IT’S MARCH, AND TRUMP IS NOW IN CONTROL OF THE NATION’S IMMIGRATION AGENDA

It’s March, and Trump is Now in Control of the Nation’s Immigration Agenda

President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night demonstrated yet again that he is now in complete control of America’s immigration agenda. At about the 24 minute mark, he begins to discuss immigration. It was short, sweet and to the point. The language is being widely celebrated as a shift in tone – more conciliatory and more unifying. On immigration policy, he restated steps to date to control borders and the universal principles that will guide any true immigration reform: “What would you say to the American family that loses their jobs, their income or their loved one because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders? Our obligation is to preserve, protect and defend the citizens of the United States,” said Trump.

This is a consensus statement. It continues Trump’s efforts begun in his campaign to reframe how the nation sees the role of immigration and its purposes. Trump shows empathy for the victims of out of control immigration.

Yet earlier in the day, Trump surrogates – even Trump himself – floated the notion of a possible legislative “compromise” that might include a large-scale legalization program, something that the rumor mill circulated during the presidential campaign.

The key word here is compromise. The implication here is that this is a nascent legislative proposal and a challenge to the Democrats and anti-enforcement Republicans to step up and make a deal.

The chattering class – while ever suspicious – is relieved to see Trump in full presidential mode. Trump, they maintain, has the root of a compromiser that can move to the center. They say this despite the fact that last night’s speech contained no mention of a deal!

Here is yet another example of Trump’s pure genius as a showman and media manipulator. Countering the droning narrative of Trump-inspired division and polarization, the president repositioned to look like the conciliator and dealmaker. In doing so, he caught the Democrats completely off guard while winning broad public consensus that this really was an inspiring speech delivered in a presidential manner.

The Democrats have taken the bait by appearing obstructionist; they stand for total opposition at all costs and are now being trapped by a master manipulator. Egged on by the legacy press, the Democrats have stood firmly against all immigration enforcement to the point of projecting an unyielding unreasonableness. Trump’s proposal for an office to help American’s who’ve lost loved ones because the government won’t control our borders was met with jeers and boos from Democrats.

Politically damaging? You bet. Big mistake. Trump is no fool and he knows how to set up the head fake. But why? What Trump’s end game here?

Trump’s goal is to demonstrate to the country that today’s Democratic Party is unwilling to compromise on border and immigration controls at any level. By floating informal ideas of this kind, he can show the nation that only he can really get things done in D.C. Meantime, he continues to tighten enforcement – dangling out only an unsigned order on the DACA program (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) as negotiating bait.

Trump – who made a series of very specific immigration policy commitments during the campaign in August — is also setting himself up to arbiter of what constitutes a reasonable legislative compromise as well as the primary architect of what the compromise would entail. With folks like Attorney General Jeff Sessions helping to draft core legislative proposals, it’s not going to look anything like Senator Chuck Schumer’s ill-fated amnesty bill (“the Gang of 8” bill) that merely feigned a commitment to border enforcement and legal reforms.

Trump has now taken the high political ground, armed both with control over the powerful Executive Branch enforcement apparatus and the emotionally-driven messaging that would drive true legislative immigration reform. The Democrats will soon realize that they are painted into a corner and will need to shift to stop the hemorrhaging. And Trump is providing Republicans in Congress with the language and confidence that his administration can be trusted to protect the party politically as it moves forward with his immigration agenda.

Not bad. Not bad at all.

Posted by | Mar 1, 2017

An ‘Open, Democratic Process’ Needs Wikileaks Help

John Lewis recently said that “I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians, and others, that helped him get elected. That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not the open, democratic process.” Putting aside questions of whether or not Russia hacked at all, and the claim of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange that his “source is not a state party,” there is nothing wrong with a foreign entity helping to disclose truth about public officials. 

Investigative reporting is one of the most important contributions that the press makes to democracy, according to Silvio Waisbord, author of Watchdog Journalism in South America: News, Accountability, and Democracy. “It provides a valuable mechanism for monitoring the performance of democratic institutions as they are most broadly defined to include governmental bodies, civic organizations and publicly held corporations,” says Waisbord. But when media organizations fail to properly investigate these institutions, can the public get help from a foreign entity? 

In this instance, Wikileaks disclosed specific examples of corruption of the DNC by hacking the emails of the DNC. That corruption is firstly expressed in Hillary Clinton having a different position personally than the one she says publicly, or in her words, “you need both a public and a private position.” Such private positions that she didn’t disclose publicly, is her private support for fracking, and her private opposition to gay marriage despite her public reversal.

Other examples include those of institutional corruption, such as how the DNC, which should be neutral in a democracy, helped Hillary Clinton win the primary when DNC surrogate Donna Brazile on two occasions, leaked debate questions to Hillary Clinton, as well as leaking a private email on African-American Outreach from a Sanders press representative to the Clinton campaign. 

However, the deepest corruption exposed as a result of the paid speeches that the Clinton would make before, during and after Hillary Clinton was in office. One such example is how a corporate donor got access to Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State when he requested it. Another example of is Bill Clinton used Clinton Foundation staff to reach out to donors to the Clinton Foundation, in order for them to funnel their dollars to him through private speaking fees. This is the most clear example of corruption, of privately benefitting from public office. Of putting money in your pocket as a result of the position that you hold in the government. 

Yet all of this information was found by Wikileaks, and not through the dogged investigations of the mainstream media. If it wasn’t for Wikileaks, we would think Hillary Clinton’s public position were here private position; that the DNC was perfectly neutral and that Hillary Clinton won her nomination fair and square; and that the sole purpose of the Clinton Foundation was AIDS research. If anything, Wikileaks saved the election from the lies and deception of the Clinton campaign. So what if a foreign entity intervened? 

There is a stark difference between foreign propaganda, and foreign intervention that leads to more truth being exposed. The difference is that the first one is founded on a lie, and the second one is founded on the truth. There can never be enough truth in a democracy, unless getting to that truth involves the violation of rights. Yet acts of civil disobedience in terms of hacking are necessary at times when so much truth has become obfuscated. We cannot say how much hacking is too much hacking, only when the rights of individuals have become so impugned that it outweighs the value of the hacking. Yet in this instance, so much truth was revealed, so as to outweigh the rights to privacy and other rights of the DNC members. If the foreign intervention did not rely on hacking, but on disseminating fake news like CNN does, then it would be foreign propaganda.

Foreign propaganda depends on a “subconscious manipulation of psychological symbols to accomplish secret objectives,” according to Kenneth Osgoode. It has been described as “the use of communication skills of all kinds to achieve attitudinal or behavioural changes among one group by another,” by historian Oliver Thomson. In other words, how to emotionally effect you so that you will hold a position that is not necessarily grounded in fact. An example of foreign propaganda would be if a foreign entity would say, “The Democrats are Weak, America is Corrupt, Your Democracy is losing,” etc. These would be baseless claims, or be grounded in inadequate sources that would inaccurate. 

In this example, the truth is exposed by hackers, and no additional emotional matter is added to the information, nor is the information taken out of context. This is because as the Wikileaks shows, Hillary Clinton is indeed corrupt. The reply of Americans if the Russian hacking allegations are true to help find the truth internationally as well, such as, for instance, researching the alleged examples of money laundering that Vladimir Putin was engaged in, as exposed by the Panama Papers, and any human rights violations, foreign and domestic. Democracy is not infallible, and needs to be preserved by those willing to find the truth, no matter who they are.   

When Anniversaries Collide: Dr. Martin Luther King and Emile Zola

By Craig Johnson

This weekend marks the 88th anniversary of the birth of the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929).  It also marks the 119th anniversary of the famous letter, “J’accuse!” It was written by influential French writer, Emile Zola, and published in the French newspaper, L’Aurore, on January 13, 1898.

Zola wrote the open letter to Felix Faure, President of France.  “J’accuse” is French for “I accuse”.  Zola accused President Faure of antisemitism in the unfair charging and convicting of French Army staff officer Alfed Dreyfus.  The charge was espionage, which carried a sentence of life in prison on the infamous South American penal colony, Devil’s Island.  Since the letter’s publication, even in English speaking nations, “J’accuse!” has become synonymous with expressing outrage and accusation against the powerful.

Dr. Martin Luther King and Emile Zola

My pronouncement of “J’accuse” is against the many “poverty pimp politicians” and “pulpit pimp preachers” who this weekend will lionize Dr. King with their lips while their actions are counter to all that Dr. King stood for.

These speakers will wax eloquently about the greatness of Dr. King and of their great love for him.  But, in Dr. King’s April 9, 1967 speech in Chicago, titled “The Three Dimensions of a Complete Life”, he spoke of the first dimension being a concern for one’s own welfare that could turn from a healthy self-interest to an ugly selfishness.  A love of others only when others proved to have a utilitarian purpose.  Let’s examine some of the positions several prominent “Negro leaders” of today espouse and determine if they are “using” the King legacy or are truly in synch with Dr. King’s vision.

“I accuse” these people of cynically using Dr. King, and the cause he fought for his entire life, to cement themselves in power at the expense of other Americans, especially (but not only) Black Americans.

There’s an old saying, “Conquerors divide; but leaders unite.” Dr. King sought to bring Americans together.  He often cited Paul in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”.  But, all we hear from Obama, Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan, and other Negro leaders is “hyphenated-Americanism,” and “whitey is greedy, racist, sexist, and a devil.”  And, when they ran out of skin tones to hyphenate over, they invented a dozen ways to hyphenate over sexuality.

Dr. King spoke eloquently in his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, declaring:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

 “I accuse” these poverty pimps of turning every critique of Obama into a false charge that it is not about character, but about skin color.  I accuse them of making college admission not about character (grades) but about skin color.  I accuse them of denying advancement and learning to inner city Blacks because every institution that seeks to teach them discipline and character, i.e., the family, the church, schools, and coaches, has had governmental pressure applied to forsake character in favor of skin color; and the newest dividing line, change your sexual identity.

Pity the child, of any race, who has to be taught by these government monsters, without a strong father and mother, who are anchored in truth. The men who have replaced Dr. King will certainly not lead them in the ways of righteousness. Dr. King would be appalled at the teaching and government force used to promote a dozen different types of homosexuality, or give your daughter an abortion, or give your son a sex change – without parental notification.  But not Obama, not Sharpton, not Jackson (let’s give Farrakhan credit for holding out on that one).

But, perhaps worst of all is the total absence of any prominent Democrat leader (black or white) giving any semblance of even a mention to today’s Blacks, of one of the key attributes that Dr. King, and men of his era always taught — self-discipline.  Again, from “I Have A Dream”:

But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

 In today’s world, where the Oxford Dictionary recently announced that the 2016 “word of the year” was “post-truth”; the type of truth that Dr. King taught has no place with these race hustlers.  Again, “I accuse!” Wrongful deeds are not corrected but excused.  The cup of bitterness and hatred is not frowned upon but encouraged.  Dignity and discipline?  “Why you must be a Republican!  Get outta here!”  And, as for meeting physical force with soul force, today it is turned around.  The police officers, school teachers, job providers, etc., who bring “soul force” to the equation are increasingly being met with physical force from thugs who are juiced up on the hatred being spewed by these wicked preachers and politicians, who have 25% of Black America on a literal and spiritual plantation. Teacher beatings and police officer assassinations have skyrocketed and increasing or record breaking murder rates are in many of our major cities. Whenever a major incident occurs, there is no balm put on the wounds, the way Dr. King would attempt to do; but only salt.

You won’t hear very much talk like this as the usual suspects will misappropriate Dr. King, and go on their annual hate-fest, as though all of America is run by Democrat Lester Maddox, circa 1950.  And the 10,000 young black men that Farrakhan asked to be ready to give their lives; many of them have a very big chip on their shoulders, and no active father to protect them from Obama and company whispering hatefulness in their young ears.

I pray that the true spirit of Dr. King: loving, compassionate, wise, thoughtful, disciplined, and determined; is still resonate enough to shine in our hearts in spite of who will be delivering most of the speeches.

Craig Johnson can be heard on “The REALLY, Real, Deal, with Brother Craig The Hatchet Man,” Saturdays from 10am to 12pm, EST., at www.820theanswer.com.  Brother Craig’s  Dr. King broadcast from Saturday, January 14, 2017 can be heard by following or pasting this link into your browser, DROPBOX LINK.  For media inquiries or speaker engagements, contact [email protected].

First Published in the Virginia Free Citizen

The New Axis of Evil (or Comedy): CAIR, JVP and the Huffington Post

CAIR Jewish Voice for Peace

Steven Emerson | Investigative Project on Terrorism

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has finally found a Jewish group it likes.

At its annual banquet on Dec. 17, CAIR gave its new “Defender of Liberty” award to Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP).

The Huffington Post ran the original story about this award, continuing its long tradition of running apologias for radical Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood front groups all over the United States as well as promoting virulent anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

In 2012, the Huffington Post UK even hired Mehdi Hasan, a radical Islamist who has also proposed a one-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict – one which would lead to the slaughter of the new Jewish minority. He also was once caught on video calling non-Muslims “animals:” Hasan called on Muslims to keep “the moral high ground,” adding: “Once we lose the moral high ground we are no different from the rest, of the non-Muslims, from the rest of those human beings who live their lives as animals, bending any rule to fulfill any desire.”  And he nefariously blamed Israeli influence for the war in Iraq. David Duke would be proud of the Huffington Post.

CAIR’s decision to honor a Jewish group may seem odd to those familiar with its anti-Semitism. Hussam Ayloush, the director of CAIR’s Southern California chapter, has used the term “zionazi” to describe Israeli Jews. CAIR officials have repeatedly claimed that Jews control U.S. policy. CAIR has even invited a neo-Nazi, William Baker, to speak at several conferences, and attacked those who pointed out Baker’s history. CAIR has repeatedly defended the virulently anti-Semitic Muslim Brotherhood cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who has said: “On the hour of judgment, Muslims will fight the Jews and kill them.”

Qaradawi has defended suicide bombings and is hostile to Jews, saying: “There should be no dialogue with these people [Israelis] except with swords.”

CAIR is vehemently opposed to both the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and to the normalization of relations between Israel and the Palestinians. Despite claims to the contrary, CAIR officials have rejected a two-state solution and justified violence as a means to a legitimate end. “Our preference is peaceful negotiation…but if the peace process is flawed, then resistance is necessary,” CAIR co-founder and executive director Nihad Awad said in 2001.  Awad addressed a rally outside the Israeli embassy in Washington, D.C. in October 2000, at which rallygoers chanted, “Khaibar, Khaibar, Ya Yahud, Jaysh Muhammed Safayood” (“Khaibar, Khaibar, O Jews, the Army of Mohammed is coming for you”), as well as the Hamas slogans, “With our blood and soul we will liberate Palestine,” and “with our blood and soul we will sacrifice our life on your behalf, martyr.”

Given CAIR’s vehemently anti-Semitic background, it is hard to imagine any Jewish group that would be palatable to this “civil rights” organization, but in Jewish Voice for Peace, it found its perfect match: a Jewish group that is adamantly opposed to Israel and eager to retail Palestinian revisionist history and grievance propaganda against Israel. JVP supports Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) actions against Israel, targeting numerous companies for boycotts because they do business with Israel. It also has supported divestment campaigns on college campuses, succeeding in getting divestment resolutions passed at Hampshire College and Evergreen State College, and engaging in failed divestment campaigns at the University of California Berkeley and the University of California San Diego.

JVP’s mission statement calls for “an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem.” Echoing CAIR’s criticism of the U.S. alliance with Israel, JVP calls on the U.S. government to “stop supporting repressive policies in Israel and elsewhere.” It even applauded former U.S. President Jimmy Carter for meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal, and called on Israeli officials to meet with Meshaal as well.

Marking its 28th anniversary, Meshaal’s organization vowed “to remain faithful to the liberation of Palestine and to keep its weapon directed at the Israeli occupation only.”

Meshaal also rejected peace efforts and wondered how “can anyone possibly have an excuse to abandon the path of jihad?”

“The Palestinians have reached the realization that negotiations with the (Israelis) are useless…the so-called peace process is futile. There is no peace. Only the path of Jihad, sacrifice, and blood (will bear fruit),”

So the first Jewish group that CAIR honors is a venomously anti-Israel one that retails propaganda against the Jewish state and ignores the genocidal anti-Semitism of its foes.

The name of the award that CAIR gave to JVP is noteworthy. Neither JVP nor CAIR are interested in defending the liberty of Israelis who build homes on land deemed to be “illegal settlements,” or the liberty of Israelis to live in and govern a Jewish state at all. So in what way does CAIR think of JVP as a “Defender of Liberty?” Did it honor JVP for defending the liberty of suicide bombers to murder Israeli civilians? Did it hail JVP for defending the liberty of Palestinians who have passed out candy to celebrate the murders of those civilians? Did it give its new award to JVP for defending the liberty of superannuated and anti-Semitic former Presidents to meet with terror masterminds?

The “Defender of Liberty” award that CAIR gave to Jewish Voice for Peace ought to be regarded as a mark of shame for an organization which claims to represent Jews and work within the Jewish tradition while advocating for policies that would expose the Jews of Israel to greater danger, greater poverty, and greater international opprobrium.

CAIR, JVP, and the Huffington Post, all such staunch promoters of Islamist terrorist front groups, deserve one other.

The Suicide of Germany

Dr. Guy Millière | Gatestone Institute

 

  • Of the 1.2 million migrants who arrived in Germany in 2014 and 2015, only 34,000 found work.
  • Angela Merkel went to lay white roses at the scene of the Christmas market attack in Berlin. Thousands of Germans did the same. Many brought candles and cried. But anger and the will to combat the threat remained largely absent.
  • Nothing better describes the present state of Germany than the sad fate of Maria Landenburger, a 19-year-old girl, murdered at the beginning of December. A member of a refugee relief organization, Landenburger was among those who welcomed migrants in 2015. She was raped and murdered by one of the people she was helping. Her family asked anyone who wanted to pay tribute to their daughter to give money to refugee associations, so that more refugees could come to Germany.
  • The law that condemns incitement to hatred, presumably intended to prevent a return to Nazi ideas, is held like a sword over whoever speaks too harshly of the growing Islamization of the country.
  • The great majority of the Germans do not want to see that Germany is at war, because a merciless enemy has declared war on them. They do not want to see that war has been declared on Western civilization. They accept defeat and docilely do what jihadists want them to do: they submit.
  • If Angela Merkel does not see the difference between Jews exterminated by the Nazis, and Muslims threatening to exterminate Christians, Jews and other Muslims, she is even more clueless than it seems.

The attack in Berlin on December 19, 2016 was predictable. German Chancellor Angela Merkel created the conditions that made it possible. She bears an overwhelming responsibility. Geert Wilders, a member of Parliament in the Netherlands and one of Europe’s only clear-sighted political leaders, accused her of having blood on her hands. He is right.

When she decided to open the doors of Germany to hundreds of thousands of Muslims from the Middle East and more distant countries, she must have known that jihadists were hidden among the people flooding in. She also must have known that the German police had no way of controlling the mass that entered and would be quickly overwhelmed by the number of people it would have to control. She did it anyway.

When hundreds of rapes and sexual assaults took place in Cologne and other cities in Germany on last year’s New Year’s Eve, she said that the perpetrators should be punished “regardless of their origin”, but she did not change her policy. When attacks took place in Hanover, Essen, Wurzburg, and Munich, she delayed comments, then pronounced sanitized sentences on the “need” to fight crime and terror. But she still did not change policy.

She only changed her position recently, it seems because she wants to be a candidate again in 2017, and saw her popularity declining.

The comments she made immediately after the December 19 attacks were mind-numbing. She said that “if the perpetrator is a refugee”, it will be “very difficult to bear” and it will be “particularly repugnant for all Germans who help refugees on a daily basis.”

Such remarks could be considered simply naïve if someone were not informed, but Angela Merkel does not have that excuse. She could not ignore warnings from German and U.S. intelligence services saying that Islamic State terrorists hiding among refugees were planning to use trucks in Christmas-related attacks. The situation endured by Germans has been extremely difficult to bear for more than a year. Crime had “skyrocketed“; diseases extinct for decades have been brought in with no vaccines — long since discontinued — to treat them; second homes are seized by the government without compensation to shelter migrants, and so on. It did not take long to discover that the main suspect in the Berlin attack was an asylum seeker living in a refugee shelter.

In another country, Merkel might have been shamed into resigning; in Germany, she is running for re-election.

suicide of germany

The German population is aged and the birthrate is dangerously low: 1.38 children per woman. The immigrants are replacing the German population, which has been disappearing little by little. The Germans who pass away are the Christians or, more often, non-religious secularists. As everywhere in Europe, Christianity is disappearing; the immigrants replacing the Germans are Muslim.

The German economy is still strong but running out of steam. Returns on invested capital are declining. At a time when human capital is the main source of profits, German human capital is collapsing: people from underdeveloped countries cannot easily replace highly educated Germans. Most do not have marketable skills; newcomers remain long unemployed and dependent. Of the 1.2 million migrants who arrived in Germany in 2014 and 2015, only 34,000 found work. If the unemployment rate is low, it is because there is a growing shortage of labor: today 61% Germans are between 20 and 64 years old. It is expected that by mid-century, the figure will fall to 41%.

Politically correct propaganda speeches that are inexhaustibly broadcast in Germany — as in the rest of Europe — never speak of demography. Instead, they refute any evidence that the German economy is not doing well. They also say that Islam and Christianity are equivalent; they are obstinately blind to the fact that Islam is more than a religion: it is a political, economic, and moral system that encompasses all aspects of life, and has never coexisted long or peacefully in a culture different from it. These speeches almost totally ignore the rise of radical Islam and jihadist terrorism; instead, they argue that radical Islam is a marginal cult, and that jihadist terrorism only recruits lone wolves or the mentally ill. Above all, they constantly repeat that any criticism of migration or Islam is ignominious and racist.

The German population is intimidated with fear, both by the antisocial behavior of many migrants and by the speech police of their own governments. Many Germans do not even dare to speak. Those who use public transportation resign themselves to insults. They bend their head and run for refuge to their homes. Attendance in restaurants and theaters is falling sharply. Women have become resigned to wearing “modest” outfits and are careful to not go out alone. Protests organized by Pegida (Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West) have never attracted more than a few thousand people after a photograph of its founder was released in which he was styled as Hitler.

The Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which calls for a halt to Muslim immigration to Germany and keeps on winning more votes, nevertheless remains a minority party. The law that condemns incitement to hatred (Volksverhetzung), presumably intended to prevent a return to Nazi ideas, is held like a sword over whoever speaks too harshly of the growing Islamization of the country.

On December 20, Angela Merkel went to lay white roses at the scene of the Christmas market attack. Thousands of Germans did the same. Many brought candles and cried. But anger and the will to combat the threat remained largely absent. After a few weeks, the page will be turned — until next time.

Nothing better describes the present state of Germany than the sad fate of Maria Landenburger, a nineteen-year-old girl, murdered at the beginning of December. Maria Landenburger, a member of a refugee relief organization, was among those who welcomed migrants in 2015. She was raped and murdered by one of the people she was helping. Her family asked anyone who wanted to pay tribute to their daughter to give money to refugee associations, so that more refugees could come to Germany.

The great majority of the Germans do not want to see that Germany is at war, because a merciless enemy has declared war on them. They do not want to see that war has been declared on Western civilization.

They accept defeat and docilely do what jihadists want them to do: they submit.

In analyzing the December 19 attack on the Christmas market, German journalist Josef Joffe, editor of Die Zeit, explained Angela Merkel’s decision to welcome refugees as “an act of atonement” and a way to welcome a threatened population, seven decades after the Holocaust. He also explained the passivity of many Germans by a feeling of collective guilt.

If Joffe is right, if Angela Merkel does not see the difference between Jews exterminated by the Nazis, and Muslims threatening to exterminate Christians, Jews and other Muslims, she is even more clueless than it seems.

If many Germans are filled with collective guilt to the point that they want to compensate for what Germany did to the Jews by welcoming hundreds of thousands of Muslims many of whom openly state that they want to replace Germany’s Judeo-Christian culture with Islam, and who are replacing its Christian population with a Muslim one — that will include ruthless killers in its ranks — it shows that Germans today either detest themselves so much that they desire their own destruction, or that they have simply lost their will to stand up for what they care about — an act otherwise known as surrender.

Dr. Guy Millière, a professor at the University of Paris, is the author of 27 books on France and Europe.

SOURCE: GATESTONE INSTITUTE

BREAKING: TIME Magazine Openly Promotes Technocracy

time-promotes-technocracy-777x437Patrick Wood | Technocracy

My book, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, is now fully validated with the publication of another book review by the elitist TIME Magazine: Technocracy in America: Rise of the Info-State by Parag Khanna.

Khanna proposes the same ultra-radical ideology seen with original Technocracy from the 1930s:

  1. Abolish the electoral college
  2. Create a streamlined and expert Cabinet
  3. Replace the Senate with an Assembly of Governors
  4. Let the Supreme Court modify the Constitution
  5. Restore a strong federal service that knows how to run a country

Are you kidding me?

That TIME Magazine would run this book review, written by the book’s author no less, is huge. It means the editorial board is in agreement with it and further, the global elite in general. Why? Because TIME has been an organ of the global elite for well over 40 years!

This is reminiscent of the book by Henry A. Porter in 1932, Roosevelt and Technocracy, where the author called for President-elect Roosevelt to declare himself dictator in order to summarily implement Technocracy. He likewise called for the abolition of Congress.

technocracyrisingstoreI will soon write another article to further explain what is happening here, but in the meantime I cannot more strongly recommend that you purchase and read Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse Of Global Transformation!

 

 

Excerpt:

TIME Magazine

5 Radical Solutions to Fix Our Busted Government

By Parag Khanna, Dec. 2, 2016

Focus on Technocracy

We know what President-elect Donald Trump says he’ll do in the “first 100 days.” But we know less of what we’re in for in the four or more years of Trump’s improv presidency. Here’s what should be done before the 2020 election to truly make America’s government great.

1. Abolish the electoral college.

You’ve heard it before, but since Trump suddenly isn’t talking up this election promise anymore, don’t lose sight of it. America needs to graduate from indirect to direct democracy. The president should be directly elected by the people, not through an arcane intermediary called the Electoral College. Statesand districts are represented in Congress; they have no business interfering in the citizens’ selection of their president. If the College remains in place, make sure your state signs the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact that obligates delegates to pledge their votes to whoever wins the popular vote in their state. Let’s not have 2020 be a repeat of 2000 and 2016, where the winner of the popular vote (Al Gore in 2000 and Hillary Clinton in 2016) loses the election.

2. Create a streamlined and expert Cabinet.

There are many problems with the way the Cabinet is structured: it’s too big, members aren’t necessarily experts at what they do, and they work in silos rather than together. In other countries, such as Switzerland, the executive branch is called a “collective presidency,” a committee of seven elected leaders representing multiple parties and reaching consensus on major issues. They even rotate chairmanship each year. Seven heads are better than one. Given that Trump has never been in politics, a cabinet with real governance experience would be especially useful.

And since there is no mention of the Cabinet in the constitution, the president can construct it any way he chooses. Instead of just appointing friends or trying to construct a “team of rivals,” the cabinet should have doers and influencers from across government, including even sitting Congressmen. That way they have real skin in the game: they either work with Congress or take the blame together. Lastly, the cabinet should be trimmed down, merging bloated agencies to force cooperation on related issues: the Department of Transportation and Department of Housing and Urban Development could be combined into an Infrastructure Department; the departments of Energy, Agriculture and Interior, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, should be fused into a Department of Energy and Environment; the Department of Commerce with the U.S. Trade Representative; Defense with Homeland Security; Education with Labor; and so on.

Read full story here…

Here’s Why Your Google Account Is Under Cyber Attack

Beth Johnson

Cyber attacks are becoming the norm in our daily lives. In fact, just last week, a top security company warned that a new cyber strike is infecting approximately 13,000 cell phones each day. To date, this well-orchestrated hack has taken control of over 1 million Google accounts in just 4 months.

You might be asking yourself why a successful company like Google can’t simply take a stand for its customers and fend these attacks off itself. But the problem isn’t money — the issues lies on the supply side. Despite the high salaries offered by companies like Google, there is a considerable shortage of students coming out of college with degrees in computer science.

James Gosler, one of our nation’s top cyber security experts, believes that we only have approximately 1,000 people with the necessary skills to defend the country against the most complex cyber attacks out of the estimated 20,000-30,000 required. This is troubling, especially given that the demand for information security professionals is expected to grow by 53 percent in less than 2 years’ time.

This will undoubtedly lead to costly national security problems in the years to come — that is, unless we do something about it by acting now.

To be frank, our public schools are still operating under antiquated, early 20th-century standards. Students are spending a lot of time learning about art and 18th century literature, but very little about the new technological world around them.

According to a recent Code.org study, only 29 states give students the option of counting a computer science courses toward high school graduation. Worst is that most of those 29 states only offer one introductory course that does not even scratch the surface of what the average American should be equipped with after their high school years.

This not only jeopardizes our national security, it also poses a long term bane on our children’s earning potential. Of all the 319 college majors, the STEM fields — computer engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, systems engineering, and mathematics — fill the list of highest salaries.

Fingers crossed that Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump’s newly-nominated Department of Education head, will acknowledge the problem at hand and make fixing it a top priority. We simply can’t afford to continue allowing our students to enter the real world without having any basic understanding about how to defend themselves online. The solution isn’t necessarily increasing education funding — it’s making better use of what we already have on the books. Here’s to hoping that DeVos and the rest of the Trump Administration enacts common sense reforms that will safeguard our security for generations to come.

Right Side News Headlines, Oct 22, 2016, From Trump to Biden, Time to Box?

On Oct. 22, 1962, President John F. Kennedy announced an air and naval blockade of Cuba, following the discovery of Soviet missile bases on the island.right-side-news-header

Right Side News Hand Picks: October 22

Best Editorial #1: Why Trump?
Best Editorial #2: Crucifixion of Judge Roy Moore

Video Clip

Top Stories:

Border and Immigration

Islam

Here is video from Europe

Gingrich: Trump Would Be Beating Clinton by 15 Points if Not for the Media

From David Rutz aT the Free Beacon comes this write-up

Newt Gingrich said Donald Trump would be beating Hillary Clinton by 15 points if the media wasn’t lined up against his candidacy during an interview Sunday on ABC’s This Week.

A new four-way NBC News poll shows Clinton leading Trump by 11 points, while an ABC News poll showed a tighter race with Clinton leading by four points.

Trump spoke this week about the election potentially being “rigged,” and he also ripped the media for unfairly helping his Democratic opponent. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) said this week, “they are attempting to rig this election.”

“Who are ‘they,’ and how are they doing this?” host Martha Raddatz asked.

“Well, I think ‘they’ are the news media,” Gingrich said. “This is not about election officials at the precinct level. This is about last Friday when the networks spent 23 minutes on the Trump tape and less than one minute—all three networks combined—less than one minute on Hillary Clinton’s secret speeches that were being revealed in WikiLeaks.”

Gingrich said it was “amazing” that Trump was within striking distance of Clinton in the polls with that kind of disparity. He also defended Trump’s call for poll watchers.

“I’m old enough. I remember when Richard Nixon had the election stolen [by John F. Kennedy] in 1960, and no serious historian doubts that Illinois and Texas were stolen,” he said.

“So you really think this election could be stolen,” Raddatz said. “Do you believe that if Mr. Trump loses, it will be because of a massive conspiracy or fraud, not because more Americans voted for somebody else?”

“I think that without the unending, one-sided assault of the news media, Trump would be beating Hillary by 15 points,” Gingrich said. “I think when you look at WikiLeaks and you look at all the things she has said, when you look at the deals in Russia that Bill Clinton made, and that the Clinton Foundation made … The news media’s one-sidedness is the worst I’ve seen in my lifetime, and I’m old enough. That’s a fairly long statement.”

Gingrich has been a longtime Trump supporter but has also criticized him publicly. This week, after a torrent of sexual abuse allegations against Trump that he denied, Gingrich mentioned there is a “big Trump and a “little Trump” and the latter is “frankly pathetic.”

SOURCE: FREE BEACON

Three Blind Mayors

The elected leaders of Paris, London, and New York should know better than to downplay the frequency of radical attacks.

Seth Barron | CJ

Three days after a militant’s bomb shattered a pleasant Chelsea evening, New York City mayor Bill de Blasio joined London mayor Sadiq Kahn and Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo in calling for “policies that embrace diversity and promote inclusion.” They dismissed any connection between Muslim refugees and terror. “Militant violence is vanishingly rare,” they wrote. Such a denial of plain facts is rightly called “Orwellian.”

If militant violence is vanishing, then it must have once been more common, and is now almost gone. But the opposite is true. In just the last year, a Muslim couple attacked a Southern California community center, killing and wounding dozens of people; a jihadi stalked and massacred 49 people at a Florida gay nightclub; a Somali immigrant on his way to buy an iPhone stabbed nine people in a Minnesota shopping mall while making references to Allah and asking potential victims if they were Muslim; and an Afghan native planted a number of bombs in the New York City area, apparently with the intention of murdering as many people as possible.

One could make an argument that such attacks don’t happen often, or that people are more likely to be eaten by sharks than attacked by Muslim immigrants, but it’s ridiculous to insist that radical Islamist violence is on a downswing. True, jihadis have failed to pull off another massive, coordinated operation on the scale of the 9/11 attacks—but not for lack of trying. De Blasio seems to be saying that, because the NYPD and the FBI have foiled between 15 and 20 plots directed at New York City by Islamist terrorists, we must acknowledge that militant violence is no longer a threat. The mayor wants to give credit to attempted murderers, as though they renounced violence instead of being prevented from committing it.

Paris mayor Anne Hidalgo will have to face her own critics at home for cosigning the claim that militant violence has virtually vanished from the streets of France. Surely there are victims of the Bastille Day truck attack in Nice—the lucky ones who weren’t killed or severely maimed—whose bones are still wrapped in casts or pinned together, who might raise an eyebrow at the idea that what happened to them was a vaporous, practically non-existent event. If not, she might hear a contrary opinion from the families of the 90 victims of the November 2015 Bataclan concert hall attacks, or the survivors of the Charlie Hebdo massacre.

To compound the Orwellian nature of this joint, denialist editorial by the mayors of New York, London, and Paris, the “vanishingly rare” line was excised from the online version of the New York Times. At some point between the overnight print run and midafternoon the following day, someone decided that the phrase was off-message and appended an editor’s note to the piece: “An earlier version of this article included a phrase about the incidence of terrorism perpetuated by militant immigrants. Because of a miscommunication, the phrase, which was added by an editor, was published without final approval of the authors.”

Times readers can come to their own conclusions about the plausibility of that official explanation. If you have a hard-copy of the paper at home, clip the piece out and save it. One day—perhaps soon—we will be attacked again. It may serve as a valuable reminder of how fatuously blind our leaders were in the face of a real and dangerous threat.

Seth Barron is project director of the Manhattan Institute’s NYC Initiative. He blogs about New York City politics at City Council Watch.

Euphrates Shield: Turkish Incursion Into Northern Syria Signals Turning Point In Anti-Isis Fight

Jennifer Cafarella with Leah Danson | ISW

Key Takeaway: Turkey is unraveling America’s anti-ISIS partner in northern Syria in order to position itself as a major power broker in planned operations to retake Raqqa City.

Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) crossed into Syria to seize the ISIS held border town of Jarablus alongside numerous Turkish- and U.S.-backed Syrian armed opposition groups on August 24.

The operation, titled Euphrates Shield, is a turning point in American-Turkish relations and the war against ISIS by fulfilling longstanding American demands for more Turkish involvement in the anti-ISIS fight.Euphrates Shield also aims to prevent the expansion of Kurdish control along the border, however.

The U.S. ordered the Syrian Kurdish People’s Defense Forces (YPG) to withdraw to the east bank of the Euphrates River in accordance with Turkish demands at the start of the operation.

Turkey is leveraging Syrian opposition groups it trusts in Jarablus and intentionally sidelining groups that joined the Syrian YPG-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), bringing U.S.- and Turkish- backed opposition factions into direct conflict with the American-backed SDF.

The SDF opposed the Turkish incursion and attacked the joint Turkish-Syrian opposition force on August 27.

A U.S. defense official announced that the two sides agreed to a “loose” truce on August 30. An unidentified Turkish military source, however, subsequently denied the existence of any such agreement.

The Turkish intervention has meanwhile inspired local resistance against the SDF and YPG in Sunni Arab areas including Manbij City, south of Jarablus, and the northern Raqqa countryside.

Turkey may exploit this local resistance to unseat the SDF from Manbij City and replace it with a military force that opposes the YPG.

SOURCE: ISW

Military Situation in Northern Syria-30 AUG 2016_2 (2)

Hey there!

Forgot password?

Don't have an account? Register

Forgot your password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Close
of

Processing files…