U.S. Bishops, Vatican Slapped with Simultaneous Lawsuits. Church leaders accused of conspiracy, deception, concealment.

WASHINGTON (ChurchMilitant.com) by Stephen Wynne– On Tuesday, as the U.S. bishops were still absorbing the news that the Vatican had blocked action on clerical sex abuse, they were slapped with two simultaneous lawsuits, with one naming the Holy See as a defendant.

Both lawsuits seek to force open diocesan secret archives by court order, compelling the U.S. Church to reveal the identities and histories of its predators.

One suit, launched by six clerical sex abuse victims, was filed in federal district court in Minnesota. It alleges that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) concealed “the known histories and identities from the public, parishioners and law enforcement of clergy accused of sexually abusing children across the country.”

Speaking Tuesday, Jeff Anderson, attorney for the six plaintiffs, warned the Church “maintains” a threat to public safety.

The same day, a class-action suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against both the USCCB and the Vatican itself — an unprecedented legal move.

It accuses the Church of conspiracy and running a criminal enterprise under federal racketeering statutes.

According to the 80-page class-action suit:

This case is about the endemic, systemic, rampant, and pervasive rape and sexual abuse of Plaintiffs and Class Members perpetrated by Roman Catholic Church cardinals, bishops, monsignors, priests, sisters, lay leaders, members of Catholic religious orders, educators, and other of Defendants’ personnel, members, agents, and representatives (collectively, “Clergy” or “Catholic Clergy”) while serving in active ministry — with the knowledge of Defendants.

It accuses Church leaders of promoting a public hazard by covering up the crimes of predator priests:

Rather than safeguarding and protecting Plaintiffs and Class Members — who were minor children at the time — Defendants protected the abusive Clergy, took extraordinary measures to conceal their wrongful conduct, moved them from parish to parish, without warning church members or the general public, thereby further facilitating their predatory practices, failed and refused to report the abusive Clergy to law enforcement or other responsible authorities as required by law, and — incredibly — even promoted the abusive Clergy. Defendants’ wrongful acts are ongoing and continuous.

The class-action suit accuses the Church of violating the federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, which was originally devised to target organized crime syndicates. It seeks to triple financial damages for “unlawful and intentional schemes, actions, inaction, omissions, cover-up, deception, and concealment, obstructive behavior regarding investigations, and conspiracy of silence,” which “constitute assault, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence/gross negligence, negligence per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful death, public nuisance, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting.”

The class-action suit is historic, in that it attempts to hold the Vatican liable in the United States for the actions of its clergy — a first. Up to now, the Vatican has avoided liability by claiming it has no direct authority over clergy.

But this assertion was shattered on Monday when the Holy See blocked the USCCB vote in Baltimore.

“If that’s not command responsibility, I don’t know what is,” said attorney Mitchell A. Toups, who is helping lead the class-action suit.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission.

Black Friday Deals That Don’t Compromise Your Values

With Black Friday just a week away, it’s almost officially Christmas shopping season.

Here at 2ndVote, we want to help you shop for your loved ones by finding the best deals possible, but we also want to encourage you to shop with your values in mind.

Along with our newly released Christmas Shopping Guide, we’ve compiled a list of some of the best Black Friday deals around to help you find the perfect gifts at rare prices. Not only are you getting great deals, but you can keep your mind at ease knowing that your hard-earned dollars won’t be funding a liberal agenda that opposes your beliefs and values.

Top Black Friday Deals For Conservatives

All of the following companies have a current score of at least a 3 (Neutral) in our 2ndVote Database:

Bass Pro Shops (5 – Conservative)

5 days of sales starting on November 25th, and a special 6-hour sale on Black Friday from 5-11am.

ACE Hardware (4 – Lean Conservative)

Black Friday sale is currently underway and will last until November 26th.

Overstock.com (4 – Lean Conservative)

Up to 70% off and free shipping for certain items.

Tractor Supply Co. (3.1 – Lean Conservative)

Numerous days of sales running from November 21-25.

Bed Bath & Beyond (3 – Neutral)

In-store customers will receive a 20% off entire purchase coupon between 6am – Noon.

Kay Jewelers (3 – Neutral)

Kay Jewelers is offering special Black Friday deals on a variety of their jewelry.

Academy Sports & Outdoors (3 – Neutral)

Running a variety of sales on the morning of Black Friday starting at 5am – till supplies last.

Petco (3 – Neutral)

Up to 50% off select items November 23-24 only.

Aeropostale (3 – Neutral)

60% to 70% off every item online or in the store on Black Friday.

Cost Plus World Market (3 – Neutral)

40% off all furniture with promo code FURNDEAL.

We encourage you to check out these stores on Black Friday and throughout the Christmas shopping season! To view our entire score database, click here.


Help us continue our #AnywhereButTARGET campaign and providing this important research for conservative consumers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Court Orders Clinton to Answer Email Questions Under Oath

Apparently, no one in the federal bureaucracies cares to fully investigate Hillary Clinton’s email misconduct, but we are doing it, and we’re making progress.

This week U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled that within 30 days Clinton must answer under oath two additional questions about her controversial email system.

In 2016, she was required to submit under oath written answers to our questions. Clinton objected to and refused to answer questions about the creation of her email system; her decision to use the system despite warnings from State Department cybersecurity officials; and the basis for her claim that the State Department had “90-95%” of her emails.

After a lengthy hearing Judge Sullivan ruled that Clinton must address two questions that she refused to answer under oath.

  • Describe the creation of the clintonemail.com system, including who decided to create the system, the date it was decided to create the system, why it was created, who set it up, and when it became operational.
  • During your October 22, 2015 appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Benghazi, you testified that 90 to 95 percent of your emails “were in the State’s system” and “if they wanted to see them, they would certainly have been able to do so.” Identify the basis for this statement, including all facts on which you relied in support of the statement, how and when you became aware of these facts, and, if you were made aware of these facts by or through another person, identify the person who made you aware of these facts.

Judge Sullivan read his opinion from the bench, deciding that the question about the creation of the email system was within the scope of discovery. Judge Sullivan rejected Clinton’s assertion of attorney-client privilege on the question about the emails “in the State’s system.”

The court refused Judicial Watch’s and media’s requests to unseal the deposition videos of Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and other Clinton State Department officials. And it upheld Clinton’s objections to answering a question about why she refused to stop using her Blackberry despite warnings from State Department security personnel. Justice Department lawyers for the State Department defended Clinton’s refusal to answer certain questions and argued for the continued secrecy of the deposition videos.

This hearing and court ruling is the latest development in our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton. The lawsuit, which seeks records regarding the authorization for Abedin to engage in outside employment while employed by the Department of State, was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)). The court also granted discovery to Judicial Watch to help determine if and how Clinton’s email system thwarted FOIA.

It is good news that a federal court ordered Clinton to answer more questions about her illicit email system. But it is shameful that our attorneys must continue to battle the State and Justice Departments, which still defend Hillary Clinton, for basic answers to our questions about Clinton’s email misconduct.

The public and the media have a right to a full accounting about the Clinton State Department. In lieu of a much-needed, new and untainted investigation by the FBI, the continued work of Judicial Watch in the courts is clearly the only hope of bringing sunlight into the Clinton email issue and completing the public record.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images is republished with permission.

VIDEO: Washington State, ACLU Aren’t Letting Up in Crusade Against Florist’s Religious Liberty

How would you like to attend a political rally featuring President Donald Trump? How about one featuring former President Barack Obama?

Even better—why don’t you attend both? You get to help decorate the stage. You can even create a banner setting forth that party’s platform.

Given our polarized political climate, it’s a safe bet that most Americans would elect to participate in one rally or the other, but not both. It’s pretty easy to understand why: The whole point of those rallies is to support political positions that, for many of us, are rooted in deeply held beliefs.

This basic, logical principle seems to have eluded Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the American Civil Liberties Union. This duo sued Barronelle Stutzman, a 74-year-old floral artist from Richland, Washington, and her business, Arlene’s Flowers, because she declined to participate in and design custom floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Ferguson and the ACLU say that if Stutzman creates custom arrangements for any wedding, she must create them for same-sex weddings.

But there’s more. Stutzman not only designs custom floral arrangements for weddings, but also attends and personally participates in those sacred events. She decorates the venue with her artistic creations, attends the ceremony, and participates in wedding rituals. But doing that for a same-sex marriage squarely conflicts with her faith.

This is why, even though Stutzman loved her longtime customer and friend Rob Ingersoll, she respectfully declined his invitation to help celebrate his same-sex ceremony. Instead, she referred Ingersoll to other florists in the area who, in her words, she “knew would do an excellent job for this celebration.”

The story could have, and should have, ended there for reasons completely unrelated to whether one agrees with Stutzman’s decision. It should have ended there because it is Stutzman’s decision. Because in a tolerant society, there is room for disagreement. There is room for Democratic Party rallies and Republican Party rallies. There’s even room for Green Party rallies, just don’t expect them to feature helium balloons (or, for that matter, many people).

But the story didn’t end there, because Ferguson was unwilling to allow certain beliefs to go unpunished—namely, a religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Despite the fact that he received no complaint from Ingersoll about Stutzman or her business, Ferguson sued this 74-year-old grandmother in her professional and personal capacity. The latter means that all of Stutzman’s personal assets, including her life savings, are at risk.

Stutzman went on to lose her case. After several years of legal proceedings, the Washington Supreme Court later ruled in State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers that Stutzman must pay penalties and attorneys’ fees for choosing to live consistently with her conscience.

But the story doesn’t end there, either. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Stutzman appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the state high court’s ruling and ordered it to reconsider in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop. In that case, the Supreme Court condemned the hostility that Colorado demonstrated toward the faith of cake artist Jack Phillips.

This past Tuesday, Stutzman filed her arguments with the Washington Supreme Court, asking that it reverse the government’s punishment of her, just like the high court did in Phillips’ case.

As the Washington Supreme Court considers Stutzman’s plight once again, it would do well to remember there are people of good will on both sides of the marriage debate. The government should never be hostile to sincere religious beliefs of people of faith, and it should never seek to force anyone to violate their core convictions, especially by participating in a sacred event like a wedding ceremony.

Ours is a diverse society united by a commitment to freedom of belief, not a compulsion to uniformity of thought. A win for Stutzman will reaffirm that foundational American principle.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of James Gottry

James Gottry is a lawyer and writer with Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group founded to preserve and defend religious liberty. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Spontaneous Worship Breaks Out at White House as Top Christian Artists Gather

Campus senator labeled ‘homophobic’ for speaking her faith


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and video is republished with permission. Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom.

Social Conservative Review: An Insider’s Guide to Pro-Family News

In this age marked by cultural brokenness and political division, it can be easy for Christians to shake our heads in resignation to this seemingly discouraging predicament and say, “God’s Kingdom is obviously not here right now.”

Or is it? In the Gospel of Luke, the Pharisees ask Jesus when the Kingdom of God will come. He said in reply, “The coming of the Kingdom of God cannot be observed, and no one will announce, ‘Look, here it is,’ or, ‘There it is.’ For behold, the Kingdom of God is among you” (Luke 17:20-21).

What does this mean? When Christ said these words in first century Judea, they would have caused great confusion amongst the Jews since it was clear from the Roman occupation of their ancestral land that there was certainly no “Kingdom” currently present. But Christ wasn’t speaking of the potential reign of an earthly king. He was asking those who were listening to realize that God’s Kingdom was right in front of them–in Christ’s own witness of love, mercy, and healing. He was asking them, and therefore all of us, to look into our hearts and see that whenever we act with love, compassion, and sacrifice, God’s Kingdom is literally “among” us.

It should give us great encouragement to know that whenever we show Christ’s love to others, we are an ambassador for Christ’s Kingdom on earth. Keep in mind that showing love can take the form of seemingly small acts, such as simply giving encouragement to someone we encounter in our daily lives who seems like they are in need of a boost. Whenever we do any act of love, whether great of small, we bring God’s Kingdom in our midst.

Thank you for your prayers and for your continued support of FRC and the family.

Sincerely,

Dan Hart
Managing Editor for Publications
Family Research Council


Share with Friends


FRC Articles

Evangelicals Power Republicans to Senate Victories — David Closson

Voters Say ‘Full Steam Ahead’ On Judges — Travis Weber and Alexandra McPhee

America Deserves Better Than the Broward County Disaster — Ken Blackwell

School Board Says Boys and Girls Have Different Brains — Except in the Bathroom — Cathy Ruse

Post-Midterm optimism for religious freedom — Alexandra McPhee

Is the Republican Senate Ready to Advance Pro-Life Policy? — Patrina Mosley

The Supreme Court can fix Establishment Clause jurisprudence with the Peace Cross case — Alexandra McPhee

Speaker Series: The Reality of Faith-Based Adoption Services

Truth Obscured by Hollywood Take on Sexual Orientation Therapy — Peter Sprigg

Must the State Recognize All Identities? — Dan Hart

The Times En-“genders” Controversy with Ignorance of “Sex” — Peter Sprigg

Notre Dame Students Take a Stand Against Porn — Patrina Mosley

Religious Liberty

Religious Liberty in the Public Square

Supreme Court’s latest church-state conundrum: Must a ‘peace cross’ memorial to World War I vets come down? — Richard Wolf, USA Today

Muslims, the Bladensburg Cross, and the Preservation of Order — Ismail Royer, Public Discourse

Professor Sues after University Requires He Use Student’s Preferred Pronoun — Jack Crowe, National Review

Trump Administration Updates Conscience Exemptions for Contraceptive Mandate — National Catholic Register

The State of Hate — David Montgomery, The Washington Post

Christian student senator at UC Berkeley harassed for abstaining from pro-LGBTQ vote — Caleb Parke, Fox News

Fordham University Political Science Department Mandates Use of Students’ ‘Preferred Pronouns’ — Alana Mastrangelo, Breitbart

International Religious Freedom

What you should know about the persecution of Kachin Christians — Joe Carter, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

78 Kidnapped Cameroonian Students from Christian School Freed — Aliya Kuykendall, The Stream

Christians Dragged Out of Cars and Beaten, Haunted With Fear as Asia Bibi Case Tears Pakistan Apart — Stoyan Zaimov, The Christian Post

Christians, pray for your brothers and sisters in North Korea — Christopher Summers, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Asia Bibi Leaves Pakistani Prison–Open Doors Calls for Urgent Prayer — Lindy Lowry, Open Doors USA

Life

Abortion

The Point of Gosnell — Charlotte Allen, First Things

6 claims of Planned Parenthood’s new president debunked — Kristi Burton Brown, Live Action

New Planned Parenthood CEO: “I Plan to Expand” Abortions. We Have a “Moral Imperative” to Kill Babies — Micaiah Bilger, LifeNews

Pro-life ballot measures win passage in two of three states — Valerie Richardson, The Washington Times

Adoption

Philadelphia foster families continue fight for Catholic Social Services — Perry West, CAN

3 ways your church can participate in orphan care and prevention — Brittany Salmon, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Bioethics

Canadian Doctors Get Ready for Child Euthanasia — Wesley J. Smith, National Review

Family

Marriage

How Expectations Affect One’s Happiness in Marriage — Dianne Grande, Psychology Today

When the Military Takes a Toll on Your Marriage: Reflections on ‘Indivisible’ — Gary Chapman, Military.com

Men and Women: Should We Just Call the Whole Thing Off? — Rachel Lu, The American Conservative

One Couple’s Fight to Honor God With Their Bakery — Benjamin Hawkins, Focus on the Family

37.8 Percent in Generation That Starts Turning 21 Next Year Was Born to Unwed Moms — Terence P. Jeffrey, CNS News

Parenting

How to Respond When Your Kids Are Bullied — Jonathan McKee, Focus on the Family

Mothers Against Macron — Joy Pullmann, First Things

I’m Raising an Old Soul And It’s Such a Gift — Heidi Hamm, HerViewFromHome

Making of a Mom: How Motherhood Helped my Anxiety Disorder — Casey McCorry, Verily

New Findings Add Twist to Screen Time Limit Debate — Jean Twenge, Family Studies

Podcast: Your Teenager Needs Discipleship — Jen Wilkin and Melissa Kruger, The Gospel Coalition

Video: How is spiritual warfare involved in parenting? — Phillip Bethancourt, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

How to Be a Kindness Role Model for Your Kids — Dale V. Atkins and Amanda R. Salzhauer, Greater Good Magazine

Postpartum Depression and the Christian — Kathryn Butler, The Gospel Coalition

Economics/Education

9 Years Into Common Core, Test Scores Are Down, Indoctrination Up — Joy Pullmann, The Federalist

The Wealth of Nations Begins at Home — W. Bradford Wilcox, Family Studies

Your Family, Your Choice — Oren Cass, Family Studies

Faith/Character/Culture

10 ways your unsatisfied life is a blessing — Amy Simpson, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

Honoring the ‘Invisible Work Force’ of Family Caregivers — Amy Ziettlow, Family Studies

How to Love People You Don’t Like — Greg Morse, Desiring God

Cultural winsomeness will not be enough for Christians — Andrew T. Walker, Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission

In An America This Ignorant, It’s No Wonder We Struggle To Stay Free — Stella Morabito, The Federalist

I Cremated My Unborn Son — Tish Harrison Warren, Christianity Today

8 Signs Your Christianity Is Too Comfortable — Brett McCracken, The Gospel Coalition

A Fresh Perspective on Joy — Liberty McArtor, The Stream

‘Remarkable’ decline in fertility rates — James Gallagher, BBC News

Human Sexuality

Where to Find Hope and Help amid the Sexual Revolution — Sam Allberry, The Gospel Coalition

Kissing Purity Culture Goodbye — Abigail Rine Favale, First Things

What ‘The New York Times’ Gets Wrong on the ‘Transgender Memo’ — Andrew T. Walker, The Gospel Coalition

Jesus Befriended Prostitutes. So This Victorian-Era Woman Did Too. — Kimi Harris, Christianity Today

‘Boy Erased’ Suggests Sexual Desire Can’t Change, So Religion Must — Brett McCracken, The Gospel Coalition

Where Angels Fear to Tread: The Fraud of Transgenderism — Babette Francis and John Ballantyne, Public Discourse

Pornography

The Problems of Pornography: Sexual Dysfunction and Beyond — Freda Bush, Focus on the Family

FLORIDA: 2018 Election Postmortem

Coming from the business world, I understand the importance of conducting a Project Review (aka, “Project Audit”) whereby we make note of what went right and what went wrong. The intent is to pass these lessons on to others for the future. This is equally applicable to politics which is why I want to review the lessons I learned from the recent 2018 mid-term elections. This may seem a little dry, but it includes some important lessons for both parties to observe.

I have been keeping track of the voting numbers for two cycles now (2016 and 2018), representing Mr. Trump’s rise to the presidency, and the ensuing mid-terms.

The first thing I learned is the national and local political polls are useless and do not reflect reality. Frankly, they are a joke. I do not know their selection criteria for conducting surveys, but whatever they are doing, it is horribly wrong. This was proven in 2016 and 2018. To this day, they would have us believe Gillum and Nelson are still up by six points (and Mrs. Clinton by double-digits). The people who run these polls should find another line of work.

I found the early voting data provided by the state (in my case, Florida) to be much more reliable. In studying the data from both elections, I found the following:

* Republicans win the Mail-In votes (aka, Absentee).

* Democrats win the in-person Early Voting votes. Republicans do not find this convenient as it interrupts their business day.

* Republicans win the Election Day votes.

Turnout is ultimately based on the drumbeats of the parties. Whichever party can inspire their constituents to vote, wins. To illustrate, even though Florida Democrats had approximately 250K more registered voters than the Republicans, the GOP was able to get their members to the voting booth:

66.28% of all registered Republicans voted.
59.77% of all registered Democrats voted.

This resulted in 150K more Republicans voting than Democrats.

In the Tampa Bay area, I found:

  • Hillsborough County (representing downtown Tampa) is solid Democrat.
  • Manatee County is solid Republican.
  • Pasco County is solid Republican.
  • Pinellas County – Republicans lost the lead in early voting to the Democrats on the last day, but overtook the Democrats on election day.
  • Polk County is solid Republican.
  • Sarasota County is solid Republican.

This happened both in 2016 and 2018. Likewise, state-wide early voting resulted in a slim lead for the Democrats, but the Republicans outvoted them on Election Day by 171K votes.

Whereas large metropolitan areas voted Democrat, e.g., Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Orlando, Tampa, and Miami, all the rural areas voted strongly for the Republicans. For example, Republicans in tiny Citrus County, on the upper west coast of Florida, had 20K more votes than Democrats, thereby easily negating Jacksonville with +6K votes for Democrats. It was the rural and West Coast counties that carried the day for Republicans.

Other observations:

  • Surprisingly, eleven of the twelve amendments to the Florida Constitution passed (#1 was the one defeated). Frankly, I was surprised by this. The only explanation I can think of is, due to the volume of legislation, people grew tired and simply checked off the “Yes” box in order to expedite their time in the voting booth.
  • The campaign races were incredibly costly. I am told the Governor’s race alone was the most expensive in our history. The Senate race was also expensive. Even the races for the State Senate and House were expensive. There was one State Senator who spent over $500,000 on his campaign. As you probably know, I consider this enormously frivolous. We should be spending the money on more worthwhile endeavors than the media.
  • I was not made aware of any voter fraud down here, except for one instance where a non-citizen tried to vote and the Democrats wanted it accepted. Of course, it was disallowed. There was also concern about northern students attending Florida colleges voting twice (once here and once back home in the north), but I have heard nothing tangible about this. The same could be said for northern retirees who have a house in the South for winter.
  • Following close races for the Senate and Governorship, there was a clamor to recall the votes. In the process, Broward and Palm Beach Counties came under scrutiny for possible election fraud and incompetence. Both counties are strongholds for the Democrats, thus heightening suspicions by Republicans. Full investigations are underway. I cannot remember the last time, if ever, an election was overturned here in Florida, including the famous Bush/Gore debacle back in 2000. Unfortunately, this proves our voting procedures are far from bullet-proof. Personally, I had no problem with the punch-card approach. Regardless, here is another reason why reforms should be enacted in our electoral process.
  • There were a lot of close races, be it for the Governorship, U.S. Senate, County and Municipal races. Whoever won, be it Red or Blue, should be sensitive to this and realize the people will be watching their performance. Translation: They better get off their duffs and do something.
  • The polarity of the country becomes more pronounced with each election. This is caused by differences in morality between the parties in terms of our perspectives as to what is right, and what is wrong.

Mid-term elections used to be as interesting as watching grass grow. Attendance was low. No more. The votes cast in Florida in 2018 were approximately 80% of those cast in 2016, an incredible figure. Thanks to the polarity of the country, the days of sleepy-eyed mid-term elections are long gone and we will continue to have massive political struggles from now on.

Thus closes the 2018 elections.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies. The featured photo is by Thomas Stephan on Unsplash.

12 Times Florida County’s Elections Supervisor Has Been ‘Incompetent and Possibly Criminal’

As both parties scrutinize the vote count in Florida’s Broward County, with the state’s gubernatorial and senatorial races closing in on a tie, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said the county’s elections office has a history of malfeasance.

“This is at a minimum a pattern of incompetence. Voters deserve better,” the Florida Republican said Thursday on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “This is not even a partisan thing. This is a county that apparently cannot even count votes as well as a county that just got wiped out by a hurricane.”

The state’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott filed a lawsuit Thursday against Broward Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes for allegedly refusing to tell them about votes she has not yet counted.

The vote totals Snipes tabulated two days after the election would have readers believe that more people cast votes for agricultural commissioner than for U.S. senator.

Additionally, lawyer Marc Elias of Perkins Coie—who hired Fusion GPS for the Democratic National Committee to investigate Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election—has been hired to litigate a recount on behalf of Democrats.

The Republican National Committee also pointed out 12 times news stories, using its own headlines, where Snipes has “been outright incompetent and possibly criminal”:

  1. Illegally destroying ballots (Sun Sentinel, May 14, 2018)
  2. Absentee ballots that never arrived (Miami Herald, Nov. 6, 2018)
  3. Fellow Democrats accused her precinct of individual and systemic breakdowns that made it difficult for voters to cast regular ballots (Miami Herald, Nov. 4, 2014)
  4. Posted election results half an hour before polls closed – a very clear violation of election law. (Miami Herald, Nov. 2, 2018)
  5. Sued for leaving amendments off of ballots (Miami Herald, Oct. 20, 2016)
  6. Claiming to not have the money to notify voters when their absentee ballot expired (Sun Sentinel, November 8, 2018)
  7. Having official staffers campaign on official time (Broward Beat, July 20, 2016)
  8. Problems printing mail ballots (Miami Herald, Nov.2, 2018)
  9. Accusations of ballot stuffing (Heritage, Aug. 1, 2017)
  10. Voters receiving ballots with duplicate pages (Miami Herald, Nov. 2, 2018)
  11. Slow results and piles of ballots that cropped up way after Election Day (The Capitolist, Nov. 8, 2018)
  12. Opening ballots in private, breaking Florida law (Politico, Aug. 13, 2018)

COLUMN BY

Luke Rosiak

Luke Rosiak is an investigative reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @lukerosiak.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

What You Need to Know About Florida Recount, Georgia Vote Tallying

A Replay of 2000? Florida Recount Stirs Concerns.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. 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.

If Trump Ended Birthright Citizenship by Executive Order, He’d Be Enforcing Existing Law

President Donald Trump’s critics have found something else to rend their garments over: his determination to end so-called “birthright citizenship.” Why, they thunder, it’s unconstitutional. And even if it could be changed, it can’t be by executive order.

They’re wrong on both counts.

That probably comes as a surprise to many Americans, including some who consider themselves Trump supporters. Haven’t we all been told for years that if you’re born here, you’re automatically a U.S. citizen? It’s all right there in the 14th Amendment. No matter who your parents are or what their status is, you’re an American. Simple as that.

Or is it? Consider the actual wording: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”

Seems pretty cut and dry, but check out that crucial clause: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It’s easy to mumble over it, but we shouldn’t. The Senate included it there for a reason when it passed the amendment in 1868: to make it clear that not everyone born here is automatically a citizen.

Being born here is only half the equation. You also must be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The original proposed wording of the amendment did not include that phrase. It was inserted specifically to make it clear that the law did not, in fact, confer citizenship on everyone born here.

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction and a strong supporter of the Citizenship Clause, noted that Congress intended to exclude “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” Supreme Court cases decided in the years soon after the amendment’s passage confirm this view.

Moreover, says constitutional scholar Edward Erler:

“It is hard to conclude that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to confer citizenship on the children of aliens illegally present when they explicitly denied that boon to Native Americans legally present but subject to a foreign jurisdiction.”

Notes Hillsdale College’s Matthew Spalding:

“Few developed nations practice the rule of jus soli, or ‘right of the soil.’ More common is jus sanguinis, ‘right of blood,’ by which a child’s citizenship is determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.”

In short, it was wise of Congress to limit the scope of the amendment. And those who misinterpret it are wrong. Trump should be commended for trying to bring current understanding back in line with the original intent of the framers.

That leaves us with the question of whether he would be right to set this issue straight via an executive order. Some people who agree with him on birthright citizenship, such as National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy, believe that he shouldn’t. They argue that it should be done by the same body that issued the amendment in the first place: Congress.

In other words, this is a job for Congress, the branch of government that creates our laws, not the executive, which enforces them.

According to McCarthy, a president cannot “unilaterally change an understanding of the law that has been in effect for decades under a duly enacted federal law.”

Granted, but as constitutional scholar Hans von Spakovsky points out, “that assumes the ‘understanding’ is the correct one. If that understanding actually violates the plain text and intent of the law, the president as the chief law-enforcement officer can, and indeed has an obligation, to direct the federal government to begin applying and enforcing it correctly.”

To put it another way, the president here would not be attempting to make a new law, but to enforce the correct view of an existing law.

Sure, his order would be immediately challenged. Perhaps we’d even wind up with Congress clarifying the original intent of the law.

All the more reason to do it. Fairness demands that we get this issue settled—and soon.

Originally published in The Washington Times

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Ed Feulner

Edwin J. Feulner’s 36 years of leadership as president of The Heritage Foundation transformed the think tank from a small policy shop into America’s powerhouse of conservative ideas. Read his research. Twitter: .


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom.

Trump Calls Out Embattled County Election Official in Florida Vote-Count Mess

President Donald Trump is scrutinizing the Florida election-recount process, and he isn’t the only one—largely because of Broward County.

On election night, it appeared likely that Rick Scott, the outgoing Florida Republican governor, had defeated Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson for his seat. It appeared even more likely that Republican ex-Rep. Ron DeSantis defeated Democrat Andrew Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee, to be Florida’s next governor.

By Friday morning, both Nelson and Gillum were challenging the outcome.

Also still in question is the outcome of the race for the state agriculture commissioner, with the candidates separated by fewer than 500 votes as of Thursday night.

Automatic recounts are triggered under Florida law when the candidates are separated by less than 0.5 percent of the vote. The office of Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner, a Republican, will review the returns on Saturday.

Scott’s Senate campaign and the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee sued both Broward and Palm Beach counties, seeking to make the counties’ vote counting more transparent and ensure that each is following state election laws. Late Friday, a Florida court ruled in Scott’s favor in the Broward County case.

Nelson’s campaign sued the state Thursday to force a recount. Nelson’s lawyer, Marc Elias, a former attorney for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, called the Senate race a “jump ball.”

“We’re doing it to win,” he said.

Departing the White House on Friday morning en route to Paris, Trump said there “could be” a federal role for sorting out the electoral mess in Florida, when asked about it by a reporter.

He also referenced Brenda Snipes, the supervisor of elections for Broward County—though not by name. Snipes, a Democrat, was most recently re-elected in 2016.

“If you look at Broward County, they have had a horrible history,” Trump said. “If you look at the person, in this case a woman, involved, she has had a horrible history.

“All of the sudden, they are finding votes out of nowhere, and Rick Scott who won—it was close, but he won by a comfortable margin,” the president said of the Republican hopeful’s vote edge. “Every couple of hours, it goes down a little bit.”

As The Daily Signal reported last year, Snipes admitted, in a lawsuit over the county having more registered voters than eligible voters, that noncitizens and felons might have voted.

In May of this year, a state judge ruled that Snipes violated state and federal law when she destroyed ballots from a Democratic congressional primary in August 2016, even though there was a pending lawsuit seeking access to the ballots.

Her office also posted results of an election 30 minutes before polls closed, which was a violation of the law.

Days before the election this year, the Miami Herald ran an article anticipating problems in Broward County, noting Snipes and her background.

“Bad things have gone on in Broward County, really bad things. She’s been to court. She’s had a lot of problems. She’s lost,” Trump said. “I say this: He [Scott] easily won. But every hour it seems to be going down. I think that people have to look at it very, very cautiously. … What’s happening in Florida is a disgrace.

“Go down and see what happened over the last period of time, 10 years. Take a look at Broward County. Take a look at the total dishonesty of what happened with respect to Broward County,” he said.

Scott was also critical of Snipes.

For her part, Snipes told a South Florida ABC affiliate that her office was counting five or six pages for each person who voted by mail.

“It’s a serious issue with me. … We ran 22 sites, we ran 14 days, we ran 12 hours. We had a big vote by mail, so don’t try to turn it around to make it seem like I’m making comedy out of this,” Snipes told a reporter.

The Associated Press reported Snipes said she wasn’t certain how many ballots remain to be counted.

J. Christian Adams, a former election lawyer with the Justice Department and now president of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, argued against Snipes’ office in a two-week trial in 2017 in Florida.

“Brenda Snipes is one of the most incompetent election officials in the United States,” Adams told The Daily Signal. “She does a terrible job maintaining the voter rolls and enforcing the voter laws. She has been sued three times in the past two years. It’s astounding to me that she keeps her job.”

In 2014, her office was sued over a confusing ballot layout. In 2016, she was again sued regarding the destroyed ballots. Scott’s legal action marks the third lawsuit against her.

Interestingly, Snipes was first appointed to the post in 2002 after her predecessor, Miriam Oliphant, was removed for incompetence. She has since been elected and re-elected to several four-year terms to the county office.

Ballots were counted slowly every year except for 2008 and 2010 under her watch, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

The last time the eyes of the political world were on Florida was after the presidential election of 2000. That’s when Florida recounts and a Supreme Court case decided the presidential contest between then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, a Republican, and then-Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat.

Still, there’s scant legal comparison between then and now, Adams said.

“I don’t even think there’s any similarities,” Adams said. “In 2000, the question was about the intent of the voter. In these cases, we’re not even there yet.”

During his briefing with reporters Friday, Trump also referenced Nelson’s lawyer, again though not by name, and the connection Elias had with the infamous so-called “Steele dossier,” the unverified opposition research document that suggested ties between Trump and Russians.

Elias works for the Perkins Coie law firm, which retained Fusion GPS for opposition research on Trump. That resulted in the document written by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, that became the basis for the federal investigation into alleged collusion between the Trump presidential campaign and Russian operatives to affect the outcome of the 2016 election.

“Then, you see the people, and they were involved in the fraud of the fake dossier, and I guess I hear they were somehow involved with the [Fusion GPS] people,” Trump said referencing Elias.

Elias, Nelson’s lawyer, bickered Thursday with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on Twitter.

Elias also heralded the tightening Senate race.

Gillum, the Democratic candidate for governor, said he is just interested in seeing all votes counted. He previously conceded the race, but subsequently rescinded his concession.

DeSantis, the Republican candidate for governor, who has declared victory, has generally continued acting like the victor, the Associated Press reported.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dem-Leaning County in Florida Won’t Meet the Recount Deadline. Here’s What That Means For Voters.

BREAKING: Avis Employee Finds Provisional Ballot Box and Election Signs in Back of Returned Broward County Car (VIDEO)


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Dan Anderson/ZUMA Wire/Newscom.

Suffrage to Suffering: Women Empowered Democrats in Midterms [+Videos]

Well, ladies, you did it again. No, not all of you. But here’s the reality: If only men had voted this election, the GOP would have held the House and picked up some seats. The Senate’s Republican majority would be even greater (than plus six or eight) and the Trump train would be full-steam ahead. But women breaking for Democrats by roughly 20 points made this impossible — and Mad Max (Waters) a committee chairman. Egads!

Here are the stats: Women constituted 52 percent of the electorate and went for Democrats 59-40. Men went for Republicans 51-49. Oh, don’t get me wrong, this wasn’t the guys’ finest hour, either; when almost half my fellow “men” are voting for the party of irrationality, well, we’re perhaps seeing the consequences of the recent decades’ 30-percent drop in testosterone levels.

Yet this merely reflects a simple truth. Regarding voting, men really stink.

Women stink worse.

For the unacquainted, know that the electoral sex gap (called the “gender” gap by those misusing the quoted term) manifests itself every election. Men went for Trump in 2016 by 12 points; women for Hillary Clinton by 12; Men chose Mitt Romney by eight in 2012; women, Obama by a dozen. Even in the 2010 wave midterm election that vaulted the GOP to legislative power, women supported Democrats 49-48.

As commentator Ann Coulter put it in 2003, “It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 — except Goldwater in ’64 — the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.” (Video below of Coulter discussing the matter; relevant portion begins at 2:32.)

Another woman thus opining is journalist Megan Fox. Appalled by the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation circus, she wrote Oct. 6,

“Never have I felt more ashamed of my sex than in the last two weeks watching hysterical harridans trashing tradition, decorum, and common decency.” The performance of these “screeching gorgons,” as she put it, “during this uproarious time has called into serious question their fitness to even participate in any serious matter of state. For the first time in my life, I felt I needed to go back and see what the arguments against letting women have the vote were. I had a sneaking suspicion I might find some sage warnings of what we are witnessing today.”

Fox then presented the following very interesting passage from British politician Viscount Helmsley, articulated during a 1912 parliamentary debate:

The way in which certain types of women, easily recognised, have acted in the last year or two, especially in the last few weeks, lends a great deal of colour to the argument that the mental equilibrium of the female sex is not as stable as the mental equilibrium of the male sex….It seems to me that this House should remember that if the vote is given to women those who will take the greatest part in politics will not be the quiet, retiring, constitutional women… but those very militant women who have brought so much disgrace and discredit upon their sex. It would introduce a disastrous element into our public life…it is little short of nauseating and disgusting to the whole sex…

Note that this aligns with a principle I promulgated many years ago. It’s a sort of a catch-22 called Duke’s First Rule of Women in Politics:

You can’t find good traditional women in office because good traditional women won’t be in office. They’re at home taking care of children.

This is so universally true that if there is an exception, she’s the one proving the rule.

So why are women empowering leftists? As many have pointed out, including a female writer whose name escapes me, “Women are natural-born socialists.”

This is necessary within the family unit, which reflects very much a socialist model. The children are provided for even if they create little or no wealth, as it’s “From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs.” The governed, the children again, also have no power; they don’t get to vote. They in addition require, especially when young, a “nanny state” to micromanage their lives — to dress them properly; ensure they brush their teeth, exercise manners, eat healthful food, etc. Being detail oriented, most women tend to this beautifully. Is it coincidence that “nanny state” is a feminine characterization?

This mentality is disastrous when applied to the wider society, however. What mature citizen wants to be treated as a child by an actual nanny state?

Yet it’s no surprise that those whose DNA prescribes a (required in the home) nanny-state mentality would empower statists. An aspect of this is that, as I explained in 2011, women are “The Security Sex.” In brief, women are more risk-averse and crave security, for themselves and their children, which is why they’re generally attracted to strong, competent, successful men. Yet insofar as they don’t find this in a man, they look to the state in a vain attempt to achieve this security. This is the main reason why married women vote more conservatively than single women; it’s also one reason why leftists attack marriage.

Principle vs. Preference

John Stuart Mill once wrote, “I can hardly imagine any laws so bad, to which I would not rather be subject than to the caprice of a man.” A successful civilization is one of laws, not men; it elevates principle above preference, adhering to principles such as due process, “innocent until proven guilty,” constitutional adherence, etc., even when doing so sometimes displeases the mob (e.g., the Kavanaugh hearings).

Thus is it instructive to note that, roughly speaking, men are creatures of principle, women of preference. Years ago a female writer (whose name also escapes me) discussed the different ways boys and girls settle problems. She wrote that boys are natural-born deal makers; they’ll try to ensure fairness for everyone and then shake hands, saying “Deal? Deal.” In contrast, girls will try to ensure an outcome everyone feels good about.

Witnessed here, even from young ages, is that boys instinctively reference principles, the objective; fairness is a principle. The girls, of course, are referencing feelings, the subjective.

Now, being emotion-oriented is invaluable when interpreting the needs of infants, who can’t communicate them verbally. Yet the two methods are not qualitatively equivalent within a given context. Emotion is mercurial. Insofar as it influences governance, its inconstancy does violence to the constancy the rule of law requires. “Passion governs, and she never governs wisely,” as Ben Franklin warned.

Interestingly, it appears easy finding support for ending women’s suffrage — even among women — as the below video evidences.

Of course, not understanding the term, the interviewees above associated “suffrage” with “suffering.” While a comical mistake, some may ask in light of recent events: Is the association really all wrong?

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

RELATED ARTICLE: Racial, gender, age, education and religious differences in 2018 midterm elections

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Chris Barbalis on Unsplash.

The Women’s March: Racist AND Tactically Stupid

Remember The Women’s March? This was the group that claimed it would unite women against the agenda of President Donald Trump.

So far, they haven’t stopped much. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh won Senate support despite The Women’s March mob. Some of Planned Parenthood’s funding is at risk. And the Affordable Care Act’s abortion laws are finally being followed (the law shouldn’t include any abortions, but at least the Trump administration isn’t forcing pro-lifers to be involved with ACA-related abortion coverage).

In addition to losing, The Women’s March has managed to alienate itself from a goodly portion of…well, women. They haven’t allowed pro-life and conservative women to be in their ranks. By associating themselves with the anti-Semite racist Louis Farrakhan, they’ve lost the support of liberal activist and actress Alyssa Milano. And they’ve bashed white women for their votes.

With all of this “winning” by these radical leftists, we can’t wait to see what comes next. In the meantime, here’s a list of groups which back the Women’s March…and the corporations which send your dollars to them:

Center for Reproductive Rights
Bank of America
General Electric
MIcrosoft

GLAAD
Hilton
Diageo
Microsoft

Greenpeace USA

General Electric
Intuit

Human Rights Campaign

Bank of America
Diageo
Target

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense

Facebook*
Starbucks*

NARAL

Bank of America
General Electric

Planned Parenthood

Bank of America
Microsoft
Starbucks

Sierra Club

Bank of America
Coca-Cola

RELATED ARTICLE: The Myth of Trump and the Women’s Vote


Help us continue highlighting how corporations support the left’s agenda by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is from Shutterstock.

Governor Scott Sues Broward County Over Election Fraud

Earlier today, The Federalist Pages reported its prediction that Governor Rick Scott, despite the votes still remaining to be counted, would win Florida’s senatorial race against incumbent Senator Bill Nelson, by a razor-thin margin of less than 0.25%.  That was based, among other factors, on an estimated number of about 30,111 early votes in Broward County that had yet to be counted.  This number of outstanding early ballots was based on the reported difference between the counted 665,688 ballots and the 695,799 turned in ballots in Broward.

Now, Fox News is reporting Broward County was claiming there were 707,223 ballots cast on Election Day, and that the number had subsequently increased to 712,840 ballots.  Interestingly, as of this writing at 2235 on November 8, 2018, the Florida Division of Elections is showing 680,568 ballots cast in Broward County.

In the meantime, in Palm Beach County, where The Federalist Pages was unable to determine how many ballots had been cast and were outstanding, Fox is reporting that 15,000 new ballots have appeared.  This while in the remaining 65 other Florida counties, the only ballots remaining to be counted, as required by law, are the military mail-in ballots and the provisional votes.

In the meantime, the election indiscretions have already flipped the Agricultural Commissions race from Republican to Democrat.

Since the publication of The Federalist Pages‘ prediction, Senator Marco Rubio took to Twitter to call attention to the possibility of voter tampering in Broward County.  His series of tweets include an explanation of applicable Florida elections law and images of boxes full of ballots being unloaded in Broward County.  If correct, such an act would be a violation of Florida elections laws.

In the meantime, a Democrat funded team of attorneys has arrived in Florida with the stated intent of “winning the election.”  And in another, late-breaking development, Governor Scott has filed suit against the Broward County Supervisor of Elections, Dr. Brenda C. Snipes, alleging noncompliance by the Supervisor of Elections with Florida’s Public Records Act by not allowing the inspection of the ballots.  The allegations are part of what appears to be a broader array of inconsistencies in vote counting.  For example, mail-in ballots and early votes are supposed to be counted on the day prior to the election so that they may be recorded within 30 minutes after the polls close.  Two days later, neither Broward nor Palm Beach Counties have complied. Additionally, in erroneously filled or damaged ballots, it falls upon the county canvassing board to determine the voter intent, if possible, and to fill in a substitute ballot under public scrutiny. There are allegations made that the Broward County Supervisor of Elections Office is undertaking that process at this time behind closed doors.

It is interesting to note that Broward is the same county that encountered such difficulties in the 2000 presidential election. Also of significance is Dr. Snipe’s history of election indiscretions as determined by a judgment against her for having destroyed ballots in the 2016 congressional race.

Although nothing is known for certain relating to the Broward County Election results, this is going to be a long process for the State of Florida.

RELATED VIDEO: Rick Scott press conference regarding ‘rampant fraud’ in Senate election process.

RELATED ARTICLES:

What The Hell? Broward And Palm Beach Counties Ignore Court Ruling On Vote Counts; UPDATE: Reporters Threatened?

Accusations fly over Broward County ballot shenanigans: Mystery truck deliveries, slow counting and more

Caught On Video: Crews Violating ‘all chain of custody requirements for ballots’

Judge Rules in Governor Scott’s favor in Broward Election Records Request

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Element5 Digital on Unsplash.

Exit Signs: Poll Warns Dems to Back off Social Issues

In the last 48 hours, there’s been a lot of speculation about what motivated voters to give back control of the House to Democrats. But based on exit polling, we can tell you one thing: it isn’t their radical social policy. Some Americans may be frustrated by GOP leaders or at odds with Donald Trump, but their positions on life, religious liberty, and sexuality are still light years more conservative than the party they just handed half of Congress to.

In a new FRC-commissioned McLaughlin & Associates survey, 1,000 Americans were asked their thoughts on a wide variety of issues — including some that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has already promised the House will address. The answers we got (which, interestingly, included more people who voted for Democrats on Tuesday than Republicans) might surprise you. When heartland Democrats tried to explain that Hillary Clinton lost because it seemed like she cared “more about bathrooms than jobs,” the party should have listened. Today, those same people are sending the same message – and it’ll be interesting to see if the extremists under Pelosi’s control pay attention.

When they were asked if they approved or disapproved of “government forcing schools, businesses, and nonprofit organizations opening showers, changing facilities, locker rooms, and bathrooms designated for women and girls to biological males and vice versa,” the answer couldn’t be clearer. Sixty percent said they opposed the bathroom policies of Barack Obama and other liberals, compared to just 24 percent who approved. That’s a 36-point gap on an issue that Pelosi has already promised to force on Americans in the new Congress. The Equality Act, the most radical piece of LGBT legislation ever introduced, is about to become a top 10 priority of the Democratic House.

As recently as this year, the Democrats’ own base pleaded with them to stop pushing their transgender agenda and get back to the work of real governing. “You’re killing us” was the headline. “The Democratic brand,” Illinois State Rep. Jerry Costello told Politico, “is hugely damaged, and it’s going to take a while to bring it back. Democrats in southern Illinois have been more identified by [transgender] bathrooms than by putting people back to work.” That seems destined to continue, based on the agenda of House Democrats.

Along those same lines, the majority of people don’t want the federal government to redefine sex to include “gender identity.” That’s especially significant now, as President Trump considers rolling back Obama’s overreach on that very issue. Asked if they wanted to “allow individuals who identify as transgender to get a special legal status related to employment law, federally-funded health care benefits, and the use of bathrooms and showers of the opposite sex,” 54 percent said no. Only 27 percent agree with radical positions of Pelosi and Obama.

On abortion, where Democrats have boxed themselves into one of the most militant positions of all — even going so far as to demand taxpayer-funded abortions in their platform — 56 percent don’t agree. As other polls have shown, the majority of Americans appreciate the Hyde Amendment that Democrats want to abolish – the 41-year-old wall between taxpayers and elective abortion. That’s double the 28 percent in Pelosi’s camp.

But perhaps the most powerful support came on an issue where President Trump stands tallest: religious liberty. A whopping 70 percent of respondents agreed that the government “should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage between one man and one woman” — not just in how they live their lives but in how they run their businesses. They’ve seen people like Jack Phillips, Aaron and Melissa Klein, and Barronelle Stuzman personally destroyed for daring to hold a view on marriage that Barack Obama did five years ago. (And, as our poll shows, a plurality still do!) That’s an astounding majority, especially when you see the minuscule number (18 percent) who think like Obama and Pelosi do – that government should be used as a club to beat people into submission on LGBT issues.

The bottom line of the survey is this: if Democrats think they have a mandate to push their fanatical social agenda, they’re wrong. And trust me. In two years, Americans will remind them — like they did in 2010 and 2016 — if they try.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

HHS Prescribes a Health Care Fix

Justice Was Served by Sessions

VIDEO: ‘We Know Where You Sleep at Night’: Mob Goes to Home of ‘Racist, Sexist, Bigoted’ Tucker Carlson

A left-wing mob showed up outside Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s house Wednesday evening, posted pictures of his address online, and demanded that he flee the city of Washington, D.C.

ADDED VIDEO: Activist Mob outside of Tucker Carlson’s home. Unbelievable. Published by Vee:

Carlson, a co-founder of The Daily Caller and host of “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” was at the Fox News studio when the angry crowd showed up outside of his house.

At least one of the protesters went all the way up to Carlson’s front door, where they left a sign with his family’s home address written on it and rang his doorbell.

Video of the group, Smash Racism DC, shows one of the mob’s ringleaders leading the crowd in chants of “racist scumbag, leave town!” and “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!”

“No borders! No walls! No USA at all!” the protesters chanted in another video.

The group posted a picture of the sign with the Carlson family’s address on it to Twitter.

“Tucker Carlson, you cannot hide from the people you hurt with your rhetoric, your lies, and your hate,” the group wrote on Twitter, adding the hashtag “#KnockKnockTucker.”

Twitter removed the tweet with Carlson’s address after an inquiry from The Daily Caller News Foundation.

NBC’s Megyn Kelly denounced the mob tactics toward Carlson.

“This has to stop. Who are we? What are we becoming? @TuckerCarlson is tough & can handle a lot, but he does not deserve this,” Kelly, also a former Fox News host, wrote on Twitter.

“His family does not deserve this. It’s stomach-turning,” Kelly added.

“Smash Racism DC” previously chased Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and his wife out of a restaurant during Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings.

The group later posted a message warning Cruz that he’s “not safe.”

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, please email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Peter Hasson

Peter Hasson

Peter J. Hasson is a reporter for The Daily Caller. Twitter: @peterjhasson.

RELATED ARTICLE: Red Alert: Leftists Groups Target Over 900 Cities Tonight. Mobs Forming?

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Christian Monterrosa/Sipa USA/Newscom.

So Much for a ‘Blue Wave’—4 of the Biggest Midterm Takeaways

It wasn’t the blockbuster night Democrats were hoping for.

The blue wave fell far short of some of the major wave elections of the past decade.

In Tuesday’s midterms, Democrats claimed a majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in eight years—but their electoral gains were muted by significant Republican gains in the Senate.

“This is not a blue wave,” CNN’s Jake Tapper said while watching early election results come in. What transpired looked more like a blue ripple.

In the Senate, Republicans solidified their thin majority, with Sen. Ted Cruz  of Texas defending his seat in a high-profile race against Beyoncé-endorsed Rep. Beto O’Rourke. Florida Gov. Rick Scott defeated Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson in one of the most important swing states in the nation, and Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley ousted two-term Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, thanks to what many consider the “Kavanaugh effect.”

Historic voting trends suggested Republicans would lose the House. According to Gallup, the president’s party “almost always suffers a net loss” in the House during an off-year election.

While those lost seats will be consequential—producing gridlock and new oversight investigations—historically speaking, the night could have been far worse for the incumbent party in power.

For instance, the first midterm election under President Barack Obama in 2010 was a major electoral defeat for Democrats. Republicans gained 63 seats in the House of Representatives and six seats in the Senate while making significant gains in state houses and gubernatorial elections.

The balance of power shifted Tuesday night, but not as drastically as Democrats had hoped.

1. Historic Campaign Cash Couldn’t Turn Texas Blue

There are some things money can’t buy. The Senate, it appears, is still one of them. Republican Ted Cruz held onto his Senate seat in his hotly contested race against Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who raised a historic amount of campaign cash.

The Center for Responsive Politics estimated the 2018 midterm elections in sum cost a record-breaking $5 billion. Leading in the bank was O’Rourke, who raised an astonishing $70 million. Of that, $53 million came from ActBlue, a nonprofit that enables Democrats to raise money via crowdsourcing.

Overall, the Senate race in Texas cost over $100 million, with Cruz raising another $40 million. Cruz successfully defended his seat, but the race was a nail-biter. With 92 percent of precincts reporting, Cruz had just over 51 percent of the vote, while O’Rourke had 48 percent. That is unusually close for Texas.

While both sides would likely agree that money still matters in midterm elections, it was not the decisive factor in Texas.

2. The Kavanaugh Effect

It was a rough night for red state Senate Democrats who voted against the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was the only Senate Democrat who voted to confirm Kavanaugh. He narrowly defeated his opponent, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, in a state that President Donald Trump won overwhelmingly in 2016.

But a significant number of Senate Democrats up for election from states that Trump won in 2016 went down in defeat.

Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.; Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.; Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.; and Bill Nelson, D-Fla., all lost to Republican challengers.

According to the Associated Press, the Kavanaugh issue had a particularly big impact in North Dakota.

“[I]n North Dakota, where Republicans picked up a seat that helped them hold onto control of the Senate, voters concerned about Kavanaugh broke toward the GOP by about 2 to 1,” according to AP VoteCast, which is a national survey of the electorate.

3. A Bad Night for Prominent Progressive Candidates

A number of young, progressive stars went down in defeat despite receiving significant national attention.

O’Rourke of Texas was the most prominent defeat, but there were others.

Andrew Gillum, who gained notoriety for his stridently progressive views, lost to Rep. Ron Desantis in the Florida governor’s race.

And Stacey Abrams, who received an endorsement from Oprah, trailed Georgia’s secretary of state, Brian Kemp, in the governor’s race, though she vowed to keep pushing for victory in a runoff election.

With Democrats now taking the House for the first time in nearly a decade, staking their fortunes on resistance to Trump, it is now an open question who will become the face of the next generation of progressive leaders.

4. Celebrity Endorsements Didn’t Matter

Pop star Taylor Swift endorsed former Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, for the Senate. He lost. Rihanna endorsed Democrat Andrew Gillum for the Florida governorship. He lost. Oprah, Rihanna, and Sean “Diddy” Combs all endorsed Democrat Stacey Abrams for the Georgia governorship. She lost. Beyoncé endorsed Beto O’Rourke in the Texas race for the Senate. He lost.

Suffice it to say, celebrity endorsements were one of the biggest losers of the midterms.

It appears Americans like Hollywood’s music, movies, and TV shows, but not their politics. Celebrity endorsements didn’t push candidates over the finish line. If anything, they may have done the opposite—urged the “forgotten” people to show up.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness is a senior news producer at The Daily Signal and co-host of “Problematic Women,” a podcast and Facebook Live show. Send an email to Kelsey. Twitter: @kelseyjharkness.

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor and commentary writer for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: @JarrettStepman.

RELATED ARTICLES:

With Her Win, Marsha Blackburn Could Become ‘Most Conservative Woman in Senate’

7 of Pelosi’s Priorities as Democrats Take Back the House

Podcast: Divided Government Is Back


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.