Tag Archive: current-events


Should Churches Be Subsidized For Preaching Politically Correct Propaganda?
Posted by Frederick Meekins on November 23, 2014 at 9:39amView Blog
In compliance with the state mandate to curb storm water run off, the Prince George’s County Department of the Environment is considering a proposal that would waive the unpopular impervious surface property tax assessment for their properties if churches agree to preach environmentally friendly sermons or engage in other forms of mental conditioning.

What’s the big deal, some will ask.

After all, does the Bible not teach us to be good stewards of God’s creation?

God’s word also instructs the believer to be on guard against wolves in sheep’s clothing.

If governments grant tax code favors to religious organizations for ideological compliance in regards to one issue, what is to prevent them from doing so in regards to more controversial matters?

In the name tolerance and diversity, what if governments granted tax and regulatory relief to congregations supporting gay marriage?

What if a government wanted to promote pluralism and inclusion by lavishing all manner of benefits upon a church that agreed not to lift the name of Jesus above all names but instead only reference a nondescript generic God or no God at all but rather just the Ultimate Concern as formulated by Paul Tillich?

How about putting the shoe on the other foot for a moment?

What if to bolster declining birthrates a government lavished tax favors upon churches promising to preach prolife messages?

It is said that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Advocates insist that that the program is strictly voluntary.

However, government programs that start off voluntary can easily end up becoming mandatory.

Anybody remember the assurances of if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan?

From one perspective, the program is completely voluntary with no government shocktroops raiding churches failing to put in the environmental upgrades or enunciating church dogma in such a way to win the approval of the state (at least not yet anyway).

Yet from another perspective, aren’t churches that refuse to have their very thoughts policed in this manner punished by having to pay the tax?

Courts have forbidden graduation prayers for being less of a mental intrusion.

By Frederick Meekins

Uh oh: New York Times creates big trouble for tax-dodging Obama ally Al Sharpton
POSTED AT 7:21 PM ON NOVEMBER 18, 2014 BY NOAH ROTHMAN

On Tuesday, The New York Times took its readers inside the city’s exclusive Four Seasons Restaurant where Al Sharpton celebrated his 60th birthday party at what was dubbed his “party for a cause.”

“Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo hailed him as a civil rights icon,” the profile of New York City-based activist and MSNBC began. “President [Barack] Obama sent an aide to read a message commending Mr. Sharpton’s ‘dedication to the righteous cause of perfecting our union.’ Major corporations sponsored the lavish affair.”

It is a spectacular raise for an agitator who began his career inciting race riots outside of Freddy’s Fashion Mart, ruining the lives of the men who were falsely accused of raping Tawana Brawley, and serving as an FBI informant after affiliating with the mafia and expressing interest in securing a hefty amount of cocaine.

Sharpton has been described as Obama’s “go-to man on race” by the well-connected Politico reporter Glenn Thrush. He was contacted directly in August by Valerie Jarrett amid spiraling violence in Ferguson, Missouri, and was deployed to deescalate the situation. Well before Obama’s reelection, Sharpton emerged as one of the president’s most valued outreach figures. In 2010, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Sharpton was tasked to tamp down the “increasingly public criticism in the black community over his economic policy.”

The value Sharpton represented to the Obama White House perhaps made it easier to overlook the fact that, as The Times reported, the MSNBC host is a serial tax evader and violator of the public trust.

“Mr. Sharpton has regularly sidestepped the sorts of obligation most people see as inevitable,” The Times reported, “like taxes, rent, and other bills.”

Records reviewed by The New York Times show more than $4.5 million in current state and federal tax liens against him and his for-profit businesses. And though he said in recent interviews that he was paying both down, his balance with the state, at least, has actually grown in recent years. His National Action Network appears to have been sustained for years by not paying federal payroll taxes on its employees.
“With the tax liability outstanding, Mr. Sharpton traveled first class and collected a sizable salary, the kind of practice by nonprofit groups that the United States Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration recently characterized as ‘abusive,’ or ‘potentially criminal,’ if the failure to turn over or collect taxes is willful,” The Times report continued.

This is just the kind of economic treason that the president spent much of his reelection campaign railing against, only the public was lead to believe that Obama the populist crusader was railing against businessmen and women who exclusively voted Republican.

The Patriot Post
Immigration Executive Order — All Smoke and Mirrors
The Demos’ REAL “Immigration Reform” Strategy
By Mark Alexander

Nov. 19, 2014

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” –George Washington1 (1783)

So, the Imperial President2 claims that, because Republicans are not passing the immigration “reform” legislation that best suits the Democratic Party’s3 political agenda, he is going to bypass Congress and issue an executive order (EO).

Don’t believe it.

Oh, Barack Obama is going to center stage Thursday night to set up his EO play, and sign that diktat Friday in Las Vegas – a fitting venue for a gutless gamble by a “big hat, no cattle” dude rancher. But what is the Demos’ real strategy?

In leftist parlance, “immigration reform” means providing a jackpot to illegal aliens – giving them official status so they can work and receive all associated taxpayer-subsidized services like housing, schooling and medical care. Once integrated, the second step is to provide a fast-track to citizenship. In other words, for Democrats, immigration reform means, first and foremost, seeding a large constituency.

But is Obama really attempting to give millions of illegal immigrants worker status?

In 2008, then President-elect Obama declared, “I can guarantee that we will have, in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support.” In 2009 and 2010, Obama had the benefit of Democrat Party control of both the House and Senate, however, his congressional Demos never passed an amnesty bill and thus he did not sign one.

Why?

Because he and his fellow Democrats were just pandering to Latinos; they had no intention of passing legislation to provide worker permits for five to 10 million illegal immigrants.

Why?

Because another larger and more critical Democrat voter constituency is composed of low-income Americans4, whom the Left baits with class warfare rhetoric5 centered on issues like “living wages” and increasing the minimum wage.

As my daughter, a university student working toward a business degree, framed this issue, “Labor inflation results in wage deflation.” In other words, the Democrats really don’t want to dump millions of immigrant laborers, who are willing to take low wages, onto their dependable American low-income constituency, because that will, in effect, drive wages even lower.

This is a fundamental supply-and-demand equation.

Just before Democrats were shellacked during the midterm “Republican wave6,” Obama borrowed a line from The Gipper for a national campaign interview: “Ronald Reagan used to ask the question, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ In this case, are you better off than you were in six? And the answer is, the country is definitely better off than we were when I came into office.” But according to BO, the problem is the American people “don’t feel it,” and he insisted, “The reason they don’t feel it is because incomes and wages are not going up.”

Of course, the reason for wage stagnation is that Obama’s economic “recovery” policies7 have been a colossal failure. On top of that, the influx of cheap illegal immigrant labor effectively caps any increase in wages for unskilled workers.

Democrats argue raising the minimum wage will protect their low-wage constituents, but that is a fabrication. As the Congressional Budget Office made clear, artificially increasing wages will decrease employment8.

The issue of immigrant labor undermining the ability of low-income earners to achieve a “living wage” is nothing new. A primary reason Abraham Lincoln did not emancipate slaves at the onset of the War Between the States is that the influx of black labor into northern markets competing for jobs held by white laborers would have undermined Lincoln’s political support9 from the latter.

The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass was so angry with Lincoln for delaying the liberation of some slaves that he scarcely contacted him before 1863, noting that Lincoln was loyal only “to the welfare of the white race.” Apparently, more than a few Latino politicos are equally disenchanted with Obama’s failure to provide immigrant work permits.

So what of Obama’s EO?

The Demo strategy is to craft that EO in such a way that Republicans can successfully chip away at it, primarily by defunding and de-authorizing key components of its implementation, as well as by issuing legal challenges. Thus, Democrats will receive credit from both their legal and illegal Latino constituencies for, ostensibly, attempting to provide them with nine million10 Permanent Residency or Employment Authorization cards. Then they can blame those “obstructionist” Republicans for blocking them.

This week, Senate Democrats, in a letter to Obama supporting his EO plan, made clear their intent to share in the political fruits of this charade.

Obama, as we’ve often noted, is a master of the BIG Lie11, and, just like the litany of lies12 that he and his party used to deceive Americans into supporting ObamaCare13, they are also deceiving millions of Americans into believing Democrats support both “living wages” and “immigration reform.”

Apparently, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) got it right when he interrupted Obama’s 2009 introduction of ObamaCare to a joint session of Congress and the nation. “You lie! You lie!” Wilson memorably yelled.

Indeed, “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter,” in the words of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber14, are also applicable to Obama’s low-wage and Latino constituencies in regard to amnesty by EO. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that Obama constituents are too ignorant to know they’re being duped – after all, they elected him. Twice.

Not only do Democrats assume their constituents are too stupid to understand Obama’s amnesty EO subterfuge, but Obama is willing to, once again, turn constitutional Rule of Law15 on end to accomplish this deceit.

Last week, Obama declared his intent to issue the immigration EO: “I indicated to Speaker Boehner several months ago that if in fact Congress failed to act I would use all the lawful authority that I possess to try to make the system work better.”

Of course, “lawful authority” is whatever Obama defines it to be at a given time. He was against unlawful executive orders16 before he was for them.

On March 31, 2008, candidate Obama said, “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.”

But having failed to pass immigration reform in his first two years in office when he owned the House and Senate, and then having lost control of the House in the 2010 midterm election, Obama repeatedly pleaded in Latino forums17 that he had no power to implement the changes he’d promised. Rebuffing calls that he legislate by executive order, Obama insisted, “I am not a dictator. I’m the president. … If in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress then I would do so. … I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

Obama may not have implemented his immigration policies by EO, but he certainly suspended enforcement of immigration laws with an executive order.

But by 2014, with his singular centerpiece legislation – ObamaCare – falling apart, and Democrats putting as much distance between him and them as possible, Obama believed the only way his party could stave off a resounding defeat in the midterm election was if he delivered Latino votes.

He began the year promising, “Where Congress isn’t acting, I’ll act on my own. … I’ve got a pen … and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.” In other words, when Republicans don’t give Obama what he wants on immigration, he will pull an executive order end run.

Obama has broadly demonstrated his willingness to end-run our Constitution via EO, most notably his so-called “climate change18” policies and his repeated rewrites of ObamaCare13.

Asked about his revised position to implement amnesty by executive order, Obama regurgitated this spin: “Well, actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress. … There are certain limits to what falls within the realm of prosecutorial discretion in terms of how we apply existing immigration laws.”

Of course, that is just more constitutional obfuscation.

Despite his faux devotion to our Constitution, Obama has wantonly violated his oath to “to Support and Defend19” it.

Though Obama claims to be a “professor of constitutional law,” a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has issued severe criticism20 of Obama’s “über presidency,” his abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.

According to Turley, “When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There’s no license for going it alone in our system, and what he’s done, is very problematic. He’s told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through active interpretation that I find very problematic.”

He continued: “What’s emerging is an imperial presidency, an über presidency. … When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. … Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. … What we are witnessing today is one of the greatest challenges to our constitutional system in the history of this country. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. … We are now at the constitutional tipping point21 for our system. … No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ – not Congress, not the courts, and not the president.”

When asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly how he would respond “to those who say many presidents have issued executive orders on immigration,” Turley responded, “This would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers. … I hope he does not get away with it.”

Over on Obama’s MSNBC network, even leftist commentator Lawrence O’Donnell finds the prospect of Obama’s executive amnesty diktat daunting. He asked Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) about Obama’s authority to issue an EO22 giving work permits to millions of illegal immigrants: “No one at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the following component of the president’s plan. … Has the White House told you – what is the legal justification for the president to create a new category of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?”

Of course, Welch could not answer O’Donnell, because there is no such authority.

Before the midterm election, Obama declared, “Make no mistake, [my] policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.” Make no mistake: The American people resoundingly rejected his policies on November 4.

That notwithstanding, Obama has dismissed the election results23. Perhaps he believes his immigration EO artifice will deliver enough Latino voters to Democrat candidates in 2016 to hold the presidency and regain the Senate, and somehow that will restore his “Dear Leader” status. After all, more than a million illegal immigrants24 were unlawfully registered to vote in the midterm election, particularly in states where Democrats have thwarted efforts to require voter IDs25.

The bottom line for Republicans is that they need to drive home four points.

First, the “immigration reform” pledges by Obama and his Democrats are disingenuous because they would undermine the Left’s entire “living wage” platform. But Democrats believe their low-income and Latino constituencies are too stupid to understand this ruse. Remember: “Labor inflation results in wage deflation.”

Second, as Dr. Turley noted, Obama is willing to trash the Constitution in order to advance his ruinous policies. Republicans need to use his abject abuse of power and the threat it poses to Liberty as a constitutional teachable moment.

Third, any debate about immigration26 is useless unless it begins with a commitment to securing our borders first27. As Ronald Reagan28 declared, “A nation without borders is not a nation.” Likewise, it must address the issue of so-called “birthright citizenship29,” which is a gross misinterpretation of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

And last, Republicans need to embrace the fact that Liberty is colorblind30. It’s not a “white thing.” Essential Liberty31 is timeless. And because it transcends all racial, ethnic, gender and class distinctions, it will appeal to all freedom-loving people when properly presented.

Time to see what the incoming House and Senate Republican majorities are made of!

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

Links

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/12704

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/27481

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/9235

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/14816

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22892

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/30689

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/19290

http://patriotpost.us/articles/28852

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3181

http://patriotpost.us/articles/30185

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22209

http://patriotpost.us/articles/30967

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22065

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31072

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/7324

http://patriotpost.us/articles/30958

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31089

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/25733

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3192

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31094

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/03/10/the-constitutional-tipping-point/

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31090

http://patriotpost.us/posts/30710

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/30609

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/29/latest-reason-oppose-amnesty-voter-fraud-2/

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/13/10-point-immigration-plan-obama-follow/

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2762

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/8891

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/6932

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/23173

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3467

School punishment by racial quota
By Thomas Sowell November 18, 2014 12:25 pm
If anyone still has any doubt about the utter cynicism of the Obama administration, a recent agreement between the federal government and the Minneapolis Public Schools should open their eyes.

Under the Obama administration, both the Department of Education and the Department of Justice have been leaning on public schools around the country to reduce what they call the “disproportionate” numbers of black male students who are punished for various offenses in schools.

Under an implicit threat of losing their federal subsidies, the Minneapolis Public Schools have agreed to reduce the disparity in punishment of black students by 25 percent by the end of this school year, and then by 50 percent, 75 percent and finally 100 percent in each of the following years. In other words, there are now racial quota limits for punishment in the Minneapolis schools.

If we stop and think — as old-fashioned as that may seem — there is not the slightest reason to expect black males to commit the same number of offenses as Asian females or any other set of students.

When different groups of human beings have behaved differently in all sorts of ways, in countries around the world, for thousands of years of recorded history, why would we accept as dogma that the only reason one set of students gets punished more than others is because the people who are doing the punishing are picking on them?

Politically — which is the way the Obama administration looks at everything — any time they can depict blacks as victims, and depict themselves as their rescuers, that means an opportunity to get out the black vote for Democrats.

On the surface, this may look like a favor to blacks. But only on the surface.

Anyone with common sense knows that letting a kid get away with bad behavior is an open invitation to worse behavior in the future. Punishing a kid for misbehavior in school when he is 10 years old may reduce the chances that he will have to be sent to prison when he is 20 years old.

Other schools in other cities, which have also caved under pressure from the federal government, and agreed to lighten up on black kids who misbehave, have reported an increase in misbehavior, including violence. Who would have thought otherwise?

Letting kids who are behavior problems in schools grow up to become hoodlums and then criminals is no favor to them or to the black community. Moreover, it takes no more than a small fraction of troublemakers in a class to make it impossible to give that class a decent education. And for many poor people, whether black or white, education is their one big chance to escape poverty.

The people in the Obama administration who are pushing this counterproductive policy are not stupid. They are political, which is worse. They know what they are doing and they are willing to sacrifice young blacks to do it.

This punishment issue made me think back to the 8th grade, when I was punished by being kept after school, more often than any other kid in the class — black, white, Hispanic or whatever. I was bored in school and did various pranks to liven things up.

One day, after school, as I sat alone among the empty chairs in the classroom, the teacher said, sarcastically: “Well, here we are again, Sowell, just the two of us!”

“Good grief, Miss Sharoff,” I said. “If we keep staying in after school together all the time, people will begin to talk.”

“We will just have to live with the scandal,” she said, without even looking up from the papers she was correcting.

Thank heaven there was no Obama administration to exempt me from punishment. Who knows how I might have ended up?

Years ago, there was a study of a working class community where there were black, Hispanic and Italian kids, and where many of the cops were Italian. When a black or Hispanic kid broke the law, the police took him down to the station and booked him. But, if an Italian kid did the same thing, they reacted differently.

The Italian cop would take the Italian kid out into an alley and rough him up. Then he would take him home to his family, tell them what had happened and leave him there — where the kid could expect another beating, instead of the wrist-slap punishment of the law. Those cops understood the realities of life that politicians ignore. And they were doing a favor to their own.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is http://www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at http://www.creators.com

The Government Is Controlling Private Property to Save Frog Species Not Seen in 50 Years

Scott Blakeman / August 29, 2014

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is seeking to protect the dusky gopher frog on the Endangered Species List by designating over 1,500 acres of private property in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana as a “critical habitat” for the embattled amphibian.

But here’s the kicker: The frog hasn’t been seen on the land in question for over 50 years.

The federal government has the ability through the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to designate land as “critical habitat” subjecting it to additional regulations. But the government can’t simply claim that private property is “critical habitat” without first conducting an economic analysis to determine the economic impact. If the analysis shows that the cost of creating a critical habitat burdens the property owner and outweighs the perceived benefit to the endangered species, the land can be exempted from the regulation.

In the case of the St. Tammany property, the economic analysis produced by the USFWS revealed that the “designation could preclude all development on the land, causing the landowners to lose as much as $36 million.” Meanwhile, the land is not actively benefitting a single dusky gopher frog. But the plans to make the land a critical habitat proceed. This is a federal land grab at its worst. And, unfortunately, the courts are complicit.

Oral arguments were heard in a U.S. district court last week regarding the situation. U.S. Department of Justice attorney Mary Hollingsworth noted that the property in dispute is a good prospective breeding ground for the frog and is “in very good shape and could be used today if the frogs were there.”

But, as noted earlier, the intriguing thing is that the frogs aren’t there – and they haven’t been seen there or anywhere in Louisiana for 50 years. Moreover, calling the land suitable for the frog is debatable at best. Pacific Legal Foundation lawyer M. Reed Hopper noted that “this land does not include the physical and biological features that are critical for the dusky gopher frog, so it’s no surprise that there aren’t any frogs on the property.” The government wants to effectively restrict use of private land that could cost the landowners millions to protect a creature that doesn’t live, and possibly could not even survive, there.

Unfortunately, the court’s decision allows this inanity to proceed. Pacific Legal Foundation reported that a federal judge “reluctantly” upheld the designation of this unsuitable area as “critical habitat.” The judge acknowledged the ESA appears to go too far but suggested that is a matter for Congress to address and not the courts.” The Foundation called the action by the USFWS to not follow its own rules an “irrational decision.”

An “irrational decision” is a good way to put it. Moreover, it’s outrageous that the government could restrict development of private property and cost a family $36 million dollars, not to mention the cost in jobs and economic activity of not productively using the land. And the deeper issue of excessive government intervention shouldn’t be forgotten. M. Reed Hopper says it well:

“Essentially this is sort of a test case for the Fish & Wildlife Service. This is the first time they’ve ever extended their authority this far, and if they get away with it here, they’re likely to do it in the future.”

Though the frog may be little, through the Endangered Species Act, this amphibian is trashing private property rights that should be protected under the Constitution, potentially costing people millions, and setting a dangerous precedent for the future.

New Iranian Law Proposes 74 Lashes for Dog Owners
A new law proposed in Iran would make walking, owning or selling a dog a crime punishable by 74 lashes and a fine of $370 to $3,700.
Sun, November 9, 2014
PrintPrintEmailEmail
An Iranian woman stands in front of a bank as she holds a dog in Tehran. The entrance of dogs and other pets into

A new law proposed in Iran would make walking, owning or selling a dog a crime punishable by 74 lashes and a fine of 10 to 100 million rials ($370 to $3,700). Violators could also be arrested.

Although the bill was proposed by 32 hardline MPs, many of 290 members of Iran’s Majles (parliament) are conservatives who sympathize with the hardliners.

The target of the bill appears to be young people as well as wealthy Iranians who are drawn to imitate Western culture. Even though coming into contact with dogs (especially the mucous membranes) is considered najis (unclean) in Islamic law, dogs are kept as pets by some Iranians. Most owners keep their dogs inside, but some – from the more affluent neighborhoods – can be seen walking their dogs outside, raising the ire of the Iranian morality police.

The legislation, reported in the reformist newspaper Shargh, reads in part, “Anyone who takes a pet like a monkey or a dog in public … damages the Islamic culture.” The legislation also warned that such animals damage “the health and tranquility of the people – particularly children and women.”

According to the new legislation, the animals would be confiscated and sent to a zoo, forest or desert. Dogs used by police, hunters, shepherds, farmers and fishermen are exempt from the legislation.
A similar bill was introduced to the parliament three years ago, but was dropped by MPs after concluded that more important laws were on their agenda.

However, Iranian morality police currently stop dog owners and either warn them or confiscate their animals.General Esmail Ahmadi Moghaddam said two years ago that his force would deal with Iran’s police chief ho carry dogs in public.”

German Football ‘Hooligans’ Take Up Battle Against Salafists
A group of nearly 5,000 football hooligans gathered in the city of Cologne to protest the spread of Islamic extremism in the country.
BY SOEREN KERN Mon, November 10, 2014
A group of nearly 5,000 football hooligans from across Germany gathered in the western city of Cologne on October 26 to protest the spread of Islamic extremism in the country.

The watershed march was organized by a new initiative called “Hooligans against Salafists,” better known by its German abbreviation, HoGeSa, short for Hooligans gegen Salafisten.

HoGeSa is a burgeoning alliance between hooligans from rival football clubs who have temporarily set aside their mutual hatred for each other in order to unite against a common enemy: radical Salafists who want to replace Germany’s democratic order with Islamic Sharia law.

The alliance has its roots in a hidden Internet forum called GnuHoonters (homophone of “New Hunters”) formed in 2012 between 17 different hooligan groups from across Germany. GnuHoonters was established primarily to fight anarchists, Marxist-Leninists and other left-wing extremists in the country.

In 2013, some 300 members of GnuHoonters set up another hidden Internet forum called “Because Germans Still Dare” (Weil Deutsche sich’s noch trauen), aimed at developing an action plan to fight the leaders of Germany’s Salafist scene.

After the forum was hacked in early 2014 and its secrets were spilled to the public, the group adopted the name “Hooligans against Salafists” and began operating openly. Initially, HoGeSa’s activities were limited to the Internet and social media, through which it developed a considerable following. Its Facebook page, for example, had more than 40,000 followers before it was recently shut down by Facebook censors.

On September 28, 2014, around 300 HoGeSa members met in person for the first time in Dortmund, a city in the German state of North-Rhine Westphalia that has a large Muslim population. Similar meetings were also held in the cities of Essen, Mannheim and Nuremberg.

These introductory meetings paved the way for HoGeSa’s first mass gathering, the rally in downtown Cologne on October 26. The organizers of the event were expecting a turnout of around 1,500 hooligans, but more than three times that many people (4,900 by some counts) showed up.

According to some commentators, the mass mobilization was fuelled in part by a growing sense of frustration that the German government is not doing enough to curb the spread of Islam in the country. Others said that protesters were incited by the Salafists’ unceasingly provocative support for the jihadist group Islamic State.

The rally, which began in front of Cologne’s central train station, was initially peaceful, given that Salafists appeared to give the area a wide berth. But matters turned extremely violent after participants refused to obey police orders to clear the area after the event was over.

More than 1,300 police were called in, many using batons, pepper spray and water cannons against the protesters, who hurled rocks, bottles and firecrackers at them. Nearly 50 police officers were injured and 20 protesters were arrested.

The intensity of the violence shocked many Germans and commentators pondered over who these “new hooligans” are and whether this “unexpected phenomenon” portends serious trouble ahead.

One newspaper wrote: “The hooligans are more dangerous than ever. They have a new opponent. German security authorities are on high alert! A state security official has warned: ‘If hooligans actually meet Salafists next time, there will certainly be severe injuries or deaths.'”

HoGeSa representatives seemed to apologize for the violence in Cologne, saying that “not everything went according to plan” and that they had learned from their mistakes.

At the same time, HoGeSa leaders insist that the group is “apolitical” and not connected to any partisan organization, including Germany’s neo-Nazi movement. “We stand behind our cause,” one of the event organizers shouted into a megaphone. “We are not right-wing radicals,” he added.

But large numbers of neo-Nazis are said to have joined the rally, sparking fears that right-wing extremists are seeking to influence and possibly co-opt the hooligan scene, with the aim of leveraging HoGeSa’s mass mobilization potential to its own advantage.

The newspaper Die Zeit reported that senior leaders of the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party of Germany [NPD] participated in the Cologne rally and offered to help “professionalize” the HoGeSa movement. “The starving NPD, which has been in a political free fall for three years now, is apparently on the offensive and wants to join this new extremist trend,” the paper wrote.

A new report published by police in North-Rhine Westphalia estimates that there are a total of 13,600 hooligans in all of Germany, but that only 400 (or 3.3%) have ties to the neo-Nazi movement or other right-wing extremist groups.

The president of the German domestic intelligence agency BfV, Hans-Georg Maassen, said that hooligans have not been subject to state surveillance because, for the most part, they are “politically indifferent” and their personal values are limited to “drinking beer and fighting.”

Some commentators argue that mainstream media outlets are now using the fear of hooligan violence to completely shut down the debate about the rise of Islam in Germany. They are doing so by demonizing any German citizen with legitimate concerns about the spread of Sharia law and the establishment of a parallel Muslim society in the country as “neo-Nazi.”

In the words of one such commentator, the guardians of German multiculturalism are protecting the “beheaders of Christians and mutilators of women” by seeking to silence those who are politically incorrect enough to express outrage at such atrocities.

HoGeSa’s next major rally was set to be held in Berlin on November 15. The event — which was being organized under the motto, “Against Salafists, Islamization and Refugee Policy” — was to have been held at the Pariser Platz, a square in the center of Berlin that is situated within walking distance of the seat of the German government.

The rally organizers originally said they were expecting a turnout of 1,000 people, but after police predicted that more than 10,000 hooligans would show up, authorities in Berlin cancelled the event. Similar rallies planned for Frankfurt, Hamburg and Hannover have also been banned, although social media chatter indicates that the hooligans plan to proceed anyway.

In any event, HoGeSa appears to be striking fear into the hearts of the Salafists, who are now on the defensive, an accomplishment that has so far eluded German counter-terrorism officials.

Following the violence in Cologne, Pierre Vogel, a notorious convert to Islam who in recent years has emerged as a central figure in Germany’s Salafist scene, hired full-time bodyguardsto protect himself and his family.
The German media say Vogel, a former professional boxer who usually depicts himself as the embodiment of an invincible Islam, is now portraying himself as a helpless victim at the hands of football hooligans.

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook. Follow him on Twitter.

This article was published originally on GatestoneInstitute.org

Daily Digest for Thursday
November 13, 2014 Print

THE FOUNDATION
“Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 15, 1787

TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Details of Obama’s Immigration Plan Leaked
As early as Nov. 21, Barack Obama will announce his 10-point plan on immigration, circumventing Congress and disregarding the Constitution. Fox News reports on a leaked draft of Obama’s executive action that does everything from giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers a raise, to granting differed action to 4.5 million illegal immigrants. It will also give a discount to the first 10,000 illegal immigrants who apply for naturalization. In response, some GOP lawmakers advocate a tough line against Obama’s plan. Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) wants the GOP to work a provision into December’s appropriations bill where Congress leaves no money for Obama’s executive actions. But Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell wants a softer approach — more cooperation among politicians. Still, Obama could continue going Rambo on immigration by waiting until after Congress passes its appropriation bill Dec. 11, or by placing a few Republican carrots in the executive order. Republicans need to remember this is not just a policy debate: This is an argument over Rule of Law and the constitutionally separated powers in Washington. Both high ideals. More…

Comment | Share

Reid Has ‘No Desire’ to Create Obstruction
Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ran the chamber with an iron fist, but now that he’s headed for the minority, he wants everybody to get along. “I’ve always believed it wise to follow Will Roger’s admonition: ‘Don’t let yesterday use up too much of today,'” he said from the Senate floor. Therefore, he added, “I’m ready … to work with [Mitch McConnell] in good faith to make this institution function again for the American people.” He then had the temerity to blame Republicans for the dysfunction. “I saw firsthand how a strategy of obstruction was debilitating to our system,” he continued, blaming McConnell for creating gridlock. “I have no desire to engage in that manner.” That’s all he ever did as majority leader — blocking amendments, letting House bills stack up on his desk, etc. We don’t believe for a second he’s turned over a new leaf.

Comment | Share

Part-Time Workers Can’t Get Full-Time Jobs
About 32% of part-time workers wish for a full-time job, according to a survey conducted by CareerBuilder, but a lack of education and a crummy job market has landed those people in jobs bringing in little money on few hours. Of those wishing for full-time work, 39% say they have to stretch their salary and 31% say they are the only person bringing home the bacon in their family. The challenge to getting that 40-hour-a-week position? Only 31% said they weren’t looking, 51% said they didn’t have the necessary skills, and the top reason was the lack of full-time work since the recession (54%). Rosemary Haefner, vice president of human resources at CareerBuilder, said, “Though we’re seeing an uptick in full-time, permanent hiring, many workers are still having difficulty finding positions in their field of expertise.” Five years after the federal government declared the recession over, one-third of the part-time workforce wishes for something better, but the jobs are opening up at an excruciatingly slow pace. Just the latest dispatch from the sorry Obama recovery. More…

Comment | Share

Senate Vote Looming on Keystone
Earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid squelched any effort to pass legislation regarding the Keystone XL pipeline. Now that Democrats got thumped in the election, however, the legislation is headed for a vote. Why? Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu needs help in her Louisiana runoff. Bloomberg reports, “The purpose of the vote would be symbolic: To highlight Landrieu’s support for the pipeline and her influence on energy issues in Washington — a centerpiece of her campaign. A vote in favor of the pipeline may benefit Landrieu in her Dec. 6 runoff election, in which she faces Republican Representative Bill Cassidy.” Landrieu’s being able to tout passage of the pipeline sure would be good on the stump in a state that stands to benefit from it. In fact, it may even be more helpful if Barack Obama vetoes it — he and his ecofascist constituents get what they want, while Landrieu can claim to have opposed Obama on something. It’s a win-win … for Democrats. Unfortunately, that usually means a loss for the country. More…

Comment | Share

School Refused Veterans Day Ceremony Over Firearms
The Eau Claire school district in Wisconsin did not hold its traditional Veterans Day ceremonies Tuesday because guns are scary. That’s right — the 21-gun salute that was a standard part of the program is no longer acceptable on school grounds. “We like to honor the veterans; we bring them in on a regular basis,” says Tim Libham, the executive director of administration with the district. “There are just some conditions that we have to adhere to and the shooting of guns, even with blanks, is something we don’t feel is appropriate given society, and the concerns that we have and that the community has, on school premises.” The ceremony was instead held at a local Burger King. School officials should be ashamed. They’re teaching kids that fear is more important than honor. More…

RIGHT ANALYSIS

The Phony Climate Deal With China
2014-11-13-7cae1639.jpg
Obama at the Star Trek convention
Barack Obama waves around five magic beans from his climate change talk with the Chinese while China walks away with the cow. On Tuesday, the White House announced it made an agreement with the Communist nation limiting carbon emissions. Obama’s in China this week, where the world’s two biggest energy producers hashed things out before UN delegates meet in Paris in December 2015 to write a new treaty regulating the world in response to supposedly man-made global warming.

Just like he has with so many other policies, Obama went it alone. Most everyone was surprised by the announcement that China and the U.S. had reached an agreement — a bad sign on an issue so large as climate change. But it’s a bum deal, and the Republican-led Congress must rescue Obama from himself.

During his first term, Obama set the goal of cutting the nation’s emissions to 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. This week’s announcement increases that goal of cutting emissions to 26-27% of 2005 levels by the year 2025. The White House said it was opening trade with China for “sustainable environmental goods and clean energy technologies.” The nations will be working to study responses to climate change together.

While Obama pledges to further cut emissions — strangling business and increasing the almighty power of the EPA — China pinky-promises (with fingers crossed) it will begin to decrease its emissions by 2030 and start to produce 20% of its energy from clean energy sources. Only years after the United States has met its goal will China think of following in those footsteps. Really? We’re supposed to believe this?

Last September, it was checkup time at the UN. Every country, from Ebola-stricken Liberia to large, industrialized nations, gathered in New York City to share specifics of what each had done to combat the scourge of global warming.

China slunk into that climate summit like the slacking student in a group project. It’s a “responsible major country,” said Zhang Gaoli, Vice Premier of the State Council of China, who added, “We will announce post-2020 actions on climate change as soon as we can.” The world’s biggest polluter, one of the giants when it comes to industry and energy production, had nothing.

In response to this week’s U.S.-China announcement, the UN released a statement: “Today, China and the United States have demonstrated the leadership that the world expects of them. This leadership demonstrated by the Governments of the world’s two largest economies will give the international community an unprecedented chance to succeed at reaching a meaningful, universal agreement in 2015.”

It took Obama — not the U.S. — a promise to further cut and cripple the U.S. economy for China to agree to the most basic of plans that would be agreeable to the ecofascists in the global community.

Senate Republican leaders hope to undermine Obama’s environmental policies. One of Congress’ most important tools is control of the purse strings. Republicans could defund Obama’s environmental policies, hamstring new EPA regulation by withholding funds and weaken Obama’s presence at the UN 2015 Paris meeting.

Indeed, the GOP believes it has a mandate from voters to stand in the gap against Obama and his economically damaging environmental policies. In a statement, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said, “The President said his policies were on the ballot, and the American people spoke up against them. It’s time for more listening, and less job-destroying red tape. Easing the burden already created by EPA regulations will continue to be a priority for me in the new Congress.”

But Obama has plenty of moves to hinder the Republicans’ pledge to work against his green policies. Obama still wields the veto pen and Republicans don’t have veto-proof majorities in either chamber. But neither can Obama enter into a binding international treaty. So he uses his phone to create working groups, research centers and initiatives with China — all little things compared to what Obama would truly like to accomplish.

“It’s hollow and not believable for China to claim it will shift 20 percent of its energy to non-fossil fuels by 2030, and a promise to peak its carbon emissions only allows the world’s largest economy to buy time,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) said. “China builds a coal-fired power plant every 10 days, is the largest importer of coal in the world, and has no known reserves of natural gas. This deal is a non-binding charade.”

Obama has his five magic beans, a pat on the back from the UN, a boiling political fight when he returns to Washington and a long road until the UN meeting in Paris. Going it alone has weakened Obama on the global stage. He can only go so far before the Constitution reins in his unlawful attempt to transform the country. But he’s still trying.

Pirouette Toward Asia
2014-11-13-2fb6f603.jpg
China is aggressively pushing asymmetric militarization — that is, targeted ramping up capabilities to probe vulnerable seams and gaps in U.S. capabilities — as well as conducting more pronounced maneuvering in the South China Sea. That means the Obama administration’s strategy of “pivoting toward Asia” is now in what can best be described as an endless “pirouette.” A better description would be a classic death-spiral.

The U.S. just reached agreement with Communist China on notification protocols for major military exercises, ostensibly diffusing alarm when one nation conducts such an exercise. Perhaps like conducting an otherwise-unannounced major naval exercise in the South China Sea. Another agreement reaffirms the now 50-year-old traditional rules for encounters at sea and in the air, because, apparently, these things aren’t patently evident to all civilized nations by now, having been codified into international law for half a century or so. Great job, Chosen One! We’ll show those naked aggressors who’s boss!

Meanwhile, as Russian President Vladimir Putin tries desperately to get the gang back together — a few invasions of sovereign states, a shoot-down of a plane carrying a few hundred innocent civilians — Team Hopeless is trying to return to its “pivot” script. Never mind that Putin just solidified Russian economic ties to China with another Siberia gas deal. Also overlook the fact Moscow has reclassified NATO as Russia’s official adversary (did we mention NATO is ostensibly led by the U.S.?). We should also not dwell on “blame” for that SA-11 shot that murdered 300 innocents, either, right? Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The whole reason Barack Obama “pivoted” to “Asia” (read: China) in the first place was because of so much intense saber-rattling in the South China Sea. China’s bald regional hegemonic machinations meant the U.S. could no longer ignore the threats to its allies — Japan, Australia, New Zealand and a host of others within that vulnerable region.

Our “good friends” in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) recently developed their own version of the Marshall Plan to cope with all the unrest (which, by the way, they have generated): The so-called “Silk Road” is a $40 billion plan to buy off opposition to Chinese designs on regional hegemony. Effectively, it will force nations in the region to “chose a side” — the sides being, of course, the U.S. and China. As such an unwaveringly solid friend as the kowtow administration has demonstrated itself to be to these “lesser” states, any guesses which side most of them will choose?

Luckily, China has a long way to go to catch up with the U.S., despite the debut of its new J-31 stealth fighter — during Obama’s attendance at the Asian economic summit in Beijing, no less. Who could have predicted such timing for test flights? Of course, the “Chinese stealth fighter” is better known as the “F-35 Joint Strike Fighter,” an American jet, since the Chinese unabashedly stole top-secret technical data through cyber espionage against Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors. Testing their plane during Obama’s visit signals they know they have nothing to fear from him.

We should also point out the inconvenient truth of China’s deployment of two brigades of DF21D ballistic missiles — so-called “carrier killers,” and not without good reason. Supposedly, these missiles had been a long way off from reaching operational capability. Yet they are now part of what the emperor Chinese leader might call a “fully armed and operational battle station.”

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Frank Kendall put a fine point on the whole issue of technology: “Our technological superiority is very much at risk. There are people designing systems specifically to defeat us in a very thoughtful and strategic way, and we’ve got to wake up, frankly.” Kendall went on to name several areas in which the U.S. remains critically vulnerable: China’s threat to the U.S. surface fleet as well as U.S. overseas bases; China’s challenge to U.S. air dominance; Chinese threats to U.S. space capabilities and access to space; and finally, China’s ability to mount cyber assaults on U.S. networks. The myth of U.S. technical superiority is quickly becoming just that: a myth.

The real lesson here is what is wrought when a nation chooses a position of weakness. Starting in 2009 with his World Apology Tour and continuing with numerous international failings and foreign-policy-related humiliations, Obama has abjectly demonstrated what happens when the U.S. abdicates its leadership role in the world and chooses instead to be the world’s buddy. Rogue nations, belligerent nations and nations ruled by an iron thumb are not content with being anyone’s buddy. They are content only with being conqueror.

OPINION IN BRIEF

American writer E. B. White (1899-1985): “Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people are right more than half the time.”

Columnist Ann Coulter: “People who voted Republican took the attitude of ‘We’re giving you one more chance.’ They are not going to back off, and they can’t be tricked or lied to. They’re looking the GOP in the eye and saying: We’re not fooling around: Amnesty is dead, right? Republicans won by ignoring the establishment when it said, Don’t criticize amnesty! and ignoring the tea party when it said, Let’s run candidates like Christine O’Donnell! Don’t confuse who’s good at what here. The establishment has to drop amnesty and the tea party has got to drop — for now — demands for government shutdowns to repeal Obamacare. Without the presidency, Republicans’ sole objective for the next two years is to keep sending Obama bills that 80 percent of Americans will support. They can pass some great legislation — and they’ll also force Democrats into votes that won’t be easy to explain to their constituents. Republicans might start by dusting off that bill requiring Congress to live under Obamacare.”

Comment | Share

Historian Victor Davis Hanson: “Midterm voters apparently understood that ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ has devolved into something like comprehensive health care reform — a euphemism for Obama’s larger efforts at fundamentally transforming America. … It’s hard to find supporters of immigration reform who argue that the Kenyan, South Korean, Czech or Jamaican applicant for entry into the U.S. should be treated equally on the basis of skill sets, education or prior background — rather than as a future identity-politics voter. … If advocates of comprehensive immigration reform are going to win Americans over to their side, they are going to have to find a new approach to the debate that they have now lost. For now, the position remains the current one of ethnic-privileging one group over another. The selfish position is the current one of burdening the host society by accommodating the language of the guest. The surreal position is that of ingratitude of guests toward generous host country by demanding that its laws either be ignored or changed to fit their own particular agendas and preferences. On matters of immigration, open-borders advocates have become reactionaries. Last week’s midterm results proved it.”

 

You Won’t Believe What the NAACP Said About Tuesday’s Elections
Author: Rachel MullenPosted: November 7, 2014
The National Association for Colored People issued a statement following Tuesday’s elections. Rather than highlight the historic wins of black Republicans, the NAACP focused on voter suppression.

“This election was not about who won but the rather the citizens who lost the right to participate. This first election post the Shelby vs. Holder decision resulted in problems in every single state previously protected by the Voting Rights Act. For 49 years, these states were singled out because they had a history of discriminating against American voters. The Election Protection Hotline we manned with other concerned organizations fielded over 18,000 calls yesterday, many in those same states previously protected by the VRA. As we move forward—it is imperative that our newly elected Congress work with the NAACP and our partners to pass Voting Rights Act Amendment legislation that assures that all Americans have the franchise—our very democracy depends on it.”

Raffi Williams is the Deputy Press Secretary for the Republican National Committee. He took offense to the NAACP’s comments charging that they do not represent all blacks, just liberal blacks. In an interview on Fox News, Williams took the NAACP to task for it’s failure to acknowledge the accomplishments of black people of all ideologies.

“There is no one way to be black in America”

Williams took to Twitter to point out that the NAACP overlooked the historic wins of black conservatives. Tim Scott was the first black person to be elected to both the House and the Senate. Scott is also the first black Senator from the South since Reconstruction. Mia Love is the first black Republican woman elected to Congress. Will Hurd will be the first black Republican Congressman from Texas. All of these historic wins were completely ignored by the NAACP.

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/you-wont-believe-what-the-naacp-said-about-tuesdays-elections/#ixzz3IgZ4y9bg

Leonardo DiCaprio’s Latest Alarmist Film Demands 100% Renewable Power
Short film ignores economics of renewables as celebrity environmentalist continues his green crusade.

Actor and environmentalist Leonardo DiCaprio continued to use his celebrity and skills in film to promote climate change alarmism with a recent series of shorts. His view that fossil fuels were the driver and mankind was responsible for climate change was as obvious as it was predictable.

The latest short film, “Green World Rising,” was released Oct. 30. It was the third in a series of four films by DiCaprio that sought to combat what it called the “scary climate problems that we face.”

In the second film in the series, “Last Hours,” DiCaprio actually said, “nearly all life on earth could go extinct because of man-made climate change.”

Scary was the right word. All three films utilized ominous music and images of natural disasters to persuade viewers that humans caused climate change through fossil fuel use and people must act immediately to stop it. The first film, “Carbon,” depicted a giant monster made of carbon. An unnamed expert who commented in “Carbon” said, “People should not have the freedom, quote, unquote, to destroy the planet. They cannot continue to be able to do that with impunity.”

Not all scientists agree on the impact carbon dioxide had (and will have) on the environment. The Heritage Foundation reported on March 11, 2014, that Patrick Moore, an ecologist and the founder of Greenpeace, testified that, “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.” He said that before the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works.

“Green World Rising” followed up on that theme claiming all energy needs to be and can be converted to renewables. (Emphasis added) Angela Anderson of the Union of Concerned Scientists claimed more than 500 coal plants “are fundamentally non-economic, they can’t compete with alternatives like solar and wind.”

If that were true, renewable energy forms would already be making up large amounts of energy the world demands, rather than providing just a tiny sliver of the total energy mix. They also wouldn’t need to be propped up by government mandates and subsidies with the sorts of government interventionism DiCaprio and other alarmists have advocated.

In “Carbon,” liberal radio talk show host Thom Hartmann, who had been in a number of earlier DiCaprio productions, praised Finland and the Netherlands for implementing a carbon tax in 1990, saying that they were “putting a put a pricetag on each ton of CO2 poison.”

“Poison” was a powerful word, but not one all scientists would agree with. Marc Morano of Climate Depot pointed out on Aug. 21, 2014, that Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer rejected the idea that CO2 was “poison.”

Happer testified before Congress in 2009 saying, “I keep hearing about the pollutant CO2, or about poisoning the atmosphere with CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and poison of their original meaning,” DiCaprio and Hartmann will need more than carbon monsters and poisonous rhetoric to convince a public whose concern about climate change has waned.

DiCaprio participated in the “People’s Climate March” in New York City along with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., according to video from PJMedia posted Sept. 22, 2014. DiCaprio told Michelle Fields of PJTV, he was marching for “100 percent clean energy.” Fields asked DiCaprio about his extravagant and carbon heavy lifestyle but refused to answer the question. At the same march, RFK, Jr. spoke out against the Koch Brothers and Exxon but when challenged to “lead by example” by giving up his cellphone, he resisted.

In 2007, DiCaprio also pushed climate change alarmism with his film “The 11th Hour.” “The 11th Hour” incorporated many of the same themes as “Green World Rising,” about the causes of climate change. It argued greed was killing the planet and was inspired by Hartmann’s book, “The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight,” according to the Oct. 5, 2007, New York Daily News.

Two years earlier, DiCaprio participated in Laurie David’s “Earth to America” television special which aired Nov. 18, 2005, and attempted to use comedy to make the case for climate alarmism.

DiCaprio, Hartmann and their celebrity and media allies have continued to make the case for man-made global warming, in spite of failed predictions, failed temperature models and other scientific challenges.

Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal pointed out that the “existing climate models (including those by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) failed to predict the 16-year plateau in global temperatures even while carbon dioxide emissions have increased.” That led Dr. Roy Spencer to suggest it may be time to question the assumptions built into most climate models.

Recently, global warming alarmists and the network news media misleadingly claimed walruses were running out of places to live and must gather on land in larger groups as a result. However, Dr. Susan Crockford said such walrus haulouts have happened for years.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers