Canadian: I ‘welcome’ Trump refugees, but not the thousands of Syrian Muslims

I’m surprised the LA Times even published this woman’s remarks when asked how she felt about all those Americans who say they will move to Canada if Donald Trump is elected president.

Here is Elaine….

trudeau diversity

Elaine Munro, 62, is a retail customer service clerk in Almonte, just outside Ottawa.

“I would rather have a bunch of Americans than all of these Muslims [the Canadian government is] bringing in,” she said. “I am totally against that. They’re taking jobs that Canadians have. The [Canadian] government is setting them up better than how Canadians are being looked after. Healthcare is being overrun by [Syrian refugees].”

Readers here know that boy Trudeau promised Canada would take 25,000 Syrians within a few months of his election as prime minister and sure enough he has (much to the consternation of Canadians like Elaine).

Thousands are living in hotels (on the taxpayers’ dime) throughout Canada as the country doesn’t have an adequate supply of housing especially for large families.

Trudeau will be “on the hot seat” in a 60 Minutes interview to be aired Sunday evening, for more click here.

See our entire Canada category by clicking here (171 previous posts).

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guest post: Details of refugee contractor reports will shock you!

Lutheran agency is a federal refugee resettlement “contractor” bringing “diversity” to South Dakota

Twitter ‘Not’ taking down Islamic State accounts, but banning users who report terrorists

What illness has overtaken the people who run Twitter — and Facebook? What illness has overtaken mainstream media reporters and so much of the Western intelligentsia? Why are they so willing to abet evil?

125000 accounts suspended

“Hackers Say Twitter Isn’t Telling the Whole Story About Anti-Terror Fight,” by Joshua Philipp, Epoch Times, March 4, 2016:

Online activists have added fuel to the controversy over the effectiveness of Twitter’s attempts to fight ISIS supporters who use its services to spread terrorist propaganda and recruit new members.

While Twitter says it is making strong efforts to shut down terrorist accounts, activists say that not only is the microblogging company not taking down the accounts that matter, but it has even been shutting down accounts of users trying to report terrorists.

In January, a Florida woman, Tamara Fields, filed a lawsuit against Twitter, alleging that it breached the U.S. Anti-Terrorism Act by “spreading extremist propaganda,” which caused an attack in Jordan that killed her husband, a private contractor, Lloyd “Carl” Fields Jr.

Facing bad press and a lawsuit, Twitter published a blog post on Feb. 5, saying that since mid-2015 it suspended 125,000 accounts for “threatening or promoting terrorist acts, primarily related to ISIS.”

Members of the online anti-terrorist community were quick to fire back, however. They say that Twitter is taking credit for their work, and there are still many holes in its efforts to keep terrorist recruiters off its services.

Several hacker groups, including Anonymous, have rallied against ISIS under an online campaign they call #OpISIS. While most participants keep their identities hidden, most of their activities are public. They often publish lists of ISIS supporters and recruiters, and call on the community to report the accounts.

Through this campaign, Anonymous claims by Nov. 23, 2015 to have taken down more than 11,000 Twitter accounts linked to ISIS, according to a tweet from OpParisOfficial.GhostSec, another hacker group, claims it has reported 19,568 Twitter accounts promoting terrorism.

GhostSec was credited with helping prevent a terrorist attack in Tunisia, and may have helped stop another attack in New York City in 2015, according to Michael Smith, principal of national security company Kronos Advisory. Smith was GhostSec’s go-between for law enforcement and intelligence officials.

“Who suspended 125,000 accounts? Anonymous, Anonymous affiliated groups, and everyday citizens,” says a statement from WauchulaGhost, an anti-terrorist hacker with the hacker collective Anonymous, but was formerly with GhostSec.

“You do realize if we all stopped reporting terrorist accounts and graphic images, Twitter would be flooded with terrorists,” WauchulaGhost says.

Who Suspended 125,000 Twitter accounts? #OpISIS #Anonymous #GhostOfNoNationhttps://t.co/BR44Ie1mP6 pic.twitter.com/kIa8mabJQd

After Twitter made its announcement claiming to have shut down ISIS accounts, many participants in #OpISIS saw a very different development. Twitter began banning accounts of users who were trying to report online terrorism.

Members of the community have taken this as a slap in the face. While Twitter is telling the public it’s working to stop ISIS recruitment on its services, it has been suspending accounts of the community who are doing the actual footwork.

Sometimes the accounts get hit one-by-one, other times in groups. Members of the community sometimes rally behind account holders, and Twitter gets them back up and running quickly. Other times, the accounts may stay suspended.

For instance, on Feb. 28 close to 15 Twitter accounts of users involved in the anti-terror campaigns were suspended, including some of the top accounts involved in #OpISIS, including WauchulaGhost’s. Their supporters barraged Twitter with tweets, and most of the accounts were back online about two hours later.

WauchulaGhost said he’s still not sure what happened, noting, “I never received an email from Twitter.”

After one week, Twitter had not responded to an email inquiring why it banned the anti-terror accounts.

Some members of the community say Twitter is suspending accounts in its new campaign to stop online bullying—but that explanation has raised the question of why calling out users spreading terrorist propaganda and trying to recruit terrorists is categorized as “harassment.”

“I can say they are suspending a lot of accounts for harassment. Good accounts not Daesh accounts,” WauchulaGhost said in an interview on Twitter. “Even a lot of our (Anonymous) accounts are being suspended for harassment.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pamela Geller “WORTH RAPING AND CHOPPING”: Mark Zuckerberg ALLOWS SAVAGE DEATH THREATS by Muslims but CENSORS Posts Critical OF Muslim Migrants

UK: Queen Mary University Palestine Solidarity Society hosts jihad terrorist murderer as featured speaker

UK: Muslim Uber driver tells Jewish bus driver he will “kill all the Jews”

A Scientific Consensus on What Now? by Robert P. Murphy

Authority versus Science in the Climate Change Debate.

When it comes to the climate change debate, many of the loudest voices are confidently making assertions that are not backed up by the actual evidence — and in this respect, they are behaving very unscientifically.

One obvious sign that many people in the climate change debate are appealing to emotions rather than facts is their reliance on pejorative terminology. For example, rather than make an informative statement that they support subsidies for wind and solar, and taxes on coal and oil, they may instead say they support “clean energy” while their opponents favor “dirty energy.”

The coup de grâce, of course, occurs when partisans in the debate refer to their opponents as “climate deniers.” This is a nonsensical slur that would have impressed Orwell. Obviously, nobody denies climate. Furthermore, nobody denies that the climate is changing. And, when it comes to the serious debate among published climate scientists, people on both sides agree that human activities are contributing to warmer temperatures; the dispute is simply overhow much. (Those who think the change is mild have embraced the label “lukewarmers.”)

To label critics of a carbon tax or EPA regulations on power plants as “climate deniers” is utterly destructive of rational inquiry and tries to link legitimate skepticism to Holocaust denial. Those who use this term without irony demonstrate that they have no interest in scientific discovery.

Related to this lack of nuance, and the appeal to an exaggerated consensus, is the oft-repeated claim that “97 percent of climate scientists agree” on the state of human-generated climate change. Physicist-turned-economist David Friedman (among others) has investigated the methods used to generate such claims, and finds that they are seriously lacking.

Using the very data (on abstracts from published papers) that forms the basis of these headline announcements, Friedman reckons that more like 1.6 percent of the surveyed papers explicitly endorse humans as the main cause of global warming since the 1800s. Friedman further argues that this confusion — where the actual findings of the paper ended up being misinterpreted by the media — appears to have been deliberately produced by the survey’s authors.

“Hottest Year on Record” and “the Pause”

A January 2016 New York Times article epitomizes the advocacy disguised as reporting in the climate change debate. The very title lets you know that a serious case of scientism is coming, for it announces, “2015 Was Hottest Year in Historical Record, Scientists Say.”

Now, we must inquire, what is the purpose of adding “Scientists Say” at the end? Does any reader think that the Times would be quoting plumbers or accountants on whether 2015 was the hottest year on record? The obvious purpose is to contrast what scientists say about global warming with what thosenonscientist deniers are saying. The article goes on to let us know exactly what “the scientists” think about global warming and manmade activities:

Scientists started predicting a global temperature record months ago, in part because an El Niño weather pattern, one of the largest in a century, is releasing an immense amount of heat from the Pacific Ocean into the atmosphere. But the bulk of the record-setting heat, they say, is a consequence of the long-term planetary warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.

“The whole system is warming up, relentlessly,” said Gerald A. Meehl, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

It will take a few more years to know for certain, but the back-to-back records of 2014 and 2015 may have put the world back onto a trajectory of rapid global warming, after a period of relatively slow warming dating to the last powerful El Niño, in 1998.

Politicians attempting to claim that greenhouse gases are not a problem seized on that slow period to argue that “global warming stopped in 1998,” with these claims and similar statements reappearing recently on the Republican presidential campaign trail.

Statistical analysis suggested all along that the claims were false, and that the slowdown was, at most, a minor blip in an inexorable trend, perhaps caused by a temporary increase in the absorption of heat by the Pacific Ocean.

This excerpt is quite fascinating. We have something reported as undeniable fact when it actually relies on assumptions of what might happen in the future (“may have put the world back onto a trajectory of rapid global warming”) and offers conjectures to explain why the measured warming suddenly slowed down (“perhaps caused by a temporary increase in the absorption of heat”).

The “statistical analysis” did not establish that the critics’ claims were false. It is undeniably true that the official NASA GISS records showed, for example, that the average annual global temperature in 2008 was lower than the annual temperature in 1998, and that’s why people at the time were saying, “There has been no global warming in the last ten years.”

Here is a NASA-affiliated scientist arguing that such claims are misleading, and perhaps they were, but it is similarly misleading to turn around and claim that the pause didn’t exist.

If you asked a bunch of Americans whether they gained weight over the last 10 years, their natural interpretation of that question would be, “Do I weigh morenow than I weighed 10 years ago?” They wouldn’t think it involved construction of moving averages since birth. In that sense, the people referring to the pause were not acting dishonestly; they were pointing out to the public a fact about the temperature record that would definitely be news to them, in light of the rhetoric of runaway climate change.

However, the more substantive point here is that the popular climate models predicted much more warming than has in fact occurred. In other words, the question isn’t whether the 2000s were warmer than the 1990s. Rather, the issue is given how much concentrations of greenhouse gases have risen, is the actualtemperature trend consistent with the predicted temperature trend?

To answer this, consider a December 2015 Cato Institute working paper from two climate scientists, Pat Michaels and Paul Knappenberger: “Climate Models and Climate Reality: A Closer Look at a Luke warming World.” They avoid the accusation of cherry-picking by running through trend lengths of varying durations, and they compare 108 model runs with the various data sets on observed temperatures. They conclude, “During all periods from 10 years (2006–2015) to 65 (1951–2015) years in length, the observed temperature trend lies in the lower half of the collection of climate model simulations, and for several periods it lies very close (or even below) the 2.5th percentile of all the model runs.”

Thus we see that the critics arguing about the model projections aren’t simply picking the very warm 1998 as a starting point in order to game the results. The standard models produced warming projections well above what has happened in reality, and for some periods the observed warming was so low (relative to the prediction) that there is less than a 2.5 percent chance that this could be explained by natural volatility. This is the sense in which the current suite of climate models is on the verge of being “rejected” in the statistician’s sense.

To be sure, I am not a climate scientist, and others would no doubt dispute the interpretation of the data that Michaels and Knappenberger give. My point is to show how utterly misleading the New York Times piece is when it leads readers to believe that “scientists” were never troubled by lackluster warming and that only politicians were trying to confuse the public on the matter.

Climate Economists Don’t Believe Their Models?

Finally, consider a December 2015 Vox piece with the title, “Economists Agree: Economic Models Underestimate Climate Change.” Furthermore, the URL for this piece contains the phrase “economists-climate-consensus.” We see the same appeal to authority here as in the natural sciences when it comes to climate policy.

The Vox article refers to a survey of 365 economists who had published in the field of climate economics. Here is the takeaway: “Like scientists, economists agree that climate change is a serious threat and that immediate action is needed to address it” (emphasis added).

Yet, in several respects, the survey reveals facts at odds with the alarmist rhetoric the public hears on the issue. For example, one question asked, “During what time period do you believe the net effects of climate change will first have a negative impact on the global economy?” With President Obama and other important officials discussing the ravages of climate change (allegedly) before our very eyes, one might have expected the vast majority of the survey respondents to say that climate change is having a negative impact right now.

In fact, only 41 percent said that. Twenty-two percent thought the negative impact would be felt by 2025, while an additional 26 percent would only say climate change would have net negative economic effects by 2050. Would anyone have expected that result when reading Vox’s summary that immediate action is needed to address climate change?

To be clear, the Vox statement is not a lie; it can be justified by the responses on two of the other questions. Yet the actual views of these economists are much more nuanced than the pithy summary statements suggest.

Authority versus Science

On this particular survey, I personally encountered the height of absurdity in the context of scientism and appeal to authority. For years, in my capacity as an economist for the Institute for Energy Research, I have pointed out that the published results in the United Nations’ official “consensus” documents do not justify even a standard goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, let alone the over-the-top rhetoric of people like Paul Krugman.

In order to push back against my claim, economist Noah Smith pointed to the survey discussed earlier, proudly declaring, “Apparently most climate economists don’t believe their own models.” Thus we have reached the point where partisans on one side of a policy debate rely on surveys of what “the experts say,” in order to knock down the other side who rely on the published results of those very experts.

This is the epitome of elevating appeals to scientific authority over the underlying science itself.

In the climate change debate, legitimate disputes are transformed into a battle between Noble Seekers of Truth versus Unscientific Liars Who Hate Humanity. Time and again, references to “the consensus” are greatly exaggerated, while people pointing out enormous problems with the case for policy action are dismissed as “deniers.”

Robert P. MurphyRobert P. Murphy

Robert P. Murphy is research assistant professor with the Free Market Institute at Texas Tech University.

RELATED ARTICLE: College Professor Advocating Climate Change May Have Mismanaged Millions in Tax Dollars

Does Democracy Lead to Socialism? by B.K. Marcus

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has brought “democratic socialism” out of the shadows of fringe ideologies and into the spotlight of mainstream American politics. Nevertheless, many find Sanders’s self-description perplexing. Is socialism seriously still in play? Didn’t the horrors of the 20th century finally bury that ideological monstrosity?

No, that’s communism you’re thinking of. To quote the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA),

Socialists have been among the harshest critics of authoritarian Communist states. Just because their bureaucratic elites called them “socialist” did not make it so; they also called their regimes “democratic.”

If the communists weren’t really socialists, then what the heck does socialism mean?

The basic definition of socialism, democratic or otherwise, is collective ownership of the means of production. The DSA website says, “We believe that the workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own and control them.”

But the DSA keeps the emphasis on democracy:

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically — to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.

Socialism, then, as the democratic socialists understand the term, is just the logical consequence of the democratic ideal:

Democracy and socialism go hand in hand. All over the world, wherever the idea of democracy has taken root, the vision ofsocialism has taken root as well.

On this point, at least, many in America’s free-market tradition would agree.

Anti-democratic Anti-socialists

Ludwig von Mises may have been the most radical classical liberal in 20th-century Europe, but when he came to the United States, Mises found himself at odds with American libertarians who felt that his liberalism didn’t go far enough.

Some of these disagreements would strike most of us as highly abstract, such as the question of whether or not the philosophy of freedom is based in natural law or utilitarianism. But at least one practical point of contention was the issue of majoritarian democracy. Mises had defended both capitalism and democracy in his book Liberalism. American libertarians such as R.C. Hoiles and Frank Chodorov shared Mises’s appreciation of the free market but were far less sanguine about majority rule. The harshest language came from Discovery of Freedom author Rose Wilder Lane:

As an American I am of course fundamentally opposed to democracy and to anyone advocating or defending democracy, which in theory and practice is the basis of socialism.

It is precisely democracy which is destroying the American political structure, American law, and the American economy, as Madison said it would, and as Macauley prophesied that it would do in fact in the 20th century. (Letter from Lane to Mises, July 5, 1947; quoted in Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism)

Why would Lane argue that democracy is “the basis of socialism”?

Majority Fools

Voting turns out to be a particularly bad way to make economic decisions. Mancur Olson’s book The Logic of Collective Action wouldn’t appear for another 18 years, but some version of his thesis was probably already familiar to Lane and her radical allies. Olson argues that majority rule separates the benefits and the costs of decision-making.

Elections aren’t just a poll of everyone’s opinion; they are organized campaigns by different groups fighting for their interests. A voter doesn’t go into the booth having studied the controversy in question. He or she brings to the polls an impression of an issue based on how different organized groups have presented their cause during massive advocacy campaigns prior to Election Day. Every such campaign is a case of a special-interest minority trying to persuade a voting majority.

And it’s not a level playing field, to borrow one of the political left’s favorite metaphors. Olson explains how the incentive for group action decreases as the size of a group increases, meaning that bigger groups are less able to act in their common interest than smaller ones. Small groups can gain concentrated benefitswhile the rest of us face diffuse costs.

The textbook example is sugar tariffs (“or what amounts to the same thing in the form of quota restrictions against imports of sugar,” as former Freeman editor Paul Poirot put it). Why is Coke sweetened with corn syrup in the United States and with sugar everywhere else in the world? Because sugar is cheaper everywhere else, while the US government keeps sugar artificially expensive for Americans. The protections responsible are a huge benefit to a small group of domestic sugar producers (and, as it turns out, also to corn growers) and a burden on the rest of us.

Ignore the corn-syrup issue for a moment and pretend that Coke is still made with sugar. Let’s imagine that government price supports make each can of Coke, say, 5¢ more than it otherwise would be. That difference adds up, but at the moment you’re buying the can of soda, it’s an irritation, not a hardship. Even if you bother to figure out how much extra money you have to spend on sweet drinks each year, the figure probably won’t be enough to stir you to petition the legislature to repeal the sugar lobby’s protections. In fact, the loss isn’t even enough to prompt you to learn the cause of the higher price.

That’s what economists mean when they talk about diffuse costs. (And the Coke drinker’s very reasonable cluelessness about the cause of his lost nickel is what economists call “rational ignorance.” See “Too Dumb for Democracy?” Freeman, Spring 2015.)

On the other hand, the sugar producers will make billions from lobbying and campaigning to explain why their favorite barriers are good for the economy.

Take this example and multiply it by all the special interests seeking government favors. Even if you do understand what’s going on, even if you know how this hurts the economy and consumers and yourself, it’s not like there’s ever one plebiscite, a big thumbs-up or thumbs-down for free trade in sugar. Every issue is addressed separately, and every issue faces the same logic of collective action we see in the case of the sugar. (And as with the case of sugar, where the corn industry has its own interests in promoting higher sugar prices, many issues have multiple special-interest groups with their own reasons for supporting socially harmful policies.)

Now replace agribusiness in this example with teachers unions or the AARP or anyone else who benefits from a government program, even if that program hurts the rest of us.

The democratic system is rigged from the outset to favor ever more interference from ever-bigger government. From this perspective, Rose Wilder Lane doesn’t seem quite so polemical for equating democracy and socialism.

Democratic Socialists for Crony Capitalism

But is big government the same thing as socialism? The DSA denies it. They insist that they prefer local and decentralized socialism wherever possible. How long an elected socialist would keep his hands off the bludgeon of central power is a reasonable question, and a chilling one, as is the question of how long asocialist democracy would honor the civil liberties that the DSA claims to support.

But even if we reject the DSA’s claims as either naive or fraudulent, there is still a compelling reason to reject the equation of big government and socialism.

Government doesn’t grow to serve the poor or the proletariat. Democracy spawns special interests, and special-interest campaigns require deep pockets. None come deeper than the pockets of established business interests.

Real-world capitalists, despite the rhetoric of the socialists, rarely support capitalism — at least not in the sense of free trade and free markets. What they too often support is government protection and largess for themselves and their cronies, and if that means having to share some of the spoils with organized labor, or green energy, or the welfare industry, that’s not a problem. Corporate welfare flows left and right with equal ease.

“Democratic socialists,” according to the DSA, “do not want to create an all-powerful government bureaucracy. But we do not want big corporate bureaucracies to control our society either.”

If that’s true, then democratic socialists should aim to reduce both the size of government and the scope of democratic decisions. Unfortunately, they’re headed in the opposite direction — and trying to drag the rest of us with them.

B.K. MarcusB.K. Marcus

B.K. Marcus is editor of the Freeman.

VIDEO: New York Doubles — The Catholic Homosexual Mafia?

Michael Voris sits down with a high-ranking source in the archdiocese of New York to get exclusive behind-the-scenes information on what really goes on with Cdl. Timothy Dolan and the alleged homosexual mafia that reportedly runs the archdiocese.

TRANSCRIPT

A couple of weeks ago, Church Militant reached out to the archdiocese of New York to ask for a private one-on-one meeting with Cdl. Dolan.

Our continuing investigation of the Fr. Peter Miqueli sex and embezzlement case, along with the more important archdiocesan cover-up of the embezzlement, has led to a number of sources from inside the archdiocese that are now spilling the beans on what is an increasingly disturbing story.

So we contacted the archdiocese through spokesman Joe Zwilling and asked for a private meeting with His Eminence to reveal what we knew only to him with the hope of exacting some kind of promise that he would do something. Zwilling and archdiocesan attorneys replied and said there would be no meeting.

So, we are now bound to reveal the results of our ongoing investigation to this point.

The allegations from our on-camera source very close to the inner circle has been confirmed for us by a number of other New York archdiocesan personnel: that there is an unwritten code — known of by Cdl. Dolan — that priests under his care can lead a sexually active double life as long as they keep it hidden.

It would explain the reason why again Fr. Peter Miqueli’s case of embezzlement and lurid gay-for-pay sexual encounters were essentially ignored by the archdiocese despite numerous complaints from parishioners — which could result in criminal charges.

But even more alarming are the charges that Cdl. Dolan has done nothing to clean up the chancery after arriving in New York as archbishop back in 2009.

Insiders tell Church Militant it is common knowledge that senior archdiocesan clergy comprise a homosexual hotbed that existed long before Dolan arrive, stretching back to the days of Cdl. Egan and even earlier — all the way back to the 1980s, and these men’s association at St. Joseph’s Seminary in Dunwoodie, a Yonkers, New York neighborhood. Sources tell Church Militant these associations involved senior faculty and leadership at the seminary.

This flood of stories from diocese after diocese of sexual impropriety, financial misdealings, cover-ups by senior clergy, knowledge of all of it by the bishop — or in this case cardinal — these stories are ripping the heart out of the souls of faithful Catholics.

While the U.S. bishops sit around and try to develop new programs for evangelization and introduce watered-down catechetical programs like ALPHA, come up with ways to share Communion with non-Catholics and those in mortal sin, allow big-name clergy to keep spreading the lie that we have a reasonable hope that all men are saved, keep turning a blind eye to the significant problem of active homosexual clergy, continue to allow and even foster abuses at Mass — they will have nowhere except themselves to look when Our Blessed Lord asks them at the judgment throne why they let the Faith in America die on their watch.

Church Militant has been following this case very closely now for over three months, and every few days, another piece of inside information comes our way incriminating Cdl. Dolan and his senior clergy more and more.

We’ve spoken with various sources, as we said, many of them inside the chancery, to cobble together this emerging picture of damaging information. As we said, we reached out to the cardinal to let him know all that we knew — and our offer was rebuffed.

So, now we present, in full, the interview you have seen in brief cuts in this Vortex. Just click on the link.

Our informant has had to keep his identity hidden for fear of losing his job and livelihood. But we have independently confirmed with other sources all that he has told us in this interview.

Please spread the word about all this. Contact the New York archdiocese. Tell them that you demandaccountability. This kind of filth cannot be allowed to go on under the cover of the Church any longer.

If you don’t want to live according to the Church, then get out of the Church.

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton’s war against freedom of speech

This video is from April 14, 2015, when I was the featured speaker at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Wednesday Morning Club. I discussed Hillary Clinton’s war against the freedom of speech, explaining how Clinton as Secretary of State, along with others in the Obama Administration and Barack Obama himself, knowingly and actively aided the advance of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation’s campaign to restrict the freedom of speech and stigmatize counter-terror efforts as “hate speech.”

In light of the very real possibility that Hillary Clinton could be the next President of the United States, I thought it would be a good time to repost this video.

And here is Paul Schnee’s introduction:

Today we will have the great pleasure of listening to Robert Spencer talk about, “Is the Islamic State Islamic and why does it matter?” To ask this question is to answer it unless, of course, you happen to be president of the United States. Mr. Spencer is a scholar who has become a sovereign figure in the fight against the Islamization of America and the West. Indeed, he has been so successful in making the country aware of Islam’s true meaning and intentions that he now has to live in an undisclosed location in order to avoid the threats of violence of which he is a regular recipient from the votaries of the “Religion of Peace”.

At 5ft. 4ins. tall it was said of James Madison that there had never been a greater ratio of mind to mass. At 5ft. 6ins. tall, of Robert Spencer it can be said that there has seldom been a greater ratio of courage to mass.

He was telling me earlier that he is always gratified to see how many people come to hear him speak but, like Winston Churchill, he suspects that if he were instead being hanged, the crowd would be 100 times larger.

Robert is the director of Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and the author of some 13 books, available at fine book shops everywhere. These include two New York Times bestsellers, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Truth about Muhammad. His latest book is Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In, and his next book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS, will be released on August 17th. The number 13 is significant not only because it is a great many books to have written, but also because this number exceeds by 3 the combined I.Q’s of John Kerry and Wendy Sherman, who have recently, in Switzerland, concocted one of the most potentially lethal agreements with the messianic ayatollahs of Iran whose apocalyptic vision remains undiminished.

Mr. Spencer has conducted seminars on Islam and jihad for the United States Central Command, the United States Army Command and General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Assymetric Warfare Group, the FBI, the Joint Terrorism Task Force and the U.S. Intelligence community. To our detriment, these activities have been curtailed by an American president whose insatiable appetite for historical revision anxiously tries to convince us that Islam has always been a part of the rich mosaic of American life. Nothing could farther from the truth, and only demonstrates Barack Obama’s faculty for realizing hallucinations.

As well as having spoken on literally hundreds of university campuses across America, we are pleased to have seen Mr. Spencer appear on a variety of Fox News programs, PBS, MSNBC, CNBC, C-Span and France 24, but you will not, alas, be seeing him on the BBC any time soon.

In June of 2013, along with Pamela Geller he was due to speak at an English Defense League march in Woolwich, where Private Lee Rigby had been brutally murdered by two Islamic jihadists. He was banned from entering Britain.

A British government spokesman said individuals whose presence “is not conducive to the public good” could be excluded by the home secretary.

He added: “We condemn all those whose behaviours and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form.”

Yet, just days before Robert Spencer was banned, the British government admitted Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arefe. Al-Arefe has said: “Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”

Thomas Mann’s observation that tolerance is a crime when applied to evil must have escaped the notice of Britain’s Home Secretary.

This incident shows, at least in this instance, that if it were not for double standards, the British government would not have any standards at all. It also demonstrates just how far the termites have travelled, how well they have feasted, and that these two decisions by the British government could not possibly have been made without the benefit of alcohol.

Will you please give a warm California welcome to a man whose knowledge and analysis so accurately informs us all but terrifies the British government, Ladies & Gentlemen: Mr. Robert Spencer.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Germany: Mob of 30 Muslim migrants chase girls through shopping center before clashing with police

Iran accuses the U.S. of breaching the nuke deal

Gun Control Supporters Distort Iowa Legislation on Youth Handgun Possession

Willful ignorance of firearm function, culture, and law are well-known characteristics of the gun control movement. However, the principals in a recently manufactured controversy, surrounding legislation in Iowa that would allow properly supervised youth to use handguns for the shooting sports, have shown a particular disregard for the facts and prevailing law.

Current Iowa law makes it a misdemeanor to transfer a handgun to those under the age of 21, with a few exceptions. A parent, guardian, or spouse over 21 may allow those ages 14-20 to possess a handgun while the minor is under their direct supervision, or while receiving instruction. Iowa has a blanket prohibition on handgun possession for all those under 14, regardless of parental supervision. Current law even prevents those under 14 from engaging in traditional handgun safety instruction.

This restriction is significantly out-of-step with the vast majority of the country; including some of the most anti-gun jurisdictions. While the various states have different contours dealing with youth handgun possession, a cursory look at Iowa’s immediate neighbors proves instructive.

Take for instance Iowa’s neighbor, Illinois. The Land of Lincoln allows those under 18 to participate in “lawful recreational activity” using a handgun, while in the custody or control of a parent or guardian with a valid Firearm Owners Identification Card. Similarly, Wisconsin, allows those under 18 to participate in “target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult.”

In Minnesota, those under 18 may possess a handgun “in the actual presence or under the direct supervision of the person’s parent or guardian.” Nebraska law makes clear that their restriction on the possession of handguns by those under 18 does not apply to the “temporary loan of handguns for instruction under the immediate supervision of a parent or guardian or adult instructor.”

South Dakota law bars handgun possession by those under 18, but provides exceptions for youth in certain circumstances with the consent of their parent or guardian. Missouri prohibits transferring a firearm to those under 18 without consent of the minor’s parent or guardian.

These state laws properly place with parents the right and responsibility for determining when a young person is mature enough to safely handle a handgun.

NRA is supporting legislation to bring Iowa law in line with the rest of the country. House File 2281, the Youth Safety & Parental Rights Act, allows those under 21 to possess a handgun while under the direct supervision of a parent, guardian, or spouse, or when receiving instruction. The legislation holds the parent or guardian strictly liable for any damages. It is important to note that under this legislation, Iowa law would still be more restrictive than much of the nation, as persons ages 18-20 would still require supervision in order to possess a handgun. H.F. 2281 was passed by the Iowa House on February 23, and is now being considered by the state Senate.

Unfortunately, from reading accounts in the mainstream press about this simple fix to Iowa law, one might get the impression that the Hawkeye State is about to resemble Lord of the Flies.

Iowa State Rep. Kirsten Running-Marquardt did her part in the fear-mongering campaign with absurd comments reported by Des Moines CBS affiliate KCCI. The news outlet quoted Running-Marquardt as stating, “What this bill does, the bill before us, allows for 1-year-olds, 2-year-olds, 3-year-olds, 4-year-olds to operate handguns. We do not need a militia of toddlers. We do not have handguns that I am aware of that fit the hands of a 1- or 2-year-old.”

Shortly after the bill’s passage in the House, the national anti-gun media felt compelled to weigh in. Syndicated anti-gun columnist Dan K. Thomasson called the legislative fix “insanity” and accused the “gun lobby” of “bringing up baby in the sacred gun culture.” In his rambling hyperbole-filled screed, the writer managed to attack the mundane proposal using ridiculous references to 1930s gangster John Dillinger and “African rebel armies… made up of AK-47 carrying children as young as 9 or 10.” Media outlets have run stories with deliberately misleading headlines, such as “Iowa Lawmakers Approve Bill That Would Let Kids Have Handguns,” and “Iowa Legislature Debates Giving Handguns to Children.” Such stories fail to recognize the prevailing law throughout the country.

The opponents of this legislative fix are hoping that those unfamiliar with firearms law will have a knee-jerk reaction to a salacious headline about kids in Iowa owning handguns. It is up to NRA members to help explain to others how this legislation brings Iowa in accordance with prevailing national standards, and how the gun control movement and a willing media thrive on ignorance.

1964 VIDEO: The Truth About the Palestinians — The Truth about the Middle East

We often hear claims about the Palestinians being a 5,000 years ancient and indigenous people, including the claim that Jesus was a Palestinian. In a highly politicized public opinion war, it’s worth asking: what’s fact and what’s fiction?

RELATED ARTICLES:

MIGRATION TIMEBOMB: Europe Braced for ‘UNCOUNTABLE INFLUX’ as Turkey Gets VISA-FREE TRAVEL from EU

Court rules MTA’s BAN ON FREE SPEECH Ads on Subway is Legal BUT Muslim Ads are OK to Run

Shafia Sharia: NEW TRIAL for Mass Honor Murderer in Canada

Muslim Migrants Use BATTERING RAM to Storm Thru Border Fence in Greece: EU HANDS OVER $800 MILLION to Invaders to ‘Maintain Their Dignity’

“Palestinian” Broadcasting Company Being Sued for War Crimes, Incitement to Murder Jews

The $15 Minimum Wage and the End of Teen Work by Jack Salmon

A new report from JP Morgan Chase & Co. finds that the summer employment rate for teenagers is nearing a record low at 34 percent. The report surveyed 15 US cities and found that despite an increase in summer positions available over a two year period, only 38 percent of teens and young adults found summer jobs.

This would be worrying by itself given the importance of work experience in entry-level career development, but it is also part of a long-term trend. Since 1995 the rate of seasonal teenage employment has declined by over a third from around 55 percent to 34 percent in 2015. The report does not attempt to examine why summer youth employment has fallen over the past two decades. If it had, it would probably find one answer in the minimum wage.

Most of the 15 cities studied in this report have minimum wage rates above the federal level, with cities such as Seattle having a rate more than double that. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics seen in the chart show exactly how a drastic rise in the minimum wage rate affects the rate of employment.

Seattle has experienced the largest 3 month job loss in its history last year, following the introduction of a $15 minimum wage. We can only imagine the impact such a change has had on the prospects of employment for the young and unskilled.

Raising the minimum wage reduces the number of jobs in the long-run. It is difficult to measure this long-run effect in terms of the numbers of never materializing jobs. However, the key mechanism behind the model—that more labor-intensive establishments are replaced by more capital-intensive ones—is supported by evidence. That is why recent research suggesting that minimum wages barely reduce the number of jobs in the short-run, should be taken with caution. Several years down the line, a higher real minimum wage can lead to much larger employment losses.

Nevertheless, politicians continue to push the idea that minimum wage laws are somehow helping the young “earn a decent wage.” It is important to remember the underlying motives behind pushes for higher minimum wage rates. Milton Friedman characterized it as an “unholy coalition of do-gooders on the one hand and special interests on the other; special interests being the trade unions.”

Several empirical studies have been conducted over the course of more than two decades, with all evidence pointing toward negative effects of minimum wage rises on employment levels among the young and unskilled. A study conducted by David Neumark and William Wascher in 1995 noted that “such increases raise the probability that more-skilled teenagers leave school and displace lower-skilled workers from their jobs. These findings are consistent with the predictions of a competitive labor market model that recognizes skill differences among workers. In addition, we find that the displaced lower-skilled workers are more likely to end up non-enrolled and non-employed.”

Policy makers who continuously raise the minimum wage simply assure that those young people, whose skills are not sufficient to justify that kind of wage, will instead remain unemployed. In an interview, Friedman famously asked “What do you call a person whose labor is worth less than the minimum wage? Permanently unemployed.”

The upshot: Raising the minimum wage at both federal and local levels denies youth the skills and experience they need to get their career going.

This post first appeared at CEI.org.

Jack SalmonJack Salmon

Jack Salmon is a research associate at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

An Overthrow of the Government

Sure enough, presidential candidate Donald J. Trump racked up impressive statistics in his Fox News debate tonight, effectively trouncing the competition that included Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

Once again, however, Fox’s Megyn “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” Kelly ambushed Mr. Trump by falsely stating that the Better Business Bureau had given Trump University a D-minus rating, when in fact it’s rating is, as Trump asserted, an A!

Here is the Better Business Bureau report, with an ‘A’ grade for Trump University.

trump university bbb report grade a

The same trouncing happened last week when Trump’s victories in the primaries garnered him the lion’s share of electoral votes by winning Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Virginia, which, according to Philip Bump of The Washington Post, “no Republican has ever won…going back to 1960.”

Both pundits and pollsters attributed the massive turn-outs to Mr. Trump’s having excited, inspired and therefore mobilized the electorate––in some cases well over 100% increase above the 2012 midterms. In one instance, Mr. Trump beat Sen. Cruz by 450,000 votes; in another he beat Sen. Rubio by over a million votes! According to writers Bill Barrow and Emily Swanson, Trump had “significant support across educational, ideological, age and income classifications.”

In his victory speech last week, looking and sounding presidential, Mr. Trump accurately proclaimed: “We have expanded the Republican Party.”

This ought to have been music to the ears of Republicans everywhere, especially “establishment” types who constantly seek to attract influential voting blocs comprised of African-Americans, Hispanics, and young people, all of whom––mysteriously, incomprehensibly, self-destructively––have huddled under the Democrat tent for decades, gaining not a micrometer of progress in their personal lives, wages, schools, crime rates, the pathetic list is endless.

Trump, only nine months into being a politician, has accomplished this incredible feat. But the more he succeeds, the more the Grand Poobahs of the Grand Old Party, as well as the media (both right and left), have devolved into what appears to be a clinical state of hysteria.

Think about this. Barack Obama’s record violates every principle and value that Republicans and Conservatives claim they stand for. Under his watch, we have…

  • 94-million unemployed Americans
  • An almost-insurmountable debt of nearly $20 trillion
  • Borders so porous that not thousands but millions of unvetted and potentially murderous illegal aliens (i.e., jihadists) have been able to invade our shores and set up their U.S.-government-dependent shop in sanctuary cities around our nation
  • A severely diminished military and nothing less than vile treatment of our veterans
  • Trampling on the Constitution
  • Bypassing Congress to act unilaterally (and illegally)
  • Appeasing our enemies and spitting at our allies

…and yet those same Republicans and Conservatives––in full control of the Senate and House––have been notably absent in mustering up anything more than mild rebuke to counter Mr. Obama’s assaults on our country.

But to them, Trump is the real threat!

BATTEN DOWN THE HATCHES

That’s what the frenzied GOP, media, and also-rans are trying to do, figuratively closing any openings in what they believe is their own personal Ship of State now that the threatening weather called Donald Trump is upon them. They are in a state of impotent horror, given their abject failure––in spite of multimillions spent and generous media assistance––to stem the Trump juggernaut.

Ironic, isn’t it. If any entity deserves a comeuppance, it is the very arrogant, go-along-to-get-along, ineffectual, leftist-whipped, emasculated, cave-to-Obama, bow-to-the-lobbyists, accommodate-the-Arab-lobby establishment!

Impotent? Emasculated? Yes, money and power are mighty motivators, but it is a tacit acknowledgment of their own sissified selves that is now spurring Trump’s critics into action.

And they’re trying their damnedest!

On March 2, a gaggle of Republican national security leaders––no doubt many of them members of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations whose animating raison d’ȇtre would be threatened by a Trump presidency––wrote an open letter to Trump expressing their “united opposition” to his candidacy.”  They don’t like his “vision of American influence and power in the world….advocacy for aggressively waging trade wars…rhetoric [that] undercuts the seriousness of combating Islamic radicalism…insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border…,” on and on. Comical, isn’t it, that everything they’ve failed to address with any seriousness or success compels them to slam the guy who promises to address those issues and succeed.

On March 3, 22 Republicans––including philandering Congressman Mark Sanford and the execrable Glenn Beck––declared that they would not vote for Trump.

August writers like the Wall St. Journal’s Bret Stephens have been apoplectic about Trump for months, sparing no slur or invective. Author and military historian Max Boot has dug deep into his assault repertoire to make sure no insult has gone unhurled.  And the usually dazzling Andrew C. McCarthy at National Review Online is simply unable to contain his hostility to Trump’s candidacy, just as most of the other writers at NRO have jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon. And that’s not to omit the florid hysteria emanating from Commentarymagazine.com.

On March 4, desperate anti-Trump operatives pimped out good ole patsy Mitt Romney to go before a teleprompter and read the words written for him by an anti-Trump operative. So sad––a man who once had class.

But no one forgot that Romney, a lifelong liberal, lost both senatorial and presidential elections and that the last image of him––etched indelibly in the American public’s consciousness––was of him debating his rival for the presidency, Barack Obama, and simply folding like a cheap suit!

Romney––who The Wall St. Journal called “a flawed messenger”––didn’t look or sound like he had dementia, so it’s strange indeed that he barely mentioned the endorsement Trump gave him for his campaign for president, and the lavish praise he heaped upon Trump.

Romney’s hit job evoked the following 22-word, devastating and well-deserved tweet from Trump: “Looks like two-time failed candidate Mitt Romney is going to be telling Republicans how to get elected. Not a good messenger!”

All of the abovementioned people––and dozens I haven’t named––are growing frustrated that their old tricks of marginalizing and finally destroying the target in question haven’t worked. They long to emulate the JournOlist  of 2007, when over-400 members of the leftist media colluded to quash any and every criticism or fact-based doubt about Mr. Obama’s Constitutional eligibility to hold office, to intimidate any critic into silence.

To this day, has anyone seen even one of Barack Obama’s college transcripts, his marriage license, a doctor’s evaluation? Now it’s the Republicans––actually those cocktail-swigging “conservatives” who routinely cozy up to the lobbyists they’re beholden to––who have gotten together to defeat Trump. These feckless so-called leaders decided that their target, a self-funded former liberal, was worth more of their negative, insult-laden literary output and passionate commentary than the Marxist-driven, jihadist-defending, anti-Constitutional, anti-American regime in power.

If you ever wonder how this could happen, why Republicans and self-described Conservatives could rebel so ferociously against a candidate who promises to strengthen our military, bring jobs and industry back to America, seal our borders against the  onslaught of illegal aliens, and make America great again, wonder no more.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Doesn’t it always come down to money? Money leads to power and influence and control, all of which politicians––that too-often pliable and buyable species––lust for. It’s not only the ephemeral day-to-day power they fear losing, it’s the entire network they’re enmeshed in, which involves all the treaties and deals and “arrangements” they’ve signed onto and the pelf it promises to keep on yielding (for Exhibit No. 1, see The Clinton Foundation and the mountain of cash it reaps).

Imagine their fear of a president who actually cuts the pork, actually strikes deals that don’t line his own pockets, actually exposes the bad deals that have been made by the bad players in Washington, D.C. Imagine what Trump will learn about the massive under-the-table, self-serving deals that were made in the Iran deal and others.

The same lust for power applies to media moguls whose wealth is not limited to TV stations and newspapers but to the very deals made by government and on Wall St. No one knows this better than Mr. Trump, the author of the mega-bestseller, The Art of the Deal. That’s why his critics are so terrified. They pretend to be offended by the kind of comment or gesture that they themselves express routinely. But they’re really afraid of being in the presence of someone who is utterly immune to either their blandishments or strong-arm tactics.

Roger Stone, a former advisor to Mr. Trump, told writer S. Noble at WorldNetDaily.com, that the perceived threat is so real that “The GOP establishment would rather suffer through four years of Hillary––whose policies are indistinguishable from Marco Rubio’s or Mitt Romney’s––than to have an outsider be president, like Trump who is beholden to no one.”

As Mark Cunningham wrote in the New York Post: “All the noise about Donald Trump’s ‘hostile takeover’ of the Republican Party misses a key point: Such takeovers only succeed when existing management has failed massively. And that’s true of both the GOP and the conservative movement. Trump’s a disrupter—but most of the fire aimed his way is just shooting the messenger.”

Monica Crowley, editor of online opinion at The Washington Times, explains that the “emotionally fragile Republican ruling class” deluded themselves into thinking that Mr. Trump couldn’t possibly win. “Then actual voting began. And the first-timer, the brash anti-politician, began racking up resounding victories…”

In addition, Crowley writes: “Like his style or not, Mr. Trump is an in-your-face guy. Voters want that kind of guy taking it to President Obama’s record, [to] Hillary Clinton…and to the unbridled, destructive leftism that has rendered America virtually unrecognizable.” And, I might add, taking it to the wimps in the GOP!

Former Governor Mike Huckabee told Fox News that Donald Trump’s success represents a peaceful “overthrow of the government” and that the Republican establishment should be glad it’s being achieved with “ballots not bullets.” He added that the Trump phenomenon was a “political revolution in the Republican Party and in the country.”

Blatant anti-Semitism: New wave of anti-Jewish hatred by Iranian regime [Video]

The Iranian American Forum, reports:

Thumnail.Englishjpg

The Iranian regime has started a widespread campaign to portray the Saudi royal family as Jewish and at the same time, calling Jews filthy anti-Islamic conspirators responsible for all the Middle Eastern crisis and blood shedding. This campaign is well illustrated in a speech by panahian, the most renowned preacher close to the Supreme Leader and tied to revolutionary guards during a state organized rally in defense of Yemeni rebels. He declared: “For the last hundred years, the Jews in the region have been committing atrocities and killing Muslims. We blame anti-Islam Jews and Zionists for the plight of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, and Yemen. We also blame the rich Jews and evil Zionists for all the troubles faced by people in Europe and America. Once we save the region from the evil oppression of the anti-Islam Jews, then we will have also saved the people of Europe and America from the oppression of the Zionists.”

As the world marked International Holocaust Remembrance Day on January 27, 2016, Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei published a video titled “Are the Dark Ages Over,” on his official website that included one of his speeches from two years ago in which he questions the reality of the holocaust.

The publication of the video on such a day is a direct attempt to minimize Nazi crimes while clearly demonstrating the Iranian regime’s profound anti-Semitism.

Although the Iranian regime has consistently continued its anti-Semitic policies for the past 37 years, it has intensified it dramatically and become more blatant in the last few months.

Since the tensions between Iran and its regional rival Saudi Arabia has been mounting, the Iranian regime has started using the media, state-organized demonstrations and religious platforms to advance a widespread campaign to portray the Saudi royal family as Jewish and consequently calling Jews filthy anti-Islamic conspirators responsible for all the Middle Eastern crisis and blood shedding. Thus, the Iranian regime is inciting and exploiting anti-Jewish sentiments in order to weaken Saudi Arabia.

They claim that the Saudi royal family’s ancestors hail from the Khaybar tribe who were located near the city of Medina. The regime has also used its proxies in Iraq and several other countries to further the same campaign of portraying the Saudi royal family as Jewish.

According to the ruling mullahs in Iran, the Jews of Khaybar tribe conspired and started a war against Prophet Mohammad in the seventh century but justice was ultimately served when they were defeated by the army of Islam in battle of Khaybar. The regime is now attempting to portray its rivalry with the Saudis as a continuation of Prophet’s war against the Khaybari Jews.

Along with denouncing the Saudis as “Jewish, the Iranian regime has escalated its anti-Jewish hate campaign. The anti-Semitism being promoted by the Iranian regime combines both traditional Islamic prejudices such as regarding Jews as “wretched anti-Islamic conspirators” and the European – Nazi myth which depicts Jews as powerful , wealthy people who control Western governments and media, and who instigate crisis and wars to maintain their power.

The Iranian regime’s anti-Semitism is well demonstrated in an important speech given by Alireza Panahian, a well-known regime preacher during a rally staged by the security forces in Tehran in April 2015 in support of the Yemen Houthi rebels.

Alireza Panahian and Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei

Panahian is one of the most renowned preachers with close ties to the Iranian leader and revolutionary guards. He is a regular speaker at the revolutionary guards and Bassiji force ceremonies, conferences or demonstrations. He is a member of High Council of Qom seminary. below is part of Panahian’s April 2015 anti-Semitic speech. A speech that highlights the Iranian regime’s increasingly extreme anti-Semitism: (Here is the Farsi  audio file of Panahian’s speech)

1684529

Panahian: “When Prophet Mohammad arrived at Medina, his eminence traded the Jews with the utmost mercy and kindness. Although the Jews in Medina were certain that Mohammad was the last prophet to be sent by God, they did not convert to Islam and while their denial was punishable, the prophet of Islam treated them with mercy.

Read more.

64% Say Supreme Court Vacancy Important Factor in Voting

family research council logoWASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today, Family Research Council (FRC) released the results of a commissioned national survey conducted by WPA Opinion Research showing that 64 percent of likely voters agree the Supreme Court will be “an important factor in determining who you vote for in November’s elections.”

71% of Republican voters and 63% of Democratic voters rank the Supreme Court as an important factor.

The survey also found that 71 percent of those who frequently attend worship services (once a week or more) say the Supreme Court is an important factor in determining their vote.  Even 59 percent of those who never attend worship services consider the Supreme Court important to their vote.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins made the following comments in response:

“This survey tells us that the American people have a sobering perspective following the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Reality is sinking in for voters in both parties that the next president will likely appoint two or three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will impact our nation for decades to come.

“By an 8 point margin, Republican voters are more concerned than Democrats about the future of the Supreme Court. I believe this is in part due to previous Republican presidents who have either been unable to identify liberal jurists in conservative clothing or have been unwilling to fight for nominees who were true constitutionalists.

“The survey also shows that frequent churchgoers are even more concerned than non-churchgoers about the direction of the Court. This higher level of concern is no doubt due to the Supreme Court preempting social consensus by imposing its abortion and marriage views on all 50 states.

“While the country is divided over whether the Supreme Court vacancy should be filled now or after the November elections, it’s clear that the Court is a greater motivating factor for Republican voters and frequent churchgoers than it is for Democrats and those who attend worship services less frequently.

Justice Scalia’s replacement may very well be the deciding vote on major cases involving religious liberty, state abortion laws, gun control, and immigration. With so much at stake, the American people should be allowed to decide in November who picks the next Supreme Court justice,” concluded Perkins.

Click here to download the full survey results.

ABOUT THE FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL

Our vision is a culture in which human life is valued, families flourish, and religious liberty thrives.

VIDEO: Trump on national security 25 years ago — worth a watch

No matter what your current opinion of Donald Trump is, it is my best guess that you will find this video fascinating!

Maybe Donald Trump should be taken more seriously? Interesting that this interview with Oprah was done 25 years ago. Has he changed his views?

Watch the video and you decide.

Muslim facing deportation after threating to execute Donald Trump

Now he is playing the victim: “It’s just a stupid post. You can find thousands of these every hour on Facebook and the media. I don’t know why would they think I am a threat to the national security of the United States just because of a stupid post.”

The thing is, a death threat is serious business. Or it ought to be.

Anyone, Muslim or non-Muslim, who utters such a specific threat to kill anyone should be prosecuted. There shouldn’t be any leeway on this because Elsayed wrote the threat on Facebook, or because such threats are common.

Incidentally, in pilot class did he express any interest in learning how to take off and to land, or just in learning how to fly the plane? Just wondering.

“A flight student from Egypt is facing deportation from the United States after being investigated by federal agents for posting on his Facebook page that he was willing to serve a life sentence for killing Donald Trump and that the world would thank him,” by Amy Taxin and Brian Rohan, Associated Press, March 3, 2016:

Ohoud Ali Mohamed Nasr El Sayed

Ohoud Ali Mohamed Nasr El Sayed

ORANGE, Calif. (AP) — A flight student from Egypt is facing deportation from the United States after being investigated by federal agents for posting on his Facebook page that he was willing to kill Donald Trump and the world would thank him.

While U.S. prosecutors have not charged 23-year-old Emadeldin Elsayed with a crime, immigration authorities arrested him last month at the Los Angeles-area flight school he attended and now are trying to deport him, attorney Hani Bushra said Wednesday.

Elsayed, who is being held in a jail in Orange, California, is devastated at seeing his dreams of becoming a pilot dashed over what Bushra acknowledged was a foolish social media post. An immigration court hearing will determine whether Elsayed will be deported.

“It seems like the government was not able to get a criminal charge to stick on him, so they used the immigration process to have him leave the country,” Bushra said. “The rhetoric is particularly high in this election, and I just feel he got caught up in the middle.”

Trump is leading the Republican presidential contenders and has used especially tough talk on immigration to win over many voters. He has vowed to build a wall along the entire Mexican border and has called for temporarily banning Muslims from entering the country.

U.S. Secret Service agents interviewed Elsayed in early February after he posted a photo of Trump on Facebook and wrote he was willing to serve a life sentence for killing the billionaire and the world would thank him, Bushra said. The agents returned eight days later and told him federal prosecutors had declined to charge him but said his visa to attend flight school had been revoked. He was arrested by immigration authorities.

Elsayed said he wrote the message because he was angered by Trump’s comments about Muslims. He said he immediately regretted it, and he never intended to harm anyone.

“It’s just a stupid post. You can find thousands of these every hour on Facebook and the media,” he told The Associated Press in a phone interview from jail. “I don’t know why would they think I am a threat to the national security of the United States just because of a stupid post.”

Elsayed said the agent who interviewed him mentioned last year’s shooting rampage by a Muslim husband-and-wife couple in San Bernardino and the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, which were carried out by Muslims who had sought flight training in the United States.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a statement that Elsayed was arrested because he violated “the terms of his admission to the United States.” The agency did not provide further details.

The State Department and Secret Service declined to discuss the case. A Trump campaign spokeswoman also declined to comment.

Elsayed is from Cairo, but he said he spent much of his life in Saudi Arabia, where his father worked as a civil engineer. He came to the United States for the first time last September to attend Universal Air Academy with the hope of returning to Egypt and getting a job at an airline, he said….

RELATED ARTICLE: “Robert spencer will be DEAD before August 2016 it will be brutal”

PODCAST: Former DHS Agent Philip Haney — ‘Words have Meaning’

359-haney-kelly-940

Philip Haney on the Kelly File, Fox News. Photo: Fox News.

On the latest edition of TRUNEWS, Rick Wiles interviews DHS Whistleblower Philip Haney to discuss the insidious Islamic infiltration of the United States, which he tirelessly sought to expose before being shut down by the Obama administration.

When does ignorance become complicity?

Do the words peace and submit in western context mean the same to the delusional believers of the false prophet Allah?

Rick and Mr. Haney delve into the underbelly of what could very well be the biggest conspiracy in the history our nation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Media, Security Watchdogs: Radical Islam Remains a Global and National Threat to Christians

Judicial Watch: Homeland Security Records Reveal Officials Ordered Terrorist Watch List Scrubbed – Judicial Watch

DHS Secretly Scrubbed 1,000 Names From U.S. Terror Watch Lists

JW v DHS documents 00222 – Judicial Watch