Avenatti And His Fallacious Argument For Indicting The President

/in , , , , , /by

Michael Avenatti. Twitter.

On September 13, 2018, Michael Avenatti made the case for President Trump’s indictment in the opinion section of The New York Times.  There are only two flaws with Avenatti’s argument. It has no basis in fact. It has no basis in law.

First, let us recall who Avenatti is. He is the attorney for Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal, two of the least trusted names in America. He is also a media hound who has a predilection for involvement in celebrity cases. But despite his lucrative legal ventures, Avenatti has not been without his legal and financial troubles. Avenatti’s law firm has been forced into bankruptcy on at least two occasions, and he has personally been subject to multiple accusations of financial shortcomings in his professional dealings.

So, naturally, one would expect that The New York Times would be especially careful in accepting a piece dealing with a matter in which Avenatti was directly involved.

Think again.

First, let’s take the absence of supporting facts.

In order to prosecute anyone in the United States, much less the President, there must be some evidence that a crime has been committed. Avenatti has none. As a matter of fact, in his article, all he says as to the factual basis for indicting the President is, “there are many indications that there is [sufficient evidence to support an indictment of President Trump] – the special counsel, Robert Mueller, who is investigating possible Russian interference in the 2016 election, and prosecutors from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, who are investigating payments to my clients, Stormy Daniels, and Karen McDougal, should present their evidence to grand juries.”

That’s it. That’s all he’s got. A wish. A desire. Never mind that the Special Prosecutor has admitted that he has yet to find any evidence of collusion. And never mind that the payments made to Avenatti’s client have a very high bar to clear before rising to the level of criminality. These are obstacles utterly ignored by Avenatti, but they present no difficulties to either him or The New York Times.

Under any other circumstances, I would be in a position to conclude my commentary since the case can move no further, except that Avenatti is allowed to continue.

So now let’s look at the absence of supporting law.

Having established his airtight factual case for prosecuting the President, Avenatti turns to the matters in law. Here, he makes the argument that the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, should be prosecuted so that the Supreme Court may rule on the constitutionality of whether the President is immune to prosecution. (I kid you not.)

I submit that Avenatti couldn’t care a hare’s foot as to the Supreme Court’s opinion on the President’s immunity to prosecution. In my opinion, his only interest lies in moving his case forward and staying in the spotlight. Regardless, the resolution of an academic argument regarding the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary is hardly a sufficient reason to prosecute the President, and of course, The New York Times should know that.

But more to the point, Avenatti makes no compelling case that the President is even subject to prosecution by any method other than impeachment. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5, expressly states, “The House of Representatives . . . shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” Further, Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the United States Constitution makes it perfectly clear that the power to try the President lies with the Senate:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”

And finally, and most directly on point, Article II, Section 4 states, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

With these three phrases, the Framers created a system by which a miscreant president can be found subject to trial, tried, and convicted. True, the Framers did not use the word, nor address the possibility of, prosecution, but this fact does not open the door to Avenatti’s argument. It completely closes it. Let us recall that the federal government (the national government to the Framers) is a government of enumeratedpowers. If it is not in the Constitution, then it was not a power for the national government to employ.

The fact that prosecuting or indicting the President is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution serves as a pretty stark repudiation of the remedy for the highest-ranking official of the land. Moreover, a close reading of Article II, Section IV, pretty much lays to rest any foundation for a different interpretation, “The President. . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment of, and Conviction for. . . ” That’s it. That’s the only remedy available.

If the President were to be convicted as a result of his impeachment and then removed from office under the legislature’s judiciary powers, he or she would no longer be President and would, at that point, be subject to criminal prosecution. That’s when a jurisdictional officer becomes empowered to prosecute a former president.

It seems pretty clear-cut that the House of Representatives is the President’s grand jury and the Senate his judge and petit jury, but Avenatti, in his fallacy, argues to the contrary using a case involving none other than Bill Clinton; Clinton v. Jones.

The first error Avenatti makes in deploying this case is his conflation of the rules applying to civil litigation with those involving a criminal case.

Clinton was a civil lawsuit brought against the President of the United States, Bill Clinton, by Paula Jones for damages involving her alleged sexual harassment. In it the President argued that he was not subject to litigation because, in carrying out the duties of the Office of the Presidency, he was too busy to properly defend himself. Additionally, it would be inappropriate for the President to be subjected to depositions and other inquiries in mounting his defense as such activities would inevitably interfere with his abilities to carry out his duties as President. The Court disagreed, holding that no one, even the President, is above the law, and the trial was allowed to move forward.

But the prosecution of a president is a criminal matter for which the ruling in Clinton would not apply, nor would the conclusion that no man is above the law because even in arguing that the President is immune to prosecution, he would still be subject to the Constitution of the United States and the remedies divined by the Framers of that foundational document.

In Men In Black, Agent Kevin Brown, the character played by Tommy Lee Jones, picked up a copy of three curbside tabloids calling them, “the best investigative reporting on the planet. Go ahead; look at The New York Times if you want to. They get lucky sometimes.”

Although he was right in principle, he erred in giving The New York Times too much credit.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured image of Michael Avenatti is from Twitter.

Government for Hire? Emails Show ‘Climate Industry’ Funds Jobs in Offices of Governors, Attorneys General

/in , , , /by

California Gov. Jerry Brown is host of a three-day “Global Climate Action Summit” in San Francisco organized by an “activist donor network” that has burrowed into state government agencies, a climate change skeptic says in a new report.

Chris Horner, a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is the author of two reports detailing how a well-endowed “climate industry” steers donor money through nonprofit organizations into the offices of state governors and attorneys general.

The relationship between governors and environmental activists who are using governors’ offices to advance the climate change agenda of certain donors is the subject of a report by Horner released Tuesday by CEI, a libertarian think tank in Washington.

“A particular theme slated for the San Francisco event is that President Trump’s promise to withdraw from the Paris climate treaty is isolating the United States from what is otherwise and elsewhere a doable, successful, and economically beneficial adoption of this agenda,” Horner writes.

The new report highlighting Brown, a Democrat, builds on Horner’s report last month describing how these same special interests work with compliant state attorneys general.

It views the actions of Brown in California as a case study, examining how elected officials and other political figures allow their offices to be used to pursue climate change policies that conform with the international accord known as the Paris Agreement.

Government officials around the world negotiated the agreement in Paris as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2015. The agreement calls on countries to combat the perceived threat of climate change by working to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

In June 2017, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which he said “disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.”

Brown’s San Francisco summit, set for Wednesday through Friday, places a strong emphasis on opposition to Trump’s policies, Horner writes:

Trump vowed to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because it is in reality a costly and ineffectual solution to the alleged climate crisis, it mostly directs resources to politically favored industries, and it harms disfavored ones. For similar reasons, the climate industry is dedicated to reversing Trump’s not yet consummated decision.

A major component of its campaign is claiming momentum toward Paris’s goals and rebutting the history of economic and social costs involved in implementing the policies that Paris demands. Implementation of the Paris agenda requires domestic policies, and implementing those policies is the principal objective of the campaign detailed in this paper.

The Daily Signal sought comment from Brown’s office on the new report, but had not received a response at publication time.

The California governor’s three-day summit comes with a budget of $10 million made possible through the support of individuals, foundations, governments and business, according to Horner’s report.

The nonprofits involved “take a handsome percentage for serving as middlemen,” it says.

Emails obtained from open-records requests indicate that politicians are making use of nonprofits and consultants as “pass-throughs for donors to support politicians with resources that the relevant legislatures will not provide and that donors cannot legally provide directly,” Horner’s report says.

The email records describe privately funded staff members placed in governor’s offices as “refugees” from the Obama administration who are working to reposition U.S. policy on climate and energy to conform with their preferred policies.

Horner, author of a 2007 book called “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism,” raises several questions in the new report in response to what he uncovered:

Are the donors going to such lengths to avoid 1) directly placing consultants in governors’ offices or 2) giving the money to do so directly to those offices, because they are barred from such placement? If so, why is this permissible? Or is the effort creating middlemen all merely due to appearances? Why do we find participants misleading or telling outright falsehoods when questioned about what we have found?

And the biggest issue of all is, does this represent government for hire?

The “off-the-book” operations detailed in the emails call out for legislative oversight to determine whether they violate state laws, Horner concludes.

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

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kevin. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of California Governor Jerry Brown delivers his final state of the state address in Sacramento, California, January 25, 2018. REUTERS/Fred Greaves/File Photo.

VIDEO: Do you know what they did to me in prison?

/in , , , , /by

Citizen of Great Briton Tommy Robinson sent out the below exclusive interview with TheRebel.media’s Ezra Levant in a email:

Robinson wrote:

In May, I was thrown in prison for 13 months for contempt of court, because I reported the news from outside a Muslim rape gang trial in Leeds.

In August, after I served two and a half months in solitary confinement, the Court of Appeal threw out that conviction and set me free, because of outrageous errors made by the judge in Leeds.

But I’ve never told anyone the full story of what happened that day in Leeds, after I was thrown in the back of a police van, and driven away.  

But now I want to tell you everything — from the kangaroo court hearing, to being sent to prison in Hull, to being transferred to HMP Onley, the prison with the highest Muslim population of any C-category prison in the UK. 

It’s the most candid interview of my life. And you can watch it here:

I describe things I haven’t told anyone before:

  • how a Muslim terrorist named Sayful Islam sent a threat to my prison door
  • how I was transferred to a dangerous prison run by Muslim gangs, and I was called “racist” when I complained
  • how I was “arrested” in prison for criticizing Islam
  • how I was put in a wire cage, and not allowed to exercise, visit the prison church or meet other prisoners
  • how prison starved me, and refused to let me buy more than one can of tuna a day (from my own money)
  • what I wrote in a letter to my wife and children — a letter prison guards seized, and wouldn’t deliver
  • and so much more.

The facts in this interview — and the documents I show on screen — will outrage you. The only consolation I take from this whole situation is that seeing it unfold has made many more people speak up. Our support grows, and we are succeeding in winning peoples’ hearts and minds.

Please watch my interview here, and share it with your friends and family. Post it on social media. Tell your friends about it.

It’s not just my story — it’s your story, too.

Yours truly,

Tommy Robinson

P.S. As I explain in the interview, the Attorney General insists on sending me back to trial again for contempt of court. Unfortunately, that means I have to hire my lawyers again, and I’ve just received a new invoice from them for tens of thousands of pounds.

That’s part of the government’s plan to break me — physically, psychologically and financially.

Your continued support is what drives me on. Please click here to help if you can — thank you.

P.P.S. Thank you for your support. Over the past month, I’ve been working on my plans for the future. I’ll let you know about my next steps soon!

RELATED ARTICLE: Tommy Robinson’s wife threatened with acid attack, police warn her ‘not to break the law’ if attacked.

The Cannabis Conundrum: Steering Policy and Medicine with Insufficient Data

/in , , , , , /by

The current issue of the International Review of Psychiatry issues a call for marijuana regulatory science.

An editorial introducing the issue notes that marijuana’s use as a medicine began with compassion for people with terminal or debilitating conditions for which no standard treatment existed but has expanded into multiple conditions which are neither life-threatening nor debilitating for which effective treatments exist. This expansion has given rise to a “large-scale, for-profit industry fraught with public health concerns.”

“Quality control issues abound in this industry as there are no established standards for cultivating, processing, testing, or labeling cannabis products. There is also concern over advertisements and product labeling that include misleading or unsubstantiated health claims, as these products have not been vetted by traditional drug development methods. The speed in which cannabis policies are changing is rapid, and the fact that these are happening as a direct result of legislation or by voter referendum is reckless given the absence of consensus standards and, in many cases, appropriate regulatory oversight,” writes researcher Ryan Vandrey of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

He notes that the US food and Drug Administration (FDA) was recently granted regulatory oversight of nicotine and tobacco products. This has generated an abundance of policy research resulting in regulations that will likely have a positive impact on public health. He writes there is a critical parallel need for marijuana regulatory research.

“Novel products and cannabis delivery devices are rolling onto the shelves of dispensaries at a rapid rate, product development appears to be geared towards high potency/high dose products, and it is all being carefully marketed to increase consumption,” he says.

In addition, Dr. Vandrey says more research is needed to evaluate the risks and benefits for both medicinal and non-medicinal (recreational) marijuana use.

“Currently there is inadequate data for a confident determination of risk/benefit of cannabis use as a potential therapeutic in psychiatry, yet it is being recommended to individuals for use in the treatment of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, opioid use disorder, dementia, and psychotic disorders,” he writes.

Although there is a lack of data, he says, there are numerous cases where people have been helped by marijuana and some of its cannabinoids. This should be used to motivate the development of “reliably formulated cannabinoid medications,” he concludes.

Read International Review of Psychiatry article here.

Lack of communication about marijuana for medical use between doctors and their patients

Researchers surveyed 242 patients and their primary care physicians in three family medicine practices in Denver, Colorado. Patients’ and doctors’ surveys were linked by numbers rather than names. The surveys were distributed in the doctors’ offices for patients to fill out anonymously. Only primary care physicians whose patients completed a survey filled out the doctor’s survey.

  • 22 percent of patients reported marijuana use in the past six months.
  • Of those, 61 percent said they used marijuana for medical purposes.
  • None obtained their state medical marijuana card from their primary care physicians.
  • Primary care physicians were aware their patients used marijuana only 53 percent of the time.
  • Primary care physicians identified conditions they believed could be adversely affected by marijuana use in 31 percent of their patients.

Read the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine article here.

Jimmy Buffett brand to develop cannabis products with Surterra

Margaritaville’s Jimmy Buffett, whose fans are known as Parrotheads, has licensed his band’s name—Coral Reefer—to Surterra Holdings, which will produce a line of marijuana products for medical use under the band’s brand name.

Surterra is a $100 million, five-year-old company based in Atlanta that has done no business in Georgia except to contribute to Georgia politicians. Surterra’s former president holds a seat on a legislative study commission to decide whether to legalize marijuana cultivation in Georgia. The commission’s report is due to the full legislature in time for the 2019 legislative session.

The Wall Street Journal reports the venture will produce Coral Reefer products in the form of vape pens, gel caps, edibles, and lotions. Beau Wrigley, the chewing gum scion who sold the family business a few years ago to establish a family investment firm, raised $65 million for Surterra and became its chairman last month. He said at the time that while Surterra is focused on products for medical use, it plans to compete in the recreational market as well.

Read the SunSentinel story here.

When two studies contradict each other, how do scientists decide which one is true?

People who want marijuana to be legalized for medical and/or recreational use often point to studies that re-enforce their viewpoint. People who don’t want pot legalized often do the same, pointing to studies that are diametrically opposed. How can there be so many studies that contradict each other?

We asked Michael Kuhar, PhD, Candler Professor of Neuropharmacology at Emory University and author of The Addicted Brain, how scientists determine which studies are valid and which are not. Here are his answers:

There are a number of ways scientists evaluate conflicting results.

1. The scientist will evaluate the two conflicting studies on her own, looking closely at both.

  • She might look at the patient population. Are they different? If yes, it might be that both studies are correct for the patient population involved.
  • He might ask which study has more patients because a larger group of patients tends to produce more reliable results.
  • She might compare the methodology, experimental design, and statistical analysis. Does one study look more rigorous than the other?
  • A scientist might look at the authors of the two studies and ask which one has more experience in the field.
  • While the above approach might reveal the best study, even a close review of the papers might not reveal which is more reliable.

2. If the scientist is unsure or is unable to critically evaluate both studies on his own, he might go to another scientist who is expert in that area and who knows more about it. Opinions of other highly trained people are important.

3. She is likely to look for other published studies in the area because confirmation and support for either study is important. The scientist wants to see if someone else has gotten similar results to those of one of the contrary studies. It is possible that, in the face of conflicting studies, everyone may have to wait until additional studies are carried out to see which result is the correct one. Confirmation is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

Scientists are trained to deal with such conflicts. Scientists do not expect a perfect world, and they often look for the preponderance or greatest evidence for a result. Every study may not produce exactly the same result, but the overall bulk of the data (from several studies) will support one view or another. Overall, this is referred to as evidence-based thinking.

FDA cracks down on Juul and e-cigarette retailers

As noted in the first article of today’s The Marijuana Report, the FDA now has jurisdiction over nicotine and tobacco regulation. FDA declared that some 2 million teenagers are using e-cigarettes and vaping products like the popular Juul, pictured above, and are becoming “hooked” on nicotine. The issue has reached epidemic proportions.

Today, FDA announced that it is giving Juul, RJR Vapor Company’s Vuse, Altria Group’s MarkTen, Imperial Grand’s blu and Logic 60 days to prove they can keep their products away from minors. If they fail, FDA may remove the flavored products from the market.

FDA also sent warning letters to 1,100 retailers, including 7-Eleven stores, Walgreens, Circle K convenience shops, and Shell gas stations. It has issued another 131 fines for selling e-cigarettes to minors.

Read the New York Times story here.

Breaking: Marijuana legalization in Colorado not so great after all

The 2018 Rocky Mountain HIDTA report released this morning shows marijuana legalization is having a negative impact in many areas:

  • Marijuana-related traffic deaths have increased 151 percent compared to all Colorado traffic deaths, which have increased 35 percent.
  • Past-month marijuana use among Coloradans age 12 and older is 85 percent higher than the national average.
  • Marijuana-related ER visits have increased 52 percent since Colorado legalized pot.
  • Hospitalizations related to marijuana jumped 148 percent.
  • Violent crime increased 18.6 percent; property crime increased 8.3 percent.
  • 65 percent of local jurisdictions throughout the state have banned both medical and recreational marijuana.

Read full report here.

New Yorker labels movie ‘Peppermint’ racist. Is it because the bad guys are MS13 or the hero is a white woman?

/in , /by

There are two things that get Hollywood critics in a tizzy. The first is a picture of a woman with angel wings made of bullets. The second is a story line that makes the case for securing America’s borders from organizations like MS13. It is the perfect film for those “despicable” supporters of President Donald J. Trump.

In The New Yorker magazine article titled “Peppermint,” Reviewed: Jennifer Garner Stars in an Ignorant, Racist Drug-Trade Revenge Film” Richard Brody writes:

Mediocre movies often appear and then disappear, as though they’d never been, but “Peppermint” (directed by Pierre Morel and written by Chad St. John), which opens today, leaves a trace of slime that’s hard to wipe up—and leaves the feeling that it would be better for the world at large if this movie hadn’t been made. It’s a new version of an old genre, the vigilante tale, but with a special whiff of prejudice, hatred, and resentment that—for all the film’s absurd artifice—blend all too readily into the distorted mental landscape of current American life. [Emphasis added]

Then Brody tells us really why he truly hates “Peppermint” stating,

“Peppermint” is a racist film that reflects the current strain of anti-immigrant politics and its paranoid focus on MS-13.

So, MS13 gang members killing a white husband and his white daughter is racist?

Others like ScreenRant’s Chris Agar are more subtle stating, “Despite a committed performance by Garner, Peppermint is an extremely forgettable and bland action movie that leaves no impression with the viewer.” Agar calls “Peppermint” a “bland action romp…The villains are as by-the-numbers as they come, with most amounting to little more than faceless cartel and gang members looking to track Riley down before she causes more problems for their operation.” [Emphasis added]

It appears Agar would prefer villains who are white supremacists attacking the poor defenseless MS13 gang members.

This is a classic example of Hollywood eating its own when the movie doesn’t have a hate Trump’s merit based immigration and build the wall policies. Add to this the blasphemy of the wings of the heroine made up of various bullets. The NRA couldn’t have done it better. A good girl with a gun is more than worth the watch.

Let me say that I’m looking forward to watching “Peppermint.” My congratulations to “Peppermint” Director Pierre Morel and writer Chad St. John. Well done!

RELATED ARTICLES:

STUDY: Conservative women are not identity politics fans

We Shouldn’t Be Okay that God’s Name is Taken in Vain So Much in Movies

New Netflix Show Features Abhorrent Song Blaspheming Jesus and The Holy Spirit 

Does Colin Kaepernick Know His Buddies At Nike Donate To Ending Black Lives?

/in , , , , /by

Nike has made Colin Kaepernick the face of its new “Just Do it!” campaign. The campaign shows Nike’s ardent support for Kaepernick’s beliefs that America is a racist nation in which government hit men (read: police) target black men for death.

Does Kaepernick know that Nike sends millions of dollars to groups which target black lives for gruesome deaths domestically and abroad? Does he know that not only is Nike a financial supporter of Planned Parenthood, it donates to the Population Council — a group which promotes abortion in the developing world — often black-majority nations?

Probably not. But if he reads 2ndVote, he will soon.

Follow The Money

Looking inside the U.S., Nike matches employee donations to an Oregon chapter of Planned Parenthood. As 2ndVote shoppers know, Planned Parenthood targets black neighborhoods for abortion.

But that’s not all. As we noted in our statement yesterday:

Since 2013, Nike has donated over $1.8 million to Population Council, an organization that promotes abortion in the developing world. Like Planned Parenthood, which Nike also supports, Population Council was founded by eugenicists. Also like Planned Parenthood, Population Council specifically targets black populations, as well as other non-white populations, for the expansion of abortion.

According to its website, the Population Council supports “a global network of offices in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.” Nike, which regularly takes heat for alleged sweat shops in non-white nations such as Vietnam, is thus financially supporting not only harming non-white lives, but also ending black and other non-white lives in the name of “population control.”

It is certainly possible that Kaepernick doesn’t know that Nike’s principles align not with protecting black lives but rather padding their pockets with money he makes for them (and, as a byproduct, for their sweat shop business partners and abortion donation recipients). But even that strategy wasn’t working on Tuesday — Nike shares fell three percent after news of the Kaepernick promotion was released.

CLICK HERE TO LEAVE A MESSAGE AT NIKE CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image taken on Sep 1, 2016 is of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick (7) walking up the tunnel after a 31-21 win over the San Diego Chargers at Qualcomm Stadium. Mandatory Credit: Jake Roth-USA TODAY Sports.

VIDEO: Cory Booker is No Martyr. He’s a Self-Serving Narcissist.

/in , , , , /by

“Cory Booker tries to be a martyr by releasing an email chain that he believes implicates Judge Kavanaugh in racial profiling. The email chain—Booker says is classified. He says, ‘I’m willing to take the punishment for releasing this classified information.’ What Booker’s not telling you is that the email chain was declassified the night before. And he knew it!” —Dan Bongino

Running Mates: Gillum picks a ‘guy with a Bruce Wayne complex’ DeSantis selects first American Cuban woman

/in , , , /by

The two men running to become the next governor of Florida have chosen their running mates.

The differences between their Lieutenant Governor picks is as wide as are their political positions.

T. Christopher “Chris” King

Andrew Gillum picked as his running  mate T. Christopher “Chris” King. The Tampa Bay Times’ (TBT) political editor Adam C. Smith described King as “a 38-year-old lawyer, bleeding-heart businessman.” King has no political experience, other than running for governor in the Democratic Party primary and losing badly.

King is the founder, President and CEO of the Orlando based Elevation Financial Group, a company that buys distressed public housing, renovates them and then flips them for a huge profit. According to TBT’s Smith,

In 2009, Elevation bought the 17-story Bethany Towers apartment complex in South Pasadena that for years had been generating headlines about rampant mold, bugs, drug dealing and unhappy tenants. Elevation bought the property, now called Bay Pointe Tower, for $1.6 million, spent $1.2 million renovating it and drew praise from housing officials and tenants. Elevation sold it in late 2014 for $8.75 million.

Smith and his company Elevation Financial Group nearly tripled their money. Nice work if you can get it.

Wallace Mazon, a 22-year-old Democratic activist in Gainesville,FL heard King speak at a Young Democrats gathering. Mazon described King thusly, “I liked him, but didn’t think much of it. I just thought he was some business guy with a Bruce Wayne complex.”

King calls himself a liberal Christian who supports abortion rights, gay rights and the separation of church and state.on

Florida state Representative Jeanette Nunez

Congressman Ron DeSantis selected as his running mate Florida state Representative Jeanette Nunez. Representative has been the Speaker pro tempore of the Florida House since 2016. 

Representative Nunez would be the first American of Cuban decent to become the Lieutenant Governor of Florida, if elected.

The Tampa Bay Times reported:

DeSantis’ pick is noteworthy because Nunez has been at odds with some of his agenda supporting President Donald Trump. DeSantis won the nomination last week with Trump’s endorsement, and he’s been a constant defender of the president on Fox News.

But Nunez tweeted during the 2016 presidential campaign that Trump was a con man who supported the Ku Klux Klan. Nunez was backing U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio for president at the time. Nunez and DeSantis downplayed her past the tweet while talking with reporters.

“Listen, we’re here talking about moving forward,” she said. “It’s no secret that I was a strong Marco Rubio supporter. That election is done and I’m looking forward to this election.”

Nunez is a Christian. She has also served on Florida’s Constitution Revision Commission; National Assessment Governing Board; Statewide Council on Human Trafficking. Nunez was the legislative aide for former Senator Diaz de la Portilla, 1995-2004. Nunez Vice Chair of the Appropriations Committee and sits on the Rules & Policy Committee.

RELATED ARTICLE: Broward Sheriff deputies’ union breaks with Sheriff Israel, endorses Ron DeSantis

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Republican candidate for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis speaking to supporters as his lieutenant governor candidate state Rep. Jeanette Nunez, left, listens during a rally Thursday, Sept. 6, 2018, in Orlando, FL. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

Foreign Nationals Who Were Indicted for Illegally Voting Still on North Carolina’s Voter Rolls

/in , , , , , /by

Foreign nationals who were indicted on Aug. 24 for allegedly voting illegally in North Carolina are still on the voter rolls and officials are struggling to take them off.

Eighteen of the 19 individuals who allegedly voted illegally had registered at local Department of Motor Vehicle locations, according to The Washington Times Monday. Four were registered as Republicans, one unaffiliated, and 13 as Democrats.

dcnf-logo

One of the indicted, Elvis David Fullerton, voted in 16 elections over nearly two decades, according to the Times. Many voted on or before Nov. 8, 2016, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

Wake County election officials could not investigate the people who allegedly voted illegally until an “official or formal source” provided notification, according to Wake County Board of Elections Director Gary Sims, the Times reported. The elections board said it will be able to investigate if the Department of Justice provides information on individuals convicted of voter fraud or the indicted admit they are not citizens.

Logan Churchwell of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, an organization that focuses on election laws, said election officials need to be more proactive in stopping illegal voting. However, he said officials were in a tough position.

“Federal law did not anticipate this kind of fraud,” Churchwell told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Officials in Wake County may not have the tools to fix the voter registration system or may be “hindered by outdated and increasingly bad laws,” he added.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation wrote in its study “Safe Spaces” that the 1993 National Voter Registration Act makes it easier for noncitizens to register to vote because there are no other verification systems required to be in place.

The National Voter Registration Act was an initiative to ease voter registration and maintenance, according to the DOJ. People could register to vote at the same time they applied or renewed driver’s licenses.

“If a noncitizen checks ‘Yes’ to the citizenship question in any setting, they are simply enrolled without any further verification, even if they presented a Green Card or foreign passport to identify themselves at the time of registration,” the Public Interest Legal Foundation study said.

The August 2018 study looked into noncitizen voting in 13 sanctuary cities and counties across the nation. Over 3,100 noncitizens were registered to vote or were taken off of voter rolls between 2006 and 2018.

Fairfax County in Virginia topped the list of noncitizens removed from voter rolls with 1,334 people.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation’s suggestions to decreasing noncitizenship voter registration included election officials having access to E-Verify and officials being able to enforce immigration and voting laws.

The study also proposed that states check the citizenship status for new voter registrants through other state databases like a driver’s license customers list. Arizona and Virginia currently employ this system.

“This reform places no upfront burden on new registrants,” the study said.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation uncovered some of the indicted voters in North Carolina, according to the Times.

The 19 who were indicted could face a maximum fine of $350,000 and six years in prison, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina reported.

“The State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement is printing signs to be placed at all polling places and early voting sites in the 2018 general election with the goal of notifying individuals who are not eligible to vote before they cast ballots,” Patrick Gannon, public information officer for the North Carolina State Board of Elections and Ethics Enforcement, said in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

A spokesperson from the North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles told The Daily Caller News Foundation the DMV does not register voters and that people apply to register to vote.

EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. Photo: fstop123/Getty Images.

Why the West Point and Air Force Academies should remove Nike’s Logo from their Athletic Gear

/in , , , , /by

When Colin Kaepernick kneeled during the national anthem two years ago, he intentionally showed contempt for our flag and the thousands of Americans whose coffins were draped by it, who died defending it. . . and, yes, defending Kaepernick’s constitutional right to express his disdain for our country.

On Monday, to commemorate Nike’s 30th anniversary of their “Just Do It” campaign, Nike announced that one of the new faces of their ad campaign was none other than Kaepernick’s. Apparently, Kaepernick has been on Nike’s payroll since 2011, but he hasn’t appeared in ads for the past two years. Honoring Kaepernick as someone who “sacrificed everything” because of what he believed in is ridiculous and nothing more than a cynical business decision to make more money.

If Nike truly wanted to honor those who “believe in something” and “sacrifice everything” they need look no further than the grave markers at Arlington National Cemetery.

Nike’s new marketing plan celebrates Kaepernick’s disrespect for our Nation, our flag and those serving in our Armed Forces. And as a result of Nike’s celebration of Kaepernick’s actions, so does the Nike swoosh logo. ()

So why should the West Point and Air Force academies advertise a private company on their athletic gear which prominently honors someone who shows contempt for our Flag and Country? Why should the men and women of these service academies, many of whom will one day be in harm’s way defending our Flag, and sadly, some whose coffins will be draped by it, be used as live advertisements for Nike’s crass and cynical political statement celebrating contempt for our Nation?

RELATED ARTICLE: Americans on Nike Deal: Just Boo It

3 Takeaways From Day 1 of Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Fight

/in , , , /by

The Senate Judiciary Committee kicked off its hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh today, and it was no peaceful outing.

The first day of a confirmation hearing is usually placid, with committee members and the nominee offering fairly predictable opening statements before the nominee begins answering senators’ questions on Day Two.

No such luck.

Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, was 30 seconds into his first remarks when committee Democrats began demanding that the hearing adjourn or be postponed until the latest set of documents on Kavanaugh’s record could be studied. Repeated interruptions by both Democratic senators and protesters in the audience moved the hearing steadily off-schedule.

Here are three key takeaways from the first day.

1. 42,000 pages of documents.

Since Kavanaugh’s nomination, the Judiciary Committee has been steadily receiving, reviewing, and releasing documents related to Kavanaugh’s work from the George W. Bush Library and the National Archives. The latest batch of 42,000 pages arrived Monday evening.

Democrats protested that they did not have time to review that material, with Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., saying that the hearing should not occur at all until everyone had reviewed every document regarding every segment of Kavanaugh’s career.

Republicans reminded everyone that the public already has available nearly 700 judicial opinions (more than 10,000 pages) that Kavanaugh wrote or joined on the U.S. Court of Appeals; 17,000 pages of Kavanaugh’s non-judicial writings and speeches; and (so far) some 350,000 pages of material related to Kavanaugh’s work as associate independent counsel and associate counsel to the president. This volume of information is more than the previous five Supreme Court nominees combined.

The demand for more documents is unusual not only because the committee has so much other relevant material, but because the senators making this demand had long ago announced their opposition to the nomination. In fact, Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., did so within hours of Kavanaugh’s nomination on July 9.

2. Competing visions of the rule of law.

Lawyers—especially lawyers who are senators—love the phrase “rule of law,” but that phrase can mean different things to different people.

Many use that phrase only to mean that they like the result of a judge or court’s decisions. Others mean that the law, following an objective set of rules and principles, rather than the judge, must decide cases no matter which side wins or loses.

The opening statements by senators suggested one or another of these visions. So will the questions (and answers) in the next few days. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., put it best when he said, “It’s almost become a cliché but the role of a judge is to say what the law is, not what the law ought to be.”

3. Executive privilege.

Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., brought up the fact that President Donald Trump invoked executive privilege to block the release of some documents, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., claimed this was the first time this had ever happened in relation to a Supreme Court nomination.

Neither, however, explained why the assertion of executive privilege over these documents was in any way illegitimate or unjustified.

The reason, by the way, that there hasn’t been this much conflict over documents is that senators have previously been much more reasonable in terms of requesting them when legitimate invocations of executive privilege may be involved. For example, when the committee considered President Barack Obama’s nomination of Elena Kagan, the committee did not request records from her service as solicitor general under Obama.

The committee will reconvene Wednesday morning at 9:30. That’s when the real fun will begin.

Each senator will have an opportunity to ask Kavanaugh rounds of questions. Some will take the opportunity to probe Kavanaugh about his legal opinions and reasoning, and others will use the time to grandstand, rail against Trump, and rehash old disputes with the President George W. Bush administration.

Instead, they should take this opportunity to help all Americans who are watching to understand our rule of law and how a potential Supreme Court justice approaches the law.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Thomas Jipping

Thomas Jipping

Thomas Jipping is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Portrait of Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery

Elizabeth Slattery writes about the proper role of the courts, judicial nominations, and the Constitution as a legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read her research. She co-hosts SCOTUS101, a podcast about everything that’s happening at the Supreme Court. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Lindsay Graham: ‘Enough already’ from hypocritical Dems

Brett Kavanaugh Refuses to Say There is a So-Called “Right” to Abortion

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

EDITORS NOTE: The feature is image of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 4, 2018 for the opening day of his hearing. (Photo: Abaca Press/Douliery Olivier/Abaca/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Our Historic Moment to Build a Pro-2A Supreme Court Majority

/in , , , , , /by

“Our time is now. This our historic moment to go on offense and restore American greatness… and put a pro-Second Amendment majority on the Supreme Court that will defend individual freedom for generations to come.” —Wayne LaPierre

This Ohio County Swung From Obama to Trump. Here’s What 8 Fair Attendees Think, 2 Years Later.

/in , , , , , /by

CANTON, Ohio—Attendees of the 169-year-old Stark County Fair in Ohio don’t come out to see politicians, and politics aren’t on the forefront of their minds, but a large portion of the folks here had strong opinions on both when asked.

The political climate of Stark County, known for its rural, farming areas and also home to the Pro Football Hall of Fame housed in Canton, has flipped in recent years.

In the 2008 presidential race, then-Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois won 51.59 percent of the vote in Stark County and his Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, won 46.14 percent. Obama won the county again in 2012 with 49.21 percent of the vote, inching past Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who had 48.74 percent.

But in 2016, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democrat nominee, received 38.68 percent of the vote, while Republican nominee Donald Trump received 55.85 percent.

Some cities in Stark County such as Alliance, Massillon, Canton Township, East Canton, Navarre, and Perry Township all went for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

These cities flipped to Trump in 2016 and support for the president was strong among the attendees roaming around the fairgrounds.

While harness racing, baking contests, and pavilion concerts were vastly more popular than any politician who stepped on the premises in Canton, the young and old who shared in their thoughts on the 45th president and their own political journeys had a lot to say.

Grounds at the Stark County Fair (Photo: Rachel del Guidice)

Harness racing at the Stark County Fair. (Photo: Rachel del Guidice)

Baking contest commences at the Stark County Fair. (Photo: Rachel del Guidice)

The pavilion concerts were a popular event among Stark County Fair participants. (Photo: Rachel del Guidice)

  1. ‘I’m a Conservative Democrat and a Liberal Republican’

Fred O. Davis (Photo: Rachel del Guidice)

Fred O. Davis, a Stark County resident who has been attending the fair for 70 years, considers himself to be out of the box politically.

“I’m a conservative Democrat and a liberal Republican,” Davis told The Daily Signal in an interview Tuesday at the Stark County Fair, saying that he gets his fair share of of pushback from folks who don’t understand his conservative-leaning views.

“The backlash I get from is liberal Democrats,” Davis said. “They think I’m crazy.”

His family, however, is starting to see his fascination with conservatism, Davis said.

My brother, he’s liberal … But he’s changing. He’s understanding. I said, ‘Well, Trump’s doing what he got elected for.’ And he is. He’s one of the very few presidents went in there and did what he said he was going to do.

Obama didn’t even like this country. And maybe he still doesn’t. I don’t know.

He said that he is frustrated by policies of Obama that have been continued in Trump’s administration.

“We got too many people on welfare,” Davis said. “If you want to go on welfare, and you’re willing to do some work, fine … but we don’t need it at the limits it’s at now, and that’s what Obamacare is.”

“And if Obama … had gotten all of these people on welfare he wanted, then they’d be dependent on, it’d be a communist country,” he added.

The 77-year-old said he thinks the county needs to return to more traditional and socially conservative values, including re-defining marriage as being between a man and a woman as well. He’s also concerned that rights for people who identify as LGBT are superseding other’s rights.

“Don’t get me wrong, they should be treated equally, but equally,” Davis said. “Not overly-equally.”

Davis said he is also frustrated with the media’s coverage of Trump, which almost prompted him to cancel his subscription to the local newspaper.

The “Canton Repository, I almost canceled it for some of the things in it,” he said. “It’s terrible the way they’re covering. They don’t even say the good things he does, they only say all the bad things he does. I mean, the bad things in their opinion.”

  1. ‘My Parents Were Strict Democrats. But Now I’m Republican.’

Ruth French (Photo: Rachel del Guidice)

Ruth French, who attends the fair every year with daughter Susan Kaw, said she switched her party from Democrat to Republican in 2008 because she couldn’t stand by how Obama was running the country.

“I positively did not approve of Obama, Mr. Obama,” French said, adding, “My parents were strict Democrats. But now I’m Republican.”

The 86-year-old Stark County resident said she is disheartened by the media’s treatment of Trump.

“I thoroughly support President Trump,” she said. “I believe that the news media needs to give us a break … I thank God that he is in control. That is the big thing in my life. God runs me.”

She also said she is frustrated by the coverage the media has given to recent school shootings.

“They build it up and build it [up]… all these shootings,” French said. “If they would not publicize it [and] show the people’s pictures that did it. Sympathize, grieve for those people that are shot or killed or however. But drop it. Don’t keep it in the public and get these young kids especially, ‘Oh, look, that looks cool. I’ll go do that, too.’”

Sometimes, French said, she will align with and support Democrats, but said she 100 percent stands behind Trump.

“My mother, like I said, was a strict Democrat, but she voted who she thought was a good party person … and I do the same, ’cause there’s Democrats I will vote for,” French said. “I definitely, I’m a Trump person.”

  1. ‘I Just Wish People Would Be a Little Bit Kinder to the President’

Susan Kaw (Photo: Rachel del Guidice)

French’s daughter, Susan Kaw, said she thinks the media’s coverage of Trump has been unfair.

“I just wish people would be a little bit kinder to the president, and support him a little bit, and give him a chance,” Kaw said. “He’s done a lot already, but help him out a little instead of fighting everything he does, and give him a little help and support.”

Kaw, who has been coming with her mom each year since grade school to walk the grounds while children are in school, said she wants to see Trump’s wall on the U.S.-Mexico border built.

“Sounds cliché, but I’d like to see the wall built,” Kaw said, adding:

I have no problem with immigrants if they come here legally, and do what they need to do, but all these ones … are coming in, and we’re supporting them. It has nothing to do with coming here to get better jobs. It has to do with coming here to get our welfare, and food, and medical, and ship a lot of the money back to Mexico. So, I’d like to see that done, and better immigration laws.

Kaw, who said she had a “a family full of Democrats and now we’re all Republicans,” is pleased with the Republicans’ tax reform plan, which went into effect Jan. 1.

“I think the tax reform has been good … it’s helped a lot of businesses and a lot of people have got more money in their paychecks, even if Nancy Pelosi says it’s crumbs,” Kaw said.

“It’s not,” she added. “It’s helping a lot of people out, from the bottom all the way to the top.”

  1. ‘Obama Created a Lot of Divisiveness in Our Country’

Brooke Karmie (Photo: Rachel del Guidice)

Brooke Karmie, a 22-year-old recent college graduate, says she’s seen an economic boom in her town due to Trump’s trade deals.

“I think everything he’s done economically has very noticeably changed our country for the better,” said Karmie, who spent some of her time working the Stark County Republicans’ booth.

“I’ve seen the benefits in my town. So, that’s the president changing local businesses. Especially here in Ohio, steel is coming back. We have a lot of people in the steel industry who are coming back to our state, which is benefiting our economy.”

Karmie, whose grandfather, Frederick Karmie, came to the United States from Syria and went through the immigration process legally, says she is passionate about immigration issues given her grandfather’s experience.

“I know we hear a lot about how it’s wrong of us not to welcome these immigrants,” Karmie said, adding:

But that’s not we’re doing. We are welcoming the immigrants. And Donald Trump is making sure that people have a way to come into our country legally. And making sure that the people who are coming here to be up to no good are not coming, so that the rest of us have opportunities where they’ve been taken from us in the past.

Karmie, who majored in government and foreign affairs at Walsh University in North Canton, Ohio, said she is passionate about legal immigration because she wants America to stay a secure place for citizens as well as immigrants.

“If we allow crime to come into our country, then there’s no safe haven for the immigrants who come the right way,” Karmie said. “So I really respect that he’s taking action on that. And then, just overall how he’s upholding all of his promises that he talked about in the campaign.”

Karmie said she hopes Trump will help mend the divide she says that Obama instigated.

“I think President Obama created a lot of divisiveness in our country with every single policy he enacted,” Karmie said. “So it’s something that’s very hard to undo, because of the way our media is. But I think that Donald Trump is fighting in the right direction against all that divisiveness.”

  1. Trump ‘Just Doesn’t Seem to Have the Working Family in His Thoughts’

Stevan Pickard (Photo: Rachel del Guidice)

Stevan Pickard, a union member, said he is skeptical of how Trump’s policies like tax reform will play out in the long run.

“We don’t know what is going to happen because of that—because the tax break, of course, that means less money from the government,” Pickard said. “So if that’s less money for the government, which funds do they cut? Do they cut children’s funds, … cut teacher’s funds, that’s what we are worried about is the effects later on.”

The Stark County resident also said he wishes the president wouldn’t use Twitter.

“He needs to stop his tweeting,” he said. “No two ways about it, I have talked to staunch Republicans and they say the same thing. To us, he just doesn’t seem to have the working family in his thoughts. That’s really [the] bottom line.”

  1. ‘No Matter What [Trump] Does or How Good Stuff Is, They Just Downplay It’

Scott Rinkes and his wife, Donna. (Photo: Rachel del Guidice)

Scott Rinkes, who took his 7-month-old grandson to the fair with his wife Donna, said he is encouraged by Trump’s trade and foreign policy.

“[We support] the fact that he’s keeping everybody in control and getting us better trade deals. The fact that he’s picking up the economy and the stock market,” Scott Rinkes said. “My 401k plan has increased by one-third.”

Rinkes said he is concerned, however, that the country’s lack of support for Trump will end up sparking widespread disagreement.

“It just makes you sick when the opposite side is pushing prejudice and fights and division,” Rinkes said. “This country is headed for a revolt. No matter what he does or how good stuff is, they just downplay it and try to divide us and turn us against him.”

The Stark County resident also said he is worried about how the media coverage of Trump could damage the president’s potential success.

“It’s just worse since Trump came out and called them out and got in a fight with them,” he said. “Now it’s who’s going to die first? Is he going to kill the news or is the news going to kill his political chances?”

  1. ‘Never Seen a President Cut Down So Badly by the Press in All My Life’

Becky Sheen (Photo: Rachel del Guidice)

Becky Sheen of Stark County told The Daily Signal that the media’s coverage of presidents has been the most hostile with Trump.

“The news people used to be so respectful. I don’t care who you’re with or who it was, or whether you voted or not. People would be respectful,” Sheen said. “Everybody in America would sit around their TV when the president’s on TV. Nowadays people don’t even know what he does. It’s sad. A sad state.”

While Sheen said she isn’t completely sold on the idea of a border wall with Mexico, she said “it’s a start.”

Sheen also said that she would like to see Obamacare ended.

“Get rid of Obamacare,” Sheen said. “I was never for that in the beginning and I’ve seen so much bad come of that.”

She added:

I work and have my insurance, but I’ve seen a lot of family members who can’t afford insurance, and they got that and it was crazy. They had to pay twice as much for everything to have anything. And then having to have insurance—yeah, you should. But there’s some people that, let’s face it, just can’t afford it. When insurance companies know you have to have it, they jack all the prices for it. Crazy.

She also said the the media’s coverage of Trump has not been fair.

“Oh my gosh, I’ve never seen a president cut down so badly by the press in all my life,” Sheen said, adding:

Every president has good and every president has bad, but it’s like I haven’t yet seen them tell the good. It’s like they’re just constantly looking for him to do bad, instead of trying to give some credit where credit is due. If he’s wrong and does wrong, I can understand that. But on the same sense, show the good, too, because there’s some out there.

  1. ‘My Dad, My Brother Are Both Republicans Now’

Nathan Moore (Photo: Rachel del Guidice)

Nathan Moore, a recent graduate of Perry High School in Massillon, Ohio, who was helping work Stark County Republicans’ booth at the fair, said ending Obamacare is a major issue for him.

“I know my grandpa, he’s always been a Democrat, but a whole lot of people lost their insurance and had to do that wait period until they get into Obamacare,” Moore said. “It just took entirely too long, and they’re a lot of money in debt.”

Moore also says he sees a distinct difference between how the media covered Obama and how they cover Trump.

“I think it’s been biased. I mean, you look at some of the coverage for Obama in his first term, and it was extremely like, ‘Hey, good for you, great,’” Moore said of the media coverage of Obama. “Nothing bad. Then Trump comes in, and it’s been kind of, ‘Hey, …he’s horrible, don’t listen to him.’”

The 18-year-old said he tried to communicate his conservative convictions by making light of politics and having serious discussions when appropriate.

It appears to be having some influence, as he said his dad and brother have switched their party from Democrat to Republican.

“If you’re like me and my family, we’re very sarcastic and we joke a lot,” Moore said. “So I would just say make a game out of it. Make jokes about it, if you can, just try to have a serious discussion about it every once in a while to make something happen. Ever since we started joking and talking about it and stuff, my dad, my brother are both Republicans now.”

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Ruth French, 86. (Photo: Rachel del Guidice/The Daily Signal)

VIDEO: Killers Inspire Killers. The Media Turn Killers Into Rock Stars.

/in , , , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

So when are we going to be completely honest and acknowledge the awkward, bullied, sexually frustrated, psychotropic drug-laced, suicidal, mass shooters in the room for what they are? Or are we just going to keep acting like we don’t know what’s going on in the name of not confronting the miserable reality that they are a creation of our so-called progressive culture and media?

These shootings can’t get any more predictable. They’ve had the same damn MO for years now, and every time the same type of person commits the same type of carnage, our media swan dives into a promiscuous exploration of who these killers are under the guise of, ‘wanting to learn why they did it?’ We’ve known why these kids shoot up schools since Columbine. The kids from Columbine left an entire manifesto about why they did it.

Yet our moronic media in their blind pursuit for ratings will post every picture they can find of the shooter and repeat the shooters’ name habitually, turning the kid into a damn rock star within hours of the damn shooting and they will keep asking why these shootings keep happening in a country obsessed with celebrity culture raising a generation of kids with an inability to cope with anything.

It doesn’t take a clinical psychologist to see what’s going on and no it’s not guns, we’ve had guns in this country since its inception. Hell, 60 years ago I could order a gun out of a magazine and they’d send it to my house no questions asked. This country didn’t have these school shootings back in the day, and those kids were allowed to bring guns to school. Nothing has changed except our culture and the way our media handles these events when they happen.

We are creating every subsequent school shooter with every mention of their name and every posting of their picture. Nearly every single school shooter suffered from the same type of social ostracism and social neglect. Yet, we are somehow dumbfounded as to why a kid who no one paid attention to unless he was being bullied or picked on decides to go out in a blaze of glory and after spending weeks turning that kid into an infamous demigod, are then even more surprised when another kid dealing with the same issues goes out and tries to do the same thing but only worse!

We can’t be this stupid!

Instead of teaching our kids how to cope with the harsh realities of life, we shield them in safe spaces and give them participation trophies incentivizing mediocrity and tell our young boys that their masculinity is toxic, and our young girls that being a woman means acting like a man further confusing the hell out of kids who are naturally going to struggle with their identity as is.

Anyone screaming for gun control in response to this last shooting is just not being honest with themselves. The kid used a shotgun and a revolver that he took from his parents because he wasn’t old enough to buy a gun legally.

Ask yourself, what is the more likely a reason this latest killer decided to secretly build improvised explosives in order to murder his classmates in cold blood … “loose” gun laws, or our culture?

Then again, I don’t blame us. We’re merely doing exactly what we teach our kids to do. Ignore reality and blame everything else even if it means blaming a lifeless tool because apparently personal responsibility and accountability is just too high a price to pay for freedom.

The Base of the Democratic Party is Socialist/Marxist — How they’re infiltrating our public school system

/in , , , , , , /by

A pamphlet by the Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA), in conjunction with the Democratic Socialist Labor Commission, outlines a push for socialists to “take jobs as teachers” as a way to move teachers unions “in a more militant and democratic direction.”

The blood-soaked history of socialism is no longer brought up in history classes so it’s unknown by millennial’s, leading them to identify as supporters of the movement.

Campus Reform reported that the YDSA’s 11-page pamphlet notes teachers are able to use their relationships with students to discuss “campaigns around police brutality, immigrant rights, and environmental justice.” In an article titled “YDSA urges socialists to infiltrate public education” Zachary Petrizzo reports:

The Young Democratic Socialists of America organization is urging socialists to “take jobs as teachers” in order to exploit the “political, economic, and social potential the industry holds.”

“Why Socialists Should Become Teachers,” an 11-page pamphlet crafted jointly by YDSA and the Democratic Socialist Labor Commission, contends that education is “a strategic industry to organize,” and offers prospective socialist educators “a basic roadmap for how to get a job in education.”

“Even in West Virginia, where teachers experienced some of the lowest pay in the nation, they were sometimes the highest-paid workers in their communities.”    ]

The pamphlet begins by outlining the “success” of the recent West Virginia teachers strike, which it attributes to “creative shop floor organizing” from teachers who believed in “socialist politics.”

“Our immediate win in West Virginia was a 5% raise for all public sector workers, plus halting charter school legislation and attacks on seniority,” the document boasts. “But crucially, our movement’s demand was that the money come from highly profitable corporations that have long exploited West Virginia’s natural wealth.”

The Democratic Socialist platform was championed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) two years ago on the campaign trail.

Using the same platform, young political newcomer Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won a shock victory in June over Rep. Joe Crowley (N.Y.) in a Democratic primary. A new Gallop Poll revealed that more Democrats have a positive view about socialism than those who express a positive view about capitalism. Gallop found:

For the first time in Gallup’s measurement over the past decade, Democrats have a more positive image of socialism than they do of capitalism. Attitudes toward socialism among Democrats have not changed materially since 2010, with 57% today having a positive view. The major change among Democrats has been a less upbeat attitude toward capitalism, dropping to 47% positive this year — lower than in any of the three previous measures. Republicans remain much more positive about capitalism than about socialism, with little sustained change in their views of either since 2010.

The following are the Gallop Poll numbers:

  • 47% of Democrats view capitalism positively, down from 56% in 2016
  • 57% of Democrats now view socialism positively, little changed from 2010
  • Republicans very positive about capitalism; 16% positive on socialism

Views About Capitalism and Socialism: by Political Party

Positive view of capitalism Positive view of socialism
% %
Democrats/Leaners
2018 47 57
2016 56 58
2012 55 53
2010 53 53
Republicans/Leaners
2018 71 16
2016 68 13
2012 72 23
2010 72 17
GALLUP

Radio host Michael Knowles said on “Fox & Friends” that Democratic Socialists are urging Socialists to become teachers because they can’t win a “fair fight.” Knowles said Saturday that he believes Democratic Socialists are targeting the public school system and as a result, the students, because they can’t win against their parents.

“They can’t win in the battle of ideas, Democratic Socialists are trying to cut off any thought of freedom by students and replace it with socialist ideology. “They’ve got to indoctrinate an ideology rather than educate in history because if they teach history, they’re going to lose,” he said.

The pamphlet notes that organizing in schools is a way to “win concessions from the millionaire and billionaire class.”

“Teaching is proving to be one viable way for socialists to get into the labor movement and wage class struggle in a key industry that is under attack by capital,” it reads.

RELATED ARTICLES:

No. 2 ranked U.S. law school study finds conservative profs shunned by elite schools

Harvard Prof: Merit-based admissions ‘reproduce inequality’

Progressivism Takes Its Place Among the Major Religions

RELATED: Democratic Socialists set up shop on campuses nationwide

Radicalized Democrats: Destroying the Country and Their Own Party