The Democrats Missed Their Moment – What Now?

Democratic leaders have been cynical and slow in addressing Jew-hatred within their party, perhaps because they believe most Jews will remain Democrats regardless of how the party treats them or regards Israel.


Despite indignant denials, the Democratic Party has enabled anti-Semitism as progressives have embraced ancient stereotypes and asserted them against Israel.  Haters who push claims of undue Jewish influence, divided loyalties, and even blood libel are accepted under the mantle of inclusiveness, and partisan apologists sanitize bigotry by calling it political speech, mendaciously distinguishing contempt for Israel from hatred of Jews, and tolerating slanders against the Jewish State.

When challenged for permitting such conduct, they invoke free speech to defend those who make ridiculous accusations – e.g., that Israel engages in ethnic cleansing, controls international finance, or practices apartheid. But after the election of a few high-profile extremists last November, some Democrats finally began to admit they had a problem, although they failed to seize the moment, acknowledge responsibility, and pledge genuine change.

Not all Democrats can agree on whether a problem even exists; and those who do are divided over whether to punish the offenders or issue denunciations that specifically mention anti-Semitism.  The glaring hypocrisy is that Democrats would not tolerate such moral ambiguity from across the aisle. If Congressional Republicans were to repeatedly malign African Americans, gay people, or women, Democrats would demand that the offenders be publicly chastised as racists, homophobes, and sexists; and they would be outraged at any attempt to dilute the message to appease party extremists.

When it comes to anti-Semitism, however, too many Democrats seem to be ethically challenged and morally blind.

Their inability to condemn anti-Semitism without qualification should not be surprising, given their failure to confront the tide of Jew-hatred that surged during the Obama administration.  Or their tendency to deflect by blaming Republicans for intolerance that today comes predominantly from the left. The inconvenient truth is that the skyrocketing rate of bias incidents against Jews is not primarily the fault of conservatives or the political right, but increasingly of progressives and their constituencies.

The conduct of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D. Minn.) highlights the ethical ambivalence of her party.  Representative Omar has repeatedly insulted Israel and her supporters using traditional anti-Semitic tropes and stereotypes.  For example, she accused the Jewish lobbying organization AIPAC of using money to influence American Mideast policy, thus evoking the classical myth of disproportionate Jewish wealth and influence.  And during the 2012 Gaza War instigated by Hamas, she tweeted that Israel had “hypnotized” the world, implicitly raising the timeworn slander of Jewish mind control (which was often associated with the blood libel).  Despite issuing an empty apology at the insistence of others, she has continued to assert ugly stereotypes against the Jewish State with the apparent encouragement of party progressives.

The Democratic response to Omar’s outrageous words was a proposed resolution to condemn anti-Semitism.  Though there should be no dissension within a party that claims to stand against all forms of prejudice, the resolution could not be approved until its focus on anti-Semitism was watered down, allusions to Omar and her remarks were deleted, and references to racism, white supremacism, and Islamophobia were added to render any condemnation of Jew-hatred contextual.  Clearly, the party could not make anti-Semitism the focal point without enraging progressive members who have antipathy for Jews and Israel. As insulting as this moral cowardice was, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made it worse by denying that Omar’s comments were biased, stating: “I don’t think our colleague is anti-Semitic. I think she has a different experience in the use of words, doesn’t understand that some of them are fraught with meaning, that she didn’t realize.”

Would Speaker Pelosi have been so charitable if a white supremacist had used traditional racial slurs to refer to any African nation?  Would she have absolved an unrepentant sexist for using his legislative platform to slander the character, talents, and abilities of women?  Would she have excused a right-to-life advocate for disagreeing with liberal abortion policy? The answer is certainly “no” on all counts.

Although a number of Republicans voted against the Democrats’ final resolution, they did so primarily because it eliminated the singular focus on anti-Semitism and failed to mention Omar by name.  They refused to endorse a resolution that was rewritten to avoid offending those who deny Israel’s right to exist or defend anti-Jewish stereotypes as political speech. In addition, Republicans were incensed that Rep. Omar was allowed to retain her seat on the influential Foreign Affairs Committee – unlike Rep. Steven King (R. Iowa), who was stripped of his Committee assignments for comments deemed racist by fellow Republicans.

Progressives often engage in historical revisionism to suit their political needs and seem to believe it is better to be morally correct (assuming one agrees with their morals) than factually accurate.  However, past history should bear on current events; and the conservative record of acknowledging anti-Semitism and seeking corrective change should inform the Democrats’ present situation.

Twenty-six years ago, the late William F. Buckley purged the “National Review” of contributors whose criticisms of Israel he came to believe were motivated by anti-Semitism.  He then wrote a magazine-length piece (republished in book form) entitled, “In Search of Anti-Semitism,” which represented a significant moment in political self-analysis and accountability.  Buckley did not deny the history of anti-Semitic bigotry, nor did he blame Jews for their troubles or offer revisionist justifications.  Rather, he recognized the existence and political impact of anti-Jewish prejudice and the role of partisan ideologues and intellectuals in shaping public thought and opinion.

Through this literary endeavor, Buckley provided a forum for discussion and analysis that made anti-Semitism a relevant and important subject for non-Jews.

Thereafter, conservatives became more sensitized to an issue that many had never before cared about, and the legacy is a Republican Party today whose support for Israel puts Democrats to shame and which is generally more vigilant against anti-Semitism and supportive of Jewish historical rights and values.  It is noteworthy that Republicans do not condition their Israel policy on Jewish support for their party, inasmuch as most Jewish voters have remained registered Democrats. In contrast, Democratic leaders have been cynical and slow in addressing Jew-hatred within their party, perhaps because they believe most Jews will remain Democrats regardless of how the party treats them or regards Israel.

Whatever the reason, liberals and Democrats have yet to engage in the kind of soul searching that conservatives did in the 1990s.  Rather, they continue to excuse progressive anti-Semitism as political speech and protect its purveyors – especially those legitimized beyond reproach through identity politics.  Whereas apologists try to attribute Democratic anti-Semitism to the “hard left,” it has clearly infected the party’s mainstream. This is illustrated by rank-and-file Democratic support for the BDS movement, rejection of Jewish historical rights, embrace of anti-Zionism, and refusal to ostracize compatriots whose venom clearly sounds in traditional anti-Semitism.

Though most Democrats believe liberalism is inherently more tolerant of Jews and Judaism than conservatism, such presumptions are nonsense.  Liberal tradition is fraught with anti-Semitic excess – starting with Voltaire himself, running through the European progressive, socialist and communist movements, and festering in a modern left-wing that rationalizes Islamism, justifies terrorism, and opposes the existence of a Jewish State.  It was no coincidence that Theodor Herzl’s quest for Jewish national revival began in response to the anti-Semitism that permeated liberal France at the time of the Dreyfus affair. The very hatred that Herzl encountered in nineteenth century Europe is currently playing out in twenty-first century America.

The Democrats had their moment to acknowledge and renounce anti-Semitism in their midst but failed to rise to the occasion.  They instead bowed to extremist pressure and let the opportunity slip by. But if there are truly any moderates left in the Democratic party – and if they wish to reclaim the classical values of free speech and equal treatment for all – they would do well to emulate the vision displayed years ago by conservatives who recognized anti-Semitism as a political and moral dilemma and dealt with it through honest discourse and intellectual analysis.  So far, they haven’t come close.

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel National News column is republished with permission.

Shame on Bob Moser and all the Others who Kept the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Secrets (until now)

Who is Bob Moser you ask?

He is a writer at The New Yorker who tells us over a decade later what he learned about the frauds at the Southern Poverty Law Center when he worked there in the early 2000’s.

Moser told his story yesterday about how much of the staff (mostly former staff now!) was well aware of the hypocrisy of the organization that was driven more by a desire to make its leaders rich than doing good for the down and out.

I don’t know why he even wrote this article (clearing his conscious maybe), but I am glad he did.

What most outraged me was the fact that all of these employees he references knew what was going on, yet many stayed and worked there for a time with apparent total disregard for what their ‘good works’ could do to regular Americans who have opinions—people like me!

Frankly, the SPLC’s money-generating “hate-group list” puts my safety in jeopardy!

It is long, but the New Yorker story is a must-read and a must-send to everyone you know!

Here is how Moser begins,

The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center

(How about a subtitle:  And the reckoning of all the gullible libs who worked there, saw the truth, and kept their mouths shut till now!)

In the days since the stunning dismissal of Morris Dees, the co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, on March 14th, I’ve been thinking about the jokes my S.P.L.C. colleagues and I used to tell to keep ourselves sane. Walking to lunch past the center’s Maya Lin–designed memorial to civil-rights martyrs, we’d cast a glance at the inscription from Martin Luther King, Jr., etched into the black marble—“Until justice rolls down like waters”—and intone, in our deepest voices, “Until justice rolls down like dollars.”The Law Center had a way of turning idealists into cynics; like most liberals, our view of the S.P.L.C. before we arrived had been shaped by its oft-cited listings of U.S. hate groups, its reputation for winning cases against the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations, and its stream of direct-mail pleas for money to keep the good work going. The mailers, in particular, painted a vivid picture of a scrappy band of intrepid attorneys and hate-group monitors, working under constant threat of death to fight hatred and injustice in the deepest heart of Dixie. When the S.P.L.C. hired me as a writer, in 2001, I figured I knew what to expect: long hours working with humble resources and a highly diverse bunch of super-dedicated colleagues. I felt self-righteous about the work before I’d even begun it.

The first surprise was the office itself.

Continue here.

Hate-group list was a masterstroke by Dees!

Then this after a lengthy discussion about how it was more about raking in money especially from gullible northerners who would read about the “hate groups” in stories written by biased and uninformed reporters.

By the time I touched down in Montgomery, the center had increased its staff and branched out considerably—adding an educational component called Teaching Tolerance and expanding its legal and intelligence operations to target a broad range of right-wing groups and injustices—but the basic formula perfected in the eighties remained the same. The annual hate-group list, which in 2018 included a thousand and twenty organizations, both small and large, remains a valuable resource for journalists and a masterstroke of Dees’s marketing talents; every year, when the center publishes it, mainstream outlets write about the “rising tide of hate” discovered by the S.P.L.C.’s researchers, and reporters frequently refer to the list when they write about the groups.

Read the whole article.

Then send it to every local newspaper that uses the annual “hate-group list.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

The Sinister Side of the Gender War

“But it’s just a phase!” How many parents have made that same desperate plea to a teacher, a counselor, or doctor? Deep down, they know their children weren’t born in the wrong body. They know the confusion about their teenager’s identity is coming from somewhere else — a struggle that doesn’t have to be permanent. But in a culture that’s determined to indulge these fantasy, at any cost, who will believe them?

The stories from parents are real-life nightmares. On a panel about gender ideology at the Heritage Foundation, attorneys shared one heart-wrenching testimony after another. Jennifer Chavez, a liberal with liberal clients, explained that she may disagree with conservatives on abortion or taxes, but the transgender movement is a place where every Americans can come together. Why? Because this ideology is no respecter of persons. It will haunt families — and rob futures — on both sides.

Chavez told the story of a 13-year-old girl, who came home and told her parents she was “transgender” after watching a presentation about it at school. “Without evaluation or therapy, the mother was told by a ‘gender therapist’ to buy her child a breast binder and put her on puberty-blocking drugs. If she didn’t comply, she was told, her child would face a high risk of suicide. She only realized later how inaccurate and baseless this clinical advice had been.” Furious, the liberal mom wrote, “Why are physicians medicalizing children in the name of an unproven, malleable gender identity? Why are lawmakers enshrining gender identity into state and federal laws?”

National Review’s Madeleine Kearns horrified people with the testimony of a family, whose 14-year-old girl accused her parents of “child abuse” because they wouldn’t use her male name. “Without my knowledge, a pediatric endocrinologist taught my daughter, a minor, to inject herself with testosterone. She then ran away to Oregon where state law at the age of 17 allowed her… to undergo a double mastectomy and radical hysterectomy… The level of outrage and rage I’m experiencing as a mother is indescribable. Why does Oregon law allow children to make life-altering medical decisions? …Why are doctors who took an oath to first do no harm allowed to sterilize and surgically mutilate mentally ill, delusional children?”

Why? Because America is being hijacked by an aggressive, take-no-prisoners LGBT agenda that doesn’t care about your rights as parents — or your children’s wellbeing. If they did, they’d know that “98 percent of gender-confused boys and 88 percent of gender-confused girls accept their biological sex after puberty.” Suggesting that these kids are anything other than their biological gender, the American College of Pediatricians argues, is “child abuse” that will scar them for life.

Fortunately, a brave group of young adults is coming forward to make that case themselves. As teenagers, they identified as transgender. Now, they want the world to know what a mistake that was. The founders of the Pique Resilience Project talk about their journeys in an interview with NRO, each drawing the same conclusion: transgenderism is a false and dangerous ideology.

“Helena had a history of not fitting in and feeling uncomfortable with her body. She had been badly bullied and was feeling very low when she turned to transgenderism. She took high doses of testosterone, which has altered her voice. At the age of 18, she wasn’t thinking about her long-term future. She wasn’t thinking about the serious risks and possible infertility. Now, she has some advice for other young people who think they might be transgender:

‘Step back from the activism, the ideology, the community — think about the reasons why you might feel this way about your body. Because there’s just a lot of people with just glaringly obvious reasons why they don’t like their body…'”

Read Helena’s story and powerful testimonies at National Review. Then, make sure you download FRC’s “A Parent’s Guide to the Transgender Movement in Education.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Speech Righter: Trump Tackles College Censorship

A Day to Celebrate Life

Female HS student files civil rights complaint: ‘I felt very violated’ changing in locker room when transgender student was ‘looking at me’

RELATED VIDEO: The Inequality of the Equality Act: Concerns from the Left – Heritage Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

Israel’s High Court–When Legality Loses its Legitimacy

In overturning a previous decision of the Knesset’s Central Elections Committee, the High Court took another giant step towards further undermining the already dwindling public confidence in the Israeli judiciary.


In Israel, the negative impact of the judicialization of politics on the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is already beginning to show its mark. Over the past decade, the public image of the Supreme Court as an autonomous and impartial arbiter has been increasingly eroded… [T]he court and its judges are increasingly viewed by a considerable portion of the Israeli public as pushing forward their own political agenda… – Prof. Ran Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy, Harvard University Press, 2004.

The public is further losing its faith in…the legal system, with only 36 percent of the Jewish public expressing confidence in the courts…– “Public’s faith in Israel’s justice system continues to plummet,” Haaretz, August 15, 2013.

A candidates’ list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the objects or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: 

  1. negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;
  2. incitement to racism;
  3. support of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel. – Basic Law Knesset– Article 7A

This week, the High Court took another giant step towards further undermining the already dwindling public confidence in the Israeli judiciary.

Eroding confidence in judiciary

On Sunday (March 17) it overturned a previous decision by the Knesset’s Central Elections Committee, and ruled to prohibit the participation in the upcoming elections of the hardline Right-wing candidate, Dr Michael Ben Ari, while permitting that of the undisguisedly anti-Zionist list “Balad” and the self-professed anti-Zionist candidate, Ofer Cassif. In doing so, High Court once again underscored the growing divergence between the average man-in-the-street’s perception of common-sense and sense of justice, on the one hand, and many judicial rulings, on the other. But more on that a little later

Over the last two decades, there has been a dramatic erosion of the public’s faith in the Israeli judiciary, in general, and in the High Court, in particular. Thus, according to an ongoing study at Haifa University, the confidence of the Jewish population in court system plunged from 61% in 2003 to a mere 36% in 2013.

A later study found that, overall, public confidence in the High Court plummeted from 80% in 2000, to 61% in 2014, to just 49% in 2017. Commenting on these findings, Einav Schiff, of the mass circulation daily Yedioth Aharonot, wrote “This isn’t a slip or a drop, it’s a collapse.”

He warned: “Needless to say, the High Court’s image among the public cannot remain as it is now. Eventually, there will be a political constellation that could enable another constitutional revolution.”

“…crass and misguided interference in Israeli democracy”

Schiff’s diagnosis proved a prescient prognosis of Justice Minister Ayalet Shaked’s outraged reaction to the High Court’s decision, which she labelleda crass and misguided interference in the heart of Israeli democracy”, and pledged to revolutionize the method by which High Court judges are appointed. At the top of her list of planned measures was the elimination of the judicial appointments committee for the High Court, in which sitting justices have, in effect, veto power over new appointments to the High Court.

Instead, according to her proposed reform, justices would be appointed at the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, who would bring a candidate for approval by the cabinet and the Knesset, with a public hearing being conducted for High Court justices.

Clearly, if implemented, this measure could go some way towards addressing the kind of perceived disconnect, described by Prof. Hirschl in the introductory excerpt (see above), between the world views of the judiciary and the democratically elected bodies of government.

Elsewhere in his book, Hirschl articulates precisely the process of judicial override of decisions made by elected bodies, as reflected in the verdict to overrule the Knesset’s Central Elections Committee. He writes: “…political representatives of minority groups [such as the anti-Zionist Arab factions and their members – MS] have come to realize that political arrangements and public policies agreed upon in majoritarian decision-making arenas [such as the Knesset’s Central Election’s Committee—MS] are likely to be reviewed by an often hostile Supreme Court.

Clear contravention of the letter of the law

Clearly, the recent ruling of the High Court was the outcome of “minority political groups” inducing review—indeed, reversal—of “majoritarian decisions” by a contrary judicial body. But in several important aspects it was a particularly striking case of court intervention in the democratic process.

For while the rationale for barring the anti-Zionists candidates, Balad and Cassif, was, in effect, almost self-evident—and indeed un-denied by them, the rationale for barring the Right-wing candidate, Ben Ari,  was largely a matter of inferred interpretation, which was disputed by him.

Thus, the Balad platform openly rejects Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, explicitly declaring its aspirations to convert into it into a “state of all its citizens”—which, one might have thought—given stipulation of Article 7A (1) of the Basic Law: Knesset (see introductory excerpt above)—should, on its own, be enough to disqualify it from participation in the Knesset elections. Yet for some reason the Justices of the High Court chose to disregard the unequivocal letter of the law.

Moreover, with regard to Ofir Cassif, the candidate for the “non-Zionist” Hadash list, it is not only his blatant self-professed anti-Zionism that should have prevented his candidacy, but his support for armed conflict against Israel. Indeed, even the judges—or at least some of them—seem to acknowledge this.

Thus, when Justices Noam Sohlberg, David Mintz and Neal Hendel pressed Cassif’s attorney on Cassif’s statements approving attacks on IDF soldiers, he tried to rebut them by claiming his client was discussing the matter on an academic philosophical level and not on an operational one. In response, Justice Hendel retorted that it was unrealistic to expect average readers to understand Cassif’s articles as if he does not support armed conflict.

Arab enmity not Arab ethnicity

Yet despite these incontrovertible violations of Article 7A of Basic Law: Knesset, the High Court—almost inconceivably—overturned the Knesset Central Elections Committee decision, ruling that Cassif could participate in the upcoming elections.

However, when it came to the far Right candidate, Ben Ari, things were very different. Accused of racism because of his harsh denunciation of the Arab sector in Israel and his blanket allegation of pervasive lack of Arab loyalty to Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, Ben Ari explained that that his attitude was not determined by the Arabs’ ethnic origins but by the Arab’s political enmity to Israel. Indeed, this point was made by Ben-Ari’s representative who declared that his client had “no problem” with Arab Israelis who are loyal to the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

Without going in the debate of whether Ben-Ari—himself of Afghan-Iranian origins—were inappropriate or in poor taste, it does seem a bit of a stretch to brand them as racism—particularly as Ben-Ari has served in the Knesset previously (2009-13) without any charges of racist conduct being brought against him. Indeed, if charges of racism, a crime punishable by up to ten years imprisonment by Israeli law, could be substantiated, one can only wonder why Ben-Ari has not been prosecuted for them!

Yet, despite his denial of any racist intent in his recriminations against the Arab population, the High Court ruled to interpret Ben-Ari’s declarations as racism and to prohibit his participation in the elections, overturning the decision of the Knesset Central Elections Committee to permit it.

Saving the judiciary from itself

The High Court decision produced outrage among Right-wing Knesset members who vowed to take action to curtail judicial intervention in the decision-making process of elected bodies.

For example former Defense Minister of Yisrael Beitenu  fumed: “it is absurd that the court would intervene in decisions of the Central Election Committee, to allow Ben-Ari to run, and to ban those who hate Israel…I will propose a law in the next Knesset to ban the court from intervening in committee decisions. We will do everything we can to prevent the Arab fifth column from getting into the Knesset altogether.”

Echoing similar sentiments was the newly appointed head of the Jewish Home party, Rafi Peretz, who issued a statement saying: “In the State of Israel, there is democracy in appearance only. The judiciary has taken the  Right to choose for Israeli citizens in an unprecedented manner. Kassif and Tibi [who served for years as advisor to arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat] are in, but Ben Ari, a Zionist Jew whose sons serve in the IDF, is out.

The judicial system will disregard these rumblings at its peril. For when judicial rulings are overwhelmingly at odds with public perception of common sense and justice, it cannot but lose the very credibility imperative for it to function

Indeed, two talkbacks, on a well-trafficked news-site, reflect this danger:

Ahmed Tibi is a champion of Yasser Arafat, the worst mass murderer of Jews since Adolf Hitler. Disqualifying Ben-Ari and not Tibi exposes a very alarming anti-Jewish bias in the High Court.”—Jacob

…by approving [C]assif but banning Ben Ari, our esteemed judges just ensured more votes for the Right. Are they on the payroll of Bennett/Shaked campaign?–Alexander

High Court justices would be well advised to heed the caveat that when legality loses its legitimacy, the entire edifice of the rule of law is imperiled.

IMMIGRATION: The Big Lies

How the establishment media’s distortion of the truth undermines America.


The Third Reich’s principle of the “Big Lie” involved the frequent repetition of lies until they became perceived as the truth by the masses.

George Orwell noted, “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”

In this era of “Fake News” those tactics are purposely wielded by “journalists” to mislead Americans.

On March 15, 2019, News Leader, a subsidiary of USA Today, published an infuriating opinion piece, “School owes apology for ICE agent talk at Kate Collins Middle: Our View.”

While the article noted that the ICE agent was invited to the school and limited his activities to simply addressing the students of that school to explain the mission of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), the mere presence of that federal agent at a public school was enough to set off the editors who wrote their hit piece.

The editors of the publication then spewed utter lies and false “facts” from beginning to end to justify their vitriolic attack on the agency that is charged with enforcing federal immigration laws.

Here is the opening salvo they fired against ICE:

If you were born in 1968 or before, you’ve spent most of your adult life in American without any awareness of ICE. Because it didn’t exist. There was no entity called U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It was only created in 2003.

Before that time, we had immigrations officials who dealt with cases of people overstaying their visa or being in the country illegally. We had the FBI to investigate criminal issues related to terrorism as it relates to trade, travel and immigration.

ICE is a modern creation, an experiment. It’s one we should regret.

To begin with, ICE is not an “experiment” but was created as an element of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which was itself created in the wake of the terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

Prior to the creation of the DHS, the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws was the domain of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), which was ultimately split into multiple components after 9/11. I have argued in my articles and in testimony I provided at several congressional hearings that breaking the former INS into multiple agencies actually impeded the effective enforcement of our immigration laws.

Nevertheless, arrests of illegal aliens were commonplace for INS agents long before DHS was created through the passage and enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

In fact, I began my career with the former INS in October 1971 as an Immigration Inspector and I became an INS agent in 1975. We frequently and routinely arrested illegal aliens for both administrative as well as for criminal law violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Administrative law violations were addressed through the immigration hearings which could result in an alien being stripped of any lawful status they may have acquired and then deported from the United States.

Criminal law violations of the INA would lead to those defendants being charged with crimes the same way that drug traffickers, tax evaders, counterfeiters and bank robbers would be charged in federal court. While most of the defendants in the immigration prosecutions were aliens, United States citizens who violated those laws by smuggling aliens, engaging in fraud conspiracies or otherwise violated criminal provisions of the INA could and were also charged criminally.

The notion that prior to the creation of ICE that there was no immigration law enforcement is a huge, flaming lie. The article complains about how ICE agents raid factories. I cannot remember how many such factory raids I participated in back in the 1970’s and 1980’s.

The article then went on to detail several arrests by ICE agents of illegal aliens who were found with family members or in other such circumstances creating a false image to discredit and vilify the agents and turning criminal aliens into victims.

Those aliens were, in fact, wanted for involvement in felonies in the U.S. and Mexico.

Consider the case of Perla Morales-Luna, whose arrest by the Border Patrol was included in the editorial. The Washington Examiner posted an article about that arrest, “The ‘scandal’ of Perla Morales-Luna’s arrest is fake news” and included this tweet by the Border Patrol:

Perla Morales-Luna was identified as an organizer for a transnational criminal smuggling organization operating in East County, San Diego.  She was arrested as a result of a targeted operation on March 3, 2018, in National City for being in the country illegally.

The editorial also included a breathless account of the arrest of Joel Arrona-Lara by ICE agents. At the time of his arrest he was purportedly driving his pregnant wife to the hospital.

What the editorial failed to disclose is that Arrona-Lara is wanted in Mexico for his involvement in a homicide. Information about his situation was reported upon in a Los Angeles Times report, “Warrant confirms man detained while on way to hospital with pregnant wife is wanted for murder in Mexico.”

The editorial also referred to an outrageous ACLU piece, “Citizenship service conspired with ICE to ‘trap’ immigrants at visa interviews, ACLU says.”

This is yet another example of the application of “The Big Lie.” USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) is the division of the DHS charged with adjudicating more than 6 million applications for various immigration benefits. Prior to the creation of the DHS it was a component of the former INS.

Aliens who have criminal convictions or who enter the United States illegally after deportation are not eligible for immigration benefits but may be subject to criminal prosecution for concealing material facts in their applications and/or for other crimes such as unlawful reentry which carries a maximum of 20 years in prison. These aliens are also subject to deportation from the United States.

The best and safest place to take criminals into custody is at a federal building where they are not likely to be carrying firearms or other weapons.

In 1973 I was given a one-year temporary assignment to the unit that adjudicated applications for residency based on marriage to U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants. I worked closely with INS agents to develop fraud cases and, in fact, one of those cases led to the arrest and conviction of an immigration lawyer for arranging sham marriages between citizens of China who had jumped ship and married American women who, for the most part, were of Puerto Rican ancestry and engaged in prostitution.

A wide variety of government agencies on all levels seek the arrest and prosecution of those who file false applications.

It is important to note that  the official report 9/11 and Terrorist Travel warned, “Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud.”

The title of my recent article will serve as the summation for my commentary today: “The Truth About Immigration Can Unite All Americans.”

RELATED VIDEO: Over $100 Billion Sent To Other Countries In Remittances Not Taxed, Tucker Carlson Commentary.

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission.

Analysis of the attack on Judge Jeanine: It’s Time to KISS

The familiar acronym KISS, “keep it simple stupid,” began as a design principle noted by the U.S. Navy in the 1960s according to Wikipedia. “The KISS principle states that most systems work best if they are kept simple rather than made complicated; therefore, simplicity should be a key goal in design, and unnecessary complexity should be avoided.

The current maelstrom created by Fox News suspending Judge Jeanine Pirro over a question she posed concerning the symbolism of Rep. Ilhan Omar’s hijab can best be understood using the KISS principle.

Mohammed, the 7th century prophet and founder of Islam, believed himself to be the messenger of the one and only god Allah. Mohammed believed that all people should honor Allah and only Allah. This was and continues to be the foundational premise of Islamic expansionism and its desire to establish a worldwide caliphate to make the whole world Muslim – including the United States. Islam is a replacement theology.

Islam has been at war with competing ideologies since the time of Mohammed but war is expensive. The Islamic movement’s fortunes waxed and waned over the centuries until oil was discovered in commercial quantities in Saudi Arabia in 1938. A seismic shift in geopolitical power took place and the oil rich Muslim nations were able to pursue their expansionist dreams of an Islamic caliphate once again.

The Muslim Brotherhood was already 10 years old in Egypt. According to its founder Hassan Al-Banna, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law (Sharia) on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” There is no separation of church and state in Islam, all life is ordered by Islamic supremacist religious sharia law which does not recognize any other authority including the United States Constitution.

At that time in history Saudi Arabia supported the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia went into the oil business with the United States of America. The ambitious religious ideology of Islam met the ambitious material greed of the West. Western greed was easily exploited by Islamic expansionists using the rules of the game established by Al-Banna and documented in the 1991 Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum which outlines its strategic goals for North America. Here are some highlights:

“Enablement of Islam in North America, meaning: establishing an effective and a stable Islamic Movement led by the Muslim Brotherhood which adopts Muslims’ causes domestically and globally, and which works to expand the observant Muslim base, aims at unifying and directing Muslims’ efforts, presents Islam as a civilization alternative, and supports the global Islamic State wherever it is.” (p.4)

The movement must plan and struggle to obtain ‘the keys’ and the tools of this process in carry out this grand mission as a ‘Civilization Jihadist’ responsibility. (p.5)

The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikwan (Muslim Brotherhood) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within and ’sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and by the hands of the believers.” (p.7)

The Explanatory Memorandum lists its organizations and chief among them are the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda arm the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). The Explanatory Memorandum was discovered in the home of Ismael Elbarasse, a founder of the Dar Al-Hijra mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. Elbarasse was a member of the Palestine Committee, which the Muslim Brotherhood created to support Hamas in the United States.

The war on America being waged by the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots including ISNA and CAIR is being facilitated by American greed and by the most anti-American pro-Muslim president in American history – Barack Hussein Obama. For eight years Obama facilitated the Memorandum’s seditious goals by seeding the American government with Muslim Brotherhood operatives and by embracing CAIR as its voice.

A stunning 12/22/17 article by Mark Hewitt, “Stopping the Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Plan to Infiltrate America” lists many pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies of Barack Obama including:

  • Preferential hiring of Arab Muslims over Arab Christians for top jobs.
  • Development and implementation of Muslim Outreach programs throughout the administration including NASA.
  • Federally funded Muslim outreach program taught in K-12 to educate children about Islam and Muslim beliefs.
  • CIA recruitment in Arab and Muslim communities.
  • Obama’s Cairo “A New Beginnings Speech” that welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood.
  • Support and protection of legacy candidate Hillary Clinton and her Muslim Brotherhood connected aide Huma Abedin who took five boxes of physical files out of the State Department that included records marked “Muslim Engagement Documents.”
  • Appointed Muslim convert John Brennan as CIA Director.
  • Support for overthrow of Hosni Mubarak and full support for his Muslim Brotherhood replacement Mohammad Morsi in Egypt.
  • Reversed President Bush’s policy and removed the FBI from conducting surveillance on mosques.
  • Open door policy for immigration of Muslims.
There are many more not specifically mentioned in Hewitt’s article including:
  • Obama called for Israel to return to its indefensible 1967 borders.
  • Refused to name Islamic terror attacks as religiously motivated jihad.
  • Purged homeland security and the military of documents and manuals that would teach our security forces about the motivational goals and threat of Islamic jihad.
  • Obama’s FBI director Robert Mueller purged the Bureau of all anti-terrorism training materials deemed “offensive” to Muslims after secret meetings with Islamic organizations including ISNA and CAIR – both named by the U.S. government as unindicted co-conspirators in the 2007 Holy Land Foundation terrorist financing case.

Judge Jeanine Pirro was entirely justified in her 3.11.19 opening statement to say about Ilhan Omar:

“Think about this, she’s (Omar) not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democrat Party, so if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab which according to the Quran 33:59 tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

Ilhan Omar’s district is the #1 terrorist recruitment area of the United States. Omar is a sharia compliant Muslim who represents the hostile norms and antisemitism of her sharia compliant district. Sharia law is completely incompatible with the cultural norms and freedoms of the United States and our Constitution.

Instead, Judge Jeanine was suspended by Fox News and lost several sponsors. Political correctness has silenced the crucial debate about sharia law in America that would expose how sharia compliance is a threat to the safety and stability of the United States.

The winds of change are blowing against free speech in America. Obama invited the Muslim Brotherhood into America and now the Muslim Brotherhood and its anti-American goals are in Congress.

With the suspension of Judge Jeanine Pirro, Fox News has taken one giant leap toward dhimmitude and embraced creeping religious sharia law that prohibits criticism of Islam or even questioning its tenets. The judge’s reputation and career are being destroyed because her question exposed an inconvenient truth about the antisemitism inherent in hijab wearing sharia compliant Ilhan Omar.

The corrupt Democrats refuse to condemn Omar’s antisemitic Muslim Brotherhood statements. It appears that CAIR is running Congress and that Obama has finally achieved the change he hoped for. CAIR is now demanding that Judge Jeanine Pirro be permanently removed.

It is time for pro-America Americans to apply the KISS principle to Washington politics. Islamic supremacist sharia law cannot be allowed to have the last word in Congress.

The Muslim Brotherhood and its seditious member organizations must be declared terrorist organizations.

The current Muslim Brotherhood effort to make America Muslim is a religious war started in the 7th century and reignited in the 20th century. Islam is not a religion like any other – it is a replacement religion that must be defeated in America in the 21st century.

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission.

Muslims Are Safer In The United States Than In Muslim Countries

The brutal, hate-filled slaughter of 50 Muslims in mosques in New Zealand garnered worldwide news coverage for days as the outrage was real and visceral. But the reaction belies a broader issue that is generally buried for ill-fitting the narrative: Muslims are not only extraordinarily safe in the United States, they are thriving.

First, it’s worth noting what some conservative sites have pointed out: While the world was rightly indignant over the New Zealand killings, the world and media seemed largely indifferent to the slaughter of three times that many Christians in one Africa country in a three-week period, or the 23 Christians killed by the Fulani, or the ongoing killing of Christians for being Christians around the globe — particularly by extremist Muslims. Here is an extensive example of that from The New American.

That is all true. Christianity is the most persecuted religion worldwide. Pretty much all agencies agree on that. There just isn’t much outrage as it is largely Islamist extremists doing the killing. Islamists kill even more fellow Muslims.

But there is another element to the difference in the coverage in New Zealand and in Africa, and some ears will not want to hear this: Killing people, particularly over religion or ideology, is wildly unacceptable in Christian and post-Christian countries in the West. It is far more accepted as just part of life in many other cultures, particularly Islamic countries. A lot of violent death can and does create a hardened acceptance.

Dutiful disclaimer: Islamists slaughtering the “wrong” kind of Muslims, along with any Christians and non-Muslims readily available to be killed, are not the majority of Muslims. In the West and particularly in the United States, violent Muslim extremists are a very, very small minority — perhaps the lowest in the world. But in some countries, from the Palestinian territories stretching through Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and back to Egypt and Libya, extremists and Islamists are very sizable minorities by their own self-professed opinions.

So in those countries where attacks against civilians are accepted by between 8 percent and 20 percent of the population (and between 90 percent and 100 percent of the population is Muslim) the violence is more common and more accepted, if not actually desired.

That is not the case in the United States or New Zealand or other western Christian or post-Christian countries. And it is far more rare. Despite all the blather about the rise of Islamophobia in the United States, more mass attacks are carried out by Islamists in the name of Islam than against Muslims. Far more.

Further, the United States is one of the safest countries, perhaps the absolute safest country, in the world to be Muslim and practice Islam.

In a report that came out last September by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change tracking the roots, spread and effects of violent Islamist extremism, researchers found that 121 terrorist groups sharing portions of an ideological form of Islam are now operating around the globe. Their deadly actions in 2017 alone resulted in the deaths of 84,000 people — about 22,000 of them civilians — in 66 countries.

Speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in September that Islamist extremism is “global and growing,” adding that it “didn’t begin with al Qaeda; nor will it end with the defeat of ISIS.”

The “Global Extremist Monitor,” which was produced by Blair’s non-profit, used hundreds of news sources that reported on incidents of violent extremism in 2017. According to a CBS News report from the time:

“There were a total of 7,841 attacks – an average of 21 per day –in 48 countries, it said, with war-torn Syria topping the list of countries most affected by violent extremism. Overall, Muslims were the most frequent victims of deadly attacks. Twenty-nine violent Islamist groups were actively engaged in conflict in Syria in 2017, the report said, with ISIS responsible for 44 percent of all attacks. Half of all civilian fatalities recorded globally were documented in Syria.”

In a National Geographic article by a Muslim who is an NPR correspondent covering race and diversity (politics are more than obvious) we see that despite the best attempts to paint America as bigoted, Muslims that are not activists largely don’t think it is a big problem. The article, “How Muslims, Often Misunderstood, Are Thriving in America,” talked to a lot of Muslims around the country. Here is a tidbit:

“That’s what Musa loves about being Muslim in America: The rights of expression and worship are protected. Here, he says, he can choose to be the kind of person, the kind of American, the kind of Muslim he wants to be. He points to his shelves at his rustic home on a sheep farm. They’re filled with books written by Shiite and Sunni scholars, reflecting the many schools of thought under those two main Islamic sects. “This is the place to be a Muslim, scholarship without intervention,” he says. “In Malaysia I could go to jail because I have Shiite literature in my house, and in Malaysia that’s the equivalent of being a commie in America.””

So despite the hand-wringing by the media, Democrats and some Muslim activists, such as CAIR, the U.S. is not only one of the safest countries in the world to be a Muslim, but Muslims may also thrive here more than any other place when including overall freedoms and economic opportunities — all of which probably explains why the percentage of Islamists among American Muslims is so low.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.

The Divided States of America

“We’re at war,” one frustrated Californian wrote to her local paper. “Not with another country, not with terrible diseases and plagues, not with ruthless dictators. We are at war with ourselves.” Red, blue, purple — America is a tangle of ideologies all pulling in different directions. These days, as the debates rage on, the map no longer seems to show state lines — but ideological battle lines.

It’s not as if Americans have always seen eye to eye on every issue. But the days of even general consensus seem lost. Things that we used to take for granted — values like common decency and civility — are suddenly rare. Issues that were once uncontested — the value of a fully born human life — are suddenly grounds for fierce debate. In the states, the see-saw battles are even more pronounced.

In Illinois, New York, and Rhode Island, locals have watched leaders fight to make newborn killing legal — while Missouri, North Carolina, and Arkansas try to stop doctors from dismembering babies in the womb. In one state, legal infanticide is a street party. In another, it’s a cause for community mourning. And it’s not just abortion. On education, sexuality, gender identity, immigration, and counseling, the gulfs are growing.

But how people think about the issues is just one part of the divide. “According to Pew Research, there are no issues that are widely considered top priorities by both Democrats and Republicans today. The average partisan gap between the parties’ rankings of priority issues in 2019 is 19 points, representing a 36 percent increase over the last two decades… Even as recently as 2014, the top priorities of Democrats and Republicans were much more aligned than they are today.”

There are profound differences in how the two sides view the world today. Not since slavery has there been such a stark contrast between the ideologies of the states. America survived, but barely. Of course, the silver lining is that things can shift quickly. We’ve seen entire scripts flip on abortion after the New York law. In a matter of weeks, the number of people calling themselves “pro-life” jumped by 17 points. Change is possible — but it’s also up to us.

As William Penn once said, “Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them… and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too… Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad.”

If we want good government, we need good people in it. We can’t have morally strong policies if the character of our leaders is weak. It’s time for Americans — and the church in particular — to step up in ways they haven’t before. One view is ultimately going to prevail. If we want it to be the view that our founders held, that we “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” then we have to step forward and advance those core American and biblical values.

We can’t put the nation on cruise control or think someone else will take care of it. We have to be engaged — from the school board and city council right up to Congress. Make sure you’re supporting solid candidates — or prayerfully consider becoming one. The future of the country depends on it.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

The Grudge Report

SPLC Fights Fire with Fired

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

Democracy vs. Republic

One of my pet peeves involving politics is when people misstate our form of government. Normally, I would claim this as the fault of uneducated young people, but many politicians, members of the press, as well as grown-ups are also guilty of this faux pas. No, we most definitely do not live in a “democracy,” but a “constitutional republic” instead, as does most of the governments in the world.

In its truest sense, democracy means “Rule by the People,” meaning a system of government whereby the populace votes directly on each and every issue. When you consider the voluminous number of bills and candidates to be voted upon, this is simply not feasible, regardless if we had the most sophisticated computer software to do so. Time should be allotted to deliberate on each piece of legislation and, to do so, would require citizens to devote most of their time to such study, and not tend to their own business.

This is why we elect politicians, to represent our interests so the populace doesn’t have to vote on every bill, large or small, and explains why we refer to this as a “representative democracy,” aka “republic.” Here, the elected representatives are governed by a rule of law, such as a constitution, which defines the structure and responsibility of executive, legislative, and judicial tasks. Consequently, we call this form of government a “constitutional republic,” which is a more accurate description of our government than “democracy.” It should also be noted that under this form of government, the head of state is not a monarch, such as a King or Queen, which lends itself more to being a “monarchy” as opposed to a free-standing “republic.”

Every now and then, we hear a politician or member of the media proclaim, “This (or that) is a threat to our democracy.” This tells me they haven’t a clue as to what they are talking about. Instead, they should have said, “This is a threat to our republic.” Alas though, they do not.

The Democrats also have a problem with the name, particularly when they refer to themselves as the “Democratic” party. This too is incorrect. However, it is often difficult to describe the party, audibly or in writing, without making this common mistake. The term “Democracy” is so imbued in our culture, the Democrats try capitalizing on it to confuse the public, portraying the word “republic” as a constitutional threat to the country. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is now the largest socialist organization in the United States and aside from their far-left agenda, it is difficult to discern if they truly embrace democracy or a constitutional republic, I suspect the former.

Another commonly misunderstood area is the concept of the Electoral College in presidential elections, which is indirectly tied to the concept of “republic” as opposed to “democracy” by electing electorates (representatives) as opposed to a popular vote. By doing so, it provides parity between the interests of rural and metropolitan America. Frankly, the Electoral College is a testament to the sheer genius of our founding fathers as it encourages everyone to vote, not just large metropolitan areas.

Liberals believe the Electoral College is a threat to democracy, and it is reported as such by the press. In reality, they are correct as the College is intended to be used in a republic, not a democracy.

So, in a nutshell, No, we do not live in a democracy, in the truest sense of the word. We live in a “constitutional republic” and it is important all citizens understand the differences.

Following the writing of the U.S. Constitution, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the delegates and authors, and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” He coyly replied, “A republic — if you can keep it.”

Keep the Faith!

RELATED: Legal Dictionary – Constitutional Republic.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right column is republished with permission. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

Young People’s Embrace of Socialism Shows Why We Shouldn’t Lower the Voting Age

The left really wants to give kids the right to vote.

This idea is so popular on the left that a majority of House Democrats voted in favor of lowering the voting age to 16.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., endorsed the idea as well.

Why would Pelosi and others on the left want to give high school children—hardly known for deep wisdom and sound judgment—a vote?

A new poll perhaps demonstrates why.

The Harris Poll, released exclusively by Axios, shows that roughly half of young Americans say they would prefer living in a socialist country.

It also reveals that many young Americans think the government should provide free health care, education, and medicine, among many other things.

This is very much in line with a poll released in late 2017 by the Victims of Communism Memorial Fund that found similar support for communism among young people, along with widespread ignorance about what communism is.

Most of those surveyed couldn’t define communism or socialism. Many believed, for instance, that President George W. Bush killed more people than Josef Stalin, the ruthless Soviet dictator whose regime murdered tens of millions.

The fact is, socialism attracts widespread support from millennials and members of Generation Z who at the same time are ignorant about socialism.

It’s no wonder that left-wing groups are desperately trying to find ways to get children to vote or be used as useful tools for their agenda, which now appears to include outright socialism.

While young people embrace at least the word “socialism” in disproportionately high numbers, Americans as a whole find the term toxic, as far as who they’d be willing to vote for.

According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, just 25 percent of respondents found “socialist” to be a desirable trait for a presidential candidate. It was among the least-liked traits in the entire poll.

Perhaps America’s older cohorts simply have a better understanding of what socialism is, having lived through the Cold War and faced the existential crisis of the Soviet threat to our country.

Young people, born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, have less of a real-world example to draw on in relation to the evil that socialism creates for a society that adopts it in total.

It’s clear that in the debate over socialism, education is where we have failed. A generation or generations of young Americans are falling under the impression that socialism, whatever they think it is, will bring more prosperity.

History, of course, demonstrates the opposite.

The reason America is so prosperous, and why it remains a place where so many people around the globe aspire to live, is because it rejected these ruthlessly collectivist doctrines.

Our nation held tightly to the ideas of the rule of law, private property, and the Constitution, all of which do far more for the common citizen than the doctrines of socialism, which put absolute power in the hands of a few.

Yet, our education system is failing to transmit those basic ideas to upcoming generations, a failure that this country desperately needs to change if we are to remain a free country.

In a recent survey of how Americans perform on a basic citizenship test, most failed and young people fared by far the worst.

This ties back into the the current debate over voting age.

It’s a good thing that young people participate in politics, develop an instinct for informed citizenship, and take the future of the country seriously.

However, we shouldn’t fetishize youth as itself an advantage, especially when it comes with such a disturbing lack of understanding about history and civics.

The left has a sort of Rousseauian concept of young people as being free from the shackling norms of civilization, as being capable of drawing from wisdom unclouded by the built-up prejudices of experience.

But the demands of citizenship are not fulfilled by mere youthful energy. They require an education in civics, an understanding of our institutions, a certain independence of thought and action.

At the same time progressives demand the lowering of the voting age, we increasingly infantilize young Americans, who are not really seen as “adults” until the age of 26, long after most graduate college.

From smoking to gun ownership, progressives are stripping the rights and life choices of young adults.

Meanwhile, they demand that we put increasing power in the hands of 16-year-olds to determine our leaders and laws.

This has things entirely backward.

Noah Rothman said it best in Commentary magazine:

At a time when society seems inclined to indulge young people’s desire to languish in an extended twilight childhood, it’s revealing that voting is the only adult responsibility for which Democrats think children are prepared. When it comes to just about any other condition of maturity, Democrats seem to think the proper course is the exact opposite.

So lowering the voting age is both reckless in its ethos to put voting power in the hands of people who are not ready for responsible citizenship, yet also is reduced to a mere palliative.

“Democracy” is expanded as liberty recedes, making democratic participation worth little more than a pat on the back.

While this may seem fine for generations raised in the milieu of the “self-esteem” movement, it’s hardly a recipe to strengthen the republic or produce better leaders.

Further lowering the voting age—which at 18 is already quite low—degrades the positives of democracy in America and turns it into the sad caricature of mob rule that the Founders feared.

Let us do more to create responsible adults and citizens rather than perpetually apply “democracy” in places where it is unwarranted.

COMMENTARY BY

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast.Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

House Democrats Block 19 Times Vote on Bill to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortion

Senate Democrat Says He Can’t Support Equality Act in Current Form


Dear Readers:

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.

The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

I Supported You, Jeb, For A Long Time. It’s Over

I was one of the first newspaper reporters to interview Jeb Bush in his first run for Florida Governor in 1994 — which he narrowly lost largely due to a last-minute dirty-trick push poll from the campaign of incumbent Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles. I later became a big supporter and defender of Jeb as a competent, relatively conservative governor.

That all seems like ancient history now as Jeb makes himself more irrelevant than ever after being humiliated by Republican primary voters in 2016. Yet he clings to the impression that he is germane to Republicans.

Bush is the man whose most memorable moment from the primary, aside from standing gob-smacked on the stage over and over, was forlornly pleading “somebody please clap” to a group of carefully selected attendees who did not get the cue — because he really had nothing to say. Nonetheless, he still stands more than ready to tell Republicans the importance of primarying President Trump in 2020 — the most successful if controversial conservative president since Reagan.

Sigh. As a former fan and supporter when governor of Florida, I implore you to please just go quietly into the setting sun, or do something productive with your education think tank. You were great on vouchers and those remain incredibly important.

If you want to do something for the good of the country — which does not involve improving the likelihood that the newly radicalized Democratic Party takes the White House — make the case for school choice, for parental choice, for vouchers. Raise a ton of money from your friends like you did during the primary, but use it for the good of the nation, of the next generation. Stop helping Democrats because the impolite man beat you.

Jeb went on David Axelrod’s show The Axe Files on CNN — a decision that should tell you a lot — and spoke very highly of Maryland Gov. Hogan’s potential to be an alternative to Trump in 2020. He told Axelrod — the top Democratic operative in Obama’s campaign for the presidency — that the Republican Party needs to “offer a compelling alternative” to Democratic ideas rather than just calling their ideas “bad.”

First, let’s remember he is doing this on the opposition network that has long given itself over to anti-Republican mediaship. And he’s doing it on the show of one of the best Democratic operatives in modern times. Presumably he will go on George Stephanopoulos’ Sunday show This Week on ABC — seeing as how Stephanopoulos was Clinton’s top strategist and it’s best to undermine the Republican Party’s political chances with its political enemies.

But most importantly, what is he even talking about? Just calling Democratic ideas bad. Well that would have been a good start for his dad and his brother. That would have been refreshing if President George W. Bush would have done that occasionally rather than just stand there like a Democratic fun-punching bag while many of us were trying to defend him. That polite “bully me” attitude is one of the streams that led Republicans to Trump.

But Jeb is unaware of this. And, probably because he gets his news from CNN, he is unaware that Trump has pursued a more conservative agenda than did W. — to the happy surprise of many of us.

Want a compelling alternative to Democratic ideas? Here are a few:

  • Cut taxes and reform the tax code to grow the economy and allow Americans to keep more of their money. DONE.
  • Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate to grow the economy and expand American freedoms. DONE.
  • Appoint strong Constitutionalist judges to the federal Courts, starting with the U.S Supreme Court. DONE.
  • Build a strong military to protect and expand human liberty. BEING DONE.
  • Negotiate more free and fair trade agreements, such as the USMCA, which actually has net more freedoms on trade regarding un-tariffed flow of goods. DONE.
  • Repeal the odious individual mandate in Obamacare. DONE.
  • Create and strengthen work requirements for welfare programs. DONE.

And that’s just the beginning of a list.

In fact, after his first year in office, President Trump had embraced nearly two-thirds of the policy recommendations from the Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership. He even favors Jeb’s school choice vouchers philosophies.

Trump and Republicans have put forth serious alternatives and enacted very conservative policies. If you were more of a principled conservative than you are a Trump hater, you would see that. I imagine Axelrod nodded right along in agreement with you. Stephanopoulos would, too.

I thought a lot of you, Jeb, at one point. But alas, you are leaving the legacy of a petty man.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.

‘Welcome to Neo-Stalinism’: After Trump’s tweet Google erases Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Moore from enviro group’s history

President Donald Trump touted Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore’s statements earlier this week that “the whole climate crisis is not only Fake News, it’s Fake Science.” Moore made his comments while appearing on Fox & FriendsSee:Trump touts Greenpeace co-founder declaring ‘the whole climate crisis’ is ‘fake science’ – Video & Point-by-point rebuttal to Michael Mann’s Newsweek smear of Trump, Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Moore & Princeton’s Dr. Happer

But now, Google, with the help of Greenpeace, is revising Greenpeace’s history to erase Dr. Moore from his role in co-founding the environmental group. But Greenpeace’s own website has previously featured Moore as one of its “founders.”
See: BUSTED: GREENPEACE’S OWN WEBSITE LISTED PATRICK MOORE AS ONE OF ‘THE FOUNDERS OF GREENPEACE’ – MOORE CALLS OUT HIS FORMER GROUP FOR ‘HISTORICAL REVISIONISM’ 
Moore on March 16: “Oh my! Google has removed my photo and name from the ‘Founders of @Greenpeace’. It was still there 2 days ago but now I am erased. Tech Tyranny!!”

Patrick Moore@EcoSenseNow
Oh my! @Google has removed my photo and name from the “Founders of @Greenpeace“. It was still there 2 days ago but now I am erased. Tech Tyranny!!
1st image a few days ago screen shot.
2nd image this morning.
Both were Googled “Who are the founders of Greenpeace”
16.1K
10:27 AM – Mar 16, 2019

12.9K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Moore continued: “1st Google image a few days ago screen shot.”

2nd Google image this morning.

Both were Googled “Who are the founders of Greenpeace”
View image on Twitter

Patrick Moore@EcoSenseNow
While I was with Greenspirit Strategies consulting on environmental issues I wrote a detailed article on “Who are the Founders of @Greenpeace“. If you are interested in a historically accurate account, with many references. here it is:http://greenspiritstrategies.com/who-are-the-founders-of-greenpeace/ …
I am under the “P”.
312
11:42 AM – Mar 16, 2019

But Greenpeace’s own history has featured Moore as one of its “founders.”  See: BUSTED: GREENPEACE’S OWN WEBSITE LISTED PATRICK MOORE AS ONE OF ‘THE FOUNDERS OF GREENPEACE’ – MOORE CALLS OUT HIS FORMER GROUP FOR ‘HISTORICAL REVISIONISM’ 

BUSTED: GREENPEACE’S OWN WEBSITE LISTED PATRICK MOORE AS ONE OF ‘THE FOUNDERS OF GREENPEACE’ – MOORE CALLS OUT HIS FORMER GROUP FOR ‘HISTORICAL REVISIONISM’ – Greenpeace’s website listed Moore among its “founders and first members” before quietly removing it around 2007. Moore is only listed as a member of the group’s 1971 maiden voyage to oppose nuclear testing.

BUSTED: Greenpeace own website used to show Patrick Moore as one of “the founders of Greenpeace” – Via Anthony Watts – Watts Up With That

Moore explains: “I was listed as a founder of Greenpeace on their own websites for 20 years after I left. They only disowned me when I came out in favor of nuclear energy.”

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/03/greenpeace-lies-to-save-the-planet-erasing-patrick-moore-again/

By Jo Nova

Donald Trump quoted Patrick Moore this week — the skeptic with an ecology PhD who was once a Founder of Greenpeace. So Greenpeace leapt to do some damage control on their brandname and created more damage instead. They promptly tweeted that he was never a founder and is a paid lobbyist. (And what is Greenpeace anyway if not paid lobbyists?)

If they’ll lie about their own history, what won’t they lie about?

Thanks to Anthony Watts for finding the tweet and reminding us of things we posted long ago.

Greenpeace tweet in 2019:

 

Patrick Moore was not a co-founder. Greenpeace Tweet.

Greenpeace history page in 2007:

Patrick was not only one of the first five, but he was their only scientist.

The Greenpeace site on February 25th, 2007.  (Click to Enlarge) @Greenpeaceusa

For 40 years of Greenpeace history Patrick Moore was called one of the five founders of Greenpeace. He traveled on the first Greenpeace boat trip. Thanks to the Wayback Machine we know that sometime in March 2007 he fell off the Founders list.

Just Greenpeace copying their Soviet idols.

Greenpeace disappears a founder, much like ‘The Commissar Vanishes’ in Soviet Russia – It’s just like the famous communist propaganda photo series The Commissar Vanishes

The old Soviet practice under Joseph Stalin saw photos of commissar’s who fell out of favor with the Party, later had their photos doctored and the now unpopular commissar was made to disappear.

Patrick Moore@EcoSenseNow
· Mar 16, 2019

Oh my! @Google has removed my photo and name from the “Founders of @Greenpeace“. It was still there 2 days ago but now I am erased. Tech Tyranny!!
1st image a few days ago screen shot.
2nd image this morning.
Both were Googled “Who are the founders of Greenpeace”

GWPF@thegwpfcom

welcome to Neo-Stalinismhttps://www.rbth.com/history/329317-stalin-propaganda-photos …

131
10:43 AM – Mar 16, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

How Stalin’s propaganda machine made people vanish from pictures (PHOTOS)

Not only did many of Joseph Stalin’s political rivals lose their lives – all traces of their existence were wiped off the face of the planet, including any photos of them.

rbth.com

49 people are talking about this

For more on Stalin and ‘The Commissar Vanishes’ see here.

Dr. Patrick Moore is featured prominently in the new skeptical book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”

America Deserves Much Beto Than O’Rourke

Watching Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke announce his candidacy for president, I had snake oil salesman come to mind. Everything about this guy is fake, which makes him a perfect candidate for fake news media to celebrate.

My wife Mary and I spent several weeks in Texas campaigning for Ted Cruz, fighting to stop O’Rourke from stealing Cruz’s senate seat. It was incredible watching O’Rourke’s TV ads. Funded with mega-millions from outsiders, O’Rourke’s entire US senate campaign was built upon deceiving voters.

For example: While claiming to be pro-second amendment, great deceiver O’Rourke voted against every piece of pro-gun legislation that came to his desk. To deceive voters into believing he is a regular guy, millionaire O’Rourke posted video of himself in a laundromat doing laundry. O’Rourke came disturbingly close to scamming Texans into electing him over Ted Cruz.

In his elect-me-or-we’re-all-gonna-die presidential campaign announcement, O’Rourke claimed there are crises in our economy, democracy and climate. O’Rourke urgently warned Americans that we are in a “moment of peril”. What on earth is O’Rourke talking about?

Our Economy: Trump has our economy booming. Black unemployment is the lowest in recorded history. Hispanics and women are also doing great in Trump’s economy.

Our Democracy: Mr O’Rourke the truth is you and your fellow Democrats are the greatest threats to our democracy. Democrats seek to criminalize conservative thoughts, conservative speech and gun ownership. Given their vindictive destruction of Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort, Democrats outrageously seek to criminalize working for Trump

Our Climate: For the ga-zillionth time, man-made climate change is a proven hoax. O’Rourke passionately warns that not embracing the Green New Deal will lead to the extinction of the human race in a decade or so. Here’s a reminder of the insanity in the Green New Deal. By 2030 we must end air travel; end the use of fossil fuels; mandate that every new job be unionized; decommission every nuclear plant; rebuild every building in America for state-of-the-art energy efficiency and government funding everyone including deadbeats who refuse to work.

O’Rourke continued his trademark deception tactic. He said we should ensure immigrants “lawful paths to work”. Wait a minute, dude. You and your fellow Democrats say screw our immigration laws, lets rolling out the red carpet for illegals. Democrats say because we have pillaged the world’s resources and because we are racist, sexist and homophobic, we do not have moral authority to keep anyone out of our country. Not only is O’Rourke fighting to stop Trump from building a border wall to keep Americans safe, he wants to tear down the existing border wall in El Paso, Texas

O’Rourke said we should “listen to and lift up rural America.” The truth is, O’Rourke and his fellow Democrats despise rural America. Rural America voted for Trump, desire to keep their guns, attend Christian churches on Sundays, believe marriage is between one man and one woman and they believe abortion and infanticide are evil. Pandering to rural America is simply more of O’Rourke’s campaign of deception.

As a black American, I was stunned when O’Rourke said we should “confront the hard truths of slavery, and segregation, and suppression in these United States of America.” What the heck is he talking about? Ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 ended slavery in America. The only segregation I am aware of is black students segregating themselves on college campuses; demanding black student unions and race-based housing facilities. Who are the masses of Americans O’Rourke claims we are suppressing? Do you see O’Rourke using Democrats’ disgusting tactic of dividing Americans into bogus victimized voting blocs?

After spewing gloom-and-doom, America sucks and everyone is a victim lies, O’Rourke had the audacity to say, “This is going to be a positive campaign.” I laughed out loud.

O’Rourke is anti-law enforcement, voting against ICE. He calls our nation’s police “the new Jim Crow” which cruelly paints targets on the backs of our brave men and women in blue to be assassinated by Black Lives Matter.

Kate Steinle was shot and killed by an illegal alien who was deported several times and kept coming back to his sanctuary city, San Francisco. Kate’s Law would give mandatory jail time to illegals who repeatedly break our immigration laws. O’Rourke voted against Kate’s Law. Supposed man of the people O’Rourke voted against Trump’s tax cuts. O’Rourke wants single-payer health-care which leads to rationed health-care, in which government makes funding decisions determining who lives or dies.

While in Texas campaigning for Ted Cruz, I got to witness O’Rourke’s deceptive tactics up close when he ran for US senate in Texas. My brother and sister fellow Americans, our country deserves much better than sociopath conman Beto O’Rourke

RELATED ARTICLES:

VIDEO: Democratic Presidential Candidate ‘Beto’ O’Rourke’s 1988 ‘Love Poetry’ titled ‘Wax My A**, Scrub My Balls’ Re-surfaces

Reuters held story about Beto O’Rourke until after Senate race

Of Tweets and Termites: Intersectionality and the Mainstreaming of Anti-Semitism

Albert Einstein once observed, “If my theory of relativity is proven correct, Germany will claim me as a German and France will declare that I am a citizen of the world. Should my theory prove untrue, France will say that I am a German and Germany will declare that I am a Jew.”

Why are Einstein’s words uttered some ninety years ago so relevant today? Because anti-Semitism, like some ancient Bacillus frozen in Arctic permafrost and defrosted, has again reared its ugly head; not just in Europe but around the world. This “new form” of anti-Semitism claims to be different from the traditional racial and religious images. Its adherents say that they are anti-Zionist, NOT anti-Semites. But listen very carefully to what they are saying and you will hear accusations that could easily come right out of the pages of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

Just recently, in the Belgium city of Aalst, a parade took place which featured a float whose ludicrous depictions of Jews were virtually the same as those seen in the pages of “Der Sturmer.” The float featured grotesque distortions of several Jews in religious garb complete with sidelocks sitting atop bags of money with a rat perched atop ones shoulder. It was anti-Semitism of the most virulent obscene kind that Julius Streicher himself would have been proud of. What makes this sickening display even more alarming is the official sanction given to it by the Mayor of Aalst; Christoph D’Haese who stated that “It’s not up to the mayor to forbid such displays,” and that the carnival participants had “no sinister intentions” . . . NO SINISTER INTENTIONS? I suppose one could say that Adolf Eichmann had no sinister intentions either. After all, he himself had no part in the actual killing process; he merely organized the transports to the death camps. He was just a man doing his job; no different from Mayor D’Haese of Aalst.

Here in the U.S. we have our own anti-Semitic scandal. Newly-elected Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, a Muslim immigrant from Somalia, has been tweeting a series of anti-Semitic tropes, which she has refused to apologize for or retract, and which has caused a great deal of controversy. What is extremely alarming is the inability of the Democratic party and its leadership to in any way try to condemn, censure or remove her from her position on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Indeed, just the opposite has occurred with Democrats from around the country, and even a number of Jews themselves, rushing to her defense. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi herself stated that “Her words were not based on any anti-Semitic attitude.” Really! Not too long ago, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan declared, “People call me an anti-Semite. Please. I’m not an anti-Semite; I’m anti-TERMITE.” One cannot help but wonder if Speaker Pelosi would say that Minister Farrakhan’s statement “was not based on any anti-Semitic attitude.” In refusing to repudiate Omar, Pelosi and the leadership of the Democratic party has unofficially endorsed her anti-Semitic tweets. Their silence is deafening. Defenders of the party will point out that Congress did pass a resolution condemning anti-Semitism . . . as well as condemning Islamophobia . . . and ALL forms of hate against Hindus, Seikhs, LBGTQ’s and all people of color. But there have been no reported statements by any member of Congress against any of the aforementioned groups, except ONE . . . Ilhan Omar’s tweets concerning Jews. What would normally in the past have been a “no-brainer” for any Democrat, is suddenly taboo in this new age of political correctness, identity politics, and radical ideology. This is an indication of how far to the left the Democratic party has moved and attests to the nexus that exists between the radical left and Islamists.

As the Democratic party continues its lurch to the left, and all indications are that it will, invariably becoming even more anti-Zionist and by extension anti-Semitic; inevitably embracing the policies of organizations such as the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) Movement. To add insult to injury, there is a motion in the UN that was introduced in Jan 2019 by the Palestinian Authority to reinstate UN Resolution 3379; first adopted in 1975 and later revoked in 1991. That resolution declared that “Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination.” There are no other people anywhere in the world, at any time in history that has this dubious distinction. When South Sudan gained its independence in 2011, after years of bloodshed, did ANYONE at the UN propose calling the national aspiration of the South Sudanese to their own homeland racist? The Kurds, an ethnic group indigenous to the Middle East whose population is scattered between Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey also aspire to their own national homeland, and NO ONE has called them racist. Only Israel and the Jews have that distinction. Make no mistake: Anti-Zionism IS anti-Semitism. The two terms have become conflated together. If you agree that Israel is as evil and repugnant as they say, then the ONLY possible remedy for such a racist apartheid fascist state is its TOTAL destruction; its Jewish population either exterminated or exiled.

This is how it begins. Slowly, surely, irrevocably, methodically, step by step, removing the constraints away from what was previously thought of as unacceptable. Get the population used to seeing and hearing various forms of anti-Semitism from parade floats to rhetoric on an almost daily basis. This normalization of Jew-hatred coupled with the refusal of politicians both here and abroad to seriously address the issue and choosing to defend the perpetrators, along with a left-wing media’s reluctance to adequately report on these events, makes the acceptance of anti-Semitism by the general public inevitable. Anti-Semitism has now gone mainstream. Look at what is happening in Europe today. In France, home to the 3rd largest Jewish population in the world, Jews are leaving in ever increasing numbers in response to a new wave of anti-Semitic incidents. In Britain, the openly anti-Semitic Jeremy Corbyn, head of the left-wing Labour party, is eagerly anticipating his own accession to power while Prime Minister Teresa May laments on how sad it is that British Jews feel they no longer have a future in Great Britain. American Jews, for their part, seem almost blissfully unaware of the tsunami of anti-Semitism that is engulfing Europe and will sooner or later make its way here with the same intensity we see in Europe. “We are safe here,” is a commonly heard refrain. “We are a civilized and cultured country with laws that protect us,” they claim. So are Britain and France. So was Germany during the two world wars. Germany, during the 1920’s and early 1930’s was generally regarded by many as the most advanced country on the planet; scientifically, culturally, and artistically. This was the country of Beethoven, Bach, Goethe, and Heine. German Jews considered themselves to be patriotic Germans. More than 100,000 of them had served in the German army during the first world war; some 30,000 of whom were decorated for bravery; yet, when their time came they walked into the gas chamber along with all the others. Many American Jews are almost totally ignorant of this fact. They continue to cling to their ancestral ideology; a combination of Progressivism, ultra-Liberalism, neo-Marxism, and the Jewish concept of “tikkun olam.” They ardently believe that the main threat to Jews today comes from the neo-Nazis and the KKK. While it is true that these groups do exist, they comprise only a small percentage of the population. Of course, there are both leftist Jewish and non-Jewish groups who would disagree with these statistics. They choose to lump all Republican Conservatives and anyone who disagrees with them into the category of neo-Nazis and right-wing hate-mongers. They ignore the real threat today that comes NOT from a maligned and numerically inferior neo-Nazi and KKK Movement, but from an unholy alliance of convenience between the radical left and Islamists; a fact most American Jews cannot and will not accept.

The radical left of today is playing for very high stakes. Ultimately, it is all about power and control. They will continue to spread their message of identity politics, victimhood, social justice, racism, anti-Zionism, and anti-Semitism in order to achieve these goals. They will continue to practice what has become known as the doctrine of intersectionality; which allows them to make common cause with any other group they perceive as “oppressed.” This is why you see anti-Israel and anti-Semitic signs displayed by just about every radical left group at demonstrations throughout the country. It is why a few years ago, activists in Ferguson, Missouri carried placards saying, “From Ferguson to Gaza; the struggle continues.” The vast majority of American Jews have gone along with these policies in keeping with the belief system of their forebearers. They are unable or unwilling to comprehend that their Progressive, Liberal, Neo-Marxist ideology has shifted its allegiance to those who seek the destruction of the Jewish state and by extension – the Jewish people.

American Jewry today is at a crossroads. In all probability the vast majority of American Jews will continue to cling to their ancestral belief system. It is what they are familiar with. It is what their parents and grandparents believed in. It is all they know. To change now would be to deny everything their family members and they, themselves, have lived for. But before they bury their heads in the sand once again, they should at least hear these simple truths. When our enemies came for us during the Holocaust, they did not ask if we were Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or secular Jews. Neither were they interested in any past service we may have rendered to the state. WE WERE JEWS! That was all that mattered; and if history repeats itself . . . when our enemies come for us once again in the future; they will not ask if we are Israelis or Zionists. They will not care that we marched in the Civil Rights Movement; protested against apartheid in South Africa; supported equal rights for women; advocated for the LBGTQ community, and campaigned for Hillary or Bernie. You will be a Jew – and that is all that will matter!

The anti-Semitism that has been unleashed today by the radical left and their Islamist allies is of a kind that is so visceral; so virulent; so vile; so vicious, and so vitriolic that it can no longer be justified under the guise of anti-Zionism. In form, content, and message, it is EXACTLY the same as that which was seen and heard during the heyday of the Third Reich. It is what made the Holocaust possible. What begins with a parade float in Aalst, Belgium, inevitably ends in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and Treblinka. This is the fate our enemies have in store for us. This is why Grand Ayatollah Khameini in Tehran rejoices that more Jews are moving to Israel; it will make it easier to find and kill us all when the time comes.

As for the Jews themselves, most of them will continue doing as they have always done, confident in the assurances of their religious and political leadership that “we are safe here.” They will continue to vote for, support and finance the party and the ideology that will ultimately lead them down the pathway to their own destruction and that of the state of Israel. Vladimir Jabotinsky was quite correct when he wrote about them decades ago: “The Jew learns not by way of reason, but from catastrophe. He won’t buy an umbrella merely because he sees clouds in the sky. He waits until he is drenched and catches pneumonia.” History may yet prove that when it comes to the Jews, Jabotinsky, was an optimist.

VIDEO: Events Unfolding Rapidly Six Days To Go

We were informed by Q on February 27, 2019 that in twenty-one days to be prepared for a BIG, BIG, BIG EVENT, HISTORIC. Well as of this blog post, there are six days to go. What has occurred since the Q announcement?

Events Unfolding Countdown Continues

For starters, keep this in mind. The Mueller investigation (witch hunt), has produced no evidence whatsoever against the President for collusion with Russia. And so the gig is up. Thus the onslaught of subpoenas and law suits etc. against the President. The desperate deep state is running out of ammo. Events of no coincidence are rapidly unfolding on the countdown to the BIG EVENT.  And the big event in six days is just a dribble but it opens the flood gates. Consider this.

In recent days we have learned that FBI attorney Lisa Page’s transcripts reveal she testified that investigators had no answers on collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia before the appointment of special counsel Mueller. We, in recent days, have also come to learn about the university bribe investigation as these sealed indictments have now become unsealed rocking the already battered elites in Hollywood. Nancy Pelosi knows her time and the democrats time is up. They have been cornered by the President and team. She knows that President Trump has all the good on everyone. In a desperate move, Pelosi has backed off her support for impeachment. Furthermore, as of today, March 13, 2019, FB is not functioning properly to say the least. Sure there will be a cover story for this-don’t buy it. FB is not your friend. Could this be a test of sorts by FB to soon beef up their efforts to silence the truth that will be reveled in six days?

Then there is the Boeing crisis. Software hacking? I for one do not buy the headlines on this and neither should you. As Q, the President and we the patriots have a plan, so does the deep state cabal. False flags are being and will continue to be deployed to distract from the truth that is about to be revealed in six days and over time.

Then there is the economy which requires an entirely dedicated post. We know they want to take down the economy as yet another move to detract voters from voting for Trump in 2020. Could it be that they are attacking the financial center of the country starting with our biggest exporter, Boeing? They have control over Boeing and Boeing is complicit with guilty knowledge of how their aircraft has been hacked and used by dark deep state forces. Remember Ex CIA Kevin Shipp has told us that the private sector (namely silicon valley tech), and the defense contractors have also signed similar secrecy and immunity agreements as the CIA and other intel. agencies sign. We are at war. It is evident for the astute free thinking critical thinker and wise observer, that we can expect more events and perhaps events of magnitude.

Paradigm Shift as the World Awakens

In this great awakening, we can see why it is that the media including CNN are faltering in stock valuations and viewership and readership. They are exposed. People are moving away from fake news and looking towards alternative places for truth. Venezuelans are starving for food. Americans are starving for truth. We can also see through Hollywood as well with their endless baseless attacks against this President. We have come to learn about pedophilia (the Achilles heel of the deep state), the university bribes and pay-offs. So the once respected and admired opinion leaders, (news castors, actors and actresses), along with corporate executives, and many others are being exposed for who they are. And it’s the tip of the iceberg folks. There are over 82,000 sealed indictments. Many will be unsealed very, very soon. Yes we are winning!

What to Do?

Wake up! Expand your thinking. Question everything. Be vigilant. Surround yourself with like-minded people who understand the times in which we live. Ground yourself in faith. Pray for our President as there have been multiple plots and attempts. Have a plan B in the event of civil unrest or perhaps martial law down the road. Protect and preserve your assets as President Trump is also draining the economic swamp and this road will also get bumpy before sound money is finally restored. Seek truth. Expose lies. Reveal truths. Support this President and the plan. And be prepared for several years of turbulence as we proceed towards the ultimate victory.

President Trump and the patriots are restoring the rule of law and the restoration of sound money thus restoring the power to the people. To do this, we must take control of the NSA, the Federal Reserve, the Central Banking system, the media, the DOJ and the corrupt political establishment. This is being done. So much has been accomplished.

Conclusion

We are experiencing an unprecedented covert war of biblical proportions. A battle between good and evil. The good news is that evil is now hiding in plain sight. It is obvious who the enemy is. They have de-cloaked. This is why we must change the channel and seek and follow the truth of our times and get on board now. Go to the home page of my website and request two free digital e-book reports that you may find helpful. “How to Detect Truth from Lies in the Age of Fake News ” and “Preparing for the Global Financial Reset”. Be sure to watch the four videos posted below. And remember, freedom is up to us. WWG1WGA.

Deep State Expert: Trump Has All The Goods On Everyone!

Plan to Save the World

We are the Plan

Dark to Light