Planned Parenthood’s Political Juggernaut Is Meeting Its Match

By Peter B. Gemma

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider and a powerful multi-million-dollar political machine. Hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding go for its non-profit “family planning services.” In truth, however, that facilitates Planned Parenthood’s political activities, underwritten by private donations, in support of politicians who keep the federal funding flowing.

Fortunately for the pro-life side, the Susan B. Anthony List has reached parity in political fundraising and organizational operations on the ground. Of course, it gets no tax dollars. And the Trump administration has been a great restrictor of the abortion giant with executive guidelines.

Recently, the Trump administration enacted a rule that would require family planning clinics to be housed in separate buildings from abortion clinics, a move that would cut off Planned Parenthood from some federal funding. The new guidelines apply to a $286 million-a-year grant, known as Title X, that pays for birth control and testing of sexually transmitted diseases for four million of its low-income clients. It requires the “physical and financial” separation of family planning services and abortion referrals. Planned Parenthood clinics will be able to talk to mothers about abortion, but not where they can go to get one. The organization receives between $50 million and $60 million from Title X.

Of course, the new federal rule is being challenged in court. Several state officials, including Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and presidential candidate/Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, have announced an intent to sue over the new policy.

Legal battles may not be good news because right to life advocates have not fared well in the courts lately.

In June 2017, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Medicaid Act “authorizes a private right of action,” allowing Medicaid recipients to challenge the disqualification of a health care provider. Louisiana and Kansas, which had stripped Planned Parenthood of state Medicaid funds after evidence that the abortion provider was harvesting and selling fetal body parts, proceeded to appeal the ruling to the U. S. Supreme Court. On Dec. 10 2018, by a vote of six to three, the High Court declined to hear the appeal, letting the lower court ruling stand. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented. Instead of supplying the fourth vote needed just to allow for a hearing, Chief Justice Roberts and, in a surprise to many (not all) pro-lifers, Justice Kavanaugh, sided with the four liberals on the Court.

Meanwhile for Planned Parenthood, it’s business-as-usual and business is good as it is cashing in on the Trump era. In 2018, taxpayers were charged for a $20 million increase in federal funding according to the organization’s annual report – a total of $564.8 million in government subsidies. Planned Parenthood also received $100 million more from private contributions and bequests in 2018 than it did in 2017, with Warren Buffett, the investment guru, leading the way. He has donated $63.5 million to Planned Parenthood since 2014 through his family’s foundation. Planned Parenthood’s total net assets have increased from $1.6 billion last year to nearly $1.9 billion in 2018.

And Planned Parenthood has now ramped-up its abortion services. They are providing travel expenses and financial assistance for clients in states where abortion is restricted and regulated, to states where controls are loose to non-existent.

Curiously, despite receiving regular increases via taxpayer dollars and boosts in their private fund-raising efforts, Planned Parenthood’s services have declined. The organization’s 2015-2016 report revealed that Planned Parenthood served 100,000 fewer women in 2015-2016 as compared to 2014-2015. But their abortion machine is in high gear: 323,999 abortions performed two years ago, 328,348 last year, and 332,757 in 2018. Planned Parenthood has cornered 35 percent of the abortion market.

In 2015-2016, Planned Parenthood performed 83 abortions for every one adoption referral. The abortion giant referred about 3,000 women to adoption services during 2018, one thousand less than the year before.

Planned Parenthood’s new president, Dr. Leana Wen, has acknowledged that abortion isn’t just a service the organization provides, but the bottom line of their business: “First, our core mission is providing, protecting, and expanding access to abortion and reproductive health care. We will never back down from that fight.”

What is the secret of Planned Parenthood’s success? The organization’s previous CEO, Cecile Richards, put it simply: “We have the potential to swing the vote and that’s a lot of power. The question is, what are we going to do with it? We’re going to be the largest kickass advocacy organization in the country!

Planned Parenthood and its political arms are separate on paper (because taxpayers are forced to give the abortion chain over $500 million a year for health services). However, private and corporate donors direct their money into Planned Parenthood’s political agenda – and abortion business – rather than to fund the other services the organization provides. In 2018, donors invested $532.7 million dollars in Planned Parenthood, including $21 million from left-wing billionaire George Soros.

Planned Parenthood has some 40 corporate backers, including:

  • American Express
  • Levi Strauss
  • AT & T
  • Macy’s
  • Avon
  • Microsoft
  • Bank of America
  • Nike
  • Bath & Body Works
  • Pepsi-Co
  • Clorox
  • Starbucks
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Verizon

Federal law prohibits government funding “to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion” (except in cases of rape, incest, or an amorphous ‘danger to the life of the mother’). That’s where Planned Parenthood’s private donors step in. Last year they bankrolled the organization’s $160 million expenditure on “public policy” (lobbying) and “movement building to engage communities” (grassroots organizing; there are more than 50,000 student members on 350 campuses.)

In addition, Planned Parenthood poured over $20 million directly into the 2018 midterm election. And there’s more. Because of its partnership with the Win Justice Coalition (which includes the Service Employees International Union, the Center for Community Change Action, and the Color of Change PAC), Planned Parenthood’s 2018 war chest actually topped $28 million.

In 2016, according to the Federal Election Commission, Planned Parenthood invested $12.6 million into independent expenditures – nearly all of it to support Democrats or oppose Republicans. That figure includes $2.8 million to attack Donald Trump and $2.4 million to back Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid.

George Soros and his family are major donors to Planned Parenthood Votes, giving a combined $4.75 million in two election cycles. Last year, Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire and former mayor of New York City, contributed $1 million to one of Planned Parenthood’s political operations.

On the positive side, the largest pro-life political action committee that is a muscular match for Planned Parenthood, the Susan B. Anthony List, has matched the abortion giant’s financial clout politically along with its organizational skills. The group raised and spent some $28 million in 2018, which matches Planned Parenthood and its partnership organizations combined. The Susan B. Anthony List also marshaled enough troops to knock on the doors of some 2.7 million pro-life households as part of its grassroots efforts to get out the vote.

The Susan B. Anthony List has become a force to be reckoned with and one that, while largely ignored by a medial that is slavish in producing pro-abortion puff pieces, is making its presence known in political elections.

Of course, the newest and biggest asset of the right to life movement is the Trump administration.

Scores of federal judges who, by-in-large, have pro-life records have been nominated and appointed and the impact is now being felt. This month, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Ohio’s right to defund Planned Parenthood, asserting that there is no “Fourteenth Amendment right to perform abortions.” It reversed a lower court’s decision by an 11–6 vote, with all four Trump appointees ruling against Planned Parenthood.

Many federal government agencies and departments are creating pro-life policies.

For example, President Trump has expanded policies to ensure American tax dollars are not used to fund the abortion industry in all global health programs. The new Trump policy protects over $8.8 billion overseas aid from funding abortion. Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services  established the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within the Office for Civil Rights that will work to protect health care professionals who do not want to participate in abortion.

And the Trump administration has hired pro-life personnel.

Bethany Kozma, senior adviser for the Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment at the U.S. Agency for International Development, told the annual U.N. Commission on the Status of Women meeting that the “U.S. is a pro-life nation.” An overstatement for certain, especially considering the strengthening political clout of Planned Parenthood, but it rings truer than it has in a long, long time.

ABOUT PETER B. GEMMA

Peter B. Gemma is a freelance writer whose articles and commentaries have appeared in USA Today, AmericanThinker.com, and the DailyCaller.com.

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

Virginia Raises Smoking Age to 21—as Congressional Members Seek to Lower Voting Age to 16

It’s a laughable notion that an 18- to 21-year-old can be locked up with career criminals but can’t legally buy a cigarette at a corner store.


Virginia Governor Ralph Northam recently signed legislation to raise the legal age for purchasing cigarettes and other nicotine products to 21. The move isn’t just a misguided nanny-state intervention into the decisions of adults, but it also spells disaster for public health.

By the age of 18, Americans can sign contracts, vote, and even (theoretically) get drafted into the army. They are also tried as adults and, at times, face life prison sentences for crimes. There is even talk now about lowering the voting age to 16, with 14 states and Washington DC already allowing teenagers to pre-register to vote.

“I myself have always been for lowering the voting age to 16,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently said. “I think it’s really important to capture kids when they’re in high school, when they’re interested in all of this, when they’re learning about government, to be able to vote.”

Earlier this month, freshman Massachusetts congresswoman Ayanna Pressley filed legislation that would require states to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote in federal elections.

Voting matters aside, it’s a laughable notion that an 18- to 21-year-old can be locked up with career criminals and exposed to an American prison’s brutality—but can’t legally buy a cigarette at a corner store.

There are effective deterrents in tobacco control policy, like cigarette tax hikes. But the same can’t be said for new age restrictions. Longstanding bans on cigarette sales to those under 18 have done nothing to prevent over 8.1 percent of American high schoolers and 1.8 percent of middle schoolers from taking up smoking. It’s not hard to see why: It’s fairly easy for youngsters to borrow cigarettes off adults or to ask adults to purchase cigarettes for them. There’s no reason to think things will play out differently if the legal age is raised to 21.

Proponents of the law might argue that raising the age requirement does have precedent. After all, the legal drinking age is 21. But that’s not even a good example. Indeed, many developed, western nations maintain a legal drinking age that is far lower than 21—sometimes as low as 16—and have lower rates of alcohol-fueled violence and binge drinking.

Indeed, more than 120 college presidents have signed on to the Amethyst Initiative, which notes the negative consequences of America’s late legal drinking age, like higher rates of binge drinking, the proliferation of fake IDs, and the impracticality of enforcement.

The age requirement also moves drinkers from open, social environments that are easier to regulate—like bars—to locked dorm rooms, apartments, or other discrete locations where irresponsible behavior is easier to hide and more likely to occur.Raising the legal age for purchasing cigarettes and nicotine products will also play into the hands of the tobacco black market—already a multi-billion dollar global industry known to fund other illicit enterprises like human trafficking and terrorism. Aside from impinging on individual liberty, this also means less tax revenue for the government since the black market will grow to accommodate new demand.

But the worst consequence of Northam’s law will be making it harder for current smokers to access life-saving vaping technology. Receiving nicotine from a vape rather than a cigarette allows smokers to satiate their cravings without exposure to the tar, toxins, and carcinogens produced by burning tobacco. Denying legal access to vaping will either remove incentives for young smokers to quit or push smokers and vapers onto potentially dangerous, unregulated products sold online.

Vaping isn’t completely safe, but compared to smoking, it’s a much better option. The UK Royal College of Physicians conservatively estimates that it is at least 95 percent less harmful than smoking—and likely to be even less harmful.

Medical authoritiesaround the world recognize vaping’s value as a quit-smoking strategy that adds decades to the lives of smokers who transition.It makes no sense, then, to restrict the sale of nicotine vapes or juices to adult smokers trying to make responsible decisions about their own health when other nicotine-infused, less effective quitting aids like patches and gums are available to adults.

Dire implications aside, raising the legal smoking age amounts to little more than a condescending excuse to intrude into the decisions of adults that primarily affect just themselves. But that won’t stop politicians like Northam from finding any excuse to pat themselves on the back for appearing to be tough on smoking.

COLUMN BY

How Long Will Media Use SPLC’s Garbage Hate List To Smear People?

Now about 60 organizations have either sued or are considering suing the Southern Poverty Law Center for its fraudulent smears. It’s about time.


Like other mainstream publications, Roll Call regularly stoops to citing the thoroughly discredited Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible source for labeling “hate” groups. One recent such article was titled “Among the ‘Jewish groups’ Trump cites, one with neo-Nazi ties.” The author had worked for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and this was clearly part of Democrats’ effort to cover Pelosi and derail criticisms of Ilhan Omar for anti-Semitism.

I work with both of the “hate” groups named in the article, the Center for Security Policy and ACT for America. SPLC’s characterization of them is fraudulent, like most of what it does. It is thus little surprise to anyone who knows anything that SPLC recently jettisoned founder Morris Dees over accusations of racism and sexual assault.

Despite years of takedowns of SPLC’s business model from both sides of the aisle, major media companies such as Amazon, PayPal, Twitter, the Washington Post, Facebook, Google, The New York Times, and more cite them and use their determinations for business decisions such as Amazon’s nonprofit donations program. When will this ever end? How many lawsuits and lies will it take?

The SPLC’s Hate Group Definitions Are Garbage

ACT does not now, nor did it ever have, ties to any “neo-Nazi.” Both ACT and the Center are long-established organizations whose leaders and scholars seek to inform and warn America about the subversive goals of Islamic radical groups in the United States, not everyday Muslims. Everyday Muslims are often as much the victims as others.

Most of the prominent Islamic organizations in the United States are either Muslim Brotherhood (MB) fronts or tied to the Deobandi movement of South Asia (which also has ties to MB). Both are aggressive, subversive organizations that engage in terrorism throughout the world.

In the United States they generally use subversion as a more effective strategy, and have insinuated their allies and agendas into the U.S. government, media, Hollywood, public schools and universities. This is helping encourage the recent rise of anti-Semitism in the United States.

They also engage in terrorism. The 2015 San Bernardino, California attack that killed 14 and wounded 22 was carried out by followers of Deobandi. Terrorists of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas attack and murder Israeli Jews and even Arabs on an almost daily basis in the West Bank, and—note to border wall opponents—in Israel proper before Israel built its wall.

Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose U.S. front is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). Why doesn’t SPLC mention CAIR?

CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing trial, and only avoided trouble because the Obama Justice Department under Eric Holder discontinued prosecutions of organizations named in the case. CAIR is also a subversive wrecking bar against the U.S. Constitution, conducting nonstop lawfare against America. CAIR’s Chicago branch—one of 27 in the United States—brags a tally of more than 5,200 lawsuits against U.S. governments.

Smearing People Is Big Business

Many of the “hate” groups on SPLC’s list are simply those it disagrees with politically. Rather than engage in legitimate debate, the SPLC seeks to destroy its political enemies with defamatory smear tactics. The Russian Communist Vladimir Lenin advocated this strategy, saying, “We must write in a language that inspires hate, revulsion and scorn among the working class toward those who disagree with us.”

Frankfurt School Communist Herbert Marcuse developed that idea into what came to be known as “partisan tolerance”: tolerance only of leftist ideas, individuals, and groups, and a wholesale effort to discredit and silence opponents. Marcuse and other Communists worked closely for years with SPLC co-founder Julian Bond.

The SPLC regularly consorts with Communist organizations. In his pamphlet, “Rules for Radicals,” Saul Alinsky advocated the tactic of accusing opponents of hate, but SPLC was the first to institutionalize it. It has since spread far and wide, in media, universities, Hollywood, and in mindless chants of leftist protesters. Apparently now it reaches even into the editorial staff of Roll Call.

The SPLC never criticizes even the vilest leftist groups. For example, Antifa, which uses violence and increasingly expresses vitriolic, obscenity-laced hate and anti-Semitism, earns no criticism or “hate” designation from SPLC. Instead, the SPLC defends groups like Antifa against the big, bad Proud Boys!

When Occupy Wall Street Black Bloc activists attempted to bomb a bridge in Ohio and blow up the GOP convention in 2012, SPLC was asked why Black Bloc was not listed among its “hate” groups. “We’re not really set up to cover the extreme Left” was the lame response.

The oldest Muslim Brotherhood front is the Muslim Students Association. It is responsible (along with the left) for the rise of anti-Semitism on college campuses. It never gets a mention by the SPLC.

There are countless other examples. The SPLC has singled out and destroyed numerous individuals and organizations using these smear tactics. It is a form of political terrorism.

SPLC’s Targets Have Begun to Fight Back

SPLC lost a $3.5 million lawsuit last year against Maajid Nawaz, a moderate Muslim the SPLC labeled an “extremist,” because he spoke out against Islamic extremism and terrorism. You literally can’t make this stuff up.

Now about 60 organizations have either sued or are considered suing the SPLC for its fraudulent smears. It’s about time. Thousands more could join in. It should be stripped of its 501(c)3 “nonpartisan” tax-exempt status and sued into penury. A dedicated prosecutor could easily make a claim that they are a continuing criminal enterprise and seize their assets under racketeering statutes.

The SPLC shows its extreme partisanship every day. Even liberals like Dana Milbank, Alexander Cockburn, and Stephen Bright have labeled the SPLC a fraud. It spends more than 20 percent of its income on fundraising and has amassed almost half a billion dollars in assets, some of which is squirreled away in overseas accounts.

Less than half of its revenues last year were needed to cover expenses, while its overtly socialist executives earn very capitalist salaries, and live like kings. Must be nice to be such conscious-free hypocrites.

Media Act as Megaphones for SPLC Smears

The Roll Call article cast both ACT and the Center as “hawks” on national defense, as if that were somehow further evidence of bigotry or some other evil. That is idiotic, but “hawks” isn’t even applicable.

The Center for Security Policy staff, for example, includes former CIA officers, military and law enforcement specialists, and other national defense experts. These people take positions based on a careful evaluation of each situation, not some knee jerk “hawk” response to everything. The only knee-jerk reactions seem to be coming from the pages of Roll Call and other mainstream outlets that continue to give the SPLC credibility, like Facebook and The New York Times.

It is tragic that large outlets like these have joined the ranks of leftist smear merchants who have reduced political discourse in the United States to little more than infantile name-calling. The SPLC is one of the nastiest hate groups on the planet. It deliberately provokes division and anger in America on a daily basis to advance its extreme left agenda and rake in millions in donations.

Roll Call, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, Google and all the others need to drop the SPLC as a consultant on “hate” groups, but since they are all of the same stripe, they probably won’t.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist. It is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Panel on “Why Anti-Zionism is a Form of Anti-Semitism and a Threat to National Security”

The Center for Security Policy hosted a panel at the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) titled “Why Anti-Zionism is a Form of Anti-Semitism and a Threat to National Security.”

Speakers included Center President Fred Fleitz, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), Rabbi Yechezkel Moskowitz of the National Council of Young Israel, Dan Pollak of the Zionist Organization of America and investigative journalist and author James Simpson.

During his opening remarks Fleitz noted that, “There is an effort right now to dress up supposed criticisms of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Netanyahu as just criticisms of their policies, that there’s nothing against the state of Israel. This is not right. This is repackaged anti-Semitism. It is repackaged Israel hatred to delegitimize the state of Israel and the state of Israel’s very right to exist.”

He said that, “The point that I want this panel to make is that anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel is soaring on the left and this is a real danger for this country.”

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) noted that the U.S. reaps tangible benefits from its relationship with Israel. Citing an example from his own experience, he said that when he served as an Apache helicopter pilot he utilized Israeli-developed technology.

The Pennsylvania Congressman said that “there’s one democratic nation in the Middle East that believes in Western values, and it’s Israel.” He described the Jewish State as a “little oasis of freedom” in the region.

During his remarks, Rabbi Yechezkel Moskowitz stated:

From my perspective the greatest existential threat to the Jewish people in this country is the liberal progressive Jewish community. I think that what they’ve done is that they’ve replaced Judaism with liberal progressivism. It’s become practically speaking a religion for them,” he explained, saying that “in order to push forward their liberal progressive agenda, they are willing to throw Israel under the bus.

Watch a recording of the event below:

Media Ignores Slaughter of Nigerian Christians

At least 120 killed in recent attacks as deadly violence continues for over a year.


ABUJA, Nigeria (ChurchMilitant.com) – International news is nearly silent as Muslim militants continue killing Christians in Nigeria.

At least 120 Nigerian Christians have been killed since early February in a string of violent attacks that are being attributed to Fulani militants.

On March 11 alone, a string of attacks left 53 dead and 143 homes destroyed in the villages of Inkirimi and Dogonnoma in the Kajuru Local Government Area in Kaduna State, Nigeria.

Just a day before that, an attack on the village of Ungwan Barde killed 17 people and destroyed dozens of homes. One month prior, about 16 people had been killed in Ungwan Barde village in a series of attacks on Feb. 9 and 10.

The governor of Kaduna State imposed a curfew last week on the local government area owing to the deadly outbreak of violence.

On Feb. 26, some 32 Nigerian Christians were killed in the Maro district of the Kaduna State. The attackers burned down an evangelical church and shot people fleeing. This violence was also suspected to be the work of Fulani militants.

Local lawmakers say the recent attacks have displaced at least 3,000 locals, with many people’s homes destroyed and many others fleeing for safety.

In Benue State, Fulani attacks on several villages on March 4 left 23 dead.

Violence by Fulani militants in Nigeria exploded over a year ago. The Fulani are a majority-Muslim ethnic group, and many Fulani live as semi-nomadic herdsmen.

Christian communities in rural parts of Nigeria are commonly the victims of violence by Fulani militants.

In addition to the ethnic and religious differences, some trace the violence to changes in Nigerian law that made it harder for Fulani herdsmen to find land for their herds.

In November 2017, the Nigerian government banned herdsmen from having their livestock graze on other people’s property. The law was aimed at avoiding clashes between the Muslim herdsmen and Christian villagers — but the explosion of violence seems to prove that the policy change only escalated tensions.

Fulani gunmen in Benue State shot up a Catholic church during an early morning Mass in April 2018, killing two priests and about 15 laity. The priests’ deaths sparked protests in the weeks that followed, with Catholic clergy calling on the Nigerian government to better protect its citizens.

In May 2018, suspected Fulani militants attacked a Catholic seminary. Gunmen assailed two priests and a handful of seminarians at Sacred Heart Minor Seminary in Jalingo, the capital city of Taraba State in Nigeria. The attackers beat the priests with rods, shooting one of them in the leg, and did damage to an automobile and other property.

In June 2018, some Christians farmers allegedly attacked Fulani herdsmen. In the series of retaliatory attacks that followed, Fulani gunmen killed about 120 people in Plateau State in central Nigeria. There were apparently disputes regarding the exact body count; it could be as low as 86 people or as high as 200.

The outbreak of violent clashes with Fulani militants came just as Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram was on the decline in Nigeria. Government forces beat back the terror organization with significant help from overseas powers — including the United States.

Amid the Fulani violence, some Nigerians have laid blame on President Muhammadu Buhari, who is of Fulani descent.

Bishop William Amove Avenya of the diocese of Gboko in Benue State warned last year that Fulani violence could quickly become a full-fledged genocide against Christians in central Nigeria.

“Please don’t make the same mistake as was made with the genocide in Rwanda,” Bp. Avenya told Aid to the Church in Need in June last year. “It happened under our noses, but no one stopped it. And we know well how that ended.”

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

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

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

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

According to the Washington Metropolitan Police Department report:

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

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

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

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

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

[…]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Is CNN Facing a $275 Million Lawsuit

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

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

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

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

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

Mccurty went on to say:

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

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

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

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


Contact CNN!


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

VETO!

Fox News published the below comments and video titled “Trump signs first veto of his presidency | Full Remarks” on it YouTube channel:

President Trump delivers remarks and issues his first veto on legislation attempting to strike down his declaration of a national emergency at the southern border.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Police: 16-Year-Old Body Found Burned and Stabbed 100 Times, 5 MS-13 Members Arrested

Moments After Trump Issues First Veto, Angel Mom Steps In with Incredible Statement

No Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Illegal Immigrants Are Not Your ‘Constituents’

Attorney General Bill Barr Calls Emergency Declaration ‘Solidly Grounded in Law’

President Trump Uses Veto For First Time

ABOUT FOX NEWS CHANNEL

FOX News Channel (FNC) is a 24-hour all-encompassing news service dedicated to delivering breaking news as well as political and business news. The number one network in cable, FNC has been the most watched television news channel for more than 16 years and according to a Suffolk University/USA Today poll, is the most trusted television news source in the country. Owned by 21st Century Fox, FNC is available in more than 90 million homes and dominates the cable news landscape, routinely notching the top ten programs in the genre. Subscribe to Fox News! https://bit.ly/2vBUvAS Watch more Fox News Video: http://video.foxnews.com Watch Fox News Channel Live: http://www.foxnewsgo.com/

White Paper Makes Case to Designate Mexican Cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations

As the Trump administration considers designating Mexican drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO), Judicial Watch provides comprehensive documentation that the sophisticated criminal operations meet the U.S. government’s requirements to make the list. In a White Paper released this week Judicial Watch outlines the unique challenges and national security risks posed by Mexican Transitional Criminal Organizations (TCO) and human trafficking. The threats require policy changes that include classifying Mexican TCOs as FTOs and a reassessment of Mexico under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), which requires countries to implement measures that address human trafficking in order to receive American aid. Mexico does not meet the minimum standards in several key areas, according to State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch for the White Paper.

Undoubtedly, Mexican drug cartels meet the U.S. government’s criteria for FTO designation, which requires organizations to be foreign, engage in terrorism or terrorist activity or possess the capability and intent to do so and pose a threat to U.S. nationals or U.S. national security. Mexican drug cartels are inherently foreign, routinely commit criminal acts within the statutory definition of terrorism and arguably represent a more immediate and ongoing threat to U.S. national security than any of the currently-designated FTOs on the State Department list. Properly designating the major Mexican TCOs—including Los Zetas, Juárez and Sinaloa cartels—as FTOs would enhance the federal government’s ability to combat that threat. An official FTO designation would enable the prosecution of those who provide material support to them, facilitate the denial of entry and deportation of TCO members and affiliates and eliminate the organizations’ access to the U.S. financial system. “FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business,” according to the State Department.

For years Mexican cartels have hijacked and sabotaged buses, commercial trucks and trains, activity constituting terrorist activity under U.S. law. The White Paper lists specific cases, including gasoline tankers and more than a dozen robberies daily of Ferromex trains, one of the three largest rail transport operators in the country. Mexican TCOs have also committed hundreds of political assassinations in recent years and members of Los Zetas launched a grenade and shot small arms fire at the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey. Los Zetas members also murdered Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agent Jaime Zapata a few years ago. Judicial Watch’s White Paper also documents Mexican cartels’ use of explosive devices and high-caliber firearms, including rocket-propelled grenades and other military weapons. In 2018 Mexican officials seized nearly 2,000 high-caliber weapons from suspected cartel associates in Mexico City and there have been approximately 150,000 organized-crime related murders in Mexico since 2006. Last year alone, there were nearly 1,200 kidnappings in Mexico, according to official figures provided in the White Paper.
Most of the crimes are financially motivated, but a significant number are executed to intimidate political, judicial, military and law enforcement officials from going after cartel members. Examples include two Mexican federal agents kidnapped and murdered by the Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación, the kidnapping of Veracruz congresswoman-elect Norma Rodriguez and the kidnapping of Hidalgo Mayor Genero Urbano. Under U.S. law the seizing or detaining and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the seized individual constitutes terrorist activity. The danger created by these criminal enterprises is nothing new. A few years ago, the Drug Enforcement Administration determined that Mexican TCOs are the greatest criminal threat to the United States.

Mexico also fails miserably to combat human trafficking, which is pervasive in the country despite generous U.S. assistance under the TVPA. The Mexican government has not met the minimum standards under the 2000 law, including enhanced criminal sanctions for human traffickers and protections for victims. Figures obtained by Judicial Watch show that Mexico obtained fewer convictions than in the previous year, identified fewer victims than in the previous year, provided limited specialized services for trafficking victims, which were unavailable in most parts of the country, and maintained an inadequate number of shelters compared to the scale of the problem. The government inspected and prosecuted few complaints of forced labor in agriculture and corruption and complicity remain significant concerns inhibiting law enforcement action. The U.S. government should downgrade Mexico because it is not making required efforts to meet the TVPA’s minimum standards. The reassessment would reduce American funding until improvements take place.

RELATED ARTICLES:

County Denied ICE Detainer Request Before Illegal Immigrant Allegedly Killed Woman

How Illegal Immigrant Activity Fuels America’s Opioid Crisis

Amid This Immigration Crisis, Border Patrol Deserves a Break

Open Borders Are Dangerous To Our (Public) Health — Ellis Island was a quarantine station.

In recent years there have been outbreaks of dangerous communicable diseases that had either been eradicated in the United States or were uncommon in the United States altogether such as diseases commonly found in the tropics or in other parts of the world.

Within the past few months the mainstream media has reported on how a number of dangerous communicable diseases. such as the measles, have infected many people, particularly children in the United States.  The focus of the reports has been on children who because of religious beliefs or fears about the perceived nexus between vaccinations and autism have not been vaccinated to protect them against measles and other such communicable diseases.

For example, on March 7, 2019 the New York Times reported, “Measles Outbreak: 1 Student Got 21 Others Sick.”

These reports blithely ignore the nexus between illegal immigration and outbreaks of these debilitating and deadly diseases.

In the Orwellian world all too many journalists and politicians inhabit today, aliens who evade the vital inspections process at ports of entry and enter the United States without inspections are simply referred to as “Undocumented Immigrants.”  I have addressed this linguistic “sleight of tongue” in many of my articles so I won’t delve into the dishonesty this represents.  It suffices to say that aliens who enter the United States without inspection evade a serious vetting process to make certain that criminals and terrorists not gain access to the United States to protect national security and public safety.

The vetting process is also supposed to make certain that aliens with dangerous communicable diseases are prevented from entering the United States to protect public health.

This is yet another vetting process that aliens who enter without inspection are not subjected to.

The United States Public Health Service (USPH) explains its mission at U.S. Ports of Entry on its website under the heading, Protecting America’s Health At U.S. Ports of Entry

Here is how USPH explains its mission:

Detect, respond, and protect 24/7 Strategically placed at 20 U.S. ports of entry, CDC protects America from public health threats, both foreign and domestic. Highly skilled CDC staff work 24/7 to detect, respond to, and prevent the spread of contagious diseases.

With our partners, CDC responds to sick travelers who arrive in the United States at major airports, seaports, or land border crossings. We alert travelers about disease outbreaks and steps they can take to protect themselves.

We restrict the importation of animals and products that may carry disease. We are always on call—during the workday, on weekends, and in the middle of the night. We’re on the frontlines, protecting you and your community.

Disease is just a flight away

When sick passengers are on a flight, the airline lets CDC know. We evaluate whether they might be contagious to others on the plane. Some diseases can spread quickly through a community, so CDC works with state and local health departments to evaluate and respond. When necessary, CDC can prevent a sick person from traveling and exposing others to disease. It’s all about making sure 1 sick traveler doesn’t become 100 sick people in your community.

At the beginning of my career with the former INS I served as an Immigration Inspector at John F. Kennedy International Airport and worked closely with USPH.

This calls to mind an article I wrote in July of last year, The Left’s Immigration Con Game in which I debunked the lies about Ellis Island which when it was completed more than one hundred years ago included the largest hospital complex in the United States at that time.

Here is an excerpt from the my earlier article:

An extraordinary film, Forgotten Ellis Island, is a must-see documentary that tells the true story about Ellis Island, and the story is not particularly pretty or romantic.

To begin with, Ellis Island was not a natural island but was constructed on rocks and debris removed during the construction of the massive New York City subway system.

By situating this federal facility on this artificial island, no aliens could come ashore and abscond the way that today aliens exploit the lunacy known as “catch & release” — a policy that incidentally does not only occur along the borders of the United States but, similarly plagues the integrity of the immigration system from within the interior of the United States.

The only way for aliens to get from Ellis Island to New York City, and hence the U.S. mainland, was by a government-operated ferry.

According to the documentary, Ellis Island included a massive hospital complex that consisted of 22 buildings.

One hundred years ago, Public Health officials worked with immigration inspectors to process the arriving immigrants.  Back then, the most significant concerns with admission decisions centered on health-related issues.

In my piece I noted that there were two concerns about the health of arriving immigrants.  Obviously the greatest concern was that relatively minor infections could lead to the deadly epidemics because there were no antibiotics back then.

The second concern was to make certain that arriving immigration were of sound mind and body so that they would be able to be gainfully employed and support themselves.

Those concerns can be found in a section of the current Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

8 U.S. Code § 1182 (Inadmissible Aliens).

This extremely important section of law that was enacted to protect America and Americans begins with the following:

(a) Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:

(1) Health-related grounds

(A) In general Any alien

(i) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to have a communicable disease of public health significance; [1]

(ii) except as provided in subparagraph (C), who seeks admission as an immigrant, or who seeks adjustment of status to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and who has failed to present documentation of having received vaccination against vaccine-preventable diseases, which shall include at least the following diseases: mumps, measles, rubella, polio, tetanus and diphtheria toxoids, pertussis, influenza type B and hepatitis B, and any other vaccinations against vaccine-preventable diseases recommended by the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices,

(iii) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Attorney General)—

(I) to have a physical or mental disorder and behavior associated with the disorder that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others, or

(II) to have had a physical or mental disorder and a history of behavior associated with the disorder, which behavior has posed a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others and which behavior is likely to recur or to lead to other harmful behavior, or

(iv) who is determined (in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services) to be a drug abuser or addict, is inadmissible.

Nevertheless, for the members of Congress who refuse to fund the construction of an effective barrier on the U.S./Mexican border and now seek to block President Trump’s declaration of an emergency, none of this matters.

For them, dead bodies are mere speed bumps along the road to their political objectives.

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

Trump’s 2020 Budget Seeks More Border Wall Funding, Work Requirements for Welfare

President Donald Trump’s fiscal 2020 budget proposal would eliminate the federal deficit in 15 years, add new work requirements for welfare recipients, and fund additional construction of a border wall.

The reaction to the spending blueprint by Democrats was predictably negative.

The $4.7 trillion proposal, which projects a $1.1 trillion deficit, also asks Congress to cut discretionary spending, something it hasn’t done in recent years, even when under Republican control.

“You mention mandatory spending. It is a driver. We have more reforms than any other president’s budget in history, but, look, what has happened for far too long is that Congress has blamed mandatory spending and then increased discretionary spending, which they have a vote on every single year by large degrees,” Office of Management and Budget acting Director Russ Vought told The Daily Signal on Monday.

The fiscal 2020 spending blueprint cuts non-defense discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board, for a total of $2.7 trillion in savings for taxpayers over 10 years.

The OMB projects a balanced budget by 2034. Deficit spending, now 5 percent of the gross domestic product, would fall to 1 percent by 2029, according to the projections.

“They continue to let a paradigm exist in this country that says for every dollar in defense spending, we’re going to increase nondefense spending by a dollar,” Vought said at a press briefing. “We think we need to break that paradigm. We don’t think that paradigm allows us to get our fiscal house in order.”

Presidents are constitutionally required to present a budget proposal, but such proposals are never enacted as delivered. The document stands as an outline of administration priorities and represents what each department is requesting from Congress.

The budget requests seek $8.6 billion for an additional 722 miles of border wall construction, with $5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security and $3.6 billion for the Defense Department construction budget to go toward the wall.

The budget proposes $478 million to hire and support 1,750 additional law enforcement officers and agents for Customs and Border Protection and for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The budget also would implement a requirement of at least 20 hours a week for work or job training for certain welfare benefits, such as food stamps. Work requirements for recipients in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program was core to the welfare-reform legislation passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, in 1996.

“In terms of work requirements, it’s something that has been viewed as a success since the 1990s. We expand on it,” Vought said. “It is something we have long viewed as important with the same principles of reducing dependency that we saw in TANF and apply them to housing and to food stamps and to Medicaid. … There will be many workforce-development programs that will be funded as part of this budget.”

The Trump budget proposes spending $750 billion for the Defense Department. Of that, $718 billion is for the National Defense Strategy’s efforts to rebuilding readiness and for improving performance and affordability through reform. It also focuses on strategic competition with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran.

It includes $4.8 billion in the Department of Health and Human Services for prevention and treatment programs for opioid abuse.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement Monday the administration’s proposal benefits the “wealthiest 1 percent.”

“After adding $2 trillion to the deficit with the GOP tax scam for the rich, President Trump wants to ransack as much as $2 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid,” she said. “While demanding billions more for his wasteful, ineffective wall, President Trump will steal from students and hungry families, from rural communities and American farmers, from clean air and clean water, and from vital, job-creating investments nationwide.”

The proposal would also limit what Medicare recipients have to pay for prescription drugs. Currently, Medicare has a 5 percent co-pay for high-priced medicines that could cost as much as $1,000 per pill. The dollar amount wasn’t specified.

Vought responded to one question about whether that constituted “cutting Medicare.”

“He’s not cutting Medicare in this budget,” Vought explained. “What we are doing is putting forward reforms that lower drug prices. Because Medicare pays such a very large share of drug prices in this country, this has the impact of finding savings.

“We’re also finding waste, fraud, and abuse. But Medicare spending will go up every single year by healthy margins, and there are no structural changes,” he said.

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. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump’s Budget Reaffirms Commitment to Work-Based Welfare

The Trump Budget: Falling by the Waste Side

Administration Presents President Trump’s Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request

Budget for a Better America – whitehouse.gov


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


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

Georgia Republicans Learned about the Red-Green Axis Recently and You Should Too!

NOTE: One of the great things about writing a blog of your own is that you can post things that you decide are vitally important for your readers to hear!  Author Leo Hohmann gave the following speech to a Republican audience in Georgia over this last weekend and received a standing ovation.  I know you have piles of things to read, but you must read the speech and then decide if you are in, or out, of the war to save America!

Knowing your enemy: The ‘Red-Green Axis of evil’ shows its face in Washington

How many of you have been watching the news in recent weeks and wondering, “is this still America? What is going on?”

How many Americans must be wondering, where did this Ilhan Omar, covered in the Islamic headscarf, come from and how in the world did she end up in Congress? We’re told she’s from Minnesota but she seems obsessed with demonizing Israel and speaks sympathetically of ISIS fighters.

Who is this other new Congresswoman with the foul mouth, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, who bragged to the world that she would take drastic action against President Trump. She told her young son she would “impeach the Mother F’er?”

Who does this Linda Sarsour, also adorned in the headscarf, think she is, referring to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi as some sort of white supremacist.

Pelosi is “a typical white feminist doing the work of powerful white men,” Sarsour posted on Facebook. Did Pelosi deserve such a harsh rebuke for simply considering disciplinary action against the brazen anti-Semite Ilhan Omar?

Two years ago, I wrote a book. It’s called ‘Stealth Invasion, Muslim Conquest through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad.’

I saw these people coming. Let me tell you how I knew that the fox was already inside the hen house.

I’m stopping here, but please go to LeoHohmann.com and read the entire speech.  It won’t take you long, just do it!

By the way, did you know that Linda Sarsour went to Georgia to campaign for Stacy Abrams for governor?  I didn’t.  There is much, much, more you might not have known!

Stealth Invasion is available from the author.

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

IT WAS JUST A MATTER OF TIME: Now Mexicans and Others are Coming in Across our Northern Border

I told you recently that it’s election year in Canada and if Trudeau is reelected it is only going to get worse for us as he has put out a Canadian welcome mat to the world.

Did you know that Mexicans and Romanians can go to Canada without even a visa! So guess where they are going once in Canada!

From NBC News,

Illegal border crossings from Canada quietly rising, data shows

DERBY LINE, Vermont — More than 960 people crossed into the U.S. illegally from the northern border with Canada last year, according to data released from Customs and Border Protection.

While that number is a tiny fraction compared to the migration across the border with Mexico, it represented a 91 percent increase from the prior fiscal year, the data showed.

The Trump administration’s rhetoric on border security has largely homed in on the southern border, which has seen an influx of thousands of families with children from Central America seeking asylum in the United States.

But officials have also seen an increase of illegal crossings on the northern border in the last fiscal year, according to the data. In fiscal year 2017, immigration agents apprehended 504 people crossing illegally from Canada, compared to 963 in fiscal year 2018, the border patrol data showed.

A large percentage of that spike came from the Swanton border patrol sector — along the border of New Hampshire, Vermont and New York — where agents apprehended 548 people in 2018, up from 165 in all of 2017.

Preliminary data from October to January shows 465 apprehensions from Canada, with 294 in the Swanton sector.

CLICK HERE: Map Dept. of Homeland Security

No visas for Mexicans or Romanians (who else?)

Ross [ Border Patrol Agent Richard Ross] said he believed there may be a perception that traveling from Canada was “safer” and the increase could be attributed to recent immigration changes in Canada that allow those from some countries, such as Mexico and Romania, to enter without a visa.

He said some immigrants looking to get into the U.S. illegally could pay a few hundred dollars for a flight to Canada, pay a small electronic travel authorization fee and make their way into the United States.

More here.  You will learn that smugglers have already figured this out!

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

Why The U.S. House Hate Resolution Fails To Stop Hate

The Democratic Party led House of Representatives passed H.RES. 183 titled.”Condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States” [See full text below].

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Cornell Law School says this about the First Amendment:

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.  It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices.  It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Here are some reasons why H.RES. 183 fails to stop hate:

  1. H.RES. 183 uses the First Amendment as the basis of its condemning anti-Semitism. This violates the freedom of expression provision.
  2. The title of H.RES. 183 condemns anti-Semitism but also condemns Muslim discrimination. It was Rep. Ilhan Omar (Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party of Minnesota) who published multiple the anti-Semitic tweets that led to this resolution. Omar is a Muslim. Therefore, this resolution is to protect her and the Muslim ummah (community) as much as the Jewish people. There is no mention of those spewing anti-Christian, or any other belief system for that matter, hate and bigotry.
  3. H.RES. 183 reads the First Amendment is “committed to the principles of tolerance and religious freedom.” H.RES. 183 does not condemn, or even mention, the person who was clearly anti-Semitic and intolerant, Rep. Ilhan Omar.
  4. The word tolerance does not appear in the First Amendment. World Net Daily reported in October, 2018, “A deputy communications director for Minnesota’s Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party has been suspended for a week for a tweet threatening members of the GOP with ‘guillotines’.” Tolerance is a two way street. When tolerance becomes a one way street it leads to cultural suicide.
  5. There is no mention, nor examples, of Muslim intolerance against Jews, other religions and minority groups in America of which there are many, such as the 50 victims of the Pulse Night Club attack in Orlando, FL.
  6. H.RES. 183 mentions “Islamophobia.” Islamophobia is the greatest concern. H.RES. 183. “(5) acknowledges the harm suffered by Muslims and others from the harassment, discrimination, and violence that result from anti-Muslim bigotry.” Use of this word stifles freedom of speech. There are atrocities committed by the followers of Mohammed globally. These are not mentioned, nor are there examples give such as the atrocities committed by ISIS, in the resolution.
  7. H. RES. 183 leaves out Christians in Congress who have received death threats. H.RES. 183 (7) condemns the death threats received by Jewish and Muslim Members of Congress, including in recent weeks;
  8. H. RES. 183 ham strings law enforcement from targeting criminal illegal aliens, terrorists and gang members (i.e. al Qaeda, ISIS, MS 13, Mexican human traffickers) (8) encourages law enforcement and government officials to avoid conduct that raises the specter of unconstitutional profiling against anyone because of their race, religion, nationality, political, or particular social group, including the assignment of blame or targeting members of an entire religious group for increased suspicion, based on the conduct of a single individual or small group of individuals;

H. RES. 183 relies also on the Fourteenth Amendment which reads:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Bret Kavanaugh hearing is a prime example of guilty until proven innocent. The Green New Deal is an example of depriving Americans of their property and liberty. The New York State law allowing infanticide deprives every new born baby (a person) of life.

As Bret Stephens in a New York Times op-ed wrote:

“It says something about the progressive movement today that it has no trouble denouncing Republican racism, real and alleged, every day of the week but has so much trouble calling out a naked anti-Semite in its own ranks. This is how progressivism becomes Corbynism… It’s how self-declared anti-fascists develop their own forms of fascism. Why are they afraid of open debate? And what about all the bigotry on their side?”

H.RES. 183 will not stop the hate and bigotry in our current political environment. It actually protects certain classes over others.

As Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) warned on the House floor,  “What makes this so dangerous and the reason I will vote against this resolution, is because we came here because of an anti-Semitic remark, and we came here to condemn anti-Semitism, but this resolution… now condemns just about everything.”

When you condemn everything, your condemn nothing. H.RES. 183 is a failure on many counts.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ilhan Omar Violates House Bigotry Resolution She Helped Write, Denies Opponent’s Humanity

‘It’s not About Her’: House Won’t Rebuke Omar, Condemns ‘Hate’ Generally

Jewish Young People DEFY The Democratic Party And Launch A ‘JEXODUS’

How Antisemitism Became Unleashed In the West

Jeffress: Don’t expect Dems to tone down their anti-Semitism

Dems at the End of Their Trope

RELATED VIDEO: JEXIT: It’s Time for a Jewish Exodus from the Jew-Hating Democrat Party


FULL TEXT: H. RES. 183

Condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 7, 2019

Mr. Raskin (for himself and Mr. Richmond) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


RESOLUTION

Condemning anti-Semitism as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values and aspirations that define the people of the United States and condemning anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against minorities as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contrary to the values and aspirations of the United States.

Whereas the first amendment to the Constitution established the United States as a country committed to the principles of tolerance and religious freedom, and the 14th amendment to the Constitution established equal protection of the laws as the heart of justice in the United States;

Whereas adherence to these principles is vital to the progress of the American people and the diverse communities and religious groups of the United States;

Whereas whether from the political right, center, or left, bigotry, discrimination, oppression, racism, and imputations of dual loyalty threaten American democracy and have no place in American political discourse;

Whereas White supremacists in the United States have exploited and continue to exploit bigotry and weaponize hate for political gain, targeting traditionally persecuted peoples, including African Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants, and others with verbal attacks, incitement, and violence;

Whereas the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., taught that persecution of any American is an assault on the rights and freedoms of all Americans;

Whereas on August 11 and 12, 2017, self-identified neo-Confederates, White nationalists, neo-Nazis, and Ku Klux Klansmen held White supremacist events in Charlottesville, Virginia, where they marched on a synagogue under the Nazi swastika, engaged in racist and anti-Semitic demonstrations and committed brutal and deadly violence against peaceful Americans;

Whereas a White nationalist murdered nine African-American worshipers at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, on the evening of June 17, 2015, in the hopes of igniting a nationwide race war;

Whereas, on October 27, 2018, the perpetrator of the deadliest attack on Jewish people in the history of the United States killed 11 worshippers at the Tree of Life Synagogue building in Pittsburgh and reportedly stated that he “wanted all Jews to die”;

Whereas anti-Semitism is the centuries-old bigotry and form of racism faced by Jewish people simply because they are Jews;

Whereas in 2017 the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported a 37-percent increase in hate crimes against Jews or Jewish institutions and found that attacks against Jews or Jewish institutions made up 58.1 percent of all religious-based hate crimes;

Whereas there is an urgent need to ensure the safety and security of Jewish communities, including synagogues, schools, cemeteries, and other institutions;

Whereas Jews are the targets of anti-Semitic violence at even higher rates in many other countries than they are in the United States;

Whereas it is a foreign policy priority of the United States to monitor and combat anti-Semitism abroad;

Whereas anti-Semitism includes blaming Jews as Jews when things go wrong; calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or extremist view of religion; or making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotyped allegations about Jews;

Whereas Jewish people are subject in the media and political campaigns to numerous other dangerous anti-Semitic myths as well, including that Jews control the United States Government or seek global, political, and financial domination and that Jews are obsessed with money;

Whereas scapegoating and targeting of Jews in the United States have persisted for many years, including by the Ku Klux Klan, the America First Committee, and by modern neo-Nazis;

Whereas accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel or to the Jewish community than to the United States constitutes anti-Semitism because it suggests that Jewish citizens cannot be patriotic Americans and trusted neighbors, when Jews have loyally served our Nation every day since its founding, whether in public or community life or military service;

Whereas accusations of dual loyalty generally have an insidious and pernicious history, including—

(1) the discriminatory incarceration of Americans of Japanese descent during World War II on their basis of race and alleged dual loyalty;

(2) the Dreyfus affair, when Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish French artillery captain, was falsely convicted of passing secrets to Germany based on his Jewish background;

(3) when the loyalty of President John F. Kennedy was questioned because of his Catholic faith; and

(4) the post-9/11 conditions faced by Muslim-Americans in the United States, including Islamophobia and false and vicious attacks on and threats to Muslim-Americans for alleged association with terrorism;

Whereas anti-Muslim bigotry entails prejudicial attitudes towards Muslims and people who are perceived to be Muslim, including the irrational belief that Muslims are inherently violent, disloyal, and foreign;

Whereas Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim are subjected to false and dangerous stereotypes and myths including unfair allegations that they sympathize with individuals who engage in violence or terror or support the oppression of women, Jews, and other vulnerable communities;

Whereas in 2017, mosques were bombed in Bloomington, Minnesota, and burned in Austin, Texas, Victoria, Texas, Bellevue, Washington, and Thonotosassa, Florida, and mass attacks on Muslim communities were planned against communities in Islamberg, New York, in 2019, Jacksonville, Florida, in 2017, and Garden City, Kansas, in 2016;

Whereas the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that hate crimes against Muslims or Muslim institutions in the United States increased by over 99 percent between 2014 and 2016;

Whereas attacks motivated by bigotry against those who are Muslim or perceived to be Muslim have substantially increased since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks;

Whereas the violation of an individual’s civil rights based on his or her actual or perceived membership in a particular religious group clearly violates the Constitution and laws of the United States; and

Whereas all Americans, including Jews, Muslims, and Christians and people of all faiths and no faith, have a stake in fighting anti-Semitism, as all Americans have a stake in fighting every form of bigotry and hatred against people based on religion, race, or place of birth and origin: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) rejects the perpetuation of anti-Semitic stereotypes in the United States and around the world, including the pernicious myth of dual loyalty and foreign allegiance, especially in the context of support for the United States-Israel alliance;

(2) condemns anti-Semitic acts and statements as hateful expressions of intolerance that are contradictory to the values that define the people of the United States;

(3) reaffirms its support for the mandate of the United States Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism as part of the broader policy priority of fostering international religious freedom and protecting human rights all over the world;

(4) rejects attempts to justify hatred or violent attacks as an acceptable expression of disapproval or frustration over political events in the Middle East or elsewhere;

(5) acknowledges the harm suffered by Muslims and others from the harassment, discrimination, and violence that result from anti-Muslim bigotry;

(6) condemns anti-Muslim discrimination and bigotry against all minorities as contrary to the values of the United States;

(7) condemns the death threats received by Jewish and Muslim Members of Congress, including in recent weeks;

(8) encourages law enforcement and government officials to avoid conduct that raises the specter of unconstitutional profiling against anyone because of their race, religion, nationality, political, or particular social group, including the assignment of blame or targeting members of an entire religious group for increased suspicion, based on the conduct of a single individual or small group of individuals; and

(9) encourages all public officials to confront the reality of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, and other forms of bigotry, as well as historical struggles against them, to ensure that the United States will live up to the transcendent principles of tolerance, religious freedom, and equal protection as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the first and 14th amendments to the Constitution.