I love One America News Network — Here’s why!

There’s a new cable news network that actually reports the news, not opinion. Pope Francis called fake and sensationalised news “a very serious sin.”

The only cable news channel that is not sinning is One America News Network or OAN.

Here’s an OAN video titled “This is an apple” a parody in response to the CNN “Facts First” commercial:

OAN describes itself as “adding credibility back into news.” OAN provides “a credible source for the day’s top headlines, both nationally and internationally – 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.”

The reporting is crisp, broad based and credible. The reporters do not interject opinion, they just report what is happening globally in short bursts of understandable reporting. OAN has two opinion shows.

The Daily Ledger hosted by Graham Ledger which “looks at the day’s top political stories through a Constitutional prism, while refusing to embrace the mainstream media’s and pop knee culture’s knee-jerk, low-information response and spin on current events.” Here’s Ledger on gun control:

The second opinion show is Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler. Tipping Point “provides informative, meaningful discussions from all sides of the political spectrum along with fresh analysis of political races.” Here is just one segment of Tipping Point.


OAN is growing and fast becoming the “4th rated national cable news channel.”

I suggest you given them a try. You’ll be glad you did.

Please check out One America News on YouTube.

Geert Wilders in Prague: ‘My party wants to take the Netherlands out of the EU. Our motto is Nexit!’ [Video]

TRANSCRIPT

Dear friends, I am very happy to be here in Prague, one of the most beautiful cities in Europe.

Thank you Tomio Okamura and the SPD for inviting me.

Your huge election victory last October here in the Czech Republic encouraged us all.

Congratulations Tomio! Congratulation SPD! Long live the Czech Patriots!

I am especially honored to have been asked to address so many Czech patriots here this evening.

Let me tell you a little secret: The Czechs are one of my favorite people in Europe.

You are a nation of heroes!

Just think of Jan Komensky, the great philosopher who also lived in the Netherlands. He was a great European, but wherever he went, he kept writing in Czech and remained a Czech above all.

Let us never forget his great lesson: Only by remaining what we are, we can be true Europeans!

When I think of the Czechs, I also think of Thomas Masaryk, the liberator of your land, your very own George Washington.

He mocked our so-called intellectual elites, who are eager to change the world, but too arrogant to see the wisdom in traditions and conservative values.

His great lesson is this: Respect the wisdom of the people. Respect the wisdom of our ancestors.

Our national values, our traditions, our identity, they make us who we are.

And we will never give them up!!

When I think of the Czechs, I think of Jan Palach, hero of the Prague Spring of 1968.

Jan Palach refused to live under a totalitarian dictatorship.

Rather than live under the yoke of totalitarianism, he preferred to die for freedom.

In this legacy we stand! All of us!

Palach made the word “Czech” into a synonym of bravery.

He is not dead, his spirit lives on! We will never betray it!

We, too, we want to live in freedom and remain who we are.

My party wants to take the Netherlands out of the EU. Our motto is Nexit!

We stand for sovereign independent nation-states because the nation-state is the home of our democracy and only the nation-states can protect our national identity.

And we are not afraid to state very clear: The EU is a monster! We want a future without it!

Of course, individual countries can cooperate bilaterally or even multilaterally if they consider this to be in their benefit.

But we reject all supranationalism. Because it undermines our national sovereignty, our national identity, our democracy and liberty, our values.

Today, Brussels wants to inundate us with Third World immigrants. Mostly from Islamic countries.

It wants to distribute these immigrants all over the EU member states. The result will be a disaster.

It will dilute the Judeo-Christian and humanist identity of our nations.

The Czech Republic and the other Visegrad countries reject this evil EU plan.
They – you – defend Europe and its civilization.

And we support you in your brave resistance against the EU!

Because, like you, we want to remain what we are: Free, independent, sovereign!

Proud nations with a Judeo-Christian and humanist civilization.

Forever free, forever civilized.

My friends,

Together, we must oppose the cosmopolitan elites.

Because these elites do not represent the people and are selling out the nation-state.

Together, we must oppose Islamic totalitarianism.

Because our civilization is not Islamic.

It is rooted in the legacy of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome! And not, never, Mecca!

Brussels is suing you. The cosmopolitan elites are suing the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary because they want your country to be Islamized in the same way as Western Europe.

That is a scandal! But you are not alone!

I stand with you.

All our friends here stand with you.

We want the same thing as you:

We want to remain the masters of our own house.

Together, we symbolize the flame of freedom that cannot be extinguished.

Here we stand, united in the fight for freedom! We are the vanguard of the new Europe!

You do not want in the Czech Republic what happens in Western Europe today.

What happens there is terrible. New figures about the growing Muslim population in the EU have just been published by the renowned Pew Center.

Unless there are radical changes to the present policies towards immigration, over 30% of Sweden will be Islamic by the middle of this century, and almost 20% in Germany and France.

You are right not to want that here.

We in Western Europe have made a terrible mistake. In the past four decades, we have allowed in millions of immigrants, many of them from Islamic countries.

And though not all immigrants are to blame, mass immigration had led to a disaster:

Crime has increased, violence against women has multiplied, anti-Semitism has risen, terror attacks have happened everywhere.

You do not want that here! You say: No! Never! Ne! Nikdy!

You do not want Sharia neighborhoods where Czechs no longer feel safe! We do not want mosques, imams, halal food, unequality of men and women, we do not want barbaric islamic sharia law in our land.

Islam is not a religion but an totalitarian ideology.

If you leave Islam you will be killed. Islam wants to dominate our society and is as an ideology unable and unwilling to assimilate. Islam means domination and violence and terror towards Christians, Jews, women, apostates and actually everybody who is not Islamic. Islamic sharia law and freedom are 100% incompatible. Nowhere in the world, in not one country where Islam is dominant, there is freedom.

So my proposal is: no more.

No more violence, no more hate, no more terror and no more islam. If you like Islam and want more mosques or imams or halal food and if you want to live under full sharia law you may have it. But not here, than you better move to Saudi

Arabia or Iran. Not here. This is our country. Do you agree with me?

In the past, the Czechs played an important role in protecting Europe against Islam.

It was your king, Ludvik, King of Bohemia and Hungary, who fell fighting the Ottomans at Mohacs.

Bohemians were also prominently present at the siege of Vienna.

You were a bulwark of the West against the Ottomans. And we in the West owe our freedom to you!

And today you once again resist both the EU asylum policy and the Islamization of Europe. And I tell you this: Thank you my Czech friends, thank you Visegrad countries! Your resistance inspires us!

Unfortunately, if nothing happens, worse is still to come.

The African population is bound to grow from its present 1 billion to 4 billion by the end of the century. One third of the Africans want to move abroad and many want to come to Europe

If we do not stop this, millions will be heading our way, we will become a province of Africa, we will be Islamized, our people will become a minority and our population will be replaced.

But our answer is clear: No! Never! Ne! Nikdy!

Therefore, our countries must adopt a totally new strategy.

We must have the courage to introduce travel bans, as President Trump has done in the US.

We must have the courage to send every boat with illegal migrants back, as Australia is doing.

We must have the courage to restrict legal immigration instead of expanding it, even if we sometimes have to build a wall, like the brave Hungarians have done.

We must have the courage to repatriate illegal immigrants. And the courage to de-Islamize and be unwelcoming to the ideology of Islam.

Instead of being soft, Europe must be tough.

There is no other alternative. If we fail, we will cease to exist.

If we do not have the courage to do the things I just mentioned, we will perish.

Because we are facing an existential crisis.

My friends, the big conflict of our age, the big confrontation ahead of us, is the conflict between globalism and patriotism, between supra-nationalism and identity.

And in this conflict, “Freedom” is our slogan! Svoboda!!

Long live the Czech Republic!

Tomio na Hrad

In the spirit of our national heroes we will defend the high castle of freedom and democracy.

And we will win!

Because we are the patriots!

Together, we are the wind of change that will shake the old order!

And restore Europe to the Europeans!!

Thank you.

This video is going VIRAL!!

Just last week we posted a video by our new Director of Urban Engagement, Candace Owens.

This video now has over 8 million views and climbing just on Facebook alone!!  Take a look at what Candace had to say:

Candace is the newest addition to the team at Turning Point USA, and we are thrilled to have her on board!  She is tasked with helping expand our field operations into urban communities, Historical Black Colleges and Universities, as well as directly challenge the left’s dominance in inner city areas!

Thanks to your support, we will be opening dozens more chapters in urban areas in addition to hosting our first annual “Black Leadership Summit” this summer!

Speaking of big events, it is not too late to sponsor a few students to our upcoming Student Action Summit in Palm Beach, FL.

We expect well over 2,000 students from across the country, and we have a roster of speakers that is absolutely phenomenal!

Sponsor a student TODAY!

Survey: NFL Is America’s Most Unpopular Sports Brand

A recent study shows the controversial National Anthem protests may have resulted in long-term damage to the National Football League’s brand.

The Winston Group Sports Survey found the NFL was rated “unfavorable” by 38% of respondents, the highest among major sports organizations for the third straight month. By comparison, Major League Baseball received an “unfavorable” response from only 15%.

According to the survey:

The NFL had been competitive, but since the kneeling controversy it fell significantly behind, and this survey continues to demonstrate that trend.

Furthermore, the NFL scored particularly poorly with older males (45% “unfavorable”) and the Winston Group noted the newest numbers might indicate “a settling-in process for the new brand standing of the NFL with the public.”

However, the survey was conducted November 29-30 as the NFL was announcing what appeared to be a pay-off of 89 million to the so-called Players Coalition and “social justice” organizations. Given the NFL Players Association’s historic financial support for George Soros related groups, it is likely these monies could be funneled to more leftist activists and  public opinion metrics will continue plunge, especially among conservatives..

Several advertisers like Anheuser-BuschDirecTV, and Papa John’s have indicated they are concerned with their companies’ association with the NFL brand.

It is becoming more and more clear that the NFL may be unable to reverse the damage caused by the National Anthem protests and could be facing huge public opinion problems, and losses of advertising dollars for that matter.

Reach out to the NFL and let them know why conservatives give the league an “unfavorable” rating because of the disrespectful anthem protests.

Contact the NFL! Reach Out to the NFL on Facebook!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Planned Parenthood Closed 32 Facilities in 2017

ICYMI: Patagonia Alienates Half the Country

37 Corporations Stand Against Religious Liberty in Masterpiece Cakeshop Case

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on 2ndVote.com.

VIDEO EXPOSE: Support for Hitler at Canadian University

Anti-Israel students at McMaster University in Ontario, Canada have published multiple social media posts praising Adolf Hitler, demonizing Jews and glorifying terrorist organizations.

Jew Hate at McMaster from Canary Mission on Vimeo.

“Everytime I read about Hitler, I fall in love all over again” and “Hitler should have took you all” are among scores of offensive comments flooding the social media pages of current and former students at McMaster U, Canada.

The Canary Mission December 2017 McMaster Report identifies 39 current and former students who posted over 280 bigoted comments on social media.

All have or had affiliations with the campus chapter of SPHR or Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights, a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).

The list of outrageous comments include:

  • “Death to America and white people” — Nadera Masad
  • “How long does it take a zionist woman to take out the trash?…………Nine months.” — Nadera Masad
  • “I honestly wish I was born at the time of the second world war just to see the genius, Hitler, at work.” — Rawan Qaddoura
  • “falastine ibladna wel ya7ood eklabna [palestine is our land and the jews are our dogs].” — Walid Abdulaziz
  • >“Where is hitler when u need one?’ I literally ask this every day.” — Esra Bengizi
  • “I’m actually going to the rule the world and get rid of anyone who doesn’t have basic common sense or if you’re yahoodi [Jewish]” — Esra Bengizi

On Tuesday the Algemeiner ran an article on the report. The response from the McMaster community was rapid.

It became a heated discussion point on Spotted at Mac, a McMaster community chat forum on Facebook with over 29,000 members,

The anti-Zionist Mac SPHR released a statement on their Facebook page that condemned the anti-Semitic comments posted by the numerous members and officers within their organization.

On Wednesday the McMaster university administration released a statement condemning the anti-Semitic posts and asserting that they are “actively reviewing” them.

The Algemeiner published a follow-up article that included a statement from the McMaster chapter of Hillel and one from B’nai Brith Canada, decrying the hateful posts and calling on the university to take action.

However, the response was not all positive.

“The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist. Add that to my profile.”

This was the shockingly unrepentant tweet sent out by Nadera Masad within a day of being exposed for promoting violence against Jews and praising Hitler. Since over 6.4 million Jews currently reside in Israel, her statement is nothing short of a call for a genocide — in greater number than even her hero Hitler.

A few hours later she tweeted“I keep saying, we need to cleanse the world of creatures such as these dirty white Americans,” with the note“Add this to my canary profile.” A day later, after having her fill of bigotry, she deleted her Twitter account.

The Canary Mission McMaster exposé is the latest in a series of scandals to have hit SJP and its leader Hatem Bazian. They have been exposed so oftenfor bigotry and racism that SJP is no longer seen as a serious player by university administrations or even former members.

To view the full campaign, go to CanaryMission.org/McMaster

Jewish Agency to Begin Closing Refugee Resettlement Sites

As I mentioned yesterday, when I reported that true-believer, Lawrence Bartlett, Director of Refugee Admissions at the U.S. State Department, had been reassigned to Puerto Rico (voluntarily we assume), resettlement contractors are in a panic.

At Jewish Telegraphic Agency (hat tip: ‘badboylookout’) we learn that the State Department is in talks with its contractors about which sites to close—the smaller ones first.

(Go here to see HIAS sites near you.)

This is a far cry from the heyday (Hillary on the horizon!) in mid-2016 when the State Department was reportedly working on a secret list of 40-plus NEW sites. (emphasis below is mine)

Mark Hetfield

(JTA) — HIAS, the Jewish refugee aid agency, will be closing resettlement programs in several cities due to a sharp reduction in the total number of refugees let into the country in the next fiscal year.

The group’s Chicago chapter announced in an email Friday that it would be shuttering its refugee resettlement program.

The same day, HIAS President Mark Hetfield told JTA that programs in other cities would likely follow, though nothing has been finalized. HIAS runs refugee resettlement programs in 21 large to midsize metropolitan areas.

“It is true that smaller resettlement sites are being closed, and we’re in negotiations with the State Department right now as to which those will be,” he said. “We want to keep open as many sites as we can. Chicago has a lot of resettlement agencies there, and that was a smaller site.”

Just think about that above—negotiations with the US State Department—once again confirming that state and local opinions are not considered (when opening or closing sites).  A non-profit group accountable to no voters and the US State Department are making decisions about your home town!

For the fiscal year 2017, HIAS resettled about 3,300 refugees after being approved to resettle nearly 4,800 refugees. The organization has been approved for about 3,300 this year, but Hetfield expects to resettle fewer. He said the reduced number will make it a challenge to engage 380 synagogues nationwide that had signed up with HIAS to help with welcoming refugees to their cities. [Of course no mention of the loss to their wallets!—ed]

More here.

That last bit really gets me hopping angry!

Here is an idea for the 380 synagogues:  Have we run out of needy people? Why not help the poor people where you live!  And, if it’s refugees you want to help, then find the ones who came in previous months and years who are STILL STRUGGLING to find housing, food, jobs, etc. Are only the newest ‘Americans’ more attractive to you, more worthy of your charity?

Go here to see my entire Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) file.

These are the nine resettlement contractors (six are ‘religious’ charities) that can’t survive without federal funding (your tax dollars). They work jointly with the US Dept. of State to change America by changing the people. Maybe it’s time they shifted their focus and take care of poor, homeless, needy Americans! Wouldn’t that be refreshing this holiday season!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Director of Refugee Admissions at Dept. of State reassigned to Puerto Rico

Refugees joyful about going home!

MPR working overtime to make Trump look bad with ICE Somali deportation flight

Syrian refugee in Canada claims discrimination in drivers’ license case

VIDEO: Growing Number of Obama DOJ/FBI Anti-Trump Abuses

Judicial Watch Sues FBI for Records About Removal of Alleged Anti-Trump FBI Official From Mueller Team

The FBI and Justice Department are engulfed in a rule of law crisis because of new revelations of evident bias among FBI officials and key DOJ prosecutors. Recently, we exposed how Andrew Weissmann, a top Mueller special counsel deputy has anti-Trump bias.  And this week, we’re in the forefront of a related scandal about an anti-Trump bias infecting the top echelons of the FBI.

Just yesterday, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI for records about the removal and reassignment of Peter Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, from the special counsel’s investigative team led by former FBI director Robert Mueller. Strzok also was the FBI’s chief of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illicit email server, interviewing Hillary Clinton himself on July 2, 2016.

We filed the suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia after the FBI failed to respond to an August 17, 2017, FOIA request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No. 1:17-cv-02682)). Judicial Watch seeks:

  • All records regarding the assignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok to the special counsel’s investigation led by former Director Robert Mueller.
  • All records related to the reassignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok from the special counsel’s investigation to another position within the FBI.
  • All SF-50 and/or SF-52 employment forms, as well as all related records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the FBI and any other individual or entity.

According to reports (here and here) Strzok was reportedly removed from the Mueller investigative team in August and reassigned to a human resources position after it was discovered that he and an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, who worked for FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and with whom Strzok was allegedly carrying on an extramarital affair, “exchanged text messages during the Clinton investigation and campaign season in which they expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.”

Strzok reportedly oversaw the FBI’s interviews of former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn; changed former FBI Director James Comey’s language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her illicit email server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless;” played a lead role in the FBI’s interview of Clinton and is suspected of being responsible for using the unverified dossier to obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on President Trump’s campaign.

It is disturbing the FBI has stonewalled our request about Mr. Strzok’s demotion for four months. One can only conclude the FBI and Justice Department, including Mr. Mueller’s operation, wanted to hide the truth about how Strzok’s and Page’s political biases and misconduct have compromised both the Clinton email and Russia collusion investigations.

Agent Strzok’s texts about Hillary Clinton and President Trump are responsive to another Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit but have not yet been produced by the FBI.

We worked the airwaves hard this week to educate Americans on the anti-Trump rule of law crisis.  You can view our important Fox hits here and here.  We also have been highlighting our battles on OANN here and here.

Obama State Department Cut Deal with Hillary to Keep Call Log, Schedules Secret

It has been clear all along that Hillary Clinton was doing things at the State Department that she doesn’t want anyone to know about. Judicial Watch already exposed her email scandal, but the secrecy went beyond emails.

Judicial Watch just released Obama State Department documents showing former Secretary Hillary Clinton and her then-Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin were permitted to remove electronic and physical records under a claim they were “personal” materials and “unclassified, non-record materials,” including files of Clinton’s calls and schedules, which were not to be made public. Outrageously, the documents show the Obama State Department records would not be “released to the general public under FOIA.”

Curiously, the new records also show that Huma Abedin was allowed to take five boxes of “physical files” out of the State Department that include records described as “Muslim Engagement Documents.”  (We recently found how Abedin’s controversial Islamist activist mother advised Clinton speechwriter to exclude references to “democracy/elections/freedom” and “empowerment of women” for Clinton speech in Saudi Arabia.)

We found the info about the secret Clinton-State Department deal thanks to our two-year-old Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for:

Any and all DS-1904 (Authorization for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Materials) forms completed by, or on behalf of, any of the following individuals:

  • Former Secretary Hillary Clinton
  • Former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills
  • Former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin
  • Former Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan

The documents include a list of official and personal calls and schedules that Clinton removed, which carry a special notation that the documents were not to be made public records. The notation is on an addendum to a DS-1904 signed by Clarence N. Finney Jr., then-director of the Office of Correspondence and Records, who was the reviewing officer:

NOTE: The Secretary’s call log, grid and schedules are not classified, however, they would not be released to the general public under FOIA. They are being released to the Secretary with this understanding. [Emphasis in original]

  • Electronic copy of “daily files” – which are word versions of public documents and non-records: speeches/press statements/photos from the website, a non-record copy of the schedule, a non record copy of the call log, press clips, and agenda of daily activities
  • Electronic copy of a log of calls the Secretary made since 2004, it is a non-record, since her official calls are logged elsewhere (official schedule and official call log)
  • Electronic copy of the Secretary’s “call grid” which is a running list of calls she wants to make (both personal and official)
  • 16 boxes: Personal Schedules (1993 thru 2008-prior to the Secretary’s tenure at the Department of State.
  • 29 boxes: Miscellaneous Public Schedules during her tenure as FLOTUS and Senator-prior to the Secretary’s tenure at the Department of State
  • 1 box: Personal Reimbursable receipts (6/25/2009 thru 1/14/2013)
  • 1 box: Personal Photos
  • 1 box: Personal schedule (2009-2013)

(JW has a pending request for the deposition of Finney in separate litigation concerning Clinton emails and the Benghazi terrorist attack.)

The originals of some Clinton documents were retained, such as the call logs and schedules. For other records, including material that predates Clinton’s tenure, there is no indication that a copy was made. The most significant of these are her personal correspondence and gift binders, which could reflect Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative ties.

Through our previous investigations we made public numerous examples of Clinton’s schedule being broadcast via email through her unsecure, non-government server (for example, see hereherehereand here).

The records also contain a list of materials removed by Clinton accumulated by Robert Russo, Clinton’s then-special assistant, including PDFs of Clinton’s “correspondence in response to gifts … thank you and acknowledgements,” as well as other records.

The documents indicate that Clinton removed a physical file of “the log of the Secretary’s gifts with pictures of gifts.”

The receipt of gifts by federal employees in the Executive Branch is regulated:

A “prohibited source” [of gifts] under the regulations is one who seeks official action from the employee’s agency; one who does business or seeks to do business with the agency; one whose activities are regulated by the employee’s agency; one whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties; or an organization a majority of whose members fit any of the above categories.

A gift is given “because of” the employee’s official position if it would not have been offered “had the employee not held the status, authority or duties associated with his Federal position.” Gifts that are “motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship” may therefore be accepted without limitation.

We already know the Obama State Department let Hillary Clinton steal and then delete her government emails, which included classified information. But these new records show that was only part of the scandal. They show that the Obama State Department had a deal with Hillary Clinton to hide her call logs and schedules, which would be contrary to FOIA and other laws. When are the American people going to get an honest investigation of the Clinton crimes?

Judicial Watch Sues California and Los Angeles Over Dirty Voter Registration Rolls

Judicial Watch is the nation’s leader in the legal effort to ensure the integrity of our elections.

To that end, we took a big step forward with the filing of a federal lawsuit against Los Angeles County and the State of California over their failure to clean their voter rolls and to produce election-related records as required by the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (Judicial Watch, Inc.et al. v. Dean C. Logan, et al. (No. 2:17-cv-08948)).

We filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s Western Division on behalf of Judicial Watch, Election Integrity Project California Inc., and Wolfgang Kupka, Rhue Guyant, Jerry Griffin, and Delores M. Mars, who are lawfully registered voters in Los Angeles County.

We argue that the State of California and a number of its counties, including the county of Los Angeles, have registration rates exceeding 100%:

Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.

Los Angeles County has more voter registrations on its voter rolls than it has citizens who are old enough to register. Specifically, according to data provided to and published by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112% of its adult citizen population.

The entire State of California has a registration rate of about 101% of its age-eligible citizenry.

We point out that this is due in part to the high numbers of inactive registrations that are still carried on California’s voter rolls:

About 21% of California’s voter registrations, or more than one in five, are designated as inactive.

California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country…. Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country.

Although these inactive registrations should be removed after a statutory waiting period consisting of two general federal elections, California officials are simply refusing to do so.

We explain that, even though a registration is officially designated as “inactive,” it may still be voted on election day and is still on the official voter registration list. The inactive registrations of voters who have moved to a different state “are particularly vulnerable to fraudulent abuse by a third party” because the voter who has moved “is unlikely to monitor the use of or communications concerning an old registration.” Inactive registrations “are also inherently vulnerable to abuse by voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same election day.”

We sent a written request for public records on November 16, 2017, and another on November 29, 2017, seeking information about “the number of inactive registrations on the voter rolls in Los Angeles County,” but we were told each time that there were no responsive records.

Last summer, we sent a broader request for voter roll records that Los Angeles County and the State of California are required by the NVRA to keep and to make publicly available. Nothing was produced in response to this request. We point out that it is impossible to believe that there were no responsive records:

Los Angeles County, with over five million active voters and massive list maintenance responsibilities, and the Secretary of State of California [must] have exchanged emails responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] request for “all email or other communications between the Secretary’s Office and all California County voter registration officials concerning . . . [i]nstructions to the counties concerning their general list maintenance practices and obligations” and “[n]otices to the counties concerning any failure to comply with their voter list maintenance obligations.” Such emails should have been produced.

Federal law is clear. Section 8(a)(4) of the NVRA requires states to implement a program to remove ineligible registrants; and to turn over relevant records and information. We argue:

Los Angeles County is failing to properly conduct the list maintenance required by the NVRA by failing to properly train employees, failing to require and enter registrants’ birthdates, and failing to timely process reports that registrants have died, have committed disqualifying felonies, are mentally incompetent, or have registered twice.

Our lawsuit asks the court to enjoin Los Angeles County and the state of California from further violating the NRVA and to compel them to “develop and implement a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove from Los Angeles County’s rolls the registrations of ineligible registrants.” We also want to inspect and copy the requested voter roll records.

We sent a notice-of-violation letter in August 2017 threatening to sue California and certain of its counties over their violations of the NVRA. California was one of 12 states to receive such letters from Judicial Watch.

Bottom line is that California may have the dirtiest election rolls in the country. Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. This lawsuit aims to ensure that citizens of California can have more confidence that their elections are fair and honest.

Judicial Watch Senior Attorney and Director of its Election Integrity Project Robert Popper recently provided testimony to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity concerning the NVRA. Popper was formerly Deputy Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

We sent notice-of-violation letters threatening to sue 11 other states having counties in which the number of registered voters exceeds the number of voting-age citizens, as calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011-2015 American Community Survey: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee. Judicial Watch informed the states that should they fail to take action to correct violations of Section 8 of the NVRA, it would file suit.

We previously filed successful lawsuits under the NVRA against Ohio and Indiana that resulted in those states taking several actions to clean up their voting rolls. We are currently suing Kentucky over its failure to remove ineligible voters as required by the NVRA, and we are suing the State of Maryland and Montgomery County over their failure to release voting-related records.

We are being assisted by Charles H. Bell Jr., of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP; and H. Christopher Coates of Law Office of H. Christopher Coates.

Judicial Watch Asks Supreme Court to Restrain FCC Ability to Impose Government Control Over the Internet Through “Net Neutrality”

President Obama and his minions spent eight years illicitly drawing as much power as they could to Washington D.C., and we’re doing our part to rectify that.

We have joined the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) in submitting an amici curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the court to hear the appeal of the 2015 case regarding an Obama-era FCC decision that reclassified broadband Internet as a public utility so that it could impose its restrictive net neutrality rules (United States Telecom Association, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (No. 15-1063)).

We argue that the circuit court’s decision “undermined the constitutional separation of powers” by allowing the FCC to directly intervene in the broadband Internet economy.

Our amici brief also argues that the lower court’s ruling will expose the FCC to undue influence from politicians and lobbyists now and in the future:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit gave an administrative agency like the Federal Communications Commission extended future powers to destroy enormous amounts of national wealth by reclassifying and regulating broadband Internet service… The result will be constant risk of damage to a major portion of the American economy and a simultaneous increase in wasteful rent-seeking behavior and agency lobbying. Amici are additionally concerned that unless this Court acts to rein in an unchecked administrative state, federal separation of powers doctrine will be badly undermined.

Additionally, we and AEF argue that the D.C. Circuit’s decision “is blessing Congress’ evasion of its constitutional responsibility to make laws. This will lead the executive branch to continue to usurp this authority with bolder and more inventive interpretations of decades-old statutes until eventually all real lawmaking power will lie in the executive and the judiciary.”

In May 2017, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FCC seeking records of the Obama White House’s influence in the FCC’s decision to reclassify broadband Internet as a public utility so that it could impose its restrictive net neutrality regulatory rules (Judicial Watch v. Federal Communications Commission (No. 1:17-cv-00933)).

On May 18, 2017, the FCC voted to propose a new review of the Obama-era net neutrality regulations passed in 2015 on Internet service, which greatly increased the FCC’s management of Internet content delivery and operations. In July, we and AEF submitted comments to the FCC:

[T]he prior FCC was not content to merely protect Internet openness. Rather than adopt simple rules toward that end, the prior FCC adopted a raft of economic regulations that serve little purpose other than to bring a thriving and successful industry to heel, placing it under the control of federal regulators. This was a simple power grab, taking decision-making authority away from entrepreneurial businesses and putting it in the hands of the FCC.

Judicial Watch/AEF also highlighted the political motivation behind the Obama FCC “power grab” that produced this “politically corrupted decision” to regulate the Internet:

The prior FCC’s adoption of the net neutrality regulations was a politically corrupted decision, which will do far more to increase the wealth of Washington DC power-brokers and lobbyists than it will to protect consumers… These net neutrality rules are a far-left, base-appeasing federal power grab. The regulations as written are certain to increase the amount of rent-seeking behavior already present in a usually smoothly functioning industry. As industry players position themselves to curry favor with federal bureaucrats possessed of far-reaching adjudicatory powers, Internet innovation, investment and consumers all will suffer.

The Judicial Watch/AEF comments were quoted twice in the FCC’s recent order:

Should the hypothetical harms that proponents of Title II imagine eventually come to pass, application of the antitrust laws would address those harms. fn. 517 … Judicial Watch Comments at 12 (asserting that “most of the potential or imagined future violations of net neutrality principles are already illegal under antitrust laws, including acts like website blocking, charging monopoly rents, collusion between industry players, and unfair competition. The existing antitrust laws can already be enforced against broadband providers by the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission, and the 50 State Attorneys General.”)

And to the extent an ISP has market power, antitrust law would only allow such ISPs to engage in pro-competitive paid prioritization practices. fn. 910 Judicial Watch Comments at 9-10 (“Allowing a two-sided market to flourish is more effective than regulation for keeping consumer prices low even in true monopoly provider cases, which broadband Internet is likely not, given the ubiquity of wireless broadband.”)

The Obama FCC’s attempted takeover of the Internet under the fake guise of “net neutrality,” which was blessed by the D.C. Court of Appeals, must be stopped and not allowed to serve as a precedent for further expansion of unconstitutional actions by the federal bureaucracy.

The Trump-controlled FCC just voted this week to undo Obama’s Internet takeover.  But this court battle could determine whether a future administration could come back with another government power grab of our Internet freedoms.

RELATED ARTICLE: Nellie Ohr, Wife of Demoted Justice Official in Trump Dossier Case Who Worked for Fusion GPS, Also Worked for CIA

About Our Epidemic of Sexual Aggression

Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons: The sex-abuse crisis presents a moment for the Church to communicate more fully the Lord’s liberating truth about human sexuality.

The current revelations of an epidemic of sexually aggressive behaviors (SAB) against women, particularly by men in the media over many decades, has led to calls to address this highly prevalent “disease” in our culture.

Peggy Noonan, however, has boldly identified its spiritual origins in the Wall Street Journal

An aging Catholic priest suggested to a friend that all this was inevitable. “Contraception degenerates men,” he said, as does abortion. Once you separate sex from its seriousness, once you separate it from its life-changing, life-giving potential, men will come to see it as just another want, a desire like any other. Once they think that, then they’ll see sexual violations as less serious, less charged, less full of weight. They’ll be more able to rationalize. It’s only petty theft, a pack of chewing gum on the counter, and I took it. 

The crisis provides an opportunity to acknowledge the full extent of SAB and, especially, its enablement by the culture, families, and schools because of the failure to take seriously the dangers and harm of using persons as sexual objects.

This crisis is not limited to adult males. The troubling reality is that this epidemic is prevalent in adult females, as well as in singles and in adolescents of both sexes.

A recent clinical experience with an adolescent male demonstrates this reality. When he refused the request of a female high school classmate to have sex, she responded with the hostile, insulting comment that he must be homosexual. This was followed that night by a telephone call from her irate mother to his mother, claiming that he was harming her daughter’s self-esteem and her right to have good sexual relationships.

Another example: a college freshman told her mother that the only reason she refused to date anyone in the Catholic high school she attended was because the males expected sex on the first and all following dates.

Many Catholic parents and educators do not recognize or are in complete denial about the extent of SAB in young people, its support by the contraceptive mentality, and its enablement, particularly by females, who crave acceptance and affirmation.

Over the past forty years as a busy psychiatrist, on many days I have felt like an army medic on a battlefield littered with severely wounded adults, teens, and children who have been used as sexual objects by other adults or by their peers. Their symptoms are similar to those with posttraumatic stress disorders.

A number of psychological conflicts are present among those who engage in SAB – the leading problem being severe selfishness/narcissism. This personality disorder is widespread in our time and results in the belief that one has the right to use others as sexual objects.

A leading academic psychologist on narcissism, Dr. Jean Twenge has examined this serious personality disorder in youth and has rightly entitled her book The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement because what we are seeing is definitely of epidemic proportions.

Many young people have absorbed this model through exposure to the same personality weakness in one or both parents – or were never taught by parents how to grow in virtues of generosity and self-control to overcome it.

Other important psychological origins of SAB include severe lack of confidence (most often, from rejection experiences in the father relationship and to a lesser degree with mothers); dominating and controlling compulsions; intense loneliness; strong anger that is misdirected sexually; abusive treatment by a spouse, parent, or peers; mistrust of one’s spouse and severe stress.

These factors regularly lead to compulsive pornography use and later SAB.

Such psychological conflicts can be addressed by a commitment to grow in forming and maintaining a healthy personality. This requires a decision to engage in the hard work of pursuing virtues such as respect for control issues, self-denial for selfishness, forgiveness for anger, trust for emotionally distant behaviors, hope and cheerful self-giving for loneliness, and faith for severe stress and anxiety.

The leading cultural factor in this epidemic is the media – particularly television shows and movies whose goals are celebrating sexual “freedom.” Hostility toward Judeo-Christian morality among politicians, educators, celebrities, and public figures is also a contributing factor to SAB.

St. John Paul II’s writing can be an important place to begin in countering SAB in the culture, especially his Letter to Women, which provides strong guidelines for appreciating how women should be valued and treated.

He also offers a crystal clear understanding God’s plan for sexuality in Familiaris Consortio (The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World). He wrote there:

. . . husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae Vitae as indicating the norm for the exercise of their sexuality and they should endeavor to establish the conditions necessary for observing that norm. [34]

Less well-known, but also quite important is The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality,which was released by the Pontifical Council on the Family during the pontificate of St. John Paul II, and can point us towards the cultural purification process needed to reduce the epidemic of sexually aggressive behaviors.

This current sexual-abuse crisis presents an important moment for the Church to communicate more fully – and without fear – the Lord’s liberating truth about human sexuality by placing it, finally, on a lampstand where it can shed some light in a darkened age. It is time to bring to an end the decades of silence about this much-needed truth, beginning with responsible and conscientious parents who, further, can count on support and backup from Catholic educators, priests, and bishops.

Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D.

Rick Fitzgibbons, M.D. is a psychiatrist in Conshohocken, PA who has treated youth and adults with gender dysphoria, and written on the topic. He is the co-author of Forgiveness Therapy: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope .

RELATED ARTICLE: Can the Church Recover Its Fighting Spirit?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured painting is titled Judith Beheading Holofernes by Caravaggio, 1599 [Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica, Rome] © 2017 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

VIDEO: Is Great Britain the Reincarnation of 1930 Nazi Germany?

There was a core group of anti-Semites in Great Britain, France, Germany and among the EU nations following World War II. However Jews were not threatened with injury and death for a period of time. That is no longer the case. Europe decided to import hundreds of millions of Muslim Jew haters returning their countries to the sick Jew hatred time of Nazi Germany of the 1930’s.

A substantial number of Jews in France, and other European countries have been emigrating to Israel and other countries because they see the handwriting on the wall. Many Jewish families lived through one holocaust and do not wish to live through another.  What the leaders of these Christian countries fail to understand is that the Jews are the ‘canaries in the mine‘. It is just a matter of time when they will not be welcome in their country because they are infidels too.

The highest level of government of Great Britain makes no secret that it will not protect its Jewish population. It is open season on Jews there.

Open Antisemitism in Britain. Who Cares? Not the Anti-Racist Left.

By Melanie Phillips

A demonstration was held in London last week in protest at President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. It featured the usual suspects: the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Stop the War Coalition, Friends of Al Aqsa, War on Want, Socialist Worker.

Nothing surprising about any of that. The far left — along with significant NGOs — is motivated by a vicious loathing of Israel and support for those committed to its extermination. It’s hardly news, therefore, that they would react so virulently against the idea that the Jewish people are fully entitled, legally, historically and morally, to declare that Jerusalem, which was only ever the capital city of the Jewish people’s own national kingdom, remains its capital city today.

Oh –– and Jewish Voice for Labour, which claims not to be anti-Zionist but merely to “uphold the right of supporters of justice for Palestinians to engage in solidarity activities”, was also at the demo.

Well, this is the “right” that JVL upheld last at last week’s “solidarity” activity. Watch here as the demonstrators chanted “Khaybar Khaybar, ya yahud, jaish Mohammed, as yahud”.

This translates as “Khaybar, Khaybar, oh Jews, the army of Mohammed will return” — a reference to the Muslims’ slaughter of the Jews of Khaybar in 628 CE.

For Islamist extremists and terrorists, this is a touchstone historical event which they seek to re-enact today. Chanting this is to declare their intention to do so. It is effectively incitement to murder Jews. And it was chanted on the streets of London, at a demonstration supported by Jewish Voice for Labour and under the noses of the “hate-crime” obsessed British police.

Read more.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Study: Anti-Semitism Rampant among Muslim Refugees in Germany

What Life Was Like for Christians and Jews When Arabs Ruled Jerusalem

Abbas: Palestinians No Longer See Role for U.S. in Peace Process

Video: Iron Dome Missile Defense System Intercepts Two Palestinian Rockets Fired from Gaza

January 12th, 2018: Next batch of Australian of Muslim detainees headed to Any Town, USA

RELATED VIDEO: Is Fascism Right or Left?

The Washington Post Exposes Pelosi Lie on National Reciprocity

As the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Of course, such a record would be an improvement for the Washington Post’s gun coverage. However, over the past year, the Post’s Fact Checker column has provided readers with a handful of well-researched pieces challenging the ridiculous assertions made by some gun control advocates. This week brought their latest, where writer Glenn Kessler admonished House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for her recent comments on H.R. 38, or the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.

Specifically, the article targeted a December 6 tweet from the former House speaker, where she stated,

Inviting violent criminals to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives

Inviting domestic abusers to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives

Inviting convicted stalkers to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives

Yet the @HouseGOP just voted to do exactly that #StopCCR

Earlier that day, the House passed H.R. 38 with bipartisan support by a 231-198 vote. The legislation would require states that issue Right-to-Carry permits to recognize the Right-to-Carry permits of all other states. Under the House legislation, law-abiding individuals from states where a permit is not required would also be able to carry in other states so long as they carry valid photo identification.

In relation to the tweet, a Pelosi spokesman told Kessler that the “information [was] provided by Everytown for Gun Safety.” Pelosi’s office also told Kessler that “the bill is terrible.”

Going to the heart of the matter, Kessler pointed out that the categories of individuals Pelosi listed are already prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) prohibits possession by any person,

who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

who is subject to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;

who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

States have small variations on the scope of individuals they prohibit from carrying firearms, but federal law targets the broad categories Pelosi mentioned. Explaining this fact, Kessler noted, “the differences among most states may loom larger in the gun debate than in reality.” Moreover, Pelosi should be well aware of the federal prohibition concerning those convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; in 1996 she voted to approve the final version of H.R.3610, which contained this restriction.

Kessler went on to note that some form of Right-to-Carry reciprocity is already the law for the vast majority of states. In fact, a majority of states already either recognize carry permits from all other states, or recognize the permits of any state where their permit is recognized – without any further conditions.

Pelosi’s dishonest tweet earned her a well-deserved three out of four Pinocchios from the Post. However, there is a solid case for a fourth.

It is Pelosi’s central thesis that H.R. 38 poses a public safety risk. Kessler addressed this by pointing to a letter to congressional leadership in support of H.R. 38 from Missouri Attorney General Joshua D. Hawley and signed by 23 other state attorneys general. Kessler cited a passage that stated, “Concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding members of society, and those States that allow for reciprocal concealed-carry permits have not encountered any significant safety issues.” However, other information in the letter and data and research on Right-to-Carry further refute Pelosi’s contention.

Elsewhere in the letter, Hawley, citing a law review article on the subject, explained,

In Texas, for example, state data on permit holders shows that, compared to the general public, they are “ten times less likely to commit a crime, eleven times less likely to commit an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and seven times less likely to commit deadly conduct with a firearm.”

A similar scenario has played out in Florida. As of June 30, 2017, there were 1,784,395 valid Concealed Weapon Licenses in the state. From July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, the state revoked or suspended 6,739 permits for any reason; a rate of 377.6 per 100,000. If limited to just license revocations, the rate is 83.6 per 100,000. FBI data shows that there were 726,396 arrests in Florida 2016, which is 3,524 arrests per 100,000 in population. Clearly, permit holders are far more law-abiding than the general public.

Moreover, violent crime has fallen by half since the early nineties, and at the same time, the popularity of Right-to-Carry has exploded. Since hitting an all-time high violent crime rate in 1991, 26 states have enacted “shall-issue” Right-to-Carry laws. In addition to this simple analysis, the vast majority of social science research on Right-to-Carry laws has found that these laws either have no effect on crime or have caused a modest decrease.

Throughout 2017 there has been mounting pressure among Democrats for Pelosi to relinquish her role as House minority leader. The concern is understandable. For years Pelosi has had poor favorability numbers, but now it appears she can’t even rely on the Democrat-friendly Post for fawning coverage. At least four times this year the Post has highlighted Pelosi’s lies about major legislation or the Trump administration. We’ll leave it to House Democrats whether they are comfortable being led by a politician who tells lies the left-wing media won’t even tolerate.

What The Heck Happened in Alabama?

Years ago, my brother David gave me a nugget of wisdom. He advised, “When faced with a crisis, stabilize your emotions before responding/acting.” Thus, I thought it best to wait a day or so before sharing my thoughts about Roy Moore losing in Alabama.

Moore’s loss simply does not make sense. Alabama is a red state. It is hard to believe Alabama voters chose Jones, a guy who supports killing babies even at the point of birth over 38 year old unproven sexual misconduct allegations against Moore. Yes, I smell the foul stench of democrat voter fraud in the Alabama senate race

We’ve heard the term partial-birth abortion, but most folks don’t know what it is. The abortionist takes the entire baby out of its mother except for the head. He then shoves scissors into the baby’s brain to kill it. Planned Parenthood is elated when abortionists can murder the baby without too much damage to the baby’s head. Intact heads sell for premium prices. Jones supports this horrific evil.

Rather that believing Alabama voters knowingly chose a man who supports murdering babies and trafficking their body parts, I tend to believe fake news media successfully hid Jones’ hostility towards unborn innocent human life. Leftists celebrate Jones’ mindset because Leftists deem killing babies environmentally responsible; necessary to save the planet from too many humans. Step on a spotted frog and Leftists are outraged at you!

Like nothing we’ve seen before, Leftists saturated the airwaves, social media and fake news media with 24/7 attacks on Moore, his wife and anyone supportive of him.

I want to thank Judge Moore for hanging in there when everyone and their brother on both sides of the political aisle demanded that he get out of the race. Moore said the allegations were untrue and he was not running away. I loved it; a real man with a steel backbone.

I realize we lost an important senate seat. But I am so sick of Republicans behaving like spineless wimps; allowing Leftists to dictate the rules of engagement; who we’re allowed to run, what is acceptable speech, what is racist, what is presidential and so on. When Leftists say, “Jump” the typical Republican response is, “How high?”

Folks, we throw our warriors under the bus far too quickly; reacting to Leftists’ and fake news media’s lies, distortions and smears. We have fallen for this Democrat and fake news media tag-team tactic far too many times.

We pray for courageous conservative Republican warriors who will fight on our behalf in Washington DC. When God sends us a hero, establishment elites, democrats, Hollywood and fake news media join together in a 24/7 campaign to brand our hero a kook, racist, sexist, mean-spirited, stupid and insane. Suddenly, folks on our side begin backing away, embarrassed to be associated with our brave conservative warrior. Folks, I have seen this happen with Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Judge Moore and others.

Meanwhile, democrats run candidates who are the scum of the earth; liars, con-artists, sexual predators and thieves. Leftists media promote democrat scoundrel candidates as our superiors with compassion for the little guy. We Conservative/Republicans abandon our candidates every time Leftists point out our candidate’s inability to walk on water.

It is amazing how effective Leftists media’s 24/7 relentless negative branding can be. Sarah Palin did an awesome job as governor of Alaska. When she became the Republican VP nominee, suddenly the woman is a complete idiot according to Leftists and fake news media. The American Left viciously and relentlessly politically spun, twisted and distorted every word out of Palin’s mouth to brand her stupid and crazy.

Wimpish Conservatives/Republicans began saying we must get rid of Palin because the media made her toxic. I was outraged. Is this how we treat our friends, our heroes, our warriors? I thought, “News flash, anyone we send to DC who is committed to fighting for our principles, values and best interest will be branded a wacko airhead by fake news media.” This is the tactic the American Left is using to get rid of Trump; branding him mean, dumb and unstable.

I have no problem with Trump being Trump; tweeting and so on. Leftist media will negatively spin whatever Trumps says. Therefore, I love Trump sticking it to them, not allowing Leftists to control him. I hate Republican’s typical fearful kowtowing to Leftists’ narratives and dictates.

Trump has made incredible headway in an extraordinary short time; unshackling us from the chains of political correctness and rolling back Obama’s punish-America agenda. God knew as an outsider Trump would be undeterred by fake news media’s dictates regarding acceptable Republican behavior. Trump’s fearlessness terrifies and enrages fake news media and their fellow Leftists. They are obsessed with getting Trump out of the White House.

After a week of intensely campaigning for Judge Moore, his loss was unexpected. But this was just one battle. All I know to do is trust God and continue faithfully fighting the good fight for my country; backing real-deal courageous conservative candidates; our warrior heroes.

My wife Mary and I will fly home and enjoy Christmas with our family.

Come next year, we’ll be back on the road fighting to keep Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer out of power. Please stand firm in your support for our president.

RELATED ARTICLE: Judge Roy Moore raising $75,000 to pay for recount in Alabama

Judge Roy Moore raising $75,000 to pay for recount in Alabama [Video]

Given growing reports of voter fraud during the Alabama special election and the revelation that Gloria Allred’s daughter offered six digit payoffs for women to accuse President Trump of sexual misconduct Roy Moore isn’t giving up.

In an email to supporters the Moore for U.S. Senate campaign stated the following:

I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for standing with me against the Washington establishment and those who despise our conservative Christian values.

Your encouragement, support and prayers throughout this brutal fight means the world to me and my family.

But I also wanted to let you know that the battle is NOT OVER!

You see, military and provisional ballots haven’t yet been counted by the Secretary of State’s office.

Without those ballots, Richard, this race is too close to call.

Not only that, but we have received reports of voter fraud and other irregularities at polling locations throughout the state.

That’s what I mean when I say the battle is NOT OVER!

And that’s why I’m counting on your generous support once more.

My campaign team is busy collecting numerous reported cases of voter fraud and irregularities for the Secretary of State’s office.

But Richard, the truth is, chasing down and gathering up these reports requires a lot of resources my campaign simply doesn’t have because our budget ran through Tuesday.

Worse yet, everything must be submitted shortly after the certification date, which is just a week and a half from today.

Time is running out for conservatives to guarantee the integrity of this election.   

So can I count on you to chip in a donation to my campaign’s “Election Integrity Fund” to help document and submit EVERY report of voter fraud and irregularities before the deadline?

Your generous support will help cover the costs associated with collecting and submitting the information on time.

This includes gas, research, phone calls, and hundreds of hours in manpower.

Any amount you can donate at this time is critical to ensuring the integrity of this election and making sure ALL votes are accurately counted before the certification date.

In closing, Richard, I recorded a special video message for you about the importance of this fight — and why the battle still rages on.

So please click HERE to watch the video and chip in a donation to help fund my campaign’s critical “Election Integrity Fund.”

Thank you again for your support.

Please stay tuned for more updates in the near future.

Sincerely,

Judge Roy Moore

RELATED ARTICLES:

Money talks: 2 Trump accusers in ‘payday’ scheme: Lawyer solicited cash from Clinton donors, tabloid TV during 2016 campaign

Kansas: Female Democrat Andrea Ramsey drops out of House race over 2005 harassment suit

The Humanitarian Hoax of Relativism: Killing America With Kindness

The humanitarian hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Relativism is defined as the belief that there is no absolute truth, only truths that a particular individual or culture happen to believe. People who believe in relativism accept that different people can have different views about what is moral and immoral. So far so good – society can tolerate multiple opinions on the relative merits of a thing or an idea. Here is the problem – civilized society requires consensus on the existence of that thing or idea – it requires agreement on what is real.

Objective reality is the foundation for the laws and rules that regulate public behavior in society.

In a previous article I introduced the problem of multiple realities inherent in Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory with the example of a man walking down the street.

Let’s review. A man is walking down the street. There are four people nearby. The first person says there is a man walking down the street. The second person says there is a person walking down the street. The third person says I’m not sure who is walking down the street. The fourth person says there is a woman walking down the street.

The objective reality is that there is a man walking down the street regardless of what the observers perceptions are. Objective reality is rooted in facts and exists independent of the perceptions of those facts. Subjective reality tolerates conflicting multiple realities because it is rooted in perceptions and informed by opinions. So, in subjective reality the fourth person’s observation that it is a woman walking down the street is accepted. The consequence, of course, is that societal acceptance of multiple realities ultimately creates chaos because there is no agreement on what is real.

Joseph Backholm is director of Family Policy Institute of Washington and is factually a 5’9” white male. In April, 2016 he interviewed students on campus at University of Washington to see if they would accept or reject his self-identification as a 6’5” Chinese woman or a seven-year-old child. The answers were shocking.

Backholm asked, “What if I said I was 7 years old?” A young woman answered if he felt like he was seven years old at heart then so be it – good for you. She actually accepted an adult male’s self-identification as a seven-year-old child. When asked if it would be okay for him to enroll in a first grade class another student answered that as long as he wasn’t hindering society and causing harm to other people it should be okay. Not hindering society? Not causing harm to other people? Backholm continued, “What if I told you I was 6’5” what would you say?” One student answered that it is not her place as another human to say he is wrong and to draw lines or boundaries. Another said that if he believes he is taller than he is it is not harmful so it is not a problem for her – but she would not tell him he was wrong. Only one student rejected Backholm’s self-description as 6’5″ saying he is not 6’5” even though she accepted him saying that he is a Chinese woman. These students demonstrated that their reality testing is firmly rooted in subjective feelings and opinions not in objective facts. Why is this a problem?

The students interviewed demonstrate the Leftist narrative that says all opinions are equal has moved beyond differences of opinion and debates about the merits of ideas into the realm of different realities. Leftist relativism is presented as humanitarian and respectful. These students do not consider accepting a 5’9” white adult male as a 7 year old child or as a 6’5” Chinese woman to be hurtful to another person or a hindrance to society. They live in the dreamworld of subjective reality where time, space, and factual reality are entirely absent. In dreams anything goes. In the conscious world the destruction of our societal standard of objective reality is beyond hurtful it is catastrophic because without consensus on what is real there is no infrastructure for laws and rules that regulate public behavior. Eventually there is only chaos.

Consider the shift in the definition of mental health. Historically mental health was a metric of being in touch with objective reality. Any student accepting a 5’9” white adult male as a 7 year old child or a 6’5” Chinese woman would be diagnosed as delusional because he/she is clearly out of touch with reality. Today the World Health Organization, an agency of the United Nations, defines mental health as a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his/her potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his/her community. No mention of being in touch with objective reality. So, students who accept a 5’9” adult white male as a 7 year old child or a 6’5” Chinese woman are considered mentally healthy as long as they reach their potential, cope with stress, work productively, and contribute to society.

What is the purpose of this change? Who benefits from the shift?

The Culture War on America is a war between subjective reality and objective reality. The Leftist narrative based in feelings and opinions seeks to collapse the established authority of objective reality based in facts. The Left has already unfrozen established American cultural norms that required consensus and objective reality through its educational and media indoctrination. Society is being indoctrinated to willingly accept multiple realities as normative and embrace feelings over facts. America is currently in a state of transition – the puddle of water – when college students, our future leaders are comfortable accepting unreality as reality.

The Left is using Lewin’s model to fundamentally transform the infrastructure of America from objective reality into subjective reality. The Leftist pressure to accept subjective reality is their primary weapon of destabilization. The Left is driving society crazy by demanding people accept unreality as reality.

Let’s review. Lewin’s three-step change theory can be visualized as:

1. UNFREEZE –  a block of ice that melts
2. CHANGE – into a puddle of water.
3. REFREEZE – and is then reshaped into a cone.

The Left seeks to refreeze America into a cone of subjective reality based on feelings not facts where the entire population, not just college students, will accept a white 5’9” male as a 6’5” Chinese woman. Why? Because the Culture War on America is a political a war between objective reality and subjective reality that will determine the course of our country. Why?

The end game of the cone of subjective reality is social control. This is how it works. Social chaos is always followed by government suppression that restores order. Civil liberties are suspended and the government acquires total control. This endgame of the Leftist Culture War on America is total government control.

RELATED ARTICLE: How the Left Became So Intolerant

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity.

On Net Neutrality: Do You Trust Government or the Private Sector?

By Doug Logan

Net Neutrality is aflame again as the FCC voted today to repeal Obama-era net neutrality regulations. This decision was heavily opposed from such internet giants as Facebook, Google and Twitter, causing the internet to be chock full of statements opposing the FCC’s decision.

However, what really is Net Neutrality, and is this reversal of the decision really the “End of the Internet” as many of these sites are claiming?

In the end, the answer to that question will depend on whether you believe government regulation of the internet is the best solution to keeping it open, innovating and competitive — as was the philosophy behind the Obama regulations — or whether you believe that private enterprise responding to market demands is best situated for accomplishing that — as had been the case the previous 20 years.

It’s worth understanding both sides to really grasp what is at stake.

At its core net neutrality means that your Internet Service Provider (ISP), should not be able to filter or give preference to any website or content on the internet and should remain “neutral” to whatever is passing over its network. This means that regardless of the ISP’s business, political or religious leanings; the content to a conservative news site, a porn site, the ISP’s own services, or a competitor’s services; all content should be treated exactly the same.

This idealistic viewpoint is not one that most people disagree with. Just like most people agree with the idealist comment that we should “Save the environment”, most people believe that the internet should remain as neutral as possible. The disagreements center around how this should best be accomplished, and what should be required to make it happen. Essentially, these debates center around a couple of big questions.

  1. Who do you trust more, the government or private telecommunication companies?
  2. Who do you think should have to pay for faster access to a service; the consumer of the service or everyone who has internet access?

Trust of the government vs. private telecommunications companies

On February 26, 2015, under the leadership of Obama-appointed Chairman Tom Wheeler, the FCC reclassified broadband Internet providers as “Common Carriers” as designated in Title II of the Telecommunications Act as amended in 1996 and stated they would be selectively applying the Title II provisions to allow the promotion of an “Open Internet”. This Title outlines everything from the required licensing for broadcasting, to provisions that require a telecommunications provider to provider access to their networks to competing entities in order to lower the barrier of entry and encourage innovation. The administration never stated which provisions of Title II would be enforced, and which would not be enforced; which leads to a lot of questions. Google is hopeful that some provisions could increase broadband availability, but other areas such as licensing, if applied; could very much stifle its growth.

Both Wheeler’s majority statement at the time, and dissenting opinion of Commissioner Ajit Pai, and now Chairman, support the concept of an Open Internet. The difference in their opinion’s is how they think an Open Internet is achieved.

Chairman Wheeler believes that an Open Internet must be obtained by government regulation, and states that ISP’s cannot be trusted:

“We know from the history of previous networks that both human nature and economic opportunism act to encourage network owners to become gatekeepers that prioritize their interests above the interests of their users.”

Ajit Pai on the other hand believes that the private sector has been doing a good job from 1995 to 2015 of providing an Open Internet, and it is in fact government regulation that will prevent this from continuing to happen:

“For twenty years, there’s been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and Open Internet… today, the FCC abandons those policies. It reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, to direct where Internet service providers put their investments, and to determine what service plans will be available to the American public. This is … a radical departure from the bipartisan, market-oriented policies that have served us so well for the last two decades. “

If you follow former  Wheeler’s train of thought, the private sector is always going to make decisions in its own self-interest and we need a larger government control of the internet to protect the consumer and make sure everything is dealt with fairly. The best way to support an Open Internet is to have the FCC regulate it.

If you follow current Pai’s train of thought, the government consistently stifles innovation and growth with regulation, and this should never be applied to the internet. The best way to support an Open Internet is to require the private sector to disclose anything they might do to prioritize, or inhibit traffic to individuals; and let the consumer enforce an open internet with where they buy internet access.

There is a lot of data that can go into supporting either of these viewpoints, but this all boils down to; which do you trust more to do the right thing, the government or the private sector?

Who should pay for faster access to a service?

Stating that the internet should be neutral to the content it is delivering sounds great in concept, but depending on how you interpret what this can create some pretty large technical hurdles to overcome. Internet speeds can be impacted by how far away the server is from your physical location, how many connections to the internet backbone your ISP has, where those connections are, how big those connections are, the amount of traffic flowing on each one of these connections, which traffic is prioritized, and even which traffic is completely blocked. These all come at a cost, and there is a big question on who should pay for this cost, and what is actually required for a “neutral internet”.

Pro-FCC Regulated Net Neutrality advocates state that there should not be “Fast Lanes” or “Pay-To-Play” allowed by ISP’s. Essentially what they’re saying is that if Netflix wants its content to reach Comcast subscribers faster, Netflix shouldn’t be able to pay Comcast for their content to arrive faster than competitor Amazon Video; and likewise, Comcast can’t require Netflix to pay in order for their content to be delivered to their users. Doing so, supporters state, would be anti-competitive since it would give one provider an upper hand over another provider.

Anti-Regulation individuals would argue, however, that it costs Comcast quite a bit of money to expand their network in order to handle the bandwidth-intensive requirements of Netflix or any video provider, and so who should bear the cost of that? If they charge Netflix reasonable fees for Netflix to put a server on the Comcast network, Comcast subscribers can get Netflix much faster and at a lower cost to Comcast and only Netflix users will pay for it via possible increases in Netflix dues. If they expand their network so that every single plan they have can benefit, they have to increase the prices for every single subscriber across the board to cover the costs, both video and non-video users; or they need to start filtering plans so that only higher costs plans get the higher speeds; delivering the Netflix speeds to only a certain class of user. Requiring Netflix to pay would be considered “Fast Lanes”, and filtering traffic to video on some plans would definitely be considered not net neutral.

As a result, based on these viewpoints; supporters of FCC regulated Net Neutrality tend to support the concept that every single end-user of a service should help pay the costs of everyone having a neutral internet, regardless of how much of the internet an individual actually consumes.

Anti-FCC regulation individuals on the other hand tend to believe that those individuals who consume a service should have to pay the costs associated with delivering that service. This either means that the service, like Netflix, may need to pay for their content to be put in a place where it can be delivered faster; or there may need to be special plans that allows access to certain content while other plans do not. This creates the most fair and Open Internet as costs are more user-based, and some are not subsidizing others.

Net neutrality conclusion

The American public generally agrees that we should have an open, and neutral internet, where no  provider should be able to filter or block content in order to promote their own financial gain or ideological viewpoints.

The question is: Should government regulate the internet to maintain innovation, growth or creativity? Should the cost of this free and Open Internet be distributed among all who use it? Would failure to have the government step in now result in an internet that ISPs take advantage of for their own financial gain at the expense of competition and freedom of ideas?

Or would government’s involvement stifle innovation and limit competition, and risk someday the government filtering internet content like it now does TV content. Is  the best way to promote a free and Open Internet to require ISP’s to disclose how they filter/prioritize their networks; and let the demands of the consumer force the internet to remain open? This means that the consumers of the services will be the direct individuals responsible for the costs of obtaining those services.

ABOUT DOUG LOGAN

Doug Logan is a long-time cyber security expert and Founder and CEO of Cyber Ninjas. He is also the Chief Technologist at U.S. Cyber Challenge.

RELATED ARTICLE: YouTube Temporarily Suspends Ajit Pai’s Parody Video on Copyright Grounds

RELATED VIDEO: PSA from Chairman of the FCC Ajit Pai.

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

The Battle between the Trust Orlando Coalition and the No Sanctuary City Coalition

This battle should not exist were it not for certain Mayors and Commissioners that refuse to obey and enforce federal law.

Back in June 29th, 2017 President Trump made the following statement regarding the passage of Kate’s Law and No Sanctuary for Criminals Act.

President Trump,

“[A]pplauded the House for passing two crucial measures to save and protect American lives. These were bills I campaigned on and that are vital to our public safety and national security. The first bill, Kate’s Law, increases criminal penalties for illegal immigrants who repeatedly re-enter the country illegally.”

“The second bill, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, restricts taxpayer grant money to cities that prevent their police from turning over dangerous criminal aliens to federal authorities. Sanctuary cities are releasing violent criminals, including members of the bloodthirsty MS-13, back onto our streets. Innocent Americans are suffering unthinkable violence as a result of these cities’ reckless actions. The House bill also includes what is known as Grant’s Las and Sarah’s Law. These provisions, which prevent the release of dangerous criminals awaiting removal proceedings, are named for two slain Americans whose parents I was able to spend time with during the campaign”

This battle over enforcing federal immigration law has now reached Orlando, Florida where the Mayor has chosen to make it an unsafe pseudo sanctuary city. I refer you to an article that was published in the “Orlando Rising” on Oct. 30th, 2017.

This article refers the Trust Orlando Coalition having made inroads to convert Orlando into a city where people of all races, backgrounds, religion, and IMMIGRATION status, are welcome!

To quote Mayor Dyer when speaking to a female DACA recipient:

“You have nothing to worry about – the Orlando police officers do not detain immigrants or inquire about their immigration status. The city and its legal department will continue to work with the Trust Orlando Coalition to show they are willing to step forward on this issue. The City will not focus on immigration enforcement but on making Orlando the best place in America to live, work, play, and raise a family”.

Ivan Velazques, a DACA recipient and activist who heads the “Florida Immigration Coalition” is responsible for the defeat of 9 anti-Sanctuary bills in the Senate back in May. They are seeking the TRUST Act from Mayor Dyer that sends a clear message to the “migrants” (illegal aliens) that they are welcome and protected in Orlando.

Legal Immigrants for America got involved to form a coalition of our own: The No Sanctuary City Coalition, to write a Resolution, and present it to Mayor Dyer and the Orlando City Commissioners to enforce and cooperate with federal law and deny the codifying of Orlando as a pseudo-Sanctuary City. The Resolution reads:

To: Mayor Buddy Dyer and Members of the City Council

Re: Resolution affirming that the City of Orlando, Florida shall continue to enforce Federal Immigration laws and regulations and shall not adopt Sanctuary City Policies

WHEREAS, certain municipalities and counties in the United States have adopted or implemented sanctuary city policies that limit cooperation with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration laws and regulations; and

WHEREAS, sanctuary city policies may prohibit the sharing of immigration information between local law officials and federal agencies; restrict the authority of local police officers to make arrests for federal immigration violations; restrict local police responses to federal immigration detainers; and implement other policies intended to limit cooperation with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and

WHEREAS, failure to cooperate with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration laws and regulation may bring financial repercussions that will harm our lawful resident, both immigrant and native born, in particular the neediest and most vulnerable among us; and

WHEREAS, the City of Orlando is committed to enforcement of federal immigration laws and regulations; and

WHEREAS, The Orlando Police Department will send a notification to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) upon reasonable suspicion that a person arrested for, or suspect of criminal activity, is not legally present in the United States as per ICE Detainer Form (1-247A) implemented April 2,2017; and

WHEREAS, the proper authority will respond to an ICE detainer until the end of an inmates’s scheduled release date. During this time, ICE may arrange to assume custody of any undocumented immigrants; and

WHEREAS, Purchasing requires that any City contractor or vendor rendering services or goods in an amount of $3,500 or more must provide a sworn certification of compliance with all federal immigration laws, including the Federal Immigration Reform and Control Act; and

WHEREAS, The City of Orlando will abide and enforce all federal and local immigration laws equally amongst all people showing no favor or bias towards anyone group over another, end ‘Bias Free Policing’; and

WHEREAS, ICE and Customs Border Protection (CBP) will have full access to city facilities or person(s) in custody without a warrant; and

WHEREAS, The City of Orlando, Mayor, or by any Executive Order will not prevent Orlando police officers and city employees from asking about immigration status “except as required by federal or state statute or court decision.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Orlando, Florida:

1. The City of Orlando, Florida has no intention of adopting policies intended to restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws and regulations; and
2. The City of Orlando, Florida, under the direction of the City Manager, will continue to uphold all federal, state and local immigration laws, and cooperate with ICE, CSP, and other agencies in the enforcement of the same.

On the 11th of December about 20 of The No Sanctuary City Coalition representatives appeared in front of the Mayor to present our Resolution and defend it. The Trust Orlando Coalition had many representatives in the room. CAIR, La Raza, the local AFL-CIO, and organizations from UCF, unions, etc.

We will be publishing the u-tube video on LIFA’S Facebook Page. To watch it, go to: www.golifa.com and then to Facebook.

LIFA believes that we need to emulate Governor Abbott or Texas and make our state immune from the Sanctuary City threat and aberration. Such a bill (HB-9) has already passed the Florida House, but has been held up in the Florida Senate. We all need to contact them

The Trust Orlando Coalition has about 34+ organizations that have joined to disrespect the laws of our country. They believe the higher the number of anti-American organizations they have the greater the chances for them to prevail.

We, The No Sanctuary City Coalition believe that we are on the right side of the issue. We believe that by illuminating the unfairness and biases of our politicians giving preference to the illegal criminal aliens over and above Americans and legal immigrants, that they should be considered in dereliction of duty and suffer consequences.

The open borders have attracted people from as many as 70 countries hostile to America. If they won’t obey the law, perhaps they will listen to We The People. I ask that you help us become greater in number as well.

Thank you and God Bless the United States of America!

Respectfully,

Amapola Hansberger

President
Legal Immigrants for America
www.goLIFA.com

ABOUT AMAPOLA HANSBERGER

Amapola Hansberger was born and raised in Managua, Nicaragua. She attended a French Roman Catholic Academy. At the age of 18 she entered the United States as a US Resident. Studied English and Secretarial Sciences at UC Chatsworth. Went to work for Gene Autry’s TV station KTLA-5, Hollywood, Ca. as Executive Secretary for the Chief Engineer. Three years later, she went to work for NBC-4, Burbank, Ca. as Executive Secretary and Assistant to the CFO of Technical Operations. In 1973 she went to work for Pan American World Airways as a Spanish qualified Flight Attendant. She has been a licensed Realtor in California, Hawaii, and Florida and a real estate investor. She became a US Citizen in 1975. In 1979 she lost her country of birth to Communism. Amapola and her husband, James, founded Legal Immigrants for America. The voice of the voiceless legal immigrant, in Oct. 2014.