2 Simple Reasons Why The American Left Instinctively Seeks Censorship

It’s pretty obvious to every conservative in the country by now that the American Left is where virtually all censorship resides. Not every liberal is a censor, but modern liberalism promotes censorship. Of course, you only know this if you get news and information from more outlets than the old, traditional media.

Whether it is college campuses run by the Left and instituting liberal-approved speech codes and tiny free speech zones on campus, their practical goal is censorship;

Or it is demonstrators and marchers who shout down conservative political opponents, refusing to allow them to speak and often threatening the institution that dared even allow them;

Or it is the violent, progressive, Communist, anarchist Antifa that roams the streets of our most liberal cities to attack conservatives or Trump supporters for being conservatives or Trump supporters;

Or it is the social media giants such as Youtube demonetizing conservatives for saying conservative things (Prager U is the most egregious example) or Twitter suspending conservative accounts for tweeting conservative ideas or Facebook blocking posts that are politically incorrect based on the recommendations of liberal organizations such as Snopes determining they are “fake news;

Or it is our public schools indoctrinating students with progressive ideals and punishing those who deviate, such as the New Prague Minnesota High School kid who came out during the national school walkout with a sign that said guns don’t kill people, people do, and the principle forcing him away — this was a consistent theme around the nation, no deviation from the progressive message at many schools;

Or it is the ever-expanding universe of political correctness determining things you cannot say without dire personal consequences, i.e. if a person has XY chromosomes and a penis, that person is a man.

Each of these areas stem from the American Left, and we can all come up with more. Every one is dominated by progressive liberals and one of their consistencies is a sort of instinctive lurch to squash any speech with which they disagree. Their practical goal is censorship. We wrote about Boston’s liberal mayor shutting down free speech he disagreed with in August 2017.

One is hard-pressed to come up with a single example of an institution on the Right that seeks censorship, to shut down the speech of liberals.

So the question is why? What has happened where the very bastions fighting for free speech 60 years ago, such as universities and liberals in a general sense, are now the anti-free speech totalitarians?

There are at least two explanations.

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

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

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

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

Consider these hackneyed banalities:

  • A baby before the birth canal may be terminated at the mother’s whim, because it is her individual “choice” whether that is a human or not — despite science screaming the baby’s measurable humanity by 4-6 weeks, and what ultrasounds show is going on the whole pregnancy. Moments later when it is out of the birth canal, she cannot because the exact same act would be murder. Inside, can kill. Outside, murder. Same baby, just separated by moments.
  • Two dads or two moms — gay couples as parents — are just as good at parenting as traditional husbands and wives — despite the weight of fully available studies showing just the opposite.
  • A man can believe he is a woman and not only is that acceptable and not a mental condition — which it obviously is — but we must contort our society down to school restrooms, showers and sports teams to accommodate gender-confused people. They obviously need compassion and help. That is not it.
  • There are 63 genders. So far. Enough said.
  • Hate speech is not free speech. No hate speech allowed!

These are laughable, and tragic, but hardly isolated.

Let’s take a very recent example. The entire liberal establishment — from media to schools to activist organizations — used and propagandized students nationwide after the Parkland, Florida, shootings to push for gun bans even when it came out that the Broward County Sheriff, Broward County Schools, the state of Florida and the FBI all massively failed to do their jobs competently in this case.

A reasonable way to sum up their argument is that government failed at every level to protect us, we need to ban guns and have government protect us.

Conservatives can shoot a thousand holes in the arguments made about the need for gun control after Parkland.

But the reality remains: the more an institution is dominated by liberalism, the less that institution will brook any contrary speech. Alas it is true: Censorship is part and parcel with liberalism.


‘Utterly horrifying’: ex-Facebook insider says covert data harvesting was routine

Zuck Says “Dumb F***s”… Incredible Disregard for Users Is on Full Display Again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

74% of German citizens oppose entry of Muslim immigrants: ‘Islam has no place in Germany.’

And yet the mother of the massive Muslim migration, Chancellor Merkel, was reelected.



Mordechai Sones, Israel National News, March 18, 2018:

A new poll published in Germany shows an overwhelming majority of Germans who oppose Muslim immigration to their country and believe “Islam has no place in Germany.”

In a survey conducted by the Civey Polling Institute, participants were asked whether “Islam is part of Germany”. 54.6% responded “definitely not” while 19.7% responded “probably not.” Only a 6.4% minority replied that Islam “definitely” belonged in Germany, while 14.9% replied “probably yes”. Another 4.4% abstained.

Chancellor Angela Merkel raised the question of whether Islam belongs in Germany when in 2016, at the height of the wave of Muslim immigration to Germany, she declared that “Islam belongs in Germany.”

Last Friday, after meeting with Swedish Prime Minister Kjell Stefan Löfven, Merkel said “four million German citizens believe in Islam, and these Muslims are part of Germany and with them, their religion, Islam, is part of Germany.”

Merkel also noted deep disagreement between herself and Germany’s Interior Minister Horst Seehofer, leader of the German Christian Union party, who emphasized the Christian heritage of Germany and opposed Muslim immigration to the country. “Islam does not belong to Germany; Germany was shaped by Christianity,” said Seehofer, who also stressed the great influence of the Christian Church on German everyday life. However, he stressed that “the Muslims who live with us belong, of course, to Germany.”

A segmentation of voters in the new poll reveals that an overwhelming majority of 93% of voters for the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which established itself as an anti-immigration party, believed “Islam does not belong in Germany.” Among Green Party voters the picture was different, with only 19.2% saying “Islam does not belong in Germany.”


Michigan: refugee contractors and employers boo-hooing; not enough cheap labor coming in

The Economist: The number of ex-Muslims in America is rising

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Disgust With Hollywood’s Antigun Activism Unifies Americans in Nationwide Poll

Based on the results of a Zogby Analytics poll released earlier this month, Second Amendment supporters may have a counter-intuitive message for virtue-signaling Hollywood heavyweights pledging their support for restrictive firearm laws: keep up the good work!

Gun control is gaining renewed social currency in some circles in the wake of the Parkland, Fla. tragedy. Hollywood, to no one’s surprise, has eagerly jumped on the bandwagon, with stars, starlets, and studio honchos displaying their usual self-importance and grasping desire for the spotlight.

Celebrities issued tweets within hours of the event making vague demands for America to “do something,” parroting antigun talking points, and attacking the NRA. Barely two days later, some of Tinseltown’s richest denizens were shoveling money toward the so-called March for Our Lives in support of gun control. Billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown gun control organization, meanwhile, distributed orange American flag pins for “actors and allies” to wear at the Academy Awards ceremony in solidarity with the group’s agenda. That event’s featured musical number also included a rapper insisting God disapproves of the NRA. And of course late night talk show hosts have recently devoted entire segments to demonizing the NRA and hyping gun control.

The antigun themes emanating from the West Coast entertainment establishment were so pervasive that they seemed almost scripted and coordinated by some unseen hand. Perhaps some of this was due to the work of the Everytown Creative Council, a coalition of gun-averse celebrities that pledges to use their “communications skills and the power of culture to galvanize many more Americans” in support of gun control and to “drive real change.” Members of the council, for example, organized the cast of a sitcom to create a video that promotes the March for Our Lives, takes shots at the NRA, and pretends that more restrictive laws could end firearm-related violence once and for all.

According to the Zogby poll, however, all these efforts have actually done a great service to the Second Amendment.

The 869 likely voters polled where asked, “When Hollywood actors and actresses speak out about gun control, does that make you want to support or oppose our constitutional right to bear arms (the 2nd amendment to the constitution)?”

The results indicated that the antigun opinions of Hollywood’s elite were twice as likely overall to elicit support for the Second Amendment as they were to provoke opposition to the right to keep and bear arms.

The pollsters noted:

A majority (56% strongly and somewhat support combined) of voters want to support their constitutional right to bear arms when they hear Hollywood actors and actresses speak out about gun control. This is compared to 28% (strongly and somewhat oppose combined) of voters who want to oppose the 2nd amendment when Hollywood talks about banning guns.

The pro-Second Amendment effect of Hollywood’s antigun intervention held across every age group, race, and political affiliation represented by the poll.  And in a finding sure to worry the film industry’s financiers, Millennials were the age group most strongly moved in support of the Second Amendment by actors and actresses speaking out about gun control (65% support/23% oppose). This echoed the findings of another poll that Millennials identified the right to bear arms as “very” personally meaningful at the highest rate of any age group, with 60% providing this response.

Zogby’s own analysis of its result stated: “As we approach the November midterms, gun control will be a hot button issue, but according to the data, Hollywood interjecting itself into the debate makes even the Democratic base want to bear arms.” It further warned: “The numbers among young voters, African Americans, Hispanics and even Democrats prove the gun debate could be a tricky strategy for Democrats looking to take back power in both houses of Congress in the 2018 midterm elections.”

We have often mentioned the obvious hypocrisy of Hollywood elites lecturing the rest of the country on the evils of firearms, including herehere, and here. As annoying as their posturing is, however, it seems they have been doing gun owners a favor by pushing opinion in favor of the Second Amendment across virtually every segment of American society.

What else can we say at this point but … hooray for Hollywood (and thanks to Everytown for its role in this drama as well)! Perhaps, as Zogby’s analysis noted, their continued involvement could contribute to making the 2018 elections end happily for supporters of the right to keep and bear arms.

Tillerson out, McMaster next?

In a series of surprise developments this week, President Trump relieved secretary of state Rex Tillerson and replaced departing economic adviser Gary Cohn with financial news commentator Larry Kudlow.  Tillerson, Cohn, and Kudlow all oppose Trump’s recently announced steel tariffs, but Kudlow says he agrees they can be an effective bargaining chip.  Tillerson will be replaced by current CIA director Mike Pompeo.

Another Trump administration official who opposes Trump on the tariffs is national security adviser H.R. McMaster.  Recent speculation puts him next on the chopping block.  NBC News cited anonymous administration sources recently claiming that White House chief of staff John Kelly and defense secretary James Mattis are pushing for his removal, and that he may be gone in a month.  According to Bloomberg News, Kelly has been seeking a new job for McMaster at the Pentagon.  CNN claims that McMaster has looked into a position at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.  White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders dismissed these rumors, saying McMaster is ” not going anywhere.”  There is no doubt, however, that many defense experts and Trump-supporters would like to see him gone.

A controversial figure at best, McMaster has been fingered as the person responsible for the ouster of many of Donald Trump’s most qualified and loyal NSC staff, including deputy national security advisor K.T. McFarlandRich HigginsAdam LovingerEzra Cohen-Watnick, and Sebastian Gorka.  He has defended numerous Obama administration holdovers, even renewing a security clearance for Susan Rice, one of Obama’s most notorious serial prevaricators.  He is also cited as being responsible for re-engaging the U.S. military in Afghanistan and pushing other policies candidate Trump opposed.

McMaster is a protégé of defense secretary Mattis and disgraced former CIA director Gen. David Petraeus.  He has strong support in the Senate from John McCain.  He is regaled by such left-wing, partisan outlets as New York magazine and the Washington Post.  On CNN’s Anderson Cooper, political commentator Bakari Sellers said, “[A]s a Democrat you’re honestly thankful that he’s there[.]”  He has even been defended by David Brock’s left-wing smear shop, Media Matters.  For most Trump supporters, these are not endorsements.  McMaster has also been accused of benefiting from an inflated and, in at least one aspect, wildly inaccurate résumé as a military strategist.

However, if rumors are true, McMaster’s replacement may not be any better.  Topping the list is Steve Biegun, vice president of international governmental affairs for Ford Motor Company.  Biegun is another McCain acolyte.  He led the Moscow office of the International Republican Institute, which has been chaired by McCain since 1993, and was McCain’s foreign policy adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign.  He is described as a neocon and held numerous staff positions in Congress and the Bush White House, including under former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.  Reportedly, Rice and Mattis have been advocating Biegun to Trump.  Jack Posobiec, Navy veteran and founder of Citizens for Trump, tweeted:

Perhaps most telling is Biegun’s position as board adviser to the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a wealthy, influential D.C. think-tank.  Its panel of experts include numerous former Obama, Bush, and Clinton advisers.  Tax filings from 2016 show income of almost $15 million.  While it claims to be “bipartisan,” in Washington, D.C., that means surrender to the omnipresent D.C. leftist establishment.  It receives donations from a long list of left-wing funders, including George Soros’s Open Society Foundations ($305,550 in 2016); the Sandler Foundation ($3.3 million, 2008-2009); Rockefeller ($300,000 for a Clout and Climate Change “war game”); the Tides Foundation ($100,000, 2009-2012); the Ploughshares Fund ($415,425); and even Tony Podesta, brother of Clinton insider John Podesta, who gave between $25,000 and $50,000 in 2017.  It has received over $2.2 million in grants from the U.S. government between 2013 and 2017 and receives donations from the governments of Japan, Britain, and the United Arab Emirates (the “transit hub” for Islamic terrorists).

CNAS was heavily involved in promoting President Obama’s Iran deal.  The Ploughshares Fund, a leader in the effort,  donated $320,000 to CNAS between 2014 and 2017 specifically “in support of the negotiated settlement with Iran on its nuclear program.”  BoeingAirbus, and General Electric, which stand to lose multi-million-dollar contracts with Iran if the nuclear deal fails, donated up to $1 million to CNAS in 2017 alone.  Current editorials by CNAS Middle East expert Ilan Goldenberg are critical of President Trump’s posture toward Iran.

Biegun can be expected to push the CNAS Iran agenda if chosen to replace McMaster.  There is little hope that Biegun, as another McCain ally and a firmly established creature of the D.C. swamp, will be any better than McMaster.  He will definitely please the Washington establishment and will be championed by national security “experts” here and abroad, because for most of their patrons, anticipated trade with Iran trumps all other considerations.  Furthermore, for the left, deeply entrenched within the foreign policy establishment throughout the West, it also means elevating the power and status of the sworn enemies of America and Israel, because our destruction is the left’s great unspoken ambition.

A second candidate is Oracle CEO Safra Catz.  Catz served on Trump’s presidential transition team, a move that prompted Oracle senior staffer George A. Polisner to resign.  Named the 12th most powerful woman in business by Forbes in 2009, Catz was born in Israel and would be a strong supporter of the Jewish state.  The Zionist Organization of America has pushed for McMaster’s removal, accusing him of being anti-Israel and in favor of the Iran nuclear deal.  ZOA might back Catz, who last summer convinced billionaire Sheldon Adelson, a strong supporter of ZOA, that McMaster has to go.  However, experience on national security issues is conspicuously absent from Catz’s résumé.

The most suitable candidate reportedly under consideration is John Bolton, a man with unmatched foreign policy credentials and numerous major accomplishments spanning decades.  Bolton visited the White House last week under wide speculation that he will replace McMaster.  Unlike Biegun, he is a loyal Trump-supporter who would not undermine the president’s agenda, but rather be a firm backstop against the D.C. establishment’s self-serving machinations and leftist tilt.  Unlike Catz, he has spent his entire career working national security and foreign policy issues.

Let’s hope President Trump will discontinue his seeming tendency to cultivate swamp support by hiring its bad actors.  Bolton’s appointment would go a long way toward convincing the American majority that President Trump remains firmly committed to making America great again.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the American Thinker.

Revolutionary Approach to GOTV Provides 25% Increase in Voters

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

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

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

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

El Toro’s Approach

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

Campaign Results

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

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

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

About El Toro

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

Sex Reassignment Doesn’t Work. Here Is the Evidence.

Sex “reassignment” doesn’t work. It’s impossible to “reassign” someone’s sex physically, and attempting to do so doesn’t produce good outcomes psychosocially.

As I demonstrate in my book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” the medical evidence suggests that sex reassignment does not adequately address the psychosocial difficulties faced by people who identify as transgender. Even when the procedures are successful technically and cosmetically, and even in cultures that are relatively “trans-friendly,” transitioners still face poor outcomes.

Dr. Paul McHugh, the university distinguished service professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, explains:

Transgendered men do not become women, nor do transgendered women become men. All (including Bruce Jenner) become feminized men or masculinized women, counterfeits or impersonators of the sex with which they ‘identify.’ In that lies their problematic future.

When ‘the tumult and shouting dies,’ it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb. The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over 30 years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to 15 years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to 20 times that of comparable peers.

McHugh points to the reality that because sex change is physically impossible, it frequently does not provide the long-term wholeness and happiness that people seek.

Indeed, the best scientific research supports McHugh’s caution and concern.

Here’s how The Guardian summarized the results of a review of “more than 100 follow-up studies of post-operative transsexuals” by Birmingham University’s Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility:

[The Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility], which conducts reviews of health care treatments for the [National Health Service], concludes that none of the studies provides conclusive evidence that gender reassignment is beneficial for patients. It found that most research was poorly designed, which skewed the results in favor of physically changing sex. There was no evaluation of whether other treatments, such as long-term counseling, might help transsexuals, or whether their gender confusion might lessen over time.

“There is huge uncertainty over whether changing someone’s sex is a good or a bad thing,” said Chris Hyde, the director of the facility. Even if doctors are careful to perform these procedures only on “appropriate patients,” Hyde continued, “there’s still a large number of people who have the surgery but remain traumatized—often to the point of committing suicide.”

Of particular concern are the people these studies “lost track of.” As The Guardian noted, “the results of many gender reassignment studies are unsound because researchers lost track of more than half of the participants.” Indeed, “Dr. Hyde said the high drop-out rate could reflect high levels of dissatisfaction or even suicide among post-operative transsexuals.”

Hyde concluded: “The bottom line is that although it’s clear that some people do well with gender reassignment surgery, the available research does little to reassure about how many patients do badly and, if so, how badly.”

The facility conducted its review back in 2004, so perhaps things have changed in the past decade?

Not so. In 2014, a new review of the scientific literature was done by Hayes, Inc., a research and consulting firm that evaluates the safety and health outcomes of medical technologies. Hayes found that the evidence on long-term results of sex reassignment was too sparse to support meaningful conclusions and gave these studies its lowest rating for quality:

Statistically significant improvements have not been consistently demonstrated by multiple studies for most outcomes. … Evidence regarding quality of life and function in male-to-female adults was very sparse. Evidence for less comprehensive measures of well-being in adult recipients of cross-sex hormone therapy was directly applicable to [gender dysphoric] patients but was sparse and/or conflicting. The study designs do not permit conclusions of causality and studies generally had weaknesses associated with study execution as well. There are potentially long-term safety risks associated with hormone therapy but none have been proven or conclusively ruled out.

The Obama administration came to similar conclusions. In 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services revisited the question of whether sex reassignment surgery would have to be covered by Medicare plans. Despite receiving a request that its coverage be mandated, it refused, on the ground that we lack evidence that it benefits patients.

Here’s how the June 2016 “Proposed Decision Memo for Gender Dysphoria and Gender Reassignment Surgery” put it:

Based on a thorough review of the clinical evidence available at this time, there is not enough evidence to determine whether gender reassignment surgery improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries with gender dysphoria. There were conflicting (inconsistent) study results—of the best designed studies, some reported benefits while others reported harms. The quality and strength of evidence were low due to the mostly observational study designs with no comparison groups, potential confounding, and small sample sizes. Many studies that reported positive outcomes were exploratory type studies (case-series and case-control) with no confirmatory follow-up.

The final August 2016 memo was even more blunt. It pointed out:

Overall, the quality and strength of evidence were low due to mostly observational study designs with no comparison groups, subjective endpoints, potential confounding (a situation where the association between the intervention and outcome is influenced by another factor such as a co-intervention), small sample sizes, lack of validated assessment tools, and considerable lost to follow-up.

That “lost to follow-up,” remember, could be pointing to people who committed suicide.

And when it comes to the best studies, there is no evidence of “clinically significant changes” after sex reassignment:

The majority of studies were non-longitudinal, exploratory type studies (i.e., in a preliminary state of investigation or hypothesis generating), or did not include concurrent controls or testing prior to and after surgery. Several reported positive results but the potential issues noted above reduced strength and confidence. After careful assessment, we identified six studies that could provide useful information. Of these, the four best designed and conducted studies that assessed quality of life before and after surgery using validated (albeit non-specific) psychometric studies did not demonstrate clinically significant changes or differences in psychometric test results after [gender reassignment surgery].

In a discussion of the largest and most robust study—the study from Sweden that McHugh mentioned in the quote above—the Obama Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pointed out the 19-times-greater likelihood for death by suicide, and a host of other poor outcomes:

The study identified increased mortality and psychiatric hospitalization compared to the matched controls. The mortality was primarily due to completed suicides (19.1-fold greater than in control Swedes), but death due to neoplasm and cardiovascular disease was increased 2 to 2.5 times as well. We note, mortality from this patient population did not become apparent until after 10 years. The risk for psychiatric hospitalization was 2.8 times greater than in controls even after adjustment for prior psychiatric disease (18 percent). The risk for attempted suicide was greater in male-to-female patients regardless of the gender of the control. Further, we cannot exclude therapeutic interventions as a cause of the observed excess morbidity and mortality. The study, however, was not constructed to assess the impact of gender reassignment surgery per se.

These results are tragic. And they directly contradict the most popular media narratives, as well as many of the snapshot studies that do not track people over time. As the Obama Centers for Medicare and Medicaid pointed out, “mortality from this patient population did not become apparent until after 10 years.”

So when the media tout studies that only track outcomes for a few years, and claim that reassignment is a stunning success, there are good grounds for skepticism.

As I explain in my book, these outcomes should be enough to stop the headlong rush into sex reassignment procedures. They should prompt us to develop better therapies for helping people who struggle with their gender identity.

And none of this even begins to address the radical, entirely experimental therapies that are being directed at the bodies of children to transition them.

Sex Change Is Physically Impossible

We’ve seen some of the evidence that sex reassignment doesn’t produce good outcomes psychosocially. And as McHugh suggested above, part of the reason why is because sex change is impossible and “it proves not easy nor wise to live in a counterfeit sexual garb.”

But what is the basis for the conclusion that sex change is impossible?

Contrary to the claims of activists, sex isn’t “assigned” at birth—and that’s why it can’t be “reassigned.” As I explain in “When Harry Became Sally,” sex is a bodily reality that can be recognized well before birth with ultrasound imaging. The sex of an organism is defined and identified by the way in which it (he or she) is organized for sexual reproduction.

This is just one manifestation of the fact that natural organization is “the defining feature of an organism,” as neuroscientist Maureen Condic and her philosopher brother Samuel Condic explain. In organisms, “the various parts … are organized to cooperatively interact for the welfare of the entity as a whole. Organisms can exist at various levels, from microscopic single cells to sperm whales weighing many tons, yet they are all characterized by the integrated function of parts for the sake of the whole.”

Male and female organisms have different parts that are functionally integrated for the sake of their whole, and for the sake of a larger whole—their sexual union and reproduction. So an organism’s sex—as male or female—is identified by its organization for sexually reproductive acts. Sex as a status—male or female—is a recognition of the organization of a body that can engage in sex as an act.

That organization isn’t just the best way to figure out which sex you are. It’s the only way to make sense of the concepts of male and female at all. What else could “maleness” or “femaleness” even refer to, if not your basic physical capacity for one of two functions in sexual reproduction?

The conceptual distinction between male and female based on reproductive organization provides the only coherent way to classify the two sexes. Apart from that, all we have are stereotypes.

This shouldn’t be controversial. Sex is understood this way across sexually reproducing species. No one finds it particularly difficult—let alone controversial—to identify male and female members of the bovine species or the canine species. Farmers and breeders rely on this easy distinction for their livelihoods. It’s only recently, and only with respect to the human species, that the very concept of sex has become controversial.

And yet, in an expert declaration to a federal district court in North Carolina concerning H.B. 2 (a state law governing access to sex-specific restrooms), Dr. Deanna Adkins stated, “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity.” Adkins is a professor at Duke University School of Medicine and the director of the Duke Center for Child and Adolescent Gender Care (which opened in 2015).

Adkins argues that gender identity is not only the preferred basis for determining sex, but “the only medically supported determinant of sex.” Every other method is bad science, she claims: “It is counter to medical science to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female.”

In her sworn declaration to the federal court, Adkins called the standard account of sex—an organism’s sexual organization—“an extremely outdated view of biological sex.”

Dr. Lawrence Mayer responded in his rebuttal declaration: “This statement is stunning. I have searched dozens of references in biology, medicine and genetics—even Wiki!—and can find no alternative scientific definition. In fact, the only references to a more fluid definition of biological sex are in the social policy literature.”

Just so. Mayer is a scholar in residence in the Department of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and a professor of statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University.

Modern science shows that our sexual organization begins with our DNA and development in the womb, and that sex differences manifest themselves in many bodily systems and organs, all the way down to the molecular level. In other words, our physical organization for one of two functions in reproduction shapes us organically, from the beginning of life, at every level of our being.

Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones can’t change us into the opposite sex. They can affect appearances. They can stunt or damage some outward expressions of our reproductive organization. But they can’t transform it. They can’t turn us from one sex into the other.

“Scientifically speaking, transgender men are not biological men and transgender women are not biological women. The claims to the contrary are not supported by a scintilla of scientific evidence,” explains Mayer.

Or, as Princeton philosopher Robert P. George put it, “Changing sexes is a metaphysical impossibility because it is a biological impossibility.”

The Purpose of Medicine, Emotions, and the Mind

Behind the debates over therapies for people with gender dysphoria are two related questions: How do we define mental health and human flourishing? And what is the purpose of medicine, particularly psychiatry?

Those general questions encompass more specific ones: If a man has an internal sense that he is a woman, is that just a variety of normal human functioning, or is it a psychopathology? Should we be concerned about the disconnection between feeling and reality, or only about the emotional distress or functional difficulties it may cause?

What is the best way to help people with gender dysphoria manage their symptoms: by accepting their insistence that they are the opposite sex and supporting a surgical transition, or by encouraging them to recognize that their feelings are out of line with reality and learn how to identify with their bodies?

All of these questions require philosophical analysis and worldview judgments about what “normal human functioning” looks like and what the purpose of medicine is.

Settling the debates over the proper response to gender dysphoria requires more than scientific and medical evidence. Medical science alone cannot tell us what the purpose of medicine is.

Science cannot answer questions about meaning or purpose in a moral sense. It can tell us about the function of this or that bodily system, but it can’t tell us what to do with that knowledge. It cannot tell us how human beings ought to act. Those are philosophical questions, as I explain in “When Harry Became Sally.”

While medical science does not answer philosophical questions, every medical practitioner has a philosophical worldview, explicit or not. Some doctors may regard feelings and beliefs that are disconnected from reality as a part of normal human functioning and not a source of concern unless they cause distress. Other doctors will regard those feelings and beliefs as dysfunctional in themselves, even if the patient does not find them distressing, because they indicate a defect in mental processes.

But the assumptions made by this or that psychiatrist for purposes of diagnosis and treatment cannot settle the philosophical questions: Is it good or bad or neutral to harbor feelings and beliefs that are at odds with reality? Should we accept them as the last word, or try to understand their causes and correct them, or at least mitigate their effects?

While the current findings of medical science, as shown above, reveal poor psychosocial outcomes for people who have had sex reassignment therapies, that conclusion should not be where we stop. We must also look deeper for philosophical wisdom, starting with some basic truths about human well-being and healthy functioning.

We should begin by recognizing that sex reassignment is physically impossible. Our minds and senses function properly when they reveal reality to us and lead us to knowledge of truth. And we flourish as human beings when we embrace the truth and live in accordance with it. A person might find some emotional relief in embracing a falsehood, but doing so would not make him or her objectively better off. Living by a falsehood keeps us from flourishing fully, whether or not it also causes distress.

This philosophical view of human well-being is the foundation of a sound medical practice. Dr. Michelle Cretella, the president of the American College of Pediatricians—a group of doctors who formed their own professional guild in response to the politicization of the American Academy of Pediatrics—emphasizes that mental health care should be guided by norms grounded in reality, including the reality of the bodily self.

“The norm for human development is for one’s thoughts to align with physical reality, and for one’s gender identity to align with one’s biologic sex,” she says. For human beings to flourish, they need to feel comfortable in their own bodies, readily identify with their sex, and believe that they are who they actually are. For children especially, normal development and functioning require accepting their physical being and understanding their embodied selves as male or female.

Unfortunately, many professionals now view health care—including mental health care—primarily as a means of fulfilling patients’ desires, whatever those are. In the words of Leon Kass, a professor emeritus at the University of Chicago, today a doctor is often seen as nothing more than “a highly competent hired syringe”:

The implicit (and sometimes explicit) model of the doctor-patient relationship is one of contract: the physician—a highly competent hired syringe, as it were—sells his services on demand, restrained only by the law (though he is free to refuse his services if the patient is unwilling or unable to meet his fee). Here’s the deal: for the patient, autonomy and service; for the doctor, money, graced by the pleasure of giving the patient what he wants. If a patient wants to fix her nose or change his gender, determine the sex of unborn children, or take euphoriant drugs just for kicks, the physician can and will go to work—provided that the price is right and that the contract is explicit about what happens if the customer isn’t satisfied.

This modern vision of medicine and medical professionals gets it wrong, says Kass. Professionals ought to profess their devotion to the purposes and ideals they serve. Teachers should be devoted to learning, lawyers to justice, clergy to things divine, and physicians to “healing the sick, looking up to health and wholeness.” Healing is “the central core of medicine,” Kass writes—“to heal, to make whole, is the doctor’s primary business.”

To provide the best possible care, serving the patient’s medical interests requires an understanding of human wholeness and well-being. Mental health care must be guided by a sound concept of human flourishing. The minimal standard of care should begin with a standard of normality. Cretella explains how this standard applies to mental health:

One of the chief functions of the brain is to perceive physical reality. Thoughts that are in accordance with physical reality are normal. Thoughts that deviate from physical reality are abnormal—as well as potentially harmful to the individual or to others. This is true whether or not the individual who possesses the abnormal thoughts feels distress.

Our brains and senses are designed to bring us into contact with reality, connecting us with the outside world and with the reality of ourselves. Thoughts that disguise or distort reality are misguided—and can cause harm. In “When Harry Became Sally,” I argue that we need to do a better job of helping people who face these struggles.


Portrait of Ryan T. Anderson

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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.


9/11 Survivor and Humble Christian Sued by the New York Attorney General Finally Tells Her Story In Court

ANN ARBOR, MI – Over eight months after first being sued by the New York Attorney General, and after a marathon preliminary injunction hearing that stretched over four weeks, Angela Braxton, a pro-life Christian and side walk counselor, finally took the stand late last week to explain why she spent years regularly ministering outside of a large abortion facility in Jamaica, Queens.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who complained about “a sense of entitlement by protestors to run their mouth,” named Braxton and more than a dozen other Christians as defendants in his federal lawsuit filed last June. The lawsuit asked a federal court to impose a sixteen-foot buffer zone around the abortion premises and levy draconian fines, attorney fees and compensatory damages against the defendants.

The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, is defending Braxton and co-defendant Jasmine Lalande, another Christian sidewalk counselor, in the lawsuit. Tyler Brooks, TMLC’s lead attorney in the case, who conducted the direct examination of Ms. Braxton, commented, “It is a privilege to be able to defend these two brave individuals against the Attorney Generals’ unconstitutional assault on free speech.”

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President, added, “After over a dozen witnesses called during the four-week hearing, the only picture of our clients emerged was that they were two humble Christian women peaceably making the last chance effort to save the lives of unborn children.”

In her moving testimony, Braxton described growing up in Brooklyn, New York, including being among the first African-American students bused to majority white schools as part of desegregating the New York City school system. She also explained having suffered numerous miscarriages as a young woman—an emotional experience that made her realize the preciousness of all life.

Her Life Changed After 9/11

Braxton further told the Court how her life changed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. On that day, Braxton was working on the 80th floor of One World Trade Center. Braxton detailed for the Court the harrowing experience of trying to escape the burning building until she made it to the underground mall below the World Trade Center Complex. While trying to make her way out of the mall, she suddenly felt rumbling, which she would later learn was caused by the collapsing of Two World Trade Center above her. The force of the building’s collapse caused her to be “thrown around like . . . being thrown up in a tornado,” Braxton testified. In that moment, Braxton said,“I’m screeching for God not to let me die.” 

An Associated Press photographer took an iconic photo of the debris-covered Braxton as she escaped from the fallen tower. That photograph now hangs in the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture.  To view the photo, click here.

Following the 9/11 attacks, Braxton turned to faith and became a Christian. Several years later, she felt called to start ministering to patients entering abortion clinics. In her testimony, Braxton explained why she used to spend Saturday mornings trying to speak to women who might be contemplating abortion:

“I believe because of what I went through as far as wanting so many children….It’s the worst thing. It’s never healed. You always long for them.  And I wanted other people to know that.  But more importantly, God saved me when I was a sinner. Christ died for me. He gave me a new heart, and He gave me a heart to love Him, to love my neighbor….Why wouldn’t I love my neighbor enough [to share this]? That’s my belief, and I believe God’s Word is true.”

Braxton, who has numerous medical conditions linked to her injuries from 9/11, also described being fearful of how a victory by the Attorney General in this lawsuit would prevent her from continuing to evangelize and spread the Gospel. If the fees sought by the Attorney General are assessed, Braxton said she would lose her apartment, but she courageously added: “I know God would provide.”

Federal District Court Judge Carol Bagley Amon will hear oral arguments on the Attorney General’s motion for a preliminary injunction on May 10, 2018 at 2:00 PM.  Yet to be decided is TMLC’s motion to dismiss the Attorney General’s case, which was filed on July 17, 2017.

Six Patriots Explain Why President Donald J. Trump is so Hated by the Left

My brother expressed his disgust watching an animated TV show trashing Trump titled, “Our Cartoon President.” Incredibly, Leftists have hijacked the airwaves and everywhere people gather to exploit as platforms to spread their vitriolic insane hatred for Trump. Outrageously, TV coverage of the Olympics included Leftists’ hatred for the Trump Administration

Despite the shocking discovery that leftist policies probably played a role in the deaths of 17 kids in the Florida school shooting, Leftists continue puppet mastering students to blame Trump.

Even Sunday worship has been hijacked by Leftists to trash Trump. My brother asked the pastor of his all black church to please stop including a lie-filled Democrat-talking-points rant about Trump in his sermons.

Leftists’ disrespect and venomous hatred for President Trump is unprecedented; over-the-top and boldly spewed 24/7. I wondered, why?

I reached out to prominent conservatives/Republicans for their thoughts.


“I think Trump is hated by the Left because his ideology, his words and actions, are the exact opposite of the Left’s ideology. He is not a “globalist,” but loves America, our homeland; he knows that we can’t continue being the world’s number one GIVER if we are not safe and successful ourselves. He knows that capitalism not communism will feed the poor; capitalism makes everyone richer, communism makes everyone equally poor. He knows that free enterprise and less government regulation will provide jobs and boost our economy, not socialism hand-outs and over-regulation.

He knows that less unemployment and getting out of debt will save our nation much more than wasting time and money on things like the scientifically unproven climate change hoax and its hidden goal of controlling the masses. He believes in individual freedom and responsibility, not government control. He’s not a secularist (new word for atheist according to Julia Sweeney’s TED talk), but a defender of religious liberty, including  Christianity. He is protective of Americans and not protective of our enemies, some of whom sneak into our midst through unenforced immigration law.

He thinks all lives matter not just black lives; he respects the police, firefighters and military instead of fanning the Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” flames of violent civil unrest, and class and racial warfare. He is not a saint and he doesn’t pretend to be. He believes in free speech not political correctness. The Left is confused, they don’t know how to respond to a politician who speaks from the heart, not from talking points. The Left hates Trump because the Tea Party loves him. Victoria Jackson


“Trump is hated the same way and for the same reason President Reagan was hated. He is a fighter and he is moving a conservative agenda forward. The left did not like George W. Bush but they did not hate him the way they hate Trump because Trump believes in fighting and winning.” Judson Phillips Teapartynation.com


“[W]hy are the reprobates in both parties so adverse to helping President Trump stabilize and protect what little of a future we have left? What is it that both political parties find so repulsive about protecting the American citizens?

The answer is fairly easy to state, and more complex to explain in intricate detail. Ergo, I will simplify the explanation as much as possible. They are fighting President Trump because he is a threat to their “one world government.”

President Trump’s victory in America has spawned a new generation of pro-nationalist leaders who refuse to be ruled by a heteronomous government that is handpicked in a wine and cheese filled room located in a hotel at some posh island retreat. Bush had great dreams for a North American style European Union by implementing NAFTA, full amnesty, and open borders.

While we were marginally successful in stopping Bush, Obama destroyed any chance of making it happen because of his contemptible arrogance and his hedonistic wife who viewed the American taxpayers as her American Express Card.

Notwithstanding, the bones of North America becoming the Western type EU were still in place and both parties knew it was only a matter of time until they succeeded.

But then “Along Came Donald J. Trump.” Once again the arrogance of the ruling elite thought We the People could be bullied and intimidated into doing as we were told. But this time their schemes and machinations did not work because we saw in President Trump a man we could trust.” And the power elite will never forgive President Trump nor will they forgive We the People for electing him.” Mychal Massie


“As I explained in the run-up to the 2016 election here and here, I’ve always believed that Donald Trump is the Real Deal. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he does or says. But there’s little question that the President is his own man. And that drives the Establishment crazy. The oligarchs want someone they can control. They rely on leveraged politicos to do their evil bidding, but Trump has given them no such foothold. So, they use their Establishment-controlled media to foment hate against him. This fake news jihad is effective, but will not stop Trump.” Joe Miller


“He fights!” Larry Pratt


Trump is hated not only by the left, but by the Rinos for the exact same reason … they can’t control him. They can’t intimidate or shame him like they do everyone else, and probably the most poignant and profound is that he believes in something greater than himself, than the state, than politics …. and that is God.

They HATE that because they serve a fallen savior who battles against the truth on a daily basis while he champions the truth. Nina May

I wish to thank these great patriots for their insightful input. Here’s why I believe Trump is so hated by Leftists.

Leftists’ hatred for Trump is rooted in their mission to undermine all things wholesome, Godly and good for America. Everything Leftists do, in essence, gives the God of Christianity their middle finger. It is not coincidental that Leftists hijack Christian symbols and institutions for their anti-God agenda.

For example: The rainbow was God’s promise to Noah to never again let floodwaters destroy all life. Homosexuals hijacked God’s rainbow to symbolize a behavior God calls an abomination. God created marriage as a holy union between one man and and one woman. Despite civil unions readily available to them, homosexuals successfully broke down marriage; resulting in every conceivable deviant configuration to eventually be legally declared marriage.

Trump in the White House is a miracle. Despite Leftists’ 24/7 efforts to stop and destroy him, President Trump has remarkably implemented 64% of his make-America-great-again agenda. Fasten your seat-belts Leftists, Trump has only just begun.

Illegal Alien in Florida Drug Bust Deported 3 Times, Easily Reentered U.S.

A startling drug trafficking case out of south Florida is especially disturbing because the illegal immigrant caught with more than half a million dollars in crystal methamphetamine had been deported three times in three months shortly before the drug bust. A few months after the third deportation, the Mexican national returned to the United States with a partner and a vehicle stuffed with thousands of grams of pure crystal meth. The drugs have a street value of about $560,000, according to estimates issued by federal authorities.

The thrice deported illegal immigrant, Saul Bustos Bustos, and his partner in crime, fellow Mexican Irepan Juanchi Salgado, got arrested when they tried to sell five kilograms of crystal meth to undercover Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents in Miami. The exchange occurred in November and this week both men pled guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to distribute drugs. “During the transaction, the defendants, who possessed a total of 3,717 grams of 98% pure crystal methamphetamine, worked together to transfer the drugs from their vehicle to the undercover officer,” according to a statement from the Department of Justice. “Bustos Bustos also pled guilty to illegal reentry after removal, after reentering the United States subsequent to removal on April 13, 2017, July 6, 2017, and July 19, 2017.”

It’s not clear how or where Bustos Bustos entered the country after getting deported, but court documents reveal he drove from Atlanta with the drugs as part of an operation based in Georgia and New York. On November 28, the two Mexican men drove to a restaurant in the Miami Dade County city of Hialeah to make the sale. The customer, an undercover DEA agent, followed the drug dealers to a warehouse to complete the transfer and the Mexican men got arrested. Bustos Bustos is scheduled to be sentenced on March 29 and faces life in prison. Salgado’s sentencing date has not been set, but he also faces a lengthy jail sentence for the narcotics conviction. Authorities say his brother, Luciano Salgado, is a renowned meth dealer.

Previously deported illegal immigrants have reentered the U.S. to commit a multitude of atrocious crimes over the years, but this one sticks out because President Donald Trump vowed to tighten border security and the violations occurred after he took office. Under the famously lax Obama rules, this type of thing was par for the course. In fact, the former president’s own uncle, Onyango Obama, an illegal immigrant from Kenya, reentered the U.S. and even got a driver’s license after getting deported. Uncle Onyango lost the license for driving drunk and was somehow able to obtain a special “hardship license” from the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles even though he wasn’t even supposed to be in the United States and had been removed.

Just a few months ago a previously deported gang member was charged with attempted murder and kidnapping in the northern Colorado city of Ft. Collins. The illegal alien from El Salvador, Angel Ramos, was deported from Texas to El Salvador last year after getting arrested for domestic violence. Somehow, he reentered the U.S. and tried to kill a woman by stabbing her repeatedly with a screw driver then running her over with his car before trying to stuff her in the trunk. Ramos is a confirmed member of the violent street gang Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) and is wanted for homicide in his native El Salvador, according to information provided to the media by the U.S. Marshals Service. In November the 36-year-old was charged with attempted murder, assault, menacing with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, domestic violence and criminal impersonation.

Back in 2014 a Judicial Watch investigation uncovered that a twice deported illegal immigrant was a key figure in a sophisticated narco-terror ring. The Mexican national, Hector Pedroza Huerta, plotted a Chicago truck bombing with two of the FBI’s “most wanted” terrorists and was deeply involved in smuggling drugs and weapons. The narco-terror ring that Huerta helped operate after being deported two times from the U.S. runs from El Paso to Chicago to New York. Though he was an illegal alien with a substantial criminal record and deportation history, Huerta lived in El Paso and planned several bomb plots targeting oil refineries in Houston and the Fort Worth Stockyards. He is also alleged to have smuggled explosives and weapons from the Fort Bliss range and exercise areas in concert with corrupt US Army soldiers and government contractors with gate passes at the El Paso base.

RELATED ARTICLE: Florida: Ocala man arrested after mother reported finding ISIS material, Koran, in son’s room

New U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Mission Statement puts Americans First

For far too long our federal government, and many state and local governments, have been representing everyone and anyone but the citizens of the United States.

As an Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) agent I became painfully aware of how the supposedly “broken” immigration system has been operating as one of the most efficient delivery systems in the entire federal government, rivaling the both Fed-Ex and UPS.  The broken immigration system has been delivering a virtually unlimited supply of foreign tourists, foreign students and especially an unlimited supply of exploitable Third World workers who bring with them Third World expectations of Third World wages and working conditions.

Over time the magnitude of the immigration crisis grew exponentially.  This crisis undermines national security, public safety and the overall well-being of America and Americans.

The Amnesty of 1986 that was part of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) not only resulted in nearly four million illegal aliens acquiring lawful status and ultimately enabling those newly legalized aliens to petition to have their family members admitted as lawful immigrants, but encouraged an influx of even more illegal aliens who believed that if one amnesty could be enacted to “solve” the immigration crisis, other such amnesties would likely follow.

The immigration system became ever more ineffective and politicians from both parties made false claims that since there were so many illegal aliens in the United States the only way of solving this huge problem was to legalize all of the illegal aliens and secure the U.S./Mexican border so that more illegal aliens ostensibly could not enter the country.

Of course, while the U.S./Mexican border must be made secure, as I have noted in many of my articles and especially in my testimony before a succession of congressional hearings in both the House and Senate, our nation does not have four border states (California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas), but 50 “border states.” Any state that lies along America’s northern and southern borders are border states, as are those states that have access to the estimated 95,000 miles of the U.S. coastline and any state that has an international airport.

On November 15, 2014 the David Horowitz Freedom Center sponsored an event in which I was honored to join three true leaders in the United States Congress in a panel discussion on immigration: then-U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions and Congressmen Louis Gohmert and John Fleming.  A video of this panel discussion has been posted and includes a statement by Rep. Gohmert in which he said that my perspective on America having 50 border states was gaining traction in Washington.

It is encouraging when we are able to change the perspectives of our political leaders.  However, those instances are far too infrequent.

This weekend I was elated to find out that I may have had an impact on how the leadership of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) perceives its vital mission in adjudicating applications for a wide variety of immigration benefits, which include applications for political asylum, lawful immigrant status and United States citizenship. This is a welcome change from years of inadequate leadership, especially during the Obama administration.

On March 20, 2013 during the disastrous Obama administration, I testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the topic, “Building An Immigration System Worthy Of American Values.” I concluded my prepared testimony with the following paragraphs:

I want to make this clear: Law enforcement is at its best when it creates a climate of deterrence to convince those who might be contemplating violating the law that such an effort is likely to be discovered and that, if discovered, adverse consequences will result for the law violators. Current policies and statements by the administration, in my view, encourages aspiring illegal aliens from around the world to head for the United States. In effect, the starter’s pistol has been fired, and for these folks, the finish line to this race is the border of the United States.

Back when I was an INS special agent, I recall that Doris Meissner, who was at the time the Commissioner of the INS, said that the agency needed to be ‘‘customer oriented.’’ Unfortunately, while I agree about the need to be customer oriented, what Ms. Meissner and apparently too many politicians today seem to have forgotten is that the ‘‘customers’’ of the INS and of our Government in general are the citizens of the United States of America.

I have referenced Meissner’s fatally flawed perceptions and guidance in numerous articles and speaking events in addition to my prepared testimony at that Senate hearing.

On February 22, 2018 NPR reported “America No Longer A ‘Nation Of Immigrants,’ USCIS Says.” Here is an excerpt from the NPR article bemoaning the removal of the phrase “nation of immigrants” and the term customer:

The agency’s new mission statement as it appears on the agency’s website reads:

“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services administers the nation’s lawful immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our values.”

Here is USCIS’s previous mission statement:

“USCIS secures America’s promise as a nation of immigrants by providing accurate and useful information to our customers, granting immigration and citizenship benefits, promoting an awareness and understanding of citizenship, and ensuring the integrity of our immigration system.”

The removal of the phrase “nation of immigrants” was announced to agency staff in an email letter from Director L. Francis Cissna.

In the letter, Cissna said, “I believe this simple, straightforward statement clearly defines the agency’s role in our country’s lawful immigration system and the commitment we have to the American people.”

He also explained why the new mission statement deletes the reference to agency applicants as “customers.”

“What we do at USCIS is so important to our nation, so meaningful to the applicants and petitioners, and the nature of the work is often so complicated, that we should never allow our work to be regarded as a mere production line or even described in business or commercial terms. In particular, referring to applicants and petitioners for immigration benefits, and the beneficiaries of such applications and petitions, as “customers” promotes an institutional culture that emphasizes the ultimate satisfaction of applicants and petitioners, rather than the correct adjudication of such applications and petitions according to the law. Use of the term leads to the erroneous belief that applicants and petitioners, rather than the American people, are whom we ultimately serve.”

Director Cissna’s understanding of the true mission of his agency is a refreshing change from those who preceded him and insisted that the adjudications officers “get to yes” and seek to approve virtually every application that lands on their desks.

In the business world, it is said that “the customer is always right.”  Bringing that dangerous notion to an element of homeland security encourages and enables immigration fraud, a key vulnerability exploited by the majority of terrorists who have entered the United States determined to carry out and/or support deadly terror attacks.

Undoubtedly there are going to be some employees as USCIS who will find the change in fundamental philosophy to be a shock to their systems, particularly if they have entered on duty during the Obama administration where the “customer” was always right.

However, the clear and unequivocal message that the new mission statement and use of terminology sends to personnel at USCIS and to all who interact with USCIS is that the priority is to imbue the system with integrity.

The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel detailed numerous examples of instances where terrorists made use of visa and immigration benefit fraud to embed themselves in the United States. For example, page 54 contained the following excerpt under the title “3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot”:

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

This new and welcome philosophy will help to deter potential fraudsters from filing fraud-laden applications by those who thought that as “customers” they could game this system.

As the number of applications for immigration benefits decline, beleaguered USCIS adjudications officers will have more time to more carefully scrutinize each application. (It takes just minutes to approve an application, but can take days or longer to deny an application.)  This will likely result in more fraud being discovered, thus deterring the filing of fraudulent applications as the word gets out. Deterrence through enforcement works.

EDITORS NOTE: This column first appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Canada’s Conservative Party vows to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital

The 2019 election could be Canadians’ last chance to save their country. If the Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer is not elected, and Justin Trudeau remains Prime Minister or Jagmeet Singh becomes Prime Minister, Canada will continue to go the way of Sweden, inundated and overwhelmed by Muslim migrants who have no intention of assimilating and adopting Western values and principles of human rights. Trudeau has long looked to be a lock for reelection, but now the polls are tightening, after his disastrous February, including his ridiculous behavior during his trip to India. Freedom-loving Canadians must now work harder than ever.

“Canada’s Conservative Party vows to recognize Jerusalem as Israeli capital,” by Shoshana Kranish, Jerusalem Post, February 27, 2018 (thanks to Mark):

The Canadian Conservative Party on Sunday vowed that, should it be elected to form a government in 2019, it will recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

“Canada’s Conservatives have been, and always will be, a strong voice for Israel and the Canadian Jewish community,” the statement on the party’s website read.

“Israel is one of Canada’s strongest allies and a beacon of pluralism and democratic principles in a turbulent part of the world.”

The addition of this clause to the party’s platform is not entirely surprising, as Conservative members of parliament have been marking the same promise for decades. Ahead of his election to the party’s leadership in 1979, former prime minister Joe Clark vowed to move the embassy, but reneged on this promise after being elected.

Since then, various hopeful Conservative leaders have made the same pledge, but none have followed through.

During his tenure, former prime minister Stephen Harper, a Conservative, traveled to Israel and gave a speech at the Knesset, in which he told MKs “through fire and water, Canada stands with you.”

“Canada supports Israel because it is right to do so,” he added….

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

Best Actor Oscar Award winner thanks America for ‘the many wonderful gifts it has given me’

After a cursory “thank-you” to the Academy, Gary Oldman said:

“I’ve lived in America for the longest time and I am deeply grateful to her for the loves and the friendships I have made and the many wonderful gifts it has given me. My home, my livelihood, my family, and now, Oscar. The movies, such is their power, captivated a young man from South London and gave him a dream.”

New York Times Agrees with President Trump: Sweden’s Migrant-perpetrated Violence Out-of-Control [Video]

Invasion of Europe…..

Can we expect an apology from The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and the rest of the anti-Trump media about his Sweden comments last year?  Don’t hold your breath!

Powerline blog reminds us here of what happened a year ago February when the New York Times and all of its media lackeys landed like a big bird on President Trump when he said Sweden has a problem with out-of-control immigration (from certain ethnic/religious groups) and the violence it inevitably brings!

In February of last year, at CPAC, President Trump linked mass Muslim immigration to an increase in crime in Sweden. The New York Times, in an article called “From an Anchor’s Lips to Trump’s Ears to Sweden’s Disbelief,” ridiculed Trump for getting his information from television (a report on Tucker Carlson’s program) and suggested that Trump was misinformed. [The President might have said it at CPAC also, but it was at a campaign rally in Florida, here.]

It also criticized Trump for “start[ing] a dispute with a longtime American friend that resented his characterization and called it false.” The Times sniffed that “the president’s only discernible goal was to make the case domestically for his plans to restrict entry to the United States.” The Times seemed to believe that making this case was somehow out-of-bounds.

Powerline reports this from the NYT story as well:

Note that the trend the Times describes began in 2014. Trump discussed the problem of immigrant violence in 2017. He wasn’t premature, the Times is late.

They are all late.

Maybe the use of  weapons of war began in 2014, but their immigrant problems began long before that.  I began writing this blog in July 2007 and my first story on immigration problems in Sweden came in August 2007 (and there were surely more stories before I came along!).

I have a huge archive on Sweden, the country I predict will be the first European country to be conquered by Islam in the modern age. 

Go here to see my many previous posts on Sweden’s failed multicultural experiment.

Now more on The NYT’s evidence that Trump is right on Sweden from the Daily Caller:

The New York Times published a report Sunday on Sweden’s growing problem with immigrant gangs — more than a year after the paper chided President Donald Trump for calling attention to the same worrisome development.

sweden time bomb

Sweden’s pin has been pulled in more ways than one.

Entitled “Hand Grenades and Gang Violence Rattle Sweden’s Middle Class,” the report examines how weapons of war and clan-like*** violence have accompanied an influx of immigrants from certain parts of Europe and the greater Middle East.

The story centers on the death of a man in the town of Varby Gard, a once tranquil Stockholm suburb that is now the home base of an increasingly destructive immigrant gang. He was killed in early January when he picked up a mysterious object lying in the street that turned out to be a live hand grenade. The device exploded when he touched it, killing him instantly.

It was one of more than 100 incidents involving military-grade explosives in the Stockholm metro area that police have attributed to an “arms race” among immigrant gangs, reports The NYT.  There were only a few such incidents in Sweden until 2014, but since then, the number of explosions and seizures of grenades has shot up and remained worryingly high.

The police seized 45 grenades in 2015, while 10 others were detonated in public, according to Stockholm Police. The next year, 55 were seized and 35 detonated. A modest decrease occurred in 2017, when 39 were seized and 21 exploded.

Though The NYT readily reported on the nature of the violence, it was somewhat more circumspect about its origin. Nowhere in the story do the words “Muslim” or “refugee” appear. The only mention of the word “asylum” is to describe a witness to the explosion, one of many Varby Gard residents who arrived there thanks to Sweden’s famously open asylum policies.

The fact is that Sweden’s spike in gang violence and certain categories of crime coincided with the resettlement of more than 100,000 asylum seekers from predominantly Muslim nations beginning in 2014. 

More here.

Here is a bit from the New York Times article itself:

Sweden’s far right-wing party blames the government’s liberal immigration policy for the rising crime, and will thrust the issue to the fore in the fall campaign.

Last year, Peter Springare, 61, a veteran police officer in Orebro, published a furious Facebook post saying violent crimes he was investigating were committed by immigrants from “Iraq, Iraq, Turkey, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Somalia, Syria again, Somalia, unknown country, unknown country, Sweden.” It was shared more than 20,000 times; Mr. Springare has since been investigated twice by state prosecutors, once for inciting racial hatred, though neither resulted in charges.

Yesterday we told you about Italian elections and said there might be hope for Italy if it gets rid of most migrants (most are economic migrants) and Italians start having babies.  Same goes for Sweden, but there is even less hope there that they can turn around the DEMOGRAPHIC conquest in time.

Dear readers, I’m asked often “what can I do?” Here is one vital thing: follow news from Europe daily and be sure to send what you learn far and wide because as Europe goes, so go we (just a little farther along in this century)! Unless, of course, we heed the lessons unfolding before our eyes!

My ‘Invasion of Europe’ archive is here.

NOTE: By the way, any mention of clan violence means only one thing—Somalis are involved.


Somali migrant attacks, tries to rape student after hiding in women’s restroom

U.S. Mosques Are Secretly Giving Sanctuary to Illegal Immigrants

The Radical Left and Muslim Brotherhood Continue Their Assault on Protecting Our Constitutional Rights

Dear Donald, give Bibi a gift today, cut federal funding to HIAS….

Italian election: Anti-EU populism on the rise; immigration is key issue

White South Africans petition Trump to allow them to migrate to US