The Two Defining Moments of the Muller Hearing on June 24, 2019

/in , , , , , , /by

The consensus is that have Robert Mueller hearing before the House Judiciary committee was bad for Democrats.

Here are two defining moments during that testimony:

“President Trump is not above the law. Neither is he beneath it!”

Who started the entire conversation that lead to the appointment of Robert Mueller.

RELATED VIDEO: Brad Johnson on the Mueller testimony.

What They Are Saying | Mueller Hearing Headlines

Fox News: Chris Wallace: Robert Mueller Hearing Has Been A ‘Disaster’ For Democrats

“’Fox News Sunday’ anchor Chris Wallace said former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s House hearing has turned into a ‘disaster’ for Democrats and for the former FBI director’s reputation.”

Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein: Robert Mueller Said He Was ‘Not Familiar’ With Fusion GPS. How Is That Possible?

“It’s one thing to argue that he isn’t going to answer questions with reference to Fusion GPS (something he did in follow up questions, with the phrase “it’s outside my purview”), but how on earth could he not be familiar with the firm that has played such a key role in the Russia story?”

Breitbart: Robert Mueller Caught Contradicting His Report In Testimony To Congress

“In his opening statement, Mueller stated: ‘We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term. rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and it was not.’ That statement suggested that the report had not, in fact, concluded that Trump had colluded with Russia — contrary to what the president has said, and with common public understanding of the report.”

Fox News: Mueller Flustered, Asking Lawmakers To Repeat Questions At Tense Hearing

“Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller was frequently tripped up and forced to ask lawmakers to repeat their questions during his rapid-fire questioning on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, though he reportedly prepared at length for the hearings. At one point, he even said he wasn’t familiar with Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm behind the controversial anti-Trump dossier.”

Washington Examiner’s Byron York: Confused Performance By Mueller Raises Questions About Handling Of Investigation

“Mueller was slow to react to questions. He frequently asked for questions to be repeated. He sometimes appeared confused. He did not appear to be conversant with some issues in the investigation. He did not, or could not, put together detailed answers even to those questions he agreed to address.”

Mediaite: ‘This is Painful’: Pundits Question Mueller’s ‘Frail’ Performance at Hearing

“A number of pundits this morning have been questioning former special counsel Robert Mueller’s performance at the hearing before the House Judiciary Committee.”

The Daily Wire: Mueller Can’t Explain Why Fusion GPS And Glenn Simpson Weren’t Included In His Report

“During Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s congressional testimony on Wednesday, he was asked by Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH) about Fusion GPS, the firm that hired Christopher Steele to produce the infamous and dubious ‘Steele Dossier’ that helped spark the investigation into President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. Despite the fact that the Steele Dossier was mentioned throughout Mueller’s final report, the origins of that report were not. Glenn Simpson, the founder of Fusion and a key player in creating the ‘evidence’ against Trump, was not mentioned once. Fusion’s involvement in the alleged Russia collusion was also not investigated.”

Townhall: Democrats And Media Admit: Mueller’s Testimony Was A Total Disaster

“Democrats demanded Special Counsel Robert Mueller testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee and today they got their wish. It was a complete disaster and Democrats outside of the hearing room are openly admitting it.”

The Washington Post: A Sometimes Halting Mueller Parries Questions In Highly Anticipated Congressional Hearing

“He frequently asked lawmakers to repeat their questions. At times he said he could not hear them, sometimes asserting they were speaking too fast. In contrast to his inquisitors, Mueller spoke slowly, and on a few occasions seemed confused by lawmakers’ inquiries. For a prosecutor who built a distinguished career on digging deep into the weeds of investigations, to the point that many of his subordinates complained he was a maddening micromanager, Mueller said several times he was not familiar with some of the specifics of the investigation into Russia’s actions in 2016 and whether Trump obstructed justice.”

CNN’s Scott Jennings: Ratcliffe Channels A Republican Argument

“Mueller’s answer that this investigation was “a unique situation” looks like an attempt to get around the fundamental view that innocence is presumed and not bestowed by the government. This will reinforce Republican views that Trump is being treated unfairly. Good for Ratcliffe for making this point so early in the day.”

Washington Examiner’s Tiana Lowe: Of Course Making The Septuagenarian Consummate Career Prosecutor Testify In A Show Trial Was A Waste Of Time

“Just minutes into questioning former special counsel Robert Mueller, House Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made their exasperation apparent. Mueller was repeatedly asking members of Congress to reiterate questions and revisit specific portions of the 448-page report. Lines of questioning were repeatedly stymied by his refusal to address vast swaths of topics still under ongoing review by the Department of Justice.”

The American Spectator’s Jeffrey Lord: Mueller: An Unmitigated Disaster

“The nation watches a confused, halting Robert Mueller in what will be the saddest moment in an otherwise stellar career. But without question this Mueller performance clearly illustrated one very important reality. There is no way in the world the confused, uncertain man testifying today actually ran the investigation he was charged with running. Mueller even had Members saying “over here” to let him know the physical location of his questioner of the moment. At times his aides seated behind him had to point him to his questioner, Mueller’s face a mask of confusion.”

Fox News: Mueller Flubs On Which President Appointed Him To Prosecutor Post In Massachusetts

“Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller confused which president appointed him the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts back in the 1980s during his congressional appearance Wednesday. Answering a question during a lengthy hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Mueller said he thought President George H. W. Bush appointed him to the post in Massachusetts, but was quickly corrected by Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., who noted that Mueller was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.”

Washington Examiner’s Becket Adams: With The Mueller Hearing Proving To Be A Dud, Media Again Overplayed Its Hand

“Special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony before Congress is shaping up to be a bit of a dud, as neither he nor lawmakers have revealed anything new or of any real significance. This should come as a great embarrassment to the newsrooms that hyped Wednesday’s testimony as one of the most important ‘high-stakes’ hearings in recent memory.”

Matt Drudge on ‘Dazed and Confused’ Mueller: ‘Drug Test Everyone in Washington!’

“Matt Drudge, an Internet pioneer who founded the Drudge Report, wrote that Robert Mueller appeared “dazed and confused” giving testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday morning.

He later tweeted that everyone in Washington, DC, should be drug-tested for going along with this testimony.”

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

Mueller Hearing Is a Disaster For the Ages

After Mueller Debacle, Where Do Democrats Go?

Mueller’s Testimony: A Complete Disaster for Democrats

Highly Touted Study Tests Non-Existent Policies, Uses Deceptive Data

/in , , , , , /by

A study published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics this week generated considerable media attention that focused on the purported finding and not the underlying research design:

“Gun control tied to fewer child deaths: Study”

“Who’d A Thunk It? Tougher Gun Laws Mean Fewer U.S. Kids Die, Study Shows”

“Tougher Gun Laws Do Mean Fewer American Kids Die”

“Fewer American Kids Die in States with Tougher Gun Laws, According to This New Study”

“New Study Shows Kids Are 35 Percent Less Likely to Die in States with Strict Gun Laws”

“Children in States with Strict Gun Laws are Less Likely to Die, According to a New Study”

Those are some pretty strong headlines. The study behind these headlines is bogus; it relies on very loose variable definitions and interpretations, seemingly prioritizes convenience over substance, and was likely only published because it found that gun-control is good.

Only half of these articles note that “children” in this study actually includes adults. This is a well-tread deception frequently used by anti-gun organizations, and we are always surprised when respectable researchers indulge in this dishonesty. For several years, we thought researchers had finally acknowledged that 18- and 19-year-old people were not children but this study adds on everyone through the age of 21.

Twenty-one-year-old people are not children. Children cannot buy alcoholic drinks or gamble in a casino. These are adults. You won’t find children enrolled in a medical school but you may find a 21-year-old adult. We suspect that these students would prefer not to be referred to as children, given that they have agency over their decisions and almost certainly have for some time.

But this study includes these adults in their analysis of “pediatric” firearm deaths. In their (only) five-year study period – despite decades of previous data and more recent data all readily available – the researchers identified 21,241 total firearms-related fatalities. The vast majority of these fatalities (69%) were of adults aged 18 to 21. This does not specify by intent; 62% of all fatalities were homicides. More than 43% of all the included fatalities were homicides of 18 to 21-year-old adults. In other words, more than two in five cases included in this analysis were adults.

A better definition of “child” would limit the included ages to those aged 14 and under. These are middle schoolers, kids just about to enter adolescence, and younger.

They’re not adults.

Focusing on actual children would have decreased the number of cases in this study to under ten percent of the number of cases actually used.

The paper begins with the claim that “Of note, ~7 US children die of firearm-related injuries daily.” The citation for this stat is the CDC WISQARS database but the daily average doesn’t line up with the definition of children used in this study. The lowest number of firearms-related fatalities since 1999 when including legal adults through age 21 is much too high to produce that number. Limiting it to children through 18-year-old-adults is close in 2017 – the most recent year of data available, which wasn’t used in the study itself – but not in any other year since 1999. If you look at actual children aged 14 and under, the number is vastly lower than what the authors claim. This begs the question – what definition of child and what year of data did they use to come up with the 7 per day average? If they did use 2017 data for children through 18-year-old-adults, why change the definition for the analysis?

And – perhaps more importantly – why didn’t they use all of the available data in their analysis?

As we noted, the outcome variable for this study of pediatric firearms-related mortality included adults. The rest of the equation – the test and control variables – were just as perplexing. Let’s start with the simpler issue: the control variables.

Research on firearms policy often includes a control variable for violent crime and age cohorts, both of which have been found to be associated with murder rates. Given that 69% of the fatalities here were homicides and the primary exposure variable was a rating of gun laws (designed to reduce crime), incorporating these would make sense. The researchers did control for race, ethnicity, educational attainment, and poverty. They also included a control for gun ownership.

The gun ownership control is based on a 2013 YouGov survey that found Hawaii to have the 10th highest gun ownership rate in the country – higher than Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and well, most other states. There’s a proxy for gun ownership that has been validated by researchers, and that puts the states in a vastly different order than the YouGov survey – which featured self-reported data on gun ownership in February 2013 survey. President Barack Obama and anti-gun politicians were seizing on the tragedy at Sandy Hook to push gun control. That’s the metric this “study” used.

Using the validated proxy based on 2011-2015 data, Hawaii’s gun ownership rate is more than cut in half. New Hampshire’s triples. Many states have double-digit differences between the two metrics. The pediatricians who authored this latest study split the variable in two – high and low gun ownership states. The metric used for the split is important; fourteen states fall on opposite sides of the binary categorization under each metric. This group includes low-crime, high gun ownership states like Vermont and South Dakota.

The primary test variable is the numeric grade assigned to each state by the Brady Campaign, which gave states scores between -39 to 81. The reviewers at the journal Pediatrics couldn’t be bothered to check citations, so the Giffords Law Center is cited even though the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was the actual source of the grades. Supposedly, the Giffords Law Center (an amalgamation of the Legal Community Against Violence and Americans for Responsible Solutions) is now the sole provider of state gun law grades, but they use letter grades. The Brady Campaign issued numerical grades, and didn’t hesitate to give some states negative grades.

But the researchers here explain the Brady Campaign’s grading process as gathering “an expert panel to objectively assess and rate state firearm legislation on the basis of a series of 33 different gun policies.” If you can’t trust the organization borne out of a desire to ban all handguns to be objective about gun policy, who can you trust?

There are also more substantive methodological concerns about using a grade for a range of policies rather than focusing on a single policy. Using the grade does not allow for the identification of an effective policy. All policies are seemingly treated the same – the Brady Campaign did not make it clear if certain policies were more heavily weighted than others when determining the grades. Of course, with 31 states receiving negative grades in 2015(after nearly a decade of declining violent crime and murder rates nationwide) how serious can these grades be?

Of course, the outcome variables matter, too, so back to the children and adults being disguised as children for the purposes of gun control. The mortality data for ten states was not available, so the researchers used the mean annual mortality rate over the five-year period as these states’ mortality rates for sensitivity analysis. The data was not available because the number of fatalities fell below the reporting threshold, so the researchers assigned them the mean – the average – of the available data. That artificially inflates the number of fatalities because the mean is calculated without the lowest counts – which were suppressed for the very states for which the mean is substituting. That was just for the sensitivity analysis; in their first model, the researchers found that a 10-point increase in a state’s arbitrary “gun law” score the firearm-related mortality rate among children and teenagers and adults masquerading as children decreased by 8 points. When controlling for race, ethnicity, educational attainment, and the supposed gun ownership metric, they found that a ten-point increase in the anti-gun score is associated with a four-point decrease in the rate. We would wager that controlling for violent crime, age cohorts, alcohol consumption, and other variables commonly used in firearms policy research the effect would further decrease.

These findings are based on the more than twenty-one thousand child, teenage, and adult fatalities the authors studied. What would the result have been if they limited it to actual children?

Let’s take a look at the data for 2011-2015. There were 11,698 firearms-related homicide victims aged 15 to 21 in this limited period. The three counties with the most victims in this age range accounted for more than 13% of all such victims. These counties were Cook County, Illinois (graded 40.5 statewide in 2015 by the Brady Campaign); Los Angeles County, California (76); and Wayne County, Michigan (3, the 18th highest grade). These three counties accounted for just over 5% of the population aged 15-21 in this period. All this shows is that other factors – beyond the sheer number of gun control laws enacted – should be considered when analyzing policy.

Of course, it is also important to consider the specific policies themselves. This study only looks at three policies outside of the nonsensical grades: universal background checks for firearm purchases, universal background checks for ammunition purchases, and microstamping/ballistic fingerprinting. The pediatricians only found a statistically significant association between universal background checks and firearms-related fatalities among children, teenagers, and adults. This conflicts with another study led by well-known anti-gun researchers at UC Davis and the Bloomberg School of Public Health that found universal background checks had no effect. It also contradicts the acknowledgements of Bloomberg School professors that so-called universal background checks just aren’t effective.

But what about the other two policies – universal background checks on ammunition purchases and firearm identification (ballistic fingerprint – databases of shell casings – or microstamping). Well, the authors contend that three states had universal background checks on ammunition – Massachusetts, Illinois, and Connecticut. In each of these three states, you must have a firearms license or permit to purchase ammunition. No background check is done at the point of sale. New York and Maryland both abandoned their ballistic identification databases because they were extraordinarily expensive and predictably ineffective. California’s microstamping law is really a ban on new handguns, as the technology as required by the law does not actually exist.

Neither of these non-existent-in-practice policies was found to have a significant association with the firearms mortality rate of children, adolescents, teenagers, and fully-grown men and women through age twenty-one.

The authors acknowledge that their study did not establish causality, and that they had no metric to measure enforcement of any policy. This is a common weakness in firearms policy research, as measuring enforcement is difficult. However, the mere presence of a law absent of any enforcement is unlikely to have a chilling effect on criminals. We already know that criminals don’t get their guns legally. The Rand Corporation noted in their 2018 review of relevant research that background checks that private-seller background checks (the only sales that do not currently require a background check under federal law) have an uncertain effect on firearm homicides.

This study would not have met Rand’s criteria for inclusion in that review. The research design would not have met the qualifications as it was not designed to identify a causal effect and it utilized an aggregate state score instead of testing a specific policy. The test of so-called universal background checks, while not a test of an aggregate score, would still not have met the other requirements. We’re not sure how Rand would have handled the tests of non-existent policies, but we can make a pretty good guess.

Contrary to their claims, this study does not add anything to the body of research on firearms policy. The sloppy citation, seemingly absent peer review, intentionally limited data, and poor choice of variables should make readers wary of trusting “published” research, but the anti-gun media sees what the anti-gun media wants to see. Questions, critiques, and giant flashing neon signs calling a study unreliable at best are all ignored in the name of the cause.

No death – especially a child’s death – should be trivialized. But this study took too many liberties to be reliable and yet it is being held up as an indication that more gun control laws reduce deaths.

In the worst-case scenario, studies like this will be used to pass laws that will do nothing to stop criminals, help those facing their darkest hours, or prevent accidents. Instead, studies like this will be used to inch closer to what the Brady Campaign, Giffords, and other anti-gun organizations really want: overarching gun control.

RELATED ARTICLE: NYC Makes Second Bid to Shake Off Supreme Court Scrutiny

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

VIDEO: Partners in Hatred — American Muslims for Palestine and IfNotNow

/in , , , , , , , /by

You have probably heard of campus anti-Israel group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), founded by UC Berkeley professor Hatem Bazian. However, you may not have heard of Bazian’s other virulently anti-Israel organization, American Muslims for Palestine (AMP).

In a brand new July 2019 report, Canary Mission reveals AMP’s national and local leadership to be rife with anti-Semitism and terror support.

In the course of the investigation, Canary Mission discovered that AMP has developed a close strategic partnership with Jewish anti-Israel organization IfNotNow (INN).

WATCH OUR NEW VIDEO:

DOWNLOAD: Comprehensive Summary of AMP & IfNotNow Interactions

The report highlights 25 AMP leaders and activists, all of whom have spread a wide variety of anti-Semitic hatred, and 58 INN members.

The close partnership between AMP and INN has included:

  • AMP training INN activists
  • Collaboration on events and protests
  • Expressing support for each other at demonstrations and on social media

AMP’s shocking anti-Semitism includes:

  • “I believe in [the] holocaust. One of my fav parts of history. – Leena Yousef, AMP-Chicago
  • “If you work with the yahood [jews] idc if you’re Muslim or atheist you’re a kalb [dog] and you deserve the worst in life.”- Mohamad Habehh, AMP-NJ
  • “We will resist until we get our freedom without your BS negotiations ! #كلنا_حماس [#We_Are_All_Hamas].” – Ahmad Aburas, AMP-NJ

The report comes at a pivotal time for INN. In June 2019, their leadership announced an attempt to directly influence the 2020 United States presidential elections. The group employed six full-time activists to follow the summer campaign trails of various Democratic candidates and lobby them to take a position against “the occupation.”

In July, Canary Mission exposed INN co-founder Max Berger for a 2013 tweet in which he said that he would be “friends with Hamas.” Berger is currently a Director of Progressive Partnerships for U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign.

Instead of harassing Democratic candidates to take positions against Israel, perhaps IfNotNow should spend their time apologizing to the Jewish community and answering for their partnership with AMP.

AMP activists spread vile hatred of Jews, express support for terror and take pleasure in the Holocaust. AMP is anti-Semitic to its core. IfNotNow is complicit.

To find out more about AMP and their close partnership with INN, read the Full Report.

RELATED ARTICLE: Fred Fleitz: Don’t Ignore Reps. Omar and Tlaib and their Hateful Anti-Semitic, Anti-Israel Rhetoric

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

Did Rep. Ilhan Omar Benefit from Massive Failure of US State Department’s Family Reunification Program?

/in , , , , /by

If you have been following the controversy swirling around the charge that Rep. Ilhan Omar might have committed fraud by marrying her brother, there might have been a fraud committed years before that even.

Back in 2008 I began a series of reports on the so-called P-3 program that permits already resettled refugees in the US to apply to bring in ‘family’ members.

All of that was chronicled at Refugee Resettlement Watch that WordPress suspended.

However, here John Binder writing at Breitbart sums up the State Department scandal and points to an important report by a former ICE attorney who says of the fraud that tens of thousands of Somalis got into the US and once the fraud was revealed there there were no repercussions for the cheaters.

“This was staggering irresponsibility, possibly the biggest blunder in immigration history.”

Here is what Binder says at Breitbart:

A refugee program that allowed foreign relatives of already-arrived foreign refugees to the United States was halted, altogether, more than a decade ago due to mass fraud among applicants.

This week, Powerline blog’s David Steinberg suggested that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) entered the U.S. in the mid-1990s as a third-priority, known as P-3, refugee — that is, a refugee who is admitted to the country due to their ties to an already-resettled refugee.

Steinberg’s report also claims that Omar committed immigration fraud when she falsely entered the country as a member of the “Omar” family that had already resettled in the U.S.

In 2008, after thousands of foreign nationals had entered as P-3 refugees, the program was halted by the *Bush administration* due to mass fraud wherein the State Department, through DNA testing, was able to confirm family relations between the program’s applicants in less than 20 percent of cases.

Overall, about 87 percent of P-3 refugees’ family relation claims turned out to be fraudulent.

BTW, guess who opposed DNA testing for family reunification?

If you guessed the nine federal resettlement contractors—groups like the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service and so forth, you would be correct!

Why? They claimed that the definition of ‘family’ is different in African culture and we should respect their ideas of family.

Binder continues….

Charles Thaddeus Fillinger, a former federal immigration official, has detailed the enormous fraud that has occurred among P-3 refugees in his 30-page policy paper, calling the program “the greatest refugee fraud crisis in modern times.”

More here.

Here is a link to Fillinger’s treatise on the massive fraud perpetrated mostly by Africans for possibly decades.

I am so glad to see that this era of fraud has not been swept under the rug.  Interesting that it would take a scandal swirling around a member of Congress to help bring it to light.

I had to laugh when I saw a guest on Fox News yesterday say that Rep. Ilhan Omar (or whatever her name is) did it right by entering the US legally!

Wonder if we can go back and identify the thousands of  immigration cheats.  Just dreaming!

See all of my previous posts on Rep. Ilhan Omar by clicking here.

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

VIDEO: An altercation between two Georgia Democrats. Media Runs it as a Hate Crime?

/in , , , , , , /by

It seems that the media would do some fact checking before they run with a story. Given the Jussie Smollett hoax and the Catholic student rampage one would believe that the legacy media would have learned a lesson. Talk to everyone involved, then run the full story.

Chris Enloe the weekend editor for TheBlaze reported on the incident between Georgia Rep. Erica Thomas (D) and Eric Sparkes, a Cuban American and Democrat. Enloe noted:

Mainstream media outlets, Twitter, prominent presidential candidates, and even New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio rushed to condemn what Georgia Rep. Erica Thomas (D) claims was an incident of racism at her local Publix grocery store on Friday.

Now it appears the truth is not what she claimed or what the media initially reported.

Read the full article.

Watch as WSB-TV’s cameras caught Thomas verbally berating Sparkes, who remains calm during the interview:

UPDATE: Video of Georgia Lawmaker’s ‘Racism’ Incident Comes Out.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Witness says Georgia lawmaker was the one who told man, ‘Go back’

Liar, Liar: Georgia House Minority Leader Caught In A Hate Hoax 

Trouble In Bernie Land: His Campaign Is Struggling To Fulfill A Major Policy Promise 

Social Media Censors Angel Mom For Asking Kamala One Question About Illegal Immigration 

REVEALED: The Democrats’ Blueprint To Steal 2020 From The Voters Of America

A HISTORY LESSON: The Democratic Party’s ‘Squad’ and the American ‘Union of Russian Workers’

/in , , , , , /by

I received a petition from the Congressional Progressive Caucus titled “‘Right to Work’ laws are WRONG (read why).” The ninety-seven members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus include: Representatives Ilhan Omar (Whip), Rashida Tlaib (Special Order Hour Convener), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley (a.k.a. The Squad) and Senator Bernie Sanders.

The Progressive Caucus email states:

Republican “Right to Work” laws weaken the voices of working people and ensure that their wages are kept low. All they do is INCREASE the power of corporations, while LIMITING the power of workers to join unions.

[ … ]

So we’re asking 500 Progressives from each state to sign on and tell Congress to ban Right to Work laws.

You’ve been chosen to sign for Florida. Sign on immediately:

TELL CONGRESS: BAN RIGHT TO WORK LAWS →

Listen, unions bring justice and dignity to the workplace.

They allow individual employees to organize and protect their rights on the job.

They grant workers the power to advocate for themselves.

And they even the playing field between corporations and their employees.

But Republicans don’t care about all of the benefits of unions. Their main concern is giving even more power to giant companies and diminishing the voices of working Americans in our democracy.

As Progressives, we believe this is WRONG.

Currently 27 states and Guam have given workers a choice when it comes to union membership. Why is the Congressional Progressive Caucus pushing against right to work laws in states like Florida?

History may give us the answer.

The Role of the Labor Unions in the Russian Revolution.

In 1920 the Marxists Internet Archive published a paper written by A. Lozovsky titled “The Role of the Labor Unions in the Russian Revolution.” The Forward notes:

Comrade Lozovsky says that “it is impossible to accomplish a social revolution outside of the unions or against their will.” Lenin has also said that the Bolshevist Revolution could not have lasted two weeks without the aid of the unions.

[ … ]

It can safely be stated that had the Spartacists in Germany had a predominant influence in the labor movement, Germany would be a Soviet Republic by now. This points out the way for action in the American labor movement. Stress should be laid on revolutionary work in the unions that group the mass of the industrial proletariat.

We must have the unions not only during the period of actual combat with the capitalists and their governments but even after the Dictatorship shall have been established. The function of the unions as organs of disciplined and efficient production and distribution must be broadened and much of the task of Communist reconstruction and responsibility for the running of the industrial apparatus given into the unions.

The lesson from the Russian Revolution, which is so aptly put by Comrade Lozovsky is that the unions, being the natural grouping of the workers as producers, which develop the class consciousness and militancy of the workers, develop at the same time their sense of responsibility and discipline, preparing them for the difficult task of organizing production and exchange in the Communist society. [Emphasis added]

Read the full Marxists Internet Archive document here.

In a document titled “The Russian Workingmen’s Association, sometimes called the Union of Russian Workers (What It Is and How It Operates). [A Bureau of Investigation Internal Report]” dated April 8, 1919 by Edgar B. Speer we may find the answer.

Just as the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis) were socialists and the Russian Social Democratic Workers’ party (Rossiiskaia sotsial-demokraticheskaia rabochaia partiia, or RSDRP) was Marxist so too were the roots of the Union of Russian Workers.

According to the Speer report:

From the 6th to the 9th of January, 1919, the 2nd Convention of the Russian Colonies was held in New York City. One hundred twenty-three delegates participated in the convention and they represented 33,975 Russians, according to the Soviet of Workingmen’s Deputies of the US and Canada Weekly. The independent element was represented by 60 delegates; Union of Russian Workers, 49; Socialists, 9; Industrial Workers of the World, 2; and Anarchists, 3. During the convention, Peter Bianki, who represented the Union of Russian Workers of the United States and Canada and the Anarchists, declared from the convention floor: “The Union of Russian Workers deny any form of power and Government because where Government begins, Revolution ends and where there is Revolution there is no place for Government.” Bianki further declared that the Union of Russian Workers has found it possible to support the Bolsheviki in its struggle against the counterrevolution because the Bolsheviki undoubtedly are the most Revolutionary part of the Russian Social Democratic Party. The foregoing briefly sets forth the principles as they exist today of the Russian Workingmen’s Association, sometimes called the Union of Russian Workers.

Here is the preamble of the Union of Russian Workers:

Present society is divided into two opposing classes: the downtrodden Workers and Peasants, on the one side, producing by their work all the riches of the world; the rich people, on the other side, who have grabbed all the riches into their hands.

Many a time the Class of the Oppressed stood up against the rich parasites and their faithful servant and protector — the Government — to conquer its full Liberation from the yoke of Capitalism and Political Power; but every time it suffered defeat, not being fully conscious of its own final goal and means, by which victory can be accomplished, thus remaining only a weapon in the hands of its enemies.

The struggle between these two classes is being fought also at the present time and will end only when the Toiling Masses, organized as a class, will understand their true interests and will make themselves masters of all the riches of the world by means of a violent Social Revolution.

Having accomplished such a change and having annihilated at the same time all the institutions of the Government and State, the class of the disowned must establish the Society of Free Producers, aiming at satisfying the needs of every individual person who, on its side, is giving to the Society their labor and their knowledge.

For the attainment of these aims, we consider as of primary importance the necessity of building up a wide Revolutionary Organization of Toilers which, by conducting a direct struggle with all the Institutions of Capitalism and Government, must train the Working Class to initiative and independent action in all its acts, thus educating it in the consciousness of the absolute necessity of a General Strike — of the Social Revolution. [Emphasis added]

Is the Democratic Party’s Progressive Caucus calling for a revolution against state governments with right to work laws?

The email from the Progressive Caucus stating,

Republican “Right to Work” laws weaken the voices of working people and ensure that their wages are kept low. All they do is INCREASE the power of corporations, while LIMITING the power of workers to join unions.

[ … ]

Republican “Right to Work” laws weaken the voices of working people and ensure that their wages are kept low. All they do is INCREASE the power of corporations, while LIMITING the power of workers to join unions.

Sounds very much like the Union of Russian Workers of the United States and Canada and the Anarchists, who declared from their convention floor: “The Union of Russian Workers deny any form of power and Government because where Government begins, Revolution ends and where there is Revolution there is no place for Government.”

As Speer concluded in his report,

The Russian Workingmen’s Association as it exists today is divided between the advocates of Anarchist-Syndicalism and Anarchist-Communism.

It seems that history is repeating itself. The Democratic Party Progressive Caucus uses the same rhetoric as did the Union of Russian Workers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

‘The Squad’ Is Only the Beginning of Nancy Pelosi’s Problems

Trump On The ‘Squad’: They Are Not ‘Capable Of Loving Our Country’

The Socialist ‘Squad’ Does Not Like America. Take It From Them

Rashida Tlaib: National Security Risk?

Remember: Tlaib Interrupted A Trump Speech To Business Leaders… All In The Name Of ‘Doing Her Part’ 

Somali-Born Journalist Returned To Her Homeland To Document How ‘Safe’ The Country Is But Terrorists Killed Her 

RELATED VIDEO: The Bloody Story Of How May Day Became A Holiday For Workers | TIME

Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar Compares Anti-Israel ‘BDS Movement’ to the Boston Tea Party?

/in , , , , /by

The Democrat Socialist Congress has been infected by a Socialist, Antisemitic and Anti Israel Movement.

Make no mistake about it the Democratic Congress has been infected by a virulent antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment that is spreading through the Democratic caucus like a cancer. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar together with co-sponsors Reps. Jon Lewis and Rashida Tlaib have joined Omar in her pro-BDS resolution. They are only the tip of the Democratic socialist, antisemitic and anti Israel iceberg that infects the Democrats. There are many other Democratic members of the House who share their views. If you listen to the Democrat candidates seeking the presidential nomination it is clear this group is literally creating the agenda.

History tells us this is the way fascism can take over a country. The Nazi Party sold itself as the National Socialist Workers Party. In Russia the communists called themselves the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party. In America the Socialists call themselves the Democratic Socialist Party. The virulent thread of antisemitism is always present in the march to fascism.

The 2020 elections are important for all Americans. But for Jews if history is a prognosticator of the future it may be the beginning of a life or death struggle for them. The Jewish people have always been the canary in the mine shaft. Every fascist movement starts with an attack on the Jewish people wherever they are. No country is immune from fascism. Do not ignore this socialist antisemitic-anti Israel movement. To all Americans especially Jewish Americans, you do so at your peril.

Notorious Anti-Israel Propagandist Ilhan Omar Just Compared BDS Movement to the Boston Tea Party

By Joe Setyon

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar on Wednesday appeared to draw parallels between the famed 1773 Boston Tea Party and the anti-Israel Boycott, Divest, Sanctions movement.

Omar’s comments came the same week she announced a pro-BDS resolution “affirming that all Americans have the right to participate in boycotts in pursuit of civil and human rights at home and abroad, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution,” as The Jerusalem Post noted.

According the BDS website, the movement claims “Israel is occupying and colonising Palestinian land, discriminating against Palestinian citizens of Israel and denying Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes.”

Read full article.

Miss Michigan World America loses beauty crown for noting hijab makes women ‘oppressed under Islam’

/in , , , , , /by

After declining to try on a hijab, Kathy Zhu said:

“So you’re telling me that it’s now just a fashion accessory and not a religious thing? Or are you just trying to get women used to being oppressed under Islam?”

How “Islamophobic,” right? But what about Aqsa Parvez? Her Muslim father choked her to death with her hijab after she refused to wear it. Or for Aqsa and Amina Muse Ali, a Christian woman in Somalia whom Muslims murdered because she wasn’t wearing a hijab? They showed no concern for the 40 women who were murdered in Iraq in 2007 for not wearing the hijab; or for Alya Al-Safar, whose Muslim cousin threatened to kill her and harm her family because she stopped wearing the hijab in Britain; or for Amira Osman Hamid, who faced whipping in Sudan for refusing to wear the hijab; or for the Egyptian girl, also named Amira, who committed suicide after being brutalized by her family for refusing to wear the hijab; or for the Muslim and non-Muslim teachers at the Islamic College of South Australia who were told they had to wear the hijab or be fired; or for the women in Chechnya whom police shot with paintballs because they weren’t wearing hijab; or for the women in Chechnya who were threatened by men with automatic rifles for not wearing hijab; or for the elementary school teachers in Tunisia who were threatened with death for not wearing hijab; or for the Syrian schoolgirls who were forbidden to go to school unless they wore hijab; or for the women in Gaza whom Hamas has forced to wear hijab; or for the women in Iran who protested against the regime, even before the recent uprising, by daring to take off their hijabs; or for the women in London whom Muslim thugs threatened to murder if they didn’t wear hijab; or for the anonymous young Muslim woman who doffed her hijab outside her home and started living a double life in fear of her parents; or for the fifteen girls in Saudi Arabia who were killed when the religious police wouldn’t let them leave their burning school building because they had taken off their hijabs in their all-female environment; or for the girl in Italy whose mother shaved her head for not wearing hijab; or for all the other women and girls who have been killed or threatened, or who live in fear for daring not to wear the hijab.

Courageous women in the Islamic Republic of Iran are taking off their hijabs as a sign of resistance to the oppressive Sharia regime under which they live, and at least 29 women have been arrested for doing so. Who is standing in solidarity with them?

After she lost her crown, Zhu wrote:

“This is more than just some beauty pageant, this is about the prejudice views against people with ‘different opinions.’”

Indeed. The Left is making an all-out effort to delegitimize entirely all points of view except its own. This is just one episode in that endeavor.

“Michigan College Republican loses beauty crown over ‘insensitive’ tweets,” by Jonathan Oosting, Detroit News, July 19, 2019:

A College Republican leader at the University of Michigan is blasting Miss World America beauty pageant officials for stripping her state title and barring her from a national competition because of provocative social media posts that spurred accusations of racism, Islamophobia and insensitivity.

Kathy Zhu, a 20-year-old senior at the University of Michigan, says she was barred from a beauty pageant over “insensitive” tweets.

Kathy Zhu, the 20-year-old vice president of UM College Republicans, said organizers took her 2017 and 2018 tweets about Muslim hijabs and African-American murder rates out of context and did not give her a chance to explain her rationale.

The controversy exploded Thursday on conservative media sites after Zhu posted emails and text messages from a pageant official who told her she could no longer participate because of “offensive, insensitive and inappropriate” social media posts….

The beauty pageant this week announced Zhu as Miss Michigan World America 2019 but revoked the title a day later. Organizers appear to have deleted the original announcement from a regional Facebook page and reposted a list of other winners from Michigan and Indiana.

A senior majoring in political science, Zhu expects to graduate next year. She describes herself as a “right-leading moderate” and supports Republican President Donald Trump.

“This is more than just some beauty pageant, this is about the prejudice views against people with ‘different opinions,’” she wrote Friday morning on Twitter.

Zhu transferred to UM in December from the University of Central Florida, where she drew national attention in 2018 for criticizing a Muslim Student Association event that invited students to try on a hijab, a head covering worn in public by some Muslim women.

“So you’re telling me that it’s now just a fashion accessory and not a religious thing?” Zhu had tweeted. “Or are you just trying to get women used to being oppressed under Islam?”

Her comments prompted a Twitter fight and at least one call for expulsion, but officials ultimately concluded that none of the involved students’ actions violated the university’s rules of conduct….

In an email exchange that Zhu published on Twitter, Miss World America state director Laurie DeJack told her that her social media accounts contain “offensive, insensitive and inappropriate content” in violation of pageant rules and conditions.

Specifically, DeJack pointed to a requirement that contestants be “of good character” with backgrounds “not likely to bring disrepute” to Miss World America or anyone associated with the organization.

“Therefore, and effective immediately, MWA does not recognize you as a participant of any sort in any capacity as it relates to any and all events of MWA,” DeJack continued in an email also sent to national pageant officials.

“I’m sure you will love to find a ‘woman’ who is cookie cutter perfect and says brainless comments like, ‘I love world peace,” Zhu wrote in response.

Zhu said she tweeted about the hijab incident after a Muslim woman “forcibly” tried to put one on her head at the University of Central Florida.

At the time, the Muslim Student Association said no one was forced or pressured to approach their booth on campus.

“The purpose of this booth was to spread awareness of the hijab and those who choose to wear it,” the group said. “The hijab, or headscarf, is worn by many Muslim women to exemplify modesty. It is a decision made of their own accord.”…

College Republicans at the University of Michigan stood by Zhu, who is vice president of the organization.

“We fully stand behind Kathy in decrying the outrageous behavior of Miss World America,” the student group said in a statement.

“Although they are within their rights to do this as a private organization, we believe that this decision shows incredible bias against unextraordinary right wing opinion, which we expect will come back to hurt the organization.”…

“I just think that they got a one-sided story,” Zhu said of pageant organizers, suggesting a former antagonist in Florida had alerted them to the social media posts “that made it seem as if I was a bad person” without any context.

“The whole point of them not wanting me to represent them is because they didn’t want bad publicity, but this gave them way more bad publicity because they removed someone that really didn’t do anything wrong,” she said.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Helping to reelect Donald Trump: Miss Michigan has title stripped for wrongthink

What In The World? Miss Michigan Had Her Crown Stripped Because She Refused To Wear A Hijab 

Islamic Republic of Iran seizes British-flagged tanker, UK vows “considered, but robust” response

Muslim cleric: If Muslims “rise to power through democracy, they will not allow an infidel to rule over them”

Brooklyn: Muslim migrant discovered to be top Islamic State sniper

Turkey 1894-1924: “Deliberate, state-engineered genocide aided by Muslim clerics and the Muslim-majority population”

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

Maximum Security to Defend Us From Tommy Robinson

/in , , , , , , /by

(These are my views as a woman living in England, on how the culture and spirit of my country has changed over 50 years.   Why the country does not feel protected or strong any more, how it has lost, and is losing it values and decency, and how we are daily losing our free speech).

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Martin Luther King.

A Whistling Kettle

With the sentencing of freelance reporter and activist Tommy Robinson, on the 11th July, now reported to be serving 9 months imprisonment, and who is currently being detained in high security Belmarsh Prison, on a possible civil matter; one can only wonder if it was the harsh and extreme hatred which had been continuously directed towards him prior to his sentencing which may have in some way possibly influenced the harsh and extreme outcome of his case?

Aside from openly reporting every alias he has ever used, and also gleefully reporting every single crime or slight mis-demeanour that he has ever been accused or charged for, our judicial system appears to have come down excessively heavy upon a man whose crime was to report and live stream a sex grooming gang who were attending court for sentencing.

The mainstream media and also the social media have been awash with some of the most hateful and ugly statements you will ever see against a man who was waiting to go to court.   Do the perpetrators of such venomous attacks see their very own hypocrisy when they exercise their own right to free-speech to attack this man and wish him the very worst of ills before he has even been sentenced?

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black

One of the main gripes directed at Tommy Robinson is that he is not a ‘trained’ journalist, and cannot contest that he is being imprisoned for journalism.  Indeed, they are correct, he is not trained so to speak; but whilst many journalists almost always portray an identical and very one sided account on how they perceive Tommy Robinson or his supporters to be, they seem to be inept in not seeing just how far the British public as a whole no longer respect or trust the profession of journalism, and why the rise in alternative news media has now become a more reliable source of information for some people in contrast to some of the news the public is professionally fed.

Another gripe which has been used about the interference of Tommy Robinson’s reporting, but this time in relation to the law, is that every person should be due to a ‘fair’ trial, and that everyone is perceived innocent unless proven to be guilty.  It has been stated that his live streaming outside the court could have influenced the sentencing, but in this case it is reported that he only gave out information that he believed was already in the public domain.

In relation to reporting however, our newspapers often get it wrong in accusing, naming and blaming beforehand innocent suspects in order to sell a story.    Consider:

In December 2018, a Sussex couple were wrongly accused and questioned for 36 hours by Sussex police for flying a drone over Gatwick Airport and halting flights for thousands of passengers.   Within hours of being taken for questioning, many newspapers were printing their pictures and one newspaper labelled them the ‘morons who ruined Christmas’.

This is not professional journalism.

In the summer of 2016, pop artist Cliff Richard was cleared of historical sex assault allegations after an investigation by South Yorkshire police.   The police later apologised to him for the “initial handling of the media interest” after the BBC were tipped off about a raid upon his home, and it was broadcast ‘live’ from a helicopter by the BBC.

Cliff Richard later successfully fined the BBC for their coverage based on mere ‘accusations’ and believes some ‘privacy’ should be awarded to those who are accused of such crimes until someone is charged, found guilty and sentenced.  He is currently backing a campaign group called FAIR (Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform) which calls for anonymity for those suspected of sexual offences until they are actually charged.

You can listen to his statement about the false allegations made against him, and how the media coverage affected his life here:

In his article in the Guardian, Professor of Journalism, Roy Greenslade writes on how the BBC should appeal against the ruling made in favour of the privacy of Cliff Richard, made by Mr Justice Mann, indicating that this case now states a precedent with worrying implications for press freedom.  He states in his article:

“It suggests that reporting the identity of anyone whose home is raided, or who is known to be under police investigation prior to being arrested or charged, amounts to an intrusion into their privacy. It means that Mann has broken new legal ground by rebalancing the two articles in the European convention on human rights that deal with respect for private life and freedom of expression. He has decided that article 8, the right to privacy, now trumps article 10, the public’s right to know”.

You can read the full article here.   In my opinion, the article offers an interesting and thoughtful insight on how freedom of press operates and how social media now contributes in making our society one of the least secretive places in history.  However, false accusation is a worrying trend, and the resulting consequences can have devastating effects.

Contempt of court cases resulting in imprisonment have in British history been very few in number, but we do hear of many fines being imposed upon newspapers who have been accused of influencing or interrupting court cases.

In 2012, a journalist for the Spectator magazine was accused of being let off for almost causing the Stephen Lawrence case to collapse when an article was published which could have jeopardized the trial of the two men accused of murder.  In this instance the magazine was fined and not the journalist.

In 2012, the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror were fined for contempt of court and fined £10,000 each with costs of £25,000 each for their coverage of Levi Bellfield’s (now known as Yusuf Rahim) conviction for the murder of Milly Dowler.

In 2011, it is reported the Daily Mirror was fined £50,000 and the Sun newspaper £18,000 for articles on the arrest of Christopher Jefferies who was released without charge for the Joanna Yates murder case when another man was found guilty of her murder.

The harsh treatment being directed towards Tommy Robinson evidently appears to be out of context in relation to the equally serious offences above.  Why is he hated so much?

Blowing off some Steam

The very vocal supporters of Tommy Robinson understandably feel frustrated and demonstrative towards the outcome of his sentencing, and like many other people across the country can only surmise and wonder why the British press are rarely supportive towards him in light of their own continuous misdemeanours, and why he has received in his words, a death sentence in relation to being put in a prison which has a high proportion of Islamic prisoners.

Unfortunately, it could be concluded that it is the failure of our country, the police force, our judicial system and our government which has made Tommy Robinson into the hero and martyr which people who dislike him complain about.    No amount of rationale by professional experts, who in some cases are exhibiting a class snobbery, is now able to justify the treatment against him.

He has stepped outside the box and spoken up for the silenced in the same way that the Brexit party spoke up for the majority of knowledgeable and insightful people in the UK who felt betrayed by our government.

There is an awakening in the UK through social media that is uniting the voices which are not being listened to.  They are hungry for the likes of Tommy Robinson, regardless of his background, who in some way is demonstrating a certain fearlessness in opposition to a silent fear which is bubbling below the surface of the UK.

The battle everywhere appears to be between an uncomfortable truth, and a force of dictatorship, which is taking an immoral high ground and coming down excessively heavy on those who dare to expose some reasonable although uncomfortable truth for consideration, by labelling them, discrediting them and isolating them.   It is the reason we must ultimately find our silenced voices and always speak up and be fully aware of what is happening in the UK and across the world today.

“In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”   Martin Luther King

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in J. D. Pendry’s American Journal and is republished with permission. © 2019 Shirley Edwards, All Rights Reserved, Email: eshirley02@gmail.com

Martyr Ideology

/in , , , , /by

In a previous video interview with we discussed the phenomenon of human sacrifice in Islam as pertaining to the inclination of HAMAS and other Islamist groups (both Shi’a and Sunni) to deliberately put children and other civilians in harms way during wartime, and explained that justification by quoting Islamic jurisprudence (al-Masri, ‘umdat as-Salik pp. 583-584).

Then, we showed the pre-Islamic origins of that theology by tying it back to the ancient Canaanite/Phoenician/Carthaginian practices of sacrificing their infants to their deities during times of war.

Thus, it seems appropriate to make the obvious connection of that tradition of human sacrifice on behalf of deity to the modern jihadi compulsion to blow themselves up on behalf of deity.

The following Qur’an verses will help bring that to light:

“Do not imagine that those who are killed on behalf of Allah are dead, rather they are alive at their Lord’s side and they are provided with provisions” (Qur’an 3:169).

“And, if we had decreed for them:  Lay down your lives or go forth from your dwellings, but few of them would have done it; though if they did what they are exhorted to do it would be better for them, and more strengthening” (Qur’an 4:66).

“Verily, the life of this world is nothing but a game and an entertainment.  Far better is the hereafter for those who keep their duty to Allah.  Do you not understand?” (Qur’an 6:32).

“Those who believe, and have migrated (haajirou) and performed jihad on behalf of Allah with their wealth and their lives, they have attained the highest degree at the side of Allah, and those are the victorious ones” (Qur’an 9:20).

“Among the believers are those men who have been true to their oath to Allah and among them are those who have paid their vow by death (in battle), and among them are those who are still waiting and they have not altered in the least” (Qur’an 33:23).

“Those who believe say ‘if only a surah was revealed’ (regarding battle), but when a decisive surah was revealed in which battle was mentioned you saw those in whose hearts was sickness look at you with the look of men fainting out of the fear of death, which would be more suitable for them” (Qur’an 47:20).

These are only a few examples of the many unabrogated verses in the Qur’an which define Islam as both a warrior cult and a death cult.  Inspired by these verses Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s chief general and the first Caliph, is alleged to have said this to the Persians:

“You should know that I have come to you with an army of men that love death, as you love life.”

This “we love death as you love life” has become not only a common saying among jihadis, but an abiding principle.

Now, keeping all of these Qur’an verses, and Abu bakr’s boasting in mind, we can clearly see foundation for the motto of the modern day Muslim Brotherhood:

“God is our goal, the messenger (Muhammad) is our leader, the Qur’an is our constitution, Jihad is our way, and death on behalf of Allah is the loftiest of our desires.”

All prospective members of the Muslim Brotherhood must swear that oath to become a member.  All Sunni terrorist groups from ansaar ash-shari’a to ISIS and al-Qaeda are essentially offshoots of the Brotherhood, and they too use the same oath to welcome members into their group.

Two of Michael Hansen’s films: ‘Killing Europe’ and ‘Killing Canada’

/in , , , , , , , /by

Since filmmaker, Michael Hansen’s appearance on InfoWars as well as two articles at Breitbart on his work, there have been requests to see his two films now publicly available so we are posting them here.

Rumors circulate of an updated version of his U.S. film on the state of free speech. We look forward to that a great deal.

Abridged version of Killing Europe:

Killing Canada:

EDITORS NOTE: This entry was posted in exposing Islam, Exposing Leftism, Michael Hansen by Eeyore.

VIDEO: Barry Webb — Human Sacrifice and Islam

/in , , , , , /by

This is from our weekly series with former NSA Arabist/translator on the oddities and origins of islam. This is actually last week’s segment, but it was late on the editing table.

In this he discusses a possible historical connection between previous human sacrifice cults and rituals that may have found their way into Islam as honor killings etc.

Direct link. 

There is a sort of sequel to this recorded this week which we will post with a link back to this one as soon as its ready.

This entry was posted in Barry Webb, Explaining Islam by Eeyore.

The Left is Following Communism’s Playbook for Revolution

/in , , , , , /by

We Americans are currently in a civilizational state historians William Strauss and Neil Howe would call the “Third Turning”: an unraveling. The so-called Left is making it happen, too, with conservatives enabling it by conserving yesterday’s liberalism and being those nice guys who finish last.

In Marxist circles, this stage would be called “destabilization” — the second of a four-part process to subvert a society and seize control. The first, third and fourth stages are, respectively, “demoralization,” “crisis” and “normalization.”

The demoralization stage, which essentially is the undermining of a target nation’s morality (the process of radically changing the population’s “values”) was actually “over-fulfilled” in the mid 1980s already, as Soviet defector Yuri Bezmenov put it at the time. This process continues and is manifested in the widespread antipathy for sexual propriety, faith and all that is great and good; and in the lust for perversion, socialism, feminism, multiculturalism, “transgenderism” and anti-Americanism in general. We see it in the tearing down of statues, removal of long-present Christian symbols, leftist propaganda and decadence in schools and entertainment, prioritizing of illegal aliens over citizens, revising of American history and impugning of whites; and in attacks on the Constitution, the Founding Fathers and all things traditional.

This destabilization of the American mind and moral compass now has begotten, as it must, societal destabilization. This is reflected in, most obviously, the flooding of our nation with unassimilable foreigners via a purposely porous border. This serves the Cloward-Piven goal of overloading the system to cause breakdown, necessitating replacement of it with, the theory goes, a socialist one.

Of course, this human flood strains schools, hospitals, and services and resources in general. But it’s also used for propaganda purposes, with simple efforts to enforce immigration law — ones pursued by Barack Obama himself — used to demonize ICE agents and the current administration. Vile, divisive lies such as claiming that detention facilities are Nazi-like “concentration camps” lead to hatred, violence, protests and terrorist attacks such as Saturday’s assault on a Tacoma, Washington, ICE facility.

This is part of the greater destabilization represented by physical attacks on, threats against and censorship of conservatives, phenomena now being encouraged by media and facilitated by Big Tech as left-wing politicians and law enforcement turn a blind eye. Why not? This all serves to quash their political opposition.

Should this continue in both duration and increasing severity, we will eventually be brought to the “crisis” state, a relatively short stage in which there’s a revolutionary change of power.

To be clear, I don’t say that those fomenting this are “Marxists.” Doctrinaire Marxism is, well, so yesterday. Leftists epitomize the moral relativism imbuing our age and, as such, worship the Gods of the Shifting Goalposts. Oh, they’re not better than Marxists (they may be worse), but they have made a lateral move in lunacy. Today they’re sort of like the Marquis de Sade meets Stalin and the Stasi.

Nor are most of our “disruptors” — what Nancy Pelosi called on young people to be (be careful what you wish for, “Racist” Nan) — conscious of the process of which they’re a part or of its implications; like the Kronstadt sailors, they’re useful idiots.

Why, even most politicians — whether Liz Warren, Kamala Harris, Irish Bob (O’Rourke) or someone else — aren’t strikingly bright or knowledgeable and excel in only one area: power lust. In fact, I’m not sure there are too many bent-on-evil corporeal beings anywhere capable of grasping and orchestrating what’s befalling us.

It is tempting to call these miscreants “fascist,” a pejorative they use against the right, but this term is misunderstood. Fascism originated in Italy, with Benito Mussolini being one of its main founders (if not the primary one); Ol’ Bennie went this route, do note, after being expelled from the socialist party for advocating involvement in WWI.

Mussolini defined fascism thus, “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state,” and our leftists certainly embrace that credo. Yet the Italian leader also said, “National unity has no need of the delirium of race.” That’s right:

Authentic fascism had no racial agenda.

Our leftists do, though (as did the Nazis), with their identity-politics “wokeness” and white-privilege blather. So what’s the best way to describe their “ideology,” if ever-shifting, emotion-determined positions can be thus described?

Pure evil.

Yet while their wickedness won’t change, if “something can’t go on, it won’t,” to paraphrase economist Herb Stein. Leftists are orchestrating anarchy, but anarchy is never a permanent state of affairs. The destabilization, including the flood of illegals and tolerated street violence, will eventually be ended — if only by leftists themselves.

For once they achieve the complete control they crave, they’ll no longer want anyone upsetting the apple cart because it’ll be their apple cart. This is the last revolutionary stage, normalization. It’s when the useful idiots, promised utopia and once so sure they’d be part of the “in” crowd when power was realized, get squashed like worms.

Below is a video of ex-KGB man Yuri Bezmenov discussing demoralization in America.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

Remember Wen? Meet Planned Parenthood’s More Extreme Boss

/in , , , , , , , /by

Get used to the name Alexis McGill Johnson. The new interim president of Planned Parenthood is already making her media rounds, and one thing’s clear: she doesn’t suffer from the same anxieties as Leana Wen. She’s quite content making abortion a political issue — and a religious one.

The Christian Post met Johnson back in 2014 during a revealing interview about the intersection of faith and life. “We all recognize that abortion and terminating a pregnancy is a very complicated decision, but that issue needs to be left to a woman, her doctor, and her God — not a politician,” she insisted then. And as far as God is concerned, women have nothing to worry about, she argued. Planned Parenthood, she promised, has plenty of support from “female ministers” and other “members of faith.”

The Radiance Foundation’s Ryan Bomberger is equally troubled by Johnson’s criticism of the pro-life agenda. “I feel like it’s an assault on black women’s ability to make a decision,” she argued. But Johnson, Bomberger pushed back, as a multiracial woman, ought to know that her organization has aborted hundreds of thousands of future black women in its intentional targeting of minorities. But she claims that pro-lifers, who’ve done everything they can to expose the eugenics movement behind Planned Parenthood, are the “racist” ones.

Meanwhile, the editors at the Wall Street Journal are just as stunned. “Progressives are hurtling to the Left so fast that even liberals in good standing are casualties of the tornado. Witness the coup this week at Planned Parenthood, which is a tacit reminder that the group is less a health-care outfit than a political lobby.” Dr. Wen, they shake their head, was pushed out of the group because she wasn’t radical enough on abortion. But, they remind everyone, “Dr. Wen wasn’t moderate or timid about abortion.”

“The coup reveals the dishonesty of Planned Parenthood’s requests for public funding. The outfit demands taxpayer money in the name of health services for women but then sacks its doctor president because she wasn’t political enough. The group claims abortion is only part of its portfolio even as it acts like it is Planned Parenthood’s singular purpose.

Planned Parenthood ought to drop the pretense and rely on private funding like other lobbies. There is no shortage of rich liberals. Facebook‘s Sheryl Sandberg told the Huffington Post last month that she was donating $1 million to Planned Parenthood’s advocacy arm, not her first large donation. American taxpayers who disagree with Planned Parenthood’s message should not have to underwrite a political shop that lobbies for abortion up to the last minute before birth.”

To that I say, Amen!

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Like Gold Tested in Fire

In the Hate of the Moment

FRC in the Spotlight…

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

In the Hate of the Moment

/in , , , , /by

While the State Department was trying to stop religious hostility, one congresswoman was down the street trying to fuel it. In an eerie backdrop to the Trump administration’s ministerial, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) seemed determined to highlight the threat that exists right here at home — radical Democrats.

Omar, who hasn’t exactly been a friend to Israel, took her contempt to a new level this week when she introduced a new level of anti-Semitism into her congressional agenda. If she learned anything from her February scandal, when she demeaned the Jewish people and drew the ire of her own party, Omar hasn’t shown it. Instead, she’s doubled down on her obvious disdain for Israel with a resolution that would support the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

If you’re unfamiliar, the BDS movement that Omar is promoting is an effort reminiscent of what took place in Nazi Germany leading up to WWII. In 1933, the German government launched Juden boykott, a boycott of Jewish stores and shops designed to not only to hurt the Jewish community economically but to stigmatize and delegitimize the Jewish people. The BDS movement — whether stated or not — has the same effect only it is an international effort targeting the state of Israel.

The BDS movement is being done in the name of the Palestinians, attempting to force Israel to give up their land in the eastern portion of the country, Judea, and Samaria. The sad irony is that while targeting Israel, the movement is hurting many Arabs and Palestinians who are working side by side with Jewish residents in these communities. I’ve been to places like Ariel, which have thriving industrial parks that employ hundreds of Palestinians. The reality is, in those communities, Israel’s thriving economy is fostering a managed and sustainable peace that so many on the outside have promised through third-party intervention.

The criticism has been so overwhelming that CBS News invited the Minnesota congresswoman on its morning show to explain. “Would you like to make it clear that you’re not anti-Semitic?” Gayle King asked. “Oh, certainly not,” Omar said, smiling. “Yes.” “Would you like to make that clear?” King asked again. “Yes,” Omar repeated, a little more frustrated this time. “Oftentimes there are things that you might say, might not hold weight for you, but to someone else, right, the way that we hear and consume information is very different than how the next person might,” she explained.

Of course, to the Jewish people here and abroad, it’s more than what Omar has said (and that’s more than enough). It’s what she’s doing that speaks the loudest. Vice President Mike Pence, like most conservatives and reasonable Democrats, isn’t fooled. He knows this is part of a much deeper hatred, which, if it isn’t stopped now, has the potential to unleash a frightening new chapter in America. “Anti-Semitism is on the rise,” he warned at the ministerial. “In France and Germany, things have gotten so bad that Jewish religious leaders have warned their followers not to wear kippahs in public for fear that they could be violently attacked. And attacks on Jews, even on aged Holocaust survivors, are growing at an alarming rate.”

Then, in a direct nod at Omar, said, “Regrettably, the world’s oldest hatred has even found a voice in the halls of our United States Congress. So let me say it clearly: Anti-Semitism is not just wrong; it’s evil. And anti-Semitism must be confronted and denounced wherever and whenever it arises, and it must be universally condemned.” That’s a scary thought to most Americans, who assumed the U.S.’s new envoy to combat anti-Semitism wouldn’t be needed here at home.

But, as Noam Marans explained at a panel I joined at the ministerial, “Hate is an equal opportunity offender. It sometimes begins with Jews, but it never ends with Jews.” That’s why the U.S. Congress — and Democratic party in particular — needs to stand up and make it clear: this kind of dangerous prejudice won’t be tolerated. Irene Weiss, a Holocaust survivor, who spent eight months in Auschwitz sleeping next to the crematorium, understands all too well where this leads. “Day and night columns of young mothers with children, and elderly men and women, took their last steps as they passed by our barrack. We watched them enter the gate that led to the gas chamber.”

She thought no one could have possibly known such evil existed. “If they knew, surely they would stop it.” It turns out, world leaders knew about Auschwitz and the other extermination camps. “But the killing continued.” Seventy-years later, she said soberly, “Humanity’s vulnerability to the same forces of hate exists today.” And we cannot say we did not know.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Like Gold Tested in Fire

Remember Wen? Meet Planned Parenthood’s More Extreme Boss

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