The Racist Roots of Gun Control

EDITORS NOTE: Copyright 1993 Clayton E. Cramer. All Rights Reserved. Electronic redistribution is permitted as long as no alterations are made to the text and this notice appears at the beginning. Print reproduction or for profit use is not authorized without permission from the author.


The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws — and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics “in their place,” and to quiet the racial fears of whites. This paper is intended to provide a brief summary of this unholy alliance of gun control and racism, and to suggest that gun control laws should be regarded as “suspect ideas,” analogous to the “suspect classifications” theory of discrimination already part of the American legal system.

Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat “any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.” If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to “shoot to kill.” [1] Slave possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions. [2] Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms. [3]

In the Haitian Revolution of the 1790s, the slave population successfully threw off their French masters, but the Revolution degenerated into a race war, aggravating existing fears in the French Louisiana colony, and among whites in the slave states of the United States. When the first U. S. official arrived in New Orleans in 1803 to take charge of this new American possession, the planters sought to have the existing free black militia disarmed, and otherwise exclude “free blacks from positions in which they were required to bear arms,” including such non-military functions as slave-catching crews. The New Orleans city government also stopped whites from teaching fencing to free blacks, and then, when free blacks sought to teach fencing, similarly prohibited their efforts as well. [4]

It is not surprising that the first North American English colonies, then the states of the new republic, remained in dread fear of armed blacks, for slave revolts against slave owners often degenerated into less selective forms of racial warfare. The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that “a Negro could be free” also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free. Unlike the gun control laws passed after the Civil War, these antebellum statutes were for blacks alone. In Maryland, these prohibitions went so far as to prohibit free blacks from owning dogs without a license, and authorizing any white to kill an unlicensed dog owned by a free black, for fear that blacks would use dogs as weapons. Mississippi went further, and prohibited any ownership of a dog by a black person. [5]

Understandably, restrictions on slave possession of arms go back a very long way. While arms restrictions on free blacks predate it, these restrictions increased dramatically after Nat Turner’s Rebellion in 1831, a revolt that caused the South to become increasingly irrational in its fears. [6] Virginia’s response to Turner’s Rebellion prohibited free blacks “to keep or carry any firelock of any kind, any military weapon, or any powder or lead…” The existing laws under which free blacks were occasionally licensed to possess or carry arms was also repealed, making arms possession completely illegal for free blacks. [7] But even before this action by the Virginia Legislature, in the aftermath of Turner’s Rebellion, the discovery that a free black family possessed lead shot for use as scale weights, without powder or weapon in which to fire it, was considered sufficient reason for a frenzied mob to discuss summary execution of the owner. [8] The analogy to the current hysteria where mere possession of ammunition in some states without a firearms license may lead to jail time, should be obvious.

One example of the increasing fear of armed blacks is the 1834 change to the Tennessee Constitution, where Article XI, 26 of the 1796 Tennessee Constitution was revised from: “That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence,” [9] to: “That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.” [10] [emphasis added] It is not clear what motivated this change, other than Turner’s bloody insurrection. The year before, the Tennessee Supreme Court had recognized the right to bear arms as an individual guarantee, but there is nothing in that decision that touches on the subject of race. [11]

Other decisions during the antebellum period were unambiguous about the importance of race. In State v. Huntly (1843), the North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people. [12] The following year, the North Carolina Supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. An 1840 statute provided:

      • That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a licence therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.

    [13]

Elijah Newsom, “a free person of color,” was indicted in Cumberland County in June of 1843 for carrying a shotgun without a license — at the very time the North Carolina Supreme Court was deciding Huntly. Newsom was convicted by a jury; but the trial judge directed a not guilty verdict, and the state appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. Newsom’s attorney argued that the statute requiring free blacks to obtain a license to “keep and bear arms” was in violation of both the Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, and the North Carolina Constitution’s similar guarantee of a right to keep and bear arms. [14] The North Carolina Supreme Court refused to accept that the Second Amendment was a limitation on state laws, but had to deal with the problem of the state constitutional guarantees, which had been used in the Huntly decision, the year before.

The 17th article of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution declared:

        • That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

      [15]

The Court asserted that: “We cannot see that the act of 1840 is in conflict with it… The defendant is not indicted for carrying arms in defence of the State, nor does the act of 1840 prohibit him from so doing.” [16] But in Huntly, the Court had acknowledged that the restrictive language “for the defence of the State” did not preclude an individual right. [17] The Court then attempted to justify the necessity of this law:

        • Its only object is to preserve the peace and safety of the community from being disturbed by an indiscriminate use, on ordinary occasions, by free men of color, of fire arms or other arms of an offensive character. Self preservation is the first law of nations, as it is of individuals.

      [18]

The North Carolina Supreme Court also sought to repudiate the idea that free blacks were protected by the North Carolina Constitution’s Bill of Rights by pointing out that the Constitution excluded free blacks from voting, and therefore free blacks were not citizens. Unlike a number of other state constitutions with right to keep and bear arms provisions that limited this right only to citizens, [19] Article 17 guaranteed this right to the people — and try as hard as they might, it was difficult to argue that a “free person of color,” in the words of the Court, was not one of “the people.”

It is one of the great ironies that, in much the same way that the North Carolina Supreme Court recognized a right to bear arms in 1843 — then a year later declared that free blacks were not included — the Georgia Supreme Court did likewise before the 1840s were out. The Georgia Supreme Court found in Nunn v. State (1846) that a statute prohibiting the sale of concealable handguns, sword-canes, and daggers violated the Second Amendment:

        • The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all of this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!

      [20]

Finally, after this paean to liberty — in a state where much of the population remained enslaved, forbidden by law to possess arms of any sort — the Court defined the valid limits of laws restricting the bearing of arms:

        • We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self- defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void…

      [21]

“Citizen”? Within a single page, the Court had gone from “right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys” to the much more narrowly restrictive right of a “citizen.” The motivation for this sudden narrowing of the right appeared two years later.

The decision Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah (1848) was not, principally, a right to keep and bear arms case. In 1839, the city of Savannah, Georgia, in an admitted effort “to prevent the increase of free persons of color in our city,” had established a $100 per year tax on free blacks moving into Savannah from other parts of Georgia. Samuel Cooper and Hamilton Worsham, two “free persons of color,” were convicted of failing to pay the tax, and were jailed. [22] On appeal, counsel for Cooper and Worsham argued that the ordinance establishing the tax was deficient in a number of technical areas; the assertion of most interest to us is, “In Georgia, free persons of color have constitutional rights…” Cooper and Worsham’s counsel argued that these rights included writ of habeas corpus, right to own real estate, to be “subject to taxation,” “[t]hey may sue and be sued,” and cited a number of precedents under Georgia law in defense of their position. [23]

Justice Warner delivered the Court’s opinion, most of which is irrelevant to the right to keep and bear arms, but one portion shows the fundamental relationship between citizenship, arms, and elections, and why gun control laws were an essential part of defining blacks as “non-citizens”: “Free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office.” [24] The Georgia Supreme Court did agree that the ordinance jailing Cooper and Worsham for non-payment was illegal, and ordered their release, but the comments of the Court made it clear that their brave words in Nunn v. State (1846) about “the right of the people,” really only meant white people.

While settled parts of the South were in great fear of armed blacks, on the frontier, the concerns about Indian attack often forced relaxation of these rules. The 1798 Kentucky Comprehensive Act allowed slaves and free blacks on frontier plantations “to keep and use guns, powder, shot, and weapons, offensive and defensive.” Unlike whites, however, a license was required for free blacks or slaves to carry weapons. [25]

The need for blacks to carry arms for self-defense included not only the problem of Indian attack, and the normal criminal attacks that anyone might worry about, but he additional hazard that free blacks were in danger of being kidnapped and sold into slavery. [26] A number of states, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, passed laws specifically to prohibit kidnapping of free blacks, out of concern that the federal Fugitive Slave Laws would be used as cover for re-enslavement. [27]

The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for night riders to generate the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire. [28] It does appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced. It is clear that the vagrancy statutes adopted at roughly the same time, in 1866, were intended to be used against blacks, even though the language was race-neutral. [29]

The former states of the Confederacy, many of which had recognized the right to carry arms openly before the Civil War, developed a very sudden willingness to qualify that right. One especially absurd example, and one that includes strong evidence of the racist intentions behind gun control laws, is Texas.

In Cockrum v. State (1859), the Texas Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry defensive arms, and that this right was protected under both the Second Amendment, and section 13 of the Texas Bill of Rights. The outer limit of the state’s authority (in this case, attempting to discourage the carrying of Bowie knives), was that it could provide an enhanced penalty for manslaughters committed with Bowie knives.[30] Yet, by 1872, the Texas Supreme Court denied that there was any right to carry any weapon for self-defense under either the state or federal constitutions — and made no attempt to explain or justify why the Cockrum decision was no longer valid. [31]

What caused the dramatic change? The following excerpt from that same decision — so offensive that no one would dare make such an argument today — sheds some light on the racism that apparently caused the sudden perspective change:

    • The law under consideration has been attacked upon the ground that it was contrary to public policy, and deprived the people of the necessary means of self- defense; that it was an innovation upon the customs and habits of the people, to which they would not peaceably submit… We will not say to what extent the early customs and habits of the people of this state should be respected and accommodated, where they may come in conflict with the ideas of intelligent and well-meaning legislators.

A portion of our system of laws, as well as our public morality, is derived from a people the most peculiar perhaps of any other in the history and derivation of its own system. Spain, at different periods of the world, was dominated over by the Carthagenians, the Romans, the Vandals, the Snovi, the Allani, the Visigoths, and Arabs; and to this day there are found in the Spanish codes traces of the laws and customs of each of these nations blended together in a system by no means to be compared with the sound philosophy and pure morality of the common law. [32]

     [emphasis added]

This particular decision is more open than most as to its motivations, but throughout the South during this period, the existing precedents that recognized a right to open carry under state constitutional provisions were being narrowed, or simply ignored. Nor was the reasoning that led to these changes lost on judges in the North. In 1920, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a Mexican for concealed carry of a handgun–while asleep in his own bed. Justice Wanamaker’s scathing dissent criticized the precedents cited by the majority in defense of this absurdity:

        • I desire to give some special attention to some of the authorities cited, supreme court decisions from Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and one or two inferior court decisions from New York, which are given in support of the doctrines upheld by this court. The southern states have very largely furnished the precedents. It is only necessary to observe that the race issue there has extremely intensified a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the negro, and this policy is evident upon reading the opinions.

      [33]

While not relevant to the issue of racism, Justice Wanamaker’s closing paragraphs capture well the biting wit and intelligence of this jurist, who was unfortunately, outnumbered on the bench:

    • I hold that the laws of the state of Ohio should be so applied and so interpreted as to favor the law-abiding rather than the law-violating people. If this decision shall stand as the law of Ohio, a very large percentage of the good people of Ohio to-day are criminals, because they are daily committing criminal acts by having these weapons in their own homes for their own defense. The only safe course for them to pursue, instead of having the weapon concealed on or about their person, or under their pillow at night, is to hang the revolver on the wall and put below it a large placard with these words inscribed:

“The Ohio supreme court having decided that it is a crime to carry a concealed weapon on one’s person in one’s home, even in one’s bed or bunk, this weapon is hung upon the wall that you may see it, and before you commit any burglary or assault, please, Mr. Burglar, hand me my gun.” [34]

There are other examples of remarkable honesty from the state supreme courts on this subject, of which the finest is probably Florida Supreme Court Justice Buford’s concurring opinion in Watson v. Stone (1941), in which a conviction for carrying a handgun without a permit was overturned, because the handgun was in the glove compartment of a car:

        • I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.

      [35]

Today is not 1893, and when proponents of restrictive gun control insist that their motivations are color-blind, there is a possibility that they are telling the truth. Nonetheless, there are some rather interesting questions that should be asked today. The most obvious question is, “Why should a police chief or sheriff have any discretion in issuing a concealed handgun permit?” Here in California, even the state legislature’s research arm–hardly a nest of pro-gunners–has admitted that the vast majority of permits to carry concealed handguns in California are issued to white males. [36] Even if overt racism is not an issue, an official may simply have more empathy with an applicant of a similar cultural background, and consequently be more able to relate to the applicant’s concerns. As my wife pointedly reminded a police official when we applied for concealed weapon permits, “If more police chiefs were women, a lot more women would get permits, and be able to defend themselves from rapists.”

Gun control advocates today are not so foolish as to openly promote racist laws, and so the question might be asked what relevance the racist past of gun control laws has. One concern is that the motivations for disarming blacks in the past are really not so different from the motivations for disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century, the official rhetoric in support of such laws was that “they” were too violent, too untrustworthy, to be allowed weapons. Today, the same elitist rhetoric regards law-abiding Americans in the same way, as child-like creatures in need of guidance from the government. In the last century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions of slavery.

In the seventeenth century, the aristocratic power structure of colonial Virginia found itself confronting a similar challenge from lower class whites. These poor whites resented how the men who controlled the government used that power to concentrate wealth into a small number of hands. These wealthy feeders at the government trough would have disarmed poor whites if they could, but the threat of both Indian and pirate attack made this impractical; for all white men “were armed and had to be armed…” Instead, blacks, who had occupied a poorly defined status between indentured servant and slave, were reduced to hereditary chattel slavery, so that poor whites could be economically advantaged, without the upper class having to give up its privileges. [37]

Today, the forces that push for gun control seem to be heavily (though not exclusively) allied with political factions that are committed to dramatic increases in taxation on the middle class. While it would be hyperbole to compare higher taxes on the middle class to the suffering and deprivation of sharecropping or slavery, the analogy of disarming those whom you wish to economically disadvantage, has a certain worrisome validity to it.

Another point to consider is that in the American legal system, certain classifications of governmental discrimination are considered constitutionally suspect, and these “suspect classifications” (usually considered to be race and religion) come to a court hearing under a strong presumption of invalidity. The reason for these “suspect classifications” is because of the long history of governmental discrimination based on these classifications, and because these classifications often impinge on fundamental rights. [38]

In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a “suspect idea,” and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race.

ABOUT CLAYTON E. CRAMER

Clayton E. Cramer is a software engineer with a telecommunications manufacturer in Northern California. His first book, By The Dim And Flaring Lamps: The Civil War Diary of Samuel McIlvaine was published in 1990. For The Defense of Themselves And The State: The Original Intent & Judicial Interpretation of the Right To Keep And Bear Arms was published by Greenwood/Praeger Press in 1994.


NOTES

1. Thomas N. Ingersoll, “Free Blacks in a Slave Society: New Orleans, 1718-1812”, _William and Marry Quarterly_, 48:2 [April, 1991], 178-79.

2. Daniel H. Usner, Jr., _Indians, Settlers, & Slaves in a Frontier Exchange Economy: The Lower Mississippi Valley Before 1783_, (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 139, 165, 187.

3. Michael C. Meyer and William L. Sherman, _The Course of Mexican History_, 4th ed., (New York, Oxford University Press: 1991), 216.

4. Ingersoll, 192-200. Benjamin Quarles, _The Negro in the Making of America_, 3rd ed., (New York, Macmillan Publishing: 1987), 81.

5. Theodore Brantner Wilson, _The Black Codes of the South_ (University of Alabama Press: 1965), 26-30.

6. Stanley Elkins, _Slavery_, (Chicago, University of Chicago Press: 1968), 220.

7. Eric Foner, ed., _Nat Turner_, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall: 1971), 115.

8. Harriet Jacobs [Linda Brant], _Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl_, (Boston: 1861), in Henry Louis Gates, Jr., ed., _The Classic Slave Narratives_, (New York, Penguin Books: 1987), 395-396.

9. Francis Newton Thorpe, _The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming The United States of America_, (Washington, Government Printing Office: 1909), reprinted (Grosse Pointe, Mich., Scholarly Press: n.d.), 6:3424.

10. Thorpe, 6:3428.

11. Simpson v. State, 5 Yerg. 356 (Tenn. 1833).

12. State v. Huntly, 3 Iredell 418, 422, 423 (N.C. 1843).

13. State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250 (1844).

14. State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250, 251 (1844).

15. Thorpe, 5:2788.

16. State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250, 254 (1844).

17. State v. Huntly, 3 Iredell 418, 422 (N.C. 1843).

18. State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250, 254 (1844).

19. Early state constitutions limiting the right to bear arms to citizens: Connecticut (1818), Kentucky (1792 & 1799), Maine (1819), Mississippi (1817), Pennsylvania (1790 — but not the 1776 constitution), Republic of Texas (1838), State of Texas (1845).

20. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846).

21. Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 250, 251 (1846).

22. Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 69 (1848).

23. Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 70, 71 (1848).

24. Cooper and Worsham v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848).

25. Juliet E. K. Walker, _Free Frank: A Black Pioneer on the Antebellum Frontier_, (Lexington, KY, University Press of Kentucky: 1983), 21. This is an inspiring biography of a slave who, through hard work moonlighting in the production of saltpeter (a basic ingredient of black powder) and land surveying, saved enough money to buy his wife, himself, and eventually all of his children and grandchildren out of slavery — while fighting against oppressive laws and vigorous racism. Most impressive of all, is that he did it without ever learning to read or write.

26. Walker, 73.

27. Stephen Middleton, _The Black Laws in the Old Northwest: A Documentary History_, (Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press: 1993), 27-32, 227-240, 309-314, 353-357, 403-404.

28. Michael Les Benedict, _The Fruits of Victory: Alternatives to Restoring the Union_, 1865-1877, (New York, J.B. Lippincott Co.: 1975), 87. Francis L. Broderick, _Reconstruction and the American Negro, 1865-1900_, (London, Macmillan Co.: 1969), 21. Dan T. Carter, _When The War Was Over: The Failure of Self-Reconstruction in the South, 1865- 1867_, (Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press: 1985), 219-221. Eric Foner, _Reconstruction_, (New York, Harper & Row: 1988), 258-259.

29. Foner, _Reconstruction_, 200-201.

30. Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, 401, 402, 403 (1859).

31. English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 475 (1872).

32. English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 479, 480 (1872).

33. State v. Nieto, 101 Ohio St. 409, 430, 130 N.E. 663 (1920).

34. State v. Nieto, 101 Ohio St. 409, 436, 130 N.E. 663 (1920).

35. Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941).

36. Assembly Office of Research, _Smoking Gun: The Case For Concealed Weapon Permit Reform_, (Sacramento, State of California: 1986), 5.

37. Edmund S. Morgan, “Slavery and Freedom: The American Paradox,” in Stanley N. Katz, John M. Murrin, and Douglas Greenberg, ed., _Colonial America: Essays in Politics and Social Development_, 4th ed., (New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc, 1993), 280.

38. Thomas G. Walker, “Suspect Classifications”, _Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States_, (New York, Oxford University Press: 1992), 848.

VIDEO: ‘We Must Immediately Harden Our Schools.’

Opportunists are exploiting tragedy for political gain…Schools must be the most hardened targets in the country. Evil must be confronted immediately with all force necessary to protect our kids.” –Wayne LaPierre

EDITORS NOTE: Mentioned below are two sites that will provide you the opportunity to listen as law enforcement/fire/EMS units responded to the Active Shooter call at the Florida high school.

https://www.statter911.com/2018/02/14/listen-radio-traffic-florida-school-shooting-left-17-dead/

https://www.statter911.com/2018/02/15/listen-fire-ems-radio-traffic-florida-high-school-shooting/

U.S. Department of Heath & Human Services: Moving Rights Along…

Conservatives don’t need to prove the existence of the war on faith anymore — HHS did it for them! After years of pooh-poohing the crackdown on Christians, the other side will have a much harder time now, thanks to the agency’s new division in the Office for Civil Rights.After eight years of weaponizing the government against men and women of faith, President Trump is demanding a unilateral disarmament — starting with one of the leading offenders, Health and Human Services. In January, it wasn’t just the start of a new year, but a new era in protecting religious liberty. The administration announced a bold new initiative, aimed at turning the government from an enemy of freedom to an ally. Starting in 2018, it would open an office dedicated to stopping the assault on conscience.

Two months into the idea, the job is turning out to be bigger than anyone envisioned. Now that Americans have a president they can trust and a place to confide, more victims are stepping out of the shadows to tell their stories. Complaints are pouring in to the agency about violations across a full spectrum of services: health care, medical care, adoption, child care, and more. Roger Severino, director of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), is surprised but encouraged. At least the system is working.

“We have made a commitment to vigorously and fairly enforce laws protecting conscience and religion that had been given second-class treatment for too long,” he told CQ. “The surge in complaints shows that the American people are responding to our new openness.” It also shows something else: the problems are deeper than people thought. “Less than two months into 2018, OCR is already nearing the total combined conscience and religion complaints in all of 2017.” Last year, before a special division was established, OCR was on the receiving end of 464 conscience and religious-related complaints. Right now, that number has already hit 345! (And, one official points out, that doesn’t include any filed by mail.)

Obviously, the hostility toward religion is so deeply ingrained that it will take years to weed out the abusers and clean up the toxic environment that has stunted our First Freedom. And here’s the ironic part: until President Obama, the freedom to believe was never a controversial idea. It was such a consensus issue, in fact, that after the Supreme Court invented legalized abortion in 1973, Congress responded by passing a law to protect health care workers from the very discrimination they’re facing today. Even Senator Ted Kennedy defended the bill’s “full protection to the religious freedom of physicians and others.” Only two members objected.

Suddenly, under the Obama administration, that all changed. Instead of demanding compromise and coexistence, the other side exchanged its sham of tolerance for full-blown government forced coercion. Now, almost a decade later, the mess is titanic. Longtime grievances can finally be aired. Before Trump, most people who were affected by Obamacare, taxpayer-funded abortion, or gender identity knew that if they complained it would only make them bigger targets. What a refreshing change for them to know that the government that was once their oppressor can now be their defender.

Let’s hope the White House recognizes the good work of OCR and moves to replicate it in other places across the administration. Until then, this is another important reminder that elections have consequences. In this case, positive ones.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

More Than a Motto

Fostering Freedom for Foster Parents

Florida House Passes Resolution Declaring Pornography a ‘Public Health Risk’

Public Health Impacts of Pornography Are No Trivial Matter

This week Florida’s House of Representatives formally recognized the public health harms of pornography. The National Center on Sexual Exploitation (NCOSE) applauds this action and Rep. Ross Spano for spearheading this effort.

Public health impacts of pornography are no trivial matter.

The harms associated with pornography use are wide-ranging. For example, two recent meta-analyses (a process of a systematic review of several studies which yields greater statistical power) show a link between aggression and pornography use. Similarly, more than 50 studies (several longitudinal) on men have linked pornography use to lower sexual and relationship satisfaction. There are also dozens of studies linking pornography use to emotional and cognitive difficulties.

These disturbing findings are also consistent with neuroscience-based studies. It wasn’t long ago that the American public considered smoking innocuous—some doctors even touted faulty research claiming smoking was beneficial. But, today, much as X-ray photos of smoke-damaged lungs convinced skeptics of the harm caused by smoking, neuroimaging is revealing disquieting alterations to the brains of pornography users.

There are 38 neurological studies that suggest Internet pornography can cause addiction-related brain changes. Among them is a study published this month which reported significant reductions in grey matter, as well as decreased resting-state functional activity between certain brain centers among individuals with problematic hypersexual behavior (PHB) compared to a control group. Notably, those with PHB used pornography more frequently. The regions of the brain affected play a pivotal role in attention shifting and sustained attention, as well as reward-based behavioral learning.”

These findings are particularly alarming when considered in light of the number of young people exposed to pornography today. A 2017 study reported pornography exposure during adolescence is as high as 87%, with the median age for first viewing being 13 for boys and 16 for girls.

Today, young people with smartphones carry access to the world of XXX with them wherever they go. The potential harmful impact of pornography on their developing brains, relationships, and sexual templates is apparent to educators, therapists, parents, and young people themselves. As one 14-year-old boy put it, “I want help. I want it to end . . . I want to be able to go to school and not have pornography on my mind.”

With this week’s action, Florida joined a growing list of states officially recognizing pornography’s public health risks. These include Utah, South Dakota, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Kansas. The house chambers in both Virginia and Pennsylvania have done likewise.

For an overview of representative research on the harms of pornography visit: endsexualexploitation.org/publichealth.

Lisa L. Thompson

VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Lisa L. Thompson serves as the Vice President of Research and Education for the National Center on Sexual Exploitation, where she oversees NCOSE’s strategic planning for increased public understanding of sexual exploitation related issues. To this end Lisa conducts analysis, develops research initiatives, and liaises with a wide-range of public officials, non-profit organizations, institutions of higher learning, and academics to generate collaborative action to combat the full spectrum of sexual exploitation especially as pertains to the harms of pornography, stripping, prostitution, and sexual trafficking.

Lisa joins the NCOSE following nearly two years with World Hope International (WHI), where as its Director of Anti-Trafficking, Lisa administered WHI’s anti-trafficking and sexual-violence recovery programs in Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Liberia and Sierra Leone. While working for WHI Lisa also served as a steering committee member of the Faith Alliance Against Slavery and Trafficking (FAAST), a collaboration initiative she helped found, and as a reviewer for the Journal of Human Trafficking.

She has written on the subjects of sexual trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation for publications such as Christian History and BiographyCaringMutualityPRISM, and Social Work and Christianity. Lisa is a contributing author to Hands that Heal: International Curriculum for Caregivers of Trafficking Survivors, as well as the bookGlobal Perspectives on Prostitution and Sex Trafficking:  Europe Latin America, North America, and Global in which she contributed chapters about the use of torture by pimps, as well as the policy conflicts between sex trafficking abolitionists and HIV/AIDS advocatesShe is the co-editor of a special anti-trafficking edition of the North American Association of Christians in Social Work journal Social Work & Christianity and has provided expert testimony to the U.S. Congress. Lisa routinely speaks about sex trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation (i.e. prostitution, pornography, stripping), and facilitates anti-trafficking training events for a diverse range of audiences.

Additionally, Lisa served for more than 12 years as the Liaison for the Abolition of Sexual Trafficking for The Salvation Army USA National Headquarters. In that role she pioneered strategies for The Salvation Army to create recovery services for survivors of sexual trafficking and advocated on public policy issues and initiatives related to combating sexual trafficking and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation. Lisa chaired The Salvation Army’s North American Anti-Trafficking Council and directed its Initiative Against Sexual Trafficking. Previous to her arrival at The Salvation Army, Lisa served as Policy Representative for the National Association of Evangelicals’ (NAE) Office for Governmental Affairs in Washington, DC, from 1998 to 2001. While there, she was heavily involved in NAE’s advocacy efforts seeking passage of legislation now known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000. She has also worked for consulting firms managing Community Develop Block Grants programs in Kentucky, and taught English as a second language in the People’s Republic of China.

Lisa earned her Bachelor of Arts in Government from Western Kentucky University, and her Master’s degree in Leadership, Public Policy and Social Issues from Union Institute and University.

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

We Don’t Need Stronger Gun Laws. We Need Stronger Communities!

Here we go again. Another school massacre and another overreaction by liberals who want to play politics with the Second Amendment.

On Valentine’s Day, 17 students and faculty members were murdered by a former classmate at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., a small community west of Boca Raton.

As tragic as the murders were, sometimes I am confused by the way people react to tragedies. In the aftermath of a mass shooting, many people want the government to immediately pass new gun control laws. The hard truth is that there is absolutely nothing the government can do to protect you from tragedies like the horrific massacre in Parkland.

Tragedy, by definition is, “an event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe.”

Sometimes good people are beset by tragedies, randomly and without warning.

If you ban guns, do you really think violent tragedies will go away? One need look no further than Japan to find the answer.

In Japan, it is illegal to possess, carry, sell or buy guns. So, it is extremely rare, if ever, for a shooting death to occur in Japan.

For example, in 2014, Japan had six gun related deaths compared to 33,599 in the U.S.

In 2016, however, nineteen people were killed and 26 injured in a stabbing massacre in Tokyo, which was Japan’s deadliest mass killing since World War II. In 2008, a man ran over a group of people with his truck and then stabbed 18, killing seven in Tokyo’s Akihabara gaming district. In 2001, eight children were killed when a former employee, a janitor, entered an elementary school in Osaka and stabbed them to death.

So, the point is that even if guns were outlawed in the U.S., a person determined to commit an act of violence will always find a weapon of choice to unleash their diabolical schemes.

Irresponsible mainstream media outlets take advantage of these crises, broadcasting the anguish and misery of distraught family members just to boost their own ratings. As they say, “if it bleeds, it leads.”

Let’s game out one of the liberal arguments that outlawing guns is the solution to these mass shootings, that seem to happen with more frequency.

So, Japan has outlawed guns. Now, killers in that country use knives and cars to inflict massive carnage upon their fellow citizens.

If the U.S. outlawed guns and preemptively banned, let’s say, ice picks and utility knives, then individuals that are committed to killing other people will simply use whatever else they can get their hands on. Cars and trucks might become the weapons of choice; should we ban them, too? If we go down that road, where will it end?

What liberals refuse to address is the lack of values and morality in our society. Religion instills in a society a sense of right and wrong and demands some type of structure in our lives, but liberals have run prayer out of our nation’s schools; and any mentions or references to God in the public square are questioned, mocked or maligned outright.

Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, can anyone legitimately argue that the Ten Commandments are not good standards for any society to live by? Thou shalt not murder, lie, covet, etc.

In American society today, many people have bought into the notion that man, not God, is the measure of all things. There are no rules. No restraints. American society has cast the traditional nuclear family by the wayside. For liberals, normal is whatever you feel like doing at any given moment.

Liberal Hollywood elites, the most vociferous advocates for gun control, refuse to take responsibility for the violence and lack of morals that are constant themes in their movies and TV shows; most of them won’t even acknowledge the negative effects that their industry has on the minds of young people.

The result is generations of children who become desensitized to violence and mayhem, who then lash out in real life, without ever considering the repercussions of their actions.

These kids don’t wake up one day and decide to go on murderous rampages at their schools, simply because someone picked on them during lunch or they experienced a bad breakup. We have all gone through that as teenagers and young adults and we got through it without killing and maiming dozens of our classmates.

What is different now? Today, it’s very hard to get teenagers and young adults to think critically about the world they live in. No one wants to accept personal responsibility for anything that happens in their lives; everyone gets a trophy; everything bad that happens to them is always someone else’s fault.

The state of Florida and the F.B.I. are going to spend millions of dollars trying to figure out why this kid killed students and faculty members at that school in Parkland. In reality, there are no simple solutions to most problems that we wrestle with as a society.

Unfortunately, sometimes bad things happen to good people and banning guns won’t change that.

RELATED ARTICLE: School Shooting Was Outcome of Broward County School Board Policy – Now Local and National Politicians Weaponize Kids for Ideological Intents…

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

Why 14 GOP Senators Voted Against President Trump’s Immigration Framework

President Donald Trump’s plan to control borders — as outlined in his State of the Union speech — was put into legislation and carried by Sen. Charles Grassley. But it went down in flames, and 14 Republicans are in part to blame for its failure.

Now the country’s back where it started, facing a budget fight this March, round-the-robin talks on immigration, and a Democratic-controlled process, despite the fact Republicans hold the majority in both houses of Congress.

Whom to blame?

Well, for starters, the 14 Republican senators who jumped ship on Trump’s plan.

From the Hill:

President Trump’s immigration framework faced an unexpected opponent this week as it crashed on the Senate floor: Republicans.

The opposition from more than a fourth of the GOP conference came despite an intense pressure campaign by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which shot down back-to-back bipartisan offers.

In the end, 14 GOP senators rejected Trump’s proposal, helping make it the least popular of the Senate’s competing measures.

Here’s a look at the GOP senators who bucked Trump.

Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.)

Barrasso, who is up for reelection in 2018, was one of two members of GOP leadership to oppose Trump’s plan. His vote came roughly a day after he called the White House framework “very generous.”

“I want to make sure that we have a secure border. I want to make sure that the laws are enforced and I want to make sure our citizens are safe,” he told Fox News this week.

A spokeswoman for Barrasso didn’t respond to a request for comment. But the conservative senator has said he believes the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was illegal.

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)

Collins was at the center of a bipartisan group that negotiated for months to come up with a rival plan to Trump’s. Hours before the votes, DHS warned that the proposal would undermine the rule of law and the White House threatened to veto the Common Sense Coalition’s plan.

“I’m personally very disappointed in the administration’s response,” Collins said.

The bipartisan group’s amendment has serious policy differences from the White House plan.

It doesn’t touch the State Department’s diversity visa lottery program and included narrow changes to family-based immigration that would have been limited to DACA recipients.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)

Cruz, who is up for reelection in 2018, repeatedly took shots at the framework because it included a path to citizenship for 1.8 million immigrants, which he considers “amnesty.”

The opposition from more than a fourth of the GOP conference came despite an intense pressure campaign by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which shot down back-to-back bipartisan offers.

In the end, 14 GOP senators rejected Trump’s proposal, helping make it the least popular of the Senate’s competing measures.

Here’s a look at the GOP senators who bucked Trump.

Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.)

Barrasso, who is up for reelection in 2018, was one of two members of GOP leadership to oppose Trump’s plan. His vote came roughly a day after he called the White House framework “very generous.”

“I want to make sure that we have a secure border. I want to make sure that the laws are enforced and I want to make sure our citizens are safe,” he told Fox News this week.

A spokeswoman for Barrasso didn’t respond to a request for comment. But the conservative senator has said he believes the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was illegal.

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)

Collins was at the center of a bipartisan group that negotiated for months to come up with a rival plan to Trump’s. Hours before the votes, DHS warned that the proposal would undermine the rule of law and the White House threatened to veto the Common Sense Coalition’s plan.

“I’m personally very disappointed in the administration’s response,” Collins said.

The bipartisan group’s amendment has serious policy differences from the White House plan.

It doesn’t touch the State Department’s diversity visa lottery program and included narrow changes to family-based immigration that would have been limited to DACA recipients.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)

Cruz, who is up for reelection in 2018, repeatedly took shots at the framework because it included a path to citizenship for 1.8 million immigrants, which he considers “amnesty.”

“I find myself flabbergasted at where my own party is in this debate because every proposal that has Republican support that has been submitted begins from a place markedly to the left of President Obama,” Cruz said ahead of the Senate’s votes.

Sen. Steve Daines (Mont.)

Daines doesn’t support the DACA program and has said he doesn’t want to see it extended.

“I don’t support extending the DACA program. This was an unconstitutional act that President Obama [did] via executive order when he was president and I hope that we can find a solution going forward here that is broader than just the issue on DACA,” he told Montana Public Radio earlier this year.

Sen. Mike Enzi (Wyo.)

A spokesman for Enzi said he opposed the immigration amendments offered “because he felt they did not properly address” illegal immigration.

“He has said that Congress needs to ensure that our immigration laws are compassionate, especially to children, but also fair to American citizens. He believes there are lawful ways for individuals to earn citizenship and that people who want to come to this country need to follow them,” the spokesman said.

Enzi, who previously called DACA “unconstitutional,” also thinks immigration reform is “best dealt with in small pieces, instead of comprehensive legislation,” his aide said.

Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.)

Flake was heavily involved with the bipartisan immigration negotiations and has been one of the loudest critics of the White House’s framework over concerns about its restrictions on legal immigration.

He told reporters this week that while the White House’s framework should be part of the “discussion,” the Senate needed to work out its own plan.

And he’s doubling down on his short-term patch following the Senate’s failed votes, which would pair a three-year DACA extension with border security funding.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.)

Inhofe opposed each of the Senate’s three immigration plans, while backing a push to limit federal funding to “sanctuary cities.” He said the White House plan “made a number of important reforms” including boosting security at the border and limiting family-based immigration.

“[But] I’ve consistently stated that I could not support an immigration bill that puts illegal immigrants ahead of the men and women who have followed our laws and have applied for citizenship legally,” he said.

The White House framework, spearheaded in the Senate by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), created a 10-12 year path to citizenship for roughly 1.8 million immigrants brought into the country illegally as children.

Sen. John Kennedy (La.)

Kennedy said on Twitter that he opposed the Senate’s immigration proposals “because none of them prioritized border security.”

Both the White House framework and the bipartisan coalition’s plan included $25 billion in border security.

Kennedy supported Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-Pa.) amendment to limit funding to jurisdictions that don’t follow federal immigration law.

He also offered several of his own amendments, which didn’t get a vote, including requiring the census to include questions about nationality and immigration status.

Sen. Mike Lee (Utah)

Lee said after the Senate’s votes that Congress needs a “balanced approach to the DACA program.”

“One that discourages future illegal immigration while also offering a compassionate solution to current DACA recipients. None of the plans that addressed DACA today achieved that balance,” he added.

Many conservative lawmakers, as well as their allies off Capitol Hill, balked over the administration’s decision to extend citizenship to DACA recipients and expand the total number of immigrants potentially covered from roughly 700,000 to 1.8 million.

Sen. Jerry Moran (Kansas)

Asked why Moran didn’t back the president’s plan, a spokesman noted the GOP senator supports a fallback option he is working on with Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and John Thune (R-S.D.).

Their plan is significantly narrower than the White House framework. It provides a permanent extension of legal status, but not citizenship, only for current DACA recipients. It is tied to a $25 billion border security trust fund.

Moran noted in a statement announcing the immigration plan that the measures “must not inadvertently encourage further illegal immigration.”

He didn’t directly address the White House framework, but some conservatives argue that extending legal protections to the broader 1.8 million population encourages more illegal immigration.

The Moran-Thune-Portman proposal, by comparison, would limit legal protections to current DACA recipients, or roughly 700,000 immigrants.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)

Murkowski, one of the Senate’s most moderate Republicans, was part of the Common Sense Coalition and supported the group’s plan to pair a path to citizenship for 1.8 million immigrants to $25 billion in border security and limited changes to family-based immigration.

She added after the plan failed that it would have offered a “path forward.” “I am extremely disappointed that the Senate failed to advance our bipartisan proposal that provided both certainty for the Dreamers and critical improvements to border security,” she said.

Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.)

Paul voted against each of the Senate’s immigration proposals, including the White House plan.

His votes came after he told Fox News host Laura Ingraham this week that he was debating offering a conservative House plan crafted by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) as an amendment.

“We’re discussing that in our office, whether or not we ought to put that forward as an alternative,” he said.

Goodlatte’s plan would provide DACA recipients with a temporary, renewable legal status — rather than citizenship — in exchange for authorizing funding for Trump’s border wall, ending family-based migration and scrapping the diversity visa lottery program.

It would also crack down on so-called sanctuary cities, boost penalties for deported criminals who try to re-enter the U.S. and require that employers use an electronic verification system known as E-Verify to make sure they hire legal workers.

Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.)

Sasse told the Lincoln Journal Star that he opposed “left-of-center proposals” taken up by the Senate on Thursday.

“I ran as a conservative and I’ll vote as a conservative,” he said.

Sasse added there could still be a path toward a “much simpler legislative package” that pairs protections for DACA recipients and secures the border.

Sen. John Thune (S.D.)

Thune is the highest ranking GOP senator to vote against the White House’s immigration proposal.

The No. 3 GOP senator has endorsed a narrower solution for weeks. On Thursday afternoon he announced that he, Moran and Portman had filed an amendment that would extend the legal protections of current DACA recipients while giving the White House money for the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

“Immigration policy is not easy, as this week has shown, but I’m confident that with a bill like the one we’ve just put forward, we’ll be able to find consensus among Republicans and Democrats,” he said in a statement.

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.

Sessions Says FBI’s Handling of Anti-Trump Dossier ‘Will Be Investigated’

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the Justice Department is investigating the accuracy of information the FBI submitted before the 2016 election about a “dossier” damaging to Donald Trump to obtain a warrant to surveil a campaign adviser.

“That will be investigated and looked at,” Sessions said in an interview Sunday.

dcnf-logo

Maria Bartiromo, host of Fox’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” had asked Sessions: “Are you, sir, investigating the fact that the FBI used the dossier to get a wiretap against Trump associates and they did not tell the FISA court that the Democrats and [the] Hillary Clinton [campaign] paid for the dossier?”

“Let me tell you, every FISA warrant based on facts submitted to that court [has] to be accurate,” Sessions replied.

“That will be investigated and looked at, and we are not going to participate as a Department of Justice in providing anything less than a proper disclosure to the court before they issue a FISA warrant. Other than that, I’m not going to talk about the details of it, but I tell you, we’re not going to let that happen.”

FISA refers to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which created a secret court system to oversee requests for surveillance warrants by federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Sessions did not provide additional details about the investigation, which has been urged by Republican lawmakers.

In October 2016, not long before the election, the FBI and Justice Department submitted an application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to obtain a spy warrant against Carter Page, a business consultant and campaign volunteer who had left the Trump team a month earlier.

The partisan dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele is said to have been a significant part of the application to the court, even though the salacious document about Trump’s connections to Russia was and is largely unverified.

Republican lawmakers have asserted that law enforcement officials who submitted the application failed to note to the court that the dossier was funded by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The application does note that the dossier was put together by a “U.S. person” with political motivations, but Republicans have argued that the application should have been more specific.

Republicans also alleged that Steele, the opponent of Trump who authored the dossier, misled the FBI by failing to reveal that he met with reporters in September 2016 to discuss his investigation of Trump.

One of those reporters, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo! News, wrote a story based on Steele’s information.

That Sept. 23, 2016, article, which included Steele’s allegations about Page, also was used by the FBI and Justice Department to help justify the surveillance warrant. The application did not note that the Isikoff article came from the same source as the dossier.

Also Sunday, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., offhandedly criticized former President Barack Obama for not doing enough to warn voters about the Russian government’s attempt to meddle during the presidential election.

Obama probably didn’t do enough to raise a red flag after he found out Russia interfered in the election, Sanders said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” before pivoting to criticize Trump for downplaying Russia’s role.

“Obama was in a very difficult position and didn’t want to make it appear he was favoring Hillary Clinton,” Sanders, who challenged Clinton for the Democratic nomination, said. “Maybe he should have done more.”

An indictment announced Friday alleged that 13 Russian nationals tried to help both Sanders and Trump during their respective presidential candidacies.

Special counsel Robert Mueller secured the indictment from a grand jury against the Russians, affiliated with three Russian companies suspected of interfering in the election. The goal was to create chaos inside the U.S. political process, according to the indictment.

The indicted Russians operated both pro- and anti-Trump social media accounts. The accounts also were used to provide support for Sanders, at the time considered a formidable opponent to Clinton, and to Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Sanders’ comments Sunday came after Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the ranking member of the House intelligence committee, said Obama should have called out Russian meddling much sooner.

New protections must be enacted to prevent similar election meddling, Sanders said, referring specifically to the upcoming 2018 midterm elections.

“We have got to do everything we can to make sure that they do not undermine American democracy,” he said.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is by Yuri Gripas/Reuters /Newscom.

BREAKING: Mueller investigator Andrew McCabe altered his summary of the Mike Flynn interview

It has always been painfully obvious that disgraced FBI special investigator Andrew McCabe didn’t resign over some cheezy anti-Trump texts to his adulteress mistress. Now it all makes sense.

FYI: A FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to “report or summarize the interviews that they conduct” and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary agent. It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves.

Freeper:

There has been rumors ‘independently’ from Sara Carter and others that FD-302s May have been altered and she pointed out it may be McCabe that told others to do it. This was heard right on the day he stepped down. They didn’t say to whom they were altered against if it was true but this possibly lines up with this! If true then Flynn plea will be rescinded and charges dropped and possibly Mueller team will be in trouble if they KNEW that these 302s were changed and didn’t informed Flynn until they were forced to by the new judge, Sullivan

Conservative Treehouse:

Corrupt FBI Officials Fight Back Against Intelligence Oversight Memo…

House Intelligence Committee Releases Transcript of Monday Night “Memo Meeting”… 

Robert Mueller Requests Postponement of General Mike Flynn Sentencing…

Posted on by sundance

Against a newly discovered likelihood the Robert Mueller investigation began under false pretenses; and against the backdrop that FBI surveillance and wiretaps were obtained through materially (intentionally) false representations to the FISA court; and against the backdrop the original Flynn plea judge (Contrereas) was also the approving FISA judge; and that judge ‘was summarily recused’ from the case; and against increasing evidence that Mike Flynn was set up by a terminal animus, and politically-motivated investigative rogue unit, operating within the FBI; and against surfacing IG Horowitz evidence that FBI investigators manipulated (lied on) their FD-302 interrogation documents; and understanding those falsified 302’s were used in the Mueller/Flynn charging document…

…Special Counsel Robert Mueller now asks for postponement of sentencing:

(pdf link)

Both parties did not ‘request‘ a postponement; both parties ‘agreed‘ to a postponement.  The motive for the request (Mueller) is entirely divergent from, yet complimentary to, the motive to agree to the request (Flynn).

This is all beginning to go backwards.

It is not coincidental that Brandon L Van Grack is the signatory to the delay request by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s request to the new Judge, Emmet G Sullivan.

If, as has been reported, Inspector General Michael Horowitz now has evidence the FBI manipulated their FD-302 (interrogation and questioning) documents, as also admitted by FBI agent Peter Strzok in related matters regarding Clinton…

…. and those manipulated or falsified FBI 302’s (containing FBI investigative notes of Michael Flynn’s questioning during the January 2017 interview), were used in the actual Flynn charging documents.

Michael Flynn FBI Charge Lying to Investigators by The Conservative Treehouse on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

Well, then the underlying evidence presented to the initial judge, Ruben Contreras, in the December 1st plea hearing, were materially misrepresented.

With the IG exposing falsified and manipulative investigative practices by the FBI, Mueller would have no alternative but to throw the brakes on.  This whole thing is turning into a sh*t-show of epic proportions. EARLIER WE DISCUSSED

The Robert Mueller lawyer, the Special Counsel attorney that signed General Flynn’s Statement of Offense filed in U.S, District Court 12/1/2017 was “Brandon L Van Grack”. [See page #5]

When Trump transition team lawyer Kory Langhofer (Trump for America transition organization) contacted the special counsels office about the illegal and unethical way they retrieved transition team emails from the GSA. Who was he put in contact with?

It was Brandon L Van Grack who was in communication w/ the Trump for America transition organization; and, according to the documents on this topic (attached), misrepresented (ie. lied about) the Special Counsel access to the GSA emails on 12/12/2017. (Pdf Link)

Questions: A) What reason would Van Grack have for taking the call from the transition attorney in the first place? and then, B) what reason would he have for lying about the information that was requested?

It is my belief, based on mounting evidence, a specific cast of characters -within the Mueller “Russia Election Interference” probe- were placed there to protect the people behind the FBI’s 2016 counterintelligence operation against Trump.

I suspect the same FBI and DOJ “small group”, the team who worked diligently to ensure Hillary Clinton was never found culpable in the 2015/2016 email investigation, later worked on the 2016 Trump counterintelligence operation (FISA wiretapping surveillance etc).

That same “small group” within the FBI and DOJ were then given the task in 2017 of covering both prior operations: A) *Clear Hillary Clinton, and B) *Counterintel op on Trump.

To cover, cloud and protect the DOJ and FBI officials engaged in both operations, the “small group” is now assembled within Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel team.

Inside Mueller’s crew, the “small group” essentially works to watch over what information the Trump officials or congress could possibly be discovering…. under the auspices of investigating ‘Muh Russia’ etc.

If the “small group” comes across a risky trail being followed, they work to impede, block, delay or deflect anyone from that trail.

That’s why the Special Counsel attorney that signed General Flynn’s Statement of Offense filed Dec. 1, 2017, was the same attorney who responded to the Trump transition team inquiry. Brandon L Van Grack.

This “small group” are essentially career DOJ and FBI staff lawyers behind and beside the visible names we have recently become aware of: Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Bill Priestap, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, James Baker etc.

RELATED ARTICLES:

REPORT: FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND CLINTON COLLUDER ANDREW MCCABE “RESIGNS”

By  – on 

Long, long overdue.

THE BOMBSHELL #MEMO: READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE EXPLOSIVE FISA MEMO HERE

It’s time to repeal the ‘Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990’

Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4] on January 3rd, 2017 introduced H.R. 34 – Safe Students Act. H.R. 34 repeals the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.”

H.R. 34 would allow schools to properly train and authorize faculty, staff, teachers and school resource officers to be armed to protect their students nationwide.

115th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 34

To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 3, 2017

Mr. Massie (for himself and Mr. Gohmert) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1.SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Safe Students Act”.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1990 AND AMENDMENTS TO THAT ACT.

(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (q).
(b) Related Amendments.—

(1) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking paragraphs (25) through (27) and redesignating paragraphs (28), (29), and (32) through (35) as paragraphs (25) through (30), respectively.
(2) Section 924(a) of such title is amended—

(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking “(k), or (q)” and inserting “or (k)”; and
(B) by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating paragraphs (5) through (7) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively.

(3) The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. 921 note, 922 note; section 1702 of Public Law 101–647; 104 Stat. 4844–4845) is repealed.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

FBI Failed to Investigate Florida Shooter Despite Long History of Concerning Behavior

Florida School Mourns Football Coach Who Sacrificed His Own Life to Save Others in Mass Shooting

6 Common Media Myths About Gun Control

After Atheist Group Got Prayers Before Sports Canceled, Students Are Fighting Back

How Chain Migration Will Create a Permanent Democrat Majority

Republicans who want to kill chain migration — and it’s no wonder.

Democrats see chain migration as their most powerful tool in the war on conservatism.

The logic is that if they bring in enough migrants, they’ll be able to secure a Democrat voting base for generations to come. And they’ve been largely successful in winning this war in recent years.

Conservative Review has more:

Our Founders were very clear that they intended naturalization to be controlled by the federal government instead of by the states, as it had been under the Articles of Confederation, because they wanted stricter standards, not looser standards. While there were several motivations for this principle, the overarching reason was that they wanted to ensure the voting populace would consist of those who shared our democratic-republican values.

Even though immigrants back then were all from the same European stock as the current Americans, Theodore Sedgewick said during the debate on the 1790 naturalization bill that “their sensations, impregnated with prejudices of education, acquired under monarchical and aristocratical Governments, may deprive them of that zest for pure republicanism, which is necessary in order to taste its beneficence with that gratitude which we feel on the occasion.” Madison spoke of admitting only those “who are attached to our Country by its natural and political advantages.”

Jefferson feared they would “bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth…These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

The solution to this problem is having a gradual and balanced immigration system based on merit and shared values. Instead, the endless cycles of illegal immigration, amnesties, and back-door amnesty-style programs (asylum, temporary protected status, refugees), in conjunction with chain migration, has made our immigration system work for foreigners, not for citizens, realizing the worst nightmares of our founders.

Look no further than California to understand how immigration done wrong can lead to a permanent majority of anti-life, pro-big-government Democrats. The problem is that many other states are headed down the same path, in a slower but inexorable trajectory. If the same policies continue, if chain migration is not immediately halted, conservatives will find themselves in the minority nationwide, and no other issue will matter. Even though the Republican Party is not conservative, it is perceived as such and should take heed of the obvious warning signs.

No, this is not like the great immigration wave of the last century

There has been a lot of focus in recent years on the number of green cards issued each year, but not on the number of people becoming citizens. Over the past 20 years, the U.S. has admitted roughly 700,000-800,000 citizens into our voting population every year, with a few years reaching one million. Most of them have come from countries with dramatically different worldviews on issues such as guns, health care, and the size of government. Many deniers within the GOP of the political problems of mass migration point to past history and saying our previous large wave of immigration didn’t create a permanent liberal majority. But that is because we are now dwarfing the previous great wave in numbers.

Even during the highest naturalization years of the great wave, we admitted anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 new citizens to our electorate. In other words, even during the great wave, when there were some years we admitted roughly as many annual immigrants as we do today, that era of immigration didn’t result in as many people becoming citizens. Some of this had to do with life expectancy, but either way, the wave didn’t result in nearly as many naturalizations. And even the peak period of naturalization was not only much smaller but only lasted for a short period of time.

From 1996 to 2013, 12,609,174 new immigrants became citizens. During the actual great wave, the number of naturalizations was still very low because it took time for them to go through the system and become citizens. But even if you take an equivalent 18-year period with the highest level of naturalizations, which was from 1928 to1945, just 3,835,758 immigrants were naturalized. In other words, while the immigration wave of the modern era was 66 percent larger than the great wave, the “naturalization wave” was 329 percent greater.

Moreover, we have not even actualized the full extent of this wave of immigration, which is still growing.

Finally, let’s not forget that because of the shutoff in the ’20s, the peak of naturalizations resulting from the great wave coincided with a cool-off in new immigration. Contrast that to today’s wave of naturalizations that are coinciding with an even larger wave of new admissions from similar areas. This ensures a lack of assimilation into our constitutional values. Although immigrants have always voted for more liberal politicians, enough of them were moving on to the second generation and becoming conservatives. The ’30s and ’40s, when the highest numbers of great wave immigrants were becoming voting members of society, was the lowest of our new immigration levels. As noted immigration historian Maldwyn Allen Jones observed, “With reinforcements no longer arriving from across the ocean, ties with Europe were gradually weakened and memories of the old life grew dimmer with each passing year.” This dynamic “accelerated the Americanization of those groups which had come earlier.”

That is changing because the numbers are too great, the welfare state too expansive, and the immigrants dramatically and disproportionately coming from impoverished lands.

Let’s explore the results of this wave as it relates to critical states electorally, and you will see why it is so hard for Republicans to crack the blue firewall. This is somewhat old data, and the trajectory is growing every year:

What is self-evident from this data is not only the danger of Republicans losing places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona. It’s not only an explanation of why Republicans lost Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada. It also foreshadows what will happen to North Carolina, Georgia, and beyond. As late as 1990, the foreign-born population of Virginia was just five percent. It swelled to 11.4 percent in 2010 and is still surging, as high as 12.3 percent in 2016. While Virginia has experienced an influx of already-American liberals over the past two decades, that would only explain why it’s a marginal red state or even a purple state, not why it’s become a blue state.

Now take a look at the numbers and recent trajectory from Georgia. Again, there is an influx of American white liberals from other states as well as a general increase in black turnout. But immigration is what is going to paint those states purple.

Trump talks about shutting off chain migration 10 to 15 years from now, but the reality is that just the existing trajectory will paint the map blue.

While not every state will become as blue as California, the lessons of the Golden State should be a stark warning for what happens with salad-bowl rather than melting-pot immigration. Orange County, California, was once the bread basket of GOP dominance in California. As late as 1988, George H.W. Bush won more than twice as many votes as Democrat Michael Dukakis there. As late as 2004, when the broader state was long gone, George W. Bush won it by 20 points. Republicans narrowly carried it for the next two elections, until they downright lost it by 8 points in 2016.

What happened? In 1980, 12.7 percent of the county was foreign-born. In 2016, an estimated 30 percent of the county was foreign-born, and 45.6 percent of its residents speak a foreign language at home. Orange County, California, will now be blue forever.

Although California is lost forever, Texas and Florida are both independently vital to the GOP’s relevance. Dallas County, Texas, for example, has gone from 5 percent foreign-born in 1980 to 23 percent in 2016. Reagan won the county by 59.2 percent in 1980, while Trump lost it by a whopping 26 points in 2016. Sure, some of this has to do with Trump’s particular weakness with some college-educated urban/suburban white voters, and he has compensated for it by running up margins elsewhere. But the influx of unprecedented immigration has gradually and relentlessly shifted a number of counties to the Democrats over the past few elections.

One cannot escape the conclusion that unless there is a cool-off on overall immigration, the unprecedented size and duration of this wave, constantly reinforcing itself, will ensure that there are not enough second-generation voters assimilating into constitutional values to offset the new influx voting for big government. This is a clear distinction from past waves of immigration.

Of course, conservatives need to reach out to all new voters from all parts of the world to sell their message. But numbers and time matter greatly. Constitutional values can be sold to a melting pot of Americans; it will not resonate with a salad bowl.

The bottom line is this: There are many good policy reasons to cool down mass migration at this point. We need a more balanced immigration system for cultural, economic, and security reasons. But for Republicans who don’t care about policy and only care about political survival, they must understand that unless they change their tune on immigration and do so immediately, they and their party will become completely irrelevant.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on 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. The featured image is from a CNN video on chain migration.

What is fundamentally wrong with our schools? Let us count the ways…

On Valentines Day 2018 Nikolas Cruz, a 19-year old, decided to enter his former high school and began slaughtering students and faculty. Does this scenario sound familiar? It should because we knew, as a society, this was going to happen over and over again. We did not listen to those sounding the alarm bells. We turned a blind eye, and because we did there is blood flowing in our public schools and worse. We blamed everything and everyone but ourselves for this blood shed.

How did this happen? Answer: God was taken out of our schools.

God was taken out of public schools by United States Supreme Court on June 25th, 1962. In 1989 researcher David Barton published a book titled “America, to pray or not to pray?

Barton asked:

It is impossible to know how many of the 39 million children were involved in daily verbal prayers, but most accounts indicate that a clear majority of the students voluntarily participated in daily school prayer.

Is it possible that the prayers that were being offered by these children and their teachers across the nation actually had any measurable, tangible effect? 

The editorial staff of The Forerunner in 2008 published an op-ed titled “What Happened When the Praying Stopped.” The editorial staff looked at David Barton’s book and wrote about what Barton found in six areas:

Figure 1: SAT Total Scores. Basic data from the College Entrance Exam Board

Figure 1: The SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) is an academic test that measures the developed verbal and math reasoning of a student exiting from high school or some similar type of learning facility. The results of these tests are commonly used by colleges and universities to indicate the strength of a student’s academic preparation and his potential for success on the college level.

Figure 1 shows how drastically the actual knowledge of high school students began to drop at an accelerating rate after 1962. Barton notes in his report that the upturn in SAT scores since 1981 is due to the increase in private Christian educational facilities which began to flourish at that time. Statistics have proven that students from private Christian schools showed higher academic achievement and higher test scores.

Figure 2: Percentage of U.S. Teenage Girls Who Have Had Pre-Marital Intercourse.

Figure 2: This graph shows the increase in sexual activity in unmarried teen-age girls after the 1962 Supreme Court decision. It is evident from the figures provided that in the years previous to the removal of prayer the rates remained stable and relatively unchanged. In the post- prayer years the numbers immediately began to soar. The sudden increase on the graph appears as if a great restraining force had suddenly been removed.

Figure 3: Unwed women 15-19 years of age showed a phenomenal increase in the rate of pregnancies after the School Prayer decision. Note that the figure jumps drastically after the Supreme Court’s Roe vs. Wade decision which made abortion legal in the U.S. The United States now has the highest incidence of teen-age motherhood in any Western country.

Figure 5: SINGLE PARENT HOUSEHOLDS. Female Head, No Spouse Present

Figure 4: For the 15-19 and 20-24 age group, the rates of youth suicide remained relatively unchanged during the years from 1946 to the School Prayer decision in 1962. But in the years since, suicides among the same group have increased 253 percent, or an average of 10.5 percent per year.

Figure 5: Stability in the family has also been affected since the 1962 decision. Divorce, single parent families, couples living together but not married, and adultery are areas of family breakdown which have experienced radical growth in recent years. In the graph above, the increase in single parent families (households with only a mother and children) are detailed. Note the dotted line at the bottom, which shows the rate of growth prior to the 1962 decision.

Figure 6: VIOLENT CRIME: Number of Offenses.

Figure 6: Crime, productivity, and national morality had been on a fairly stable level prior to the 1962 decision, but that is no longer the case. It is obvious that such a quantity of students praying for their nation had a very positive effect on the course that this nation had taken. The rate of violent crime, as shown above, has risen over 330 percent.

Click here to view more of the charts in America, to pray or not to pray?.

In an August 15, 2014 CNS News published an article titled “Education Expert: Removing Bible, Prayer from Public Schools Has Caused Decline” by Penny Starr. Starr interview Dr. William Jeynes a Professor of Education at California State University, Long Beach. Starr reported:

“One can argue, and some have, that the decision by the Supreme Court – in a series of three decisions back in 1962 and 1963 – to remove Bible and prayer from our public schools, may be the most spiritually significant event in our nation’s history over the course of the last 55 years,” Jeynes said.

[ … ]

Since 1963, Jeynes said there have been five negative developments in the nation’s public schools:

  • Academic achievement has plummeted, including SAT scores.
  • Increased rate of out-of-wedlock births
  • Increase in illegal drug use
  • Increase in juvenile crime
  • Deterioration of school behavior

Dr. Jeynes noted, “So we need to realize that these actions do have consequences. When we remove that moral fiber — that moral emphasis – this is what can result.”

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision the top five complaints of teachers from 1940-1962 were talking, chewing gum, making noise, running in the halls and getting out of turn in line. Since 1963 the greater concerns are rape, robbery, assault, burglary and arson.

We are reaping what we have sown.

RELATED VIDEO: Atheistic School Shootings.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Florida shooter “sympathized with Syrian terrorists and how people who opposed them should be killed”

School Shooting Was Outcome of Broward County School Board Policy

At Least 20 Students Told Police Nikolas Cruz Threatened To KILL Them—Police Did Nothing

Christian Teacher Fired, Reported to Counter-Terror Unit After Telling Lesbian ‘God Loves You’

VIDEO: The Social Engineering Agenda of ‘Social Emotional Learning’

Communist China’s Growing Influence in Florida’s Schools and Universities

The Humanitarian Hoax of Common Core: Killing America With Kindness

Israeli President: ‘The People of Israel Stand with the People of Florida’

Are We Free to Discuss America’s Real Problems? – Imprimis

U.S. Secret Service Threat Assessment in Schools

Florida School Mourns Football Coach Who Sacrificed His Own Life to Save Others in Mass Shooting

6 Common Media Myths About Gun Control

After Atheist Group Got Prayers Before Sports Canceled, Students Are Fighting Back

Nickolas Cruz

EDITORS NOTE: Nikolas Cruz has been identified as the alleged killer of 17 at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County, FL. Cruz was “expelled from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School for unspecified disciplinary reasons.” Cruz was adopted by Lynda Cruz, a widow. Postings under the name Nikolas Cruz included threatening comments under videos on YouTube and other sites, including “I whana shoot people with my AR-15” (sic), “I wanna die Fighting killing s**t ton of people” and “I am going to kill law enforcement one day they go after the good people.”

Polygamy, Robot Sex Are Consequences of the Sexual Revolution

Not for nothing, but the latest fruits of the sexual revolution are even more bizarre than most of us imagined.

We knew things would get a little freaky, but maybe we didn’t know it would involve an upswing in polygamy, amorous activities with plastic women, or cuddling sessions with electric candelabra.

But that is the state of affairs as we approach Valentine’s Day this year.

We shouldn’t be surprised. When a society deifies sexual expression, it deifies a jealous god who will not be satisfied until every biological, social, and moral norm is overturned.

Consider the upswing in open marriages. In a recent edition of The Chronicle Review, Carrie Ichikawa Jenkins, a British-Canadian philosopher, argues that polygamy should be normalized. Jenkins practices polygamy (which she calls “polyamory”) with her husband, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, and her boyfriend, Ray Hsu.

Jenkins and her husband have been open about their polygamy since July 2011, shortly after their wedding. Jenkins notes that people are judgmental, “lecturing” her for taking part in something they consider unnatural and immoral.

But Jenkins responds that polygamy is quite natural and moral.

She argues that polygamy is the most natural relationship of all, as can be seen in the fact that very few animal species are monogamous. “Not even swans are monogamous,” she says. Not even swans.

She argues that polygamy is a moral way of life, with open marriages consisting of nothing more than ethical individuals being faithful to their multiple true loves.

Or, consider the emergence of sexual love with multiple sex dolls. Recently, The Guardian ran a story on James, a 58-year-old from Atlanta, Georgia. James, it turns out, is married to a human woman, Tine, but is also the owner of four life-size silicon sweethearts.

Two years ago, James’ wife left the home briefly to care for her ailing mother. Months later, she returned to find her husband surrounded by four new “ladies,” remarkable for their physical dimensions and their willingness to remain silent.

In short order, she learned that James had been “dating” the robots—taking them for picnics, watching television together, and engaging in, er, nocturnal activities with them.

James’ plastic princesses are the fruit of an emerging industry of animatronic, AI-enabled silicon sexbots. These sexbots are custom-made, complete with silicon body parts, heating and lubrication systems, and changing facial expressions.

The idea of sex robots is not new. In 2007, futurist David Levy published “Love and Sex with Robots,” in which he argued that robotic love would soon be embraced in the West.

In a recent interview, Levy argued that robotic love has many merits, as it could make prostitution obsolete, teach humans a greater variety of lovemaking positions, and provide pedophiles an outlet for their desire.

“Look. One has to accept that sexual mores advance with time, and morality with it,” Levy said in a recent interview. “Nothing can be ruled out.”

Finally, consider the curious case of erotic love with multiple light fixtures.

Recently, Inside Edition ran a story on Amanda Liberty, 33, of Leeds, England, who “married” her favorite chandelier. Liberty, who identifies as objectum sexual, says she just “knew” she would marry “Lumiere” the moment she first saw “her” on eBay last year.

In spite of the marriage, Liberty remains in an open relationship with her collection of more than 20 other lighting fixtures:

None of my chandeliers are jealous of each other. They understand that I love them all for their different personalities. For example, I love kissing and cuddling Lumiere, but I sleep with Jewel every night, as she is portable and very nice to cuddle.

Relentlessly true to the inner logic of the sexual revolution, polygamy, sexbots, and object-sex are part of the relentless drive to redefine marriage, sex, and romantic love. We are hard-wired for sex, according to this logic, but society must not cast judgment on our choice of sexual union.

Other trends include Ivy League attempts to normalize sex with animals (bestiality) and dead people (necrophilia).

But make no mistake. These latest iterations of the sexual revolution are unnatural and immoral. Their public emergence might tell us what “is” happening culturally, but it cannot tell us what we “ought” to do.

For the “ought,” we must turn, as our Founding Fathers did, to the Judeo-Christian view of humanity and sexuality. From it, we learn that God created human beings in his image and likeness, providing us with spiritual and moral guidance so that we could flourish and experience life’s goodness.

Central to this moral guidance is the truth that marriage and family are the core social units of society. Together they form the most important context in which children are shaped to understand themselves and their relationship with the world.

So, on Valentine’s Day this year, let’s make clear to our children and to society that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that any departure from that norm will leave us empty and pitiful in our attempts at sexual fulfillment.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Bruce Ashford

Bruce Ashford is provost and professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the co-author of “One Nation Under God: A Christian Hope for American Politics,” and blogs at “Christianity for the Common Good. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLEParents on Explicit Sex Ed: Get Real!

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: The featured image is by igor_kell/Getty Images.

VIDEO: He Escaped From a North Korean Prison Camp. Now He’s Showing the World His Torture Scars.

SEOUL, South Korea—In an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal, human rights activist Shin Dong-hyuk shows scars that he suffered from torture inside a North Korean prison camp.

Shin was born in a North Korean prison in 1982 and made a daring escape in 2005. He allowed The Daily Signal to film his back and buttocks, which were burned when he was hung above a charcoal fire.

“As the fire started rising up toward my back,” Shin said, “I could feel that it was scorching hot, and I could even smell my own flesh burning.”

This week, the U.N. Security Council met in New York, and Shin is hoping the international community will recognize what’s happening in North Korea.

“If the U.N. or anyone in the international community cares about the human rights issue in North Korea … if you have any worries or concerns at all for the North Koreans who are suffering and dying right now, I strongly plead for some sort of direct action to be taken for them,” Shin said.

Shin also spoke about his escape from the North Korean prison camp in a separate video The Daily Signal will release next week.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Ed Frank

Ed Frank

Over the past 20 years, Ed Frank has worked in communications roles on Capitol Hill, in the Bush administration and for free-market organizations. He’s currently president of Frank Strategies. He recently visited Botswana on behalf of The Daily Signal. Twitter: @frankstrategies.

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

Why the 2020 Census Needs a Citizenship Question

The request set off a firestorm of protest from Democratic lawmakers, liberal activists and left-leaning journalists despite the fact that before the Obama administration removed citizenship: in 2010 it was part of the main Census. They are concerned that asking about citizenship would discourage illegal aliens from participating in the 2020 Census, leading to undercounts in states like California and New York, which have large numbers of illegal residents. This would reduce the number of electoral votes and congressional districts in such states.

By Jay O’ Callaghan

In an action which set off a major uproar from the left, the Justice Department has requested that a single simple citizenship question be added to the full 2020 Census so they can better enforce voting-rights laws and increase confidence in election results.

“In order to assess and enforce compliance with Section 2’s protection against discrimination in voting, the Department needs to be able to obtain citizen voting-age population data,” Arthur E. Gary, general counsel at the justice management division of the Justice Department, wrote in a December 12th. letter to Census Bureau Acting Director Ron Jarmin.

Citizenship has long been a part of the census since the 1850s. The Obama administration removed it for the 2010 Census along with most other questions and shifted it to the smaller, in-depth rolling survey known as the American Community Survey (ACS) when it eliminated the old long form. The ACS is filled out by only one in every 38 households every year, compared to the long form which surveyed one in six households every 10 years.

Devin M. O’Malley, a Justice Department spokesman, points out the Census Bureau reports that such data isn’t precise enough to use in redistricting, and it’s important to have the citizenship question on the main Census form that will cover all Americans.

The Census Bureau states that it asks the citizenship question in general because: “we ask about place of birth, citizenship, and year of entry to provide statistics about citizens and the foreign-born population. These statistics are essential for agencies and policy makers setting and evaluating immigration policies and laws, understanding how different immigrant groups are assimilated, and monitoring against discrimination. These statistics are also used to tailor services to accommodate cultural differences.”

In a recent Supreme Court case (Evenwel v. Abbott 2016) the legality of districting based on the count of citizens or eligible voters is unsettled after the Supreme Court declined to address it. In the Evenwel case, the plaintiffs sought to require Texas to draw its Senate districts based on citizenship rather than the present method of total population.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, four former census directors, who served under administrations of both parties, supported Texas because “the geographic areas at which such estimates are available carry large error margins because of the small sample sizes.” They concluded the ACS is “an inappropriate source of data to support a constitutional rule requiring states to create districts with equal numbers of voting age citizens.”

Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, is among the researchers who supports the request. He believes that “basically more information is always better from a researcher’s point of view…and when you look at things like apportioning and redistricting, which rely on Census data, those things are always a concern.”

The request set off a firestorm of protest from Democratic lawmakers, liberal activists and left-leaning journalists despite the fact that before the Obama administration removed citizenship: in 2010 it was part of the main Census. They are concerned that asking about citizenship would discourage illegal aliens from participating in the 2020 Census, leading to undercounts in states like California and New York, which have large numbers of illegal residents. This would reduce the number of electoral votes and congressional districts in such states.

Arguments against including the citizenship question “are weakened because citizenship was asked on Census forms throughout much of American history” according to Tony Quinn, the editor of the authoritative guide to California districts, the California Target Book.

He points out that “early in our history the Census began asking whether the individual being enumerated was born in the United States. After the Civil War, with the huge boom in European migration, the Census asked whether the person was a citizen eligible to vote. Beginning in 1880, the Census asked the place of birth not only of the enumerated person but of the parents as well.”

Quinn adds that “with the 1890 census the question was asked: are you a naturalized citizen or not. The year of immigration of a foreign-born person as well as the year of naturalization (if naturalized) was asked in the 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940 and 1950 censuses, in other words for the first half of the 20th Century.”

He also supports adding the citizenship question because: “the census asked about citizenship during the great migrations of the 19th and 20th Centuries because the government had a legitimate reason to want to know where people came from. We now have a large immigrant population, some of whom are legal and some of whom are not. Certainly, it is legitimate to want to determine who this population is.”

Questions in the 2020 Census must be decided by April, two years before the Census is conducted, and any Census questions must have the approval of Congress. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and other Census officials should endorse the Justice Department request and encourage lawmakers to add it to the 2020 Census.


ABOUT JAY O’CALLAGHAN

Jay O’Callaghan has worked extensively with issues involving the U.S. Census Bureau including serving as a professional staff member for the House Government Reform Census Subcommittee, as a senior legislative analyst for the Florida House of Representatives Redistricting Committee and for two U.S. House members. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis, of the Conservative-Online-Journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

RELATE ARTICLES:

Is Moscow ‘Deep State’ HQ?

The Emerging Arab Vote in Congressional Districts

Will Trump Save the 2020 Census?

Trump Lets You Vote on Controversial 2020 Census C…

Were Muslim Voters Behind Sanders’ Surprising Upse…

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of California Democrats who have the most to gain by counting illegal immigrants in the 2020 Census: Senator Kamala Harris, Governor Jerry Brown, and Senator Diane Feinstein.