Washington Post Employs Deceptive Tactic on ‘Children’ and Guns

The Washington Post has surpassed the Brady Campaign and Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety to take a place alongside the New York Times as the premier anti-gun propagandists in the country. While those gun control groups have been known to pervert the facts to fit their agenda, a recent Post article and accompanying editorial go where even the most hardline gun control groups no longer tread.

On September 15, the Washington Post published an article with the sensationalist headline “Children under fire,” which carried the subtitle, “Almost two dozen kids are shot every day in the U.S. This 4-year-old was one of them.” In it, the author used the tragic shooting of a 4-year-old Cleveland boy as a jumping-off point to discuss the number “children” shot in the U.S. each day. Throughout the article, the author referred to his subjects as “children,” contending, “On average, 23 children were shot each day in the United States in 2015.” Accompanied by extensive artwork of the boy and his injuries, the author’s obvious intent was to give the impression that such incidents involving young children are common.

Using a well-worn anti-gun tactic, the author came to the deceptive 23 “children” a day figures by combining the annual number of firearms-related injuries among those properly identified as children (0-14) with firearms-related injuries among juveniles (15-17) and labeling the entire group “children.” As one might expect, juveniles, rather than children, account for the vast majority of firearms-related injuries.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2015 there were 8,369 firearms injuries among those ages 0-17. Juveniles ages 15-17 accounted for 6,476, or 77 percent, of those injuries. Excluding these individuals from the measurement, the average number of children who sustained a firearm injury each day drops from 23 to 5.

Not content to let the article alone mislead the public, on September 18 the Post’s editorial board weighed in. The online version of the Post editorial carried the headline “Twenty-three children are shot every day in America,” just above a picture of the 4-year-old featured in the article. Once again, the Post’s intent was obvious; to portray young children as suffering gunshot wounds 23 times each day.

Such deceptive tactics place the Post at odds with even the institutional gun control lobby. After using this approach throughout the 1990s (sometimes using ages 0-19), the Brady Campaign (formerly Handgun Control Inc.) now refers to this age group as “children and teens” in their materials. Everytown also uses the term “children and teens” to refer to those ages 0-19. Unlike the Post, Everytown grants some additional context to the statistic, admitting on its website, “Rates of firearm injury death increase rapidly after age 12.”

If this NRA-ILA Grassroots Alert article seems familiar, that is because there has been a recent resurgence in the use of the misleading method employed by the Post. While Americans’ trust in the media is already near a historic low, the Post’s use of a deceptive tactic that even the gun control lobby has abandoned should further inform readers as to the “quality” of journalism to expect from the publication.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reuniting The United States With Reciprocity

Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll Throws Wrench in Anti-gun Agenda

Anti-Gun Politicians: Blocking Out The Facts About Suppressors

For Senate: Life Begins at 50… Votes

Republicans certainly have a flair for the dramatic. With less than four working days to kill Obamacare, Senate hallways are already empty. With their repeal bill still hanging in the balance, members left town late Tuesday to mark the Jewish holidays — adding even more suspense to next week’s September 30th deadline. Even now, Republican leaders aren’t sure where their party will land on the plan from Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.). Although the push seems to be gaining steam, the results are anything but certain — as Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) reminded everyone the last time around.

One thing’s for sure: it will be an anxious few days for Planned Parenthood. Apart from Barack Obama, Cecile Richards’s group has the most to lose — almost $400 million a year, to be exact. Like the string of reconciliation bills before it, the Graham-Cassidy measure guts 86 percent of the organization’s Medicaid funding, putting a huge dent in the forced partnership between taxpayers and America’s biggest abortion business. That should be a major motivating factor for dozens of pro-life senators, who understand that this is conservatives’ best shot at ending the government’s direct deposit to a scandal-ridden organization.

Even Planned Parenthood admits it performs more abortions (328,348 in 2015 alone) than basic breast exams. That’s not difficult to believe since overall health screenings have dropped by half since 2011. Even contraception counseling, the group’s bread-and-butter, fell by 136,244. So what, exactly, are taxpayers funding? Certainly not the “comprehensive care” Richards advertises. Or even the volume of care, since Planned Parenthood saw 100,000 fewer patients in 2015 than the year before.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to change Senator Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) mind. The Kentucky pro-lifer insists he won’t vote for the Graham-Cassidy bill, despite the thousands of unborn lives it could save. That’s frustrating position for plenty of conservatives to accept. Like a lot of pro-lifers, they think the GOP’s concern for these children should outweigh the repeal’s imperfections. Susan B. Anthony List blasted Paul for his “outright opposition to the bill, and his dismissiveness of the pro-life priorities within it is alarming and damaging.” It is, they argue, an “unacceptable position for a pro-life senator to have.”

On Twitter, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) made the case for us, snapping a photo of all of the pro-life language in the bill. “These flags mark all the abortion restrictions in the Republican repeal of Obamacare,” he tweeted. That can only help the GOP’s cause, based on the support from both sides for more limits on Planned Parenthood’s biggest moneymaker.

In a New York Magazine piece this week, liberals try to set the record straight on the real driving force behind the Graham-Cassidy bill. The motivation, Ed Kilgore points out, is:

“…generally assumed to be the potential fury of the GOP’s conservative base if Republicans break their promise to repeal Obamacare. But there’s another thing pushing them toward the abyss: One of the most powerful factions in the GOP and the conservative movement, the anti-abortion lobby, is backing Graham-Cassidy to the hilt. That’s because, like every other GOP repeal-and-replace bill, it temporarily defunds Planned Parenthood” and aims to prevent use of federal insurance-purchasing tax subsidies for polices that include abortion coverage.”

It’s funny. One minute the media says the social conservative movement is dead — the next, it’s complaining we’re too powerful. According to Democrats, it’s the latter. Republicans are “scared to death of a promise they may not keep to the Republican primary base,” Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said.

Let’s hope so. This is a make or break moment for the GOP, as pollster John McLaughlin’s report makes quite clear. Voters elected Republicans to keep their word on Obamacare — seven years’ worth of words, actually. This week, I am in Arizona speaking to supporters in Tucson and Phoenix, encouraging them to get their senators in line on the partial repeal of Obamacare.

Join them by reaching out to yours — before it’s too late!

For more on the debate, check out Ken Blackwell’s interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox Business Wednesday.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Also in the September 21 Washington Update:
Lib Teacher Tries to Mx up Kids on Gender

On Adoption, Left Attacks Mich. Again


Previous Washington Update Articles »

As Evidence of Election Fraud Emerges, the Media Wants to Keep You in the Dark

If you have no idea what happened at the second meeting of President Donald Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in New Hampshire on Sept. 12, I’m not surprised.

Though a horde of reporters attended the meeting, almost all of the media stories that emerged from it simply repeated the progressive left’s mantra that the commission is a “sham.”

Almost no one covered the substantive and very concerning testimony of 10 expert witnesses on the problems that exist in our voter registration and election system.

The witnesses included academics, election lawyers, state election officials, data analysts, software experts, and computer scientists.

The existing and potential problems they exposed would give any American with any common sense and any concern for our democratic process cause for alarm.

The first panel included Andrew Smith of the University of New Hampshire, Kimball Brace of Election Data Services Inc., and John Lott. They testified about historical election turnout statistics and the effects of election integrity issues on voter confidence.

Lott also testified that his statistical analyses show that contrary to the narrative myth pushed by some, voter ID does not depress voter turnout. In fact, there is some evidence that it may increase turnout because it increases public confidence in elections.

Read the written testimony of witnesses who testified at the commission meeting.

In a second panel, Donald Palmer, the former chief election official in two states—Florida and Virginia—testified about the problems that exist in state voter registration systems.

He made a series of recommendations to improve the accuracy of voter rolls, including working toward “interoperability” of state voter lists so that states “can identify and remove duplicate registration of citizens who are registered to vote in more than one state.”

Robert Popper, a former Justice Department lawyer now with Judicial Watch, testified about the failure of the Justice Department to enforce the provisions of the National Voter Registration Act that require states to maintain the accuracy of their voter lists.

He said there has been a “pervasive failure by state and county officials” to comply with the National Voter Registration Act, and complained about the under-enforcement of state laws against voter fraud.

Ken Block of Simpatico Software Systems gave a stunning report on the comparison that his company did of voter registration and voter history data from 21 states. He discussed how difficult and expensive it was to get voter data from many states—data that is supposed to be freely available to the public.

According to Block, “the variability in access, quality, cost, and data provided impedes the ability to examine voter activity between states.”

Yet using an extremely conservative matching formula that included name, birthdate, and Social Security number, Block found approximately 8,500 voters who voted in two different states in the November 2016 election, including 200 couples who voted illegally together. He estimated that “there would be 40,000 duplicate votes if data from every state were available.”

Of those duplicate voters, 2,200 cast a ballot in Florida—four times George W. Bush’s margin of victory in 2000. His analysis “indicates a high likelihood [of] voter fraud” and that there is “likely much more to be found.”

As a member of the commission, I testified about The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database. That non-comprehensive database has 1,071 examples of proven incidents of fraud ranging from one illegal vote to hundreds. It includes 938 criminal convictions, 43 civil penalties, and miscellaneous other cases.

Heritage is about to add another 19 cases to the database. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg, since many cases are never prosecuted and there is no central source for information on election fraud.

The commission also heard about a report published by Shawn Jasper, the Republican speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. That report stated that over 6,500 individuals in 2016 used an out-of-state driver’s license to take advantage of New Hampshire’s same-day registration law to register and vote on Election Day.

Despite a law that requires an individual with an out-of-state license to obtain a New Hampshire license within 60 days of establishing residency in the state, only 15.5 percent have done so.

Many have tried to explain this away be saying those voters must all have been college students living in New Hampshire. Perhaps that is true.

But it may also be true that voters from Massachusetts and other surrounding states decided to take advantage of New Hampshire’s law to cross the border and vote in a presidential and Senate race, which were decided by only 3,000 and 1,000 voters, respectively.

Of course, we won’t know the truth of what happened unless we do what should be done, and what the commission’s critics don’t want to be done: investigate these cases.

Finally, the commission heard from three computer experts—Andrew Appel of Princeton University, Ronald Rivest of MIT, and Harri Hursti of Nordic Innovation Labs. Their testimony about the ability of hackers to get into electronic voting equipment and just about every other device that uses the internet (and even those that don’t) was chilling.

As Appel stated, our challenge is to ensure that when voters go to the polls, they can “trust that their votes will be recorded accurately, counted accurately, and aggregated accurately.” He made a series of “technological and organization” recommendations for achieving that objective.

All in all, the Sept. 12 meeting, which was hosted by Bill Gardner, New Hampshire’s longtime Democratic secretary of state, was both informative and comprehensive. But anyone who didn’t attend would never know that based on the skimpy and biased coverage it received in the media.

The hearing is evidence of the good work the commission is already doing in bringing to light the problems we face in ensuring the integrity of our election process.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: According to a new report, over 6,500 individuals used an out-of-state driver’s license to register to vote in New Hampshire on Election Day last year. (Photo: iStock Photos) Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

VIDEO: Tom Fitton Discusses Judicial Watch’s Battles Against the Deep State

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton has never been more forceful — or eloquent — than he is in the video below. I wanted to be sure you didn’t miss the very latest edition of “Inside Judicial Watch.” In it, you’ll see Tom analyze the Deep State… the Clinton emails… the Mueller investigation — and much, much more!

Inside Judicial Watch: Tom Fitton Discusses JW’s Battles Against the Deep State

RELATED ARTICLE: Hillary Worries About “Dissing” Mexicans in G20 Shirt Gaffe, Tells Huma “I’m Sick of People Deciding What I Should Know”

FRC Action PAC Endorses Judge Roy Moore for U.S. Senate in Alabama

FRC Action PAC, the political action committee connected with Family Research Council Action, is endorsing Judge Roy Moore for United States Senate in the state of Alabama.

FRC Action President, Tony Perkins commented:

“These are challenging times and our nation is looking for bold leadership. Over the years Judge Moore has proven he is willing to stand up for our Constitution and fight for the rights of the people. From working with him and evaluating his record as a public servant, FRC Action PAC believes he will provide needed leadership on important issues in the U.S. Senate.”

FRC Action PAC Executive Vice President, Lt. General (Ret.) Jerry Boykin added:

Judge Roy Moore has been a fearless champion of conservative values and a great friend to the Family Research Council. It is a true privilege to endorse him for the U.S. Senate. I have no doubt that Judge Moore will follow his conscience and not be swayed by political correctness or political expediency.”

“FRC Action PAC is confident that Judge Moore will be a strong advocate for constitutional limited government, for individual liberties, and for strong family values. Once again, we are pleased to offer our endorsement,” concluded Boykin.

EDITORS NOTE: Those wishing to learn more about Judge Roy Moore and to contribute to his campaign may click here.

Judicial Crisis Network Launches Ad Against Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s ‘Religious Litmus Test’

The Judicial Crisis Network is launching ad campaigns against two Democratic senators who are blocking President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees.

The two campaigns are against Sens. Al Franken, D-Minn., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Franken is refusing to return the blue slip for Justice David Stras, nominated to serve on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. And Feinstein attacked Amy Barrett, nominated for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for her Catholic faith at a confirmation hearing Sept. 6.

“The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern,” Feinstein said at thehearing in a phrase that made headlines.

Under Senate tradition, hearings aren’t held for a judicial nominee until his or her home state senators submit “blue slips” showing their consent to advancing the nomination.

The ad campaign attacking Franken was announced Wednesday and is running for two weeks in Minneapolis. The ad buy includes CNN and MSNBC. The ad campaign will also air digitally throughout the state.

“Franken is trying to block the Judiciary Committee from even reviewing Justice Stras’ sterling record, and his refusal to return the blue slip for Justice Stras is unacceptable,” said Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network.

“By not returning his blue slip, Sen. Franken is choosing Washington politics over the people of Minnesota.”

In a statement released Sept. 5, Franken attacked Trump for relying on conservative organizations, such as the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, for judicial nominees.

But as I have familiarized myself with Justice Stras’ record—not just his past decisions, but his professional experience and past statements—I have grown concerned that, if confirmed to the federal bench, Justice Stras would be a deeply conservative jurist in the mold of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, justices who the nominee himself has identified as role models,” Franken said.

The ad campaign against Feinstein was announced Friday and is attacking what the organization is calling Feinstein’s “Religious Litmus Test.” The campaign will be digitally focused and starts Saturday. It will last for 10 days with a six-figure budget.

“This is going to be known as Feinstein’s Folly,” Severino said. “Her line of questioning reeked of ‘No Catholics Need Apply,’ while ignoring professor Barrett’s stellar qualifications, experience and fierce commitment to defending the Constitution. Feinstein was fundamentally at odds with our constitutional commitment to religious freedom, not to mention politically tone-deaf.”

Franken’s and Feinstein’s offices did not respond to a request for comment by publication deadline.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Casey Ryan

Casey Ryan is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Sen. Dianne Feinstein who’s “line of questioning reeked of ‘No Catholics Need Apply,’” according to Carrie Severino of Judicial Crisis Network. (Photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters/Newscom) Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

VIDEO: ‘Exposing the Deep State’

On Friday, Judicial Watch hosted an important expert panel discussion on the Deep State featuring an all-star lineup of participants, including Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Diana West (author of American Betrayal: The Secret Assault on Our Nation’s Character), Judicial Watch’s own James Peterson, and Todd Shepherd of the Washington Examiner.

The panel explored not only how the Deep State operates, but the danger it poses to the nation as well.

The Mistake of Pandering to Antifa/Black Lives Matter

Antifa

I cringed when I heard fellow black conservatives who I respect on TV saying that while they condemn the violent behavior of Antifa/Black Lives Matter some of their grievances against America are warranted. I wanted to scream at my TV, “Hogwash!”

These conservative blacks on TV are merely trying to create peace and civility by agreeing with some of the bogus accusations of racism dreamed up by Leftist intellectuals. They are also trying to prove they are not Uncle Toms. I think it is a huge mistake to pander to lies about America; acting as though very little has changed racially since the 1950’s.

As a black person, I know the Black Code. It is the same as what Michael Corleone said to his brother Fredo, “Don’t ever take sides against the family. Ever!” Many blacks and Leftists believe to qualify as an authentic black American, one must harbor a deep seated resentment against white America.

Watching black conservatives on TV saying Antifa/Black Lives Matter have some legit grievances regarding white privilege, I found myself scratching my head. For the life of me, I have no idea what millennial blacks who have never suffered a moment of “real” racism in their lives are so enraged about; whining, complaining and destroying property.

Let’s get real folks. Since the election of Obama, being black is in vogue like never before. Everywhere you turn, American businesses and whites are walking on eggshells, pandering to blacks. This is an undeniable truth that I am not allowed to say out loud, especially as a black person. Leftists will verbally beat the crap out of me on social media.

My 89 year old black dad suffered “real” hardcore racism. He paved the way for these black ungrateful domestic terrorists created by Leftists’ lies.

After spending months at sea as a young Merchant Marine, Dad and the other black seaman were super excited about their much needed shore leave when their ship landed in St Petersburg Florida. Dad and his fellow black shipmate were heartbroken upon hearing that they had to stay on the ship because of St Petersburg’s curfew for blacks. While his black shipmate went on a cussing rant, Dad said he cried.

When Dad was finally allowed to leave the ship, locals attempted to hang him just because he was black. Dad’s life was saved by white shipmates. I remember when Dad was in his 50s, he met for dinner with an old white friend. I later learned it was one of the sailors who saved Dad’s life.

In 1957, blacks were finally permitted to take the test to become a Baltimore City Firefighter. Dad passed the test. Working conditions at the firehouse were horrific for Dad. He was not permitted to use the same eating utensils or drink from the same coffee pot as the white firefighters. Despite humiliating working conditions, Dad won Firefighter of the Year two times. Dad’s weapons for defeating racism were his faith in God, prayer and striving for excellence. Over the years, Dad mentored numerous blacks into becoming firefighters. One of Dad’s young black recruits became Anne Arundel County Maryland’s first black Fire Chief.

In the 1960s, an exclusive white country club offered free membership to Baltimore City firefighters. The club was stunned when Dad and my two younger brothers showed up. Dad said all the whites got out of the swimming pool when he and my brothers got in. Dad kept frequenting the club and the white members eventually got over it.

Folks, I could go on and on with horrific tales of “real” racism blacks suffered back in the day. But praise God, this is a new day in America. While Leftists claim a majority of white Americans are racist, white America voted for the worst president in U.S. history two times because he was black. I know. I know. As a black person, blacks consider me disloyal to my race for telling the truth about Obama.

Is there racism in America? Absolutely, along with every other sin in the heart of man. Is there enough racism to stop anyone from achieving their American Dream? Absolutely not. America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for everyone who chooses to go for it. Anything else promoted by fake news media, democrats and Leftist Hollywood is a lie. Pure and simple.

The loudest black voices trashing America are super wealthy Leftist blacks who could not have achieved their mega success without the enthusiastic support of white America. And yet, they are dissing our flag and national anthem. They are cheerleaders for the destruction of historical monuments and clamoring for us to throw out the U.S. Constitution. Shamefully, rich Leftist blacks are using urban blacks as pawns to further Leftists’ socialist/progressive agenda.

Colin Kaepernick is the pro football player who inspired youth across America to disrespect our flag. In essence, Kaepernick is also dissing the men who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our flag flying high.

In 2016, Kaepernick’s net worth was $22 million. Kaepernick signed a football contract for $126 million. After declining performances and him dissing our national anthem, Kaepernick was let go only receiving $39.4 million of his contract. Oh how racist white America has screwed this poor black man. I am being sarcastic folks. I could call Kaepernick an ungrateful spoiled brat idiot. But Kaepernick is really a tragic example of how decades of Leftists spewing hatred for our country has infected the minds of our youths.

Please black conservatives, do not pander to Leftists’ lies about our country in an attempt to prove your loyalty to your blackness. Only by spreading the truth will we defeat Leftists’ insidious divisive evil and unite us as Americans.

Democrat candidate joins with Islamic supremacists to silence speech in a small Iowa town

This didn’t happen in Berkeley, California or St. Louis, Missouri but in a small Iowa town’s community center.

I’m just going to give you the opening paragraphs of the story, but everyone of you concerned about the future of  our country should read the jaw-dropping account of a public meeting where Democrat protesters and Council on American Islamic Relations representatives teamed up to disrupt a presentation organized by a former Muslim, a convert to Christianity.

Dr. Glenn Hurst of Council Bluffs, Iowa, is a Democrat who organized people against speakers Chris Gaubatz and John Guandolo Thursday, Sept. 14, 2017, accusing them of being ‘racist’ and ‘anti-Muslim bigots’

Dr. Glenn Hurst, a Democrat who is running for local elected office, was the leader (along with CAIR) of the infiltrators who disrupted the meeting requiring police presence so that speakers could continue. “He posted on Facebook suggestions that Guandolo, Christian and Gaubatz did not qualify for free speech rights under the First Amendment.”

Miriam Amer, Executive Director of CAIR-Iowa, was reportedly in attendance.

This is America?

From Leo Hohmann at World Net Daily:

While all eyes were on the University of California, Berkeley, Thursday night to see if radical leftists could control their anger over the mere presence of a conservative speaker on campus, it was a gathering in a tiny Iowa town that attracted the attention of one of the left’s key allies – the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

CAIR, which was named an unindicted co-conspirator in a massive terror-financing trial held in 2008, crashed a meeting in Oakland, Iowa – population 1,500 in rural Pottawattamie County.

Why such concern for what’s going on in a place so far off the beaten path?

Actually, it’s not unusual, not in post-Trump America.

CAIR has made it a top priority in the wake of President Trump’s surprising election victory to show up, challenge and cause confusion wherever the truth about Islam is being taught, say experts on the organization. CAIR is worried that a nation under the spell of Barack Obama for eight years may start to wake up to some startling facts and discover that Islam has become the government-favored religion, the only religion Americans are not allowed to criticize.

MiriamAmer_400x400

Miriam Amer

This is all part of CAIR’s nationwide campaign against “Islamophobia” which coincides with the United Nations’ anti-Islamophobia campaign being carried out on a global scale. Cities such as Boston, Minneapolis, San Francisco and Nashville have all taken up the cause of defending Islam against verbal attacks increasing referred to as “hate crimes.”

The speakers who had CAIR worked up into a tizzy were John Guandolo and Chris Gaubatz, partners in Understanding the Threat…..

Click here and read about what happened in Oakland, Iowa, a bigger deal then Berkeley where we have come to expect massive intimidation efforts to silence speech.

When is the last time you heard about Dems/Muslims holding public meetings crashed by people trying to silence their speech?  That’s right, you haven’t!

And, one more thing, if you have people like Hurst running for public office where you live, you better get out and oppose them!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Two weeks away from new fiscal year, FY17 refugee ceiling surpassed by 2,282 refugees

Islamists, leftists, gang up against ‘Muslim Mafia’ investigators

FBI arrests Omaha man accused of threatening U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst

Senate Dems want law followed on refugee Presidential determination

EDITORS NOTE: Mara Klecker a World-Herald staff writer reported that Dr. Glenn Hurst defended the actions of Robert William Simet of Omaha, Nebraska. Simet was arrested by the FBI on July 7, 2017 and charged with threatening the life of Iowa U.S. Senator Joni Ernst, a Republican. Hurst stated, “I wasn’t surprised when I heard about what he said, but I know those threats weren’t based in reality. I want people to know that he’s not a bad guy. He’s a sick guy… What happened isn’t a Democrats versus Republicans issue. It’s about a sick individual with a good heart who needs help.” Hurst is on the executive committee for the activist group Indivisible Nebraskans and has been active in opposing efforts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Read more.

“What Happened”: Clinton Recognizes NRA’s Power, Rewrites History, Urges Dems to Double-down on Gun Control

This week, twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton released her new book, “What Happened,” which chiefly serves to assign blame to the myriad politicians, journalists, organizations, countries, prejudices, and technologies she claims caused her defeat. Gun rights supporters will be happy to know that NRA is featured prominently.

In addition to apportioning NRA its well-deserved share of the blame, Clinton seeks to rewrite her own history on the gun issue and urges her fellow Democrats to ignore political reality and continue to champion gun control.

NRA’s Power

Clinton repeatedly acknowledges NRA’s influence on the 2016 election and the broad political landscape.

Pointing out the grassroots power of gun rights supporters, Clinton explains, “The politics of guns has been toxic for a long time… The vocal minority of voters against gun safety laws have historically been more organized, better funded, and more willing to be single-issue voters.”

Recounting her first policy speech of the 2016 campaign, where she attacked NRA, Clinton admits, “Going after the NRA is dangerous for candidates…”

Reiterating some of the same points Bill Clinton made about NRA’s power in his 2001 autobiography My Life, Clinton writes,

In the 1990s, my husband fought hard to pass both a ten-year ban on assault weapons and the Brady Bill, which, for the first time, required background checks on many gun purchases at federally licensed firearms dealers… The NRA funded an intense backlash to the new safety measures and helped defeat a lot of Democratic members of Congress in the disastrous 1994 midterm elections. Then, in 2000, the NRA helped beat Al Gore.

Discussing NRA’s contribution to her 2016 defeat, Clinton notes, 

As for the NRA, it kept its promise to do everything it could to stop me. All told, the gun lobby spent more than $30 million supporting Trump, more money than any other outside group and more than double what it spent to support Mitt Romney in 2012. About two-thirds of that money paid for more than ten thousand negative ads attacking me in battleground states.

Clinton’s recognition of NRA’s role in her and her husband’s defeats should motivate gun owners in the continuing fight to defend the Second Amendment and serve as a stark warning to anti-gun politicians.

Rewriting History

Despite an established record on gun control that spans her nearly three decades on the national stage, Clinton tries to use her new book to recast herself as a moderate on the issue.

Employing a traditional patronizing tactic of anti-gun politicians, sportswoman Clinton regales the reader with tales of her hunting prowess, and how her experience in the field forged her purported respect for firearm ownership. Clinton writes,

I remembered my father teaching me to shoot in rural Pennsylvania, were we spent summers when I was growing up. I also lived in Arkansas for many years and went on a memorable December duck hunting expedition with some friends in the 1980s. I’ll never forget standing hip deep in freezing water, waiting for the sun to rise, trying to stave off hypothermia. I did manage to shoot a duck, but when I got home, Chelsea, who had just watched Bambi, was outraged by the news that I’d shot “some poor little duck’s mommy or daddy.”
These experiences reinforced for me that, for many Americans, hunting and gun ownership are ingrained in the culture. 

Shortly after this segment, Clinton claims,

In all my political campaigns, I’ve done my best to strike a fair balance between standing up for commonsense gun safety measures and showing respect for responsible gun owners. I’ve always said that I recognize the Second Amendment and have never proposed banning all guns. 

This passage is an outright lie. In her various campaigns for public office Clinton has supported the most extreme gun control proposals and repeatedly rejected the United States Supreme Court’s holding in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. 

During her 2000 senate campaign, Clinton gave a speech to the Newspaper Association of America where she stated, “We need to license and register all handguns… Licensing gun owners and registering their guns are two of the most important pieces of a real gun safety policy.” That year Clinton also acknowledged her support for a “ballistics database for all new guns,” handgun rationing, and a ban on affordable handguns. Anti-gun Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said of candidate Clinton, “New York needs Hillary Clinton because she will vote with us on gun control 100 percent of the time.”

Making clear that Clinton was not interested in striking a “balance” on firearms, during her 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton expressed her support for Australia-style gun confiscation to a town hall meeting in Keene, N.H.

Revealing her disdain for the Second Amendment, at a September 25, 2015 private campaign fundraiser in Manhattan, Clinton was recorded stating, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.” When given the opportunity to clarify her statements, Clinton refused to recognize that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. During a June 2016 appearance on ABC’s This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked Clinton, “Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right – that it’s not linked to service in a militia?” At first Clinton dodged the question, prompting Stephanopoulos to ask it again. Refusing to concede that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, Clinton eventually responded, “If it’s a constitutional right, then it, like every other constitutional right, is subject to reasonable regulations.”

Further, in her new book, Clinton writes that, “As a young woman, I was moved and inspired watching… Dianne Feinstein take on the NRA.” The time frame Clinton refers to is unclear. Would this pertain to Mayor Feinstein, who worked to enact an unconstitutional handgun ban in San Francisco? Or perhaps Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.), who in 1995 expressed her desire to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms?

Throughout her political career Clinton has shown nothing but contempt for gun owners and the Second Amendment. Given that Clinton’s long-standing antipathy to gun rights is conspicuous and well-documented, her attempts at historical revisionism won’t fool anyone.

Attacks on NRA and Gun Owners

On the 2016 campaign trail, Clinton revealed her contempt for tens of millions of Americans when she famously claimed that “you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables.” In her new book, Clinton uses similarly offensive rhetoric to malign NRA and its millions of supporters.

According to Clinton, NRA is “one of the most reactionary and dangerous political organizations in America.” In her view, NRA and its supporters are on the “wrong side” of “justice, history, [and] basic human decency” and have a “twisted ideology” that “costs thousands of American lives every year.” Those who feign shock at aggressive messaging and decry the debased state of politics should challenge Clinton for such inflammatory writings. 

As much as Clinton would like to portray NRA as an enemy of all mankind, the American public does not share her intolerant view. A 2015 Gallup poll found that 58 percent of Americans had a favorable view of NRA. A 2016 Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed that NRA’s favorability outpaced Clinton’s by 9 points, while Clinton’s unfavorable number was 19 points higher than NRA’s.

More recently, a July Bloomberg poll found that Clinton is less popular than President Trump, whom she spends much of her book berating. A June Gallup poll showed that Clinton is now even less popular than she was on Election Day 2016, a circumstance unique among defeated presidential candidates. Rather than smearing wide swathes of the American public, Clinton might do well to reflect on why so much of the population finds her problematic.

Lesson Unlearned

Following the 2016 election, many have suggested that the Democratic Party must reexamine its positions on a number of issues in order to compete in parts of the country that favored President Trump. Despite her defeat, and her acknowledgement that NRA and gun owners influenced the 2016 election, Clinton contends that Democratic leaders should not temper their views on gun control.

Clinton writes,

I’m sure that some of my fellow Democrats will look at this high-priced onslaught and conclude, as many have in the past, that standing up to the NRA just isn’t worth it. Some may put gun safety on the chopping block alongside reproductive rights as “negotiable,” so as not to distract from populist economics… That would be a terrible mistake, Democrats should not respond to my defeat by retreating from our strong commitments on these life-and-death issues. 

Following Al Gore’s defeat in 2000, the national Democratic Party made a concerted effort to downplay their support for gun control. Democratic candidates were permitted to reflect their own constituents’ views on guns and the Democratic Party Platform was changed to better respect the individual right to keep and bear arms. In 2008, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama sought to avoid the issue altogether. These proved to be smart decisions that helped make the Democratic Party competitive throughout the country.

At this juncture it’s unclear whether Democratic leaders will listen to a twice-failed presidential candidate and continue their assault on the Second Amendment or rediscover the more pragmatic approach that has worked in the past. On September 7, The Hill quoted a “former Clinton fundraiser and surrogate” who told the news outlet, “The best thing she could do is disappear… She’s doing harm to all of us because of her own selfishness. Honestly, I wish she’d just …  go away.” When it comes to Clinton’s outmoded approach to guns, wise Democrats should express a similar sentiment.

VIDEO: Watch What Happened When Ben Shapiro Spoke at UC Berkeley

Peter Trinko and Christopher Piquette went to University of California Berkeley to check out the protests ahead of conservative commentary Ben Shapiro’s speech on Thursday. Here’s what they saw and what some on the scene had to say (please be aware some protesters used curse words):

And via Fox News, here’s video of Shapiro’s speech itself:

COMMENTARY BY

Peter Trinko

Peter Trinko is a contributor who lives in the Washington, D.C. area. He is originally from Fremont, California, a town near Berkeley, California.

Christopher Piquette

Christopher Piquette is a media analyst. He is originally from Newark, California, a town near Berkeley, California.

EDITORS NOTE: Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Bate and Switch: On the Fascists of the Left

The Merrian Webster dictionary defines ‘Bate and Switch’ as :

“the ploy of offering a person something desirable to gain favor (such as political support) then thwarting expectations with something less desirable”

Bate and Switch has been practiced on Liberals and Liberalism by the left primarily composed of fascist organizations like Antifa, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, SJP plus many other similar groups who claim to be anti-fascist but are in fact the largest group of Left Wing Fascists in America. They have infiltrated our education, media and political system as Liberals which they are not.

Fascists like Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all claimed to be reformers and Liberals until they took power. This led to one of histories greatest Bate and Switch disasters. It is interesting to note in each instance Jews and Zionists were always singled out by these fascists. 

The Black Students Union with the support of the African Black Coalition and other Left wing groups have forced forced the UC (university) administration to establish and pay for an on campus ‘Safe Place for Blacks’ calling it a Black Resource Center. They are requesting $547,000 for this Center. For Liberals who supported  desegregation legislation this appalling. It is a form of apartheid to keep whites out and it is coming from left wing groups who are anything but liberal but are wearing the cloak of liberalism. Unwittingly  they are supported by the so called liberal university elites, media and Democrats.

Most Liberals and supporters of the Democrat Party do not realize their organization has been infiltrated by these fascist elements. These so called Left wing anti fascists believe America and Israel are white supremacist nations and must be punished. The growth of these groups is astounding. Unless true Liberals speak out the growth of these groups will continue to grow like a cancer on our society.

Please read this article by Melanie Phillips.

Fascists of the Left

So-called “progressive” Jews think that the major threat to the Jews and humanity in general comes from a few thousand neo-Nazis and white supremacists, while all who organise against them are by definition on the same side as the Jewish people, anti-racism and civilised values.

Really?

As William Jacobson reports here, the antifa are joining up with Israel-haters to defame Zionists as Nazis and Israel as a “white supremacist” country. This despite the fact that some three quarters of Israeli citizens are not of Caucasian origin; more than half of Israeli Jews are not of Caucasian origin either since their families fled to Israel from Arab countries where Jews had lived for thousands of years but from where they were ethnically cleansed after 1948.

According to the SJP, “There is no room for fascists, white supremacists, or Zionists at UIUC.”

The antifa and SJC are thus helping further incite bigotry, intimidation and thuggery against Jewish students on campus.

Antifa+Students for Justice for Palestine = antifascistneo-fascist alliance.

The Wall & DACA: ‘I Refuse To Talk About Legalizing Anybody Until Border is Secure’

Congressman Louie Gohmert (TX-01) joined Tucker Carlson on his Fox News program and talked about the recent news regarding DACA and President Trump’s dinner with Democratic leaders. He also weighed in on the need to secure the border before talking about granting legalization to anyone.

He noted,

“When I’ve spent so many nights there on the border, the border patrol makes clear— and I’ve seen it with my own eyes –when somebody in Washington says, ‘let’s talk about legalizing anybody’ then there is a surge. And, as you know, we’ve been having a surge in the last few years. And, Democrats like to talk about it –because they think those are more democratic voters coming in the gate. “We have got to secure the border, and I refuse to talk about legalizing anybody until that border is secure. We have got to have a wall and we’ve got to secure it. And once that is done, we’ll talk about that.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

From Amazon to agriculture, Minnesota looking for more migrant workers

Human Rights Watch spinning the news to make America look bad on refugee admissions

Top 25 most dangerous Congressional ‘Republicans in Name Only’

The D.J. Trump Network has decided to publish a list of the 25 dangerous RINOs in Congress. We have called many of these Senators and Representatives Charlie Crist republicans.

In my column New Democrat Party: The Red-Green-Rainbow Troika we took a look at the Democratic Party and how former President Obama has fundamentally changed it by forming political alliances, creating a Troika. The members of the Red-Green-Rainbow Troika are certainly strange bedfellows but politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Now let’s look at the Republican Party.

Who has fundamentally changed it, why and is it for the better or worse? Who are members of the New Republican Party Troika (NRPT)? These are questions that may help voters understand what happened during the lead up to the 2018 midterm elections.

Just like the Democratic Party, the GOP is make up of a Troika. The Republican Troika consists of three major factions:

  1. Conservative Republicans (a.k.a. the reds). These are the Grand Old Party elite (GOPe). They joined the party after the Goldwater years and have gained in power and prestige due to their unwavering party loyalty. They normally vote the Republican ticket.
  2. Republicans In Name Only (a.k.a. the purples or RINOs). These are individuals who joined the Republican party solely to win a political seat or appointment. A perfect example is former Florida Governor, former Republican and now Democrat Representative Charlie Crist. The purples do not hold conservative values, rather they change as quickly as does the weather in the Sunshine State. The RINOs will not necessarily vote for Republican policies (e.g. repeal of Obamacare). Some have joined movements to undermine President Trump and other presidents dating back to the days of Barry Goldwater.
  3. Constitutional Conservatives (a.k.a. the TEA Party). They embrace the parchment upon which the Constitution and Bill of Rights are written and signed by the Founding Fathers. This group includes Libertarians.

What differentiates these three factions is their commitment to “conservative values”, which are defined differently by each faction.

Arizona Republican Senator Barry Goldwater and presidential candidate in his book “The Conscience of a Conservative” wrote:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ “interests,” I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.

This statement, to many Republicans, defines Conservative values at every level of government. The idea of limited government as envisioned by the Founders and enshrined in the Constitution. States rights are paramount and trump efforts to impose government laws and regulations upon the population.

Here is the D.J. Trump Network list.

MEMBER STATE

1

Paul Ryan

Representative from WI

18 years in DC

2

John McCain

Senator from AZ

30 years in DC

3

Lisa Murkowski

Senator from AK

14 years in DC

4

Lindsey Graham

Senator from SC

14 years in DC

5

Thad Cochran

Senator from MS

38 years in DC

6

Mitch McConnell

Senator from KY

32 years in DC

7

Orrin Hatch

Senator from UT

40 years in DC

8

Kevin McCarthy

Representative from CA

10 years in DC

9

Lamar Alexander

Senator from TN

14 years in DC

10

Bob Corker

Senator from TN

10 years in DC

11

Susan Collins

Senator from ME

20 years in DC

12

Tom Cole

Representative from OK

14 years in DC

13

Jeff Flake

Senator from AZ

4 years in DC

14

John Cornyn

Senator from TX

14 years in DC

15

Peter King

Representative from NY

24 years in DC

16

Mike Simpson

Representative from ID

18 years in DC

17

Harold Rogers

Representative from KY

36 years in DC

18

Don Young

Representative from AK

43 years in DC

19

Rob Portman

Senator from OH

6 years in DC

20

Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Representative from WA

12 years in DC

21

Johnny Isakson

Senator from GA

12 years in DC

22

Richard Burr

Senator from NC

12 years in DC

23

Charlie Dent

Representative from PA

12 years in DC

24

Susan Brooks

Representative from IN

4 years in DC

25

Shelley Capito

Senator from WV

16 y

Readers may share this list on there social media sites here:

How to Stop Democrats From Stonewalling Judicial Nominees

Oregon’s two Democratic senators, Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley, have announced they will seek to block the confirmation of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Ryan Bounds.

Last week, the senators announced they will not return blue slips to Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, for Bounds, whom President Donald Trump nominated to a judgeship based in Portland.

In a letter to White House counsel Don McGahn, the senators explained their intention to block any nominee who has not been approved by Oregon’s judicial selection committee. In essence, these senators are looking to stonewall the nomination.

The Constitution gives the president the power to appoint judges, with the advice and consent of the Senate. So how is it that two senators can bring a nomination to a halt?

Since 1917, the Senate Judiciary Committee has asked senators from a nominee’s home state for their opinion before holding a hearing or further evaluating the nominee. Senators select “I approve” or “I object” on a blue slip of paper.

Except for a brief period in the 1960s and ‘70s, blue slips were never used as a way to veto nominees. And for much of the blue slip’s history, senators had one week to return the form—otherwise the Judiciary Committee would assume their agreement.

Senators have been able to use the threat of returning a negative blue slip to persuade the president to select their preferred nominees.

During the Obama administration, for example, Georgia Sens. Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss, both Republicans, struck a deal with the president in which they agreed to return positive blue slips on seven nominees in exchange for President Barack Obama nominating one individual they supported.

But unsurprisingly, their nominee of choice was ultimately blocked by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

After dragging their feet, Democratic senators from Indiana, Michigan, and North Dakota have returned blue slips for Trump’s judicial nominees from their states, allowing the nominations to move forward. Democratic senators from Colorado, Illinois, and Pennsylvania have not yet returned their blue slips, but neither have they officially announced their intent to withhold them.

Now, Wyden and Merkley join Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., in refusing to even return their blue slips for a conservative nominee. The Oregon duo accuse the Trump administration of “return[ing] to the days of nepotism and patronage that harmed our courts and placed unfit judges on the bench.”

Wyden and Merkley failed to mention Bound’s impeccable credentials. They simply appear miffed that the president didn’t pick their nominee of choice.

But a closer look at Bounds shows that he is superbly qualified for the job.

A graduate of Stanford University and Yale Law School, Bounds clerked for Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain—who has been called “a leading light of the federal judiciary”—on the 9th Circuit in Oregon.

If confirmed, Bounds would fill the seat left vacant by his former boss. This seat is one of 60 vacancies that are considered “judicial emergencies,” where there aren’t enough judges to manage the caseload.

Currently, Bounds prosecutes fraud and environmental crimes as an assistant U.S. attorney in Oregon, where he has served since in 2010.

Previously, he served in the George W. Bush administration as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, a special assistant to the president for domestic policy, and a special assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.

While at the Office of Legal Policy, Bounds worked on the Supreme Court nominations of Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. He also coordinated the Justice Department’s policies on intellectual property, immigration, and the rights of crime victims.

Bounds has argued before several appellate courts, and previously worked in private practice in Portland for several years before entering government service.

This is hardly a resume that smacks of nepotism or a lack of fitness to be a judge.

Now, it’s up to Grassley to decide what to do about Franken, Wyden, and Merkley’s resistance.

One easy fix would be to ditch the blue slip process for appeals court nominees and just use it for district court nominees. Such a policy would be based on a logical distinction: District court judges only hear cases from the state where they sit, whereas appeals court judges are based in one state but hear cases from all the states within their circuit.

Home state senators’ opinions are therefore more relevant when it comes to considering district court nominees.

Though the Senate has used blue slips for over a century, the practice has varied depending on who occupies the White House and who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

With over 160 court vacancies to fill, it makes little sense to allow Democrats to abuse blue slips for political gains. At least with respect to appellate nominees, it’s time to ditch the blue slip.

COMMENTARY BY

Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read her research. Twitter: 

Portrait of Tiffany Bates

Tiffany Bates

Tiffany Bates serves as legal policy analyst in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: 

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Sen. Ron Wyden is one of two Oregon Democratic senators seeking to block Ryan Bounds’ appointment to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Photo: Mike Theiler/UPI/Newscom). Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>