U.S. Road To Hell Is Paved With Gun-Grabbing Intentions by Francis Marion

America’s largest retailer, Walmart, is the next to succumb to the anti-gun movement following the high-profile shootings over the past few weeks.

Walmart has decided to remove all “handgun” and “short barreled rifle” ammunition from their shelves in order to focus their sales on ammunition more appropriate for hunting purposes. This should not be a surprise considering the recent push to appease voters in the Democrat primary battleground, along with the relentlessly anti-gun focused media coverage of these killings.

The firearms industry will not suffer as a result of Walmart’s decision. There are plenty of available outlets for purchasing ammunition. The greatest concern for many 2nd Amendment supporters is the level of ignorance in anti-gun circles, from retail stores to the media to politicians.

First and foremost, America’s favorite rifle platform is a highly modular device with hundreds of variations, configurations, and caliber options. So what does Walmart mean by “pistol and short barreled rifle ammunition?”

The AR-15 rifle which is traditionally chambered in 5.56 NATO or 223 Remington rounds has been extended well beyond the ammunition that had been the standard cartridge of the U.S. military and her allies for the past 60 years. In the past 20 years, the AR-15 has been modified to accept more than 50 additional calibers to include popular hunting and defensive pistol cartridges, not to mention the several dozen calibers associated with the larger cousin of the AR-15, the AR-10.

Lastly, hunting cartridges far exceed the performance of small arms cartridges like the 5.56 nato round. For example, one of the most popular hunting calibers, the 30-06, saw military service for seven decades and is still in common use today. The 30-06 cartridge has an effective range double that of most modern small arms cartridges.

All of this means that Walmart’s decision, along with virtually every political proposal, doesn’t truly impact anything more than to put on display the dangerous level of ignorance on the subject.

So where do we go from here?

It is incumbent upon 2nd Amendment supporters to educate those who do not understand the finer points of the gun debate, from the gun terms to the history and meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

We have begun our descent down the slippery slope of citizen disarmament and an infringement on our basic natural rights outlined within our Constitution. As virtue-signaling policies fail to address the greater issues in this country that lead to mass shootings, the woke left will take advantage of the next tragedy to try to grab the next mile of Americans’ rights.

ABOUT FRANCIS MARION

Francis Marion is a nine-year veteran of the U.S. Army, as an Infantryman and Airborne volunteer. He led a squad fighting in the Iraqi and Afghan campaigns. He was wounded during a deployment to Paktika Province in Afghanistan and medically retired in 2016. He is currently transitioning into a medical career while working as a small arms repairmen, firearms instructor and advisor to security professionals.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why the Right to Bear Arms Is an Individual Right

Dumb Arguments About Gun Control

To Promote Gun Control, AOC Just Accused Dan Crenshaw’s Friends of Being Violent Domestic Abusers

Dear Walmart, It’s Time We Start Seeing Other People

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

News Flash: Legally Buying a Gun Isn’t So Easy After All

Earlier this month, an intrepid news reporter for Business Insider decided to see for herself how easy it was to get a gun from Walmart, even as gun control activists were calling on the retail giant to stop selling firearms. She then recounted her experience in an admirably straightforward article.

Spoiler alert: it didn’t work out so well for her or for gun control advocates who hope to convince Americans that guns are just too easy to get.

There’s a whole genre of gun control rhetoric centered around all the things that are supposedly more difficult to get or to do in America than buying a gun.

Barack Obama was a frequent practitioner of this trope, insisting guns were easier to get than computers, books, and even fresh vegetables.

One author went so far as to claim it was easier to buy a gun in America than to take a shower or to find toilet paper in a public bathroom.

Of course, America is a big country, and not everyone has the same experience buying guns from sea to shining sea. In New York City, for example, buying a firearm will take an eligible person many months and hundreds of dollars, apart from the price of the gun itself. In the nation’s capital, you can’t shop for firearms at all, because there are no stocking firearm dealers. And if you want to buy a gun in San Francisco, you’re just plain out of luck, as the local officialdom ran off the last dealer some time ago.

But Hayley Peterson conducted her investigation in Virginia, one of the more straightforward places to buy a gun. Virginia has stricter laws than the U.S. government for firearm purchases. But an eligible person who comes prepared to a gun shop can still hope to fill out a couple of forms, receive a timely answer from the Commonwealth’s “instant check” system, and leave with the firearm at least in the same day, if not considerably sooner.

Private businesses, however, may have their own policies that add additional time and complications to this process, as Ms. Peterson would soon discover.

Ms. Peterson was not being particularly choosy about the gun she wanted to buy. She understood that Walmart does not sell handguns or semi-automatic rifles. Her main criteria, it seems, was to find the most inexpensive gun she could.

Her first hurdle was that Walmart does not advertise its gun sales, and only some of its stores sell guns. In fact, Ms. Peterson learned that neither Walmart’s website nor even the corporate personnel who answered its telephones would provide information on which Walmart stores stock firearms. It took her hours and dozens of calls before she found a location that acknowledged it sold guns onsite.

When Ms. Peterson did find a Walmart stocking guns, the selection was limited. The guns were also locked behind glass and strung together with zips ties and a metal cable, so customers could not handle them without a sales associate’s assistance.

Ms. Peterson was able to inspect a gun on her first trip to Walmart. She did not get to complete her transaction, however, because a manager told her there was no one working that day who was authorized to sell firearms. Only select Walmart employees go through the enhanced vetting and special training necessary to be eligible to sell firearms.

Ms. Peterson returned to the same Walmart store two days later. This time there was an authorized seller on hand.

But before the reporter could even finish the paperwork, the employee had identified a problem. The address on Ms. Peterson’s driver’s license, which she was using as her official form of identification for the purchase, didn’t match her actual home address. Thus, Ms. Peterson would have to provide additional substantiation of her actual address for the transaction to proceed.

That’s the point at which the young reporter decided to abandon her attempt to buy a gun at Walmart.

Her assessment: “Overall, the experience left me with the impression that buying a gun at Walmart is more complicated than I expected, and that Walmart takes gun sales and security pretty seriously.”

Welcome to your first experience with American gun culture, Hayley Peterson. Complexity, security, and taking rules seriously are par for the course.

In fact, law-abiding gun owners have been routinely and patiently jumping through a variety of governmental and private sector hoops to exercise their right to keep and bear arms throughout modern history.

But when gun control proposals focus on the hoops for their own sake, rather than as safeguards against the diversion of guns for nefarious purposes, then it’s time for gun owners to take a stand in favor of their rights. With more and more gun control proponents admitting that what they really want is to keep guns away from everybody, law-abiding or not, and even take away the guns people already own, this is more necessary than ever.

As for Ms. Peterson, she didn’t get her gun, but she did produce an honest and revealing article.

And even we might admit that it’s easier to get a gun than to get honest reporting on firearms out of most of the “mainstream” media.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NASCAR Takes a Hard Left

The Texas Legislature Passed Ten Bills Protecting Your Second Amendment Rights During the 2019 Session. These Measures All Take Effect on September 1.

NRA Statement on Walmart’s Decision to Change Firearms Policy

California: Anti-Gun Legislation Passes Appropriations Committees and Heads to the Floor

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

7 Quotes That Reveal the Racist Origins of Minimum Wage Laws

Progressive economists and intellectuals saw these job losses as a eugenic service to the larger population.


Minimum wage laws are suddenly vogue. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 18 states began 2019 with a new minimum wage. Three states have since passed legislation to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour, a wage floor the House of Representatives is seeking to make the law of the land.

The age-old lesson of Econ 101, that, to quote Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman in 1998, “the higher wage reduces the quantity of labor demanded, and hence leads to unemployment,” is no longer considered rock solid.

In a 2017 article in The Atlantic titled “The Curse of Econ 101,” James Kwak cited basic economic theory as an example of “economism”—what he called the “misleading application of basic lessons from Economics 101.”

Kwak, a professor of law at the University of Connecticut, said the historical record suggests there is “no obvious relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment.”

Even if most economists disagree with Kwak, it’s worth noting that the word “most” wouldn’t have been necessary in this sentence a few decades ago. Today it is.

Many progressive economists, like Kwak, are skeptical of the link between a high minimum wage and unemployment. In this, they differ from their progressive forefathers. As Princeton scholar Thomas C. Leonard noted in a 2005 paper “Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era,” early progressives understood quite well that minimum wage laws cause job losses. They simply saw it as a social benefit, not a social ill.

Leonard, author of Illiberal Reformers, notes that progressive economists and intellectuals saw these job losses as a eugenic service to the larger population. Low-wage workers, particularly those of color, are described in subhuman terms, a reflection of the social Darwinism of the day. Those denied work by minimum wage laws could at least more easily be segregated, sterilized, and put in asylums—since administrators lacked the resources to “chloroform them once and for all.”

Here are seven quotes that reveal how early social reformers viewed the minimum wage and the “unemployable.”

1. “It is much better to enact a minimum-wage law even if it deprives these unfortunates of work. Better that the state should support the inefficient wholly and prevent the multiplication of the breed than subsidize incompetence and unthrift, enabling them to bring forth more of their kind.” – Royal Meeker, Princeton scholar and labor commissioner to Woodrow Wilson, as quoted in Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 25

2. “How to deal with the unemployable?” asked economist Frank Taussig. They “should simply be stamped out.” “We have not reached the stage where we can proceed to chloroform them once and for all; but at least they can be segregated, shut up in refuges and asylums, and prevented from propagating their kind…” – F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, Vol. 1

3. “If the inefficient entrepreneurs would be eliminated [by minimum wages,] so would the ineffective workers. I am not disposed to waste much sympathy upon either class. The elimination of the inefficient is in line with our traditional emphasis on free competition, and also with the spirit and trend of modern social economics. There is no panacea that can ‘save’ the incompetents except at the expense of the normal people. They are a burden on society and on the producers wherever they are.” – A.B. Wolfe, American Economic Review, 1917

4. “Imbecility breeds imbecility as certainly as white hens breed white chickens; and under laissez-faire imbecility is given full chance to breed, and does so in fact at a rate far superior to that of able stocks.” –New Republic editorial, 1916 (most likely written by Herbert Croly)

5. Henry Rogers Seager, a leading progressive economist from Columbia University, argued that worthy workers deserve protection from the “competition of the casual worker and the drifter.” “The operation of the minimum wage requirement would merely extend the definition of defectives to embrace all individuals, who even after having received special training, remain incapable of adequate self-support…..If we are to maintain a race that is to be made up of capable, efficient and independent individuals and family groups we must courageously cut off lines of heredity that have been proved to be undesirable by isolation or sterilization . . . .” – Henry Rogers Seager, Columbia University scholar and future American Economic Association president, in 1913 (quoted from “Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era”)

6. “[Wage] competition has no respect for the superior races,” said University of Wisconsin economist John R. Commons in his 1907 book Races and Immigrants ( p. 151). “The race with lowest necessities displaces others.”

7. “[The minimum wage will] protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese.” – Arthur Holcombe of Harvard University, a member of the Massachusetts Minimum Wage Commission, speaking approvingly of Australia’s minimum wage legislation in 1912 (quoted from “Eugenics and Economics in the Progressive Era”)

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Washington Times. 

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How We Can Safeguard Our Election Process

In the freest nation in the world, our system of government and our very liberty depend on free and fair elections. Whether they’re selecting a mayor or the president of the United States, every American must be able to trust the process, or the democratic system itself breaks down.

When someone commits voter fraud, the process is no longer fair, everyone’s vote gets diluted, and in some cases, election results are changed.

Contrary to the claims of many on the left, voter fraud is a very real problem. As the Supreme Court noted when it upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, flagrant examples of voter fraud have been documented throughout this nation’s history.

The National Commission on Federal Election Reform has said that in many close elections, fraud can absolutely change the outcome. Cases of local elections getting overturned because of fraud have occurred in New Jersey, Indiana, and other states.

Although hundreds of people have been convicted in recent years, voter fraud often goes undetected. And even when it’s discovered, overburdened prosecutors rarely prioritize these cases.

Fraudsters can steal votes and change election outcomes in several ways, including: voting in someone else’s name, registering in multiple locations to vote multiple times in the same election, voting even though they’re not eligible because they’re felons or noncitizens, or paying or intimidating people to vote for certain candidates.

Unfortunately, many on the left are attempting to make election fraud easier by fighting laws that require an ID to vote. They’ve pushed to get noncitizens and jailed inmates to vote. And they’ve sued states that have tried to purge their voter rolls of people registered in multiple states.

How can we fix the problem?

Since states control much of the electoral process, they must pass laws requiring government-issued IDs to vote. That ensures people aren’t stealing others’ identities and their right to vote.

States should join voter registration cross-check programs to identify voters registered in multiple places. One cross-check program has identified hundreds of thousands of potential duplicate registrations across 30 states as well as evidence of illegal double voting.

States should also compare voter rolls with government records to identify convicted felons and noncitizens who should be removed from the rolls. And the federal government should cooperate with these efforts and make Department of Homeland Security and other databases available to state officials.

Preserving this great experiment that is America depends on having free and fair elections where all Americans can trust the process and the results.

Something as critical as election integrity can’t be left to a simple honor system. One of the most important roles of government is to safeguard the electoral process and ensure that every voter’s right to cast a ballot is protected. That not only protects our right to vote; that’s how we protect the future of our very republic.

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

How LGBTQ Groups Are Quietly Dismantling Norms, Changing Education

Virtually every week, there seems to be another issue that preoccupies the country.

But while our attention is focused on President Donald Trump, Google, Charlottesville, Russia, impeachment, Jeffrey Epstein, the next elections, racism, a trade war with China, the #MeToo movement, or something else, LGBTQ organizations are quietly going about their work dismantling ethical norms, making a mockery of education, ruining innocent people’s lives, and destroying children’s innocence.

If you think this is overstated, here are some examples:

The LGBTQ Dismantling of Women’s Sports

Last month, a transgender weightlifter won multiple gold medals at the 2019 Pacific Games in Samoa. Laurel Hubbard of New Zealand won two gold medals and a silver in the three heavyweight categories for women weighing more than 87 kilograms, or 192 pounds. Hubbard is physically male.

Last year, two biologically male sophomores at different Connecticut high schools competed in the female division of the state open track and field competition. They came in first and second place in the 100- and 200-meter dashes.

Because the Western world cowers before LGBTQ demands, no matter how unfair they are to women athletes, men who deem themselves female must be allowed to compete against women. They almost always win.

The Dismantling of Male and Female—Even at Birth

As reported by the Associated Press: “Parents also can choose (gender) ‘X’ for newborns. New York City is joining California, Oregon, and Washington state in allowing an undesignated gender option on birth certificates. A similar provision takes effect in New Jersey in February.”

What percentage of Americans believe children are lucky if born to parents who will not identify them at birth as male or female? On the other hand, how many of us think such parents are engaged in a form of child abuse?

The Dismantling of Children’s Innocence and Parental Authority

The Associated Press also recently reported that “California has overhauled its sex education guidance for public school teachers, encouraging them to talk about gender identity with kindergartners.”

Tatyana Dzyubak, an elementary school teacher in the Sacramento area, objected: “I shouldn’t be teaching that stuff. That’s for parents to do.”

But parents and parental authority have always been a thorn in the side of totalitarian movements. Therefore, dismantling parental authority is one of the primary goals of the left, of which LGBTQ organizations are a major component.

Libraries in major urban centers now feature Drag Queen Story Hour—drag queens reading stories to preschool-age children. (Read, for example, the laudatory New York Times article “Drag Queen Story Hour Puts the Rainbow in Reading” from May 19, 2017.)

A few weeks ago, the popular actor and TV host Mario Lopez told Candace Owens (Full disclosure: Her podcast is produced by PragerU):

If you’re 3 years old and you’re saying you’re feeling a certain way or you think you’re a boy or a girl, whatever the case may be, I just think it’s dangerous as a parent to make that determination then: ‘OK, well, then you’re going to be a boy or a girl,’ whatever the case may be. … I think parents need to allow their kids to be kids, but at the same time, you gotta be the adult in the situation.

For sensibly and respectfully saying what any loving parent of a 3-year-old should say, he was so forcefully condemned by GLAAD and PFLAG, two of the biggest LGBTQ organizations, that, knowing his livelihood was on the line, he immediately recanted.

In the style of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, he “recanted” everything he said and acknowledged how much he still has to learn about parents allowing 3-year-olds to determine their gender.

The Dismantling of Educational Norms

CNN reported last week:

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed into law a bill that ensures the contributions of LGBTQ people are taught in public schools. …

[The bill states] ‘In public schools only, the teaching of history shall include a study of the roles and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people in the history of this country and this State.’

Equality Illinois, the state’s largest LGBTQ civil rights advocacy organization, supported the bill and said the curriculum can have a ‘positive effect on students’ self-image and make their peers more accepting.’

Once the purpose of teaching history is changed from teaching what happened to “having a positive effect on students’ self-image,” history is no longer about what happened; it is propaganda. But rewriting history is not a problem for the left.

As a famous Soviet dissident joke put it: “In the Soviet Union, the future is known; it’s the past that is always changing.”

I note almost every day that truth is a liberal value and a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. This is just one more example.

The Dismantling of Reality

David Zirin, sports editor of The Nation: “There is another argument against allowing trans athletes to compete with cis-gender athletes that suggests that their presence hurts cis-women and cis-girls. But this line of thought doesn’t acknowledge that trans women are in fact women” (italics added).

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., in a letter to USA Powerlifting: “The myth that trans women have a ‘direct competitive advantage’ is not supported by medical science.”

Sunu Chandy of the National Women’s Law Center: “There’s no research to support the claim that allowing trans athletes to play on teams that fit their gender identity will create a competitive imbalance.”

How can these people say such lies? Because lying is not an issue when truth is not a value.

LGBTQ organizations care about lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders as much as communists cared about workers. They use them as a cover for their real agenda: dismantling civilization as we know it.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Dennis Prager is a columnist for The Daily Signal, nationally syndicated radio host, and creator of PragerU. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

LGBT History Effort Is An Assault On Parental Rights

Preferred Pronouns and More: What a Mom Saw at Her Son’s College Orientation

President of Brazil to Remove LGBT Influence from Public Schools

Biological Male “Jessica” Yaniv Misses Pool Party Because He Forgot His Tampons

LGBT Site Celebrates Middle-Aged Man’s “Relationship” With 16-Year-Old Boy


Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

ICE Field Operation Helps American Workers

When will compassion apply to beleaguered Americans?

On August 7, 2019 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) issued a press release that announced, ICE executes federal search warrants at multiple Mississippi locations.  Fox News also reported on that massive field operation in its report, ICE raids on Mississippi food processing plants result in 680 arrests.

The mainstream media, in reporting on the ICE field operation, immediately sought to paint the most disturbing picture it could about the nature of the ICE operation and along the way, the children of illegal aliens who had been arrested were interviewed on camera, hysterically crying that they wanted their mother/father or both to come home to take care of them.

However, I doubt the media will show the lines of American workers lining up to take the jobs that have been liberated by the ICE agents.

While it is admittedly heart-wrenching to see a child in distress, it is remarkable that the media totally ignores that children are frequently separated from the parents whenever their parents are arrested for a wide spectrum of violations of law that include administrative motor vehicle violations.

Every year as the dreaded “Tax Day” approaches, the IRS frequently arrests tax cheats and fraudsters and publicizes their law enforcement actions to remind tax payers that they should not defraud the IRS.  This is a clear tactic of intimidation that creates a “climate of fear.”  Yet Nancy Pelosi who frequently lambasted immigration law enforcement efforts for creating such a climate of fear, I have never seen her or any other politician complaining about the tactics of the IRS.

When taxpayers are arrested for not paying their taxes, it is likely that their children will have to be cared for by other family members, friends of the family or, as a last resort, child welfare.

However, when was the last time you saw a reporter interview a child who parent was carted off by the IRS or other law enforcement agency?

As a former INS special agent, my goal today is to set the record straight.

I was an INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) special agent for 26 of my 30 year career with the INS.  Having rotated through all of the squads within the Investigations Branch of the New York District Office I participate in many similar “raids” to locate and arrest aliens working illegally in the United States.  Therefore my comments are not based on speculation but real-world experiences.

To begin with, since the passage of the massive immigration amnesty legislation in 1986 known as IRCA (Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986) employers who can be shown to have knowingly hired illegal aliens can be fined and even criminally prosecuted for such hiring practices.  This is important because until passage of IRCA employers were essentially shielded from any adverse consequences for hiring illegal aliens unless they were involved in smuggling such aliens into the United States and/or harboring them.

Employers could also be punished for failing to meet labor standards or committing tax fraud, but there were no penalties for knowingly hiring illegal aliens.  Most illegal aliens violate our immigration laws to work illegally and it was believed that punishing unscrupulous employers who intentionally hire exploitable illegal aliens would deter their crooked hiring practices, thereby turning off the “jobs magnet.”

Of course there has always been an abject lack of immigration law enforcement personnel for this to work effectively.

Prior to World War II the Labor Department bore the primary responsibility for enforcing and administering our immigration laws.  The concern was that illegal alien workers would displace American workers and, adversely impact wages and working conditions for American workers.

That mission is now one of many assumed by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

I began my career with the INS as an Immigration Inspector assigned to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.  While we were concerned about preventing fugitives, criminals and spies from entering the United States and worked closely with other federal as well as state and local law enforcement agencies, our most frequent concern was that aliens we admitted might disappear and take jobs that they were not authorized to take.

You would imagine that all Americans would be happy that our goal as immigration law enforcement agents was to protect the jobs and wages of American and lawful immigrant workers and that all politicians from both parties would support that vital mission.

But today, we live in a time that only George Orwell could have predicted where up is down and good is evil!

This past April I wrote an article about another massive field operation to locate and apprehend aliens working illegally while also seeking to punish the employer, Ice Field Operation Liberates Hundreds Of Jobs.  In that article I noted that such interior enforcement of our  immigration laws helps American workers.

The meatpacking industry used to provide decent-paying jobs for Americans.  The work was always filthy and dangerous but the wages were essentially commensurate with the nature of those jobs.  In the mid 1980s such workers generally earned roughly $20 per hour.

Today those jobs frequently pay approximately half that amount, but when taking inflation into account, in reality, the purchasing power that the wages provide is far less than half of what the wages had been before illegal aliens flooded into that industry.

Wikipedia posted an insightful article under the title, Labor rights in American meatpacking industry.  This excerpt was published under the heading of “Meatpacker Demographics”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2000, 148,100 people worked in meatpacking and over 250,000 worked in poultry processing. Despite the growth of the meat production industry, slaughterhouse workers’ wages have been decreasing rapidly. Slaughterhouse workers’ wages were historically higher than the average manufacturing wage. This trend reversed in 1983 when slaughterhouse worker wages fell below the average manufacturing wage. By 2002, slaughterhouse workers’ wages were 24% below the average manufacturing wage. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2006, the median wage for slaughterhouse workers was $10.43 per hour which comes out to $21,690 per year.

Isn’t it remarkable that the Democrats insist that they want to establish a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour today while years ago workers in slaughterhouses were earning more than $20.00 per hour until illegal aliens displaced American workers.  Yet today the Democrats want to import an endless supply of exploitable illegal alien workers, figuratively and literally, at the expense of hardworking American and lawful immigrant workers.

Frequently illegal aliens who take jobs in the United States have violate more than our immigration laws.  Many such aliens also have committed identity theft, hardly a “victimless crime” and some of these aliens may also have criminal histories and may be fugitives in their home countries.

As an INS special agent I frequently arrested aliens from countries around the world who we found working illegally in various jobs who had extensive criminal backgrounds.  This placed their coworkers at risk.

However, one case in particular stands out.  I remember in the early 1980’s encountering a man in his mid-thirties from Honduras working at a glass factory in Brooklyn.  He claimed that he had become a naturalized United States citizen.  I took down his name, date of birth and other relevant information and his boss approached me and told me that this guy had worked for him for a few years and was extremely trust worthy- so much so that he had given him the keys to the factory so that he could open the factory if he was late and lock up at night if he had to leave early.

I checked in with my office but they could find no record of this individual.  The only solution was to bring him down to our office.  It turned out that he was a citizen of Honduras but that he had not only lied about his name and date of birth but he had left out some additional information.  He had pleaded guilty to homicide and had been sentenced to jail time.  Upon his release he had been deported from the United States, only to return illegally.  Because of his criminal conviction he was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful reentry after deportation and escaped from a federal penitentiary where he was serving his sentence.

You should have seen the look on his employer’s face when I briefed him on his “loyal employee’s” extensive criminal “resume!”

If you believe that employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens are being compassionate, then you would likely believe that the person who puts cheese on a mousetrap is simply trying to feed hungry mice!

Employers who intentionally hire illegal aliens are not demonstrating compassion but greed.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Church World Service on the Sanctuary Bandwagon; Cut Their Federal Funding!

Everyday Americans Shoulder The Burden Of The Immigration Crisis

What Democrats Say Happens At The Border Vs. What Actually Happens

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Tell Your U.S. Senators and Representative to Oppose Gun Control

In the wake of two recent criminal mass attacks, a number of gun control proposals have begun to circulate in our nation’s capital. None of these proposals would have prevented either of last weekend’s tragedies, but they all would restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

“Universal” Background Checks Won’t Stop Mass Shootings

Every perpetrator of high-profile mass shootings has either passed a background check or acquired a firearm in a way that would be unaffected by a universal background check (either through theft or the use of a “straw purchaser”).

“Universal” Background Checks Do Not Stop Criminals

According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), 75 percent of criminals in state and federal prison who had possessed a firearm during their offense acquired the firearm through theft, “Off the street/underground market,” or “from a family member or friend, or as a gift.” Less than one percent got firearms from dealers or non-dealers at gun shows.

Criminals defeat the background check system by getting guns through straw purchasers. ATF has reported, “[t]he most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent….”

In a 2018 study, researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health and the UC Davis School of Medicine found that comprehensive background checks and prohibitions based on violent misdemeanors “were not associated with changes in firearm suicide or homicide.”

“Universal” Background Checks Are Not as Universally Popular as Advocates Claim

Despite claims of the near universal popularity of “universal” background checks, these proposals have not been nearly as popular as claimed when presented to voters. In 2016, Maine and Nevada both had “universal” background check initiatives on the ballot.

Despite being outspent by Bloomberg-backed gun control groups by $5.3 million to $1.2 million, Mainers defeated the initiative by 3.6 percentage points.

In Nevada, where Bloomberg-backed groups spent almost $19 million in support of the initiative versus less than seven million spent against, the initiative passed by less than one percentage point.

Banning “Assault Weapons” Isn’t the Answer Either

FBI data shows that four times as many individuals are killed with “knives or cutting instruments,” than with rifles of any kind. The data also shows that rifles were listed as being used in fewer homicides than “blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)” or “personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.).”

A 1997 Department of Justice-funded study of the 1994 “assault weapons” ban determined that “At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.”

A 2004 follow-up Department of Justice-funded study determined that “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” Presented with the overwhelming evidence of the ban’s inefficacy, Congress did not renew it.

In 2018, a RAND Corporation study found no conclusive evidence that such bans have an effect on mass shootings or violent crime.

The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. The immense popularity of the AR-15 has come about at a time when Americans cite self-defense as their primary reason for owning a gun.

The effectiveness of the commonly-owned semi-automatic rifle in defense of self and others was illustrated in 2017 during an attack on a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas. Upon learning of the attack, resident Stephen Willeford retrieved his AR-15 rifle and shot and wounded the gunman. Since 2017, other Armed Citizens have used commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to thwart an armed robbery in Texas, stop a trio of home invaders in Oklahoma, and halt a stabbing attack in Illinois.

Now Is the Time To Act

Please contact your Senators and Representative TODAY and urge them to oppose ineffective gun control measures that won’t make us any safer but will infringe on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. You can use this link to send them an email or call the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bill Clinton Touts Failed Gun Ban With Bogus Info

“Universal” Background Checks Aren’t as Universally Popular as You’ve Been Led to Believe

Kamala Harris and Her Perplexing Anti-Gun Ideas

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — The Pope’s New World Order

Careful what you wish for, Holy Father.

TRANSCRIPT

It’s a little hard to believe actually, but faithful Catholics are growing more and more concerned that Pope Francis’ Vatican is on some kind of tear to advance globalism, and there’s not only a lot of evidence to support the notion, there is, at the same time, not a lot of evidence to dispute the idea.

Globalism is, in short, a governing system whereby individual nations cede, or hand over, some of their national sovereignty to a kind of collective government.

So by definition, globalism and nationalism are pretty much in opposition. And faithful Catholics should not let their eyes glaze over on this, but remain, at least for the time being, up at the 60,000-foot level.

This whole issue is being played out in U.S. politics right now among the Democrats, and so naturally, the U.S. bishops have gotten involved in all this as well.

Here is the extremely critical gigantic point to remember: Globalism would usher in one supranational governing authority that would have complete control as though every current nation were just a single state in the worldwide nation.

If any Catholic — orthodox, or even dissenting — can’t see the immediate theological, political and cultural problems with that, then they have no pulse, brain or both.

The globalists have been running wild for the past few decades, extolling what they say are the “advantages” of globalism. Indeed, the very concept of the European Union is a regionalized stab at globalism, despite its difficulties.

Pope Francis and his globalist cheerleader crowd in Rome are posturing that the very foundational concept of individual nations are now little else than nostalgic entities which have become overrun by giant transnational corporations.

To carry the thought further, these corporations are all greedy, exploit the poor of the earth, poison the environment and are able to get away with all of it because they get to hide behind and operate through the laws of individual nations.

So for the Pope, there is only one solution to all this: abolish nations, make one-world government and reign in these greedy businesses with fines, penalties and jail time if necessary.

So, some problems:

First, this is little else than high-minded-sounding wealth redistribution, a favorite dream of political liberals — remember the encounter between Obama and Joe the Plumber on the 2008 campaign trail.

Obama and liberals are all about taking the money of industrious hard workers and giving it to people who don’t work hard or aren’t as industrious — they call that “spreading the wealth.”

Of course, Obama, Hillary and the 240,000 other Democrats running for president this year never include their own wealth in that equation; it’s just your wealth that needs to be spread around.

Second, the entire notion of such a one-world government is the ideal of Marxist communism. Even though Obama said spread the wealth, he was not the first guy with the idea. Karl Marx was.

Third, the key question: Exactly who would be the ruling class making the new laws to impose on the entire human race, and, more to the point, what if the “people” wanted to throw off this one-world government down the road, what mechanism would be in place?

Fourth, what laws precisely would be imposed, say, for example, about abortion, sodomite marriage, taxation, private property and so on?

Fifth, and when it comes to the specific area of religion, if there is one world governing body, then it stands to reason that there would have to, eventually, be one world religion — or no world religion.

Sixth, the Vatican City state is its own national sovereignty. What would happen to it as it would be absorbed into the great universal governmental bureaucratic collective?

Seventh, these liberal ideas are all the rage and have been in the West for decades, and political, theological and social atheists have sought furiously to destroy Catholic-established Western civilization. But can anyone seriously think that the Chinese Communists are going to just hand over their power to “the people”? The Chinese Commies kill people who propose those ideas.

A few days ago, in his bid to dress up one-world government, Pope Francis suggested that the very concept of nationalism had within itself “echoes of Hitler.” Them there are fightin’ words.

Their purpose is to re-awaken in Europeans the fear of National Socialism and that we should run away from that as fast as our little liberal, right-thinking feet can carry us. It’s practically a scare tactic.

So the supranational question for the supranational proposal. Hitler and company of the Third Reich were all about world domination.

That they were able to use an immoral appeal to the concept of nationalism as a springboard to world domination should be thought of.

The goal was world domination — period. So to make an appeal to the concept of nationalism as a kind of emotional blackmail to usher in what would, in the end, be world domination, is either massively uninformed or incredibly disingenuous.

And for the record, it was American nationalism during World War II — all our wealth and resources and industrial might — that proved to be the decisive factor in crushing the Nazis and then the Japanese warlords; so nationalism isn’t a bad thing after all.

Throughout history, nations have oftentimes worked as a kind of counter-balance to each other. Whether in warfare or trade or politics — whatever arena — the friction between individual national interests does oftentimes resort in overall good, even if people do tend to dwell on friction more than the good — thoughts of the space race of the 1960s between the United States and the Soviet Union come to mind.

But the discerning Catholic should keep this in mind: None of this is happening in a vacuum. It has invaded and seized control of an entire political party in the United States — guess which one.

Every major candidate for that party’s upcoming nomination has touted this concept either explicitly or in their foundational principles.

To wit, open borders; canceling all — yep, every single private health insurance plan; using U.S. tax dollars to pay for health care for illegal immigrants; using U.S. tax dollars to pay for education for illegal immigrants.

And mind you, much of that is already in place as we speak, they just want to formalize it.

Ignoring borders and border security isn’t really about economics and helping the poor, immigrants and asylum seekers. It’s really about destroying national sovereignty — which is why Pope Francis keeps bashing the idea of a wall and slamming any politically conservative American he can.

However, something the Holy Father should stop and consider as he makes these ideological pronouncements from behind the safety of his own Vatican walls, a one-world government, once installed, would very likely have high on its list the pulling down of those same walls surrounding the city-state of the Vatican.

Limousine liberals might have in mind some Marxist utopia, but the true author behind such a notion only has one goal in mind: the obliteration of the Catholic Church.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Voter ID. Rep. Bob Barr: Speech Trump Needs to Make. Red Flag bills.

GUESTS:

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues – including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform — as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. His analysis and commentary have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Politico, Human Events, National Review Online and Townhall. Along with John Fund, he is the co-author of Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk and Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department

TOPICVoter ID Opponents Lose Again!!

Congressman Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the House of Representatives. He now practices law in Atlanta, Georgia and is Chairman of Liberty Guard a non-profit, pro-liberty organization. He also heads the Law Enforcement Education Foundation and a consulting firm, Liberty Strategies.

TOPICThe Follow-up Speech Trump Needs to Make

Rob Natelson has divided his professional life between the private for-profit sector, the private non-profit sector, and state and local government. A former law professor and nationally known constitutional scholar, he is currently a self-employed consultant who serves as senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver.

TOPICRed Flag bills: Attack on the Bill of Rights!!

Nazism returns: European Union to put warning labels on Jewish-made products

Europe has gone down this road before. It didn’t end well. This time, its principal motivator is the continent’s rapidly growing Muslim population, as well as its endless infatuation with an increasingly anti-Semitic Left.

Europe Poised to Put Warning Labels on Jewish-Made Products,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, August 9, 2019:

The European Union is poised to mandate that Israeli products made in contested territories carry consumer warning labels, a decision that could trigger American anti-boycott laws and open up what legal experts describe as a “Pandora’s box” of litigation, according to multiple sources involved in the legal dispute who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon.

The Advocate General of the European Court of Justice recently issued non-binding opinion arguing that EU law requires Israeli-made products to be labeled as coming from “settlements” and “Israeli colonies.”

The decision was seen as a major win for supporters of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS, which seeks to wage economic warfare on Israel and its citizens. Pro-Israel activists, as well as the Jewish businesses involved in the legal dispute, see the decision as an ominous warning sign that they say is reminiscent of Holocaust-era boycotts of Jewish businesses.

With the EU court’s 15 judge panel now poised to issue its own binding judgment in the case, legal experts are warning that a potential decision mandating such labeling could pave the way for goods from any disputed territory to receive such treatment. The decision also could trigger U.S. anti-boycott laws meant to stop Israeli-made goods from being singled out for unfair treatment on the international market….

The legal dispute first began after France passed a law mandating that products made in the West Bank territory of Israel be labeled as coming from an “Israeli colony,” a label not applied to any other products across the globe.

The term “Israeli colony” is not legally required to be applied under EU law and was seen as overly burdensome by Israeli business leaders.

Following the French decision, the Israeli Psagot winery filed a lawsuit alleging unlawful discrimination against Jewish companies. That lawsuit eventually made its way to Europe’s highest court, the European Court of Justice.

That court now appears poised to affirm the advocate general’s opinion mandating that Israeli goods be labeled in a fashion that opponents say is unfair and anti-Semitic in nature….

RELATED ARTICLES:

The New York Times, Aftenposten, Robert Spencer, Richard Spencer, and journalistic standards in 2019

NY imam active in interfaith work distributes pro-jihad propaganda on the side

Missouri: Muslim migrant gets five years prison dawah for providing support to jihad terrorists

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: It’s in writing. Pedophilia is a part of the postmodern agenda…

Posted by Eeyore

Beyond the main point of the signatures of the founders and main thinkers of the French, postmodern philosophers all demanding that pedophilia be made legal, these guys make a lot of good points.

Also, it is food for thought about how similar the push to make little boys into drag queen strippers for adult men mirrors Afghan Muslim culture.

H/T Xanthippa

Democrats Fiddle While Iran Burns

“A serious annual defense budget will have to wait.”Andrew E. Harrod, Ph.D.


Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) forces seized the British oil tanker Stena Impero on July 19, an outrage that follows Iran’s June 13 attacks on two oil tankers and the June 20 downing of an American drone. Yet rather than focusing on an increasingly volatile Iran, congressional Democrats are more interested in political gamesmanship than national security when dealing with the defense budget.

Cornered by international sanctions, Iran is lashing out with escalating viciousness, as ongoing economic turmoil has truly made both people and government desperate. This has culminated in the regime’s most recent proclamation of capturing 17 “U.S. spies.” Likely untrue, this claim illustrates how Iran’s hunger for conflict threatens American national security.

Accordingly, President Donald Trump correctly announced July 22 that the United States is bracing for the “absolute worst” with Iran. He already came to the brink of an airstrike against Iran following Iran’s destruction of the American drone in international airspace. Concern over Iranian casualties caused him to abort the mission at the very last minute.

While Trump’s administration is wisely taking seriously the magnitude of Iran’s dangers, on July 12 House Democrats passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the Department of Defense’s (DoD) annual budget, by strict party-line vote, with not one Republican among 220 congressional supporters. Unsurprisingly, the legislation is a transparently partisan piece of political theater.

The House NDAA amalgamates progressive political amendments that have little, if anything, to do with protecting America from serious national security threats like those posed by Iran. Various provisions regard renewable energy mandates, LGBT defense hiring practices, and other defense-unrelated line items. Where the bill does address national security, the proposal seems more apt to spite Trump than actually keep Americans safe. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), for example, sponsored an amendment that would block Trump from striking Iran military.

While international perils escalate, the House NDAA also hamstrings DoD programs with slashing budget cuts to multiple national security initiatives. The United States Air Force’s (USAF) Next Generation Air Dominance program lost $500 million, a whopping 50-percent budget reduction. Cuts of this magnitude would devastate the program, leading to the cancellation of critical new aerospace technology and substantial production timeline delays.

And the damage does not end there. The bill would also slice $413 million from the Missile Defense Agency and thus limit the agency’s ability to combat potential threats to the homeland. Overall, the NDAA provides $17 billion less than requested by the Trump administration.

Even worse, crony capitalism litters the NDAA. Perhaps most controversially, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith squeezed into the bill his very own $500 million “SpaceX earmark.” This notorious giveaway to an aerospace company rewards an all-too-frequent Smith political donor.

In addition to cutting an enormous check to a partisan ally, Smith’s provision also restructures USAF’s National Security Space Launch program to SpaceX’s clear advantage. The bill would force USAF to reopen the program’s government contracts contest, allowing private companies more opportunities to compete. USAF considers this boon for SpaceX, a loser in initial competitions, a national security disaster, as Smith’s political interests would disrupt meticulous USAF planning, throwing the entire program’s structure into chaos.

Democrats have instigated this politically frustrating situation while Iran’s increased aggression against the West warns that the American military needs sufficient resources to combat any and all potential threats. House Democrats are more interested in playing domestic politics with Trump, irrespective of strategic consequences beyond the water’s edge, rather than assuring America’s security on the world stage. Such congressional leaders might prefer to follow the late Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill in thinking that “all politics is local. Iran’s theocratic ayatollahs have other plans, unconstrained by lobbying constituencies.”

The House NDAA is dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled Senate, and, for good measure, the White House has threatened to veto the legislation if brought to the president’s desk. This overwhelmingly partisan legislation delivers ample political pork but fails to secure America’s common defense. Now, Senate Republicans face the vital responsibility of crafting an NDAA worthy of America’s defense.

ABOUT ANDREW E. HARROD, PH.D.

Andrew E. Harrod holds a Ph.D. from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a J.D. from George Washington University Law School. He is a fellow with the Lawfare Project, an organization combating the misuse of human rights law against Western societies, and has written over 450 articles in print and online at outlets like the Algemeiner, The American Spectator, American Thinker, Breitbart, the Investigative Project on Terrorism, Jihad Watch, and the Washington Times. This article was cross-posted from The American Spectator.

RELATED ARTICLES:

In 5 States, 1 in 5 Prisoners are Muslim

Islamic Republic of Iran arrests 70 cyclists for not wearing hijab

CNN’s Islamic terror fan Reza Aslan says all Trump supporters are terror supporters

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

How the 2020 Democratic Primary has turned into a Socialist Circus

Americans have now had four nights of debates from those 20+ candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president. The Democrats during the July 31st debate began eating one another based upon their records. They began calling each other racists.

Watch this Kamala Harris, Joe Biden and Tulsi Gabbard exchange:

What have the people learned from these debates?

Perhaps it is useful to look back at what David Axelrod said on CNN after the first round of debates:

It does seem as if you’re running for president that you ought to take into consideration what the country wants. And the fact is large numbers of people oppose the Medicare for All proposal if it replaces private insurance. We’ve seen it in poll after poll, a large number of people in this country do not believe the border should be decriminalized. A large number of people in did country don’t believe that undocumented immigrants should qualify for public [aid]…

What Doesn’t America Want?

What America doesn’t want is what has now become a Socialist Circus of policies which include:

  1. Giving free stuff to illegals,
  2. Calling everyone a racist who disagrees with you,
  3. Open borders,
  4. Higher taxes,
  5. Fewer jobs,
  6. More and more government control,
  7. No more fossil fuels?!
  8. Socialist Kool-Aid

What Do Americans Want?

Conservative Review reported the following:

On Monday, Heritage Action for America released the results of three different polls conducted by two different research firms in March and June. What do the numbers say? Nothing any Democrat charged with actually winning a general election after this far-left purity contest of a primary will want to hear.

The first poll, conducted among 1,200 likely voters in June with a margin of error of 2.83 percent, found:

  • 70 percent of voters, including 65 percent of swing-state voters, oppose the creation of a government run health care system like Medicare for All.
  • Independent voters think skills are are more important factor for legal immigration than family ties.
  • A plurality of Democrats, Republicans, and independents think the overuse of social services is the biggest challenge associated with illegal immigration (which is really bad news for the people who raised their hands to pay for illegal aliens’ health care).
  • 79 percent of respondents (including a majority of Democrats) said they believe that political correctness is a problem.
  • A 45 percent plurality of Democrats, Republicans, and independents think that abortion should be “illegal in most cases” with “some exceptions.”
  • 76 percent of voters said that doctors should be required to provide health care to abortion survivors.
  • 62 percent of respondents don’t think biological males should be allowed to identify as female to play on sports teams at school.
  • 30 percent of Democrats and 56 percent of independents surveyed think that the Democratic party has become too extreme, with 57 percent of respondents overall agreeing.

A separate “swing state survey,” which was conducted among 1,800 likely voters across the battleground states of Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Maine, and Pennsylvania later in June with a margin of error of 2.31 percent, found:

  • 63 percent of respondents said the border crisis is a national emergency.
  • 65 percent of respondents oppose getting rid of private health insurance to create a government-run system, including 40 percent of Democrats.
  • 65 percent of respondents in those states agree that “Socialism is a bad economic system that leads to bigger government, less freedom, worse economic conditions, and more welfare dependency.”
  • A majority of independents agreed that they “can no longer support the national Democratic Party because they have become too liberal in recent years by supporting radical ideas.”

The candidates for the Democratic nomination will have to change their tune or lose big in 2020.

As former President Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy stupid.” As David Axelrod said, “It does seem as if you’re running for president that you ought to take into consideration what the country wants.”

President Trump simply needs to sit back and watch. He will continue to tweet, he will continue to listen to what the people want, he will continue to grow the American economy, he will continue to put American interests first and he will continue to lead the nation into prosperity for all.

Can’t wait to see the first debate between President Trump and the Democratic Party nominee.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump, Baltimore, and the Diminishing Potency of the ‘Race Card’

Two Nights of Three-Ring Debates

‘Fixing’ Our Democracy Would Only Make Matters Worse

Candidates Sell Socialist-Flavored Kool-Aid at Debate

Joe Biden Becomes The Left’s Punching Bag During Second CNN Debate

Protesters Interrupt Booker, De Blasio At CNN Debate To Call For NYC Cop To Be Fired

Biden And Castro Spar Over Border Decriminalization

RELATED PODCAST: CNS News’s Terry Jeffrey Provides Analysis of the Democratic Presidential Debate

The Humanitarian Hoax of Islamic Zakat: Killing America With Kindness

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Barack Obama’s infamous June 2009 “New Beginnings” Cairo speech laid the groundwork for eight years of pro-Islamic policies at the expense of Judeo-Christian America. One of Obama’s least understood and most destructive promises made in Cairo involved Islamic terror financing disguised as charitable giving and humanitarian relief. This is how it works.

There are Five Pillars of Islam that govern Muslim life. They are acknowledged, obligatory, and practiced by Muslims worldwide:

1. Shahada – the profession of faith
2. Salat – five times a day prayer
3. Zakat – charitable giving
4. Sawm – fasting
5. Hajj – pilgrimage to Mecca

Zakat, the Third Pillar of Islam, requires Muslims to deduct a portion of their income to support the Islamic community. It is a religious obligation, a mandatory charitable contribution or tax, usually about 2.5% of an individual’s income. Zakat sounds familiar and unthreatening like traditional tithing to churches, synagogues, and temples paid by Christians, Jews, and Buddhists around the world.

On June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Obama exploited that familiarity and promised the Muslim world he would make zakat easier for American Muslims saying, “Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.” So, what is the problem?

Zakat is not charitable giving like traditional charitable giving in other religions. In 2009 Obama knew that zakat was being used to finance Islamic terrorism. WHAT?? Obama knew? Let’s examine the chronological dates to confirm what Obama knew and when he knew it.

In August of 2004, Robert Mueller’s FBI had already discovered the infamous 1991 Muslim Brotherhood “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North Over North America.” The document was used as evidence in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial. The Memorandum, is the Brotherhood’s manifesto to settle America and make it Muslim. The Muslim Brotherhood is a multi-national organization and parent company of the terrorist group Hamas.

On July 23, 2007 the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development and seven principal individuals went on trial charged with:

  • 12 counts of providing material support and resources to a designated foreign terrorist organization – Hamas
  • 13 counts of money laundering
  • 13 counts of breaching the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) which prohibits transactions that threaten American national security

On October 22, 2007 a mistrial was declared because the jury had been unable to deliver unanimous verdicts on most of the counts. The government streamlined its presentation and retried the case proving that the Holy Land Foundation was a Hamas funder fully controlled by Hamas, and that the principals knew the money they raised in the United States was being used to finance Hamas.

On November 24, 2008 the jury convicted five of the principals on various counts, and the Holy Land Foundation on all 32 counts.

The Holy Land Foundation (HLF) was a political organization disguised as a charitable organization. It was the biggest Islamic “charity” in the United States and existed to help Hamas jihadis eliminate the State of Israel and replace it with an Islamic Palestinian state. The terror-funding Holy Land “charity” and its defendants provided approximately $12.4 million in support. Unless Obama was unconscious for the two years between the Holy Land Foundation trial July 2007, the convictions November, 2008, and his Cairo speech in June, 2009, Obama knew that zakat was being used to fund terrorism.

The Holy Land Foundation was the largest terror-funding trial in U.S. history and was all over the news. The seven named defendants, and 300 unindicted co-conspirators were listed in government documents. The Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda arm, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), is one of the unindicted co-conspirators on the list. According to Justice Department records, “The Holy Land Foundation was the chief fundraising arm for the Palestine Committee in the U.S. created by the Muslim Brotherhood to support Hamas.”

An August 22, 2007 National Review article titled “Coming Clean About CAIR” details CAIR’s involvement with the Holy Land Foundation and how its executive director Nihad Awad attended the Muslim Brotherhood 1993 Palestine Committee meeting.

Barack Obama was president-elect of the United States when the Holy Land Foundation and its principals were convicted. He had to know that the Holy Land Foundation was using zakat to fund terrorism and yet, according to FBI whistleblower Philip Haney, “Obama’s Justice Department shut the Holy Land Foundation trial down in 2009 despite its success in rooting out an underground network of financial donors to Hamas under the cover of ‘charity.’” They did what??

Obama knowing that the Holy Land Foundation “charity” was guilty of financing terrorists still promised to find ways to help Muslims in America fulfill zakat. That brings us to Leo Hohmann’s stunning 5.18.16 article, “Refugees Sending Suitcases of Welfare Cash Home to Somalis.”  WHAT??

In a jaw-dropping expose, Hohmann reveals that in 2015, ”Men and women pulling ‘suitcases full of cash’ started showing up at Seattle’s Sea-Tac Airport holding tickets for international flights bound for Africa.” Law enforcement noticed. The suitcase haulers were Somali-Americans who had come to the United States as refugees. So far so good. The problem was that they were also cash couriers working for Islamic hawalas. Hawala is the Arabic word for “transfer.”

The hawala system is an underground method of transferring money outside of traditional banking or wire transfers. The hawala is a “trust” system used extensively by sharia-compliant Muslim immigrants sending money back home to avoid fees, and by Islamic terrorists to avoid a paper trail. Al Qaeda uses the hawala system and so do Somali suitcase haulers.

Kerns, a Seattle police officer and 14 year member of the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, decided to investigate the suspicious hawala transactions. Most Somali refugees receive welfare payments, so American taxpayer monies were being sent back to Somalia and Kerns wanted to determine how much of the money was going to Al-Shabaab, the Somali terrorist organization.

Hawalas are big business. Kerns recounted, “The first cash shipment discovered at Sea-Tac was a man carrying $750,000 in cash who told Customs officials he was transporting the money overseas. Over the next few months couriers carrying as much as $2 million boarded commercial flights at Sea-Tac. One Seattle hawala sent back $20 million in 2015.”

Kerns analyzed financial records filed with the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions and confirmed that the 10 hawala clients transferring the most money all were receiving welfare benefits. Kerns said that it was “Straight up fraud – every one of them.” Kerns suspected that if welfare fraud was being committed in Seattle, it was probably happening in other large Somali settlement communities in the U.S as well. 

Kerns and an agent from another federal agency took their case to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle. Acting U.S. Attorney General Annette L. Hayes, an Obama/Holder appointee, was in charge at the time and refused to prosecute the case! WHAT? WHY NOT?

Philip Haney and Art Moore, co-authors of the book See Something Say Nothing: A Homeland Security Officer Exposes the Government’s Submission to Jihad, have the answers. Haney and Moore explain that Islamic supremacism is the problem, the idea of countering “violent extremism” is completely absurd. Obama’s pro-Islam policies were protecting Islamic terror financing that was disguised as charitable zakat, was derived from welfare fraud, and was being delivered by Islamic hawalas.

See Something Say Nothing exposes “. . . how deeply the submission, denial, and deception run. Haney’s insider, eyewitness account, supported by internal memos and documents, exposes a federal government capitulating to an enemy and punishing those who reject its narrative.” Haney explains how Obama’s administration, including the FBI under directors Mueller and Comey, launched sweeping changes in the way federal agents are able to screen out radical Islamists from entering the U.S. with a little known policy change not processed through Congress. 

The “terrorism inadmissibility grounds” (TRIG) is an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act that created a statutory exemption provision through which the Secretaries of Homeland Security and State can exempt individuals from the grounds of inadmissibility:

On February 5, 2014 the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and the Secretary of State John Kerry (the “Secretaries”), following with the Attorney General Eric Holder, exercised their discretionary authority not to apply the material support inadmissibility ground to certain applicants who provided certain limited material support to an undesignated terrorist organization, or to a member of such an organization. Limited material support may include:

  • Certain routine commercial transactions;
  • Certain routine social transactions;
  • Certain humanitarian assistance; and
  • Material Support provided under substantial pressure that does not rise to the level of duress (‘sub-duress pressure’).”

So, Barack Obama exercised discretionary authority to ignore zakat infractions, institutionalized taqiyyah (lying in the service of Islam), and sacrificed American Homeland security to Islamic supremacist sharia law. Obama’s “words matter” memo imposed the sharia compliant demands of Muslim leaders on the Department of Homeland Security. This included stripping the intelligence and official communications of any mention of Islam in association with terrorism. Islamic terrorism was renamed violent extremism. Obama purged training materials that cast Islam in a negative light, erasing and altering vital intelligence on terrorists and terror threats. Barack Obama was the most anti-American president in United States history.

For eight years Barack Obama protected Islam at the expense of America. Whistleblower Philip Haney tried to raise American awareness of the existential threat of Islam because it is not a religion like any other. Islam is a socio-political movement disguised as a religion that is determined to establish a global caliphate ruled under supremacist religious sharia law. Simply stated, Islam’s unapologetic goal is to convert the world into a global Islamic theocracy.

The globalist Bush administration, and the pro-Muslim Obama administration both protected Islamic leaders and their supremacist beliefs at the expense of America, American citizens, and the Constitution of the United States. George W. Bush insisted that Islam is a religion of peace, Barack Obama insisted that Islam is a religion like any other. Islam is neither. Islam is an expansionist political ideology with a religious wing seeking world dominion. Today, the security of the United States of America is still compromised by the Bush/Obama political decisions to protect Islam at the expense of America.

The Culture War against America is being fought by the leftist/Islamist/globalist axis seeking to destabilize and overthrow our duly elected America-first President Donald Trump. The 2020 presidential elections will determine the future course of America. Will she remain a sovereign independent nation ruled by the United States Constitution? Will she devolve into a collectivist state ruled by leftists promoting socialism? Will she collapse into an Islamic caliphate ruled by sharia law?

The Holy Land Foundation breached the International Emergency Economic Powers Act prohibiting transactions that threaten the security of the United States. The Somali cash couriers did as well – their hawalas fund Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Shabaab terrorists in Somalia. Al-Shabaab’s brutal persecution and genocide against Christians has depopulated Christian Somalis to only a few hundred in a nation of over 11 million. Islamic terrorism is murdering the opposition to its intended caliphate.

The humanitarian hoax of Islamic zakat continues to endanger America. Obama knowingly facilitated the deceitful use of zakat to fund terrorism, and his policies have not been reversed. America-first President Donald Trump must nullify Obama’s deceitful TRIG amendment that created the statutory exemption for Islamic zakat. President Trump must protect America and restore Homeland Security’s authority to prosecute those who exploit our welfare system to fund terrorism.

On 9/11/2001 Islamists declared war on Judeo-Christian America. It is time to admit that Islamic terrorism is not “violent extremism,” it is part of Islam’s comprehensive religious war against non-believers. Islam has been fighting its religious war against the Judeo-Christian world since the 7th century, and Islam is on the march again. Judeo-Christian denial is not a survival strategy for Western civilization.

We must oppose Islamist expansionism and end the humanitarian hoax of zakat if America is to remain a free, sovereign, Constitutional republic. We must stand firm and proudly preserve our Judeo-Christian culture and moral values. We must never apologize for being American and for our signature ethos of hard work, equal opportunity, and the meritocracy which made America the freest, fairest, greatest nation in the world.

Islamists insist the world belongs to Allah. Islamists believe that using their mandatory religious obligation for zakat to fund worldwide Islamic terrorism is their duty. Islamists wrote the Muslim Brotherhood’s Explanatory Memorandum articulating its stealth civilization jihad to make America Muslim. The Muslim Brotherhood and every one of its seditious offshoots are dangerous enemies of the state and must be designated as terrorist organizations.

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Tesla: More Than Just A Car Company

If you know anything about Tesla it’s probably the following two points:

  1. They make electric, semi-autonomous automobiles.
  2. The company is led by controversial billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk.

A deeper dive, however, reveals some additional information that many individuals may prove interesting, if not surprising, to many.

Humble, Yet Sporty Beginnings

While the South African born Musk (who also co-founded online payment processor PayPal and space technology firm SpaceX, the latter of which he still oversees) has served as the public face of Tesla since 2008, it was actually founded five years earlier by two American engineers – Martin Eberhard and Marc Terpenning.

Tesla’s first electric vehicle, the Tesla Roadster, debuted in 2008 and was far ahead of its time. A prototype of sorts in which Tesla only built 2,450 vehicles, the car achieved performance numbers once exclusively reserved for gasoline-powered sports cars.

0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds.

A top speed of 250 mph.

All with a range of 244 miles on a single charge – arguably the most impressive number.

new version of the Roadster, due in 2020, looks to raise the bar even further on the capabilities of an electric sports car.

Its second vehicle, the Model S sedan, launched in 2012.

Although their main focus is cars, Tesla does have a burgeoning business in solar energy with residential solar roof tiles and panels and their residential home battery the Powerwall.

The company also offers a commercial and utility version of its solar energy and storage solutions.

Although Tesla is first and foremost an automaker, the company, much like its namesake, is just as much an innovator.

To understand where the US’s only fully electric car company has been and their plans for the future, we must answer two initial questions for where the company is staking its biggest claim – what is an electric car and what is automotive autonomy.

What is an Electric Car?

Electric cars come in two varieties – hybrids and battery electric vehicles or EVs. Hybrid electric cars, to varying degrees, utilize both gasoline and electricity to power their engines. EVs are fully electric.

No gas. No combustion engine. Just an electric engine powered by fully rechargeable batteries.

The primary selling point to EVs is zero emissions. It’s an important distinction for the lithium-ion battery-powered Teslas.

Although the company may deal exclusively in high-end, fully electric vehicles, its founding was less as an automaker and more on the principle of creating something that did not consume gasoline.

According to Martin Eberhard:

“I didn’t start as an electric car enthusiast but as a non-fossil fuel enthusiast.” 

In order to realize this early goal, Tesla’s ultimate plan is to control every aspect of production and become a fully vertical electric car company. This includes making its batteries in-house.

What is Automotive (or Vehicle) Autonomy?

Apart from producing wholly electric vehicles, Tesla aims to produce automobiles that one day will be fully autonomous.

What exactly does that mean? Here’s a quick lesson in the six levels of vehicle autonomy:

  • Level 0 – No Automation: Driver controls every aspect of the driving experience.
  • Level 1 – Driver Assistance: Vehicle features one automated system (such as cruise control).
  • Level 2 – Partial Automation: Autonomy includes regulation of speed and lane awareness in optimal conditions (interstate driving, for example), but the driver still monitors and controls vehicle
  • Level 3 – Conditional Automation: Huge leap in technology from level 2 to level 3 with the vehicle able to self-drive in most circumstances, but driver influence is required.
  • Level 4 – High Automation: Vehicle is fully autonomous in most conditions; a driver can still override in certain situations or emergencies.
  • Level 5 – Full Automation: No gas or brake pedals, no steering wheel, no physical driving skills necessary.

Tesla vehicles currently achieve around Level 2 autonomy.

However, the company states that its Tesla Computer chip is already installed on all of their latest car models, and all those due to come after. Significant because, as Elon Musk states:

“All cars being produced all have the hardware necessary – computer and otherwise – for full self-driving. All you need to do is improve the software.”

Translation: The hardware is installed, and the Tesla cars are designed and built to one day drive themselves, but the software, and, really the whole idea of a fully autonomous vehicle remains a work in progress.

Tesla’s First Generation of Automobiles

What isn’t a work in progress are the actual cars that Tesla produces.

We’ve already noted the groundbreaking Roadster, which piqued the curiosity of car enthusiasts everywhere. But the car that grabbed everyone’s attention was the Model S.

After Tesla’s initial public offering in 2010, which generated almost $230 million in capital, the Model S sedan was released in 2012. Running between 235 and 300 miles on a single charge based on the battery options purchased, the Model S represented a leap forward in mass production of electric cars.

In the years following its release, the Model S received accolades from both professionals and car enthusiasts. It was named car of the year by both Motor Trend (2013) and Car and Driver (2015), has been on Consumer Reports Recommended List since 2016.

Produced at an assembly plant in Fremont, California, the car topped the electric car sales charts in both 2015 and 2016. It ranks second only to the Nissan Leaf in total sales (although it’s worth noting the Leaf has been in production longer and is considerably cheaper).

As of today, the Model S has sold over 250,000 units, over half of which are in the US. On its Long Range version, the S can achieve a range of 370 miles on a single charge – the highest level of performance of any current electric car.

In 2015, Tesla launched the Model X crossover SUV. It’s a bit of a misnomer as the X is built on a car chassis, but its styling and function lend itself comparison to SUVs as opposed to sedans.

While not nearly as celebrated as the Model S, Tesla’s crossover still represented a considerable breakthrough for electric vehicles as it was the first commercially available, fully electric SUV on the road.

However, as groundbreaking as they may, both the Model S and the Model X remain out of reach and impractical for most consumers. The Model S ranges in price from $75,000 to near $96,000 and the Model X runs from $81,000 to over $102,000 (not counting electric car incentives or gas savings).

Tesla, though, is looking to expand its customer base.

The Model 3 and Model Y

The entry-level Model 3, which is already in production, and the mid-range Model Y, set to start production in 2020 (although it is available for order), look to bring Tesla into a crowded and highly competitive market segment.

Starting at $35,000, the Model 3 will be in direct competition with the aforementioned Nissan Leaf, as well as the Chevy BoltHyundai Kona, and Kia Niro.

The Model Y will serve as Tesla’s company crossover – an increasingly popular segment within the car industry. The purchase price starts at $48,000.

Compared to the established line of Tesla autos, the Model 3 and Model Y, don’t offer anything remarkably new, except of course for the lower price points.

What they do signal though, is the beginning of a new business model for Tesla, and for the auto industry as a whole – online car purchasing. The move will pit Tesla against the more traditional dealership-driven car buying method, which has been protected by state laws for decades.

Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety president Rosemary Shahan elaborates on what the change would mean for future customers:

“What Tesla is proposing is actually consumer-friendly. It gives you more of an opportunity to take control of the action, and you’re not on the dealer’s turf.” 

Although it does mean lost jobs for some at Tesla, according to a memo Musk sent to employees, the ultimate goal is affordability:

“Unfortunately, this means that some jobs will be impacted or transitioned to other areas of the business. This is a hard decision, but it [store closings] is necessary to make our cars more affordable.”

Tesla’s Future

Much like the transition to online-only vehicle sales and bringing battery production in-house, there is only one word that aptly describes Tesla’s outlook for the future – ambitious.

For starters, Tesla has plans to increase its already expansive network of superchargers, the electric car equivalent of a gas station. In doubling its network, as well as releasing a next-gen version, the plans are to have superchargers close to 95% of the population in “active” markets – read: where a lot Tesla’s have been purchased.

Next up is the bold claim from Musk (which he has a habit of making) is that Tesla plans on having a full network of robotaxis available at some point in 2020. In Musk’s words:

“I feel very confident predicting that there will be autonomous robotaxis from Tesla next year — not in all jurisdictions because we won’t have regulatory approval everywhere. From our standpoint, if you fast forward a year, maybe a year and three months, but next year for sure, we’ll have over a million robotaxis on the road. The fleet wakes up with an over the air update; that’s all it takes.”

Finally, it’s worth noting that Tesla even has plans for its first truck, which would ultimately match its offerings with every other major manufacturer. Musk called the new vehicle a “cyberpunk truck” at a recent shareholders meetings.

From a sports car to a pick-up truck and all-electric points in between, Tesla has indeed made the transition from car maker to innovator.  Not too bad for a company that started merely as a means to save a few fossil fuels.

RELATED ARTICLE: PROMOTING DOMESTIC TERRORISM: The Antifa Bomber hated Elon Musk? Why?

EDITORS NOTE: This PartCatalog.com column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.