Want to Play a Political Prediction Game?

NEW YORK, NY /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Pivit, the world’s largest real-time prediction market, announced today it has reached more than 4 million predictions made on its 2016 Political Marketplace, as the nation prepares for the Super Tuesday primary contests on March 1st. Pivit also commemorates another milestone today– marking more than 100,000 registered participants actively trading in the political markets during this election season.

“In this, the data election, our goal is to produce a categorical benchmark measure of real-time public consensus that answers the question most people want to know – ‘Who will win?’,” said Pivit co-founder Greg DePetris.  “Using data science and professional risk-takers, we have combined the best polling and gambling market data, real-time news and now a community of 100,000 competing participants in the U.S. and around the world to build an incredible asset that helps us better understand the electorate.  This benchmark index will only grow stronger, faster and more valuable as we head into the general election.”

“The markets are telling us a very different, very interesting story as the 2016 election cycle unfolds,” said John McNamara, Pivit co-founder.  “We have seen the markets leading in both the primaries and other key events in the campaigns to date.  Pivit continues to distinguish itself in providing the best real-time data in politics.”

Some additional takeaways from today’s announcement:

  • The more than 100,000 players registered to play Pivit are competing in more than 10 separate political event markets on average, providing a diverse set of opinions across the various contests.
  • Pivit surpassed 4 million predictions in just 6 months since the markets launched.  The company anticipates that the total number of predictions will continue to multiply leading up to Election Day 2016.
  • Player engagement spikes are most often tied to events, such as breaking news and primary debates, as well as the primary and caucus contests themselves.
  • The Pivit political markets have led news and polls in events ranging from primary and caucus winners, to campaign suspensions.
  • As the Pivit market grows, so has the importance of Pivit data to important analysis and decisions being made throughout politics, finance and broader industry.

Pivit has listed markets for all of tomorrow’s Super Tuesday primary contests.  Participants can register and continuously predict when election odds will change. Pivit tracks and reports real-time market odds to reflect the public consensus about each individual race and political outcome.

pivit logoAbout Pivit

Pivit is a global interactive gaming platform that combines data science and news with crowd-based public opinion to produce changing real-time odds on the outcome of events. Founded in 2013 by the minds behind Intrade, Pivit seeks to engage millions of people worldwide in real-time prognosticating on the outcomes of political contests, sporting events and key events happening around the globe. Live odds will change every second as the public weighs in on the increasing or decreasing chance of an event to occur. Players compete for points, rewards and status as they properly forecast the outcomes of world events. For more information: http://www.pivit.io/ or join our partners for political markets at http://www.cnn.com/predict.

From Apocalyptic to Utterly, Dictionary.com Uncovers Presidential Candidates’ Favorite Words

OAKLAND, Calif. /PRNewswire/ — As front-runners for the Democratic and Republican nominations will further emerge based on Super Tuesday results, Dictionary.com, the online and mobile resource dedicated to helping users master the art of language, today unveiled Your Candidate in a Word, a compelling look at the language favored by the current top presidential hopefuls. Based on analysis of the major presidential debates, one word has risen to the top for each nominee: systemic (Hillary Clinton), utterly(Ted Cruz), blue-collar (John Kasich), apocalyptic (Marco Rubio), handful (Bernie Sanders), and eminent(Donald Trump).

Through proprietary big data analysis from 15 main presidential debates, which took place between August 6, 2015 and February 13, 2016, Dictionary.com analyzed the language used by each candidate to identify the 20 words that were most statistically significant in each contender’s speech.

While a number of the candidates’ word representations relate to major issues and campaign platforms, such as Clinton on LGBT matters and Rubio on Guantanamo, just as many are adjectives that paint a clear picture of each candidate’s speaking style and vocabulary, including Sander’s frequent use of “perpetual” and Trump’s favor of the word “nasty.”

“Every idea and belief, down to the level of the individual words chosen, counts when it comes to candidates speaking to Americans on their plans for the country if they were to be elected,” said Liz McMillan, CEO, Dictionary.com. “These words shed light on the issues, policies, and rhetoric of individual candidates on an extremely granular level, ultimately giving us valuable insight on the people vying to be the next President of the United States.”

Below are the top 20 words or phrases favored by each candidate in Dictionary.com’s analysis:

Hillary Clinton

  1. systemic
  2. children
  3. seller
  4. Libyans
  5. Europeans
  6. recommend
  7. out-of-pocket
  8. elsewhere
  9. LGBT
  10. AIG
  11. contentious
  12. advise
  13. constant
  14. compact
  15. discrimination
  16. arena
  17. council
  18. brothers
  19. racism
  20. U.N.

Ted Cruz

  1. utterly
  2. cronyism
  3. ration
  4. Rubio-Schumer
  5. objective
  6. Jihad
  7. sessions
  8. distract
  9. suspend
  10. patrol
  11. Persian
  12. whatsoever
  13. clarity
  14. catastrophic
  15. flat
  16. booming
  17. Ayatollah
  18. IRS
  19. note
  20. abandon

John Kasich

  1. blue-collar
  2. surplus
  3. formula
  4. incumbent
  5. architect
  6. balanced
  7. budget
  8. miner
  9. discipline
  10. Pentagon
  11. Ohio
  12. Saudis
  13. hole
  14. incentive
  15. encryption
  16. unify
  17. foot
  18. civilization
  19. slap
  20. ill

Marco Rubio

  1. apocalyptic
  2. agent
  3. Guantanamo
  4. sophisticated
  5. modernize
  6. vat
  7. grandfather
  8. Moammar
  9. paycheck
  10. killer
  11. dozen
  12. enterprise
  13. capture
  14. century
  15. bless
  16. expensive
  17. Shia
  18. reasonable
  19. prove
  20. teach

Bernie Sanders

  1. handful
  2. crumble
  3. speculation
  4. tuition-free
  5. substantially
  6. cease-fire
  7. one-tenth
  8. U.K.
  9. Cayman Islands
  10. buck
  11. turnout
  12. quagmire
  13. Henry Kissinger
  14. Earth
  15. sum
  16. perpetual
  17. greed
  18. capita
  19. fossil
  20. unintended

Donald Trump

  1. eminent
  2. tremendous
  3. sudden
  4. scholar
  5. inversion
  6. Atlantic
  7. businessman
  8. nasty
  9. beautiful
  10. domain
  11. catastrophe
  12. currency
  13. nice
  14. excuse
  15. unbelievable
  16. incompetent
  17. disgrace
  18. Mexico City
  19. Japan
  20. hell

dictionary logoAbout Dictionary.com

Dictionary.com, an IAC (NASDAQ: IAC) company, is the world’s leading, definitive online and mobile resource dedicated to helping people master the art of language. We provide tens of millions of global monthly users with reliable access to millions of definitions, synonyms, audio pronunciations, example sentences, translations, and spelling help through our services at Dictionary.com and Thesaurus.com. Our leading mobile applications for reference and education have been downloaded more than 100 million times.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Kelly Cox.

Social Security and Medicare Questions for Presidential Candidates

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — As voters consider their choices in state primary elections and in the run-up to the general election, the American Academy of Actuaries is urging them to “make issues count” by evaluating the substance of presidential and congressional candidates’ positions, aided by the Academy’s new series of Election Guides.

“Decisions made by the next president and Congress will shape the long-term financial health of Medicare and Social Security. With millions of Americans relying on these programs, now is the time to start asking the hard questions of candidates—before the nominations are secured, and then all the way through Election Day,” said Academy President Tom Wildsmith. “The Academy election guides provide voters with a nonpartisan roadmap to critical issues, and with questions to effectively press candidates for the substance and details of their positions.”

The Academy’s Election Guides provide general background and a close examination of selected major public policy issues, and provide sample questions to ask candidates, such as:

Social Security

  • Should benefits be lowered or raised, and how would the change affect Social Security’s solvency?
  • Should Social Security’s limit on taxable earnings be raised?
  • What are the advantages of raising Social Security’s retirement age?

Medicare

  • How should Medicare’s long-term financial challenges be addressed?
  • Will you change the benefit structure of the traditional Medicare program and/or allow coverage of additional services to meet the needs of an aging population?
  • If you advocate a premium support approach for Medicare, how would the benefit package be defined?

The initial 2016 election guides released by the Academy focus on the financial condition and other policy considerations related to Medicare and Social Security. The Academy will add future guides focusing on other policy areas throughout the election year, including long-term care and other health care issues, retirement policy, and climate change.

For more information, visit http://election2016.actuary.org.

AAALOGOAbout the American Academy of Actuaries

The American Academy of Actuaries is an 18,500+ member professional association whose mission is to serve the public and the U.S. actuarial profession. The Academy assists public policymakers on all levels by providing leadership, objective expertise, and actuarial advice on risk and financial security issues. The Academy also sets qualification, practice, and professionalism standards for actuaries in the United States.

Demographic and Economic Profiles of States Holding March 5 Primaries and Caucuses

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In advance of the March 5 primaries and caucuses, the U.S. Census Bureau presents a variety of statistics that give an overall profile of each participating state’s voting-age population and industries. Statistics include:

  • Voting-age population and estimate of eligible voters (i.e., citizens age 18 and older).
  • Breakdown of voting-age population by race and Hispanic origin.
  • Selected economic characteristics, including median household income and poverty.
  • Selected social characteristics, including educational attainment.
  • County Business Patterns (providing information on employment by specific industries).
  • Statistics on voting and registration.

Profiles are provided for the following states:

Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Nebraska

By The Numbers Q&A Edition — The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics

By The Numbers kick started an open conversation about radical Islam. In response to the thousands of questions and comments, Raheel Raza addresses some of the key questions. Can we speak out, are we Islamaphobic for doing so and aren’t you afraid to speak out.

Further to our release of the now viral film By The Numbers, Raheel Raza answers some of the most pressing questions our supporters posed to us about speaking out against radical Islam, Islamaphobia and the fear of those that break the political correctness.

Watch Clarion Projects new film, narrated by Raheel Raza, on radical Islam and the answers we need to know.
The conversation starts here. Be empowered to make rational decisions about our future.

After seeing the film we want to know what you think. Please take the time to send us your thoughts and comments.

Florida Governor Rick Scott’s insightful op-ed on Donald Trump

Florida’s Governor wrote a very insightful and passionate op-ed for USA Today titled, “Donald Trump has America’s pulse.” The op-ed is not an endorsement. Rather it is the reflections of one political outsider on another political outsider. Governor Scott has been there and done that, so to speak. Governor Scott writes:

Political pundits are shocked that Donald Trump is leading in the polls. The same thing happened in 2010 when I entered the Florida gubernatorial race against the already anointed and establishment-endorsed sitting Republican attorney general. One establishment member even said to me, “How can you be governor? I don’t know you.”

I won the governor’s race in 2010 and many outsiders — some of them business people — continue to shock the political establishment by coming into elected office from careers outside of politics. Attorney Chris Christie was elected governor of New Jersey in 2009; manufacturer Ron Johnson was elected senator of Wisconsin in 2010; businessman Bruce Rauner won the governor’s race in Illinois in 2014; and businessman Matt Bevin won the governorship of Kentucky just a few months ago. Voters have been choosing new ideas and new energy over the old formula of sheer time served in political office.

I know Donald Trump personally, and while I currently have no plans to endorse a candidate before Florida’s March presidential primary, there is no doubt that Donald is a man who speaks and tweets his mind freely. But I don’t think his ability to give the most interesting interviews or speeches is the only thing that has him leading in the polls. I think he is capturing the frustration of many Americans after seven years of President Obama’s very intentional government takeover of the U.S. economy.

Click here to read the entire USA Today op-ed piece by Governor Rick Scott.

Governor Scott has focused his efforts on cutting taxes, job creation, cutting regulation and reducing the size of government. Governor Scott has also opposed bringing Syrian refugees to the Sunshine State.

Sound familiar? It should.

RELATED ARTICLES:

To Understand Trump, You Have to Understand New York

Seven Reasons Democrats Should Be Terrified of Donald Trump

Florida Representative Matt Gaetz Never Quits Fighting for Second Amendment Rights

As the last two weeks of the 2016 Legislative Session, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R- Shalimar) is still standing up and fighting to get Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla (R-Miami) to do the right thing and let the Open Carry bill be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

As you recall, Sen. Diaz de la Portilla is stonewalling and deliberately refusing to give the committee and the full Senate an opportunity to vote on the bill.

An Opinion Editorial by Rep. Gaetz, calling for the bill to be heard was published today in the North West Florida Daily News.  Read it below and please thank Rep. Gaetz for continuing to fight for your rights. You may contact Rep. Gaetz at: matt.gaetz@myfloridahouse.gov


Rep. Matt Gaetz (R- Shalimar)

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R- Shalimar)

NWFdailynews.com

GUEST COLUMN: Florida Senate should let debate begin on open carry

By REP. MATT GAETZ | Special to the Daily News

Posted Feb. 28, 2016 at 1:00 PM

The organizing principle of my public service is Constitutional liberty. If government constrains itself to the Constitution, free markets, free enterprise and free people can thrive. Otherwise, we get catastrophic consequences like ObamaCare, lawless executive orders and a government that (often corruptly) picks winners and losers.

In a world of uncertainty, the Second Amendment to the Constitution is undeniably clear: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Today, Florida is one of only five states infringing on the rights of citizens to “openly carry” handguns. That’s right. Open carry is legal in various forms in 45 other states. Florida joins California, New York, Illinois and (oddly) South Carolina as the only states to totally prohibit open carry. Thirty states do not require a license, while 15 do.

Weeks ago the Florida House of Representatives passed a bill I authored allowing Floridians with concealed carry permits to openly carry in a holster. It was a bipartisan 80-36 vote. The bill was endorsed by the Florida Police Chief’s Association, Unified Sportsmen of Florida and the National Rifle Association. The Florida Chamber of Commerce helped draft provisions to allow private property owners to prohibit open carry if they choose.

Then, the Senate Judiciary Chairman killed it. He refused to even allow a vote on open carry, likely because the bill would have passed. No one Senator should have the right to unilaterally block critical legislation from even having a vote – especially when constitutional rights are implicated.

There is no constitutional, statistical or rational basis to disallow open carry in Florida. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s own data, in open carry states you are:

  • 23 percent less likely to be the victim of violent crime
  • 5 percent less likely to be murdered
  • 38 percent less likely to be the victim of armed robbery, and
  • 23 percent less likely to be the victim of aggravated assault.

Open carry is not a Utopian solution to violence. Many factors impact crime rates. But, reasonable people cannot disagree on the statistical fact that open carry does not increase violence.

I find it compelling that concealed carry permit holders are remarkably law-abiding. According to Florida Department of Law Enforcement crime data, permit holders are six times less likely to commit crimes than law enforcement officers.

If I am elected to serve in the Senate next year, I’ll again file much needed open carry legislation. I’ll also pursue changes to Florida Senate rules to allow for more transparent debate on the issues facing Florida.

Florida should be an open carry state. The Florida Senate should let the debate begin. I’m ready for it.

Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, was elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2010 and has been subsequently reelected three times. He is the immediate past Chairman of the Criminal Justice Subcommittee and currently chairs the Finance & Tax Committee.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Court of Appeals Declines to Rehear Heller III, Reinforces Pro-Gun Victory

As the Primaries Turn

Stranger Than Fiction: Gun Control Debate Leads to Discovery of New Species

Has the VA Deprived You of Your Second Amendment Rights? NRA Wants to Hear From You!

VIDEO: Trump’s Great Wall of America

It is time to build “The Wall” as a symbol to the world that the United States of America is still run by free men and women!

eu pessimists by country chart

RELATED ARTICLES:

Swiss Vote on Expelling Foreigners for Petty Crimes

23 Years Ago the World Trade Center was Bombed Because of Illegal Alien Amnesty | Daniel Greenfield

The Next Syrian Refugee Crisis: Child Brides

European ship headed to Asia to help rescue Rohingya (why you should care)

Elected Criminals to be Reelected by Incarcerated Criminals

Hawaii lawmakers are expected to make a decision on House Bill 2773 on Thursday.  The bill would allow prisoners to retain their right to vote, even while incarcerated.

(Airhead) Representative Kaniela Ing introduced the bill.  He says denying convicts voting rights undermines democratic ideals.  Ing believes the process helps inmates learn about the system and helps them feel like they are part of the process and not against it.

“Feel like they’re part of the system and they can help create it and shape it,” says Ing.

But critics say convicted criminals have many constitutional rights taken away while they’re serving time, and this one shouldn’t be an exception.

“You’re punished.  You forfeit those rights,” says Representative Bob McDermott, “It’s a foolish idea and it won’t pass. It will embarrass members in an election year.”

Meanwhile: Sentencing set for ex-state senator in racketeering case

HB2773: Text, Status

read … Birds of a Feather

GOP Baffled as Voters Rally to Popular Candidate

Ann Coulter writes:

Donald Trump’s latest bombshell, claiming the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction to get us into the Iraq War, is just him doing wheelies on the way to the nomination. He’s apparently decided it would be fun to taunt the entire GOP by demonstrating that he can say anything and his voters won’t care.

I wish he’d stop showing off, the little scamp, but maybe the GOP establishment will finally get the message that voters have been waiting a really long time for a candidate who would put Americans first. Not donors, not plutocrats, not foreigners, and certainly not foreign plutocrats (i.e., Fox News).

Trump is the first presidential candidate in 50 years who might conceivably: (1) deport illegal aliens, (2) build a wall, (3) block Muslim immigration, (4) flout political correctness, (5) bring manufacturing home, and (6) end the GOP’s neurotic compulsion to start wars in some godforsaken part of the world.

That’s all that matters! Are you listening yet, RNC?

Read more.

people who hate trump cartoonIn my column “The Trump Insurgency” I noted:

If you Google the words “Trump” and “insurgency” you will get over 650,000 links to articles and commentary. I recently said to a friend that Donald Trump has gone from being a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President to the leader of a movement.

Can this movement be called an insurgency?

The definition of an insurgency is a “rebellion against an existing government by a group not recognized as a belligerent.”

Is it Trump who created an insurgency or is Trump following the lead of a growing insurgency that was already taking place? I have written that Trump leads his followers by following their lead. The movement began during the Presidency of Bill Clinton and continues today. It is a struggle between the individualist and the collectivist.

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

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

Donald Trump has tapped into the “Individualism Movement.” Trump’s life is the embodiment of the individualist. Trump has been rich, then poor and then rich again. He has done this not with government handouts, but rather despite the government.

It appears Ann and I agree. The GOPe is baffled, the people are not.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Donald Trump has America’s pulse: Rick Scott

Swiss Vote on Expelling Foreigners for Petty Crimes

Journalist doesn’t report Islamic State sympathizer to police because ‘he was so nice’

“Also, considering the state we now find ourselves in, we cannot go crying to the police about every little IS sympathizer we come across on the high street. The system wouldn’t be able to cope.” That should have set off warning alarms for her and others in Britain, but it didn’t, and won’t. And so Britain will go gently into its good night, happy that its new Islamic supremacist masters are such very decent fellows.

Do you think Melissa Kite would have been this conflicted if the kind, helpful man at the tire shop had been a member of a counter-jihad group? If he had been a member of, say, LibertyGB, she might not have gone to the police, since, after all, it isn’t illegal in Britain (yet) to belong to such a group, but it is highly unlikely she would have written about him so sympathetically, no matter how kind he had been.

“There’s a guy works down the tyre shop swears he’s Isis: But he had done me a great service and an incredible deal so I decided not to go to the police,” by Melissa Kite, The Spectator, February 27, 2016:

The last time I bought a set of tyres in south London I came away not quite knowing whether I had just been asked to become a jihadi bride.

Of course, it was only the merest suspicion. If I had had hard evidence I might have gone to the police. Or I might not. These days, one is likely to get done for a hate crime if one complains about a member of the opposite religion. If I had gone to the police what would I have said?

‘Excuse me, I’ve just had a set of tyres fitted to my Volvo by a man who tried to persuade me that IS fighters don’t deserve the bad press.’

Would I have sounded hysterical, or delusional, or just plain prejudiced? And what was my suspicion based on? Not that much.

I thought about it a lot but really all I had was the fact that, as I sat in the waiting room with the spaniel as my tyres were fitted, a very handsome young man sitting at his desk beneath a huge gold-framed excerpt from the Koran told me I shouldn’t listen to ‘the hype’ about Isis, who weren’t the barbarians they were made out to be. He knew this, he said, because he was just back from a top-secret mission in the Middle East, which he couldn’t elaborate on.

He said I should consider converting and marrying a man like him because I would find that my life really took off at that point. I gulped and nodded. I thought it unlikely that going under the veil would make me happy but he had me in a bind.

I was sitting in his waiting room and my car was up on his ramp with no wheels. I could hardly shout, ‘Now look here, matey! I’m a Roman Catholic. Jesus saves! And while we’re at it, the suffragettes chained themselves to railings for my right to vote, and to tell you to naff off!’

I had to nod and say please and thank you and ‘oh, now that is interesting!’ The whole situation was complicated by the fact that his men went to the most enormous trouble to fit me the best set of affordable quality tyres I have ever had on my Volvo. Truly, within seconds of driving away it was obvious that the car was driving better than ever. Much better than the way it drove after the last set was fitted, when the builder boyfriend took it to one of his mates under the arches who whacked some retreads on it.

Life is terribly confusing at times like these. I realised that I could have a guy who was on the side of the angels fit deathtrap tyres to my car and not even balance them properly.

Or a guy who was cheerleading for the worst terror group in the history of mankind could fit four stupendously good-value Continentals.

What’s a girl to do?

I drove around pondering what evidence I should take to the police and eventually concluded that I would go with my mum’s old maxim: you have to take people how you find them. The guy in the tyre shop had been courteous, kind, patient, honest, trustworthy, efficient, skilful and reliable. He had done me a great service and an incredible deal.

He might have been an IS fighter just arrived back from jihad. Or he might have been shooting his mouth off to impress me. It is, after all, entirely possible that our country is in such a weird mess that boasting you’re connected to Isis has become a chat-up line to which increasing numbers of men are resorting to impress the ladies.

Also, considering the state we now find ourselves in, we cannot go crying to the police about every little IS sympathiser we come across on the high street. The system wouldn’t be able to cope….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Florida man could get life in prison for mosque bacon attack

Video: Kerry on Gitmo detainee who returned to jihad: “He’s not supposed to be doing that”

Britain Bristles, Canada Bows to Islamic Multiculturalism

Britain appears to be cracking down on deportations of terrorists as well as hard-core criminals, while Canada, with its new liberal administration, dons kid gloves to deal with terrorists. Although in the case mentioned below, it took  the United Kingdom an eternity to wake up.

An article in the Independent reports on the Home Secretary, the British cabinet level position that deals with immigration, citizenship, and crime policy,

“Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is planning to significantly increase her department’s use of legal powers that allow serious criminals with dual nationality to have their British citizenship withdrawn.”

This action is in response to the gang rapes, and assaults perpetrated by what the article claims as “Asian” sex abuse gangs. You have to laugh at the media that will use any  kind of word to describe people from Muslim countries. Yes, Pakistan is part of South-West Asia, but how about just naming the country.

The particular case being discussed in the article deals with a gang of six men and women recently convicted of involvement in rape, prostitution, false imprisonment, and indecent assault. Three brothers with British/ Pakistani citizenship: Arshid, Basharat, and Bannaras Hussain were named in the case. They are not your average Anglo-Saxon names, so I’m assuming they are Muslim. The number of abused in Rotherham England, an area contolled by the culturally  Muslim sensitive Labour Party, 1,400 children over the past 16 years.

According to the Telegraph,

“Men of Pakistani heritage treated white girls like toilet paper. They picked children up from schools and care homes and trafficked them across northern cities for other men to join in the fun. They doused a 15-year-old in petrol and threatened to set her alight should she dare to report them. They menaced entire families and made young girls watch as they raped other children.”

Vinesh Mandalia, the counsel for the Home Office, stated,

“… the hearing that the decision by Home Secretary to deprive the men of their British citizenships was based on the need to express “society’s condemnation of those who have gained the benefits and privileges of British citizenship, but go on to become involved in serious organised crime”

On the flip-side, Canadian Immigration Minister, John McCallum announced new legislation that basically would prevent known terrorists in their country from being deported. No surprise here since the country just elected a “wet behind the ears’  Prime Minister who wants 50,000 Syrian refugees by the end of this year.

According to the National Post,

“…the Liberal plan promises to be controversial in its own right, since it would, if passed, restore the Canadian citizenship of Zakaria Amara — sentenced in 2010 for his role as a member of the so-called Toronto 18.”

So, the very first piece of legislation pushed out by this liberal Canadian government will restore citizenship to the lead al Qaeda terrorist, Amara,  involved in a plot to blow up a large truck bomb parked outside of the Toronto Stock Exchange at rush hour in 2006. In addition, an Ontario military base was also to be attacked, essentially creating their own Canadian 9/11.

Personally, I’m wondering why he is still six feet above ground, but then we have our own Blind Sheik who is being waited on hand and foot at Club Gitmo, awaiting his pardon at the end of the Obama regime. (That is just my opinion.)

The National Post goes on to state,

“In addition, the department will take no further action against nine terrorists who had received notices informing them their citizenship was being revoked. They include an Iranian-Canadian and a Pakistani-Canadian imprisoned for a 2010 plan to bomb military bases in Canada.”

It continues,

“Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Pakistani-Canadian imprisoned in California over his role in a plot to decapitate employees of a Danish newspaper and throw their heads onto the street, will also be allowed to keep his Canadian citizenship.”

What does this legislation say to terrorists worldwide? It is the very same message our government broadcasts to any illegal immigrant desiring to come to our country for numerous reasons.  And that is…Have no fear of prosecution or of being deported. Canada and America are open-wide, multiculturally speaking, to those who intend harm.

Interestingly, Canada just reported a total of 240 of its model citizens are or have been engaged in terror groups fighting overseas. Sixty have returned home with the remaining 180 still abroad. With the administration’s bent, Trudeau may just arrange a ticker tape parade to welcome them all home.

RELATED ARTICLE: Swiss Vote on Expelling Foreigners for Petty Crimes

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (left) meeting with Prime Minister David Cameron during a bilateral visit to London, on November 25, 2015.

Bloomberg and Murdoch (rich globalists) working to control your communities

This morning we learned from a New York Times story that Fox News Corp owner Rupert Murdoch failed in 2013 to persuade you that Marco Rubio’s ‘Gang of Eight’ Amnesty bill would be good for America.

However, having failed through Fox News propaganda, he and other rich globalists (they need cheap labor!) created a new way to change your minds about how, by ‘welcoming’ more immigrants to town, you would benefit and created a special grant program called ‘Gateways to Growth.’

They are coming for you one town at a time!

Here is what I said at American Resistance 2016! a month ago:

Welcoming America and the Partnership for a New American Economy have partnered in a grant giveaway program—Gateways for Growthdesigned to get your town or county softened up to accept MORE immigrants and refugees!  [Since I first wrote about this last month, you can no longer see the grant requirements without a password — typical secretive creeps!—ed]

The gist of the program is that Lefty Open Borders groups would ‘partner’ with business interests and local government to create a kind of political juggernaut that would bring Republicans and Democrats together against you, average citizens who do not want to change the social and cultural make-up of your towns, and who believe Americans should get the first shot at well-paying jobs.

The Twin Falls, Idaho target!

Longtime readers know that we have written a great deal about the ‘Pocket of Resistance’ in Twin Falls, Idaho (where Chobani Yogurt has built its largest plant in the world).  Click here for our extensive Twin Falls archive.

So, now check this out!  Here is Murdoch’s (and former NY Mayor Bloomberg’s) Gateways for Growth trying to go operational in Twin Falls.  In order to get the Murdoch/Bloomberg payola, the Open borders advocates must “partner” with the supposed ‘other side’—local government, Chambers of Commerce etc.

This is our first news of how the globalists and the do-gooders are working together in your towns!

Be sure to see ‘Gateways for Growth challenge’ to see what they hope to gain.  It is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo about “integration” (not assimilation!).  They will really simply be propagandists.

From Magic Valley.com where we learn that the Murdoch groupies got ahead of themselves and listed the local government on their grant application.

TWIN FALLS | The City Council is entering the refugee issue after unanimously voting Monday to appoint a liaison to a local advocate group.

The Council heard from the Magic Valley Refugee Advocates, a fledgling group that intends to establish services for refugees in Twin Falls if it’s able to land a grant and hire staff.

While council members did not offer support for the group’s efforts — and in fact were opposed to being listed as a “supporter” in a letter of intent for the grant being sought — they agreed an exchange of information with the group was appropriate. It marks the first time the city has formally engaged in a months-long heated debate over refugee resettlement in the Magic Valley.

[….]

Several Council members were not pleased, however, the city was listed as a partner agency in a grant being pursued by the local advocacy group from the Partnership for a New American Economy, an immigration advocacy organization formed by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Vice Mayor Suzanne Hawkins noted the Magic Valley Refugee Advocates listed the city as a supporter before it had agreed to be a partner.

More here! Read it all!

The leader of the Magic Valley Refugee Advocates is Erika Willsey.  Here she makes a presentation of her support of the resettlement contractor in Twin Falls—the College of Southern Idaho.  Ms. Willsey is carrying the water for globalists Bloomberg, Murdoch and Hamdi Ulukaya/Chobani Yogurt (whether she knows it or not).

I urge all of you to be on the lookout for a similar attempt being made in your towns to use globalists’ grant money to put the business community in concert with the Leftist do-gooders to change your community and to work against your interests.

By the way, the next time you hear some big company boss moaning that they can’t find American workers—tell them they need to pay a decent wage and they will get them!

RELATED ARTICLES:

23 Years Ago the World Trade Center was Bombed Because of Illegal Alien Amnesty | Daniel Greenfield

News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch tried to manipulate you during 2013 ‘Gang of Eight’ battle

China takes no Syrian refugees for several important (sensible!) reasons

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Rupert Murdoch (left) and Michael Bloomberg (Josh Reynolds/AP Photo).

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism by Corey Iacono

Bernie Sanders has single-handedly brought the term “democratic socialism” into the contemporary American political lexicon and shaken millions of Millennials out of their apathy towards politics. Even if he does not win the Democratic nomination, his impact on American politics will be evident for years to come.

Sanders has convinced a great number of people that things have been going very badly for the great majority of people in the United States, for a very long time. His solution? America must embrace “democratic socialism,” a socioeconomic system that seemingly works very well in the Scandinavian countries, like Sweden, which are, by some measures, better off than the United States.

Democratic socialism purports to combine majority rule with state control of the means of production. However, the Scandinavian countries are not good examples of democratic socialism in action because they aren’t socialist.

In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not the community or the government, and resources are allocated to their respective uses by the market, not government or community planning.

While it is true that the Scandinavian countries provide things like a generous social safety net and universal healthcare, an extensive welfare state is not the same thing as socialism. What Sanders and his supporters confuse as socialism is actually social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice.

In response to Americans frequently referring to his country as socialist, the prime minister of Denmark recently remarked in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,

I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.

The Scandinavians embrace a brand of free-market capitalism that exists in conjunction with a large welfare state, known as the “Nordic Model,” which includes many policies that democratic socialists would likely abhor.

For example, democratic socialists are generally opponents of global capitalism and free trade, but the Scandinavian countries have fully embraced these things. The Economist magazine describes the Scandinavian countries as “stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies.” Perhaps this is why Denmark, Norway, and Sweden rank among the most globalized countries in the entire world. These countries all also rank in the top 10 easiest countries to do business in.

How do supporters of Bernie Sanders feel about the minimum wage? You will find no such government-imposed floors on labor in Sweden, Norway, or Denmark. Instead, minimum wages are decided by collective-bargaining agreements between unions and employers; they typically vary on an occupational or industrial basis. Union-imposed wages lock out the least skilled and do their own damage to an economy, but such a decentralized system is still arguably a much better way of doing things than having the central government set a one-size fits all wage policy that covers every occupation nationwide.

In a move that would be considered radically pro-capitalist by young Americans who #FeelTheBern, Sweden adopted a universal school choice system in the 1990s that is nearly identical to the system proposed by libertarian economist Milton Friedman his 1955 essay, “The Role of Government in Education.”

In practice, the Swedish system involves local governments allowing families to use public funds, in the form of vouchers, to finance their child’s education at a private school, including schools run by the dreaded for-profit corporation.

Far from being a failure, as the socialists thought it would be, Sweden’s reforms were a considerable success. According to a study published by the Institute for the Study of Labor, the expansion of private schooling and competition brought about by the Swedish free-market educational reforms “improved average educational performance both at the end of compulsory school and in the long run in terms of high school grades, university attendance, and years of schooling.”

Overall, it is clear that the Scandinavian countries are not in fact archetypes of successful democratic socialism. Sanders has convinced a great deal of people that socialism is something it is not, and he has used the Scandinavian countries to prove its efficacy, while ignoring the many ways they deviate, sometimes dramatically, from what Sanders himself advocates.

Corey IaconoCorey Iacono

Corey Iacono is a student at the University of Rhode Island majoring in pharmaceutical science and minoring in economics.

Will a ‘Socialist’ Government Make Us Freer? by Jason Kuznicki

“Socialism” is a weasel word.

Consider that the adjective “socialist” applies commonly — even plausibly — to countries with vastly different ex ante institutions and with vastly different social and economic outcomes. Yet Canada, Norway, Venezuela, and Cuba can’t all be one thing. Does socialism mean substantial freedom of the press, as in Norway? Or does it mean the vicious suppression of dissent, as in Venezuela?

We need more clarity here before we decide whether socialism is a worthwhile social system, and whether, as Will Wilkinson recommends, we ought to support a socialist candidate for president.

An approach that clearly will not do is to apply the term “socialism” to virtually all foreign countries. Shabby as that definition may be, some do seem to use it, both favorably and not. The result is that “socialism” has grown popular largely because a lot of people have concluded that the American status quo stinks. Maybe it does stink, but that doesn’t endow “socialism” with a proper definition.

Let’s see what happens when we drill down to the level of institutions.

Now, we might personally wish that the word “socialism” meant “the social system in which the state owns the means of production and runs the major industries of the nation.”

This is a workable definition: It has a clear genus and differentia; it includes some systems, while excluding others; and it’s not obviously self-referential. It’s also the definition preferred by many important political actors in the twentieth century, including Vladimir Lenin.

Lenin’s definition was not a bad one. But it’s far from the only current, taxonomically proper definition of socialism. As Will Wilkinson rightly notes, socialism also commonly means “the social system in which the state uses taxation to provide an extensive social safety net.”

And yet, as Will also notes, “ownership of the means of production” and “provision of a social safety net” are logically independent policies. A state can do one, the other, both, or neither. Of these four possibilities, there’s only one that can’t plausibly be called a socialism — and not a single state on earth behaves this way!

Better terms are in order, but I know that whatever I propose here isn’t going to stick, so I’m not going to try. Instead I want to look at some of the consequences that may arise from our fuzzy terminology.

One danger is that we may believe and support one conception of “socialism” —only to find that the agents we’ve tasked with supplying it have had other ideas all along: We may want Norway but get Venezuela. Wittingly or unwittingly.

Before we say “oh please, of course we’ll end up in Norway,” let’s recall how eager our leftist intelligentsia has been to praise Chavez’s Venezuela — and even declare it an “economic miracle” — until the truth became unavoidable: The “miracle” of socialism in Venezuela turned out to be nothing more than a transient oil boom. Yet leftist intellectuals are the very sorts of people who will be drawn, by self-selection, to an administration that is proud to call itself socialist.

There’s some resemblance to a “motte-and-bailey” process here: they cultivate the rich, desirable fields of the bailey, until they are attacked, at which point they retreat to the well-fortified motte. The easily defensible motte is the comfortable social democracy of northern Europe, which we all agree is pretty nice and happens to have quite a few free-market features. The bailey is the Cuban revolution.

This motte-and-bailey process does not need to be deliberate; it may be the result of a genuinely patchwork socialist coalition. No one in the coalition needs to have bad faith. An equivocal word is all that’s needed, and one is already on hand.

Even when we look only at one country, the problem remains: We may only want some institutional parts of Denmark — and we may want them for good reasons, such as Denmark’s relatively loose regulatory environment. But what we get may only be the other institutional parts of Denmark — such as its high personal income taxes. (Worth noting: Bernie Sanders has explicitly promised the higher personal income taxes, while his views on regulation are anything but Danish.)

Will thinks that electing someone on the far left of the American political spectrum could be somewhat good for liberty, but I’m far from convinced. Remember what happened the last time we put just a center-leftist in the White House: By the very same measures of economic freedom that Will uses to tout Denmark’s success, America’s economic freedom ranking sharply declined. And that decline was the direct result of Barack Obama’s left-wing economic policies. We got a larger welfare state and higher taxes, but we also got much more command-and-control regulation.

Faced with similar objections from others, Will has already performed a nice sidestep: He has replied that voting for Sanders is — obviously — just a strategic move: “Obviously,” he writes, “President Bernie Sanders wouldn’t get to implement his economic policy.” Emphasis his.

To which I’d ask: Do you really mean that Sanders would achieve none of his economic agenda? At all? Because I can name at least two items that seem like safe bets: more protectionism and stricter controls on immigration. A lot of Sanders’s ideas will indeed be dead on arrival, but these two won’t, and he would be delighted to make a bipartisan deal that cuts against most everything that Will, the Niskanen Center, and libertarians generally claim to stand for. Cheering for a guy who would happily bury your legislative agenda, and who stands a good chance of actually doing it seems… well, odd.

There is also a frank inconsistency to Will’s argument: The claim that Sanders will make us more like Denmark can’t be squared with the claim that Sanders will be totally ineffective. Arguing both is just throwing spaghetti on the wall — and hoping the result looks like libertarianism.

Would Sanders decriminalize marijuana? Or reform the criminal justice system? Or start fewer wars? Or spend less on defense? Or give us all puppies? I don’t know. Obama promised to close Guantanamo. He promised to be much better on civil liberties. He promised not to start “dumb wars” or bomb new and exotic countries. He even promised accountability for torture.

In 2008, I made the terrible mistake of counting those promises in his favor. We’ve seen how well that worked out.

It’s completely beyond me why I should trust similarly tangential promises this time around — particularly from a candidate like Sanders, whose record on foreign policy is already disturbingly clear. None of the rest of these desiderata have anything to do with state control over our economic life, which would appear to be the one thing the left wants most of all. (Marijuana: illegal in Cuba. Legal in North Korea. Yay freedom?)

Ultimately, I think that electing someone significantly further left than Obama will not help matters in any sense at all, except maybe that it will show how little trust we should put in anyone who willingly wears the socialist label. The only good outcome of a Sanders administration may be that we’ll all say to ourselves afterward: “Well, we won’t be trying that again!”

Now, I am prepared to believe, exactly as Will writes, that “‘social democracy,’ as it actually exists, is sometimes more ‘libertarian’ than the good old U.S. of A.” That’s true, at least in a few senses. Consider, for instance, that Denmark isn’t drone bombing unknown persons in Pakistan using a type of algorithm that can’t seem to deliver interesting Facebook ads. (One could say that, as usual, Denmark is letting us do their dirty work for them, with their full approval, but I won’t press the point.)

Either way, that’s still a pretty low bar, no? Meanwhile, there remains plenty of room for us to imitate some other bad things — things that we aren’t doing now, but that Denmark is doing, like taxing its citizens way, way too much. The fact that these things are a part of the complex conglomerate known as northern European social democracy doesn’t necessarily make them good, exactly as remote control assassination doesn’t become good merely by virtue of being American.

In short: Point taken about social democracy. At times, some of it isn’t completely terrible. But that only gets us so far, and not quite to the Sanders slot in the ballot box.

Jason KuznickiJason Kuznicki

Jason Kuznicki is the editor of Cato Unbound.