VIDEO: Muslim “refugees” go on sex assault spree at church festival
( Muslims do not assimilate! They infiltrate! )
Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7_C6xxlkQc
Thanks to Vlad Tepes
( Muslims do not assimilate! They infiltrate! )
Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7_C6xxlkQc
Thanks to Vlad Tepes
( Muslims do not assimilate! They infiltrate! and they are doing great harm to our children )
Principles for a FREE SOCIETY
Muhammad’s favorite wife, Aisha, was six, so Mohammod Rafique was only following Muhammad’s “perfect example.” This is what the Democrats wants for your daughters and sisters.
New Hampshire is being systematically destroyed by its left ruling elite.
Recently: New Hampshire Domestic Violence Case Dropped for ‘Cultural Incompetence’ of Immigrant
New Hampshire Mosque Preaches Jihad, Police Chief Cries “Islamophobia”
Nashua man accused of sexually assaulting girls
Incident involved 4 girls, investigators say
NASHUA, N.H. — A Nashua man is facing accusations that he had inappropriate contact with several young girls.Mohammod Rafique is facing six charges, including two counts of felonious sexual assault. Nashua police said the incident happened in late August and involves four girls, including a 7-year-old.
“We’re alleging these offenses have had a great and substantial effect on both them and their parents,” prosecutor Don Topham said.Rafique was described in court as a refugee from Myanmar who has lived in Nashua for two years. An interpreter was provided by phone.
Authorities said the charges involve inappropriate touching and happened at some sort of gathering.
“Through the investigation, we learned that he was acquainted with one girl’s family,” Lt. Kerry Baxter said. “He had attempted to offer them money and gifts and things like that to get one or more of the girls back to his house.”
Court records said when the girls interviewed, they gave essentially the same version of what happened.
Prosecutors asked for $50,000 bail, saying it was needed to protect the victims. Defense lawyers said Rafique is innocent.
“I have spoken with him and he understands the serious nature of these charges, but he is maintaining his innocence on these charges, and of course the court knows there is a presumption of innocence at this point,” defense lawyer Sarah Newhall said.
The judge set bail at $15,000, with another hearing scheduled for next month.
Further proof that it was Iran we should have invaded after September 11th, not Iraq. Instead, President Obama, after he took office in 2009, aided, abetted and nuclear arm the terror state. Iran, then and now, is the real enemy.
By Huda Saleh Al Arabiya, Riyadh Thursday, 21 September 2017
US President Donald H. Trump’s speech to the UN General Assembly has re-highlighted Iran’s role in sponsoring radical terrorist groups in the Middle East, especially al Qaeda.
Osama bin Laden
Yusuf al-Ayeri
Abdul-Aziz al-Muqrin
Saleh al-Qarawi
Imad Mughniyah
( It amaze how little the American people about the supreme law of the land our CONSTITUTION! They don't even know why the Electoral College exist! If don't know why the Electoral College exist so that no one state can dominate the elections because their population is greater than all the other states population )
Principles for a FREE SOCIETY
Following Hillary Clinton’s electoral defeat and Donald Trump’s ascension to the Walll hite House, numerous progressives came out of the woodwork to call for the end of the Electoral College in favor of a national popular vote.
While most of the arguments against our over two-century-old system revolve around it not being purely democratic and being weighted toward smaller states, a recent commentary in Politico has stretched that attack to an absurd limit.
Matthew Olsen, a member of the National Security Agency under President Barack Obama, and Benjamin Haas, a West Point graduate and current student at Stanford University, argued that the Electoral College is antiquated and even dangerous because hostile foreign powers can micro-target populations in certain states to tip the election.
Further, the writers argue that the Founders couldn’t possibly have imagined how new technology, like Facebook, could perpetuate false ideas and that foreign powers would disseminate lies.
This leads them to suggest moving to a national popular vote, which they suggest is somehow a safer way to elect presidents.
Their arguments demonstrate both an amazing amount of hubris in assuming they, our nouveau elite, know better than the Founders, and stunning ignorance in thinking the creators of the Constitution had no experience with “fake news.”
There is a lot to untangle from what seems to be a rather absurd and roundabout excuse for Clinton’s defeat, but it’s worth debunking.
Why We Have an Electoral College
The Electoral College was not just a quirky idea the Framers cobbled together without serious consideration for how it would be used by future generations.
The office of the presidency and the method by which our leaders would be selected are perhaps the most explicit aspects of the Constitution, and they were the products of ferocious debate.
The Founders wanted to create a system by which the country’s only true national leader could be chosen by a process that would contain vital elements of both federalism—or state power—and democracy.
Also, given their vast experience of dealing with foreign powers that wanted to see America fail, and local manipulators who wanted to tip elections, the Framers of the Constitution created a carefully calibrated process that would help create a stable, legitimate system to serve a free people.
The product was a brilliant process, born of design and compromise, that has created over two centuries of stable and virtually uncontested elections.
This accomplishment often goes unacknowledged. But as governments rose and fell through the centuries, ours has steamed along. We have, in part, the Electoral College to thank for this political miracle.
Foreign Intrigues
As the Politico writers noted, Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist No. 68.
Hamilton believed the indirect method of “electors” choosing a president after the states had voted in their separate capacities would protect America from foreign intrigues that would seek to enable “Manchurian” candidates to become president.
The Politico writers dismiss this reasoning, saying:
Hamilton and his colleagues never could have envisioned a year like 2016, when an enemy state—Russia—was able to manipulate America’s election process with stunning effectiveness.
Actually, they could.
The late 18th and early 19th centuries were rife with foreign powers meddling in American elections. It was in some ways much easier for the superpowers of Europe to use propaganda in fighting proxy wars to tip the scales of our elections one way or another.
For example, Citizen Edmond Genet, a French diplomat to the United States, tried to tip the American population toward supporting his country in its wars against Great Britain in the 1790s.
He and other French radicals engaged in a massive campaign to turn Americans against President George Washington’s administration to get a pro-French candidate elected. This more or less failed, and Washington served two terms without serious challenge.
The fact is, there is simply no way of entirely avoiding outside influence and the flow of information in a free country.
It is something America has perpetually dealt with, and mostly overcome.
Fake News, Nothing New
The argument that “fake news” is simply a modern phenomenon that the Founders couldn’t have anticipated is absurd.
That fraudulent stories and ideas could be rapidly perpetuated and could change people’s minds was widely understood and acknowledged by the men who created our form of government.
At the Constitutional Convention, curmudgeonly Founder Elbridge Gerry said the following of fake news and democracy:
The people do not want [lack] virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. In Massachusetts it had been fully confirmed by experience, that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions, by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute.
Campaigns then and thereafter were filled with false reports, unsubstantiated rumors, absurd accusations, and a whole lot of lies.
What was the Founders’ solution to this problem? Create a system that fostered a culture of free speech and debate while mitigating the impact of pure democracy.
The answer is not a national popular vote or government censors determining what is real news and what is fake. It’s in supporting the First Amendment and the wisely crafted electoral system that the Founders gifted us with.
Ultimately, fake news, micro-targeting, and “voter suppression” can hardly be blamed for Clinton’s electoral defeat when she couldn’t be bothered to campaign in one of the states that ultimately swung the election.
And simply having the larger, national pool of voters can’t prevent foreign governments from trying to sway votes and tip elections.
The fact that Trump turned solid blue states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania red is a sign that the Electoral College works the way it was intended. It vindicates the idea that regional interests are diverse and that a national candidate should appeal to small and mid-size states, not just the most populous ones.
While the Politico writers bemoan foreign influence in American elections—a worthy concern—pointing to the Electoral College as the problem is barking up the wrong tree.
And if they are so worried about what they called vote “hacking,” perhaps they should support the voter fraud commission that could help weed out illegal votes and ensure election integrity in the states instead of laying waste to our time-tested electoral process.
Regardless, the Electoral College is not a danger to the United States. It is instead a critical element of preserving our national sovereignty and the federalism that strengthens it. (For more from the author of “No, the Electoral College Is Not a ‘National Security Threat'” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/09/no-electoral-college-not-national-security-threat/
Super-woke Canadian filmmaker Shiraz Higgins has implemented his own so-called “justice-pricing” policy, where he charges white males an extra $5 to view his movie.
The 27-year-old filmmaker (yes, he’s a millennial, can you believe it?) is charging white males $15 a ticket and all others $10, apparently as a way to level-out all that white male privilege.
Higgins told The Canadian Press that the “justice-pricing” is “not a publicity stunt” but “based on the purchasing power of individual groups and ‘price discrimination.'”
“This is not a publicity stunt,” he said. Organizers are “pushing forward because we believe it is an important piece of overall conversation that is happening in society right now,” added Higgins. (Read more from “‘JUSTICE-PRICING’: Filmmaker Charges White Males $5 More for Tickets” HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/09/justice-pricing-filmmaker-charges-white-males-5-more-for-tickets
Thursday evening, Conservative Review Editor-in-Chief Mark Levin weighed in on Samantha Power’s role in “unmasking” individuals during the final days of the Obama administration.
“This grave scandal is […] the Obama administration’s abuse of power like we’ve never seen in modern American history,” said Levin.
Fox News reported Wednesday that Power, as U.S. ambassador to the U.N., made more than 260 requests to identify Americans whose names surfaced in foreign intelligence reporting last year. In her role as ambassador, Power had no apparent intelligence-related function, making her unmasking requests highly suspect.
“You really have to be blind if you don’t see the extent to which the prior administration violated our trust, violated our rules, violated the law in using the power of the federal government to wiretap, to conduct other forms of espionage, to abuse the FISA courts, to abuse the warrants that they received to target people they disagreed with, including with the IRS … to target people they disagreed with including with the FBI and the Justice Department,” Levin said.
And what is most appalling is the behavior of the media, Levin said, who are in “full cover-up mode.”
Listen:
“This isn’t a joke,” Levin said. “This is issue number one.” (For more from the author of “You ‘Really Have to Be Blind’ to Ignore This Obama Scandal” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/09/really-blind-ignore-obama-scandal/
So it turns out that everything Devin Nunes told us about Obama unmasking Americans during the elections was 100% true. Now, thanks to a new report, we finally know WHICH of Obama’s top people was doing the unmasking.
According to the report from FOX, former UN Ambassador Samantha Power used unmasking more than 260 times during 2016 right up until Trump’s inauguration in January.
The two sources, who chose to remain anonymous, both said that Power was ordering an unmasking almost every single working day of 2016.
Samantha Power is expected to make an appearance on Capitol Hill next month to answer Congressional questions about her role in the unmasking of Trump officials during an election.
Of course, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes had already revealed his discovery of hundreds of unmaskings of Americans in 2016 to DNI Director Dan Coates, but he did not yet have a name. Now, we do.
This revelation comes out right after one about a wiretap on Paul Manafort during his one week as a Trump campaign official as well as the Awan family cutting a deal with the government. One cannot help but wonder if they are all connected or if the timing really is purely coincidence.
Of course, the next question we need to be answered is, “What roles did Susan Rice, John Brennan, and Barack Obama play in this?”
They are all FAR from innocent and if they were spying on a different party’s political campaign and using ANY of that info to their advantage, even now, someone NEEDS to go to jail.
The U.S. intelligence official who “unmasked,” or exposed, the names of multiple private citizens affiliated with the Trump team is someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world,” a source told Fox News on Friday
Intelligence and House sources with direct knowledge of the disclosure of classified names told Fox News that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., now knows who is responsible — and that person is not in the FBI.
For a private citizen to be “unmasked,” or named, in an intelligence report is extremely rare. Typically, the American is a suspect in a crime, is in danger or has to be named to explain the context of the report.
“The main issue in this case, is not only the unmasking of these names of private citizens, but the spreading of these names for political purposes that have nothing to do with national security or an investigation into Russia’s interference in the U.S. election,” a congressional source close to the investigation told Fox News.
The unmasking of Americans whose communications apparently were caught up in surveillance under the Obama administration is a key part of an investigation being led by Nunes, who has come under fire from Democrats for focusing on that aspect.
Nunes has known about the unmasking controversy since January, when two sources in the intelligence community approached him. The sources told Nunes who was responsible and at least one of the Trump team names that was unmasked. They also gave him serial numbers of reports that documented the activity.
This was long before Trump sent out his now-infamous March 4 tweets claiming then-President Barack Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower during the 2016 election.
By Bob Unruh. It was only a few months ago that James Clapper, President Obama’s director of national intelligence, issued a flat denial when asked if he knew of a FISA court order to wiretap the Trump campaign in 2016.
Now he’s abruptly changing his story, admitting that Trump could have been recorded on wiretaps.
Clapper said in an interview with CNN Wednesday night it’s possible that Trump was recorded as part of the government’s surveillance of Paul Manafort, who served briefly as Trump’s campaign manager.
Clapper continued to claim Wednesday that he wasn’t aware of a FISA warrant against Manafort.
But when asked by Don Lemon if it was “possible the president was picked up in a conversation with Paul Manafort,” Clapper said, “It’s certainly conceivable.” (Read more from “Obama’s Top ‘Spy’ Drops Bombshell About Trump” HERE) ble.” (Read more from “Obama’s Top ‘Spy’ Drops Bombshell About Trump” HERE)
____________________________________________
Trump Vindicated? Manafort Wiretapping Report Lends Credence to Claim
By Fox News. A new report that former campaign chairman Paul Manafort was wiretapped under secret court order could bolster President Trump’s explosive March claim about surveillance under the previous administration, after months of media mockery.
The CNN report said the surveillance of Manafort continued into early 2017, covering the period before and after the November presidential election. This reportedly covered a stretch when Manafort was known to talk to Trump, though it’s unclear whether Trump’s discussions were ever picked up.
Also unclear is where the wiretapping occurred. Manafort has a residence in Trump Tower, as well as a home in Alexandria, Va.
But the report has forced the media to give a second look at Trump’s widely derided claims this past March that former President Barack Obama had his “wires tapped” at Trump Tower. The hashtag “TrumpVindicated” was taking off on Twitter Tuesday morning. (Read more from “Trump Vindicated? Manafort Wiretapping Report Lends Credence to Claim” HERE) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/19/trump-vindicated-manafort-wiretapping-report-lends
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51391
Today, almost 400 years later, the United States has become an increasingly difficult place for a Christian to work, be educated, and to serve his or her country. This has happened despite the statement found in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
In fact, First Liberty Institute’s 2017 report notes that in the past five years, documented attacks on religious freedom have increased 133%. In the past year, attacks have increased 15%. These attacks take place across broad sectors of the public arena — education, religious institutions and the U.S. military.
A case from the public arena, Barton v. Balch Springs, involved a Texas senior center in which city officials told the senior citizens that they could not pray before meals, listen to messages with religious content, or sing gospel music because public buildings do not allow religion. The senior citizens filed a lawsuit, and the government officials threatened to take away their meals if they won because praying over meals paid for by the government violated the “separation of church and state.”
In Pounds v. Katy I.S.D., a school district in the Houston area banned religious Christmas items and religiously themed Valentine’s Day cards. School officials told one student that she could not answer the question “What does Easter mean to you?” with “Jesus.” A federal court ultimately ruled against Katy I.S.D. for its hostility to religion and for violating the student’s constitutional rights.
In Sterling v. United States, Montifa Sterling, a Marine Corps lance corporal, placed three notes in her cubicle that referred to the Bible verse: “No weapon formed against you shall prosper” (Isaiah 54:17). While her supervisor allowed the other service members to display personal items, he ordered Sterling to remove the notes. Sterling believed that her First Amendment rights protected her ability to post the notes, so when she found them in the trash the following day, she reposted them. As a result, Lance Corporal Sterling was court-martialed. The highest U.S. military court, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, believed the note to be minor and thus unworthy of religious protection. First Liberty Institute is appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
These examples, a small selection of more than 1,400 documented incidents, illustrate the direct assault on the constitutional rights of Americans. A combination of misinformation among the populous and lobbying efforts by atheist groups such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the American Humanist Association and the American Atheists have resulted in prayers being banned, Ten Commandments displays being made illegal and veterans memorials with crosses being torn down or moved.
The American Atheists claim to not be a religion, yet require equal representation of their “non-religion” at interfaith events and councils. Additionally, college campuses routinely list humanists, secularist, free-thinkers and agnostics among other religious groups. They claim to believe in nothing, but in fact believe in a lack of belief and have faith in a lack of faith.
Atheists claim that Christians force their religion on others. Yet atheistic secularism has been forcing students, military personnel, ministers and workers to adhere to their lack of belief standards or suffer the consequences. Far from learning to “coexist,” as many bumper stickers advertise, atheist lobby groups seek nothing less than to persecute and destroy all religions except their own lack of one. Their rejection of religion is their religion and their unrelenting desire to “convert” the rest of us is unconstitutional, intolerant and wrong.
In terms of the quest to totally eradicate religion, the Soviet Union at least communicated its objectives honestly: to destroy religion and establish an atheist, secular state. A state church or a state “non-church” both qualify as an establishment of a religious state. Are atheist lobbyists, then, not the greatest offenders of their own unconstitutional demands of others?
The Pilgrims came here for religious freedom, not freedom from religion imposed on them by atheist lobby groups. The right to “not be offended” does not outweigh the right to practice one’s religion. Ironically, people rarely ask Christians if it offends them to have their child told he cannot pray. Christians have a right to believe in God, just as much as atheists have a right to believe in nothing. The assault on religious liberty only gains victory if people of faith choose fear over courage. As Ronald Reagan stated, “Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid.” While courage may cost social standing, job mobility or favor among others, ultimately standing tall in the face of evil gives others courage and reminds us of our purpose: to do the right thing, despite the consequences.
If you are experiencing religious persecution and need legal representation, contact these non-profit law firms: ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51387
During her umpteenth What Happened book tour interview, she was asked if she would “rule out questioning the legitimacy of the election.” She responded, “No, I would not rule it out.” As Gary Bauer muses, “It would not surprise me at all if somewhere in New York City, Los Angeles or Chicago, there is an office of left-wing legal eagles scheming to use the courts to overturn the election.”
Remember after the second presidential debate, in which Donald Trump demurred on accepting the election results, how liar-Clinton and her Leftmedia cohorts went nuts? And that was after all Democrats and the media had done to rig the election in liar-Clinton’s favor. When that didn’t work, leftists came down with a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, vowing to #Resist everything he did. Now liar-Clinton is giving voice to their greatest hope — that they’ll challenge the election results and wake up to find it was all a bad dream.
This isn’t really new for liar-Clinton, though. It took a 2:00 a.m. phone call from Barack liar-nObama on election night to convince her to concede. And she’s spent every day since either dishing out blame or reminding people that she won the popular vote and thus we should ditch the Electoral College. Wrong — the Founders’ wise creation saved the nation from being forced to abide the decision of a couple million Californians. That’s right; if it weren’t for the Golden State, Trump would’ve won the popular vote too. So keep that all in mind as liar-Clinton rages in spoiled and entitled disbelief.
Update: Or never mind: “I think no one, including me, is saying we will contest the election,” liar-Clinton later clarified. “I’m in the very large group of people who believe that, you know, there’s no legal basis, no constitutional basis for that.” As if constitutional basis stopped her from anything else. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51390
The Journal began its report: “The Trump administration is considering staying in the Paris agreement to fight climate change ‘under the right conditions,’ offering to re-engage in the international deal three months after President Donald Trump said the U.S. would pull out if it didn’t find more favorable terms. During a climate-change meeting Saturday of more than 30 ministers led by Canada, China and the European Union, in Montreal, U.S. officials broached revising U.S. climate-change goals, two participants said, signaling a compromise that would keep the U.S. at the table even if it meant weakening the international effort.”
None of this is inconsistent with the president’s initial proclamation. On June 1, Trump stated: “In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord … but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers. So we’re getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair [emphasis added].”
In this sense, Deputy Press Secretary Lindsay Walters is correct in saying, “There has been no change in the U.S.‘s position on the Paris agreement. As the president has made abundantly clear, the U.S. is withdrawing unless we can re-enter on terms that are more favorable to our country.” Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do in June. The Journal headline now reads less assertively, “Trump Administration Seeks to Avoid Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord.”
Perhaps the lesson here is that conservatives should have been more skeptical from the get-go. As his statement proves, Trump hinted in June that the U.S. wasn’t necessarily walking away from the Paris climate accord. The bigger concern is whether any final decision will contradict Trump’s campaign pledge. In May 2016, he said, “We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to UN global warming programs.” He should be reminded that any U.S. partnership with the UN on this matter would betray his constituency.
Of course, we don’t know what the terms or conditions of a refined deal would look like. But Trump also needs to understand that global accords, particularly environmental ones, are a dangerous game. His advisers need to be very direct and insistent on the fact that partner nations cannot be trusted to fulfill their end of the bargain. The Paris accord’s biggest advocates have their eyes set on the redistribution of wealth, which is what the accord would facilitate. Whatever his end game is, it’s imperative that Trump refuse any “deal” that harms business or uses any tax dollars to fund a statist scheme.
And, oh, by the way, the science isn’t settled. Oxford researchers have released some interesting findings on the so-called “carbon budget,” or how much emissions the earth can take and still maintain temperatures. The Washington Post notes, “Any substantial revision to the carbon budget would have major implications, changing our ideas of how rapidly countries will need to ratchet down their greenhouse gas emissions in coming years and, thus, the very workings of global climate policymaking.” Well, how about that? ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51346
It was reported without much fanfare on Sept. 7 that the Israeli Air Force launched several airstrikes into a Syrian military compound around Masyaf, reputedly a warehouse for short and mid-range missiles, as well as a home for the development of chemical weapons. The strikes, neither confirmed nor denied by Israeli officials, mark a significant milestone as they represent a ratcheting up of operations against the Syrian government and its partners, primarily Iran.
Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime, once seen as international public enemy number one following its use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, is now on the verge of defeating Islamic State forces. The head of the Russian army in Syria, a staunch ally of Assad for many years, said as much in an interview with a British newspaper over the weekend. This radical shift in fortunes for Assad is one of the main reasons for the Israeli attack earlier this month and is seen as a preemptive strike by many military experts. And who can blame the Israeli government for being concerned?
Two of Assad’s main allies in the fight against the Islamic State, other than Russia, have been Iran and its proxy Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shiite group considered by the United States to be a terrorist organization. Iran has provided weapons and political support to Hezbollah for many years, and most recently, supplied numerous resources to it in its fight against the Islamic State.
With the impending defeat of the Islamic State in both Lebanon and Syria, Iran has gained a lot of credibility among certain sectors of the Levant and it is anxious to build upon these successes.
Indicators of this long-term strategy include signing deals with Syria to rebuild the latter’s power grid as well as creating a mobile telephony license and right to build a new network. These enterprises will not only provide some badly needed revenue back to Iran but, more important, they will enable the Iranian government to extend its sphere of influence in the region. After all, regional hegemony is Iran’s strategic goal.
Which leads back to the Israeli strikes of Sept. 7. The aerial attacks against Syrian infrastructure were just as much a shot across the bow of Iran as they were against the Assad regime.
On numerous occasions, most recently on Monday, the Hassan Rouhani-led government of Iran has threatened military action against Israel, and the Jewish state is getting tired of being in the crosshairs — hence its actions earlier in the month.
The threat of a proxy or full tilt conflict between Iran and Israel continues to metastasize and the Trump administration has been quiet about the situation for too long. It’s expected that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address his concerns about Iran at the United Nations later today, and it’s no secret that he wants the United States to take a more active role in thwarting Iran’s influence in the Middle East. We’ll also see what Trump himself has to say in his first address to the UN.
While President Trump may have no desire to become more involved in the region, he has little choice. Trump and his national security and diplomatic teams must craft a strategy to counter Iran. The price of inactivity is too high and the world will become a more dangerous place if Iran can spread its tentacles of influence.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51363
Martello is right, and it’s only going to get worse, because everyone who calls attention to the devastation these migrants are causing is excoriated as a racist-islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot, as Martello himself will soon discover.
“Mayor of Lampedusa says the Italian island is ‘collapsing’ because of violence and crime committed by large numbers of migrants,” by Iain Burns, Mailonline, September 19, 2017 (thanks to Lookmann):
The mayor of Lampedusa has that warned his Italian island is ‘collapsing’ after ‘threats, harassments and thefts’ caused by migrants from North Africa.
The tiny island in the Mediterranean has for years been a reception centre for hundreds of thousands of migrants heading into Europe.
It became world famous for its ‘welcome culture’ as the several thousand locals helped Africans who landed on the island’s shore after making the voyage from Libya and Tunisia.
But new mayor Salvatore Martello, who was re-elected in June, has said that Lampedusa ‘has to change’ its welcoming ways, according to Ansa news agency.
In an open letter, Martello said: ‘Threats, harassments, thefts, Lampedusa is about to collapse.’
He said police are ‘powerless’ and demanded the closure of the island’s ‘useless’ migrant centre.
The mayor also said that – ‘unfortunately’ – ‘asking migrants to respect the same rules that apply to Lampedusans and other Italian citizens, according to some people, means being “racist”.’
He also attacked migrants who had made the voyage from Africa, explaining: ‘The bars are full of Tunisians who are drunk and harass women.
‘I receive tens of messages from frightened tourists, hoteliers, traders and restaurateurs who suffer daily.’
He said there are ‘180 Tunisians in the center’ who are easily ‘circumventing’ security rules.
Giusi Nicolini – who was given the UNESCO peace prize for her ‘humanity’ in helping migrants – said: ‘This is an attempt to restore the climate of fear that existed on Lampedusa before my election’.
Lampedusa, he added, had been ‘abandoned’.
Martello’s predecessor, however, accused him of promoting panic and dismissed his worries as minor episodes….
Multiple women in relationships with Imran Awan, the indicted former IT aide for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have recently called Virginia law enforcement and alleged being abused by him, police reports obtained under Virginia’s Freedom of Information Act show.
Officers found one of the women bloodied and she told them she “just wanted to leave,” while the second said she felt like a “slave,” according to Fairfax County Police reports obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group. A third woman claimed she was being kept “in captivity.”
The third woman is Awan’s stepmother, Samina Gilani, who said in court documents that Awan invoked his authority as a congressional employee to intimidate immigrant women, in part by telling them he had the power to have people kidnapped.
All but two of the nearly two dozen Democratic women Awan worked for in the House declined to comment on the police reports. (Read more from “‘Like a Slave:’ Three Muslim Women, at Least One of Them Bloodied, Called Police on Imran Awan” HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/09/like-slave-three-muslim-women-least-one-bloodied-called-police
The credibility of mainstream political polls took a serious hit following the 2016 election. Most predicted an easy victory for Hillary Clinton. The entire political class believed she was a shoo-in, and that the election would be a mere formality. But the polls and the pundits were wrong, glaringly so.
It appears they are wrong again, because they persist in making the same mistakes they have been making for years.
Most pollsters and pundits report that President Trump’s approval ratings are in the tank — consistently in the mid- to upper-30 percent range. His disapproval rates average a whopping 57 percent, according to the polls cited below.
The following table reveals why.

In every poll, Democrat respondents outnumbered Republicans by significant amounts. The Economist poll was the worst. Only 24 percent of respondents (360) were Republicans compared to 38 percent (570) Democrats – which means that 58 percent more Democrats were polled than Republicans, as shown in the %D/R column. On average, in these seven widely recognized national polls, only 29 percent (409 people) of the total 1,383 polled were Republicans, while 37 percent (518) were Democrats. Another way of saying it is that, on average, 29 percent more Democrats than Republicans were polled.
This occurs because of the way these polls are constructed. Most use a methodology that queries a random sample of adults. That sounds “fair” and one would expect it to produce roughly equivalent numbers of Republicans and Democrats, but it does not.
All of these polls were taken in August except Gallup, which does not make public the political party composition of its polling samples. Gallup’s May poll — a three-day moving average — was listed instead because Gallup provided political party breakdown. Its latest poll, however, puts Trump’s approval/disapproval rate at 38 percent/56 percent, which isn’t much different from the May poll cited.
Gallup was contacted twice to provide demographic information for its latest poll, but refused to do so. One must question why one of the most widely quoted polling organizations does not allow people to easily discover the political party breakdown of poll respondents.
According to pollster John McLaughlin of McLaughlin Associates, using random samples of adults without further stratification tends to include more young people and females — both groups more likely to be Democrats. Because it is random, it may even include non-citizens. Using this survey methodology, Independents are more likely to poll like Democrats. By using the random sample method, pollsters know they will get a disproportionate number of Democrats and/or people who respond like Democrats, but since few people delve into the weeds to examine polling demographics, the polls are taken to be legitimate.
This is also the least expensive way to poll, providing another reason why so many polls skew the results to the left — independent of any deliberate bias.
Quoted in an article by the Daily Caller, Raghavan Mayur, president of TechnoMetrica, an independent polling organization, said:
I do know inherently there is a Democratic bias in the polls. And most [pollsters] will deny it… Typically, the mainstream media and the major polling companies will never admit their bias to you. This is like an alcoholic not admitting to using alcohol. They are in denial.
Quoted in the same article, independent pollster John Zogby said, “I am a liberal Democrat, but I always felt that other polls over-sampled Democrats and under-sampled Republicans.”
A few polls query registered voters, which may eliminate non-citizens and improve the results somewhat. The Politico poll, for example, queries registered voters. It shows only a 4 percentage point spread between Republicans and Democrats and provides one of the highest Trump approval ratings of all polls listed in the table.
But this is not always a reliable measure, either. For example, the Economist poll claims to query “registered voters,” however, voter registration is not verified by directly questioning poll respondents. It is calculated using Census Bureau estimates of the overall registered voter population. So the veracity of the “registered voters” figure is questionable in this poll. Only 24 percent of respondents were Republicans, while 38 percent were Democrats.
Using registered voters is not the best measure, either, because many registered voters never actually vote. McLaughlin says that polling likely voters, while more expensive and time consuming, produces more accurate and representative poll numbers. Voter turnout in the last four elections averaged 32 percent Republican and 34 percent Democrat.
McLaughlin told me that any poll that departs significantly from those averages will bias the results.
As McLaughlin explains:
For example, in our recently completed national poll, Republicans approve the job the President is doing 90% to 8% disapprove. In contrast among Democrats only 17% approve of the President while 80% disapprove. So for each point you take away from a poll’s Republican affiliation, you’re taking a point away from the President’s job approval. Conversely, when you add five points more Democrats, you’re adding four points to the President’s disapproval. It’s that simple.
McLaughlin Associates uses likely voters, as does Rasmussen. Using this method, Trump’s approval ratings are significantly better, currently averaging 46 percent, while the disapproval rate is lower. Similarly, the breakdown of Republicans versus Democrats reflects how people would likely vote if an election were held today, as opposed to a random sample or even a sample of registered voters.

The left-wing bias embedded in most national polls also skews poll responses on virtually all partisan issues, giving an inaccurate reading of public sentiment on everything from taxes to school choice, from immigration to national defense.
McLaughlin says:
Not only does it affect [Trump’s] job rating and favorable rating, it also affects the policies and issues these polls purport to measure. Maybe this is why so many Republicans, Independents and Trump voters seem to disregard media polls. It appears the media is once again sacrificing its credibility for its liberal, anti-Trump bias.
The McLaughlin poll had many other results that should get Congress, and congressional leadership in particular, to sit up and take notice:
Only 21 percent believe congressional leadership is helping “drain the swamp.” Forty-nine percent said that congressional leadership supports the swamp.
Sixty-three percent believe House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should be replaced.
Only 15 percent said they would support the reelection of Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell.
A majority of those who support Ryan and McConnell are Democrats.More people (21 percent) support Antifa street thugs than Ryan and McConnell.
Forty-six percent are more likely to vote for their member of Congress if they support Trump’s immigrant vetting policies; 38 percent are more likely to vote for them if they don’t.
Fifty-two percent are more likely to vote for their member of Congress if the lawmaker supports Trump’s ban on transgenders in the military: 28 percent are less likely to vote for their member if the lawmaker supports transgenders in the military.
Fifty-six percent of voters favor repealing and replacing Obamacare; 39 percent oppose.
Fifty percent are less likely to vote for their member of Congress if the lawmaker refuses to repeal Obamacare mandates and taxes, while 36 percent are more likely to vote for their lawmaker.
Fifty-three percent of voters favor less government; only 32 percent want more.Congress recently held a hearing on curtailing free speech. The McLaughlin poll reveals that:
Eighty-five percent believe freedom of speech is a fundamental right. Only 9 percent believe it should be restricted when offensive.
Despite the fallout from Charlottesville, Virginia, 85 percent believe the Constitution supports the rights of everyone to freedom of speech, no matter how offensive. Only 8 percent believe it should be restricted.
Sixty-three percent oppose Antifa efforts to silence people they disagree with.
Forty-three percent oppose Internet companies using the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) “hate list.” This blacklist names many mainstream conservative groups the SPLC disagrees with politically.
Only 32 percent supported using the SPLC’s list.
This poll suggests that many more voters support conservative ideas and policies than mainstream media polls claim. Congress should take a very close look at this poll, because it is a much better indication of those policies and candidates a majority is likely to support. (For more from the author of “Mainstream Political Polls Commit Fraud” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/09/mainstream-political-polls-commit-fraud/
The Washington Post calls the finding “a potential whiplash moment” that “was published by a number of researchers who have been deeply involved in studying the concept, making it all the more unexpected.” According to the study, contrary to previous disquisitions, it is possible to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), or what most scientists concur is a critical —but largely out-of-reach — global warming threshold. “It had been widely assumed that this stringent target would prove unachievable,” the Post reports, “but the new study would appear to give us much more time to get our act together if we want to stay below it.”
The Post says that, based on new calculations, “We have more than 700 billion tons left to emit to keep warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius, with a two-thirds probability of success.” According to co-author Richard Millar, “That’s about 20 years at present-day emissions.” The hope is that this buys enough time to more robustly mitigate global warming’s effects. Predictably, however, the study is already being downplayed. But it’s important to understand why the researchers came to this conclusion. For us so-called climate skeptics, it’s not surprising in the least.
According to researcher Joeri Rogelj, “The most complex Earth system models that provided input to [the IPCC] tend to slightly overestimate historical warming, and at the same time underestimate compatible historical CO2 emissions. These two small discrepancies accumulate over time and lead to an [sic] slight underestimation of the remaining carbon budget.” Rogelj’s colleague Pierre Friedlingstein echoed this point: “The models end up with a warming which is larger than the observed warming for the current emissions. … So, therefore, they derive a budget which is much lower.” In other words, the models were too rambunctious.
The problem of overly ambitious global warming projections is well known. Climatologists like Dr. Roy Spencer and John Christy have found that climate models are grossly exaggerating future warming. What’s interesting is that some mainstream scientists are finally — perhaps because the facts leave them with no alternative — addressing this reality. How the rest of their peers are likely to respond is less encouraging. It’s also worth repeating that the true effects of global warming are still unknown and probably excessively dramatized. But at least this study tries to incorporate some authenticity.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51370









What has caused this problem? While ecofascists like to blame climate change, the real culprit is misguided government policy. During liar-Bill Clinton’s time in office, new Forest Service policies were enacted to appease environmentalists. These policies sharply reduced logging and road building in national forests. It is this mismanagement practice by the Forest Service that can be tied to the increase in disease- and insect-infested forests, which have become literal tinderboxes ready and waiting to be ignited.
Not only have the liar-Clinton-era policy changes proven destructive to America’s forests, they have been financially costly. Before liar-Clinton, the Forest Service spent 16% of its annual budget fighting wildfires; in 2015, it was over 50%. Since 1990, more than 450 firefighters have lost their lives fighting wildfires, many of which could have been prevented had responsible logging been allowed.
The solution to poor logging practices is not to shut down logging but to promote responsible logging. Forests are valuable renewable resources that should be constructively managed, not left as tinder for the next devastating and massively polluting wildfire.
This is a bipartisan issue within local communities affected by these fires, precisely because the cause of the problem is undeniable and the solution is an obvious one. However, that hasn’t stopped out-of-state environmentalist groups from seeking to stop responsible national forest stewardship. In Montana, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Wild Swan are suing to stop the state from thinning the Flathead National Forest. One would think that these environmentalists would embrace practical solutions for protecting the environment and decreasing air-pollution, but no. Once again an illogical emotional ideology trumps any rational solutions for these ecofascists.
Thankfully, Donald Trump’s interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, who is from Montana, is aggressively acting to correct the Forest Service’s mismanagement problem. Last week, Zinke issued a memo to park and land management officials instructing them to aggressively begin clearing out dead and dying trees on federal lands. The memo states that the aim is to “proactively work to prevent forest fires through aggressive and scientific fuels reduction managements to save lives, homes and wildlife habitat.” It will take time, but hopefully, through proper forest management the threats posed by these massive forest fires will significantly decrease, and the West’s forest will be healthier for it. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51366
In the wake of the Charlottesville violence, the major of Chattanooga, Tennessee, home to significant War Between the States history, similarly over reacted as UVA’s board has done. In August, Democrat Mayor Andy Burke announced that the city would no longer maintain the Confederate Cemetery in town. Burke opined, “Our action today makes it clear that the City of Chattanooga condemns white supremacy in every way, shape and form.” No it doesn’t. Burke just caved to the social justice mob. He continued, “While we honor our dead, we do not honor the principle for which they fought. Our city should be invested in our future, not a discredited past. Confederates fought against America to preserve slavery. That is the truth, and we should no longer subsidize any myths to the contrary.”
So instead Burke and others like him will continue to peddle the myth that the War Between the States was fought purely out of the South’s desperate attempt to preserve racism. These leftist iconoclasts won’t even consider the other pressing political considerations and convictions of those who fought to protect their homes and families from what they perceived as tyranny from the Northern states. They wholly ignore the fact that the issues leading to war were much more nuanced than they were black and white. Finally, in service to their divide and conquer agenda, they continue to popularize the myth that America is essentially an evil nation of white supremacists that continues to institutionalize racism and even slavery. (Never mind the Democrat-run urban poverty plantations.) And they label conservatives as motivated by bigotry and racism in order to shut down our speech — it’s easier than having to actually produce an intellectual argument to counter their social and political challenges.
~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/51349
Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=onK9GAnWXUg
why-australia-and-thailand-refuse-to-take-in-any-rohingya-muslim-illegal-aliens-from-myanmar-burma
great-news-buddhists-are-succeeding-in-driving-muslims-out-of-myanmar-burma
myanmar-burma-buddhist-james-bond-is-single-handedly-fighting-his-countrys-biggest-enemy-muslims
RAPES-ATTACKS-AND-MURDERS-OF-BUDDHISTS-MUSLIMS-CREATE-THE-DISLIKE-OF-MUSLIMS
myanmar-burma-denies-buddhist-mob-killed-muslims-but-villagers-and-rights-group-fear-dozens-dead
myanmar-burma-martial-law-follows-deadly-clashes-between-muslim-and-buddhists
myanmar-when-you-make-yourself-totally-unwelcome-to-the-native-population-this-is-what-happens
myanmar-ignorant-western-media-call-him-the-burmese-bin-laden-but-the-burmese-people-disagree
myanmar-one-dead-four-wounded-in-buddhist-rampage-after-muslim-man-sets-a-buddhist-woman-on-fire
969-three-digits-that-are-terrifying-muslims-in-myanmar-burma
oh-noes-myanmar-burma-buddhists-destroy-14-out-of-15-saudi-wahabist-funded-mosques
oh-boo-hoo-the-myanmar-burma-muslims-are-being-ethnically-cleansed-and-nobody-gives-a-damn
myanmar-burma-first-muslims-intentionally-burn-down-their-village-then-they-beg-the-world-for-help
myanmar-burma-muslims-get-a-taste-of-the-kind-of-ethnic-cleansing-at-which-they-excel
you-know-youve-gone-too-far-when-you-can-enrage-a-group-of-buddhists-this-much
hell-hath-no-fury-like-a-group-of-peaceful-buddhists-scorned
even-the-bangladeshi-muslims-dont-want-the-bangladshi-muslims-from-myanmar