Judge refuses to halt Trump’s new immigration order

/in , , , /by

Judge James Robart, who issued a temporary restraining order against the initial ban in February, declined to apply it to the new executive order. Perhaps he was stung by the criticism: in his first restraining order, he falsely claimed that no jihad terror attacks had been committed by migrants from the countries covered in the ban, when in reality there had been many.

Could this be an indication that the hard-Left, out-of-control judiciary is finally having to demonstrate more responsibility? Unlikely, but it’s still a good sign.

“Judge Refuses To Halt Trump’s New Immigration Order,” by Kerry Picket, Daily Caller, March 10, 2017:

A federal district court denied a request to place an emergency restraining order on President Donald Trump’s modified immigration executive order, an attorney representing states opposing the order told Reuters Friday night.

The initial executive order posted by the Trump administration — which restricted travel from seven countries with majority Muslim populations — last January was challenged by lawyers in states such as Washington and Minnesota.

Seattle U.S. District Court Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order against the initial policy last month.

The new order narrowed the travel restriction down to six countries and would give exception to green card holders among other changes. According to Reuters, Robart did not apply his restraining order to the new immigration order….

RELATED ARTICLE: UK: 5,500 cases of FGM in 2016 alone, not a single prosecution

The Trojan Horse of Terrorism

/in , , , , , , /by

In a March 7, 2017 story by Dan Bilefsky, headlined “Hungary Approves Detention of Asylum Seekers in Guarded Camps,” the New York Times reported that,

“Europe’s simmering backlash against immigration came into sharp relief on Tuesday when the Hungarian Parliament approved the detention of asylum seekers in guarded and enclosed camps on the country’s southern border, in what human rights advocates called a reckless breach of international law.”

According to the Times,

“Prime Minister Viktor Orban justified the measure on the grounds that it would secure the European Union’s borders from migrants and act as a powerful deterrent against migration, which he called the ‘Trojan horse of terrorism.’ ”

The Prime Minister is quoted as saying,

“We are under siege.  The flood of migration has slowed down but has not stopped.  Laws apply to everyone.  This includes those migrants who want to cross Hungary’s border illegally.  This is the reality, which cannot be overruled by charming human rights nonsense.”

Unfortunately, it is “charming human rights nonsense” that now informs immigration policy on the political left in the United States, just as it has in most Western European nations.  While liberals and Democrats oppose any and all limitations on immigration from majority Muslim countries… in the apparent hope that American Muslims will repay the favor by becoming a reliable Democratic voting bloc… even they express concern over the potential for isolated terror attacks in the near term.  What apparently escapes their attention is the clearly stated long term goal of Muslim migration: the complete domination of Islam over all the nations of the world.

In his first speech before a joint session of Congress on February 28, President Trump paused, gazed directly into the camera, and carefully enunciated words that Barack Obama famously refused to utter. He said,

“Our obligation is to serve, protect, and defend the citizens of the United States… We are also taking strong measures to protect our nation from radical Islamic terrorism.”

However, as appealing and as essential as that resolve might be, by focusing only on the unspeakable atrocities of radical Islamists, we run the risk of overlooking or downplaying what is an even more deadly and more pervasive long term threat: the danger of what Hungarian Prime Minister Orban referred to as the “Trojan horse of terrorism,” the unfettered flow of Muslim migrants and refugees across international frontiers into the Western world.

In his book, Slavery, Terrorism, and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat, Dr. Peter Hammond explains something that every Christian, every Jew, and every other non-Muslim on the face of the Earth must understand… which is that Islam does not qualify as a religion in the normally accepted sense of the word.  Instead, as a complete legal, political, economic, social, and military system with a religious component, the West’s dangerous flirtation with multiculturalism can only be described as “charming human rights nonsense.”  And while most non-Muslims worry about the possibility of being murdered in an isolated “lone wolf” terror attack, they all but ignore the long term implications of Muslim expansionism.    

Dr. Hammond explains the process of “stealth jihadism” carried out by muhajirs, or Muslim immigrants.  He tells us that “Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their religious privileges.  When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well.”

In his May 8, 2015 treatise, titled, Islam, Interreligious Dialogue, and Evangelization, Andre Villeneuve, Ph.D. of Saint John Vianney Seminary, describes the ecumenical schizophrenia displayed by the Catholic Church in their approach to Islam in just the past two decades.  He quotes Pope Benedict XVI in his Regensburg Lecture of September 12, 2006.  Benedict quoted the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who said,

“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

However, Villeneuve goes on to describe a contrary view held by the current prelate, Pope Francis.  He writes,

“After praising the commitment to prayer, faith, devotion, and ethical values of many Muslims, (Pope) Francis encourages Christians to adopt a welcoming attitude towards the increasing number of Muslim immigrants in traditionally Christian countries, while asking for a reciprocal freedom of worship for Christians living in Muslim countries.”

Reciprocal freedom of worship?  It is, at best, a naive pipe-dream.  While a few majority Muslim nations have tolerated Christian congregations in their midst, many of those Christians are now victims of genocide.  To expect that those attitudes will ever change is worse than naïve… it is dangerous and it is suicidal.

Christians are taught from early childhood to heed the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:39.  In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said,

“But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

As the leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, Pope Francis is obliged to instruct his flock to “turn the other cheek.”  However, while that counter-intuitive advice may be valuable to me in a one-on-one relationship with my next door neighbor or a co-worker, just how far does it go?  In other words, how are we to react when all of western civilization hangs in the balance?

On September 3, 2011, Swiss parliamentarian Oskar Freysinger, of the Christian Democratic People’s Party addressed some very important thoughts to a Berlin audience… thoughts that the American people would do well to hear and heed in 2017.  He said, in part, “My dear Berlin friends, I come to you today as a neighbor and as a concerned friend…”

Referring to the rules imposed on non-Muslims living in majority Muslim nations, Freysinger said, “The dhimmi attitude of Europeans sustained a wound which must not heal over if the millennia-old European civilization is to survive, for Europe is more than a plot of land, more than a continent, more than the sum of its countries.  Europe is an idea, a cultural landscape, an intellectual space shaped by history.  Europe is the cradle of the modern constitutional state, the treasure house of human rights, of freedom of opinion and expression.

“This is ever more strongly endangered by the possibility that our political elite will bend their necks before (an Islamic) religious dogma that is alien to our intellectual history, our values, and our constitutional state.  This dogma is gnawing away at the pillars of our system of laws, wherever it is allowed some space.  This dogma demands total obedience from its followers.

“They are in no case to integrate into our value system.  That would be like treason and can even be punished with death.  They are expected to conquer our intellectual home, make the Western world subject.  Not with tanks, rockets, or riflemen.  Not through brutal revolution.  No, Islam is in no hurry.  It has an eternity.  A long process of softening up and leisurely occupation of our child-poor society is foreseen.  The Islamic doctrine is expected to gradually creep into everyday life and Fortress Europe will crumble from within.

“And what are we doing?  We are allowing this violent doctrine, unhindered in cultural ghettos, to strain at toppling the nation of laws…  When women are beaten and whole city districts are taken over, we look the other way.  We believe we can soften the power hunger of the holy warriors with welfare money.  We believe we can buy peace! What lunacy!  No one fingers the Prophet’s beard.  Fanatics cannot be bought.  Germany should know that better than any country in the world…”

He concluded by saying, “If we lose this battle there will be no second chance, for Islam does not give back what it has conquered.  So I summon all the humanists of this continent not to keep their heads in the sand and to resist the Islamic dogma’s drive to conquest.  Let us stand together and uncompromisingly insist upon the primacy of our civil law over any religious dogma.  Let us find our way back to our precious intellectual heritage.  Islam is only as strong as we are weak”

It is estimated that, by the end of this century, in the absence of some unforeseen divine intervention, Muslims will exceed 50 percent of the world’s population.  But long before that time, it is reasonable to assume that most of 21st century Western civilization will have become unraveled and our descendants will find themselves facing a squalid 7th century lifestyle. As Prime Minister Orban so aptly describes it, the current level of Muslim immigration into the West can best be described as the “Trojan horse of terrorism.”  Left unfettered, it can have no good end.  As matters now stand, we cannot assume that the Europe we have known and loved for many centuries, and from which our forbears emerged, will continue to exist beyond ten or twenty more years.

While Europe may be the “cradle of the modern constitutional state, the treasure house of human rights, of freedom of opinion and expression,” the United States is the laboratory in which those concepts were tested and proven.  That fact, alone, gives Islamists all the justification they need to see us wiped from the face of the Earth.  There is far too much at stake to be gambled away in some “charming human rights” experiment, in a contest we cannot win.  And if we are so unwise as to invite the forces of Islam to coexist with us, on our own soil, then we too, like Europe, will crumble from within.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump reportedly considering Mideast peace conference

U.S. Senator Rand Paul Introduces Bill to Repeal/Replace Obamacare

/in , , , , , /by

The Obamacare Replacement Act (S. 222) introduced by Sen. Rand Paul, M.D. accomplishes the following:

Repealing Obamacare

Effective as of the date of enactment of this bill, the following provisions of Obamacare are repealed:

  • Individual and employer mandates, community rating restrictions, rate review, essential health benefits requirement, medical loss ratio, and other insurance mandates.

Protecting Individuals with Pre-Existing Conditions

  • Provides a two-year open-enrollment period under which individuals with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage.
  • Restores HIPAA pre-existing conditions protections. Prior to Obamacare, HIPAA guaranteed those within the group market could obtain continuous health coverage regardless of preexisting conditions. Equalize the Tax Treatment of Health Insurance
  • Individuals who receive health insurance through an employer are able to exclude the premium amount from their taxable income. However, this subsidy is unavailable for those that do not receive their insurance through an employer but instead shop for insurance on the individual market.
  • Equalizes the tax treatment of the purchase of health insurance for individuals and employers. By providing a universal deduction on both income and payroll taxes regardless of how an individual obtains their health insurance, Americans will be empowered to purchase insurance independent of employment. Furthermore, this provision does not interfere with employer provided coverage for Americans who prefer those plans.

Expansion of Health Savings Accounts

Tax Credit for HSA Contributions

  • Provides individuals the option of a tax credit of up to $5,000 per taxpayer for contributions to an HSA. If an individual chooses not to accept the tax credit or contributes in excess of $5,000, those contributions are still tax-preferred.

Maximum Contribution Limit to HSA

  • Removes the maximum allowable annual contribution, so that individuals may make unlimited contributions to an HSA.

Eliminates the requirement that a participant in an HSA be enrolled in a high deductible health care plan

  • Currently, in order to be eligible to establish and use an HSA, an individual must be enrolled in a high-deductible health plan. This section removes the HSA plan type requirement to allow individuals with all types of insurance to establish and use an HSA. o This would also enable individuals who are eligible for Medicare, VA benefits, TRICARE, IHS, and members of health care sharing ministries to be eligible to establish an HSA.

Allowance of Distributions for Prescription and OTC Drugs

  • Allows prescription and OTC drug costs to be treated as allowable expenses of HSAs.

Purchase of Health Insurance from HSA Account

  • Currently, HSA funds may not be used to purchase insurance or cover the cost of premiums. Allowing the use of HSA funds for insurance premiums will help make health coverage more affordable for American families.

Medical Expenses Incurred Prior to Account Establishment

  • Allows qualified expenses incurred prior to HSA establishment to be reimbursed from an HSA as long as the account is established prior to tax filing. Ø Administrative Error Correction Before Due Date of Return
  • Amends current law by allowing for administrative or clerical error corrections on filings. Ø Allowing HSA Rollover to Child or Parent of Account Holder o Allows an account holder’s HSA to rollover to a child, parent, or grandparent, in addition to a spouse.

Equivalent Bankruptcy Protections for HSAs as Retirement Funds

  • Most tax-exempt retirement accounts are also fully exempt from bankruptcy by federal law. While some states have passed laws that exempt HSA funds from being seized in bankruptcy, there is no federal protection for HSA funds in bankruptcy.

Certain Exercise Equipment and Physical Fitness Programs to be Treated as Medical Care

  • Expands allowable HSA expenses to include equipment for physical exercise or health coaching, including weight loss programs.

Nutritional and Dietary Supplements to be Treated as Medical Care

  • Amends the definition of “medical care” to include dietary and nutritional supplements for the purposes of HSA expenditures.

Certain Providers Fees to be Treated as Medical Care

  • Allows HSA funds to be used for periodic fees paid to medical practitioners for access to medical care.

Capitated Primary Care Payments

  • HSAs can be used for pre-paid physician fees, which includes payments associated with “concierge” or “direct practice” medicine.

Provisions Relating to Medicare o Allows Medicare enrollees to contribute their own money to the Medicare Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs).

Charity Care and Bad Debt Deduction for Physicians

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a physician a tax deduction equal to the amount such physician would otherwise charge for charity medical care or uncompensated care due to bad debt. This deduction is limited to 10% of a physician’s gross income for the taxable year.

Pool Reform for the Individual Market

  • Establishes Independent Health Pools (IHPs) in order to allow individuals to pool together for the purposes of purchasing insurance.
  • Amends the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) to allow individuals to pool together to provide for health benefits coverage through Individual Health Pools (IHPs). These can include nonprofit organizations (including churches, alumni associations, trade associations, other civic groups, or entities formed strictly for establishing an IHP) so long as the organization does not condition membership on any health status-related factor.
  • Requires that the IHP will provide insurance through contracts with health insurance issuers in fully insured plans and not assume insurance risk with respect to such coverage. Allows the IHP to provide administrative services to members, including accounting, billings, and enrollment information.

Interstate Market for Health Insurance

Cooperative Governing of Individual Health Insurance Coverage

  • Increases access to individual health coverage by allowing insurers licensed to sell policies in one state to offer them to residents of any other state.
  • Exempts issuers from secondary state laws that would prohibit or regulate their operation in the secondary state. However, states may impose requirements such as consumer protections and applicable taxes, among others.
  • Prohibits an issuer from offering, selling, or issuing individual health insurance coverage in a secondary state:
  1. If the state insurance commissioner does not use a risk-based capital formula for the determination of capital and surplus requirements for all issuers.
  2. Unless both the secondary and primary states have legislation or regulations in place establishing an independent review process for individuals who have individual health insurance coverage; or
  3. The issuer provides an acceptable mechanism under which the review is conducted by an independent medical reviewer or panel. Gives sole jurisdiction to the primary state to enforce the primary state’s covered laws in the primary state and any secondary state.
  • Allows the secondary state to notify the primary state if the coverage offered in the secondary state fails to comply with the covered laws in the primary state.

Association Health Plans

  • Association Health Plans (AHPs) allow small businesses to pool together across state lines through their membership in a trade or professional association to purchase health coverage for their employees and their families. AHPs increase the bargaining power, leverage discounts, and provide administrative efficiencies to small businesses while freeing them from state benefit mandates.
  • While AHPs currently exist, strict Department of Labor standards exist regarding the types of organizations that may qualify as a single large-group health plan under ERISA. The standard stipulates that the association must be a group of employers bound together by a commonality of interest (aside from providing a health plan) with vested control of the association to such an extent that they effectively operate as one employer. This is considered a difficult standard for most associations to meet.
  • Amends ERISA to define AHPs and allow for their treatment as if they were large group single employer health plans. This definition would allow a dues-collecting organization maintained in good faith for a purpose other than providing health insurance to benefit from the insurance regulation exclusions currently afforded to large-group health plans under ERISA.
  • Requires solvency standards to protect patients’ rights and ensure benefits are paid. o Requires AHPs to have an indemnified back-up plan in order to prevent unpaid claims in the event of plan termination.
  • AHPs must undergo independent actuarial certification for financial viability on a regular basis. o Requires AHPs to maintain surplus reserves of at least $500,000 in addition to normal claims reserves, stop loss insurance, or indemnification insurance.

Anti-Trust Reform for Healthcare

  • Provides an exemption from Federal antitrust laws for health care professionals engaged in negotiations with a health plan regarding the terms of a contract under which the professionals provide health care items or services.
  • This section applies only to health care professionals excluded from the National Labor Relations Act. It would also not apply to contracts or care provided under Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, the FEHBP, or the IHS as well as medical and dental care provided to members of the uniformed services and veterans.

Increasing State Flexibility to Conduct Medicaid Waivers

  • Provides new flexibilities to states in their Medicaid plan design, through existing waiver authority in current law.
  • For many years, including under Obamacare, States have had the option to request a waiver from HHS to allow states to test new coverage rules under Medicaid and other programs. This provision would allow states to make changes to their Medicaid plans without interference from Washington.

Self-Insurance Protections

  • Amends the definition of “health insurance coverage” under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and parallel sections of ERISA and the Tax Code, to clarify that stop-loss insurance is not health insurance.
  • This provision is designed to prevent the federal government from using rule-making to restrict the availability of stop-loss insurance used by self-insured plans.

RELATED ARTICLES:

House GOP Obamacare Plan Faces Uphill Battle in Senate

Breitbart.com: Sen. Tom Cotton says Paul Ryan’s healthcare bill does not deliver on GOP, President Trump’s promise to repeal, replace Obamacare

Mulvaney: GOP healthcare plan a ‘framework’

Adviser: Trump willing to accept improvements to healthcare proposal

16 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Live In California

/in , , , , , /by

I was privileged to attend high school at a military academy in Carlsbad, California from 1965-1969, at which time I returned to Arizona to attend Northern Arizona University.  My years in southern California were terrific for many reasons one being the magic which was the California of yesteryear.  The beach (the academy had its own private 200 yard long beach) the weather, the life-style of the late 60s’ all contributed to a vision which is still etched into my memory.  Over the decades, I would travel for various events back to the academy, and you could see the not-so-good changes occurring in California.  For reasons that escape me, “California Dreamin” as the Beach Boys would sing, began to morph into a society almost separate from the rest of America; sort of like the individual style setting California which had been became even more stand alone, and even third-world-like as more third-world people slipped in and filled every nook and cranny of the once Golden State.

The brightness that California once was known for (among beaches, mammoth freeways, laid back life styles, fertile farm lands and mountains, and of course Home of Mickey Mouse) was being altered by gangs, poor populations requiring almost full subsidies from the State just to live, multiple cultures that no longer respected American culture, schools that no longer prepared students to become productive members of society; heck schools that barely teach reading, writing, arithmetic, steadily creeping higher costs of everything, closures of many things that use to be landmarks thereby further dulling the brightness that helped make California the Golden State.  But I chose to push all of that aside in my mind (hindsight bias is what this type of selective thinking is named), and I would still travel to the beach of Carlsbad or Oceanside remaining in small pockets next to those beaches, and recall a kinder and gentler era, as I walked up and down those beaches I had become so acquainted with during my youth.

At one time, California seemed to be the epicenter of the American Dream.  From “WolfMan Jack” on the radio to the movie American Graffiti depicting cruising up and down main streets talking to those walking, whistling to those simply sitting on sidewalk benches, and laughing all the while the “WolfMan” was talking and howling over the radio, Beach Boy music everywhere along with Jan and Dean, “California Dreamin” was a reality, a way of life – even for kids in other states.  But something happened sadly.  Of course times change, but have they changed really for the better?

The following article sheds light on the California Dream that has become very dull, without much brightness like the famous California coastal haze that burns off around noon, but now seems not to burn off revealing a clear and clean image like once.  Where did California go?  Where is California going??  I wish I knew.  I wish I could pull this once unique state back in time, or at least pull it away from what appears to be certain self-destruction.  Hard to believe I know thinking California will not always be there.  The below article by Nwo Report peeks behind the “California here I come curtain,” and reveals a once Great State in great need of new leadership; a return to principles that were simpler, but more honest and in keeping with American values than what is unraveling before our eyes.

16 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Live In California

by Nwo Report

At one time, California seemed to be the epicenter of the American Dream

It has been said that “as California goes, so goes the nation”.  That is why it is such a shame what is happening to that once great state.

At one time, California seemed to be the epicenter of the American Dream.  Featuring some of the most beautiful natural landscapes in the entire world, the gorgeous weather and booming economy of the state inspired people from all over the world to move to the state.  But now people are moving out of the state by the millions, because life in California has literally become a nightmare for so many people.

I certainly don’t have anything against the state personally.  My brother and sister were both born there, and I spent a number of my childhood years in stunning northern California.  When I was younger I would sometimes dream of getting a place on the coast eventually, but for reasons I will discuss below I no longer think that would be advisable.

In fact, if I was living in California today I would be immediately looking for a way to move out of the state unless I specifically felt called to stay.  The following are 16 reasons why you shouldn’t live in California…

#1 The entire California coastline is part of the “Ring of Fire” seismic zone that roughly encircles the Pacific Ocean.  The San Andreas Fault has been described as a “time bomb“, and at some point there will be a catastrophic earthquake that absolutely devastates the entire region.  In fact, a study that was just released says that a “major earthquake” on the San Andreas Fault “is way overdue” …

A recently published study reveals new evidence that a major earthquake is way overdue on a 100 mile stretch of the San Andreas Fault from the Antelope Valley to the Tejon Pass and beyond.

Researchers with the U.S. Geological Survey released the results of the years-long study warning a major earthquake could strike soon.

#2 Out of all 50 states, the state of California has been ranked as the worst state for business for 12 years in a row…

In what is sounding like a broken record, California once again ranked dead last in Chief Executive magazine’s annual Best and Worst States for Business survey of CEOs – as it has all 12 years the survey has been conducted. Texas, meanwhile, earned the top spot for the 12th straight year.

Among the survey’s subcategories, the 513 CEOs from across the nation ranked California 50th in taxation and regulation, 35th in workforce quality and 26th in living environment, which includes cost of living, the education system and state and local attitudes toward business. Notably, California placed worst among the nine states in the Western region in all three categories.

#3 California has the highest state income tax rates in the entire nation.  For many Americans, the difference between what you would have to pay if you lived in California and what you would have to pay if you lived in Texas could literally buy a car every single year.

#4 The state government in Sacramento seems to go a little bit more insane with each passing session.  This time around, they are talking about going to a single-payer healthcare system for the entire state that would cost California taxpayers 40 billion dollars a year…

On Friday, State Senator Ricardo Lara introduced legislation that would transition California’s healthcare into a single-payer system. (RELATED: Read what a retired colonel said about the real purpose of Obamacare). The system would be very similar to the healthcare system currently in place in Canada and would cost California taxpayers roughly $40 billion for the first year alone. Given the poor economic climate California has already created for itself, this will no doubt be just one more burden on the people of California, and one step closer towards total bankruptcy.

Micah Weinberg, the president of the Economic Institute at the Bay Area Council, raised concerns over the financial consequences of the proposed legislation. “Where are they going to come up with the $40 billion?” he asked. He went on to suggest that adopting a state level single-payer system is “just not feasible to do as a state.”

#5 The traffic in the major cities just keeps getting worse and worse.  According to USA Today, Los Angeles now has the worst traffic in the entire world, and San Francisco is not far behind.

#6 A lot of money is being made in Silicon Valley these days (at least for now), but poverty is also exploding in the state.  In desperation, homeless people are banding together to create large tent cities all over the state, and the L.A. City Council recently asked Governor Jerry Brown “to declare homelessness a statewide emergency“.

#7 Thanks to unchecked illegal immigration, crime is on the rise in many California cities.  The drug war that has been raging for years in Mexico is increasingly spilling over the border, and many families have moved out of the state for this reason alone.

#8 California is one of the most litigious states in the entire nation.  According to the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, the “lawsuit climate” in California is ranked 47th out of all 50 states.

#9 Every year wildfires and mudslides wreak havoc in the state.  Erosion is particularly bad along the coast, and I have previously written about how some portions of the California coastline are literally falling into the ocean.

#10 California has some of the most ridiculous housing prices in the entire country.  Due to a lack of affordable housing rents have soared to wild extremes in San Francisco, where one poor engineer was actually paying $1,400 a month to live in a closet.

#11 All over the state, key infrastructure is literally falling to pieces.  Governor Jerry Brown recently issued a list of key projects that needed to be done as soon as possible, and the total price tag for that list was 100 billion dollars.  Of course that list didn’t even include the Oroville Dam, and we all saw what happened there.

#12 Radiation from the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster continues to cross the ocean and wash up along the California coastline.  The impact of this crisis on the health of those living along the west coast could potentially be felt for generations.

#13 Illegal drug use in the state is on the rise again, and emergency rooms are being flooded by heroin overdose victims.

#14 On top of everything else, it is being reported that Russia is “quietly ‘seeding’ the U.S. shoreline with nuclear ‘mole’ missiles”.  The following comes from retired colonel and former Russian defense ministry spokesman Viktor Baranetz…

“What are these mysterious ‘asymmetrical responses’ that our politicians and generals speak about so often? Maybe it’s a myth or a pretty turn of phrase? No! Our asymmetrical response is nuclear warheads that can modify their course and height so that no computer can calculate their trajectory. Or, for example, the Americans are deploying their tanks, airplanes and special forces battalions along the Russian border. And we are quietly ‘seeding’ the U.S. shoreline with nuclear ‘mole’ missiles (they dig themselves in and ‘sleep’ until they are given the command)[…]

“Oh, it seems I’ve said too much. I should hold my tongue.”

Hopefully what Baranetz is claiming is not accurate, because if it is even partly true the implications are absolutely staggering.

#15 North Korea is a major nuclear threat as well.  It is being reported that the North Koreans are developing an ICBM that could potentially reach the west coast of the United States…

Defense officials have warned that North Korea is on the brink of producing an ICBM that could target the United States. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un announced in January during his New Year’s address that Pyongyang had “entered the final stage of preparations to test-launch” an ICBM that could reach parts of the United States.

#16 Someday a very large earthquake will produce a major tsunami on the west coast.  According to the Los Angeles Times, one study found that a magnitude 9.0 earthquake along the Cascadia fault could potentially produce a massive tsunami that would “wash away coastal towns”…

If a 9.0 earthquake were to strike along California’s sparsely populated North Coast, it would have a catastrophic ripple effect.

A giant tsunami created by the quake would wash away coastal towns, destroy U.S. 101 and cause $70 billion in damage over a large swath of the Pacific coast. More than 100 bridges would be lost, power lines toppled and coastal towns isolated. Residents would have as few as 15 minutes notice to flee to higher ground, and as many as 10,000 would perish.

Scientists last year published this grim scenario for a massive rupture along the Cascadia fault system, which runs 700 miles off shore from Northern California to Vancouver Island.

Over the past decade, approximately five million people have moved away from California.

After reading this article, perhaps you have a better understanding why so many people are getting out while they still can.

To me, one of the greatest concerns is the rise in seismic activity that we are seeing all over the world.  In my latest book I express my belief that the United States will be greatly affected by this increase in seismic activity, and California is going to get hit harder than just about anywhere else.

Once again, I don’t have anything against California or the people that live there.  It is such a beautiful place, and it once held so much promise.

Unfortunately that promise has been shattered, and there is a mass exodus out of the state as families flee the horrific nightmare that California is in the process of becoming.

The Case for a ‘Religious Test’ in America

/in , , , , , /by

There has been a narrative that there cannot be a “religious test” for public office. This is based upon Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Note that Article IV says “required as a qualification to any office or public trust.” Article VI does not say that citizens cannot establish a personal “religious test” when voting for anyone running for or currently holding public office. Voters do vote their values. This raises the question:

Should there be a religious test, and if so, who should be tested?

Recently Oklahoma State Representative John Bennett ask those visiting his office who are Mohammedans, followers of Mohammad, to fill out a questionnaire. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) Adam Soltani asked: “The question that comes to mind is, does he do this to others? Does he ask question to his Christian constituents? His Jewish constituents? If the answer is no, that’s discrimination. There’s no other way to call it.”

Mr. Soltani has a valid point, which raises two fundamental questions:

  1. Do elected officials have the right to ask their constituents to take a “religious test” questionnaire before meeting with them?
  2. Do citizens have the same right to present a “religious test” questionnaire to their elected officials?

In the United States there are voters who cast their ballots based upon their beliefs. These beliefs can be political, social and religious. Many argue that these three are inextricably linked. Whether you are an atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jew, Mohammedan, Democrat, Republican, Independent or other, you will vote your values.

So, where do values come from? Answer: Religious beliefs!

The First Amendment gives everyone the right to freedom of speech and to petition their elected representatives.

Religious beliefs are a measure of ones character as Dr. Martin Luther King noted in his “I have a dream” speech. Therefore a religious test is really a test of one’s character and is not only necessary but fundamental to our Constitutional republican form of government.

As John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

To help determine the character of citizens and elected officials alike, we have modified the questionnaire used by Representative Bennett and added another to be given to all those who are not Mohammedans.

Please feel free to use them as you wish.

Questions for non-Mohammedans

  1. The the Book of Genesis states: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” Do you agree with this?
  2. “You shall have no other gods before me.” Do you agree with this? If not what God do you worship?
  3. “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.” Do you agree with this? Do you bow down to false images?
  4. “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.” Do you agree with this?
  5. “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” Do you agree with this?
  6. “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.” Do you agree with this?
  7. “You shall not murder.” Do you agree with this?
  8. “You shall not commit adultery.” Do you agree with this? Have you ever committed adultery?
  9. “You shall not steal.” Do you agree with this? Have you ever stolen?
  10. “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” Do you agree with this? Have you lied?
  11. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” Do you agree with this? Have you coveted?

Questions for Mohammedans

  1. The Sunna of Mohammed says that Muslims must be punished for leaving Islam. Do you agree with this?
  2. Mohammed was a killer of pagans, Christians and Jews that did not agree with him. Do you agree with this example?
  3. Mohammed repeatedly advised Muslims to deceive Kafirs to advance Islam. The Koran has over 90 versus that say Mohammed is the perfect example for Muslims to follow. Do you follow the perfect example of Mohammed? Have you deceived a Kafir?
  4. The Koran, the Sunna of Mohammed and Shariah Law of all schools say that the husband can beat his wife. Do you beat your wife?
  5. Shariah law says that if must rule over the kafirs, the non-Muslims. Do you agree with this?
  6. I have heard that, according to accepted Islamic sources, Mohammed, at the age of 49, married a 6-year old girl, and that he had sex with her when he was 52 and she was only 9 years old. Is that really true?
  7. In December 1948, the United Nations passed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which enshrines the most important values of Western Civilization such as freedom of religion, freedom from religion, freedom of conscience, equality of religions, and equality of men and women. It is a fact that not a single one of the 57 Muslim countries has accepted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Instead, all of the Muslim countries signed the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which makes Islam superior to all other religions, and which explicitly makes shariah Law, the only source of human rights. What, exactly, is it about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which shariah law finds unacceptable?
  8. The Koran says: The unbelievers are your inveterate enemy. (4:101). The Koran also says that unbelievers are the “vilest of all creatures” (96:8) and “worst of animals” (8:55). What hope is there of coexistence when Mohammed teaches practicing Muslim to have this attitude toward non-Muslims?
  9. A fundamental principle of Christianity and Judaism is the “Golden Rule” which says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Yet, the Koran says: “Mohammed is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.” (48:29) With this attitude, how can orthodox followers of Mohammed possibly co-exist with non-Muslims?

RELATED ARTICLE: The Eighth Deadly Sin

Head Start Programs Are Setting Kids Up for Failure by Annie Holmquist

/in , , , , /by

In recent years, support for preschool education has grown by leaps and bounds. After all, who wouldn’t want to help adorable little kids get an early jump on success?

But the enthusiasm for Pre-K dampened a bit with the release of two studies, one from 2012 which studied children in a Head Start program and another from 2016 which studied children in Tennessee’s statewide preschool program. The Head Start study found that its children were more inclined to behavioral problems than those who did not participate. The Tennessee study, on the other hand, found that participants did worse academically several years into school than those who had not participated.We need to study the effects of preschool education more before we wholeheartedly commit to public Pre-K programs.

The news that these Pre-K programs may hurt rather than help was not received favorably by preschool advocates. And according to a recent Brookings Institute article by scholars Dale Farran and Mark Lipsey, Pre-K advocates have done their best to discredit these studies.

But as Farran and Lipsey explain, the attempts to dismiss these findings “are based on incorrect and misleading characterizations of each study.”

For starters, the Head Start study is dismissed on the grounds that some participants ended up in the wrong study group. But according to Farran and Lipsey, such occurrences happen in many scientific studies, and as such, are controlled for in the final statistics. The authors caution that this does not change the fact that children who participated in the Head Start program exhibited more aggressive behavior, the most concerning factor of the study.

Secondly, Farran and Lipsey explain that the Tennessee study is dismissed on the grounds that it is not a “high-quality” program such as those in major cities like Boston and Tulsa. However, when sample sizes are taken from each of these programs, Farran and Lipsey note that there is no major difference between the academic outcomes of each program. In other words, because of the similarity in the outcomes, those who dismiss the Tennessee preschool program as being low quality must also dismiss the programs they hold up as models.

Given this information, does it seem we need to study the effects of preschool education more before we wholeheartedly commit to public Pre-K programs? Is it possible that young children would learn more and have greater long-term success if they weren’t subjected to the classroom at such early ages?

Republished from Intellectual Takeout.

Annie Holmquist

Annie Holmquist

Annie is a research associate with Intellectual Takeout. In her role, she writes for the blog, conducts a variety of research for the organization’s websites and social media pages, and assists with development projects. She particularly loves digging into the historical aspects of America’s educational structure.

How Energy Companies Should Talk About Energy – Internally and Externally

/in , , , /by

I’m writing this from Midland Texas, part of the now-legendary Permian Basin, a once-denigrated oilfield that became the envy of the world once it was transformed by shale energy technology.

I’m about to speak at a forum with 100+ executives here in Midland, and then tomorrow I’ll stay in the area to hold a Stakeholder Strategy Session with a local company.

Earlier this week I was at CERAWeek, the world’s leading energy conference. One of the highlights of the conference is the incredible concentration of industry thought leaders, including top executives. I took the occasion to pick the brains of many of the nation’s top energy CEOs on how they think about the industry’s communications challenges—and opportunities. I also shared my own experiences and strategies.

As I was leaving the conference our newest team member, Evan Le, asked me to do a quick video on internal and external communications strategy. I hope you enjoy it. If you’re in the industry and would like to discuss how the strategies can empower your company, email Nikki Norris and she can set up a call.

How Energy Companies Should Talk About Energy – Internally and Externally:

P.S. If you want my “I Love Fossil Fuels” tie, click here.

The TRUTH about the Muslim Immigration BAN

/in , , , , , /by

This video by Steve Cioccolanti & Discover Ministries explains why Christians have a Biblical role to deal with real world issues, such as media lies and America’s policies toward Islam.

Pastors, priests and rabbis have a duty to expose the truth as does Steve Cioccolanti.

KHAN JOB? Khizr Khan claims his ‘travel privileges are being reviewed’

/in , , , , , /by

Khizr Khan first rose to national prominence when he verbally attacked Donald Trump during the Democratic National Convention stating that Trump had sacrificed nothing and questioned whether Trump had ever read the Constitution.  We will discuss the Constitution at the conclusion of my commentary.

Khan is a Harvard educated lawyer whose son Humayun Khan, a captain in the U.S. Army died in Iraq in 2004.  He had graduated from the University of Virginia.

Khizr Khan has accused President Trump of discriminating against Muslims and once again, made headlines when Ramsay Talks, the speakers bureau who purportedly had arranged a speaking engagement in Toronto for Khan, posted a notice that a March 7 speaking event was cancelled blaming a purported notification that his “travel privileges are being reviewed”:

Khizr Khan Event Cancellation:

Late Sunday evening Khizr Khan, an American citizen for over 30 years, was notified that his travel privileges are being reviewed.  As a consequence, Mr. Khan will not be traveling to Toronto on March 7th to speak about tolerance, understanding, unity and the rule of law.  Very regretfully, Ramsay Talks must cancel its luncheon with Mr. Khan.

Guests will be given full refunds.

Mr. Khan offered his sincere apologies to all those who made plans to attend on March 7th.  He said:  “This turn of events is not just of deep concern to me but to all omg fellow Americans who cherish our freedom to travel abroad.  I have not been given any reason as to why.  I am grateful for your support and look forward to visiting Toronto in the near future.

On March 6, 2017 Politico reported, Khizr Khan claims travel privileges under review, noting in part:

Khan said in a statement that he was confused about why his travel status changed, without explaining in detail the circumstance.

“This turn of events is not just of deep concern to me but to all my fellow Americans who cherish our freedom to travel abroad,” Khan said. “I have not been given any reason as to why. I am grateful for your support and look forward to visiting Toronto in the near future.”

It’s not clear exactly what Ramsay Talks meant by “traveling privileges,” and the group did not respond to a request for comment, nor did Khan.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection official, citing privacy issues, declined to discuss Khan specifically but appeared to dispute the report, telling POLITICO that CBP doesn’t contact travelers in advance of their travel abroad.

“With respect to Global Entry or trusted traveler membership, CBP’s engagement is about the status of membership in the program, not any particular travel itself,” the official said. “Of course, any U.S. citizen with a passport may travel without trusted traveler status. All individuals are subject to inspection departing or upon arrival to the United States.”

On March 7, 2017 the Washington Post reported, Khizr Khan’s claim that the U.S. is restricting his travel may be unraveling.

In rushing to report on this, the media ignored the laws that address the issuance of passports to U.S. citizens and the admission of U.S. citizens seeking to enter the United States.  Apparently

the overwhelming visceral urge to attack the U.S. government under the Trump administration was apparently too great for the journalists to take a breath and do their homework.

American citizens who possess a valid passport or equivalent travel document do not require the permission of the United States government to travel outside the United States.  The only time that any such restriction might be imposed is if a citizen of the United States has been convicted of certain crimes or is being prosecuted for allegedly committing serious crime(s) and a court has required that such a citizen surrenders his/her passport to prevent international flight to evade prosecution.

Federal law established the grounds by which a U.S. citizen would be denied a passport.  Generally convicted felons may be issued a passport but citizens convicted of certain crimes international drug trafficking may be ineligible.  The section of law that relates to such situations is, 22 U.S. Code § 2714 – Denial of passports to certain convicted drug traffickers.

As for United States citizens returning to the United States, two documents are worth considering because they provide verification of a fundamental fact, American citizens may never be barred from reentering the United States under any conditions, whatsoever.

The official website of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) provides information about the Immigration Inspection Program and includes the following excerpt:

Individuals seeking entry into the United States are inspected at Ports of Entry (POEs) by CBP officers who determine their admissibility. The inspection process includes all work performed in connection with the entry of aliens and United States citizens into the United States, including preinspection performed by the Immigration Inspectors outside the United States.

“An officer is responsible for determining the nationality and identity of each applicant for admission and for preventing the entry of ineligible aliens, including criminals, terrorists, and drug traffickers, among others. U.S. citizens are automatically admitted upon verification of citizenship; aliens are questioned and their documents are examined to determine admissibility based on the requirements of the U.S. immigration law.”

Next we should consider that Section 12.1 (Inspection of U.S. Citizens) contained in the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Inspector’s Field Manual:

12.1 Inspection of U.S. Citizens.

When you are convinced that an applicant for admission is a citizen of the United States, the examination is terminated. This is not to say that your role as an inspector is always completed at that time. Listing of the subject in a lookout system may dictate further action, such as notifying Customs or another agency of the person’s entry.

It must be emphasized that the grounds of inadmissibility contained in 212(a) of the INA are applicable only to aliens. Consequently, the examination of a person claiming to be a United States citizen is limited to matters required to establish present citizenship. Once you are satisfied the person being examined is a U.S. citizen and any required lookout query has been completed, the examination is over.

The only question the remains is why Kahn would make these claims.  Were there not enough customers willing to pay to hear him speak about “tolerance, understanding, unity and the rule of law?”

Was he convinced that the sequel to his appearance at the Democratic Convention where he launched an attack on Donald Trump might propel him into a politically prominent role in the Democratic Party?

Was he seeking to create the illusion that the United States has turned into a police state and Americans had lost their freedoms under the month-old Trump administration?

Whatever his motivation, it is clear that Mr. Kahn is hardly eager to promote “tolerance, understanding, unity and the rule of law.”

The death of Kahn’s son is a tragedy and he must be remembered as a hero who died defending our nation.  But Mr. Kahn needs to understand that by creating a false claim about some contrived review of his “travel privileges” does not honor his son’s memory and certainly does not help to bring all Americans together but is divisive- perhaps intentionally divisive.

It is likely that Khizr Khan and his wife legally immigrated to the United States, to obviously pursue his dreams and apparently prospered as a result.

Mr. Khan is certainly right about the Constitution guarantees of equal protection under the law, but also includes

Article IV, Section 4, to wit:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Thousands of innocent people have died at the hands of terrorists operating in the United States in a series of deadly attacks carried out by radical Islamists who most often entered the United States through ports of entry.

The measures that Donald Trump called for in his campaign and in his subsequent executive orders, including “extreme vetting” have been consistent with the demands of the Constitution and with the findings and recommendations published in The 9/11 Commission Report and the official report “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.”

A section worth reviewing found in the latter report, Terrorist Entry and Embedding Tactics, 1993 to 2001 begins with the following paragraph:

The relative ease with which the hijackers obtained visas and entered the United States underscores the importance of travel to their terrorist operations. In this section we explore the evolution of terrorist travel tactics and organization. We begin with terrorist plots in the 1990s and conclude with the 9/11 attack.

3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot includes the following:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports. In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption.

Facts are, indeed, stubborn things.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

What you need to know about FISA Court Warrants

/in , , , , /by

FISA warrants and the investigation into whether Obama ordered one is hog wash at the highest level.

Today my dad, who is 78, called me and asked a vital question about the FISA warrants and criminal warrants the Democrats and Republicans are fighting about.  He said,

“Dave you were a Federal Agent, if your boss wanted you to carryout a task did you ask him for his written authority to do so?”

I said,

“Of course not, when we received orders from our superiors we carried them out without question.”

He then said,

“Don’t you think if Obama wanted something done like wiretaps that he knew were wrong, unethical, and criminal that he would not write anything down he would simply inform his subordinates to carry the action out and it would filter to the street level people to carry out the specific orders?”

My father a 78 year old man with limited education figured out the way criminals do things without having a criminal history, law enforcement training political or journalist experiences.  In today’s world high level criminals understand that using the computers or writing letters to their subordinates is public and open information, even at the classified level numerous people can read them.  Of course  there his a Congressional investigation any and all written communications can be and will be obtained.

I was a Federal Agent for over 15 year with the highest U.S. Government clearances.  High level criminals are usually well educated people and they know how to cover themselves from being a target of a civil or criminal investigation.

This is how it would work if Obama wanted ‘Trump Towers’ wiretapped. 

Obama would talk secretly in private (outside of the White House office) with a senior government official he trusted and was a hard core liberal themselves. He would discuss what he wanted done and the senior official would channel it down with one on one discussions with other senior officials and finally it would be discussed with CIA/NSA or military intelligence operatives.

Likely the U.S. military were involved with carrying out the orders of the President. 

Military personnel will carry out orders without any questions whatsoever.  They assume their superior is instructing them todo something tat has been approved.  Many times Americans feel the highest feel intelligence people with all the proper clearances and experience are the CIA and NSA.  The military are much better prepared and much more close mouthed about what they do than civilian employees of the CIA. They are in the U.S. military and if they leak intelligence they will be court martialed without publicity and they will go to Fort Leavenworth for the rest of their lives. In addition they are more loyal  their superiors than the civilians of the CIA and NSA.

It I a 100% certainty that Obama and his staff di not use the FBI.  Today the FBI is purely a political machine.  The senior staff will burn you in a hard way and have no loyalty to their street level agents.

I cant discuss operations I had in the intelligence field with such operations, but I can say if my Commander brought me and my team to his office and gave us orders to do something we would have done it without question because we believed in his loyalty to our country.  This is not always true with civilian intelligence agencies.

In the meantime journalists, their puppet guest speakers, politicians, and other personnel will investigate the wiretapping allegations and conclude they reviewed FISA and criminal files of the FBI and could find no document that links Obama to any wiretapping orders.  Of course they will find routine and basic FBI reports that targeted a few low level Trump staff, but will determine no criminal activity was revealed.

Of course Obama had Trump Towers and many other locations wiretapped, but never will there be any evidence found.  Seldom do military operations organizations get request to turn over their Top Secret files on such activities of wiretapping.  They are never suspected to be the people our senior leaders turn to when they suspect the President of the U.S. has ordered criminal wiretapping orders.  If the Navy SEALs (American heroes) and take out Osama Bin Laden do you think they could not be used to tap a few phones.

Wake up FOX News and others.  Stop boring us when you know nothing will come of a FISA investigation.  Note:  Thanks Dad for seeing the reality of what is happening in the world today.  Your generation understands and loves America more so than at any other time or group of citizens.

Analysis: Listen to your elders.

Middle East Strategic Issues Facing the Trump Administration

/in , , , , /by
Dr. Walid Phares

Dr. Walid Phares, Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Adviser and Fox News National Security and Foreign Policy Expert.

Dr. Walid Phares was the Middle East and Foreign Affairs consultant to the Trump Campaign and national security and foreign policy expert at Fox News.  Among his extensive published noteworthy works are the acclaimed best selling 2006 book, Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America and the 2014 The Lost Spring: US Policy: in the Middle East and Catastrophes to Avoid.  He is currently under consideration by the Trump Administration for a possible post at the US State Department. We were afforded an opportunity to interview him on a wide range of Middle East issues facing the Trump Administration on Northwest Florida’s Talk Radio 1330 AM WEBY.  The program aired February 20, 2017.

Among Middle East policy issues addressed by Dr. Phares during the interview were

  • The rise of a new Mid East Security alliance known as the Arab NATO composed of the Gulf Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan; Egypt with outreach to Israel to combat the rising regional and global hegemony of a nuclear ICBM equipped Iran.
  • Possible initiatives to contain Iran Middle East and Global geo-political objectives following the JCPOA and release of over $150 billion in sequestered funds used to acquire and develop nuclear weapons and Nuclear ICBMs threatening the Middle East, Europe and ultimately the US.
  •  Creation of  autonomous  safe zones  within the framework of a post-Assad federal  Syria for ethnic/religious groups in Syria including Kurds, Alawites, Druze and Sunni Muslims;
  • Withdrawal of all foreign forces including Iran and  proxy Hezbollah; Islamist terrorist groups, Turkey, defeat of ISIS by US –led coalition forces;
  • End of the 27 year regime of indicted war criminal Sudan President Bashir to end Jihad  genocide of indigenous populations in Darfur, Nuba Mountains, South Kordofan  a threat to the Sahel region of Africa
  • Possible Administration adoption of both domestic and international Muslim Brotherhood terrorist designations.

What follows is the transcript of the interview with Dr. Phares.

Mike Bates:                Good afternoon welcome back to Your Turn. This is Mike Bates. Middle East roundtable discussion time. With me in the studio Jerry Gordon, Senior Editor of the New English Review and its blog “The Iconoclast”, welcome Jerry.

Jerry Gordon:            Glad to be back Mike.

Bates:            You can find Jerry at www.newenglishreview.org.  Joining us by telephone is Dr. Walid Phares, Middle East and Foreign Affairs Consultant to the Trump campaign and expert foreign policy contributor to Fox News.  Dr. Phares, welcome.

Walid Phares: Thank you for having me gentlemen.

Bates:              Dr. Phares is also the author of the books The Lost Spring. U.S. Policy in the Middle East and Catastrophes to Avoid” and the bestselling book Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against America. You can find Dr. Phares at www.walidphares.com.

Gordon:          Walid there has been a flurry of interest in the media recently about the formation of a regional national security group that would involve the Sunni monarchies, Emirates and even possibly Israel. You have been a proponent of something like that for a while. Why don’t you give us your views and an update?

Phares:           Yes indeed. Basically the idea is about forming an Arab military alliance. I have called it seven years ago in an article on al-arabiya.com in 2010, the Arab NATO. Originally the idea before the Arab Spring erupted was to put together the resources of Arab governments’ counter-terrorism forces to fight at the time Al Qaeda. Then the Iranian regime started to become very active in Yemen and of course it has Hezbollah in Lebanon. Since the Arab Spring all these civil wars created an unstable area in the region. The idea travelled through briefings before Congress and at the European Parliament. Many quarters in the region were talking about it. It became a strong idea over the past year, especially after the U.S. election of Donald Trump as President. During the election campaign, he met with Egyptian President El-Sisi in September 2016. After the election he communicated with a number of Arab leaders including with Sheikh Mohammed of the UAE, King Salman of Saudi Arabia, the King of Bahrain, the Tunisian President, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, and after inauguration he met with King Abdallah of Jordan and with important players in the region. He will soon be meeting again with President Sisi as he already met with the Prime Minister of Israel. The idea is to build mostly an Arab alliance which means those countries described as moderates who face not just Al Qaeda and ISIS but also the Muslim Brotherhood. Three of these countries have put the Brotherhood on their list of terrorist or extremist entities. Then you have the Iranian Islamic Republic threatening Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. The project is now being discussed among these players. There are lots of tensions with some of these countries on other issues. However, they are coming to the conclusion that they need a joint force to confront radical Islamic terror.

The question with regard to Israel is different. At this point in time and after the Iranian expansion in the region and the war against ISIS, some of these countries, Egypt, Jordan and to a certain extent the Gulf Cooperation Council members are talking to the Israelis. In certain areas of the region, such as the Sinai and Southern Syria, there is coordination between Israel, Egypt and Jordan which has been facilitated via Camp David and the other peace agreements. However, never have we seen an Arab military alliance forming; especially when Iran is progressing with development of its own missile force. Iran has fired missiles at Mecca, against United States Naval vessels. So the proposal for a regional Arab military force is building momentum to push forward. The coordination with Israel is going to come when the Trump administration will be able to reignite discussions between these countries and Israel with regard to security arrangements in the region to make sure that the threats of ISIS and the Iranian regime are dealt with.

Gordon:          There have been missile tests which are said to violate the JCPOA agreement. What is the status of Iran’s compliance with their end of the deal that was brokered with Barack Obama and the P5 Nations? What is the threat from the Iranian regime?

Phares:           There are two kinds of threats I mentioned in my 2014 book The Lost Spring and in later briefings and hearings before Congress and with European lawmakers.  Number one, it’s about non-implementing the Iran nuclear deal. They are actually not shutting down their program and there has been a lot are reporting about this.

Second they are developing long range and medium range missiles. These missiles are not designed to deliver conventional pay loads. These are missiles that would have nuclear, chemical or biological warheads. The range of some of these missiles can reach the Gulf Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and Egypt. Some of the missiles they are developing are able to reach Europe and may soon be able to reach the across the Atlantic. So this is a very serious threat.

In my writings I call this the dome. Israel has the Iron Dome to defend against rockets and missiles coming from Hamas or from Hezbollah. What the Iranians are doing is establishing a ‘superdome’ that would be equipped with anti-aircraft and very advanced missiles purchased from Russia with the Iran nuclear deal money. Under that superdome they are developing everything in their armed forces: their tanks, missiles, communications and radars. Any geopolitical expert will tell you Iran is not just involved in warfare in Iraq, although they have their militia there. The commander of the Iranian Qods Force Suleimani is always there. In Syria they are virtually in control of the Assad regime. In Lebanon they have Hezbollah. In Yemen they are basically the partners of the Houthi militia. And Iran is doing something else, basically sending threatening messages to our partners in the region. Threatening messages against Israel? All the time. However, it is sending threatening messages against the UAE, Bahrain, and the Saudis. Recently they even signified that they will be acting in the Bab-al-Mandab at the mouth of the Red Sea, which commands access to the Suez Canal.

All this was done under the Obama administration which allowed the Iranians to develop the expansion of its “superdome.” Regarding the Iranian expansion, the Trump administration is sending a signal back to Tehran that we are watching these developments. The question is how the Iranian regime would respond to Washington when it says it has had enough – these are red lines and we are not going to permit your expansion any further.

Bates:              In terms of the nuclear agreement under the Obama administration it was very front-loaded for Iran and very back loaded for the United States. Iran got all their money up front without really having to do anything. They made a promise to comply while they received all that they wanted up front. We expected them to not continue developing their nuclear weapons program, while it seems like they are really proceeding to achieve that objective anyway. Given that background I have two questions. One, is there any possibility of re-imposing sanctions and two, what would be the point since Iran has received what they wanted, already?

Phares:           That is a great question. Indeed, the fact that we have just transferred a lot of money to the Iranian regime which they have used to purchase the equipment. They are not using those funds to support the people of Iran. They are using it for the comfort of the elite of the regime and to equip themselves with a deterrent despite our having released those funds. This is the tip of the iceberg. The hundred and fifty billion dollars is only the beginning. By opening up the Iranian market, by lifting up some of the sanctions and opening the market from Europe and other parts of the world, the hope was this would have a positive effect on the Iranian regime. Because we cannot control it, can we reinforce sanctions? Yes. President Trump can cancel previous executive orders; however, he would need to have Congress pass new sanctions.

What we need in America is a new joint strategic approach towards the Iranian regime. We have an opportunity for the next two years to achieve that. This should be initiated during the next six months. We need to signify that to our allies in Europe. That is why the recent trip by Vice President Pence to the Munich Security Conference sent an important message. We need to assure that the Europeans are not doing something else while we are putting sanctions in place, while at the same time they are doing business with Iran. We need to communicate that through the foreign policy pundits here in the US and abroad. At the same time, the new Administration is working with Israelis on intelligence coordination with pro-American members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. We need to work more with Jordan and the Egyptians. I think we can reverse the Obama policy. However, we also need to send a strong message to the Russians when President Trump meets with President Putin that while we can work together on fighting the Jihadists, the Islamic State and al Qaeda. On the other hand we must tell them that we have serious problems with the Iranian regime and they need to recognize that situation.

Bates:              Assuming that President Trump was to reverse executive orders by President Obama and re-impose some U.S. sanctions on Iran, what would be the effect on US firms interested in opening the Iranian market? Other than Boeing, the United States really isn’t doing a whole lot of business with Iran, while the rest of the world is. Can’t Iran really live without us anyway?

Phares:           Yes, we have the contract with Boeing and then we have a long line of American businesses waiting to do business with Iran. We have stopped not just the contracts under consideration but also many US companies mobilized by the Iranian regime to do business there. Don’t underestimate when a U.S. decision is made public what would happen in other parts of the world. There are many Europeans who will start to calm down and are not going to do business with Tehran. I am not saying all Europeans will follow our lead. Germany under Chancellor Merkel will continue but others may not. The Arab economic and political power of the region will be strengthened by our making those decisions. Moreover, the ripple effect of such Presidential executive orders could go as far as East Asia. Iran has achieved tremendous economic openings, because of the Obama policy, with South Korea, Japan and others. These are our partners in the region who have a common problem with North Korea. Their choice will be: should they risk their relationship with the U.S. now that we have this problem with North Korea and do some business with Iran? I would not underestimate a change in U.S. policy towards Iran, even if we cannot control that change with our partners. They will understand that they would have to rearrange their policies.

Gordon:          Syria is foremost in the minds of people trying to find a resolution to nearly six and a half years of a bloody civil war hemorrhaging refugees involving Iran its proxy Hezbollah, the Russians, Turkey, Kurds and others. You have written about this. You have actually been ahead of the pack on this. What are your thoughts and suggestions about what to do?

Phares:           Let’s address Syria. What we should not see in the Syria resolution is for Assad, Hezbollah and Iran to take back all of Syria and to transform it into an anti-American, anti-Western, anti-moderate entity. On the other hand, we don’t want to see the Jihadists, Al Qaeda, ISIS or Muslim Brotherhood linked organizations take over Syria, bring down Assad and create an Emirate or Caliphate. Everything in between can be looked at as possible solutions. But these are the two “no’s.”

What has happened in Syria over the past six years is a new set of geopolitical realities. One of these realities is that there is a consensus worldwide that ISIS should disappear. Most of ISIS areas are in western Syria. Therefore the forces operating in the northwest of Syria are the Kurds and Arab Sunni in the south. The first recommendation would be to have the US-led coalition establish safe zones. To create those safe zones you are going to have to dismantle ISIS and create this coalition. With regard to the Assad regime, for now it is protected by the Russians. There needs to be a discussion between the President of the United States and President of Russia to solve that issue.

More importantly, the issue is what is going to be the future of Syria? My answer is that I cannot imagine a Syria which won’t be federal, which won’t give the Kurds autonomy. I’m not addressing who will rule that autonomy, but the principle should be having a Kurdish community with its own autonomy. Every other community in Syria may have its own version of autonomy for the Alawites, the Druze, the Christians and Sunni Arabs. They should be enabled to rule their own areas. Of course we will back the moderates across that federation. However, that seems to be the healthiest geopolitical solution for Syria.

Gordon           You have written extensively about the problems of Jihadism and the Sudan, which has been a state sponsor of terrorism. After the election of President Trump you reached out to a number of émigrés, particularly from the Nuba community here in the US. Why is the Sudan a clear and present geo-political danger under President Bashir to the Sahel region of Africa?

Phares:           Realize that Sudan has been having these problems, not just during the last six months. We are talking about nearly thirty years since 1989 while an outspoken Jihadi regime has committed genocide first against the south that established its own independent Republic in 2011 and which still has its own its own problems. Then there is genocide perpetrated by the same regime that has been sanctioned by the International Criminal Court. Bashir’s Jihadist militia ravaged Darfur, in the west the Abyei people in the east, the Nubian community in the north and the Nuba people in the south of the Islamic Republic of Sudan. It seems to me that the international community and U.S. effort should concentrate on making a change in Sudan because this regime has been backing Jihadists perpetrating these collective atrocities. There needs to be a regime change. Unfortunately, the Obama administration just before leaving office lifted some U.S. and U.S. backed UN sanctions against the Bashir regime. What Washington should do under the Trump administration with the help of Congress is to put back those sanctions but also develop a coherent Sudan policy. We don’t have one now.  We need to speak with the communities inside Sudan and figure out what is their desire for the future.

Bates:              Dr. Phares what is the current status of the Muslim Brotherhood vis-a-vis the U.S. State Department and are you expecting any changes under the Trump Administration?

Phares:           Under the Obama administration there was no change in terms of the Muslim Brotherhood. It was the opposite. The Muslim Brotherhood was seen as partners within our own homeland. Their NGO’s or fronts across the United States have participated in the activities of various departments of the U.S. Government. a number of Congressional members have denounced the Brotherhood in briefings and hearings but nothing has happened. The Brotherhood was able to have an influence at the State Department and other parts of the Obama administration in terms of our policy towards Egypt. We actually backed the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt. We backed Ennahda of Tunisia which is a cousin of the Brotherhood. We backed Brotherhood factions in Libya and across the region. Now this has to change under the Trump administration. President Trump mentioned them in his speeches, as did both Secretary of State Tillerson and Secretary of Defense Mattis.

Bates:              Do you expect the President to change that?

Phares:           I expect it to change but it’s going to take longer than our current expectations.

Bates:              Dr. Walid Phares thanks for joining this discussion. You can find Dr. Phares at: www.walidphares.com.

Phares:           Thank you for inviting me.

GOP Healthcare Plan Allows Illegal Aliens to get tax credits

/in , , , , , /by

Numbers USA has reviewed the American Healthcare Act bill and found that illegal aliens are eligible for tax credits. Here is what Numbers USA published:

Healthcare reform legislation unveiled by GOP Leaders on Monday night would, at best, leave in place a verification system that allowed up to 500,000 illegal aliens to access taxpayer-funded benefits over the last several years. According to a 2016 Senate report, the government issued $750 million of Obamacare subsidies to individuals whose immigration status couldn’t be verified. The GOP plan would leave in place that failed verification process, or worse, eliminate the verification process altogether.

According to the 2016 Senate report, the Obamacare framework gave benefit of the doubt to illegal aliens when they applied for subsidies, but if the alien failed to file the necessary paperwork, the IRS was supposed to retrieve the funds. A lack of cooperation between Health and Human Services and the IRS, however, prevented the money from being recouped.

But according to multiple Hill contacts, GOP Republicans may not even be able to get the failed verification process, which would leave their entire plan open to illegal aliens. Under the plan, subsidies for health insurance would no longer be awarded, but individuals could receive tax credits for purchasing healthcare on the government exchanges.

For more on this, click here.

As we have said, this bill is out in the open. Now is the time for every citizen to read it and then contact their U.S. Senators and member of Congress and tell them what you think about this bill.

We’ve come a long way to get to this point, we’ve got a long way to go to make sure it gets done right.

RELATED VIDEO: Representative Mike Kelly Discusses Process of Repealing Obamacare w/Charles Payne on Fox Business.

President Trump opens ‘all available’ Gulf of Mexico waters to oil drilling

/in , , , /by

“Opening more federal lands and waters to oil and gas drilling is a pillar of President Trump’s plan to make the United States energy independent,” said Zinke.

And not only that: it will also cut off a great part of the funding for the global jihad, which goes from our gasoline money to oil-producing states, where all too much of it finds its way into the hands of the jihadists who have vowed to destroy the U.S. and the free world.

“Trump Opens ‘All Available’ Gulf Of Mexico Waters To Oil Drilling,” by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller, March 7, 2017:

The Department of the Interior will include “all available” federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico that have not already been leased out for offshore oil drilling.

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced Monday 73 million acres off the coast of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida would be offered at a lease sale in August as part of the Interior Department’s five-year leasing plan.

“Opening more federal lands and waters to oil and gas drilling is a pillar of President Trump’s plan to make the United States energy independent,” Zinke said in a statement.

Interior finalized its current five-year offshore leasing program in January, just before Trump took office. The current plan includes 11 potential lease sales — 10 in the Gulf of Mexico and one in Alaska’s Cook Inlet.

The Obama administration, however, did not include any lease sales in most of the Arctic Ocean and all of the Atlantic Ocean. The administration initially considered offshore drilling in those areas, but decided not to on the urging of environment groups.For now, it seems like the Trump administration will stick with current policies. that could possibly change one Secretary Zinke gets all his appointees in place. The Senate confirmed Zinke last week, and it’s unclear when they will hold confirmation hearings for other high-level Interior positions.

“The Gulf is a vital part of that strategy to spur economic opportunities for industry, states, and local communities, to create jobs and home-grown energy and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” Zinke said….

Shortly before leaving office, former President Barack Obama locked up even more offshore areas from drilling, issuing an executive order in December making 31 canyons in the Atlantic off limits to drilling. The order took 3.8 million acres of the Atlantic ocean out of play for drillers.

In that same order, Obama designated “the vast majority of U.S. waters in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas as indefinitely off limits to offshore oil and gas leasing.”

Environmentalists supported keeping Arctic and Atlantic waters off limits to drilling. Activists say it’s necessary to protect marine life and slow global warming.

Trump, on the other hand, promised to boost U.S. energy production through opening more federal lands and waters for exploration and eliminating regulations. That includes rolling back Obama-era policies blocking offshore drilling.

“This is exactly the kind of investment, economic development and job creation that will help put Americans back to work,” Trump said of Exxon’s investments announced Monday….

RELATED ARTICLES:

AFDI: Appeal filed challenging federal statute authorizing censorship by Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube

Hugh Fitzgerald: Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl And His Orwellian Experience (Part I)

Meet the Antisemitic Terrorist Leading #DayWithoutAWoman

/in , , , /by

In the New York Post column “Meet the terrorist behind the next women’s march” Kyle Smith reports:

Instead of milling around Washington, organizers have in mind a “general strike” called the Day without a Woman. In a manifesto published in The Guardian on Feb. 6, the brains behind the movement are calling for a “new wave of militant feminist struggle.” That’s right: militant, not peaceful.

The document was co-authored by, among others, Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a convicted terrorist. Odeh, a Palestinian, was convicted in Israel in 1970 for her part in two terrorist bombings, one of which killed two students while they were shopping for groceries. She spent 10 years in prison for her crimes. She then managed to become a US citizen in 2004 by lying about her past (great detective work, INS: Next time, use Google) but was subsequently convicted, in 2014, of immigration fraud for the falsehoods. However, she won the right to a new trial (set for this spring) by claiming she had been suffering from PTSD at the time she lied on her application. Oh, and in her time as a citizen, she worked for a while as an ObamaCare navigator.

Rasmea Yousef Odeh. Photo: AP

You can see why she’s a hero to the left. Another co-author, Angela Davis, is a Stalinist professor and longtime supporter of the Black Panthers. Davis is best known for being acquitted in a 1972 trial after three guns she bought were used in a courtroom shootout that resulted in the death of a judge. She celebrated by going to Cuba.

A third co-author, Tithi Bhattacharya, praised Maoism in an essay for the International Socialist Review, noting that Maoists are “on the terrorist list of the US State Department, Canada, and the European Union,” which she called an indication that “Maoists are back in the news and by all accounts they are fighting against all the right people.” You know you’re dealing with extremism when someone admits to hating Canada.

Read more…

World Jewish Daily reports:

The lead organization behind the upcoming “International Women’s Strike” has called for the destruction of Israel and embraced a Palestinian terrorist as one of its leaders.

According to the Algemeiner, the organization behind the proposed “strike” issued a manifesto calling for “the decolonization of Palestine,” a euphemism for the genocidal desire to destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

It declares this racist goal “the beating heart of this new feminist movement” and states, “We want to dismantle all walls, from prison walls to border walls, from Mexico to Palestine.”

In addition, one of the movement’s most prominent organizers is the antisemitic, racist Palestinian terrorist Rasmea Odeh, who spent over a decade in an Israeli prison for murdering two Israelis in a pair of terrorist attacks.

Odeh has been charged with lying on her citizenship application by denying her terrorist history.

Indivisible North Coast Oregon (INCO) posted the following on its website:

MARCH 8 Women’s Strike and Postcard Party

From the Women’s March Instagram post:

In the spirit of women and their allies coming together for love and liberation, we offer A Day Without A Woman. We ask: do businesses support our communities, or do they drain our communities? Do they strive for gender equity or do they support the policies and leaders that perpetuate oppression? Do they align with a sustainable environment or do they profit off destruction and steal the futures of our children? We saw what happened when millions of us stood together in January, and now we know that our army of love greatly outnumbers the army of fear, greed and hatred. On March 8th, International Women’s Day, let’s unite again in our communities for A Day Without A Woman. Over the next few weeks we will be sharing more information on what actions on that day can look like for you. #DayWithoutAWoman #WomensMarch

Read more…

Regarding Indivisible and the Women’s March, Politico reported:

Indivisible is also embracing collaboration with other major anti-Trump protest outlets. Leaders of the group were in communication with Women’s March organizers before their main event on Jan. 21, and that partnership will become official when the March unveils the third in its series of 10 direct actions that attendees have been asked to pursue in their communities.

Obama, Organizing for Action, Indivisible, Women’s March and Day Without A Woman are all part of the same anarchist movement called “resist.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘A Day Without a Woman’ Strike Promotes the Liberal Idea that Women are Helpless

Jewish Students Counter Anti-Zionist Rhetoric at Columbia University

FLORIDA: Bills introduced empowering parents to ‘review, object to and approve instructional materials’

/in , , , /by

On February 23rd and 24th, 2017 critically important Instructional Materials companion bills were filed in the Florida House and Senate. These curriculum bills will restore local control, empowering parents and taxpayers a meaningful place in the process for reviewing and acquiring of all textbook and online materials used to teach public school children.

Sen. Tom Lee and Rep. Byron Donalds are the sponsors for SB 1210 and HB 989. Think of them as “fixit” companion bills to a very “well-intentioned Senate Bill passed into law in 2014. However, the 2014 law was not implemented by a single school district.  The original intent was to establish each school board to be constitutionally responsible for the instruction materials used in their respective districts and to establish an open, transparent process for reviewing, raising objections to and approving instructional materials used with K-12 students.

When passed these “fixit” bills will restore the original intent in 5 key ways:

  1. Require each school district shall implement a transparent Policy/Process within their District whether they acquire from the State list or create their individual acquisition program.
  2. Provide a definition of quality materials and requirement for providers to meet Florida existing laws.
  3. Tighten the definition of instructional materials to include “on-line” materials.
  4. Give each District School Board greater flexibility to use instructional materials that meet or exceed current Florida Standards.
  5. Expand a parent’s right to object to include the rights of all taxpayers.

At the heart of these fixit bills are the enhanced definition of “quality materials”. Every product you buy as a consumer has an explicit set of quality standards. Obvious examples: the car you drive and the cellphone and computer you use. Not so with the 100’s of millions of dollars Florida spends on textbooks.

Today, the materials are provided by Pearson PLC and one or two other large publishers. They are riddled with political and religious indoctrination; revised history teaching our children they are victims of oppressive and outdated founding principles; and age inappropriate sexually explicit materials aimed at destroying family values.

See the documentation at www.floridaCitizensAlliance.com – Search for “Objectionable Materials Report”

Background

SB 864 (FS 1006.283) was the K-12 Curriculum Bill signed into law by Governor Scott in July of 2014.

Its purpose was to:

  • Assign each school board the constitutional responsibility to select and provide adequate instructional materials.
  • Require each district to create a transparent review policy/process allowing parents to review instructional materials and raise objections if the material was not accurate or was objectionable.
  • Allow School districts to implement their own selection and acquisition programs as an alternative to buying from the State approved lists.

NOTE: It contained numerous loopholes that resulted in many School District ignoring the law.

2017 Companion bills SB 1210 and HB 989 fix the loopholes:

  • Require that each District School Board shall implement a transparent Policy/Process within their
  • District whether they acquire from the State list or create their individual acquisition program.
  • Provide a definition of quality materials and require all materials meet Florida existing laws (notes).
  • Tighten the definition of instructional materials to include “on-line” materials.
  • Give each District School Board greater flexibility to use instructional materials that meet or exceed current Florida Standards.
  • Expand a parent’s right to object to include the rights of taxpayers.

Bottom Line: This law will empower parents and community taxpayers a meaningful seat at the table to significantly improve the quality of instructional materials in public schools.

Note 1: Florida has a very good statute FS 1003.42 2a-f that requires the teaching of our founding principles and “historically accurate materials”. This statute is not being followed today in Florida as many textbook providers distort and reconstruct our history to promote a political agenda.
Note 2: FS 847.011 and FS 847.012 clearly prohibit age inappropriate sexually explicit material in K-12 public schools.

Definition of quality materials spelled out in SB 1210 and HB 989

When passed into law, these Instructional Materials companion bills will restore local control of curriculum to each school district, give a meaningful voice to parents and the local community in the selection process for instructional materials, and require instructional materials used in the classroom meet the following criteria:

a. Be research-based, and be proven to be effective in supporting student learning

  1. Provide a non-inflammatory, objective, and balanced viewpoint on issues
  2. Be appropriate to the students’ ages and varying levels of learning
  3. Be accurate and factual
  4. Be of acceptable technical quality
  5. Shall strictly adhere to the requirements of Florida Statute 1003.42(2) US Constitutional Founding values and principles
  6. Not contain pornography or sexually explicit content as is otherwise prohibited by Florida Statute 847.012(3).

The Detailed 11 page report of objectionable materials in Florida Schools documenting extensive political and religious indoctrination, revisionist history, issues with APUSH, pornographic material and destructive math pedagogy can be found at http://floridacitizensalliance.com/liberty/?s=objectionable+materials+report

flca logoABOUT THE FLORIDA CITIZENS ALLIANCE (FLCA)

Florida Citizens Alliance is a grassroots Alliance working with 80+ grassroots organizations committed to dramatically improving the outcomes for our Florida children. FLCA helped draft this legislation and we are strong citizen advocates for its passage. Our Goal is simple- to unleash the individual learning potential of every child! We invite your support. Subscribe to our website. Adding your voice makes our collective voice louder!