The Senate Confirmed 13 Trump Judges While America Watched Democrats Debate

/in , , , , , /by

The Senate confirmed 13 judges President Donald Trump chose while America had its eyes on the Democratic primary debates Tuesday and Wednesday.

Though Senate Republicans had initially planned to confirm 19 Trump judges before leaving Washington, D.C., for August recess, they successfully confirmed four nominees Tuesday and nine Wednesday.

“For too long, fairly uncontroversial judicial nominees just like these have been held up and delayed by our Democratic colleagues even when the vacancy qualifies as a judicial emergency,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said during a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, The Hill reported.

“Uncontroversial district judges used to be confirmed promptly in big groups by voice vote,” he continued.

Confirmations include the following district court nominees:

Karin Immergut for the District of Oregon, John Milton Younge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Mary M. Rowland for the Northern District of Illinois, Mark Pittman to the Northern District of Texas, Jeffrey Brown to the Southern District of Texas, Brantley Starr to the Northern District of Texas, Martha Pacold to the Northern District of Illinois, Jason Pulliam to the Western District of Texas, William Stickman IV to be the Western District of Pennsylvania, Michael T. Liburdi for the District of Arizona, Peter D. Welte for the District of North Dakota, James Wesley Hendrix for the Northern District of Texas and Sean D. Jordan for the Eastern District of Texas.

Republicans have confirmed more than 100 Trump court picks since 2017, including Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, as well as a record number of appeals court judges.

Trump accused Democrats of obstructing his nominees earlier in 2019.

“Democrats in the Senate are still slow walking hundreds of highly qualified people wanting to come into government,” the president said in a February tweet. “Never been such an abuse in our country’s history.”

Sections of the 2019 book “Justice on Trial” by Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino reveal how 2016 Trump campaign lawyers consulted with retired Justice Anthony Kennedy in an effort to build a list of prospective Supreme Court nominees ahead of Trump’s election.

COLUMN BY

Audrey Conklin

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Keeps Campaign Promise, Picks More Conservative Judges

Trump Says Senate Shouldn’t ‘Go Home’ Until His Executive Nominees Are Confirmed

Joe Biden Becomes The Left’s Punching Bag During Second CNN Debate

Protesters Interrupt Booker, De Blasio At CNN Debate To Call For NYC Cop To Be Fired

Biden And Castro Spar Over Border Decriminalization

Has Ilhan Omar imported the ideology of a Somali dictator into the heart of American politics?

/in , , , , /by

Studying the politics of Ilhan Omar I am struck by how similar they are to that of the brutal dictator, Siad Barre, who governed Somalia with an iron fist when she was young girl in that country.

When Barre seized power in a coup d’etat in 1969, following the assassination of the president, Ali Shermarke, he built a new political order, a one-party regime built on a mix of Communism and a local form of political Islam.

He abrogated the constitution within hours of his coup, and ruled the country by decree until he had time to redraft a new constitution.

Are we not hearing calls to repeal parts of the US Constitution by members of the new left in American politics?

The United Nations profile of Siad Barre explained, “The theoretical underpinning of the state ideology combined aspects of the Qur’an with the influence of Marx, Lenin, Mao, and Mussolini, but Siad Barre was pragmatic in its application. ‘Socialism is not a religion,’ Barre explained, ‘It is a political principle to organize government and manage production.’”

An organized Socialist government managing production is the underpinning of the new left of the Democratic party being promoted by Ilhan Omar.

When Barre grabbed power, Marxist sympathies were not deep-rooted in Somalia. In order to achieve his political goal, the dictator denigrated the opposition, did away with the previous governments law enforcement, replacing it with his own tough enforcement police and military rule.

Sound like the tactics of the radical left today in America.

We hear calls of the radicals within the Democratic Party to abolish ICE. We see the deliberate demoralization of the police force in major cities controlled by the Democratic Party as part of that process.

Ilhan Omar never explained what she meant when she described her father, a central influence in her life, as the Somali “teacher of teachers.”

It was a telling remark.

In Somalia, Siad Barre introduced a nationwide indoctrination campaign. He appointed teacher trainers whose job it was to indoctrinate the government-run education system into the dictator’s Koranic-Marxist-Leninist ideology.

This radical Red-Green political agenda can be found both in Britain with Jeremy Corbyn’s associations with Islamist forces, including the IHRC in Britain, Hamas, Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorists abroad.

We see it with Ilhan Omar who goes on fund-raising junkets not for the Democratic Party but for CAIR, the American branch of the Muslim Brotherhood and a co-conspirator for Hamas.

In Somalia, Barre moved from rule control to thought control. Civil servants were required to attend reorientation courses that combined professional training with the regime’s political indoctrination. Anyone found incompetent or politically resistance was fired.

The propaganda ministry reached into national broadcasting and local communities with loudspeaker announcements blasting the dictator’s political ideology in town squares. The regime’s brainwashing continued as they raped, robbed and ruined their country which descended into civil war.

Ilhan Omar may blame America for the turmoil in Somalia but it was the Barre regime with his accolade of apparatchiks that brought about the destruction of that country.

The regime set out to destroy traditional social structures and reduce the opposition to powerlessness by imposing its central control over the country. They depended on a compliant media.

Human Rights Watch issued a report entitled, “Somalia. A Government at war with its own People.”

The United Nations Development Programme declared,

“The 21-year regime of Siad Barre had one of the worst human rights records in Africa.”

The UN report on Somalia stated,

“The newly formed Ministry of Information and National Guidance set up local political education bureaus to execute the government’s message to the people and used Somalia’s print and broadcasting media for the ‘success of the socialist, revolutionary road.’”

These bureaus required teacher trainers to retrain teachers into the ideology of the regime.

It is legitimate to ask, was Ilhan Omar’s father, the teacher of teachers, part of, perhaps a leader in, the political education system in the service of a brutal genocidal dictator?

Was he the Josef Goebbels of the Somali regime? The opposition certainly did not have teacher trainers.

The slogan of the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party was “social justice” and “scientific socialism” as they delivered an intolerant national injustice.

There was a mass dismissal of non-compliant civil servants in 1974. Ilhan Omar’s father apparently kept his job.

And what was the connection between Nur Said Elmi and Mohammed Omar in Somalia?

Ilhan Omar’s remark that her “very privileged life suddenly came to a halt” in Somalia reveals something significant.

As the civil war raged in Somalia, including torture, mass murder and the genocide of the opposition Isaaq tribe, no one in the people’s opposition to Siad Barre lived “privileged lives” in secure compounds.

Was it a coincidence that the Said Elmi family did not flee from their “privileged lives” in their sheltered compound in Mogadishu until just before the fall of the Barre regime?

Did Ilhan Omar’s father actively side with the war criminal Barre, or did he side with the people?

To me, at least, the answer is clear.

Another slip of the tongue, this time by Ilhan’s sister, Sahra, is telling. Following Ilhan’s election to Congress, Sahra celebrated by congratulating their father who, she claimed, was a “great political strategist and fundraiser,” and that Ilhan Omar’s victory “would not have been possible without him.”

One wonders where this talent and aptitude came from. Could it have derived from his professional experience in Somalia and his contacts with the Somali community in America, many of whom may have been on the side of the war criminal, Barre?

Is America turning a blind eye to people who entered the United States illegally and who aided and abetted a murderous regime?

Would it be disqualifying to have someone sit on the US Foreign Affairs Committee who is under the paternal political and ideological guidance of someone who could have been close to the top of a Marxist-Islamist dictatorship?

Why hasn’t the genocide committed by the Siad Barre regime, and all those culpable in the human rights and war crimes committed in Somalia, ever come before the International Court of Justice?

Ilhan Omar and her father can produce evidence of his role in the Somali civil war? Why have they been totally silent about the burning issue?

There may be no there three, but surely an investigation is warranted into the roles played by the senior members of the Said Elmi-Omar families in Somalia under Barre? She talks about her grandfather, but not of her father. Why? Especially if he is such a great political strategist.

It is clear that the political ideology of Ilhan Omar is not too far removed from that of the Siad Barre in Somalia. There are signs of a Red-Green alliance emerging out of Democratic politics. Perhaps a part of that derives from Somali politics.

Ilhan Omar hails from a country that never saw a Jew yet was steeped in anti-Semitism.

Omar never met a Jew in Somalia, nor in Kenya. She barely met a Jew in her Somali-community in Minnesota. Yet, she is a virile anti-Semite. It is a well-known cultural affliction throughout the Middle East.

Is Ilhan Omar the second generation of a family attempting to subvert the democratic system of their respective countries?

Does America really want that inflicted on the greatest democracy in the world in which the opposition party is increasingly tilting radically left?

EDITORS NOTE: This The View from Israel column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

President Donald J. Trump: A master at making opponents defend the indefensible

/in , , , , /by

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.

In the American Greatness article Donald Trump at the Overton Window  wrote:

Donald Trump is an equal opportunity scourge. He doesn’t care if you are black or white, male or female, if you behave badly and violate the public trust, he will call you out, baldly. And note this above all: If you attack him, he will attack you back.

[ … ]

Beyond the elements of political calculation and polemical style, however, Donald Trump’s recent tweet fests suggest that he may be on the threshold of shifting the Overton Window on race. [Emphasis added]

The MacKinac Center for Public Policy defines the Overton window:

The Overton Window is a model for understanding how ideas in society change over time and influence politics. The core concept is that politicians are limited in what policy ideas they can support — they generally only pursue policies that are widely accepted throughout society as legitimate policy options. These policies lie inside the Overton Window. Other policy ideas exist, but politicians risk losing popular support if they champion these ideas. These policies lie outside the Overton Window.

But the Overton Window can both shift and expand, either increasing or shrinking the number of ideas politicians can support without unduly risking their electoral support. Sometimes politicians can move the Overton Window themselves by courageously endorsing a policy lying outside the window, but this is rare. More often, the window moves based on a much more complex and dynamic phenomenon, one that is not easily controlled from on high: the slow evolution of societal values and norms. [Emphasis added]

The Big Lie: Your a Racist!

To paraphrase 1 Corinthians 15:55:

O racism, where is thy sting? O racism, where is thy victory?

Since the 2016 election of President Donald J. Trump Democrats have been put is a position of telling big lies over and over again. Among these lies are:

  • Trump/Russian collusion.
  • Trump’s obstruction of justice.
  • Trump Muslim ban.
  • Trump’s mental health.
  • Trump is a racist.

Each has been pushed by Democrats in order to keep the people from learning “the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.” The major consequence would be the re-election of President Trump in 2020.

The Democrats know that “the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” The truth about Baltimore, for example, is that the local, state and federal governments have failed miserably to give the people a chance to succeed for themselves.

The truth about Socialism is that it has never succeeded, ever. Socialism has, in fact, caused the death of tens of millions of people in Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba and Venezuela.

President Trump forces Democrats to defend the indefensible.

President Trump is speaking the truth in times of universal deceit and by doing so he is masterminding a revolutionary movement first to make and now to keep America great.

The Democratic Party and its members have lost the full trust and confidence of the American voter. The “D” in Democrat stands for deceit.

In a July 31, 2019 email titled “The antidote to Trumpism” Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) states:

Funneling resources from the most marginalized to the most privileged? That’s the opposite of what our economy needs to be doing.

That’s why our movement is fighting for an economy that’s judged not by how much it produces, but how broadly it empowers its people — an economy backed by a government that’s unafraid to set the conditions for fair and just markets. [Emphasis added]

Rep. Kennedy III calls this new Democratic Party economy “moral capitalism.” Moral capitalism is code for big government Socialism. Barry Shaw, in a recent column on Ilan Omar, notes, “The slogan of the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party was ‘social justice’ and ‘scientific socialism’ as they delivered an intolerant national injustice.” Do the Democrats want to make America like Somalia using another”Big Lie?”

concludes, “It is a rotten, and a deeply un-American, spirit that has risen up among us. Donald Trump will not vanquish it single-handedly. But simply by tearing the scab off this festering infection, revealing it to all in its hideous profusion, he has earned the gratitude of everyone who values liberty and the boundless opportunities of what we used to be able to call, without embarrassment, the American way.”

President Donald J. Trump is clearly shifting the Overton Window on racism, Medicare for all, abortion/infanticide, immigration, giving illegal aliens public benefits, big government Socialism and taxation. His opponents are now outside of the Overton Window and are increasingly losing support among the American electorate.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

You Can’t Blame Trump for Baltimore’s Failure, Ineffective and dishonest politicians have used racism as a shield from criticism for half a century.

Elijah Cummings’ Baltimore Home Burglarized, Looks Like Trump Was Right

Being a Racist Is Easy Today

Menacing Invective Against Trump Lowers Bar for Violence

Trump Says The Things You Can’t Say

RELATED VIDEO: MSNBC Analyst Exposes The 2020 Democratic Agenda As A Total Dumpster Fire.

Ilhan Omar, Jihadi Squad Islamic Socialist

/in , , , , , , /by

“Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.” – Vladimir Lenin

“Contrary to popular misconception, Islam does not mean peace but rather means submission to the commands of Allah alone.  Therefore, Muslims do not believe in the concept of freedom of expression, as their speech and actions are determined by divine revelation and not based on people’s desires.” –  Anjem Choudary, British Islamist and socialist activist

“I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion.  Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.” –  Malala Yousafzai, Pakistani Muslim and Nobel Prize winner

“Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty.”  Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister

Though Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution when they became members of Congress, their goal is to institute both sharia law and democratic socialism, neither of which are compatible with the Constitution and is anathema to their oaths of office.

Omar and Tlaib refused to place their hands on the Bible whose laws are incorporated into our Constitution; they were sworn in on the Quran.  When John F. Kennedy ran for the presidency, he assured the people his allegiance was to the Constitution, not the papacy.  We have had no assurance from Omar or Tlaib regarding their fidelity to the Constitution over Islam.

Our Founding Fathers were men who knew and studied scripture.  Their lives were wrapped in God’s Word; it was the chief source of their education.  They relied on the Bible and philosophers whose own works and commentaries also relied on Holy Scripture.  Scripture is what all laws are to be based upon, not the Quran.

None of the four jihadi Janes represent our Republic.  They are dangerous zealots.

Ilhan Omar

Just as Saikat Chakrabarti’s Brand New Congress (BNC) and Justice Democrats (JD) were major supporters of AOC, they also supported Ilhan Omar.  Here is the list of JD candidates for 2020.

Ilhan Omar ran for the 5th Congressional District seat in Minnesota, formerly held by Muslim Keith Ellison. The 5th district is home to 100,000 Somalis, the terrorist recruiting capital of the U.S.  Her campaign was supported by Our Revolution (closely affiliated with Bernie Sanders) and the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which held three fundraising events on Omar’s behalf in distant southern California.

Like her jihadi Jane sisters, she promotes the Green New Deal, (which is nothing more than U.N. Agenda 2030 on steroids), Medicare for all, tuition-free colleges, limits to the Second Amendment, the dissolution of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) along with open borders, murder of unborn babies up to and after birth, high taxes on corporations, steep cuts in defense spending, and a 90% tax rate for the wealthy.

Speaker Pelosi has appointed Ilhan Omar to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Education and Labor Committee, and the House Committee on the Budget.

Somalia born Omar graduated from North Dakota State University, where she joined the campus Muslim Students Association and eventually earned a degree in Political Science and International Studies.

Omar has served variously as an Advisory Board member for CAIR-Minnesota, Vice President of the Minneapolis NAACP, a Sister Planet Ambassador for Oxfam (International relief organization that condemns Israeli defensive measures against terrorism, and supports boycotts of Israeli products), a Board member of the Legal Rights Center, which provides criminal defense and justice services in particular to people of color, and the Director of Policy & Initiatives at the Women Organizing Women Network (inspires Somali women to get involved in the political process, a subgroup of Headwaters Foundation for Justice).

In 2017, Omar was one of only two Minnesota House members (out of 129) to vote against a bill to allow life-insurance companies to deny payouts to the beneficiaries of people who died while committing acts of terrorism.

That same year, she was one of just four House members to oppose legislation that would make it a felony for parents to subject their daughters to female genital mutilation, a common practice in some Muslim cultures.

Both Omar and Tlaib belong to extremist mosques and rub shoulders with those who wish to annihilate the Jewish State.  Their goal is to normalize anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiment throughout America.  Omar has come out in strong support for all forms of boycotts against Israel, but she can’t seem to do it without the start-up nation’s incredible tech innovations.  IlhanOmar.com is powered by the Israeli company WIX!

Ban Lifted for Omar

A 181-year ban on head coverings in Congress was lifted to allow this jihadi Jane to wear her hijab in Congress.  The rules package was passed by 234 to 197, and this was the beginning of the Islamic sharia makeover of America’s Judeo-Christian culture. Omar admits that she didn’t always wear her hijab; it wasn’t until after the attack on America by Islamic extremists on 9/11, that she chose to wear her hijab to make a statement.  The hijab is a symbol and it is a symbol of the fact that the woman wearing it is fully committed to the sharia.  It is a symbol that says to infidels that they are kafirs. Kafir is an Arabic term meaning “infidel.”

The only Omar photo without her hijab is a mugshot after being arrested in 2013 for trespassing and booked at Hennepin County Jail “to prevent further criminal conduct.”

Ethics Charges Filed

Now that Judicial Watch and Michigan State Representative Steve Drazkowski have filed ethics charges against Ilhan Omar for immigration fraud (using an unrelated family’s name), a bigamous marriage with her brother so he could obtain American citizenship, corrupt campaign financing and student loan fraud, she now has filed for divorce from the father of her three children.  The controversial Congresswoman has a lengthy record of utter contempt for the rule of law, of which she is now ostensibly a guardian.

Omar first married Ahmed Hirsi only in an Islamic ceremony in 2002 when she was 19, but six years later they “reached an impasse in our life together,” and separated. In 2009, Omar married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a British citizen, who has been identified as her brother.  Omar had a third child with Hirsi in 2012, even though she was still legally married to Elmi – who she divorced in 2017 and then legally married Hirsi in 2018.

Questions surfaced again this month in a state probe of campaign finance violations showing that Omar filed taxes with her Islamic husband Ahmed Hirsi in 2014-2015, while she was still legally married to but separated from Elmi.  She has declined to make her tax and immigration records available, but no one is demanding she produce them.

Her Real Name

David Steinberg published an extensive report on the alleged crimes and history of Rep. Ilhan Omar and the “Omar” family. In his report David found that the Omar family changed their name in order to enter the United States.

In 1995, Ilhan entered the United States as a fraudulent member of the “Omar” family. That is not her family. The Omar family is a second, unrelated family which was being granted asylum by the United States. The Omars allowed Ilhan, her genetic sister Sahra, and her genetic father Nur Said to use false names to apply for asylum as members of the Omar family.  Ilhan’s genetic family split up at this time. The above three received asylum in the United States, while Ilhan’s three other siblings — using their real names — managed to get asylum in the United Kingdom.

Ilhan Abdullahi Omar’s name, before applying for asylum, was Ilhan Nur Said Elmi.

Her father’s name before applying for asylum was Nur Said Elmi Mohamed. Her sister Sahra Noor’s name before applying for asylum was Sahra Nur Said Elmi. Her three siblings who were granted asylum by the United Kingdom are Leila Nur Said Elmi, Mohamed Nur Said Elmi, and Ahmed Nur Said Elmi.

On October 22, 2008, the U.S. State Department stopped accepting applications for the Priority 3/Refugee Family Reunification program — the process by which refugees can apply for asylum if one family member is already a legal U.S. resident. State halted the program because DNA testing — primarily of Somalis — had concluded that perhaps 87 percent of applicants were fraudulently claiming family relationships.

Steinberg has also exposed Omar supporters who were caught threatening and attempting “to dox a Somali whistle blower” who revealed Ilhan’s crimes.

Ilhan’s Father, Top Propagandist in Somalia

Omar’s father was the top propaganda official in the genocidal Barre Regime, thus the reason for changing his name in order to enter the U.S. illegally.  When he immigrated to America, he claimed he was a “teacher trainer.”  A teacher trainer in any revolutionary communist regime is the political commissar who trains teachers in the government-run school systems to impose the Qur’anic-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Mussolini hybrid of the Barre Regime.  Nur Omar Mohamed (aka Nur Said Elmi Mohamed), father of Ilhan Omar, was one of those indoctrinators under the bloody Marxist Islamic dictator, Siad Barre who was in power when hundreds of thousands of Somali people were massacred.

Somalian dictator Mohammed Siad Barre, whom the Omar family served.

When the Barre regime collapsed in 1991, the country was plunged into civil war, regime loyalists like Nur Omar Mohamed were not safe.  The family fled to Kenya, and then to the U.S. in 1995.

While some critics claim that Omar’s family migrated illegally to the U.S. because they did not disclose that they were communists, the Center for Security Policy claims that Congress, at the urging of the Clinton administration, abolished the law requiring that would-be immigrants declare whether they had belonged to a foreign Communist party. The Omar family was able to move to America without that important element of screening.

Jihadi Jane Ilhan Omar personifies the Red-Green Axis: an ideological and political combination of Marxism-Leninism and Islamism mixed with the technology of eco socialism.  She was raised in it.  The Red-Green Axis is strategic, as well as opportunistic. The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) now supports Black Lives Matter (BLM) and participates in its protests. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) also work with BLM, CAIR, and open borders groups.  Ilhan Omar has deflected any questions about violence from Antifa.

Omar interpreted for her grandfather, a Siad Barre servant, at political meetings. In high school, she became active in student politics.  From there, the Red-Green Axis import from Somalia, put down her own political roots, became a community organizer, and laid her path to the United States Congress.  Upon taking office in the U.S. House, she promptly joined the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Omar has never been critical of the Siad Barre regime or the horrors it inflicted during her childhood in Somalia.  Her father is not the only Somali war criminal who immigrated to America illegally.

Yusuf Abdi Ali is a convicted war criminal who did the killing himself.  Ali has been located in the US working as security at Dulles International Airport and driving for Uber in 2019.  He reportedly lived at one time in Alexandria, Virginia.  Ali was a Colonel in the Somalian Army’s 5th Mechanized Brigade in 1987 and was a graduate of the Pentagon’s Program for Foreign Officers in 1986.  He’s also a war criminal in response to his actions in Somalia.

Conclusion

There is a Red-Green Alliance of Islamists and the “regressive” left.  It is a racist war against American Jewry, the American-Israel Alliance, and the foundations of America’s Republic.  The Jihad squad fully encompasses this hatred, yet they use the “race card” against any and all enemies who go against them.  When our President wanted to stop immigration from terrorist countries, Omar said, “This ban on refugees is rooted in racism and Islamophobia.”

The left arm of the Democrat Party, the mainstream media, continually screams racism against our President.  The jihadi squad and their democrat comrades scream “white privilege,” which is equally racist in its tone because it stereotypes all whites, (something black people have long railed against when it comes to people of color) as over-privileged and undeserving of what they have, and this leaves them ripe for humiliation and white discrimination.

Just like Mandela’s apartheid plan in South Africa, the jihad squad plan is as old as the snake in the garden.  The armed struggle Mandela led was not to give every South African an equal opportunity to enjoy the fruits of liberty. It was a will-to-power struggle to give the Communists dominion over the country.  White farmers and their families are murdered daily by Mandela’s communist black rogues.

Mandela was the head of the Marxist African National Congress just as these four jihadi Janes are now the head of America’s Democrat Party.

RELATED ARTICLE: When Muslims Do Not Assimilate

Our Adversaries Are Using Cyberwarfare. We Must Be Prepared.

/in , , , , , /by

The recent incidents between U.S. and Iranian forces demonstrate the importance of cyberwarfare for national security and reinforce the importance of funding and developing the cyber capabilities of the United States.

Following the June attacks by Iran on oil tankers and then the downing of a U.S. unmanned drone, President Donald Trump chose not to retaliate with physical attacks. Instead, he reportedly approved an offensive cyberstrike that disabled the computer systems used to control Iran’s rocket and missile launches.

That was considered a more proportionate retaliation for the downing of the drone.

America’s adversaries are operating with cyber in the so-called gray zone between diplomacy and war, choosing actions that fall short of sparking a conventional military retaliation.

In 2007, Russia used cyber to disrupt communications channels in the Baltic states as part of its unconventional strategy to destabilize the region.

In 2015, China hacked the Office of Personnel Management and stole the records of employees holding security clearances. That’s in addition to ongoing theft of intellectual property.

North Korea used cyber against Sony in 2014, and Iran has targeted the U.S. government and companies with cyberattacks as well.

Given these threats, and the challenges of defending networks, offensive cyberattacks are an important tool for the U.S. against its adversaries.

In 2018, U.S. Cyber Command confirmed it had launched an offensive cyberattack in order to silence a Russian troll farm, an organization used to spread disinformation and sway public opinion during the 2018 U.S. midterm elections.

Sometimes, offense is the best defense.

The release of National Security Presidential Memorandum 13 in 2018 allows for offensive and defensive cyber operations to be conducted without presidential approval.

Last year, the Department of Defense also released a plan that confirmed its commitment to using cyberattacks “to advance U.S. interests” and “defend forward.” The U.S. retaliatory offensive cyberattacks on Iran and Russia are examples of this type of approach.

Unlike nuclear weapons, which are held in reserve and used to deter other nations through the threat of use, cyber capabilities are readily available, and cyber forces are in near-constant contact with one another.

While many cyberattacks seem immediate, as though a button was pushed to trigger it at will, most are actually the result of months of work and planning. Constant effort goes into identifying cyber targets and ensuring that there is still an ability to access them.

If the target updates its software, for example, that means an entirely new plan of attack must be laid out.

The organization primarily responsible for these missions is U.S. Cyber Command. It has come a long way from its humble origins, recently filling out its Cyber Mission Forces, the operational units within the command, to full operational capacity.

In 2018, it was promoted to a full unified combatant command. That designation made it equal in rank to the other nine combat commands, such as Special Operations and Central Command.

That’s not to suggest that Cyber Command does not have more work to do. It still needs to train those forces up to a high level of readiness and continue to develop its infrastructure. Fully staffed does not necessarily mean fully mission-ready and capable.

Cyber Command is constantly deterring, disrupting, and defeating cyberthreats. Its capabilities must be able to handle the persistent nature of cyberwarfare.

Just as we maintain our ships and improve our conventional military forces, we must do the same with our cyber capability. The U.S. should continue to develop Cyber Command’s capacity and readiness so it can meet those challenges into the future.

The United States cannot afford to rest on its current cyber capabilities. Our adversaries continue to sharpen their cyber forces, and the U.S. cannot afford to lose that competition.

We must stay ahead of our adversaries and continue to invest in the U.S. Cyber Command so it can reach its full potential.

COMMENTARY BY

Alexandra Marotta

Alexandra Marotta is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

James Di Pane

James Di Pane is a research assistant in the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation

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: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

The Biggest Threat to Black Folks

/in , , , , , , /by

The biggest threat to the Black community is by far and away drugs.  No, not the drugs you might think; but the drug of liberalism!

The biggest drug dealers in America are radical liberal quasi journalists like Roland Martin, Joy Reid, Don Lemon, and Richard Princess.  And the biggest institutional drug dealers are radical liberal groups like the NAACP, The National Urban League, and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Martin, Reid, and Lemon have their own TV shows that rabidly promote the radical liberal talking points of the Democrat Party.  Princess is like the crazy old uncle that writes and says crazy things that no one pays attention to; but many Black journalists seem to revere him and his radical thoughts on racism that seem to have no end.

They all claim to be journalists; but are in daily violation of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) code of ethics.  SPJ’s code of ethics are supposed to be the Bible for all journalists; they lay out the dos and don’ts of journalistic conduct.

The SPJ’s preamble states,

“Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough [emphasis added]. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.”

They go on to state that the foundation of ethical journalism is: seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, be accountable and transparent.  You can read the details on SPJ’s website.

Can anyone with any shred of integrity prove these quasi journalists live up to their own industry’s code of conduct?

They all claim to be registered “independents,” but they all are liberal Democrats, notwithstanding their clams to the contrary.

On a daily basis they serve as unpaid surrogates for the Democratic National Committee (DNC).  They constantly assert their opinions into their quasi coverage of news and are afraid to engage with “real” Blacks who are “real” Republicans.

They either go out and find millennial Republicans who don’t know their butt from a hole in the ground or find a Black who will criticize the Republican Party and the Trump administration.

They want weak, Black Republicans that they can embarrass on national TV in order to create the perception that all Black Republicans are ill-informed, have no connection to the Black community, and are buffoons.

On the institutional side, the NAACP, The National Urban League, and the Congressional Black Caucus are just as bad as these quasi radical liberal journalists, if not worse.

They represent their membership, not the Black community.  There is a big difference.

Each of these groups, without evidence, claim to be non-partisan.  They all are dependent on the expansion of government programs and the continued intrusion of government into the lives of Blacks.

They all aggressively advocate for radical liberal policies that are indistinguishable from the Democrat Party.  I was once told that the sign of a great teacher is one who makes himself increasingly unnecessary.

These group’s very existence is contingent upon the constant dependency of Blacks on government programs; i.e., the governmental drug of liberalism.

It is estimated that the federal government has spent over $ 22 trillion on the War on Poverty since the sixties.  Yet, the problem has not been solved and one can argue that it has gotten worse.

These radical liberal quasi journalists and institutions have continued to get yet another generation of Blacks hooked on the drug of liberalism.

They cause more damage to and in the Black community than anyone with a white sheet over their face.

Herein lies my frustration with my Republican Party and my current president.  We have a great story to tell to the Black community; but the story is not being told.

These radical liberal quasi journalists and institutions would lead you to believe that they speak for and represent the mainstream of the Black community.  THEY DO NOT!  But a lie that is repeated enough times becomes the truth.

The Black community is sold a bunch of lies daily from these sellouts to our community and because Republicans are totally disengaged in the debate, the narrative is deemed to be true.

The Republican Party and the Trump administration would be wise to engage with respected Black Republicans like former Florida Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll, businessman and civil rights legend Richard Finley of Birmingham, businessman and economic genius, John Burnett of New York City, to name a few.

Blacks are totally fed up with liberalism and do not consider Maxine Waters or Al Sharpton their leaders.  They are “media” appointed leaders.

I am a graduate of Oral Roberts University and Oral would always tell me, “Go into every man’s world and meet them at the point of their need.”

When will the Republican Party and the Trump administration take our message of “traditional values” to the marketplace of ideas within the Black community?

We don’t need to be persuaded, because we already believe; we don’t need to be convinced because we have no doubt that liberalism has failed us; we need only be invited to be “part of the team”.

Judges Seated by Trump Begin to Transform ‘9th Circus’

/in , , , , /by

The Trump administration gained a rare victory this summer in the most unlikely of venues—the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which is widely viewed as the most liberal federal appeals court.

One big reason: President Donald Trump’s appointments to the 9th Circuit have moved it closer to ideological balance.

The court, long known for being both liberal and among the most overturned circuits, has been a thorn in Trump’s side, ruling against the president multiple times, mostly on immigration policies.

The confirmation of Trump nominee Daniel Bress in July gave the president his seventh judge on the court. It also brought the once lopsided appeals court to 16 Democrat appointees and 12 Republican appointees, with one remaining vacancy.

The administration won a 3-0 victory in June regarding a Department of Health and Human Services policy to restrict funding for family planning clinics that perform abortions.

While Trump hasn’t flipped the majority on the entire 9th Circuit, his progress increases the likelihood that randomly drawn three-judge panels will have more originalists, said Travis Weber, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council.

“The new judges will increase the credibility of this court,” Weber told The Daily Signal, noting that it long has been derided by conservatives as the “9th Circus.”

“We should have judges that interpret the Constitution rather than activists trying to legislate from the bench, which we’ve seen from the 9th Circuit,” he said.

Weber noted that most recently, the 9th Circuit has been the go-to venue for liberal activists seeking to block the agenda of the Trump administration.

This includes policies denying federal funds to “sanctuary cities,” which are local jurisdictions that refuse to assist federal immigration agents.

The court also has thwarted the administration’s “extreme vetting” policy designed to prevent migrants from failed states, including several majority Muslim countries, from coming to the United States.

The California-based 9th Circuit is the nation’s largest appeals court, encompassing California, Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Nevada, Hawaii, and Oregon. It now has more Trump-appointed judges than any other appeals court, according to Bloomberg News.

The 9th Circuit is responsible for about 40% of the United States and 30% of all appeals, says Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., who wants to split up the circuit to produce more fair hearings for Montana residents.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., commented in January: “I’m very supportive of the nominees submitted by President Trump to serve on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. … These nominations continue a trend by the Trump administration of selecting highly qualified men and women to serve on the federal bench.”

Judicial nominees have been one of Trump’s crowning achievements, as he has named more than 40 appeals court judges as well as two Supreme Court justices. While not having as much success at the district court level, the president has secured some 80 confirmations.

“It would take a long time, if it ever happens, before the full 9th Circuit has enough constitutional judges for a pattern to take effect,” Thomas Jipping, deputy director of the Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal.

Because of Trump’s prolific filling of circuit court vacancies, currently only five of the 179 appeals court judgeships are vacant, Jipping said. But, of those, four seats were held by Republican-appointed jurists, he added.

To flip a court, Trump would have to replace Democratic nominees with Republican nominees. Even then, it’s not a sure thing to secure originalist interpretations, Jipping said.

“We tend to focus on the president who appoints the judge as a proxy of who the judges are,” Jipping said. “Republican presidents are more likely to appoint constitutionalists. Democratic presidents are more likely to appoint activists.”

“But every case is different,” he said. “Judges don’t make widgets.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Lucas is also the author of “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections.”Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Senate Ups Judicial Confirmations Despite Democrats’ Obstruction

The NAACP’s Hateful Call to Impeach the President

Purple States on the Big Issues

Civil Rights Panel Wants to Bring Back Obama’s Race-Based School Discipline Policies. Bad Idea.

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: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

“Smart” Guns and Mandatory Storage: Two Bad Policy Ideas Cut from the Same Tattered Cloth

/in , , , , , /by

Whenever a tragedy strikes that involves a firearm, no matter how statistically rare the event may actually be, you can count on anti-gun extremists to try to exploit it. The responses from those opposed to the Second Amendment upon hearing that a fatality resulted when a firearm was used by a criminal, or accessed by someone who should not have access, tend to sound fairly similar. If a ban isn’t the response selected from the handful of ideas gun control advocates have been promoting for decades, then added restrictions on law-abiding gun owners is the policy du jour.

Restricting access to guns is a very popular notion among those who feel there should be far less freedom when it comes to responsible gun ownership.

In a misguided and misinformed attempt to limit access to firearms by those who should not have access to them (at least, in the mind of the supporters of gun control), the idea of mandatory storage laws was born. And as firearm technology has advanced (although not nearly as fast as anti-gun advocates think or would like), the little brother of mandatory storage laws, “smart” gun mandates, was conceived.

Methods for securing and storing firearms, as well as “smart” guns, may very well be options that law-abiding gun owners will want to explore to see if either or both satisfy their particular needs. But the operative word here is “options.”

Government mandates on “safe” storage and “smart” guns are not just anathema to those who cherish individual liberty, but are policies ill-conceived, and potentially deadly.

Mandatory storage laws, which the gun-ban community euphemistically refers to as “safe” storage laws, tend to look like they were all spit out of the same gun-control factory, with only small variations. In general, they require all firearms within the home to be locked with a trigger-locking device or kept in a locked container or safe, unless a firearm is in the actual possession of the lawful owner.

What these proposals overlook is the fact that gun safety and storage is a matter of personal responsibility and every person’s situation is different. It is unreasonable for the government to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. More importantly, mandatory storage laws invade people’s homes and forces them to render their firearms useless in a self-defense situation by locking them up.

In addition, those who wish to gain access to a firearm for nefarious purposes are not going to be deterred by a trigger lock or a locked container; both devices having been shown to be easily defeated by determined criminals. And while a safe is certainly far more reliable for securing firearms, their cost is prohibitive for many.

“Smart” gun mandates are similarly problematic, although perhaps even more dangerous.

While the idea of a gun that can only be used by someone authorized to use it is intriguing, the technology simply doesn’t exist. There have certainly been developments in the field, but everything that has been offered or tested has had problems. Either the “smart” aspect of restricting who may use it is easily defeated, or the gun aspect of firing when an authorized user is operating it is unreliable.

Being unable to access a firearm when needed, because it is locked away in a safe or otherwise “secured” is one thing. Trying to use a firearm to defend yourself or your loved ones against a violent criminal, only to find the “smart” technology fails at the most critical time, could be even worse.

In spite of the fact that at least one Democrat Presidential candidate seems convinced “smart” guns are a thing, they simply are not.

In the real world, firearms remain useful and effective tools in the hands of law-abiding citizens as a deterrent to violent crime. But only if the government doesn’t mandate ridiculous and dangerous policies like storage requirements or “smart” guns. And this isn’t just a hypothetical argument, as an incident in San Diego, California recently highlighted.

According to reports, a man broke into a home in the Lake Murray area of San Diego, then attacked and stabbed the homeowner. The violent criminal was only stopped when the victim’s 20-year-old son, according to police, “retrieved a firearm and shot the intruder.”

So, why is this case particularly poignant? Because San Diego recently took the first steps to implementing a mandatory storage law.

The proposal “would require gun owners to store guns in a locked container or disable them with a trigger lock when not in the person’s immediate control or being worn on their person.” Had the law been in effect this week, and had the victims of this violent assault been in compliance, one wonders whether the outcome would have been dramatically, and tragically, different.

If the victim’s son was unable to access the firearm he used without first opening a safe or removing a trigger lock, provided he even had the ability to do either, the violent criminal may very well have continued his assault unabated.

Even the local news notes some are questioning the new proposed storage requirements in light of this crime, stating, “The situation is making residents think twice about the new law that, if it were already in effect, could have altered the outcome of this burglary.”

Of course, similar concerns could be raised if San Diego had a “smart” gun mandate in place, but at least the City Council hasn’t taken that approach…yet.

On the other side of the country, however, the Garden State had already decided “smart” gun mandates should remain part of the future of gun control.

In 2002, New Jersey passed a law stating that, once “smart” guns were certified as viable, only handguns incorporating this technology could be sold in the state. This, of course, amounts to nothing more than a ban on traditional handguns. But after almost two decades, “smart” gun technology remained unproven, unreliable, and undesired by America’s gun owners. Without any significant developments or improvements in “smart” gun research that would lead to certification of firearms that satisfy the law passed in 2002, anti-gunners are using a new approach to attempting to force these mythical products into existence.

Last week, rabidly anti-gun New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy (D) signed into law a requirement that every gun dealer in the state offer at least one model of “smart” gun for sale. A commission will be established to determine a list of firearms that qualify as “smart” guns.

Typically, when you have to force businesses to sell a product, that’s a very strong indicator that there is not a market for the product. New Jersey gun shops may be forced to put a “smart” gun on their shelves, but the anti-gun zealots are more likely to see dust collecting rather than actual sales.

And while some might consider this new law an improvement, as it repeals the 2002 law that sought to require only “smart” guns be sold, don’t expect this to be the end of what anti-gun legislators will do to continue their ongoing war against gun owners in New Jersey.

Governor Murphy, after signing the new law, has already stated his desire that only “smart” guns be sold in New Jersey. Once somebody develops one that qualifies under the current law, regardless of how reliable it is, it can be placed on the approved-for-sale list. At that point, reviving the 2002 law would be the obvious next step.

Storage mandates and “smart” gun requirements will continue to be falsely promoted as safety measures in the never-ending war on law-abiding, responsible gun owners. But limiting the use of firearms by those facing assault by violent criminals, either because of storage requirements that delay access or technology that is subject to inopportune failure, is likely to lead to unintended, and sadly tragic, consequences.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Never Enough: New Zealand Government Pushes Even More Gun Control

A Pair of Academics Question Gun Control Orthodoxy

The Jihad Squad now runs the Democratic Party

/in , , , , , , /by

“That power to influence policy has always been the ultimate purpose of the Communist Party’s infiltration.  It was much more dangerous, and, as events have proved, much more difficult to detect, than espionage, which beside it is trivial, though the two go hand in hand.” – Whitacre Chambers

“I am not a critic of the West; I am a critic of the weakness of the West. I am a critic of a fact we can’t comprehend: how one can lose one’s spiritual strength, one’s will power and possessing freedom, not value it, not be willing to make sacrifices for it.” ― Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Warning to the West

The jihad squad consists of four congresswomen — Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts.  All of them wish to generationally change our country.

These jihadi Janes are committed communists. They willingly have abrogated their oaths of office in an ideology rooted not in Philadelphia, but in Moscow.  Political jihad is their game, obvious in their hatred of our culture, our nation, our Constitution, and ultimately the white European founders of our magnificent country.

They are motivated by their desire to advance a leftist, globalist system that would relegate our liberty to the trash bin.  These unaccountable jihadi Janes who share in their affinity for international communism have full contempt for the rule of law.  They do not believe in America-first, and their opponents are immediately charged with being racist bigots, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi Loses Control

Speaker Pelosi is being bullied by the new young jihadi Jane members, despite news of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and Pelosi’s “gracious” meeting.  Social media was recently ablaze regarding Nancy’s open war with AOC and the “Justice Democrats,” (a political movement advocating a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means).  Pelosi is struggling to retain control of her party.

She realizes that moving too far to the left will drive democrat voters into the arms of Trump.  She has continually fought against bringing charges of impeachment against our President, knowing it could destroy the chances of retaining their House majority.

Pelosi exhibited considerable forbearance with AOC and the rest of the Squad for the first few months after they joined Congress. She had to put out a few fires for them, of course, including several conflagrations related to their propensity to trade in anti-Semitic slurs. But the attacks on the Democratic caucus, not to mention Pelosi personally, by a staffer exhausted the speaker’s patience. She singled out Chakrabarti in a closed-door meeting and told him, “Do not tweet about our members and expect us to think that that is just OK.”  Link

The mainstream media has shown their true democratic socialist colors by continually supporting and endorsing the jihadi Janes and those who agree with their radical stances.  Pelosi has allowed her party to launch wave after wave of protests against our President and the Republican Party shouting “racism” at every turn.  Now she is feeling the brunt of that attack from these four jihadi Janes as they charge her with discriminating against women of color when she defies their totalitarian stratagems. Their continual hackneyed charge of racism has become so cavalier that the very meaning has been diluted.

Let’s first take a look at “Alexandria O-C” including those who fund the her.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Ocasio-Cortez may seem ignorant and uneducated, but this would belie the fact that she auditioned and was chosen for this position and is funded by a wealthy trust fund kid.  Don’t be fooled by her, she is being heavily promoted.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) was raised in Yorktown Heights, an affluent, mostly-white town in Westchester County, New York. She went on to earn degrees in both economics and international relations at Boston University. During her time as a student there, she also worked for the late Senator Ted Kennedy on matters involving immigration and foreign affairs.

In 2012 she started a publishing company, Brook Avenue Press (BAP), which produced children’s books portraying the Bronx in a positive light. (The state of New York dissolved BAP in October 2016, which occurs when a business fails to file a tax return or pay its corporate taxes. On July 6, 2017, the state placed a warrant on the company for non-payment of corporate taxes. As of March 2019, BAP still owed $1,870.36.)

Chosen for Office

Like Obama, AOC was an effective community organizer.  They both were taught Saul Alinsky’s communist tactics.  AOC’s run for Congress came into being as a result of a recruiting campaign organized by a group called Justice Democrats (JD), which in 2017 began holding auditions for potential candidates to run for various U.S. Congressional seats on its leftist political platform.  (JD was founded in 2017 by Cenk Uygur of the “regressive” online news program The Young Turks, Kyle Kulinski of Secular Talk, and former Bernie Sanders presidential campaign staffers Zack Exley and Saikat Chakrabarti. Their goal is to replace mainstream Democrats with socialist challengers.)

Recognizing her potential for eventually becoming an influential political figure, the newly formed leftist organization Brand New Congress (BNC), a PAC founded by Zach Exley and Saikat Chakrabarti, contacted her and encouraged her to run for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.  That same year, Ocasio-Cortez served as an organizer for Senator Bernie Sanders’s presidential bid, and in December of 2017, she spoke at a Black Lives Matter rally.

Supporters and endorsers of AOC’s 2018 congressional campaign were Bernie Sanders, Zephyr Teachout, Cynthia Nixon, Barack Obama, MoveOn.org, Our Revolution, the Democratic Socialists of America, and Black Lives Matter. U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee contributed money to the campaign.

Chakrabarti and Trust Fund Money

AOC is the leader of a movement, not just a congresswoman. Saikat Chakrabarti, for his part, has been much more than Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff—he’s become the chief strategist of a generational insurgency.

Like her jihadi Jane sisters, AOC promotes the Green New Deal, (which is nothing more than U.N. Agenda 2030), Medicare for all, tuition-free colleges, limits to the Second Amendment, the dissolution of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) along with open borders, murder of unborn babies up to and after birth, and a 70% tax rate for those who earn $10 million or more.  Like her jihadi Jane sisters, she is anti-Israel/anti-Jew and has defended and praised the Islamist activist Linda Sarsour.

AOC supports Antifa even after an Antifa activist attempted to carry out a terror attack against an ICE facility in Tacoma, Washington on July 13, 2019 and injured journalist Andy Ngo at a Portland, Oregon rally.

Wealthy trust fund kid Saikat Chakrabarti became AOC’s congressional campaign manager in 2018, and her chief of staff in Congress in 2019. He sets the policy for the jihadi Squad, and he wants to eliminate Nancy Pelosi.  Chakrabarti’s Brand New Congress (BNC) and Justice Democrats were major supporters of Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign.

BNC consists of Democrats who would bring “justice” to a deeply flawed nation that was “founded on slavery and genocide” and had “never been able to escape that legacy.” They claim the U.S. is replete with “establishment politicians who reject the racial justice demands of the Black Lives Matter movement and sit by as racial inequality persists and even worsens.”

Chakrabarti stated, “The Green New Deal? We didn’t start that out as a climate thing. We started this as a means of reversing and overthrowing the economy. It’s an economic idea.” Thereby admitting what all of climate change is! He writes their speeches. They are his minions. He controls the money.

By the way, AOC is being challenged.  Jamaican immigrant, Sherie Murray is running against AOC in 2020.  She was featured on Lou Dobb’s show on July 25th, 2019.  Murray was a supporter of AOC in 2016, and voted for Barack Obama both times.  She is not what Fox News is reporting her to be.

Chakrabarti helped establish two political action committees that paid a corporation he ran more than $1 million in 2016 and 2017, federal campaign finance records show.  And they were right in Knoxville, TN.  On March 6, 2019, the Daily Caller reported that according to corporate filings which it had obtained, AOC and her top aide had held “majority control over Justice Democrats,” who were crucial to her election victory.

Chakrabarti resigned from JD’s board, and the PAC’s website no longer lists Ocasio-Cortez as a governor, but government documents show the two still hold majority control.  Here is the Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint.

Former FEC Commissioner Brad Smith said AOC never disclosed her control of the PAC to the FEC.  If she intentionally withheld that information from the FEC, both she and Chakrabarti “could be facing jail time.” Link

Conclusion

Jihadi Jane, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is the leader of the jihad squad.  Never believe she’s stupid…she’s being groomed and promoted; the rest of the squad will follow.  Next up, Somalian Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.

Note to Bank of America: Some companies don’t scare easily

/in , , , , , , /by

Leftists are at it again – declaring that corporate America must bow in every way to their agenda or face their wrath. In this case, online activists and some staff at Wayfair (3.3 – Lean Conservative) and Ogilvy (3 – Neutral) have demanded that their leadership stop doing business with U.S. agencies which house immigrant children separated at the border.

Twitter warriors and activist employees already notched a victory – Bank of America (1 – Liberal) stopped financing private detention centers in June. But Ogilvy’s CEO isn’t backing down. Via Buzzfeed, John Seifert pointed out that:

  1. The company has worked with the federal government for decades in various capacities.
  2. The company has worked with many brands which are associated with controversies – from tobacco companies to Coca-Cola to BP after the latter’s 1999 oil spill.
  3. His primary duty is to ensure that Ogilvy survives and thrives during and after his time as CEO.

Seifert noted that Ogilvy’s contracted duty is to help U.S. Customs and Border Protection find qualified staff. Ogilvy is not involved in agency policies or supporting the Trump administration. It is simply doing what it does best – advertising.

Wayfair likewise refused to be cowed. Ranking a 3.3 on the 2ndVote scale, its executive leadership said in a statement that the company follows its obligation to fulfill lawful orders for its furniture. Ironically, opponents of Wayfair’s federal contract say that the company should protest horrible conditions…by not providing furniture for migrant children to sit and lay on. #TwitterLogic

It’s not just Wayfair and Ogilvy which are standing up against these protests. Even leftist-leaning companies like Microsoft (1 – Liberal) and Amazon (1.3 – Liberal) are refusing to stop doing business with the U.S. government despite employee protests.

As elected officials decide on America’s border policies, we urge you to use your second vote to let Bank of America’s CEO know that his cowardice isn’t appreciated – and let leaders at Wayfair, Ogilvy, Amazon, and Microsoft know that you appreciate them doing their jobs instead of engaging in tacit or explicit political action.

You can do this in two ways:

First, e-mail the CEOs who are being politically neutral business leaders. Let them know that you appreciate them standing up to their activist employees and Twitter warriors. Then let Bank of America’s CEO know that you oppose his cowardice.

Second, shop your values. Shop at Wayfair. Let them know in the most important way – with your money – that you value the stand they’ve taken. Be sure to check out their score and all of the other company scoreswhich 2ndVote has compiled so you can make the most informed consumer decisions.

The 2ndVote website allows you to easily communicate directly to any company scored on their individual score page. Take the time to thank companies that focus on business and not social activism, and ask the companies who pander to the radical anti-American agenda that you want them to stop and just provide their good, or services.

Wayfair CEO Niraj Shah – nshah@wayfair.com

Ogilvy CEO John Seifert – john.seifert@ogilvy.com

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos – jeff@amazon.com

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella – satyan@microsoft.com

Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan – brian.t.moynihan@bankofamerica.com

EDITORS NOTE: This 2nd Vote column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO UPDATE: Judicial Watch Demands House Ethics Investigation of Rep. Ilhan Omar

/in , , , , , , /by

Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Democrat from Minnesota, is in the news often because of her racially inflammatory anti-Semitic views, including her support for a terrorist front group. But far-left views are not our concern at this moment – her alleged criminal behavior is.

Earlier this week, we hand-delivered an ethics complaint to David Skaggs, chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics, calling for a full investigation into potential crimes tied to allegations that Omar may have married her biological brother.

“The evidence is overwhelming Rep. Omar may have violated the law and House rules. The House of Representatives must urgently investigate and resolve the serious allegations of wrongdoing by Rep. Omar,” we said. “We encourage Americans to share their views on Rep. Omar’s apparent misconduct with their congressmen.”

Here is our full complaint:

Ethics Complaint Against Rep. Ilhan Omar Concerning Possible Violations of Federal and State Law

Dear Chairman Skaggs,

Judicial Watch is a non-profit, non-partisan educational foundation, promoting transparency, accountability and integrity in government and fidelity to the rule of law. We regularly monitor congressional ethics issues as part of our anti-corruption mission.

This letter serves as an official complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE).

Substantial, compelling and, to date, unrefuted evidence has been uncovered that Rep. Ilhan Omar may have committed the following crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law: perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, and federal student loan fraud.

Such violations would also breach the Code of Ethics for Government Service, to which all federal officeholders are subject, “Any person in Government service should uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.”) Rep. Omar actions in this suspected immigration fraud, marriage fraud, perjurious statements on her Minnesota divorce filings, and falsifications on her tax returns, merit your immediate investigation.

In the words of investigative reporter David Steinberg: “The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.”

The evidence developed against Rep. Omar was the result of a three-year-long investigation in both the United States and the United Kingdom by Mr. Steinberg and his investigative reporter colleagues Preya Samsundar and Scott Johnson. It is supported by information gathered from public records, social media postings, genealogy databases, computer forensic analysis, unaltered digital photographs, discussions between the investigative reporters and the subjects of the investigation themselves, and information supplied by confidential sources within the Somali-American community.

Documented-based reporting by Steinberg, et al. has developed the following information: Rep. Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, a citizen of the United States, married her biological brother, Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a citizen of the United Kingdom, in 2009, presumably as part of an immigration fraud scheme. The couple legally divorced in 2017. In the course of that divorce, Ms. Omar submitted an “Application for an Order for Service by Alternate Means” to the State of Minnesota on August 2, 2017 and claimed, among other things, that she had had no contact with Ahmed Nur Said Elmi after June 2011. She also claimed that she did not know where to find him. The evidence developed by Mr. Steinberg and his colleagues demonstrates with a high degree of certainty that Ms. Omar not only had contact with Mr. Elmi, but actually met up with him in London in 2015, which is supported by photographic evidence. Ms. Omar signed the “Application for an Order for Service by Alternate Means” under penalty of perjury. The very document that Ilham Omar signed on August 2, 2017 bears the following notation directly above her signature: “I declare under penalty of perjury that everything I have stated in this document is true and correct. Minn. Stat. § 358.116.”

Of particular importance are archived photographs taken during a widely reported trip by Ilhan Omar to London in 2015, posted to her own Instagram account under her nickname “hameey”, in which she poses with her husband/presumed brother, Ahmed Elmi. These photographs from 2015 are documentary evidence that in fact she met up with Mr. Elmi after June 2011 and before the date she signed the divorce document in August 2017, thereby calling into question the veracity of her claim that she had not seen Mr. Elmi since June 2011.

Rep. Omar’s potential crimes far exceed perjurious statements made in a Minnesota court filing.

Rep. Omar’s conduct may include immigration fraud. It appears that Rep. Omar married her brother in order to assist his emigration to the United States from the United Kingdom. The same immigration fraud scheme may have aided Mr. Elmi in obtaining federally-backed student loans for his attendance at North Dakota State University. Mr. Elmi and Rep. Omar simultaneously attended North Dakota State University and may have derived illicit benefits predicated on the immigration fraud scheme.

The State of Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board has already determined that Rep. Omar violated state campaign finance laws for improper use of campaign funds. She was forced to reimburse her campaign thousands of dollars. More significantly, the Board discovered that the federal tax returns submitted by Rep. Omar for 2014 and 2015 were filed as “joint” tax returns with a man who was not her husband, named Ahmed Hirsi, while she was actually married to Ahmed Elmi.

Under federal law, specifically, 26 U.S. Code & 7206.1, “Any person who willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that it is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter … shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”

Rep. Omar’s federal tax returns must be examined to determine whether any additional falsifications were made.

Mr. Steinberg, et al. have engaged in meticulous research and reporting over a period of years. They have demonstrated with a high degree of probability that Rep. Ilhan Omar has violated House Ethics Rules, federal and state laws.

We call upon the Office of Congressional Ethics to launch an investigation into Rep. Omar’s conduct immediately.

Sincerely,

Tom Fitton, President, Judicial Watch

I discussed this complaint in several radio interviews, which you can listen to here, here, and here.

The House ethics process will not move in this instance, I suspect, unless pushed. I encourage to share your views on Rep. Omar with your congressman. You can reach the House at 202-224-3121. More contact information is available on the House web site here: www.house.gov.

Robert Mueller’s Latest Attempt to Smear President Trump

Did you watch former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s embarrassing performance this week?

The corruptly formed and constitutionally abusive Mueller investigation failed to find any evidence to support the big lie of Trump-Russia collusion.

Nonetheless, Mr. Muller attempted to smear President Trump yet again with obstruction of justice innuendo despite concluding that no such charges could be credibly sustained. Mueller never had a valid basis upon which to investigate President Trump for obstruction of justice.

Let’s be clear: Neither Mueller, the Obama FBI, DOJ, CIA, State Department, nor the Deep State ever had a good-faith basis to pursue President Trump on Russia collusion. Russia collusion wasn’t just a hoax, it was a criminal abuse of President Trump, which is why we has fought and will continue to fight for documents on Russiagate and Mueller special counsel abuse in federal court.

Leftists in the State Department Sabotage Trump’s Guatemala Asylum Deal

While we are focused on Deep State players in the Justice Department and FBI who have used their offices to cripple President Trump, other Deep Staters are alive and well in the State Department and busy sabotaging the president’s efforts to protect our borders. Our Corruption Chronicles blog reports.

The sabotage of President Donald Trump’s deal with Guatemala to alleviate the illegal immigration crisis is part of a broader problem involving pervasive corruption in the Central American nation and embedded leftists in the U.S. State Department’s Western Hemisphere Division. With a compromised electoral system and a presidential election looming in Guatemala, the impoverished nation of about 16 million could easily slide into the Cuban or Venezuelan camp of failed socialist countries. Socialist Sandra Torres, a former Guatemalan first lady and radical leftist guerrilla, could become the country’s next president.

Why should Americans be concerned? Because Guatemala is essentially the United States’ southern border, given Mexico’s status as a failed narco-state with its first leftist president (Andrés Manuel López Obrador) in decades. Torres will run off against conservative Alejandro Giammattei in August and if she wins, many believe her leftist administration will sink the country back into civil war. That will likely translate into more illegal immigrants heading north, even though hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans have already been apprehended at the U.S. border since outgoing President Jimmy Morales, a conservative populist, took power in 2016. Before Morales’s victory marked a renewal of conservatism and pro U.S.-sentiment in the country, Guatemala rejected a resurgence of leftwing leaders throughout Latin America by electing former General Otto Pérez Molina to the presidency. Guatemalans apparently learned a lesson after electing their first leftwing president in half a century in 2007, Álvaro Colom, whose tenure was plagued by rampant corruption.

A recent poll conducted by Gallup Latinoamerica shows that Giammattei, a medical doctor who ran Guatemala’s prison system, leads Torres 40.6% to 33.4%. But government officials and other activists in Guatemala tell Judicial Watch the country’s electoral system is totally compromised and extremely vulnerable to fraud. They worry that a rigged Torres victory, with the support of U.S. Ambassador Luis E. Arreaga, will be disastrous for the country. Arreaga’s predecessor, Obama appointee Todd Robinson, also colluded with leftist forces—including a key figure for the violent Marxist guerrilla known as the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC)— to illegally promote changes to the Guatemalan constitution.

Little has changed since the Trump administration replaced Robinson with Arreaga, according to knowledgeable sources in Guatemala’s private and public sector. Arreaga was called to Washington, D.C. in the aftermath of the failed third country asylum debacle, according to Guatemalan media, but no further details have been made available. High-level government sources in the country say Arreaga is a leftist who is doing everything possible to subvert and sabotage the Trump administration’s efforts to collaborate with the country in several key areas. Most important among them is immigration.

This week Trump was scheduled to meet Morales in Washington to sign an agreement making Guatemala a buffer zone by temporarily absorbing illegal immigrants seeking asylum in the U.S. Guatemala’s Constitutional Court reportedly blocked Morales from going through with the deal, but other forces were at play behind the scenes. A top Guatemalan government source said the U.S. State Department collaborated with local leftist groups to kill the planned safe country asylum deal between Trump and Morales. Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the State Department seeking all records related to the planned meeting between Trump and Morales as well as information involving the proposed safe third country agreement.

In the last year Judicial Watch has exposed the U.S. government’s outrageous financial and political support of leftist forces in Guatemala. Specifically, the government uses taxpayer dollars to back leftwing billionaire George Soros’ radical globalist agenda in the Central American nation. In a special investigative report Judicial Watch provides in detail the connection between U.S.-funded entities and Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF) to further the Hungarian philanthropist’s efforts in Guatemala. The goal is to advance a radical globalist agenda through “lawfare” and political subversion, the report shows. The American taxpayer dollars flow through the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID), which works closely with the State Department and receives foreign policy guidance from the agency and Secretary of State.

THE WEISSMANN DOSSIER: Who really wrote the Mueller Report?

/in , , , , , /by

Anyone who watched more than a few minutes of Wednesday’s painful hearings with former Special Counsel Robert Mueller discovered a sad truth the Democrats and many in the media continue to hide: Mueller neither wrote his report nor did he master the content of it.

Repeatedly during the day, the former FBI director stumbled over what we had been told were his findings. He slowly leafed through a binder, searching for passages that lawmakers were quoting to him, only to say “okay” or “true” when he finally found them.

In the morning’s hearing at the House Judiciary committee, Rep. Doug Collins asked Mueller if “conspiracy” – the criminal law term used in the first part of his report about Russia – and the vernacular term, “collusion” were the same thing. Mueller replied, “No.”

Taken aback, Collins asked if he was changing his earlier testimony – ie, the report – which stated on page 180 that collusion and conspiracy were the same. When Mueller finally found the passage, he withdrew his earlier testimony and stood by the report.

Rep. Collins – and frankly, every member of the two committees who questioned Mueller – had the elegance not to state the obvious: Mueller was non compus mentis.

During the afternoon hearing, Rep. Peter Welch, D, Va, again asked whether he had found collusion. This time, Mueller was so far gone, he couldn’t find his words.

“We don’t use the word collusion,” he said. “The word we usually use is-ah-not collusion-ah. But one of the other-ah-terms that-ah-ah-that fills in when collusion is not used. In any event, we decided not to use the word collusion in so much as it has no relevance to the criminal law arena.”

“The term is ‘conspiracy’,” Welch said.

“Conspiracy, that’s exactly right.”

“You help me, I’ll help you,” Welch offered.

Similarly, Mueller drew a blank over the name of Fusion GPS, the company that had hired Christopher Steele on behalf of the Democrat National Committee to produce the infamous Russia “dossier” about Donald Trump.

“When discussing the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting you reference ‘the firm that produced the Steele reporting.’ The name of that firm was Fusion GPS. Is that correct?” Rep. Sterve Chabot, R, OH, asked.

Mueller said he was “not familiar” with the name.

“It was. It’s not a trick question. It was Fusion GPS,” Chabot said.

There were many other examples, and they were painful to watch.

The conclusion one must draw is significant and far-reaching. The 448 page dossier commonly referred to as the Mueller Report was not written by Robert Mueller, nor did the Special Counsel apparently review its findings or familiarize himself with the investigation that led up to those findings.

It is the Weissmann dossier, and it was written by the highly partisan Democrat lawyer and Hillary Clinton supporter Andrew Weissmann.

Weissmann is best known for wildly famous cases of prosecutorial overreach, including his overturned prosecution of Enron officials and the auditing firm Arthur Andersen LLP, which destroyed both firms and put over 100,000 people out of work.

Defense Attorney Sidney Powell, in her 2014 book Licensed to Lie, accuses Weissmann of suborning perjury, something that multiple witnesses in the (newly renamed) Weissman witch hunt have also accused him of doing.

Jerome Corsi is suing the Special Counsel and has said that he rejected a plea deal offered to him by the Special Counsel’s office because it required him to lie.

Similarly, The Hill’s John Solomon recently revealed that Weissmann reached out to the U.S. lawyers of Ukrainian oligarch Dimitry Firtash early on during the probe in another attempt to suborn perjury. “Give us some dirt on Donald Trump in the Russia case, and Team Mueller might make his 2014 U.S. criminal charges go away,” they said in effect, Solomon wrote.

According to Solomon’s account, Weissmann gave specific instructions to Firtash’s legal team on what lies their client should tell the Special Counsel.

If these tales of attempts to suborn perjury are accurate, Andrew Weissmann should be indicted and sent to jail.

But while jailing Weissmann might provide solace to Jerome Corsi and others who have been wronged by his prosecutorial misconduct, by the time that happens the political damage will have been done.

And that’s the point. Weissmann and his team of partisan Democrat lawyers wrote this entire 448 page report with one goal in mind: to provide a roadmap to Democrats in Congress for the impeachment of President Trump.

If you don’t believe that, just tune into any show on MSNBC or CNN. That’s all they’ve been talking about since Mueller’s testimony.

As Representative John Radcliffe, R-TX, pointed out in his exchange with Mueller on Wednesday, this report never should have been written, and if written, should never have been released, because it violates the most sacred U.S. legal principal, namely that accused persons are innocent until proven guilty.

“I agree that Donald Trump is not above the law,” Ratclifee said in conclusion. “He’s not. But he damned sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where Volume 2 of this report puts him.”

Federal prosecutors either indict, or they decline to indict. They don’t decline to indict – as Team Weissmann did – all the while laying out the rationale for some other prosecutors, such as Democrat committee chairmen in the House, to indict.

Americans should now understand that the so-called Mueller Report is a political hit job, not a work of criminal investigation, and as such, it is just a souped-up version of the infamously unverified “Russia dossier” penned by former British intelligence officer turned Democrat Party paid operative, Christopher Steele.

RELATED VIDEO: Trump sounds off on the Mueller hearings on ‘Hannity’ | FULL INTERVIEW

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Our New Civil War

/in , , , , , , /by

David Carlin: American “progressives” oppose Christianity and Americanism and endorse secular humanism and a borderless world. Catholics should not.

The American Civil War has often been called the “Second American Revolution.”  Well, I have the feeling that we are now living through what may be called the “Second American Civil War.”

On the one side are leftist “progressives,” who hope to turn the United States into a new and better country than it has ever been.  On the other side (the side that I myself favor) are those who wish to preserve the old-fashioned America, at least in its essentials.  I suppose we should call these people “conservatives” or “traditionalists.”

One of the great advantages the forward-looking progressives have is that even their enemies tend to be forward-looking.  A belief in never-ending progress is a traditional American belief.  Conservatives are slow-moving progressives.  Their motto is, “Steady as she goes.”  The progressive motto is, “Full speed ahead, damn the torpedoes.”

Present-day progressivism has an agenda resting on four pillars, two of them negative or destructive, two positive or creative.

The two negative pillars are (1) anti-Christianity and (2) anti-American nationalism. Progressives seek to replace these with two positive pillars are (3) secular humanism and (4) “multicultural” cosmopolitanism.

(1) The attack on Christianity is an attack, not on liberal or modernistic Christianity, but on old-fashioned Christianity: I mean the Christianity of the New Testament, the Christianity of the Nicene Creed, the Christianity that is the common ground shared by Catholicism and Evangelical Protestantism.  Progressives have little or no objection to liberal or modernistic Christianity, which is a form of religion that has cast overboard almost all the content of traditional Christianity. It is a semi-atheistic kind of “Christianity” that has welcomed, supported, and been inspired by progressivism.

The chief weapon progressivism has used against Christianity has been the Sexual Revolution, that is, the ideal of sexual freedom that has captivated America for the last sixty years or so.  Persuade the American public that there is nothing morally objectionable in fornication, sexual promiscuity, unmarried cohabitation, out-of-wedlock childbirth, abortion, homosexual conduct, same-sex marriage, etc., and the American public, having got rid of Christian morality, will quite logically proceed to get rid of the doctrinal foundations of that morality.

(2) The attack on American nationalism has intensified in recent years as progressives have repeatedly reminded us, along with our children and grandchildren, of the many sins that have been committed by the United States, these sins being a continuation of the sins committed by our predecessors in the colonies of British North America.

It’s a 400-year tale of horror: stealing land and something like a genocide directed against indigenous peoples, centuries of slavery, another century of Jim Crow racism, capitalist-inspired destruction of the environment and exploitation of workers, the oppression of women, and a  generalized hatred of many groups – LGBTQ people, people of color, Muslims, refugees, Hispanics, transgenders.

A tale of horror – but not unmitigated horror.  For there have been some good people along the way: Tom Paine, Frederick Douglass, Harriett Tubman, Abraham Lincoln, Mark Twain, Martin Luther King, Harvey Milk, and a few others.  Thomas Jefferson was half-good (because of the Declaration of Independence) and half-bad (because of his sexual exploitation of Sally Heming).  Theodore Roosevelt was partly good (because of his national parks) though mostly bad (because of his belligerent nationalism and militarism).

In short, a one-sided, Howard Zinn tale of US history.

(3) If progressives are successful in getting rid of that nasty thing, Christianity, they will need a new “religion” to replace it.  And they have long had one ready, going back to the days of John Dewey if not Karl Marx. This new religion is secular humanism, that is, atheism with a human face.  Mankind will no longer need to rely on that twofold myth of God – God as Creator and as the author of our moral imperatives.

We will be content to believe that the universe is a chance and meaningless thing; that our brief lives, along with the lives of our loved ones, are without any cosmic or eternal significance, and cease forever at the moment of death; and that the rules of morality are nothing more than convenient and temporary rules that help members of this or that society to get along with one another.

Aided by science and drugs (both medicinal and recreational) and personal freedom, we will live happy lives.  And when our lives cease to be pleasant, somebody (our relatives or the state) will do us the favor of euthanizing us.  A “Brave New World” indeed.

(4) Instead of being that petty thing, an American nationalist, each of us will become that grand and splendid thing, a citizen of the world – a cosmopolitan in the literal sense of that word, which comes from two Greek words, cosmos (= world) and polis (= city-state).  Once upon a time, progressives tell us, it made sense that mankind should be divided into a large number of tribes, cities, nations, etc.  But that time is past.

Now we live in a world that is increasingly a single world: a world unified by commerce, finance, communications, international travel, etc.  Nationalism (or patriotism if you prefer calling it that) is, and should be, a dying thing.  We need a global patriotism.  We should not say, “My country is the USA.”  We should say, “My country is the world.”  We should not say, “Make America great again.”  We should say, “Make the world great for the first time.”

So the progressives tell us.  And that explains why progressives have little or no objection to massive illegal immigration into America.  After all, aren’t we all fellow-citizens of the world.  Why shouldn’t our doors be open to everyone on the face of the Earth?

It is quite possible that progressives will prevail in the long run.  Who knows?  But who can be surprised if American-Christian traditionalists fight back in the meantime?  And who will be surprised if the fight sooner or later becomes bloody?

I fear we have a very unpleasant half-century in front of us.

COLUMN BY

David Carlin

David Carlin is a professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

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

Is Ilhan Omar a ‘Failed American Experiment?’ Here Are Your Comments

/in , , , , , /by

Amidst the media furor over President Trump’s suggestion that Omar, due to her anti-Americanism, should go back to her home country of Somalia, we wrote an article titled “Is Ilhan Omar a ‘Failed American Experiment?’”

The words “failed American experiment” were those used by Clarion’s National Correspondent Shireen Qudosi on a recent appearance alongside Candice Owens on The Ingraham Angle, Fox’s popular news magazine with Laura Ingraham.

Qudosi, who herself is a Muslim, also noted that, based on Omar’s own rhetoric against America, “send her back” was not a racist statement but rather a “common sense message.”

At the end of the article, we asked for your opinion if Omar was a failed American experiment. Here are some of the many responses we received:

Identity politics always seems to lead to bind people in perpetual states of victimhood until some vague utopian leveling of all things is achieved. But it never is achieved and never will be. So unless identity politics is called what it is — an ill-conceived and dangerous strategy to right perceived wrongs — we will continue to descend into a dark, hopeless, roiling pit of rage and anger that has no happy ending.

This question is complex considering the different factions that exists in the U.S. today. There are organizations that consider the U.S. Constitution an out-lived document. So they teach children from the time they can understand how to hate America. … People like Omar are part of the problems we have and they will always be around to fulfill their hatred and disregard for our Constitution.

The American-Muslim woman in the article who spoke about Omar being a failed American experiment [Clarion’s National Correspondant Shireen Qudosi] I view as an example of what the attitude and perspective of a true American is and ought to be. She is what Omar should’ve become. She is the success story!

The West had been fortunate that early immigration brought in people who were politically benign and motivated to assimilate into Western society. But with the politically active global jihadist movement and “Caliphatism” seeking to capitalize on the liberties in the West to undermine and usurp political power, the system has simply broken down.

I understand the temptation to refer to Ilhan Omar as a failed experiment, though I think that is inaccurate. Ilhan is the product of her Somali culture, grossly amplified by the progressive’s victimhood culture, which taught her ever since she arrived in America. She has excelled at utilizing it to advance into the political/media-driven melange as a “new face of the Left.”

Her outright anti-Semitism in various statements, tweets and comments over the years would be enough to force the resignation of any white Republican congresswoman. Why the double standard? Because she is “insulated” by her race, religion, and gender all in the name of “diversity” — of the type that only leftists can wear. So, no ,she isn’t a failed “experiment” at all . She is a disaster of unparalleled proportion demonstrating the failure of American immigration screening, educational institutes and one political party that embraces the “hate America culture” as politically correct. 

Yes, and there are many others like her. For example, the Dutch immigrant that fire bombed the ICE facility in Washington state last week and the individuals who took down the American flag at the ICE facility in Colorado and raised a Mexican flag in its place. This is a problem that is more common then we often want to acknowledge.

Unlike Miss Omar, I live in a country I love (Zimbabwe), though it be very difficult at times. Without judging Omar, there seems to be a lack of appreciation of what she has in the USA. A visit to her original country of Somalia would certainly help her lack of appreciation and may even bring a little humility to what would seem like a very self-important and very entitled person. How sad …

Yes, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is a failed American experiment. She is anti-American and anti-Semitic. Her behavior is an embarrassment to our country as well as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. A motion should be made within Congress to have her removed. Such hatred has no place in a democratic society.

Omar is the one who has failed miserably.

The failed experiment is a concept called multiculturalism. It has inflicted deep harm in every society that has implemented it.

Failed American Experiment is the best description I have heard to date. [In the words of Clarion’s National Correspondent Shireen Qudosi, herself a Muslim:] “… Omar still carries the broken value systems of all Third-World Muslim countries…”

Simultaneously, Rep. Ilhan Omar represents both the best and the worst of our immigration policy. Arriving as a poor, teenage refugee from Somalia, in short order, she was able to learn English, get a college education and pursue a career. By the age of 36, she was elected as the first female Muslim to Congress. Yet, in spite of her success, she denigrates the United States as hypocritical, unjust, and racist. She even refers to the Army Rangers who fought to save starving citizens (of the country she abandoned) from an unrelenting tide of warlords as warmongers. Thus, for someone who has been given so much by our country and has achieved the American Dream in a very short time, she is incredibly bitter and ungrateful. Ultimately, she has a toxic effect on our politics, something both ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood can exploit to further their own narratives against us.

I believe everyone deserves a chance to prove themselves. Omar on numerous occasions has shown how truly anti-Semitic she is. Also the company she keeps disturbs me. She was photographed hobnobbing with Erdogan of Turkey.

A Trojan horse.

It is not an experiment but another way to help the progressives destroy the U.S. Islam’s laws are incompatible with our Constitution. 

What it seems like most people don’t understand about Omar’s position is that her attitude is no different than having a racist in Congress! I find it utterly hypocritical of Democrats in general to condemn President Donald Trump for being racist while they happily support the racists in their own party.

Clearly there is something terribly wrong with the way many Americans view things, especially among elected politicians. I mean how despicably self-centered a human being must be to be so one-sided, bias or partial to see the evil of others and yet at the same time to be completely blind of those same evils among those of your own party.

RELATED STORIES:

Is Ilhan Omar a ‘Failed American Experiment?’

Ilhan Omar Slams US on Fourth of July 

Ilhan Omar Controversy: Where Does She Get Her Views?

Mueller Upshot: Legal Rights Denied To Trump Family

/in , , , , , , , /by

Today’s hearings revealed again how two bedrock American legal principles have been terribly abused in the Mueller investigation’s final report on Russian election interference. The first principle is innocent until proven guilty, known in the legal profession as the presumption of innocence.

After being essentially cleared in the first half of the report on colluding with Russia (Democrats won’t let go of the dead horse, but Mueller did) the special counsel jumped tracks in the second half and took away Trump’s presumption of innocence.

Prosecutor Mueller and his team laid out in 200-plus pages of detailed evidence the supposed obstruction of justice. Yet Mueller declined to recommend charges, but then made the shockingly unprofessional statement that he could not “exonerate” Trump, and that if he could he would. That was just prosecutorial malfeasance of a very high order, and certainly gives the appearance of a political setup for Democrats to launch impeachment.

Now, some of you will say, but he’s the president! It’s different! That brings me to the second bedrock American legal principle under assault: equality under the law.

If everyone is equal under the law, which I should hope everyone on the left and right agrees with, then why is this President and his family members not presumed innocent? Why is this President and his family members left with the pall of “not exonerated” when in every other single instance of American prosecution, it is simply and rightly “not sufficient evidence” for prosecution?

If your answer is, he’s the president! Or, this is too important! Then you don’t believe everyone is equal under the law. You believe Trump and his family are *less* equal under the law.

Remember, in this special counsel arrangement (I still contend a bad law), there is no other side presented. This is just a prosecutor’s report. In a normal courtroom, a full defense team would be breaking down the prosecution’s case and, very importantly, would be cross-examining witnesses. None of that has happened or is allowed to happen.

But Trump did obstruct justice, you may say, because Mueller couldn’t exonerate him! As previously noted, a prosecutor does not have the authority in the American legal system to “exonerate” anyone specifically because everyone is presumed innocent until *proven* guilty.

But further, Mueller admitted during his testimony that he had not been in any way obstructed. Congressman John Ratcliffe asked Mueller whether his investigation been curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any point. Mueller answered, “No.” Not even hindered? So, there was no obstruction.

Ratcliff also asked Mueller on my main point:

“Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?”

Mueller’s bone-chilling answer:

“I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”

No, it’s not if we’re all equal under the law. Trump has not been provided a presumption of innocence, nor has he had his “day in court” to go after the prosecutors and cross-examine their witnesses, which means he has not been treated equally under the law. I realize this means nothing to the Trump-haters. But it should matter to regular Americans.

As bad as foreign interference is in our elections (and Russia alone has been doing it since the 1930s, and aggressively since the 1950s) undermining our own jurisprudence for political gain is worse.

In the realm of stating what is un-American, that could hardly fit better.

RELATED ARTICLES:

8 Takeaways From Mueller’s 2 Appearances Before Congress

If Mueller didn’t write the report, who did?

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.