Politics Archives - Page 1506 of 1743

Government Caused the ‘Great Stagnation’ by Peter J. Boettke

January 20, 2016/in Culture War, Economy, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Tyler Cowen caused quite a stir with his e-book, The Great Stagnation. In properly assessing his work it is important to state explicitly what his argument actually is. Median real income has stagnated since 1980, and the reason is that the rate of technological advance has slowed. Moreover, the technological advances that have taken place with such rapidity in recent history have improved well-being, but not in ways that are easily measured in real income statistics.

Critics of Cowen more often than not miss the mark when they focus on the wild improvements in our real income due to quality improvements (e.g., cars that routinely go over 100,000 miles) and lower real prices (e.g., the amount of time required to acquire the inferior version of yesterday’s similar commodities).

Cowen does not deny this. Nor does Cowen deny that millions of people were made better off with the collapse of communism, the relative freeing of the economies in China and India, and the integration into the global economy of the peoples of Africa and Latin America. Readers of The Great Stagnation should be continually reminded that they are reading the author of In Praise of Commercial Culture and Creative Destruction. Cowen is a cultural optimist, a champion of the free trade in ideas, goods, services and all artifacts of mankind. But he is also an economic realist in the age of economic illusion.

What do I mean by the economics of illusion? Government policies since WWII have created an illusion that irresponsible fiscal policy, the manipulation of money and credit, and expansion of the regulation of the economy is consistent with rising standards of living. This was made possible because of the “low hanging” technological fruit that Cowen identifies as being plucked in the 19th and early 20th centuries in the US, and in spite of the policies government pursued.

An accumulated economic surplus was created by the age of innovation, which the age of economic illusion spent down. We are now coming to the end of that accumulated surplus and thus the full weight of government inefficiencies are starting to be felt throughout the economy. Our politicians promised too much, our government spends too much, in an apparent chase after the promises made, and our population has become too accustomed to both government guarantees and government largess.

Adam Smith long ago argued that the power of self-interest expressed in the market was so strong that it could overcome hundreds of impertinent restrictions that government puts in the way. But there is some tipping point at which that ability to overcome will be thwarted, and the power of the market will be overcome by the tyranny of politics. Milton Friedman used that language to talk about the 1970s; we would do well to resurrect that language to talk about today.

Cowen’s work is a subversive track in radical libertarianism because he identifies that government growth (both measured in terms of scale and scope) was possible only because of the rate of technological improvements made in the late 19th and early 20th century.

We realized the gains from trade (Smithian growth), we realized the gains from innovation (Schumpeterian growth), and we fought off (in the West, at least) totalitarian government (Stupidity). As long as Smithian growth and Schumpeterian growth outpace Stupidity, tomorrow’s trough will still be higher than today’s peak. It will appear that we can afford more Stupidity than we can actually can because the power of self-interest expressed through the market offsets its negative consequences.

But if and when Stupidity is allowed to outpace the Smithian gains from trade and the Schumpeterian gains from innovation, then we will first stagnate and then enter a period of economic backwardness — unless we curtail Stupidity, explore new trading opportunities, or discover new and better technologies.

In Cowen’s narrative, the rate of discovery had slowed, all the new trading opportunities had been exploited, and yet government continued to grow both in terms of scale and scope. And when he examines the 3 sectors in the US economy — government services, education, and health care — he finds little improvement since 1980 in the production and distribution of the services. In fact, there is evidence that performance has gotten worse over time, especially as government’s role in health care and education has expanded.

The Great Stagnation is a condemnation of government growth over the 20th century. It was made possible only by the amazing technological progress of the late 19th and early 20th century. But as the rate of technological innovation slowed, the costs of government growth became more evident. The problem, however, is that so many have gotten used to the economics of illusion that they cannot stand the reality staring them in the face.

This is where we stand in our current debt ceiling debate. Government is too big, too bloated. Washington faces a spending problem, not a revenue problem. But too many within the economy depend on the government transfers to live and to work. Yet the economy is not growing at a rate that can afford the illusion. Where are we to go from here?

Cowen’s work makes us think seriously about that question. How can the economic realist confront the economics of illusion? And Cowen has presented the basic dilemma in a way that the central message of economic realism is not only available for libertarians to see (if they would just look, or listen carefully to his podcast at EconTalk), but for anyone who is willing to read and think critically about our current political and economic situation.

The Great Stagnation signals the end of the economics of illusion and — let’s hope — paves the way for a new age of economic realism.

This post first appeared at Coordination Problem.

Peter J. Boettke

Peter Boettke is a Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University and director of the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center. He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

Political Correctness and Barack Obama

January 20, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Elections, Policy, Politics/by Simona Pipko

President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on January 12, 2016 was criticized by many. For us, the people of the former Socialist countries, it had been a very familiar political theater. The carefully choreographed speech was brought from the stratosphere of illusion and a calligraphy of misleading, which had nothing to do with the reality on the planet Earth. We were not surprised—we are used to the political theater of Stalinist’s ideology, the only achievement of Soviet Socialism. President Obama’s speech represented a quintessential form of the Stalin’s Political Correctness, which has been nourished by the liberals in America for the last several decades.

You won’t find a person in America’s social media who doesn’t use the term Political Correctness every day and many times a day. In his interview with Fox, the former FBI deputy director Kostrome said to Judge Jeanine: “Political correctness is killing us.” He is right, PC was designed to harm and destroy Western civilization. Yet, I am not sure that all the people using the term are familiar with its agenda, etymology, and creator. The author and architect of the term is Joseph Stalin and knowing this fact will help many to grasp the world politics of the 21st century.

Barack Obama forces me to return again to this subject. When I read that 76 per cent of the American people loath Political Correctness (PC), my love for those people tripled. They did not know that PC was a Stalinist ideological invasion into their culture, they just felt it intuitively. I also knew that they are the fairest people in the world and their dislike for PC shows them to be very sensitive to the adversarial and harmful actions against American interests.

Political Correctness is the Ideological Tool of Soviet Socialism.

Political Correctness is the major method in fighting the war against Western civilization and implementing the ideology of Soviet Socialism, the topic I have been writing about for the last twenty years. I called this war WWIII. There are four main components in my definition of an asymmetrical WWIII. They are the following: Recruitment, Infiltration, Drugs, and Assassinations. Recruitment and Infiltration are inextricably connected. Neither could have been achieved without Political Correctness, which is falsely projects tolerance.

A famous Russian dissident Vladimir Bukowski once said: “when a Socialist comes to power, you can expect concentration camps.” He was right—violence is the main feature of Socialism. The perspective for the future Socialist world was expressed by Karl Marx in his slogan Proletarian of the world unite, which meant a violent world war. One hundred years later Joseph Stalin developed the Socialist intent in a more politically pronounced manner by camouflaging violence: One world Government under the Kremlin auspices. He used Political Correctness.

We, the former citizens of the Socialist countries went through that development, called Soviet Socialism. It was a war by the government against its own citizens–a multi-faceted war with different fronts, methods, shapes, and forms. Speaking different languages and living in different countries, we all came to America from a collective microcosm of Political Correctness—a false narrative to alter the nature of the Truth. There is no surprise that the American people are angered and frustrated—this is a response to Obama’s war against the population. He is following the same way Stalin did to build his Soviet Socialism, which had never worked.

Yet, many Americans are still infected by the virus of Stalin’s Socialism. The question is – how it was possible that a fraud, as I identified Stalin’s ideology of Socialism, survive for almost a century and still seduce a lot of people in the world today? The question I have been researching and investigating for many years discussing multi-faceted methods of the Stalin’s social model—one of them is Political Correctness.

Does anybody in America or the world know the architect of PC, its concept or the fundamental agenda behind it? Does anybody know the nature and crucial role those two words played in their lives for decades? The answer to the question will unite us: the former citizens of the Socialist countries and all of the people in the 21st century, as we all together in different times have been manipulated and brainwashed by these two words—Political Correctness.

It seems that the nature of those two words, is very neutral indeed. In fact, those words are not peaceful, on the contrary they represent the psychological tools or methods which are used to transform a political system by fraud, while simultaneously fighting its ideological opponents. To my knowledge Stalin was the author of those two words that were published for the first time in the Soviet newspaper Izvestia (News) in 1933, the time when major transformation was going on within the Soviet Union. Stalin called “Politically Incorrect” the leaders of the opposition. The American educator Herbert Kohl confirms my opinion:

“In the early-to-mid 20th century, contemporary uses of the phrase “Politically Correct” were associated with the dogmatic application of Stalinist doctrine, debated between formal Communists (members of the Communist Party) and Socialists. The phrase was a colloquialism referring to the Communist party line, which provided for “correct” positions on many matters of politics. According to American educator Herbert Kohl writing about debates in New York in the late 1940s and early 1950s. “

Writing about Stalinism and watching its ubiquitous application in the 21st century, I have offered my version of the matter several times before:

“… Political Correctness is a Stalinist policy, driven by the political agenda, a skillfully crafted design of quintessential system of lies, the long-term strategy of war against Western civilization and creation of One World Government.”

And again I’d like to remind you about Stalin’s incredible ability to mislead, lie, and defraud. Stalin was so skillful at political intrigue that vast majority of people in the Soviet Union not only believed him, but adored him as a Messiah. Nobody could compete with him in the art of intrigue. Political Correctness had no opponents and reigned in the country—we lived inside a gigantic network of falsehood… And so lives America in the 21st century.

Look at America today. Due to the constant efforts of the Obama administration America is drastically transformed, like us, living in the Soviet Union, America lives today inside a gigantic network of falsehood created by Political Correctness. And this is not the end of the resemblances: our economy is going down the tube, the harm Obama has done to economy counts in billions, our morals are at their lowest level ever. All of this has a logical result—Socialism has never worked anywhere, it ended by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The history of the 20 century repeats itself in the 21stwhen manipulation and brainwashing of human minds goes undetected in America. We can’t continue down the path of “Democratic Socialism”: it is an oxymoron–Democratic can’t be Socialist and Socialism can’t be democratic. We must return to the values of our Founding Fathers. Now is the time to see clearly where we are going under the leadership of the party, called Democratic: Even the name is a false one. I am not sure that Trump, like the vast majority of Americans knows about source of PC, yet, with his magnetic and unique personality, he symbolizes them all. We are witnessing an uprising against the bureaucracy of the Washington political class.

“I voted against that incompetent, lying, flip-flopping, insincere, double-talking, radical socialist, terrorist excusing, bleeding heart, narcissistic, scientific and economic moron currently in the White House!” – Clint Eastwood

VIDEO: Iranian-Backed Harakat al-Sabireen Terror Group in West Bank and Gaza

January 20, 2016/in National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Dr. Rich Swier

Adam Kredo reports:

A new Iranian-backed terror group is making inroads in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, where it operates underground with the potential capacity to deliver devastating attacks to Israel, according to regional experts who have been investigating the organization’s rise.

The group, which goes by the name Harakat al-Sabireen, was established around May 2014 but has begun in recent months to boost its public profile on social media and brag about its plots to wage jihad against Israel, according to information gathered by regional analysts and provided to the Washington Free Beacon.

Al-Sabireen is believed to receive $10 million a year from Iran via funds that are smuggled through a large network of tunnels built by terrorists to facilitate illicit travel beneath the Gaza Strip, according to estimates disseminated in the Arab language press.

New Biological Data Measures Issues that Divide American Voters

January 20, 2016/in Culture War, Elections, Healthcare, Immigration, Must Read, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

CHICAGO. IL /PRNewswire/ — Obamacare and immigration are the two issues on which Republicans and Democrats are the most divided, according to research by research and insights agency Shapiro+Raj, the company announced. Republican and Democratic respondents differed in their reactions to different candidates’ positions on these issues.

Researchers at Shapiro+Raj, led by Associate Manager Mike Winograd, Ph.D., used traditional survey methods complemented by biometrics to better measure respondents’ in-the-moment opinions about eight issues using video statements by some of the leading candidates from both parties in the 2016 presidential race.

Of the eight issues covered—abortion, climate change, gay marriage, gun control, immigration, Obamacare, Social Security and taxes—Obamacare, gun control and abortion elicited the strongest responses from both sides in terms of support or opposition. The majority of respondents also ranked gay marriage and climate change among the least important issues in the upcoming election.

For each issue, Shapiro+Raj used five video clips of Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and undeclared candidate Joe Biden. Republican candidates included Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. All of the clips lasted between 10 and 33 seconds. Clips for each issue were shown in serial with 15-second blank screens between each video clip.

In this study, Shapiro+Raj used a biometric measure known as galvanic skin response (GSR), to measure respondents’ perspiration levels, which are an indicator of arousal and emotional reactivity, and applied the results alongside facial coding to determine not only the strength of viewers’ responses, but also their comparative reactions.

The findings overall showed that the biometric analysis did not fully align with the survey responses.

“Biometrics have huge implications for the ad-marketing industry because they can be applied to extract more detailed and actionable consumer insights on behalf of brands,” Winograd said. “Traditional researchers have known for a long time that what people say doesn’t always align with their true beliefs or how they might behave.”

For example, aside from his image as Washington outsider, Trump has more moderate, or even liberal, views on some issues. While Democratic voters’ ratings of Trump were strongly negative, the biometric findings indicated that when the content of his messages aligned with their beliefs, Democratic voters do not necessarily dislike Trump.

A 2013 clip of Ben Carson referring to Obamacare as, “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery,” evoked the strongest negative reaction among some Democratic respondents, according to the biometric analysis. By contrast, Republicans’ responses to the Carson clip indicated that they did not find his statement provocative.

“Using biometrics, we can get nuanced perspectives on the emotions of voters and consumers,” Winograd added.

For more information about these findings, click here.

ABOUT SHAPIRO+RAJ

Shapiro+Raj is a new strategy and research company for the Insight Economy™, connecting Shapiro’s 60-year leadership in research, insights and analytics with new world brand strategy, innovation and ideation capabilities. Shapiro+Raj delivers deep, enduring insights and inspired ideas to help its Fortune 500 clients improve the value of their brands while driving profitable growth of their business. Headquartered in Chicago, the independent firm also has an office in New York.

Europeans Paying Close Attention to U.S. Election

January 20, 2016/in Elections, Featured, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

SHELTON, Conn. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The United States presidential campaigns are having a bigger effect on world opinion than one might think, based on the results of a recent SSI QuickPoll™. In fact, there’s great interest in Europe in the presidential election even at this early stage. Two-thirds of Europeans are paying attention, with over a third saying they are paying “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of attention.

SSI QuickPoll Says Europeans Pay Close Attention to U.S. Election (PRNewsFoto/SSI)

According to SSI’s U.S. Presidential Pulse, the majority of respondents (56%) across France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom paid “quite a lot of attention” or “some attention” to the U.S. presidential election campaign. Only 11% of respondents across the four countries indicated they have paid “a great deal of attention” to the election campaign.

The SSI Presidential Pulse QuickPoll was conducted amongst 3199 individuals aged 18 and older between Jan. 12-13, 2016. To coincide with this year’s presidential election, SSI will conduct ongoing surveys under its SSI Presidential Pulse program to provide real-time checks on the opinions of the voting public on candidate favorability.

“When SSI reviewed the results on a country level respondents in the Netherlands (48%) were more likely to state they had not paid ‘very much attention’ or ‘no attention at all’ to the U.S. presidential election campaign than respondents in France (25%), Germany (28%), and the U.K. (31%),” said Jackie Lorch, vice president of knowledge management at SSI.

When asked which of the following candidates for U.S. president have they heard of, respondents were very aware of Hillary Clinton (90%) and Donald Trump (85%). Almost half (48%) of respondents had heard of Jeb Bush. No other candidate reaches 20% name recognition (SSI only asked about the top two Democrats and the top six Republicans).

Across all four countries, 69% of respondents who have heard of Hillary Clinton indicated they have a favorable opinion of her. France (71%) and Germany (75%) were more likely to indicate they have a favorable opinion of Clinton than respondents in the Netherlands (66%) and the U.K. (64%).

Conversely, among respondents who have heard of Donald Trump, 71% indicated they had an unfavorable opinion of him. Germany (76%) and U.K. (72%) respondents were more likely to state they had an unfavorable opinion of Trump than respondents in France (68%) and the Netherlands (67%).

In fact, yesterday, the British Parliament held a debate over a petition calling for Donald Trump to be banned from the country. The debate did not produce any binding decisions.

“SSI asked our respondents, ‘Do you think Donald Trump should be banned from entering the U.K.?’ Overall, 38% of respondents did not think Donald Trump should be banned from entering the U.K.,” explained Lorch. Respondents in the U.K. (46%), were more likely than respondents in France (34%), Germany (33%) and the Netherlands (39%) to state they did not think Trump should be banned from the UK.

“In spite of the unfavorable opinion, only a quarter to a third of Europeans polled think Trump should be banned from the U.K. or from their own countries,” concluded Lorch. The majority of respondents in France (41%),Germany (41%), and the Netherlands (46%) stated they did not think Trump should be banned from their country.

ABOUT SSI

SSI is the premier global provider of data solutions and technology for consumer and business-to-business survey research, reaching respondents in 100+ countries via Internet, telephone, mobile/wireless and mixed-access offerings. SSI staff operates from 30 offices in 21 countries, offering sample, data collection, CATI, questionnaire design consultation, programming and hosting, online custom reporting and data processing. SSI’s 3,600 employees serve more than 2,500 clients worldwide. Visit SSI at www.surveysampling.com.

SSI QuickPoll is a trademark of Survey Sampling International LLC

Court: NYPD must purge documents on how Islamic terrorists operate

January 19, 2016/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Featured, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Jihad Watch

The NYPD is now bound to pretend that the Muslim community is no more likely to produce terrorists than the Amish community or the Jain community. Here again, what could possibly go wrong?

The Leftist ideologues who have joined with Islamic supremacists such as Linda Sarsour to bring this about seem to think that there will be no consequences to enforcing upon the NYPD ignorance about the jihad threat.

Either they don’t realize that there will be more Islamic jihad murder in New York City because of this ruling, or they don’t care — and given that this is 2016, after 9/11, after Fort Hood, after the Boston Marathon, after Garland, after Chattanooga, after San Bernardino, after hundreds of thwarted jihad plots and more, it is apparently the latter.

New York City Mayor de Blasio (right) with Linda Sarsour.

“Court Requires NYPD to Purge Docs on Terrorists Inside U.S.,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, January 18, 2016:

The New York Police Department has been directed by a U.S. court to remove from its online records an investigation pertaining to the rise of Islamic extremists in the West and the threats these individuals pose to American safety, according to legal documents.

As part of a settlement agreement reached earlier this month with Muslim community advocates in U.S. District Court, the NYPD will purge from its website an extensive report that experts say has been critical to the department’s understanding of radical Islam and its efforts to police the threat.

The court settlement also stipulates that the NYPD make a concerted effort to mitigate the impact of future terror investigations on certain religious and political groups, according to a copy of the court documents published by the American Civil Liberties Union, which has spearheaded the case since June 2013.

Legal experts and critics of the settlement maintain that it could hamper future terrorism investigations and view it as part of a larger campaign by Muslim advocacy organizations in the United States to dismantle surveillance programs encompassing that community.

Critics expressed particular concern about the case in light of a recent surge in attacks on U.S. citizens committed by individuals pledging allegiance to terror groups such as ISIS.

A key portion of the settlement focuses on the NYPD’s purported use of a document produced by the department’s intelligence division to examine how radicalized individuals make their way to the United States and carry out terror attacks.

The document, “Radicalization in the West: The Homegrown Threat,” aimed to provide local law enforcement and policy makers with information about domestic terrorists and their operations.

As part of the settlement agreement, the NYPD will be forced to remove the publication from its database and vow not to rely on it in the future.

The NYPD and New York state government agencies included in the case “represent that they do not, have not, and will not rely upon the Radicalization in the West report to open or extend investigations,” according to the settlement. “Defendants will remove the Radicalization in the West report from the NYPD website.”

The settlement further affirms that the NYPD will be “committed to mitigating the potential impact” of future investigations on political and religious groups, such as those in the Muslim-American community.

While NYPD officials would not comment Thursday when contacted by the Washington Free Beacon, a spokesperson directed a reporter to a recent press release affirming the department’s commitment to upholding the court settlement.

The NYPD and relevant New York state agencies will “provide additional guidance to police officers as part of a settlement of lawsuits accusing the NYPD of improperly investigating Muslim groups,” according to the Jan. 7 press release. “While the City did not admit to engaging in any improper practices, the changes represent an effort to provide more detailed guidance to NYPD personnel within the existing Handschu Guidelines,” which govern how authorities investigate political activities.

The NYPD confirmed that it would remove from its website the 2007 radicalization report.

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Muslims plotted to murder police and soldiers in drive-by London shootings for the Islamic State

Number of Muslims from UK who have joined the Islamic State now up to 1,500

‘Could this be the year Europe dies’ as economic conditions drive a billion Africans North?

January 19, 2016/in Culture War, Economy, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Ann Corcoran

Klaus Schwab the founder of the World Economic Forum convening in Davos, Switzerland this week has a very scary prediction for the future of Europe.

Learn more here at American Resistance 2016!

See our complete ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive by clicking here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Wisconsin: It is not just meatpackers having problems with Muslim refugee employees

See American Resistance 2016! for a couple of stories that might interest RRW readers

So-called ‘Unaccompanied alien children’ numbers are on target to surpass Invasion 2014

U.S. Campuses: Virulent Anti-Semitism Passed Off as Mild Dissent

January 19, 2016/in Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Jihad Watch

Anti-Israel BDS resolutions have been seizing campuses in Canada. According to an article in the Jerusalem Post, it is Hamas — an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood — that has fueled and directed the BDS and Israel Apartheid Week campaigns on university campuses across North America, through chapters of the Muslim Student Association and the Palestine Solidarity Network. Yet these menacing campaign drives are being minimized, passed off at best as a difference of opinion, and at worst, as social justice campaigns to protect Palestinians from the so-called brutalities imposed by an apartheid state.

A recent Brandeis University study on anti-Semitism singled out Canadian and Californian universities as locales where hostility toward Jewish students was especially high.

In Spring 2014, several hundred Ryerson University students voted “overwhelmingly in favour” of supporting BDS. Then three months ago, what was described as “a hate-filled anti-semitic message full of vile language” was found scrawled in the men’s bathroom at Ryerson. It referenced the “stealing of Palestinian land” and called for Israel, Jews and supporters of the state of Israel to “burn in hell.” In April, the president of the organization called Ryerson’s Students Supporting Israel said she was spat upon while holding an Israeli flag as she filmed a school project on campus, prompting investigations by Toronto police and the university’s Investigations and Crime Prevention Office.

Referring to the graffiti, Ryerson President Sheldon Levy stated:

We are shocked and saddened….Graffiti of this nature is absolutely unacceptable at Ryerson and has no place on our campus or anywhere else. We are committed to providing a civil and safe environment which is free of discrimination, harassment, and hate, and is respectful of the rights, responsibilities, well-being and dignity of all its members.

Despite the rebuke to such blatant anti-Semitism, there still lurks a more subtle and dangerous new anti-semitism that is paraded as dissent in political opinion, but that aims to delegitimize the state of Israel.

I had the unfortunate firsthand experience of a display of this phenomenon — albeit a seemingly mild version — during a speech I gave before an adult part-time class at Ryerson University on November 9. Also speaking was the executive director of a Christian Zionist organization. The professor who invited us did a stellar job at keeping balance and poise in the midst of unreasonable “student” attacks against the state of Israel, and some aimed at me personally.

The experience I will recount is one that is far too often justified by reference to the Palestinian plight, and is also minimized by those who undermine the peril of this subtle form of new antisemitism.

My speech encompassed the justification of support for Israel beyond “the Bible said so,” with references to the two-state solution delineated long ago by the League of Nations, to which Arab states still took offense, as they rejected Israel’s very existence — despite the British partition plan favoring the Arabs – and thus attacked the Jewish State it upon its birth in 1948. My co-speaker was her usual charming self as she discussed the fine work of her Christian Zionist organization. Then came my segment, which was more about the blend and crossover between religion and politics with regards to Israel.

It was stunning to witness the spectacle of a significant number of audience members virulently against the state of Israel with no justification, rhyme or reason, and most critically, no apparent recognition of why Israel needs to defend itself from obliteration. When challenged to explain their positions, they could offer no explanation for their views beyond “you’re passionate, you’re religious….you’re one-sided,” or “I find it hard to listen to a one-sided approach.” The obsession with the “occupied territories,” “the fence,” “the expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem,” and the “poverty of Palestinians is because of Israel” was obscene in the face of Israel’s struggle to exist, not to mention the deadly Hamas, PA and Fatah Charters seeking Israel’s obliteration; the persecution of Christians in Bethlehem; the stabbings in Jerusalem; the rocket attacks; the Muslim women and children human shields used by Hamas; and so on. One woman talked with disdain about her “evangelical brother,” whom she found to be ignorant and bigoted, as she implicitly accused me of being an ignorant evangelical who blindly supported what she portrayed as the criminal state of Israel, but gave no evidence when asked to explain and elaborate upon her thoughts.

She and her fellow Israel-haters didn’t even care that Abbas announced that there would not be one Jew in a Palestinian state (a demonstration of pure hatred and apartheid), or that Abbas did his PhD in Holocaust denial. It was as though these folks were deaf, dumb and blind to history and the current realities of Israel’s existential threat as well as the grave sufferings being endured by the persecuted Church in Islamic states and in Bethlehem, from which Christians have been driven out.

Given plenty of opportunity and encouragement to address exactly what in the points I had made that the “students” thought was flawed, they had no answer or even any desire to examine the issues fairly in search of truth, but instead persisted with a brazen display of raw anti-Semitism disguised as caring about the Palestinians. Not even one question was posed during the speech (or Question and Answer period) about to where the 31 billion dollars of aid that the West gave to the Palestinian Authority vanished. I will answer now: much went to funding terrorism, for starters, which included reward blood money to terrorists who successfully murdered innocent Israelis.

When the bright Ryerson Professor posed a question to an attendee about whether it would really make any significant difference if Israel stopped its expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem, the answer was that at least people would not be as upset. The ludicrousness of this answer was perplexing.

I was surprised at the end of my presentation by a surprising nice round of applause, as well as by the sudden appearance of many in support of Israel that I wished had spoken up more.

What nation on the face of the earth faces obliteration by Islamic regimes, on top of unjustified and venomous attacks from Western critics who enjoy their safety at home — and in Israel, were it not for jihadists — and who would be murdered if they even so much as openly expressed their views about freedom of religion or rights for women and gays in the despotic territories surrounding Israel? A question to contemplate: Israel has habitually tried to make friends out of its foes; has it worked?

I posted this first-hand experience on Facebook, and one of the comments by an Israeli Defense and security specialist displayed some insights into raw truth:

Don’t we know this? We did warn the world about ISIS. We did warn the world about aviation and airport security. We did warn the world about border security. Did anyone listen? Of course not!!!!

Four decades ago, the renowned professor Bernard Lewis wrote that an “ominous phrase” was heard immediately preceding the Six-Day War in 1967: “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.’” In an era of rising jihadist infiltration into Western civilization, let’s hope that leaders and campus authorities can begin deciphering the meaning and profundity of such a statement in the face of stark and mounting evidence.

Christine Williams is an award winning Canadian journalist and public relations consultant. She is also an appointee of the Canadian government.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Iranian-Backed Terror Group Makes Inroads in West Bank, Gaza

IAEA certifies Iran’s compliance with nuke deal, U.S., EU lift sanctions

Munich pools issue leaflets telling migrants not to grope women

Rand Paul ‘Baffled’ by Evangelicals’ Preference for ‘War-Mongering GOP Candidates’

January 19, 2016/in Elections, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Politics/by Dr. Rich Swier

FAYETTEVILLE, NC /PRNewswire/ — In an exclusive interview with FTMDaily’s Jerry Robinson, U.S. Senator and Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul discusses the recent Senate vote on his “Audit the Fed” bill, as well as the lack of support of his candidacy within the American evangelical community.

Sen. Paul explains that the message in the New Testament is one of peace and that Jesus never encouraged his followers to rebel against the government or to instigate war. Therefore, Sen. Paul’s message of peace through prosperity should resonate within evangelical groups during this presidential election cycle. But when asked why many evangelicals in America prefer militarism over peace, Sen. Paul is truly baffled.

Sen. Paul comments:

“I think it is really an irony, and I continue to be baffled by it, but it’s not always true. I do remind them [religious and evangelical groups] that the sermon on the mount and the beatitudes were ‘blessed are the peacemakers’. Jesus didn’t say, ‘Oh, let’s gather some rebels and overturn the government that’s collaborating with the Romans’. Really, his message was a much different one.”

Jerry Robinson, a Christian economist and host of Follow the Money radio, recognizes that Sen. Paul’s message of a humble foreign policy, sound money, and fiscal transparency within government is in step with the teachings of the New Testament. And although Sen. Paul’s Audit the Fed bill was narrowly defeated by Senate Democrats on Tuesday, he promises that the fight for an audit is not over.

Sen. Paul concedes that he has worked for five years to get the bill up for a vote in the Senate, but that despite Tuesday’s defeat, he will continue to push his agenda.

Ultimately, Sen. Paul explains that his desire is to not only see a thorough audit of the Federal Reserve’s massive and opaque balance sheet, but also to allow interest rates to be set by the marketplace rather than the Federal Reserve. He claims that had interest rates been allowed to rise prior to the housing bubble of 2008, investors would have heeded the market signal that they had over-built and the bubble could have been avoided altogether.

About FTMDaily

FTMDaily, or Follow the Money Daily, is an online media company delivering cutting-edge financial commentaries, unique economic strategies, and informed geopolitical analysis. FTMDaily.com was created in 2010 by Christian economist and best-selling author, Jerry Robinson. Since then, FTMDaily.com has grown exponentially with readers and subscribers from all around the world.

Our mission at Follow the Money Daily is simple. We exist to help people understand the global economic and geopolitical realities that face them. For our paid subscribers, we provide real-time, actionable investing ideas and income strategies, along with cutting-edge geopolitical analysis, designed to prepare them for the difficult challenges that lie ahead for America and the world.

Obama Sells Hope over Reality, One Last Time by Antony Davies & James R. Harrigan

January 18, 2016/in Culture War, Featured, Policy, Politics/by Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

With roughly a year left to his presidency, President Obama chose to speak to America’s next five to ten years rather than report on the state of the union, which is his constitutional charge. In many ways, he brought his presidency full circle on Tuesday evening, offering language more reminiscent of candidate Obama than the churlish President Obama of the past seven years.

“Let’s talk about the future,” he said. But the president had demonstrable difficulty with the present. Throughout his speech, he steadfastly ignored the biggest problem facing the nation: our runaway $19 trillion federal debt.

He did, of course, offer the usual batch of goodies to the American people: free or more affordable college tuition, an increased minimum wage, enhanced Medicare and Social Security, better and cheaper healthcare, and “wage insurance,” whatever that is. Never once did he indicate where the money would come from to pay for these things.

He even offered homage to industry, saying that “a thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy.” But as the speech wore on, it became painfully clear that the President has little to no idea what a thriving economy is, and his ultimate conclusion that “the state of the union is strong,” is simply incorrect, and demonstrably so.

The president claimed that unemployment has been cut in half. Going by the official numbers, the unemployment rate today is 5% versus over 8% when he took office. But the jobs numbers tell a different story. The economy has created 8 million jobs since the President first took office. But there are now 17 million more working-age Americans. The government routinely excludes from its unemployment numbers people who have been unemployed for so long that they’ve given up looking for work. And their numbers have been growing since 2008. Add those people back in and the actual unemployment rate today is closer to 10%.

The president also claimed that he cut the deficit by three-quarters. It’s true that the deficit today is less than half of what it was at its historic peak in 2008, but sadly that’s a recent development. The deficit has averaged $900 billion per year over the past seven years, compared to $440 billion over the seven years prior to the President’s terms — and those figures assign to Bush the 2009 transition year when the deficit was at a whopping $1.4 trillion.

When President Obama took office, the federal debt stood at $10.7 trillion. Today, the debt is $18.9 trillion. But that’s small potatoes, comparatively speaking. In addition to its debt, the government owes unfunded obligations. These are future Social Security and Medicare payments the government has promised to retirees but which it does not and, under current law, will not have the money to pay. According to the Social Security and Medicare boards of trustees, unfunded obligations are about $70 trillion. That brings the total amount of money the government owes or has promised almost to $90 trillion — or 10% more than the annual economic output of the entire planet.

This is the last time the president will give a State of the Union Address. Did he take this opportunity to talk about how he plans to make Social Security and Medicare solvent? Or how he plans to pay for the $70 trillion the government owes retirees? No, he called for the programs to be strengthened. And by “strengthened” he means expanded.

The president asked, “How do we get everyone a fair shot at opportunity?” The answer, first and foremost, is by creating a condition in which the government’s long-term solvency is assured. As it now stands, the state of the union can only be described as precarious.

Antony Davies

Antony Davies is associate professor of economics at Duquesne University, Mercatus Affiliated Senior Scholar, and Strata Research Fellow.

He is a member of the FEE Faculty Network.

James R. Harrigan

James R. Harrigan is the Director of Academic Programs at Strata, in Logan, Utah.

Republicans Are Nowhere to Be Found

January 18, 2016/in Commentary, Culture War, Policy, Politics/by Raynard Jackson

In many ways, like Job in the Bible, “For the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me (Job 3:25 King James Version).

I was hoping against all hope that the Republican Party would do something to really pay homage to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday today. But, like Job, I have been forced to conclude “that which I was afraid of is come unto me.”

Republicans are a national party, control 31 out of 50 governors, control the U.S House of Representatives and control the U.S. Senate; and the party as a whole, has done nothing to celebrate the contribution King made to Blacks, America, and the world.

I am sure a Republican somewhere has issued the annual perfunctory press release; but why the party doesn’t take this occasion to sit at the feet of Black Republican luminaries who worked with King is baffling to me.

King actually frequently stayed in the home of Bob Brown in Hickory, North Carolina. I have stayed at Bob’s house and it is a living museum of American and world history. There are personal photos and letters from King to Bob. There are handwritten notes to Bob from former South African president Nelson Mandela when he was in prison. There are volumes of letters and photos from world leaders to Bob.

There are photos of Bob with every U.S. president from Nixon to the present. Bob is a walking history book of the Civil Rights movement and a lifetime Republican.

You have Bill Coleman, the first Black to serve as a cabinet secretary in the history of America. He was law partners with former U.S. Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall; and they both argued the famous Brown vs Board of Education case before the Supreme Court. Oh, and Coleman is another lifetime Republican.

There are Black Republicans all over the country who worked deeply in the Civil Rights movement, but the party has no idea who they are. The few Black staffers who work within various Republican entities have no idea who these people are, nor do they have any curiosity to discover who these people are that paved the way for them.

At best, a Republican leader might attend a MLK event being sponsored by a liberal Black Democratic organization (their local NAACP, etc.).

But why should that be the case when Republicans are very capable of doing both local and national pro-life events all over the country? They don’t simply issue perfunctory press releases. Why?

Because the party obviously puts a certain value on the pro-life issue and its supporters. I will leave you to make your own conclusions of this issue relative to MLK’s holiday.

Not one presidential campaign has a campaign event celebrating King’s birthday; but they all run over each other to get in front of a camera for Reagan’s birthday. Again, I will leave you to make your own conclusions of this issue relative to MLK’s holiday.

In politics, optics matter and my party is totally tone deaf when it comes to optics within the Black community. Spouses tend not to forget their significant other’s birthday because they know it is important to them.

Memo to Republicans, MLK’s birthday is very important to Blacks and more broadly to America.

With control of congress, 31 governorships, and a majority of state legislatures, and a national party; you really expect me to believe we couldn’t have orchestrated a series of national and local MLK celebrations?

The party, at every level, should have organized Black businessmen all across the country to have a discussion of a 21^st century version of Civil Rights to address issues like: entrepreneurship, access to capital, education, crime & justice.

What policy solutions are Republicans in congress willing to offer to address these issues?

But they also need to sit at the feet of people like the Bob Browns and the Bill Colmans. These are the people the party must consult with relative to the voting rights case that the Supreme Court ruled on a few years ago regarding section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

You would think that the occasion of King’s birthday would be a time the Republican Party can come together with Black Republicans and discuss how to restore the party to being the party of Lincoln.

But if the party can’t honor one of our own icons, how can we honor them with our vote?

Obama has been an abject failure as president relative to the Black community. Republicans have the right message for the Black community; but they must engage with Black Republicans who have institutional memory and relationships with the Browns and the Colemans.

The window is closing fast on the Republican Party for this year’s presidential election and beyond. If the party doesn’t start engaging with the Black community in a meaningful way, Democrats will yet again win the white house and forever change the fabric of our country irreparably.

PODCAST: The Dangers of the Iran Nuclear and Missile Deals

January 18, 2016/in National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion, Talk Radio, Video/by Jerry Gordon

LISTEN to this podcast of the January 17, 2016 Lisa Benson Show with Claudia Rosett on KKNT 960 – The Patriot. Lisa Benson and New English Review Senior Editor Jerry Gordon co-hosted this show with commentary from Board of Advisors member, Richard Cutting.

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 there was a plethora of breaking news. It was kicked off with the lifting of sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program triggered by alleged compliance with terms of the JCPOA political agreement certified by the UN watchdog agency, the IAEA. This was the Orwellian “implementation Day” under the unsigned agreement by all of the parties to JCOPA starting 24/7 monitoring of Iranian enrichment facilities. There was the announcement from Tehran of the swap of five US citizens held hostage in Iran in exchange for Clemency granted by President Obama for seven Iranians convicted or charged with industrial espionage and acquisition of illicit equipment and software for nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Sunday morning, January 17, 2016 there were further developments; the announcement by the US Treasury Office e for Foreign Assets Control of new sanctions against 11 individuals and entities in Iran involved with illicit procurement for ballistic missile development. Iran had launched two precision guided ballistic missiles in tests in October and November 2015 that violated UN Res. 1929 and JCPOA provisions arousing the ire of Congress.

President Obama in remarks on these developments, released on Sunday, said:

“Today’s progress — Americans coming home, an Iran that has rolled back its nuclear program and accepted unprecedented monitoring of that program — these things are a reminder of what we can achieve when we lead with strength and with wisdom; with courage and resolve and patience. America can do, and has done, big things when we work together”.

Watch the President’s YouTube video remarks on this alleged historic political deal purportedly preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons:

To complicate matters there was seizure of 10 U.S. Navy sailors and their Riverine Command boats coincidental with the President’s State of the Union Address before Congress on Tuesday, January 12th. Iran flashed video and pictures of the crews kneeling with hands behind their heads at gunpoint held by IRGC soldiers followed with an apology by the young commander for entering Iranian controlled waters off Farsi Island in the Persian Gulf. Earlier on January 6th, a mini earthquake registering 5.5 on the Richter scale was picked by the several seismographic agencies in China, Japan and the US signaling the fourth in a series of illicit nuclear blasts by North Korea. That immediately led to the question of whether it was a mini-hydrogen bomb as promoted in propaganda by Pyongyang or perhaps a test of nuclear warheads. Warheads capable of being fitted on missiles that North Korea had developed and sold to Iran.

In anticipation of these developments we had asked recommendations from a valued guest of the Lisa Benson broadcasts, Shoshana Bryen , senior director of the Washington, DC Jewish Policy Center as to who we might bring on to comment on these developments and the Iran – North Korea strategic alliance. She suggested we contact Claudia Rosett, Journalist in Residence at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. We followed up on her suggestion and arranged to have Rosett as our guest on the Sunday, January 17th broadcast. That was a fortunate coincident. We had met Rosett in 2009 at a presentation she gave in Pensacola, Florida on the official corruption in the UN Oil for Food program. See our New English Review article; “Claudia Rosett: The UN is Absolutely Corrupt” (February 2009).

Claudia Rosett Journalist-in-Residence Foundation for Defense of Democracy.

Claudia Rosett is an award-winning reporter and commentator. Over the past 35 years, including 18 years as a staff writer for The Wall Street Journal from 1984-2002, she reported from Asia, the former Soviet Union, Latin America and the Middle East. Ms. Rosett has testified before six U.S. Congressional committees on topics including corruption under the United Nations Oil-for-Food program in Iraq, and the strategic alliance between North Korea and Iran. Currently she is focused on illicit networks of Iran and North Korea, including shipping traffic. Ms. Rosett holds a B.A. from Yale, an M.A. from Columbia, and an M.B.A. from the University of Chicago, with a specialization in finance.

Here are some of the high points raised by Rosett during the Lisa Benson Show broadcast:

Iran never signed the nuclear deal now being implemented, nor did any of the other parties (the U.S., U.K., France, Russia, China, and Germany).
This is not a lasting or enforceable deal.
IAEA monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program guarantees nothing. The IAEA has no power to enforce, only to monitor. Iran can play the same game of chicken as North Korea did, throwing out IAEA monitors when convenient, and carrying on to make nuclear bombs.
In the deals now going on, both nuclear and the hostage/prisoner releases this past weekend, Iran is cleaning up.
Remember, Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. The real headline should be: Return of some $100 billion in unfrozen funds to world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.
Iran carried out two sanctions-violating ballistic missile tests this past fall; the only real reason Iran to continue developing ballistic missiles would be to put nuclear warheads on them.
President Obama, in deciding which Iranians to release in the hostage/prisoner swap, ruled out prisoners detained for terrorism and violent crime, but released violators of sanctions in other words; he pardoned people some of whom had abetted Iran’s weapons and nuclear programs. A damaging signal that the U.S. is not serious about enforcing this nuclear deal.
Iran will now be able to access roughly $100 billion, or by some accounts more, in unfrozen funds though the actual amount remains murky. We have never been given a full accounting of these funds.
There has been deliberate obfuscation by the Obama Administration on the terms of this nuclear deal (the secret side agreements between Iran and the IAEA, for instance) as well as the consequences.
The possibility of Iran and North Korea working together on nuclear missiles is a serious concern. In the 21st century, North Korea is the only country known to have tested nuclear weapons. It is the obvious place for the Iranians to hide a nuclear test, or benefit from the data, in plain sight.
Israel’s air force destroyed the Al Kibar nuclear reactor that was being built in Syria with substantial help from North Korea. The U.S. should have allowed a similar strike against Iran some time ago, or the U.S. should have carried one out itself.
We have just seen U.S. sailors detained on their knees before the Iranians before they were released. When have we seen members of the Iranian military on their knees before the U.S? Iran is humiliating America. This is an invitation to other enemies of America to do the same.

The Iran deal is worse than the nuclear deals the U.S. cut with North Korea. North Korea has been making nuclear weapons and conducted four nuclear tests. Iran is even more dangerous, and the consequences here could be much worse.

Our usually astute European listener commented with his opinions:

The Iranian deal agreed and pushed forward by the Obama administration gave in to all Iranian demands and the nuclear watchdog deal by the IAEA is a complete sham. As mentioned numerous times the Iranians have in undisclosed parts of Iran three other nuclear research sites which have never been checked on and where they are continuing enrichment.

The JCPOA is a draft which was to be negotiated and approved but nothing was discussed and the addendums were all kept top secret.

For the P5 the whole deal is a way to boost their trade deficits and they accepted everything that the Obama Administration and the Iranians agreed on.

The IAEA made a complete flop of their controls in North Korea and the same could occur in Iran.

It has been that North Korea is being financed by Iran and they could easily sell nuclear warheads and ship them by plane to Iran.

I sincerely hope that some lawmakers in the U.S. have listened to this broadcast and will take the necessary steps to block the Iranian agreement after the elections.

EDITORS NOTE: This podcast originally appeared in the New English Review.

VIDEOS: South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention

January 18, 2016/in Featured, National Security, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Video, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The United West/ Defend The Border

Watch The United West live stream of the South Carolina TEA Party Coalition Convention:

Trump speech at SC TEA Party Coalition Convention:

Bill to Designate Muslim Brotherhood as Terror Organization Gains Support

January 18, 2016/in Culture War, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Clarion Project

Ten more members of Congress have agreed to cosponsor the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2015 since our last update. The legislation identifies three U.S. – based groups — including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — as part of the Brotherhood network linked to financing Hamas.

If passed, the bill would state that Congress believes the Muslim Brotherhood fits the State Department’s criteria of a Foreign Terrorist Organization. The Secretary of State would be required to designate the Brotherhood within 60 days or to provide a detailed report explaining why it does not. Three U.S.-based Brotherhood entities named in the bill are CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT).

The House version of the bill (HR3892) was introduced by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) with Reps. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Randy K. Weber (R-TX), Diane Black (R-TN) and Mike Pompeo (R-KS) as original cosponsors. They are now joined by Reps. Steve King (R-IA); Steven Palazzo (R-MS); Kay Granger (R-TX); Jim Jordan (R-OH); Steve Stivers (R-OH); Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA); Ilena Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL); Charles W. Dent (R-PA); Bill Johnson (R-OH) and David A. Trott (R-MI).

HR3892 was referred to the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security on December 4, 2015. Two cosponsors, Rep. Gohmert and Rep. Trott, sit on that subcommittee.

The Senate version of the bill (S2230) was introduced by presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and later cosponsored by Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). It was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on November 3. Two of Senator Cruz’s presidential rivals, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) sit on that committee and have not taken a position on the bill.

Although the bill has yet to earn bi-partisan support at this early stage, it is supported by members of Congress from different spectrums of the Republican Party. It includes endorsers of the presidential campaigns of Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and John Kasich and not only supporters of Ted Cruz.

As our original article about the legislation explained, the bill could be a watershed moment in the fight against Islamist extremism. It is important for voters to know where their representatives stand on this important issue.

We encourage readers to contact their representatives and Senators and ask them for a position statement. Please forward any official statement to the Clarion Project so we can update readers on where they stand on the Muslim Brotherhood. A statement of opposition is just as important as a statement of support.

Of particular interest are the members of Congress who are assigned to the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Below is a table of those who sit on those committees and have yet to take a position:

House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration & Border Security	Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Ken Buck (R-CO)	Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Chairman	John Barrasso (R-WY)
Luis Gutirrez (D-IL)	Ben Cardin (D-MD); Ranking Member
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)	Christopher Coons (D-DE)
Raul Labrador (R-ID), Vice Chairman	Bob Corker (R-TN); Chairman
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)	Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR)	Cory Gardner (R-CO)
John Ratcliffe (R-TX)	Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
	Ron Johnson (R-WI)
	Tim Kaine (D-VA)
	Edward Markey (D-WA)
	Bob Menendez (D-NJ)
	Chris Murphy (D-CT)
	Rand Paul (R-KY)
	David Perdue (R-GA)
	James Risch (R-ID)
	Marco Rubio (R-FL)
	Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
	Tom Udall (D-NM)

RELATED ARTICLES:

Three Americans Kidnapped in Baghdad

Rough & Smooth: Iran Sanctions Lifted; Frees 5 American Prisoners

Iran Captures and Releases U.S. Sailors: the Back Story

Gitmo ‘High-Risk’ Prisoner Released; Vows to Kill Americans

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of CAIR Founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad (right) with Ibrahim Hooper, CAIR’s spokesperson and national communications director. (Photo: © Reuters)

VIDEO: Muslim ‘Rape Culture’ Threatens European Women

January 18, 2016/in Culture War, Featured, National Security, Policy, Politics, Religion, Video/by Clarion Project

New Year’s Eve in Cologne, Germany saw an unprecedented number of sexual assaults against German women. This, of course, is just one example of a trend occurring across Europe after an influx of Middle Eastern and North African refugees.

Vienna Police Chief Gerhard Purstl warned, “Women should in general not go out on the streets at night alone, they should avoid suspicious looking areas and also when in pubs and clubs should only accept drinks from people they know.”

While Purstl’s advice has been met with backlash, mainly from feminists who reject the initial stance that women should need to be more careful, the question remains, why is this happening?

The origin of these exceedingly violent sexual attacks, known as taharrush–gang gropings and rapes–can be traced back to the Egyptian Revolution, which followed the fall of then Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak.

Angie Abdelmonem, a doctoral candidate at Arizona State University, who recently published a study regarding instances of taharrush during the Egyptian Revolution, stated, “Between 2011 and 2013, sexual harassment became common at protests in Tahrir Square, exemplified by a number of highly publicized violent attacks that demonstrate how women’s bodies became objectified and dehumanized during the uprising.”

Egypt has been a hotbed of sexual harassment, usually verbal, for a long time, but something about the uprising and forced resignation of Mubarak sparked the physical and more violent taharrush.

Some analysts believe taharrush to be a product of North-African men, not necessarily Middle-Eastern or Muslim men. It is unclear why this is the case, except for the fact that North Africa, especially Egypt, is home to a patriarchal society that permits or at least to some extent turns a blind eye to sexual harassment against women.

Since Egyptian society refuses to give women independence from men, it presumably makes it easier for women to be viewed as objects instead of people. This, coupled with the destabilization of the Egyptian government, seem to be the most plausible factors that created the type of environment necessary for this particularly violent kind of sexual assault to manifest.

This is just one filmed example of recent sexual harassment of women in Europe:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Syrian Husband Offers Wife’s Rape for Passage to Europe

ISIS May Be Printing Syrian Passports With Seized Machine

ISIS Wants to Carry Out a WMD Attack in Europe

Euro MPs: Don’t Use Border Controls to Fight Terror