Month: August 2019

Speaking of being held down. Speaking of ‘cancel culture.’ Has there ever been as blatant a civil rights violation as this, found by a marketing company’s survey?

Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner found this:

American workers who like President Trump face sweeping bias against them, with some managers refusing to hire his supporters and those already employed facing discrimination and mockery, according to a new study.

And those who support Trump and who are already in the workplace face substantial mockery, including name-calling. The survey listed the responses to several examples of what pro-Trump workers face:

• 28%, joking about them.
• 23%, overly critical of them.
• 21%, being dismissive of them.
• 11% facing name calling.

One out of five!

This is precisely what drove voters to elect President Trump in 2016. It’s why they surprised pollsters as a ‘silent majority,’ declining to put Trump bumper stickers on their cars out of fear of leftist intolerance. Now this news may propel them to elect him again in 2020 because conservatives have known for years that leftist intolerance in every area of the American establishment is quite real, including kin its routes to opportunity and paths to success, such as in hiring. The perpetrators now are so comfortable doing it they’re admitting they’re doing it to pollsters. It signals that this cancel-culture among the establishment elites is out of control, and in effect is becoming a China-style social credit system.

What’s more, it not only exists among hiring managers, we also know it exists in the anteroom to hiring, in the college admissions system, which specifically rewards social justice warrior applicants over equally qualified others and who knows what other kind of discrimination — Kyle Kashuv, call your office. And if that is not enough, it very obviously extends to faculty hiring, which is uniformly leftist.

It all highlights a major civil rights issue no one’s talking about, the discrimination against diversity of ideas. Want to know why Facebook and Apple and Twitter and Google seem to be monolithically filled with hostile leftists, now focused on manipulating the 2020 election? It’s quite likely that much of that started with that 20% of hiring managers who couldn’t stop being intolerant. Want to know why wealthy suburbs vote uniformly leftist, even against their own interests? Maybe this is because they got through the social credit gatekeeper system to get those good jobs landed them those good salaries. Social credit: It’s not just for China anymore.

Which signals that ending the wholesale discrimination of conservatives is actually pretty urgent. 

Having a large base of hiring managers discriminating against the 50% of the population over something that has nothing to do with how they perform at their jobs is outrageous, and they are getting away with it. It ought to be met with a fedral DoJ lawsuit, or a private sector one from a group such as Judicial Watch and one hopes it may eventually happen. At a minimum, President Trump and other Republicans should bring this up on the campaign trail and force leftists to answer for it. Conservatives who anticipate justice in the long run might want to start sending applications to the firms they suspect of leftist discrimination in anticipation of a future payout.

Leftists for years have set these laws, and not without conservative support, that so long as a person can do the job, his or her sexual orientation, race, sex or any other factor is utterly irrelevant. If those things can be irrelevant, how could political beliefs not be irrelevant, too? That’s the template most people operate on, that’s the expectation normal people have. Nobody expects a thumb on the scale for those other factors, everyone believes America is the land of opportunity and expects to be given a fair chance no matter what their identity in life. The left is so invested in this idea, it has found ways to actually take it to excessive levels. The left has insisted on putting even transsexuals in need of special medications in foxholes with Marines during wartime, and wants to force Catholic priests to conduct the sacrament of matrimony on people whose lifestyle contradicts Church teachings on this logic. They can’t back away from it on discrimination over political beliefs.

But they do it all the time in hiring, creating a de facto Chinese social credit system without telling anyone. In China, social credit is what prohibits someone with ‘wrong’ views to be denied the right to purchase a plane ticket, or get into a desirable school. And coincidence of coincidences, the Silicon Valley bigs are the ones helping the Chicoms enact this sick system. And dollars to donuts, they’re at the forefront of taking it here.

One can only hope that the Department of Justice (and James O’Keefe) notice this report about blatant discrimination in hiring, take steps to identify the perpetrators, sanction them punitively, and make them afraid of the consequences of discriminating against one half of the population in favor of another on utterly irrelevant factors unrelated to the job.

Speaking of being held down. Speaking of ‘cancel culture.’ Has there ever been as blatant a civil rights violation as this, found by a marketing company’s survey?

Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner found this:

American workers who like President Trump face sweeping bias against them, with some managers refusing to hire his supporters and those already employed facing discrimination and mockery, according to a new study.

In a survey of hiring managers and workers shared with Secrets, the marketing firm Airtasker found that left-leaning firms are especially anti-Trump, with 20% vowing to reject a job candidate who backs the president.

And those who support Trump and who are already in the workplace face substantial mockery, including name-calling. The survey listed the responses to several examples of what pro-Trump workers face:

• 28%, joking about them.
• 23%, overly critical of them.
• 21%, being dismissive of them.
• 11% facing name calling.

One out of five!

This is precisely what drove voters to elect President Trump in 2016. It’s why they surprised pollsters as a ‘silent majority,’ declining to put Trump bumper stickers on their cars out of fear of leftist intolerance. Now this news may propel them to elect him again in 2020 because conservatives have known for years that leftist intolerance in every area of the American establishment is quite real, including kin its routes to opportunity and paths to success, such as in hiring. The perpetrators now are so comfortable doing it they’re admitting they’re doing it to pollsters. It signals that this cancel-culture among the establishment elites is out of control, and in effect is becoming a China-style social credit system.

What’s more, it not only exists among hiring managers, we also know it exists in the anteroom to hiring, in the college admissions system, which specifically rewards social justice warrior applicants over equally qualified others and who knows what other kind of discrimination — Kyle Kashuv, call your office. And if that is not enough, it very obviously extends to faculty hiring, which is uniformly leftist.

It all highlights a major civil rights issue no one’s talking about, the discrimination against diversity of ideas. Want to know why Facebook and Apple and Twitter and Google seem to be monolithically filled with hostile leftists, now focused on manipulating the 2020 election? It’s quite likely that much of that started with that 20% of hiring managers who couldn’t stop being intolerant. Want to know why wealthy suburbs vote uniformly leftist, even against their own interests? Maybe this is because they got through the social credit gatekeeper system to get those good jobs landed them those good salaries. Social credit: It’s not just for China anymore.

Which signals that ending the wholesale discrimination of conservatives is actually pretty urgent. 

Having a large base of hiring managers discriminating against the 50% of the population over something that has nothing to do with how they perform at their jobs is outrageous, and they are getting away with it. It ought to be met with a fedral DoJ lawsuit, or a private sector one from a group such as Judicial Watch and one hopes it may eventually happen. At a minimum, President Trump and other Republicans should bring this up on the campaign trail and force leftists to answer for it. Conservatives who anticipate justice in the long run might want to start sending applications to the firms they suspect of leftist discrimination in anticipation of a future payout.

Leftists for years have set these laws, and not without conservative support, that so long as a person can do the job, his or her sexual orientation, race, sex or any other factor is utterly irrelevant. If those things can be irrelevant, how could political beliefs not be irrelevant, too? That’s the template most people operate on, that’s the expectation normal people have. Nobody expects a thumb on the scale for those other factors, everyone believes America is the land of opportunity and expects to be given a fair chance no matter what their identity in life. The left is so invested in this idea, it has found ways to actually take it to excessive levels. The left has insisted on putting even transsexuals in need of special medications in foxholes with Marines during wartime, and wants to force Catholic priests to conduct the sacrament of matrimony on people whose lifestyle contradicts Church teachings on this logic. They can’t back away from it on discrimination over political beliefs.

But they do it all the time in hiring, creating a de facto Chinese social credit system without telling anyone. In China, social credit is what prohibits someone with ‘wrong’ views to be denied the right to purchase a plane ticket, or get into a desirable school. And coincidence of coincidences, the Silicon Valley bigs are the ones helping the Chicoms enact this sick system. And dollars to donuts, they’re at the forefront of taking it here.

One can only hope that the Department of Justice (and James O’Keefe) notice this report about blatant discrimination in hiring, take steps to identify the perpetrators, sanction them punitively, and make them afraid of the consequences of discriminating against one half of the population in favor of another on utterly irrelevant factors unrelated to the job.

One may believe that those in charge of public education are qualified to administer the task of educating America’s youth.  One may believe they have the best interests of society at heart.  And one may believe they are doing the best they could do, given the conditions under which they have to work.  Abundant evidence, however, points to the conclusion that none of those beliefs is valid.

Public education has become an institutionalized form of child abuse.  Rather than being a tool used to prepare children to become productive adults, public education is being used to indoctrinate them to believe what powerful interest groups wish them to believe.  This process is designed to transform America into a place unfit for human habitation, in which rights are suppressed, powers of government are unlimited, and traditional faith-based values are rejected.

What children in public schools are being told to accept as facts and truth is often nothing more than opinions of those who reject reason and do what they might to prevent students from developing the intellectual skills required for critical thinking so they might embrace their own enslavement and the subversion and degradation of their society.

Those who administer public education are contributing to the degradation of the morals of minors, to the undermining of their intellectual and spiritual growth as human beings, and to the sabotaging of their lives and well-being, as well as to all of these in society at large.  And they are unlawfully abusing their power to achieve those ends.

While promotion in public schools of faith-based ideology is supposed to have been prohibited, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, the faith-based ideologies of socialism, Marxism, nihilism, Islamism, Satanism, Darwinism, and others continue to be propagated in public schools.  This is clearly unlawful.  It is prohibited.  And it is destructive.  But Americans across the country do and say little even to express their opposition to the practice of indoctrination.

Unless this trend is reversed, unless Americans demand restoration of integrity to public education, unless indoctrination in destructive, deranged ideologies is eradicated from public schools, nothing else done in the cause of liberty will have lasting impact, as the foundation for future generations would continue to be built with shoddy materials in the public schools.

Children must be taught critical thinking skills so they might be able to discern between what makes sense and what is deranged.  Children are not being taught to employ reason, however, but instead are being indoctrinated to accept ideas and values antithetical to reason, to facts, and to truth, by educators who do not have the interests of those children at heart.

One may believe that those in charge of public education are qualified to administer the task of educating America’s youth.  One may believe they have the best interests of society at heart.  And one may believe they are doing the best they could do, given the conditions under which they have to work.  Abundant evidence, however, points to the conclusion that none of those beliefs is valid.

Public education has become an institutionalized form of child abuse.  Rather than being a tool used to prepare children to become productive adults, public education is being used to indoctrinate them to believe what powerful interest groups wish them to believe.  This process is designed to transform America into a place unfit for human habitation, in which rights are suppressed, powers of government are unlimited, and traditional faith-based values are rejected.

What children in public schools are being told to accept as facts and truth is often nothing more than opinions of those who reject reason and do what they might to prevent students from developing the intellectual skills required for critical thinking so they might embrace their own enslavement and the subversion and degradation of their society.

Those who administer public education are contributing to the degradation of the morals of minors, to the undermining of their intellectual and spiritual growth as human beings, and to the sabotaging of their lives and well-being, as well as to all of these in society at large.  And they are unlawfully abusing their power to achieve those ends.

While promotion in public schools of faith-based ideology is supposed to have been prohibited, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, the faith-based ideologies of socialism, Marxism, nihilism, Islamism, Satanism, Darwinism, and others continue to be propagated in public schools.  This is clearly unlawful.  It is prohibited.  And it is destructive.  But Americans across the country do and say little even to express their opposition to the practice of indoctrination.

Unless this trend is reversed, unless Americans demand restoration of integrity to public education, unless indoctrination in destructive, deranged ideologies is eradicated from public schools, nothing else done in the cause of liberty will have lasting impact, as the foundation for future generations would continue to be built with shoddy materials in the public schools.

Children must be taught critical thinking skills so they might be able to discern between what makes sense and what is deranged.  Children are not being taught to employ reason, however, but instead are being indoctrinated to accept ideas and values antithetical to reason, to facts, and to truth, by educators who do not have the interests of those children at heart.

You may have noticed that all advocates of federal gun control are arguing for the same end result, which is federal limitations upon the individual right to own firearms. But the underlying arguments as to why they believe that the federal government should be allowed to do so can vary, and often pretty wildly.

There are some who argue, for example, that the Second Amendment was never meant to guarantee any individual right, as CNN’s Chris Cuomo recently argued.  Some others may argue that the Second Amendment only protects guns owned for the purposes of hunting or sport.  That’s all intellectually indefensible, given the precise words of the Second Amendment and ample facts which provide the historical context for its inclusion in the Constitution.  As such, these examples are rarer than the other, more honest argument among gun control activists that I’ve encountered. 

Generally, this latter group of gun control advocates rightfully concede that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to own firearms, but that the Founders just never imagined weapons as deadly as an AR-15, for example.  They argue that it was never meant to protect those kinds of deadly firearms, despite the fact that the deadliest firearms on the planet at the time of the Constitution’s ratification (the same used by regulars in the British army, for example) were clearly meant to be legally kept in law-abiding American citizens’ homes. 

But in the end, all these arguments boil down to one thing — what gun control advocates think Americans “need.”  Irrespective of the mental gymnastics needed to philosophically get there, the closing statement in these arguments for gun control invariably goes something like this: “Why does anyone need a [insert any arbitrarily chosen gun, or gun accessory, of some specific caliber, muzzle velocity, rate of fire, cosmetic accoutrements, magazine size, etc., here]?”

We proponents of limited government and individual rights can, and often do, present substantial arguments as to why such firearms might be necessary to protect ourselves against evil neighbors or government agents who might choose to infringe upon our right to life and liberty, and why the gun control proposals being offered would be ineffective. 

We might point out, for example, the data showing that there is absolutely no evidence that “assault weapon” bans and gun confiscation programs (like the much-touted Australian “buyback”) do anything at all to reduce homicide rates.  We might mention that violent crime and murder rates have fallen sharply since the National Assault Weapons Ban was lifted in 2004 (as I did in 2013, here), despite the number of firearms owned by individuals in this country growing dramatically in the years since, and the prevalence and expansion of concealed and open carry laws in many states.  We might also point out that the CDC has observed that guns are used as a means of self-defense in “about 500,000 to more than 3 million” instances annually, clearly signifying the value of gun rights in protecting Americans’ lives and preserving their liberty.  Or, we might argue, as David French does at National Review, that “for the Second Amendment to remain a meaningful check on state power, citizens must be able to possess the kinds and categories of weapons that can at least deter state overreach, that would make true authoritarianism too costly to attempt.”

But you might notice that all of these arguments, however correct and practical they may be, are not effective in moving gun control advocates’ away from their quest to rob us of our individual rights.  That is because they are clearly arguing on the grounds of raw emotion, and they are therefore incapable of adequately appraising facts and reason.  They are making what they believe to be a moral argument — if you don’t “need” the thing that they surmise you shouldn’t have, then why should you be allowed to legally own it?

Our moral objection to that question should be abundantly clear.  If it is, indeed, my legally protected “right to keep and bear arms,” and it’s true that this right “shall not be infringed” by the federal government, then the question about why I might need an AR-15, or any other arbitrarily maligned firearm, is inconsequential.  The more appropriate question to ask is why anyone else believes that he has the right to demand that the federal government take that explicitly defined right away from me, or any other law-abiding citizen. 

We are constantly besieged by variations of this argument about an American’s “need” being required to justify the most fundamental of American rights, and these arguments exist well beyond the debate around gun rights.  Leftists incessantly entreat Americans with the question, for example, “why should someone need X millions” of legally acquired dollars?  Our response shouldn’t be to ponder or address why someone else might need that amount of money.  That question is utterly irrelevant.  What we should be asking is, what right of mine do I own to demand that the government take their individual property rights from them?

The “ultra-millionaire” wealth tax that Elizabeth Warren has proposed is, without question, an unconstitutional violation of individual property rights.  But it’s seductive, because the masses buying into it care more about their moral indignation resulting from someone potentially having more money than he or she might “need” than about the individual right to property which would be unmistakably stolen from those Americans who are targets of any new “wealth tax.”

Direct taxes, according to the Constitution ratified in 1788, must be applied by the federal government in a strictly limited manner which is consistent with “apportionment” of taxes collected among the states and according to the census.  To get around this restriction and allow the government to discriminately tax individuals’ incomes, the Sixteenth Amendment was passed in 1913, which “permits the imposition of a federal income tax without regard to apportionment among the states.” 

But even with the Sixteenth Amendment in place, there are still some strict limitations to the government’s power to tax. To be clear, progressively taxing income is technically legal due to the Sixteenth Amendment, though it is still morally wrong and inconsistent with property rights as originally protected by the Constitution, I’d argue.  However, taxing an individual’s assets, or “wealth,” is a horse of a different color.  To this day, there remains no enumeration in the Constitution of a power to levy a direct tax on “personal property” which is “imposed solely by reason of its being owned by the taxpayer.”

In other words, if an “ultra-millionaire” has $100 million in a bank account or a brokerage account, the interest and earnings can be legally taxed by the government, and are.  However, the assets (i.e., property), upon which the owner has already paid taxes, cannot be legally taxed again until there is further transmission of the property. This is a profoundly clear distinction, and yet Warren is promising that, under her presidency, she would actively seek to violate the Constitution and tax that property.

I am not an “ultra-millionaire,” and short of winning the lottery or something, I’ll never be one.  I don’t know any other “ultra-millionaires” personally, either.  But that doesn’t change the simple fact that they, whoever they may be, should also enjoy the protection of their property rights under the Constitution.  This is the only way to ensure all Americans’ equal protection under the law, and this, I believe, is the only correct moral position.

Individual rights, such as the right to property and the right to “keep and bear arms” in order to preserve one’s life and liberty, are not “rights” at all if it is broadly imagined that they can be selectively stripped when the whims of politicians and activists demand it.  We cannot continue allowing the Left to focus the debate about individual rights around the arbitrary and malleable “needs” of Americans that are defined by the government and the media.

You may have noticed that all advocates of federal gun control are arguing for the same end result, which is federal limitations upon the individual right to own firearms. But the underlying arguments as to why they believe that the federal government should be allowed to do so can vary, and often pretty wildly.

There are some who argue, for example, that the Second Amendment was never meant to guarantee any individual right, as CNN’s Chris Cuomo recently argued.  Some others may argue that the Second Amendment only protects guns owned for the purposes of hunting or sport.  That’s all intellectually indefensible, given the precise words of the Second Amendment and ample facts which provide the historical context for its inclusion in the Constitution.  As such, these examples are rarer than the other, more honest argument among gun control activists that I’ve encountered. 

Generally, this latter group of gun control advocates rightfully concede that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to own firearms, but that the Founders just never imagined weapons as deadly as an AR-15, for example.  They argue that it was never meant to protect those kinds of deadly firearms, despite the fact that the deadliest firearms on the planet at the time of the Constitution’s ratification (the same used by regulars in the British army, for example) were clearly meant to be legally kept in law-abiding American citizens’ homes. 

But in the end, all these arguments boil down to one thing — what gun control advocates think Americans “need.”  Irrespective of the mental gymnastics needed to philosophically get there, the closing statement in these arguments for gun control invariably goes something like this: “Why does anyone need a [insert any arbitrarily chosen gun, or gun accessory, of some specific caliber, muzzle velocity, rate of fire, cosmetic accoutrements, magazine size, etc., here]?”

We proponents of limited government and individual rights can, and often do, present substantial arguments as to why such firearms might be necessary to protect ourselves against evil neighbors or government agents who might choose to infringe upon our right to life and liberty, and why the gun control proposals being offered would be ineffective. 

We might point out, for example, the data showing that there is absolutely no evidence that “assault weapon” bans and gun confiscation programs (like the much-touted Australian “buyback”) do anything at all to reduce homicide rates.  We might mention that violent crime and murder rates have fallen sharply since the National Assault Weapons Ban was lifted in 2004 (as I did in 2013, here), despite the number of firearms owned by individuals in this country growing dramatically in the years since, and the prevalence and expansion of concealed and open carry laws in many states.  We might also point out that the CDC has observed that guns are used as a means of self-defense in “about 500,000 to more than 3 million” instances annually, clearly signifying the value of gun rights in protecting Americans’ lives and preserving their liberty.  Or, we might argue, as David French does at National Review, that “for the Second Amendment to remain a meaningful check on state power, citizens must be able to possess the kinds and categories of weapons that can at least deter state overreach, that would make true authoritarianism too costly to attempt.”

But you might notice that all of these arguments, however correct and practical they may be, are not effective in moving gun control advocates’ away from their quest to rob us of our individual rights.  That is because they are clearly arguing on the grounds of raw emotion, and they are therefore incapable of adequately appraising facts and reason.  They are making what they believe to be a moral argument — if you don’t “need” the thing that they surmise you shouldn’t have, then why should you be allowed to legally own it?

Our moral objection to that question should be abundantly clear.  If it is, indeed, my legally protected “right to keep and bear arms,” and it’s true that this right “shall not be infringed” by the federal government, then the question about why I might need an AR-15, or any other arbitrarily maligned firearm, is inconsequential.  The more appropriate question to ask is why anyone else believes that he has the right to demand that the federal government take that explicitly defined right away from me, or any other law-abiding citizen. 

We are constantly besieged by variations of this argument about an American’s “need” being required to justify the most fundamental of American rights, and these arguments exist well beyond the debate around gun rights.  Leftists incessantly entreat Americans with the question, for example, “why should someone need X millions” of legally acquired dollars?  Our response shouldn’t be to ponder or address why someone else might need that amount of money.  That question is utterly irrelevant.  What we should be asking is, what right of mine do I own to demand that the government take their individual property rights from them?

The “ultra-millionaire” wealth tax that Elizabeth Warren has proposed is, without question, an unconstitutional violation of individual property rights.  But it’s seductive, because the masses buying into it care more about their moral indignation resulting from someone potentially having more money than he or she might “need” than about the individual right to property which would be unmistakably stolen from those Americans who are targets of any new “wealth tax.”

Direct taxes, according to the Constitution ratified in 1788, must be applied by the federal government in a strictly limited manner which is consistent with “apportionment” of taxes collected among the states and according to the census.  To get around this restriction and allow the government to discriminately tax individuals’ incomes, the Sixteenth Amendment was passed in 1913, which “permits the imposition of a federal income tax without regard to apportionment among the states.” 

But even with the Sixteenth Amendment in place, there are still some strict limitations to the government’s power to tax. To be clear, progressively taxing income is technically legal due to the Sixteenth Amendment, though it is still morally wrong and inconsistent with property rights as originally protected by the Constitution, I’d argue.  However, taxing an individual’s assets, or “wealth,” is a horse of a different color.  To this day, there remains no enumeration in the Constitution of a power to levy a direct tax on “personal property” which is “imposed solely by reason of its being owned by the taxpayer.”

In other words, if an “ultra-millionaire” has $100 million in a bank account or a brokerage account, the interest and earnings can be legally taxed by the government, and are.  However, the assets (i.e., property), upon which the owner has already paid taxes, cannot be legally taxed again until there is further transmission of the property. This is a profoundly clear distinction, and yet Warren is promising that, under her presidency, she would actively seek to violate the Constitution and tax that property.

I am not an “ultra-millionaire,” and short of winning the lottery or something, I’ll never be one.  I don’t know any other “ultra-millionaires” personally, either.  But that doesn’t change the simple fact that they, whoever they may be, should also enjoy the protection of their property rights under the Constitution.  This is the only way to ensure all Americans’ equal protection under the law, and this, I believe, is the only correct moral position.

Individual rights, such as the right to property and the right to “keep and bear arms” in order to preserve one’s life and liberty, are not “rights” at all if it is broadly imagined that they can be selectively stripped when the whims of politicians and activists demand it.  We cannot continue allowing the Left to focus the debate about individual rights around the arbitrary and malleable “needs” of Americans that are defined by the government and the media.

Since its foundation in 1994 by Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has become a powerful organization that has widely represented itself as a Muslim American “civil rights organization.”  Ironically, there is another powerful organization, similar to CAIR called, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a staunch lobbyists’ group of the Islamic Republic of Iran, falsely portraying itself as the “voice of Iranian Americans and promoting greater understanding between the American and Iranian people.”

For now, let us focus on CAIR and its mission in the United States.  How did an organization that has ties to Hamas, and is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, gain so much power in the United States?  Why are so many institution within the U.S. establishment so terrified of this group and hesitant to invite Islamic scholars to give speeches?  Recently, the U.S. War College canceled an Islam scholar after pressure from CAIR and another radical Islamist, Linda Sarsour.  It is hard to believe that these incidents happen in the land of the free, America!

Let’s be clear about one thing: as Anti-CAIR.net put it, “CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights for Muslims — CAIR is here to make Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy.”  Moreover, “CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorist-supporting countries.”

CAIR’s true face came to light during the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history: the 2007–2008 Holy Land Foundation prosecution.

“The Dallas trial charging the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) for Relief and Development with providing material support for Hamas produced extensive evidence that IAP — CAIR’s parent — played a central role in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee.  Much of that evidence relates to Mousa Abu Marzook, now deputy political chief of Hamas, who served on the board of directors of IAP in 1989.”  CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas support trial of the Holy Land Foundation.

A friend and an American patriot, Chris Gaubatz, managed to infiltrate CAIR’s organization and gather hundreds of documents that have been compiled in a book called “Muslim Mafia.”  The book is an eye-opener on how this organization operates in the U.S.:

“Serving as a CAIR intern, Chris Gaubatz gathered some 12,000 pages of documents that were headed for a shredder at CAIR’s national office in Washington – just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol building,” WND’s Art Moore informed.  ”The information published in Muslim Mafia, co-authored by David Gaubatz and investigative journalist Paul Sperry, documented CAIR’s founding by members of the Muslim Brotherhood — the group that spawned al-Qaeda and Hamas and stated in writing its intent to undermine Western civilization and ultimately bring America under Islamic law.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) grew out of the Islamic Association for Palestine, a group that was created by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.  The Muslim Brotherhood also identified the Islamic Association for Palestine as one of its United States fronts.

CAIR is Hamas, and Hamas is CAIR.  In fact, over the years, chief executive officer and founder Nihad Awad expressed his stance explicitly in a 1994 conference at Barry University in Florida.  ”I am in support of the Hamas movement,” he declared.

CAIR’s members have been told to quickly condemn acts of anti-Semitism, police shootings of black Americans, anti-LGBTQ violence, and so forth, while stating unity with every “progressive” cause under the sun.  But peer beneath CAIR’s carefully crafted press releases and publicity stunts, and it’s clear that the group’s reactionary Islamist roots are as strong as ever.

“Never forget: CAIR works every day to silence Muslim reformers, apostates, Christians, Jews, infidel scholars, border security advocates, anti-sharia activists and investigative independent journalists, on college campuses, TV airwaves and the internet, to prevent us from exposing the truth about Islamic supremacism.”

An unholy coalition of mentally deranged suicidal-homicidal liberals, together with self-aggrandizing Islamic apologists, are doing their best to assist Islamists in the destruction of the existing order of freedom and liberty. 

CAIR and the Democrats are in bed with each other now.  But judging from the Democrat imbeciles running for president, it will not be long before CAIR and company gets rid of all of them and runs their own to take over this country. 

Currently, CAIR and other Islamic groups in America decided that it is easier to change America through subversion (stealth jihad) than through violent jihad.  That is why we have not seen Islamic terrorism lately.  We have entered the soft jihad, which is stealth jihad.  We are at war not with terrorism, but with a jihad fueled by Islam that has been ongoing for the past 1,400 years nonstop.

While the Islamic fire appears contained, Muslim organizations across the United States are busy and work “stealthily” to change and alter America from within in what is called “soft jihad,” or “cultural jihad.”  Soft jihad is in place where the sword of jihad is not advisable, where Muslims are not powerful enough to unsheathe their swords.

CAIR is a designated terrorist organization by the UAE, yet we allow them to bully American citizens from their rights to free speech in the mainland.  Why?

Since its foundation in 1994 by Nihad Awad and Omar Ahmad, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) has become a powerful organization that has widely represented itself as a Muslim American “civil rights organization.”  Ironically, there is another powerful organization, similar to CAIR called, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a staunch lobbyists’ group of the Islamic Republic of Iran, falsely portraying itself as the “voice of Iranian Americans and promoting greater understanding between the American and Iranian people.”

For now, let us focus on CAIR and its mission in the United States.  How did an organization that has ties to Hamas, and is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, gain so much power in the United States?  Why are so many institution within the U.S. establishment so terrified of this group and hesitant to invite Islamic scholars to give speeches?  Recently, the U.S. War College canceled an Islam scholar after pressure from CAIR and another radical Islamist, Linda Sarsour.  It is hard to believe that these incidents happen in the land of the free, America!

Let’s be clear about one thing: as Anti-CAIR.net put it, “CAIR is not in the United States to promote the civil rights for Muslims — CAIR is here to make Islam the dominant religion in the United States and convert our country into an Islamic theocracy.”  Moreover, “CAIR receives direct funding from Islamic terrorist-supporting countries.”

CAIR’s true face came to light during the largest terrorism financing trial in the nation’s history: the 2007–2008 Holy Land Foundation prosecution.

“The Dallas trial charging the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) for Relief and Development with providing material support for Hamas produced extensive evidence that IAP — CAIR’s parent — played a central role in the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee.  Much of that evidence relates to Mousa Abu Marzook, now deputy political chief of Hamas, who served on the board of directors of IAP in 1989.”  CAIR was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas support trial of the Holy Land Foundation.

A friend and an American patriot, Chris Gaubatz, managed to infiltrate CAIR’s organization and gather hundreds of documents that have been compiled in a book called “Muslim Mafia.”  The book is an eye-opener on how this organization operates in the U.S.:

“Serving as a CAIR intern, Chris Gaubatz gathered some 12,000 pages of documents that were headed for a shredder at CAIR’s national office in Washington – just three blocks from the U.S. Capitol building,” WND’s Art Moore informed.  ”The information published in Muslim Mafia, co-authored by David Gaubatz and investigative journalist Paul Sperry, documented CAIR’s founding by members of the Muslim Brotherhood — the group that spawned al-Qaeda and Hamas and stated in writing its intent to undermine Western civilization and ultimately bring America under Islamic law.”

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) grew out of the Islamic Association for Palestine, a group that was created by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.  The Muslim Brotherhood also identified the Islamic Association for Palestine as one of its United States fronts.

CAIR is Hamas, and Hamas is CAIR.  In fact, over the years, chief executive officer and founder Nihad Awad expressed his stance explicitly in a 1994 conference at Barry University in Florida.  ”I am in support of the Hamas movement,” he declared.

CAIR’s members have been told to quickly condemn acts of anti-Semitism, police shootings of black Americans, anti-LGBTQ violence, and so forth, while stating unity with every “progressive” cause under the sun.  But peer beneath CAIR’s carefully crafted press releases and publicity stunts, and it’s clear that the group’s reactionary Islamist roots are as strong as ever.

“Never forget: CAIR works every day to silence Muslim reformers, apostates, Christians, Jews, infidel scholars, border security advocates, anti-sharia activists and investigative independent journalists, on college campuses, TV airwaves and the internet, to prevent us from exposing the truth about Islamic supremacism.”

An unholy coalition of mentally deranged suicidal-homicidal liberals, together with self-aggrandizing Islamic apologists, are doing their best to assist Islamists in the destruction of the existing order of freedom and liberty. 

CAIR and the Democrats are in bed with each other now.  But judging from the Democrat imbeciles running for president, it will not be long before CAIR and company gets rid of all of them and runs their own to take over this country. 

Currently, CAIR and other Islamic groups in America decided that it is easier to change America through subversion (stealth jihad) than through violent jihad.  That is why we have not seen Islamic terrorism lately.  We have entered the soft jihad, which is stealth jihad.  We are at war not with terrorism, but with a jihad fueled by Islam that has been ongoing for the past 1,400 years nonstop.

While the Islamic fire appears contained, Muslim organizations across the United States are busy and work “stealthily” to change and alter America from within in what is called “soft jihad,” or “cultural jihad.”  Soft jihad is in place where the sword of jihad is not advisable, where Muslims are not powerful enough to unsheathe their swords.

CAIR is a designated terrorist organization by the UAE, yet we allow them to bully American citizens from their rights to free speech in the mainland.  Why?