Follow The Money: Will NFL Owners Choose George Soros or Millions of Their Fans?

/in , , , /by

The National Football League is at it again. Just weeks after team owners and the league agreed to try to win back millions of fan by having players stand for the anthem, the NFL Players Association, the same organization 2ndVote exposed funding organizations tied to liberal billionaire George Soros, has forced the league to delay implementation of the rule. Via NPR:

They announced what they’re calling a standstill agreement. Now, last week, the union filed a grievance against the NFL’s new anthem policy. And as part of this standstill agreement, the union agreed to put the grievance on hold. Now, the NFL agreed to put its new policy on hold, meaning no new rules relating to the anthem will be issued or enforced for the next several weeks. And what they’re doing – they’re doing this while they engage in what they call confidential discussions to try to resolve the issue.

To put it another way — the same players who are funneling $90 million from last year’s “settlement”/shakedown to left-wing activists have forced the owners back to the negotiating table. These are the team owners who saw a 10 percent drop in viewership last season, eight million fewer Super Bowl viewers this year, and advertisers threaten to leave.

From a purely business perspective, capitulating to the players is clearly a bad idea. The fans have identified the anthem protests for what they are: the promotion of a false narrative that America is a racist country. And they have made themselves heard loud and clear by simply tuning out. Will owners actually listen, and stand up to the political chicanery at work behind the anthem protests? Or will they continue to let themselves be shaken down by the activist players?

The answer should be obvious to any team owner: follow the money. The NFL Players Association is a left-wing activist group that financially supports other left-wing activist groups. The NFL’s fans are the league’s financial driver and represent a broad swath of America that turns to sport for what it is–entertainment, not politics.

They can only choose one.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Shutterstock.

LIES OF THE SOROS-BACKED IMMIGRATION LOBBY: Why Americans should worry about their dishonest agenda.

/in , , , , , , /by

The George Soros-backed American Immigration Council is the latest group hell-bent on “resisting” commonsense immigration enforcement in the U.S. Several in this group are, themselves, practicing immigration attorneys who should know the truth about the dangers of open borders policies in communities across the U.S.  However, however, many lawyers at the American Immigration Council gloss over facts and, instead, promote dangerously false information about the legal aspects of the immigration issue.

One such example of the white-washing lawyers at the American Immigration Council is Joshua Breisblatt, the group’s Senior Policy Analyst and an immigration attorney with an extensive background in immigration law and the lobbying efforts mounted in the Halls of Congress to push the open borders agenda.  His bio notes that he had worked for Former Congressman Harry Mitchell of Arizona. Breisblatt penned an outrageously deceitful article on the group’s website titled: “USCIS Is Slowly Being Morphed Into an Immigration Enforcement Agency.” 

The article begins with these three paragraphs:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued new guidance to initiate deportation proceedings for thousands of applicants denied for any immigration benefit. This policy change will have far-reaching implications for many of those interacting with the agency, but also signals a major shift in how USCIS operates.

USCIS was never meant to be tasked with immigration enforcement. Their mandate has always been administering immigration benefits. With its distinct mission, USCIS was created to focus exclusively on their customer service function, processing applications for visas, green cards, naturalization, and humanitarian benefits.

The new USCIS guidance instructs staff to issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) to anyone who is unlawfully present when an application, petition, or benefit request is denied. This will include virtually all undocumented applicants, as well as those individuals whose lawful status expires while their request is pending before USCIS.

In other words, Breisblatt opposes the Trump administration’s sensible policy of removal (deportation hearings) for illegal aliens whose applications for immigration benefits are denied.

Generally, such applications are denied if an alien is ineligible for the immigration benefit – for whatever reason.  But the main reason many denials of benefits is that the alien committed immigration fraud by lying on their application.

In fact, it appears Breisblatt objects to the necessary adjudications process altogether, referring to it as simply “processing applications”were providing service for the aliens being the key issue.

What Breisblatt and the American Immigration Council advocates for, instead, is a policy where fraud would be encouraged and enabled.

I wrote recently wrote about how the Trump administration’s New USCIS Mission Statement Puts Americans First, is making America safer.

I am intimately familiar with the adjudications process.  Early in my career with the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) I was assigned in the mid 1970’s for a one year period, as an Adjudications Officer- then known as an Immigration Examiner, to a pilot program to combat immigration fraud by interviewing aliens and their U.S. citizen or lawful immigrant spouses who had filed petitions to provide the aliens with lawful immigration status.

The program was created when a sudden and massive influx of applications for lawful immigrant status flooded the New York District Office.

It appeared that many of the “loving couples” were likely not living together but had entered into a sham marriage wherein the U.S. citizen or lawful immigrant petitioning spouse was paid to marry the alien.

When major discrepancies were discovered during the interview (the husband and wife were interviewed separately) the case was immediately assigned to a team of INS investigators.  If the couple conceded that they were not living together, the illegal alien was immediately taken into custody and was put before an immigration judge within a day or two.

In cases where the couple denied committing fraud, a team of INS investigators would conduct a field investigation.  If evidence was found that the couple was not living together, the alien was arrested per an administrative warrant and held for a deportation hearing.

Within just a few months, the number of petitions that were filed plummeted as the aliens came to realize that if they would face consequences for committing fraud.

Immigration fraud involves several federal laws such as 18 U.S. Code § 1546 which includes this excerpt which notes that immigration fraud committed in connection with terrorism carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison:

Whoever knowingly makes under oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, knowingly subscribes as true, any false statement with respect to a material fact in any application, affidavit, or other document required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder, or knowingly presents any such application, affidavit, or other document which contains any such false statement or which fails to contain any reasonable basis in law or fact—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both.

This is certainly an extremely serious crime.

Yet the American Immigration Council would have you believe that the best way to deal with immigration fraud is to just approve all of the applications so that we don’t add more cases to the already overflowing backlog of applications for benefits or clog the overcrowded immigration courts.

Incredibly, Breisblatt provided a link to an official document issued by the Immigration Ombudsman of the administration of George W. Bush, that purportedly supports his claim that previous administrations opposed the issuance of NTA’s to illegal aliens whose applications for immigration benefits were denied.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  That document includes this excerpt:

Recommendation to USCIS that its policy on issuing Notices to Appear be standardized to provide that NTAs be issued and filed with the immigration court in all cases where, as a result of adjustment of status denial, the applicant is out of status.

For the government, failure to place a removable alien before an Immigration Judge creates a perception that the government tolerates violation of immigration laws;

For USCIS, if an NTA is not issued, (a) an applicant can file a new adjustment of status application which must be processed; (b) along with the new adjustment application, an applicant can also file for employment authorization. Thus, some applicants who are ineligible for adjustment of status can continue to file for it and receive employment authorization despite the knowledge that they will be denied at some point;

For applicants who wish to have an Immigration Judge review their adjustment application, USCIS failure to issue an NTA precludes such an opportunity;

For the public, USCIS failure to issue an NTA to a removable alien can be seen as neglecting a duty to ensure compliance with the immigration laws; and

For ICE, DHS’s enforcement branch, retaining removable aliens in USCIS processing prevents a true assessment of the number of cases pending and, thereby, precludes accurate resource planning and allocation.

As an INS special agent, I spent years investigating immigration fraud.  Indeed my very first fraud investigation led me to uncover a terror plot in Israel.  Fortunately, working with the Israeli National Police and the FBI a bombing at an oil refinery was averted.

The second largest contingent of federal agents who are assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) are immigration law enforcement agents because international terrorists generally commit multiple immigration law violations- often beginning with visa fraud and/or immigration benefit fraud.

The official report of the 9/11 Commission staff, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel focuses considerable attention on the issue of immigration fraud and included these statements:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud.

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

Last month I wrote an article, Trump Administration Opens Office To Find Naturalization Fraudsters in which I lauded the same efforts that American Council on Immigration adamantly opposes.

Given their backgrounds, these far-left American Immigration Council lobbyists clearly know the risks that immigration fraud creates in American communities and to average Americans.  Yet, they are determined to obfuscate the truth and leave our nation vulnerable to Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.

Efforts by these opponents of fair and effective immigration law enforcement are succeeding in sparking subversive protests across the United States, under the banner of “Occupy ICE.”

From Portland, Oregon to New York City and towns and cities and states in between, demonstrators have been convinced or, more properly conned, into resisting immigration laws that protect national security, public safety and the livelihoods of American and lawful immigrant workers.

For those who think they are demonstrating compassion by obstructing immigration law enforcement, a bit of advice is in order, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dem’s latest genius idea: Pay illegals.

Democrats Electoral Strategy: Open Borders and Let Non-Citizens Vote

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. The featured image is by Fibonacci Blue.

Democrats Electoral Strategy: Open Borders and Let Non-Citizens Vote

/in , , , , , , /by

Democrats are leading the way to open borders by allowing non-citizens to vote first in school districts and then will seek the same in Federal elections. This dovetails with California’s Sanctuary City State policy. While the media obsesses about Russian interference in U.S. elections California Democrats have figured out a way to undermine our entire electoral system.

Democrats shout about 12 Russians interfering in our election, while at the same time promoting giving 1.2 million illegal aliens voting rights. Isn’t giving illegals a right to vote colluding to fix elections?

Democrats’ Electoral Strategy: Let Non-Citizens Vote

Originally published at Fox News

Democrats’ Electoral Strategy: Let Non-Citizens Vote

In San Francisco, immigrants who are in the country illegally are now eligible to register and vote in school board elections. Of course, this is clearly illegal under the California Constitution.

Article II, Section 2 of the California Constitution says, “A United States citizen 18 years of age and resident in this State may vote.”

However, the pro-illegal immigration, sanctuary state-supporting Democratic majority in Sacramento has no interest in enforcing the law when it’s being ignored by fellow Democrats. After all, their long-range plans for a ruling majority depend on continuous law breaking to get enough non-Americans to vote. The Californians who don’t support their radical views, can simply be eclipsed by non-citizen voters who will.

As the San Francisco ABC News affiliate reported, the county’s District 7 Elections Supervisor Norman Yee said, ”We want to give immigrants the right to vote.”

Cal Thomas captured what is going on in a July 19 column entitled “The Name of the Game: Votes for Democrats.”

As Thomas points out, this is only the beginning of a much larger strategy.

“Who doubts this is the first step by the left and Democrats toward full voting rights in state and eventually in federal elections? The claim by lawyers will be that it is discriminatory to allow undocumented immigrants to vote in local and state elections and not for members of Congress and for president. At bottom this is what the entire immigration debate is about.”

Thomas concludes, “For Democrats, it’s a perfect cover for their ultimate goal: importing votes.”

Read more.

TRUMP DOCTRINE VS. ROUHANI: Is Donald Trump Serious about Iran? You bet.

/in , , , /by

Is the President of the United States a mere “twitter warrior?” Or is he really serious about Iran? Here is his early morning, all-caps statement that is making heads explode in the Twittersphere:

The proximate cause for Trump’s tweet was a threat by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani the day before to close the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping traffic, where he warned Trump, “Do not play with the lion’s tail; you will regret it forever.”

Rouhani himself was responding to a momentous speech at the Reagan Library by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, where he outlined the new “Trump Doctrine” toward Iran.

“The mission set for our team is clear,” Pompeo said. “It’s to deny the Iranian leadership the resources, the wealth, the funds, the capacity to continue to foment terrorism around the world and to deny the people inside of Iran the freedoms that they so richly deserve.”

If you’re reading this page, you’ve probably already had your fill of the hysterics and bombast from the organized left in response to this latest Trump tweet, starting with Rachel Maddow, the Atlantic, and their fellow gutter-creatures.

So here is what you need to know to determine whether this President is serious.

Jan. 20, 2017: Donald Trump takes office.

Jan. 29, 2017: Iran launches a medium-range nuclear-capable missile to probe the intentions of the new administration.

Feb. 1, 2017: National Security advisor Michael Flynn makes an appearance in the White House briefing room, telling reporters that the administration is “officially putting Iran on notice” to stop such tests.

Feb. 3, 2017: The U.S. administration imposes new sanctions on Iranian individuals and companies involved in the missile program.

The Iranians cooled their heels for seven months after that. When they next conducted a missile test in September 2017, it prompted an immediately – if restrained – response from the President.

Remember that by this point, the President was already embroiled in the Mueller probe, and was being advised by a Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, and a national security advisor, H.R. McMaster, who were both eager to preserve the bad Iran nuclear deal.

Nevertheless, on October 13, 2017, President Trump took the first step toward withdrawing from the deal by refusing to certify that Iran was in compliance. He pulled out of the deal formally on May 8, 2018, unleashing a firestorm of doom and gloom predictions from our European allies and from former Obama administration officials, who have taken to behaving like official lobbyists for Tehran.

The Iranians responded by threatening to immediately resume uranium enrichment, a gesture which former international nuclear inspector David Albright qualified as “more bark than bite,” and—once again–- to close the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping. (If they don’t threaten to close the Strait of Hormuz once a month, they might forget where it is).

Here are the little-known facts, as tweeted out by the President on July 8:

Iranian harassment of U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf ceased almost as soon as the President took office in January 2017, going down from 36 incidents in 2016 to just 14 incidents in 2017. (The last was in August 2017). For the past twelve months, the Iranian navy and the IRGC fast attack boats have not once threatened a U.S. warship. Guess why?

In the case of this regime in Tehran, it’s sometimes necessary to speak loudly and carry a big stick. That has been President Trump’s approach, and it is working.

The regime has scaled back its ballistic missile tests, and in recent months has restrained its Houthi allies in Yemen from firing missiles into Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

And while Iran has continued to expand and solidify its “land bridge” through Iraq and Syria to the Israeli border, it now faces virtually unlimited counter-strikes from the Israel Air Force that Prime Minister Netanyahu coordinates ahead of time with Russia.

As with so many other issues involving this President, skeptics need to look at his actions, not just his tweets–– although I happen to enjoy his tweets, and think they are an effective means of speaking directly to friends and foes over the heads of the drive-by media.

The Pompeo speech was everything pro-freedom advocates in Iran could have wished. If you read nothing else today, please take five minutes to read the entire speech. It is amazing.

In it, Pompeo made clear that he – and by extension, the President – understand the futility of past efforts to change the behavior of the Tehran regime by offering inducements and concessions. We are facing a regime that behaves in accordance with its profound anti-Western, expansionist, Sharia-imposing ideology. The only way we in the West can change that behavior is by helping the people of Iran to reclaim their country and their government.

And those Iranian “moderates” Washington always seems to be seeking? Pompeo drew laughs from the audience when he joked they were the “Iranian unicorn,” a mythical beast.

Pompeo cited specific examples of top regime officials who have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars – and in the case of the Supreme Leader, $95 billion – from the people of Iran. That’s a first from a senior U.S. leader. And, as I hinted above, he made clear that this administration understands that the root of the problem is “the revolutionary nature of the regime itself,” in other words, its ideology.

The tyrants of Tehran are freaking out.

For decades they thought they could bully the United States into inaction. Not since President Reagan sank one-third of the Iranian navy during Operation Praying Mantis in April 1988 has the United States stood up to Iranian military provocation in the Gulf.

Put simply, we have nothing to fear from a military confrontation with Iran, especially in the waters of the Persian Gulf. But the Iranians are very afraid.

Add to this the rapid plunge of the Iranian currency following the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran deal – before new sanctions were even imposed – and you can understand the growing panic in Tehran.

The mullahs are going down. They can smell it. They see a multitude of opposition groups meeting in Germany and the United States openly and proudly, in ways not seen since 2007. They see the new budget from the State Department to support Internet freedom in Iran taking effect, making it increasingly hard for them to kill dissidents in darkness. They see a U.S. administration openly reaching out to dissidents, and openly embracing their cause. And they see their economy circling the drain—as I say, even before new sanctions go into place next month.

Their days are numbered, and they know it.

Secretary Pompeo reminded the nay-sayers, who claim it could be “centuries” before the regime falls, of how quickly things can change. “There are disjunctive moments. There are times when things happen that are unexpected, unanticipated. Our revolution will be one of them,” he said.

Amen to that.

RELATED ARTICLE: Revealed: A Deal Founded on Lies

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Muslim Who Squeezed $3M Out of SPLC for Calling Him an Anti-Muslim Extremist Says Others Also Wrongly Labeled

/in , , , , , /by

A left-wing organization is wrongly labeling others as “hate groups,” a Muslim leader who works against Islamist terrorists says.

Maajid Nawaz recently settled out of court with the Southern Poverty Law Center for over $3 million after he challenged it for listing his left-of-center group as extremist.

“I want them to understand that something clearly went wrong in the processes here,” Nawaz said Friday on “Fox & Friends.” “If it could have gone wrong for me, which is such a clear case, then there are others.”

Listing Nawaz and his research group, Quilliam, as anti-Muslim extremists cost the Southern Poverty Law Center $3.4 million in a settlement payment paired with a video apology.

In 2016, the SPLC had labeled Quilliam, which markets itself as the “world’s first counter-extremism organization,” as an anti-Muslim hate group for its calls to reform Islam. Nawaz, who is British and a former radical Muslim, moved to sue the SPLC on grounds of defamation.

The matter was settled out of court June 18, with the SPLC agreeing to pay the $3.4 million and issue a public apology.

“I grew up respecting the work of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and their work against the KKK, in particular, was something, somebody like me … grew up appreciating,” Nawaz said in the interview on “Fox & Friends.”

The SPLC has been in the news in recent years for labeling mainstream conservative organizations, including the traditional values group Family Research Council and the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, as hate groups. They and others say the liberal group does so to those it disagrees with to raise money.

Nawaz, who calls himself a liberal politically, said his inclusion on the SPLC’s list of hate groups was “shocking.”

Labeling someone an anti-Muslim extremist is dangerous because “that’s putting a target on our heads for the jihadists to come and kill us,” he said.

“These are serious allegations that terrorists take very, very seriously, and they go after people like us,” he said.

Nawaz said he told the SPLC that “we agree on more than we disagree when it comes to challenging extremism,” and that he wanted to understand how he had ended up on its list.

Nawaz said he believes that the SPLC’s apology was sincere, and that his inclusion on a list of hate groups was a “genuine mistake.” But, he said, he is “still trying to explore and get to the bottom of this.”

COLUMN BY

Jeremiah Poff

Jeremiah Poff is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Democrats Caught In Vile Attack On Wife Of Trump’s Florida Co-Chair

/in , , , , , /by

The deteriorating state of the American left and the Democratic Party was on vivid display again in a recent, ugly controversy in Florida that Democrats initiated, then tried to shrug off and finally back-tracked on after media coverage exposed it.

A Democrat running for local government office posted on Facebook about an issue facing voters in November. Joe Gruters, the chairman of the Republican Party of Sarasota, a state representative and the co-chairman of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign in Florida, responded to the issue. One of the first responses to his comment was this:

“..you never did answer my question about when and where I can grab your wife by her pu**y. Get back to me on this.”

Obviously this vile piece of nastiness was a reference to Trump’s old statement from the Access Live video several years ago, which Trump apologized for and for which he rightly received considerable condemnation from Republicans at the time.

Alone, it was just a one-off from a nasty individual. But this repugnant comment was “liked” many times, including by a local Democratic candidate running for the School Board. This candidate was subsequently forced to apologize when the local ABC affiliate did a story on it — which came only after the Republican Party of Sarasota put out a statement condemning the comment, the “like” by the School Board candidate and the willingness of the original Democratic author of the post to keep it up. The statement called on the Democratic Party to disavow the statement and its candidates’ involvement in it.

The Democratic Party did neither. But after the media exposure and public fallout became clear, the vile comment was taken down the next day. Of course, that could have happened immediately. It could have happened after Gruters brought it to the attention of the initial Democrats’ posting. It could have happened when the Republican Party issued its statement. But it did not happen until it was exposed in the media and the Democratic Party measured the response in this red part of Florida.

As bad as all of that was, the really telling part is that the Sarasota County Democratic Party issued an official statement saying that while the comment was inappropriate…“make no mistake that this fake outrage by the Republican Party of Sarasota about a ‘like’ of a comment on a Facebook page is a clear attempt to distract the voters and to score political points.”

Fake outrage?

It seems pretty likely that if anyone suggested they wanted to know when they could grab the private female parts of one of the Democrats’ wives or daughters or mothers, their outrage would be most sincere. Too many Democrats have learned nothing from the lessons of the 2016 election. Instead of understanding how they disconnected from so many Americans, the lesson they took is that because Trump said something vile, they can therefor say anything with impunity. Wrong lesson — for them and the country.

It’s also clear that if Republicans had not highlighted the nastiness to the local media, the Democrats were fine with leaving the comment and its supporting approvals up. Most people recognized that the outrage over this was real and legitimate, particularly for candidates asking voters to put them in office.

Perhaps Democrats need to step back and rethink spending the past 18 months in a daily cyclone of ginned up, hate-based outrage over every act of the Trump administration. It has impaired their ability to distill genuine outrage from the fake.

And its impaired the ability of the nation to participate in any sort of issues-based, civil debate.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Reasons Women Aren’t Happy Today

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

Here’s what Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination means for gun rights

/in , , , , , /by

President Trump recently selected Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his Supreme Court nominee to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Immediately following this announcement, national pro-gun groups like the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendment Institute released statements endorsing Trump’s nomination. Kavanaugh brings with him a strong support and respect for the Second Amendment. His judicial history clearly demonstrates that he is a friend to law-abiding gun owners.

Whereas on the other side of the aisle, gun-grabbing groups like Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety opposed Kavanaugh, declaring that his confirmation would bring an end to “civil society” and public safety. Everytown for Gun Safety said in a statement, “Judge Kavanaugh has applied an extreme and dangerous interpretation of the Second Amendment when determining whether a law is constitutional, one that does not take into account a law’s impact on public safety.”

Throughout his judicial career, Kavanaugh has ruled on a number of Second Amendment-related cases during his time on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which included a detailed account agreeing with Heller from D.C. v. Heller. In 2011, when Heller brought another challenge to the city involving the AR-15 ban, Kavanaugh dissented from the majority and agreed with Heller. “In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.”

When questioned about Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court, Dick Heller, from D.C. v. Hellerreplied, “Brett Kavanaugh is the right man for the job. He’ll bring with him a much needed refresh button to an out-of-date system, with Justices who refuse to uphold the Constitution. Justice Scalia, who wrote the magnificent Heller decision, would be proud.”

If Kavanaugh is confirmed, the Supreme Court will enter a new conservative era. Second Amendment supporters can expect the court hear more pro-Second Amendment cases, which could include striking down may-issue laws, constitutional carry, national reciprocity, and the most controversial of issues, the AR-15 ban.

Some current state laws that must be challenged, include red flag laws (which completely circumvent the Second and Fourth Amendments), raising the age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21, (which the left-leaning website Vox even admits would “do depressingly little”), and may-issue. In the 2017 case Wrenn v. D.C., the D.C. Court of Appeals struck down Washington D.C.’s unconstitutional “special reason” requirement for a concealed carry permit, thus changing the status of D.C. from may-issue to shall-issue. Meaning that, if a law-abiding citizen successfully completes the required training to obtain a concealed carry license in the District, D.C. shall issue them a license. Whereas before, D.C. could still deny that person.

Kavanaugh’s confirmation would shine a light of freedom in the face of the tyrannical darkness that is sweeping our nation. Dozens of pro-Second Amendment cases could finally be brought before the highest court of the land, and strike down unconstitutional gun control laws. Stricter gun control victimizes law-abiding citizens and empowers criminals. With another pro-Second Amendment conservative on the Supreme Court, law-abiding gun owners can finally take a very overdue deep, relaxing breath.

Gene Truono, candidate for U.S. Senate in Delaware, agrees: “Kavanaugh’s resume and reverence for the Constitution make him a strong choice for the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh’s dissent in the Heller decision paved the way for the Supreme Court to ultimately decide to maintain the individual’s right to bear arms. Therefore, I believe Kavanaugh is a good choice in regard to the Second Amendment, specifically.”

ABOUT TYLER YZAGUIRRE

Tyler Yzaguirre (@realtyleryz) is the founder and president of the Second Amendment Institute.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Brett Kavanaugh’s Defense of Second Amendment Is Hardly ‘Extremist’

Implications of the Kavanaugh SCOTUS Confirmation and Originalism

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by AP/Lily illustration.

MS-13 Threatens the Legitimacy of Salvadoran Government

/in , , , , /by

In a recent poll, residents of El Salvador were asked, “Who runs your country?” Forty-two percent reported gangs, while only 12 percent said the government.

These results reveal a huge problem for El Salvador: The public’s lack of trust in its government threatens to dismantle the country’s democracy and stability.

MS-13 is a dominant force in Salvadoran affairs. Outside the U.S., MS-13’s largest presence is in Central America, particularly in the northern triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.

MS-13 has become a powerful force, capable of coercing weak Central American governments. For example, in 2012, the Salvadoran government was forced to sign a truce with MS-13 in an effort to reduce skyrocketing homicide rates. Although the truce did reduce homicides, the agreement was widely unpopular. Extortion and associated criminal activity continued at high rates with almost no resistance from the government.

When current President Salvador Sánchez Cerén reversed the 2012 truce and implemented a “mano dura,” or iron-first policy, against MS-13 in 2014, the gang retaliated by dumping bodies on the streets. The homicide rate skyrocketed and in 2015, El Salvador had the highest homicide rate in the world.

MS-13 largely relies on extortion as its largest source of income, but has also been known to engage in drug and human trafficking, money laundering, kidnapping, and theft. MS-13’s growing influence in El Salvador has led to changes in its behavior.

The country’s weak state capacity and inability to deliver social services has paved the way for criminal organizations to step in and assume state functions.

In recent years, MS-13 has launched minor programs to feed children and provide neighborhood security. Bizarrely, the same group that terrorized Salvadorans is now providing much-needed social services.

This change in behavior has undermined the Salvadoran government’s authority. Fragile States Index tracked the public’s perception of the state’s legitimacy. El Salvador saw its sharpest decline in 2015, and perceived authority has continued to plummet ever since.

In 2017, Transparency International’s corruption perception score for El Salvador ticked downward 6 points from 2014, indicating an increased corruption perception. Furthermore, El Salvador scored a 33 out of 100 in the country’s perceived level of public-sector corruption.

In The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, El Salvador’s government integrity score plummeted from 39 percent in 2016 to 25.2 percent in 2018—a clear indication of a serious problem.

Improving the situation will require long-term efforts from the Salvadoran government. Much of the work will be up to the next administration that will take office in 2019. It will be left to vigorously combat the expansion of MS-13 and preserve the government’s legitimacy.

Failure to step up, create economic opportunities, and increase security efforts could collapse what remains of the Salvadoran government’s authority.

COMMENTARY BY

Macarena Martinez

Macarena Martinez is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Portrait of Ana Quintana

Ana Quintana

Ana Quintana is a senior policy analyst for Latin America and the Western Hemisphere in The Heritage Foundation’s Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies. Twitter: .

Ted Kennedy and the KGB: A reflection on the late Democratic Senator’s outreach to the Kremlin to undermine President Reagan.

/in , , , /by

Editors’ note: In light of the ongoing controversy surrounding the Trump campaign’s alleged “collusion” with the Russian government during the 2016 US presidential election, which now involves Trump Jr. daring to talk to a Russian woman, Frontpage has deemed it important to bring attention to a forgotten story of verifiable scheming with the Kremlin — by the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy against President Ronald Reagan. We are reprinting below Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov’s 2008 interview with Dr. Paul Kengor, who unearthed documentation detailing Kennedy’s outreach to the KGB and Soviet leader Yuri Andropov during the height of the Cold War, in which the Democratic Senator offered to collude with the Soviets to undermine President Reagan.

Ted Kennedy and the KGB.

Frontpage Magazine, May 15, 2008.

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Paul Kengor, the author of the New York Times extended-list bestseller God and Ronald Reagan as well as God and George W. Bush and The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism. He is also the author of the first spiritual biography of the former first lady, God and Hillary Clinton: A Spiritual Life. He is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Vision and Values at Grove City College.

FP: Paul Kengor, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

Kengor: Always great to be back, Jamie.

FP: We’re here today to revisit Ted Kennedy’s reaching out to the KGB during the Reagan period. Refresh our readers’ memories a bit.

Kengor: The episode is based on a document produced 25 years ago this week. I discussed it with you in our earlier interview back in November 2006. In my book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, I presented a rather eye-opening May 14, 1983 KGB document on Ted Kennedy. The entire document, unedited, unabridged, is printed in the book, as well as all the documentation affirming its authenticity. Even with that, today, almost 25 years later, it seems to have largely remained a secret.

FP: Tell us about this document.

Kengor: It was a May 14, 1983 letter from the head of the KGB, Viktor Chebrikov, to the head of the USSR, the odious Yuri Andropov, with the highest level of classification. Chebrikov relayed to Andropov an offer from Senator Ted Kennedy, presented by Kennedy’s old friend and law-school buddy, John Tunney, a former Democratic senator from California, to reach out to the Soviet leadership at the height of a very hot time in the Cold War. According to Chebrikov, Kennedy was deeply troubled by the deteriorating relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, which he believed was bringing us perilously close to nuclear confrontation. Kennedy, according to Chebrikov, blamed this situation not on the Soviet leadership but on the American president—Ronald Reagan. Not only was the USSR not to blame, but, said Chebrikov, Kennedy was, quite the contrary, “very impressed” with Andropov.

The thrust of the letter is that Reagan had to be stopped, meaning his alleged aggressive defense policies, which then ranged from the Pershing IIs to the MX to SDI, and even his re-election bid, needed to be stopped. It was Ronald Reagan who was the hindrance to peace. That view of Reagan is consistent with things that Kennedy said and wrote at the time, including articles in sources like Rolling Stone (March 1984) and in a speeches like his March 24, 1983 remarks on the Senate floor the day after Reagan’s SDI speech, which he lambasted as “misleading Red-Scare tactics and reckless Star Wars schemes.”

Even more interesting than Kennedy’s diagnosis was the prescription: According to Chebrikov, Kennedy suggested a number of PR moves to help the Soviets in terms of their public image with the American public. He reportedly believed that the Soviet problem was a communication problem, resulting from an inability to counter Reagan’s (not the USSR’s) “propaganda.” If only Americans could get through Reagan’s smokescreen and hear the Soviets’ peaceful intentions.

So, there was a plan, or at least a suggested plan, to hook up Andropov and other senior apparatchiks with the American media, where they could better present their message and make their case. Specifically, the names of Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters are mentioned in the document. Also, Kennedy himself would travel to Moscow to meet with the dictator.

Time was of the essence, since Reagan, as the document privately acknowledged, was flying high en route to easy re-election in 1984.

FP: Did you have the document vetted?

Kengor: Of course. It comes from the Central Committee archives of the former USSR. Once Boris Yeltsin took over Russia in 1991, he immediately began opening the Soviet archives, which led to a rush on the archives by Western researchers. One of them, Tim Sebastian of the London Times and BBC, found the Kennedy document and reported it in the February 2, 1992 edition of the Times, in an article titled, “Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file.”

But this electrifying revelation stopped there; it went no further. Never made it across the Atlantic. Not a single American news organization, from what I can tell, picked up the story. Apparently, it just wasn’t interesting enough, nor newsworthy.

Western scholars, however, had more integrity, and responded: they went to the archives to procure their own copy. So, several copies have circulated for a decade and a half.

I got my copy when a reader of Frontpage Magazine, named Marko Suprun, whose father survived Stalin’s 1930s genocide in the Ukraine, alerted me to the document. He apparently had spent years trying to get the American media to take a look at the document, but, again, our journalists simply weren’t intrigued. He knew I was researching Reagan and the Cold War. He sent me a copy. I first authenticated it through Herb Romerstein, the Venona researcher and widely respected expert who knows more about the Communist Party and archival research beyond the former Iron Curtain than anyone. I also had a number of scholars read the original and the translation, including Harvard’s Richard Pipes.

Of course, all of those steps were extra, extra, extra precautions, since the reporter for the London Times had done all that work in the first place. He went into the archive, pulled it off the shelf, and the Times ran with the story. This wasn’t rocket science. I simply wanted to be extra careful, especially since our media did not cover it at all. I now understand that that blackout by the American media was the result of liberal bias. At first I didn’t think our media could be that bad, even though I knew from studies and anecdotal experience that our press is largely liberal, but now I’ve learned firsthand that the bias is truly breathtaking.

FP: So what shockwaves did your exposure of this document set off in the media?

Kengor: Well, I thought it would be a bombshell, which it was, but only within the conservative media.

I prepared myself to be pilloried by the liberal mainstream media, figuring I’d be badgered with all kinds of hostile questions from defenders of Ted Kennedy. I still, at this very moment, carry photocopies and the documentation with me in my briefcase, ready for access at a moment’s notice. I’ve done that for two years now. The pages may soon begin to yellow.

I need not have bothered with any of this prep, since the media entirely ignored the revelation. In fact, the major reviewers didn’t even review the book. It was the most remarkable case of media bias I’ve ever personally experienced.

I couldn’t get a single major news source to do a story on it. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC. Not one covered it.

The only cable source was FoxNews, Brit Hume’s “Grapevine,” and even then it was only a snippet in the round-up. In fact, I was frustrated by the occasional conservative who didn’t run with it. I did a taping with Hannity & Colmes but they never used it, apparently because they were so focused on the mid-term elections, to the exclusion of almost any other story or issue. The Hannity & Colmes thing was a major blow; it could’ve propelled this onto the national scene, forcing the larger media to take note. That was the single greatest disappointment. I think Sean Hannity might have felt that I wasn’t hard enough on Senator Kennedy during the interview. He asked me, for instance, if what Kennedy did could be classified as treason. I told him honestly, as a scholar, that I really couldn’t answer that question. I honestly don’t know the answer to that; I’m not a constitutional scholar. I don’t have the legal background to accuse someone of being a traitor. I was trying to be as fair as possible.

Rush Limbaugh, God bless him, appreciated it. He talked about it at least twice. So did blogs like Michelle Malkin’s HotAir. Web sources like FrontPage hit it hard. But without the mainstream news coverage, the story never made the dent I expected it would.

I should note that Ed Klein of Parade magazine recently contacted me. He himself got a rude awakening on the media’s liberal bias when he wrote a negative book on Hillary Clinton. I’ve not heard back from him. But he’s a rare case of journalistic objectivity.

If I may vent just a little more on the mainstream press, Jamie: There’s a bias there that really is incredibly troubling. Over and over again, I’ve written and submitted the most careful op-eds, trying to remove any partisan edge, on issues like Reagan and Gorbachev privately debating the removal of the Berlin Wall (I have de-classified documents on this in The Crusader as well), on Reagan’s fascinating relationship with RFK, on various aspects of the Cold War that are completely new, based on entirely new evidence from interviews and archives. When I submit these op-ed to the major newspapers, they almost always turn them down. The first conservative source that I send them to always jump at them. The liberals, however, are very close-minded. Nothing is allowed to alter the template. You can construct the most fair, iron-tight case, and they turn it down. This is not true for everything I write on the Cold War era, but no doubt for most of it. And certainly for the case of Senator Kennedy and this KGB document.

FP: How about trying to place some op-eds on the Kennedy document?

Kengor: Here again, all the mainstream sources turned me down. I had no alternative but to place the op-eds in the conservative outlets. Liberal editors blacklisted the piece. I began by sending a piece to the New York Times, where the editor is David Shipley, who’s extremely fair, and in fact has published me before, including a defense I wrote on the faith of George W. Bush. This one, however, he turned down. He liked it. It certainly had his intention. But he said he wouldn’t be able to get it into the page.

I sent it to the Boston Globe, three or four times, actually. I got no response or even the courtesy of an acknowledgment. It was as if the piece was dispatched to the howling wilderness of Siberia—right into the gulag—airbrushed from history.

The most interesting response I got was from the editorial page editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, another very fair liberal, a great guy, who since then has retired. He published me several times. We went back and forth on this one. Finally, he said something to the effect, “I just can’t believe that Ted Kennedy would do something this stupid.” My reply was, “Well, he apparently did.” I told the editor that if he was that incredulous, then he or someone on his staff should simply call Kennedy’s office and get a response. Hey, let’s do journalism and make news! It never happened.

For the record, one news source, a regional cable outlet in the Philadelphia area, called CN8, took the time to call Kennedy’s office. The official response from his office was not to deny the document but to argue with the interpretation. Which interpretation? Mine or Chebrikov’s? Kennedy’s office wasn’t clear on that. My interpretation was not an interpretation. I simply tried to report what Chebrikov reported to Andropov. So, I guess Kennedy’s office was disputing Chebrikov’s interpretation, which is quite convenient, since Chebrikov is dead, as is Andropov. Alas, the perfect defense—made more perfect by an American media that will not ask the senator from Massachusetts a single question (hard or soft) on this remarkable incident.

FP: So, Kennedy’s office/staff did not deny the document?

Kengor: That’s correct. They have not denied it. That’s important. Because if none of this had ever happened, and if the document was a fraud, Kennedy’s office would simply say so, and that would be the end of it.

FP: Tell us about the success the book has had in the recent past and the coverage it has received outside of the U.S.

Kengor: The paperback rights were picked up by the prestigious HarperPerennial in 2007, which I’m touting not to pat myself on the back but to affirm my point on why our mainstream press should take the book and the document seriously. The book has also been or is in the process of being translated into several foreign-language editions, including Poland, where it was released last November. It is literally true that more Polish journalists have paid attention to the Kennedy revelation than American journalists. I’ve probably sold about 20 times more copies of the book in Poland, where they understand communism and moral equivalency, than in Massachusetts.

FP: One can just imagine finding a document like this on an American Republican senator having made a similar offer to the Nazis. Kennedy has gotten away with this. What do you think this says about our culture, the parameters of debate and who controls the boundaries of discourse?

Kengor: History is determined by those who write it. There are the gatekeepers: editors, journalists, publishers. The left’s ideologues are guarding the gate, swords brandished, crusaders, not open to other points of view. The result is a total distortion of “history,” as the faithful and the chosen trumpet their belief in tolerance and diversity, awarding prizes to one another, disdainful and dismissive of the unwashed barbarians outside the gate.

You can produce a 550-page manuscript with 150-pages of single-space, 9-point footnotes, and it won’t matter. They could care less.

FP: So, this historical revelation is not a revelation?

Kengor: That’s right, because it is not impacting history—because gatekeepers are ignoring it.

Another reason why the mainstream media may be ignoring this: as I make clear in the book, this KGB document could be the tip of the iceberg, not just with Kennedy but other Democrats. John Tunney himself alluded to this in an interview with the London Times reporter. That article reported that Tunney had made many such trips to Moscow, with additional overtures, and on behalf of yet more Democratic senators. Given that reality, I suppose we should expect liberal journalists to flee this story like the plague—at least those too biased to do their jobs.

For the record, I’ve been hard on liberal journalists in this article, and rightly so. But there are many good liberal journalists who do real research and real reporting. And it’s those that need to follow up on this. I’m a conservative, and so I’m not allowed into the club. Someone from inside the boys’ club needs to step up to the plate.

FP: All of this is in sync with David Horowitz’s and Ben Johnson’s new book, Party of Defeat, isn’t it? As the book demonstrates, many Democrats are engaging in willful sabotage in terms of our security vis-à-vis Islamo-Fascism today. And as the Kennedy-KGB romance indicates, a good portion of Democrats have always had a problem in reaching out to our enemies, rather than protecting our national security. Your thoughts?

Kengor: Obviously, as you know and suggest, this does not apply to all Democrats, needless to say. But there are many liberal Democrats who were dupes during the Cold War and now are assuming that role once again in the War on Terror. President Carter comes to mind, as does John Kerry, as does Ted Kennedy, to name only a few. When I read President Carter’s recent thoughts on Hamas, it transported me back to 1977 and his stunning statements on the Iranian revolution, or to 1979 and his remarks on the Soviets and Afghanistan. Many of these liberals and their supporters on the left literally see the conservative Republican in the Oval Office as a greater threat to the world than the insane dictators overseas that the likes of Reagan and George W. Bush were/are trying to stop. That’s not an exaggeration. Just ask them.

History is repeating itself, which can happen easily when those tasked to report and record it fail to do so because of their political biases.

FP: Paul Kengor, thank you for joining us.

Kengor: Thank you Jamie.

ABOUT JAMIE GLAZOV

JAMIE GLAZOV

Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the editor of Frontpagemag.com, the author of the critically-acclaimed, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, and the host of the web-TV show, The Glazov Gang. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com, follow him on Twitter: @JamieGlazov, and reach him at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.

Congressman Who Introduced ‘Abolish ICE’ Bill Won’t Comment on Crime by Illegal Immigrants

/in , , , /by

The Wisconsin congressman who introduced the “abolish ICE” bill admitted he would vote against it during an appearance Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” while also declining to comment on crime committed by illegal immigrants.

The bill from Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., co-sponsored by nine other Democrats, was designed to dismantle U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Congress created the agency in 2003 to amp up security at the border and prevent illegal immigrants entering the country.

dcnf-logo

President Donald Trump has said he opposes abolishing ICE, tweeting that it will “mean more crime in our country.”

“What would you do about illegals who get busted for DUI [if] there’s no ICE?” Carlson asked Pocan. “Do they get to stay? What happens, specifically, in that case?”

Pocan refused to answer, seemingly having no prospective solution in mind, and instead pivoted to the issue of family separations. He said that reunifying children separated from their illegal immigrant parents at the border should be the priority.

A majority of voters, 54 percent, support the federal government continuing to fund ICE, while 21 percent of voters are undecided, according to a Politico/Morning Consult poll on July 11. Those who support abolishing ICE, 25 percent, identify as Democrats.

COLUMN BY

EDITORS NOTE: The House passed a nonbinding resolution Wednesday backing ICE and denouncing calls by some Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists to abolish it, NBC News and other media outlets reported.

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 for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The featured image is of Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call)

See Something, Say Something: A U.S. Classified Brainwashing Program

/in , , , , /by

I would dare to say that if you asked Americans, specifically our children, if they believe our governments “See Something, Say Something” program is a needed and positive concept 99.9 percent would agree. This operation went into full swing after the 911 attacks by Muslim terrorists on our country. This program is actually a deceptive and very dangerous U.S. classified operation to condition Americans to inform on their friends, family, neighbors and others. Our government unfortunately wants us to follow the same path that Hitler put in place on his fellow Germans. Hitler brainwashed the German citizens that “ratting” on fellow citizens was patriotic to secure the security of Germany.

Adolf Hitler once made the following statement:

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”

Another quote by Hitler:

“If you control the children you control the future”

This story is true in America. Liberals within our government fully understands that if you control the minds of the children, you will control the future. The U.S. government has now taken over the control of our children by slowly eroding the influence of their parents. Our children are being brainwashed in all levels of the education system.

Our government desires American children to feel comfortable informing on anyone they have been brainwashed by educators to believe have offended them in anyway or poached into their safe zones. This is the BIG picture of what the “See Something, Say Something” campaign is about. The SMALL picture that is fed to the public is that this campaign is to fight the war on terrorism. Don’t fall for it and do not believe one small atom of this lie.

I was a federal agent working numerous Top Secret operations for our government for almost two decades. Without disclosing any classified information, I can inform the American public that disinformation operations are conducted by our government to fool our enemies and in many cases to fool the very American citizens our government is bound to be truthful to and protect. The See Something, Say Something is meant to control the American people more than it is meant to harm our enemies.

This can be proven in various ways, but I will give a very clear example for Americans to ponder: There are dozens of private American counterintelligence and counterterrorism professionals like myself who receive constant calls from Americans about legitimate suspicious activity especially in the area of Islamic based terrorism. I often give them advice to notify the FBI, but I warn them that likely the Agent will not take them serious, ridicule them, or even call them an outright Islamaphobe. I tell them this because numerous Americans have told me this is exactly what the FBI has done to them. This behavior is shameful and very, very un-American.

My point is that liberals (communists) within our government do not care about truly protecting this great land from Islamic terrorists or other threats, nor do they really care about what adult Americans “See and then Say Something” report. Again I repeat, our government (aside from a few within to include President Trump) only desire to brainwash our children to advance their liberal long term agenda to turn America into hell holes like Venezuela and Cuba.

It is the responsibility of conservative Americans to be mindful of what their children are being taught in schools and prepare their families for the soon to be violent civil war in America. Thankfully patriotic citizens elected President Trump because this gives patriots from 4 to 8 years to regroup and acquire the survival tools for the war we will soon have.

HERE ARE A FEW QUICKIES OF INTEL:

  1. There are now over 3000 Islamic mosques in America. 80 plus percent are Sunni Wahhabi and financed by Saudi Arabia. All are anti American.
  2. The FBI and CIA are liberal political machines designed to turn America into a socialist country.
  3. Illegal immigrants are a burden to America ten times more than they do any good whatsoever.
  4. Muslims (both violent and non violent) in America do not want to assimilate and put shariah law above the U.S. Constitution.
  5. ANTIFA and MS 13 are both criminal gangs who have no place in America.

Trump and Senators Offer Plans to Reorganize Bureaucracy, Drain the Swamp

/in , , , , , , /by

President Donald Trump’s administration released a plan June 21 that, if enacted, would impose some order on the sprawling administrative state—something that is long overdue.

Decades of ceaseless expansion of the size and scope of the federal government have created a bloated and inefficient federal bureaucracy, replete with agencies and offices with overlapping functions.

The Rube Goldberg-esque structure of the federal bureaucracy is not only expensive, it thickens the web of government red tape, makes government services less efficient, and makes mission failure more likely by splintering simple jobs among diffuse agencies.

Trump’s plan would begin the long process of rearranging the overgrown federal bureaucracy by grafting together agencies that do similar work and pruning away offices that have outlived their usefulness.

More on the specifics of the reorganization plan can be found here.

However, while the president directs the executive branch, its structure is largely the product of Congress. Through the legislative process, it creates departments and agencies, establishes their responsibilities, and determines their funding.

While Congress sometimes delegates authority to the president to determine how staff and funds are deployed or even how an agency is organized, major shakeups require congressional action.

Details of the Reforming Government Act

That’s where legislation introduced June 27 by Sens. Ron Johnson,  R-Wis., and James Lankford, R-Okla., comes in.

Their bill, the Reforming Government Act of 2018, would give the president the power to draw up a broad plan for reorganization—the specifics of which could go far beyond what his administration has already proposed—to be considered under expedited parliamentary procedures in Congress.

If the legislation passes, the president could draft a plan to create, abolish, or move entire departments of the federal government (or sub-units thereof). Agencies that have overlapping functions—for example, the Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service and the Food and Drug Administration, which also inspects food—could be merged.

Government services spread across dozens of agencies could be consolidated into the most appropriate agency. Financial education programs, for example, are currently operating across 20 agencies, and job training programs are even more diffuse, spread across 40 agencies.

There are literally hundreds of similar examples of overlap, fragmentation, and duplication that a reorganization plan could address.

The only limitations the Johnson-Lankford bill imposes is that the president’s reorganization plan must be “efficiency-enhancing.” That means that any plan would reduce the number of government agencies and save money, while preventing the merging, abolishing, or moving of independent agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Election Commission.

Once the president formulates a reorganization plan, the proposal would go to Congress for fast-track consideration.

Like other bills, the plan would first go through committees in both the House and Senate. But unlike other bills, those committees would only have 75 days to read it and provide their recommendations to the Congress at large. Once the 75 days lapse, the reorganization plan would leave committees for the floor automatically—with or without the committees’ recommendations.

After moving to the floor of Congress, debate would be limited to 10 hours, and then members would cast an up-or-down vote on final passage of the resolution. At no point along the way would amendments be allowed. Essentially, once a president formulates a reorganization plan, Congress has two choices: Take it or leave it.

Why This Is the Right Approach

Johnson and Lankford are wise to want to empower the executive branch to develop a government reorganization plan, instead of asking Congress to take on such a heavy lift.

Incidentally, they are not the first legislators to suggest such an approach—Sens. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and Mark Warner, D-Va., introduced a similar bill in 2012.

The president, along with his or her White House staff and political appointees in the departments are more deeply embedded in, intimately familiar with, and prepared to diagnose the ailments of the administrative state.

Past Congresses recognized the president’s comparative advantage in proposing and carrying out executive reorganizations, and from 1932 to 1984, the U.S. government enacted 93 separate executive reorganization plans. But, in 1984, Congress let this executive reorganization authority lapse.

Aside from expertise, there is another reason it might be better to leave reorganization largely in the hands of the president. Members of Congress—each of whom serves on a number of committees that oversee one or several departments—often have incentives to fight any reorganization plan that lessens their own influence.

While all members of Congress might agree that something must be done to pare back the sprawling federal bureaucracy in principle, each individual member of Congress is likely to adopt a NIMBY—“not in my backyard”—attitude to any concrete proposal that lessens the size and strength of the agencies under his or her committee’s or subcommittee’s jurisdiction.

The Promise of Reorganization

The Johnson-Lankford bill might be a popular way for members of Congress to meet their constituents’ demands to “drain the swamp.”

To be sure, this Congress has already done much to help the president cut back red tape. Using the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to strike down new federal regulations, it kept 16 costly Obama-era rules from going into effect. Prior to the 115th Congress, the Congressional Review Act had been used only once.

Reforming the structure of government is at least as pressing as checking its excesses. After all, the tangled, obscure, and almost impenetrable nature of the administrative state is what makes the swamp analogy such a popular description of Washington.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of John York

John York

John W. York, Ph.D., is a policy analyst in the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics at The Heritage Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLE: Government Spends $3 Million to Study Heavy Drinking, Aggression at Nightclubs

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 images is republished with permission. The featured image is of Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla. who has introduced legislation with Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., that would give President Donald Trump wide latitude to restructure executive agencies. (Photo: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom)

When the Giving Tree Stops Giving

/in , , , /by

The United States of America emerged from World War II as the world’s undisputed superpower economically and militarily. The Marshall Plan (officially the European Recovery Program, ERP) was an American initiative to aid Western Europe that gave over $13 billion (nearly $110 billion in 2016 US dollars) in economic assistance to help rebuild Western European communities after the end of the war. The Marshall Plan provided political stability for the world and created a world market for American good.

United States Secretary of State George Marshall delivered an explanatory speech to the graduating class of Harvard on June 5, 1947:

“The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down. … Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos. Any government that is willing to assist in recovery will find full co-operation on the part of the USA. Its purpose should be the revival of a working economy in the world so as to permit the emergence of political and social conditions in which free institutions can exist.

The Marshall Plan, also called the Foreign Assistance Act of 1948, had the descriptive title of:

“An act to promote world peace and the general welfare, national interest, and foreign policy of the United States through economic, financial, and other measures necessary to the maintenance of conditions abroad in which free institutions may survive and consistent with the maintenance of the strength and stability of the United States.”

It was with the best of intentions and the hopefulness of new parents that the United States looked to the future and assumed the temporary responsibilities of nurturing and protecting that are characteristic of parenthood. What happened?

Shel Silverstein’s 1964 classic The Giving Tree provides the answer. The Giving Tree explores the dynamics of giving and taking through the story of a boy and an apple tree. The tree loves the boy and gives him apples, shade, and a place to play. The boy happily takes what the giving tree gladly gives. As the boy gets older he continues to take without regard to the consequences for the giving tree. He takes her apples, her branches, and her trunk until all that is left of the giving tree is just a stump that the boy sits on.

The Giving Tree is a cautionary tale that illustrates how prolonging childhood “taking” and protracting childhood “giving” of unconditional love are destructive to the giver and to the taker.

The Marshall Plan was in operation for four years but created a paternalistic dependency upon the United States that has continued unabated for 70 years until President Donald Trump finally said, “Enough is enough.

” President Trump is determined to end the prolonged dependency by pressuring the countries of the world to become responsible self-supporting entities.

President Trump’s America first policies are designed to decrease the world’s dependence on America and reduce our unsustainable trade deficit. The United States has become the giving tree and President Trump will not allow her to become a stump. Americans need to understand the economics of dependence. This is how it works.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) founded in 1949 is a military alliance between America and 28 predominately European countries. Only five NATO countries currently pay their required share to protect their own countries – the US, Greece, Poland, Estonia, and the UK – America pays the difference. This means that America is subsidizing European socialist economies because the money not spent on their own NATO obligation is available for them to spend elsewhere. This dependent behavior is compounded by the unfair trade practices of the same nations.

When countries levy tariffs on American goods it raises the prices of those goods. Germany tariffs American cars at 10%, the United States tariffs German cars at 2.5% thus creating an unfavorable and unfair market for American products and an escalating unfavorable trade deficit for the United States. The current trade deficit with the EU is approximately 156 billion dollars.

So, the European dependence upon America is draining our own economy as it props up their socialist economies. As Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” President Donald Trump’s America first economic policies are widely criticized and rejected in Europe because for 70 years the Europeans have had the benefit of prolonged dependence on the USA and President Trump is telling them, “Enough is enough!” it is time for the European Union to become financially independent and stop taking from the giving tree!

The drama that is unfolding internationally is well known to parents of adult children who refuse to launch. In a jaw-dropping May 2018 case in upstate New York, 30 year old son Michael Rotondo refused to leave his parents’ home. These parents refused to become stumps – they sued their son in court to stop him from taking what they no longer wished to give. The judge ruled in the parents favor but the case leaves one acutely aware that something is seriously wrong when a grown son insists upon living like a child in his parents’ home. Michael Rotondo is the real life “boy” in The Giving Tree.

Parents who encourage and/or allow prolonged dependence cripple their children emotionally and endanger themselves economically. Dependence that is protracted and extended past childhood creates an inappropriate attitude of entitlement seen in the boy’s selfish lack of concern for the giving tree. President Donald Trump realizes that prolonged dependence is crippling Europe and has created an attitude of entitlement that will bankrupt America. The world is appalled by Michael Rotondo’s refusal to launch and supports the parents. Why should the world be any less appalled by 70 years of European dependence upon America? Enough is enough.

It is not surprising that adult children who have been allowed to live as dependents far past the appropriate time for such an arrangement will get angry when told to grow up and leave. The insulting blimp of an infant President Trump that flew disrespectfully over London is symptomatic of the psychological defense mechanism projection widely used by the President’s emotionally underdeveloped critics here and abroad. Projection is a tactic of reversal in which Person A accuses Person B for what Person A is actually doing. The London millennials who have refused to launch and who are demanding lifelong government support are angry with the giving tree for saying No. The infant blimp is a reflection of themselves.

Similarly, it is not surprising that our NATO allies are angry that President Trump has told them to pay their required share saying we will no longer subsidize their economies. It may not appear “Presidential” to speak so plainly about what makes Europe intensely uncomfortable, but it is precisely what will save America from bankruptcy. There is no legitimate reason for Angela Merkel to balk at paying Germany’s fair share of its NATO responsibility but Merkel keeps demanding more branches from the American giving tree.

Consider these numbers.

NATO members are required to pay 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to NATO for defense. GDP is the monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country’s borders in a specific time period. GDP is a measurement of a nation’s overall economic activity and economic health. The GDP of the United States is over 18.35 trillion dollars with a per capita GDP at $31,190. Germany has a national GDP of 3.4 trillion dollars with a per capita GDP at $34,065. Germany has a higher per capita GDP than the United States yet the US continues to pay a disproportionate 3.58% of its GDP supplying 70% of NATO’s indirect spending and Germany pays 1.22%.

According to the NATO website:

“Today, the volume of the US defence expenditure effectively represents some 67 per cent of the defence spending of the Alliance as a whole in real terms¹. This does not mean that the United States covers 67 per cent of the costs involved in the operational running of NATO as an organisation, including its headquarters in Brussels and its subordinate military commands, but it does mean that there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refueling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.”

An interesting article written by Marc Thiessan appeared in the Washington Post on 7/12/18 titled “Trump Isn’t Attacking NATO. He Is Strengthening It.” The article states that President Trump’s tough stance will strengthen NATO. Allies must pay their share and invest in real usable military capabilities or NATO will become irrelevant. “An alliance that cannot effectively join the fight when one of its members comes under attack or runs out of munitions in the middle of a military intervention is, by definition, irrelevant. NATO needs some tough love, and Trump is delivering it. Thanks to him, the alliance will be stronger as a result.”

President Trump’s America first foreign and domestic economic and military policies will end the prolonged European dependence on America. His protective policies will free America from their inappropriate dependence that continues to weaken our economy. The renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is part of President Trump’s America first effort to establish FAIR trade among nations and further reduce our unsustainable trade deficit.

President Trump is doing what Shel Silverstein’s giving tree should have done. Had the giving tree said No to the boy as he grew into adulthood, the boy would have become a man and the tree would not have become a stump. The countries that have been depleting America’s resources for 70 years have been put on notice. The President’s plain language has exposed the inconvenient truth that what was supposed to be temporary American support has morphed into unsustainable, inappropriate, destructive dependence upon America.

President Trump has told the world No! President Donald Trump will not allow the United States of America to become a stump.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity. The featured image is by Clker-Free-Vector-Images on Pixabay.

VIDEO: Hannity Interviews Clueless Anti-American Protesters in Londonstan

/in , , , , /by

Sean Hannity decided to go undercover to interview some of the protesters in London. These protesters were asked some simple questions and their answers are revealing.

Here’s Hannity in Londonstan:

RELATED ARTICLE: Former KGB Agent Explains The Brainwashing Of America

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Instagram.

Survey Shows Ron DeSantis winning the Republican Primary for Governor of Florida

/in , , , , /by

A statewide survey conducted by Remington Research Group shows Congressman Ron DeSantis winning the Republican primary for governor of Florida.

Following are the key questions/answers from the statewide survey:

Q1: Do you think the United States is heading in the right direction, or is it going off on the wrong track?

Right direction: 82%
Wrong track: 12%
Not sure: 6%

Q2: What is your opinion of Donald Trump?

Favorable: 88%
Unfavorable: 8%
No opinion: 3%

Q3: What is your opinion of Ron DeSantis?

Favorable: 49%
Unfavorable: 14%
No opinion: 36%

Q4: What is your opinion of Adam Putnam?

Favorable: 38%
Unfavorable: 23%
No opinion: 39%

Q5: Candidates in the August 28th Republican Primary Election for Governor are Don Baldauf, Ron DeSantis, Timothy Devine, Bob Langford, John Joseph Mercadante, Bruce Nathan, Adam Putnam, and Bob White. If the election were held today, for whom would you vote?

Don Baldauf: 2%
Ron DeSantis: 43%
Timothy Devine: 2%
Bob Langford: 1%
John Joseph Mercadante: 0%
Bruce Nathan: 1%
Adam Putnam: 26%
Bob White: 1%
Undecided: 25%

Q6: If the candidates in the August 28th Republican Primary Election for Governor were just Ron DeSantis and Adam Putnam, for whom would you vote?

Ron DeSantis: 45%
Adam Putnam: 30%
Undecided: 25%

Q9: Thinking about the various types of voters in the Republican Party, which type of Republican do you consider yourself to be? Traditional/Establishment, Christian Conservative, Libertarian, a Trump
Republican or Tea Party?

Traditional/Establishment: 13%
Christian Conservative: 37%
Libertarian: 8%
Trump Republican: 32%
Tea Party: 5%
Other: 4%

Read the full results of the Remington Research Group survey.

EDITORS NOTE: The Remington Research Group survey was conducted July 2 and July 5, 2018. 2,826 likely 2018 Republican Primary Election voters participated in the survey. Survey weighted to match expected turnout demographics for the 2018 Republican Primary Election. The survey over sampled the Tampa media market with 1,462 interviews. Effective post weighted sample size is 1,470 with a margin of error of +/-1.84% and a 95% level of confidence.

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.