‘Ultimate Success America’ Launched to Restore American’s Core Values of ‘Faith, Family & Free Enterprise!’

President Donald J. Trump on January 20th, 2017 during his inaugural address said:

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

How can power be transferred from Washington, D.C. and returned to the people?

Our friend and contributor Bill Finley gives each and every American the way to taking back America. In the below video titled “Battle Stations America” Bill lays out the way.

The best way to take back America is to organize for action.

On February 19, 2009, when Rick Santelli, a commentator on the business-news network CNBC, referenced the Boston Tea Party (1773) in his response to former President Barack Obama’s mortgage relief plan. This lead to the creation of the Taxed Enough Already (TEA) Party.

Nine years later we see the launching of another grassroots movement Ultimate Success America (USA). While the TEA Party was politically based with a focus on the U.S. Constitution and bringing America back to its Founding Fathers vision of government of and by the people, this new movement is based on a higher calling. According to its website Ultimate Success America describes itself as:

[A] Grass Roots Organization of Like Minded Patriotic C4 (Christian, Conservative, Compassionate, Capitalist) Believers.

USA’s founder is Brit Hart a former U.S. Marine and successful American businessman. USA notes:

This last election has shown very clearly that the America Conservatives and Patriots have reached the end of tolerating the Progressive Nonsense of the Liberal Left.   Abraham Lincoln said it best:  “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable – a most sacred right – a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.”

As Christian Conservative Americans, we have, in the past decade, witnessed an unprecedented attack on our Core Values and Godly Heritage.   An Anti-God, Anti-America spirit has infiltrated every level of our Government and plagued our Educational System, attempting to redefine America by overturning cultural and societal norms. It is time for “We the People” to Unite, Band together and Rise Up in order to Shake off the existing regime and help Restore this Nation to its former glory.   It is imperative that we understand the gravity of this time and how we must work together to Secure and Restore our precious Heritage.

When our Nation’s Founding Fathers gave us the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they had to lean upon a common understanding of Law, Government, Social Order and Morality. That Understanding sprang from the common acceptance of what has come to be known as the Judeo-Christian Ethic. That is the System of Moral and Social Values that originates in the Old and the New Testaments in the Word of God.   It is these very Moral and Social Values that we find ourselves fighting to preserve today.

There is a Clear and Honorable Pathway that any generation of Americans can use to protect that which is Right and Change that which is Wrong within our Nation:

Pray – Process – Participate – Persevere

USA warns:

Make no Mistake About it:   We are engaged in a Spiritual Battle that threatens our Country, our Families and our very existence as Americans.   Only God’s Intervention will return America to Solid Footing and Restore a moral nation that will Exalt Righteousness. As Believers in Christ, we have His call to be “Salt and Light” to the world (Matt. 5:13-16). We must take seriously our responsibility to put God first, not only in our homes but also in our National Affairs.    It is to this end that Ultimate Success America was purposed and envisioned.

USA is dedicated to more than just Making America Great Again. It’s ministry is to win the cultural and spiritual battle for the heart and soul of America. USA, USA, USA is more than three simple letters that have been shouted out across America at rallies and in the halls of Congress.

The founder of USA Brit Hart believes, “All it takes for Evil to Prosper is for Good people to do Nothing… Let’s get this fire started and let it spread…Lets UNITE our Base – Lets Stand in the Gap for our beloved Values, and Lets Activate as Christian Conservative Compassionate Capitalists (C4s) in Taking Back the USA.    We are an Organization that is made up of people who are Proud to be Americans.    Join us… Get involved and Lets Display the “A” across this Great Land.”

The USA must stand for something or it’s citizens will fall for anything.

Please Click Here to Join USA!

Staffer: Facebook Allowed Obama Campaign to Harvest Masses of Data

Barack Obama’s former director for media analytics told a shocked American public that Facebook allowed Team Obama campaign officials back in 2012 to mine tons of data that was collected on users by the social media site, and use it all for political purposes.

The collection normally would have been prohibited.

But because Facebook was “on our side,” it was allowed to go forth, the former campaign staffer said.

Shocked? Don’t be. Facebook is more political beast than social media friend.

Breitbart has more:

Facebook representatives told Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign that they had been allowed to use the platform in ways that would have otherwise been prohibited, because Facebook was “on our side,” according to explosive claims from Obama’s former director for media analytics, Carol Davidsen.

In a series of tweets, Davidsen that Facebook was “surprised” that the Obama campaign was able to “suck out the entire social graph” (the “social graph” is an individual’s network of friends on Facebook), but did nothing to stop them once they found out.

Davidsen also linked to a talk from 2015 in which she explained how Facebook’s privacy policies in 2012 allowed them to harvest data on friend networks across America.

Davidsen says that this gave the Democrats a massive advantage, as the Republicans did not gain access to the same data before Facebook shut off the feature.

“The privacy policies on Facebook were … if they opted in, they could tell us who all their friends were. So they told us who all their friends were…We were actually able to ingest the entire social network of the U.S. that’s on Facebook, which is most people.”

“Where this gets complicated is that freaks Facebook out. So they shut off the feature.”

“The Republicans never built an app to do that. So the data’s out there — you can’t take it back. The Democrats have this information, so when they look at a voter file and someone comes to them, they can immediately be like ‘Oh, here are all the other people that they know, and here are people they can help us persuade, because they’re really good friends with that person.’”

“The Republicans do not have that information and will not get that information. I’m a Democrat, so maybe I could argue that’s a great thing, but really it’s not, in the overall process. That wasn’t thought all the way through and now there’s a disadvantage of information that to me seems unfair. But I’m not Facebook…”

According to Davidsen, the Obama campaign used that data to target voters through their friend networks, and motivate people to vote.

“I worked on all of the data integration projects at OFA” said Davidsen. “This was the only one that felt creepy.”

See Tweets.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Between fake news and data harvesting, Facebook has no way to win.

Facebook Refuses to Disclose Secret List of Media Outlets They Are Suppressing

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

 

7 Reasons Why The 2018 Midterm Elections May NOT Be A Blue Wave

This is not a rose-colored view. The midterm elections are going to be dicey for Republicans in the House. Virtually all of modern American history, regardless of party i power, demonstrates this. Yes, the GOP could definitely lose the House.

First, here are the numbers suggesting GOP vulnerability in the House. In 16 out of 18 post-WWII midterms, the president’s party has lost House seats. Importantly, the average loss for the president’s party is 25 House seats. The Republicans currently have a 23-seat majority.

However, there is a counter case to the media narrative that muddies the electoral waters in a way not normally seen. This is pure political analysis, and things could change. Certainly some of the recent election losses are serious red flags.

First a quick look at the two exceptions to the postwar rule on midterm elections. In 1998 under President Clinton, Democrats picked up five seats. That was a second term president and a booming economy — which is relevant based on the case below. The other exception was in 2002 under President Bush, when Republicans picked up six seats in the House.

Both of those presidents had very high approval ratings; 66 percent for Clinton in a very strong economy and 63 percent for Bush, but we were a nation at war, just a year after the 9-11 attacks and Americans rally behind the president during times of war. In this Gallup chart, you can see how the midterm elections track generally with the president’s approval rating. President Trump’s Gallup approval rating is 39 percent. Reagan’s was 42 percent during his first midterm, and the GOP lost 28 seats.

So just by the numbers, it looks pretty bad for Republicans. And it may be. But numbers are usually driven by underlying factors — which is why Clinton in 1998 and Bush in 2002 bucked the overarching trend.

So let’s look at some of those underlying issues. There are at least seven fairly major areas affecting Americans that should be favorable for the President in power in a midterm election. Here they are in probable order of importance in November.

1) The Economy. Whether measured by GDP growth or job growth or unemployment rates, the American economy is perhaps the strongest it has been this century. This is a pocketbook issue and has always electorally benefitted the party in power. (Clinton in 1998.)

2) Tax Cuts. The tax reform package is putting more money in people’s pockets. It’s as if the GOP Congress and President Trump gave Americans a pay raise. This also is a very positive pocketbook issue. (Bush in 2002, from the 2001 tax cuts and, as stated, the 9-11 attacks.)

3) Obamacare rollbacks. More freedom for millions of Americans who will not be penalized for not buying a product that their betters in Washington were forcing them to buy. Again, a positive pocketbook issue, in addition to a liberty issue.

4) Deregulation. This has been going on steadily through the White House, freeing American corporations to be more competitive and provide more affordable products and services for Americans. This is the hidden gem because it is largely unreported, but it helps tens of thousands of companies and their employees, and will continue to benefit the economy.

5) Jobs and Manufacturing Jobs. President Obama said of declining manufacturing jobs that those are gone and they’re never coming back. Under Trump, American companies have added 222,000 manufacturing jobs in the past 12 months, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Obama was wrong, because Democrats have the wrong policies. This can matter in blue collar purple districts.

6) North Korea. For the first time, North Korea’s psycho leader is talking seriously to South Korea and reached out to meet with an American president. This may still tank given the brutal regime’s history, but just getting this far without giving in to extortion as previous administrations did is an accomplishment. It’s not a big electoral needle-mover, but it doesn’t hurt. Improving Trump’s approval rating could translate into House wins.

7) Hammering Putin and Russia. Despite all the Trump-Russia collusion nonsense, for which there is stil  l no evidence at all, Trump has been considerably harder on Russia than Obama, who openly colluded with Russia during his 2012 re-election campaign. He’s bombed Russian allies, extended military cooperation with our Eastern European allies facing Russia and has slapped sanctions on Russia for meddling in 2016.

As demonstrated, several of these mitigating factors have played a role in the two midterm exceptions. They will play a role in this year’s also. Whether they are enough to offset the momentum and excitement of Democrat wins in 2017 and the most recent in Pennsylvania, only time will tell.

The wild card remains, of course, President Trump — his mannerisms that turn off a percentage of Americans who otherwise agree with this policies, if they are aware of them — and whether he will modify those mannerisms. Based on the underlying attitude of people thinking the nation is going in the right direction, it is probably Trump’s mannerisms and the daily drumbeat of negativity in the media that is driving down his approvals.

The media definitely won’t change. Trump probably won’t change them much. However, he already has dialed back the little side-fighting tweet wars with celebrities, athletes and other knuckleheads.

One last wild card is the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. If Mueller finds real corruption in the Trump campaign, then a blue wave is assured. But that is seemingly not going to happen. If Mueller finds nothing more on Trump and Russia, or even pivots toward Clinton and the Democrats, that could blunt a lot of Democrat momentum.

Either way, it seems clear that a blue wave is not assured at this point — Democrat fundraising letters and media reports notwithstanding.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please visit The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube Channel.

Why Facebook, Twitter, YouTube Censor the Fifth Estate

The Fifth Estate is defined as:

A socio-cultural reference to groupings of outlier viewpoints in contemporary society, and is most associated with bloggers, journalists publishing in non-mainstream media outlets, and the social media or “social license.”

According to Wikipedia:

William Dutton has argued that the Fifth Estate is not simply the blogging community, nor an extension of the media, but ‘networked individuals’ enabled by the Internet, i.e. social media, in ways that can hold the other estates accountable.

Holding the “other estates” accountable

The other estates are the President of the United States, the U.S. Congress, the U.S. judiciary and the U.S. media. The Fifth Estate has now become a trusted agent to hold the other estates accountable.

The media used to be the Fourth (and last) Estate. With the growing distrust of the media, a new outlet was launched know as the Internet. The first “blog” was Links.net created by Justin Hall, a Swarthmore College student, in 1994. It was from this DNA the contemporary Fifth Estate was conceived. And grow it did!

Link.net gave rise to social media sites designed to provide friends the opportunity to share information with friends. This sharing began with the building of personal relationships, to the growth of like minded friends of a socio-cultural/ political nature. Today, every political party, social group and religious ideology are on social media. Social media is the equivalent of the old printing press but more powerful. It is more powerful because the friend to friend trust level is higher than the trust level between social media sites and the other estates.

Hence the threat of the Fifth Estate has grown exponentially.

The major social media sites (Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, Pinerest) have realized that the growth of the Fifth Estate is a threat to them and their socio-cultural/political narrative. These bloggers, known as citizen journalists with traditional “outlier viewpoints”, are a direct threat to them and those socio-cultural causes that they support. Therefore, these social media sites, led by Facebook, are “shadow banning” certain view socio-cultural/political points using the rationale that they “violate their socio-cultural community standards” or are considered socio-cultural “hate speech.”

When did censorship of the Fifth Estate begin?

It is difficult to determine exactly when the social media sites decided to begin restricting the freedom of friends to share ideas with friends. Perhaps it began when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and colleague Daniel Domscheit-Berg joined forces to become watchdogs over actions of the privileged and powerful.

What is clear is that since the election of President Donald J. Trump the censorship on the Fifth Estate has increased dramatically.

Why is the Fifth Estate being censored?

Rod Thomson gives two simple reasons why the Fifth Estate is being censored.

• Government Knows Best. The instinct of liberals is that government is the best institution for solving societal woes. Not the family. Not the church. Not community organizations. Government. This, of course, is the antithesis of the thinking of the founders and framers of the nation, who saw the government as the single biggest threat to a society made up of individuals.

That’s why socialism is such a cozy fit for a progressive liberal: Benevolent government, run by the smartest among us, owning and distributing society’s wealth and making all the big decisions, is surely far better than selfish capitalists and ignorant masses making those decisions in chaos.

If you prefer central government decision-making over individual liberties — which is not the words, but most certainly the practice on the Left today — then of course you are hardly going to be in favor of uncontrolled speech by the masses.

• Liberal Ideas Don’t Win Arguments. This is going to trip some triggers — so perhaps a trigger warning is in order — but liberalism generally builds its belief structure on emotions, not on rational, data-driven, science-grounded arguments. This is why contradictions and inconsistencies are so common, and why liberals are so quick to resort to demonstrations and protests with signs and placards — those can capture emotional sentiments much better than reasoned arguments.

Censorship has become weaponized. The Fifth Estate is working to expose those who use censorship in a country where freedom of speech is held near and dear. Tyrants use censorship to silence their enemies. Those who use censorship are working to destroy our Constitutional Republican form of government. They don’t want to be held accountable.

RELATED ARTICLE: 2 Simple Reasons Why The American Left Instinctively Seeks Censorship

VIDEO: House Intelligence Committee Democrats responsible for ‘over 100 leaks’ to the media

Jessie Waters interviewed U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA) about closing down their investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election. During the interview (see below video) Rep. Nunes states:

Jesse Watters: Congressman Schiff has been accused of leaking a lot. Have you found that to be true?

Devin Nunes: Well we have over 100 leaks from our committee. Over 100 leaks that didn’t come from the Republican side. So it had to come from the Democratic side. We can’t pin it on a particular member or staff but there’s over 100.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s Personal Lawyer Calls for an End to Russia Probe After McCabe Firing

Peter Strzok Texts Reveal FBI Investigators Missed Clinton Emails Marked Classified.

Votem joins with Department of Homeland Security to Stop Election Fraud

CLEVELAND, Ohio /PRNewswire/ — Votem is proud to announce its participation in the Department of Homeland Security’s Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) for the Election Infrastructure Subsector. The Council, which is a cooperative effort between the DHS, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), The National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), and state and local election officials, will facilitate joint engagement between public and private entities to coordinate efforts to make voting the United States’ voting infrastructure as secure as possible.

The SCC will also be comprised of private sector companies, including Votem, that have an interest in making American elections more secure and threat-resistant.  Votem is joined in the council by 23 other companies, ranging from elections providers to major publications, that have a stake in the success and betterment of domestic elections.

Votem’s membership on the SCC will offer the company the unique opportunity to weigh in on the most prescient security issues facing the U.S.’s election infrastructure, including questions of how to prevent meddling in the upcoming 2018 Midterms.

“Votem is honored to be a founding member of the Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) which was formed to defend the U.S. elections infrastructure. We believe that the SCC, in conjunction with the Government Coordinating Council (GCC), will help usher in an era of unprecedented security in our elections.” – Votem CEO Pete Martin

About Votem

Votem is a blockchain mobile voting platform enabling citizens around the world to easily vote online with a level of verifiability, accessibility, security and transparency that does not currently exist. Founded in 2014 by CEO, Pete Martin, Votem’s mission is to change the way people vote and believes that mobile voting will lead to positive change in the world by providing voters with complete transparency, thus shaping the future of democracy. Having conducted nine elections for both private and public clients, Votem has received praise and accolades from various institutions including the Cleveland Technology Awards and OHTech Best of Tech Awards.

The mobile voting platform is in its public pre-sale of Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (SAFT) for its VAST tokens that is currently only open to accredited investors. The public pre-sale is scheduled to close on March 29th,2018.

Did the Republicans really blow it in Pennsylvania?

I recognize the election for the House seat in Pennsylvania’s District 18 hasn’t been certified, but I’ve been sifting through the vote data produced thus far:

Source: New York Times

It seems rather obvious to me that the real person who cost Rick Saccone votes was Libertarian Drew Miller.

Here is another example of how people waste their votes and open the door for an opposing party. Had the Miller votes gone to Saccone, he would have won hands down. Instead, they have put a Democrat in the driver’s seat.

The other thing I’m having a problem with is how the press claims Donald Trump won District 18 handily in 2016. To quote the New York Times,

“In 2016, Mr. Trump won the district by double digits, but the race between Conor Lamb, a moderate Democrat, and Rick Saccone, a Republican, had become unexpectedly competitive.”

I would like to know where they got their data to make this claim. I’ve searched the Internet high and low looking for such data, including Pennsylvania’s Board of Elections and a variety of media sources, none of which report results based on District, only by counties. District 18 consists of the following counties:

Source: Politico

The problem here, unfortunately, is only a portion of Allegheny County is in District 18, not the whole county, thereby muddying the waters as to who actually won the district.

In other words, I am skeptical of the media when they claim Mr. Trump won by double digits. Prove it.

According to the County records, Mrs. Clinton won the area handily, and if we compare the data to yesterday’s votes, the Republicans actually made a good showing.

So why would the main stream media, make such a claim?

Could it be they are suggesting the Democrats have a ground-swell of support coming in November, or a “Blue Tide rising”? That would imply there is collusion between the Democrats and the news media. “Collusion” – whoops, there is that word again. Oh my.

Keep the Faith!

RELATED ARTICLES:

BREAKING: Paul Ryan’s PAC Elected Democrat Conor Lamb – Big League Politics

7 Big Takeaways From That Special Election in Pennsylvania

EDITORS NOTE: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Candidate for Los Angeles County Sheriff Supports 2nd Amendment, wants politics out of law enforcement

LOS ANGELES, CA /PRNewswire/ — Bob Lindsey, a thirty-two-year veteran and honorably retired Commander of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, announced his 2018 Campaign for Sheriff of Los Angeles County last year. While he has indicated some of his positions on the campaign trail, Candidate Lindsey has decided to restate and clarify several of his positions on key issues relevant to county citizens who will vote in the primary scheduled for June 5, 2018. He’s running on the principal position of, “Let’s get politics out of law enforcement.”

Lindsey says, “By the Sheriff’s Department’s own records, during the last five years, some crimes have increased dramatically1. I feel the Sheriff’s Department’s morale has significantly declined, and for the first time in more than twenty years, the Department’s budget is imbalanced, with the county facing an unprecedented more than $200 million deficit. I intend to resolve these issues and many more.”

Bob Lindsey is an advocate for the Second Amendment, a constitutional right that protects citizens from crime, and tyranny in government by allowing citizens the right to bear arms to protect themselves under times of duress. He says, “There’s a reason our forefathers made the right to bear arms the Second Amendment versus the hundredth. While I am not an advocate of violence, unlawful use of firearms, or terrorism of any kind, I stand behind this amendment because it provides freedom of choice, balance of power, and a commitment to preservation of our total society, not just its parts.”

States that allow non-criminal, mentally stable citizens the right to bear arms through lawful CCW [legal concealed carry license] issuance have significantly lower crime rates2. “If an assailant knows it is possible citizens are carrying guns he or she is much less likely to pursue the crime,” Lindsey says. “Continuing to deny law-abiding citizens access to exercise this inalienable right only serves to undermine the principles of democracy and the labor, foresight, and ingenuity of our forefathers. The national crisis within schools across America suggests a need for programs that equip educators with the resources, training, and skills necessary to protect themselves and our students in hostile environments where they might otherwise perish.”

Candidate Lindsey also plans to implement fair and equitable law-enforcement practices for businesses irrespective of industry. California legalized medical cannabis back in 1996.  As of January 1st, 2018 California legalized adult recreational use of cannabis. According to Lindsey, “Legal cannabis businesses and collectives are currently subject to discrimination, lack of support, and push-back from the Sheriff’s Department. I advocate that the Department must instead act in partnership with the cannabis industry and support the establishment of standards and regulations to serve and protect under the guidelines and mutual covenants agreed upon by all.”

Bob Lindsey is prepared to restore trust by bridging the gap between law enforcement, government, underserved communities, businesses, industries, and the public. “It sickens me to witness the current administration’s lack of commitment in upholding sworn responsibility by instead pursuing private agendas that breach public trust,” said Lindsey. Los Angeles County is home to 10.2 million residents. He concludes, “We must return power to the people and cannot run the risk of leaving the safety of ourselves and our families in the hands of irresponsible leadership.” Bob Lindsey was born and raised in Los Angeles and is committed to preserving it by serving the diverse people that color and breathe life into its landscape.

Bob Lindsey welcomes and encourages the public to join him in his campaign.  Please visit:

https://sheriffboblindsey.com
https://www.facebook.com/BobForLASheriff/
https://twitter.com/BobForLASheriff (this is listed incorrectly on his media kit)
https://www.instagram.com/bobforlasheriff/
https://www.youtube.com/c/BobLindseyForLosAngelesCountySheriff

RELATED ARTICLE: Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Bob Lindsey, a retired Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department commander. (Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

Revolutionary Approach to GOTV Provides 25% Increase in Voters

LOUISVILLE, Ky.March 13, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — In 1980, the English new wave band The Bugglesreleased their iconic song “Video Killed the Radio Star” in the height of the Cold War between the United States and Russia.  The hit track celebrated the evolution of a newer technology over its obsolete predecessor.  At a time when Russian hacking and political influence has us questioning how to get better informed Americans to the polls, a unique technology firm is turning politics on its head – and everyone in the world of political campaigns is taking notice.

A firm known as ‘El Toro‘ out of Louisville, Kentucky is revolutionizing programmatic media through its patented approach of matching physical addresses to IP addresses, allowing clients to effectively target voters in their homes and on their devices where they live.  While campaign hacks debate whether or not political television ads are dead, is this new technology the silver bullet to actually kill this campaign dinosaur?  The results of this case study might certainly lead you to that conclusion.

In this real-life scenario, the client was a municipal organization in a southwest Ohio county.   The campaign, managed by the Ohio firm Burges & Burges Strategists, had identified a group of high fidelity voters who had a 72.77% likelihood to vote – those who had voted in 2 or more of the last 4 similar elections – and launched a get-out-the-vote (GOTV) campaign aiding a ballot measure on behalf of Ohio’s Montgomery County Health & Human Services.  So dire was the need for a win, its very success would secure the continuation of numerous programs serving tens of thousands of citizens with developmental disabilities, homebound seniors, and children in foster care – as well as helping the county fight infectious diseases and drug abuse.

The County needed to increase their specifically targeted voter turnout for a ballot measure in order for voters to reauthorize a $55 million tax levy – at a time when tax issues were historically unpopular.   El Toro needed to heavily target the County’s high-fidelity voters and influence them to vote in favor of the measure.

El Toro’s Approach

Nearly 108,000 homes were identified as part of the voter segment.  These voter homes were split into two groups:  a control group which consisted of about 45,500 voters and a targeted group which was approximately 62, 500.  The target group was delivered 2.2 million display and video advertisements during the four weeks leading up to election day.  The control group did not receive any IP-targeted ads.

Campaign Results

The target group had an incredible 91% election turnout compared to the control group turnout of 73%.  This 18-point, or 25% increase, in turnout was made possible by using precise digital political targeting.  At a cost of less than $4 for each of the 11,500 incremental votes received, these results were 14.5-times more cost effective than the expected cost per incremental vote (Stratmann). “From my observation and study of these methods, delivering messages to voters with such razor-sharp precision and effectiveness has never been easier,” said University of Louisville political science professor Jason Gainous, Ph.D.  “El Toro might have possibly cracked the code.”

So successful was the campaign, Burges & Burges has submitted the GOTV strategy results to the American Association for Political Consultants (AAPC) for their 2018 annual Pollie Awards.  “The dramatic influence in critical GOTV voter turnout was impressive,” said Dorigen Cowling, Senior Consultant at Burges & Burges.  “El Toro really bowled us over with their incredible results, and our client couldn’t be happier with their success.”

So confident is El Toro about delivering similar results for other political and issue campaigns, they are offering a money-back guarantee for any GOTV campaign of over $100,000.  If El Toro doesn’t increase turnout among targeted voters by at least 5%, they’ll give 50 percent of the total spend back to the campaign.  That’s confidence you can take to the bank – or better yet, to the polls.

About El Toro

El Toro is revolutionizing programmatic media through its patented approach of matching physical addresses to IP addresses, allowing clients to effectively target consumers.  The El Toro system is 100% cookie-free and its proprietary approach connects with real people at an unparalleled accuracy, eliminating ad fraud.  With a 95% or greater confidence level, El Toro is the premier choice for digital advertising.  Information on El Toro’s money-back guarantee can be found at http://www.eltoro.com/political-guarantee-lander/.

VIDEO: What Trump Meeting With Kim Jong Un Says About Trump’s North Korea Strategy

The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano appeared on Fox News early Friday to discuss with anchor Heather Childers the announcement that President Donald Trump will meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in May. Watch the video or read this lightly edited transcript of that conversation.

Heather Childers: Well, here now to react, senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation and foreign policy expert James Carafano. Thank you so much for joining us this morning on this, really, the heels of this amazing news last night. What did you think when it first came out?

James Carafano: I thought it was predictable. We know a couple of things about Trump. One, is we know he likes to meet with leaders, particularly his competitors, and size them up. It’s a Trumpian thing he does.

We also know he’s actually really good at these meetings. He’s had many of them, and he actually does very, very well.

And most importantly, what this shows is what a lot of us have been saying all along: This was not a crisis spinning out of control. The United States wasn’t getting ready to pre-emptively attack North Korea. That maximum pressure, it was the right policy, and the president was right to stick with it.

Childers: Yeah, and that’s what is interesting, one of many things, talking about how people were just going the complete opposite direction. Let’s take a look at this timeline from North Korea and the launch they’ve had in some of their nuclear tests. Going from Feb. 12 in 2017, that was their first test during President Trump’s administration. Then, their last was on Nov. 28, 2017. That was their last [intercontinental ballistic missile] test. People said, people that are against President Trump, said that he is driving us straight towards war, and now we have this.

Carafano: Yeah, well, it’s cause they’re idiots. Look, I mean, the reality is maximum pressure is exactly the right strategy. Missile deterrence, nuclear deterrence, conventional deterrence with our allies, heavy sanctioning, these keep Kim from becoming a more serious threat.

Now, I think we have to be honest. We don’t know why Kim does what he does. Maximum pressure’s a strategy to keep him from being a threat. It doesn’t necessarily drive how he chooses to negotiate. So, we don’t know where this is going, but I think the critics have basically just reflexively attacked the administration for saying, “Well, they’ve absolutely no idea what they’re doing.” I mean, they really ought to start having second thoughts.

Childers: South Korea’s national security adviser in the announcement [Thursday], he gave President Trump credit for the maximum pressure, the increased sanctions. Do you think people here in our country will do the same?

Carafano: Well, again, I don’t know what drove Kim to do this. Here’s what that announcement by the South Korean leader shows. President Trump has done a tremendous job binding the alliance of U.S., Japan, and South Korea in holding a stiff face to North Korea. That is an accomplishment of the United States and an accomplishment of the statesman, and he ought to get credit for that.

Childers: Well, no sitting U.S. president, from what I understand, has ever met a North Korean president. This is the first world leader that Kim Jong Un will have met at all. Now, he hasn’t traveled outside of North Korea. Where do you think that they’ll have this meeting?

Carafano: Well, the logical place to have it would be in the demilitarized zone, the DMZ. I was actually stationed in Korea when I was in the Army, drove up there, saw the demilitarized zone. It’s the only logical place. It’s unlikely that Kim would want to leave the country. It’s also incredibly unlikely the United States would want to go to Pyongyang. So, that would be my guess.

Childers: Yeah, and definitely still taking precautions. As Griff Jenkins was just telling us, the president tweeting out [Thursday] that they will also have this missile freeze during this time period until May when they have this meeting. Hopefully, it does happen.

Carafano: The most important thing is that the U.S. policy and strategy is maximum pressure stays in place until North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat to the United States or its allies.

Childers: Yeah, I mean, just give it a chance. The people already last night, some of the people against President Trump saying, “There’s no way that he will be prepared to have this meeting.” Give it a chance.

Carafano:  They’re just yahoos.

Childers:  Yeah, all right, James, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.

COMMENTARY BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pence: Kim Jong Un Wants to Talk Because Trump Stood Firm

U.S. Must Be Wary as It Pursues Engagement With North Korea

No Blue Texas Wave: Ted Cruz Received More Votes than Entire Democrat Turnout

Ever since Trump’s election, the mainstream media has done everything it could to paint the picture of a nation uniting behind the Democrats, solid in local election after local election in rejecting the President and his agenda. This led them to construct the fiction of a “blue wave” even in Texas, but Texas voters have refused to cooperate. Not only was Ted Cruz overwhelmingly renominated in the Republican primary, but he received more votes than the number of people who voted in the Democrat primary. Democrats better start reckoning with the possibility of a “red wave” that continues to work to take this country back.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX)

“No Blue Texas Wave: Ted Cruz Received More Votes than Entire Democrat Turnout,” by Bob Price, Breitbart, March 7, 2018:

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) received more votes in the 2018 Republican Primary election than the entire turnout of voters in the Democratic Primary. The results shed a new perspective on the media-hyped “blue wave” stories from the weeks leading up to election day.

In the Republican Primary of 2018, Senator Cruz received 1,317,450 votes in a race with four challengers. His Democrat opponent, U.S. Representative Beto O’Rourke only received 641,311 votes against two opponents.

Figures from the Secretary of State’s office show that just over one million voters turned out in the Democratic Primary in general across Texas. Cruz alone exceeded the entire Democratic voter turnout by nearly 300,000 votes.

Last week, Texas Secretary of State Spokesman Sam Tayler told Breitbart Texas that in normal gubernatorial primary elections, about 10 percent of registered voters turn out in the Republican primary and five percent in the Democratic primary. At that time, he predicted, based on early voting numbers, that Democrats would match the Republican’s 10 percent turnout. Instead, Democrats fell short on election day. Republican voters slightly exceeded their normal voter turnout with about 11 percent of registered voters coming to their polls. Democrats also raised their turnout, but only to 6.8 percent arrived.

The race for Texas Governor yielded similar numbers. Governor Greg Abbott received 1,392,294 votes in a field of three candidates while the Democrats split among nine. Just over one million voters cast their ballots in the Democratic gubernatorial race. Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez received 436,658 votes while her main opponent, Houston businessman Andrew White received 278,702 votes. The two Democrats will face off in a May 22 runoff.

In the leadup to election day, media outlets hyped the early voting turnout numbers as a harbinger of doom for Texas Republicans.

On Tuesday, CNN asked in a headline, “Can a Blue Wave Take Down Ted Cruz in Texas?” Fourteen hours later, the network answered it’s own question. “Democrat Turnout Could Signal a Blue Wave in November — But Not in Texas,” the new headline stated.

The Dallas Morning News also questioned the legitimacy of the Texas blue wave. The newspaper asked in a headline, “Breaking Down the Texas Primaries: How Real is the Democrats’ Blue Wave?”

There is still cause for concern for Texas Republicans. Democrats increased their gubernatorial election year turnout by nearly 40 percent over 2014 numbers. This added nearly 300,000 Democratic voters to their database which will be used for efforts to turn out voters in November….

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats’ blue wave won’t reach shore in Texas in 2018

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. The featured image is of a Texas Democrats sign hanging on a podium at a Democratic watch party following the Texas primary election, Tuesday, March 6, 2018, in Austin, Texas. AP Photo/Eric Gay. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

Progressive Activists Look to Courts to Undermine the Electoral College

Having failed to generate enough support to abolish the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment, the institution’s detractors are now looking to the courts to upend it.

A new lawsuit, spearheaded by Harvard University law professor Lawrence Lessig and filed in four states, charges that the “winner-take-all” element of how states divvy up their Electoral College votes is unconstitutional.

The District of Columbia and 48 states use this winner-take-all system.

The only exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which use a proportional allocation of votes.

“Under the winner-take-all system, U.S. citizens have been denied their constitutional right to an equal vote in presidential elections,” said David Boies, an attorney who represented former Vice President Al Gore in the contested 2000 election and is leading the current litigation against the Electoral College. “This is a clear violation of the principle of one person, one vote.”

A number of similar lawsuits have been filed in the past, but all have failed.

According to Ballot Access News, the biggest impediment to overturning the winner-take-all system is Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which says, “Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

This gives states a great deal of leeway in how they choose their Electoral College process.

It is unfortunate to see yet another attempt to end a presidential election system that has been a model of stability and success for hundreds of years.

In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, in which President Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College while losing the national popular vote, there were widespread calls to upend America’s 2-century-old electoral system.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder said “we have to just abolish the Electoral College” in an interview with “Real Time” host Bill Maher.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also took aim at the Electoral College, telling a group of students in an interview that it is the one thing she’d change about the Constitution while admitting that it would be hard to do.

National Popular Vote, an organization dedicated to moving America away from the current Electoral College process, has worked toward eliminating the Electoral College through an amendment to the Constitution or a state compact.

But these calls for what would be a radical change are misguided.

The Founders designed the Electoral College to give Americans a stable presidential succession process as well as preserve the principle of federalism.

It ensures that the diverse perspectives of people in states across the nation, not just those living in the most populous ones like California and Texas, have a voice in determining who will be the president.

Though many Americans see pure democracy as an unqualified blessing, the Founding Fathers had reservations. They created our republican system of government with a certain amount of democratic control, but with checks on pure majoritarianism.

As Heritage Foundation legal expert Hans von Spakovsky wrote in a paper on the Electoral College:

“In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule.”

Our Electoral College system has become more democratic over time, with all states relying on a popular vote to select electors rather than state legislatures. Yet, we have kept the vital elements of federalism intact.

Despite the constant calls to give the Electoral College the boot, it continues to be a highly successful and useful means of choosing presidents.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote

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

An Open Letter to the Republican Party by a Former Soviet Defense Attorney

The November 2018 election will be critical in deciding the future course of the American Republic. The Republican Party has a Golden opportunity to expose the DNC for what it really is by investigating the Obama/Putin Alliance, researched in my books, and the dreadful consequences of it that America faces in 2018.

All troubles we are witnessing today came to us as a result of the Obama/Putin Alliance systematic distraction and destruction of the country:

  1. Robert Mueller’s indictment of 13 Russian trolls is the tip of the iceberg: thousands of the KGB’s political operatives entered American soil due to the Obama/Putin Alliance to interfere and disrupt all strata of our society. We are dealing today with the “ Axis of Evil, coordinated by Russia.
  2. The growing national debates on guns is part of the Obama/Putin Alliance, yet no one has connected the horrifying issue of attacking our children to the Axis of Evil, run by the Russian KGB Government.
  3. We are at war, an asymmetrical war with multiple fronts, and a variety of different shapes, forms, methods, and tricks waged against the American Republic by the Russian Intelligence—Putin plays a global chess-game. To solve our problems and win that war awareness of the enemy is crucial and knowledge of the KGB is imperative. See www.simonapipko1.com
  4. All problems of the FBI and our Intel are derived from the lack of authentic knowledge of our foremost enemy—the Russian KGB Government. The Obama/Putin Alliance has achieved a definite “success” by paralyzing our Law Enforcement and Intel, politicizing both, as a way of transforming our American capitalist economy to a socialist one, openly implemented by Obama. See my columns at www.drrichswier.com/author/spipko/.
  5. Socialist/Communist ideology failed in the 20th century; people now know that it is not working. The Russian KGB Government is changing their tune, fooling and deceiving you by inventing Crony Capitalism. In fact, Russia imitating the German regime of 1933 and establishing the political ideology of Soviet Fascism in Russia and spreading it across the world…
  6. While watching the so-called Steele Trump/Dossier document on TV, it did not take me even ten seconds to realize that it was Russian “fallshivka” –a fraud in front of me. Everything in the Dossier exposed the KGB’s imprint: an arrogant manner of presentation, method and character with an aggressive and salacious tone to denigrate President Trump, the Republican Party, and to influence American opinion. It was a vivid picture of the incredible dirt on Trump, a typical Stalin legacy of demonizing and attacking the opposition leader, used by the KGB, while implementing the ideology of Soviet Fascism around the globe. See my definitions of Soviet Fascism on p. 159, What is Happening to America? The Hidden Truth of Global Destruction, Xlibris, 2012
  7. The main KGB’s modus operandi in implementing the ideology of Soviet fascism is a very primitive one, to blame the opposition for the crime they themselves committed. It is the pot calling the kettle black. Just watch the latest example of how the Deep State of the Alliance is accusing the NRA in the Valentine shooting in Florida. It is a typical style of the KGB, (currently FSB).

For the last twenty-five years I have been warning America about Soviet Fascism in all my books and numerous articles. But politicized Intel and the FBI are suppressing information about my writings—the Obama/Putin Alliance doesn’t want the world to know the Truth.

Today, the Alliance is fabricating the case against Trump to cover-up the treason committed by the Democrats in cahoots with the Russian KGB Government.

Sincerely,

Simona Pipko
A former Soviet Attorney
February 28, 2018

The Evil of Name-Calling

Merriam-Webster defines name-calling as “the use of offensive names especially to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation (as of a person or project) without objective consideration of the facts.”

James V. Schall, S.J., who served as a professor at Georgetown University for thirty-five years, wrote,

The basic principle of civilization is the Socratic norm that it is never right to do wrong. The corollary of this principle is that nothing evil can happen to a good man.

The Socratic norm has been turned on its head. Today people believe they have the right to do wrong. Evil is happening to good men and women.

I have written that the Constitutional right to freedom of speech is a fundamental tenet of all healthy discourse. The right to speak freely and discuss all sides of an issue is fundamental to our personal, professional and political growth and progress as a society. The ability to freely discuss social, economic and political issues facing our nation is what is proper and appropriate to do from our house to the White House.

The Evil of Name-Calling

Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Amy Wax asked the question: Are We Free to Discuss America’s Real Problems? During a speech at Hillsdale College Dr. Wax noted:

There is a lot of abstract talk these days on American college campuses about free speech and the values of free inquiry, with plenty of lip service being paid to expansive notions of free expression and the marketplace of ideas. What I’ve learned through my recent experience of writing a controversial op-ed is that most of this talk is not worth much. It is only when people are confronted with speech they don’t like that we see whether these abstractions are real to them. 

The op-ed mentioned by Dr. Wax was published in the The Philadelphia Inquirer titled Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture. The op-ed was coauthored Dr. Wax and Mr. Larry Alexander. They wrote:

Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries.

These problems are certainly worthy of academic research that lead to lasting societal solutions. It is here when the Socratic norm was turned on its head, when evil happened to Dr. Wax and Mr. Alexander.

Dr. Wax and Mr. Alexander then got “controversial” by suggesting:

The causes of these phenomena are multiple and complex, but implicated in these and other maladies is the breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture.

That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

These basic cultural precepts reigned from the late 1940s to the mid-1960s. They could be followed by people of all backgrounds and abilities, especially when backed up by almost universal endorsement. Adherence was a major contributor to the productivity, educational gains, and social coherence of that period.

[ … ]

All cultures are not equal. Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy. The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-“acting white” rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants. [Emphasis added]

It was the statements following “all cultures are not equal” that the name-calling began from friends and faculty at the University of Pennsylvania. How could these learned people talk about Plains Indians, some working-class whites, the anti-acting white rap culture of black and anti-assimilation of Hispanic immigrants that way?

Objective Consideration of the Facts

Rather than considering the facts presented by Dr. Wax and Mr. Alexander thereby beginning a meaningful discussion and conducting research to determine the validity of these statements in search of lasting solutions, academia turned on them. Dr. Wax discovered:

The reactions to this piece raise the question of how unorthodox opinions should be dealt with in academia—and in American society at large.

[ … ]

What those of us in academia should certainly not do is engage in unreasoned speech: hurling slurs and epithets, name-calling, vilification, and mindless labeling. Likewise we should not reject the views of others without providing reasoned arguments. Yet these once common standards of practice have been violated repeatedly at my own and at other academic institutions in recent years—and we increasingly see this trend in society as well.  

Name-calling has become the soup du jour when discussing race, creed, citizenship, morality and politics

Both side are hurling slurs.

What makes one side right and the other side wrong are the facts.

If the statement, “The culture of the Plains Indians was designed for nomadic hunters, but is not suited to a First World, 21st-century environment. Nor are the single-parent, antisocial habits, prevalent among some working-class whites; the anti-“acting white” rap culture of inner-city blacks; the anti-assimilation ideas gaining ground among some Hispanic immigrants” is factual then the next step is to find solutions.

If further research determines they are not factual then of course the real truth must be revealed so that, again, solutions are found.

For you see name-calling is evil because it stops efforts to determine the facts. Name-calling ends any and all efforts to find solutions to basic societal problems. If these societal problems persist then the culture collapses from within. What follows is pure evil.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Majority of white Americans believe discrimination against whites exists, poll finds

Ben Shapiro Weighs in on School Shootings, Masculinity, and Campus Free Speech

How to Protect Free Speech on Campus? Override the Heckler’s Veto.

RELATED VIDEO: Amy Wax on Dissent and Disagreement at Penn Law

Are Democrat Midterm Ambitions the Real Reason Parkland is Still in News?

Unlike after other mass school shootings, the movement from Parkland to propaganda has had tremendous lasting power. The tragedy’s wake has seen sustained news coverage and energized anti-Second Amendment protests, ostensibly due to organic “student activism.” Yet post-shooting leftist anti-gun appeals and young students willing to facilitate them are nothing new. What is new is that the Democrats just recently suffered a devastating political one-two punch.

Not long ago Democrats were licking their chops at the prospect of a November midterm sweep. Since then, however, two momentous things have occurred: Both the Trump-Russia-collusion narrative and the Democrats’ generic congressional poll numbers have collapsed. To right this listing ship, leftists need a new issue, and fast, and they may think they’ve got it: gun control.

As U.S. News & World Report informed Feb. 14, “The new Morning Consult/Politico poll released Wednesday showed respondents rewarding Republicans for passing the tax cut bill in December, with 39 percent saying they would vote Republican if the election were held today compared to 38 percent who would vote for Democrats — down from a 10-point Democrat advantage in mid-December.” The same poll showed President Trump’s approval rating drawing even with his disapproval number; in fact, Trump’s approval figure is three points better than Barack Obama’s was at the same time in his presidency. This was wholly unanticipated.

On Feb. 16, the Friday before a three-day weekend, Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced the vanity indictments of 13 nationals and three entities of the Russian persuasion. A Project Veritas sting operation had already captured CNN figures on video last summer admitting there was nothing to the Trump-Russia-collusion story and that they were pushing it for ratings (and if CNN knew it was nonsense, so did the rest of the mainstream media), but this didn’t stop Fourth Estate Russia fakery.

But with these nonsense indictments — of men who can never be extradited and tried — the writing is on the wall: “The Trump-Russia collusion narrative is dead,” as Fox News put it.

How bad is it for the Dems? The party for months was talking about impeaching President Trump as if it were only a matter of time. Now some leftists claim that collusion was never even the focus of the Mueller investigation! They just wanted to learn more about Russian meddling, you see. The people who gave us revisionist history now have graduated to revisionist current events.

But it gets worse still. Mueller’s latest indictment, of lawyer and son-in-law of Russian oligarch Alex Van Der Zwaan, may lead to the implication of prominent Democrats. So the Dems and media may want Mueller’s investigation off the front pages posthaste, and they need an issue to replace it and hopefully buoy their flagging poll numbers. Ergo Parkland, Parkland and more Parkland, 24-7.

The Democrats, mind you, have played this game before. Remember how “contraception” suddenly became a big issue during the 2012 campaign? This was no accident. As former Clinton insider Dick Morris explained at the time, the Democrats needed to replace prenatal infanticide — which is no longer a winning issue for them — with something else. As he put it, “It used to be ten points more pro-choice than pro-Life[;] now it’s ten points more pro-Life than pro-choice…. So what they’re trying to do now is replace it with contraception.”

So prenatal infanticide became contraception and Russia control becomes gun control — as the demagogues transition from defending the killing of unborn children to bemoaning the killing of older children — whatever it takes to win. The reality is that the Left’s focus isn’t on stopping school shootings, but on stopping GOP momentum. And the Parkland kids are a very handy means to that end.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com