All Posts (32575)
EXODUS? Could there soon be more Germans leaving Germany than Muslim invaders coming in?
( MUSLIMS DO NOT ASSIMILATE, THEY INFILTRATE )
More than 1.5 million Germans, many of them highly educated, left Germany during the past decade…which is just about the same number of Muslim welfare dependents, rapists, and jihadists from the Middle East and Africa (who far outnumber real Syrian refugees) that Germany has allowed in just the past two years. And it isn’t just middle class Germans who are being squeezed out of their jobs and homes to make room for the Muslim invaders.
Gatestone More than 4,000 millionaires emigrated from Germany in 2016, compared to 1,000 millionaires who left the country in 2015, according to the 2017 Global Wealth Migration Review. Before the migration crisis erupted in 2015, millionaires were leaving Germany at the rate of only a few hundred per year. Most of Germany’s millionaires, citing deteriorating security, left for Australia, Canada, the United States, Dubai and Israel.
The mass exodus of wealth is hollowing out Germany’s tax base at a time when the German government is spending tens of billions of euros for the upkeep of millions of refugees and migrants from the Muslim world. The report’s editor, Andrew Amoils, warned that the wealthy are a kind of early warning system for society – the proverbial canary in the coal mine. Due to their financial status, education and international contacts, they can emigrate more easily than others. Over the longer term, however, their exodus portends increased emigration from among the middle class, according to the report.
Gatestone Among the many reason for the German exodus:
Germany is facing a spike in migrant crime, including an epidemic of rapes and sexual assaults. Mass migration is also accelerating the Islamization of Germany. Many Germans appear to be losing hope about the future direction of their country.
“We refugees… do not want to live in the same country with you. You can, and I think you should, leave Germany. And please take Saxony and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) with you…. Why do you not go to another country? We are sick of you!” — Aras Bacho an 18-year-old Syrian migrant, in Der Freitag, October 2016.
A real estate agent in a town near Lake Balaton, a popular tourist destination in western Hungary, said that 80% of the Germans relocating there cite the migration crisis as the main reason for their desire to leave Germany.
“I believe that Islam does not belong to Germany. I regard it as a foreign entity which has brought the West more problems than benefits. In my opinion, many followers of this religion are rude, demanding and despise Germany.” — A German citizen who emigrated from Germany, in an “Open Letter to the German Government.”
“I believe that immigration is producing major and irreversible changes in German society. I am angry that this is happening without the direct approval of German citizens. … I believe that it is a shame that in Germany Jews must again be afraid to be Jews.” — A German citizen who emigrated from Germany, in an “Open Letter to the German Government.”
“My husband sometimes says he has the feeling that we are now the largest minority with no lobby. For each group there is an institution, a location, a public interest, but for us, a heterosexual married couple with two children, not unemployed, neither handicapped nor Islamic, for people like us there is no longer any interest.” — “Anna,” in a letter to the Mayor of Munich about her decision to move her family out of the city because migrants were making her life there impossible.
A growing number of Germans are abandoning neighborhoods in which they have lived all their lives, and others are leaving Germany for good, as mass immigration transforms parts of the country beyond recognition.
Data from the German statistics agency, Destatis, shows that 138,000 Germans left Germany in 2015. More are expected to emigrate in 2016. In a story on brain drain titled, “German talent is leaving the country in droves,” Die Welt reported that more than 1.5 million Germans, many of them highly educated, left Germany during the past decade.
The statistics do not give a reason why Germans are emigrating, but anecdotal evidence indicates that many are waking up to the true cost — financial, social and cultural — of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to allow more than one million mostly Muslim migrants to enter the country in 2015. At least 300,000 more migrants are expected to arrive in Germany in 2016, according to Frank-Jürgen Weise, the head of the country’s migration office, BAMF.
Mass migration has — among many other problems — contributed to a growing sense of insecurity in Germany, which is facing a spike in migrant crime, including an epidemic of rapes and sexual assaults. Mass migration is also accelerating the Islamization of Germany. Many Germans appear to be losing hope about the future direction of their country.
Many middle class Germans are moving to Hungary, where Muslim migrants are few and far between and not welcome at all.
Young Muslim migrants thinks Germans are disgusting and wish they would all disappear:
As a 75-year-old German woman explains her fears from living near so many Muslims, young Albanian Muslims interrupt and accuse her of insulting Muslims:
I’ve always said there’s no better conservative than a black conservative, especially one who understands Islam
And this woman is right up there with the best.
Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xm4okvOQ5k
h/t Starwish246
Social media rumor about mosque moving into St. Lucie incites angry residents to protest it at a City Council meeting
( MUSLIMS DO NOT ASSIMILATE, THEY INFILTRATE )
City officials say there are no current plans for building a mosque there at present…not yet anyway. But as they say, where there’s smoke there’s hellfire.
Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUeDxkjeFi8
The watchman on the wall sounding the ALARM
Georgia: Muslim refugee who attacked woman & daughter with U.S. flag skips court
( MUSLIMS DO NOT ASSIMILATE, THEY INFILTRATE )

Somali Muslim refugee who attacked American family
Source: Muslim charged with beating woman with U.S. flag skips court
LAWRENCEVILLE, Ga. – It was a case that drew national attention last year even as it was completely ignored by CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS and the rest of the establishment media – a mother and daughter in the Atlanta area were attacked by a complete stranger dressed in a black burqa and beaten with their own Stars and Stripes.
Aisha Ibrahim, a 31-year-old Somali refugee who also uses the alias Amina Ali Ahra, appeared out of nowhere on the day after Memorial Day 2016 to attack Dami Arno and her 17-year-old daughter Brittany. Ibrahim snatched the family’s American flag off of their mailbox and used the flagpole as a weapon against them.
Ibrahim failed to show up in court for her arraignment Monday, nearly a year after the incident occurred on May 31, 2016, in the Atlanta suburb of Lawrenceville.
Ibrahim has been indicted on two counts of simple assault, two counts of simple battery and one count of giving a false name to police, all misdemeanors except for the charge of false information, which is a felony. She posted bond and was released from the Gwinnett County Jail on Feb. 21, nine months after the incident occurred. But the victim, Dami Arno, and her husband Jimmy, told WND Monday they were never informed of their attacker’s release.
The FBI said it had investigated the case last year and decided not to file federal hate crime charges against Ibrahim. As WND previously reported, however, President Obama’s FBI dismissed the case without so much as interviewing the victims or witnesses.
To make matters worse, the Arnos came to court Monday expecting to see Dami’s attacker, hopefully unveiled, but were told she would not be in attendance.
Ibrahim’s brother appeared and announced to the court that his sister was in an Atlanta-area hospital and could not be present.
The arraignment has been rescheduled for May 22, Dan Mayfield, chief deputy assistant district attorney, told WND.
“We decided not to issue a bench warrant for her arrest because she is receiving medical treatment,” Mayfield said.
Jimmy Arno said he believes Ibrahim’s attorneys are preparing an insanity defense. The only way justice will prevail in his opinion is if the woman who attacked his wife outside her own home is deported back to Somalia.
“This is like a kick in the teeth,” said Jimmy Arno outside the courthouse Monday. “To stand here and be told she was released on bond [two months ago] is just unbelievable. I remember sitting in the district attorney’s office and him telling us we would be notified within four hours of her being released from the county jail. We were never told. They blamed it on the sheriff’s office and said we didn’t fill out the proper form. Why, as a victim, do I have to fill out anything to get my rights?”
Jimmy Arno voiced frustration that Ibrahim was living within four to six miles of his family and they were never notified of her release.
He said his son has experienced months of sleepless nights, peering out his bedroom window at the front yard where the attack took place and keeping a loaded shotgun in his bedroom at all times.
“At what point are we going to be treated better than the criminal?” Jimmy Arno asked. “Because right now I feel like the criminal in this case.”
He said his neighbors have also been shaken.
“There are 21 families in this subdivision that have been affected. They talk about it all the time. They lock their doors now,” he said. “They’re that scared.”
The watchman on the wall sounding the ALARM
Reunion island: French police SHOT by devout Muslim
Reunion is a French overseas territory. The jihad against France is global. If France votes for Macron, it will be voting for surrender and Islamization.
“Reunion island: French police shot by suspected Islamist,” BBC, April 26, 2017:
Two French police officers have been shot and wounded on the Indian Ocean island of Reunion as they tried to arrest a suspected radical Islamist.
The suspect opened fire with a shotgun as a special police squad raided his home in the town of Saint Benoit.
Police said the man, who is in his 20s and in custody, was spreading Islamist propaganda online.
Weapons and ingredients used to make Molotov cocktails were found at his flat, France’s interior minister said.
Local media said the officers were not seriously injured and the suspect was also shot during the raid….
France’s counter-terrorism authorities have opened an investigation into the incident.
Interior Minister Matthias Fekl said the suspect’s mother was also being questioned.
Reunion, which lies between Madagascar and Mauritius, is a French overseas territory and has the same political status as other departments in mainland France….
Please sign, share, and pin this petition!
Please post the names of the representatives/senators that you have contacted in the comments section.
This could be the single most important thing you do for American security. The Muslim Brotherhood is on record as saying its "work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within".
Please contact President Trump and your Congressional representatives and urge them to support bills HR377 (House) & S68 (Senate) which designate The Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
1. Sign the petition: CounterJihad.com/designate
2. Contact President Trump: WhiteHouse.gov/contact
3. Contact your congressional representatives:
House:
Contact: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
List of cosponsors: https://www.congress.gov/…/115th-…/house-bill/377/cosponsors
Senate:
Contact: http://www.senate.gov/…/contact_informati…/senators_cfm.cfm…
List of cosponsors: https://www.congress.gov/…/115th-…/senate-bill/68/cosponsors
Sample scripts:
The White House --
-- When will President Trump designate The Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization?
Congress/Senate
If your representative/senator is NOT on the list of co-sponsors --
-- Hello, my name is ....... I would like to know what is representative/senator ....... stance on HR377/S68? In particular, why he/she is not on the list of co-sponsors? (If a senator's aids claims that the reason a senator is not co-sponsoring S68 because he/she is not on a Foreign Relations Committee, point out that most of the co-sponsors are neither.)
If your representative/senator IS on the list of co-sponsors --
-- Hello, my name is ....... I would like thank representative/senator ....... for co-sponsoring HR377/S68.
If "Share" option is not available, please go to the original https://www.facebook.com/groups/FunFactsAboutTheLeft/permalink/1678238602480626/
FAQ: https://www.facebook.com/groups/FunFactsAboutTheLeft/permalink/1678660885771731/

by Minister Michael Brown
.
.
Sean Spicer: Sanctuary Cities "Have the Blood of Dead Americans on Their Hands"VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFXVu_qE-PI
VIDEO: http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/5411259999001
VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgwFxq2uB0w
VIDEO: http://video.insider.foxnews.com/v/5412805532001
by Minister Michael Brown
I asked my Twitter followers this question, and the responses were somewhat surprising. But before I share what they had to say, let me start with the appropriate caveats.
I'm not denying the reality of sexual harassment in the workplace.
I’m not denying that some men feel they have the right to treat women as sexual objects.
I’m not denying that many women feel constant pressure to dress sensually.
I’m not denying that some judges have outrageously implied that rape victims got what they deserved because of their scanty attire.
I’m not questioning or minimizing or excusing any of this. Not a chance.
What I’m questioning is whether it’s sexual harassment if a woman wears suggestive attire and a man checks her out. Is she getting the desired results – namely, male attention – or is this a form of sexual harassment?
Again, I’m not justifying the man’s behavior or the woman’s attire. As a follower of Jesus, I do my best to look away from temptation, not toward it. And my wife and I taught our daughters never to dress in such a way as to appeal to male lusts.
But if a woman comes to work in a very tight, very short mini-skirt and some male coworker checks out her legs, is he guilty of sexual harassment? Or, more generally, if he says to her, “That’s a nice outfit!” has he sexually harassed her?
Perquita Burgess, one of O’Reilly’s accusers, claimed he “would come by her desk and would leer at her up and down. She felt like he was looking at her cleavage, and it made her feel uncomfortable.”
If true, was this harassment? Perhaps it’s one thing to glance and another thing to leer? Or was she displaying her cleavage for all to see? I’m simply asking questions.
She also claimed that “O’Reilly told her ‘lookin’ good there girl’ one time when she was getting off the elevator.”
What about this behavior? Can a friendly compliment be construed as sexual harassment unless it was part of a larger complex of inappropriate comments? Or is this just one more exaggerated reaction from our hyper-PC culture in which almost everything is construed to be sexist or racist?
Remember that one campus listed complimentary comments to women such as, “I love your shoes!” as gender microagressions, since it would suggest that females had nothing to offer other than nice attire.
Getting back to my Twitter poll, I asked, “If a woman wears a low-cut top to work, is it sexual harassment if a man checks her out?”
The four possible responses were: Yes (I’m female); No (I’m female); Yes (I’m male); No (I’m male).
My Twitter followers seem to be about two-thirds male in contrast with my Facebook followers, who are about 55 percent female, especially in the older age groups. So the responses to my poll were in keeping with the demographics, with men representing 68 percent of the responders and women 32 percent.
Interestingly, 81 percent of those responding answered with No. And check this out: The percentage of women answering No was virtually identical to that of men who answered No. How striking! To be exact, of the 32 percent of women responding, 6 percent answered Yes, and 26 percent No; of the 68 percent of men responding, 13 percent answered Yes, and 55 percent No.
So, not only did the vast majority of my respondents believe that this was not sexual harassment, but the women and men agreed.
One woman tweeted back to me: “That’s why women wear revealing stuff, whether they admit or not … so men will look at them.”
Another woman tweeted: Totally agree. Females who say otherwise are dishonest. A person w/positive self-concept won’t dress immodestly to get attention. Conversely, a female doesn’t accidentally put a top on so her action hangs out. … It’s on PURPOSE! I see it on campus. Shorts so one literally sees the you know what. I find it repulsive not to mention unsanitary. Totally unnecessary!”
Yet another woman added: “Women should respect themselves more if they want to be respected!!!”
And another: “Touching is obviously a no no. But why not dress modestly at work? I don’t mean up to the chin, but not so low. Or tight. Show respect.”
And one more: “If a woman displays herself are men expected to NOT look?”
(Remember: These were all women expressing these views.)
One man did feel that to check the woman out was harassment. But, he added, “do women have a responsibility of addressing themselves properly? Men are visual. Let’s be real.”
Not all, however, agreed.
One woman wrote: “Next step: ‘Please wear a burka because it’s your responsibility if I find you attractive and can’t rule myself.'”
Interestingly, when I clicked on the bio of this tweeter, her description was short and to the point: “Liberal and atheist.” Perhaps her response is not so surprising.
From the totally opposite perspective, one man asked: “I’d also like to know how many men feel uncomfortable when a woman wears a ‘low-cut top’ to work? Isn’t that sexual harassment?”
Who wants to open that can of worms?
All this being said, I trust we agree that: 1) making a woman feel uncomfortable because of her looks is inappropriate; 2) our airbrushed, super-model culture puts women under extra pressure to present themselves a certain way; 3) and men can sometimes act like male animals chasing a female dog in heat.
But is it sexual harassment if a man compliments a female coworker’s attire in non-lewd terms? Or is it sexual harassment if a man’s eyes are drawn to a female coworker’s highly accentuated areas? I think not.
What do you think?
Reunion island: French police SHOT by devout Muslim
( Muslims do not assimilate, they infiltrate 1 )
Reunion is a French overseas territory. The jihad against France is global. If France votes for Macron, it will be voting for surrender and Islamization.
“Reunion island: French police shot by suspected Islamist,” BBC, April 26, 2017:
Two French police officers have been shot and wounded on the Indian Ocean island of Reunion as they tried to arrest a suspected radical Islamist.
The suspect opened fire with a shotgun as a special police squad raided his home in the town of Saint Benoit.
Police said the man, who is in his 20s and in custody, was spreading Islamist propaganda online.
Weapons and ingredients used to make Molotov cocktails were found at his flat, France’s interior minister said.
Local media said the officers were not seriously injured and the suspect was also shot during the raid….
France’s counter-terrorism authorities have opened an investigation into the incident.
Interior Minister Matthias Fekl said the suspect’s mother was also being questioned.
Reunion, which lies between Madagascar and Mauritius, is a French overseas territory and has the same political status as other departments in mainland France….
You Can Defend Bin Laden at Berkeley, but Not Conservatism
( Muslims do noe assimilate, they infiltrate )
With UC Berkeley’s unwillingness to provide actual security measures for conservative speakers, the school has made it crystal clear that there is no room for free expression on its campus.
The academic institution has, however, welcomed prominent radical Islamists with open arms. Speakers who have openly called for violence and bigotry are granted space at Berkeley, so long as they fit within the accepted political framework.
Since the turn of the century, the California school has become a cesspool of radical indoctrination that is rampant with Islamic supremacists. The school has not only turned into America’s chief promulgator of anti-American ideals, it also has become a breeding ground of anti-Semitism.
April 13 marked the 10-year anniversary of an overtly pro-Osama bin Laden speech hosted by the Muslim Students Association (MSA) at Berkeley.
The shocking audio, in which the speaker demands that fellow Muslims not condemn the international terrorist, has been preserved by the Investigative Project on Terrorism.
“Osama bin Laden … I don’t know this guy. I don’t know what he did. I don’t know what he said. I don’t know what happened. But we defend Muslim brothers and we defend our Muslim sisters to the end. Is that clear?” Amir Mertaban, the former MSA West president, said at a MSA conference of the now-dead al Qaeda chief.
“If you sit here and you start saying ‘jihad is only an internal this and that,’ you are compromising on your faith,” he added.
In 2004, a Berkeley MSA conference hosted Amir Abdel Malik Ali, who called for fellow “mujahids” (warriors for Islam) to take up arms and form a Muslim theocracy. The left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center has described him as “a charismatic imam who promotes anti-Semitism, violence and conspiracy theories that blame the U.S. government and Jews for attacks by Islamic terrorists.”
Two years later, Mr. Ali spoke at a UC Irvine pro-Hezbollah (which is a U.S.-designated terrorist organization) conference and was received by chants of “Allahu Akbar!”
Later that year, to commemorate Holocaust Remembrance Day, Islamic supremacists at Berkeley held an anti-Semitic hate fest, shouting for the destruction of Israel.
The UC’s Islamic supremacy complex is far from a thing of the past.
In 2015, Berkeley hosted Omar Barghouti, leader of the anti-Semitic BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against the state of Israel. Today, Berkeley continues to be a cesspool of Islamic supremacist indoctrination.
The California school partners with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) – an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in American history, and a suspected Hamas front group – on annual “Islamophobia” reports and conferences.
The annual confab, which took place last week, featured Zahra Billoo. She is the director of CAIR’s San Francisco-Bay Area chapter. Billoo has, in the past, accused U.S. soldiers of engaging in terrorism and has advised her allies to thwart FBI investigations.
The Berkeley-CAIR “Islamophobia Research and Documentation Project” was started by Dr. Hatem Bazian, a professor at the school. Bazian is the founder of the Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), an anti-Semitic hate group that seeks to eliminate the Jewish state of Israel. Bazian has, in the past, called for an intifada (violent uprising) in America.
Berkeley’s indoctrination efforts have clearly had an effect on the individuals matriculating there. Check out this shocking video released in 2014 by filmmaker Ami Horowitz. It highlighted how students reacted much more negatively to an Israeli flag than to an Islamic State flag.
Berkeley is no place for conservatism, yet the school seemingly has no issue with radical Islamists who seek to overthrow the country and impose a theocracy on America. (For more from the author of “You Can Defend Bin Laden at Berkeley, but Not Conservatism” please click HERE) read more and watch videos http://joemiller.us/2017/04/can-defend-bin-laden-berkeley-not-conservatism/
Planned Parenthood’s Health Services Decline as Abortions, Tax-Payer Funding Rise
Planned Parenthood is receiving more government funding and performing more abortions than it did 10 years ago. Meanwhile, non-abortive services like cancer screenings are on the decline.
Pro-life activist group Live Action summarized the data in a new video released Monday. (Scroll down to watch.)
The abortion provider is attempting to stave off a heated effort to strip its tax-payer funding. Earlier this month, President Donald Trump signed a bill allowing states to defund Title X of the Public Health Services Act, which funds family planning services. The bill was passed by the Senate in March with a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Mike Pence.
An obvious swipe at Planned Parenthood, the bill was called a “major pro-life victory” by House Speaker Paul Ryan. Democrats decried the action, claiming it would rob women of critical health care.
Planned Parenthood defenders often point to the fact that federal law already prohibits tax-payer funding of abortions. They also cite numbers claiming abortion makes up only 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s work. But that hasn’t stopped pro-life activists and Conservative lawmakers from fighting it.
Planned Parenthood currently receives over $500 million in government funding. That’s reportedly up from $272 million in 2004, as Live Action pointed out in its new video. Despite the bump in tax-payer dollars, Planned Parenthood’s clientele is the smallest it’s been in a decade. Live Action reports that the number of Planned Parenthood clients has dropped by half a million in six years. In the last 10 years, the organization closed over 200 facilities.
Also in the last decade, Planned Parenthood’s annual breast exams have dropped by 60 percent. It now does less than 2 percent of the nation’s breast exams. Pap tests have dropped by 77 percent, now accounting for less than 1 percent of all pap tests in the nation. Abortions, however, increased by 27 percent between 2004 and 2014. Today, Planned Parenthood performs nearly 35 percent of America’s abortions.
LifeSite News listed the exact numbers, which come straight from Planned Parenthood’s own reports.
“America’s women and children deserve better,” Live Action president Lila Rose told LifeSite. “Washington must ensure that taxpayer money spent on health care for women is actually spent on health care, not on keeping the doors to America’s largest abortion chain open.”
(For more from the author of “Planned Parenthood’s Health Services Decline as Abortions, Tax-Payer Funding Rise” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/04/planned-parenthoods-health-services-decline-abortions-tax-payer-fund
STEM Academy Assistant Principal on Leave for Screaming at Pro-Life Teen
An assistant principal at Downingtown STEM Academy in Chester County has been placed on administrative leave after a video surfaced of him yelling at pro-life teenagers last Friday.
The video, posted on YouTube by one of the teens, showed a heated verbal exchange between Dr. Zach Ruffs and a 16-year-old protesting the “holocaust of abortion.”
The argument transpired as students were leaving school for the day. Ruff appeared to be directing traffic away from the school when the incident was recorded.
“Innocent children are being murdered in our society,” declared one of the protesting teens in video footage.
“They’re not children. They’re cells. Go home!” yelled Ruff. (Read more from “STEM Academy Assistant Principal on Leave for Screaming at Pro-Life Teen” HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/04/stem-academy-assistant-principal-leave-screaming-pro-life-teen/
Trump Opens Doors on Oil Exploration, but Deeper Reforms Still Needed
In another move to free up domestic energy supplies, President Donald Trump signed an executive order Friday aimed at lifting the Obama administration’s offshore drilling restrictions.
For decades, bad policies have blocked access to America’s abundance of domestic resources, yet America has still managed to be a global energy leader. Trump’s executive order, “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” could unleash further success in the energy sector.
The economic potential sitting just off America’s coasts is enormous. The Outer Continental Shelf is awash with natural resources, containing an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
Realizing that potential could create nearly a million American jobs, and the increased energy supplies that would result would put money back into the bank accounts of American families. It would also generate new prospects for investment and job creation, as cheap energy lowers the cost of business operations across all sectors, not just energy.
The federal government has placed various bans on offshore drilling for decades. Last November, the Obama administration’s Department of Interior finalized some of the most restrictive leasing programs to date.
The Interior Department’s final 2017-2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program was best known for the areas it placed off limits, rather than what it made available to lease for energy exploration.
It excluded lease sales in the oil-rich Beaufort or Chukchi seas off the coasts of Alaska, as well as areas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The Interior Department also restricted opportunities in the Gulf of Mexico and the Cook Inlet off south central Alaska.
Critics of Trump’s decision to free up leasing are making the same arguments they’ve made for years: “Oil prices are too low, so the decision won’t spur more oil exploration. Drilling offshore takes too long, so it’s not going to have any immediate impact.”
But those arguments ignore the biggest drivers of investment. Juliet Eilperin and Brady Dennis were spot on in writing for The Washington Post, “[L]ocal political considerations and the global energy market are likely to influence future exploration far more than an executive order in Washington.”
While Trump’s executive order will open more doors for exploration, it won’t automatically trigger an energy boom. That’s the way it should be.
Oil prices are long-term and, as history has shown, can increase rather quickly. Industry makes investment decisions looking decades into the future, not simply based on short-term projections.
Although it certainly is possible that low oil prices could prohibit offshore production, that’s a decision for the private sector to consider. Businesses are much better equipped and flexible to deal with changing economic circumstances than shortsighted politicians in Washington.
Another battle cry for of those who oppose offshore drilling is: Do we really want to risk another Deepwater Horizon spill?
The Deepwater Horizon spill of 2010, which caused environmental degradation in the Gulf of Mexico, was a rare and isolated incident, not a result of any systemic problem associated with offshore oil and gas operations.
That’s not to say flaws don’t exist in the current system or that improvements can’t be made.
In fact, after Deepwater Horizon, Congress examined the government-imposed offshore liability cap but never implemented any prudent solution.
Current law states that oil or gas companies do not have to pay more than $75 million in liability costs for accidents they cause—no matter how great the damages.
Additional fees can be paid out of a government-mandated trust fund (the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund), which effectively socializes the risk of offshore oil and gas activities.
Congress should reform the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and remove the $75 million liability cap, replacing it with a new system that assesses the risks of offshore oil and gas operations and appropriately assigns those risks to industry operators.
A new approach would accurately assign risk to all offshore operations, including exploratory drilling, production, and tanker movements.
Such a system should also hold operators fully liable for their actions and guard against frivolous lawsuits. It should rely on market-based mechanisms and be built around private insurers and professional risk assessors.
Environmental activists aren’t the only ones opposed to Trump’s executive order. Some members of the tourism industry have also voiced concerns about expanded drilling off the Atlantic.
But the energy industry has worked in perfect harmony with other industries. Just look to the Gulf Coast. Every year, residents of the Gulf come to Morgan City, Louisiana, to celebrate the lifeblood of the region’s economy: seafood and oil.
Morgan City’s Shrimp and Petroleum Festival emphasizes “the unique way in which these two seemingly different industries work hand-in-hand culturally and environmentally in this area of the ‘Cajun Coast.’”
While the Deepwater Horizon spill affected all industries in the Gulf Coast, the majority of seafood and tourism companies supported the oil industry throughout the ordeal.
In fact, in many respects, the spill has strengthened the bond between the oil and seafood industry. Shrimpers and fishers were as vocal as anyone in lifting the offshore drilling ban after the spill.
Drilling off the Atlantic coasts could welcome the same symbiotic relationship, which already exists in the Gulf and in the state of Alaska.
Furthermore, states should collect more royalty revenue for offshore production.
Currently, states receive 50 percent of the revenues generated by onshore oil and natural gas production on federal lands, and Congress should apply this allocation offshore as well.
Drilling off states’ coasts and allowing them a larger share of the royalty revenue would encourage more state involvement in drilling decisions.
Offshore drilling would also promote state and local government participation in allocating funds, helping them to close their deficits, enabling coastal restoration and conservation, and shoring up funds for schools.
Trump’s executive order is a welcome step to increasing access to domestic resources, but the back-and-forth of banning resource exploration and then undoing it is a sign that wholesale reform is necessary.
The politicization of the leasing program and the static central planning process that has stifled a dynamic, constantly changing energy market points to the need for legislative action. It is time for a fundamental reconsideration of how the U.S. manages offshore resource development.
Congress should amend the Outer Continental Shelf Leasing Act and get rid of this antiquated, piecemeal leasing approach. (For more from the author of “Trump Opens Doors on Oil Exploration, but Deeper Reforms Still Needed” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/04/trump-opens-doors-oil-exploration-deeper-reforms-still-needed/
Trump’s Tax Plan Is Brilliant Politics and Even Better Economics
Donald Trump’s tax plan seems to mark a new chapter in his presidency, from floundering around with strange and sometimes scary policies (bombings, border closings, saber rattling) to focusing on what actually matters and what can actually make the difference for the American people and the American economy.
Under Trump’s plan, taxes on corporate profits go from 35% to 15%. They should be zero (like the Bahamas), but this is a good start. Taxes on capital gains go from 23.8% to 20%. Again, it should be zero (as with New Zealand), but it is a start. Rates for all individuals are lowered to three: 10%, 25%, and 35%. The standard deduction for individuals is doubled (politically brilliant). The estate tax and the alternative minimum tax is gone. Popular deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest are preserved. The hare-brained idea of a “border adjustment tax” is toast.
All of this is wonderful, but the shining light of this plan is the dramatic reduction in taxes on corporate profits. The economics of this are based on a simple but profoundly true insight. Economic growth is the key to a good society. This is where good jobs come from. This is how technology improves. This is what gives everyone a brighter outlook on life. If you can imagine that your tomorrow will be more prosperous and flourishing than today, your life seems to be on track.
Tax Capital, Wreck Prosperity
Where does economic growth come from? For decades dating back perhaps a hundred-plus years, people imagined that it could come from government programs and policy manipulation. Surely there are some levers somewhere in the center of power that can cause this thing we call economic growth. We just need solid experts with power, resources, and intelligence to manage the system.
This turns out to be entirely wrong. It hasn’t worked. Since 2008, government has tried to mastermind an economic recovery. It has floundered. We are coming up on a full decade of this nonsense with economic growth barely crawling along. We are surviving, not thriving, and income growth, capital formation, and entrepreneurial opportunity restricted and punished at every turn.
The Trump tax plan is rooted in a much better idea. Economic growth must come from the private sector. It must come from investment in private capital. The owners of this capital who are doing well and earn profits should be allowed to keep them and invest them. This creates new job opportunities. It allows for more complex production strategies. It expands the division of labor.
The crucial institution here is capital. Sorry, anti-capitalists. It’s just true. Capital can be defined as the produced goods for production, not consumption. It is making things for the purpose of making other things. Think about it. Without capital, you can still have markets, creativity, hard work, enterprise. But so long as you have an absence of capital, you are forever floundering around just working to make and sell things for consumption. This is called living hand to mouth.
Without capital, and the private ownership of capital, and security over your property rights, you can’t have economic growth. You can’t have complex production. You can’t raise wages. You can’t live a better life. Every tax on capital, capital formation, capital accumulation, and business profit reduces the security of property rights over capital. This is a sure way to attack economic growth at its source.
And this is precisely what American policy has done. The rest of the world has been wising up about this, reducing taxes on capital for the last 15 years. But the US has languished in the mythology of the past, regarding capital not as a font of prosperity but rather a fund of stagnant resources to be pillaged by planners in government. It is not surprising that this strategy results in slow growth and even permanent recession.
What This Can Do for Growth
There is so much pent-up energy in this country. This tax cut will unleash it.
I have no regression to present to you but this much I can say out of experience and intuition. If this tax plan goes through, the entire class of entrepreneurs, investors, and merchants will receiving a loud signal: this country is safe for you to realize your dreams and make the dreams of others come true.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see GDP growth go from an anemic 1-2% to reach 4% and higher in one year. There is so much pent-up energy in this country. This tax cut will unleash it. And think what it means for the next recession or financial crisis. It prepares the entire country to weather such an event better than we otherwise would.
The beauty of unleashing the power of private capital is that the brilliant results will always be surprising. We don’t know what kind of experimentation in investment and business expansion this will create. This is the nature of a capitalist economy rooted in the freedom of enterprise. It defies our every expectation. No model can forecast with precision the range of results here. We only know that good things will come.
Now, of course, the opponents will talk of the deficit and the national debt. What about the lost revenue? The problem is that every revenue forecast is based on a static model. But an economy rooted in capital formation is not a static one. It is entirely possible that new profits and business expansion will produce even more revenue, even if it is taxed at a lower rate.
If you want to cut the deficit, there is only one way: cut spending. I see no evidence that either party wants to do this. Too bad. This should change. But it is both economically stupid and morally unsound to attempt to balance the budget on the backs of taxpayers. Letting people keep more of what they earn is the right thing to do, regardless of government’s fiscal problems.
In the meantime, these pious incantations of the word “deficit, deficit, deficit,” should be seen for what they are: excuses to continue to loot people of their just earnings.
The Politics of It
Already the opponents of this plan are kvetching in the predictable way. This is a tax cut for the rich! Well, yes, and that’s good. Rich capitalists — sorry for yet another hard truth — are society’s benefactors.
But you know why this line of attack isn’t going to work this time? Take a look at the standard deduction change. It is doubled. Not a single middle-class taxpayer is unaware of what this means. This is because they are profoundly aware of how the tax system works. If you take the standard deduction from $6,200 to $15,000, that means people are going to keep far more of their own money. There is not a single taxpayer in this country who will not welcome that.
This is why it strikes me as crazy for Democrats to inveigh against this plan. Doing so only cements their reputation as the party of pillage. Do they really want the United States to be outcompeted by every other nation in the OECD? What they should do is rally behind this, forgetting all the ridiculous pieties about the deficit and the rich and so on. Do they favor the interests of the American people are not?
It’s also fantastic politics to retain the deductions for charitable giving and mortgage interest. These are popular for a reason. They are two of the only ways that average people can save on their tax bill. It always pained me when the GOP would propose a “flat tax” that eliminated these provisions. People are very aware: taking away an existing tax break is a terrible foreshadowing of bad things to come. So this Trump plan dispenses with all that. Good.
As for compliance costs of the current system, the elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax will do worlds of good.
What I love most about this plan is its real-world economic foundation. It embraces a truth that so many want to avoid. If you want jobs, rising wages, and economic growth, you have to stop the war on capital. You have to go the other way. You need to celebrate capital and allow rewards to flow to those who are driving forward economic progress.
It’s a simple but brilliant point. Finally, we’ve got a tax proposal that embraces it. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Tax Plan Is Brilliant Politics and Even Better Economics” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/04/trumps-tax-plan-brilliant-politics-even-better-economics/
Why Good Economics Matters Now More Than Ever
In a newsletter published in 1970, economist Murray Rothbard wrote, “It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
This is an oft-quoted platitude within circles of libertarian philosophy and Austrian economics.
Today, we are seeing the embodiment of Rothbard’s fears. The woeful state of economic understanding has reached a critical mass. Economics has taken a back seat to issues deemed more important. What’s worse is that when economics is discussed, millennials tend to lean socialist.
I have a vested interest in seeing economics and sound money flourish as I work in the field. Yes, I believe that tying a nation’s currency to gold keeps government spending in check. This is hardly professional bias though, as we all have a vested interest in seeing economics and sound money championed, many just don’t recognize it. This piece is aimed at anyone with a vested interest in maintaining a standard of living higher than that of the depression-era breadline vagabond. Economics transcends race, gender, and political identification.
Let’s begin by examining the first of two reasons that good economics is paramount.
Good Economics Is Important Because We Are Seeing a Rise in Bad Economics
Despite the corruption and backhanded actions of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign to win the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders experienced a meteoric rise reminiscent to that of Ron Paul’s, whose 2008 presidential campaign trained his supporters’ focus on economics. Paul championed policies in the spirit of economists that I personally revere: Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Nobel Prize Laureate Friedrich Hayek, among others.
Bernie Sanders’s 2016 campaign had an equal but opposite effect. From teenagers to senior citizens, many loved Sanders’s critique of the broken system that favors the wealthy and stifles the poor. His “solutions” are abysmal, yet despite the countless examples of current (and more importantly, collapsed) socialist-Marxist/Leninist calamities, a self-described socialist found a foothold in the United States.
The revolution inspired by Sanders is anti-intellectual. The “economics” that stemmed out of the Sanders campaign was not economics at all. His school of economics was built on people shouting about their feelings and promoting egalitarianism for the sake of egalitarianism.
Good economics is grounded in axiomatic truths and empirical facts about the world around us. Sound money keeps governments and central banks (called the Federal Reserve in the US) from endless money printing and devastating inflation. Yes, that means the government won’t be able to provide every service that one desires. That is a good thing. Government is the bastion of inefficiency and the epitome of waste. Strictly from an economics standpoint, the market is far better suited at providing products and services.
The espousal of socialist policies in economics is dangerous and irresponsible. Fortunately, it doesn’t take much intellectual firepower to write off socialism as wildly inefficient. But it does take some. Socialism falls apart quickly when one understands the economic calculation problem, which explains the importance of prices based in subjective value in a free market system and explains how centrally planned economies, devoid of market prices, are doomed to suffer from inefficiencies in the form of widespread shortages and surpluses. Without these rudimentary economic blocks, “free college, health care for everyone, and massive taxation on the 1 percent to pay for these policies” sounds desirable.
We must learn, though. We must strive for intellectual growth. We must take the lessons we’ve learned from history and apply them to the word we live in today: socialism does not work. Socialism kills. (Even Scandinavian socialism isn’t as great as socialists say it is).
Socialism has been proven to be a terrible economic policy repeatedly. At some point, the value of human lives outweighs the desire for a politician to conduct a social experiment on how quickly he or she can rid their country of any and all valuable resources. That point is now. We must understand that socialism is an exercise in futility and inefficiency. Understanding good economics kills off the allure of central planning that continues to be peddled by politicians on the left. In fairness, understanding good economics helps wade past the bad economics posited by the right as well.
For a multitude of reasons, it’s a good idea to take a politician’s statements with grains of salt. As far as economics goes, economist Thomas Sowell said it better than I ever could.
The first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.
Sound economics based in sound money policies make it possible to eat reasonably priced meals because inflation tends to be lower in countries that practice these policies. Sound money policies make enacting socialist policies difficult. Understanding fundamental economics is the linchpin to cultivating an environment conducive to having meaningful debate on other social issues. Which brings us to the second reason why economics is crucial.
Economics Is the Most Important Social Issue of Our Time
We should start by understanding that economics is a social issue. In fact, economics is the social issue. No issue influences individuals (read: all the individuals) within a society more than its economic practices.
Living in the United States in 2017 means exposure to all sorts of social issues including – but not limited to – same sex marriage, police brutality, safe spaces, drug legalization, and firearms ownership. To be sure, these issues are important and should be examined with sober eyes. But the issue of economics supersedes this list and every other list.
I believe consenting individuals should be allowed to do whatever their hearts desire so long as they aren’t violating the rights of another. I stand in solidarity with those who favor legalized same-sex marriages. I stand with those who want to see marijuana legalized nationwide and those who want to own automatic weapons.
But herein lies the danger of ignoring economics at the expense of other issues: Being “allowed” to smoke marijuana legally seems insignificant when a loaf of bread costs a month’s salary and your loved ones are dying of starvation, doesn’t it? I concede the subjective nature of this evaluation, but if I had to choose between the legality of same sex marriages and economic stability, I would choose economic stability without pause. Not because I don’t value personal freedom to do as one wishes, but because I understand that with economic stability comes the ability to fight another day for other issues.
Brazil, according to Bloomberg, was the second-worst economic performer of 2016. The other side of the coin is more uplifting: Brazil recognizes same-sex unions; allows same-sex marriages; allows adoptions by same-sex couples; allows individuals who identify as LGBT to serve in the military; and so on. Brazil’s removal of the proverbial shackles on homosexuals to live as they see fit is a big win for personal liberty, undoubtedly.
But one can’t help but wonder if the married same-sex couple in Brazil suffering from the terrible economic policies enacted by their country thinks, “13.2 percent of our entire country’s population is unemployed. That’s close to what the US faced between 1930-1931 as the Great Depression destroyed their economy. We can’t afford to feed ourselves or our family and we’re subjected to danger and crime as others are desperate to obtain food and money. But hey, at least the government recognizes our marriage!”
Greece is another example of the result of poor economic policies. Riots and crippling tax hikes to pay for irresponsible economic policies are commonplace in Greece, but hey, at least small amounts of cannabis have been decriminalized, right?
I don’t mean to belittle the importance of issues such as these. But as millennials, as members of the citizenry, and as people with a stake in the economic health of the nation we inhabit, our efforts are often misplaced. Sound economic policies should be pursued with at least the same amount of fervor as the myriad issues that don’t potentially end in economic collapse, death, crime, and general hysteria.
America finds itself on the cusp of revolution, but not necessarily the kind you might imagine. The revolution we are headed towards is an intellectual one. Good economics lies at the heart of this revolution.
Without good economics, we are powerless against the abuses of the Federal Reserve, the central bank that intentionally devalues the money in your bank account while it finances foreign wars and domestic programs that the government wouldn’t have the means to pay for otherwise. Without good economics, we are defenseless against the bad economic policies that lead to extreme levels of pillaging that socialists lovingly refer to as taxation. Without good economics, we subject ourselves to tangible, real-life danger and lose the opportunity to bring about the changes we wish to see. (For more from the author of “Why Good Economics Matters Now More Than Ever” please click HERE) http://joemiller.us/2017/04/good-economics-matters-now-ever/
Top 6 Media Meltdowns of Trump’s First 100 Days
The first 100 days of Donald Trump’s presidency have been filled with outrageous moments in the mainstream media. Some of those moments will make you laugh, some will make you cry, and some will infuriate you. Here are six of the hottest of hot-take fails, outrageous comparisons, outright fabrications, and more from Trump’s first 100 days.
1. LET’S START AT THE BEGINNING, ON INAUGURAL DAY AND NIGHT
LIfeZette had a great compilation of media meltdowns on inauguration day: Matt Lauer being afraid that Trump fans would physically harm Hillary Clinton, Salon saying that Trump was going to “victimize his own voters,” and more. But perhaps my favorite is Paul Krugman, the smarmy New York Times economic columnist, who just needed a safe space.
Inaugural day kicked off the insanity. It really hasn’t ended.
2. TRUMP SIGNS HIS NAME LIKE A NAZI WAR CRIMINAL
Surely this can’t be true, you must be saying to yourself. There is no way that any respected journalism outfit would waste either paper or internet bandwidth with a story like that. Well, you’d be wrong. The Boston Globe published an “ideas” piece that basically asked if you “should care” that Trump signs his name like a Nazi.
Some experts — graphologists, people who have been trained to examine handwriting for markers of personality — were no less harsh. “His signature is this barbed-wire thing that’s into power and control and rigidity,” said Sheila Lowe, a Ventura, Calif., handwriting analyst with more than 40 years of experience in this small field. “It’s closed, it’s not open, it’s not soft at all and it looks like Himmler’s.” As in Heinrich Himmler, head of Adolf Hitler’s SS and the man who established the first official concentration camp at Dachau.
But they totally made it OK by asking if you “should care.”
3. TRUMP’S KIDS ARE JUST THE SAME AS THE HUSSEIN WAR CRIMINAL DUO
If you guessed that this one would involve MSNBC, you’d be right. Almost lost in an orgy of Leftist spin were these two jewels by MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews.
Here’s Rachel – jump to 3:40 in this video.
We have never thought of us as a country where Uday and Qusay [Hussein] get to be ministers of whatever they want, right?
You might think that was obnoxious but was all of it, until you hear Matthews from the week before.
That’s right, because the Trump kids and family follow a long tradition of family members working in a presidential administration, they should be compared to murderous thugs like Uday and Qusay Hussein, the sons of Saddam Hussein.
4. DONALD TRUMP IS CAUSING THE NATION TO LOSE PRECIOUS SLEEP
Here’s another golden one. Lisa Belkin, the “chief national correspondent” for Yahoo News, decided back in March that a think piece on Trump as national bogeyman would be a fun time. She described a dystopian present where Americans were tossing and turning, all because of Trump.
She even went full Nazi Germany, casting the heroes of the piece:
Last night I dreamed we were hiding people in our basement,” says Allentown, Pa., physician Jenni Levy. “Not sure what they were hiding from.”
It continued …
I’m worried about the ‘Anne Franks‘ of Syria, Somalia, Yemen,” says tech industry employee Amanda Silver, who is literally sleepless in Seattle, her hometown.
“I am afraid the democratic process is under attack by a nationalist, far-right, authoritarian leader,” says Lori Rivere Rodrig, who teaches math at a New Jersey high school.
Boo!
5. NOT JUST TRUMP BUT HIS APPOINTMENTS TOO
It was pretty hard to find dirt on the Boy Scout and Trump SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch. But that didn’t stop NPR and a whole host of other organizations from trying. Here’s an original headline for a gotcha piece on Gorsuch.
The story went on to describe a class discussion about employment law that, quite simply, did not happen. Here’s the NPR story. After a rush to publish, without disclosing the conflicts of the source, NPR and other organizations were forced to clarify the story. It ended up not that bad for Gorsuch. Here’s the editors’ note from NPR.
Editors’ note Monday, 12:55 p.m. ET: Since this story was first published, we have added material from another former student and former law clerks of Gorsuch, as well as more information about Jennifer Sisk’s political affiliations. On Tuesday, Gorsuch disputed the allegation himself during his confirmation hearing and explained the lesson he intended to teach.
What were Sisk, the accuser’s, political affiliations?
Sisk, once a staffer for former Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado and the Interior Department during the Obama administration, told NPR that she wrote the letter “so that the proper questions could be asked during his confirmation hearings,” which begin Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Yeah, the allegations came from a professional Democratic operative, and until called out on it, NPR didn’t disclose it.
6. RACHEL MADDOW CHANNELS AL CAPONE’S VAULT
If you were alive during the 1980s, chances are you remember the hype from a not-yet-famous Geraldo Rivera surrounding the unveiling of Al Capone’s secret vault. It was a live prime-time event. Except it was an empty room behind a wall.
Maddow wanted a similar moment all to herself. So she hyped that she had Donald Trump’s tax returns. Except, well, she didn’t. Here, let Greg Gutfeld explain.
That’s right, she had one year’s returns, that Trump probably sent her anonymously himself, that showed he paid a higher tax percentage than almost every president who has released his returns.
Maddow was rightly excoriated for the remarks. Even Geraldo got in on the fun, in a hilarious bit of self-deprecating humor.
Those are just six of hundreds of media moments. Do you remember any others? Tweet me @robeno to let me know of your favorite meltdown. I may cover it in a future article or Facebook liveor more from the author of “Top 6 Media Meltdowns of Trump’s First 100 Days” please click HERE) please click HERE to read more and watch videos
by Erik Rush
Palestinian Authority police assault journalists at a protest in Ramallah
by Bassam Tawil
by Erik Rush
I acknowledge the fact that Beck has done a lot over the years toward educating his audience concerning the machinations of global socialists, first on Fox News television and later through his online network, The Blaze. However, as I’ve indicated previously, sometimes the host goes too far in his self-styled Mormon flower-child modality with regard to the reality of dealing with said political opponents, their ruthlessness, lack of ethics and intractability.
Even though it has not always been a pervasive belief among Western Christians, as a Christian, I can certainly concur with Beck’s belief that love is the highest ideal a person can have. That said, notions of brotherly love and “coming together” are naïve at best when it comes to political opponents who are wholly dedicated to eradicating an opponent’s system of belief, governance or population, whether by attrition or by the sword.
Typically, this sort of political opponent is referred to as an “enemy.”
The half-billion people murdered, maimed and enslaved by socialists of varied stripes during the last century ought to be sufficient proof of their ruthlessness, lack of ethics and intractability. Likewise, Islam’s 1,400 years of blind zealotry, as well as the murder and mayhem perpetrated by Islamists during that time to say nothing of the same perpetrated by Islamists over the last couple of decades alone ought to be sufficient proof of their inability to come to accords with their opponents.
Over the last couple of years, we have seen key indicators that citizens of Western nations who’ve had socialism and its attendant social engineering devices rammed down their throats over the last 50 years have had enough.
With regard to immigration, for example: Europe is obviously further along than America with respect to the machinations of international socialist politicos. Now, we are seeing a strong response to the doctrine of European leaders having welcomed millions of individuals from culturally bankrupt nations over the last 50 years. Those who have refused to assimilate and treat the largesse of Europeans as their birthright have become a poisonous, indigestible mass in the European body politic.
This isn’t an instance of Westerners being bigoted, creepy Christian dogmatists, particularly in the case of Europeans. Europe accounted for 66.3 percent of the world’s Christian population in 1910. Today, it represents 25.9 percent. The proportion of European Christians has dropped from 94.5 percent of the population to 76.2 percent in 100 years.
Over time, Westerners, whether Europeans, Canadians or Americans, have begun to find the insidious aspects of socialism that were dramatically misrepresented to them by politicians, akin to having ingested spoiled food. One doesn’t get sick right away, but when it sets in, it’s something one never forgets.
These people are not ideological conservatives either, nor have they identified socialism as the name of their pain – yet. They just know that their paychecks don’t go nearly as far as they used to, they’re far less safe, their entertainment media has become shameless left-wing propaganda, and their children are being indoctrinated in school rather than educated.
Other than the election of Donald Trump to the presidency the most notable byproduct of this phenomenon, there are myriad examples of plain folk expressing their disgust with socialist encroachment. Brexit, the United Kingdom’s effort to extricate itself from the European Union is certainly one of these. Citizens’ expulsion of their government in Iceland a few years ago is another.
In the corporate world, the shrinking coffers of the NFL and ESPN followed those companies’ tolerance of anti-American expression among certain pro football players and sportscasters, respectively. Big-box giant Target is currently hemorrhaging top executives and cash, the result of that organization becoming a corporate activist for the homosexual agenda.
It was one thing for Westerners to view from afar the desolation of Soviet Russia, Cuba and other nations that went socialist during the last century, or to muse over oil-rich Venezuela being flat broke due to hard-line socialist policies – but the foregoing declines have struck too close to home for comfort.
With regard to the opening paragraphs and concepts of evil and enmity: Most people can recognize evil when they see it; obviously, this holds true even among societies in which leftist moral relativism abounds. There is a danger to the excising and modification of language in that it smacks of the Orwellian – the politically correct moral relativism, social engineering and borderline mind control so often employed by socialists. They’ve even gone so far as to modify or negate such terms as “good” and “evil” to advance amorality and secure political gains.
Increasing numbers of those who have known liberty under Western constitutions and democratic republics are coming to realize that a chief consequence of this strategy has been an erosion of their liberties and a decline in their quality of life – which I suppose breathes new life into the axiom referencing not being able to fool all of the people all of the time.
{aim.org} ~ The Iranian regime’s nuclear weapons program, born in secrecy and kept hidden for years, has never skipped a beat and today continues on course in underground and military facilities to which inspectors have no access. On 21 April 2017, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the oldest, largest, and best organized democratic Iranian opposition group presented startling new evidence that the jihadist regime in Tehran is violating the terms of the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) agreement reached in July 2015 among the P-5 +1 (Permanent Five Members of the UN Security Council plus Germany), the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), and Iran.
As will be recalled, it was the NCRI that first blew the lid off Iran’s clandestine nuclear weapons program in 2002, at a time when it had been in progress for at least fourteen years (since 1988), unbeknownst to most of the world, including the IAEA. Virtually all of the Iranian nuclear sites now known publicly were only retroactively ‘declared’ by the mullahs’ regime after exposure: the Natanz enrichment site, Isfahan conversion site, Fordow enrichment and Research and Development (R&D) site, Lavizan-Shian, and more. Regularly corroborated additional revelations since 2002 by the NCRI have built a record of credibility that should prompt a closer official look at these new reports by the U.S. State and Defense Departments, National Security Council (NSC), and White House.
Alireza Jafarzadeh, deputy director of NCRI’s Washington office, provided a devastating expose of the ongoing activities of the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research (SPND), the Tehran-based element of the Iranian Ministry of Defense that has primary responsibility for the regime’s nuclear weapons development. The SPND, established in February 2011, was officially sanctioned by the U.S. Department of State in August 2014 for engaging in nuclear weapons R&D. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (aka Dr. Hassan Mohseni), the founder and director of the SPND and a veteran IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps) brigadier general, was designated individually under UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1747 in 2007 and by the U.S. in July 2008 for his involvement in Iran’s proscribed WMD activities. Despite these designations, and the IAEA’s failure to resolve the many critical indicators of “Possible Military Dimensions” related to Iran’s nuclear program as specified in the November 2011 IAEA Board of Governors report, the July 2015 JCPOA inexplicably lifted sanctions against the SPND.
It is hardly surprising, then, to learn that the SPND not only continues critical weaponization research involving nuclear warheads, triggers, and explosives, but has expanded that work at each of seven subordinate locations. One of these, revealed by the NCRI in 2009 but never declared to the IAEA, is the Center for Research and Expansion of Technologies on Explosions and Impact (Markaz-e Tahghighat va Tose’e Fanavari-e Enfejar va Zarbeh or METFAZ), which works on triggers and high-impact, non-conventional explosives. The current METFAZ director is a Ministry of Defense engineer named Mohammad Ferdowsi, whose expertise is in high explosives. Ferdowsi also serves as chairman of the board of directors of the High-Explosive Society of Malek Ashtar University (affiliated with the Defense Ministry).
After conclusion of the July 2015 JCPOA, much of METFAZ’s personnel and work was moved to the Parchin military facility for better cover and security. Parchin Chemical Industries, an element of Iran’s Defense Industries Organization (DIO), was sanctioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury in 2008 for importing “a chemical precursor for solid propellant oxidizer, possibly to be used for ballistic missiles.” Parchin is the location where the IAEA long suspected Iran was conducting test explosions for nuclear detonators. In October 2014, Iran finally admitted to using Parchin to test exploding bridge wires, but implausibly claimed they were not for weapons development. Equally incredibly, the IAEA concluded a secret side deal with Iran that allowed it to collect its own samples at Parchin—in which the IAEA in fact did find evidence of enriched uranium. But despite that and more evidence, the JCPOA was concluded and sanctions against Parchin Chemical Industries were lifted.
Within Parchin are twelve separate military and missile complexes. According to the NCRI’s new information, METFAZ has established a new location within one of these that is near the center of Parchin and referred to simply as the “Research Academy” in SPND internal communications. Located on the sprawling Parchin complex some 30 miles southeast of Tehran, the new METFAZ center is called the Chemical Plan of Zeinoddin and is located in a section called Plan 6. It’s completely fenced in and protected by heavy security under control of the IRGC’s Intelligence Service. What goes on there is concealed from the IAEA, and likely with good reason.
METFAZ’s Research Academy Location within Parchin Plan 6 Area
The real problem with the JCPOA—and why it needs to be ripped to shreds—is not what’s in it: it’s what’s been left out or exempted in any number of secret side deals that the U.S. and IAEA concluded with the Iranians. Among critical issues either explicitly permitted or simply not covered in the JCPOA are the following:
- Iran keeps its entire nuclear infrastructure intact
- Iran keeps all its centrifuges and is allowed to work on newer models
- Iran can deny IAEA inspectors access to any site it seeks to keep off-limits
- Iran can continue its ballistic missile nuclear weapons delivery system research, development, and testing
- Iran’s nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and ballistic missile collaboration with North Korea is not mentioned in the JCPOA
- Iran’s ongoing support for terrorism is off-limits for the JCPOA
Beginning to fill relevant USG positions with officers untainted by association with the failed JCPOA or Iran Lobby affiliates like NIAC (National Iranian American Council) is an imperative and urgent first step. Announcing U.S. intent to end all activities associated with the JCPOA, hold Iran to account for its human rights abuses, involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and continuing support for terrorism would be natural subsequent policy positions.
We look forward to the results of the JCPOA policy review that Secretary Tillerson has announced.
McDonalds Bombed in France
( MUSLIMS DO NOT ASSIMILATE, THEY INFILTRATE )
The war on the streets, at the mall, the metro, the concert hall, the McDonalds — the war on Western civilization — but do not speak of the ideology behind the war.
‘Explosion’ rocks McDonald’s in France, prompting police to shut down roads
- An explosion reportedly hit a McDonald’s in Grenoble, France, on Thursday
- The explosion happened after a large device was spotted in a McDonald’s toilet
- It is believed that the alleged blast happened at about 11.50am after employees on the ground floor saw flames on the second floor and alerted police
- Police closed roads surrounding the fast food restaurant to investigate
- By Kelly Mclaughlin For Mailonline, 27 April 2017
A reported explosion hit a McDonald’s in the French town of Grenoble on Thursday after a large device was spotted in a toilet.
Police closed roads surrounding the fast food restaurant to investigate the cause of the alleged blast, which happened at about 11.50am local time.
Police have not confirmed the ‘explosive nature of the event’, but a police insider suggested that the blast could have been the result of a big firecracker.
Police closed roads surrounding the McDonald’s in the French town of Grenoble on Thursday after a reported bomb went off in one of the restaurant’s bathrooms
It is believed that the alleged blast happened after employees on the ground floor saw flames on the second floor and alerted police, according to La Dauphine.
Thirty people had to be evacuated from the restaurant. There are no reported injuries.
The upstairs bathroom at the fast food restaurant was heavily damaged in the incident.
A bomb squad arrived at the scene to investigate the incident. French officials said other McDonald’s restaurants in the area will also be investigated.
Authorities have asked people to avoid the area surrounding the McDonald’s.
Hours after the incident, Cours Jean-Jaurès, one of the main roads in Grenoble and the location of the McDonald’s, was re-opened to drivers.
The watchman on the wall sounding the ALARM
BREAKING: Active Prosecution As Huma Abedin Gets TERRIBLE News From The FBI
It turns out Anthony Weiner wasn’t the only family member under investigation. While Hillary Clinton loyal aide Huma Abedin was reportedly sidelined in the final stretch of the 2016 presidential campaign as a result of Abedin’s husband’s child-porn scandal, she was potentially an even greater liability than known. WND Reports, In fact, the U.S. Justice Department has been actively prosecuting two other Abedin family members – for conspiracy, wire fraud and securities fraud – and she along with the State Department, where she previously worked for Clinton, are mentioned in the federal case, court records show. Other documents reveal the same allegedly crooked kin solicited Abedin for help at State in a deal that netted more than $1.2 million in federal grants. These undesirable family connections, revealed here for the first time, raise fresh questions about influence peddling at the State Department under Clinton, who is now reportedly working with Abedin on a political comeback. Abedin’s relatives were major donors to the Clinton Foundation. And Abedin drew a salary from the Clinton Foundation, while at the same time working for the government. Records show that her first cousin, Omar Amanat, is under federal indictment for cheating investors in Kit Digital Inc. of millions of dollars between 2009 and 2012, forcing the tech start-up to go bankrupt in 2013. He has been placed under house arrest as he awaits trial, which is scheduled for Oct. 2. Sperry is a former Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration” and “Muslim Mafia.” Follow him on Twitter: @paulsperry_ Another Abedin cousin, Irfan Amanat, is under indictment in the same case. He was arrested in December after returning to the U.S. from the United Arab Emirates. Prosecutors say Omar Amanat illegally diverted millions of dollars from investments in Kit Digital “for his personal use,” including “luxury properties in Manhattan.” He “never disclosed these misappropriations to investors,” who were misled about the value of the company by false balance sheets. He has pleaded not guilty. Recent letters, Part 1 and Part 2 here, from attorneys for Omar and another co-defendant asking the judge to ease their detention reveal that Omar once warned Huma while she was at the State Department that she and other family members were under threat of being “hurt” by “special collection agents” trying to recover stolen funds. Court exhibits reveal that Omar was worried about Huma’s safety and contacted the State Department to make her “aware of this incident.” Moreover, Kit Digital appears in State Department emails sent to Abedin from Amanat and a business partner. In June 2009, not long after starting Kit Digital and just months after his cousin was named deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Clinton, Amanat helped his business partner solicit Abedin for State favors on behalf of Soliya Inc., which was in partnership with Kit Digital. Summit Entertainment, a film company Amanat held a controlling stake in at the time, also stood to benefit.











