The mainstream media likes to claim President Trump’s executive order on immigration suspends visas from six or seven “Muslim-majority” countries, but as I pointed out in a previous column, all of them are Muslim countries, period.
All seven nations name Islam as their official state religion and base their legal code to some degree on Islamic sharia law. That includes Iraq, dropped from the second version of Trump’s order, whose post-Saddam Hussein government was nursed into existence with extensive financial and political assistance from the United States.
How many true “Muslim-majority” nations in the world? In other words, how many countries have a majority of Muslim citizens but do not designate Islam as the official state religion, and keep their legal systems completely free of sharia influence?
This exploration should begin with acknowledging that precise demographic data is hard to come by for nations where Muslims comprise roughly half the population. Most efforts to list the world’s Muslim-majority nations point to a 2010 Pew Research study called “The Future of the Global Muslim Population,” whose data is now seven years old.
Demographic shifts and the shortage of reliable data can make it difficult to say whether some countries hovering around the 50-percent mark currently have Muslim majorities. Reference.com, for example, cites Nigeria as a borderline case because Pew’s 2010 data had the population at 47.9 percent Muslim, but many sources list it as a Muslim-majority nation.
Three of the toughest borderline cases are Indonesia, Nigeria, and Turkey.
Indonesia: Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world. Indonesia has about 207 million Muslim inhabitants, with a total population of 250 million, making it over 80 percent Muslim.
Indonesia is routinely cited as an example of harmonious secular government, the textbook example of a Muslim-majority nation that is not officially Muslim by law. Indonesia’s constitution, which dates back to 1945, does not specify a state religion or make special provisions for sharia law. Indonesia does require a certain faith for its president, but it is not Islam – it is a unique school of philosophy called Pancasila. As Australia recently learned, Indonesia is very serious about the importance of Pancasila.
And yet, the UK Daily Mail reported on Indonesia’s “masked sharia law enforcers” on Monday, including photographs of a man and woman receiving 25 lashes in public for violating Islamic law by “spending time with somebody who is not their husband or wife.” A woman took 100 lashes with a cane recently for sex outside of marriage, according to the report.
Gambling, drinking alcohol, women failing to wear headscarves, and homosexuality are also punished with beatings in Aceh province, which the Daily Mail explains is “the only province in the country which implements sharia law in full,” following a 2001 grant of autonomy from the central government in Jakarta.
“Over the past decade, the central government has devolved more power to regional authorities to increase autonomy and speed up development,” the Daily Mail adds. “Engaging in homosexual acts is not a crime under Indonesia’s national criminal code but remains taboo in many conservative parts of the country with the world’s largest Muslim population.”
In April 2016, the first non-Muslim was beaten in public for violating sharia law in Aceh, by selling alcohol. The victim was a 60-year-old Christian woman.
Aceh is not the lone island of sharia law in Indonesia. In a January article, the New York Times cited a recent study that found “more than 442 Shariah-based ordinances have been passed throughout the nation since 1999, when Jakarta gave provinces and districts substantial powers to make their own laws.” The regulations cover matters such as “female attire, the mixing of the sexes, and alcohol.”
According to the NYT, local officials view the spread of sharia law across Indonesia as a “point of pride,” and see Aceh as a model to be emulated. The head of Aceh’s Department of Sharia is described as a “moderate” who thinks Aceh’s version of Islamic law is “softer” than Saudi Arabia’s because it welcomes “alternative schools of Islamic thought” and accepts “the role of female leaders.” Women’s rights activists supported the female mayor of Aceh as a progressive reformer, but she promptly slapped a curfew on women once she got in office and went about “personally dispersing events deemed to contradict sharia,” such as a beauty contest.
The Times article closes with an Islamist preacher declaring that Aceh is a “model for the entire Indonesian nation” and must “become the locomotive for the movement to apply Shariah law throughout Indonesia.”
The Christian governor of Jakarta – the first non-Muslim to hold that position in the last half-century – is currently on trial for blasphemy because he supposedly criticized the Koran, and could face up to five years in prison if convicted. The governor was in tears when he appeared before a court, not to challenge the blasphemy law, but to deny he intended to insult the Koran. A crowd outside the building screamed “Allahu akbar!” while he testified.
Indonesia is not a completely secular Muslim-majority nation. The best that can be said of its current situation is that moderates, including Muslim supporters of the Jakarta governor, are trying to push back against the rising tide of Islamization.
Nigeria: Nigeria’s 1999 constitution explicitly grants legal authority to sharia courts. Sharia is mentioned dozens of times in the section of the constitution that defines Nigeria’s judicial system, including specific procedures for replacing the judges of state and local courts (candidates must hold a “recognized qualification in Islamic law from an institution approved by the National Judicial Council” for at least ten years.)
Critics of Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari have accused him of transforming Nigeria into a Muslim nation. Saudi Arabia nonchalantly refers to Nigeria as such. It is a member state of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation.
Recent efforts have been made to expand the power of sharia courts; advocates argue that officially granting criminal jurisdiction to sharia courts, rather than only permitting them to rule in civil complaints, will protect Christians in northern Nigeria because Muslims will be less likely to kill them over minor provocations.
“Many non-Muslims are being unjustly killed. People are doing injustice to non-Muslims by attacking non-Muslims just because they’re not Muslims,” explained lawmaker Abdullahi Salame in May 2016. “With the passage of this bill, no Muslim will ever attempt even to harm, much less, kill non-Muslims, because you know Sharia can attend to criminal cases and you will be dealt with. And, in Islam, when you kill a non-Muslim, you will be killed. These Boko Haram and other groups that hide behind any little crisis to attack Christians and other non-Muslims would be easily punished.”
Turkey: Turkey is officially secular, according to its Constitution – which begins with a salute to the “immortal leader and unrivaled hero” who founded the modern Republic of Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Unfortunately, there are grave concerns about Turkey’s future as a secular state, and the current health of religious freedom is far from robust. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom lists Turkey as a “Tier 2” country, in which the government commits or tolerates serious violations of religious freedom.
Turkey’s population is heavily Sunni Muslim – 75 to 85 percent, according to government estimates. Less than half of one percent of the population is non-Muslim. USCIRF criticizes Turkey’s government for exercising excessive control over all religion in a variety of ways, perhaps most significantly by denying religious minorities the right to train clergy. Islamic religious instruction for all children is mandatory unless parents request a waiver. Some parents hesitate to request such a waiver because it would mean revealing their religious affiliation to the government.
Much of the energy for reform in Turkey comes from the Alevi Muslim minority, a sizable minority that may comprise up to 25 percent of the Turkish population. The Alevis are a mystical offshoot of Shia Islam – a branch so distant that some of them don’t even identify as Muslim anymore. They have frequently complained of government discrimination against them.
As it stands, Turkey is a “Muslim-plus” country where religions other than Sunni Islam face special forms of official discrimination, even though there is no official state religion. The U.S. government has been working to encourage religious freedom reforms and praises the positive developments it sees, but there are fears about the increasingly authoritarian rule of Islamist president Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
Religious freedom advocates have criticized (and his followers heartily praised) Erdogan for seeking to establish Turkey as a leading force in Islam, occasionally even styled as a “caliph” or “sultan.” There is little question that Erdogan has turned the country away from strict secularism and toward Islamic nationalism.
Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, Attorney General Sessions, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) concluded a visit to the border on Friday with a tough message for “sanctuary city” jurisdictions, including California.
Standing on an access road on the U.S. side of the border, Secretary Kelly began a press briefing by reaffirming the Trump administration’s commitment to border security, including a “physical barrier” along the southern border.
He also emphasized the importance of stopping human trafficking along the border. “There’s nothing the Attorney General and I want more than to put human smugglers out of business,” he said.
Kelly cited drastic reductions in the number of illegal border crossings, which he said were down 64% from the same period last year. The reason, he said, was that the Trump administration had shown “we’re serious about border security and enforcing our immigration laws.”
Attorney General Sessions spoke about the boost in morale among law enforcement staff, and praised the progress of the Trump administration. “It’s exceeded what I thought possible so far,” Sessions said.
He warned about the danger of infiltration by gangs like MS-13, “whose motto is ‘murder, rape, and control,’” he said.
And then the Attorney General launched a broadside against sanctuary cities — and the would-be “sanctuary state” of California.
“It was nearly two years ago that Kate Steinle was shot and killed, dying in her father’s arms, along Pier 14 in San Francisco,” Attorney General Sessions recalled. “The alleged shooter was an illegal immigrant with seven prior felony convictions who had been deported from this country five times. Only weeks earlier, the city had released him from custody, after being apprehended again, even though the federal immigration authorities had filed a detainer requesting that he be held in custody until they could remove him for deportation proceedings. Even worse, this man admitted he came to San Francisco in part because of its sanctuary policies.
“So today, the Department of Justice sent letters to nine jurisdictions that were identified — by the Obama administration — as having policies that potentially violate federal law and which receive millions in federal grants. These jurisdictions have until June 30th to send their legal justifications for why they are not in violation of federal law — and the state of California is one of these jurisdictions. … Sanctuary jurisdictions have put known gang members back on the streets.”
He concluded: “I urge New York, California, and other jurisdictions to reconsider.”
The California State Senate recently passed a “sanctuary state” bill, SB 54, that still awaits passage by the State Assembly before proceeding to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk.
Kelly, Sessions, and Johnson were concluding a two-day visit to the border, which began in El Paso, Texas on Thursday and concluded in San Diego at the Otai Mesa Detention Facility.
The press conference was held in between two existing border fences — a thin, rusted corrugated iron fence on the Mexican side, and a tall, razor-wire-topped American fence. In the distance, the new pedestrian walkway between Tijuana’s airport and San Diego hovered over the boundary.
Johnson, who serves as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said: “One of the main reasons we come here, in addition to learning … is to thank the men and women” of law enforcement.
He reiterated that the Trump administration, in contrast to his predecessor, had prioritized helping border patrol and enforcing the law.
“We’re not going to apologize,” he said, for enforcing the law and keeping the country safe.
Asked by a local reporter to respond to the argument by sanctuary cities that enforcing immigration law would hurt local policing, Sessions described that as more of an “excuse” than a reason, suggesting that it was driven by ideology rather than evidence.
He rejected an accusation earlier Friday by California State Senate President pro Tem Kevin De León (D-Los Angeles) that he and the Department of Justice were basing their law enforcement efforts on “principles of white supremacy.”
“It’s a kind of extremist statement that I totally reject,” Sessions said.
He also defended his recent comment about a ruling in a federal court in Hawaii that stopped President Trump’s executive order suspending travel from six terror-prone countries from going into effect.
Earlier Friday, Secretary Kelly told Kate Bolduan of CNN that President Barack Obama had presided over a “very, very open border” and that Obama had done “nothing” to secure the border and enforce immigration law internally.
Outside the event, about a dozen demonstrators from the Remembrance Project, which commemorates victims killed by illegal aliens, gathered to support the Trump administration’s efforts.
Vaught Becht of Orange County gave the administration an “A-plus” for its work on immigration and border security thus far.
“I think they’re doing a great job. We’ve got a new era. [Trump] supports the citizens. America first, and jobs first. We’ve got a new sheriff in town. He speaks for the American people, not the swamp in D.C. He speaks for us.”
‘Shattered’ Revelation: Clinton Campaign Hatched Russian Hacking Narrative 24 Hours After Hillary’s Loss
The new Clinton campaign tell-all, Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign, reveals how Hillary Clinton personally placed blame for her bruising defeat on Russian meddling “within twenty-four hours of her concession speech.”
The blistering behind-the-scenes book, by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, illustrates how Hillary Clinton furiously blamed her defeat on the FBI investigation into her private emails, Russian interference, and Trump’s supposed support from “white nationalists.”
On a phone call with a longtime friend a couple of days after the election, Hillary was much less accepting of her defeat. She put a fine point on the factors she believed cost her the presidency: the FBI (Comey), the KGB (the old name for Russia’s intelligence service), and the KKK (the support Trump got from white nationalists).
“I’m angry,” Hillary told her friend. And exhausted. After two brutal campaigns against Sanders and Trump, Hillary now had to explain the failure to friends in a seemingly endless round of phone calls. That was taking a toll on her already weary and grief-stricken soul. But mostly, she was mad— mad that she’d lost and that the country would have to endure a Trump presidency.
The authors detail how Clinton went out of her way to pass blame for her stunning loss on “Comey and Russia.”
“She wants to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way,” a longtime Clinton confidant is quoted as saying.
The book further highlights how Clinton’s Russia-blame-game was a plan hatched by senior campaign staffers John Podesta and Robby Mook, less than “within twenty-four hours” after she conceded:
That strategy had been set within twenty-four hours of her concession speech. Mook and Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case that the election wasn’t entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of the argument.
The Clinton camp settled on a two-pronged plan — pushing the press to cover how “Russian hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign, overshadowed by the contents of stolen e-mails and Hillary’s own private-server imbroglio,” while “hammering the media for focusing so intently on the investigation into her e-mail, which had created a cloud over her candidacy,” the authors wrote.
“The press botched the e-mail story for eighteen months,” one person who was part of the strategy is quoted as saying. “Comey obviously screwed us, but the press created the story.”
The book also details Clinton’s confusion and frustration with President Obama, whom she apparently thought didn’t do enough “to apprise the public that the Russians had gone way beyond what had been reported”:
She wondered why the president hadn’t leaned harder into making the case that Vladimir Putin was specifically targeting her and trying to throw the election to Trump. “The Russia stuff has really bothered her a lot,” one of the aides said. “She’s sort of learning what the administration knew and when they knew it, and she’s just sort of quizzical about the whole thing. She can’t quite sort out how this all played out the way that it did.” On the long list of people, agencies, and international forces Hillary blamed for her loss, Obama had a spot.
Elsewhere, however, Allen and Parnes provide polling numbers and other raw data that pinpoint the precise reason why Clinton lost — hint: it’s not Russia — men and working class Democrats in Pennsylvania turning to Trump, and how he simply outperformed her with white voters in battleground Florida:
Exit polls in Pennsylvania showed that Clinton and Obama won women by thirteen-point margins in 2016 and 2012, respectively. But in a state that has never elected a woman governor or US senator, men favored Trump by seventeen points— a massive increase over Mitt Romney’s three-point edge in 2012. From a geographical perspective, Hillary did better than Obama in Philadelphia and its surrounding suburban counties but lost working-class Democratic strongholds in Erie and Luzerne Counties that Obama had carried.
In Florida, Trump crushed Hillary in the suburban swing areas outside Tampa and St. Petersburg. As he did nationally, Trump did better with white Floridians than Romney had, doubling up Clinton at 64 percent to 32 percent. Romney had beaten Obama 61 percent to 37 percent among Florida whites.
Clinton also lost the reliably-Democratic state of Wisconsin, where she had “had been blown out by Bernie Sanders in the Wisconsin primary” and failed to campaign for months after her party’s national convention:
Turnout in Milwaukee, the key vote center for Democrats in Wisconsin, was off by sixty thousand or so votes from 2012, and nearly three dozen counties in the state saw the partisan margin from that year flip by 20 percentage points or more in 2016. Trump won 52 percent to 41 percent in Brown County, home of Green Bay, site of the visit that Hillary and Obama canceled after the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. Obama had won the county by nine points in 2008 and lost it by two points in 2012. Hillary, who had been blown out by Bernie Sanders in the Wisconsin primary, never set foot in the state.
Lastly, Shattered examines how Trump turned Michigan — a state that had been blue since 1992 — into a red state:
About a dozen counties in Michigan flipped from Obama to Trump, but one mattered most. Macomb County, flush with working- and middle-class whites, gave Trump more than his statewide margin of victory. Obama won the county by 16,103 votes in 2012; Trump took it by 48,348 votes, or about four times his statewide margin.
Sure to become a bestselling blockbuster, Shattered became available everywhere books are sold April 18.
Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt says that the agency will no longer be “regulating an entire industry out of business.”
Pruitt revealed his plan to end the war on coal at a coal-fired power plan in Missouri that would have been forced closed under Obama’s climate agenda.
The Environmental Protection Agency administrator discussed President Trump’s recent executive order that repeals a number of Obama’s climate change actions. Pruitt said, “Coal is, and will continue to be, a critical part of America’s energy mix.”
Last week Pruitt told coal miners in Pennsylvania, “I’m committed to working in coordination with states to create a healthy environment where jobs and businesses can grow. That’s the purpose of my Back-to-Basics agenda.” Pruitt added, “I saw today just how important this fuel source is to affordable electricity and economic development in the region, especially in the agriculture community.”
The power plant Pruitt visited in Missouri is considered one of the coal plants most compliant with EPA pollution regulations. However, officials told Pruitt that Obama’s Clean Power Plan would have still closed the plant. The Clean Power Plan was Obama’s most aggressive climate change plan, which would have required states to cut carbon emissions by a third by 2030.
Barry Hart, executive vice president and CEO of the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives, said, “When EPA asked for comments from the public on its Clean Power Plan in 2013, Missouri electric cooperative members responded with more than 300,000 comments, all with a common theme: ‘Don’t raise our rates, and we want an all-of-the-above energy strategy that keeps electricity affordable and creates jobs.’” He added, “We are encouraged to see that the Trump administration understands the concerns of people in rural America and is committed to bringing the change they want.”
While some states and counties in the US are making moves to encourage food freedom and stop the use of toxic herbicides and pesticides, citizens in other areas of the country are fighting for their voices to be heard. Take Oregon, for example. Senate Bill 1037 would have restored counties’ rights to protect their farmers’ crops from GMOs after they were stripped away in 2013 with the passing of SB 863. SB 863 created a “statewide preemption” but no protections for local farmers were ever put into place. House Bill 2469 would have also helped to restore farmers’ rights and exempted GMO crops from the statewide preemption.
These bills would have represented great strides for farmers in Oregon, but unfortunately, these bills have died. As Capital Press reports, “Sen. Michael Dembrow, D-Portland, said he’s decided to let SB 1037 die during the April 13 meeting of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, which he chairs.”
HB 2469 also met its end in the House Agricultural and Natural Resource Committee, thanks to a legislative deadline.
Dembrow claims that there are simply “too many looming questions” about GMO cross-pollination, and the effectiveness of co-existence efforts. “I want to get a sense if there are problems with contamination or if there are problems with the mediation process,” he stated. Does it really matter where the problem is stemming from — either way, SB 863 has greatly infringed on farmer rights, and it has stripped counties of the ability to make decisions on what is grown in their communities. For example, residents of Josephine County elected to ban GMOs in 2014, but a judge ruled that the state’s preemption law superseded their vote.
Supporters of SB 1037 said that the presence of GMO elements in their crops could wreak havoc on their farms — and consequently, their livelihoods. Josephine County resident Carol Valentine commented, “Our farms remain at risk of contamination because the state has not put any protections in place.”
Some of the bill’s detractors noted that very few organic farmers had reported crop losses due to GMO contamination to the USDA, while others went straight to denying that citizens should have the right to choose at a county level. Mike McArthur, the executive director of The Association of Oregon Counties states the organization opposed SB 1037 because “genetic engineering is a complex issue best left to state government.”
“This is not the proper role for a county government to be engaged in,” he brazenly stated.
While the process of creating a GMO crop may be very complex, the issue at hand is not: It is an issue of rights, and not an issue of science, though it is often misconstrued that way. Regardless of how one feels about GMOs, whether or not you think them safe has very little to do with the fact that people’s rights are being infringed upon. Real farmers are actually being negatively affected by GMOs, and they should not be effectively silenced by their own government.
FoodAndWaterWatch.org reported on a survey of organic Midwestern farmers in 2013 — and that survey found that 1 out of every 3 farmers had experienced some kind of contamination on their farms from GMO crops. Over half of them had their crops rejected by their buyers for that reason, and reported median losses of $4,500.
While no farmers have reported losing crops in Oregon this year, just because something hasn’t happened doesn’t mean it won’t.
In 2014, a GMO-labeling bill was also defeated in Oregon — largely in part due to a huge lobbying effort pioneered by biotech and agribusiness giants like Monsanto and DuPont. Is it possible that something similar happened this time around too? It certainly isn’t beyond reason to suspect that industry lobbyists played a role in the loss of these bills that would have restored rights back to where they belong: In the hands of the people. (RELATED: Keep up with the latest news on GM crops at GMO.news)
Congress wants to impose a mandatory $2,400 tax increase on all US military members to fund their own GI Bill benefits, according to Stars and Stripes and The Military Times.
What an insult! Congress does nothing to stop welfare payments to illegal aliens and foreigners but it wants to generate new funds by taxing the military.
Consider all of the money that Congress throws away to illegal aliens and foreigners in comparison to this outrageous $330 million tax increase on military paychecks:
- Illegal aliens unlawfully collect more than $14 billion per year in IRS refunds even though they pay nothing into the system (Breitbart News).
- More than half of all illegal alien households collect welfare including cash, food stamps, housing, medical care and education, costing the taxpayers unknown billions every year (Center for Immigration Studies).
- The taxpayers will give $42 billion in foreign aid to countries that hate America in FY 2017 (ForeignAssistance.gov).
- America overpays our NATO defense requirement by almost $300 billion per year; yet Congress wants to tax the very same soldiers who defend NATO! (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
GI Bill benefits are OWED to our military members because it is an incentive to volunteer to defend America, especially in wartime. The service members should not have to fund their own benefits!
Congress will not cut off the money spigot to illegal aliens, but wants to impose a new direct tax on military paychecks.
Speaker Paul Ryan’s team is pushing this tax increase and it will surely pass it if we don’t speak out.
This tax increase bill has not been assigned a number in the House yet but we have links to all of the available information on it on today’s campaign page.
If you know anyone else who would be willing to speak out on this issue, please send them this link:
A mural painted on state property near San Diego—depicting an ICE Agent strangling a Mexican worker as he sends money home—is stirring up a new controversy, according to a San Diego Union Tribune news story.
The new mural is located on the south support pillar under Coronado Bridge at the Interstate 5 underpass in what is now called, “Chicano Park.”
The location of the park was scheduled to become a new CHP substation in the early 1970’s, but protestors from the “Barrio Logan” community staved off the plan, facing off against the state—seizing the land for “chicanos” and demanding that a park be constructed to showcase chicano art.
The mural—painted by Salvador “Sal” Barajas—one of the artists who painted the first “Historical Mural” in the park in 1973 that highlights key figures and history of the Chicano movement, was commissioned by a border activist group known as Border Angels.
Border Angel’s founder, Enrigue Morones has been trying to raise the $10,000 for nearly a decade—but credits Trumps election with the new enthusiasm.
Morones spoke to NBC 7—a local NBC affiliate out of San Diego:
“Since November 8 things have changed…People are outraged, more volunteers, more funds.” He added, “We’re totally opposed to the wall … We know that the wall kills people.”
Not everyone is happy about the new mural. Some San Diego county residents are outraged—calling the mural ‘incendiary’ and ‘anti-American.’
Suellen Shea of Vista, who took issue with some of the imagery Barajas used, told the Union-Tribune: “The artist has talent, but, in my opinion, much of it is offensive and anti-American, especially the ICE agent choking the migrant worker,” Shea reportedly said via email. “American Citizens want safety & sovereignty (enforced borders) for our country. Nothing strange or racist about that – Mexico does too.”
Mural painter Barajas thinks the graphic violence depicted is justified, according to the the Los Angeles Times: “One hand represents U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is responsible for deporting people from the U.S. [and t]he other hand represents Mexican government officials, whose corruption makes it necessary for Mexicans to migrate for work.”
Barajas admits that the “text ‘No Border Wall’ was one of the last things added to the piece,” and is likely what inspired anti-Trump donors to put up the money to denounce the looming border wall.
San Diego has become the locus of the fight over President Trump’s wall over the past few months—as prototypes will soon be constructed nearby in order to meet DHS’s June 1st target date. Organized protests and violent resistance is expected by the agency—and contractors are required to provide adequate security as part of their bids.
A number of Californians have taken to social media to make their opposition known reports the LA Times. “San Diego has many parks,” wrote Carol Hamilton, of Imperial Beach. “Only one is splattered with garish posters and anti-American slurs — Chicano Park. A national shrine? I don’t think so. It’s time to whitewash it and use it as a park and not for politics.”
Chicano Park is not under the control of the city or county of San Diego—the land on which it stands is part of a state easement controlled by CalTrans, who reportedly could revoke the right for any mural to be on California state property.