U.S. Muslim group equates Jewish Halacha/Catholic Canon Law with Islamic Sharia Law

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. based Muslim organization founded in 1994, has published its 2016 Questions for Local City Council, Mayoral, State Legislative & Gubernatorial Candidates Running For Office and a Candidate for Public Office Religious Pluralism Pledge.

In a press release CAIR states:

CAIR seeks to empower the American Muslim community with its questionnaires toolkit by providing sample questions for local city council, mayoral, state legislative, gubernatorial, and congressional candidates running for office.

Candidate responses to CAIR’s election questionnaires will assist American Muslims in evaluating each candidate’s leadership criteria and their ability to unite and engage the community on policies and programs that meet Muslim needs. The questions and the issues included in the questionnaires emphasize the American Muslim community’s concerns, as well as those of its civil rights, immigrant rights and worker rights allies. [Emphasis added]

Discover the Networks reports that, “Despite its attempt to portray itself as a champion of Muslim civil rights, CAIR espouses radical views and has publicly endorsed radical militant Islamic groups around the world. According to many terrorism experts, CAIR is on the wrong side of the war on terrorism.”

The candidate questionnaire and candidate pledge are counter intuitive to those who understand Islamic (shariah) law.

David Yerushalmi in a 2008 column titled Shariah vs. Jewish Law wrote:

I have written extensively on the question of the practice or advocacy of Shariah by Shariah authorities as a violation of the primary federal sedition statute (i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 2385) on the grounds that throughout the long 1200-year history of the development of Shariah, and across all five major schools of Shariah jurisprudence, five salient facts are embedded in a deep consensus among all authoritative Shariah authorities:

[1] The telos or purpose of Shariah is submission. Shariah seeks to establish that Allah is the divine lawgiver and that no other law may properly exist but Allah’s law.

[2] Shariah seeks to achieve this goal through persuasion and other non-violent means.  But when necessary and under certain prescribed circumstances the use of force and even full-scale war to achieve the dominance of Shariah worldwide is not only permissible, but obligatory. The use of force or war is termed Jihad.

[3] The goal of Shariah is to achieve submission to Allah’s law by converting or conquering the entire world and the methodology to achieve this end (by persuasion, by force and subjugation, or by murder) is extant doctrine and valid law by virtue of a universal consensus among the authoritative Shariah scholars throughout Islamic history.

[4] The doctrine of Jihad is foundational because it is based upon explicit verses in the Qur’an and the most authentic of canonical Sunna and it is considered a cornerstone of justice: until the infidels and polytheists are converted, subjugated, or murdered, their mischief and domination will continue to harm the Muslim nation. And,

[5] Jihad is conducted primarily through kinetic warfare but it includes other modalities such as propaganda and psychological warfare.

Dr. Bill Warner, using a real life example, shows how non-Muslims react to the demands of the Sharia, in particular, what non-Muslims need to understand about how necessity can abrogate obligation in this video:

The candidate questionnaire asks:

3. Do you agree the U.S. Constitution and state laws are not threatened by citizens privately following their own religious laws, such as Jewish Halacha, Islamic Sharia or Catholic Canon Law, as long as such religious laws comply with U.S. code?

The question equates Jewish and Catholic beliefs with that of Islamic (shariah) law. But are they equal?

Once signed do these two documents require candidates for public office to submit to Islamic law?

Is signing the pledge and answering yes to all the questions in the CAIR candidate questionnaire promoting sedition?

It would appear so.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The Face of Evil: Surveying the ISIS Killing Fields in Northern Iraq

1 Year After Steinle Death, San Francisco Unveils Immigration Policy Keeping ‘Sanctuary’ Protections

Georgia: Muslim woman in burqa attacks family with American flag

RELATED VIDEO: CAIR tells Muslims to Defy Customs Agents

Hey Clinton, Sanders Supporters: ‘It’s Not Racist To Put Americans’ Jobs First’

LOS ANGELES, California /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) launched a radio ad today in Los Angeles reminding Californians that putting Americans’ jobs first isn’t racist. The commercial features civil rights leader and former Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Executive Director Frank Morris and is running on multiple radio stations in Los Angeles, including the top urban contemporary station.  The ads are scheduled to run for the next week.

“Many of my Democratic brothers and sisters have unknowingly become pawns of Wall Street and the US Chamber of Commerce open border propaganda machine,” commented Frank Morris, civil rights leader and member of Californians for Population Stabilization.  “They’re labeling slower immigration policies racist when less immigration would mean more jobs and better wages for minorities in California.” Morris continued, “People need to realize that Wall Street wants more immigration so there are more of us competing against each other for jobs.  That keeps wages low and corporate profits high.”

As the California primary has approached, protests have proliferated throughout the state with much of demonstrator’s ire directed at Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his inflammatory comments many have labeled racist.  Demonstrators have also conflated Trump’s rhetoric with his proposed policy of reducing mass immigration, calling slower immigration policies racist.

Morris commented, “Donald Trump is dead wrong to make sweeping generalizations about specific groups and should be admonished if not repudiated for doing so.  But people need to recognize that the policy of reducing mass immigration has merit.  It’s not racist to put the job interests of American workers first. That’s just common sense.  It would be nice if Hillary and Bernie stepped up and called for less low skilled foreign workers, not more.”

Both Clinton and Sanders support amnesty for eleven million illegal aliens.  Both support President Obama’s executive actions for millions here illegally, giving them legal authorization to compete for American jobs.   And both Clinton and Sanders have promised to double down on President Obama’s executive actions if elected.

“Traditionally, our Democratic leaders have stood up for working class Americans but in this case, Clinton and Sanders policies would hurt African Americans and Hispanic Americans,” commented Morris.

As of April 2016, more than one million Californians were still unemployed with hundreds of thousands more under-employed or having given up looking for work.  And while the state’s overall unemployment rate has been improving, African Americans and Hispanic Americans aren’t faring as well as whites.   In 4Q 2015, the unemployment rate for African Americans was 10.9%, Hispanic Americans 7.2% and whites 4.4%.  Californiacontinues to have one of the highest African American unemployment rates in the country.

“How can our leaders call for more immigration, more foreign workers when millions of Americans still can’t find jobs?” asked Morris.

To learn more, visit CAPSWeb.org.

RELATED VIDEO: Was an Endless Flow of Immigrant Workers who Take Jobs and Suppress Wages Dr. King’s Dream?

Census Bureau: Illegal immigration has surged by 57%

Today, President Obama said “Right now, the number of people trying to cross our border illegally is near its lowest level in forty years.”

These are the current immigration rates according to the latest data culled from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey by the Center for Immigration Studies:

  • Legal immigration: 1 million per year
  • Illegal immigration: 550,000 per year

immigration under obama

“Census: Illegal immigration up 57% to 550,000, one new Albuquerque A YEAR”
Washington Examiner

The report dispels projections that immigration — legal and illegal — would drop due to a pull back in immigrants from Mexico. Instead, it has grown with new countries in Latin America, Cuba and Asia fueling the surge, said the CIS report titled, “New Data: Immigration Surged in 2014 and 2015.”

“New Data: Immigration Surged in 2014 and 2015”
Center for Immigration Studies

At the same time as illegal immigration has increased, the number of new permanent legal visas issued overseas and long-term temporary immigration (e.g. guest workers and foreign students) have also increased somewhat. We estimate that 2.03 million new legal immigrants entered in 2013 and 2014, compared to 1.6 million in 2012 and 2013.

“Immigration figures highest since Clinton; new arrivals less likely from Mexico”
Washington Times

“The idea that somehow the era of mass immigration is over is wrong,” said Steven A. Camarota, a demographer and research director at the center. “Basically, a decline from Mexico has been replaced by increases from elsewhere.”

“Legal and Illegal Immigration Surges Over Past Two Years”
Breitbart

The 3.1 million new arrivals of 2014 and 2015 represent a dramatic increase compared to the prior two years when 2.3 million entered in 2012 and 2013.

“U.S. Immigration at 15-Year High With 3 Million Arrivals Over the Past Two Years”
MRCtv

CIS estimates that about 1.1 million legal immigrants and 550,000 new illegal aliens settled in the United States annually in 2014 and 2015.

“U.S. Census Data: 57 Percent Increase in Illegal Immigration in Two Years
The New American

The report attributed the increase in immigration to several factors, including cutbacks in border and immigration enforcement, an improved economy (which attracts more immigrants), and the “expansive nature” of our legal immigration system (especially for long-term temporary visas such as guest workers and foreign students).

“CIS: Immigration Levels Increased 39% in Last Two Years”
NumbersUSA

This immigration increase can be attributed to lack of interior enforcement, the Obama administration’s catch and release policy for border apprehensions, and anincrease in temporary worker visas passed by Congress in last year’s omnibus bill.

“New Analysis: 3.1 Million Immigrants Arrived Over the Past 2 Years”
Conservative Review

What this report also demonstrates is that illegal immigration is increasing precisely during the most protracted rise in legal immigration. Apologists for illegal immigration often contend that this odious phenomenon is a symptom of not allowing in enough people through legal channels. The reality is the opposite: the more we make America the prime destination for millions of people from third world countries the more people will be incentivized to leave their desperate straits and join their family members at all costs.

“Illegal immigration has exploded 57% in less than two years with at least 550,000 new illegal aliens pouring into US”
NumbersUSA tweet (with chart)

“How could the lack of legal immigration be the cause of illegal immigration when legal imm. is at an all time high?”
Daniel Horowitz tweet

“GRAPH: Immigration (Legal and Illegal) Surged in 2014-2015 (in millions)”
CIS tweet

“Well, so much for the “immigration wave is over” narrative.”
Mark Krikorian tweet

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The Face of Evil: Surveying the ISIS Killing Fields in Northern Iraq

1 Year After Steinle Death, San Francisco Unveils Immigration Policy Keeping ‘Sanctuary’ Protections

Georgia: Muslim woman in burqa attacks family with American flag

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is Gabriella Garcia holding a sign with “la lucha es de todos”, which translated means “the struggle is everything”, outside of a political rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump rally in Dallas, Texas 0n September 14, 2015. A man holds a sign “America sin Trump” translates to “America without Trump”. Photo: REUTERS/Mike Stone.

Making History is Sometimes About Timing

Former British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill once stated, “To every man there comes in his lifetime that special moment when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered a chance to do a very special thing, unique to him and fitted to his talents. What a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the work which would be his finest hour.”

In each of our lives, we all get one or two of these Churchillian “taps on the shoulder;” in many ways, how we respond to these taps, will determine our lot in life.

Let me give you two examples from a couple of friends of mine.

Anthony “Spud” Webb played 13 years in the National Basketball Association (NBA), though only standing five foot seven inches tall (which was and still is unheard of in professional basketball). Spud is most known for being the shortest person in the history of the NBA to win the slam dunk contest (1986). He defeated his then Atlanta Hawks teammate, Dominique Wilkins who stood at six feet eight inches tall.

Spud was told his whole life that he was too short to play basketball, though he could dunk the ball when he was only five foot three inches.

Despite averaging 26 points a game on his varsity high school team, Spud received little interest from college and university basketball programs. He ended up playing for a junior college, Midland College in Midland, Texas. He was named a National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) All-American.

He was then offered a scholarship to play for legendary North Carolina State University basketball coach, Jim Valvano.

After college, Spud was told by most NBA scouts that he should play in Europe because of his size. He ended up being drafted in the fourth round of the 1985 draft that began his illustrious NBA career.

Ray “Mick” Mickens played eleven seasons as a cornerback in the National Football League (NFL), though standing only five foot eight inches tall and weighing a mere 180 lbs.

Mick was a standout corner for Texas A&M University, as well as a sprinter for the track team. Considered one of the top corners in the country, he was named an All-American and All-Southwest Conference player in both his junior and senior years.

Mick was drafted by the New York Jets in the third-round of the 1996 NFL Draft and went on to play over a decade in the NFL against all odds.

By all the professional metrics then and today, Spud or Mick should have never played professional sports. They didn’t fit neatly into the boxes that the establishment had set up to determine who could play on the professional level. Neither was of the right height or weight; but how do you measure a person’s heart or determination?

In a similar manner, based on all political metrics set up by the establishment, Donald Trump should not be the Republican nominee for president. He had never run for any office before, was never active in the Republican Party, and was not a part of the “good old boys” network.

But how do you measure a person’s ability to connect with the public at large? How do you measure a person’s ability to connect with the people in a language that they understand? How do you explain the ability of a billionaire to connect with the working class?

On paper, Spud and Mick should never have played pro sports, let alone, play for over a decade, each at the highest level.

In a similar vein, on paper, there is no way anyone could have predicted Trump’s ascendancy to become the Republican standard bearer for president; it defies all conventional wisdom.

Spud, Mick, and Trump all changed the “conventional wisdom” approach to basketball, football, and politics. Sports are one of the most egalitarian institutions in the world: either you can play or you can’t; either you can help a team win or you can’t.

Politics is less egalitarian than sports and is more subjective. Politics is more answering the question: “Can I trust you and can I believe you are going to do the things you promised?” Politics is about answering the question: “Are you going to make my life better and provide a brighter future for my children?”

Spud and Mick would have a much more difficult time breaking into professional sports today. I would go so far as to say that they would not make a pro team today simply because the leagues are so data driven, despite a person’s level of accomplishment. Basketball players at various positions should be of a certain height and weight; football players should be at a certain height, weight and speed based on their positions played.

If a player doesn’t fit neatly into these metrics, in many instances, a coach or scout won’t even look at a player. This explains why and how the political establishment overlooked the Trump candidacy. The Democrats made the same mistake with Bernie Sanders.

Spud and Mick have proven that they were prepared for that tap on the shoulder; thus far, I would say Trump has proven he was ready also.

Often times, making history is as much about timing as it is skills. Could it be that Trump was born for such a time as this?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in BlackPressUSA.

Radical anti-Trump Illegal Immigrant Voter Activation Committee Formed

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced the launch of a new voter activation committee ‘Building Bridges, Not Walls‘. Its purposes is “to combat the anti-immigrant policies that will no doubt be included in the national Republican Party platform and be exploited by GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.”

“Building Bridges, Not Walls is about Californians rising to the occasion and fighting for candidates and policies that will move America forward,” Villaraigosa said. “Californians want to step up and respond in every way possible to protect our families, friends and neighbors from the threat of Donald Trump’s scapegoating anti-immigrant politics. I am proud that the people of California are so generous in their giving to campaigns and causes, but we have more to offer than just our pocket books. We have the power of passionate people who will engage on a person-to-person level to mobilize and turnout people to vote.”

Antonio Villaraigosa

Antonio Villaraigosa

According to Discover The Networks:

At a 1996 Latino and Immigrant Rights rally in Washington, DC, Villaraigosa shared the stage with Augustine Cebeda, “Minister of Information” for the radical Latino group The Brown Berets of Aztlan. Cebeda was known for having stated, in the past: “Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out [of the U.S. Southwest]! We [Mexicans] are the future…. You old white people, it is your duty to die.”

An advocate of racial preferences and welfare benefits for illegal aliens, Villaraigosa said in 1997:

“Part of today’s reality has been propositions like 187 [to deny welfare benefits to California’s illegal aliens], propositions like 209 [to abolish racial preferences in California’s public sector], the welfare reform bill [of 1996], which targeted legal immigrants and targeted us as a community…. Today in California in the legislature, we’re engaged in a great debate, where not only were we talking about denying education to the children of undocumented workers, but now we’re talking about whether or not we should provide prenatal care to undocumented mothers. It’s not enough to elect Latino leadership. If they’re supporting legislation that denies the undocumented driver’s licenses, they don’t belong in office, friends…. If they can’t stand up and say, ‘You know what? I’m not ever going to support a policy that denies prenatal care to the children of undocumented mothers,’ they don’t belong here.”

[ … ]

Villaraigosa’s first act as L.A. mayor was to require all government employees under his jurisdiction to sign an ethics pledge. Meanwhile, rumors of Villaraigosa’s own marital infidelity had been circulating for years. In July 2007 he finally admitted to an affair with Mirthala Salinas, a television reporter for the Spanish-language network Telemundo. The affair constituted not only an ethical problem in the mayor’s personal life, but also a political conflict of interest in light of the fact that Salinas’ employer, NBC Universal, was campaigning for the authorization of a $3 billion development plan for which it needed Villaraigosa’s approval.

During a series of mass immigration rallies in the spring of 2007, Villaraigosa sided with the protesters who were demanding expanded rights and privileges for illegal aliens. At a May 1 rally in Los Angeles, unruly demonstrators hurled makeshift projectiles — including rocks, sticks, frozen water bottles, and bottles filled with urine — at police officers, who eventually were ordered to end the rally and to arrest anyone engaging in violence. In the process of trying to quell the mayhem, the police officers at the scene suffered more injuries than did the protesters. But three days later, Villaraigosa addressed another crowd of pro-immigration activists at MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, telling them, in Spanish, that he condemned the manner in which the L.A.P.D. had dealt with the May 1 situation, and he accused the officers of having broken up the rally without cause.

In 2008 Villaraigosa served as a co-chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The campaign will begin by targeting voters in Arizona, Florida, Nevada and Colorado, but will direct its efforts towards “wherever it is needed to stop Trump.”

Villaraigosa stated, “Building Bridges, Not Walls is about standing up and saying, ‘Enough!’ We will help mobilize the passion we see in Californians who say ‘No!’ to Trump and direct it – through calls, texts and emails – towards swing states where it matters most.”

It appears that Democrats have drawn a line in the sand on immigration. Their position for the November 2016 presidential election is open borders, or else.

RELATED ARTICLE: San Jose protesters attack Trump supporters with punches, eggs

American Muslims for Palestine: Key Supporter of the BDS Movement

Established in 2005 by UC Berkeley lecturer Hatem Bazian, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP) is a major supporter of the pro-Hamas campus group, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). Several of AMP’s current board members and key officials were previously members of, and worked closely with, now-defunct Islamic extremist groups that funded terrorist activities. These groups included the Islamic Association for Palestine (which, until its dissolution in 2004, served as the chief U.S. propaganda arm of Hamas); the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (which from 1995-2001 contributed approximately $12.4 million in money, goods, and services to Hamas); and KindHearts for Charitable Humanitarian Development (whose assets were frozen in 2006 by the U.S. Treasury Department because of its fundraising activities on behalf of Hamas). AMP is also very active on American college campuses and is one of the major driving forces of the Hamas-inspired Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel. Writes Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD): “AMP is arguably the most important sponsor and organizer for Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which is the most visible arm of the BDS campaign on campuses in the United States. AMP provides speakers, training, printed materials, a so-called ‘Apartheid Wall,’ and [financial] grants to SJP activists. AMP even has a campus coordinator on staff whose job is to work directly with SJP and other pro-BDS campus groups across the country. According to an email it sent to subscribers, AMP spent $100,000 on campus activities in 2014 alone. AMP partners with a wide range of BDS organizations, and openly calls for Congress to embrace BDS.”

In March 2014, AMP was one of six “major national” American Islamic groups that collaborated to form a coalition called the U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), whose stated purpose was to “serve as a representative voice for Muslims as that faith community seeks to enhance its positive impact on society.” The other five USCMO members were the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim American Society (MAS), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Muslim Legal Fund of America (MLFA), and the Mosque Foundation. According to the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT): “Three of [USCMO’s members], AMP, CAIR and MAS, have roots in the Muslim Brotherhood or in … the Palestine Committee,” which, as noted above, wasestablished by the Brotherhood to advance Hamas’s agendas in the U.S.  In 2015, IPT identified six AMP officials and speakers who had formerly worked for the Palestine Committee. They were:

(1) Osama Abu-Irshaid (current AMP board member): Prior to joining AMP, Abu-Irshaid served as: (a) editor of IAP’s Arabic periodical, Al-Zaitounah, which not only promoted the goals of Hamas but also published advertisements by terrorist-affiliated charities like the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation, and theBenevolence International Foundation; (b) a board member of the American Muslim Society (AMS), which was essentially IAP under another name; and (c) a “research fellow” at the United Association for Studies and Research (UASR), a pro-Hamas organization. In a 1999 article published in UASR’s Middle East Affairs Journal, Abu-Irshaid denounced all Palestinian peace agreements with the “Zionists”—including the 1993 Oslo Accords—as despicable betrayals of “Palestinian historic and religious rights.” And in a December 2014 Facebook post in Arabic, he praised the violent jihadist tactics of Hamas while deriding Mahmoud Abbas‘s Fatah party as a collection of “lackeys” and “compromise[rs]” who had “conspired with Israel” and “deviat[ed] from the creed of liberation and resistance upon which [Fatah] was established.”

(2) Salah Sarsour (current AMP board member): In the mid-1990s, Sarsour was arrested by Israeli authoritiesand sentenced to eight months in prison for raising funds on behalf of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development(HLF). “While in prison,” reports IPT, Sarsour “became ‘very good friends’ with Adel Awdallah, a former leader of Hamas’ al-Qassam Brigades … He also sent money to Awdallah ‘several times’ through his brother Jamil Sarsour, who pleaded guilty to aiding Hamas and served a multiple year sentence in Israel before being deported to the U.S. in 2002.”

(3) Sufyan Nabhan (current AMP board member): During a May 2010 event commemorating the Palestinian “Al-Nakba”—i.e., “Day of Catastrophe,” in reference to the creation of Israel on May 14, 1948—Nabhancondemned Israel’s “occupation of Palestine,” saying: “Occupation is apartheid, occupation is segregation. Massacres are going on daily.”

(4) Yousef Shahin (current AMP board member): This onetime president of theIslamic Association for Palestine‘s New Jersey branch has defended former British MPGeorge Galloway, founder of Viva Palestina, against well-founded charges that the latter raised funds on behalf of Hamas. Even after Galloway himself had proudly announced in 2009 that he was giving—for purposes of “politics” and “not charity”—”three cars and £25,000 cash to [Hamas] Prime MinisterIsmail Haniyeh,” Shahin maintained: “He’s not taking money for terrorists. He’s buying medical supplies for the hospital. He’s not dealing with a terrorist organization. We were assured by him; he’s going to give everything to the hospital.” Shahin was also listed as a contact person for an AMP banquet at which Galloway was a guest speaker.

(5) Abdelbaset Hamayel: This former Islamic Association for Palestine executive director and secretary general also served as arepresentative of the Illinois and Wisconsin offices of KindHerarts for Charitable Humanitarian Development.

(6) Hatem Bazian: For a comprehensive profile of Bazian and his ties to Islamic extremism, click here.

In April 2016, Jonathan Schanzer confirmed and expanded upon IPT’s revelations when he reported that seven current AMP officials and/or affiliates were former members of groups that had been shut down or held civilly liable by the U.S. government for funneling money to Hamas. These included: (a) three individuals—Hossein Khatib, Jamal Said, and the aforementioned Salah Sarsour—who had previously belonged to the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF); and (b) four individuals—Rafeeq Jaber, Sufian Nabhan, Abdelbasset Hamayel, and Osama Abu Irshaid—who had gravitated to AMP from the Islamic Association for Palestine and (in Hamayel’s case) KindHearts. (Nabhan, Hamayel, and Abu Irshaid had also been named in the 2015 IPT report)

Read more.

Is Donald Trump right when he calls reporters ‘liars’ and ‘lowlifes’?

Thomas Burr, the National Press Club (NPC) president, doesn’t thinks so. Burr attacked Trump’s recent comments that “the press should be ashamed of themselves” for investigating Trump’s fundraising for veterans. Trump called an ABC News reporter a “sleaze.” “You know my opinion of the media,” Trump said, “it’s very low.”

325_burr_square_0

Thomas Burr

Burr, who worked for The Salt Lake Tribune before being elected as NPC president, stated:

Donald Trump misunderstands—or, more likely, simply opposes–the role a free press plays in a democratic society. Reporters are supposed to hold public figures accountable. Any American political candidate who attacks the press for doing its job is campaigning in the wrong country. In the United States, under our Constitution, a free press is a check on politicians of all parties.

If we are to demand that other countries respect the tradition of a free press we must also practice that here at home.

QUESTION: If the press holds public figures accountable, who holds the press accountable?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Trump has previously called for making it easier for public figures to sue news organizations for libel, a change that according to Burr, “would practically suffocate a free press and potentially disable some news companies.” The legal definition of libel is:

A published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.

Trump has never called for Congress to pass a law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. However, other nations have passed blasphemy laws, which have the effect of abridging freedom of speech and the press. Perhaps Mr. Burr should demand that other countries “respect the tradition of a free press”? The below infographic by PEW Research shows 47 countries with a blasphemy law:

countries with blasphemy law

Do blasphemy laws abridge freedom of speech and the press?

Of course they do. Perhaps Mr. Burr and the National Press Club should be fighting against existing and future blasphemy laws? Perhaps Mr. Burr should welcome punishment for those in the media and reporters who publish false statements that damage a person’s reputation and amount to legal written defamation?

Perhaps the press needs to regain the confidence of the people. Rebecca Riffkin from Gallop reported in 2015:

Americans’ confidence in the media has slowly eroded from a high of 55% in 1998 and 1999. Since 2007, the majority of Americans have had little or no trust in the mass media. Trust has typically dipped in election years, including 2004, 2008, 2012 and last year. However, 2015 is not a major election year.

This decline follows the same trajectory as Americans’ confidence in many institutions and their declining trust in the federal government’s ability to handle domestic and international problems over the same time period.

Perhaps Mr. Trump is echoing the American voters distrust of the media during the 2016 election cycle? Perhaps Mr. Trump is saying what the American people have been thinking for a long, long time?

Free speech and a free press is all about telling the truth. Many Americans believe they are living in a time of universal deceit, where telling the truth has become a revolutionary act.

Perhaps Mr. Trump is leading a revolution, or perhaps an insurgency?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Donald Trump is courtesy of NBC News.

Death by Demography: The 2016 Presidential race will decide America’s future

It is as simple (and as scary as that)!

And, everyone of us must now, immediately, begin or continue to educate ourselves about Islam and what the expanding Muslim population will do to Western Civilization, America and our way of life.

We can already see what it is doing to Europe, what more do we need!  Do we think that somehow we will escape? Do you believe America’s melting pot can withstand the Islamic demographic juggernaut (the hijra!) coming our way?

Update May 31: be sure to see Leo Hohmann’s story at WND about the huge numbers of green cards we are giving out to Muslims from all over the world, here.

Ellison and Cardon

Representatives Keith Ellison and Andre Carson went to the National Press Club last week to speak against ‘Islamophobia’ and said of Trump: Trump in particular appeals to people’s “paternalistic, tribalistic impulse,”…. Sheesh, and of course Ellison isn’t doing the same for his Islamic tribe!

After seeing this enlightening and provocative post at ‘Gates of Vienna’ thanks to Richard at Blue Ridge Forum, I wanted to say something here about how every one of you reading this must begin to thoroughly educate yourselves about what Islam really is!Do you know the ten Arabic words?***And, since I read that post last week, I see that America’s first Muslim Congressmen took to the podium at the National Press Club to exhort their fellow Muslims to get into the Presidential election to defeat Donald Trump and “Islamophobia” here.

It is not about ‘Islamophobia,’ it is all about migration and the fear among Islamists that Trump (and you) will demand a halt to the migration, the hijra.

In Minnesota, where Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison represents the large and growing Somali ‘community’ we see the Minneapolis Star Tribune (also last week) go ballistic over speaking engagements throughout the state by an Egyptian Coptic Christian using the Koran to explain to the public what Islam’s goals for world domination entail. (Hint: It involves migration!)

We have Daniel Greenfield, writing at Frontpage magazine last week telling us that the Muslim migration will not end because Muslim countries are largely dysfunctional and Muslims procreate at higher levels than do westerners. The invasion will not end, for Europe and for us, there are just too many of them!

So how much do you know about Islam? Do you know what the ten words mean?

RELATED ARTICLES:

May: 1,035 Syrian Muslims admitted to U.S., only 2 Christians

U.S. to deport illegal alien Somalis

Does Janesville, Wisconsin get refugees?

Some states are pretty secretive about refugee health data—Tennessee is one of them

Bowling Green, KY pastor: ‘we need to have more faith in the process’

What will Senator Rand Paul do about new influx of Muslims to his hometown?

Florida: Eleven refugees entered the Sunshine State with active TB since 2013

This is the next in a series of stunning refugee health reports from Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart.

Most Americans are shocked to learn that we are still admitting tens of thousands of Cuban “refugees” each year with most going to Florida. Now to add insult to injury we learn that they are not screened for TB and some have arrived with an active form of the communicable disease.

cuba-unloading-ship-1024x834

Cuban immigrants off loading in Florida.

We knew refugees were permitted to move to your towns and cities with latent Tuberculosis but had never heard that cases of active TB were arriving until Leahy began his series.

Do you remember a few years ago the media was going berserk because one guy with active TB flew on a plane somewhere and the news media was going crazy trying to piece together information on where he had been and with whom he sat on the plane.

Well, just think about this, eleven cases were walking around Florida’s mostly Cuban community with active TB in the last couple of years.

So where is the mainstream media now?

Here is Leahy again in a very detailed account of the situation:

Eleven refugees with active tuberculosis (TB) were among more than 111,000 refugees who arrived in Florida during the three years between 2013 and 2015, according to a report the Florida Department of Health recently sent to Breitbart News.

Their active TB status was determined in medical screenings completed within 90 days of their arrival in the Sunshine State.

This news comes barely a week after Breitbart News reported that four refugees with active TB were sent to Indiana in 2015

[….]

The vast majority of these refugees who arrived in Florida between 2013 and 2015–104,000 of the 111,000– came from Cuba under the “wet-foot, dry-foot policy,” the 1995 “amendment to the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act. . . [that] gives migrants from Cuba special treatment that no other group of refugees or immigrants receives… [and] puts Cubans who reach U.S. soil on a fast track to permanent residency,” as Dan Moffett reports.

Only a small percentage of these 104,000 Cuban refugees–an estimated total of 3,000–entered as “traditional arrival” refugees, the program through which approximately 70,000 refugees per year enter the United States from over 100 different countries.

If you are confused by the numbers, Leahy explains that the huge number of Cuban supposed “refugees” admitted to the US are given the same special treatment that regular refugees receive.  However, at least the regular refugees have some screening abroad while the Cubans do not.  They can literally walk around in your neighborhoods for weeks before they even get any health screening.

Continue reading here.

This is our 300th post in our ‘health issues’ category.  Some of Leahy’s earlier reports are archived there.

I wonder, are volunteers who work with refugees briefed by the resettlement contractor about what diseases, parasites etc. the refugees might be carrying?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Great mystery in Sweden: How do we suddenly have more men than women?

Some in Germany worried about large number of conversions from Islam to Christianity

Disease spread by sand fleas arriving in the West with Syrian refugees

Top resettlement states in last ten years

West Virginia you are up next as expanding federal refugee program looking for fresh territory

Florida Atlantic University Professor Defends Horrific 7th Century Islamic punishment

People who attended a recent Islamophobia conference on the campus of Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, Florida, may have thought themselves teleported to Saudi Arabia when listening to one of the expert panelists advocate for the chopping off of hands as a perfectly acceptable way to discourage theft.

The conference called, Islamophobia, Voices from the Muslim Community, was in the form of a panel discussion, and put on by the Muslim Student Association (MSA). Three of the five panelists, incidentally, are linked to terrorism themselves. According to Joe Kaufman with FrontPage Mag, they are,

“They are Maulana Shafayat Mohamed, the imam of the Darul Uloom mosque, located in Pembroke Pines, Florida; Wilfredo Amr Ruiz, the legal counsel for the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); and Bassem Abdo Alhalabi (al-Halabi), an Associate Professor at FAU.”

It happened to be the Department of Computer and Electrical Engineering Associate Professor, Bassem al-Halabi, who made the incredible statement in front of the Florida crowd. It was Tom Trento and his group from The United West, an organization that is dedicated to defending and advancing Western Civilization against the kinetic and cultural onslaught of Shariah Islam, who captured the professor advocating for Shariah. See video on Brietbart.

Al-Halabi said,

“Shariah is being practiced in the United States. We at the Islamic Center of Boca Raton practice Shariah, if someone doesn’t know. When there’s no Shariah, Islamic Shariah, they die in dozens and hundreds every day because of organized crime. People kill people, other people for steal pizza for ten dollars and so.

So when Islamic Shariah is saying about capital punishment, so even though it sounds very severe, but if that is the solution to prevent any crimes then it still has a lot of rule and regulations. I will just mention one and stop here which is. Let’s say cutting the hand off a person if they steal. It sounds very severe, it sounds very barbaric I know, but if it takes one or two people to have their hands cut off and then there is no more stealing in the whole nation that’s a much better resolution than having hundreds of people die every day.”

Several thoughts come to mind after realizing what he said.

  1. Rather cynically, I wonder what other crime besides theft al-Halabi’s Shariah could “fix” by chopping off body parts. Because, it seems like sexual assaults by Muslim immigrant males all over the world is something that is totally out of control. It has been grossly under-reported in Europe because of the negative publicity to those countries. I’m sure tourism to Sweden, France, Norway, and Austria must be in decline because of it. If Sweden is the rape capital of the West, I can’t imagine too many people who would want to venture into that atmosphere. Maybe al-Halabi could propose that practice here in America along with the cutting off of hands for theft. Of course this is highly unlikely because, according to Bill Warner’s book, Sharia Law for Non-Muslims, the Shariah allows for: men to beat their wives, take the testimony of a woman to be worth only half of a man’s, encourages Female Genital Mutilation, and stoning for adultery. Therefore, I don’t think the males would be punished in the extreme for harming females in a sexual way.
  2. The Muslim Student Association (MSA), of which Professor al-Halabi is an advisor, is a Muslim Brotherhood related front organization that has been in service to spread Islam in America since 1963 when the first chapter was formed at the University of Illinois. With that simple fact, it seems way past time to ban the MSA from all college and university campuses. They are seditious in that they practice and pay allegiance to the Shariah, and seek to overthrow our Constitution.
  3. The Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas, according to Shariah, the Threat to America, says this about its numerous front groups, “In order to be considered by the Muslim Brotherhood to be one of ‘our organizations’…all these entities had to have embraced the aforementioned Ikhwan (the brothers) creed: ‘Allah is our goal; the Messenger is our guide; the Koran is our law; Jihad is our means; and martyrdom in the way of Allah is our inspiration.”
  4. How ironic for the panelists to whine about being victims and experiencing hardships in our country from others because they are Muslim. Maybe they need to look at footage of gang rapes, beheadings, crucifixions, terrorist attacks, and burnings of non-Muslims around the world and in our country simply because they aren’t Muslim.
  5. Maybe if our Congress would have the spine to stand up and actually make good on their oath of office to defend the country from enemies both foreign and domestic, they would vote for HR3892, a bill in the House to request the State Department to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Maybe then we could deport those associated with Muslim Brotherhood to an Islamic state, starting with the ones on the panel. After all, it would be better for them to practice the Shariah in another country, instead of trying to ruin ours.

Members of the Muslim Brotherhood here in America, like this professor, are in positions of influence throughout our country whether it be in government, institutes of higher learning, doctors, lawyers and the like, or are active in the numerous front groups like the MSA, CAIR, or Muslim American Society. What is in their heart is the Shariah, as al-Halabi apparently let slip out of his mouth the other day. They are indeed terrorists in sheep’s clothing.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The Face of Evil: Surveying the ISIS Killing Fields in Northern Iraq

1 Year After Steinle Death, San Francisco Unveils Immigration Policy Keeping ‘Sanctuary’ Protections

Georgia: Muslim woman in burqa attacks family with American flag

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may click here to send an email to urge Florida Atlantic University officials to terminate the employment of Professor Bassem Alhalabi for praising Sharia backed punishment of cutting off hands and his ties to Islamist extremism.

Abraham Lincoln fought against ‘political correctness’

The first president elected by the Republican Party fought political correctness during his time.

Professor  in the column Lincoln’s Teaching – and Our Politics writes:

Lincoln famously complained that there was nowhere that people could talk about slavery – they couldn’t talk about it in the churches because “it didn’t belong there.” It was too political, too divisive. And they couldn’t talk about it in politics because it was too explosive. It was a moral and religious question, too unsettling for our politics. It was the gravest issue before us. It was the issue that truly went to the core of the kind of regime we meant to establish and the kind of people we had sought to be. And yet we couldn’t talk about it readily in public.

[Emphasis added]

From the time of Lincoln let’s fast forward to today and Donald J. Trump, the GOP nominee for president of the United States. Professor Arkes wrote:

We bring back here one of the most enduring lessons Lincoln taught, with a problem that persistently haunts our politics: One of the prime tasks of the political man is to teach, through his own, artful example how ordinary people can talk about the issues that truly run to the root. But that presupposes the prior, truly first task. The political man or woman will need to get clear in the first place on the questions that really were central; the questions, as Lincoln said, from which everything else radiated. [Emphasis added]

Trump has been criticized for his lack of “civility.” But is civility a code word for political correctness? Is Trump talking about “issues that truly run to the root”?

Democrats, Republicans and world leaders alike call for Mr. Trump to tone down his rhetoric. The Democrats have called Mr. Trumps comments racist, bigoted and hateful. Some blame the violence seen at Trump rallies on his words. Daily the media bombards us with polls showing the unpopularity of Mr. Trump. However, let is not forget that President Lincoln was also unpopular in his time.

Professor Arkes noted, “That is why, as he [Lincoln] said, that proposition, ‘all men are created equal’ really was the ‘father of all moral principle’ in us. As Lincoln showed, the case in principle for slavery could not be confined to blacks. A government that could accept the slavery of black people could easily begin disfranchising certain classes of whites as well. And with a simple shift of labels, a whole other class of ‘human persons’ can be removed altogether from the circle of ‘rights-bearing beings’.”

“But if a politician uses the N-word, if Donald Trump says a derisive word about women – none of these things has been beneath the notice, and the lingering attention, of the media,” writes Professor Arkes.

Therefore are not topics such as immigration, abortion, women, homosexuality, religion and Islam worthy of public discourse?

In the column Why Morality is the Only Thing We Should Legislate Selwyn Duke writes:

“You can’t legislate morality!” is a common battle cry today.

It’s thought to be a quintessentially American idea, even though the Founding Fathers never expressed such a sentiment. Nor did the early Americans who would unabashedly enforce a biblically based code of morality in their localities, both via social pressure and governmental laws, with transgressors sometimes spending time in stocks — or worse. No, our common battle cry is a modern idea, and one of modernism. It also betrays a fundamental, and dangerous, misunderstanding of law’s nature.

In reality, the only thing we should legislate is morality. The only other option is legislating whims or immorality.

American voters will decide on November 8th if saying things that are unpopular is needed and necessary or if being political correct is the new normal.

As George Orwell noted, “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Perhaps it is time to stop deceiving ourselves?

The Twisting Noose

When I think about the slow and inexorable––but, of course, inevitable––political demise of Hillary Clinton, I am reminded of T.S. Eliot’s poem, “The Hollow Men,” which ends with this haunting refrain:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Hillary’s whimper, it seems clear, will come with an impotently furious last gasp, as the noose that Barack Obama has placed around her neck tightens and tightens and tightens until all we hear is her spasmodic cough, a few hoarse protestations, and a final pitiful bleat––and not the ear-splitting assault of “that voice,” which I  described in a previous article.

How could this happen to the woman who former Democrat House Ways and Means Committee Chairman and convicted felon Dan Rostenkowski called “the smartest woman in the world”?

hillary alinsky paper

Photo illustration by Clay Frost  /  MSNBC.com

No doubt it started at Wellesley College where Hillary, born to a family of Republicans and an avid supporter herself of the1964 arch-conservative presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, as well as the president of the Wellesley College chapter of College Republicans, was irresistibly attracted to the writings of radical leftist Saul Alinsky, of Rules for Radicals fame, who she wrote her thesis about and also kept in close touch with for years after she graduated.

At her graduation in 1969, Republican Senator Edward Brooke delivered a stirring and enthusiastically received commencement address. Hillary––whose graduation speech followed––exhibited a shocking display of rudeness when she slammed the first black senator to be elected to the U.S. Senate. It would not be the last time she displayed a remarkable aptitude for alienating an audience.

At Yale Law School, she hooked her wagon to the star of fellow student Bill Clinton, and when the roguish good ole boy became governor of Arkansas, Hillary served 12 years as the state’s First Lady, racking up an impressive list of scandals of her very own. The short list includes:

  • A $100,000 windfall from cattle futures after a $1,000 investment (all the money she had in her account at the time).
  • The Castle Grande real estate scam.
  • Her role as attorney for the Rose law firm in what would become the putatively criminal Whitewater affair that would follow her to the White House.
  • The serial philandering of her husband in which she was either a willing collaborator or, as Donald Trump has said, an “enabler.”

THE SCANDAL QUEEN MOVES UP

vince foster death book coverWithin months of taking up residence in the White House as First Lady of the United States, Hillary put her scandal expertise to work. In May 1993, she was accused of having a central hand in firing several long-time employees of the White House Travel Office in order to give the pricey travel business to her Hollywood pals. A couple of months later, in July 1993, White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster was said to have committed suicide, although the case for his murder has been made persuasively by, among others, Newsmax.com founder Christopher Ruddy, in his 1993 book, “The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation.”

But the case didn’t end there. In 1996, Hillary was accused by the Senate Special Whitewater Committee of ordering the removal of potentially damaging files related to Whitewater from Foster’s office on the night of his death. Hillary denied everything, once again proving her adeptness in dodging accountability. But even today, Cliff Kincaid, in a must-read article, writes that Something Stinks: The “Fishy” Vince Foster Case.  “Trump, if elected president, could order a new investigation,” Kincaid says. “Such a probe might show media complicity in the cover-up…”

During those years, Hillary vacillated between corruption and incompetence. When her devoted husband put her in charge of healthcare reform, she blew $13 million but couldn’t even get a Democrat Congress to pass the hated bill, in spite of the usual threats and intimidation.

She chose Janet Reno as Attorney General, which her devoted husband called “my worst mistake.”

Her other choices–of Lani Guinier to head the Civil Rights Commission, Webb Hubbell for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, William Kennedy for the Treasury Department, Craig Livingstone to be Director of White House security––all resulted in failure, ignominy, or scandalous controversy.

And her vengeful pursuit of the women––including but not limited to Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen––who accused her devoted husband of rape or sexual harassment has now been documented by Candace E. Jackson in her book, Their Lives – The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine. That pursuit was so wildly successful that it resulted in her devoted husband losing his license for “lying under oath” to a grand jury and his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Not to forget the Clinton campaign-finance scandal of the late 1990s in which millions of dollars of illegal Chinese campaign cash found its way into Democrat Party and Clinton legal defense fund coffers, and, worse, American missile- guidance technology was given to Beijing. This outrage cannot be blamed solely on the Hillary’s devoted husband because he told us himself that with Hillary we were “getting two for the price of one.”

Oh…and this little factoid: After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

In addition, Hillary’s co-presidency brought about the fall of more elected and appointed members, as well as “friends” who met untimely deaths, were indicted, pleaded the fifth, fled the country, and were imprisoned, than in any administration in American history.

STILL LUSTING FOR POWER

Besotted by the power she experienced as consort to the big kahuna Bill Clinton, Hillary decided to carpetbag her way to a senate seat in New York, with plans to spend as few years as possible as a junior senator before claiming what she believed was her rightful place in history as the first female president of the United States of America.

Granted, she had to overcome a number of unfortunate personality traits. It had been decades since she was labeled “Sister Frigidaire” in her high school newspaper, but her image of being cold, robotic and inaccessible never seemed to go away. As writer Tim Cavanaugh said, “Plainly put…she still lacks a key quality that a politician can’t achieve through hard work: likeability.”

Her senatorial campaign involved spinning the yarn that she was a long-time NY Yankees fan, assuring upstate conservative voters that she “cared” about their jobs, informing the large liberal base of NY City Jewish voters that she was part Jewish (endearing, coming from the wife of the first black president), and convincing the Chasidic New Square community in Rockland County (that had formerly voted overwhelmingly for arch-conservative Sen. Alfonse D’Amato) to vote 99 to 1 for her.

Never mind that two months after her election in 2000, she pardoned four residents of New Square who had been convicted of defrauding the federal government, an act not quite as egregious as her husband’s attempt to win her New York’s Hispanic vote by pardoning 16 members of the FALN terrorist group who had planted over 130 bombs in the U.S., killed six people, and injured 70.

But New York’s bleeding-heart liberals voted for the woman wronged by her predatory husband and his paramour Monica Lewinsky, and Hillary won the election, promptly relocated to the Empire State, and moved into an upscale house financed by the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. That would be the current governor of Virginia, one Terry McAuliffe, who just the other day was targeted by a federal investigation looking at donations to his gubernatorial campaign made by a man called Wang, a man he said he was “not even sure” he had met. According to Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller:

Hillary Clinton met Chinese billionaire Wang Wenliang, whose involvement with Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe is at the center of an FBI investigation, during a Sept. 30, 2013 fundraiser at her Chappaqua, N.Y. home, according to an explosive new report from Time. Less than a month after that fundraiser, in which Clinton and Wang reportedly shook hands, the businessman made a $500,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation. He would end up giving a total of $2 million to the Clinton charity, which is a major source of controversy for the Democratic presidential front-runner.

Mmmmmm.

LIMITLESS AMBITION

After an undistinguished first term in the senate, Hillary ran again for the senate in 2006, and won. Two years later, she embarked on a run for the U.S. presidency, a race she lost to Barack Obama.

Two particular incidents stand out in that race. The first is when Bill Clinton, speaking to the late Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy about Obama, remarked: “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” He followed that remark by telling Kennedy that “the only reason you are endorsing him is because he’s black. Let’s just be clear.”

The second revealing remark took place during the final debate of the New Hampshire campaign. Richard Cohen’s description of that exchange is excruciating:

After [Hillary] Clinton had good-naturedly responded to a question about what is sometimes called her “personality deficit”––”Well, that hurts my feelings”––she went on to concede that Obama is “very likeable.” Obama responded with a curt “You’re likeable enough, Hillary.”

Right there and then, the hatred between the Clintons and the Obamas was etched in stone. But they still needed each other: Obama for the vast resources, connections and money sources the Clintons had access to, and the Clintons for the still-alive ambitions they harbored to someday reclaim the White House, no doubt to satisfy their seemingly insatiable lust for power.

Ann Coulter has recently described that mutual hatred in a must read every word article. Here, in a mere tidbit, is Coulter’s premise:

Barack Obama “hates Hillary Clinton and always has…Valerie Jarrett also hates Hillary…Obama adores his vice president, Joe Biden…He knows that Hillary can’t beat Trump… Who more perfectly encapsulates white privilege than Hillary Clinton? Obama resented her campaign and resented Bill Clinton’s not-so-coded racism. …if Hillary were elected, she’d undo everything he’s done…what if Obama could contrive to give the nomination to a guy he likes?”

Coulter suggests that FBI Director James Comey might recommend that Hillary be indicted, that Obama denounces Comey’s report, that Jarrett gets on the phone to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and says: “Disregard everything [Obama] is saying about Comey, if you get my meaning, Loretta…”, and then Lynch indicts Hillary, with Obama pretending that his hands are tied.

As for Hillary, Coulter says that when the Clintons retreat to Chappaqua…they’ll find that “the going rate for a guy whose wife is about to be president is much higher than for an aging rapist whose wife is facing criminal charges.”

FOLLOW THE MONEY

hillary fees middle eastI believe that going back to the 1940s, the White House has had total––or near total––control over the media and the so-called news of the day. This is why every major network and most if not all cable shows echo the exact same “news” to their viewers, often with identical language

For the most part, the media lean left, which is particularly ironic given that the moguls who control the news are mega-millionaires and often billionaire businessmen and women who live and die by capitalism. But as we’ve seen with Barack Obama’s IRS (and the FEC, FCC, et al), the federal government has awesome punitive powers, so clearly it’s quite easy to extort money from the rich.

But I digress. Have you noticed that after almost four decades of getting away with the most egregious abuses of power, a number of incidents have seemed to happen all at once to bring Hillary down? Consider the “coincidental” events of just the past few weeks:

  • Leaks to the media that James Comey is about to suggest she be indicted. Twist of the noose.
  • Front page headlines that her closest and most trusted aides, Sheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, will be deposed by Comey & Co. Twist of the noose.
  • Increasing talk that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who my friend calls “the snarling head” of the Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee, will soon be booted. Twist.
  • Atypically aggressive questions by the Clinton bought-and-paid-for media, members of which always treated the couple with kid gloves and the softest of softball questions. Twist of the noose.
  • A resurgence of interest in and information about the Benghazi murders of four Americans under Hillary’s none-too-watchful watch. Twist of the noose.
  • The release of a blistering report by the State Department’s Inspector General that, according to Dick Morris and Eileen McGann in “TheHillaryDaily.com,” reveals that Hillary’s emails [contain] evidence that the private email server that carried America’s top secret information to and from the Secretary of State was installed, maintained, and partially operated by a civilian aide to Bill Clinton who lacked any security clearance and did not even work for the government.” Double twist of the noose.
  • News, reported this week by bestselling author and journalist Jerome Corsi, that “The Obama administration continues to suppress at least 12 versions of a 451-page draft indictment charging Hillary Clinton with criminal misconduct in the Whitewater case,” and which also includes such charges as “criminal cover-up; destroying legal files regarding the fraudulent transaction, lying under oath to federal investigators, including the FDIC and Congress; removing incriminating records from Vince Foster’s office after his death; and destroying other records, including Rose Law Firm records that would provide incriminating evidence against Clinton and [Webb] Hubbell in the Whitewater scandal. Ooooh…triple twist!
  • A damning article by Scott Powell, managing partner of Remington Rand LLC, who writes an article, the title of which says it all: “James Comey: Enforcing the Law Requires Indicting Hillary.” Addressing the e-mail scandal, Powell spells out the many violations Hillary committed, including: “the use of an unsecure private email server for conducting State Department business [with] reckless disregard of the security interests of the United States and [the violation of] some ten federal statutes. Several are national security-related felonies, just three of which include: 1) disclosure of classified information (22 of which documents were Top Secret); 2) unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents; and 3) destruction of evidence (erasure of the hard drive and deletion of some 30,000 emails by Secretary Clinton), after a government investigation had commenced (Benghazi hearings began October 10, 2012).”
  • Powell continues: “Hillary Clinton has been an integral part of the Clinton Foundation, which is unprecedented in size and global scope as an influence peddling political slush fund. According to the foundation’s own recent tax returns, just 10% of expenditures go to charitable grants, with the bulk of the expenditure balance spent on salaries and benefits, lavish life-style travel and conference organizing. The record shows that the Clinton Foundation took large contributions from several business magnates who soon thereafter received clearance for controversial international business deals. Saudi Arabia contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary became secretary of state. A few years later the Hillary Clinton State Department formally cleared the largest single sale of military aircraft to the Saudis.”

January 17, 2016 NEW YORK POST

According to Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” the shocking pardon Bill Clinton granted to international fugitive Marc Rich on January 20, 2001 (Clinton’s last day in office) was “perhaps the most condemned official act of Clinton’s political career.”

“But while the pardon was a political mistake,” Schweizer writes, “it certainly was not a financial one. In the years following the scandal, the flow of funds from those connected to Marc Rich or the pardon scandal have continued to the Clintons. Rich died in 2013. But his business partners, lawyers, advisors and friends have showered millions of dollars on the Clintons in the decade and a half following the scandal.”

THE NOOSE FACTOR

Sounds like all this is being orchestrated directly from the White House, doesn’t it? Now that Barack Obama, his capo Valerie Jarrett, his in-house liar Ben Rhodes, his spokes-toady Josh Earnest, and Muslim Brotherhood operatives with whom he has seeded every department of our government, have all realized that Hillary is on her last legs and that Trump will crush her as he did 16 formidable primary opponents, the urgent goal is to bring her down––and to replace her with the quasi-demented VP Joe Biden and the fake Cherokee Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

All in the fervent hope that these lily-white, American-born politicians will carry on his legacy, the top two priorities of which appear to be that men who “feel” like women and women who “feel” like men can use bathrooms that comport with their feelings and not their anatomies, and that the genocidal mullahs in Iran be given enough time, money, and duplicitous spin to launch nuclear weapons against Israel, the U.S., and the other western nations they so revile.

To confirm the suspicion that Central Command for Hillary’s downfall is the Oval Office, here is recently-resigned Speaker of the House John Boehner in full speculation mode early in May: “Don’t be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen.”

It looks like Barack Obama bet on the wrong horse. He followed the usual high-stakes game plan––keep your friends close but your enemies closer––by making Hillary Sec. of State, knowing of her overweening ambitions for the presidency and counting on her to win and continue his legacy of government control over the stupid masses through socialized medicine and education, the fetish of diversity and multiculturalism, the hoax of climate change, abolition of the 2nd Amendment, and especially the metastasis of Islam and Sharia Law throughout the West.

But in spite of the rigged super-delegate system by which Hillary would ascend to a nomination while losing the vast majority of the primary and caucus contests to Sen. Bernie Sanders, it looks like her expiration date is fast approaching. As Ann Coulter suggested, it may just be Loretta Lynch who delivers the last twist.

Memorial Day: Reflecting On Heroes

A few Memorial Days ago, I recall myself comfy on the sofa overstuffed with cookout delights, watching a documentary on TV about conscientious objectors. The program portrayed these guys as moral superiors. I thought, “You guys are able to bloviate about the evils of war and pursue careers as American artists, college professors and so on because other brave young men went to war to fight for you; defending your freedom.”

Another Memorial Day TV program featured WWII soldier and character actor Charles Durning. Durning earned three Purple Hearts. He was awarded the Bronze and Silver Stars for valor and the World War II Victory Medal. The French consul presented Durning with the National Order of the Legion of Honor.

At the 2008 National Memorial Day Concert, Durning stood at the podium and wept for his fallen brothers. Wow! Do they make character driven courageous men like that anymore?

I served in the US Army stationed at Ft Bragg NC, drafted from 1969-1971. My entire battalion received orders for Vietnam accept myself and another soldier. Thus, I never experienced serving in a combat zone.

My buddy, Gerry “Boats” Milhollen experienced combat in Vietnam. He suffered night terrors for several years and other emotional issues which cost him his marriage. Gerry said what pained him and fellow combat vets the most is that unlike other US troops returning from war, they never received a welcome home. Quite the opposite. Vietnam vets were spat upon and called baby killers.

I asked Gerry to share his thoughts in a tribute I recorded a few years ago titled, “Welcome Home Brother.” 

I was in my late teens when my cousin Jackie’s husband Norman Byrd was drafted and sent to Vietnam.

Norman never returned home. It was all pretty surreal. I found his name on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall in Washington DC.

My daughter recently retired from the US Navy. She went in directly after high school and worked her way up to retiring as an officer. Her cousins on her mom’s side lived in the mean hood of west Baltimore. Many became addicted to drugs. One of her cousins was murdered by thugs.

I remember my daughter telling me that when she came home on leave after basic training, she immediately noticed that she no longer had much in common with her friends. They were still kids and the military made her an adult.

My daughter said before she retired, it pained her to see what the Navy was becoming. The discipline which had molded and shaped her was being thrown out the window due to political correctness. She said rather than training sailors, she felt like a babysitter.

I heard a black preacher tell his congregation that he would love to see the government go through the ghetto scooping up fatherless young black men for the military. They would learn to shut-up, respect authority and receive a paycheck for a job well done. While the preacher’s comments were tongue-in-cheek, I get his point and agree. Despite it being under attack by Obama, Leftist social engineering and political correctness, the US military is still a pretty good place to turn youths into responsible adults.

Traveling the country on Tea Party Express, I had the pleasure of meeting Debbie Lee, the gold star mom of Marc Alan Lee, the first Navy Seal to die in Operation Iragi Freedom. In honor of her decorated son, Debbie founded AmericasMightyWarriors.org which helps the families of fallen soldiers. I organized patriot music artists across America to record a song titled, “Taking Back America”. We selected 44 songs from the artists to be included in a project titled, Tea Are The World”. All the proceeds benefit Debbie’s AmericasMightyWarriors.org. 

While enjoying your family cookouts, please reflect and give a nod to those whose courage and sacrifice made it all possible; the US military.

Why Morality is the Only Thing We Should Legislate

“You can’t legislate morality!” is a common battle cry today. It’s thought to be a quintessentially American idea, even though the Founding Fathers never expressed such a sentiment. Nor did the early Americans who would unabashedly enforce a biblically based code of morality in their localities, both via social pressure and governmental laws, with transgressors sometimes spending time in stocks — or worse. No, our common battle cry is a modern idea, and one of modernism. It also betrays a fundamental, and dangerous, misunderstanding of law’s nature.

In reality, the only thing we should legislate is morality. The only other option is legislating whims or immorality.

One problem with addressing this issue, which I have done several times, is that many readers have a reason-clouding emotional reaction induced by the assumption that I’m advocating big government. So I’ll preface what follows by saying that even if we enact just one law — let’s say, prohibiting murder — we have legislated morality. The only people who could credibly say they wouldn’t legislate morality are those who wouldn’t legislate at all: anarchists.

I’ll start by putting this simply. Could you imagine a legislator saying, “This law doesn’t prevent something that’s wrong, but I’m going to impose it on you anyway”? What if he said, “This other law doesn’t mandate anything that is a good, but I’ll compel you to adhere to it simply because I feel like it”? Would you suppose his legislation had a sound basis? Or would you think that, unlike a prohibition against murder or theft, the imposition of something lacking a moral foundation (“rightness” or “wrongness”) was the very definition of tyranny?

Generally speaking, a law is by definition the imposition of a value (which can be positive, negative or neutral), and a just law is the imposition of a moral principle (good by definition). This is because a law — with the exception of laws for naming post offices and such (which don’t constrain us and which won’t be included henceforth when I speak of “laws”) — states that there is something you must or must not do, ostensibly because the action is a moral imperative, is morally wrong, or is a corollary thereof. If this is not the case, again, with what credibility do you legislate in the given area? There is no point imposing something that doesn’t prevent a wrong or mandate some good. This is why there will never be a powerful movement lobbying to criminalize strawberry ice cream or kumquats.

As an example, what is the possible justification for speed laws? Well, there is the idea that it’s wrong to endanger others or yourself, and, in the latter case, it could be based on the idea that it’s wrong to engage in reckless actions that could cause you to become a burden on society. Of course, some or all of these arguments may be valid or not, but the point is this: if a law is not underpinned by a valid moral principle, it is not a just law. Without morality, laws can be based on nothing but air.

One cause of the strong negative reaction (generally among libertarian-leaners) to the above is the word “morality” itself; as with “capitalism” in liberal circles, the term has taken on a negative connotation. Yet this is partially due to a narrow and incorrect view of what morality is. Use the word, and many imagine the Church Lady or a preacher breathing fire and brimstone; moreover, reflecting our libertine age’s spirit, people’s minds often automatically go to sex. “Stay out of the bedroom!” we hear, even though the only side legislating bedroom-related matters today is the Left (e.g., contraception mandate, forcing businesses to cater faux weddings). It’s almost as if, dare I say, some people are worried that others may ruin their fun.

Morality encompasses far more than sexual matters, however. Yet it is narrow in one way: it includes only correct principles of rightness. And, again, when these are not the stuff of laws, elements of wrongness will be.

Speaking of which, everyone advocating legislation seeks to impose a conception of morality or, as modernists are wont to put it, a “values” set. For example, the only justification for forcing bakers to service faux weddings is the (incorrect) notion that it’s “wrong” to deny such service. ObamaCare could only be justified based on the idea that providing medical care for those who can’t afford it is a moral imperative. And “transgender” bathroom laws would have to be based on the fancy that it’s wrong to disallow someone from using facilities associated with his “gender identity.”

A common argument I’ve heard in response to the above is “No, I don’t legislate morality; something should only be illegal if it harms another.” Other arguments are that we should merely prohibit “force” or protect “property rights.” Leaving alone the deep matter of what constitutes “harm,” these assertions are, with all due respect, dodges. Is it “wrong” to harm another, use unjust force against him or violate property rights? If not, why trouble over it?

People making the harm, force or property-rights argument are almost universally sincere, except with themselves, as it’s self-deception. It’s a way of preserving a mistaken ideological principle (“Don’t legislate morality”) by obscuring what it is you’re actually doing when making law. It’s also dangerous because it keeps things on a more superficial level. It’s a way relativistic moderns can avoid dealing with something they consider inconvenient, messy and divisive: determining “What is good?” But when you don’t work hard to settle what is good, you end up with what is bad.

Another reason many people are oblivious to the values/morality underpinning their conception of law is that many moral principles are now woven so seamlessly into our civilization’s fabric that we don’t recognize them as “morality.” Yet a moral does not cease to be a moral because it becomes a meme. Consider that while we take for granted that theft, murder and slavery should be governmentally prohibited, most pre-Christian pagans would have found such an idea foreign. Pillaging for a living, Viking-style, was common and accepted; might made right. And while you might not murder or enslave your fellow group members (one problem Athenians had with Spartans was that the latter enslaved other Greeks: the Helots), outsiders were fair game. In fact, if there had been such a thing as a libertarian Roman, he just might have said to Christians endeavoring to outlaw the brutality of the arena, “You can’t legislate morality!”

There can be no such thing as a separation of morality and state. That is, unless we want to regress to man’s default, the immoral state.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Fitting, Trump Clinches GOP Nomination on Memorial Day Weekend

The Associated Press reported on Thursday [May 26, 2016] that Donald J. Trump has exceeded the 1,237 delegates necessary to win the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States on the first ballot at the party’s convention next month.

Mr. Trump had 1,229 delegates after winning the state of Washington on Tuesday, but since then has received commitments from enough unbound delegates to put him over the top. Trump is expected to expand his now insurmountable lead next month, when the last five states to vote—South Dakota, New Mexico, New Jersey, Montana, and California—hold their primaries.

Fox News reports, “Trump’s achievement marks the completion of a primary campaign that has upended the political landscape and defied multiple predictions of failure from political commentators. It now sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign against likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.” The NRA endorsed Mr. Trump last week.

Meanwhile, though Clinton is still favored to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, the Washington Post reports that Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got worse, following the release of a State Department Inspector General’s report, which described Clinton’s manner of handling her emails as “not an appropriate method.” Clinton refused to speak to the Inspector General’s investigators.

Asked about the news during a press conference in North Dakota, Trump said the report shows that Clinton suffers from “bad judgment,” an assessment that would be equally appropriate if the report had assessed Clinton’s position on gun control.