We Don’t Need Stronger Gun Laws. We Need Stronger Communities!

Here we go again. Another school massacre and another overreaction by liberals who want to play politics with the Second Amendment.

On Valentine’s Day, 17 students and faculty members were murdered by a former classmate at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., a small community west of Boca Raton.

As tragic as the murders were, sometimes I am confused by the way people react to tragedies. In the aftermath of a mass shooting, many people want the government to immediately pass new gun control laws. The hard truth is that there is absolutely nothing the government can do to protect you from tragedies like the horrific massacre in Parkland.

Tragedy, by definition is, “an event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe.”

Sometimes good people are beset by tragedies, randomly and without warning.

If you ban guns, do you really think violent tragedies will go away? One need look no further than Japan to find the answer.

In Japan, it is illegal to possess, carry, sell or buy guns. So, it is extremely rare, if ever, for a shooting death to occur in Japan.

For example, in 2014, Japan had six gun related deaths compared to 33,599 in the U.S.

In 2016, however, nineteen people were killed and 26 injured in a stabbing massacre in Tokyo, which was Japan’s deadliest mass killing since World War II. In 2008, a man ran over a group of people with his truck and then stabbed 18, killing seven in Tokyo’s Akihabara gaming district. In 2001, eight children were killed when a former employee, a janitor, entered an elementary school in Osaka and stabbed them to death.

So, the point is that even if guns were outlawed in the U.S., a person determined to commit an act of violence will always find a weapon of choice to unleash their diabolical schemes.

Irresponsible mainstream media outlets take advantage of these crises, broadcasting the anguish and misery of distraught family members just to boost their own ratings. As they say, “if it bleeds, it leads.”

Let’s game out one of the liberal arguments that outlawing guns is the solution to these mass shootings, that seem to happen with more frequency.

So, Japan has outlawed guns. Now, killers in that country use knives and cars to inflict massive carnage upon their fellow citizens.

If the U.S. outlawed guns and preemptively banned, let’s say, ice picks and utility knives, then individuals that are committed to killing other people will simply use whatever else they can get their hands on. Cars and trucks might become the weapons of choice; should we ban them, too? If we go down that road, where will it end?

What liberals refuse to address is the lack of values and morality in our society. Religion instills in a society a sense of right and wrong and demands some type of structure in our lives, but liberals have run prayer out of our nation’s schools; and any mentions or references to God in the public square are questioned, mocked or maligned outright.

Regardless of one’s religious beliefs, can anyone legitimately argue that the Ten Commandments are not good standards for any society to live by? Thou shalt not murder, lie, covet, etc.

In American society today, many people have bought into the notion that man, not God, is the measure of all things. There are no rules. No restraints. American society has cast the traditional nuclear family by the wayside. For liberals, normal is whatever you feel like doing at any given moment.

Liberal Hollywood elites, the most vociferous advocates for gun control, refuse to take responsibility for the violence and lack of morals that are constant themes in their movies and TV shows; most of them won’t even acknowledge the negative effects that their industry has on the minds of young people.

The result is generations of children who become desensitized to violence and mayhem, who then lash out in real life, without ever considering the repercussions of their actions.

These kids don’t wake up one day and decide to go on murderous rampages at their schools, simply because someone picked on them during lunch or they experienced a bad breakup. We have all gone through that as teenagers and young adults and we got through it without killing and maiming dozens of our classmates.

What is different now? Today, it’s very hard to get teenagers and young adults to think critically about the world they live in. No one wants to accept personal responsibility for anything that happens in their lives; everyone gets a trophy; everything bad that happens to them is always someone else’s fault.

The state of Florida and the F.B.I. are going to spend millions of dollars trying to figure out why this kid killed students and faculty members at that school in Parkland. In reality, there are no simple solutions to most problems that we wrestle with as a society.

Unfortunately, sometimes bad things happen to good people and banning guns won’t change that.

RELATED ARTICLE: School Shooting Was Outcome of Broward County School Board Policy – Now Local and National Politicians Weaponize Kids for Ideological Intents…

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

Survey: 82% Feel Proud to be an American

The American Culture & Faith Institute produced a report titled American Views on Patriotism. The report was based upon a October – November 2017 a survey that asked, “do you feel proud to be an American?” The results found that 46% answered “completely” and 36% answered “mostly”, for a total of 82%. Here is the breakdown on the “I feel proud to be an American” question.

Cultural view

  • Conservative 65%
  • Moderate 43%
  • Liberal 37%

Political Party

  • Republican 66%
  • Democrat 43%
  • Independent 43%

According to the American Culture & Faith Institute survey:

Beyond those designations, the [American Views on Patriotism] survey also revealed that most adults have lukewarm views regarding their other commitments and self-perceptions. For instance:

  • Slightly less than half “completely” embrace the idea that they “feel proud to be an American.” Another one-third (36%) say that description is “mostly accurate.”
  • Just three out of ten adults (29%) say are accurately described as wanting the government to stay out of their life.
  • Interestingly, most Americans seem aware that their political views are not “clear and unchanging.” Three-quarters of adults recognize their ambiguity on political matters.
  • Only one-quarter of adults (26%) firmly acknowledge their tolerance of different social and political views.
  • Surprisingly few people (12%) strongly affirmed their standing as a “culture warrior.” In fact, a larger share of the public (19%) completely rejects that self-description.
  • While the proportion of people who are proud to be an American is limited, only 10% say that preferring to live in another country is a completely accurate description of their views. Half of all respondents said such a label was completely inaccurate.
  • A mere 8% said they always trust the government to do the right thing.

Why is patriotism important?

In an August 9th, 2017 Philadelphia Inquirer article titled Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture Amy Wax and Larry Alexander defined America’s bourgeois (middle class) culture. Wax and Alexander wrote,

That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow:

Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime. [Emphasis added]

Politicians have wooed the middle class. Politicians woo those who are patriotic and seek opportunities to be seen in the company of the U.S. military. Politicians love photo shoots with veterans and their families. However, once elected politicians tend to favor the funding of social programs over funding the U.S. military (e.g. sequestration). 

Where did America’s patriotism go?

The U.S. military makes up less than 1% of the total population. In 2014, the Veterans Administration estimated there were 22 million military veterans in the U.S. population. This is approximated 15% of the population of the United States. During WWII, Korea and Vietnam the United States had a universal draft. According to Google:

U.S. military draft ends, Jan. 27, 1973. On the day in 1973, as the Vietnam War drew to a close, the Selective Service announced that there would be no further draft calls. … Nixon thought ending the draft could be an effective political weapon against the burgeoning anti-war movement.

In a column titled “10 Arguments In Support Of Bringing Back The Draft” J. Francis Wolfe found that U.S. Presidents and the Congress have deployed U.S. military personnel abroad 6.5 times more in the 40 years after elimination of the draft than the 40 years before.

The problem is few Americans feel the personal and visceral impacts experienced by those sent into harms way.

The draft provided three key functions to our youth:

  1. It gave the youth an opportunity to serve the nation – service above oneself was the ideal. Today’s youth lack a purpose in life because they cannot understand what doing something to serve the nation means.
  2. Those in the military learned team work, punctuality, how to abide by rules and present themselves properly while in uniform. These are traits sought out by companies both large and small in employees.
  3. The military provided a vast number of marketable skills to America’s youth. Skills such as: maintenance of vehicles and aircraft, how to render first aid (corpsmen), plumbing, electrician, radio operator, computer operator, how to drive or fly a variety of military vehicles, the safe use of weapons, cooking, and on and on. Today some technical high schools try to fill this gap but not to the extent nor to the high standards of the U.S. military.

Click here to read Wolfe’s rational on each of these arguments.

If America wants to be its citizens to be patriotic, it must make every citizen feel the real consequences and pain of service above one’s self.

EDITORS NOTE: The American Views on Patriotism survey is drawn from a pair of national surveys conducted online during October and November of 2017 by the American Culture & Faith Institute. Each survey involved 1,000 respondents age 18 or older. The sample in each survey reflects the demographic profile of the US adult population. The questions shown are one portion of a larger survey conducted each month. These questions relate to the concept of patriotism in America.

ABOUT THE AMERICAN CULTURE & FAITH INSTITUTE

The American Culture & Faith Institute (ACFI) is a division of United in Purpose, a non-partisan, non-profit organization. The mission of United in Purpose is to educate, motivate and activate conservative Christians to engage in cultural transformation in ways that are consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The organization does not support or promote individual political candidates or parties.

ACFI is under the leadership of veteran researcher George Barna, who serves as the Executive Director. The ACFI team includes several experienced research professionals who assist in the development and completion of each project. Much of the team’s research is accessible on the ACFI website, located at www.culturefaith.com.

President Donald J. Trump’s Plan to ‘Make America Bourgeois Again’

President Trump ran on an America first platform. His mantra was MAGA – Make America Great Again. President Trump in his inaugural address said:

Today’s ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one Administration to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

When President Trump attends a rally, speaks at a press conference or Tweets, he is talking directly to America’s “bourgeois class.” Bourgeois is defined as “a member of the middle class.”

Who will make America great, again?

In an August 9th, 2017 Philadelphia Inquirer article titled Paying the price for breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture Amy Wax and Larry Alexander defined America’s bourgeois culture. Wax and Alexander wrote,

That [bourgeois] culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow:

Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.

Supporters of Barack Obama at a rally.

Politicians have wooed the bourgeois class as did former President Barack Obama. Once elected, however, the bourgeois class have been either ignored or suffered under various administrations.

In a April 22nd, 2014 New York Times column titled Losing the Lead: The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest David Leonhardt and Kevin Quealy reported:

The American middle [bourgeois] class, long the most affluent in the world, has lost that distinction.

While the wealthiest Americans are outpacing many of their global peers, a New York Times analysis shows that across the lower- and middle-income tiers, citizens of other advanced countries have received considerably larger raises over the last three decades.

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States. The poor in much of Europe earn more than poor Americans.

The bourgeois class is President Trump’s base and the bedrock of people who will make America great again.

What are the challenges to making America bourgeois again?

Wax and Alexander pointed out in their article:

Did everyone abide by those [bourgeois culture] precepts? Of course not. There are always rebels — and hypocrites, those who publicly endorse the norms but transgress them. But as the saying goes, hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue. Even the deviants rarely disavowed or openly disparaged the prevailing expectations.

Today there are many “deviants” who openly disavow and disparage the most basic bourgeois cultural norms.

Who are the bourgeois culture deviants? Who are the hypocrites? Who are the transgressors? Here is a short list:

  1. Those who labled the $1,000 bonuses given to workers as “crumbs.”
  2. Hollywood which no longer makes films about the bourgeois class.
  3. Those who do not serve their country and are openly unpatriotic.
  4.  Those who would rather be idle rather than work
  5. Those politicians who subsidize idleness and sloth.
  6. Those who create sanctuaries for those who abuse drugs and other addictive substances.
  7. Those who on radio, television, in music and during the day use course language.
  8. Those who are not respectful of the duly elected President of these United States.

Wax and Alexander noted:

[T]hose adults with influence over the [bourgeois] culture, for a variety of reasons, abandoned their role as advocates for respectability, civility, and adult values. As a consequence, the counterculture made great headway, particularly among the chattering classes — academics, writers, artists, actors, and journalists — who relished liberation from conventional constraints and turned condemning America and reviewing its crimes into a class marker of virtue and sophistication.

Making America Bourgeois Again!

President Trump and his administration have made it their sole mission to restore America’s bourgeois class. Washington, D.C. does not want to empower the bourgeois class because as President Trump pointed out during his inaugural address,

Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.

Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.

Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s Capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

Today there is much to celebrate, especially for the bourgeois class. Make America Bourgeois Again!

RELATED VIDEO: Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) staying tax cuts are unpatriotic.

In God Schools Trust

America has been successful at keeping God out of schools, but not guns. And that irony isn’t lost on leaders in Arkansas, who are desperately trying to put positive influences back into classrooms. If there was ever a time to put a simple reminder like “In God We Trust” before students, it’s now. While Florida families mourn the loss of 17 young lives, maybe it’s time to rethink what messages we’re teaching our teenagers.

In Arkansas, the idea was simple: require schools to put up “In God We Trust” posters. The bill sailed through the state legislature, passing 78-1 in the House and 28-2 in the Senate. Rep. Jim Dotson (R) thought it wouldn’t just be an opportunity to honor America’s heritage, but also “provide students with a good conscience while in school.” “We all know of instances in recent events where our culture of violence is being shown all around, and I think it’s something that hopefully students will be able to see on the walls and know that our country was founded on something better.”

As a show of support, local American Legion posts have raised money to pay for 1,000 framed posters in one school district, and others are lining up to donate more. As usual, the American Atheists are pitching a fit that children might be exposed to the word “God,” something they could certainly stand to hear more of, if the latest headlines are any indication. “Rep. Dotson and groups who have pledged to donate these displays have been quite clear about their purpose: injecting religion into Arkansas’s public schools.” Well, I hate to break it to them, but God’s already there. Unless these kids check their purses and wallets at the front door, He’s on every dollar they have.

As for putting the motto out where everyone can see it, the Supreme Court has said time and time again that there’s absolutely nothing wrong about it. The motto isn’t an endorsement of religion, the court said, but a “statement of optimism” about America’s heritage. If you want to protect kids from something, try the schools’ graphic sex-ed curriculums or propaganda of those trying to deconstruct society and the family that’s paraded through our schools. Those are the real destructive influences.

At a time when more schools are war zones than classrooms, surely we can all see the good of pointing kids to the fact that there is a God to whom we will all give an account — including the atheists who work night and day to fight someone they say doesn’t exist. For everyone else, maybe we should ponder the possibility that by letting God back in we might keep the violence out.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Just as He Was: Billy Graham Goes Home

How Billy Graham’s Invitation Forever Changed My Life

‘The View’ Points to Need for Tolerance

ABC got at least one thing right about “The View” — its name. As far as the hosts are concerned, there is only one view: theirs. Sure, they’ll invite a token “conservative” on to add fireworks, but even that doesn’t get in the way of the hosts’ daily routine of smug Middle America-bashing. If the idea is to offend viewers, it’s working.

Earlier this week, host Joy Behar did her share of the insulting when she responded to an episode of CBS’s “Celebrity Big Brother,” which happens to feature fired Trump staffer Omarosa Manigault Newman. On Monday night’s episode, Omarosa played the bitter ex-employee when she told her co-stars, “Everybody who’s wishing for impeachment might want to reconsider. We would be begging for days of Trump back if [Vice President Mike] Pence became president… He’s scary.” Newman, said, “I’m a Christian. I love Jesus, but he thinks Jesus tells him to say things.”

Behar, who never met a conservative whose sanity she didn’t question, could barely contain herself. “It’s one thing to talk to Jesus. It’s another thing when Jesus talks to you. That’s called mental illness — if I’m not correct — hearing voices.” Then, in a dig to Pence’s policy of not dining alone with other women, joked, “Can he talk to Mary Magdalene without his wife in the room?” The whole episode was an embarrassment — not for Mike Pence, whose faith is shared by the majority of Americans, but for ABC, who may have done the administration a favor by reminding viewers of the deep disdain it has for conservative Christians. This is par for the intolerant course in a movement that continues to see Americans who want to live by their faith as backwater people. It’s the same contempt that birthed Obama’s “God and gun-clingers,” and Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” — both of which only drove up evangelical turnout.

If people want to understand why the Trump administration enjoys such strong support from Christians, this attack sums it up. Evangelicals share the faith that Behar mocks. They’re also tired of being kicked around by elitists whose version of “tolerance” is only for people who think like them. They’re finally glad that there’s somebody on the playground like Donald Trump who’s willing to punch the bully. “Rejecting the Almighty, and particularly, believers, is easy and painless for the Left,” Mike McDaniel writes. “They know Christians will not kill them for their attacks, and at worst, might pray for them — a concept they also reflexively reject.” In the end, “their ideology does not admit the existence of anyone or anything greater than that ideology.”

Hardly the verbal flame-thrower that his boss is, Mike Pence refused to let the cheap shot pass. “I actually heard that ABC has a program that compared my Christianity to mental illness. And I’d like to laugh about it,” he told C-SPAN, “but I really can’t. Tens of millions of Americans today will have ash on their foreheads to mark the beginning of Lent. The overwhelming majority of Americans cherish their faith. And we have all different types of faith in this country. But I have to tell you, to have ABC maintain a broadcast forum that compared Christianity to mental illness is just wrong.” Honestly, he went on:

“I just think it demonstrates how out of touch some people in the mainstream media are with the faith and values of the American people that you could have a major network like ABC permit a forum for invective against religion like that. I just call them out on it, not because of what was said about me, but it’s just simply wrong for ABC to have a television program that expresses that kind of religious intolerance. We’re better than that. Our country is better than that.”

NOTE: Vice President Mike Pence responds to comments on The View.

The real issue for people like Behar is not what Jesus is saying to Christians in their prayer closets, their issue is what He has definitively said in His word. The fact that He is the Creator. That human life is sacred because it is made in the image of God. The fact that Jesus affirmed that there aren’t 72 genders, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. These people and their followers mock the private faith of Christians in an effort to intimidate them from living by their faith in public. See, this debate has never really been about what Christians do privately, but what they dare to do publicly. That’s what terrifies them. Their biggest fear is that men and women of faith will take what God says about marriage, life, and sexuality and bring it out into the open where it can affect policy and other people.

Here is the best way to counter Joy Behar and company — publicly live out your private faith in Christ. To be a follower of Jesus means to be just that, a follower of Jesus. It’s time to stop trying to appease the haters of God. These cultural extremists are only interested in the complete and utter surrender of Christians. “You will be hated by everyone because of me,” Jesus warned, “but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:22) If the world doesn’t have an issue with us, I’ve got news for you — we’re doing something wrong.

The time for playing patty-cake is over. This is a time for choosing — for separating the wheat from the chaff. Either God defined marriage, or He didn’t. Either He created and values life in His image, or He didn’t. There is no 38th parallel. Either we stand on the side of truth or the side of a lie — in these times, there is no in between.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Tried and True… Blue!

Michigan Pastors to State: Leave Our Churches Alone!

RELATED VIDEO: Is There Meaning to Life?

On Russia, Media Sticks to Its Foregone Collusions

There’s the media’s usual treatment of conservatives — guilty until proven innocent — and then there’s the Donald Trump treatment: guilty even after proven innocent. Unfortunately for this president, there’s no winning under this toxic cloud of media bias. Barack Obama could do no wrong — and Donald Trump can do no right. Even after a nine-month investigation proves he is.

Nothing seems to move the needle on the press’s contempt — not even Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s 13 indictments in the Russia probe, which should prove what the president has said all along: there is no collusion! Under normal circumstances, the detailed charges should have gone a long way to softening the media’s stance on what they claimed was a coordinated effort between the Trump campaign and foreign nationals to interfere in the 2016 election. “Russia started their anti-U.S. campaign in 2014,” the president tweeted when Mueller’s announcement came down, “long before I announced that I would run for president. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong — no collusion!

But what should have been validation turned to indignation when outlets like the Associated Press and New York Times refused to accept Mueller’s findings as fact. “Trump’s claim of vindication appeared to be unsupported by the indictment and premature,” reporters said, “as Mueller’s probe has shown no signs of abating.” Then, later, “The cries of vindication seem to be more show than substance.” And, “Neither [the Deputy Attorney General] nor Mueller’s office has ruled out any potential collusion in any other plot to disrupt the election.”

Even in the face of the Special Counsel’s own evidence, liberal reporters refused to accept the fact that Trump had no role in teaming up with the Russians to sway the election outcome. “The fake news media never fails,” he tweeted. So, instead of harping on his involvement, they started to attack him for being rightThe New York Times continued to bash Trump for insisting the allegations were a hoax. “The president’s mood began to darken as it became clearer to him that some commentators were portraying the indictment as nothing for him to celebrate, according to three people with knowledge of his reaction. Those commentators called it proof that he had not won the election on his own, a particularly galling, if not completely accurate, charge for a president long concerned about his legitimacy.”

Even now, without a scrap of evidence to stand on, some outlets refuse to give up their bogus theories of Trump’s involvement. Maybe they’re upset about being duped. After all, as Media Research Center (MRC) points out, they were the ones who were played the fool. Liberal networks were airing almost around-the-clock coverage of the anti-Trump rallies after the election — only to learn that the Russians had organized the whole thing! MRC combed through the Mueller indictments and found that, “Like their counterparts at CNN and MSNBC, multiple news outlets were quick to promote anti-Trump protests in New York City on November 12, 2016 — and in doing so became unwitting promoters of Russian propaganda… Special Counsel Robert Mueller revealed that this protest, as well as one in Charlotte, NC on November 19, 2016, was organized by Russian operatives.”

Congressman Don Bacon isn’t surprised. Yesterday on “Washington Watch,” he explained that Russia does this same thing all over the world. Why? Because, as he explains, “When we turn on each other, we’re less focused on what they’re doing in Ukraine, what they’re doing in Syria, and how they’re threatening the Baltics. And they gain more leeway in their part of the world. This is their way of distracting us from what they’re doing and helps them further their goals, while it undermines our ability to stop that.”

And the media played right into the Russians’ hands. Slate, the Daily Beast, and Huffington Post seized on the rallies, planting seeds of distrust and disunity. “If the goal of the secret Russian organizers was to inject nonsense like that into the American political dialogue,” MRC said, “then their unwitting helpers on CNN and MSNBC certainly gave them plenty of assistance that day.” Even radical filmmaker Michael Moore was suckered into the scam, tweeting photos from a protest that had been secretly orchestrated by the Russians. “If it was the goal of Russia to create discord, disruption and chaos within the U.S.,” President Trump said, “then with all of the Committee Hearings, Investigations and Party hatred, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They are laughing [at us] in Moscow. Get smart America!”

In the end, this had nothing to do with propping up Trump and undermining Clinton, it was about dividing America. And the media took the bait, ultimately playing a bigger role in tearing the country apart than anyone.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Grassley Gives Opponents the Slip on Judges

Pornography: The Biggest Crisis No One’s Talking About?

Bold Advances in Ohio…

Illegal Alien Gamed the Immigration System and now the United States is Suing Itself

Once again I have written an article about how an alien easily gamed the immigration system and ultimately became a United States citizen, demonstrating that immigration fraud is at least as serious a vulnerability as is the U.S.-Mexican border.

While there were no allegations that the alien who is the focus of my article today was linked to terrorism, he is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country that has a nexus to terrorist groups.

To this point, on December 15, 2017 the Wall Street Journal published an article,

“New U.S.-Backed Force Leads Terrorism Fight in Bangladesh: Failed terror attack by Bangladeshi in New York leads U.S.-backed unit to hunt for extremist ties in South Asian country.”

On January 16, 2018, the Justice Department issued a press release: “DOJ, DHS Report: Three Out of Four Individuals Convicted of International Terrorism and Terrorism-Related Offenses were Foreign-Born.”

What may be even more disconcerting than the title is that the press release also included this statistical analysis:

Breaking down the 549 individuals by citizenship status at the time of their respective convictions reveals that:

• 254 were not U.S. citizens;

• 148 were foreign-born, naturalized and received U.S. citizenship; and,

• 147 were U.S. citizens by birth.

According to information available to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), since September 11, 2001, there were approximately 1,716 removals of aliens with national security concerns.

The statistics did not disclose how many of the 1,716 aliens acquired lawful status in the U.S. other than citizenship, including lawful immigrant status.

Today’s case is particularly egregious but before we delve into the details of this particular case let’s consider that even if that wall is built, an alien who has been granted lawful immigrant status and especially an alien who is granted U.S. citizenship won’t care if that wall is as tall as a skyscraper and topped with electrified concertina wire.

Aliens who are granted resident alien status and U.S. citizenship can simply stroll into a port of entry, whether it is along the problematic U.S.-Mexican border, the Canadian border, a seaport, or an international airport and be greeted warmly by the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors.

Back when I was an INS special agent I used to joke that you could easily tell the difference between a “good guy” and a “bad guy.” Good guys wake up and go through their clothing to figure out what they want to wear that day, while bad guys go through their stuff to decide on who they want to be that day.

Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” gave rise to arguably one of the most famous questions ever asked, “What’s in a name?

Our names are given to us birth and identify us throughout our lives.

However, criminals and terrorists frequently use numerous false names for the same reason that a chameleon changes its colors, to hide in plain sight — perhaps as a method of survival or as a means of enabling it to hide among its intended next meal, a hapless creature that wanders too close.

When we think of the arrest process we think about how law enforcement officers photograph and fingerprint those who are arrested to make certain that they properly identify that person. That issue is of such concern because criminals frequently use multiple identities, that biometrics, such as DNA, are now additionally being used.

According to the 9/11 Commission, the 9/11 terrorists, in the aggregate, used more than 360 false identities and/or variations of false identities as an embedding tactic, to facilitate their preparations for the deadly terror attacks to come.

Not unlike the chameleons, criminal and terrorists use changes in identity the way that those chameleon “quick change artists” use changes in coloration to hide in plain sight among their intended victims.

On February 15, 2018, the Justice Department issued a press release, “Department of Justice Files Complaint to Denaturalize Diversity Visa Recipient Who Obtained Naturalized Citizenship After Failing to Disclose Two Prior Orders of Removal.”

That press release and the Complaint to Revoke Naturalization serves not only as an indictment of the criminal misconduct of the alien in this case, but serves as an indictment of the competency of a division of the Department of Homeland Security.

The defendant in this case, Md Humayun Kabir Talukder, a/k/a Ganu Miah, a/k/a Shafi Uddin succeeded in gaming the adjudications process at USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) thus becoming a naturalized citizen.

He lied in his application and interview when he failed to disclose that he had been previously ordered deported from the United States, twice and under two names.

Incredibly, the adjudications officers who handled his case did not know about these lies until after he was granted the “Keys to the kingdom” that United States citizenship represents.

From the very beginning, his interactions with the U.S. government were based on lies and falsehoods and deception, yet he ran rings around our federal agencies. He initially sought entry into the United States in 1992 at John F. Kennedy International Airport in NYC (where I began my career with the INS), with a passport that was not issued to him. Incredibly, when his attempt to game the entry process was discovered, he was permitted to leave the airport so that he could show up at a later date to seek political asylum.

He was subsequently ordered deported under two different names and yet, he became a naturalized citizen in 2004, more than two and a half years after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

It is all too common for individuals to seek to game not only the immigration system but all government systems. However, we expect our federal agencies to be able to ferret out those criminals who attempt to defraud various government agencies and programs, especially when those system and agencies are involved with national security.

In this case we see just how easily the immigration systems were defrauded, leading to the almost comical but certainly disquieting charge in the Complaint to Revoke Naturalization:

II. PARTIES

4. Plaintiff is the United States of America, suing on behalf of itself.

5. Defendant is a naturalized United States citizen, and purports to be a native and former citizen of Bangladesh.

Here the United States of America is suing the United States of America because of clear and unequivocal evidence of incompetence by an agency of the federal government that has a serious national security-related mission!

Here is the paragraph from the DOJ press release that lays out the tangled web of deception that enabled him to successfully game the immigration system and acquire United States citizenship:

The complaint alleges Humayun Kabir Rahman arrived in the United States in February 1992 at John F. Kennedy International Airport, claiming his true name was Ganu Miah while in possession of a passport that did not belong to him. He was paroled into the United States so he could seek asylum, and his application was referred to the immigration court where an immigration judge ordered him removed in 1998. In 1994, while Ganu Miah’s proceeding was underway, Rahman sought asylum under a different name, Shafi Uddin. That application was also referred to the immigration court, and he was ordered to be removed in 1997. Later in 1997, using his third identity, Md Humayun Kabir Talukder, Rahman applied for and received an immigrant visa through the diversity visa program, claiming he had entered the United States by car from Canada. In 2004, he applied for and was granted permanent resident status, which he ultimately used to become a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2004. Throughout his immigration and naturalization proceedings, Rahman concealed that he had twice been ordered removed and lied about his identity and immigration history under oath. Rahman was also never lawfully admitted to the permanent resident status upon which he naturalized.

In the wake of the slaughter of 17 people in Florida some politicians have challenged the ability to conduct background checks of those who seek to purchase firearms. However, no mention is ever made of the fatally flawed vetting system whereby aliens are admitted into the United States and provided with various immigration benefits including citizenship.

President Trump, who made a strong case for vetting aliens who seek to enter the United States, has ignored the vetting process that would be called into action for the adjudication of aliens under the DACA and other programs he now advocates for potentially millions of illegal aliens.

This was, in fact, the focus of my recent article, “DACA Solution Must Heed 9/11 Commission Findings.”

My concerns about immigration fraud and visa fraud have been paramount in my testimony before several Congressional hearings and in my testimony for the 9/11 Commission and was the theme for another of my articles, “Immigration Fraud, Lies That Kill.”

This statement in the news release provided by Acting Assistant Attorney General Chad A. Readler for the Justice Department’s Civil Division will serve as the summation for my article today:

“As our country’s leaders debate the future of our immigration system, this alleged case of a decade of defrauding the United States to obtain citizenship is particularly alarming.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on NewsMax.com.

Why 14 GOP Senators Voted Against President Trump’s Immigration Framework

President Donald Trump’s plan to control borders — as outlined in his State of the Union speech — was put into legislation and carried by Sen. Charles Grassley. But it went down in flames, and 14 Republicans are in part to blame for its failure.

Now the country’s back where it started, facing a budget fight this March, round-the-robin talks on immigration, and a Democratic-controlled process, despite the fact Republicans hold the majority in both houses of Congress.

Whom to blame?

Well, for starters, the 14 Republican senators who jumped ship on Trump’s plan.

From the Hill:

President Trump’s immigration framework faced an unexpected opponent this week as it crashed on the Senate floor: Republicans.

The opposition from more than a fourth of the GOP conference came despite an intense pressure campaign by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which shot down back-to-back bipartisan offers.

In the end, 14 GOP senators rejected Trump’s proposal, helping make it the least popular of the Senate’s competing measures.

Here’s a look at the GOP senators who bucked Trump.

Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.)

Barrasso, who is up for reelection in 2018, was one of two members of GOP leadership to oppose Trump’s plan. His vote came roughly a day after he called the White House framework “very generous.”

“I want to make sure that we have a secure border. I want to make sure that the laws are enforced and I want to make sure our citizens are safe,” he told Fox News this week.

A spokeswoman for Barrasso didn’t respond to a request for comment. But the conservative senator has said he believes the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was illegal.

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)

Collins was at the center of a bipartisan group that negotiated for months to come up with a rival plan to Trump’s. Hours before the votes, DHS warned that the proposal would undermine the rule of law and the White House threatened to veto the Common Sense Coalition’s plan.

“I’m personally very disappointed in the administration’s response,” Collins said.

The bipartisan group’s amendment has serious policy differences from the White House plan.

It doesn’t touch the State Department’s diversity visa lottery program and included narrow changes to family-based immigration that would have been limited to DACA recipients.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)

Cruz, who is up for reelection in 2018, repeatedly took shots at the framework because it included a path to citizenship for 1.8 million immigrants, which he considers “amnesty.”

The opposition from more than a fourth of the GOP conference came despite an intense pressure campaign by the White House and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which shot down back-to-back bipartisan offers.

In the end, 14 GOP senators rejected Trump’s proposal, helping make it the least popular of the Senate’s competing measures.

Here’s a look at the GOP senators who bucked Trump.

Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.)

Barrasso, who is up for reelection in 2018, was one of two members of GOP leadership to oppose Trump’s plan. His vote came roughly a day after he called the White House framework “very generous.”

“I want to make sure that we have a secure border. I want to make sure that the laws are enforced and I want to make sure our citizens are safe,” he told Fox News this week.

A spokeswoman for Barrasso didn’t respond to a request for comment. But the conservative senator has said he believes the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was illegal.

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)

Collins was at the center of a bipartisan group that negotiated for months to come up with a rival plan to Trump’s. Hours before the votes, DHS warned that the proposal would undermine the rule of law and the White House threatened to veto the Common Sense Coalition’s plan.

“I’m personally very disappointed in the administration’s response,” Collins said.

The bipartisan group’s amendment has serious policy differences from the White House plan.

It doesn’t touch the State Department’s diversity visa lottery program and included narrow changes to family-based immigration that would have been limited to DACA recipients.

Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas)

Cruz, who is up for reelection in 2018, repeatedly took shots at the framework because it included a path to citizenship for 1.8 million immigrants, which he considers “amnesty.”

“I find myself flabbergasted at where my own party is in this debate because every proposal that has Republican support that has been submitted begins from a place markedly to the left of President Obama,” Cruz said ahead of the Senate’s votes.

Sen. Steve Daines (Mont.)

Daines doesn’t support the DACA program and has said he doesn’t want to see it extended.

“I don’t support extending the DACA program. This was an unconstitutional act that President Obama [did] via executive order when he was president and I hope that we can find a solution going forward here that is broader than just the issue on DACA,” he told Montana Public Radio earlier this year.

Sen. Mike Enzi (Wyo.)

A spokesman for Enzi said he opposed the immigration amendments offered “because he felt they did not properly address” illegal immigration.

“He has said that Congress needs to ensure that our immigration laws are compassionate, especially to children, but also fair to American citizens. He believes there are lawful ways for individuals to earn citizenship and that people who want to come to this country need to follow them,” the spokesman said.

Enzi, who previously called DACA “unconstitutional,” also thinks immigration reform is “best dealt with in small pieces, instead of comprehensive legislation,” his aide said.

Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.)

Flake was heavily involved with the bipartisan immigration negotiations and has been one of the loudest critics of the White House’s framework over concerns about its restrictions on legal immigration.

He told reporters this week that while the White House’s framework should be part of the “discussion,” the Senate needed to work out its own plan.

And he’s doubling down on his short-term patch following the Senate’s failed votes, which would pair a three-year DACA extension with border security funding.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.)

Inhofe opposed each of the Senate’s three immigration plans, while backing a push to limit federal funding to “sanctuary cities.” He said the White House plan “made a number of important reforms” including boosting security at the border and limiting family-based immigration.

“[But] I’ve consistently stated that I could not support an immigration bill that puts illegal immigrants ahead of the men and women who have followed our laws and have applied for citizenship legally,” he said.

The White House framework, spearheaded in the Senate by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), created a 10-12 year path to citizenship for roughly 1.8 million immigrants brought into the country illegally as children.

Sen. John Kennedy (La.)

Kennedy said on Twitter that he opposed the Senate’s immigration proposals “because none of them prioritized border security.”

Both the White House framework and the bipartisan coalition’s plan included $25 billion in border security.

Kennedy supported Sen. Pat Toomey’s (R-Pa.) amendment to limit funding to jurisdictions that don’t follow federal immigration law.

He also offered several of his own amendments, which didn’t get a vote, including requiring the census to include questions about nationality and immigration status.

Sen. Mike Lee (Utah)

Lee said after the Senate’s votes that Congress needs a “balanced approach to the DACA program.”

“One that discourages future illegal immigration while also offering a compassionate solution to current DACA recipients. None of the plans that addressed DACA today achieved that balance,” he added.

Many conservative lawmakers, as well as their allies off Capitol Hill, balked over the administration’s decision to extend citizenship to DACA recipients and expand the total number of immigrants potentially covered from roughly 700,000 to 1.8 million.

Sen. Jerry Moran (Kansas)

Asked why Moran didn’t back the president’s plan, a spokesman noted the GOP senator supports a fallback option he is working on with Sens. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and John Thune (R-S.D.).

Their plan is significantly narrower than the White House framework. It provides a permanent extension of legal status, but not citizenship, only for current DACA recipients. It is tied to a $25 billion border security trust fund.

Moran noted in a statement announcing the immigration plan that the measures “must not inadvertently encourage further illegal immigration.”

He didn’t directly address the White House framework, but some conservatives argue that extending legal protections to the broader 1.8 million population encourages more illegal immigration.

The Moran-Thune-Portman proposal, by comparison, would limit legal protections to current DACA recipients, or roughly 700,000 immigrants.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)

Murkowski, one of the Senate’s most moderate Republicans, was part of the Common Sense Coalition and supported the group’s plan to pair a path to citizenship for 1.8 million immigrants to $25 billion in border security and limited changes to family-based immigration.

She added after the plan failed that it would have offered a “path forward.” “I am extremely disappointed that the Senate failed to advance our bipartisan proposal that provided both certainty for the Dreamers and critical improvements to border security,” she said.

Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.)

Paul voted against each of the Senate’s immigration proposals, including the White House plan.

His votes came after he told Fox News host Laura Ingraham this week that he was debating offering a conservative House plan crafted by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) as an amendment.

“We’re discussing that in our office, whether or not we ought to put that forward as an alternative,” he said.

Goodlatte’s plan would provide DACA recipients with a temporary, renewable legal status — rather than citizenship — in exchange for authorizing funding for Trump’s border wall, ending family-based migration and scrapping the diversity visa lottery program.

It would also crack down on so-called sanctuary cities, boost penalties for deported criminals who try to re-enter the U.S. and require that employers use an electronic verification system known as E-Verify to make sure they hire legal workers.

Sen. Ben Sasse (Neb.)

Sasse told the Lincoln Journal Star that he opposed “left-of-center proposals” taken up by the Senate on Thursday.

“I ran as a conservative and I’ll vote as a conservative,” he said.

Sasse added there could still be a path toward a “much simpler legislative package” that pairs protections for DACA recipients and secures the border.

Sen. John Thune (S.D.)

Thune is the highest ranking GOP senator to vote against the White House’s immigration proposal.

The No. 3 GOP senator has endorsed a narrower solution for weeks. On Thursday afternoon he announced that he, Moran and Portman had filed an amendment that would extend the legal protections of current DACA recipients while giving the White House money for the U.S.-Mexico border wall.

“Immigration policy is not easy, as this week has shown, but I’m confident that with a bill like the one we’ve just put forward, we’ll be able to find consensus among Republicans and Democrats,” he said in a statement.

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.

Tech Workers Are Relocating to Los Angeles Because Silicon Valley Is Too Liberal

Tech workers following the lead of Peter Thiel, a President Donald Trump supporting venture capitalist and bolting Silicon Valley for Los Angeles. Not that LA is all that much better. But push back is good and it’s happening.

TECH WORKERS ARE RELOCATING TO LOS ANGELES BECAUSE SILICON VALLEY IS TOO LIBERAL

Western Journalism, February 19, 2018:

A number of workers in Silicon Valley are planning to leave the tech hub due to a discomfort stemming from a uniform way of thinking in the industry and region, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The workers already are or plan on indirectly following the lead of Peter Thiel, a President Donald Trump-supporting venture capitalist.

The billionaire entrepreneur recently announced he is leaving Silicon Valley for the slightly less liberal Los Angeles area to escape an allegedly pervasive discrimination against conservatives and some libertarians.

Citing a number of influential investors, and a couple of tech workers and startup entrepreneurs, the WSJ reports Thiel’s geographic “defection” is emblematic of an apparently larger trend.

“I think the politics of San Francisco have gotten a little bit crazy,” Tom McInerney, an angel investor who now resides in Los Angeles, told The Wall Street Journal. “The Trump election was super polarizing and it definitely illustrated–and Peter (Thiel) said this–how out of touch Silicon Valley was.”

A large majority of conservatives said they are in some way uneasy in the area due to their political and personal beliefs, according to a study published earlier in the month by the Lincoln Network. Roughly 89 percent and 74 percent of people who identified as “very conservative” or “conservative,” respectively, said they are hesitant of being themselves while working in Silicon Valley. Additionally, more than two-thirds of libertarians, which were the largest portion of respondents in the survey, said the same.

Only 30 percent and 36 percent of Silicon Valley employees who identify as “very liberal” or “liberal” are reluctant to be their true selves, according to the study.

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.

U.S. State Department not yet concerned about sexual harassment allegations involving refugee agency it funds

That is what Breitbart’s Michael Patrick Leahy is reporting about his efforts to get an answer from the major funding source for the nine federal contractors*** hired by State for the US Refugee Admissions Program.  Leahy’s story is entitled:

U.S. Government Continues to Fund Refugee Resettlement NGO Whose Funding Has Been Frozen by the U.K.

(We reported on the mess the International Refugee Committee is in with its British funding, here.)

miliband and soros 2 (2) close

Miliband and Soros in 2013.

Here is some of what Leahy is reporting after attempting to get something definitive from the State Department:

The government of the United Kingdom has frozen all payments to the International Rescue Committee (IRC), one of the largest non-profit refugee resettlement agencies in the world, pending the outcome of an investigation into allegations of “sexual harassment and fraud” in the organization.

As one of the nine voluntary agencies (VOLAGs) that have for decades received about $1 billion annually from the U.S. federal government, the IRC is also heavily funded by American taxpayers.

The IRC is the third VOLAG in the last six months to come under scrutiny for questions surrounding its leadership and management.

[….]

The management and leadership of former U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who has served as CEO of the IRC since 2013 and receives an annual salary of $671,000, is now under serious question, and his ability to maintain his current job is uncertain.

The State Department offered no indication that it intends to stop funding the IRC, despite the actions of the U.K government when asked specifically by Breitbart News if the U.S. government currently has plans to immediately stop making payments to the IRC to conduct refugee resettlement operations in the United States.

“The Department of State takes very seriously the prevention and response of all accusations of sexual exploitation and abuse,” a State Department spokesperson told Breitbart News when asked if the U.S. government intends to follow the lead of the U.K. government in suspending payments to the IRC pending the results of an investigation.

[….]

The State Department has not responded to this follow up question from Breitbart News: Now that the allegations of abuse against the IRC have been brought to the State Department’s attention, what specifically is the State Department doing to ensure the IRC is taking the necessary steps to address the issue appropriately?

Continue reading here.

Quick, someone tell the IRC’s new partner—Sesame Street!

See my David Miliband archive by clicking here.

If the IRC does have any government funds frozen, even temporarily, it will be a blow to their subcontractors (working in cities below) that are wholly dependent on the IRC mothership in Manhattan. (IRC website):

IRC offices

*** These are the nine federally funded refugee agencies operating in the US.

The number in parenthesis is the percentage of their income paid by you (the taxpayer) to place the refugees and get them signed up for their services (aka welfare)!  From most recent accounting, here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The IRC is one of the charities closely-linked to George Soros’ push to drive aliens into European Union (EU) nations.

Bipartisan efforts underway to support Samaritan’s Purse exec for top UN refugee job

Brave Israeli journalist disguised as Syrian ‘refugee’ enters German belly of the beast

Congress Blew Through the Budget Caps, Again. Here’s What Needs to Change.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 signed into law last week really should be renamed the Bipartisan Budget Crash Act.

This spending spree takes a Mack Truck and rams through the hard-fought budget caps under the 2011 Budget Control Act to the tune of at least $300 billion.

When all is said and done, the fiscal wreckage could be worse than that. With a federal debt already at $20.5 trillion, we have just lurched closer to fiscal insolvency.

Republicans touted that they got $1 of new military spending for every $1 of domestic social programs, but even that is wishful thinking at best. This calculation doesn’t include emergency disaster spending for hurricanes and fires, which was close to $90 billion. At least $21 billion of “defense” spending goes to the State Department instead, which does not fight wars.

In the end, the domestic agencies may wind up with $2 of added funding for every $1 for national security, which is hardly a good deal for taxpayers.

It also isn’t clear why the recovery efforts to pay for disaster relief should be paid for by the federal government.

In the wake of some of the worst disasters in American history—the hurricane that wiped out Galveston, Texas, the Great Chicago Fire, and the San Francisco earthquake, for example—the rebuilding of these cities happened swiftly and was almost all funded by private businesses, private charities, and state and local initiatives, not by Washington writing a big check.

And when, alas, the feds do write big checks for disasters, the money should come from across-the-board cuts of 2 or 3 percent from all the other federal agencies—not by running up the debt.

The Budget Control Act caps are now a victim of their own success. From 2011-2016, the spending caps held discretionary spending increases below the 2 percent level of inflation. For three years, federal spending actually fell, in no small part because of those caps.

But now those tight caps have been evaded four times in six years, and each time the overspending has been larger. The cork has been pulled off the champagne bottle.

The lack of spending restraint and the inability of Congress to keep its past legislative promises not only erodes trust in the political class, but shows a frightening and complete indifference by Washington toward our nation’s growing fiscal crisis.

The big question is, where do we go from here on the budget?

With neither party at all committed to reducing debt and deficits, our worry is that the budget caps are, for all intents and purposes, gone forever.

The caps after 2020 are still technically in place, but the 2019 levels of spending are going to come in at as much as $200 billion above the 2020 caps. So either we see a massive cut in government spending in the election year of 2020, which would be a wonderful thing to behold—but is as likely as President Donald Trump and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi dancing a tango together—or, Congress throws the caps into the dustbin of history.

That’s a scary prospect, because it would mean that Congress would be budgeting without any fiscal guard rails or speed limits at all. This will only invite further bipartisan spending sprees that are against the interests of the American people.

The indefensible budget behavior of Congress over the last several weeks reinforces the case for Congress to extend the Budget Control Act caps into 2022 and beyond, since the caps expire at the end of 2021.

These future caps should be based on the 2011 Budget Control Act’s average annual spending growth rate, not the new budget’s enormous spending growth rate. Failure to extend the caps would be a total surrender and a green light to the already out-of-control Mack Truck.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore, who formerly wrote on the economy and public policy for The Wall Street Journal, is a distinguished visiting fellow for the Project for Economic Growth at The Heritage Foundation. He was also a senior economic advisor to Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. Read his research. Twitter: .

Christian Andzel

Christian Andzel 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 by erick4x4/Getty Images.

Parents Just Lost Custody of Teenage Daughter Who Wants to ‘Transition’ to a Boy: What You Need to Know

Parents in Ohio lost custody of their 17-year-old daughter Friday because a judge ruled that she should be allowed to receive therapy, including testosterone therapy, to identify as a boy.

Without commenting on the specifics of this case just outside Cincinnati, Americans can expect to see more cases like it as government officials side with transgender activists to promote a radical view of the human person and endorse entirely experimental medical procedures. At stake are not only parental rights, but the well-being of children who suffer from gender dysphoria.

Here’s what you need to know.

Transgender activists maintain that when a child identifies as the opposite sex in a manner that is “consistent, persistent, and insistent,” the appropriate response is to support that identification. This requires a four-part protocol, as I painstakingly detail in my new book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment”:

First, a social transition: giving the child a new wardrobe, a new name, new pronouns, and generally treating the child as if he or she were the opposite sex.

Second, a child approaching puberty will be placed on puberty blockers to prevent the normal process of maturation and development. This means there will be no progression of the pubertal stage, and a regression of sex characteristics that have already developed. Puberty-blocking drugs are not FDA approved for gender dysphoria, but physicians use them off-label for this purpose.

Third, around age 16, comes the administration of cross-sex hormones: Boys will be given feminizing hormones such as estrogen, and girls will be given masculinizing hormones such as androgens (testosterone). The purpose is to mimic the process of puberty that would occur in the opposite sex.

For girls, testosterone treatment leads to “a low voice, facial and body hair growth, and a more masculine body shape,” along with enlargement of the clitoris and atrophying of the breast tissue. For boys, estrogen treatment results in development of breasts and a body shape with a female appearance. These patients will be prescribed cross-sex hormones throughout their lives.

Finally, at age 18, these individuals may undergo sex-reassignment surgery: amputation of primary and secondary sex characteristics and plastic surgery to create new sex characteristics.

To summarize these procedures (described in detail in my book “When Harry Became Sally”): Male-to-female surgery involves removing the testes and constructing “female-looking external genitals.” It may include breast enlargement if estrogen therapy has not produced satisfactory growth of breasts.

Female-to-male surgery often begins with mastectomy. The uterus and ovaries are often removed as well. Some patients will undergo phalloplasty, the surgical construction of a penis, but many do not because the results are variable in quality and functionality.

This four-stage course of treatment is the current standard of care promoted by transgender activists. But the ages for each phase to commence are getting lower. In July 2016, The Guardian reported that “a doctor in Wales is prescribing cross-sex hormones to children as young as 12 who say they want to change sex, arguing that if they are confident of their gender identity they should not have to wait until 16 to get the treatment.”

No laws in the United States prohibit the use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones for children, or regulate the age at which they may be administered.

Activists claim that the effects of blocking puberty with drugs are fully reversible. This turns things upside down, for virtually every part of the body undergoes significant development in sex-specific ways during puberty, and going through the process at age 18 can’t reverse 10 years of blocking it. The use of puberty-blocking drugs to treat children with gender dysphoria is entirely experimental, as there are no long-term studies on the consequences of interfering with biological development.

Activists claim that blocking puberty allows children “more time to explore their gender identity, without the distress of the developing secondary sex characteristics,” as the Dutch doctors who pioneered this treatment put it.

Another Perspective

This is an odd argument, write three American researchers, all physicians.

“It presumes that natural sex characteristics interfere with the ‘exploration’ of gender identity,” Drs. Paul Hruz, Lawrence Mayer, and Paul McHugh note, “when one would expect that the development of natural sex characteristics might contribute to the natural consolidation of one’s gender identity.”

The rush of sex hormones and the bodily development that happens during puberty may be the very things that help an adolescent come to identify with his or her biological sex. Puberty blockers interfere with this process.

Normally, 80 to 95 percent of children will naturally grow out of any gender-identity conflicted stage. But every one of the children placed on puberty blockers in the Dutch clinic persisted in a transgender identity, and they generally went on to begin cross-sex hormone treatment at around age 16.

Perhaps the Dutch doctors correctly identified the kids who naturally would persist in a transgender identity, but it’s more likely that the puberty blockers reinforced their cross-gender identification, making them more committed to taking further steps in sex reassignment.

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 its organization for sexual reproduction.

Modern science shows that this 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.

Secondary differences between the two sexes—attributes that may be visibly altered by hormone treatment and surgery—are not what make us male or female. As a result, cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones don’t change the deeper biological reality. People who undergo sex-reassignment procedures do not become the opposite sex, they merely masculinize or feminize their outward appearance.

As the philosopher Robert P. George puts it, “Changing sexes is a metaphysical impossibility because it is a biological impossibility.”

What the Evidence Shows

Sadly, just as “sex reassignment” fails to reassign sex biologically, it also fails to bring wholeness psychologically. The medical evidence suggests that it does not adequately address the mental health problems suffered by those who identify as transgender.

Even when the procedures are successful technically and cosmetically, and even in cultures that are relatively “trans-friendly,” people still face poor psychological outcomes.

Notwithstanding the media hype over supposed differences in brain structure, no solid scientific evidence exists that transgender identities are innate or biologically determined, and some evidence shows that other factors are most likely involved. But in truth, very little is understood about the causes of discordant gender identities.

Starting a young child on a process of “social transitioning” followed by puberty-blocking drugs was virtually unthinkable not long ago, and the treatment is still experimental. Unfortunately, many activists have given up on caution, let alone skepticism, about drastic treatments.

A more cautious therapeutic approach begins by acknowledging that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria will grow out of it naturally. An effective therapy looks into the reasons for the child’s mistaken beliefs about gender, and addresses the problems that the child believes will be solved if the body is altered.

As I document in “When Harry Became Sally,” mental health professionals liken gender dysphoria to other dysphorias, or serious discomfort with one’s body, such as anorexia, body dysmorphic disorder, and body integrity identity disorder. All of these involve false assumptions or feelings that solidify into mistaken beliefs about the self.

McHugh finds that other psychosocial issues usually lie beneath the false assumptions. Children with gender dysphoria may have  anxieties about “the prospects, expectations, and roles that they sense are attached to their given sex.”

Much like patients with anorexia nervosa, these children mistakenly believe that a drastic change of their bodies will solve or minimize their psychosocial problems. But adjusting the body through hormones and surgery doesn’t fix the real problem, any more than liposuction cures anorexia nervosa.

A Different Message

An effective treatment strategy would “strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it,” McHugh says. In the case of gender dysphoria, unfortunately, the mistaken belief is often encouraged by school counselors who, “rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.”

What these young people need, McHugh advises, is to be removed from this “suggestive environment” and be presented with a different message.

The proliferation of gender clinics in America and gender identity programs in the schools makes it less likely that children will get the help they need to work out their issues. Instead, these children find “gender counselors” who encourage them to maintain their false assumptions.

This is contrary to standard medical and psychological practice, as McHugh, Hruz, and Mayer emphasize. Normally, a child is not encouraged to persist in a belief that is discordant with reality. A traditional form of treatment for gender dysphoria would “work with and not against the facts of science and the predictable rhythms of children’s psycho-sexual development.” A prudent and natural course of treatment would enable children to “reconcile their subjective gender identity with their objective biological sex,” avoiding harmful or irreversible interventions.

The most helpful therapies do not try to remake the body to conform with thoughts and feelings—which is impossible—but rather to help people find healthy ways to manage this tension and move toward accepting the reality of their bodily selves. This therapeutic approach rests on a sound understanding of physical and mental health, and of medicine as a practice aimed at restoring healthy functioning, not simply satisfying the desires of patients.

Biology isn’t bigotry. And as I explain in “When Harry Became Sally,” there are human costs to getting human nature wrong.

COMMENTARY BY

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: .

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Planned Transgenderhood

The Sex-Change Revolution Is Based on Ideology, Not Science

Transgender Ideology Hurts Kids

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 by Jed Share/Kaoru Share Blend Images/Newscom.

VIDEO: What You Need to Know About Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood bills itself as one of “the nation’s leading providers of high-quality, affordable health care” and claims that federal defunding of the organization would leave millions of women “without a place to go for needed care.” Do these claims accurately reflect what Planned Parenthood does? Or does it have another reason for being?

In this week’s video, Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action, lays out the differences between the way Planned Parenthood presents itself and the reality.

Conservative, Pro-American Policies Are Winning

President Trump’s approval ratings are at their highest level ever, and Republicans have totally erased the 15-point lead in the generic congressional ballot Democrats held just two months ago.

This is telling on a couple of levels, and I hope Republicans are paying attention. Democrats may continue on their merry intersectional way.

First, polls taken on immediate issues are almost always driven by the media coverage. So the tax reform that passed in December was “deeply unpopular” with Americans. All the polls showed it. But what they really showed was how the media was covering the tax package — big tax cuts for the rich and corporations, regular Americans losing deductions — a big giveaway to “others.”

Of course that’s not what it was. That was a total misrepresentation driven by Democrats’ talking points. Americans are now seeing what the tax reform package is actually doing — real news as opposed to you-know-what news — and they are liking what they see. It’s not surprising, as many middle income Americans are taking home a couple thousand dollars more per year — what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi infamously called crumbs in her ever so out-of-touch way.

Priorities USA, the most influential Democratic super PAC, recently released a memo noting the rise in popularity of the tax law. It urged Democrats to message more consistently against the tax law by taking the big picture class warfare tactic of the rich getting more tax money and the irresponsibility of increasing the national debt — a laughably untenable position for people who supported President Obama’s doubling the national debt in just eight years.

“It’s tougher to win when people are seeing more money,” said Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth, of Kentucky, the ranking minority member on the House Budget Committee. “That’s big money for a lot of people.”

Well, yes. So why are Democrats fighting that? They are literally saying the government should have that money — not working, middle-income Americans. Totally out of touch.

But good for Republicans and Trump.

The second lesson is that conservative issues are winners with the American people. Republicans must stop listening to the mainstream media, and listen to the American people. This is a lesson that apparently requires relearning every few years. The problem is that they are too influenced by the cultural elites. But the national media and celebrity class are as out of touch with Americans as the Democratic leadership.

But despite the overwhelming, negative public onslaught by the media and celebrities, the American people eventually see through the cultural nonsense to the real issue. But this is only beneficial when Republicans actually pursue and implement conservative policies with a pro-American attitude.

And the policies of President Trump and the GOP Congress have been overwhelmingly conservative (with the exception of the two-year spending agreement, in part because of the requirement for 60 votes and in part because of desire for re-election first.)

So Trump has been deeply unpopular in his first year, but of course, given the hysterically negative onslaught of media coverage, that is not too surprising. However, his approval ratings have been rising steadily since the tax reform package and the strengthening economy. In fact, his approvals are now equal or better than President Obama’s at the same time in his presidency at 48 percent approval, according to the most recent Rasmussen tracking poll.

What’s truly shocking is that Trump has received close to 90 percent negative media reporting in his first year and Obama had about 20 percent negative media coverage. Again, the American people eventually see through the smokescreen of old media coverage to the actual policies and their effectiveness. And conservative policies are effective and popular.

And the GOP has caught and maybe passed Democrats in the generic congressional ballot polls. Politico reports:

“Republicans have erased the Democratic advantage on the generic congressional ballot in a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll that, for the first time since April, also shows President Donald Trump’s approval rating equaling the percentage of voters who disapprove of his job performance.

Fully 39 percent of registered voters say they would support the GOP candidate for Congress in their district, while 38 percent would back the Democratic candidate. Nearly a quarter of voters, 23 percent, are undecided.”

What has changed? Certainly not the media reporting.

Largely, it has been the tax reform package, ongoing deregulation helping the broad economy, a breakthrough in the logjam blocking originalist judges, winning the government shutdown issues by not caving in and standing firm on building the wall and ending chain migration. There may also be a side help as more and more revelations show that there isn’t much to the whole Trump-Russia story, but there may be something to the FBI-DNC-Clinton-Russia story.

The bottom line remains the bottom line. If Trump and Republicans will stick to conservative principles, voice them confidently and expose liberal nonsense, they will win.


Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.

The Ash Wednesday Massacre: What have ‘we done wrong’ to allow this slaughter of our children?

The Ash Wednesday Massacre

Since the slaughter of 17 faculty and students on February 14th, 2018 by 19-year old Nikolas Cruz at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County, Florida the political discourse has been focused on fixing blame rather than fixing the fundamental problem. Please let me explain.

Many media outlets portrayed this as the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre. What many missed, as portrayed in the above photo of a crying woman with an ash cross on her forehead, is that February 14th was also Ash Wednesday. This is prophetic.

For you see Ash Wednesday in the Catholic Church is the first day of Lent marked by services of penitence. Penitence is sorrow for one’s sins.

The fundamental problem resulting in the “Ash Wednesday Massacre” is not government policy. The fundamental problem is not in the slaughterer’s choice of a weapon. The fundamental problem is not which political party is in control of the White House or Congress. The problem is not law enforcement or the lack thereof. The problem is not how the media commentators portray it in their routine fixing blame ways.

The fundamental problem is we are all sinners. The only solution is penitence.

Penitence requires a belief in God, the Father. It requires living a moral life. It requires dedication to not just doing good but being good in the image of Jesus of Nazareth. Penitence requires faith!

Each of us is to blame for the Ash Wednesday Massacre.

It is prophetic that the Ash Wednesday Massacre occurred in a public school. For you see the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale ruled the public recitation of Christian prayer in public schools is illegal.  In the 1963 case Abington School District v. Schempp the Supreme Court ruled corporate reading of the Christian Bible in public schools is illegal.

Ash Wednesday is the first day of lent. Six weeks after Ash Wednesday Catholics and Christians will celebrate Easter Sunday.

QUESTION: Given the Ash Wednesday Massacre, why is the date Easter 2018 falls upon important?

Wikipedia notes this about Easter:

Easter, also called Pascha (Greek, Latin) or Resurrection Sunday, is a [Christian] festival and holiday celebrating the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, described in the New Testament as having occurred on the third day of his burial after his crucifixion by the Romans at Calvary circa 30 AD. It is the culmination of the Passion of Jesus, preceded by Lent (or Great Lent), a forty-day period of fasting, prayer, and penance.

Easter falls on April 1st, 2018, also known as April Fools Day. 

Easter Monday is the day after Easter Sunday. It is not a federal holiday in the United States of America. Some Easter traditions continue on the Easter Monday, such as the egg rolling race at the White House.

Joe Zevuloni weeps in front of a cross placed in a park to commemorate the victims of the shooting at nearby Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Photo by CNS photo/Carlos Garcia Rawlins, Reuters.

In the New International Version of the Holy Bible 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 reads:

Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called,both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Those who are fixing blame are the foolish.

They are foolish because they do not believe in “the message of the cross.” Man cannot save mankind from himself. Only the “power of God” can save mankind from himself.

The Ash Wednesday Massacre is yet another example of the foolishness of our “wise” politicians, teachers of the law and philosophers.

The following dialogue appeared on social media after the Ash Wednesday Massacre:

Dear God,

Why do you allow such violence in our schools?

A Concerned Student

Dear Concerned Student,

I’m not allowed in schools!

God

American theologian, ethicist, commentator on politics and public affairs, and professor at Union Theological Seminary Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr wrote:

Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context in history; therefor we must be saved by faith.”

On Sunday, April 1st, 2018 there will be those who celebrate April Fools Day. On Sunday, April 1st, 2018 there will be those who will be celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The fools will remain foolish. The faithful will remain penitent.

RELATED ARTICLE: At Least 20 Students Told Police Nikolas Cruz Threatened To KILL Them—Police Did Nothing