Let’s Stop with the Carbon Con Already

The side that defines the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate. So we could ask: as we fight the global-warming scam, why are we using the language of the scammers? It’s harder to combat “carbon” taxes, “carbon” credits and callow “carbon” appeals if we accept that at issue is “carbon.”

Calling CO2 “carbon” is like calling H2O “hydrogen.” Carbon is about as useful to a plant aspiring to photosynthesize as a tank of hydrogen is to a dehydrated man in a desert. Carbon dioxide and carbon are not the same thing any more than a fox and foxglove are the same thing.

If chemical formulas are meaningless and one element or atom between friends can be ignored, try inhaling copious amounts of CO. It’s also “carbon,” being in fact more “carboney” ratio-wise than CO2. But carbon monoxide is poisonous to fauna and flora while carbon dioxide is plant food, which is why botanists pump it into greenhouses.

Likewise, would you like some chlorine with your food, sir? Sodium is poisonous; chlorine is poisonous. Combine the two — NaCl — and you have table salt. Chemistry is our friend.

It would be nice to think that the carbon crew is just being friendly and familiar. But not only would calling CO2 Mr. Dioxide be just as inaccurate, there’s clearly an agenda here. Carbon, the primary element in coal, conjures up images of spewing sky-blackening soot into the air. It’s a dark brand of marketing.

In fact, I challenge those crafting “carbon tax” bills to call CO2 “carbon” in their legislation’s text. They won’t because I suspect it wouldn’t stand up in court, as factories don’t actually emit carbon. The alarmists will either specify carbon dioxide or define, tendentiously, what “carbon” means for the “purposes of the bill.”

Of course, carbon isn’t really a villain, either. It’s the fourth-most abundant element in the universe, and man is known as a “carbon-based life form.” Given the latter, if extra atoms and elements and how they react with each other can be ignored when formulating labels and definitions, we could say that Al Gore’s birth was a carbon emission.

Honest people should reclaim the language and reboot the debate by rejecting “carbon” talk. As for those knowingly using the term for propaganda purposes, they should have a huge carbon footprint placed firmly on their carbon-based posteriors.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

VIDEO: On the War against the First Amendment

The ground we’ve lost during the Obama years — and the dangerous consequences for national security. I’ve posted this video before, but here is a transcript as well.

Below are the video and transcript to Robert Spencer’s speech at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s 2016 Restoration Weekend. The event was held Nov. 10th-13th at the Breakers Resort in Palm Beach, Florida.

Robert Spencer: Thank you very much.  It’s great to be here on this occasion.  I’m here year after year and this is certainly the happiest Restoration Weekend I’ve been to and very happy to say we won’t have Chick Nixon to kick around anymore.  Come on.  The fact is that Hillary Clinton’s defeat is a very, very serious victory not only for the Second Amendment, but for the First and this is something that has been insufficiently appreciated in all the commentary before the election and after.  Donald Trump, of course, he went after her many times saying Hillary Clinton is against the Second Amendment, she’s going to stop the sale of lawful weaponry in every way she possibly can, but he never spoke about the threat that she posed to the First Amendment and that is an ongoing threat and a still existing threat and it’s very important to bear that in mind because even though she was defeated, this threat has not gone away.  The left is in a full court press and a year’s long effort to destroy the First Amendment and essentially to criminalize any point of view that is not their own and this is a struggle that they are going to continue.  Now, there are many, many facets of this.  One is, of course, the most notable one I should say, is the organization of Islamic cooperation, which is 57 Islamic governments around the world, 56 states and the Palestinian Authority, the largest voting block at the United Nations, and they of course for years now since the publication of the Danish Cartoons of Mohammed in 2006 they have been working to restrict the freedom of speech and to compel Western states to restrict the freedom of speech at the UN.

I know a lot of you are familiar with that effort and that they have, under the guise of what they call “incitement to religious hatred,” been trying to compel Western governments to criminalize essentially criticism of Islam.  Obviously, when you talk about incitement through religious hatred, any kind of incitement, unless it’s absolutely direct and explicit, is a subjective judgment in the first place.  Secondly, nobody cares when people put crucifixes in jars of urine or mock Israel and Judaism.  Nobody cares about those things.  They only care about religious hatred in an Islamic context, and the most insidious aspect of this endeavor, this initiative, is of course that any honest discussion of how Islamic Jihadis use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence is classified explicitly by the OIC as incitement to religious hatred.  So, what they want to do is criminalize any discussion of the motivating ideology behind Jihad terrorism and the goal of that, of course, is to enable Jihad terrorists to advance unopposed and unimpeded.

Now, this has been going on for years.  It’s been going on since the Bush Administration and the Bush Administration at the UN vetoed these initiatives every year, but then of course came Barack Hussein Obama and twice the United States signed on to these initiatives and actually cosponsored one with Egypt in 2009 and even more notoriously signed on to Resolution 1618 of the UN Human Rights Council, which once again called upon UN member states to criminalize incitement to religious hatred and then had a little asterisk going to a footnote explaining that yes, the UN understood that there were certain countries that had protection for the freedom of speech and they would have to devise other ways to implement this initiative that would not collide with their laws.  Now that was the most insidious aspect of the whole thing and Hillary Clinton explained what it was all about not long after that in a speech in Istanbul to the OIC. And she said, and I know many of you have heard this quote, many of you are very well aware of what she said in this, but I think that not many of you are aware of exactly how this initiative is proceeding.  What she said of course was that we value the freedom of expression, which she doesn’t, but she said that she did and that in light of protecting the freedom of expression as well as protecting religious sensibilities, in order to compel people not to do what we don’t want them to do, we have to resort to, she said, old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming. Remember when she said that?  This is exactly how the Western media has proceeded in order, essentially, not to criminalize, but to rule out of the realm of acceptable discourse any honest discussion of these issues.

What happened to Oleg in his presentation just now is actually a case in point.  He’s not facing a felony charge for using the wrong kind of glue.  C’mon, we weren’t born yesterday.  We know that if he had been putting up posters for the Palestinians there would have been no problem at George Mason University, but because he was putting up pro-Israel posters from the David Horowitz Freedom Center suddenly all these rules about glue kick in and he goes to jail.  Now, peer pressure and shaming is essentially a strategy that makes it impossible for us to discuss these matters because of exactly that kind of bias and favoritism.  Only one point of view is acceptable and any other point of view is something that we’re going to be shamed out of.  You can just think about how many times Trump supporters were mocked, ridiculed.

I read a piece by Paul Berman from December 2015.  I re-read it a few months ago.  I recommend that you find it and read it.  It was in Tablet Magazine and he explains how Trump gives his poorly educated, redneck racist supporters permission to hate.  Now what is that but peer pressure and shaming?  People read that in Tablet and they think, “Oh, well, I don’t want to be one of those.  I don’t want to have permission to hate.  I don’t want to be a racist redneck yahoo,” and so they’re shamed out of it. The objective, the goal is — I would hope that nobody was foolish enough to read that and think, “Oh, I better not support Donald Trump” — but the goal of it was to shame his supporters out of it and this is something that goes on. It manifests itself in all kinds of forms.  Of course, the primary vehicles for this peer pressure and shaming is the whole concept of hate speech.  Now, hate speech is really pretty straightforward.  If somebody is speaking hatefully and saying that you’re a terrible person, you ought to be killed, you ought to be beaten up, that’s pretty hateful, but hate speech as a concept, hate speech as something that ought to be a consideration in determining who gets a platform and who doesn’t is an entirely spurious fiction, an invention of the left in order to silence those with whom it disagrees in order to silence us.  That’s what hate speech is all about.

I was speaking a couple years ago at Cal Poly University in San Luis Obispo, wonderful little town, and very nice crowd and some very good questions during the presentation.  At one point I said that there was actually restriction on the freedom of speech on the Cal Poly campus and people said, “What? What are you talking about you racist, bigoted Islamophobe That’s not true,” and I said, “Well, take me as a case in point.  I’ve written all these books.  I’ve written a biography of Mohammed.  I’ve written a guide to the Quran.  Several studies of Jihad from various angles.  I guarantee you,” I said to the students, “that the point of view that I represent is not discussed in your classes on Middle East studies or Islam and if it is it is only discussed in order to be dismissed if not reviled outright,” and a young lady said, “Oh no, you’re wrong.  We did discuss your books.  We did discuss your work in a class that I just took.” And I said “Oh that’s very interesting.  What was your conclusion?” And she said, “Hate speech is not free speech.” That was the first time I heard that. Have you ever heard that?  Hate speech is not free speech.  This is an increasingly common slogan that is going to be used and is being used right now to shut us down.  What the young lady at Cal Poly was saying was that she had supposedly read my work and decided that it was hate speech and that hate speech in and of itself does not enjoy the protection that the freedom of speech ought to be given, that hate speech is not speech that we ought to respect even to the extent of saying I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  And so I said, “Okay, that’s very interesting.”

I asked the young lady this following question.  Then who gets to decide because I don’t think what I’m doing is hate speech, unless the Quran is and I quote it, but you think it’s hate speech.  Now, which one of us has the right to determine what’s hate speech? What governing authority, to whom should be entrusted this governing authority so that we know what hate speech is and rule it out of free speech protection? And she said, “Well, the relevant governing authority. That’s not important for this discussion. That would be something that would be determined by Congress and the president.” And I asked her, “You really want to give them that kind of power?  Do you realize that to give anybody the right to determine what hate speech is and silence it on that basis is a tool of the powerful to silence the powerless and the tool of the tyrants to silence their critics?” And she said, “That’s just a Hobbesian argument against the powerful.” And I thought, “Oh, now I’m stretched because I had to remember okay who’s Hobbes and what does she mean by that?” I haven’t been to college in 30 years, but of course she meant Thomas Hobbes, who wrote Leviathan. I had to look it up and Leviathan is a political treaties from the 17th century that posits that the only thing that can save us, because we’re all sort of brutal and violent and selfish and vicious, the only thing that can save us from an all-out war of all against all is a strong government that keeps everybody in line. And there are some countries you can say that’s true about, but what she was saying was that I was manifesting an alarming lack of trust and that really I ought to just relax and let the relevant authorities determine what is hate speech and quietly go to jail with Oleg.

But the thing is, of course, that she only thinks that because her position is the dominant one that’s in power.  The problem that she manifests however, the problem of which she is an example, is the fact that there’s a whole generation of young people who are growing up with the idea that there is a concept of hate speech and that we are it and that we are way beyond the pale and ultimately to be criminalized and this is happening.  As a matter of fact, no less a constitutional authority that Chris Cuomo articulated this last year when we dared to try to stand up for the freedom of speech in Garland, Texas and, of course, in January 2015, 13 people who had dared to draw Mohammed were murdered by Islamic Jihadis in Paris and in response to that we thought we have two choices.  When they say we’re going to kill you for drawing Mohammed you either have to draw Mohammed or you have to submit and say yes you can get me to do what you want by threatening to kill me, and so you can manipulate me into silence and slavery. And so to stand up for freedom and for freedom of speech of course we had a Mohammed art exhibit and cartoon contest in Garland, Texas. Jihadis attacked it and there was a great deal of media coverage there for a while about it at which time Chris Cuomo actually stated that the First Amendment does not apply to hate speech and what we were doing was hate speech and therefore it was ruled out.

Now, actually, if you read the First Amendment it doesn’t say anything about hate speech nor is there any legal thing in United States law called hate speech.  There is no such concept because of course what’s hateful to you is not hateful to me.  One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.  Everybody has a different evaluation of what is true and good right and what is evil and hateful for that matter, but just the advance of this idea, that Chris Cuomo could think that, a major commentator on a major network, that in itself indicates how deep the rot has gone and how far advanced this concept is, that there is an idea of hate speech and that we are it.  Now, the peer pressure and shaming advances of course by charging us with this hate speech and recently — there are so many examples of this I could talk all evening (I promise I won’t) — but there are so many examples of this where opinions that are perfectly valid and have a claim to truth and in an earlier and saner age would have been evaluated on their merits are instead dismissed as hate speech, labeled as such and that is all part of this overall initiative of peer pressure and shaming that Hillary Clinton told us they were going to do.

One example of course is our friends at the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that actually did valid work in the ’60s for civil rights, but now has completely gone off the rails and become a tool for the left. The Southern Poverty Law Center recently, as you may know, issued a report on the 15 top anti-Muslim extremists in the United States, which included of course David Horowitz and me, Frank Gaffney, Pamela Gellar, many others, 10 or 12 others obviously and two of the people on the list of these anti-Muslim extremists were a reformist Muslim from the UK, Maajid Nawaz and the ex-Muslim from Somalia, the famous freedom fighter Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Now, this made this all very interesting because Frank, David and I and the others we’re used to being defamed in this way, although this was a new one.  To call us anti-Muslim extremists, if you think about that for a minute, what does the Obama Administration call terrorists?  Extremists.  Their whole program to fight Jihad terrorism doesn’t say “Jihad” or “Islam” because that’s forbidden in the Obama Administration and it’s called “countering violent extremism.”  So, to call us extremists the SPLC is saying we are terrorists.  We are the equivalent of Baghdadi, the ISIS Caliph and Osama Bin Laden and Al Laki and all the rest of them.  We are just the flipside of the coin.  Now actually it’s true.  David and I do plan to fly a plane into a high-rise building later on tonight, but in the meantime, I do think that that is an absurd categorization, but what happened in the wake of this was that Maajid Nawaz, in particular because he is very prominent on the left and particularly popular among the atheist critics of Islam and Jihad, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and so on, the atheists’ spokesmen who have actually spoken about Islam, there was a petition to get Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan off the list and of course the implication was it was perfectly fine for us racists and bigots to be on it, but now they had crossed the line.  Now, there was a certain touching naïveté to this.

You see, these supporters of Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali were thinking that those 13, those terrible deplorables, they belong on the list, but our friends, they don’t.  These people, no, they’re just unjustly maligning Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan.  They’re taking their statements out of context and misrepresenting them.  They are claiming guilt by association, indicating that they have associations with unsavory types and they’re questioning their motives and so on.  Well, what do you think happened to the rest of us?  This is just what the SPLC and its allied groups have been doing to us for years.  It’s exactly the same thing.  It’s all been a large-scale effort at peer pressure and shaming, making it so that we are toxic so that nobody else wants to speak out in the same way because they don’t want to be toxic and the whole idea of speaking out is stigmatized so that everybody is mute and silent as the Jihad advances.  It’s very well thought out.  I’ve really got to give them credit.  It’s a very skillful plan.  It’s very clever and very imaginative and deeply evil, but there’s always a silver lining, and the uproar about Maajid Nawaz and Ayaan being included among us anti-Muslim extremists it woke up a lot of people who I think had no idea that the SPLC is just a propaganda machine, but it is part of this propaganda machine that is working to extend the peer pressure and shaming to every honest critic who explores the motivating ideology of the Jihad terrorists and so we see it in all kinds of contexts.  Quite aside from the Southern Poverty Law Center.  We even see it at ESPN.

Now, ESPN is where I go when I want to not think about this, but it intruded even there.  Of course you probably know that Curt Schilling, the great baseball pitcher, after his pitching years were over he joined ESPN as a sports analyst of some kind.  I guess he probably talked about baseball and Curt Schilling actually is a conservative.  He now has a conservative talk show in the Boston area and he’s got very sound views on pretty much everything as far as I know and he actually dared to tweet out on his Twitter account some statements about Islam, most notoriously one where he said you say that only a tiny percentage of Muslims are Jihadis.  Well, only a tiny percentage of Germans were Nazis.  How did that work out?  For daring to say that he was suspended.  For saying other things that were outside the realm of what is acceptable he was ultimately fired by ESPN.  So, apparently, in order to talk about baseball on ESPN you have to have the right opinions or you will be shamed out of your job and the wrong opinions are of course the ones that probably most of us hear hold today.  It’s being taken for granted that we represent hate speech and it’s being extended into every aspect of society.

The ultimate goal of course is to make everyone afraid to hold these opinions because everyone will be afraid of losing their job, of being stigmatized as a racist and a bigot and so on and of course we’re so used to this we’ve heard ourselves called this for so many years, but it has never been so far advanced into the mainstream.  It is a tremendous blow to this whole initiative that Donald Trump was elected president.  Above all, because it shows that people don’t just buy this off hand.  I actually started to get some hope.  All summer and all fall the news was so bleak, the polls were so bad and Hillary was saying, “Why aren’t I ahead by 50 points?” And everything was so bleak, but I saw one thing that made me just dare to hope that things might turn out better and that was that trust in the media was at the lowest point it had ever been since anybody started keeping track of this sort of thing. And so while they are working to shame us and to apply peer pressure to silence us and while they are working to label what we do as hate speech, more and more people are waking up to it and 60 million of them did not buy it and voted for Donald Trump.  What we have now, however, is a president of the United States who commits hate speech and is subject to peer pressure and shaming and it’s an extraordinary position because after working so hard to delegitimize half of the American electorate and half of the spectrum of opinion that Americans legitimately hold, now that opinion is in power against their best efforts.

Now things are really going to get interesting and one of the best things actually that’s come about in this election cycle besides the election of Donald Trump was also the WikiLeaks exposure of just what the media really is and that’s one of the reasons why the trust in it is so very low because we grew up – I remember my father yelling at Walter Cronkite.  Walter was not in the room.  He was on the screen, but it was just what he was saying, and I remember Nixon, the first one, saying that he had faced bias from the press when he was running against John Kennedy in 1960.  Now that’s an awfully long time ago and that’s a lot of elections.  We’ve all grown up taking for granted media bias, but now we know that it’s far worse than that.  I took an online tour of the major news outlets in the early fall and the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, Politico, The Hill, all the major names, and every last one of them had story after story after story about what a dangerous scoundrel Donald Trump was and stupid to boot.  There is an inherit self-contradiction in how they classify all conservatives.  They did this with George W. Bush, too.  He was a monkey, he was a marginal idiot, but he was also an evil genius who had somehow thwarted all their plans while being an idiot monkey.  Really astonishing talents. And of course Trump is the same way. And every last media outlet had anti-Trump, anti-Trump, anti-Trump stories.  Not even the pretense of trying to be balanced news outlets anymore.  Not even pretending to have any objectivity.  It was just all wall-to-wall anti-Trump all the time and then it came out in WikiLeaks.

George Soros-funded organizations paid those august, trusted news outlets, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, you name it, they paid them for favorable coverage of the Iran nuclear deal.  They paid them for favorable coverage of the Muslim migrant influx into Europe.  They paid them for reports on the terrible Islamophobes.  They probably paid for that Southern Poverty Law Center anti-Muslim extremist list, but they certainly paid for other reports about how David Horowitz and I and others are these terrible, hateful, evil people who no decent person should have anything to do with.  And so we now know this is not news outlets at all.  These are bought and paid for propaganda outlets and their hegemony has been broken.  Even if Hillary Clinton had won, they would never have the hold that they had.  They will never have it again.  And so, we have every reason to be upbeat.  This is an ongoing initiative, as I said, and it’s not going to go away.  There are going to be continued efforts to stigmatize us, continued efforts to smear Trump as he becomes president, as he does anything, continued efforts to say that this is just some anomaly, sunspots, an accident of the Electoral College, something happened so that this maniac got to be president, but he’s still a maniac and any decent ordinary person will think he’s a maniac.  Nonetheless, the blades of grass have broken through the concrete, and it can’t be repaired, and so there’s every reason for hope.

But I will close with noting what exactly it is that we’re up against, what the effect of this stigmatization really is.  We have heard for decades now, and particularly after 9/11, that any honest discussion of how Islamic Jihadis use the text and teachings of Islam, which you can see in my Guide to the Koran and biography of Mohammed, available now, any honest discussion of that is hateful in itself, bigoted, racist, beyond the pale of acceptable discourse.  No.  This is how this works.  A few years back there was a Jihad plot against Fort Dix in New Jersey, and a group of Muslims were going to go into Fort Dix and shoot as many American soldiers as possible before they themselves were killed because the Koran promises paradise to those who kill and are killed for Allah.  It’s the only promise of paradise in the Koran.  It’s Chapter 9, Verse 111 if you want to look it up, and it says you’ll go straight to paradise if you kill and are killed.  These Muslims were going to go into Fort Dix and kill and be killed and go straight to paradise.  But they were foiled.  Now, they were only foiled — it was on a shoestring.  As it happened, these guys were Islamic Jihadis.  Islamic Jihadis love death.  They always tell us that.  They love death, they love bloodshed, they love gore. And they went to a video store because they had their bloody Jihad videos, their beheading videos and their bombing videos, they had them on VHS tapes, and so they asked the young man at the video store, 17-year-old boy, they asked him to transfer their VHS Jihad tapes to DVD.  As he’s doing the job, he saw what was on the tapes and he got alarmed, and he went to his boss, and he said, “Dude, I’m seeing some very weird shit on these videos.  Should I call the police or would that be racist?”  Now, I should tell you, these Jihadis were Albanians; they were Albanian Muslims.  Albanians are blond-haired, blue-eyed white guys, so there was nothing remotely racist about what they were doing, not by any stretch of the imagination.  The idea that turning them into the cops would be racist was just something that had been drummed into this young man’s head all his life, that Muslims are victims and that any movement against Jihad terrorism, there’s something wrong with it.  And you think that that’s outlandish; it’s not.

A very successful program of surveillance in Muslim communities, a completely legal program that had been challenged in court and held up to the challenge, in New York City, was shut down by Mayor de Blasio on the grounds that it was hateful.  Now, what’s hateful about trying to defend ourselves against these people?  If you think about it, you know, how Trump is Hitler because he had proposed a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration.  Now, you may recall the real Hitler, in 1940, he banned the immigration of Jews so that he could kill them.  And Trump, not Hitler, wants to ban the immigration of Muslims so they won’t kill us.  Those two things are not exactly equivalent.  But the idea that it’s a terrible anti-Muslim thing completely obscures the fact that he doesn’t have something against Muslims.  He doesn’t have something against brown people.  That’s the way it’s always put.  He does not have some racist agenda here because, for one thing, he’s not saying let’s have a ban on Hindu or Buddhist or any other kind of immigration of people of the same brownness as supposedly the Muslims are.  The problem is that he’s trying to address in suggesting this ban is that there are going to be Islamic Jihadis among the Muslims who get into the country.  How do you keep them out?  You can’t tell the Jihadis from the peaceful Muslims.  They don’t carry membership cards in Al-Qaida.  So how are you going to tell?  There’s no way to tell to distinguish the one from the other, so you either have mass immigration of Muslims into the United States or more Jihad massacres or you have a ban on the immigration, but the idea that it’s racist and hateful is just more of this peer pressure and shaming that almost worked with that young man at Fort Dix.  He did turn them in.  He decided to go ahead and be racist, and so he saved a lot of people from being killed, but the stigma had already worked or he wouldn’t have hesitated, and the stigma is what they are trying to apply to any and every form of resistance to Jihad terror, that it’s anti-Muslim, it is hateful, and therefore, it must be ruled out of polite society.

Now, you understand, we still have the First Amendment.  We still have the freedom of speech.  But we now that there are certain things that can be said in the mainstream and certain things that will immediately be branded as hateful, and that is how Hillary Clinton’s program of peer pressure and shaming works just absolutely so well, and is going to continue to do so, unfortunately, despite her defeat.  The upshot is, however, that we do have every reason to be optimistic not just with Trump’s election, but with the breaking of the stranglehold of the mainstream and the possibility that truth might now actually even breakthrough somewhere like CNN.  I’m not counting on it.  I suspect that these great news conglomerate industries will go out of business before they would moderate what they’re doing, but the people have had enough and that is our hope.  What we have is an ongoing struggle that we have to be very aware of and resolute in whatever fashion that we can be in our own sphere in life to resist, and to identify this as an insidious attempt at the peer pressure and shaming to stigmatize what is a legitimate point of view and indeed a necessary one for our common defense.  And because, ultimately, we do have the truth on our side, we know that we will, in the final instance, be victorious.  Thank you very much.

Question and Answer Session

Audience member: Robert, could you tell us how do you undo Resolution 1618 that has been signed by Hillary Clinton?

Robert Spencer: Well, resolutions in the UN are not iron dogma, but they can be reversed. They can be repealed just like in any other parliamentary body, and one thing that I think the Trump administration ought to do is make sure that the United States is clearly and explicitly and defiantly on record defending the freedom of speech at the UN.  And –

Audience member: Because in fact, they’re going forward with this 1618 resolution and making it larger and bigger, all of the states at the United Nations, so it’s something perhaps –

Robert Spencer: Hillary probably would have tried to implement it.  All you needed was a ninth justice who was a foe of the freedom of speech.  The four leftist justices on the court right now have all gone on record saying they would be in favor of various kinds of restrictions on the freedom of speech. And so all you needed was one more.  We really dodged a bullet here.  All you needed was one more to say hate speech is not free speech and does not enjoy First Amendment protection and actually codify that in a Supreme Court decision and the First Amendment would have been dead.

Audience member: One more question.  There’s 1.7 billion Muslims according to your very, very thorough research.  What percentage would you say of that 1.7 billion are a threat to the world?

Robert Spencer: There’s no way to answer that question. The reason why is because the teachings about Jihad warfare against unbelievers and subjugating them under the rule of Islamic law, which denies the freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience and equality of rights of women and so many other things, all that is in Islamic law.  It is not negotiable.  It’s not some extremist opinion.  It’s basic mainstream ordinary Islam.  Those who tell you otherwise are lying.

Now, that said, does every Muslim believe that?  Is every Muslim bound to carry those things out?  No.  Absolutely not.  Just like in any other religious tradition, there’s some people who are very serious about it and some people who aren’t and every gradation in between.  So you have in the Catholic church, contraception is illegal, is immoral according to the Pope, but surveys show most Catholics practice contraception.  Does that mean that the Catholic church does not teach that?  No, it really does, but most Catholics don’t pay attention.

Now, in Islam, it’s the same thing.  Does Islam in all its various sects and forms teach Jihad warfare against unbelievers?  Yes.  Does that mean every Muslim is a Jihadi?  Absolutely not.  Many, many Muslims don’t know about that, don’t care about that, are never going to put it into practice.  They would rather live a comfortable life than go blow themselves up, but they’re not going to lift a finger to stop the guys who are blowing themselves up because they know that it’s in there.

Who has the mic?

Audience member: I do. This is a question I wanted to ask Anne Coulter and probably would have gotten a flip, funny answer, but I’d actually rather ask it to you, which is what would you like to see happen to the UN in a Trump world?  I’d appreciate your perspective on that.

Robert Spencer: What would I like to see happen to the UN in a Trump world?  Was that the question? Well, can you imagine the mushroom cloud?  Seriously, what I would like to see happen to the UN is that certainly the U.S. should withdraw all funding from it and evict it from the United States.  We can’t shut it down because there are a few other countries in it, but we can keep it out of New York and the United States in general.  They can go to Geneva and they can raise their own money.  It’s a propaganda arm for the global Jihad, for the OIC.  It’s a propaganda arm to hit Israel above all and so we have no business allowing our ally to be subjected to this or to continue with this pretense that it’s something that actually brings anything good to the world.  It doesn’t.

Audience member: Robert, thank you.  First of all I want to thank you profusely for all of your efforts in the cause of freedom. Your courageous efforts.  Now, could you kind or explain or expound upon and assess the following two assertions that we hear all too frequently?  One of them, we are not at war with Islam and the second one, the ideology of takfirism is an existential threat to the United States.

Robert Spencer: Well, the ideology of takfirism is kind of an incoherent thing to say because takfir is the practice of one Muslim group declaring that another Muslim group is not Muslim and can therefore be killed as heretics or apostates because heresy and apostasy carry the death penalty in Islam.  So many of the groups that are more entrenched in holding on to their wealth and power, like the Saudi government, the Iranians, they declared groups like Al Qaeda, they call groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS takfiris, which means these are the people who are saying that the rest of us are not Muslims and trying to kill us, but that doesn’t mean that, of course, the Saudis or the Iranians — the Iranians say it because they’re Shiites and the Al Qaeda and ISIS people are Sunnis, but in any case, nobody should get the idea that the takfiris or that is Al Qaeda and ISIS and the other Jihad groups are the only people who hold to the view that there should be warfare against unbelievers.

This is, as I said, standard Islam, kill them wherever you find them.  It’s three times in the Quran, Chapter 2:191, 489 and 95 if you want to look it up.  Chapter 9, Verse 29 says to wage war against the Jews and Christians and subjugate them as inferiors under the rule of Islamic law, paying a special tax.  All these things are in basic Islam.

So if somebody says that it’s just these takfiri groups, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf and so on, that practice this, that’s just completely false on the face of it.  It’s taught by all the mainstream sects of Islam.

And the first question, we are not at war with Islam.  That also is sort of a false statement.  I mean, we’re not at war with Islam, but large portions of Islam are at war with us and the Muslims who are at war with us, they point to the Quran and Sunnah the example of Mohammed to justify what they’re doing and they recruit some unpeaceful Muslims and unless and until we recognize that, we’re never going to get anywhere.

The Obama administration in 2011 outlawed any honest discussion of the motivating ideology of the terrorists.  It actually is forbidden.  If you joined the FBI today, which I would not recommend, maybe when Trump is in, but not right now, if you joined the FBI today and you say I want to go into counterterror, you will not learn anything about Islam, anything about Jihad, even though that’s the largest global threat the U.S. faces.  You will hear about right-wing extremists and militias and constitution groups, but it is official policy of the Obama administration that there be no mention of Islam and Jihad in connection with terrorism.  The upshot is that our agents are completely unequipped to deal with what they are seeing with the Jihadis.  You can’t defeat an enemy you don’t understand and to get the intel about these people they don’t know what it means.

The Tsarnaev brothers who blew up the Boston Marathon, Russia reported them to the FBI.  They said these guys, actually Tamerlan the older one, he went to Jihad groups, he joined Jihad groups in Dagestan.  Now this was right around the time that the FBI under orders from John Brennan and Obama were erasing all mention of Islam and Jihad from counterterrorism.  So they get the intel from the Russians that says these guys joined Jihad groups right when the United States is blinding itself as official policy to the idea that Jihad is benign, nothing to worry about, nothing to be concerned with.  How could they possibly have followed through on that intel?  It went against the state policy of the administration and so the marathon blew up.

And so we have to understand that Islam, to a tremendous degree, is at war with us and that if we don’t realize that, it’s just going to get worse, but of course, Trump he made a big deal during the campaign of the fact that he would say that there was a threat from what he called radical Islam. It’s actually mainstream Orthodox ordinary Islam, but even saying radical Islam after these 8 years of denial and willful ignorance is refreshing and one would hope that he will change the institutional culture in the FBI and the CIA and Homeland Security and all the rest of them.  It’s drastically needed.

Who has the mic?  Yes, sir.

Audience member: Hi.  So I go to a high school where 99 percent of the students their parents are lobbyists or work in government.  I guess you could say I live in the swamp.  So I recently wrote something reflecting on the results of the election and as you can probably imagine it’s pretty positive and also as you can imagine I received a slew of peer pressuring shaming as you’d say.  I was told that Trump validates the KKK and white supremacy and I said no, the only reason they latched onto the campaign is because of the media’s lies and character assassination that told everybody that Trump was racist even though that’s not the case.

However, what other advice would you give to someone like me who lives in the midst of all those people to defend myself against such claims?

Robert Spencer: I think that mockery is awfully undervalued and that there’s a tremendous potential for it, particularly on college campuses.  I didn’t quite hear everything that you were saying.  Are you in a college right now or –

Audience member: No, high school.

Robert Spencer: High school, okay, even better.  Same thing really at this point.  The colleges are high schools and the high schools are middle schools and so on.  But the Muslim groups, I don’t actually know about high school, but I know that when you get to college you’ll see, the Muslim groups or the anti-Israel groups, the Students for Justice in Palestine and so on, they make a great show of their victimhood and their grievance theater is always featured on campuses.  So, for example, they have Israeli Apartheid Awareness week and they build a wall and have a checkpoint and you have to go through the mock IDF soldier to get to your class and it’s supposed to show you how terrible Israel is.

Well, we can have a lot of fun with that kind of thing if we turn it around on them and have, for example, they have Islam awareness week, well, why don’t we have Quran awareness week and put up “kill them wherever you find them” and “if you fear disobedience from your wife, beat her,” and all these things from the Quran. And they’ll say how could you have this terrible Islamophobia?  Well, it’s just the Quran.  I thought you wanted us to be aware of Islam.  And you play their contradictions back on them.

They talk about being feminists and being in favor of women’s rights and yet they are in bed with and in league with the most misogynistic and absolutely violent ideology toward women on earth.  So you have honor killing victim awareness week and put up the pictures of the unattractive women who have been killed by their fathers or their brothers for not wearing the hijab.  Actually, they have hijab week now on campuses and I’m seeing that all these non-Muslim girls are wearing the hijab to show solidarity with the poor Muslim girls who are yelled at for wearing hijab by racist, Islamophobic Trump supporters and, well, what about all the girls that have been killed for wearing hijab?  I can give you a long list and give you pictures of them.  And what about them?  Do they have any rights?  Can we have an awareness week for them?  What, you don’t care about these women?  It’s only those women?  And so on.

You see what I mean, that you have to in the first place have a very thick skin and be ready to be called everything that there is and understand that this is their tactic, to shame us out of doing what we’re doing, but you bring it back on them and shame them for their own contradictions and hypocrisy.

Audience member: Why are you so racist? No, that wasn’t my question.  My observation first of what you last said.  There are student groups working on colleges planning just that.  Saudi Arabia apartheid week. And planning to do street theater with gays hanging from – in Iran week.  But the question now, if I can remember, it was about changing the culture in our security services.  I know people from the intelligence and FBI community.  On a personal level, they are highly aware of this, but their investigations cannot be geared that way.  How long do you think it will take after 1:00 or 2:00 on January 20 for that to change? And how do we go about doing it?

Robert Spencer: You’re absolutely right.  I also know many people in the FBI and other agencies who are well aware of the nature and magnitude of the Jihad threat, but they’re keeping their head down, they’re doing their job, they’re biding their time and so things will get better very quickly.  But there’s also 8 years’ worth of agents who don’t have a clue and who have been completely misinformed.  I have a local FBI agent whenever I get death threats. He calls me or I call him and he says they’re on it and I say yes and then we go back to our business and nothing happens.

But I talk to him now and again and he was reassuring me the other day, last time I got a death threat and he’s saying, “I want you to know that I’m well aware of this problem with these guys that you’re tracking and also, we’re right on top of the other guys on the other side” and I said, “What do you mean, the other guys on the other side?”  And he said, “The people upstate, the right-wing militias, they’re just as dangerous as the guys you’re talking about,” and I thought, do they smoke opium now in the FBI as a matter of training?

Can you imagine, he thinks right-wing, when have you heard of right-wing militias, I mean, 30,000 terror attacks around the world by Islamic Jihadis acting explicitly in the name of the Quran, Islam, Mohammed since 9/11.  How many right-wing militias have done that?  And you can say, oh, yes, well, this fella or that fella or this guy had a Confederate flag, the psychopath with the bowl haircut in South Carolina.  This is hardly proportionate and hardly remotely the same magnitude of threat, but this is what they’re being taught nowadays and they can only explore the ideology of the one group and not the other.  So we can hope and I have every confidence now that that’s going to change and change quickly when the new administration comes in.

Thank you so much for being here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Peugeot car plant closed as Muslim workers took “too many prayer breaks”

Reza Aslan: A Muslim “Will & Grace” will cure “Islamophobia”

You Will Comply: The Regulatory Menace vs. America

The regulatory hive centered in Washington, D.C., buzzes with a power and reach that even the Caesars never imagined. And they were considered gods.

Federal regulators can bankrupt companies, distort markets and shut down entire industries with their decrees — the rules that implement Congressional laws. They can also move or slow entire economies and prop up or undermine Presidents. Not good.

Here’s how it works.

Laws are often and by necessity general. The rule-writing and rule enforcement is where the power is. Regulators, lifelong employees with little accountability to the people, write the rules and enforce the rules. If you as a private citizen or a business person have the misfortune of running awry of the regulators, you have virtually no recourse.

They are all powerful. Like gods of an industry. And like all people, they are given to ideology, partisanship and self-interest.

So here is the dynamic: Ideological, partisan, all-powerful regulators write and enforce rules and are unaccountable to the people. This is why so many conservatives want deregulation, in addition to the job-creating economic boost.

Their power is really stunning. Because of that, we have the armies of lobbyists. People mistakenly think the lobbyists are only interested in persuading the politicians. Actually what they are looking for is language that will help their industry or hurt their competitors — when the regulators write the rules. They can also lobby — unofficially — the regulators themselves.

What we have seen in spurts with FDR and Nixon was a corrupting of certain federal regulators. But what we have seen in recent years is a wholesale corrupting of regulatory agencies along ideological and partisan lines. Here’s a few.

  • The U.S. Department of Justice selectively enforcing laws
  • The IRS in blocking the non-profit status of tea party and conservative organizations, thus eliminating their influence
  • The Environmental Protection Agency used on multiple levels to achieve political aims
  • The Department of Homeland Security body-patting grandma while allowing burka-covered Muslim women through in the name of multicultural correctness
  • The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency that refuses to enforce immigration laws and allows millions of people to come and live here illegally
  • The U.S. Department of Agriculture targeting of small farmers and closing down “undesirable” farmers and ranchers

Abuse by the EPA undermine Trump

And so now we come to this moment. The EPA regulators have changed the agency’s report on fracking in groundwater contamination to make it more difficult for future approvals.

In last year’s draft version, the EPA reported that there were no “widespread systematic impacts on drinking water.” That report said the number of contaminated sites was quite small compared to the number of fracking sites and concluded the impact to be minimal. Good for the fracking industry, jobs, energy costs and energy independence.

However, that did not make the anti-fracking environmentalists happy, and those conclusions are now gone from the final report that just came out — one month before the new president is sworn in. Now the same EPA — based on the same data — reports that there is not enough evidence to dismiss the water contamination threat and says more vaguely that fracking activities “can impact drinking water resources under some circumstances.”

This is regulatory abuse at its clearest, because it is supposedly relying on scientific evidence to tweak the wording. But what it does is empower regulators to deny permits, allow stronger legal challenges to fracking and, probably most specifically, undermines Trump’s stated desire to open up more fracking to create American jobs and energy independence.

Abuse by the Fed undermine Trump

The Federal Reserve manipulates interest rates to spur the economy or try to slow it. The supposedly politically independent organization has kept interest rates at record lows for almost the entire Obama presidency. Obviously the economy needed all the help it could get, and it still wasn’t enough.

But interestingly, right before Trump takes office the Fed is planning a rapid series of rate increases. Either the Fed leadership knows exactly which policies goose the economy (Trump’s, not Obama’s) or they are actively trying to undermine a Trump recovery.

We never know what is going on inside of the secretive Fed, but given that Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellin chaired Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors and was appointed to the Fed’s top seat by Obama, who appoints fellow ideologues, it seems likely that it is not suddenly a clear view of what is good for the economy. If that is right, then this is another abuse of one of the most powerful and unaccountable of regulators.

This will not be the end of the Regulatory State’s attempts to undermine Trump at every turn. We saw this regularly in the Bush Administration, particularly in the State Department.

Americans should not have to fear the federal government and whatever local regulators show up at the door. But many do. And virtually all businesses do. Now, Republican presidents also must deal with the menace.

This needs to stop. But that will be a Herculean task, requiring a commitment to substantially reducing the size and scope of the federal government through agency elimination and deep funding cuts.

Obama administration lied, exposed as architect of anti-Israel UN action

“It also has come to light that Kerry held a meeting in December with senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat. Documents believed to have been leaked by Egypt confirm that Kerry and Erekat discussed forwarding the resolution, a charge that senior White House officials continue to deny.”

The Obama administration will leave behind a long, long record of dishonesty and betrayal.

“White House On Defense After Being Exposed as Architect of Anti-Israel U.N. Action,” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, December 29, 2016:

Senior Obama administration officials are scrambling to provide explanations after multiple reports, including in the Washington Free Beacon, identified the White House as being a chief architect of a recent United Nations resolution condemning the state of Israel, according to conversations with multiple former and current U.S. officials.

On the heels of the hotly contested resolution, which condemned Israel for building homes in its capital, Jerusalem, senior Obama administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, have been identified as leading the charge to ensure the anti-Israel measure won approval by the U.N. Security Council.

The administration’s denials of this charge broke down during the past several days as multiple reporters confirmed the Obama administration worked behind-the-scenes to help shape and forward the resolution.

The Free Beacon disclosed on Monday that Vice President Joe Biden phoned Ukraine’s president to ensure that country voted in favor of the resolution. While the White House issued multiple denials, further reports from Israel and Europe have confirmed a phone call between the leaders did in fact take place.

It also has come to light that Kerry held a meeting in December with senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat. Documents believed to have been leaked by Egypt confirm that Kerry and Erekat discussed forwarding the resolution, a charge that senior White House officials continue to deny.

White House National Security Council official Ned Price described such a meeting as a “total fabrication,” despite public documents highlighting the powwow between Kerry and Erekat.

One senior Obama administration official who spoke to the Free Beacon said the White House did not help draft the resolution, as Israeli leaders have suggested in recent days.

“We’ve been entirely clear that this was an Egyptian resolution,” said the official, explaining that the effort did not originate with the White House. Reports of a meeting between Kerry, Erekat, and White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice are not correct, the official said.

However, these claims have been disputed by multiple sources who spoke to the Free Beacon both on and off the record about the situation.

Jonathan Schanzer, a Middle East expert and vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told the Free Beacon that he spoke with U.S. officials in September who admitted that “a U.N. measure of some shape or form was actively considered,” a charge that runs counter the White House’s official narrative.

“We know that this administration was at a minimum helping to shape a final resolution at the United Nations and had been working on this for months,” Schanzer said.

“This isn’t terribly dissimilar from the administration’s attempts to spin the cash pallets they sent to Iran,” he added, referring to the administration’s efforts to conceal the fact that it sent the Iranian government some $1.7 billion in cash.

“The fact is, the administration has been flagged as being an active participant in this U.N. resolution,” Schanzer said. “Now they wish to try to spin this as inconsequential. This was an attempt by the administration to lead from behind, as they have done countless times in the past and which has failed countless times in the past.”

As with the meeting between Kerry and Erekat, the phone call between Biden and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has been confirmed multiple times by a plethora of sources in the United States, Israel, and Europe following the Free Beacon’s initial report.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a weekly cabinet meeting that “the Obama administration initiated [the resolution], stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed.”

The administration has not yet addressed the discrepancy between its own narrative and that being revealed in the press….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Guinea President: “Terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Indeed, Islam is a religion of peace.”

Spain: Snipers and armed police to guard public areas amid jihad terror fears

The Malice of the Leader of the Democratic Party

President Barack Obama is the leader of the Democratic Party. It is expected that after he leaves office on January 20th, 2017 he will continue to be the de-facto leader of the Democratic Party.

His legacy is the legacy of the Democratic Party.

In my column “How Democrats Fundamentally Changed from the Party of JFK to the Party of BHO” I asked, “Where are the Blue Dog Democrats? Purged from the BHO Party? As Ronald Reagan once said he did not leave the Democratic Party, rather the Democratic Party left him. So it is with many Democrats. The BHO Party has left them in the lurch.”

The Democratic Party has become the party of protests, anarchists and tribalism. They cling to illusions of racism, bigotry and embrace an anti-American world view. 

We have been writing about how President Obama has warmly embraced Islam as a person, as President and as the leader of the Democratic Party. Since his election in 2008 there has been malice, with forethought, against America in general and Israel in particular.

In a May 2015 column Dissected: President Obama’s Anti-Israelism Jerry Gordon wrote:

Both Vic Rosenthal’s Abu Yehuda  blog post, “For Obama it’s a Moral Crusade” and Brett Stephens’ Tuesday Wall Street Journal column,“The Rational Ayatollah Hypothesis” suggest that the President’s comments sinuously convey anti-Israelism.

Rosenthal gives the following evidence:

Some of the reasons I and others find Obama anti-Israel are these:

  1. His stubborn attempts to force Israel into a suicidal agreement with the Palestinians.
  2. His acceptance (regardless of his words) of a nuclear-armed Iran, and his efforts to stop Israel from acting against it.
  3. His open contempt for our Prime Minister.
  4. His taking the Turkish president’s side in the Mavi Marmara affair, and forcing PM Netanyahu to apologize to the Turks.
  5. His acceptance of Hamas claims that the IDF acted ‘disproportionally’ in Gaza (as shown by his demand for an immediate cease-fire and imposition of an arms embargo during the recent war).
  6. The aforementioned leaks about Israeli actions in Syria and elsewhere.
  7. His acceptance of the anti-Israel narrative that Israel’s right to exist rests on the Holocaust and that it must be balanced against the rights of the ‘deserving’ Palestinians (as expressed in his 2009 Cairo speech).
  8. His attempts to interfere in Israeli politics, including trying to defeat Netanyahu at the polls. It’s ironic that American money was used to help get out the presumably anti-Netanyahu Arab vote — and then Obama bitterly criticized Netanyahu for telling his supporters that they should get out and vote because the Arabs were!
  9. The double standard he displays: compare his condemnation of the PM for his election-day remark with his lack of response to the daily barrage of Israel-hatred and veneration of terrorists coming from the official Palestinian media. Or look at his expressed concern for Palestinians suffering the indignities of checkpoints against his failure to mention the almost daily Jewish victims of Palestinian terrorism.

I could go on, but this should be enough to show that the belief that Obama is anti-Israel is substantive, not simply a political reflex as he suggests.

Obama and Democratic Party have now shown malice toward Israel.

This malice began when Obama was first elected to the Presidency. His remarks about embracing Israel, and its people, and having their backs was a fabrication, a political calculation to lure them into a spiraling chamber of death.

The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews under Adolf Hitler. President Obama has given the followers of Mohammed another signal that its alright to exterminate the state of Israel – the definition of malice. Obama with one abstention has made possible the unthinkable.

Lutheran Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, an opponent of Adolf Hitler, wrote, “Not to act is to act, not to speak is to speak.” Obama chose not to act, not to speak, at the United Nations on December 23rd, 2016.

That is his and the Democratic Party’s legacy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

John Bolton: ‘The Two-State Solution Is Dead’

With New Resolution, the UN Drives Stake into Israeli-Palestinian Peace Hopes

Our World: Obama’s war against America

Israel will share ‘evidence’ of Obama-UN collusion with Trump, ambassador says

Netanyahu rips U.S.: ‘Friends don’t take friends to the Security Council’

Israel summons US ambassador over UN vote

Obama’s War on Israel: Netanyahu’s Remarks on UN Resolution at Lighting of the First Chanukah Candle

Security Council Resolution 2334 and a Strategy for Israel

Obama’s malice, May’s shame. Drain the UN swamp by Melanie Phillips

Obama’s self-defeating settlements policy

U.S. May Back Additional UN Security Council Moves Tied to Paris Peace Conference

Muslim illegal migrant wanted for Berlin slaughter was jailed 4 years in Italy; police lost him

Why was he allowed into Germany at all? Because it would have been “Islamophobic” to keep him out. Why did police lose him after he was arrested three times? Because there are so many young Muslim men like Anis Amri, young men who could be jihad threats, that German authorities simply can’t keep up with them all. Thus it is madness for them to admit even more, but Merkel seems hell-bent on doing so anyway.

“Revealed: Tunisian asylum seeker wanted for Berlin massacre was jailed for four years in Italy for burning down a school and arrested three times in Germany before police lost him,” by Allan Hall, Martin Robinson and Julian Robinson, MailOnline, December 21, 2016 (thanks to Mike):

The Tunisian terror suspect wanted in connection with the Berlin Christmas market atrocity spent four years in an Italian jail before moving to Germany, his father revealed today.

Anis Amri settled in Italy after leaving his hometown of Tataouine, Tunisia seven years ago to travel to Europe as an illegal immigrant, his father claimed in a radio interview.

Amri, who has a €100,000 reward on his head, spent four years in an Italian jail after burning down a school before leaving the country for Germany last year.

Since then the 23-year-old has been arrested at least three times but German authorities have allowed the him to slip through their clutches time after time – even though Amri has been identified as an ISIS supporter known to have received weapons training.

He had been under covert for much of the time since his arrival in Germany last year.

Security forces exchanged information as recently as last month that allegedly tied Amri to Islamic extremists, Fox News reported.

And in June German authorities reportedly tried to deport Amri after learning he was plotting a ‘serious act of violent subversion’, a source told the Washington Post.

Amri even tried to recruit an accomplice for a terror plot – and again the authorities knew about it – but still he remained at large, it has emerged.

It is understood, Amri has used at least six different names under three different nationalities.

Berlin prosecutors announced they had launched an investigation into Amri on March 14 after receiving a tip-off from federal security agencies.

It was claimed, Amri was planning a string of break-ins or robberies to purchase automatic weapons for use in a terror attack.

Surveillance showed that Amri was involved in drug dealing in a Berlin park and involved in a bar brawl, but no evidence to substantiate the original warning. The observation was called off in September.

He arrived in Germany in July 2015 and was given a hearing by immigration authorities in April this year. He was denied the right to asylum and was due to be deported before the end of the year.

But under a peculiarity of the German asylum system he was granted a ‘Duldung’ or toleration papers allowing him to stay for unknown reasons.

According to BILD newspaper the German authorities were in touch with their Tunisian counterparts to get him a passport so he could be kicked out. But Tunis said it had no record of him being a citizen.

Tunisia has now been accused of delaying his extradition as it emerged that new ID papers had only just arrived in Germany today – two days after the carnage.

Amri was put on a danger list shortly after arriving – a move which meant authorities considered him prone to extreme violence. Yet just how much surveillance he was under remains unclear.

In July this year he got into a knife fight over drugs and was charged with GBH. But he went underground before getting to court.

Yet he surfaced again in August in Ludwigsburg when he was arrested for possessing a fake Italian document. Again, why he was allowed to slip through the fingers of the security services, given his known affiliation to hate preachers, is unclear.

Before his vanishing act he had contact with Salafist preachers who promoted Jihad among German young men who converted to Islam….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Italian girl converts to Islam, joins the Islamic State: “I can’t wait to die as a martyr”

Germany: Police chiefs warn of “further significant attacks”

The Failure of Public Schooling in One Chart by Daniel J. Mitchell

While I have great fondness for some of the visuals I’ve created over the years (especially “two wagons” and “apple harvesting“), I confess that none of my creations have ever been as clear and convincing as the iconic graph on education spending and education outcomes created by the late Andrew Coulson.

I can’t imagine anyone looking at his chart and not immediately realizing that you don’t get better results by pouring more money into the government’s education monopoly.

But the edu-crat lobby acts as if evidence doesn’t matter. At the national level, the state level, and the local level, the drumbeat is the same: Give us more money if you care about kids.

So let’s build on Coulson’s chart to show why teachers’ unions and other special interests are wrong.

Gerard Robinson of the American Enterprise Institute and Professor Benjamin Scafidi from Kennesaw State University take a close look at this issue.

…education is important to the economic and social well-being of our nation, which is why it is the No. 1 line item in 41 state budgets. …Schools need extra money to help struggling students, or so goes the long-standing thinking of traditional education reformers who believe a lack of resources – teachers, counselors, social workers, technology, books, school supplies – is the problem. …a look back at the progress we’ve made under reformers’ traditional response to fixing low-performing schools – simply showering them with more money – makes it clear that this approach has been a costly failure.

And when the authors say it’s been a “costly failure,” they’re not exaggerating.

Since World War II, inflation-adjusted spending per student in American public schools has increased by 663 percent. Where did all of that money go? One place it went was to hire more personnel. Between 1950 and 2009, American public schools experienced a 96 percent increase in student population. During that time, public schools increased their staff by 386 percent – four times the increase in students. The number of teachers increased by 252 percent, over 2.5 times the increase in students. The number of administrators and other staff increased by over seven times the increase in students. …This staffing surge still exists today. From 1992 to 2014 – the most recent year of available data – American public schools saw a 19 percent increase in their student population and a staffing increase of 36 percent. This decades-long staffing surge in American public schools has been tremendously expensive for taxpayers, yet it has not led to significant changes in student achievement. For example, public school national math scores have been flat (and national reading scores declined slightly) for 17-year-olds since 1992.

By the way, the failure of government schools doesn’t affect everyone equally.

Parents with economic resources (such as high-profile politicians) can either send their kids to private schools or move to communities where government schools still maintain some standards.

But for lower-income households, their options are very limited.

Minorities disproportionately suffer, as explained by Juan Williams in the Wall Street Journal.

While 40% of white Americans age 25-29 held bachelor’s degrees in 2013, that distinction belonged to only 15% of Hispanics, and 20% of blacks. …The root of this problem: Millions of black and Hispanic students in U.S. schools simply aren’t taught to read well enough to flourish academically.  …according to a March report by Child Trends, based on 2015 data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 21% of Hispanic fourth-grade students were deemed “proficient” in reading. This is bad news. A fourth-grader’s reading level is a key indicator of whether he or she will graduate from high school. The situation is worse for African-Americans: A mere 18% were considered “proficient” in reading by fourth grade.

But Juan points out that the problems aren’t confined to minority communities. The United States has a national education problem.

The problem isn’t limited to minority students. Only 46% of white fourth-graders—and 35% of fourth-graders of all races—were judged “proficient” in reading in 2015. In general, American students are outperformed by students abroad. According to the most recent Program for International Student Assessment, a series of math, science and reading tests given to 15-year-olds around the world, the U.S. placed 17th among the 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries in reading.

This is very grim news, especially when you consider that the United States spends more on education – on a per-pupil basis – than any other country.

Here’s a table confirming Juan’s argument. It lacks the simple clarity of Andrew Coulson’s graph, but if you look at these numbers, it’s difficult to reach any conclusion other than we spend a lot in America and get very mediocre results.

Juan concludes his column with a plea for diversity, innovation, and competition.

For black and Hispanic students falling behind at an early age, their best hope is for every state, no matter its minority-student poverty rate, to take full responsibility for all students who aren’t making the grade—and get those students help now. That means adopting an attitude of urgency when it comes to saving a child’s education. Specifically, it requires cities and states to push past any union rules that protect underperforming schools and bad teachers. Urgency also means increasing options for parents, from magnet to charter schools. Embracing competition among schools is essential to heading off complacency based on a few positive signs. American K-12 education is in trouble, especially for minority children, and its continuing neglect is a scandal.

He’s right, but he should focus his ire on his leftist friends and colleagues. They’re the ones (including the NAACP!) standing in the proverbial schoolhouse door and blocking the right kind of education reform.

P.S. This is a depressing post, so let’s close with a bit of humor showing the evolution of math lessons in government schools.

P.P.S. If you want some unintentional humor, the New York Times thinks that education spending has been reduced.

P.P.P.S. Shifting to a different topic, another great visual (which also happens to be the most popular item I’ve ever shared on International Liberty) is the simple image properly defining the enemies of liberty and progress.

Republished from Dan Mitchell’s blog.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

Foreign Student Visas: Educating America’s Adversaries

Guess who Obama’s State Department issues hundreds of thousands of student visas to?

It has been said that if you give a man a fish you will feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, you will feed him for a lifetime.  This simple saying illustrates how important training/education is.

Incredibly, the United States’ immigration policies formulated by the Obama administration welcome hundreds of thousands of Chinese STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) students into our nation’s premier universities while it is clear that China demonstrates hostility to the United States acting not as a partner, but rather as an adversary.

Chinese computer hackers attack computers in the United States as a matter of routine. The obvious question is how many of those Chinese computer hackers may have been trained and educated in the United States.

China’s recent theft of a U.S. Navy drone in the South China Sea underscores this hostility as do the arrest of numerous spies operating on behalf of China to steal America’s military and industrial secrets.

Not surprisingly, China has offered to return the drone while President-Elect Donald Trump has been quoted as saying that China can keep that drone.

China may have had two reasons for its illegal action.  It is clearly attempting to demonstrate that it has unilateral control over the strategically important South China Sea although this claim is not based on law or fact.  Additionally, China has an obvious interest in America’s military technology.  By now China’s engineers have had ample opportunity to study the design of the drone and, perhaps, has managed to embed technology within the drone that would continue to provide intelligence about the use of that drone.

The U.S. Navy’s underwater drones seem to have drawn particular interest by China’s military.  In fact, on April 22, 2016 Newsweek reported, “Chines Spy In Florida Sent Drone Parts To China For Military.”

On April 14, 2016 Newsweek published a report about a naturalized United States citizen, Edward Lin, who had joined the U.S. Navy only, allegedly, to be able to spy on the Navy.  I cannot help but wonder if his application for citizenship had been more effectively scrutinized if his alleged disloyalty to the United States could have been uncovered sooner.

That report, “Accused Navy Spy Edward Lin Had Friends In Sensitive Places” began with the following:

Edward Lin, the U.S. Navy officer suspected of spying for China and Taiwan, had scores of friends in sensitive places, if the number of contacts who “endorsed” him for military and security “skills” on LinkedIn, the professional networking site, is any guide.

Among those who endorsed Lin, a Taiwan-born officer assigned to a highly classified naval air reconnaissance unit in Hawaii until his secret arrest last year, are senior Taiwanese military officers and a Beijing-based venture capitalist specializing in “mobile internet applications and mobile games,” according to their LinkedIn bios. His American endorsers on the site include the second in command at the U.S. Naval Air Station, Guantanamo; the U.S. Pacific Fleet’s senior political-military analyst on Southeast Asia; a Navy congressional liaison officer; and fellow former aviators in his reconnaissance squad, including one now working at the Northrop Grumman Electromagnetic Systems Laboratory in Sacramento, California.

Lin also served as a congressional liaison for the assistant secretary of the Navy for finance management and comptroller from 2012 to 2014, a position that presumably gave him access to highly classified strategic weapons planning and put him in regular contact with senior members of the House and Senate armed services and military appropriations committees.

Lin’s assignments and the relationships that he developed positioned him perfectly to have access to extremely sensitive information.

Chinese citizens are not only allegedly spying on our military.  On May 19, 2016 Reuters reported, “U.S. charges six Chinese nationals with economic espionage.”

On December 8, 2016 ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) released a press release that provided the latest statistics concerning foreign students who are present in the United States.

This press release began by noting that there are currently 1.23 million foreign students who have been admitted with F (academic visas) or M (vocational visas) studying at 8,697 schools scattered across the United States.

Consider this excerpt from that press release:

Nearly 42 percent of all F and M students pursued studies in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. This marks a 10.1 percent increase in international students pursuing STEM studies compared to November 2015.

Out of the nearly 514,000 international students pursuing STEM studies, almost 450,000 were from Asia, with the majority of all STEM students from India and China.

Concerns about foreign students with malevolent goals is not limited to students from China.

On February 24, 1998, two days short of the fifth anniversary of the first World Trade Center bombing, the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information conducted a hearing on the topic, “

The full text of that hearing, “Foreign terrorists in America : five years after the World Trade Center” includes Senator Dianne Feinstein’s prepared testimony.

Here are a few excerpts from her testimony well worth considering:

There are also a number of glaring loopholes in our immigration laws. As I serve on the Immigration Subcommittee, I just wanted to spend my time touching on some of them.

I have some reservation regarding the practice of issuing visas to terrorist-supporting countries and INS’ inability to track those who come into the country either using a student visa or using fraudulent documents, as you pointed out, through the Visa Waiver Pilot Program.

The Richmond Times recently reported that the mastermind of Saddam Hussein’s germ warfare arsenal, Rihab Taha, studied in England on a student visa. And England is one of the participating countries in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, which means, if she could have gotten a fraudulent passport, she could have come and gone without a visa in the United States.

The article also says that Rihab Taha, also known as “Dr. Germ,” that her professors at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, speculate that she may have been sent to the West specifically to gain knowledge on biological weaponry.

What is even more disturbing is that this is happening in our own backyard.

The Washington Post reported on October 31, 1991, that U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq discovered documents detailing an Iraqi Government strategy to send students to the United States and other countries to specifically study nuclear-related subjects to develop their own program. Samir AJ-Araji was one of the students who received his doctorate in nuclear engineering from Michigan State University, and then returned to Iraq to head its nuclear weapons program.

The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy found in September 1997 that many terrorist-supporting states are sending their students to the United States to get training in chemistry, physics, and engineering which could potentially contribute to their home country’s missile and nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs.

[ … ]

The defendants of the World Trade Center bombing are also an example of those coming in through non-immigrant or employment-based visas or abusing our political asylum process and then committing crimes.

For instance, Nidal Ayyad, one of the defendants in this case, used his position as a chemical engineer for Allied Signal to obtain the chemicals used in the World Trade Center bombing.

There is Gazi Abu Mezer, who was arrested in a suspected terrorist plot to detonate bombs in Brooklyn last year. He came in illegally across the Canadian border to Washington State and attempted to seek asylum, but withdrew his application and agreed to leave the country. Once he was released on voluntary departure, he fled Washington to Brooklyn, NY, where he was arrested for plotting suicide-bomb attacks in Brooklyn.

Back then Senator Feinstein’s testimony made perfect sense and asked the right questions.

Inexplicably, even after the terror attacks of 9/11, the attacks at the Boston Marathon and at San Bernardino, today Feinstein’s commonsense approach would be the source of derision by her colleagues of the Democratic party.

Meanwhile, as I discussed in a recent article, so-called, “Sanctuary campuses” shield and harbor illegal aliens from detection by ICE agents.

Finally, increasing numbers of American high-tech professionals are being fired and replaced by foreign H-1B workers, often from India.  The obvious question is how many of those aliens with H-1B visas who have gone on to replace Americans were educated in the United States?

“Knowledge is power.”  The time has come for Americans to be empowered to be successful.  Educating foreign students who may, in one way or another, use their training against America or Americans must end.

January 20, 2017 cannot come fast enough.

EDITORS NOTE: This column first appeared on FrontPage Magazine.

Historic Number of ‘Faithless’ Democrat Electors Desert Hillary

Weeks of protests, ballot recounts, media reports about the popular vote versus the Electoral College, endless coverage of Russian hacking, Hollywood actors pleadings and Michael Moore bribing Republican electors to vote Democrat all ended up with Donald J. Trump winning the office of President of these United States.

The Democratic Party, Jill Stein, MoveOn.org and the Hillary Clinton campaign have all failed to stop the voice of America’s voters.

What is most interesting is that the Democratic Party strategy of electing Trump, as a “Pied Piper” candidate who is “unpalatable to a majority of the electorate”, backfired. Note to the DNC: Be careful of what you wish for.

pied-piper-candidates

In a column titled “Donald Trump wins Electoral College – as attempts to cause rebellion turn to farce with DEMOCRATS deserting Hillary” Nikki Schwab, U.S. Political Reporter For Dailymail.com and the Associated Press wrote:

Donald Trump officially crossed the line to 270 electoral votes with electors in Texas casting a ballot for the Republican shortly before 5:30 p.m. EST.

Calls for Trump to be voted down by members of the Electoral College were roundly ignored  on Monday – with only two ‘faithless’ Republican electors rejecting the president-elect and four deserting Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Read more..

The New York Times reported:

In Washington, a state where Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont had strong support in the Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton, three of the state’s 12 electoral votes went to Colin L. Powell, the Republican former secretary of state. One more elector voted for Faith Spotted Eagle, a Native American leader.

Two Texas electors voted for different Republican politicians: Gov. John Kasich of Ohio and former Texas congressman Ron Paul.

In addition, three Democratic electors, in Colorado, Maine and Minnesota, initially declined to vote for Mrs. Clinton. Two were replaced by an alternate, and one ended up changing his vote.

Read more…

The final Electoral College “faithless” tally:

State Pledged to Voted for
Hawaii Clinton Bernie Sanders
Texas Trump Ron Paul
Texas Trump John Kasich
Washington Clinton Colin L. Powell
Washington Clinton Colin L. Powell
Washington Clinton Colin L. Powell
Washington Clinton Faith Spotted Eagle

What will the Democrats in denial do next? Of course, protest at the inauguration of the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

As we have written, “If your opponent is committing suicide, don’t interfere.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Outgoing Vice President Joe Biden: Trump’s Victory Over Hillary ‘More a Battle of Personalities than Battle of Ideas’

At present rate almost 14,000 Syrians would enter U.S. this fiscal year, 98% Muslim

Recently I reported on the total number of refugees being rushed in to the U.S. right now presumably to beat an expected cut-off of resettlement from at least some countries (terror-producing) of the world after Donald Trump becomes President on January 20th.

And, although we reported new proposed sites have been placed on hold (see Bloomington, IN), there are still plenty of existing sites where refugees are being placed at the highest rate in recent memory.

Here is a map from Wrapsnet.org showing the numbers and placement of Syrians admitted to the US in the first ten weeks of this fiscal year (Oct. 1, 2016 to Dec. 10, 2016).

2,671 have been placed, and at this rate we would expect 13,889 by September 30th, 2017, if Donald Trump doesn’t do what he promised.

screenshot-92

This map is for the first 10 weeks of FY17. Florida is 132 (couldn’t fit whole map in shot) and Alaska and Hawaii are zero.

Here are the top ten states so far in FY2017 receiving Syrians.

Data from Wrapsnet puts the percentage of Muslims at 98% and the vast majority of those are Sunnis (remember it is the UN choosing our refugees!).

screenshot-93

Just a reminder, this is only data for resettled refugees and does not take in to account Syrians getting in to the U.S. through other means.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

10 Teens Arrested for planning Christmas Attack in Belgium

Save the Children act introduced in Congress would bring 25,000 Syrian children to US TEMPORARILY

Bloomington, Indiana: Plans for new resettlement site on hold; federal money drying up

Time for a Complete Halt on All Immigration

Immigration today, immigration tomorrow, immigration forever? In recent times there has been much controversy over President-elect Donald Trump’s campaign-trail suggestion that we temporarily halt immigration from Muslim nations (which has been modified). The Left claims such a notion is “discriminatory,” un-American and even, most ridiculously, unconstitutional. Yet there’s a simple way to avoid this debate altogether:

Institute a moratorium on all immigration.

This is a serious proposal — and a necessary one. Consider: with the U.S. having a replacement-level fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman, immigration is the only reason our population is increasing. As to this, our numbers have swelled from 100 million people in 1915 to 200 million in 1968 to 320 million today. And it’s projected they will reach approximately 400 million just after 2050.

Obviously, such growth involves strain on natural resources, social services and infrastructure. Yet while the Left purports to care about the environment, it also pursues open-border policies with jihadist-like zeal. But when will enough population be enough? When it stands at 450 million? A half billion? A billion? The Left likes to push “family planning.” But what about national-family planning?

In addition, more than 94 million Americans are not in the labor force, and the real unemployment rate is far higher than the government’s fraudulent figure of approximately five percent. Moreover, recent years have seen companies replacing American high-tech workers with foreigners (often forcing our countrymen to train their replacements, as salt in the wound). What rational case can be made that the U.S. needs more people?

Actually, there is one rational, if nefarious, case: the desire for political power. Since the institution of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965, 85 percent of our legal immigrants have come from the Third World. Upon being naturalized, 70 to 90 percent of them vote Democrat. In contrast, the Republicans derive approximately 90 percent of their votes from European-descent Americans. Do you see the rational case, or at least the rationale, now?

This post-1965 immigration model, along with oft-offered-amnesty to illegal migrants, has ushered in great demographic upheaval. Where our country was almost 90 percent non-Hispanic white in 1965, it’s now just 61.9 percent so. This is precisely what is being spoken of, by the way, when you hear the media and politicians talking about the “demographic changes” that are pulling the nation left.

Don’t be fooled by Donald Trump’s Nov. 8 victory, either. The President-elect campaigned as a nationalistic populist, not a conservative, and for a variety of reasons he possessed great cross-over appeal; in addition, Hillary Clinton was a horrible candidate. There is a reason California, where Ronald Reagan once reigned supreme, could not be won by him today. There’s a reason Virginia and North Carolina (of all places) are swing states; and why Illinois, which went GOP six elections in a row 1968 through 1988, is now a presidential-election Democrat bastion. And a big part of it is spelled i-m-m-i-g-r-a-t-i-o-n.

Power-mad, anti-Western politicians are well aware of this, mind you. Barack Obama said last year that immigration was making America “more and more of a hodgepodge of folks” and that he was “hopeful” this would drown out conservatism. Andrew Neather, ex-adviser to former British prime minister Tony Blair, was even more blunt in 2009 when he admitted that the massive Third World immigration into the U.K. was designed “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” And Swedish multiculturalist and social engineer Mona Sahlin, commenting on the planned Islamization of her land, said in 2001, “[T]he Swedes must be integrated into the new Sweden; the old Sweden is never coming back.”

This is also why Obama has intensified the demographic warfare via illegal migration, most notably with an alleged amnesty plan that would legalize foreigners, “take over the host” (us) and “push citizens into the shadows.” Part of this scheme appears to involve “seeding” red states with Muslim migrants and other foreigners, who then will break the ice and create communities that will attract even more newcomers from their nations. Goodbye, Main Street, U.S.A. — hello, Hodgepodgeville.

By the way, what do you call people who, lusting after power, invite foreigners into their own lands to overwhelm their countrymen? Any thoughts?

Note that the 1965 immigration act wasn’t billed as a culture-ender and nation-render. In fact, writes the Center for Immigration Studies:

Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following [when pushing the ’65 legislation]:

“First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.”

Every claim above is the precise opposite of what came to pass. Our immigration did increase from a historical norm of approximately 250,000 a year to 1,000,000, we have been inundated with immigrants from one country and area (Mexico and Latin America) and from the most “populated and deprived nations,” and our ethnic (and racial) mix has changed radically.

Note, too, that in delivering his apologia, Ol’ Teddy tacitly admitted the above would be negative developments — he didn’t just dismiss such concerns as “racist.”

In fact, those concerns stemmed from a widely recognized truth: a nation demographically unstable is an unstable nation. For if such changes lead to balkanization, it will not long be a “nation,” properly defined as an extension of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family. (The “Sioux Nation” was not a “country,” per se; it was thus named because all members were Sioux.) “E pluribus hodgepodge” is not a recipe for national success.

Of course, our immigration policy was once quite different. Not only were far fewer immigrants admitted, but for many decades prior to ’65, policies ensured that the U.S.’s demographic balance would be maintained. Such a model is now called “discriminatory.”But consider: with millions of ethnic Chinese flooding into Tibet, overwhelming the natives, anthropologists may scream, “This is cultural and demographic genocide!” When the same thing happens to Western nations?

Then it’s called “diversity.”

That’s not the only hypocrisy here. While reporting last year on white techie types displacing Hispanics in San Francisco’s Mission District, fake-news paper The New York Times disparagingly termed the phenomenon “bleaching out the Latino culture.” Yet fake-news station MSNBC has talked about the “browning of America” — favorably. Apparently, some demographic changes are more equal than others.

Of course, suspending legal immigration is currently still a minority view, in the grip as we are of immigrationism, the belief that immigration is always good, always necessary and must be the one constant in an ever-changing universe of policy. But with the Trump phenomenon having moved the dial on what’s politically possible and palatable, it’s time to start talking about it — and moving that dial a bit more.

Talk-show host Mark Levin has rhetorically asked, “Is the purpose of immigration law to change the demographics of the nation?” Today, in America, it is. But with patriotic movements already having struck a blow against the Establishment — in Europe with Brexit and in the U.S. with Trump — it’s time to do the same with immigration. Establishment immigration policy must go.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

America Please Do Not Blow It

Not long ago being in America was like sitting in a boat with a hole in the bottom.  To make matters worse, the captain would keep trying to make the hole larger. At the same time while some of us would use buckets to dump the water out of the vessel.  Unfortunately, the water would keep rushing up into the boat faster than those who cared about it could get the water out of the boat.  Similarly like the vessel, the United States has been sinking fast under massive debt and government deficit spending.  In fact, President Obama and his fellow progressives have been doing everything possible to insure the sinking of the United States would proceed unabated. Their goal has been to damage America to the point she would be beyond repair.

Despite the concerted effort of numerous internal enemies and a litany of external enemies given free reign throughout the federal government, America will not yet sink away.  Numerous sharia law supporting, liberty hating Muslims now have key positions of influence in NASA and other important government departments.  This is crazy dangerous to say the very least.  But despite the immense problem of enemies within our republic, (some of whom were voted into office) our great nation is in a position to right the deadly wrongs that if not overcome could put America permanently out of commission.

The electoral vote victory for Donald Trump was a good first step win in the war to restore America to greatness. 

I must admit that with this first great step Trump victory, there is a dramatically high degree of optimism throughout our republic.  Even around the world many nations that appreciate economic prosperity and a general sense of stability are pleased that Donald Trump will be our next president.  Not long ago the Donald welcomed Japanese billionaire Masayoshi Son who has announced he is now going to invest $50 billion in our nation and create 50 thousand jobs.  Let us not forget, the American worker in many cases is the most skilled on earth.  I can assure you that had Mrs. Clinton won the presidential election, Mr. Son would not have visited America to announce his huge economic investment.

Mr. Trump has not yet officially embarked upon his mission of the presidency.  It is amazing how he has inspired more goodwill toward America from our allies than President Obama has over his eight years in office. The Dow Jones has experienced new record highs since election day on expectations of faster economic growth.  Many manufacturers which have been reeling for years from shrinking demands for their goods and services report they view Trump as more sympathetic to their interests than President Obama ever was.

Trump’s promise getting rid of draconian regulations and lower taxes are music to the ears of American business leaders.  They have been beaten down with Obama’s environmental and labor laws that ultimately did nothing to improve the environment.  Obama’s policies also made it easy for 50 U.S. corporations to move their headquarters other nations like Ireland and Mexico.  In our nation companies were unable to hire and pay raises for those who had jobs were far and few in between.  Despite the current economic doldrums and Democrats blaming Russia for exposing their email dirty laundry, the Trump election has fostered a huge sense of optimism throughout the land.

Trump’s soon to be optimistic ascending to the White house is in my opinion in part due to the multi- year prayers of literally millions of Americans.  They obeyed the words of 2nd Chronicles 7:14,

“and My people, who are called by My Name, humble themselves, and pray and seek My Face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear [them] from heaven, and forgive their sin and heal their land.”

While we have won a major battle, whether the progressives care to admit it or not, this is just the beginning.

“We the People” must not forget that we are engaged in a cultural war.  Thus, to insure a return to constitutional limits on government and unalienable rights for you and I, we must remember we have only just begun to fight.  We shall not quit until the commission of restoring our republic is fulfilled.  We each have specific persuasions in which to engage our concerted efforts to renew our America.

Let us as happy warriors seek providential guidance and do our part to help guarantee the rebuilding of the greatest nation in the history of mankind.  I believe that as great as America has been, if we stay the proper course to victory we will once again have a republic that will be greater than we could ever imagine.

God Bless You, God Bless America and may America Bless God.

Beware of fake news and those trying to feed fake news!

Admittedly I get all sorts of strange e-mails, but this series of e-mails is the most interesting, informative and amusing I’ve ever gotten.

It began with an e-mail on December 1 from someone identifying himself as ‘Jake.’

Below is a chronological report on our e-mail conversation. I am taking out all references to numbers, ethnic groups and locations so that Jake (or his friends) can’t turn around and say I am promoting fake news.

Read this and tell me what you think!

Jake:

Hello,

My company is looking to provide jobs and housing for up to _____ (6-figure number) _____ (Muslim ethnic group) refugees in ____ and ____ (states). We are going to help them gain residence and resettle in the US so they can start a new life here. Can you point me in the right direction so that I may get in touch with the management of the refugee camps in _____and _____ (countries)? We have purchased two properties adjacent to our office park and manufacturing plants and based on early estimates we should be able to provide decent housing for at least ____(6-figure) people. Please if you can point me in the right direction as we are hoping to have these refugees resettled and getting their lives back together within ___ years. Our ultimate goal is the help them resettle in the area as seamlessly as possible.

Me:

Hi Jake, forgive me, but is this a joke? LOL! Tis the season of fake news after all….look forward to hearing from you if you are serious!

Jake:

Hi Anne,

I’m not sure what would be a joke about it but yes we would like to help as many as we can. Please let me know if you have any information for me.

Thank you,

Jake

Me:

Call me.

Jake:

Anne,

I’m currently overseas and have not had great luck with phone service where I am. I wanted to find out if you had information on the management for some of these refugee camps so we can talk to them about our resettlement program. Our goal is to provide____ (5-figure) well paying jobs and housing to families totaling up to ____(5-figure) people.

Me (going along but noting a big discrepancy in the numbers he first gave me):

Hi again, Your numbers have changed somewhat. Tell me more about what you have in mind and if you have been in touch with the US State Department about your plans? What sort of jobs are you envisioning?

When do you return to the US?

Jake (highlighting mine):

____ (6-figure number) is correct, ____ (5-figure number) was a typo. We have manufacturing plants and office parks in___ and ___ (states). We would provide training and jobs rang from manufacturing, groundskeeping, to office work depending on the needs and skills, as well as our national and international frieght network. Because of the specialized nature of our work we have been able to streamline the immigration process to gain residence at a much faster pace than is normally provided for refugees. By providing specialized work we can not only ensure that our company has skilled workers for decades to come, we can also bypass the slow relocation process. That is the glory of working with a large company. Right now we have the capacity to fill ____ (five figure) jobs and provide housing for ____ (6-figure numbers, but not the same numbers) people. The most important next step in the processes is to reach out to refugee camps and _____ (Muslim ethnic group) communities so that we can begin the immigration process in the smoothest way possible. Do you have some contact details for me? I think this is a wonderful opportunity to save lives while making the US more diverse. I also feel personally that we need a lot more cultural diversity in the US because the barbaric White/Christian leadership is just so destructive on a global level. As our nation is a melting pot, a refuge for refugees, I hope to see our leadership represented in similar numbers.  [I hope you are having a good chuckle by now, it gets better, keep reading!—ed]

Me:

Can you tell me why you feel the ____(ethnic group Jake named) are the best choice for your purpose? No matter which LEGAL immigration program you go through, you still must go through the US State Department, something you would not have to do if you chose out-of-work Americans (of any color), plus they already speak English.

Maybe if you described the actual work, I might be able to make some suggestions.

Thanks, look forward to hearing more!

Ann

p.s. when do you plan to be back in the US so we can have a phone conversation?

Jake:

_____(ethnic group) need our help, isn’t your website an advocacy group for refugees including the ____(ethnic group)? I thought you’d be the best person to talk to. I’ve honestly never met an American who was facing genocide, If an American is out of work they probably need to look harder. I’ve also found that immigrants have a better work ethic. Please let me know if you have the contact info I’m looking for. We build medical equipment, specifically MRI, Dental lasers, x-ray, and sample storage units.

 Me (we are now at December 6th):

Jake, let’s be honest, I don’t know what your game is. And who are you?

For someone supposedly wanting to get ____ (6-figure number) of refugees in to the US quickly, you know so little about the immigration process in America that I can’t believe any company has employed you to get the job done. And, that you would write to a blogger for information that bloggers are not privy to—information about who to contact in refugee camps in Asia—strikes me as incredibly naive (if that is what it is).

Tell you what, if you give me the name of your company (LOL! is it the SPLC?), I will believe you. (I told him I planned to write about his inquiry)

Jake:

Wow, clearly your website is a fraud. You have no interest in helping refugees resettle in the US. That is pretty pathetic of you to have a supposed watchdog website for the benefit of refugees but ultimately have no interest in actually helping anyone, it’s just for show. I have written about 6 emails to you and you have not offered a single piece of useful information. We have offered jobs to immigrants for decades and the immigration process is handled by our legal office. I do not need sit here and waste me time speaking with a “blogger” if all you will do is ask me questions instead of being useful. From the brief look I had of your site, it seemed that you actually knew something about the situation in ____(country), but I guess that was false. If you can point me in the right direction so that I may get in touch with some camps, please do. If you are unable to provide this then please stop wasting my time. It seems there are two kind of people in this world, people who actually work to help others, and those who just blog about it….

Me:

“I do not need sit here and waste me time speaking with a “blogger” if all you will do is ask me questions instead of being useful.” [quoting Jake—ed]

Wow! Just wow! I’m wasting your time? You first e-mailed me hoping I would bite on some fake news. Sorry to disappoint you! Come on who do you really work for? No businessman looking to import immigrant labor would sound so dumb! (not to mention have such poor writing skills!) and contact a blogger for advice! Did you ever hear of the US State Department and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees?

Look forward to more e-mails from you!

Jake and his final salvo (or I think it is) on December 13th:

I’m actually dyslexic but do quite alright at my job and the pay is more than I will ever need. I don’t know what fake news you are talking about but you are a disgrace of a human being if you would use refugees to push a blog about helping refugees but have no interest in actually taking action. The fact that you are profiting by pretending to help others makes you not only a fraud, but also a joke. It’s ok, we have been put in touch with the management for two camps and will be beginning the immigration process shorty. I cannot tell you how disgusted I am that you would attempt to profit from the suffering of people. If there is any justice in the world you will also feel the pain and suffering these people experience. I have been to every corner of the world with my work and I promise you that if there is one group of people who deserve to live in refugee camps and face persecution it’s the average American white trash like you who has no concept of the world around them outside of their bubble of ignorance.

Good day, if you believe in God I hope that he has mercy on you. You are a disgrace and it’s artificial people like you who are the reason our country will fall.

Anyone want to hazard a guess about what Jake was up to all along? Was he trying to get me to report a fake news story? Write a derogatory e-mail to him? Trump derangement syndrome? Or, what?  Look forward to hearing what you think (no expletives or threats please!)!

RELATED ARTICLE: More on those refugee “processing countries” (who is coming in from where? why?)

A Presidency based entirely on Fraud

As the Electoral College prepares to elect President Donald J. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence on December 19th, Hollywood Marxists are working through a leftist Soros-funded network of political PACs to threaten EC Delegates, encouraging them to “vote their conscience” (translation – vote against Trump).

According to these anti-American Marxists, Trump is “unfit” for the Oval Office and they are trying to “save our country and freedom itself” from the tyrannical reign of an unfit Trump administration. The Obama administration is accusing Russia of interfering in the 2016 elections on behalf of Trump, C.I.A. Director Brennen appearing to be the sole source of that accusation, as Russia categorically denies.

Meanwhile, social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter are also being blamed for the electoral upset of Hillary Clinton, resulting in Facebook promising to police “fake news” by using “fake fact checkers” SNOPES and FACTCHECK as their gatekeepers of truth and justice, both of which are well-known propaganda machines for the political left directly associated with the Democratic Party.

Leader of the American Grassroots Left, Van Jones is going mainstream, with a regular spot on CNN and even co-hosting morning chat shows like Live with Kelly. The communists are trying to make friends with the average American voter who rejected them in the 2016 elections.

In short, the Democrats who belittled Trump for suggesting that the election system was “rigged” are now crying that the election was rigged, for Trump. It is nothing short of astonishing…

But here’s the big story – as all this nonsense consumes the headlines of the real “fake news” agencies in America, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, MSNBC and even FOX, the proof that the entire Obama Administration of two terms was built upon an overt act of fraud is nowhere to be found in the daily headlines!

In a press conference held in Maricopa County Arizona on December 15, 2016, hard proof of Obama’s forged certifications for office documents were released to the general public and turned over to the U.S. Congress for prosecution.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Lead Investigator Mike Zullo provided forensic proof well beyond any reasonable doubt that the document presented by Barack Hussein Obama to prove his constitutional eligibility for the Oval Office was a complete and total fraud. WATCH FOR YOURSELF:

At the same time, Fox News Commentator Sean Hannity was interviewing Wikileaks Julian Assange, who confirmed that all the information they had leaked on Hillary Clinton and the DNC was 100% authentic and accurately displayed and that none of it was acquired through or in any way associated with Russia. In fact, it is now known that the DNC and Clinton leaks came from someone inside their own camp, who was disgusted by what they saw going on inside the Democratic Party.

During his interview with Hannity, Assange went so far as to prove Hillary Clinton lied under oath to Congress when she falsely claimed that she had no idea that ‘c’ or ‘C’ on an official document meant CLASSIFIED CONFIDENTIAL. This also blows F.B.I. Director Comey’s conclusion that “there was no intent” on Hillary’s part.

So, nothing the American people are hearing from the “fake news” main stream press is based in truth today. Russia had nothing to do with the leaking of Clinton or DNC emails – the election was not “hacked” on behalf of Donald Trump – it is Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who are unfit for office and Trump nor Russia had anything to do with that reality.

In fact, with the release of Maricopa County forensic evidence yesterday, the entire eight years of the Obama Administration was built upon a fraud, a forged document used to protect a known usurper to the Oval Office from exposure and accountability. Everything that happens under the color of fraud, is also a fraud.

Further, it appears that the election was indeed “rigged” in certain areas. Thanks to the recounts launched by Green Party candidate Jill Stein, evidence of election box stuffing in Detroit Michigan, among other places, was uncovered. That evidence has only been found in areas where Hillary Clinton did well, involving dead voters again and more votes than voters, as well as more votes counted than actually cast in those districts. Massive voter fraud was also found in Nevada and California allowed illegal aliens to vote across that state.

Since it has now been proven that Barack Hussein Obama proffered a forged document to affirm his eligibility for the Oval Office, this means that the DNC Certification Documents to place Obama on the ballot in 2008 and 2012 in fifty states were also issued based on fraud.

Many of us knew and tried to tell others for years, as in this September 2009 column – The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie – and Part II and Part III.

The North American Law Center has been calling for the Impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama on this basis for years now. But no one in the media or Congress had the decency, honor or courage to act on their oaths to protect and preserve the Constitutional Republic from truly “unfit” individuals who defrauded Americans into their office, to destroy our country from within.

The so-called “conspiracy” is much larger than Barack Obama, however. The larger issue is the End of the U.S. Presidency, ushering in an era when anyone from anywhere without so much as a legitimate U.S. birth certificate could occupy the Oval Office. In short, the Obama fraud makes it possible for any foreign agent to occupy the Oval Office and destroy the USA from within.

It is a fraud which must not be allowed to stand!

But where is the U.S. news media on the matter? As they circulate total nonsense in an overt effort to undermine the incoming Trump Administration, the real threats to the USA remain unreported by the “fake news” press.

What will Congress do with the evidence just handed over by the Maricopa Sheriff’s office?

When there is no accountability for any of these acts, many of which rise to the level of treason, then how do you even pretend to “drain the swamp?”

Online Survey: Tell Us Your Favorite Fakestream Media story for 2016

On December 8th Hillary Clinton warned of an ‘epidemic of malicious fake news’ is a ‘danger’ that must be ‘addressed quickly’.

So what is fake news and who is promoting it? Has the mainstream media become the fakestream media?

There is much discussion about the concept of fake news. We wanted to give our readers an opportunity to list their top fake news story for 2016. Please take a moment to fill out the form below with your “Fake News Pick for 2016.”

Here are my top ten fake news story lines of the past eight years which are a “danger” and must be addressed:

  1. Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the 45th President of the United States.
  2. The the 2016 general elections in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are flawed and require a recount.
  3. The Russians hacked into the voting systems of the 50 states.
  4. If Donald J. Trump is sworn into office there will be a coup akin to the film Seven Days in May.
  5. Islam is the “religion of peace.”
  6. The Arab spring is a “democratic movement” that will sweep the Middle East.
  7. The 9/11/2012 attack on the diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya was the result of a YouTube video.
  8. Using the term “radical Islam” helps al-Qaeda and ISIS recruitment.
  9. The Affordable Care Act is affordable.
  10. President Obama’s economic stimulus package will create shovel ready jobs and full employment.

Please send us your favorite fake news story from the Fakestream Media. We will publish you top ten list in a future column.