Sunday, May 28, 2017

Thousands Dropped from Food Stamps Due to Work Requirements

Craig Schneider, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 24, 2017

Thousands of Georgians have lost their food stamps after the state gave them an ultimatum: Get a job or lose your benefits.

Is that good news or bad news? Depends who you talk to. Placing work requirements on food stamps has proven controversial across the country, with opinions often divided along political lines.
Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year. The latest round affected some 12,000 people in 21 counties, several in metro Atlanta, who are considered able-bodied without children........State officials say they plan to expand the work requirements to all 159 counties by 2019, with another 60 coming on board next year.......To Read More....

My Take - Food stamps was a good hearted attempt to help people who due to circumstances couldn't work. Like all federal relief programs this one became corrupted, and they've all turned into unaffordable expensive forms of corruption, with the idea they're all "rights".   It was never intended for people who wouldn't work.  When we keep expanding "rights" without requiring people to accept their responsibilities - we get disaster. 

But perhaps we need to keep emphasizing the "rights" as outlined  in the Constitution are "negative" rights that belong to the citizens which forbids the government from interfering in our lives. 

The "rights" the left talks about are "positive" rights, meaning the government has the right to take what you have and give it to someone else.  Positive rights are tyranny!  Why is that so hard to get?

Why are you making these people rich?

The Incredible Mr. Comey

By May 27, 2017

Former FBI director James Comey has a long and telling career; telling much about his rise to FBI director.  Although Comey speaks stoically about following the “rule of law”, and “following in the spirit of our founding fathers”, he has shown time and again that his actions speak louder than his words.  In recent times, he came under criticism for his handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton.  Certainly his announcement in October 2016 that there were new Clinton emails which warranted  further investigation was a serious breach of protocol. 

Coming so close to the elections some say, damaged her chances and could have possibly cost her the nomination.  I guess we won’t blame Comey for Hillary’s loss as long as we have Trump and the Russians to blame.  In fact in July 2016 Comey came under fire for giving Hillary Clinton a pass explaining there “was no intent.”  His decision not to prosecute Clinton even though she was in fact guilty was  generous if not curiously suspicious.   Mr. Trump was severely disappointed in Comey’s decision.

It wasn’t the first time he had given a pass to the Clintons........ To Read More....

My Take - I'm not a particular fan of Martha Stewart, but when I read some days ago Comey was at the head of that sensation getting witch hunt I knew for sure all this clabber about how he was a good and faithful servant of the law  - was a load of horsepucky!  Martha Stewart wasn't prosecuted for what they went after the for - she was prosecuted for being Martha Stewart and to send a message.  And now that we're becoming aware of all the infamy he's been at the center of  - I think there's a question far more reaching than whether he should have been fired or not - but whether he should be prosecuted or not.

Swamp-draining: More on Waters of the United States rule

The case of a farmer being sued by the Army Corps of Engineers for plowing his own land is a travesty of legislative intent.  But a fix may be in the works.

By Dale Leuck May 27, 2017

On May 25, Rick Moran detailed the plight of California-located Duarte Nursery, being sued by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) for plowing a small portion of a recently purchased 450-acre farm for the purpose of planting wheat.  Mr. Duarte purchased the land in recognition that significant portions were to remain fallow because they were wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

But, after planting wheat for harvest in 2013 on a portion determined by a paid consultant not to be such protected wetlands, Mr. Duarte was sued by the Corps for "not obtaining a permit to discharge dredged or fill material into seasonal wetlands considered waters of the United States," according to USA Today.  The dredged or fill material would be particles of soil and/or chemicals loosened by plowing.  The amount of the fine sought against Mr. Duarte is some $2.8 million, with his attorney's fees, time wasted, and potential mitigation activities all significant added expense.....................More

Remembering the Rohna: A World War II Secret and Tragedy

A tragedy shrouded by military secrecy.

Paul Kengor May 27, 2017

ny veteran of World War II can tell you some interesting stories. But for Frank E. Bryer, his story — one he could never forget — was a terrible one. It began the moment his ship, the Rohna, was sunk. When that ship went down on November 26, 1943, Frank’s life changed forever. And very few people beyond the men tossed into the sea ever knew what had happened.

The HMT Rohna was an 8,600-ton British troopship carrying mostly an American crew to the Far East theatre. It went down the day after Thanksgiving, in the Mediterranean, off the coast of North Africa, the victim of a German missile. But it was not just any German missile. This was, it seems, the first known successful “hit” of a vessel by a German rocket-boosted, radio/remote-controlled “glider” bomb — i.e., one of the first true missiles used in combat. It was, in effect, a guided missile, and the Nazis had achieved it first.........And like so many World War II soldiers, Frank’s ordeal did not earn him a ticket home after having experienced enough trauma for a lifetime. He was ordered to heal up and return to the service, which he did through the duration of the war, and then some. He was officially discharged on March 21, 1946 after an endless bout of island-hopping throughout the Pacific theater.

That, too, was no day at the beach.......

Frank Bryer died on January 4, 2016 at age 92, seven decades after the sinking of the Rohna. He at long last rests in peace. And perhaps only now has he been reconciled with those wounded boys who plunged to their death below him on November 26, 1943.

This Memorial Day, let’s remember him, them, and the Rohna......To Read More....

A Simple and Effective Strategy for Trump to Prevail on the Budget

May 26, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

In this interview with Dana Loesch, I make several points about the Trump budget, including the need to reform means-tested entitlements and Obamacare (with a caveat from my Second Theorem of government), as well as some comments on foreign aid and fake budget cuts.

But those are arguments that I make all the time. Today, I want to call attention to the mid-point of the interview when I explain that President Trump is actually in a strong position to get a win, notwithstanding all the rhetoric about his budget being “dead on arrival.”

Simply stated, while he can’t force Congress to enact a bill that reforms entitlements, his veto power means he can stop Congress from appropriating more money that he wants to spend.

But if he wants to win that battle, he needs to be willing to allow a partial government shutdown.
Which he wasn’t willing to let happen when he approved a bad deal a few weeks ago to fund the government for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year.

But we have some good news. He may have learned from that mistake, at least if we take this tweet seriously.
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump May 2 either elect more Republican Senators in 2018 or change the rules now to 51%. Our country needs a good "shutdown" in September to fix mess!       
Amen. Trump should be firm and explicitly warn Congress that he will veto any appropriations bill that spends one penny above what he requested in his budget.

And if Congress doesn’t comply, he should use his veto pen and we’ll have a partial shutdown, which basically effects the “non-essential” parts of the federal government that presumably shouldn’t be funded anyhow.

The only way Trump loses that fight is if enough Republicans join with Democrats to override his veto. But that’s unlikely since it is mostly Democrat constituencies (government bureaucrats and other recipients of taxpayer money) who feel the pinch if there’s a partial shutdown.

This is a big reason why, as we saw during the Clinton years, it’s Democrats who begin to cave so long as Republicans don’t preemptively surrender.

The bottom line is that being tough on the budget isn’t just good policy. As Ronald Reagan demonstrated, there are political rewards when you shrink the burden of government and enable faster growth.

P.S. I’m not convinced that Trump actually wants smaller government, but I hope I’m wrong. This upcoming battle will be very revealing about where he really stands.

P.P.S. And if we do have a shutdown fight, I hope it will generate some amusing political humor, such as what’s at the bottom of this post. Other examples of shutdown-related humor can be enjoyed by clicking here, hereherehere, and here.

Nipping a legal problem in the bud

Consult with all affected parties, to ensure informed endangered species and pesticide policies

Paul Driessen

One of my recent articles predicted that the Fish & Wildlife Service’s endangered species designation for the rusty patched bumblebee would lead to its being used to delay or block construction projects and pesticide use on hundreds of millions of acres of US farmland. The abuses have already begun.

Projects in Minnesota and elsewhere have been delayed, while people tried to ascertain that no bees were actually nesting in the areas. Now a federal district court judge has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency failed to consult with the FWS before approving 59 products containing neonicotinoid pesticides that are used primarily as seed coatings for corn, canola, cotton, potato, sugar beet and other crops.

As crops bud and grow, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt must nip this problem in the bud. Thankfully, Judge Maxine Chesney has given them the means to do so.

The Endangered Species Act requires that EPA determine whether a pesticide “may affect” a listed species, she noted, and consult with the FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, which has no conceivable role in protecting domesticated or wild bees), before approving the 59 products, which contain the neonics clothianidin or thiamethoxam. So EPA must consult with the agencies and determine that the insecticides would have “no effect” on the species or establish stricter guidelines for using them.

The Center for Food Safety and a couple of beekeepers initiated their lawsuit to toughen restrictions on or ban use of the 59 pesticide products, because of alleged risks to bees and other pollinators. Pesticide manufacturers, their CropLife America trade association, and various farmers and beekeepers argued that these “neonic” insecticides are safe for bees, and no new measures or restrictions are needed.

Properly done, consultation would evaluate the conflicting claims and ensure more informed policies. During the Obama Administration, those consultations would likely have involved only the EPA, FWS and NMFS, where many analysts have anti-pesticide views, along with the anti-insecticide plaintiffs. The industry and other parties who intervened in the lawsuit would likely have been excluded or ignored.

But those interveners certainly bring essential expertise. So do farmers, other beekeepers, the Department of Agriculture, scientists who have been studying neonic and other threats to honeybees, and wild bee experts like Sam Droege in the Interior Department’s US Geological Survey.

Truly informed policies and regulations must involve all such experts, as well as parties who will be most affected by any EPA-DOI decisions: construction companies and unions, local government officials, conventional farmers who rely on neonics to protect their crops – and beekeepers who increasingly understand that honeybee colony losses in recent years were due to natural pests and pathogens, and that alternative pesticides are actually more harmful to bees than neonics.

Extensive studies have concluded that the actual cause of bee die-offs and “colony collapse disorders” has been a toxic mix of tiny pests (parasitic Varroa destructor mites, phorid flies, Nosema ceranae gut fungus, tobacco ringspot virus and deformed wing virus) – as well as chemicals used by beekeepers trying to control these beehive infestations. These diseases and pathogens can easily spread to wild bees.

Field studies involving crops where bees forage for pollen have consistently found no observable adverse effects on honeybees resulting from exposures to properly applied neonic seed coatings. The studies assessed neonic residues from bees and hives under actual pollinating/pollen-gathering conditions; they found that pesticide residues were well below levels that can adversely affect bees – and that neonics “did not cause any detrimental effects on the development or reproduction” of honeybee and wild bee

That should not be surprising. Coating seeds ensures that neonic pesticides are absorbed into plant tissues – and thus target only pests that actually feed on the crops. This reduces or eliminates the need to spray crops with much larger quantities of neonicotinoid, pyrethroid or other pesticides that definitely can kill birds, bats and beneficial insects that inhabit or visit the fields or are impacted by accidental “over-sprays.” Even organic farming can harm bees, as it often employs powerful, toxic “natural” chemicals (like copper sulfate) and spraying with live Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) bacteria.

Laboratory studies consistently overdose bees with pesticides, under conditions that do not come close to approximating what bees encounter in forests, grasslands or croplands. That makes their findings highly questionable to useless for devising responsible, science-based regulations.

These realities help explain the sudden attention to wild bees. When the hullabaloo over honeybee deaths and “colony collapse disorder” supposedly caused by pesticides (especially neonics) collapsed like a house of cards, eco-activists began raising alarums over wild bees species. That’s because so little is known that their latest “no wild bees – no food or flowers” claims cannot yet be refuted as convincingly as were claims about domesticated honeybees that have been bred and studied for centuries.

The FWS and Interior Department clearly opened a Pandora’s Box when they decided to list the rusty patched bumblebee as endangered (rather than merely threatened). That bee’s historic range covers nearly 4 million acres, scattered in unknown segments among 378 million acres across 13 Northeastern and Midwestern states. Other species that anti-pesticide activists want added to the endangered list (yellow-banded, western and Franklin’s bumblebees) were found historically in small areas scattered over more than a billion acres in 40 US states. Some nest in the ground; others in trees.

If environmentalists succeed in getting these endangered designations – especially coupled with a narrow consultation process – they could delay, block or bankrupt power lines, bridges, highways, pipelines, housing developments, wastewater treatment plants, plowing operations and other projects all over the USA. Non-organic farming, neonic-treated seeds, and other pesticide use could be particularly vulnerable.

The actual environmental benefits would be minimal – or profoundly negative, as farmers are forced to use other insecticides or switch to land-intensive organic methods. Additional ironies abound.

The constant environmentalist, court, news media and government agency attention to bees and pesticides is hard to understand in the context of policies that promote, mandate and subsidize large-scale wind turbine installations – while ignoring or exempting their impacts on raptors and other birds, bats, and even whales (NMFS should investigate that) and human health .

Meanwhile, extensive monoculture corn and canola plantations (to produce feed stocks for ethanol and biodiesel production) replace millions of acres of food crop and wildlife habitat lands, while using vast quantities of water, fertilizer and energy to replace the oil, coal and natural gas that rabid greens want kept in the ground. These biofuel operations reduce biodiversity and the numbers and varieties of flowering plants on which wild bee species depend. In addition, over their life cycles ethanol and biodiesel generate more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels per Btu of energy produced (see here, here and here).

Broad-based consultations are therefore essential, to ensure that all these topics are addressed by experts and affected parties who can help evaluate the science and policy implications for domesticated and wild bees, as well as for farming, construction, jobs, families and other species.

They must assess not just the alleged risks of using neonics, but also the risks of not using them, risks associated with having to use other classes of pesticides, and risks that could be reduced or eliminated by using modern neonic seed coatings. They should focus on replicable, evidence-based, field-tested science, not laboratory studies; balance agricultural, consumer and environmental needs; and consider bees in the context of how we protect (or don’t protect) other valuable wildlife species.

These steps would help restore science and common sense to policy and regulatory processes – and serve as a foundation for adjusting the Endangered Species Act to minimize regulatory and litigation excesses.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( ) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Climate Deal and My Six Day Plan

By Rich Kozlovich,

 of Climate Depot sent out this notice "Report: Trump tells ‘confidants’ U.S. will leave Paris climate deals" saying: "Multiple news agencies, including Reuters News, are now reporting that President Donald Trump has privately informed several officials in Washington DC that he intends to withdraw from the UN Paris climate pact".

He went on to say:
"A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) would be a victory for science. Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition." 
“In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed! " 
Marc's notice had a number of links to articles outlining what's going on behind the scenes, and I think this article in AXIOS  is particularly interesting as it notes a process I just don't understand.  It's clear this is the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on humanity and it's also clear this is a treaty - which must be ratified by the U.S. Senate - and it hasn't, so why is this so difficult for the Trump administration. 

I've been told the heads of the EPA and Energy Department's transition teams views are identical to my own - so what's the hold up?

For me - dumping this mess would have been done on day one, and I would have lined up the best and brightest minds in the world to explain why with press releases daily - and attacked and exposed the junk science of these false scientists and the loony left with real science.

On day two I would have ended all grants promoting this junk science and fired anyone in the government who had a hand in promoting it. 

On day three I would have issued an executive order giving grants only to those who are now called "deniers" to show exactly how fraudulent this has been, and who has been responsible for it. 

On day four - these so-called scientists who've made scientific integrity an oxymoron in order to get on the government grant money gravy train would have done an about face so fast they would have looked like the color guard in a military parade. 

On day five I would have ordered the Attorney General to prosecute any and all of these "scientists" who've taken the taxpayer's money and perpetrated scientific fraud.  Fraud is a crime, and I would have started with a criminal investigation of Michael Mann and his "science" regarding the Hockey Stick.

On day six I would have begun a faze out of government grant money to researchers since it's become obvious grant money is now the holy grail of science - not truth - and there are far too many Ph.D's willing to say whatever the government wants them to say in order to stay on that gravy train.

Also See:
  1. ‘Fraud, Fake…Worthless Words’: NASA’s James Hansen on UN Paris Pact – Trump should take note 
  2. Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.” 
  3. Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours’)
  4. Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100
  5. Lomborg Blasts UN Paris Treaty’s $100 Trillion Price Tag For No Temp Impact: ‘You won’t be able to measure it in 100 years’ 
  6. Bjorn Lomborg on UN climate deal: ‘This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world’
  7. Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims
  8. Read Full report Here: 
What I really don't understand is this idea Ivanka and her husband are supporters of Anthropogenic Climate Change propaganda - and worse yet - both of them are very influential with her father.  These people have access to the world's information networks far beyond most people and yet they are still incapable of defining this as fraudulent science.  Is it any wonder they lack clarity?

Fire them!

Saturday, May 27, 2017

Cartoon of the Day

Reagan vs. Obama, America vs. Europe

May 27, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
Every time I’ve gone overseas in the past six months, I’ve been peppered with questions about Donald Trump. It doesn’t matter whether my speech was about tax reform, entitlements, fiscal crisis, or tax competition, most people wanted to know what I think about The Donald.

My general reaction has been to disavow any expertise (as illustrated by my wildly inaccurate election prediction). But, when pressed, I speculate that Hillary Clinton wasn’t a very attractive candidate and that Trump managed to tap into disdain for Washington (i.e., drain the swamp) and angst about the economy’s sub-par performance.

What I find galling, though, is when I get follow-up questions – and this happens a lot, especially in Europe – asking how it is possible that the United States could somehow go from electing a wonderful visionary like Obama to electing a dangerous clown like Trump.

Since I’m not a big Trump fan, I don’t particularly care how they characterize the current president, but I’m mystified about the ongoing Obama worship in other nations. Even among folks who otherwise are sympathetic to free markets.

I’ve generally responded by explaining that Obama was a statist who wound up decimating the Democratic Party.

And my favorite factoid has been the 2013 poll showing that Reagan would have trounced Obama in a hypothetical matchup.

I especially like sharing that data since many foreigners think Reagan wasn’t a successful President. So when I share that polling data, it also gives me an opportunity to set the record straight about the success of Reaganomics.

I’m motivated to write about this topic because I’m currently in Europe and earlier today I wound up having one of these conversations in the Frankfurt Airport with a German who noticed my accent and asked me about “crazy American politics.”

I had no problem admitting that the political situation in the U.S. is somewhat surreal, so that was a bonding moment. But as the conversation progressed and I started to give my standard explanation about Obama being a dismal president and I shared the 2013 poll, my German friend didn’t believe me.

So I felt motivated to quickly go online and find some additional data to augment my argument. And I was very happy to find a Quinnipiac poll from 2014. Here are some of the highlights, as reported by USA Today.
…33% named Obama the worst president since World War II, and 28% put Bush at the bottom of post-war presidents. “Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. …Ronald Reagan topped the poll as the best president since World War II, with 35%. He is followed by presidents Bill Clinton (18%) and John F. Kennedy (15%).
Yes, Ronald Reagan easily was considered the best President in the post-World War II era.
Here’s the relevant chart from the story. Kudos to the American people from giving the Gipper high scores.

And what about the bottom of the list?

Here’s the chart showing Obama edging out George W. Bush for last place.

By the way, I suspect these numbers will look much different in 50 years. I’m guessing many Republicans picked Obama simply because he was the most recent Democrat president and a lot of Democrats picked W because he was the most recent Republican President.

With the passage of time, I think Nixon and Carter deservedly will get some of those votes (and I think LBJ deserves more votes as the worst president, for what it’s worth).

The bottom line, though, is that I now have a second poll to share with foreigners.

P.S. If there’s ever a poll that isn’t limited to the post-World War II era, I would urge votes not only for Reagan, but also for Calvin Coolidge and Grover Cleveland.

P.P.S. People are surprised when I explain that Bill Clinton deserves to be in second place for post-WWII presidents.

Observations From the Back Row

Russia's military is overrated

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently I've seen reports of all these amazing tanks and jets Russia is unfolding for the world to see. what? 

Nikita Khrushchev, former Premier of the Soviet Union,  claimed “we're turning out missiles like sausages”, and the CIA was either unable or unwilling to confirm or deny it.  It gets tricky here because it's possible the CIA was complicit.  Sound strange?

During WWII the secret agency doing CIA type work was called the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which became the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). We now know the OSS was infiltrated by communists, some of whom migrated into the CIA. Did this impact intelligence? I find it hard to think otherwise, especially since we now know there was support in the CIA for Fidel Castro.

However - we now also know Khrushchev's claims were bogus.   And all this sabre rattling by Putin is much the same.  Advanced weapons systems are massively expensive!   And not just for research, development and manufacturing.  Try to understand - the maintenance of advanced weapons systems is shockingly expensive.  It requires a nation that's a natural capital generator, which Russia is not. 

Now, this isn't anything new to my regular readers - I've been saying this for a long time, but now, according to Geopolitical Futures  "signs of distress are mounting in Russia’s defense industry and military acquisitions. The State Armaments Program is undergoing budget cuts, and the Military Industrial Commission decided to stop full-scale production on its most expensive projects, especially ships and aircraft."

There is an attempt to modernize what they have over spending money - money they don't have - on new systems.  That won't work because Russia's overall technology is 25 years behind. 

Putin's public goals are to create a military with advanced air defence systems, and an army with more tanks and more infantry vehicles,  spending "42 percent in ground forces and in the airborne forces 58 percent".   But they're abandoning "development of several weapons programs, including a new aircraft carrier, a new nuclear-powered destroyer, a strategic bomber and a fighter interceptor."

That means - no money! They have no money, a downward spiraling central planned economy, backward technology - and once you scratch the surface of Russia military you will find bad workmanship and equipment that doesn't work as planned.  Their special forces are top notch, but their military overall is ill equipped, ill trained, ill motivated, undermanned and a demographic pyramid that's all out of whack.  The age group between 15 and 50 is so small Putin can only man three of Russia's seven defensive gaps and that age group is rife with alcoholism, drug resistant TB and AIDS. 

Nothing more exposed how great Russia's military systems look - but how badly it performs as did the United States attack in the first Iraq War.  Iraq's defence system was a mimic of the Russian military - and it shocked the Russians how easily the U.S. overcame them. 

Nothing has changed, nor will it change, because Russia is an economic and demographic mess run by amoral central planning thugs and criminals.

Public Education Jihad: Islam Is Infiltrating Our Schools and Indoctrinating Our Youth:

by Martin Slann, Posted May 26, 2017

(Editor's note: Dissident Prof is delighted to feature another post by Professor of Political Science, Martin Slann, on the problem of Islamic indoctrination in our schools, which is spreading from the "Wear a Hijab for a Day" events at a community college where she taught 2007-2010 to such appreciation in elementary schools.)

From Europe to America: In much of Europe, public education is being successfully undermined by the growing Islamic presence in schools at all levels. The problem is not a new one, but has become increasingly pervasive during just the last few years and it is spreading to the United States.

A growing part of the curriculum is being handed over to Muslim religious experts who, parents and school boards are told, simply want to expose children to the real religion of peace in order to give them some immunity against the obnoxious “Islamophobes” who do such discourteous things as quote the dozens of passages from the Koran and the Hadith that prescribe mutilation or death for infidels, apostates, homosexuals, Jews, rebellious women, and, well, anyone who has the temerity to even mildly criticize Islam.

But, of course, you’re familiar with the governments in Muslim countries that go out of their way in their school systems to appreciate the activities associated with Christian holidays and encourage adults and their children to gain more understanding of the Christian faith.  You aren’t?  Yeah, me neither.  Instead, those Christians who haven’t yet fled from Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Turkey are regularly abused, robbed, beaten, raped, forcibly converted to Islam, and kidnapped and held for ransom.

But I digress.

Most disturbing of all is that Muslim students are increasingly being treated and mainstreamed as a special class. Last January, Jihad Watch, a publication of the Horowitz Freedom Center, reported that in a middle school in southern Indiana there is currently an enthusiastic presentation of Sharia law, the medieval Islamic legal code that insists on amputations for thieves, stoning of adulterers, murder of apostates, and, of course, slapping wives around whenever a Muslim man has had a rough day at the mosque. All of that is not imparted to children, just the importance of modest attire for girls and the importance of dining (when Ramadan isn’t going on) on halal food. In other words, no pork chops or bacon during breakfast and lunch. The majority of students are, of course, non-Muslim, but they need to leave their ham sandwiches at home.  Nor are the parts of Sharia that condemn non-Muslims to excessive taxation and segregation (since they are spiritually unclean). No doubt, students will learn about these particular niceties of Islam once they get to senior high school and have a basis of Islam and the indoctrinated need (provided by their teachers who were trained by politically correct college professors) to violently deal with the evil and predatory Islamophobes.

It gets more bizarre:Last April it was reported that the San Diego Unified School District in collaboration with the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) decided that all public school students would have to endure more classes about Islam while Muslim students would be protected from bullying with designated safe spaces. Apparently, non-Muslim students never get bullied in San Diego and therefore don’t require safe spaces. (Update: A group of parents is suing.) And, no, there are no special religious classes that focus on Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, or Judaism to which Muslim students would be subjected. Doing that would be considered offensive to Muslims.

Whoever thought things in public education couldn’t hit new lows after the miserable and costly failures of Common Core and teachers’ unions was very wrong.  They are getting worse.  Some schools are now celebrating multi-culturalism and diversity with an occasional Muslim Day where little girls get to wear burkas and/or hijabs and adopt typically Muslim names such as Fatima.  Any bets on what proportion of current and future Fatimas will be joining the Islamic State as jihadi brides over the coming decades?

Martin Slann is Professor of Political Science at The University of Texas at Tyler.

He received his doctorate in Political Science from the University of Georgia, and is the author, co-author, and co-editor of several scholarly books and introductory texts. He can be reached at

He is a contributor to the Dissident Prof collection, Exiled: Stories from Conservative and Moderate Professors Who Have Been Ridiculed, Ostracized, Marginalized, Demonized, and Frozen Out. Buy it HERE.

Bloody Hands in Manchester

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 25 May 2017  8 Comments @ Sultan Knish Blog 

In the months before weeping little girls with nails in their faces were carried out of the Manchester Arena, the authorities of that city were hard at work fighting the dreaded threat of Islamophobia.

While Salman Abedi, the second-generation Muslim refugee terrorist who maimed and killed dozens in a brutal terrorist attack, stalked the streets wailing, “There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah”, Manchester police were busy with more important things.

The Greater Manchester Police are one of only two police forces to list Islamophobia as a hate crime category. Earlier this year, Chief Constable Ian Hopkins honored Tell Mama for fighting Islamophobia. Tell Mama had lost funding earlier when its claims of a plague of violent Islamophobia fell apart.

Shahid Malik, the chair of Tell Mama, had been photographed with the leader of Hamas. Appearing at the Global Peace and Unity conference, where plenty of terrorism supporters have promenaded, he boasted, “In 2005 we had four Muslim MPs. In 2009 or 2010 we’ll have eight or ten Muslim MPs. In 2014 we’ll have 16 Muslim MPs. At this rate the whole parliament will be Muslim.”

Last year, Hopkins had appeared at a Muslim Engagement and Development (MEND) event at the European Islamic Centre along with Azad Ali. Ali has praised Anwar Al-Awlaki and other Al Qaeda figures. He justified the murder of British and American soldiers, he praised Hamas and Hezbollah. Instead of arresting him, the Chief Constable appeared at the same forum with a terrorist supporter.

Also present was Greater Manchester Police Crime Commissioner and Interim Mayor Tony Lloyd who came by to talk about "eradicating hate". This was at an event attended by Anas Altikriti of the Cordoba Foundation, who had backed terrorists murdering British soldiers and accused Jews of dual loyalty.

Tony Lloyd will be the Labour candidate in Rochdale; home of the Muslim sex grooming cover-up.

Both Manchester Mayor Burnham and Chief Constable Ian Hopkins had appeared at MEND events. MEND’s Director of Engagement is Azad Ali.

After the attack, Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham vowed on camera, “terrorists will never beat us”. The terrorists don’t need to beat Burnham. He’ll eagerly collaborate without so much as a single slap.

Last year the left-wing politician fought the government’s efforts to crack down on Islamic terror. “It is creating a feeling in the Muslim community that it is being spied upon and unfairly targeted,” he whined.

Terrorists will never beat us. Unless they have their useful idiots operating on the inside for whom Muslim feelings come first and little girls being torn to pieces by shrapnel come last.

Burnham accused opponents of Islamic terror of racism, xenophobia and all the usual stuff. He insisted that there was a huge Islamophobia problem that was being hidden because Muslims were too afraid of the police to report this rash of imaginary crimes.

"There’s a lot of people in this country not necessarily at risk from ‘Islamic extremism’ but it’s far-right extremism," Andy insisted.

This is what led to the Manchester Arena bombing. Mayor Burnham sold out the police. The police sold out the people. The authorities were chasing Islamophobia when they should have been fighting Islamic terror.

Mayor Burnham and Chief Constable Hopkins pandered to Islamists, prioritized Islamophobia and dutifully opposed the government's fight against Islamic terror.

The Islamophobia lie killed 22 people in Manchester. It happened on the watch of the GMP.

No one takes Islamophobia more seriously than the Greater Manchester Police. When Muslim sex grooming gangs were abusing little girls in Rochdale, the GMP dutifully covered it up. On one of the recorded interviews, a police officer can be heard yawning as a girl describes her abuse.

An MP who had pursued these cases said that the authorities “were afraid of being called racist."

Even after Judge Clifton brought it out into the open, stating, “You preyed on girls because they were not part of your community or religion", Detective Chief Superintendent Mary Doyle insisted, "I think if we start to get ourselves hung up on race and ethnicity issues, we take away the real issues."

Detective Constable Maggie Oliver resigned from the GMP for its mishandling of the sex grooming cases. She has warned that offenders are still on the loose. “What I saw in Rochdale was police officers and senior cops acting without any shame because it was convenient to ignore the abuse they knew was happening,” she warned.

There’s still no shame.

Oliver blamed Chief Constable Sir Peter Fahy. Fahy had been knighted for “services to policing”. His “services” included warning that the British government’s Prevent crackdown on Islamic terrorists was contrary to “British values” and would alienate “non-violent Muslims”.

"A lot of Muslims feel that there is a constant anti-Muslim narrative in the media,” he mewled.

Fahy was replaced by the GMP’s deputy chief constable. Ian Hopkins had cut his teeth on explaining the importance of Ramadan the same year that the GMP was apologizing to the victims of Muslim sex grooming. Even as the GMP fell from 8,000 to 5,300 officers, the new Chief Constable picked up a £172,000 ($223,000) salary. That was down from Fahy’s £206,000 ($267,000) package.

Chief Constable Hopkins declared that people have a right to be “safe from hatred”. After the Manchester Arena attack by a second-generation Muslim refugee, he warned, "We understand that feelings are very raw right now and people are bound to be looking for answers … it is vital that our diverse communities in Greater Manchester stand together and do not tolerate hate.”

Feelings will occasionally grow raw when picking the nails of the latest Muslim terrorist attack out of your child’s face or knowing that she has been raped by a dozen Pakistani men. It may even be possible that in their final dying moments, the victims of the Manchester Arena attack were afraid of Islam.

If only they could be prosecuted after death.

The cowardly denunciation of Islamophobia was as strong as anything in Hopkins’ statement. It is Islamophobia, not the victims of Islam, that agitates the Chief Constable’s sensitive sympathies.

It was not the victims of Muslim sex grooming in Rochdale or its cover-up that outraged Hopkins. His greatest moment of outrage came when the London Times headlined the story of an Imam murdered by a fellow Muslim for not being Islamic enough as, “Imam beaten to death in sex grooming town.”

The headline was “offensive to the thousands of peaceful law abiding Muslims”, Hopkins complained.

It wasn’t the abuse of little girls that was the problem. It was calling it out for what it was.

The Jihad has been kept quiet through such shameful expediencies. When the head of the Clarksfield primary school complained about threats to blow up her car due to an Islamist “Trojan horse” plot to take control of the institution, the GMP found nothing.

Of course. Finding something might have been Islamophobic.

The Manchester authorities were in the business of fighting Islamophobia. They made that their priority. Not only did they lie about the true threat, but they wasted resources that might have gone to stopping the attack. The blood of innocent children is on their hands. But that’s nothing new.

Just ask the abused little girls of Rochdale.

This time around the consequences were harder to brush under the rug. The world saw what happened in the Manchester Arena. And they were horrified. This time the victims couldn’t be hidden away.

The question is whether anything will be done.

Friday, May 26, 2017

"There Will Always Be An England!" Maybe Not!

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently England suffered a massive terrorist attack killing these people:

The 22 Manchester victims

The victims included 22 people, seven of whom were children, murdered by what the Mayor of Manchester called an "extremist".

He fails to tell the world exactly what kind of extremist he was - so maybe he was an extremist vegan, or an extremist conservative, or an extremist Christian - no, no, that can't be true because he would have let the world know how outraged he is at Christians.  So let's just take a big shot in the dark and say he was an extremist Muslim!  Wow!  What a lucky guess!

His name is Salman Abedi, he's a Muslim, and England isn't going to be England much longer if these lunatics continue to live in England and the weak willed leadership continues to allow more of "them" to migrate to England.    And who are these "them" I refer to?  Muslims!  Get over it - Islam promotes this murderous behavior and that's never going to change, and the Brits had better start getting this right if they wish to continue to exist.  The world is changing and the United States isn't going to be an American hand reaching out to prop them up much longer.  Especially since Europe had been biting it for almost 75 years.   

Definition leads to clarity -and the people of England had better start getting some clarity and start to believe in themselves again - and in the truth of history. Below are some speeches made by Winston Churchill during WWII. Churchill had some serious flaws by modern standards, but Churchill was a man of England, a man of Empire and a man of his times - and he knew how to identify England's enemies and what needed to be done about those enemies of the English people and their way of life.

In his Blood, Toil, Sweat and Tears speech he says:

We are Masters of Our Fate
Winston Churchill "finest hour" (best version)
Winston S Churchill: We Shall Fight on the Beaches

If the British people don't start to get the same level of clarity as had Winston Churchill - there will be no England. 

One more thing.  Does everyone realize under European Union, and British hate speech laws he would be arrested for saying these things today?

Inside Every Liberal is a Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out

Jon Ray @ Dissecting Leftism

Leftist writers usually seem quite reasonable and persuasive at first glance. The problem is not what they say but what they don't say.   Leftist beliefs are so counterfactual ("all men are equal", "all men are brothers" etc.) that to be a leftist you have to have a talent for blotting out from your mind facts that don't suit you. And that is what you see in leftist writing: A very selective view of reality.

Facts that disrupt a leftist story are simply ignored. Leftist writing is cherrypicking on a grand scale. So if ever you read something written by a leftist that sounds totally reasonable, you have an urgent need to find out what other people say on that topic. The leftist will almost certainly have told only half the story.

We conservatives have the facts on our side, which is why leftists never want to debate us and do their best to shut us up.  It's very revealing the way they go to great lengths to suppress conservative speech at universities.

Universities should be where the best and brightest leftists are to be found but even they cannot stand the intellectual challenge that conservatism poses for them. It is clearly a great threat to them. If what we say were ridiculous or wrong, they would grab every opportunity to let us know it.

Leftism is fundamentally authoritarian. Whether by revolution or by legislation, leftists aim to change what people can and must do. When in 2008 Obama said that he wanted to "fundamentally transform" America, he was not talking about America's geography or topography but rather about American people. He wanted them to stop doing things that they wanted to do and make them do things that they did not want to do. Can you get a better definition of authoritarianism than that?

Hatred has long been a central pillar of leftist ideologies, premised as they are on trampling individual rights for the sake of a collectivist plan. Karl Marx boasted that he was “the greatest hater of the so-called positive.” In 1923, V.I. Lenin chillingly declared to the Soviet Commissars of Education, “We must teach our children to hate. Hatred is the basis of communism.”   In his tract “Left-Wing Communism,” Lenin went so far as to assert that hatred was “the basis of every socialist and Communist movement.”

If you understand that leftism is hate, everything falls into place.

Peter Zeihan on Geopolitics: Life After NATO

Life After NATO

For all intents and purposes, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – the foundation for American security for the past seven decades – ceased existing on May 25, 2017.

While attending a highly anticipated (some might say dreaded) meeting with NATO heads of state and government in Brussels, U.S. President Donald Trump delivered a speech railing against member-states who have failed to meet economic obligations to the defense pact, going so far as to indirectly abrogate the alliance’s cornerstone: the provisions for collective defense under Article V of the treaty.

Article V is the backbone of the NATO alliance: that an attack against any individual member will be treated as an attack against all members, and will be met with a requisite response. Article V is perhaps the biggest piece of what incentivized the Europeans to resist Moscow throughout the nuclear-tinged threat of the Cold War era. But after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Europeans steadily gutted their militaries, redirecting funds to ballooning social programs and pensions.

I cannot emphasize enough that while the breach between the United States and the rest of NATO is happening on the Trump administration’s watch, this is not a position that will change once Trump is gone.

After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration made it clear to the NATO allies that future relations would be viewed through the prism of cooperation on anti-terror programs. In response the French and Germans partnered with the Russians to oppose the Iraq War. During the first Obama administration, the White House explicitly asked NATO to increase its troop commitments to the Afghan conflict to prevent the Taliban’s re-emergence. With a very few exceptions the European allies didn’t just fail to provide, they rejected Obama’s request with fanfare.

I’m not asserting the Americans’ wars were smart plays, or that the link between anti-terror programs and other aspects of strategic policy is what I would have done. I’m saying that the American complaint that the European allies are not carrying their weight – and that there is an explicit link in the American mind between anti-terror support and ongoing NATO security guarantees – is neither new, nor a surprise, nor merely the position of a political outsider like Trump. This is policy. This is bipartisan. This is done.

And holy crap does that throw a lot of things up in the air!

So what does life after NATO look like?
  • United States. Freed from needing to maintain static deployments throughout Europe or from preparing for mass Army deployments to the Continent, and freed from needing to be responsible for global security in general, the United States can revert to their pre-World War II strategic posture: one of permanent offense. Few troops manning front lines. Little need to rush to the aid of every country on the planet. Yet boasting a military capable of intervening anywhere, anywhen. For the roughly 4.5 billion people on this planet whose physical and economic security was dependent upon active, constructive American engagement, an America that is a persistent wild card is quite possibly the worst outcome of all. And what does the U.S. need to put into place to make this happen? Not a damn thing.
  • United Kingdom. Theresa May has already struck a deal with the Trump administration to more closely coordinate strategic policy. This wasn’t done because of NATO’s imminent end, but because of Brexit. The Brits leaving the EU means they need to massively increase the size of their diplomatic and intelligence operations. May offered to trade the information such operations generate for a closer alignment with the Americans. From the point of view of the London-Washington alliance, the hard work has already been done.
  • Russia. Moscow has been praying for a breach between the Americans and the Europeans for decades, and the day has finally arrived. Not a moment too soon either. The Russian demography is in terminal decline and the country will largely lose the ability to field a credible army in just a few years. Russia’s current borders are completely indefensible with its current military, much less a smaller one, so Moscow believes it must expand to something more closely resembling the old Soviet borders. This will bring it into conflict with eleven different countries, five of which are standing NATO members. The one country that could have stopped a Russian assault? The United States. Expect Russian operations within, against and beyond Ukraine to accelerate now that the Americans are no longer a major factor.
  • Poland and Romania. Warsaw and Bucharest are, well, screwed. Poland and Romania are two of the five countries that the Russians feel they must at least partially secure. Neither have a hope of fighting off the Russians without massive amounts of outside assistance, and with the Americans exiting stage west they will be forced to turn to local powers – powers with which both have less than ideal relations.
  • Germany. There is zero hope for Poland without tens of thousands of German troops fighting on Polish soil. Considering that currently Germany doesn’t have tens of thousands of deployable troops, and even if they did, historically German troops haven’t tended to leave Poland after being there, and Warsaw-Berlin relations are about to become dizzyingly complicated. Every time the Germans have armed, the result has been a broad-spectrum European war. It is far too soon to call that inevitable, but unless the Germans prove comfortable with Russian troops within a couple hundred miles of Berlin, the era of German pacifism is nearly over.
  • Turkey. The Turks have been de facto out of NATO for over a decade, following a breach in relations with the George W Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, how much progress the Russians make in the Balkans and Caucasus is largely up to politics in Ankara. Figuring out the specific path forward is an exercise in futility. Not only are the Turks only now waking up from a century long geopolitical coma and they have yet to figure out what about their neighborhood really matters to them, Prime Minister Erdogan is cut from the same nationalistic, populist cloth as the American, Polish and Russian presidents. But whatever happens, relations with the Germans will be key. Germany and Turkey are the only countries in Europe that have the potential manpower to hold off, much less roll back, a Russian advance…and the two are currently in a spat that is dangerously close to severing formal diplomatic relations.
  • Sweden. The final three NATO countries the Russians will target are the Baltic Trio of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. All three Baltic states count Sweden as their strongest and most enthusiastic sponsor. Sweden now has a choice to make. Continue with its policy of neutrality and watch its Baltic apprentices die, or act. Sweden has the military, economic and diplomatic strength to forge and lead a Scandinavian alliance to bulwark the Balts against the Russians. Now we’ll see if they have the will.
  • Japan. Shinzo Abe was the first foreign leader to visit Trump after his election (and then the second one, after May, to visit after inauguration), and he came with a big fat bribe. Abe knows that Japan is likely to find itself in a full-court conflict with China in the not-too-distant future and needs to be sure the Americans will at a minimum remain neutral. Assuming no American-Japanese hostilities (and the bribe seems to have done the trick), Japan is highly likely to give the Chinese a drumming. The Chinese are more dependent upon maritime supply lines for both merchandise exports and energy imports, while the Japanese navy has longer reach and less strategic exposure. And now that Japan's second new carrier is fully operational, the Japanese are pretty much good to go.
  • China. For Beijing the Americans leaving NATO is quite possibly the worst outcome of all. If the Americans are not nailed down defending a long land border in Europe, American power becomes far more freeform. That hugely expands the role of the American Navy in American strategic planning, and the Navy is the branch most capable of containing Chinese power. Even if American relations with Japan were to significantly cool, China just became completely boxed in.
One final thought:

We have not had large-scale regional – much less global – competition outside of the American-Soviet rivalry for 70 years expressly because the Americans took care of pretty much everything. But the Americans have been moving slow-motion in the general direction of disengagement from their Cold War alliance system since 1989. Today’s developments are not the final word on that disengagement, this is simply the end of the interim where people didn’t really know where the Americans stood. We are only now starting to understand the degree to which the Americans just are not going to be there.

Remove the Americans and every country in the world – starting with the European nations – needs to figure out how to look after their own economic and physical security. Different countries will have different ideas of how to do that, and many of those ideas will be mutually exclusive. History is about to start moving again.

And history is bloody.

Should you find any of this interesting (or terrifying) you can read more at the link to the archive at the top of this email. And in a shameless plug, my newest book – The Absent Superpower – has a full chapter on the coming war between Russia and the Europeans.

The Most Persuasive Argument for Slashing the Corporate Tax Rate

The Most Persuasive Argument for Slashing the Corporate Tax Rate

What’s the best argument for reducing the onerous 35 percent corporate tax rate in the United States?

These are all good reasons to dramatically lower the corporate tax rate, hopefully down to the 15-percent rate in Trump’s plan, but the House proposal for a 20-percent rate wouldn’t be a bad final outcome.

But there’s a 9th reason that is very emotionally appealing to me.
  • 9. Should the rate be lowered to trigger a new round of tax competition, even though that will make politicians unhappy? Actually, the fact that politicians will be unhappy is a feature rather than a bug.
I’ve shared lots of examples showing how jurisdictional competition leads to better tax policy.
Simply stated, politicians are less greedy when they have to worry that the geese with the golden eggs can fly away.

And the mere prospect that the United States will improve its tax system is already reverberating around the world.

The German media is reporting, for instance, that the government is concerned that a lower corporate rate in America will force similar changes elsewhere.
The German government is worried the world is slipping into a ruinous era of tax competition in which countries lure companies with ever-more generous tax rules to the detriment of public budgets. …Mr. Trump’s “America First” policy has committed his administration to slashing the US’s effective corporate tax rate to 22 from 37 percent. In Europe, the UK, Ireland, and Hungary have announced new or rejigged initiatives to lower corporate tax payments. Germany doesn’t want to lower its corporate-tax rate (from an effective 28.2 percent)… Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, …left the recent meeting of G7 finance ministers worried by new signs of growing beggar-thy-neighbor rivalry among governments.
A “ruinous era of tax competition” and a “beggar-thy-neighbor rivalry among governments”?
That’s music to my ears!

I”d much rather have “competition” and “rivalry” instead of an “OPEC for politicians,” which is what occurs when governments impose “harmonization” policies.

The Germans aren’t the only ones to be worried. The Wall Street Journal observes that China’s government is also nervous about the prospect of a big reduction in America’s corporate tax burden.
China’s leaders fear the plan will lure manufacturing to the U.S. Forget a trade war, Beijing says a cut in the U.S. corporate rate to 15% from 35% would mean “tax war.” The People’s Daily warned Friday in a commentary that if Mr. Trump succeeds, “some powerful countries may join the game to launch competitive tax cuts,” citing similar proposals in the U.K. and France. …Beijing knows from experience how important tax rates are to economic competitiveness. …China’s double-digit growth streak began in the mid-1990s after government revenue as a share of GDP declined to 11% in 1995 from 31% in 1978—effectively a supply-side tax cut. But then taxes began to rise again…and the tax man’s take now stands at 22%. …Chinese companies have started to complain that the high burden is killing profits. …President Xi Jinping began to address the problem about 18 months ago when he launched “supply-side reforms” to cut corporate taxes and regulation. …the program’s stated goal of restoring lost competitiveness shows that Beijing understands the importance of corporate tax rates to growth and prefers not to have to compete in a “tax war.”

Let’s have a “tax war.” Folks on the left fret that this creates a “race to the bottom,” but that’s because they favor big government and think our incomes belong to the state.

As far as I’m concerned a “tax war” is desirable because that means politicians are fighting each other and every bullet they fire (i.e., every tax they cut) is good news for the global economy.
Now that I’ve shared some good news, I’ll close with potential bad news. I’m worried that the overall tax reform agenda faces a grim future, mostly because Trump won’t address old-age entitlements and also because House GOPers have embraced a misguided border-adjustment tax.

Which is why, when the dust settles, I’ll be happy if all we get a big reduction in the corporate rate.

The Government Investigates!

Definition leads to clarity.  Clarity leads to understanding.  Understanding leads to good decision making and good decision making leads to harmony.

Unless you're in the government. Then there is none of the above. 

Does parasitic worm spit contain the key to healing?

Sean Rossman 

Researchers claim a molecule found in the spit of a parasitic worm can bolster the healing process for diabetics, the elderly and smokers with lingering wounds. A team of scientists from the Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine discovered the molecule granulin, found in the saliva of a parasitic liver fluke in Southeast Asia, can "supercharge" healing. They hope more testing will produce an advanced healing cream for patients. The team came across the molecule and its power while attempting to create a vaccine for a liver cancer caused by the worm. The molecule, researchers said, is "one of a family of protein growth factors involved with cell proliferation." .......To Read More.....

Farmer faces $2.8 million fine after plowing field

Damon Arthur  May 22, 2017

A farmer faces trial in federal court this summer and a $2.8 million fine for failing to get a permit to plow his field and plant wheat in Tehama County. A lawyer for Duarte Nursery said the case is important because it could set a precedent requiring other farmers to obtain costly, time-consuming permits just to plow their fields.

“The case is the first time that we’re aware of that says you need to get a (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) permit to plow to grow crops,” said Anthony Francois, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation. “We’re not going to produce much food under those kinds of regulations,” he said. However, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller agreed with the Army Corps in a judgment issued in June 2016. A penalty trial, in which the U.S. Attorney’s Office asks for $2.8 million in civil penalties, is set for August........To Read More......

SHOCK: Dem rally speaker declares Trump budget designed for ‘ethnic cleansing’

May 24th, 2017 By Victor Skinner

A Philadelphia bishop is accusing the President Trump of attempting to implement “ethnic cleansing” through proposed budget cuts designed to shrink the federal government.   “This budget, if I can be honest with you, is an attempt to implement ethnic cleansing in this nation from people of color, but also poor white folk from whom services being but will be impacted the most,” Bishop Dwayne Royster said at a Wednesday social justice rally broadcast by ABC News.......To Read More....

White Supremacist Teen Converts to Islam, Kills Neo-Nazi Roommates for Insulting His Faith

RT, May 24, 2017
A white supremacist who converted to Islam killed his two Neo-Nazi roommates because they had offended his new faith, local media reported, citing police, who also found bomb-making materials, radioactive substances, and Nazi-propaganda at the crime scene.   The incident came to light on Friday when a man identified as Devon Arthurs, 18, led police to two deceased men in Tampa, Florida that he said he had murdered, police reported.

However, on Monday, police disclosed new details about what had initially been thought to be a common homicide. It appears that Arthurs is a former white supremacist who converted to Islam, police Detective Kenneth Nightlinger said in his report, as cited by Tampa Bay newspaper.........To Read More....