As For Me and My House

Candidly, I have not written in a while because I’ve been in a funk. I caught Rabbi Jonathan Cahn on TV sharing devastating stats confirming we (Conservatives) have lost the culture war; the battle for the hearts and minds of America.

New York city has legalized a “third gender” on birth certificates. Not that long ago, over 40 states passed resolutions supporting God’s definition of marriage – between one man and one woman. According to the Public Religious Research Institute, a majority of Democrats, Republicans, blacks, whites, Latinos, Catholics and white mainline Protestant denominations support same sex marriage. The majority of evangelical Millennials support redefining marriage.

Years ago, LGBTQ activists claimed openly homosexual leaders admitted into the Boy Scouts had no intention to change the organization from its founding on Christian principles. As it turned out, first on the LGBTQ agenda was to remove “morally straight” for the Scout Oath

“On my honor, I will do my best. To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.”

We are living in a pretty sick time when morally straight is deemed hateful and offensive.

Recently, “Boy” has been removed from the name of the organization, changed to “Scouts BSA” to appeal to girls. The Girl Scouts are in a huff. They are suing the Boy Scouts because they feel the Boy Scouts is now in competition with them for girls. The Girl Scouts has also been changed, infected with radical feminism – promoting transgender-ism, lesbianism and abortion. Girl Scouts of Western Washington returned a $100,000 donation, a fourth of their annual fund-raising goal, because the donor requested that their gift not be used to support transgender girls

Leftists’ war on gender includes absurdly claiming that having separate organizations for boys and girls is hateful and discriminatory.

The Bible says in the last days, man will seek to change nature, moving toward what is unnatural. We are seeing this happen. First leftists claimed they only desired tolerance for the unnatural. Today, anyone who does not fully approve the unnatural is high-tech executed.

After 34 years, Disney World has canceled its annual Christian Music Festival

Six thousand to 10,000 churches close each year in America, over 100 per week

In Dover, Ohio, a Nativity scene and a Ten Commandments display were removed from public property after an atheist group complained

The new “Batwoman” TV series will feature the first lesbian superhero on television. 

‘Whiteness Forum’ seeks to ban the Christian cartoon “Veggie Tales”, claiming it is racist. 

A Virginia middle school banned Christmas songs with ‘Jesus‘ from their winter concert. 

Children seeking to transgender themselves has skyrocketed; 4,500 percent for girls and 1, 250 percent for boys. My wife Mary alerted me to this horrifying truth. U.S. doctors are performing double mastectomies on healthy 13 year old girls who think they want to be boys. Leftists have launched a war on gender which far too many Americans have either embraced or are afraid to talk about or push back against.

Over the holidays, I will be celebrating with various family members. Many of them see nothing wrong with practically every TV show, movie and commercial promoting homosexuality. If I dare mention the media blitz intended to normalize what the Bible says is wrong, I will be viewed as the crazy, intolerant and hateful old patriarch who is out-of-touch with the times.

After listening to Rabbi Cahn describe our nation’s moral and cultural decline, I felt discouraged, heartbroken and angry. Rabbi Cahn encouraged Christians to remain faithful, fighting and standing up for what is right. Still, I couldn’t shake feeling why I should continue writing articles when a majority of Americans embrace leftists’ evil agenda.

Angrily, I questioned, why stupid parents gleefully support drag queens reading LGBTQ stories to their children at libraries? Any idiot can see that leftists are purposely sexing our kids as early as pre-school with homosexual Christmas children books like “Santa’s Husband”. 

An Austin Texas teacher at a poverty level school expressed her frustration. The students struggle with reading, writing and math. And yet, the school principal made it top priority for teachers to instruct students to embrace all things LGBTQ. The frustrated teacher who sounded the alarm said she was tasked with explaining and presenting homosexuality in a positive light to pre-k 4 year olds

Frustrated, I asked God, why do the wicked prosper? Discouraged men of God in the Bible asked God the same question. God revealed to his faithful servants that the wicked prosper only for a season and will eventually receive their just reward. (Psalms 73)

God instructs, “ Trust in the Lord and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture. Take delight in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart.” (Psalms 37:3-4)

I repent from allowing myself to become discouraged; not trusting God. I will continue fighting back, standing up for what is right. Leftists are evil masters of deception – portraying themselves as all powerful – winning everything. They are not.

I cannot, nor do I desire to control others. “But, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” (Joshua 24:15)

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by John Cafazza on Unsplash.

Why Political Polarity? The irresistible force versus the immovable object.

In the political polarity of America today, neither side trusts the other, Left or Right, thus making it impossible to compromise or reason together, leaving us with more than just a Congress in gridlock, but the whole country as well. The two perspectives of America are truly incompatible and requires some explanation.

Liberals are at a complete loss as to why anyone would support President Trump. As one reader recently wrote to me, “I want to know if any of the crimes Trump is alleged to have committed, the factual information coming forth, the involvement of his family and the blatant lies he told and continues to tell has any bearing on your unwavering support of the man?”

Conversely, conservatives do not understand why others do not support the President. As another reader wrote, “The American voters that voted for the Communist Democrats are the traitors to our country, and the rest of us true Americans.”

The polarity of the two sides is such that neither understands the other, nor cares to.

As another example, on December 11th (2018), President Trump and Vice President Pence met with Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer in the White House to discuss a Congressional spending bill to include $5 billion in funding to accelerate building of the southern wall. Both Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer steadfastly refused to agree to it in front of television cameras. In fact, they felt awkward discussing it in such a venue. The President made it clear he would unashamedly close the federal government if he doesn’t get the money to tighten border security. The Democrats tried to browbeat the President by making the point that Mr. Trump would be solely responsible for the shutdown, not the Democrats. The President readily conceded the point with the caveat he would be doing so to protect our border and the citizens of this country, something his Congressional opponents are not willing to do.

Afterwards, Republicans applauded the president’s handling of the meeting by seeking “transparency” in front of the cameras, something the Democrats obviously felt uncomfortable doing. The Right saw the president on top of his game and outfoxed his opponents as any other businessman would do.

Liberals didn’t see it this way. Instead, the President was characterized as a bully throwing an indignant temper tantrum. His character and intelligence was again questioned, and he was described as a megalomaniac, as well as all the other usual derogatory adjectives du jour.

Democrats are quick to accuse the President of improprieties resulting from the Mueller investigation, regardless if it is true or not. Republicans see the investigation as a frivolous political distraction since nothing of substance has yet to be produced. Democrats want the investigation to continue unabated for as long as possible. Republicans have had enough and want it shut down.

Again, both sides simply do not understand the position of the other, nor wants to.

So, why the difference?

First, Democrats are more inclined to accept the news emanating from the media. Regardless if it is right or wrong, it is embraced as unbiased and factual, and is parroted as such, except that resulting from Fox News which is perceived as fallacious. The Republicans, on the other hand, are more skeptical and do not trust the news media at all, least of all print journalism, which is all perceived as an organ of the Democrats, certainly not fair and balanced. They believe the media is following a political agenda, which involves spinning the news, not accurately reporting it. Consequently, the only news they believe in is that which they see or hear themselves first-hand.

Second, Democrats have become past masters of Identity Politics. If you do not agree with their position on an issue, you are vilified as either a racist, xenophobe, homophobe, Fascist, or just not smart enough to understand what is really happening in the world. In turn, Republicans see their opposites as anti-patriotic anarchists bent on destroying the country. They consider the members of the Left as the true racists who will cheat at all costs to win an election.

And third, the platforms of Left and Right are as different as night and day. Ultimately, it is based on our interpretation of morality; what is right and what is wrong:

Left versus Right –

  • Anti-Capitalists versus anti-Socialists.
  • Agnostic versus Religious.
  • Control of rights (e.g., free speech and guns) versus protecting the Bill of Rights.
  • Free entitlements versus prosperity through hard work.
  • Big government versus small government.
  • Globalization versus Nationalism.
  • Political correctness versus Results orientation.

Yes, our differences are based on our fundamental belief of morality; always has been.

As fervently strong as Democrats believe in their interpretation of America, Republicans feel equally strong. Neither side is willing to acknowledge they are wrong, nor apologize for it; they are absolutely convinced they are correct, not their opposition. This belief in right versus wrong explains why there can never be any compromise.

It is this fundamental sense of morality which is responsible for the irresistible force versus immovable object in American culture today, as well as in the world. Unless one side conquers the other, we will have gridlock for many more years to come, assuming we do not kill ourselves first.

Just remember, in a contest of stubbornness, man will beat the jackass every time.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies. The featured photo is by NeONBRAND on Unsplash.

The Curry Wall: Preventing access to public information. Maybe we should “recycle” politicians?

Putting stuff into the yellow-topped curbside recycling bins may make homeowners feel virtuous, but it probably isn’t saving the taxpayers any money.

The popular notion is that the garbage is sold and the operation breaks even or makes a profit.

Not quite.

The city does get $1.5 million in revenue, but it spends $2.2 million, not even counting the cost of collection. (It also avoids using space in the landfill.)

What is more, the prospects are dim for improving the situation.

Waste Management, which is heavily involved in trying to make recycling work, has been closing recycling centers and its CEO has noted: “To be sustainable overtime, recycling operations must make economic sense.”

The reasons that recycling is losing ground are that processing costs are up and commodity prices are down.

Contamination is a major problem and is the main reason much of the material collected after considerable time and expense ends up in a landfill, by a circuitous route.

Homeowners can help by recycling all empty bottles, cans and paper, and keeping food, liquids and loose plastic bags out of the recycling bin.

Turning garbage into gold isn’t magic.

Duval County collected nearly 3 million tons of solid waste last year. Only five other counties had more.

One interesting note: Among the largest counties, Duval collects the most waste per capita – an eye-opening 17.3 pounds per person per day. That number has been growing since 2013.

Duval had a recycling rate of 58 percent, which was better than the top five but more waste went into landfill than four of the top five, because Duval burns almost no solid waste. Hillsborough recycles less but burns 27 percent of the waste it collects and Palm Beach burns 36 percent.

At one time, Duval burned much of its waste. During the 1980s there was a proposal to build an incinerator that would produce energy, but it failed to pass the City Council.

Florida, incidentally, has an ambitious goal of reaching 75 percent recycling by 2020, but isn’t even meeting the current 60 percent goal.

One reason is that the commercial sector generates two-thirds of the waste. Household recycling alone simply won’t do the job.

Since recycling, burying and burning all entail a cost, the question is whether Jacksonville is using the most cost/efficient mix of waste disposal.

It affects everyone. Currently, using recycling is optional. It could become mandatory and even more burdensome on the homeowner if he is required to separate materials himself.

We wanted to ask City Hall about this and other matters pertaining to solid waste disposal but were unable to break through the Curry Wall, which prevents access to public information.

As the recent Task Force on Open Government noted, the Curry administration seals off access to public officials in order to “control the message,” which is one way of saying “spin it in the mayor’s favor.”

We couldn’t find the information on the city’s Web site (also criticized by the task force) so we went to the people who are supposed to provide the public with information.

Mayor Lenny Curry’s highly paid public information officer gave us several snarky replies to our requests, then basically told us to go get the information ourselves from the state government. That is where we obtained the figures about waste collection and disposal.

It doesn’t tell us anything about whether the city’s costly recycling program is efficient or worthwhile, but Eye on Jacksonville will continue to seek ways to climb Curry’s Wall and obtain information.

COLUMN BY

LLOYD BROWN

Lloyd was born in Jacksonville. Graduated from the University of North Florida. He spent nearly 50 years of his life in the newspaper business …beginning as a copy boy and retiring as editorial page editor for Florida Times Union. He has also been published in a number of national newspapers and magazines, as well as Internet sites. Married with children. Military Vet. Retired. Man of few words but the words are researched well, deeply considered and thoughtfully written.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Eye on Jacksonville. It is republished with permission.

The Conceit Behind California’s Bad Idea to Tax Text Messages

State bureaucrats are moving to impose a texting tax on California residents in the name of providing mobile services to the poor.


California routinely makes national headlines for its big government policies. This week is no different, as bureaucrats move to impose a texting tax on state residents in the name of providing mobile services to the poor.

In a November proposal by the California Public Utilities Commission, Commissioner Carla J. Peterman laid out the “proposed decision” exploring the potential effectiveness of the tax.

According to that 52-page report, California’s budget continues to increase even as tax revenues fall:

“A review of California’s total reported intrastate telecommunications industry revenue, which is used to fund universal service, shows a steady decline in revenue from $16.527 Billion in 2011 to $11.296 Billion in 2017. At the same time, California Public Purpose Program budgets show a steady increase from $670 million in 2011 to $998 million in 2017…”

California’s Public Purpose program, which adds a surcharge to consumers’ bills for utilities like gas in order to provide universal services to those who can’t afford them, would be tasked with facilitating the proposed text tax. And though the analysis refers to “industry revenue,” the funds would come from taxing individual wireless customers.

Mercury News, a San Jose-based news outlet, noted that while it is still unclear how much consumers would be forced to pay, the fee would “likely would be billed as a flat surcharge per customer” as opposed to a per-text rate.

While the Commission’s analysis acknowledges opposing arguments—including carrier companies’ assertions that the tax “would not preserve and advance universal service because it does not broaden the base of universal service consumers”—the commission ultimately advocated the additional tax burden.

Parties supporting the collection of surcharges on text messaging revenue argue that it will help preserve and advance universal service by increasing the revenue base upon which Public Purpose Programs rely,” they write. “We agree.”

Business advocacy groups like the Bay Area Council, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group estimated that the proposed tax could generate $44.5 million in tax revenue per year. However, “they add that under the regulators’ proposal the charge could be applied retroactively for five years—which they call ‘an alarming precedent’—and could amount to a bill of more than $220 million for California consumers,” Mercury News reports.

“It’s a dumb idea,” said Jim Wunderman, president and CEO of the Bay Area Council business advocacy group. “This is how conversations take place in this day and age, and it’s almost like saying there should be a tax on the conversations we have.”

Wunderman also questioned the necessity of additional taxes, referencing California’s current budget surplus:

“While perhaps well-intentioned, the specific programs that the commissioners are hoping to fund with your tax dollars already has around $1 billion to spend. These programs are not in need of greater funding from texting or any other source, and even if they were, there is already an approved, transparent process at the commission to raise the necessary funds without the need to create new taxes.”

Further, the proposed fees make even less sense considering the rise in popularity of internet-based messaging services like Facebook Messenger, Skype, WhatsApp, and Telegram, which would not be subject to the tax. In fact, the tax could very well push consumers further toward these internet-based apps to avoid extra costs.

The November document is not legally binding, but it does assert the Commission’s alleged power to impose a texting tax.

Whether or not the proposed tax becomes actual policy come January, the simple fact that it has been suggested at all illustrates the misguided yet pervasive belief in California that government omnipotence can create prosperity.

It’s precisely this type of thinking that has caused the Golden State to squander one of the largest economies in the world, driving away businesses and individuals alike and inflating costs of living with the imposition of convoluted, interventionist policies. Because of restrictive zoning laws and bureaucratic regulations that make housing inaccessible to the middle class and the poor, for example, California continues to claim the highest rate of poverty in the country despite the billions of dollars it spends on welfare and social services.

Despite the best—and heavy-handed—efforts of politicians and bureaucrats, the people they claim to represent continue to suffer under their policies. This should all come as no surprise. As economist Friedrich von Hayek observed:

“To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.”

COLUMN BY

Carey Wedler

Carey Wedler

Carey Wedler is a video blogger and Senior Editor for Anti-Media.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

An Ominous Pattern Is Emerging In Our Country, And It Should Scare All Of Us!

This week, from a published plea deal with prosecutors from the Southern District of New York (SDNY), we learned that American Media, Inc. (AMI), the National Enquirer‘s parent company, admitted to “making a contribution and expenditure. . . to the campaign of a candidate for President of the United States.”  In exchange for this admission, the SDNY agreed not to prosecute AMI for any crimes related to this contribution with the exception of any criminal tax violations that may have arisen.  Although the admission allows AMI to avoid prosecution for its campaign contribution, a neutral review of the facts laid out in the addendum to the September 30th plea deal calls to question whether a contribution to any campaign even occurred.

According to the plea deal arrangement published by SDNY, AMI made a contribution to the Trump campaign when it paid $150,000 to Playboy model Karen McDougal in order to procure the rights to her story regarding her extra-marital affair with Donald Trump.  Prosecutors claim that the money paid to McDougal by AMI represented a campaign contribution because it was made with the intent of influencing the results of the election and in coordination with Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, and unnamed “members or agents of the Trump campaign.”

The payment was allegedly made to McDougal after AMI CEO David Pecker received assurances from Cohen that he would reimburse Pecker for the transaction, and after Cohen created a shell corporation housing the money to be used to reimburse Pecker and AMI. However, despite the execution of the deal between McDougal and AMI, Pecker later called Cohen to tell him “that the deal was off and that Cohen should tear up the assignment agreement.”  The addendum does not explain why Pecker called off the deal with Cohen, but it does say that AMI subsequently published articles and pictures of McDougal on many of its magazines “to keep the model from commenting publicly about her story and her agreement with AMI.” Consequently, neither Cohen, Trump, nor the Trump campaign ever gave the money to AMI (the parent company of the National Enquirer).

Under these circumstances it is debatable whether the actions by Pecker were contributions to the Trump campaign or a business transaction voluntarily undertaken by Pecker and independent of any political campaign.  Moreover, even if there was a deal with Cohen, pending the identification of the “members and agents of the campaign” and their participation in the transaction, it appears Cohen was acting as Trump’s personal attorney and not as an agent of the campaign.

And finally, being that AMI never consummated the deal with Cohen, doesn’t that obviate whatever association AMI may have had with Cohen and therefore the campaign?  Regardless, it certainly seems unpalatable that a campaign finance statute would be written so broadly as to capture any activity that any person undertook in support of a candidate in the absence of any participation on the part of the campaign.  Such a statute would be impossible to enforce and an open affront to the protections enshrined in the Constitution of the United States.

So if AMI never consummated a deal with Cohen or the Trump campaign, was it really a campaign contribution?  And if it was not, then why would AMI make a deal with prosecutors in exchange for immunity?

The answer is simple: economic and legal expediency.

Pecker knows that a legal defense of this matter would likely run in the scores of thousands of dollars regardless of whether or not he prevails.  Additionally, although this transaction may be defendable, there’s no telling what other things prosecutors may turn up about AMI independent of the Trump dealings that may place it in real legal turmoil.  So in the end, it pays for AMI, which has no unbreakable interest in Trump, to just agree to the deal and tell prosecutors whatever they know.  After all, the admission of an illegal campaign contribution on the part of the National Enquirer will neither hurt its public standing nor its sales. AMI gets its immunity, and the prosecutors get a cooperative witness with which to pursue its case against the President.  And the world moves on.

Indeed, if the AMI matter had taken place in isolation there would be little impetus for a story here.  But consider the events involving Jerome Corsi.

Mr. Corsi is a journalist and an author notable for his book Obama Nation.  Corsi was approached by Special Counsel Bob Mueller regarding his alleged interactions with Candidate Trump Adviser Roger Stone and Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange.  These contacts resulted from Corsi’s investigations of the Wikileaks July 22, 2016, publication of Hillary Clinton’s emails where he noted the absence of a batch of emails between Clinton and her former campaign manager, John Podesta.  According to the later-filed complaint by Corsi’s lawyers, that observation led Corsi to contact Assange regarding Assange’s possible possession of the Podesta emails and their potential publication.

As a result of this contact, Mueller suspected Corsi of possibly aiding Russia in colluding with the Trump campaign through Assange.  According to Corsi’s complaint, Mueller and his team then attempted to coerce Corsi into admitting that he was colluding with the Russians on behalf of Candidate Trump. In this case, however, Corsi refused to admit engaging in activity in which he was not involved and fought back by filing a lawsuit against Mueller.

But the Corsi and AMI affairs are not the only two examples of potential prosecutorial coercion in the Trump affair.  General Michael Flynn is a soldier and public servant with an impeccable reputation dating back over thirty years.  In 2017, Flynn served as President Trump’s first National Security Advisor.  In December 2016, Flynn had two conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. On January 24, 2017, four days into his tenure as NSA, FBI agents approached Flynn regarding those contacts.  Among the FBI agents conducting the interview was Peter Strzock, the same agent who was later disgraced because of personal texts where he openly expressed his intense bias against President Donald Trump.

Apparently, during that interview, General Flynn was asked whether he had ever spoken to Kislyak.  Flynn denied such a conversation.  When confronted about this discrepancy, Flynn said that he did not initially recall the contacts.  And in point of fact, Flynn had reason to not be as defensive and careful as he would have been had he known the prosecutorial peril under which he had been placed.  First, even though the law specifically prohibits knowingly and willfully lying to the FBI, Flynn was never placed under oath nor told that anything he said could and would be held against him; a basic tenet of prosecutorial conduct and fair play.  Second, when Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe approached Flynn via a telephone conversation, he billed the interview as being for the purpose of pursuing information regarding media coverage of the leaked memos.  Even more damning was McCabe’s reassurances to Flynn that the latter did not need his attorney to be present.  This latter fact is perhaps the most implicative of a concerted entrapment on the part of the FBI even before one considers that then FBI Director James Comey recently observed that that he knowingly broke protocol in this case because the Trump administration was a mere three days into its tenure and “disorganized.”

Based on these coercive and unethical, and likely unconstitutional circumstances, Flynn would be threatened with prosecution unless he admitted to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Kislyak and cooperated with the Mueller investigation of President Trump.  After losing his house to the overwhelming legal bills and seeing his son similarly threatened by prosecutors, Flynn acquiesced.  The case is presently under judicial review for possible prosecutorial malfeasance.  A decision on this matter is expected this Tuesday as part of Flynn’s sentencing hearing.

Then there’s President Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, admittedly a category onto himself.  Mr. Cohen was recently sentenced to three years imprisonment on charges of campaign finance violations stemming from payments he made to porn star Stormy Daniels to keep her from speaking regarding her affair with Trump prior to his becoming President.  Once again, the legal premise under which prosecutors sought to indict Cohen was controversial.  There is significant disagreement over whether Cohen was engaging in campaign activities when he made the arrangements with Stormy Daniels.  His actions, although shady, could have reasonably been found to have taken place on behalf of Donald J. Trump’s personal capacity and outside the purview of Trump’s presidential campaign.  But once again coercive prosecutorial activities come into play, and Cohen worked out a deal so to not have to defend himself in court.

In the end, Cohen was sentenced to three years in jail, largely based on his less than total candor with prosecutors. However, still unresolved is the question of whether his actions were truly illegal.  Regardless, prosecutors now can use a possibly erroneous admission of guilt as another brick in their efforts to take down a sitting president.

And just this week, we learned that Dennis Nathan Cain’s home was raided by the FBI, a protected whistleblower regarding the troubled Clinton Foundation’s Uranium One dealings; a raid that may in fact be illegal.

And now we are witnessing the next phase of coercive and politically motivated prosecutions/persecutions; the use of governmental authority to intimidate targeted political rivals and their associates. In a tweet aimed at Donald Trump, Jr., incoming congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez threatened the president’s son with a subpoena for the offense of criticizing her in public.  Her comments have appropriately raised the possibility of an ethics investigation on an elected public official who has yet to take power.

In the meantime, newly elected New York State Attorney Letitia James, a state official and one with no prior contact with Trump or the Trump investigations has already made it her priority to investigate the President, his family, and his associates.  She has been quoted as saying, “We will use every area of the law to investigate Trump and his business transactions and that of his family as well.” She says this despite the fact that no scintilla of evidence has been specifically brought to her regarding potential state crimes performed by any of the individuals or entities within the ambit of the broad net which she casts; a clear sign of politically based targeting of American citizens and reminiscent of the targeted attacks undertaken by the IRS against conservative groups under the Obama administration.

The implications of these activities are immensely troubling.  The tendencies towards the abuse of power and prosecutorial misconduct that these cases demonstrate represent clear affronts to our democratic system of government and a testament to the dreadful state of affairs our into which our nation will devolve should they not be checked.

There’s no question that any tendency towards politically based prosecutorial misconduct must be shut down.  The problem is that doing so may place any resistor or whistleblower at legal and personal risk and simply for calling it out. And that is the greatest danger of all.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Heather Mount on Unsplash.

Do you know what we celebrate on Saturday, Dec 15th, 2018?

Our Bill of Rights or the UN’s human rights?


On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights became a fundamental part of the Constitution of the United States. Some two years beforehand, the representatives of the 13 colonies gathered together, but they were nervous because they well knew from the history of England and Europe that Kings and Parliaments arbitrarily could take away the people’s freedoms.

For this reason they insisted that some basic rights and freedoms be written into the Constitution so that no future government could ever take them away or oppress the citizens of the land: thus the Bill of Rights was written consisting of ten crucial amendments to the glorious Constitution.

On December 15, 2018 we celebrate the 227th anniversary of these important amendments that have proved so essential to the American political tradition. But the very Constitution is now threatened from within the United States. Our public education system is riddled with teachers, tenured professors and administrators who question its validity in these first decades of the 21st century.

Children come home telling their parents that, “in class today we learned about the Bill of Rights and what parts to change or cut out.” We hear from these same children that their teachers say it’s too old or it was written long ago in 1789 and that a new one would fit today’s world much better. Or that the teachers say the whole Constitution has really old ideas in it and its holding us back from being progressive.

Tragically our schools and colleges have become Socialist Conveyor belts churning out cookie-cutter little socialists who know little if anything of American history or the reasons why the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights in the first place. Let’s take the First Amendment and its first right, namely – Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.

In other words, the government cannot create an official religion or church or make citizens attend it. The memories of the horrific religious wars in England and throughout Europe were what motivated this part of the First Amendment. In England and Europe, religious wars were endemic. Each Christian nation’s army calling upon the same Lord and Savior to give it victory. The ‘Thirty Years War’ from 1618 to 1648 led to unspeakable horrors of man’s inhumanity to man and all in the name of which Church would be preeminent.

The Founding Fathers in America knew of such horrors. Their ancestors had fled to America’s shores to escape from it. They wanted to make sure that in America there would never be such misery and division.

Included in the First Amendment is the Free Exercise clause which prevents the government from interfering with how people worship. These unchangeable words of immense wisdom provide us with safety from oppression, but foolish folks today would abandon it to create a new dystopian world in the name of illusory progressivism.

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We should be able to say what we want and publish or broadcast our ideas. But we all know that such enshrined rights are being circumscribed by the same progressive oppression known as political correctness – a sinister assault upon the First Amendment and a direct attack upon what the Founding Fathers wanted, which was to be sure that people were not punished or ostracized for what they said.

So called progressives (a cute name for latter day socialists and communists) would gladly dump the rights of freedom of religion, speech and the press as enshrined in the First Amendment. Instead, they would willingly embrace the grotesque human rights hypocrisy that the globalist United Nations foists upon the world.

The relentless attacks by these same progressives, many of whom now infest the increasingly leftwing Democrat Party, know that it is the Second Amendment which is their prime target because it keeps the entire Constitution and the Bill of Rights alive. Indeed, all rights are dependent on a strong Second Amendment.

” … the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” These are the words that progressives would tear up as they take away our guns and leave us defenseless against a tyrannical government.

The United States had joined the travesty of the UN Human Rights Council in 2009 during former President Barack Hussein Obama’s first term. This occurred after the Council was established to replace the widely discredited earlier UN Commission on Human Rights. But this new Human Rights Council is fundamentally flawed from the outset for it fails to incorporate any meaningful criteria for membership and instead is led by – and subject to – control and manipulation by the very human rights abusers, such as Iran, that the Council was meant to expel and censure.

Taking the moral high ground, the U.S. recently removed itself from that shameful disgrace, which the morally compromised United Nations foisted upon the world.

There can be no comparison between the towering vision of the Bill of Rights with the hypocrisy of the United Nations Human Rights Council, the UN General Assembly, or of that other oppressive organization: The European Union.

Fortunately the U.S, Australia, Israel and most East European nations have justifiably rejected the UN’s Migration Pact, which is the latest assault by globalists on a national citizen’s right. The UN is not seeking colonization, but conquest. The citizens of nations who accept the pact will be slaves. The rights of “UN citizens” will supersede those of citizens in their own home countries.

In conclusion we hear so often the insidious talk by progressives about “reasonable gun control laws.” Americans should be terrified of that word, “CONTROL.” After all, it was the favorite word used by Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin and increasingly we now hear it used by the globalists in the UN and in the EU.

So this Saturday, please remember why we celebrate this 227th anniversary of our treasured Bill of Rights and why we must rally together to protect and support it.

RELATED ARTICLE: Oregon Is Vaporizing Free-speech Rights for Small-business Owners

EDITORS NOTE: © Victor Sharpe. The featured photo is by Anthony Garand on Unsplash.

Despite Recent Incidents, Airbnb’s Gender Ideology Puts Women at Risk

Airbnb is facing some media backlash after the deaths of several people who used their services to find rental accommodations. Via USA TODAY:

But in recent weeks, a couple of deaths have raised questions about the safety of Airbnb rentals.

Last week, a security guard at a villa in Costa Rica was arrested for the murder of a Florida woman who traveled there to celebrate her 36th birthday. Carla Stefaniak’s body was found in the woods near her Airbnb rental with a blunt force wound to her head. Bismarck Espinosa Martinez, 32, has been arrested for the attack.

Last month, a New Orleans couple died from carbon monoxide poisoning in an Airbnb rental in San Miguel de Allende in Mexico. Authorities have said that Edward Winders and Barbara Moller apparently inhaled gas emitted by a faulty heater in their rental.

Defenders of Airbnb correctly point out that the company has millions of listings, and that there is always risk in travel — whether it’s through Airbnb or a traditional hotel. However, the above incidents draw attention to a dangerous Airbnb policy which puts women’s safety at risk.

Per Airbnb’s policies:

Gender Identity

Airbnb does not assign a gender identity to our users. We consider the gender of an individual to be what they identify and/or designate on their user profile.

  • Airbnb hosts may not

    • Decline to rent to a guest based on gender unless the host shares living spaces (for example, bathroom, kitchen, or common areas) with the guest.

    • Impose any different terms or conditions based on gender unless the host shares living spaces with the guest.

    • Post any listing or make any statement that discourages or indicates a preference for or against any guest on account of gender, unless the host shares living spaces with the guest.

Airbnb’s policy literally states that women who use Airbnb must allow men who say they are women — regardless of the realities of biology or the actual feelings of said man — to stay at their homes if living quarters are separate. Of course, such a barrier won’t do much to stop a determined predator.

This abandonment of safety in favor of political correctness is part and parcel of Airbnb’s left-wing agenda. 2ndVote’s research shows that Airbnb has fully bought into the gender-confusion principle by joining business groups which want to force business owners and their customers to abandon biological realities when it comes to bathrooms and other private facilities.

2ndVote cares deeply about the safety and security of women, especially survivors of sexual assault. Make sure Airbnb knows of your displeasure with their discriminatory and harmful policy by not using Airbnb for your Christmas travels.

Many of our better Christmas alternatives have online retail options and all the items in our 2018 Christmas Gift Guide are linked to vetted online retailers. 

RELATED ARTICLE: Airbnb Boycotted And Sued For Discrimination Following Israel Settlement Ban


Help us continue providing resources like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Shutterstock.

Identity Politics Poses a Genuine Threat to America. Here’s Why

Is identity politics reaching a breaking point?


Is there an answer to the problem of identity politics in America? For some, the “solution” is direct.

“We need to take on the oppression narrative,” conservative commentator Heather Mac Donald said at a Heritage Foundation gathering on Capitol Hill.

Americans need to “rebut” the idea “that every difference in American society today is the result by definition of discrimination,” Mac Donald said during the event Monday, called “Identity Politics Is a Threat to Society. Is There Anything We Can Do About It at This Point?

Without challenging this overarching narrative, the Manhattan Institute fellow said, “there is going to be no end to identity politics.”

The rise of identity politics has become a phenomenon not just in America, but in the West in general.

In many ways, debates over identity are defining and shaping the politics of our time and pose a unique challenge in particular to the United States, a vast, multi-ethnic country with potential identity fault lines that far exceed the more homogenous societies of the world.

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and Mike Franc, director of D.C. programs at the Hoover Institution, brought together a diverse set of thinkers to hash out why identity politics is on the rise and how to address it.

Besides Mac Donald, they included John Fonte, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute; Peter Berkowitz, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; Michael Lind, a visiting professor at the University of Texas at Austin; and Andrew Sullivan, a writer for New York magazine.

Each highlighted the problem.

Hudson’s Fonte outlined what has become the framework for identity politics on the left.

“Multiculturalism, the diversity project, and critical theory” are the three major cornerstones of this creed, Fonte said.

In a 2013 article in National Review, Fonte described the “diversity project” as: “[T]he ongoing effort to use federal power to impose proportional representation along race, gender, and ethnic lines in all aspects of American life.”

Multiculturalism comes in a hard version and a soft version, he said.

The soft version celebrates ethnic subcultures, examples being St. Patrick’s Day and Cinco de Mayo.

The hard version, Fonte said, has damaged society. He concisely summed up its tenets:

The United States is a multicultural society in which different cultures—African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, and women—have their own values, histories, and identities separate from and sometimes in opposition to dominant Anglo, white, male culture.

This creed divides America into many peoples and has become the dominant ethos taught in American schools.

The diversity project’s demand for statistical equality for groups, or “group proportionalism,” as Fonte calls it, is another integral element of identity politics. But taken to its logical extent, the diversity project is incompatible with a free society, he said.

There is simply no way to create perfect, equal representation of all groups in all fields, the Hudson Institute scholar said. Any attempt to do so would require state coercion on a massive scale.

Finally, Fonte said, critical theory—which explains the difference in group outcomes by classifying groups as privileged or marginalized—further undermines free society because it directly opposes the concept of “liberal, democratic jurisprudence.” Individual justice is subordinated to social justice—the oppressors and the oppressed.

These concepts fundamentally undermine our republic, Fonte said, and while he had no answer to solve the threat, he said a return to patriotism and national identity was a better way forward.

Hoover’s Berkowitz reiterated the obsession of identity politics with “race, class, and gender.”

These classifications become the essence of who a person is, and subordinate individual differences and individual justice.

“Group rights are distributed on the basis of the discrimination or oppression that the group to which you belong has suffered,” Berkowitz said.

Thus, he said, victimhood becomes a “virtue” and a moral status symbol demonstrating that one deserves greater political power.

Distinctions exist between the postmodernist ideologies of the 1980s and 1990s and the early 21st century, he said. A key feature defining the identity politics of today is that it has moved on from the relativism of earlier eras and become dogmatic in its certainties.

Identity politics adherents on the left, for example, are now certain in their assessment that the West—including America—is racist and sexist.

Dissent from this narrative is taken as “an act of violence, an expression of racism and hatred,” Berkowitz said.

These ideas not only have become dominant on college campuses, he said, but are a threat to the fundamental nature of liberal societies. They cannot coexist with concepts like free speech, due process, and limited government.

American universities won’t counteract the identity politics creed, Berkowitz said, and so Americans who oppose it need to find outside solutions if they want to preserve their free society.

Berkowitz, who has written extensively about restoring the value of liberal education, said such solutions may come through alternative paths to education at the K-12 level—homeschooling and charter schools—as well as more programs to provide alternative curricula to parents and young people.

Lind spoke about how identity politics is becoming a flashpoint for the most fundamental divides not only in the U.S., but throughout the West.

Half of America—mostly in the rural regions and exurbs—accepts and lives out the concept of the “melting pot,” while the other half—in urban environments—embraces and lives with predominant multiculturalism, Lind said.

This city vs. country divide sets this era apart from earlier ones where region was more of a factor.

For most of American history, the concept of the melting pot has worked, but Lind said he is pessimistic for its future because of demography.

“The native fertility rate in Western societies is below replacement … we need to have replacement immigration of some kind in order to prevent the population from just collapsing,” Lind said.

However, the continually low birth rates in these societies will put pressure on them to increase immigration, he said, and so feed the constant political base for multiculturalism.

Mac Donald, also a contributor to City Journal, said people of “courage” need to confront the ideology of identity politics directly for the sake of the nation’s future.

She summed up what she said is the crux of the debate and the oppression narrative:

The main driver is race—women are sort of a fast second place—but the main driver of all this is the lingering racial disparities, and we both need to close them and be honest about what’s driving them.

I would say family breakdown is the biggest driver and other behavioral disparities and culture [are also drivers]. Those need to be closed because if not, the oppression narrative is going to be with us to our enormous misfortune.

Sullivan said that while identity politics has existed in the past—notably in the 1990s—it’s “different now.”

People debated the concepts of identity politics in earlier eras, and often vehemently opposed them, but now identity politics has taken over “all teaching in the humanities” and has been fully embraced by an entire generation of “the elite,” the writer said.

Sullivan, an early supporter of same-sex marriage and President Barack Obama, said that it’s “staggering” how the ideas of identity politics have been universally accepted by the young elite, without question.

These ideas have spread beyond the college campus, Sullivan wrote earlier this year, and entered the mainstream of debate in America.

“It is staggering how people under the age of 30 buy all of this, have never even regarded it as questionable, that it’s become completely routine to believe these things,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan attributed this, in part, to parenting.

Parents tried so hard to create safe spaces for their children, he said, that the children were simply unable to handle disagreement or anything that made them feel unsafe.

Sullivan also said social media fuels surface-level hot takes and “virtue signalling,” rather than deeper thought.

What’s remarkable, he said, is that identity victimhood politics comes at a time when many of these groups are thriving more than ever before in history.

“We should talk about the successes that have occurred without this stuff,” Sullivan said. “In fact, I sometimes wonder whether this stuff is a function of having succeeded, because you’re terrified you’re going to lose the struggle you always lived with and you have nothing to do with your life.”

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Ivy League Study Finds Liberals ‘Patronize’ Minorities, Conservatives Don’t 


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Monica Melton on Unsplash.

Trump Meeting with Pelosi and Schumer a Sign of Pending Disasters for Democrats.

It looked like a family gathering for a holiday meal. What ostensibly began as a peaceful meeting for a friendly conversation quickly devolved into a classic, round-the-table political fight about the wall and who would pay for it.  In the end, everyone left angry, but no one got to eat any of the food.

It was a classic Donald Trump move and one that continues to serve him well.  Find the issues his base wants to see solved and take the fight directly to the people. Yesterday was no exception when Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer appeared for a meeting before the press at the White House.

As things usually go in the finely choreographed world of Washington politics, Schumer and Pelosi sat around a table with Vice President Mike Pence and President Trump for what normally would have been a time for photographs and softball questions from the press.

Instead, the President delivered a full-fledged argument on border security and wall funding.  Trump, once again demanded that the wall be funded to the tune of $5 billion while Schumer and Pelosi insisted that no more than $1.7 billion should be allocated to the project by way of a continuing resolution.

The conversation devolved when President Trump observed the difficult position in which Pelosi found herself as she tried to secure the votes necessary to get her elected Speaker of the House.  This prompted Pelosi to chastise the President for suggesting that she did not have the overwhelming support of House Democrats. In the meantime Schumer kept accusing the President of wanting to shut down the government.  The President finally concluded the meeting by resoundingly accepting the responsibility of shutting down the government if his demands for wall funding were not met.

In the end, it was the most fascinating political exchange ever with drama rivaling those seen in the best reality shows and replete with an ending reminiscent of a “You’re Fired” episode.  It was so entertaining, in fact, that it has earned a “Feature Video” status in our Library page.

To be sure, the exchange was the first of many heated confrontations to surely take place over the next two years.  But there are other insights to be gained from this meeting.

First, you can rest assured that President Trump will shut down the government when Schumer and Pelosi fail to bring him the necessary votes to fund the wall in an amount he believes is necessary.  Second, for all those Democrats who thought they would be seeing a more subdued Donald J. Trump as a result of the gains they made in the House of Representatives, they should reconsider that impression.

And finally, like Pelosi and Schumer did Tuesday, the Democrats are going to appear paltry and petty when they continue to resist the President over an extra $3.3 billion for a wall in a budget numbering in the trillions of dollars.  As a matter of fact, Pelosi and Schumer may have just handed President Trump his own “Reagan-youth-and-inexperience” moment.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pentagon Confirms: DOD Could Fund Border Wall

Why Our Country Needs the Wall, and Now

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages.

The Socialist, the Jihadi, and the Tooth Fairy

What do socialists and jihadis have in common? They both still believe in the tooth fairy. This is not funny.

Like most groups, socialists and jihadis are divided into leaders and followers. First, we will discuss the leaders.

Socialist leaders promise social justice and income equality to their followers in this life. Jihadi leaders promise 72 virgins to their suicide bombers in the next life. Leadership promises specifically address the particular desires of their adherents – the leaders aren’t stupid – they are manipulative and extremely successful at luring their believers with false promises.

The leadership disingenuously focuses on the promised benefits to their followers while the actual benefits to themselves are ignored. Any cursory study of history exposes the deceitfulness of the leadership’s promises and shows how reality benefits the ruling elite at the expense of the people. So, why do socialists and jihadis still believe their leaders? Because like children they still believe in the tooth fairy. I will explain.

The people of Cuba, Venezuela, Guatemala, and Honduras believed the promises of social justice and income equality made by their scheming socialist leaders. The people were lied to and are now living the equality of suffering and scarcity that socialism actually provides. Socialism necessarily fails because there is no incentive to be productive and eventually you run out of other people’s money.

The ruling elite in socialist countries suffer no such deprivation and the jihadi leadership worldwide remains alive and well – only their duped sycophants end up dead.

The population invasion at our southern border threatens the economic security and homeland security of the United States. Unregulated unvetted mass immigration will bankrupt our welfare system and simultaneously allow criminals and jihadis to enter the country – both create massive chaos.

The border wall is a defense against illegal entry into the United States. So, why would any politician reject it?

Leftist politicians who support socialism reject the border wall because they want a flood of illegal immigrants in the country to vote Democrat and keep them in power. Leftist politicians reject voter ID and any investigation into voter fraud that could expose illegal voting and/or deny voting rights to their followers – they sacrifice national security for their own job security. Their latest scheme is ballot harvesting.

Ballot harvesting is when organized workers or volunteers pick up absentee ballots and drop them off at a polling place or election office. There is absolutely nothing to safeguard the integrity of the ballots or to insure that all votes are delivered. Ballot harvesting is a powerful election-stealing tool that should be eliminated in favor of mailing in sealed signed ballots. If a voter cannot manage the mailing then that voter’s ballot will not count – period.

Voters are not children and need not be treated like children. Ballot harvesting is equivalent to breaking the chain of evidence in a criminal investigation and is an invitation for ballot tampering which adds to the lack of confidence in the integrity of elections. The left welcomes the chaos that public loss of confidence in elections necessarily brings.

Jihadi leaders promising 72 virgins to their devotees also rely on the chaos that jihadi violence brings. Chaos is the fulcrum of seismic social change. Watching Nancy Pelosi’s laughable performance during her 12.11.18 meeting with President Trump and Chuck Schumer was very enlightening. No wonder Pelosi did not want to have the meeting videotaped live! She was unable to deliver her revisionist version of the meeting to the media for worldwide distribution.

In her own words Pelosi condescendingly describes the meeting, “I was trying to be the Mom, but it goes to show you: You get in a tinkle contest with a skunk, you get tinkle all over you.” WOW! A tinkle contest? Trying to be the Mom?

Nancy Pelosi is one of the most vile scheming corrupt career politicians in Washington. Her manipulative and condescending attempt to “teach” the President of the United States and the viewing audience about proper procedure for funding the Wall was grotesque. Pelosi spoke in her bizarre Mommy teaching voice slowly explaining that Republicans must propose legislation in the House. REALLY?

President Donald Trump is an adult not a child. Politely ignoring Pelosi’s patronizing Mommy voice, the President stated clearly that funding the Wall is a national emergency. POTUS exposed Pelosi’s manipulation saying that following Pelosi’s instructions would necessarily defeat the measure. “If we thought we would get it passed in the Senate, Nancy, we would do it immediately,” Trump declared, adding, “It doesn’t matter, though, because you can’t get it passed in the Senate because we need ten Democrats’ vote.”

So, Pelosi is tutoring the President in the Pelosi politics of deceit – pretending that you are actually legislating something the people need when you know it cannot possibly pass. Pelosi’s political artifice only works on her infantilized supporters – they actually believe her just like children believe in the tooth fairy!

The infantilization of American society toward collectivism and away from individualism through leftist educational indoctrination, media propaganda, and political correctness has left a generation of Americans vulnerable to the false promises of their leaders. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer still want you to believe in the tooth fairy.

Socialists and jihadis fervently believe in the righteousness of their cause because, like children, they believe what their leaders tell them. Like children they still believe in the tooth fairy. Here is the problem – President Donald Trump does not believe in the tooth fairy.

President Trump is an unapologetic America-first adult who speaks honestly, plainly, and clearly to the American people about the existential threat at the border. Without a border we have no country. EXACTLY!

Globalists like Nancy Pelosi and her minions including Obama, Clinton, Schumer, Soros, Zuckerberg, and Bezos etc etc actually WANT TO ELIMINATE the borders between countries and create a New World Order. The greedy political globalist leaders want the power to control the world’s population that the New World Order will provide. The greedy corporate globalist leaders want to further enrich themselves with the unrestricted internationalized marketplace that the New World Order will provide.

So, what is in it for their followers?? Absolutely nothing but scarcity and servitude. The socialists and the jihadis are the useful idiots in the globalist grand campaign to internationalize the sovereign countries of the world into their New World Order.

President Donald Trump is telling America it is time to grow up – there is no tooth fairy to GIVE you money or GIVE you 72 virgins. The socialist and jihadi leaders and their followers are being played by the globalist elite to do the dirty work of creating the social chaos necessary to bring down the United States of America and the premier existential enemy of globalism’s New World Order – America first President Donald J. Trump.

Don’t let them get away with it – grow up – there is no tooth fairy.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity. The featured photo is by Anthony Tran on Unsplash.

Our Politics Are About To Get Much, Much Worse

Last week, prosecutors for the Southern District of New York and Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered their sentencing recommendations regarding former counsel for President Donald Trump, Michael Cohen. As previously reported by The Federalist Pages, their memos provided no significant evidence against the President.

Specifically, and to the most direct point, the sentencing recommendations did not add any information regarding claims of Russian collusion on the part of President Trump, which is the original directive to the Mueller investigation, nor do they suggest that there was any sign of obstruction of justice on the part of the President. But they abound in politics.

What the memo did mention for the first time is an allegation of possible campaign finance violations on the part of then-candidate Trump. This focus represents a whole new direction for investigators, one that was not previously contemplated. The charge of campaign financing violations, based on money paid to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, is based on the claim that Cohen was directed to make the payments that would eventually reach the two women by the President himself.

This renewed investigative direction has sent the pundits of politics ablaze regarding potential prosecutorial scenarios for President Trump. Never mind that the bar for successful prosecution is very high, or that the allegation is presently only based on statements made by Cohen (amongst the most discredited and conflicted witnesses imaginable), or even that then-candidate Trump likely had a legally defensible position for having engaged in the agreements with Daniels and McDougal during his campaign without a requirement that the money be channeled through his campaign accounts.

Those issues are immaterial because what is truly at stake is the opportunity to take down a sitting president hated and feared by Democrats, the press and the establishment.

The Democrats, who are on the eve of taking control of the House of Representatives, have made it their goal to make Trump their greatest nemesis. Like the relentless quest for the Holy Grail, Democrats would take no greater joy during the next two years than to 1) stop every one of Trump’s agenda items; and 2) get him out of power. If they can exploit any opportunity to embarrass the President and demonize him, they will. It’s all pure politics.

As evidence for this point, we have Congressman Adam Schiff, the likely incoming House Intelligence Chairman, who almost giddily said on Face The Nation, there’s a real possibility that “on the day Donald Trump leaves office, the Justice Department may indict him.”

This is more than a mere concern on Schiff’s part; it is an agenda item.

In the face of these developments and associated chants, the road before the nation becomes distinctly clear. First, the Democrats in the House of Representatives will do everything in their power to obstruct anything of importance that President Trump wishes to accomplish. For them, Trump is an illegitimate President, one that had no right to defeat Hillary Clinton in the first place.

Second, to this day, they cannot come to grips with the harsh reality that President Trump won not because of Russian collusion, but rather because he ran a great campaign concentrating on seeking electoral college votes and because Hillary Clinton was the worst candidate the Democrats could have proffered.

Third, and even more demoralizing to Democrats, is that President Trump has accomplished more in two years than Obama accomplish in two terms. From his conservative appointments to the courts, to the scaling down of taxes, to the overt demonstration of the futility and oppressiveness of the Paris Climate Accord, to the takedown of ISIS and the jump start of the economy, Democrats have been unable to deal with Trump’s effectiveness and the furtherance of the national stability his agenda has provided.

These realities coupled with the virtual dissolution of the Russian collusion allegations have left the Democrats desperate for a talking point and no greater talking point exists than the involvement of the President in an extra-marital, immoral sex scandal with legal overtones — whether they are real or not. That’s good politics for Democrats.

All this leaves us with a recipe for a totally fruitless and unproductive two-year cycle save for the promotion of greater discord among Americans and the continuance and amplification of fractioning among countrymen.

And that is going to make for a very long and painful haul to the 2020 elections for everyone.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Brian Wertheim on Unsplash.

The Racism the Left Ignores

How appropriate would it be for a major publicly held American company to hire a person with a history of having publicly made the following statements and many others like them? In the interest of brevity, I shall list only four:

“The world could get by just fine with zero black people.”

“It’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old black men.”

“Dumbass f—ing black people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

“Are black people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically only being fit to live underground like groveling bilious goblins?”

I think most Americans would find such blatant racism despicable and would condemn any company that knowingly hired such a person. Leftists of every stripe would be in an uproar, demanding the dismissal of such an employee. College students and their professors would picket any company that hired such a person.

I could be wrong about this, so I’d truly like any employer who’d hire such a person to come forward.

Most Americans would see such statements as racist, but consider this: Suppose we slightly changed the wording of each statement, replacing the word “black” with “white.” For example, “The world could get by just fine with zero white people.”

Would you consider that statement to be just as racist? I would hope you’d answer in the affirmative. They’re all racist statements.

The full scoop on those statements can be found in an excellent essay by William Voegeli, “Racism, Revised,” in the fall edition of the Claremont Review of Books.

The racist statements about white people were made by Sarah Jeong, one of the newest members of The New York Times’ editorial board. Jeong attended the University of California, Berkeley and Harvard Law School. She decided to become a journalist specializing in technology and the internet. She has an active Twitter account with over 97,000 followers.

One person excused Jeong’s tweets by saying they “were not racist” but merely “jokes about white people.”

Leftists have been taught utter nonsense by their college professors. The most insidious lesson taught is who can and who cannot be a racist.

Jeong was born in South Korea in 1988 and became a U.S. citizen in 2017, so she is a minority. According to the thinking of academia’s intellectual elite, a minority person cannot be a racist. The reason is that minorities don’t have the political, economic, and institutional power to adversely affect the lives of whites.

Such reasoning is beyond stupid. Here’s a test. Is the following statement racist?

“Jews are money-hungry hustlers.”

Before you answer, must you first find out the race of the person making the statement? Would you suggest that it’s not a racist statement if the speaker is black, but it is if he’s white?

Voegeli says that calling someone “racist” is one of the most severe accusations that can be made against a person, but at the same time, is among the vaguest. Years ago, one had to don a hood and robe to be a certified racist.

Today, it’s much easier. Tucker Carlson of Fox News questioned whether diversity is all that it’s cracked up to be. He asked, “How, precisely, is diversity our strength? Can you think, for example, of other institutions, such as … marriage or military units, in which the less people have in common the more cohesive they are?”

The Washington Post’s media critic declared that it was racist for Carlson to cast doubt on the proposition that diversity is good.

Voegeli’s article is rich with many other examples of how lots of Americans are losing their minds in matters of race. Muhammad Ali had it right when he said, “Hating people because of their color is wrong. And it doesn’t matter which color does the hating. It’s just plain wrong.”

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Ugly Racism of Karl Marx

How ‘Diversity Ideology’ Killed the University and Is Infecting America


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Brendan McDermid/Reuters /Newscom.

Google China’s New Motto: ‘Zuǒpiēzi’ [Doing The Left Thing]

Google’s CEO Pichai Sundararajan, a.k.a Sundar Pichai, after meeting with senior Chinese officials has decided to change its corporate logo and motto for Gǔgē zhōngguó (Google China).

A Google China spokesperson, a gender neutral title, in an interview with Xinhua News Agency (New China News) stated:

We are proud to be working with the Chinese government to enhance our Google China search engine version 1983. We will now be able to track every Chinese citizen and monitor their Bù jié de xiǎngfǎ (unclean thoughts, a.k.a. crime think).

We can now predict when an incident of Fànzuì sīxiǎng (crime think) is about to occur. When Google China discovers that someone, a gender neutral term, is not thinking the way the state desires they will be immediately arrested and sent to a Hǎo sīxiǎng xùnliàn yíng (Good Think Camp).

Trigger words like freedom (and its synonyms ability, opportunity, right, free rein, laissez faire), liberty (and its synonyms independence, opportunity, prerogative, self-determination, self-government), profit and capitalism have been designated as key indicators of crime think.

We will work with the Chinese government to prevent anything that allows anyone, a gender neutral term, to right think (a.k.a. good think).

Left think rules!

An unnamed CNN source, a gender neutral term, indicates that the states of California, New York and Congresswoman elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are looking at implementing a version of Google China, known as Google Minus or G – (version 1984). According to CNN:

Google Minus (G -) version 1984 is dedicated to deleting every instance of Crime Think in America. By ending Crime Think proponents believe that they can finally put an end to thinking itself before the 2020 presidential election cycle.

Our financial reporter Red Square states, “The hottest investment you can make today is the new Google subdivision called Google Minus, dedicated to deleting every instance of CrimeThink on your screens and hard copy until only GoodThink remains.”

We wish Google Minus Èyùn!

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire originally appeared in Pravda USA (a.k.a. TNYT). The featured image is by Red Square from The Peoples Cube.

One Indisputable Takeaway From Comey Performance: Thank God Trump Won

Insidious: Working or spreading harmfully in a subtle or stealthy manner.

Mr. Gowdy. Why is the appearance of bias as insidious as actual bias?

Mr. Comey. The appearance of bias is as important. I don’t know exactly what the word “insidious” means, so I’m not saying that one.

On Friday, Former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation James Comey met in a closed meeting with members of Congress to discuss Hillary Clinton’s email investigation and Comey’s handling thereof.

Comey’s initial response to being interviewed was to avoid a closed hearing, apparently preferring an open setting. After realizing that he was not in a legal position to demand conditions upon the conduct of the hearing, he negotiated a deal whereby he would appear for the closed-door hearing provided that a full transcript of the hearing was released to the public.

That may have been a mistake on Comey’s part.

It is apparent that Comey’s plan regarding this meeting, a link to whose transcript may be found at The Federalist Page’s Library, was to be as evasive as possible, a plan that was supported by the assigned counsel from the Department of Justice.

It seems the key tactic of Comey’s approach was to feign ignorance at the questions he was asked. As a result, he claimed he did not have knowledge or awareness of some of the most elemental aspects of the Clinton email investigation and of his duties and responsibilities as FBI Director.

For example, when Comey was asked whether FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, expressed his bias against then Candidate Donald Trump, Comey said he was not aware of any such bias. As a matter of fact, after much interrogatory wrangling with Congressman Trey Gowdy, Comey finally admitted that he likely would not have allowed Strzok to continue on the case if he had known of the investigator’s intense bias.

When asked whether a text by Strzok claiming that Hillary Clinton was going to win the presidency 100 million to zero was demonstrative of bias, Comey said he could not answer that question because he did not know what Strzok’s intent was when he delivered that text. Additionally, he maintained that he did not know whether he would have fired Strzok over his actions during the Clinton email investigation and his overt display of bias.

After continuing to be fended off by Comey’s feigned ignorance, Gowdy finally asked, “Why is the appearance of bias as insidious as actual bias?  Comey responded, “I don’t know exactly what the word ‘insidious’ means, so I’m not saying that one.”

Claiming ignorance can, under certain circumstances, be a very effective legal defense strategy. But if one is going to claim a lack of knowledge, particularly a lawyer, he best be honest about his ignorance because he is bound to be candid with the tribunal, particular (if such a higher requirement is even possible) if the attorney is under oath.

James Comey is an attorney. So, let’s take him at his word. If he truly did not know that Strzok had this intense, ingrained  bias in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump, and if he still does not know how he would have acted in the face of such overt bias, then he is a gross incompetent who should have never held any position of responsibility within the FBI.

And if James Comey actually does not know the meaning of the word “insidious” as a lawyer, an author, and as the former Director of the FBI, then he is also just plain stupid.

In light of this continued display of stupidity, evasiveness, and corruption, the American people are left with only one conclusion.

Thank God President Trump defeated Hillary Clinton.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. It is republished with permission.

My Talk On Citizenship Redux

This is an updated version of a column I wrote some time ago. There’s a book recommendation at the end which would make a great holiday gift for a young person in High School or College.

I was recently asked to give a lecture on “Citizenship” at a local Masonic Lodge. Drawing from a couple of my past columns, I assembled the following short talk:

My biggest concern regarding citizenship pertains to how we teach history and civics in this country. In some High Schools, “American History” runs from World War II to the present. This means students are not learning such things as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the Civil War, the Louisiana Purchase, Lewis and Clark, Prohibition, the League of Nations, and much more. In other words, they only discuss the last 77 years, and not the events leading up to the founding of our country and the turmoils we had to endure. As an aside “World History” is now just World War I to the present. So much for the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Romans, Marco Polo, the Magna Carta, Ferdinand Magellan, Alexander the Great, et al. I presume they had no bearing on our civilization.

Such ignorance of our history caused famed historian David McCullough to observe,

“We are raising a generation that is historically illiterate and have a very sketchy, thin knowledge of the system on which our entire civilization is based on. It is regrettable and dangerous.”

We are also not educating youth properly in terms of “Civics”; understanding our responsibilities as citizens, such as voting, serving on a jury, how legislation is enacted, or what is included in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. No wonder young people do not grasp the significance of such things as the Electoral College, the structure of our government, or what their rights are.

Naivety and ignorance leads to apathy at the ballot box. In the 2016 elections, only 57.9% of the citizens voted (over 90 million didn’t vote at all). This is a pitiful figure when you compare it to other democracies like Australia, India, and the Scandinavian countries. Surprisingly, this was the highest voting percentage in the United States since 1968 (60.8%). The highest in recent history was in 1960 (63.1%) for the Kennedy/Nixon election. Even though Millennials (ages 18-35) are now the largest potential voting block, they continue to have the lowest voter turnout of any age group.

It is sad when legal immigrants understand the workings of the government and history better than native born Americans. Maybe all citizens should take the same oath naturalized citizens do. Since 1778, immigrants coming to this country have had to pass a test and take an oath swearing their allegiance to the United States. The current oath is as follows:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Not surprising, immigrants coming through this program tend to appreciate this country and are more loyal than native born Americans. Another cause for this could be because there is less emphasis on teaching American government and history in the schools than in years past. As such, the importance of being a citizen has not been impressed upon our youth.

So, as a proposal, how about administering a modified version of the immigration oath to all native born Americans, perhaps on July 4th? Better yet, how about Constitution/Citizenship Day on September 17th? All that is necessary is to simply modify the first sentence of the Immigration Oath; to wit:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

Parents could give the oath to their children, thereby turning it into a family tradition; civic organizations and local governments could administer it in public group settings, or perhaps some other venue. Maybe even the media could get involved and administer it over the airwaves or Internet. It should be administered in some solemn way with a right hand raised and the left hand placed on either a copy of the U.S. Constitution or perhaps a holy book such as a Bible, Torah, or Koran.

The oath is certainly not the same as the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, this is instead a reaffirmation of our commitment to our country and would help promote citizenship and voting. Maybe this is something that should be given routinely as opposed to just one time; to remind people of their allegiance to this country. I cannot help but believe this simple gesture would have nothing but beneficial effects.

One last observation, during this past year, the talking heads on television recommended avoiding any talk of politics at the dinner table, particularly during Thanksgiving, Christmas and other holidays. I disagree. We do not do enough talking at the table in a calm and reasonable manner. Instead of leaving citizenship to the school educators and the media, parents should spend more time discussing it around the dinner table, not in a dictatorial manner, but in a frank and open discussion. I believe our youth would better understand the virtue of the Electoral College if it came from their parents as opposed to an entertainer or athlete.

Maybe then, youth will appreciate the need for “Citizenship.”

P.S. – Here are some reading resources that should be useful:

“Elementary Catechism of the Constitution of the United States” (1828) by Arthur J. Stansbury – for many years, school children learned this catechism. It is just as relevant today as it was nearly 200 years ago. It is available free of charge as a PDF file on the Internet.

Also on the Internet, the U.S. Citizenship and Naturalization Service has a page describing “Constitution Day and Citizenship Day,” along with links to other free resources.

My favorite book for young people is, “The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle that Changed the World” by W. Cleon Skousen. It sells for about $16-$18 and is available from Barnes and Noble, and Amazon. This makes an excellent holiday gift suitable for students in High School and College. In my humble opinion, all young people should be given a copy of this book as it describes the mechanics of our government. Think of it as a crash course in Civics. Enjoy!

Remember, education is the key to our political future.

Originally published: March 8, 2017

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The modified featured photo is by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.