The Covington Debacle Shows the Founders Were Right to Distrust Democracy

/in , , , , , /by

In an age in which contempt for fellow citizens is reaching pathological levels, we can be thankful that these institutions exist to protect us.

n the shallow world of modernity, we throw around a word like “democracy” as a stand-in for “things that I like.”

Many in popular culture and elite institutions promote democracy as a cure for all that ails us—an unquestioned and unqualified blessing.

Still others turn on a dime and hope for its demise as soon as it produces outcomes they don’t like.

While democracy often plays a good and necessary role in a self-governing society, we have lost the healthy skepticism of its worst excesses that the Founding Fathers understood when they established the governing institutions of the United States.

These excesses were on full display over the weekend.

The frenzied hate mob unleashed on Catholic, “Make America Great Again” hat-wearing teens—falsely accused of harassing a Native American at the March for Life over the weekend—is a shameful reminder of how fake news can destroy lives and perpetuate evil.

Particularly disturbing is how so many people—celebrities, politicians, and even some respected leaders who should have been warier of grabbing their pitchforks before the facts had been unveiled—fell in with the scramble to condemn the students as hateful racists.

Many of these voices called for violence and other heinous actions against the children from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky. There could be no quarter, no forgiveness, no mercy. The mob needed its pound of flesh.

Celebrities and so-called thought leaders spun out articles and social media posts comparing the Covington Catholic students to segregationists and Ku Klux Klansman, condemning the Catholic Church for a “shameful history of Native American abuses,” and even angrily claiming that smirks and smiles are actually racist.

Even the students’ local diocese quickly rushed into the fray to condemn the students, in effect giving cover to the media outlets seeking to ruin the students’ lives and reputations.

The story was just too good to fact check, too easy to force into a cherished narrative: that white, male Christians are unleashing violence, bigotry, and harassment on minorities all over America.

The problem is, the entire narrative was based on a wild distortion of what occurred.

The vicious and often unhinged diatribes we saw launched against the Covington Catholic students laid bare an irrational rage burning beneath the rule of law.

It is no stretch to think that left unchecked, the mob—especially the rage-fueled left—would have unjustly stripped these students of their basic freedoms and abandoned the notion of a presumption of innocence in a rush to judgment.

This is the same pattern we saw transpire in the confirmation battle over Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

So, is the problem our reckless and agenda-driven media? Yes, in part.

Media coverage of this incident was dreadful and shameful—a confirmation for many that even America’s most established and influential media institutions have become hopelessly biased and reckless in the age of Trump.

But the problem goes deeper than that. The truth is, fake news was every bit as much a problem in the late 1700s, when our country was formed, as it is today.

The use of the printing press allowed knowledge to travel like wildfire but also gave hucksters and falsehood peddlers a new tool for spreading their wares more effectively.

True, our news today travels much faster, and social media can spread hysteria like a virus. But there’s also an upside.

Public intellectuals and members of the media continually decry the decentralized nature of the internet and its ability to generate “fake news” and misleading stories. They long for the day when America had just a few big outlets acting as responsible news arbiters.

Some even suggest that the answer is to create government agencies to sort through this information and tell us what the truth is, such as what Europe is experimenting with.

This is a terrible way to address the issue.

It was legacy media outlets in the first place—like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN—that perpetuated the deceptive reporting we witnessed over the weekend and failed to follow basic journalistic practices, such as inquiring about both sides of a heated dispute.

News outlets point to foreign agents and anonymous Twitter accounts that promoted a slanted view of the controversy, but they are just using them as scapegoats. Their own journalistic malpractice is the heart of the problem.

This wouldn’t be the first time these outlets got a story massively wrong and deceived the American people, but now we at least have greater means to debunk falsehoods when they arise.

It was the skeptics who took the time to study the story from all angles, like Robby Soave at Reason, who blew the story up. Soave reviewed footage from the hours of amateur video taken of the incident. While legacy media outlets were still peddling the initial, deceptive narrative, it was collapsing with a simple review of easily obtainable evidence that refuted it.

As my colleague, Kelsey Harkness, noted on “Fox & Friends”: “Just imagine if there were no hourlong, or two-hourlong videos that could exonerate these high school boys. Their lives could be ruined.”

If anything, we need to learn a valuable lesson from this incident.

We should today heed the wisdom of John Adams, who wrote to his friend John Taylor about the excesses of democracy.

This lesson is especially important now as it’s clear that many—especially on the left—have deep and unrelenting contempt for their fellow citizens who disagree with them. He explained that while democracy is no worse than “monarchy or aristocracy,” it is often bloodier than either and “wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”

Pure democracies devour themselves, Adams wrote, as citizens turn against citizens. “It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy.”

He continued:

Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.

The failures of democracy are the result of the fallen nature of man—a condition that cannot be cured and cannot be changed.

This is why the framers of the Constitution formed our federal republic with a complex web of checks on power.

Democracy had its place—most specifically in the frequent elections of the House of Representatives—but it was removed from decisions dealing with fundamental rights, such as free speech and the right to bear arms enshrined in the First and Second Amendments.

This is the balance the Founders sought to preserve our freedom, and in many cases, save us from ourselves.

The framers designed our system to slow down decision-making—especially at the highest, federal level—to frustrate the ambition of the leaders who represent us, to throw water on the temporary, to excite passions of the people, which may lead the country to folly or tyranny.

These concepts may be lost on progressives and those on the left who believe in the evolution or perfectibility of man (which seems untenable given that they see a potential fascist in everyone who disagrees with them).

But the Founders likely wouldn’t have been surprised by the noxious media frenzy that set out to destroy a few high school students in the name of social justice.

The Founders well understood the threat of fake news. They wisely assessed that despite the threat, the government could not be a trusted arbiter of what is real and fake—so they created the First Amendment.

Then, knowing that this judgment of truth and falsehood could be left only to the people in a free society, they put guardrails on the people themselves so that they could not use this power to tyrannize their fellow citizens on a whim.

This is the genius of America. This is why we have the world’s oldest republic.

The Founders may not have known us, but they knew history, and they themselves. They knew that unrestrained democracy would lead to a destruction of all freedom, the annihilation of God-given individual rights that governments of all types had trampled throughout human history.

In an age in which contempt for fellow citizens is reaching pathological levels, we can be thankful that these institutions exist to protect us.

Yet given the retreat of constitutional government over the past century, we have less cause for certainty that they will continue to save us from ourselves.

COLUMN BY

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal

EDITORS NOTE: This article with images was reprinted from The Daily Signal with permission. Image credit: Pixabay.

Cross Examining the 2020 Census [+Video]

/in , , , , , , , /by

The Trump Administration intends to appeal the decision of Judge Jesse Furman at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after the Southern District of New York ruled that the Commerce Department must strike a question from the 2020 Census.

The question: “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”

The use of his question has energized the usual suspects and some disparate interests, all of which take exception to it. There is precedent for asking Census respondents about citizenship status: The American Community Survey, an annual statistical canvass of 3.5 million U.S. households conducted by the Census Bureau, asks about citizenship, and the main Census itself has done so in the past.

A number of left-of-center groups like the American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU), the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), American Federation of Teachers, Bend the Arc, Center for Popular Democracy, Common Cause, People for the American Way, Rock the Vote, Southern Poverty Law Center, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and scores of others have filed amicus briefs challenging the question or issued statements urging the Commerce Department and Census Bureau to drop the question on the grounds that the question will cause non-citizens not to respond to the decennial census. (The Census is required to count “the total resident population of the 50 states” for determining Congressional apportionment, or the number of Representatives to which each state is entitled.) At least 19 states and 10 cities have sued the Commerce Department over the question, citing violations of the Administrative Procedures Act and the Census Act.  These groups claim (among other things) that the citizenship question on the U.S. Census will deter certain groups, largely Hispanics and undocumented residents who fear deportation, from answering the census, depressing the number of respondents and leading to inaccuracies which have heavy political consequences.

Obtaining a reliable headcount through the census is of utmost importance to American civic life. The constitutionally mandated census determines how federal funding for government programs is distributed, how the states draw the maps of election districts which determine state elections, and how the states vote for members of Congress to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Why the Data Matters

As reported by Hayden Ludwig in early 2018, there is good reason to capture citizenship information. On a common-sense level, it is important for policymakers to know the makeup of their districts and to understand the size of (potentially) competing interests and policy agendas.

When it comes to ensuring that voting is indeed fair, citizenship data can be crucial to determine if the Justice Department needs to intervene in areas where there is suspected voter suppression. Right now, the Justice Department relies on sampling data derived from the American Community Survey. It’s especially unreliable for districts with smaller populations and in communities with high numbers of minority residents who aren’t eligible to vote.

The lawsuits also ignore the fact that the Census Bureau has been tracking citizenship data for a very long time. The now-defunct “long-form” census asked this question until it was eliminated in 2000 in favor of the American Community Survey. The American Community Survey, which is distributed to 2.6 percent of the population, asks this question of respondents every year. Furthermore, other government agencies, such as the FBI or Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are not allowed to access this information.

But what’s emerging from the “resistance” to this question is a power-grab that is inherently political.

Groups on the left are concerned about supposed underreporting because areas with a high density of foreign nationals—including illegal immigrants—tend to vote for Democrats. (Many are also so-called “sanctuary cities” which do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.) A depressed population count in these areas could cost Democrats seats in the House of Representatives. After all, after the 2020 Census, the states are required to draw new district maps to reflect any changes in the population in accordance with Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. This is the opportunity Democrats have been waiting for since 2010.

Moving Redistricting Out of the Shadows

After Republicans across the country won a wave of elections in 2010, they were in power to draw (most of) the required 2011 district maps. As is predictable, a number of GOP-controlled states drew maps favorable to Republicans. (This is hardly unusual. As a rule, both sides will draw maps favorable to themselves; indeed, both sides did it in states they controlled after 2010. Watch CRC’s video on gerrymandering here.)

The Democrats have been quietly working to break up Republican-drawn district maps since 2010, when Marc Elias, chair of the political law group at Perkins Coie and counsel to a host of Democratic lawmakers and left-leaning political and nonprofit organizations, secured an exemption from the Federal Elections Commission to raise money for a coordinated litigation effort. His efforts became the National Democratic Redistricting Trust.

The effort moved into the national spotlight after former Attorney General Eric Holder founded the National Democratic Redistricting Committee(NDRC)—a registered 527 political action committee which incorporated the former Trust. (Elias remains senior advisor and general counsel to NDRC.) Litigation funded by the PAC argued that the maps constituted racial or partisan gerrymanders that violated the Voting Rights Act. As a result, new maps were drawn in Virginia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania to name a few. In the 2018 midterm elections, Republicans lost seats in both Virginia and Pennsylvania. (The new map in North Carolina had yet to be implemented: The GOP retained its seats, although one election is unresolved.) Elias and Holder definitely helped swing the 2018 mid-term elections.

But the Census question is too important for Holder, Obama, and Elias to sit out.

Holder issued a statement through the National Democratic Redistricting Committee in March 2018, promising to litigate the case. In April, Covington & Burling, a white-shoe law firm where Eric Holder is a partner, filed a lawsuit against the Commerce Department. The plaintiffs are voters from Arizona and Maryland—an attempt by Holder to illustrate that voters in Red and Blue states are affected by the citizenship question.

According to the Washington Post, the lawsuit is being coordinated by the National Redistricting Foundation, which is closely affiliated with NDRC.

In fact, the 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization shares two of its three officers with the political action committee. Kelly Ward serves as NDRC executive director and President and CEO of the National Redistricting Foundation; Elisabeth Pearson sits on the board of both organizations and formerly served as the executive director of the Democratic Governors Association. The third officer, Treasurer Mitch Stewart, is a Democratic consultant whose firm counted Organizing for America as client.

The group is only a year old, but its first Form 990 revealed the nonprofit organization already has $2.85 million to dedicate to its anti-gerrymandering efforts. The Form 990 also reveals that the Foundation is a direct controlling entity of the 501(c)(4) advocacy organization, the National Redistricting Action Fund. The National Redistricting Foundation, National Redistricting Action Fund, and the NDRC all indicate they are headquartered at 700 13th Street NW, Suite 600, in Washington, D.C.—the address of Perkins Coie’s D.C. offices, where Marc Elias works.

On its own, the National Redistricting Action Fund reports it has $1.15 million in available funds. Kelly Ward, Elisabeth Pearson, and Mitch Stewart are also the three officers on the (c)(4)’s board. The group recently announced it was absorbing Organizing for Action, former President Barack Obama’s 501(c)(4) advocacy group—a reincarnation of his presidential election campaign. Organizing for Action will cease to exist. Presumably this merger will add over $5 million to the Democrats’ redistricting project as well as make the Obama campaign’s much-coveted email list available to drum up support for its version of a supposedly less gerrymandered America.

Who Will Be Asking the Questions?

As the varied lawsuits make their way through the appellate courts, newly empowered House Democrats are keeping the issue alive. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross agreed today to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. The Committee, led by Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) released a statement: “Committee Members expect Secretary Ross to provide complete and truthful answers to a wide range of questions, including questions regarding the ongoing preparations for the census, the addition of a citizenship question, and other topics.”

While litigators and politicians make their case to strike or include the question, time is ticking. The 2020 Census Form needs to be finalized soon, before the counting begins next year. After that, the contentious redistricting process will begin. By then the Democrats at the heart of the party’s redistricting effort will have even more money to pay for ballot initiatives, campaign expenditures, and, of course, litigation.

COLUMN BY

Christine Ravold

Christine Ravold

Christine is the Capital Research Center’s Communications Officer. She writes, edits, and serves as a press contact. She is a graduate of Rosemont College in Pennsylvania. + MORE BY CHRISTINE RAVOLD

RELATED ARTICLE: Who Runs the Census? How the bureaucracy takes power away from elected officials. – WSJ

Support Capital Research Center’s award-winning journalism

Donate today to assist in promoting the principles of individual liberty in America. 

EDITORS NOTE: This Capital Research Center column with images is republished with permission.

The Ultimate Irony of the ‘Native American Elder’ and the MAGA Hat Kids

/in , , , , /by

This past weekend’s big news was a big media frame-up of kids and the beating of a leftist drum by a little Indian. There’s no need now to elaborate on how the Covington Catholic High School students may end up being 2019’s most unfairly maligned group; their innocence has already been established. But suffice it to say that with video-recording devices ubiquitous today — and with incidents such as last Friday’s Lincoln Memorial affair shot by multiple people from many angles — if there’s no footage of something that allegedly happened there, it didn’t happen, period.

What did happen was that Talking Bull (Nathan Phillips), a professional agitator and American Indian separatist, was given a forum in which to spew nonsensical ideas. Here’s a prime example: “I heard them [the students] saying ‘build the wall, build that wall,’” he said,” as Vibe reported. “This is indigenous land. We’re not supposed to have walls here. Before anyone came here there were no walls….”

(Actually, the Indians built plenty of walls, as old ruins attest.)

But something occurs to me here: If the Indians had effective border security, perhaps they wouldn’t have been overrun and conquered.

So what’s the message? “We lost the continent…and we can show you how to lose it, too!”?

Talking Bull followed up his anti-wall blather by adding that American Indians “never even had prisons,” either.

Well, North American Indians also didn’t have the wheel, a written language or anything beyond stone tools. What’s the point?

Mine is this: We all could conceivably wax romantic about our primitive ancestors’ days. Yet it’s silly. I don’t want to live as my savage European forebears did in, let’s say, 500 B.C. any more than Talking Bull desires to live as American Indians did in 1500 A.D. Typical of activists, Talking Bull is all talk.

It’s reminiscent of an old Sanford and Son episode in which the Lamont character, claiming embrace of his African roots, dons a dashiki and assumes an African name (video below). To the show’s credit, it later illustrated how he knew nothing about African traditions and was just childishly playing African.

Likewise, Talking Bull & Co., with their ceremonial pipes and drums, are merely playing Indians and Indians. Had Western civilization never existed and the dreaded white man not ever arrived on these shores, the Indians would still be living a stone-age lifestyle. The “noble savage” suckers may romanticize this, but neither they nor Talking Bull want any part of it. They could withdraw into the wilderness and live like the Sentinalese, but they don’t. They love our modern conveniences, luxuries and prosperity too much.

In truth, we all had ancestors who once were conquered or colonized. And the European tribes subdued by the Romans surely had many of the same complaints today’s grievance groups do: that their cultures were being trampled, their values eviscerated. Yet should we lament those Roman conquests and demonize Italians?

In reality, we’re all better off for the Romans having spread Christianity, Western civilization and technology and having built infrastructure throughout Europe (e.g., roads, aqueducts, amphitheaters). We still use today much that they birthed, too, from our calendar to concrete to plumbing to sanitation to fast food to trademarks and beyond.

The Romans, of course, had gotten much from the Greeks and Etruscans. This Western civilization then spread to the rest of Europe; later to the Americas, Australia and New Zealand; and to a lesser extent elsewhere, influencing and enhancing the whole world.

Thus did a Zambian man I knew once argue that African colonization was good; it’s why a fellow from India I knew despised Mohandas Gandhi (who was phony, but that’s a different issue), condemning the Indian leader for driving experts and expertise from the country. Shocking? These men understand how civilization spreads.

Of course, it would’ve been better if these glories had been spread via suasion and salesmanship than by the sword, but that’s a non-starter. Not only wasn’t this history’s norm, but would they have spread to the same degree sans sword? Would the world really look better today?

If any of us could be transported back to our primitive ancestors’ time and place, there’s a good chance they’d view us as aliens, suitable, perhaps, for slavery or stew. Speaking of which, it was Western civilization that ultimately outlawed slavery and birthed our modern concept of human rights.

The point is that, however our glorious civilization came to be, be happy we’re part of it — and not living in barbarism.

But, again, the world’s Talking Bulls don’t really want their ancestors’ ways, just their image. They live in modern homes (presumably with walls), drive cars, shop at supermarkets, visit doctors and use high-tech recording devices to frame unsuspecting youths. Dispense with Western civilization’s fruits? Never! They just want their own ethnic dominance while gorging on them. They don’t love what’s behind them as much as they hate what’s in front of them.

It also should be said that — contrary to common misconceptions — the Indians were not the first Americans. Ernie LaPointe, great-grandson of Sitting Bull, made this point in 2010 when responding to Barack Obama’s inclusion of the famed Indian in a “great Americans” children’s book. He said that Sitting Bull “never was an American” but “a Lakota.”

Of course. “America” is a European-derived word, taken from Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci’s name; “America” is also a Western concept and the United States a Western creation.

Nonetheless, Westerners did dominate the Indians. And the Etruscans initially dominated the Romans, who later dominated the Italian peninsula’s other groups and ultimately were dominated by “barbarians” West and Muslims East. The Aztecs dominated other tribes as did Africa’s Shaka Zulu. Many European groups were actually subsumed, which is why you don’t hear about Goth, Frank, Lombard, Alan, Burgundian, Gaul and Frisii lobbying organizations. Heck, the politically correct documentary series The West mentioned that the Lakota justified their dominance of other tribes to the U.S. government by saying they were only doing what “we” were doing; in fact, it quoted a modern-day Lakota as stating (I’m paraphrasing), “We were very good at what we did.” So what’s the complaint?

That Westerners were better?

This isn’t to imply might makes right, only that it’s insane to think the West should commit cultural suicide unilaterally to atone for a universal human sin. We have a civilization here, now, today — the greatest to grace the planet — and preserving it is our duty.

Speaking of which, the lesson to learn from the Indians, and the aforementioned history of conquest, is that demography is destiny. Thus should we have built a wall, both physical and technological, a long time ago, along with altering our suicidal, nation-rending immigration regime.

As for Talking Bull, there’s no point taking him too seriously. His problem isn’t that he wants off the reservation — it’s that he’s on the leftist one.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Gab (preferably) or Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video was republished with permission.

Florida Governor DeSantis Sanctions Airbnb for West Bank Policy

/in , , , , , /by

Airbnb, which lists more 45,000 Florida properties on its vacation rentals website, has lobbied hard to remove its “home-sharing” offerings from hotel/motel regulations and unshackle the state’s $31 billion short-term rental industry from local regulations.

Several bills, including last year’s Vacation Rental Act, gained momentum during the last two legislative sessions before falling short.

If Airbnb is to have any hope in 2019 of achieving its legislative goals in Florida, however, it must first deal with a new problem—the wrath of its new governor.

Gov. Ron DeSantis declared state of Florida employees will no longer be reimbursed for Airbnb stays while traveling and said further sanctions will be imposed if Airbnb doesn’t reverse its November decision to delist properties in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

DeSantis said Airbnb’s actions violate Florida law—House Bill 545, adopted last year—which imposes penalties, including divestment, on companies involved in the “Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement” against Israel.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Photo: Facebook.

“We have a moral obligation to oppose the Airbnb policy,” DeSantis said. “It does target Jews specifically. When you target Jews for disfavored treatment, that is the essence of anti-Semitism. In Florida, as long as I’m the governor, BDS will be D.O.A.”

DeSantis issued his comments during a press conference at the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County in Boca Raton.

He said the State Board of Administration will determine if Airbnb’s West Bank policy warrants further sanctions from the state.

The board—comprised of DeSantis, Attorney General Ashley Moody, and Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis—oversees investments of the state’s pension program.

Airbnb is a private company “but they are trying to be publicly-traded and they are trying to do an initial public offering,” DeSantis said. “That would not be good if you’re already on Florida’s hit list before you’ve even gotten off the ground.”

DeSantis also instructed Moody to determine if the policy violates the civil rights of any Floridian Jews who own property in the West Bank.

Other states will follow Florida’s lead, he said. “That will end up getting [Airbnb] where they need to be. But you know what they say, if you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

Airbnb responded in a statement that it “unequivocally rejected” the “BDS movement” against Israel and that it has “worked with the Florida State Board of Administration on this matter” and will continue to do so.

Its decision to delist about 200 properties in “the settlements in the West Bank” is not unique to Israel, the company said.

“Airbnb has previously prevented hosts from accepting reservations in other lands with unique dynamics, including Crimea—where the decision impacted more than 4,000 listings,” according to the statement.

Earlier Tuesday, Airbnb reported short-term rentals offered through its digital platform drew 4.5 million guests to Florida and generated more than $810 million in rental income for hosts in 2018.

The company will release how much it will pay in state and local bed taxes in February. Last year, it remitted $33 million to the state and $12.7 million to counties it has tax collection contracts with, including $3.3 million to Miami-Dade, $1.9 million to Broward, $1.9 million to Pinellas, and $1.8 million to Orange counties.

Ten Florida counties saw at least 100,000 Airbnb guests and at least $22 million in Airbnb rental revenues in 2018, according to the company’s report.

The Vacation Rental Act—Senate Bill 1400 and House Bill 773—proposed removing short-term vacation rentals from hotel and motel regulations, and establishing a uniform inspection program conducted by the state’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR).

SB 1400 passed the Senate Regulated Industries Committee, but never made it out the chamber’s appropriations and community affairs committees for a floor vote. HB 773 also never made it out of committee. Similar 2017 bills shared the same fates.

As of Tuesday, a 2019 iteration of the Vacation Rental Act had not been filed.

Originally published by Watchdog.org

COLUMN BY

Portrait of John Haughey

John Haughey

John Haughey is a contributor to Watchdog.org. Twitter: @JFHaughey58.

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

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Governor Ron DeSantis’ Facebook page.

The Left Observes Martin Luther King Jr. Weekend With A Vicious, Racially-Charged Assault on Catholic Students. [+Video]

/in , , , , , , /by

A most unpredictable series of events were set into motion on Friday in Washington, D.C., when a group of young men from Covington Catholic High School proceeded to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial to wait for their bus.  The youngsters, high school students all, had been just engaged in peaceful activity, one that all of us should at least consider doing.  They were there to stand up for the lives of the most innocent and silent among us.  They were there representing the dignity and value of the lives of the unborn.  And they were there in the name of Christ.

That something would go dreadfully wrong, I’m sure, was never contemplated.  Of course, the students, faculty, and parents of Covington Catholic High School planned for all sorts of unexpected, but foreseeable, situations.  They, I’m sure, discussed what to do if one of them got lost or separated from the group. They planned for the unlikely event that one or more would get arrested, I’m sure.  And they likely spoke about handling medical emergencies.  

But what to do when you’re minding your business and an American Indian Marine Veteran comes face to face with you while a radical, self-proclaimed Hebrew group is harassing you, I’m equally sure, was never addressed, nor were there instructions on how to handle the death threats that would follow.

I wondered if Covington Catholic High School was anything like my alma matter, Belen Jesuit Preparatory High School in Miami.  My school, also an all-boy institution, makes it its mission to create “men for others.”  My high school instills in each of us the realization that we are all created in God’s image and that it is, therefore, our duty to spend our lives devoted to the betterment of the human condition.  

But tragically, I am unable to find Covington’s mission at this time because I can’t access its server; surely a result of precautionary actions taken by the school.

What could have happened that was so terrible?  What could have served as such a detriment to the school?  

The answer is chilling: the mainstream media happened.

As the story goes and videos seem to confirm, the kids from Covington had finished participating in the March For Life Friday and had made their way to the Lincoln Memorial to await the arrival of their bus.  The wait was protracted so the kids began chanting school cheers.  

Across from them stood another group called the Black Hebrew Israelites.  This group has a long history of problems, having earned the reputation of being black supremacists and racists.  Its conduct has been so hateful that even the Southern Poverty Law Center, a left-wing protectionist group, has called it out for its bigotry and scorn.  

RELATED VIDEO:

As is now clear, the Black Hebrew Israelites began harassing the Covington students, likely because of their MAGA hats and other pro-Trump gear.  During the exchange, an American Indian Marine Veteran named Nathan Phillip accompanied by a small group of Native Americans slowly made his way between the two groups while rhythmically beating his drum.  Phillips approached one of the students, who did nothing but stand still in front of him, at one point coming “within centimeters of his face.”  Initially, the student smiled back at Phillips, a smile that has been called everything from authentic to smug and racist.  

By all accounts, it appears that the students were confused by Phillip’s intention prompting one student to later recount, “We initially thought this was a cultural display since he was beating along to our cheers and so we clapped to the beat. (sic)

“He came to stand in front of one of my classmates who stood where he was, smiling and enjoying the experience.  However, after multiple minutes of Mr. Phillips beating his drum directly in the face of my friend (mere centimeters from his nose), we became confused and started wondering what was happening.

“It was not until later that we discovered they would incriminate us as a publicity stunt. As a result, my friend faces expulsion for simply standing still.”

Much later indeed.

Noticing that this was not a positive exchange, the chaperones cleared the approximately 200 students from the area.  A review of the videos seems to indicate that the kids never insulted Phillips and his group, nor were there any racial slurs launched at the members of the Black Hebrew Israelites.  Indeed, it appeared that the confrontation ended well and that the chaperones had successfully handled a situation that could have been much worse.  

That is until the media got involved. 

Hours later, in fact, as they were in the bus on their way back to Kentucky, the teachers began getting word of the full-fledged attack being launched against the kids.  CNN, of course, claimed the kids were racists and that they had physically prevented the passage of an American Indian Marine who was peacefully attending the Mall. The kids were falsely depicted as having affirmatively accosted the man and that they were slinging racial epithets at him.  Soon thereafter, the death threats flew.  National Reviewwrote a defamatory piece about the school where it was said the students “might as well have spit on the cross.”  The comment was so defamatory and inaccurate that it was later deleted.  

And Bill Kristol, one who is never hesitant to demonstrate his ability to engage in buffoonery tweeted, “The contrast between the calm dignity and quiet strength of Mr. Phillips and the behavior of #MAGA brats who have absorbed the spirit of ———this spectacle is a lesson which all Americans can learn,” and ” If some kid wearing a McCain 2008 cap had been filmed behaving this way, McCain would have already called Mr. Phillips to express regret. And he would have used the occasion to remind his supporters they should treat others with respect. Will Trump do anything like this?”

Of course, about all we were reminded about is that Bill Krystol is an idiot.

Of course, this rancid behavior of gang violence against unsuspecting conservatives has come to be expected from the press and is yet another example of why Americans have lost all faith in that formerly indispensable institution. 

Sadly, there is irony all over this story, from the attacks upon good by the forces of evil to the oppressive consequences upon those daring to support the unborn to the reverberations of the words of Jesus Christ himself who said in the beatitudes, “Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me”

But to me, there is greater sadness that these racially charged events, events of vile and hatred launched against white males, took place on the same weekend we have designated to remember the acts of peace and love between the races undertaken by one Martin Luther King, Jr.

Clearly, King’s dream has not yet been realized.

CLICK HERE: to send an email showing support for the students to Covington High School officials and ask that such support be communicated to Diocese officials.

RELATED PODCAST: Update on the Covington Catholic High School story.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The High School Deplorables: MAGA hats, the March for Life, Covington Catholic—and the mob. – WSJ

Covington Catholic Forced to Close After Students and Staff Receive Death Threats

Trump Says Covington Catholic Students ‘Making Big Comeback’

The Smearing of Teens in MAGA Hats Shows Identity Politics’ Danger

The Full Story About the Kentucky Boys in MAGA Hats Emerges

Senate Adopts Resolution Saying Judicial Nominees Can Be in Knights of Columbus

It’s Been Over 24 Hours Since Kathy Griffin Wanted Covington Catholic School Boys Doxxed. Twitter Hasn’t Taken Down Her Tweets

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured image is courtesy of Covington Catholic High School, the video by Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News via YouTube.

JUDGES GONE ROGUE: Judge embraces ‘Lawfare’ to obstruct immigration law enforcement.

/in , , , , , , , , /by

With increasing frequency judges have issued rulings that run contrary to the laws and commonsense.

Nowhere has this become a more serious issue than where immigration law enforcement is concerned.

It has become fashionable for the radical left to bash our nation’s sovereignty, our borders and the notion of our immigration laws.  Of course the initial desire to open our border to “free trade” began with Conservatives and Libertarians who saw in our borders barriers to their wealth to be acquired by importing goods and workers from outside the United States.

The increasingly radicalized Democratic Party has come completely unhinged where immigration law enforcement is concerned, creating so-called “Sanctuary Cities” which openly boast that they will shield “immigrants” from immigration law enforcement.

Of course, as I have written in numerous articles, lawful immigrants and temporary (non-immigrant) alien visitors need no shielding from ICE no more than licensed motorists who operate their motor vehicles in compliance with motor vehicle laws need no shielding from police officers.

New York State’s Governor Cuomo has endorsed sanctuary polities for New York State and has referred to valiant ICE agents as “Thugs.”

Shielding illegal aliens from ICE undermines the efforts of the DHS to deter aliens from entering the United States illegally and deter aliens who are lawfully admitted from subsequently violating our immigration laws by overstaying their lawful period of admission, accepting illegal employment or otherwise violating their terms of their admission.

In point of fact, under the provisions of a federal law that is comprehended within the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S. Code § 1324, it is a felony to harbor or shield illegal aliens from detection.

While a growing number of cities and states have decided to adopt “sanctuary” polities, there are some cities that continue to cooperate with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) through the 287(g) program whereby their law enforcement officers are trained by ICE to assist that division of the DHS with the vital mission of immigration law enforcement from within the interior of the United States.

Apparently a federal district judge, Catherine Blake, decided that the “solution” to local sheriffs and police officers assisting ICE in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, was to order the stay of an illegal alien who had been ordered deported by an Immigration Judge so that the alien could pursue a lawsuit against the Sheriff and his deputies who would dare assist in the enforcement of our immigration laws.

On January 17, 2019 the Conservative Review published an extensive article about this lunacy,

Judge creates right for illegal alien to block deportation … so she can sue law enforcement that provides the infuriating details of the case.

The tactic of launching lawsuits to intimidate law enforcement officers from doing their jobs and local municipalities from enacting laws contrary to their agenda has been the tactic of the ACLU under the concept that they refer to as “Lawfare.”  This is similar to “warfare” but uses lawsuits in place of ammunition.

Here is an excerpt from the excellent article Conservative Review article:

Roxana Orellana Santos is an illegal alien from El Salvador who had no right to come to this country in 2005 and no right to remain in this country against the will of the people as expressed through long-standing statute. Pursuant to our laws, Santos was detained by Border Patrol when she broke into our country in Texas and then failed to appear for an immigration hearing. In 2007, an immigration judge issued an order to deport her.

A year into her fugitive life, Frederick cops informally questioned her outside a restaurant on October 7, 2008, after they thought she was running away from them. Upon receiving information from ICE through dispatch that she was here illegally, and then acting on an outstanding immigration warrant from ICE, Frederick sheriff’s deputies arrested Santos as part of their lawful cooperation with the federal government to help apprehend illegal aliens through the 287(g) program, under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g). It’s part of a law that passed the Senate unanimously in 1996.

The report went on to note:


District Judge Catherine Blake

In a sane country, this would have been the end of the story. Santos should have been deported, pursuant to every statute on the books. But Santos, backed by an army of lawyers from the organization CASA de Maryland, sued the Frederick sheriff for what she felt was an illegal search and seizure and the county commissioners for agreeing to operate under 287(g). After endless motions while remained in the country, the district court rebuffed her claim in 2012, but the arch-liberal Fourth Circuit sided with her a year later. The court created a new right for illegals not to be apprehended by local law enforcement because of their immigration status. Last September, District Judge Catherine Blake ruled that Sheriff Jenkins could be held liable in a civil suit for the acts of his deputies. This allows Santos to proceed with a suit for civil damages. Her attorneys are seeking to milk this small county for $1 million in damages! None of us can sue her for sucking up our resources.

How many members of the law enforcement community will continue to enforce the laws when they know that they or their jurisdictions are never more than one decision away from a massive and debilitating lawsuit?

This is an outrageous example of extortion to coerce local jurisdiction to fall in line with the demands of the immigration anarchists.

There is a long standing question that asks, “Is the pen mightier than the sword.”

The answer to the question depends on who is wielding the pen.  We certainly witnessed tremendous damage done to our nation by the President Obama’s pen (and phone).  We are now witnessing the damage being done by judges who have decided that as Sylvester Stallone’s character, Judge Dredd intoned in the film by that name, “I am the law!”

The realm of immigration law enforcement now exists in a parallel universe where nothing that would exist anywhere else exists in this magical and treacherous kingdom.

It is a matter of routine that law enforcement agencies work in close cooperation to enforce broad spectrum of laws across the United States.  When police departments encounter a person who is wanted for crimes in other jurisdictions or, perhaps, by federal agencies, that they notify the agency that has lodged a warrant in the NCIS database.  In point of fact, a significant number of the FBI’s most wanted are initially arrested by local police.

Immigration law violations were treated similarly until recently with local police working closely with immigration law enforcement.

In the 1970’s as an INS agent, I was, involved in such case involving an arrest made by members of the NYPD Anti-Crime squad in Brooklyn.  Police officers had stopped a car that ran a red light.  The driver got out of the car and attacked the police officer who was at least twice the size of the belligerent motorist.  The cop knocked the assailant to the ground and a gun, a 9mm Browning fell out of his waistband.  Both men, who spoke with heavy West Indian accents were taken into custody. 

In those days I worked in close cooperation with the NYPD and particularly with several of the police precincts, especially the precinct where this occurred.  The sergeant who was in charge of that squad called me and asked if I could assist in figuring out who these two guys were.  For whatever reason, when the NYPD ran their fingerprints no relating record could be found. 

They both claimed to have been born in the U.S.  In fact, the driver told me had been born “down south in Chicago.”  This certainly called his claim of being a United States citizen into serious question.

I had developed a relationship with the DEA in NYC and although the INS lack the capability to electronically transmit fingerprints to the FBI in Washington, the DEA was able and willing to provide me with that capability.  I ran the prints and in the middle of the night I received an urgent call from FBI Headquarters, they wanted to know where the two individuals were, it turned out that they were about to be placed on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted List” for their involvement in serious of deadly bank robberies where they were alleged to have shot and killed several people.

Incidentally, they were both were aliens- citizens of Trinidad and Tobago who had lied about their identities and citizenship.

My partner and I received letters of commendation from the NYPD/FBI Joint Bank Robbery Task Force for identifying these two fugitives enabling them to be taken into custody and prosecuted for their crimes.  Today, they are probably still in jail, where they can no longer pose a threat to anyone.

We also lodged detainers to have them taken into immigration custody if they are ever released from prison.

This is but a single example of just how successful such cooperative teamwork can be to protect our communities but could never happen today, especially in New York City.

For the globalists, the bodies of innocent victims are nothing more than “collateral damage” or, perhaps, “speed bumps” on the road to globalism and anarchy.

In all professions those who make bad decision are likely to pay a serious price.  Doctors who are guilty of malpractice can be sued, lose their licenses to practice medicine, and even be prosecuted.  Law enforcement officers face similar consequences when they act inappropriately.

Judges and politicians must be made similarly accountable.

RELATED ARTICLE:Poll: Latino Trump approval soars during border wall battle

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Sebastian Pichler on Unsplash.

Rights and Non-Rights: A Simple Way to Distinguish the Two

/in , , , , /by

Despite the centrality of rights in American history, it’s readily apparent today that Americans are of widely different views on what a right is, how many we have, where rights come from, or why we have any in the first place.

That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

George Mason, in the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

“Rights” are in the news these days perhaps as much as they were in George Mason’s time. As a score of politicians prepares to announce their 2020 campaigns for President of the United States, we can expect “rights” to be in the news every day, as they are promised to us one after another. “You have a right” to this or that and “If elected, I’ll make sure you get it” will soon be monotonous refrains.

America is a nation founded on the notion of rights. Our independence was declared in 1776 on a foundation of “unalienable” rights granted to us not by mortal authorities but by the Creator himself. Our ancestors rebelled against the British because they believed that such rights as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” were being thwarted by oppressors in London. Our founding documents were put forth specifically for the purposes of securing and protecting rights. Battles both intellectual and physical were fought in the ensuing decades to ensure that rights remained a priority of government or were extended to people not originally included.

So this business of rights is indistinguishable from the American experience; indeed, it is at the very core of that experience. Remove rights from the equation, and America is just one of countless countries—past and present—in which individuals possess nothing more than what those in power decide to give them or allow them to have.

Despite the centrality of rights in American history, it’s readily apparent today that Americans are of widely different views on what a right is, how many we have, where rights come from, or why we have any in the first place.

Is a right the same thing as a wish? Why or why not? Or if you need something, does that mean you have a right to it? If I require a kidney, do I have a right to one of yours? Is a right something that can or should be granted or denied by majority vote? Does a document such as the Constitution or an executive order or a law of Congress create rights, or do such paper instruments simply acknowledge rights (by either defending or eroding them) that people inherently possess?

If you walked down Main Street America in 2019 and asked random citizens these very questions, I’ll bet you’d hear a plethora of different and conflicting answers. Read over those questions again and think about how you would respond.

This essay doesn’t provide all the answers, nor does it raise all the relevant questions. Its purpose is more limited than that. If it prompts the reader to think of rights in a deeper, more thoughtful way than heretofore and then contribute to the public discourse on the subject in a meaningful way, then it’ll achieve my purposes. I’ll even include a recommended reading list at the end.

I’ve given this subject some thought over the years and feel confident in providing the reader with a couple of lists to consider. The first one itemizes what I personally think you have a right to; the second is a partial roster of things I personally think you don’t have a right to (and I readily grant that you have every right to disagree with me).

  1. Your life (unless compromised by taking or attempting to take that of another person without a self-defense justification);
  2. Your thoughts;
  3. Your speech (which is really a verbal or written expression of #2) so long as you don’t steal it from another without permission or credit;
  4. Material property you were freely given, that you created yourself, or that you freely traded for;
  5. Raise and educate your children as you see fit;
  6. Live in peace and freedom so long as you do not threaten the peace and freedom of others.
  1. High-speed broadband Internet access;
  2. Cheeseburgers, cheap wine (or even expensive wine, for that matter), or an iPhone;
  3. Somebody else’s house, car, boat, income, business, or bank account;
  4. The labor of another person you’ve not freely contracted with (you can’t enslave somebody, in other words);
  5. Medical care from a witch doctor or a skilled surgeon or anybody in between;
  6. Taxpayer-funded (i.e., coercively-appropriated) child daycare, college education, contraceptives, colonoscopies, or sports stadiums;
  7. Anything that’s not yours, even though you really want it and think you’re entitled to it;
  8. Conscript other people’s children into schools you think they should attend;
  9. Free stuff in general, unless the rightful owner chooses to offer it;
  10. Anything a politician flattered you with by claiming you have a right to it.

Of course, gray areas and reasonable qualifications exist. For example, while I believe you do have a right to raise and educate your own children as you see fit, abuse and neglect are not defensible. But let’s keep our eyes on the big picture, the broad principles here.

Now, look at those two lists again, carefully. How does the nature of the first list contrast with the nature of the second?

Answer: In the case of the first list, nothing is required of other people except that they leave you alone. For you to have a right to something in the second list, however, requires that other people be compelled to provide that something to you. That’s a monumental difference!

The first list comprises what are often called both “natural rights” and “negative rights”—natural because they derive from our essential nature as unique, sensate individuals and negative because they don’t impose obligations on others beyond a commitment to not violate them. The items in the second are called “positive rights” because others must give them to you or be coerced into doing so if they decline.

The late Tibor Machan, who wrote many articles for FEE in the 1970s and 1980s, elaborated on this distinction in “The Perils of Positive Rights”:

“Positive rights” trump freedom. According to this doctrine, human beings by nature owe, as a matter of enforceable obligation, part or even all of their lives to other persons. Generosity and charity thus cannot be left to individual conscience. If people have such positive rights, no one can be justified in refusing service to others; one may be conscripted to serve regardless of one’s own choices and goals.

If positive rights are valid, then negative rights cannot be, for the two are mutually contradictory.

The existence of “negative rights,” wrote Machan, “means that no one ought to enslave another, coerce another, or deprive another of his property; and that each of us may properly resist such conduct when others engage in it.”

So while I believe neither you nor I have a right to any of those disparate things in the second list, I hasten to add that we certainly have the right to seek them, to create them, to receive them as gifts from willing benefactors, or to trade for them. We just don’t have a right to compel anyone to give them to us or pay for them. If any of us did, then why wouldn’t another individual have a similar right to take them from us?

What about “constitutional rights,” a phrase we hear from people on all sides of the political spectrum? I like what Michael Badnarik said about them in his 2004 book, Good to be King:

People are usually surprised to discover that I hate the phrase “constitutional rights.” I hate the phrase because it is terribly misleading. Most of the people who say it or hear it have the impression that the Constitution “grants” them their rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. Strictly speaking, it is the Bill of Rights that enumerates our rights, but none of our founding documents bestow anything on you at all […] The government can burn the Constitution and shred the Bill of Rights, but those actions wouldn’t have the slightest effect on the rights you’ve always had.

If you’re motivated to explore further the nature, origin, meaning, and extent of rights, then you’re on the right website. Over decades, FEE has published many articles by numerous authors on just this matter. I close with a recommendation of 10 of the best:

Let’s Think Clearly about “Rights” by Jeffrey Harding

Human Rights are Property Rights by Murray N. Rothbard

Of Rights: Natural and Arbitrary by Clarence Carson

Is Health Care a Human Right? by Trevor Burrus

No Rights Without Property Rights by Frank Chodorov

How FDR’s Economic Bill of Rights Changed American Politics by Burton W. Folsom

Rights by Henry Hazlitt

Freedom or Free-for-All? by Lawrence W. Reed

When Wishes Become Rights by Leonard E. Read

Rights Vs. Entitlements by Steven Yates

COLUMN BY

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed

Lawrence W. Reed is president of the Foundation for Economic Education and author of Real Heroes: Incredible True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction and Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. Image credit: Flickr-Ted Mielczarek | CC BY 2.0

Cleveland: Suit against Catholic Charities in boy’s shocking death

/in , , , , , , /by

A social worker, employed through a contract with Catholic Charities of the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland was supposed to be checking on and protecting the nine children in the Rodriguez home, but instead she had cooked up a deal with the children’s mother to obtain the family’s food stamps.

catholic charities diocese of cleveland

In exchange she allegedly turned a blind eye to abuse and deplorable living conditions that resulted in the death of a five-year-old boy whose body was buried in the back yard.

The case became known to the police when someone called from PAKISTAN with a tip!  WTH!

This is the latest news from Cleveland.com:

Estate of Cleveland boy found buried in back yard sues Catholic Charities

CLEVELAND, Ohio — The estate of a 5-year-old Cleveland boy whose body was found in late 2017 buried behind his mother’s house has filed a lawsuit against the social services arm of the Catholic Diocese of Cleveland that employed the worker who was supposed to keep tabs on the family.

The survivorship of Jordan Rodriguez filed the wrongful death lawsuit Tuesday in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court against Catholic Charities, its employee Nancy Caraballo, the boy’s mother Larissa Rodriguez and her boyfriend Christopher Rodriguez.

nancy caraballo
Nancy Caraballo

The suit accuses Catholic Charities and Caraballo of recklessness, negligence and failing to report abuse the boy suffered in the two years leading up to his death. The estate, administrated by Michelle Rodriguez, seeks to take the case before a jury.

“While we cannot at this time comment on what is alleged in the lawsuit, Catholic Charities protects and advocates for those who are most vulnerable,” the statement said. “All employees undergo thorough background checks and extensive training with regard to ethics and specifically their duties to report child abuse or neglect.”

Jordan’s body was discovered buried in the family’s backyard in December 2017, after Cleveland police received a call from Pakistan that said Christopher Rodriguez confessed to burying the child.

Investigators responding to the call found the home in deplorable condition, and it wasn’t long before they uncovered that Caraballo, a parent educator at an agency contracted with Catholic Charities who was assigned to the Rodriguez family, had been buying Larissa Rodriguez’s food stamps at discounted prices and lying in her reports of her visits.

Caraballo was supposed to conduct monthly home visits to check on Rodriguez’s children and living conditions and file a report each time. But investigators subpoenaed her cellphone records and compared text messages between Caraballo and Rodriguez to the reports and found that, on at least 12 occasions, Caraballo simply showed up to Rodriguez’s house to pick up the food stamp card. She filed false reports that said she inspected the home.

More here.

The case will make you sick!

In February Caraballo plead not guilty here.

Then here in April she was sentenced to 3 years for the food stamp fraud.

And, now get this, she reformed in jail and was out in six months, here.

As is usual there is no mention of the immigration status of either Caraballo or the Rodriquez duo.

But I am interested in why a call to police came from Pakistan. Were there Pakistani convenience store proprietors in on the food stamp fraud?

RELATED ARTICLES:

Tuberculosis in the Migrant and Refugee Population: Is Silence Deception?

Worcester “Man” Admits Guilt in Identity Theft Scheme at Crooked Convenience Store

Feds Recover $2.5 Billion from Health Care Industry Fraud in 2018

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Daiga Ellaby on Unsplash.

VIDEO: It’s All Related — The Filth. And your damnation is the goal.

/in , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

The operational word to describe things in the Church these days, to borrow from Pope Benedict, is filth.

And while the filth all comes in a number of different varieties, it is all related. And for the record, we should understand filth in the broad sense of that which leads people either away from the Faith or into sin, or both, but especially away from the Faith, thus essentially destroying their supernatural defense against the diabolical. So let’s examine the various types of filth, remembering that, at the end of the day, it’s still all filth.

There is, of course, the headline filth of homosexual predation on both adults as well as minors. But that’s not the only filth.

There is the theological filth of the past 50 years, and this has many facets to it. From the insanity that we have a reasonable hope all men are saved, to what amounts to a universalism that all religions are essentially the same and lead to God, to the demonic notion that your conscience, even uninformed or even malformed, is the final arbiter of truth.

All these individual pieces of theological filth are interrelated, each one feeding and feeding off the other. Then there is the liturgical filth manifest in nearly every parish: the lack of reverence in Mass; the failure to understand the Mass as a sacrifice, not a mere meal; the emasculation of many priests; the horrible, childish preaching; the non-stop emphasis on emotionalism; the focus on the community as opposed to the worship of God.

Moving down the filth list, we come across the particular filth of the acceptance of heresy. Many converts from Protestantism will tell you that more and more they don’t see that much of a difference between what they converted from and the Church.

That’s been intentional. Whatever the motives, and that depends on who you are looking at, there was and continues to be an intentional push to make the Church appear and sound more and more Protestant.

Protestantism is a heresy, with its emphasis on personal relationship with Christ outside of the Church, the sacraments, devotions, etc. Yet more and more, Church leaders continue to peddle these heretical beliefs as somehow able to be interpreted as Catholic, the Alpha program being the most notable, but by no means the only one.

The distinctions between Catholicism — the one true faith — and the 40,000 different heretical sects which comprise Protestantism are simply downplayed in classrooms, pulpits, writings, you name it.

Wherever a Catholic lives, you will find a Catholic priest short-changing the Faith and handing over spiritual poison to the faithful.

The failure to preach on the need for confession, the need to be properly disposed to receive Holy Communion, the need for a vigilant prayer life, a spirituality modeled on the saints and so forth. The majority of Catholics hear none of this the majority of the time. That’s filthy because the lack of this knowledge leaves them defenseless against the attacks of the devil.

But the underlying point is straightforward, all this filth is related, all from the same source, just expressed differently at different times in differing ways.

Be it moral, theological, liturgical, catechetical, it’s all the same filth. And it’s all accomplishing the same end: the destruction of souls.

Ask ourselves why would a Catholic have the slightest idea that the Mass is a sacrifice, a representation of the oblation of the Son to the Father.

How would he draw that conclusion when all he hears is “we are family” and “turn around and greet your neighbor” and lay people run around all over the altar handing out the bread to the community?

Ask yourselves why a Catholic would see any essential difference between the Church and heretical set of beliefs when all he sees and hears in the parish are those same heretical beliefs and notions, just with a thin Catholic veneer. The list goes on and on.

The Catholic faithful have been assaulted from every side and in every way from Catholic leaders for the past half-century, and now, they have been reduced to a remnant, the authentic believers.

Those who still go to Mass but do not either understand or believe the Faith will disappear soon enough as they die off, their parishes continue to close and their children and grandchildren never come into a Catholic parish.

All that will be left from that crowd is some vague memory that “grandma, I think, used to be Catholic, didn’t she? Whatever.”

This has been a master plan to repackage the Faith, to break from Tradition, for the past half-century and give the devil his due — he has been wildly successful. For any Catholics out there who are perhaps coming around to this reality but still aren’t sold on it, who think clapping in Mass and girl altar boys and so-called eucharistic ministers are okay, consider this.

Even if those things — and many others — were well-intentioned — and they weren’t — you have to admit they have been a colossal failure.

There are now fewer parishes in the United States then there were when all this began in 1965. And while owing strictly to overall population increases the raw number of Catholics has increased, there are fewer going to Mass and receiving the sacraments than, again, back in 1965.

Open your eyes, just like we had to here at Church Militant when all this became undeniable to us as well. Do you believe the Church is the means to salvation? Do you believe there is no salvation apart from the Church?

Then, if those doctrines of the Church are correct — notice the word “doctrines” — then wouldn’t Satan want to destroy the Church? If he wanted to destroy the Church, what would he do?

How about introducing, little by little at first, a level of filth and poison so as to corrupt the clergy who are the bearers of the sacred. He went after them at the Last Supper in the upper room and hasn’t stopped since.

All this filth has one goal: your damnation and the same for your families.

Americans ripping off Americans too! NY State Charity Questioned

/in , , /by

A commenter here at Frauds and Crooks tells me I’m not writing any stories about born and bred American frauds, crooks and criminals while focusing on “new Americans.”

I have written about several American crooks, maybe more than I know because the media and law enforcement never tell us the immigration status of the likes of Mumtaz Rauf, orHaytham “Tom” Fakih. Maybe they were born here?

That whole bunch of propagandists at Welcoming America are Americans.

And, of course there are American deceivers at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

So here is a story from late last month first reported by the New York Post and then embellished by the Daily Caller (hat tip: Cathy):

Black Lawmakers’ Charity Didn’t Give Out A Single Scholarship, Top Pols Hide Financials

new york lawmakers
Photo (Americans)

The caucus of black New York state lawmakers runs a charity whose stated mission is to empower “African American and Latino youth through education and leadership initiatives” by “providing opportunity to higher education” — but it hasn’t given a single scholarship to needy youth in two years, according to a New York Post investigation.

The group collects money from companies like AT&T, the Real Estate Board of New York, Time Warner Cable and CableVision, telling them in promotional materials that they are “changing lives, one scholarship at a time.”

The group — called the Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators, Inc. — instead spent $500,000 in the 2015 – 2016 fiscal year on items like food, limousines and rap music, the Post found.

The politicians refused to divulge the charity’s 2017 tax filing to the Post despite federal requirements that charities do so upon request.

Its main activity is holding and selling tickets to an elaborate party each year intended to raise money for its stated mission of providing scholarships for youth. But year after year, essentially all the money simply seems to go to festivities.

Continue reading here, or go to the New York Post for more of the gory details.

Just realizing what an abundance of stories I might be able to develop in my category on ‘Charity fraud.’

If you have a local charity fraud story (a published story!) send me a link and I’ll see if it fits with my objectives here at Frauds and Crooks.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Rye Jessen on Unsplash.

Procter & Gamble’s Gillette Ad: Suicide by Political Correctness

/in , , , , /by

The war on men is nothing new. It has been going on for decades. It is being waged by those who want men not to be men and boy not to be boys. The anti-masculinity cartel want boys to become sissies. What is unusual is how corporate America has joined in to build a new generation of sissies.

There is hope. We still have a few educational institutions that produce Alpha Males. The most notable is the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. In the journal Public Discourse Trivius G. Caldwell in a column titled “A Wise Academy: The Un-Coddled American Minds at West Point” takes on the issue of “coddling.” Caldwell writes,

In a time when “safetyism” dominates many college campuses, the United States Military Academy at West Point can serve as a useful case study, offering important lessons in how to combat coddling in academia more broadly.

Cultural Suicide by Political Correctness

A perfect example is Procter & Gamble with their new social media ad for Gillette razors titled “We Believe.” Watch:

What is this ad intended to do?

Toxic masculinity. Photo by Sharon Garcia on Unsplash

It’s intended to support the #MeToo, bullying and toxic masculinity movements. These movements are designed to strike fear in the hearts of boys, young men and adult men. For you see the opposite of peace is not war. The opposite of peace is fear. If boys and men are constantly in a state of fear there cannot be peace for them.

The anti-bullying movement began with the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN). It was GLSEN that started the “Day of Silence” observance in public schools to highlight bullying, especially of LGBT students.

But are anti-bullying campaigns like the day of silence doing more harm than good?

Susan Porter, author of Bully Nation: Why America’s Approach to Childhood Aggression is Bad for Everyone believes so. Porter sat down with Reason TV’s Tracy Oppenheimer to discuss the anti-bully movement and how laws, labeling and the media are only agitating the problem. She says that kids are actually suffering because of these anti-bully efforts.

“They are becoming less resilient,” says Porter, “if you’re now a victim, and you think of yourself as a victim, you are much more apt to get victimized.”

The P&G ad is designed to reinforce the victimhood of homosexuals and women at the expense of being a real alpha male.

The Zero-Sum Struggle

Proctor & Gamble have become, either by omission or commission, part of the “zero-sum” struggle. The Oxford Dictionary defines zero-sum as:

Relating to or denoting a situation in which whatever is gained by one side is lost by the other.

Today, the zero-sum struggle is between groups that self-identify as victims. These groups include the #MeToo and LGBT movements. Proctor & Gamble is essentially saying that in order for women and the LGBT communities to win men must give up their toxic masculinity. Men must lose!

If the end game is that men must loose, then who will defend our women, families, nation and culture? Political correctness kills. As Ayn Rand wrote:

The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Proctor & Gamble is just anther company that has used its influence to turn boys into sissies and strike fear in the hearts of their fathers. Time to stand up and fight back. Time for men to take back their responsibilities to be leaders, role models and strong.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Procter & Gamble’s Toxic Sanctimony

Dear Gillette: Ads About ‘Toxic Masculinity’ Won’t Get Men to Buy Your Blades, or Be Better Men

Report: Facebook’s New Rules Ban Employees From Changing Colleagues’ Minds

Governor DeSantis Appoints Robert Luck to the Florida Supreme Court

/in , , , /by

(Miami, FL) Today, Governor Ron DeSantis announced the appointment of Judge Robert Luck to the Florida Supreme Court.  Judge Luck currently sits on the Third District Court of Appeals (DCA) in Miami.  The Third DCA is the appeals court between the trial court and the state supreme court in South Florida.    

Judge Luck is being picked for an at-large seat and is the second of three appointments that Governor DeSantis will make to replace three of the most liberal justices who have termed out for mandatory retirement at age 70 on Tuesday, January 8, 2019.  Last week DeSantis also appointed Judge Barbara Lagoa to the Florida Supreme Court.  

Florida Family Policy Council President John Stemberger issued the following statement today regarding this appointment:

“Robert Luck is a brilliant jurist. To speak with, or listen to Judge Luck, is to realize you are in the presence of a truly unique and Scalia-like intellect.  Luck fully understands that the role of a judge is a limited one of restraint.  He has demonstrated over the years through his written decisions and public statements, that the job of a judge is to interpret law as it is written and not make law or engage in result-oriented decision making.  As an observant Jew, Luck is also grounded in ethical and moral principles that will surely guide and inform his service to the state of Florida.  Once again, Ron DeSantis has made a very solid appointment that will help to define his legacy as Governor for years to come.”

Regarding judicial philosophy Judge Robert Luck has stated the following:

“I understand how the judiciary — what Hamilton called our least dangerous branch — fits into our system of government… Having worked in each of the three branches, I understand the modest role of the judge in reviewing the laws enacted by the legislature, the actions taken by the executive, and the findings of the lower courts… I have conducted myself that way for the last five years, and I will continue to do so as long as I am permitted to serve.”

Personal and Professional Biography of Robert Luck:

Robert Luck currently sits on the Third District Court of Appeals and prior to that served on the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court of Florida as a trial court judge. His district court nomination was made by Governor Rick Scott.  Born and raised in Miami-Dade County, Judge Luck would go on to graduate magna cum laude from the University of Florida Levin Law school and gain a prestigious clerkship with Chief Judge Edward Carnes of the 11th Circuit in Alabama. Judge Luck also has experience as Deputy Chief in the Major Crimes Section in the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. As a trial judge he tried seventy jury trials, as an appellate judge he has written over 70 decisions and has heard dozens of appeals from the county court and municipal agencies.  Robert Luck is part of the Miami Jewish Legal Society and currently lives in Miami-Dade County with his wife and two children.  The Luck family attends a Chabad synagogue in Miami.  Chabad is one of the largest observant and orthodox movements within Judaism worldwide. 

Judge Luck’s Supreme Court Judicial Nominating Commission (JNC) interview can be watched online here: https://thefloridachannel.org/videos/11-4-18-florida-supreme-court-judicial-nominating-commission-part-1/

Judge Luck’s 57 page JNC Application can be read here: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2018/10/Luck-Robert.pdf

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images by the Florida Family Policy Council is republished with permission.

190,000 sign petition to impeach Muslim Rep. Rashida Tlaib who called Trump “motherf**er”

/in , , , , /by

This is unlikely to succeed, but it shows widespread dissatisfaction not just with Tlaib, but with the direction the Left is taking.

“This woman is an anti-Semite, a war mongering hate filled Palestinian who has vowed to try and destroy our constitutional rights, hates America, hates American citizens.”

Can those charges reasonably be disputed?

“150,000 Sign Petition to Impeach Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib,” by Anthony Gockowski, Tennessee Star, January 12, 2019 (thanks to the Geller Report):

A Change.org petition calling for the impeachment of Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-13) already has close to 160,000 signatures.

“This woman is an anti-Semite, a war mongering hate filled Palestinian who has vowed to try and destroy our constitutional rights, hates America, hates American citizens,” the petition states. “She’s a danger to our sovereignty, a detriment to society, and to this country, and is unfit to serve in any capacity within our government.”

The petition also takes issue with Tlaib’s election, claiming that she “lied about living in Detroit” by “using her father’s house address.”

Tlaib made headlines earlier this week when she vowed to “impeach the motherf—” during a party in celebration of her being sworn in to Congress.

“I stand by impeaching the president of the United States. I ran on that,” she said in an interview discussing her comments. She called her promise to impeach President Donald Trump something she “very much” holds “dearly.”

“They love that I’m real, and that I am very much focused on getting the government back up and running, but also making sure we’ve held the president of the United States accountable,” she said.

Tlaib later apologized that her comments caused a “distraction,” but refused to apologize for the explicit remarks….

SIGN THE IMPEACH RASHIDA TLAIB PETITION

RELATED ARTICLE: Muslim Congresswoman Courts Pro-Terror Activist Who Compared Israel to Nazis and ISIS

RELATED VIDEO: Rashida Tlaib’s brother praises terrorists.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is from Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib’s Facebook page.

Wrong Side of the Wall — AT&T, Pepsi, Walmart Undermine Border Security

/in , , , , , , /by

President Trump’s Oval Office address last night made a security and safety centered case for upholding the rule of law and the importance of having a wall on America’s southern border. As the President noted, America welcomes legal immigrants and noted that Americans of all races and backgrounds will especially benefit from proper border policies.

As the robust debate over America’s southern border continues, one group stands out for its divisive rhetoric and blatant politicization of the issue. UnidosUS, formerly known as La Raza, continues to smear those who desire to enforce immigration law and promote the notion that legal immigrants aren’t welcome in America. Via Twitter:

UnidosUS has a clear record of opposing measures that would make our cities and communities safer. These activists have a long history of promoting sanctuary city policies in order to advance the left’s agenda, and they at the forefront of the left’s fight to prevent border security.

However, you might be surprised to learn the UnidosUS’s dangerous agenda is financed by well-known corporations using your dollars. Companies like AT&T, Pepsi, and Walmart all directly fund the activists working to prevent border security and the enforcement of immigration law. (All of UnidosUS’ corporate backers can be seen here.)

We need your help holding these companies accountable for enabling UnidosUS:

1. Tell AT&T, Pepsi, and Walmart to stop their support for this radical organization:

Send AT&T an Email!  Contact PepsiCo!  Contact Walmart!

2. Find the best alternatives to these companies that are more deserving of your business:

Patriot Mobile
Dr.Pepper/Snapple
Bed Bath & Beyond
Ace Hardware

3. Sign the petition below! Let AT&T, Pepsi, and Walmart know why you’ll be taking your business somewhere else until they stop funding UnidosUS’s divisive rhetoric and unsafe agenda.

Join us! Tell these corporations STOP funding UnidosUS!

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column with images is republished with permission. The featured image is by Shutterstock.

NYC: Giant sculpture proclaiming ‘There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet’ goes up at Ground Zero

/in , , , , /by

Said Jenkell: “Given the unique and justified sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center, it came to my mind to propose to remove the sculpture showcasing the flag of Saudi Arabia, or relocate it to a less sensitive location. But there is no way I can do such a thing as the flag of Saudi Arabia is entirely part of the G20 just like any other candy flag of this Candy Nations show.”

City officials should move it. Would a giant sculpture containing Shinto inscriptions be put up at Pearl Harbor? But nothing will be done about this. To move it would be “Islamophobic,” and the de Blasio administration would rather have its teeth pulled out with rusty pliers than do anything that might even give the appearance of “Islamophobia.”

“A Sculpture Celebrating Saudi Arabia Has Been Erected on Ground Zero,” by Davis Richardson, Observer, January 9, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

A sculpture celebrating Saudi Arabia’s place in the G20 Summit was erected on the World Trade Center grounds last week, a stone’s throw away from the 9/11 memorial.

Shaped to resemble a piece of candy, the nine-foot-tall statue bears the Kingdom’s emerald flag emblazoned with the Arabic inscription, “There is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is the prophet.” It was created by French sculptor Laurence Jenkell in 2011 as part of the larger installation “Candy Nations” which depicts G20 countries as sugary delights….

“I first created flag candy sculptures to celebrate mankind on an international level and pay tribute to People of the entire world,” Jenkell told Observer in a statement. “Given the unique and justified sensitivities surrounding the World Trade Center, it came to my mind to propose to remove the sculpture showcasing the flag of Saudi Arabia, or relocate it to a less sensitive location. But there is no way I can do such a thing as the flag of Saudi Arabia is entirely part of the G20 just like any other candy flag of this Candy Nations show.”

The installation was curated and installed by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey….

Although the installation was originally created in 2011 to convey “an optimistic message of unity beneath external differences,” its placement at the World Trade Center raises questions given longstanding accusations directed toward Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. In 2003, hundreds of families affected by the 9/11 terror attacks sued the Kingdom over its alleged involvement in harboring terrorism—given that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi.

Last March, a U.S. federal judge rejected Saudi Arabia’s motion to drop the charges.

RELATED ARTICLE: Antisemitic Congresswoman Given Seat on House Foreign Affairs Committee

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Nik Shuliahin on Unsplash.