Killing Trump is Deep State’s ‘Plan C,’ Warns Advisor Roger Stone

It’s a shocking claim made by a political insider: The Deep State is so opposed to draining the swamp that it will, if necessary, kill President Trump to prevent it.

Roger Stone, a longtime Trump advisor and confidante, certainly knows his way around Washington, having worked as a senior campaign aide to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Senator Bob Dole as well as having held many other political positions. This proximity to the Deep State is what makes his claim, expressed in a recent wide-ranging interview with The New American magazine’s Alex Newman, that much more eyebrow-raising. Stone outlined three plans the Deep State has for eliminating the president, as Newman relates:

The Deep State’s “Plan A,” Stone said, is the imploding “investigation” into alleged “Russian collusion” by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. If and when that fails, which Stone suggested was likely, the establishment would move to “Plan B.” In essence, that plot would involve trying to get a majority of Trump’s cabinet to declare him unfit for office. This would allow Trump to be removed under the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment — another scheme Stone said would probably flop. Last but not least, though, if all else fails, Stone warned of “Plan C”: Killing the president.

Interesting here is that Newman’s piece was published January 1, just before talk of President Trump’s alleged mental instability became the month’s big news story. In fact, released just four days later was journalist Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury, which makes the case that Trump is psychologically unfit to hold office. Note, too, that Wolff has boasted that his book will bring down the president.

Yet this bold claim will more likely just bring up book sales. It’s not only that Wolff has said that he can’t be sure everything in his book is true, that it contains factual errors and that he is, as ex-Trump strategist Sebastian Gorka put it, “a partisan self-promoter with credibility issues….” It’s that removing a president for inability to discharge his duties isn’t easy.

As per the 25th Amendment’s Section IV, Vice President Mike Pence would have to declare Trump unfit, 13 of the 24 cabinet members would have to agree, and then two-thirds of both houses of Congress would ultimately have to vote to uphold the decision. Unless Trump starts fainting right and left and throwing behind-the-scenes temper fits like Hillary Clinton, Stone is correct in saying this is unlikely.

This leaves the alleged “Plan C.” But is such a Deep State course of action really in the cards? Calling Trump “a shock to the system,” Stone explained his thinking to the New American: “It’s easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties.” And with the economy flourishing and public confidence up, “it’s easy to misread the deep enmity and hatred that the globalists and the [i]nsiders have for this president, and to underestimate their resolve to remove him,” said Stone.

“If all else fails,” writes Newman, “Stone believes the Deep State would, in fact, attempt to murder the president.”

Stone emphasized that if “Mueller should fail in his illegitimate coup d’état to take down the president,” he thinks “you will see an uptick in the ‘Trump-is-crazy’ talk,” reported Newman. Again, we’ve already witnessed this.

Newman further relates, “Stone warned that even some of Trump’s most senior officials would throw him under the bus if given the opportunity. ‘I can tell you, there are members of Trump’s cabinet that would stick a dagger in his heart,’ he warned, echoing other warnings that he has offered publicly in recent weeks. ‘There are globalist insiders who, for one reason or another got into this cabinet, who do not share the president’s vision of reform, and are not loyal to him as I am and so many Americans are.’”

Explaining the presence of these dangerous establishment figures within the administration, Stone said, “Unfortunately, I think that the president misunderstood early in the process that personnel is policy.” Stone also believes that Trump’s lawyers are doing him a disservice, saying that they’re currently “walking him into the blades.”

Stone, a colorful political operative known among other things as a “dirty trickster,” further explained the Deep State’s enmity for Trump. As Newman reports, “‘Trump is a real American, a patriot, he’s a real believer in Americana, and also in American superiority — American exceptionalism, if you will — and a believer in American sovereignty,’ Stone said. ‘He’s always been deeply suspicious of the international types that he was happy to sell condominiums to at inflated prices, but he never shared their politics.’” Stone also emphasized that, unbeknownst to most, Trump comes from “a long line of anti-communists.”

Moreover, because of Trump’s wealth, Stone says he’s “unbought and unbossed….. Anybody who has tried to boss Donald Trump around knows that that won’t work. He’s very much his own man.”

So, a patriot and a believer in Americana, sovereignty and American exceptionalism who can’t be bought or bullied — that certainly is the Deep State’s worst nightmare. The question is: Would it resort to murder to end it? Is Stone’s warning risible or realistic?

All I can say is that it’s a striking claim, and it certainly warrants more media exposure than a questionable book written by an attention-seeking journalist.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

How to successfully stop illegal immigration: Follow Israel’s model

By Christine Douglass-Williams

Israel is regarded as a global leader in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Less well known is that the Jewish state has over the years contended with a major issue of regional migrants entering the country illegally and has successfully halted this infiltration to the point where not a single illegal entered in 2017, according to Israeli government statistics.

“From 2007-2012, about 61,000 illegals were able to infiltrate Israel,” yet this tiny nation has survived, despite being surrounded by mortal enemies that have sought its destruction since its birth.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared what should be obvious to every Western nation and be expected from citizens: that “every country has an obligation to protect its borders.”

While the West is now faced with border invasions, there is another parallel problem that Israel has long dealt with. America and Canada are now confronted with the Muslim Brotherhood Plan to “sabotage its miserable house” and conquer it; Israel, meanwhile, has been faced with documented charters to obliterate it:

  • Hamas “strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine”, vowing that “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
  • According to the PLO Charter: “Israel is the instrument of the Zionist movement..a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world.” So therefore, justification is made to obliterate the Jewish state in the name of a warped view of peace and harmony. In fact, the PLO manifesto’s stated purpose is the for “liquidation of the Zionist presence”.
  • The Fatah Charter describes “the Israeli existence in Palestine” as “a Zionist invasion.”

Compared with Israel, the West is lagging in dealing with issues of jihad threat and terror. What has now arrived to torment the West and usurp its democracy, Israel has been contending with for decades, and has earned its place as a model.

“How to Successfully Stop Illegal Immigration: Follow Israel’s Model”, by Aaron Klein, Breitbart, January 9, 2018:

EILAT, Israel – Israel is regarded as a global leader in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Less well known is that the Jewish state has over the years contended with a major issue of regional migrants entering the country illegally and has successfully halted this infiltration to the point where not a single illegal entered in 2017, according to Israeli government statistics.
“Every country has an obligation to protect its borders,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared last week while announcing new steps to deport illegal migrants currently residing in Israel. “Protecting the borders from illegal infiltration is both the right and the fundamental obligation of a sovereign country.”

Here are Israel’s five primary methods of fighting illegal immigration.

1 – Build a barrier.

While most people are familiar with Israel’s West Bank security barrier, constructed to thwart terrorist infiltration, less well known is that Israel in 2013 completed a barrier that runs the length of the vast Israel-Egypt border to stem the flow of illegal African migrants entering the country. Upon completion of the barrier, the numbers of illegals crossing into the Jewish state slowed to a trickle and entirely stopped this past year.

From 2007-2012, about 61,000 illegals were able to infiltrate Israel, with most originating from Africa. The first half of 2012 saw 9,570 illegals enter Israel, but that number was slashed to only 34 the first six months after most of the barrier was constructed. 2015 brought with it 213 border breaches, prompting Israel to raise the height of the fence from 5 to 8 meters along a vulnerable stretch of the barrier. Israel’s Defense Ministry documented only 11 successful infiltration attempts in 2016. Israel says that not a single illegal migrant successfully infiltrated in 2017.

The Egypt-Israel barrier consists of warning systems, an electronic “smart” fence and information collection centers. Critically, Israel’s borders are patrolled by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

The West Bank barrier is another successful model. Israel began construction of it in 2002 at the height of the second Palestinian intifada, or terrorist war of shootings and suicide bombings targeting Israeli civilians. That intifada was launched after PLO leader Yasser Arafat rejected an Israeli offer of a Palestinian state during U.S.-mediated negotiations in the summer of 2000.

Upon the completion of a significant continuous section of the security fence in 2003 and the implementation of security checkpoints, Israel saw a marked decrease in the number of suicide bombers able to penetrate Israeli cities.

About 95% of the barrier consists of a chain-link fence backed up by high-tech surveillance systems and IDF patrols and not the concrete barrier routinely shown by the news media. The concrete barriers are usually only located in areas where the wall intersects with Israeli communities and roads, including areas of previous Palestinian shooting attacks.

2 – Forcibly deport illegal immigrants.

The infiltration of illegal aliens brought with it rises in crime rates and impacted the security of Israeli cities, especially south Tel Aviv, where many residents complain of no longer feeling safe. According to UN statistics from 2013, some 77% of the Africans that infiltrated Israel are males between the ages of 18 and 35. Very few of the infiltrators are refugees fleeing persecution. Most are economic migrants looking for work. The illegal migrants were also opposed by Palestinians since they provided cheap labor and competed with Palestinians for some jobs.

Over the past year, 4,012 illegals voluntarily left Israel after security forces here started to step up deportation efforts. Last week, the Knesset approved the Infiltrator’s Bill, which allows the country to forcibly deport illegal infiltrators, with exceptions for children, the elderly, parents of dependent minors, those with refugee applications pending and victims of slavery or human trafficking.

3 – Provide incentives for illegals to leave on their own.

Israel has given notice to all illegals that they have 90 days to vacate. If the illegal migrants go willingly during that time period, they will be provided $3,500 and can depart to their home countries or to third countries. After the 90 day grace period, Israel has warned that illegals will be imprisoned or deported.

4 – Cut off all government funds.

Israel’s Knesset last month also advanced a bill to close the country’s Holot detention facility, where the Israeli government currently pays for food and housing for illegal infiltrators.

5 – Crack down on employers who hire illegals…..

ABOUT CHRISTINE DOUGLASS-WILLIAMS

Christine Douglass-Williams is author of the book The Challenge of Modernizing Islam. She is a regular writer for Jihad Watch, Public Affairs and Media Consultant to the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem Canada and on the board of advisors for the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow. Christine is also a former-federally appointed Director with the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and past advisor to the former Office of Religious Freedom in Canada. Christine has conducted over 1,700 live television interviews as a current affairs talk show host and television producer on CTS TV in Burlington, capturing six international awards (including the Telly, Videographer and Omni Awards). A past political and crime news reporter and news room editor, Christine has also served as a regular national columnist with Metro News where she also provided news analysis on political and diversity issues. Her writings have appeared in many publications including: the Middle East Quarterly, FrontPage Magazine, USA Today Online, Wall Street online and the Gatestone Institute in New York where she has been on the Board of Governors.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

Trump: Immigration Deal Has ‘Got to Include the Wall’

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he would not sign an immigration bill without funding for a border wall—clarifying some doubt left over from a bipartisan meeting with members of Congress a day earlier about reaching a deal on the policy for the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.

Asked during a joint White House press conference with Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg if he would sign a deal that didn’t include the wall, Trump responded, “No, no.”

“It’s got to include the wall. We need the wall for security,” the president said. “We need the wall for safety. We need the wall for stopping the drugs from pouring in. I would imagine that the people in the room — both Democrat and Republican —I really believe they’re going to come up with a solution to the DACA problems.”

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, proposed legislation Wednesday to allow illegal immigrants brought to the country as minors receive protection from deportation to get a three-year renewal; to provide $30 billion for construction of the wall, adding  5,000 Border Patrol agents, and another 5,000 Customs and Border Protection officers; defund sanctuary cities; and require employers to use E-Verify to ensure the legal status of workers. Co-authors of the legislation are Reps. Raúl Labrador, R-Idaho, and Martha McSally, R-Ariz.

When meeting with members of Congress Tuesday, the bipartisan group decided to address four issues: DACA, border security, chain migration, and the visa lottery system.

During the meeting, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., asked the president about doing a “clean” DACA bill and saving the other issues for a second phase of a “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Trump, at first, seemed to be warm to the idea.

“We’re going to do DACA, and then we can start immediately on the phase two, which would be comprehensive,” Trump said in response to Feinstein. “I think a lot of people would like to see that. But we need to do DACA first.”

After that, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., jumped into explain the need for border security.

Trump later said during the meeting: “To me, a ‘clean’ bill is a bill of DACA. We take care of them, and we also take care of security, and the Democrats want border security, too. … Then we go to comprehensive later on.”

DACA stemmed from President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive action that shielded an estimated 800,000 illegal immigrants from deportation brought to the country as minors. Comprehensive immigration reform has in past proposals included providing legal status to the more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Last fall, the Justice Department announced it was reversing DACA, under threat of a lawsuit from 10 state attorneys general, giving Congress a deadline of March for legislating a replacement. However, on the same day as the bipartisan meeting, a federal judge in California ordered the Trump administration to maintain the program. The Justice Department announced it would appeal the ruling.

Trump also took questions about the possible interview with special counsel Robert Mueller, named to investigate possible collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia.

“There is collusion, but it is really with the Democrats and the Russians far more than it is with the Republicans and Russians,” Trump said.

Many legal experts said they believe Mueller if focused less on Russia and more on building an obstruction of justice case against Trump or associates.

“When they have no collusion, and nobody’s found any collusion, at any level, it seems unlikely that you’d even have an interview,” Trump said.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump: Judge’s move to protect DACA shows court system is ‘broken and unfair’

RELATED VIDEO: President Trump and Prime Minister Solberg of Norway hold joint news conference

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Donald Trump answering questions from reporters during a joint news conference with Prime Minister Erna Solberg of Norway Wednesday in the East Room of the White House. (Photo: Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/Newscom)

Trump’s EPA Is on Course to Retire Half Its Staff

Due to a series of buyouts and retirements, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could cut its workforce by half by the end of President Donald Trump’s first term in office, The Washington Examiner reports.

Several agencies in the Trump administration are focused on a leaner workforce and cutting spending. The EPA is leading the pack. It is on track to reduce the size of the agency anywhere from 25 to 47 percent.

“We’re proud to report that we’re reducing the size of government, protecting taxpayer dollars and staying true to our core mission of protecting the environment,” EPA administrator Scott Pruitt said in a statement to The Washington Examiner.

At the start of 2018, EPA employed 14,162 workers. Through Pruitt’s series of buyouts and generous retirement packages, as well as normal retirements, up to 47 percent of employees will leave the agency in the next five years.

Trump initiated a hiring freeze in Jan. 2017 that will prevent retirees being replaced by new hires.

If the EPA remains on its current course, agency could employ less than 8,000 people in the next few years. It would be the leanest workforce the agency has seen since 1972, two years after it was created.

Tim Pearce

Tim Pearce is a reporting fellow for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @timbpearce.

The House’s Born Ultimatum

Like a lot of pregnant women, the young mom who visited Planned Parenthood in St. Paul last summer wasn’t sure she wanted to have the abortion. Already well into her second trimester, she was started to have second thoughts about whether this was the right decision for her or her baby. But, pressured by doctors to go through with it, she agreed — giving her permission for them to start the painful, two-day procedure. When the time came, she watched in shock as the male abortionist started “jamming that needle in and out” of her stomach. Finally, she was told: he couldn’t reach the baby’s heart to inject it with the fatal drug that would kill it. Panicked that her child might survive the abortion, she asked, “What if the baby was to come out alive?” The female doctor paused and said, “Most likely, we would break the baby’s neck.”

Horrified, she asked them to stop the dilation and went home. Her baby survived. But dozens of unborn children, who cross that same threshold every day, aren’t so lucky. As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, the killing of a tiny child — whether she’s in the womb or breathing on her own — is what “choice” is all about. The decision of destroying a life, they’ve argued, even one who’s lived through the worst our world had to offer, “should be between the patient and the health care provider.” Even if it’s murder. They’ll deliver a baby alive to harvest its organs or they’ll cover up a botched abortion by leaving the little survivor to die. Either way, they’re breaking the law. And Republicans in Congress have had enough.

For more than two years, they’ve held hearings, launched investigations, and turned over reams of damning evidence to the FBI. Now, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) says, it’s time to act. “Next week– the week of the annual March for Life, when tens of thousands of Americans come to Washington to give voice to the voiceless unborn — the House will vote on the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act,” he announced. The bill, which easily passed the same House in 2015, never got a vote in the Senate. This time, leaders vow, it will. Although a similar measure was signed into law by President Bush in 2003, it never had the teeth pro-lifers needed to hold the abortion industry accountable. Under this version, the law would not only criminalize people who let newborns die (or actively kill them) but gives moms a private right of action to sue.

“…[I]f a baby is born after a failed abortion attempt, he or she should be given the same medical care as a baby born any other way,” McCarthy explained. “There is absolutely no ambiguity here. This is about protecting babies who are born and alive, and nobody should be against that.” Tell that to Planned Parenthood. They’ve argued that the bill would have a “chilling” effect on the “provision of abortion services.” “I cannot think of a more chilling effect,” Arina Grossu fired back, “than continuing to let abortionists get away with infanticide, the intentional killing of born-alive, breathing babies after an attempted abortion.”

But how often does that happen? According to David Daleiden’s videos, a lot more than we think. Yet even on the stand, under oath, Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards denied it. “There was one specific video,” Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) reminded Richards, “…describing harvesting the brain of a late-term boy. She said she wasn’t sure if the baby was alive since its heart was still beating and she harvested its brain by cutting his head open starting with the chin. Do you recall that?” She said she didn’t. “There is nothing she has ever described,” Richards claimed, “that I could attest to has ever happened.” Based on hours of footage, the findings of the House Select Panel on Infant Lives, and the testimony of this one (out of who-knows-how-many) young Minnesota mother, it does happen. And obviously, the practice is far more widespread than Planned Parenthood, its president, or our former president will ever admit.

Murdering an innocent human being is not, and never has been, a constitutional right. That’s true whether the person is nine seconds old or 90 years old. Join Leader McCarthy, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and 60 of her co-sponsors by calling your House member and supporting the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Act. Even one lost baby is too many.


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


RELATED ARTICLEOpen Doors Shows Others Are Closing on Christians

Entitlement Kicks in Over Oregon Self-Service Gas Pumps

Most Americans were probably drop-jawed to learn there was a state in the union where government overseers prohibited the people from pumping their own gas. The ultra-progressive and ever-controlling Oregon Legislature had banned this otherwise normal behavior for more than 50 years, ostensibly to provide some form of protection for its residents.

This is the practical reality of the general principle that government coddling creates entitlement, pampered residents with fewer freedoms, and reduced abilities to live independently. Oregon has been telling its residents for generations they are incapable of pumping their own gas, and now there are generations of Oregonians who are terrified at the prospect of doing what more than 300 million other Americans do without a thought.

The first thing that comes to mind are the scenes from the animated Pixar movie Wall-E, where the remainder of earth’s population cruise the galaxy on the spaceship Axiom. The passengers are so dependent on the automated ship that they have become obese, too feeble to walk and incapable of caring for themselves. They definitely would not have been able to pump their own gas.

But now the Oregon Legislature moved partially into the 1980s when it recently passed a law allowing rural gas stations to let people pump their own gas. Portlandians are still safe from the ordeal; government continues to protect them from gas pump handles. But others in the supposed rugged rural areas are outraged at the change (because outrage comes easily these days.)

Take a look at some of these Facebook comments from Oregonians in response to the legislature catching up to 1980 America:

“I don’t even know HOW to pump gas and I am 62, native Oregonian … I say NO THANKS! I don’t like to smell like gasoline!” one woman commented.

“No! Disabled, seniors, people with young children in the car need help,” another woman wrote. “Not to mention getting out of your car with transients around and not feeling safe too. This is a very bad idea. Grr.”

“I’ve lived in this state my whole life and I refuse to pump my own gas. This is a service only qualified people should perform. I will literally park at the pump and wait until someone pumps my gas.”

This is really a thing in Oregon. Most of the rest of the country may laugh and mock them (except big-government nanny state New Jersey, the only remaining state with such a law) but people long relying on government-forced service don’t like losing that service. They believe they have an entitlement.

“I think that we are getting tarnished in social media,” Lizzy Acker, a reporter for The Oregonian, told NPR. Well, yes. There’s sort of a reason for that. But Acker is confident in Oregonians ability to actually pump their own gas. “And I think most Oregonians are self-sufficient enough to figure out how to pump their own gas.”

Just read that statement. There may not be a better example of how progressivism breeds dependency on government — more and more power for government over weaker and weaker people. Not surprisingly — to people who understand how capitalism works — Oregon is one of the most expensive states in the union for a gallon of gas.

Oregon’s 56-year gas-pumping law is a cautionary example of how more government regulation and control immediately limits freedoms and breeds dependence and entitlement.

Perhaps one day, all Americans will be free to pump their own gas. But only if they choose leaders with a vision for freedom over governmental dominion.

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

Leftist Arrogance: Why Liberals ‘Need’ to Look Down on Conservatives

Did you ever wish you could buy liberals for what you know they’re worth and sell them for what they think they’re worth? A common theme among progressives is that conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re dumb. Reagan was dumb. G.W. Bush was dumb. Trump is dumb. “Knuckle-dragger,” “mouth-breather,” “stupid” and “uncultured” are typical pejoratives hurled at conservatives, who apparently tend to live in trailer parks, require dental care, handle snakes and marry first cousins. Why, I had a liberal actor (excuse the redundancy) tell me once that I wasn’t necessarily bad, just not as “evolved” as he was. (I had a great retort at the ready, but decided to just lash him with my tail instead.)

The reason for this arrogance isn’t as simple as many may think, as it relates to a deep psychological phenomenon that makes it difficult for those afflicted to evolve out of the leftist primordial soup.

I’ll introduce this with a story. Many years ago I was at an affair attended by a very chauvinistic, left-wing Greek fellow who would expound upon the superiority of Greek culture while at times demeaning the U.S. He was like the father character in My Big Fat Greek Wedding, only with an anti-American twist. Desiring to take him down a peg and do a little face-to face trolling, I finally said with a smirk, “If all that’s true, why is Greece now like a Third World country?” (For those offended, know that I have great respect for ancient Greek accomplishments, just love moussaka and have the physique of a Spartan hoplite.)

Well, I exaggerate not when saying he turned red and, with veins popping out in his neck, exclaimed, “Don’t say that! Don’t say that!!” It was the kind of situation where you get the feeling the guy might take a swing at you.

His intense reaction wasn’t hard to explain. His self-esteem, his self-image, were wholly dependent upon the idea that he was a member of an elite, a superior group, with which he identified so closely that there was little to no separation in his mind between it and him. This was something deeply ingrained, part of the fabric of his being. Thus, any challenge to this idea struck directly at an intractable self-image, threatening to upset his ego’s world order, which had him, through group association, at its very pinnacle.

This phenomenon is common. It’s often exhibited by those considering themselves part of a “master race” or any kind of special group. It can be very comforting: A person may not be very accomplished, intelligent or gifted and might otherwise feel quite inadequate. But his group association saves his psyche’s day, for whatever he is or isn’t, at least he’s not like those other people, those untouchables. What this means is that the claim to superiority is often a cover for feelings of inferiority.

Remember that at issue here isn’t a mere intellectual appreciation. For example, I truly believe Western culture (which did originate with ancient Greece, mind you) is superior to all others. Yet I derive no self-esteem from being a “Westerner”; it’s just not part of who I am. Rather, the phenomenon in question here is a deeply emotional one.

For this reason, it’s wholly resistant to intellectual appeals. You can’t logically talk someone out of something irrational on which his self-worth is entirely based. In fact, if it begins to dawn on such a person that his notions of superiority — and hence his self-image — rest on a lie, it will be intensely painful and depressing. The individual will thus have a strong incentive to rationalize this realization away.

I don’t claim that every single leftist derives his self-esteem from the notion he’s part of a superior group called “liberals,” nor does this phenomenon completely explain leftist resistance to reason. But it is common among devoted liberals, and it’s part of why, as a group, they can’t give traditionalist views a fair hearing. Doing so doesn’t just threaten their ideology; it threatens who they are, their entire self-image. Any argument that may give them even an inkling they may be wrong can induce a bit of panic and is thus quickly rationalized away — often as the rambling of uneducated, un-evolved mouth-breathers who just don’t know any better.

This phenomenon is exacerbated by two related factors. First, liberals are generally dysfunctional, vice-ridden people who embrace what we call liberalism because its underlying moral relativism/nihilism helps them justify their sins (they become the arbiters of their own “values” — “Everything is gray, a matter of perspective. I have my own ‘truth’”). Simultaneously, liberalism allows these virtue-bereft people to virtue-signal by paying homage to the day’s fashionable values. In other words, liberals are generally morally “unaccomplished” people who often have nothing to cling to but the illusion of intellectual, and often moral, superiority.

(As to the left’s actual moral inferiority, I urge you to read the excellent 2008 piece “Don’t listen to the liberals — Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows.”)

Second, conservatives are more likely to have authentic faith while liberals tend be to avowed or de facto atheists, which is why church attendance is one of the best predictors of voting patterns. This has an effect. Theists may, and hopefully will, recognize moral differences among people and groups; any tendency to become haughty, however, is often tempered by a divine injunction prescribing humility and the knowledge that we’re all sinners, part of a fallen race. Love for others is also demanded. But atheism involves no such requirements; in fact, its correlative moral relativism/nihilism (explained here) makes “If it feels good, do it” the ultimate guide for behavior. Moreover, unable to look up at divine perfection, and with the individual becoming his own source of (pseudo) “morality,” the self is often exalted, the ego deified. Like a pharaoh believing he’s a god on Earth, it then becomes easy to look down on others.

Just as liberalism is defined not by an unchanging set of doctrines but by opposition to conservatism and what it defends — the status quo — godless liberals can only judge themselves relative to other people. And being moral train wrecks, they can’t really be happy. But, hey, whatever they may or mayn’t be, Mr. Conservative, at least they’re not you. And that’s one status quo they’re dead set on maintaining.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

How Tax Reform Is Keeping Promise ‘Fight for $15’ Couldn’t

As the union-backed “Fight for $15” movement has sought to enact mandatory minimum-wage increases in states and localities across the country, tax reform seems to have spurred wage growth using a different approach.

On the day President Donald Trump signed the sweeping tax-reform law, the New Jersey-based OceanFirst Financial Corp. issued a press release announcing “a commitment to increase the bank’s minimum hourly pay rate to $15.00 within 30 days of the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” affecting 135 employees.

It’s one of 21 companies that have announced raising their base wage to $15 per hour because of tax reform, on a running list compiled by Americans for Tax Reform that currently shows more than 120 companies have announced raises or bonuses for employees.

Businesses large and small are taking the same action, citing tax reform as the reason, including some of OceanFirst’s much larger national competitors, such as Fifth Third Bancorp, with 13,500 employees, 3,000 of whom will benefit from the boost in base wage to $15, according to a company.

Others include BB&T with 27,000 employees; PNC Bank, with 47,500; U.S. Bancorp, with 60,000; and Wells Fargo, with more than 200,000. All raised their minimum wage to $15 per hour, and credited tax reform for the change.

It isn’t just banks. Connecticut-based insurance firm The Travelers announced that along with $1,000 bonuses for its 14,000 employees, “we have only a small number of U.S.-based employees making less than $15 an hour. We will increase their hourly wage to $15.”

While still early in the wake of enactment of the tax-reform law, the demonstrable results seem to be in stark contrast with the mandatory minimum-wage laws requiring a $15 wage.

After passing such a city ordinance, Seattle commissioned a study by the University of Washington, which found the cost to low-wage workers outweighed the benefits by a 3-1 ratio, and found that on average, low-wage workers would lose $125 per month in lost work hours, lost employment or lost job opportunities because of the law.

The National Bureau of Economic Research published the study.

“The problem with legislating a $15-per-hour wage is that if productivity is not up to $15 per hour, that person loses their job,” Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist told The Daily Signal. “When you change the regulatory and tax policies, you expand the economy for workers, and productivity can expand for a greater reward.”

The results were predictable, said David Kreutzer, senior research fellow for labor markets and trade at The Heritage Foundation.

“What happens with tax cuts is that demand pulls wages up, and then you don’t have a problem with people losing jobs,” Kreutzer told The Daily Signal. “Without an increase in demand, people will lose their job, or typically don’t get hired. … The fight for $15 is unambitious and impossible. You can’t make people rich through mandates. We want an economy so strong that people can make $20 or $25 per hour because productivity is so strong.”

At the start of the new year, 18 states instituted a higher minimum wage, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Of those, California and New York passed laws to eventually raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2022 and 2020, respectively. Other states that approved increases to less than $15 were Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

The states of Alaska, Florida, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, and South Dakota automatically increased their minimum-wage rates based on the cost of living.

Americans for Tax Reform found that overall, at least 1 million Americans were benefiting from announced pay raises or bonuses as a result of tax reform, and the nonprofit organization thinks that it’s likely more than that, since many companies don’t make public announcements.

In most cases, companies didn’t specify how many of their employees would benefit from the minimum-wage hike.

Companies on Americans for Tax Reform’s list that announced raising the base wage to $15 per hour are, with number of overall employees listed, where announced:

  • American Savings Bank, 1,100 employees
  • Americollect, 250 employees
  • Aquesta Financial Holdings, 95 employees
  • Associated Bank
  • Bank of Hawaii, 2,074 employees
  • Bank of James
  • Bank of the Ozarks, 2,300 employees
  • Central Pacific Bank, 850 employees
  • Comerica Bank, 4,500 “non-officer” employees
  • First Hawaiian Bank, 2,264 employees
  • HarborOne Bank, 600 employees
  • INB Bank, 200 employees
  • Regions Financial Corp.
  • SunTrust Banks, 24,000 employees
  • Territorial Savings Bank, 247 employees

“We didn’t become a prosperous country because our Founding Fathers said, ‘Let’s pass a law to make everybody rich,’” Norquist said. “We became prosperous because they got out of the way to let people trade and invent. This is very helpful in getting out of the way so that more people will earn more than $15.”

A spokesman for the Fight for $15 organization did not respond to comment for this article. While it primarily advocates for laws, the organization doesn’t oppose companies voluntarily raising the wage, noting on its website Target raising the wage for employees as a “big win.”

The AFL-CIO, an umbrella organization for labor unions, supports laws to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, but opposed the tax reform law. An AFL-CIO spokesman did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

The tax-reform law cut the corporate tax rate, previously the highest in the world among developed countries, from 35 percent to 21 percent, putting the U.S. on par with most other industrialized nations. The tax law also cut individual rates and eliminated some loopholes.

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLE: Right-to-Work Advocate Blames Unions’ Legal Threats for Loss

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

VIDEO: White House Strategist Stephen Miller on CNN-Tapper Fiasco, Immigration, Chain Migration, The Wall

I recently attended a meeting of the Media Roundtable in Sarasota, FL. The group of over 40 attendees are former owners, executives, leaders, reporters and TV personalities in the news/media industry. The discussion came up about the First Amendment. All agreed that the First Amendment was critical to a Constitutional Republican form of government. The vast majority of those in attendance self identify as Democrats.

Recently White House strategist Stephen Miller appeared on CNN with Jake Tapper. The interview briefly made the headlines because of Tapper cutting off the interview by saying “I think I’ve wasted enough of my viewers’ time.” As a former radio talk show host I learned that it is best to allow a guest on my program the freedom to express themselves and let the audience decide how to interpret the interview.

QUESTION: Is CNN and Mr. Tapper interested in allowing freedom of speech?

You decide after watching a followup interview done with Mr. Miller by Tucker Carlson on the Fox News Channel:

FULL TRANSCRIPT, VIA FOX NEWS:

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Stephen Miller joins us tonight.

Stephen Miller, thanks a lot for coming on.

STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE POLICY ADVISER: Hey. Thank you for having me.

CARLSON: So, CNN called around to news organizations and said you were escorted off the set by security. Presumably you are not a physical threat, you are not armed. My question is, but they thought you were a threat. Do you think if you have been, I don’t know, a member of MS-13 here illegally, that CNN would have had security pull you off the set?

MILLER: I assume if I was a member of MS-13 here illegally, they would be clamoring to get me into the voting booth. But I think that — I think that like many things CNN says, like this story has the most important virtue of all CNN stories as being not true.

CARLSON: Well, here’s what we know is true, and here’s what —

MILLER: An amazing true, but not —

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: — what was striking to me about the whole thing. So, there was a video apparently taken without your knowledge of you on the set after the segment ended during the commercial break, and someone apparently from CNN, I don’t know who else would have access to it, leaked that to other news organizations.

What do you make of that?

MILLER: Well, it’s just another example of CNN’s very low journalistic standards. But I was glad to have people hear what I said on camera and off camera, which that CNN has been extraordinarily biased, extraordinarily unfair to the president and is not giving their information — their viewers honest information.

CARLSON: So, you wanted to talk about immigration. And the DACA debate is obviously the focus of a lot of energy in the Congress right now. The priorities for the administration you have said are, ending chain migration, financing a border wall and ending the diversity lottery. Of those three, what would you say is the most important priority from your point of view?

MILLER: Well, look, we need them all because the reality is that anything you do on DACA is going to have some predictable consequences, right? You’re going to have an increase in new illegal immigration, so you need to have a wall. You need to close the enforcement loopholes.

And then you’re also going to have an increase in the overall number of people coming into the country and that’s what you have to deal with chain migration. You have to deal with the visa lottery. And these are crucial reforms to make the system work for Americans.

You know, Donald Trump has a very radical idea and that’s that when we make changes to our immigration laws, the group we should be most concerned about are everyday hardworking Americans, the citizens who make this country run, who obey the laws, follow the rules, pay their taxes, show up and vote — the people who are loyal to this country. And Donald Trump is saying our country should be loyal to them in return.

CARLSON: So, Democrats argue back that ending chain migration and ending the diversity lottery would prevent a lot of people — decent people from coming into this country. What’s their argument against financing the border wall?

MILLER: Well —

CARLSON: Why do you think they oppose that?

MILLER: Well, as you know, I mean, they all voted for a border barrier, a hard physical border barrier back in 2006, the Secure Fence Act. Joe Biden voted for it, Barack Obama voted for it. Hillary Clinton voted for, et cetera.

So, that’s — that’s just a new position they apparently have that they are opposed to any form of border security.

CARLSON: What animated it? Why is that an absolute sticking point for Democrats? A bunch of them have said, including in leadership, we’re not supporting anything that includes financing a border wall? Why?

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: — anything to that?

MILLER: Look, if Democrats oppose a border wall, they’re just saying they want continued, unendingly illegal immigration.

But let me deal with other question, too. You talk about you guys say, well, you know, if you have chain migration, it could keep good people out. There are 7 billion people in the world. Most of them are good, hardworking, decent, honest, principled people. But the reality is there’s a limit to how many people any country can bring in. And we as a country have a right to say we want to bring people based on their ability to contribute to our economy, to be safe, productive citizens, and to uplift the nation as a whole.

You think about our current system of chain migration, Tucker. So, over the last 10 years, we’ve admitted about 10 million people through our chain migration system.

To understand how many people that is, you’re talking about every hour, that’s about the size of a high school auditorium. Every day, it’s the size of a large high school. Every week, a small city. Every month, a medium to average size city. And every year, a very large city, a city the size of Washington, D.C., or almost a San Francisco, every single year, just through chain migration.

What’s the effect of that on taxpayers? What’s the effect of that on wage earners? What’s the effect of that —

CARLSON: And that’s illegal.

MILLER: Right. That’s just folks coming in on green cards through chain migration.

CARLSON: So, what’s the — I always ask this question of proponents of immigration, including of illegal immigration. What is the ideal number of immigrants, people from other countries, moving here every year?

MILLER: Right. And oftentimes, they won’t have an answer to that question.

CARLSON: Well, what’s your answer?

MILLER: The — I mean, I have — I have my own views on it, but I think the important point is ending chain migration, as the president has called for, is necessary not just for economic security but for national security.

You saw the recent attempted terrorist attack in New York. The individual who came here — was brought to the chain migration system, right? They came through her nephew’s green card.

CARLSON: Right.

MILLER: And that’s just not a smart way for a country to run its immigration system.

CARLSON: So, what should be the criteria for entry in the United States?

MILLER: Well, you know, Donald Trump supported the RAISE Act. And it looked at things like, what’s your proficiency in the language? What economic skills do you have? Do have a background in sciences? Do you have a background in engineering? Do you have a background in law or writing?

It looked at things like your age. Obviously, you bring in immigrants who are in their 80s or 90s, that’s going to have a significant expense on society. So, you wanted folks primarily in their working years.

CARLSON: But what about — I mean, we interviewed someone last week and said, who will pick the strawberries? I mean, how many immigrants, low-wage, low skilled immigrants do we need a year for the ag sector?

MILLER: Well, as you know, only about 1 percent of the immigrant population of the country works in agriculture. So, it’s discussed a lot but it’s a very small portion of the overall labor force. The typical jobs that a lower skilled immigration worker might do might be construction work, it might be hospitality work, it might be restaurant work, or might be not working at all and just going onto the welfare system if there isn’t a job for that individual.

CARLSON: So, if there’s no clear economic rationale for an immigration system and it doesn’t sound like there is one, there’s no economists saying we need to bring in this number of low skilled immigrants, then why does the Democratic Party support our current system and want to liberalize the current system so vehemently? What motivates them?

MILLER: Well, you are asking the right question, but I think the context of this debate, the question that the president is putting forth for the American people is when we have an immigration system, whose needs are we fundamentally trying to serve? The needs of special interests? The needs of politicians, the needs of foreign countries and foreign nationals, the needs of our own country and our own workers?

And so, at the end of the day, our hope for a bipartisan deal is that you can have enough Democrats say that listening to the voters and the voice of the American people, we want a system that serves American workers first. And what Donald Trump has done that’s so exceptional is for the first time that I can remember, for the first time you can probably remember, we have a president of this country who when he talks but immigration, he talks about what is right for the everyday hardworking person.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: We’re almost out of time, so I just want to get to one quick political question, which is: Democrats have said they are not going to come to any deal with these three components in it — border wall, reducing chain migration, ending diversity lottery. Where’s the wiggle room on the White House side?

MILLER: Look, Democrats ultimately have to make a choice. They care a lot about providing benefit to illegal immigrants. We’re saying to them, if you want to make a deal, then you have to both deliver benefits for American families and American taxpayers too. And if both sides are willing to agree with those terms, Tucker, then we can have a deal.

And most importantly, we can have an immigration system that 10, 20, 30, 50 years from now produces more assimilation, higher wages, more economic opportunity and better prospect for immigrants and U.S.-born alike.

CARLSON: Stephen Miller, thank you.

MILLER: Hey. Thank you.

Here’s the History of the 25th Amendment

After failing to gather any real momentum to impeach President Donald Trump, some Democrats are now floating the idea of using the 25th Amendment to oust him.

This little-known constitutional amendment serves as an escape-hatch measure for removing the president if he is incapacitated. It is quite different from impeachment.

Impeachment is the method that the Founders set up to prosecute cases of presidential criminality. It requires members of Congress to bring specific charges of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

But absent these charges, some of Trump’s detractors are now embracing other methods to overthrow him.

Anti-Trump commentators and the few Democrats now suggesting use of the 25th Amendment have suggested that the president is mentally unstable.

“The judgment [about the president’s mental state] is not mine to make,” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., said to reporters after proposing a commission to examine Trump’s mental health, according to Politico.

“The judgment constitutionally is to be made by the vice president and the Cabinet, or the vice president and a new body. We have an institutional responsibility to set that body up.”

Pulling out the 25th Amendment is the logical next step for those who have been looking for a way to depose Trump since he entered office, though it’s a serious departure from the intent of those who passed the amendment.

Democrats have trotted out psychologists on Capitol Hill to prove that Trump is unstable and should be removed from office.

This alone seriously flirts with violating the “Goldwater Rule,” which prevents psychologists from offering a “professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”

The American Psychiatric Association created this rule after Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater successfully sued a magazine that had published a survey of psychologists deeming him unfit for office.

The survey was misleading, clearly partisan, and damaged the reputation of psychologists as a profession. Moreover, the idea of removing a president based on the whims of an elite group of supposedly neutral psychologists is an affront to democracy.

This is not to say the 25th Amendment doesn’t serve a valuable purpose. If a president suffers a disability that would make him unable to perform his duties, this tool is an emergency stopgap to solve the problem.

It was never conceived of as a partisan tool to depose a hated president.

‘We Stumbled Along’

Perhaps been the most obvious case where the 25th Amendment was needed occurred a generation before it was actually passed.

On Sept. 25, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson suffered a collapse and a massive stroke while campaigning in Colorado for the U.S. to enter the League of Nations.

The League of Nations, a precursor to the United Nations, had been Wilson’s pet project, and despite warnings from doctors he had pushed himself to the limit on its behalf.

After the stroke, Wilson went blind in one eye, was paralyzed on the left side, and lay unconscious. While he eventually awoke from the coma, he was never the same. For the most part, he was a barely-functioning invalid.

Incredibly, Wilson’s wife practically ran the White House for the two remaining years of his term, only leaving the most serious acts of policy and politics to her husband, which by that point he was barely able to perform.

“This is the worst instance of presidential disability we’ve ever had,” said historian John Milton Cooper. “We stumbled along [for eighteen months] … without a fully functioning president.”

Few around the country even knew that the West Wing was in such bad shape, as both the press corps and the White House carefully kept the truth of the president’s condition from coming out.

Wilson even considered running for what would then be an unprecedented third term, but Democratic Party leaders carefully selected a compromise candidate who would run instead.

While Wilson’s Cabinet and the Washington political establishment were wary about forcing the president out of office, many fretted about what could be done if a president couldn’t perform his duties in an emergency.

The debate went more or less dormant for half a century until the assassination of a president forced the nation to seriously reconsider legal ways of replacing—either temporarily or permanently—a president for health-related reasons.

A Re-Evaluation

While health scares for President Dwight Eisenhower led to some informal agreements about transmitting the duties of the president in a time of crisis, nothing was enacted until the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The line of succession had been laid out by the Presidential Succession Act, but some began a push to clearly define these ambiguous rules in the Constitution while also addressing what could be done if the president was alive but experiencing a sudden health crisis.

The idea of being without a functioning president, particularly in the rapid-response world of instant communication and the Cold War, concerned Americans in a way that it hadn’t in earlier times.

“In an age of nuclear weaponry—and now, global terrorism—America can ill afford to be leaderless for long, or to have unclear rules about who is in charge,” wrote constitutional scholars Akhil Reed Amar and Vikram David Amar.

“The 25th Amendment, proposed and ratified after JFK’s assassination, fills many of the gaps left open by the Founders.

The 25th Amendment, enacted in 1967, set up a clear line of succession in case the president or vice president died, and included the section that some anti-Trumpers are now looking to: the method for removing, or putting a pause on, the official powers of a debilitated president.

The crucial Section 4 states:

Whenever the vice president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president.

Congress then has 21 days to determine if the president is able to continue performing his duties and can remove him from office with a two-thirds vote in both houses.

Since its passage, the 25th Amendment has been used several times, but never for the purpose of removing the president from office.

Some have alleged that officials wanted to remove President Ronald Reagan from office using the 25th Amendment after his attempted assassination—but those allegations have been debunked.

The amendment has only been used to temporarily transfer power from presidents to vice presidents during medical operations that would leave them incapable of responding to an urgent crisis.

Reagan himself did invoke Section 3 of the amendment on himself during a routine medical procedure in 1985, in which Vice President George H.W. Bush assumed the powers of the presidency for several hours.

And President George W. Bush also used the law to transfer power to Vice President Dick Cheney during a couple of operations, again for only a few hours.

Dangerous Precedent

While some are now itching to use Section 4 of the 25th Amendment on Trump, many have urged caution or outright blasted the move as nothing but naked partisanship.

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway suggested that this overheated effort to boot the president with the 25th Amendment is akin to a “coup.”

“Talk of mental health and a 25th Amendment removal, ‘by force if necessary,’ is talk of a coup,” Hemingway wrote. “Responsible parties should consider how this is perceived by the part of the electorate they rarely speak to and cease.

Harvard Law School professor emeritus and lifelong Democrat, Alan Dershowitz, also denounced the movement as “dangerous” and a “fool’s errand.”

“Now that they couldn’t criminalize political differences, they’re trying to psychiatrize political differences,” Dershowitz said on Fox News.

Right now, this push is little more than creative fan fiction, since impeachment would require a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate to remove the president, while the 25th Amendment would require a two-thirds vote in both houses.

Yet this won’t stop left-wing activists from trying to wield this amendment as a weapon against the Trump presidency.

At least they’re arguing from the Constitution. If only they cared for its intent.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Read the Heritage Guide to the Constitution’s Explanation of the 25th Amendment

Can the Cabinet “remove” a President using the 25th amendment?

Here’s How Bad Left-Wing Antics on Campus Were in 2017

A frequent point I have made in past columns has been about the educational travesty happening on many college campuses.

Some people have labeled my observations and concerns as trivial, unimportant, and cherry-picking. While the spring semester awaits us, let’s ask ourselves whether we’d like to see repeats of last year’s antics.

An excellent source for college news is Campus Reform, a conservative website operated by the Leadership Institute. Its reporters are college students. Here is a tiny sample of last year’s bizarre stories.

Donna Riley, a professor at Purdue University’s School of Engineering Education, published an article in the most recent issue of the peer-reviewed Journal of Engineering Education, positing that academic rigor is a “dirty deed” that upholds “white male heterosexual privilege.”

Riley added that “scientific knowledge itself is gendered, raced, and colonizing.”

Would you hire an engineering education graduate who has little mastery of the rigor of engineering? What does Riley’s vision, if actually practiced by her colleagues, do to the worth of degrees in engineering education from Purdue held by female and black students?

Sympathizing with Riley’s vision is Rochelle Gutierrez, a math education professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

In her recent book, she says the ability to solve algebra and geometry problems perpetuates “unearned privilege” among whites. Educators must be aware of the “politics that mathematics brings” in society.

She thinks that “on many levels, mathematics itself operates as Whiteness.” After all, she adds, “who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as White.”

What’s worse is that the university’s interim provost, John Wilkin, sanctioned her vision, telling Fox News that Gutierrez is an established and admired scholar who has been published in many peer-reviewed publications.

I hope that the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s black students don’t have the same admiration and stay away from her classes.

Last February, a California State University, Fullerton professor assaulted a CSUF Republicans member during a demonstration against President Donald Trump’s executive order on immigration. The students identified the assailant as Eric Canin, an anthropology professor.

Fortunately, the school had the good sense to later suspend Canin after confirming the allegations through an internal investigation.

Last month, the presidents of 13 San Antonio colleges declared in an op-ed written by Ric Baser, president of the Higher Education Council of San Antonio, and signed by San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg and 12 other members of the council that “hate speech” and “inappropriate messages” should not be treated as free speech on college campuses.

Their vision should be seen as tyranny.

The true test of one’s commitment to free speech doesn’t come when he permits people to be free to make statements that he does not find offensive. The true test of one’s commitment to free speech comes when he permits people to make statements he does deem offensive.

Last year, University of Georgia professor Rick Watson adopted a policy allowing students to select their own grade if they “feel unduly stressed” by their actual grade in the class.

Benjamin Ayers, dean of the school’s Terry College of Business, released a statement condemning Watson’s pick-your-own-grade policy, calling it “inappropriate.” He added:

Rest assured that this ill-advised proposal will not be implemented in any Terry classroom. The University of Georgia upholds strict guidelines and academic policies to promote a culture of academic rigor, integrity, and honesty.

Ayers’ response gives us hope that not all is lost in terms of academic honesty.

Other campus good news is a report on the resignation of George Ciccariello-Maher, a white Drexel University professor who tweeted last winter, “All I Want for Christmas Is White Genocide.” He said that he resigned from his tenured position because threats against him and his family had become “unsustainable.”

If conservative students made such threats, they, too, could benefit from learning the principles of free speech.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Walter E. Williams

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

Google’s New Fact-Check Feature Almost Exclusively Targets Conservative Sites

Google, the most powerful search engine in the world, is now displaying fact checks for conservative publications in its results.

No prominent liberal site receives the same treatment.

And not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan — perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders — it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made “claims” they demonstrably never made.

When searching for a media outlet that leans right, like The Daily Caller (TheDC), Google gives users details on the sidebar, including what topics the site typically writes about, as well as a sidebar titled “Reviewed Claims.”

Vox, and other left-wing outlets and blogs like Gizmodo, are not given the same fact-check treatment. When searching their names, a “Topics they write about” section appears, but there are no “Reviewed Claims.”

In fact, a review of mainstream outlets, as well as other outlets associated with liberal and conservative audiences, shows that only the conservative sites feature the highly misleading, subjective analysis. Several conservative-leaning outlets like TheDC are “vetted,” while equally partisan sites like Vox, ThinkProgress, Slate, The Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Salon, Vice and Mother Jones are spared.

Occupy Democrats is apparently the only popular content provider from that end of the political spectrum with a fact-checking section.

The Robert Mueller fact check (pictured above) is a case in point for Google’s new feature.

Ostensibly trying to sum up the crux of the post, the third-party “fact-checking” organization says the “claim” in a DC article that special Counsel Robert Mueller is hiring people that “are all Hillary Clinton supporters” is misleading, if not false.

The problem is that TheDC’s article makes no such claim. Their cited language doesn’t even appear in the article. Worse yet, there was no language trying to make it seem that the investigation into the Trump administration and Russia is entirely comprised of Clinton donors. The story simply contained the news: Mueller hired a Hillary Clinton donor to aid the investigation into President Donald Trump.

Still, the Washington Post gave the claim, which came from Trump himself, its official “Three Pinocchios” rating. The method applies to several other checks. Claims concocted or adulterated by someone outside the TheDC are attributed to TheDC, in what appears to be a feature that only applies to conservative sites.

Examples of such misattribution and misrepresentation are aplenty.

For instance, using Snopes.com, an organization with highly dubious fact-checking capabilities, Google’s platform shows an article by TheDC to have a so-called “mixture” of truth.

The “claim” made, according to Snopes.com, and in-turn Google, is “a transgender women raped a young girl in a women’s bathroom because bills were passed…”

A quick read of the news piece shows that there was no mention of a bill or any form of legislation. The story was merely a straightforward reporting of a disturbing incident originally reported on by a local outlet. (RELATED: Why is Google CEO Eric Schmidt Technically Serving In The Department Of Defense?)

And like Snopes, another one of Google’s fact-checking partners, Climate Feedback, is not usually regarded as objective.

Snopes and Google also decided to “fact-check” an obviously tongue-in-cheek article in which a writer for TheDC pokes fun at a professor saying the solar eclipse in 2017 was naturally racist.

Even Vox pointed out the absurdity of the educator’s literary tirade on Mother Nature’s purported racial prejudice, and the damage it might have done to real arguments of apparent racism. While Snopes got some flak for its choice, no one seems to have noticed the absurdity of the world’s go-to search engine providing fact-checks to purposefully irreverent content, rather than hard news stories.

Overall, such inclusion embodies Google’s fact-checking services, which, as many presciently feared, are biased, if not also downright libelous. (RELATED: Silicon Valley Seems To Love Burying Conservative News)

Google acknowledged it received an inquiry from The DCNF, but did not fully respond in time of publication.

Eric Lieberman

Eric Lieberman is a reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Google Censors Six Conservative Media Sites, Treats Them as “Fake News” By Posting Warnings About Their Content

Google Fired Conservative for Questioning Muslim’s Anti-Trump Rant

PODCAST: Former Employee Sues Google, Alleges Discrimination Against Conservatives

James Damore

Former Google employee James Damore is suing Google, accusing the tech giant of discrimination against conservatives and whites.

The Heritage Foundation’s Mike Gonzalez joins us to discuss that lawsuit, Silicon Valley’s diversity problem, and why the Census should stop dividing Americans into six ethnic categories.

Plus: President Donald Trump shows his love for the national anthem, and the author of “Fire and Fury” won’t release the tape recordings.

PODCAST BY

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Google’s New Fact-Check Feature Almost Exclusively Targets Conservative Sites

Google Fired Conservative for Questioning Muslim’s Anti-Trump Rant

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

Truth on DACA: We’ve Already Granted Amnesty to These Illegals

In our through-the-looking-glass world, we so often view matters backwards without even realizing it. Take DACA (actually, leave it), where even many conservatives consider it a given that the individuals covered under it must somehow be granted amnesty.

Overlooked is that they’ve already been granted amnesty.

Consider: Imagine you return from a trip to find someone has broken into your home, is squatting there and is eating your food and using your services. Might you not call the police? Might this invader not be charged with various crimes, such as breaking and entering, trespassing and theft?

Now, let’s say that for some reason you feel compassion for the individual — maybe because he’s a young adult whose father broke open your door and told him to make himself at home — and instead of pressing charges, you just tell him he must leave your place and never return. How would you react if, after exhibiting such mercy, a community activist called you bigoted and intolerant and insisted you grant “amnesty” by allowing the interloper to live with you permanently? Would you not be outraged and point out that you’re already granting amnesty by not pressing charges? In fact, the attack on your character might stiffen your resolve to expel the trespasser.

This is largely analogous to the situation with the DACA illegals: They have already received amnesty. We’re not going to punish them for remaining in our country, even though they’ve long known their presence here was a violation of law. We’re not even going to demand they reimburse us for the American services (e.g., education, handouts) from which they’ve greatly benefitted. They’re way ahead of the game (and we’re being played). Insisting someone return to his native land is not punishment. It’s mercy. It simply amounts to making things right.

Of course, we often hear the argument that the “DREAMers” — a sickening, manipulative propaganda term if ever there were one (how about “Schemers”?) — are enriching the U.S. Contrary to this assertion, however, DACA recipients have considerably lower educational attainment than do American citizens. Almost a quarter are functionally illiterate, 73 percent live in low-income housing and only four percent complete college, according to certain studies. Allowing DACA individuals — who range from high-school age to middle age — to stay, “is really the importation of an additional underclass,” as American Thinker editor Thomas Lifson puts it. (It’s also the importation of future Democrat voters.)

Having said this, let’s for a moment assume Invasion USA advocates are right about DACA aliens’ achievement. They then should stop being selfish and allow these bursting-with-potential people to enrich their native lands. Talk about cultural appropriation: We suck the best and brightest from these Third World countries and then wonder why they’re in shambles. You leftists ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Denuding a developing nation of its intellectual capital is a type of resource rape.

Returning to my analogy (and to seriousness), why aren’t we outraged about the DACA appeals, as we’d be if someone insisted we coddle a home invader? Sadly, it’s because we’re no longer a nation, properly defined. A nation is an extension of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family (think: the Sioux Nation); it’s one united people — not disparate peoples trying to coexist within the same borders.

Whether large or small, whether a family in a home or national family, such a cohesive entity will naturally defend the home front from invaders. In contrast, a balkanized country, a land of strangers, doesn’t react as viscerally to the introduction of more strangers. It has already been diversified out of its defense mechanisms.

Everyone should be mindful that we have, quite generously, already offered amnesty. We’re not insisting on DACA — Draconian Action against Childhood Arrivals. The Schemers just need to go home.

Anyway, that would be the dominant attitude in a nation. As for us…well, that’s a different matter.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

This Case Against Western Ranchers Shows Why Americans Are Right to Fear Government

Governments are prone to abuse, especially when unchecked.

Recently revealed actions by the Bureau of Land Management, a federal agency under the Department of Interior charged with managing federal land, are reminiscent of the IRS scandal in which that agency targeted conservative tea party groups for extra scrutiny.

A federal judge ruled Dec. 20 that she was throwing out the Bureau of Land Management’s case against Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy because the prosecution withheld key facts.

On Monday, the same judge ruled that the case could not be tried again due to the actions of the prosecution, which she said had been “outrageous” and “violated due process rights,” according to azcentral.com.

The story broke before Christmas, but hasn’t received the attention it deserves. It perfectly underscores the pernicious problem of unaccountable agencies and how quickly they can become abusive to citizens.

The trial involved a dispute over grazing rights between Bundy and the federal government, a persistent problem in western states.

The government claimed Bundy owed money for public land use fees going back to the early 1990s, which the Bundy family refused to pay.

After years of trying to recoup the fees, the Bureau of Land Management, working in conjunction with the FBI, tried to impound Bundy’s cattle in 2014.

The story hit national headlines after Bundy, his family, and supporters got into an armed standoff with authorities that fortunately ended without violence. Bundy and his sons Ammon and Ryan eventually were arrested and chargedwith various offences.

However, the actions of government agents badly damaged the credibility of the case and raised questions about the power of supposedly independent agencies to deliver justice responsibly.

What is particularly worrisome is that the Bureau of Land Management appears to have acted punitively against political and religious groups they simply didn’t like.

An investigative report by one of the bureau’s own special agents revealed that the agents in the Bundy case acted with “incredible bias” and likely broke the law, as The Daily Caller News Foundation reported

The level of malfeasance of which one of its own accused the Bureau of Land Management is stunning.

Dan Love, the Bureau of Land Management law enforcement officer who led the 2014 raid on the Bundy compound in Clark County, Nevada, was fired recently amid charges of corruption. That was something prosecutors denied until pressured to release his fellow agent’s report to the defense.

Worse, an investigative report by one of the bureau’s own special agents revealed that the agents in the Bundy case acted with “incredible bias” and likely broke the law, as The Daily Caller News Foundation reported.

In the memo, lead investigator Larry Wooten explained how agents acted maliciously toward the Bundys. He said the “punitive” and “ego-driven” campaign against the ranchers was all an effort to “command the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale, and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible.”

Wooten wrote: “The ridiculousness of the conduct, unprofessional amateurish carnival atmosphere, openly made statements, and electronic communications tended to mitigate the defendant’s culpability and cast a shadow of a doubt of inexcusable bias, unprofessionalism, and embarrassment of our agency.”

The agents called Bundy and his supporters “deplorables,” “rednecks,” and “idiots” among many other worse names, Wooten said. They also insulted the Bundy family’s Mormon beliefs.

Their behavior showed clear prejudice toward “the defendants, their supporters, and Mormons,” Wooten wrote.

Wooten claimed that fellow agents put him through a “religious test” of sorts on several occasions.

“You’re not a Mormon, are you?” they asked.

Wooten’s memo suggested that the attitude and ambition of Bureau of Land Management agents led them to inappropriately militarize the operation against the Bundys, even after the FBI had conducted a threat assessment and concluded that the Bundys weren’t dangerous.

The day after U.S. District Court Judge Gloria Navarro’s declaration of a mistrial, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions called for an investigation into the matter.

However, there is some frustration over the Navarro’s decision, especially among environmental groups that generally would like to boot ranchers from government-owned western land.

Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project, an environmental conservation organization, blasted the mistrial decision in The Hill.

“These federal agencies have been patient and cautious to a fault in their prosecution of the Bundys and their accomplices,” Molvar wrote. “It’s long past time to stop playing games with the prosecution of federal crimes, and instead lay all the facts on the table and let the judicial system work.”

But one doesn’t need to think the Bundys acted appropriately in the dispute to understand why the case had to be thrown out. Nor is it out of line to think it’s worrisome for government agents to act in such an aggressive and abusive manner no matter the guilt or innocence of the citizen.

As columnist Debra Saunders wrote, the disturbing facts that have come to light point “to the sort of federal prosecutorial abuses that give the right cause for paranoia.”

There are better ways of of dealing with Western land. Reducing the federal footprint would certainly help.

Ranchers have been using government land for grazing for many generations, as individuals generally don’t have the financial means to acquire the amount of property necessary to run their business.

But this setup is not a free ride or “welfare,” as some have suggested.

Studies show it is generally more expensive for ranchers to use public land, which, in addition to fees, they are required to maintain, than to use privately leased land. In fact this land use helps the government save a significant amount of money on management costs.

Many ranchers would much rather contract with private entities and pay for services rather than deal with the headache of negotiating with the federal government. In many cases, however, this is impossible.

In Nevada, the federal government owns over 80 percent of the land and creates serious problems for ranchers and others who want and need to use it.

In the past, the federal government was more likely to give ranchers freer use of this land. Government actually encouraged western migration and frontier settlement through policies such as the famed Homestead Act of 1862.

But pressure from environmentalists outside and inside the agencies during the 20th century led to more restrictive policies on how ranchers may use the land.

This resulted in confrontations between the federal government and western farmers and ranchers, most notably the so-called “Sagebrush Rebellion” in the 1970s and 1980s, in which a coalition of westerners demanded that the government privatize land or transfer it to local authorities.

Confrontations and tension between ranchers and the Bureau of Land Management will likely continue as long as the government pursues such tight-fisted policies and insists that it’s more important to close off land use for the needs of the desert tortoise rather than those of ranchers and farmers.

Regardless of policy, Americans have a right not to be targeted by a government created to protect them and mete out appropriate justice.

The unfortunate facts of the Bundy case show how an unaccountable agency can become abusive toward citizens, and strikes at the heart of what we believe about republican government.

The Founders created our institutions to serve us and faithfully uphold the law, not be weaponized to attack individuals and groups in the shadow of darkness.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: It’s Time to Reduce the Power of the Federal Government Over Western Land

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