Vandalism is never acceptable. Unlike liberals, conservatives have — or should have — respect for private property baked into their political DNA. Even when it comes to political protest, it’s difficult to think of a situation where destruction of someone else’s possession is acceptable, provided said possession isn’t threatening anyone or anything. That said, vandals…
Disney has a warning for you before you sit down to watch “Dumbo” or “Lady and the Tramp” on its new Disney+ streaming service. “This program is presented as originally created,” warnings on these and some other older Disney movies read. “It may contain outdated cultural depictions.” In its reporting on the warnings, Breitbart noted…
On Monday, Republicans circulated an internal memo to Republican members of Congress outlining vital “pieces of evidence” they believe are “fatal” to the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.
Democrats have claimed President Trump engaged in a quid pro quo, of which there is no evidence, with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky during a July 25 phone call. The impeachment effort centers around a whistleblower complaint about Trump asking Ukraine to “look into” corruption allegations concerning former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
But, as outlined by the memo, there are various holes in the allegations, such as Ukraine not even being aware of the supposed conditionality of the aid, which made its way to the nation without any Biden investigation.
Here are all four pieces of evidence outlined in the memo, via Axios:
● The July 25 call summary — the best evidence of the conversation — shows no conditionality or evidence of pressure;
● President Zelensky and President Trump have both said there was no pressure on the call;
● The Ukrainian government was not aware of a hold on U.S. security assistance at the time of the July 25 call; and
● President Trump met with President Zelensky and U.S. security assistance flowed to Ukraine in September 2019 — both of which occurred without Ukraine investigating President Trump’s political rivals.
“Trump had a deep-seated, genuine and reasonable skepticism of Ukraine and U.S. taxpayer-funded foreign aid” due to the nation’s “long history of pervasive corruption,” the “background” section of the memo stated, as noted by The Blaze.
“Senior Ukrainian government officials interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election in opposition to President Trump,” the memo also highlighted. The Republicans cited an August 2016 report from the Financial Times, among other statements, as evidence of the interference:
Though most Ukrainians are disillusioned with the country’s current leadership for stalled reforms and lacklustre anti-corruption efforts, Mr Leshchenko said events of the past two years had locked Ukraine on to a pro-western course. The majority of Ukraine’s politicians, he added, are “on Hillary Clinton’s side”.
The fierce defense against the impeachment inquiry has been coming from President Trump, too, as expected.
“Leading up to the official public impeachment inquiry, President Trump has been blasting away on Twitter with even more frequency than he’s famous for doing,” The Daily Wire reported Wednesday morning. “In a series of tweets starting on the eve of the inquiry, which kicks off on Capitol Hill Wednesday, the president highlighted arguments and quotes from various Republicans and political commentators making the case that the Democrats are engaged in a ‘partisan sham’ based on an accusation that the evidence shows is ‘fraudulent.’”
One pointed stressed by Trump is “House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s consultation with the whistleblower before filing the initial complaint,” The Daily Wire noted. “Trump pointed to Schiff’s problematic conduct again Tuesday by posting a video put together by the House Oversight Committee Republicans highlighting Schiff’s shady involvement with the whistleblower and his infamous ‘summary’ of Trump’s call on the House floor.”
How far would you be willing to go to reduce litter on public transportation? In the state of California, law enforcement is willing to handcuff a man for the crime of eating a sandwich. According to KGO-TV in the Bay Area, 31-year-old Steve Foster was handcuffed and detained Monday on an open-air platform at the…
The day that many die-hard Democrats have been working toward since before Donald Trump was even inaugurated has finally arrived. The official impeachment inquiry of President Trump began Wednesday, but rather than heralding the Democrats’ longed-for victory over the Republican president, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh predicts that this could very well be “Trump’s best week.”
Referencing his comment on the day before that the Democrats would follow the model of the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Limbaugh pointed to a remark by ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, who argued that the impeachment hearings would actually be even more egregiously handled by Democrats. “At least during the Kavanaugh hearings the Republicans had the ability to bring up people who were supporting Kavanaugh. We don’t even have that,” Nunes told Fox News.
“The Republicans are being frozen out here,” said Rush. “Schiff is talking about what his procedure is in a grand jury. There’s a problem with that, though. Grand juries are never public. Grand juries you’re not allowed to know what went on in there unless somebody leaks, which is against the law. And Schiff is trying to give himself cover by saying that what he’s doing with this starting tomorrow is the equivalent of a grand jury. It isn’t. He’s running a show.”
The Republicans, said Limbaugh, “are not gonna have a chance to object, to call their own witnesses.” Instead, Schiff has “exerted total control over the proceedings here.”
But the way this is going to play out publicly, Limbaugh argued, isn’t going to go how Democrats hope — and the media are starting to worry about that openly.
As an example, the host played a clip of Sam Donaldson talking with CNN’s Don Lemon Monday night about what’s at stake in the public hearing. The problem, Donaldson suggested, is that the mainstream media no longer has as much control over the narrative as it did during Watergate, and he’s “concerned” that they won’t have the time to make their case:
DONALDSON: The Watergate committee hearings on Capitol Hill, the summer of ’73, I covered that. But, millions of people were watching. Now there were only three networks then. There was no VCR, there was no Internet. They got their news by watching television. The newspapers helped, of course, and the daily Monday through Friday evening news broadcasts helped. And it took over two years to get the public to the point where, yes, they thought maybe this guy was a crook, Richard Nixon. Now the Democrats this time have, what, a couple of weeks? My concern is there’s not enough time.
“He’s lamenting the loss of the media monopoly,” said Limbaugh. “He said we had a monopoly; it took us two years to screw Nixon. And now the Democrats are gonna try to do it in two weeks.”
Limbaugh then cued up another soundbite, this time from Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford Jr., who told Fox News’ Bret Baier that he “wouldn’t be surprised if [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] didn’t pull [the impeachment inquiry] in the next several days, if this first week does not go well.”
“So, let’s put this all together,” said Limbaugh. “The Drive-By Media now saying that Trump is about to face his worst week ever. And Devin Nunes thinks it’s gonna be precisely because the Republicans are not gonna have a chance to push back, to fight back as they did during the Kavanaugh fiasco.”
“Well, how many times, though, have we been told in the last – we’re getting close to three years now — how many times have we been told this is Trump’s worst week?” he continued. “How many times have we been told the walls are closing in on Donald Trump? They are too numerous to count.”
“What does Harold Ford Jr. know? He knows something. He is connected. He’s a Democrat praising Pelosi as the most mature politician in Washington, acknowledging that she didn’t really want to do this,” said Rush. “She’s now put Schiff, not Nadler — this is key. She had Nadler or Schiff. She could have directed all of this to happen with Nadler’s committee. But she chose Schiff. She chose a bug-eyed, lying sack of excrement to be the face of this. And I’m telling you, folks, that carries with it a lot of risk.”
Rush then spelled out his point: the media, once again, has it all backwards when it comes to the public response to their targeting of Trump.
“This could end up being one of Trump’s best weeks, because the curtain is now being pushed back,” he argued. “And people who have not been following this so-called impeachment inquiry are now not gonna be able to avoid it, because the Drive-Bys are gonna televise all of it. If they have to invent networks to put this thing on, they will do it. You’re not gonna be able to miss it.
Schiff as “the face of the Democrat Party,” suggested Rush, is going to backfire for them, while the anti-due process rules imposed by Democrats will become increasingly apparent to Americans, leading them to conclude that the whole thing is a “partisan sham.”
“How many of you think Adam Schiff presents a good face for the Democrat Party?” he said. “The Republicans are gonna try to object. The Republicans are gonna try to do some things, but they’ve been frozen out of this. And that is going to be obvious as well. But I think there are gonna be millions of Americans who are going to have the chance, anyway, who haven’t been following this wall-to-wall like you and I have been, to see what a partisan sham this whole thing is.”
A group backed by President Barack Obama and led by former attorney general Eric Holder sent $300,000 to Louisiana Democrats in the closing days of the governor’s race, filings show.
The outside money flowed into the state as polls show the race between Gov. John Bel Edwards and Republican challenger Eddie Rispone at a dead heat. The National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC), an Obama and Holder outfit that focuses on "Republican gerrymandering" around the country, added Louisiana to its "2019-2020 targets," citing Bel Edwards’s ability to "veto a gerrymandered map" offered by the Republican-controlled legislature.
The group has quietly sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democrats ahead of the runoff election. The NDRC’s PAC sent $100,000 each to the State Democratic Campaign Committee of Louisiana, Louisiana Democrats, and the House Democratic Campaign Committee of Louisiana in late October, state filings show. Holder’s group now ranks among the largest spenders in the state since the October 12 primary.
The NDRC did not respond to requests for comment on its Louisiana efforts. Neither the state Democratic Party nor the Bel Edwards campaign returned requests for comment.
The NDRC launched in 2016 in part because of Obama’s frustration with Republican control of the House of Representatives, which he blamed on gerrymandering at the state level. Prior to leaving the White House, Obama held a strategy session with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), and former Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe that identified breaking up Republican-controlled legislatures as a top priority for Democrats in the upcoming years.
Holder has said that the NDRC’s goal is personal for Obama. "The tasks that he had placed before him were made a lot more difficult, progress a lot more difficult, than it needed to be," Holder told the New York Times in 2017. "That’s because of the Congress that he had to deal with, which was a function of the 2010 redistricting effort."
The group has since attracted the attention of top Democratic operatives. Kelly Ward, the former executive director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, serves as the NDRC’s president. Democratic Governors Association executive director Noam Lee, House Majority PAC president Ali Lapp, and America Votes Action Fund president Greg Speed are all involved with the group. Marc Elias, a prominent Democratic attorney who acted as Hillary Clinton’s top campaign lawyer and now holds the same position with Sen. Kamala Harris’s (D., Calif.) presidential campaign, has also has acted as a senior adviser and general counsel for the group.
The NDRC first became politically active by pouring more than $1 million into Virginia’s 2017 gubernatorial race backing Ralph Northam. That same year, the group raised more than $11 million for all of its entities including the NDRC, the National Democratic Redistricting Foundation, and the National Democratic Redistricting Fund. It had set a $30 million fundraising goal for 2018.
The group most recently dumped hundreds of thousands into Virginia for its 2019 off-year elections, which helped Democrats take control of both houses of the state legislature. For the 2020 election cycle, the NDRC plans to launch operations in 12 states that could decide the presidency, including Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin.
Louisiana’s runoff election will be held on Saturday.
A recent survey conducted by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation and polled by YouGov, a research and data firm, found that 70% of millennials are likely to vote socialist and that 1 in 3 millennials saw communism as “favorable.”
Let’s examine this tragic vision in light of the Fraser Institute’s recently released annual study “Economic Freedom of the World,” prepared by professors James Gwartney of Florida State University; Robert A. Lawson and Ryan Murphy of Southern Methodist University; and Joshua Hall of West Virginia University, in cooperation with the Economic Freedom Network.
Hong Kong and Singapore maintained their lead as the world’s most economically free countries—although China’s heavy hand threatens Hong Kong’s top ranking. Rounding out the top 10 are New Zealand, Switzerland, the United States, Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Mauritius.
By the way, after having fallen to 16th in 2016, the U.S. has staged a comeback to being in the top five economically free countries in the world.
What statistics go into the Fraser Institute’s calculation of economic freedom?
The report measures the ability of individuals to make their own economic decisions by analyzing the policies and institutions of 162 countries and territories. These include regulation, freedom to trade internationally, size of government, sound legal system, private property rights, and government spending and taxation.
Fraser Institute scholar Fred McMahon says, “Where people are free to pursue their own opportunities and make their own choices, they lead more prosperous, happier, and healthier lives.”
The evidence for his assessment is: Countries in the top quartile of economic freedom had an average per capita gross domestic product of $36,770 in 2017 compared with $6,140 for bottom quartile countries. Poverty rates are lower.
In the top quartile, 1.8% of the population experienced extreme poverty ($1.90 a day) compared with 27.2% in the lowest quartile. Life expectancy is 79.5 years in the top quartile of economically free countries compared with 64.4 years in the bottom quartile.
The Fraser Institute’s rankings of other major countries include Japan (17th), Germany (20th), Italy (46th), France (50th), Mexico (76th), India (79th), Russia (85th), China (113th), and Brazil (120th). The least free countries are Venezuela, Argentina, Ukraine, and nearly every African country with the most notable exception of Mauritius.
By the way, Argentina and Venezuela used to be rich until they bought into socialism.
During the Cold War, leftists made a moral equivalency between communist totalitarianism and democracy. W. E. B. Du Bois, writing in the National Guardian (1953) said, “Joseph Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature.”
Walter Duranty called Stalin “the greatest living statesman … a quiet, unobtrusive man.” George Bernard Shaw expressed admiration for Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin.
Economist John Kenneth Galbraith visited Mao’s China and praised Mao Zedong and the Chinese economic system. Gunther Stein of the Christian Science Monitor also admired Mao and declared ecstatically that “the men and women pioneers of Yenan are truly new humans in spirit, thought, and action.”
Michel Oksenberg, President Jimmy Carter’s China expert, complained that “America [is] doomed to decay until radical, even revolutionary, change fundamentally alters the institutions and values,” and urged us to “borrow ideas and solutions” from China.
Leftists exempted communist leaders from the harsh criticism directed toward Adolf Hitler, even though communist crimes against humanity made Hitler’s slaughter of 11 million noncombatants appear almost amateurish.
According to professor R.J. Rummel’s research in “Death by Government,” from 1917 until its collapse, the Soviet Union murdered or caused the death of 61 million people, mostly its own citizens. From 1949 to 1976, Mao’s communist regime was responsible for the death of as many as 76 million Chinese citizens.
Today’s leftists, socialists, and progressives would bristle at the suggestion that their agenda differs little from that of past tyrants. They should keep in mind that the origins of the unspeakable horrors of Nazism, Stalinism, and Maoism did not begin in the ’20s, ’30s, and ’40s.
Those horrors were simply the result of a long evolution of ideas leading to a consolidation of power in the central government in the quest for “social justice.”
In 2000, Al Gore won the popular vote—and lost the election. Cue a renewed interest from the left in demolishing the Electoral College. Now 15 states and the District of Columbia have joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Trent England, director of Save Our States, joins the podcast to discuss what his group is doing to increase enthusiasm for the Electoral College. Read the lightly edited interview, pasted below, or listen on the podcast:
We also cover the following stories:
The first public impeachment hearing is today.
The Supreme Court rejected a major gun case.
A new study details the amount of media bias against President Donald Trump.
Daniel Davis: I’m joined now by Trent England. He is the executive vice president of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs and he’s director of Save Our States, a program aimed at preserving the Electoral College. Trent, thanks for your time today.
Trent England: Yeah, yeah, Daniel, I’m really glad to be here.
Davis: So Save Our States, that’s the name of your program, and that name implies that states are facing a real threat to their relevance and their power in our political system. So in what way do the states need to be saved?
England: Yeah, no, there is a real effort going on to rip up state lines when it comes to presidential elections. It’s called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. People have probably seen AOC [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.,] is out there tweeting against the Electoral College. [Democratic Sen.] Elizabeth Warren is giving speeches about how the Electoral College should be abolished.
What people might not realize is there’s actually this effort, this national popular vote effort to really hijack, almost nullify the Electoral College system and Save Our States exists to stop that and to make the argument for the Electoral College.
Davis: … You mentioned the National Popular Vote Compact. After the 2016 election, all these states decided that they really didn’t like the Electoral College because President [Donald] Trump won the Electoral College, lost the popular vote. Can you explain exactly what that effort is trying to do and why it’s off base?
England: Yeah, sure thing. I mean, it really goes back to the 2000 election when, obviously, Al Gore, he got the most popular votes, but he lost the election because he lost in the Electoral College. And a couple of very liberal law professors cooked up this idea, they recognized that the left had actually tried a whole bunch of times to amend the Constitution, get rid of the Electoral College, and every time they failed.
So they realized, “We’ve got to do something different.” And what they came up with is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV. And it has states agree in a law to ignore how their own voters vote. And instead, elect their presidential electors based on the national popular vote.
So, if you think that through, it really … hijacks the Electoral College to use it to do exactly what the American Founders rejected, which is to create a direct election system, a national popular vote, a direct election for president of the United States, rendering state lines irrelevant, rendering state governments and state laws potentially irrelevant in the process.
And they had a bunch of states adopt this basically in 2007, 2008, 2009. We launched Save Our States in 2009, really fought them to a draw. But then, as you say, when the 2016 election happened, all of a sudden there was all this political animosity and pressure to join National Popular Vote. And today, we see 15 states plus the District of Columbia that have joined the National Popular Vote Compact. They need 270 electoral votes to put it into effect.
They need states to join it, that control 270 electoral votes. They already have 196 electoral votes committed. So that’s why … Save Our States is doing everything we can right now to protect the Electoral College and stop this effort to hijack our constitutional process.
Davis: A lot of people who are critical of the Electoral College point out that candidates seem to spend an awful lot of time in Ohio and Florida and these swing states, they get so much attention. And other states, like maybe the one you live in Oklahoma, D.C., where I live, not so many candidates [come] through to talk to voters.
And some critics will say if we just get rid of the Electoral College, they’ll be able to travel everywhere. Every voter will be treated as an equal, they’ll get equal access to the candidates and equal input. Is that true? Would that problem disappear if we just got rid of the Electoral College?
England: No, it really isn’t. It sounds great, but this is the kind of proposition that the American Founders actually made fun of when they were writing the Constitution. These utopian ideas, “Well, you know, if we just change the rules, then we could take the politics out of politics.” What National Popular Vote would do is really shuffle the deck.
So some voters who get a lot of attention today would get less attention. But some voters who get less attention today would get more attention. But campaigns are still going to take polls, they’re still going to have strategies. They’re still going to focus on some areas more than others.
Really what National Popular Vote would do is make all of the major cities much, much more important in our process. Because, Los Angeles County has 10 million people in it, right? That is more than double the population of my home state. And when you take the LA metro, the Chicago metro, the New York metro, and you put them together, there are more people than in the entire state of California. So National Popular Vote would shift political power to the big cities.
The thing about swing states is, they’re just whatever states happen to be the most evenly politically divided at that moment in time. They shift around all the time and that’s constantly changing. It’s always in flux, it expands, it contracts.
If you got rid of that system, you would have really permanent power vested in these major cities. And James Madison actually talked about that at the Constitutional Convention. In July, 1787 he pointed out that would be a really dangerous result of having a direct election of the president. That’s why we have the Electoral College.
Davis: Well, then, of course, so much of this effort is based on the idea that blue states are at a disadvantage because of the Electoral College. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has said that the Electoral College amounts to affirmative action for rural red states. [Those are] her words. Is there any merit to that? Do red states get a leg up because of the Electoral College?
England: I didn’t know AOC was against affirmative action. So in a way, what she’s saying is true in this way, right? Political organizing is always harder when people are more dispersed and when people are farther from the institutions of power. So cities have a lot of power. They have a lot of wealth, they have a lot of power.
Cities, that’s where the media are. That’s where the government offices are. That’s where the institutions like universities are, right? I mean cities, these concentrations of wealth and power, they have a lot of power now. They had a lot of power back 230 years ago.
The American Founders recognized that. That’s part of why they created the Electoral College because … we always talk about checks and balances. They did want to check a concentration of power, to prevent a concentration of power in the big cities and to provide for some balance in presidential elections.
So … in a sense, yeah, sure. It gives smaller states a leg up because it incorporates the Senate in the calculation. And it does make sure that you can’t build a coalition based on a few big cities and take permanent control of the executive branch.
I mean, I can understand why AOC is frustrated. … Look, if you represent that wing of the Democratic Party, it makes them crazy that they have to moderate their position on, say, gun control. Because they have to win over these knuckle-dragging voters in Wisconsin. … That’s how they feel about it. And I understand that.
But I do think that having some incentives for moderation, that’s a good thing. I wish that politicians would appreciate those checks and balances a little more, but we can understand why they don’t.
Davis: Well, and of course, some of the small states are blue states, right? I wonder about states like Vermont and Rhode Island, they’re not going to be helped at all. The compromise struck during the founding era … was that small states wanted some things, so they got the Senate and they got the Electoral College. So doesn’t it basically come out even? I mean, small states being red and blue?
England: I mean, that’s true. It really … respects states as states. It gives a boost to the smallest states. It prevents politicians from winning just by driving up the score where they’re already popular or building a hyper-popular regional coalition. It forces them to reach out across the country.
We have two big national political parties and a lot of political stability, a lot of very organic coalition building that goes along with that because of this Electoral College system. But at the same time, it makes sense that politicians would bristle at it because it’s politicians who are being controlled.
It’s politicians’ power that’s being limited by the Electoral College. So it’s really up to we the people, right? It’s up to citizens to say, “No, look, we actually … value these checks and balances. We value the constitutional institutions that put some limits on politicians and their power.”
And we understand why they’re going to be uncomfortable with these things, especially when people lose an election. Right? Nobody likes to lose an election. But it’s really up to the people to defend our Constitution and to defend our states.
Davis: A growing concern is the security of our elections. Interestingly, we’ve had some cases of voter fraud in the past couple of years on both sides of the political aisle, showing that voter fraud does not discriminate between the parties. Does the Electoral College play any role in guarding against the dangers of vote fraud?
England: Yeah, absolutely. That’s a really good question. The Electoral College uses state lines like the watertight compartments on an ocean liner, right? I mean, when the Titanic went down, they realized we have got to compartmentalize all these parts of an ocean liner so that when you have a leak in one part of the ship, the water doesn’t flow through the whole ship and sink the whole thing, right?
The Electoral College does that with our presidential elections because … it could just be a mistake, right? Bad ballot design in Florida or something like that. Hanging chads, they’re not sure what to do. Or it could be fraud, but whatever happens, it’s at least contained in the state where it happens. It never spills over. We never need a nationwide recount under the Electoral College. This is a huge protection against voter fraud.
It also means that the states that are going to be swing states in any given election are also likely to be the most politically divided, right? So in my experience, it seems like where you see vote fraud is where one party or the other pretty much controls everything.
Very often you see vote fraud in primaries because it’s all the Democrats, or it’s all the Republicans, it’s an intraparty fight. Because of the way the Electoral College works in practice, these battlegrounds are the places where it’s the very hardest to commit election fraud because there’s the most political accountability. I think that’s an interesting side effect that helps us have integrity in presidential elections.
Davis: Very interesting. Well, Trent England is at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. Check out his initiative, Save Our States. Trent, thanks for your time.
England: Yeah, my pleasure. Thanks so much, Daniel.
President Trump touted the economy in his speech to the Economic Club of New York on Tuesday.
The Trump economy went on to break new stock market records following his speech in New York City.
President Trump then went to a New York City fundraiser with around 400 Orthodox Jews.
The New York City Jews raised $5 million for the Trump reelection campaign.
The crowd chanted “Four more years!” as President Trump started his speech! Yeshiva World reported:
The event reportedly raised a whopping $5 Million for Trump’s reelection and the Republican National Committee.
Mr. Kivi Bernard was the emcee; National Anthem and Jewish songs (such as Tov lehodos) were sung by Beri Weber.
Hagaon HaRav Yisroel Reisman, one of the Roshei Yeshiva in Yeshiva Torah Vodaath recited the “Birchas Hanasi”, and Rabbi YY Jacobson introduced the president.
Cheers of “four more years” broke out as Trump began his speech.
#famousandfrum speaker Rabbi YY Jacobson recited the blessing we make in the presence of a king or president in honor of @realDonaldTrump, who spoke at a gathering for Orthodox Jews in New York today. pic.twitter.com/m5I3puPDRu
Many in the West today are grappling as to how Islam has been able to get a foothold in our society. We know of Islamists’ present-day means to get government officials to capitulate to their whims through lobbying and the mainstream media, presenting themselves as victims of the same Western society that has helped them. But how have they been able to acquire such political leverage? Apparently, there has been a willful lack of circumspection or foresightedness. Back in the 1970s, the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had said:
“As long as Muslims are an insignificant minority in a Christian country, they can live on friendly terms, because they accept the laws and customs of the country that receives them. But as soon as they become numerous and organize, they become aggressive and try to impose their laws, which are hostile to [Western] civilization.”
Protagonists such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both supposed allies of the United States and the European Union — have been able to forge or manipulate situations having politicians and the mainstream media to direct attention to military conflicts in the Middle East, such as Syria and Afghanistan, or by “exclusively” focusing on the Iranian regime as the principle source of terrorism. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali explained, because of the West’s obsession with terror, we have become blind to the broader threat of the dawa, (Islamic proselytizing): the ideology behind the terror attacks — and what drives numerous Muslims to Islamize us. In other words, by leading us to believe that the threat of Islam is only in far-off distant lands, Islamists have been able to conceal their ultimate weapons of Islamization: exploitation of democracy and pluralism, immigration, and the multiplication of the progeny.
Since its foundation, islam has always been transnational as it spread across the world when the nation-state and national identity were at best inchoate and more often nonexistent. This has impelled many Muslims, regardless of their views of democracy, to utilize the democratic instruments of pluralism and freedom of expression to insert themselves into society with the goal of propagating Islam at the expense of others. The most salient example has been the election of Ilhan Omar to the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding marrying her own brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, to get him a green card to the U.S., even before being sworn into Congress on a Quran, she successfully demanded that Congress reverse a 181-year ban on the wearing of any headgear — in her case she was able to wear the hijab: a religious attire, when lawmakers cannot even display a cross — on the floor of Congress.
Like a Trojan horse, Islamists have been able to infiltrate, for example, the Western field of education, creating an environment of receptivity and understanding for the next generation of Americans to accept their sharia-based lifestyle. Saudi money has financed institutions alongside multitudes of other Islamic organizations across the world and within the United States (80 percent of 1,200 mosques operating in the United States were built after 2003). Qatar’s equal vision for America is being peddled through our children’s classrooms, targeting a pliable population and one with a long shelf life.
This has reciprocally occurred with the assistance of terror-linked NGOs, such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America, which have bought off Washington influencers and think tanks and having them capitulate to Islamic “needs” in our society.
Reading the collapse of Western demographics, Islamists see our century as the time to make their move if they are going to have a realistic opportunity to Islamize the West. While a key strategy has been immigration, a more effective weapon, as already indicated, has been the multiplication of the progeny in opposition to the demographic collapse. As of 2017, there are about 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, according to the Pew Research Center; nearly one-fourth of the world’s population, making Islam the world’s second largest religion after Christianity. Within the second half of this century, Muslims are expected to become the world’s largest religious group. The Pew Research Center estimates that by 2070, Islam will overtake Christianity, due to faster birth rate (2.7 children per family vs. 2.2 for Christian families).
According to some experts, a reason for the latter is that millennials are not having or postponing having children because of financial strains. Yet those with a family income of less than $10,000 had a birth rate of almost 50 percent higher than for those with family incomes of $200,000 or higher. As Jeremy Carl, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution explains, “The lack of commitment of middle-class and wealthy Americans to having and parenting their own children goes hand in hand with our elite’s casual approach to other issues — in particular, mass immigration.” The understanding that we can simply import foreigners to make up for the child-rearing job we have refused to do ourselves completely ignores the cultural, civic, and economic impacts of immigration — as well as the impacts to ourselves when we bring in foreign adults as a substitute for raising our own children. In any case, in 1970 there were one hundred thousand Muslims in America; today there are nearly four million.
“We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe — without swords, without guns, without conquest — will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”
Chilling words, but this had been already foreseen by then-Algerian President Houari Boumendienne. In an address to the United Nations, stated,
“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
Perhaps this is why President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told his fellow Muslim-Turks who are already living in Europe: “Have not just three but five children.” Apart from the observance of polygamous marriages, the fact that Muslims for the most part do not practice abortion or artificial contraception, the increase of the child rate per family in comparison to the low birth rate in the West, Muslims are inevitably geared to taking over. At this rate, unless if Western society finally wakes up, it may just be just a matter of a few generations before this happens.
Many in the West today are grappling as to how Islam has been able to get a foothold in our society. We know of Islamists’ present-day means to get government officials to capitulate to their whims through lobbying and the mainstream media, presenting themselves as victims of the same Western society that has helped them. But how have they been able to acquire such political leverage? Apparently, there has been a willful lack of circumspection or foresightedness. Back in the 1970s, the late archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had said:
“As long as Muslims are an insignificant minority in a Christian country, they can live on friendly terms, because they accept the laws and customs of the country that receives them. But as soon as they become numerous and organize, they become aggressive and try to impose their laws, which are hostile to [Western] civilization.”
Protagonists such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar — both supposed allies of the United States and the European Union — have been able to forge or manipulate situations having politicians and the mainstream media to direct attention to military conflicts in the Middle East, such as Syria and Afghanistan, or by “exclusively” focusing on the Iranian regime as the principle source of terrorism. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali explained, because of the West’s obsession with terror, we have become blind to the broader threat of the dawa, (Islamic proselytizing): the ideology behind the terror attacks — and what drives numerous Muslims to Islamize us. In other words, by leading us to believe that the threat of Islam is only in far-off distant lands, Islamists have been able to conceal their ultimate weapons of Islamization: exploitation of democracy and pluralism, immigration, and the multiplication of the progeny.
Since its foundation, islam has always been transnational as it spread across the world when the nation-state and national identity were at best inchoate and more often nonexistent. This has impelled many Muslims, regardless of their views of democracy, to utilize the democratic instruments of pluralism and freedom of expression to insert themselves into society with the goal of propagating Islam at the expense of others. The most salient example has been the election of Ilhan Omar to the House of Representatives. Notwithstanding marrying her own brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, to get him a green card to the U.S., even before being sworn into Congress on a Quran, she successfully demanded that Congress reverse a 181-year ban on the wearing of any headgear — in her case she was able to wear the hijab: a religious attire, when lawmakers cannot even display a cross — on the floor of Congress.
Like a Trojan horse, Islamists have been able to infiltrate, for example, the Western field of education, creating an environment of receptivity and understanding for the next generation of Americans to accept their sharia-based lifestyle. Saudi money has financed institutions alongside multitudes of other Islamic organizations across the world and within the United States (80 percent of 1,200 mosques operating in the United States were built after 2003). Qatar’s equal vision for America is being peddled through our children’s classrooms, targeting a pliable population and one with a long shelf life.
This has reciprocally occurred with the assistance of terror-linked NGOs, such as the Council for American-Islamic Relations and the Islamic Society of North America, which have bought off Washington influencers and think tanks and having them capitulate to Islamic “needs” in our society.
Reading the collapse of Western demographics, Islamists see our century as the time to make their move if they are going to have a realistic opportunity to Islamize the West. While a key strategy has been immigration, a more effective weapon, as already indicated, has been the multiplication of the progeny in opposition to the demographic collapse. As of 2017, there are about 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, according to the Pew Research Center; nearly one-fourth of the world’s population, making Islam the world’s second largest religion after Christianity. Within the second half of this century, Muslims are expected to become the world’s largest religious group. The Pew Research Center estimates that by 2070, Islam will overtake Christianity, due to faster birth rate (2.7 children per family vs. 2.2 for Christian families).
According to some experts, a reason for the latter is that millennials are not having or postponing having children because of financial strains. Yet those with a family income of less than $10,000 had a birth rate of almost 50 percent higher than for those with family incomes of $200,000 or higher. As Jeremy Carl, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution explains, “The lack of commitment of middle-class and wealthy Americans to having and parenting their own children goes hand in hand with our elite’s casual approach to other issues — in particular, mass immigration.” The understanding that we can simply import foreigners to make up for the child-rearing job we have refused to do ourselves completely ignores the cultural, civic, and economic impacts of immigration — as well as the impacts to ourselves when we bring in foreign adults as a substitute for raising our own children. In any case, in 1970 there were one hundred thousand Muslims in America; today there are nearly four million.
“We have 50 million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe — without swords, without guns, without conquest — will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.”
Chilling words, but this had been already foreseen by then-Algerian President Houari Boumendienne. In an address to the United Nations, stated,
“One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.”
Perhaps this is why President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told his fellow Muslim-Turks who are already living in Europe: “Have not just three but five children.” Apart from the observance of polygamous marriages, the fact that Muslims for the most part do not practice abortion or artificial contraception, the increase of the child rate per family in comparison to the low birth rate in the West, Muslims are inevitably geared to taking over. At this rate, unless if Western society finally wakes up, it may just be just a matter of a few generations before this happens.
Reading the collapse of Western demographics, Islamists see our century as the time to make their move if they are going to have a realistic opportunity to Islamize the West. While a key strategy has been immigration, a more effective weapon, as already indicated, has been the multiplication of the progeny in opposition to the demographic collapse. As of 2017, there are about 1.8 billion Muslims in the world, according to the