Security guard wounded in first ISIS attack in U.S. sues FBI, charges cover-up

Good for Bruce Joiner. There are many, many unanswered questions about what happened at Garland, and about the FBI was doing there. 60 Minutes ran a feature last March about the FBI curious role in the May 2015 Garland, Texas jihad attack at a free speech event co-organized by Pamela Geller and me. It was, predictably enough, viciously biased, sloppy, and incomplete, but it was nonetheless illuminating in raising a hard and unanswerable question: did the FBI want Pamela Geller and me dead?

Despite the fact that the jihad attack took place at our event, neither Geller nor I appear, except in one still photo, in the 60 Minutes piece. All they say is that “a self-described free speech advocate named Pamela Geller was holding a provocative contest.”

Despite all the predictable politically correct whitewashing and appeasement, CBS did a good job of highlighting a curious and still unexplained aspect of the attack: the FBI clearly knew the attack was coming (although it didn’t bother to inform us or our security team), as the FBI agent was right there, following behind the jihadis, whom he had encouraged to “tear up Texas.” But even though they knew the attack was coming, they didn’t have a team in place to stop the jihadis. They had one man there, and one man only. The jihadis were not stopped by FBI agents, but by our own security team. If the jihadis had gotten through our team, they would have killed Pamela Geller and me, and many others. (They would no doubt have loved to kill Geert Wilders, but he left before they arrived.)

The Daily Beast wrote in August 2016 about how this undercover FBI agent encouraged the jihadis. The Beast’s Katie Zavadski wrote: “Days before an ISIS sympathizer attacked a cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, he received a text from an undercover FBI agent. ‘Tear up Texas,’ the agent messaged Elton Simpson days before he opened fire at the Draw Muhammad event, according to an affidavit (pdf) filed in federal court Thursday.”

What was the FBI’s game in telling them to “tear up Texas”? Why didn’t they have a phalanx of agents in place, ready to stop the attack? Or did they want the attack to succeed, so that Barack Obama’s vow that “the future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam” would be vividly illustrated, and intimidate any other Americans who might be contemplating defending the freedom of speech into silence?

We twice asked the FBI for an investigation into this matter. They ignored us. Of course. After all, it isn’t as if this happened to someone important, like Linda Sarsour.

Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi, soldiers of ISIS.

“Victim of ‘Draw Muhammad’ ISIS-inspired terror attack sues FBI, accuses James Comey of cover-up,” by Todd Shepherd, Washington Examiner, October 2, 2017 (thanks to Marc):

The security guard wounded in a 2015 ISIS-inspired terrorist attack at the “Draw Muhammad” event in Garland, Texas, is suing the FBI, and argues the bureau is liable for his damages because an agent “solicited, encouraged, directed and aided members of ISIS in planning and carrying out the May 3 attack,” according to court documents filed Monday.

If the plaintiff, Bruce Joiner, doesn’t settle with the bureau, the case could shake loose hundreds of documents from both local and federal officials about what happened that day, and could answer the question of why an FBI agent was in a car directly behind the attackers and did nothing as the events unfolded.

In May of 2015, Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi drove from their home in Phoenix to the Curtis Culwell center in Garland where the “Draw Muhammad” contest was being held, in a car loaded with three rifles, three handguns, and about 1,500 rounds of ammunition.

The two never made it inside, as guards, including Joiner, stopped them outside at a perimeter checkpoint, at which time Simpson and Soofi opened fire. Because the event was heavily guarded, the two were quickly shot and killed and barely made past the checkpoint where they opened fire.

Joiner was the only victim that day. He took a bullet to the left leg, and ISIS would later claim credit for orchestrating the attack, making it the first ISIS-backed terror event on U.S. soil.

Joiner’s lawsuit is seeking just over $8 million in damages, and argues that the FBI essentially allowed the attack to happen.

“The FBI helped the terrorists obtain a weapon that was used in the attack by lifting a hold during a background check, incited the terrorist to attack the Garland event, and even sent an agent to accompany the terrorists as they carried out the attack,” the court filing said.

The filing also alleged that former FBI Director Jim Comey lied in a “post-attack cover-up” about the bureau’s knowledge of how the attack unfolded and what Comey and the bureau knew about what was likely to transpire.

“In the aftermath of the attack, former FBI Director James Comey lied to the American people by claiming that Simpson was a needle in a haystack’ that was ‘invisible to us,’” the filing alleged. “Even after it had come to light that an undercover FBI agent had been communicating extensively with the terrorists during the week prior to the event and had accompanied them as they carried out the attack, the FBI continued to assert that “[t]here was no advance knowledge of a plot to attack the cartoon drawing contest.”

The FBI did not respond to a request for comment.

Since the attack, a separate court case and a “60 Minutes” report in March revealed that an undercover FBI agent was in the car directly behind Simpson and Soofi when they opened fire, and was even taking pictures of the car about 30 seconds before the first shots were fired. That case even revealed that the agent had texted Simpson just weeks before with the message, “Tear up Texas.”

Shortly after the first shots were fired, the agent fled, and was briefly detained by Garland Police, as seen in a video still from WFAA TV in Dallas.

Because of a separate court case tangentially related to Simpson and Soofi, it’s known that the FBI had been monitoring Simpson for years, and that the FBI agent was undercover in the Phoenix ISIS cell had direct contact with them routinely in the months leading up to the attack.

Joiner’s attorney, Trenton Roberts told the Washington Examiner this year that he now believes the FBI might have been willing to let the attack unfold to even greater lengths.

“It seems like it had to have been one or the other,” Roberts told the Washington Examiner in April. “Just a complete botched operation where they [the FBI] don’t want the attack to actually take place, or, it’s something where they need the attack to take place in order for this guy [the agent] to advance in the world of ISIS.”

“And that’s really what I think. I think that they thought, ‘he’s undercover and in order to advance, he needed to get pictures or video of this attack,’ and then that would bolster his street cred within ISIS,” Roberts said….

RELATED ARTICLE: Paris: Five Muslims arrested for jihad bomb plot in apartment building in “chic” Paris neighborhood

Kimmel to Clinton, Appalling Democrats Pounce on Massacre for Political Gain

It happens. Every…single…time. Another mass shooting, another mass effort by Democrats to squeeze out some political gain.

In these circumstances, this is beyond the pale of normal ugly politics. It’s vicious, cold-hearted, self-centered, void of common decency, almost a sickness in part because of the rapidity of the response.

Literally within hours of a psychopath in Las Vegas slaughtering 59 people and injuring more than 600 others at a country western concert, leading Democrats in Congress, the media and entertainment everywhere were falling all over themselves to get their holier-than-thou positioning out to the masses — well, their masses anyway. They had one overarching goal: Turn an act of human evil to their political advantage.

It is as Democrat Rahm Emanuel, former Obama advisor and current Chicago mayor, infamously said: “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Democrats’ endless efforts to limit gun ownership and interpret the Second Amendment as essentially rifle hunting, continually fail because they cannot get such laws through Congress. There are never the votes and the American people largely get the Second Amendment. Further, the policy prescriptions after each mass shooting are never related to the shooting or would have prevented it — from Sandy Hook to Orlando to Las Vegas.

There are no reflections on the condition of human nature, on the reality of evil, on the price of freedom. No, these killings are all simply opportunity crises not to be wasted.

Going through just a sampling of the responses, it is clear that this is not some responsible “gun control” measures, but pure political opportunism, because none of them propose anything that either can pass or is not already illegal.

Democrats could have joined with Republicans to donate blood and call for blood donors, as the mayor of Las Vegas immediately said blood was desperately needed right after the massacre. This humane response in the following hours would have been a uniting action and maybe opened the door for legislative actions. But it would not have been politically advantageous.

So we got this.

Democratic Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted: “It is long past time for Congress to take action on gun safety to save innocent lives.” Vacuous in content and relevance to the shooting; meant to score political points.

Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted a series of tweets: “Thoughts & prayers are NOT enough. Not when more moms & dads will bury kids this week, & more sons & daughters will grow up without parents. Tragedies like Las Vegas have happened too many times. We need to have the conversation about how to stop gun violence. We need it NOW.” But she doesn’t mean a true conversation, she means take guns away from Americans.

Democratic Sen. Ed Markey tweeted: “Let’s close the close the gun show loophole.” Yes, he was so anxious to get this out the morning after the night shooting, he fired off typos. But of course, when he tweeted this, he had no idea (and we  still don’t as of the writing of this) where the killer got his weapons. The “gun show loophole” isn’t any more real than me selling a gun to a friend “loophole” because all of the dealers in the gunshow must follow all of the normal laws. And there is no evidence that any mass shooting has been accomplished through this supposed loophole. Just gross opportunism.

Former Democratic Vice President Joe Biden tweeted: “How long do we let gun violence tear families apart? Enough. Congress & the WH should act now to save lives. There’s no excuse for inaction.” Just as vacuous as Sanders. No thought for cause, motive, the reality of evil. It’s all about the gun.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin tweeted: “The notion that there’s no way to prevent gun violence is false — and without action to stop gun attacks, Congress is complicit in them.” This is the height of politicizing absurdity considering the level of violence in Chicago and the fact that it has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. No shame.

Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton is a special kind of ugly on this issue. After tweeting he would not participate in a moment of silence in Congress over the slaughtered Americans, he tweeted: “Thinking of everyone in #LasVegas, and praying Congress will have the courage to do more than stand in silence to commemorate them.” Using the word “prayer” to make a tasteless political statement while blood is still on the ground in Vegas is grotesque.

Moulton went on to say assault rifles “have no place on American streets.” Right. And they are already illegal. Machine guns, fully automatic weapons are illegal unless you have one grandfathered in from before 1986. Moulton knows this. Just egregious.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal said in a statement: “…Congress refuses to act. I am more than frustrated, I am furious.” Again, empty political posturing.

The biggest bogeyman in the Democratic failure to restrict gun rights for law-abiding Americans is the National Rifle Association.

So Hillary Clinton tweeted just a few hours after the shooting: “Our grief isn’t enough. We can and must put politics aside, stand up to the NRA, and work together to try to stop this from happening again,” Clinton wrote. Later in the day, it had 172,000 likes.

It’s important to remember in all of this rush for more gun control, the killer was apparently using a weapon that is already illegal. So…what exactly are they saying?

It’s not just Democrat politicians. It’s celebrities, who are overwhelmingly Democrat and far more unhinged.

Late Night comedian Jimmy Kimmel, who has become hyper-partisan on health care and now gun control (guaranteeing his ratings will drop) smeared vast swaths of America telling his audience that Congressional Republicans “should be praying for God to forgive them for letting the gun lobby run this country because it’s so crazy.” Sure, that will result in positive change. But Jimmy feels good about himself.

Singer and noted political commentator Lady Gaga tweeted: “Prayers are important but @SpeakerRyan @realDonaldTrump blood is on the hands of those who have power to legislate. #GunControl act quickly.” Sigh.

Alyssa Milano, who gets an awful lot wrong, tweeted: “Sensible gun control NOW.” Because it would have stopped this, or Orlando or Sandy Hook?

Singer Sheryl Crow, a light thinker among light thinkers, tweeted: “Can we discuss the loss of rights of people going to a concert because of the lack of assault rifle regulations?” Again…assault rifles have been banned since 1986.

Actress Sophia Bush tweeted:

“Dear Donald.

Fuck you for this.
Truly.
Sincerely,
America”

Reaching for the Clinton bogeyman, House of Cards creator Beau Willimon‏ tweeted: “Don’t bring politics into the Las Vegas shooting? Okay, we’ll stop with the politics as soon as politicians stop taking money from the @NRA

It’s not newsworthy but requires pointing out that, of course, the mainstream media immediately went all in on gun control with their Democrat allies. Before motive, cause, gun type, legality of ownership — before any facts were established — the media hammered every Republican and White House spokesperson possible on gun control.

And of course, throughout all of these, the vitriolic Trump hatred is right at the surface. CNN’s senior White House correspondent Jeff Zeleny inexplicably said in his post-Trump speech “analysis:” “Something else, I think, to keep in mind — a lot of these country music supporters are likely Trump supporters.” Wow. Just wow.

The problem with this is threefold:

  1. Going partisan political within hours of the massacre to play on raw emotion is repulsive behavior.
  2. Seeking policy changes before any information is known on which to base policy changes inevitably results in bad policy.
  3. These actions immediately polarized Americans again when there could have been a moment of unity. When there might be opportunity to reach out and make whatever changes Democrats think are good, they instead went into high dudgeon attack mode, guaranteed to turn off anyone who might have considered working with them.

And this means among the politicians anyway it was all aimed at political gain. Period.

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

VIDEOS: Mass shooting at music festival on the Las Vegas strip

“Right-wing extremists”? Or…?

“Mass shooting at music festival on the Las Vegas strip,” by Chris Perez, New York Post, October 2, 2017:

A gunman opened fire during a country music festival in Las Vegas on Sunday night — shooting multiple people with a high-powered assault rifle before fleeing the scene, according to reports.

At least 24 people were shot, including two fatally, according to Reuters.

Las Vegas police responded to the Mandalay Bay Hotel and Casino at around 10 p.m. after receiving calls about an active shooter targeting concertgoers at the Route 91 country music fest.

About an hour later police confirmed at least one suspect is down.

“This is an active investigation,” they added.

Cops were urging people to avoid the area as SWAT teams searched for the gunman.

Witnesses reported seeing a police officer down, but authorities couldn’t immediately confirm this.

University Medical Center spokeswoman Danita Cohen said the local hospital had taken in “several” people with gunshot wounds. She didn’t offer any more details.

One Las Vegas hospital reported treating at least 20 victims with gunshot wounds, according to KABC.

Professional poker player and Instagram star Dan Bilzerian, who was at the concert, said on his IG story that he saw the shooting unfold and witnessed a girl getting shot right in front of him.

“Holy f–k this girl just got shot in the f–king head,” Bilzerian said. “So f–king crazy…So I had to go grab a gun, I’m f–king heading back…Some kind of mass shooting…Guy had a heavy caliber weapon for sure…Saw a girl f–king get shot in the face right next to me, her brains f–king hanging out.”

Another witness, who spoke to News3LV, recalled how “bullets were flying everywhere” and concertgoers were running….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Who is Stephen Paddock? Las Vegas shooting suspect named as 64-year-old man

Post-jihad attack, Edmonton cop warns against “backlashes against people of colour and Muslims”

Give Everyone a Raise through Payroll Tax Cuts

Income tax cuts are great, but it’s not the best way to help lower- and middle-class workers.

James Capretta

by  James Capretta

Republicans are just getting started with their effort to reform individual and corporate taxes, but already it is possible to see warning signs ahead. Opponents of reform say the effort will mainly benefit high-income households, who don’t need the help. They ignore the effect lower marginal rates will have on economic growth and job creation.

Tax reform could falter if the public perceives it as a giveaway to the rich. Republicans can partially blunt the effectiveness of these attacks by including in their plan a reduction in payroll tax rates, which would directly help the middle class.

Why Payroll Taxes?

The payroll tax is a much heavier burden on the middle class than income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center, 62 percent of all taxpaying households paid more in payroll taxes than income taxes in 2017; and 67 percent of households with incomes below $100,000 in annual income paid more in payroll taxes. The average effective payroll tax rate for households in the middle quintile of the income distribution was 8 percent in 2016, well above the average effective rate of 3.5 percent for income taxes.

In the past, policymakers have been wary of cutting payroll taxes because the revenue is used to pay for Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) benefits, and both programs are projected to run short of funds in the future. The current tax rate for Social Security is 12.4 percent of wages, split evenly between workers and their employers, up to a maximum of $127,200 in 2017. Social Security has an unfunded liability of $12.5 trillion over the next 75 years.Workers and employers also pay a combined 2.9 percent tax for Medicare, and there is no limit on the amount of wages subject to the tax. High earners — individuals who earn above $200,000 and couples who earn above $250,000 — pay an additional Medicare tax of 0.9 percent.  The Medicare HI trust fund has an unfunded liability of $3.3 trillion over the next 75 years.

In 2011 and 2012, President Obama supported and Congress enacted a 2 percentage point reduction in the employee portion of the Social Security payroll tax, reducing revenue by about $100 billion in 2011 and slightly more in 2012. The law transferred an identical amount of funds from the general fund of the Treasury to Social Security to prevent depletion of the program’s trust funds.

Congress could enact another payroll tax rate cut of 1.5 to 2 percentage points without depleting the Social Security or Medicare trust funds and without relying on another transfer of funds from the Treasury. Tax reform is supposed to be about cutting tax rates as well as broadening the tax base by closing loopholes and limiting tax breaks. There are a number of tax breaks that reduce the amount of payroll tax revenue collected by the government that could be narrowed to help pay for a cut in the payroll tax rate.

How to Do It

For starters, the exclusion of employer-paid health-insurance premiums from taxation will reduce payroll taxes by $1.8 trillion over the period 2017 to 2026. Capping the amount that is tax-free at the 75th percentile of plan premiums would increase payroll tax revenue by about $72 billion over 10 years. In addition, employer-paid premiums for disability and other income-replacement programs are excluded from the taxable compensation of workers.  Limiting that exclusion could provide at least another $100 billion in payroll tax revenue over 10 years. In a large tax reform package, there are likely to be additional opportunities to increase payroll tax collections by broadening the tax base.

Further, the full benefits of a payroll tax cut could be limited to households with incomes below a certain threshold, such as $75,000 per year. (The income tax system could gradually recapture lost payroll tax revenue from households with higher incomes.) The tax cut could also be time-limited in the initial legislation, so as to fit within available offsetting revenue increases, and then extended later as more offsets were identified.A cut in the payroll tax rate would be good for workers. A 2 percentage point reduction in the total tax would increase the after-tax income of a household with $50,000 in earned income by $1,000. Cutting payroll taxes would also boost economic growth by encouraging more work. A cut in the tax rate could, at least in theory, reduce the supply of labor by boosting the income of workers who could then substitute more time off for time at work. But there is substantial evidence that high marginal tax rates on labor generally have the opposite effect: discouraging work by reducing its value to workers with high taxes.

Some skeptics of cutting payroll taxes argue that because Social Security and Medicare benefits are partly based on what an individual earns while working, the economic value of such a cut is lessened, as workers equate payroll taxes with contributions toward their retirement. But the benefits owed to workers under Social Security are based on the amount of wages earned by the worker, not the taxes paid on those wages. Consequently, a cut in the payroll tax rate would in no way lessen future Social Security benefits. Further, the opaqueness and complexity of the Social Security benefit formula make it near impossible for the average worker to make a sensible connection between what he earns and what he will get in retirement. (There is often very little connection, anyway.) Medicare benefits are in no way tied to the amount of taxes paid or even to overall earnings. Instead, workers must meet a minimum threshold of wages over a 10-year period to become eligible for coverage at age 65.

By focusing tax reform on the individual and corporate income tax systems, Republicans have made their task more difficult than it should be. The federal income tax is already progressive; low and moderate wage households pay little in income taxes. But, in relative terms, they still pay a lot of payroll taxes. Cutting that tax is the best way to deliver real tax relief to families that need it most as well as to increase the value of their work effort.

Reprinted from American Enterprise Institute

James Capretta

James Capretta

James C. Capretta is a resident fellow and holds the Milton Friedman Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, where he studies health care, entitlement, and US budgetary policy, as well as global trends in aging, health, and retirement programs. In 2015 and 2016, he directed two major studies: one on reforming US health care according to market principles and consumer choice, and the second on reforming major federal entitlement programs to promote greater personal responsibility, focus limited resources on those most in need, and lower long-term federal expenditures.

Four Reasons the NFL is Dead Wrong on Protests [+Video]

NFL football is the most popular American sport, so popular that only two days separate the end of one weekend on Monday Night Football and the beginning of the next on Thursday Night Football. The extension from formerly just a Sunday afternoon sport has meant the National Football League has become a giant money machine for players, owners and commissioners.

But the NFL has made what may ultimately become the fatal error of becoming an outward political entity. The NFL is now a full-bore politically liberal organization that — literally — bans dissent it disagrees with but allows protests its fan base disagrees with. It’s the classic modern liberal misreading of the American people.

The media establishment laughingly now wants to blame President Trump for the division in the country regarding the NFL, as though this all started last week. Trump certainly threw some gas on a fire, but all of us football fans have been watching with frustration the existing fire that was burning a divide in America.

The NFL, led by Commissioner Roger Goodell, could have doused the initial flames with a tiny tea cup of water. But it did not because it is now driven by a clearly manifested liberal ideology — and there is no better way to divide Americans and destroy a popular pastime than to do what it is doing.

Here are four reasons the NFL — from players to Commissioner Goodell — is dead wrong to be kneeling during the National Anthem to protest police killing black men.

1. NFL is overtly hypocritical in speech it bans

Remember, protesting is political speech. It is protected by 1st Amendment from government control and everyone cherishes that right. But it is not protected by private enterprises, such as sports leagues or businesses. The hypocrisy is clearly seen in what the NFL actually has stopped.

  • The NFL banned the Dallas Cowboys from wearing a decal last year on their helmets honoring the murdered Dallas police officers.
  • The NFL banned players from wearing socks with Sept. 11 on them in memorial of those killed in the 9-11 Islamist terrorist attacks.
  • The NFL forced Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III to turn his Christian T-Shirt inside out for a press conference.

Let’s not pretend this is free speech or protest. This is some free speech and protest. The NFL is more than happy to come down like a sledgehammer on speech that might, in the most general way, be considered right of center politically. But it then allows speech that might broadly be considered left of center.

This makes the NFL leadership a classic modern liberal organization acting in political ways to further an agenda with no adherence whatsoever to principles. They are closer to the anti-free speech codes on college campuses than they are to their fan base. This represents an ongoing problem for the League.

2. NFL is killing its ratings

Viewership and attendance at NFL games continues to decline as the protests continue to escalate. In fact, they cratered this past weekend in a way that ought to be shocking to League leadership.

The Associate Press reports:

“Through three weeks, viewership for national telecasts of NFL games is down 11 percent this season compared to 2016, the Nielsen company said on Tuesday. Nielsen said the games averaged 17.63 million viewers for the first three weeks of last season, and have dipped to 15.65 million this year.”

That is a drop of two million viewers year over year. The hugely popular Sunday Night Football game dropped 8 percent compared to just the previous week, when it was already down from last year.

3. NFL is killing its loyal fan base

Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow prays after the Broncos defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers in overtime in the NFL AFC wildcard playoff football game in Denver, Colorado, January 8, 2012. REUTERS/Marc Piscotty

In response to the entire Pittsburgh Steelers’ team (minus one Army Ranger veteran) staying off the field for the National Anthem, a wave of long-time, hardcore Steelers fans have been burning Steelers jackets, hats and other gear. One fan since 1966 burned all of his Steelers’ stuff.

Season-ticket holders around the country burned their expensive and once-beloved tickets.

And somewhat eye-openingly, New England Patriots’ fans loudly booed players kneeling for the National Anthem. The boos just cascaded down onto the field in waves.

It’s one thing for fans from a blue-collar, rust-belt flyover city like Pittsburgh to do this. But in elite, liberal coastal Boston? Yes. Because football fans are on average to the right of center politically, and certainly when it comes to patriotism and national symbols.

The NFL seems unaware of this.

One Steelers player now famously stood in the tunnel with his hand over his heart during the National Anthem. Starting offensive lineman Alejandro Villanueva was an Army Ranger before entering the NFL, serving three tours of duty in Afghanistan.

Last season, he made comments critical of San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick, whose anthem protest lit the fire for other players to follow suit. “I don’t know if the most effective way is to sit down during the national anthem with a country that’s providing you freedom, providing you $16 million a year … when there are black minorities that are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for less than $20,000 a year,” Villanueva told ESPN.

By last Monday afternoon, the largely unknown offensive lineman’s jersey was the best-selling jersey in the NFL, beating out Tom Brady and other household names.

That is fans openly communicating in clear terms to the League that they do not support what it is allowing. The NFL apparently has forgotten that there is no NFL without the fans. But the fans have not forgotten. And they are putting the League on notice.

4. Last but not least, the actual issue being protested is a myth

We are told that there is an epidemic of cops killing unarmed black men. This storyline is the genesis for Black Lives Matter, but more to the point, it is the initial issue driving the kneeling or sitting during the National Anthem.

But it’s not true.

The Wall Street Journal’s Jason Riley, a black columnist, explains through facts and data — not anecdotes and perceptions — what most of the media refuses to.

“In New York City, home to the nation’s largest police force, officer-involved shootings have fallen by more than 90% since the early 1970s, and national trends have been similarly dramatic.

“A Justice Department report published in 2001 noted that between 1976 and 1998, the teen and adult population grew by 47 million people, and the number of police officers increased by more than 200,000, yet the number of people killed by police “did not generally rise” over this period. Moreover, a ‘growing percentage of felons killed by police are white, and a declining percentage are black.” A separate Justice study released in 2011 also reported a decline in killings by police, between 1980 and 2008. And according to figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the rate at which police kill blacks has fallen by 70% since the late 1960s.”

Heather MacDonald, of the Manhattan Institute, is a foremost researcher on the issue and reports stunning facts opposite of the media/Democrat narrative. For instance, 12 percent of white and Hispanic homicide victims are killed by cops. But only 4 percent of black homicide victims are killed by cops. A police officer is 18 times more likely to be killed by an armed black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. You can see many more of her stats at this Prager U video:

These are facts, not emotions or perceptions or Youtube videos. It’s understood that Democrats do not use contextual facts that actually tell the full truth because dividing by race has been a political ploy for three generations now. The media, essentially Democrats with press credentials, also doesn’t report contextual facts. Social media is social media.

So here’s another fun fact that can be used even on Twitter: A black person is more likely to be hit by lightning than to be killed by a cop in the United States of America. That’s how rare it is.

Yet because of social media and unconscionable hyper media coverage of individual events, blacks now think that if they are pulled over by a cop there’s a good chance they will be shot. This is the alleged “social injustice” that has brought NFL players to disrespect the flag, the National Anthem and the country that has given them freedom and wealth and hope.

NFL fans understand this, at least at the gut level. If the NFL doesn’t get its act in line with its fan base — which represents an awful lot of Americans — it will stop being the most popular sport in the nation. And it will do so for no sound reason but partisan politics.

Just the worst.

RELATED ARTICLE: Boycott the NFL on Veterans Weekend, Sunday, November 12th

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:

Fall o’ the Leader? House Urges McConnell’s Ouster

If anyone’s ready to turn the page on September, it’s Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). The last few weeks haven’t exactly been kind to the Kentucky senator, who watched his own party set fire to the latest GOP health care repeal, blew millions of dollars on a losing effort in Alabama’s Senate runoff, and got blamed for all of it by Donald Trump. “He’s got his hands full,” said Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the understatement of the year.

But lately, Republicans are wondering if the party’s fate should be in his hands in the first place. After days of disappointments, voters aren’t the only ones peeved by the Senate leadership’s inability to move the conservative agenda forward. So are some Members of Congress. In the House, where leaders have kept up their end of the Obamacare, Planned Parenthood, tax, and budget bargains, “frustrating” doesn’t begin to describe members’ feelings. Despite their differences, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) has managed to send key bills to the Senate only to watch them die at the hands of a divided and disorganized caucus. After 10 years as the GOP’s top dog, some Republicans are saying it’s time for McConnell to call it quits.

Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.) didn’t beat around the bush with his criticism, insisting earlier today that it’s in the party’s best interest for the Kentucky senator to retire. “I think he’s a huge part of the problem,” the RSC chief told NBC. “There’s a growing consensus that would be very happy if the fine senator from Kentucky called it a career.” McConnell’s counterpart wasn’t as blunt as Walker, but even Speaker Ryan was clear that tensions between the two chambers had hit a boiling point. “We’re really frustrated,” he told reporters. “Look,” he went on, “we passed 373 bills here in the House [and] 270-some are still in the Senate.” No wonder they’re irritated. The House’s pace is blowing past the marks it set in the Obama, Clinton, and both Bush administrations.

On his side of the Capitol, McConnell’s party is circling the wagons. “Mitch is sort of the symbol of our dysfunction,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said, “but it’s not about Mitch, it’s about all of us.” Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson (R) pointed out the difficulty of the Leader’s job. “It’s hard herding cats. I don’t envy him his task, okay?” Few do. But leaders are chosen to rise above those challenges and unite their party. Senator McConnell has had a decade as the chamber’s top Republican to prove that he can. I respect McConnell, but there’s no excuse for faltering now — not when the GOP has the keys to Congress and the White House.

The Senate has been a graveyard for almost every promise made to voters. It’s time for a radical overhaul. And if Republicans won’t do it — voters will.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Also in the September 29 Washington Update:

Trump Courts Conservatives with Solid Judges

Voters Ask White House to Man up on Mandate

RELATED ARTICLE: The Washington Corruption that is the ‘Swamp’

GOP Reform Stops Voters in Their Tax

If you’re looking for some light reading, skip the federal tax code. Clocking in at 74,608 pages, it’s one of the most complicated and cumbersome documents Washington has ever produced. House Republicans are pledging to change that, unveiling a simple nine-page framework for rewriting the guiding document for the most loathed agencies in D.C.: the IRS. At a mini-retreat yesterday, the GOP tried to regroup on its next big project now that the health care repeal is stuck in Senate limbo until the next fiscal year. One way Republicans are hoping to woo back angry voters is by slashing their sky-high taxes and letting families keep more of their hard-earned money. For House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), Budget Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), this has been a longtime goal — one that President Trump is determined to make a reality.

At a speech in Indiana yesterday, the president called it a “once-in-a-generation opportunity.” The billionaire businessman was quick to remind people that they have a Tax-Expert-in-Chief. “I guess it’s probably something I could say that I’m very good at. We’re going to cut taxes for the middle class, make the tax code simpler and fairer for everyday Americans. And we are going to bring back the jobs and wealth that have left our country and most people thought left our country for good.”

Together with House Republicans, he wants to reduce the personal income tax brackets from seven to three (12 percent, 25 percent, and 35 percent), double the standard deduction for married and single filers, cut the corporate tax rate to 20 percent, and kill the death tax, among other things. Since proposing the very first child tax credit, FRC has fought to make the family — the engine of the economy — the center of tax reform. But instead of rewarding families for their role, the government punishes them – not realizing that what Washington does to family budgets has long-term effects on the country as a whole.

The GOP blueprint makes the tax code fairer, simpler, and more efficient. Conservatives should cheer the increase of the child tax credit, end of the estate tax, and the inclusion of a care credit, which lets families better provide for their loved ones. Unlike the Obama administration, which threatened to turn philanthropy upside-down, the Republican plan keeps the tax incentives for charitable contributions.

If all goes according to plan (a big “if” in this Congress!), the House hopes to have the bill to the Senate by the end of October and to Trump’s desk by year-end. If they can manage it, Americans would have a lot more jingle in their pockets this Christmas!


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Also in the September 28 Washington Update:

The Plane Truth about HHS’s Private Jets

Steve Scalise’s Miraculous Return to Congress

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP’s Top Tax Writer Promises More Jobs, Bigger Paychecks With Reform

Tax Reform Just Got Real. Why the GOP Tax Plan Is Great News for America.

Here’s How Much Money the NFL Rakes in From Taxpayers

The National Football League is now plunged into politics as players throughout the sport kneel for the national anthem and President Donald Trump continues to rebuke them publicly.

Undoubtedly, the situation has left many fans and non-fans of the league conflicted or angry.

This fiasco may, however, open the eyes of the public to a serious and generally unchecked issue: billionaire NFL owners sponging enormous amounts of money from taxpayers through crony capitalist schemes.

The fact is that a business that raked in $14 billion in revenue in 2016 is heavily subsidized by local, state, and federal money based on dubious claims about stimulating the economy.

The problem is rampant.

One report on Watchdog.org said that over the past two decades, the NFL has raked in about $7 billion of taxpayer money to spend on stadium renovation and building.

Another study from the Brookings Institution showed that federal taxpayers have subsidized the construction of 36 stadiums at a cost of over $3.2 billion since 2000.

Michael Sargent, an infrastructure expert at The Heritage Foundation, wrote about how sports teams use specially crafted tax breaks to get the public to finance their massive projects.

“Tax-exempt municipal bonds are typically reserved for public-use projects such as bridges, water systems, and other infrastructure,” Sargent wrote for The Daily Signal. “Yet because of a loophole in the tax code, private-use stadiums can take advantage of this tax break, and have done so prolifically.”

In fact, only a handful of NFL and other major league teams use privately-financed venues to host their games.

It would seem after sinking enormous investments into sports franchises, cities would reap serious financial benefits in return.

But this isn’t the case at all.

Research from George Mason University has shown that not only do communities gain almost no economic benefits from subsidized sports teams, but some findings “indicate harmful effects of sports on per capita income, wage and salary disbursements, and wages per job.”

Recently released polls show national anthem protests are deeply unpopular with the American people, but polls also show that the taxpayer funding of sports is also widely disliked.

When likely voters in Nevada were asked if they favored or opposed using $500 million in taxpayer dollars to fund a stadium for the Oakland Raiders to move to Las Vegas, they overwhelmingly said “no.”

According to the KTNV-TV 13 Action News/Rasmussen Reports poll, 60 percent of Nevada voters opposed the funding, and only 28 percent supported it.

Given the massive discontent over national anthem kneeling and rampant politicization of the once unifying sport of football, perhaps now Americans will turn a more skeptical eye toward how their sports teams rely on public money and actually do something about it.

There are some in Congress who have taken notice.

“In America, if you want to play sports, you’re free to do so. If you want to protest, you’re free to do so,” Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said in a Tuesday speech, according to The Washington Post. “But you should do so on your own time and on your own dime.”

Recent bipartisan legislation on Capitol Hill aimed to strip federal funding from sports teams. A bill sponsored by Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla., and Cory Booker, D-N.J., would prevent teams from using municipal bonds that are exempt from federal taxes.

Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., introduced a similar bill in the House.

Lankford said in a statement in June:

The federal government is responsible for a lot of important functions, but financing sports stadiums for multimillion—sometimes billion—dollar franchises is definitely not one of them. Using billions of federal taxpayer dollars for the subsidization of private stadiums when we have real infrastructure needs in our country is not a good way to prioritize a limited amount of funds.

This movement has picked up steam in recent weeks, according to Kerry Picket of The Daily Caller.

On Tuesday, Gaetz became the lead sponsor of legislation that would end the tax-exempt status of professional sports leagues.

NFL and other sports teams have a deep financial interest in getting taxpayers to pay their bills, so it will take a widespread concerted effort on the part of the public to end this gravy train.

Since NFL billionaire owners have gone out of their way to accommodate millionaire players in standing down for the national anthem, perhaps taxpaying Americans should start withholding money from the privileged and let them all stand on their own two feet.

Now may be the perfect time to finally do it.

This article has been updated to include legislation sponsored by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Boycott the NFL on Veterans Weekend, Sunday, November 12th

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Cost of Illegal immigration: Record $135 billion average $8,075 for each illegal, $25,000 in New York

A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government’s ineffective efforts to secure our borders, present significant national security and public safety threats to the United States. They also have a severely negative impact on the nation’s taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. This study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets.

The Number of Illegal Immigrants in the US

Estimating the fiscal burden of illegal immigration on the U.S. taxpayer depends on the size and characteristics of the illegal alien population. FAIR defines “illegal alien” as anyone who entered the United States without authorization and anyone who unlawfully remains once his/her authorization has expired. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has no central database containing information on the citizenship status of everyone lawfully present in the United States. The overall problem of estimating the illegal alien population is further complicated by the fact that the majority of available sources on immigration status rely on self-reported data. Given that illegal aliens have a motive to lie about their immigration status, in order to avoid discovery, the accuracy of these statistics is dubious, at best. All of the foregoing issues make it very difficult to assess the current illegal alien population of the United States.

However, FAIR now estimates that there are approximately 12.5 million illegal alien residents. This number uses FAIR’s previous estimates but adjusts for suspected changes in levels of unlawful migration, based on information available from the Department of Homeland Security, data available from other federal and state government agencies, and other research studies completed by reliable think tanks, universities, and other research organizations.

The Cost of Illegal Immigration to the United States

At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend. The sections below will break down and further explain these numbers at the federal, state, and local levels.

Total Governmental Expenditures on Illegal Aliens

Total national costs of undocumented immigrants

Total Tax Contributions by Illegal Aliens

Total taxes paid by illegal immigrants

Total Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration

Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration

Federal

The Federal government spends a net amount of $45.8 billion on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children. This amount includes expenditures for public education, medical care, justice enforcement initiatives, welfare programs and other miscellaneous costs. It also factors in the meager amount illegal aliens pay to the federal government in income, social security, Medicare and excise taxes.

FEDERAL SPENDING

The approximately $46 billion in federal expenditures attributable to illegal aliens is staggering. Assuming an illegal alien population of approximately 12.5 million illegal aliens and 4.2 million U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, that amounts to roughly $2,746 per illegal alien, per year. For the sake of comparison, the average American college student receives only $4,800 in federal student loans each year.

FAIR maintains that every concerned American citizen should be asking our government why, in a time of increasing costs and shrinking resources, is it spending such large amounts of money on individuals who have no right, nor authorization, to be in the United States? This is an especially important question in view of the fact that the illegal alien beneficiaries of American taxpayer largess offset very little of the enormous costs of their presence by the payment of taxes. Meanwhile, average Americans pay approximately 30% of their income in taxes.

Federal Education – $1.6 Billion

Federal Medical Costs – $17.1 Billion

Federal Justice Expenditures – $13.1 Billion

Federal Welfare Programs – $5.8 Billion

Total Federal Expenditures – $45.8 Billion

FEDERAL TAXES

Taxes collected from illegal aliens offset fiscal outlays and, therefore must be included in any examination of the cost of illegal immigration. However, illegal alien apologists frequently cite the allegedly large tax payments made by illegal aliens as a justification for their unlawful presence, and as a basis for offering them permanent legal status through a new amnesty, similar to the one enacted in 1986. That argument is nothing more than a red herring.

FAIR believes that most studies grossly overestimate both the taxes actually collected from illegal aliens and, more importantly, the amount of taxes actually paid by illegal aliens (i.e., the amount of money collected from illegal aliens and actually kept by the federal government). This belief is based on a number of factors: Since the 1990’s, the United States has focused on apprehending and removing criminal aliens. The majority of illegal aliens seeking employment in the United States have lived in an environment where they have little fear of deportation, even if discovered. This has created an environment where most illegal aliens are both able and willing to file tax returns. Because the vast majority of illegal aliens hold low-paying jobs, those who are subject to wage deductions actually wind up receiving a complete refund of all taxes paid, plus net payments made on the basis of tax credits.

As a result, illegal aliens actually profit from filing a tax return and, therefore, have a strong interest in doing so.

Federal Tax Receipts from Illegal Aliens – $22.1 Billion

TOTAL FEDERAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Net Federal Impact of Illegal Aliens – $30.4 Billion

State and Local

Even though the costs of illegal immigration borne by taxpayers at the federal level are staggering, they only pale in comparison to the fiscal burden shouldered by taxpayers at the state level. Most government taxes and fees remitted to government by Americans are paid in forms other than income taxes submitted to the IRS on April 15th. There are city and state income taxes, fuel surcharges, sales and property taxes, etc…. States and localities also bear the main burden for costs associated with public education, city and county infrastructure, and local courts and jails.

A further complication is the fact that, while barred from many federal benefits, state laws allow illegal aliens to access many state-funded social welfare programs. Because so little data is collected on the immigration status of individuals collecting benefits, it is difficult to determine the rate at which illegal aliens use welfare programs. However, based on the average income of illegal alien households, it appears they use these programs at a rate higher than lawfully present aliens or citizens.

STATE AND LOCAL SPENDING

The combined total of state and local government general expenditures on illegal aliens is $18,571,428,571 billion. The services referenced in this section are supported directly by the payment of city and state taxes and related fees. At the state level, examples of general expenditures would be the costs of general governance, fire departments, garbage collection, street cleaning and maintenance, etc. The state, county or municipality — or even a special taxing district in some situations — may provide some of these services. In most cases, localities offer more services than the state. By FAIR’s estimate, there is approximately a 65 percent to 35 percent cost share between local and state governments.

The estimate of general expenditure services received by illegal alien households, beyond the specific outlays mentioned in the sections above, excludes capital expenditures and debt servicing. The calculation for each state is based on the state’s annual operating budget, reduced by the amount covered by the federal government. That expenditure is then reduced further based on the relative size of the estimated population of illegal aliens and their U.S.-born minor children. As noted in our population estimate, this means states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc., with larger illegal alien cohorts, will bear larger shares of these costs.

State Educational Expenditures – $44.4 Billion

State Medical Expenditures – $12.1 Billion

State Administration of Justice Expenditures – $10.8 Billion

State Welfare Expenditures – $2.9 Billion

State and Local Expenditures – $88 Billion

STATE AND LOCAL TAXES COLLECTED

Offsetting the fiscal costs of the illegal alien population are the taxes collected from them at the state and local level. Many proponents of illegal immigration argue that the taxes paid to the states render illegal aliens a net boon to state and local economies. However, this is a spurious argument. Evidence shows that the tax payments made by illegal aliens fail to cover the costs of the many services they consume.

Illegal aliens are not typical taxpayers. First, as previously noted in this study, the large percentage of illegal aliens who work in the underground economy frequently avoid paying any income tax at all. (Many actually receive a net cash profit through refundable tax credit programs.) Second, and also previously noted, the average earnings of illegal alien households are considerably lower than both legal aliens and native-born workers.

State Taxes Collected – $3.5 Billion

TOTAL STATE AND LOCAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

Net State Impact – $85 Billion

Federal and State Fiscal Outlays – $134 Billion

Federal and State Tax Contributions – $18 Billion

Net Cost of Illegal Immigration – $115 Billion

RELATED VIDEO: DNC leader compares illegal immigrants to Holocaust victims

Judge Roy Moore Wins GOP’s Alabama Senate Runoff

Roy Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, defeats incumbent Sen. Luther Strange, R-Ala., in the race to decide who would battle Democrat nominee Doug Jones in the Dec. 12 special election.

Challenger Roy Moore soundly defeated incumbent Luther Strange in Tuesday’s runoff to choose the Republican nominee in Alabama’s U.S. Senate race.

With all precincts reporting after 11 p.m., Moore had 54.6 percent or 262,204 votes and Strange had 45.4 percent or 218,066 votes. The Associated Press called the race when results from about half the 2,286 precincts were in.

“Republican voters know who a person of principle is,” Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, told The Daily Signal in a pre-election interview predicting a victory for Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

Moore will face Democrat Doug Jones in the Dec. 12 special election for the Senate seat vacated by Republican Jeff Sessions when he became attorney general in the Trump administration.

President Donald Trump had endorsed Strange, whom he considered loyal to his priorities.

Trump tweeted congratulations to Moore late Tuesday night:

“From the beginning of this campaign, my priority has been serving the people of Alabama,” Strange, the state’s former attorney general, said in a written concession statement. “Tomorrow, I will go back to work with President Trump and do all I can to advance his agenda over the next few weeks.”

In victory remarks in which he characteristically evoked faith in God, Moore said:

Together we can make America great. We can support the president. Don’t let anybody in the press think that because [Trump] supported my opponent I do not support him and support his agenda. As long as it’s constitutional, as long as it advances our society, our culture, our country, I will be supportive. … But we have to return the knowledge of God and the Constitution of the United States to the United States Congress.

The runoff Tuesday was set up when neither Strange nor Moore garnered 50 percent of the vote in a 10-candidate primary Aug. 15.  (Moore got 40 percent to Strange’s 33 percent, while Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Ala., finished third with 20 percent.)

Republicans seek to preserve their slim 52-seat majority in the 100-seat Senate.

Moore tweeted as his victory became clear:

Democrats’ nominee Jones, 63, is a lawyer and former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Alabama appointed by President Bill Clinton. His campaign platform includes health care reform, environmental protections, civil rights, and criminal justice reform.

On  Feb. 9, then-Gov. Robert Bentley appointed Strange to the seat vacated when the Senate confirmed one of its own, Sessions, as attorney general.

Trump endorsed and stumped for Strange, but also said at a rally Friday night in Huntsville, Alabama, that he would work “like hell” to elect Moore should the challenger prevail.

“I might have made a mistake,” Trump said at one point. “I’ll be honest, I might have made a mistake.”

But the president added: “Luther [Strange] will definitely win.”

In the runoff, Moore, 70, presented himself as the true conservative, while Strange, 64, batted away accusations that he is too establishment. Moore had led in polls, but Strange appeared to be closing the gap.

Andrew Roth, vice president of government affairs at the Club for Growth, predicted in an interview with The Daily Signal that the runoff would be a bellwether for how state voters view progress in Congress.

“The way I view this race is that it’s more of an establishment versus anti-establishment race,” Roth said. “The issues, conservative or not, didn’t really play in this. The race is more about what voters want out of Congress and out of the Senate.”

Vice President Mike Pence, a former congressman from Indiana as well as that state’s governor, also endorsed Strange.

“Our president needs Luther Strange back in the United States Senate so he can finish the job,” Pence said Monday night at a rally at Birmingham-Shuttlesworth International Airport. “I know Sen. Luther Strange will be there for our president, because he’s already been there.”

Sen. Luther Strange lost to challenger Roy Moore. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

The Washington Examiner and other news outlets reported that the Senate Leadership Fund, a political action committee tied to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., filled Alabama’s TV and radio airwaves with millions of dollars worth of ads backing Strange and attacking Moore.

Moore’s high-profile supporters include Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate, as well as former Trump White House aides Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka.

“A vote for Judge Moore isn’t a vote against the president,” Palin said Thursday night, adding:

It is a vote for the people’s agenda that elected the president. It’s for the big, beautiful movement that we’re all a part of. The president needs support to keep the promises that elected him. So we’re sending Trump someone who has our back, not Mitch McConnell’s … Make no mistake, ‘Big Luther’ is Mitch McConnell’s guy.

“While we were honored to have fought hard for Big Luther, Judge Roy Moore won this nomination fair and square and he has our support, as it is vital that we keep this seat in Republican hands,” the Senate Leadership Fund said in a formal acknowledgement of Strange’s loss Tuesday night.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, came out Monday in support of Moore.

“A Judge Moore win really would make sure that the Trump agenda gets implemented,” Meadows told Breitbart News, adding:

There’s all kinds of members of Congress and senators who will run, and they really run so incredibly strong like they have a backbone of steel, but they really have a backbone of a banana. You know, when it’s peeled back, it gets real mushy when they get to Washington, D.C. So we need to give them some steel. Judge Roy Moore has a backbone of steel.

Trump won Alabama in November with 62 percent of the vote.

Moore is perhaps best known for being removed twice as Alabama’s chief justice, first in 2003 for refusing to take down a Ten Commandments monument and again in 2016, after his re-election, for ordering judges not to issue licenses for same-sex marriages.

Moore’s campaign platform included support for limited government, immigration reform, a border wall, energy independence, and the military.

The Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund also endorsed Moore.

Martin, the Tea Party Patriots co-founder, told The Daily Signal before the polls opened that by choosing Moore, GOP voters would be “sending a message to Washington that they want someone they can count on to stick to their principles.”

A victory for Strange, she said, would be on account of Trump.

“Given President Trump’s endorsement, people in Alabama will think that Strange will support the president’s agenda,” Martin said.

The GOP runoff was a product of voter frustration with the status quo, the Club for Growth’s Roth said.

“The dysfunction in Washington has been around for so long that maybe, finally the voters have finally had enough,” Roth said, adding:

You certainly saw them express that in November when Trump won [and] you’re going to continue to see the voters express their anger until they get things fixed.

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report, which was updated to include candidate statements and final unofficial results.  

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

RELATED ARTICLES:

Moore Victory Shows Populist Movement Bigger Than Trump. He Must Return To Lead It.

Army Captain is Sole Pittsburgh Steeler to Stand for National Anthem

While Alejandro Villanueva’s team remained in the stadium tunnel, he alone came out to stand for the national anthem.

Only one member of the NFL’s Pittsburgh Steelers stood for the national anthem Sunday afternoon after President Donald Trump said that those players who don’t respect the flag should be fired.

That player was Alejandro Villanueva, an offensive tackle for the Steelers and a veteran who served three tours of duty in Afghanistan. The Army Ranger and captain, now a member of the Army National Guard, is a recipient of the Bronze Star.

Trump let it be known on Twitter on Saturday that he thinks players in the NFL who don’t stand for the national anthem should lose their jobs. Many players and teams protested by kneeling, and a few teams—one of them being the Steelers—refused to come out onto the field for the anthem.

While Villanueva’s team remained in the stadium tunnel, he alone came out to stand for the national anthem before the Steelers’ 23-17 loss to the Bears in Chicago. Fox News reported that, in a postgame press conference, Villanueva drew criticism from Steelers head coach Mike Tomlin.

“Like I said, I was looking for 100 percent participation. We were going to be respectful of our football team,” Tomlin said.

While his coach disagreed with Villanueva’s actions, the Veterans of Foreign Wars praised Villanueva’s actions “for showing the rest of his team and the league what true mettle is.”

“I stand for our flag and anthem, and I kneel for our fallen,” said Keith Harman, commander in chief of the VFW. “That’s what patriots do. We rally around the flag of our country, not use it and our Constitution as both shield and sword.”

Villanueva commented on the tactic of kneeling when then-San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started doing it in the 2016 preseason.

“I don’t know if the most effective way is to sit down during the national anthem with a country that’s providing you freedom, providing you $16 million a year … when there are black minorities that are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for less than $20,000 a year,” Villanueva said in an ESPN interview.

The controversy led to Villanueva’s jersey becoming the best-selling NFL merchandise Monday.

However, in a Monday press conference, Villanueva said, “I threw my teammates under the bus, unintentionally.”

“Every single time I see that picture of me standing by myself I feel embarrassed,” he added, according to CBS’ Pittsburgh affiliate station, referring to how he was the only Steeler out of the tunnel during the anthem.

“People that are taking a knee are not saying anything negative about the military, they’re not saying anything negative about the flag, they’re just trying to protest that there are some injustices in America,” Villanueva said.

Villanueva was born into a Hispanic military family at a naval base in Meridian, Mississippi, and played rugby while growing up in Spain, according to Go Army Sports.

Fans didn’t take NFL players’ kneeling lightly Sunday as many in the stands booed those who did. This led to Trump’s returning to Twitter on Monday to praise the fans who booed.

Casey Ryan

Casey Ryan is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Alejandro Villanueva standing tall for the national anthem is by Erin Hooley/TNS/Newscom. Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more.

VIDEO: How a Radical Left-Wing Historian Birthed the Anti-Columbus Crusade

Confederate statues aren’t the only ones to come under siege from protesters.

Christopher Columbus, the Spanish-backed Italian explorer who discovered the Americas, is also being attacked on a wide scale.

Activists and cities around the country are now working to change the holiday made in his name and are working to remove monuments in his likeness.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has even called for a commission that will review potentially removing the over 70-foot-tall column dedicated to Columbus that currently stands in Columbus Circle.

And Portland, Maine’s City Council recently designated the second Monday of October “Indigenous People’s Day” and has elected to stop celebrating Columbus Day.

This is quite a turnaround from when Columbus was almost universally admired.

Ronald Reagan once said of the famed explorer:

He is justly admired as a brilliant navigator, a fearless man of action, a visionary who opened the eyes of an older world to an entirely new one. Above all, he personifies a view of the world that many see as quintessentially American: not merely optimistic, but scornful of the very notion of despair.

So, why is this once uniting figure who stood for the New World and immigrants suddenly under attack?

Sadly, much of the modern hostility to Columbus can be traced to the work of a far-left historian, Howard Zinn, whose book, “A People’s History of the United States,” has left an oversized mark on American K-12 and college students.

However, Zinn claimed to turn the pro-Columbus narrative on its head, writing that Columbus was essentially a genocidal monster who paved the way for greedy, profit-seeking capitalists from the Old World to destroy and pillage the peaceful indigenous people of the New World.

“Behind the English invasion of North America,” Zinn wrote, “behind their massacre of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private profit.”

One doesn’t have to embrace all of the Italian explorer’s actions to appreciate what he accomplished and how it transformed the world for good.

Historians have certainly pushed back on Zinn’s caricature.

Professor Carol Delaney of Stanford University has criticized Zinn’s history and defended Columbus as devoutly religious, and not simply a man committed to pillaging and plunder.

She said:

His relations with the natives tended to be benign. He liked the natives and found them to be very intelligent … Columbus strictly told the crew not to do things like maraud, or rape, and instead to treat the native people with respect. There are many examples in his writings where he gave instructions to this effect. Most of the time when injustices occurred, Columbus wasn’t even there.

But Zinn goes even further.

His narrative is based on the idea that not only was Columbus a villain, but the product of his discovery was also an evil. His book follows this in maligning the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, and America’s role in World War II, among numerous other individuals and events in our history.

Of the Founding Fathers, Zinn wrote:

They found that by creating a nation, a symbol, a legal unity called the United States, they could take over land, profits, and political power from the favorites of the British Empire. In the process, they could hold back a number of potential rebellions and create a consensus of popular support for the rule of a new, privileged leadership.

Notions of liberty and timeless principles were dismissed by Zinn as simply the tools of tyrants, which is, of course, the point of his book.

It is a tale of oppressors and oppressed, wrapped in Marxist historical theories.

“A People’s History” is filled with half-truths, ideological distortions, and outright fabrications, yet it is still widely used in American schools.

This is a shame, as he is misleading future generations through his deceiving, but influential work.

Even the far-left magazine, New Republic, conceded that Zinn was a poor historian who did a disservice to his readers, saying:

In writing as or about radicals, historians owe it to their readers to include the bad with the good, the ignoble with the noble—not in the service of ‘balance’ but in the pursuit of intellectual honesty. The most regrettable aspect of Howard Zinn’s full and lusty life is not that he chose to ignore this responsibility. It is that he never seemed aware of it in the first place.

“A People’s History” is terrible history, but it is effective ideological propaganda. And when it’s the only thing students are reading, there’s no wonder that activists are taking to the streets to attack American figures of the past.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: 

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>

President Trump announces new entry restrictions on Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, North Korea, Venezuela

This is fine, since there are only two choices: keep out some harmless people or let in some harmful people. Trump is choosing the former, but if he really wants to keep jihadis out, he is going to have to extend the restrictions eventually to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

“Trump administration announces new travel restrictions,” by Laura Jarrett, CNN, September 24, 2017:

Washington (CNN)The Trump administration has unveiled new travel restrictions on certain foreigners from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen as a replacement to a central portion of its controversial travel ban signed earlier this year.

Chad, North Korea and Venezuela are new to the list of affected countries. The new restrictions on travel vary by country and include a phased-in approach.

For the last three months, the Trump administration used an executive order to ban foreign nationals from six Muslim-majority countries from entering the US unless they have a “bona fide” relationship with a person or entity in the country. Those nations include Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, and Sudan.

Individuals with that “bona fide” exception — such as a foreign grandparent of a US citizen — can still apply for visas until October 18. After that date, the new restrictions on travel will begin….

RELATED ARTICLES:

3 Key Elements of Trump’s New Travel Ban

London’s Muslim mayor says Trump’s rhetoric is like that of the Islamic State

Trump’s New Travel Ban Is Standard Security Policy

Stunning Surprise Looms in German Election: Nationalist Alternative for Germany Party Headed for Big Finish

A just-completed “Deutschland Trend” poll by ARD (German Radio) showed the CDU-CSU leading the SPD in seats for the Bundestag by a striking margin of 37% to 21%. If accurate, this means that the SPD – considered one of the two leading parties since Germany was West Germany from 1945 until it was re-unified with East Germany in 1990 – will have turned in its worst-ever performance in a federal election.

blue_logo
By John Gizzi

With days before German voters go to the polls September 24, all signs point to the outcome widely predicted when the national election campaign commenced earlier this year: Chancellor Angela Merkel and her CDU-CSU (conservative) Party will romp to a fourth consecutive triumph over the SPD (Social Democratic) Party.

But the truly big story of the German election may just be the likely third-place finisher, the relatively new (four years old) nationalist Alternative for Germany (AfD) Party, now shown by most polls to be running third on a hardline platform of expelling illegal immigrants and banning the burka.

In a year in which nationalist parties such as Marine LePen’s National Front (FN) and Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom fared worse than expected at the polls in France and the Netherlands respectively, the AfD is headed for a strong showing in races for the 630 seats in the German Bundestag (parliament).

Such a showing is sure to attract worldwide coverage and give the AfD the status it so desperately needs to be considered a full-fledged voice of opposition to Merkel and her admission of nearly one million refugees to Germany. And it could demonstrate to the world that the “hardline” on illegal immigration is alive and well in Europe.

The British tabloid, The Sun, headlined the Berlin terrorist attack in December that killed 12 after a truck ploughed through the Christmas market, “THEY ARE MERKEL’S DEAD,” blaming the Chancellor’s “open door” migration policy.

Mutti and Martin

Admittedly, Merkel, 63, has been bruised by voter animosity because of the one-million-plus refugees in Germany since 2015. But she is nevertheless still perceived by the much of the electorate as “Mutti” (Mommy) or “the Iron Chancellor”—the lone politician capable of steering Germany through what appears to be a stormy future of an uncertain European economy, serious questions about admission of refugees, and Berlin’s complex relationship with Donald Trump’s Washington.

In contrast, the opposition SPD (Social Democratic) party has suffered because its leader, former European Parliament President Martin Schulz, never lived up to positive advance reviews when he became its nominee for chancellor.

Former North Rhine-Westphalia Mayor and bookseller Schulz’s manifesto of “social justice” calls for raising taxes on the rich and new investments in infrastructure. But in a country where employment and wages both rose this year, it just didn’t resonate.

In addition, after four years as junior partner in a “grand coalition” headed by Merkel’s CDU-CSU, the SPD has had a difficult time criticizing the status quo in Berlin. After all, they are part of it.

A just-completed “Deutschland Trend” poll by ARD (German Radio) showed the CDU-CSU leading the SPD in seats for the Bundestag by a striking margin of 37% to 21%. If accurate, this means that the SPD – considered one of the two leading parties since Germany was West Germany from 1945 until it was re-unified with East Germany in 1990 – will have turned in its worst-ever performance in a federal election.

Perhaps the “hidden story” of the German election lies in the remaining figures in the ARD survey. Five years after it was born, the nationalist Alternative for Germany Party (AfD) is now running third with 11%. Then comes the Linke (Far Left) Party with 10%, the libertarian Free Democrats at 9% and the environmentalist Greens 8%.

“There’s A Growing General Nervousness”

Reporting on Merkel’s twilight days on the stump, Martin Klingst, senior political correspondent for the venerable German publication Die Ziet, told this reporter that “she’s often confronted with loud protest, mainly coming from AfD-sympathizers.”

“Wherever Merkel gives speeches,” said Klingst, “and this is especially true in the Eastern parts of Germany, crowds of protesters show up and shout ‘Go away! Merkel must go!’ They call her a traitor and un-German.”

He added that “this is very unpleasant, and no one knows how this will translate on Election Day.”

Founded in April 2013, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) was initially a vehicle to protest the EU’s policy of not ejecting Member-nations that accumulate major debt such as Greece.

Over the next four years, AfD expanded its platform to become Germany’s premier anti-Establishment party: vowing to take Germany out of the Euro, secure the borders, and ban the burka for Muslim women.

Like LePen’s National Front and Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, the AfD strongly favors a warmer relationship with Russia under Vladimir Putin. At events for cultivating the estimated 2.5 million Russian immigrants to Germany, the AfD offers German translations of Putin’s speeches.

In 2013, AfD fell just short of the 5% of the vote required for seats in the Bundestag. A year later, it scored handsomely in races for seats in the European Parliament. It has since won seats in 13 of the 16 state parliaments.

Regarding the AfD’s likely performance in this election, former German Defense Minister Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg told this reporter, “They have initially surged because of the refugee crisis and they are now profiting from the fact that the CDU and SPD are hard to distinguish. A two digit result is unfortunately not impossible.”

Die Ziet’s Klingst goes a step further: “People who tend to vote for more extreme parties and candidates often tend to not honestly reveal their choices in the surveys. I’m not sure myself, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the AfD gained between 10 and 14 %. And, as it has happened with Trump, it also happens with the AfD – they attract voters who’ve not voted for a long time.”

Like many growing parties, the AfD has its disparate personalities. Beatrix von Storch, one of its MEPs (Members of European Parliament), is considered a highly articulate spokesperson on the EU and economic issues, AfD Deputy Leader Alexander Gauland, 76, is an historian and past official in Merkel’s CDU. Former Goldman Sachs management consultant Alice Weidel, 38, leads the party’s lists for seats in the Bundestag. She also makes no secret about being a lesbian.

Other AfD leaders are more controversial. Bjorn Hocke, an AfD candidate from the eastern part of Germany, created a furor earlier this year when he said Germany should stop atoning for Hitler and the Nazis. Last year, Party Leader Frauke Petry made international news last year when she suggested the police “use firearms if necessary” to “prevent illegal border crossings.”

Trying to explain the sudden rise of the AfD, Martin Klingst commented: “You can observe many of the same frustrations you find among Trump voters: the feeling of belonging to the losers in a globalized world; anger at politicians who seem to be removed and disconnected to ordinary people and not concerned about social and financial problems; scape goating others for your problems; and of course real problems in daily life: competition with immigrants and refugees about low-paid jobs and affordable housing; living in areas where you are more confronted with the negative sides of immigration: rise of crimes, of street violence, of sexual assaults, of misbehavior.” He added, “There’s a growing general nervousness here.”


John Gizzi is the White House correspondent and chief political columnist for Newsmax. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis of the conservative-online-journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

RELATED ARTICLE: Mama Merkel could have a rough next 4 years

Remember it was McConnell who endorsed Charlie Crist for the U.S. Senate — Vote for Judge Roy Moore

Senator Mitch McConnell has endorsed candidates that follow the swamp’s agenda, not the will of the people. We in Florida remember when, on the same day that Charlie Crist announced his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell endorsed him.

McConnell did not want the people of Florida to choose their senator, rather he wanted the people of Florida to elect his pick.

CNN’s Mark Preston and Peter Hamby in May 2009 reported:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, endorsed Florida Gov. Charlie Crist for Senate Tuesday, yet another sign that national Republicans are looking to avoid a GOP primary in the Sunshine State.

Crist announced earlier in the day that he would not seek another term as governor, opting instead for a senatorial bid. National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn immediately announced that he was backing Crist over former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in the GOP primary.

[ … ]

“Decisions are being made every day in Washington that have a direct impact upon the lives of all Americans and we need Charlie Crist in the U.S. Senate to ensure that those decisions will benefit the citizens of Florida,” McConnell said in a statement released by Crist’s campaign. [Emphasis added]

We all know now that Charlie Crist, once a Republican, is now a Democrat member of Congress. So much for the political savvy of Mitch McConnell.

Now we have the very same McConnell supporting another Charlie Crist republican in the state of Alabama.

Constitution.com reports:

“President Donald Trump admitted to Alabama voters Friday that he might have made a mistake by endorsing appointed Alabama Senator Luther Strange in the Republican primary.

“’We have to be loyal in life,’ Trump said. ‘There is something called loyalty, and I might have made a mistake and I’ll be honest, I might have made a mistake.’

“Trump appeared in Alabama for a campaign rally for Strange, despite polling showing him still lagging behind his primary challenger conservative Judge Roy Moore.

“Trump predicted that if Strange lost, his political opponents and the media would cite it as a big loss for Trump, but that he wanted to repay the appointed senator for his loyal support in the Senate.

“’Both are good men,’ Trump said, referring to Strange and Moore.

“He specified that his decision was about loyalty and picking a candidate that could win in a general election.

“’Luther will definitely win … Roy has a very good chance of not winning in the general election,’ Trump said.

“But he promised that if Moore won the primary, he would be ‘campaigning like hell’ for him in the general election.”

Watch this video to understand that its deja vu all over again:

Judge Roy Moore is the right man at the right time. He will work to make Alabama and America great again.

Please support Judge Roy Moore to represent the great state of Alabama in the U.S. Senate.