Bathroom Wars Reach Critical Mass.

Just how unpopular is the transgender movement? Even Massachusetts isn’t buying it! Two years after the legislature opened up the state’s bathrooms and showers to both sexes, even Bay State voters are drawing the line. The fight has been an eye-opener for Democrats, who are scrambling to protect their agenda from an embarrassing loss in one of the bluest states in the union. Turns out, you don’t have to be a conservative to understand how dangerous gender politics can be!

No one — including Governor Charlie Baker (R) — saw the opposition coming. In 2016, party leaders were apparently reading their own press releases and watching MSNBC and thought the countermovement was a joke. Now, two years and more than 50,000 petitions later, no one is laughing — least of all Democrats. Before Baker’s signature was even dry, “Keep MA Safe” went to work, sending an army of volunteers and church groups to neighborhoods all across the state. In 45 days of door-knocking, the coalition did what no one thought was possible: they not only hit the 32,000 threshold for signatures — they exceeded it by 17,000! Now, thanks to their hard work, a repeal is on the ballot this November, and LGBT activists are panicking that common sense might win.

Like other sexual orientation-gender identity laws (SOGI), this one affects everything from hotels, bars, and restaurants to gyms, libraries, and theaters. Even private schools would have to open their stalls to anyone on days when they’re hosting public events. Object, the state says, and go to jail. That goes for parents who don’t want men sharing private spaces with their little girls to students who are scared to change for gym with teenage boys in the room.

In an op-ed that desperately tries to downplay the risks of Massachusetts’s policy, state house Speaker Robert DeLeo makes the ridiculous claim that there’s been no fallout from laws like this one. “Opponents to this common-sense protection routinely and falsely claim that the law could be abused by criminals seeking to harm women and children in public restrooms,” he writes. “The facts simply don’t support this fiction.” He apparently doesn’t shop at Target! What does DeLeo call this laundry list of police reports here and here? The threats associated with Massachusetts’s law aren’t something conservatives invented (unlike the Left’s latest definition of gender). There are very real patterns of voyeurism, harassment, and abuse that result from open-door policies like this one.

Still, DeLeo insists, “I’ve had the good fortune of meeting transgender residents of our Commonwealth one-on-one, and I recognize that they only want to go about living their lives just like all of us.” Where have we heard that before? Americans have been down this road of “coexistence” for the last two decades, and all they’ve gotten in exchange are attacks on their religious liberty, personal safety, parental authority, and financial livelihoods. If DeLeo and company were truly interested in letting people go about their lives, he’d let business owners and school boards make their own rules — not force them to adopt extremists’.

Fortunately, a lot of Massachusetts voters agree. According to polling, the repeal effort is dead-even, which has come as a huge shock to Leftist Democrats. Even DeLeo is acknowledging that liberals have zero margin for error, “We can take nothing for granted. Recent public polls show this as a 50/50 race.” Yvette Ollada, the campaign manager for Keep MA Safe, says the coalition is confident that “a strong education effort about the dangers of this law will ensure a victory for our side in November.” But, she cautions, “though we have a very good chance of winning, it’s all reliant on a well-funded campaign. We need resources to get our message out to voters… Once voters learn that a man can just say he is a woman; in order to access bathrooms, dressing rooms and locker rooms; it only makes sense to vote ‘NO’ to protect women, children and vulnerable minorities. The other side may have the mainstream media and a lot of money on their side, but if we focus our resources strategically, we will defeat them on Election Day.”

She’s right about the money. This week, the far-Left announced a million-dollar ad buy for a massive push this fall. Of course, that over-the-top spending wouldn’t be necessary if their policy was as popular as LGBT activists say it is! For conservatives, meanwhile, there’s a very real opportunity here to send a message to the nation that transgender politics are out of step with even the most liberal Americans! As Massachusetts Family Institute’s Andrew Beckwith says, we can’t underestimate the importance of this moment.

“This is an important fight for the Commonwealth and the pro-family movement, since Massachusetts could be the first state to attempt to repeal a law like this at the statewide level. We are ground zero! We need help, though, from faithful people across this country, because the other side is well funded and well organized. If we all come together we can and will defeat this horrible law.”

Join Massachusetts in a battle that could send transgender activists packing. See what you can do to help by visiting KeepMASafe.org!


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump, Erdogan Talk Turkey

Planned Parenthood Takes a Quantum Bleep

Facebook Removes Death Threats Toward Republicans After Lawmaker Calls It Out

Facebook removed a page Tuesday that posted incitements to violence and implied death threats after a Republican lawmaker called the company out.

During a hearing Tuesday with representatives from Facebook, Twitter, and Google, Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida asked Facebook’s head of global policy management, Monika Bickert, why the social media giant hasn’t removed the page, “Milkshakes against the Republican Party,” for its calls to violence against Republicans.

dcnf-logo

“Do you remember the shooting at the Republican baseball game? One of those should happen every week,” one post read, referring to the attempted assassination of GOP members, which almost killed House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La. Bickert read the post back to Gaetz at the hearing.

Another post called for “crazed shooters” to target Republicans at baseball practices, saying, “If you really want to be remembered, that’s how you do it,” before referring to the National Rifle Association as a “terrorist organization.”

“Any call to violence violates our terms of service,” Bickert clarified. However, Gaetz claimed Facebook responded to his staff after reporting the page earlier that “it doesn’t go against one of our specific community standards.” Later that day, Facebook removed the page.

“I am glad Facebook swiftly removed this offensive page; while I unconditionally support the First Amendment, inciting violence against others due to their political affiliation is not constitutionally-protected speech,” Gaetz said in a statement, The Hill reported. “While removing this page was a small step forward to making Facebook a safer place, bigger questions remain.”

“This distinction is not merely academic, as they are governed by different laws and different rules. If Facebook claims to be a neutral forum, it cannot continue to limit conservative content; if Facebook claims to be a publisher, it will lose its legal ‘immunity’ under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act,” he continued.

“They simply cannot have it both ways,” Gaetz said. “My colleagues and I on the Judiciary Committee look forward to exploring this important distinction in the future.”

RELATED ARTICLE: It Took A Congressional Hearing For Facebook To Remove Threats to Republicans

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is of Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) speaking with the media about the memo released by the House Intelligence Committee in Washington, U.S., February 2, 2018. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein.

MS-13 Threatens the Legitimacy of Salvadoran Government

In a recent poll, residents of El Salvador were asked, “Who runs your country?” Forty-two percent reported gangs, while only 12 percent said the government.

These results reveal a huge problem for El Salvador: The public’s lack of trust in its government threatens to dismantle the country’s democracy and stability.

MS-13 is a dominant force in Salvadoran affairs. Outside the U.S., MS-13’s largest presence is in Central America, particularly in the northern triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

MS-13 has become a powerful force, capable of coercing weak Central American governments. For example, in 2012, the Salvadoran government was forced to sign a truce with MS-13 in an effort to reduce skyrocketing homicide rates. Although the truce did reduce homicides, the agreement was widely unpopular. Extortion and associated criminal activity continued at high rates with almost no resistance from the government.

When current President Salvador Sánchez Cerén reversed the 2012 truce and implemented a “mano dura,” or iron-first policy, against MS-13 in 2014, the gang retaliated by dumping bodies on the streets. The homicide rate skyrocketed and in 2015, El Salvador had the highest homicide rate in the world.

MS-13 largely relies on extortion as its largest source of income, but has also been known to engage in drug and human trafficking, money laundering, kidnapping, and theft. MS-13’s growing influence in El Salvador has led to changes in its behavior.

The country’s weak state capacity and inability to deliver social services has paved the way for criminal organizations to step in and assume state functions.

In recent years, MS-13 has launched minor programs to feed children and provide neighborhood security. Bizarrely, the same group that terrorized Salvadorans is now providing much-needed social services.

This change in behavior has undermined the Salvadoran government’s authority. Fragile States Index tracked the public’s perception of the state’s legitimacy. El Salvador saw its sharpest decline in 2015, and perceived authority has continued to plummet ever since.

In 2017, Transparency International’s corruption perception score for El Salvador ticked downward 6 points from 2014, indicating an increased corruption perception. Furthermore, El Salvador scored a 33 out of 100 in the country’s perceived level of public-sector corruption.

In The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, El Salvador’s government integrity score plummeted from 39 percent in 2016 to 25.2 percent in 2018—a clear indication of a serious problem.

Improving the situation will require long-term efforts from the Salvadoran government. Much of the work will be up to the next administration that will take office in 2019. It will be left to vigorously combat the expansion of MS-13 and preserve the government’s legitimacy.

Failure to step up, create economic opportunities, and increase security efforts could collapse what remains of the Salvadoran government’s authority.

COMMENTARY BY

Macarena Martinez is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Portrait of Ana Quintana

Ana Quintana is a senior policy analyst for Latin America and the Western Hemisphere in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies. Twitter: .

VIDEO: America Needs Real Men to Stand in The Gap!

America needs good men who will stand in the gap to defend or way of life.

The Bias Problem Plaguing America’s Social Media Platforms

Americans deserve the facts, objectively reported. They know media bias is pervasive.

A recent Morning Consult poll found that only a quarter of voters now trust the media to tell them the truth, a record low.

The media savages President Donald Trump and portrays his administration in the worst possible light. Over 90 percent of his network news coverage has been negative, higher than any other president.

The muting of conservative voices by social media also has intensified. Social media companies have repeatedly censored, removed, or “shadow banned” conservative journalists, news organizations, and media outlets that do not share their liberal political views.

Facebook’s new algorithm for what users see on their timeline has disproportionately harmed conservative publishers. They’re getting fewer readers while their liberal counterparts haven’t been impacted to the same degree.

Recently, Google’s employees easily convinced the company’s management to cut ties to contracts with the military.

And Google has long faced criticism from fact-checkers over manipulating search results to slight conservatives. Google also has deleted or blocked references to Jesus, Chick-fil-A, and the Catholic religion. When will it stop?

Also alarming are the guidelines being written by these companies to define “hate speech.” Facebook’s newly published Community Standards, which determine what content is allowed, define these terms for the American people.

It violates Facebook rules “to exclude or segregate a person or group.” So a conservative organization calling for illegal immigrants to be returned to their home country could be labeled a hate group by the platform and their content removed altogether.

Some platforms have allowed liberal interest groups to determine what information is available to the public.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is allowed to influence platform guidelines and sometimes censor content that it deems “hate” speech.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has a “hate map” that lists over 900 organizations. These include pro-life, religious freedom, and border security groups—all popular with the American people. And all are unfairly targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

It’s no secret that social media organizations are typically controlled and run by individuals who lean liberal, sometimes radically so.

It will require a constant effort by these entities to neutralize this relentless bias if, in fact, they really want to do it.

All media entities should give the American people the facts, not tell them what to think.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Rep. Lamar Smith

Rep. Smith is a Republican who has represented Texas’s 21st district since 1987. Twitter: .

See Something, Say Something: A U.S. Classified Brainwashing Program

I would dare to say that if you asked Americans, specifically our children, if they believe our governments “See Something, Say Something” program is a needed and positive concept 99.9 percent would agree. This operation went into full swing after the 911 attacks by Muslim terrorists on our country. This program is actually a deceptive and very dangerous U.S. classified operation to condition Americans to inform on their friends, family, neighbors and others. Our government unfortunately wants us to follow the same path that Hitler put in place on his fellow Germans. Hitler brainwashed the German citizens that “ratting” on fellow citizens was patriotic to secure the security of Germany.

Adolf Hitler once made the following statement:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

Another quote by Hitler:

“If you control the children you control the future”

This story is true in America. Liberals within our government fully understands that if you control the minds of the children, you will control the future. The U.S. government has now taken over the control of our children by slowly eroding the influence of their parents. Our children are being brainwashed in all levels of the education system.

Our government desires American children to feel comfortable informing on anyone they have been brainwashed by educators to believe have offended them in anyway or poached into their safe zones. This is the BIG picture of what the “See Something, Say Something” campaign is about. The SMALL picture that is fed to the public is that this campaign is to fight the war on terrorism. Don’t fall for it and do not believe one small atom of this lie.

I was a federal agent working numerous Top Secret operations for our government for almost two decades. Without disclosing any classified information, I can inform the American public that disinformation operations are conducted by our government to fool our enemies and in many cases to fool the very American citizens our government is bound to be truthful to and protect. The See Something, Say Something is meant to control the American people more than it is meant to harm our enemies.

This can be proven in various ways, but I will give a very clear example for Americans to ponder: There are dozens of private American counterintelligence and counterterrorism professionals like myself who receive constant calls from Americans about legitimate suspicious activity especially in the area of Islamic based terrorism. I often give them advice to notify the FBI, but I warn them that likely the Agent will not take them serious, ridicule them, or even call them an outright Islamaphobe. I tell them this because numerous Americans have told me this is exactly what the FBI has done to them. This behavior is shameful and very, very un-American.

My point is that liberals (communists) within our government do not care about truly protecting this great land from Islamic terrorists or other threats, nor do they really care about what adult Americans “See and then Say Something” report. Again I repeat, our government (aside from a few within to include President Trump) only desire to brainwash our children to advance their liberal long term agenda to turn America into hell holes like Venezuela and Cuba.

It is the responsibility of conservative Americans to be mindful of what their children are being taught in schools and prepare their families for the soon to be violent civil war in America. Thankfully patriotic citizens elected President Trump because this gives patriots from 4 to 8 years to regroup and acquire the survival tools for the war we will soon have.

HERE ARE A FEW QUICKIES OF INTEL:

  1. There are now over 3000 Islamic mosques in America. 80 plus percent are Sunni Wahhabi and financed by Saudi Arabia. All are anti American.
  2. The FBI and CIA are liberal political machines designed to turn America into a socialist country.
  3. Illegal immigrants are a burden to America ten times more than they do any good whatsoever.
  4. Muslims (both violent and non violent) in America do not want to assimilate and put shariah law above the U.S. Constitution.
  5. ANTIFA and MS 13 are both criminal gangs who have no place in America.

Democrat Senator Worries His Party Is Going Too Far Left

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., is worried his party is alienating moderate voters by moving too far to the left.

“If we as a Democratic Party are going to move from a minority at every level that is dedicated to resistance, to a majority that is capable of governing, we have got to move from grievance to optimism,” Coons said in a speech on Thursday, according to U.S. News and World Report.

dcnf-logo

“And we’ve got to abandon a politics of anxiety that is characterized by wild-eyed proposals and instead deliver ideas and practical solutions.”

Coons also warned that the growing Democratic push to abolish Immigration and Customs and Enforcement, which enforces the nation’s immigration laws, is counterproductive.

“Abolish ICE is too easily mocked as open borders and no law enforcement,” the senator warned.

“Instead of having something that makes a Twitter hashtag and gets you on Rachel Maddow and fires people up, we need to have something that fires people up and is a policy position we can actually defend.”

“Forty percent of voters self-identify as pragmatic or moderate. We cannot abandon them,” he added.

Coons’ caution comes as the far-left Democratic base is pressuring the party’s leaders to endorse a radical immigration agenda.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is of Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Chris Coons, D-Del. as they arrive for a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Sept. 26, 2017. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

Democrats Don’t Fear Brett Kavanaugh. They Fear the Constitution.

Sure, some of the anger aimed at President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is partisan bluster meant to placate the activist base.

Still, most Democrats were going to get hysterical about any pick, because any conservative pick was going to take the Constitution far too literally for their liking.

For those who rely on the administrative state and coercion as a policy tool—forcing people to join political organizations, forcing them to support abortion, forcing them to subsidize socially progressive sacraments, forcing them to create products that undermine their faith, and so on—that’s a big problem.

Some, such as former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, indulged in the histrionic rhetoric we’ve come to expect in the Trump era, claiming that Kavanaugh would “threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.” But almost none of the objections coming from leading Democrats have been even ostensibly about Kavanaugh’s qualifications as a jurist or, for that matter, his interpretation of the Constitution.

“Specifically,” prospective presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., argued, “as a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy, his nomination presents an existential threat to the health care of hundreds of millions of Americans.” Surely, the former attorney general of California comprehends that “health care” is not a constitutional right but rather a policy concern whose contours are still being debated by lawmakers—and probably will be for decades.

What Harris probably meant is that Kavanaugh is an existential threat to the practice of forcing Americans to buy products in the private marketplace against their will. Kavanaugh, incidentally, upheld Obamacare as an appellate judge for jurisdictional reasons even though it displeased him on policy grounds. (He wrote that the law is without “principled limit.”) He did this because he has far more reverence for the law than Harris does.

Leading presidential contender Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., whose collectivist doctrine clashes directly with the Constitution’s goal of restraining the state and empowering the individual, worries about “workers’ rights, health care, climate change, environmental protection, and gun safety.” He should.

Kavanaugh, with Justice Neil Gorsuch, is a critic of Chevron deference, the practice that allows administrative agencies to ignore their legal charge and have free rein to interpret statutory authority in virtually any way they please. Few things undermine the socialist agenda more than limiting our regulatory agencies’ ability to lord over the economic decisions of Americans.

Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, another potential presidential hopeful, said Kavanaugh “can’t be trusted to safeguard rights for women, workers, or to end the flow of corporate money to campaigns.”

To “safeguard” the rights of women means keeping abortion legal on the federal level, without any genuine restrictions. For Gillibrand and others, invented rights are sacramental, whereas other precedents, such as stopping the “flow of corporate money”—which is to say, the right of free expression codified by the Citizens United decision—should be conveniently discarded.

There is absolutely no guiding principle to any of this other than political preference.

It seems to me that with another originalist justice, we inch closer to a time when the majority of the left will simply dismiss the court as an antiquated impediment to progress. We already see this happening—not only from progressives but from supposed moderates. It’s why flip-flopping partisans such as Ezra Klein are now lamenting the “anti-democratic” position of the court.

By “anti-democratic,” he doesn’t mean the court legalized abortion or same-sex marriage without the consent of states; he means it has recently stopped the federal government from compelling individuals to act in ways he and many others approve of.

Normalizing the idea that the Constitution should be subservient to the fleeting will of politics and progressive conceptions of “justice” goes back to President Barack Obama, who promised in 2008 to nominate justices sharing “one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”

The left hailed this position as proof of a thoughtful and moral temperament, when in reality it’s an ideological position that allows judges to arbitrarily create law and subordinate their constitutional duty to their personal worldview.

Of course, there are a number of legitimate debates about how we should interpret the Constitution. And all justices aren’t political on all issues. Nor are all conservatives pure. But it’s the left that now embraces relativistic arguments about the intent and purpose of the Constitution.

I wish the Supreme Court were less important. But right now, it’s one of the only institutions preserving constitutional order. And that’s why the left is about to go nuts again.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the forthcoming “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: .

Dear Readers

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is among the Democrats who have spoken out against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. (Photo: Ron Sachs/picture alliance / Consolidated/Newscom)

A Dem Outlook for November

Here’s a word I never thought anyone would use to describe Senator Dianne Feinstein: “moderate.” But that’s the political twilight zone Democrats find themselves in, now that 28-year-old socialists are heaving the party Left. In California, where the oldest member of the U.S. Senate couldn’t even win her party’s endorsement, people are starting to wonder: could this gamble cost Democrats the midterms?

For Feinstein, the party’s decision to back Kevin de León was even more remarkable this time around, since she trounced him by more than 30 percent in last month’s primaries. Even so, California Democrats announced over the weekend that they were sticking with their guy, insisting that the five-term Feinstein was too much of a “centrist.” That’s news to most of us, who’ve never mistaken anti-gun, pro-abortion, anti-family orthodoxy as anything remotely resembling conservatism. This is, as one California political scientist point out, “the strongest signal yet of just how far to the left California’s Democratic activists have moved, how emboldened they are…” But, as he and others caution, just because the state party is endorsing this over-the-top extremism doesn’t mean American voters are.

“It’s only a signal about the party’s most activist core,” said the University of California’s Thad Kousser, “not a sign that everyday voters are choosing a pure progressive over a pragmatist.” Already, the party’s candidates in other areas are panicking. They see this abandonment of Feinstein as a warning: move Left or move out. Some Democratic House candidates fired off a letter to the California state party, pointing out the devastating ripple effect of their over-the-top extremism. “A divisive party endorsement for U.S. Senate would hurt all down-ballot candidates and our ability to turn out Democrats we desperately need to vote in November,” they caution.

That’s because de León isn’t your garden-variety progressive. This is a candidate, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who would out-radicalize Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) with his campaign to impeach Trump, socialize health care, and open the borders. And while his agenda might attract big party donors, it’s bound to cause a huge split with heartland Democrats who are begging the DNC to get back to basics. When your own party argues you’re “lazy,” “out of touch with mainstream America,” and relying on “too much identity politics” where “winners and losers are picked by their labels” — you’re in trouble.

But that’s the sort of desperation President Trump’s success has created for Democrats. It’s sort of a “derangement syndrome,” John Fund writes, “pushing many [Democrats] into positions that may play well with their base but that will be problematic if they become associated with the party in general elections. Socialized medicine, abolishing ICE, identity politics, political correctness, and sky-high tax rates may quicken the pulse of those who see themselves leading the class struggle.”

Even the more liberal members of the Senate worry where decisions like California’s might lead. This “rift in the nation’s party’s direction,” Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) warns, carries with it some significant risks. The party, he urged, needs to stress “pragmatic ideas,” not “pie-in-the-sky” policies that “might sound great in a tweet, like free college and free health care” (a jab at Ocasio-Cortez’s unrealistic promises). Like a lot of people, he wonders if the Democrats are betting the midterms on a platform light years to the Left of most Americans.

The latest numbers from Brookings would certainly suggest they are. Despite the rise of progressive House candidates (280 this year compared to 97 in 2016), the Establishment is still winning when it counts. “Of course many of the progressive non-incumbents are first-time candidates,” the group explains, “inspired by Bernie Sanders and turned off by Donald Trump. If they stay in politics many of them may do better in future races. But for now their record is… not great.” The more important takeaway for Republicans is this: “Progressive Democrats may not be winning a civil war inside the party. But, if and when Democrats have a chance at power again, progressives will have moved them on some pretty big issues.”

If a woman who’s taken a blowtorch to the First and Second Amendments, declared Christians unfit for public office, and supported partial-birth abortion isn’t liberal enough for the Democratic Party, then it’s a brave new world indeed. Meanwhile, if conservatives want to hang on to their majority, the solution is obvious: be more intentional than ever about highlighting the Grand Canyon-sized gaps in the two parties’ values. In a country that rejected the leftward lurch of Obama, it’s the clearest path to victory.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

A Rocky Start to Philly Foster Case

Franklin Graham Faces a Brit of Intolerance

Let’s Be Honest: Mexico Is A Bad Neighbor

This is not a shot at Mexicans. They are humans in the exact same way as Americans, Nigerians, Italians, Indonesians and every other people group. In the Christian view, they are made in the image of God. In the American Founders’ view, they like all men are created with inalienable rights granted by God.

But this is a shot at the Mexican government and, to a degree, the Mexican culture. And despite virtually every media story out there fretting and warning about America being a bad neighbor because of Trump’s policies, the actual evidence that Mexico is the bad actor in the relationship is pretty compelling.

We are treated to liberals and Democrats lecturing Americans on being bad neighbors for Mexico, and apologizing to Mexico and the world for being bad neighbors. If you google ‘Mexico is a bad neighbor’ all you get are endless stories about the U.S. being a bad neighbor. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is hogwash.

If these critics really cared about Mexico’s well-being — and the well-being of Mexicans — they would be more critical of the corruption and culture that has left a fertile land with a great climate, access to two oceans and next door to the greatest economic power in history, in impoverished misery. They would be calling on Mexicans’ better angels, calling them to change and actually become more like the United States with individual liberties and market economics and accountable government.

Trashing America is nothing more than political expediency and opponent demonization that causes yet more division.

So let’s look at Mexico and the United States as neighbors. Who is the better neighbor and worse neighbor?

  • Would a good neighbor send their problems next door? Mexico has an undeniably de facto policy of illegally exporting their poorest citizens, and those of neighboring countries. The 11 to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States today almost universally came here poor, uneducated and untrained. The poorest in a country are always a burden, so Mexico encourages them to head north and does nothing — nothing — to stop them at the border. When we see the trains of migrants from Guatemala or Honduras or other Central American countries, that is being done with the active participation of Mexican authorities. They don’t want those poor people in their country — they have too many of their own — so they usher them on to America. How is that being a good neighbor? Canada doesn’t do any of this.
  • Would a good neighbor criticize you for locking your doors at night so they couldn’t break in? Well, Mexico does. President Trump ran on securing our border with Mexico (because the Northern Border does not require this level of security) and he won election as most Americans understand a sovereign nation needs borders and the ability to determine who comes in and out. Yet Mexican leaders were openly hostile, criticizing Trump, with Former Mexican President Vicente Fox said the U.S. was returning to the “era of the ugly American” and repeatedly called a “useless wall”? Why useless? Because Mexican authorities will continue to find ways to ship the poorest, uneducated residents to their neighbor? They don’t want a wall because they don’t want those residents in Mexico, they want them in the United States sending $28 billion in remittances back to Mexico from America. How is that being a good neighbor? Canada doesn’t do any of this.
  • Would a good neighbor take your generous donations to help them with such ingratitude? The U.S. gives Mexico $320 million in aid annually. Yet is there gratefulness for this generosity? Nothing apparent. They take the money and spend it.
  • Would a good neighbor who has received so many benefits by living next to a generous neighbor openly criticize that neighbor? Absurd, yet that is exactly what Mexican authorities do regularly. Whether it is beefing up our Southern Border security, to increasing citizen IDs or deporting those we find to be here illegally, Mexican authorities criticize the U.S. No gratefulness for unburdening them from their poorest citizens. Just criticism.

No. The case is very strong that the Mexican government is the bad actor in this relationship.

Here’s what America has been doing to be a good neighbor — oftentimes to our own detriment:

  • Accepting some of Mexico’s poorest, providing them with healthcare, schooling and opportunities that they had no chance of getting in their home country. We even teach the children of families that break into our country — in their own language. Now that’s being an awfully good neighbor.
  • Providing $320 million annually in direct financial aid to Mexico. The largest chunk goes to security issues and drug cartel fighting, but also to education and infrastructure. Obviously, a portion of it goes to the graft that is undeniably rampant in the Mexican government.
  • Allowing people who sneak into America to transfer back to Mexico a whopping $28 billion out of our economy and into Mexico’s. We don’t tax it or take a portion of it. We just allow it to exit our country and economy and help the nation on our Southern Border. Of course remittances flow everywhere, but from the United States to Mexico is by far the biggest.
  • Of course, Mexico does not really need to spend much money on a large military because they are an ally and because of their geographic location next to the United States. We essentially act as a deterrent for anyone who would be aggressive against Mexico.

If you look at the relationship, and who benefits the most by far and who gives the most by far, there can be no doubt that the United States is the far better neighbor than Mexico. So maybe American politicians and those supporting them should step back and try to appreciate their own country more, and not paint some romantic and unrealistic picture of Mexico.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Immigration Scandal No One Is Talking About

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured image is from Sopitas.com.

Soccer Moms Take On Islamic [Sharia] Law In New Book

Valerie L.  Greenfeld

“The best defense is grassroots education,” concludes Valerie L.  Greenfeld concerning domestic jihadist dangers in her new book Backyard Jihad: How Parents Can Detect the Invisible Threat of Radicalization. Her primer for Main Street communities contending with Muslims dreaming dangerous dreams of establishing Islamic states in the West raises important issues for the citizens of the free world in America and beyond who are seeking a first line of civil defense against sharia supremacism.

Greenfield’s book dismisses myths about jihadist terrorism involving disadvantaged individuals turning to violence out of despair. “Contrary to some media reports, those joining terrorist organizations in the U. S. rarely do so as a result of poverty or lack of education, dignity, or occupation,” she writes. “Why leave the U.S. after being fortunate enough to enter the freedom of America?” she perceptively notes of individuals in Islamic immigrant communities who leave America’s Promised Land for jihad in foreign hellholes.

Greenfeld draws upon a 2007 New York City Police Department (NYPD) study to show that recruits to jihad seek to fulfill various longings of the heart. “The prospective recruits are struggling with frustration, anger, loneliness, or disagreement,” she notes. “Finding a new identity or ideology fulfills the need to feel important and included.”

Jihadist recruiters’ techniques are “not unlike telemarketers,” notes Greenfeld. Her telephone interview with German Institute on Radicalization and De-radicalization Studies Director Daniel Koehler is particularly telling. The “enemy is a sophisticated, psychologically trained jihadi recruiter with huge networks and large coffers of money,” he has explained.

Greenfeld cites the book Son of Hamas by former Hamas terrorist Mosab Hassan Yousef to emphasize the particular Islamic doctrines that can lead to jihadist violence. “Most suicide bombers began as moderates,” Yousef has written, because “Islamic life is like a ladder, with prayer and praising Allah as the bottom rung,” while the “highest rung is jihad.” Accordingly, “American Muslims are more susceptible to radical messaging than non-Muslims,” Greenfield concludes from the NYPD study.

Greenfeld examines how jihadists translate theology into violent action on the basis of a 2009 recruitment manual. “Create vulnerability and isolate them. Talk about heaven and hell,” she explains is the manual’s recommended strategy for recruiters seeking to enlist prospective martyrs. Radicalization “normally happens to those who fear the torment of the afterlife and who come to know that jihad is the salvation from eternal damnation. The result is that jihad is desired and craved,” the manual argues.

Greenfeld analyzes the jihad doctrine’s potential for creating theological ticking time bombs that are often impervious to subsequent defusing through ideological reeducation. “It is uncertain if or when a non-jihadist Muslim will suddenly decide to act on their jihadi fantasies,” she writes. Meanwhile, as numerous de-radicalization failures indicate, Representative Peter King in a conversation with her “didn’t confirm that a feasible, effective program exists that can de-radicalize or rehabilitate terrorists.”

Along with individual acts of jihadist terrorism, Greenfeld warns of a “stealth jihad, an invisible threat of radicalization” presented by those Muslims who have little desire to assimilate into Western societies. “Immigration and procreation are the two most potent waves of invisible recruiting and cultural jihad,” given that orthodox “Islam is not only a religion, it is a way of life, social, political, intellectual, physical.” Therefore, often Islamic proselytization or “da’wa is an invitation to deceive,” such as with claims that Islam in Arabic means peace, when actually the “word Islam means submission.”

Greenfeld examines issues presented by various American Muslim communities, such as the Detroit suburb of “Hamtramck, Michigan, America’s first and only majority Muslim city.” “Five times each day the minaret sounds beginning at 6:00 a.m.” from a local mosque, one fact among others that means that “[s]ome residents are not sure if they are living in Michigan or somewhere in the Arabian desert.” “There is a certain resentment by the original residents, as their lifestyle is pushed aside for the import of a large number of immigrants who don’t intend to blend into the culture that was there before,” she writes.

A Greenfeld reunion in her hometown of Minneapolis, Minnesota, prompts interesting immigration policy observations about the influx of Somalis that has formed North America’s largest Somali community. “From the desert heat of Somalia to the cold tundra of 10,000 lakes, why would Somalis choose to live in Minnesota?” she wonders about this Muslim community that has become a source of jihadists in the land of Lake Wobegon. That “Minnesota spends more money per low-income individual on public welfare than any other state” is one significant factor.

Greenfeld notes that “media reporting is not always accurate and usually has a political goal,” something that only abets subversive jihadist influences such as the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque in northern Virginia’s “Wahhabi Corridor.” This mosque has numerous terrorism ties, “yet the evidence is not enough to convince politicians representing Virginia’s citizens to close the place down,” she states. In fairness to these lawmakers, it is precisely America’s freedoms that limit the legal possibilities to “close down” groups no matter how extreme, whether promoting jihad or white supremacy. By contrast, she reviews the record of former University of South Florida Professor Sami Al-Arian, ultimately convicted of material support for terrorism. “How do you feel about paying tuition for this guy to teach?” she asks.

Facing such enemies among us, Greenfeld’s homeland security strategy rightly prioritizes civil society taking on the challenge of jihadist ideology. “The extreme ideology must be addressed. While after-school teen programs are nice — they will not solve the problem,” she writes. This includes ever-elusive Islamic reform; thus “tolerance and respect for non-sharia Muslims is imperative — they lead the way to reformation” that “must come from the inside the moderate Muslim community.”

Greenfeld’s book provides a salutary reminder that, as with past totalitarian challenges, victory begins with a battle of ideas that instructs Americans why we fight. This ideological struggle requires a grassroots, Tea Party-like movement that understands lessons such as the fact that “[m]orals and values are best taught with family at the dinner table.” The “power in the United States is not in Washington, D.C., but in homes and neighborhoods around the country. We must return to American values, history and heritage and empower our children to protect our nation.”

The Western World’s Most Depressing Chart

Daniel J. Mitchell Western nations are abandoning the policies that made them prosperous.

by Daniel J. Mitchell

Last week, I shared a graph showing there are more guns than people in the United States, and I wrote that it was the “most enjoyable” chart of the year, mostly because it gets my leftist friends so agitated.

But I’m more likely to share gloomy visuals, including:

  • The “most depressing” chart about Denmark, which shows a majority of the population lives off the government.
  • A “very depressing” chart about the United States, which shows how big business profits from cronyism.
  • The “most depressing” chart about Japan, which shows the tax burden has nearly doubled since 1965.

Now it’s time to add to that list. There’s a website called Our World in Data, which is a great resource if you’re a policy wonk who likes numbers. But some numbers are quite depressing.

For instance, if you peruse the “Public Spending” page, you’ll find a chart showing the dramatic expansion of redistribution spending as a share of economic output.

These numbers are very similar to the table I shared from Vito Tanzi back in 2013, which isn’t surprising since Professor Peter Lindert is the underlying source for both sets of data.

While the above chart is depressing to a libertarian, it’s nonetheless instructive because it confirms my argument that the Western world became rich when governments were very small and redistribution was tiny or even nonexistent.

For instance, nations in North America and Western Europe largely made the transition from agricultural poverty to middle-class prosperity during the “golden century” between the Napoleonic wars and World War I. That was a period when redistribution spending basically didn’t exist, and most nations didn’t even have income taxes (the U.S. didn’t make that mistake until 1913).

Even as recently as 1960, welfare states were very small compared to their current size. Indeed, redistribution spending in Western nations averaged only about 10 percent of economic output, about half the size of today’s supposedly miserly American welfare state.

These points are important because some folks on the left misinterpret Wagner’s Law and actually try to argue that bigger government is good for growth.

P.S. South Korea has been a great success story for the past five decades, but that redistribution trendline is very worrisome.

P.P.S. The trendline for Greece helps to explain why that nation is bankrupt.

P.P.P.S. The chart shows that Canada is better than the United States, though that may not last since Canada’s current prime minister is seeking to undermine his nation’s competitive advantage.

P.P.P.P.S. While fiscal trends in the Western world have been unfavorable, that bad news has been offset by positive trends for trade liberalization. Whether we will see a big step backward because of President Trump remains to be seen.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

VIDEO: Hannity Interviews Clueless Anti-American Protesters in Londonstan

Sean Hannity decided to go undercover to interview some of the protesters in London. These protesters were asked some simple questions and their answers are revealing.

Here’s Hannity in Londonstan:

RELATED ARTICLE: Former KGB Agent Explains The Brainwashing Of America

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Instagram.

VIDEO: Pinning The Tail on the Democrat Donkey and Their Push to Disband ICE

On July 12, 2018, I was interviewed by former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Joe Walsh on his program on Newsmax-TV.  I have provided a link to the video of my interview below.

A primary focus of our conversation was the proposed legislation by members of the Democratic Party that would disband ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).  The Republicans, sensing political “blood in the water” are proposing that this bill be brought up for a vote.  As I said on the show, perhaps the Republicans are looking to “Pin the tail on the Democratic Donkey!”

Our discussion ended with another proposed bill, this one by a Republican member of Congress, that would make illegal entry into the United States a felony.  I provided a unique perspective on this proposal that I think will, perhaps, raise some eyebrows.

The Priest’s Role in Marriage Preparation

Fr. Gerald E. Murray: Engaged couples have an instinctive trust that the priest, as a man of God, will tell them what God expects of them in marriage.

Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family, and Life, made some provocative remarks about priests and marriage preparation in an interview that appeared recently in the Irish Catholic magazine Intercom. He said: “They have no credibility; they have never lived the experience; they may know moral theology, dogmatic theology in theory, but to go from there to putting it into practice every day . . . they don’t have the experience.”

He also spoke about the priests of the Diocese of Dallas where he served as bishop for nine years: “We have a million and a half Catholics and 75 priests, with a 45 to 50 percent rate of (Mass) attendance. Those 75 priests are not going to be interested in organizing marriage meetings.”

Do priests really lack credibility and interest in preparing couples for the sacrament of marriage? That has not been my experience. Most priests, and more specifically, most parish priests take a lively interest in marriage preparation.

Couples almost always appreciate their efforts as they prepare for marriage. Fr. Roger Landry has described the reality on the ground in most parishes in a recent column. Most priests are credible witnesses to the Church’s teaching on marriage, and they speak with insight – and often wisdom – from their extensive experience dealing with engaged couples, families, and children.

What’s most troubling here are the premises underlying Cardinal Farrell’s remarks. He implies that the primary purpose of marriage instruction is to communicate experiential advice on how husbands and wives can live so as to produce marital happiness and familial harmony. To attain this goal, what couples need is to hear is practical advice from married people who, from their own experiences, will share “best practices” with engaged couples. He also claims that overworked priests would rather not take time from their busy schedules to meet with and instruct couples seeking to be married in the Church.

Marriage preparation programs should include advice on marital life from couples who are serious Catholics and have years of valuable experience in living out the demands of Christian marriage. And many priests are overworked. Yet should we promote the notion that priests should avoid working with engaged couples and are not really suited to this task?

The Betrothal of Raphael and the Niece of Cardinal Bibbienaby Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, c. 1814 [Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, MD]

Is it really better for them, instead, to dedicate time to other, relatively less important tasks such as building management and office work, which are in fact unavoidable and time-consuming tasks for most parish priests? Isn’t sacramental preparation a vital part of the spiritual paternity of the men ordained to celebrate the sacraments?

I had plenty of instruction in the seminary about Christian marriage, and none about building maintenance and parish office management. The seminary’s priorities were correct.

The number of Catholics seeking to be married in the Church has declined significantly. One reason is the ignorance of many Catholics about the sacramental nature of marriage and their obligations as Catholics. When a couple comes to the rectory seeking to be married in the Church we should view this as an opportunity to give doctrinal and spiritual formation to these obviously good willed, believing people. Who knows? They may tell their friends what a good experience it was to learn from a priest about the state in which they plan to spend the rest of their lives.

Poorly catechized Catholics need to understand Church teaching about the nature and purpose of marriage. Priests spend years in the seminary acquiring a deep understanding of that teaching, and how to explain its truth and value to the people of our times. They are meant to share that doctrinal formation with the laity.

The priest is important in communicating to the couple the seriousness of what they are undertaking. Our laws and social customs largely reject Christ’s doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage. Catholics need to know that fidelity to Christ Himself is central to this matter and that Christ gives the grace to live with fidelity, against all temptations to treat the marriage vows as something that can be lightly abandoned or retracted.

Engaged couples have an instinctive trust that the priest, as a man of God, will tell them what God expects of them and how He will help them. This is not a theoretical matter for abstract consideration. Christ’s teaching on marriage is the foundation for happy and holy marriages.

The spiritual paternity of the priest means that he takes a lively interest in all aspects of the religious formation and growth of the people entrusted to his care. His fatherhood finds particular relevance when he is speaking with those who seek to be mothers and fathers of the next generation of believers.

The priest brings Christ into the picture in a very important way when he sits down and speaks at length with a couple who have come to him for guidance about getting married. His intentional absence from this important time of preparation, because of the misguided claim that he is unqualified and thus unwelcome, would be a disaster for that parish.

When the parish has a fundraising campaign, the advice given by professional fundraisers is that the personal involvement of the priest is vital to the success of the campaign. The more people he speaks with, the more money comes in. This is so even when the priest says at first: “I don’t know anything about fundraising.” He can learn quickly, and the results will show just how valuable he is to the effort.

The same applies even more to marriage preparation.  Success in this case cannot be measured in dollars raised, but rather in the number of well-formed couples who enter marriage with a true knowledge of the greatness of this sacrament, and the assurance that God will assist them at all times to live in loving fidelity to their vows and to their duties as husband and wife.

Fr. Gerald E. Murray

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: © 2018 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. The featured image is by Unsplash/Josh Applegate.

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.