Climategate: Ten years later

This month marks the tenth anniversary of “Climategate” – the release of thousands of emails to and from climate scientists who had been (and still are) collaborating and colluding to create a manmade climate crisis that exists in their minds and computer models, but not in the real world. The scandal should have ended climate catastrophism. Instead, it was studiously buried by politicians, scientists, activists and crony capitalists, who will rake in trillions of dollars from the exaggerations and fakery, while exempting themselves from the damage they are inflicting on everyday families.

Few people know the Inconvenient Facts about the supposed manmade climate and extreme weather “crisis.” For example, since 1998, average global temperatures have risen by a mere few hundredths of a degree. (For a time, they even declined slightly.) Yet all we hear is baseless rhetoric about manmade carbon dioxide causing global warming and climate changes that pose existential threats to humanity, wildlife and planet. Based on this, we are told we must stop using fossil fuels to power economic growth and better living standards. This is bad news for Africa and the world.

We keep hearing that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels cause rising global temperatures. But satellite data show no such thing. In fact, computer model predictions for 2019 are almost a half degree Celsius (0.9 degrees F) above actual satellite measurements. Even worse, anytime a scientist raises questions about the alleged crisis, he or she is denounced as a “climate change denier.”

A major source of data supporting the human CO2- induced warming proposition came from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom.

Then on the morning of 17 November 2009 a Pandora’s box of embarrassing CRU information exploded onto the world scene. A computer hacker penetrated the university’s computer system and took 61 Megs of material that showed the CRU had been manipulating scientific information to make global warming appear to be the fault of mankind and industrial CO2. Among many other scandals, the shocking leaked emails showed then-CRU-director Prof. Phil Jones boasting of using statistical “tricks” to remove evidence of observed declines in global temperatures.

In another email, he advocated deleting data rather than providing it to scientists who did not share his view and might criticize his analyses. Non-alarmist scientists had to invoke British freedom of information laws to get the information. Jones was later suspended, and former British Chancellor Lord Lawson called for a Government enquiry into the embarrassing exposé.

The affair became known as “Climategate,” and a group of American University students even posted a YouTube song, “Hide the Decline,” mocking the CRU and climate modeler Dr. Michael Mann, whose use of the phrase “hide the decline” in temperatures had been found in the hacked emails.

So what is the truth? If one considers the composition of the atmosphere and equates it to the height of the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the extra plant-fertilizing CO2 added to the atmosphere since California became the 31st state of the United States in 1850 is less than the thickness of tiles under the Tower.

Can this tiny increase really explain any observed global warming since the Little Ice Age ended, and the modern industrial era began? Since California became a state, the measured global rise in atmospheric temperature has been less than 1C. But most of this increase occurred prior to 1940, and average planetary temperatures fell from around 1943 until about 1978, leading to a global cooling scare. Temperatures rose slightly until 1998, then mostly remained stable, even as carbon dioxide levels continued to rise. Rising CO2 levels and temperature variations do not correlate very well at all.

Moreover, during the well-documented Medieval Warm Period from about 950 to 1350, warmer global temperatures allowed Viking farmers to raise crops and tend cattle in Greenland. The equally well documented 500-year Little Ice Age starved and froze the Vikings out of Greenland, before reaching its coldest point, the Maunder Minimum, 1645-1715. That’s when England’s River Thames regularly froze over, Norwegian farmers demanded compensation for lands buried by advancing glaciers, and priests performed exorcism rituals to keep alpine glaciers away from villages. Paintings from the era show crowds of people ice skating and driving horse-drawn carriages on the Thames.

Industry and automobile emissions obviously played no role in either the MWP or the LIA.

These dramatic events should ring warning bells for any competent, honest scientist. If the Medieval Warm Period occurred without industrial CO2 driving it, why should industrial CO2 be causing any observed warming today? Europe’s great plague wiped out nearly a quarter of its population during the Little Ice Age. The warm period brought prosperity and record crops, while cold years brought misery, famine and death.

Ten years before Climategate, Dr. Mann released a computer-generated graph purporting to show global temperatures over the previous 1500 years. His graph mysteriously made the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and Maunder extreme cold years disappear – and planetary temperatures spike suddenly the last couple decades of twentieth century. The graph had the shape of a hockey stick, was published worldwide and became a centerpiece for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Many scientists were highly suspicious of the hockey stick claims. Two of them, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, completely discredited Mann’s computer program and revisionist history. Of course, that did not stop former US vice president Al Gore from using the discredited graph in his doom and gloom climate change movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

The hacked CRU emails also showed exchanges between Mann and Jones, in which they discussed how to intimidate editors who wanted to publish scientific views contrary to theirs, to suppress any contradictory studies. In one email, Jones expressed his desire to get rid of the “troublesome editor” of the Climate Research journal for daring to publish differing views. The editor got sacked.

When University of Colorado climate skeptic Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. asked the CRU for its original temperature readings, he was told the data had been (conveniently) lost. Lost!?! Do professionals lose something as valuable as original data? Many suspected they just didn’t want anyone to expose their clever manipulations and fabrications.

But if industrial carbon dioxide did not cause recent global warming, what did? A Danish research group, led by Prof. Henrik Svensmark, has found a very credible match between levels of sunspot activity (giant magnetic storms) on our Sun and global temperatures over the last fifteen hundred years. This all-natural mechanism actually fits the evidence! How terribly inconvenient for alarmists.

Cosmic rays from deep space constantly impinge on the Earth’s upper atmosphere and produce clouds, much like high-flying jets leave white contrails behind their engines. More clouds can trap heat, but they also cause global cooling because not as much sunlight strikes the Earth. More sunspots mean a stronger magnetic shield, therefore fewer cosmic rays reaching Earth, thus less cloud cover and more global warming. The Sun is currently in a near-record period of low sunspot activity.

All sorts of interest groups are suppressing this information. Maybe worse, when Climategate broke, “climate justice” campaigner for Friends of the Earth Emma Brindal said bluntly: “A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources.” Not protecting Earth from manmade CO2 emissions or natural and manmade climate change – but redistributing wealth and resources, according to formulas that self-appointed ruling elites decide is “socially just.”

Climate campaigners also oppose “excessive” air travel for business or pleasure, 4×4 vehicles as “unnecessary luxuries,” and modern homes for Africans. Some even say Africans must continue living in mud huts and avoid the use of electricity and modern farming technologies. Minor US actor Ed Begley has said “Africans should have solar power where they need it most: on their huts.” They, Al Gore, Phil Jones and Mike Mann are exempted from these restrictions, of course.

Real social justice and human rights mean everyone has access to abundant, reliable, affordable energy, especially universally important electricity. Not from expensive, intermittent, weather-dependent wind turbines and solar panels. From fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.

We in the developing world will no longer let climate truth be suppressed. We will not allow loud, radical activists to put the brakes on African economic development, jobs, and improved health and living standards, in the name of advancing their anti-human, wealth redistribution agendas.

Author

Kelvin Kemm

Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and CEO of Nuclear Africa (Pty) Ltd, a project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa. He is the recipient of the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award of the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa. He does international consultancy work in strategic development.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Climate Change Fears and Polarization

NEW poll today: The more Americans see, the more they oppose impeachment

If you’re finding it difficult to keep up with all the noise surrounding House Democrats’ ever-changing impeachment saga, you’re not alone. Democrats themselves are having a tough time keeping their stories straight lately.

First, the left had an alleged “quid pro quo” in mind. When that argument didn’t poll well, Democrat leaders changed the accusation to “extortion.” Next came “bribery,”—then back to the original “quid pro quo” catchphrase this morning.

Yes, it’s dizzying. Democrats in Congress right now are throwing every accusation they can think of at the wall, crossing their fingers that something finally sticks. That isn’t a new trick: It’s actually been their only real action item since Election Day 2016.

 President Trump: “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.”

Today turned out to be a bad day for Democrats and their media echo chamber to resurrect the old “quid pro quo” narrative. In lengthy testimony before Congress today, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland put that false accusation to rest.

When Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) tried to put words in Ambassador Sondland’s mouth, the Ambassador was crystal clear:

“President Trump, when I asked him the open-ended question—as I testified previously, ‘What do you want from Ukraine?’—his answer was, ‘I want nothing.’”

No matter how the left tries to spin it, that is the only relevant takeaway from today’s sham hearing. Why? First, because it’s based in fact, not third-party conjecture. Second, it was stated under oath by the only person in these hearings who has ever even spoken directly to President Trump. The other witnesses could only offer opinion and speculation.

And just like that, the Swamp’s carefully choreographed narrative collapsed—again.

The big problem for House Democrats is that after weeks of testimony, they still have no actual evidence to justify effectively shutting down Congress to put Americans through this charade. New polling out today from Marquette University Law School shows that Americans in Wisconsin, for example, now oppose impeaching and removing President Trump by double-digit margins.

But Democrats from Impeachment Czar Schiff to far-left “Squad” member Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) already promised their base that they would impeach President Trump—so no matter what the facts or evidence say, the show must go on.

Even Speaker Nancy Pelosi is beginning to sense how bad this looks for her party. In a desperate letter to colleagues, she encouraged Democrats to stick with the plan—and put in writing that it would be a “weak response” to wait until next year’s election to let the American people decide for themselves who their President should be.

Democrats have told us repeatedly they have no interest in a fair, impartial hearing. It’s time to take them at their word. Fortunately, a majority of Americans may already have.

“At impeachment hearing, irrelevant opinions by Trump critics masquerade as facts”

Must-read: Full statement from Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham 

© All rights reserved.

The DOW’s High Record Numbers: What Does It Mean for Business Owners

The Dow Jones Industrial Average hits a record high at 182.24 points. This came after two of the world’s largest economies (U.S. and China) agreed to remove existing trade tariffs.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average, with 123 years of history, is a stock market index that measures the stock prices of the top 30 companies in the U.S. It is used by experts to assess the overall health of the stock market and the investors’ level of confidence in those companies.

The Dow average is calculated by adding all the stock prices of the companies in each index and dividing it by the number of companies.

For 2019, the top five companies that form Dow’s index are Microsoft, Apple, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Johnson & Johnson, and Walmart. Some experts still argue that the Dow is less representative of the broad stock market as it includes only 30 out of the 2,800 companies listed in the New York Stocks Exchange.

Just this year, the Dow Jones Industrial Average broke records three times. The first happened last June 11, when it hit 26,885. On July 3, The Dow hit another record, closing above 27,000. This was the time when President Trump announced that the administration would continue its negotiation with China to avert additional tariffs. And just last week, another record-breaking moment came when Dow’s numbers hit 27,492.63. This led to Dow’s year-to-date gain close to 18%.

But it’s not just the Dow that had their record-setting stock indices. Even the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite also finished theirs at the highest level on record.

What does it all mean for business owners?

Stock trading affects companies in a myriad of ways and plays a very important role in the U.S. economy.

Consumer Spending

First of all, trends in stocks influence consumer behavior. When stocks are high, people feel confident over their investment portfolios and feel empowered to spend money on big-ticket items like a home or a brand new car.

On the other hand, falling stock prices make people hold back on spending, especially in non-essential items. They are also more likely to tap on their emergency fund or get a personal loan to cover expenses. Reduced consumer spending has a huge effect on the business sector and obviously slows down economic growth.

Growth and Profitability

Stock trading allows businesses to raise capital for expansion, or to launch new products or pay off debts. For investors, stocks provide an opportunity to profit from gains in stock value.

Moreover, stock prices affect business and consumer behavior, which in turn, impacts the economy overall. This relationship can also be perceived from the other way around – economic conditions influence stock prices.

As a rule, the higher the stock prices, the better for companies. It also suggests a company’s ability to earn and grow its profits in the future.

Business Financing

Another major benefit of high stock prices is in equity financing. During the initial stages of their initial public offering (IPO), most companies receive an infusion of capital which they can use to acquire other companies, fund expansion, or pay off debt. Equity financing is the process of gaining capital by selling new shares. However, for a company to obtain equity financing, it needs to demonstrate a healthy share price that will attract potential investors.

Takeovers

An increase in stock prices also reduces the risk of company takeovers. When a company’s stock price falls, it’s market value goes down as well, which makes it vulnerable to takeovers. Furthermore, companies with high stock prices tend to attract media attention, which positively favors their brand reputation and attracts more potential investors.

While the stock market influences the economy, it’s not the only factor. Things like interest rates, consumer spending, and business spending also influence the economy as a whole. For example, when consumers spend less and invest less in businesses, the economy slows down. Meanwhile, falling interest rates can prompt economic growth. On top of these, fiscal policies, such as rate cuts and large budget deficits, can all impact the health of the business sector.

© All rights reserved.

Most Affordable States to Start Your Business

Now more than ever, aspiring entrepreneurs are pursuing their passions and looking for ways to start a business. One of the key considerations when starting a business is keeping costs low and profits high. Choosing the right place in which to open up shop can make a significant impact on the bottom line.

If you’ve been considering opening a business in the USA, some states will be more profitable than others. Here are the most affordable states in which to start your business.

Considerations

Before you learn which states are the best for entrepreneurs, you need to understand the elements that play a role in affordability. Some implications affect the business itself, while others have an indirect influence by affecting the business owner.

Some key considerations include:

  • Taxation – some states have higher taxes than others. Choosing a state with lower taxation means you keep more of the money you’ve earned.
  • Entrepreneurial environment – is the area in a state of economic growth? These are essential components of market research when choosing a home state.
  • Funding opportunities – what are the startup costs in this area when compared to funding opportunities? Some states promote entrepreneurship by offering grants and loans.
  • Labor market – depending on your business venture, you may require specialized or highly-educated workers, which are more affluent in some states.
  • Cost and quality of living – will you be able to afford to live in the state you work when you consider housing, groceries, and utilities? Also, the safety of the area, school options, and more.

By weighing these factors, you’ll be able to determine which state is best for your business. Keeping these concerns in mind, here are some of the most affordable states in which to start a business.

Texas

Texas is at the top of the list for affordability when considering a new business. First and foremost, cities in Texas– Houston and Austin, to name a few– have been booming in recent years. This influx of people and skilled workers has created ample opportunity for aspiring entrepreneurs.

Texas encourages entrepreneurs to open up shop in the Lonestar State with grants and funding options to support their endeavors. This is backed further by free resources, like the Texas Entrepreneur Networks, which helps business owners find investors.

Finally, utilities are affordable in Texas. The electricity plans for Texas are deregulated, creating an open market situation resulting in savings for the end-user. As Texas is such a great place to live and work, it’s the number one state for opening a new business.

Utah

Utah is another state in which to give serious consideration to opening a business. It’s one of the best states in terms of resources for business owners and offers some of the most accessible financing options. Grants and loans are abundant in Utah, and it boasts a higher economic growth rate for small businesses than Texas.

As far as the cost of living goes in Utah, it’s perfectly average in comparison to the rest of the states, ranking 27th overall. While things like groceries, utilities, and transportation are slightly lower than the national average, housing is the tipping point. The median home cost in Utah is slightly over $100,000 more than the national average.

Fortunately, Utah is also one of the best states to rent in. The average rent in Utah is about $200 less per month than the national average. Between the financing options and rent affordability, Utah is a worthy contender for the most affordable and profitable state in which to start a business.

Colorado

Colorado is an entrepreneur’s dream. With low taxation and startup costs, it’s no wonder why so many Millennials are immigrating to Colorado to pursue their business goals. This state boasts a burgeoning labor force, with over fifty percent of residents holding a bachelor’s degree at minimum. In fact, Colorado is one of the most educated states in the country.

The cost of living in Colorado is slightly higher than the national average. This is primarily due to the prices in Denver and some of the more affluent areas. However, as it is a highly educated area, the average income is slightly higher than the national average, as well.

Due to the startup culture in Colorado, there are a lot of incredible resources for entrepreneurs. Denver Startup Week takes place every September and is both an educational and networking opportunity that can open doors for entrepreneurs and investors. The education tracks address everything from business growth, to being a founder, to specific industry concerns.

Make Your Move

While these are the top three affordable states for starting a business, there are many other options. Choosing the right place to start your business builds a strong foundation for growth and success.

Entitlement Liabilities Are a Graver Threat to the Next Generation of Americans Than Climate Change

On January 31, 1940, Miss Ida Fuller received a check for $22.54. She was the first person to retire under the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) scheme, better known as Social Security. At the time of her retirement in 1939, she had paid just $22 in Social Security taxes. Ms. Fuller lived to be 100, cashing over $20,000 worth of Social Security checks.

If she had only paid $22.54 in contributions, where did the $20,000 Ms. Fuller received in Social Security payouts come from? It came, as it does now, from the taxpayers of the day. As of 2019, your employer deducts 6.2 percent of your wages up to $132,900 a year, matches this amount, and sends it to the Social Security Administration (SSA). The SSA deposits this with the Treasury, which spends it and receives Treasury bonds in return. This is the fabled trust fund that guarantees Social Security.

But these Treasury bonds are simply IOUs redeemable against the income of tomorrow’s taxpayers. When one of the Treasury bonds held by the SSA falls due for payment, the Treasury can only get the funds to meet this liability by taxing, borrowing (taxing the taxpayers of tomorrow), or printing money (imposing an inflation tax). In each case, what really guarantees Social Security is not the money you paid in but the earnings of today’s or tomorrow’s taxpayers.

Such a pay-as-you-go scheme could chug along well enough as long as there were lots of workers relative to retirees. When the program began, every 100 workers were supporting three retirees.

This favorable ratio encouraged politicians to be more generous. Originally intended to cover only about 50 percent of all workers, Social Security was expanded even before Ida Fuller received her first check to provide benefits for dependents of retired workers and surviving dependents. In the post-war years, Social Security grew further. Disability benefits, payable as early as age 50, were added in 1956, and during the 1950s coverage was extended to other previously excluded workers, making it essentially universal. Congress passed across-the-board benefit increases of 7 percent (1965), 13 percent (1967), 15 percent (1969), 10 percent (1971), 20 percent (1972), and 11 percent (1974). In 1972, benefits were tied to the Consumer Price Index, yielding an annual “cost of living adjustment.”

In 1965, Medicare was signed into law, establishing a heavily subsidized federal health care program for the elderly. Former President Harry Truman and his wife received the first Medicare cards without paying a cent in Medicare taxes.

Like Social Security, Medicare is financed by a payroll tax of 2.9 percent split between employer and employee, up from 0.7 percent in 1966. Like Social Security, that money gets paid right out to meet current expenses, which were vastly expanded by passage of Medicare Part D in 2003. And like Social Security, such a pay-as-you-go scheme could chug along well enough as long as there were lots of workers relative to retirees.

Two things derailed that. US birth rates fell from births 3.65 births per woman in 1965 to 1.80 in 2016, and life expectancy rose from 68 in 1950 to 79 today. Together, this meant ever more retirees relative to the workers supporting them. By 2017, 100 workers were supporting 25 retirees.

These shifting demographics have shredded the solvency of the “trust funds.” Social Security is estimated to run out of reserves in 2034, after which benefits would have to be reduced by about 25 percent to keep spending within available annual revenue. Over 75 years, Social Security has an unfunded liability of $13.9 trillion.

The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will run out of reserves in 2026. Medicare’s second trust fund, for physician and outpatient services and for prescription drugs, is permanently “solvent” because it has an unlimited call on the general fund of the Treasury—the incomes of future taxpayers. Premiums paid by the beneficiaries will cover only about 25 percent of program costs; the rest of the spending is unfinanced. Medicare’s overall unfunded liability over 75 years is more than $37 trillion.

The taxes levied to fund Social Security have already risen drastically. In 1937, the Social Security tax rate was one percent on earnings up to $3,000 ($53,449 in 2019 dollars) to be matched by the employer. By 1971 it was 4.6 percent on earnings up to $7,800 ($49,411 in 2019 dollars). It now stands at 6.2 percent up to $132,900.

This is only going to get worse. According to Census Bureau projections, by 2030 each 100 working-age Americans will be supporting 35 retirees, and this could rise to 42 by 2060. Another way to think of this is to calculate the number of retirees each worker must support. In 1946, the burden of one retiree was shared between 42 workers. Today, according to the SSA, roughly three workers cover each retiree’s Social Security and Medicare benefits. By 2030, however, there will be only two workers supporting each retiree.

In other words, a working couple will have to support not only themselves and their family but also someone outside the family thanks to Social Security and Medicare.

To make Social Security solvent again, the payroll tax rate would need to be hiked immediately from 12.4 percent to 15.2 percent, or Social Security benefits would need to be cut on a permanent basis by about 17 percent. According to economists Roger LeRoy Miller, Daniel K. Benjamin, and Douglass C. North:

[F]or Social Security and Medicare to stay as they are, the payroll tax rate may have to rise to 25 percent of wages over the next decade. And a payroll tax rate of 40 percent is not unlikely by the middle of the twenty-first century.

Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg recently made international headlines with an impassioned speech to the United Nations in which she complained that her future had been stolen by inaction on climate change. An American Ms. Thunberg’s age could say the same about entitlement spending on Social Security and Medicare.

By the expanding eligibility for and hiking the benefits of a pay-as-you-go system while at the same time having fewer children to fund it, the generations preceding that child have left a fearsome financial obligation. Either taxes will go up sharply for the workers of tomorrow, lowering their standard of living, or benefits will go down for the retirees of tomorrow, lowering their standard of living. One group is going to feel pretty angry.

These problems were foreseen even as politicians were hiking payouts. In 1978, the economist Paul Samuelson wrote:

[O]ur Social Security system is also an actuarially unfunded system…there is no obligation for this generation to have children at the same rate as did previous generations. Therefore, when those born during the baby-boom period of the ‘50s reach retirement age in the next century, their stipends will be felt as more of a burden by the thinner ranks of the then working population

We are on the brink of inter-generational strife. We have the political shortsightedness of decades past to thank for that.

COLUMN BY

John Phelan

John Phelan is an economist at the Center of the American Experiment and fellow of The Cobden Centre.

RELATED VIDEO: The Living Wage Makes It Harder to Make a Living.

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

Bernie’s Immigration Plan Goes Full Bore Open Borders

I know most of you reading this don’t care a bit about Bernie and his huge move to the Far Left on the issue of immigration, but since I have a category here at ‘Frauds and Crooks’ for “politicians as frauds” I want to tell you about Democrat candidate for Prez, Bernie Sanders.

This also gives me an opportunity to warn you about the growing call for America to ‘welcome’ so-called “climate refugees” which I have written about extensively for ten years.  (See 53 posts going back to December 2008 on climate refugees at RRW by clicking here.)

It is very interesting to see how the Left plants seeds and nurtures them for years and years (helped by the mainstream media) until the idea surfaces, in this case, as a plank in a Presidential candidate’s platform.

Bernie is now throwing American workers under the bus….

Before I get to the news about Bernie’s plan, I guess we have to conclude that Bernie is now throwing American workers under the bus.  When he ran for President four years ago he was still getting some praise for his stance in defense of American workers and his earlier opposition to the failed 2007  comprehensive immigration reform bill.  See Time magazine story here in January 2016.

Here then is Fox News on Bernie’s immigration platform:

Sanders’ immigration plan: Halt deportations, abolish ICE, welcome 50K ‘climate migrants,’ give welfare to all

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on Thursday released a sweeping immigration plan that would impose a moratorium on deportations, “break up” existing immigration enforcement agencies, grant full welfare access to illegal immigrants and welcome a minimum of 50,000 “climate migrants” in the first year of a Sanders administration.

The plan effectively establishes Sanders at the far left of the immigration debate,as he aims to energize a base that helped drive his 2016 primary campaign amid competition from other liberal candidates in the field this time around.

[….]

The plan was written in conjunction with several illegal immigrants who were shielded from deportation by former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

In the plan, Sanders pledges to extend legal status to those eligible under the DACA program, as well as to grant relief for their parents.

He also promises to use executive authority to allow illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for five or more years to stay “free from threat of deportation.”

On day one of a Sanders presidency, he would also place a moratorium on deportations until there was a full audit of “current and past practices and policies.” He would also end the so-called Trump travel ban, as well as other Trump policies such as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), action against sanctuary cities and the public charge rule that restricts green cards to those immigrants deemed likely to rely on welfare.

Sanders then wants to provide a “pathway to citizenship” via Congress for all illegal immigrants living in America — which he says is currently around 11 million — and would ensure that “old or low-level contacts with the criminal justice system” do not prevent illegal immigrants from walking along that path.

[….]

He would also create a new program to “welcome migrants displaced by climate change” and push to accept a minimum of 50,000 “climate migrants” in his first year in office.

More here.

Bernie is just following the tribe….

House Democrats introduce climate refugee bill

Here is a story from the day before the bill was introduced. Imagine the fraud this will create—yikes! the weather has changed where I live so I can now move to America!

At Grist (hat tip: Joanne):

House Democrats are set to introduce the first major piece of legislation to establish protections for migrants displaced by climate change, ramping up a push for a long-overdue framework for how the United States should respond to a crisis already unfolding on its shores.

The bill, called the Climate Displaced Persons Act,would create a federal program separate from the existing refugee program to take in a minimum of 50,000 climate migrants starting next year.

The legislation, a copy of which HuffPost obtained, directs the White House to collect data on people displaced by extreme weather, drought and sea level rise and submit an annual report to Congress. It also requires the State Department to work with other federal agencies to create a Global Climate Resilience Strategy that puts global warming at the center of U.S. foreign policy.

The bill, set to be introduced by Representative Nydia Velázquez, a New York Democrat, is a companion to legislation proposed by Massachusetts Democratic Senator Ed Markey, one of the leading advocates for a Green New Deal. Its introduction in the House of Representatives marks an escalation as Democrats start to flesh out what a sweeping federal plan to eliminate emissions and prepare the country for more climate catastrophe would look like.

The 21-page proposal looks unlikely to become law while Donald Trump, who rejects climate science and slashed the country’s refugee cap to a historic low of 18,000 last month, remains president.

Yup!

And that is why everyone reading this post needs to find some place to direct your energy to get Donald Trump reelected for four more years.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Koch Money Funds Open Borders Agenda: Attempts to Sway Supreme Court!

Everyone knows that George Soros funds Leftwing causes and is a proponent of open borders, but even as the Koch brothers (David Koch died this year) have been tagged as the conservative movements money bags, not everyone knows the Kochs have pushed the immigration issue on the same side as Soros and his ilk.

Freedom Partners, my foot! The Left paints the Koch family as the boogeymen on the right. But, make no mistake they are on the same side as George Soros on the most important issue of all time for the survival of America—immigration.

Maybe it happened in your state, but about 8 years ago or so, Americans for Prosperity (Koch creation) came on the scene in Maryland and initially Tea Party groups were thrilled to have a well-funded ally—that is, until it became clear that the subject of immigration (the hottest issue in Maryland at that time) was off the table.

Now comes news that the Koch name is front and center in support of the so-called ‘Dreamers’ as Trump’s effort to dismantle an Obama era executive order that gave amnesty to scores of ‘children’ (not adults) who came to America illegally were given permission to stay and work in America (of course the plan is to eventually give them citizenship and voting rights) goes to the Supreme Court.

Koch’s interest is financial as the subject of labor, and lots of it, is the driving force behind much of the Open Borders movement’s agenda.  Humanitarian lingo is a shield they hide behind!

Here is The Hill:

Koch groups take immigration art exhibit to DC ahead of DACA hearing at Supreme Court

The top nonprofit groups affiliated with conservative mega-donor Charles Koch are unveiling a pop-up art exhibit in Washington, D.C., meant to extol the benefits of immigration.

The “Common Ground” exhibit comes ahead of a Nov. 12 Supreme Court hearing on the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

It features nine doors with life-size video screens that show different aspects of immigrant life in the United States.

The exhibit is being brought to Washington by Stand Together, the main nonprofit arm of the Koch network, in conjunction with Americans for Prosperity and the Libre Institute, also nonprofit groups within the Koch orbit.

The exhibit will open Tuesday in Washington’s renovated Wharf area, after showings at Nashville’s Politicon and Miami’s Wynwood Art District.

It shows nine aspects of immigrant life, starting with a door titled “Meet Dreamers,” in allusion to DACA recipients, commonly known as “Dreamers.”

Dreamers are on the forefront of the immigration debate as the Supreme Court gears up for the Nov. 12 hearing, where it will decide on the legality of President Trump’s 2017 order to revoke the Obama-era program.

Under DACA, undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as minors, registered, paid a fee and passed a background check were given a reprieve from deportation and permission to work in the country. Those permits are renewable every two years.

The program was meant as a bridge while Congress legislated a permanent solution for Dreamers.

Trump in September 2017 canceled the program, arguing President Obama had overreached and single-handedly legislated on immigration by granting work permits in addition to deferred action on deportation.

And, for you, the worker whose salaries are kept low by a steady supply of cheap immigrant labor, or you whose community is destroyed by diversity, or you, taxpayers, who pay for welfare benefits and health care for Koch/Soros workers and non-workers, there are no money bags supporting your side of the argument.

There is only the President.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran, Hezbollah Use Mexican Drug Cartels to Infiltrate U.S.

House Votes to ‘Enhance the Border Security’ of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Tunisia — Not the USA

RELATED VIDEO: Mexican War.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Bernie Sanders Wants to Cut Aid for Israel and Give It to Hamas [Part 2] by Hugh Fitzgerald

Bernie Sanders does not appear to know that whatever “humanitarian crisis” there may be in Gaza, it is not Israel, but Hamas that has caused it. Hamas has harmed the Gazan Arabs in several ways. First, despite the fact that Gazans have received many billions of dollars in aid,  the fantastic corruption of its leaders has siphoned off a good deal of it. Both Khaled Meshal, the former head of Hamas’ political wing, who now lives in  Qatar, and Moussa Abu Marzouk, a senior leader of Hamas who now lives in Egypt, have each amassed fortunes of at least $2.5 billion; some Arab investigators believe that Meshaal may now have as much as $5 billion. This amount, of between $5 and $7.5 billion, was meant to be aid for the people of Gaza. Israel had nothing to do with such a diversion of funds. Ismail Haniyeh, the current leader of Hamas, is reported to now have his own fortune of tens of millions of dollars, for he receives the proceeds of a 20% tax on all goods smuggled into Gaza from Egypt. In addition, there are at least 600 “Hamas millionaires” living in Gaza. There are no signs that Hamas leaders will end this corruption; they, after all, are the prime beneficiaries.

The second way that Hamas has caused a “humanitarian crisis” in Gaza is by misusing funds meant for such things as residential housing, improvements to energy infrastructure so as to avoid frequent power cuts,  and wastewater treatment plants (such as the North Gaza Wastewater Treatment Plant, finally put into operation in 2018 after years of delay, paid for entirely by foreign – European – donors. including the World Bank). Instead of undertaking such improvements, all of which would instantly improve the lives of the Gazan Arabs, Hamas chooses to use that aid in building a huge military armory; rockets and missiles are expensive. And when Hamas uses part of that armory in an effort to rain death down on Israeli towns, it is not just Hamas, but all the Gazans, who suffer from the inevitable retaliation.

If Bernie Sanders were willing to do a little investigating – less than a half-hour of googling would do — he could find out about the fantastic theft of many billions in aid money by Hamas leaders, about the use for military purposes of much of the aid that remains, instead of spending it on reconstruction for the sake of Gazan civilians. He would discover that Israel’s “blockade” does not extend to food, nor, any longer, to fuel. And he would learn about the thousands of rockets that Hamas has hurled at Israel. He would also find out about Hamas’ blood-curdling threats to kill not just all Israelis, but all Jews, everywhere.

He would find out that Israel tried, from the very moment it left Gaza, to help it inhabitants economically. Israel turned over, as a turn-key business, the 3,000 greenhouses that the Palestinians could have continued to run and expand, in an operation worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Instead, they chose to destroy them. Israeli employers also hired tens of thousands of Gazans, to work both in Gaza and in Israel, and only cut back later on such employment for security reasons.

Here’s what, having duly informed himself, Bernie Sanders could say about Gaza:

“I am deeply concerned about the ordinary people of Gaza, who are held in thrall by Hamas, a terrorist group that continues to attack Israel’s civilians with rockets and mortar fire. Billions of dollars have been given by aid groups to Gaza, too much of which ends up in the coffers of Hamas, the terrorist group that rules Gaza with an iron fist. And Hamas leaders have diverted billions – think of that, billions! – of that aid to themselves. Two of its top leaders, Khaled Meshaal and Moussa Abu Marzouk, have managed to amass fortunes of $2.5-5 billion and $2.5 billion respectively. In addition, the current leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, is said to now have a fortune of tens of millions of dollars; there are 600 Hamas members in Gaza who are believed to be millionaires, all of those fortunes are in the midst of so much  poverty among the ordinary Gazans. I think that the people of Gaza deserve to have that money returned, clawed back, for their benefit.

“I also think that Hamas should be shifting its priorities. Instead of spending money on expensive rockets and missiles, the use of which by Hamas only brings Israeli retribution, and does not improve the life of a single Gazan, all the aid money should go to reconstruction of housing, power plants, the electric grid, and waste-water management. Let every penny of that aid money be used to improve the lives of ordinary Gazans, instead of enriching a handful of Hamas leaders..

“And there is another thing that has always disturbed me. Why is it that tens of billions of dollars in aid have been given by the West, including the United States, as aid to the Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank, while so little is given to them by their fellow Arabs? Why can’t the Gulf Arabs come through with real money to help the Palestinians, and not just with a billion here and a billion there? Those Gulf Arabs have annual incomes of tens, and in some cases even receive hundreds of billions of dollars; surely they can spare some for the Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank? At that meeting in Manama, $50 billion in aid for the Palestinians was discussed – a sum that really would make a difference in the lives of Palestinians. And the Gulf Arabs can easily afford that. I call on them to contribute their fair share, without further excuses or delays.

“And to make sure that corrupt leaders do not again help themselves to much of that aid, or spend it on weapons, the disbursal of the aid should be the responsibility of financial technocrats assigned to the task by a U.N. oversight committee. Let’s see how that arrangement fares, and let’s for decency’s sake please  stop – and I  am ashamed to say that I was one of them – blaming Israel for the Gazans’ plight.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Senator compares veiled women to “Halloween witches,” critics seek parliamentary sanctions against him

France: No joy over death of al-Baghdadi, as the Islamic State has “inexorably altered” the fabric of daily life

Minnesota: “Dangerous” Muslim migrants conspired to export drone parts and technology to Hizballah

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

Bernie Sanders Wants to Cut Aid for Israel and Give It to Hamas [Part 1] by Hugh Fitzgerald

The appalling tale is here.

Addressing a meeting of the left-wing J Street, a Jewish organization devoted to pressuring Israel to meet Palestinian demands, Bernie Sanders outdid himself:

“My solution is to say to Israel: you get $3.8 billion dollars every year, if you want military aid you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza,” Sanders said. “In fact, I think it is fair to say that some of that should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza.

Sanders denounced the situation in Gaza as “absolutely inhumane,” “unacceptable,” and “unsustainable.”

“The Palestinian people have a right to live in peace and security as well. It is not anti-Semitism to say that Netanyahu’s government has been racist,” Sanders continued.

If the situation in Gaza is “absolutely inhumane,” “unacceptable,” and “unsustainable,” as Bernie seems to think – it’s not nearly that dire — that is due entirely to the corrupt lords of misrule in Hamas, whose top leaders have stolen up to $7.5 billion of that aid (see the discussion below) and spend what is left not on things which benefit the people of Gaza, such as residential housing, power plants, and water treatment plants, but on amassing an expensive armory of rockets to use against Israel.

It is up to the Palestinians in Gaza to chose whether to live in “peace and security.” It is they who have been making war, while Israel is only responding to their attacks. Israel has been the target of thousands of Hamas rockets, not the other way round. Israel never initiates attacks; it responds to them. Israel wants nothing more than to live, with its neighbors in Gaza, in “peace and security,” but it has discovered that the only way to end the attacks from Gaza is to respond with decisive force. This buys a certain period of “peace and security,” then the Gazans renew their rocket attacks; Israel again responds; the Gazan rockets again stop being sent into Israel, and “peace and security” is again reestablished, until the next time Hamas decides to break both the peace and the security.

How has Netanyahu’s government “been racist”? Presumably by defending itself against Hamas, the terrorist group that runs Gaza, when it sends rockets by the hundreds into Israeli civilian centers, or lets loose incendiary kites to set Israeli farms on fire, or attempt to breach Israel’s security fence, with Molotov cocktails, grenades, and sometimes live fire, in order to kill Israeli soldiers and civilians? In attempting to defend itself from those who attack it and call for its destruction, is Israel being “racist’? The only “racism” is that directed by the Muslims at the Jews, all Jews, and not just those in Israel. Hamas has repeatedly called on Palestinians to kill all Jews. This past summer, Hamas official Fathi Hamad told Palestinians that “there are Jews everywhere! We must attack every Jew on planet Earth — we must slaughter and kill them, with Allah’s help. Enough warming up!” Is Sanders familiar with Hamas’s murderous rhetoric? Does he know of any Israeli who talks about Palestinians in such a way? Does he know that Fath Hamad’s virulent Jew-hatred can also be found on Palestinian children’s shows, and in Palestinian textbooks?

And when Sanders attacks the “racist” Israelis, he overlooks how Arabs fare in Israel. Does he realize that Israeli Arabs serve in the Knesset, on the Supreme Court, as senior diplomats, even – as volunteers – in the IDF, where they rise high in the officer corps? Does he know that Arabs study at Israeli universities, that in Israeli hospitals Jewish and Arab doctors and other medical personnel work side by side treating both Jewish and Arab patients? Does he know that Arabs and Jews work together in factories, on farms, in service industries? And all this in “racist” Israel.

Sanders appears not to realize that Israel does not occupy Gaza; that not a single Israeli has remained there since the final pullout in 2005. Nor does he mention – does he know and not think it matters? — that Gaza is run by Hamas, a terrorist organization which has sent thousands of rockets indiscriminately into Israel. Even the left-wing Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both defined these Hamas attacks as “war crimes.” Hamas is murderous not just towards Israelis, but toward its Arab opponents as well; it has crushed Fatah in Gaza, killing hundreds of its members.

Israel’s blockade of Gaza is only a response to Hamas attacks. It is mainly directed at preventing construction material, such as concrete and iron, from being imported into Gaza, that can be used to reinforce Hamas military emplacements. Is Sanders aware that Israel allows fuel into Gaza precisely, as one Israeli spokesman said, to “prevent the civilian-humanitarian deterioration of the Strip”? Is he aware that Israel also allows humanitarian agencies to provide Gaza with millions of liters of diesel fuel and gasoline, fruits and vegetables, wheat, sugar, meat, chicken and fish products, dairy products, animal feed, hygiene products, clothing and shoes? Somehow one doubts that Bernie Sanders has been paying attention. And of course Gazans who cannot find suitable medical care in the Strip are allowed to use Israeli hospitals. Among them have been the relatives of several Hamas leaders, including Ismael Haniyeh and Khaled Meshaal, who have sought and been given treatment in Israel – that, too, would surely come as a surprise to Bernie Sanders.

The true enemy of the people of Gaza are not the Israelis. When they left Gaza, they handed over the greenhouses, then worth $14 million, that Israelis had built, as part of a thriving multi-million- dollar business in flowers that, it was hoped by Israel, could eventually bring the Gazans as much as $200 million in income. Israel had assumed the Gazan Arabs would continue to operate and expand the business, but instead, the Arabs destroyed the greenhouses completely, grabbing irrigation hoses, water pumps, and plastic sheeting in a blow to this fledgling efforts to reconstruct the Gaza Strip.

Israeli employers have also given work to tens of thousands of Gazans, both in Gaza and in Israel itself. In response to Hamas rocket attacks, some of those who used to travel to Israel for work can no longer do so. Should Israel then be blamed for taking such security measures?

Hamas has organized the “Great March of Return,” which every Friday since March 2018 sends Palestinians marching toward Israel’s security fence, to attempt to breach it in order to kill Israeli soldiers and civilians. It is the Palestinians who are attempting to attack Israelis in their own land; Israel has merely been defending its security fence. The Palestinians throw Molotov cocktails, grenades, incendiary kites, and sometimes use live fire. Meanwhile, the Israeli soldiers first use tear gas and rubber bullets, to head off the rioters, and if that doesn’t deter sufficiently, they use live fire, ordinarily aiming at the legs and then, and only as a last resort, when some rioters have actually breached the fence, they will aim above the waist. If there were no marchers with Molotov cocktails, grenades, incendiary bombs, and other explosives, relentlessly attempting to breach the security fence, there would be only peace from the Israeli side.

RELATED ARTICLE: Armenian Assembly: Omar’s Refusal to Acknowledge Armenian Genocide Doesn’t Represent “Muslim Values”

RELATED VIDEO: Elizabeth Warren Threatens Israel

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

Will Senate Republicans Swallow Democrats’ Abortion, LGBT ‘Poison Pills’?

The Trump administration has made good on its promise to implement pro-life policies throughout the federal government, including in America’s foreign policy and in humanitarian aid.

But those advances could be dealt a crippling blow as a result of a compromise by Senate Republicans, who are cooperating with an underhanded attempt to stymie the administration’s efforts through controversial additions to must-pass appropriations bills.

The Trump administration’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy reinstated and expanded the Reagan administration’s “Mexico City policy,” which barred taxpayer funds from organizations that perform or promote abortions overseas.

In addition, the administration has expanded the availability of funding to pro-life and faith-based aid organizations that the Obama administration excluded from participation in programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development because of their views on abortion, marriage, and gender identity.

Over the summer, the White House and congressional leadership from both parties reached an agreement regarding the budget and appropriations process, including an agreement that neither side would include so-called poison pill policy riders that did not have bipartisan support.

Abortion-related amendments historically have been understood to clearly violate such agreements, and the inclusion of controversial language on sexual orientation and gender identity should also fall into this category.

But prior to the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Sept. 26 vote on the funding bill for the State Department and foreign operations, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., threatened to offer an amendment reversing the Trump administration’s Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy.

In order to avoid a vote on this amendment, which could have passed the committee, Republicans on the panel agreed to add new language proposed by Shaheen to the bill.

That language, released just minutes before the scheduled committee markup, represents an attempt to work around the administration’s prohibition on international abortion funding by providing $665 million for “family planning and reproductive health care”—which would go to groups that promote abortion.

The new amendment, ultimately adopted as part of the final bill, also enshrines problematic language on sexual orientation and gender identity and hinders the administration’s efforts to expand USAID funding to pro-life and faith-based groups.

One provision requires the agency to inform Congress if any group that receives funding has been found to violate an Obama-era regulation interpreting sex discrimination as including sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Supreme Court is considering whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination includes sexual orientation and gender identity. This new language, if passed into law, could undermine the Justice Department’s argument in Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC that Congress has not previously affirmed that reading of the law.

The Shaheen amendment also requires creation of a “shame list” by requiring reporting to Congress that would expose pro-life and faith-based recipients of USAID funding to complaints that they refuse to comply with Obama administration regulations requiring them to make referrals for abortion and endorse radical sexual orientation and gender identity ideology.

The Shaheen amendment is only one aspect of this troubling compromise by Senate appropriators, however.

The committee report attached to the bill, which contains instructions on how funds are to be used, recommends an increase in funding for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex portfolio in USAID’s Human Rights Division.

Countries found to engage in “official government discrimination” against LGBT individuals could lose access to USAID funding. It’s unclear whether that includes countries that define marriage as between one man and one woman or whose laws define sex as binary and biological.

Finally, the report requires creation of a pilot program to align women’s economic empowerment programs with global health programs that include family planning and reproductive health.

That appears to be an attempt to tie funding for programs such as the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity Initiative, which focuses on enabling women around the world to support themselves and their families, to promotion of and funding for abortion.

The Senate should uphold its end of the bargain made with the White House last summer. That stipulates no funding for abortion-promoting groups, no radical redefinition of marriage and gender, and no shady attempts to implement such policies through a process that’s meant to exclude them.

COMMENTARY BY

Andrea Jones is a research assistant in the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The False Hope of the Transgender Language Police

Bernie Sanders Promotes Abortion on Veterans Day, Wants to Turn VA Hospitals Into Abortion Clinics


A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


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

D.C. and Virginia Do NOT Want Federal Shelters for Unaccompanied Alien Children

This is an update of a story I posted here in August where we learned that even the Washington Post was calling out local Leftwing politicians for their hypocrisy!

It is your classic ‘Not-in-my-backyard’ tale.

Washington, D.C. and its wealthy (Democrat-run) bedroom communities of northern Virginia do not want shelters for the mostly teens coming across our borders illegally.

Send them to Arizona and Texas instead!

From the Washington Business Journal:

Trump administration drops plans for Northern Virginia immigrant shelter

The Trump administration has called off its plans to bring a new shelter for unaccompanied immigrant children to Northern Virginia.

Federal officials are “no longer conducting exploratory assessments of vacant properties to lease” in the region, according to an email from spokespeople with the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement. The agency revealed in August that it was considering a variety of Northern Virginia jurisdictions for a new, 110,000-square-foot facility.

But that move prompted fierce pushback from local leaders…

[….]

The HHS officials did not say why they ultimately declined to pursue a shelter in the region. They added in the email that they’ve also stopped searching for space in Atlanta, Central Florida and Los Angeles, and will likely pursue new facilities in Texas and Arizona instead.

The mayor of Alexandria, Virginia, Justin Wilson, said if the feds send some bucks to the city he might consider discussing it further.

“If the federal government wished to provide the city with the resources to care for these children, in partnership, I would be open to discussing such a scenario,” Wilson wrote. “But as it has been presented to the city at this point, I do not believe this is something the city should be a part of.”

The Trump administration’s plans for a similar immigrant shelter in D.C. are considerably more unsettled.

Separately from the search for space in Northern Virginia, HHS also plans to work with Maryland-based contractor Dynamic Service Solutions to open a new shelter in Takoma. Mayor Muriel Bowser, however, has rolled out new regulations in a bid to block that project, though it remains unclear whether federal officials have a way to sidestep her efforts.

More here.

Trump administration threatens funding for UNC/Duke course promoting Islam

This is long overdue: “The Trump administration is threatening to cut funding for a Middle East studies program run by the University of North Carolina and Duke University, claiming that it’s misusing a federal grant to advance ‘ideological priorities’ and unfairly promote ‘the positive aspects of Islam’ but not Christianity or Judaism.”

There are courses of this kind in universities and colleges all over the country, and have been for years without any pushback. None of the academic institutions that promote this Islamic proselytizing should receive any federal funding at all. Universities and colleges from great to insignificant, from Stanford University in California to Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, have long been radioactive wastelands of Leftist indoctrination and Islamic apologetics in an increasingly totalitarian and threatening atmosphere. They need to be cut off. They need to be cut off immediately. They need to be cut off yesterday.

As it happens, I took a UNC/Duke graduate course on Islam back in 1985, when I was a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Even that many years ago, the violent aspects of Islamic doctrine were downplayed and whitewashed. There is no doubt whatsoever that in the intervening years, the impulse to absolve Islam of all responsibility for the crimes committed in its name and in accord with its teachings has only intensified.

“Jay Smith, a history professor at UNC and vice president of its chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said that the Education Department official who signed the letter threatening funding, Robert King, “should stay in his lane and allow the experts to determine what constitutes a ‘full understanding’ of the Middle East.”

“Experts.” Yeah. Everyone at this point should be wary of what historian Christopher Dummitt calls “the so-called proof presented by alleged experts.” He notes, in a fascinating article about his own promotion of currently fashionable gender fictions, that his “own flawed reasoning was never called out—and, in fact, only became more ideologically inflected through the process of peer review.” Yes, and that is happening in every academic department.

“DeVos Threatens College Funding Due to Islam Course,” Associated Press, September 20, 2019 (thanks to Henry):

(AP) — The Trump administration is threatening to cut funding for a Middle East studies program run by the University of North Carolina and Duke University, claiming that it’s misusing a federal grant to advance “ideological priorities” and unfairly promote “the positive aspects of Islam” but not Christianity or Judaism.

An Aug. 29 letter from the U.S. Education Department orders the Duke-UNC Consortium for Middle East Studies to revise its offerings by Sept. 22 or risk losing funding from a federal grant that’s awarded to dozens of universities to support foreign language instruction. The consortium received $235,000 from the grant last year, according to Education Department data.

A statement from the UNC-Chapel Hill said the consortium “deeply values its partnership with the Department of Education” and is “committed to working with the department to provide more information about its programs.” Officials at Duke declined to comment. The Education Department declined to say whether it’s examining similar programs at other schools.

Academic freedom advocates say the government could be setting a dangerous precedent if it injects politics into funding decisions. Some said they had never heard of the Education Department asserting control over such minute details of a program’s offerings.

“Is the government now going to judge funding programs based on the opinions of instructors or the approach of each course?” asked Henry Reichman, chairman of a committee on academic freedom for the American Association of University Professors.

“The odor of right-wing political correctness that comes through this definitely could have a chilling effect.”

More than a dozen universities receive National Resource Center grants for their Middle East programs, including Columbia, Georgetown, Yale and the University of Texas. The Duke-UNC consortium was founded in 2005 and first received the grant nearly a decade ago.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos ordered an investigation of the program in June after North Carolina Rep. George Holding, a Republican, complained that it hosted a taxpayer-funded conference with “severe anti-Israeli bias and anti-Semitic rhetoric.”

The conference, titled “Conflict Over Gaza: People, Politics and Possibilities,” included a rapper who performed a “brazenly anti-Semitic song,” Holding said in an April 15 letter….

In the UNC-Duke case, the department’s findings did not directly address any bias against Israel, but evaluated whether the consortium’s proposed activities met the goals of the National Resource Center program, which was created in 1965 to support language and culture initiatives that prepare students for careers in diplomacy and national security.

Investigators concluded that the consortium intended to use federal money on offerings that are “plainly unqualified for taxpayer support,” and that foreign language and national security instruction have “taken a back seat to other priorities.” The department cited several courses, conferences and academic papers that it said have “little or no relevance” to the grant’s goals.

“Although a conference focused on ‘Love and Desire in Modern Iran’ and one focused on Middle East film criticism may be relevant in academia, we do not see how these activities support the development of foreign language and international expertise for the benefit of U.S. national security and economic stability,” the letter said.

Investigators also saw a disconnect between the grant’s mission and some academic papers by scholars at the consortium. They objected to one paper titled “Performance, Gender-Bending and Subversion in the Early Modern Ottoman Intellectual History,” and another titled “Radical Love: Teachings from Islamic Mystical Tradition.”

The letter accused the consortium of failing to provide a “balance of perspectives” on religion. It said there is “a considerable emphasis” placed on “understanding the positive aspects of Islam, while there is an absolute absence of any similar focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism or any other religion or belief system in the Middle East.”

It added that there are few offerings on discrimination faced by religious minorities in the Middle East, “including Christians, Jews, Baha’is, Yadizis, Kurds, Druze and others.” Department officials said the grant’s rules require programs to provide a “full understanding” of the regions they study.

Jay Smith, a history professor at UNC and vice president of its chapter of the American Association of University Professors, said the letter amounts to “ideologically driven harassment.”

He said the Education Department official who signed the letter, Robert King, “should stay in his lane and allow the experts to determine what constitutes a ‘full understanding’ of the Middle East.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Winchester, Massachusetts: “Islam Is RIGHT About Women” flyers plastered all over town

Sinead O’Connor says that she was “born Muslim in the first place”

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

California: America’s First Third World State by Black Pigeon Speaks [Video]

Posted by Eeyore video by Black Pigeon Speaks

VIDEO: Who are the real racists?

When Kiara appeared in this 2014 video, she was a 30-year-old mother of four in Baltimore. An exceptionally attractive, well-spoken and intelligent young woman obviously capable of making a success of herself, Kiara, now 35, has been on welfare since she was 18.

When asked in the video if she felt bad about not working, she replied, “I don’t need to look for a job because I get a check from the government every month.”

Watch the video, and if you’re angry at her attitude, don’t be angry at Kiara. She’s merely another in the long line of inner city residents who have been lured into welfare addiction by the party of government dependency.

Who are the real racists? Democrats.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Bill Whittle – Racism – Democrats and Republicans switch sides?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Obama USDA suggested holding food stamp parties to increase participation

To expand food stamp rolls in rural areas, the Obama USDA ran ads that denigrated and discouraged self-sufficiency

Obama USDA’s “outreach” used Spanish-language ads to boost food stamp use among citizen & illegal immigrant Hispanics

CNN Climate Townhall: Cements the Re-election of Donald J. Trump and insures Republican Majorities in U.S. House and Senate

CNN has done a great service to America. I know, you’re asking yourself why did I write this?

CNN hosted a seven hour townhall with key Democratic primary candidates for president. The topic was climate change. During the CNN Climate Townhall each Democrat put forth policies that would make any American citizen cringe. It seems that Democrats just can’t help themselves. Let’s look at some of the highlights.

Highlights of CNN’s Climate Townhall

Here are some key statements made by Democrats who participated in the Climate Townhall:

  • Socialist presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders says if he’s elected, he wants American taxpayers to pay for abortions in poor countries around the world to limit population growth. Why? Because Sanders claims mass abortions will limit climate change. (Source: BizPac Review)
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders tell his town hall audience, his sweeping Green New Deal is a logical and practical response to climate change. But Sanders’ description of how he plans to raise the money to fund his plan — an estimated $16 trillion over the course of a decade — shows he is planning to profoundly transform American society. (Source: CNN)
  • As for the people in the oil and gas business who would lose their jobs, Sanders says he would provide 5 years of income as well as education for displaced workers. (Source: CNN)
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren embraced flawed policy priorities during the CNN town hall, rejecting nuclear energy and calling for expensive, job-killing carbon mandates and $3 trillion in new taxpayer spending. Her proposal to ban offshore oil drilling would hike gas prices and the cost of household goods, hurting middle-class families. (Source: CNN)
  • Andrew Yang supports ending subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. He wants everyone to love driving electric cars, as opposed to “gas guzzlers” and “clunkers.” Andrew Yang said, “This is not a country where you take someone’s clunker away from them. But you are going to offer to buy the clunker back and help them upgrade.” (Source: CNN)
  • Julian Castro highlighted an ambitious plan aiming to get the United States to net-zero by 2045, meaning all coal-generated electricity will be phased out and replaced by zero-emission sources. And while Castro focused on taxing “corporate polluters,” he could not name one of the culprits when asked. (Source: CNN)
  • Senator Kamala Harris, “If Republicans continue to block progress, I’ll get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal.” (Source: CNN/Twitter)
  • Joe Biden, “I will bring the world together — and that’s what we need to address climate change.”
  • Amy Klobuchar, “[T]alked about the importance of environmental justice for communities of color living on the front lines of pollution; she touted plans for moving money from polluters’ pockets into programs that can lift these communities up with a price on carbon.” (Source: CNN)
  • Julian Castro, “more people are protected by national flood insurance” by subsidizing it. That would be a mistake. Flood insurance encourages people to live in flood zones that should never have been populated in the first place, and are now more vulnerable than ever. It’s sad, but the reality is that climate adaptation will necessarily involve relocating some Americans out of high-risk flood zones. (Source: CNN)
  • Beto O’Rourke promised that he would re-enter the Paris agreement on “day-one” of his presidency. The Texas Democrat announced his climate plan in April, which will cost $5 trillion over 10 years to build out renewable energy and infrastructure, among a host of other pet projects. (Source: The Daily Caller)
  • Pete Buttigieg, Industrial America — including South Bend and the Studebaker cars we once produced — was built on oil and gas. But just as my community has moved forward, so must our country. So we’ll launch a 21st-century Industrial Revolution, investing in mass transit, transitioning to electric vehicles, and making buildings and homes more energy efficient. And with scientists indicating our soil can absorb as much carbon as the global transportation system emits, we’ll put American farmers at the center of our climate revolution. Too often, rural America has been told they’re the problem, not invited to be part of the solution. Through investments in soil management and other technologies, we can make a farm in Iowa as much a symbol of confronting climate disruption as an electric vehicle in California. ( Source: CNN Op-ed)
  • Democrats concur that rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement is important. (Source: CNN)

How CNN became the Committee to Re-elect Donald J. Trump

President Trump has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords, which every Democrat wants to rejoin. There is a reason for this. The reason is that the Paris Climate Accord punishes America and the American worker and rewards China, the worlds largest polluter.

I have learned three things about the climate:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. These changes in the climate follow natural cycles (e.g. summer, fall, winter, spring)
  3. There is nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles. Nothing.

The policies put forth during the CNN Climate Crisis townhall are not only inhuman but will certainly lead to greater centralized government control of all aspects of our lives. The goal is to achieve the fantasy of “environmental justice.” At whose expense exactly?

You guessed it, America’s working class.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Fox & Friends hosted Marc Morano on the CNN Climate Crisis town hall.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CNN’s Town Hall on Climate Change Revealed More Than Intended

List: Craziest Things Said at CNN Climate Event…

Bernie Sanders Says Abortion Will Help Fight Climate Change

Democrat Prez Candidate Castro Proposes New Category of Refugees—Climate Refugees

Banning Plastic Straws, Fossil Fuels: Here Are Seven Standout Moments From CNN’s Climate Town Hall

Pete Buttigieg: Combatting Climate Change May Be ‘More Challenging Than’ Winning WWII

Elizabeth Warren To Struggling Families Dependent On Oil Jobs: ‘That’s Not the Only Job’