Posts

Trump’s ban on Critical Race Theory, explained

Does Critical Race Theory promote racial harmony or does it “sow division” as the Trump administration claims? And what is its relation, if any, to Marxism?


With the November election just around the corner, it’s only to be expected that President Trump would seek to rally conservative voters and drive his supporters to the polls. So, when his administration, on September 4, instructed the federal government to eliminate all training in “Critical Race Theory,” some thought it was just a red-meat stunt to excite the Republican base. Others saw it as an act of right-wing censorship and an obstruction of racial progress.

In truth, there’s much more to this development than mere politicization and censorship.

Here’s a breakdown of what the administration is doing and why it’s a welcome move.

The executive memo

“It has come to the President’s attention that Executive Branch agencies have spent millions of taxpayer dollars to date ‘training’ government workers to believe divisive, anti-American propaganda,” Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought wrote in the executive memorandum.

“Employees across the Executive Branch have been required to attend trainings where they are told that ‘virtually all White people contribute to racism’ or where they are required to say that they ‘benefit from racism,’” Vought explained. “According to press reports, in some cases these training [sic] have further claimed that there is racism embedded in the belief that America is the land of opportunity or the belief that the most qualified person should receive a job.”

The order instructed federal agencies to identify and eliminate any contracts or spending that train employees in “critical race theory,” “white privilege,” “or any other training or propaganda effort that teaches or suggests either that the United States is an inherently racist or evil country or that any race or ethnicity is inherently racist or evil.”

The exposé

How did it “come to the President’s attention,” and what press reports is Vought referring to?

Well, President Trump is known to watch Tucker Carlson’s show on Fox News. And days before the memo was issued, Carlson had on journalist Christopher Rufo to discuss his multiple reports uncovering the extent to which Critical Race Theory (CRT) was being used in federal training programs.

“For example, Rufo claimed, the Treasury Department recently hired a diversity trainer who said the U.S. was a fundamentally White supremacist country,” wrote Sam Dorman for the Fox News web site, “and that White people upheld the system of racism in the nation. In another case, which Rufo discussed with Carlson last month, Sandia National Laboratories, which designs nuclear weapons, sent its white male executives to a mandatory training in which they, according to Rufo, wrote letters apologizing to women and people of color.”

Rufo challenged President Trump to use his executive authority to extirpate CRT from the federal government.

The debate

CNN’s Brian Stelter (as well as Rufo himself) traced Trump’s decision directly to the independent investigative journalist’s self-proclaimed “one-man war” on CRT, of which the recent Carlson appearance was only the latest salvo.

Selter characterized Trump’s move as a reactionary attack on the current national “reckoning” on race. He cited the Washington Post’s claim that, “racial and diversity awareness trainings are essential steps in helping rectify the pervasive racial inequities in American society, including those perpetuated by the federal government.”

So which is it? Is CRT “divisive” and “toxic” or is it “rectifying” and “anti-racist”?

Intellectual ancestry

To answer that, it would help to trace CRT to its roots. Critical Race Theory is a branch of Critical Theory, which began as an academic movement in the 1930s. Critical Theory emphasizes the “critique of society and culture in order to reveal and challenge power structures,” as Wikipedia states. Critical Race Theory does the same, with a focus on racial power structures, especially white supremacy and the oppression of people of color.

The “power structure” prism stems largely from Critical Theory’s own roots in Marxism—Critical Theory was developed by members of the Marxist “Frankfurt School.” Traditional Marxism emphasized economic power structures, especially the supremacy of capital over labor under capitalism. Marxism interpreted most of human history as a zero-sum class war for economic power.

“According to the Marxian view,” wrote the economist Ludwig von Mises, “human society is organized into classes whose interests stand in irreconcilable opposition.”

Mises called this view a “conflict doctrine,” which opposed the “harmony doctrine” of classical liberalism. According to the classical liberals, in a free market economy, capitalists and workers were natural allies, not enemies. Indeed, in a free society all rights-respecting individuals were natural allies.

A bitter inheritance

Critical Race Theory arose as a distinct movement in law schools in the late 1980s. CRT inherited many of its premises and perspectives from its Marxist ancestry.

The pre-CRT Civil Rights Movement had emphasized equal rights and treating people as individuals, as opposed to as members of a racial collective. “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character,” Martin Luther King famously said.

In contrast, CRT dwells on inequalities of outcome, which it generally attributes to racial power structures. And, as we’ve seen from the government training curricula, modern CRT forthrightly judges white people by the color of their skin, prejudging them as racist by virtue of their race. This race-based “pre-trial guilty verdict” of racism is itself, by definition, racist.

The classical liberal “harmony doctrine” was deeply influential in the movements to abolish all forms of inequality under the law: from feudal serfdom, to race-based slavery, to Jim Crow.

But, with the rise of Critical Race Theory, the cause of racial justice became more influenced by the fixations on conflict, discord, and domination that CRT inherited from Marxism.

Social life was predominantly cast as a zero-sum struggle between collectives: capital vs. labor for Marxism, whites vs. people of color for CRT.

A huge portion of society’s ills were attributed to one particular collective’s diabolical domination: capitalist hegemony for Marxism, white supremacy for CRT.

Just as Marxism demonized capitalists, CRT vilifies white people. Both try to foment resentment, envy, and a victimhood complex among the oppressed class it claims to champion.

Traditional Marxists claimed that all capitalists benefit from the zero-sum exploitation of workers. Similarly, CRT “diversity trainers” require white trainees to admit that they “benefit from racism.”

Traditional Marxists insisted that bourgeois thoughts were inescapably conditioned by “class interest.” In the same way, CRT trainers push the notion that “virtually all White people contribute to racism” as a result of their whiteness.

Given the above, it should be no wonder that CRT has been criticized as “racist” and “divisive.”

Reckoning or retrogression?

Supporters of CRT cast it as a force for good in today’s “rectifying reckoning” over race.

But CRT’s neo-Marxist orientation only damages race relations and harms the interests of those it claims to serve.

In practice, the class war rhetoric of Marxism was divisive and toxic for economic relations. And, far from advancing the interests of the working classes, it led to mass poverty and devastating famines, not to mention staggering inequality between the elites and the masses.

Today, the CRT-informed philosophy, rhetoric, and strategy of the Black Lives Matter organization (whose leadership professed to be “trained Marxists”) is leading to mass riots, looting, vandalism, and assault. The divisive violence has arrested progress for the cause of police reform, destroyed countless black-owned small businesses, and economically devastated many black communities.

Those who truly wish to see racial harmony should dump the neo-Marxists and learn more about classical liberalism. (FEE.org is the perfect place to start.)

So much for CRT being a force for good. Of course, even horrible ideas are protected by the First Amendment. The government should never use force to suppress people from expressing ideas, speech, or theories it dislikes.

Critics insist that President Trump is engaged in this kind of censorship by targeting CRT.

Not so.

No one is banning White Fragility, the blockbuster CRT manifesto. No one is locking up those who preach CRT or ordering mentions of it stripped from the internet.

The memo simply says that taxpayer dollars will no longer be spent promulgating this theory to federal government employees. As heads of the executive branch, presidents have wide latitude to make the rules for federal agencies under their control. Deciding how money is spent certainly falls under their proper discretion—and it is always done with political preferences in mind, one way or the other.

It is not censorship for Trump to eliminate funding for CRT, anymore than it was “censorship” for the Obama administration to choose to tie federal contracts to a business’s embrace of LGBT rights.

Elections have consequences, one of the most obvious being that the president gets to run the executive branch. If we don’t want the president’s political preferences to be so significant in training programs, then we should simply reduce the size of government and the number of bureaucrats.

In the meantime, stripping the federal government of the divisive, toxic, and neo-Marxist ideology of Critical Race Theory is a positive development for the sake of racial justice and harmony.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

COLUMN BY

Dan Sanchez

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor-in-chief of FEE.org. He co-hosts the weekly web show FEEcast, serving as the resident “explainer.” … 

Tyler Brandt

Tyler Brandt is a Senior Associate Editor at FEE. He is a graduate of UW-Madison with a B.A. in Political Science. In college, Tyler was a FEE Campus Ambassador, President of his campus YAL chapter, and… 

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and the Eugene S. Thorpe Writing Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education. He was previously a Media and Journalism Fellow at… 

RELATED ARTICLES:

STUDY: Black Lives Matter Accounts For Nearly 100% of Riots Across the Country Over 3 Months

Lest we forget, some US slave owners were honorable men

Helping our teens navigate gender ideology: ages 14-18

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

Majority of Americans support Trump immigration ‘ban’ from terror hotspots

You are not alone!

Check it out!  Vox (the website that featured my work recently, here) reports that the majority of Americans support President Trump’s Executive Order to keep us safe from immigrants coming from certain parts of the world—keep us safe from terrorists trying to enter the country.

But, if the pollsters throw in mumbo-jumbo about “refugees” and phrases like “in keeping with US’s founding principles” they get more respondents to oppose the order.   The key message that resonates is one that uses the word “terrorism.”

Read it here.  Very interesting as Vox sends a message to its mostly Leftwing and Open Borders readers on how to use certain language to make their case.

I haven’t seen anything like this on mainstream cable media have you?

immigration poll supports trump ban

POLLS ON TRUMP EOS

Don’t waver Donald!

CNN and other Left-leaning news sites will show us non-stop clips of protesters opposing this EO making us all believe that we are in the minority, but never reveal that average Americans agree with Donald Trump on this! It is, as Trump says, “common sense!”

Sick of it? You can join like-minded Americans at upcoming rallies.  Go here (Spirit of America Rallies) and see if one is scheduled near you!

RELATED VIDEO: Pamela Geller on Trump’s “gorgeous” executive order is NOT a “Muslim ban.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Does Donald Trump know he can cap refugee program now?

The Trump Effect

Bloomberg: Trump’s refugee ceiling of 50,000 could hurt BIG MEAT

The Ninth Circuit Ignores Precedent and Threatens National Security – Wall Street Journal

Trump White House Says All Legal Options Still Being Considered, Ninth Circuit Court Judge Calls For En Banc Hearing

Krauthammer: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘A Disgraceful Conclusion’ – VIDEO

Hundreds Of Syrian, Iraqi Refugees Admitted To U.S. Since Trump Order Halted

Why the 9th Circuit Order Was Wrong, and What Trump Should Do About It

BREAKING: New Poll Shows SURPRISING Numbers For Trump….Liberals DUMBFOUNDED [VIDEO]

1,051 Refugees from banned countries admitted to U.S. since Presidential Executive Order

And, since October 1, 2016 (the first day of fiscal year 2017) we are up to 34,430—still time for the Trump Administration to cap entry for this year at less than 50,000 (my suggestion is 35,000).

I’m glad to see so many news outlets now tracking refugee numbers, something not done until the last year or so. (You will see some slight discrepancies in numbers depending on what parameters are entered at Wrapsnet and what time of day the reporter accessed the State Department data base.)

Here is what I have this morning:

Since President Trump’s Executive Order on the evening of 1/27, the State Department and its contractors have hustled and placed 2,305 refugees.  (Remember that although the ‘ban’ has been stymied by court wrangling, the 50,000 ceiling, a reduction from Obama’s proposed 110,000, stays in effect.)

Of the 2,305, 1,051 come from the countries that were included in the ban as follows:

Iraq (341)
Iran (115)
Somalia (156)
Sudan (37)
Syria (402) (400 of the Syrians are Muslims and only 2 Christians)
Libya (0)
Yemen (0)

Total:  1,051

Religions?

An Indonesia policeman distributes used clothes to migrants believed to be Rohingya inside a shelter in Lhoksukon, Indonesia's Aceh Province May 11, 2015. Nearly 600 migrants thought to be Rohingya refugees and Bangladeshis were rescued from at least two wooden boats stranded off the coast of Indonesia's northern Aceh province, authorities said on Sunday. REUTERS/Roni Bintang

An Indonesia policeman distributes used clothes to migrants believed to be Rohingya inside a shelter in Lhoksukon, Indonesia’s Aceh Province May 11, 2015. REUTERS/Roni Bintang

One thing you need to know is that all of those coming from places like Iran and Iraq are not Muslims, some are Christians and other minorities.

It defies all common sense to believe Rohingya boat people can be security screened. Story and photo here. 

But the total number of Muslims in the group of 2,305 is 1,022.

In addition to those countries above, we admitted Muslim refugees from the following countries: Afghanistan, Burma, DR Congo, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan and Palestine.

In fact 19 of the 87 Burmese we admitted are Muslims.  These are probably the Rohingya boat people who went illegally to places like Malaysia, and I maintain cannot be thoroughly vetted any better than Syrians or Somalis.

This post is filed in our Trump Watch! category as well as ‘refugee statistics’ and ‘where to find information.’

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Refugees entering U.S. doubled in rate since ruling on Trump travel ban – Washington Times

Virginia: Immigrant Ex-National Guardsman Gets 11 Years for ISIS Support

Springfield, Mass mayor blasts Jewish Family Services for placing more refugees without notice

U.S. halts vetting of Australia’s rejected asylum seekers

Hohmann’s “Stealth Invasion” is Amazon #1 best seller in Terrorism category

What will happen when a Muslim girl showers with a male who thinks he’s a girl?

After all, you have to laugh sometimes! Our reader domstudent11 posed this little query which demonstrates so hilariously how the Left will tie itself into knots with its political correctness nonsense!

From domstudent11:

restroom sign

Here’s what baffles me: at the same time that Obama is suing North Carolina for it’s “bathroom” law and trying to bully schools into mingling boys and girls in bathrooms and locker rooms, he is “importing” thousands of Muslims who would find it permissible to attack a non-relative male seen with any of their women.

What does he think will happen when Muslim girls are forced to shower with males who “think” they are female?

What does he think will happen when a Muslim husband sees a man (who “feels” like a woman) following his wife into a public restroom?

The only solution I can see is that public facilities and schools will be expected to provide an additional bathroom/locker room for Muslim girls only. Muslim boys would be free, of course, to share the facilities with infidel girls (if they are feeling like girls on any given day). Fair isn’t it?  Other suggestions?

This post is archived in our ‘Comments worth noting’ category, here.

Afterthought: Where is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) on Obama’s bathroom policy?

RELATED CARTOON: 

liberal logis gays mulim islamophobia graphic

EDITORS NOTE: Here are passages from the Qur’an and Hadith on sodomy:

“Do you approach males among the worlds. And leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a people transgressing.” They said, “If you do not desist, O Lot, you will surely be of those evicted.” He said, “Indeed, I am, toward your deed, of those who detest [it].” — Quran, Sura 26 (Ash-Shu’ara), 165-168

And [mention] Lot, when he said to his people, “Do you commit immorality while you are seeing? Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly.” — Quran, Sura 27 (An-Naml), 54-55

“If you find someone doing the deed of the people of Lot, then execute the doer and the one to whom it was done.” reported by Ibn Abbas, Book of Legal Punishment, Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Book 17, Hadith 40 [Number 1456], Hasan.

Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women – bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way. And the two who commit it among you, dishonor them both. But if they repent and correct themselves, leave them alone. Indeed, Allah is ever Accepting of repentance and Merciful. — Quran, Sura 4 (An-Nisa), 15-16

Here are passages from the Qur’an on the roles of men and women:

Quran (4:34)“Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.”

Quran (2:228)“and the men are a degree above them”

Quran (33:59)“Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them…” Men determine how women dress.

Quran (33:33)“And abide quietly in your homes…” Women are confined to their homes except when they have permission to go out.

Quran (2:223)“Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will.” Wives are to be sexually available to their husbands in all ways at all times. They serve their husbands at his command. This verse is believed to refer to anal sex (see Bukhari 60:51), and was “revealed” when women complained to Muhammad about the practice. The phrase “when and how you will” means that they lost their case.

Quran (66:5)“Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins” A disobedient wife can be replaced.

VIDEO: Gun Control Debate in the Sunshine State

Christian Ziegler, the Republican Party of Sarasota State Committeeman was on the Alan ABC Channel 7 to debate President Obama’s Executive Order on gun control. Ziegler was on the Alan Cohn Show. Cohn is anchor and managing editor of ABC 7 News at 7:00 p.m

In an email Ziegler wrote:

I appeared on WWSB ABC 7 tonight to debate Ed James III, Democrat for FL House, about President Obama’s Executive Order on Gun Control.

Click here to watch the debate and then, if you have any thoughts about this issue, please reply back to this email [Inform@christiangop.com] and share them with me.

-Christian Ziegler
State Committeeman, Sarasota County

Here is the video of the Alan Cohn Show debate:

RELATED ARTICLE: The Facts Behind 4 of Obama’s Claims About Guns

Obama Executive Order bans guns in all films – Quentin Tarantino and the Islamic State respond

President Obama will sign an Executive Order to add additional federal controls impacting the use, ownership, sale and transfer of guns. A key provision requires doctor’s and healthcare providers report mentally ill patients to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Politico’s David Pittman reports:

Delivering on its promise to deliver “common sense” gun control, the Obama administration on Monday finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.

Read more.

California doctors and healthcare providers have begun reporting the names of numerous Hollywood producers, directors, actors and actresses to the FBI. Among those being reported to the FBI are: Hans Solo, Kylo Ren, Quentin Tarantino, Daniel Craig, and the entire staff of Marvel Studios. The growing list reads like a who’s who of the Hollywood elite.

saf-afra-ken-howard

Screen Actors Guild President Ken Howard.

Screen Actors Guild President Ken Howard and the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA) President Roberta Reardon in a joint press release state:

After all of the money we have donated to President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party this un-Constitutional action clearly discriminates against our members. It is racist and Hollywood-phobic. Our members now have a target on their backs, no pun intended.

We have joined with the ACLU to file a lawsuit with the 9th Circuit of Appeals asking for a stay of President Obama’s Executive Order.

This action will take guns, light sabers, samurai swords, knives and other weapons of violence off the silver screen. What would John Wayne say about being disarmed? This action will destroy the biggest draw to our movie theaters –  non-linear story-lines, satirical subject matter, and the anesthetization to gun violence.

We’re talking about taking food out of the mouths of our membership. How will they feed their families, some have more than one, if guns are taken off the table, no pun intended.

Quentin Tarantino interviewed on the set of his next film “8 Guns, 9 Guns, and More Guns” in a brief statement said, “What the (expletive deleted) does Obama think he’s doing?” Tarantino is considering changing the title of his film to “8 Bananas, 9 Bananas, and More Bananas.”

Mohammed M. Mohammed, Islamic State Bureau of Muslim Arts and Film Making spokes person.

The Islamic State Bureau of Muslim Arts and Film Making issued a statement. Mohammed M. Mohammed, their 9-year old spokes person, at the site of the newest Islamic State YouTube video “Beheading the Easy Way or How to Stab a Jew”, stated:

Jews control Hollywood. By the grace of Mohammed, may peace be upon him, Obama has now disarmed our Zionist enemies in Hollywood. We welcome the news of President Obama’s Executive Order. It is now time to disarm non-Muslims, all of whom are suffering from mental illness.

As Muslims we are not bound by President Obama’s Executive Order as we are the world’s only sane people because we follow the Prophet Mohammed, may peace be upon him, and Muslim law which requires us to stab the non-believers.

As the only “religion of peace”, we, the soldiers of the Islamic State, can now expand the slaughter of all non-believers (infidels) in California from San Bernardino to Hollywood and beyond.

It it time to put an end to the fornication and violence we see coming out of the likes of Tarantino, Marvel Studios and their Jewish backers.

black girl with guns

A Trump supporter sent us this photo of how she feels about gun control. A picture is worth a thousand words. Photo: Facebook.

CNN’s Eugene Scott and Tom LoBianco report:

Donald Trump on Saturday vowed to “unsign” President Barack Obama’s plans to tighten gun control via executive action, telling a packed rally in Biloxi, Mississippi, that he would protect the right to bear arms.

“There’s an assault on the Second Amendment. You know Obama’s going to do an executive order and really knock the hell out of it,” Trump said. “You know, the system’s supposed to be you get the Democrats, you get the Republicans, and you make deals. He can’t do that. He can’t do that. So he’s going to sign another executive order having to do with the Second Amendment, having to do with guns. I will veto. I will unsign that so fast.”

Watch the video and read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: America Doesn’t Have a Gun Problem, It Has a Democrat Problem

RELATED VIDEO:  Trump train still running strong:

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire column originally appeared in the Not Hollywood Reporter and Americans without a Rifle magazine.

Obama to waive Sanctions? Tweet Your State Governor to Sue the President in Federal Court!

According to reports out of Tehran, President Obama is poised to wave sanctions next week. This despite Congressonal outrage over Iran’s violation of bans against missile testing .  Note this comment in a Washington Free Beacon report:

“The ink isn’t even dry on President Obama’s nuclear agreement and Iran is already breaking rules,” Sen. David Perdue (R., Ga.) said on Thursday. “This should not come as a surprise to anyone since Iran has cheated on every deal.”

Iran’s missile test and disclosure of underground  sites  occurred just before  yesterday’s initiation date of October 15, 2015 for the JCPOA Iran nuclear deal. Incredulously, White House spokesperson Josh Earnest said that Iran’s  missile test have nothing to do the nuclear pact. Really?  The only reason for testing precision guide missile is to launch nuclear weapons. Watch this Reuters  video of Earnest’s White House Daily Press Briefing on JCPOA ‘initiation day:”

Now, it is your turn to do something: Tweet your state Governor to sue  Obama  in Federal court for unlawful conduct.  That is what the members of the Dallas Task Force of the Lisa Benson Radio Show National Security Task Force of America (NSTFA) are doing.

Congress is on vacation and lost the opportunity to sue the President when minority Democrat Senators spiked a Republican majority sponsored resolution last month rejecting the Iran deal. Further, while the Senate has standing to sue the President in Federal court over his mishandling of the Iran nuclear pact and review by Congress, it  is unable to pass a resolution authorizing that suit as it lacks a super majority.  Noted Washington, DC Constitutional litigator, David B. Rivkin, Jr. of the Baker Hostetler Law firm, who has brought successful Federal Court suits on separation of powers grounds over the Affordable Care Act, thinks that the 30 states that passed Iran sanctions laws under Federal Law would have standing to bring a similar cause of action.

So the  Dallas members of the (NSTFA)  are sending  tweets containing  messages urging Texas  Governor Abbott , Attorney General Paxton  and Texas state legislators to  join with  Republican gubernatorial colleagues  in 14 other States to file a suit in Federal court. That might possibly  stop the clock on implementation of the Iran nuclear deal by December 15, 2015 preventing release of  upwards of $100 billion in sequestered funds . That assumes Iran gets a rubber stamp of approval from the UN nuclear Watchdog agency, the IAEA about its prior military developments. Iran suggests it only has peaceful nuclear energy applications or intentions despite enrichment of uranium and building plutonium producing heavy water reactor . They have only one purpose; providing fissile material for an arsenal of nuclear weapons.    Iran is counting on release of those funds to support global terrorism including aiming ICBMs at the US and allies in Europe and the Middle East, like Israel.  Iran already has a running start on that. The 2013 interim Joint Plan of Action released $12.9 billion in sequestered funds.  Further, Swiss Banking authorities released $60 billion in hard currency reserves of Iran that were held by member banks.  That was just a few days after the UN Security Council, including the US, unanimously endorsed, the  Joint Comprehensive  Plan of Action (JCPOA) .

Now there is further cause for action by American citizens.  Just this week Iran disclosed it violated a UN Security Council resolution  barring testing of  ballistic missile technology by launching a precision guided Missile , the Emad, or  pillar in Farsi,  with a range of 1,700 kilometers. That would have sufficient range to hit Israel, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Egypt and NATO members in Europe.  That same guided missile would be capable of lofting a nuclear bomb in a satellite into a polar orbit.  If detonated over the US  that could trigger a devastating Electronic Magnetic Pulse (EMP) effect shutting down our digital economy and power grid possibly resulting in millions of casualties.  If that wasn’t enough, we had a senior Revolutionary Guards officer threaten to attack US interests in the Gulf of Mexico.  Moreover, despite approval of the Iran nuclear deal by what passes for its parliament, the Majlis,  the  Iranian  Council of Guardians ratified  the amended law that it didn’t violate Islamic Sharia law. Ayatollah Khamenei  forbid  further negotiations with the US with calls from his hard liners chanting “Death to America”.  Iran is already in an alliance with Russia, Syria and Iraq sending funds, weapons and more than 7,000 Revolutionary Guard  to prop up the Assad Regime in Damascus, isolating America’s allies in the Middle East.

Texas has standing before Federal courts to bring a suit against the President. Texas and 29 other states  enacted state Iran sanctions laws, authorized under a 2010 Federal Comprehensive Iran Sanctions law.   Moreover, the executive order that the President  signed today recognizing the UN recommended JCPOA may be in violation of the failed Corker –Cardin Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. Further  there  a 2012 federal law closing the loophole licensing foreign subsidiaries of US parent corporations barring them from doing business in Iran.

15 States, including Texas, signed a letter authored by Florida Governor Rick Scott objecting to the President’s mishandling of the Iran nuclear act negotiations that drew attention to state sanctions statutes.

As noted in the Miami Herald “Naked Politics” blog, “the [September 8th] letter focused concerns about how it would affect pension divestment policies and contracting restrictions.” The governors’ letter supported the position articulated by Washington, DC constitutional litigator David Rivkin, Esq.:

Paragraph 25 of the Iran nuclear agreement provides that the federal government will “actively encourage” states to lift state-level sanctions such as the divestment and contracting restriction laws,” the letter states. “While Secretary Kerry confirmed in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the agreement will not preempt state law because it is not a treaty, we are concerned about what steps your Administration may take to attempt to implement paragraph 25. Therefore, we wish to make it clear to you in advance of any efforts to implement paragraph 25 that we intend to ensure that the various state-level sanctions that are now in effect remain in effect. These state-level sanctions are critically important and must be maintained.’

The letter was signed by Govs. Scott, Doug Ducey of Arizona, Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, Mike Pence of Indiana, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Phil Bryant of Mississippi, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota, John Kasich of Ohio, Mary Fallin of Oklahoma, Nikki Haley of South Carolina, Dennis Daugaard of South Dakota, Greg Abbott of Texas, Gary Herbert of Utah, and Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

In our NER article on the question of states having the authority to bring possible federal litigation over sanctions relief, we noted this comment from an August 2015 Steptoe International Compliance blog post on “The  JCPOA and State Sanctions:”

The Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) does not say much about Iran sanctions imposed by US state governments. … These state restrictions can be more extensive in scope than US federal sanctions. For example, some state restrictions (e.g. in Florida) attach automatically to the parent entity of the company who engages in certain Iran activities. Laws in many states provide for the lifting of Iran sanctions when the President removes Iran from the list of countries that support terrorism; but the JCPOA does not do that, and, as a result, Iran sanction laws in most states will remain intact

Below are  what the Dallas NSTFA  will be tweeting  Texas Governor Abbott, Attorney General Paxton, every state legislator, the Texas Congressional  delegations in both the US Senate and House, as well major media in the Lone Star State.  You can do the same along with like minded citizens in the 13 remaining states. A number of us will be doing that here in Florida. All you have to do is change the name of your respective state, state officials and Google their Tweet addresses on-line. Then  get your  teams to retweet them.  Can we count on you to do the same in the remaining states of Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Wisconsin?

StateSealofTexasSealSuggested Tweets for Texas National Security Task Force President Obama Signing Executive Order For Iran Nuclear Deal:

#Texas Sue Obama over Iran Deal: Gov. Abbott Sue  in Federal Court Now!
# Texas Sue Obama over Iran Deal: Iran Violated Deal before Obama Signed
#Texas Sue Obama over Iran Deal:  Texas Iran Sanctions Law Gives Standing to Sue
#Texas Sue Obama over Iran Deal:  Stop Iran Missiles aimed at US Now!
# Texas Sue Obama over Iran Deal:  Demand Iran Release 4 Americans Now!
#Texas Sue Obama over Iran Deal:  Iran  Already Received  $72 Billion  back!
#Texas Sue Obama Over Iran Deal:  Pay US Victims of Iran Terror First!
#Texas Sue Obama Over Iran Deal:   Congress Didn’t Sue but Texas Can!
#Texas Sue Obama Over Iran Deal:  Gov. Abbott Join 14 States Who Objected to Iran Deal in Federal Court
#Texas Sue Obama Over Iran Deal:  AG Paxton file Federal Court brief now!
#Texas Sue Obama Over Iran Deal:  Stop Iran Nuke EMP attack!
# Texas Sue Obama Over Iran Deal: Keep Iran Out of the Gulf of Mexico!
#Texas Sue Obama Over Iran Deal: You can Stop Iran Nukes  Now!
#Texas Sue Obama Over Iran Deal: Texas  Legislature Pass Resolution to  file Suit  Now!
#Texas Sue Obama over Iran Deal: Pres. violated Iran Laws He Signed !
#Texas Sue Obama Over Iran Deal: Make the Lone Star State  First to File  in Federal Court

Consult these New English Review articles and Iconoclast blog posts for further background information:

Obama Poised to Sign Iran Deal: Time for the States to Bring ...

Can the States Stop Implementation of Iran Nuclear Deal …

Could The JCPOA be in Violation of a 2012 Iran Sanctions …

Can States Prevent Release of Iran Sanctions through Federal Litigation?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review.

Senator Tom Cotton’s Open Challenge to Ayatollah Khamenei and President Obama on Nuclear Deal with Iran

Tall Lincolnesque Arkansas Junior Senator Tom Cotton did his constituents and all Americans proud.  His open letter to Iran’s Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Khamenei signed by 47 fellow Republican Senators was a ringing Constitutional declaration of Senate authority to review major international treaties. A rather remarkable achievement for the youngest US Senator  in the 114th Session of Congress following his electoral victory  on November 4, 2014  over incumbent Democrat Mark Pryor.  His letter put on notice the theocratic tyrant in Tehran that the US Senate had the right under Article II, Sec. 2 of our Constitution to advise and consent on treaties negotiated by the Executive branch of our government.  Moreover it put the Supreme notice that Congress has the right to vote on the lifting of any sanctions passed under existing legislation and signed into law by President Obama. Further, it basically informed Iran’s Supreme Ruler and its President that any bilateral agreement entered into by executive order by the President would be null and void upon his leaving office and the end of his second and final term.

Josh Rogin in his Bloomberg report captured the essence of this latest riposte to President Obama in the headline, “Republicans Warn Iran — and Obama — That Deal Won’t Last.”  He noted:

Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber’s entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.

“It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”

Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal — — which is reportedly near done — especially if it is working reasonably well.

Cotton told Rogin:

Iran’s ayatollahs need to know before agreeing to any nuclear deal that … any unilateral executive agreement is one they accept at their own peril.

Rogin went on to note an ironic precedent by Vice President Biden;

Vice President Joe Biden similarly insisted — in a letter to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell — on congressional approval for the Moscow Treaty on strategic nuclear weapons with Russia in 2002, when he was head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

He further noted that Cotton’s letter came against the backdrop of recent review legislation:

The new letter is the latest piece of an effort by Senators in both parties to ensure that Congress will have some say if and when a deal is signed. Senators Bob Corker, Lindsey Graham, Tim Kaine and the embattled Bob Menendez have a bill pending that would mandate a Congressional review of the Iran deal, but Republicans and Democrats have been bickering over how to proceed in the face of a threatened presidential veto.

The relevant language of Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution reads:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.

Article II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution:

Gives the Senate a share in foreign policy by requiring Senate consent, by a two-thirds vote, to any treaty before it may go into effect. The president may enter into “executive agreements” with other nations without the Senate’s consent, but if these involve more than minor matters they may prove controversial.

The emerging so-called phased P5+1 deal to forestall Iran from becoming a threshold nuclear state is anything but “minor.”  The Islamic Republic’s possession of nuclear weapons is a threat to Israel, America and the World.  In the hands of an apocalyptic Mahdist Shiite Islamic Republic nuclear weapons would foment chaos.  The chaos these madmen are eager to trigger they bizarrely believe would bring  about the rise from his slumber their moribund Messiah, the 12th Imam, from the Holy Well in the Holy city of Qom, Iran.  Just recall the first action of former Iranian President Ahmadinejad was to have his cabinet sign a letter to this effect that was deposited in that well in Qom.  Those possible Iranian nuclear weapons and the means of delivery could result in Islamic domination of the World and the possible destruction of both the reviled Great Satan (the U.S.) and Little Satan (Israel).

The reaction from Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif about the open letter to Iran’s leadership was:

In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.

The Democrats in the Senate were apoplectic.  Senate minority leader Harry Reid said, “Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs.”  White House press Spokesman Josh Earnest said in reaction to the Republican Senate “open letter”:

Just the latest in an ongoing strategy, a partisan strategy, to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.

President Obama said:

It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran.

Sen. Cotton issued this statement following Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address before a Joint Meeting of Congress on March 3rd:

I am happy to welcome a truly courageous leader to address the Congress today.  There is no one better equipped to discuss the danger posed by a nuclear Iran than Prime Minister Netanyahu. For decades, Iran has had as its expressed goal for Israel to be ‘wiped off the face of the earth’ and has been a lead financier and arms supplier of terrorist organizations dedicated to destroying Israel. If Iran is allowed to retain their nuclear program, the United States will find itself in a similar position.

The Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran have become an endless series of concessions. Any deal reached at the end of this month will inevitably empower our enemies and put our national security at risk. It is up to Congress to stand with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel and restore the credible threat of force against Iran to permanently end their nuclear program.

We wrote this about Senator Cotton when he was elected on November 5, 2014:

Cotton, reading a profile of him by retired Harvard Professor Ruth Wisse in The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), had a career that resonated. He was a highly educated double Harvard graduate who voluntarily served as an Infantry officer in the US Army during the Iraq-Afghanistan conflict.  Wisse’s WSJ op-ed   was an unabashed endorsement, “Vote for Tom Cotton—and Redeem Harvard”.

[…]

Cotton is a sixth generation Arkansan from a cattle raising ranching family in the small community of Dardanelle, Arkansas. A graduate of both Harvard College and Law School, motivated by the events of 9/11, he rejected a JAG Commission. Instead, he volunteered   to go through OCS at Fort Benning and trained at both the Infantry and Ranger Schools.  Cotton served from 2005 to 2009. He had two tours, one in Iraq and a second in Afghanistan with the famed Screaming Eagles, the 101st Airborne, rising to the rank of Captain and received a Bronze Star for his combat actions. At 6’5″, he was selected as Platoon Leader at the Old Guard that provides the honor guard at the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington Cemetery.

Perhaps the Senator Cotton’s open letter to Iran’s leadership was a forthright confirmation that the Republican leadership in the Congress heard PM Netanyahu’s message.  The letter represented a Constitutional challenge to the Administration asserting the Senate’s rights of review on any agreement that might be reached with Iran by March 31st that also called for lifting Congressional passed sanctions.

RELATED ARTICLE: Israel, Jews, and the Obama Administration

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the New English Review. The featured image is of Arkansas Republican U.S. Senator Tom Cotton.

The Immigration Crisis, National Socialism and Mark Zuckerberg’s Property Rights

The crisis on the Mexican border is worsening by the hour. In his latest FIREWALL titled “Where do you live, Mark Zuckerberg?”, Bill Whittle hammers home three devastating points regarding the dangerous legal precedents, the morally gray areas, and the hypocritical pose of unearned moral superiority on the part of those proposing amnesty and open borders.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/zkN4XiqRnrE[/youtube]

 

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is courtesy of The Guardian.

Message to “defund Obamacare” resonated with Florida grassroots

Jim DeMint speaks at the “Defund Obamacare” town hall tour in Tampa on August 21, 2013. Photo courtesy of Eve Edelheit, Tampa Bay Times staff.

Heritage Foundation President and former Senator Jim DeMint and Raphael Cruz, father of Senator Ted Cruz, came to Tampa, Florida to bring their message that now is the time to defund the Affordable Care Act. The Heritage Action for America sponsored event was over booked. Tampa was the third stop on a nine city tour. Over 850 signed up for the event, with only 550 seats available.

Raphael Cruz gave the invocation and was greeted with a standing ovation when he was introduced by Karen Jaroch, Tampa Regional Coordinator for Heritage Action, as the father of Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz ended the event with a stirring call to action.

Senator DeMint then took the stage to a standing ovation. DeMint looked over a packed house of diverse concerned citizens, who traveled from across the state of Florida. DeMint then said in his soft southern voice, “We had you wait in line to get into this event so you can get used to standing in line to get medical care under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. With the over 550 people jammed into this hall you now know what your doctor’s waiting room will look like very soon.” These comments were like throwing raw meat to the grassroots activists in the audience.

Senator DeMint then went into detail on how the Affordable Care Act can be defunded. DeMint explained defunding Obamacare means attaching a legislative rider to a “must pass” bill (e.g. debt limit, annual spending bill or continuing resolution to fund the government) that 1) prohibits any funds from being spent on any activities to implement or enforce Obamacare; 2) rescinds any unspent balances that have already been appropriated for implementation; and 3) turns off the exchange subsidy and new Medicaid spending that are on auto-pilot.

DeMint was then joined by Mike Needham, Chief Executive Officer for Heritage Action for America, to answer questions. The issue of what is the urgency to defund Obama care now was raised. According to DeMint and Needham on January 1, 2014, Obamacare’s new main entitlements – the Medicaid expansion and the exchange subsidies – are scheduled to take effect. Open enrollment for both programs begins on October 1, 2013, at the start of the new fiscal year. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal government will spend $48 billion in 2014 and nearly $1.8 trillion through 2023 on these new entitlement programs. Also on January 1, Americans will be forced by their government to buy a product, health insurance, for the first time in history. Individuals and families who don’t comply will be penalized by tax penalties administered through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

One Floridian asked Senator DeMint isn’t is mean to not provide the funding for healthcare. Senator DeMint replied that it is mean for the President to promise Americans that they can keep their current insurance and doctors under Obamacare. It is mean for the President to say that health insurance premiums will go down $2,000 when in fact they will go up over $2,000 or more in some states. It is mean for the President to say everyone will receive better health care when we know from the experiences of Canada and England that socialized medicine leads to rationing and poor care, even to patients dying for lack of attention..

The question of some House Republicans supporting the repeal of Obamacare but not defunding it came up.

DeMint noted that some fear if they take a stand on Obamacare it will hurt them in the 2014 elections. He then pointed out that same tactic of “first do no harm” lost Republicans the US Senate and White House twice. DeMint noted that when he was in the Senate, and since he has become President of the Heritage Foundation, he experienced a Republican leadership that will “cut the legs out from under any who oppose them”.

DeMint said that Republicans took the House of Representatives in 2010 and retained the majority in 2012 on the promise of repealing Obamacare. Either Republicans keep their promise or go home and explain why they lied. DeMint noted that repealing Obamacare is not enough. The House has had numerous votes to repeal the law, but the chances of statutorily repealing the law decreased once President Obama won a second term. Those who oppose Obamacare, he said, cannot wait another three and a half years to ” begin dismantling Obamacare; they need to leverage current opportunities to defund using ‘must-pass’ spending bills.” DeMint said time and again, it is now or never.

The Tampa Bay Times PolitiFact blog took exception to four of the things Senator DeMint said during his presentation. However, DeMint’s message clearly resonated with the audience. The devil is always in the details.

ABOUT HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA:

RELATED:

Congressman Mark Meadows : Letter Encouraging House Leadership to Defund Obamacare

Should We Delay or Defund Obamacare?

Rubio supports cleansing Florida voter rolls

rubio-afp

Florida Senator Marco Rubio stated unequivocally, “I wouldn’t characterize it as an effort to purge Latinos from the voting rolls.” At a Bloomberg News breakfast today, June 14th, Senator Rubio went on to say, “I would characterize it as twofold. No. 1 is, I think there’s the goal of ensuring that everyone who votes in Florida is qualified to vote. If you’re not a citizen of the United States, you shouldn’t be voting. That’s the law. And, I mean — I mean, what’s the counter to that, that we’re willing to tolerate 100 illegal voters on our rolls? So I do think that — I mean, why — how could anyone argue against a state identifying people who are not rightfully on the voter rolls and removing them from the voter rolls? They shouldn’t be voting.”

The Department of Justice letter to Governor Scott reads:

… Your June 6 response has provided no information that allows us to change our view that the State’s new list maintenance program for verification of citizen is a “program the purpose of which is to systematically remove the names of ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters,” and that this program is being conducted within the 90-day quiet period established by the (National Voter Registration Act). Likewise, you have provided no information indicating that the program fits within any of the statutory exceptions for programs that may be conducted within that quiet period.

Instead, it appears that Florida has initiated a new program for system voter removal, which may ultimately target more than 180,000 registered voters …

… In these circumstances, continuing with any future mailings on this basis during the 90-day quiet period, or removing persons form the voter registration list for failing to respond to the State’s inquiries to date, violate Section 8 of the NVRA. Please immediately cease this unlawful conduct.

According to John Fund and Quin Hillyer, both Senior Editors at American Spectator, there is no 90-day quiet period in the NVRA for purging illegal voters from the rolls. According to Quin Hillyer, who helps craft Section 8 of the NVRA, it requires Florida to do what it is doing now. Section 8 was put in place to insure voter rolls were maintained in proper order with only legal voters on it.

Senator Rubio noted, “What is the argument in favor of leaving people on the rolls that aren’t qualified to vote in the United States?”