VIDEO: The Democrat Debate Debacle in Charleston

The presidential candidates were hosted by CBS for the 10th debate. Some have said the debate “went off the rails.” The candidates appeared angry, desperate and unhinged. During the 9th debate Bloomberg was the target. The 10th debate found Bernie Sander at the center of the firestorm.

The issue was how Bernie has gone full Communist, Marxist, Socialist and pro-Castor candidate.

Check out these tweets highlighting the key statements during the debate:

These debates have shown how out of touch the candidates and by definition the party has gone full Communist.

Watch the full 4 hour debate:

© All rights reserved.

Trump Administration Accomplishments on Life, Family and Religious Freedom


To date, the administration of President Donald Trump has taken significant action on issues of concern to social conservatives — life, family, and religious liberty:

2017

  • On January 23, President Trump reinstated and expanded the Mexico City Policy, renaming it the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance Policy (PLGHA), which blocks funding for international organizations that participate in abortion.
  • On February 22, the Department of Education rescinded President Barack Obama’s guidance that had required public schools to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms and showers of their choice.
  • On April 7, President Trump’s nominee Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Supreme Court. Justice Gorsuch has already developed a reputation as an originalist who will rule the right way on religious liberty issues. Gorsuch is representative of President Trump’s judicial nominees overall.
  • On May 4, President Trump signed Executive Order 13798, emphasizing the need to protect religious liberty and requiring the Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue new guidance on religious liberty.
  • On August 25, President Trump announced changes to the Obama administration’s Department of Defense (DOD) policy which had allowed military personnel to openly serve even if they self-identified as transgender (a DOD study found the Obama administration policy to be detrimental to military readiness, lethality, and unit cohesion).
  • On September 7, the Trump administration’s DOJ filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court defending the religious freedom rights of baker Jack Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This action is reflective of other actions defending religious freedom taking place throughout the Trump administration DOJ.
  • On October 6, the Trump administration DOJ issued guidance (as instructed by the May 4 Executive Order) to all federal agencies explaining religious freedom law and how religious liberty must be protected. This guidance laid out a broad defense of religious liberty based on multiple statutes and provided guidelines for each federal agency on how to protect religious liberty.
  • Also on October 6, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) proposed two regulations to deal with the Obamacare “HHS contraceptive mandate.” These new regulations exempt organizations with moral or religious objections from purchasing insurance that includes coverage of contraceptives and abortifacient-type drugs and devices.

2018

  • On January 19, HHS issued a new proposed regulation on conscience protections related to abortion. Specifically, the regulation proposed to implement 25 laws that protect-life healthcare entities against discrimination by federal agencies – or state or local governments receiving federal funds – due to their objections to participating in abortion.
  • On January 24, Sam Brownback was confirmed as U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. In choosing Brownback for this role, President Trump demonstrated the administration’s commitment to religious freedom by choosing someone with gravitas and experience on the issue.
  • On March 23, 2018, the White House and DOD issued a new policy allowing existing personnel to remain in the military while preventing those who have been diagnosed with“gender dysphoria” or had undergone gender transition surgery from joining the military. Those who are transgender and stable for 36 months could join so long as they serve in accordance with their biological sex.
  • On April 26, Mike Pompeo was confirmed as Secretary of State. In choosing Pompeo for this position, President Trump chose someone who deeply cares about religious liberty and would make it a priority to see the issue advanced through this administration.
  • On April 30, during a press conference with Nigeria’s president, President Trump raised the issue of religious freedom and the killing of Christians in that country. This resulted in security forces being committed to deal with the problem.
  • On May 22, HHS issued a new proposed regulation reversing the Title X family planning regulations implemented by President Bill Clinton. The new regulation would restore the separation of abortion services from the federal Title X family planning program, which President Ronald Reagan first implemented. The new regulation would also ensure parents are more involved in the decisions of minors to obtain services from Title X clinics. It reverses the discriminatory abortion referral requirement the Clinton regulations implemented and is poised to put a dent into Planned Parenthood’s roughly $60 million annual revenues from this federal program.
  • On July 24-26, the State Department held the first-ever Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. Political and civil society leaders from around the world gathered in Washington, D.C. for a three-day summit to discuss religious freedom issues and solutions. The Potomac Declaration was issued at the Ministerial. It made a strong statement about the state of religious freedom around the globe and provided a plan of action for promoting global religious freedom. The U.S. also announced the International Religious Freedom Fund(to provide emergency assistance to victims of religiously motivated discrimination and abuse around the world), and the Genocide Recovery and Persecution Response initiative(which has provided nearly $373 million to help persecuted ethnic and religious minorities in northern Iraq restore their communities). The U.S. was among 25 countries who signed a statement condemning terrorism and the abuse of religious believers by non-state actors.
  • On July 30, the Trump administration DOJ announced a Religious Liberty Task Force to fully implement religious liberty guidance and policy across all components in the DOJ.
  • On August 1, the Trump administration relied on Executive Order 13818 (which builds on global Magnitsky Act authority) to sanction two Turkish officials over the detention of American pastor Andrew Brunson due to his Christian faith. This Executive Order ultimately resulted in Pastor Brunson’s release.
  • On September 24, HHS terminated a $15,900 contract with Advanced Bioscience Resources to procure fetal tissue from aborted babies for research. The termination of this contract led HHS to announce an audit of all acquisitions and research involving human fetal tissue to ensure consistency with statutes and regulations.
  • On October 6, President Trump’s nominee Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the Supreme Court, marking the second constitutional originalist the president saw confirmed to the court.
  • On November 7, HHS issued two final regulations to deal with the Obamacare “HHS contraceptive mandate.” These two regulations exempt organizations with either a moral or religious objection from purchasing insurance with coverage of contraceptives and abortifacient-type drugs and devices. The regulations took effect on January 14, 2019.
  • Also on November 7, HHS released a new funding opportunity for the Title X Family Planning Services Grant that will fund organizations beginning April 1, 2019. This new funding opportunity clarified the intended purpose of the Title X Family Planning program and made successful grant applications available so that pregnancy resource centers and other pro-life organizations could be competitive in the selection process.
  • On November 9, HHS proposed a new regulation to address an abortion surcharge hidden in many plans purchased on the Obamacare exchange. This proposed regulation would enforce the requirement that abortion surcharges are to be collected separately from other insurance premiums. This requirement was not closely followed under the Obama administration, leading HHS to now more strictly enforce the separation of payments.
  • On December 26, the Trump administration DOJ filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court defending a cross-shaped veteran’s memorial that had been challenged as a violation of the Establishment Clause. This position is representative of the Trump administration’s originalist approach to the Constitution concerning First Amendment rights and other issues. This approach results in legal analysis that interprets the law rather than injecting policy preferences into it.

2019

  • On March 4, HHS finalized rule changes governing the Title X family planning program. Consistent with federal law, these rule changes ensured that Title X clinics would be financially and physically separate from abortion facilities and would not refer patients for abortions. Since the implementation of the rule, Planned Parenthood and several pro-abortion states voluntarily decided to withdraw from the program rather than quit performing abortions or referring patients for abortions.
  • On March 8, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback gave a speech in Hong Kong during which he criticized China’s poor religious freedom record.
  • On April 12, the Trump administration policy regarding military service by those with gender dysphoria went into effect.
  • On May 21, HHS finalized a rule to expand the structure in which federal conscience laws are enforced. In 2011, President Obama issued a rule to enforce only three federal conscience provisions. This new regulation expands this number to cover 25 existing statutes. These statutes will be enforced under the new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, part of the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The effective date of this regulation is November 22, 2019. Even though this new regulation enforcing conscience protections is not yet in effect, it has not stopped the administration from protecting conscience under the old regulations. On August 28, HHS announced that they sent a violation notice to the University of Vermont Medical Center for forcing a nurse to participate in an abortion despite her conscience objection. This marks the third time that the Religious Freedom Division under President Trump has investigated a conscience complaint related to participating in or promoting abortion.
  • On May 24, HHS proposed a new regulation that clarifies that discrimination on the basis of sex in section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act was to be interpreted under the plain meaning of the word, and therefore does not include “gender identity” or “termination of pregnancy” as set forth by a 2016 Obama administration regulation. Under President Trump, the HHS regulation will continue to enforce existing civil rights protections; however, it makes clear that the federal government will not use discrimination on the basis of sex to force physicians to participate in gender reassignment surgeries or abortions.
  • On June 5, after an extensive audit into fetal tissue research, the Trump administration announced a major change in the enforcement of research contracts. HHS would no longer conduct intramural (internal) research using tissue from aborted babies and would greatly increase the ethics rules and safeguards that govern extramural (external) fetal tissue research contracts. All new external contracts will be subject to a congressionally authorized ethics advisory board, making it much more difficult for fetal tissue or research contracts to be awarded by the National Institute of Health.
  • On July 16-18, the State Department held the second Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced a new global initiative, the International Religious Freedom Alliance, meant to provide a way for like-minded countries to work together to advance religious freedom. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gave a compelling speech condemning the use of technology to track and control the lives of religious minorities, and the United States was among 14 signatory countries on a statement of concern about technology and religious freedom. The United States was also one of the 34 countries that signed a statement of concern on counterterrorism as a pretext for the repression of religious freedom; one of 27 countries that signed a statement condemning blasphemy, apostasy, or other laws that restrict religious freedom; and was one of 46 countries that signed a statement that called government officials to condemn attacks on places of worship and to work with religious communities to protect these places. The State Department and USAID also announced new religious freedom training programs for foreign service officers.
  • On July 16, the State Department placed targeted sanctions on Burmese military officials for their human rights and religious freedom violations committed against the Rohingya Muslim population.
  • On July 18, HHS Secretary Alex Azar and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo delivered a joint letter to the international community. It defended the ability of nations to formulate pro-life policies and invited other nations to join the U.S. in this effort.
  • Also on July 18, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and HHS Secretary Alex Azar issued a joint letter on International Partnerships that called states to join a coalition of countries that seek to advocate against pro-abortion policies at the World Health Organization and theUnited Nations.
  • On August 15, the DOL proposed a new regulation that would clarify the scope and application of religious exemptions for federal contractors. Under the Obama administration, the scope of religious exemption at the DOL was severely narrowed. The current DOL relied on the history of our nation’s preservation of religious liberty, the First Amendment, and Supreme Court decisions to re-invigorate the exemption to its historical and constitutional parameters.
  • On September 10, the State Department placed targeted sanctions on Russian officials for their religious freedom violations and torture of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
  • On September 11, President Trump saw his 150th federal judge confirmed – a number which includes 105 district court judges, 43 appeals court judges, and 2 Supreme Court justices. An overwhelming number of President Trump’s judicial nominees have been constitutional originalists, who will interpret the law as written, rather than interpret it according to their personal policy preferences. As judges, these nominees will rule correctly on religious liberty and pro-life issues.
  • On September 23, President Trump hosted a meeting during the U.N. General Assembly and gave a speech solely on the topic of religious freedom. During the speech, he announced a U.S. policy initiative to protect places of worship, pledging an additional $25 million in funding to protect religious sites and relics. President Trump also announced the U.S. would form a coalition within the business community to protect religious freedom. This is the first time a U.S. president has hosted a meeting focused solely on religious freedom at the U.N.
  • On September 24, President Trump discussed the need to protect religious freedom during his U.N. General Assembly speech, in which he also discussed China and Iran – two major violators of religious freedom.
  • On September 25, HHS Secretary Alex Azar delivered a statement at the U.N. General Assembly stating that there is no international right to an abortion, and that the U.S. does not support ambiguous terms like sexual and reproductive health in U.N. documents.
  • On November 27, President Trump signed the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act into law, which affirms Hong Kong’s semi-autonomous status and protects against Chinese government encroachment, which is a threat to Hong Kong’s religious freedom.
  • On December 19, HHS issued a rule removing burdensome requirements that all grantees, including those that are faith-based, must accept as valid same-sex marriages and professed gender identity in order to be eligible to participate in grant programs. This included the adoption and foster care space where these requirements had been used to shut down faith-based providers of foster care and adoption.
  • On December 27, HHS finalized regulations that require Obamacare health providers to collect two separate premium payments, one for abortion coverage and one for all other health care coverage. This final rule brings federal regulations into alignment with section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act ensuring that consumers know their health care plan covers abortion, and funding for abortion is kept separate from all other covered services.

2020

  • On January 16, HHS Secretary Alex Azar hosted 34 countries for a meeting on how to promote women’s health in a way that does not include abortion. This meeting followed an invitation sent by Secretary Azar and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to 70 different countries inviting them to join a coalition to oppose international efforts to enshrine abortion as a human right.
  • On January 16, the Departments of Education and Justice issued guidance on constitutionally protected prayer and religious expression in public elementary and secondary schools. This guidance ensures that prayer in schools is properly protected and not unconstitutionally prohibited or curtailed.
  • On January 16, The White House Office of Management and Budget sent a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies to provide guidance on applying Executive Order (EO) 13798 “Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.” This memo required the agencies to review the EO and publish policies on how they will comply, in order to protect the ability of religious organizations to operate in the public square.
  • On January 17, nine federal agencies proposed rules leveling the playing field for faith-based organizations wishing to participate in grant programs or become a contractor. The rules eliminated two requirements placed on faith-based organizations that were not placed on secular organizations.
  • On January 22, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) at HHS approved a family planning waiver for Texas to implement a state-run Medicaid program that excludes abortion providers like Planned Parenthood. This makes Texas the first state to receive Medicaid funding for a family planning program that does not include abortion providers.
  • On January 24, President Trump became the first sitting president to give remarks in person at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. In his address, he stated the eternal truth that every child is a sacred gift from God and reiterated his effort to defend the dignity and sanctity of every human life.
  • On January 24, HHS Secretary Alex Azar announced live at FRC’s ProLifeCon event that the Trump administration issued a notice of violation to California for violating the federal Weldon Amendment by mandating all health insurers provide coverage for abortion. California’s abortion coverage mandate has deprived over 28,000 residents of plans that do not cover abortion. This marks the second time that HHS has issued a notice of violation to California for violating federal conscience laws, and is the fourth enforcement action taken by the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division of the Office of Civil Rights at HHS.
  • On February 4, during his State of the Union address, President Trump called on Congress to pass legislation that would ban late-term abortions. To highlight the need for this legislation, he invited special guest Ellie Schneider, who was born at just 21 weeks gestation.
  • On February 5, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo launched the International Religious Freedom Alliance. The Alliance will unite government leaders from like-minded nations to strategize on ways in which they can promote religious freedom and protect religious minorities around the world.
  • As of February 12, 2020, the Trump administration has overseen the confirmation of 192 federal judges, including 2 Supreme Court justices and 51 federal appeals court judges.

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

9th Circuit: Trump Administration Stripping Funding From Abortion Clinics Is Constitutional

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that the Trump administration can continue stripping federal funding from clinics that offer abortions.

The court upheld the Trump administration’s June 2019 declaration that taxpayer-funded clinics must stop referring women for abortions or be stripped of their Title X funding.

Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote Monday’s majority opinion, stating that “there is no ‘gag’ on [nondirective] abortion counseling.”

The Department of Health and Human Services followed the decision in June by alerting clinics that it would enforce the administration’s ban. Planned Parenthood withdrew from the Title X federal family planning program, thereby forgoing about $60 million a year, in August 2019 rather than comply with this decision.

The rules, which advance President Donald Trump’s promise to stop funding businesses that perform abortions, require that organizations that perform abortions and make abortion referrals will have to do so in separate buildings from those that receive Title X federal funds.

“Today’s ruling is a vindication of President Trump’s pro-life policies and a victory for the American people,” Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement, adding that abortion is not family planning and that “a strong majority of Americans” oppose taxpayer-funded abortions.

“President Trump’s Protect Life Rule honors their will and the plain language of the Title X statute by stopping the funneling of Title X taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry, without reducing family planning funding by a dime,” Dannenfelser added. “We thank President Trump and HHS Secretary [Alex] Azar for their strong pro-life leadership and look forward to the end of further frivolous litigation by the abortion lobby.”

Americans United for Life President and CEO Catherine Glenn Foster said in a statement that AUL is “grateful that the court of appeals has seen through the false cries of the abortion industry and upheld a rule that protects women’s health as well as taxpayer’s consciences.”

“We look forward to the implementation of the rule in a way that ensures that no public funding is ever used for elective abortions,” Foster said.

Other organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, protested the ruling.

“The rule prohibits family planning clinics—which previously served as the source of health care for more than four million low-income people every year—from providing Title X patients with referrals for abortion care and imposes other onerous requirements that have resulted in the widespread loss of critical Title X providers,” the ACLU said in a press release.

ACLU senior staff attorney Ruth Harlow noted that the ACLU is “deeply disappointed” at the decision.

“We are looking at any further options to rescue the Title X program and to restore the critical care it has provided to marginalized patients for almost five decades,” Harlow said in a statement.

COLUMN BY

Mary Margaret Olohan

Mary Margaret Olohan is a reporter covering social issues for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @MaryMargOlohan.

RELATED ARTICLES:

He Was Born at 22 Weeks. His Parents Say Late-Term Abortions Should Be Illegal.

Only 3 Senate Democrats Vote to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortion

Abortion Debate Shows How Media Deploys Language Gymnastics to Serve Left-Wing Goals

In New Supreme Court Case, Religious Liberty Is at Stake

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Why I Believe That My Friend Phillip B. Haney Was Assassinated

My thoughts and prayers are with the family of my great and good friend Phillip B. Haney. 


In Remembrance of My Friend

I write this column knowing that my friend Phillip is with God in Heaven. This column is a tribute to a man who stood against evil. This column is in remembrance of a man who never ever gave up. This column is dedicated to a true American patriot. This column pays homage to a fellow warrior in the fight against those who would destroy America from within.

Let me begin by explaining how Phillip and I first met. My contacts with Phillip were all via phone. We spoke frequently, sometimes 2-3 times a week, over a period of 8 years during the most difficult times in his life. While I never had the honor of meeting him in person, we spoke frequently about life, his career, his family, his work and his passion for telling the truth no matter what the consequences.

Phillip became a contributor of ours writing fourteen columns. Phillip’s last column was dated December 3rd, 2019 titled Four Years Ago Today: A Tribute to the Victims of the San Bernardino Jihad Attack. Phillip concluded his last column writing:

As a sworn Federal Law Enforcement Officer who has also been deeply affected by this case, it is my intention, in the weeks, months and years ahead, to help make sure that their stories are not forgotten, and that on one fine day, we will all know more about what really happened on that December day in San Bernardino.

Phillip felt personally responsible for the deaths in San Bernadino because he knew that the Obama administration had shut down his investigation into several Islamist groups, two of which we now know were tied to the San Bernardino attack. Watch:

Upon his retirement after 13 years as a Customs & Border Protection Officer in the Department of Homeland Security, he relished his new role as a whistleblower explaining how political correctness was making us all less safe.

Phillip B. Haney was Assassinated

I believe my friend did not commit suicide. I believe Phillip was not murdered. I believe Phillip was assassinated.

I waited to write this column as the first shock of his death hit me. I kept asking myself why?

I was so distraught that I just couldn’t write about Phillip until I knew more about the circumstances of his death. I read column after column seeking answers to the who, what, where, when and how. As of the writing of this column the investigation into his death is on going. What we do know is that, according to the Washington Examiner:

[Phillip] was found dead with a bullet wound on Friday morning [February 21st]  about 40 miles east of Sacramento, California, in a park-and-ride open area immediately adjacent to state Highway 16 and near state Highway 124, according to law enforcement authorities.

“Highway 16 is a busy state highway and used as a main travel route to and from Sacramento. The location is less than three miles from where [Haney] was living,” the sheriff’s office statement explained.

Here are the reasons why I firmly believe that Phillip was assassinated:

  1. He was a man on a mission to tell his story to anyone who would listen.
  2. He was a man of character.
  3. He was a seasoned federal officer who dedicated his life to serving the nation.
  4. He was a target of various Islamic terrorist groups and individuals because of the work he did at the Department of Homeland Security.
  5. He never gave up even when he was under investigation by his own department’s IG, the U.S. Department of State and then Attorney General Eric Holder.
  6. He was never depressed during hundreds of the conversations we had while he was in DHS, after he retired from DHS and while he was a contributor to our publication.
  7. He was a strong Christian who knew that it was God who put him on this path to tell the truth.

Nick Givas from Fox News reported:

Haney was recently in contact with DHS officials about a possible return to the agency, the Washington Examiner reported, adding that he was also engaged to be married.

Phillip and I often spoke about his desire to return the the Department of Homeland Security. Phillip wanted to first write his book and then return as an agent to continue his work to root out terrorists and their enablers domestically and globally.

Phillip never gave up on this dream.

Conclusion

QUESTION: Why was Phillip B. Haney assassinated?

ANSWER: He was causing Fitna in the Muslim world.

In a February 18, 2015 article titled Fitna Is Worse Than Slaughter Phillip wrote:

I have come to believe that Fitnah is the most essential motivational component of Islamic theology, i.e., it is the cornerstone of an adversarial, confrontational worldview that inevitably leads to a state of perpetual conflict with the non-Islamic world.

Philip concluded:

The word ‘Phobia’ has two meanings – either to hate something intensely, or to fear something intensely. Using these two meanings, it could be said that Muslims and non-Muslims both have ‘Fitnaphobia’ – Muslims because they hate Fitnah, and non-Muslims because they fear it.

However, in the case of the non-Muslim world, it appears that we are much more concerned about causing Fitnah (by Opposing the Strategy & Tactics of the Global Islamic Movement), than we are about protecting our western civilization from the increasingly aggressive promoters of Shariah Law.

Phillip was assassinated because he was causing Fitna. You see the slaughter of Phillip was justified in order to stop the Fitna, his pushing back against Islamic terrorism.

Phillip did not hate Muslims nor did he fear the terrorists. He was fearless!

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEOS:

Louie Gohmert on the life and death of Phillip Haney

Philip Haney on his book See Something Say Nothing.

‘Here We Go Again’: 4 Things to Know About New Russia-Trump Election Meddling Narrative

Democrats are raising a ruckus about a news report that Russia plans to meddle in the 2020 presidential campaign to help reelect President Donald Trump.

But further Russian election interference was expected, as special counsel Robert Mueller told Congress last year after his report about Moscow’s meddling in the 2016 campaign.

Here’s what to know about the newest reports about what Russia is up to.

1. What’s Different About Russia’s Plans to Interfere?

Several intelligence agencies reported in 2017 that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an effort to meddle with the U.S. presidential campaign, with a clear preference for Trump over the 2016 Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>

The Russians hacked the Democratic National Committee and paid more than $100,000 for Facebook ads.

After an investigation lasting nearly two years, Mueller concluded in a 448-page report that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

The Times report said the Russians are “undeterred by American efforts to thwart them,” and have made “more creative use of Facebook and other social media.”

The Times story, online Thursday and in the newspaper Friday, does not allege any collusion or conspiracy between Trump or his 2020 campaign and the Russians.

“Russian operatives are working to get Americans to repeat disinformation, the officials said,” the Times story says, referring to unnamed sources. “That strategy gets around social media companies’ rules that prohibit ‘inauthentic speech.’”

The Times also reported that Russian hackers “infiltrated Iran’s cyberwarfare unit” to target the U.S. and make it appear the action came from Iran.

2. What Did Trump Have to Say About It?

Trump tackled the issue head-on at a rally Friday afternoon in Las Vegas. The president said that he has dealt with “three years of witch hunts and partisan Democrat crusades.”

“By the way, I think they are starting another one,” he said. “Did you see that? I see these phonies, the do-nothing Democrats. They said today that Putin wants to be sure that Trump gets reelected. Here we go again. Here we go again. Did you see it?”

The crowd booed over the reference to the news report.

Trump noted that Clinton, his vanquished 2016 rival, recently described both Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, and the Green Party’s 2016 presidential candidate, Jill Stein, as Russian agents.

Of the new Russia allegation, Trump said, “That’s Pencil Neck again,” his nickname for House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who led Democrats’ effort to impeach Trump in the House.

The Senate voted against removing Trump from office after a trial.

“I was told a week ago, you know, they’re trying to start a rumor,” Trump said at the rally. “It’s disinformation. That’s the only thing they’re good at. They get nothing done. … These people are crazy. They don’t think about the country. They don’t think about jobs. They don’t think about lowering your drug costs. Infrastructure. These people are crazy.”

3. What Does New Information Say About Intelligence Community’s Politics?

The New York Times’ story is based on a Feb. 13 briefing conducted by intelligence officials for the House Intelligence Committee, which Schiff chairs.

The Times reported that Trump was angry at his outgoing acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, for allowing the briefing to take place.

Trump has replaced Maguire with Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany.

Schiff tweeted that this move backs up his point about Trump being untrustworthy because he welcomes foreign interference in U.S. elections.

“We count on the intelligence community to inform Congress of any threat of foreign interference in our elections,” Schiff tweeted. “If reports are true and the President is interfering with that, he is again jeopardizing our efforts to stop foreign meddling. Exactly as we warned he would do.”

Trump long has publicly suspected that powerful members of the intelligence community have a political bias.

CNN anchor Jake Tapper, not known for fairly covering Trump,  reported Friday that his sources challenged much of the narrative pushed by the Times story about Russia trying to reelect Trump.

“A national security official I know and trust pushes back on the way the briefing/ODNI story is being told, and others with firsthand knowledge agree with his assessment,” Tapper says in a series of eight tweets, referring to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “What’s been articulated in the news is that the intelligence community has concluded that the Russians are trying to help Trump again. But the intelligence doesn’t say that, the official says … ”

The factual questions indicate a real problem, said Peter Flaherty, president of the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.

“This shows that the president is still faced with people in the bureaucracy that want to impede and destroy his presidency. It also shows how intelligence is being politicized,” Flaherty said. “Intelligence should bear some resemblance to reality. It would seem the Kremlin would want Democrats to win.”

“Someone in the bureaucracy seems to be coordinating with Schiff,” Flaherty said. “But they are not offering specifics. If they have specifics, make them public.”

4. How Long Has Russia Meddled in U.S. Campaigns?

The fact that Russia plans to interfere in the 2020 presidential election shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone, said J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who is now president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, an organization that advocates election integrity.

“This is what Russia always does. It’s not surprising, and it’s not going to stop,” Adams told The Daily Signal. “The Times and the left ignored interference in campaigns from Moscow from 1932 to 2017. The Democratic Party completely ignored it in the 1980s, and suddenly they are interested.”

What Russia did in 2016—particularly with social media—is largely a more high-tech means of doing what it previously has done, Adams said.

“Social media trolling is just propaganda that Russia has used since 1932,” Adams said. “Hacking is a cybercrime. When Russians hacked the DNC [Democratic National Committee] and John Podesta’s emails, it was a way to [mine] political intelligence, but it didn’t affect the election process.”

Podesta, former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton and counselor to President Barack Obama, was chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Past instances of Russian interference in American elections include 1948, when the Soviet Union backed the Progressive Party, whose candidate for president was Henry Wallace. Wallace, who served as vice president under Franklin D. Roosevelt, split with the Democratic Party over President Harry Truman’s hawkish stance during the Cold War. Truman fired Wallace as secretary of commerce.

The Wallace campaign included several Soviet operatives.

“If it had not been for the Communists,” journalist I.F. Stone wrote at the time, “there would be no Progressive party.”

But Wallace got just 2% of the popular vote and no electoral votes, coming in fourth place behind incumbent Truman, Republican Thomas Dewey, and States Rights “Dixiecrat” Party candidate Strom Thurmond.

In another instance, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., covertly reached out to Soviet leaders during two election cycles, while he was a presidential candidate in 1980 and ahead of the 1984 election, when President Ronald Reagan won his second term.

In 1980, Kennedy challenged President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic nomination. According to Soviet archives, Kennedy sent former Sen. John Tunney, the California Democrat defeated for reelection in 1976, as a liaison to Soviet officials in March 1980.

As documented in Paul Kengor’s book, “Dupes,” Tunney informed the Soviets that Kennedy supported the policies of then-Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and was concerned about an “atmosphere of tensions” in the Cold War “fueled by Carter.”

The KGB archives describe Kennedy’s words as “acceptable to us.”

Carter beat Kennedy for the nomination, but lost in a landslide to Reagan in November. Kennedy again made overtures to the Soviets in 1983, seeking to prevent Reagan’s reelection.

Related correspondence first was reported Feb. 2, 1992, in the Times of London under the headline “Teddy, the KGB and the Top Secret File.” Kengor revealed the entire file in his 2006 book “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”

In a letter addressed to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov dated May 14, 1983, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov explained that Kennedy was eager to “counter the militaristic policies” of Reagan and undermine the president’s reelection chances.

Kennedy reportedly suggested doing so by helping the Soviet leader set up interviews with American TV news anchors Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters, among others. Andropov died later that year, and didn’t get a chance to act on Kennedy’s advice with regard to the 1984 election.

Kennedy’s outreach and Tunney’s trips are documented in the Mitrokhin papers filed with the Cold War International History Project of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. The papers are named for Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB agent who defected to Britain from the Soviet Union in 1992.

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Russia Wants Trump Over Sanders? No. Putin Wants Something Else!


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


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

‘Sex Change’ Isn’t Surgically Possible, My Surgeon Testified in Court

Many people wonder why I’m so outspoken about the madness of prescribing cross-sex hormones and genital mutilation surgery for patients who suffer from the desire to be the opposite sex, known clinically as gender dysphoria.

I speak out because I consulted the “gender experts” when I had gender confusion, and they told me sex change was the only way to get relief.

But they were wrong. I didn’t need sex change—I needed effective psychotherapy to resolve childhood issues.

“Sex change” is pure balderdash. No one can change his or her sex. I have the document saying so.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


Here’s how it came about.

After eight years of living as a woman, I finally admitted that truth to myself and sought to reclaim my male identity. In an effort to restore my birth certificate to “male,” I formally asked two acclaimed experts in 1990 to testify to my being male in California Superior Court.

They were Dr. Stanley Biber, the world-renowned sex-change surgeon who performed my operation and over 4,000 others in his career, and psychologist/sexologist Paul Walker, my gender therapist and the esteemed author of the original Standards of Care for transgender health.

These two men, both dead now, were the leading experts in the nascent field of “gender” medicine. In the document they co-authored, signed, and submitted to California Superior Court, they admitted that sex changes do not occur medically.

No Change of Sex Occurs

The court document from July 25, 1990, states that I meet the medical criteria for the male sex, even after a full-blown sex change. Men do not become women through surgery or hormones.

Paragraph 5 of the document reads:

This Patient, by the criteria established by John Money, Ph.D. at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, is indeed now considered a male. We plead that the court will reestablish this man’s legal identity as male. The patient’s medical sex is evaluated as follows:

Genetic Sex ………………………………………………………..Male

Hormonal Sex……………………………………………………..Neuter

Internal Morphology…………………………………………..Male

External Morphology………………………………………….Mixed

Gonadal Sex……………………………………………………….Neuter

Social Sex (gender role)……………………………………..Male

“Genetic Sex [is] Male.” According to the testimony of both doctors, sex-change surgery fails to change a person’s genetic sex.

“Internal Morphology [is] Male.” That is, the internal form and structure of the body remains male even after years of hormone use and sex-changing surgical procedures.

In retrospect, it’s a game-changing bombshell. The renowned gender experts testified that even when a person undergoes sex-change surgery and takes cross-gender hormones for many years, genetic sex and internal morphology do not change.

Transgender identity doesn’t exist except in one’s imagination.

So What Does Change?

What does change, then, according to the sex-change surgeon and the gender expert?

  • “Gonadal Sex [is] Neuter.” The male reproductive organs are refashioned surgically into a pseudo-vagina and the ability to provide sperm is destroyed.
  • “Hormonal Sex [is] Neuter.” The ability to produce testosterone is destroyed.
  • “External Morphology [is] Mixed.” Outward appearance of the male body is a mix of male and female. Cosmetic procedures and hormones have a feminizing effect on appearance, but many male traits remain, such as hand size, foot size, and physical strength.

The court document attests that only social sex (gender role) and external morphology (outward appearance) can change.

Therefore, people can skip the hormones and ditch the radical genital surgery because they are not medically necessary. By providing them, the medical professionals commit medical malpractice.

Sex change at its heart is only a social sex change, staged by gender-confused people themselves through a change of clothes and name.

Transgender Women in Sports

Men who claim to be women and then intrude in women’s sports competitions because men’s sports are too difficult for them are only socially pretending to be women.

Their muscle mass, physical strength, and internal bone structure remain even if their testosterone levels later drop—all determined at puberty by the flood of testosterone.

It’s folly to place men on the cover of magazines and celebrate their courage to “come out” as a transgender female when, according to this court document, they are still genetic men.

I think that transgender women (men who are impersonating women) have pulled off one of the biggest misogynistic scams against women in history. Transgender women are saying, in effect, that the beautiful, distinct female sex—womanhood itself—is nothing more than wardrobe choices and some cosmetic surgery.

Pure balderdash.

This Explains the Unhappiness

This court document also helps explain the explosion of reported unhappiness, regret, and detransition stories emerging from the U.K., Canada, and the U.S.

Some of the regretters after changing gender tell me they feel like they are in “gender hell” or that “it was the biggest mistake of my life.”

“I realized I could never become a real woman,” one said. “Now I want my life back; can you help me?”

I detransitioned 30 years ago, in 1990, and have written many articles and books to shine a light on the harm this grand experiment has caused for so many people: suicides and attempted suicides, fractured marriages, deserted children.

Two renowned gender experts, sexologist Paul Walker and surgeon Stanley Biber, exposed the reckless and false ideology in the 1990 court document. Inadvertently, I’m sure, considering they continued to guide hurting people along the same destructive path.

This document filed by experts with the Superior Court of California plainly says that sex-changing surgery does not change men into women, or vice versa. So let’s stop pretending it does.

COMMENTARY BY

Walt Heyer is a public speaker and author of the book, “Trans Life Survivors.” Through his website, SexChangeRegret.com, and his blog, WaltHeyer.com, Heyer raises public awareness about those who regret gender change and the tragic consequences suffered as a result.

RELATED ARTICLE: End California’s Illegal Discrimination Against Pro-Lifers


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


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

VIDEO: Judicial Watch Sues FBI for Seth Rich Records

I know many Americans remain concerned about the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.

We know that the Seth Rich controversy came up in Peter Strzok-Lisa Page emails we just uncovered. In a heavily redacted August 10, 2016, email exchange, Strzok sends Page a forwarded message from unidentified agents from the FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO) discussing Rich.

A public affairs official whose name was redacted opens the WFO email chain, writing:

Various news outlets are reporting today that Julian Assange suggested during a recent overseas interview that DNC Staffer, Seth Rich was a Wikileaks source, and may have been killed because he leaked the DNC e-mails to his organization, and that Wikileak’s was offering $20,000 for information regarding Rich’s death last month. Based on this news, we anticipate additional press coverage on this matter. I hear that you are in class today; however, when you have a moment, can you please give me a call to discuss what involvement the Bureau has in the investigation.

An unidentified WFO agent responds: “I’m aware of this reporting from earlier this week but not any specific involvement in any related case.”

An unidentified WFO agent subsequently writes deputy assistant director in the bureau’s Counterintelligence Division Jonathan Moffa and Strzok: “Just FYSA. I squashed this with [redacted]”.

Strzok then forwards the email chain to Page.

Now, seeking the full truth, we have filed a FOIA lawsuit against the FBI for all records related to Rich, who was the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Voter Expansion Data Director.

Rich, 27, was murdered on July 10, 2016, according to the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. The DC police reported that Rich was killed at approximately 4:19 a.m. in the 2100 block of Flagler Place NW, Washington, DC.

No one has been charged in connection with Rich’s death. The DC police are offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or persons responsible.

We filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the FBI failed to respond to our July 26, 2019, FOIA request seeking all records related to Rich and his murder (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:20-cv-00385)).

There is significant public interest in the Seth Rich murder, and the FBI’s game-playing on document production in this case is inexcusable.

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

Pro-Life Is ‘Today’s Civil Rights Issue,’ Black Anti-Abortion Activists Say

African American pro-life leaders decry what they call the eugenics mentality of abortion providers perpetuating the high abortion rate among black women and urge promoting crisis pregnancy centers as an anti-abortion outreach to minority communities, as an alternative to Planned Parenthood.

The black anti-abortion activists also say the right to life is the civil rights issue of our time.

A recent panel discussion, “How Defunding Planned Parenthood Impacts the Black Community,” weighed in on those and other abortion-related issues at the recent National Pro-Life Summit 2020, a one-day training conference for young pro-lifers, held at the Marriott Marquis hotel in Washington.

“Eugenics is more than just a philosophy. It is directly implanted in policies that target African Americans and minorities,” said panelist Patrina Mosley, director of life, culture, and women’s advocacy at the Family Research Council, a Washington-based research group that supports pro-family legislation and education. “You can abort a child because they’re black, in some states, and you can abort a child because they have a disability.”


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


Ryan Bomberger, a co-founder of the Purcellville, Virginia-based Radiance Foundation, a group that advocates for human dignity, has spearheaded numerous public campaigns aimed at exposing what he says are Planned Parenthood’s eugenicist roots.

The foundation has used public advertising, including a billboard campaign, to address the fact that abortion rates are much higher among black women, compared with the rest of the population.

“The NAACP and Planned Parenthood denounced our billboards as ‘horribly racist’ because they said the billboards gave the false impression that Planned Parenthood kills black babies,” Bomberger told the Jan. 25 gathering. “In truth, Planned Parenthood kills black babies, white babies, and every hue in between.”

Because of the lengths that Planned Parenthood goes to in order to be the primary pregnancy resource in minority communities, Christina Bennett, communications director for the Family Institute of Connecticut, stressed the need to “combat the narrative that Planned Parenthood is the only place people can go when they’re dealing with a crisis pregnancy.”

According to Bennett, connecting women with pro-life crisis pregnancy centers and lobbying state legislatures to support pro-life issues are ways to address the problem.

“In my state of Connecticut, the legislators and elected officials really think that Planned Parenthood is the one serving women of color and low-income women,” Bennett said. “But really, [crisis pregnancy centers] are the ones offering women holistic care.”

When asked about how to reach out to minority communities on the topic of abortion, the panelists advocated forming personal connections with the women, rather than just presenting the facts of the issue.

“Once you identify what they really care about, you can connect it to the issue of life,” Mosley said. “If they want to talk about institutional racism or Black Lives Matter, we can work with that. You don’t have to agree with them on everything, but keep giving them the facts, and let God’s eternal truth do the work.”

Bomberger said that kind of relational development is key to attaining pro-life victories.

“The pro-life movement is today’s civil rights issue,” he said. “We have to work together, and if we aren’t willing to have relationships, we can’t expect much. We have to be able to build friendships.”

Mosley encouraged the African Americans in the audience to tell their pro-life stories.

“In this business, you will be the minority for a while, but that needs to change,” she said. “We need more African Americans in the business of advocating for pro-life policies, at the state legislature, and at the Capitol. No one can tell the story like you of how this systematically impacts you.”

COLUMN BY

Virginia Aabram

Virginia Aabram is part of the Young Leader’s Program at the Heritage Foundation and interns at The Daily Signal.


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


RELATED ARTICLE: Liberals Oppose Equal Status for Faith-Based Organizations

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

VIDEO: ‘Antifa Bully’ Threatens Pelosi’s Republican Challenger With Death

A man identified as an ‘Antifa bully’ by Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s Republican challenger John Dennis threatened Dennis with death.

Dennis, who is also chair of the San Francisco Republican Party, filmed the incident with the Far-Left protester which took place during a clean-up event on the streets of San Francisco.

The man, who did not know Dennis, accused him of being a racist. During the incident, the ‘Antifa bully’ also said to Dennis, “I’m going to catch you when all the cameras aren’t around and I’m gonna f— you up!”

Dennis said the man was making “all kinds of vulgar gestures to suburban moms who came in to clean up San Francisco. He was also threatening every guy he could find in the crowd.”

Dennis decided to approach the man to try to defuse the situation.

Watch Laura Ingraham’s interview with John Dennis on the Ingraham Angle

Also this month, police in Portland refused to protect a videographer attempting to film masked Antifa protesters ostensibly demonstrating against a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) rally — a rally that never happened.

As reported by News Radio WRVA, the videographer — Nate Millsap, who runs a YouTube page called Stumptown Matters – said the Antifa protesters had “concealed objects or weapons in their hands” and that one of them approached him while shaking a can of pepper spray.

According to the report, “Millsap retreated and ran into police fitted with riot gear. At this point, the group had stopped chasing him, but were still shouting insults at him. But Millsap received little help or sympathy from the police, who told him if he ran back toward the mob, ‘We’re not gonna come out and save you.’

“One officer added, “You better come up with a different plan, like maybe go somewhere else, dude.”

Watch Millsap’s video of the incident:

Meanwhile in New York, two university teachers face questioning over their reported involvement in the violent and destructive January 31 rampage through the New York City subway system.

The teachers were named as Nitasha Dhillon, a professor at the University of Buffalo, and Amin Husain, an adjunct instructor at New York University. The two are co-founders of the Far-Left movement Decolonize this Place, which called for a “city-wide convergence” at Grand Central Station to “f— the police.”

The January 31 event saw hundreds of protesters storm the subway system, jumping and vandalizing the turnstiles and spraying graffiti on the walls.

NYC estimates that the protest cost the city $100,000. Thirteen people were arrested in the melee.

Among the demands of the protesters were banning police from patrolling the subway system and making subway rides free.

RELATED STORIES:

Police Stand By While Conservative Reporter Assaulted by Antifa 

Antifa Violence Talk Cancelled Due to … Threat of Antifa Violence

Antifa Blocks, Berates Elderly Woman Using Walker

Canada: Seeding the State With Totalitarianism

I was born and raised in Pakistan. Later in life, my husband and I lived in at least three Arab cities. We have also traveled extensively through most of the Muslim majority countries. As a young couple, our goal was to establish our careers and gain financial stability.

We quickly learned that in order to achieve these goals, there were certain things we could never discuss publicly. This included absolutely no criticism of the ruling family in any given country or any aspect of religion, government, laws, gender inequality or human rights aberrations (all of which we saw).

In short, there was no freedom of expression.

At the end of 1988, already a young family, we moved to Canada to embrace the values of freedom of speech, freedom of (or from) religion, gender equality and a healthy respect for debate and discussion.

It took some time to absorb all this and feel empowered to speak out. I started by writing in the local newspaper. I could now freely critique and question the status quo – especially gender issues and the growing Islamist agenda I saw.

Thirty years down the road, can I do this in Canada today? The answer is a resounding “no!” Is Canada beginning to resemble the theocracies we left behind? Yes, because Canada is starting to show signs of totalitarianism.

The freedoms that we came here for are at stake, with the most important of all being freedom of speech. It started with a wave of political correctness leading to Motion 103 (M103) which does not allow for any critique of Islam or Muslims.

M103 has petrified Canadians into silence so much so that they can’t even question extremist attacks on our soil or the rise of hate-speech in places of worship.

Then we have Bill C-25 which seeks to impose “diversity” within all corporations, complete with financial penalties against organizations that do not comply with these government standards.

This has resulted in people routinely running to the Human Rights Commission with complaints if they happen to be a minority and did not get their coveted job (forget about the fact that they might not have the proper credentials).

Diversity has become the buzz word for the Human Rights Commission. I’ve always held that diversity can only happen organically (without being imposed), but it seems that now it is being forced.

In addition, there is Bill C-16 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity and gender expression. The bill mandates all citizens must address others by their preferred pronouns and transgender fantasies … or else!

It’s “zir,” “ze,” “zem” or “zeir.” The keyword here is “mandate” which means that at places of work or academic institutions if this choice is not followed, there is trouble.

An example of someone who has suffered terribly due to these totalitarian laws is Canadian Professor Jordan Peterson, who received massive backlash for refusing to adhere to the gender pronouns which he called “compelled speech” and for speaking out against political correctness. I agree with Professor Peterson that these expressions can’t and should not be mandated by the government of a “liberal” democracy.

David Solway in a piece in American Thinker writes

“To describe Canada as a totalitarian state-in-progress sounds like a gross and indeed absurd exaggeration. Yet many premonitory signs are present.”

He goes on to say “There are other laws on the books, bills such as C-59C-75 and C-76 that reduce and even criminalize freedom of expression, infringe on privacy rights, compromise due process and render government transparency a thing of the past.”

Are we headed down a slippery slope? It sure looks that way.

Fear of being called a racist or a bigot does not allow for any exchange of ideas. And in that fear, freedom dies.

RELATED STORIES:

The Indomitable Raheel Raza Takes on M-103

Stripping Away Our Freedoms

Did the Canadian Gov’t Try to Swing the Muslim Vote?

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

FLORIDA: 17-year-old boy converts to Islam, slits throat of 13-year-old, killing him for mocking his new religion

The family of the victim is suing Publix for selling Corey Johnson the knife, violating a Florida law that prohibits the sale of knives to anyone under age 18. That’s all well and good, but how many people even know that this incident happened at all? The murder of Jovanni Alexander Sierra should have been the occasion for a national discussion about the phenomenon of converts to Islam becoming violent, which keeps happening, and what should be done about it. Instead, the whole thing was swept under the rug, as always.

“Sierra died of his injuries, including a slash at his throat…”

“When you meet the unbelievers, strike necks…” Qur’an 47:4

“Florida teen murdered 13-year-old for mocking Islam — family is suing the grocery store that sold him the knife,” by Carlos Garcia, The Blaze, February 17, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

The family of a 13-year-old murdered in a stabbing attack by a Muslim teenager is suing the grocery store that sold him the knife he used in the crime.

Corey Johnson attacked Jovanni Alexander Sierra and others in 2018 in a horrifying attack in 2018. Johnson, who had converted to Islam prior to the attack, had been under investigation by the FBI because he was viewing radicalization propaganda online, including beheading videos.

“Corey Johnson has confessed his actions to our investigators stating that he stabbed the victims because of his religious beliefs,” said Palm Beach Gardens Police Chief Clint Shannon at the time. “Our understanding is he had converted to Islam and had been watching violent videos online.”

Sierra died of his injuries, including a slash at his throat, and Johnson is to be tried as an adult for the crime.

The family filed a lawsuit on Monday against Publix for selling the knife to Johnson just hours before he killed Sierra.

It is unlawful to sell weapons to anyone under the age of 18 in Florida….

RELATED ARTICLES:

More Iraqi interpreters than American troops? How the “interpreter” scam brought 75,000 Iraqis and Afghans to the US

Hungary: EU Parliamentarian blames immigration policy for rise of “radical Muslim antisemitism” in Europe

France: Two mosques shut down for preaching jihad, 63 others under surveillance

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

Too Often, Trump Critics Rely on False, Dangerous Ideas About National Security

No question, President Donald Trump is an unconventional statesman. On the global stage he looks like a fullback at a field hockey match.

Different doesn’t always mean wrong—except to the critics who have gone to absurd lengths to weaponize policy differences to undermine the legitimacy of the president’s decisions.

One of the most extreme and wrongheaded complaints is that this administration has violated how policy must be made. Critics complain the president seems to have a mind of his own and the audacity to not reflexively implement the recommendations the bureaucracy cranks out.

Nonsense. Not only is it wrong to suggest the White House must follow only the policy proposals its “experts” devise, it can at times be the worse step a president can take.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


It is risky business for the Oval Office to make policy in a vacuum. But there are a lot of ways for the White House to get good advice, and Trump actually may be better than most presidents when it comes to gathering information for decision-making.

Past as Prologue

The modern national security decision-making process emerged after World War II with the passage of the National Security Act of 1947. The law created the National Security Council to create better coordination among the key government departments engaged in defense and foreign policy.

The establishment of the National Security Council facilitated a more systematic process for developing and making recommendations to the president.

Department representatives and National Security Council staff members would get together to hash out proposals and pass them to a deputies committee that included high-ranking department officials. These committees would, in turn, pass along their thinking to “principles committees” made up of Cabinet-level officials, who would, in turn, make recommendations to the president.

This bottoms-up approach solidified under President Dwight Eisenhower. As former military man, Eisenhower appreciated the rigor of staff work and frequently chaired National Security Council meetings.

Every president has had his own version of a national security policy-making process. The process isn’t codified in law and rarely looks like the flow chart in textbooks—just as the way Congress crafts legislation often doesn’t match what students are told in their civics lessons.

These advisers and this process are meant to help the president make decisions; not to put him in a straitjacket that allows the bureaucracy to hold the president’s policies hostage.

There are crucial, important moments in history when president’s ignored the “best” advice and did the right thing. Harry Truman recognized Israel against the recommendations of his Cabinet. JFK made all the tough calls in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ronald Reagan turned down Mikhail Gorbachev’s deal at Reykjavik. And all three emerged with better outcomes.

There also are instances where presidents went it alone and came to regret their decisions. President Jimmy Carter announced he was going to pull U.S. troops out of South Korea—only to find almost no one in Washington, not even his own secretary of defense, was willing to go along. Reagan turned over Iran-Contra to a few staffers in the National Security Council—and that didn’t end well.

Judge Policy by Outcomes, Not Process

Decision-making at the top is at least as important as bottom-up deliberations, particularly when the bureaucracy isn’t delivering good policy options. That said, making decisions in the isolation of the Oval Office can result in ghastly groupthink that’s no better than the mind-numbing same old, same old the agencies often crank out.

Smart presidents will shake things up and seek outside advice. FDR famously ranged far and wide for recommendations during World War II, consulting everyone from columnists to heads of state. Trump is more in the FDR mode; he likes to hear lots of opinions. Also like FDR, he is very much the decider-in-chief.

This is how Trump has chosen to run his presidency.

Those who don’t like it can vote him out. But it’s wrong to suggest the president is not legitimate or responsible because he doesn’t govern the way critics prefer.

COMMENTARY BY

James Carafano
James Jay Carafano, a leading expert in national security and foreign policy challenges, is The Heritage Foundation’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies, E. W. Richardson fellow, and director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies. Read his research. Twitter: .


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


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

On Presidents Day, Remembering Why We Have a Strong Commander in Chief

On Presidents Day, we celebrate the life and accomplishments of our first president, George Washington, the father of our country, and Abraham Lincoln, our 16th president and one of our most renowned statesmen.

On that day, Feb. 17 this year, we should remember that the Framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure that an American president—such as Washington and Lincoln—would have the power to defend the country when the safety, security, and independence of its people are threatened.

And that power is exactly what they gave the president in the Constitution when they made him the commander in chief of our military forces.

This is particularly important given recent legislation passed by the House of Representatives, a so-called “war powers resolution.” It condemned President Donald Trump for ordering the lawful targeting of an Iranian general, terrorist mastermind Qassim Suleimani, and ordered Trump to stop using all military force against Iran without prior congressional approval.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


Iran has been a longtime state sponsor of terrorism, according to our own State Department, and Suleimani made himself a target. He was a mass murderer responsible for thousands of deaths, including hundreds of Americans.

On a recent trip through Pennsylvania, I was reminded of what Americans have suffered at the hands of terrorists and the importance of having a commander in chief with broad constitutional authority to react immediately to threats against the nation.

On a cold, icy day, my wife and I stopped at the Flight 93 National Memorial, which honors the 33 passengers and seven crew members of United Flight 93 who died when their Boeing 757 airliner crashed into a field just outside Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on Sept. 11, 2001.

We all know what happened on 9/11. Al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airliners. They flew two into the twin towers of the World Trade Center, and flew the third into the Pentagon, murdering almost 3,000 people.

The fourth flight was United Flight 93. It took off from Newark, New Jersey, headed for San Francisco with four hijackers on board masquerading as passengers. Forty-six minutes into the flight, they attacked the captain and first officer, took over the controls of the airplane, and changed direction to head for Washington, D.C.

Half an hour later, the plane crashed upside down at 563 miles per hour into the field where the memorial is today.

We know what happened in that critical half-hour not only from the cockpit voice recorder recovered by authorities at the horrendous crash site, but from the 37 telephone calls to, and voicemail messages left with, the friends and families of the passengers on the flight.

Through those phone calls, the passengers learned of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon and quickly realized why the hijackers were headed for Washington.

The passengers made a collective decision, took a vote, and decided to attempt to retake the plane. Among the passengers was Todd Beamer, an Oracle account manager who was the father of two sons, David and Andrew, and whose wife, Lisa, was pregnant with their third child.

A born leader, Beamer decided to take matters into his own hands and fight back. Before leading other passengers in a final fight against the terrorists, he called flight dispatch and spoke with Lisa Jefferson. He asked her to say the Lord’s Prayer with him.

After praying with her, Beamer uttered his famous words, “Let’s roll,” to his fellow passengers. The cockpit recorder captured the shouts, crashes, and sounds of the melee that occurred when the passengers attacked, including one who yelled, “Let’s get them!”

The 9/11 Commission concluded that the hijackers crashed the plane when they realized that the passengers were only seconds away from overcoming them and taking back control of the plane.

The Flight 93 National Memorial, just like the National September 11 Memorial & Museum in New York and the National 9/11 Pentagon Memorial, is deeply affecting. Set in a bucolic, quiet Pennsylvania field, the memorial is a solemn reminder of the ravages of terrorism and the triumph of ordinary heroes over evil incarnate.

It is impossible to view, listen to, and read the personal stories of the individual passengers on that flight without being greatly moved and greatly angered. The stories explain what has happened on the plane and what the passengers plan to do about it even as they say farewell to their loved ones.

These average, ordinary Americans took on four jihadist hijackers at the cost of their own lives. They prevented those terrorists from what would have been a devastating attack on a notable location in Washington, most likely the U.S. Capitol or the White House. The Flight 93 crash site is only 18 minutes flying time from Washington.

There is no need to rehash what happened after 9/11, including the immediate steps that President George W. Bush took to safeguard the country and to go after the terrorists who had sponsored, financed, and planned the attack on America. But Bush’s actions illustrate how important it was then, and is today, that our Constitution provides for a strong commander in chief.

As the Justice Department said in a 2001 legal opinion, no law and no congressional resolution “can place any limits on the President’s determinations as to any terrorist threat, the amount of military force to be used in response or the method, timing, and nature of the response. These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the president alone to make.”

That is a good thing.

So while we are celebrating Washington, who led an eight-year fight for our liberty, and Lincoln, who fought to stop the breakup of the Union, we also should be thankful for other presidents who used the strong power of the executive to protect the nation.

That includes President Franklin Roosevelt, who led us in the largest war in our history against two brutal tyrannies, as well as Bush, who acted decisively after the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor.

Trump also should be applauded for taking out a terrorist thug who had American blood on his hands, and who would have continued to kill Americans.

Americans just like those who died on United Flight 93 when it crashed in what the National Park Service appropriately calls “a field of honor forever” in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

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: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why We Should Celebrate Washington’s Birthday, Not Presidents Day

How George Washington’s Sterling Character Set an Example for the Ages


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


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

Rutgers: Jewish Democrat thrown out of Muslims4Peace event for calling Rashida Tlaib antisemitic

At virtually every university in the country, the academic establishment will use its thuggish cops to cosset and protect Leftists and Islamic supremacists from the slightest negative word. Institutions of higher learning? Hardly. They’re Antifa factories, centers of hard-Left indoctrination.

“Jewish Democrat Thrown Out of ‘Muslims4Peace’ Event for Calling Rashida Tlaib Antisemitic,” by Penny Starr, Breitbart, February 11, 2020:

Former New York State Democrat lawmaker Dov Hikind was tossed out of an event after confronting Rep. Rashida Tlaib (R-MI) on her past antisemitic remarks.

“Police just ejected me from an event of @Muslims4Peace at @RutgersU which was a fine event until @RashidaTlaib showed up. I challenged her about her antisemitism and spreading of an anti-Jewish blood libel! She had no answer for me,” Hikind tweeted. “They will never silence us!”

The crowd started shouting “Rashida!” “Rashida!” as Hikind was escorted out of the room.

The Daily Wire spoke to Hikind about attending the Muslims4Peace-sponsored event that was held over the weekend at Rutgers University.

The event was entitled “A Global Crisis: Refugees, Migrants, and Asylum Seekers – Lessons from the Prophet Muhammad,” according to the Daily Wire:

“As [Tlaib] started to speak about ‘showing up for allies,’ I decided it was time to take her to task for her recent promotion of an anti-Jewish blood libel,” Hikind said. “I stood up and asked her ‘what about your antisemitism? What about your spreading of a blood libel?’”

“And before I could finish my question, one man jumped at me and grabbed me,” Hikind continued. “I warned him to immediately get his hands off and he complied. The police were waiting on the sidelines and jumped in a second later and forcibly removed me. They did their job, and I have no qualms with them. But Rashida couldn’t answer me to my face.”

“I stood ten feet away from her, and all she could do was play the victim,” Hikind continued. “I was told that after I was escorted out she claimed that my question was part of a pattern of discrimination against people like her grandmother. In reality, she’s a shameless anti-Semite who hides her hate behind the guise of victimhood although she’s the only one consistently guilty of perpetuating hate. She’s the one guilty of promoting libelous lies that lead directly to violence! At the end of it all, Rashida showed us again that she has no backbone and has no real defense or justification for her abhorrent statements.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islamic Republic of Pakistan: Court validates forced conversion, marriage of 14-year-old Christian girl to Muslim

That “Trump Muslim Ban” Is Still With Us

RELATED VIDEOS:

Jewish Activist Confronts Tlaib’s Jew-Hatred.

Iran’s former Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps top dog: if US attacks, “we would raze Tel-Aviv to the ground.”

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

Margaret Sanger and the Racist Roots of Planned Parenthood

Recently, Lieutenant Governor Dan Forest (R-N.C.) came under fire for comments he made regarding Planned Parenthood and its founder, Margaret Sanger. Speaking to an MLK Day breakfast at Upper Room Church of God in Christ in Raleigh, Forest said this: “There is no doubt that when Planned Parenthood was created, it was created to destroy the entire black race. That was the purpose of Planned Parenthood. That’s the truth.” Forest later defended his comments to McClatchy News: “The facts speak for themselves. Since 1973, 19 million black babies have been aborted, mostly by Planned Parenthood. I care too much about the lives of these babies to debate the intent of Sanger’s views when the devastation she brought into this world is obvious.”

Margaret Sanger, her sister, Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell opened the first birth control clinic in the United States in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York on October 16, 1916. The clinic was later raided by the NYPD, and all three women were arrested and charged with violating the Comstock Act for distributing obscene materials. After laws governing birth control were relaxed, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which was renamed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.

While Lieutenant Governor Forest was attacked by many on the Left for pushing an uneducated, insensitive agenda, history backs him up. The fact is that Margaret Sanger strongly believed the Aryan race to be superior and that it must be purified, a view that finds its roots from Charles Darwin’s defense of evolution in The Origin of Species. Darwin argued that a process of “natural selection” favored the white race over all other “lesser races.” Sanger advocated for eugenics by calling for abortion and birth control among the “unfit” to produce a master race, a race consisting solely of wealthy, educated whites. Sanger said she believed blacks were “human weeds” that needed to be exterminated. She also referred to immigrants, African Americans, and poor people as “reckless breeders” and “spawning…human beings who never should have been born.”

Sanger once wrote “that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.” In an effort to sell her birth control and abortion proposals to the black community, Sanger said: “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.” In 1926, Sanger was also the featured speaker at a women’s auxiliary meeting of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.

Sanger opened her clinics in largely minority neighborhoods because she believed immigrants and the working class were inferior and needed their population controlled so as to purify the human race. That trend continues today where almost 80 percent of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in minority neighborhoods. In fact, although only 13 percent of American women are black, over 35 percent of all black babies are aborted in the United States every year. Abortion is the leading cause of death for blacks in the United States. According to Students for Life of America, “more African-Americans have died from abortion than from AIDS, accidents, violent crimes, cancer, and heart disease combined.” Black babies are about five times more likely to be aborted than whites. On Halloween in 2017, Planned Parenthood’s “Black Community” Twitter account tweeted: “If you’re a Black woman in America, it’s statistically safer to have an abortion than to carry a pregnancy to term or give birth.”

While Margaret Sanger tried to portray Planned Parenthood as a merciful organization that helps needy families, the facts speak for themselves. In her testimony to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in September 2015, former Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards openly admitted that over 80 percent of her organization’s annual revenue comes from performing abortions and not basic health care for poor or disadvantaged women. When you dive deeper, well over 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue comes from performing abortions.

Despite this sordid history, Margaret Sanger is almost universally recognized as a pioneer for women’s rights rather than the racist she actually was. When accepting Planned Parenthood’s Margaret Sanger Award, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that she “admired Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision…I am really in awe of her.” Those like Hillary Clinton are ignoring the explicitly racist statements that Margaret Sanger made throughout her life. The fact is that Sanger normalized birth control and abortion in the United States as a means to accomplish eugenics. Her ultimate goal was to eliminate non-white races, people with sickness or disabilities, children born to felons, the poor, and immigrants, to name a few.

Margaret Sanger is no heroine, and Planned Parenthood is not some merciful health care provider as the Left paints it to be. Margaret Sanger repeatedly stated her racist intentions for the whole world to see and hear, and Planned Parenthood was and still is the manifestation of those racist ideologies. America was founded on the idea that no matter your race, creed, national origin, disability, or station in life, everyone who comes here or is born here has the opportunity to live a successful, fulfilling life. Margaret Sanger didn’t believe that.

As pro-life activists, we must do our part to expose Margaret Sanger for who she really was. We must also expose the racist history of Planned Parenthood and how that history is still relevant today. For more information on Margaret Sanger and the racist roots of Planned Parenthood, check out these FRC resources: Planned Parenthood Is Not Pro-Woman and The Real Planned Parenthood: Leading the Culture of Death.

COLUMN BY

Worth Loving

RELATED ARTICLE: Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger In Her Own Words

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

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