Posts

Do European Labor Laws Lead to Terrorism? by Alex Tabarrok

Why are there poor Muslim ghettos in Europe but not in the United States?

In Belgium, high unemployment and crime-ridden Muslim ghettos have fomented radicalism, but as Jeff Jacoby writes:

Muslims in the United States … have had no problem acclimating to mainstream norms. In a detailed 2011 survey, the Pew Research Center found that Muslim Americans are “highly assimilated into American society and … largely content with their lives.”

More than 80 percent of US Muslims expressed satisfaction with life in America, and 63 percent said they felt no conflict “between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.”

The rates at which they participate in various everyday American activities — from following local sports teams to watching entertainment TV — are similar to those of the American public generally. Half of all Muslim immigrants display the US flag at home, in the office, or on their car.

Jacoby, however, doesn’t explain why these differences exist. One reason is the greater flexibility of American labor markets compared to those in Europe.

Institutions that make it more difficult to hire and fire workers or adjust wages can increase unemployment and reduce employment, especially among immigrant youth. Firms will be less willing to hire if it is very costly to fire. As Tyler and I put it in Modern Principles, how many people will want to go on a date if every date requires a marriage?

The hiring hurdle is especially burdensome for immigrants given the additional real or perceived uncertainty from hiring immigrants. One of the few ways that immigrants can compete in these situations is by offering to work for lower wages. But if that route is blocked by minimum wages, or requirements that every worker receive significant non-wage benefits, unemployment and non-employment among immigrants will be high — generating disaffection, especially among the young.

Huber, for example, (see also Angrist and Kuglerfinds:

Countries with more centralized wage bargaining, stricter product market regulation and countries with a higher union density, have worse labour market outcomes for their immigrants relative to natives even after controlling for compositional effects.

The problem of labor market rigidity is especially acute in Belgium, where the differences between native and immigrant unemployment, employment and wages are among the highest in the OECD. Language difficulties and skills are one reason, but labor market rigidity is another, as this OECD report makes clear:

Belgian labour market settings are generally unfavourable to the employment outcomes of low-skilled workers. Reduced employment rates stem from high labour costs, which deter demand for low-productivity workers…

Furthermore, labour market segmentation and rigidity weigh on the wages and progression prospects of outsiders. With immigrants over-represented among low-wage, vulnerable workers, labour market settings likely hurt the foreign-born disproportionately. …

Minimum wages can create a barrier to employment of low-skilled immigrants, especially for youth. As a proportion of the median wage, the Belgian statutory minimum wage is on the high side in international comparison and sectoral agreements generally provide for even higher minima. This helps to prevent in-work poverty … but risks pricing low-skilled workers out of the labour market (Neumark and Wascher, 2006).

Groups with further real or perceived productivity handicaps, such as youth or immigrants, will be among the most affected.

In 2012, the overall unemployment rate in Belgium was 7.6% (15-64 age group), rising to 19.8% for those in the labour force aged under 25, and, among these, reaching 29.3% and 27.9% for immigrants and their native-born offspring, respectively.

Immigration can benefit both immigrants and natives but achieving those benefits requires the appropriate institutions especially open and flexible labor markets.

This post first appeared at Marginal Revolution.

Alex TabarrokAlex Tabarrok

Alex Tabarrok is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He blogs at Marginal Revolution with Tyler Cowen.

Are Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton now co-chairs of the #DumpTrump campaign?

On Tuesday, March 15th, Donald Trump won Florida, Missouri, Illinois and North Carolina. He lost to Governor Kasich in Ohio. Ted Cruz won no states outright.

florda primary votes by countyNo candidate for the GOP presidential nomination has ever failed to win the sunshine state. The same holds true in the general election.

The GOP must win Florida early in order to put a Republican in the White House on November 8th.

Click here for the 2016 Delegate Count & Primary Results

I received an email titled “One-on-one race” from the Ted Cruz campaign stating:

Tonight, there is no ambiguity.

I’m the only candidate that has defeated Trump outside my home state, that can unify all conservatives, and who has a pathway to win the delegates necessary to earn the nomination.

It appears that Ted Cruz has, along with Hillary Clinton, joined with those behind the #DumpTrump campaign. Among those groups that have made it their mission to dump Trump are Moveon.org, Black Lives Matter, La Raza, George Soros, the Republican establishment, the main stream media and the elite politicians inside the Washington D.C. beltway.

But can they dump Trump?

Neil Munro, from Breitbart in his column Three-Quarters of GOP Voters Back Donald Trump Nomination, if He Gets Most Delegates”  writes:

Three out of four Republicans believe the party establishment should support Donald Trump if he gets the nomination, whose voter support also has broken through the 50 percent mark, up from 44 percent in late February, according to a new poll from YouGov.

Only 13 percent of the party supporters — or just one in eight voters — say the establishment should oppose Trump if he is nominated, says the March 10 to 12 survey.

“If Trump should win … Republican voters, including those supporting other candidates, want the establishment to support him,” YouGov reported.

I have written in my column “Donald Trump is a ‘Christian Nationalist'”:

Donald Trump went from running a campaign, to heading a movement and is now leading an insurgency. Until today I could not define what was driving this insurgency. I may now have the answer.

Karl Marx wrote: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people“.

Donald Trump is viewed by his followers as the heart of a heartless world, the soul fighting a soulless government and he understands that it is morals that drives him and the American dream. It is religion that is inextricably linked to politics in America. It is something citizens have not seen since the American Revolution.

Senator Ted Cruz does not have the momentum of Donald Trump. If Senator Cruz’s goal is to have just enough delegates to force a brokered convention then he may do more harm to the Republican Party, than good.

Hillary Clinton, the Democrat establishment candidate, has effectively stopped the Bernie insurgency. Should Senator Cruz continue to try to stop the growing Trump insurgency? By doing so will he alienate those who have voted in large numbers for Trump and cause the GOP to split?

It appears the GOP establishment, Hillary Clinton and Senator Cruz want a Republican house divided. Is that a winning political strategy for Republicans November? It certainly is for Democrats.

Time will tell if Donald Trump achieves the needed delegates to win the nomination outright. He is over half way there. As some have said, nothing can seem to stop the Trump Train.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Donald Trump Super Tuesday Press Conference After Winning FL, IL, NC (3-15-16)

Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” questioned why primaries and caucuses are even held. Haugland states, “We choose the nominee, not the voters“:

RELATED ARTICLES:

We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official

The GOP Sellout Continues

Why Washington’s Political Class Is Losing Control

ICE: 124 illegal immigrants released from jail later charged in 138 murder cases

BEYOND DISTRUST: How Americans View Their Government – PEW Research

The ‘Compassionate’ Bullying of the Left

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump © Mike Stone / Reuters.

By The Numbers Q&A Edition — The Untold Story of Muslim Opinions & Demographics

By The Numbers kick started an open conversation about radical Islam. In response to the thousands of questions and comments, Raheel Raza addresses some of the key questions. Can we speak out, are we Islamaphobic for doing so and aren’t you afraid to speak out.

Further to our release of the now viral film By The Numbers, Raheel Raza answers some of the most pressing questions our supporters posed to us about speaking out against radical Islam, Islamaphobia and the fear of those that break the political correctness.

Watch Clarion Projects new film, narrated by Raheel Raza, on radical Islam and the answers we need to know.
The conversation starts here. Be empowered to make rational decisions about our future.

After seeing the film we want to know what you think. Please take the time to send us your thoughts and comments.

Skewed Immigration Polls May Skewer Americans

Figures don’t lie but liars can figure.

The 24 hour news cycle has driven the demand for more “talking heads” that can appear on news programs to provide information, perspectives and, all too often (unfortunately), utter nonsense.

Computer programmers have an acronym, GIGO (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out), that essentially says, ‘if you begin with wrong information the results will be no less flawed’: This is the problem with polls.

Surveys and polls are not new, but today nearly every industry depends on polls, surveys and focus groups to make decisions about how to conduct business to maximize the potential for success.

Consequently, our political leaders often stake out or modify their positions on issues to parallel what pollsters claimrepresents the concerns of likely voters.

When the pollsters get it wrong, the people who make decisions based on those polls will also–of necessity–get it wrong.

A person running from a mob is not leading that mob. He is simply running for his life. This is, all too often, what passes for “leadership” in America today. This is why so many candidates are said to “waffle,” going back and forth on their stated positions on critical issues. They are guiding their positions on the results of polls that may not even be providing accurate information.

Politicians often assume positions out of a fear of losing votes and, hence, an election. Instead of being true leaders who have a clear vision and, through demonstration of their leadership, convince people to vote for their vision, they chase voters―pandering to what they think voters want.

I have come to refer such political “leaders” as “human metronomes” or “human weathervanes.” Not unlike tumbleweeds, they go in the direction that perceived public opinion takes them.

All too often, the polls, upon which so many decisions are made, are fatally flawed.

Generally, polling surveys include a list of issues and the respondent is supposed to either select the one issue of greatest concern or to arrange the issues according to the degree to which they are of greatest concern.

The problem with multiple choice questions is that they prevent those responding to the questions consideration for all of the real-world possibilities.

I recently received a questionnaire that asked me to pick the number one concern I have. It included the threat of terrorism, the economic crisis, healthcare concerns and immigration.

The survey only permitted me to make one selection. The problem is that immigration is actually a major component in all of the other issues.

However, since the survey does not permit the participant to check off more than one item on the list of issues of greatest concern, anyone who was most concerned about terrorism would likely select the threat of terrorism as his/her most serious concern. Similarly, participants in the survey who may be concerned about losing their jobs might select the economic crisis as being their greatest concern. However, many Americans have lost their jobs to foreign workers and this fact may be an important issue for respondents, but the way that the survey is structured, immigration would not be selected.

When all of the results are tallied by the polling company, immigration may well be on the bottom of a list of issues, notwithstanding the fact that immigration is actually the most important issue on that list because it is a major factor in nearly every other issue that concerns Americans.

Today, understandably, we are told the majority of Americans are most concerned about the threat of a terror attack. Indeed, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, and other high-ranking members of the U.S. intelligence community have publicly stated that ISIS plans to carry out deadly terror attacks inside the United States this year. Consider the February 9, 2016 CNN report, “Top intelligence official: ISIS to attempt U.S. attacks this year.”

That troubling report included this excerpt:

Clapper warned that ISIS and its eight branches were the No. 1 terrorist threat, and that it was using the refugee exodus from violence in Iraq and Syria to hide among innocent civilians in order to reach other countries.

Clapper said ISIS was “taking advantage of the torrent of migrants to insert operatives into that flow,” adding that they were “pretty skilled at phony passports so they can travel ostensibly as legitimate travelers.”

ISIS fighters have reportedly seized Syrian passport facilities with machines capable of manufacturing passports.

The testimony follows the director of National Intelligence’s release of the “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community.”

The assessment notes that “approximately five dozen” ISIS-linked people were arrested in the U.S. during 2015.

Entry of terrorists into the United States is indisputably the domain of immigration.

Additionally, the FBI has reported that it has multiple terror investigations ongoing in all 50 states.

The 9/11 Commission determined that multitudes of failures of the immigration system enabled not only the 19 terrorists who carried out the hijackings and attacks of September 11, 2001, but other terrorists as well to enter the United States and embed themselves. Indeed, since the 9/11 Commission Report was published, a series of additional terror attacks were carried out in the United States by aliens who gamed the visa process and/or the immigration system to acquire political asylum, lawful immigrant status and even United States citizenship.

The bottom line is that successfully combating terrorism absolutely requires that our immigration system operates effectively to prevent terrorists from entering the United States in the first place. Effective immigration enforcement can also thwart the efforts of terrorists who seek to embed themselves in our country as they go about their deadly preparations. However, this nexus between immigration and national security is not a component of the polls.

The economy is always a key issue for American voters. In fact, when Bill Clinton first ran for President, it was reported that his campaign offices had posted a simple sign in the walls of those offices that stated simply, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

Consider how many Americans have lost their jobs to foreign workers, including within high-tech industries who have been welcomed into the United States with H-1B visas and other such visas.

Again, immigration is a critical component.

All too often, because most people are conformists and eager to “go along to get along,” they form their opinions on the basis of polls. Few people have the guts to swim against the tide of public opinion. If there is “safety in numbers,” then it is far safer to engage in “group think” and jump on the “bandwagon” rather than to go against popular opinion.

National Geographic has been airing a series known as “Brain Games” that explores how the human mind functions. Recently, an episode aired that is well worth watching, “Peer Pressure.” In this program, people actually decided to follow the majority even when their own instincts told them that the majority was getting it wrong.

Another episode of Brain Games, “Power of Persuasion,” provided insight into how easy it is to manipulate decisions people make, convincing them to modify their positions to coincide with what they believe the majority accepted.

However, when the findings of polls are at odds with the demands of major campaign contributors, all too many politicians seek to create illusions that they are meeting the demands of the majority of constituents while making certain that their contributors are getting what they are paying for.

Even when immigration is seen as a major factor in the polls, politicians create illusions by spending huge sums of taxpayer money on worthless programs such as deploying unmanned drones along the border rather than manned Border Patrol helicopters. Government studies have shown that drones are very costly but virtually worthless. Manned helicopters can be extremely effective and are generally far less expensive.

Duplicitous politicians also propose additional “solutions” that are ineffective and posit explanations that, when carefully scrutinized, reveal just how outrageous they are.

Such a false claim is the argument that, since we cannot deport all of the millions of illegal aliens already present in the United States, we must deal with them–however, not before we “secure the U.S./Mexican border.” No laws are enforced all of the time. Indeed, it could be successfully argued that motor vehicle laws are less enforced and less enforceable than our immigration laws. Yet no one would argue to do away with drunk driving laws, texting while driving laws or speed laws.

Yet where immigration is concerned, the fact that we cannot enforce the laws 100% of the time provides fatuous justification for not enforcing our immigration laws against millions of illegal aliens present in the United States.

America has 50 border states, yet we are constantly told that we simply need to secure the U.S./Mexican border, while ignoring that aliens enter the United States by running the northern border, stowing away on ships or by entering legally as non-immigrant (temporary) visitors who then go on to violate the terms of their admission.

The obvious solution is to effectively enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States – but this would conflict with the demands of the campaign contributors.

It has been said that the only polls that counts are the polls that are open on Election Day.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Sanctuary Cities Endanger – National Security and Public Safety

How DHS Ineptitude Facilitates Terrorist Operations

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Front Page Magazine.

Progress Will Hurt Blameless People by Aaron Ross Powell

There’s an unfortunate tendency among some free market advocates to blame the victim: If you can’t find work, it’s because you’re lazy or you somehow screwed up. Hard work’s all that’s necessary to succeed. But of course that’s not true. It’s quite easy to think of counterexamples. We know creative destruction is a necessary part of a well-functioning economy. Market churn means people lose their jobs through no fault of their own, and shifts in technology and consumer preferences mean that skills once lucrative can suddenly become relatively worthless. Markets are overwhelmingly good, yes, and are responsible for the astonishing amelioration of poverty we’ve seen since the Industrial Revolution, but they have their victims.

A changing global economy has meant a changing American economy and a changing American economy has meant that some people who did well in the old pattern are having a harder time in the new. This harder time is felt by, among others, a segment of America’s lower-middle class who used to be able to find decent-paying jobs that demanded physical labor and the kinds of skills you don’t learn in school.

That segment increasingly faces a fact about the modern economy: Unless you’re a knowledge worker, it’s become a whole lot harder to find a well-paying, stable, long-term job because the skills you bring to an employer aren’t as in demand as they used to be.

And that’s awful for the people going through it. We can say that free markets change over time and that those changes lead to more prosperity in the long term, and that’s true. But it doesn’t make life better for the machinist or construction worker without a college degree and without much retirement savings. Empathy seems an appropriate response by those of us not facing such hardship.

That even well-functioning markets hurt some people some of the time makes selling market solutions to policy problems often a difficult task. We know that the solution to unemployment or underemployment is more economic freedom. Get rid of the barriers to entry and the protectionist policies keeping afloat what would otherwise be failing firms. Enable private schools to create a robust and successful educational system so more people have the skills needed to succeed in a modern economy. Open trade with the rest of the world, so we can grow our economy, buy goods at lower prices, and sell into more markets.

But here’s the thing. Every one of those solutions ends up sounding, to the person economically hurting now, like saying, “Leave it alone and things will work themselves out. Don’t know quite how or when, but they will.”

Market solutions are emergent solutions, and emergence takes time and can’t be planned or predicted. In fact, it’s the attempt to plan and predict that leads so many non-market-based policies to fail. Economists understand this and so largely trust markets. But most Americans aren’t economists.

I think this explains, in part, the appeal of people like Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. We see them as misdiagnosing the problems and offering counter-productive, and sometimes abhorrent, “solutions.” Immigrants are taking your jobs. (They aren’t.) So let’s fix it right now by closing the borders. Trade with China is making us poor. (It isn’t.) So let’s fix it now by establishing quotas and tariffs.

But to people hurting right now, people like Trump or Sanders offer something free markets can’t: certainty, even if illusory. These people right here are the cause of your problems. Punish or stop them and your problems will go away. America will go back to being great, with “great” meaning the way it was when low-information, low-skill Americans could spend their lives comfortably in the middle class. In other words, before America’s economy became modern.

We don’t want that, of course. The economic visions of Trump and Sanders aren’t just backwards, but are dangerously retrograde policies that will hurt everyone without doing much to improve the lives of those who support such policies.

Liberty struggles when confronted with this combination of widespread economic ignorance and the political incentive for politicians to pander and promise solutions that are anything but. And I don’t know how to solve that. Nor do I believe there’s an easy solution. The incentives in politics run against us, and so we somehow need to get better at articulating the story of markets, of the voluntary and the emergent, and do it in a way that’s as compelling and hopeful in its rhetoric as the false hopes sold by those pitching meretricious intervention.

Part of that means consciously avoiding a panglossian picture of markets, and recognizing that sometimes people get hurt by them, and that often that hurt is blameless.

Cross-posted from Libertarianism.org.

Aaron Ross PowellAaron Ross Powell

Aaron Ross Powell is a research fellow and editor of Libertarianism.org.

The Trump Love Affair Explained in Terms Even Beltway Pundits Can Understand

Donald Trump’s rise this election season has been historic, amounting to something heretofore unseen in the annals of American politics. Given this, it’s perhaps not surprising that many are still befuddled by the phenomenon. Pundit Charles Krauthammer is bewildered, saying that “for some reason” Trump “is immune to the laws of contradiction.” (In reality, Democrats get away with contradiction continually; the only difference is that the media actually report on Trump’s.) Also in the news recently is that some find his appeal among evangelicals “inexplicable.” Of course, it’s all quite explainable.

In an earlier piece — which I strongly urge you to read — I expanded on certain factors evident in the Trump phenomenon. Trump is:

  • tapping into anger against the Establishment and over immigration and is a plain-spoken breath of fresh air.
  • sounding a nationalistic note in an age where treason is the Establishment norm.
  • not campaigning as conservative but a populist, which, almost by definition, tends to make one popular in an era of mass discontent.
  • a crusader against hated political correctness, which has stifled tongues and killed careers nationwide. And in being the first prominent person to defeat the thought police (at least for now) — and by not cowering and apologizing to them — he has become a hero.

And as I wrote, “[W]hen you have a hero, leading the troops in the heat of battle against a despised oppressor, you don’t worry about his marriages, past ideological indiscretions or salty language. You charge right behind him.” This is largely why Trump’s contradictions don’t matter. Yet more can be said.

I often mention the fault of “mirroring,” which most everyone exhibits and is when you project your own ideals, values, priorities and mindset onto others. It’s particularly amusing when pundits and politicians comment on the electorate and speak as if everyone is a politics wonk who analyzes issues logically within the context of a broad knowledge base (pundits themselves often lack erudition and reason; of course, they’re blissfully unaware of it when thus guilty and nonetheless consider those qualities ideals). But man is not Mr. Spock, and logic and reason play less of a role in people’s decision-making than most of us care to think.

This brings us to what Trump now has. It’s something all successful politicians have to a degree and that every iconic one has in spades: an emotional bond with his supporters.

Trump has been criticized for speaking in vague generalities and not providing specifics on the campaign trail. This misses the point. If advertising a product on TV, do you willingly provide mundane details about its ingredients or describe the intricacies of its manufacturing process? That’s more the stuff of documentaries, and, insofar as the vendor goes, would only be found on an Internet product-information page (tantamount to a politician’s policy-position page) provided for those interested. No, you say “Look 15 years younger!” or “Lose 20 to 30 pounds in 6 weeks!” Or think of the circa 2000 Mazda commercial with the young boy whispering “Zoom, zoom!” It was advertising an expensive, hi-tech machine but was invoking the unbridled joy of childhood, thus endeavoring to pique people’s passions. And that’s the secret: capture your audience on an emotional level and they’re yours.

Or think about affairs of the heart. If you’re truly bonded and in love with your wife, it’s not because you first looked at her and, rendering a logical analysis, thought “Well, she’s vibrant and seems to have good genes, so we’d likely have healthy kids; and she’s a darn good cook, and I relish a fine pot roast.” Rather, a true romantic bond is somewhat inscrutable, an emotional phenomenon, not an intellectual one. And it’s powerful enough to cause a woman to follow a man into a life of faith or a life of crime (Bonnie and Clyde); it explains the enduring good marriages — and the bad ones.

Likewise, playing on emotion is not the sole province of morally bad or good politicians — only of successful ones. Hitler did it and Churchill did it; Huey Long did it and Reagan did it. When a candidate stands on a podium expounding upon policy nerd-like or has little to say beyond touting his “accomplishments” (John Kasich comes to mind), they’re proving they don’t get it. Create an emotional bond with the people, and they’re yours. And they will remain yours in the face of others’ intellectual appeals for their affections, for, to paraphrase Jonathan Swift, “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into.” Note that while this relates the futility of trying to shake a person from passionately embraced error, people can also have an emotional attachment to correct beliefs, for the right or wrong reasons and with or without an intellectual understanding (e.g., Plato spoke of inculcating children, who are too young to grasp abstract moral principles, with an “erotic [emotional] attachment” to virtue).

And this is what Trump does so masterfully. When he repeats his slogan “Make America Great Again,” says we’re going to “win” under his administration or speaks of building a border wall and getting “Mexico to pay for it,” it’s silly to wonder why it resonates despite the lack of detail. He’s marketing, not doing R&D; he’s not trying to appeal mainly to the intellect, but the emotions. And you do this with the slogan, not by reciting the list of ingredients. Again, this isn’t a commentary on the validity of his recipe, only on the principles of effective campaigning.

Having said this, if a candidate is the real McCoy, he’ll also have a quality product with a list of ingredients (again, a policy-position webpage) for the discriminating shopper. But if he’s smart he’ll understand that most people are impulse buyers with relatively short memories and recognize the importance of branding himself. Coca-Cola has “Coke is it!” Nike “Just do it!” and Barack Obama had “Yes, we can!” (no, he couldn’t — but it worked). Now, can you think of a GOP candidate other than Trump identifiable by way of a catchy and popular slogan? And it’s no coincidence that “Make America Great Again” was also Reagan’s slogan in 1980.

Of course, stating the obvious, to connect with people emotionally you must capitalize on something appealing to them emotionally. Trump’s bold nationalism does this. What do the others offer? Jeb Bush is associated with saying that illegal migration is “an act of love” and John “Can’t do” Kasich with “Think about the [illegals’] families, c’mon, folks!” which might appeal to illegal migrants if they could speak English. And none of the others will even support suspending Muslim immigration — despite deep and widespread fear of Muslim terrorism — which certainly will appeal to Da’esh (ISIS).

It’s as if Trump is courting Lady America with wine, roses and his alpha-male persona, while the Establishment candidates are lead-tongued nerds promising a tent with NSA surveillance, a bowl of soup and squatters on a burnt-out lawn.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Conservatives Should Back Trump

Writing on the Wall for the GOP? Part I: A Slow Train Coming

New Biological Data Measures Issues that Divide American Voters

CHICAGO. IL /PRNewswire/ — Obamacare and immigration are the two issues on which Republicans and Democrats are the most divided, according to research by research and insights agency Shapiro+Raj, the company announced. Republican and Democratic respondents differed in their reactions to different candidates’ positions on these issues.

Researchers at Shapiro+Raj, led by Associate Manager Mike Winograd, Ph.D., used traditional survey methods complemented by biometrics to better measure respondents’ in-the-moment opinions about eight issues using video statements by some of the leading candidates from both parties in the 2016 presidential race.

Of the eight issues covered—abortion, climate change, gay marriage, gun control, immigration, Obamacare, Social Security and taxes—Obamacare, gun control and abortion elicited the strongest responses from both sides in terms of support or opposition. The majority of respondents also ranked gay marriage and climate change among the least important issues in the upcoming election.

For each issue, Shapiro+Raj used five video clips of Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and undeclared candidate Joe Biden. Republican candidates included Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. All of the clips lasted between 10 and 33 seconds. Clips for each issue were shown in serial with 15-second blank screens between each video clip.

In this study, Shapiro+Raj used a biometric measure known as galvanic skin response (GSR), to measure respondents’ perspiration levels, which are an indicator of arousal and emotional reactivity, and applied the results alongside facial coding to determine not only the strength of viewers’ responses, but also their comparative reactions.

The findings overall showed that the biometric analysis did not fully align with the survey responses.

“Biometrics have huge implications for the ad-marketing industry because they can be applied to extract more detailed and actionable consumer insights on behalf of brands,” Winograd said. “Traditional researchers have known for a long time that what people say doesn’t always align with their true beliefs or how they might behave.”

For example, aside from his image as Washington outsider, Trump has more moderate, or even liberal, views on some issues. While Democratic voters’ ratings of Trump were strongly negative, the biometric findings indicated that when the content of his messages aligned with their beliefs, Democratic voters do not necessarily dislike Trump.

A 2013 clip of Ben Carson referring to Obamacare as, “the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery,” evoked the strongest negative reaction among some Democratic respondents, according to the biometric analysis. By contrast, Republicans’ responses to the Carson clip indicated that they did not find his statement provocative.

“Using biometrics, we can get nuanced perspectives on the emotions of voters and consumers,” Winograd added.

For more information about these findings, click here.

ABOUT SHAPIRO+RAJ

Shapiro+Raj is a new strategy and research company for the Insight Economy™, connecting Shapiro’s 60-year leadership in research, insights and analytics with new world brand strategy, innovation and ideation capabilities. Shapiro+Raj delivers deep, enduring insights and inspired ideas to help its Fortune 500 clients improve the value of their brands while driving profitable growth of their business. Headquartered in Chicago, the independent firm also has an office in New York.

RELATED ARTICLE: North Carolina: Craven County considering resolution to block some refugees from the county

For the Confused Media: A Dummy’s Guide to Immigration and Refugee Problems

By Wallace Bruschweiler and William Palumbo — 

With the Syrian (so-called) refugee crisis ubiquitous in the headlines, the media has found itself dealing with immigration issues on a daily basis.  Unfortunately, extreme confusion abounds.  The media’s total inability to draw basic distinctions regarding immigration to the United States, both legal and illegal is harming the public’s ability to digest this important topic.  Immigration terms are being thrown around print media, radio, and television that have no relation to the real facts or existing laws.

The following is the dummy’s guide to some of the most important distinctions regarding legal and illegal immigration to the United States.  It is sincerely hoped that this will help to end the erroneous reasons and multitude of excuses offered by the media on a daily, almost hourly, basis.

Legal Immigration

Visas

  • Visa Waiver Program: For travel and business purposes, this allows visitors to the United States from other specified countries to enter the country without obtaining a visa (based upon reciprocity). There were 38 Visa Waiver countries as of January 2009.  Applicants fill out an application via us.  (Note: Israel is not one of those 38 countries, yet Americans can enter Israel without obtaining a visa.)
  • Common Visas:
    • K1: For foreign fiancés of Americans. These visas are often abused by foreigners who seek citizenship, and will bribe “fiancés” whom they have no intention of marrying.
    • K-3: For foreign spouses of Americans.
    • H-1B: For skilled foreign workers. American employers must prove that the foreigner’s qualifications are not readily available domestically.
    • F and M: Academic/student visas. See below for common abuses of student visas.

Legal Immigrants

  • Green Cards: Holders of Green Cards must not be outside the United States for more than 5 months and 29 days per year. They must also have a legal record.  After five years, they are eligible to apply for citizenship.  At that time, they must also indicate all the countries they have visited in the previous five years.

Illegal Immigration

  • Border crossings: Today, the nation’s two borders (south and north) are equivalent to Swiss cheese. The Border Patrol has been handicapped by the Obama administration.  By definition, we know nothing (no names, no photos, no fingerprints) about illegal immigrants who cross our borders unannounced and unchallenged.  In the worst case scenario, an illegal immigrant who is caught inside the country will be ordered to leave within 15 days.  Against all logic, no check is applied to make sure that he does in fact leave!
    • If a person returns to the country illegally after being deported for previously entering illegally, by law that person has committed a felony and should be arrested, sentenced, and jailed.
  • Visa overstays: Other than border crossings, many foreigners are in the country illegally because they overstay their visas. For example, student visas are routinely abused in this manner.  Why?
    • After they are issued, there is no check to ensure that the student is enrolled at the college/university. They may never show up to begin with, or drop out after one, two, or three years.
    • After their study program is over, there is no check to ensure that they leave the country as expected.

Refugees

Refugees should not be considered a part of the immigration system, legal or illegal.  The Refugee Resettlement program is administered by the federal government (U.S. Department of State) and the United Nations.  In the U.S., the program is managed by politically-connected NGO’s (including many who are connected to the Catholic Church), and who receive money per refugee they process.

  • Security screenings: The White House claims that each refugee goes through multiple levels of security screenings, including the FBI, DHS, and State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey has warned that “certain gaps” remain in the screening process.

Sanctuary Cities

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, “Across the U.S., there are 340 cities, counties, and states that are considered “sanctuary cities”.  These jurisdiction[s] protect criminal aliens from deportation by refusing to comply with ICE detainers or otherwise impede open communication and information exchanges between their employees or officers and federal immigration agents.”

In other words, these are cities, counties, and states where existing federal law is intentionally ignored by local authorities.  For a map of these places, click here.

Conclusion

The entry checks for immigrants are sophisticated (ten-finger prints, pictures, and names).  But there are no checks whatsoever regarding their exit.  Therefore, it is impossible to provide accurate figures on overstays, illegal entries, etc.

The American immigration system is abused through both legal and illegal channels.  Because of the complexity of the issue, the media regularly confuses and/or conflates the problems associated with the system.  Despite the challenges and complexities, the laws already exist to enforce immigration and ensure the integrity of the system, and in turn keep Americans safe.  Special time and effort should be dedicated to develop and implement accurate and feasible exit procedures.

RELATED VIDEO: History of Immigration in the U.S. for Dummies

‘The People Will Waken and Listen To Hear’ by Michael Devolin

“In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoofbeats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.”

– Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

The best thing about Donald Trump’s message, in my opinion, is that its promotion of old fashioned prudence has awakened the American people, and especially those Americans who have been driven to lethargy by political correctness; whose voices, until now, have been obfuscated and ignored by politicians—both Republican and Democrat—more interested in selling their party than they are in taking back their country. Neighbours north of the border—those also driven to lethargy by political correctness, whose newly elected prime minister and his caucus and their proposed policies indicate that they are more attuned to the Muslim Middle East than they are to Canada—are listening with grateful fascination. We applaud Donald Trump for his clarity on issues close to our hearts also. Imagine our disappointment, therefore, when hearing of his unprovoked excoriation of Pamela Geller and her defence of freedom of speech, an attack unseemly for anyone professing to be an American patriot, and especially discomposing for those who are even now trying to picture Donald Trump as the next president of the United States of America. Pamela Geller says it best: “If you don’t support free speech, you are not qualified to be president.”

However, and in spite of this one wobbling wheel, the Trump bandwagon is attracting a growing support. Sort of like Socrates’ description of the power of Homer’s poetry: “This stone not only attracts iron rings, but also imparts to them a similar power of attracting other rings; and sometimes you may see a number of pieces of iron and rings suspended from one another so as to form quite a long chain: and all of them derive their power of suspension from the original stone.” Donald Trump is the “original stone,” the real American, and he has inspired in those of consanguineous heart the determination that America, the America envisioned by her founding fathers, is not about to go down without a fight. As Riddick Bowe, one of the greatest American heavyweight boxers of all time, once said to Britain’s Lennox Lewis, “You ain’t gonna knock nothin’ out, bum.”

It is very revealing how some of the Republican candidates are denigrating Donald Trump’s message. Steve Holland and Emily Stephenson of the Associated Press, in their coverage of a CNN moderated security debate, reported that Jeb Bush ‘…assailed Trump for a lack of depth and seriousness and called him a “chaos candidate” who was adept at one-liners but naive on policy issues.’ And again, attacking Mr. Trump’s practical approach to America’s present security issues, “Donald, you’re not going to be able to insult your way to the presidency.” Mr. Trump, ever focused, responded, “We’re not talking about isolation; we’re talking about security. We’re not talking about religion; we’re talking about security. Our country is out of control.”

Donald Trump notices what the improvidence of the other Republican candidates seems to have obscured from their political horizons: the stark reality that many Western democracies (United States and Canada included) are being internally decimated simultaneously by both a lack of leadership and an unassuming populace whose primarily Christian traditions are being aggressively transmogrified by Islam’s political activists, many of whom have publicly professed Islamist sympathies. The Polling Company CSP Poll revealed this year (2015) that 29% of Muslim-Americans support violence against those who insult Muhammad or the Quran. Only 61% of those Muslim-Americans questioned agreed that such violence is unacceptable. Adherents.com reports that there are presently 2.8 million Muslim-Americans living in the United States. Do the math.

Saul Friedlander referred to the history of the Holocaust as “…an integral part of the ‘age of ideology’ and, more precisely and decisively, of its late phase: the crisis of liberalism in continental Europe.” Mr. Friedlander goes on to say that, “…without the obsessive anti-Semitism and the personal impact of Adolf Hitler, first in the framework of his movement, then on the national scene after January 1933, the widespread German anti-Semitism of those years would probably not have coalesced into anti-Jewish political action and certainly not into its sequels.” Those ideologies back then were “…revolutionary socialism (which was to become Bolshevism in Russia and communism throughout the world), and by a revolutionary right that…turned into fascism in Italy and elsewhere, and into Nazism in Germany.” It could be said of our day that we live in an “age of ideology” also, but of one ideology only, and that ideology is Islam. Regardless of which strains of this imperialistic and expansionist ideology are insalubrious and which are not, which are dangerous and which are not, the undeniable fact remains that the religion of Islam is their locus and anti-Jewish/anti-Christian hatred is, in varying degrees, a common thread in all.

Our problem, and it’s becoming a self-destructive problem, is that Western democracies are conciliating an Islam entire—which includes all these strains—without thoroughly and opportunely discriminating between the good and the bad. Donald Trump intends to remedy this problem at a time when all other politicians, Democrat and Republican both, have made it a habit of looking the other way whenever it rears its ugly head. The reason for his rising popularity can be found in the fact that a vast majority of Americans—those Americans whose concerns about the religion of Islam have been ignored—feel nothing now but repugnance when hearing the same old excuses and the same old worn out clichés from the same old politicians. When they listen to Donald Trump, they hear a politician whose concerns are consistent with those Americans who still love their country. Donald Trump has evoked an American patriotism the rest of the world had previously assumed was dead or dying, because (not excusing his trepid rendering of the 1st Amendment) he knows that, “In the hour of darkness and peril and need, the people will waken and listen to hear…”

RELATED ARTICLE: Publishers Weekly apparently totally cool with beheading Americans, Jewish genocide, removing girls’ clitorises

Where Trump is Wrong on Muslim Immigration

Donald Trump proved again why he’s the man the Establishment loves to hate, suggesting early last week that we ban Muslim immigration “until our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.” In response, the powers-that-be, fearing becoming the powers-that-were, have roundly condemned him, in one case saying he should “go to hell.” And I could fault Trump, too:

  1. His proposal doesn’t go far enough.
  2. We should halt all immigration, as I’ve recommended for years.
  3. Yet in the least and as Trump suggests, Muslim immigration should be suspended immediately.

The apocryphal saying informs, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.” America has become balkanized. People are now hyphenated, not assimilated; Americans are being displaced by foreign workers; we’re pressing one for English; political ethnic and racial warfare is the norm; and we’re so fractured, not merely divided, that all the Establishment can do to justify the insanity is repeat the Big Lie, “Our strength lies in our diversity,” a proposition for which there’s no proof whatsoever.

How’s that immigrationism workin’ for ya’?

“Immigrationism,” mind you, is the belief that immigration is always beneficial, always necessary and must be the one constant in an ever-changing universe of policy. Hope and change? Not when it comes to immigration.

In fact, despite our descent into national disunity, the Establishment insists on yet more immigration. It doesn’t matter that 1965’s Immigration Reform and Nationality Act created a situation in which 85 percent of our immigrants now hail from the Third World and Asia. It doesn’t matter that the historical norm is to keep unassimilable foreign elements out of your land, not invite them in. Those who recommend even a temporary return to this norm must be called names. Racist! Fascist! Hitler! Immigration über alles!

And who is the radical here?

The case of Muslim immigration is particularly interesting. As I pointed out in an airtight defense of profiling, “‘Muslim’ is now the most relevant factor in the terrorist profile.” This is a fact. It may be an uncomfortable fact for multiculturalists, immigrationists and internationalists, but a fact doesn’t cease to be a fact because it becomes unfashionable.

Speaking of the fashion-makers and nation-breakers, in late August CNN called the 1970s “the golden age of terrorism,” pointing out that there were more terrorist acts during that decade than in the 14 years following 9/11 (of course, the 14 years following 9/10 aren’t quite as reassuring). The message was clear: there’s nothing to see here with Muslim terrorism. Move along.

Except for more than one thing. The ‘70s terrorists CNN cited — such as the Weather Underground, Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA) and anti-Vietnam War protesters — were never going to be anything but flashes in the ideological pan. Islam has been around, continually attended by jihad, for 1400 years. Even more to the point here, however, let’s say we knew that certain groups of foreigners shared the SLA’s or other terrorist groups’ ideology. Would it have been a good idea to let them immigrate to the U.S.? Even if the particular foreigners hadn’t yet committed violence, allowing them entry would have been criminal negligence at best on public officials’ part — treason at worst.

And, today, treason is the Establishment norm. For proposing a common-sense measure to protect the homeland, Trump (and by extension his millions of supporters) has been called “fascist.” But targeted immigration controls are nothing new in America. From 1924 until 1965, immigration was governed by the National Origins Act, which mandated that a given group of immigrants couldn’t represent a higher percentage of a year’s total immigrants than its group’s overall percentage of the U.S. population. This not only secured demographic stability and preserved nationhood, but as Pat Buchanan recently put it, ensured that ours would “remain a nation whose primary religious and ethnic ties were to Europe, not Africa or Asia.” Buchanan then continued, “Under FDR, Truman and JFK, this was the law of the land. Did this represent 40 years of fascism? …[And] Japan has no immigration from the Muslim world, nor does Israel, which declares itself a Jewish state. Are they also fascistic?”

Note also that fascism founding father Benito Mussolini (the ideology originated in Italy) defined fascism thus: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.” Does this better describe Trump and his traditionalist brethren or statists who want to import people who’ll support all-encompassing government (70 to 90 percent of our new immigrants vote for socialistic Democrats upon being naturalized)? This, not to mention that Adolf Hitler was quite the fan of Islam — and that some Muslim figures have returned that affection.

As for Muslim immigration, here are some more facts:

  • Da’esh (ISIS) has revealed that it’s using the “refugee” program to sneak refujihadis into the West.
  • Intelligence officials including the FBI director, the Greek government, a N.Y.C. Syrian community leader and others have warned that the migrants billed as “Syrian” entering our nation cannot be vetted.
  • This is because Syria doesn’t have the necessary information databases for vetting and because in Syria, you can bribe public officials and obtain government documents stating you’re whoever you want to be.

Conclusion: terrorists are, without a doubt, intermingled among our Muslim im/migrants.

Given this, who, again, are the radicals? Trump and others who propose a common-sense national-security measure? Or those who’d do the same insane thing over and over again?

As for the bigger picture, I’m aware of no historical example of large numbers of Muslims ever assimilating into a non-Muslim culture. Moreover, studies have shown that younger Muslims in Europe are more jihadist-minded than their elders, meaning that we’re unlikely to see the first example of it anytime soon. Not surprisingly, Western European nations now have Muslim enclaves known as “no-go zones,” where the enforcement of European civil law is spotty at best. And the same lslamist mentality may be evident in the U.S., with a recent poll showing that a slim majority of Muslims prefer Sharia law to American civil law and that nearly 25 percent agree that it “is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam.”

Pat Buchanan added even more perspective, writing, “In nations where Muslims are already huge majorities, where are the Jews? Where have all the Christians gone? With ethnic and sectarian wars raging in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, Nigeria and Somalia, why would we bring into our own country people from all sides of these murderous conflicts?”

Why, indeed, especially since there is already a “genuine problem with Muslims in Europe.”  This quoted sentiment, please note, wasn’t expressed by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Viktor Orbán or Geert Wilders, but by one Dr. Mudar Zahran. A Jordanian opposition leader, self-described “devout Muslim” and a refugee living in Europe, he called the current Muslim migrant crisis “the soft Islamic conquest of the West” in an October interview. Zahran also said of the migration, “You read Arab magazines and Arab newspapers; they are talking about, ‘Good job! Now we’re going to conquest [sic] Europe.’ So it’s not even a secret.”

The aforementioned are all good reasons to halt Muslim immigration. And where are the good arguments to continue it at this time?

Foreigners have no inherent right to immigrate to our country.  And an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If in future we determine that Muslim immigration offers unparalleled benefits, it can always be resumed. But once an alien nation within your nation is established, only desperate measures can provide remedy, if the matter is remediable at all. Trump has been called an unserious candidate given to name-calling by the very people now hurling names, as they throw tantrums and react to a most serious issue in a most unserious way. They claim to not want another Fort Hood or San Bernardino, but then propose that the desired different result can be achieved by doing the same thing over and over again.

They’re not just radical. They’re radically insane.

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

Exposed: The big donors behind open borders movement/refugee resettlement/Trump protests

Thanks to Ed for sending this great investigative piece by Lee Stranahan at Breitbart on Unbound Philanthropy and its big kahuna William Reeves (and wife Debbie Berger).  What a coincidence too, the pair is from Hawaii (BFF of Obama?).

bill-reeves-house (1)

Update: Reeves and Bergers ‘house’ in Hawaii, thanks to Ed!   How many refugees could be housed here?

Stranahan tells us that when Trump was protested in Arizona and California a few months ago, the groups protesting were recipients of Reeves’ largess.

Know the enemy!  Read Stranahan’s article by clicking here.

We wrote about Reeves in 2011

I’m posting in full my post from February 2011.  I was most interested in the connection between Unbound Philanthropy’s role in helping create that damn Shelbyville, TN propaganda film that was used by the U.S. State Department and others to promote more Somali migration to America.

We have come a long way in the last four years in understanding the massive money machine we are up against.

You will recognize the Migration Policy Institute (in Stranahan’s piece and mine) as one of the groups putting on that Georgetown gig, Jim Simpson and I attended here in October.

Unbound Philanthropy is also one of the organizers and funders of that big Open Borders pow-wow starting Sunday in New York, here.  They will have a whole session on exposing the likes of us!

bill-reeves

Bill Reeves

Here is what I said in 2011 in a post entitled:

Unbound Philanthropy: an example of what we are up against…<

…..and why the average American trying to maintain our culture and country through immigration control has a hard time fighting the battle.  The other side is rich and connected to big business (offshore money too!).

Yesterday as I searched for more information on the Migration Policy Institute, an organization that pretends to be a balanced nonpartisan think tank which just this week put out a report that goes after Sheriff’s in some counties overseeing the 287g program,  I came upon Unbound Philanthropy.  It is one of those private foundations used by the super wealthy to channel their excess funds (avoiding taxes by so doing) to pet charities and political projects.

In this case the rich guy is William Reeves of Hawaii:

William Reeves is a director and co-founder of BlueCrest Capital Management Ltd. Based in London, BlueCrest manages investments for a predominantly institutional investor base across 15 diverse funds. Until April 2000, when he left to establish BlueCrest, Mr. Reeves was a Managing Director at J.P. Morgan in London and head of macro strategy and trading within the proprietary trading group. Prior to that, Mr. Reeves was a fund manager at Salomon Brothers Asset Management Limited and at Fisher Francis Trees and Watts, with responsibility for managing leveraged capital. He has also worked for JP Morgan New York where, from 1991 to 1993, he was a Vice President in charge of a team managing the company’s leveraged multi-currency proprietary investment portfolio. Mr. Reeves is a US Trustee of the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. He holds an MA in Philosophy from New York University and a BA in English from Yale University. Mr. Reeves was born in Honolulu and raised in Richmond, Virginia where his parents were both educators.

Check out Unbound Philanthropy’s most recent Form 990.  This is a private foundation with a net worth approaching $100 million (note offshore accounts).  In 2008 Mr. Reeves donated $2,619,583 to the foundation (probably reducing his tax liability) to his mostly political projects.  He passed most of that  money through this foundation to a list of projects that include (among others):

The Tides Center (money scrubber supreme):  $250,000

Southern Poverty Law Center:  $150,000

American Immigration Law Foundation: $150,000

Center for American Progress (LOL! Pushing back against Hate Project):  $46,000

And, it looks like the big winner is the International Rescue Committee*** with three grants:  $150,000, $200,000, and $212,000

Debbie-Berger

Debbie Berger

On their website they brag about many more recent grants, including my favorite:

Mr. Reeves gave $85,000 in 2010 to Active Voice a San Francisco social change advocacy group to promote that damn propaganda film on Shelbyville, TN.

Also in 2010 he passed $500,000 through the Tides Foundation.  In 2009 he gave $150,000 to Media Matters (George Soros) and $240,000 to the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (ahhhhh!).   And, this is how I found Unbound Philanthropy in the first place, they (rich Mr. Reeves) gave the Migration Policy Institute $95,000 to study amnesty for “undocumented youth and women.”

It’s all legal of course, but the next time you hear whining from the pro-migration forces that this is all about the poor and the downtrodden, remember it isn’t.  It is about politics, about new immigrants as Democratic voters, and it’s about cheap labor for big business (like the meatpackers) and nannies and gardeners for rich people.

Just a reminder that David North of the Center for Immigration Studies summed it up well when he attended a recent meeting of the Migration Policy Institute:

It is useful to note that the pro-migration advocates, though allied with each other, come in three different groupings. There are the employers, who want lower wages; there are the ethnic organizations who say, in effect, “Let My People In”; and then there are the intellectuals [ed: read Leftists!], represented Thursday at a session of the foundation-supported Migration Policy Institute.

So our side (the immigration control side) is up against the big money and the hard left political machine using the average do-gooders and  immigrants as their foils.

A final question for Mr. Reeves:  If you are so interested in promoting social change (aka the redistribution of wealth), why not redistribute all your holdings now directly to the refugees and other poor immigrants being dropped off in our cities and towns by the US State Department and their federal contractors.   If the social justice Marxist one-worlders you are supporting win the political war in the US, they will be taking it from you or your heirs anyway.

Go here to the link for the Reeves’ Hawaiian home.  (LOL!  we assume it is in Hawaii but note that for “privacy concerns” its location is not given.

***International Rescue Committee is of course now headed by British former Foreign Secretary David Miliband and is one of nine major federal contractors raking in big bucks from your wallets (and rich elitists like Reeves!) and pushing Obama to admit 100,000 Syrian Muslims to be distributed to your towns!

I wonder that since Unbound Philanthropy works in the UK as well to agitate and organize against the ‘right wing,’ did they have any role in getting Miliband planted in NYC? Hmmmm!

Nine contractors (for new readers):

RELATED ARTICLES:

Unconstitutionality of refugee program in 12 states explained

Speaker Ryan blasts Trump over Muslim ban, can we hear Grover in his words?

American Jewish Committee attacks Trump’s call to Ban Muslims from Entering the U.S.

Will U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch arrest Donald Trump for using “anti-Muslim rhetoric” that “edges toward violence“? Or is Trump seeing something and saying something?

PRNewswire-USNewswire reports:

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) condemned in the strongest terms the latest offensive and inflammatory comments from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who today suggested that all Muslims should be banned from entering the United States.

“As Americans, who just observed a holiday remembering the Pilgrims who fled religious persecution in Europeto found a new home on these shores, we find Mr. Trump’s call abhorrent and wrong,” said AJC Associate Executive Director for Policy Jason Isaacson. “And as Jews who are now observing Hanukkah, a holiday that celebrates a small religious minority’s right to live unmolested, we are deeply disturbed by the nativist racism inherent in the candidate’s latest remarks. You don’t need to go back to the Hanukkah story to see the horrific results of religious persecution; religious stereotyping of this sort has been tried often, inevitably with disastrous results.

“Yes, this country faces the very real threat of radical Islamist terror. We cannot, however, fall into the trap of blaming and banning an entire religious group, who overwhelmingly reject the violence and extremism of Islamist terrorists.

“We were heartened to see condemnation of these comments come from all corners of the American political establishment, and we urge Mr. Trump to reconsider his views.”

Perhaps the AJC has forgotten that what our Fore Fathers were fleeing from was an England where the Church and State were one. They also were fleeing a totalitarian oligarchy headed by the King of England.

Islam is not unlike 16th century England under King George III. The state and the mosque are one in the same and have been so for over 1400 years. The ideology is violent and promotes the elimination of all those who oppose Islam. The followers of Mohammed live, and die, by the Quran. Quran versus 2: 191-193, reads:

And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.

The Florida Family Association reports:

Politically correct public officials and media moguls call Islam a peaceful religion and say that most Muslims are moderate. However, the facts reported in the following surveys contradict such political correct suppositions:

  • Eighty one (81%) percent of respondents to Al Jazeera survey say they support ISIS. In a recent survey conducted by AlJazeera.net, the website for the Al Jazeera Arabic channel, respondents overwhelmingly support the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, with 81% voting “YES” on whether they approved of ISIS’s conquests in the region. The poll, which asked in Arabic,“Do you support the organizing victories of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS)?” has generated over 38,000 responses thus far, with only 19% of respondents voting “NO” to supporting ISIS.
  • Center for Security Policy “Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists’ Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad” was released on June 23, 2015. Nearly one-fifth of Muslim respondents said that the use of violence in the United States is justified in order to make shariah the law of this country. According to a new nationwide online survey (Below) of 600 Muslims living in the United States, significant minorities embrace supremacist notions that could pose a threat to America’s security and its constitutional form of government.   The numbers of potential jihadists among the majority of Muslims who appear not to be sympathetic to such notions raise a number of public policy choices that warrant careful consideration and urgent debate, including: the necessity for enhanced surveillance of Muslim communities; refugee resettlement, asylum and other immigration programs that are swelling their numbers and density; and the viability of so-called “countering violent extremism” initiatives that are supposed to stymie radicalization within those communities. Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., is the president of the Center for Security Policy.
  • Study finds that Sharia minded Imams recommended studying violence-positive texts in 84.5% of United States mosques. The study was conducted by Dr. Mordechai Kedar and David Yerushalmi, Esq. who are highly regarded experts on Sharia. David Yerushalmi, Esq. who runs the American Freedom Law Center with Robert J. Muise, Esq. is called The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement … by the New York Times. Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University is an academic expert on the Israeli Arab population. Survey abstract: A random survey of 100 representative mosques in the U.S. was conducted to measure the correlation between Sharia adherence and dogma calling for violence against non-believers. Of the 100 mosques surveyed, 51% had texts on site rated as severely advocating violence; 30% had texts rated as moderately advocating violence; and 19% had no violent texts at all. Mosques that presented as Sharia adherent were more likely to feature violence-positive texts on site than were their non-Sharia-adherent counterparts. In 84.5% of the mosques, the imam recommended studying violence-positive texts. The leadership at Sharia-adherent mosques was more likely to recommend that a worshipper study violence-positive texts than leadership at non-Sharia-adherent mosques. Fifty-eight percent of the mosques invited imams known to promote violent jihad. The leadership of mosques that featured violence-positive literature was more likely to invite imams who were known to promote violent jihad than was the leadership of mosques that did not feature violence-positive literature on mosque premises.

Perhaps Donald Trump is saying what the American people are thinking?

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Jimmy Carter Banned Iranians from coming to the United States during the Hostage Crisis

7 Ways Barack Obama Created Donald Trump

This Counterterrorism Expert Says U.S. Must Treat Terrorism as ‘War’ Rather Than ‘Crime’

This is a Brilliant Move by Donald Trump

Trump: “‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people.”

ISIS Children Rewarded With Execution

Obama’s Take on Terror: The Good and the Bad

Obama’s San Bernardino Speech – The Missing Link

Britain Votes to Bomb ISIS in Syria

Senator Marco Rubio straddling the fence on Muslim refugees/Muslim migration

Julia Hahn has another good piece at Breitbart yesterday (hat tip: Joanne) on the refugee resettlement controversy and how it is roiling the 2016 Presidential campaign.

Haven’t we seen what happens when a boy runs this country?  And, so I can’t believe that any thinking person could say that Florida Senator Marco Rubio is ready for the job—don’t you think it’s time for an alpha male?  (O.K. throw tomatoes, eggs, whatever at me, I said it and stick by it!).

Somali terror woman

This Somali refugee woman was convicted of terror funding in Minnesota in 2013.

Here is Hahn about what Senator Rubio said yesterday in an interview with Chris Wallace:

In a surprising twist in the 2016 election, presidential aspirant Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has proposed a new plan for helping President Obama resettle Syrian refugees in the United States.

Under Rubio’s new proposal, outlined on FOX News Sunday, the United States would focus on resettling the oldest and youngest refugees inside the United States, including those orphaned and widowed in what has become an Islamist battleground.

Rubio argued these refugees could be admitted under the “commonsense” test: “the 5-year-old orphan, a 90-year-old widow, and well-known Chaldean priest, these are obviously commonsense applications, and you can clearly vet them just by commonsense.”

This new tactic may be a politically risky one for Senator Rubio, as an outright majority of all voters oppose any Syrian resettlement—and, according to Rasmussen, 65 percent of conservative voters want zero refugees admitted into the U.S. from the Middle East.

Rubio cannot be trusted on immigration, the most important issue this country faces, or may ever face!

rubio

Continue reading here and consider a few additional points.

Once the women (not all will be old because they won’t leave the young mothers and bring in the children) are admitted they can apply, under the present refugee program, for their family members to join them (this is called chain migration).  In 2008, the Wall Street Journal first reported the shocking (maybe not so shocking!) news that thousands of Somalis had entered the US illegally by claiming a relationship to those already here.  The family reunification (P-3) was closed by the US State Department for years, but is now wide open again.

We covered the discovery and aftermath extensively, here.  The fraud was originally reported at the Wall Street Journal in August of 2008.

Even for those who say the State Department could now catch the fraudsters, does anyone really think that the women and children won’t be quickly applying for more family members to join them.  On what grounds would the husbands be refused?

~ Hahn discusses it, but I want to reiterate that it is the next generation of a refugee family where the jihadist recruitment is happening.  The parents might pass security checks while it is those little children (grown up) we raised and educated with our tax dollars who are thumbing their noses at your generosity and heading off to join al-Shabaab and ISIS.  Remember this?  Just a few news stories beginning back in 2008!

~And, what on earth makes Rubio think that American taxpayers are willing to bring in old women who will be placed immediately on Supplemental Social Security? See here, once and for all—-refugees over 65 years old are eligible for benefits under SSI!

~Hahn mentions Senator Rand Paul who was brave back in 2013 when he realized refugee terrorists had been resettled in his home town and wondered out loud why we were bringing in all the Iraqis and putting them on welfare.  He has since stopped asking that question, why?  Here is our complete archive on Rand Paul and Iraqi refugees.   See especially here and here (what role did Grover play in dissuading Paul from earlier critical comments?).

Following that Syrian refugee “vetting” shiny object?

And, my final thought as I watch and listen to Syrian refugee news on TV and on radio:  Are we being distracted (I know Trump is!) by the Syrian refugee resettlement plan at a point in time when we are bringing in thousands of other Muslim refugees who frankly can’t be screened much better—thousands and thousands of Somalis and Iraqis for instance (Uzbeks, Rohingya and Afghans too)?

I think the average American (watching TV) is thinking that the Syrians are the only refugees we are bringing in from the Middle East and Africa, and it isn’t helping them understand the serious implications of resettlement when they think the resettlement is in the future and that Obama is to blame—Republicans have supported the migration for decades as well!  They are here!

And, on the vetting issue, we have plenty of evidence that the youngsters are growing up radicalized (more devout!) in the US and the West generally, so let’s stop talking about vetting for just a few minutes!

Poster of the Week: Can’t Be Bought Trump

I feel sure our friends at VDARE won’t mind if I post Maryland grassroots warrior Ed Hunter’s letter to VDARE about what happened on Friday evening when the indefatigable Hunter unfurled one of his highway overpass banners for French TV.

Here is Hunter’s banner for this week, but you can see others of his novel campaigns to circumvent the mainstream media and get his message directly to American citizens, at Blue Ridge Forum.

This is what happened on Friday evening as a French TV crew filmed him (from VDARE where you should go for links).  In Ed’s words, but emphasis is mine:

Last week the Washington desk of the French TV station “France 2” contacted us at the Maryland Tea Party and said they wanted to go up on the overpass and conduct an interview on the Donald Trump phenomenon***. About 2 PM we arrive at the bridge over I-95 Northbound, and we set up the banners and are waving to people on the interstate below.

Ed Hunter shows how to get his message directly to citizens and around the MSM.

The rush hours is beginning and the traffic is starting to slow down as it passed under us. The French TV crew arrives about an hour later around 3 PM. They get out their big expensive TV camera, and the French reporter Valerie begins asking questions.

Some of them were hard to answer such as “What does Donald Trump mean?” or “Is this a popular provocation?” (The usual French stuff. How can you answer those types of questions?) Anyway, they get around to the subject of immigration and I can sense I am up against the usual PC wall as they try to get “racist” stuff out of me. So she says “Okay just try to summarize Trump in a way that makes sense to people in France.” So I said “Donald Trump is an American version of Marine Le Pen.” Then she asked if I supported Le Pen and I said, “Absolutely”.

I told her that Muslim immigration will be the end of France and Europe.

Then I asked them (off camera) if they felt that way, and they replied “Oh no…it is all a stunt, we do not have a immigration problem in France. These Muslims are French. They came to France to help us rebuild France. I said. ”French built France. Why can’t you rebuild it yourself?”

They looked at me as the typical redneck American. So as we are talking the noise from the honking from the interstate is rising to a crescendo. The honking and cheers for the Trump banners are getting so loud we can’t continue the conversation. The French say goodbye and get into their car and leave. I am asking myself “What is going on? Why is everyone reacting to the banners, which read ‘CANT BE BOUGHT…VOTE TRUMP’?” The whole Interstate has erupted. Everyone below as far as I can see is going nuts and cheering and leaning on their horn and screaming out the windows “Donald! Donald!” And we are waving back and this is going on for about an hour. And we can’t figure it all out. So it’s 5:30 PM and getting dark and cold. We take down the banners and drive to Starbucks for coffee when someone calls with the news about the Paris attacks.

The very moment that the French media elites were repeating the PC leftist party line… “We do not have an immigration problem. We are multicultural” etc., the news of the Paris attacks is hitting the car radios of the people on the highway below and they are going nuts in support of Trump and his defiance of the political, media and academic elites.

I called Valerie the French reporter and she had just heard the news. All she could say is “I am so shocked…so shocked!!” I said ”Why? You had to know this was coming, you were told a million times—”. At which point she hung up. The next morning I read Ann Coulter in Mediaite: “Donald Trump Was Elected President Tonight.” And I believe he was.

I saw it happen. I watched an almost physical wave of noise and cheering and honking roll up I-95 from as far as I could see south towards DC, to where it disappeared over the horizon to the north, up towards Baltimore, New York and points beyond.

All of this only confirms again for me—for middle class Americans, immigration is THE issue of 2016.  And, I urge all of you to find your place in the battle to save us—to save America.  You might not have Ed’s guts to get up on a highway overpass, but find your talent and put it to work to save us from becoming Europe!

***One last thing….when we attended the Georgetown Law School pro-open borders gathering in DC a couple of weeks ago, attendees were in complete shock over what they described as the “Trump phenomenon” here.

This post is filed in a category we hope to use more often—-called creating a movement.’

Addendum! Angry about Paris?  READ THIS POST and do it!  Tell Congress to stop the funding for the Refugee Admissions Program NOW!

The GOP Debate: Missing the Banana Boat on Immigration

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

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

But not big enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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