Honduran President’s Brother Charged for Trafficking Tons of Drugs with Help of National Police & Politicians

As the migrant caravan that originated in Honduras treks north, the brother of that country’s president—a former lawmaker in the Central American nation—has been arrested and indicted in the U.S. on drug and weapons charges. His name is Juan Antonio Hernandez and he is the younger brother of Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who has blamed leftist interests for manipulating migrants to destabilize the country.

The younger Hernandez is a former member of the National Congress of Honduras and the feds say he’s a bigtime drug trafficker who has moved tons of cocaine through the region in the last decade with the help of Honduran politicians and law enforcement officials.

A few days ago, Hernandez was arrested in Miami, Florida and this week he was charged in federal court with conspiring to import cocaine into the United States, weapons offenses involving the use and possession of machine guns and destructive devices and making false statements to federal agents.

The case is being tried in a Manhattan, New York federal court and has been assigned to U.S. District Judge P. Kevin Castel, a George W. Bush appointee, according to a statement issued by the Justice Department. Manhattan’s top federal prosecutor says Hernandez was involved in all stages of trafficking multi tons of U.S.-bound cocaine through Honduras. The president’s younger sibling also arranged machine gun toting security for cocaine shipments, bribed law enforcement officials for sensitive information to protect drug shipments and solicited large bribes from major drug traffickers.

The former Honduran legislator and his criminal associates teamed up with some of the world’s deadliest transitional criminal networks in Mexico and Colombia, according to federal authorities, to flood American streets with illicit drugs.

“From at least in or about 2004, up to and including in or about 2016, multiple drug-trafficking organizations in Honduras and elsewhere worked together, and with support from certain prominent public and private individuals, including Honduran politicians and law enforcement officials, to receive multi-ton loads of cocaine sent to Honduras from, among other places, Colombia via air and maritime routes, and to transport the drugs westward in Honduras toward the border with Guatemala and eventually to the United States,” according to the federal indictment. “For protection from official interference, and in order to facilitate the safe passage through Honduras of multi-hundred-kilogram loads of cocaine, drug traffickers paid bribes to public officials, including certain members of the National Congress of Honduras.”

Not only did Hernandez work with large-scale drug traffickers in Colombia, Honduras and Mexico to import cocaine into the U.S., he was also involved in processing, receiving, transporting, and distributing multi-ton loads of cocaine that arrived in Honduras via planes, go-fast vessels and a submarine. He also had access to cocaine laboratories in Honduras and Colombia, where some of the drug was stamped with his initials.

“Hernandez also coordinated and, at times, participated in providing heavily armed security for cocaine shipments transported within Honduras, including by members of the Honduran National Police and drug traffickers armed with, among other weapons, machineguns,” the indictment states. The feds include a specific incident in which Hernandez and his drug trafficking cohorts collaborated with Honduran law enforcement and government entities.

This case helps illustrates the dire security issues created by crime infestation and rampant drug trafficking in Central America at a time when thousands of migrants from that region are demanding asylum in the U.S. Judicial Watch traveled to the Guatemalan-Honduran border to cover the caravan when it first left the northern Honduran city of San Pedro Sula. Besides gang members and mobs of young angry men, the caravan consisted of Africans, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans and Indians.

Guatemalan officials confirmed that the “elaborately planned” movement is benefiting human smugglers and bringing disturbing numbers of violent gang members and other criminal elements through the country, into Mexico and possibly the U.S. One high-level Guatemalan government operative told Judicial Watch “MS-13 gang members have been detained and coyotes (human smugglers) are joining the march with clients who pay to get smuggled into the United States.”

With evidence from federal authorities that Honduran government and law enforcement officials are complicit in a major drug trafficking operation run by the president’s own brother, there’s no telling the level of criminals making their way north in the caravan.

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column with images is republished with permission. The featured image by Kirstie_J on Pixabay.

VIDEO: What I Saw During a First Look at the White House Christmas Decorations

“American Treasures” is the theme of the White House’s 2018 Christmas decorations. Crafted by first lady Melania Trump, the White House decorations stunned once again, with nearly 30 Christmas trees and over 14,000 red ornaments. The Daily Signal was on hand Monday to have a first look at this year’s theme.

In a press release the Office of the First Lady noted, “This year’s theme, ‘American Treasures’ honors the unique heritage of America. Designed by First Lady Melania Trump, the White House shines with the spirit of patriotism.”

The first lady chose to highlight the color red because it symbolizes valor and bravery.

“This is a joyous time of year when we decorate the White House for the Christmas season. Our theme honors the heart and spirit of the American people. Thank you to the many volunteers and staff who worked hard to decorate the halls of the People’s House in Christmas cheer. On behalf of my family, we wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year,” the first lady said in the press release.

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Thaleigha Rampersad)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Ginny Montalbano)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Ginny Montalbano)

(Photo: The Daily Signal/Ginny Montalbano)

The first lady also released a video of the decorations:

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Ginny Montalbano

Ginny Montalbano

Ginny Montalbano is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Ginny. Twitter: @GinnyMontalbano.


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


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Polaris/SIPA/Newscom.

Midterms Show How GOP Can — And Did — Win Over Minority Moms

For all of Florida’s squeaker election controversies, the state’s Republicans showed this cycle how conservatives can actually start picking up substantial black and Hispanic votes — and not by pandering, but by promoting conservative principles.

Namely, school choice for parents — which is very popular with black moms.

It has become apparent that white Republican Ron DeSantis likely won the Florida gubernatorial election against black Democrat Andrew Gillum because about 100,000 more black women voted for him than was expected. And considerably more voted for him than voted for Republican Rick Scott in his U.S. Senate campaign as school choice is more of a state-level issue than a national one.

About 650,000 black women voted in Florida. Of that total, 18% chose DeSantis, according to CNN’s exit poll of 3,000 voters. The same exit poll found that Scott received only 9 percent of their vote. A little higher than expected, but nothing like DeSantis’. And DeSantis’ support among black women was more than twice GOP candidates’ average support nationally among black women of 7%.

(School choice was also key to getting DeSantis’ support among Hispanic voters at a surprisingly high 44%.)

That 100,000 votes easily was the difference in the race decided by 41,000 votes. But many of these women then voted for Democrat Bill Nelson for Senate. What to make of this ticket splitting vote?

School choice.

Florida has strong, well-funded school choice programs. The state is a leader in school choice and in fighting for poor and minorities to have a shot outside of being trapped in failing urban schools. (Thank you, then Gov. Jeb Bush.) Condoleezza Rice has called school choice “the civil rights issue of our time.” She obviously knows what of she speaks.

More than 100,000 low-income Florida students take advantage of the state’s Step Up For Students program, which grants tax-credit funded scholarships to attend private schools — corporations can choose to not pay a portion of their taxes and instead direct that money to funding school choice for needy families. Hundreds of thousands more students use the state’s 650 charter schools.

Most of the students in the Step Up For Students program are minority kids and their parents (typically mothers) are registered Democrats and normally vote straight ticket.

These moms see the value of the school choice voucher program for their children and are willing to vote for the gubernatorial candidate most committed to protecting and strengthening the programs. William Mattox in the Wall Street Journal called them “school choice moms” — like the vaunted soccer moms and safety moms of earlier times.

These school choice moms almost assuredly carried Rick Scott to victory four years ago as he too was a big supporter of school choice.

More than 10,000 of these Step Up kids and their moms went to Tallahassee in 2016 to protest a lawsuit filed by the state teachers’ union to kill the school choice and its funding mechanism. It was the largest school choice rally in American history and it was heavily minority.

Andrew Gillum, Mayor of Tallahassee, ignored their pleas and sided — as do virtually all Democrats — with the teachers unions, who deliver a lot of PAC money to campaigns and can put people to work on the ground. He paid the price, as did Scott’s Democratic opponent four years ago.

Every Republican Governor and gubernatorial candidate should take note; and every GOP candidate learn that solid conservative principles rightly applied work. Pandering is not necessary.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Bruno Nascimento on Unsplash.

Can You Name a Single Nation That Became Rich with Collectivist Policies?

Classical liberalism is the key that unlocked modern prosperity.


I periodically ask my left-leaning friends to identify a nation that became rich with statist policies.

They usually point to Sweden or Denmark, but I point out that Sweden and Denmark became rich in the 1800s and early 1900s when government was very small.

At that point, they don’t really have any other response.

That’s because, as I pointed out in this clip from a recent debate at Pomona College in California, there is no example of a poor nation becoming rich with big-government policies (though we have tragic examples of rich nations becoming poor with statism).

So if statism isn’t the right approach to achieve prosperity, how can poor nations become rich nations?

I’ve offered my recipe for growth and prosperity, but let’s look at the wise words of Professor Deirdre McCloskey in The New York Times:

The Great Enrichment began in 17th-century Holland. By the 18th century, it had moved to England, Scotland and the American colonies, and now it has spread to much of the rest of the world. Economists and historians agree on its startling magnitude: By 2010, the average daily income in a wide range of countries, including Japan, the United States, Botswana and Brazil, had soared 1,000 to 3,000 percent over the levels of 1800. People moved from tents and mud huts to split-levels and city condominiums, from waterborne diseases to 80-year life spans, from ignorance to literacy. …50 years ago, four billion out of five billion people lived in…miserable conditions. In 1800, it was 95 percent of one billion.

Deirdre then explains that classical liberalism produced this economic miracle:

What…caused this Great Enrichment? Not exploitation of the poor, …but a mere idea, which the philosopher and economist Adam Smith called “the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice.” In a word, it was liberalism, in the free-market European sense. Give masses of ordinary people equality before the law and equality of social dignity, and leave them alone, and it turns out that they become extraordinarily creative and energetic. …we eventually need capital and institutions to embody the ideas, such as a marble building with central heating and cooling to house the Supreme Court. But the intermediate and dependent causes like capital and institutions have not been the root cause. The root cause of enrichment was and is the liberal idea, spawning the university, the railway, the high-rise, the internet and, most important, our liberties.

In other words, the right ideas are the building blocks that enable the accumulation of capital and the development of institutions.

Deirdre’s analysis is critical. She reminds us that investment doesn’t merely depend on good tax policy, and rule of law doesn’t magically materialize. You need a form of societal capital as the foundation.

Anyhow, to show how good ideas changed the world, this chart shows how classical liberalism is the key that unlocked modern prosperity:

You may have already seen a chart that looks just like this. It was in a video Deirdre narrated.

Don Boudreaux shared a similar chart in one of his videos.

Circling back to the point I made at the start of this column, socialism (or any other form of statism) has never produced this type of economic miracle.

This article was reprinted with permission from International Liberty.

Cuba’s Exit From Brazil’s “More Doctors” Program Reveals the Exploitative Nature of Socialism

Socialists always prove to be greedier and more eager to exploit human labor than any capitalist could ever be.


One of the many propaganda claims made by advocates of socialism is that in free markets, health care is just a privilege instead of a human right. Socialist candidates routinely demonize profit and private initiative and promise a “humanized” cost-free health care system for everyone.

And of course, it’s one thing to promise health care to everyone and quite another to actually deliver it. In Venezuela, health care is declared a right, but it’s one of the last places on earth anybody would want to go to get it.

A few remaining dictatorships such as Cuba’s still sponsor state doctors to go on mission trips to sell socialized medicine across the globe. Besides using these missions to make money for their unsustainable state-run economies, they take every opportunity to criticize capitalism and lure young people into the socialist orbit. This strategy relies upon the myth that only socialism can get individuals to manifest their virtues and “help” others, but Brazilians are now realizing that these are just empty words.

After five years of participating, the Cuban government has just withdrawn from “Mais Médicos” (“More Doctors”), a Brazilian public health program designed by former socialist President Dilma Rousseff back in 2013. At the time, she promised that by partnering up with foreign countries, the program would increase the number of medical professionals in underserved areas of Brazil.

The socialist regime in Havana saw a money-making propaganda opportunity and dispatched nearly 20,000 Cuban medical professionals to Brazil—by far the largest contingent that various countries sent. More than 8,300 are in the country as of early November. But, unlike physicians from other nations, Cuban medics did not directly receive their salaries from the program. Instead, the government skimmed 74 percent of those salaries right off the top. Moreover, Cuban medics were not allowed to bring along their family members with them to Brazil. Why? The families were essentially kept as hostages to ensure their doctor relatives wouldn’t go to Brazil and defect from Cuba’s socialist “workers’ paradise.”

Just days after his election in late October, Brazil’s incoming President Jair Bolsonaro announced some new but long overdue conditions for the program. To maintain the partnership, including validation of certificates to offer medical care in Brazil, full payment for services would have to be sent straight to the doctors themselves, and their families would have to be permitted to accompany them to Brazil if they so wished. Bolsonaro also offered asylum to Cuban doctors who wished to stay in the country.

The Cuban Ministry of Public Health immediately rejected the new terms, alleging that the “dignity” and “altruism” of Cubans could not be questioned. But of course, Havana’s very action itself raises those questions. It also answers them: The socialist regime beats its collectivist chest espousing discredited Marxist concepts like “surplus labor” and “worker exploitation” but rips off its own workers and imprisons their families in the same breath. When their “humanitarian” ventures no longer provide cash or propaganda value, they’re “outta here!” (to borrow an American expression).

At the end of the day, socialists always prove to be greedier and more eager to exploit human labor than any capitalist could ever be.

COLUMN BY

Rafael Ribeiro

Rafael Ribeiro

Rafael Ribeiro of Salvador, Brazil, is a pro-liberty activist and Fulbright alumnus. While at the University of Georgia for a year recently, he worked with organizations such as Turning Point USA and Young Americans for Liberty and published an article on FEE.org about Brazilian economist Roberto Campos. Rafael has translated Mr. Reed’s interview with Brazilian candidates for Congress into Portuguese.

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

States Show ‘First Step Act’ Is Pro-Cop, Pro-Borders, and Pro-Criminal Justice Reform

The package of criminal justice reform proposals endorsed by President Donald Trump is not “soft” on crime. It’s tough on injustice. And it’s about time.

Known as the “First Step Act,” the legislation confronts the titanic failure of the federal government’s trillion-dollar war on drugs by reforming mandatory minimum sentences, rectifying unscientifically grounded disparities in criminal penalties for crack vs. powder cocaine users, and tackling recidivism among federal inmates through risk assessment, earned-time credit incentive structures, re-entry programs, and transitional housing.

There’s nothing radical about giving law-breakers who served their time an opportunity to turn their lives around and avoid ending up back behind bars. More than 30 red and blue states have enacted measures to reduce incarceration, control costs, and improve public safety.

Texas–no bleeding-heart liberal mecca–spearheaded alternatives to the endless prison-building boom a decade ago by redirecting tax dollars to rehab, treatment and mental health services. The Lone Star state saved an estimated $3 billion in new public construction costs while stemming the prison population tide.

Similar efforts adopted last year in Louisiana–long known as the prison capital of the world–have yielded promising reductions in the recidivism rate.

Pelican Institute for Public Policy analyst Margaret Mire reports that “Louisiana’s re-arrest rate in the first nine months is 19 percent, or 7 percentage points, behind the national, annual re-arrest average of 26 percent.” State data show that the re-incarceration rate is down to 6 percent in the same time period –“on pace to be 9 percentage points lower than its full-year average prior to the reforms, or 15 percent.”

Mississippi Republican Gov. Phil Bryant overhauled sentencing mandates, embraced faith-based ministries and funded counseling programs for inmates preparing for their transition to life on the outside. “Crime is down 6 percent,” he reported at a White House prison reform summit earlier this year. “We have 3,000 less inmates. We saved $40 million since 2014. And you can do the same thing.”

Despite staunch support from conservative Republican governors, prosecutors, and law enforcement closest to the ground on this issue, the same hyperbolic talking points used by some immovable “law and order” opponents at the state level are now being used against First Step: Cops will be endangered, critics balk. Violent monsters will go free. Child predators and drug kingpins will flood our neighborhoods.

Scary, but deceptive.

The plain language of the bill makes clear that its “early release” provisions must be earned. Moreover, as Utah GOP Sen. Mike Lee points out: “At all times the Bureau of Prisons retains all authority over who does and does not qualify for early release.”

Former U.S. Attorney Brett Tolman, a veteran of the criminal justice system for 20 years, notes that inmates convicted of crimes of violence (including assaults on police), drug trafficking (including hardcore fentanyl and heroin dealing), and child pornography would not qualify for credits. Period. The list of ineligible prisoners is a mile long.

As a staunch opponent of illegal alien amnesty for the past 25 years, the most potent attack by First Step critics concerns whether criminal aliens in federal prisons will be let loose en masse. They won’t.

The law states that no prisoner can earn time credits “if that prisoner is an inadmissible or deportable alien under the immigration laws (as such term is defined in section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.” And legislative analysts assert that under current Bureau of Prisons’ regulations, a prisoner subject to an ICE detainer wouldn’t be eligible for placement in home confinement, anyway.

Critic Dan Cadman of the Center for Immigration Studies is not satisfied and argues that “the simplest way to make it a clean bill where immigration enforcement is concerned is to say at the beginning of the bill that ‘none of the sections that follow in this bill apply to incarcerated aliens.’”

That should be a simple fix and is no reason to prevent First Step from moving to the Senate floor for vigorous debate.

My own awakening to the systemic flaws and failures of our criminal justice system came from viewing it through the eyes of the wrongfully accused and wrongfully convicted. Prosecutorial misconduct, police malfeasance, investigative bias, and a guilty-until-proven-innocent agenda have ruined lives and squandered limited resources.

From there, I’ve come to appreciate activists and practitioners on both sides of the aisle educating people about sweeping “hang ’em high” mandates that ensnare millions of their fellow citizens, clogging up jail space and wasting away productive years.

Our system is at its best when all involved can admit policy failures and work to change them. Why wait?

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is a columnist for The Daily Signal, senior editor at Conservative Review, a best-selling author, and Fox News contributor. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

How This Criminal Justice Reform Bill Could Make Our Neighborhoods Safer

Trump Rips 9th Circuit, Next Stop for Asylum Case, as ‘Disgrace’


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


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Leah Millis/Reuters/Newscom.

Just How Anti-American is Senator Kamala Harris?

Last week, Senator Kamala Harris once again demonstrated her vitriol and antipathy towards an American law-enforcement institution. This time, she directed her leftist, anti-American sentiment to one of the most challenged, selfless, and invaluable institutions of the federal government: the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

In a Senate confirmation hearing for ICE Director Nominee Ronald Vitiello, Kamala Harris asked whether he shared the perception that ICE was causing fear and mistrust like the KKK.

“Are you aware that there is a perception that ICE is administering its power in a way that is causing fear and intimidation, particularly among immigrants and specifically among immigrants coming from Mexico and Central America?” she asked.

Vitiello, trying to maintain his composure responded, “I do not see a parallel between the power and authority that ICE has to do its job and the agents and officers who do it professionally and excellently with lots of compassion [and the KKK].”

Kamala’s answer was just as intellectually hollow, “Sir how can you be the head of an agency and be unaware of how your agency is being perceived by certain communities?”

Really, Senator?  Which communities, exactly?

Clearly, what Harris was aiming to do was express her own objectionable opinion that ICE is somehow like the KKK.  But Harris knew that if she took ownership of such an opinion, she would get irreparably attacked.  What was worse in her mind, is that she would lose support for her desired presidential race.

So instead, Harris chose to claim that there was some sort of perception by a made-up group that ICE was as racially motivated and evil as the KKK, which, by the way, arose as the militant arm of the Democratic Party, the same party to which Harris pledges her allegiance.  Predictably, Harris has demonstrated no support of the existence of such a perception of ICE, or even of a community where such a perception exists.  Similarly, The Federalist Pages been unable to identify a single major poll that asked whether ICE and its activities are in any way reminiscent or comparable to the KKK.

In fact, one poll performed by Politico in July 2018 showed the opposite.  In this poll, 54% favored retaining ICE while only 25% wished to “get rid of” it. Additionally, in that same poll, a plurality, or 40%, looked less favorably upon a congressional candidate wishing to get rid of ICE.  This compared to 26% who favored such candidates.  Interestingly, this latter percentage was smaller than those who either didn’t care one way or the other, or had no opinion, combined (33%).

The fact is that Harris used this fictitious, fabricated community to express what is, in fact, her own rancid opinion about law enforcing, patriotic, self-sacrificing Americans.

Of course, Kamala Harris’s cowardly attack did not shield her from scorn.   In fact, there is a community that perceives Harris to be anti-American.  Not that she is, of course.  But that’s the perception of many communities.

One American who wished to remain anonymous even asked, “How can Kamala remain a Senator or think of becoming President when she is unaware that there is a community that perceives her to be anti-American?”

As of this writing, Senator Harris has not responded to numerous attempts by The Federalist Pages to have her answer this question.

RELATED ARTICLE: Report: Facebook’s Zuckerberg Pushed A Top Executive To Publicly Disavow Support For Trump, Then Fired Him

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Senator Kamala Harris’ Facebook page.

American’t: From Midterms to End Times

Truly great disasters come like a thief in the night. How many foresaw Rome’s sacking in 410 A.D., her collapse 66 years later, WWI or WWII? As for today, how many see that the United States is at what some call a tipping point, what others may call a Fourth Turning? Whatever you call it, the American republic is in its last days. This is too scary for many to contemplate, but there’s something far scarier: playing ostrich and not being prepared for things to come.

The so-called Left, ever violent since its French Revolution birth and as power hungry as ever, wholly controls the culture: the media, mainstream and social; academia; and entertainment. This means it controls long-term politics, since the latter is downstream of culture. So is big business, mind you, which is why the Left controls most of it as well; this, of course, translates into funding.

Trump’s 2016 victory will not MAGA; it was merely a stay of execution, a prolonging of the inevitable. This should have been obvious in a country that could elect Barack Obama and then, like the Titanic having backed up to hit the iceberg again, re-elect him. If it wasn’t, it should be obvious now that the Democrats have seized the House in a Watergate-level rout.

The notion that this was a standard result for a president’s first midterm is only comforting when viewing matters in relative terms; that is, the “‘political spectrum’ always has a right and left side no matter how far ‘left’ that spectrum moves.”

The problem? Civilizational ebbs and flows (and collapses) are governed by absolutes, such as right and wrong; not relative qualities, such as right and left. Thinking otherwise is like supposing your transition from stage-one to stage-four cancer as a 70-year-old is like when you went from a bruised arm to a broken one as a 12-year-old because, well, both involve movement toward diminished states of health.

But this isn’t your grandfather’s Democrat Party. Voters this time empowered socialistic to socialist to closet-communist, sexual devolutionary, rabble-rousing, low-I.Q., no-virtue, ignorant freaks who often encourage political violence by their Antifa-Brownshirt useful idiots. So it’s not your great-grandfather’s America, either.

Digging into the electoral numbers also tells a tale. Ninety percent of blacks, 79 percent of Jews, 77 percent of Asians, 69 percent of Hispanics and 59 percent of women voted Democrat — same as usual. Can we stop now with talk about “Blexit,” the “Walkaway” movement, how “Hispanics are natural conservatives,” how Jews are waking up to the Left’s anti-Semitism and all the other connedservative self-delusion? People vote in accordance with their emotional and philosophical foundations, and “You cannot reason a man out of a position he has not reasoned himself into,” as Jonathan Swift put it. Fooling oneself doesn’t help.

The voters are only getting worse, too, for three basic reasons: immigration, indoctrination and moral corruption. Let’s consider the first.

Demography is Destiny

Ever since the nation-rending Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 took effect in ’68, 85 to 90 percent of our immigrants have been Third Worlders, and 70 to 90 percent of them support Democrats upon naturalization.

This has caused a historic demographic shift (and attendant electoral one) that has seen our nation go from 85-plus percent white in 1965 to only 61 percent non-Hispanic white today. Let’s define further the political impact, using conservative figures.

We absorb approximately 1.3 million legal immigrants annually. If one million ultimately remain and are naturalized and 50 percent vote, and 80 percent of that group breaks Democrat, it means a net plus for Democrats of 300,000 voters every year and three million every decade.

The latter was Hillary Clinton’s purported 2016 popular-vote advantage.

This also translates into 15 million new Democrat voters after half a century, which was as much as Barack Obama’s 2008 and 2012 popular-vote margins combined. Of course, illegal migration and resultant amnesties would only increase these numbers, but are wholly unnecessary to effect this cultural and electoral annihilation. But not all un-American mentalities are imported.

We Can’t MAGA Unless We MAMA

“The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next,” the apocryphal saying goes. Today’s brainwashing not just by academia but also media and entertainment is intense. Moreover, we can’t MAGA unless we MAMA — Make America Moral Again. As Ben Franklin put it, “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Yet academia, media and, especially, entertainment subject each generation to an ever intensifying demoralization process.

So now let’s crunch some more numbers. Between Trump’s 2016 victory and Election Day 2020, more than 10 million Americans will have died; mostly older, they’re a relatively conservative voting demographic. They will more or less be replaced, however, by approximately 16 million young people who’ll turn 18 during those years. Unlike their elders, though, they’ll disproportionately cast ballots for hardcore statists.

Given this ongoing immigration and indoctrination-enabled electoral-degradation process, is it now clearer why Republicans have lost the popular vote in six of the last seven presidential contests?

Note that during our entire pre-2000 history, Republican candidates won the presidency while losing the popular vote only twice. Now it has happened twice since 2000 alone, with the GOP capturing the popular vote in just one of its three victories (G.W. Bush, 2004). How long can we continue losing it while winning the Electoral College? We can’t pull inside straights forever.

Moreover, the cards won’t be there at all once Texas turns blue, and the warning signs are already evident. Rationalize all you want, but leftist nuts Andrew “Cracker State” Gillum, Irish Bob the Phony Mexican (O’Rourke) and Stacey “Suin’ Sore Loser” Abrams came close to winning in, respectively, Florida, Texas (!) and Georgia (!); Taliban bubblehead Kyrsten Sinema did win in Arizona. We’re further down the rabbit hole than you think, Alice.

Leftists are already talking about 2020, too, with a lineup resembling the bar scene in Star Wars (hat tip: Pat Buchanan). But the details don’t matter. Whatever the Democrat presidential ticket, it’ll be a ticket to Hell.

Not only is society drifting ever further from Truth (“leftwards”) for the aforementioned reasons, but consider the Democrats’ delusional perspective. Projecting, many of them have convinced themselves we’re Nazis, fascists, bigots and un-American, evil haters who have undermined the rule of law, created a constitutional crisis and who represent a clear and present danger to the republic — we’re “deplorables.” Believing this, wouldn’t you suppose these were desperate times that called for desperate measures?

When the Democrats seize the presidency and both legislative chambers — which they eventually will — they’ll have a justification for behaving as tyrannically as they fancy we have. They’ll see it as simply responding in kind to a precedent we set. You’ll have Antifa in power.

The more “conservative” Supreme Court won’t save us, either. With their power-lust and ends-justify-the-means mentality, the Left will discover that judicial supremacy isn’t in the Constitution (which it isn’t. Leftists also may just pack the SCOTUS and eliminate “uncooperative” lower courts). Unlike connedservatives, though, they’d actually act upon their epiphany and ignore inconvenient court rulings.

So these are our interesting times. If you’re now ready to split a vein or run for the Zoloft, hold on. There’s some good news here, too — if you want to call it that.

There no longer is an “American people”; there are peoples living in America. We’re balkanized not just racially, ethnically and religiously, but also ideologically, sexually and philosophically; we speak different languages, literally and figuratively. With open talk of open-borders socialism on one side and nationalism on the other, the Overton window is now so wide that each end occupies a different time zone. Frankly, many of us hate each other. If our union were a marriage, we’d have divorced long ago.

And I believe this will likely be the U.S.’s fate: dissolution. It may be precipitated by a calamity such as a severe economic collapse. If the federal government is then unable to meet its obligations (e.g., Social Security payments), the union-binding carrot will be gone. If the feds also seek to impose a tyrannical will, certain states may nullify their dictates, creating a further rift. One thing could then lead to another and….

Regardless, with the Left hurling fightin’ words (Nazi, etc.), fomenting unrest and attacking and bullying conservatives, the Cold Civil War is already afoot. Will it go hot? If so, when? For sure is that if the Left keeps pushing, it eventually will get pushback.

Of course, should this happen, we’d likely be vulnerable to enemies such as China. It all makes for a very unsure, but not uninteresting, future.

Yet if the republic does fall and dissolve, maybe, just perhaps, one of the resulting countries can be that shining city on a hill. But remember: It will be up to us to forge it, ever bearing in mind that we can’t MAGA unless we MAMA. This means instilling in ourselves virtue — including that of courage. For whatever terrors, traumas and tribulations lie ahead, we’ll need a lot of it for things to come.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Matt Botsford on Unsplash.

In Saying the ‘American Dream’ Is Alive in China, New York Times Shows Its Misunderstanding of Our Nation

Most Americans are innately offended by authoritarian regimes. But not The New York Times—the newspaper of record, once again, has painted a glorified picture of a communist dictatorship.

The latest example is a series of interactive articles that praise and celebrate the rise of China. One piece was actually titled “The American Dream is Alive. In China.”

The series extols China’s growth in wealth over the last few decades—but amid the adulation, something was noticeably missing. The Washington Free Beacon’s Matthew Continetti hit the nail on the head.

Continetti also noted that China’s young adults can’t even read about how wonderful they are doing because internet censors in the authoritarian regime block information coming from American sources.

Freedom of speech and access to information are just some of the few cornerstone freedoms that are highly restricted under the Chinese regime.

A dystopian “social credit” system is on the way in China that will monitor everything its subjects do—with rewards for “good” behavior and penalties for “bad” behavior. This opens up a new potential for control over public life that was hardly imaginable in even the most repressive tyrannies of the past.

And China is not just creating this Orwellian system for its own people—it is trying to export it elsewhere.

Of course, “bad” behavior includes any speech or activity seen as critical toward the government. The economic prosperity that the Times article celebrates only comes through the good graces of the regime.

The dream begins and ends with the state.

This exclusion and repression includes entire groups of people whose only crime is having the “wrong” ideas.

BBC reported in October how millions of Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang province have been placed in massive re-education camps—a modern Gulag Archipelago.

Olivia Enos, an Asian Studies Center research associate within the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation,wrote in July:

Chinese government authorities long have persecuted the more than 11 million Uighurs in the region, collectivizing them, bulldozing their residences, requiring them to submit to invasive DNA and biometric tests, and now forcing them to live with Chinese officials in their homes.

This is hardly something Americans should rush to embrace. Instead, it should lead us to reassess the notion that there was some kind of “end of history” when the Soviet Union collapsed.

The end of the Cold War was certainly a triumph for free people everywhere and clear evidence that capitalism is superior to communism.

However, the fall of the USSR—as great a victory as that was—did not end the recurring conflict between freedom and tyranny, or guarantee the universal embrace of representative government and preservation of God-given rights.

It may have even made us less alert to encroaching despotism.

The New York Times piece missed a key aspect of the American dream: that it is not just about the accumulation of wealth. Our prosperity is the byproduct of a system of order and liberty, provided by the Constitution, which protects the cornerstone freedoms that we hold dear: the freedom of religion, the freedom to associate and protest government and unjust laws, the freedom to protect and defend oneself and one’s community.

Fostering these rights, among many others, are what have made America a beacon of light to the world.

A rich man who must fear practicing religion under threat of imprisonment, who may arbitrarily be placed in a reeducation camp because of his religious or political views, and who does not even have power over the most fundamental decision of bringing life into this world is not a free man—and hardly living the “American dream.”

He is a man living under the very kind of arbitrary government that the Founding Fathers rebelled against, that anti-slavery advocates like Abraham Lincoln worked to end, and what generations of Americans opposed in the 20th century following the rise of fascism and communism.

The unique system that developed in the United States was built around concepts of consent, on the idea that the state is not the bearer of all “truths,” and that we are born free and equal with inalienable rights that must not be infringed.

While America has not always lived up to these ideals, they are worthy and timeless goals that make America not just a great, but a good country.

Our challenge in the 21st century is the same as in previous centuries. We have a choice to make: Do we still hold on to the timeless truths of our founding, or have we lost faith in the ideas that led us to become the most powerful and prosperous country on earth in a historical blink of an eye?

Perhaps many today—including distinguished journalists for The New York Times—forget how some Americans in a previous era looked longingly at authoritarian governments with envy and saw them as a glorious road to the future.

The potential for arbitrary governments to lord power over their citizens presents a far deeper threat to liberty than “fake news,” or the apparent chaos that comes through the freedom of speech and association.

As the playwright Joseph Addison wrote in “Cato: A Tragedy,” one of George Washington’s favorite plays:

A day, an hour, of virtuous liberty

Is worth a whole eternity in bondage.

This is the seed of the American dream, of a people who—despite the material reward of life under British rule—refused to accept the chains of autocracy in exchange for temporary comfort.

As the liberal newspaper of record wistfully depicts a nation that values material prosperity over genuine freedom, Americans would be wise to be cautious.

Instead of glorifying autocracy, we should re-examine the traits that have made us not just powerful and fantastically wealthy, but exceptional—a place where the common man and woman can make their way without violating the dictates of their conscience, without pleading with the state for scraps beneath the table of all-powerful authorities.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

The New York Times Continues Its Tradition of Whitewashing Communism

ACHTUNG! N.Y. TIMES Had Love Affair With Hitler [and Stalin]


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


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Stephen Shaver/UPI/Newscom.

Democrat Socialism and Sodomy: Two Social Poisoned Pills

I became interested in links between democrat socialism and sodomy. During my research I found, to my surprise, that today they are inextricably linked.

Socialism and sodomy have the same goals, the destruction of heterosexuality and the traditional nuclear family.

The targets are straight males and fathers who are married with children. But why is this the goal? Isn’t this a poisoned pill for every society?

Sodomy predates Christianity

Many look at sodomy from a biblical perspective citing the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19:1-30. However, sodomy predates Christianity. It was a political issue for centuries that ancient nations dealt with in different ways both socially and in law. In her 2014 column “Did Spartan Warriors Embrace Homosexuality?” Kayla Jameth wrote:

Crete, Athens, Corinth and Thebes practiced classic pederasty. A homosocial institute that encouraged love in a myriad of forms between an older man (erastês) and a youth (erômenos). The terms carry certain connotations that directly or indirectly influence modern views on this relationship.

The mentor, or erastês, is intended to be an older man who guides the youth through the upper echelons of society. This was an ancient form of social networking. Erastês means “lover”. This has been taken to imply a sexual relationship. Especially as erômenos means “beloved”. These are not so much descriptions of the individuals as titles for their place in the relationship.

Were all pederastic relationships sexual? I doubt that was the case, as the majority of men now, and likely then, identify as straight/heterosexual. That’s nothing more than statistics. Were there bisexuals and bi-curious individuals? Without a doubt, but once again not to the exclusion of straight individuals.

The article “Before Homosexuality: Sodomy” notes:

Same-sex sexual acts have a history; today they are called homosexuality. Before homosexuality they were called sodomy. In England during the reign of King Henry VIII sodomy became a civil offense with the passage of the buggery Act of 1533. In Germany in the late 1860s the transition from a religious model to a medical model for same-sex sexual acts begin. It was at this time the term homosexual came about. [Emphasis added]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports:

Gay and bisexual men are the population most affected by HIV in the United States. In 2016, gay and bisexual men accounted for 67% of the 40,324 new HIV diagnoses in the United States and 6 dependent areas. Approximately 492,000 sexually active gay and bisexual men are at high risk for HIV; however, we have more tools to prevent HIV than ever before.

Download the Fact Sheet

Where does Socialism fit in?

Thomas Harrison, co-director of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy and a member of the editorial board of New Politics, in his 2009 column “Socialism and Homosexuality” wrote:

MARX AND ENGELS NEVER SUBJECTED homophobia to the sort of historical materialist criticism that they, especially Engels, applied to the family and the oppression of women. Indeed, Engels in particular evinced all the prejudices of high Victorianism when it came to homosexuality. 

[ … ]

Engels’ pioneering analysis, published in 1884 as The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, tried to show that the family and the oppression of women were not embedded in “human nature,” but arose historically in conjunction with the emergence of class societies2; the abolition of class society, therefore, could be expected to free women and abolish the family, at least as a site of gender inequality. At the same time, Engels presents heterosexuality as unproblematically “natural.” Homosexuality is briefly mentioned, disparagingly, in connection with ancient Greece as nothing but a product of misogyny.

Harrison then outlines the new Democrat Socialist view on sodomy stating, “Without excusing Engels’ ugly homophobia, and that of Marx, it seems short sighted to simply equate them with the standard-issue bigots of their time. Marxism, as a method of historical analysis and a theory of democratic revolution from below, created the tools for understanding the relation of gay oppression to misogyny and compulsory heterosexuality, and for pointing the way toward liberation.”

The neo-Marxist must embrace gays as victims of oppression. In the United States, gays are not oppressed and are subject to equal protection under the law. The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of gay marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges. Overt oppression of gays is seen in predominantly Muslim countries such as Iran.

Anyone who criticizes sodomy is labeled homophobic, unless they are Muslims. The great oxymoron is the political joining at the hip of Democrat Socialists with Islamists. In the end one will win politically. If the Islamists win then sodomy will be outlawed. If the Democrat Socialists win then heterosexual males and families will be outlawed. These are two poisoned pills that will kill any society.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Good Morning America’ promotes child drag queen

EDITORS NOTE: The edited featured photo is by Marc Schäfer on Unsplash.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to the 80-page class-action suit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Black Friday Deals That Don’t Compromise Your Values

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

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

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

Top Black Friday Deals For Conservatives

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

Bass Pro Shops (5 – Conservative)

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

ACE Hardware (4 – Lean Conservative)

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

Overstock.com (4 – Lean Conservative)

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

Tractor Supply Co. (3.1 – Lean Conservative)

Numerous days of sales running from November 21-25.

Bed Bath & Beyond (3 – Neutral)

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

Kay Jewelers (3 – Neutral)

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

Academy Sports & Outdoors (3 – Neutral)

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

Petco (3 – Neutral)

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

Aeropostale (3 – Neutral)

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

Cost Plus World Market (3 – Neutral)

40% off all furniture with promo code FURNDEAL.

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


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


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

VIDEO: Court Orders Clinton to Answer Email Questions Under Oath

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of James Gottry

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Campus senator labeled ‘homophobic’ for speaking her faith


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Dan Hart
Managing Editor for Publications
Family Research Council


Share with Friends


FRC Articles

Evangelicals Power Republicans to Senate Victories — David Closson

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

America Deserves Better Than the Broward County Disaster — Ken Blackwell

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

Post-Midterm optimism for religious freedom — Alexandra McPhee

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

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

Speaker Series: The Reality of Faith-Based Adoption Services

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

Must the State Recognize All Identities? — Dan Hart

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

Notre Dame Students Take a Stand Against Porn — Patrina Mosley

Religious Liberty

Religious Liberty in the Public Square

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

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

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

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

The State of Hate — David Montgomery, The Washington Post

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

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

International Religious Freedom

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

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

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

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

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

Life

Abortion

The Point of Gosnell — Charlotte Allen, First Things

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

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

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

Adoption

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

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

Bioethics

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

Family

Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

Parenting

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

Mothers Against Macron — Joy Pullmann, First Things

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economics/Education

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

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

Your Family, Your Choice — Oren Cass, Family Studies

Faith/Character/Culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Fresh Perspective on Joy — Liberty McArtor, The Stream

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

Human Sexuality

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

Kissing Purity Culture Goodbye — Abigail Rine Favale, First Things

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

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

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

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

Pornography

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