Ben & Jerry’s Just Reminded Everyone How Much They Hate Conservative Values

/in , , , /by

Ben & Jerry’s is one of America’s most iconic and successful ice cream companies. They’ve thrived thanks to America being the Land of Opportunity.

It’s too bad that Ben & Jerry’s doesn’t respect American values as much as it likes Americans’ money. Via USA TODAY:

Ben & Jerry’s is launching a new flavor, Pecan Resist, which the company made to promote activism in the U.S.

The Limited Batch flavor – chocolate ice cream with white and dark fudge chunks, pecans, walnuts and fudge-covered almonds – is part of the company’s campaign to “lick injustice and champion those fighting to create a more just and equitable nation for us all,” it said Tuesday.

Ben & Jerry’s is donating $25,000 to each of four organizations working on behalf of people of color, Native Americans’ environmental justice and women – Color Of Change, Honor the Earth, Women’s March and Neta.

This most recent political activism is the norm for the left-wing company and its parent corporation:

The Burlington, Vermont-based business is using the new flavor to criticize some of President Donald Trump’s recent pronouncements.

“The company cannot be silent in the face of President Trump’s policies that attack and attempt to roll back decades of progress on racial and gender equity, climate change, LGBTQ rights and refugee and immigrant rights – all issues that have been at the core of the company’s social mission for 40 years,” Ben & Jerry’s said in a statement.

….

Ben & Jerry’s, which Unilever acquired in 2000, has used its sweet treats to promote its social justice agenda before. For example, Chubby Hubby became Hubby Hubby in 2009 to celebrate same sex marriage in Vermont, Chocolate Fudge Brownie was temporarily renamed Food Fight Fudge Brownie to support GMO labeling and EmpowerMint in 2016 was used to promote voting rights, the company said.

Ben & Jerry’s sounds as unhinged as the paid mob which was beating on the Supreme Court’s doors earlier this month. The fact that the ice cream company is donating to discredited groups like Women’s March is disturbing. Clearly, left-wing activism means more than truth, traditional American values, and engaging in an honest debate about America’s future.

The good news is that you can hold them accountable by shopping elsewhere. Give your money to ice cream companies which respect your values. Three companies which 2ndVote ranks as “neutral” on all of our issues are Blue Bell, Blue Bunny, and Cold Stone Creamery. These companies focus on your customer needs, not the newest left-wing nuttery.

Help us continue providing resources like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

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

The Caravan v. Donald Trump

/in , , , , , , /by

There are 600 miles – and the entire Trump administration – standing between the migrant caravan and the border. The 3,600 people hoping to cross into the U.S. will have to get past border patrol, the American military, and the rule of law. Despite the odds, one extremist group thinks it can beat them – in the same place liberals always go to get their way: the courts.As if this story couldn’t get any crazier, an American legal group called Nexus Services flew to the caravan that’s snaking its way through Mexico and recruited 12 people to sue the U.S. president. “Federal law enables migrants to apply for asylum in the United States. President Trump and his administration have used ‘increased enforcement,’ like separating families and lengthening detention to violate migrant rights,” argues Nexus’s Mike Donovan.

A dozen Hondurans are claiming that their “constitutional rights” have been violated – under a constitution that isn’t even theirs! And even if it were their constitution – which it isn’t – how does enforcing the law possibly violate it?According to one court filing, “the plaintiffs are seeking asylum, and Trump simply cannot stop them from legally doing so by using military, or anyone.” Absolutely he can. “Asylum” isn’t a magic word that gives people a free pass from U.S. laws. It’s the administration’s prerogative, through the application process, to pick and choose who comes into our country. Executive powers are broad, especially regarding national security. If it were 12 people trying to cross the border, there might be a stronger claim — but even the plaintiffs admit that it’s at least a 3,600-person caravan. The president shouldn’t have his hands tied when potential threats like this arise.

As Donald Trump pointed out yesterday, “The government of Mexico has generously offered asylum, jobs, education and medical care for people within the caravan, but many members of the caravan have refused these offers, which demonstrate that these migrants are not legitimate asylum seekers. They are not looking for protection because if they were, they would be able to get it from Mexico.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has already said, “If you do not have a legal right to come to this country, and you come as part of this caravan, you come in our country, you will be returned home.” The administration has expressed every intention to follow the law. Nexus’s attorneys know as well as anyone that even an activist court would have a difficult time finding fault with the president for that. As FRC legal expert Alexandra McPhee points out, a court would have to certify the class action first. For all we know, the judges would decide that this proposed class (essentially, all members of the caravan) is too broad. There would be too many unique issues that a class action couldn’t appropriately address.

Regardless of what the media would have you believe, no one is saying that immigrants aren’t welcome in America. What they are saying is that the way here is through the law – not around it.

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

Also in the November 2 Washington Update:

Extraordinary Measures: Voters Tackle 155 Issues Nov. 6

Prayer: A Pillar for the Persecuted

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

VIDEO: After Project Veritas’ Gillum Campaign Expose the #CrackerLivesMatter movement is launched

/in , , , , , /by

President Trump in Fort Myers, Florida on October 31, 2018 with #CrackerLivesMatter members.

Check out Tom Trento and Gold Star father Billy Vaughn responding to the investigative expose’ that caught socialist Andrew Gillum’s key team members spewing hate, racism and complete disgust for white “crackers” in Florida. Yes, this is unbelievable but TRUE.

With a bit of humor, Tom and Billy make a VERY serious point about the cultural destruction a Gillum Administration would bring about if “crazy” Socialist Gillum gets elected Governor.

#CrackerLivesMatter is a hashtag to expose the hate-filled rhetoric surrounding the Andrew Gillum for Governor campaign in Florida.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Andrew Gillum and the Mystery of 311 East Jennings Street

‘Grab Them By The Ballot’: Women Pose Nude Urging People To Vote For Democrats

‘Nobody Needs To Know’: O’Rourke Campaign Appears To Illegally Support Caravan Migrants, Report Suggests

Libs Take a Step in the Right Deception

/in , , , , /by

Not everyone is waiting until next Tuesday to have their say in the midterm elections. As of yesterday, a whopping 24 million votes had already been cast — blowing past the early voting total from 2014 (21 million). If there’s one thing both sides have going for them, it’s enthusiasm. With people flooding polling places, the long lines can only mean one thing: turnout will win the day.

It’s a wave all right — but the color is red, white, and blue. The numbers are so staggering that some pollsters think the country might crack 50 percent turnout — a level we haven’t reached in almost 50 years. Believe it or not, some states have more than doubled the votes people cast at this point in 2014 — and others have just flat-out surpassed early turnout for the entire election.

And here’s an interesting nugget. At this point in 2016, 43 percent of early voters were Democrats and 40 percent were Republicans. But Donald Trump won the White House and Republicans held the House and Senate. As of Wednesday, NBC reports, 43 percent of early voters are Republicans and 41 percent are Democrats. Read into that what you will, but despite what Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says, the House is obviously still very much up for grabs.

That’s exactly what the other side is afraid of. For all of their big talk that Congress is in the bag, they have to be very worried by the GOP’s new enthusiasm. With President Trump on more than a state-a-day pace to rally voters, conservatives are revved up. They’re disgusted by what they’ve seen across the country these last few months – not just the profound lack of decency, but the brute power angry liberals are using to get their way. It reminds them of the government power Barack Obama used against people of faith at work, school, and in public life. And they’re determined not to go back.

Make no mistake: Republicans still have their work cut out for them. As we saw in the Brett Kavanaugh debate, some liberals will do whatever they can to take control of Congress and force their agenda on the nation. And that includes outright deception! In Texas, conservatives were astonished at how low some people will stoop to dupe voters. Supporters of Democrat Beto O’Rourke, Senator Ted Cruz’s (R) challenger, actually printed fake voter guides and swapped them out for the Vision America version that was distributed in churches across Texas. “They kept our logo, our look, our colors, but they flipped the issues of the candidates,” Vision America President John Graves said. “The fake voter guides clearly favored O’Rourke. They made Ted Cruz look like he was pro-abortion.”

“I’ve been around this type of work for 20 years,” Graves shook his head, “and I’ve never seen anyone go to this level of deceit and dishonesty to try to deceive Christians.” He told our listeners on “Washington Watch” that Vision America didn’t know anything was amiss until they started fielding calls from churches who couldn’t believe what they were reading. “They left the scriptures on… [but] they switched the positions of the candidates.” But, he points out, “What was more shocking about it was that they didn’t just send out deceit in campaign mailings… They literally altered them, walked inside the house of God, inside the church, and co-mingled them on the tables where people could get them.” And if a party can’t win honestly, what makes anyone think they’ll govern honestly?

Another group that knows an awful lot about defrauding Americans is sinking an awful lot of money into the elections. With Donald Trump in the White House and pro-lifers in control of Congress, Planned Parenthood knows the days of abortion-on-demand could be numbered. So this year, the group is betting the farm on the midterms with a combined $50 million push to stop Republicans from protecting unborn lives.

In a new report from Live Action, Lila Rose’s group tallies the monster donations to radical candidates, pointing out that between Parenthood Votes, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Planned Parenthood Federal PAC and their joint efforts, America’s biggest abortion business will spend more than it ever has to send pro-abortion politicians to state and federal offices. Of course, it’s illegal to spend taxpayer dollars on campaigns, but the governments’ half-billion investment in Planned Parenthood doesn’t exactly hurt the effort either.

It’s a vicious cycle. The government scratches Planned Parenthood’s back, then Planned Parenthood turns around and uses that money to elect people who will keep their funding stream intact. The “$500 million in taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood for nominal health services frees up donors to give to Planned Parenthood’s political arms rather than to health services,” Live Action explains.

Imagine if the organization had to operate like the nonprofit it supposedly is. Without taxpayers, Planned Parenthood wouldn’t have the luxury of diverting money to politics. They’d be forced to use their donations for actual services — like everyone else. Instead, they’re weaponizing the taxpayers’ own money against them. If you’re as tired of that as the rest of America, get out and show it! Elect men and women next Tuesday who’ll end our forced partnership with Planned Parenthood. To find out who that is, check out the FRC Action Voter Guide.

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Target Case Could Sink Bathroom Law

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

Other Than the Shooter, Who is Responsible for Synagogue Carnage?

/in , , , , /by

After the tragic Saturday shooting that claimed 11 lives at a Pittsburgh synagogue, there has been, lamentably, a predictable response. Seizing upon the incident, leftists are blaming President Trump and his supporters for creating a “climate of hate.” In response to this and the notion that it justifies suppression of speech, others will say that only one man is responsible, mass murderer Robert Bowers. Yet there’s far more to this matter than either position indicates.

Let’s start by acknowledging that words can influence others. Sayings such as “The pen is mightier than the sword” attest to this, and it’s why we offer opinion and render commentary: we’re hoping to influence people, to spur them on to proper remedial action.

It follows from this, however, that some unstable individuals may take improper action, especially in a disparate nation 328 million strong. This is true no matter what is said. If you rail against thievery, someone may go out and murder a reformed ex-thief.

Now, killer Bowers was clear on his motivation: he was upset about the continual illegal wave migration into the U.S. As to the influence of speech, if there had been a complete blackout these last years on talk of illegal migration, would Bowers have committed his crime?

Most likely not.

Yet it’s also possible that Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, wouldn’t have perpetrated his crimes had there been a blackout on discussion of the threats posed by technology.

In addition, it’s highly probable that,

  • “revenge” attacks on whites wouldn’t have occurred following the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin affair if the media hadn’t intensely focused on the case;
  • the 2017 congressional-baseball shooting, the sending of ricin to Trump and leading Republicans, the attacks on GOP offices and the more than 600 cases of assault or harassment of conservatives wouldn’t have occurred had the media not expressed anti-Trump views;
  • the Boston Tea Party and War for Independence wouldn’t have occurred if revolutionaries hadn’t espoused anti-British sentiment;
  • the War between the States wouldn’t have occurred if abolitionists didn’t rail against slavery; and
  • attacks on innocent priests wouldn’t have occurred had the media not focused on the Catholic Church sex scandal.

So should we just shut-up and discuss nothing? After all, expressing beliefs on serious matters is “divisive.” Yet since there can’t be division without at least two opposing sides, the question is: who is morally responsible for the division and the violent by-products of it? Is it the person who by espousing Truth angers lovers of lies?

Or is it espousers of lies who anger both lovers of Truth and misguided adherents of other lies?

This brings us back to Trump-hating Bowers and illegal migration. The leftist immigrationists would like patriots to just shut-up and stop complaining about the influx of what they call “undocumented immigrants seeking a better life.” Patriots would prefer that they’d shut-up, stop opposing border security and immigration enforcement, and cease abetting what we may call an invasion. One side is right and the other wrong.

It is the wrong one that’s morally responsible, indirectly, for inciting people such as Bowers.

Note that there are many good reasons to oppose the invasion. These include the monetary costs associated with illegal migrants; the crimes they commit and diseases they bring; the strain on our resources; and, most significantly, the nation-rending effect of rapid and irreversible demographic and cultural change.

In contrast, the immigrationists are dishonest about their motives. They claim to care about poor migrants, but what really animates them is power. Eighty-five to 90 percent of our post-1968 immigrants have hailed from the Third World, and the Left knows full well that 70 to 90 percent of them vote Democrat upon naturalization. Leftists are cementing power by importing voters.

The principle is, if you can’t get the people to change the government, change the people. It’s the most ignoble of things, using a foreign army to overcome the will of patriots.

Moreover, immigrationists throw salt in the wound by attacking those opposing the invasion as xenophobes, as uncompassionate, as white supremacists. It’s as if someone helps a criminal break into your home and then castigates you for complaining. It’s maddening. Certain unhinged people find it so, too — only, they may resort not to the ballot box but the ammo box, targeting innocents in the process.

Unfortunately, this division can’t be wished away, and there is no common ground. Whether or not the immigrationists believe in their hearts they’re right, they certainly act as if they were and won’t relent. As for patriots, we are right and know that the importation of a vast foreign electoral army to help destroy Americanism’s last vestiges cannot be accepted. These are irreconcilable differences.

Obviously, Robert Bowers is directly responsible for his evil actions. But insofar as there is indirect responsibility for an irrational act relating to an issue, it lies with those pushing an irrational position on the issue.

Virtually all the last years’ violent rhetoric and actions have originated with the Left. We’ll see more of this, too, since leftists won’t stop being what they are. At times, there’ll also be what the liberals called “blowback” when the issue was Muslim terrorism (the Florida bomber may be such as example). Then there’ll be the occasional unhinged, terroristic individual who blames innocents for what the guilty have done. That’s life in a divided nation.

Whether hot and international or cold and cultural, war involves having at least two opposing sides. Who is to blame? It’s never those speaking and advancing Truth with a civil tongue.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Andrew Vickers on Unsplash.

2018 MIDTERMS: What’s At Stake?

/in , , , , , /by

Midterm elections are normally as exciting as watching grass grow. A handful of people usually show up to elect dog catchers and the like. Democrats tend to avoid it like the plague, failing to see the significance of it in comparison to a presidential election. However, in the Age of Trump and the Resistance, the 2018 midterm elections have been electrified and we may very well see some record voting numbers for such an election. This, of course, represents a bonanza for the news media who reaps the financial harvest by whipping the populace into a frenzy.

The media is quick to tell us the party in power normally loses during a midterm election. I would remind them, these are unusual times and we have a President who doesn’t play by their rules and is only interested in results, not history.

Elections are meters of our morality. This is where we collectively determine what direction we would like to see the country go. It defines our priorities and values; what is right and what is wrong. To illustrate:

COURTS

This election will determine what kind of Supreme Court we want: Republicans want justices to interpret the Constitution, and Democrats want them to enact law from the bench. Whereas the former is perceived as conservative, the latter represents a liberal approach. This also applies to the Federal benches as well.

This same phenomenon applies to State Supreme Courts. For example, in Florida three vacancies are awaiting to be filled. Should Democrat Andrew Gillum win the governor’s race, the three justices will likely be liberal; should Republican Ron DeSantis win, the justices will take a conservative approach.

This aspect alone is highly significant to the midterm elections. In terms of morality, should justices simply interpret law, or pave the way for new laws outside of the scope of the Constitution?

CONSTITUTION

The midterms will also have an impact on the mechanisms embedded in the U.S. Constitution. For example, Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College and rely totally on the popular vote to decide the victor of presidential elections. On the other hand, the Republicans want to keep the Electoral College “as is” in order to maintain parity between urban and rural America. From a moral standpoint, which is the fairest approach? Should the Electoral College be eliminated, the interests of rural America will be neglected, causing candidates to only focus on the needs of urban areas.

Another area under consideration is the eligibility to vote. Whereas Republicans want all legal citizens to vote, Democrats want to give illegal immigrants and criminals the right to vote. There is also discussion regarding the lowering of the voting age to 16. The question is, what kind of person should be allowed to vote?

THE RULE OF LAW

Some people believe the law should be applied equally to everyone. Others believe exceptions should be granted, that some people are above the law. Republicans believe a person is “innocent until proven guilty” and there should not be a double-standard that allows otherwise (“guilty until proven innocent”). To enforce this, there should be “due process” to entitle citizens to fair and consistent treatment under the law.

The Rule of Law includes Amendment I of the Bill of Rights whereby Congress shall make no law prohibiting “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Peaceably is the keyword here. This certainly doesn’t support the concept of anarchy as advocated by some people in this country today.

So, the moral question becomes, do we believe in adhering to the Rule of Law, or do we prefer mob rule?

SOCIOECONOMICS

The United States was founded as a free enterprise system which is an economic system where government places few restrictions on the types of business activities or ownership by citizens. This is based on the concept of Capitalism which is a celebration of the individual’s right to try and succeed, requiring a sense of risk. In contrast, the Democrats are embracing Socialism which concentrates on the rights of the group overall, controlled by government, thereby suppressing individual initiative and risk. Unlike Capitalism which allows for failure, there is no such sense of loss in Socialism, nor sense of victory. Essentially, everyone receives a trophy, win or lose. The two socioeconomic programs are as different as night and day, and are simply incompatible.

Under Capitalism, the individual is entitled to enjoy the fruits of his/her labor, such as financial rewards. This is an important benefit derived from risk. Under Socialism, there is no such concept, and instead of the individual benefiting, the wealth is evenly distributed to the work force, regardless if they earned it or not. In other words, a weak worker benefits at the same rate as a strong worker.

Democrat Socialists believe in free entitlements for everyone, such as college education, food and housing, transportation, health care, and jobs. This may sound enticing, but they have no clue as to how to pay for all of this other than higher taxes, thereby causing a redistribution of the wealth, which is anti-Capitalist.

The moral question thereby becomes, which system should America embrace? Republicans defend Capitalism, Democrats prefer Socialism.

GLOBALIZATION VS. NATIONALISM

This election is also about adopting a position of Globalization or Nationalism. Globalization, as supported by Democrats, involves the cultural integration of trade, capital, and immigration among the countries of the world. This tends to force countries to lose their identity and become subservient to others. Consequently, we are seeing a push back in the form of Nationalism as in President Trump’s policy of “America First,” and “Brexit,” representing the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union.

Nationalism respects the sovereignty of a country, meaning their ability to manage their own affairs independently. Globalization loosens these restrictions to promote equality of nations and cultures, a form of Socialism. Nationalism respects the rights of the citizen, Globalization respects the rights of everyone, regardless where they are from. Consequently, this has led to the immigration problems plaguing the United States and Europe. In a nutshell, it means caring for anyone crossing our borders. Whereas under Nationalism, immigrants must lawfully apply to be accepted, respect the rule of law, and adapt to society, Globalization is just the reverse.

So, the question becomes do we want to be a sovereign country, where the rule of law is respected, or do we want to have open borders and an amalgamation of cultural laws? Add on to it, the provision for housing, education and healthcare for anyone on our shores.

As mentioned, politics is morality in action, as it leads to the the laws, rules, and regulations of a body of people, thereby representing their interpretation of right and wrong. To learn about politics and government is to learn morality. The founding fathers felt strongly about this. So much so, in 1828 the text book, “Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States” by Arthur J. Stansbury, was introduced to teach students government and morality. Having the students learn their rights and freedom was considered important in the early days of this country.

Republicans believe government exists to serve the people. Democrats believe the citizens are subservient. This, of course, represents conflicting interpretations of morality.

On November 6th, we will again determine what is right and what is wrong.

Keep the Faith!

RELATED ARTICLE: 4 Democratic Midterm Ads That Spectacularly Backfired

EDITORS NOTE: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies. This column with images is republished with permission.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

/in , , , , /by

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.

Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.

Originally published by Fox News in 2011

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

On the Street: What Americans Think About Birthright Citizenship

The True History of Millstone Babies

By the Numbers: 4 Key Points About Birthright Citizenship

Podcast: The History of Birthright Citizenship in the US

Birthright Citizenship: What You Need To Know

RELATED VIDEO: Former Senator Harry Reid’s 1993 “No Sane Country” remarks on birthright citizenship – CSPAN.

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

VIDEO: America has no room for the ‘vile, hate-filled poison of anti-Semitism’

/in , , , /by

The White House is an email noted:

The American flag is flying at half-mast above the White House today as our Nation grieves the 11 victims of a despicable act of mass murder Saturday at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

“Anti-Semitism and the widespread persecution of Jews represents one of the ugliest and darkest features of human history,” President Donald J. Trump said from Indiana on Saturday. “The vile, hate-filled poison of anti-Semitism must be condemned and confronted everywhere and anywhere it appears.”

What unites Americans is our common destiny, President Trump continued. “We mourn for the unthinkable loss of life that took place today, and we pledge in their name to fight for a future of justice, safety, tolerance, morality, dignity, and love. We must all rise above the hate.”

President Trump and the First Lady will visit Pittsburgh tomorrow to meet with family members of the victims and mourn with the entire Pittsburgh community. The 11 Jewish-Americans killed “represented the very best of our Nation,” Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said from the White House today. The President “adores Jewish-Americans as part of his own family,” which includes his daughter, son-in-law, and several grandchildren, she noted.

As always in moments such as these, America’s heroes in law enforcement do some of the most difficult work. Four of these brave officers were wounded while confronting the attacker this weekend. “They do so much for us,” President Trump said. “And they’re really unsung heroes. They don’t get the credit they deserve.”

Watch President Trump’s response to the tragedy in Pittsburgh.

More: Press Secretary Sarah Sanders delivers an update this afternoon.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Pittsburgh Synagogue, Anti-Semitism and Trump

America Has Always Been a Safe Haven for Jews. An Evil Killer Won’t Change That.

Podcast: DC Chair of Young Jewish Conservatives Discusses Pittsburgh Shooting

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of the American flag at half staff is courtesy of the White House.

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: 96.1 percent of University of Texas administrators, 93.5 percent of faculty donated to Dems

/in , , , /by
  • A Campus Reform analysis has found that an overwhelming majority of faculty and administrators at University of Texas schools contributed financially to Democrat candidates and causes from 2017-2018.
  • System employees donated a grand total of $642,693.43 during this time frame, 94.7 percent of which went to Democrat candidates and causes.

Campus Reform analyzed the 2017-2018 political donation records of employees at the University of Texas (UT), using publicly available records from the Federal Election Commission, in order to determine the political leanings of faculty and administrators at the college.

According to the Campus Reform analysis, 96.1 percent of all UT system administrators who donated to political candidates or causes gave a total of $36,852.20 to Democrat politicians or Democrat organizations, such as Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke and New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“In total, UT employees donated $642,693.43 from 2017-2018. Of that amount, 94.7 percent went to Democrat politicians or Democrat organizations…”    

In total, UT employees donated $642,693.43 from 2017-2018. Of that amount, 94.7 percent went to Democrat politicians or Democrat organizations, while just 5.3 percent of the donations were made to Republican politicians or Republican organizations.

In total, 917 faculty members, specifically, donated a total of $481,853.56 to politicians or political organizations. They contributed 93.5 percent of the money to Democrat politicians or organizations, such as the Texas Democrat Party and End Citizens United. Just 6.5 percent of donations went to Republican politicians or Republican causes.

Of 140 UT administrators, 137 donated $36,852.20 to Democrat political candidates and politicians. Three UT administrators gave a total of $1,500 in donations to Republican politicians or organizations from 2017-2018.

Act Blue and It Starts Today received the highest amount in donations in the Democrat and Democrat category while Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and Ted Cruz for Senate received the highest amount in donations in the Republican category.

For the purposes of this data, Campus Reform defined “faculty” as employees of the college that have direct instructional contact with students, such as professors, teachers, and instructors. “Administrators” were defined as employees who manage programming or are responsible for students and faculty, such as department chairs, deans, presidents, and provosts.

Campus Reform sorted individual donors using their self-stated position at the college. For example, if the individual donor noted that they were a “professor of literary theory,” they were designated as a faculty member. If an individual noted that they were employed as an “executive director,” they were designated as an administrator.

In the event that an employee’s title was ambiguous and could not be confirmed, they were marked as a general employee, but not sorted into faculty or administration categories. Campus Reform did not account for retired UT System employees who made political donations. Campus Reform used 180 variations of keyword searches to cull data specific to UT employees at all 14 institutions listed on the University of Texas System’s website.

Campus Reform used the most recent FEC donor records from Jan. 1, 2017 to Oct. 22, 2018.

COLUMN BY

Grace Gottschling

GRACE GOTTSCHLING

Investigative Reporter

Grace Gottschling is the Investigative Reporter for Campus Reform. She is a recent graduate of The College of New Jersey and has experience traveling across the country to engage and train others in pro-life apologetics. Grace manages research and Freedom of Information Act records requests for Campus Reform.

RELATED ARTICLES:

100 percent of Univ. of Oregon admin, 99.95 percent of faculty donate to Dems

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: 100 percent of SMU administrators, 98.8 percent of faculty donate to Dems

VIDEO: Beto O’Rourke supporters can’t name any of his accomplishments

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

Andrew Gillum Plays the Race Card After Getting Caught in a Lie

/in , , , /by

Florida Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum attempted to turn the tables on Republicans Wednesday in response to damning new reports that he lied about obtaining Broadway tickets from an undercover FBI agent.

Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee, claimed in a short video address to his supporters that he is being targeted by Republicans because he is black.

“The Republicans obviously want to distract, want to suggest. All along throughout this … they’ve wanted the people of this state to believe somehow I haven’t deserved what I’ve gotten, I’m unethical, participated in illegal and illicit activity. I mean, you name it,” Gillum said.

“The goal is obviously to use my candidacy as a way to reinforce, frankly, stereotypes about black men.”

Text messages made public Tuesday showed that in 2016, Gillum and a friend, a lobbyist named Adam Corey, received tickets to the Broadway show “Hamilton” from an FBI agent posing as a real estate developer.

The agent was investigating corruption in the city of Tallahassee, including the awarding sweetheart deals to developers and businessmen.

Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis looks on during CNN debate with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum in Tampa, Florida, October 21, 2018. Chris O'Meara/Pool via REUTERS

Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron DeSantis looks on during CNN debate with Democratic gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum in Tampa, Florida, October 21, 2018. Chris O’Meara/Pool via REUTERS

Gillum and his campaign have claimed that Gillum received the “Hamilton” tickets from his brother, though the text messages show that Corey told him directly they were coming from the undercover FBI agent.

Gillum has also come under fire over a trip he took with the FBI agent and Corey to Costa Rica. Gillum has been accused of failing to pay for his share of the trip.

Gillum dodged questions about the tickets and Costa Rica trip during a debate Sunday against Republican candidate Ron DeSantis, a former U.S. Congressman.

When DeSantis asked Gillum about the Broadway tickets, he wouldn’t answer directly.

“First of all, I am a grown man,” said Gillum. “My wife and I take vacations and we pay for our own vacations. I don’t take free trips from anybody. I’m a hard-working person.”

“I know that may not fit your description of what you think people like me do, but I’ve worked hard for everything that I’ve gotten in my life,” he continued.

COLUMN BY

Chuck Ross

Follow Chuck on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Judgment Lapses of Andrew Gillum – Sunshine State News

Corruption by Democrat Andrew Gillum roils Florida governor’s race

CNN Uses Sound Bite From Gillum To Attack Fox News

Trump Warns Package Bomber: We Will Find You

Republicans Strongly Condemn Attempted Package Bomb Attacks on Democrats

EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with images with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Midterm Mayhem and False Flag Ops

/in , , , , , /by

If you are not up to speed on False Flags and the Hegelian Dialectic no better time to become more acquainted than now. The Midterm Mayhem and False Flag Ops that have occurred just in the past couple of months are all about the midterm elections. Kavanaugh, Weather Weapons, Caravans, and today pipe bombs and powder. There will be more false flags of all kinds to come until the deep state is exposed and the trials as well as military tribunals begin.

And so now the media and other high valued A list deep state assets are deployed to create the narratives further dividing the right and left in a desperate attempt to sway votes. And of course the main “blame” will be assigned to President Trump and his supporters. Also, get ready for stock market mayhem and read this post.

Advice

Pray for the safety of human life. Pray for our brave and brilliant President. Study False Flags and Hegelian Dialectic which are also chapters in my book. And be alert, always, everywhere. Stay safe. Stay focused and vote red across the boards for all those candidates that are most supportive of President Trump. Vote for your values. Vote for safety and prosperity. Vote for opportunity for your children and grandchildren. People always asking – “what can I do?”. Perhaps begin with this short list provided. Stay the course. It will get far worse before it gets better. The way out is the way through. Share this most important post.

Supportive Links

Was this a False Flag?

False Flags – A Conspiracy Theorist Fantasy?

Hegelian Dialectic

Divided We Fall

EDITORS NOTE: This column with photos is republished with permission

Wave… Goodbye? Early Voting Bucks Dem Trends [+Video]

/in , , , /by

Is it a blue wave? A purple wave? A trickle — a tsunami? In 15 days we’ll find out. But one thing we do know: Republicans are a lot more energized than people gave them credit for.

Some polls, including this FiveThirtyEight projection, still have the Democrats winning the U.S. House, but early voting trends make it clear: you can’t count conservatives out. “Republican-affiliated voters have outpaced Democratic-affiliated voters in early voting in seven-closely watched states,” according to new info from NBC News and TargetSmart. In Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, Tennessee, and Texas, the data all points to “robust enthusiasm” on the conservative side — and not a moment too soon.

In key Senate races like Arizona and Florida, Republicans had anywhere from a four- to 10-point early-voting advantage. Out in Texas, where Senator Ted Cruz is in a tight race with Democrat Rep. Beto O’Rourke, people were waiting in hour-long lines that snaked around buildings for blocks. Others had camped out at the Houston locations before they even opened. By yesterday, pollsters estimate, more than five million votes had already been cast either early or by absentee.

Still, though, neither side can take anything for granted. Two weeks out, an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey still gives Democrats the lead, but by an incredibly shrinking margin. Anything, we learned in 2016, is possible. Yesterday, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) joined me on “Washington Watch” and talked about what he’s seen in states around America. “When I tour the country, I see this new enthusiasm… After watching what’s happened with [Brett] Kavanaugh, the way they treated Justice Kavanaugh, using politics over the process — not putting people first — [there’s] a frustration out there. And I’ve seen the intensity gap close. I see some real excitement in some of these races.”

That said, McCarthy pointed out, “History is against us. History says that the Democrats should win the House because the party in power normally loses 32 seats. But I don’t see that being the case. I see a new movement going forward that hopefully we can really achieve really big things. But think about the things we’ve achieved in the last two years. This is the strongest economy we’ve [had] the last 50 years — by far.”

And no one can underestimate the effect that the Left’s mob mentality is having on conservatives around the nation, as we watch Republicans being attacked, threatened, harassed, vandalized, and even run off the road! The FRC Action PAC, the Faith, Family, and Freedom Fund, used those intimidation tactics as the focus of its latest ads, airing in some key battleground states. To watch, click the video below.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Bakers Cause a Stir at SCOTUS

LGBT Plays the Erase Card

PIERS MORGAN: The media hates him, Hollywood hates him but every hysterical piece of abuse they throw at him just makes Trump stronger and now the Democrats are heading for a midterms disaster

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

I Used to Be Transgender. I Support Proposed New Trump Policy on Gender Definition.

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

Thank you, Mr. President, for moving to make male and female great again.

In the last few years, biological girls have seen their rights violated in school bathrooms and in sports. National confusion has ensued ever since the previous administration decided to reinterpret Title IX’s sex anti-discrimination clause to include self-proclaimed “gender identity.”

That may soon come to an end under the Trump administration.

The Department of Health and Human Services has drafted a memo that would reverse the Obama administration’s action and return the legal definition of “sex” under Title IX civil rights law to what its authors meant: sex rooted in unchanging biological reality. According to The New York Times, the memo was drafted last spring and has been circulating ever since.

Title IX bans sex discrimination in education programs that receive government financial assistance, meaning schools have to abide by the government’s interpretation of Title IX or risk losing federal funds.

When the Obama administration announced it was including “gender identity” under the word “sex,” many schools felt they had to treat gender identity as the standard for determining access to bathrooms, sports teams, etc. The result was headlines like “Transgender Athletes Dominate High School Women’s Sports.”

The memo spells out the proposed definition of “sex” as applied to federal statutes as “a person’s status as male or female based on immutable biological traits identifiable by or before birth.” The proposed definition won’t include a “select a gender” option, as was offered under the Obama administration.

This is simply a return to reality. Sex is an immutable biological reality, while gender identity is a social construct that can change over time. The two terms are not interchangeable. The authors of Title IX meant biological sex, not gender identity.

The Obama administration’s conflation of the two was not just legally problematic—it also pushed transgender ideology further into the mainstream. That’s regrettable, because transgender ideology has real and harmful effects on people who are suffering and need help.

When individuals try to live out life in an ideology that has no basis in biological fact, the consequences are stark.

I know, because I lived the trans life for eight years.

I have received hundreds of regret letters from trans people who now realize—too late—that gender-pretending is damaging. Regretters have called gender change “the biggest mistake of my life.” The late transgender movie actress Alexis Arquette called her gender transition “bulls***” because no one can really change their gender.

So many have written me personally about the unhappy consequences of imitating the opposite gender for so many years, telling of lives needlessly torn apart and thoughts of suicide. I put those emails into a book, “Trans Life Survivors,” which shows the human toll caused by encouraging distressed people to undergo permanent surgeries and take powerful hormones without considering other causes and treatments.

This past weekend, I opened my email as I do each morning and found another message from a person who had ignored biology and went head-first into trans ideology. Now, this person wants out:

I am now 40 years old, post op male to female transgender person. And to put it simply, very miserable in life now. I have followed you on YouTube … and totally agree with your theories! I am at my wits’ end with life and what I have done to myself. It’s an inspiration to see and read about what I would call “survivors!”

Many trans folks, after years of “living the life,” now want to detransition. Many report to me that they were sexually abused, raped, or molested at a young age—in one case, as a toddler.

Teenage girls are flocking to gender change as an escape. One 15-year-old girl, who the gender experts diagnosed with gender dysphoria, explained to her mother that she wanted to “erase my past” because she was sexually abused by her dad.

In another case, a young 14-year-old girl confessed that “I used being trans to try and escape being scared about being small and weak. I thought that if I presented myself as a man I’d be safer.”

Another girl’s mother wrote that her daughter was raped at age 19 and desperately “is trying to remove any connection to her being female visually or sexually.”

This is the kind of suffering that has driven many to change genders. As a society, we need to honestly consider: Is changing genders an effective long-term treatment for past sexual abuse and feelings of insecurity?

Obviously not.

Billy, another trans life survivor, had been sexually abused at age 11 during a summer swimming camp by his diving coach. Billy explained to me that after the abuse, he hated his genitalia and wanted to become a female. Abuse can do that.

Billy, like so many abused as children, was diagnosed by the “gender specialist” with gender dysphoria and given cross-sex hormones and reassignment surgery. He lived fully as a transgender female until regret set in.

Now he has detransitioned back to male and is married—a true trans life survivor who prefers to live a biologically authentic life.

Trans ideology ruined the life of another friend, born male and now living as a trans female. After being diagnosed with gender dysphoria, his excellent employment allowed him financially to transition from male to female. But sex change regret has set in, and now he wants to detransition.

This nice-looking, tall, slender, intelligent transgender person is another who had been sexually abused as a child.

Too many people tell me that even when they establish a history of sexual abuse and communicate that to the gender therapist, the therapist disregards it. If a client wants to change their gender, the therapist will affirm them without reservation and help them down that path.

As a former trans person, and as someone who daily receives stories of physical and emotional devastation wrought by trans ideology, I look forward to a federal definition of sex as being rooted in immutable biology, without the option of being self-selected.

The science is absolutely clear. Sex doesn’t change over time, even with hormones and surgery—and that’s a good thing.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Walt Heyer

Walt Heyer

Walt Heyer is an author and public speaker. Through his website, SexChangeRegret.com, and his blog, WaltHeyer.com, Heyer raises public awareness about those who regret gender change and the tragic consequences suffered as a result.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Federal Gov’t Spending $1.1 Mil on Apps for Transwomen and “Hooking Up Simulation” for Gay Teens

Podcast: What Do Drag Queens Want With Your Kids?

LGBT Plays the Erase Card

My ‘Sex Change’ Was a Myth. Why Trying to Change One’s Sex Will Always Fail.

I Wish I Had Been Told About These Risks Before I Had Gender Surgery

A Former Transgender Person’s Take on Obama’s Bathroom Directive

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

EDITORS NOTE: This columns with images is republished with permission. Photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters/Newscom.

The President gives us permission to say we are “nationalists”

/in , , , , , /by

I was planning to write about the Daily Mail’s tirade against US Representative Steve King, calling him a white nationalist, today anyway, but oh joy! Donald Trump (with obvious pride) said he is a “nationalist” at his Texas rally last night.

The migrant caravan is not about the poor and downtrodden!

As we watch (in horror), the mostly young male migrant caravan heading to the US border intent on confronting our President’s authority, more Americans are seeing clearly that the battle (the worldwide battle!) is really one of nationalism vs. globalism with the marching human beings as the pawns in a gigantic war for world power.

Rep. King is vilified in the British press for daring to say what we all know.

And, Donald Trump last night reconfirmed why they hate him so much—he gives us all permission to speak!

If you love America and western civilization, and happen to be white, you are the scum of the earth to globalists—white nationalists!

From the Daily Mail:

Iowa Republican Congressman Steve King reveals his white nationalist views in shocking interview with far-right Austrian website saying immigration is ‘slow-motion cultural suicide’

Iowa Republican Representative Steve King has revealed his white nationalist views in an interview with an Austrian far-right publication.

King, an eight-term congressman up for re-election next month, has been linked to Neo-Nazism and the far-right before, but he laid out his extremely conservative views like never before in an interview with far-right propaganda website Unzensuriert, which translates to ‘uncensored’ in English.

Steve-King-Iowa

Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa)

He was interviewed when he stopped in Vienna in August and candidly called for stricter immigration policies, said Mollie Tibbett’s killer should have never been in the U.S., and claims Democrats are teaming up with radical Islamists to attack ‘Western civilization’.

He was interviewed by Caroline Sommerfeld, an intellectual in the European neo-fascist identititarian movement which is connected to the U.S.’s alt-right, to discuss how Muslim and Latino immigrants threaten the U.S. and Europe.

The interview was published in September and went unnoticed by American news outlets until the Huffington Post flagged it.

In the interview Sommerfeld asks: ‘In your opinion is Islam the problem or Western liberalism?’

King replies saying ‘it is like fighting a two front war. How is it, that the liberals, the leftists, on the one side, could build an alliance with the misogynistic hard core rightist Islamic people that have no tolerance for everything?’

This next bit really makes the heathen rage! Bringing up abortion and low fertility rates in the US, and in the west generally, is strictly verboten by the speech police.

He also slammed the U.S. low fertility rate saying ‘if we continue to abort our babies and import a replacement for them in the form of young violent men, we are supplanting our culture, our civilization.’

At multiple points in the interview he uses the phrase ‘Western Civilization’ which he seems to define as white America.

The two touched upon the theory of the Great Replacement – which is the idea that mass migration such as from Muslim-majority countries, could lead to the extinction of white European culture and identity.

King called it ‘slow-motion cultural suicide’.

The Great Replacement is a term used by anti-Muslim European networks who believe migrants and refugees are leading to the Islamification of Europe.

More here.

King, like Trump, is so vilified by the Daily Mail because he gives voice to sensible Europeans’ greatest fears and what they know in their hearts is true.

Readers, remember our enemies have no power when you take away their power to use words to silence you.

Racist, homophobe, Islamophobic, white nationalist, whatever, are just words. Laugh and walk away.

But, of course, continue speaking!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Aaron Burden on Unsplash.

The Calls for Violence Must Be Denounced

/in , , , , /by

Of all the voices being raised against the specter of mob rule in this country, few carry more weight than that of Steve Scalise.

That’s because Scalise, a Republican congressman from Louisiana, knows first-hand what happens when violent words turn into violent action.

In June 2017, he was shot and seriously wounded by a man named James Hodgkinson, who turned up at a practice session for a charity baseball game in Washington, D.C.—and started shooting as players practiced in Alexandria, Virginia. Scalise wound up in intensive care, underwent multiple surgeries, and even had to relearn how to walk.

And all because Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders supporter described by his own lawyer as “a very irascible, angry little man,” was so furious over the election of President Donald Trump that he moved to the D.C. area to protest.

Well, I think we can all agree that there’s a huge gap between the all-American tradition of protesting and the criminal activity of trying to maim or murder those you disagree with.

At least I hope we can agree on that. After all, when you have Eric Holder, President Barack Obama’s attorney general, caught on tape telling his political teammates, “When they go low, we kick them,” you have to wonder.

Especially when Holder’s advice follows viral videos of Brett Kavanaugh protesters ambushing lawmakers in hallways and elevators and being verbally abusive, not to mention accosting others in restaurants and even at their homes.

You’d think that the Scalise shooting would have made everyone wary of ratcheting up the rhetoric too much. And sure, some did speak up against it—at least a little bit. Sanders said he was “sickened by this despicable act,” and Michelle Obama has famously said, “When they go low, we go high.”

Even Holder felt pressured to walk back his advice as something not meant to be taken literally.

But these calls for civility have been far too few in number. And as the fight over Kavanaugh proved, they obviously haven’t made much of an impression.

Indeed, many on the left have made a point in recent weeks of denouncing calls for civility. In angry posts on Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere, they insist that this is nothing more than an attempt to muzzle them.

Faced with a president who is alleged to be a monster, they claim they have no choice—that they must resort to profane rhetoric and physical confrontation. That those who support the president will have “no peace.”

As Rep. Maxine Waters, California Democrat, put it: “If you see anybody from [the Trump administration] in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd! Tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere!”

Well, there’s another name for angry crowds: Mobs.

The left doesn’t like the “m word,” but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s accurate. And when you keep demonizing your opponents, no matter how justified you may think it is, don’t be surprised when—having let the genie out of the bottle—things get ugly.

Just ask Scalise. “I’m concerned that you are seeing an increase of this,” he said recently. “I’d like to see the mainstream media asking both Republican and Democratic leaders to stand up against this kind of rhetoric, this kind of violence.”

That, he adds, is why “we’ve got to keep shining a light on this, to make it clear that this isn’t what politics is about in America. It’s not what the founding of our country was about. It was about freedom of speech, freedom of expression. Not violence against anybody.”

Contrast that with Hillary Clinton, who recently said, “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.” And what would she suggest instead? Oh, “civility can start again,” she says—once her party is back in power.

Such threats are unconscionable. Those who support such a belligerent agenda don’t deserve the reins of power. It’s un-American. And it’s wrong.

Originally published by the Washington Times.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Ed Feulner

Ed Feulner

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

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom.