News Archives - Page 824 of 1147

Inside The SPLC/Media Matters/MSM Machine Smearing Republicans

October 29, 2018/in Commentary, News, Policy, Politics/by Rod Thomson

There is a new, well-financed, well-oiled smear machine that is spinning up mud and using the media to spread it as though it is legitimate news.

It goes like this: The Southern Poverty Law Center uses its anti-conservative, anti-Christian, pro-Muslim, pro-illegal immigration, pro-LGBTQ metrics to identify “hate groups.”

The result: It has managed to label as hate groups such organizations as the Family Research Council, the Alliance Defending Freedom, the Center for Family and Human Rights, social scientist and researcher Charles Murray, Muslim analyst Frank Gaffney, the non-profit Center for Immigration Studies and its leader Mark Krikorian and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born critic of Islamic extremism.

A biblical stance on homosexuality or marriage (or even theology!) can be enough to get one on their hate list. The SPLC then lumps these Christian groups and non-PC people in with the KKK and neo-Nazis and the New Black Panthers, true hate groups, making the lists look legitimate.

It’s not. The SPLC is closer to a hate group than many of the organizations on its list. Evidence for this is that the FBI, the U.S. Army and the charity clearinghouse Guidestar used to partner with the SPLC to identify hate groups. But all of them and more have severed their partnerships with the SPLC as it has become more obviously a scammy partisan group.

The SPLC has huge financing from leftist organizations and has become a mammothly wealthy organization. According to the Washington Free Beacon, the “organization reported $477 million in total assets and $132 million in contributions on its most recent tax forms, which cover Nov. 1, 2016 to Oct. 31, 2017. That represents an increase of $140 million in its total assets from the previous year.” It fundraises directly on emotional appeal from discriminations past, and then uses it on partisan political causes.

Unfortunately, the media still has not seen the light. The SPLC is fully trusted and used as an objective source by the mainstream media, which is a fellow traveler along the same general path of biases. So this is step one in the smear: the SPLC labels someone or some group as haters and the media trusts that designation, citing it as a source.

Step two enters with Media Matters, a hyper leftist organization funded by George Soros, among many others. Media Matters list of founding funders is like a Who’s Who in funding American progressives. The leftist, activist Tides Foundation put in $4.4 million, George Soros’ Open Society Institutes kicked in more than $1 million the Schumann Fund for Media and Democracy, run by longtime PBS host Bill Moyers chipped in $600,000.

Media Matters makes extensive use of the SPLC’s terrible list by seeking connections between Republican officeholders and anyone or any organization on the list, then attempts to vilify that Republican by association.

Since Media Matters is an obvious leftist slander machine even to many in the media, the smears are pushed out with the imprimatur of the SPLC undergirding them for “credibility,” and like the sun rising in the east, many in the media then use it as a basis to run their own stories and thereby mainstream the smear as legitimate news.

This machine was already in place, but in this election cycle it was clicked up a level by Democrat operatives who apparently discovered they could target the slime attacks against specific candidates, and inserted themselves into the machine (which was already attacking conservatives and Republicans in general.) The Democratic operative, or perhaps at times candidates themselves, sought connections between GOP candidates and the SPLC list — no matter how tenuous — and then fed that information to Media Matters to maintain a public distance from such obvious dirty tactics.

Media Matters would then run the hit pieces and those operatives/candidates would alert local media to the smear jobs, using the supposed legitimacy of the SPLC, and most of the media bit and ran stories smearing GOP candidates in what appear to be targeted races.

It’s basically Democratic story plants, which the media happily ran.

The Revolutionary Act refuses to repeat the smears, so here’s an example of one we are intimately familiar with, but with the names of the innocent removed.

A Christian Republican who had been involved in national political presidential campaigns offered to hold a fundraiser for a Republican running for a state legislative seat. The candidate naturally accepted this common offer, as virtually every candidate in either party does.

But the man who held the fundraiser is on the SPLC’s list because he was part of a group some 20 years ago that later became a white nationalist group (after he left it) and because alt right groups have re-published some of his writings, which he has no control over and which were not racist, and because an errant media report one time identified him as an officer of a racist group, which he never was. He wrote extensively explaining each of these passing connections and mistakes, and that he was never part of anything that was racist when he was part of the organization.

The SPLC didn’t care and refused to remove him from the hate list. That smear was bad enough, but the truly atrocious one was that Media Matters then ran its typical hit piece — almost assuredly planted by the candidate’s Democratic opponent. (The Republican candidate was running in his first race for a state legislative seat. Media Matters would never have been researching or even come across such a unknown person on its own.)

Remember, the candidate had only met the unfairly tainted fundraiser once before attending the event at his home. Of course, he knew nothing of the 20-year-old character assassination by the SPLC. He is a retired military JAG and his wife is Dominican! Hardly the material of white nationalist or white supremacist.

Nonetheless, not only did Media Matters defame him — which is to be expected — so did the local newspaper, whose political reporter did a huge story on the fundraiser and his relationship with the candidate in the most horrible way.

And this, after all the explanations were given regarding the fundraiser’s innocence, and the fact that the fundraiser held another event for a female Hispanic candidate in the same election cycle. Not at all what a white supremacist does.

Didn’t matter, the smear was on and the media was complicit with the SPLC, Democrat operatives and Media Matters.

This pattern with different details has been repeated in the Florida governor’s race, in two state legislative races and in a Florida congressional race, along with other races around the country.

This is the problem with a media that ranges from compliant to co-conspirator with Democrats, starting with treating the far leftist hate group SPLC as an objective arbiter of hate groups.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

UnidosUS, Former La Raza Group, Pushes For Open Borders For Refugee Caravan

October 27, 2018/in Culture War, Immigration, National Security, News, Policy, Politics/by 2ndvote .com

La Raza is at it again. Known now as UnidosUS, they are telling the American people that the only humane response to the migrant/refugee caravan traveling through Central America is to throw open our borders.

CNN reports that many people in the caravan have broken Mexico’s border laws. The caravan is allegedly aiming to get into the U.S.

This is another case of UnidosUS putting its partisanship ahead of what’s best for America — including the rule of law. Let’s be clear: nobody wants to see impoverished people believing they have no choice but to flee nations like Honduras. But if the U.S. is really as bad as UnidosUS claims… then why is UnidosUS encouraging the current migration to our southern border?

Remember, UnidosUS has long pushed for unlawful sanctuary city policies and has a history of using racially charged rhetoric to score political points. It makes us wonder if corporations like Coca-Cola, Walmart, Ford and others are hoping you don’t find out about their support for UnidosUS and its liberal immigration agenda.

The following companies and nonprofits support UnidosUS:

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

Which Future for the Church?

October 27, 2018/in Culture War, News, Policy, Politics, Religion/by The Catholic Thing

Robert Royal in Rome: Will bishops reimagine a Church of change resembling the society it’s meant to evangelize, or the age-old, infallible Bride of Christ?

A formerly evanescent creature called “Synodality” has been spotted with increasing frequency in these last days of the Synod on Young People, Faith, and Vocational Discernment (to give the synod its full working title). The bishops vote on the final document later today – and several crucial questions remain in play.

The cynical among observers in Rome say that the emergence of “synodality” as a theme at this late hour is no accident. The explicit LGBT language that was in the Working Document, written prior to the Synod, was effectively blocked early in the process by the firmly expressed opposition of dozens of African bishops and others from around the world.

The first draft of the final document still contains a paragraph about young people being confused and wanting “clear and open” discussion of male and female, sexual orientation, etc., which – if it survives into the final document – could still perpetrate great mischief.

Which is why the Synod Fathers must stand strong when they vote this afternoon against this fallback language as well, because it’s clear that this is a Trojan Horse. Some of the most prominent figures in the Vatican hope to pursue what they are calling a deeper “elaboration” of these themes in anthropological, theological, and pastoral terms.

Anyone familiar with the past two papacies might think we already have quite a rich, profound, and faithful “elaboration” of such matters in the Theology of the Body, Familiaris Consortio, and institutions like the original John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family.

As we’ve seen in the way that the JPII Institute has been re-configured, however, it wouldn’t be wrong to think that the elaboration spoken of here may really be more of a repudiation of all that – and the Church’s long tradition on sex, marriage, and family.

In a papacy that often proceeds by way of ambiguities, this language – which means everything and nothing – simply cannot be allowed to stand. Though it was a clear victory for Catholic orthodoxy that stronger terms have been defeated, this formulation potentially authorizes everything that was feared at the beginning. And that some powerful figures within and outside the Vatican are still pushing.

And they are not stopping even there. Some of them have suggested finding a way to claim that the Working Document, which contained the explicit LGBT language, be described as still somehow operative, despite the later deliberations of the bishops and the final document.

But to do this would be to say that there was no real need for the Synod. If the preoccupations of those who proposed themes for the bishops to explore continue in force, even if the bishops didn’t want them to be included at the end of their work, everyone might just as well have stayed home.

And perhaps this is why there is now such a strong drive towards strengthening the idea of synodality as a more frequent, almost regular gathering. Despite Vatican denials, this looks more and more like turning synods into a periodic legislature, or – worse – something resembling the many Protestant Synods dating back to the beginnings of the Reformation, wherein Catholic things may be debated and, deliberately or not, thereby put in doubt.

You only have to imagine what a young person casually aware of the Synod on Youth has been hearing. It’s something like: the Catholic Church is discussing how to welcome gays – “accompanying,” if they ever hear the term, suggesting that the Church doesn’t feel any great urgency that they change their lives. Instead, the Church feels an urgency to meet them halfway now, with the other half to be reconsidered later.

There are rumors – perhaps true, perhaps not – that the need to promote synodality is why Pope Francis himself, contrary to synod statutes, took part in the drafting of the final document the other evening. According to the rules, the synod is supposed to present the deliberations of the bishops to the pope, who may either accept or reject – even just ignore – them.

Ghent Altarpiece by Jan and Hubert van Eyck (bottom center panel of the polyptych), 1432 [Saint Bavo Cathedral, Ghent, Belgium]. Depicted on the bottom right are the Apostles, kneeling, with popes and bishops standing behind. All adore the Lamb of God.

Vienna’s Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, a close ally of the pope on these matters, admitted at a briefing yesterday that synodality wasn’t much present in the original documents. Asked about the difference between collegiality and synodality, he argued that collegiality is the normal state of things for the pope and bishops.

Just as Jesus gathered his Apostles around him, from the early days of the Church, it was understood that the pope and bishops constituted a “college” of those entrusted with an authoritative administration of the Church.

Synodality, Schönborn said, is a much broader term that seems to include everyone in a kind of “walking together.” So pope, bishops, priest, religious, lay people old and young, are all synodal in some novel sense. At the same time, he explained, being synodal does not do away with traditional offices and authorities.

But all this sounds very much like shifting responsibilities and making the Church more horizontal. To begin with, ever since Paul VI put forward the idea of occasional synods, they have always been called, as the current one also has been, a synod of bishops.

The Church can always have dialogues with others, Catholic and not. The original notion was to have some members of the college of bishops meet to advise the pope on emerging questions, not to suggest that matters of faith or morals were up for redefinition, as the Protestant synods often did.

Cardinal Reinhard Marx, with whom I rarely agree, said some things the other day that are not only true but important – though maybe not in the way that he meant them. First, he confessed that he was tired, after three weeks of the Synod, of being constantly asked about “the same things,” meaning homosexuality, as if it were the central moral concern of Christianity.

Me too. If you dip into the work of the great saints, doctors, confessors, etc., you’ll find little about the subject because – unlike some modern Christians – they could take it as a given that followers of Jesus would have nothing to do with it. Their true interests lay elsewhere.

And that made his second point more poignant: “The Church has to change to something different.” He specified that he meant that documents and debates are all well and good, but that, in the end, all the energy needs to be transmitted to Church structures, offices, meetings, etc. (Or so the simultaneous interpreters put it on the fly.)

This response brackets, however, the question of what is going to be transmitted and what it will do to the Church. It’s difficult to see how anything that has so far come out of the Synod on Young People will restructure, let alone save – the German Church.

By contrast, Eamon Martin, Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, commented that he’d learned a few things about the need to incorporate young people more into the workings of the Church. But at that meeting with young people both in Ireland and at the Synod, he had been particularly struck by how much, in an uncertain world with many things changing so fast, young people are looking for something stable, reliable, trustworthy – precisely what a Church confident of its truth can provide.

So we will see the outcome of these two alternatives by the end of the day. Will the bishops choose a Church of change that is coming to resemble the society it’s meant to evangelize, or will it present itself as the age-old infallible Bride of Christ?

Robert Royal

Dr. Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century, published by Ignatius Press. The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, is now available in paperback from Encounter Books.

EDITORS NOTE: The column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Nacho Arteaga on Unsplash. © 2018 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Halloween II

October 27, 2018/in Commentary, Gun Rights, News, Policy, Politics/by NRA Institute for Legislative Action

No, our recent article on the latest installment in the Halloween movie franchise, and lead actress Jamie Lee Curtis’s confusing, empty rhetoric about her “support” for the Second Amendment, will not lead to unending “sequels,” like the Halloween series. But with the movie’s release last Friday adding some details about the film’s portrayal of firearms use, and considering Curtis defended her support of repressive gun control policies while trying to maintain that she is not anti-gun, it seemed appropriate for at least this follow-up.

As we pointed out two weeks ago, before the movie had been released, there was some discussion in the media pointing out what some might consider a conflict with Curtis promoting anti-gun policies while appearing in a film that had what seemed to be a considerable focus on the use of firearms and their value for self-defense. With the movie now in theatres, however, there seem to be even more questions regarding the actress’s original comments.

First, let us recall that Curtis claimed to “fully support the Second Amendment,” but also stated her support for banning arguably the most popular firearms in America—those semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns she inaccurately labels “assault weapons.” She also went on to state that she is fine with people owning firearms, provided they have navigated a litany of government mandated obstacles. Her definition of “fully support” must be different than ours, as well as everyone else who doesn’t completely embrace the anti-gun extremists who promote the same policies as Curtis.

The government controls she says all potential law-abiding gun owners must submit themselves to before being deemed acceptable for possessing firearms include background checks, training, licensing, and waiting periods. And, of course, they simply cannot be trusted with semi-automatics. So, let’s see how this plays out in the movie.

Well, the character Curtis plays, Laurie Strode, doesn’t use any of those awful semi-automatics she calls “assault weapons.” This was apparently a mandate from Curtis, who said producers of the movie “knew that Laurie was going to be someone who used firearms.” She went on to state, “And I think there were myriad types of firearms that could have been used in the movie. I was very clear with the filmmakers that she used the weapons (that) were intended for self-defense for her and her family.”

So, in spite of the fact that millions of Americans own these types of firearms specifically because they know they are exceptionally useful for self-defense, Curtis insisted they be excluded.

But she’s not anti-gun.

Furthermore, it should be pointed out that the character, Laurie Strode, has been preparing herself over the last 40 years for a final confrontation with Michael Myers; a homicidal maniac that has exhibited the ability to withstand incredible amounts of physical damage that seems to barely slow him down. One characteristic about the semi-automatic firearms the character Strode does not use is that they are generally designed to hold more rounds of ammunition than those firearms she did use. As folks who are not stridently anti-gun know, they are also designed to be reloaded more quickly.

So, a woman who has spent 40 years preparing to face off against a homicidal psychopath who appears to be virtually indestructible has seemingly gone out of her way to avoid an entire class of firearms that might increase her chances of surviving the conflict? We understand that this is only a movie, and the suspension of disbelief is necessary for most of Hollywood’s output, but Curtis seems to have decided to eschew logic, thus creating an unnecessary flaw to the movie, in order to make a political statement against certain firearms.

But she’s not anti-gun.

Moving on to the gun control policies she supports other than banning guns, does the movie stay true? It doesn’t appear to.

Curtis says she supports background checks, which we can only presume she means for everyone. When her character gives firearms to family members for their use, who ran the background checks? The movie is set in Illinois, where anyone who possesses a firearm must have a state-issued Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card. Perhaps we are to simply presume everyone has one. Even if that were the case, however, that simply would not satisfy what most within the anti-gun community promote, which is a government-run background check on all firearm transfers.

But the actress also states that she supports mandatory training before anyone may possess a firearm. In discussing the movie, Curtis says that when her character doles out the firearms, she “specifically says what each weapon does and why you would choose that weapon in self-defense.” Is that what she feels should qualify for government-mandated training? That’s certainly not what those who share her promotion of gun control would advocate.

She also promotes mandatory licensing. Perhaps it is the FOID card presumption mentioned previously that she feels qualifies for her support of licensing. Then again, if these family members went through the trouble of obtaining a FOID card, wouldn’t they already have firearms of their own? Why does Strode need to supply the guns? While it is not unheard of for Illinois residents to obtain a FOID card without owning firearms, it is fairly uncommon. But, you know, suspension of disbelief, right?

The one aspect of gun control Curtis supports that conflicts with the movie, though, is her support for waiting periods, which she quaintly refers to as a “pause button.” Strode simply hands over the firearms. Of course, one can certainly understand her not wanting her family to undergo a waiting period, considering the impending threat of Myers at the time. This puts a spotlight on one of the primary reasons NRA has long opposed arbitrary waiting periods. When a law-abiding citizen finds that he or she needs a firearm for personal protection, any waiting period is simply a period of time when that person is vulnerable. At least the character Strode gets this, even if her portrayer does not.

So, we are to presume Laurie Strode is a determined, well-trained, and lawful Illinois firearm owner, because that is what Curtis promotes. We are also to presume that Strode’s family members fit the same description. Why on earth would we be expected to presume that such a well-prepared, well-trained, law-abiding person would ignore an entire class of legal firearms that are arguably the most effective tools available to ensure her survival against such an imposing threat? We wouldn’t, of course, unless we are to also simply presume that Curtis wanted to make a political statement by leaving them out of the movie.

But she’s not anti-gun.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pro-gun Senate Majority is Crucial to Protecting the Second Amendment

CNN Denies Reality of Gun Confiscation to Attack President Trump

Republican Mayor Survives Recall Effort After Twitter-Checking David Hogg

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

Harvard Law course looks at ways to ‘push back against’ Trump strategies

October 26, 2018/in Education, Elections, News, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Campus Reform Campus Wire

A spring 2019 Harvard Law course description asserts that Sen. Mitch McConnell, President Donald Trump, and Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh present “challenges for democracy under law, for human rights, and for fact-based government.”

The course will allegedly “explore ways of using constitutional law and politics to push back against those strategies.”

A course offered by Harvard University Law School for the spring 2019 semester will focus on ways to “push back against” strategies employed by President Donald Trump and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Harvard professor Laurence Tribe will be teaching the course, titled “Constitutional Strategies For the McConnell/Trump/Kavanaugh Era.”

“This seminar will assess the challenges for democracy under law, for human rights, and for fact-based government posed by the successful strategies of [Kentucky Republican Sen. Mitch] McConnell, Trump, and Kavanaugh — and will explore ways of using constitutional law and politics to push back against those strategies,” the course description states.

The Ivy League professor has previously been outspoken with his views on the Trump administration.

“The time has come for Congress to launch an impeachment investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice,” Tribe stated in an op-ed he wrote for the Washington Post amid the firing of former FBI Director James Comey in 2017.

Tribe also coauthored the book To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment, which, according to Amazon’s description of the book, discusses “when and whether to impeach a president.” During an interview with Time in June 2018, Tribe told the magazine that he’s never specifically called for the immediate impeachment of the current president.

“Law students who are interested — from whatever ideological perspective — in what the current political and legal landscape might mean for the litigation and/or legislation they may consider becoming involved in (whether defensively or offensively) after they graduate deserve well-informed guidance as they navigate this complex new terrain. My new seminar is designed to offer that guidance,” Tribe told Campus Reform in an email.

Harvard did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The course offering comes amid rising political tensions at the university since the Kavanaugh hearing. Students, enraged by the prospect of Kavanaugh – a former visiting lecturer at Harvard – returning to the classroom, protested on campus.

Students held signs with messages like “boys will be held accountable” and “I still believe Anita Hill,” written across them during the Kavanaugh hearing. Students demanded an investigation of allegations against Kavanaugh for sexually assaulting multiple women and pushed for his resignation, according to the Harvard Crimson. Several students at the University filed Title IX cases against Kavanaugh to bring attention to his sexual assault accusations.

These events preceded the resignation of Kavanaugh who was slated to continue teaching law courses in January.

The U.S. Senate confirmed Kavanaugh as a Supreme Court associate justice on Oct. 6.

COLUMN BY

SARAH GASS

New Jersey Campus Correspondent

Sarah Gass is a New Jersey Campus Correspondent and reports on liberal bias and abuse for Campus Reform. She attends Drew University, where she studies Political Science and serves as the Secretary for Drew College Republicans. Additionally, she is a writer for Prager University. More By Sarah Gass.

RELATED ARTICLES:

DOJ not buying Harvard’s defense in affirmative action case

Harvard’s last sorority crumbles in face of new sanctions

This is what democracy looks like! (OPINION)

EXCLUSIVE: Gonzaga panelist tackles SUICIDE at cultural appropriation event

USCCB Gives $240,000 to Group Promoting Planned Parenthood, Prostitution, LGBTs

October 25, 2018/in Culture War, News, Policy, Politics, Religion, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Church Militant

by Michael Hichborn • ChurchMilitant.com

Since 2010, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has made several large financial contributions to an organization in San Francisco that is actively promoting all manner of immorality. Through grants from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD), which is an official project of the USCCB, the Coalition on Homelessness has received $240,000 in four grants: $40,000 for 2010–2011; $50,000 for 2014–2015; $75,000 for 2015–2016; and $75,000 for 2016–2017, the last available grants list on the USCCB website.

According to the archdiocese of San Francisco website, the Coalition on Homelessness is slated to receive another CCHD grant for 2017–2018, though the amount has not yet been disclosed.

The problem is that the Coalition on Homelessness (COH) is very vocal about its support for Planned Parenthood, birth control, homosexuality, transgenderism, legalized prostitution and even legalized drug use.

COH has its own print publication called Street Sheet, which is a bi-monthly paper that reaches about 16,000 people through homeless or low-income distributors.

In other words, COH is an agenda-driven firm that is using the homeless to spread its ideologies. What follows are a few examples of the grossly immoral propaganda.

This May 2017 issue of Street Sheet carries an article with the headline “Where is the Reproductive Justice for Homeless Women?” (page 7). In the article, the author makes three statements promoting Planned Parenthood. She says:

Many women’s rights to reproductive health and family planning services are being violated through recent actions by the Trump administration plans to stop funding to programs such as Planned Parenthood.

Low-income and homeless women need access to services from organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Women’s Community Clinic, and Women’s Health Justice.

In fact, Planned Parenthood participates annually in a fair put on by Project Homeless Connect, a San Francisco social service organization.

On June 1, 2018, Street Sheet published what it called the “Sex Work Issue.” This issue is filled with unrepeatable and filthy “poetry,” promotes transgenderism and most prominently calls for the decriminalization of prostitution. The issue contains headlines like “Criminalizing Sex Work Creates Violence” and a raunchy poem by a “transgender sex-worker.” Page 5 of this issue contains an ad for the “March for Sex Worker Rights,” which is aimed at combating anti-sex trafficking laws.

The last page of the sex worker issue contains a full-page social media ad, which says, “I Support Sex Workers and Homeless People” and contains the hash-tag “#SexWorkIsWork.” This page instructs people to take a selfie, fix it to the white area of the page, take a picture of that and post it on Instagram, tagging the organization “@coalitiononhomelessness.”

Read the rest at the Lepanto Institute.

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

The Rape of Lady Liberty

October 25, 2018/in Commentary, News, Policy, Politics/by Linda Goudsmit

There has been much talk about rape lately. Wikipedia tells us that “Rape is a sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse or other forms of sexual penetration carried out against a person without that person’s consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority, or against a person who is incapable of giving valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, has an intellectual disability or is below the legal age of consent.”

The critical element in rape is penetration. The dictionary tells us that penetration is the action or process of making a way through something or into something. So let’s talk about rape and penetration. Rape is a horrific and violent crime that violates the most personal private boundaries of an individual. Rape is distinguished by the penetration of sexual boundaries but what about the penetration of other boundaries?

Let’s consider the breaching of less personal boundaries – our homes, our cities, and our country as we watch a menacing migration invasion march toward our national borders.

American homes are protected physically by border walls, doors, locks, alarm systems, and by laws. The U.S. Constitution declares that our homes may not be subject to unlawful search or seizure. Property laws protect ownership of our private homes as individual assets of private citizens. Citizen A cannot violate the property boundaries of Citizen B any more than he can violate the sexual boundaries of Citizen B. Citizen B is protected by our Constitution, laws, and a society that respects both. So far so good.

What happens when Citizen A violates the law and rapes Citizen B or unlawfully enters his home and decides to move in?

In a lawful, law-abiding society, the police remove Citizen A and he is prosecuted for the crimes he has committed. There is a recognition that breaching boundaries whether sexual in nature or not is unlawful. If Citizen A is found guilty he is imprisoned and loses his precious liberty.

Liberty has historically been the most prized possession of citizens of the United States of America. The tired huddled masses yearning to be free who immigrated lawfully to America in the 19th and 20th centuries came for freedom, they came for opportunity, and they came for the individualism and upward mobility that define the American dream. They came for democracy and capitalism – they did not come for socialism. I will repeat – they did not come for socialism.

Author and political commentator Gloria Alvarez speaks passionately on this subject and implores legal immigrants who fled socialism in their home countries NOT to vote for it in the United States.

Socialism is a destroyer of boundaries – socialism destroys individualism and supports collectivism. Socialism says that your house is my house, your money is my money, and the state is the owner, controller, arbiter, and distributor of it all. There is no private property or property boundaries in socialism – you are a ward of the state. The Democrat party is the party of socialism.

Americans have fought to preserve and protect the precious freedom that protects their individual boundaries for 242 years – until now. WHAT? I will repeat. Americans have fought to preserve and protect their precious freedom that protects their individual boundaries for 242 years – until now.

The Leftist Democrat campaign to transform America into a socialist state is a boundary crasher – a destroyer of the American dream and the Constitutional protections that support it. So, why would any American lobby for an anti-American collectivist system designed to destroy the individualism and upward mobility that is the source of the American dream?

The answer is found in the infamous instruction manual for revolution written by the communist mentor of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Saul Alinsky, in 1971. In Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. Alinsky rejects the guns and bombs of violent revolution and instead tutors radicals in “soft” revolution through social activism designed to shatter America from within. Ex-president Obama, America’s premier community organizer in chief, spent eight years seeding the U.S. government with like-minded leftist ideological radicals, greedy corruptible globalist politicians, and Muslim Brotherhood operatives intent on destroying America from within.

Obama’s lesser-known mentors socialists Cloward and Piven, provided the paradigm for economic collapse by deliberately overloading the American welfare system. The menacing midterm migrant invasion marching toward our southern border is a catastrophic economic overload to our welfare system if allowed to breach our borders. It is Cloward and Piven’s destructive economic paradigm on steroids deliberately staged to produce the most damaging optics in hopes of swinging the midterm elections toward the Democrats.

t is not accidental that women and children are leading the parade – what are the armed U.S. soldiers at the border going to do? Shoot them?

Bob Weir has written an excellent article titled “Would you use military on the border?” that discusses the power of these manipulative optics.

The Democrats have degraded themselves and embraced the despicable jihadi tactics of putting women in front of men and children in front of women. It is essential that the voting American public understand the manipulative social engineering involved in this contrived human parade and not be seduced by its cunning Hollywood optics.

The critical element in rape is penetration.

These midterm migrants are not the teeming masses yearning to be free from the 19th and 20th century, and they are not a spontaneous gathering of impoverished refugees seeking legal entry into the land of opportunity. The caravan marchers are illegal paid-for political operatives participating in the organized rape of Lady Liberty, funded by the Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis. The midterm migration caravan is a well-organized anti-Trump invasion force heading toward our southern border in defiance of our immigration laws.

Most people recognize guns and bombs as the weapons of war – not enough realize that indoctrination and population shifting are the preferred weapons of 21st century warfare. Mass immigration is deceitfully presented as a humanitarian effort. In reality, population shifting is a powerful weapon designed to destabilize the host country economically and culturally. It is being used worldwide by the Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis to internationalize the world under one world government.

The massive Muslim migration of sharia compliant Muslims with hostile norms has successfully destabilized Europe with the cooperation of the Leftist leadership in the European Union. Population jihad has created social chaos, Muslim no-go zones, threatened secular law, and increased violent crimes of rape and murder to staggering proportions. The massive midterm migration caravan threatening our souther border is intended to destabilize the United States with the cooperation of the Leftist Democrat party supporting the caravan and open borders.

The optics are extremely manipulative – Honduran women with children are paid to present an image of vulnerable refugees seeking shelter at the border – the problem is that they are not legitimate refugees – they are paid political activists participating in an attack on our sovereignty staged to look like a humanitarian wave.

The fraudulent migration invasion is parallel to the fraudulent Steele dossier that was also created by the Leftist Democrats in an effort to topple President Trump. POTUS is the existential enemy of Globalism, Leftism, and Islamism. He is unapologetically patriotic with an America-first agenda that is the greatest obstacle to the stated goals of one world government shared by the Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis.

When paid political “migrants” storm the US border it is population jihad – an invasion supported by the Democrat party that is a penetration and violation of the boundaries of the United States. It is the rape of Lady Liberty.

The Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis has common cause to destroy America from within. The Left is desperate to win the midterm elections in their efforts to overthrow duly elected President Donald Trump. The phony Steele dossier was not successful, Stormy Daniels was not successful, Christine Blasey Ford was not successful, so now the desperate Democrats have stooped to supporting the breaching of our nation’s borders to accomplish their goals. Here is the problem.

Is anyone actually foolish enough to believe that Soros, Clinton, Obama, Pelosi, et al are going to share their wealth or invite these midterm migrants into their own homes?? Of course not – the midterm migration is a political power grab. The Left thinks it will improve their chances to prevail in the midterm elections and begin the process of allowing illegals to vote for them legally. The Globalists think it will improve their chances to internationalize the world in one world government after the Left has successfully overthrown POTUS and destabilized the government. The Islamists think it will help shatter America from within and improve their chances of establishing a global caliphate.

The Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis that supports the midterm migration invasion is the enemy within. The breaching of boundaries is a crime whether those boundaries are sexual or territorial. The midterm migration caravan cannot be allowed to enter the United States and destroy the country from within.

There has been much talk about rape lately – now it is time to protect Lady Liberty from the gang rape of the midterm migration invasion supported by the Leftist/Islamist/Globalist axis. If it becomes necessary to shoot then the army must shoot – the shooting should begin at the back of the line where the men who are criminals and members of ISIS are hiding.

EDITORS NOTE: This column first appeared on the Goudsmit Pundicity. The featured photo is by Sven Przepiorka on Unsplash.

The Threat Posed by the Impending Invasion: All Americans need to wake up and pay attention.

October 25, 2018/in Elections, Immigration, National Security, News, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Michael Cutler

As I have been watching with growing concern the rapidly increasing numbers of aspiring illegal aliens in Latin America who are heading north towards the United States, I came to draw the comparison that the aerial videos of these huge numbers of people, at least from high overhead, appear somewhat like the images of the runners participating in the New York City Marathon.

That analogy caused me to think back to March 20, 2013, during the Obama administration, when I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the topic, “Building An Immigration System Worthy Of American Values.”

The last two paragraphs of my prepared testimony for that hearing more than five years ago now seem all the more appropriate if not, in fact, prophetic:

Law enforcement is at its best when it creates a climate of deterrence to convince those who might be contemplating violating the law that such an effort is likely to be discovered and that if discovered, adverse consequences will result for the law violators. Current policies and statements by the administration, in my view, encourages aspiring illegal aliens around the world to head for the United States. In effect the starter’s pistol has been fired and for these folks, the finish line to this race is the border of the United States.

Back when I was an INS special agent I recall that Doris Meissner who was, at the time, the commissioner of the INS, said that the agency needed to be “customer oriented.” Unfortunately, while I agree about the need to be customer oriented what Ms Meissner and too many politicians today seem to have forgotten is that the “customers” of the INS and of our government in general, are the citizens of the United States of America.

These foreigners are massing in Latin America, heading for the United States in what is certainly a coordinated strategy to overwhelm America’s capacity to secure its borders and effectively enforce and administer its immigration laws.

That system has always lacked adequate resources or the commitment to imbue the immigration system with meaningful integrity because it is a simple matter to simply prove the great majority of applications for immigration benefits which was how previous administration generally dealt with those applications for immigration benefits and the “keys to the kingdom” that they represent. After all, with the customer-oriented mentality of previous administrations, Democrat and Republican alike, the alien “customer” was almost always right.

Indeed, the starter’s pistol has been fired. The only questions that demand answers are, who pulled the trigger and with what ultimate goal?

There are a number of suspects and it is entirely possible that there has been collusion by several groups that may not immediately appear to relate to one another but have come together for common purposes.

While many speculate about George Soros we must not ignore the potential that Iran may well be a major player.

In my previous article, “The Impending Alien Invasion,” I addressed the apparent “marriage of convenience” between the terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas and the Drug Trafficking Organizations of Latin America that work cooperatively in an unholy alliance to move large quantities of people and narcotics and other contraband into the United States as a funding mechanism and also to move illegal aliens into the United States for profits and to also bring their operatives into the United States to participate in criminal operations and to also embed Iranian sleeper agents in the United States.

This is worrying enough but there are more issues to consider and reasons why all Americans from coast to coast and border to border need to be extremely concerned.

For far too long the virtually all-encompassing focus on the U.S./Mexican border has served to convince many Americans across the United States that there are only “four border states.” Sadly all too many of our fellow citizens are so selfish that they believed that since they did not live along the southern border in one of those “border states” that the issue of border security was of no real concern to them.

I have frequently noted that our nation has 50 border states, any state that has an international airport, access to our nation’s 95,000 miles of coastline or lies along the northern as well as the southern border are all border states.

No matter where or how aliens enter the United States, they have access to our entire country. This is why “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States” pose a threat to national security and to each and every person in the United States no matter where they live.

Today, however, the focus is on that extremely porous and highly dangerous U.S./Mexican border.

If these aliens are able to ultimately gain entry into the United States they will not emulate Neil Armstrong or the other Apollo astronauts who grabbed some lunar samples, planted a flag and promptly flew back to Earth. These aliens are likely to fan out across the United States potentially impacting every state of our nation for decades to come.

They would be undoubtedly drawn to Sanctuary Cities that will welcome them like conquering heroes. The terrorists among them could use those cities as staging areas as they embed themselves, hiding in plain sight, in preparation for the day they are called into action.

In point of fact there is a huge population in NYC comprised of illegal aliens who entered the United States without inspection along our northern and southern borders.

Nearly a year ago I wrote an article, “New York City: Hub For The Deadly Drug Trade,” wherein I discussed the fact that the only reason that the Mexican drug cartels had decided to make the City of New York their central hub for their drug trafficking operations on the east coast was due, in large measure, to the sanctuary policies of New York City.

Of course the Radical Left and their allies in the Mainstream Media has decried President Trump’s concerns that among these aspiring aliens are criminals and aliens from the Middle East and potentially terrorists.

Of course the fact that the President receives a daily briefing from the intelligence services does not matter to these supposed “journalists” who simply write off the President’s statements as “right-wing fear mongering.”

Just this evening my local CBS radio anchor proclaimed that the Caravan of Central American migrants was bringing desperate immigrants looking for a better life.

Somehow it did not occur to the reporter to ask why these aliens would want to come illegally rather than legally. The U.S. has the most generous legal immigration system on the planet.

Nor did he question that perhaps they weren’t all from Latin America.

It must be presumed that these supposed “journalists” have blithely ignored the testimony of numerous expert witnesses who have testified before a long string of hearings in the House and Senate. It must also be presumed that these “journalists” have never read the 9/11 Commission Report and/or the official report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel – Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Both reports made it clear that the 9/11 terror attacks and other terror attacks the Commission studied were only possible because of multiple failures of the immigration system.

In November 2001, shortly after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 I was called to testify before the Immigration Reform Caucus that was attempting to uncover how our nation could be so devastatingly fall victim to a terror attack carried out by aliens who had, in one way or another, been able to enter the United States and go about their deadly preparations by exploiting failures of the immigration system by violating various immigration laws as well as other laws.

On December 10, 2001 my prepared testimony for that hearing was submitted to the Congressional Record by then Chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, Rep. Tom Tancredo. Here is an excerpt from my testimony you must take to heart:

It is often said that you only get one opportunity to make a first impression. Generally speaking, the first laws that aliens entering the United States encounter are those laws that the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) is supposed to enforce. When the INS fails to effectively,, consistently and fairly enforce those laws, we are sending a very dangerous message to aliens seeking to enter the United States. In effect we are telling them that not only can they expect to get away with violating our laws, they can anticipate being rewarded for violating our laws.

Many years have passed since that hearing. More deadly terror attacks have since been carried out, while still other unsuccessful attacks have been attempted to be carried out, all by aliens who, in one way or another exploited multiple failures of the immigration system.

Aliens who successfully game the immigration system create a serious problem. Not only because those aliens succeed in obtaining immigration benefits they should never be granted, but because each time the immigration system fails, more aliens are encouraged to head for the United States fully expecting to be successful in making a mockery of our borders and our laws thereby committing Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.

As the number of aliens who apply for asylum grows the system will ultimately implode and obliterate any vestige of integrity to a system that is a major component of national security.

The Left would call this fear mongering- I call it “Connecting the dots.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Proof Americans are funding gang-, Middle Eastern-laced caravan

What You Need to Know About Migrant Caravan, and Who Qualifies for Asylum in US

Dodged Caravan: Dems Still Silent on Migrants

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images was originally published on FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission. The feature image by geralt on Pixabay.

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

October 24, 2018/in Culture War, Healthcare, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Science, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Signal

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

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.

Senate Dems Show Their Red State Lie-ability

October 18, 2018/in Elections, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Family Research Council

Some politicians will say anything to get elected — and thanks to Project Veritas, Americans are finding out exactly who those politicians are. In deep red states, where Democrats have to play moderate to win, it’s been tough for people like Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) to keep their true feelings in check. It’s a tough act to maintain — too tough, new undercover videos show.

The Missouri senator, who pretends to be a friend of the Second Amendment, has quite different views behind closed doors. In the safety of her campaign offices, the woman in a neck-and-neck race with state Attorney General Josh Hawley (R) made it clear in a new undercover video that she’s just hiding her agenda for votes. In footage released this week, McCaskill and her staffers are almost giddy at the thought of tighter gun control laws, including outlawing “high capacity magazines. Turning to the senator, an undercover journalist asked her if she would support a ban, “Of course! Of course!” she insists.

But she’s not going to tell voters that, her office insists — “because that could hurt her ability to get elected.” Off the record, far-Left groups like Mom’s Demand Action know they have a friend in the senator. It’s just better to keep the relationship “hush-hush.” “She’s worked out stuff with Mom’s Demand Action to make sure that she can support their goals without supporting the organization openly,” said one of McCaskill’s staffers. And what about Barack Obama? Why isn’t he out campaigning for the senator?

“He’s a very liberal candidate. And like … Claire [is] distancing herself from the party [because it will] help her win more votes.” Nicolas Starost, who works on the McCaskill campaign, said they do everything they can to keep voters in the dark about her radical views. So she and Obama “essentially have the same views on everything?” the Project Veritas journalist asks. “Yeah,” Starost replied smiling. “People just can’t know that.”

Just like people can’t know McCaskill’s secret support for impeaching President Trump. Campaign worker Glen Winfrey says she could explain her flip-flop on the issue by telling Missourians, “Get over it. It was a national security question.” Or her private push to outlaw semi-automatic weapons. “… I think we could actually be in a position to get votes on this stuff on the floor and we’d get 60…” Of course, McCaskill’s race to the middle might convince a few people, but it’s hard to bury her actual record. She has an “F” rating from the NRA and supported President Obama’s agenda 98 percent of the time.

Now, in frantic damage control mode, she’s insisting that these Project Veritas videos are the work of challenger Josh Hawley. “It is startling that Josh Hawley would be part of fraudulently embedding somebody in my campaign. He’s the Attorney General of the state of Missouri. He’s supposed to be going after fraud, not participating in it.” Nice try, Hawley fired back. “@clairecmc & staff caught on tape deceiving Missouri voters and her response is to accuse me of fraud? For HER words? Her campaign is unraveling.” The latest numbers seem to agree. Most polls have Hawley pulling ahead of McCaskill by anywhere from two to five points.

In Tennessee, the Volunteers got a front-row seat to the split personality of Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s (R) opponent for Senate, Phil Bredesen (D). Like McCaskill, his campaign office was also caught on video spilling the beans on the Democrat’s strategy on Brett Kavanaugh. Field organizer Maria Amalla said his statement about supporting the new Supreme Court justice was a complete lie — “a political move… to make up points.” The undercover journalist says that he was “so confused because I just can’t believe he would actually vote yes [to confirm Kavanaugh.]” Oh, Bredesen’s staffer says, “He wouldn’t. He’s just saying he would.” Don’t worry, a worker named Will Stewart says, “Between you and me, once Phil actually gets into the Senate, he’ll be a good Democrat.” Does that mean he’s not a fan of Trump, the mole asks? “…Oh yeah. Oh, he hates Trump, like yeah…” “Are the people of Tennessee that ignorant?” “Yeah,” Stewart replies.

Now, like McCaskill’s campaign, the Bredesen camp is scrambling to explain the footage away. That’ll be tough to do, insiders think. In the handful of days since singer Taylor Swift trashed Blackburn’s views and the tape was released, Marsha has managed to turn her single-digit lead into a double-digit advantage. “This is exactly the kind of ‘say whatever to get elected’ politics Tennesseans hate,” Blackburn’s campaign told reporters. “Marsha always says you ‘may not always agree with me, but you will always know where I stand.'”

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

P.C. in D.C.? How One Party Is out of Touch with America

City Burned by Fire Chief Discrimination

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

VIDEO: “Corrupt” Andrew Gillum vs. FBI Investigation

October 15, 2018/in Courts & Law, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics/by Defend The Border

Andrew Gillum, Socialist candidate for Governor in Florida, is in a massive battle with TV station over airing a Republican commercial about Gillum’s corruption investigation in Tallahassee FL. Check out Tom Trento’s brief comments on how unhinged Comrade Gillum is becoming as the FBI investigation deepens.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Andrew Gillum Graduated Training School That Spawned Soros Army of Revolutionaries | Breitbart

Andrew Gillum campaign demands TV stations pull GOP ad attacking his ties to FBI investigation

Who is Steve Phillips and why is he backing Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida?

Fellow Alum of Andrew Gillum’s running mate: “[Chris] King is an anti-Semite, plain and simple.”

VIDEOS: Why Socialist Andrew Gillum is “Unfit to Lead” Florida

Why Did Gillum’s Campaign Share a Building with a Taxpayer-Funded Solar Project and His Consulting Firm?

EDITORS NOTE: The modified featured photo is by Steve Halama on Unsplash.

The Secret’s Out: Corporate America Is Standing With Soros & Steyer Against American Values

October 6, 2018/in Culture War, Elections, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by 2ndvote .com

George Soros and Tom Steyer are two of conservative America’s biggest boogeyman. Each has donated untold millions to various liberal groups — including election efforts — to turn America against its core values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But corporate America is just as bad. For just one example, Levi Strauss — the iconic designer of jeans for blue-collar, hard-working Americans — launched a Get Out The Vote ad. It was bad enough that their 2ndVote rank is “1” in the five areas where they engage in politics. It was worse when they put $1 million to push gun control. Now they’re outright telling Americans to vote for Levi’s liberal agenda.

The ACLU has likewise become part of the Democratic Party/left-wing smear machine. Rather than stick to their historically left-leaning civil rights principles, they put $1 million into an ad accusing Brett Kavanaugh of being a sexual predator like Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, and Harvey Weinstein. That ad went into five states to target five Senators the ACLU believes could be persuaded to vote against Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is only one solution to stopping the Soros-Steyer-Corporate left-wing charge, and that’s to create a culture of informed 2ndVoters. Tell your family, friends, and neighbors how their shopping habits have real economic and political power. Urge them to use that power by backing good companies and abandoning bad ones.

Corporate America and allegedly “non-partisan” non-profits like the ACLU think they’re pulling a fast one on the American people. Let them know they’re wrong today, tomorrow, and after election day with your network’s 2ndVote power.

Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

Trump’s new counterterrorism strategy singles out ‘radical Islamists’

October 6, 2018/in National Security, News, Policy/by Jihad Watch

Bolton says: “Radical Islamist terrorist groups represent the preeminent transnational terrorist threat to the United States, and to United States’ interests abroad. The fact is the radical Islamic threat that we face is a form of ideology. This should not be anything new to anybody. King Abdullah of Jordan has frequently described the terrorist threat as a civil war within Islam that Muslims around the world recognize, and he is, after all, a direct descendent [sic] of the Sharif [inaudible], the keepers of the holy cities. If that’s how King Abdullah views it, I don’t think anybody should be surprised we see it as a kind of war, as well.”

The idea that there is a significant pushback to the jihad ideology within the Islamic world is a trifle overstated. The concept of jihad as meaning warfare against unbelievers in order to establish Islamic law’s hegemony over them is deeply rooted in Islamic texts and teachings, as well as in Islamic law. Nonetheless, in 2011 the Obama Administration removed all mention of Islam and jihad from counterterror training; this is a strong step in the right direction, toward once again enabling counterterror analysts to study and understand the motivating ideology of the enemy.

“New White House Counterterrorism Strategy Singles Out ‘Radical Islamists,’” by Adam Kredo, Washington Free Beacon, October 4, 2018:

The Trump administration is implementing a new, government-wide counterterrorism strategy that places renewed focus on combatting “radical Islamic terrorist groups,” marking a significant departure from the Obama administration, which implemented a series of policies aimed at deemphasizing the threat of Islamic terror groups.

In releasing the first national counterterrorism strategy since 2011, the Trump administration is working to take a drastically different approach than that of the former administration, according to senior U.S. officials.

While the Obama administration sought to dampen the United States’ focus on Islamic terror threats, the Trump administration has made this battle the centerpiece of its new strategy.

National Security Adviser John Bolton acknowledged in remarks to reporters Thursday afternoon that the new strategy is “a departure” from the former administration’s strategy, which has been characterized as a failure by Republican foreign policy voices due to the increasing number of domestic terror attacks and plots across the United States

“Radical Islamist terrorist groups represent the preeminent transnational terrorist threat to the United States, and to United States’ interests abroad,” Bolton said.

“The fact is the radical Islamic threat that we face is a form of ideology,” Bolton said. “This should not be anything new to anybody. King Abdullah of Jordan has frequently described the terrorist threat as a civil war within Islam that Muslims around the world recognize, and he is, after all, a direct descendent [sic] of the Sharif [inaudible], the keepers of the holy cities. If that’s how King Abdullah views it, I don’t think anybody should be surprised we see it as a kind of war, as well.”

“One may hope that the ideological fervor disappears, but sad to report, it remains strong all around the world, and even with the defeat of the ISIS territorial caliphate, we see the threat spreading to other countries,” Bolton added.

The Trump administration strategy also shifts the focus to Iran, characterizing the country as the foremost state sponsor of terror across the globe.

“The United States faces terrorist threats from Iran, which remains the most prominent state sponsor of terrorism that, really, the world’s central banker of international terrorism since 1979,” Bolton said. “And from other terrorist groups. Iran-sponsored terrorist groups such as Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic jihad, continue to pose a threat to the United States and our interests.”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column with photos originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured photo is by Sophie Keen on Unsplash.

Conservatives Looking for Justice in Kavanaugh

September 27, 2018/in Courts & Law, Elections, Must Read, News, Policy, Politics/by Family Research Council

Becoming a Supreme Court justice is an attorney’s dream. It’s getting there, Brett Kavanaugh will tell you, that’s a nightmare. The father of two girls has endured more than his share in a vicious confirmation fight that ought to scare everyone about the state of American politics.Senate Democrats have resorted to mudslinging, harassment, and now lawsuits to get their way on a confirmation pick that the American people knowingly handed to the president in the election of 2016. Kavanaugh’s family has had to sit through horrible allegations about a man who’s been widely considered one of the most respected people in the legal profession. Still, liberals, still angry about the courage Majority Leader Mitch McConnell showed in not considering Merrick Garland, are out for blood — and they’ll do anything to stop Kavanaugh from becoming the court’s next justice.

Earlier today, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) took the circus to a whole new level, announcing his intent to sue the Democrats’ way to success in stopping the Kavanaugh vote. “The unprecedented obstruction of the Senate’s advice and consent obligation is an assault on the separation of powers and a violation of the Constitution.” It’s the latest in a series of ridiculous stunts the Left is willing to try in blocking a good judge from the promotion he deserves.

Yesterday, on “Washington Watch,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could only shake his head at the absurdity of it all. “I’ve been a lawyer most of my adult life,” he told our listeners. “I’ve been a judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney, and here’s what I can say without any doubt: The allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are 35 years old. They can’t identify the time they happened or the location, and the people who were supposedly there denied that it happened. And with that fact pattern, you couldn’t get a warrant, much less take this to court.”

Like most Republicans, he’s promising an open mind when Kavanaugh’s accuser comes to testify this week.

“I will take the allegation, scrutinize it, and be respectful of the accuser — but [h]ere’s what I’ve learned. If you’re a creep, you’ve abused women, if you’re a sexual predator — it happens a lot throughout your life. You don’t just do it for a little period of time and quit… Kavanaugh… has been in legal circles at the highest levels of government for 20 years. Not one woman has said he’s done anything inappropriate toward them when he was in charge of their careers… There would be more accusations about his workplace behavior [if this were true] and it’s not.”

But, he warned, just look at what happened to Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. “There’s a pattern here,” he warned. “If you want to destroy someone, it doesn’t matter what you do and how you do it.” What’s more outrageous, Senator Graham points out is the Democrats’ double standard. “I voted for Sotomayor and Kagan because I thought they were qualified. I would not have chosen them if I’d been president. But elections matter — except when it comes to us. When we win, it doesn’t matter. You can do anything to our people. I’ve never been more disgusted with the committee than I am right now. The games they play to put us in this box are unconscionable.”

But if it’s voters Democrats are trying to appeal to with these shenanigans, strategist Chris Wilson explained later, they’re blowing it. “This entire situation has become a net-plus for Republicans,” he said. “The sheer audacity of the Democrats… what it is showing the American people and voters is exactly who the modern Democratic party is… What it’s doing is putting one of the biggest drivers of 2016 — [the courts] — back into play as a key issue.” They see it as a manufactured controversy — the same kind the media uses against President Trump. They’re sick of it. If anything, Chris said, it’s “creating a turnout enthusiasm for Republicans.”

“Democrats have seriously overplayed their hand on this.” But unfortunately for Brett, the Kavanaughs are paying the price.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Hyatt of Hypocrisy: Banning Gosnell

Mobs on the Menu for Cruz

PODCAST: Right Side of History. How Reagan and Now Trump Turned the Tables on the Media

September 26, 2018/in Elections, News, Policy, Politics, Video, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Signal

“The Right Side of History” is a podcast dedicated to exploring current events through a historical lens and busting left-wing myths about figures and events of America’s past.

On this week’s episode, we speak to John Heubusch, the executive director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, about how former President Ronald Reagan got around a biased media and how this applies to President Donald Trump today.

Heubusch explained how the unique backgrounds of both presidents helped them in turning the tables on media opponents and allowed them to cut through directly to the American people.

COMMENTARY BY

Jarrett Stepman

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

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Ronald Reagan who used his unique communication skills to be a more effective president. (Photo: Danita Delimont Photography /Newscom)