- How To Counter Leftist Violence While Maintaining The Moral High Ground
Via Brandon Smith of Alt-Market.com,
Social division is an undeniable reality of human existence; it is also not necessarily a negative aspect of human existence. The moment a society is forced or manipulated into blindly agreeing on everything is the moment that society begins to die and the future of mankind in general becomes rather bleak. Ideas need to be tested, they need to be scrutinized and they need to be verified, perpetually. That said, there are right ways and wrong ways of doing this.
Diving into a culture of zealotry is certainly the WRONG way. Zealotry requires a religious-like idolization of a particular idea or philosophy; it requires unverified faith and an unwavering devotion. Once people become zealots, they cannot be reasoned with, they cannot be debated, they cannot be dissuaded. They are, for all intents and purposes, automatons with only one mission — to spread their beliefs by any means necessary. They do not care about being right, they only care about “winning.” Because, in their minds, their position is unassailable. They are righteous, and thus, the ends will always justify the means.
The culture of the Left in the U.S. is beginning to embrace zealotry and the path can only get more ugly from here. This is evident not only in the violent behavior of more vocal groups like Antifa, but also in the lack of self criticism by many on the left that would consider themselves more moderate. There are very few voices among liberals and “progressives” today that are openly admonishing the counterproductive and thuggish actions of their more extreme members (this includes not only Antifa, but other groups like Black Lives Matter). In many cases, “moderate” leftists even cheer such actions.
There is this notion among some in the Liberty Movement that to even point out this dynamic is irresponsible because it only reinforces the concept of the false left/right paradigm. Most of these people I find are very new (newbies) to the Liberty Movement and don’t really understand what the false left/right paradigm is. When we talk about the Left and the Right as an illusion, we are talking about the elites who sit at the TOP of the sociopolitical sphere. Meaning, the elites have no loyalties to concepts on either the left or the right in politics. In fact, they often switch back and forth like chameleons depending on what they want from the public at the time. They have their own agenda which does not include the rest of us.
To be clear, I was just as much against the fake conservatism of George W. Bush as I was against the fake liberalism of Barack Obama.
This false paradigm does not, however, apply to regular citizens. The further away you get from the top of the pyramid, the more people tend to legitimately associate closer to one philosophy or the other. In times of crisis and uncertainty, these divisions become more pronounced. This is reality. Anyone who argues that there is no left/right paradigm when it comes to the average citizen has no idea what they are talking about.
So, now that we have acknowledged that the problem exists, lets examine it more in depth…
The Problem
All one needs to do is observe the attitudes, insane demands and criminality of hardcore leftists in the past year to see that at least one side of the paradigm cannot be salvaged. They are a lost cause.
This is a prime example of how it is impossible to win an argument when your position is fundamentally illogical. In most cases, these protesters can’t even specify their reasons for protesting, and they don’t really care to examine why they do what they do. They only know that their ideology is not being represented in totality. They are unsuccessful at debating their ideas coherently and don’t have the intelligence to convince others that they are correct. They aren’t going to give up simply because they are wrong, so, their only other option is to slander the character of those who disagree, attack them physically and disrupt their ability to speak freely.
Keep in mind, there is no moral conundrum for zealots. They believe they are completely justified in what they do because the other side represents a “greater evil.” Labeling their opponents as “fascists” is a get-out-of-conscience-free card for them.
It is important to note that we are not quite at the moment of crisis yet, but I would consider 2017 a turning point. This is where our (conservatives and sovereignty champions) decisions now could affect the future for decades to come. I suspect that as we move closer to summer and warmer weather, riots designed to cancel conservative speaking events (and random riots with no specific purpose) will expand tenfold. Leftists seem to be more active in warmer weather (there is a reason most of them live near the coasts).
All American citizens, regardless of their political leanings or personal ideals, have a right to speak and the right to listen to those speaking. All American citizens also have a right to redress grievances. This includes leftists. That said, it is important to make a distinction here — NO ONE has the right to silence speech in public spaces in the name of “activism,” and this is where the Left has gone off the rails. My right to speak and be heard is protected; their “right” to silence me is not protected.
There is a line here that cannot be crossed. Conservatives must be allowed free speech in public places, and leftists must be allowed to protest in public places as long as that protest is PEACEFUL. Once an individual or group uses force to silence speech, they have given up the moral high ground.
I recognize that there are paid provocateurs operating among liberal protesters and that this likely contributes to higher chances of violence and the madness of mobs. The presence of elitist money among leftist groups has been exposed on numerous occasions in reference to George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, which admitted to injecting $33 million dollars into the Ferguson protests (riots). WashingtonCAN! (another Soros-funded group) put out a Craigslist ad in Seattle offering to pay people $15-$20 an hour to “organize” anti-Trump rallies. WashingtonCAN claims this was merely an ad to hire “phone solicitors,” but they do in fact help organize protests, and nowhere in the ad is phone solicitation mentioned. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest that these paid "organizers" are present at protests, nor do I think it is a stretch to suggest that they are contributing to the mob mentality.
This should be taken into account as well. There are moments in any high-tension protest where the mob can be swayed to remain peaceful or to break out into thuggery. Usually, if the mob sees a few people getting away with violent attacks, this gives them license to unhinge as well.
Is the proper response to crush all leftist protests simply because of the violence of a handful? No. The key is to disrupt individual provocateurs before they can entice the mob to forget themselves. Normally, this would be the job of police on the scene, but as I’m sure many of you have noticed recently (Berkeley being a prime example), the police have been reticent to intervene in a tactically intelligent manner, depending on what municipality they are operating. It seems that when it comes to state and local law enforcement there are only two modes of response, either they are mostly hands off, or, they go full crackdown.
The issue that needs to be considered is when police or the federal government do initiate a full crackdown on all protests. Will conservatives cheer the measure?
As I have noted in past articles including 'Globalists Want To Destroy Conservative Principles – But They Need Our Help', I believe the greatest danger today is not crazed leftists, but how we RESPOND to crazed leftists.
To give some historical perspective, the Antifa movement, for example, is nothing new. It is an odd plagiarism of the “Anti-Facist” movements in Europe during the 1920s. Antifa was essentially an offshoot of communist movements in Italy opposed to the rise of Benito Mussolini, but it then spread to other European nations. It was in fact the belligerence of communist groups that actually inspired public support for fascist leaders like Mussolini and Hitler. As common people grew fearful of a monstrous Bolshevik-style revolution, the only other option offered to them was fascism, which at the time appeared to many to be a saving grace.
Of course, it was not, and totalitarianism in the name of defeating the communists only led to atrocities equal to communist dictatorships. This is what I call a “morally relativistic choice;” a catch-22 that is usually engineered, forcing the populace to pick between the “lesser of two evils.”
There are those who might argue that there is little chance of a similar development in America today, but consider this — conservatives movements were prodded and harassed for eight years by a constitution-trampling president who originally claimed he was going to undo the trespasses of the constitution-trampling president before him. This took place while leftist organizations imposed thought control and political correctness on us with relative glee. Conservatives have been organizing, training and arming themselves for nearly a decade in the event that globalist and Marxist ideologies take one more inch of rope, the expectation being that Hillary Clinton would attempt to take a mile.
Now, with Trump in office, we are a hammer looking for a nail.
This is what the left simply does not grasp. We are certainly not fascists now, but with continued violence from the left something in the collective conservative mind will eventually snap. My suspicion is that this is exactly what elites like George Soros want. They are using the left as sacrificial pawns in order to goad conservatives into going nuclear.
There are millions of conservatives coming home from work right now, sitting with their families, and seeing news each day filled with leftist protesters trampling all over conservative events and in many cases getting away with it. These conservatives are becoming more and more angry; more and more willing to embrace an ends justify the means reaction. Ultimately, they may very well support a full spectrum government stranglehold on protests and the speech of those we disagree with. This will make us the villains of our little period in history, and this is something I would like to avoid.
So, the question is, how do we counter violent leftists like those in Antifa without abandoning our constitutional principles? Lets talk about solutions…
The Solution
There is a school of thought that suggests we should stand back, let the mobs tire themselves out and in this way we avoid “escalation.” I would point out that the Left has been escalating matters quite expertly without our intervention. When you have elitist funded organizations generating momentum at a constant pace, it is hard for me to back the notion of complete pacifism. On the other hand, moderation and an even hand rule the day.
Countering leftist mobs requires a scalpel, not a bulldozer, metaphorically speaking.
Conservatives are less likely to support police state intervention if they see that leftist attacks are already being countered in a rational way. I would argue that this could be done by limited groups of civilian volunteers (around 50-100 men strong), without any government involvement, acting as security for speakers and the attendees of events.
These people would have to be highly vetted — no criminal background, no background of mental instability or psychotropic usage, a professional demeanor, absolutely no ties to federal agencies, no propensity to be ruled by emotion, no stolen valor, etc. etc. They would also have to be physically capable.
Members would need previous training as well as updated training in self-defense and riot response, as well as defusing confrontation. They would have to be invited by the event organizers in question and their goal would be to defend attendees from violence in a non-lethal manner. Their purpose cannot be to stop a protest from happening, only ensuring that protesters do not overstep their bounds and harm others.
Of course, the immediate accusation that will be used is that this kind of organizing is simply the formation of “brownshirts” for Trump. This is why a security group of this caliber would have to also be willing to offer their services to ANY speaker or event, regardless of political affiliation. It cannot be exclusively about Trump. If a mob of conservatives were threatening to use violence to shut down a liberal speaker, then the group would have to be willing to protect those people as well. I don’t see any examples of this happening anywhere, but again, the group’s concerns must focus on free speech and those that are trying to squash it, regardless of who they are.
This civilian security organization would require funding at a grassroots level through donations from regular people. Large sums of cash from major political donors or non-profit foundations could not be accepted. The group would have to be beholden to no one. It would also need to be separate from any already existing organization and function as its own animal in order to prevent conflicting goals.
Donations would be needed to fund travel and food expenses for volunteers, as well as some protective gear, the cost of initial training, the expense of background checks as well as legal defense. This organization would have to be limited in size to prevent confusion and a lack of structural discipline. I suspect that such a venture would start small, and truly qualified people would be limited in the beginning anyway.
I am willing to coordinate this effort with others depending on the level of enthusiasm that is generated and if donations are adequate. I am ready to help provide training for those who pass the vetting process. Interested parties can contact me at: brandon@alt-market.com
I am also willing to be present and in harms way at every single event that requires a security response.
I have looked into money raising avenues like Kickstarter, but I believe strongly that these websites will not allow crowdfunding for this venture for political reasons. If there is a strong response to this idea, I will post regular updates to Alt-Market.com on money raised as well as progress made.
It is entirely possible that I will not be able to find the support needed to make this volunteer venture happen. I can only present the concept and hope that people agree with it. Make no mistake though, if I do not do it, someone else eventually will. It is vitally important that these people are found trustworthy and have a track record of supporting Constitutional principles as well as a track record of competence. Anyone that arrives on the scene from nowhere should not be trusted. Anyone looking merely for notoriety and celebrity should not be taken seriously. Anyone looking to start a confrontation rather than prevent one should be dismissed. We cannot allow ourselves to become what the left accuses us of being. This is a time for extreme caution, and quiet professionalism.
- Navy Punishes "Special Warfare Unit" For Flying Trump Flag In Military Convoy
About a month ago the Naval Special Warfare Group 2 of Virginia Beach set the Twittersphere ablaze after video surfaced of their military convoy flying a Trump flag on their lead vehicle.
Photos and videos of the ‘event’ quickly spread around the internet and prompted a full Navy investigation into the incident. Here’s a photo of the convoy:
And here is the original video that made the rounds, complete with the full commentary of an obviously emotionally scarred Hillary voter.
Navy SEAL convoy flies Commander-in-Chief Trump flag.. #USA #quote #socialmedia #fb #nfl #nba #tcot #breaking #newspic.twitter.com/CrEOpjz1Au
— People’s Digest (@dinrout) February 3, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Now, fast forward a month and Lt. Jacqui Maxwell has just announced that the world can go on spinning again because some of America’s finest soldiers have been appropriately disciplined for their ‘heinous’ crime. Per the Washington Post:
Lt. Jacqui Maxwell, a spokeswoman for Naval Special Warfare Group 2, said in a statement to The Washington Post that punitive actions were taken but declined to comment on the precise nature of the punishment or how many individuals were affected.
“The inquiry was completed between the unit’s commanders and service members,” Maxwell’s statement said. “It has been determined that those service members have violated the spirit and intent of applicable DoD regulations concerning the flying of flags and the apparent endorsement of political activities. Administrative corrective measures were taken with each individual based on their respective responsibility.”
“Department of Defense and Navy regulations prescribe flags and pennants that may be displayed as well as the manner of display,” Maxwell said last month.
“Naval Special Warfare strives to maintain the highest level of readiness, effectiveness, discipline, efficiency, integrity, and public confidence,” her statement continued. “To this end, Naval Special Warfare leaders are committed to thoroughly and impartially investigating all non-frivolous allegations of misconduct. Where misconduct is present, the Naval Special Warfare commander responsible for ensuring good order and discipline within his unit will make a disposition decision as to the appropriate administrative and/or disciplinary action, if any.”
We don’t know about you but we’re ever so thankful for this special snowflake who helped to expose the hateful and insensitive actions of these soldiers. Imagine if they behaved this way during a deployment…they might offend some terrorists and start an international crisis.
- Paul Craig Roberts Fears "The Resurrection Of Armageddon"
“The U.S. intelligence community’s extraordinary campaign of leaks claiming improper ties between President Trump’s team and Russia seeks to ensure a lucrative New Cold War by blocking detente.” — Gareth Porter
It only required 24 days for the Deep State to castrate President Donald Trump and terminate the promise that the high tensions with Russia created during the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes would be terminated by Trump’s presidency.
As Gareth Porter shows conclusively, the case against General Flynn, Trump’s 24-day National Security Adviser, and by implication against Trump himself, is a fake news creation.
Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, planted fake reports, none of which contained any evidence whatsoever, on the CIA-compliant media whores known as “presstitutes.” The CIA’s media whores knew that the reports were a CIA response to the threat to the $1,000 billion annual budget of the military/security complex that desperately needs “the Russian threat” for its justification. But the media whores—-principally the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC—-and all the rest as well are more dedicated to serving their CIA master than they are to serving peace between nuclear powers. Interesting, isn’t it, that the US and Western media are more committed to conflict with Russia than they are to peace, despite the brutal fact that 10 percent of the nuclear arsenal of either the US or Russia is sufficient to terminate all life on earth.
As Patrick Lawrence says: “The lights upon us are dimming. We have been more or less abandoned by a press that proves incapable of informing us in anything approaching a disinterested fashion. As suggested, either the media are Clintonian liberals before they are newspapers and broadcasters, or they are servants of power before they serve us.”
All we have left, says Lawrence, is the alternative media. “To put this simply and briefly, they and we must learn that they are not ‘alternative’ to anything. In the end there is no such thing as ‘alternative media,’ as I often argue. There are only media, and most of ours have turned irretrievably bad.”
The alternative media is the Internet media, websites such as this one, RT, the Intercept, USAWatchdog, Alex Jones, Information Clearing House, Global Research, Unz Review, etc. These independent news sites are under attack. Remember the list of 200 “Russian agents/dupes”? Every source of information that does not subscribe to the Deep States’ Matrix creation of “the Russian Threat,” which is the Deep State’s replacement for the orchestrated “Soviet Threat,” has been selected for shutdown. Apparently, Alex Jones is already having problems with Google. Several websites managed to get off the 200 List, and those that have seem to have collapsed as members of the opposition.
As the Nazis said, all it takes is fear, and the people collapse.
Trump’s presidency is effectively over. Even if he is permitted to remain in office, he will be a figurehead for the Deep State’s presidency. President Trump has already fallen into line with the military/security complex. He has said Russia has to return Crimea to Ukraine, whereas in fact Crimea returned itself to Russia. He has rejected a new strategic arms limitations treaty (START) with Russia, stating that he wants supremacy in nuclear armaments, not equality. Obama’s one trillion dollar upgrade of the US nuclear arsenal is likely to get a boost from Trump.
After one month in office the goal has changed from reduced tensions with Russia to greater tensions. Greater tensions might soon be upon us. There are plans to occupy part of Syria with US troops in order to prevent Syria with Russia’s help from reuniting the country. http://www.globalresearch.ca/rand-corporations-plan-for-dicing-up-syria/5577009 Part of Syria is to go to Turkey, part to the Kurds, and Washington will keep a chunk. This way Washington can keep the turmoil going forever. The Russians brought this problem on themselves. Ever hopeful for Washington’s cooperation against ISIS, Russia dallied in cleaning out ISIS. The prospect that Trump would work with Russia as part of better relations assumed that Trump would actually be in charge, which has turned out to be delusional.
It is difficult to know if the new Trump regime is more Iranophobic than Russophobic. The Trump regime’s inclination to jettison the Iran agreement and reopen the conflict means more conflict with Russia. Washington’s continued provocations of both Russia and China will dispel any lingering Russian expectations of better relations with Washington.
It is bizarre to see the liberal-progressive-left allied with the warmongers against Trump. As the neoconservatives pull nuclear Armageddon out of the grave that Reagan and Gorbachev put it in, the American left demands the impeachment of the president whose goal was better relations with Russia. Once the champion of the working class, the left now champions Identity Politics. Trump’s goal of jobs for the working class leaves the leftwing cold. The left wants to destroy the “Trump deplorables,” which the left describes as “racist, misogynist, homophobic, gun nuts.” In Identity Politics, every identity is a victim except the oppressor identity—white heterosexual males.
Where then is the opposition to the neoconservative ideology that is driving US foreign policy toward world hegemony? There are a few of us, but we are being cast as “Putin agents.” In other words, those who have sufficient intelligence to understand that Washington is not going to achieve hegemony over Russia and China or even Iran, but is likely to provoke nuclear war by trying, are relegated to the traitor class.
The reason that there is still life on earth after more than a half century of nuclear weapons is that American presidents and Soviet leaders worked together to reduce tensions. During these decades, there were numerous false alarms of incoming ICBMs. However, because the leadership of both countries were working together to avoid nuclear conflict, the warnings were disbelieved both by the Soviets and Americans.
Today the situation is vastly different. The last three US presidents, and now apparently Trump also, worked overtime to increase tensions between the two nuclear powers. Moreover, it was done in ways that convinced the Russian government that Washington is completely untrustworthy. The ongoing vicious lies about the Russian connections of Trump and his associates are so obviously false as to be laughable, but the Russians are seeing that the falsity of the charges notwithstanding, Trump’s National Security Adviser has fallen and Trump himself might be next.
In other words, the Russians are observing that in America facts are not relevant to outcomes. The Russians have already experienced this with regard to themselves with the lies about Putin, the Ukraine, Georgia, and Russian intentions toward Europe. Putin is routinely called a “thug,” “murderer,” “the new Hitler” by US politicians, presstitutes, and the Democratic Party’s candidate in the recent presidential election. Ranking US generals describe Russia as the “principal threat to the US.” NATO commanders assert that the Russian Army could occupy the Baltics and/or Poland at any moment. These nonsensical accusations and predictions suggest to the Russians that the West is preparing its populations for an attack on Russia.
In such a tense state of affairs, how will false alarms be interpreted? Will Americans convinced that Putin and Russia are evil incarnate believe the false alarms this time? Will Russians convinced that they have been set up for attack believe them this time?
This is the extreme risk to which the insane neoconservatives, the idiot liberal-progressive-left, the greedy military/security complex, and the aggressive generals have exposed life on earth.
And the few voices warning of the risk are dismissed as “Russian agents.”
- Tesla Admits It Still Hasn't Completed A Model 3 Beta Prototype
With Tesla stock price down 15% in the last few weeks, amid a roaring market, it appears doubts about Elon Musk's omnipotence are creeping in once again… and rightly so. Despite the hype surrounding hundreds of thousands of pre-orders due to start production in H2 2017, buried deep within the company's most recent 10-K filing is an admission that there is still no Model 3 beta prototype.
The fanfare surrounding the pre-order-fest for the Tesla Model 3 continues to support the stock in many analyst's (and investor's minds). However, with production due to begin in H2 2017 (just 4 months away) and delivery in 2018, doubts are starting to appear, judging by the stock's demise since earnings…
And Car and Driver's Anton Wahlman – who appears to be one of the few who actualy read Tesla's 10-K filing – may have found the reason for the doubts…
From the filing:
“We expect that the next performance milestone to be achieved will be the successful completion of the Model 3 Beta Prototype, which would be achieved upon the determination by our Board of Directors that an eligible prototype has been completed. Candidates for such prototype are among the vehicles that we are currently building as part of our ongoing testing of our Model 3 vehicle design and manufacturing processes.”
In other words, Wahlman points out, Tesla has not “completed” a Model 3 “beta prototype” as of, well, either of these two dates: December 31, 2016 (the period that the SEC filing covers), or March 1, 2017 (the date on which the document was filed). Pick your poison.
We know that around mid-February 2017, Tesla is said to have started building the next stage of Model 3 prototypes. It is from this batch that they appear to be creating the first “beta prototype.”
What does this mean for production? In theory, there is nothing that prevents Tesla from delivering what a normal car company would call a prototype test vehicle of some sort and simply declare victory on its original timeline. This is what Tesla did for the Model S in June 2012 and for the Model X in September 2015. After those events, it took at least another approximately three months—arguably a fair bit more—for proper volume production to take root.
That is to say that, no matter how immature, Tesla could indeed deliver a Model 3 in July 2017 and declare victory. However, that is not to be confused with what a normal car company would call its start of sales to the general public.
Basically, Car and Driver's Wahlman says, it comes down this:
If it’s prudent to start production of an all-new car three to six months after the advent of a “beta prototype,” then why don’t all automakers do this? Why do they take approximately two years for the preproduction testing stages, if only three to six months are necessary?
We will find out in the second half of this year.
More smoke and solar panel mirrors?
Still withcash burn at a billion dollars, there's probably nothing to worry about…
- Islam Will Surpass Christianity To Become The World's Largest Religion, New Report Says
Via Michael Snyder of The End of The American Dream blog,
If current trends continue, Islam is on track to become the largest religion in the entire world by the end of this century according a stunning new report that was just released by the Pew Research Center.
While it is true that Christianity is still growing on a global basis, it is not growing nearly as rapidly as Islam. So unless something changes, Christianity will only be the second largest faith in the world by the year 2070. According to this newly released report, Islam is the only major religion that is growing faster than the global population overall, and it is being projected that the number of Muslims on the planet will rise by a staggering 73 percent between 2010 and 2050…
Islam is the only religion growing faster than the world’s population, and it will be the largest in the world by 2070, research has found.
US-based Pew Research Center analyzed demographic change among the world’s major religions and found that the world’s population of Muslims will grow by 73 percent between 2010 and 2050, compared to 35 percent for Christians, the next fastest-growing faith.
The world’s population will grow by 37 percent over the same period. If those rates of growth continue past 2050, Muslims will outnumber Christians by 2070, the report found.
Of course there are religious groups that are growing even faster than Islam, but they were not part of this study.
For example, I have previously written about how witchcraft is the fastest growing faith in America, and yesterday I wrote about how membership in the Satanic Temple in the United States has been absolutely exploding since Donald Trump was elected.
So it isn’t just Islam that is gaining ground.
But without a doubt, Islam is now the dominant worldview on much of the planet. Many in the western world tend to think of it as a Middle Eastern religion, but the truth is that most Muslims actually live in the Asia-Pacific region…
Some 62 percent of Muslims live in the Asia-Pacific region with large populations in Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Turkey, Pew researchers said.
In 2050, India is set to take over from Indonesia as the country with the world’s largest Muslim population, according to the study.
In India, there truly is a battle going on for the spiritual future of that nation right now. Christianity and Islam are both making a tremendous amount of progress, and this has greatly upset a lot of traditional Hindu groups.
Islam is making a lot of progress in Europe as well. A tremendous amount of immigration has caused the number of European Muslims to surge in recent years, and this new report is projecting that 10 percent of all Europeans will belong to Islam by the year 2050.
Here in the United States, Muslims still only make up a very small percentage of the population, but that percentage is growing too. The following comes directly out of the new Pew Research Center report…
In 2015, according to our best estimate, there were 3.3 million Muslims of all ages in the U.S., or about 1% of the U.S. population. Pew Research Center’s 2014 Religious Landscape Study (conducted in English and Spanish) found that 0.9% of U.S. adults identify as Muslims. A 2011 survey of Muslim Americans, which was conducted in English as well as Arabic, Farsi and Urdu, estimated that there were 1.8 million Muslim adults (and 2.75 million Muslims of all ages) in the country. That survey also found that a majority of U.S. Muslims (63%) are immigrants.
Our demographic projections estimate that Muslims will make up 2.1% of the U.S. population by the year 2050, surpassing people who identify as Jewish on the basis of religion as the second-largest faith group in the country (not including people who say they have no religion).
Once the number of Muslims in the United States surpasses the number of Jewish people, what impact will that have on U.S. politics?
That is something to think about.
The report indicated that there are a couple of primary reasons why Islam is growing so rapidly around the world.
First of all, Muslims tend to have larger families than everyone else. The report said that the average Muslim woman has 3.1 children during her lifetime, while all other groups only have 2.3 children per woman.
So in the end, Islam could end up dominating the world just by simply making more babies than everyone else.
Muslims are also younger on average than other religious groups. According to the report, on a global basis Muslims are “seven years younger than the median age of non-Muslims”.
Unfortunately, when Muslims become dominant in a society they often want to impose their systems of government, law, economics, etc. on everyone else. That is why “sharia law” is such a sensitive issue, and the report found that in some Islamic countries an overwhelming majority of Muslims want to impose sharia law on everyone else…
For instance, a Pew Research Center survey of Muslims in 39 countries asked Muslims whether they want sharia law, a legal code based on the Quran and other Islamic scripture, to be the official law of the land in their country. Responses on this question vary widely. Nearly all Muslims in Afghanistan (99%) and most in Iraq (91%) and Pakistan (84%) support sharia law as official law. But in some other countries, especially in Eastern Europe and Central Asia – including Turkey (12%), Kazakhstan (10%) and Azerbaijan (8%) – relatively few favor the implementation of sharia law.
Nobody can deny that Islam is one of the most dominant forces on the entire planet in 2017, and it looks like it is going to become even more dominant in the years ahead.
And that is troubling news for Christians and those of other faiths, because all you have to do is to look at countries such as Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran to see what happens to other faiths once Islam takes total control of a nation.
In a truly Islamic state, there is no room for religious freedom, and so the growth of Islam is likely to be one of the greatest global threats to the free exercise of religion for the foreseeable future.
- Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman to CNN: 'Stop Spreading Lies and Fake News'
Russia’s outspoken foreign ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, had some choice words for CNN — after being confronted by their reporters over the AG Sessions’ hysteria. In a prepared statement, she called the event ‘media vandalism’ and a ‘disgrace’ — suggesting the US media is down in the depths of depravity and deceit.
She stated the American media had “cross(ed) the line far beyond the professional ethics and their competence. They accuse and judge by simply fabricating false information.”
“I have a question: is it rock bottom, which the US media has reached, or is there an even greater depth for them to dive?” Zakharova said.
“The things that the US media affords itself to report are just an attempt at… a total disinformation of the public in America and worldwide,” Zakharova explained, adding the US audience is, of course, the main target.
During the exchange, which was caught on camera and posted below, she laid into CNN — asking them to ‘stop spreading lies and fake news.’
‘Stop spreading fake news’, cuckburgers.Watch.
Content originally generated at iBankCoin.com
- Minimum Wage Hikes Don't Benefit Low-Income Families But Do Raise Youth Unemployment Rates
As written by Jack Salmon and first appearing on The Hill
With 19 states raising the minimum wage at the beginning of 2017, it seems that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) “Fight for 15” campaign is becoming a reality.
While Democrats have been wholeheartedly behind the movement to increase the minimum wage, now Republican lawmakers are increasingly leaving the door open to minimum wage increases. The prevailing argument in favor of raising the minimum wage is that a higher minimum wage would reduce poverty and alleviate income inequality.
So, what does the empirical research reveal about the effectiveness of the minimum wage to reduce poverty?
From a lawmaker’s perspective, setting a higher minimum wage seems to be a viable remedy for lifting families out of poverty. However, it is important to note that the minimum wage targets individual low-wage workers, not low-income families. The merits of using minimum wage as a tool to combat poverty depend on the level at which poor families benefit from such policy changes.
The statistics show that the relationship between being a low-wage worker and a low-income family is very weak. In fact, data from CPS suggests that the majority of poor families with heads of household of prime working age simply don’t work, so a minimum wage has no impact on these families.
What’s more, a sizable proportion of low-wage workers are new entrants to the labor force, such as teenagers, who are not necessarily in low-wage families. Taking these facts into consideration, basic calculations indicate that a sizable share of benefits derived from a minimum wage increase does not go to impoverished families.
In fact, if the federal minimum wage was hiked from $7.25 to $10.10, only 18 percent of resultant increases in income would go to poor families (based on 2010-2014 data), meanwhile 32 percent would go to families with incomes more than three times the poverty line. With a $15 minimum wage the corresponding figures would be 12 percent and 38 percent, respectively.
Several studies have analyzed changes in the poverty rate between states that increase the minimum wage versus those that don’t. The conclusion these studies reveal is that there is no statistically significant relationship between raising the minimum wage and reducing poverty.
What becomes increasingly clear from several studies on the targeted effects of minimum wage increases is that minimum wage is a very imprecise way to raise the relative incomes of the poorest families and may actually marginally benefit wealthier families.
We know who wins, but who loses?
The debate surrounding the negative effects of minimum wage increases on employment levels continues to take center stage. Some recent studies have even gone as far as suggesting that there is no negative impact on employment levels derived from an increase in the minimum wage.
The opinions of a majority of labor economists, however, paint a very different picture. A national survey conducted by the University of New Hampshire found that over 73 percent of American Economic Association (AEA) labor economists believe significant increases in the minimum wage will lead to employment losses and 68 percent believe employers will be deterred from hiring low-skilled workers.
A consensus on minimum wage studies conducted in the 1980’s finds that for every 10 percent increase in the minimum wage, employment of young and unskilled workers declines by 1-2 percent.
With over half of minimum wage workers being aged 16-24, continuously raising the minimum wage simply guarantees that those young people, whose skills are not sufficient to justify that kind of wage, will instead remain unemployed.
It’s clear that the minimum wage is an ineffective tool at reducing poverty and alleviating income inequality. The benefits of increases in the minimum wage are not targeted toward impoverished families and the costs of minimum wage increases deny youth the skills and experience they need to launch their careers.
The basis of poverty is not low-paid workers, but those who are not in work altogether. Perhaps policymakers would be wise to consider reforms that will grow the economy, generate jobs and create the incentives to choose work over welfare.
Jack Salmon is a Washington, D.C.-based researcher focused on federal fiscal policy. Salmon holds an M.A. in political economy with specializations in macroeconomics and comparative economic analysis from King’s College London.
- Mike Krieger Warns "America Is In Big Trouble"
Via Mike Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
I hate to break it to you, but Donald Trump isn’t going to make America great again. He doesn’t have the insight or courage to stand up to the financial elite, and he’s insufferably authoritarian. This is not a recipe for greatness.
Democrats are even worse. At the most ideal moment possible, the party was gifted an energetic populist movement primed for activism thanks to a non-Democrat who unified tens of millions of Americans sick of the ways thing were going, but couldn’t get behind Trump. How did the party respond? By rigging its primary and forcing down our collective throats one of the most corrupt, unethical, political monsters in American history. Afterwards, how did the party respond following her loss to Donald Trump? By making zero meaningful changes in party leadership, by endlessly propagating CIA-fueled Russia conspiracy theories and by very publicly rejecting Bernie Sanders and his supporters by choosing Tom Perez to run the DNC (for more read this excellent article).
As demented as many of Trump’s views are, at least he’s talking about shaking up the system. The only things Democrats have done since the election is attempt to co-opt Bernie Sanders, dress in all white and hyperventilate about Russia. The party is so worthless, it doesn’t even deserve to exist anymore. Then there’s the corporate media. The elitist propaganda mouthpieces that are even more destructive than our two deranged political parties, and that’s saying a lot. We are in big trouble as a people.
The past 36 hours have been really telling. The reaction to two events have demonstrated to me just how much trouble this country is in. The first event revolves around Trump’s speech to Congress. I watched the speech, and was thoroughly unimpressed. Like his critics, who falsely claim Trump is the root of all evil as opposed to a symptom of an evil system, Trump appears more interested in targeting symptoms as opposed to the core problems. While “draining the swamp” is a great slogan, he shows no intention of actually doing it. Rather, he’s filled his economic advisor positions with a cadre of particularly gross parasitic Wall Street cretins. This wasn’t the surprising part of Trump’s speech, however. The truly surprising, and disturbing part, was the tremendous praise heaped upon him by the corporate media afterwards, further proving the point that corporate media is worthless.
Why did the corporate media like the speech so much? Mainly it had to do with the moment Trump honored Carryn Owens, the widow of slain Navy SEAL William “Ryan” Owens. Will this standing ovation do anything to improve the lives of struggling Americans? Does it tell us anything at all about how Trump will handle foreign policy and out of control militarism in order to prevent deaths like this going forward? Of course not. What it tells you is that all the corporate media cares about is pomp and circumstance. Corporate media is obsessed with the show, the red carpet, with superficiality. Even if you loved the speech, it was a freakin’ speech. I’m not comparing Trump to such men, but most of the most heinous thugs in human history were great at giving speeches. Actions, not words are what matter, as we should have learned from eight years of Obama.
Moving along, the second event that solidified to me the amount of trouble we’re in as a nation relates to Jeff Sessions. As all of you already know based on my recent posts, I think Jeff Sessions is a dangerous, disconnected, goon. A fossil from another era, a hypocrite, and a terrible choice for Attorney General. That said, I think the controversy about what he told Congress related to his meetings with Russia is being blown grossly out of proportion. Here’s the clip in case you haven’t seen it:
What’s the big deal here? From what we know, he was simply a Senator who met with the Russian Ambassador publicly. These meetings consisted of one at a Heritage Foundation event in July 2016, where other ambassadors were present. The other was in Sessions’ Senate office in September.
As The Washington Post reported:
Two months before the September meeting, Sessions attended a Heritage Foundation event in July on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention that was attended by about 50 ambassadors. When the event was over, a small group of ambassadors approached Sessions as he was leaving the podium, and Kislyak was among them, the Justice Department official said.
These encounters seem pretty transparent, it’s not as if they were slinking around back allies handing-off envelopes filled with cash. It seems obvious to me that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper lying to Congress about unconstitutional government spying on American citizens was far worse, and he wasn’t forced to resign.
Of all the terrible things about Jeff Sessions, this is the least of my concerns. Naturally, it’s being portrayed as one of the greatest scandals in U.S. history by the corporate media as well as establishment Democrats (to understand why, see: How the Corporate Media Continues to Use the Russia Scapegoat as a Distraction from Status Quo Failure).
Proving once again that the only thing Democrats can really get passionate about is anti-Russia hysteria. A hysteria which the corporate media is likewise obsessed with, despite countless really significant domestic issues which remain unaddressed.
For example, take a look at the following images recently published by New York Magazine and The New Yorker.
Do these publications realize how utterly ridiculous they look to anyone capable of critical thought?
So what have we learned from all this? For starters, it should be abundantly clear by now that no one is coming to save us, and no one will be making America great again for us. We need to focus on making ourselves great. Once we do that, we will be able to surmount all obstacles and make this world a better place, but don’t think the path will be easy. I think we are in for an extraordinarily bumpy ride, and the only thing we’ll be able to depend on is the decency and goodwill of our fellow citizens. The government isn’t going to save us, we need to save ourselves.
- "Hillary For Mayor" Posters Popping Up All Around New York City
Like a nagging case of “pneumonia” that brings with it random, yet inevitable, bouts of full-body paralysis, the rumors/threats of Hillary tossing her hat in the ring for the New York City Mayoral race simply won’t go away.
Now, per a report from The American Mirror, it seems that a group of disaffected Hillary supporters in New York City are following in the footsteps of a recent movement in Paris to elect Obama as the next French President…when you can’t convince your chosen candidate to run for elected office we guess plastering a bunch of posters in public spaces and hoping for the best is the next most logical option.
“Hillary for Mayor” signs popping up in NYC. pic.twitter.com/jozK9pySld
— Michael Arria (@michaelarria) February 28, 2017
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Ironically, just last night we jokingly noted that “We sense an opening for you, Hillary” after incumbent Mayor Bill de Blasio faced public backlash, even from members of his own party, over his inability to control the homelessness crisis which is spiraling out of control in NYC.
Unfortunately, particularly for a man seeking re-election later this year, the following stats on NYC homelessness are fairly damning.
Meanwhile, as we pointed out in January, in a hypothetical matchup a Quinnipiac poll found that Hillary would crush de Blasio by 20 points.
The latest example comes from a Quinnipiac University Poll which analyzed a hypothetical head-to-head match-up between Clinton and New York’s current mayor, Bill de Blasio. Unfortunately for de Blasio, the poll found that, while he would beat almost everyone else whose name has been mentioned as potential contender, he would almost certainly be crushed by Hillary.
In a very hypothetical race for New York City Mayor, Hillary Clinton, running as an independent, tops incumbent Bill de Blasio, running as a Democrat, 49 – 30 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
“New Yorkers aren’t in love with Mayor Bill de Blasio, but they seem to like him better than other possible choices – except Hillary Clinton, who probably is an impossible choice,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.
“None of the possible contenders has made any real noise or spent any money, so this race still could get interesting.”
In the Clinton – de Blasio matchup, Clinton leads 61 – 29 percent among Democrats and 45 – 31 percent among independent voters. Republicans back de Blasio 28 – 18 percent. She leads among men and women and black, white and Hispanic voters. She also leads in every borough except Staten Island, which goes to de Blasio 28 – 22 percent.
Certainly this guy seems pretty stoked about the possibility.
Digest powered by RSS Digest
Saving...