These Are The Cities And States Helping Women Obtain Abortions

  • As more states pass restrictive abortion legislation, other cities and states push back with pro-abortion legislation.
  •  New York, Illinois, Maine, Vermont, and Nevada have each taken steps to protect abortion access.
  • New York City and Illinois have made it clear that women can travel to those areas from other states to obtain abortions.

Several cities and states have passed legislation or taken steps to help women obtain abortions despite a variety of restrictive abortion legislation passed in 2019.

Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Georgia, and Louisiana have all passed bills banning abortions after a heartbeat can be detected. Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a bill into law in May criminalizing abortion procedures for doctors. Meanwhile, Missouri’s last abortion clinic may close due to failure to comply with the Missouri Department of Health and Human Services requirements.

In response to this restrictive abortion legislation, both New York City and Illinois have taken steps to make abortion more accessible for women traveling from other states. Maine, Vermont and Nevada have also passed laws that enable abortion access on a smaller scale, NBC News reported.

New York City

The New York City Council allocated $250,000 to the New York Abortion Access Fund (NYAAF) in June to help women travel to New York City and obtain abortions.

Pro-abortion activists claim this allocation was the first time that a city allocated money specifically designated for abortions, The New York Times reported.

Officials said that the allocated money would enable about 500 women to obtain abortions, the Times reported.

NYAAF board member Janna Oberdorf told NBC that the funds can be used by any women in or traveling to New York City and is intended to cover the abortion procedure rather than travel or lodging costs.

Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo also signed the Reproductive Health Act in January, allowing non-doctors to perform abortions according to the Times. The bill also allows women to obtain late-term abortions — after 24 weeks — if their health is in danger or if the fetus is not viable.

Cuomo did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.


Democratic Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the Reproductive Health Actinto law in June, a law that makes abortion “a fundamental right” in the state of Illinois.

The law is designed to alert women in surrounding states that they can travel to Illinois to receive abortions if they cannot receive them at home, according to NBC.

The Reproductive Health Act allows non-doctors to perform abortions, abolishes Illinois’ parental notification law, forces religious and private health care organizations to provide abortions, and eliminates required investigations into deaths of mothers.

The law also eliminates requirements to publicly report abortion data, including “the number of abortions performed on out-of-state women or underage girls” according to a press release from the Susan B. Anthony List. (RELATED: Lawmakers Repeal Abortion Safeguards To Build ‘A Firewall Around Illinois To Protect Access’ To Abortion)

“Should you live in a state that has restricted your right to a safe and legal abortion, we want to make sure you know that Illinois is a place where it is safe and legal,” Democratic state Sen. Melinda Bush said to NBC News. The publication reports that Bush sponsored the bill.

“We want it to be clear that Illinois is a beacon for women’s reproductive rights,” Bush added.

Guttmacher Institute state policy analyst Elizabeth Nash told NBC that protecting abortion access in Illinois “means you’re protecting access not just in Illinois” but also in the surrounding conservative states.

Pritzker did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.


Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills signed “An Act To Authorize Certain Health Care Professionals To Perform Abortions” into law in June, a law that permits non-doctors to perform abortions in Maine.

The law will allow physician assistants and advanced practice registered nurses to perform abortions, according to a press release from Mills’ office, and is set to go into effect in September. (RELATED: Maine Will Allow Non-Doctors To Perform Abortions)

“Allowing qualified and licensed medical professionals to perform abortions will ensure that Maine women, especially those in rural areas, are able to access critical reproductive health care services when and where they need them from qualified providers they know and trust,” Mills said in a statement.

“Expanding who is allowed to perform an abortion does not expand the safety of the procedure,” Republican state Sen. Stacey Guerin of Maine said in June, according to the New York Post.

Mills did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.


Republican Vermont Gov. Phil Scott intends to allow bill H.57 to become law, his communications director told CNN.

The bill would “recognize as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice” and “prohibit public entities from interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual’s pregnancy,” according to CNN.

The bill also would protect women’s “rights to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization or to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to obtain an abortion.”

“The Governor is and has been pro-choice and believes in a woman’s right to choose, so he has ruled out vetoing the bill — it will become law,” Scott’s communication director, Rebecca Kelley, wrote in an email to CNN.

Kelley also told CNN the governor has not received the bill and has not received notice of when he will be given it.

Scott did not yet respond to a request for comment from the DCNF, and his office did not respond to questions as to the bill’s status.


The Nevada Assembly passed a bill in May that would no longer require doctors to inform women about the “emotional implications” involved in abortions according to CNN. Democratic Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak signed the bill into law on May 31.

The bill, SB179, “removes the requirement that a physician certify a pregnant woman’s marital status and age before performing an abortion” and “also removes the requirement that a physician certify in writing that a woman gave her informed written consent.”

Democratic Nevada Rep. Dina Titus praised the bill in May, calling restrictive abortion legislation “dangerous anti-choice agenda.”

Sisolak did not yet respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column 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 of our original content, please contact

PODCAST: Pompeo Does a World of Good on Religious Liberty

You don’t have to fly to China to find real skeptics of freedom. Turns out, there are plenty right here at home. They pop their heads up every time the Trump administration does something meaningful on religious liberty or human rights — which, thanks to this president’s priorities, means we hear from them, a lot. Sticking up for freedom used to be America’s calling card. Now that we have a State Department who takes that mission seriously, the country is finally starting to see who the real radicals are.”It would be hilarious if it weren’t so ominous.” That’s what one New York Times columnist described Secretary Mike Pompeo’s new commission on unalienable rights. To most people, last Monday’s announcement was the perfect compliment to this week’s second annual Ministerial to Advance Religious Freedom. The State Department explained that it was appointing a new group of advisors, whose job would be helping the country get back to basics on human rights. In an age when liberals want that freedom to include everything from free health care to college tuition, Secretary Pompeo believes — and we agree — that it’s time to reel in our foreign policy to freedom that’s universal and God-given.”When we start to talk about… thousands of rights, we diminish these things like religious freedom that are so fundamental to humanity… [They get] sort of lost in the shuffle. And I want to make sure we get this right. And so that’s what the Unalienable Rights Commission is going to do.” On today’s “Washington Watch,” Pompeo told me that he thinks the administration is putting together “a good panel that will go back to take a look at — what are these basic rights, and how do we define them here in the United States? And then, how do we think about it around the world?” Our founders, he said, “thought about this an awful lot. They wrote about it in the Federalist Papers. They talked about it in the Declaration of Independence with the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There’s a declaration and International Declaration of Human Rights to which we will study and refer.” It’s really important, he insisted, that the kind of freedoms America defends around the world are based on discussions that are “careful and thoughtful and grounded.”

Of course, the critics could care less about what the founders intended. Their focus is imposing their extremism on as many people as possible. If that means passing off abortion as a “fundamental human right,” they’ll try. And until President Trump was elected, the global Left had tremendous success cloaking social activism in the language of freedom. But that era is over — and the abuse of these sacred truths, Pompeo insists, ends now. Roger Cohen and other liberals can wring their hands over the administration’s decisions — like removing “reproductive rights” from the annual State Department Country Reports on Human Rights or withdrawing from the U.N. Human Rights Council. But as Secretary Pompeo would say, it’s time to get back to the principles that matter.

“I’m very optimistic than when we complete this work, even those who’ve taken shots at what we’re trying to do, will see that it was sincere and important and deeply consistent with our constitution and our founding here in the United States of America.” If the U.S. wants to help the persecuted and suffering families around the world, it has to get rid of the distractions standing in the way of freedom.

That’s why the administration is putting such a strong emphasis on religious liberty. “President Trump has made it a priority,” the secretary explained, “so our team does as well.” Thanks to events like the ministerial, where a thousand government, faith, and civil leaders will gather, religious freedom is “at a higher level in the conversation,” Pompeo explained. “It’s more of a priority in many countries. I think they understand the United States’ expectations and our encouragement for them to behave in [certain] ways…” It’s also important, he went on, for other nations to see “that affording this right — this right of religious freedom — will make their country stronger, will make their country more powerful. It will make the citizens in their nation more capable. So this is certainly something that one nation ought to do because it’s the right thing to do — but it’s also something that benefits each and every country.”

All across town, Pompeo explained, people are already meeting to talk “about things that are going right in their countries, things that are not going well, [and] how we can collectively deliver on this fundamental human right… [Y]ou’ll have people like Pastor Brunson talking about his experiences. You’ll have individuals who were persecuted in certain countries talking about what happened to them and how it is we can prevent that. The conversations will be lively. They’ll be intellectual. They’ll be very powerful, because we’ll hear firsthand accounts of people who have suffered where religious freedom did not exist. And hopefully, we’ll come together to deliver on a set of objectives over the course of the next year. We’ve seen great progress… but as you well know, there’s much work to be done.”

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


Pence the Center of Detention on U.S. Border

Ending Abortion: The Sooners, The Better

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

I Went to a Socialism Conference. Here Are My 6 Observations.

While you were enjoying your Fourth of July weekend, I was attending a national conference on socialism.

Why? Because socialism is having its moment on the left.

Since there’s often confusion as to what socialism really is, I decided to attend the Socialism 2019 conference at the Hyatt Hotel in Chicago over the Fourth of July weekend.

The conference, which had the tag line “No Borders, No Bosses, No Binaries,” contained a cross-section of the most pertinent hard-left thought in America. Among the sponsors were the Democratic Socialists of America and Jacobin, a quarterly socialist magazine.

The walls of the various conference rooms were adorned with posters of Karl Marx and various depictions of socialist thinkers and causes.

Most of the conference attendees appeared to be white, but identity politics were a major theme throughout—especially in regard to gender.

At the registration desk, attendees were given the option of attaching a “preferred pronoun” sticker on their name tags.

In addition, the multiple-occupancy men’s and women’s restrooms were relabeled as “gender neutral,” and men and women were using both. Interestingly enough, the signs above the doors were still labeled with the traditional “men’s” and “women’s” signs until they were covered over with home-made labels.

One of the paper labels read: “This bathroom has been liberated from the gender binary!”

While the panelists and attendees were certainly radical, and often expressed contempt for the Democratic Party establishment, it was nevertheless clear how seamlessly they blended traditional Marxist thought with the agenda of what’s becoming the mainstream left.

They did so by weaving their views with the identity politics that now dominate on college campuses and in the media and popular entertainment. The culture war is being used as a launching point for genuinely socialist ideas, many of which are re-emerging in the 21st century.

Here are six takeaways from the conference:

1. Serious About Socialism

A common line from those on the modern left is that they embrace “democratic socialism,” rather than the brutal, totalitarian socialism of the former Soviet Union or modern North Korea and Venezuela. Sweden is usually cited as their guide for what it means in practice, though the reality is that these best-case situations show the limits of socialism, not its success.

It’s odd, too, for those who insist that “diversity is our strength” to point to the culturally homogenous Nordic countries as ideal models anyway.

It’s clear, however, that while many socialists insist that their ideas don’t align with or condone authoritarian societies, their actual ideology—certainly that of those speaking at the conference—is in no sense distinct.

Of the panels I attended, all featured speakers who made paeans to traditional communist theories quoted Marx, and bought into the ideology that formed the basis of those regimes.

Mainstream politicians may dance around the meaning of the word “socialist,” but the intellectuals and activists who attended Socialism 2019 could have few doubts about the fact that Marxism formed the core of their beliefs.

Some sought to dodge the issue. One was David Duhalde, the former political director of Our Revolution, an activist group that supports Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and that was an offshoot of Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign.

Duhalde said that Sanders is a creation of the socialist movement—having had direct ties to the Socialist Party of America in his youth—but hasn’t maintained an official connection to socialist political organizations throughout his political career.

Sanders’ position, according to Duhalde, is “anti-totalitarian” and that he favors a model based on “neither Moscow, nor the United States, at least in this formation.”

It’s a convenient way of condemning capitalist-oriented societies while avoiding connections to obviously tyrannical ones.

It was also difficult to mistake the sea of red shirts and posters of Marx that adorned the walls at the conference—or the occasional use of the word “comrades”—as anything other than an embrace of genuine socialism, but with a uniquely modern twist.

2. Gender and Identity Politics Are Ascendant

Transgenderism, gender nonconformity, and abolishing traditional family structures were huge issues at Socialism 2019.

One panel, “Social Reproduction Theory and Gender Liberation,” addressed how the traditional family structure reinforced capitalism and contended that the answer was to simply abolish families.

Corrie Westing, a self-described “queer socialist feminist activist based in Chicago working as a home-birth midwife,” argued that traditional family structures propped up oppression and that the modern transgender movement plays a critical part in achieving true “reproductive justice.”

Society is in a moment of “tremendous political crisis,” one that “really demands a Marxism that’s up to the par of explaining why our socialist project is leading to ending oppression,” she said, “and we need a Marxism that can win generations of folks that can be radicalized by this moment.”

That has broad implications for feminism, according to Westing, who said that it’s important to fight for transgender rights as essential to the whole feminist project—seemingly in a direct shot at transgender-exclusionary radical feminists, who at a Heritage Foundation event in January argued that sex is biological, not a societal construct, and that transgenderism is at odds with a genuine feminism.

She contended that economics is the basis of what she called “heteronormativity.”

Pregnancy becomes a tool of oppression, she said, as women who get pregnant and then engage in child rearing are taken out of the workforce at prime productive ages and then are taken care of by an economic provider.

Thus, the gender binary is reinforced, Westing said.

She insisted that the answer to such problems is to “abolish the family.” The way to get to that point, she said, is by “getting rid of capitalism” and reorganizing society around what she called “queer social reproduction.”

“When we’re talking about revolution, we’re really connecting the issues of gender justice as integral to economic and social justice,” Westing said.

She then quoted a writer, Sophie Lewis, who in a new book, “Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family,” embraced “open-sourced, fully collaborative gestation.”

3. Open Borders Is Becoming a Litmus Test

It’s perhaps not surprising that socialists embrace open borders. After all, that’s becoming a much more mainstream position on the left in general.

The AFL-CIO used to support immigration restrictions until it flipped in 2000 and called for illegal immigrants to be granted citizenship.

As recently as 2015, Sanders rejected the idea of open borders as a ploy to impoverish Americans.

But Justin Akers-Chacon, a socialist activist, argued on a panel, “A Socialist Case for Open Borders,” that open borders are not only a socialist idea, but vital to the movement.

Akers-Chacon said that while capital has moved freely between the United States and Central and South America, labor has been contained and restricted.

He said that while working-class people have difficulty moving across borders, high-skilled labor and “the 1%” are able to move freely to other countries.

South of the border, especially in Mexico and Honduras, Akers-Chacon said, there’s a stronger “class-consciousness, as part of cultural and historical memory exists in the working class.”

“My experiences in Mexico and my experiences working with immigrant workers, and my experiences with people from different parts of this region, socialist politics are much more deeply rooted,” he said.

That has implications for the labor movement.

Despite past attempts to exclude immigrants, Akers-Chacon said, it’s important for organized labor to embrace them. He didn’t distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants.

For instance, he said one of the biggest benefits of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was that there was a brief boost in union membership amid a more general decline in unionism.

Besides simply boosting unions, the influx “changed the whole AFL-CIO position on immigrants, [which was] still backwards, restrictive, anti-immigrant,” Akers-Chacon said.

“So, there’s a correlation between expanding rights for immigrants and the growth, and confidence, and militancy of the labor movement as a whole,” he said.

4. ‘Clickbait’ Communism Is Being Used to Propagandize Young Americans

The magazine Teen Vogue has come under fire recently for flattering profiles of Karl Marx and promoting prostitution as a career choice, among other controversial pieces.

It would be easy to write these articles off as mere “clickbait,” but it’s clear that the far-left nature of its editorials—and its attempt to reach young people with these views—is genuine.

Teen Vogue hosted a panel at Socialism 2019, “System Change, Not Climate Change: Youth Climate Activists in Conversation with Teen Vogue.”

The panel moderator was Lucy Diavolo, news and politics editor at the publication, who is transgender.

“I know there’s maybe a contradiction in inviting Teen Vogue to a socialism conference … especially because the youth spinoff brand is a magazine so associated with capitalist excess,” Diavolo said. “If you’re not familiar with our work, I encourage you to read Teen Vogue’s coverage of social justice issues, capitalism, revolutionary theory, and Karl Marx, or you can check out the right-wing op-eds that accuse me of ‘clickbait communism’ and teaching your daughters Marxism and revolution.”

The panel attendees responded enthusiastically.

“Suffice to say, the barbarians are beyond the gates. We are in the tower,” Diavolo boasted.

5. The Green Movement Is Red

It’s perhaps no surprise that an openly socialist member of Congress is pushing for the Green New Deal—which would essentially turn the U.S. into a command-and-control economy reminiscent of the Soviet Union.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti recently said, according to The Washington Post: “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.”

“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti asked Sam Ricketts, climate director for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who is running for president in the Democratic primary. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Economic transformation barely disguised as a way to address environmental concerns appears to be the main point.

One of the speakers on the Teen Vogue climate panel, Sally Taylor, is a member of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-oriented environmental activist group that made headlines in February when several elementary school-age members of the group confronted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., about her lack of support for the Green New Deal.

The other speaker on the Teen Vogue climate panel was Haven Coleman, a 13-year-old environmental activist who has received favorable coverage for leading the U.S. Youth Climate Strike in March. She was open about the system change she was aiming for to address climate change.

She noted during her remarks that she was receiving cues from her mother, who she said was in attendance.

Haven said the answer to the climate change problem was moving on from our “capitalistic society” to something “other than capitalism.”

Interestingly, none of the glowing media profiles of Haven or the Climate Strike mentioned a link to socialism or abolishing capitalism.

6. Socialism Can’t Be Ignored as a Rising Ethos on the Left

According to a recent Gallup survey, 4 in 10 Americans have a positive view of socialism. Support among Democrats is even higher than among the general population, with a majority of Democrats saying they prefer socialism to capitalism.

But many who say they want socialism rather than capitalism struggle to define what those terms mean and change their views once asked about specific policies.

As another Gallup poll from 2018 indicated, many associate socialism with vague notions of “equality,” rather than as government control over the means of production in the economy.

What’s clear from my observations at Socialism 2019 is that traditional Marxists have successfully melded their ideology with the identity politics and culture war issues that animate modern liberalism—despite still being quite far from the beliefs of the average citizen.

Socialists at the conference focused more on social change, rather than electoral politics, but there were still many core public policy issues that animated them; notably, “Medicare for All” and government run-health care, some kind of Green New Deal to stop global warming (and more importantly, abolish capitalism), open borders to increase class consciousness and promote transnational solidarity, removing all restrictions on—and publicly funding—abortion, and breaking down social and legal distinctions between the sexes.

They were particularly able to weave their issues together through the thread of “oppressor versus oppressed” class conflict—for instance, supporting government-run health care meant also unquestioningly supporting unfettered abortion and transgender rights.

Though their analyses typically leaned more heavily on economic class struggle and determinism than what one would expect from more mainstream progressives, there wasn’t a wide gap between what was being discussed at Socialism 2019 and the ideas emerging from a growing segment of the American left.


Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is a contributor to The Daily Signal and co-host of The Right Side of History podcast. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .


Group Seeks to Place 1,000 “Emerging Journalists” into US Newsrooms to Promote Progressive Agenda

Megan Rapinoe Has No Good Reason to Skip White House Visit

New Book Offers Vision for ‘American Restoration’ Beginning at Home

Cartoon: Democrats Driving Left

Podcast: This Liberal’s Been Married to a Conservative for Decades. Here’s Her Advice.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


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

From Starbucks to Home Depot: The Left can’t help but eat their own.

Online leftists can’t help themselves. No matter how “woke” a company or person is, they are never “woke” enough to live in a leftist’s world.

This week’s example is the boycott over Home Depot (1.9 – Liberal) co-founder Bernie Marcus’ recent statement about plans to donate to President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign. The boycott trended for at least two days this week on Twitter, with tens of thousands of Tweets.

But what is the boycott going to actually accomplish? Frankly, not much.

Here are three reasons the boycott is destined to fail:

First, it won’t hurt Marcus, who stepped down as Chairman of Home Depot’s board in 2002. Boycotting his old company just hurts Home Depot employees, many of whom are low-paid. The actual goal of the boycott – to harm Marcus – is totally and completely irrelevant when compared with reality.

Second, it won’t convince Home Depot to be more liberal. The company ranks a paltry 1.9 on the 2ndVote scale because of its financial support for attacks on life, religious liberty, and the 2nd Amendment. The company is already liberal!

Third, the boycott may convince some companies to not sell out to the Left. Companies should be politically neutral participants in the marketplace. Despite this, even “woke” firms like Twitter, Starbucks,and Home Depot are not immune to being sacrificed on the Left’s altar of wokeness.

Home Depot responded to this boycott by clarifying that they don’t endorse presidential candidates and that Marcus was speaking on his own behalf. They should go one step further and say that this boycott has convinced them that they should go back to serving all Americans equally instead of using conservative dollars to support liberal causes.

Until Home Depot recognizes that it is not good corporate policy or leadership to support social agendas which alienate a large portion of your customers, 2ndVote Americans have another choice of hardware store which isn’t kowtowing to leftist wokeness. ACE Hardware (4 – Lean Conservative) ranks a “4” on our scale because they allow franchises to sell firearms, and is totally neutral in all areas!


Nike: Just Do It (Unless It Offends Colin Kaepernick)

It’s Time to #DumpStarbucks For More Conservative Options

Amazon Attacks Religious Liberty and First Amendment by Banning Therapy Books

EDITORS NOTE: This 2nd Vote column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Congressman Andy Biggs Makes the Case Against a new Constitutional Convention

“Some conservatives assume that a constitutional convention would propose only conservative ideas like a balanced budget. It never occurs to them that Bernie Sanders supporters would show up to demand constitutional amendments requiring the taxpayers to pay for free college and other free stuff for everyone.” – Phyllis Schlafly, Founder of Phyllis Schlafly Eagles

“Article V of the Constitution has only 22 words about a convention for proposing amendments, but the most important is the word ‘call.’  Since only Congress can “call” the convention, it means that states have no control over who can be a delegate, who makes the rules, who sets the agenda or who wields the gavel.”  – Phyllis Schlafly

“As early as 1970, Council on Foreign Relations member and outspoken globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski said that the U.S. Constitution should be altered via a constitution convention to bring about globalization, and today CFR members such as former governor and secretary of health and human services Tommy Thompson are still providing the impetus for such a convention.” –  Mitchell Shaw for the John Birch Society

To many conservatives who are tired of seeing the federal government overstep its constitutional boundaries and expand its reach into areas it has no business being in, nothing seems more “grassroots” than the idea of asking Congress to call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution and rein in federal government.  The erroneous argument from the self-appointed leaders of a new con-con is that this is the only way to rein in out-of-control government.  However, the devil is in the details and Representative Andy Biggs knows the dangers and a con-con is not the answer.

Congressman Biggs has made a compelling case in his book, The Con of the Con-Con, that the procedure for changing the Constitution is fraught with hazards that will likely leave Americans far worse off than they are now.  When Mr. Biggs was a member of the Arizona Senate, he was castigated every time he tried to stop the legislature from passing an application for a con-con.

Andy Biggs at PS Eagle Council

Congressman Biggs with three of the Schlafly brothers, John, Bruce and Andy.

Andy Biggs was a guest speaker at last year’s Phyllis Schlafly Eagle Council.  Both he and Andy Schlafly spoke against the various applications for a Constitutional Convention (con-con) under the guise of proposing amendments for a Balanced Budget Amendment, Term Limits, etc. via the fraudulent Convention of States Project (COSP).

Rep. Biggs is a distinguished conservative legislator and he and his wife Cindy are such a joy to see every year at the council meetings.  It was my pleasure to chat with the Congressman on the massive push by the many fraudulent organizations for an Article V Convention.

Congressman Biggs and his wife, Cindy

I asked Rep. Biggs how he became aware of the dangers of a constitutional convention (con-con).  He said he started seeing a movement to amend the U.S. Constitution initiating the second part of Article V and petitioning Congress while he was in the Arizona State House, and decided he had to stop it.

“Having served in a legislative body and having understood what a self-governing legislative body can and can’t do, either they didn’t understand it, or they were being disingenuous and would have the doors blown off our Constitution.  There were people coming up with these crazy ideas about what they thought they could do to control a new convention.  So, as a lawyer, I went back and read the minutes of the 1787 Constitutional Convention and everything about the founders that I could find and I realized what their intention was.”

The Congressman actually attended the 2012 con-con conference at Harvard with Lawrence Lessig and Mark Meckler, then co-leader of Tea Party Patriots. Phyllis Schlafly Eagles and the John Birch Society were not invited.  At the time, I wrote extensively on what happened with the coordinated effort between Mark Meckler and Harvard’s Professor Lawrence Lessig.  Link and Link

Right and Left Work Together

Rep. Biggs commented that people believe the new push for a con-con is a rightwing promotion.  “It is not just the right; the socialist group Code Pink which has ties to Castro’s Communist regime, Hugo Chavez and Venezuela’s Maduro are behind a new Article V Convention.” They were founding members of the “Move to Amend” coalition which includes Alliance for Democracy, Center for Media and Democracy, Independent Progressive Politics Network, Progressive Democrats of America, Sierra Club, Vermont for Single Payer and hundreds more.  They want to put “their man” in as a delegate to urge their amendments and constitutional changes upon the deliberations of the convention.

George Soros funds nearly every major left-wing media source in the US. Forty-five of those are financed through his support of the Media Consortium. Yes, the financier of global fascism is pumping millions of dollars into the same Article V convention campaign that is being promoted by Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Farris, Meckler, Barton, Coburn, Palin and dozens more.

The deceptive Left-Right coalition to rewrite the Constitution by means of an Article V convention threatens our personal rights and freedoms.

Convention of States Project (COSP)

The COSP was co-founded by Mark Meckler, formerly of Tea Party Patriots, and Michael Farris who in 2017 left the leadership to Meckler. The misinformed and manipulative leaders of a COS refuse to call this an Article V convention and they claim the states can control it.

They are misleading the gullible and uneducated public.  State legislatures apply for a convention, but it is Congress who calls, convenes or opens a convention.  In Mitchell Shaw’s New American article, Who’s Behind a Constitutional Convention, he said, “Of course that means that Congress, a branch of the same federal government the advocates of a convention claim the convention would rein in, has the power (according to Article 1, Section 8, last clause) to ‘make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution’ the convention.”

The Money Behind the Con

Too few Americans are even aware that a constitutional convention can be called, let alone that there would be no checks on its scope and further that the process to call one is well underway and being underwritten by some of the nation’s richest individuals.

Applications for a convention are coming from the “right” and the left, but with more money, a stronger campaign structure, and national coordination on the “right.” A number of major so-called “conservative” organizations and donors, including the Mercer family and Koch-funded groups such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), have renewed and intensified efforts to thrust this issue into the spotlight after years of inactivity.  The Koch brothers are funding many organizations as well as politicians who will promote a new con-con.  Socialists and George Soros are fighting for an Article V convention, and Soros heavily funds the “Move to Amend Coalition” mentioned above along with hundreds of others.

Billionaires Charles Koch and George Soros have formed an alliance to advocate for pacifist foreign policy, teaming up to create an anti-war think tank known as The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.  But their big joint issue is a new Constitution Convention.

Nothing Defines the Call

When the Framers got together in 1787, there were only 50 of them at one time in the room and it was closed to the public and media. They believed in and trusted each other not to speak out of turn to anyone as to what was going on inside, (unlike today’s leaks to the media about everything).

Congressman Biggs said, “A new convention is going to be absolutely out of control with the people involved from both sides.  It wouldn’t surprise me if it was held in Las Vegas as they have convention halls that are big enough and it could easily be televised.

This will not be the case in a new convention.  The world will be there…every special interest, every monied interest, every social media…all trying to get some kind of benefit into the constitution.  Virtually, every state constitution is larger than the federal constitution and the reason is that our federal constitution created a federal government to which we delegated only a handful of enumerated powers; whereas the state constitutions create governments of almost unlimited powers, and that’s what will happen at a new convention.”  (Some folks believe a new convention would be closed to the public – for the likely purpose of having the Delegates propose a new constitution which moves the U.S. into the North American Union.)

“The promoters say, ‘Well it will be limited to a Balanced Budget Amendment,’ but it’s not going to be limited.  Let me tell you I can get around every one of them, and second of all there won’t even be a nod to the enumerated powers in the Constitution.”

The Congressmen said that people have told him that Congress doesn’t have a say in the con-con, but we know they do.

Mark Levin is an aggressive promoter of an Article V convention and actually called Congressman Biggs swear words on the air because as Arizona Senate President, he had held up the vote on an application for an Article V convention in his state.  Many other legislators actually thanked Senator Biggs for holding it up.  They told him they’d have to vote for it if it had come to the floor.  Rep. Biggs told me they had no courage and they were grateful he held it up.

Everyone wants to do something to fix the out of control federal government, but as Rep. Biggs stated, “We must elect people who love our 1787 Constitution.”

A Dangerous Outcome

In light of the lists of leftist groups provided above, the results of the convention could be an outright scrapping of the constitution written by the founders in favor of one more in line with the progressive ideologies of Cenk Uygur’s Wolf-Pac, the Sierra Club, Code Pink, and others.

Remember, according to our history of the “amendments” convention of 1787,  regardless of any state or congressional legislation requiring Delegates to consider only one amendment (a balanced budget amendment, for example), the delegates would possess unlimited, though not unprecedented, power to propose revisions to the existing Constitution, based on the inherent right of the People in convention to alter, abolish, or revise their government.  This is exactly what they did in 1787 with the Articles of Confederation.

It boggles the mind to think of the potential proposals that could come out of a convention composed of such radical representatives.  George Soros’s billions are funding these fringe groups and politicians aren’t known for their ability to resist hefty campaign contributions.

The only prior constitutional convention we have had, in 1787, almost immediately disregarded their instructions to merely propose amendments to the Articles of Confederation and scrapped the Articles’ ratification requirement as well. It turned out OK; the Articles were replaced with the vastly superior U.S. Constitution. But here’s the point, no one, not Congress, not the Supreme Court and certainly not the president, has any authority to rein in a runaway constitutional convention. And all the promises made by those promoting this destruction of our Framers’ document cannot guarantee it will be controlled.  Link

Given today’s socialist and yes communist politics, who could be sure that nothing crazy would be successfully proposed, and ratified – since a new Constitution will have its own new mode of ratification?

James Madison, Father of our Constitution and fourth President of the United States said, “Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, I would tremble for the result of the second.”


Andy Biggs was elected as Representative of Arizona’s 5th District and took office in January of 2017.  In March of that same year, Arizona passed an application for a con-con because Andy wasn’t there to stop it.  At PS Eagle Council last year, he spoke for over two hours to a huge room full of people about this threat.

I would urge readers to register for this amazing three-day conference held yearly in St. Louis.  Conservative leaders and speakers are there to educate us, to answer our questions and to help us fight to Make America Great Again.

For Democrats Factionalism is leading to Fracturing

According to Merriam-Webster a faction is defined as, “a party or group (as within a government) that is often contentious or self-seeking.”

The Democratic Party has embraced the notion that they must be the party of factions such as: blacks, Hispanics, gays, Muslims, Socialists, Communists, unions, etc. This is called intersectionality or,

the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) combine, overlap, or intersect especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals or groups.

Democrats are the party of factions that self-identify as victims.

These factions then use their victimhood based upon identity politics to attack perceived enemies. Hence, if you are not a person of color you are automatically labeled a racist. If you aren’t gay you are automatically called homophobic (in fear of being gay). If you aren’t a Muslim then you are assumed to be Islamophobic, having a fear of all Muslims. Muslims also hold a fear called Fitna (Arabic الفتنة) of anyone who causes unease or discord within the Muslim community (ummah) whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims.

What happens when a faction turns on another faction?

This creating a coalition of factions works for a while but at some point the coalition begins to fracture and causes growing internal turmoil. Because each faction is, by definition, “self-serving” this often leads to one faction turning on another when it feels it is being “marginalized.”

The most recent example is the ongoing feud between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). In a New York Post column by Joe Tacopino reported:

“When these comments first started, I kind of thought that she was keeping the progressive flank at more of an arm’s distance in order to protect more moderate members, which I understood,” Ocasio-Cortez told the Washington Post.

“But the persistent singling out — it got to a point where it was just outright disrespectful — the explicit singling out of newly elected women of color.”

Earlier in the week, Pelosi mocked her and freshman progressive colleagues Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley for their Twitter-based influence. [Emphasis added]

During the second Democratic presidential primary debate Senator Kamala Harris attacked Joe Biden’s record on race. Harris is a “woman of color” while Biden is white. Watch:

This is just the beginning. We are seeing Muslim parents concerned about the introduction of Comprehensive Sexuality Education in public schools which promotes “gender identity.” The Muslim faith rejects sodomy and any attempt to push it on their children. Watch:

Throw the mega Democratic donor, and close friend of Bill and Hillary Clinton, pedophile Jeffery Epstein scandal on the fire, the DOJ IG report on FISA abuse and the DOJ investigation into the Obama administration and Clinton campaign’s investments in the fake dossier this will be a very interesting presidential primary season.


The 2020 Democratic Party’s presidential debates will turn into mud slinging contests. Factions will turn on factions. This will fracture the Democratic party’s voters.


Democrats Start to Worry

The Revolution Turns Inward: Democrats Now Blasting Each Other With Mindless Identity Politics Attacks

11 Highlights From Democrats’ Insult Fest Between Team Pelosi And Team Ocasio-Cortez

How Democrats and Gays have Gone Too Far and Lost Their Claim to a Protected Status

“In the past, when gays were very flamboyant as drag queens or as leather queens or whatever, that just amused people. And most of the people that come and watch the gay Halloween parade, where all those excesses are on display, those are straight families, and they think it’s funny. But what people don’t think is so funny is when two middle-aged lawyers who are married to each other move in next door to you and your wife and they have adopted a Korean girl and they want to send her to school with your children and they want to socialize with you and share a drink over the backyard fence. That creeps people out, especially Christians. So, I don’t think gay marriage is a conservative issue. I think it’s a radical issue.” ― Edmund White

There are a small number of those in America who consider themselves members of the LGBT community. Gallup in a May 22, 2018 report titled “In U.S., Estimate of LGBT Population Rises to 4.5%” stated:

  • Rise in LGBT identification mostly among millennials
  • LGBT identification is lower among older generations
  • 5.1% of women identify as LGBT, compared with 3.9% of men

Gallup’s Bottom Line:

This 2017 update on LGBT identification underscores two significant conclusions. First, the percentage of adults in the U.S. who identify as LGBT has been increasing and is now at its highest point across the six years of Gallup’s tracking of this measure. Second, the increase has been driven almost totally by millennials, whose self-reports of being LGBT have risen from 5.2% six years ago to 8.1% today. Baby boomers and traditionalists have actually become slightly less likely to identify as LGBT since 2012, while the LGBT percentage among Gen Xers has risen only marginally.

QUESTION: Why the rise in LGBT identification among millennials and women?

ANSWER: The media, the Democratic Party and public schools.


The media includes LGBT themed Hollywood films, newspapers, major main stream media reports, TV programs (including those for children), TV and internet ads, and social media companies like Google’s search engine that provides 2,000,000,000 links when you type in the word “Gay.”

In a July 1, 2019 PJ Media column titled “Thanks, HGTV: Americans VASTLY Overestimate the Gay Population in U.S., Gallup FindsPaula Bolyard reported:

In 1989, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen penned a book called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s wherein the authors outlined a strategy for transforming how Americans viewed homosexuality. They proposed to harness the power of the ad industry and media to depict gays “in the least offensive fashion possible” while stigmatizing those who disagreed with the gay lifestyle. Kirk and Madsen were honest about their cynical scheme to manipulate the American public: “We’re talking about propaganda.”

They proposed “A continuous flood of gay-related advertising” while making “homo-hating beliefs and actions look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from them.” [Emphasis added]

The term “homophobia”, first used by in print in an article written for the May 23, 1969, edition of the American pornographic magazine Screw by George Weinberg, an American clinical psychologist, has become a tool to silence those who disagree with the LGBT lifestyle.

The media companies literally began mainstreaming the LGBT agenda in High Definition programs like Netflix’s Sex Education, Everything Sucks and Sense8. Gallup explained that “representation of LGBT people as television series regulars on broadcast primetime scripted programming reached an all-time high of 8.8% in the 2018-2019 television season, which is nearly twice Gallup’s estimate of the actual population.”


In a May 14, 2019 Pew Research Center report titled “Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage” found:

Three-quarters of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (75%) and fewer than half of Republicans and Republican leaners (44%) favor same-sex marriage.

More independents who lean toward the Democratic Party (81%) favor gay marriage than Democrats (71%). Similarly, Republican leaners are more supportive (56%) than Republicans (37%).

Support for same-sex marriage now stands at 88% among self-described liberal Democrats and Democratic leaners and 64% among conservative and moderate Democrats. Fewer conservative Republicans and Republican leaners (36%) support same-sex marriage than moderate and liberal Republicans (59%). [Emphasis added]

The Democratic Party has become literally the gay flag bearer for the LGBT community. 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for gay reparations. Another presidential Democratic Party candidate and the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, Pete Buttigieg is openly gay.

Eagle Forum in a July 9, 2019 email noted:

This week the House of Representatives votes on H.R. 2500 or the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (NDAA) and the Speier Amendment. Although, the NDAA is necessary to fund our nation’s defense Democrats have insisted on using the legislation to advance their anti-Trump and gender redefining agenda.

[ … ]

Additionally, the NDAA Reauthorization includes many anti-family provisions. Among these are access to emergency contraception, or abortifacients, for sexual assault survivors and SOGI (sexual orientation and gender identity) language, which attempts to use the military as a tool to redefine gender. Congresswoman Jackie Speier’s amendment makes broad steps to force acceptance of the LGBTQ agenda. Not only does the Speier amendment completely undermine the Trump/Mattis Policy provision allowing a mentally-stable person with gender dysphoria to serve in the military only under their biological sex, but it also affirms that Congress believes gender is something that can be chosen on personal whim, not through DNA.

‘‘(c) GENDER IDENTITY DEFINED.  — In this section, the term ‘gender identity’ means the gender-related identity, appearance, mannerisms, or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, regardless of the individual’s designated sex at birth.’’

This is happening at a time when the LGBT agenda has become more radicalized and support for gays is dwindling, increasingly among millennials. Democrats now face a LGBT community that wants to silence any and all voices that believe there are only two genders, that marriage is between one male and one female and that a business can decide, based upon their religious beliefs, to not bake a cake for a gay wedding.

With the scandals unfolding in the Catholic Church involving gay priests and bishops molesting little boys and seminarians. With the Boy Scouts facing bankruptcy after allowing gay scout leaders, who then abused young boys leading to multiple law suits.


It is now clear that in predominantly Democratic Party controlled cities and states that the public schools are being used to raise a new generation of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgenders. Public schools are now breeding grounds for LGBT “propaganda.”

In a July 9, 2019 a column titled “California Implements Extreme New Sex Ed CurriculumMary Margaret Olohan  writes:

The California Board of Education implemented progressive sex and gender education curriculum in public schools across the state, regardless, in some cases, of parental knowledge or consent.

Progressive groups, including Planned Parenthood, collaborated on AB-329 in 2016 and the recently introduced Health Education Framework in May as highlighted by a video created by the conservative group Our Watch.

Both these pieces of education legislation mandate that school districts require sex ed and encourage students to question their parents on sexual topics—topics explored in the kindergarten through 12th grade sex education curricula implemented in California schools. [Emphasis added]

Read more.

New York City is following suit to push homosexuality in its public schools. In a column titled “The Empire State’s New Clothes” the Family Research Council notes:

In New York City public schools, students can choose their classes, their sports, and their genders! Starting this fall, Schools Chancellor Richard Carranza is making the Big Apple an even bigger news story by radically changing the city’s policy on registered names, dress codes, bathrooms, locker rooms, and athletics. He says this is his way of celebrating Pride month. But “proud” is the last word most parents would use to describe the news.

In this new Wild West of gender identity, Carranza is giving the green light to everything from unofficial name changes to unisex school uniforms. “Schools are safe havens for students to develop their passions and discover their true identities, and these new guidelines celebrate and affirm all students,” Carranza insisted in a statement. For the first time, kids in the 2019-2020 school year will be able to “self-report names and genders” when enrolling in the city’s public schools. [Emphasis added]

Read more.

Watch this video on Comprehensive Sexuality Education:

It is clear that the media, the Democratic Party and now public schools are all rapidly and repeatedly pushing homosexuality as  the new normal. The goal is to “radicalize and sexualize children.” They use words like “homophobic”, “civil right”, “inclusive” and “tolerance” to silence any and all opposition.

Parents, American families and especially those who are religious (e.g. Muslims, Jews, Christians)  have no say in the matter.


Amazon Just Banned My Dad’s Therapy Books, Caving to LGBT Activists

Epstein, Bean, and Buck: The Democratic Donors’ Sex-Creep Club

U.K. Bans Ads That Promote “Gender Stereotypes”

Acceptance of gay sex in decline in UK for first time since Aids crisis

Ann Coulter: How a Democrat Pedophile Became a ‘Trump Scandal’

Dem platform hailed as ‘most LGBTQ-inclusive’ in history

GLAAD Harris Poll Study Shows Decline in LGBTQ Acceptance Among Millennials

Democrats and Hollywood Mainstreaming Pedophilia

Johns Hopkins Research: No Evidence People Are Born Gay or Transgender

RELATED VIDEO: Antifa Drag Queen Clan Harass and Threaten Conservative Reporter.

VIDEO: 1958 Speech by Robert Welch Predicting How ‘Insiders’ Plan to Destroy America

Robert Henry Winborne Welch Jr. was an American businessman, political activist, and author. He was independently wealthy following his retirement and used that wealth to sponsor anti-Communist causes.

He co-founded the conservative group the John Birch Society in 1958 and tightly controlled it until his death.

John Birch Society Mission

To bring about less government, more responsibility, and — with God’s help — a better world by providing leadership, education, and organized volunteer action in accordance with moral and Constitutional principles.

Preserving Individual Rights & National Independence

“These United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States … We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” — Declaration of Independence, 1776

The Declaration of Independence established the independence of both the original 13 American colonies and the United States of America that they together formed a decade later.

The Declaration proclaimed that our personal rights come from God, not from government.

The John Birch Society endorses the timeless principles of the Declaration of Independence. The Society also labors to warn against and expose the forces that seek to abolish U.S. independence, build a world government, or otherwise undermine our personal liberties and national independence.

Restoring the Constitution

“That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” — Declaration of Independence, 1776

The Constitution of the United States of America instituted the government that secures our God-given rights.

The John Birch Society endorses the U.S. Constitution as the foundation of our national government, and works toward educating and activating Americans to abide by the original intent of the Founding Fathers. We seek to awaken a sleeping and apathetic people concerning the designs of those who are working to destroy our constitutional Republic.

July 7, 1935: Moscow orders first Communists to Hawaii

by Andrew Walden (Orig. published 3-8-09)

When the USSR collapsed in 1991, long-secret archives of the Communist International were thrown open to western researchers for the first time.  Many previously unknown details of communist history have been revealed–including the 1935 Comintern orders directing Communists to begin work in Hawaii.  These were uncovered by veteran researcher Herbert Romerstein in Moscow.

The transcription is below, the pdf of the original as recovered is HERE (p 35-36).

Many of the names of the Comintern’s “Anglo-American Secretariat” members meeting about Hawaii on February 17, 1935 are aliases of British, Russian, and other European communists. Some are unidentifiable. But one, “Sherman”, was much closer to Hawaii and in a position to begin carrying out the Comintern dictates contained in this document.

Romerstein, author of The Venona Secrets, describes “Sherman” as:

“William Schneiderman, who, in the 1930s, was an agent of the Soviet foreign spy agency NKVD, code-named “Nat” (Venona transcripts), with an alias of “Sherman.”

He was later made head of the Communist Party of California, where he would come into contact with individuals as significant as J. Robert Oppenheimer, the chief scientist at the Manhattan Project. (Herbert Romerstein and Eric Breindel, The Venona Secrets, Washington, DC: Regnery, 2000, pp. 258-68.)

The Comintern’s February, 1935 discussion was followed by a July 7, 1935 “Letter to the CPUSA on Hawaii.”  That led to quick action on the part of American communists.  Bob Krauss, in his book, “Johnny Wilson, First Hawaiian Democrat” (p 170) writes:

On the Honolulu docks, a tough little German-Hawaiian from Kalihi, Maxie Weisbarth, spoke for seamen as business agent for the Sailor’s Union of the Pacific. A six-page, free-swinging, semi-weekly newspaper called the Voice of Labor began publication on November 4, 1935.

One week before this date, a rawboned young seaman named Jack Hall landed in Honolulu from the Mariposa to begin a career as a union organizer that would make him the most powerful labor leader in Hawaii. He eked out a living on less that $20 a week working for Weisbarth distributing pamphlets….

Communist infiltration of labor unions apparently did not worry Johnny (Wilson), although Hall’s friends said Hall read nothing but Communist literature. Johnny said later, “I knew as far back as 1936 that there were Communists here in Hawaii….”

It was 3 ½ months from issuance of the Comintern’s “Letter to the CPUSA on Hawaii” to the arrival of Jack Hall in Honolulu.  Koji Aiyoshi, who would go on to assist Mao Zedong as a spy in China during WW2, describes in his memoir “From Kona to Yenan” (p27), the beginnings of his recruitment to communism (without acknowledging it as such) in 1936 Honolulu.

Also of interest, the 1951 Congressional testimony of former ILWU Communist Jack Kawano, describing the earliest communist arrivals in Hawaii. All arrived in late 1935 and early 1936 shortly after the Comintern orders were given.

Hall would eventually lead the ILWU which was controlled by the Communist Party and which would in turn control the Democratic Party. Ariyoshi would edit the ILWU’s communist-line Honolulu Record from 1948-58. Both Hall and Ariyoshi would be among the 1953 “Honolulu Seven” Smith Act defendants.  In 1948 Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis would arrive from Chicago and become[s] a Honolulu Record columnist under Ariyoshi.  Davis would from 1970-79 become a mentor to the young Barack Obama.

In 1954 the Democrats took control of the Territorial Legislature. Between the 1950 beginning of the Korean War and 1959 Statehood, most Hawaii Communists would leave the Party, but not necessarily leave behind Stalinist organizational methods or socialist economic ideas.

As Hawaii’s first elected Democrat State Governor Jack Burns would point out later:

“Every guy in the ILWU was at one time or another a member of the Communist Party of America.  This is where they got their organizational information and how to organize, and how to bring groups together and how to create cells and how to make movements that are undetected by the bosses and everything else…I know what they were about.  I said this was the only way they are going to organize.”

The document is transcribed below. Embedded links have been inserted to provide more information about organizations and individuals named in the document. Sections in [brackets] are not visible on the original and a presumed text has been inserted when possible based on context and spacing.

See pdf of original document (pp 35-36).


February 17, 1935.
Present: McIlhone (chair), Mehring, FlakeNaumann, Brown, Sherman, Levine, Bergmann, Massie, Gray, Porter, Andrews, Brigadier, Riley, Ahnstrom, Billett, Mingulin.

1. Hawaiian question.
Reporter: Flake.
Speakers: Shermann, Nehring, Mingulin, Naumann.
1. To discuss the question with the American and Japanese comrades. To draw up a document which analysis the situation and the revolutionary tasks in Hawaii.
Responsible: Commissor composed of comrades Flake, Mingulin, Porter, Sherman, representative of Eastern Secretariat.
Responsible for Commission: Com. Sherman.

July 7, 1935

The growing discontent of the masses of the population in the Hawaiian Islands with the regime of colonial oppression and the exploitation of American imperialism with its policy of militarization of the Hawaiian Islands makes it essential for the CP USA to give every possible assistance to the development of the mass revolutionary movement in Hawaii, so that the foundations will be laid for the formation off a Communist party as the leader of the emancipation movement in Hawaii. Due to the altogether insufficient information at present available, it is not possible at present to completely formulate all of the tasks of the revolutionary movement, which further investigation and discussion of this question should be conducted by the American Party.

The political slogans of the Hawaiian revolutionary movement should be based on the developing of the agrarian, anti-imperialist revolution, the struggle against the yoke of American imperialism, and the bourgeois landlord system, and for a workers’ and farmers’ republic. Although the slogans of the national liberation struggle cannot be exactly predetermined and will have to grow out of the creation and development of the national liberation movement itself, it is the first and foremost task of the American party to assist this process and raise the slogan of “Right of Self-determination of the Peoples of Hawaii, up to the Point of Separation”, to demand the withdrawal of the US armed forces, and to expose the policy of the militarization of Hawaii as part of the war plans of American imperialism.

The CP USA should discuss with the Hawaiian comrades what are the basic tasks of the agrarian anti-imperialist revolution, especially the solution of the land question, which, according to the material available, presents itself as the task of destroying the semi-feudal remnants, the confiscation of the big plantations which predominate in Hawaii (and are mainly owned by foreign imperialists), and the division of the land among the people.

In addition to the main political slogans of the national liberation struggle, the Hawaiian revolutionary movement should consider raising the following immediate partial demands, the struggle for which should receive the full support of the CP USA:

1) Full democratic rights for the people — against the terror; freedom of speech, press, assembly, and the right to organize and strike; full electoral rights [for] the disenfranchised masses and the American soldiers and sailors.
2) Equal rights for all [nationalities and an end to] discrimination against the coloured people (Hawaiian, [Japanese], Filipino, etc.)
3) Eight hour day for industrial and agricultural workers
4) Abolition of the con.. .. ..labour.
5) Establishment of a .. .. ..ay for
…. the coloured .. .. ..
6) [Une]mployment and .. .. ..
7) Cancellation of [the debts of small farmers] and sharecroppers.
8) Reduction or can[-cellation of re-]nt for small farmers and share-croppers.
The CP USA should [make a prior]ity of establishing a central newspaper (by [combining] the central organs publish by various groups, or making one [of the existing newspapers into the] central organ),

[balance of document was not retrieved]


The Democrats’ Positions on Immigration Are Starting to Worry a Lot of Democrats

The death of the so-called Gang of Eight bill in the House of Representatives in 2014 marks the point at which the Democratic establishment dropped any pretense of support for immigration enforcement. The last week in June 2019 will almost certainly mark the point at which the party’s leaders declared not only their unconcealed hostility to immigration enforcement, but their rejection of the very notion that the United States should even have immigration laws.

The week began with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the party’s highest ranking elected federal official, declaring “A violation of status is not a reason for deportation. That’s just not so.” 8 U.S. Code Section 1325 says otherwise, but why let a little thing like a federal statute stand in the way of a political agenda? Pelosi went on to tout a House supplemental appropriation to deal with the humanitarian fallout from the border crisis, “We have legislation to go forward to address those needs,” and also stated clearly her view that anyone who makes it into the country, however they got here, should be allowed to remain. “[I]n terms of interior enforcement, what is – what’s the point?”

But Pelosi’s musings were just the Democratic locomotive approaching the sharp curve at high speed. Just a few days later, the two dozen or so presidential contenders who hope to supplant her as the nation’s highest ranking elected Democrat held their first debate over two nights. That’s where their positions on immigration really went off the rails in the opinion of some high profile opinion columnists whose opinions tend to lean toward the Democrats’ world view.

Andrew Sullivan, writing in New York Magazine, and Jeff Greenfield in Politico, were both left wondering whether the Democrats had lost all touch, not just with reality, but with voters outside of the bubble of the party’s increasingly radical base. “I suspect that the Democrats’ new position — everyone in the world can become an American if they walk over the border and never commit a crime — is political suicide,” wrote Sullivan. Similarly, Greenfield noted, “These candidates aren’t explicitly advocating open borders, but taken together, the policies advocated amount to almost the same thing.” And not just advocating for open borders, observed Greenfield, but also all manner of “’free stuff’ to millions of people who broke the law to get here in the first place.”

Former Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, Julian Castro, who apparently is familiar with Section 1325 openly called for its repeal. He also conceded that many of the people who are now violating Section 1325 are really economic migrants. “A lot of folks that are coming are not seeking asylum — a lot of them are undocumented immigrants,” who should be allowed to remain here anyway, Castro said.

While there was some disagreement among the presidential wannabes about whether we should care if people cross our borders without permission, there was none when it came to the question about what expensive benefit programs illegal aliens should be entitled to. All. When the debate moderator asked the candidates on stage if they agreed with South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttitieg’s suggestion that illegal aliens be made eligible for federal health insurance benefits, every hand went up. The cost of such a plan? Apparently it would be crass to even calculate the cost of allowing everyone who shows up here to exercise their “right” to health care at the American taxpayer’s expense.

Whether last week’s assertions by the Democratic leadership amount to “political suicide,” as Sullivan suggests, will be determined by the voters in 16 months. What is clear is that the week was a definitive turning point. As Greenfield conclude, “Right now, it seems clear that if either of the past two Democratic presidents had shown up Thursday and advocated their positions from five or 20 years ago—the ones that helped them win a general election—they would have been booed off their own party’s stage.”



Ira joined the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) in 1986 with experience as a journalist, professor of journalism, special assistant to Gov. Richard Lamm (Colorado), and press secretary of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. His columns have appeared in National Review, LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, and more. He is an experienced TV and radio commentator.


Ken Cuccinelli says 1M illegal immigrants have court orders to leave the US

Criminals Profit When Illegal Aliens Crash the Border

A Fine Strategy? Making Deportable Fugitives Pay

Trump Derangement Syndrome Will Guarantee The President’s Re-Election

Things Are Looking Up For Trump, GOP In 2020

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

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison embraces UK’s anti-Semitic Labour top dog Jeremy Corbyn

These are two leaders of the international Left today, both steeped in irrational Jew-hatred. On the Left, that’s the “enlightened” position.

Ellison’s Jew-hatred is Islamic. The Qur’an depicts the Jews as inveterately evil and bent on destroying the well-being of the Muslims. They are the strongest of all people in enmity toward the Muslims (5:82); they fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah (2:79; 3:75, 3:181); they claim that Allah’s power is limited (5:64); they love to listen to lies (5:41); they disobey Allah and never observe his commands (5:13). They are disputing and quarreling (2:247); hiding the truth and misleading people (3:78); staging rebellion against the prophets and rejecting their guidance (2:55); being hypocritical (2:14, 2:44); giving preference to their own interests over the teachings of Muhammad (2:87); wishing evil for people and trying to mislead them (2:109); feeling pain when others are happy or fortunate (3:120); being arrogant about their being Allah’s beloved people (5:18); devouring people’s wealth by subterfuge (4:161); slandering the true religion and being cursed by Allah (4:46); killing the prophets (2:61); being merciless and heartless (2:74); never keeping their promises or fulfilling their words (2:100); being unrestrained in committing sins (5:79); being cowardly (59:13-14); being miserly (4:53); being transformed into apes and pigs for breaking the Sabbath (2:63-65; 5:59-60; 7:166); and more. They are under Allah’s curse (9:30), and Muslims should wage war against them and subjugate them under Islamic hegemony (9:29).

Where does Corbyn’s come from? An uncritical acceptance of the victimhood claims of Islamic advocacy groups in the West, as well as of the “Palestinian” propaganda that the international media routinely retails.

Keith Ellison Embraces Anti-Semitic UK Leader Jeremy Corbyn,” by Ariel Behar, Investigative Project, July 3, 2019:

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a former Democratic National Committee deputy chairman, posted a photo of himself Tuesday night with U.K. Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Corbyn’s Labour Party has been embroiled in an anti-Semitism controversy that has seen key leaders leave the party. Nearly 40 percent of British Jews said they would consider leaving the U.K. if he were to become prime minister.

Ellison, a savvy politician, has to be aware of Labour’s problems. That did not give him pause about posing with Corbyn, who has embraced terrorist organizations Hamas and Hizballah and called them his friends.

“Awesome day in London,” Ellison wrote, “especially meeting with Rt. Hon. Jeremy Corbyn – a true grassroots organizer.”

Before becoming Labour leader, Corbyn praised a re-issue of a century-old book that claims Jews control banking and the press. Corbyn wrote a foreword in the 2011 edition of J.A. Hobson’s “Imperialism: A Study.

“I am sickened that Labour is now perceived by many as a racist, anti-Semitic Party,” MP Mike Gapes wrote in a February resignation letter posted on social media. “But there has been considerable reluctance since then to seriously deal with hundreds of cases of anti-Semitism and several prominent anti-Semites have been readmitted to the Party.”

An ongoing investigation by Great Britain’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), drew 100 witnesses, The Guardian reported.

Despite the scrutiny, “Nothing has changed,” Jewish Labour Movement Secretary Peter Mason told the newspaper. “We continue to see the same behaviour that we have seen for a very long time and no action taken to tackle it.”

Ellison, a former congressman, is also no stranger to embracing bigotry and anti-Semitism.

In 2010, Ellison promised at a private fundraiser that Israel’s influence on American foreign policy would change once more Muslims got involved in politics.

He was also forced to denounce Louis Farrakhan, a fervent Jew-hater, despite the fact that he met privately with him in 2016. Ellison had said that his ties to the Nation of Islam and Farrakhan ended in the early 1990s.

Ellison insists he’s being unfairly maligned. But he does himself no favors when, as a state attorney general, he makes a point of showing the world he’s aligned with Corbyn…


UK government: “approximately 6,850 victims of organised child sexual exploitation in the UK in 2015”

Labour Party in an Antisemitic Hole, Decides to Keep Digging

BBC survey shows half of Arab young people want to migrate to Europe and North America

RELATED VIDEO: Democrat Politicians Now Posing with Antifa Leaders.

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

Debate Over July Fourth DC Festivities Shows How Out of Touch Elites Are

With the upcoming White House-sponsored ceremony honoring the U.S. military on the National Mall, this Independence Day will look a little different in Washington, D.C.

A quick scan of headlines, opinion columns, and social media shows this is apparently quite upsetting to many in the political class. But to borrow the oft-used social media exclamation, “I’m sorry, I thought this was America.”

The reaction to the president’s Fourth of July plans has been a textbook case illustrating the disconnect between the “elites” and the majority of Americans.

In addition to the usual festivities on the National Mall, the White House is hosting “Salute to America,” an event specially focused on honoring the military, which will feature flyovers by the F-22 Raptor, the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, and the Navy’s Blue Angels; various armored vehicles stationed around the area for tourists to see up-close; and remarks from the president himself.

Controversial, right?

The political commentariat seems to think so. “The president is fulfilling, sort of scratching, a long-term itch to have a military parade on the taxpayer dime,” opined John Avlon on CNN Wednesday morning.

The Washington Post’s James Hohmann claims, “This is not the first federal holiday Trump has politicized,” while drawing a not-so-subtle comparison between the event and the antics of adversarial dictators:

Trump seems to sincerely believe that tanks, jets and brute force are what make a country great. … The hard truth is that even the most odious regimes in the world are perfectly capable of rolling tanks into their capitals.

The bad takes don’t stop there, however. Responding to a photo of several armored vehicles being trucked into D.C. for the event, former CIA analyst Nada Bakos tweeted late Wednesday, “In a democracy, a military show of force is an indicator things aren’t going well.”

Not to be outdone, Sarah McLaughlin of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education tweeted, “Nothing signifies celebration of a holiday about breaking free from an oppressive government better than ‘tanks in the streets.’”

These examples of partisan sniping raise the simple question: What exactly is wrong with such a celebration?

Tuesday’s USA Today headline sums it up perfectly: “Trump’s 4th of July military show has visitors pumped, but critics slam it as an ego trip.”

It might be easy for those in “the swamp” to take for granted what the military does every day, and how they do it. As a veteran, the same is sometimes true for me.

We make a grave mistake, however, when we assume that Americans as a whole—indeed, those who make up the “true” America outside the Beltway—aren’t interested. We are wrong to assume they don’t appreciate every chance to show their gratitude for what the military does on a daily basis.

Part of the rich American tradition is celebrating those who not only secured our freedom more than two centuries ago, but who have stood up every day and every night since to maintain it.

It is wholly appropriate to emphasize the military’s vital role in our ongoing independence, and to give Americans the opportunity to see for themselves what our service members are doing with their tax dollars.

Indeed, while Washington Post’s Hohmann is correct that military might alone does not a great nation make, a strong and vibrant military—under the leadership of a commander in chief elected by the people—is the first line of defense against all threats to our nation and our Constitution, and a deterrent to an array of evils abroad.

That’s why the meltdown over “Salute to America” is so dissonant. Not only has our nation’s capital hosted numerous such celebrations of our military before—as CBS’ Maj. Mike Lyons points out—but getting so stridently upset just because Trump is doing so lacks a certain sense of perspective:

If you are losing your mind and your 4th of July is ‘ruined’ because two tanks, a Bradley, a recovery vehicle and maybe a few HUMVEEs are going to be on the National Mall tomorrow, just stay in bed under the covers until it’s over.

“But Trump is politicizing the military,” some argue.

This makes little sense. Is the president truly supposed to remain silent on the day most central to our national identity? Is it wrong for his administration to take the initiative in emphasizing the military’s importance to that identity?

If this was truly just a political stunt, one would expect a far more robust list of assets on display, or even a true military parade, like those in France every Bastille Day.

“Salute to America” is about one thing: reminding our nation of those who stand vigilant in defense of our liberty. It’s about honoring those who have given, and continue to give, so much for our nation. And it’s about remembering why we can celebrate this day year after year.

Instead of making it political, let’s focus on those things.


Portrait of John Cooper

John Cooper is the senior communications manager for the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation. He served as an active duty officer in the U.S. Air Force from 2010-2014. Twitter: .


America’s Long History of Military Parades

It’s Actually OK to Be Proud of the Military on Independence Day

Podcast: A July Fourth Show Like No Other

A Fallen Warrior and the Unfading Flag

The Most Problematic Women in American History

A Nation Worth Lauding

Happy Fourth of July: Nike Nixes American Flag

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


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

PODCAST EXCLUSIVE: Yazidi ISIS Survivors in Israel Speak to Clarion

Shireen is a Yazidi ISIS survivor from Iraq. She was held as a slave by ISIS for three years after her village in Iraq was overrun by the terror group until she was able to escape during a military onslaught on the terror group.

Listen to Clarion Project’s exclusive interview with Shireen below

Shireen (we are only allowed to use her first name) was in Israel the past two weeks with a group of other Yazidi ISIS survivors who were brought to the country for a post-trauma course at the initiative of Bar Ilan University and IsraAid.

In the group was Lamiya Aji Bashar, who won the 2016 Sakharov Prize. Lamiya lost an eye when a mine exploded near her during a daring escape. The two girls escaping with her were killed by the same mine.

Bashar now lives in Germany where more than 1,000 Yazidi ISIS survivors now reside. These survivors are assisted there by an incredible man, Mirza Dinnayi, himself a Yazidi who moved to Germany decades ago.

Dinnayi heads an NGO in Germany called Luftbrucke Irak dedicated to helping victims of terror. Dinnayi makes a point of visiting Israel every year. This year, after two years of planning, Dinnayi was able to bring the survivors (most of whom still live in Iraq) to Israel, a country which, out of necessity, has developed tools to deal with post-traumatic stress disorders in terror survivors.

It was a logistics feat, considering that Israel has no diplomatic relations with Iraq.

The dedicated course organizers, Professor Ari Zivotofsky and Dr. Yaakov Hoffman, both from Bar Ilan University, feel they have a moral obligation to study the effects of genocide and to share Israel’s expertise in dealing with it.

I first met up with the group on Friday night, June 28, 2019 in Jerusalem. The girls wanted to meet Jewish people while they were in Israel and experience Jewish culture. It was suggested that they break up into small groups and join families for the traditional Friday night Sabbath meal. The girls were enthusiastic about the plan.

I wasn’t sure what to expect when their tour guide dropped off three girls at my house. Images from the media of shy girls, draped in veils and unable to communicate flooded my imagination. Instead, I was greeted by three beautiful, vivacious and Western-looking young women who couldn’t express their gratitude enough for being welcomed into my home: Shireen, who survived captivity, Talja, a young doctor who escaped to the Kurdish area of Iraq right before ISIS took over her village and her cousin Izzyhana, who is Dinnayi’s daughter and lives in Germany.

Their English was superb and the night flew by, animated by multiple questions and answers on both sides. I was most struck by the survivors’ forward-looking attitudes — all were ready to put the past behind them, get on with their lives and, at the same time, help others with the skills they learned the past two weeks in Israel.

Later, I met Shireen for a more serious interview. Shireen currently lives in a camp in Iraq and volunteers for Springs of Hope, a Clarion partner organization that helps rehabilitate terrorized children started by Israeli Lisa Miara.

Listen below:

Check out the trailer for our upcoming film “Kids: Chasing Paradise” about the radicalization of children by clicking here

Find out what you can do to Prevent Violent Extremism by clicking here


ISIS Beheads 50 Yazidi Sex Slaves as Parting Gift 

Canada: Former Yazidi Sex Slaves Terrorized by ISIS 

Yazidi Female Brigade Formed to Fight ISIS

VIDEO: A Historic Moment — Donald J. Trump the First U.S. President to Enter North Korea

NORTH KOREA NOW published the commentary and below video:

U.S. President Donald Trump stepped briefly into North Korea, together with the country’s leader Kim Jong-un, Sunday before holding a bilateral meeting at the inter-Korean border area. Trump became the first sitting American president to have set foot in the communist nation. The two sides fought each other in the 1950-53 Korean War.

Blue Global posted the 6 minute video (below) and report:

(SEOUL, ST, 30 Jun 2019) – United States President Donald Trump crossed over the Military Demarcation Line to the North Korean side following a handshake with the North’s leader Kim Jong Un at the truce village of Panmunjom, becoming the first sitting American president to set foot in North Korea.

The short encounter took place within the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) separating the two Koreas on Sunday (June 30). Earlier, Mr Trump had toured an observation post at the DMZ overlooking North Korea, before making his way to the truce village at Panmunjom within the DMZ. Mr Trump had told reporters in Seoul, ahead of his trip to the DMZ, that he looked forward to the meeting with Mr Kim “We’ve developed a very good relationship,” Mr Trump said.

Mr Trump’s first visit to the DMZ came after a meeting and working lunch with South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who accompanied him to the DMZ. Mr Moon had said earlier on Sunday that the handshake “would be a historic event in itself… not only for the denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, but also for a permanent peace in the region, it’ll be very meaningful”. In opening remarks to the media earlier on Sunday, Mr Trump said that Mr Kim is keen on the impromptu meeting which the US leader first raised in a Twitter message on Saturday morning. “Chairman Kim wants to do it, I’d like to do it,” he said.

The meeting between Mr Trump and Mr Kim on Sunday marked the third face-to-face meeting between the two leaders since they embarked on dialogue in June last year aimed at normalising ties and ending the North’s nuclear programme. Talks have stalled since February, when the two sides failed to narrow their differences over how to advance the denuclearisation process. Mr Moon, who has been mediating the US-North Korea talks, said Mr Trump’s Twitter invitation to Mr Kim gave hope to the world and “a flower of peace is blossoming”. However, he was careful to add that although he will accompany Mr Trump to the DMZ, the focus should be on US-North dialogue, and he wished they would make great progress.

Mr Moon said on Sunday that if Mr Kim were to “sincerely, completely” dismantle the Yongbyon nuclear facility, the international community would be able to discuss easing sanctions. “It’ll be the starting point for an irreversible denuclearisation,” said Mr Moon. The 250km-long, 4km-wide DMZ is a symbol of division after the halt of the 1950-53 Korean War, which saw the US aiding the South while China supported the North. Though heavily guarded, there is a truce village called Panmunjom on the border that allows tourist visits. It also played host to two summits between Mr Moon and Mr Kim. North Korea closed the area to tourists on Sunday, amid talk of a Trump-Kim meeting there, according to North Korean tour agency Koryo Tours.

The distance between Pyongyang and Panmunjom is 177km, and a journey by car would take about two hours. Mr Trump wanted to visit the DMZ during his previous trip to South Korea in November 2017, but the visit was cancelled due to bad weather.


RELATED ARTICLE: North Korea at a Nuclear Crossroads

LGBT Activists Could Be to Blame for Falling LGBT Acceptance

In a recent hit single, “You Need to Calm Down,” Taylor Swift mocks people who stand firm in their beliefs about sexuality, asking that they stop their bigotry and “calm down.”

The music video, which went viral, depicts conservatives as ignorant hicks who reject gays and are driven by animus. They are ugly, dated, and lack basic hygiene. By contrast, the LGBT folks in the video are bright, happy, and boast perfectly coiffed hair.

Moreover, the angry hicks are a dwindling minority, while the upbeat LGBT folks are shown to be ascendant—on the right side of history, you might say.

Despite these crass portrayals, which only confirm the left’s worst prejudices, a new survey released Monday suggests that young people are not actually falling in line with the LGBT movement as the common narrative suggests. In fact, they’re increasingly uncomfortable with it.

According to the annual Accelerating Acceptance report, conducted by The Harris Poll on behalf of LGBT advocacy group GLAAD, the number of Americans 18 to 34 who are comfortable with LGBT people in various situations slipped from 53% in 2017 down to 45% in 2018. And the 53% figure is down from 63% in 2016.

The survey asked men and women of various age brackets whether they are uncomfortable with the following:

  • Learning a family member is LGBT.
  • Having your child placed in class with an LGBT teacher.
  • Learning your doctor is LGBT.
  • Learning your child had a LGBT history lesson in school.

The largest drop in “acceptance” appears to be among the youngest age bracket.

In 2018, 36% of young people said they were uncomfortable learning a family member was LGBT, compared with 29% in 2017. Likewise, 34% were uncomfortable learning their doctor was LGBT vs. only 27% a year earlier.

In addition, 39% said they would be uncomfortable learning their child had a school lesson on LGBT history vs. 27% two years prior.

It appears young women have dropped the most in their comfortability with LGBT people. In 2017, 64% were comfortable compared to 52% in 2018.

Also of note, in 2017, people ages 72 and up were the most uncomfortable learning a child had an LGBT lesson in school.

John Gerzema, CEO of The Harris Poll, expressed concern over these numbers to USA TODAY: “We count on the narrative that young people are more progressive and tolerant. These numbers are very alarming and signal a looming social crisis in discrimination.”

USA Today reported that when Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, looked closer, she discovered the younger age bracket actually interacted more with LBGT people, “particularly individuals who are non-binary and don’t identify simply as lesbian or gay.”

She blamed their lower comfort level on “a newness that takes time for people to understand.”

Both Gerzema and Ellis blamed the lack of tolerance on the Trump administration’s policy efforts regarding transgender people in the military and religious liberty issues.

But this makes no sense. If politics is really downstream from culture, and there is more equality in America than ever before, wouldn’t the culture reflect and accept that notion of being more tolerant?

A better way to understand the survey results might be to look at how pushy, even aggressive, the LGBT movement has been in ensuring its rights supersede the rights of others.

Whether it’s lawsuits for “bathroom rights” or lawsuits against religious people who can’t in good conscience bake a certain cake, the LGBT community is not advocating “equal rights” but supreme rights that marginalize everyone else’s.

This aggressive push for LGBT “equality” may actually be backfiring, causing even young people to feel discomfort and alienation.

At first glance, Swift’s song might seem to align with this study, since she too is decrying society’s rejection of LGBT people. But what she ignores, just like Ellis, is that people are uncomfortable for a reason that is likely of the LGBT movement’s own making.

The LGBT movement is now defined by fighting against gender norms, demanding that children in drag become an accepted new normal, and filing lawsuits so that biological males can use women’s restrooms.

This kind of aggressive, entitled behavior is difficult to acquiesce to, especially when it infringes upon the rights of others who would rather not participate.

Instead of hoping people would become more “comfortable” around the LGBT community, it may be worthwhile for GLAAD and other groups to consider the effect their campaign is having on other people. Maybe they’re the ones that “need to calm down.”


Nicole Russell is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Her work has appeared in The Atlantic, The New York Times, National Review, Politico, The Washington Times, The American Spectator, and Parents Magazine. Twitter: .


Transgender Teen Sought to Kill Colorado Classmates

Pro-LGBT Messaging Bombards Us During Pride Month, But Where Is This Movement Heading?

Planned Parenthood Hands Out 12 Media Awards for ‘Sexual Rights’

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


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