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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

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

President Trump at the UN: ‘We meet at a time of both of immense promise and great peril.’

President Trump made his first speech before the United Nations and it was amazing to watch. The President warned, “To put it simply, we meet at a time of both of immense promise and great peril.  It is entirely up to us whether we lift the world to new heights, or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.”

President Trump emphasized three key policies of his administration: national sovereignty, security and prosperity.

Perhaps his most powerful statement was about Venezuela when the President said:

The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.

On refugees President Trump noted, “For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10 in their home region.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

At the UN, Trump Ends the Era of Leading From Behind

Netanyahu on Trump UN Speech: In More than 30 Years at UN, Have Not Heard a Speech so Bold and Courageous

6 Key Takeaways From Trump’s Big UN Speech

Bolton: ‘This Was the Best Speech of the Trump Presidency’

TRANSCRIPT: Remarks by President Trump to the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly

United Nations
New York, New York

10:04 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, world leaders, and distinguished delegates:  Welcome to New York.  It is a profound honor to stand here in my home city, as a representative of the American people, to address the people of the world.

As millions of our citizens continue to suffer the effects of the devastating hurricanes that have struck our country, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation to every leader in this room who has offered assistance and aid.  The American people are strong and resilient, and they will emerge from these hardships more determined than ever before.

Fortunately, the United States has done very well since Election Day last November 8th. The stock market is at an all-time high — a record.  Unemployment is at its lowest level in 16 years, and because of our regulatory and other reforms, we have more people working in the United States today than ever before.  Companies are moving back, creating job growth the likes of which our country has not seen in a very long time.  And it has just been announced that we will be spending almost $700 billion on our military and defense.

Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been.  For more than 70 years, in times of war and peace, the leaders of nations, movements, and religions have stood before this assembly. Like them, I intend to address some of the very serious threats before us today but also the enormous potential waiting to be unleashed.

We live in a time of extraordinary opportunity. Breakthroughs in science, technology, and medicine are curing illnesses and solving problems that prior generations thought impossible to solve.

But each day also brings news of growing dangers that threaten everything we cherish and value.  Terrorists and extremists have gathered strength and spread to every region of the planet. Rogue regimes represented in this body not only support terrorists but threaten other nations and their own people with the most destructive weapons known to humanity.

Authority and authoritarian powers seek to collapse the values, the systems, and alliances that prevented conflict and tilted the world toward freedom since World War II.

International criminal networks traffic drugs, weapons, people; force dislocation and mass migration; threaten our borders; and new forms of aggression exploit technology to menace our citizens.

To put it simply, we meet at a time of both of immense promise and great peril.  It is entirely up to us whether we lift the world to new heights, or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.

We have it in our power, should we so choose, to lift millions from poverty, to help our citizens realize their dreams, and to ensure that new generations of children are raised free from violence, hatred, and fear.

This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars to help shape this better future.  It was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity.

It was in the same period, exactly 70 years ago, that the United States developed the Marshall Plan to help restore Europe.  Those three beautiful pillars — they’re pillars of peace, sovereignty, security, and prosperity.

The Marshall Plan was built on the noble idea that the whole world is safer when nations are strong, independent, and free.  As President Truman said in his message to Congress at that time, “Our support of European recovery is in full accord with our support of the United Nations.  The success of the United Nations depends upon the independent strength of its members.”

To overcome the perils of the present and to achieve the promise of the future, we must begin with the wisdom of the past. Our success depends on a coalition of strong and independent nations that embrace their sovereignty to promote security, prosperity, and peace for themselves and for the world.

We do not expect diverse countries to share the same cultures, traditions, or even systems of government. But we do expect all nations to uphold these two core sovereign duties:  to respect the interests of their own people and the rights of every other sovereign nation.  This is the beautiful vision of this institution, and this is foundation for cooperation and success.

Strong, sovereign nations let diverse countries with different values, different cultures, and different dreams not just coexist, but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect.

Strong, sovereign nations let their people take ownership of the future and control their own destiny. And strong, sovereign nations allow individuals to flourish in the fullness of the life intended by God.

In America, we do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to watch.  This week gives our country a special reason to take pride in that example.  We are celebrating the 230th anniversary of our beloved Constitution — the oldest constitution still in use in the world today.

This timeless document has been the foundation of peace, prosperity, and freedom for the Americans and for countless millions around the globe whose own countries have found inspiration in its respect for human nature, human dignity, and the rule of law.

The greatest in the United States Constitution is its first three beautiful words. They are:  “We the people.”

Generations of Americans have sacrificed to maintain the promise of those words, the promise of our country, and of our great history. In America, the people govern, the people rule, and the people are sovereign.  I was elected not to take power, but to give power to the American people, where it belongs.

In foreign affairs, we are renewing this founding principle of sovereignty.  Our government’s first duty is to its people, to our citizens — to serve their needs, to ensure their safety, to preserve their rights, and to defend their values.

As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like you, as the leaders of your countries will always, and should always, put your countries first.  (Applause.)

All responsible leaders have an obligation to serve their own citizens, and the nation-state remains the best vehicle for elevating the human condition.

But making a better life for our people also requires us to work together in close harmony and unity to create a more safe and peaceful future for all people.

The United States will forever be a great friend to the world, and especially to its allies.  But we can no longer be taken advantage of, or enter into a one-sided deal where the United States gets nothing in return.  As long as I hold this office, I will defend America’s interests above all else.

But in fulfilling our obligations to our own nations, we also realize that it’s in everyone’s interest to seek a future where all nations can be sovereign, prosperous, and secure.

America does more than speak for the values expressed in the United Nations Charter.  Our citizens have paid the ultimate price to defend our freedom and the freedom of many nations represented in this great hall.  America’s devotion is measured on the battlefields where our young men and women have fought and sacrificed alongside of our allies, from the beaches of Europe to the deserts of the Middle East to the jungles of Asia.

It is an eternal credit to the American character that even after we and our allies emerged victorious from the bloodiest war in history, we did not seek territorial expansion, or attempt to oppose and impose our way of life on others.  Instead, we helped build institutions such as this one to defend the sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.

For the diverse nations of the world, this is our hope.  We want harmony and friendship, not conflict and strife.  We are guided by outcomes, not ideology.  We have a policy of principled realism, rooted in shared goals, interests, and values.

That realism forces us to confront a question facing every leader and nation in this room.  It is a question we cannot escape or avoid. We will slide down the path of complacency, numb to the challenges, threats, and even wars that we face.  Or do we have enough strength and pride to confront those dangers today, so that our citizens can enjoy peace and prosperity tomorrow?

If we desire to lift up our citizens, if we aspire to the approval of history, then we must fulfill our sovereign duties to the people we faithfully represent.  We must protect our nations, their interests, and their futures.  We must reject threats to sovereignty, from the Ukraine to the South China Sea.  We must uphold respect for law, respect for borders, and respect for culture, and the peaceful engagement these allow.  And just as the founders of this body intended, we must work together and confront together those who threaten us with chaos, turmoil, and terror.

The scourge of our planet today is a small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the United Nations is based.  They respect neither their own citizens nor the sovereign rights of their countries.

If the righteous many do not confront the wicked few, then evil will triumph.  When decent people and nations become bystanders to history, the forces of destruction only gather power and strength.

No one has shown more contempt for other nations and for the wellbeing of their own people than the depraved regime in North Korea.  It is responsible for the starvation deaths of millions of North Koreans, and for the imprisonment, torture, killing, and oppression of countless more.

We were all witness to the regime’s deadly abuse when an innocent American college student, Otto Warmbier, was returned to America only to die a few days later.  We saw it in the assassination of the dictator’s brother using banned nerve agents in an international airport.  We know it kidnapped a sweet 13-year-old Japanese girl from a beach in her own country to enslave her as a language tutor for North Korea’s spies.

If this is not twisted enough, now North Korea’s reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles threatens the entire world with unthinkable loss of human life.

It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime, but would arm, supply, and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict.  No nation on earth has an interest in seeing this band of criminals arm itself with nuclear weapons and missiles.

The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea.  Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.  The United States is ready, willing and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary.  That’s what the United Nations is all about; that’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do.

It is time for North Korea to realize that the denuclearization is its only acceptable future. The United Nations Security Council recently held two unanimous 15-0 votes adopting hard-hitting resolutions against North Korea, and I want to thank China and Russia for joining the vote to impose sanctions, along with all of the other members of the Security Council.  Thank you to all involved.

But we must do much more.  It is time for all nations to work together to isolate the Kim regime until it ceases its hostile behavior.

We face this decision not only in North Korea.  It is far past time for the nations of the world to confront another reckless regime — one that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing death to America, destruction to Israel, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.

The Iranian government masks a corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of a democracy.  It has turned a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos.  The longest-suffering victims of Iran’s leaders are, in fact, its own people.

Rather than use its resources to improve Iranian lives, its oil profits go to fund Hezbollah and other terrorists that kill innocent Muslims and attack their peaceful Arab and Israeli neighbors.  This wealth, which rightly belongs to Iran’s people, also goes to shore up Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship, fuel Yemen’s civil war, and undermine peace throughout the entire Middle East.

We cannot let a murderous regime continue these destabilizing activities while building dangerous missiles, and we cannot abide by an agreement if it provides cover for the eventual construction of a nuclear program.  (Applause.)  The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.  Frankly, that deal is an embarrassment to the United States, and I don’t think you’ve heard the last of it — believe me.

It is time for the entire world to join us in demanding that Iran’s government end its pursuit of death and destruction.  It is time for the regime to free all Americans and citizens of other nations that they have unjustly detained.  And above all, Iran’s government must stop supporting terrorists, begin serving its own people, and respect the sovereign rights of its neighbors.

The entire world understands that the good people of Iran want change, and, other than the vast military power of the United States, that Iran’s people are what their leaders fear the most.  This is what causes the regime to restrict Internet access, tear down satellite dishes, shoot unarmed student protestors, and imprison political reformers.

Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the Iranian people will face a choice.  Will they continue down the path of poverty, bloodshed, and terror?  Or will the Iranian people return to the nation’s proud roots as a center of civilization, culture, and wealth where their people can be happy and prosperous once again?

The Iranian regime’s support for terror is in stark contrast to the recent commitments of many of its neighbors to fight terrorism and halt its financing.

In Saudi Arabia early last year, I was greatly honored to address the leaders of more than 50 Arab and Muslim nations.  We agreed that all responsible nations must work together to confront terrorists and the Islamist extremism that inspires them.

We will stop radical Islamic terrorism because we cannot allow it to tear up our nation, and indeed to tear up the entire world.

We must deny the terrorists safe haven, transit, funding, and any form of support for their vile and sinister ideology.  We must drive them out of our nations.  It is time to expose and hold responsible those countries who support and finance terror groups like al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban and others that slaughter innocent people.

The United States and our allies are working together throughout the Middle East to crush the loser terrorists and stop the reemergence of safe havens they use to launch attacks on all of our people.

Last month, I announced a new strategy for victory in the fight against this evil in Afghanistan.  From now on, our security interests will dictate the length and scope of military operations, not arbitrary benchmarks and timetables set up by politicians.

I have also totally changed the rules of engagement in our fight against the Taliban and other terrorist groups.  In Syria and Iraq, we have made big gains toward lasting defeat of ISIS.  In fact, our country has achieved more against ISIS in the last eight months than it has in many, many years combined.

We seek the de-escalation of the Syrian conflict, and a political solution that honors the will of the Syrian people.  The actions of the criminal regime of Bashar al-Assad, including the use of chemical weapons against his own citizens — even innocent children — shock the conscience of every decent person.  No society can be safe if banned chemical weapons are allowed to spread.  That is why the United States carried out a missile strike on the airbase that launched the attack.

We appreciate the efforts of United Nations agencies that are providing vital humanitarian assistance in areas liberated from ISIS, and we especially thank Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon for their role in hosting refugees from the Syrian conflict.

The United States is a compassionate nation and has spent billions and billions of dollars in helping to support this effort.  We seek an approach to refugee resettlement that is designed to help these horribly treated people, and which enables their eventual return to their home countries, to be part of the rebuilding process.

For the cost of resettling one refugee in the United States, we can assist more than 10 in their home region.  Out of the goodness of our hearts, we offer financial assistance to hosting countries in the region, and we support recent agreements of the G20 nations that will seek to host refugees as close to their home countries as possible.  This is the safe, responsible, and humanitarian approach.

For decades, the United States has dealt with migration challenges here in the Western Hemisphere.  We have learned that, over the long term, uncontrolled migration is deeply unfair to both the sending and the receiving countries.

For the sending countries, it reduces domestic pressure to pursue needed political and economic reform, and drains them of the human capital necessary to motivate and implement those reforms.

For the receiving countries, the substantial costs of uncontrolled migration are borne overwhelmingly by low-income citizens whose concerns are often ignored by both media and government.

I want to salute the work of the United Nations in seeking to address the problems that cause people to flee from their homes.  The United Nations and African Union led peacekeeping missions to have invaluable contributions in stabilizing conflicts in Africa.  The United States continues to lead the world in humanitarian assistance, including famine prevention and relief in South Sudan, Somalia, and northern Nigeria and Yemen.

We have invested in better health and opportunity all over the world through programs like PEPFAR, which funds AIDS relief; the President’s Malaria Initiative; the Global Health Security Agenda; the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery; and the Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative, part of our commitment to empowering women all across the globe.

We also thank — (applause) — we also thank the Secretary General for recognizing that the United Nations must reform if it is to be an effective partner in confronting threats to sovereignty, security, and prosperity.  Too often the focus of this organization has not been on results, but on bureaucracy and process.

In some cases, states that seek to subvert this institution’s noble aims have hijacked the very systems that are supposed to advance them.  For example, it is a massive source of embarrassment to the United Nations that some governments with egregious human rights records sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council.

The United States is one out of 193 countries in the United Nations, and yet we pay 22 percent of the entire budget and more.  In fact, we pay far more than anybody realizes.  The United States bears an unfair cost burden, but, to be fair, if it could actually accomplish all of its stated goals, especially the goal of peace, this investment would easily be well worth it.

Major portions of the world are in conflict and some, in fact, are going to hell.  But the powerful people in this room, under the guidance and auspices of the United Nations, can solve many of these vicious and complex problems.

The American people hope that one day soon the United Nations can be a much more accountable and effective advocate for human dignity and freedom around the world.  In the meantime, we believe that no nation should have to bear a disproportionate share of the burden, militarily or financially.  Nations of the world must take a greater role in promoting secure and prosperous societies in their own regions.

That is why in the Western Hemisphere, the United States has stood against the corrupt and destabilizing regime in Cuba and embraced the enduring dream of the Cuban people to live in freedom.  My administration recently announced that we will not lift sanctions on the Cuban government until it makes fundamental reforms.

We have also imposed tough, calibrated sanctions on the socialist Maduro regime in Venezuela, which has brought a once thriving nation to the brink of total collapse.

The socialist dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro has inflicted terrible pain and suffering on the good people of that country.  This corrupt regime destroyed a prosperous nation by imposing a failed ideology that has produced poverty and misery everywhere it has been tried. To make matters worse, Maduro has defied his own people, stealing power from their elected representatives to preserve his disastrous rule.

The Venezuelan people are starving and their country is collapsing.  Their democratic institutions are being destroyed.  This situation is completely unacceptable and we cannot stand by and watch.

As a responsible neighbor and friend, we and all others have a goal.  That goal is to help them regain their freedom, recover their country, and restore their democracy.  I would like to thank leaders in this room for condemning the regime and providing vital support to the Venezuelan people.

The United States has taken important steps to hold the regime accountable.  We are prepared to take further action if the government of Venezuela persists on its path to impose authoritarian rule on the Venezuelan people.

We are fortunate to have incredibly strong and healthy trade relationships with many of the Latin American countries gathered here today.  Our economic bond forms a critical foundation for advancing peace and prosperity for all of our people and all of our neighbors.

I ask every country represented here today to be prepared to do more to address this very real crisis.  We call for the full restoration of democracy and political freedoms in Venezuela. (Applause.)

The problem in Venezuela is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented. (Applause.)  From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.  Those who preach the tenets of these discredited ideologies only contribute to the continued suffering of the people who live under these cruel systems.

America stands with every person living under a brutal regime.  Our respect for sovereignty is also a call for action.  All people deserve a government that cares for their safety, their interests, and their wellbeing, including their prosperity.

In America, we seek stronger ties of business and trade with all nations of good will, but this trade must be fair and it must be reciprocal.

For too long, the American people were told that mammoth multinational trade deals, unaccountable international tribunals, and powerful global bureaucracies were the best way to promote their success.  But as those promises flowed, millions of jobs vanished and thousands of factories disappeared.  Others gamed the system and broke the rules.  And our great middle class, once the bedrock of American prosperity, was forgotten and left behind, but they are forgotten no more and they will never be forgotten again.

While America will pursue cooperation and commerce with other nations, we are renewing our commitment to the first duty of every government:  the duty of our citizens.  This bond is the source of America’s strength and that of every responsible nation represented here today.

If this organization is to have any hope of successfully confronting the challenges before us, it will depend, as President Truman said some 70 years ago, on the “independent strength of its members.”  If we are to embrace the opportunities of the future and overcome the present dangers together, there can be no substitute for strong, sovereign, and independent nations — nations that are rooted in their histories and invested in their destinies; nations that seek allies to befriend, not enemies to conquer; and most important of all, nations that are home to patriots, to men and women who are willing to sacrifice for their countries, their fellow citizens, and for all that is best in the human spirit.

In remembering the great victory that led to this body’s founding, we must never forget that those heroes who fought against evil also fought for the nations that they loved.

Patriotism led the Poles to die to save Poland, the French to fight for a free France, and the Brits to stand strong for Britain.

Today, if we do not invest ourselves, our hearts, and our minds in our nations, if we will not build strong families, safe communities, and healthy societies for ourselves, no one can do it for us.

We cannot wait for someone else, for faraway countries or far-off bureaucrats — we can’t do it.  We must solve our problems, to build our prosperity, to secure our futures, or we will be vulnerable to decay, domination, and defeat.

The true question for the United Nations today, for people all over the world who hope for better lives for themselves and their children, is a basic one:  Are we still patriots?  Do we love our nations enough to protect their sovereignty and to take ownership of their futures?  Do we revere them enough to defend their interests, preserve their cultures, and ensure a peaceful world for their citizens?

One of the greatest American patriots, John Adams, wrote that the American Revolution was “effected before the war commenced.  The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.”

That was the moment when America awoke, when we looked around and understood that we were a nation.  We realized who we were, what we valued, and what we would give our lives to defend.  From its very first moments, the American story is the story of what is possible when people take ownership of their future.

The United States of America has been among the greatest forces for good in the history of the world, and the greatest defenders of sovereignty, security, and prosperity for all.

Now we are calling for a great reawakening of nations, for the revival of their spirits, their pride, their people, and their patriotism.

History is asking us whether we are up to the task.  Our answer will be a renewal of will, a rediscovery of resolve, and a rebirth of devotion.  We need to defeat the enemies of humanity and unlock the potential of life itself.

Our hope is a word and world of proud, independent nations that embrace their duties, seek friendship, respect others, and make common cause in the greatest shared interest of all:  a future of dignity and peace for the people of this wonderful Earth.

This is the true vision of the United Nations, the ancient wish of every people, and the deepest yearning that lives inside every sacred soul.

So let this be our mission, and let this be our message to the world:  We will fight together, sacrifice together, and stand together for peace, for freedom, for justice, for family, for humanity, and for the almighty God who made us all.

Thank you.  God bless you.  God bless the nations of the world.  And God bless the United States of America.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

END
10:46 A.M. EDT

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters, Tuesday, Sept. 19, 2017. Mary Altaffer/AP

Likely Next Solicitor General Fought for Nuns, Against Disputed Obama Appointees

After racking up victories against the Obama administration before the Supreme Court, Noel Francisco is expected to be confirmed by the Senate to manage the Trump administration’s cases there.

“If you asked any conservative attorney in this town, they would put Noel in the top five legal minds,” @Curt_Levey says.

President Donald Trump nominated Francisco, who clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia and was a lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, to be his solicitor general.

A Senate committee approved the nomination four months ago. Democrats have stalled a final vote, but an end looks in sight.

While working in private practice for the Jones Day law firm, Francisco, 48, successfully argued before the Supreme Court against the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, winning a 9-0 decision.

He also gained a 4-4 tie at the high court after arguing for the Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic order of nuns, against Obamacare’s mandate requiring employers to cover contraception and abortion-inducing drugs in employee health plans.

In another widely publicized case that made its way to the high court, Francisco helped overturn the conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, a Republican, on charges of public corruption.

The Supreme Court is set to begin hearing new cases Oct. 2. Some of the more high-profile cases concern the separation of powers, Trump’s “extreme vetting” order blocking immigration from certain failed states, and religious freedom.

“There are a number of very significant cases before the court and he is equal to the task for any cases before the Supreme Court,” John Malcolm, who heads the Institute for Constitutional Government at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “Noel Francisco is exceptionally bright and has impeccable character, and the nation will be well served to have him as solicitor general.”

Francisco, approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party line, 11-9 vote in June, is one of many Trump nominees whom Senate Democrats have managed to prevent from coming to a final floor vote.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative legal group, watched Francisco argue the NLRB v. Noel Canning case before the Supreme Court. The justices unanimously ruled the president could not make recess appointments—installing appointees without Senate confirmation—while the Senate was not officially in recess.

Severino said Francisco’s impressive record was on display in his actions as a litigator.

“This has been another shameful holdup by the Senate Democrats who dragged this nomination out much longer than necessary,” Severino told The Daily Signal. “Noel Francisco is very well-known attorney and a very skilled litigator.”

“I’m glad he’s on board,” she added, “but we are still moving at a pace of confirmation that it would take three terms to appoint all of this administration’s nominees.”

The U.S. solicitor general works in the Justice Department, charged with managing the defense of the federal government’s cases in front of the Supreme Court. In many cases, the solicitor general argues the case.

Francisco briefly served as acting solicitor general until Trump nominated him for the position in March. Jeffrey Wall, who has served as acting solicitor general, is set to take the office’s No. 2 slot upon Francisco’s confirmation.

Francisco grew up in Oswego, New York. Francisco received his law degree from the University of Chicago in 1996. He clerked for Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit before clerking for Scalia at the Supreme Court.

Bush named Francisco as associate counsel to the president. He served in the White House from 2001 to 2003 before becoming deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department until 2005.

Francisco lives in Washington with his wife Cynthia and their two daughters, Caroline and Maggie.

“If you asked any conservative attorney in this town, they would put Noel in the top five legal minds,” said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice and a legal affairs fellow with FreedomWorks, both conservative organizations.

“Given the resistance to Trump in the federal courts, almost everything could be dealt a blow by a district court somewhere, it’s important to have someone with executive branch experience, and it’s more important than ever for not only the country but for this administration,” Levey told The Daily Signal.

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

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Noel Francisco, President Trump’s nominee for solicitor general, testifying on May 10 before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Photo: Ron Sachs/DPA/Picture Alliance/Newscom). Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

VIDEO: Are Some Cultures Better than Others?

Are some cultures better than others? To even ask the question is heresy on today’s college campuses. Why? Because multiculturalism – the idea that no culture is better or worse than any other – has become a dogma. In this week’s video, bestselling author and Indian immigrant Dinesh D’Souza deconstructs multiculturalism and explains why one culture – the culture of the West – actually is better than others. Watch Dinesh’s video here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Diversity Can Spell Trouble

EDITORS NOTE: Did you know PragerU is a 501(c)3 non-profit?  Please consider a monthly donation to help us continue to reach young people with our videos. Donate here.

Telegraaf interview Geert Wilders — ‘In my opinion Islam is not a religion’

Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders is deeply concerned about Muslim integration. In our series Islam in the Netherlands  he is warning about the “perishing”of our culture. “It is not five to twelve or two to twelve, it is almost morning!” The leader of the second party in the country is pondering about very far-reaching measures.

Geert Wilders (54) is not surprised at the shocking poll results released by daily newspaper De Telegraaf. The fact that only thirteen percent of the Dutch population feel that the problem of integration will solve itself is a writing on the wall, according to him. And that only eleven percent of the Dutch see Islam as an enrichment proves in his opinion that what he has been  calling for years. “If I had said that three years ago, I would have had tens of thousands of police reports thrown at me. But people are completely fed up with it.”

How do you explain the figures?

“Decades ago, a few thousand people from Islamic countries would stay temporarily. But temporarily turned out to be permanently. Those thousands of guest workers became hundreds of thousands. And in Europe millions of people  by now. Back then those people were called upon to integrate and assimilate. But Islam, the word says it already, seeks to dominate. Not long ago Professor Koopmans found that as  much as seventy percent of Muslims find Islamic rules more important than secular laws. In Europe almost weekly innocent people are slaughtered in name of Allah and Islam. Proudly. We have been declared war and we refuse to defend ourselves.”

Who is responsible for this?

“I think that probably the worst of all is that Western European politicians have allowed this to happen. Last week Sybrand Buma of the Christian democratic party CDA was suddenly critical of Islam. That is like a bank robber who, twenty years after the robbery, has spent all the money and apologizes for doing so. He is the one who did it. CDA has been in power in the Netherlands for 50 years.”

Is it not a bit blunt to say …

“No!”

… that Muslims do not integrate?

“I am talking about Islam. But research also points out that 11 percent of Dutch Muslims in the Netherlands are prepared to use violence on behalf of their religion. That is a 110,000 people, twice the size of the Dutch army!”

But perhaps many Muslims in fact take Islam less serious and profess their faith behind the front door, peacefully. Secretary Asscher of Integration said in this paper last week that those people should not be held accountable for terrorist attacks.

“Do you know, secretary Asscher and Prime Minister Rutte are two sides of the same coin. After the second attack in June, Rutte said that Muslims are double the victim, because they are not only victims of attacks, but also blamed for it as a group. For all I care everyone is free to get all teary-eyed but we will perish if we continue. It reminds me of what happened after the murder of Theo van Gogh. Some people, even members of the Royal House, went to a mosque as a  first response. That is total cowardice. We are the victims.”

Who are we? Does it not also include those Muslims not engaged in fanatism? This way people are categorized into a group they do not feel connected to at all.

“Then take your distance from that group. Of course I do not say that all Muslims are cheering at an attack. But I can hardly listen to it, the terror attack commemorations in Parliament. I think we have had ten to twelve this year. I am attending, out of respect for the relatives and the victims and will continue to do so. But every time Rutte reads the same a4-format paper, only altering the name of the city and country where the attack took place. The man does not show any action.”

How do you liberate yourself from the Islamic yoke in your opinion?

“Leave Islam.”

So people must renounce their faith?

“There is nothing they must do. But I would tell: freedom is such a splendorous thing. You do not have anything like it in Islam. I can not force people to leave Islam. They must above all realize what is going on in their minds. But the real concern is what happens in the public space. What is happening in my country and whether we should have more or less of that.”

There are also Muslims who were born in the Netherlands. The country is just as much their country as it is yours.

“For those people that could apply, but not to Islam.”

But according to the constitution it does, a Muslim born here is considered Dutch. According to the Constitution he or she has an equal right to express  what the Netherlands should look like.

“We live in a free country. But in my opinion Islam is not a religion. It is a totalitarian, dangerous and violent ideology, dressed up as a religion. People are allowed to think whatever they like, but I also have the right to say that Islam should not be included in the constitutional freedoms.

Can a Muslim not just be moderate?

“According to the Quran that is not possible. I personally believe there are extremist people and moderate people. But I do not believe in two kinds of Islam. There is only one. One that is impossible to reform. And even if it would be the case, we can not afford to wait for another 150 or 300 years. I think it will never happen. You get your head chopped off should you wish to interpret Islam.”

What do you think should happen?

“Recognize the problem. Dare to say that Islam does not integrate. Define Islam as a violent totalitarian undemocratic thing. And stop immigration from Islamic countries. During cabinet Rutte II, a 100,000 Muslims.were added. These are not all terrorists or bad people, but it is 100,000 times more Islam entering the Netherlands.”

There was a war. People were on the move, lost their homes.

“That was not the case. If they were refugees, they would have stopped in the first safe country after Syria. By the way, this is also part of the solution: all Syrians must return! Tomorrow! Why not? That country is safe. This is our country. Why would a Syrian be able to return from the refugee camps in Jordan or Lebanon and not from a refugee centre here?”

Because the land is in ruins and dictator Assad uses poison gas against his own people for example.

“There are many countries in the world that have not very pleasant regimes.”

Back to the Netherlands. We also have a constitution in this country that protects such things as freedom of education and religion. Should that be altered?

“I do not see the word Islam in any constitution, but in jurisprudence Islam is considered to be a religion.”

Do you want to put into law that Islam is not a religion?

“We will have to see about legal possibilities Can it be done, how can it be done and what way can it be done. But it’s definitely worth studying”

So you want to ban Islam?

“I do not rule out that this may be necessary in the long run. It will concern the expressions. You can not ban an idea, that’s impossible. You can not ban communism either.”

There is religious freedom in this country. But you want to record that Islam is not a religion.

“In my opinion it is not part of religious freedom. That is my political wish. How to execute such a thing is wish number two.”

That is very useful for a politician if he makes a statement. What should we think of?

“That is what we have to look into. I have now lifted a tip of the veil.”

Many people will be startled when they read this.

“We are not going to collect Qurans from people’s homes. What is going on behind their front door is their business. We are talking about public space, but it is too early to say anything about it now.”

Does this not make it very casual?

“No. I have  ventilated this for ten years.”

Some things you mention you have. But banning Islam is something different.

“If it is possible to put it into law, we will put it into law. But it will be about expressions. Recently we have also drafted an administrative detention bill for jihadists. I realize all problems will not be solved tomorrow by closing a mosque. You must make it unattractive in this country to profess Islam. People who want to come to the Netherlands from Islamic countries should think: this is not a place we want to go to! And we do not do this to bully Muslims, but to keep the Netherlands of the future a free Netherlands.”

EDITORS NOTE: This interview was published in De Telegraaf today , the largest daily newspaper in The Netherlands and was translated by the Party for Freedom.

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

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

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

NRA’s Power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewriting History

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

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

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

Shortly after this segment, Clinton claims,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attacks on NRA and Gun Owners

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

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

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

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

Lesson Unlearned

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

Clinton writes,

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY BY

Peter Trinko

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

Christopher Piquette

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

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

A Note for our Readers:

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

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Decorated Combat Commander’s Career destroyed due to ‘political correctness’, case goes to Supreme Court

ANN ARBOR, MI—On Monday, September 11, 2017, the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to correct the injustice done to Lieutenant Colonel (“LTC”) Christopher Downey after the United States Army violated its own regulations, effectively ending his stellar career.

In a footnote, the U. S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that the Army applied the incorrect burden of proof to LTC Downey’s case, contrary to its own regulations.  However, it shrugged off this fundamental error. LTC Downey’s petition to the Supreme Court points out that the error was so manifest and so serious that nearly every other appellate court in the land would have required the Army’s final review board to rehear his case.

TMLC attorney, Jay Combs, the principle author of the Petition to the Supreme Court, commented: “The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals threw away the exceptional career of Lieutenant Colonel Downey in a footnote.  The issue that the Fourth Circuit so cavalierly disposed of in a footnote was so serious that nearly every other circuit in the United States, on this issue alone, would have reversed the entire Army Board process without the need to even address any of the other issues in the case.  Most circuits recognize that the rule of law is dealt a crippling blow if an agency does not have to follow its own regulations.”

Combs was assisted by attorney Erin Kuenzig, who had handled the District Court and Fourth Circuit arguments.

LTC Downey’s troubles began in 2012 when he made the “politically incorrect” effort to prevent two lesbian female officers under his command from violating Army regulations regarding public displays of affection. The two officers, a Captain and a Lieutenant, were in uniform at a formal military ball and were on the dance floor engaged in prolonged French kissing, publicly taking off each other’s uniform jackets, and other intimate and salacious conduct.  Once he became aware of the situation, LTC Downey took immediate action to stop the inappropriate behavior.  He also attempted to prevent other soldiers from photographing and videotaping the officers’ inappropriate conduct, which he believed would embarrass the unit as well as the offending officers. In the process of lowering the camera of an enlisted soldier, the camera accidentally made contact with the soldier’s nose. As a result, despite the recommendations of LTC Downey’s immediate superior, General Mark Milley ordered an investigation and a subsequent Article 15 hearing where he acted as the presiding officer on charges of assault consummated by battery and violation of the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.

The Article 15 proceeding, which lasted approximately 5 hours, was more concerned about offending homosexual advocacy groups than the guilt or innocence of LTC Downey. General Milley found LTC Downey guilty of the charge of assault consummated by battery. LTC Downey was issued reprimands for both violations, relieved of command, issued a negative Officer Evaluation Report, and removed from the attendance list of the National War College.

A formal board hearing was convened to review the same matters to decide whether LTC Downey should be retained in the Army. The formal board, unlike General Milley in the Article 15 proceedings, conducted an exhaustive adversarial hearing in which the Army was represented by an attorney and LTC Downey was also represented by counsel.  The hearing board listened to the testimony of multiple witnesses, reviewed evidence, and listened to the arguments of government and defense attorneys. Afterwards, the formal board unanimously determined the allegations against LTC Downey were not supported by even a preponderance of the evidence.

Despite the unanimous decision of the formal board of officers, the prior contrary findings of the Article 15 hearing remained a part of LTC Downey’s official record, destroying the further progression of his stellar career and tarnishing his good name.

Downey was well on his way to becoming a high-ranking officer in the Army, as evidenced by the glowing remarks from his commanding officers. In early April of 2012, Downey received a prestigious award recognizing him and the unit that he commanded as the best aviation battalion in the United States Army. He has been awarded 3 Bronze Stars and 7 Air Medals, one with a “V” device for valor in combat. The Air Medal with “V” device was awarded for valor he displayed on May 25, 2011, in “complete disregard for his own safety while initiating multiple engagements against an enemy with superior fields of fire over friendly forces.  His actions were decisive in saving the lives of soldiers on the ground.”

His performance reviews uniformly painted a picture of one of the Army’s most skilled and accomplished combat aviators.

Former Secretary of the Army, Louis Caldera, wrote of Downey:

“As former SecArmy I had the honor of working with strong officers daily, Chris Downey stands out among them. A clearly superior performance by a leader with phenomenal potential.”

White House Military Office Operations Director, Marcy Steinke-Fike:

“He is clearly in the top 1% of the handpicked officers of the White House Military Office Operations Directorate and in all of the Lieutenant Colonel’s I have known in my 20 years of military service. Chris planned the most sensitive and complex missions in support of the President, Vice President, First Lady and other White House delegations. Absolutely unlimited potential – a future General Officer!”

Commanding General John F. Campbell:

“Lieutenant Colonel Chris Downey’s performance in combat has been spectacular, he is my best aviation task force commander among the top three out of 70+ commanders that I senior rate. Strong General Officer potential.”  

The Administrative Board Applied the Wrong Burden Of Proof

In order to remedy the injustice caused by the erroneous Article 15, LTC Downey appealed to the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR”). Unfortunately for LTC Downey, the ABCMR applied the wrong burden of proof to his case. The Board is governed by 32 C.F.R. § 581.3(e)(2) which provides: “Burden of proof. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.” (emphasis added). Rather than holding LTC Downey to the correct burden of proof, the Board held him to the much more difficult burden of proving an error or injustice by clear and convincing evidence.  Finding that LTC Downey had not met this illegitimately high standard, the Board denied him relief.

Richard Thompson, President and chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center commenting on what happened to LTC Downey, stated: “There is no question in my mind that Lieutenant Colonel Downey was a victim of the military’s efforts to appease homosexual advocacy groups. As a result of political correctness gone amuck, America lost an outstanding combat commander who had given his country over 24 years of loyal service.”

Click here to read the Petition

VIDEO: Farmers Banned From Farmers Market Over Religious Beliefs Get Their Day in Court

The case of a Michigan city that banned family farmers from selling their goods at a local farmers market due to their religious beliefs about marriage headed to court Wednesday, where lawyers from both sides argued before a federal district judge.

Lawyers for Steve and Bridget Tennes, owners of Country Mill Farms in Charlotte, Michigan, asked the court to grant the Tennes family a preliminary injunction, a temporary order that would allow them to sell their produce at the East Lansing Farmer’s Market while the case proceeds.

“Since June 1, we’ve already missed three and a half months of being able to attend East Lansing Farmer’s Market, where we’ve served everyone for the last seven years,” Steve Tennes told The Daily Signal by phone after the hearing.

“Now we only have about six weeks left of the market to be able to sell, and the … East Lansing Farmer’s Market was the largest farmers market [where] our family sold organic apples and cider.”

In May, the Tenneses filed a federal lawsuit against East Lansing after the city banned them from selling produce at its farmers market because they said on Facebook that they don’t host same-sex weddings on their farm.

“Due to our religious beliefs, we do not participate in the celebration of a same-sex union,” they wrote in part on Facebook in August 2016.

The city responded by filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Both motions were heard for an hour Wednesday before Judge Paul Maloney.

Maloney did not issue an oral decision, but is likely to issue a written order in coming weeks.

Country Mill Farms is located 22 miles from East Lansing in the neighboring town of Charlotte. The Tenneses, who never received a discrimination complaint, say selling their apples and other goods at the city’s farmers market was an important source of income.

The Tenneses are represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal nonprofit that also represents Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker whose case is going to the Supreme Court after he declined to create wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

John Bursch, a Michigan lawyer who argued before the Supreme Court in favor of that state’s ban on same-sex marriage in the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges case, recently joined Alliance Defending Freedom in defending the Tenneses.

East Lansing officials argue that the Tenneses’ policy violates the city’s anti-discrimination law.

The Daily Signal sough comment from city officials but did not receive a response by publication time. In an interview with the Lansing State Journal, East Lansing Mayor Mark Meadows said businesses need to “act in a certain way” to sell their goods on city property.

“It has nothing to do with free speech,” Meadows said. “They can say whatever they want, but their corporation needs to act in a certain way to qualify to sell products at the East Lansing Farmer’s Market on publicly owned land.”

Lawyers on both sides vowed to appeal if necessary. Because only a few weeks remain for the Tenneses to sell produce, they are hoping for a swift decision.

“We think the law is fully behind us, that the city has reached beyond its borders to specifically punish one farmer because of his beliefs,” said Kate Anderson, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom who argued the Tenneses’ case.

“No one should have to censor their views to participate in a market and no one should have their economic freedom threatened just because of what they believe,” Anderson said. “We’re hopeful the judge will rule quickly on that basis.”

This article was updated to correct the month the Tenneses filed their lawsuit.

Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness is a senior news producer at The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kelsey. Twitter: @kelseyjharkness

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 of Steve and Bridget Tennes own a 120-acre farm in Charlotte, Michigan, where they raise their five children (Photo: The Daily Signal). Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

Trump DHS Offers Immigrants Hurricane Harvey Amnesty

Keeping with an Obama-era tradition of offering illegal immigrants reprieve, the Trump administration is providing those in the Houston area with hurricane amnesty in the aftermath of Harvey. Judicial Watch reported extensively on the special Obama amnesties, which were granted for inclement weather, a virus, natural disasters and tainted water in a U.S. city. One of Obama’s final special amnesty programs was issued last year for victims of Hurricane Matthew, the powerful storm that slammed the southeastern United States, killing dozens and causing severe flooding.

Prior to that, Obama took advantage of Hurricane Sandy to waive immigration laws, including for violators of student visas like most of the 9/11 hijackers that carried out the worst terrorist attack on American soil. The official announcement, issued by USCIS, stated that the government “understands that a natural disaster can affect an individual’s ability to maintain a lawful immigration status.” Among the benefits of that hurricane amnesty was “expedited adjudication of off-campus employment authorization applications for F-1 students experiencing economic hardship.” Hurricanes in other countries have also benefitted illegal aliens in the U.S. who happen to be nationals of the affected regions, even though they don’t live there.

Other natural disasters abroad also resulted in special reprieves for illegal aliens in the United States during the Obama years. A special earthquake amnesty was implemented for Ecuadorean nationals living in the U.S. illegally and the word spread like wildfire in Spanish media reports published throughout Latin America. Officially this is known as Temporary Protected Status (TPS), a humanitarian measure designed to temporarily shield illegal immigrants from deportation during emergencies. In a Spanish announcement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that it was helping Ecuadoreans in the U.S. by granting them work permits and waving visa fees of candidates show that their financial situation was hurt by the earthquake a continent away.

The Obama administration also granted Ebola amnesty for illegal aliens from Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, earthquake amnesty for Haitians, hurricane amnesty for Hondurans and Nicaraguans and “ongoing armed conflict” amnesty for nationals of Yemen, an Islamic Middle Eastern country well known as an Al Qaeda breeding ground. In 2016, the administration also rewarded illegal aliens in the Southern and Midwestern United States “severe weather” amnesty due to the flooding that battered the region and forced rivers from Texas to Illinois to surge out of control. An absurd water amnesty was also rewarded last year to illegal aliens in Michigan. That reprieve was implemented after pro-immigrant Spanish media outlets demanded that The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) refrain from enforcing immigration laws in areas of Flint affected by a crisis in which the areas water got contaminated with lead from decaying old pipes.

Apparently, the Trump administration has no intention of ending the madness. A few weeks ago U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the DHS agency charged with overseeing lawful immigration to the United States, announced its Hurricane Harvey amnesty to help “people affected by unforeseen circumstances, including disasters such as Hurricane Harvey.” The language is taken right out of agency press releases issued for similar causes under Obama. Under the Hurricane Harvey plan, the agency will change a nonimmigrant status or extend a nonimmigrant stay for individuals currently in the U.S. “Failure to apply for the extension or change before expiration of your authorized period of admission may be excused if the delay was due to extraordinary circumstances beyond your control,” according to a USCIS announcement. Other perks include a “re-parole” of individuals previously granted parole, expedited processing of parole requests, expedited adjudication of employment authorization and a variety of other benefits not usually extended to those who have violated American laws. A note at the bottom of the USCIS announcement reads; “when making a request, please explain how the impact of Hurricane Harvey created a need for the requested relief.” It will be interesting to see how the agency confirms the storm’s impact before granting the reprieve.

Contribute

How to Stop Democrats From Stonewalling Judicial Nominees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY BY

Elizabeth Slattery

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

Portrait of Tiffany Bates

Tiffany Bates

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

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

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

Everything I needed to know about Islam I learned on September 11, 2001

By Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.

“In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate,” a terrorist declares on the Flight 93 cockpit recording. That’s followed by the sounds of the terrorists assaulting a passenger.

“Please don’t hurt me,” he pleads. “Oh God.”

As the passengers rush the cabin, a Muslim terrorist proclaims, “In the name of Allah.”

As New York firefighters struggle up the South Tower with 100 pounds of equipment on their backs trying to save lives until the very last moment, the Flight 93 passengers push toward the cockpit. The Islamic hijackers call out, “Allahu Akbar.” The Islamic supremacist term originated with Mohammed’s massacre of the Jews of Khaybar and means that Allah is greater than the gods of non-Muslims.

Mohammed Atta had advised his fellow terrorists that when the fighting begins, “Shout, ‘Allahu Akbar,’ because this strikes fear in the hearts of the non-believers.” He quoted the Koran’s command that Muslim holy warriors terrorize non-believers by beheading them and urged them to follow Mohammed’s approach, “Take prisoners and kill them.”

The 9/11 ringleader quoted the Koran again. “No prophet should have prisoners until he has soaked the land with blood.”

On Flight 93, the fighting goes on. “Oh Allah. Oh the most Gracious,” the Islamic terrorists cry out. “Trust in Allah,” they reassure. And then there are only the chants of, “Allahu Akbar” as the plane goes down in a Pennsylvania field leaving behind another blood-soaked territory in the Islamic invasion of America.

Today that field is marked by the “Crescent of Embrace” memorial.

Thousands of Muslims cheered the attack in those parts of Israel under the control of the Islamic terrorists of the Palestinian Authority. They shouted, “Allahu Akbar” and handed out candy.

But similar ugly outbreaks of Islamic Supremacism were also taking place much closer to home.

On John F. Kennedy Boulevard, in Jersey City, across the river from Manhattan, crowds of Muslim settlers celebrated the slaughter of Americans. “Some men were dancing, some held kids on their shoulders,” a retired Jersey City cop described the scene. “The women were shouting in Arabic.”

Similar Islamic festivities broke out on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, a major Islamic settlement area, even as in downtown Manhattan, ash had turned nearby streets into the semblance of a nuclear war. Men and women trudged over Brooklyn Bridge or uptown to get away from this strange new world.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLE: President Donald Trump Remembers 9/11: ‘America Cannot Be Intimidated’

EDITORS NOTE: This column by Daniel Greenfield originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Expect a New Wave of Millions of Iraqi Refugees

In an article last week, I wrote that Syrian President Basher Assad is regaining power with the help of an Iranian Shiite coalition made up of Iranian fighters joined by Hezbollah, Iraqi and Afghan militias. In the near future, I predicted, it is possible that this coalition will try to rid the country of the millions of Sunnis who make up the majority of Syrian citizens, in order to prevent additional rebellions of the type Syria experienced from 1976 to 1982 and has been suffering from for the last six and a half years.

As a result of last week’s article, I was contacted by Sheikh Walid el Azawi, an Iraqi Sunni living in exile in Europe, who heads a party called “The Patriotic 20 Rebellion.” He wanted to tell me the shocking story of the situation in Iraq, where he claims that for years now, Iran is the real ruler and its Ayatollahs dictate Iraqi government policy and actions.

Iranian hegemony blends in well in Iraq, most of whose citizens are Shiite, and now that the Islamic State established by ISIS in Iraq has disintegrated, the Sunnis there have no armed organization to protect them from both Iranian and Iraqi Shiite rage

The Shiite’s desire to rid the country of its Sunni minority is motivated by a desire for revenge, because up to the year 2003, Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq, and treated the Shiites with terrible cruelty all the years he was in power. After his defeat in the First Gulf War in February 1991, he used artillery to butcher tens of thousands of Shiites who attempted to find safety at the gravesite of Hussein ibn Ali in the city of Najef.

There is an even older feud between the Iranians and the Iraqii Sunnis, dating from the 1980-1981 war forced upon them by Saddam Hussein . This war took the lives of over a million people, both citizens and soldiers, on both sides. It is important to recall that both sides used chemical weapons against each other during that accursed war which ended in Iran’s defeat when the chemical warfare waged against Tehran killed thousands of civilians.
The Iraqi and Iranian Shiite desire for revenge on Saddam Hussein is now directed against his entire religious sector, the Sunnis, who stand unprotected and unarmed against a rising, strengthening Shiite world. The collective power of Sunni forces – made up of organizations such as ISIS, al Qaeda, the Syrian rebels and countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Emirates and Egypt – is weakening rapidly over the last few months in the face of the growing strength of the Shiite coalition made up of Iran, Hezbollah, and the Iraqi and Afghan militias.

Sheikh Walid el Azawi claims that as a result of this enormous shift in the balance of power, the Shiites will do everything they can to expel the Sunnis from Iraq to any country willing – or unwilling – to accept them. If this scenario does come to pass, about ten million Iraqi refugees will soon be joining the waves of the 15 to 20 million already existing refugees This wave of refugees can turn Europe, North and South America, Asia and Africa into economic disaster areas, leading to social unrest and political maelstroms. Do not forget to thank Iran and all those who strengthened that country during the past few years.

What is the solution?

Iraqi refugees

During my conversation with the Sheikh, I asked him what solution he and his party have to offer to save the Iraqi Sunnis and convince them to remain in their homeland. His answer came as a total surprise: “The Emirate Solution.” He is convinced that this is the only real solution that can save the Sunnis in Iraq from ethnic cleansing.

The country must be divided into regional states, on the lines of the USA, or cantons as in the Swiss model, each with internal autonomy. Iraq would become a federation with a limited central government while the Emirates would run the lives of whatever group resides in their territory. Each Emirate would lead its own life and refrain from interference in the policies of the other Emirates. Each Emirate would be ruled by a local Sheikh who originally stood at the head of the families within the Emirate’s borders, following the population’s social traditions. This, claims the Sheikh, will create harmony, stability and peaceful relations with neighboring Emirates for the good of all the citizenry.

The “Emirate Solution” will also grant self-rule to the Kurds of Northern Iraq, making the establishment of an independent Kurdish state unnecessary and preventing the certain violent antagonism of the Iranians, Turks and Arabs to its existence and ensuing hostilities

For illustration’s sake, let us recall that the northern Iraq Kurdish region is surrounded by countries that do not share the Kurdish dreams of independence, and has no corridor to the sea. If the neighboring countries allied against the Kurdish state, should one be established, preventing goods and people from reaching it, the Kurds would have no way of leading normal lives. How would they export oil and other products in that case? How would they manage to import necessities?

If the Kurds finally achieve independence in the framework of the Emirate Solution for Iraq, ending the struggle that has been going on for years, where is the problem? Clearly it lies with Iran, which will not agree to the plan now that it has taken over Iraq – unless it is forced to do so. And the only power in the entire world capable of forcing iran to agree to anything is the USA.

Sheikh el Azawi is prepared to go to the US at a moment’s notice in order to meet with decision-makers there and explain the logic behind his peace plan for Iraq and the benefits it s implementation would bring the world and the Iraqis themselves. The Americans, however, are busy dealing with four other issues: North Korea, the relations between the right and left inside America, who is going to resign or be fired on Trump’s staff and natural disasters like Harvey and the flooding in Houston this week. Who could possibly have the time and patience there to do anything about Iraq, the country the US Army left seven years ago with no desire to ever return?

The Emirates Solution in other Middle Eastern states

Afghanistan is another country that gives the US a blinding headache, mainly in the media, and to its security forces, intelligence and army, because the 17 years of American involvement there, the spilled American blood and enormous amounts of money put into the country, have not yielded appreciable results – for one main reason:

The Americans have been using all their power to preserve the artificial Afghan entity established by the British and Russians in the 19th century, despite the fact that it is filled with ethnic strife which prevents the creation of a homogeneous, united nation.. The only result so far is blood, fire and tears.

If the Americans and their allies would only take apart the illegitimate entity called Afghanistan and turn it into autonomous or independent states based on whatever local families rule in each one, so that it is governed by rulers with legitimacy, the heads of families and tribes, possibly Afhanistan could be a land of peace and tranquility reigning among its religious, family and ethnic groups,each living its own life and leaving all the others to do so in peace.

Interestingly, that same Emirate Solution could most definitely be applied to the seven cities of Judea and Samaria in addition to the Gazan Emirate established a decade ago. I am not a fan of Hamas, but Gaza is a state from every practical point of view, and Israel must find a way to deter effectively and clearly the Jihadist gang that has taken it over. Establishing Emirates in Judea and Samaria will grant the people there stability, prosperity and quiet. It will give Israel peace.

That same solution will solve Jordan’s problem as well. It can be divided into a Palestinian Emirate, perhaps more than one, and a Bedouin Emirate. The king will be a symbolic figure as is the Queen of England. Sudan has already split into two states, but both parts should be divided into smaller, more homogenous Emirates in order to bring more stability to this war torn and blood soaked country.

Yemen, a totally tribal society, would benefit from the Emirate Solution, becoming more governable and stable, certainly in comparison to the failed central government it has at present, which has brought many thousands to the point of hunger, disease, suffering and death.

Sheikh el Awazi’s dream, which I share with him, could become the basic principle employed by the world to solve the Middle East problem. Had it been employed in Syrai five years ago, many of its half million dead citizens would be alive today.

Watch: The gloomy future of Syria, Lebanon and Iraq under Iranian hegemony.

EDITORS NOTE: Translated from Hebrew by Rochel Sylvetsky, originally published on Israelnationalnews.com

Steve Bannon: Catholic Church has ‘economic interest’ in ‘unlimited illegal immigration’

Of course Bannon is right. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has a monetary interest in illegal immigration and “refugee” resettlement that goes far beyond all its hypocritical talk about welcoming the newcomer. This corrupt and authoritarian fraternity, which moves ruthlessly to stamp out any dissent from its new dogma that Islam is a religion of peace, received $79,590,512 in 2014 alone — that’s right, nearly 80 million dollars — from the federal government for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Migration Fund.

“Leave them; they are blind guides. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.” (Matthew 15:14)

“Steve Bannon says Catholic Church has ‘economic interest’ in ‘unlimited illegal immigration,’” CBS News, September 7, 2017:

In his first extensive interview since leaving the Trump administration, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is speaking out about President Trump’s decision to end the DACA program. The Obama-era policy protects nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children from deportation.

Bannon spoke to Charlie Rose in an interview that will air this Sunday, Sept. 10, on “60 Minutes.”

Steve Bannon: Look, what he did on DACA the other day. Okay, I don’t agree with that DACA decision, but I understand how he struggled with it, I understand how he’s giving the possibility of a legislative thing. And he said even last night in a tweet – even in a tweet, he would rethink it. Trust me, the guys in the far right, the guys on the conservative side are not happy with this.

Charlie Rose: Can I remind you, a good Catholic, that Cardinal [Timothy] Dolan is opposed to what’s happened with DACA? Cardinal Dolan.

Bannon: The Catholic Church has been terrible about this.

Rose: Okay.

Bannon: The bishops have been terrible about this. By the way, you know why? You know why? Because unable to really – to – to – to come to grips with the problems in the church, they need illegal aliens, they need illegal aliens to fill the churches. That’s – it’s obvious on the face of it. That’s what – the entire Catholic bishops condemn him. … They have – they have an economic interest. They have an economic interest in unlimited immigration, unlimited illegal immigration. And as much as –…

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Catholic Bishop Dolan says that the USCCB is not after more money when defending DACA kids, I beg to differ

Catholic Bishops & Lutherans lament not enough U.S. taxpayer funded refugees coming in to pay their bills

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: Bring Us More Muslim Terrorists

Dhimmitude comes to Des Moines

9th Circuit Appeals Court rules against Trump on scope of travel ban

VIDEO: Remembering the Munich Olympics Massacre — September 5, 1972

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” 
 — Thomas Jefferson

As Americans begin holding ceremonies in remembrance of the terrorist attach by al Qaeda on September 11, 2001 perhaps it is important to go back and remember another attack, which took place in Munich, Germany in 1972. The attack was planned and executed by the Palestinian terrorist group Black September. I was a young U.S. Army Captain and commander of a field artillery battery in Augsburg, Germany when this internationally televised terrorist attack happened. After the Munich attack my unit, the 1st Infantry Division (FWD) provided additional security for the Olympic village.

I learned a harsh lesson during those days, as Benjamin Franklin wrote, “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Jeff Dunetz in his article “The Munich Olympics Massacre 45 Years Later” wrote:

Yassir Arafat sent five Palestinian Terrorists into an Olympic Village dedicated to peace and international cooperation. The funding for the terrorist team was arraigned by the future President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas.  Their successful mission was to shock the world–kidnapping and killing the Israeli Olympic team. This was the first terrorist tragedy played out live and worldwide on TV which is probably why we all remember that picture of the Ski-masked terrorist on the balcony.The Olympic committee did not feel the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes were important enough to cancel or even delay the Olympic games, after all, they were only Jews.

“Incredibly, they’re going on with it,” Jim Murray of the Los Angeles Times wrote at the time. “It’s almost like having a dance at Dachau.”

In his book Abu Daoud, who was the mastermind behind the Munich attack stated:

“After Oslo in 1993, Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] went to the White House Rose Garden for a photo op with Arafat, President Bill Clinton and Israel’s Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres.

“Do you think that … would have been possible if the Israelis had known that Abu Mazen was the financier of our operation? I doubt it.”

When Abu Daoud died, Abbas has eulogized him as he has done with many terrorists since:

He is missed. He was one of the leading figures of Fatah and spent his life in resistance and sincere work as well as physical sacrifice for his people’s just causes.

Read more.

At 4:30 a.m. on September 5, 1972, a band of Palestinian terrorists took eleven Israeli athletes and coaches hostage at the Summer Olympics in Munich. More than 900 million viewers followed the chilling, twenty-hour event on television, as German authorities desperately negotiated with the terrorists. Finally, late in the evening, two helicopters bore the terrorists and their surviving hostages to Munich’s little-used Fürstenfeldbruck airfield, where events went tragically awry. Within minutes all of the Israeli athletes, five of the terrorists, and one German policeman were dead.

Why did the rescue mission fail so miserably? And why were the reports compiled by the German authorities concealed from the public for more than two decades?

Simon Reeve takes on a catastrophe that permanently shifted the political spectrum with a fast-paced narrative that covers the events detail by detail. Based on years of exhaustive research Reeve, in his book One Day in September gives a definitive account of one of the most devastating and politically explosive terrorist attacks of the late twentieth century, one that set the tone for 45 years of renewed conflict in the Middle East and beyond.

September 5th, 1972 set the stage for September 11th, 2001.

As George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Watch Simon Reeve discussing his book One Day in September.