Texas: Former Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne to Run for Congress

Former popular Irving Mayor, Beth Van Duyne has departed her post at the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s office in Fort Worth, Texas. She has announced on social media on August 5th that she plans to run for the United States Congress, district 24, which covers parts of Dallas, Tarrant and Denton counties.

Those of us who have been following Beth’s incredible career in the City of Irving, are very excited that she has decided to announce her candidacy for the United States Congress, District 24. A person of her outstanding principles is urgently needed in Washington, even though she will be missed here at home.

Beth, started her public service as far back as some ten years ago when she worked tirelessly for building a children’s park — to help her community’s children spend their vital energy in building strong bodies so that they could better shoulder the future demands that awaits them.

Next, she ran for City Council, and later served with distinction as mayor of Irving. And when the call came from President Trump’s administration, she, characteristically, offered her much-valued services.

Now, Texas and the nation need her in Washington, and once again she is willingly answers the call for service in the United States Congress where she can be a resonant voice for principled Conservatism that has made this country the standard bearer for democracy and freedom.

Our nation today is in dire need of firm leadership, courage, and responsibility for advancing bipartisan legislation, including bills, joint, concurrent and simple resolutions in Congress. In addition, to understand the political environment and the impact of decision making on diverse groups. Beth has these qualities and one inherent ability to fundamental leadership: courage. She also is very charismatic, enthusiastic, optimistic, and passionate about America. That’s the most important quality of all.

America is a nation and an ideal, birthed by a group of visionaries that gave it the Constitution to nurture it and protect it. What makes America, America the Beautiful, more than just a blessed land is our legacy, the Constitution. Sadly, the Constitution also makes for America the Vulnerable by enshrining freedom that enables the malevolent to subvert and destroy America from within. Beth Van Duyne is an avid supporter of the United State Constitution. In fact, during her tenure as a mayor, she proved that America has only one law and that is our Constitution. On her Facebook page, the mayor wrote:

“Sharia Law Court was NOT approved or enacted by the City of Irving. Recently, there have been rumors suggesting that the City of Irving has somehow condoned, approved or enacted the implementation of a Sharia Law Court in our City. Let me be clear, neither the City of Irving, our elected officials or city staff have anything to do with the decision of the mosque that has been identified as starting a Sharia Court.”

Freedom, in all its forms, is our greatest legacy, which this nation has bravely fought many wars on many fronts to preserve against the unceasing assaults of totalitarianism of all stripes.

I applaud Van Duyne tasking and courageous decision and offer her my full support in sending her to the United States Congress. I am certain that the wise patriotic Texans of District 24 will rise and stand behind her. Although we will miss her here at home, we feel that her service in Congress fully justifies her absence from the community.

In short, America and our party are at a turning point. The reign of the rigid old Republican establishment is coming to an end by a new generation of principled conservatives. Beth Van Duyne represents this class of Republicans, destined to restore the party that stands for the best hopes of all Americans.

The Glendon Commission

David Carlin: We are witnessing a cultural revolution as atheists and liberals work to destroy Christianity and replace it with a God-less worldview.


In July, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo created something called the “Commission on Unalienable Rights,” the purpose of which is to “provide the Secretary of State advice and recommendations concerning international human rights matters” along with “fresh thinking about human rights discourse where such discourse has departed from our nation’s founding principles of natural law and natural rights.”

The chair of the commission is Mary Ann Glendon, one of America’s leading Catholic intellectuals.  She is the Learned Hand Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican.  What’s more, she was Pompeo’s mentor when he was a student at Harvard Law School.

Many people on the political left have objected to the creation of this commission.  The expression “natural law” makes them nervous, as does the fact that an out-and-out Catholic like Glendon is its chair.

I myself am very pleased, because I hope it may serve, at least in some small way, to check the astonishing proliferation of “fundamental human rights” that we have seen in the United States in recent decades.  The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a right to abortion (Roe v. Wade), a right to homosexual sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas), and a right to same-sex “marriage” (Obergefell v. Hodges).  In the future, if this trend continues, it will probably recognize a right to euthanasia.  And God only knows what else.

Those on the political Left have figured out a way of enacting their agenda while bypassing the democratic process.  You like X and you want it to be the law of the land.  But you can’t get X through Congress or state legislatures.  So you decide that X is a fundamental human right, a right that cannot be negated by popular majorities.

And then you go to the U.S. Supreme Court. And if you’re lucky the Court will have a majority of liberal justices on it, and they will agree with you.  And since, according to the liberal view, all fundamental human rights are implicitly contained in the U.S. Constitution (they are alluded to in the Ninth Amendment), X now becomes a Constitutional right.

If you object that you cannot find X in the Constitution, despite having read that document very carefully, you will be told that we have a “living Constitution” and that only out-of-date right-wingers read the Constitution literally.

If you reply that Justice Antonin Scalia once said, “The Constitution says what it says, and it doesn’t say something else,” you will be told that while Scalia was a fine fellow (since he was a friend of the saintly Ruth Bader Ginsburg), he was nonetheless an out-of-date right-winger whose originalism was as worthwhile as Confederate money.

The Declaration of Independence not only had a list of natural rights (equality, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness).  It also had an epistemology of moral knowledge. It held that the reality of these rights was self-evident.

Now if this is our standard (let’s call it the Jefferson standard), if we say that if X is to count as a fundamental human right, X will have to be self-evidently such, then our newer rights – the “rights” to abortion, to homosexual sodomy, to same-sex “marriage,” or to euthanasia – are not rights at all; for they are far, far from self-evident.  If they were self-evident rights, there would be an almost universal consensus on them.

If we were to use the Jefferson standard, only if almost every American agreed that X is a fundamental human right would the Supreme Court declare that X, despite not being mentioned in the Constitution, is one of those unenumerated rights alluded to in the Ninth Amendment.

But if we are not to use the Jefferson standard when deciding what is, and what is not, a fundamental human right, what standard are we to use?  Apparently, nothing better than a majority vote of the Supreme Court.  If five justices say that X is a fundamental right, X is a fundamental human right.

Now that’s just fine for many people on the political Left.  For they can then multiply “fundamental human rights” and hope that their multiplications will be ratified by at least five “living Constitution” members of the Supreme Court.  But for the rest of us, for people who like to think that we are living in a democratic republic that operates within the framework of a Constitution that was intended by its makers to be read literally, this potentially unlimited multiplication of fundamental rights is a disaster.

And for Christians too it’s a disaster – at least for old-fashioned Christians, who subscribe to the faith and morals of the early Church, e.g., orthodox Catholics and Evangelical Protestants.  For the leftist list of fundamental human rights contains items that are quite incompatible with Christianity.

And so, when the Supreme Court declares that, for example, abortion, homosexual sodomy, same-sex “marriage,” and euthanasia are fundamental rights, it is by very clear implication also declaring that Christianity is the enemy of human rights.

We are, as I see things, in the middle of a great but slow-moving cultural revolution in the United States, as atheists and their near-atheist fellow-travelers (including religiously liberal Protestants and Catholics) attempt to destroy the traditional Christian ethic and worldview and replace it with a God-less ethic and worldview.

So far, the atheist coalition seems to be winning. Their advance, supported by the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, our leading universities, and the Democratic Party, looks unstoppable.  And one of the great instruments of this advance is the idea that the leftist agenda can be enacted by the un-democratic “discovery” of more and more fundamental human rights.

Can the Glendon commission stop this advance?  Probably not.  But perhaps it can slow it down, giving Christians more time in which to rally their troops and fight back.  In any case, the work of the commission, and the atheistic reaction to it, will be absolutely essential to watch.

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.

Judicial Watch Major Court Victory: Montgomery County, Maryland Must Clean up Voter Rolls!

Since we are on the subject of sanctuary county—Montgomery County, MD (see my previous post)—here is a bit of good news for a change!  (Hat tip: Cathy)

Thank God for Judicial Watch!  Note that it took TWO full years before the county is being forced to comply.

From JW’s press release:

JUDICIAL WATCH VICTORY: FEDERAL COURT ORDERS MARYLAND TO PRODUCE VOTER REGISTRATION LIST DATA TO JUDICIAL WATCH

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a federal court has ordered the State of Maryland to produce voter list data for Montgomery County, the state’s biggest county. The court ruling comes in the Judicial Watch lawsuit filed July 18, 2017, against Montgomery County and the Maryland State Boards of Elections under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division (Judicial Watch vs. Linda H. Lamone, et al. (No. 1:17-cv-02006)). The decision follows NVRA-related Judicial Watch successes in California and Kentucky that could lead to removal of up to 1.85 million inactive voters from voter registration lists. The NVRA requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up its voting rolls and to make documents about its voter list maintenance practices available to anyone who asks.

Judicial Watch had sought the Maryland voter list data after discovering that there were more registered voters in Montgomery County than citizens over the age of 18 who could register.

[….]

The dispute over the voter registration list arose from an April 11, 2017, notice letter sent to Maryland election officials, in which Judicial Watch explained Montgomery County had an impossibly high registration rate. The letter threatened a lawsuit if the problems with Montgomery County’s voter rolls were not fixed. The letter also requested access to Montgomery County voter registration lists in order to evaluate the efficacy of any “programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of Maryland’s official eligible voter lists during the past 2 years.”

Democrat Maryland officials, in response, attacked and smeared Judicial Watch by suggesting it was an agent of Russia.

More here.

Just a reminder!  Maryland is run by the Dems even as it has a Republican (never Trumper!) governor.

RELATED ARTICLES:

4 Things to Know About Trump’s New Voter Fraud Claim

Another Rape in Montgomery County, MD, Sanctuary to Illegals

Trump Administration to Close Loophole Blocking Immigration Enforcement

The New York Times Works for the Left, and Now Everyone Should Know It

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How We Can Safeguard Our Election Process

In the freest nation in the world, our system of government and our very liberty depend on free and fair elections. Whether they’re selecting a mayor or the president of the United States, every American must be able to trust the process, or the democratic system itself breaks down.

When someone commits voter fraud, the process is no longer fair, everyone’s vote gets diluted, and in some cases, election results are changed.

Contrary to the claims of many on the left, voter fraud is a very real problem. As the Supreme Court noted when it upheld Indiana’s voter ID law, flagrant examples of voter fraud have been documented throughout this nation’s history.

The National Commission on Federal Election Reform has said that in many close elections, fraud can absolutely change the outcome. Cases of local elections getting overturned because of fraud have occurred in New Jersey, Indiana, and other states.

Although hundreds of people have been convicted in recent years, voter fraud often goes undetected. And even when it’s discovered, overburdened prosecutors rarely prioritize these cases.

Fraudsters can steal votes and change election outcomes in several ways, including: voting in someone else’s name, registering in multiple locations to vote multiple times in the same election, voting even though they’re not eligible because they’re felons or noncitizens, or paying or intimidating people to vote for certain candidates.

Unfortunately, many on the left are attempting to make election fraud easier by fighting laws that require an ID to vote. They’ve pushed to get noncitizens and jailed inmates to vote. And they’ve sued states that have tried to purge their voter rolls of people registered in multiple states.

How can we fix the problem?

Since states control much of the electoral process, they must pass laws requiring government-issued IDs to vote. That ensures people aren’t stealing others’ identities and their right to vote.

States should join voter registration cross-check programs to identify voters registered in multiple places. One cross-check program has identified hundreds of thousands of potential duplicate registrations across 30 states as well as evidence of illegal double voting.

States should also compare voter rolls with government records to identify convicted felons and noncitizens who should be removed from the rolls. And the federal government should cooperate with these efforts and make Department of Homeland Security and other databases available to state officials.

Preserving this great experiment that is America depends on having free and fair elections where all Americans can trust the process and the results.

Something as critical as election integrity can’t be left to a simple honor system. One of the most important roles of government is to safeguard the electoral process and ensure that every voter’s right to cast a ballot is protected. That not only protects our right to vote; that’s how we protect the future of our very republic.

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .


Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

FLORIDA ALERT: “Assault Weapons” Ban Amendment Bans ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS

The so-called “assault weapons” ban that is proposed for a constitutional amendment to be on the 2020 Election Ballot bans the possession of:

“any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun CAPABLE of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine or other ammunition feeding device.”

The fact is, any rifle or shotgun that is “capable” of accepting or using, a detachable magazine that holds 10 rounds or less is also “capable” of accepting a magazine or magazine extension of any size. Magazines with a capacity of 3 all the way up to 100 rounds are in common use throughout the United States.

Therefore, ALL semiautomatic rifles and shotguns “capable” of using a detachable magazine or fixed magazine would be banned. UNLESS YOU REGISTER THEM WITH THE GOVERNMENT within a year — so the government knows who has guns and how many.  Otherwise you can be arrested, charged and prosecuted for felony possession of so-called “assault weapons” and your guns confiscated.

That means all Ruger 10-22 semiautomatic rifles, all Remington Model 1100 shotguns, all Benelli shotguns,  all semiautomatic hunting rifles, all semiautomatic plinking and target rifles — you get the picture.  If it is semiautomatic, kiss it goodbye.

Firearms that you legally purchased, legally owned, legally used, and legally possessed for years could suddenly be banned and you could end up in prison for merely continuing to possess your own property if you fail to register with the government. History shows that when the government knows who has guns and where they are, they can come and confiscate them.

Remember, once convicted of felony possession of a so-called “assault weapon,” then YOU LOSE ALL OF YOUR GUNS because felons can’t possess ANY GUNS, Period. 

Further, manufacture and sale is also banned since there is no exemption whatever for possession due to manufacturing, distribution or sale.

Simply put, over 150 manufacturers may be forced to shut down and move out of Florida if they manufacture semiautomatic rifles or shotguns. Goodbye jobs, goodbye Pittman-Robertson money for youth gun safety programs, goodbye retail gun shops, HELLO, major damage to the job market and Florida’s economy.

A recent Gallup poll shows that over 40% of households ADMIT to owning at least one gun. That number is probably much higher since we don’t like telling pollsters what we own.  In Florida with a population of over 22 million, that means 9-10 million Florida households could lose their home defense firearms if they are semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

At an August 16th hearing, sponsor and supporters of the “Assault Weapons” Amendment said the following:

“We don’t think it bans Ruger 10-22 rifles, they’re just .22s.” —BUT IT DOES!!!!!

“My Benelli shotgun is beautiful and shouldn’t be banned. — BUT IT WILL BE!!!!!

“We don’t want to shut down your shooting range and gun shop.” — BUT IT WILL!!!!!

Welcome to reality.  What they think or what they say they want doesn’t matter.  

ONLY the words matter and the proposed amendment will ban Ruger 10-22s, Benelli Shotguns, Remington Model 1100 shotguns and all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with detachable or fixed magazine. 

What matters is what the language says and does. And past experience has shown us that the government will enforce it as badly as they possibly can.

BOTTOM LINE: The sponsors and supporters either don’t know what the heck they are doing or they are lying.

AND your Second Amendment rights are in danger. PERIOD.

The boycott, divestment and sanctioning of Omar and Talib — Democrats once again defend the indefensible

President Trump has done it once again. He has put the Democrats in the position of defending two of the most anti-Semitic and anti-Israel members of their party. He has done this because he knows that shedding light on extremists positions is what no Republican President has had the courage to do. President Trump used his Twitter account, Excalibur with magical powers, to point out the obvious:

Representatives Omar and Tlaib are the face of the Democrat Party, and they HATE Israel!

Senator Chuck Schumer, a Jew, was the first to tweet this about Israel’s decision:

Denying entry to members of the United States Congress is a sign of weakness, not strength. It will only hurt the U.S.-Israel relationship and support for Israel in America.

There is a legal basis for the Israeli Foreign Minister to deny access to Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Talib. According to The Jerusalem Post:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that Israel received the planned itineraries of the freshmen congresswomen a few days ago, and said it became clear that they were “planning a campaign whose sole purpose was to strengthen the boycott and to undermine Israel’s legitimacy.”

Both Tlaib and Omar support a resolution affirming the right of Americans to participate in boycotts and have expressed support for the BDS movement.

In 2017 the Knesset passed an anti-BDS [Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions] law that blocks foreign BDS activists from gaining entry to Israel.

Democrats Defend the Indefensible

Here is a Jew and U.S. Senator defending anti-Semitism and clearly threatening the state of Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu posted the following on Twitter:

A week ago, Israel warmly welcomed some 70 Democratic and Republican members of Congress, who expressed broad bipartisan support for Israel, which was also demonstrated a month ago in a resounding bipartisan vote against BDS in Congress.

Only a few days ago, we received their itinerary for their visit in Israel, which revealed that they planned a visit whose sole objective is to strengthen the boycott against us and deny Israel’s legitimacy.

However, the itinerary of the two Congresswomen reveals that the sole purpose of their visit is to harm Israel and increase incitement against it.

In addition, the organization that is funding their trip is Miftah, which is an avid supporter of BDS, and among whose members are those who have expressed support for terrorism against Israel.

For instance: they listed the destination of their trip as Palestine and not Israel, and unlike all Democratic and Republican members of Congress who have visited Israel, they did not request to meet any Israeli officials, either from the government or the opposition.

What Omar gets so very wrong

Rep. Ilhan Omar issued statement, posted on Twitter, on being denied entrance:

“It is an affront that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, under pressure from President Trump, would deny entry to representatives of the U.S. government. Trump’s Muslim ban is what Israel is implementing, this time against two duly elected members of Congress. Denying entry into Israel not only limits our ability to learn from Israelis, but also to enter the Palestinian territories. Sadly, this is not a surprise given the public positions of Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has consistently resisted peace efforts, restricted the freedom of movement of Palestinians, limited public knowledge of the brutal realities of the occupation and aligned himself with Islamophobes like Donald Trump.

“As a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, it is my job to conduct oversight of foreign aid from the United States of America and to legislate on human rights practices around the world. The irony of the ‘only democracy’ in the Middle East making such a decision is that it is both an insult to democratic values and a chilling response to a visit by government officials from an allied nation.”

The lies in Omar’s statement include:

  1. Denying entry into Israel not only limits our ability to learn from Israelis. Omar and Talib had no intention of learning from Israelis as they did not schedule any meetings with Israeli officials.
  2. Enter the Palestinian territories. This was the purpose of the visit by Omar and Talib. To give credibility to the Palestinian cause by two Muslim members of the U.S. Congress. To support the BDS movement.
  3. Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has consistently resisted peace efforts. This is patently false. The Likud Party had on five occasions traded land for peace. Netanyahu is the longest serving Prime Minister of Israel and has worked on many different peace plans with many different U.S. Presidents and the PLO. All to no avail.
  4. The irony of the ‘only democracy’ in the Middle East making such a decision. The irony is that Democracies around the world do the same thing daily. Allowing people to enter a country with the sole purpose of undermining it is cultural suicide.
  5. Islamophobes like Donald Trump. This is the standard response from Muslims globally when any nation state, political party or individual points out the truth about the radical nature of some who are the followers of Mohammed. Name calling has become the primary weapon of the Democratic Party.

What is most interesting is that several Jewish pro-Israel groups have sided with Omar and Tlaib. AIPAC tweeted:

“We disagree with Reps. Omar and Tlaib’s support for the anti-Israel and anti-peace BDS movement, along with Rep. Tlaib’s calls for a one-state solution. We also believe every member of Congress should be able to visit and experience our democratic ally Israel firsthand.”

Don’t forget that Reps. Omar and Tlaib were invited to be part of the 70 member congressional delegation hosted by AIPAC and they both refused.

Remember not a single Democrat attended the opening ceremony of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.

Never forget that Rashida Tlaib said that the Holocaust gives her a ‘calming feeling’ knowing her Palestinian ancestors gave up ‘lands and lives’ for Jews. Listen:

The big lie in AIPAC’s statement is that Omar and Tlaib never intended to visit Israel, their trip was designed to have a political platform for the Palestinian cause. Dear AIPAC, you can’t have it both ways.

Conclusion

Omar and Tlaib, along with AOC and Pressley, have become the faces of the Democratic Party. This so called “Squad” is driving the agenda of the Democratic Progressive caucus. Their agenda is to declare a holy war, jihad, against Israel. They are following in the footsteps of former President Barrack Obama who, while in office, consistently sided with the enemies of America, the American people and those working to undermine American interests domestically and globally.

While this decision by Israel is not historic, it stands as a warning to those in positions of power that words have consequences. Actions have an equal and opposite reaction. And more prophetically as pointed out in Galatians 6:7, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Of 435 US districts, Omar’s ranked worst for blacks to live

Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib set up their Israel trip so as to maximize likelihood that they’d be banned

A Rundown of the Radical Thugs Who Surround Ilhan Omar

Abortive Tlaib/Omar Israel trip sponsored by jihad-linked org that claimed Jews used Christian blood for Passover

Israeli Minister on Tlaib: ‘Her Hate for Israel Overcomes Her Love for Her Grandmother’

One Look at Omar & Tlaib’s Itinerary and You’ll Know Why Israel Banned Them

Netanyahu’s Bold Move to Bar Anti-Semitic, Anti-Israel Members of Congress

Hilarious: Here’s Who Trump Says Is The ‘Only Real Winner’ In Rashida Tlaib’s Israel Setup 

Islamic Terrorism: The Group Sponsoring Tlaib and Omar’s Trip Celebrates Suicide Bombings, the Murder of Israeli Children

Move Over Russia: Google Takes Lead in Election Interference [Video]

In a recent congressional testimony on “Google and Censorship through Search Enginesliberal professor Dr. Robert Epstein warned of Google interference in the upcoming presidential elections.

Speaking to Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Epstein states that his “research over the past six years shows that Google, via various deliberate manipulations, moved between 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential race.”

Cruz pointed out that in 2016, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign’s number one financial supporter was the parent company of Google, Alphabet.

Adding further significance to the conversation on election interference, Epstein warned that the figure of 2.6 million was “rock bottom minimum” in terms of votes influenced. More accurately, he said, the range for Google’s election interference was between 2.6 million to 10.4 million votes depending on how aggressive Google was in their  techniques.

Those techniques included search engine result manipulation, search suggestion manipulation and affecting answers.

The exchange between Senator Cruz and Epstein also warned that none of these Google interference tactics are competitive.

Instead, Silicon Valley giants like Google have these tools exclusively at their disposal, which raises the question of whether a handful of Silicon Valley billionaires can be trusted with that much influence.

The testimony came at the same time that presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard initiated a lawsuit against Google for $50 million. According to Vice News, the legal complaint centers on the allegation that,

“Google unfairly barred the Hawaii congresswoman from buying ads… [Google] has been criticized by many on the Right for censoring content that favors conservative viewpoints. However, Google’s favoritism of political and policy ideas is more nuanced and self-serving. Simply put, Google supports viewpoints, political causes, and candidates that favors its policy positions over those that do not.”

Gabbard’s campaign was looking to buy ad space in a six-hour window following the first Democratic presidential debate — a debate which she gave an outstanding statement on the “War on Terror.”

While the televised speech was watched by millions of followers, Gabbard understood that it would be critical to her campaign to ride that wave by marketing the event through digital media.

In a report by The New York Timesthe lawsuit also outlines the Gabbard campaign’s belief that “its emails were being placed in spam folders on Gmail at ‘a disproportionately high rate’ when compared with emails from other Democratic candidates.”

The recent accusations against Google aren’t raised in a vacuum.

As Clarion Project has previously reported, Google has been caught teaming up with Chinese authorities in surveillance and prosecution measures over China’s Muslim population.

Moreover, Google has been called out for supporting a tracking app that allows Saudi men to control their wives’ and daughters’ movements.

RELATED STORIES:

The Curse of Silicon Valley’s Community Standards

Who Has the Widest Censorship Reach in Human History?

Peer Policing: The Next Dangerous Step Silencing Our Voices

President Donald J. Trump is Ensuring Non-Citizens Do Not Abuse Our Nation’s Public Benefits

PROTECTING PUBLIC RESOURCES: The Trump Administration is taking action to help ensure that non-citizens in this country are self-sufficient and not a strain on public resources.  

  • The Trump Administration is releasing a final rule that will protect American taxpayers, preserve our social safety net for vulnerable Americans, and uphold the rule of law.
  • This action will help ensure that if aliens want to enter or remain in the United States they must support themselves, and not rely on public benefits.
  • An alien who receives public benefits above a certain threshold is known as a “public charge.”
    • Aliens will be barred from entering the United States if they are found likely to become public charges.
    • Aliens in the United States who are found likely to become public charges will also be barred from adjusting their immigration status.
  • President Trump is enforcing this longstanding law to prevent aliens from depending on public benefit programs.
    • The Immigration and Nationality Act makes clear that those seeking to come to the United States cannot be a public charge.
  • For many years, this clear legal requirement went largely unenforced, imposing vast burdens on American taxpayers. Now, public charge law will finally be utilized.

ENCOURAGING SELF-SUFFICIENCY: Self-sufficiency has long been a basic principle of our Nation’s immigration laws that has enjoyed widespread support.

  • Public charge has been a part of United States immigration law for more than 100 years as a ground of inadmissibility.
  • Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed two bipartisan bills in 1996 to help stop aliens from exploiting public benefits.
    • This included the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.
    • As Congress made clear at the time, it is our national policy that aliens should “not depend on public resources to meet their needs.”
  • Americans widely agree that individuals coming to our country should be self-sufficient, with 73 percent in favor of requiring immigrants to be able to support themselves financially.

PRESERVING THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET: We must ensure that non-citizens do not abuse our public benefit programs and jeopardize the social safety net needed by vulnerable Americans. 

  • Large numbers of non-citizens and their families have taken advantage of our generous public benefits, limited resources that could otherwise go to vulnerable Americans.
  • 78 percent of households headed by a non-citizen with no more than a high school education use at least one welfare program.
  • 58 percent of all households headed by a non-citizen use at least one welfare program.
  • Half of all non-citizen headed households include at least one person who uses Medicaid.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why Blacks Should Ignore the Liberal Agenda

This Sheriff Was Sued for Cooperating With ICE. Now, He’s Vindicated.

VIDEO: Former Islamist Extremist Describes His Escape From the Ideology

What leads a person to become an Islamist extremist? For one immigrant, it was not fitting in with his American classmates.

Mohammed Khalid, a former Islamist extremist, described what drew him to the radical ideology and why he left it at an event last month at The Heritage Foundation.

Khalid, now a scholar in cybersecurity studies at the University of Maryland, was born in the United Arab Emirates and lived in Pakistan before emigrating to the United States in 2010.

As a 14-year-old struggling to fit in at an American public high school, Khalid said he turned to the internet to make sense of what some saw as the negative connotation of his first name, “Mohammed.”

He said he quickly became enthralled with the answers online extremists offered.

He absorbed as much material as he could, Khalid said, watching propaganda videos that painted the West in a negative light. He said the ideology resonated with him because he remembered seeing the same clips on the news when he lived in Pakistan.

“One of the biggest things that I remember was that the Twin Towers, when they were falling down—I could not forget one of the comments,” Khalid said. “One of the commentators was like, ‘Well, maybe they had it coming.’ This was when it began to kind of make sense to me, that well, maybe what’s happening to me is reflective of a wider ideology that I’m not aware of.”

At 16, Khalid said he was spending 40 hours a week communicating with Islamists through password-protected online forums, translating Islamist propaganda videos into English to radicalize American Muslims. He confided in these Islamists, whom he considered closer than family.

“The more I confided in them, the more separated and secluded I became from my own family,” Khalid said. “My family could not figure out what was wrong with me; they did not know what was happening because I kept it very well hidden from them.”

Khalid was arrested in April 2014, charged with conspiracy to provide material to terrorists, and convicted. He says he spent five years in federal prison.

At 17, he was the youngest person to be convicted of terrorism-related charges in the U.S.

Slowly, with the help of officers at the juvenile detention center, he said, he began to emerge from the extremist mindset.

The officers “explained about their struggles, they explained about their dreams, about their journeys,” Khalid said.

“And so began a process of humanization, a process in which I was able to finally relate to these people whom I’d other-ized under the umbrella of Islamist ideology, and whom I finally, when I reached that beginning step, began to see as human beings,” he said.

When an audience member asked whether it is possible for Muslims to reject extremism without leaving their faith, Khalid, who remains a Muslim, answered yes:

I see … a lot of my friends actually struggling to reconcile [Islam] with the society they find themselves in. They want to be partakers of this American culture. At the same time, they want to hold on to a Muslim identity that unfortunately, you know, sometimes is collapsed together with a whole bunch of outdated traditions. … I think moving forward, a lot of people individually have to decide how they want to interpret the religion, instead of letting religion be this one-size-fits-all approach.

Maajid Nawaz, founder and chairman of the London-based counterextremism think tank Quilliam, also spoke at the event.

Nawaz said the most vulnerable groups in society are former Muslims. He suggested that Islamic theology should be updated to develop a “Western Muslim identity.”

Muslims have a responsibility to respect those who leave the religion, he added, rather than isolating or targeting them.

“If Muslims … want to explore other faith traditions, or none, we have to protect them and their right to do so,” Nawaz said. “Because in our communities still, that is a big to-do, and they are discriminated against.”

COLUMN BY

Carmel Kookogey

Carmel Kookogey is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.


A Note for our Readers:

Conservative lawmakers MUST be able to point to tremendous policy victories they have been able to achieve by the end of 2019.

To do that, they will need to be focused on a few specific priorities before the end of the year arrives.

Guess who has the ideas for a clear plan policy agenda for conservative leadership? That’s right — The Heritage Foundation.

Click here to learn how you can do your part in achieving policy victories for conservatives everywhere today.

LEARN MORE >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

“Protecting” Illegal Aliens Isn’t Neighborly or Virtuous: It’s a Crime

You could hardly have missed it.  It was all over the media in the past few days, and seemingly painted more as a human-interest story than one about people flagrantly violating the law: “Nashville neighbors stop ICE agents from nabbing father and son by linking arms in driveway”“ICE agents back down after neighbors, activists link arms to help father and son avoid feds”“ICE tries to bring man into custody, neighbors form human chain to let them get home”;  etc., etc.

Amazingly, one reporter even stated, as if it were an indisputable fact, that “[b]ecause this was a civil matter … citizens are not committing a crime by interfering.”  That’s simply incorrect as a matter of law, and reckless to even suggest.

So why were none of these “neighbors” arrested for stopping ICE from picking up someone the agency says was a known convicted criminal?  When police come looking for an American citizen who’s committed a crime, do the neighbors normally think they can get in the way without consequences?  Do they think keeping law enforcement from doing their jobs and keeping the community safe is just the neighborly thing to do?

When 10 News Nashville spoke to Lincoln Memorial University law professor William Gill to try to explain to viewers why none of the “human chain” were arrested, he didn’t say ICE couldn’t have arrested them.  Instead he recognized the agency likely could have for “some kind of obstruction charge” but for whatever reason “probably decided they didn’t want to do that.”

But what does the law actually say?  The law sure sounds like this was a crime.  Probably multiple crimes.

Professor Gill’s first instinct was correct in mentioning the federal obstruction of justice laws.  When ICE is actively looking for a particular illegal alien, that often means the alien has already been ordered removed from the country by an immigration judge.  It follows  that someone getting in the way of ICE enforcing that order of removal could be committing “obstruction of proceedings” before a federal agency, namely before the immigration court that issued the order.

But there are also other federal crimes more specific to people getting in the way of immigration enforcement.  In Title 8 of the United States Code, Section 1324 is called “Bringing in and harboring certain aliens.”  It’s often referred to as the federal alien “smuggling” statute, but it actually criminalizes many more activities regarding protecting or assisting aliens than just anything that could described as smuggling.

It’s probably more accurate to refer to it as the alien harboring statute.  It might or might not have applied to this particular situation, but easily could in similar circumstances.

Notably, neither the obstruction nor harboring statute requires federal agents to have a criminal warrant for the person they’re looking before someone else deliberately getting in the way can be arrested.  Neither statute draws any distinction between criminal and civil enforcement at all.

This is just one prominent episode in an alarming trend: a lot of people don’t just think illegal aliens can freely break the law, but that everyone else can do it too if it’s to “help” or “protect” illegal aliens.  It’s one more part of what’s been described as “a radical new framework that treats any restrictions on immigration and enforcement of current laws as immoral.”

Even people like the Mayor of Oakland or a state court judge in Massachusetts—public officials sworn to uphold the law—buy into it and act on it.  It’s easy virtue-signaling as long as there are no consequences.

So there need to be consequences.  This dangerous myth needs to be dispelled or more people will interfere with immigration enforcement and it’ll become ever more dangerous for everyone involved.  While ICE exercised their judgment and discretion to act with restraint and not make criminal arrests this time, the only way to make people realize it’s unacceptable to obstruct the enforcement of immigration laws may be for ICE and other federal agencies to start making more arrests in the future when the “neighbors” try to get in the way.

COLUMN BY

DAVID JAROSLAV

Dave joined FAIR in 2017 after more than ten years as an Assistant State Attorney in Broward County, Florida. His prosecutorial experience covered trial litigation at the misdemeanor and felony levels, drug court and mental health court, and two years as an intake attorney in the juvenile division working closely with law enforcement. Before this, he was a legislative analyst/staff attorney with the Judiciary Committee of the Florida House of Representatives, where he assisted state legislators in ensuring the effectiveness and constitutionality of legislation on a wide variety of subject matter. In both capacities, he often dealt with the interaction of state law and immigration. Dave holds BAs in History and International Relations from American University and a JD from Tulane University Law School.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Guidelines Aim to Ensure Immigrants Are Self-Sufficient

Is China Schooling U.S. With Student Visas?

Seeking Asylum in Guatemala is Completely Appropriate

EDITORS NOTE: This FAIR column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

lhan Omar claims hate crimes up 226% after Trump rallies, Barr says no evidence hate crimes increased under Trump

“War is deceit,” said Muhammad (Bukhari 4.52.268).

Anti-Semite Ilhan Omar Says Hate Crimes Increase 226% After Trump Holds a Rally — But AG Bill Barr Says “No Evidence” Hate Crimes Increased Under Trump,” by Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit, August 8, 2019:

Radical anti-Semite and Democrat Ilhan Omar tweeted out on Wednesday that counties that hold Trump rallies see a 226% increase in hate crimes.

She added that assaults increase when cities hold Trump rallies.

Of course, this is a crock.

She took her data from a very controversial report by the far left Washignton [sic] Post.

Although there is proof that Antifa attacks tend to increase whenever Trump supporters gather for events.

And Attorney General Bill Barr told Congress in April that he has seen no evidence that hate crimes are up since 2013 when Obama was president.

Via America’s Newsroom:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bernie Sanders, Julián Castro set to speak at Hamas-linked Islamic Society of North America conference

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Concern About Jewish “White Supremacists” (Part 1)

No, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Voter ID Opponents Lose Again. This Time in North Dakota.

Opponents of election integrity lost the latest in a long string of cases recently when a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated North Dakota’s voter ID requirement and tossed out an injunction that had been issued by a lower court.

In Brakebill v. Jaeger, Judge Steven Colloton, writing for the 2-to-1 majority, concluded that the supposed burden of obtaining an ID by the less than 0.5% of all eligible voters who do not already have one did not justify a statewide injunction that prevented the state from implementing the ID requirement.

North Dakota is the only state in the Union that does not require citizens to register to vote.

You can show up on Election Day and vote in North Dakota—as long you show identification.

The state Legislature passed a series of laws delineating the forms of identification that could be used to vote.

Effective Aug. 1, 2017, North Dakota required either a driver’s license, a nondriver’s identification card issued by the state Department of Motor Vehicles, or an “official form of identification issued by a tribal government to a tribal member residing in the state.”

The law requires the ID to provide the voter’s legal name, current residential address, and date of birth.

However, if a voter’s ID is missing any of those three items, the voter will still be able to cast a ballot if he provides the missing information with a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or a check or other document issued by a federal, state, or local government agency.

Voters have up to six days after the election to present an acceptable ID or supplemental documents. Despite the fact that the lower court thought this provision would not be understood by the average voter, the appeals court noted that there was “no evidence of voter confusion over this provision.”

Six members of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians sued, claiming that the ID requirement restricted the ability of tribal members to register and exercise their right to vote, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, state law, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The tribal members argued that “Native Americans often live on reservations or in other rural areas where people do not have street addresses; even if they do … those addresses are frequently not included on tribal IDs. Moreover … Native Americans in North Dakota are ‘disproportionately homeless.’”

Although it should be pointed out that all six of these plaintiffs actually have residential addresses.

The majority rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that requiring voters to have a residential street address is discriminatory, citing former Associate Justice John Paul Stevens’ opinion in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), in which the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID requirement.

A “residential street address furthers North Dakota’s legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud and safeguarding voter confidence, so unlike a poll tax, it is not invidiously ‘unrelated to voter qualifications.’”

The number of North Dakotans, just like the residents of other states, who already possess a photo ID is overwhelming. The court found that less than 0.5% of eligible voters in the state do not already have an ID or the supplemental documents that can be used to meet the ID requirement.

More importantly, the plaintiffs in the case presented no evidence whatsoever to detail how many of these “voters attempted to obtain a supplemental document and were unsuccessful.”

It was clear to the court that the state ID law did not place “a substantial burden on most North Dakota voters.” Thus, a “statewide injunction” was “unwarranted.”

The clamor around mythical claims of “voter suppression” over legislation like North Dakota’s ID requirement is misguided.

Such laws are designed and intended to shore up current deficiencies in the electoral system.

As pointed out in a recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, voter ID laws have no discernible effect on reducing the turnout of voters. Over the period 2008 to 2016, the researchers concluded that voter ID “laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.”

The purpose of North Dakota’s election laws is rooted in a desire to promote election integrity. Far from being a trivial concern, election fraud has been and continues to be an unfortunate part of American elections, as can be seen in The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database.

Although election integrity measures such as voter ID requirements are often presented as a partisan issue, they should not be. Everyone has an interest in fair and secure elections.

As noted in a 2005 study by the Commission of Federal Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State James Baker:

The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.

COMMENTARY BY

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

Greg Walsh is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.


A Note for our Readers:

Conservative lawmakers MUST be able to point to tremendous policy victories they have been able to achieve by the end of 2019.

To do that, they will need to be focused on a few specific priorities before the end of the year arrives.

Guess who has the ideas for a clear plan policy agenda for conservative leadership? That’s right — The Heritage Foundation.

Click here to learn how you can do your part in achieving policy victories for conservatives everywhere today.

LEARN MORE >>


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

VIDEO: President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump Visits Dayton, Ohio

1600 Daily reports:

President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump traveled today to Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, where they met with survivors, families, medical workers, and first responders affected by this weekend’s horrific acts of mass violence.

In Dayton this morning, the two met with patients and staff members at Miami Valley Hospital. “They’ve been stopping between rooms to thank the hardworking medical staff,” Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham wrote. “Very powerful moments.”

“You had God watching. I want you to know we’re with you all the way,” the President said. Later in the afternoon, he and the First Lady visited with first responders, hospital staff, and victims and their families at University Medical Center of El Paso.

As always when tragedy strikes, our nation’s first responders put their own lives at risk to help save others. The men and women who answered the call in both Dayton and El Paso were no exception. On Monday, President Trump thanked those “who responded to these atrocities with the extraordinary grace and courage of American heroes.”

Before departing Washington today, the President pledged to push Congress on finding bipartisan solutions to address mass violence. “We’re going to be meeting with members of Congress. I’ve already got meetings scheduled. And I have had plenty of talks over the last two days,” he said. Specific measures the President has mentioned include stronger background checks, early warning detection, and “red flag” protection orders.

“I’ll be convincing some people to do things that they don’t want to do, and that means people in Congress,” President Trump said.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: President Trump says he’ll work with Congress to prevent future tragedies.

Murder, It’s a Democrat Thing

With leftists seeking to blame the El Paso shooting on President Trump, guns, white people and whatever other boogieman will help score political points, a simple fact should be understood:

Murder is a Democrat thing.

We can start with the striking statistic that 68 percent of all homicides occur in just certain parts of 5 percent of America’s counties — and all, or virtually all, of these are Democrat areas.

Also striking is Democrats’ devolution on prenatal infanticide. The line always was, though the savvy never believed it, “We want abortion to be safe, legal and rare.” Leftists also insisted that “we don’t really know when life begins” or when “an unviable tissue mass becomes a baby.” To echo Barack Obama’s debate disclaimer from some years ago, that’s above their “pay grade.”

But all that has been aborted. Now leftists support prenatal infanticide up until birth, and sometimes beyond, though this is subject to change without notice. (Coming, perhaps, is the day leftists will absolutely know when an “unviable tissue mass” becomes human: when it can vote Democrat.)

In other words, yes, he’s a baby; yes, he’s human.

And, yes, you can murder him because you feel like it. How sociopathic can you get?

This devolution is no surprise. Leftists are, almost one and all, de facto atheists; as such, they essentially believe man is just a material being, a chemicals-and-water organic robot. To quote barrel-of-laughs botanist Lawrence Trevanion, people are “objects that perceive.”

Obviously, viewing people as objects leads to objectification; you use objects and, when the spirit moves you, maybe even abuse objects. This is why leftists such as sanctimonious Pete Buttigieg and Irish Bob (O’Rourke) will politicize tragedies such as the El Paso and Dayton shootings before the blood is even dry. To them, the victims are objects that serve a purpose, a means to an end.

So they can be human props, just like the Illegal-alien Children in Cages™, or kids paraded in front of press conferences or on stage at Democratic National Conventions. “Do it for the children?” It’s really, “Do it with the children” or “Do it to the children” — whatever yields the power you crave.

Of course, projecting, leftists are also full of the hate they ascribe to others. (After all, they’re incapable of hating what they see as the sin without hating who they see as the sinner, so they assume others operate likewise.) This is why former CNN host Reza Aslan, an Iranian immigrant who once ate human flesh on television, recently sent a tweet in which he appeared to say that all Trump supporters should be eradicated.

If that was his meaning, he’d just be carrying on a long tradition. The “Left” has been bloody ever since it was born during the French Revolution, where Maximilien Robespierre’s crew killed thousands in the Reign of Terror. Since then, the USSR’s Stalin, China’s Mao, Cambodia’s Pol Pot and others have added approximately 100 million corpses to the total. The formula is simple, too: Leftists+Sufficient Power=Dropped Mask and Mass murder.

Power really is the only limiting factor because godlessness, that leftist norm, correlates with moral nihilism, and thus are leftists bereft of true moral constraints. Fyodor Dostoevsky explained this state of being in The Brothers Karamazov, writing, “Without God, all things are permitted.” Leftists don’t have principles, but preferences — which is why they’re notorious for the political-winds-enabled goalpost shift.

Worse still is how leftists (and the conservatives who defend yesterday’s liberals’ mistakes) destroy children, on the inside, with corruptive miseducation, entertainment and sexual-devolutionary messages and temptations. From bodies to hearts to minds to souls to statues and traditions and beyond, threatening all that’s great and good, destruction is leftists’ stock in trade.

Leftists were once part of the counter-culture, but the only culture that’s truly theirs is the Culture of Death, that dark phenomenon Pope John Paul II so lamented. So you can point fingers, modern Democrats, but in your hearts some of you, I suspect, know exactly what too many of you are: stone-cold killers.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

RELATED VIDEO: ‘Things Are Getting Dangerously Crazy On The Left’

RELATED ARTICLES:

We Don’t Need Red Flag Laws, We Need More Good Americans To Get Guns

The Obama Administration holds the record for the largest number of mass shootings

Neil deGrasse Tyson Is Right about the Numbers (and Our Emotions)

VIDEO: The Vortex — Socialism Is Satanic. ‘Justice’ for all is a lie.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Woke Capitalism List: 50 Times Huge Companies Sided With The Social Justice Warriors

An Open Letter to “Democratic Socialists” Visiting Atlanta

TRANSCRIPT

The other day, I saw a T-shirt worn by a supporter of the old, hypocritical socialist Bernie Sanders.

Across the chest of the shirt was a classically brain-dead slogan which read in part: “College for all. Jobs for all. Justice for all.”

And therein lies the problem with socialism and why the Catholic Church outright condemns it since it first reared its ugly head over a century ago.

Socialism pretends everyone is equal and somehow justice means everyone getting treated the same.

Nothing could be further from the truth. There is, of course, like all great lies, a little smidgeon of truth buried in the lie, which is what makes it have an appeal to the unthinking.

Everyone is the same as regards their human dignity being made in the image and likeness of God — and that’s where it ends. After that, the idea of sameness or equality goes out the window.

It doesn’t matter if you are talking about intellect, ambition, looks, creativity, physical strength — you name whatever category you want — there is virtually nothing you can point to where people are the same and therefore deserve the same treatment.

For example, take the politically and culturally suicidal notion that everyone has a right to a job. Really? Even the guy who comes in late? Even the guy who shows zero initiative? Even the incompetent worker? Jobs for all?

Of course, in an ideal and just society, everyone should have the opportunity for a job, to earn a living, to own private property and all that. But not everyone has a right to an actual job. That entirely depends on their ability and choices, which is ultimately what separates one man from another — the choices he makes.

But socialists don’t care about that. They just like ginning up support for their idiocy by appealing to the emotional — not intellectual, emotional mind — that everyone is the same and everyone should have what everyone else has because that’s fair.

Socialists mistakenly equate fairness with equality and then incorrectly label it all as justice. Fairness relates to opportunity, meaning providing an equal playing field for everyone to approach.

After that, it’s every man for himself based on his abilities and choices. This is true not only in the natural world, but most especially in the supernatural world. It would be the greatest travesty of justice imaginable if everyone was admitted to Heaven.

Justice is specifically the giving to each according to what is due to them, not just everyone getting the same outcome.

In the case of the courts, for example, imagine every criminal, regardless of the crime, being given the exact same sentence. That’s manifestly stupid, as well as gravely unjust. And if it’s true on earth, how much more true is it in the next world?

So no, not everyone deserves a job. All that can be said is everyone deserves a chance at a job; likewise, this asinine talking point of socialist Democrats that everyone has a right to college — no they don’t.

Again, everyone should have a right at the chance to go to college, but the decision on whether or not they actually are accepted should depend on their academic performance and choices.

Did they do their homework? Did they study hard and make good grades? Did they manifest a certain level of determination to excel academically?

If not, why should they be accepted to college? Because an old, hypocritical socialist says so? Because his decidedly leftward lurching party says so?

Baloney — but see, spiritually speaking, the intellectual rot behind this cheap appeal to emotions is a further attempt to dislodge Western culture from its grounding in Catholicism.

The Church instantly recognized that a false belief that all men should be treated the same regardless of their choices was a direct assault on Catholic theology.

Catholic theology is built on the hierarchical order of the world. Different souls mount to different heights — or plunge to deeper depths — depending on how well or not well they cooperate with grace.

To try and paint the world as though everyone deserves the same outcome because that’s somehow “fair” is to destroy the understanding that our choices matter and have consequences.

Know this: Every great political or cultural movement that dresses up a lie has as its author, Satan. Socialism is satanic because its aim is to disrupt the natural order so that the supernatural order will be obscured.

As an aside, if that was the case, why does Bernie think he’s more fit to be president than any other American, which he obviously does?

Because he’s a liar and hypocrite. He thinks he’s a better choice — more qualified, a better candidate than any of the other child murderers in his morally bankrupt party.

The perfect retort to these peddlers of socialism is lay the ax to the root of their lie. Everyone is not equal in terms of their choices, not their abilities, and equal outcomes contradict not only common sense but also divine law.

As St. Paul tells the early Catholics in Rome, “God will repay each one according to his deeds.”

Yep, we aren’t all the same. We have different abilities and make different choices. And in the very end, some will go to Heaven and others will be damned.