DaTech3.jpgIt isn’t exactly a pact with the devil, but a number of Roman Catholic churches and other religious organizations have made a deal with a vitriolic, anti-Trump group that backs illegal aliens.

The group, The New Sanctuary Movement, or NSM, has been around for 10 years, but it has been pushing its agenda more aggressively in recent months. Also, the organization has strongholds here in Philadelphia and cities throughout the country, including Austin, Boston, Denver, New York, Portland, and elsewhere.

For example, here is one of the recent statements of the organization: “Trump’s campaign of hate, racism, and exclusion took the White House. The backlash of white voters was harsh and strong, and Trump’s rhetoric now has the power of the White House behind it.”

But there’s more. “The organization has launched a campaign to recruit 1,000 people to disrupt immigration raids.”

Disruption of immigration raids rather than protests rises to the level of obstruction of justice, a felony under federal law.

The Santa Clara Law Review poses a variety of problems with the pact between the organization and religious groups.

“[The] churches face numerous dangers. First, their activities could be viewed as overly political and their section 501(c)(3) status {nonprofit] could be revoked. Second, their activities are not lawful because the defenses asserted in the 1980s by the Sanctuary Movement will not prevail here. Finally, given that even compromise legislation to provide legal status for all illegal immigrants has struggled to pass, the flagrant approach adopted by the New Sanctuary Movement may do more to fray nerves than to garner support for illegal immigrants facing deportation.”

Perhaps more important, the author argues that the harboring of immigrants in churches is almost certainly illegal under any interpretation of the law.

For more, download the article at https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol50/iss3/7/

Not surprisingly, the MSM fawn over the NSM. Here is some nonsense from my hometown paper, The Philadelphia Inquirer: “…the overall goal is still big and formidable: to end injustice against immigrants, express radical welcome for all people, and uphold values of dignity and justice in practice and in policy.”

That reads like a TV commercial for the American military, with a flag waving in the wind and The Star Spangled Banner slowly rising in volume throughout.

But there’s even more. Here in Philadelphia three of the group’s organizers protested against their own leader, calling for his removal because he’s white.

Many Catholics like me voted for Trump. In fact, the vote mirrored the general election results, with whites voting largely in favor of the president and Hispanic Catholics supporting Hillary Clinton.

I don’t go to church to listen to political claptrap; I don’t think I am alone. Let’s leave the sanctuary movement to sort itself out rather than with the support of the church!

Although most of my European friends tilt toward the left of the political spectrum, immigration is an issue where they agree firmly and resolutely with the conservative perspective.

“They don’t speak the language. They don’t understand the culture. Many of them don’t work,” sniffs a French friend, who wants to see significant limits on the number of people allowed into France.

A longtime British diplomat notes that more than 50 percent of London residents were born outside the United Kingdom.

Even an Arab friend complains about those who wear Islamic garb in public.

If you think U.S. immigration is a mess, just take a look at Europe.

Demographers project more and more immigrants for decades to come. Annual net immigration into Europe is projected to increase steadily from current levels for another 20 years. This year, just over one million immigrants will arrive in Europe, according to Eurostat, the statistical agency of the E.U. That figure will reach nearly 1.5 million in 2036, the agency projects.

By 2080, these migrants and their families will have increased the population of the E.U. by 121 million, relative to what the continent’s population would be then without any immigration. The result will be a Europe that is substantially different than it is today.

For example, the number of European Christians is projected to decline by about 18 percent, to 454 million, by the middle of the century, according to the Pew Research Center. The organization predicts that the number of European Muslims will nearly double, to about 71 million.

In London, Brexit has stumbled along toward implementation, a policy that came about almost entirely as a rejection of the immigration policies of the E.U.
In Germany, Angela Merkel has had significant problems as a result of her open-door policy toward immigrants.

In France, the government has engaged in a significant crackdown on illegal immigrations. In a recent dispatch from Paris, The Associated Press notes that French President Emmanuel Macron, hardly a conservative, has launched significant changes in immigration policy.

“Critics contend that increasingly tough policy on migrants — though wrapped in a cloak of goodwill — contradicts his image as a humanist who defeated an anti-immigrant populist for the presidency, and has crossed a line passed by no other president in the land that prides itself as the cradle of human rights,” The AP says.

Interior Minister Gerard Collomb has ordered regional representatives of the state to crack down on illegal immigration, to act quickly to expel those who fail to gain asylum, and to report results immediately, according to a November order cited by the newspaper Le Monde.

Opposition to President Trump’s immigration policies may be getting a lot of bad press in the United States, but many of my European friends would welcome his approach in their own countries.

by baldilocks

Tom Mboya

When the students of the Mboya Airlift were hand-picked to come to America, it was for a specific purpose: to educate demonstrably gifted Kenyan and Tanzanian students in the Western tradition and to send them home to be the leaders and information venders of their countries—preparation for independence from the European colonial powers. One of these students was my biological father, journalist Philip Ochieng.

That was in the late fifties to early sixties and most of the students did return home. The Airlift was a privately funded endeavor by the likes of the Ford Foundation, the Kennedy Foundation, Jackie Robinson, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Harry Belafonte. I’m sure that there have been other experiments like it.

The recent tempest regarding President Trump’s alleged description of Haiti and African countries as s**tholes got me thinking again about this vehicle for my presence on earth and the concept of it. I believe it was an attempt to create an elite in the two countries – a rulership. If the intent was to lift these countries up close to the economic and social level of the freer Western nations, I’d say that it failed. But I doubt that this was the intent of the two foundations involved — though Mr. Belafonte, Mr. Robinson, and Dr. King, undoubtedly had nothing but the best of intentions.

A nation cannot be transformed through its leaders alone. But it can be manipulated by indoctrinating leaders and planting them.

In 1965, the US Congress passed a new immigration law and LBJ signed it. Suddenly, there was a flood of immigrants from Africa, the Caribbean and other non-European nations. Here came the Third World’s go-getters and risk-takers: the rest of the gifted students. And they’re still coming.

Meanwhile, back home, their friends and relatives remained mostly resigned to the old ways: kleptocracies, tribal wars, criminal cartels, monstrous pollution, deadly disease, etc.

I’ve seen a lot of outrage about the remarks from Haiti immigrants and immigrants from African countries. Some African leaders are calling for President Trump to apologize. Typical floor-showing.

But I’ve seen only one immigrant — a Nigerian — talk about going back home and making a difference there. Good luck, bro.

Most of the immigrants from the Third World thrive here and do not return to their countries of origin because it’s a lot easier and more profitable to stay here, have their children born as Americans, and raise them in relative safety and prosperity. And who can blame them? I certainly don’t.

But let’s stop pretending that they left some idyllic Trump-less places of beauty and peace. They left places that were dirty, stinky, dangerous and which have leaders who are blatantly corrupt.

A.K.A. …

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng blogs at baldilocks. (Her older blog is located here.) Her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game, was published in 2012. Her second novel tentatively titled Arlen’s Harem, will be done one day soon! Follow her on Twitter and on Gab.ai.

Please contribute to Juliette’s JOB: Her new novel, her blog, her Internet to keep the latter going and COFFEE to keep her going!

Or hit Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar in the name of Independent Journalism!

Another day, another terror attack by a Muslim screaming Allahu Akhbar and another batch of media stories about that fabled Muslim Backlash that like global warming putting US coastal cities underwater never seems to happen.

Ahmad’s question was answered.

My biggest concern is that he’s readily identified as a Muslim and then that is extrapolated out to my own faith,” he said.

In the wake of Tuesday’s attack, some Muslim Americans and community leaders expressed concerns over how their religion would be perceived and whether Muslims would become targets of violence.

Despite the lack of a backlash over the last 17 year Ahmad and many like him, according to NBC and others are still very worried, but there is an easy solution to allay his fears.

This may seem counterintutative to some but the people who will most benefit from extreme vetting are people like Ahmad. Muslim Americans.

You see as long as the vetting of immigrants is suspect Jihadist will keep getting in and as long as Jihadist keep getting in to attack American Muslims like Ahmad will find themselves suspected.

However if vetting of immigrants is extreme enough to keep potential jihadists out by definition there are less potential Islamic terrorists here, and people’s confidence that American Muslims aren’t here to make jihad against the US increases. If that is combined with American Muslims vetting their own communities for either radical imam’s trying to radicalize communities or individuals who might get radicalized online that will really change the picture.

In the end every jihadist that Trump’s program keeps out is insurance against Muslim American’s fears of a backlash.

Because of this they should be the first to come out and say: “We Muslim Americans support extreme vetting because as far as we are concerned Jihadist and Radical Islamists are not welcome here. After all many of us came here to get away from that kind of thing.”

The day such an anouncement is made on behalf of the American Muslim community is the beginning of the end of the war on terror.


As I have no sexual secrets of rich liberals to keep for a price I have to make my buck by going places and doing interviews all the time hoping people like it enough to pay for it.

If you like the idea of new media on the scene at for these time of things and want to support independent journalism please hit DaTipJar below.




Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer


Choose a Subscription level



(or you can buy one here)

A 17-year old with no visible means of financial support got an abortion this morning.

Not news, you say? Look again.

“Jane Doe” is an immigrant, an unaccompanied 17-year-old, living in the U.S. without benefit of documentation. When Jane Doe learned she was pregnant, she sought an abortion in Texas, where she is living. Disputes broke out, state and federal courts weighed in, and somewhere along the way Jane Doe was assigned a guardian to protect her interests.

The guardian enlisted the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, which jubilantly reported today that the abortion has been committed. “Justice prevailed today for Jane Doe,” went the ACLU tweet, one among many celebrating the death of a child’s child. #JusticeforJane, says the hashtag.

I suspect Jane Doe’s anonymity will dissolve when she turns 18, if not earlier, as she becomes a poster child for abortion advocates. Killing her child was worth a legal battle, to some people – more so than trying to regularize her residency status, apparently.

That’s a hellish way to become a celebrity. Whatever her immigration status, she deserves better than that.

Our country deserves better than to be thought of as an abortion haven, too.

I assume that as an immigrant without documentation, whose home is a U.S. detention center, she didn’t have money. Who paid to have her child killed? Was it you and me?

Human dignity lost today – the mother’s, the dead child’s, the abortionist’s, the abortion apologists’.

There’s surely a great deal about this 17-year-old that I don’t know. Why did she leave her homeland? Was she sent by her family, or did she decide on her own to cross the border? Was she pregnant when she got here? Did she become pregnant due to assault, and if so, is there as intense an effort to apprehend the perpetrator as there was to abort her child?

Whatever the answers, great things may yet lie ahead for her; better days, better choices.

Today isn’t a good day for her, no matter what her enablers are saying. Her child is dead, and abortion apologists are dancing on the remains. God have mercy on us all.

Alexandra DeSanctis said it better than I. “This is perhaps the most despicable thing about this entire ordeal — that justice in our modern world demands the blood of an innocent child. We have reached the point in the abortion debate where it is not only socially acceptable to crusade for the intentional killing of one specific unborn child, but where we are expected to applaud when that execution is carried out. How utterly shameful.”

Ellen Kolb is a writer and pro-life activist living in New Hampshire. She blogs at ellenkolb.com and Leaven for the Loaf, and she welcomes reader support.

Support independent journalism by hitting Da Tech Guy’s Tip Jar. Thank you!

As a longtime reporter and journalism educator, I am ashamed of my profession as a result of the bias of the media toward the new immigration policies.

From the coverage, you couldn’t believe that 57 percent of those polled agree with the temporary ban on immigrants from seven countries, according to Rasmussen Reports. Only 33 percent oppose Trump’s executive order, while 10 percent are undecided.

The news media are in a full-tilt smackdown of Trump’s policies, underlining the administration’s notion that journalists are indeed the opposition.

For example, a CNN “news” report compares the executive order to the Alien and Seditions Acts, the Japanese internment camps and McCarthyism.

I address the following to the senior correspondent, Stephen Collinson, who apparently knows little about history, and others who have picked up the meme:

–Only a handful of people were not allowed into the United States.
–Green card holders are not affected.
–The ban is temporary for between 90 and 120 days.

The Alien and Sedition Acts existed during the presidency of John Adams. They allowed the government to toss people out of the country. More important, the main complaint about the acts was the ability to close down newspapers run by Adams’ opponents.

More than 100,000 Japanese and other aliens were interned during World War II by that champion of the Democrats: FDR.

While I do not condone Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s tactics, Soviet records confirmed that massive incidents of espionage occurred in the United States, including the placement of Russian spies into U.S. government positions.

An ABC journalist posted his personal views on Facebook about the terrible stuff that was happening while he was covering the immigration story at JFK. He did not respond to my question about whether he was a reporter or an advocate.

But there’s more. Philly.com, the host for the newspapers in Philadelphia, described the protestors at the local airport as a huge crowd. There were 200 people!

CNN’s sob stories start with a woman whose friend can’t make it to a wedding and goes downhill from there.

The Huffington Post had a column calling for the president’s impeachment. Seriously?

Hundreds of lawyers reportedly descended on airports to “help” people who were stuck in immigration, according to The Washington Post. The number of lawyers would greatly outnumber those who had temporary problems. As of this writing, no one was being held in immigration in the United States.

And, if you missed it, people were protesting against Uber for taking advantage of the immigration changes. That’s right, boys and girls, all of those immigrants who drive for Uber were not properly showing their solidarity with their comrades. That one is really hard to get my head around.

Having had the opportunity to travel to more than 60 countries during my lifetime, I have experienced the trials and tribulations of immigration laws throughout the world.

Egypt and Iraq expelled me for my reporting in those countries. Iran officials detained me during the hostage crisis because I was an American. My team faced expulsion in Ethiopia for leaving our hotel without a government guide. I was interrogated in France because immigration officials thought I was carrying explosive material in my luggage.

When I taught in Russia and Poland, I had to go through an elaborate visa process. I violated the immigration policies of Italy and the United Kingdom when I taught there because I stayed on a tourist visa.

For the past three years, I have taught in China. I needed to have an official letter from the university in order to obtain a visa.

I don’t begrudge any of these countries for the actions they took, although the Egyptians and Iraqis may have been a bit extreme. A nation has an obligation to protect its citizens from economic and political threats.

Having worked in the Arab world for nearly a decade, I think it would be difficult for anyone to call me an Islamophobe. Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is there a right for foreigners to come to the United States as anything other than guests.

Despite the kerfuffle by hand-wringing demonstrators, few people were actually affected by the temporary–yes, that’s temporary–immigration policies. Homeland Security officials said that about 100 people who were already in transit to the United States when the order was signed were denied access; less than 200 were stopped before boarding planes heading to America.

If I heard a country had changed its policies, I don’t think I would get on a plane until I consulted with the embassy. Moreover, I probably would have used my visa on or about Jan. 19.

Finally, I recall when Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from traveling to the United States in 1979. Few people demonstrated against him or called him a racist. But he was a Democrat. That apparently makes all the difference.

The hysteria and the hyperbole really have to stop. But that’s probably not going to happen in a media world run amok.


Christopher Harper worked for The Associated Press, Newsweek, ABC News and The Washington Times. He teaches journalism.

As many Republicans finish basking in their victory over their Democratic relatives they only see at Christmastime, we’re looking at the final week of 2016. More importantly, we’re looking at the final four weeks of the Obama administration with new information that needs to be applied going further, particularly for conservatives.

For some of us, the future is about building on the successes of 2016 and applying our newfound DC dominance towards solving problems. For a number of stalwart conservatives who are still skeptical about what the future holds, there are lessons to learn and challenges to address in order to steer the Trump administration and GOP Congress in the right direction.

Some of the lessons from 2016 are obvious and won’t be covered here such as Obamacare (just repeal it), terrorism (do what it takes to stop it), gun rights (protect them), and mainstream media (don’t trust them). Other lessons need more focus if we’re going to have a productive 2017. Here are the top 7 lessons to heed.

Stick to our guns on abortion

The narrative of pro-life versus pro-choice has been shifted. We’re still addressing our movement with the same basic language, but the left is now pushing “reproductive rights” over “choice” because they simply couldn’t get around the idea that the baby must be considered in choices. In many ways, this leftward push towards politically correcting their narrative worked against them, but that doesn’t mean they’ll continue to lose.

Abortion is a cultural issue that has seeped into politics. It’s imperative for the pro-life movement to stay with the message of life beginning in the womb and not after birth. This stance will allow for more states to ban abortions at 20- or 24-weeks and will enable us to push those protections even closer to conception in the future. All we need to do is let science meld with emotion. This is political, but it must be fought on a cultural level if we’re going to continue to make up ground.

Democrats won’t be complacent again

The certainty the Democrats felt about winning the Presidency and the Senate left them absolutely shocked on election night. They didn’t lose so badly because they didn’t have enough supporters. They lost because in the key states there was enough complacency to prevent them from getting out the vote the way Obama did in 2008 and 2012.

It won’t happen again, at least not for a long time. They will come out hard in 2018. 2020 could be a bloodbath if Trump isn’t successful. They have the ammunition they need to get out the vote. They were overconfident; how many Democrats didn’t vote because they were so certain of victory? That will be the rallying cry going forward, so Republicans need to get their people out with as much fervor.

Free trade has enemies in every corner

It was once safe to assume that the Republican Party was the party of free trade. That simply isn’t so anymore as many party-line followers hear the message of fair trade and believe that it’s the new game plan. Fiscal conservatives who believe in the free market economy have to fight both the GOP and the Democrats to achieve the business growth and financial environment necessary for future prosperity.

Now more than ever, trade must flourish. It’s worrisome that so many in both major parties are fighting against this. It’s up to conservatives to hammer the message back in place before we start seeing the cost-expanding effects of “fair” trade.

Immigration is a winning issue

Remember that taboo of illegal immigration, walls, and deportations that allegedly helped doom Mitt Romney in 2012? Trump’s message was even harsher and it worked.

Illegal immigration is a major problem that most Americans can acknowledge. While more Americans lean in favor of some variation of amnesty, 2016 proved that it’s not important enough of an issue to prevent candidates from winning. Particularly when we tie it to the two biggest hot buttons – economy and terrorism – we’ll be able to continue to fight open borders, amnesty, and other liberal immigration principles without fear of losing elections.

Smaller-government needs further prioritization

Killing some regulations, pulling back on the reins in some departments, and eliminating most of Barack Obama’s executive orders is a good place to start, but doing so will only bring us back a decade when government overreach was still rampant. It will take a much more pronounced attack on big government to make a dent which is why I’m now a Federalist.

What’s worse is that many of the proposals coming from our future leaders in DC are pushing for bigger government. From a trillion dollar infrastructure plan to expansion of certain very expensive programs and initiatives, we have our work cut out for us. Reducing the size of government hasn’t been a priority since the last Federalist President, Ronald Reagan. We need to bring it back to the forefront quickly or continue to suffer through a two-party system where both sides increase budgets, bureaucracy, and power in DC.

Subsidies aren’t necessary for buying votes

One of the most important lessons that was forgotten by many is that subsidies don’t win elections the way they once did. Ted Cruz demonstrated that in the Iowa caucus by winning while being the only candidate against ethanol subsidies while Marco Rubio lost his home state of Florida while defending his sugar subsidies.

Now that we see this truth, it’s time to strike before everyone completely forgets. Subsidies are created to buy votes in local areas and they persist out of fear for losing votes. 2016 debunked the second part of the myth. That means we need to cut now.

The alt-right is a growing problem

Did the alt-right help Trump win? Absolutely. He brought out a slew of new voters in both the primaries and the general election, many of whom probably aren’t even aware that they embrace alt-right concepts.

Here’s the thing, and I say this knowing that it will be an unpopular statement to some who read this. The alt-right helped Trump, but they are not a positive influence on the GOP or American politics. The surface-level appeal that keeps them going makes their ranks easily manipulated away from conservative principles. The term “alt-right” is unfortunate because in many ways they have far-left views intermingled with the views that are considered far-right. This makes for a dangerous combination for any party that wants to address issues beyond the emotional surface.

2016 was a good year for Republicans and a potentially good year for conservatives. There’s hope, but let’s make certain that hope doesn’t turn into the same complacency that doomed the Democrats. If we don’t, we could be looking at quick reversals in 2018 and 2020.

Scarlet: So you just tell Daddy I’m on my way to the U.S.S.R. That’s short for Russia.
C.R. MacNamara: Are you out of your seventeen-year-old mind? Russia is to get out of, not to get into!

One Two Three 1961

Dennis:  Help Help I’m being repressed

Monty Python and the Holy Grail 1975

There have been a lot of words already written about Quarterback Colin “20 Mil for 5-11” Kaepernick’s self righteous virtue signaling rant from praise from the left, to caution from the NFL to outrage and some spectacular answers to him from James Woods and Jake Tapper but in all of this click generating ranting going on there is a basic question worth asking that nobody seems to be raising.

Kaepernick is claiming that this country is an oppressor of blacks and people of color and doing so rather loudly.

Yet one of the drivers of this election is: Do we put up a wall to stop the seemingly unending flow of people of color coming here illegally by hook or by crook, leaving their country and cultures behind to move themselves and their families hundreds or even thousands of miles to a completely foreign land?

And you thought moving down the block was a pain

Furthermore that doesn’t even count the tens of thousands of people of color who not only come here legally from all over the world every year but the even greater numbers still waiting to do so.

This begs the obvious questions:

If America is the land of oppression that Mr.Kaepernick purports it to be

 Why is there a continual never ending supply of people of color entering the country, legally and illegally?

 Why is there not a mass exodus of people of color leaving the United States for greener pastures?

I think that’s an excellent question don’t you and before you answer these questions remember we not only live in an information age where communication across boarders via email, text and cell phone is incredibly easy but we also have a national and international media that jump all over any news of American racial unrest so if America was a land of danger and repression they would know it.


If you like what you see here please consider hitting DaTipjar




Olimometer 2.52

Please consider Subscribing. Right now our subscribers consist of 1/50 of 1% of our total unique visitors based on last years numbers.

If we can get another 150 subscribers at $10 a month (another 1/10 of 1% of those who have visited this year) We can meet our annual goals with no trouble, with the same number of subscribers at $20 a month I could afford to cover the presidential campaign outside of New England firsthand.

And of course at that price you get the Da Magnificent Seven plus those we hope to add on and all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.


Choose a Subscription level



Red Oak MosqueBy John Ruberry

Muslims, many of them refugees from war, keep coming to America. Other than for the obvious reasons, the opportunity for a much better standard of living than what is expected in their home countries and the opportunity to collect government benefits, who have to wonder why this is happening.

I have some things to say to the Muslims who want to emigrate here.

If you believe in theocracy, in other words, sharia law, as many Muslims do, then America, with its long history of separating religion from government, is not for you.

Although this very recent development is still very controversial, in the United States, men can marry men and women can marry women, and yes, they have sex with each other. Millions of unmarried Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation, are sexually active. If this bothers you, then America is not for you.

Women and men in America, and teens too, often where next to no clothing. If this angers you, then America is not for you.

Dogs are beloved animal companions for many Americans. If you believe that Islam teaches you that dogs are unclean and that they should be avoided, then the United States is not for you.

Porky's Rib Fest
Porky’s Rib Fest ad, Bridgeview, IL

While not as popular as beef or chicken, pork is a popular meat choice for many Americans. If this dietary selection gives you anguish because of what is written in the Quran, then America is not for you.

About three-quarters of American adults drink alcoholic beverages several times a week. Beer commercials are a staple of sports television and are common fare on many other TV programs. If you don’t approve because Islam teaches that alcohol is forbidden, then America is not for you.

Of course in this verbal exercise I could easily substitute France for the United States and make the same point.

Amish wagon in Michigan
Amish horse carriage in Michigan

And yes, to be fair, there are members of religious groups who have lived in the United States since before its founding, such as Orthodox Jews and the Amish, who feel uncomfortable with some of these American mores I just pointed out. Mormons too. But there is a big difference in regards to Islam. The first two I just mentioned don’t proselytize–although Orthodox Jews preach to other Jews–they are what I call beehive religions. You don’t bother them and they don’t bother you.

But Islam–read your history, naysayers–is not only a proselytizing faith, it is a conquering one. But three or four million Muslims can’t overthrow America.

Yet they keep coming.

Why?

John "Lee" Ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry

Dialogue from the otherwise worthless Jeff Bridges film Wild Bill may shine some light on this paradox. John Hurt’s character remarks to Wild Bill Hickok as they arrive in hedonistic Deadwood, “This town… I really think it’s like something out of the Bible.”

“Which part?” Hickok replies.

“The part right before God gets angry.”

Is this how Muslims view our country?

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

On the last day of the CIS conference there was more interesting interviews

After his presentation at the CIS seminar Dr. Steven Camarota kindy made time for an interview:

Later on I had a chance to not only interview but say hello to Jessica Vaughn who I knew through my days at WCRN

my final interview was Leo Hohmann (whose badge didn’t match his name) of World Net Daily one of the very first online papers

Previous interview posts from CIS event
Mark Kirkorian Cis
Senator Jeff Sessions
Bloggers Mickey Kaus, Yid with Lid and John Hawkins
Patrick Howley, Brandon Darby and Bob Price from Breitbart


While CIS kindly sponsored my attendance at their event there are still quite a few incidental expenses involved, not the least of which was the loss of two days pay from my regular job (my thanks to them BTW for permitting me the time off to accept CIS’ invitation)

Additionally and as you might have noticed with 2016 nearly 50% complete our annual goal for DaTipJar is only at 19.6%

If you like the interviews you see here over the next day or two and the work done here by me and my magnificent seven bloggers in general please consider hitting DaTipJar




Olimometer 2.52

Consider Subscribing. All subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

If we can somehow double our annual goal then I would be a position to cover national events without requiring the sponsorship of the groups putting them on to attend.


Choose a Subscription level



Until that day if you are an organization or individual who likes the coverage / interviews you see here and wish to sponsor me to cover your / an event anywhere in the nation you can contact me here.