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

Who is Bob Moser you ask?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is how Moser begins,

The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center

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

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

The first surprise was the office itself.

Continue here.

Hate-group list was a masterstroke by Dees!

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

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

Read the whole article.

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

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

MOVIE REVIEW: ‘The Kid’ is about confession and trusting the good guy with a gun

Lionsgate Movies released the film “The Kid.” According to the Lionsgate Movies YouTube channel:

In this thrilling Western, a young boy, Rio (Jake Schur), is forced to go on the run across the American Southwest in a desperate attempt to save his sister (Leila George) from his villainous uncle (Chris Pratt). Along the way, he encounters Sheriff Pat Garrett (Ethan Hawke), on the hunt for the infamous outlaw Billy the Kid (Dane DeHaan). Rio finds himself increasingly entwined in the lives of these two legendary figures as the cat and mouse game of Billy the Kid’s final year of life plays out. Ultimately Rio is forced to choose which type of man he is going to become, the outlaw or the man of valor, and will use this self-realization in a final act to save his family.

If you are looking for a historically accurate film about Billy the Kid and Pat Garrett you will be disappointed. However, if you are looking for a positive moral messages this film is filled with them.

Watch the trailer:

The kid in this film is Rio. It is Rio who kills his abusive father and escapes his abusive uncle in order to go on a quest to save his sister. This is a western to be sure. It is in the older style of the good guy with a gun versus the bad guys with guns. There are no special effects in this film. It is gritty down to earth good guy versus bad guy film making with a twist. The plot twist is about sin, confession and redemption.

But more importantly is is about confessing ones sins, redemption and in the end an armed good kid killing bad guys with a gun. While the film tries to be politically correct, at times portraying some of the marshals as cruel, it gets past this with a morally redeeming message.

Three times Marshal Pat Garrett asks Rio to confess, three times Rio refuses. This reminded me of the three times Saint Peter disowned Jesus in Matthew 26:34-35:

34“Truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “this very night, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.”35 But Peter declared, “Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.” 

In the end Rio confesses to Marshal Pat Garrett that he killed his abusive father. Garrett joins Rio in his quest. This confession leads to the freeing of his sister and a new beginning to both of their lives.

Our hope, at the end of the film, is that Rio, like Saint Peter, leads of life filled with valor, love and redemption. But more importantly that Rio and his sister go on to live a lives of repentance for one’s past sins. Prophetic indeed.

Speech Righter: Trump Tackles College Censorship

Going to college is tough for any teenager. But for conservatives, it can be downright dangerous. These days, parents are sending their kids off to six-figure war zones, where even moderate speakers need armies of protection — if they’re allowed to speak at all. Christians brave enough to talk about their views are stigmatized if they’re lucky, and physically attacked if they’re not. We’ve wiped campuses clean of so many words, ideas, and values that an entire generation is leaving college completely unprepared for the cruel world from which higher education is “sparing” them.

Like a lot of parents, Donald Trump is fed up. College campuses are so toxically liberal today that conservatives have gotten everything from death threats to docked grades. We’ve watched Christians like Isabella Chow lose her student government sponsorship. Even a simple act like recruiting for a college club is an excuse to throw punches. That’s not education — it’s state-sponsored hazing. And this administration has decided to do something about it.

Today, the president had a warning for liberal incubators like Berkeley: shut down free speech and the government will shut down your federal funding. Under a new executive order, the penalties for schools censoring students will be, in Trump’s words “very costly.” “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” the president tweeted. So far, no one has had the nerve to hit higher education where it hurts. But then, not everyone is President Trump.

Charlie Kirk, who heads the group Hayden Williams was attacked for promoting, thinks it’s about time someone stepped in and stopped the First Amendment’s death spiral on college campuses. But how, he wonders, will the liberal media take it? After all, they’re “an ideologically homogeneous group, need to thread the needle of wanting to appear to be in favor of free speech while arguing that the president requiring free speech is somehow dangerous. That isn’t easy…” After all, he points out:

“Burn an American flag on campus or stand on a bench and decry the Constitution as racist and you will be allowed to speak. Wear an American flag on your shirt or hand out copies of the Constitution and you will be accused of triggering and sent off to the campus equivalent of the broom closet, called ‘Free Speech Zones,’ in order to continue to express your thoughts.”

And that intolerance has never cut both ways. Liberals used to care about the free exchange of ideas — until theirs became impossible to defend. Now, they’ve decided they don’t want to try to win the debate. They want to stop the debate from taking place. After years of policing speech and punishing speakers, the Left’s brainwashing is paying off. Thirty-percent of college students think shouting down people like Ben Shapiro is acceptable. Another 10 percent said it was okay to use violence to stop students like Hayden. And where did these extremists-in-training learn how to bully conservatives? From their adult counterparts, of course. They’re just mirroring what they’ve seen from the leaders of “get-up-in-their-face,” “tell-them-they’re-not-welcome,” “we-kick-them” liberalism.

This new army of young radicals thinks they’re on the “morally righteous side” in this culture war, Hayden says, “and in order to win, they must silence any form of dissent.” Now, thanks to President Trump, that silence will hurt any college who encourages it. “For an industry that loves to preach against capitalism, they sure do love their money,” Kirk points out. “This will hopefully start to get their attention. Unlike their students, if they don’t like it, they are certainly free to speak out.”


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s Executive Order to Colleges: Protect Free Speech or Risk Billions in Federal Grants

The Sinister Side of the Gender War

A Day to Celebrate Life

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

Israel’s High Court–When Legality Loses its Legitimacy

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


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

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

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

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

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

Eroding confidence in judiciary

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

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

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

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

“…crass and misguided interference in Israeli democracy”

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

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

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

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

Clear contravention of the letter of the law

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

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

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

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

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

Arab enmity not Arab ethnicity

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

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

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

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

Saving the judiciary from itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AUDIO: Tennessee and Government Lawyers Spar Over The Federal Refugee Resettlement Program

The Federal Government’s “Unconstitutional Compulsion.”

In a case with critical constitutional implications for the principles of federalism and state sovereignty, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Tuesday morning on Tennessee’s challenge to the federal refugee resettlement program.

Attorney John Bursch appearing for the Thomas More Law Center, argued on behalf of Tennessee’s General Assembly, while DOJ attorney Samantha Lee Chaifetz argued for the Federal Government. Each side had 15 minutes to present its case. Mr. Bursch took 10 minutes for his initial presentation and reserved 5 minutes for rebuttal.

Both lawyers were peppered with questions by Judge Boggs. By the end, it still remained unclear whether the judges were leaning towards one side or the other.

However, I have linked below to the court-provided audio of the entire oral argument, so you can judge for yourself.  Also, separately linked is Mr. Bursch’s 5-minute rebuttal which counters the arguments made by the Federal Government.

Listed below are some salient quotes from Mr. Bursch’s argument to the 3-judge panel:

  • “When the Federal Government implements an exclusively federal program, it cannot commandeer state funds to pay for it under a threat that the Federal Government will cut 20% of a state’s budget if it does not comply. That is unconstitutional compulsion.”
  • “The Tennessee General Assembly is the institutional plaintiff asserting an institutional injury. It can’t satisfy its State Constitutional obligations under Article 2 Section 24 of the State Constitution to have a balanced state budget because the Federal Government can simply syphon off state funds from the Tennessee general program whenever it wants to by placing more refugees.” 
  • “The question is whether the Federal Government’s pressure has turned into compulsion or coercion or duress.
  • The only one telling the Tennessee legislature that it can’t defend its own interest is the Federal Government. The same Federal Government which can yank those 20% of the Medicaid funds, the 20% of the State budget, if we don’t comply.”
  • “The language the Supreme Court uses when the Federal Government uses funding mechanisms where pressure turns into compulsion, coercion, pressure, duress that’s when it violates this 10th amendment federalism principle.
  • “The Assembly members take an oath to uphold state and federal law at the time they go into office and if they would propose a statute with a plan that didn’t result in us paying for this federal program, we would be violating federal law.”

Click here to listen to the entire oral argument.
Click here to listen to John Bursch’s 5-minute rebuttal.

IMMIGRATION: The Big Lies

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the opening salvo they fired against ICE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIDEO: West Virginia AG Sues Disgraced Bishop, Diocese Over Sex Abuse Cover-up

Suit alleges Bp. Michael Bransfield knowingly employed ‘credibly accused pedophiles’


CHARLESTON, W.Va. (ChurchMilitant.com) – In an unprecedented legal move, the state of West Virginia has filed suit against Catholic authorities over sex abuse cover-up.

On Tuesday, state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced a civil action against the diocese of Wheeling-Charleston and its disgraced former bishop, Michael J. Bransfield, for allegedly “deceiving consumers and claiming their schools were safe when they were employing credibly accused pedophiles.”

Diocesan officials are accused of violating West Virginia consumer protection laws by marketing Catholic schools as safe for children even as they “chose to cover up and conceal arguably criminal behavior of child sexual abuse.”

The announcement follows six months of investigation into whether “Catholic priests who were active or had been employed in West Virginia had been accused of sexually abusing children.”

Morrisey launched the inquiry in September after the Pennsylvania grand jury report revealed that 301 priests — including one who had worked in Wheeling-Charleston — were responsible for abusing more than 1,000 children across the Keystone State.

The suit notes that “although the state has not fully completed its investigation” — which it blamed in part on “the lack of cooperation from the Diocese” — justice officials have learned that Wheeling-Charleston “has engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices by failing to disclose to consumers of its educational and recreational services that it employed priests and laity who have sexually abused children, including an admitted abuser who the Diocese nevertheless allowed to work in a Catholic elementary school.”

According to the lawsuit, Wheeling-Charleston officials “knew of sexual abuse complaints against priests of the Diocese, but, did not disclose the conduct to criminal law authorities or to parents paying for educational or recreational services.”

The complaint alleges, for example, that after confessing to homosexually abusing a student at St. Joseph Preparatory Seminary High School in Vienna, Fr. Patrick Condron was sent away for “evaluation and treatment” at two different facilities. After these stints away, without notifying parents, the diocese reassigned Fr. Condron to Wheeling Catholic Elementary School, where he worked from 1998 to 2001.

“Parents who pay and entrust the Wheeling-Charleston Diocese and its schools to educate and care for their children deserve full transparency,” Morrisey said Tuesday. “Our investigation reveals a serious need for the diocese to enact policy changes that will better protect children, just as this lawsuit demonstrates our resolve to pursue every avenue to effectuate change as no one is above the law.”

Observers are suggesting West Virginia’s action could set a new precedent for combating clerical sex abuse.

“This is the most that we’ve seen so far in terms of prosecution, in terms of someone in the higher levels of the hierarchy,” said Marci Hamilton of CHILD USA. “This is the first time we’ve seen a comprehensive claim against a whole diocese and a bishop.”

Tuesday’s announcement is the latest in a barrage of bad news for Bp. Bransfield, who in September resigned in disgrace amid credible allegations he sexually harassed adult males.

After investigating the accusations, last week, Baltimore Abp. William Lori, apostolic administrator of Wheeling-Charleston, declared that Bransfield can no longer exercise his priestly function.

Bransfield is also being scrutinized over his close association with serial sexual predator Theodore McCarrick. The former West Virginia bishop was consecrated by McCarrick in 2005 and later served as president of the board of trustees for the Papal Foundation, a multi-million-dollar enterprise co-founded by McCarrick and wracked by scandal over its questionable grant making practices.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Texas Library Allows Sexual Predator at Drag Queen Story Time

Since Christ Is Our Foundation, Fundamentalism Is Love

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column with video is republished with permission.

Questions on Two Abuse Cases – and a Good Development

Fr. Gerald E. Murray: With more work needed, accountability and transparency about sexual offenses by bishops seem to be the new order of the day.


The Archdiocese of Baltimore recently announced the finding of credible accusations of sexual abuse of adults committed by two bishops: Michael Bransfield, former bishop of Wheeling-Charleston, WV; and Gordon D. Bennett, retired bishop of Mandeville, Jamaica (and earlier, auxiliary bishop of Baltimore).

Bransfield was investigated regarding “multiple allegations of sexual harassment of adults and financial improprieties.” The final determination of guilt or innocence lies with the Holy See. Baltimore Archbishop William Lori, who was appointed the Apostolic Administrator of Wheeling-Charleston by Pope Francis when Bransfield retired last September, stipulated: “Bishop Bransfield is not authorized to exercise any priestly or episcopal ministry either within the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston or within the Archdiocese of Baltimore.” (Pope Francis had asked Lori to investigate when he accepted Bransfield’s request for retirement at age 75.)

What first strikes me here is Lori’s provision that Bransfield may not exercise episcopal or priestly ministry in the Baltimore or Wheeling-Charleston. I can only guess that this provision was imposed or consented to, in some way, by the Holy See.

Lori does not have authority in canon law to prohibit a fellow bishop, who is not subject to a canonical penalty or to restrictive disciplinary provisions publicly imposed by the Holy See, from exercising his priestly and episcopal ministry.

The Holy See and the Baltimore Archdiocese should clarify this. I am not opposed to restrictions being placed on Bransfield. But Archbishop Lori’s authority does not extend that far. Only the pope can place such restrictions on a bishop.

Lori could have prohibited Catholic institutions in his two dioceses from inviting Bransfield to exercise any public functions. But he does not have the authority, for instance, to prohibit, in a universal way, Bransfield from hearing confessions or anointing the sick in Wheeling if such priestly ministrations are requested.

The announcement also revealed that “[a]s part of recently announced protocols governing the conduct of bishops in the Archdiocese, Archbishop Lori determined that similar restrictions were warranted in the case of former Auxiliary Bishop of Baltimore, Gordon Bennett, S.J. . . .In May 2006, the Archdiocese learned of an allegation of sexual harassment of a young adult by Bishop Bennett. . . .the Archdiocese immediately reported it to the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C. . . .As a result of these restrictions, which the Holy See recently gave permission to the Archbishop to announce, Bishop Bennett is prohibited from exercising any priestly or episcopal ministry in the Archdiocese of Baltimore and the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston.”

In this case, the Holy See has imposed these restrictions on the bishop and allowed Lori to announce it publicly. But questions remain about what happened back in 2006, and why we are only learning about this now.

An AP story posted at the America magazine website comments: “Bennett was cleared of the sexual harassment allegation in 2009 and reinstated to limited episcopal ministry subject to oversight, the Jesuits’ USA West province said in a statement Monday. But amid ongoing questions about how misconduct allegations were handled in the past, Bennett’s case was re-examined last year and the Congregation for Bishops in Rome recently determined he shouldn’t exercise episcopal ministry, the province said. The future of his priestly ministry is up to his Jesuit superiors.”

So Bennett was cleared in 2009, but nevertheless was at the same time put under some form of restriction and supervision. Why was he subject to this provision if he was found not to be guilty? And then last year his case was re-examined and he was found to be unsuitable for the exercise of episcopal ministry, presumably because he was now found guilty of the serious canonical offense of sexual harassment of a young adult.

Yet, his further exercise of priestly ministry, as opposed to strictly episcopal ministry, is an open question to be decided upon by “his Jesuit superiors”? This is puzzling for two reasons.

First, Gordon Bennett is a bishop, thus he is not under the authority of the Jesuit superiors of the province to which he formerly belonged. He is under the authority of the Holy See alone. If he has, in fact, been deprived of the exercise of his episcopate, then the Holy See should state that and indicate that he has been placed under the authority of the Jesuits.

Second, why would he even be considered eligible for the further exercise of priestly ministry if his past actions have led the Holy See to prohibit him from exercising his role as bishop? Why would the Holy See make this split decision? A clarification is very much needed.

This double announcement marks an important step in the ongoing abuse crisis, even given the canonical questions that remain. A bishop (Bransfield) was subject to a thorough investigation by lay experts assisting the archbishop (Lori) who had been asked by the Holy See to look into serious allegations of sexual harassment of adults.

The Holy See is clearly responding to the widespread dissatisfaction with the way similar charges were dealt with in the past, as was the case of a bishop (Bennett) who was allowed to resign quietly in 2006 after the papal nuncio was informed of an allegation of sexual harassment of an adult.

The bishop was allowed in 2009 to continue his episcopal ministry in a new location under some form of private, unpublicized restriction and oversight, even though the Holy See, according to the Jesuit provincial, had “cleared” him of the charge of sexual harassment. That decision has now been set aside by the Holy See, presumably because it could not be defended – if it came to light publicly.

The bottom line here is: accountability and transparency regarding episcopal sexual canonical offenses with adults are the new order of the day. The grave injustice of the protection of sexual predator bishops by the Holy See when the victims were above the age of 18 years has been acknowledged. This is a very positive development. Let’s hope we see many more.

COLUMN BY

Fr. Gerald E. Murray

The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. is a canon lawyer and the pastor of Holy Family Church in New York City.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Foreign National Attempts Entry To Ft. Bragg, N.C.: Why So Little Media Attention?

The incident that caused the Special Operations Facility to briefly close its gates happened a week ago today and according to the Fayetteville Observer the illegal alien arrested that day is expected in court today.

A week ago and we just learn about it this week! 

And, as of this morning the only media outlets reporting are the Fayetteville Observer and now Big League Politics.  Very strange!

The Observer has a very thorough report on the incident (thanks to reader Cathy for directing our attention to the puzzling news).

Here is a bit of what the Observer said about the suspicious incident,

The man who caused Fort Bragg’s All American gate to be closed for several hours Tuesday has been arrested and will have a detention hearing at 9 a.m. Tuesday in Raleigh to face charges related to obstruction of justice.

Nouran Ahmad Shihab Sueidan was seen by a magistrate of the U.S. District Court of North Carolina on Wednesday.

An affidavit presented to the judge from the investigator of Fort Bragg’s Military Police Investigations and Provost Marshal Office states at about 10:30 a.m. Tuesday that Sueidan attempted to access Fort Bragg.

Sueidan allegedly refused to provide identification to gate guards.

“The gate guards informed Sueidan that he could not enter Fort Bragg without producing identification, at which point he insisted that he needed to enter Fort Bragg,” the investigator said in the affidavit.

Sueidan later provided an expired Jordanian passport, an expired Texas driver’s license, expired vehicle registration and no proof of vehicle insurance.

[….]

“When Sueidan was informed that he would not be able to enter Fort Bragg, he insisted that he had a foreign military identification and that he needed to make entry to the installation to “take a tour of the Special Operations facility to identify if it was worth his time,’” the investigator wrote in the affidavit.

The investigator said Sueidan became agitated and insisted that all he wanted to do was tour the special operations facility.

Officers at the scene detained him for his safety and the safety of others, the investigator said.

He said some very strange things and resisted efforts to handcuff him.

Continue reading here.

ICE has lodged a detainer against Sueidan signalling that he is in the country illegally.

Readers need to know that North Carolina has been attractive to Muslim migrants for decades (KSM went to college there!) and it is also consistently a top refugee resettlement state.  See my extensive North Carolina archive here at Refugee Resettlement Watch with stories going back a decade.

What do you do? As we continue to note, the mainstream media is not doing its job and so it is up to you to send stories like this out widely to your social media networks.

LOL! By the way, I just saw news yesterday about how Facebook and Twitter identify you as a conservative to be watched on social media.  They have buzz words and phrases that they set algorithms to flag.  One phrase we use that tags us as America Firsters is “mainstream media.”

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

Attack on Tucker Carlson’s Home: ‘Suspected Hate Crime’

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch today released a police incident report from the November 2018 attack on the home of Fox News host Tucker Carlson by the Antifa-linked group Smash Racism DC.

Judicial Watch obtained the Metropolitan Police Department incident report in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

According to the Washington Metropolitan Police Department report:

On the listed date, [Susie Carlson] heard loud banging and pounding on her front door. [Susie Carlson] went to investigate and saw a large group in front of her home. They had a bull horn and were chanting loudly. She retreated to a room in the rear of her home and summoned police. MPD arrived on scene and found a group of approximately 20 people. It was discovered that unknown persons spray painted an anarchy symbol on the driveway. There were also signs left on the vehicles parked in the driveway as well as a sign left on the front door of the home. The signs made reference to [Tucker Carlson’s] political affiliation.”

The report classifies the incident as “suspected hate crime” with the “hate bias/motivation” being “anti-political.” Also, the report says that six “hand-written posters” were seized as evidence. A handwritten note included with the report says that the “suspected group is Smash Racism DC.”

Tucker Carlson told The Washington Post that the mob had blocked off both ends of his street and carried signs that listed his home address:

“Tucker Carlson, we are outside your home,” one person could be heard saying in the since-deleted video. The person, using a bullhorn, accused Carlson of “promoting hate” and “an ideology that has led to thousands of people dying.”

“We want you to know, we know where you sleep at night,” the person concluded, before leading the group to chant, “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!”

[…]

Carlson said the protesters had blocked off both ends of his street and carried signs that listed his home address. The group called Carlson a “racist scumbag” and demanded that he “leave town,” according to posts on Twitter. A woman was also overheard in one of the deleted videos saying she wanted to “bring a pipe bomb” to his house, he said.

“Tucker Carlson wasn’t merely ‘targeted by protesters,’ as some media reported. His family was terrorized by a mob of 20 people who vandalized his property,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Arizona/Mexico With Border Fence — Then No Fence — Illegals Come Right In!

Tom Trento and The United West team went to the Cochise County Arizona border with Mexico to gain a full understanding of our countries border situation.

In this video you will see how vital it is for America’s national security interests to have a completed 24-foot border fence/barrier.

Mexican cartels are utilizing our porous border, as seen in this video, to illegally bring in cocaine, fentanyl, marijuana, and human cargo. I say cargo because these illegal immigrants pay the cartels $6,000 per person to have the cartels provide a ‘coyote’ to deliver them across the border.

If an illegal can not pay the cartel they will have these individuals pay off their debt as sex slaves, mules, or any services the cartel wants of their human slaves. You will see how easy it is to breach our borders in some areas.

The problems of drugs and human trafficking have reached epidemic proportions endangering U.S. Citizens living on the border, putting law enforcement at risk, and the illegal aliens who become victims of the cartels.

There are no winners here and a strong border security system will help not only us American’s but also the exploited illegals not willing to immigrate legally to the United States.

Now you’ve seen the border without filtering so you can make up your own mind.

13 Times in February Armed Citizens Intervened to Stop Crimes

The fundamental right to keep and bear arms is a vital tool safeguarding individual liberty.


Last month, we documented some extraordinary examples from January of armed citizens relying on their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves and others.

We pointed out that these were average, everyday Americans who were just going about their lives. They did not go looking for evil but were nonetheless prepared to deal with the evil that found them.

February has produced even more evidence that the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is not an anachronism that no longer deserves constitutional protection, but a vital tool safeguarding individual liberty.

Studies routinely indicate that every year, Americans use their firearms in defense of themselves or others between 500,000 and 2 million times. Very few of these defensive gun uses receive national publicity—if they receive publicity at all.

Below, we’ve highlighted just a handful of the many times during the month of February that law-abiding Americans demonstrated the importance of the Second Amendment.

  • Feb. 2: A restaurant owner in Akron, Ohio, scared off a masked man who attempted to rob him with a knife. The man fled, and police believe he successfully robbed a different restaurant just hours later.
  • Feb. 5: A Nashville, Tennessee, woman was attacked from behind by a would-be purse thief, who proceeded to repeatedly slam the woman’s head into a wall when she resisted him. The woman’s husband heard her cries for help and came to her defense, firing his gun at the thief and causing him to flee.
  • Feb. 9: When three armed men attempted to rob a Little Caesars restaurant in North Fort Myers, Florida, a patron inside pulled his own firearm to defend other customers. One suspect was shot and the other two fled.
  • Feb. 12: A homeowner in Jackson County, Georgia, heard someone trying to break into her house through a window. She found a man standing outside and warned him not to come into the house. Nevertheless, the man broke the glass window, so the armed homeowner shot him.
  • Feb. 13: Sullivan County, Tennessee, Sheriff Jeff Cassidy praised the actions of a concealed carry permit holder who ended a deadly domestic violence incident at a dentist’s office. The armed citizen shot and detained an active shooter who killed his wife and may have planned to harm others in the office.
  • Feb. 14: An Evans, Georgia, mother shot and killed her boyfriend after he began violently assaulting the woman’s 15-year-old son during an argument.
  • Feb. 16: Two masked assailants attempted to rob 35-year-old Antonio Santiago in Allentown, Pennsylvania, pepper spraying his face and “pistol whipping” him with a BB gun that appeared to be real. In an act of self-defense, Santiago grabbed his own handgun and fired at his attackers, killing one of them. Two other suspects fled, but were eventually arrested and tied to two other recent crimes in the area.
  • Feb17: An armed good Samaritan in Daytona Beach, Florida, intervened and fired a shot to stop a knife-wielding man, who had already stabbed someone, from stabbing other people outside a convenience store.
  • Feb. 20: A 79-year-old Commerce, Georgia, homeowner called 911 to report a burglary in progress after she heard someone breaking into her home. The burglar ignored her threats and came in through an upstairs window before police could arrive. The homeowner shot at the burglar, who was so scared that he hid in a closet until the police arrived.
  • Feb. 24: Three armed men ambushed a Houston, Texas, couple who were walking out of their apartment complex, forcing them back inside to rob them. The boyfriend retrieved his own firearm from within the apartment and exchanged fire with the three men, injuring one of them.
  • Feb. 26: The Mobile County, Alabama, Sheriff’s Office posted a Facebook video showing an armed local homeowner’s recent encounter with two would-be burglars. The burglars attempted to enter the occupied home in broad daylight, and were only deterred when the homeowner fired her handgun at them.
  • Feb. 27: A group of teenage thieves entered a pawn shop in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and tried to flee with two guns they grabbed from behind the counter. Armed store clerks chased the teens and held them at gunpoint until the police could arrive, preventing the future unlawful use of those stolen firearms. Police believe these teens are responsible for other gun thefts and may be able to take other illegally possessed guns off the streets as a result of these clerks’ actions.
  • Feb. 28: Two men helped rescue a woman from a would-be kidnapper in Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, after seeing her struggle to escape on the side of the road. After the two men stopped their car, one of them pulled out his handgun, prompting the suspect to flee. He was later apprehended and confessed to kidnapping the woman.

These individuals were all law-abiding citizens whose lives and livelihoods depended upon their ability to exercise their natural right of self-defense. Without a robustly protected right to keep and bear arms, the Americans in the cases above would have been left to the mercy of criminals who don’t much care for the rights of others.

Despite this reality, gun control activists and lawmakers have spent the last month pushing legislation that would severely hamper the ability of law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and others.

They have proposed effectively stripping young adults of their Second Amendment rights by raising the legal age for firearm purchases. Apparently, while law-abiding 18- to 20-year-olds are mature enough to vote, serve on juries, and be drafted into the military, they can’t be trusted to legally purchase a handgun with which to defend themselves and their families.

The bill for universal background checks, which recently passed through the House of Representatives, would compound this problem by depriving young adults of the ability to receive firearms via private transfers.

Gun control advocates have introduced bills that would limit magazine capacity for privately-owned firearms and that would prohibit future civilian purchases of semi-automatic rifles that serve as some of the most effective guns for home defense.

The irony is that, while civilians would be stripped of the right to immediately defend their lives and property with these guns, the law enforcement officers who respond—perhaps too late—to calls for help overwhelmingly choose those same firearms precisely because they are the most effective.

All of these proposals would significantly burden the exercise of a constitutional right that, as the data from February shows, is commonly used by average Americans to enforce their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property.

We don’t make law-abiding citizens safer by disarming them or making them less capable of fighting back against criminals. We only make them easier targets.

COLUMN BY

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

Open Borders Push Americans To Socialism: Democrats seek total control over America.

My dad sagely told me that you could turn a capitalist into a communist overnight, simply by taking away his/her money.

In the beginning, it was the Republicans who wanted open borders to provide their political base, the business owners, with cheap and compliant workers.  As more foreign Third World workers entered the labor pool and brought with them Third World expectations of drastically substandard wages and working conditions, these wages and working conditions became the new standard.  This forced American workers to settle for less money and fewer benefits if they wanted to keep their jobs.

For the greedy and immoral exploitative employers, the bottom line is the bottom line.

Decades ago the Democrats resisted this push for foreign workers because the Democrats understood that their base, Americans workers, wanted to be  protected from the unbridled greed of their employers.  Unions also promised to protect their members against unscrupulous employers.

Essentially the scales were balanced.  The Republicans represented business owners and the Democrats represented the workers.

However, the labor unions began pushing for the rights of illegal alien workers as the number of Americans who joined unions dropped.  The union leaders simply “did the math.”  More members meant the union had more political leverage and more members paid more union dues.  This was a “win/win” for the unions and a disaster for the American workers they purported to represent while encouraging ever more foreign workers to come to America.

When I was a new INS agent I was more than a bit surprised that when I participated in raiding garment factories, literal “sweat shops” and arrested many illegal aliens, often the labor unions would send bail bondsmen to our office who arrived nearly as soon as we arrived with our illegal aliens in custody.  It was clear that the unions did not care whether their members were U.S. citizens, lawful immigrants or illegal aliens, only if they joined the unions and paid their dues.

In recent years the Democratic Party came to the same conclusion reached by the labor unions years earlier.  Flooding America with alien workers, both legal and illegal, would ultimately increase the numbers of voters who would likely vote for the Democratic candidates, not unlike the unions, cynically claimed that they would protect their jobs and wages.

Commentators frequently opine that the Republicans want cheap labor while the Democrats want those new voters.

While that simplistic assessment has merit, what is being missed is that as more foreign workers enter the United States, either legally or illegally, the wages for American workers is suppressed.  Labor is, after all, a commodity.  When you flood the marketplace with any commodity, the value of that commodity is decreased.

This would negatively impact millions of Americans who would be forced to vote for the party of the hand-out, the Democrats.

A massive increase in H-1B visas for high-tech workers greatly lowers the wages for workers in those industries.  Therefore the Republicans who are eager to placate their constituents have sought to greatly increase the numbers of those visas.

As noted above, the Democrats are also eager to increase the numbers of those visas as well.

My recent article, Open Borders Facilitate America’s Race to the Bottom included a quote from Alan Greenspan the former Fed Chairman when he testified at a hearing before the Senate Immigration Subcommittee on April 30, 2009 at the behest of Chuck Schumer, the then-chairman of that subcommittee on the need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  He was referencing the need to drastically increase the number of H-1B visas to meet the demands of Microsoft’s Bill Gates.  Greenspan’s prepared testimony included this outrageous assertion in which middle class workers were referred to as the “privileged elite!”

Greatly expanding our quotas for the highly skilled would lower wage premiums of skilled over lesser skilled. Skill shortages in America exist because we are shielding our skilled labor force from world competition. Quotas have been substituted for the wage pricing mechanism. In the process, we have created a privileged elite whose incomes are being supported at noncompetitively high levels by immigration quotas on skilled professionals. Eliminating such restrictions would reduce at least some of our income inequality.

In other words, the solution to “wage inequality” is to destroy middle class wages!

When huge numbers of Americans lose their jobs or face wage suppression they will invariably vote for the (Democrat) candidates who promise to provide financial assistance.  After all, it is an established fact that voters vote their wallets.

In addition to flooding America with foreign workers, America’s non-secure borders also floods America with narcotics.  Americans who are addicted to drugs frequently lose their jobs and their ability to be hired.  This adds to the huge number of unemployed Americans.

Of course Americans who are convicted of crimes lose their right to vote.  Is it any wonder that the Democrats are attempting to pass laws around the United States that would enable convicted felons to vote?  Those felons, because of their economic hardships are virtually guaranteed to vote for Democratic candidates.

Do you still wonder why Democrats want to legalize marijuana, the gateway drug to heroin and cocaine, or not secure the borders to prevent the entry of drugs or illegal aliens?

If you doubt the impact all of this has on the United States, on March 11, 2019 CBS News’ 60 Minutes aired a wide-ranging interview with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.

In addition to noting the impact of AI (Artificial Intelligence) and globalism Powell also turned to the current opioid crisis:

PELLEY: This builds on a conversation that we were having a short time ago. You mentioned the opioid crisis. It’s that big a problem in the labor force?

POWELL: Yes, it is. The opioid crisis is millions of people. They tend to be young males. And it’s a very significant problem. And it’s part of a larger picture of low labor force participation, particularly by young males.

PELLEY: I mean, you seem to be talking about part of this generation being lost, unattached from the rest of the economy.

POWELL: That is the issue. When you have people who are not taking part in the economic life of a country in a meaningful way, who don’t have the skills and aptitudes to play a role or who are not doing so because they’re addicted to drugs, or in jail, then in a sense they are being left behind. And there are too many of those people. And I think bringing them into the labor force would enormously benefit our country. We’d grow more strongly. And I think it would be good for the economy and good for the country.

These disenfranchised Americans are potential Democrat voters if only they were able to vote.

The Lunatic Left’s new darling, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stunned her audience when she said that we shouldn’t fear robots because people who have no jobs would be able to pursue their interests.

What has been missed by those who ridiculed her is the fact that the goal of the Democratic Party Socialists is to unemployed as many Americans as possible.  Without paychecks they would be entirely dependent on the handouts offered by the Democrats.

The obvious long-term goal of Ocasio-Cortez and her cohorts is a one-party government.

The Democratic Party.

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

This Is CNN Facing a $275 Million Lawsuit

The family of Nicholas Sandmann is suing CNN for $275 million.

Sandmann, who is a high school student from Kentucky, was waiting for his bus after March For Life when the students began to receive taunts from a group of Black Hebrew Israelites. Soon after, Nathan Phillips, a Native American activist, walked into the crowd of students.

A video of the incident soon circulated and various media outlets, including CNN, portrayed a story that appeared to show Sandmann instigating a confrontation with Phillips. As the complete story has come out and the whole video has been circulated, a very different narrative has developed–clearly, Sandmann was an innocent bystander trying to avoid escalating a tense situation.

Nicholas Sandmann’s co-counsel, Todd McCurty, released this statement via Fox News :

“What CNN’s tagline is, is, ‘facts first,’ and what we believe their reporting was in this circumstance was, ‘lies first, cover up second,’ and facts not yet determined by that organization.”

Mccurty went on to say:

“without any reasonable investigation, they took something straight off Twitter that had been in essence manipulated so that it told one story and they reported it as the truth.”

Now, CNN has been criticized often for left-leaning bias in reporting. However, what should also be noted is CNN’s history of funding the liberal activist organizations. While the Sandmann story and subsequent lawsuit is just one example of biased, and apparently downright dishonest, reporting, the situation does serve as evidence as to how corporate activism may infect c company’s ability to conduct business.

CNN scores a 1.7 because they fund groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, HRC, and LULAC among many others. All of these groups are leftist organizations, so how can we expect CNN to report unbiased news?

If you want to see for yourself exactly what organizations CNN supports, you can see that here. If you would like to reach out to CNN and tell them why you do not watch their programming, click on the button below.


Contact CNN!


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

VIDEO: Election Theft — Voter Fraud — Judicial Injustice

At the Sarasota Patriots for Trump monthly forum the guest speaker was Mark Adams. The title of his presentation was “Election Theft – Voter Fraud – Judicial Injustice.”

Please watch:

ABOUT MARK ADAMS

Mark Adams has a law degree and an MBA, and practiced law in Florida. In 2006, Mark won the first and only injunctions getting a third party candidate into televised debates. Mark has also handled more Congressional election contests than any other attorney, and unlike the other attorneys who have handled election contests, Mark gathered proof that the election results were manipulated in 2006 and 2008. Mark has also exposed corruption in our judicial system.

Mark discusses solutions to these very critical issues. Mark has done extensive research on the Framers, the Constitutional provisions that they thought would ensure liberty and justice, and how the Constitution has been subverted in order to allow our country to be pillaged and our liberty to be stolen. Mark will explain the fundamental rights which were supposed to enable us to maintain a Constitutional Republican government which was controlled by the people and how those fundamental rights have been stolen.