VIDEO: Colion Noir Calls Out Mayor Pete, Challenges Him to a Debate on Gun Rights

/in , , , , /by

Colion Noir tells Pete Buttigieg that if he wants to explain his position on firearm freedom, he’s welcome to do so on NRATV: “So what say you, Mayor Pete? You always talk about wanting to civilize politics. Well, here’s your chance now to have a civil conversation about gun rights in this country. Are you willing to come on and have that conversation?”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Stephen Halbrook: The Left’s Relentless Call for a Gun Registry

Evan Nappen: Supreme Court Could Upend New Jersey Gun Control

AWR Hawkins: Federal Judge Allows Suit Against WA Gun Control To Proceed

EDITORS NOTE: This NRATV video is republished with permission.

An Assumption of Dignity

/in , , /by

Rashida Tlaib, the Muslim congresswoman who proclaimed that she feels more Palestinian than American in Congress, and wrapped herself in a Palestinian terrorist flag at her victory party on Friday, May 10, proudly declared, “There’s always kind of a calming feeling, I tell folks, when I think of the Holocaust.”  We were deeply offended but not surprised as she had already revealed her lack of empathy for the tragic suffering of so many millions of innocents because she was  raised in a culture of disrespect, contempt, bloodshed and death. The Hebrew Commandments mandate respect and reciprocity (The Golden Rule), and the Hebrew and Christian Bibles were able to humanize the savages that had existed previously, while the Koran commands that Muslims torment and kill Jews, Christians, and others unless they convert to Islam (2:120; 3:56; 3:85; 3:118; 3:178; 5:14; and more).

Tlaib added, “When I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their ‘human dignity,’ their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people’s passports.”  Clarification is required here.  The “tragedy of the Holocaust,” in her view, is that there were sufficient Jews who survived the Holocaust to re-establish their ancient homeland, Israel!  As for the Arabs who “lost their land and livelihood,” they left their homes based on a hollow promise that they would return when the five Arab armies defeated and eliminated the Jews.  Life presents choices, and the Arabs who chose to leave (fewer than 750,000) not only forfeited their homes but were also treated as outcasts by their own brethren, never being absorbed into the huge Islamic land mass.  They were also held as bargaining pawns, neglected by their own so that the United Nations took on the responsibility of their subsistence.  The Arabs who stayed in Israel are the grandparents of today’s Arab Israeli citizens.  Unlike their Arab counterparts, the Jews (~850,000) who fled persecution in Arab lands were welcomed and absorbed, primarily into Israel, but also into Europe and the US.

So, the “outcast” Jews and the “outcast” Arabs had the same time, land and climatic conditions to create a home where they were, but the difference is “inherent dignity.”  Out of malarial swamp land and desert, the Jews worked tirelessly to build a successful, thriving country, today among the most advanced in the world, whereas the Arabs, now-named “Palestinians,” continue to this day to wallow in victimhood and world pity, teaching their children to do the same, and extending their hands for additional “humanitarian” aid. Dignity is inherent, or it is not.

Let’s correct some intentional misinformation.  The Jews are the indigenous people in what is now Israel.  Israel became a nation in 1312 BCE, two thousand years before the rise of Islam, and was established as the modern, sovereign Jewish State of Israel in 1948.  The Hebrews conquered the land in 1272 BCE and held dominion over it for a thousand years with a continuous presence for the past 3,300 years.  Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as Palestinians in 1967, after losing yet another aggressive war against Israel and needing a fallacious narrative on which to establish a tie with the land.

Arabs dominated the land for only 22 years, their brutality and persecution so severe as to force the Jews to flee.  The Arabs refused to absorb or integrate Tlaib’s people; they desecrated Jewish holy sites and the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives; destroyed 58 Jerusalem synagogues; and enforced an apartheid-like policy against the Jews, until they once again attacked and lost to Jewish determination.

Israel’s area is about 0.18% and its population about 2.5% that of Arab countries.  Had the Palestinians the quality of inherent dignity, the Arabs would have also accepted the Mandate of Palestine with the opportunities of establishing a viable, humane, literate, prosperous, happy country.  They had the same climate, soil, and time that the Jews had, and Israel offered them more opportunities than were ever bestowed on them by an Arab ruler. They chose continuous war instead.  The “Palestinians” didn’t lose dignity; they refused dignity.

Human dignity is defined as the right of a person to be valued and respected for his/her own sake, and to be treated ethically.  It is of significance in morality, ethics, law and politics.  It is also used to describe personal conduct, as in “behaving with dignity,” and it cannot be taken from anyone.  To Tlaib, it means self-absorption; to the Western world, it is moral, ethical conduct.  To Tlaib, it is something that gives one a right to demand one’s own way, regardless of actions; to the other, it is a responsibility that demands appropriate actions.

We see dignity in the Israelis who have to reverently gather body parts after a Palestinian blows himself up in a crowd and in the first responders who rush to help countries deal with natural disasters.  It is found in researchers who dedicate their lives to advances that benefit mankind (of the 900 Nobel prizes awarded, at least 20% were presented to Jews, although Jews comprise a mere 0.2% of the world’s population.) it is found in people who lovingly tend sick animals, and in the Israeli surgeon who performs his best, whether for an Israeli or Palestinian patient.  And it is in the President of the United States, President Trump, who visits or calls to offer condolences and compassion to parents of a victim of terrorism.  Dignity is not the rants of disdain by an ungracious congresswoman against the country that gave her refuge from tyranny and poverty or against its President who was enthusiastically and legally voted into that office.  Authentic dignity cannot be found in shari’a-ruled regimes because the Koran denies full dignity to at least 50% of their population for no other reason than that of gender.

There is no dignity in those who burned acres of land and wild life in Israel; who created the dangerous no-go zones of Paris; who burn cars and destroy property in Malmo, Sweden; who attack Jewish pedestrians and mass-rape girls and women in Germany; who massacred fisherman and farmers in Nigeria; who slaughtered villagers in Chad; who killed Christians in Syria.  There were 133 attacks, 822 killed, 1374 injured, 16 suicide blasts in 24 countries in April alone!  Seventy-five attacks, 348 killed, up to the 14th day of Ramadan; nine hundred sixty million murdered over 14 centuries.  When Tlaib and others demand their right to dignity, they are simply insisting that we respect the Indignity that they feel free to heap upon the rest of us.  No deal.

Islamic contempt for certain groups did not begin with their treatment of non-Muslims, but among their own people.  Girls are forced to undergo Female Genital Mutilation and forced into a marriage with older men; women are treated as having half the value of men, and are subjected to stonings, beatings and acid attacks if they are suspected of “sullying” a man’s “honor” or “dignity.”  Where is the dignity and morality in intentionally positioning women and children at rocket launchers to increase the body count for world pity?  What other culture teaches their young to behead small animals so that they may later behead humans without hesitancy, and sends them on suicide missions?

Rashida Tlaib is a jihada, raised to disrespect all life, and that calming feeling that she feels when she hears of the Holocaust reflects the exposure to violence and criminal behavior inbred since her toddlerhood.  Since the 1970s, researchers have begun reporting that childhood cruelty to animals is the first sign of delinquency, violence and criminal behavior, and Muslims continue the unimaginable torture and cruelty to livestock as the animals are brought to slaughter for the Islamic holiday of Eid al Adha – further proof that their ideology has produced a society that is on the opposite end of the behavioral spectrum to ours.  Apparently, in this case, the dignity of human beings gives them the right to be cruel to animals that, in their philosophy, lack dignity.  For the record, Judaism demands kindness and sensitivity to animals, to prevent suffering, to feed them before we feed ourselves, and to allow them a day of rest in the week (the Sabbath).

The raison d’etre of Palestinians is, in fact, not to have their own state, but to have the entirety of Israel as their own state, with shari’a as the law of the land.  It carries on the conquests of Mohammed, just as we see Muslims gaining control of cities and parcels of land in Southeast Asia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Sweden, and the United  States, aided by the Marxist left.  Tlaib’s purpose, along with Omar and others in office, is to gradually impose shari’a law here, with the not-so-subtle coercion from the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  The background of centuries of violence, conquest, beheading, bloodshed, and enslavement is what drives Tlaib’s lack of dignity, empathy, compassion and respect for the suffering of others.  In reality, disrespect is the cornerstone upon which Islam in general, and the Palestinians in particular, have founded their existence.

‘We’re the Ones Yelling Stop’: How These Conservatives Are Fighting Corporations’ Liberal Tilt

/in , , , /by

By supporting a nonprofit that favors rationing health care, biotech giant Johnson & Johnson appears to violate its founding principles, a conservative shareholder activist says.

The activist brought this contradiction to the attention of the corporation’s CEO at a shareholder meeting last month, in what he hopes will become a model practice for other conservatives.

Conservatives can be effective in challenging liberals’ efforts to move major corporations to the left if they simply acquire some stock and speak up with facts, David Almasi, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research, said in a phone interview with The Daily Signal.

In recent weeks, Almasi and fellow activists also politely confronted executives of four other major U.S. corporations—AT&T, Bank of America, Amazon, and Twitter—at shareholder meetings.

“Often these days, corporate America has become a muscle and piggy bank for the left,” Almasi told The Daily Signal. “Sometimes executives do this for reasons of public relations, but in most cases, they are not helping consumers or their investors.”

“We’re the ones yelling stop during these meetings and asking them to think about what they are doing and to ask themselves if they are giving a fiduciary benefit to their investors and customers.”

In the past four years, the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank based in Washington, has made its voice heard in more than 100 shareholder meetings.

Amazon and Twitter, in separate shareholder meetings, this week rejected the Free Enterprise Project’s formal proposal that their boards reflect “true diversity.”

The full text of the proposal, on page 33 of Amazon’s proxy statement, specifies “ideological diversity” on the board as well as diversity based on race and gender.

Twitter rejected the idea Monday and Amazon did so Wednesday. The same diversity proposal is up for consideration at Facebook’s May 30 shareholder meeting and at Salesforce’s June 6 meeting.

“We believe that boards that incorporate diverse perspectives can think more critically and oversee corporate managers more effectively,” the Free Enterprise Project said in a statement supporting the proposal.

Prepared remarks at the Twitter and Amazon meetings by Justin Danhof, director of the Free Enterprise Project, are available here.

Amazon defended current policy in a statement recommending that shareholders vote down the proposal:

Diversity is a cornerstone of our continued success, and we are proud of the diversity of experience and perspectives represented by our directors and our employees. … Our Board composition reflects the robust nominating processes that we already have in place, which address much of what this proposal requests.

A Twitter spokesman, responding to Danhof’s remarks, said during the meeting:

For the reasons detailed in … our proxy statement, our board of directors believes that this proposal is not in the best interests of Twitter or our stockholders and recommends a vote against this proposal.

Questioning Johnson & Johnson’s CEO

Initiated in 2007, the Free Enterprise Project aims to advance free market ideals in corporate America on subjects including health care, energy, taxes, subsidies, regulations, religious freedom, food policies, media bias, gun rights, and workers’ rights

Almasi showed up for Johnson & Johnson’s shareholder meeting April 25 in New Brunswick, New Jersey, where the multinational medical device, pharmaceutical, and consumer goods company is headquartered.

During a question-and-answer session, Almasi asked CEO Alex Gorsky whether the company’s support for a Boston-based nonprofit, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, aligned with values expressed in the Johnson & Johnson credo.

Because the institute is “working to replicate” Great Britain’s health care rationing plan in the U.S., it puts Americans at risk of being placed on waiting lists to receive vital services or being denied access to certain drugs, Almasi warned Gorsky and other company officials.

“Johnson & Johnson has a fairly large meeting, and they really put on a show and run commercials and talk about profits and losses, and they are very open to investors,” Almasi told The Daily Signal. “I raised the fact that they started a relationship with a group that supports health care rationing.”

Robert Wood Johnson, the company’s former chairman and part of its founding family, drew up the Johnson & Johnson credo in 1943 to set the tone for its values and business practices.

The credo states, in part, that Johnson & Johnson’s “first responsibility is to the patients, doctors and nurses, to mothers and fathers and all others who use our products and services … We are responsible to the communities in which we live and work and to the world community as well. We must help people be healthier by supporting better access and care in more places around the world.”

The credo also says the company’s “final responsibility” is to shareholders, and that the business must turn a profit.

“What I said [to Johnson & Johnson’s Gorsky] is that you are part of a group and are giving money to a group that doesn’t want the patient to come first and instead wants a policy of health care rationing,” Almasi recalled in the interview.

“So, I brought this up and the CEO said he wasn’t aware of it, and I’ll take him at his word. But after the meeting, I had a discussion with [Johnson & Johnson’s] government affairs head, and we’re supposed to have another meeting in the next few weeks.”

Rationing Care, Denying Drugs

Almasi’s statement during the shareholder meeting, available here, ends with his asking Gorsky whether he could explain “how funding ICER benefits Johnson & Johnson, and whether this funding fits within the company’s credo.”

The Institute for Clinical and Economic Review describes itself as an organization “that objectively evaluates the clinical and economic value of prescription drugs, medical tests, and other health care and health care delivery innovations.”

Steven Pearson, the institute’s founder and president, previously was a senior visiting fellow with Great Britain’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, a government agency.

Almasi told Johnson & Johnson’s Gorsky that guidelines set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were responsible for putting British citizens on waiting lists to receive health care.

“A lot of companies join groups because they want a seat at the table,” Almasi told The Daily Signal, and in the case of Johnson & Johnson he’d like to see the company “advance their credo” and oppose “the rationing of American health care.”

In the interview, Almasi also expressed concern that the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s partnership with the CVS retail pharmacy chain could result in denying prescription drugs to needy Americans based on highly subjective “quality of life” calculations.

Drug industry reporter Ed Silverman wrote in August that CVS set a “threshold of $100,000 per QALY, or quality-of-life years, a benchmark that measures both the quantity and quality of life generated by providing a treatment or some other health care intervention.”

In practice, this means the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review can call the shots on whether a CVS customer receives certain prescription drugs, Almasi warns.

“So, essentially this is like setting up an Obamacare death panel in the private sector,” he said. “We pointed this out to Johnson & Johnson, and we were able to do this by just by owning a couple of shares of stock and going into the room and asking questions. Now Gorsky may reevaluate the company’s relationship with ICER.”

How Those Questioned Respond

Johnson & Johnson did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment as of publication time.

However, David Whitrap, vice president of communications and outreach for the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, provided a statement countering the criticism.

“ICER’s mission is to help all Americans gain affordable access to high-value health care. Period. And we believe the best way to achieve this mission is to strive toward a system that achieves fair pricing of prescription drugs, fair access for patients, and financial incentives for future pharmaceutical innovation,” Whitrap said, adding:

We don’t determine a drug’s price, nor do we determine whether or not it should be covered by an insurance company, but we do provide a detailed, public and transparent assessment of new therapies so that all stakeholders—pharmaceutical companies, payers, patients, and physicians—can be better informed when they’re making critical decisions around the time of FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval.

Michael DeAngelis, a senior director in corporate communications for CVS Health, told The Daily Signal in an email that the corporation is committed to “develop innovative tools” for clients of its pharmacy benefits manager, CVS Caremark, who he said include large employers, health plans, and unions.

Those tools, DeAngelis said, include plan designs “that will connect price, value, and coverage” and “help to influence manufacturer pricing on new drug launches.” He added of the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s role:

ICER is a well-respected, independent organization which utilizes a rigorous process to assess the value of drugs, including convening regional independent appraisal committees for public hearings on each report and publishing a final evidence report. These benefit design options for our PBM [primary benefits manager] clients are not discriminatory and, in fact, improve the chances that patients with disabilities and serious illness will be able to get the treatments they need at a price they and the health system can afford.

‘Muscle and Piggy Bank for the Left’

The Free Enterprise Project’s presence at shareholder meetings doesn’t mean that conservatives have leveled the playing field with liberal counterparts who have a longer history of shareholder activism, Almasi cautions.

He would like to see many more shareholders with stakes in the free market system become organized and aware of the influence they can exert.

“Often these days, corporate America has become a muscle and piggy bank for the left,” Almasi said, adding:

Sometimes executives do this for reasons of public relations, but in most cases, they are not helping consumers or their investors. We’re the ones yelling ‘Stop’ during these meetings and asking them to think about what they are doing and to ask themselves if they are giving a fiduciary benefit to their investors and customers.

The more active we can be, the more effective we can be. We need more conservatives to be on board.

What the Free Enterprise Project has been able to achieve in recent weeks on limited resources suggests that the field is wide open for conservatives to become shareholder activists, Almasi told The Daily Signal.

In some instances, corporate leaders may not be aware of practices that are offensive to some shareholders and potentially counterproductive to their financial goals, he said.

Bank of America and Planned Parenthood

In another example, the Free Enterprise Project’s Danhof spoke up about Bank of America’s support for Planned Parenthood during a April 24 shareholder meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Danhof made use of research by 2ndVote, a conservative watchdog for corporate activism. Users of its online app, available on Google Play and Apple’s iTunes, have access to hundreds of corporate profiles.

During the meeting, Danhof provided Bank of America executives with documentation from 2ndVote showing the bank had been a consistent sponsor of Planned Parenthood’s annual gala in New York City.

This matters because Bank of America long had said it supports Planned Parenthood only through an employee matching-grant program. But 2ndVote’s research, available here, shows otherwise.

Danhof questioned Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan about the bank’s relationship with Planned Parenthood, and the audio of the back and forth is available in an online press release.

Danhof called on the bank to “correct the record” and publicly acknowledge it donates directly to Planned Parenthood.

Neither Bank of America nor the Planned Parenthood Federation of America responded by publication time to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment.

“We’ve had a great partnership with 2ndVote because they’re interested in the same corporate activism we are,” Almasi said. “They’re doing some great research, and they are going to the grassroots and getting information out there through scores and tweets.”

“When we went to Bank of America, we went with the information they found,” he said of 2ndVote. “This is a great example of how groups on the right are working together to get information out there.”

Connecting With AT&T

During AT&T’s shareholder meeting April 26 in Dallas, Texas, CEO Randall Stephenson told Danhof that he didn’t know employees in AT&T’s digital advertising department were blocking conservatives from accessing certain online platforms.

Their discussion centered on AT&T’s 2018 acquisition of AppNexus, a major online advertising platform with a history of excluding conservatives, according to a press release from the National Center for Public Policy Research.

AppNexus had not discontinued that practice, Danhof told AT&T’s Stephenson. In the press release, he said he expects Stephenson to “move decisively” to end any efforts at AT&T to muzzle conservatives.

The Daily Signal sought comment from AT&T, which responded through its advertising company, Xandr.

“Xandr regularly reviews the policies that govern our platform to ensure we are creating a safe advertising ecosystem for publishers, advertisers, and consumers,” a spokesperson said in an email. “Political ideology is not a category we consider in the course of content elimination decisions.”

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.

COLUMN BY

Kevin Mooney

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Is Your Bank Supporting Common Core? There’s Now an App That’ll Tell You.

A Note for our Readers:

America’s trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so, given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C. and across the country.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it’s been painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely only upon the support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

We do this because you deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal today.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission.

Abortion and Trafficking: Two Birds of a Feather

/in , , , , , , /by

Abortion and sex trafficking aren’t often brought together in the same sentence, but they have a lot more in common than meets the eye and doubles the devastation in many women’s lives.Earlier this week, our friends at Americans United for Life and Global Centurion hosted a briefing on Capitol Hill on the connection of abortion to sex trafficking and various ways the women are impacted from their mental health to their physical health.

What people may not realize is that sex trafficking victims are often coerced into abortions by the trafficker so that he or she can continue to make a profit off of them. Believe it or not, it’s not always a male who is the trafficker, and it’s not unusual for women to be in charge of a harem of victims. At other times, trafficking victims are impregnated by their pimp so that they can remain under their control.

As discussed in our “The Link Between Pornography, Sex Trafficking, and Abortion,” it’s nearly impossible to know the total number of abortions committed on sex-trafficked women” but a in a survey of 66 women who were sex trafficking survivors, about 71 percent reported that they became pregnant at least once while being trafficked, and about 21 percent said they had five or more pregnancies while being trafficked and that from these 66 women they had a total of 114 abortions among them while being trafficked.

Abortion facilities like Planned Parenthood aren’t complaining because it’s more business for them. In a 2014 Beazley Institute Report, over 1,000 female victims of sex trafficking from across the United States gave information regarding their experience at health care facilities. Over a quarter (29.6 percent) of the survivors had visited a Planned Parenthood facility while they were being trafficked. One victim of sex trafficking said that they went to Planned Parenthood because “they didn’t ask any questions.”

Instead of reporting the traffickers, Planned Parenthood enabled them to abuse these women over and over again. More stories like these can be read in our Planned Parenthood Is Not Pro-Woman publication. Of course, it’s one thing to see the statistics — and another to hear the stories that put faces to the numbers. Our Director of Life, Culture, and Women’s Advocacy, Patrina Mosley, was there and explains that it was very emotional for listeners to hear the evils these women experience. But on the other hand, you could also tell it was freeing for the survivors to give their testimonies, because they know more people will be moved to fight for justice.

Patrina also shared on the panel that, in essence, the way forward is understanding the signs of sex trafficking in our everyday surroundings. The more people pay attention, the more likely it is that someone will be rescued. And secondly, there’s no way around the part values and sexual morality play in this crisis. Paying for sex and killing a child in the womb both devalue human dignity. Alongside punitive justice to deter bad behavior, we cannot abolish the modern slavery and holocaust of our time until we return to understand that sexual relations were designed to occur in the sanctity and safety of marriage.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

A Tale of Two Yales

One Bryant Leap for Mankind

U.S. Bishops’ Chairman Applauds States Passing of Pro-Life Legislation

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

PODCAST: Crazy subsidies of $7,500 per electric car! Trump says no deal to Nancy after her ‘cover up’ accusation!

/in , , , , , , /by

TODAY’S GUESTS AND TOPICS

Phil Kerpen, Founder and President of American Commitment. Prior to joining American Commitment, Kerpen was the principal policy and legislative strategist at Americans for Prosperity. He previously worked at the Free Enterprise Fund, the Club for Growth, and the Cato Institute. Kerpen is also a nationally syndicated columnist, chairman of the Internet Freedom Coalition, and author of the book Democracy Denied. How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America. TOPIC…Crazy subsidies!! $7,500 per car that electric vehicles!! 

Sandy Rios is Director of Governmental Affairs for the American Family Association, one of America’s largest, pro-family grassroots organizations. Based in Washington, DC, she is host of “Sandy Rios in the Morning on AFR Talk” which can be heard on nearly 200 stations through the American Family Radio Network. TOPIC…Trump saying no deal to Nancy! after her “Cover Up” accusation!!

IT’S BA-A-ACK! TWA 800: From Mehrabad to Montoursville with love?

/in , , , , /by

On 20 May 2019 President Donald Trump held a rally in the tiny Pennsylvania town of Montoursville.  This raises the obvious question of . . . why?  Trump is famous for basking in the adoration of huge crowds of 20,000-30,000 for his rallies.  Montoursville has a total population of 5,000.

In the special election held the following day, Republican Fred Keller won by a comfortable 2-1 margin.  He obviously did not need Trump’s help.  Besides, there are many other towns in Pennsylvania’s 12th district larger than Montoursville, including the well-known Williamsport.  But Trump choose Montoursville.  Why?

Could TWA 800 have had anything to do with it?

On 17 July 1996, 16 French-club students from Montoursville High School and five of their chaperones boarded the Boeing 747-131 for the TWA 800’s transatlantic flight destined for Paris and Rome. Twelve minutes later the plane exploded apart over the Atlantic ocean at nearly 14,000 feet, just off East Moriches on Long Island.  In all, there were 230 passengers, four pilots, and 14 flight attendants on board.  There were no survivors.

After four years of salvage, recovery and investigations, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the cause of the crash was a “defect” in the insulation around certain unspecified wires which allowed a “short” in those wires to ignite the “vapors” in the empty fuel tank causing the whole plane to explode.

Case closed, right?

Then why did Trump choose to hold a rally in tiny Montoursville, instead of the much larger nearby Williamsport–and in a district in which the Republican candidate was going to win hands down anyway?

Could it be because virtually no one on this planet believes the “official” explanation of what happened–including some of the investigators themselves?

Here is why so many people believe that the “official” explanation was a “cover-up” by the Clinton administration and the “Deep State” so the American public wouldn’t panic during the last few months before a presidential election:

An air traffic controller at NY TRACON allegedly claims that radar “indicated vertical movement intersecting TWA 800,” and then TWA 800 disappeared from the radar screen.  Numerous eye witnesses claim to have seen a “streak of light,” or “vapor trails” ascending from the ocean towards the plane, striking the plane, and then the plane exploded.  Two weeks later the FBI allowed the New York Times to interview only one of the 144 (at that time) witnesses, and he was one who only saw it “out of the corner of his eye.”  The NTSB eventually identified 258 eyewitnesses who had allegedly seen a glowing object streaking towards the aircraft.  At least 58 had followed the object from the horizon (i.e. from the ocean).  The NYT interviewed none of those 258.

Here is another interesting factoid.  The deputy Attorney General who oversaw the investigation, Jamie Gorelilck, left the Justice Department in 1997 to take a job with Fannie Mae, the government-run home loan outfit.  She would make more than $25 million dollars over the next six years.  A government worker would be lucky to make 1/20 of that amount in six years.  She also turned up in 2004 as the primary author of the highly flawed 9/11 report.

Interesting?

Trump’s visit to tiny Montoursville, Pennsylvania has brought all of the old conspiracy theories back out of the closet.

There have been theories galore:  Everything from an exploding meteorite coming apart just at the right time and place to intercept the aircraft, to a U.S. Navy training exercise gone awry, to a bomb placed on board, to an al-Qaeda strike as a prelude for 9/11.

But there is one rather obvious explanation that no one has mentioned yet–at least not on this side of the Atlantic–not during the original investigation two decades ago, and not now.

THE IRANIAN CONNECTION

On 03 July 1988 an Iran Air Airbus A300, flight #655 took off from Iran’s Mehrabad International Airport in Tehran, Iran.  It stopped at Bandar Abbas International airport in Bandar Abbas, Iran to pick up more passengers before taking off again for its destination of Dubai International Airport on the other side of the Persian/Arab Gulf.

Personnel aboard the USS Vincennes operating in the area thought that the Iranian airliner was a military aircraft on a hostile mission (or so the official explanation goes), so they shot it down.  274 civilian passengers and 16 crew members all lost their lives that day.

When TWA was brought down eight years later, most everybody in the Middle East automatically assumed that it was retaliation for Iran Air flight #655.  That possibility was never entertained on this side of the Atlantic.  After all, if it indeed was a missile, the most likely weapon was a Stinger missile which can be fired by a single person holding a hand-held launching device, and which was designed to bring down aircraft at up to 15,700 feet, and everyone just “knew” that Iran did not possess Singer missiles–even though we had donated thousands of them to al-Qaeda’s MKK precursor in Afghanistan during their war against the Soviets in the 80s.

But, no way Iran could have Stinger missiles and be responsible for TWA 800, right?

So, why did Trump decide to visit tiny Montoursville now?

Could it have anything to do with the increasing tensions between Iran and the U.S.?  The war drums that are beating in both capitals?  Could it be that as tensions rise, more evidence keeps spilling into the public domain about Iranian cooperation with al-Qaeda and complicity in 9/11 (meaning that Iran likely had all the Singer Missiles it wanted by the mid-1990s), and Trump is building a case for war against Iran?

Or, could Trump only be sending a message for entirely domestic reasons?

  • Michael E. Horowitz, the current Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Justice (of which the FBI is a part) is currently conducting investigations into DOJ and FBI “improper actions” regarding the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal and the FISA abuses which led to the Mueller investigation of Trump.
  • John W. Huber, the U.S. Attorney for the district of Utah, is also reportedly still conducting an investigation into broader “Deep State” abuses involved with the Trump dossier, alleged “spying” on the Trump campaign, etc., and is allegedly coordinating his efforts with Inspector General Horowitz.  Their report is expected to be released soon.
  • Republican Senator Lindsay Graham has been leading a Senate investigation into alleged “Deep State” abuses regarding all of these issues.
  • Current U.S. Attorney General, William Barr, has recently announced that he has assigned a “team” to investigate CIA and FBI “Counter Intelligence spying” on the Trump campaign.
  • Trump has long been threatening to release the FISA warrant applications which allegedly would show fraud on the part of a number of FBI and DOJ officials.  Rumors have it that this will be done soon.

So, could Trump’s visit to Montoursville be a message that investigations into “Deep State” corruption and cover-ups are reaching clear back into the 1990s?

Above, we mentioned a Jamie Gorelick, who oversaw the grossly flawed TWA 800 investigation, and was the primary author of the flawed 9/11 commission report of 2004.

The head of the CIA during the time of the investigation of the TWA 800 take down, having been appointed in 1997, was Clinton dandy George Tenet.

Guess who was the head of the CIA when 9/11 happened?  That’s right, George Tenet.

This is important because the upper echelons of the CIA had more than ample evidence in the weeks leading up to 9/11 that al-Qaeda was going to attack sites in Washington and New York City in early September (actually one piece of evidence even pinpointed the date).  All that evidence was discounted because much of it entailed Iranian cooperation with al-Qaeda, and the upper echelons of the CIA refused to believe that Shi’a Iran and Sunni al-Qaeda could ever have anything to do with each other.

Guess who Tenet’s right-hand man for Counter Terrorism and Middle East issues was?

Clinton Crony John Brennan.

Yes, the same John Brennan who spearheaded (along with Robert Mueller) efforts to abolish all training materials and delete all data bases where any connection was made between any sort of “Islam,” (even “radical Islam), and any sort of “jihad,” including terrorism.  These actions were taken at the behest of entities which are part of the terrorist organization Muslim Brotherhood’s tentacles in the United States–yes that Muslim Brotherhood which is a declared enemy of the United States, thus making Brennan’s and Mueller’s actions a clear case of treason according to Article III section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

Their treasonous actions by the way, led to the deaths of more Americans than did the downing of TWA 800.

So, now, as these investigations into “Deep State” misbehaviors, frauds, and crimes (up to and including treason) are intensifying, increasing numbers of fingers are being pointed to the likely instigator and ringmaster for all of the efforts against the Trump campaign and Trump personally.  And, guess who this ringmaster is turning out to be?

John Brennan.

Interesting, no?

For those of us who are spectators of the blood sport of full contact politics, and who get goose bumps of joy from watching “paybacks” . . . fasten your seat belts.  (Not that Trump every enjoys punching back at his attackers).  I have a very sneaky feeling that Trump’s rally in little Montoursville last Monday was a signal that the fun is about to begin.  Or so we can hope.

VIDEO: Al Jazeera+ Anti-Semitism REVEALED

/in , , , , , /by

Qatari propaganda outlet Al Jazeera and their trendy AJ+ Arabic platform showed their true face this week.

In a seven-minute video released across AJ+’s social media, a young woman narrates some shocking views on the Holocaust. She suggests the number of Jews killed has been exaggerated, that Israel was the “greatest beneficiary” of the tragedy and that the Jewish State uses the Holocaust as justification for the “annihilation of Palestinians.”

Al Jazeera retracted the video and announced that the makers of the video were to be suspended, but by this point, the damage was done. The video had already been disseminated and viewed over a million times.

Canary Mission has dug beneath the surface and found that the anti-Semitism at Al Jazeera and AJ+ goes far beyond the makers of this one video.

In our compelling NEW VIDEO, we reveal the personal tweets and posts of Al Jazeera and AJ+ staff.

Al Jazeera staff preach principles of human rights and social justice, while their personal social media accounts show disdain for Jews and Israel. It will leave you wondering:

Was their Holocaust-denying video an isolated incident or is anti-Semitism a systemic issue?
Noor Harazeen indicates on her LinkedIn that she is a “Filmmaker for AJ+.” She has calledfor violence, glorified the terror organization Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), shown supportfor Hamas and expressed support for terrorists.

Amr Kawji states on Twitter that he is a “Video Editor and sometimes Producer at AJ+.” He has spread anti-Semitism, defended the terror organization Hezbollah and expressed support for terrorists. On March 2, 2014, Kawji tweeted: “The yahood [Jews] run the #oscars.”

Sana Saeed indicates on her LinkedIn that she is a Host/Senior Producer at Al Jazeera+ (AJ+). She has expressed support for Hamas, promoted terrorists, spread anti-Israel conspiracy theories and defended violent anti-Israel agitators. On January 18, 2015, Saeed tweeted: “Israel & Al Qaeda are likely coordinating with one another. Yeah. Imma pull a white girl and just can’t even.”

Dima Khatib indicates on her LinkedIn that she is the managing director of AJ+. She has spread anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, defended Hamas and Hezbollah, glorifiedterrorists and demonized Israel. On December 18, 2010, Khatib tweeted: “Behind US support for Israel there is a huge Zionist lobby with economic and media power.”

Danna Fakhoury indicates on her LinkedInthat she is a “social content producer” at AJ+. She has spread hatred of Israel, equatedZionism with Nazism and expressed supportfor BDS on social media. On March 8, 2013, Fakhoury tweeted: “Zionism is hate. Zionism is evil. Zionism is the modern day Nazism. don’t be fooled. the tide is turning.”

Omar Duwaji indicates on his LinkedIn that he is a producer at AJ+. He has glorified a terrorist, demonized Israel and spread a conspiracy theory, on social media. On September 8, 2013, Duwaji tweeted: “REPORT: Hitler may not have authorized systemic murder of Jews during Holocaust.”

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

FLORIDA: Muslim Candidate Andy Imtiaz Says “America Runs on Hate” [Video]

/in , , , , , /by

Meet Andy Imtiaz, the Pakistani-American who believes “America runs on hate.” Also going by the name Imtiaz Ahmad Mohammed, the Asian Times CEO and business owner of 18 salons stands by an inflammatory series of statements against the United States.

Mohammad has been in the U.S. since 1991. He says he was motivated to run for office because of what he sees as a huge gap between Muslim communities and political engagement, a gap he sees as the root cause of current problems within the American Muslim community.

He ran in August 2018 for the Florida House of Representatives, District 97, but was defeated in the primary.

Mohammad is the founder of the American Muslim Progressive Caucus. According to a flyer that he posted to Facebook, AMPC’s mission is to build a progressive Muslim community. Further, the flyer stated:

Every American Muslim must register to vote and engage with American Political System to promote equality and Justice. Elect diverse candidates for the offices who respect all communities. VISION

We envision of future where Islam is understood as a source of dignity, justice, compassion and love for all humanity and the word.

Yet, Facebook posts from close to two years ago show Mohammad posing with sharia-apologist and Islamist agitator Linda Sarsour, as well as advertising event of ICNA (Islamic Circle of North America, a known Islamist organization). Sarsour was also one of the three speakers at that event.

In a candid interview for a Muslim audience, Mohammad sounds very much like a patriot at select points, which paints him as a complex candidate running for office.

Mohammad is critical of social champions and religious champions, while (as he says in the interview above) “we’re missing the most important part of civic engagement.” According to Mohammad, this is due to a lack of engagement in society and that lack of engagement leads to a blame game and increased victimhood. He says,

“I’m not running to win or lose. My goal is to be an example for all people … A Muslim candidate on the ballot …

Most people have moved to this country for the betterment of their life. Most organizations are in the United States. How many mosques do we have? How many social institutions do we have?” 

However, as he continues to elaborate, these movements don’t have a greater impact on the Muslim community. Civic service, he believes, is a solution to that feeling of disengagement between American Muslims and the larger American society.

Mohammad’s select comments are inflammatory, but he’s certainly a candidate worth watching for how he’s shifting the narrative.

RELATED STORIES:

A Response to CNN’s 25 Influential American Muslims List

Calls to Expel Florida Student Protesting World Hijab Day

An Open Letter to an American-Muslim Leader

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission.

Democrats Are Setting Up A Challenge To The 2020 Census

/in , , , , , /by

Democrats across the nation are deeply worried about the 2020 Census. The states that are most apt to lose representation after the new Census are mostly Democrat-dominated. The states most likely gain representation after the Census are mostly Republican-controlled. That is almost entirely due to residents of California, New York and Illinois fleeing to Florida, Texas and other states.

We spelled out in Part I of our Census series how California is spending an enormous amount of taxpayer money to ensure that all of the state’s hard-to-count populations — particularly illegal immigrants — are counted in the Census.

That is one big problem for Democrats. But the most controversial part of the Census is the citizenship question, which could exacerbate the first problem.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross approved plans last year to add the question, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” This has not been asked since 1950, but was asked in every Census before that.

“I’ve been watching the census since 1970, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a situation as problematic as this one,” said William O’Hare, a demographer and author who published a book this year studying past censuses. “It’s having a chilling effect on immigrant and Hispanic communities.”

Well, probably just the illegal ones. Of course, the division on this question mirrors the political division in the country on legal versus illegal immigration.

Nineteen Democrat Attorneys’ Generals challenged the inclusion of the question and the Supreme Court heard oral arguments last month after fast-tracking a review from a lower court ruling that would have prevented the question from being asked. Fast-tracking is unusual. The last time the high court granted such a petition for expedited review, which bypasses the appeals court, was in 2004. But the census questionnaire must be finalized by June 30 to start printing paper forms on time.

“Granting cert before judgment here shouldn’t be seen as any reflection of how the Court is likely to rule on the merits,” said Steve Vladeck, a law professor at University of Texas. “It’s just a sign that the Justices all understand the need to decide the matter, one way or the other, by June.”

If the Supreme Court upholds the administration’s ability to ask the question — and it is hard to see a legal reason why it wouldn’t, as it had been asked for more than 150 years and the Census is the purview of the administrative branch — there are other routes being set up to challenge the final count. (Possibly including another run at the question itself.)

Other possible routes of challenge relates to new technologies the Census Bureau is planning to use in the 2020 count and a lack of funds that forced the bureau to cancel planned tests. You can hear the setup in the verbiage Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly of Virginia, who chairs the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Government Operations, which includes the Census Bureau.

“I’m not confident they’re ready one year out. I’m very concerned. I’m concerned on where they are on their budget, I’m concerned on technology, I’m concerned on substance,” Connolly said. “They’re not meeting their own deadlines, and so what confidence does that give you that they’re going to be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed in 2020 when they actually conduct the census?”

Not surprisingly, he blames Republicans.

“Some of this is Congress’s fault because the Republican majority was unwilling to provide the resources they were told they needed, and we’re going to pay a price for that,” Connolly said.

It would not be unusual for some states or cities to challenge their part of the Census. There were 239 challenges after the 2010 census, according to the Christian Science Monitor. But those challenges can only be based on proving technical errors.

The use of new technology seems like a ripe area for charging technical errors. Perhaps the citizenship question could be cast in that light as well as the lack of funding causing technical problems. California Gov. Gavin Newsom wants his state to check the official Census results against the state’s estimate, to see how much of a difference there is — which could be grounds for another challenge.

The question is whether the lawsuits would seek to throw the entire Census out. While that would be a first in American history, nothing today seems outside the realm of possibility.

In fact, it appears that is the precise groundwork being laid.

RELATED ARTICLE: California Spending Enormously To Maximize 2020 Census Count

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.

UPDATE: Trump Signs Memo To Curb Welfare Use By Non-Citizens

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

UPDATE: President Signs Memo Enforcing the Legal Responsibilities of Immigrant Sponsors

President Donald Trump is expected to sign a memorandum Thursday enforcing restrictions on welfare benefits for non-citizens, The Daily Caller has learned.

The memo directs government agencies to enforce legislation signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 that requires sponsors of immigrants to the U.S. to reimburse the government for any welfare benefits received by the person they are sponsoring.

Immigrant sponsors will be informed by agencies that they are required to pay back the money, and that they will be sent to collections if they fail to do so. Agencies will have 90 days to update their guidance and will report back to the president on their progress in 180 days.

Sponsor repayment of welfare benefits was enacted under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, but has remained largely unenforced. The bill was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy and Patty Murray.

“This executive action will dramatically curb ‘welfare tourism’ and protect U.S. benefits for U.S. families,” a senior administration official told The Daily Caller. “It will also ensure that immigrant sponsors cannot continue the practice of bringing in large numbers of welfare-dependent immigrants: because they will be financially liable.”

The memo also requires enforcement of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which asks government agencies to consider the sponsor’s income when determining whether or not a non-citizen is eligible for welfare benefits. Because the agency would be bundling the sponsor’s and immigrant’s income, some immigrants may no longer meet the eligibility criteria.

That act was cosponsored by then-Sen. Joe  Biden and Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden.

The administration says enforcing these two laws will help protect welfare benefits for American citizens. According to a poll conducted by America First Policies, 73 percent of Americans support the idea that immigrants to the U.S. should be able to support themselves financially.

“This is shifting the burden away from the taxpayer and asking people to be self-sufficient,” a senior administration official told the Caller. “We have our own citizens who are struggling.”

The White House says, citing a 2015 study from the Center for Immigration Studies, that 58 percent of households headed by a non-citizen use at least one welfare program.

President Donald Trump’s proposed immigration plan, presented to the American people last week, follows a similar theme. The plan, which revamps the legal immigration system, would give priority to immigrants who earn higher wages and are financially independent.

While the new immigration plan is unlikely to succeed in the Democrat-controlled Congress, the administration has been taking other executive actions to claim smaller victories on immigration reform.

“This is part of a larger effort to do what it can on it’s own,” the official said of the administration’s actions.

Attorney General Bill Barr decided in April that asylum seekers who reach the “credible fear” threshold are no longer eligible to be released on bond, meaning they could be held indefinitely while awaiting court proceedings. The move sought to curb a method that some illegal immigrants use to gain entry to the U.S. despite not having legitimate asylum claims.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is also supporting measures to make sure that illegal immigrants are not able to take advantage of public housing benefits. Current law prevents illegal immigrants from using public housing benefits, but they have been able to skirt the rules by living with American citizens who receive housing subsidies.

HUD will begin evicting families who allow illegal immigrants to live with them in government-subsidized housing.

Shortly after those two actions were revealed, the president signed a memorandum recommending sanctions on countries that have a high rate of visa overstays. The administration will place travel restrictions on countries whose residents overstay their visas in the U.S. by a rate of 10 percent or higher.

“This is part of the Trump Administration’s comprehensive approach to combating illegal immigration,” a senior administration official said at the time.

COLUMN BY

Amber Athey

Follow Amber on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLE: Attorney General Bill Barr Cracks Down On Catch-And-Release For Asylum Seekers

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission.

LGBTQ War On Chick-fil-A Is Failing Spectacularly

/in , , , , , , /by

Chick-fil-A is vilified by the American left — and particularly the LGBTQ+ community — like few other American companies.

The reason is clear: They are honest, biblical Christians in their beliefs and statements, including on marriage being between one man and one woman — because that is what the Bible explicitly says and what all of Christianity and the rest of the world believed through all of history until, literally just a few years ago.

But that adherence to biblical norms in today’s America means they must be crushed by the activist LGBTQ+ left that seeks to destroy anyone who will not think like them, i.e. bakers, florists and pizza shops around the nation.

This has resulted in a growing number of bans — and a fascinating turn of events.

The first wave of bans was in 2012, when Democratic city officials in San Francisco, Boston and New York threatened or enacted bans or attempted to block Chick-fil-A from opening restaurants in their cities because Chick-fil-A donated to Christian organizations such as the Family Research Council.

The LGBTQ+ activists organized boycotts and were immediately swamped by giant counter-protests with Chick-fil-A’s customers standing in line around corners to show their support. Rarely has a tactic backfired so magnificently.

The newest round of bans came after the leftist ThinkProgress organization charged that the Chick-fil-A foundation supported “groups with a record of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination.” Those miscreant hate-filling groups? The Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, which both operate on clear biblical understandings that are 2,000 years old. Chick-fil-A gave $1.6 million to the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and $150,000 to the Salvation Army in 2017.

That generosity resulted in the San Antonio City Council banning Chick-fil-A at their airport because “everyone should feel welcome when they walk through our airport,” according to Councilman Robert Trevino. Two weeks later, a New York Democratic assemblyman Sean Ryan, announced that the Buffalo airport was prohibiting Chick-fil-A from operating there, because “the views of Chick-fil-A do not represent our state or the Western New York community.”

Actually, they probably do.

Most recently, the kiddos in the student government at Trinity University, a private liberal arts college in Texas affiliated with the Presbyterian Church, voted to ban Chick-fil-A from their campus. The school does not have a Chick-fil-A on their campus, but serves its food on a rotating basis in the cafeteria. The unanimous vote to ban the chain was because of Chick-fil-A’s donations to groups that failed to support LGBTQ+ rights.

During all of this, Chick-fil-A executives have been nothing but class, creating a pretty stark contrast with those who are trying to shut them down and destroy the company if possible.

In an interview with Business Insider, Rodney Bullard, vice president of corporate social responsibility at Chick-fil-A and executive director of the Chick-fil-A Foundation, said the foundation focuses on lower-income and underserved youth.

“The calling for us is to ensure that we are relevant and impactful in the community, and that we’re helping children and that we’re helping them to be everything that they can be,” Bullard said. “For us, that’s a much higher calling than any political or cultural war that’s being waged.”

He also said that Chick-fil-A would be willing to work with LGBTQ+ groups in reaching children through these programs they have with 300 partners.

Chick-fil-A does not discriminate against LGBTQ+ people in hiring or serving. So this is about what Chick-fil-A leaders think and say. Further, they are willing to work with LGBTQ+ groups without requiring them to change their views. That, of course, is not reciprocated.

But a funny thing has happened in all of these attacks on Chick-fil-A. The chain is growing at a torrid pace.

Restaurant Business researched Technomic’s Top 500 Chain Restaurant Report and reported that Chick-fil-A’s domestic sales leapfrogged Taco Bell, Wendy’s and Burger King last year and will almost assuredly pass Subway this year to make it the third-largest restaurant chain by sales, behind only McDonald’s and Starbucks.

Kalinowski Equity Research agrees with that assessment: “We have long pointed out that Chick-fil-A is the restaurant competition with which McDonald’s U.S. should most concern itself—and by extension, investors should, too.”

Chick-fil-A sales increased 14.2 percent in 2018 and may increase 15 percent this year, much faster than any major, mature chain.

This success will not go unnoticed. And it is not likely to change behavior towards the chain by LGBTQ+ activists.

There is a deep well of hate for traditional Christian beliefs on the left and specifically in the LGBTQ+ activist corner. So expect ThinkProgress to continue to push out information on Chick-fil-A’s connections with Christian organizations and try to damage the company.

But at this point, apparently the American people are disinclined to pay attention beyond countering with buying more chicken sandwiches.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The ‘brutal reality’ of male homosexual behavior

The LGBT Juggernaut: Time for Christians to Face Our Failure

The Trans Lobby Is Now Marketing to Your Kids

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.

Taming the Bench: MAGA Means Ending the Precedent of Judicial Precedent

/in , , , , /by

“It is a maxim among these lawyers, that whatever hath been done before may legally be done again: and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities, to justify the most iniquitous opinions; and the judges never fail of decreeing accordingly.” So said Anglo-Irish essayist Jonathan Swift in Gulliver’s Travels in 1726. Unfortunately, something has changed almost three centuries later:

The decisions have perhaps become even more iniquitous.

Swift was rightly mocking the notion of “judicial precedent.” Yet it’s even more preposterous in our time and place, for at least 18th-century British judges didn’t have a constitution to violate. How is the principle even remotely defensible, however, in a nation with our Constitution, the “supreme law of the land”?

One justice who apparently understands this is Clarence Thomas, who just wrote the majority opinion in a recent decision (Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt) overturning a 1979 precedent. He was the ideal candidate for the task, as it has been noted that he’s not a “Court conservative” as much as an originalist. A conservative, after all, would hew to the status quo, which here means honoring precedent. In contrast, as SCOTUSblog pointed out in 2007, Thomas “believes that precedent qua precedent concerning constitutional law has no value at all; he does not give stare decisis [the notion that judicial decisions should not be undone] any weight.”

This is why I’ve long said that Thomas is by far the best SCOTUS justice of recent decades (yes, that includes Scalia). Moreover, it’s certainly right to distinguish between Thomas’ originalism and being merely a “Court conservative,” which more and more is seeming akin to a court jester.

Why this is so was encapsulated well by British philosopher G.K. Chesterton when he wrote, “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition.”

Stare decisis’ folly should be obvious. In what other field would anyone assert that once a decision is made, it stays made? Since it’s a statistical certainty that not all decisions will be good ones, this standard only ensures the permanency of error.

Yet to fully grasp stare decisis’ outrageousness, an analogy is useful. Chief Justice John Roberts once correctly said that a judge’s role is only to call “balls and strikes” (this was before he decided that a ball could be a strike when striking a blow for statism). Expanding on this, judges are in fact like baseball umpires, whereas the players are akin to the people, the sport’s ruling body is a sort of legislature and the rulebook is essentially its constitution.

Now, it goes without saying that if an umpire “ruled” contrary to the rulebook — let’s say, refusing to call a player out after three strikes because he believed they were too few — we wouldn’t flatter his falsity and legitimize his legerdemain by calling him a “pragmatist” with a “living document” philosophy. We’d recognize him as a bad umpire derelict in his duty, and he’d be fired.

To the point, however, what would you say about someone who not only accepted his judgment, but viewed it as unchangeable “precedent”?

This notion is just as ridiculous when applied to judges — only far more dangerous. It should in fact disqualify someone from the bench, for justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution.

They do not take an oath to uphold other judges.

Imagine the reaction if we applied this stare decisis philosophy to President Trump’s determinations. Imagine we said that not only can he “change” the law on the basis that it’s “living,” but that his decisions should then be binding on all future presidents. How would that go over?

No, the analogy isn’t invalid because he’s not a black-robed lawyer. All these office-holders take an oath to uphold the Constitution — and none of them are supposed to be above that supreme law of the land.

Many want to be, though. Power is an aphrodisiac, and this brings us to why judges’ love affair with precedent reflects nothing noble. As Thomas Jefferson explained in an 1820 letter in which he warned about judicial supremacy, “Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps.”

This was perhaps reflected in liberal Justice Stephen Breyer’s reaction to the recently overturned precedent. “Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next,” he complained. A good justice would be concerned only with what unconstitutional precedent would not be overturned next.

But why is Breyer upset? Is it because he wants to maintain the power of his corps and its privilege of being above the law?

Stare decisis is just a euphemistic way of saying that judges’ decisions — “precedent” — should take precedence over the Constitution. This perverts our system. It undermines the republic. We’re supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The Constitution reflects the people’s will in that it was ratified by the states and because Americans tacitly approve it to this day it by allowing it to stand; after all, they can amend it through their representatives.

Yet when judges place their own opinions above the Constitution, such as when elevating precedent, they establish themselves as an oligarchy. We then don’t have the rule of law but the rule of lawyers, a government of, by and for those who’ve arrogated to themselves the power and privilege to manipulate the law according to their own will.

Note, too, that hard and fast respect for precedent actually has no precedent, as our history’s more than 100 overturned SCOTUS decisions attest. So why do leftists now act as if it’s sacrosanct?

Because after more than a century of moving the courts “left,” there’s now a large body of unconstitutional, leftist precedents that serve their agenda. Stare decisis is not for these people principle but ploy, a convenient value of the moment.

Thus, when going through the Senate confirmation process, the norm now is for more “conservative” judges to be asked if they’ll abide by certain precedents (i.e., Roe v. Wade). Translated, this is a demand to conserve yesterday’s progressives’ mistakes.

In reality, judicial nominees should be asked if they’ll respect precedent — and then be roundly rejected upon answering yes. For we can’t MAGA unless we MAJJA: Make American Judges Judges Again. For tolerating oligarchs in black robes ensures a dark future.

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

Maryland School Denigrates Christianity, Promotes Islam — Case gone to Supreme Court

/in , , , , /by

A taxpayer funded public school in Maryland instructed its students:

“Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”

“Islam at heart is a peaceful religion.”

Jihad is a “personal struggle in devotion to Islam, especially involving spiritual discipline.”

“To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”

“Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and “Righteous women are therefore obedient.”

Imagine the shock when 11th-grader at La Plata High School, Caleigh Wood, revealed this to her parents. More students and more parents need to actively need to get involved as Caleigh Wood did. She bravely stood up for her rights as a Christian. She stated that, as part of an assignment, she “was also required to profess in writing, the Islamic conversion creed, ‘There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.’” For refusing to concede to the sharia and standing “firm in her Christian beliefs”, Wood was punished for it and given a failing grade for non-compliance.

Her case has now gone to the supreme court. “The Thomas More Law Center has submitted a petition asking the high court to take up the case of student Caleigh Wood.” Its president, Richard Thompson warned:

Under the guise of teaching history or social studies, public schools across America are promoting the religion of Islam in ways that would never be tolerated for Christianity or any other religion.

Jihad Watch reported on May 19th that a Washington school district was caught promoting Islam for Ramadan through a CAIR initiative. Now lawyers have sent a cease and desist letter. Islamization happens rapidly if unnoticed and unchallenged. Parents need to be paying attention to what their children are being indoctrinated with and taught in schools.

“U.S. SCHOOL FAILS CHRISTIAN STUDENT FOR REFUSING ISLAMIC PRAYER”, World Net Daily, May 19, 2019:

The declarations could have been made by an imam in a mosque sermon.

“Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.”

“Islam at heart is a peaceful religion.”

Jihad is a “personal struggle in devotion to Islam, especially involving spiritual discipline.”

“To Muslims, Allah is the same God that is worshiped in Christianity and Judaism.”

“Men are the managers of the affairs of women” and “Righteous women are therefore obedient.”

The problem is that those statements were part of the instruction in a public school in Maryland, and one of the students in the classroom now is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to condemn such religious lessons funded by taxpayers.

The Thomas More Law Center has submitted a petition asking the high court to take up the case of student Caleigh Wood.

“As a Christian and 11th-grader at La Plata High School in Maryland, Caleigh Wood was taught that ‘Most Muslims’ faith is stronger than the average Christian.’ She was also required to profess in writing, the Islamic conversion creed, ‘There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.’ Ms. Wood believed that it is a sin to profess by word or in writing, that there is any other god except the Christian God. She stood firm in her Christian beliefs and was punished for it. The school refused her request to opt-out or give her an alternative assignment. She refused to complete her anti-Christian assignment and consequently received a failing grade,” the legal team explained Wednesday.

Lower courts have given a free pass to the school district to teach Islam, and so TMLC filed the request with the Supreme Court to decide “whether any legal basis exists to allow public schools to discriminate against Christianity while at the same time promote Islam.”

“Under the guise of teaching history or social studies, public schools across America are promoting the religion of Islam in ways that would never be tolerated for Christianity or any other religion,” said Richard Thompson, TMLC’s president.

“I’m not aware of any school which has forced a Muslim student to write the Lord’s Prayer or John 3:16: ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,’” he said.

“Many public schools have become a hot bed of Islamic propaganda. Teaching Islam in schools has gone far beyond a basic history lesson. Prompted by zealous Islamic activism and emboldened by confusing court decisions, schools are now bending over backwards to promote Islam while at the same time denigrate Christianity. We are asking the Supreme Court to provide the necessary legal guidance to resolve the insidious discrimination against Christians in our public schools,” he said.

Unresolved include whether or not schools can make preferential statements about one religion over another, and whether students may be required to assert religious beliefs with which they disagree.

And how do those concepts align with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”?

The Charles County public schools and officials are defendants.

The filing explains the lower courts, despite the First Amendment’s requirements, “upheld the ability for [the school] to denigrate Petitioner Caleigh Wood’s faith and require her to write out statements and prayers contradictory to her own religious beliefs.”….

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission.

One America News Network Has Strong Ratings Going into the 2020 Presidential Elections

/in , , , , /by

SAN DIEGO, May 22, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — One America News Network (“OAN“) announced today continued strong ratings as the 2020 Presidential Election season begins to reach top-of-mind awareness with television viewers. In a relatively short period, One America News Network, which launched its 24/7 cable news network on July 4, 2013, has established itself as a reliable source of national and international news with viewers across our nation. Network founder and CEO, Robert Herring, Sr. released the following statement:

Herring Networks, Inc. relies on a custom Comscore measurement solution powered by TV viewing from one MVPD partner across 70 U.S. markets. We have been working with Comscore since 2009 and believe its data is the most accurate in our industry, as it uses set-top box data, not sampling.  In March 2019, Comscore data shows that of the networks categorized exclusively as Cable, News/ Business/ Info networks, OAN ranked as the fourth-highest service in that genre, behind Fox News Channel, MSNBC, and CNN. OAN outperformed CNN Headline News, Fox Business Channel, CNBC, BBC World News, Fusion, Bloomberg and others, per the same March 2019 data. Also, for the March 2019 period, OAN outranked SyFy, Animal Planet, Nat Geo, Travel, and other well-established channels. Excluding all Broadcast channels, OAN ranked as the 40th national cable channel in March 2019 for the one MVPD included in the custom measurement. These custom rankings will vary from Comscore’s syndicated TV Essentials rankings, which cover Comscore’s full set-top box measurement in over 30MM households and 210 local markets.

Early this month, One America News also premiered a late-night comedy program called “Headlines Tonight with Drew Berquist“, which debuted on May 4th.  The new comedy series has earned a regular Saturday night time slot at 10 pm ET with encore presentations at midnight ET.

“Sometimes even the hardest core news viewer needs a break and a laugh.  Headlines Tonight with Drew Berquist delivers exactly that,” stated Robert Herring, Sr., CEO of One America News Network.  “It’s smart comedy done right.  We’re thrilled to bring this news-centric comedy program to OAN viewers.”

The debut episode can be watched in its entirety at: https://www.oann.com/headlinestonight/

About Headlines Tonight with Drew Berquist

Headlines Tonight with Drew Berquist is a late night comedy program airing exclusively on One America News Network.  Join Drew Berquist for the laughs as he reviews the latest news headlines with his own witty twists.  The Headlines Tonight cast delivers comical sketches and amusing parody of the leading headlines and newsmakers. When you need a break from the real news, Headlines Tonight with Drew Berquist delivers.

About One America News Network

One America News Network is a dependable, reliable source for credible live news reporting 24/7. It also provides two one-hour political talk shows, namely The Daily Ledger and Tipping Point with Liz Wheeler. While other established cable news networks offer just several hours of live news coverage, only OAN can claim to consistently provide 21 hours of live coverage Monday through Friday with extensive weekend coverage. In addition to external news-gathering sources, the network operates news bureaus in Washington, D.C., New York and California.  One America News Networkis available in 35 million homes on leading national cable providers, including AT&T U-verse, Buckeye Communications, CenturyLink PRISM TV, DirecTV, DirecTV NOW, Frontier Communications, GCI Communications, Service Electric, Verizon FiOS TV, and numerous regional video providers across the nation.  For more information on One America News Network, please visit www.OANN.com.

VIDEO: I Don’t Do Cover-Ups

/in , , , , /by

The Deep State and the Democrats are in complete panic mode as Pelosi pulls a trigger and ignites a bomb in a war of words stating that the President is covering up the Russia probe. In addition to that, they have invoked the “I” word as President Trump indicated, that being, impeachment. Here’s my take on this and it’s short and sweet.

Team Trump is narrowing in on them and they know that their covers, firewalls and insurance policies have blown up in their faces. Trump has laid all the traps and they are being drawn into them. The stage is being set for the checkmate.

Hang in there fellow patriots, hang in there. There will be NO impeachment and Trump has nothing to cover up. The whole damn thing was a hoax. The Deep State, and the Dems are in full scale panic mode gasping for their last breath as the de-class is underway. They are all going down. Think it’s intense now? Watch what happens over the coming weeks and months. We are with you President Trump. The people are with you 100%.