VIDEO: The Vortex — Left Lane Merge

/in , , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

In the near past, Church Militant has talked about the parallel tracks of the political left and the theological left.

That was owing to the obvious shared agenda items between liberal-socialist politicians and liberal-socialist theological types.

Well, given the current climate in the country, it’s time to amend or update that analogy of parallel tracks.

The two tracks or lanes have now merged into just one giant “Left Lan,” with socialist politicians and socialist clergy now indistinguishable from one another.

When America was more religious-minded than the nation currently is, Democratic strategists would often complain that their party positions in favor of abortion, for example, had ceded “God” to the Republicans.

Indeed, the campaigns of Ronald Reagan were all about religious values and wrapping the cross up in the American flag.

And it worked — spectacularly.

Americans of all stripes who had an innate sense that the underlying issue with America was not economic but rather moral began heavily migrating to the GOP and locking down all sorts of political races.

But that was more than 30 years ago.

While religious-minded Americans were basking in the glow of victory, the long march through the institutions by the socialist-Marxist crowd was laying the groundwork for the overthrow of religion in America.

The college education system in the 80s had only just begun to pervert and convert the minds of the young.

More and more people attended college and ran up massive debt while colleges became correspondingly wealthier with American taxpayer dollars.

But the colleges themselves were putting the finishing touches on a complete ideological takeover by Marxist-styled professors.

Thirty-plus years since then, two generations of Americans who went to college have now essentially abandoned belief in God and their ranks are swelling every year.

And it doesn’t matter if it’s a Catholic college like Notre Dame which long ago betrayed the Faith or a public college, a college degree is almost a guarantee you don’t believe in God in any substantive manner or, at the most, are indifferent.

Now the Marxist college crowd with their millions of alumni have set about on a course to completely co-opt religion as a political issue.

No longer do Democratic Party strategists sit in back rooms lamenting the GOP stranglehold on the so-called “values voters.”

They are making an aggressive pitch for them and giving their Marxist ideology cover as being somehow religious or moral in the process.

So-called man-made climate change — originally called global warming until that proved not true — is now dressed up not just as a scientific issue, but in the end, a moral issue.

Greedy Americans are causing hurricanes, which then go on to wipe out poorer nations; therefore, Americans who support Trump are evil and sinful — that’s how the narrative goes.

And the moment you get to inject the “morality” issue into politics, all the liberal clergy get to start spouting off.

It’s kind of funny, you know, because this was the same crowd back in the 1980s and 1990s under serial abuser Bill Clinton who kept telling religious-minded Americans that you can’t legislate morality.

Now, that’s all the Marxist Democrats want to do — in fact, they can’t stop talking about it.

And they are joined by a full-throated effort of the U.S. bishops and every liberal priest, lesbian nun, and professional Catholic in the country.

Every single Democratic talking point is dressed up in high moral terms: equal rights for sodomites; free will to be able to kill your child at whatever stage you want; banning guns because guns kill; proven serial killers being exempt from the death penalty; illegal immigrants having the same rights as legal immigrants.

You name it, there is not one single Democratic Party talking point that does not have considerable theological heft behind it, and a large part of that heft is coming from the U.S. hierarchy and the James Martins of the world.

The entire process has been usurped and reversed.

It used to be that natural law truths — like abortion is killing and homosexual acts are depraved — were the basis for political laws. The morality informed the political process and the laws agreed.

Now, with religion on a steep decline in America, and things only growing worse, the exact opposite is the process.

People decide they want to live an objectively immoral life, so they get politicians elected who will pass laws which correspond to their immorality.

And they bring along equally immoral clerics who provide all the cover the guilty need to feel good about their actions of undermining morality in America.

There is no longer any need to distinguish between the political left and the theological left. Those two lanes have merged and are now the same — just, the Left.

America has arrived at this place in history because this is the natural result of pluralism, especially in the arena of religion.

The Marxists saw an opening, a chink in the armor that could be exploited, and they have moved in for the kill.

As demographics change and trends follow, election 2020 may very well be the last election where authentic religion is anything but an afterthought, a historical footnote. This is why the Marxist Democrats are trying, and largely succeeded, in seizing the high ground on the “morality” issue.

They are this close to dispatching religion and God from the political scene; and what better strategy to do so than to present a picture that religion can be approached in all sorts of different ways?

But then again, all they needed to do was to have just read the writings of the homopredator Cdl. Joseph Bernardin back in the 1980s who even then was part of this plan to rid America of religion.

It was Bernardin, after all, that blazed the trail for Marxist theologians with his proposal that the pro-life issue was not just about abortion, that there was a consistent ethic of life, making homelessness or being unemployed just as significant as being murdered in the womb as Blase Cupich, Bernardin’s worthy successor in Chicago, has publicly stated.

This complete collapse you see around you, the merger of theological and political socialism was first engineered by a homosexual dominant Catholic clergy, many of whom poisoned young minds at hundreds of formerly Catholic colleges for decades and have the stage for the downfall of religion in America.

Election 2020 will either be the last hurrah, or it will be the ushering in of a completely new America which will grow increasingly violent toward authentic religion.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

18 Years After 9/11 the Threat of Terror Attacks Continues

/in , , , , /by

Looking back to 1998, the dots were connected — and then ignored.

The terror attacks of September 11, 2001 occurred nearly 18 years ago yet the impact still reverberates around the world.

It is disconcerting that Americans who are now coming of age to vote were born after the attacks of 9/11 and what they know or don’t know about those attacks depends on what they have been taught by teachers who are not being “Politically Correct” but actually provide lessons that conform to Orwellian Newspeak as does the mainstream media.

On August 30, 2019 The Hill reported, Trial for men accused of plotting 9/11 attacks set for early 2021.  That report begins with this excerpt:

The trial for men charged as plotters of the 9/11 attacks was set Friday for Jan. 11, 2021, The New York Times reported.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other men are set to be charged for their alleged role planning the 2001 terror attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. Mohammed has been accused of being the mastermind behind the strike.

While the media typically attributes the death of approximately 3,000 innocent victims to the attacks, in reality the actual death count is much higher and victims of those attacks continue to suffer and die because of their exposure to the toxins that were released as a result of the attacks.

As we approach the 18th anniversary of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 terrorism-related stories are still making news, underscoring the irrefutable fact that the threat of terrorism continues to hang over our heads, not unlike the Sword of Damocles.  However, the lunatic Left seeks to leave America defenseless.

Shortly after the 9/11 attacks there was no shortage of politicians who stood behind podiums festooned with forests of microphones in front a television cameras and pounded those podiums, demanding the answer to the question, “Why didn’t anyone connect the dots so that the attacks could have been prevented?”

In reality, however, the “dots” had been connected on numerous occasions fears before September 11, 2001 because there had been a number of terror attacks committed by aliens who had gamed the immigration system to enter the United States and embed themselves in communities around the United States so that they could go about their deadly preparations.

In 1993 the United States suffered two deadly terror attacks conducted entirely by radical Islamist aliens who had managed to enter the United States thus enabling them to carry out those deadly attacks.

In January 1993 a Pakistani by the name of Mir Aimal Kansi stood outside CIA Headquarters with an AK-47 and opened fire on the vehicles of CIA officials reporting for work on that cold January morning in Virginia.  When the smoke dissipated, two CIA officer lay dead and three other were seriously wounded.  Kansi fled the United States and was ultimately brought back to stand trial.  He was found guilty and executed for his crimes.  He had applied for political asylum.

Just one month later, on February 26, 1993 a bomb-laden truck was parked in the garage under the World Trade Center complex and detonated. The blast nearly brought one of the 110 story towers down sideways. As a result of the explosion, 6 innocent people were killed, over one thousand people were injured and an estimated one half billion dollars in damages were inflicted on that iconic complex of buildings located just blocks from Wall Street.

That attack was also carried out by alien terrorists who managed to not only game the visa process in order to enter the United States and get past the inspections process at ports of entry, but game the immigration benefits program as well.  This enabled them to remain in the United States and embed themselves as they went about their preparations to attack the United States and cause massive casualties.

On May 20, 1997 I participated in my first Congressional hearing. That hearing was predicated on those terror attacks and was conducted by the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims on the topic: “Visa Fraud And Immigration Benefits Application Fraud.”

On February 24, 1998 The Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government Information conducted a hearing on the topic, Foreign Terrorists In America: Five Years After The World Trade Center.

One of the senators who participated in that hearing was none other than Dianne Feinstein.  She discussed a number of issues but then turned to deficiencies in the immigration system and focused on the Visa Waiver Pilot Program (at the time of the hearing the Visa Waiver Program had not yet been made permanent).

Feinstein also identified the dangers inherent in providing visas to aliens who are citizens of countries that are associated with terrorism, providing education to students from such countries with education in STEM courses of study who could then use their new-found skills and education to create weapons of mass destruction and even noted how aliens who had gamed the political asylum program had subsequently gone on to commit crimes.

Some of the information she provided was truly startling.

Here are some of the excerpts of her prepared statement at that hearing conducted more than 21 years ago and more than 3 years before the terror attacks of 9/11.

Consider this excerpt:

There are also a number of glaring loopholes in our immigration laws. As I serve on the Immigration Subcommittee, I just wanted to spend my time touching on some of them.

I have some reservation regarding the practice of issuing visas to terrorist-supporting countries and INS’ inability to track those who come into the country either using a student visa or using fraudulent documents, as you pointed out, through the Visa Waiver Pilot Program.

The Richmond Times recently reported that the mastermind of Saddam Hussein’s germ warfare arsenal, Rihab Taha, studied in England on a student visa. And England is one of the participating countries in the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, which means, if she could have gotten a fraudulent passport, she could have come and gone without a visa in the United States.

The article also says that Rihab Taha, also known as “Dr. Germ,” that her professors at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, speculate that she may have been sent to the West specifically to gain knowledge on biological weaponry.

What is even more disturbing is that this is happening in our own backyard.

The Washington Post reported on October 31, 1991, that U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq discovered documents detailing an Iraqi Government strategy to send students to the United States and other countries to specifically study nuclear-related subjects to develop their own program. Samir AJ-Araji was one of the students who received his doctorate in nuclear engineering from Michigan State University, and then returned to Iraq to head its nuclear weapons program.

Yet the State Department often does not do in-depth background checks on the students, and once they are in the United States, the INS has no ability to track the students to make certain they actually study the subjects they claim to study and to attend the schools they said they would attend.

Between 1991 and 1996, the State Department has issued about 9,700 student visas to students from terrorist-supporting states such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria to attend undergraduate and graduate studies in the United States.

Senator Feinstein went on to note:

The defendants of the World Trade Center bombing are also an example of those coming in through nonimmigrant or employment-based visas or abusing our political asylum process and then committing crimes.

For instance, Nidal Ayyad, one of the defendants in this case, used his position as a chemical engineer for Allied Signal to obtain the chemicals used in the World Trade Center bombing.

There is Gazi Abu Mezer, who was arrested in a suspected terrorist plot to detonate bombs in Brooklyn last year. He came in illegally across the Canadian border to Washington State and attempted to seek asylum, but withdrew his application and agreed to leave the country. Once he was released on voluntary departure, he fled Washington to Brooklyn, NY, where he was arrested for plotting suicide-bomb attacks in Brooklyn.

Finally, consider this excerpt:

Mr. Chairman, under the 1996 Immigration Act, Congress requires the INS to create a pilot project to track information on foreign students — where they are, what they are studying, if they commit any crimes, and if they are studying the subjects they planned to study. The act requires INS to submit a report by 2001. The act also tightens up the asylum process by making it harder for aliens to claim asylum fraudulently, and section 110 of the Immigration Act requires an entry/exit system at all ports of entry by September 1998.

As you know, there is a move on this very committee to essentially remove that.

I know there are concerns over the implementation of international student tracking systems and the entry/exit system required by the 1996 law. And I realize it takes time to build the automation systems and the infrastructure necessary to make the requirements work. However, I cannot stress enough the importance of having the ability to track international students, particularly those from terrorist-supporting countries and having an entry/exit system ability so we know who is coming in and out of the country.

In 1998 Feinstein certainly “connected the dots” and supported them with irrefutable facts that point to the clear nexus between failures of the immigration system and vulnerability to terror attacks.

The 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel identified and connected still more “dots.”

Yet the Democrats create “Sanctuary Cities” and demand the termination of immigration law enforcement while refusing to secure our nation’s vulnerable borders.

On May 5, 2005 the House Immigration Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the topic, New ”Dual Missions” Of The Immigration Enforcement Agencies.  This excerpt from the prepared statement of the then-chairman of that Subcommittee, Republican John Hostettler, will serve as the summation for my commentary today.

The 9/11 terrorists all came to the United States without weapons or contraband—Added customs enforcement would not have stopped 9/11 from happening. What might have foiled al Qaeda’s plan was additional immigration focus, vetting and enforcement. And so what is needed is recognition that, one, immigration is a very important national security issue that cannot take a back seat to customs or agriculture. Two, immigration is a very complex issue, and immigration enforcement agencies need experts in immigration enforcement. And three, the leadership of our immigration agencies should be shielded from political pressures to act in a way which could compromise the Nation’s security.

RELATED ARTICLE: Supreme Court Gives Green Light To Trump Administration’s Asylum Rules

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All right reserved.

PODCAST: Meet 17-Year-Old Conservative Activist Described as ‘Left’s Youngest Nightmare’

/in , , , , , /by

CJ Pearson says he has been conservative since second grade. Now a senior in high school, Pearson has gained national attention for his conservative activism.

On today’s episode of The Daily Signal Podcast, Pearson, 17, shares why he is fighting back against left-wing policies.

Listen to the full episode or read a lightly edited transcript below.

Rob Bluey: We are joined by CJ Pearson. He’s a young conservative activist located in Georgia. CJ, thanks for joining us.

CJ Pearson: Rob, thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here.

Bluey: Absolutely. We’re excited. It was great to see you recently at The Heritage Foundation, and appreciate you coming on The Daily Signal Podcast to share a little bit about your story.

I want to begin by introducing you as, of course, a high school senior. You’re somebody who’s gained national attention because of your conservative activism. In fact, you’ve been described as the left’s youngest nightmare. You were raised, though, in a liberal household. So, how did you become a conservative?

Pearson: You know, it’s an interesting story. And I do come from a house divided, which has certainly made for interesting dinnertime conversation and definitely has been the subject of much discussion. My videos are definitely the subject of much discussion within my household.

So, I think for me, when I was first embarking upon my journey in politics, I wanted to find myself. I wanted to find out what I believe, personally. I wanted to find my political values, and wherever that led, I was OK with it.

Where I started was with … [reading] the Federalist Papers, I read the Constitution, I studied the platforms of both of the major parties. I actually even read a couple white papers on The Heritage Foundation back then. And this was like when I was like 10 or like 12.

Of course my parents have always voted Democrat. But what I always tell people is that—and this is a common story within the black community—my parents may have voted Democrat, but the values they instilled within me from when I was a child were conservative values. They were pro-family, they weren’t traditional, they were about personal responsibility.

So moving toward conservatism wasn’t a difficult thing for me. It was how I was raised. And for me it was just about discovering the evidence and the things that support what I believe now. For example, pro-growth policies, fiscal conservatism, the right to life, all of those things. It took a thirst for knowledge for me to figure out, “Yes, these are my values.”

It all started kind of after the 2008 election. We had an assignment in class where … we had to do what every good citizen in the country was doing at the time, we had to research the candidates and then we would ultimately cast our vote.

I remember watching the debates, not necessarily understanding at that time—I was like 7—what Iran was doing that was so bad, or what health care reform [was]. But realizing that what they’re doing on that stage was really, really important. And that kind of gave me the political bug and I’ve been hooked ever since.

Virginia Allen: That’s great. You know, CJ, as Rob mentioned, you have gained so much national attention—largely in part due to your disapproval of left-wing policies. Was there maybe a specific policy or instance that really led you to engage in political discourse at such a young age?

Pearson: I think it was more so the debate story. … During that time, I was 7 years old. I had never thought about politics before in any way. I was your average 7-year-old kid. I was playing with Legos, watching cartoons every Saturday morning. I was living my best life as a 7-year-old boy. So, we get this assignment, I totally shrug it off in the beginning. I was like, “Oh my God, literally what is even politics? I don’t care.”

And then I just remember, though, watching the debate—this was back when Candy Crowley was back at CNN, so this was way back when. And I remember just watching it, hearing them talk about these really important issues, realizing that they were important.

But I think what really got me, like pushed me toward political activism … I don’t think it was a singular issue, but I think it was the overarching belief that I believe that young people have an obligation to fight for the future that we want in this country.

No one’s going to give that to us. No one’s going to hand it to us. And I think that unless we’re involved, we can’t complain. At the end of the day, the decisions that politicians today make are going to affect our generation for years to come. So we might as well have a seat at the table because if we don’t, we will most certainly be on the menu.

Bluey: And CJ, let me take you back to that period of time. How were you perceived among your classmates, teachers? What did they think of somebody who was not only well-educated and articulate about these policy issues, but also maybe coming from a perspective that differed from their own?

Pearson: I think when it first started out … I wasn’t really overtly political back in elementary school. It was something that interested me. I read the newspaper front to back every single morning with my dad. But that was pretty much it.

I didn’t really talk about it much in school because it never really came up. We were learning the Fact Families and things like that in math class. We weren’t really talking about politics yet.

But in fifth grade it was the 2012 election. We actually had another mock election. That year was Romney and Obama. And it was just a lot different.

So, we did have this political conversation, they did begin to start. And I think a lot of my classmates were just kind of baffled by the idea that I even found politics remotely interesting. But also that I kind of knew what I was talking about.

It’s definitely shifted now. … It’s not always easy, because people are more politically in tune now at this age. And they may not have the most informed opinion, but everyone has an opinion.

So, I think that there is a certain element of, I have to defend my beliefs more than I had to when I was younger. But there’s also the fact that I had to grow up doing that. I live in a household of card-carrying Democrats. If I have an opinion about Trump, I have to defend it. If I believe that this particular conservative policy is a good idea, I have to defend it.

It’s been something that I’ve welcomed. I welcome disagreement, I welcome people challenging my ideas. I think it makes me a stronger advocate for my ideas. It’s definitely been interesting growing up kind of in the spotlight, especially as it relates to politics. …

I think when … my first video went viral, all my friends were just kind of going crazy about the view count. And it’s very different, because it’s like most kids my age, they’re famous for snorting cinnamon and doing things like that. So, it’s like I kind of got internet acclaim for a very good reason. It’s definitely been an interesting journey.

Bluey: Walk us through your use of social media because I think that in many cases, you’ve certainly outmaneuvered a lot of people in … older generations in terms of your use of it and your ability to attract that following and generate some national attention.

First of all, tell us how our readers can find you, and how you were able to have so much success.

Pearson: For sure. You can follow me on Twitter, @thecjpearson, and also on Instagram, @thecjpearson. Or you can just go to my website, cjpearson.org, which will give you links to all of my social media profiles.

To answer your question about how I did it, really it was native to me. I know a lot of people sit around big conference tables in very important places and churn out long social media strategies. For me, I grew up using Instagram. I grew up using Twitter. I grew up using Snapchat. So, when I’m posting my ideas or I’m posting my beliefs, it’s really natural to me. There’s no strategy behind it, I don’t tweet a certain amount of times a day—I probably tweet too much.

I think what really benefited me was kind of knowing the contours of the platform in a way … that I’m uniquely able to do as someone who is my age, but also someone who didn’t take it too seriously and was more concerned about just the ability to take my message in places where it wasn’t before.

Yesterday I started using TikTok, which is like the crazy new app that everyone is using, everyone in Gen Z is using. So, everyone listening right now, … if you want your kid to think you’re really cool, download TikTok. Or if you just want to be in the know, download TikTok.

I started using TikTok for posting little funny political videos. And I did it because it’s a new audience, and everyone’s there. Everyone’s paying attention to that platform.

I think the biggest advice I can give to people is be receptive to the changes and the dynamic of the platform, but also just be natural. Your audience wants authenticity and they want simple, cool content. That’s definitely been something that I’ve strived to do.

Allen: Speaking of social media, on Aug. 20 you tweeted, “The left equates blackness with victimhood, but I chose to be a victor and it feels good.”

Can you elaborate a little bit on that tweet and what you meant by that?

Pearson: All the time the left is constantly talking about how black people have gotten the short end of the stick in this country. How we are the victims of the white man, and how we are still suffering the blows of slavery hundreds of years after and how we need all the help that we can get from the government. I disagree. I think what that has done is hobbled the black community to the point that we can’t survive without the government.

I had a great conversation with the president of The Heritage Foundation, Mrs. [Kay Coles] James. The point that she made was that after the Great Society, that’s really when we saw a type of dependency within the black community we had never really seen before.

The black community before then was very self-reliant. They were self-starters. They owned black businesses. It was a huge thing. They prided themselves upon their independence. But after the Great Society, it became a crutch.

For me, I think victimhood is laziness, and it’s just not something I ascribed to. I think that the way you advance in this world, the way that you move forward, is by putting in the work, grinding real hard, and just seeking opportunity.

I don’t need anyone to give me an unfair advantage. All I need is a fair shot. That’s all I need. That’s all I want. I don’t need the government to take care of me. I don’t need the government to pay my bills. All I need is opportunity. And I think that’s all a lot of people of color want. But all you hear from the left is ways for them to continue to … attach [the black community] more and more to government than actually freeing them from that dependency.

Bluey: Thanks for sharing that perspective, CJ. It’s really refreshing to hear you talk about that.

As a young person, I have to ask you about this recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which we’ve covered on The Daily Signal Podcast before. It involved the younger generation, as particularly compared to previous generations when they were the same age as you, and changing views when it comes to patriotism, the importance of raising families, commitment to a religious faith, for instance. And we’ve seen all of those numbers decline.

Whereas other polls show some alarming statistics about the rise of socialism and other concerning things on the minds of conservatives, and probably many of our readers.

So, what can you tell us about your peers, and how we as conservatives might do a better job of articulating those values that we hold so dear?

Pearson: For starters, what I would say is that I wouldn’t read too much into those polls because I’ve seen the socialism statistic and most kids my age really don’t even know what socialism is. So, I think that that’s an education issue, right? We need to be educating our kids about what socialism is, what it entails, and the fact that it has literally devastated countries like Venezuela, like Cuba. And that socialism kills. It’s not something that makes everything equal. If it does make anyone equal in any regard, it makes us equally poor and equally unsuccessful. …

Also, from my own personal observation, I see—as far as attitudes go—one of the most conservative generations that I’ve seen in a long time. This is a generation that hates PC culture. We hate political correctness. Our memes are the most offensive things I’ve ever seen, but we love them and we pride ourselves on them. And cancel culture, we hate cancel culture. It’s literally asinine that we are bringing up things from 15 years ago and holding it over the heads of people who have changed and evolved.

… My advice to the right would be, let’s educate our young people, right? Let’s teach them that socialism is a bad idea. Let’s teach them a little about why the free market is the greatest pathway to success for them, their families, and their communities. Let’s talk to them about why President Trump isn’t the racist that the media constantly tries to depict him as, but is actually someone who signed into law the First Step Act, has led on criminal justice reform, and has brought about the lowest black unemployment rate in our nation’s history.

No one my age is hearing that. They’re not at all because they’re reading BuzzFeed, they’re on Snapchat all the time, or they get their news from Taylor Swift. And, love Taylor, but I just don’t know if she’s the best source for political news.

I think the biggest thing that we need to do as conservatives is meet young people where they are. We need to be on platforms like TikTok. We need to be on Instagram, we need to be on Snapchat, all those places. And we need to start educating young people about these issues. These issues are not just fancy little taglines, they have ramifications. They have consequences.

Socialism isn’t cool. Socialism is something that actually has devastated, again, country after country after country. I don’t think enough young people know that and it’s our obligation as conservatives to educate them on what those ramifications are.

Allen: CJ, thank you for sharing that.

You’ve just begun your senior year of high school, and it’s so exciting to watch everything you’ve done already at such a young age. Do you have any plans or thoughts for what you’ll do after you graduate?

Pearson: I’m open to a lot of different options right now. … I got into my first university, [I got] my first college acceptance earlier this month, that was really exciting. I’ll hopefully be hearing back from a few more colleges after December. But I really kept an open mind about it. I’m super excited to continue my activism, continue to fight to ensure that my generation has a seat at the table and that conservatism is advanced.

I think that what’s so important more now than ever is for people my age to rise up and speak out. Our country is at a crossroads where we will really have to decide what type of nation we want to be. Do we want to be a nation of open borders, of socialism, or a country where babies are allowed to be aborted post-birth?

I think the answer to that question is “no.” And I think that the only way that we ensure that that answer remains “no” is by being vocal, by being active, by being involved, and by ensuring that this next generation of Americans knows that conservatism is not the dirty word that their teacher said it was. It’s not the dirty word that Taylor Swift said it was. It’s something that is intrinsic to what it means to be an American. It’s a reflection of the values of our Founding Fathers who did the most audacious thing when they set out to found this country so that we could self-govern, which is one of the hardest things for any civilized society to do, but we’ve done it.

That is really what my ambition is after high school, to continue that work, to continue that effort to ensure that conservatism lives on, and that more young people are informed, are aware, and are educated about the most important issues that are shaping our society and our culture for years to come.

Bluey: Well, CJ, we certainly need you out there fighting that good fight, that happy warrior spirit that you bring. So, thank you for doing what you’re doing and we wish you the best as you finish out high school.

Remind our readers once again, if they want to follow you on social media or learn more about the work you’re doing, how best to go about doing that.

Pearson: Sure. Rob and Virginia, I want to first and foremost thank you guys for having me. It’s been an absolute pleasure. Great conversation. If your readers want to follow me, they can check me out @thecjpearson on Twitter, Instagram as well. And my website is cjpearson.org.

Allen: That’s great. Thank you so much, CJ. Really appreciate your time today.

Pearson: Thank you so much. It was a pleasure.

PODCAST BY

Rob Bluey 

Rob Bluey is executive editor of The Daily Signal, the multimedia news organization of The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Rob. Twitter: @RobertBluey.

RELATED ARTICLE: Fellow Millennials: Here’s Why We Must Reject Socialism

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Stop It, America. Politicians Can Not Make Our Lives Better

/in , , , , /by

Here’s the deal, if you are looking to this president, or you were looking to the past president, or you are looking to a future president to make your life better you’re on a fool’s errand. It was the furthest thing from the minds of the Founders and Framers that any individual should have such power and sway.

If you are looking to Congress — this Congress or a past Congress or a future Congress — to make your life better you’re on a fool’s errand. It was maybe the second furthest thing from the minds of the Founders and Framers that any part of the federal government could so greatly impact your life.

There is very little government can do to make your life better. There are quite a few things government can do to make your life worse. (See: All of history.) Most of your problems in life are going to be up to you to solve, to improve or at least to deal with.

For instance, if you want to make more money you’re going to either have to work harder and/or longer, or get training or education to get a better paying job. And if you keep making the same decisions you’ve made all along, and you’re 35 and stuck working at Walmart at minimum wage, there’s nothing the government can or should do for you. You need to change your choices to change your future. If the government steps in to improve your future for you, it inevitably begins a cascade of events that makes many lives worse, including yours eventually.

When governments try to solve poverty by giving poor people a little more money each month, they actually end up keeping them subsistent on government largesse and locked in a hopeless cycle. This has been demonstrated for 50 years now. And the government forcibly takes other people’s money to do it; lose-lose.

The best overall situation is when we can all act freely; free people exchanging goods and services for money freely in markets that are both free and competitive. That simple, relational structure has lifted, literally, billions out of poverty in the past 40 years. Government’s primary role was to stay out of the way, with a small role in making sure there were no monopolies and there were courts to settle contractual disputes.

This is well-documented through our history, but it is not well-known among our population. Schools, universities and the media are the primary culprits in purveying this ignorance. There may be a role for a temporary safety net, but because politicians are politicians it always grows, such as what we have now with enormous entitlements and transfer payments.

But promising more giveaways often garners votes. Some would say buys votes.

So naturally, we have a lot of politicians saying that they can, and will, make things more fair for you, make things better for you and give you this, that and everything you want. Just vote for them. Well not to burst your bubble but there’s nothing they can give you except that they take it from someone else, through taxes now or taxes later to pay off deficit spending now. And eventually they’ll be taking it from you, too, unless you stay at the bottom in poverty, in which case the government will in due time run out of other peoples’ money and then you are lost, too. More lose-lose.

As Margaret Thatcher said: “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

The better way, the only proven way, is the collective intelligence of hundreds of millions of Americans, and even billions of people around the world. This is almost infinitely greater than any group of central-planning politicians. (See Russia’s five-year plans, East Germany’s junk new cars, Maoist China’s everything, Venezuela’s oil.)

So when you hear all these politicians promising a plan for this and a plan for that, trillions here and trillions there, remember that the Great Society government plan to end poverty starting in the late 1960s under President Lyndon Johnson resulted in the transfer of $22 trillion from working Americans to poor Americans. It was not charity. It was government force, benefitting politicians along the way, but no one else. The result was that as of today, there is virtually no change in the poverty rate. More welfare programs will have the same net effect until all of the money is gone.

No politician is going to improve your life. That is going to be up to you and your choices. The American dream does not come from government; it relies on a constrained government. It then comes via each American exercising their individual God-given natural rights in liberty.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Rep. Omar Declares Support for Terrorist Financier’s Company in her native Somalia

/in , , , , , , , /by

A controversial Minnesota congresswoman known for racially inflammatory anti-Semitic views has publicly declared her support for a terrorist organization in her native Somalia. Democrat Ilhan Omar is demanding that a telecommunications company founded and operated by a renowned terrorist financier, receive protection from that country’s government and peacekeeping forces. An Israeli-based newspaper broke the story a few days ago, but the American mainstream media has been notably silent on the matter.

The company, Hormuud Telecommunications, was created and is operated by Ahmed Nur Ali Jim’ale, a chief financier of al–Shabaab, an east African-based jihadist group that serves as Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia. In her social media account, Omar writes that Somalia’s government and peacekeeping forces need to protect Hormuud and the Somali telecom industry as they make enormous contributions to the economy and provide vital services. “During my visit to Somalia in 2011, I was surprised by the quick evolution of technology in Somalia,” Omar posts, indirectly praising the telecom firm with terrorist ties. The Israeli article includes the links to a pair of United Nations Security Council reports documenting Hormuud’s direct support for al-Shabaab.

According to the first U.N. report:

“Ali Ahmed Nur Jim’ale (Jim’ale) has served in leadership roles with the former Somali Council of Islamic Courts, also known as the Somali Islamic Courts Union, which was a radical-Islamist element. The most radical elements of the Somali Islamic Courts Union eventually formed the group known as al–Shabaab.” The document also identifies Jim’ale, a prominent businessman who controls Hormuud, as one of al-Shabab’s chief financiers. “Hormuud Telecommunications is a company identified as being one of the single largest financiers of al-Shabaab, which includes large lump sum payments to al-Shabaab in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and these payments toal-Shabaab were facilitated by Jim’ale,” the U.N. report says, adding that “Hormuud Telecommunications has provided key material and logistical support to al-Shabaab to include weapons, private fighters, and ammunition.”

The second U.N. Security Council report, published last year, links a terror attack that killed hundreds in 2017 to Hormuud. The event is described as the deadliest terror attack in Somalia’s history, carried out with a large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. “Two employees of the principal Somali telecommunications provider, Hormuud Telecom Somalia Inc., were also prosecuted in connection with the attack, for facilitating the entry of the large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device through the Sinka Dheere checkpoint on the outskirts of Mogadishu,” according to the U.N. report.

Considering this documented history of terrorist activity, it’s outrageous that Hormuud is endorsed by a member of the United States Congress. Omar has been plagued by controversy since becoming one of the first—along with Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib—Muslim women elected to Congress. The mainstream media has praised the legislators for being part of a “historic freshmen class with more women and minorities than ever.” The reality is that there is more than enough credible information for the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to open criminal investigations into Omar. Back in July Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint with the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics calling for a full investigation into potential crimes tied to allegations that Omar may have married her biological brother.

In the complaint Judicial Watch documents substantial, compelling and unrefuted evidence that Omar may have committed the following crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law: perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud and federal student loan fraud. At the very least, such violations constitute a breach of the Code of Ethics for Government Service which subject officeholders to a higher standard.

RELATED ARTICLES:

AOC Shows Support for Antifa-Associated Protesters

Judicial Watch Files Complaint with Rhode Island Supreme Court against U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse for Unauthorized Practice of Law

Judicial Watch Gets Bruce Ohr FBI 302S

Ilhan Omar Asked for Protection of Somali Company Linked to Terror

RELATED VIDEO: FITTON: IT’S About Time the DOJ Prosecuted McCabe.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Second Holocaust or road to oblivion?

/in , , , , , , /by

American Jews should acknowledge that they are mired in an existential crisis that is largely self-inflicted.

When Israeli Minister of Education Rabbi Rafi Peretz recently likened intermarriage in the US to a second Holocaust, he was roundly criticized by liberal Jews, including the ADL and representatives of the Conservative movement.  Some claimed his remark was contemptible or somehow constituted “Holocaust denial.” But despite the outrage and continuing controversy over his stark analogy, liberal and non-Orthodox organizations may really have been angered by the implicit indictment of their apparent inability to ensure Jewish continuity among their followers.  Their indignation was incongruous, moreover, considering how often progressives misapply Holocaust imagery to the US southern border crisis or falsely compare the Trump administration to Nazi Germany.

Instead of condemning Rabbi Peretz, American Jews should perhaps acknowledge that they are mired in an existential crisis that is largely self-inflicted.  Though assimilation and intermarriage are certainly not genocide, they could if unabated decimate Jewish culture just as surely. And no matter how strenuously Jewish liberals might disagree, they cannot alter the fact that the progressive philosophy they cherish so dearly has been enabling assimilation since the days of Voltaire – a confirmed anti-Semite – and subverting Jewish tradition and national aspirations to the present day.

Anger at the messenger should not negate the seriousness of his warning, which merely echoes the findings of the Pew Research Center survey showing a US intermarriage rate of 58% overall and 71% among the non-Orthodox.  The collective rate is significant in unaffiliated, Reform, and Conservative demographics, suggesting to many a correlation with lower or alternative standards of observance and education.

The real picture might even be worse given Pew’s finding that “intermarriage is much more common among Jewish respondents who are themselves the children of intermarriage” and that “among married Jews who report that only one of their parents was Jewish, fully 83% are married to a non-Jewish spouse.”  Specifically, because those who identify by patrilineal descent are not Jewish according to Halakha (Jewish law), their marriages to Halakhic Jews would also constitute intermarriage.  The situation has probably not improved since these data were first published in 2013, as Jewish literacy remains comparatively low in secular and nontraditional populations.

The likelihood of intermarriage clearly increases as observance and educational standards decline.  For Reform Jews, this may stem from their movement’s early rejection of the mitzvot (commandments) as binding, its ambivalence regarding the divinity of Torah, and the conflation of Judaism with progressive ideals.  Such themes distinguished the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, which contained among others the following statements of principle:

“We recognize in the Bible the record of the consecration of the Jewish people to its mission as the priest of the one God…[and consider] the Bible [as] reflecting the primitive ideas of its own age, and at times clothing its conception of divine Providence and Justice dealing with men in miraculous narratives…

“We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress…fail to impress the modern Jew with a spirit of priestly holiness; their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation…

“We recognize in Judaism a progressive religion, ever striving to be in accord with the postulates of reason…”

Though the movement tempered its initial radicalism somewhat over the years, its discomfort regarding traditional observance and Judeocentrism continued to mold Reform thought and practice – and influence assimilation.  Indeed, many in the Reform rabbinate acknowledged and attempted to address the problem twenty years ago by advocating greater observance; however, their recommendations were ineffective because they viewed the commandments as advisory rather than mandatory.  And while Reform clergy have continued to bemoan intermarriage within their congregations, they have little authority to discourage it now that 84% of them officiate at such unions, as reported by the JTA last year.

The Reform movement’s inability to assure Jewish continuity was perhaps inevitable given its heterodox educational standards, enforced primarily through part-time Hebrew schools and youth programs that teach little in the way of substantive Jewish language or traditional law and ritual.  Indeed, curricula often emphasize progressive political values (which frequently regard ethnocentric loyalty and attachment to homeland as antiquated or intolerant), but fail to impart traditional basics or the linguistic skills necessary for understanding sacred text.

The Conservative movement has not fared much better, particularly as it has become more identified with progressive political causes since the 1960s.  Whatever its standards of practice may have been fifty years ago, most congregants today are nonobservant and lead ritual lives indistinguishable from their Reform contemporaries.  The majority do not keep kosher, observe Shabbat or speak Hebrew, and many identify as “social justice warriors” first and foremost. Moreover, congregational leaders are often neither observant nor well-versed in traditional rabbinics.  Conservative day schools are no match for traditional yeshivas, and twice-weekly Hebrew schools (where most education occurs) are ill-equipped to teach substantive Jewish law and text. Few students of such supplemental programs can read or understand Tanakh (Jewish Bible) in the original Hebrew.

The non-Orthodox movements tend to equate political activism with ritual observance and sanctify progressivism as innately Jewish despite its frequent conflict with normative tradition.  And many of their members praise unbalanced criticism of Israel while portraying Jewish nationalism as chauvinistic. Though Reform and Conservative stalwarts would disagree, the institutional embrace of liberal politics has not advanced Jewish thought or practice, but rather has alienated many followers from their roots.

Paradoxically, nontraditional Jews often seek acknowledgment of their movements’ legitimacy from Orthodox institutions, though it seems that genuine confidence in their rectitude would preclude their need for approval from a religious establishment whose standards they reject.  And while they demand recognition from the Orthodox, they do not regard Torah or Halakha with the same degree of reverence, but instead discount subject matter that offends their political sensibilities.

Their disregard for Torah content inconsistent with their partisan worldview is illustrative.  They are troubled by Parshat Zachor (Devarim, 25:19), for example, wherein Israel was commanded to obliterate the Amalekites for their surprise attack in Rephidim after the Exodus, because it defies the concept of progressive universalism.  Likewise, they minimize the significance of Parshat Acherei-Mot (Vayikra, 16:1–18:30), which prohibits certain sexual relationships, because it undermines their sanctification of such relationships today. However, they cannot selectively disclaim portions of Torah while claiming to affirm its eternal values or divinity.

The nontraditional movements seem to have traded normative Torah beliefs for political and temporal priorities that are extraneous to Judaism.  And they are abetted by secular communal organizations that emphasize political virtues over Torah values and by Democrats who attack conservatives while defending anti-Semites within their party.  However, those who promote progressivism as the sine qua nons of Jewish existence are often not familiar with classical Torah principles; for if they were, they would have to acknowledge that much of their partisan agenda contravenes traditional Judaism and enables assimilation.

Nevertheless, the tendency to intermarry does not necessarily signify self-rejection, but is often a passive outcome for people with weak Judaic backgrounds who never internalized the value of cultural self-preservation.  They may not consider intermarriage a goal, but neither do they view it as unacceptable or undesirable.

Distinct from such passive assimilationists are those who willfully renounce their heritage in favor of non-Jewish belief systems.  This demographic includes people raised with little connection to traditional practice or spirituality, who seek to fill the void with supernal substance of any kind.  Some are drawn to so-called “messianic Judaism,” which is nothing more than evangelical Christianity falsely portrayed as “Jewish” despite its fundamental incompatibility with Torah law and belief.  Others succumb to the blandishments of missionaries who target poorly-educated Jews for conversion.

Those who embrace other religions generally have limited Jewish education and possess neither the knowledge nor skills to withstand spiritual predation.  They typically do not understand Hebrew, are unfamiliar with Tanakh, and thus are incapable of countering evangelists who misrepresent, misquote, and mistranslate the Jewish Bible.  In particular, they are unable to compare original Hebrew text to supposed “fulfillment citations” frequently cited by Christian missionaries to see that none comport with what Hebrew Scripture actually says.  They are also unaware that theological concepts like trinitarianism and vicarious atonement are irreconcilable with Torah law.

Similar naivete characterizes secular progressives who claim that Jewish tradition validates leftist social policy, but who are unable to articulate why because they cannot read or understand Hebrew Scripture or Rabbinic literature.

The American Jewish community is clearly in crisis and Rabbi Peretz was correct about the danger, regardless of his choice of metaphor.  The risk of spiritual and cultural decline – whether through intermarriage or the adoption of heretical beliefs – is very real. Thus, rather than attacking him, US Jewish leaders should be heeding his admonition and reorganizing their educational and ritual priorities to prevent exile from turning into oblivion.

RELATED VIDEO: Bill Whittle on President Trump’s statement about Jewish people and the Democrat party.

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel National News column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows

/in , , , , /by

It never fails. A split-second after a mass shooting occurs, grandstanders and ideologues issue statements demanding new gun controls—even if the laws already on the books failed or the laws they want would have made no difference. Case in point: the tragic incidents in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, in early August 2019.

The message is clear: Guns cause violence. Tax them, take them, ban them, regulate them. Do something, maybe anything! Such knee-jerk, emotional responses are dangerous, writes Charles W. Cooke in National Review, “for when a nation sets up a direct pipeline between its emotions and its laws, it does not keep its liberty for long.”

Liberty isn’t the only thing likely to be lost when gun laws are passed to appease emotions over reason, evidence, logic, and rights. Lives will most assuredly be lost, too. Lots of them.

This raises a point amplified in another context almost two centuries ago by Frederic Bastiat in his famous essay with a title that sums it up, “That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen.”

How many lives are actually saved by gun ownership? This is a supremely important question that the grandstanders and ideologues usually—and conveniently—ignore. It’s a matter that came immediately to my mind when I learned of an incident here in my own town of Newnan, Georgia, a few days ago. The headline in the Newnan Times-Herald read, “Man Hospitalized After Being Shot Outside Bar.”

A little after 1:00 a.m. on Saturday morning, August 17, police arrived at Fat Boys Bar & Grill to respond to a shooting. A customer had threatened other patrons, prompting the establishment’s security to forcibly remove him. Enraged at being kicked out, he declared he was going to get a gun “and shoot the place up.”

This very angry (and possibly intoxicated) man then busted the window out of a friend’s car in the parking lot, grabbed a .40 caliber handgun from inside the car, and began firing in the air. In the meantime, Ben McCoy, a man who witnessed all of this from inside his own vehicle, happened to have his rifle with him. Before he could use it, he was shot four times by the man wielding the .40 caliber handgun, who then fled into the woods.

Fortunately, despite being hit in the chest, stomach, left arm and right thigh, McCoy is recuperating, and the assailant was quickly apprehended. No one was killed, but the situation would likely have been tragically different if Ben McCoy and his rifle hadn’t distracted the gunman.

Of course, in this particular incident it’s most unfortunate that an innocent man was shot. Don’t lose sight of the fact that his very presence, with a rifle, still prevented what could have been a bloodbath that might have even killed him too. What’s far more common is innocent gun owners using or brandishing a weapon and saving lives without any injuries at all except sometimes for the assailant. I chose this example because it was local and I wanted to express appreciation to Mr. McCoy.

I checked online and found some fascinating numbers. A good website with footnotes and references to authoritative sources is GunFacts.info. There I learned the following:

  • Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
  • Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
  • 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
  • Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
  • Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

If you doubt the objectivity of the site above, it’s worth pointing out that the Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be even higher—as many as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day.

Another excellent source of information on this topic (and many more current issues) is the Gun Control page at JustFacts.org. (Full disclosure: I serve on the board of directors of JustFacts because I believe in the organization’s objectiveness, accuracy, and integrity.)

In “Defensive Gun Use is More Than Shooting Bad Guys,” James Agresti, founder and president of JustFacts, provided overwhelming evidence from multiple sources showing that defensive gun use is more common and effective than anti-gun fanatics like The New York Times suggest or will admit. Agresti says that “people who use a gun for defense rarely harm (much less kill) criminals. This is because criminals often back off when they discover their targets are armed.”

John Lott, author of the book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, another outstanding source for info on this subject. He writes:

By 66 percent to 32 percent, economists and criminologists answer that gun-free zones are “more likely to attract criminals than they are to deter them.” A 60 percent to 40 percent margin thinks that guns in the home do not increase suicides. And a 62 percent to 35 percent spread says that guns are used in self-defense to stop crime more often than in the commission of crime.

This may explain why even The New York Times hasn’t yet put a billboard up by its offices that screams, “This is a Gun-Free Zone. There are No Guns Here.”

If we can just confiscate the estimated 350 million guns in the country, you might ask, then won’t we eliminate the offensive use of firearms, so we won’t need any of those many defensive uses? Good luck with that. Is there any reason to believe that such a war on guns would be any more successful than the government’s war on drugs? Even a fifth-grader could tell you that it would be largely the innocent who would be disarmed. Criminals would have no problem keeping their guns or getting replacements on a thriving black market.

So that leaves me with gratitude for the Ben McCoys of the world, the law-abiding gun owners who are every bit as important as the cops—and likely even more so—in the effort to keep the innocent safe and sound.

COLUMN BY

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Ambassador for Global Liberty at the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also author of Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrat Party governance and the top 20 U.S. cities by murder rate

President Trump in one tweet shows why ‘red flag’ laws are so very dangerous

Red Flag laws are a cover-up for the failures of government to see and act on real red flags

7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws

Gun Rights Don’t Depend on Statistics

Response from Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL) on Gun Control/Red Flag Laws

RELATED VIDEO: Short Video on Red Flag Laws.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Fifth Annual America – The Truth Conference in Sarasota, FL on September 21, 2019

/in , , , , , , /by

“What’s Happening Now to Change America” is the theme of the fifth annual 2019 America – The Truth conference being held at the Carlisle Inn in Sarasota, Florida.

Americans are at a crossroads not seen since its founding. There are two ideologies vying for power. One believes in the greatness of America the other does not. There are those who want to fundamentally change America because they view her as tainted, even evil. There is a second group who wants to restore America to her position in the world as a beacon of hope, equal justice under the law and a land of prosperity for those who embrace American values.

As the 2020 presidential primaries heat up five internationally known speakers, film makers, subject matter experts and authors will address the fundamental social, cultural, religious, economic and political challenges facing Americans. They will educate, inform and address solutions to these various challenges.

DATE: Saturday, September 21, 2019

TIME: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

REGISTRATION: Online at AmericasTruths.com or at the registration desk.

LOCATION: Carlisle Inn located at 3727 Bahia Vista, Sarasota, Florida 34232

WEBSITE: AmericasTruths.com

Online adult general admission is $15.00. Adult admission at the door is $20.00. Veterans and students’ admissions are $10.00 online and at the door. Children under 13-years old are admitted free.

Featured speakers:

John Michael Chambers – Author and media commentator who has been interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, CBS, NBC and numerous online platforms and talk radio programs.

TOPIC: Trump and the Death of Globalism.

Dr. Kirk Elliot – Economist, financial advisor, entrepreneur, CEO and wealth manager of Sovereign Advisors.

TOPIC: Capitalism vs. Socialism and the 2020 election.

Trevor Loudon – International blogger, writer, and researcher on the U.S. government. Producer of documentaries America Under Siege – Antifa and The Enemies Within.

TOPIC: The Enemies Within the Church.

Pastor Umar Mulinde – Pastor of the Gospel of Life Church in Kampala, Uganda. Pastor Mulinde was raised in a strict Muslim family and instructed in the Islamic faith before converting to Christianity.

TOPIC: Sharia Law – How it Affected Me and How It will Affect You.

Tom Trento – Dynamic speaker and activist. Trento has degrees in Law Enforcement, Philosophy and Theology. He is co-author of Shariah: The Threat to America.

TOPIC: The Death of Israel, The Death of the West.

RELATED VIDEO: Interview with John Michael Chambers and Dr. Kirk Elliot.

Trump’s Personal Assistant Fired, Caught Leaking Info on Trump Family to the Press

/in , , , , , /by

“Look, we want freedom and we want liberty in this country. But we’ve also got to have the guts to stand up and run a tight ship in America. Morality is now a word that many people consider very square and outdated. But if we don’t stand up for it, we deserve what we will get in the end – unprincipled anarchy.” –  Actor Cliff Robertson

“Politics is not an end, but a means. It is not a product, but a process. It is the art of government. Like other values it has its counterfeits. So much emphasis has been placed upon the false that the significance of the true has been obscured and politics has come to convey the meaning of crafty and cunning selfishness, instead of candid and sincere service.” – President Calvin Coolidge, Have Faith in Massachusetts

“Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable, than loyalty.” —Cicero

President Trump’s personal assistant, Madeleine Westerhout, resigned Thursday, August 29th, amid tensions.  Trump reportedly discovered that Westerhout shared private details about his family and White House operations. The exchange took place at a recent off-the-record dinner with reporters, per Axios’ Jonathan Swan, and the information got back to the White House. “The breach of trust meant immediate action,” per the NYT, adding Westerhout, who has been with Trump since the first day of his presidency, was immediately deemed a “separated worker.”

Westerhout has sat outside the Oval Office since day one of the administration. She had become a trusted aide to the President.  Unscrupulous behavior and a lack of principles is only too common in the Washington D.C. swamp.  The Deep State is everywhere and yes, moles are still working against the people’s President.

Some questioned her loyalty to the president after a recent book about the White House reported that she cried in anguish in 2016 when the election results rolled in.

Of course, we know Democrats are going to target her next to try and dig up dirt on Trump. I’m sure they are hoping she turns on Trump just as did Anthony Scaramucci, Omarosa Manigault-Newman and Michael Cohen.

Westerhout Career

In the 2012 presidential election, Westerhout worked for the campaign of Mitt Romney. In the summer of 2013, Westerhout began working for the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party Organizing Committee. From January 2015, she worked as an assistant to RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh.  In 2016, she worked as a “greeter girl” for visitors to the Trump Tower during the transition period after the election.

On January 19, 2017, Donald Trump’s transition team, headed by VP Michael Pence, announced that Westerhout would serve as special assistant and executive assistant to the President.  Her salary was $130,000 for the position. The sole way of reaching President Trump, other than calling his cell phone, was through gatekeeper, Madeleine Westerhout. It has been alleged that this was arranged by former Chief of Staff General John Kelly.  She was promoted to Director of Oval Office Operations on February 2, 2019.

VP Mike Pence

Governor Michael Pence was chosen as Trump’s Vice President because he needed a man who knew the people in Congress and could help him pass legislation.  Allegedly, he was Ivanka Trump’s choice.  Pence had served 12 years in Congress and was longtime friends with Paul Ryan, and John McCain who he endorsed for election prior to Trump’s support.  His other close friend who retired was Jeff Flake.  After his stint in Congress, Pence ran for Governor of the State of Indiana.

Had he not been chosen by Trump, Pence quite likely would have lost his second gubernatorial bid for many reasons, but one of them was because he was taking “victory laps” for eliminating common core, when in reality, all he had done was rebrand it.  It’s now the Indiana Core, but their standards are almost mirroring exactly what’s commonly referred to as the Common Core standards.  Link

Pence gives an Oscar winning performance masquerading as a devout Christian, yet he launched a   allegedly to help Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections…a lot of good that did when 40 of them retired, no thanks to Paul Ryan.  No vice president in modern history had their own PAC less than 6 month into the president’s first term, until Mike Pence.

In a previous article, Our Pro-Amnesty Vice President and His Establishment Friends, I discussed VP Pence’s globalist pro-amnesty, pro-trade, and pro-alien workers goals.  His guest worker program would have required participants to apply from their home country to government-approved job placement agencies that match workers with employers who cannot find Americans for the job. Link The plan received support from neo-cons such as pro-amnesty former Congressman and Freedom Works founder Dick Armey.  Link However, it attracted criticism from conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan, who viewed Pence as lending “his conservative prestige to a form of liberal amnesty.”

Pence is also closely aligned with the pro-Constitutional Convention and Trump hating Koch brothers who are pro-abortion, pro-trade, pro-open borders and cloak themselves as conservatives.  The Koch brothers heavily fund the GOP and countless conservative organizations urging them to promote a Constitutional Convention.

They have financed Pence’s political career since its inception along with Dick and Betsy DeVos.  Pence stated in 2014, that he was “grateful,” for David Koch, who recently passed at the age of 79.

Pence Transition Team

President Trump’s transition team was originally led by former Governor Chris Christie until he and a number of his supporters were replaced or demoted on November 11th because of the Bridgegate affair.  VP-elect Michael Pence then took over.

One of the key responsibilities of a presidential transition includes the identification and vetting of candidates for approximately 4,000 non-civil service positions in the U.S. government whose service is at the pleasure of the president.  Their vetting procedure has seemed less than stellar, perhaps because of who was chosen to replace Christie.

I would surmise that Pence and his transition team staff chose the majority of folks who were on board with the Trump administration, the day he took office, but many people brought in by VP Pence were folks he worked with in his home state of Indiana.

Seema Verma is the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  Two other former Indiana staff members joined Verma at the CMS office, Brady Brooks and Matt Lloyd, the latter a former close aide to Pence.  Lloyd had returned to the government after a stint working as director of communications at Koch Industries.

Dr. Jerome Adams, Pence’s former Indiana state health commissioner became the U.S. general surgeon.  He defended Pence against complaints of his slow response to the HIV outbreak among drug users in Indiana.

Tom Price, who ultimately was forced to resign, was Pence’s friend when they served in Congress and he was the first secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Alex Azar, the President of Eli Lilly based in Indianapolis, was named to replace Price and he was one of Pence’s major corporate campaign contributors, despite the fact that Eli Lilly threatened to leave Indiana if Governor Pence had not watered down Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Sonny Perdue, the former governor of Georgia, became Trump’s secretary of agriculture and he was related to the wife of Pence’s Chief of Staff, Nick Ayers who has strong ties to the Koch brothers along with Mike Pompeo and many others.

Globalist Dan Coats, Pence’s friend and a former U.S. Senator from Indiana was named director of national intelligence succeeding James Clapper, but has since resigned.  He did not support Trump and believed in Russian interference.

Betsy DeVos of Michigan, the Amway billionaire and Pence’s long-time political benefactor became Secretary of Education.

Conclusion

President Trump and his family live in the DC swamp and have endured and suffered so many vitriolic and uncivil attacks by people who should have been charged with sedition.  Yet he fights on for us, for our country, and for every American citizen.  Pray for him and his family, and pray that his future choices are men and women who love and appreciate what he’s doing to save our country and will work hard for him.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s Personal Assistant Abruptly Quits

VIDEO: 5 big takeaways from President Trump at the G-7 Summit

/in , , , /by

1600 DAILY reports:

President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump return home after attending this year’s G-7 Summit in Biarritz, France. President Trump met with world leaders to strengthen our alliances, secure better trade deals, and—as always—keep the interests of the American people front and center on the global stage.

The summit began in 1975 as an opportunity for world leaders to meet face-to-face and find solutions to the most pressing modern-day global challenges.

This year was no exception, as President Trump worked with our allies to chart a course toward even more prosperity both here at home and around the world. Here are a few of the biggest takeaways from the trip:

  • A message of unity. President Trump and President Emmanuel Macron of host nation France held a joint press conference earlier today. Over the weekend, they worked together to achieve progress on a number of fronts, including global security, fair trade practices, and better economic opportunity for all. “I want to thank you very much, Mr. President, for the incredible job you did. This is a truly successful G-7,” President Trump said.
  • Securing a billion-dollar trade deal. One of the biggest wins from the summit was President Trump’s announcement of locking in a trade agreement with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. The deal secures market access for a number of American agricultural goods, and Japan has agreed to purchase large sums of our farmers’ corn.
  • Promoting USMCA. With Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by his side, President Trump talked about the importance of expanding America’s trading partnership with our neighbors by passing the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement. With both Canada and Mexico having essentially finalized it, President Trump noted that it’s time for American lawmakers to do the same. “Our farmers love it, the unions love it, the workers love it, manufacturers love it . . . hopefully that’ll be put to a vote very soon.”
  • Developing stronger trade with Europe. While meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Trump discussed how best to meet global and regional security challenges and previewed even better trade relations to come with Germany and the European Union. Germany is “a great trading partner,” he said. “And we probably think we’re going to be upping the trade over a very short period of time.”
  • Helping to reduce India-Pakistan tensions. In his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, President Trump reaffirmed the need for dialogue between India and Pakistan and also worked to build on the great economic relations between our nations.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Supporters Have ALL The Moral High Ground. Don’t Cede One Inch Of It To The Left.

The Unchanging Principles of Conservatism Defined

/in , , , , /by

At The Heritage Foundation, we’re always thinking about ways to talk to new and nontraditional audiences about how conservative principles can create the greatest freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society for the American people.

We realize that for these ideas to take hold, we have to counter the false narratives of left-leaning media outlets, educational institutions, and politicians.

We also see how messaging to new audiences can be diluted when some institutions and politicians who bear the “conservative” label drift far from fundamental conservative principles.

This not only hurts the conservative brand, but it also leaves these audiences thinking we’re not authentic about our views and that we change them based on convenience. It harms our credibility and leaves them thinking what we told them was right and true really wasn’t.

Many institutions and politicians start out as conservative, but if they’re not firmly rooted in principles, they can deviate from the path.

This is called trajectory: In physics, think of throwing a ball straight ahead. Eventually, forces like wind and gravity will cause the ball to curve and drop instead of continuing straight.

In politics and policy, the forces that create a curved trajectory—deviating from principles—include pressure from the media or political opponents, pressure from those you normally agree with deviating from principles themselves, or not wanting to be seen as the only one advocating for a position that’s right but not popular.

Since principles are meant to represent our highest ideals and should be based on fundamental truths, they should mostly be unchanging.

While good conservatives may have differing viewpoints about some aspects of conservatism, there are certain fundamental principles where we must remain resolute. In fact, at The Heritage Foundation, we call them the True North principles because they represent a fixed direction on which to stay focused, regardless of which ways the forces may be pressuring us.

Some of these major principles include:

  • The federal government is instituted to protect the rights bestowed on individuals under natural law. It exists to preserve life, liberty, and property—a mission that includes not only protecting the sanctity of life, but defending freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly, and the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
  • The federal government’s powers should be limited to only those named in the U.S. Constitution and exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens.
  • Government functions best when it is closest and most accountable to the people and where power is shared between the federal government and the states.
  • Individuals and families make the best decisions for themselves and their children about health, education, jobs, and welfare.
  • America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system built on free enterprise, economic freedom, private property rights, and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies that promote general economic freedom and eliminate governmental preferences for special interests, including free trade, deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort free markets and impair innovation.
  • Tax policies should raise the minimum revenue necessary to fund only constitutionally appropriate functions of government.
  • Regulations should be limited to those that produce a net benefit to the American people as a whole, weighing both financial and liberty costs.
  • Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ own personal and political predispositions.
  • America must be a welcoming nation—one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane, and enforced to protect its citizens.
  • America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security and interests, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad.

These are just some of the unchanging principles of conservatism.

As the left continues to push policies like “Medicare for All,” free college tuition, open borders, and depleting the strength of the military, conservatives must counter these policies with a strong voice.

We must convince more and more people that our ideas work better and can assure a more free and prosperous future for all Americans. If we don’t do that, and more Americans succumb to the false promises of the statists, we soon won’t recognize America.

If ever there was a time we needed to be clear about our principles, it is now.

Originally published in The Washington Times

COMMENTARY BY

Kay Coles James

Kay Coles James is president of The Heritage Foundation. James formerly served as director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and as Virginia’s secretary of health and human resources. She is also the founder and president of The Gloucester Institute. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Mosab Hassan Yousef, ‘the state of mind of so many Arabs is still deep in the 6th or 7th century.’

/in , , , , , , /by

Since he was a small boy, Mosab Hassan Yousef has had an inside view of the deadly terrorist group Hamas. The oldest son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a founding member of Hamas and its most popular leader, young Mosab assisted his father for years in his political activities while being groomed to assume his legacy, politics, status . . . and power.

But everything changed when Mosab turned away from terror and violence, and embraced instead the teachings of another famous Middle East leader – Jesus of Nazareth.

In Son of Hamas, Mosab Yousef – now called “Joseph” – reveals new information about the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization and unveils the truth about his own role, his agonizing separation from family and homeland, the dangerous decision to make his newfound faith public, and his belief that the Christian mandate to “love your enemies” is the only way to peace in the Middle East.

Joseph (Mosab Hassan Yousef) speaks truth to power.

Texas: Former Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne to Run for Congress

/in , , , , /by

Former popular Irving Mayor, Beth Van Duyne has departed her post at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s office in Fort Worth, Texas. She has announced on social media on August 5th that she plans to run for the United States Congress, district 24, which covers parts of Dallas, Tarrant and Denton counties.

Those of us who have been following Beth’s incredible career in the City of Irving, are very excited that she has decided to announce her candidacy for the United States Congress, District 24. A person of her outstanding principles is urgently needed in Washington, even though she will be missed here at home.

Beth, started her public service as far back as some ten years ago when she worked tirelessly for building a children’s park — to help her community’s children spend their vital energy in building strong bodies so that they could better shoulder the future demands that awaits them.

Next, she ran for City Council, and later served with distinction as mayor of Irving. And when the call came from President Trump’s administration, she, characteristically, offered her much-valued services.

Now, Texas and the nation need her in Washington, and once again she is willingly answers the call for service in the United States Congress where she can be a resonant voice for principled Conservatism that has made this country the standard bearer for democracy and freedom.

Our nation today is in dire need of firm leadership, courage, and responsibility for advancing bipartisan legislation, including bills, joint, concurrent and simple resolutions in Congress. In addition, to understand the political environment and the impact of decision making on diverse groups. Beth has these qualities and one inherent ability to fundamental leadership: courage. She also is very charismatic, enthusiastic, optimistic, and passionate about America. That’s the most important quality of all.

America is a nation and an ideal, birthed by a group of visionaries that gave it the Constitution to nurture it and protect it. What makes America, America the Beautiful, more than just a blessed land is our legacy, the Constitution. Sadly, the Constitution also makes for America the Vulnerable by enshrining freedom that enables the malevolent to subvert and destroy America from within. Beth Van Duyne is an avid supporter of the United State Constitution. In fact, during her tenure as a mayor, she proved that America has only one law and that is our Constitution. On her Facebook page, the mayor wrote:

“Sharia Law Court was NOT approved or enacted by the City of Irving. Recently, there have been rumors suggesting that the City of Irving has somehow condoned, approved or enacted the implementation of a Sharia Law Court in our City. Let me be clear, neither the City of Irving, our elected officials or city staff have anything to do with the decision of the mosque that has been identified as starting a Sharia Court.”

Freedom, in all its forms, is our greatest legacy, which this nation has bravely fought many wars on many fronts to preserve against the unceasing assaults of totalitarianism of all stripes.

I applaud Van Duyne tasking and courageous decision and offer her my full support in sending her to the United States Congress. I am certain that the wise patriotic Texans of District 24 will rise and stand behind her. Although we will miss her here at home, we feel that her service in Congress fully justifies her absence from the community.

In short, America and our party are at a turning point. The reign of the rigid old Republican establishment is coming to an end by a new generation of principled conservatives. Beth Van Duyne represents this class of Republicans, destined to restore the party that stands for the best hopes of all Americans.

The Glendon Commission

/in , , , , , /by

David Carlin: We are witnessing a cultural revolution as atheists and liberals work to destroy Christianity and replace it with a God-less worldview.

In July, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo created something called the “Commission on Unalienable Rights,” the purpose of which is to “provide the Secretary of State advice and recommendations concerning international human rights matters” along with “fresh thinking about human rights discourse where such discourse has departed from our nation’s founding principles of natural law and natural rights.”

The chair of the commission is Mary Ann Glendon, one of America’s leading Catholic intellectuals.  She is the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican.  What’s more, she was Pompeo’s mentor when he was a student at Harvard Law School.

Many people on the political left have objected to the creation of this commission.  The expression “natural law” makes them nervous, as does the fact that an out-and-out Catholic like Glendon is its chair.

I myself am very pleased, because I hope it may serve, at least in some small way, to check the astonishing proliferation of “fundamental human rights” that we have seen in the United States in recent decades.  The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a right to abortion (Roe v. Wade), a right to homosexual sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas), and a right to same-sex “marriage” (Obergefell v. Hodges).  In the future, if this trend continues, it will probably recognize a right to euthanasia.  And God only knows what else.

Those on the political Left have figured out a way of enacting their agenda while bypassing the democratic process.  You like X and you want it to be the law of the land.  But you can’t get X through Congress or state legislatures.  So you decide that X is a fundamental human right, a right that cannot be negated by popular majorities.

And then you go to the U.S. Supreme Court. And if you’re lucky the Court will have a majority of liberal justices on it, and they will agree with you.  And since, according to the liberal view, all fundamental human rights are implicitly contained in the U.S. Constitution (they are alluded to in the Ninth Amendment), X now becomes a Constitutional right.

If you object that you cannot find X in the Constitution, despite having read that document very carefully, you will be told that we have a “living Constitution” and that only out-of-date right-wingers read the Constitution literally.

If you reply that Justice Antonin Scalia once said, “The Constitution says what it says, and it doesn’t say something else,” you will be told that while Scalia was a fine fellow (since he was a friend of the saintly Ruth Bader Ginsburg), he was nonetheless an out-of-date right-winger whose originalism was as worthwhile as Confederate money.

The Declaration of Independence not only had a list of natural rights (equality, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).  It also had an epistemology of moral knowledge. It held that the reality of these rights was self-evident.

Now if this is our standard (let’s call it the Jefferson standard), if we say that if X is to count as a fundamental human right, X will have to be self-evidently such, then our newer rights – the “rights” to abortion, to homosexual sodomy, to same-sex “marriage,” or to euthanasia – are not rights at all; for they are far, far from self-evident.  If they were self-evident rights, there would be an almost universal consensus on them.

If we were to use the Jefferson standard, only if almost every American agreed that X is a fundamental human right would the Supreme Court declare that X, despite not being mentioned in the Constitution, is one of those unenumerated rights alluded to in the Ninth Amendment.

But if we are not to use the Jefferson standard when deciding what is, and what is not, a fundamental human right, what standard are we to use?  Apparently, nothing better than a majority vote of the Supreme Court.  If five justices say that X is a fundamental right, X is a fundamental human right.

Now that’s just fine for many people on the political Left.  For they can then multiply “fundamental human rights” and hope that their multiplications will be ratified by at least five “living Constitution” members of the Supreme Court.  But for the rest of us, for people who like to think that we are living in a democratic republic that operates within the framework of a Constitution that was intended by its makers to be read literally, this potentially unlimited multiplication of fundamental rights is a disaster.

And for Christians too it’s a disaster – at least for old-fashioned Christians, who subscribe to the faith and morals of the early Church, e.g., orthodox Catholics and Evangelical Protestants.  For the leftist list of fundamental human rights contains items that are quite incompatible with Christianity.

And so, when the Supreme Court declares that, for example, abortion, homosexual sodomy, same-sex “marriage,” and euthanasia are fundamental rights, it is by very clear implication also declaring that Christianity is the enemy of human rights.

We are, as I see things, in the middle of a great but slow-moving cultural revolution in the United States, as atheists and their near-atheist fellow-travelers (including religiously liberal Protestants and Catholics) attempt to destroy the traditional Christian ethic and worldview and replace it with a God-less ethic and worldview.

So far, the atheist coalition seems to be winning. Their advance, supported by the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, our leading universities, and the Democratic Party, looks unstoppable.  And one of the great instruments of this advance is the idea that the leftist agenda can be enacted by the un-democratic “discovery” of more and more fundamental human rights.

Can the Glendon commission stop this advance?  Probably not.  But perhaps it can slow it down, giving Christians more time in which to rally their troops and fight back.  In any case, the work of the commission, and the atheistic reaction to it, will be absolutely essential to watch.

COLUMN BY

David Carlin

David Carlin is a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Judicial Watch Major Court Victory: Montgomery County, Maryland Must Clean up Voter Rolls!

/in , , , , , /by

Since we are on the subject of sanctuary county—Montgomery County, MD (see my previous post)—here is a bit of good news for a change!  (Hat tip: Cathy)

Thank God for Judicial Watch!  Note that it took TWO full years before the county is being forced to comply.

From JW’s press release:

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: FEDERAL COURT ORDERS MARYLAND TO PRODUCE VOTER REGISTRATION LIST DATA TO JUDICIAL WATCH

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court has ordered the State of Maryland to produce voter list data for Montgomery County, the state’s biggest county. The court ruling comes in the Judicial Watch lawsuit filed July 18, 2017, against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)). The decision follows NVRA-related Judicial Watch successes in California and Kentucky that could lead to removal of up to 1.85 million inactive voters from voter registration lists. The NVRA requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up its voting rolls and to make documents about its voter list maintenance practices available to anyone who asks.

Judicial Watch had sought the Maryland voter list data after discovering that there were more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age of 18 who could register.

[….]

The dispute over the voter registration list arose from an April 11, 2017, notice letter sent to Maryland election officials, in which Judicial Watch explained Montgomery County had an impossibly high registration rate. The letter threatened a lawsuit if the problems with Montgomery County’s voter rolls were not fixed. The letter also requested access to Montgomery County voter registration lists in order to evaluate the efficacy of any “programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of Maryland’s official eligible voter lists during the past 2 years.”

Democrat Maryland officials, in response, attacked and smeared Judicial Watch by suggesting it was an agent of Russia.

More here.

Just a reminder!  Maryland is run by the Dems even as it has a Republican (never Trumper!) governor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

4 Things to Know About Trump’s New Voter Fraud Claim

Another Rape in Montgomery County, MD, Sanctuary to Illegals

Trump Administration to Close Loophole Blocking Immigration Enforcement

The New York Times Works for the Left, and Now Everyone Should Know It

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.