republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
Millie Weaver interviews CPAC attendees and speakers about the rising trend of Socialism in America and the dangers it presents to our rights.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
Turkey has announced it is suspending border controls for foreign migrants hoping to cross into Europe, according to reports.Millions of migrants currently being ‘hosted’ in Turkey are now invited to journey onwards to the European Union.“We have decided, effectively immediately, not to stop Syrian refugees from reaching Europe by land or sea,” an unnamed Turkish official told Reuters.“All refugees, including Syrians, are now welcome to cross into the European Union.”The move reportedly comes in retaliation for an airstrike by Russian-backed Syrian forces that killed 33 Turkish soldiers in Idlib.“In anticipation of the imminent arrival of refugees from Idlib, Turkish police, coastguard and border security officials have been ordered to stand down on refugees’ land and sea crossings towards Europe,” Reuters reports, citing the Turkish official.Videos and photos purporting to show masses of mostly-male migrants moving towards Turkey's western border and into Europe have flooded social media.
_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/02/greece-sends-50-naval-vessels-to-guard-border-after-turkey-opens-gates-to-muslim-migrants
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/02/turkey-opens-its-border-with-syria-for-another-flood-of-muslim-migrants-into-the-eu
https://cms.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/03/invasion-76300-muslim-migrants-invade-europe-daniel-greenfield
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
Senate Democrats have blocked a bill by Republicans that would stop infanticide and require medical care and treatment for babies born alive after failed abortions, despite the bill’s support among even those who classify themselves as pro-abortion.The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would require doctors to provide medical care for infants who survive attempted abortions. Anyone who violates the act would be subject to a fine or imprisonment up to five years. The bill is one of two abortion-related bills that were voted on in the Senate on Tuesday.Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell filed for a procedural motion earlier this month that would set up votes on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Act and Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act after the Senate’s Presidents’ Day recess. The votes required a 60-vote threshold to end Democratic filibuster, but both votes fell short. The Senate voted 56-41 on the anti-infanticide bill, with just three Democrats — Doug Jones of Alabama, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia — breaking from their party to vote in support of the legislation, CNN reports.With Republicans holding just 53 seats in the Senate, the votes were expected to fail, but Republicans are hopeful they will serve to highlight the radicalism of the Democrats, particularly of the Democratic presidential candidates — Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar — who have now been forced to go on record on the issues.“Having these two votes come back to back absolutely puts pro-abortion Democrats on the defense,” said Mallory Quigley, spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony List, the Washington Examiner reports. “We are asking them to support popular legislation, compassionate legislation to save babies and to stop late-term abortion. If they can’t do that, can they then take a stand for born children who have survived abortions?”National polling has shown a large majority of Americans, including those who describe themselves as pro-choice, oppose infanticide, as well as late-term abortions. The Democratic filibuster of the bills underscores just how far removed they are from their constituents.Predictably, pro-abortion advocates such as Jacqueline Ayers, Planned Parenthood’s vice president of government relations and public policy, contend the Born-Alive bill would somehow target abortion access. She said in a statement Monday that “these bills push misinformation meant to end access to abortion, and serve no other purpose than to shame patients and deny people the ability to make the best medical decisions for themselves and their families.”But Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, the Republican sponsor of the bill, pushed back on that sentiment, noting the bill has nothing to do with abortion access. Instead, he asserted the bill was about “making sure that every newborn baby has a fighting chance — whether she’s born in a labor and delivery ward or whether she’s born in an abortion clinic.”Senator Sasse sought to bring the issue underlying the bill to the forefront of the debate: “I urge my colleagues to picture a baby that’s already been born, that’s outside the womb gasping for air. That’s the only thing that today’s vote is actually about. We’re talking about babies that have already been born. Nothing in this bill touches abortion access.”And while the Democrats claim the Born-Alive bill is unnecessary, statistics and personal testimonies prove otherwise.During a recent congressional hearing titled “The Infant Patient: Ensuring Appropriate Medical Care for Children Born Alive,” for example, Family Research Council staffer Patricia Mosley told the Senate that existing law is failing to protect babies born alive during botched abortions.“There have been no cases involving prosecutions under the [2002] Born-Alive Infants Protection Act that we know of. Why? Because there is currently no federal criminal statute specifically prohibiting taking the lives of born-alive infants,” she said.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that between 2003 and 2014, at least 143 babies were born after botched abortions and lived anywhere from minutes to days. The CDC admits that number could be significantly understated, a likely possibility according to Family Research Council’s Arina Grossu, who observed, “[Kermit] Gosnell is only one abortionist who was responsible for ‘hundreds of snippings’ of born-alive babies, yet he did not report even one.” She added, “His numbers alone exceed the ‘definitive’ numbers of the CDC.”The American Center for Law and Justice believes the number could be as high as 362 babies born alive between 2001 and 2010.The numbers are particularly hard to determine, as most states do not require such data to be maintained.Registered nurse Jill Stanek provided personal testimony about her experience with infants born alive during failed abortions during 2019 congressional testimony on the Born Alive bill. Her disturbing testimony revealed the protocol at the hospital at which she worked was to leave the infants in a “soiled utility room” to die.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
The New York Times has added another lawsuit to the workload of its legal team.In addition to fighting a defamation claim from former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, the Times must defend itself from the Trump campaign, which filed a defamation lawsuit yesterday.The Times and former editor Max Frankel smeared the campaign in an opinion piece, the lawsuit alleges, which said the campaign hatched a “deal” with the Russian government in 2016 to defeat the Times’s preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton.The Times knew Frankel’s absurd claim was false, the lawsuit alleges, because the Times itself debunked it in multiple stories.Whether the campaign will prevail is another. A public figure such as the campaign rarely succeeds in such a lawsuit.The LawsuitThe Times’s latest legal trouble began on March 27 last year, the day it published Frankel’s hit piece, “The Real Trump-Russia Quid Pro Quo.”Wrote Frankel, who calls himself a “Democrat with a vengeance”:There was no need for detailed electoral collusion between the Trump campaign and Vladimir Putin’s oligarchy because they had an overarching deal: the quid of help in the campaign against Hillary Clinton for the quo of a new pro-Russian foreign policy, starting with relief from the Obama administration’s burdensome economic sanctions. The Trumpites knew about the quid and held out the prospect of the quo.Yet Frankel’s piece “does not allege or refer to any proof of its claims of a ‘quid pro quo’ or ‘deal’ between the Campaign and Russia,” the lawsuit alleges, but instead “selectively” included “previously-reported contacts between a Russian lawyer and persons connected with the Campaign.” Previous reporting in the Times showed “that the meetings and contacts ... did not result in any quid pro quo or deal.”The report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of the collusion hoax showed the story to be false weeks after the story was published, but the Times knew that long before Frankel’s smear appeared, the lawsuit alleges.Thus, the lawsuit alleges, the Times’s “own reporting, had already confirmed what Robert Mueller would eventually conclude: that there was no ‘deal’ or ‘quid pro quo’ between the Campaign and Russia. The Times and its writer, Mr. Frankel, consciously disregarded all such information.” That reporting appeared in three stories, two of them published nearly two years before Frankel went off half-cocked.As well, the lawsuit alleges, the Times “decided to publish the Defamatory Article when it did, in advance of the Mueller Report, knowing that the Mueller Report was likely to exonerate the Campaign from allegations of collusion with Russia regarding the 2016 election”:Once the Mueller Report was released, The Times knew that any claims of conspiracy would not be credible. Thus, by publishing the Defamatory Article in March 2019, The Times sought to damage the Campaign before the Mueller Report would be released debunking the conspiracy claims.The Times published Frankel’s claims because of its “systematic pattern of bias against the Campaign, designed to maliciously interfere with and damage its reputation and seek to cause the organization to fail,” the lawsuit alleges.If true, the campaign has a case for malice and reckless disregard of the truth, proof of which is required for a public figure to successfully sue.Can the Campaign Win? “A publisher cannot be held liable for commentary based on public facts,” a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union told the Times.Frankel’s claim, of course, was not a “fact,” but a falsehood, but the campaign must still prove the newspaper “knew it was false before publishing, or had actual suspicion of falsity and went ahead anyway,” which is “virtually impossible,” a law professor told the Times. The U.S. Supreme Court invented that standard in 1964’s New York Times vs. Sullivan decision.The lawsuit’s allegations would seem self-evidently true given that the Times’s own reporting showed Frankel’s factual claim to be false, but again, proving that is problematic.The campaign’s attorney is Charles Harder, the man who put Gawker out of business on behalf of professional wrestler Hulk Hogan, and, more importantly, defeated Michael Avenatti, the crooked lawyer convicted of extortion, when he sued Trump for defamation on behalf of porn queen Stormy Daniels.Palin sued the Times over an editorial, subsequently corrected, that linked her to the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords.
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.In Los Angeles, it’s not unusual to see a Beemer streak by with a Bernie 2020 sticker on the back bumper. There’s no such thing as a poor socialist and Bernie’s backers tend to have lots of cash.While Bernie Sanders accuses Bloomberg of trying to buy his way to the nomination, the socialist bought his surge with $50 million in spending. He raised $25 million just in January. There’s more buying to do.And while he boasts of backing from small donors, the wealth of his donors is anything but small.Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. Their employees are three of the top 4 Bernie donors. Apple is in fifth place. These dot coms are not exactly organizations known to employ members of the proletariat. Google software engineers have sent thousands of dollars, individually, to Bernie.Google’s senior engineers, like the ones who have backed Bernie, make $250,000 a year.Geographically, Bernie's top dollar zip code is 94110 in San Francisco. The average household income in this part of the Mission District, specifically the Inner Mission, the Bernal Heights area, is $166,302. The median home value is around $1.5 million and the median rent is almost $5,000 a month.There are no poor socialists in what was dubbed as “the hottest neighborhood in San Francisco.”This was the area that Salon founder David Talbot blasted as the "hottest zip code in the country" overrun by "Silicon Valley movers and shakers" in "new-model Teslas, BMWs and Uber limousines". It’s only fitting that it should also be the spigot through which so much of Bernie’s tech bros dollars flow.The second top dollar Bernie zip code in San Francisco, 94117 or Haight-Ashbury, seems like a better fit for Bernie. But the Summer of Love has long since given way to the Winter of Trust Fund Hipsters in the Haight where the average income is $201,503 and average home values top $1.6 million.The media has made much of Bernie’s flow of donations from Brooklyn. But the money isn’t coming from the working-class Brooklynites of Bernie’s old neighborhood, but the gentrifying areas of the borough. 11215 or Park Slope is the second biggest top dollar zip code of Bernie donors.The neighborhood, formerly urban, known as the home of Mayor Bill de Blasio, and the Park Slope Food Co-Op and its anti-Semitic push to boycott Israel, is filled with renovated brownstones filled with wealthy hipsters. It’s a place where a three-bedroom apartment can go for $2.9 million.To New Yorkers, Park Slope has become a curse word embodying everything wrong with the new elite.In third place on Bernie’s donor list is 10025 or the Upper West Side of Manhattan. With an average rental price of $4,695, it’s not exactly an inexpensive place to live. The UWS is the 8th richest neighborhood with a $190,281 mean household income. And this is where Bernie’s cash comes from.11238 or Prospect Heights, in fourth place, is a newly gentrified neighborhood in Brooklyn where the median sales price passed $1 million, and you can expect to spend $800,000 for a one-bedroom co-op. The formerly urban neighborhood has been colonized by wealthy hipsters from Park Slope, and much of what goes for Park Slope also goes for Prospect Heights. They’re the gentrifiers funding Bernie Sanders.In fifth place is 98103, the Seattle neighborhood of Wallingford. With an average household income of $124,504, the University of Washington neighborhood with its $800,000 homes isn’t working class. Among the cheapest housing options is a $400,000 one-bedroom condo that’s a mere 757 square feet. The area is so expensive because it’s home to tech employees, including Microsoft engineers.Microsoft employees are among Bernie’s top dollar donors.And in seventh place is 90026. The Echo Park neighborhood in Los Angeles is a hipster haven which boasts the most expensive pizza in the city where the median price for housing is $813,000, and rents can hit $6,700 a month. Like Park Slope and Haight-Ashbury, Echo Park is full of wealthy hipsters.That’s Bernie’s core demographic.In eight place is the Logan Square neighborhood of Chicago at zip code 60647. Logan Square is among the most expensive neighborhoods in the Windy City. A condo will set you back over half a million dollars. The rush got so bad that a garage transformed into a home was going for $2.85 million. With its hipster bars and a farmers market, it’s the perfect area for Bernie’s upscale and trendy base.Ninth and tenth on the list of Bernie’s money neighborhoods are two expensive Manhattan areas.10003, Union Square and Greenwich Village in downtown Manhattan, is home to NYU, once a hive of angry radicals, now stuffed full of luxury co-ops with wealthy radicals, where condos cost millions of dollars. Greenwich Village has been listed as the ninth most expensive neighborhood in New York City. So, it’s only fitting that it’s the ninth on the list of areas funding the Sanders 2020 presidential campaign.In tenth place is 10011 or Chelsea and the West Village of Manhattan. It’s also the single most expensive zip code in New York City. Not only is it the most expensive area in New York, but it’s the 23rd most expensive area in the country with a median sale price approaching $2 million. And with average monthly rents of over $4,000, it’s the 19th most expensive rental area in the entire United States.It’s also home to New York’s Silicon Alley, the city’s tech industry ghetto of dot com and fintech startups.What do Bernie’s top donor zip codes have in common? Beyond wealth, Bernie’s cash flow is coming from a handful of very blue cities, almost all of them in California and New York City. Only two of the top ten zip codes are located outside San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York City. That alone conveys the insular and unrepresentative nature of Bernie’s funding base compared to the rest of the country.Bernie’s campaign is powered by the very concentrations of power and wealth that he condemns.The unrepresentative nature of Bernie’s backers isn’t just a matter of geography, but of culture. Some of Bernie’s top dollar zip codes overlap with the tech industry. His candidacy represents another example of how the tech industry has not only distorted our economy, but also warped our politics.Much of Bernie’s money comes from hipster hubs where wealthy young white people in major urban areas have made old neighborhoods, including Bernie’s Brooklyn, unaffordable to the working class and middle-class people who once used to live there. Bernie’s donors, especially in places like Prospect Heights and Echo Park have also played a significant role in displacing minorities and the poor.Follow Bernie’s money and it’s easy to see his campaign for the hypocritical farce that it is.Tech industry bros and trust fund hipsters are buying the nomination for Bernie, while displacing minority candidates, the way they bought up brownstones in Brooklyn and displaced black people.He’s the candidate of class warfare, not on behalf of the poor, but of young wealthy people seeking more power and influence at the expense of the more established wealth of an older generation. It’s tech industry bros warring for influence with fossil fuel titans, not for the poor, but for themselves.Bernie’s base is much less than 1%. Call it the 0.001%. A wealthy and influential young lefty elite with disproportionate influence over the internet is setting the nation’s agenda using digital media, tech dominance, and the Weekend at Bernie’s campaign of a senile socialist who barely knows where he is and won’t release his medical records after a heart attack because they will show he’s barely there."Not me. Us."That’s Bernie’s slogan. It’s true, just not how people are meant to perceive it. Bernie is little more than a puppet of the campaign pros who made him a household name in 2016 and are trying to make him more than that now. The “Us” are not Americans or even Democrats. It’s the elites of these zip codes.0.001% of the country is using a confused elderly socialist as a proxy for imposing their will on America.The 2020 election will be a test of wills between Americans and the 0.001% living in Park Slope, Echo Park, the Mission District, and Haight-Ashbury. After eight years of hipster rule under Obama, is the country ready to bow it heads and let a handful of wealthy young radicals run their lives again?
_____________________________________________________________
SEE ALSO:
https://cms.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/02/cubas-communist-papers-praise-bernie-sanders-daniel-greenfield
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational and research
purposes:
Whenever this kind of thing comes up, there is no discussion of what the Qur’an actually says. It calls for warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers, second-class status for women, hatred of Jews, and more. So a case can be made that this was not the best course of action for Paterson officials to take. At very least, a public discussion should take place. The idea that one cannot even raise questions about the wisdom of oath-taking on the Qur’an is in line with the Left’s sinister and increasingly open authoritarianism, but it is not in line with the American principle of free inquiry.“First Muslim Police Chief in US City Sworn in with Hand on Quran,” by Safaa Kasraoui, Morocco World News, February 16, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):__________________________________________________________________ SEE OUR PREVIOUS POST:Rabat – US has appointed a Muslim police chief for the city of Paterson, New Jersey, earlier this month.Ibrahim “Mike” Baycora is the city of Paterson’s first Turkish-American and Muslim police chief, Anadolu Agency reported.A video shows the security personnel putting his left hand on Quran to swear in during a ceremony at city hall has gone viral.The 60-year old chief has been serving at Paterson’s police department for over three decades.Proud of the promotion, Baycora said he considers Paterson as his home “for the better part of a half a century.”“Paterson has been in my blood my whole life, and now to be its police chief after a 32-year career — what an honor!”He said he does not think that his religio [sic] will make a difference….PATERSON, NEW JERSEY CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE WILL ALLOW ISLAMIC CALL TO PRAYER OVER LOUDSPEAKERS
https://ratherexposethem.blogspot.com/2020/02/paterson-new- jersey-city-council.html
