Mama Merkel could have a rough next 4 years

Invasion of Europe news…

What did she win? In four more years will Germany even be recognizable?

You’ve seen the news I’m sure, but this headline at Reuters caught my attention:

Incensed over refugees, east Germans punish easterner Merkel

Here is the story.  Germany headed down the tubes IMHO (emphasis below is mine):

BERLIN (Reuters) – For weeks, Chancellor Angela Merkel endured taunts and whistles whenever she ventured out on the campaign trail in her home region of eastern Germany.

Merkel oopsy

Chancellor Angela Merkel

And on Sunday, it was voters in the east, incensed by her decision to allow hundreds of thousands of refugees into the country, that helped send her conservatives to their worst result since 1949 and vaulted a far-right party into the German parliament.

They want Germany for Germans! What a novel idea!

Preliminary results showed the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) winning 22.9 percent of the vote in the former communist east, well above their national result of roughly 13 percent. The AfD performed especially well with east German men, 26 percent of whom backed the party.

[….]

Merkel did secure a fourth term on Sunday, but she limped to the finish line and must now cobble together an unwieldy coalition with two other parties — the business friendly Free Democrats (FDP) and environmentalist Greens — that have diametrically opposed views on many of the big issues.

The result suggested that pollsters may have underestimated the lingering impact of the refugee crisis in the election and the outsized influence it would have in the east, where voters continue to behave very differently than their brethren in the west 28 years after the fall of the Wall. [Those eastern Europeans haven’t been sufficiently brain-washed with political correctness, or do they understand what occupation feels like!—ed]

I have a very large archive on Germany and an even larger one on the ‘Invasion of Europe.’

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Obama’s State Department had big plans for new resettlement sites

Trump travel ban morphs into new list, extra vetting

St. Cloud, MN: a microcosm of the battle ahead for cities targeted by federal refugee program

NFL’s Actions During National Anthem are Despicable, Time to Tune Out

The actions of NFL players kneeling or sitting or raising their fist during the National Anthem are untenable.

The refusal of some players to join in solidarity with their teammates and fans in honor of the country responsible for every one of their freedoms is nothing short of disgraceful. The stated excuse of a call for social justice is both lame and ill-founded and honestly, rings unbelievably hollow. For months, football fans have languished over the continued divisiveness and disrespect exhibited by these players and the further insult from the league in not putting a stop to this despicable behavior.

The conflict finally came to a head Friday when President Trump called out those players while at a rally in Alabama.

But instead of acknowledging the problem, the NFL has decided to double down on its position.

In a statement, NFL Commissioner, Roger Gooddell, said, “The NFL and our players are at our best when we help create a sense of unity in our country and our culture. There is no better example than the amazing response from our clubs and players to the terrible natural disasters we’ve experienced over the last month. Divisive comments like [those of President Trump] demonstrate an unfortunate lack of respect for the NFL, our great game and all of our players, and a failure to understand the overwhelming force for good our clubs and players represent in our communities.”

Only problem is that from day one of this issue the NFL has refused to be a force for good. On the contrary, by refusing to demand that its players stand for the National Anthem, the NFL has fostered only strife and divisiveness — which it ironically claims to want to create — and continued to disrupt any fragile sense of unity our nation presently has. Indeed, it is Gooddell and the NFL that refuse to understand the overwhelming force for good that honoring our flag and our history is for our nation and our community. And, of course, in doubling down on its position, the NFL now finds itself in the untenable position of having to continue to defend an indefensible act.

Like any business, the NFL lives or dies by its income, and their continued disrespect for these sacred American symbols will continue to hurt it. A 2016 leaked memo expressed the NFL’s concern of its 11% drop in viewership. The same memo dismissed any association with the revolting behavior of its players, but a similarly timed Rasmussen poll seemed to indicate otherwise.

This brings us to today. For those of us who care about our flag, our nation, our history, and our National Anthem, it will be a day when we will have no choice but to turn the TV off on Sunday afternoon, or better yet, spend some extra time at church. For others, the opportunity to leave the stadium immediately following the playing of the National Anthem if just one of those players kneels during its playing (which they undoubtedly will in record numbers) will be well worth the price of admission.

Unfortunately, neither the NFL nor the players care for anything other than the continued fiscal stability of its mammoth conglomerate. Today, it’s time to let them know, that none of us, including overpaid employees of the National Football League, is greater than our nation’s flag, its Anthem, or the Country.  And the best way to communicate that message is with our wallets and by directing our attentions elsewhere.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Islamic Supremacists join NFL by taking a knee

The United West stands AGAINST this insane action to disrespect America!

Now, take a look at the headline that the Council on American Islamic Relations – Kentucky (CAIR-KY) has posted on their Facebook page (below).

Understand the meaning of what they say. They continuously state: “Freedom and Justice” as a mantra they promote.

Here is what that phrase really means: Freedom from man’s laws (i.e. the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws) and Justice by following Islamic (Shariah) law.

Yet… the untrained ear thinks like a Westerner and supports CAIR in this endeavor!

#TakeaKnee PHOTO: #CAIR-KY and SHARE-KY “Taking a Knee in Support of Freedom and Justice” Taken at a meeting at Masjid Bilal earlier today (9/24/2017). CAIR-Kentucky Chair Waheeda Muhammad, wMuhammad@cair.com

RELATED ARTICLES:

With Great Sadness, I Did Not Watch the National Football League on Sunday

Trump Takes on the NFL’s Stars… and Stripes

Hundreds of Illegal Voters Revealed in Philadelphia

According to a Philadelphia elections official, hundreds of individuals who are not U.S. citizens have registered to vote in Philadelphia and nearly half of them voted in past elections. Since 2006, 317 registered voters have contacted the City Commissioners, which oversees Philadelphia elections, asking that their registrations be canceled because they are not citizens.

Philly.com reported that many of them registered while either applying for or renewing their driver’s licenses. All applicants were offered the option to register to vote even after providing documentation to DMV officials that although they were in the country legally, they were not citizens.

Al Schmidt, the lone Republican on the Philadelphia election commission, said that all 317 registrations have been canceled and he has been speaking with the Pennsylvania Department of State about the problem.

“For the majority of these people, it’s completely plausible to believe they thought they were eligible to vote,” Schmidt claimed, despite the fact that voter registration applications require an applicant to answer a citizenship question and to swear under oath that he is a U.S. citizen.

“All voter fraud is an irregularity; not all voter irregularities are fraud,” Schmidt said, adding that it is still illegal. “Regardless of the intent, the damage is still the same.”

A year before Schmidt stoked these recent concerns about Philadelphia election integrity, he was fighting a federal lawsuit after failing to disclose the same information about noncitizens and his failure to remove felons from the voter roll.

Public Interest Legal Foundation later published a report detailing 86 cases of noncitizens whose voter registrations were quietly revoked between 2013 and 2015. Almost half of them had voted at least once.

When the commissioner is not busy claiming to find alien voters who actually outed themselves, he still defends the city’s policy of keeping felons registered. Unlike most states, Pennsylvania does not require that someone in prison have his or her record removed or otherwise marked to prevent ineligible voting—a violation of the National Voter Registration Act, an American Civil Rights Union suit argues.

A major component of Philadelphia registering noncitizens involves the National Voter Registration Act, or “motor voter,” which was passed in 1993. It requires state governments to offer voter registration to any eligible person who is applying for or renewing their driver’s license or registration.

This requirement has been misinterpreted by state officials as supposedly prohibiting them from failing to offer everyone who applies for a driver’s license the opportunity to register. This includes cases where the DMV official knows the individual is not a U.S. citizen.

Schmidt’s office has obtained data on 220 of the 317 registrations. Of these 220, 44 voted in one election while 46 voted in multiple elections. It is unclear how many more noncitizens are registered and voting since Philadelphia election officials take absolutely no steps whatsoever to verify the citizenship status of individuals who register to vote. They only found out about the 317 because these registered noncitizens asked to be removed from the rolls.

The Pennsylvania Department of State has a review underway; but has already reported that, since 1972, 1,160 voters statewide have requested their registrations be canceled because they were not citizens. There can be little doubt this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Separately, in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, there have been 98 noncitizens who have canceled their voter registration since 2006. Elections Director Mark Wolosik stated that the aliens became aware of the problem when they were asked about their voter registration by the Department of Homeland Security when they applied for citizenship.

Two other cases of noncitizen registration and voting show that this is not solely a Pennsylvania problem. Earlier this month, Public Interest Legal Foundation published a report after a six-month review of New Jersey voter registrations. It found that 616 noncitizens registered to vote, 76 percent of whom admitted their noncitizenship status at the outset. Yet they were registered by election officials anyway. Some noncitizens were even asked if they wanted to register to vote after presenting a “Green Card” to get their driver’s license.

Added to the Pennsylvania and New Jersey cases, Virginia has also faced a multitude of noncitizens registering to vote. This May, Public Interest Legal Foundation published a report showing that between 2011 and May 2017, Virginia removed 5,556 noncitizens from its voter rolls. Those noncitizens cast 7,474 votes in multiple elections. And in the last 12 years in Virginia, there have been two statewide attorney general races that have been decided by fewer than a thousand votes.

Just more evidence of the kind of problems that exist in our voter registration and election process.

COMMENTARY BY

Meagan Devlin is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his 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.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: Since 2006, 317 registered voters have contacted the City Commissioners, which oversees Philadelphia elections, asking that their registrations be canceled because they are not citizens. (Photo: Caro / Sorge/Newscom) Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

UC Berkeley cancels Free Speech Week events as Hate Speech

University campuses have become safe zones against freedom of speech. University of California at Berkeley was the epicenter of the 1960s Free Speech Movement (FSM). According to the UC Berkeley Visual History: Free Speech Movement 1964 website from September 14th to October 1st, 1964:

[September 1st] Student organizations receive a letter from Dean of Students Katherine Towle announcing that tables will no longer be permitted in this area, and that collecting money or recruiting participants for off-campus political activity and taking positions on off-campus political issues will be prohibited. Over the next two weeks, student groups and administrators exchange demands and responses while demonstrations continue.

[September 14th] Students from SNCC and CORE set up tables at Sather Gate without permits from the Dean of Students. University administration representatives take the names of those manning the tables. Five students and three demonstrators are called for disciplinary action. More than 500 sympathizers join them in what is to become the first of the Sproul Hall sit-ins. A little after 2:00 am, the sit-in is disbanded. The eight students are suspended.

[October 1st] In defiance of the ban on on-campus political activities, at 10:00 am Jack Weinberg from campus CORE sets up a table with political information. At 11:45 am he is arrested after refusing to vacate or identify himself.

Eight UC Berkeley students suspended are: Left to right. Seated: Brian Turner, Sandor Fuchs, Arthur Goldberg, Elizabeth Gardner. Standing: David Lance Goines, Mark Bravo, Don Hatch, Mario Savio.

Eight students were suspended for operating a table on campus without a permit.

Fast forward to September 2017. Students at UC Berkeley are now the subjects of an investigation and possible civil or criminal prosecution and suspension for hanging posters promoting a Free Speech Week.

Watch this video with comments on the cancellation of Free Speech Week hosted by Milo Yiannopoulos with Pamela Geller and Mike Cernovich.

The home of off-campus political activity on political issues is now officially dead at UC Berkeley.

Documented Cases of Religious Discrimination Jump 15% by Ian Snively

Freedom of religion isn’t as protected as some Americans may think. In fact, reported attacks on religion are increasing in the U.S. and, according to First Liberty Institute, the evidence is undeniable.

The 2017 edition of a First Liberty report called “Undeniable” shows threats to Americans’ First Amendment rights spanning the past five years.

The number of documented incidents of religious discrimination grew 15 percent in 2016 compared with 2015. The number of incidents increased by 133 percent, from 600 to more than 1,400, between 2011 and 2016.

“We’re in a battle right now for religious freedom in the future of our country,” First Liberty President Kelly Shackelford said in a Facebook Live video Sept. 12.

Justin Butterfield, editor-in-chief of the study, said in an interview with The Daily Signal that much of the data comes from court filings from across the country.

The research team also collects reports from news outlets and other organizations, including the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist group.

Butterfield, who has a law degree from Harvard, said researchers specifically looked for instances where someone was illegally restricted from, or prosecuted for, practicing his or her faith.

“Undeniable” divides cases into four categories: attacks on religion in public areas and the workplace; in schools; in churches and ministries; and in the military.

First Liberty, a nonprofit legal organization established in 1997, focuses on defending religious freedom in court cases. It has participated and provided information in court cases at all levels, including the Supreme Court. It also publishes reports educating Americans about the relevance of the First Amendment.

First Liberty began research in 2004, when Shackelford and others testified during a Senate hearing on discrimination and intolerance based on religion. Two senators, the late Democrat Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and John Cornyn of Texas, got in touch with Shackelford, wanting to know how prevalent the issue was.

Butterfield said Kennedy and Cornyn asked First Liberty to collect more reports of attacks on religion. The organization  first published “Undeniable” in 2012, and has published a new edition every year since.

One court case in 2012 that he found particularly appalling, Butterfield recalled, was Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. EEOC. In it, a teacher fired by a Lutheran school sued under the Americans With Disabilities Act, even though churches have the freedom to choose leaders.

When asked why he thought more cases of religious intolerance were emerging, Butterfield said that now more than ever in America, the “concept of religious freedom is unpopular.” Some Americans, he said, are “increasingly hostile to religious beliefs that differ from their own.”

But what separates the U.S. from other countries, he said, is Americans’ persistence in fighting for their faith.

“When people stand up to their religious liberties, they win,” Butterfield said.

Ian Snively

Ian Snively is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of San Diego County firefighter Steven Hay prays on Sept. 11 at Grossmont College for those lost in the 9/11 terror attacks. (Photo: Nelvin C. Cepeda/Zuma Press/Newscom) Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

President Trump announces new entry restrictions on Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela

This is fine, since there are only two choices: keep out some harmless people or let in some harmful people. Trump is choosing the former, but if he really wants to keep jihadis out, he is going to have to extend the restrictions eventually to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

“Trump administration announces new travel restrictions,” by Laura Jarrett, CNN, September 24, 2017:

Washington (CNN)The Trump administration has unveiled new travel restrictions on certain foreigners from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen as a replacement to a central portion of its controversial travel ban signed earlier this year.

Chad, North Korea and Venezuela are new to the list of affected countries. The new restrictions on travel vary by country and include a phased-in approach.

For the last three months, the Trump administration used an executive order to ban foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US unless they have a “bona fide” relationship with a person or entity in the country. Those nations include Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan.

Individuals with that “bona fide” exception — such as a foreign grandparent of a US citizen — can still apply for visas until October 18. After that date, the new restrictions on travel will begin….

RELATED ARTICLES:

London’s Muslim mayor says Trump’s rhetoric is like that of the Islamic State

Trump’s New Travel Ban Is Standard Security Policy

Nuclear Terror Attack for Allah

CIA Director, Mike Pompeo recently stated that “the North Koreans have a long history of being proliferators and sharing their knowledge, their technology, their capabilities around the world.” They are sharing these with Iran, having helped North Korea by providing funding, specific nuclear related knowledge and assists them with ballistic missile technology. Between 2013 and 2016, Iranian scientists were present at North Korean nuclear bomb tests.

blue_logo
By Morgan Norval

A 2009 Pew Research survey found that 52% of Americans believe the U.S. is facing a nuclear, biological, or chemical attack. This represents an increase from an earlier Pew poll taken after the 9-11 attack in which 40% of Americans worry that a U.S. city will be destroyed by a terrorist nuclear attack. Both of these polls were taken before the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs took over the headlines.

Are terrorists, on their own, able to produce and deliver a nuclear weapon on a U.S. city? In other words, are we facing a scenario of a mad mullah sitting in a cave in Afghanistan or a tent somewhere in the deserts of the Middle East making a nuclear device? The short answer is no.

However, there are two questions to answer regarding a nuclear attack by terrorists: 1) do the terrorists have the capability—possess the weapon? 2) do the terrorists have the intent to use the nuclear device?

The answer to the second question is obvious—yes.

The terrorists will intend to use the weapon no matter what the cost will be to the terrorists themselves. The numerous suicide bombings, including the 9-11 attacks, are proof positive the weapon will be used when the terrorists have them.

The key question then becomes: “do they have the bomb?”

Having the bomb means they have the capability to use it. That, coupled with their obvious intent to use it, places the nuclear threshold lower than during the Cold War. There the Soviets had the capability to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. but their intent to do so never materialized as the likelihood of mutually assured destruction was a deterrent factor. The current situation is the reverse of the Cold War.

Let’s examine the terrorist capability and dispel the fantasy of the mad mullah in a cave or tent making a nuclear bomb. First of all, it requires fissile material, either enriched U-235 or, better yet, enriched Pu-239. Both of these are virtually impossible to make in a do-it-yourself fashion.

Permit me to indulge for a moment in the apocalyptic fantasy, and assume the terrorists posses the material, that material must be machined to an exacting shape—two hemispheres—in order to produce a proper explosion. If this wasn’t enough of a challenge, the terrorists must wrap the machined hemisphere to exact proportions in a suitable explosive material to drive the two hemispheres together to produce the desired nuclear explosion.

All this will require the following: a) a world class chemist and facility to obtain the material; b) a world class physicist to determine the exact shape of the material; c) the proper tools and machinist to mill the material to the specifics determined by the physicist; d) they must have on hand an expert in handling and wrapping the explosive material milled by the machinist, and; e) last, but far from least, an electronics expert to wire the explosive device, so it will go off when the terrorists want it to detonate.

These precision steps simply rule out the possibility of do-it-yourself terrorists making a bomb. Only nation states have the ability, resources, and secure territory to build a nuclear bomb. Two of those states are Iran and North Korea, both rogue states, and both hoped by the international community to not ever have nuclear weapons. That horse, however, has left the barn.

CIA Director, Mike Pompeo recently stated that “the North Koreans have a long history of being proliferators and sharing their knowledge, their technology, their capabilities around the world.” They are sharing these with Iran, having helped North Korea by providing funding, specific nuclear related knowledge and assists them with ballistic missile technology. Between 2013 and 2016, Iranian scientists were present at North Korean nuclear bomb tests.

The Obama Administration was aware of this collusion but did nothing to stop it as it would have negative consequences for Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Obama’s deal with Iran released billions of dollars in frozen assets and now Iran has the money to buy missile and nuclear technology from North Korea. Iran, to give an impression of complying with the nuclear agreement, outsources much of its nuclear technology development to North Korea.

We are faced with two nuclear powers that hate America and have the capacity to attack the U.S. in some manner whether by missile or bomb aboard a tramp sea vessel that sails into one of our ports before detonating in the ship’s hold.

We are now back to the question of intent—do they intend to carry out a nuclear attack on the U.S.? Both rogue regimes have unstable leadership, which adds another disturbing element to the intent question.

North Korea’s leader is an impulsive, paranoid, egotistical individual who doesn’t care a whit about the consequences of starving people under his rule. The only hope is that he is not suicidal.

Iran is a different matter altogether.

The Iranian regime is awaiting the return of the 12th Iman or Mahdi and many in the regime believe instigating catastrophic events will hasten his return to save Shia Islam. Allah, in their view has condemned the United States. The faithful only had to find the means to carry out this condemnation. Nuclear weapons are the means and they can readily find suicide bombers to transport and detonate a nuclear device in their selected U.S. target.

Joel Rosenberg, author of The Twelfth Iman and The Tehran Initiative writes on his blog that “Shia Muslim leaders are convinced that the Mahdi’s arrival and reign is imminent and the way to hasten or accelerate his return” is to annihilate Israel and the United States.

In a reference to the Iranian documentary, The Coming, he says “[i]t explains how recent geopolitical events are, in the view of Shia eschatology experts, signs that we are living in the last days and that the Twelfth Imam or Mahdi is coming to earth at any moment to establish a global Islamic kingdom or caliphate to rule the world.”

But there is a problem for Iran in this scenario—because of nuclear forensics they can’t deny they had originated and supplied the device.

If Iran did carry out such an attack on America, our scientists would have the forensic ability to analyze radioactive debris, following the terrorist explosion. Using this debris, they would have the further ability to ID the source of the bomb material and enable a reconstruction of its key features. Scientists can trace the material to the original reactor or enrichment facility—a national government secure facility, not a mullah in a mountain cave or a desert tent.

Tracing the source would enable the U.S to launch a nuclear counter-strike against the offending state—Iran, North Korea—and utterly destroy it, if the political leadership of the U.S. had the will.

However, a political leadership that refused to retaliate would most certainly feel the wrath of most American citizens. Talk about grounds for impeachment and removal from office; failure to retaliate would certainly set in motion such a process. This might deter North Korea but might not deter Iran, who thinks they are carrying out Allah’s will and gaining paradise at the same time.

As a result, it is important that the U.S. upgrade its nuclear arsenal and delivery systems, and make it clear to everyone that a nuclear attack on the U.S. and its allies, will result in a rain of destruction pouring down on those who planned, supplied, and launched the terrorist attack.


Morgan Norval is the founder and Executive Director of the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research and a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis of the online-conservative-journalism center at the Washington-based foundation.

Stunning Surprise Looms in German Election: Nationalist Alternative for Germany Party Headed for Big Finish

A just-completed “Deutschland Trend” poll by ARD (German Radio) showed the CDU-CSU leading the SPD in seats for the Bundestag by a striking margin of 37% to 21%. If accurate, this means that the SPD – considered one of the two leading parties since Germany was West Germany from 1945 until it was re-unified with East Germany in 1990 – will have turned in its worst-ever performance in a federal election.

blue_logo
By John Gizzi

With days before German voters go to the polls September 24, all signs point to the outcome widely predicted when the national election campaign commenced earlier this year: Chancellor Angela Merkel and her CDU-CSU (conservative) Party will romp to a fourth consecutive triumph over the SPD (Social Democratic) Party.

But the truly big story of the German election may just be the likely third-place finisher, the relatively new (four years old) nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) Party, now shown by most polls to be running third on a hardline platform of expelling illegal immigrants and banning the burka.

In a year in which nationalist parties such as Marine LePen’s National Front (FN) and Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom fared worse than expected at the polls in France and the Netherlands respectively, the AfD is headed for a strong showing in races for the 630 seats in the German Bundestag (parliament).

Such a showing is sure to attract worldwide coverage and give the AfD the status it so desperately needs to be considered a full-fledged voice of opposition to Merkel and her admission of nearly one million refugees to Germany. And it could demonstrate to the world that the “hardline” on illegal immigration is alive and well in Europe.

The British tabloid, The Sun, headlined the Berlin terrorist attack in December that killed 12 after a truck ploughed through the Christmas market, “THEY ARE MERKEL’S DEAD,” blaming the Chancellor’s “open door” migration policy.

Mutti and Martin

Admittedly, Merkel, 63, has been bruised by voter animosity because of the one-million-plus refugees in Germany since 2015. But she is nevertheless still perceived by the much of the electorate as “Mutti” (Mommy) or “the Iron Chancellor”—the lone politician capable of steering Germany through what appears to be a stormy future of an uncertain European economy, serious questions about admission of refugees, and Berlin’s complex relationship with Donald Trump’s Washington.

In contrast, the opposition SPD (Social Democratic) party has suffered because its leader, former European Parliament President Martin Schulz, never lived up to positive advance reviews when he became its nominee for chancellor.

Former North Rhine-Westphalia Mayor and bookseller Schulz’s manifesto of “social justice” calls for raising taxes on the rich and new investments in infrastructure. But in a country where employment and wages both rose this year, it just didn’t resonate.

In addition, after four years as junior partner in a “grand coalition” headed by Merkel’s CDU-CSU, the SPD has had a difficult time criticizing the status quo in Berlin. After all, they are part of it.

A just-completed “Deutschland Trend” poll by ARD (German Radio) showed the CDU-CSU leading the SPD in seats for the Bundestag by a striking margin of 37% to 21%. If accurate, this means that the SPD – considered one of the two leading parties since Germany was West Germany from 1945 until it was re-unified with East Germany in 1990 – will have turned in its worst-ever performance in a federal election.

Perhaps the “hidden story” of the German election lies in the remaining figures in the ARD survey. Five years after it was born, the nationalist Alternative for Germany Party (AfD) is now running third with 11%. Then comes the Linke (Far Left) Party with 10%, the libertarian Free Democrats at 9% and the environmentalist Greens 8%.

“There’s A Growing General Nervousness”

Reporting on Merkel’s twilight days on the stump, Martin Klingst, senior political correspondent for the venerable German publication Die Ziet, told this reporter that “she’s often confronted with loud protest, mainly coming from AfD-sympathizers.”

“Wherever Merkel gives speeches,” said Klingst, “and this is especially true in the Eastern parts of Germany, crowds of protesters show up and shout ‘Go away! Merkel must go!’ They call her a traitor and un-German.”

He added that “this is very unpleasant, and no one knows how this will translate on Election Day.”

Founded in April 2013, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) was initially a vehicle to protest the EU’s policy of not ejecting Member-nations that accumulate major debt such as Greece.

Over the next four years, AfD expanded its platform to become Germany’s premier anti-Establishment party: vowing to take Germany out of the Euro, secure the borders, and ban the burka for Muslim women.

Like LePen’s National Front and Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, the AfD strongly favors a warmer relationship with Russia under Vladimir Putin. At events for cultivating the estimated 2.5 million Russian immigrants to Germany, the AfD offers German translations of Putin’s speeches.

In 2013, AfD fell just short of the 5% of the vote required for seats in the Bundestag. A year later, it scored handsomely in races for seats in the European Parliament. It has since won seats in 13 of the 16 state parliaments.

Regarding the AfD’s likely performance in this election, former German Defense Minister Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg told this reporter, “They have initially surged because of the refugee crisis and they are now profiting from the fact that the CDU and SPD are hard to distinguish. A two digit result is unfortunately not impossible.”

Die Ziet’s Klingst goes a step further: “People who tend to vote for more extreme parties and candidates often tend to not honestly reveal their choices in the surveys. I’m not sure myself, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the AfD gained between 10 and 14 %. And, as it has happened with Trump, it also happens with the AfD – they attract voters who’ve not voted for a long time.”

Like many growing parties, the AfD has its disparate personalities. Beatrix von Storch, one of its MEPs (Members of European Parliament), is considered a highly articulate spokesperson on the EU and economic issues, AfD Deputy Leader Alexander Gauland, 76, is an historian and past official in Merkel’s CDU. Former Goldman Sachs management consultant Alice Weidel, 38, leads the party’s lists for seats in the Bundestag. She also makes no secret about being a lesbian.

Other AfD leaders are more controversial. Bjorn Hocke, an AfD candidate from the eastern part of Germany, created a furor earlier this year when he said Germany should stop atoning for Hitler and the Nazis. Last year, Party Leader Frauke Petry made international news last year when she suggested the police “use firearms if necessary” to “prevent illegal border crossings.”

Trying to explain the sudden rise of the AfD, Martin Klingst commented: “You can observe many of the same frustrations you find among Trump voters: the feeling of belonging to the losers in a globalized world; anger at politicians who seem to be removed and disconnected to ordinary people and not concerned about social and financial problems; scape goating others for your problems; and of course real problems in daily life: competition with immigrants and refugees about low-paid jobs and affordable housing; living in areas where you are more confronted with the negative sides of immigration: rise of crimes, of street violence, of sexual assaults, of misbehavior.” He added, “There’s a growing general nervousness here.”


John Gizzi is the White House correspondent and chief political columnist for Newsmax. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis of the conservative-online-journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

RELATED ARTICLE: Mama Merkel could have a rough next 4 years

The Political Purpose of Anti-Semitism

Anti-Semitism originated during biblical times when Jesus Christ, the most famous Jew in the world, left traditional Judaism to create a new religion. Christ’s first century Jewish following was eventually expelled from the synagogues and Christianity established an identity separate from Rabbinic Judaism. Followers of Christ were called Christians and the original Jewish population was divided.

The Old Testament remained with the Jews and the New Testament belonged to the Christians. Jesus was a Nazarene and lived most of his life in the town of Nazareth in the province of the Galilee. Israel’s history has been a continuous struggle for national sovereignty. Israel was invaded and occupied by Babylonians, Persians, Syrians, Greeks, and Romans but also enjoyed periods of sovereign self-rule under Hebrew Kings. At the time of Jesus the Romans occupied Israel.

During the time of Jesus Judaism was divided into four main groups. The Zealots were revolutionaries who chose a military option to free themselves from the Romans. The Sadducees were wealthy pragmatists who tried to negotiate and compromise with the Romans. The Pharisees chose spiritual purity and strict adherence to the Torah. The Essenes withdrew from the struggle by committing themselves to monastic life waiting for God to save them.

Jesus brought a form of non-violent resistance that resonated among the people and empowered them. During the time of Jesus politics and religion were deeply intertwined so his influential teachings and growing popularity were a threat to Rome and to traditional Judaism. Jesus was sentenced to death by Romans on the charge of political treason for claiming to be “King of the Jews.” The Roman occupiers of Israel considered Jesus to be a political threat and the Jewish leaders considered him to be a religious threat. Both were responsible for his crucifixion yet the Gospel narratives only blame the Jews – it was the beginning of institutionalized anti-semitism for political purposes.

Early Christianity in the Roman empire was considered a sub-sect of Judaism. In 64 AD Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the Great Fire of Rome and the scapegoating, persecution, and killing of Christians continued until Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and proclaimed the Edict of Milan in 313 AD which insured benevolent treatment for Christians within the Roman Empire. Some consider the Edict of Milan a political pact between Romans and Christians to stabilize the country’s growing instability. Monotheistic Christianity was incompatible with the traditional polytheistic “pagan” Roman religion but Christianity prevailed and became the official religion of Rome in 380 AD under Emperor Theodosius I. The persecution of Christian and non-Christian heretics followed.

Government sanctioned anti-semitism has been used for political purpose since Theodosius I. It is an extremely effective political tactic that deflects attention away from the government’s own failures and focuses attention on the blamed target. Wikipedia lists some examples: The Rhineland massacres preceding the First Crusade in 1096, the Edict of Expulsion from England in 1290, the Massacre of Spanish Jews in 1391, the persecution of the Spanish Inquisition, the expulsion from Spain in 1492, the Cossack massacres in Ukraine from 1648-1657, various anti-Jewish pogroms in the Russian Empire from 1821-1906, the Dreyfus affair in France, the Holocaust in German-occupied Europe, official Soviet anti-Jewish policies, and Arab and Muslim involvement in the Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries.

The political purpose of anti-semitism is to galvanize support for a political movement during times of social and political upheaval. Anti-semitism in America today is a variation on the deflection theme because it is not President Trump’s administration that supports anti-semitism it is Obama’s Leftist/Islamist axis legacy that is trying to depose President Trump. Obama’s eight year radical socialist, anti-semitic, anti-American, pro-Muslim term encouraged Leftist/Islamist anti-semitism. After Hillary’s stunning loss to President Trump the globalist elite Deep State continued funding Obama’s anti-semitic “blame the Jew” policies through his “resistance” movement. The leftover Obama saboteurs and globalist advisors continue to foment the anti-semitism in Trump’s government.

The current anti-semitism in America is being fomented to solidify the Leftist/Islamist axis and deflect public attention from the movement’s anti-American platform and their intention to destroy American democracy. The concurrent restrictions on freedom of speech in the United States is being instigated by the Deep State’s attempt to further destabilize and destroy President Trump’s government.

Today the rise in anti-semitism worldwide and at home is a consequence of the globalist initiative that is relying on the Leftist/Islamist anti-semitic screeds that blame Israel and the Jews for the chaos in the world. Here we go again. It is the globalist elite – not the Jewish people – who require chaos for transformative change. The political purpose of the anti-semitism they foment is to deflect attention from their own intention to internationalize the world under their own dystopian rule of one-world government.

Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany’s economic problems to galvanize support for the Reich and deflect attention from its expansionist goal to take over Europe and the world. Islam blames the Jews to galvanize support for the caliphate and deflect attention from its expansionist goal to impose sharia law worldwide. The Leftists blame the Jews in support of “social justice” and their identity politics. The activists of the Leftist/Islamist axis comprise the useful idiots for the globalist just like the Japanese were the useful idiots for Hitler. Hitler was an Aryan supremacist – does anyone actually believe Hitler’s sincerity in naming the Japanese “honorary Aryans” or that Hitler would ever abide by any pact he made with them?

The current trend of anti-semitism fomented by the Leftist/Islamist axis is assaulting American separation of Church and State with its demands for political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism. No one will be safe or protected if this continues because if the Leftist/Islamist axis is successful in dismantling the foundational principles of America they will eventually destroy American sovereignty.

For 241 years the United States remained a shining example of the intentional separation between Church and State. Tomorrow it may not be so. The conscious effort by our founding fathers’ to disallow the intrusion of religion into politics has provided protection for America’s diverse citizenry including its Jewish population. For the first time in United States history free speech is not protected. The First Amendment is being challenged by censorship and a preference for Islam disguised as political correctness. Any criticism of Islam is being labeled Islamophobic hate speech. Do Americans really want Islamic sharia law forbidding criticism of Islam to replace our First Amendment? I don’t.

FATWA: Hunted in America

Pamela Geller’s shocking new book published by Milo’s New Publishing House, Dangerous Books

At a major news conference kicking off the now cancelled “free Speech Week” at Berkeley San Francisco, Milo announced the launch of the shocking new book, Fatwa: Hunted in America. It will be the first book published by Milo’s groundbreaking new publishing house, Dangerous Books. Old school publishers would be terrified to publish this book.

Get it. Now. Support the work. Support new media.

Look what they are they saying:

When Pamela Geller talks about Islam, she does it with both barrels. For sparing us the platitudes when confronting this direct and present danger, she is reviled by society’s bien pensant. In this book, she recounts her adventures in “hate speech,” or as we used to call it, “telling the truth.”  It is both an enlightening and gripping tale.

—- Ann Coulter, Bestselling Author

“How did a nice Jewish girl from Long Island become the Joan of Arc of the counterjihad movement? In this remarkably absorbing page-turner of a book, Pamela Geller tells her story – a story of courage in the face not only of the jihadist enemy but of a veritable army of apologists, appeasers, pacifists, whitewashers, self-styled “bridge-builders,” and assorted cowards, careerists, and sellouts. Armed only with the truth and a passionate love of American liberty, Geller has survived their smears and kept hope alive. It’s an inspiring story that I hope will encourage other freedom-lovers to stand up and be counted before it’s too late.” 

— Bruce Bawer, author of The Victims’ Revolution: The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind.

Pamela Geller’s fascinating book is the vivid chronicle of a courageous woman who fought vigilantly and with fierceness, confronting dangers, threats and vile defamation, to preserve the American soul of freedom and democratic liberties. A most actual record of our perilous time.

—- Bat Ye’or, Historian, author of Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis, and of Europe, Globalization and the Coming Universal Caliphate

“Pamela Geller is a towering hero of freedom. If free people survive into the next generation, which is by no means assured, Pamela Geller will be celebrated as one of those who stood against the tide of Leftism and Islamic supremacism when it was at its apogee. No proper history of the freedom of the human spirit in our darkening age can be written without including her.”

—- Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.”

“Free-speech advocates who don’t make waves are not doing their jobs. Pamela Geller writes a guidebook here for Paladins of the First Amendment.”

—- Ambassador John Bolton

Pope Francis accused of propagating heresy

In a document titled Correctio Filialis De Haeresibus Propagatis (Correction subsidiary of heresies propagator) Catholic scholars and lay people world wide have in a letter to Pope Francis raised the issue of heresy in Church doctrine. The letter was sent to Pope Francis, when there was no reply, these Catholics published their letter to the world on September 24th, 2017.

The document deals with two issues facing the Catholic Church, modernism and the influence of Martin Luther on Pope Francis. The document states:

Scandal concerning faith and morals has been given to the Church and to the world by the publication of Amoris laetitia and by other acts through which Your Holiness has sufficiently made clear the scope and purpose of this document. Heresies and other errors have in consequence spread through the Church; for while some bishops and cardinals have continued to defend the divinely revealed truths about marriage, the moral law, and the reception of the sacraments, others have denied these truths, and have received from Your Holiness not rebuke but favour. Those cardinals, by contrast, who have submitted dubia to Your Holiness, in order that by this time-honoured method the truth of the gospel might be easily affirmed, have received no answer but silence. [Emphasis added]

In May 2015 Russ Douthat in The Atlantic column titled Will Pope Francis Break the Church? wrote:

The Church is not yet in the grip of a revolution. The limits, theological and practical, on papal power are still present, and the man who was Jorge Bergoglio has not done anything that explicitly puts them to the test. But his moves and choices (and the media coverage thereof) have generated a revolutionary atmosphere around Catholicism. For the moment, at least, there is a sense that a new springtime has arrived for the Church’s progressives. And among some conservative Catholics, there is a feeling of uncertainty absent since the often-chaotic aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, in the 1960s and ’70s.

It appears that the Church is now in the grip of a “counter revolution” against the policies and politics of Pope Francis.

The following is a summary of Correctio Filialis De Haeresibus Propagatis:

A 25-page letter signed by 40 Catholic clergy and lay scholars was delivered to Pope Francis on August 11th. Since no answer was received from the Holy Father, it is being made public today, 24th September, Feast of Our Lady of Ransom and of Our Lady of Walsingham. The letter, which is open to new signatories, now has the names of 62 clergy and lay scholars from 20 countries, who also represent others lacking the necessary freedom of speech. It has a Latin title: ‘Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis’ (literally, ‘A filial correction concerning the propagation of heresies’). It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church. These 7 heresies are expressed by the signatories in Latin, the official language of the Church.

This letter of correction has 3 main parts. In the first part, the signatories explain why, as believing and practising Catholics, they have the right and duty to issue such a correction to the supreme pontiff. Church law itself requires that competent persons not remain silent when the pastors of the Church are misleading the flock. This involves no conflict with the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, since the Church teaches that a pope must meet strict criteria before his utterances can be considered infallible. Pope Francis has not met these criteria. He has not declared these heretical positions to be definitive teachings of the Church, or stated that Catholics must believe them with the assent of faith. The Church teaches no pope can claim that God has revealed some new truth to him, which it would be obligatory for Catholics to believe.

The second part of the letter is the essential one, since it contains the ‘Correction’ properly speaking. It lists the passages of Amoris laetitia in which heretical positions are insinuated or encouraged, and then it lists words, deeds, and omissions of Pope Francis which make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that he wishes Catholics to interpret these passages in a way that is, in fact, heretical. In particular, the pope has directly or indirectly countenanced the beliefs that obedience to God’s Law can be impossible or undesirable, and that the Church should sometimes accept adultery as compatible with being a practising Catholic.

The final part, called ‘Elucidation’, discusses two causes of this unique crisis. One cause is ‘Modernism’. Theologically speaking, Modernism is the belief that God has not delivered definite truths to the Church, which she must continue to teach in exactly the same sense until the end of time. Modernists hold that God communicates to mankind only experiences., which human beings can reflect on, so as to make various statements about God, life and religion; but such statements are only provisional, never fixed dogmas. Modernism was condemned by Pope St Pius X at the start of the 20th century, but it revived in the middle of the century. The great and continuing confusion caused in the Catholic Church by Modernism obliges the signatories to describe the true meaning of ‘faith’, ‘heresy’, ‘revelation’, and ‘magisterium’.

A second cause of the crisis is the apparent influence of the ideas of Martin Luther on Pope Francis. The letter shows how Luther, the founder of Protestantism, had ideas on marriage, divorce, forgiveness, and divine law which correspond to those which the pope has promoted by word, deed and omission. It also notes the explicit and unprecedented praise given by Pope Francis to the German heresiarch.

The signatories do not venture to judge the degree of awareness with which Pope Francis has propagated the 7 heresies which they list. But they respectfully insist that he condemn these heresies, which he has directly or indirectly upheld.

The signatories profess their loyalty to the holy Roman Church, assure the pope of their prayers, and ask for his apostolic blessing.

VIEW HERE FULL THE DOCUMENT HERE

I was asked by a Rabbi what I thought, as a Catholic, about Pope Francis. My reply was, “I don’t want a Catholic Church that changes with the world. I want a Catholic Church that changes the world.” Perhaps this quote by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen says it best.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of The Atlantic.

Remember it was McConnell who endorsed Charlie Crist for the U.S. Senate — Vote for Judge Roy Moore

Senator Mitch McConnell has endorsed candidates that follow the swamp’s agenda, not the will of the people. We in Florida remember when, on the same day that Charlie Crist announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell endorsed him.

McConnell did not want the people of Florida to choose their senator, rather he wanted the people of Florida to elect his pick.

CNN’s Mark Preston and Peter Hamby in May 2009 reported:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, endorsed Florida Gov. Charlie Crist for Senate Tuesday, yet another sign that national Republicans are looking to avoid a GOP primary in the Sunshine State.

Crist announced earlier in the day that he would not seek another term as governor, opting instead for a senatorial bid. National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn immediately announced that he was backing Crist over former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in the GOP primary.

[ … ]

“Decisions are being made every day in Washington that have a direct impact upon the lives of all Americans and we need Charlie Crist in the U.S. Senate to ensure that those decisions will benefit the citizens of Florida,” McConnell said in a statement released by Crist’s campaign. [Emphasis added]

We all know now that Charlie Crist, once a Republican, is now a Democrat member of Congress. So much for the political savvy of Mitch McConnell.

Now we have the very same McConnell supporting another Charlie Crist republican in the state of Alabama.

Constitution.com reports:

“President Donald Trump admitted to Alabama voters Friday that he might have made a mistake by endorsing appointed Alabama Senator Luther Strange in the Republican primary.

“’We have to be loyal in life,’ Trump said. ‘There is something called loyalty, and I might have made a mistake and I’ll be honest, I might have made a mistake.’

“Trump appeared in Alabama for a campaign rally for Strange, despite polling showing him still lagging behind his primary challenger conservative Judge Roy Moore.

“Trump predicted that if Strange lost, his political opponents and the media would cite it as a big loss for Trump, but that he wanted to repay the appointed senator for his loyal support in the Senate.

“’Both are good men,’ Trump said, referring to Strange and Moore.

“He specified that his decision was about loyalty and picking a candidate that could win in a general election.

“’Luther will definitely win … Roy has a very good chance of not winning in the general election,’ Trump said.

“But he promised that if Moore won the primary, he would be ‘campaigning like hell’ for him in the general election.”

Watch this video to understand that its deja vu all over again:

Judge Roy Moore is the right man at the right time. He will work to make Alabama and America great again.

Please support Judge Roy Moore to represent the great state of Alabama in the U.S. Senate.

The Next Scandal in the Church?

William Kilpatrick writes that the Church, because of its endorsement of unlimited immigration, is complicit in the rise of Muslim sex abuse in Europe.

In a recent article, Fr. James Schall, S.J. argues that “The only real way to eliminate the historic aggressiveness of Islam is to convert its believers.”  Yet if you had to bet, “the conversion of the world to Islam is, in the long run, more likely than its conversion to Christianity.”

From a purely human perspective, the conversion of Muslims is a tall order. It’s not just that Islam is a tough nut to crack, it’s also that some today – usually Catholics – have an aversion to conversion. (Even the pope had denounced “proselytism.”)  In good multicultural fashion, they don’t want to fiddle with the unique cultural identity of the “other.”

These fashionable ideas won’t attract many Muslims, and it has an alienating effect on Christians as well. The Church in the West has been losing members as a result of the impression it gives that other faiths are just as valid as our own. So before undertaking the conversion of the Muslim world, the Church needs first to do something about the deconversion of Christians.

Ironically, one of the factors that is driving people out of the Church is its response to Islamic terror. After every terrorist attack, the Vatican (or some prominent bishop) assures us that the violence has nothing to do with Islam, which we are told is a “religion of peace” – a response not a whit different from the politically correct, secular liberal response.

In fact, Church leaders often put secular leaders to shame in their advocacy for Islam. The Obama administration called for the admittance of 10,000 Syrian refugees; the USCCB called for 100,000. When European leaders began to admit that Muslim migration should be restricted for the sake of national security, Pope Francis responded by insisting that the safety of migrants was more important than national security.

There are no statistics about how many Catholics are leaving the Church because of its welcoming attitude towards Islam, but there is anecdotal evidence.

Click here to read the rest of Mr. Kilpatrick’s column . . .

Why Americans Hate the Media

I’ll make this quick and easy. The mainstream media is not trusted by a large part of the country because they have an entrenched liberal worldview bias they refuse to acknowledge or make any attempts to ameliorate.

The mainstream media is hated by an also large part of the country because of the sharply different ways it covers Republicans and Democrats and now how it covers President Trump and everyone else…and a heavy dose of disconnected arrogance. This has resulted in abysmal trust ratings among Americans.

A recent NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found fully 37 percent said they trust the media “not at all.” Another 31 percent said they have “not very much” trust in the news media. But more telling is the worldview breakdown on “How much do you trust the media?”:

Worldview                    A great deal   A good amount   Not very much   Not at all

Very liberal – Liberal               15%               40%                 27%                   17%

Moderate                                   5%                25%                 40%                   28%

Conservative –                           5%                9%                   28%                   57%
Very conservative

So the more liberal a person, the more they trust the media and the more conservative the less they trust the media. Among moderates, more distrust than trust.

This trust goes to the brink of absurdity in this strange poll question by Fox News Poll, which was largely negative about Trump — so hardly biased. When asked who was a bigger threat to the country, white supremacists or the media, 47 percent of respondents said white supremacists, while 40% said the media and 9 percent said they were the same. So half of Americans say the media is an equal or bigger threat to America than white supremacists. That is absurdly close, and even 24 percent of non-whites said the media.

Yet, when you break it down by Republican and Democrat, 12% of Democrats said the media while 69 percent of Republicans said the media. Independents were split evenly, within the margin of error — about half with an opinion said it was the media. See the chart below for more

(Apologies for the stupid small chart.)

And yet, with these straightforward, shocking numbers staring them right in the face, the media still does not see it’s liberal media bias as a problem — or even a real thing!

This plays out obviously in news coverage — obvious unless you are liberal, as the data shows. So liberal media consumers — and journalists — are the only two groups that see no obvious issue. It’s like the final scales should be falling, and yet the media remains utterly blind.

Here’s how it looks in coverage during Obama

In the eight years of President Obama’s presidency, we saw:

  • North Korea miniaturized its nuclear weapons and reached the point of delivering them on ICBMs, meaning they can reach at least half of the United States with nuclear weapons. Media yawned.
  • The creation of the worst treaty since Munich with the signing of the Iran nuclear accords and providing the avowed enemy of the United States with billions of dollars in cash — flown to them on an airplane! Media covered glowingly.
  • The precipitous and disastrous pullout from Iraq and red-line waffling in Syria that opened the door to the world scourge that is ISIS and the cleansing of Christians and Yazidis from the region. Media pointed out George W. Bush started the Iraq War and ISIS is really bad. Was Obama president then?
  • The weakening of the United States military through funding cuts and the emboldenment of Russian aggression in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria, leaving the free West in an overall weaker position. Media reported that Russia is bad!
  • The worst economy since the end of World War II, a “recovery” that was so weak that virtually no one could feel it as wages were stagnant, jobs below population growth and a sharp rise in income disparity. Media reminded us how terrible things were when Obama took office and that Republicans blocked all these good ideas.
  • The ruination of the healthcare system in the country to the point that even Democrats know that Obamacare has failed and needs dramatic changes. Media reported how hard it was for people to get good healthcare. The system’s broken! Was Obama president then?
  • Scandals such as the IRS targeting conservative groups, a la Richard Nixon; Obama’s knowing about Hillary’s private and unprotected email server; Obama seizing AP reporters’ phone records; Benghazi; gun-running Operation Fast and Furious; and so many more were big yawners to the media. Nothing to see here.

For eight years, the coverage was soft and largely positive. Many press conferences were downright fawning.

Here’s how it looks in coverage during Trump

But almost overnight, the media found its fangs again. Compare the Obama coverage to just the first few months of the Trump presidency.

  • Protest! Protest! Protest! Protest! Protest! But the unending protests and favorable coverage seem to have one point: Undermine the President. The obvious agenda and funding behind the protests go unreported in the mainstream media. But any similar protests of an Obama presidency would have been greeted with racism, racism, racism. In fact, that is what the media turned the Tea Party image into: Racists.
  • Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Russia! Hysterical coverage of the longed for collusion between Trump and Russia has come up empty. Months of coverage and wild, irresponsible speculation meant to undermine the President has resulted in…the equivalent of finding Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster. Lots of nothing.
  • Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! Nazi! And of course the media hyper-focuses on a few hundred white supremacist Nazis and does everything possible to tie Trump to them, then all Trump supporters to them, then all Republicans. The media makes the overt attempt to delegitimize the President, his supporters and the Republican Party. At the same time, they call the violent, masked mix of Marxists and anarchists that make up Antifa the good guys. Why? Because they oppose Trump and his supporters. The fact that Antifa was being violent against conservatives long before Charlottesville, and before Trump goes largely unreported. The media only noticed them at Charlottesville and called them merely “counter-protesters.”

The media has played the biggest role in polarizing Americans and breaking our ability to communicate with each other — more than the two parties and even the protesters. And for that, a very large chunk of Americans hate them or simply dismiss them as untrustworthy.

Few options to the deep media damage

Major Garrett, now with CNN, recently said on the Hugh Hewitt radio show that his colleagues need to cover the president straightforward and honest. Just report what he says and does, and avoid all of the opinionating and pontificating that has erupted since January.

Good for him. That’s true…as far as it goes. But the media needs to step back much further and choose to cover the same types of stories with the same news judgment as it did with, say, Barak Obama. Otherwise, the above comparisons show that even following Major Garrett’s recommendation, coverage would still be terribly slanted.

The traditional media may well have passed the point of no return on this front with their deeply entrenched biases, incapable of seeing both the error of their way and the damage it has done to their industry. (See poll results above.)

The hatred and distrust of the mainstream media will just continue to feed the division between a left-leaning media establishment and a right-leaning media establishment and Americans choosing which meal they will dine on.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.