BREAKING NEWS: Trump plans to step down as POTUS effective Noon on Monday, January 20, 2025!

After calls for his impeachment by fifty-eight House Democrats CNN reports that multiple reliable unnamed FBI sources have confirmed that Donald Trump has plans to step down from the office as President of the United States, effective high noon on Monday, January 20, 2025.

Mitt Romney, Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain and the establishment GOP were stunned by this CNN breaking news.

Mitt Romney wrote a $100 donation check to the Flake for President campaign fund, while Senator Jeff Flake wrote a check to the Clinton Foundation and John McCain wrote a check to himself, which bounced.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said on his Morning Joe program, “Good riddance to bad rubbish.” When asked if Mr. Scarborough was referring to his dementia-riddled mother or President Trump he responded with “no comment.”

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (R-CA) issued the following statement:

We are pleased that the American people will be freed from the bonds of open markets, expanding job opportunites, a booming stock market and God loving President.

We can now return to an America that puts illegals into American jobs, expands welfare over work and brings insanity back to government.

This announcement saves us from impeaching Trump. Now we have a date certain that we can all as Democrats look forward to. There is a light at the end of the tunnel.

In a short statement the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps stated, “Allah Akbar!.”

Former President Obama, after comparing populist President Donald Trump to Hitler and predicting hundreds of millions of Americans will die during an Economic Club of Chicago event noted, “Well at least this regime won’t be lasting 1,000 years. Punch a Fascist! Vote Democrat or else!”

Bill Clinton, during an interview on CNN about his sexual abuse of women compared to Al Franken’s groping, praised Trump’s decision to step aside. The former President noted, “Trump is doing the Constitutionally right thing by not seeking a third term as POTUS. Hillary in 2025!”

Hillary Clinton was not immediately available for comment as she was being interrogated by the FBI about the donation of 100 cases of Russian dressing to the Clinton Foundation by Uranium One, LLC. FISA authorized surveillance tapes of former President Clinton using the dressing in his bedroom on an intern have been leaked to Fox News’ Sean Hannity by an unnamed source. Hannity plans to release the video footage on Valentines Day 2018.

Today White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders confirmed that she will be leaving her position on January 20th, 2025 to join the Food Channel. Her new show will be titled “Sarah’s Pies” or “How I baked the fakestream media.”

A trusted unnamed CNN source indicates that Al Franken is considering a run for the White House as an Independent in 2025 after being released from prison.

Recently elected Senator Roy Moore from Alabama is expected to throw his cowboy hat into the ring to take Trump’s place as POTUS 46, while holding a Bible and .38 caliber revolver.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire is provided to those who want relief from the Trump administration and its fascist, hateful, misogynistic, Jew loving, Christ embracing and making America great, again, policies. The featured image is of President Donald Trump waiting to welcome Denmark’s Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen at the White House in Washington, D.C., March 30, 2017. Photo: Reuters.

Introducing the people’s AR-15 hysteria page

Comrades, isn’t it clear that USA Today simply hasn’t gone far enough? We may be losing the war on the 2nd Amendment unless we once again seize the propaganda initiative and return to the happy days of the 70s when we owned the argument. In those days, men dressed badly and the NRA was more of an irritant than a serious force to be reckoned with.

Join me in posting your anti-AR-15 memes as we continue to hold inanimate objects responsible for the crimes committed by their owners.*

* By inanimate objects, we mean guns, just guns. Which are only for duck hunting and other Party-approved™ sporting purposes. Hey, who needs an M-203 grenade launcher to go duck hunting? That’s why we need to ban any weapon that a grenade launcher, or worse, could be duct taped to.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by Komissar al-Blogunov originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

4 Highlights From Christian Baker’s Wedding Cake Case at Supreme Court

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday [November 5, 2017] in a closely watched case dealing with free speech, religious liberty, and same-sex marriage.

Specifically, the justices considered whether the state of Colorado can force Jack Phillips, a Christian baker, to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding against his deeply held religious beliefs.

Attorneys for Phillips clearly explained that he seeks to exercise his freedom only to speak messages that he agrees with, while still welcoming all customers into his store. The First Amendment’s free speech and religious liberty clauses protect his freedoms to do just that.

In a lengthy and charged oral argument, the nine justices wrestled with how Americans who hold different views on marriage in our post-Obergefell society can continue to live with each other in mutual respect.

Here are some highlights of the argument.

1. Mutual Tolerance Is Essential in a Free Society

In one of the most charged exchanges of the day, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy questioned Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger about whether a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who compared Phillips to a racist and a Nazi demonstrated anti-religious bias—and that, if he did so, whether the judgment against Masterpiece should stand.

After disavowing the commissioner’s comments, Yarger argued that the ruling should still stand. But Kennedy returned to the issue again, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.”

Kennedy also pointed out there were other cake shops that would have accommodated Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the same-sex couple who requested a cake for their wedding.

In a similar line of questioning, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the state of Colorado had failed to demonstrate mutual tolerance when it only protected the freedom of cake artists who landed on one side of the gay marriage debate—namely, the state’s side.

When three religious customers went to cake artists to request cakes that were critical of same-sex marriage, those cake artists declined—yet Colorado did not apply its anti-discrimination statute to punish the artists. But when Phillips declined to create a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage, Colorado imposed a three-pronged penalty that drove him out of the wedding cake business, causing him to lose 40 percent of his business.

2. Compelled Speech for Everyone

The irony of the comparison of Phillips to a Nazi is that both the ACLU lawyer representing the gay couple (David Cole) and the Colorado solicitor general admitted the state could rightfully force cake artists to celebrate the racist ideals of white supremacy, or one of the most infamous events in world history, the Holocaust.

At one point, Justice Stephen Breyer followed up on a question from Justice Neil Gorsuch about whether a cake artist could be forced to create a cross-shaped cake for a religious group that shared the beliefs of the KKK. Cole responded that if the cake artist did so for the Red Cross, then yes, the artist would have to do so for the religious group as well.

Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito asked Colorado if a cake artist who created a cake with words celebrating Nov. 9 for someone’s anniversary could also be forced to create the same cake to celebrate Nov. 9, 1938.

On that infamous night, known as “Kristallnacht,” the Nazis launched their pogrom against Jews by burning over 1,000 synagogues and damaging more than 7,000 Jewish businesses.

In the exchange with Alito, the Colorado solicitor general said that cake artists could not discriminate on the basis of identity, but could discriminate on the basis of messages. Gorsuch later responded, saying that’s exactly what Phillips has argued.

Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom argued Jack Phillips’ case before the Supreme Court. (Photo: Jeff Malet/The Heritage Foundation)

3. Disagreement Does Not Equal Discrimination

Kennedy also challenged Colorado and the ACLU on their argument that Phillips discriminates on the basis of identity, rather than his idea of what constitutes a marriage. In an exchange with the ACLU attorney, Kennedy called the repeated attempts to characterize Phillips as discriminating on the basis of identity “too facile.”

During the oral arguments, the court appeared to recognize what is patently obvious from the facts. Phillips welcomes all people into his store, encourages them to buy off-the-shelf items, and will make custom-designed cakes for them provided they don’t ask for items that violate his beliefs.

He has served gays for the 24 years his store has been in operation and welcomes their business to this day. He does not discriminate against anybody because of their identity.

So comparisons to shopkeepers in the Jim Crow South who sought to keep the races “separate but equal” are a smear that divert attention from the real issue: Phillips simply disagrees with the state on the issue of marriage.

Roberts appeared to recognize this when chiding the ACLU for lumping in supporters of traditional marriage with racists, noting that in Obergefell, the court had said support for traditional marriage is rooted in “decent and honorable” premises.

Jennifer Marshall of The Heritage Foundation holds a sign outside the Supreme Court. (Photo: Jeff Malet/The Heritage Foundation)

4. Orthodoxy Determined by the State

Finally, the oral arguments revealed the scope of how far the state of Colorado is willing to go to impose its views of marriage on citizens. In one line of questioning from Roberts, Colorado admitted that it would force Catholic Legal Services to provide a same-sex couple with legal services related to their wedding even if it violates Catholic teachings on marriage.

And in questioning from Alito, the ACLU answered that the state could force a Christian college whose creed opposes same-sex marriage to perform a same-sex wedding in its chapel.

Like many Americans, Phillips seeks to work in a manner consistent with his deeply held religious beliefs, including on marriage. In order to follow his conscience, he has turned down requests for cakes that contain messages expressing certain ideas: Halloween and divorce, anti-American themes, and even anti-gay messages.

What he has never done is turn away anyone because of who they are.

The Supreme Court should uphold the rights of all Americans to work according to their religious beliefs and to be free from government intrusion that would force them to speak messages in violation of their deeply held beliefs.

After its decision in Roe v. Wade, the court respected the freedoms of Americans on both sides of the abortion debate. It rejected the argument that opposition to abortion is rooted in animus toward women because it recognized that there are many other rational reasons why people oppose abortion.

This is no different. There are many Americans who support traditional marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with animus toward gays. All Americans will benefit when free speech and religious liberty are robustly protected.

The court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop can help foster more civil dialogue on marriage so that we can all live according to our consciences and in peace with one another.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Emilie Kao

Emilie Kao is director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Wedding Cake Baker’s Backers Say Fight Is for Everyone’s First Amendment Rights, Not Just His

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

Collapse of the Liberal House Of Cards — Stupid Is As Stupid Does

Have you noticed how out of touch politicians, Hollywood actors and actresses, NFL athletes and certain TV commentators are with the American people? Are you noticing that the rhetoric coming out of their mouths is more and more desperate and just plain untrue?

Tom Hanks, In the 1994 film Forrest Gump, used the phrase “stupid is as stupid does.” Wiktionary defines the proverb as, “A person’s lack of intelligence may be judged by the lack of wisdom of their actions.”

It seems we are seeing a lot of “stupid is as stupid does” these days.

From Hollywood making politically correct films, to comedians making politically incorrect gestures, to NFL players taking a knee, to Hollywood actors and actresses saying stupid things, to politicians using taxpayer money to pay off those they have abused in what is now known as “The Swamp.”

HOLLYWOOD

During a recent interview English actress Daisy Ridley, when asked if she will continue to play the role of Rey in future Star Wars episodes, said, “I honestly feel like the world may end in the next 30 years, so, if in 30 years we are not living underground in a series of interconnected cells …”

In 2016 American actress, writer, producer and two time Golden Globe Award winner Lena Dunham said, “Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had.”

Perhaps the quote that best makes our point is from American rapper Kanye West.

In a Harper’s Bazaar interview West said, “I actually don’t like thinking. I think people think I like to think a lot. And I don’t. I don’t like to think.”

Honesty is sometimes the best policy?

POLITICIANS

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) expressing concern during a congressional hearing that the presence of a large number of American soldiers might upend the island of Guam stated, ”My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.”

Or perhaps former Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy saying, ‘They don’t call me Tyrannosaurus Sex for nothing.” If alive today Ted would be welcome bookend to Senator Al Franken?

Remember then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi talking about President Obama’s healthcare law saying, ”But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Of course now Minority Leader Pelosi is concerned about Congress not reading the Senate Republican Tax Cut and Jobs bill.

Or former Vice President and climate expert Al Gore noting that, “A zebra does not change its spots.”

TV COMMENTATORS

In the below video former Republican Congressman now MSNBC show host and TV commentator Joe Scarborough went on a rant about President Trump being mentally unfit.

John Michael Chambers wrote, “The opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s fear.” All of those listed above and many more are fearful. They fear that their world is collapsing because fly over Americans elected a President who speaks truth to the swamp. A President who keeps his campaign promises and does what he says. They fear the truth.

RELATED ARTICLE: Fewer now have mix of liberal, conservative views in U.S. | Pew Research Center

Are We Being Propagandized? How To Resist Getting Sucked In

As I scroll through my Twitter feed and Facebook, looking at trending topics, it’s easy to look at the media outlet originating the article, and assume how they will come down on a certain topic. Being a normal human being, you automatically zero in on the media outlets that support your way of thinking.

It’s kind of funny (not funny ha-ha, but funny strange) that there are two outlets covering the exact same incident and tweak a few words or add/delete a certain detail and the news story says something totally different. It can be infuriating to see such polar opposites in the news. Meanwhile, everyone claims they are right. And if you dare express an opposing option…option mind you…not necessarily an opinion, you get slammed down and shouted down until you either shut up and shut down, or just go away.

Propaganda is a tricky business; and people on all sides of the issues are slinging it around. Many of these people are well meaning, and some are clearly not. Some news outlets are so sure they are being righteous and truthful, and so afraid that the general population, often referred to as a clump, “‘The American People’ are concerned…or aware…or like this…or think this… or that,” will be mis-led, so they take the responsibility upon themselves to lead them into a certain way of thinking.

I don’t know about you, but sometimes I listen to a statement about what concerns the “American People” and I think, “How dare they speak for me? They don’t even know me.” What these people are doing is stating their opinion as fact and use inflammatory statements intended to make the “American People” feel left out or stupid or in the minority if they disagree.

OK, I get it. It’s about ratings and free speech and being the first to present the facts. Of course. That is what it is. We have to stop blaming the media, the politicians, and the advertisers and get informed. It’s a contest, a race for who’s on top, who’s got the best ratings and that’s all part of a capitalistic society. But if we, the “American People,” want to avoid getting caught up in the vortex of a propagandized agenda, we must be the ones to stop the reactivity. We must be the ones to slow down the rate at which we listen, think and respond. We are really the ones who have the power to change the culture to what we want it to be, not what some politician or news source wants it to be. But we have to stop being lazy in our listening.

Blaming and finger pointing is lazy and reactive. We need to accept what is and embrace it. If we are seeing a divided society or propaganda-slinging, we need to stop resisting it and hoping it will go away, but we need to see it for what it is and ask ourselves, “So what do we do about that?” Awareness is the beginning of change. When we are aware of what we are dealing with, we can develop a plan of action. Blaming and finger pointing is not a plan of action.

If different media outlets are spouting totally different stories, then we need to hear what’s out there. We need to dig through the rubble and find facts, and differentiate them from opinions. It may be painful to listen to an outlet that doesn’t necessarily sing to your tune, but it’s a great chance to learn how to sing harmony.

As a therapist, I am constantly aware that one side sounds correct and credible until you hear another perspective, then when you hear all perspectives, it can get pretty messy with blaming and name calling and mudslinging. But if you make a judgment based on one side of the story and start jumping on the bandwagon to oppose, (Can we even say, destroy?) the opposition, we will never find the truth. We will never find a solution. We will just continue to get more and more divided, and factionalized. When a country or a society is divided and factionalized, it is weakened. It begins to crack. Then remember earlier we talked about how some of this is done by well meaning people? OK, but there are those out there that would utterly destroy our community, society, or country. They will take advantage of our naivety, our emotional reactivity and lack of intestinal fortitude to do the real work of searching for truth.

So how do we protect our society and ourselves? We need to each, personally make sure we are grounded and connected to the source of truth. Many studies have been done showing how meditation changes the brain. It helps you process toxic emotions; it reduces anxiety and depression; it helps you think clearer and increases empathy and compassion. Those that would divide us know that if they can get us stirred up to stop thinking and just react on our triggered emotions, our capacity for empathy decreases. We are no longer able to hold conflicting thoughts in our minds and process them. We become sheep being led to the slaughter of someone else’s agenda based in power and control. That is a dangerous place for a society to be.

I am not advocating any one type of meditation because there is a place in every belief system or faith to define it as you will, but the truth is we all, every single one of us, need to slow down the reactivity and learn to take a breath and detach from the drama and propaganda (from all sides) and learn to listen to the wisdom within. It’s there. It’s just waiting on you to breathe.

Understanding the NFL’s Problems — It goes well beyond disrespect for patriotism.

TRANSCRIPT

The brouhaha surrounding the NFL player protests during the playing of the national anthem is slowly fading from view, just as the NFL had counted on, knowing the fans addicted to professional football couldn’t stay away forever. Unless the Main Stream Media keeps it in the public’s eye, the fans have the attention span of a gnat and are slowly beginning to tune back into the league. So, after hitting a few speed bumps, the NFL money machine continues on its way. The commissioner and owners refuse to discipline their players, in fact they appear to be downright intimidated by them, but is everything truly back to normal yet?

Not so fast. During the recent Thanksgiving holiday, the Detroit game saw its ratings fall 12.3% since last year, and the Dallas game was down nearly 20%. The NFL may try to put a positive spin on this, but the fact remains the protests turned a lot of patriotic Americans off. Even though the fans believe the players to be wrong, they are not so insulted anymore and the NFL will continue on its merry way.

The reality though is if you attended a game or tuned in, you are siding with the players, plain and simple. You are overlooking their disrespect for the country and believe we are suffering from racial injustice. Either that or you have no scruples whatsoever. Personally, I find it rather ironic that the American system the players are protesting, is the same system that has made them incredibly rich.

My problem with the NFL goes way beyond disrespect for the flag and anthem. For a long time, the NFL has been willing to overlook the indiscretions of the players, be it for battery, domestic violence, assault, guns, drugs or whatever, and give them nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Whereas NFL players in the past were held in high esteem as role models of sportsmanship, now it is fraught with thugs and criminals, people we should not respect. Yet, the NFL allows them to keep playing, making millions, and allowing the NFL money machine to continue unabated. They may have to pay a nominal fine now and then, but it would be better for the character of the sport if they were banned from the league instead, thereby giving a clear sign such behavior is not acceptable. By not properly disciplining the players, the NFL is condoning their behavior.

Banishment will likely never happen as the players now set the terms for the NFL, not the owners. Whereas the players represent employees who should follow the policies as prescribed by management, they now know they are untouchable as their athletic skills are sorely in demand and the owners want to win. As Houston Texan owner Bob McNair correctly observed recently, “We can’t have the inmates running the prison.” However, in fact, they are, as evidenced by McNair being forced to issue an apology for making the comment.

The NFL is now the model for corrupt athletic competition; they may know how to make money, but they also know how to sabotage the morality of the country. It is not that the owners or commissioner know what should be done, they are just scared to change the goose who lays the golden egg.

In addition, the media is hesitant to criticize the league as they have also hitched their wagon to the NFL money machine. Without them reminding the public of the indiscretions of the players, the topic slowly disappears. Instead of just producing an injury report prior to a game, I would like to see a crime report. Since the television media refuses to mention this, we are left to discover it ourselves. Fortunately, some outlets, such as USA Today, maintain an NFL Arrest Data Base which clearly lists player indiscretions, both current and in the past (click HERE).

In a way, we should thank former San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick for starting the protest last year. From it, we have discovered the true character of the players, their new role in setting team policy, and the greed motivating the league.

“Alas, poor football! I knew it well.”

Keep the Faith!

As Christian Baker Heads to Court, Hundreds of Artists Speak Out to Defend Free Expression

The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear one of the most important cases of the 2017 term.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will consider whether the state of Colorado may compel cake artist Jack Phillips to create custom wedding cakes for same-sex weddings in violation of his religious beliefs.

The court’s decision in this case won’t just affect Phillips. It will affect other artists who may want to decline to use their creative talents on projects that violate their own consciences.

To highlight just how broadly this decision will be felt, 11 cake artists and 479 other creative professionals filed amicus briefs at the Supreme Court. Here’s what these groups said in the briefs.

Cake Artists

The 11 cake artists who came together for this amicus brief note that cake design is a form of art. They explained to the court that they “create images of beauty that evoke ideas and emotions in deliciously edible form.” And if you don’t believe them, they included plenty of pictures in the brief.

While these artists did not write for or against any party in their brief, they explain that the creative process involved in making cakes is just as intricate and expressive as songwriting, painting, or web design.

Cake artists must use visual-art skills such as painting, drawing, and sculpting, and they must be able to create a unified whole from a series of individual artistic elements, such as textures, photographs, three-dimensional objects, and color.

In fact, custom cake design is so artistic that artists’ designs can be protected under federal intellectual property law. As the brief points out, the Library of Congress has thousands of custom cake designs in its copyright record.


The cake artists also explain why wedding cakes are unique and are often “the most iconic examples of the artists’ craft.” Unlike birthday cakes or “get well soon” cakes, wedding cakes often incorporate elements that reflect the couple’s personality.

These cakes are often themed, matching the pattern of the invitations or the couple’s fine china. Or they can feature hand-drawn characters from “Alice in Wonderland,” paying tribute to the bride’s favorite childhood story.

Wedding cakes can also reflect the ethnic heritage of the couple, incorporating colors and shapes from a shared cultural background.

The cake artists also point out that same-sex wedding cakes “can be especially artistic.” They often utilize rainbows both on the exterior and interior of a cake, and the cake artists have “found that cakes for same-sex weddings are frequently far more open to displays of personality and vivid expression, allowing the cake artist a decidedly freer hand in creation.”

The cake artists emphasize that they “merit as much protection for their expressive work as artists using other mediums,” and they note that the court’s existing free speech framework already includes symbolic nonverbal expression.

In two famous cases, Texas v. Johnson (which recognized burning of the American flag as expressive conduct) and West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (which recognized the right not to salute the American flag), the court recognized that the First Amendment protects symbolic expression, not just verbal or written communication.

Wedding cakes, these artists say, should qualify, too.

Other Creative Professionals

In another amicus brief specifically supporting Phillips, 479 creative professionals from all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico highlight their concern that a ruling against Phillips will threaten their expressive freedom in the workplace.

These cake designers, musicians, florists, photographers, journalists, videographers, poets, songwriters, calligraphers, graphic designers, cartoonists, bloggers, website designers, authors, actors, writers, sculptors, and painters have differing views on gay marriage. But they come together here for one purpose: “They do not want the state forcing them to convey objectionable messages through their art.”

They tell the stories of creative professionals in the wedding industry—other cake-makers, filmmakers, custom website designers, creators of printing and marketing material, and photographers—who “face crippling fines, loss of business, government re-education, and even jail time” for declining to participate in a same-sex wedding.

They highlight this dangerous trend in state court and urge the Supreme Court to reverse course and protect each of their rights to “create freely.”

“It is difficult to imagine,” they write, “a more onerous and effectual compulsion to speak.”

Finally, the creative professionals propose that while this case is limited to the same-sex wedding context, “creative professionals of all stripes stand to suffer from undue compulsion” in other areas, should the court rule against Phillips.

They ask:

Should an African-American supporter of ‘Black Lives Matter’ be required to make and design a cake for white nationalist function? Must a graphic designer who supports gun control create advocacy literature for the National Rifle Association? Is an atheist photographer obliged to take and publish pictures of a Christian baptism?

These creative professionals believe that under the First Amendment, the answer clearly is no. They hope the government will not compel them or anyone else “to utter messages—through art of their own making—that betrays their values, wills, and consciences, as well as their tongues.”

COMMENTARY BY

Zachary Jones is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Larry Brett is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Portrait of Tiffany Bates

We Can Thank a Flawed Jury System for the Steinle Verdict

Much has been said about the acquittal of felonious invader Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, the killer of young Kate Steinle, who died in her father’s arms. Yet while most of the focus has been on “sanctuary cities” — a euphemism for treasonous, lawless cities — there perhaps has been no scrutiny of the people whose minds are too often a sanctuary from knowledge and reality: modern jurors.

The problem stems from “The Error of Impartiality,” which is the title of an essay on this very subject. For what is often perceived in jurors as fairness is just fecklessness, of the moral variety.

When choosing jurors, pains are taken to dismiss people with preconceived notions about the case. But consider: If in question is a high-profile matter such as the O.J. Simpson or Steinle case, what kind of person would know nothing about it and/or have formed no opinions? Does this reflect impartiality or just indifference?

Assuming such a person makes the ideal juror is like supposing that someone still undecided the day before a high-profile election is surely a better voter than someone who reads the news and formed an opinion early on. An undecided individual may be a better voter in the particular (relative to a given wrongly decided voter), but in principle this supposition simply is untrue. G.K. Chesterton explained the matter brilliantly in the aforementioned essay, writing:

What people call impartiality may simply mean indifference, and what people call partiality may simply mean mental activity. It is sometimes made an objection, for instance, to a juror that he has formed some primâ-facie opinion upon a case: if he can be forced under sharp questioning to admit that he has formed such an opinion, he is regarded as manifestly unfit to conduct the inquiry. Surely this is unsound. If his bias is one of interest, of class, or creed, or notorious propaganda, then that fact certainly proves that he is not an impartial arbiter. But the mere fact that he did form some temporary impression from the first facts as far as he knew them — this does not prove that he is not an impartial arbiter — it only proves that he is not a cold-blooded fool.

If we walk down the street, taking all the jurymen who have not formed opinions and leaving all the jurymen who have formed opinions, it seems highly probable that we shall only succeed in taking all the stupid jurymen and leaving all the thoughtful ones. Provided that the opinion formed is really of this airy and abstract kind, provided that it has no suggestion of settled motive or prejudice, we might well regard it not merely as a promise of capacity, but literally as a promise of justice. The man who took the trouble to deduce from the police reports would probably be the man who would take the trouble to deduce further and different things from the evidence. The man who had the sense to form an opinion would be the man who would have the sense to alter it.

Chesterton also noted that the logical outcome of our “impartiality” standard is that a “case ought to be tried by Esquimaux, or Hottentots, or savages from the Cannibal Islands — by some class of people who could have no conceivable interest in the parties, and moreover, no conceivable interest in the case. The pure and starry perfection of impartiality would be reached by people who not only had no opinion before they had heard the case, but who also had no opinion after they had heard it.”

The essay is pure gold, and I strongly recommend you read the whole thing.

I once wrote a piece titled “Why Most Voters Shouldn’t Vote,” and a corresponding principle may be that most jurors shouldn’t sit on juries. People so apathetic that they couldn’t be bothered to try and determine reality on high profile candidates or cases probably won’t transform, magically, into sagacious sleuths of reality upon entering a ballot or jury box. Apathy is not an asset, and ignorance is not a virtue.

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

RELATED ARTICLES: Kate Steinle Deserves Better Than Democrats Opposing Deportation of Illegal Aliens

Open Letter to President Donald J. Trump

Dear President Trump,

It has been a wondrous benefit to the United States of America to have you as President and Commander in Chief.

Your principled stand against the Leftwing onslaught, which is in a full court mode to fulfill the destructive and anti-American words of your predecessor, Barack Hussein Obama, to “transform America,” is applauded and deeply appreciated by millions of Americans.

You are the bulwark against the baleful attempt to eviscerate the magnificent and divinely inspired U.S. Constitution and our very way of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. With millions of other Americans, I salute you and stand with you in your holy task of saving – perhaps for the last opportunity we have – our beloved land as we know it.

I believe you will therefore elevate and enhance America’s moral core by taking a monumental step in righting a wicked policy that has besmirched natural justice. That moral core is the epic step of America, and its President – you President Trump – in finally honoring the beleaguered State of Israel by recognizing that its capital city is united Jerusalem. By doing so, you will have taken the historic step of righting a terrible wrong in finally announcing to the world that the eternal 3,000 year old Jewish capital of Israel is Jerusalem – the only capital of a sovereign and reconstituted nation whose capital city has been denied recognition.

I urge you with all the passion I possess to please, please take the golden opportunity of your upcoming speech regarding the status of Jerusalem to announce not just that America recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state, but also that the US Embassy will now be located in Israel’s capital as a matter of legal, historic and moral right.

At the same time, please, Mr. President, do not fall for yet another discredited so-called Two-State-Solution, whereby tiny Israel is forced to abandon its very biblical and ancestral Jewish heartland – known for over 3,000 years as Judea and Samaria – but whose illegitimate preferred name by a hostile world is the West Bank.

As you know, sir, this fraudulent name was given to the biblical Jewish territory by the Jordanians who had invaded and illegally occupied Judea and Samaria, including the eastern half of Jerusalem, in 1948 until it was liberated by the IDF during the Arab imposed 1967 Six Day War. In acceding to Arab demands, by tearing out Israel’s biblical heartland in order to create yet another Arab terror state, will bring calamitous war and prove a tragic legacy,

In conclusion, dear Mr. President, I and so many others pray and hope that you will put an end to the State Department’s endemic hostility towards Israel and its shameful record of coercion towards the brave Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights who suffer relentlessly from Palestinian Authority and Hamas terror and genocidal violence.

Thank you, President Trump.

May I wish you these words in Hebrew.

Yasher Koach, (All honors to you).

Victor Sharpe

Published author of the four volume work, Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state.

Did the National Anthem Protesters Shakedown the NFL? You Be the Judge

The National Football League has earmarked nearly $100 million to “social justice” causes in what appears to be a massive concession to the National Anthem protestors.

The protests, which began in 2016, have taken a toll on the NFL’s television ratings as fans have expressed their disgust by simply tuning out. A boycott movement to #StandwithVets and avoid watching NFL games over the Veterans Day weekend resulted in some of the worst ratings the league has earned since 2003.

According to ESPN, the concession “earmarks at least $89 million over a seven-year period for both national and local projects, according to the documents” with the leagues owners contributing up to $12 million a year through 2023. The funds would then be allocated to United Negro College Fund (25%), Dream Corps (25%), and the Players Coalition (%50), which has filed for 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 non-profit status.

The Dream Corps is co-founded and run by the once-avowed communist and CNN commentator Van Jones.

Breitbart News points out the dollars allocated to the Players Coalition are especially concerning given the NFL Players Association’s record of spending in the past. For example, 2ndVote’s research uncovered documentation of the NFLPA’s direct contributions to the George Soros-funded Center for Community Change and to an AFL-CIO affiliate that engaged in anti-Trump protests.

Furthermore, 501(c)4 status will enable to the Players Coalition to use the allocated funds to influence elections and lobby for or against legislation. With the NFLPA’s history of aligning with liberal, Soros-funded organizations, we can only assume the Players Coalition’s 501(c)4 activities will have a leftist bent.

Since NFL owners will now be footing the bill for the players’ left-wing activism, it seems the NFLPA should no longer need funding from corporate sponsors. Certainly, the fans who decided to #StandwithVets over Veterans Day weekend would rather not have their entertainment dollars funneled through the owners into these activities. It stands to reason these same fans would rather not have their shopping dollars support the same thing.

Here are the corporate sponsors of the NFLPA. Follow the links to tell these companies the NFLPA no longer needs their donations.

Anheuser-Busch
Barclaycard US
Bose
Bridgestone
Campbell’s Soup Company
Castrol (BP)
Courtyard Marriott
Dairy Management, Inc.
Dannon
Extreme Networks
FedEx
Frito-Lay
Gatorade
Hyundai Motor America
Mars Snackfood
Microsoft
Nationwide
News America (News Corp/Fox Entertainment Group)
Papa John’s
Pepsi
Procter & Gamble
Quaker Oats
Verizon
Visa
USAA

Help us continue educating conservative consumers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

The Mathematics of the Culture War On America

Kurt Lewin, the 20th century German-American psychologist, is recognized as the founder of social psychology – the study of how the personality, attitudes, motivations, and behavior of the individual influences and is influenced by the group.

Lewin studied group dynamics and organizational development and challenged the prevailing “nature vs nurture” debate on behavior. Departing from conventional psychological theory, he developed a mathematical equation of behavior which claimed that an individual’s immediate situation – not necessarily past influences – was a strong determinant of behavior.

Lewin’s equation, B = f (P,E) contends that behavior is a function of the person in his environment, what he called that person’s “life space” or “field.” Lewin theorized that neither nature nor nurture was enough to explain an individual’s behavior – that it was the interaction between the individual and his constantly changing environment that produced the result.

There are fields and vectors in mathematics. Force-field analysis examines all the factors/forces that influence a person or group’s behavior. Lewin believed that a person’s behavior exists as a function of his total field/environment (life space) which is dynamic and constantly changing. It is the psychological equivalent of the famous Heraclitus quote, “No man steps in the same river twice.”

Lewin introduced the concept of “genidentity” defined as identity through and over time. Since no two lives have the same life experience, no two lives can be living in the same reality. This multiple-reality construct denies an objective reality and embraces reality as a subjective perceptual phenomenon.

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

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

The Culture War on America embraces subjective reality – it is a weapon of destabilization in the information war.

In mathematics, topology is defined as the study of geometric properties and spatial relations that are unaffected by the continuous changes of shape or sizes of figures. A circle can be stretched into a triangle and still retain its properties. Topology is sometimes called rubber-sheet geometry because it does not distinguish between a circle and a square. Topological spaces are the spaces studied in topology.

Lewin believed the individual’s field can be expressed as a geometrical topological construct like the circle stretching into a triangle and then reshaping into a rectangle as that individual’s environment changes. He developed a theory of behavior (topological psychology) utilizing philosophical and mathematical concepts.

Topological psychology focuses on group communication, group dynamics, and social psychology rather than individual psychology. His work was foundational in the development of group psychology and what we now identify as Orwellian groupthink.

Lewin’s topological psychology is the foundation for his three-phase model of change that has been applied in business organizations to reorient employees toward cohesiveness and solidarity.

The three phases are simplified as Unfreeze -> Change -> Refreeze. The process can be visualized geometrically as:

#1 a cube of ice that melts into

#2 a puddle of water that is reshaped and refrozen into

#3 a cone of ice.

Lewin’s group-change theory has a lot in common with mind-altering methods and brainwashing techniques that break down an individual’s defense mechanisms and established sense of identity. Conventional values are shattered and replaced with new standards and the desired mindset – the individual has been “reprogrammed.”

It is not difficult to see why this works. Human beings seek homeostasis – balance – both physically and mentally. They are uncomfortable being destabilized and desire equilibrium. The Leftist effort to reshape American culture is utilizing an expanded version of Lewin’s three-stage change process to dismantle existing established cultural norms and replace them with socialism.

Unfreeze -> Change -> Refreeze = the Culture War on America.

To unfreeze the American mindset, every communication sphere has been targeted:

The educational system, public and private, is indoctrinating and reprogramming students with the Leftist narrative of political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism.

The media – including television, movies, radio, and the Internet – is indoctrinating and reprogramming audiences with repetitive Leftist messaging in an echo chamber of collectivist propaganda, desensitizing violence, and degenerate sex.

The colleges and universities have graduated “experts” in the social sciences of sociology, psychology, communications, and political science who are indoctrinating and reprogramming the next generation in their Leftist principles.

In every sphere the transfer of information is biased toward anti-American collectivism at the expense of established cultural norms of individualism and the meritocracy. The Culture War on America is an information war that seeks to destroy America from within by changing the American mindset to reject individualism and embrace collectivism.

America has completed the first unfreezing stage that required overcoming entrenched Judeo-Christian norms and dismantling individual existing established attitudes. A comparison of American life and its reflection in television programming demonstrates the seismic shift and breakdown of established cultural norms of behavior. We are now fully engaged in the transitional second phase of change characterized by confusion.

People are shocked by the changing mores and standards of behavior. Parents are shocked by their children’s attitudes and behaviors. Employers are dismayed by employee attitudes and behaviors. College campuses are being overrun by anarchists. There is an awareness that life is different and becoming very unfamiliar. Things seem out of control, chaotic, and incomprehensible.

The chaos causes extreme anxiety and confusion. Human beings seek equilibrium – people want relief from stress. If they become uncomfortable enough, they will accept anything that stabilizes society and ends the chaos. Society then enters the final stage of change which refreezes the culture into an entirely different shape and restores a sense of social equilibrium.

Kurt Lewin’s unfreeze -> change -> refreeze model of change is the psychological infrastructure being used to manipulate Americans into accepting collectivism as the new normal. It is a sinister power grab by the Left in its culture war on America.

The hippies of the ‘60s did not go quietly into the night when they left campus and the enemies of America did not disappear after WWII. They reconstituted themselves as college professors, deans and administrators, teachers, sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, media executives, and Hollywood bosses, all cooperating in the culture war on America that seeks to destroy American democracy and replace it with socialism.

We are at the tipping point in the Culture War on America. If the war continues unopposed, one more generation of Leftist indoctrination will assure a voting public eager to refreeze America into a cone. The cone is worth examining. Collectivism, whether socialism or communism, is being marketed as the great equalizer. It is being falsely advertised to gullible young people as providing social justice and income equality. Young people imagine collectivism as everyone living the good life of happiness, equality, and individual freedom reflected in the lyrics of John Lennon’s song “Imagine.”

Here is the problem. Real time experiments in socialism and communism exist in Venezuela, Cuba, and Russia today. The objective reality is that there is no income equality in these countries. Instead, there is widespread poverty, shortages of every kind, and rampant violence. Only the privileged elite occupy the tip of the cone in collectivism.

Worse, there is no individual freedom without private property. The objective reality is that when the government owns the property, the citizens are employees of the government and do not own the fruits of their labor – the government does. It is up to the government to distribute or withhold the products. The elitist tip of the collectivist cone always takes care of itself.

We the People who live in objective reality must continue to expose the Left’s destructive agenda. We cannot retreat. We cannot submit to their indoctrination into subjective reality. We must remain vigilant and become outspoken warriors in the war of ideas. It is imperative that we express our love of country and protect our representative government for the people and by the people.

We must preserve free speech and the rights of citizens to own private property and enjoy the fruits of their own labors. America will remain the land of the free and the home of the brave only if we refuse to be Unfrozen, Changed, and Refrozen. The choice is ours.

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

Don’t Fall for Nancy Pelosi’s Virtue Signaling. Here Are Sleazy Democrats She Enabled.

Finally, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s faux feminist veneer has fully cracked.

The Democratic “shero” is, and always has been, a sham. But after Pelosi’s incoherent appearance on “Meet the Press” defending Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Al Franken, D-Minn., the progressive left can no longer mask her apologism.

Pelosi milked her XX chromosomes for all their electoral worth. Her official biography brags about her role as “the most powerful woman in American politics” and her induction into the National Women’s Hall of Fame.

Over three decades on Capitol Hill, she has scooped up Ms. Magazine’s Woman of the Year award, Glamour Magazine’s Woman of the Year designation, Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger award (named after the abortion godmother and notorious eugenics champion), and the Alice Award (named after suffragette Alice Paul).

So, feminists were aghast when Pelosi hailed Conyers as an “icon” and downplayed news of his secret sexual harassment settlement with a former female staffer—one of three former employees alleging sexual abuse.

Blasting D.C. double standards, Long Island Democratic Rep. Kathleen Rice fumed this week over Pelosi’s failure to call out Conyers and Franken.

But this is far from the first time see-no-evil Nancy has looked the other way at Democrats. I’ve been reporting on her creep-enabling for years.

Let me cure the left-wing political and media establishment’s amnesia:

Former Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York.

Lost in the aftermath of Weiner’s nude selfie and sexting scandals is the fact that Pelosi refused to condemn him until his interactions with an underage girl in Delaware were exposed by conservative bloggers and confirmed by police. Only then did champion-of-women Pelosi rush from behind to lead the demands for Weiner’s resignation.

Former Democratic Rep. Eric Massa of New York.

In 2010, the married Massa resigned amid a sordid sexual harassment scandal involving young, low-paid male staffers he allegedly lured to his Capitol Hill playhouse for “tickle fights.” Turned out that Pelosi’s office had been informed months before, by a staffer of former Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, of Massa’s predatory and harassing behavior with multiple congressional employees.

Massa’s former deputy chief of staff and legislative director also contacted leading Democrats on the House Ethics Committee. Former House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also knew of Massa’s misconduct. But Pelosi said and did nothing until allegations went public. A toothless House Ethics Committee investigation went nowhere.

“I have a job to do and not to be the receiver of rumors,” she deflected icily.

Former Democratic Rep. David Wu of Oregon.

The seven-term liberal congressman had a longstanding history of alcoholism and sexual skeeviness that broke into the public eye when his own staffers revolted against their drunk-texting, Tigger costume-wearing boss and pressured him to seek psychiatric help. House Democrat leaders, desperate to keep one of their own in office, ignored the pleas.

Only after The Oregonian newspaper published allegations by a teenage girl who had complained for months to apathetic Capitol Hill offices of an “unwanted sexual encounter” with Wu did Pelosi make a show of calling for a House Ethics Committee investigation—which went, you guessed it, nowhere.

Former Democratic Mayor Bob Filner of San Diego.

Last month, Pelosi climbed aboard the #MeToo bandwagon in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse scandal. “Your courage is truly inspiring to us all,” she tweeted.

But when multiple women accused her old friend, former Democrat Congressman and San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, of harassment and assault, Pelosi indignantly refused to call on him to resign.

One staffer claimed Filner had ordered her to “work without her panties on.” Others alleged he forcibly kissed them. Another said she had contacted Democratic higher-ups in California about a half-dozen women, but nobody did nuttin’.

“What goes on in San Diego is up to the people of San Diego. I’m not here to make any judgments,” Pelosi sniffed.

The late Democratic Sen. Teddy Kennedy.

Of the Democratic lion of the Senate whose public boorishness culminated in the infamous “Waitress Sandwich” with fellow Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Pelosi effused:

Rooted in his deep patriotism, his abiding faith and his deep concern for the least among us, no one has done more than Senator Kennedy to educate our children, care for our seniors, and ensure equality for all Americans.

The Democratic Bad Boys Club has had no better cheerleader than Nancy Pelosi.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is the senior editor of Conservative Review. She is a New York Times best-selling author and a FOX News Channel contributor. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Legislators Go Unscathed as Hollywood, Media Punish Sexual Harassment

Of all the high-profile men that have gone down recently for sexual harassment, none of the accused politicians have suffered any consequences indicating that elected officials are immune from punishment. In the last few weeks powerful entertainment figures, prominent television news personalities and a top political journalist have been fired for sexual harassment while members of congress embroiled in similar scandals remain in power.

Minnesota Senator Al Franken simply issued a public apology for groping and demeaning women, telling a local newspaper “I’ve let a lot of people down and I’m hoping I can make it up to them and gradually regain their trust.” In a social media post, the Democratic lawmaker dedicated a heartfelt “I am sorry” to all who have considered him an ally, supporter and champion of women. Veteran Michigan Congressman John Conyers took the amnesia route, claiming that he knew nothing about secretly paying a staffer—with taxpayer funds from his office budget—to make a sexual harassment scandal vanish. Multiple former staff members also accuse the 88-year-old lawmaker, the longest serving House member and until a few days ago the ranking Democrat on the powerful Judiciary Committee, of sexual harassment. A few years ago, Conyers got busted for illegally forcing congressional staffers to be personal servants and work on state and local campaigns, but he wasn’t even disciplined. This seems to be par for the course in Washington.

A few years ago, Judicial Watch sued a Florida congressman with a long history of deceit and corruption, for sexually harassing a female employee. The Democratic legislator, Alcee Hastings, was impeached by Congress as a federal judge after getting caught in a scandal involving the solicitation of a $150,000 bribe in return for “favorable treatment for defendants in a racketeering case before him.” The disgraced judge was an unindicted co-conspirator, but there was enough evidence against him for Congress to boot him from the bench. Hastings is one of only six federal judges to be impeached by Congress and removed from the bench. Appropriately, he joined one of the nation’s most corrupt enterprises and has flourished by committing a multitude of misdeeds that include mixing work as a public servant with romance. Earlier this year Hastings was in hot water after a watchdog revealed he gave his girlfriend the maximum taxpayer salary for five consecutive years to work in a field office. Top congressional salaries are supposed to go to the Washington D.C.-based chief of staff.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against Hastings was on behalf of a female employee that he regularly harassed. Her name is Winsome Packer and she was repeatedly subjected to “unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome touching” and retaliation by Hastings when he chaired the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. For over two years, from January 2008 through February 19, 2010, Packer was forced to endure unwelcome sexual advances, crude sexual comments, and unwelcome touching by Hastings while serving as the Representative of the Commission to the United States Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Although Packer repeatedly rejected Hastings’ sexual attention and complained about the harassment to the Commission Staff Director, Fred Turner, Hastings refused to stop sexually harassing her. Instead, the congressman and Turner retaliated against Packer—including making threats of termination—because she continued to object to Hastings’ conduct.

The lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch in 2011 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, led to a House Ethics Committee investigation of Hastings. Not surprisingly, the notoriously remiss panel absolved the congressman after a two-year probe. Charged with investigating and punishing corrupt legislators, the committee instead has a long tradition of letting them off the hook. In Hastings’ sexual harassment case, the panel found that the most serious allegations were not supported by the evidence, though Hastings “admitted to certain conduct that is less than professional.” In a separate investigation into Conyers’ corrupt acts years earlier, the Ethics Committee also failed to discipline the Michigan legislator, determining that he had “accepted responsibility” for the violations. As distinguished figures suffer consequences for committing sexual harassment, the question is who will punish elected officials for the same transgressions?

RELATED ARTICLE: Don’t Fall for Nancy Pelosi’s Virtue Signaling. Here Are Sleazy Democrats She Enabled.

The Essential Arabic Muslims Don’t Want You To Know

Allahu Akbar = Allah Is Greater — ‘Allah’ is not simply the Arabic word for ‘God,’ but the name of Islam’s chosen deity and ‘Akbar’ does not mean ‘great’, but ‘greater’. Greater than what? The answer is, Allah is greater than whatever God, government, philosophy, or political system you happen to follow or live under.

Understanding Islam is to know Allahu Akbar is the foundation of Islamic Supremacism.

The precedent for Allahu Akbar was set by Muhammad when he attacked and murdered the Jews of Khaybar.  “

We reached Khaybar early in the morning and the inhabitants of Khaybar came out carrying their spades, and when they saw the Prophet they said, “Muhammad! By Allah! Muhammad and his army!” The Prophet said, “Allahu-Akbar! Khaybar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight) then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned.” (Bukhari 64.238.4198)

Most every follower of Islam knows this Bukhari Hadith, over glorifying Mohammad’s massacre of defenseless Jewish farmers and the first use of Allahu Akbar as a battle cry.

Did you know most all followers of Islam say Allahu Akbar no less than 111 times a  day totaling  40,515 times  a year in their 5 daily prayers.  The repetition of saying Allahu Akbar 111 times a day becomes a conditioned supremacist response for the follower of Islam.

When the New York Times or CNN reports that Allahu Akbar is nothing more than a kind salutation, they are lying to you.  Muslim advocacy groups like CAIR understand the full supremacist significance of Allahu Akbar and their job is to tell non-Muslim’s that Allahu Akbar means only God is Great like the Christians say, no big deal.   Islamic apologists are desperately afraid you non-Muslims will learn the true Islamic supremacist meaning of Allahu Akbar – Allah is Greater than all others.

Your next question should be – What do  these Islamic supremacists call those who reject their Islamic supremacist ideology when talking amongst themselves?

Kuffar – Derogatory word for a non-Muslim.  Kuffar is an Arabic word that literally means “ingrate or infidel”  For a follower of Islam to call someone a Kuffar is as offensive as using the N word in America.

When a follower of Islam calls you a Kuffar they believe you are the vilest of creatures, referring to Qur’an 8:55.  The next time you hear the word Kuffar, it is one of the worst put downs a Muslim can say to anyone.

The followers of Islam also use the word Kuffar to describe their fellow Muslims, in the worst of ways, and is often a precursor to Muslim on Muslim violence.  Like the recent Sunni on Sufi Muslim attacks we just saw in the recent Mosque bombing in Egypt killing 235 Muslims by Muslims  where the Jihadis were screaming Allahu Akbar.  Why you ask? The Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims have been killing each other for 1400 years because they believe each other to be a Kuffar or Mushrikin.  In this Egypt attack above,     we have Sunni Muslims killing Sufi Muslims who are viewed as Kuffar by the Sunni.  Confused yet?  Keep reading and it will all make perfect sense.

Jihad – “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims,and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion (Islam).” Umdat al Salik P.599.

When Muslim Advocacy groups like CAIR, ISNA, MSA, tell you  Jihad is a personal spiritual struggle like losing weight or doing daily chores,  it is a deception of the most clever kind.  Spiritual Jihad is a deception because Mohammed said in  Qur’an 9:111 that those who fight in the way of Allah are assured paradise.

In Islam, getting into paradise is not guaranteed.  Mohammad says violent Jihad in the advancement of Islam will guarantee you a place in the highest levels of paradise.  That makes dying in the way of Jihad a noble religious act and taking as many Kuffar with you assures ones place in paradise or Jannah.

Killing oneself in the act of Jihad brings honor upon your family, tribe, and village.  Mohammad says the dead Jihadi can intercede for 70 of his family members assuring them all a place in paradise.  For the followers of Islam, this  is such a big deal parents of Jihadis often celebrate when their children die in Jihad.  Yes – you heard me right – parents celebrating the death of their own children.

The arabic word for a Jihadi Martyr is Shaheed and garners instant respect in the Muslim world.  This is why a devout Muslim parent will sometimes encourage their children to martyr themselves.  Here in the West, our immediate response is, that can’t be true because its so evil!  In the eyes of a follower of Islam becoming a Jihadi martyr is a spiritual religious act displaying ones love for  Allah and Islam.  In many cases, the Jihadi believes they are showing love for their non-Muslim victims who are living a sinful life by not reverting back to Islam.  The Jihadi, in Mohammad’s teachings is keeping these Kuffar from living a sinful life,  killing them is seen as an act of love.

Islamic apologists will say, “So why aren’t the worlds 1.3 billion followers of Islam going Jihadi and jumping on the Martyr death train securing their place in Islamic paradise?”

Mohamad was clever and knew not every follower of Islam is a warrior ready to die for Allah.   So Mohammed taught there is Jihad with your money, Jihad with your pen, civilizational Jihad in non-Muslim lands, and the personal Jihad of losing weight or to stop smoking.  If a follower of Islam does not tell you the entire meaning of Jihad, they are willfully lying and you should be offended because they think you are stupid.

What you don’t hear about is the large number of Muslims who want to leave Islam but are afraid they will be killed as apostates.  Islamic law states, leaving Islam is a traitorous act and death is the punishment. Many scholars say the apostate loophole is the glue of fear holding Islam together.

Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb – The Islamic Worldview and Definition of Peace

Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb is arabic for the House of Islam and the House of War.

Dar al-Islam is the name for those territories where Islam dominates and submission to Allah is observed. Key point:  Dar al Islam is the only place where followers of Islam believe peace and tranquility reign.

The definition of a true Islamic Peace is a countries complete submission to Allah and the Shariah Islamiyya (Islamic Law).

Dar al Harb  means anyplace on earth that fails to follow Allah’s will.  These countries, including the United States, are not considered legitimate powers because they don’t derive their authority from Allah.

The confusing duplicity is that Islamic governments (Dar al Islam) are allowed to enter  into temporary peace treaties with people of Dar Al Harb(Harbis) to facilitate commerce, one sided immigration flows, or alliances against other Islamic Countries if necessary.

This duplicity is how Bin Laden can attack the United States and the Islamic State of Pakistan can provide protection to Bin Laden while engaging in peaceful diplomatic and joint military exercises with the United States as a partner and ally of convenience.

Are you confused?  If not you should be because this Eastern logic is the exact opposite of standard Western thought and geopolitics.

Shariah Islamiyya = Islamic Law

For a follower of Islam, the Shariah is the “way of life”.  In Arabic Shariah means the straight path to the watering hole.  For the desert dweller, water is life.

Side Note: For those of you who say Shariah Law, Arabic speakers hear ‘Law Law’ and inwardly laugh at you as an ignorant infidel Kuffar – no offense it just is.

Shariah provides the legal framework for the functioning of an Islamic society, it also details moral, ethical, social and political codes of conduct for Muslims on both an individual and collective level.

Now that you know  Shariah is from Allah and Mohammad you know it is considered timeless and of divine origin to the followers of Islam. The punishments in Islamic Law apply to non-Muslims too,  giving you another clue exposing its Islamic supremacy.

Internalize this,  Shariah is from Allah and is superior to all man made laws and religions like, Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Humanism Christianity, Judaism, Taoism, Hinduism, Agnosticism, Paganism, Democracies, Republics, U.S. Constitution, U.S. Bill of Rights, Constitutional Monarchies, Buddhism, and Unitarian-Universalism to name only a few.

Shariah dictates to the followers of Islam how to pray, run an Islamic government, brush your teeth, what to wear, how many wives you can marry, exact legal penalties from death sentences, chopping off of body parts,  blood money for murder, death sentence for gays, what you can say and not say, what you can and can’t listen to, and how to behave in the land of Dar al Harb / Non-Islamic countries.

Shariah teaches that when the followers of Islam are weak, or small in number, then one must follow the rules and laws of the non-Islamic country they live in.  As the followers of Islam’s numbers increase,  Muslims begin to demand accommodations for Islamic culture, dress, food, and religion especially  when they conflict with the host countries culture and man made laws.

This is the stage we are at here in America.  The followers of Islam are trying to push Hate Speech laws on Americans as a vehicle to silence our Freedom of Speech,  using our man made legal system to do it.  Why you ask?  Because Islamic Law dictates it is a capital offense to speak negatively about Islam, Mohammad, or Allah.  That is why Muslim Advocacy groups go unhinged if a non-Muslim explains what Islam is and what Islam is not – like I’m doing here.

When you see people throwing around charges of Hate Speech against those speaking freely and legally about Islam – they are enforcing Shariah blasphemy laws on you, in violation of Article 6 of the US Constitution.

Lets Recap – What We Learned

  1. Allahu Akbar means Allah is Greater than whatever God, Government, Science, or Political System you happen to follow or live under. Allahu Akbar is the war chant of Islamic Supremacism said 111 times each by most followers of Islam in their 5 daily prayers.
  2. Jihad – “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims,and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion (Islam). Jihad is the violent struggle to advance Islamic Supremacism in the name of Allah.
  3. Dar al Islam & Dar al Harb = House of Islam & House of War – This is the definition of Peace In Islam. If you and your country are in the House of Islam there will be Peace.  It’s just that simple.  The followers of Islam also use the Interfaith Movement to preach a message of coexistence, peace, and love with everyone here in America and the West.  So how can two completely opposite messages be true?  Because Islamic doctrine makes it true.
  4. Shariah = Islamic Law Shariah is an all encompassing Islamic guidebook for all followers of Islam to follow.  Shariah covers how Islamic Governments are run, how to chop off your hands for stealing, how to kill apostates,  how to dress, brush your teeth, eat, clean your private parts, and most importantly what you can and can’t say – NO Free Speech.  The Islam advocacy groups in America are pushing legislation to make ‘hate speech’ against the law.  You guessed it, ‘Hate Speech’ is saying anything negative about Islam, Mohammad, or Allah thus shredding our 1st Amendment Constitutional right to Free Speech. 

Conclusion:  The Duality of Islam

We’ve learned 5 Important Arabic words and concepts today that have opposite meanings to the Muslim and Non-Muslim alike.

Most Muslims are so nice and integrated here in America , yet other Muslims target and kill non-Muslims in the name of Islam while screaming Allahu Akbar. Two opposites like this are perfectly normal to the followers of Islam.  As long as you are confused, blind, or don’t believe it – then you are right where the Jihadis want you.  Think about that for a second – go ahead read that last sentence again.

Each time a follower of Islam executes a violent Jihadi operation, we can count on the America Muslim advocacy groups like CAIR to say, “These terrorists don’t represent Islam”, yet when these terrorists are screaming Allahu Akbar we know its being done in the name of Islam.  Manufactured mixed messaging is meant to confuse and paralyze the victims of Jihad.  For example,  CAIR always  says after Jihadis kill, “this is not my Islam or we fear a backlash after  most every terrorists attack.”  Nihad Awad executes this black propaganda play like clockwork.  The good  news  is people are growing tired  of CAIR’s lies and arrogance.

Bill Warner sums it up in his 2007 Article ‘Duality and  Political Islam

“The kafir (non-Muslim) can be treated in one of two ways. They can be treated well or they can be robbed, killed, or cheated if it advances Islam. On more than one occasion Mohammed said to deceive the kafir (non-Muslim). Jihad as a political method killed, robbed and enslaved the kafirs (non-Muslim). This is a dualistic ethical system.

Islamic dualism is hidden by religion. The “good” verses of the Meccan Koran cover the verses of jihad in the Medinan Koran. Thus religious Islam shields political Islam from examination.

Scientific analysis shows us that there is a political Islam as well as a religious Islam. To argue about religion is fruitless, but we can talk about politics. We need to discuss political Islam, a system of ethical and political dualism.”

The Megaphone Left vs. Non-Megaphone America

There is a highly visible split in America that is barely recognized and seldom talked about, but is growing both in reality and in understanding in the new age of technology.

Those who have a megaphone for what they want to say and preach…and those who don’t. This is not your traditional haves and have nots. This cuts differently.

Those who have a megaphone — which I am defining as the ability to reach large numbers of people through social media, normal media and other means — include the traditional media, the emerging media, public media, the music industry and Hollywood (movies and TV.)

Those without the megaphone are the rest of America. However, and this is key, almost the entirety of the megaphone crowd represents the minority liberal point of view in American. The Megaphone Left. According to Gallup, 25 percent of Americans describe themselves as liberals and 36 percent describe themselves as conservative. Yet that one-quarter has virtually all the megaphones.

Further, the Megaphone Left has always been able to decide who it hands its megaphone to, and that has traditionally been heavily weighted to the left, i.e., politicians, government leaders, professors and “experts” who are usually part of either colleges or think tanks.

So in actuality what has been happening is that the Megaphone Left drives the narratives and is the unchallenged culture driver. Hence our culture has moved leftward to the great frustration of many without a megaphone.

But two things have happened that are changing those dynamics.

One thing that has happened is social media. Facebook and Twitter specifically have opened the door for the other 75 percent. The advent of online and alternative news sources that are conservative have exploded because they can access the America not represented by the Megaphone Left.

The other thing that has happened is Donald Trump. Trump was his own megaphone — although the Megaphone Left gave him an enormous hand in the Republican Primary with more free coverage than all of the other candidates put together. Why? Probably a combination of good ratings and hoping to tank the Republican nominee. Few thought he would really ever be president.

The Trump campaign and more importantly the post-election response has been dramatically enlightening to the America without a megaphone speaking for them — who can now view what is happening in live time via social media. No more can the Megaphone Left filter and mold what all Americans see. It’s live and it’s not pretty.

A specific example of Megaphone Left damage

The Megaphone Left narrative has long been that the dominant white culture continues to systematically discriminate against blacks.

But this narrative lept forward in 2014 with the fatal shooting of black man Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., after he had robbed a convenience store and assaulted a police officer.

The Megaphone Left ran with the “hands up, don’t shoot” story — which never happened. They hyperfocused on a police action that turned out to be completely justifiable, as even the Obama Justice Department concluded. Yet they lit the fire with their megaphonal coverage. (This included the media, of course, but all the rest of the Megaphone Left.)

The loss of truth in this story was followed with continuing media narratives in Baltimore and Milwaukee and other places. Virtually every time a cop (black or white) killed a black man, the narrative blasted the same thing. Cop kills black man!

There was an “epidemic” of police violence against black men, particularly unarmed black men, went the megaphones. But that is just not true.

Philippe Lemoine, a Ph.D. candidate in philosophy at Cornell University, has been researching the issue extensively and pointed to this amazing fact for context in a National Review piece:

“Last year, according to the Washington Post’s tally, just 16 unarmed black men, out of a population of more than 20 million, were killed by the police. The year before, the number was 36. These figures are likely close to the number of black men struck by lightning in a given year, considering that happens to about 300 Americans annually and black men are 7 percent of the population. And they include cases where the shooting was justified, even if the person killed was unarmed.”

So it is more likely that an an unarmed black man will be literally hit by lightning than be killed by the police.

And yet the megaphones continue their blaring to the damage of all Americans, but most specifically blacks. But even as a lot of Americans are waking up to the misinformation showering them, there is soaring frustration that their worldviews, and truth in general, have few megaphones.

The impact of the megaphone divide

The impact of the long-term one-sided Megaphone divide is that Americans were misled. And changes in the landscape mean they now know it, and most also realize they have few megaphones of their own.

Like anyone who has been cheated (or cheated on) over a long period, this has resulted in significant trust issues. Trust in the media is at its lowest point since Gallup began polling in 1972. Two-thirds of Americans don’t trust the media to some degree. And tellingly, the breakdown is dramatically different between Republicans and Democrats, with 51 percent of Democrats trusting the media but only 14 percent of Republicans.

Of course, you are reading all of this information on an internet web site which reaches people through social media. A mere 15 years ago, none of this information could be disseminated to you in any realistic way. A conservative in a mainstream newsroom could see it, but there were precious few of those and there was no outlet to reveal the truths.

Resentment and anger are the natural response to being lied to and cheated on. And that is the response of the America not represented by the minority Megaphone Left. It helped propel Trump, who brought his own megaphone to the game, and it will continue to fuel opposition to whatever the Megaphone Left is dealing.

Unfortunately, what we see is a knee-jerk response by increasing numbers of Americans to disbelieve every media report negative about Trump. This is a mistake, of course. There is still real journalism being practiced to various degrees in different outlets. And Trump does head-smacking things sometimes.

However, this has been brought on entirely by the Megaphone Left, which not only set up much of the division we are seeing, but continues to fuel it. In politics, culture and society, for every action there is a reaction. And the reaction to the unmasking of the Megaphone Left is fixing to be a big one.

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