Stop It, America. Politicians Can Not Make Our Lives Better

/in , , , , /by

Here’s the deal, if you are looking to this president, or you were looking to the past president, or you are looking to a future president to make your life better you’re on a fool’s errand. It was the furthest thing from the minds of the Founders and Framers that any individual should have such power and sway.

If you are looking to Congress — this Congress or a past Congress or a future Congress — to make your life better you’re on a fool’s errand. It was maybe the second furthest thing from the minds of the Founders and Framers that any part of the federal government could so greatly impact your life.

There is very little government can do to make your life better. There are quite a few things government can do to make your life worse. (See: All of history.) Most of your problems in life are going to be up to you to solve, to improve or at least to deal with.

For instance, if you want to make more money you’re going to either have to work harder and/or longer, or get training or education to get a better paying job. And if you keep making the same decisions you’ve made all along, and you’re 35 and stuck working at Walmart at minimum wage, there’s nothing the government can or should do for you. You need to change your choices to change your future. If the government steps in to improve your future for you, it inevitably begins a cascade of events that makes many lives worse, including yours eventually.

When governments try to solve poverty by giving poor people a little more money each month, they actually end up keeping them subsistent on government largesse and locked in a hopeless cycle. This has been demonstrated for 50 years now. And the government forcibly takes other people’s money to do it; lose-lose.

The best overall situation is when we can all act freely; free people exchanging goods and services for money freely in markets that are both free and competitive. That simple, relational structure has lifted, literally, billions out of poverty in the past 40 years. Government’s primary role was to stay out of the way, with a small role in making sure there were no monopolies and there were courts to settle contractual disputes.

This is well-documented through our history, but it is not well-known among our population. Schools, universities and the media are the primary culprits in purveying this ignorance. There may be a role for a temporary safety net, but because politicians are politicians it always grows, such as what we have now with enormous entitlements and transfer payments.

But promising more giveaways often garners votes. Some would say buys votes.

So naturally, we have a lot of politicians saying that they can, and will, make things more fair for you, make things better for you and give you this, that and everything you want. Just vote for them. Well not to burst your bubble but there’s nothing they can give you except that they take it from someone else, through taxes now or taxes later to pay off deficit spending now. And eventually they’ll be taking it from you, too, unless you stay at the bottom in poverty, in which case the government will in due time run out of other peoples’ money and then you are lost, too. More lose-lose.

As Margaret Thatcher said: “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

The better way, the only proven way, is the collective intelligence of hundreds of millions of Americans, and even billions of people around the world. This is almost infinitely greater than any group of central-planning politicians. (See Russia’s five-year plans, East Germany’s junk new cars, Maoist China’s everything, Venezuela’s oil.)

So when you hear all these politicians promising a plan for this and a plan for that, trillions here and trillions there, remember that the Great Society government plan to end poverty starting in the late 1960s under President Lyndon Johnson resulted in the transfer of $22 trillion from working Americans to poor Americans. It was not charity. It was government force, benefitting politicians along the way, but no one else. The result was that as of today, there is virtually no change in the poverty rate. More welfare programs will have the same net effect until all of the money is gone.

No politician is going to improve your life. That is going to be up to you and your choices. The American dream does not come from government; it relies on a constrained government. It then comes via each American exercising their individual God-given natural rights in liberty.

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

Rep. Omar Declares Support for Terrorist Financier’s Company in her native Somalia

/in , , , , , , , /by

A controversial Minnesota congresswoman known for racially inflammatory anti-Semitic views has publicly declared her support for a terrorist organization in her native Somalia. Democrat Ilhan Omar is demanding that a telecommunications company founded and operated by a renowned terrorist financier, receive protection from that country’s government and peacekeeping forces. An Israeli-based newspaper broke the story a few days ago, but the American mainstream media has been notably silent on the matter.

The company, Hormuud Telecommunications, was created and is operated by Ahmed Nur Ali Jim’ale, a chief financier of al–Shabaab, an east African-based jihadist group that serves as Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia. In her social media account, Omar writes that Somalia’s government and peacekeeping forces need to protect Hormuud and the Somali telecom industry as they make enormous contributions to the economy and provide vital services. “During my visit to Somalia in 2011, I was surprised by the quick evolution of technology in Somalia,” Omar posts, indirectly praising the telecom firm with terrorist ties. The Israeli article includes the links to a pair of United Nations Security Council reports documenting Hormuud’s direct support for al-Shabaab.

According to the first U.N. report:

“Ali Ahmed Nur Jim’ale (Jim’ale) has served in leadership roles with the former Somali Council of Islamic Courts, also known as the Somali Islamic Courts Union, which was a radical-Islamist element. The most radical elements of the Somali Islamic Courts Union eventually formed the group known as al–Shabaab.” The document also identifies Jim’ale, a prominent businessman who controls Hormuud, as one of al-Shabab’s chief financiers. “Hormuud Telecommunications is a company identified as being one of the single largest financiers of al-Shabaab, which includes large lump sum payments to al-Shabaab in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and these payments toal-Shabaab were facilitated by Jim’ale,” the U.N. report says, adding that “Hormuud Telecommunications has provided key material and logistical support to al-Shabaab to include weapons, private fighters, and ammunition.”

The second U.N. Security Council report, published last year, links a terror attack that killed hundreds in 2017 to Hormuud. The event is described as the deadliest terror attack in Somalia’s history, carried out with a large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device. “Two employees of the principal Somali telecommunications provider, Hormuud Telecom Somalia Inc., were also prosecuted in connection with the attack, for facilitating the entry of the large vehicle-borne improvised explosive device through the Sinka Dheere checkpoint on the outskirts of Mogadishu,” according to the U.N. report.

Considering this documented history of terrorist activity, it’s outrageous that Hormuud is endorsed by a member of the United States Congress. Omar has been plagued by controversy since becoming one of the first—along with Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib—Muslim women elected to Congress. The mainstream media has praised the legislators for being part of a “historic freshmen class with more women and minorities than ever.” The reality is that there is more than enough credible information for the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to open criminal investigations into Omar. Back in July Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint with the U.S. House of Representatives Office of Congressional Ethics calling for a full investigation into potential crimes tied to allegations that Omar may have married her biological brother.

In the complaint Judicial Watch documents substantial, compelling and unrefuted evidence that Omar may have committed the following crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law: perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud and federal student loan fraud. At the very least, such violations constitute a breach of the Code of Ethics for Government Service which subject officeholders to a higher standard.

RELATED ARTICLES:

AOC Shows Support for Antifa-Associated Protesters

Judicial Watch Files Complaint with Rhode Island Supreme Court against U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse for Unauthorized Practice of Law

Judicial Watch Gets Bruce Ohr FBI 302S

Ilhan Omar Asked for Protection of Somali Company Linked to Terror

RELATED VIDEO: FITTON: IT’S About Time the DOJ Prosecuted McCabe.

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

Second Holocaust or road to oblivion?

/in , , , , , , /by

American Jews should acknowledge that they are mired in an existential crisis that is largely self-inflicted.

When Israeli Minister of Education Rabbi Rafi Peretz recently likened intermarriage in the US to a second Holocaust, he was roundly criticized by liberal Jews, including the ADL and representatives of the Conservative movement.  Some claimed his remark was contemptible or somehow constituted “Holocaust denial.” But despite the outrage and continuing controversy over his stark analogy, liberal and non-Orthodox organizations may really have been angered by the implicit indictment of their apparent inability to ensure Jewish continuity among their followers.  Their indignation was incongruous, moreover, considering how often progressives misapply Holocaust imagery to the US southern border crisis or falsely compare the Trump administration to Nazi Germany.

Instead of condemning Rabbi Peretz, American Jews should perhaps acknowledge that they are mired in an existential crisis that is largely self-inflicted.  Though assimilation and intermarriage are certainly not genocide, they could if unabated decimate Jewish culture just as surely. And no matter how strenuously Jewish liberals might disagree, they cannot alter the fact that the progressive philosophy they cherish so dearly has been enabling assimilation since the days of Voltaire – a confirmed anti-Semite – and subverting Jewish tradition and national aspirations to the present day.

Anger at the messenger should not negate the seriousness of his warning, which merely echoes the findings of the Pew Research Center survey showing a US intermarriage rate of 58% overall and 71% among the non-Orthodox.  The collective rate is significant in unaffiliated, Reform, and Conservative demographics, suggesting to many a correlation with lower or alternative standards of observance and education.

The real picture might even be worse given Pew’s finding that “intermarriage is much more common among Jewish respondents who are themselves the children of intermarriage” and that “among married Jews who report that only one of their parents was Jewish, fully 83% are married to a non-Jewish spouse.”  Specifically, because those who identify by patrilineal descent are not Jewish according to Halakha (Jewish law), their marriages to Halakhic Jews would also constitute intermarriage.  The situation has probably not improved since these data were first published in 2013, as Jewish literacy remains comparatively low in secular and nontraditional populations.

The likelihood of intermarriage clearly increases as observance and educational standards decline.  For Reform Jews, this may stem from their movement’s early rejection of the mitzvot (commandments) as binding, its ambivalence regarding the divinity of Torah, and the conflation of Judaism with progressive ideals.  Such themes distinguished the Pittsburgh Platform of 1885, which contained among others the following statements of principle:

“We recognize in the Bible the record of the consecration of the Jewish people to its mission as the priest of the one God…[and consider] the Bible [as] reflecting the primitive ideas of its own age, and at times clothing its conception of divine Providence and Justice dealing with men in miraculous narratives…

“We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress…fail to impress the modern Jew with a spirit of priestly holiness; their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation…

“We recognize in Judaism a progressive religion, ever striving to be in accord with the postulates of reason…”

Though the movement tempered its initial radicalism somewhat over the years, its discomfort regarding traditional observance and Judeocentrism continued to mold Reform thought and practice – and influence assimilation.  Indeed, many in the Reform rabbinate acknowledged and attempted to address the problem twenty years ago by advocating greater observance; however, their recommendations were ineffective because they viewed the commandments as advisory rather than mandatory.  And while Reform clergy have continued to bemoan intermarriage within their congregations, they have little authority to discourage it now that 84% of them officiate at such unions, as reported by the JTA last year.

The Reform movement’s inability to assure Jewish continuity was perhaps inevitable given its heterodox educational standards, enforced primarily through part-time Hebrew schools and youth programs that teach little in the way of substantive Jewish language or traditional law and ritual.  Indeed, curricula often emphasize progressive political values (which frequently regard ethnocentric loyalty and attachment to homeland as antiquated or intolerant), but fail to impart traditional basics or the linguistic skills necessary for understanding sacred text.

The Conservative movement has not fared much better, particularly as it has become more identified with progressive political causes since the 1960s.  Whatever its standards of practice may have been fifty years ago, most congregants today are nonobservant and lead ritual lives indistinguishable from their Reform contemporaries.  The majority do not keep kosher, observe Shabbat or speak Hebrew, and many identify as “social justice warriors” first and foremost. Moreover, congregational leaders are often neither observant nor well-versed in traditional rabbinics.  Conservative day schools are no match for traditional yeshivas, and twice-weekly Hebrew schools (where most education occurs) are ill-equipped to teach substantive Jewish law and text. Few students of such supplemental programs can read or understand Tanakh (Jewish Bible) in the original Hebrew.

The non-Orthodox movements tend to equate political activism with ritual observance and sanctify progressivism as innately Jewish despite its frequent conflict with normative tradition.  And many of their members praise unbalanced criticism of Israel while portraying Jewish nationalism as chauvinistic. Though Reform and Conservative stalwarts would disagree, the institutional embrace of liberal politics has not advanced Jewish thought or practice, but rather has alienated many followers from their roots.

Paradoxically, nontraditional Jews often seek acknowledgment of their movements’ legitimacy from Orthodox institutions, though it seems that genuine confidence in their rectitude would preclude their need for approval from a religious establishment whose standards they reject.  And while they demand recognition from the Orthodox, they do not regard Torah or Halakha with the same degree of reverence, but instead discount subject matter that offends their political sensibilities.

Their disregard for Torah content inconsistent with their partisan worldview is illustrative.  They are troubled by Parshat Zachor (Devarim, 25:19), for example, wherein Israel was commanded to obliterate the Amalekites for their surprise attack in Rephidim after the Exodus, because it defies the concept of progressive universalism.  Likewise, they minimize the significance of Parshat Acherei-Mot (Vayikra, 16:1–18:30), which prohibits certain sexual relationships, because it undermines their sanctification of such relationships today. However, they cannot selectively disclaim portions of Torah while claiming to affirm its eternal values or divinity.

The nontraditional movements seem to have traded normative Torah beliefs for political and temporal priorities that are extraneous to Judaism.  And they are abetted by secular communal organizations that emphasize political virtues over Torah values and by Democrats who attack conservatives while defending anti-Semites within their party.  However, those who promote progressivism as the sine qua nons of Jewish existence are often not familiar with classical Torah principles; for if they were, they would have to acknowledge that much of their partisan agenda contravenes traditional Judaism and enables assimilation.

Nevertheless, the tendency to intermarry does not necessarily signify self-rejection, but is often a passive outcome for people with weak Judaic backgrounds who never internalized the value of cultural self-preservation.  They may not consider intermarriage a goal, but neither do they view it as unacceptable or undesirable.

Distinct from such passive assimilationists are those who willfully renounce their heritage in favor of non-Jewish belief systems.  This demographic includes people raised with little connection to traditional practice or spirituality, who seek to fill the void with supernal substance of any kind.  Some are drawn to so-called “messianic Judaism,” which is nothing more than evangelical Christianity falsely portrayed as “Jewish” despite its fundamental incompatibility with Torah law and belief.  Others succumb to the blandishments of missionaries who target poorly-educated Jews for conversion.

Those who embrace other religions generally have limited Jewish education and possess neither the knowledge nor skills to withstand spiritual predation.  They typically do not understand Hebrew, are unfamiliar with Tanakh, and thus are incapable of countering evangelists who misrepresent, misquote, and mistranslate the Jewish Bible.  In particular, they are unable to compare original Hebrew text to supposed “fulfillment citations” frequently cited by Christian missionaries to see that none comport with what Hebrew Scripture actually says.  They are also unaware that theological concepts like trinitarianism and vicarious atonement are irreconcilable with Torah law.

Similar naivete characterizes secular progressives who claim that Jewish tradition validates leftist social policy, but who are unable to articulate why because they cannot read or understand Hebrew Scripture or Rabbinic literature.

The American Jewish community is clearly in crisis and Rabbi Peretz was correct about the danger, regardless of his choice of metaphor.  The risk of spiritual and cultural decline – whether through intermarriage or the adoption of heretical beliefs – is very real. Thus, rather than attacking him, US Jewish leaders should be heeding his admonition and reorganizing their educational and ritual priorities to prevent exile from turning into oblivion.

RELATED VIDEO: Bill Whittle on President Trump’s statement about Jewish people and the Democrat party.

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel National News column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Guns Prevent Thousands of Crimes Every Day, Research Shows

/in , , , , /by

It never fails. A split-second after a mass shooting occurs, grandstanders and ideologues issue statements demanding new gun controls—even if the laws already on the books failed or the laws they want would have made no difference. Case in point: the tragic incidents in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, in early August 2019.

The message is clear: Guns cause violence. Tax them, take them, ban them, regulate them. Do something, maybe anything! Such knee-jerk, emotional responses are dangerous, writes Charles W. Cooke in National Review, “for when a nation sets up a direct pipeline between its emotions and its laws, it does not keep its liberty for long.”

Liberty isn’t the only thing likely to be lost when gun laws are passed to appease emotions over reason, evidence, logic, and rights. Lives will most assuredly be lost, too. Lots of them.

This raises a point amplified in another context almost two centuries ago by Frederic Bastiat in his famous essay with a title that sums it up, “That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen.”

How many lives are actually saved by gun ownership? This is a supremely important question that the grandstanders and ideologues usually—and conveniently—ignore. It’s a matter that came immediately to my mind when I learned of an incident here in my own town of Newnan, Georgia, a few days ago. The headline in the Newnan Times-Herald read, “Man Hospitalized After Being Shot Outside Bar.”

A little after 1:00 a.m. on Saturday morning, August 17, police arrived at Fat Boys Bar & Grill to respond to a shooting. A customer had threatened other patrons, prompting the establishment’s security to forcibly remove him. Enraged at being kicked out, he declared he was going to get a gun “and shoot the place up.”

This very angry (and possibly intoxicated) man then busted the window out of a friend’s car in the parking lot, grabbed a .40 caliber handgun from inside the car, and began firing in the air. In the meantime, Ben McCoy, a man who witnessed all of this from inside his own vehicle, happened to have his rifle with him. Before he could use it, he was shot four times by the man wielding the .40 caliber handgun, who then fled into the woods.

Fortunately, despite being hit in the chest, stomach, left arm and right thigh, McCoy is recuperating, and the assailant was quickly apprehended. No one was killed, but the situation would likely have been tragically different if Ben McCoy and his rifle hadn’t distracted the gunman.

Of course, in this particular incident it’s most unfortunate that an innocent man was shot. Don’t lose sight of the fact that his very presence, with a rifle, still prevented what could have been a bloodbath that might have even killed him too. What’s far more common is innocent gun owners using or brandishing a weapon and saving lives without any injuries at all except sometimes for the assailant. I chose this example because it was local and I wanted to express appreciation to Mr. McCoy.

I checked online and found some fascinating numbers. A good website with footnotes and references to authoritative sources is GunFacts.info. There I learned the following:

  • Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day. Most often, the gun is never fired, and no blood (including the criminal’s) is shed.
  • Every year, 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms.
  • 60 percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they knew the victim was armed. Forty percent of convicted felons admitted that they avoided committing crimes when they thought the victim might be armed.
  • Felons report that they avoid entering houses where people are at home because they fear being shot.
  • Fewer than 1 percent of firearms are used in the commission of a crime.

If you doubt the objectivity of the site above, it’s worth pointing out that the Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be even higher—as many as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day.

Another excellent source of information on this topic (and many more current issues) is the Gun Control page at JustFacts.org. (Full disclosure: I serve on the board of directors of JustFacts because I believe in the organization’s objectiveness, accuracy, and integrity.)

In “Defensive Gun Use is More Than Shooting Bad Guys,” James Agresti, founder and president of JustFacts, provided overwhelming evidence from multiple sources showing that defensive gun use is more common and effective than anti-gun fanatics like The New York Times suggest or will admit. Agresti says that “people who use a gun for defense rarely harm (much less kill) criminals. This is because criminals often back off when they discover their targets are armed.”

John Lott, author of the book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, another outstanding source for info on this subject. He writes:

By 66 percent to 32 percent, economists and criminologists answer that gun-free zones are “more likely to attract criminals than they are to deter them.” A 60 percent to 40 percent margin thinks that guns in the home do not increase suicides. And a 62 percent to 35 percent spread says that guns are used in self-defense to stop crime more often than in the commission of crime.

This may explain why even The New York Times hasn’t yet put a billboard up by its offices that screams, “This is a Gun-Free Zone. There are No Guns Here.”

If we can just confiscate the estimated 350 million guns in the country, you might ask, then won’t we eliminate the offensive use of firearms, so we won’t need any of those many defensive uses? Good luck with that. Is there any reason to believe that such a war on guns would be any more successful than the government’s war on drugs? Even a fifth-grader could tell you that it would be largely the innocent who would be disarmed. Criminals would have no problem keeping their guns or getting replacements on a thriving black market.

So that leaves me with gratitude for the Ben McCoys of the world, the law-abiding gun owners who are every bit as important as the cops—and likely even more so—in the effort to keep the innocent safe and sound.

COLUMN BY

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Ambassador for Global Liberty at the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also author of Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Democrat Party governance and the top 20 U.S. cities by murder rate

President Trump in one tweet shows why ‘red flag’ laws are so very dangerous

Red Flag laws are a cover-up for the failures of government to see and act on real red flags

7 Reasons to Oppose Red Flag Guns Laws

Gun Rights Don’t Depend on Statistics

Response from Rep. Darren Soto (D-FL) on Gun Control/Red Flag Laws

RELATED VIDEO: Short Video on Red Flag Laws.

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

Fifth Annual America – The Truth Conference in Sarasota, FL on September 21, 2019

/in , , , , , , /by

“What’s Happening Now to Change America” is the theme of the fifth annual 2019 America – The Truth conference being held at the Carlisle Inn in Sarasota, Florida.

Americans are at a crossroads not seen since its founding. There are two ideologies vying for power. One believes in the greatness of America the other does not. There are those who want to fundamentally change America because they view her as tainted, even evil. There is a second group who wants to restore America to her position in the world as a beacon of hope, equal justice under the law and a land of prosperity for those who embrace American values.

As the 2020 presidential primaries heat up five internationally known speakers, film makers, subject matter experts and authors will address the fundamental social, cultural, religious, economic and political challenges facing Americans. They will educate, inform and address solutions to these various challenges.

DATE: Saturday, September 21, 2019

TIME: 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

REGISTRATION: Online at AmericasTruths.com or at the registration desk.

LOCATION: Carlisle Inn located at 3727 Bahia Vista, Sarasota, Florida 34232

WEBSITE: AmericasTruths.com

Online adult general admission is $15.00. Adult admission at the door is $20.00. Veterans and students’ admissions are $10.00 online and at the door. Children under 13-years old are admitted free.

Featured speakers:

John Michael Chambers – Author and media commentator who has been interviewed by the Wall Street Journal, CBS, NBC and numerous online platforms and talk radio programs.

TOPIC: Trump and the Death of Globalism.

Dr. Kirk Elliot – Economist, financial advisor, entrepreneur, CEO and wealth manager of Sovereign Advisors.

TOPIC: Capitalism vs. Socialism and the 2020 election.

Trevor Loudon – International blogger, writer, and researcher on the U.S. government. Producer of documentaries America Under Siege – Antifa and The Enemies Within.

TOPIC: The Enemies Within the Church.

Pastor Umar Mulinde – Pastor of the Gospel of Life Church in Kampala, Uganda. Pastor Mulinde was raised in a strict Muslim family and instructed in the Islamic faith before converting to Christianity.

TOPIC: Sharia Law – How it Affected Me and How It will Affect You.

Tom Trento – Dynamic speaker and activist. Trento has degrees in Law Enforcement, Philosophy and Theology. He is co-author of Shariah: The Threat to America.

TOPIC: The Death of Israel, The Death of the West.

RELATED VIDEO: Interview with John Michael Chambers and Dr. Kirk Elliot.

Trump’s Personal Assistant Fired, Caught Leaking Info on Trump Family to the Press

/in , , , , , /by

“Look, we want freedom and we want liberty in this country. But we’ve also got to have the guts to stand up and run a tight ship in America. Morality is now a word that many people consider very square and outdated. But if we don’t stand up for it, we deserve what we will get in the end – unprincipled anarchy.” –  Actor Cliff Robertson

“Politics is not an end, but a means. It is not a product, but a process. It is the art of government. Like other values it has its counterfeits. So much emphasis has been placed upon the false that the significance of the true has been obscured and politics has come to convey the meaning of crafty and cunning selfishness, instead of candid and sincere service.” – President Calvin Coolidge, Have Faith in Massachusetts

“Nothing is more noble, nothing more venerable, than loyalty.” —Cicero

President Trump’s personal assistant, Madeleine Westerhout, resigned Thursday, August 29th, amid tensions.  Trump reportedly discovered that Westerhout shared private details about his family and White House operations. The exchange took place at a recent off-the-record dinner with reporters, per Axios’ Jonathan Swan, and the information got back to the White House. “The breach of trust meant immediate action,” per the NYT, adding Westerhout, who has been with Trump since the first day of his presidency, was immediately deemed a “separated worker.”

Westerhout has sat outside the Oval Office since day one of the administration. She had become a trusted aide to the President.  Unscrupulous behavior and a lack of principles is only too common in the Washington D.C. swamp.  The Deep State is everywhere and yes, moles are still working against the people’s President.

Some questioned her loyalty to the president after a recent book about the White House reported that she cried in anguish in 2016 when the election results rolled in.

Of course, we know Democrats are going to target her next to try and dig up dirt on Trump. I’m sure they are hoping she turns on Trump just as did Anthony Scaramucci, Omarosa Manigault-Newman and Michael Cohen.

Westerhout Career

In the 2012 presidential election, Westerhout worked for the campaign of Mitt Romney. In the summer of 2013, Westerhout began working for the Republican National Committee and the Republican Party Organizing Committee. From January 2015, she worked as an assistant to RNC chief of staff Katie Walsh.  In 2016, she worked as a “greeter girl” for visitors to the Trump Tower during the transition period after the election.

On January 19, 2017, Donald Trump’s transition team, headed by VP Michael Pence, announced that Westerhout would serve as special assistant and executive assistant to the President.  Her salary was $130,000 for the position. The sole way of reaching President Trump, other than calling his cell phone, was through gatekeeper, Madeleine Westerhout. It has been alleged that this was arranged by former Chief of Staff General John Kelly.  She was promoted to Director of Oval Office Operations on February 2, 2019.

VP Mike Pence

Governor Michael Pence was chosen as Trump’s Vice President because he needed a man who knew the people in Congress and could help him pass legislation.  Allegedly, he was Ivanka Trump’s choice.  Pence had served 12 years in Congress and was longtime friends with Paul Ryan, and John McCain who he endorsed for election prior to Trump’s support.  His other close friend who retired was Jeff Flake.  After his stint in Congress, Pence ran for Governor of the State of Indiana.

Had he not been chosen by Trump, Pence quite likely would have lost his second gubernatorial bid for many reasons, but one of them was because he was taking “victory laps” for eliminating common core, when in reality, all he had done was rebrand it.  It’s now the Indiana Core, but their standards are almost mirroring exactly what’s commonly referred to as the Common Core standards.  Link

Pence gives an Oscar winning performance masquerading as a devout Christian, yet he launched a   allegedly to help Republicans in the 2018 midterm elections…a lot of good that did when 40 of them retired, no thanks to Paul Ryan.  No vice president in modern history had their own PAC less than 6 month into the president’s first term, until Mike Pence.

In a previous article, Our Pro-Amnesty Vice President and His Establishment Friends, I discussed VP Pence’s globalist pro-amnesty, pro-trade, and pro-alien workers goals.  His guest worker program would have required participants to apply from their home country to government-approved job placement agencies that match workers with employers who cannot find Americans for the job. Link The plan received support from neo-cons such as pro-amnesty former Congressman and Freedom Works founder Dick Armey.  Link However, it attracted criticism from conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan, who viewed Pence as lending “his conservative prestige to a form of liberal amnesty.”

Pence is also closely aligned with the pro-Constitutional Convention and Trump hating Koch brothers who are pro-abortion, pro-trade, pro-open borders and cloak themselves as conservatives.  The Koch brothers heavily fund the GOP and countless conservative organizations urging them to promote a Constitutional Convention.

They have financed Pence’s political career since its inception along with Dick and Betsy DeVos.  Pence stated in 2014, that he was “grateful,” for David Koch, who recently passed at the age of 79.

Pence Transition Team

President Trump’s transition team was originally led by former Governor Chris Christie until he and a number of his supporters were replaced or demoted on November 11th because of the Bridgegate affair.  VP-elect Michael Pence then took over.

One of the key responsibilities of a presidential transition includes the identification and vetting of candidates for approximately 4,000 non-civil service positions in the U.S. government whose service is at the pleasure of the president.  Their vetting procedure has seemed less than stellar, perhaps because of who was chosen to replace Christie.

I would surmise that Pence and his transition team staff chose the majority of folks who were on board with the Trump administration, the day he took office, but many people brought in by VP Pence were folks he worked with in his home state of Indiana.

Seema Verma is the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  Two other former Indiana staff members joined Verma at the CMS office, Brady Brooks and Matt Lloyd, the latter a former close aide to Pence.  Lloyd had returned to the government after a stint working as director of communications at Koch Industries.

Dr. Jerome Adams, Pence’s former Indiana state health commissioner became the U.S. general surgeon.  He defended Pence against complaints of his slow response to the HIV outbreak among drug users in Indiana.

Tom Price, who ultimately was forced to resign, was Pence’s friend when they served in Congress and he was the first secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Alex Azar, the President of Eli Lilly based in Indianapolis, was named to replace Price and he was one of Pence’s major corporate campaign contributors, despite the fact that Eli Lilly threatened to leave Indiana if Governor Pence had not watered down Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Sonny Perdue, the former governor of Georgia, became Trump’s secretary of agriculture and he was related to the wife of Pence’s Chief of Staff, Nick Ayers who has strong ties to the Koch brothers along with Mike Pompeo and many others.

Globalist Dan Coats, Pence’s friend and a former U.S. Senator from Indiana was named director of national intelligence succeeding James Clapper, but has since resigned.  He did not support Trump and believed in Russian interference.

Betsy DeVos of Michigan, the Amway billionaire and Pence’s long-time political benefactor became Secretary of Education.

Conclusion

President Trump and his family live in the DC swamp and have endured and suffered so many vitriolic and uncivil attacks by people who should have been charged with sedition.  Yet he fights on for us, for our country, and for every American citizen.  Pray for him and his family, and pray that his future choices are men and women who love and appreciate what he’s doing to save our country and will work hard for him.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s Personal Assistant Abruptly Quits

VIDEO: 5 big takeaways from President Trump at the G-7 Summit

/in , , , /by

1600 DAILY reports:

President Donald J. Trump and First Lady Melania Trump return home after attending this year’s G-7 Summit in Biarritz, France. President Trump met with world leaders to strengthen our alliances, secure better trade deals, and—as always—keep the interests of the American people front and center on the global stage.

The summit began in 1975 as an opportunity for world leaders to meet face-to-face and find solutions to the most pressing modern-day global challenges.

This year was no exception, as President Trump worked with our allies to chart a course toward even more prosperity both here at home and around the world. Here are a few of the biggest takeaways from the trip:

  • A message of unity. President Trump and President Emmanuel Macron of host nation France held a joint press conference earlier today. Over the weekend, they worked together to achieve progress on a number of fronts, including global security, fair trade practices, and better economic opportunity for all. “I want to thank you very much, Mr. President, for the incredible job you did. This is a truly successful G-7,” President Trump said.
  • Securing a billion-dollar trade deal. One of the biggest wins from the summit was President Trump’s announcement of locking in a trade agreement with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan. The deal secures market access for a number of American agricultural goods, and Japan has agreed to purchase large sums of our farmers’ corn.
  • Promoting USMCA. With Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau by his side, President Trump talked about the importance of expanding America’s trading partnership with our neighbors by passing the U.S.–Mexico–Canada Agreement. With both Canada and Mexico having essentially finalized it, President Trump noted that it’s time for American lawmakers to do the same. “Our farmers love it, the unions love it, the workers love it, manufacturers love it . . . hopefully that’ll be put to a vote very soon.”
  • Developing stronger trade with Europe. While meeting with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, President Trump discussed how best to meet global and regional security challenges and previewed even better trade relations to come with Germany and the European Union. Germany is “a great trading partner,” he said. “And we probably think we’re going to be upping the trade over a very short period of time.”
  • Helping to reduce India-Pakistan tensions. In his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, President Trump reaffirmed the need for dialogue between India and Pakistan and also worked to build on the great economic relations between our nations.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Supporters Have ALL The Moral High Ground. Don’t Cede One Inch Of It To The Left.

The Unchanging Principles of Conservatism Defined

/in , , , , /by

At The Heritage Foundation, we’re always thinking about ways to talk to new and nontraditional audiences about how conservative principles can create the greatest freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society for the American people.

We realize that for these ideas to take hold, we have to counter the false narratives of left-leaning media outlets, educational institutions, and politicians.

We also see how messaging to new audiences can be diluted when some institutions and politicians who bear the “conservative” label drift far from fundamental conservative principles.

This not only hurts the conservative brand, but it also leaves these audiences thinking we’re not authentic about our views and that we change them based on convenience. It harms our credibility and leaves them thinking what we told them was right and true really wasn’t.

Many institutions and politicians start out as conservative, but if they’re not firmly rooted in principles, they can deviate from the path.

This is called trajectory: In physics, think of throwing a ball straight ahead. Eventually, forces like wind and gravity will cause the ball to curve and drop instead of continuing straight.

In politics and policy, the forces that create a curved trajectory—deviating from principles—include pressure from the media or political opponents, pressure from those you normally agree with deviating from principles themselves, or not wanting to be seen as the only one advocating for a position that’s right but not popular.

Since principles are meant to represent our highest ideals and should be based on fundamental truths, they should mostly be unchanging.

While good conservatives may have differing viewpoints about some aspects of conservatism, there are certain fundamental principles where we must remain resolute. In fact, at The Heritage Foundation, we call them the True North principles because they represent a fixed direction on which to stay focused, regardless of which ways the forces may be pressuring us.

Some of these major principles include:

  • The federal government is instituted to protect the rights bestowed on individuals under natural law. It exists to preserve life, liberty, and property—a mission that includes not only protecting the sanctity of life, but defending freedom of speech, religion, the press, and assembly, and the right of individuals to be treated equally and justly under the law, and to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
  • The federal government’s powers should be limited to only those named in the U.S. Constitution and exercised solely to protect the rights of its citizens.
  • Government functions best when it is closest and most accountable to the people and where power is shared between the federal government and the states.
  • Individuals and families make the best decisions for themselves and their children about health, education, jobs, and welfare.
  • America’s economy and the prosperity of individual citizens are best served by a system built on free enterprise, economic freedom, private property rights, and the rule of law. This system is best sustained by policies that promote general economic freedom and eliminate governmental preferences for special interests, including free trade, deregulation, and opposing government interventions in the economy that distort free markets and impair innovation.
  • Tax policies should raise the minimum revenue necessary to fund only constitutionally appropriate functions of government.
  • Regulations should be limited to those that produce a net benefit to the American people as a whole, weighing both financial and liberty costs.
  • Judges should interpret and apply our laws and the Constitution based on their original meaning, not upon judges’ own personal and political predispositions.
  • America must be a welcoming nation—one that promotes patriotic assimilation and is governed by laws that are fair, humane, and enforced to protect its citizens.
  • America is strongest when our policies protect our national interests, preserve our alliances of free peoples, vigorously counter threats to our security and interests, and advance prosperity through economic freedom at home and abroad.

These are just some of the unchanging principles of conservatism.

As the left continues to push policies like “Medicare for All,” free college tuition, open borders, and depleting the strength of the military, conservatives must counter these policies with a strong voice.

We must convince more and more people that our ideas work better and can assure a more free and prosperous future for all Americans. If we don’t do that, and more Americans succumb to the false promises of the statists, we soon won’t recognize America.

If ever there was a time we needed to be clear about our principles, it is now.

Originally published in The Washington Times

COMMENTARY BY

Kay Coles James

Kay Coles James is president of The Heritage Foundation. James formerly served as director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management and as Virginia’s secretary of health and human resources. She is also the founder and president of The Gloucester Institute. 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 is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Mosab Hassan Yousef, ‘the state of mind of so many Arabs is still deep in the 6th or 7th century.’

/in , , , , , , /by

Since he was a small boy, Mosab Hassan Yousef has had an inside view of the deadly terrorist group Hamas. The oldest son of Sheikh Hassan Yousef, a founding member of Hamas and its most popular leader, young Mosab assisted his father for years in his political activities while being groomed to assume his legacy, politics, status . . . and power.

But everything changed when Mosab turned away from terror and violence, and embraced instead the teachings of another famous Middle East leader – Jesus of Nazareth.

In Son of Hamas, Mosab Yousef – now called “Joseph” – reveals new information about the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization and unveils the truth about his own role, his agonizing separation from family and homeland, the dangerous decision to make his newfound faith public, and his belief that the Christian mandate to “love your enemies” is the only way to peace in the Middle East.

Joseph (Mosab Hassan Yousef) speaks truth to power.

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

/in , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , /by

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!

/in , , , , , /by

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 , , , , /by

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

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

/in , , , , /by

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

/in , , , , , /by

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