Hollywood ‘collaborated’ with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and its happening again!

/in , , , , /by

In June 2013 a book titled “The Collaboration: Hollywood’s Pact with Hitler” was published by Harvard University Press. The book was written by Ben Urwand, a Junior Fellow in the Harvard Society of Fellows.  Urwand in his book asserts that Hollywood actively “collaborated” with Nazi Germany, hence the title “The Collaboration.” There are some who disagreed with Urwand’s assertion such as The New Yorker’s David Denby, who reviewed Urwand’s book and wrote an article titled “How Could Harvard Have Published Ben Urwand’s ‘The Collaboration’?”

What both Urwand and Denby agree upon is that Hollywood, driven by profits, censored movies to appease a tyrannical government.

Denby in his article quotes Steven Alan Carr, author of “Hollywood and Anti-Semitism: A Cultural History Up to World War II.” Carr in an email to Denby stated,

“The idea that Hollywood collaborated with the Nazis mistakes a tactic for a strategy. The fact that those in Hollywood, rightly or wrongly, saw negotiations with the Nazis as a key way to leverage keeping American films in theatres abroad seems especially important.”

Whether tactic or strategy it is clear that the largest Hollywood studios wrongly worked with Adolf Hitler’s representatives to present Germany, the Nazi Party and the Aryan race in a favorable light, regardless of the truth.

KEY TAKE AWAY: In the 1930s Hollywood was driven by profit and did whatever it takes to sell its movies, even self-censor. What drives Hollywood is pure greed!

Adolf Hitler understood the political power of the silver screen. Hitler loved Hollywood movies. Hitler understood that foreign films would have a social impact on Germans. The Nazis were racists but wanted that fact hidden. Wikipedia notes:

Hitler made references to an “Aryan Race” founding a superior type of humanity. The purest stock of Aryans according to Nazi ideology was the Nordic people of Germany, England, Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden and Norway.

The Nazis claimed that Germanic people specifically represented a southern branch of the Aryan-Nordic population. The Nazis did not consider all Germans to be of the Nordic type (which predominated the north), and stated that Germany also had a large “Alpine” population (identified by, among other features, shorter height and higher incidences of darker hair and eyes).

Hitler and Nazi racial theorist Hans F. K. Günther framed this as an issue to be corrected through selective breeding for “Nordic” traits.

DW.com writes this about Urwand’s book:

The US-based Australian scholar [Urwand] writes that American film bosses and functionaries started working closely with the Germans in the early 1930s, in order to ensure that their productions would run in Germany.

According to the historian, the Americans got themselves involved in an ominous deal, agreeing to editing stipulations for Hollywood productions and making sure that films didn’t contain criticism of the Nazi regime. They allegedly rejected projects that would have brought up the persecution of Jews in Germany, writes Urwand.

It was the behavior of MGM head Louis B. Mayer that gave Urwand the idea for his book. Mayer apparently showed the German consul in Los Angeles at the time all of MGM’s films – to get his approval before they ran. If the consul didn’t agree with a particular scene – say, because it put Germany in a negative light – then it was removed from the film. Mayer’s story inspired Urwand to embark on nine years of research.

Like other American companies such as IBM or General Motors, the Hollywood studios put profit over principles in their decision to do business with the Nazis, wrote Urwand, adding that the studio bosses, many of whom were Jewish immigrants, put up with a lot to maintain ties with Germany. [Emphasis added]

Today Hollywood is back to its old tricks of self-censoring but this time politics trumps profits.

According to The Verge domestic movie theater attendance has hit a 25-year low in 2017. The Verge reported:

Movie theater attendance in the US and Canada in 2017 fell to its lowest point since at least 1992, Bloomberg reports. Box Office Mojo estimates around 1.24 billion tickets were sold, a drop off of 5.8 percent from the previous year. Even with higher ticket prices, domestic revenue also dropped 2.7 percent from last year, from $11.4 billion to $11.1 billion.

 Question: Why? Answer: Politics!

Hollywood has become overtly political. A recent example is Clint Eastwood’s new movie, “The 15:17 to Paris.” A Truth Politics article titled “As Hollywood Tries To Stop New Patriotic Movie, Clint Eastwood Gives Them Brutal Surprise” reports:

His current film, “The 15:17 to Paris,” is in the final edits, but the Hollywood crowd hates it, and they tried to stop certain people from seeing it. The reason is the pro-American message it sends, described in this synopsis on Google: “In the early evening of August 21, 2015, the world watched in stunned silence as the media reported a thwarted terrorist attack on Thalys train #9364 bound for Paris—an attempt prevented by three courageous young Americans traveling through Europe.”

The summary adds, “Throughout the harrowing ordeal, their friendship never wavers, making it their greatest weapon and allowing them to save the lives of the more than 500 passengers on board. The heroic trio is comprised of Anthony Sadler, Oregon National Guardsman Alek Skarlatos, and U.S. Air Force Airman First Class Spencer Stone, who play themselves in the film.”

Hollywood tried to limit the audience by giving the film an “R” rating. But Clint Eastwood fought back. Truth Politics noted:

The movie stirs real patriotic emotion and honors the three American heroes who have military backgrounds. It shows an Islamic terrorist, who gains entry into France as a migrant, attempting to slaughter 500 people, with three Americans stopping him. This just isn’t the type of movie the Hollywood crowd makes, and they tried to screw Eastwood by giving it an “R” rating.

The reason they gave for the “R” rating was it showed “violence,” and this pissed off Clint Eastwood, who is making this film so teens could also see a movie with real American values. It was a cheap shot by the liberal Hollywood idiots, and Eastwood decided that wasn’t going to happen. The legendary star shocked the Hollywood crowd by taking on the rating board himself, something that never happens. And, not only did he take them on, he blew them away.

“Clint Eastwood has won an appeal to overturn the R rating originally assigned to his upcoming film, The 15:17 to Paris. Instead, it will be rated PG-13. According to a source, the R rating was given for the train attack scene at the center of the film, which the Classification and Rating Administration described as ‘a sequence of violence and bloody images,’” reported Hollywood Reporter.

Like Hitler, who knew that a movie is a powerful form of propaganda, Hollywood is now using movies to propagandize.

KEY TAKEAWAY: Hollywood and Congressional Democrats are on the same page when it comes to changing minds via the silver screen. Both have learned their lesson well from Nazi Germany.

The Democrats decided to shutdown the federal government on January 19th, 2018 in the name of illegal aliens. Hollywood is losing at the box office. Democrats may lose big at the ballot box in 2018.

Time will tell.

Ambassador at Large Looms Large for Religious Freedom

/in , , /by

As Vice President Mike Pence touches down in the Middle East, the U.S. Senate just gave him something else to talk about — the possibility of a new Ambassador at Large for Religious Freedom.

Yesterday, Republicans jumped a key hurdle in appointing Governor Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) to the post, which will come as a relief to people like Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, King Abdullah of Jordan, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Together, they’ve fought to make freedom a greater priority for their countries, which have been under relentless attack from extremists.

Now that the Foreign Relations Committee has given Brownback the green light, it’s time for the full Senate to act on Governor Brownback’s confirmation. After eight years of leading from behind, this move is yet another example of the Trump administration trying to give the world’s persecuted new hope — first, that they aren’t alone, and secondly, that help is on the way. The sooner Gov. Brownback is confirmed as ambassador, the sooner the U.S. will be able to expand its efforts to help the persecuted.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

March Shows Trump in Step with Pro-lifers

‘Pro-Choice’ Doesn’t Mean Anti-Regulation!

Watch the Pro-life Pros at ProLifeCon…

Don’t Let Liberals End Opinion Diversity Under Cover of ‘Fake News’ Campaign

/in , , , /by

The issue of fake news is very much in the news, as it were, and President Donald Trump is being compared to Stalin for his dismissal of journalists who are purveyors of it as “enemies of the American people.”

It may be good to jog our memory back to how the term “fake news” arrived among us.

Only then do we remember that it first was intended to be used as a weapon in a sustained campaign by liberals to regain their former monopoly over news delivery, and end one of the most important and hard-won victories by conservatives—the information diversity that arrived with the internet.

Disinformation, of course, has been among us since man first began to use language, sought to conceal something, and lied about it. So a very long time.

But the present use of the term fake news is of much more recent vintage, as we can see in this chart:

Internet searches for “fake news” really kicked up in early November 2016. It is to then that we can trace this Nov. 6, 2016, article by The New York Times’ media critic, Jim Rutenberg, credited with the first use of the term.

“The internet-borne forces that are eating away at print advertising are enabling a host of faux-journalistic players to pollute the democracy with dangerously fake news items,” Rutenberg wrote.

The purpose of Rutenberg’s jeremiad was to draw attention to the secular demise of mainstream newspaper outlets and decry the success of conservative outlets.

Rutenberg’s evidence was comprised of outrageous examples of conspiracy mongering by alt-right sites—content, he complained, that can “live alongside that of The Times or The Boston Globe or The Washington Post on the Facebook newsfeed and be just as well read, if not more so.”

But it is clear from his piece that his real target was opinion diversity.

“If you have a society where people can’t agree on basic facts, how do you have a functioning democracy?” Rutenberg quoted The Washington Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, as asking.

We heard a very similar version in former President Barack Obama’s complaint to David Letterman this month:

One of the biggest challenges we have to our democracy is the degree to which we don’t share a common baseline of facts. If you watch Fox News, you are living on a different planet than you are if you are listening to NPR.

We know which planet our 44th president inhabits, and which he thinks is in a galaxy far, far away.

We also know whose “basic facts” Rutenberg trusted: In his seminal 2016 column, he mentions the hard-left and equally conspiracy-driven MSNBC as a normal, mainstream network.

The loss of the previous progressive monopoly on the dissemination of news and analysis has poisoned the liberal soul since the internet came on the scene.

The left’s “fake news” campaign began, then, as an attempt to smear all legitimate conservative news purveyors, from Fox News Channel to The Weekly Standard to the Washington Examiner and, of course, The Daily Signal, that provide an alternative news selection and interpretation.

This effort to delegitimize conservative outlets went horribly wrong, of course, when Trump appropriated the term and weaponized it. I must admit that when the president started doing it, I thought it wouldn’t fly. The current brouhaha proves that I was wrong.

As a former journalist, I don’t particularly like calling newsmen “the enemies of the American people.” It is indeed a term once used by Stalin. (Though it hardly makes Trump a Stalinist, a distinction that should be reserved for those who actually massacre millions and oppress those who survive.)

My friends in the media are not enemies of the American people. But they are mostly liberal.

Ask the more existential question, “Do liberals like America?” and that’s harder to answer. Many liberals don’t hide their contempt for the U.S. (there are many, many examples; find them yourself) and many others still proffer to like an America I don’t recognize.

Which is why we should all be present in the marketplace of ideas. After gaining this beachhead, conservatives must protect it against what will be sustained attempts to dislodge them.

In 2014, I had a celebrated exchange with Darrell West and Beth Stone at Brookings Institution over their frightening call in a paper for digital platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter to change their algorithms in a manner that would prioritize information from liberal sources.

But West and Stone won, and social networks are now “fact-checking” their content. As my colleague Katrina Trinko points out here, this is censoring the news.

Ending opinion diversity this way is the real threat to freedom of the press and the First Amendment, and what should keep those who worry about it awake at night.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Mike Gonzalez

Mike Gonzalez

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is a widely experienced international correspondent, commentator, and editor who has reported from Asia, Europe, and Latin America. He served in the George W. Bush administration, first at the Securities and Exchange Commission and then at the State Department, and is the author of “A Race for the Fut ure: How Conservatives Can Break the Liberal Monopoly on Hispanic Americans.” Read his research. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

The Ugly Reason For Durbin’s Claim of Trump’s “Sh**hole” Comment

/in , , , , , /by

Lost in the ongoing poopy-storm surrounding what President Trump may or may not have said regarding the relative sanitary conditions of certain third-world countries, is this perhaps larger question:

Why did Sen. Dick Durbin do it? Why did the Illinois Democrat, with only a passing relationship with the truth, run to the media to claim Trump called some awful third-world countries poopy-holes?

Whether Trump said it or not, and whether this is more evidence that he is racist, has been debated and analyzed ad nauseum for what feels like an eternity in this era of a new news cycle every few hours. For a possibly fictional story about the President using a bad word in a meeting, it sure is hanging on. And for good reason — the same reason Durbin sprinted to the cameras with his tale.

Democrats don’t want an immigration deal. They do not want any immigration solution short of 100 percent of what they are asking for across the board.  What do they want?

The issue. Specifically, a galvanizing issue to inflame the Latino vote. In the same way they continually stoke racial tensions (and in this case, it’s a two-fer) to gin up black voter turnout and support, they need Hispanics angry and frightened to obtain their voter turnout and support. They believe that making Republicans look intransigent against “brown” people, and forcing “dreamers” out of the country will accomplish that. Based on how the media is guaranteed to dishonestly cover such an issue, they are probably right in their calculations.

Consider: If we seriously began solving race relations and immigration issues, how could Democrats drum up 70 percent of the Latino vote and 90 percent of the black vote? If those minorities did not feel the need for Democrats to alternately protect them from Republicans and give them other Americans’ stuff, why would they need the Democrats? Electorally speaking, without those margins, Democrats could not expect any chance of winning.

If this analysis is true — and it is for Democratic leadership based on all past and current actions, including Obama’s endless race-baiting when he had a chance to lead the nation in real reconciliation — that says something truly cold and ugly about Democratic leadership. (Democratic leadership as opposed to many rank-and-file Democratic voters we may know personally who follow the sound bites and spin and actually may want the best for minorities and not just electoral leverage. They just believe the spin on Republicans because they trust the media. Not their first mistake.)

What this says is that it appears Democratic leadership would rather Americans suffer, even Americans that make up their loyal voting base, than risk losing electoral advantage. It’s not like there are not Republicans who act this way, too. Of course there are. But this is just on marching display in front of us for Democrats.

Dick Durbin either saw or made up the chance to tank the negotiations. It’s hard to see any other motive. Making Trump personally look bad could have waited until the following day, or that afternoon, as that is pretty much all the media does now.

This was a different motive than simple anti-Trumpism. Far more cold-hearted and cynical. Sorry, loyal minority Democratic voters. Your party seems to be just using and abusing you.

EDITORS NOTE: In answering the charges made against the Obama administration’s targeting and seizing of private phone records of AP reporters and employees, and intimidation of Fox News reporter James Rosen by Obama’s Justice Department, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) defended Obama’s actions by in-essence stating the Constitution is out of date in regards to journalism.  He suggested to Chris Wallace of Fox News’ that he believes certain people should not have First Amendment Rights, and then went on to say that the Constitution is out of date in 2013.  He asks if the Constitution applies to Bloggers and Twitter Users;  “Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision that was written over 200 years ago.””

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Check out The Revolutionary Act’s Youtube Channel.

VIDEO: Donald J. Trump is the first President to address the March for Life

/in , , , , , /by

President Donald J. Trump once again made history today, January 19th, 2018. President Trump is the first sitting President to address the national March for Life.

It is prophetic that Trump is the 45th President of the United States and he addressed the 45th March for Life in Washington, D.C. God must be smiling.

FULL TEXT OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SPEECH TO THE 45TH ANNUAL MARCH FOR LIFE

[To cheering crowd] Thank you very much, that’s so nice. Sit, please.

We have tens of thousands of people watching this right down the road, tens of thousands. So, I congratulate you, and at least we picked a beautiful day, you can’t get a more beautiful day. I want to thank our Vice President Mike Pence for that wonderful introduction. I also want to thank you and Karen for being true champions for life. Thank you, and thank Karen.

Today I’m honored and really proud to be the first president to stand with you here at the White House to address the 45th March for Life, that’s very very special, 45th March for Life, and this is a truly remarkable group. Today tens of thousands of families, students, and patriots, and really just great citizens gather here in our nations Capitol. You come from many backgrounds, and many places, but you all come for one beautiful cause, to build a society where life is celebrated and protected and cherished.

The March for Life is a movement born out of love: you love your families; you love your neighbors; you love our nation; and you love every child born and unborn, because you believe that every life is sacred, that every child is a precious gift from God.

We know that life is the greatest miracle of all. We see it in the eyes of every new mother who cradles that wonderful, innocent, and glorious-newborn child in her loving arms. I want to thank every person here today and all across our country who works with such big hearts and tireless devotion to make sure that parents have the caring support they need to choose life.

Because of you, tens of thousands of Americans have been born and reached their full God-given potential, because of you. You’re living witnesses of this year’s March for life theme, and that theme is, ‘Love Saves Lives.’

As you all know Roe versus Wade has resulted in some of the most permissive abortion laws anywhere in the world. For example, in the United States, it’s one of only seven countries to allow elective late-term abortions along with China North Korea and others. Right now, in a number of States, the laws allow a baby to be born [sic, aborted] from his or her mother’s womb in the ninth month.

It is wrong. It has to change.

Americans are more and more pro-life. You see that all the time. In fact, only 12% of Americans support abortion on demand at any time.

Under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence, and that is the ‘right to life.’

Tomorrow will mark exactly one year since I took the oath of office. And I will say our country is doing really well. Our economy is perhaps the best it’s ever been. You look at the job numbers, the companies pouring back into our country,  look at the stock market at an all-time high, unemployment at a 17-year low, unemployment for African workers at the lowest mark in the history of our country, unemployment for Hispanic at a record-low in history, unemployment for women, think of this, at an 18-year low.

We’re really proud of what we’re doing.

And during my first week in office, I reinstated a policy first put in place by Pres. Ronald Reagan, the Mexico City Policy.

I strongly supported the House of Representatives’ pain-capable bill, which would end painful late-term abortions nationwide. And I call upon the Senate to pass this important law and send it to my desk for signing.

On the National Day of Prayer, I signed an executive order to protect religious liberty. [I’m] very proud of that. Today, I’m announcing that we’ve just issued a new proposal to protect conscience rights and religious freedoms of doctors, nurses, and other medical professions. So important.

I have also just reversed the previous administration’s policy that restricted state efforts to direct Medicaid funding away from abortion facilities that violate the law.

We are protecting the sanctity of life and the family as the foundation of our society. But this movement can only succeed with the heart and the soul and the prayer of the people.

Here with us today is Marianne Donadio from Greensboro North Carolina. Where is Marianne? Hello, come on up here Marianne. Come. Nice to see you, by the way.

Marianne was 17 when she found out that she was pregnant. At first, she felt like she had no place to turn. But when she told her parents they responded with total love, total affection, total support. Great parents? Great? [Trump asked Marianne. She responded in the affirmative] I thought you were going to say that. I had to be careful.

Marianne bravely chose life and soon gave birth to her son. She named him Benedict which means blessing. Marianne was so grateful for her parents love and support that she felt called to serve those who were not as fortunate as her. She joined with others in her community to start a maternity home to care for homeless women who were pregnant. That’s great. They named it ‘Room at the Inn.’ Today, Marianne and her husband Don are the parents of six beautiful children. And her eldest son Benedict and her daughter Maria join us here today. Where are they? Come on over. That’s great.

Over the last 15 years, Room at the Inn has provided housing, childcare, counseling, education, and job-training to more than 400 women. Even more importantly, it has given them hope. It has shown each woman she is not forgotten, that she is not alone, and that she really now has a whole family of people who will help her succeed.

That hope is the true gift of this incredible movement that brings us together today.

It is the gift of friendship, the gift of mentorship, and the gift of encouragement, love, and support. Those are beautiful words and those are beautiful gifts.

And most importantly of all, it is the gift of life itself – that is why we March, that is why we pray, and that is why we declare that America’s future will be filled with goodness, peace, joy, dignity, and life for every child of God.

Thank you to the March for life, special, special people. And we are with you all the way. May God bless you and may God bless America. Thank you. Thank you.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Roe v. Wade Is My Generation’s Dred Scott

Why Pro-Lifers Have Cause for Hope

29 of the Best Signs at the March for Life

Facebook blocks crowdfunding site for new movie on how abortion became legal in U.S.

In March for Life Address, Trump Prods Senate to Pass Late-Term Abortion Ban

A movement born out of love

Ignore the Scam: Planned Parenthood No Supporter of African-Americans

Paul Ryan Explains Why He Thinks the Pro-Life Movement Is ‘on the Rise’

At March for Life, Pam Tebow Recounts How Super Bowl Ad Saved Baby’s Life

EXPOSED: 4,333 Catholic Priests in the U.S. Accused of Sexually Abusing Children and/or Possessing Child Pornography

/in , , , , /by

According to the National Federation of Priests’ Councils (NFPC) as of 2016 there was, “a total of 37,192 priests in the United States (25,760 diocesan priests and 11,432 religious priests).” The NFPC reported that 590 priests were ordained in 2017.

According to the United States Conference of Bishops, Priestly Life and Ministry website:

The Secretariat of Clergy, Consecrated Life and Vocations (CCLV) serves the bishops’ committee on CCLV which provides leadership regarding priestly life and ministry and to respond to the needs and concerns of priests.

[ … ]

The Secretariat also assists the Bishops’ Committee on Child and Youth Protection which develops projects and resources to assist bishops in dealing with the problem of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and religious. [Emphasis added]

The featured image (above) is of Fr. James Martin, S.J. introducing the rock band Metallica with the devil horns sign (Screenshot: The Colbert Report, 09/24/13). According to TFP Student Action, media reports found that Fr. Martin:

  • Supports transgenderism for children
  • Said that Catholics should “reverence” homosexual unions
  • Favors homosexual kissing during Mass (sacrilege against God)
  • Tweeted a blasphemous photo of Our Lady of Guadalupe to 169,000 followers (Dec. 12, 2017)
  • Received an award from New Ways Ministry, a group condemned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Lucia I. Suarez Sang in a January 18th, 2018 Fox News article titled “Pope Francis defends bishop accused of sexual abuse cover up: ‘Bring me proof’” reported:

Pope Francis appeared to strongly defend a Chilean bishop accused of covering up a priest’s sexual abuse of young boys just days after meeting and weeping with survivors.

“The day they bring me proof against Bishop [Juan] Barros, then I will speak,” Francis said when a journalist asked about the 61-year-old bishop, appointed by him in 2015, despite the cover up accusations. “There is not a single piece of proof against him. This calumny [or slander]. Is this clear?”

Many Chileans are still furious at Francis’ decision to appoint Bishop Juan Barros as the bishop of the southern city of Osorno. Barros was a protégé of the country’s most notorious pedophile priest, the Rev. Fernando Karadima.

Read more.

There is one organization that tracks allegations of sexual abuses by Catholic Priests in the United States. The organization is Bishop Accountability.

Bishop Accountability has a searchable database of all U.S. Catholic clergy accused of sexually abusing children and/or possessing child abuse images, commonly referred to as child pornography. According to the Bishop Accountability website:

This database provides convenient access, for law enforcement and other interested persons, to the names of all U.S. Catholic clergy accused of sexually abusing children and/or possessing child abuse images, commonly referred to as child pornography. Links are provided to the publicly filed court documents and mainstream media articles that are the sources for this database, and a factual summary of the allegations is provided for each accused person. This database continues and extends the work done by the Diocese of Tucson, which published the first diocesan list on June 21, 2002, and the approximately two dozen dioceses that have since published lists of their own. Their efforts were based on internal diocesan lists (see a sample from Boston) maintained during the 1990s. Our list also has other precursors, as described in our overview.

The Database of Publicly Accused Priests does not state or imply that individuals facing allegations are guilty of a crime or liable for civil claims. The reports contained in the database are merely allegations. The U.S. legal system presumes that a person accused of or charged with a crime is innocent until proven guilty. Similarly, individuals who may be defendants in civil actions are presumed not to be liable for such claims unless a plaintiff proves otherwise. Admissions of guilt or liability are not typically a part of civil or private settlements. For more information, see our posting policy.

To search the Bishop Accountability Database by priest’s name, Diocese or state please click here.

A quick search of the five largest states by population found the following numbers of Catholic priests accused of of sexually abusing children and/or possessing child pornography:

  1. California – 512
  2. Texas – 131
  3. Florida – 103
  4. New York – 326
  5. Illinois – 251

Perhaps it is time for Pope Francis and the United States Conference of Bishops to get serious about purging its ranks of pedophiles and pederasts?

RELATED RESOURCES:

Survivors’ Accounts

Assignment Records of Accused Priests

Timeline of Major Events, Documents, Reports, and Commentary

Thousands of Articles on the Crisis

Grand Jury Reports and Other Analyses

HHS Announces New Conscience and Religious Freedom Division

/in , , /by

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is pleased to announce the formation of a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).  The announcement took place at an event at HHS headquarters from 10:30 a.m. to noon on January 18, 2018, see below video.

Speakers included Acting Secretary Eric D. Hargan, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Representative Vicky Hartzler, Senator James Lankford, OCR Director Roger Severino, and special guests.

The Conscience and Religious Freedom Division has been established to restore federal enforcement of our nation’s laws that protect the fundamental and unalienable rights of conscience and religious freedom.  OCR is the law enforcement agency within HHS that enforces federal laws protecting civil rights and conscience in health and human services, and the security and privacy of people’s health information.  The creation of the new division will provide HHS with the focus it needs to more vigorously and effectively enforce existing laws protecting the rights of conscience and religious freedom, the first freedom protected in the Bill of Rights.

OCR already has enforcement authority over federal conscience protection statutes, such as the Church, Coats-Snowe, and Weldon Amendments; Section 1553 of the Affordable Care Act (on assisted suicide); and certain federal nondiscrimination laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of religion in a variety of HHS programs.

OCR Director Severino said,

“Laws protecting religious freedom and conscience rights are just empty words on paper if they aren’t enforced. No one should be forced to choose between helping sick people and living by one’s deepest moral or religious convictions, and the new division will help guarantee that victims of unlawful discrimination find justice. For too long, governments big and small have treated conscience claims with hostility instead of protection, but change is coming and it begins here and now.”

Acting HHS Secretary Hargan said,

“President Trump promised the American people that his administration would vigorously uphold the rights of conscience and religious freedom.  That promise is being kept today. The Founding Fathers knew that a nation that respects conscience rights is more diverse and more free, and OCR’s new division will help make that vision a reality.”

To learn more about the new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, visit us at www.hhs.gov/conscience.

To file a complaint with OCR based on a violation of civil rights, conscience or religious freedom, or health information privacy, visit us at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/complaints.

Burdened by Debt: The Best and Worst States at Managing Debt

/in , , , /by

How does your state rank in terms of debt management? A new study by Credible exposes where people are best (and worst) at managing their credit card bills, student loan debt, and housing costs.

Read on to see how your financial profile compares to the average person in your state—and across state borders.

Key highlights

    • Michigan, Arkansas, Delaware, Kentucky, and Missouri have the highest scores in the U.S., with low debt-to-income ratios: on average, Michigan residents in this dataset spent just 25.3% of their monthly income on credit card, student loan, and housing payments—the lowest percentage in the U.S.
    • Hawaii, Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and Montana came in towards the bottom of the list with the highest average debt-to-income ratios: Residents of Hawaii spend, on average, 36.2% of their monthly paychecks on credit card, student loan, and housing payments—the highest percentage in the nation, and over 43% more than residents of Michigan
    • Monthly credit card payments were highest in Minnesota ($241/month), Hawaii ($238), Nevada ($234), New Jersey ($231), and Connecticut ($231)
    • Conversely, those in Mississippi ($154), Louisiana ($157), Washington, D.C. ($160), Arkansas ($174), and South Carolina ($181) spend the least on paying off credit card debt
  • The data showed average student loan payments to be highest in D.C., Maine, Massachusetts, Alaska, and New Jersey, and lowest in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Wyoming, and North Dakota

Map: debt and income by state

Toggle through the menu below to see the overall score, average monthly credit card, student loan, and mortgage payments, and average annual income for each state.

Financial health is relative

On average, Americans included in this dataset paid $207 on their credit card debt, $370 on their student loans, and $906 on their housing each month, while taking home an average salary of $60,671.

But what’s the special sauce that makes some states’ residents so much better at debt management than others?

Well, it depends.

In Michigan, for example, cost of living plays a large role. Low average monthly housing payments relative to average income (combined with lower than average credit card and student loan payments) push the state up the rankings.

At the other end of the spectrum, some states rank lower because of particularly high payments made in one category or another.

Residents of Hawaii, for example, pay the second highest amount on monthly credit card bills and fourth highest amount on housing costs and their average income isn’t high enough to offset those costs.

$207

Average monthly credit card payment of all Americans included in this dataset

$370

Average monthly student loan payment of all Americans included in this dataset

$906

Average monthly housing payment of all Americans included in this dataset

One in five borrowers is a homeowner

Mortgage debt can increase a resident’s debt-to-income ratio. The vast majority of the 540,000 borrowers included in this analysis are not homeowners but nearly 19% have one or more mortgages.

Of that group, the average housing payment increases to $1,705, nearly double the average housing payment for all borrowers, a group that includes renters, homeowners, and people living with parents.

You are not your state

While this new ranking sheds light on how residents of various states perform in terms of debt management, keep in mind that these are average numbers — and that your debt is a personal matter.

No matter how your state ranks, find a debt payoff plan that fits your budget and lifestyle, as well as minimizes what you’ll owe in interest as you pay off each loan.

For example, balance transfer credit cards can be useful to begin paying off your credit card debt. These cards will often offer you six to 18 months of 0% APR for balance transfers, giving you some time to get your finances in order without accruing a ton of interest. If paying off credit card debt is one of your goals, Credible can help you find the best balance transfer credit cards of 2018.

Methodology

We used proprietary data from over 540,000 borrowers with student loan debt from all 50 U.S. states and D.C. to calculate average monthly credit card, student loan, and housing payments as a percentage of average monthly income. Therefore, the debt-to-income ratio we used to rank all states included credit card debt, student loan debt, and housing costs (such as rent or mortgage payments).

That percentage was then assigned a normalized score from 0-100 for each state, 0 being where debt payments are the highest percentage of monthly income, and 100 being where monthly payments are the lowest percentage of monthly income.

Full rankings and data

Overlooked in the Immigration Debate: Gender-based Violence

/in , , , , , /by

The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security released a report this week showing that 3 out of 4 individuals convicted of international terrorism-related charges between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2016, are foreign-born individuals who entered the United States through our immigration system.

Recent reports from DOJ and DHS also draw attention to an issue often lost in the immigration debate: gender-based violence.

  • A 2011 Government Accountability Office report found that criminal aliens were convicted of 69,929 sex offenses between fiscal years 2003 and 2009.
  • A 2014 study estimated that approximately 1,500 forced marriages occur in the U.S. every year.
  • That same 2014 study showed there to be an average of 23 to 27 honor killings in America each year—with 90 percent of victims murdered for being “too westernized.”

Numbers like these show that regardless of political affiliation, all Americans should want an immigration system that supports and defends our values.

Read more about how our current immigration system jeopardizes American security.

For Planned Parenthood, Abortion Is a Black and White Issue

/in , , , , /by

Plenty of movements have tried to hitch their wagon to the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. For years, people across the political spectrum have claimed him as one of their own — in part because it’s convenient and in part because he isn’t here to dispute it. But no cause is more antithetical to King’s than Planned Parenthood’s. And yesterday, when the group founded by an open racist tried to suggest otherwise, we weren’t the only ones who noticed.People across the social media spectrum lashed out at Cecile Richards’s group for daring to suggest that they were carrying on King’s vision.

The idea that Dr. King would have stood by — let alone embraced — Margaret Sanger’s legacy is outrageous. Yet still, @PPact had the audacity to tweet:

“Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. dedicated his life to the idea that racial and economic justice are foundational to our democracy. Today we honor his courageous vision and radical action — and commit to furthering his dream by continuing the fight for justice.”

If you know anything about Planned Parenthood, you know that it was built on the back of Sanger’s eugenics.

Years later, her legacy lives on in the group’s business model, which intentionally preys on minority women. How do we know that? Simple: the majority of Planned Parenthood’s facilities have been built in urban areas within walking distance of African-American and Hispanic neighborhoods. And that’s no coincidence. Richards knows better than anyone that black babies are aborted at a rate five times higher than white babies. So while she likes to say “black lives matter,” she’s not telling the whole story. They matter because it’s a part of her business model.

Despite making up just 13 percent of the U.S. population, the CDC’s 2016 report points out, black babies made up a whopping 35 percent of the total abortions reported in 2013. Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood, the group that profits most from that statistic, continues its scam as a defender of African Americans.

“Please tell us more about how you’re honoring his courageous vision,” one of many pro-lifers fired back. “Are you going to plant yet abortion clinic in a black neighborhood or something?” Alexandra DeSanctis piled on. “Your group was founded by a eugenics enthusiast who peddled birth control in black and impoverished neighborhoods “Today, more black babies are aborted than born alive in NYC, your headquarters. You have no business coopting MLK to push your propaganda.” Alexandra is right. With just a 40 percent survival rate, the womb is one of the most dangerous places for New York City’s African-Americans. Yet Planned Parenthood will cover up that statistic with the same proficiency that it’s covered up years of abuse, organ trafficking, partial-birth abortions, fraud, and countless other crimes against humanity.

The only connection Richards’s group has to MLK is its butchering of the basic civil rights for which Dr. King died.

“It’s not so much about labels — liberal, conservative and all of that,” his niece Alveda has said. “But he was someone who lived and gave his life to help all humanity. And so that definitely would include conception until natural death.” As she told reporters last December, “Martin Luther King Jr. never accepted the agenda of Planned Parenthood. They lie… They put their abortion mills on or near streets that are named after Martin Luther King, and they want to attach that to the civil rights movement of the 20th century — but it doesn’t belong.”

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Founders’ Keepers: U.S. Celebrates 232 Years of Freedom

NASA Nomination Isn’t Rocket Science

Pro-Life Nation: New Poll Shows Heavy Majorities in Favor of Substantial Abortion Restrictions.

Here’s What Abortion Looks Like In America Since Roe v. Wade.

PODCAST: Why the March for Life Matters

/in , , , , , /by

Susan B. Anthony List’s Mallory Quigley joins us to discuss pro-life priorities in 2018, and why the March for Life, happening this Friday and featuring a live video from President Donald Trump, matters. Plus: a fashion designer’s flirtation with skirts for men, and Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., compares Trump to Josef Stalin.

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

RELATED ARTICLE: Nearly 200 Dems Vote Against Bill to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortions.

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Connecting the Dots: How the Latest Affordable Housing Policy Benefits Homeowners and Realtors, not First-time Buyers

/in , , , , , /by

Tobias Peter, senior research analyst at the AEI Center on Housing Markets and Finance, wrote the following blog post: Connecting the Dots: How the Latest Affordable Housing Policy Benefits Homeowners and Realtors, not First-time Buyers.

In it he explains how “another government housing policy intended to open “the door to home purchase mortgages for large numbers of new buyers” has failed.  Instead of bringing income-constrained borrowers into the market, it making housing less affordable by adding more fuel to a national house price boom that is pricing them out of the market, while providing a windfall to home sellers and real estate agents.”

Connecting the Dots: How the Latest Affordable Housing Policy Benefits Homeowners and Realtors, not First-time Buyers

Tobias Peter (Tobias.Peter@AEI.org), Senior Research Analyst

AEI’s Center on Housing Markets and Finance

January 16, 2018

The numbers are in and yet another government housing policy intended to open “the door to home purchase mortgages for large numbers of new buyers” has failed.  Instead of bringing income-constrained borrowers into the market, it is making housing less affordable by adding more fuel to a national house price boom that is pricing them out of the market, while providing a windfall to home sellers and real estate agents.

Let’s connect the dots.  As of the weekend of July 29, 2017, Fannie Mae, one of the two government sponsored housing enterprises (GSE), started buying and securitizing many more mortgages with a debt-to-income ratio (DTI) of up to 50 percent.  The DTI measures the ratio of monthly payments to income.  The higher the ratio, the greater a borrower’s monthly debt payments and the greater a borrower’s likelihood to default.

Prior to the policy change, the large majority of Fannie borrowers were limited to a DTI of 45 percent, with only a few borrowers allowed to go as high as 50 percent with compensating factors such as a certain number of months of cash reserves or a higher down payment.  Fannie’s move thereby allowed borrowers to take on more debt relative to their income.  Freddie Mac, the other GSE, had been buying more mortgages with DTIs over 45 percent than Fannie, but it too ramped up its purchases after Fannie’s announcement as data from the AEI National Mortgage Risk Index (NMRI) show.

Sensing an opening for income-constrained borrowers to now enter the housing market, housing advocates hailed Fannie’s move as a “win for expanding access to credit.”  Yet this line of reasoning was always flawed.  Access for income-constrained borrowers already existed.  The Federal Housing Administration (FHA), another government housing entity, already guarantees loans with a DTI up to 57 percent and with less stringent credit score and down payment requirements than Fannie or Freddie ever would.  By offering this service at a lower cost to certain borrowers, Fannie’s (and Freddie’s) move thereby pitted one government guaranteed insurer of mortgages against another.

The effect of the change has been stunning since it took effect.  First, the share of Fannie borrowers with a DTI above 45 jumped 11 percentage points to 17 percent within just three months after the program’s implementation.  Yet precious few of these borrowers were new market entrants while the large majority were Fannie borrowers taking on more debt.

This is problematic.  In today’s seller’s market, prices have been rising rapidly.  The measures from a variety of sources all show prices rising 6 to 7 percent over the past year, and as much as 10 percent for entry-level homes.  DTIs function as a friction slowing the increase of house prices through binding limits.  Remove the friction and house price increases will pick up.  This happens the following way: First, income-constrained borrowers take advantage of the higher limits, as they initially no longer have to settle for lower priced homes.  Then, because supply is limited, the extra debt ends up raising prices – either directly through more aggressive bidding for houses or indirectly through appraisals when inflated home sales become comparables for other sales as our research shows.  Soon, the cycle feeds on itself and everyone, not just income-constrained borrowers, has to take on more debt.  This is exactly what happened as the NMRI data also show (see chart).

What is driving up prices so rapidly today is the combination of a seller’s market, which is now in its 63rd month, and more liberal access to credit through, for example higher DTI limits, or generally looser lending standards as documented by the NMRI.  Since 2012, national house prices have risen by around 50 percent as shown by the Case-Shiller index, but in the bottom tier of the market, where supply is more constrained and credit more liberal, prices have doubled.

And so, what started as a policy change by Fannie Mae to close the growing affordability gap has added yet more fuel to the house price boom, especially at the lower end of the market.  Thereby this policy will benefit existing homeowners, realtors, and builders, but it will hurt first-time buyers and those with limited resources as they will have to stretch further to afford homeownership or be forced to remain on the sidelines.

Why We Are a Republic, Not a Democracy

/in , , , , /by

The Founding Fathers designed a system that places heavy checks on the power of the majority. 

Hillary Clinton blamed the Electoral College for her stunning defeat in the 2016 presidential election in her latest memoirs, “What Happened.”

Some have claimed that the Electoral College is one of the most dangerous institutions in American politics.

Why? They say the Electoral College system, as opposed to a simple majority vote, distorts the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy because electoral votes are not distributed according to population.

To back up their claim, they point out that the Electoral College gives, for example, Wyoming citizens disproportionate weight in a presidential election.

Put another way, Wyoming, a state with a population of about 600,000, has one member in the House of Representatives and two members in the U.S. Senate, which gives the citizens of Wyoming three electoral votes, or one electoral vote per 200,000 people.

California, our most populous state, has more than 39 million people and 55 electoral votes, or approximately one vote per 715,000 people.

Comparatively, individuals in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as Californians.

Many people whine that using the Electoral College instead of the popular vote and majority rule is undemocratic. I’d say that they are absolutely right. Not deciding who will be the president by majority rule is not democracy.

But the Founding Fathers went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, or any other of our founding documents.

How about a few quotations expressed by the Founders about democracy?

In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying,

“Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

John Adams warned in a letter,

“Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

Edmund Randolph said,

“That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”

Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed,

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

The Founders expressed contempt for the tyranny of majority rule, and throughout our Constitution, they placed impediments to that tyranny. Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators.

The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.

To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Finally, the Electoral College is yet another measure that thwarts majority rule.

It makes sure that the highly populated states—today, mainly 12 on the east and west coasts, cannot run roughshod over the rest of the nation. That forces a presidential candidate to take into consideration the wishes of the other 38 states.

Those Americans obsessed with rule by popular majorities might want to get rid of the Senate, where states, regardless of population, have two senators.

Should we change representation in the House of Representatives to a system of proportional representation and eliminate the guarantee that each state gets at least one representative?

Currently, seven states with populations of 1 million or fewer have one representative, thus giving them disproportionate influence in Congress.

While we’re at it, should we make all congressional acts by majority rule? When we’re finished with establishing majority rule in Congress, should we then move to change our court system, which requires unanimity in jury decisions, to a simple majority rule?

My question is: Is it ignorance of or contempt for our Constitution that fuels the movement to abolish the Electoral College?

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote

Liberals Claim Electoral College Is Biased. Here Are the Facts

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

VIDEO: Twitter Security Engineer, ‘It is a creepy big brother.’

/in , , , , , , /by

Before you watch Part III of our investigation into Twitter, I have to warn you that the discussions held by these Twitter employees IS NOT family friendly.

If you’re at the office, turn down your speakers or put on your headphones.

If the children are in the room, ask them to cover their ears.

With that warning out of the way, here’s what you should be really worried about . . .

If you have held a private conversation on Twitter, and possibly any other social platform, your conversation was NOT private.

Even if you deleted sensitive discussions you held privately online, not only are they still there, the information you discussed — attached to your personal profile — is being traded like a commodity.

Have you discussed personal family matters with others over private messages?
Have you talked about your health or the diagnosis of a loved one?
Have your vented relationship challenges to a close friend?
Have you expressed intimate sentiments to your spouse or partner?

If you’ve done any of those things, and again, even if those messages have been deleted, they are now attached to your personal “virtual profile” and bought and sold thousands of times over.

As one Twitter employee called it, “it’s creepy big brother.”

WARNING GRAPHIC LANGUAGE BY TWITTER EMPLOYEES:

witter has over 300 million users across the world and in essence has turned itself into a giant database of virtual personalities with preferences, likes and dislikes all attached to each and every one of us . . . . even if you don’t use Twitter!

Clay Haynes, Twitter’s Senior Network Security Engineer, admits that “You leak way more information than you think… Like, if you go to Twitter for the first time, we have information about you.”

I’d guess that 99.8% of people never read Twitters terms and conditions, and those that do have a 99.9% chance of not understanding the depth and implications of them.

That’s why, as an avid Twitter user myself, I was shocked to hear what is really going on behind the closed doors of this tech giant.

Watch this video and tell others to do so, and we will wait and see how Twitter responds to this one.

Our video is already being featured at the top of the Drudge Report site, which has had over 890 million site visitors over the past 30 days alone.

Drudge Report

Thanks again for everything and as always . . . stay tuned.

In truth,

James O’Keefe
Project Veritas

VIDEO: What Did Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Think About Israel?

/in , , /by

Today, our nation honors Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for his courageous advocacy of nonviolent activism on behalf of the civil rights of African Americans. Most of us have read or seen a video clip of his powerful August 28, 1963 “I Have A Dream” speech. Many of us have read his eloquent and compelling April 16, 1963 “Letter from A Birmingham Jail,” which defended his nonviolent resistance to racism.

But few know what Dr. King thought about Israel.

In a 1967 interview, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. stated:

“…the whole world must see that Israel must exist and has the right to exist, and is one of the great outposts of democracy in the world.”

See video here.


Dr. Martin Luther King on Israel – 1967 from Thomas More Law Center on Vimeo.

During a panel discussion at the March 25th, 1968 Rabbinical Assembly, Dr King stated:

“Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.”

President Ronald Reagan signed Martin Luther King Jr. Day into law in 1983.

In accordance with that law, this past Friday, during the signing of the Proclamation declaring Martin Luther King Jr. Day, President Trump commented:

“Dr. King’s faith and his love for humanity led him and so many other heroes to courageously stand up for civil rights of African Americans. Through his bravery and sacrifice, Dr. King opened the eyes and lifted the conscience of our nation. He stirred the hearts of our people to recognize the dignity written in every human soul.

Today, we celebrate Dr. King for standing up for the self-evident truth Americans hold so dear, that no matter what the color of our skin or the place of our birth, we are all created equal by God.”

Read the full text of President Trump’s official Proclamation Honoring Dr. King here.

Read Dr. King’s April 16, 1963 Letter from Birmingham Jail here.

Watch Dr. King’s “I Have A Dream” speech here.


Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.- I Have A Dream Speech from Virgilyo de Souza on Vimeo.