Steven Crowder Nails the Perfect 4-Letter Word for Bernie Sanders

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. (F, 17%) said a lot of crazy things during Tuesday night’s CNN debate on Obamacare.

But the worst was when he essentially told a small business owner he doesn’t care about her business; he’s going to force her to pay for her employee’s health insurance even if she can’t afford it.

Here’s the highlight from Steven Crowder’s live stream (caution – profanity):

At least Sanders is honest about how he would screw small business to advance his ideology. Most progressives have to lie about that to get elected. (For more from the author of “Steven Crowder Nails the Perfect 4-Letter Word for Bernie Sanders” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Human Trafficking and Slavery: How Flight Attendants Are Saving Lives Miles in the Air

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A young teenager with greasy blond hair sat on an Alaska Airlines flight. She was disheveled and kept her head down when addressed, refusing to answer. A well-dressed older man sat beside her. He made it clear by controlling conversation with others that he was in charge. The whole situation raised a red flag for a flight attendant named Shelia Fedrick.

Fedrick gave the girl a message instructing her to go to the restroom, where she had left a note on the mirror. The disheveled teen wrote on the note that she needed help. Fedrick’s suspicions confirmed, she quickly informed the pilot, who then called the police. The suspect was arrested when the plane landed on charges of human trafficking.

4 Million Trafficked

The United Nations estimates that 4 million women and children are trafficked each year for prostitution or labor. The human trafficking business brings in about $32 billion per year. The widespread problem involves countries all over the world, including the United States — and flight attendants are on the front line in this battle.

When Sheila Fredrick saved the young woman, she did so on her own. Flight attendants got no official training for how to spot sex traffickers and victims. Now they are instructed on how to spot human traffickers and ways to intervene.

Former airline flight attendant Nancy Rivard founded Airline Ambassadors International (AAI) in 1996 to provide for orphans and vulnerable children. In 2009, AAI began providing human trafficking awareness training at 40 U.S. airports and other airports around the world.

Rivard hopes to teach people to think like Shelia. She had the sense that something just wasn’t right. The contrast between the younger disheveled teen and the well-dressed older man made her stop and think. Other signs to look for, according to Rivard, include someone who:

Is being controlled

Is bruised, battered or underfed

Won’t answer questions or make eye contact

Has few or no personal items

Is unusually submissive to the person accompanying him or her

Can’t get away from the person with them, even to go to the restroom

Doesn’t appear to know where he or she is going

The AAI provides seminars with trainers, some of whom are survivors of human trafficking. The in-depth training seminars are geared toward the travel industry, law enforcement, transportation and universities and institutions that offer tour and travel management classes. AAI’s curriculum has been adopted by the International Tourism Management Institute.

If You See Something …

American Airlines, headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, told The Stream that their flight crews receive training offered by The U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The DHS offers training on spotting human trafficking through the DHS Blue Campaign.

“The training is … part of their flight manual, which is regularly reviewed,” AA Media Relations said. “On our employee portal, we link to DHS training on how employees can spot possible instances of human trafficking.” American Airlines also supports AAI through donations, communications support and pass privileges (donated by employees).

Because of Fedrick’s and Rivard’s experiences, the AAI provides training and also works closely with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Blue Campaign to combat human trafficking and prevent more stories like theirs.

The young girl Fedrick rescued? Fedrick keeps in touch with her. She’s now in college and worries about her exams rather than her exploitation. Fedrick’s motto is now: “If you see something, say something.” (For more from the author of “Human Trafficking and Slavery: How Flight Attendants Are Saving Lives Miles in the Air” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

‘The Future Is Female’: Hillary Clinton’s First Post-Election Statement Reminds Us Why She Lost

/0 Comments/in , , /by

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton delivered one of her first public statements since losing the Nov. 8 presidential election. In a video addressed to those attending the MAKERS women’s conference in California, Clinton boldly declares, “The future is female.”

The former first lady praised the participants of last month’s anti-Trump Women’s March on Washington and encouraged women to “be bold” amid the fear and uncertainty that apparently plague women in America.

“Despite all the challenges we face, I remained convinced that, yes, the future is female,” Clinton asserts.

Really? This is how Hillary chooses to break the relative silence of her post-election pity party? By telling women to fight sexism with more sexism? Give us a break!

Conservatives on social media had similar reactions:

As Ben Shapiro so eloquently wrote Tuesday for The Daily Wire, “Women in America in 2017 are the luckiest women in world history, and are not at a systemic disadvantage to men. But Hillary continues to promulgate a victim narrative that does not align with the facts.”

He continued:

No, the future isn’t female. The future is free. And that distinction eluded Hillary during the campaign, which is why she lost. Identity politics can be lucrative business, but it isn’t the truth: the truth is that we all seek a future in which women around the globe have the same freedoms women in America do (although Hillary did little to forward that mission as Secretary of State). Labeling the future “female” is as benighted as labeling it “male” or “black” or “gay.” The future has yet to be decided, and we should all pray that the future isn’t owned by any particular social group.

Hillary, for the future, here’s a tip on how to win votes: Don’t isolate half of the population with contemptuous feminist mantras that needlessly stir dissension and deny reality. Remember, #LoveTrumpsHate. (For more from the author of “‘The Future Is Female’: Hillary Clinton’s First Post-Election Statement Reminds Us Why She Lost” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Want to Take Back Our Sovereignty? Start by Breaking up the Ninth Circuit

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The spectacle of the U.S. government having to grovel before the Ninth Circuit to determine whether we are a sovereign nation or not should draw attention to another important initiative: the effort to break up the tyrannical Ninth Circus Court of Appeals.

Believe it or not, the courts did not create themselves. Congress has plenary control over lower courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Congress can abolish the lower courts altogether and reroute their cases to state courts. Every aspect of the court system’s structure — administrative procedures, rules of adjudication, methods of interpretation, and logistics of proceedings — can be regulated by Congress in any way. As such, it goes without saying that Congress can, as it has done in the past, modify the geographical jurisdiction of an existing circuit.

The Ninth Circuit cesspool

The time has come to strip the Ninth Circuit down to size. This court is by far the most anti-constitutional circuit amidst a federal judiciary where the majority of the circuits don’t respect the Constitution as written. Most of the members of the Ninth have literally supplanted the written Constitution for an ever elastic set of ethos that are anchored to nothing more than the political values of these unelected judges at the time they woke up that day. Most importantly, what they have done to the sovereign state of Arizona is outrageous. Congress owes it to the good citizens of the Grand Canyon State to free them of the clutches of judicial tyranny.

To begin with, putting politics aside, the Ninth Circuit — which includes Alaska, Hawaii, California, Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana — is too big. As of the end of FY 2016, there were 13,334 pending appeals before the Ninth Circuit, more than twice the amount of the second busiest circuit (the Fifth) and more than ten times as much as the adjacent Tenth Circuit. The idea of breaking up the Ninth goes back respected figures like current Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a native Arizonan. Not to mention the fact that the Ninth Circuit is, by far, the most reversed appeals court in the country, making Anthony Kennedy look like James Madison in comparison.

To that end, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz. (A, 0%) has followed in the tradition of many non-California residents of the Ninth Circuit’s tentacles and introduced H.R. 250 — the Judicial Administration and Improvement Act. This bill would limit the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit to California, Washington, Oregon, and Hawaii. A new “twelfth circuit” would be created to oversee appeals from district courts in Arizona, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska. Personally, I’d limit the Ninth Circuit to California alone, as was suggested in a bill from a previous Congress, (or better yet, a few square acres in Death Valley), but overall this is a great starting point.

Now is the best time to create a new circuit. With GOP control of the Senate and the filibuster having been eliminated for lower court judges, Trump can flood the zone with originalists (to the extent they exist) and establish the first full circuit that actually follows the law and the Constitution as written. These judges can start fresh, unvarnished from lawless “precedent” of the past.

Cry for Arizona

Arizona is one of the most important states for the judiciary because so many immigration cases emanate from the Grand Canyon State. Words cannot describe how the Ninth Circuit has stolen the sovereignty of Arizona to the detriment of the state’s economy, security, and social cohesion. This officious panel has invalidated every single thing the legislature and the people (through ballot referendum) have done to protect their state. In addition, the Ninth Circuit has forced the state to give driver’s licenses to illegals, offer bail to the most violent criminal aliens, and has blocked the state from requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. The Roberts Supreme Court has not lifted a finger to overturn almost any of the dozen or so decisions from the Ninth Circuit [Scalia and Thomas called them out for it]. With at least 630,000 illegals residing in the state, at a cost of $2.4 billion a year, Arizona is left defiled and helpless in protecting its own residents and even their right to vote in untainted elections.

Indeed, the Trump administration and the GOP Congress owe it to the state to provide them with a new federal appeals court. The Constitution [art. IV, § 4.] requires the federal government to “guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.” Arizona has been invaded in the worst way possible and they have lost all republican representation by having their sovereignty and right to self-determination denuded by the unelected and unaccountable Ninth Circuit.

As I observed in Stolen Sovereignty [page 100]:

One of the indictments against King George listed in the Declaration was: “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.”

Certainly, when the federal government was created to replace King George as the national authority, they never intended to suppress states from passing laws to protect themselves and their taxpayers, not with a standing army, but at least with their legitimate state law enforcement and power over local issues. In fact, they guaranteed the help of the federal government to protect them from invasion.

In his dissent in Arizona v. United States, Justice Scalia concluded with a rhetorical question: “[W]ould the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? … if securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.”

Our founders certainly feared that their experiment might result in the collapse into an executive oligarchy, but they certainly never envisioned powers of King George being wielded by a judicial oligarchy, much less a puny lower court existing at the pleasure of Congress. (For more from the author of “Want to Take Back Our Sovereignty? Start by Breaking up the Ninth Circuit” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

This Muslim Country Has Had Its Very Own ‘Muslim Ban’ Since 2011

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Middle East country of Kuwait issued its own “Muslim ban” in 2011, citing the “instability” from several terror hotbeds in the Middle East.

The revelation follows President Donald Trump’s executive order that placed a temporary suspension on visa issuances from the countries of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan. The presidential decision has faced extremely heavy scrutiny from across the political spectrum, with opponents claiming it to be inhumane, unconstitutional, and un-American.

The executive order’s proponents say the temporary ban is necessary to protect the country from national security threats, reminding it only affects a tiny portion of Muslim-majority nations.

Kuwait — where Islam is the state religion and 80 percent of the population is Muslim — has had a supposed “Muslim ban” in place since 2011 to stop visa issuances to citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. According to a report in Al Alaraby, individuals from these countries “will not be [AK1] able to obtain visit, tourism or trade” visas. Additionally, “Passport holders from the countries will no lot be allowed to enter the Gulf state while the blanket ban is in place and have been told not to apply to visas,” the report adds.

Kuwait has seen several incidents where foreigners attempted, and succeeded, at executing terrorist attacks. The most deadly occurred in June 2015, when an Islamic State suicide bomber detonated his vest at a Shia mosque in Kuwait City, killing 27 and injuring 227 people.

The five countries listed in the Kuwait visa ban are known breeding grounds for Islamic militants.

War-ravaged Syria and Iraq are home to ISIS, al Qaeda, and several Iran-backed jihadi militia groups. In 2011, when the civil war in Syria first erupted, Kuwait issued a visa ban for all Syrians.

Afghanistan and Pakistan is home to al Qaeda, ISIS,Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and dozens more Sunni terror groups.

And Iran is the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror, according to a 2016 report by the Obama State Department.

After this so-called “Muslim ban,” will Kuwait face international blowback of its own from prioritizing its national security? Will this have any effect on the perception of Pres. Trump’s executive order? (For more from the author of “This Muslim Country Has Had Its Very Own ‘Muslim Ban’ Since 2011” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Mitch McConnell FINALLY Served a Purpose for GOP/Conservatives

/0 Comments/in , , /by

First, let me this out of the way straight away — this is not a joke.

I swear it.

I have to begin with that caveat because those of you who regularly listen to my show, or read my column, would likely believe I was engaging in grade A trolling had I not. Or you might suspect I’ve gone mad as a hatter. For what I’m about to say undeniably goes against my default setting where the senior senator from the commonwealth of Kentucky is concerned.

Yes, that would be Mitch McConnell R-Ky. (F, 40%). Or “Ditch” as I once coined him long ago for being the chief playwright of what became known as “failure theater.” The man whose relationship with conservatives has been, well, complicated, to be kind. But today is no time to dwell on the past. Today is a time for giving credit where credit is due.

So here it is, Mitch McConnell, and again, I mean this in all seriousness: thank you. (Editor’s note: we disagree. McConnell is a snake and, although he’ll occasionally throw us a bone, is absolutely unredeemable. You can bet your last dollar that anything McConnell does that is “conservative” either was already going to happen or helps advance his own crony-capitalist interests; he is despicable, largely responsible for the disastrous state our nation is in)

It was you who stood in the breach after President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia following his death last February. That left nearly a year before a new president would be sworn in. In fact, Garland’s name ultimately was entered into nomination for more than twice as long as any Supreme Court nominee that came before him.

“Obstruction,” the Democrats cried. And they continue to do so now as they prepare to torpedo President Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to replace Scalia.

But when the real obstruction has been decades upon decades of judicial usurpations of the legislative process, McConnell sat down at the high stakes poker table and played a stone-cold hand. He bet he would get just the jackpot he needed when that river card was flipped. A “Trump card” if you will.

So now here we are, with a chance to at least hold the line on the Supreme Court, and perhaps even set the stage for a return to something resembling the jurisprudence of our Founding Fathers. And now if you’re one of those applauding the Gorsuch appointment, you owe McConnell a doth of the cap as well.

That’s not to say McConnell and conservatives are suddenly bosom buddies. There’s still a lot of water under that bridge. Still, the importance of what the Senate Majority Leader did here cannot be understated, and had he not done it the possibility exists the ideological balance of the nation’s highest court could’ve been generationally impacted.

Ronald Reagan once famously had a plaque with the following words inscribed on it in the oval office: “It’s amazing what you can do when you don’t care who gets the credit for it.” In that spirit, if Ted Cruz, R-Texas (A, 97%) and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. (F, 30%) can stand shoulder-to-shoulder on MSNBC when they share common ground, we can thank McConnell for standing shoulder-to-shoulder with us here.

This time DC did listen to us, and we should acknowledge when that happens at least as much as we do when it doesn’t. Here’s to hoping this is the start of a trend.

Thanks again, Mitch. (For more from the author of “Mitch McConnell FINALLY Served a Purpose for GOP/Conservatives” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

EXPLOSIVE: Soros Group Funded Numerous Republicans Proving DC Has but One Party

/0 Comments/in , , /by

Employees of a hedge fund founded by the king of the Institutional Left, billionaire and Democratic Party mega-donor George Soros, donated tens of thousands of dollars to top Republicans who fought against President Donald Trump in 2016, donation records compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics show.

Soros Fund Management, a former hedge fund that serves now as an investment management firm, was founded by progressive billionaire George Soros in 1969. It has risen to become one of the most profitable hedge funds in the industry. Employees of the firm are heavily involved in backing political candidates giving millions upon millions to groups that were supporting failed 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton for the presidency.

But more importantly, perhaps, than the unsurprising giant lump sums of cash funneled into Democratic Party and Clinton coffers is the revelation thanks to the Center for Responsive Politics that employees of the Soros firm—now run by his son Robert Soros—pumped tens of thousands of dollars into the campaigns of top anti-Trump Republicans over the course of 2016. . .

[I]t is significant that Soros executives are making a play inside the GOP. Perhaps even more significant is the type of Republican they aim to prop up: pro-amnesty, pro-open borders on trade, and generally speaking anti-Trump. A pattern emerges when looking at the policies of the Republicans that these Soros Fund Management executives support financially.

The biggest recipient of Soros-connected cash in the GOP was none other than House Speaker Paul Ryan, who repeatedly attempted to undermine Trump over the course of the election. According to the records available online, the Soros firm’s workers gave $10,800 to Ryan. Included in that are two separate May 2, 2016, donations from David Rogers, a then-employee of Soros Fund Management who lives in New York City. Rogers left the Soros Fund Management firm right around that time. (Read more from “EXPLOSIVE: Soros Group Funded Numerous Republicans Proving DC Has but One Party” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Patriots Didn’t Just Beat the Falcons. They Crushed the Liberal Media

/0 Comments/in , , /by

History was made Sunday night when the New England Patriots came back from a 21–3 halftime deficit in Super Bowl 51 to pull an historic and stunning overtime victory, defeating the Atlanta Falcons 34 to 28.

Patriots fans are understandably exuberant. Atlanta fans are beyond dejected. And the liberal media is eating crow.

You see, prior to the game, the liberal media had determined that quarterback Tom Brady’s friendship with Donald Trump made it unacceptable to root for the Patriots, unless of course you are a bigoted, racist, homophobic deplorable.

On Feb. 1, The New York Times ran an expose on “The uncomfortable love affair between Donald Trump and the New England Patriots.” The piece attempted to shame the Patriots by pointing out the team’s ties to the president and noted that “no small number of fans are convinced that the Patriots (like Trump) achieve their victories through dubious means and wish they would just go away and get off their TVs forever.”

The New York Daily News praised Bill Maher for an “epic rant” in which the progressive comedian and host of “Real Time with Bill Maher” went on a profanity-laced tirade declaring his opposition to a Patriots’ victory.

“The Falcons are playing a team where the owner, the coach and the star quarterback all love Donald Trump,” said Maher. “So I’d really like for them to lose by a score of a million f–king thousand to none.”

The Los Angeles Times ran an op-ed by sports documentary producer Kelly Candaele declaring his support for the Falcons on the basis of the “loathsome politics” of Tom Brady, Bill Belichick, and Robert Kraft.

SB Nation brought up the controversy between President Trump and Congressman John Lewis, D-Ga. (F, 22%) — who represents part of Atlanta — declaring the Super Bowl was “Donald Trump vs. the city of Atlanta.”

Slate even ran an explainer titled “How to pull for the Patriots in the Age of Trump.” But look closely at the URL on that piece and you’ll see an alternative headline poses a moral quandary to Slate’s audience: “Is it morally acceptable to root for the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl?”

One of the big moral questions Slate tackles is: “Is it cool to like a football team because its owner and some of its players like a politician I disagree with?” Truly the philosophical question for the times we live in.

A less philosophical individual called for a “boycott” of the Patriots way back in November.

For a while, it looked like the Falcons were indeed going to crush the Patriots. And progressive Twitter couldn’t have been happier.

And then, in an uncanny election night parallel, things began to turn around on the liberals. With a strip-sack, a miracle catch, and a tenacious drive by Tom Brady, the Pats turned the game around for the win in overtime.

Things were looking a lot like Election Night.

The annoying liberals rooting for a Patriots defeat, they were all wrong.

But the best reaction to the Patriots win is captured with one deleted tweet.

Eat crow, lefties.

Eat. Crow. (For more from the author of “The Patriots Didn’t Just Beat the Falcons. They Crushed the Liberal Media” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

NOAA Whistleblower Claims Data Were ‘Adjusted’ to Make Global Warming Seem Worse

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A scientist-whistleblower has accused the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of diddling with temperature data, adjusting it so that it better accorded with political desires.

The Daily Mail is reporting that Dr John Bates, a now-retired climate data expert, late of the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), a branch of NOAA, claimed the agency “breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”

Bates said that Thomas Karl, who was until recently the director of NCEI, was “insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation … in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy” (ellipsis original).

The data, Bates claimed, was never “subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process.” When Bates complained, “His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.”

Karl and eight others authored the “Pausebuster” paper, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus.” It reported “an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades” and which claimed “These results do not support the notion of a ‘slowdown’ in the increase of global surface temperature.”

The “slowdown,” or rather the non-increase in global temperatures for almost two decades, was notable in satellite data. It was also noticed in surface-based data, until that data was statistically adjusted by Karl and others. These adjustments of surface records, which are not uncommon, are also curious. It usually happens that older data are lowered, and recent data pushed higher, making it appear that temperatures are increasing. Are these adjustments legitimate, or the result of confirmation bias, or potentially fraudulent?

How dramatic are the adjustments? As the Daily Mail reports, “The Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade.”

This is three-thousandths of a degree higher. Three-thousandths. To appreciate the magnitude, it helps to say it aloud: three-thousandths of a degree. And not just three-thousandths of a degree, but three-thousandths of a degree per every ten years. If panic at the news of higher temperatures was your first reaction, ensure it is panic in slow motion.

The global rate is the product of land and sea measurements. On the sea adjustments, “Thomas Karl and his colleagues … tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade — as stated in version 3 — to 0.099C per decade.”

Even assuming this correction is valid, the final result is only a tenth of a degree a decade. If the global sea temperature really is caused to act like a straight upwards line, which is physically extremely doubtful, then after ten years, the temperature at sea will be one-tenth of a degree (on average) warmer than previously thought. Make that panic super-slow motion.

But even then, it’s not likely the correction is right.

But Dr. Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source — water taken in by ships. This, Dr. Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden — so affecting temperature readings.

Bates said, “They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and ‘corrected’ it by using the bad data from ships.”

Similar statistical manipulations were done to land-temperature data, with adjustments being of the same low level. Bates not only questioned the timing and direction of adjustments, but said the programs used to make them were “highly experimental” and “afflicted by serious bugs.”

Karl “admitted” to the Daily Mail that “the data had not been archived when the paper was published,” making replication by colleagues impossible or difficult. Karl also said “the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the [data] would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.”

Even assuming all is aboveboard, what most don’t realize is that surface temperature measurements are not static; they change year to year. These changes induce uncertainty, which has so far been badly underestimated. This is why claims of thousandths of a degree change are, at best, dubious, and are more likely subject to large uncertainties. (For more from the author of “NOAA Whistleblower Claims Data Were ‘Adjusted’ to Make Global Warming Seem Worse” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Former Muslim Refugee: Think ‘Rationally’ About Dangers of Radical Islam

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A former Muslim refugee is asking her fellow American citizens to think “rationally” about the dangers of radical Islam.

“I know what it’s like to fear rejection, deportation and the dangers that await you back home,” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Muslim of Somali origin, writes in the Huffington Post.

Ali writes that she became an American citizen after escaping an arranged marriage and working in the Netherlands at a factory and as an interpreter for abused Muslim women. Overtime, she says she made the decision to leave the religion of Islam because it was “too intolerant of free thought.”

She was “excited” when she heard Trump’s August 2016 speech about combatting the underlying ideology of radical Islam which oppresses women, the LGBT community and other religions. She was also encouraged by his promise to help moderate Muslims who strove to combat radicalism.

Four Types of Muslim Immigrants

“In the course of working with Muslim communities over the past two decades, I have come to distinguish between four types of Muslim immigrants: adapters, menaces, coasters and fanatics,” Ali says.

The adapters are those who adapt to the customs and embrace the freedoms of Western civilization; menaces are often young men who are subject to and then commit crimes of domestic violence; coasters are those who want to take advantage of welfare without working; and fanatics “use the freedoms of the countries that gave them sanctuary to spread an uncompromising practice of Islam.”

Ali writes that some people move from one category to the other over time, which makes it more difficult to distinguish between adapters and troublemakers.

“[T]he problem of Islamist terrorism will not be solved by immigration controls and extreme vetting alone,” she writes. “That’s because the problem is already inside our borders.”

Ali cites surveys which reveal majorities of Sharia-supporting Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Iraq — whence most Muslim immigrants are expected to come to the U.S. in the coming decades — agree with the death penalty for those who leave Islam.

Ali writes:

Such attitudes imply a readiness to turn a blind eye to the use of violence and intimidation tactics against, say, apostates and dissidents — and a clear aversion to the hard-won achievements of Western feminists and campaigners for minority rights. Admitting individuals with such views is not in the American national interest.

While Ali says she was disappointed in the clumsy implementation of Trump’s temporary travel ban, she still supports the president’s longterm plan of rejecting any would-be immigrants who support terrorist groups or believe in Sharia law over the Constitution.

“American citizens — including immigrants — must be protected from that ideology and the violence that it promotes,” she writes. “But the threat is too multifaceted to be dealt with by executive orders. That is why Trump was right to argue in August for a commission of some kind — I would favor congressional hearings — to establish the full magnitude and nature of the threat.”

“Until we recognize that this ideology is already in our midst, we shall expend all our energies in feverish debates about executive orders, when what is needed is cool, comprehensive legislation,” Ali writes. (For more from the author of “Former Muslim Refugee: Think ‘Rationally’ About Dangers of Radical Islam” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.