Posts

VIDEO: Top 50 Facts about Hillary Clinton’s Record

Please click here to read the 35-page in-depth summary of the top 50 facts about Hillary Clinton’s record that were detailed by Mr. Trump in the ‘Stakes of the Election‘ address delivered June 22nd, 2016 at Trump SoHo in Manhattan, New York.

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 GOP nominee Donald Trump gave a speech at Trump SoHo in New York City. The speech addressed a number of issues facing America. He laid out his positions to address these issues, both domestic policy and in foreign policy.

Here is Mr. Trump’s full ‘Stakes of the Election‘ speech:

RELATED VIDEO: Nigel Farage MEP, Leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Co-President of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) Group in the European Parliament, “I think Hillary Clinton is a crook”:

RELATED ARTICLE: GOP Senate Debates Gun Control Instead of Real Measures to Fight Terrorism

RELATED INFO-GRAPHIC:

Hillary Clinton Middle East donors

Ryan threatens to sue Trump if he tries to enact temporary ban on Muslim migration

Paul Ryan and the Republican establishment seem determined to do two things: to elect Hillary Clinton President of the United States this November, and to make sure that nothing impedes the huge influx of Muslim migrants into the U.S.

Yet San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik had passed five separate background checks from five separate US government agencies. Ahmad al-Mohammed and one other of the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015 had just entered Europe as refugees. In February 2015, the Islamic State boasted it would soon flood Europe with as many as 500,000 refugees. And the Lebanese Education Minister said in September 2015 that there were 20,000 jihadis among the refugees in camps in his country.

Meanwhile, 80% of migrants who have come to Europe claiming to be fleeing the war in Syria aren’t really from Syria at all. So why are they claiming to be Syrian and streaming into Europe, and now the U.S. as well? An Islamic State operative gave the answer when he boasted in September 2015, shortly after the migrant influx began, that among the flood of refugees, 4,000 Islamic State jihadis had already entered Europe. He explained their purpose: “It’s our dream that there should be a caliphate not only in Syria but in all the world, and we will have it soon, inshallah.” These Muslims were going to Europe in the service of that caliphate: “They are going like refugees,” he said, but they were going with the plan of sowing blood and mayhem on European streets. As he told this to journalists, he smiled and said, “Just wait.”

Paul Ryan doesn’t care. He only cares that the bipartisan politically correct establishment retains its power.

“Paul Ryan says he might sue Donald Trump if he tried to enact the Muslim ban,” by Allan Smith,Business Insider, June 17, 2016:

Paul Ryan considers Donald Trump’s proposal to indefinitely ban Muslim immigration into the US to be executive overreach.

And during an interview with The Huffington Post, uploaded on Friday, the House speaker said he’d “sue any president that exceeds his or her powers.”

Ryan, who said Trump supported the separation of powers when the speaker endorsed the presumptive Republican nominee, released part of his agenda regarding executive overreach this week.

However, Ryan is not totally sure if Trump enacting a ban on Muslims entering the country would be outside of presidential authority.

“That’s a legal question that there’s a good debate about,” Ryan said, pointing to the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act. That act was meant to exclude immigrants from certain countries from coming to the US in the aftermath of World War II.

On Monday, Trump made the appeal that he could legally enact such a ban as president.

“The immigration laws of the United States give the president powers to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons,” he said at a rally. “I will suspend immigration from areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we fully understand how to end these threats.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Maryland Gov. Hogan says he is not voting for Trump; more refugees entering MD than during Dems control

NY Times’ David Brooks: Find out how much jihad has to do with Islam by reading…The Varieties of Religious Experience

New York Times: Only “fringe interpretations of Islam” justify violence, “mainstream majority view is peaceful”

New Super PAC Championing Trump’s Truth-Telling about ‘La Raza’ linked Judge

BETHESDA, Md. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — As final GOP primary votes are cast in states from California to New Jersey, Law Professor Victor Williams issues a fulsome and unreserved endorsement of Donald Trump.

Professor Williams began his June 7 endorsement by championing Trump’s decision to expose the bias and conflict of interest demonstrated by federal judge Gonzalo Curiel.  Williams states:  “Donald Trump has again dared to speak truth to power.”

Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has also supported Trump’s right to challenge the judge’s bias.  Gonzales reminds that a judge is ethically required not only to avoid conflicts but also to void even the appearance of impropriety.

Judge Curiel is a Member of the Leftist San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. (La Raza is Translated and Politically Promoted as “the Race.”)

Judge Curiel is a longtime member/leader of the pro-illegal immigration group — San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. The direct translation and self-promoted political meaning of La Raza by such groups is “the Race.”

(Since its founding, the leftist San Diego lawyers’ group has divisively self-branded as La Raza – “the Race.”)

The San Diego La Raza lawyers’ group claims as an affiliate the even more radical National Council of La Raza.  And the national La Raza umbrella organization is virulently anti-Trump.  La Raza groups nationwide are in obdurate opposition to Trump’s pledge to secure the nation’s southern border.

Victor Williams argues that in the Trump University class-action lawsuit, Judge Curiel has consistently demonstrated a prejudice against Trump.  The judge’s latest ruling — effectuating a document dump to the media while noting Trump’s public positions — was obviously orchestrated to harm Trump’s campaign.

Even Judge Curiel soon acknowledged that he had gone too far this time.

Donald Trump – the non-politician — dared to connect the dots to point out that the judge was being unfair.  Professor Williams is adamant that the “La Raza” judge should be recused.

The double-dealing media and GOP political elites are (once again) apoplectic by such Trump truth-telling.

An Early Trump Supporter Became the Last Trump Competitor Standing; Professor Williams Now Goes All-In for Trump

Victor Williams is the Washington, D.C law professor who launched a spring 2016  “write-in” campaign for the GOP nomination in several late primary states.

As the media widely reported, Williams’ purpose in the effort was to establish “competitor candidate” legal standing to challenge the Canadian-born Ted Cruz’s ballot eligibility in court.

(As the CPI/Daily Beast recently profiled, Williams finally left the Democratic Party after its shameful Irancapitulation.  Williams became a Trump supporter in December 2015.)

Even after Cruz “suspended,” the law professor remained a formal candidate so as to play-out the resulting litigation.  Williams v. Cruz is now before a New Jersey appellate court to resolve the “natural born Citizen” controversy.

With the primaries over, Williams gladly ends his “write-in” campaign.

A “Micro” Pro-Trump Super PAC:  Williams’ Next Project

Victor Williams will soon launch his next disruptive project to support Trump.  Professor Williams plans a “micro-focused, pro-Trump Super PAC.”

Williams’ presidential campaign garnered substantial free media exposure from the left and right with ultra-minimal expenditures.  Not crossing the Federal Election Commission’s $5000 spent/raised filing threshold, Williams was not even required to make the initial FEC candidate filing.

With a $7.35 average individual contribution, Williams even beat Bernie Sander’s historically low individual donation-average.

However election law will allow Professor Williams’ independent, pro-Trump Super PAC unlimited contributions and expenditures (although with detailed FEC reporting).

Williams will raise and spend heavily for the campaign against Hillary Clinton – but he pledges continued cost effectiveness for this Super PAC. It is the Trump/Sanders 2016-campaign-frugality model.

ABOUT VICTOR WILLIAMS

Victor Williams is a long-time attorney, law professor, and prolific scholar in Washington, D.C., and 2014 founder of www.disruptivejustice.orgHis campaign website is www.victorwilliamsforpresident.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: “La Raza” means “Master Race”

RELATED VIDEO: The Truth About Trump University and Judge Gonzalo Curiel

Trump’s ‘rhetoric resonates’ with Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike

SHELTON, Conn. /PRNewswire/ — Since announcing his run for president last June, Donald J. Trump’s public remarks have had the world talking. In a recent online study of 1,500 voters, SSI, the global leader in research data collection, measured respondent agreement and disagreement with 200 policy statements made by Trump. Several of his statements received positive responses from voters across the political spectrum.

After reading each statement, respondents indicated whether it increased, decreased or had no impact on their likelihood to vote for Trump. Respondents selected “has no impact” 49 percent of the time, “increases” 29 percent of the time and “decreases” their likelihood of voting for Trump 22 percent of the time.

“Although Trump is often regarded as a polarizing figure, our study shows that the sentiment and substance of many of his statements do resonate with most Americans,” said Paul Johnson, director of analytics, SSI. “Voters are aware of what Trump has said and they like many elements. In fact, Trump’s rhetoric persuades more swing voters than it pushes away.”

In particular, several of Trump’s populist statements scored high across all party affiliations. Republicans, Democrats and Independents in the study were unanimous in their positive response to the following: “We need to once again have a government that is of the people, for the people and by the people.” Respondents from every party also reacted positively to this statement: “The only special interest not being served by our government is the American people.”

Trump’s Top Ranking Statements — All Parties

1. Our country needs a truly great leader, and we need a truly great leader now.

2. One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.

3. We need to once again have a government that is of the people, for the people and by the people.

4. I want to save Medicare and Social Security.

5. Too few Americans are working, too many jobs have been shipped overseas and too many middle class families cannot make ends meet.

Many of Trump’s statements had a strong impact on Independent voters. “While only a minority of people, less than five percent, switched their preferred candidate after reading the Trump statements, 56 percent of them were Independents,” said Johnson. “Eighteen percent of these switchers went away from Trump, but 30 percent switched to Trump, giving him a net positive take among undecided voters.”

Two policy themes that resonated strongly with both Independents and Republicans were domestic job protection and budget discipline. However, Independents reacted negatively to statements around waterboarding and global warming denial.

Trump’s Top Ranking Statements — Independents

1. Our country needs a truly great leader, and we need a truly great leader now.

2. One of the key problems today is that politics is such a disgrace. Good people don’t go into government.

3. We need to once again have a government that is of the people, for the people and by the people.

4. If you tax something you get less of it. It’s as simple as that. The more you tax work, the less people are willing to work. The more you tax investments, the fewer investments you’ll get. This isn’t rocket science.

5. We’ve got to bring on the competition. Education reformers call this school choice, charter schools, vouchers, even opportunity scholarships. I call it competition—the American way.

The remaining top statements vary significantly by Republican versus Democratic audiences. Respondents who identify themselves as Republicans agree most with statements emphasizing the importance of building a wall along the Mexico border, building up the military and imposing budget discipline.

Those who identify as Democrats agree most with statements promoting universal healthcare, unions, Medicare, Social Security, Planned Parenthood and LGBT rights. In several cases, top statements for Republicans appeared as lowest ranking statements for Democrats and vice versa.

About the Study

SSI tested 200 statements made by Trump (regarding a variety of policy topics and positions). The study measured respondent agreement and disagreement with between 30 to 200 different policy statements. All respondents were exposed to at least 30 statements, with some respondents opting into additional rounds of exposure to more statements.

Initially, respondents were not aware that the statements had been made by Trump. Following statement exposure, respondents were informed that all statements were, in fact, from Trump. Respondents were asked both before and after statement testing who was their preferred candidate. Switchers were those who were not consistent pre- and post-statement attribution.

SSI is the premier global provider of data solutions and technology for consumer and business-to-business survey research, reaching respondents in 100+ countries via Internet, telephone, mobile/wireless and mixed-access offerings. SSI staff operates from 30 offices in 21 countries, offering sample, data collection, CATI, questionnaire design consultation, programming and hosting, online custom reporting and data processing. SSI’s 3,600 employees serve more than 2,500 clients worldwide. Visit SSI at www.surveysampling.com.

RELATED ARTICLES:

In Robust Response to Tel Aviv Terror, Trump Rips ‘Uncivilized’ Palestinians Who Praised Attack

“La Raza” means “Master Race”

Trump Shatters Republican Primary Vote Record by 1.4 Million Votes

Hispanic activists’ anti-Trump efforts fall flat as citizenship push sputters – Washington Times

Stunning New Development!! Media calls Trump Racist

La Raza Circulates State-By-State Guide On Where To Vote Without ID

Meet The Pro-Illegal Immigrant Groups The La Raza Lawyers Of San Diego Consider Part Of Their ‘Community’

No Surprise That Gun Prohibitionists Endorse Clinton

BELLEVUE, Wash. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today’s endorsement of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton by two major gun prohibition lobbying groups should come as no surprise, considering her highly-publicized attacks on the Second Amendment, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in response.

As reported by the New York Times, Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt declared in a prepared statement, “Gun Sense Voters have a champion in Hillary Clinton. Our litmus test is simple: does a candidate side with the public or with the gun lobby? Hillary Clinton passes that test with flying colors.”

“It’s no surprise that the gun prohibition lobby has a litmus test based on erosion of the Second Amendment, and it is less of a surprise that Hillary Clinton passed it with flying colors,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “If there were any remaining doubts among American voters about Clinton’s intentions if she wins in November, these endorsements make it clear that she is determined to rip the right to keep and bear arms from the American fabric.”

Early last fall, Clinton was caught on audio at a private fund raiser declaring that “The Supreme Court was wrong on the Second Amendment.” Gottlieb said today’s endorsements by Everytown and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America – two organizations supported by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg – amount to “damning proof” that a Clinton presidency would pose a direct threat to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

“Today’s Washington Examiner noted that Clinton has promised to push gun control on her very first day in office,” Gottlieb noted. “That’s not a sign of leadership. It’s a symptom of fanaticism against a fundamental individual civil right.

“Throughout her public career,” he observed, “Hillary Clinton has never been a friend of gun owners, and today’s double endorsement merely confirms that she is their avowed enemy.”

ABOUT THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

RELATED ARTICLES:

NRA Response to Gun Control Lobby’s Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Hard-line Hillary Bashes Heller Again! Calls Supreme Court’s Decision “Terrible”

“Journalists” Renew Attack Upon “Assault Weapons”

What “Strong Case” for Gun Registration?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of the National Rifle Association.

Death by Demography: The 2016 Presidential race will decide America’s future

It is as simple (and as scary as that)!

And, everyone of us must now, immediately, begin or continue to educate ourselves about Islam and what the expanding Muslim population will do to Western Civilization, America and our way of life.

We can already see what it is doing to Europe, what more do we need!  Do we think that somehow we will escape? Do you believe America’s melting pot can withstand the Islamic demographic juggernaut (the hijra!) coming our way?

Update May 31: be sure to see Leo Hohmann’s story at WND about the huge numbers of green cards we are giving out to Muslims from all over the world, here.

Ellison and Cardon

Representatives Keith Ellison and Andre Carson went to the National Press Club last week to speak against ‘Islamophobia’ and said of Trump: Trump in particular appeals to people’s “paternalistic, tribalistic impulse,”…. Sheesh, and of course Ellison isn’t doing the same for his Islamic tribe!

After seeing this enlightening and provocative post at ‘Gates of Vienna’ thanks to Richard at Blue Ridge Forum, I wanted to say something here about how every one of you reading this must begin to thoroughly educate yourselves about what Islam really is!Do you know the ten Arabic words?***And, since I read that post last week, I see that America’s first Muslim Congressmen took to the podium at the National Press Club to exhort their fellow Muslims to get into the Presidential election to defeat Donald Trump and “Islamophobia” here.

It is not about ‘Islamophobia,’ it is all about migration and the fear among Islamists that Trump (and you) will demand a halt to the migration, the hijra.

In Minnesota, where Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison represents the large and growing Somali ‘community’ we see the Minneapolis Star Tribune (also last week) go ballistic over speaking engagements throughout the state by an Egyptian Coptic Christian using the Koran to explain to the public what Islam’s goals for world domination entail. (Hint: It involves migration!)

We have Daniel Greenfield, writing at Frontpage magazine last week telling us that the Muslim migration will not end because Muslim countries are largely dysfunctional and Muslims procreate at higher levels than do westerners. The invasion will not end, for Europe and for us, there are just too many of them!

So how much do you know about Islam? Do you know what the ten words mean?

RELATED ARTICLES:

May: 1,035 Syrian Muslims admitted to U.S., only 2 Christians

U.S. to deport illegal alien Somalis

Does Janesville, Wisconsin get refugees?

Some states are pretty secretive about refugee health data—Tennessee is one of them

Bowling Green, KY pastor: ‘we need to have more faith in the process’

What will Senator Rand Paul do about new influx of Muslims to his hometown?

Fitting, Trump Clinches GOP Nomination on Memorial Day Weekend

The Associated Press reported on Thursday [May 26, 2016] that Donald J. Trump has exceeded the 1,237 delegates necessary to win the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States on the first ballot at the party’s convention next month.

Mr. Trump had 1,229 delegates after winning the state of Washington on Tuesday, but since then has received commitments from enough unbound delegates to put him over the top. Trump is expected to expand his now insurmountable lead next month, when the last five states to vote—South Dakota, New Mexico, New Jersey, Montana, and California—hold their primaries.

Fox News reports, “Trump’s achievement marks the completion of a primary campaign that has upended the political landscape and defied multiple predictions of failure from political commentators. It now sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign against likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.” The NRA endorsed Mr. Trump last week.

Meanwhile, though Clinton is still favored to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, the Washington Post reports that Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got worse, following the release of a State Department Inspector General’s report, which described Clinton’s manner of handling her emails as “not an appropriate method.” Clinton refused to speak to the Inspector General’s investigators.

Asked about the news during a press conference in North Dakota, Trump said the report shows that Clinton suffers from “bad judgment,” an assessment that would be equally appropriate if the report had assessed Clinton’s position on gun control.

Glenn Beck: Fooled by Facebook?

In the wake of reports that Facebook censors conservative voices, media figure Glenn Beck met with company chairman Mark Zuckerberg and emerged from the meeting, as he put it, “convinced that Facebook is behaving appropriately and trying to do the right thing.” Nothing to see here, move along. Unfortunately, this is nonsense.

Beck admits in his article on this subject, “I am not an expert on data or AI or algorithms.” Neither am I. But the Facebook censorship in the news isn’t about artificial intelligence but human intelligence — and its biases. In fact, the focus on technology could be (I’m not implying this is the case with Beck) an effort at Machiavellian misdirection: “Watch what the machine is doing, watch the machine, so you don’t see the man behind the curtain.

I’ll get right to the point. Fraudbook employs a group of young journalists, known as “news curators,” who are empowered to manage the algorithmic results and “refine” what qualifies for the site’s “Trending Topics” section. As company vice president of search Tom Stocky put it, the curators “audit topics surfaced algorithmically: reviewers are required to accept topics that reflect real world events, and are instructed to disregard junk or duplicate topics, hoaxes, or subjects with insufficient sources.”

So already evident is a Fraudbook deception: the Trending Topics section is supposed to reflect “popularity,” not politically correctness. Who decides what constitute “real world events”? What is a “junk” topic and who defines such? Should “duplicate topics” be disregarded if that duplication reflects trends and popularity? Why should “insufficient sources” disqualify a story, given that great breakthroughs — in science and news — often begin with one person’s endeavors? (When the story becomes well known, or “popular,” other journalists investigate the matter and separate fact from fiction; this can’t happen if it’s suppressed in the first place.) And while no one wants hoaxes promoted, we could even wonder how often incredible but true stories are labeled hoaxes by credulous or biased curators.

And who are these people empowered to decide who is an unreal-world, junky, topic-duplicating, insufficiently-sourced, possible hoaxer? Gizmodo.com, which broke the recent Fraudbook story, tells us they are “a small group of young journalists, primarily educated at Ivy League or private East Coast universities, who curate the ‘trending’ module on the upper-right-hand corner of the site.”  LOL, c’mon, Glenn, are you gonna let these people spit down your back and tell you it’s rainin’? While tech workers are notoriously liberal, as the statistics here show, journalism majors from “Ivy League or private East Coast universities” make them look like William F. Buckley2. Fact: giving people the power to “refine” news is synonymous with human bias entering the equation.

And you cannot give young, hardcore liberal journalists from “elite” schools that power without a strong liberal bias entering the equation.

Of course, the nature of biases is that people generally aren’t aware, at least not fully, of their biases. Just consider a Guardian defense of Fraudbook. The news organ interviewed an ex-Fraudbook curator who challenged Gizmodo’s report and related, writes the paper, “that newsworthiness was determined by how often a story appeared on a list of trusted news outlets including this publication [the Guardian], the New York Times and the BBC.” Are you getting this, Glenn?

That the ex-employee and Guardian consider this exculpatory of Fraudbook tells the tale: they’re so oblivious to their own biases they consider left-wing, mainstream-media news sources “unbiased” arbiters of newsworthiness. Obviously, if you use leftist entities to “refine” your algorithmic results, you’ll get Al Gore-rhythmic results.

So as Gizmodo put it, “In other words, Facebook’s news section operates like a traditional newsroom, reflecting the biases of its workers and the institutional imperatives of the corporation.” Without a doubt. Liberal journalists censoring the news? Check. Institutional guidelines elevating supposed real-world events and disqualifying supposed junk? Check. Reliance upon other left-wing sources to determine real-world quality, junkiness and newsworthiness, creating a liberal echo chamber? Check. Fraudbook’s trending team couldn’t be more like a traditional newsroom if it tried.

So while a selling point of big social media is that it’s a democratic arena in which “the people” determine what’s seen and heard, it’s instead more like professional wrestling circa 1980: certainly fake but still claiming authenticity. Of course, Fraudbook has a right (at least under our system, as opposed to the statist one Zuckerberg is working to visit upon us) to adopt whatever policies it wishes. But how about some truth in advertising? Don’t claim to be presenting merely what’s “popular.”

Beck should also note that Fraudbook has been caught censoring news time and again. As the Gatestone Institute wrote in February, “It was only a few weeks ago that Facebook was forced to back down when caught permitting anti-Israel postings, but censoring equivalent anti-Palestinian postings.” Even more damning, at a UN development summit in New York in September, Zuckerberg met with German chancellor Angela Merkel. “As they sat down,” continued Gatestone, “Chancellor Merkel’s microphone, still on, recorded Merkel asking Zuckerberg what could be done to stop anti-immigration postings being written on Facebook. She asked if it was something he was working on, and he assured her it was.”

And I’m sure Merkel would describe Zuckerberg as someone who was “humble, open, and listened intently,” which, by the way, are the precise words Beck used to describe the Fraudbook figures (including Zuck) he met with. Zuck told Merkel what she wanted to hear, which happened to be the truth; and Zuck told Beck what he wanted to hear, which happened to not be. Zuck is concerned about making money and Fraudbook’s stock price, you see.

Having said this, I doubt Zuck is fully aware of the news curators’ shenanigans. Again, people, liberals especially, are often blithely unaware of emotionally satisfying biases woven into organizations. Stories of Fraudbook censorship of conservatives are legion, however. And while it involves not censorship but an effort at undermining, I have one myself.

Aside from my syndicated pieces, I write exclusive news/commentary articles for The New American (TNA), which has both a website and hard-copy magazine. And as many sites do, TNA has Fraudbook’s “Like” button at the top of every article; it indicates how many Fraudbook users read, liked the piece and chose to click the button. Well, for more than a year and ending only about a year ago, I and members of TNA’s staff noticed a strange and consistent phenomenon: likes would accumulate on a piece and then “poof!” they’d disappear with the counter having been dialed back to zero. This happened consistently across all TNA articles; in one case, one of my pieces had 30,000 likes before they were sent to the gulag.

One might consider this a glitch, but I never observed the phenomenon at any liberal/mainstream-media site. And why does it matter? Because likes are a good metric for not just popularity but also level of readership, and people are influenced by what’s popular. Make an article’s content appear unread and unpopular and people are more likely to dismiss it as a fringe view.

I always assumed, and this accords with Gizmodo’s findings, that the like-button manipulation was the work of one or two rogue (and petty) employees — who were operating in a liberal organization that would turn a blind eye to such shenanigans. Yet Beck’s thoughts are different. In a further glowing endorsement of Fraudbook, he was quoted in a May 19 Time piece as saying about his meeting with the company’s representatives, “I thought it was great. I thought they were sincere. And as I was leaving, I thought: ‘What company has done that with conservatives?’ Especially a media company.” That’s what he thought, alright. And here’s what I think: that Facebook has two faces, and one of them is seen only by big names that Zuck et al. can use for photo-ops and public-relations purposes.

And that’s likely what happened with you, Mr. Beck. You found Zuck and Company cordial — they just find you useful.

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

VIDEO: Do Trump’s Comments Help Recruit Terrorists?

Does fighting terrorists create more terrorists? National security has taken center stage in the debate between Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump for president of the United States.

Emerson_Steve

Steve Emerson

The Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Steve Emerson analyses the position of Hillary Clinton that Donald Trump has become the poster child for recruiting Islamic terrorists, a recurring campaign theme.

Recently Hillary Clinton stated, “When you run for president of the United States, the entire world is listening and watching. So when you say you’re going to bar all Muslims, you’re sending evidence to the Muslim world, and you’re also sending a message to terrorists. … Donald Trump is essentially being used as a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism.”

Trump responded, “The fact that Hillary thinks the temporary Muslim ban, which she calls the ‘Muslim ban’, promotes terrorism, proves Bernie Sanders was correct when he said she is not qualified to be President.”

Here Emerson discusses this “do we or don’t we fight terrorism” debate on Fox News:

[TRANSCRIPT]

[Video played of Hillary Clinton in CNN interview]:

Hillary Clinton: When you say we’re going to bar all Muslims, you are sending a message to the Muslim world. And you’re also sending a message to the terrorists, because we now do have evidence, we have seen how Donald Trump is being used to essentially be a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism.

Morris: Hillary Clinton says there is evidence Donald Trump helps recruit terrorists, but is there really? Let’s ask terrorism expert Steve Emerson. Steve nice to see you this morning.

Emerson: Good morning.

Morris: You know former Secretary of State you choose your words carefully. She says we have evidence that this is the case. What do you say?

Emerson: Well let’s look at the evidence. It’s hard to find actual statistics, but we looked at the frequency of arrests post-Trump’s comments and pre-Trump comments–that would be a variable whether they’re recruiting more, [as well as] the level of attacks post-Trump versus pre-Trump’s comments. OK? Let’s look at arrests in the United States pre-Trump’s comments versus post-Trump’s comments. Last year in the United States there were 71 ISIS arrests. So far this year there have been about 13. That’s at a rate about only 20 percent of the rate of last year. Of those 13 this year, only eight were hatched, that is the plot started, after Trump’s comments. In those plots none mentioned in the wiretaps or in the admissions submitted to court, none mentioned Donald Trump at all.

Morris: None.

Emerson: None at all.

Morris: So where is she getting this information from?

Emerson: Well I think there was one recording made by one wannabe ISIS member who exploited her comments –

Morris: Right.

Emerson: – and said, ‘I’m motivated by Donald Trump,’ but no attack, no post-attack recording and claim of credit has ever cited Donald Trump nationally or internationally. And the stats prove that in terms of frequency of attacks and level of recruitment. They’ve actually gone down following Trump. And you know what’s interesting is that the assumption underlying her comments is [that] somehow Muslims around the world are just going to be motivated to carry out fire-breathing attacks just on the basis of offensive rhetoric. Well let’s take Americans – are we going to—we Americans–going to suddenly turn into terrorists because of the vast amount of anti-American rhetoric in the Muslim world?

Morris: Right.

Emerson: You know it’s very patronizing.

Morris: Donald Trump was on Fox & Friends on Friday. Here’s what he had to say about this evidence. Watch.

[Video played of Donald Trump on phone in Fox and Friends interview]:

Donald Trump: We’re not going to find the people by just continuing to be so nice and so soft. And I have many Muslim friends and they agree. They have a tremendous problem with the radical Islamic terrorism, tremendous problem. And what she said is so dumb.

Morris: What do you say to that?

Emerson: Look, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t mention the term ‘Islamic terrorism.’ And that’s the same problem of and modus operandi of this Administration – they won’t mention the term. If you don’t mention the term, you don’t recognize [the problem] and if you don’t want to use the term [Islamic terrorism], you’re playing into the hands of Islamic terrorists. Number two, the bottom line actually that motivates Islamic terrorists is the belief that the U.S. is engaged in a war against Islam. And that’s a line that’s propagated by Islamist groups, quote, ‘civil rights’ groups, like CAIR Council on American Islamic Relations] and others, that the White House has invited repeatedly into the corridors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the State Department under Hillary Clinton. So they’ve legitimized that very message [of the conspiratorial notion that there is a war against Islam].

Morris: She’s being slammed for these comments that there’s, quote, ‘evidence,’ and Donald Trump earlier this week was slammed for suggesting right away that it was terrorism responsible for the EgyptAir crash. What evidence did he have? Did he jump the gun on that? Should he have held off?

Emerson: [Laughs.] The media has been going bonkers on the suspicion [that its terrorism] — and they’ve quoted U.S. officials, they quoted FBI officials, they quoted transportation officials, they quoted French officials, Egyptian officials have gone on record as saying they believe it’s terrorism.

Morris: Right.

Emerson: So look, there’s no evidentiary 100 percent guarantee proof that it was terrorism, but it’s leading people to believe… suspicions are leading in that direction. Let’s go back to Hillary Clinton’s comments [about Trump’s comments being a recruiting tool for ISIS]. Look, ISIS could give a hoot about what Americans or others say about them. They don’t pay attention to that. They carry out… they march to their own drummer.

Morris: Right. Steve Emerson, terrorism expert, we appreciate you joining us this morning.

Emerson: You bet.

Morris: Thanks, Steve.

[END TRANSCRIPT]

Clinton hits Trump on Muslim ban, Trump responds, ‘Ask Hillary who blew up the plane last night’

Says Clinton: “When you run for president of the United States, the entire world is listening and watching. So when you say you’re going to bar all Muslims, you’re sending evidence to the Muslim world, and you’re also sending a message to terrorists. … Donald Trump is essentially being used as a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism.”

It’s common sense to people like Hillary Clinton: only a tiny minority of extremists, not all Muslims, are the source of the problem, so to say that all Muslims should be banned from entering the country, even temporarily, is to tar all Muslims with responsibility for the sins of a few, thereby angering Muslims and making more of them turn to jihad terror groups than would have done so otherwise. She doesn’t explain how they could authentically have been counted as moderates, much less as allies, if a candidate’s proposal could drive them to turn to jihad terror; nor does she offer any way to distinguish jihadis among the vast majority of peaceful Muslims. She would rather subject Americans to greater risk of jihad terror attacks than take tough steps to prevent those attacks.

USA-ELECTION/TRUMP

“Trump fires back at Clinton over Muslim ban: ‘Ask Hillary who blew up the plane last night,’” by Caitlin Yilek, The Hill, May 19, 2016:

Donald Trump is firing back at Hillary Clinton for saying his proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S. promotes terrorism.

“The fact that Hillary thinks the temporary Muslim ban, which she calls the ‘Muslim ban’, promotes terrorism, proves Bernie Sanders was correct when he said she is not qualified to be President,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s campaign said in a statement on Thursday.

Clinton was critical of Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the country in an interview with CNN.

“When you run for president of the United States, the entire world is listening and watching,” she told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “So when you say you’re going to bar all Muslims, you’re sending evidence to the Muslim world, and you’re also sending a message to terrorists. … Donald Trump is essentially being used as a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism.”

Trump seized on the moment to fire off an attack that Sanders used against the Democratic front-runner in early April, saying she is unqualified to be president and linked the critique to the disappearance of a jet headed from Paris to Cairo.

“And by the way, ask Hillary who blew up the plane last night — another terrible, but preventable tragedy. She has bad judgement and is unfit to serve as President at this delicate and difficult time in our country’s history,” the statement said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump: Clinton ‘ill-equipped’ for presidency, calls her criticism of Muslim ban ‘dumb’

India: Doctor repeatedly advised patients that practicing Islam would cure them

Uganda: Muslim murders Christian pastor for saying Christ conquered the Islamic jinn

Republican Primary Lesson: It’s Not About You!

The existential threat to America today is not communism but colonization by illegal aliens and Muslim “refugees.” Political correctness subverts our First Amendment rights and shuts down even discussions about the threats to the middle class.

On the day Donald Trump resoundingly won primaries in West Virginia and Nebraska, the same day that Ted Cruz gave one last, desperate call-out to voters by indicating that he would consider reentering the race if Nebraska voters decided he should, a Quinnipiac poll provided yet one more shock to the pundit class.  It showed Trump even with Hillary Clinton in three key states.  He was beating her on leadership abilities, economic issues, and security issues.

Voters also thought that Trump was more “honest and trustworthy” than Clinton.

Trump had a lower rating on “moral standards” probably because of his playboy past.

The question remains: why would people trust someone who has low moral standards?  How did Trump earn this trust?

He certainly did not do it the way Ted Cruz did by speaking in front of a large banner with “TrusTed” on it.  He did not do it by telling his parents’ hard-scrabble stories the way Cruz and Marco Rubio did.  He did not by simply presenting his name with an exclamation point the way “Jeb!” did.  He did not do it with a phony “aw shucks” act like John Kasich’s.

Oddly, the man who is cast by the pundit class as being the supreme narcissist used the old Reagan slogan, “Make America Great Again.”  He tapped into the patriotic desires of Americans suffering two terms of an anti-American Obama presidency.

As voters rejected the other candidates’ appeals, commentators upped the rhetoric and aimed it at Trump’s supporters. The libertarians and millennial conservatives pulled out their thesauruses for new terms of insult.  Erick Erickson alternated between references to Scripture and casting Satanic aspersions on Trump supporters.  National Review’s Kevin Williamson likened them to Hitler supporters, and said their communities “deserved to die.”  The ominous meme about “angry white working class voters” was circulated by pundits who had studiously avoided any parallel categorization of Michelle Obama.

Adopting a new more conciliatory tone, David Brooks acknowledged the “pain” of “declinism” and called for a New Deal-like effort to change the “national story” from the old model of rugged individualism.  He suggested a “new definition of masculinity” for the new economy that rewards “emotional connection and verbal expressiveness.”  (Brooks is detail oriented, as his praise of the creases in then-candidate Obama’s pants showed.)

These commentators who attended elite schools and had connections were initially confident that the champion Princeton debater, praised by his former Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz as “off the charts brilliant,” would win out over the buffoon who spoke in sentence fragments.  Cruz’s campaign, as the Washington Post described it, “reflected its candidate: methodical, strategic and data-driven.”  It “deployed a sophisticated data strategy that used psychographic information to appeal to the fears or hopes of potential voters.”

On the day of the do-or-die primary, Cruz decided to talk to a man holding a Trump sign at his event in Marion, Indiana.  With cameras trailing, Cruz walked up to a guy who would probably not react favorably to Brooks’ “new definition of masculinity.”  He was from Ohio, a “pole-climber,” as he put it — someone Brooks, sitting in an office admiring the creases in his own pants, might espy, from a distance repairing the lines.

The effort was clearly intended to present Cruz as patient and charitable towards someone holding minimal “verbal expressiveness.”  Sure enough, in grammatically incorrect phrases, the man said that he supported Trump because of “the wall” and the Second Amendment.  He told him, “You are the problem, politician,” and asked where his Goldman-Sachs jacket was.  Cruz, with evident exasperation, repeated the well-known charges against Trump.  He asked him if he knew that he had argued a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court.

Clips from the exchange were played on Fox on May 7, with Greg Gutfeld’s facial contortions and comments interspersed to show how impenetrable Trump supporters are to Cruz’s debating points.

While those in the #NeverTrump camp probably found Gutfeld’s mockery funny, others, such as other pole-climbers who are already disgusted with the sneering at their kind, probably did not.

Nor did they miss the announced “deal” with rival John Kasich, or fall for the slogan of used car salesmen and consumer advocates (“trust me”).

Do the candidates not understand that the hard-luck stories about immigrant parents bring only a “so what?” from children of immigrants who did not go Princeton or Harvard?  Do they understand that abstractions about “free enterprise” mean little when your job has been sent abroad?  Do they understand that bantering in Spanish on the debate stage doesn’t win any points if you have to compete for work with Mexicans hanging out at Home Depot?

Do they understand that talk about the Constitution inspires very little confidence if it comes from someone like Marco Rubio, who betrayed his supporters on immigration?  Do they understand that when you say “when I am president,” as Rubio did, that it comes off as presumptuous?  All three of the candidates who blamed Trump’s “rhetoric” for the rioters who closed down the rally in Chicago on March 11 lost credibility—and votes.

Did the Big Brains who kept invoking Ronald Reagan not listen to “the speech” on behalf of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater?  Reagan, calling himself a “former Democrat,” addressed middle-Americans’ concerns, then arising from the existential threat of communism and growth of government: an administration that sought to imprison farmers for improper bookkeeping, that built public housing, and that harassed businessmen.  Reagan told stories, about an Arkansas farmer who lost his 960-acre farm for over-planting his rice allotment.  He related a story about a young woman pregnant with her seventh child seeking a divorce so that she could qualify for Aid to Dependent Children, which provided more money than her husband, a laborer, could earn.

The existential threat today is not communism but colonization by illegal aliens and Muslim “refugees.”  Political correctness subverts our First Amendment rights and shuts down even discussions about the threats to the middle class.

As I described at this site, Trump at his rally on April 10, in Rochester, New York, connected with voters by talking about their concerns, such as the recent closing of SentrySafe, which followed Carrier Air Conditioning’s exit from Indiana to Mexico.

The day after the Indiana primaries, CNN invited a number of #NeverTrump-ers — over-glossed, quick-tongued politicos – who were contemplating a third party.

The #NeverTrump-ers ominously imply that if Trump is the nominee, “it will be a long, hot summer — and fall,” — continuing the idea that any violence will be Trump’s fault.  Erick Erickson, on the morning after the Nebraska win, predicting that the “Schadenfreudenfuhrer” will “beclown” himself over the next two months, advised delegates to the national convention to reject the will of the voters.  Otherwise, “We will see a party fail to unite. It’s [sic] standard bearers will flee.”

These “standard-bearers,” not looking beyond their own reflections, continue in the same self-destructive path.  As they accelerate the insults, they show that they may have “psychographic information,” but not much empathy or common sense.

New Republican Party: The Red, Purple and Parchment Troika

In my column New Democrat Party: The Red-Green-Rainbow Troika we took a look at the Democratic Party and how President Obama has fundamentally changed it by forming political alliances, creating a Troika. The members of the Red-Green-Rainbow Troika are certainly strange bedfellows but politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Now let’s look at the Republican Party.

Who has fundamentally changed it, why and is it for the better or worse? Who are members of the New Republican Party Troika (NRPT)? These are questions that may help voters understand what happened during the presidential primary of 2016 and what will happen in the lead up to November 8th.

Just like the Democratic Party, the GOP is make up of a Troika. The Republican Troika consists of three major factions:

  1. Conservative Republicans (a.k.a. the reds). These are the Grand Old Party elite (GOPe). They joined the party after the Goldwater years and have gained in power and prestige due to their unwavering party loyalty. They normally vote the Republican ticket.
  2. Republicans In Name Only (a.k.a. the purples or RINOs). These are individuals who joined the Republican party solely to win a political seat or appointment. A perfect example is former Florida Governor, former Republican and now Democrat Charlie Crist. The purples do not hold conservative values, rather they change as does the weather in the Sunshine State. The RINOs will not necessarily vote for the Republican ticket. Some have joined movements to undermine Republican nominees for president dating back to the days of Barry Goldwater.
  3. Constitutional Conservatives (a.k.a. the TEA Party). They embrace the parchment upon which the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written and signed by the Founding Fathers. This group includes Libertarians.

What differentiates these three factions is their commitment to “conservative values”, which are defined differently by each faction.

Arizona Republican Senator Barry Goldwater and presidential candidate in his book “The Conscience of a Conservative” wrote:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

This statement, to many Republicans, defines Conservative values at every level of government. The idea of limited government as envisioned by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution. States rights are paramount and trump efforts to impose government laws and regulations upon the population.

But not all members of the Troika embrace Goldwater’s statement. For you see there has been no true Conservative leader of the Republican Party since Ronald Reagan. How do we know? The American Enterprise Institute’s  in a column titled A reality check about Republican presidents measured the growth of government (i.e. regulations) over the past fifty years. Murray writes:

…I think it’s useful to remind everyone of the ways in which having a Republican president hasn’t made all that much difference for the last fifty years, with Ronald Reagan as the one exception.

First, here’s the history of the most commonly used measure of growth in the regulatory state, the number of pages in the Federal Code of Regulations.

murray_05132016

We can fairly blame LBJ’s Democratic administration for the initial spike in regulations, and Jimmy Carter’s years saw another steep rise. But using number of pages as the measure understates what happened during the Nixon years, when we got the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, plus much of the legislation that gave regulators the latitude to define terms such as “clean” or “safe” as they saw fit.

After the Carter years, the slope of the trendline was shallowest in the Reagan and Clinton administrations (with the Clinton result concentrated in his second term, when a Republican House imposed a moratorium on some new regulations). The increase during the Obama years remained on the same slope as the one during George W. Bush’s years. And if you’re thinking about the Democrats’ most egregious regulatory excess, Dodd-Frank in 2010, recall that Sarbanes-Oxley passed in 2002, when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate.

I should add that presidents don’t bear a lot of blame for failing to reduce regulation — their power to restrain the activities of the regulatory agencies is limited — but neither has electing a Republican president done any good, with Reagan as a partial exception.

Read more.

With the GOP nominee process ending and Donald Trump as the nominee, what has changed? Who is now the leader of the GOP?

Many would say Trump, as the nominee, will be driving the policy and politics of the Republican Party. However, their are those who write and speculate that their remains an internal discord within the party between one of the three factions. The most likely faction to cause this discord are the purples/RINOs. The other two factions have begun uniting behind Trump.

Ayn Rand wrote, “The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

What are the uncontested absurdities of the Republican Party elite? Here’s a short list:

  1. Fear. Republican elites fear being called out by Democrats, the media and at times by fellow Republicans. The fear is palpable.
  2. Political correctness. Republicans succumb to the pressures of being politically correct (see #1 above).
  3. Compromise. Republicans are prone to compromise their values when it is unnecessary or by dint of constant pressure from the Democrat Troika. Compromise is the art of losing slowly. Something the GOPe is accustomed to.
  4. Elitism. The Republican elite (GOPe) has consistently ignored the voices of primary voters in 2008, 20012 and in 2016.
  5. Old guard career politicians. The old guard is not focused on retaining the core values of the party of Abraham Lincoln, rather it is focused on winning re-election.
  6. Lack of leadership. The GOP has controlled Congress for the past 4 years yet has failed to stop the agenda of the Democrat Troika. The leadership of McConnell/Boehner and now McConnell/Ryan have failed to make headway.
  7. Politics by press release. Republicans have become the party of the press release. They send out press statements that sound good on the surface but seldom become political reality, law or have an impact on public policy or Main Street Americans.
  8. Ignoring the base. The GOPe believe they can win presidential elections with old guard, politically correct, compromising, career politicians.
  9. Going along to get along. The best way to win re-election is to go along with the GOPe and Democrats. Shutting down the government to keep from increasing the national debt or reducing the size of government spending goes against the grain of the GOPe.
  10. The GOPe eats its own. The GOPe in the name of items #1-#9 will attack candidates and elected Republicans. Moderate means purple.

So what’s the solution to all of these Republican absurdities? As Newt Gingrich wrote in an article in The Washington Times on January 8, 2016 titled “Donald Trump”:

You’re sick of politicians, sick of the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and sick of illegal’s. You just want this thing fixed. Trump may not be a saint, but doesn’t have any lobbyist money influencing him, he doesn’t have political correctness restraining him, all you know is that he has been very successful, a good negotiator, he has built a lot of things, and he’s also not a politician, so he’s not a cowardly politician. And he says he’ll fix it. You don’t care if the guy has bad hair. You just want those raccoon’s [rabid, messy, mean politicians] gone. Out of your house!

Donald J. Trump has changed the political paradigm. Will the purples follow or become the thorn in the side of Trump. That is the question.

lincoln quote

RELATED ARTICLES:

House Republicans to Move Forward on Spending Without a Budget Number

An Economist Explains Why America Is Moving Toward Totalitarianism

List of Attendees for Zuckerberg’s Facebook Meeting are all Members of #NeverTrump Movement

London’s Muslim Mayor wants to Educate Donald Trump on Islam by Hugh Fitzgerald

TrumpMuslimBan-65%The new golden boy of multicultural politics and Moderate Islam, Mayor Sadiq Khan of London, fresh from his electoral triumph, told an interviewer on May 13 that he would like to “educate” Donald Trump about Islam. Certainly Trump, like many of those who oppose him, could stand to be educated about Islam, but what he needs to know is not what Sadiq Khan surely has in mind. Sadiq Khan plans for his tutorial a few innocuous verses from the Qur’an that are always trotted out by the “moderates”: 2:256 and 5:32 without 5:33 (we’ll be getting to them later on). He also no doubt plans to offer Trump a potted history of Islam’s conquests, and a sanitized version of Muhammad’s biography, that will leave out as much of the gory bits as he, Sadiq Khan, thinks he can get away with omitting. And a good time will be had by all, if by all we mean Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and Bill de Blasio. It won’t do.

It is not that Trump has been misinformed, but that he has not been sufficiently informed to do more than speak in dismissive generalities about Islam. He knows there is something worrisome about Islam, and thinks – sensibly – that it might be a good idea to put a stop to Muslim immigration “until we figure out what is going on.” Who could disagree? Well, apparently a great many of those people who, knowing so little about Islam, assume they know all they need to know, and believe there is nothing more to “figure out” – they could and do disagree with the “islamophobic” Donald J. Trump.

Now instead of softening his previous statements by re-labelling them as “suggestions,” Trump might have held off and done what Muslims fear most, which is to educate himself, and without their “help,” about Islam. He’s a combative sort, and were he to put in hours of study of the canonical texts (and Robert Spencer has published a verse-by-verse exegesis, Blogging the Qur’an, that Trump would find most useful) – and not allow himself to be scared off by the usual claims, e.g., that non-Muslims simply can’t understand the Qur’an because they don’t know Arabic, or can’t interpret a verse or a Tradition (Hadith) correctly unless they know the “context,” the results could be salutary and bracing. Imagine that Trump, fortified with his new knowledge, came out from his corner quoting, able to clarify for his rapt audience what the Qur’an contains, and what the Hadith are, and why both matter to Muslims as sources of authority. Imagine a Trump able to explain how, through the interpretative doctrine of naskh, or abrogation, Muslims are able to reconcile contradictory passages in the Qur’an by abrogating the earlier, “softer” verses in favor of the later, more uncompromising verses. Imagine a Trump who could focus attention (and he now garners far more attention than any other candidate) on a few dozen or so of the most disturbing “Jihad verses” that are cited by ISIS and other terrorists as the textual justification for their behavior. When ISIS smites the necks of the Infidels, its killers are not silent; they tell us they are simply following 8:12 and 47:4 (or other relevant verses for other atrocities). In lieu of uttering general and sometimes vague remarks, Trump can locate his worries in specific verses. “Until we figure out what is going on,” while reasonable, is not as forceful as “so, we need to take a look at those verses Muslim killers keep quoting, such as 8:12 and 47:4 and 9:5 and 9:29 – lemme just read out some of these to you…(here Trump quotes Qur’anically ad libitum).” Trump could force the issue, and brusquely deal with the expected excuses: “Yeah, somebody told me because I don’t know Arabic I can’t really understand these verses, but 80% of the world’s Muslims don’t know any Arabic – and no one says that they can’t possibly understand Islam” or “Don’t go telling me these verses can only be understood in a particular historical context — Muhammad is the ‘perfect man’ (al-insan al-kamil) for all time.” I cannot imagine any candidate except Trump daring to hold up for inspection Muhammad’s marriage to little Aisha, or Muhammad’s expression of pleasure at hearing of the assassinations of Asma bint Marwan and Abu ‘Afak. But he needs to learn, and be ready to deploy in his forthright fashion, these facts and more. This would enrage Muslims, and other defenders of the faith, precisely because Trump would be adducing those biographical episodes (about little Aisha, the Khaybar Oasis, the Battle of the Trench, the poetess Asma bint Marwan, the sex slave Safiyya bint Huyayy) that Muslims, however much for granted they take these things, also know that among the Unbelievers such “details” could be a source of deep embarrassment.

Sadiq Khan, now sensing that Trump is on the defensive (having re-characterized his blunt remarks as “suggestions”), will likely have the chutzpah to continue to insist that “Islam” means “peace.” He will certainly quote 5:32, possibly even as it appeared in Obama’s 2009 remark: “Mr. Trump, perhaps you’ve forgotten – even though your own president Barack Obama quoted verbatim – what the Koran says about killing at 5:32. He said, and I quote, ‘The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.’” But then Trump, properly prepared, could come back immediately with: “Hey, you forgot 5.33. Remember? Here it is: ‘The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land.’ That doesn’t sound so peaceful to me.”

And there is still that other Qur’anic verse always trotted out in defense of a kinder, gentler Islam: “There is no compulsion in religion” (2.256). Imagine Sadiq Khan quoting that staple of Muslim propaganda with smug assurance, convinced that Trump will not have ready a Retort Plausible. And imagine what Trump’s reply could be if he has been properly prepped about the Jizyah: “Oh no, Sadiq? You think the Jizyah-tax is nothing? What if everyone in Europe had to pay 50,000 euros a year in order to stay alive and avoid having to convert to Islam? Just how many people do you think would pay the 50,000 euros? Come on! If that isn’t ‘compulsion,’ I don’t know what is.” What could Sadiq suavely respond?

Sadiq Khan, his smooth front now furrowed, may want to wait a while for a rematch. He’s got a lot on his plate, determined as he is to show those doubting Infidels how moderate he is, and Islam, too, if rightly understood. He’s planning a trade mission to Tel Aviv, which presumably is meant, in its obvious “some of my best friends” way, to signify that all those charges of Muslim antisemitism are baseless. And he’s certainly got to make time to reply to his many well-wishers, including Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Angela Merkel, and Bill de Blasio, and so many others whose congratulations are also self-congratulations.

As for Donald J. Trump, hope that he burns the midnight oil, with Qur’an and Hadith and the right guides to both, in order that he might put his combativeness, and even his studied outrageousness, as imagined here, to their best and highest use.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Danish professor: Wrong to see Muslims as victims, they act according to the Qur’an

Petraeus calls for self-censorship to avoid offending Muslims

From Proposal to Policy: Fine-Tuning Trump’s Muslim Immigration Ban by Ralph Sidway

“In light of [the] data, a good argument can be made that the US should allow Muslim immigration—but primarily, and perhaps solely, from Islamic sects and not Sunnis Let’s adapt Trump’s plan and put a moratorium on Sunni immigration.”

This policy discussion by Islamic historian Timothy Furnish may seem to run counter to the position of those of us who believe a complete moratorium on Muslim immigration “until we can figure out what the heck is going on” is the proper approach, but it is at the very least a serious attempt to undergird Donald Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban with factual and functional analysis. Serious discussion leads to serious policy, and serious results. Let’s have this discussion.

“An Islamic Historian’s Response to Donald Trump’s Proposed Muslim Immigration Ban”, by Timothy R. Furnish, History News Network, May 13, 2016:

Donald Trump’s call to temporarily ban Muslim immigration to the US, floated last December, provoked a predictable firestorm of criticism both domestically and abroad, and recently the presumptive Republican nominee for President has moved to moderate his stance.

Many if not most on the Left have not only dismissed his idea out-0f-hand, but condemned it as “racist,” while many on the Right support itContra the political extremes of both Left and Right, however, I think Trump has a point, if the plan were fine-tuned. Some Muslims should probably be banned (which almost certainly would be legal), but not all; and to differentiate those categories requires honest research and analysis, not emoting and propaganda.

The starting point for this evaluation is whether adherents of the world’s second-largest faith are more prone to violence than those of other religions.

Far too many liberals, and most Muslims of course, vehemently deny any such connection. But facts are stubborn things.

Of the 59 groups currently on the US State Department foreign terrorist list, 41, or 69%, are Muslim. Every single one of the 82 groups on the United Arab Emirates’ terrorist list is Islamic. (Does that make the UAE “racist” one wonders?) There are 104 groups on the database of the University of Chicago Project on Security & Terrorism (CPOST), which tracks terrorism between 1982 and 2015; at least 80 of the groups therein, or 77%, are Muslim. Twenty-one of the top 25 groups whose members killed people in that same time-frame are Muslim. Also, in that 33-year period, suicide attacks by Muslims far outnumber those Christians, by 300:1. Yes, there was exactly one suicide attack by a Christian in the 33 years that CPOST has tracked the data.

For more historical analysis of this topic, may I suggest my latest book Sects, Lies, and the Caliphate, as well as anything written by Raymond Ibrahim—in particular “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam?” and “ ‘Scientific’ Claim: Christian Bible More Bloodthirsty than Quran.”

The historical and empirical evidence is clear for anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear: Islam promotes violence against those not in its club (which, yes, often includes those who claim to be Muslims, as well) far more than any other belief system does against non-adherents.

But as the howls of “Islamophobia” begin to rise, let me add that not all branches of Islam are equally culpable for this global problem.

As I argue at length in my aforementioned book (especially pp. 193-209), it is primarily Sunnism—the largest branch, alas—that promotes a literalist reading and application of the Qur’an and the Hadiths (the alleged sayings and practices of Islam’s founder, Muhammad). This means that canonical Islamic endorsement of beheading, stoning, and violent jihad, inter alia, must apply across space and time; they are not subject to, say, allegorical interpretation or chronological consignment to the 7th century AD.

And such Sunni literalism has sunk deep roots: majorities of Muslims in many countries (according to Pew empirical data) support stoning for adultery and execution for “apostasy” (converting from Islam to another religion). This is why I said on a recent TV special that ISIS is indeed Islamic, and why it is so difficult for other Muslims to actually delegitimize it. 

However, wooden and, frankly, brutal Sunni literalism—which holds sway not only in terrorist groups but also in broader movements like Saudi Wahhabism and South Asian Deobandism—it is not the only understanding of Islam.

There are minority sects of Islam which do not take the Qur’an 100% literally and are thereby not yoked to slavish imitation of the texts, with all their problematic repercussions: the Ahmadis of South Asia; the Isma’ilis, the second-largest Shi`a sect; the syncretistic Alawis and Druze of Syria and Lebanon; many Sufi, or Islamic mystical, orders (which are actually not sects so much as, in a sense, charismatic Muslims); and, believe it or not, the Twelvers—the Shi`is of Iran, Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon and Azerbaijan—who unlike the Sunnis never abandoned ta`wil, or “(allegorical) interpretation” of the Islamic texts.

All of these groups are, to varying degrees, persecuted by Sunnis in most places for their heterodox—if not downright heretical—views, at least from the Sunni perspective.

Note, I am not saying all sects are peaceful and Sunnis are always vicious. What I am saying is that Sunnis and their theology are far more often the problem, because a literal understanding of Qur’an and Hadiths is the only one allowed therein; sects, even Twelver Shi`is, allow for much more leeway in interpretation.

Consider: only two of the groups on the US State Department list adduced earlier are Twelver Shi`i; ditto for the CPOST terrorist list. There are no examples of Ahmadi, Isma’ili or Alawi terrorists (although Alawis, in the guise of the al-Assad regime, do hold on brutally to power—largely in order to stave off the inevitable religicide that would ensue were they to lose to the Syrian Sunni jihadists). Twelver Shi`i Iran is a state sponsor of mainly Sunni terror, but in order to geopolitically hobble its enemies Saudi Arabia and Israel, not out of Twelver theological imperatives. Sufis can and have been violent in the past and today (they fight Boko Haram in Nigeria and al-Shabab in Somalia), but only one Sufi group—Jaysh Rijal al-Tariq al-Naqshbandi, which works with ISIS—is terrorist today.

In light of this data, a good argument can be made that the US should allow Muslim immigration—but primarily, and perhaps solely, from Islamic sects and not Sunnis.

But the Obama Administration is doing the exact opposite.

Between November 2015 and February 2016, just over 600 Syrian refugees were admitted to this country; 93% were Sunni, while just a handful were sectarians. In April of this year another 451 Syrians were brought in, almost all Sunni. (And not being covered in this article is the criminally-low number of Christians being admitted—under 1%.)

Yes, ISIS persecutes other Sunnis, but far less cruelly, and less frequently, than it does Alawis, Druze, Isma’ilis (or, as noted, Christians and members of the Yazidi faith). If the US really wants to help those being brutalized by ISIS, members of those sects should be preferred—not just for the humanitarian reason that they bear the brunt of Sunni fundamentalist ire, but for the utilitarian, pro-American one that members of such sects will almost certainly not engage in terrorism on American soil….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrats introduce bill to oppose Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban

Video: Muslim speaker in Canada calls for “full implementation of Islam,” says migrant influx helps build caliphate

Virginia Congressman and 9 Jewish organizations want to block Trump’s Muslim ban

Rep. Don Beyer represents the Virginia district just across the river from Washington, D.C. and has a large number of Muslim constituents.  More on the story here.

From Daily Sabah:

Don Byer

Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA). Photo: ABC News

Nine Jewish organizations have joined a call supporting a bill that would prevent banning entry to the United States on the basis of religion, a step taken after GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed ban on Muslims entering the U.S.

“Concerns about national security are mixing with unchecked anti-Muslim bigotry and fomenting unjust fear and scrutiny of Muslim refugees and immigrants,” said the statement released Tuesday, a day before Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., is due to unveil the legislation.

The groups expressed their support for a bill announced by Virginia congressman Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) Wednesday that would make it illegal for the US to block an immigrant based on his or her religion.

The statement backing Beyer’s bill was organized by Interfaith Alliance, a group directed by Rabbi Jack Moline and include umbrella bodies for the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements, as well as the Anti-Defamation League, the National Council of Jewish Women, J Street, Habonim Dror, Bend the Arc Jewish Action and T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported.

Beyer, a Democrat of course, is a first term Congressman.

Once the Hijra is advanced, and the Muslim population reaches a certain level in the U.S., guess which religion will be persecuted first?