Posts

UK Parliament will debate barring Trump from country

Why not ban Trump? After all, I was banned from entering Britain for saying that Islam “is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society.”

If I can get banned for that manifestly true observation, then Trump can certainly be banned for calling for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration in view of jihad terror. One thing British authorities are sure of: it is wrong, wrong, wrong to want to take any action against jihad terror.

“If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the ‘unacceptable behaviour’ criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.” That’s a lot of hooey. The “unacceptable behavior” criteria is already applied unfairly. Just days before Pamela Geller and I were banned, the British government admitted Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arefe. Al-Arefe has said:

“Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.”

That was acceptable in Britain. My work, which has consistently denounced violence and been in defense of the equality of rights of all before the law, was not. That’s a fair application of the “unacceptable behaviors” criteria?

“UK Parliament Will Debate Barring Trump from Country,” by Carrie Dann, NBC News, January 5, 2016

The British parliament will formally debate a petition later this month from backers wishing to prevent Donald Trump from entering the United Kingdom.

The debate is set for January 18, according to a government announcement Tuesday. The petition, launched after Trump announced his proposal to bar Muslims from entering the United States, has garnered over 568,000 signatures to date.

Online petitions like the one targeting Trump are automatically considered for debate by a Petitions Committee if they garner more than 100,000 signatures.

The petition reads: “The signatories believe Donald J Trump should be banned from UK entry. The UK has banned entry to many individuals for hate speech. The same principles should apply to everyone who wishes to enter the UK. If the United Kingdom is to continue applying the ‘unacceptable behaviour’ criteria to those who wish to enter its borders, it must be fairly applied to the rich as well as poor, and the weak as well as powerful.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Facebook swiftly removes anti- “Palestinian” material, keeps up incitement against Jews

Cologne Mayor: Women should be more careful after Muslim mass rapes, promises “guidance” so they can “prepare”

After Paris, National Security Issues Lead Democratic Debate

The format of the Democratic debate was altered at the last minute to give each candidate time to give a statement about the Paris terror attacks at the beginning of the debate.

Speaking first, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders said that, “Together, leading the world, this country will rid our planet of this barbarous organization called ISIS.” However, it remains to be seen how Sanders would lead this fight since he advocates a non-interventionist approach and says that theU.S. should only have a very limited supporting role in the fight in Syria. Sanders believes that the fight against the Islamic State can only be effectively waged by Muslims.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly identified the enemy as jihadists, rejecting the non-descript terminology used by the Obama Administration who calls them “violent extremists.” Clinton made no sweeping promises as Sanders. Rather she said she would be laying out “in detail what I think we need to do to with our friends and allies — in Europe and elsewhere — to do a better job of coordinating efforts against the scourge of terrorisim.” She stressed that “all the other issues we want to deal with depend on us being secure and strong.”

In his opening statement, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley said that the events in Paris spoke to the new face of “conflict and warfare” in the 21st century, and as such, required “new thinking, fresh approaches.” O’Malley remarked that “we have a lot of work to do to better prepare out nation and to better lead this world into this new century.”

Polling shows that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dominated last night’s Democratic presidential debate, particularly on national security.

Public Policy Polling came out with the first post-debate poll that showed 67% of Democratic primary voters declaring Clinton the overall winner of the second presidential primary debate and 75% saying they most trust her on national security of the three candidates. The following is a summary of the national security positions taken by each candidate during the debate:

Hillary Clinton

She aligned herself closely with President Obama throughout the debate but presented three areas of difference on Islamist extremism: Identification of the enemy; support for Syrian rebels and an implicit criticism of President Obama for suggesting that “containment” of the Islamic State is a sign of success.

Right off the bat, Clinton repeatedly used Islamic terminology to define the enemy as “jihadist.” She also seemed to understand that the root of violent jihad is in the Islamist ideology, which she emphasized is not subscribed to by most Muslims. She described the adversary as “Islamists who are jihadists,” but she did not discuss whether she believes that “moderate Islamists” like the Muslim Brotherhood should be embraced as allies against “jihadists” like the Islamic State.

The second point of difference came when she was asked about President Obama’s claim that the Islamic State is “contained” shortly before the Paris attacks. While Clinton avoided criticizing the president directly, she rejected containment as a measure of success, saying it is impossible to contain a group like the Islamic State and only its defeat is acceptable.

The third point of difference was on Syria. She explained that she urged President Obama to equip moderate Syrian rebels in the beginning of the civil war to prevent jihadists from creating a safe haven. Clinton believes that developing allies on the ground in Syria would have given us a valuable ally today.

Clinton also suggested a tougher approach towards the Gulf states and Turkey. She said it is time for them to “make up their mind about where they stand” on the fight against jihadism.

On the topic of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq that preceded the rise of the Islamic State and the collapse of Iraqi security forces, Clinton said that the withdrawal was in compliance with a U.S.-Iraqi agreement signed by the Bush Administration. After U.S. forces left, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki decimated the Iraqi security forces with his sectarianism and cronyism. This, combined with the civil war in Syria and other regional variables, enabled the Islamic State to seize large parts of Iraq.

She defended the NATO military intervention in Libya to topple Gaddafi by pointing out the large amount of American blood he had on his hands from supporting terrorism. Clinton also mentioned how the Libyans elected moderate leaders after he fell. She addressed the civil war in Libya by saying the U.S. should provide more support to the current moderate Libyan government.

On the topic of Syrian refugees, Clinton said she agrees in principle with bringing 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S. (as O’Malley advocates) but only if they are completely vetted. Her tough language on vetting suggested that she envisions overhauling the process to become stricter, but she did not present a specific proposal.

Unlike Sanders, she would not commit to cutting the defense budget but promised to closely review military spending. She cited Chinese moves in the South China Sea and the increased aggressiveness of Russia, such as its broadcasting of a new drone submarine that can be equipped with tactical nuclear weapons.

Clinton is currently the frontrunner by a mile. She leads nationally with 55% in an average of polls; leads Iowa with 54%; is in second behind Sanders in New Hampshire with 43% and leads in South Carolina with 65%. You can read our factsheet on Clinton’s positions related to Islamism here.

Bernie Sanders

As we mentioned in our coverage of the recent Democratic forum, Sanders views the threat as being rooted in an Islamic ideology but—unlike Clinton—advocates a non-interventionist approach. His argument is that the U.S. should only have a very limited supporting role because the fight against the Islamic State can only be effectively waged by Muslims. He again stated that the fight with the Islamic State is part of a “war for the soul of Islam.”

Sanders rejected a strategy of pursuing regime change, apparently referring to the Syrian dictatorship and the removal of the Gaddafi regime in Libya when Clinton was Secretary of State. He cited U.S.-backed regime changes in places like Chile and Guatemala as counterproductive mistakes.

He spoke out in favor of cuts to the defense budget. He argued that U.S. military spending is far too high and that much of the excess costs are not even necessary for fighting terrorism.

Sanders is currently in second place overall. He is the runner-up nationally with 33%; is in second place in Iowa with 30%; leads in New Hampshire with 44% and is in second place in South Carolina with 17%. You can read our factsheet on Sanders’ positions related to Islamism here.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley

At the recent Democratic forum, O’Malley embraced the camp that believes Islamic terrorism is a byproduct of political grievances against the U.S. He did not repeat his ludicrous claim that U.S. troops overseas and the operation of Guantanamo Bay are the chief reasons for the strength of the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.

However, during the Saturday night debate, he acknowledged that the threat comes from an Islamic ideology. Unlike Clinton who defined the enemy as “jihadism,” O’Malley defined it as “radical jihadists”—which begs the question: What is a “non-radical jihadist?”

In describing where the Islamic State threat emerged from, O’Malley pointed to the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and especially the disbanding of the Iraqi army. He said that many of ISIS’ current members used to be a part of the Iraqi military until we fired them. There is truth to that statement, but it seems to suggest that O’Malley remains committed to the belief that the “root cause” of the Islamic State and other Islamist terrorists are mistreatment and political grievances, rather than ideology.

O’Malley continued to embrace a non-interventionist strategy, saying that the U.S. should not be trying to overthrow dictators. He then seemed to contradict himself when he said the U.S. should take the lead in fighting “evil.”  He said his “new” foreign policy would be one of “engagement” and “identifying threats” as they gather.

On several occasions, O’Malley cited the need for human intelligence sources as part of his strategy—but that’s nothing new and it’s not a strategy. Everyone agrees that more human intelligence is needed.

He reiterated his support for bringing 65,000 Syrian refugees into the U.S., up from the current 10,000 that President Obama plans to bring in. He did not address how they would be vetted and taken care of, especially when a poll of Syrian refugees found that 13% feel positively or somewhat positively towards the Islamic State.

O’Malley is in last place among the three remaining candidates. He is in last with 3% nationally; last in Iowa with 5%; last in New Hampshire with 3% and last in South Carolina with 2%. You can read our factsheet on O’Malley’s positions related to Islamism here.

You can read the Clarion Project‘s comprehensive factsheets on each party’s presidential candidates’ positions related to Islamism by clicking here.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

RELATED ARTICLES:

No-Fly Zones, Military Spending, Confronting Putin: GOP Debate

Democrat Candidates: Wide Differences on Islamist Terror

GOP Debate on Mute About National Security

CAIR Berates Trump for Support of Closing Extremist Mosques

The GOP Debate: Missing the Banana Boat on Immigration

It’s a tragic fact of man’s nature that people prescribe an ounce of prevention when a pound of cure is needed — and a pound of cure when times call for a ton of desperate measures.

Immigration, rightly and largely thanks to Donald Trump, has become a big issue this election cycle.

But not big enough.

And Tuesday’s GOP debate was illustrative of the problem. When John “Can’t do” Kasich and Jeb “Invasion is an act of love” Bush both scoffed at the idea of following the law, saying we “can’t” deport illegals, the response was lacking. Only Senator Ted Cruz rode in to save the issue from their demagoguery. He said it was “offensive” to suggest that enforcing the law is anti-immigrant and warned that the Republicans will lose if they “join Democrats as the party of amnesty.” He also quite eloquently pointed out that the media wouldn’t be suppressing the dark reality of illegal migration if “a bunch of people with journalism degrees were coming over and driving down the wages in the press,” and that there’s nothing compassionate about diminishing millions of Americans’ earnings.

Yet even the intelligent, staunchly traditionalist Cruz misses the boat on immigration. Even the intrepid, titillatingly anti-establishment Trump does. In 2013, Cruz proposed (at 3:28 in this video) increasing H1B visas 500 percent and doubling legal immigration. And Trump repeats the theme that immigration must be done “legally.” The problem?

Americans are “legally” being done out of their jobs. They’re “legally” being pushed into socialism. And they’re “legally” having their culture stolen away. Yet much more than this went unmentioned during Tuesday’s debate.

“Think about the families!” cried Kasich, alluding to family unification. “C’mon, folks!” Okay, c’mon, let’s think about families.

The families argument is pure propaganda. Families can also be united by sending people the other way — back to their native countries, where most family members often are in the first place. Second, the families argument could be used as a pretext for not enforcing any law. Why imprison people for bank robbery or embezzlement? If they have children, the kids will be left without a parent, or even parentless and have to languish in foster care. And as with illegals, many other law-breakers engage in their crimes “because they want a better life.” How many mafia figures didn’t use their ill-gotten gains to support their families?

Moreover, failure to enforce immigration law is discriminatory. If such law can be flouted with impunity, why should any of us have to follow the law? The amnesty crowd are essentially creating a privileged group — illegal migrants — who alone will get a pass on their criminality. Is unfair discrimination compassionate?

Kasich also trumpeted Ronald Reagan’s 1986 amnesty and said the idea of deporting “11 million people who are law-abiding…is not an adult argument.” But is this a mature statement? The illegals by definition aren’t “law-abiding” because they broke the law in coming to the U.S. in the first place. Here’s something else unmentioned: Reagan reportedly called the 1986 amnesty “My biggest mistake.”

And Kasich, Bush, “Gang of Eight” Marco Rubio and others think we should repeat it.

Note that since the ’86 mistake there have been six more amnesties, each one attended by promises to secure the border. It’s said, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” Should we play the fool an eighth time? Are we Charlie Brown with the football?

Transitioning to political footballs, there’s the Kasich-Bush-Insane notion that we “can’t deport 11 million people.” Here’s the ideal debate response:

Well, we certainly can’t if we look to make not good policy but excuses. But despite what “Can’t do” Kasich might say this isn’t a matter of capability but will. But first realize that we don’t have to deport illegals — we can get them to deport themselves.

You use a carrot-and-stick approach; the removal of the carrot and application of the stick. First make sure illegals can’t get any government benefits; of course, this includes no driver’s licenses, which can enable illegals to vote in our elections. Then ensure they can’t get jobs by punishing employers hiring them. Once these incentives to remain are gone, most will leave voluntarily, as Arizona’s crackdown on illegals some years back proved. And once most depart, deporting the few remaining will be an easy task. So the issue isn’t complicated; it’s only made so by pandering politicians who put votes ahead of country.

Speaking of a treasonous spirit, the topic of H1B visas — which allow employers to recruit high-skilled foreign workers — came up during the second-to-last GOP debate on Oct. 28. Once again, no candidate fielded it sufficiently. Ideal debate statement:

In the news there has been story after story recently about corporations replacing high-skilled American workers with lower-wage foreigners; this is a violation of the law, which stipulates that an H1B-visa recruit can only be retained if it “will not affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed,” but this law is routinely flouted and unenforced. Outrageously and rubbing salt in the wound, in some cases these Americans have even been forced to train their foreign replacements under threat of losing their severance packages! This is treasonous! And think about the families, the families that these Americans can no longer support. Is this compassionate? Is this an “act of love”?

The H1B-visa program is being abused, and is used to abuse Americans, by crony capitalists in and out of government who grease each other’s palms. This will stop, cold, under my presidency. More than 94 million Americans are not in the labor force. We need to ensure that corporations hire available American talent. Let high-skilled foreigners build up their foreign countries, and let high-skilled Americans have the jobs that are their birthright.

Returning to Tuesday’s debate, many candidates mentioned Islamic terrorism when asked to cite America’s biggest current threat. Yet not a single debater pointed out the following. Debate statement:

With many millions of unknown-quantity illegals violating our border during the last couple of decades, probability dictates that some terrorists have come across. There’s no doubt that some weapons of mass destruction have come across. Yet we can’t get it across to our feckless leaders that it’s silly, in the extreme, to talk about a “war on terror” and pursue “nation building” in faraway lands while leaving our back door to Mexico vulnerable. It’s a bit like going to the nearest crime-ridden naked-city street looking to be Charles Bronson in Death Wish and leaving your home’s door wide open on your way out. And think about the families on 9/11 and those on the next 9/11, whose loved ones will have been sacrificed on the altar of political pandering. Leaving your national family’s door open isn’t an act of love. It’s criminal negligence and an act of treason.

Having said all this, none of the above addresses our main “legal” problem: legal immigration. Since the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965, 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia; 70 to 90 percent of those vote for socialistic candidates upon being naturalized. This is a universal Western phenomenon, mind you, and was actually referenced by Labour Party operative Andrew Neather. A former aide to ex-British prime minister Tony Blair, he admitted in 2009 that the massive immigration into the United Kingdom over the last 15 years was designed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

Yet such schemes wouldn’t be possible had Westerners, including conservative ones, not fallen victim to “immigrationism”: the idea that immigration is always good, always necessary and must be unquestioned. The reality?

Immigration always presents problems of assimilation. It’s just a matter of whether the likelihood of it is great or virtually nil.

As to the latter, a recent poll showed that a majority of Muslims in America prefer Sharia law to American civil law. Note also the studies showing that young Muslims in the West are actually more Islamic and anti-Western than their elders.

In addition, note that amnesty duly passed into law would be as “legal” as our widely accepted legal immigration. Legal is not synonymous with smart.

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

What would I ask Republican Presidential candidates tonight?

Someone asked me to prepare a list of questions I might ask Republican candidates tonight in Milwaukee.  So I wrote up a quick list and thought I would share them with you.  Now mind you, there is no way that anyone would ever ask the candidates if they would scratch the whole darn Refugee Admissions Program, so that is not one of my questions.

  1. The Obama Administration has said recently that it will admit 10,000 Syrians in the fiscal year 2016 resettlement of 85,000 third world refugees to American towns and cities in 48 states, yet the Director of the FBI James Comey recently told Congress that the Syrians, coming from a failed state, could not be properly screened. In this battle between the U.S. State Department (that wants many more than 10,000), and the FBI (Homeland Security concerned with the possible infiltration of ISIS in the refugee population), how would you bring your cabinet together on this critical issue?
  2. The Center for Immigration Studies recently released a new study which finds that a Syrian family of four resettled in America will cost U.S. taxpayers over a quarter of a million dollars over five years. Would that factor figure into your decision on how many refugees America can afford because it is the President who has almost exclusive power for determining refugee numbers and makes that determination every September?
  3. Recently Senator Jeff Sessions office released data on welfare use of refugees in America and found that 90% of Middle Eastern refugees were using some form of social services—food stamps, cash assistance, Medicaid and so forth—and that rate was higher for that group than refugees from elsewhere in the world. There are also reports of widespread fraud in the welfare application process. What would you do to discourage fraud and limit welfare for all classes of immigrant?
  4. The United Nations is choosing most refugees admitted to the U.S. (over 20,000 Syrians have been referred by the UN) and 97% of the Syrians chosen thus far have been Muslims who are presently housed in UN camps. Would you go against the UN and seek out Christian and other religious minorities in need of resettlement as a first priority?
  5. In 2014, the U.S. admitted 67% of the refugees that were resettled anywhere, the next highest country was Canada with 9%. If you were President would you urge a more equitable distribution to first world countries?
  6. The world is watching in horror as Europe is being inundated with tens of thousands of migrants. Approximately 8,000 are arriving in Germany each day (originally welcomed by the government). Only about half are Syrians and the largest percentage are economic migrants, not legitimate refugees. If you, as President, had a private meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel, what would you say to her?
  7. The refugees being housed presently in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan will be there temporarily, perhaps years, but they will not be given citizenship rights. Those resettled to the U.S. and other western countries are permanent residents on a track to citizenship. What alternative would you suggest for managing, especially the Syrian flow, short of making tens of thousands of them U.S. citizens?
  8. Our present system of resettling refugees is virtually controlled by the UN, the U.S. State Department and nine federal contractors which monopolize the resettlement of refugees and even choose the towns and cities where they will go. In a ______ Administration would you seek to reform this out-of-control resettlement program and give some authority to state and local elected officials which virtually have none right now? Would your administration propose or support existing reform legislation?
  9. Non-profit organizations affiliated with some religious denominatons are being paid millions of tax dollars each year to bring refugee families to cities of their choosing and in three to six months that family is expected to be on its own and the non-profit then brings in the next group incentivized by a federal payment that is calculated by the head (per refugee). Would you pledge to reform the program to put more responsibility back on to private charity as the original act of 1980 invisioned?
  10. There have been many reports recently of school systems overloaded with needy immigrant students who require extra help with learning English and to deal with mental traumas, would your administration seek a moratorium on resettlement until officials in overloaded cities and local and state taxpayers could catch their breath?

Don’t hold your breath!  I would be blown away if there is any question relating to refugees tonight in Milwaukee, even though, as I said in my previous post this morning—immigration is THE issue for 2016!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Note to Antonio Guterres! Terrorists do use refugees as cover to get into Europe

Another South Carolina County Council says no to refugee resettlement

Obama plan to use executive amnesty for a half a million illegal aliens, blocked in 5th Circuit Appeals Court decision

Oh, How the Mighty Megyn Has Fallen

Most people, including me, know that Megyn Kelly is not only gorgeous, but also smart, sassy, incisive in her interviews, and also genuinely funny. But the interview she conducted Wednesday night, August 26,  with Jorge Ramos was disgraceful––the kind of toadying and biased interrogation that should be Exhibit #1 in journalism schools across the country about how not to be a legitimate journalist.

Ramos is a reporter for Univision, the company being sued by presidential candidate Donald Trump after they terminated their contractual relationship (including television broadcast obligations) with the Trump-backed Miss Universe Organization. The official charges include breach of contract and defamation, with the plaintiffs seeking more than $500-million in damages. Univision took its punitive action after Mr. Trump said that Mexican immigrants, including criminals and rapists, were teeming over our southern border––in other words, for exercising his constitutional right to free speech.

The Kelly interview was about Mr. Trump’s ousting Ramos from a press conference the previous evening, after the candidate pointed to an audience member who had a question to ask. Instead, Ramos stood up and preempted that question, not with a question of his own, but with a virtual filibuster of grievances. And what did Ramos have the chutzpah to whine to Megyn Kelly about? That his free speech was being curtailed! Now that is rich!

Kelly had no doubt watched the film of exactly what had taken place. But not a peep out of her to give her audience the context of what had actually transpired. She also knew that Trump initially responded to Ramos’s outburst by saying repeatedly, “you weren’t called on, sit down.” Peepless.

Kelly also knew that Trump’s personal aide came out to the lobby to invite Ramos back into the auditorium. Not a peep. And she knew that the two men then engaged in a lengthy back and forth, apparently to the satisfaction of both of them. Still no peep.

Did Kelly’s viewing audience learn of any of these mitigating circumstances? Again, not a single peep from Kelly, who allowed––indeed encouraged––Ramos to go on and on in the victim role he so clearly basks in.

Did Kelly ask Ramos if it were true that his daughter works for Hillary Clinton? Would that not have been highly relevant? Not a peep!

Megyn’s interview was as dishonest as it gets in the world of what should be legitimate journalism (although in today’s America, “legitimate journalism” may be the ultimate oxymoron!). While Ramos portrayed himself as the victim of big bad Donald Trump, and himself as the virtuous believer in Free Speech and the right to be heard, Megyn put on her most sincere listening face, but failed to challenge any of Ramos’s lies.

KELLY FITS NEATLY INTO THE PACK

The pack, that is, of other TV personalities who forgot but were then reminded that they were simply employees. Both Paula Zahn and Alisyn Camerota were Fox News Network news readers, commentators, hosts, co-hosts, anchors, whatever––both delivering their commentary with a distinctly conservative flavor.

When they moved to CNN, however (Zahn in 2001; Camerota in 2014), their commentary magically became unmistakably liberal.

But it wasn’t magic at all. Both women worked for the big business of American media, with bosses who issue directives and, in essence, tell them what to say––not the exact phrasing, but certainly the slant. That’s how business works…the boss calls the shots and the employees either comply or get booted.

And if you think that the bosses have the final say, think again. The major outlets––both print and electronic––take a lot of their marching orders from the White House. That’s right, and while the government-controlled press/TV/radio didn’t begin with Mr. Obama, his regime has certainly taken it to unprecedented heights. As just one example, have we heard about one single civilian casualty in the thousand of drone strikes Mr. Obama has ordered over the past almost-seven years in the Middle East? Even one? I rest my case.

DINOSAURS

But I digress. For decades, the media have prided themselves on having the greatest influence on who gets elected and who doesn’t, particularly in the big contests for president (of which there is only one) and senators (of which there are only 100). They also like to pick their favorite spokespeople, even if those selections are completely unrepresentative of public sentiment.

Karl Rove of Fox is a perfect example. A big kahuna in the President George W. Bush years and a virtual encyclopedia of electoral minutiae, Rove likes his politicians rather tame and manipulable, and that is why he appears to call the shots for Reince Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee, who faithfully echoes Rove’s white bread sentiments.

Clearly, Rove and his Democrat counterparts–recycled dinosaurs, all––are kept on because of the pricey contracts they’ve signed. It is certainly not that they shed any light! And then along comes Donald Trump and all they can do is hurl snooty insults and wage bets against the obvious frontrunner.

Yes, that Donald Trump, the guy who tells it like it is, never fails to remind you that he knows how to negotiate and strike deals and make America great again, the guy who has learned through thousands of negotiations how to “read” people (and the language they use) with unerring accuracy.

Even before he “read” Megyn Kelly, he came out of the candidate’s box with an insult to Sen. John McCain and a virtual manifesto against illegal immigration. And how did the media––both conservative and liberal––react? With reflexive horror, well-practiced political correctness, tsk-tsk raised eyebrows, and uniform condemnation.

WE THE PEOPLE

And how did the public react––that would be me and you and all the other ignorant rubes who the media elites believe can’t hold a candle to own their immense wisdom and knowledge?

We-the-People not only gave Mr. Trump huge poll ratings, but also heaved a huge sigh of gratitude. At last, they seemed to say, a guy who speaks to our concerns and doesn’t give a damn about the political correctness that violates our First Amendment rights every minute of every day, a guy who not only wants to protect our southern border, but also do away with every aspect of the horrors we’ve experienced over the past several years, including:

  • The diminishment of our military (and the shabby treatment of our veterans)
  • The horrific socialized medicine nightmare of Obamacare
  • The ghastly dumb-down-our-kids education fiasco known as Common Core
  • The crushing national debt
  • The Mt. Everest heights of unemployment
  • The infiltration of the America-loathing and anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood into the highest reaches of our government (including State, Homeland Security, the Pentagon, Health and Human Services, and the White House itself!)
  • On and on…

We know that not a single Democrat candidate for president is speaking out on these America-destroying issues? All you hear from them is victim, victim, victim, more money, more money, more money. Nothing with the Democrats has changed in over 70 years––and nothing has succeeded!

But the Trump promise to do away with or change or fix our problems is ringing true to the American public. Why? Because he’s proved it again and again in his own business life, surmounting losses and turning them into profits, and in his personal life, weathering disappointments in his marriages––and yet his two former wives are his biggest fans, and his children are model citizens!

Yes, there is an embarrassment of riches on the Republican side, and at least four or five candidates are impressively articulate in stating their plans for a better America. But none of them has the business experience and toughness and aggressiveness (which we need right now) of Mr. Trump.

The same Mr. Trump who perceived, quite accurately, I think, that Megyn Kelly was more than provocative in the first debate, indeed in a “gotcha” mode to entrap, embarrass, and diminish him. To the entire country’s surprise, Trump fought back, accusing Kelly of being, in essence, unprofessional and of gratuitously baiting him.

The next day…poll numbers boomed for Mr. Trump!

However, Mr. Trump went a step further. He went directly to Megyn’s boss, Roger Ailes, president of Fox News and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group, and according to the candidate’s own report, it was a productive meeting in which Ailes promised that Fox would “be fair” to him Mr. Trump. All good. And then––coincidence?––Megyn announced she was leaving for a two-week vacation.

But when she came back, Mr. Trump tweeted that Megyn was not on her game, and apparently both Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox (and The New York Post, among numerous other holdings), and Roger Ailes, decided that they would summon all their power and influence to take Trump down. Clearly, they’ve dispatched General Megyn Kelly to the front lines.

On Wednesday, the news was preoccupied by the tragic death of two young media people from Virginia who were murdered while on air. But throughout the day there was a steady drumbeat of anti-Trump commentary and innuendo on Fox.

If things continue on the same trajectory for Mr. Trump, I suspect he may end up thanking Fox for kicking his polls numbers into the stratosphere!

Trump’s Megyn Kelly ‘Blood’ Comment : A CNN Reporter Gets Bloodied!

Trump on Megyn Kelly comment. Watch how a CNN reporter get schooled by a female Trump Supporter from New Hampshire.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Fox News Couldn’t Kill Trump’s Momentum and May Have Only Made It Stronger [+video]

Google’s Search Algorithm Could Steal the Presidency

Huckabee, Trump, and Rubio Take Strong Pro-Life Stance in First GOP Debate [+video]

Watch: One Surprising Candidate Stood out in Fox News’ Focus Group in a BIG Way

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Megyn Kelly is by AP/Richard Drew/Salon.

Migrants: A Much Needed Debate

One sign that people are bereft of policy-proposals is when, in the face of a huge political challenge, they focus on their opponents’ language. Perhaps it is a symptom of the fact that we are sliding into ‘silly season’ in the UK, but the reporting of the migrant crisis has reached a nadir of silliness. At the time of writing the situation at Calais is a focal point of intense interest. At least one man has died, and many others have been involved in running battles with French police and border guards while trying to enter the Channel Tunnel to get to Britain. The inevitable response of the media is not just to report it but to find a culprit and declare ‘something must be done.’

In reality this problem, as we have noted here before, may be far beyond any one government to affect. The UK border police can keep the borders secure, and they seem – along with their French counterparts – to be doing a fairly good job at that. But they cannot solve the problem. The entire British government is not in a position to stabilise the countries from which people are fleeing. They cannot stabilise Syria, and nor is the government in a position to improve the quality of life and opportunities for young men forced into the hell of the Eritrean army. The root of the matter is therefore beyond our control. But as that mass of peoples moves up through Africa and pushes out from North Africa it comes into proximity with our continent; then there are things that can be done.

A better way of dealing with the migrants who arrive is an obvious priority. But to do that we need a proper debate. For instance, a politician from any party could suggest what may end up having to be the answer anyway, which is for the EU to pay for centres in North Africa – perhaps in Tunisia (or elsewhere) – where the migrants are assessed, their status and cases suitably adjudicated. This is not the only option, but it is one. But it is far away from the centre of the political debate.

Instead once again the debate has become a debate about language. The UKIP leader Nigel Farage has tried to buy some sympathetic political capital by proclaiming that he would not have used the word ‘swarm’ (passingly used by David Cameron) to describe the movement of migrants. This is reminiscent of the debate under the last Labour government and the use of the word ‘swamp.’ Labour leadership contender Andy Burnham has also criticised the Prime Minister’s use of the word ‘swarm’, branding it ‘disgraceful’ and even trying to weaponise the matter into a class issue.

But none of this – however fascinating it might be to some – is any more than wordplay. At best it is a suitable subject for a debating society. But the migrant crisis situation is not a debating society or a discussion group on issues surrounding sensitive language. It is something which is going on which intricately relates to the lives of hundreds of thousands of migrants and will affect the lives and attitudes of hundreds of millions of European citizens. This deserves a proper political debate, and a proper discussion on policy. If we care about the future of our continent then the luxury of word-games is not a replacement for that discussion.


mendozahjs

FROM THE DIRECTOR’S DESK 

I woke up this morning to news of a horrific arson attack by settlers in the West Bank near Nablus against Palestinians, which resulted in the death of an 18 month old baby burned alive in his house.

It is difficult to comprehend what kind of madness would lead to the loss of innocent life in this way. The incident has been quite rightly deemed a “horrific, heinous” crime that is “a terror attack in every respect” by Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who has pledged to hunt down the assailants.This revulsion has been shared across the Israeli political spectrum, with leaders of all parties pledging swift action to bring those responsible to justice.

I have never subscribed to the idea that settlements are the reason why there is no peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It seems to me self-evident that if the settlements were removed tomorrow, there would not be peace. Indeed, we know that agreement on settlements has been reached on several occasions in various peace talks, only for them to flounder on other matters such as the ‘Right of Return’.

However, it is clear that incidents such as this cannot help build trust between Israelis and Palestinians, and that the Israeli government has a problem of control at the extreme end of the settler movement. Fortunately – and in marked contrast to the terrorists of Hamas and the terrorist sympathisers of the Palestinian Authority who think nothing of glorifying ‘martyrs’ who murder Israeli civilians – this is something the Israeli government is aware of.

And in this fact, we have some hope. For there are murderers and criminals in every society. It is how national authorities respond to them that provides an indication of true civilisation.

Dr Alan Mendoza is Executive Director of The Henry Jackson Society
Follow Alan on Twitter: @AlanMendoza

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Calais, France where Africans are making a run for the tunnel and the UK.

Hearst Television to Carry August 3rd New Hampshire Presidential Forum

LogoHearstTINEW YORK /PRNewswire/ — Hearst Television Inc., one of the country’s largest television station groups and a Peabody- and Cronkite-award-winning leader in television and digital political journalism, today announced it will televise the August 3 Voters First Forum, featuring GOP presidential candidates, in the 27 local Hearst markets across the United States.  The forum is produced and hosted by New Hampshire’s Union Leader newspaper and C-SPAN.

The two-hour forum will start at 7pm ET at the Dana Center at St. Anselm College in Goffstown, New Hampshire, on Monday, August 3.  Currently 14 candidates are scheduled to appear: Jeb Bush, Ben Carson,Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki, Rand Paul,Rick Perry, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum and Scott WalkerJack Heath of Manchester’s WGIR-AM Radio, host of the station’s New Hampshire Today program, will moderate the forum. Each candidate will have approximately five minutes to answer questions individually on the stage.

Hearst Television, collectively reaching nearly 21 million households, will provide the C-SPAN telecast to its stations for local broadcast.  The forum will air on either the station’s primary or digital channel and will be streamed from its website.  This enables broadcast-only viewers in these markets the opportunity of seeing the forum as part of Hearst Television’s ongoing Commitment 2016 initiative, which will include multiple debates at the national, regional and local levels, as well as other special political coverage leading up to November 2016.

Hearst Television reaches millions of viewers throughout key election states. Three Hearst stations serve viewers in the first three caucus and primary states: WMUR-TV in Manchester, NH, KCCI-TV in Des Moines, Iowa, and WYFF-TV in Greenville, South Carolina.

“This is an opportunity for us to provide our viewers a chance to see and hear from the large majority of the GOP candidates in advance of the first national debate,” said Emerson Coleman, vice president, programming, at Hearst Television.   “There are more than two million households in the cities we serve that may not otherwise have the ability to view this important event on television.”

C-SPAN will show the forum, in its entirety, on C-SPAN TV, C-SPAN Radio, and via livestream on C-SPAN.org.  In addition to C-SPAN, the Union Leader, WGIR-AM and St. Anselm, forum co-sponsors include: I-Heart Networks; the Cedar Rapids (Iowa) Gazette; KCRG –TV, Cedar Rapids; the Charleston (S.C.) Post & Courier; and WLXT-TV, Columbia, S.C.

About Hearst Television

Hearst Television, a national multi-media company, owns and operates 31 local television stations and two local radio stations, serving 32 U.S. cities and reaching approximately 19% of U.S. television households.  The TV stations broadcast 60 video channels, featuring local and national news, weather, information, sports and entertainment programming, and local community service-oriented programs.  The stations also host and operate digital on-line and mobile platforms that extend the company’s brands and content to local, national and international audiences.  Hearst Television is recognized as one of the industry’s premier companies, and has been honored with numerous awards for distinguished journalism, industry innovation, and community service.  Hearst Television is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hearst Corporation.  The Company’s Web address is www.hearsttelevision.com.

Rules of Logic, Reason and Debate for Radicals

Comrades! Perhaps all of us, while debating the enemy, have been subjected to accusations of logical fallacies. Ignore such accusations. The non-concept of “logical fallacy” is a tool of capitalist propaganda, designed to expose us to a retrograde pre-twenty-first century mindset, which may cause the weakest of us to question their allegiance to Progress. But that is the enemy’s mindset; it no longer applies to the new era. Progress calls us to destroy the straightjacket of linear thinking.

There are no absolutes. The outdated scientific methods of hard logic and cold reason have now been replaced with soft logic and cozy reason, especially when dealing in political science.

Here are the Rules of Logic, Reason and Debate for Radicals for the 21st century. Learn them, know them, use them. You have nothing to lose but your logical chains.

Radical Political Science Terms

Seductive Logic – If the parts of the premise are true, or true enough, the conclusion is proved.

Premise: Hitler would hate President Obama and have him liquidated. Tea Partiers hate big government.
Conclusion: Tea Partiers are Fascists plotting a coup against President Obama.

As you can see, statement one is true, as is statement two. So the conclusion, statement three, is proven.

Preductive Logic – If the conclusion is true, the premises are proven.

Conclusion: Stimulus hasn’t worked.
Premise: George Bush’s economic policies were stupid. George Bush is to blame for everything.

Similar to seductive logic, as statement one is true, statements two and three are proven.

Unductive Logic – If the evidence doesn’t support the conclusion, the evidence is in error.

Conclusion: Man-made CO2 causes global warming.
Evidence: From 1950 to 1975 temperatures fell as man-made CO2 increased. therefore, the temperature data must be wrong and altered accordingly.

This one is particularly useful as it makes disproving any assertion on your part impossible. Contrary evidence is simply wrong and those using it are liars, deniers, and anti-reality based imbeciles.

Primary Reason – Something is true when you have the right reason, or motives, to believe it, not the right reasoning. In other words, if it just feels right, that is reason enough. (Though evidence is unnecessary, if desired such can be obtained with the rules of logic above. i.e, can be fabricated.)

Secondary Reason – When those who share your Primary Reason agree with your assertion, it is therefore well-reasoned. Which in turn makes those who agree with you reasonable individuals, and those who disagree intolerant imbeciles.

Radical Political Science Tactics

Any statement prefaced with “obviously,” “no doubt,” or “everyone knows” is accepted as proven. Nothing more need be said nor evidence produced. No doubt everyone knows this is obviously true.

Exclamation marks and all caps add weight of truth to any statement. This simple method is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY TRUE!!!!

Should your adversary press on despite these logically reasoned assertions, any of the following will put an end to him and thus his argument.

Method one: Call them stupid. This is almost fool-proof because there is no good defense. How do they show otherwise? Recite the times tables, name the state capitals, produce Mensa membership cards? After all, they don’t agree with you or believe what you do, therefore, ipso facto, QED, they must be stupid.

This method has worked for years. Think of Reagan, Quayle, Bush, Palin.

Method two: Call them racist. This is just as effective and is also virtually impossible to defend. How can they prove they’re not? If they aren’t racist there will only be an absence of evidence that they are. Let them try to produce the absence of evidence. They can’t do it. Therefore, ipso facto, QED, they must be racist.

This method has worked for years. Think of… everyone but us.

Method three: Call them heartless, evil, intolerant, bigoted… Are you beginning to get the idea? Call them anything you like, no need to provide any evidence. Yet it still puts them on the spot, requiring them to prove a negative, which is impossible. Once a label sticks they’re defenseless.

After this is done, you can defeat any assertion or proposal they make no matter how well-argued or thought-out on their part. After all, why should anyone listen to a stupid and heartless racist bigot?

Against socialized medicine? Heartless! Against Cap and trade? Stupid!! Against President Obama’s multi-trillion dollar stimulus? RACIST!!! You win EVERY TIME. And the more exclamation marks the better!!!!!

You might think these simple rules are a little too simple, or too simplistic, or too simple-minded even, but they work. After all, look who occupies the White House or owns the media, academia, and entertainment establishments.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Peoples Cube.

Why There’s No Right to Gay Marriage in 6 Short Video Clips

On Thursday night, Ryan T. Anderson, the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, participated in a debate about gay marriage. The Heritage Foundation Video Team assembled some of the key moments and exchanges from that debate here.

What true marriage equality is:

There are good arguments on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate:

Ever feel like the only difference between the New York Times and Washington Post is the name? We do.

Try the Morning Bell and get the day’s most important news and commentary from a team committed to the truth in formats that respect your time…and your intelligence.

Giving equal dignity to gays and lesbians doesn’t require redefining marriage:

Why does it matter if there’s both gay marriage and straight marriage?

Talking about Mark Regnerus’ studies about children and same-sex marriage:

On plural marriages:

Watch the full debate:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Gay Marriage: A Trojan Horse Movement Aimed at the Heart of Our Constitution [+videos]

Jim DeMint: Why You Should March for Marriage

Are Liberals Finally Rallying to Save Liberty?

Why States Should Get to Decide on Whether to Redefine Marriage

VIDEO DEBATE: Does God Exist?

Vizcaya Debate 20 April 2015 as I go up against Rabbi Barry Silver on the age-old question: DOES GOD EXIST?

Check out this insightful evening that has many humorous moments.

RELATED ARTICLE: Time to Remove Satan from the Public Square

FOX News Debate: Global Warmists denounced for using “Medieval witchcraft”

Watch the Marc Morano and Bill Nye Climate Debate on FOX With Stossel. Nye Cites ‘Hockey Stick’ as Proof – Says Politicians can fix potholes and the climate – Morano denounces as ‘medieval witchcraft’.

Morano vs. Nye on CO2:

NYE: ‘Do we agree that the atmosphere used to have 250 parts per million, now it has over 400 of carbon dioxide.’

MORANO: Absolutely. We’ve had ice ages at between 2,000 and 8,000 parts per million in the geological history of the Earth. We’ve had similar temperatures with 20 times the CO2 levels…The idea that — that the U.S. or developing world should limit their energy choices based on rising CO2 fears is scientifically baseless. And the geologic record bears that out and the current weather bears it out…It comes down to hundreds of factors are influencing our climate here. CO2 is not the tail that wagged the dog…There’s no more weather extremes over the 20th century. You can go from hurricanes or — we’re at a historic low right now…We had the lowest year on record for tornadoes.’

Morano vs. Nye on Development in Poor Nations:

MORANO: ‘How is the white, wealthy Western Europe world, in Europe and the U.S., going to tell people of color, 1.3 billion in the developing world, they can’t have what we have? Who is Bill Nye to tell [the developing word] they can’t have carbon-based energy?’

NYE: ‘We don’t want to have less. We want to do more with less. And this is where the innovations come in.’

Stossel’s ‘Chill Out’ program with John Stossel on Fox Business – First Broadcast January 23, 2014: Bill Nye the Science Guy, who says he is “frantic” about climate change debates skeptic Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com.

Morano and Nye also debated on CNN in 2012. Also see Morano debating on UN TV in November and his debate on CNN in December 2013.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/9_Im9B46TAc[/youtube]

Full Transcript below: 

Stossel

January 23, 2014 Thursday

SHOW: STOSSEL 9:00 PM EST

Chill Out

BYLINE: John Stossel

GUESTS: Phil Valentine, Alex Epstein, Marc Morano, Bill Nye, Robert Engelman, Bill Bissett, Mark Nelson

SECTION: NEWS; Financial

LENGTH: 7553  words

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is not just cold, this is a killer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If this isn’t climate change, then what is it?

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As an American, I am here to say we need to act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(APPLAUSE)

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN STOSSEL, HOST (voice-over): All dramatic weather is our fault.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Oh, my god.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Terrible tornadoes in Oklahoma. Horrible.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know that this is because of the burning of fossil fuels.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Carbon could cost us the planet.

STOSSEL: It makes me want to ask Al Gore about that, but where is he?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He’s out at one of his other houses.

STOSSEL: Whether Gore is right about global warming didn’t matter, you already pay for his remedy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, they’re declaring war, truly, on jobs.

STOSSEL: Who will win this war?

UNIDENTIFIED CHILDREN: It’s a happy ending.

STOSSEL: We’ll search for that. That’s our show tonight.

(END VIDEO TAPE)

ANNOUNCER: And now, John Stossel.

STOSSEL: I titled this program, “Chill out,” because after I researched the global warming scare that was my conclusion. We ought to just chill out. But our government isn’t chilling out. You now pay billions to try to fix global warming. And this year, “The Hill,” the Washington newspaper that covers Congress, said climate will be the political battle of 2014. Big money is being spent to convince Americans to vote to spend even more to try to stop global warming. In a moment, we’ll hear from Bill Nye, “The Science Guy,” who says he’s frantic about climate change. He’ll debate Marc Morano of climatedepot.com. But first, let me set the terms of debate. People say to me, Stossel, you don’t believe in global warming? But I do. I think it’s a stupid question, because what do you mean when you say global warming? To me, it’s really four questions.

One, is the globe warming? Well, yes. Global temperatures have risen, though not lately so much. Question two, is the warming manmade, is it our fault? Three, is it a crisis?

And four, if it is, can we do anything about it? Bill Nye’s answers to those questions are yes, yes, yes and yes. And for years, he’s told his viewers, beware of…

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL NYE, “THE SCIENCE GUY”: — what we call global warming. Global warming.

The globe is getting too warm. It’s something we’ve got to be careful of. Otherwise, things could get weird.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STOSSEL: Bill Nye joins us now, along with climate change skeptic, Marc Morano. Marc, you first. Why aren’t you scared? Bill and lots of people are.

MARC MORANO, FOUNDER, CLIMATE DEPOT: We’re now able to empirically look at their predictions that they made in the ’80s and start to see them fail. And out of 117 climate models, one analysis showed 114 failed. So when the predictions are failing them, uh, they still claim it’s worse than they thought. But that’s not the case here. So the bottom line is, the burden of proof is on them and they’ve failed to make the case.

STOSSEL: Bill Nye?

NYE: In the year 1750, there were about a billion humans in the world. Now, there are well over seven — seven billion people in the world. It more than doubled in my lifetime. So all these people trying to live the way we live in the developed world is filling the atmosphere with a great deal more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than existed a couple of centuries ago. It’s the speed at which it is changing that is going to be troublesome for so many, uh, large populations of humans around the world. Now, you may have heard of the hockey stick graph. This is where, uh, we compare the temperature of the world over the last 10,000 years with the temperature now. And so we think of that, uh, as the…

 

(CROSSTALK)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: — of a hockey stick?

NYE: — shaft of a hockey stick…

STOSSEL: — it’s going to shoot up.

NYE: Well, it is shooting up. It’s not going to, it is shooting up. And so it’s the speed that we’re going to have difficulty dealing with. But economically…

STOSSEL: But the temperature hasn’t increased in the past 15 years. It isn’t shooting up.

NYE: When you cherry-pick the data for certain surface temperatures, you end up with a — a very small change. It’s hardly noticeable. These people try to introduce the idea that scientific uncertainty, plus or minus a few percent, is equivalent to doubt about the whole thing. This is perfectly analogous to the cigarette industry and cancer, trying to introduce the idea that since you can’t…

(CROSSTALK)

NYE: — prove any one thing, the whole thing is in — is in doubt.

(CROSSTALK)

STOSSEL: As a consumer reporter. Just hang on one second, Marc. I’ll give you a shot. As a consumer reporter, I’ve covered 1,000 scares. Lawn chemicals, cell phone radiation…

MORANO: Sure.

STOSSEL: Pesticide residues, plastic bottles killing people, power lines, Mad Cow Disease was going to kill everybody. And always the example is, yes, there were doubters about cigarettes. I mean that one example doesn’t mean that the global warming scare is correct.

But, Marc, I — I should let you speak.

MORANO: Yes. For him to bring up cigarettes — the global warming scientists are the ones fulfilling a narrative. I mean we have Michael Oppenheimer, one of the lead U.N. scientists, took an endowment from Barbra Streisand. These Hollywood — the climatologists to the stars.

STOSSEL: Well, they’ve got to…

MORANO: He’s also…

STOSSEL: — get money from…

(CROSSTALK)

STOSSEL: — Barbra Streisand wants to give me money, I’ll take it.

MORANO: Right. But it’s so insulting to imply that somehow skeptical scientists are on the pay like tobacco companies. It’s the height of arrogance when you look at the actual data, the global warming scientists, through government grants, foundations, through media empowerment, have the full advantages of government money, foundation money, university money. There’s not even any comparison. And yet, these skeptical scientists, as their numbers have grown, we’ve had scientists like James Lovelock, who — the inventor of the Gaia Earth Theory, who has reversed himself.

STOSSEL: But a lot of climate scientists, serious ones, are genuinely worried.

MORANO: The ones you’ll always point to these ‘genuine’ climate scientists are from the United Nations. And the United Nations, the head of it, Rajendra Pachauri, came out last year or the year before and said their mission is to make the case that CO2 is driving global warming. They put the cart before the horse. And what happened was many U.N. scientists have now turned on it. Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish scientist, has just come out and said we wouldn’t even have noticed the warming of the 20th century if it weren’t for modern instrumentation. And the idea of the hockey stick that Bill Nye mentioned is absurd. That has been, you know, called, quote, “statistical rubbish,” unquote. And hundreds of scientists in dozens and dozens of studies have shown both the Medieval and the Roman warming period. And these appeared in peer-reviewed journals, were as warm or warmer than current temperatures.

STOSSEL: Bill?

NYE: See if we can agree about this. There used to be a billion people a couple of centuries ago. Now there are seven billion.

STOSSEL: We agree on that.

NYE: There used to be…

STOSSEL: And the air is cleaner and people are living better.

MORANO: Yes.

STOSSEL: And fewer people are starving because of capitalism and industrialization.

NYE: Do we agree that the atmosphere used to have 250 parts per million, now it has over 400 of carbon dioxide.

STOSSEL: Yes. There’s more greenhouse gas out there.

MORANO: Absolutely. We’ve had ice ages at between 2,000 and 8,000 parts per million in the geological history of the Earth. We’ve had similar temperatures with 20 times the CO2 levels.

STOSSEL: Climate does change.

MORANO: Sure.

STOSSEL: And if you look, over time, we have a graph here from just the year 1000 to today, we had the Medieval warm period, we had the Little Ice Age, big changes.

NYE: You’ve really, uh, you’ve really messed with the far right hand side of the graph.

MORANO: That’s the United Nations graph from 1990, pre-hockey stick…

NYE: Yes.

MORANO: — before they reinvented past temperatures.

NYE: Do you agree that it’s never happened this fast?

MORANO: Actually, we’ve had, without benefit of mankind, similar CO2 levels in the recent (geologic) past without mankind’s influence. And I think…

(CROSSTALK)

MORANO: — the speed had nothing to do with it.

NYE: What about the weight?

MORANO: It comes down to hundreds of factors are influencing our climate here. CO2 is not the tail that wagged the dog. Another scientist who has essentially reversed herself is Judith Curry from Georgia Institute of Technology. She now says openly that you cannot control climate by reducing emissions. And that seems to be the entire premise of the United Nations, that somehow, if we tweak emissions through carbon taxes, cap and trade, we can alter weather patterns. You opened up with tornadoes and Barbara Boxer. She actually went down to the Senate floor the day of tornadoes and implied a carbon tax would help prevent future tornado outbreaks. This is Medieval witchcraft.

STOSSEL: It seems like every time there’s a new weather extreme, some people say the cause was manmade global warming.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tomorrow morning, 90 percent of the country will face below normal temperatures. If this isn’t climate change, then what is it?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know that this is because of the burning of fossil fuels.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In one year, we have had the largest tornado ever recorded on Earth. And we have had the fastest hurricane ever recorded on Earth. And they’ve hit within six months of each other.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Terrible tornadoes in Oklahoma, horrible. Carbon could cost us the planet.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STOSSEL: That was Senator Barbara Boxer the day of — the very day of the Oklahoma tornado. So, Bill, global warming is going to cost us the planet, causing these tornadoes?

NYE: Well, you see, the planet will be here — well, the planet will be here, but if we have to…

STOSSEL: We won’t?

NYE: — continually rebuild and displace people.

MORANO: The idea that the United States or developing world should limit their energy choices based on rising CO2 fears is scientifically baseless, as I just mentioned. And the geologic record bears that out and the current weather bears it out. There’s no more weather extremes over the 20th century. You can go from hurricanes or — we’re at a historic low right now…

STOSSEL: The Oklahoma tor — tornado was the biggest ever.

MORANO: And they have better monitoring. We had the lowest year on record for tornadoes. And since the 1950s…

STOSSEL: There were fewer tornadoes.

STOSSEL: I’m struck, researching this, how — how there’s constant media hysteria. And it changes. In 1941, it was reported…

MORANO: Yes.

STOSSEL: — that World War II caused weather extremes. In 1961, “The New York Times” said scientists agree the world’s becoming colder. Scientists worried about a new ice age. Now we worry about warming.

Shouldn’t we be skeptical?

MORANO: Yes, and I’m sure people would say, well — science has advanced so much more. Well, science is always going to advance. The point is, this is the narrative of our day. And Bill keeps going on about overpopulation. The problem is, is that people now recognize one of the biggest problems is under population. As the developing world gets more and more carbon-based energy, India and Africa, and starts developing, the population is going to level off. So the hysteria has been there. You can go back…

NYE: So we disagree about the facts, Mr. Morano.

MORANO: You can’t disagree about facts. You’re…

NYE: The problem…

(LAUGHTER)

NYE: — and the problem is not just that there are more people in India and China, it’s they are using more energy than they ever used to use.

MORANO: And God bless them. They need that.

NYE: They want to live the way we live in the de…

STOSSEL: Why is that a problem?

NYE: They want to live the way we…

STOSSEL: That’s a good thing…

NYE: — live in the developed world.

MORANO: Would you deny them that?

NYE: So…

MORANO: I interviewed Jerry Brown, who said that they couldn’t emulate American lifestyle. Well, who is he — how is the white, wealthy Western Europe world, in Europe and the United States, going to tell people of color, 1.3 billion in the developing world, they can’t have what we have? Who is Bill Nye to tell them they can’t have carbon-based energy, which we…

STOSSEL: Well, let Bill Nye…

MORANO: — took full advantage of.

STOSSEL: — answer that.

NYE: We don’t want to have less. We want to do more with less. And this is where the innovations come in.

MORANO: Sure.

NYE: This is where the emerging technologies come in.

But embracing, uh, technologies that produce extra carbon dioxide, extra greenhouse gases, at this point in human history, is not in our best interests.

STOSSEL: I just want to play one more…

NYE: So…

STOSSEL: — video example to end. This idea that politicians can fix the climate strikes me as arrogance. And I think we heard arrogance six years ago from our president after he defeated Hillary Clinton.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OBAMA: This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STOSSEL: Bill, isn’t this the conceit of the self-anointed, politicians are going to fix the climate?

NYE: By way of example, is it conceit when politicians claim they’re going to fix potholes in the street?

STOSSEL: No, they can do that.

NYE: It is conceit when politicians say they’re going to time the traffic lights?

STOSSEL: No, they can do that.

MORANO: No, they can do that.

NYE: Is it conceit when politicians — is it conceit when politicians say they’re going to clean up the water in Chesapeake Bay?

STOSSEL: Nope.

NYE: Is that inappropriate?

Those — those things have been done.

STOSSEL: Right.

MORANO: Those are doable.

NYE: This is the same thing on a much, much larger scale.

STOSSEL: Thank you, Bill Nye and Marc Morano.

NYE: Thank you.

STOSSEL: To keep this conversation going on Facebook or Twitter, if you use that hash tag chillout, you can let me and others know what you think.

The Supreme Court’s Marriage Decisions by the Numbers

The following is courtesy of the Heritage Foundation:

The morning after two important—and troubling—Supreme Court decisions in the Proposition 8 and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) cases, here’s the lay of the land. The important take away: The marriage debate is every bit as live today as it was yesterday morning. Some key numbers following the decisions:

50  The number of states whose marriage laws remain the same after the Court’s marriage decisions.

38  The number of states with laws defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. That includes California and Florida, where the scope of today’s Prop 8 decision beyond the specific plaintiffs will be the subject of ongoing debate and, most likely, further litigation.

12  The number of states that can now force the federal government to recognize their redefinition of marriage. The Court struck Section 3 of DOMA, which means that it must recognize same-sex marriages in states that redefine marriage.

1  The number of sections of the Defense of Marriage Act struck down yesterday (Section 3). Section 2, which ensures that no state will be forced to recognize another state’s redefinition of marriage, is still law.

0  The number of states forced to recognize other states’ redefinition of marriage.

Ryan Anderson discusses what the Supreme Court did in its marriage decisions—but why the proponents of same-sex marriage failed to achieve their goal of a court-imposed nationwide redefinition.

The important news you may not be hearing is that the U.S. Supreme Court did not redefine marriage across the nation. That means the debate about marriage will continue. States are free to uphold policies recognizing that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, so that children have a mother and a father.

In the states, support for marriage as the union of a man and a woman remains strong. Many believe the Court should have respected the authority of California citizens and Congress.

On DOMA, it appears the Court did not respect Congress’s authority to define marriage for the purposes of federal programs and benefits. The Court may have gotten federalism wrong.

On Proposition 8, the citizens of California who voted twice to pass Prop 8 should have been able to count on their Governor and Attorney General to defend the state’s constitution. That’s what democratic self-government is all about.

Download your free copy of TheMarriageFacts.com.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Obama Did Not Order Bin Laden Raid

Major General Paul Valley, U.S. Army (Ret.)

According to Family Security Matters (FSM), “Stand Up America research team has learned from a senior and sensitive intelligence community source and official that President Obama did not know of the raid in Abbottabad to kill Osama Bin Laden on May 1st, 2011 until after the helicopters with SEAL TEAM 6 had crossed into Pakistani airspace.

FSM notes, “The US’s most sophisticated deception techniques were used to make this very dangerous penetration into Pakistan without Pakistan knowledge. The President was notified at the golf course and called off the golf course which is why he was sitting in the strange sitting position in the picture that documented the White House operation room event.”

“Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) Leon Panetta was the key player who organized and supported this daring raid. He signed the “Execute Orders” with only a few people aware: Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Secretary of Defense William Gates, Admiral Bill Mullen and General David Petraeus,” reports FSM.

The FSM source states, “The White House was closed out of the decision because the President through Valarie Jarrett had turned down two or three other earlier proposals. The Deputy of Central Intelligence (DCI) and his covert planning team were extremely frustrated at all the denials, so saw the opportunity slipping away as implausible as it seems.” This scenario has been previously reported by others here, here and here.

The specter of bin Laden hangs over the White House even today as Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, a 21 year old Muslim with ties to Al Qaeda, tried to blow up the New York Federal Reserve building in the name of Islam.

Is the White House narrative unraveling given the revelations in the book No Easy Day by former Navy SEAL Mark Owen and now this story?

Read the full Family Security Matters story by going here.

Tom Trento interviews MG Valley on WNN AM 1490 and discusses the story on the President not knowing about the raid until after the SEAL helicopters were already in Pakistan (at 11:40 minutes) and the Benghazi embassy attack (at 38:40 minutes) and the Muslim Brotherhood in Turkey (at 50:00 minutes):

Major General Paul Valley, U.S. Army (Ret.) and Tom Trento analyse this new information about exactly when President Obama was informed about the raid to the bin Laden compound. President Obama according to White House documents, a highly placed confidential source and Mark Owen’s book was not notified until the SEAL helicopters were already in Pakistani airspace, the point of no return.

This new revelation may have a major impact on the narrative of a strong President making a “gutsy decision”.

The third and final Presidential debate is on Monday, October 22nd. The debate topic is foreign policy. Will this come up?

Watchdog Wire will be live streaming pre and post debate commentary from “boots on the ground” implementers of our foreign policy globally.

Click here to watch starting at 7:00 p.m. EST on Monday, October 22, 2012.