Clorox Company lies to defend ads on Huffington Post — Take Action by sending them an email.

Clorox blatantly lies to defend its advertising at Huffingtonpost.com.

Florida Family Association sent out email alerts the week of September 18, 2017 which reported that Clorox was a top advertiser at Huffingtonpost.com.  Thousands of people sent emails to encourage Clorox to stop supporting HuffPost’s propaganda with its advertising dollars.

Denise Hahn, Clorox Consumer Affairs Operations Manager responded to the emails it received with the following email message:

Thank you for reaching out to The Clorox Company about our advertising. We appreciate receiving feedback from our consumers and want to thank you for taking the time to share your opinions. The Clorox Company and our Family of Brands set strict criteria and standards around where our ads are placed to ensure that the media environment and corresponding content reflect our standards. For example, we do not advertise in or on politically focused programs, publications or websites, etc. While we do advertise on Huffington Post, we don’t place our ads in any of the political sections. But in this digital age, it can be difficult to track where our ads may appear. We would welcome you letting us know if you do see one of our ads in an inappropriate context.

However, Clorox is LYING to the public about placement of its ads at Huffingtonpost.com.  The following photos of Huffingtonpost.com on a mobile device prove it.

This photo of a cell phone taken on September 21, 2017  8:57 PM shows Clorox’s Liquidplumr at the top of the home page which includes ALL of Huffingtonpost.com’s political trash and social propaganda.

And this cell phone photo was taken two minutes later in the middle of the home page just above a political attack article.

There were several more Clorox ads posted on the home page that were not photographed.

Furthermore, AdChoices does not give advertisers the flexibility to choose to opt out of articles with specific content.

Clorox’s above statement is a blatant lie.

Seventeen examples of Huffington Post’s Islamist propaganda articles are posted at the bottom of this article.

Clorox certainly has the right to advertise in whatever forum it chooses.  You have the same right to voice concern regarding the content on such forums and choose to spend your money elsewhere

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to urge Clorox directors to stop supporting  Huffingtonpost.com propaganda with its advertising dollars.

Click here to send your email to Clorox.

This email will open in your email browser unlike most email campaigns.  This is because Clorox is blocking emails from Florida Family Association’s email delivery server. If the above link does not open in your email browser or if the email is returned to you please prepare an email using the suggested subject line, content and email addresses provided below.

Cannot believe that Clorox is lying to defend advertising support of Huffingtonpost.com propaganda.

Suggested content:

I was very disappointed to learn that Clorox is blatantly lying about its advertising at Huffingtonpost.com who calls American military racists, fundraises for CAIR, defends the Muslim Brotherhood and publishes Islamist propaganda.

Please stop supporting Huffington Post propaganda with Clorox advertising dollars.

Email addresses:

Officers

Benno Dorer, Chairman and CEO
benno.dorer@clorox.com

Stephen Robb, CFO
steve.robb@clorox.com

Eric Reynolds, CMO
eric.reynolds@clorox.com

Directors

Richard H. Carmona, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.C.S.
Vice Chairman, Canyon Ranch
richardcarmona@canyonranchinstitute.org

Spencer C. Fleischer
Managing Partner, FFL Partners
sfleischer@fflpartners.com

Esther Lee
Executive Vice President – Global Chief Marketing Officer, MetLife, Inc.
estherlee@metlife.com

Russell J. Weiner
President, Domino’s USA
russell.weiner@dominos.com

Washington Post Employs Deceptive Tactic on ‘Children’ and Guns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Reuniting The United States With Reciprocity

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

Anti-Gun Politicians: Blocking Out The Facts About Suppressors

City Abruptly Eliminates Police Chief Finalist for Supporting Immigration Enforcement

A highly qualified and respected veteran law enforcement official with impressive credentials was precipitously eliminated as a finalist to be police chief in a U.S. city after officials discovered he endorsed immigration enforcement. Judicial Watch is investigating and has filed a public records request to obtain details about the troublesome case in which the support for the rule of law served as a disqualifier for a candidate hired to enforce the rule of law. It also marks yet another example nationwide of lawlessness leading to more lawlessness and the negative impact illegal immigration is having on taxpayers.

The unbelievable story involves the northern Colorado city of Ft. Collins’ search for a new police chief. Steve Henry, a former chief deputy for the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office (PCSO) in central Arizona applied for the position. The 55-year-old law enforcement veteran spent nearly two decades at PCSO, an agency with a $39 million budget that patrols a county the size of Connecticut. Henry is a U.S. Army veteran who obtained his undergraduate degree at Arizona State University and graduate degree at Northern Arizona University. He also holds a degree from the Harvard JFK School of Government and attended the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy. He has 23 years of continuous and stellar law enforcement service.

Henry was among 65 applicants for the Ft. Collins police chief job and was recently notified that he was one of six finalists. He was invited to travel to Ft. Collins to interview with city officials, specifically the city manager, who oversees the police chief. Henry’s offer was abruptly rescinded, according to a source closely involved with the selection process, because he publicly supported an Arizona law (SB1070) that makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documentation and bans “sanctuary city” policies. The measure also allows local law enforcement officers throughout the state to inquire about suspects’ immigration status. “Three of the top six candidates were dumped for a public stance on one issue or another,” Judicial Watch’s source said. “Political correctness is destroying America when a city government does not want a chief who supports the rule of law.” Judicial Watch reached out to Ft. Collins City Manager Darin Atteberry for comment but an assistant named Rachel left Judicial Watch a voice message saying Atteberry had “back-to-back meetings” for days and would not be available. Judicial Watch also sent Atteberry questions via electronic mail to his official city address (datteberry@fcgov.com) but he did not return them.

A California-based company called Ralph Anderson and Associates that provides cities, counties and state agencies with executive search and consulting services is handling the search for Ft. Collins police chief. The city hired the firm after its police chief resigned in May following a series of scandals, including the use of excessive force in several instances and a $425,000 settlement to two officers who claimed the department discriminated against them based on their race. The Ft. Collins Police Department has 327 employees, 213 of them sworn officers and an annual budget of $46.5 million. Nestled against the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, Ft. Collins is the state’s fourth largest city with a population of about 157,000. It’s home to Colorado State University, the state’s flagship public college, and local government supports offering illegal immigrants sanctuary. Ft. Collins Mayor Wade Troxell said in a local newspaper report that the city is an open, inclusive and friendly community and that “all people matter.” Members of the city council have consistently said they support diversity and want the city to be a welcoming place for all people.

Henry was informed by a Ralph Anderson and Associates official that he was eliminated as a candidate after the discovery of two news stories in which Henry was quoted supporting Arizona’s immigration control measure, SB1070. The Anderson and Associates official said the articles made Atteberry, the Ft. Collins city manager, leery about hiring Henry because, among other things, the city is a university town. With the city refusing to explain what happened, the chain of events indicates that a highly qualified candidate got eliminated from the final six police chief applicants due to his support for the rule of law. There was no crime, misconduct or character flaw on his part, just support in his capacity at Pinal County for Arizona’s commitment to assist federal law enforcement in an effort to secure borders and implement federal trespassing statutes. As for the Ft. Collins public officials, it never looks good when they dodge the hard questions involving questionable decisions.

For Senate: Life Begins at 50… Votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

On Adoption, Left Attacks Mich. Again


Previous Washington Update Articles »

The Trans Agenda in Schools: It’s Elementary

Do parents even have a role in their children’s education these days? That was the question posed to one school board in Rocklin, California, where administrators have intentionally kept moms and dads in the dark while they push transgenderism on kids as young as five. Angry parents lined up to complain about the indoctrination, which started when the school demanded that students call a young boy a girl — and continued when another teacher read a book about gender-confusion to her kindergarten class. Hundreds of families, community leaders, and pastors turned out to protest Rocklin’s handling of the situation, which left dozens of young children confused and scared. And why shouldn’t it?

The American College of Pediatricians calls this kind of transgender propaganda “child abuse.”

But despite the outcry, Rocklin’s board went ahead with a ridiculous policy that gives teachers more authority than the students’ own parents. With unanimous approval, the board will now let “teachers decide if an issue is controversial.” Teachers will also decide — not when, but if — parents are notified about controversial lessons on gender. And, in the most outrageous development of all, the district has decided that it will not allow families to opt their kids out.

Forty families have pulled their children from the district — and I don’t blame them!

It shows a stunning amount of arrogance on the part of the academic elite to suggest that teachers know better than parents. That’s in direct contradiction to the biblical instruction to mothers and fathers to train up their children in the way they should go. Parents are the first line of defense for their kids, especially as education becomes an even deeper liberal abyss. Now, districts like Rocklin are robbing moms and dads of their authority on an issue that shouldn’t be a classroom discussion in the first place — let alone an elementary school one.

San Antonio families can sympathize. Monday night, local families streamed into the city’s school board meeting to object to a gender-free policy that would let boys into girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers. As usual, members approved the rules without ever consulting parents! And the backlash has been severe. More than 1,300 San Antonio residents have signed their names to a petition in opposition to the guidance, our friends at Texas Values explain.

“The community here in San Antonio needs to understand that we’re here tonight for every student –not just one particular kind of student,” said Elizabeth Gonzales. “If we’re truly wanting to be united, we must be fair and just to every student. And to be fair, we must make sure parents and students are being given ample opportunity to come to the table and be heard. I believe in doing that, there will be change.” Until then, she (and countless other parents around the country) aren’t so optimistic.

In schools, discussions aren’t allowed. And in an environment that already stigmatizes any form of religious expression, it’s not difficult to see where this kind of ideological oppression leads. What’s more, teachers are increasingly sending students the subtle message that parents don’t know what they’re talking about. That’s a dangerous seed to plant — and one that only grows as teenagers transition from public schools to public universities.

Too many parents have abdicated their leadership role in their kids’ education. And if moms and dads don’t take it back now, there won’t be much hope left.


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


Also in the September 20 Washington Update:

U.N. Bears the Blunt of Trump

FRC in the Spotlight

The Black Family Is Struggling, and It’s Not Because of Slavery

That the problems of today’s black Americans are a result of a legacy of slavery, racial discrimination, and poverty has achieved an axiomatic status, thought to be self-evident and beyond question.

This is what academics and the civil rights establishment have taught. But as with so much of what’s claimed by leftists, there is little evidence to support it.

The No. 1 problem among blacks is the effects stemming from a very weak family structure.

Children from fatherless homes are likelier to drop out of high school, die by suicide, have behavioral disorders, join gangs, commit crimes, and end up in prison. They are also likelier to live in poverty-stricken households.

But is the weak black family a legacy of slavery?

In 1960, just 22 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families. Fifty years later, more than 70 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families.

Here’s my question: Was the increase in single-parent black families after 1960 a legacy of slavery, or might it be a legacy of the welfare state ushered in by the War on Poverty?

According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year 11 percent of black children were born to unwed mothers. Today about 75 percent of black children are born to unwed mothers.

Is that supposed to be a delayed response to the legacy of slavery?

The bottom line is that the black family was stronger the first 100 years after slavery than during what will be the second 100 years.

At one time, almost all black families were poor, regardless of whether one or both parents were present. Today roughly 30 percent of blacks are poor.

However, two-parent black families are rarely poor. Only 8 percent of black married-couple families live in poverty. Among black families in which both the husband and wife work full time, the poverty rate is under 5 percent. Poverty in black families headed by single women is 37 percent.

The undeniable truth is that neither slavery nor Jim Crow nor the harshest racism has decimated the black family the way the welfare state has.

The black family structure is not the only retrogression suffered by blacks in the age of racial enlightenment.

In every census from 1890 to 1954, blacks were either just as active or more so than whites in the labor market. During that earlier period, black teen unemployment was roughly equal to or less than white teen unemployment.

As early as 1900, the duration of black unemployment was 15 percent shorter than that of whites. Today it’s about 30 percent longer.

Would anyone suggest that during earlier periods, there was less racial discrimination?

What goes a long way toward an explanation of yesteryear and today are the various labor laws and regulations promoted by liberals and their union allies that cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder and encourage racial discrimination.

Labor unions have a long history of discrimination against blacks. Frederick Douglass wrote about this in his 1874 essay titled “The Folly, Tyranny, and Wickedness of Labor Unions,” and Booker T. Washington did so in his 1913 essay titled “The Negro and the Labor Unions.”

To the detriment of their constituents, most of today’s black politicians give unquestioning support to labor laws pushed by unions and white liberal organizations.

Then there’s education. Many black 12th-graders deal with scientific problems at the level of whites in the sixth grade. They write and do math about as well as white seventh- and eighth-graders.

All of this means that an employer hiring or a college admitting the typical black high school graduate is in effect hiring or admitting an eighth-grader. Thus, one should not be surprised by the outcomes.

The most damage done to black Americans is inflicted by those politicians, civil rights leaders, and academics who assert that every problem confronting blacks is a result of a legacy of slavery and discrimination. That’s a vision that guarantees perpetuity for the problems.

COMMENTARY BYPortrait of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: Between 1960 and 2010, the proportion of black children in America raised in single-parent families rose from 22 percent to 70 percent. (Photo: iStock Photos) Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

VIDEO: The ‘Fringe’ begins eating its own, starting with Nancy Pelosi

In his remarks on the first anniversary of the Alliance for Progress on 13 March 1962, John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Today, the Democrat Party has made peaceful revolution impossible and now it is they who are paying the price when it becomes violent. Democrats did not condemn the violence perpetrated by members of Occupy Wall Street (OWS). Instead Nancy Pelosi endorsed the OWS revolution.

In a Weekly Standard column titled “Pelosi on Occupy Wall Street Protesters: ‘God bless them’,” John McCormack wrote:

During a press conference Thursday afternoon, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi praised those participating in the “Occupy Wall Street” protests. “God bless them,” Pelosi said, “for their spontaneity. It’s independent … it’s young, it’s spontaneous, and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.”

Read more.

Occupy Wall Street then began breaking windows, literally.

Once you endorse a revolution it does become a more and more violent revolution. Watch Nancy Pelosi, a champion of open borders and amnesty, shouted down by illegal aliens (so called dreamers) in San Francisco, a sanctuary city, within California, a sanctuary state.

The Democrat Party, and then President Obama, failed to repair the broken windows beginning with the Occupy Oakland riots in California, which inextricably lead to the 2013 riots in Sanford, Florida, 2014 riots in Ferguson, Missouri and most recently the 2017 riots and death in Charlottesville, Virginia. Now we see the Democrats targeted by their own.

The Democrats have encouraged breaking windows, because “it has always been fun” so long as its the other party that gets hurt. Well now their party is being hurt.

Violence begets more violence: From Sanford, Florida to Ferguson, Missouri to San Francisco, California.

Ayn Rand wrote, “The hardest thing to explain is the glaring evidence which everybody has decided not to see.”

Pat Condell in a YouTube video titled “Europe is Killing Itself” states:

The progressive thing is to merge the two cultures the civilized one and the barbarous one. Of course they know civilized people will reject barbarism. Therefore civilized people need to be reeducated to believe that barbarianism is as valid as civilization and worthy of equal respect or you’ll be a criminal. Which is pretty much where we are now.”

In February then candidate Donald J. Trump at a rally in Iowa began reciting the lyrics to a Al Wilson song from 1969 entitled “The Snake.” Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats have taken in the snake and it has bitten them and they are going to die politically.

The snake cannot be satisfied with kindness. It must by its very nature bite the hand of those who took it in.

RELATED ARTICLE: 2020 Democratic Presidential Hopefuls: No Longer Friends of Israel

“The Snake” Lyrics

On her way to work one morning
Down the path along side the lake
A tender hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake
His pretty colored skin had been all frosted with the dew
“Poor thing, ” she cried, “I’ll take you in and I’ll take care of you”
“Take me in tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake

She wrapped him up all cozy in a comforter of silk
And laid him by her fireside with some honey and some milk
She hurried home from work that night and soon as she arrived
She found that pretty snake she’d taken to had been revived
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake

She clutched him to her bosom, “You’re so beautiful, ” she cried
“But if I hadn’t brought you in by now you might have died”
She stroked his pretty skin again and kissed and held him tight
Instead of saying thanks, the snake gave her a vicious bite
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake
“I saved you, ” cried the woman
“And you’ve bitten me, but why?
You know your bite is poisonous and now I’m going to die”
“Oh shut up, silly woman, ” said the reptile with a grin
“You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in
“Take me in, tender woman
Take me in, for heaven’s sake
Take me in, tender woman, ” sighed the snake

Written by Robert S. Kelly, Darian Morgan • Copyright © Universal Music Publishing Group

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

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

FRC Action President, Tony Perkins commented:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Casey Ryan

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

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

VIDEO: I’m a T-Shirt Maker With Gay Customers and Gay Employees. I Still Was Sued.

In 2012, my promotional printing company, Hands on Originals, was approached by a customer to print a message that conflicted with my conscience. When I said no, they sued me.

Hi, my name is Blaine Adamson.

I got into the T-shirt printing business because I wanted to create Christian shirts that people would want to wear. Christian T-shirts at the time were so cheesy, they were so bad.

For all the years that I’ve been running my business, Hands on Originals, I’ve happily served and employed people of all backgrounds, of all walks of life.

That’s why it was hard in 2012 when a customer sued us after I politely declined to make T-shirts promoting the local pride festival. I was surprised because I work with and serve gay people. But I can’t print any message that goes against my faith, no matter who asks me to print it. And whenever I can’t print something, I always offer them to another local print shop.

As is the custom for T-shirt makers of all kinds, I’ve declined plenty of orders in the past. For example, I was once asked to make a shirt with Jesus on a bucket of chicken, with chicken coming out of the bucket. I didn’t feel right making that one. I’ve been asked to make a shirt promoting an adult film, one that promoted a strip club, and one or two that promoted violence. I couldn’t in good conscience print any of those shirts.

Another shirt we declined was a simple black shirt with white text that read, “Homosexuality is a sin.” I didn’t feel right making that one either. I don’t think that’s how Jesus would have handled the issue; Jesus would have balanced grace and truth.

I have gay customers and employ gay people. For example, we have printed materials for a local band called Mother Jane whose lead singer is a lesbian. That was never a problem for us because, as I said, we’ll work with everyone, but we can’t print all messages.

Shortly after our case started, two lesbian printers in New Jersey voiced their support for us because they didn’t want to be forced to print messages that would violate their consciences.

That’s why I was glad when a judge ruled that I had the freedom to decide which messages I wanted to promote. An appeals court also agreed. Unfortunately, though, the government has appealed again, this time asking the Kentucky Supreme Court to hear the case.

The bottom line, for me? I love designing T-shirts, and I’d be pretty crushed if I had to close down Hands On, especially after all the years of building the business, serving the community, and doing what I love.

All we are asking for is that the government not force us to promote messages against our convictions. Everyone should have that freedom.

A Note for our Readers:

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

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

RELATED ARTICLE: Yale Ditches ‘Freshman’ for Gender-Neutral Term

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

Urban Myth: Crime Doesn’t Pay – California City Authorizes Stipends to Gang Members

Gang members profit through criminal enterprises in a variety of ways: drug, weapon and human trafficking; theft, robbery, intimidation and extortion, and various kinds of fraud. In a win-win for gangbangers, material gains from criminality in one California municipality will soon include government-sanctioned payola.

In a special meeting on August 29, the nine-member City Council of Sacramento unanimously agreed to allocate $1.5 million in funding and to move forward with a “gun-violence reduction strategy” that will include cash payments (“LifeMAP milestone allowances”) and paid vacations for the handful of gang members suspected of committing the majority of gang-related gun crimes in the city.

The report and funding agreement before the council indicate that the program, the “Peacemaker Fellowship,” is to be implemented by a group called Advance Peace. It proposes to reduce gang violence through “transformational opportunities to young adults identified as most likely to be” involved in “gun violence” and by ensuring “greater connectivity to culturally competent human, social, and economic opportunities” for these individuals. The details, as fleshed out during the council meeting, were that participants will be selected from a small group of gang members thought to be behind the “re-cyclical and retaliatory” gun crimes in the community. Among other things, program participants will be required to identify and commit to “LifeMAP goals” (academic aspirations, or more basic things like “getting a driver’s license or improving their relationship with their parents or their kids”). As part of “incentivizing achievement,” the program’s “touchpoints” include “Transformative Travel” and cash stipends for participants. The cost associated with each participant tops out at an estimated $30,000.

The four-year agreement requires the city to pay $500,000 over the course of two years, starting this year. Implementation will consist of two 18-month segments, with 50 participants in each segment. The expected “outcomes” listed in the report are a reduction in firearm assaults and firearm-related homicides by 50 percent” over the four years, “reduc[ing] by $26 million the government costs associated with gun violence,” and the dismantling of “gang war zones within and around the City.”

At the meeting, only one council member, Angelique Ashby, raised significant concerns with the agreement and the authorizing resolution. Among these deficiencies, she noted that out of the “many, many numbers” referenced in the proposal, including “$26 million in government savings,” there was “not one citation” to explain or substantiate these references. The agreement was “front loaded with the cash,” with all of the funding paid out in the first two years but with “zero outcomes” due until year three, meaning the city had no payments that it could withhold if there was a default in performance. More generally, nothing allowed the city to terminate the agreement if the benchmarks and goals weren’t met, which was complicated further by the fact that the goals (like an initial reduction of 20 percent in gun-related assaults and homicides) had no clearly defined baseline or starting point against which performance would be measured. The agreement start and end dates were left blank; the only “quantifiable dates” in the contract were the dates on which the payments by the city had to be made. Nowhere was there a requirement that the program be coordinated with local law enforcement or schools. And despite an assumption that Advance Peace was going to “match” the city funding with an equal amount, this obligation wasn’t documented in the agreement wording.

Determined to waste not a moment, the council rejected councilor Ashby’s request for a one-week delay to address these concerns, although it agreed to incorporate some changes. 

A much more fundamental problem – considering the whole premise is a reduction in gang-related violence – is that nothing in the agreement or resolution requires fellowship participants to make a commitment to forego violence and forsake their gang lifestyle as a condition of participation, or mandates withholding payments and other incentives from participants who commit violent crimes or are charged or convicted of criminal offenses. While fellowship participants will be evaluated for “new gun charges/arrests” as part of the overall benchmarking reports, this doesn’t extend to criminal charges more generally, or operate as a disqualification. A participant who is paid council-approved funds for accomplishing his “LifeMAP goal” of getting a driver’s license is under no agreement-imposed impediment against using that license to facilitate other criminal acts.  

One law enforcement official – Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones – points out the program may actually shield participants who commit crimes. “They do not engage in law enforcement at all, and I have been told that if they become aware of one of the participants committing crime, they will NOT notify law enforcement.”

This funding is not just “counter-intuitive,” it is simply wrong. Apart from the most obvious, glaring lack of anything in the agreement that conditions payments on “good behavior” and a repudiation of gang violence, the perception is this “incentivizing” is compensation for lawbreakers that weakens respect for the law and the criminal justice system. Heather MacDonald, the Thomas W. Smith Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, calls it “an absolute abdication of the law and of the moral authority of the law, and a perfect example of defining deviance down…I mean, you’re basically holding the state hostage.”

These misgivings might arguably be overlooked if there was some guarantee that the spending program significantly reduced gang violence over an appreciable period of time. City residents looking for assurances that their taxpayer funds are being spent wisely will find little in the Council Report. Its lengthy recital of statistics, percentages and cost savings omits, surprisingly, information on the merits and success of this and similar programs. The government bureaucracy may be just as well served, in terms of reducing gang crime and violence in Sacramento, by giving the same participants a bus ticket and $20,000 to stay out of the city. 

Residents who aren’t gang member fellowship recipients will have to wait and see. Unfortunately for them, at the same time that the Sacramento City Council embarks on this bold new program to assist “hard-to-reach” residents to escape crime and violence in their communities, lawmakers across the state continue their efforts to prevent law-abiding Californians from doing the same through the exercise of their Second Amendment rights (here and here and here).

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

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

He noted,

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

From Amazon to agriculture, Minnesota looking for more migrant workers

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

The End of DACA Could Give Congress a New Start

For both Democrats and Republicans, it is a chance to pass a bill that Americans by a wide margin would welcome.

When President Trump last week started a six-month countdown clock to end his predecessor’s executive order protecting immigrants who were brought illegally to America when they were children, the denunciations came fastfurious, and fevered.

Angry outrage has become the standard reaction to almost everything Trump says and does, often with reason. But on the issue of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA, that fury is misplaced. Trump has created an opening that should gladden conservatives and liberals alike – one that members of Congress on both sides of the aisle should exploit.

How DACA Happened

For years, legislators have allowed presidents to push the limits of executive power, bypassing Congress on issues ranging from warrantless wiretaps to health care subsidies. Lawmakers, constantly battling each other, have failed to defend what should be their exclusive power to make the nation’s laws. Unexpectedly, Trump has just handed them a chance to reclaim lost ground.

Barack Obama’s DACA policy was a classic example of achieving an excellent end through terrible means. It offered to protect 1 million or so young people from deportation and allow them to work legally, so long as they stayed out of trouble, finished school, and registered with the government. More than three-fourths of eligible immigrants signed up for DACA status, and by all accounts, they have been a productive and law-abiding cohort. Some have been downright heroic.

The problem with DACA is that it was imposed unilaterally by Obama in 2012. He claimed he had to take “action to change the law” by executive order because Congress had failed to pass a bill (the proposed DREAM Act) that would do so legislatively. At first he insisted that DACA was only a “temporary stopgap measure.” But as hundreds of thousands of so-called “Dreamers” signed up, DACA became institutionalized.

Two years later, Obama tried to expand it, sheltering not only Dreamers from deportation, but their parents – a population numbering more than 4 million. When a group of states sued to block the expansion, federal courts backed them up. Obama’s action was “manifestly contrary” to existing immigration law, ruled the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and presidents cannot make immigration law by fiat.

But DACA itself remained in force, and there is no question that the policy is popular. An overwhelming 76 percent of voters, say DACA enrollees should be allowed to stay legally in the United States; only 15 percent want them deported. Majorities of Democrats (84 percent), independents (74 percent), and Republicans (69 percent) believe Dreamers should able to remain in America as permanent legal residents. Even among self-identified Trump voters, two-thirds think Dreamers should stay.

Trump himself has repeatedly expressed unwillingness to hurt Dreamers. “I have a love for these people,” he said on Tuesday. “Hopefully, now Congress will be able to help them and do it properly.”

That’s exactly what Congress should do.

Legalizing DACA

Even granting Trump’s habit of saying “X” on Monday and “not-X” on Thursday, it seems plain that a clean bill giving Dreamers legal status is one he would relish signing – if only to tout it as an achievement only he could have engineered. “Congress now has 6 months to legalize DACA (something the Obama Administration was unable to do),” Trump tweeted on Tuesday. “If they can’t, I will revisit this issue!”

No one should miss the significance of Trump’s surprising deference to Congress. Trump used to say he would end DACA the way Obama created it: unilaterally. In his campaign kickoff speech in the Trump Tower lobby two years ago, he vowed that if elected he would “immediately terminate President Obama’s illegal executive order on immigration.”

But he didn’t. He hesitated for months on DACA – and when he finally moved it was because of a looming legal threat: A group of state attorneys general were about to challenge DACA in court. If Trump wanted DACA killed without having to pull the trigger himself, he could have invited that lawsuit and ordered the Justice Department not to oppose it.

Instead, he is urging Congress to take the lead and “legalize DACA.” To put it differently, Trump is urging the legislative branch to reclaim its proper constitutional authority – to take back a measure of power that Obama usurped.

In modern times, presidents of both parties have routinely overstepped their bounds. Obama arguably went further down that path than any previous president. “Once a presidential candidate with deep misgivings about executive power,” The New York Times observed last year, “Obama will leave the White House as one of the most prolific authors of major regulations in presidential history.” It took a while for Obama to get over those “misgivings” – after all, he had sharply criticized George W. Bush’s reliance on unilateral orders. But once he did, he pursued executive power without apology.

Improbably, Trump has now handed Congress a perfect vehicle to undo an act of presidential overreach and enhance its own authority. For Republicans, this is an opportunity to roll back one of Obama’s most blatant acts of “pen-and-phone” aggrandizement. For Democrats, it is a way to deter Trump from engaging in overreach of his own – from, say, ordering a wall to be built along the Mexican border on the grounds that Congress hasn’t acted. For both, it is a chance to pass a bill that Americans by a wide margin would welcome.

Trump should be cheered, not cursed, for handing off DACA to Congress. For years, lawmakers of both parties have fumed as presidents have gotten away with wielding power unilaterally. Now Capitol Hill has a chance to do something about it, and with White House encouragement. Blow this opportunity, and they may never get another.

Reprinted from Jeff Jacoby.

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby

Jeff Jacoby has been a columnist for The Boston Globe since 1994. He has degrees from George Washington University and from Boston University Law School. Before entering journalism, he (briefly) practiced law at the prominent firm of Baker & Hostetler, worked on several political campaigns in Massachusetts, and was an assistant to Dr. John Silber, the president of Boston University. In 1999, Jeff became the first recipient of the Breindel Prize, a major award for excellence in opinion journalism. In 2014, he was included in the “Forward 50,” a list of the most influential American Jews.

Trump Continues to Remake the Federal Judiciary

President Donald Trump submitted another slate of judicial nominees to the Senate Thursday, naming candidates to the powerful federal appeals courts based in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, California.

The White House announced that Trump has named Gregory Katsas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the nation’s second most powerful judicial panel, and Ryan Bounds to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the West Coast appeals court and primary antagonist of the early days of the Trump presidency.

dcnf-logo

Katsas’ nomination was widely expected. He currently serves as deputy White House counsel and has played a major role in the administration’s early judicial nominations.

Before entering government service, he practiced in the Washington offices of Jones Day, a white-shoe practice intimately connected to Trump from the earliest days of the campaign. Katsas is a seasoned appellate practitioner and clerked on the Supreme Court for Justice Clarence Thomas after graduating Harvard Law School.

Leonard Leo, the White House’s judicial selection guru, lavished praise on the nominee.

“I have known Greg Katsas for nearly 30 years and he is among the most honest, fair, humble, and intelligent people I have ever met,” he said in a statement. “He understands the awesome responsibility associated with wearing a judicial robe and I have no doubt that he will always place the search for truth, fairness, and justice first.”

Bounds is a federal prosecutor with a glittering resume, which made him an earlier front-runner for the 9th Circuit seat vacated by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, the conservative stalwart for whom he clerked after graduating Yale Law School.

Bounds is a veteran of the Bush administration where he served in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy, the unit charged with coordinated judicial nominations and advising the attorney general on policy initiatives. Above the Law’s David Lat characterized Bounds as a strong contender for a 9th Circuit appointment given his West Coast roots and D.C. ties.

The nomination is Trump’s first to the 9th Circuit, the country’s largest appellate court, which has continually stymied administration priorities. There are currently four vacancies on the court.

Other nominees the president named include Judge Lisa Branch of the Georgia Court of Appeals for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and 13 nominees for district courts in Alabama, Texas, Kentucky, Kansas, Georgia, and the District of Columbia.

Kevin Daley

Kevin Daley is a legal affairs reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @kevindaleydc.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: Among judicial nominees submitted to the Senate Thursday is President Donald Trump’s first nominee for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the country’s largest appellate court, which has continually stymied administration priorities (Photo: Douliery Olivier/Sipa USA /Newscom). Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

Top 25 most dangerous Congressional ‘Republicans in Name Only’

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

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

Now let’s look at the Republican Party.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the D.J. Trump Network list.

MEMBER STATE

1

Paul Ryan

Representative from WI

18 years in DC

2

John McCain

Senator from AZ

30 years in DC

3

Lisa Murkowski

Senator from AK

14 years in DC

4

Lindsey Graham

Senator from SC

14 years in DC

5

Thad Cochran

Senator from MS

38 years in DC

6

Mitch McConnell

Senator from KY

32 years in DC

7

Orrin Hatch

Senator from UT

40 years in DC

8

Kevin McCarthy

Representative from CA

10 years in DC

9

Lamar Alexander

Senator from TN

14 years in DC

10

Bob Corker

Senator from TN

10 years in DC

11

Susan Collins

Senator from ME

20 years in DC

12

Tom Cole

Representative from OK

14 years in DC

13

Jeff Flake

Senator from AZ

4 years in DC

14

John Cornyn

Senator from TX

14 years in DC

15

Peter King

Representative from NY

24 years in DC

16

Mike Simpson

Representative from ID

18 years in DC

17

Harold Rogers

Representative from KY

36 years in DC

18

Don Young

Representative from AK

43 years in DC

19

Rob Portman

Senator from OH

6 years in DC

20

Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Representative from WA

12 years in DC

21

Johnny Isakson

Senator from GA

12 years in DC

22

Richard Burr

Senator from NC

12 years in DC

23

Charlie Dent

Representative from PA

12 years in DC

24

Susan Brooks

Representative from IN

4 years in DC

25

Shelley Capito

Senator from WV

16 y

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