next time a Republican official makes a stupid, racially-charged comment about Obama (and they will), I hope those same liberal members of the media will also get a sudden case of laryngitis like you did over the Wilmore foolishness.

I know why Republicans are silent on this issue—they have absolutely no credibility within the Black community. But liberals “claim” to love Black folks, but yet they can’t muster enough courage to take a principled stand and denounce Wilmore’s performance.

What a shame this moment has found them totally unprepared for the moment that could have been their finest hour (Jackson out, **drops mic**).

Has the world learned anything since Brussels?

It has become alarmingly clear since the Brussels terror attack that the West either doesn’t understand the nature of Islamist terrorism or doesn’t want to.  President Obama denies that the Islamic State poses an existential threat, belittles those who disagree, and seems more vested in undermining allies and political opponents than fighting terror.  Whether acting out of ideology or naiveté, he refuses to admit the role of religious doctrine and instead blames terrorism on generic criminality, violent extremism, gun violence, or global warming.  He fails to address the jihad and genocide being waged against non-Muslims in the Mideast and beyond, does not speak honestly about the Islamist threat, and portrays those who do as hatemongers.

Under his administration, the U.S. has abdicated its global leadership role and left a void in which Russia seeks to reconstitute its empire, China threatens American strategic and economic interests, and Iran continues to export terror while violating a feckless nuclear deal under which it derives great benefit but makes no concessions.  The president has eschewed sound military and intelligence advice in favor of policies that have destabilized the Mideast, empowered terrorists, and caused a refugee crisis that is tearing Europe apart.

Whether the administration’s foreign policy stems from ideology or incompetence, it seems to regard Islamic radicalism as a natural response to western oppression, though European entrée into the Mideast was preceded by centuries of jihad waged in Europe by Arab-Muslim invaders.  Its knack for promoting revisionism is facilitated by the public’s lack of historical perspective, as reflected by the inability to recognize that ISIS is not historically aberrant, but rather embodies the same doctrine that mandated forceful spread of the faith starting in the eighth century.

Political correctness inhibits discussion of radical Islam and, thus, stifles the ability to combat the terrorism it spawns.  Television coverage after Brussels showed witnesses uttering platitudes, such as, “If we stop traveling, we give the terrorists what they want”; and commentators warning that terrorists will somehow win if their religious motivations are scrutinized by the security establishment.  However, such sentiments wrongly presume that terrorists merely seek to induce fear or discomfort, when in fact their goals include conquest and subjugation.  Islamists don’t want to disrupt European travel plans; they want to kill “infidels” and force them into submission.

Comments from presidential aspirants this election cycle have been no better informed.  The Democratic candidates predictably refused to utter the words “Islamic terrorism,” while some Republicans were overly deferential in their assessments.  John Kasich, for example, acknowledged the perpetrators were Islamists, yet seemed compelled to add that “…the vast, vast, vast majority of Muslims…think their religion has been hijacked … [a]nd they want to stop that as much as we want to stop it.”  But on what did he base this assertion?  While moderates may well have denounced the Brussels attacks, there were no surveys indicating what the majority believed.  If there were no mass condemnations of the 9/11 attacks, the Charlie Hebdo and Paris massacres, or the San Bernardino shootings, what evidence is there to suggest majority censure of this latest outrage?

Democrats and Republicans cannot begin to address the problem when political correctness inhibits them from even identifying it.  If westerners really want to know the terrorists’ goals, they should read the language contained in their charters and manifestos.

They should consider Al-Qaeda’s constitutional charter, rules and regulations, which contain the following passages:

Al Qaeda:

An Islamic Group, its only mission is Jihad, because Jihad is one of the basic purposes for which Al Qaeda personnel come together.  In addition, they perform other Islamic duties if possible.  Jihad will take precedence over other duties in case of interference.

Goals of Al Qaeda:

The victory of the mighty religion of Allah, the establishment of an Islamic Regime and the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate, God willing.

Or this excerpt from “An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” by the Muslim Brotherhood:

The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.

Or this passage from Article Seven of the Hamas Charter:

…the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes. The Prophet, Allah’s prayer and peace be upon him, says: ‘The hour of judgment shall not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones, and each tree and stone will say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him,’ except for the Gharqad tree, for it is the tree of the Jews.’ (Recorded in the Hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim).

Such language leaves no doubt about these organizations’ goals, which include conquering infidels, killing Jews, and destroying Israel.  Americans and Europeans need to learn what drives today’s terrorism if they truly wish to defeat it; but this cannot happen if they continue hiding their heads in the sand and gushing apologetic nonsense.  Neither can it happen under a president who attends a baseball game with the dictator of Cuba and dances the tango in Argentina while Brussels is reeling, or with a White House that censors comments made by visiting heads of state who dare to mention Islamist terrorism.

Mr. Obama’s recent behavior is consistent with his administration’s efforts over the last eight years to obscure the connection between radical Islam and terrorism, which efforts are echoed by progressives who romanticize terrorists as “freedom fighters” and their murderous assaults as “armed struggle.”  Perhaps more disturbing is the ease with which such perceptions go unchallenged because of progressive reluctance to use judgmental terminology to describe enemies sworn to our destruction.  It is the height of absurdity when opponents of a doctrine that preaches subjugation and genocide are accused of racism and intolerance.

Our milquetoast politicians will not acknowledge any doctrinal component of terrorism for fear of offending the Arab-Muslim world.  Ironically, progressives who engage in such doublespeak have no qualms morally equating attacks against Jewish civilians with Israel’s responses to terrorism, or falsely labeling Israel an apartheid state.  The targeting of unarmed Jewish men, women and children is irrelevant to those moral dilettantes who consider terrorism a legitimate response to so-called occupation.  Unfortunately, those who control the definitional language use it to influence public perception to the point where distortions become reality and history is meaningless.

The administration’s verbal disingenuity regarding the word “terrorism” is especially poignant in light of its bowdlerization of remarks by French President François Hollande, who in an address from the White House used the term “Islamist terrorism” when discussing the horrific attacks on French soil.  The phrase was deleted from video of the speech released by the White House.  This is troubling, but not surprising from an administration that early on forbade mentioning the word “Islamic” in conjunction with terrorism, and which referred to attacks by Islamic extremists as “man-caused disasters” – a ludicrous term conjuring images of bridge collapses or traffic fatalities, not premeditated assaults against unarmed civilians.

The obvious question raised by this verbal sleight-of-hand is, who is the administration attempting to appease?  A common dictionary definition of terrorism is “the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.”  It is difficult to see how the term would be deemed offensive by those who traffic in terror – or why we should care about offending their sensibilities in the first place.  Indeed, referring to them as freedom fighters effectively legitimizes their attacks against civilians, even though such conduct violates the Geneva Convention III of 1949 and the international laws of war.

One could argue philosophically that true freedom fighters are justified in fighting tyranny and attacking strategic or military targets.  But while freedom fighters with a just cause may be seen as serving a higher moral purpose, nothing justifies the slaughter of school children, hospital patients, yeshiva students, or families celebrating holidays and weddings.  There is no virtue in blowing up teenagers in pizzerias or passengers on public buses, or stabbing Israelis just for being Jews.  Mainstream liberals would disagree that the administration engages in such linguistic and moral subterfuge, but they cannot deny that it manipulates language to promote a narrative in which terrorism is often rationalized by illusory contextualization.

While many Americans simply do not understand the nature of radical Islam, the president endeavors to minimize its significance and doctrinal motivations.  He did so in the past when he misleadingly claimed victory in the war on terror and dubbed the Islamic State junior varsity, and he does so now when he calls Islamist terror “violent extremism” and says ISIS is not an existential threat.

Clearly, if Americans want to understand the nature of the threat, they’ll have to look for answers beyond the administration’s partisan dissimulation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Brussels Terrorist Featured in Immigrant Integration Film

Turkish Official in Sweden: ‘Death to Armenian Dogs!’

60 Minutes Crew Attacked in ‘No-Go Zone’ in Sweden

Justin Trudeau: Changing the Face of Canada Forever?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Arutz Sheva.

Fighting America’s Communist Sympathizers 50 Years after the Vietnam War

For those who fought and served honorably during the Vietnam War there is a still a struggle going on for the hearts and minds of the American people.

The Vietnam War continues against those in American politics, on university campuses, in business and serving in think tanks who are self-identified Communist sympathizers. The media has given them many names such as Statists, Socialists and Progressives.

Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

Ayn Rand wrote:

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Kerry

John Kerry

To demonstrate how powerful these Communist sympathizers have become is best shown in a column by Tom Pauken, the founder of the National Student Committee for the Defense of Vietnam who served as a Military Intelligence officer in South Vietnam. In a column titled The Vietnam War: Still opposing the New Left at Home Pauken writes:

The LBJ Presidential Library is hosting a Vietnam War “Summit” from April 26-28. I put the word Summit in quotes because normally one would expect a true summit to reflect the major viewpoints associated with the event. That is not the case with this program about to unfold at the University of Texas.

The keynote speaker for the “Summit” is John Kerry who trashed his fellow American soldiers on national TV once he came home from Vietnam as a spokesman for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Also prominently featured is Tom Hayden, a leader of the New Left who supported the North Vietnamese in that war and served as a useful tool for the Communists by making a trip to North Vietnam with his then wife actress Jane Fonda where propaganda film footage featuring Hayden and Fonda was made by the Communists. Hayden is featured in the session entitled the “War at Home.” There is no one represented on that panel from our Vietnam generation who opposed the New Left at home – even though our opposition to the student radicals from many of us as college students and our fellow soldiers was very strong at the time. I would have been open to discussing the other side of the war at home, but neither I nor others capable of representing our point of view were invited.

The Communist Ambassador from Vietnam to the U.S. is a speaker, but there appears to be no representation on the program from South Vietnamese refugees who are critics of the regime.

For “balance,” the Vietnam “Summit” features former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who was the architect of what became known as the Kissinger Accords, which paved the way for the North Vietnamese takeover of South Vietnam. Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State and a Naval Academy graduate who served three tours in Vietnam, resigned his military commission over Kissinger’s deal making. Armitage was not invited to be a speaker at the LBJ Library “Summit.” Nor was John O’Neill, another Naval Academy graduate and swift boat veteran of Vietnam (who graduated first in his class from the University of Texas Law School). O’Neill debated John Kerry on the war on the Dick Cavett TV show after both men returned from Vietnam. There are many other knowledgeable Vietnam Veterans, historians, and journalists who would have made themselves available to speak at a true summit, but who were not invited.

The guest list for LBJ Presidential Library Vietnam War Summit says it all. As Pauken concludes, “It is sad to see a prestigious institution like the LBJ Library miss an opportunity to have a real exchange of views about what went wrong in Vietnam and what lessons of history are to be learned from that war.”

It appears the ideal of collectivism is alive and well. Collectivism is what drives the followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed. The new left is now in power. The war goes on.

UPDATE: Here are videos of the Vietnam War Summit hosted at the LBJ Library.

The Vietnam War Summit: An Evening with Henry Kissinger [Day 1]

The Vietnam War Summit: The War at Home [Day 2]

The Vietnam War Summit: Country Joe McDonald Performs “I Feel Like I’m Fixin’ to Die Rag” [Day 3]

One Catholic standing against the wholesale movement of Muslim Syrians to the West

He is the Archbishop of Aleppo, Syria and in this interview with Catholic News Service he is highly critical of Canada’s mass importation of Syrians.  (By the way, we have never seen a breakdown of the percentage of Muslim v. Christian Syrians Canada is admitting.)

Archbishop of Syria

Jean-Clement Jeanbart, the Melkite Archbishop of Aleppo.

I’m guessing he would be even more appalled if he knew how the US Conference of Catholic Bishops takes millions of tax dollars every year and is now busy scattering Syrians to the four winds and into every corner of America.

Here is what he says about the cradle of Christianity potentially being devoid of Christians.

I wonder does this give any good Catholics pause about what is being done in their name when thousands upon thousands of Syrians are scattered for permanent resettlement?

MONTREAL (CNS) — Seated in a quiet room, the Melkite Catholic archbishop of Aleppo, Syria, spoke slowly, in an almost muffled voice.

He goes on to describe a horrible bombing of the city.  Then this….

The city is 8,000 years old. It gave civilization to the world,” said Archbishop Jeanbart, giving details about what Aleppo brought to history, culture, science and economics. Located in northern Syria, until recently Aleppo was a driving force for the country’s economy, providing work to 1.2 million workers and hosting 150,000 university students.

“More than half of the city’s population left over the last four or five years,” added the archbishop who has served there since 1995.

Ever since the war started, Archbishop Jeanbart has said that his wish is to see the population — and especially the Christians — stay in Syria. When asked what he thinks about Canada welcoming 25,000 Syrian refugees in the past few months, he was not impressed.

“We’re not happy when we see the Canadian government moving refugees and facilitating their integration. It hurts us. A lot,” he said.

[….]

….he would rather see the Canadian government making more efforts to allow the Syrian population to stay in Syria.

[….]

We will reconstruct our country. We want to build and stay,” he said, pounding the arm of his chair. “We want it to be our country and stay in this country where Christianity was born, and give a testimony of Christ’s love and charity, and of the possibility to live together, as men believing in God and respectful of one another.”

Continue reading here.

Go here to see our complete Canada archive with recent posts about ‘Boy’ Trudeau’s impulsive, supposedly humanitarian, airlift of over 25,000 Syrians in only a few months.

And, I wonder if the Pope ever listens to others of his faith who clearly must disagree with what he (the Pope) is advocating.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Identitare: leading the way to save western civilization in the new Austria

MN: CAIR filing another employment discrimination case involving Somalis and prayer breaks

Kansas governor’s withdrawal decision has the refugee contractors defiant; NJ withdraws too!

RELATED VIDEO: Archbishop of Aleppo Syria H.E. Jean C. Jeanbart on the Russian intervention in Syria:

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Jean-Clement Jeanbart, the Melkite Archbishop of Aleppo. Credit: Aid to the Church in Need.

British Textbook Company Indoctrinating American and Florida’s Children

“The British textbook company Pearson’s international business model and products are brainwashing U.S. and Florida students with religious and political indoctrination, revisionist U.S. history, pornography, and horrible math methodologies.” Florida Citizens Alliance

Florida Citizens Alliance (FLCA)in a column titled Tell Pearson, PLC To Stop Indoctrinating Our Kids! writes:

Pearson, PLC is a British company that provides over 80% of all text books and on-line lesson plans to our children in Florida public schools. They are dedicated to brainwashing our U.S. and Florida students with religious and political indoctrination, revisionist U.S. history, pornography and horrible math methodologies. Several of their largest shareholders are the Arab Bank Corp and the two thugs running Libya. Furthermore, Pearson is committed to destructive high stakes testing and is heavily invested in standardized tests.

The story is even bigger than Florida and the United States. Pearson is an international company, chasing the multi-trillion dollar k-12 textbook, on-line lesson plan and huge standardized testing dollars gravy train on a global basis. They are intent on rolling out Common Core including its Common Core curriculum, high stakes testing and student profiling through aggressive data mining.

FLCA provides students, parents, teachers and concerned citizens an opportunity to send and email to Pearson, PLC. The email reads:

To Pearson PLC Board of Directors:

Your international business model and products are brainwashing our U.S. and Florida students with religious and political indoctrination, revisionist U.S. history, pornography, and horrible math methodologies. We demand you honor Florida Statutes FS 1003.42 and FS 847.011 to ensure historically accurate materials, stop the pornography and stop the political and religious indoctrination immediately.

Those readers wishing to contact Pearson’s Board of Directors may do so by clicking here.

ABOUT THE FLORIDA CITIZENS ALLIANCE

The Florida Citizens’ Alliance (FLCA) is a coalition of citizens and grassroots groups working together through education, outreach and community involvement to advance the ideals and principles of liberty. We believe these include but are not limited to individual rights, free markets, and limited government.

To learn more go here.

Obama’s Illegal Aliens Disguised as Refugees

Below is the press release from the Center for Immigration Studies this morning.  In fact this effort to expand the definition of who is a refugee is going on world wide as so-called ‘Unaccompanied Alien Children’ (largely teenage boys) are also flooding into Europe. It is not a coincidence!

Teenage boys Texas

Unaccompanied Alien Children arrive at U.S. border in 2014.

For nearly 9 years I’ve watched the definition of the word ‘refugee’ be stretched like a rubber band until now most in the media think that anyone on the move for any reason is a refugee!

But, that is exactly what the No-Borders gang is pushing for.  When you read this remember that a legitimate refugee must prove that he/she has been persecuted for one of several reasons (such as race, religion, political persuasion).

Someone running from crime and wanting a better life does NOT a refugee make!

WASHINGTON, DC (May 2, 2016) — The Center for Immigration Studies has released a new report, “Welcoming Unaccompanied Alien Children to the United States”, analyzing the Obama administration’s persistent efforts to relocate the children of Central American illegal aliens to the United States. The report is online at http://cis.org/Welcoming-Unaccompanied-Alien-Children-to-the-United-States.

When the illegal flow of mostly teen-age boys from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador across the border reached record levels in 2014, the administration at first tried to arrange for them to stay by presenting them as victims of trafficking. But for the immigration benefits of being trafficked to apply, there must be coercion and exploitation; this was not the case.

rush-f1

Next, the administration established the Central American Minors Refugee/Parole Program, to fly the young people directly to the United States. But this program requires that the family members to whom the children are delivered have some form of legal status in the U.S. Because the majority of the minors’ family members in the U.S. are illegal immigrants, the program has not been widely used.

Thus the latest initiative: a new “family reunification program” specifically designed for illegal aliens and their children. In collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the administration is planning to enable illegal aliens to have their children brought to them in the U.S., with the minors labelled as “refugees.” However, by the UN’s own admission most of these children do not qualify as refugees.

The cost to American taxpayers of reuniting illegal aliens with the children they left behind is substantial. The FY 2017 budget request for the Unaccompanied Children (UC) program totals $1.321 billion, making the cost for one UAC likely to be more than $17,000. This is more than double the cost per UAC in 2010.

Nayla Rush, a senior researcher at the Center and author of the report, writes: “We can empathize with children wishing to reunite with family members who make it to the United States before them. … We can also, however, question this administration’s policies and motives and wonder if it is in the best interest of the American people to welcome these children here. … We might even call this program what it really is: a family reunification program specially crafted for illegal aliens and their children under the cover of refugee resettlement.”

(Emphasis mine)

Go here for our very extensive archive on the problem (originally archived as Unaccompanied minors).

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Versus a Bi-Partisan Liberal Establishment: The Trade-Immigration Connection

NAFTA Raises Its Ugly Head: Mexico Set to Dump Toxic Oil Field Waste into Texas

Launching from Libya! When weather breaks expect “hundreds of thousands” of migrants to make their move

Too funny! Mayor of Rutland, VT says we got our heroin epidemic under control, so now let’s take some Syrian refugees

Syrians in Greece picky about where they will go, reject Ireland

Tiny Nebraska town says no to chicken plant (migrant labor one important objection)

PODCAST: Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech, DOJ ‘Newspeak’ and EU’s ISIS Problem

Donald Trump on Tuesday swept five states and is running away with the nomination.  With approximately 1,000 delegates, he is positioned to reach the 1,237 mark before the convention in Cleveland.  Meanwhile, his closest competitor Ted Cruz picked his VP candidates in Carly Fiorina.

In Europe, Italian authorities arrested four would-be terrorists affiliated with ISIS, and Brussels began distributing iodine tablets (to counteract the effects of a potential dirty bomb).

Finally, with the official transition of the term “convicted criminal” to “justice-involved individual,” the politically correct DOJ ushers in a new era in American Newspeak.

Topics of Discussion:

  • Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy address
  • The State of the Republican Primary
  • Europe’s Terror Continues in Italy and Belgium
  • The DOJ’s Newspeak Lexicon
  • Potential Implications of a Trump Nomination and Presidency

& more . . .

EDITORS NOTE: You can listen to USA Transnational Report live on JJ McCartney’s Nightside Radio Studios.