VIDEO: Panel on “Why Anti-Zionism is a Form of Anti-Semitism and a Threat to National Security”

/in , , , , , , /by

The Center for Security Policy hosted a panel at the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) titled “Why Anti-Zionism is a Form of Anti-Semitism and a Threat to National Security.”

Speakers included Center President Fred Fleitz, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), Rabbi Yechezkel Moskowitz of the National Council of Young Israel, Dan Pollak of the Zionist Organization of America and investigative journalist and author James Simpson.

During his opening remarks Fleitz noted that, “There is an effort right now to dress up supposed criticisms of the Israeli government and Prime Minister Netanyahu as just criticisms of their policies, that there’s nothing against the state of Israel. This is not right. This is repackaged anti-Semitism. It is repackaged Israel hatred to delegitimize the state of Israel and the state of Israel’s very right to exist.”

He said that, “The point that I want this panel to make is that anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel is soaring on the left and this is a real danger for this country.”

Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) noted that the U.S. reaps tangible benefits from its relationship with Israel. Citing an example from his own experience, he said that when he served as an Apache helicopter pilot he utilized Israeli-developed technology.

The Pennsylvania Congressman said that “there’s one democratic nation in the Middle East that believes in Western values, and it’s Israel.” He described the Jewish State as a “little oasis of freedom” in the region.

During his remarks, Rabbi Yechezkel Moskowitz stated:

From my perspective the greatest existential threat to the Jewish people in this country is the liberal progressive Jewish community. I think that what they’ve done is that they’ve replaced Judaism with liberal progressivism. It’s become practically speaking a religion for them,” he explained, saying that “in order to push forward their liberal progressive agenda, they are willing to throw Israel under the bus.

Watch a recording of the event below:

VIDEO: West Virginia AG Sues Disgraced Bishop, Diocese Over Sex Abuse Cover-up

/in , , , , , , , /by

Suit alleges Bp. Michael Bransfield knowingly employed ‘credibly accused pedophiles’

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (ChurchMilitant.com) – In an unprecedented legal move, the state of West Virginia has filed suit against Catholic authorities over sex abuse cover-up.

On Tuesday, state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced a civil action against the diocese of Wheeling-Charleston and its disgraced former bishop, Michael J. Bransfield, for allegedly “deceiving consumers and claiming their schools were safe when they were employing credibly accused pedophiles.”

Diocesan officials are accused of violating West Virginia consumer protection laws by marketing Catholic schools as safe for children even as they “chose to cover up and conceal arguably criminal behavior of child sexual abuse.”

The announcement follows six months of investigation into whether “Catholic priests who were active or had been employed in West Virginia had been accused of sexually abusing children.”

Morrisey launched the inquiry in September after the Pennsylvania grand jury report revealed that 301 priests — including one who had worked in Wheeling-Charleston — were responsible for abusing more than 1,000 children across the Keystone State.

The suit notes that “although the state has not fully completed its investigation” — which it blamed in part on “the lack of cooperation from the Diocese” — justice officials have learned that Wheeling-Charleston “has engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices by failing to disclose to consumers of its educational and recreational services that it employed priests and laity who have sexually abused children, including an admitted abuser who the Diocese nevertheless allowed to work in a Catholic elementary school.”

According to the lawsuit, Wheeling-Charleston officials “knew of sexual abuse complaints against priests of the Diocese, but, did not disclose the conduct to criminal law authorities or to parents paying for educational or recreational services.”

The complaint alleges, for example, that after confessing to homosexually abusing a student at St. Joseph Preparatory Seminary High School in Vienna, Fr. Patrick Condron was sent away for “evaluation and treatment” at two different facilities. After these stints away, without notifying parents, the diocese reassigned Fr. Condron to Wheeling Catholic Elementary School, where he worked from 1998 to 2001.

“Parents who pay and entrust the Wheeling-Charleston Diocese and its schools to educate and care for their children deserve full transparency,” Morrisey said Tuesday. “Our investigation reveals a serious need for the diocese to enact policy changes that will better protect children, just as this lawsuit demonstrates our resolve to pursue every avenue to effectuate change as no one is above the law.”

Observers are suggesting West Virginia’s action could set a new precedent for combating clerical sex abuse.

“This is the most that we’ve seen so far in terms of prosecution, in terms of someone in the higher levels of the hierarchy,” said Marci Hamilton of CHILD USA. “This is the first time we’ve seen a comprehensive claim against a whole diocese and a bishop.”

Tuesday’s announcement is the latest in a barrage of bad news for Bp. Bransfield, who in September resigned in disgrace amid credible allegations he sexually harassed adult males.

After investigating the accusations, last week, Baltimore Abp. William Lori, apostolic administrator of Wheeling-Charleston, declared that Bransfield can no longer exercise his priestly function.

Bransfield is also being scrutinized over his close association with serial sexual predator Theodore McCarrick. The former West Virginia bishop was consecrated by McCarrick in 2005 and later served as president of the board of trustees for the Papal Foundation, a multi-million-dollar enterprise co-founded by McCarrick and wracked by scandal over its questionable grant making practices.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Texas Library Allows Sexual Predator at Drag Queen Story Time

Since Christ Is Our Foundation, Fundamentalism Is Love

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column with video is republished with permission.

Guess Which Abrahamic Religion Shut Down Public School ‘LGBT Rights’ Classes in England?

/in , , , /by

QUESTIONS:

  1. Who are the victims in this case, those who are gay or those who follow the teachings of Mohammed?
  2. Which is worse Islamophobia or Homophobia?

It appears that in “tolerant” England there is a serious clash of cultures arising. Multicultural Great Britain created and funded the No Outsiders Project. According to the UK’s Economic and Research Council:

This [No Outsiders project] is a 28-month project (September 2006 to December 2008), supporting primary teachers in developing strategies to address lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality in their own schools and classrooms.

The goals of the No Outsiders project are:

  • To add to the understanding of the operation of heteronormativity (the assumption that heterosexuality is normal, so anything else is abnormal) in school contexts.
  • To create a community of practice within which teachers can develop effective approaches to addressing sexualities equality within the broader context of inclusive education.

The No Outsiders “inclusion” classes are now being taught throughout Great Britain.

Merriam-Webster defines heteronormativity as, “of, relating to, or based on the attitude that heterosexuality is the only normal and natural expression of sexuality.”

Islamophobia versus Homophobia

The three Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) all believe sodomy is a sin. Ash-Shura 25:165-166 states:

Do you approach males among the worlds (165). And leave what your Lord has created for you as mates? But you are a people transgressing.”(166)

Quran 4:16 reads, “And the two who commit it [sodomy] among you, dishonor them both. But if they repent and correct themselves, leave them alone. Indeed, Allah is ever Accepting of repentance and Merciful.”

Who will win this argument in the end? The followers of Mohammed or those UK teachers of No Outsiders “inclusion”?

Intersectionality at a Crossroads

Intersectionality always hits a road block when two self-identified “oppressed minority groups” get into who’s the greater victim fight. So it is with the Muslim ummah and the LGBT community in Great Britain. In a BBC column titled “LGBT lessons row: More Birmingham schools stop classes“ Sima Kotecha writes:

Four more schools in Birmingham have stopped teaching about LGBT rights following complaints by parents.

Leigh Trust said it was suspending the No Outsiders programme until an agreement with parents was reached.

Earlier this month the city’s Parkfield Community School suspended the lessons after protests were held.

Campaigner Amir Ahmed said some Muslims felt “victimised” but an LGBT group leader said No Outsiders helped pupils understand it is OK to be different.

Watch this YouTube video “Muslim Parents Livid over LGBT Sex Education Lessons at their Children’s School“:

As parents begin to understand that their children are being indoctrinated on values that they find abhorrent we will see more of these kinds of programs dismantled. Religious beliefs trump sin every time.

RELATED ARTICLE: Transgender Professor Unhappy Some Believe Biological Males shouldn’t be Allowed to Compete in Women’s Sports

Questions on Two Abuse Cases – and a Good Development

/in , , , , /by

Fr. Gerald E. Murray: With more work needed, accountability and transparency about sexual offenses by bishops seem to be the new order of the day.

The Archdiocese of Baltimore recently announced the finding of credible accusations of sexual abuse of adults committed by two bishops: Michael Bransfield, former bishop of Wheeling-Charleston, WV; and Gordon D. Bennett, retired bishop of Mandeville, Jamaica (and earlier, auxiliary bishop of Baltimore).

Bransfield was investigated regarding “multiple allegations of sexual harassment of adults and financial improprieties.” The final determination of guilt or innocence lies with the Holy See. Baltimore Archbishop William Lori, who was appointed the Apostolic Administrator of Wheeling-Charleston by Pope Francis when Bransfield retired last September, stipulated: “Bishop Bransfield is not authorized to exercise any priestly or episcopal ministry either within the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston or within the Archdiocese of Baltimore.” (Pope Francis had asked Lori to investigate when he accepted Bransfield’s request for retirement at age 75.)

What first strikes me here is Lori’s provision that Bransfield may not exercise episcopal or priestly ministry in the Baltimore or Wheeling-Charleston. I can only guess that this provision was imposed or consented to, in some way, by the Holy See.

Lori does not have authority in canon law to prohibit a fellow bishop, who is not subject to a canonical penalty or to restrictive disciplinary provisions publicly imposed by the Holy See, from exercising his priestly and episcopal ministry.

The Holy See and the Baltimore Archdiocese should clarify this. I am not opposed to restrictions being placed on Bransfield. But Archbishop Lori’s authority does not extend that far. Only the pope can place such restrictions on a bishop.

Lori could have prohibited Catholic institutions in his two dioceses from inviting Bransfield to exercise any public functions. But he does not have the authority, for instance, to prohibit, in a universal way, Bransfield from hearing confessions or anointing the sick in Wheeling if such priestly ministrations are requested.

The announcement also revealed that “[a]s part of recently announced protocols governing the conduct of bishops in the Archdiocese, Archbishop Lori determined that similar restrictions were warranted in the case of former Auxiliary Bishop of Baltimore, Gordon Bennett, S.J. . . .In May 2006, the Archdiocese learned of an allegation of sexual harassment of a young adult by Bishop Bennett. . . .the Archdiocese immediately reported it to the Apostolic Nunciature in Washington, D.C. . . .As a result of these restrictions, which the Holy See recently gave permission to the Archbishop to announce, Bishop Bennett is prohibited from exercising any priestly or episcopal ministry in the Archdiocese of Baltimore and the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston.”

In this case, the Holy See has imposed these restrictions on the bishop and allowed Lori to announce it publicly. But questions remain about what happened back in 2006, and why we are only learning about this now.

An AP story posted at the America magazine website comments: “Bennett was cleared of the sexual harassment allegation in 2009 and reinstated to limited episcopal ministry subject to oversight, the Jesuits’ USA West province said in a statement Monday. But amid ongoing questions about how misconduct allegations were handled in the past, Bennett’s case was re-examined last year and the Congregation for Bishops in Rome recently determined he shouldn’t exercise episcopal ministry, the province said. The future of his priestly ministry is up to his Jesuit superiors.”

So Bennett was cleared in 2009, but nevertheless was at the same time put under some form of restriction and supervision. Why was he subject to this provision if he was found not to be guilty? And then last year his case was re-examined and he was found to be unsuitable for the exercise of episcopal ministry, presumably because he was now found guilty of the serious canonical offense of sexual harassment of a young adult.

Yet, his further exercise of priestly ministry, as opposed to strictly episcopal ministry, is an open question to be decided upon by “his Jesuit superiors”? This is puzzling for two reasons.

First, Gordon Bennett is a bishop, thus he is not under the authority of the Jesuit superiors of the province to which he formerly belonged. He is under the authority of the Holy See alone. If he has, in fact, been deprived of the exercise of his episcopate, then the Holy See should state that and indicate that he has been placed under the authority of the Jesuits.

Second, why would he even be considered eligible for the further exercise of priestly ministry if his past actions have led the Holy See to prohibit him from exercising his role as bishop? Why would the Holy See make this split decision? A clarification is very much needed.

This double announcement marks an important step in the ongoing abuse crisis, even given the canonical questions that remain. A bishop (Bransfield) was subject to a thorough investigation by lay experts assisting the archbishop (Lori) who had been asked by the Holy See to look into serious allegations of sexual harassment of adults.

The Holy See is clearly responding to the widespread dissatisfaction with the way similar charges were dealt with in the past, as was the case of a bishop (Bennett) who was allowed to resign quietly in 2006 after the papal nuncio was informed of an allegation of sexual harassment of an adult.

The bishop was allowed in 2009 to continue his episcopal ministry in a new location under some form of private, unpublicized restriction and oversight, even though the Holy See, according to the Jesuit provincial, had “cleared” him of the charge of sexual harassment. That decision has now been set aside by the Holy See, presumably because it could not be defended – if it came to light publicly.

The bottom line here is: accountability and transparency regarding episcopal sexual canonical offenses with adults are the new order of the day. The grave injustice of the protection of sexual predator bishops by the Holy See when the victims were above the age of 18 years has been acknowledged. This is a very positive development. Let’s hope we see many more.

COLUMN BY

Fr. Gerald E. Murray

The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. is a canon lawyer and the pastor of Holy Family Church in New York City.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Media Ignores Slaughter of Nigerian Christians

/in , , , , /by

At least 120 killed in recent attacks as deadly violence continues for over a year.

ABUJA, Nigeria (ChurchMilitant.com) – International news is nearly silent as Muslim militants continue killing Christians in Nigeria.

At least 120 Nigerian Christians have been killed since early February in a string of violent attacks that are being attributed to Fulani militants.

On March 11 alone, a string of attacks left 53 dead and 143 homes destroyed in the villages of Inkirimi and Dogonnoma in the Kajuru Local Government Area in Kaduna State, Nigeria.

Just a day before that, an attack on the village of Ungwan Barde killed 17 people and destroyed dozens of homes. One month prior, about 16 people had been killed in Ungwan Barde village in a series of attacks on Feb. 9 and 10.

The governor of Kaduna State imposed a curfew last week on the local government area owing to the deadly outbreak of violence.

On Feb. 26, some 32 Nigerian Christians were killed in the Maro district of the Kaduna State. The attackers burned down an evangelical church and shot people fleeing. This violence was also suspected to be the work of Fulani militants.

Local lawmakers say the recent attacks have displaced at least 3,000 locals, with many people’s homes destroyed and many others fleeing for safety.

In Benue State, Fulani attacks on several villages on March 4 left 23 dead.

Violence by Fulani militants in Nigeria exploded over a year ago. The Fulani are a majority-Muslim ethnic group, and many Fulani live as semi-nomadic herdsmen.

Christian communities in rural parts of Nigeria are commonly the victims of violence by Fulani militants.

In addition to the ethnic and religious differences, some trace the violence to changes in Nigerian law that made it harder for Fulani herdsmen to find land for their herds.

In November 2017, the Nigerian government banned herdsmen from having their livestock graze on other people’s property. The law was aimed at avoiding clashes between the Muslim herdsmen and Christian villagers — but the explosion of violence seems to prove that the policy change only escalated tensions.

Fulani gunmen in Benue State shot up a Catholic church during an early morning Mass in April 2018, killing two priests and about 15 laity. The priests’ deaths sparked protests in the weeks that followed, with Catholic clergy calling on the Nigerian government to better protect its citizens.

In May 2018, suspected Fulani militants attacked a Catholic seminary. Gunmen assailed two priests and a handful of seminarians at Sacred Heart Minor Seminary in Jalingo, the capital city of Taraba State in Nigeria. The attackers beat the priests with rods, shooting one of them in the leg, and did damage to an automobile and other property.

In June 2018, some Christians farmers allegedly attacked Fulani herdsmen. In the series of retaliatory attacks that followed, Fulani gunmen killed about 120 people in Plateau State in central Nigeria. There were apparently disputes regarding the exact body count; it could be as low as 86 people or as high as 200.

The outbreak of violent clashes with Fulani militants came just as Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram was on the decline in Nigeria. Government forces beat back the terror organization with significant help from overseas powers — including the United States.

Amid the Fulani violence, some Nigerians have laid blame on President Muhammadu Buhari, who is of Fulani descent.

Bishop William Amove Avenya of the diocese of Gboko in Benue State warned last year that Fulani violence could quickly become a full-fledged genocide against Christians in central Nigeria.

“Please don’t make the same mistake as was made with the genocide in Rwanda,” Bp. Avenya told Aid to the Church in Need in June last year. “It happened under our noses, but no one stopped it. And we know well how that ended.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant column is republished with permission.

Democrat Party meeting about anti-Semitism features anti-Semitic jokes, Omar won’t affirm Israel’s right to exist

/in , , , , , , /by

This meeting makes it clear that the Democrats are not going to be able to remove anti-Semitism from the party. Hatred of Jews and Israel, and uncritical acceptance of “Palestinian” jihad propaganda, is shared among too much of their base. And whenever they’re challenged, Omar and Tlaib claim victim status and cry “Islamophobia.” It has worked well for them so far, so expect much more of it.

“Dem Lawmakers Admit During Private Meeting They Don’t Know What Anti-Semitism Looks Like,” by Mikhael Smits, Washington Free Beacon, March 18, 2019:

A meeting of Democratic lawmakers about anti-Semitism in the party included anti-Semitic jokes and unapologetic members of Congress, the Washington Post reports.

In the wake of anti-Semitic comments from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) and several closed-door conferences by Democrats to discuss related issues within the party, Rep. Andy Levin (D., Mich.), a former synagogue president, organized a meeting as “a more formal event that would focus on anti-Semitism.” The March 5 meeting of Muslim and Jewish lawmakers was a “moment meant to be about listening and learning” about the “raw experiences” of the elected officials, according to the Post….

During the meeting, some Democratic members “admitted they didn’t know what anti-Semitism looks like,” according to the Post.

To help manage the conversation, which was previously unreported, Levin invited Bend the Arc, a left-wing organization deeply critical of Israel and Republicans. In a recent tweet, the group called for Americans to “reject the Islamophobic policies our government is built on.”

When a Bend the Arc organizer in the room made a joke “about Jews and money,” Rep. Jahana Hayes (D., Conn.) questioned why the facilitator could talk like that when someone like Hayes could not. She later told the Post no one should be making comments of the sort.

“It’s not okay,” Hayes said when asked about the specific exchange. “These [sorts of jokes] are off-limits. It’s confusing for someone like me who is trying to learn.”

It took nearly two hours before a Democrat brought up the repeated anti-Semitism of Omar, the impetus for the entire conversation. The congresswoman, a member of the Progressive Caucus, has drawn scrutiny and condemnation since taking office in January for a series of anti-Semitic remarks.

Rep. Dean Phillips (D., Minn.), a Jew who represents a district neighboring Omar’s, told the room he considered her comments to be “tips of the arrow” of Jew hatred in America. According to “several participants” who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity, Phillips asked Omar to apologize and “publicly affirm Israel’s right to exist and protect itself.”

Phillips’s request that Omar support the right of Jews to exist in the Jewish state and in the United States “stunned the three Muslim Democrats in the room.”

Omar did not reply to the Jewish member’s request. Instead, one of her allies responded by changing the subject to the Palestinians. Tlaib “grew emotional and started to cry as she spoke of her grandmother’s suffering in the West Bank at the hands of Israelis,” according to the Post….

Tlaib defended Omar then, too. She claimed calls for Omar to leave the House Foreign Affairs Committee were a form of “Islamophobia,” not a proper response to anti-Semitism. Likewise, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) defended Omar, claiming the outrage, much of it voiced by American Jews, was really a scheme “designed to prevent us from taking on the question of our foreign policy toward Israel.”…

RELATED ARTICLE: Too Many Are Ignoring the Rise of Anti-Semitism on the Left

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

The Divided States of America

/in , , , /by

“We’re at war,” one frustrated Californian wrote to her local paper. “Not with another country, not with terrible diseases and plagues, not with ruthless dictators. We are at war with ourselves.” Red, blue, purple — America is a tangle of ideologies all pulling in different directions. These days, as the debates rage on, the map no longer seems to show state lines — but ideological battle lines.

It’s not as if Americans have always seen eye to eye on every issue. But the days of even general consensus seem lost. Things that we used to take for granted — values like common decency and civility — are suddenly rare. Issues that were once uncontested — the value of a fully born human life — are suddenly grounds for fierce debate. In the states, the see-saw battles are even more pronounced.

In Illinois, New York, and Rhode Island, locals have watched leaders fight to make newborn killing legal — while Missouri, North Carolina, and Arkansas try to stop doctors from dismembering babies in the womb. In one state, legal infanticide is a street party. In another, it’s a cause for community mourning. And it’s not just abortion. On education, sexuality, gender identity, immigration, and counseling, the gulfs are growing.

But how people think about the issues is just one part of the divide. “According to Pew Research, there are no issues that are widely considered top priorities by both Democrats and Republicans today. The average partisan gap between the parties’ rankings of priority issues in 2019 is 19 points, representing a 36 percent increase over the last two decades… Even as recently as 2014, the top priorities of Democrats and Republicans were much more aligned than they are today.”

There are profound differences in how the two sides view the world today. Not since slavery has there been such a stark contrast between the ideologies of the states. America survived, but barely. Of course, the silver lining is that things can shift quickly. We’ve seen entire scripts flip on abortion after the New York law. In a matter of weeks, the number of people calling themselves “pro-life” jumped by 17 points. Change is possible — but it’s also up to us.

As William Penn once said, “Governments, like clocks, go from the motion men give them… and as governments are made and moved by men, so by them they are ruined too… Let men be good, and the government cannot be bad.”

If we want good government, we need good people in it. We can’t have morally strong policies if the character of our leaders is weak. It’s time for Americans — and the church in particular — to step up in ways they haven’t before. One view is ultimately going to prevail. If we want it to be the view that our founders held, that we “hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” then we have to step forward and advance those core American and biblical values.

We can’t put the nation on cruise control or think someone else will take care of it. We have to be engaged — from the school board and city council right up to Congress. Make sure you’re supporting solid candidates — or prayerfully consider becoming one. The future of the country depends on it.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Grudge Report

SPLC Fights Fire with Fired

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

PODCAST: IISS vs INSS — David vs Goliath

/in , , , , /by

Readers will recall that several weeks ago, I began a series of comparative analyses between our hard-pressed IISS and the well-heeled INSS, highlighting the huge imbalance in the resources that we each have at our disposal to advance our respective agendas.

But the difference is not only in the massive imbalance in resources but in the substance of the countervailing policy paradigms that each institute endorses.

To help redress this imbalance, click HERE to make a donation. 

EDITORS NOTE: This column with The Israel Connexion podcast is republished with permission.

Hatred For Trump Transcends Safeguarding Americans

/in , , , , , , /by

A bureaucrat is the most despicable of men, though he is needed as vultures are needed, but one hardly admires vultures whom bureaucrats so strangely resemble. I have yet to meet a bureaucrat who was not petty, dull, almost witless, crafty or stupid, an oppressor or a thief, a holder of little authority in which he delights, as a boy delights in possessing a vicious dog. Who can trust such creatures?  – Marcus Tullius Cicero

Politicians are not born; they are excreted. – Marcus Tullius Cicero

The above quotes from Cicero were long ago, as is this quote from President George Washington, the Father of our Nation at his Farewell Address September 19, 1796, “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

Today is no different than the days of Cicero who died 43 years BC, and Washington who died in 1799.  See the Book of Ecclesiastes.

The Twelve Betrayals

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer believe spending $5 billion for a wall is a waste of money, but $155 billion per year in support to illegals is a human right.  The twelve republicans who went against our President’s wishes to secure our border and protect American citizens from terrorists, drug pushers, child traffickers, MS-13 gangs, and criminal aliens have every excuse in the book, but none of them can withstand the scrutiny of Trump’s supporters.

How many outcries did we hear when past presidents proclaimed multiple national emergencies?  Very few!  Here’s the list all the way back to President Jimmy Carter.

The National Emergencies Act (NEA) (Pub.L. 94–412, 90 Stat. 1255, enacted September 14, 1976, and signed by Republican President Gerald Ford, (codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1601–1651) is a United States federal law passed to end all previous national emergencies and to formalize the emergency powers of the President.

The following twelve Senators who voted against our President’s National Emergency were NeverTrumpers.

The following comments about the Senators who betrayed our President match the order of the photos.  These Senators and more disavow the Republican party platform of pro-life and a border wall, both of which were secured at Republican conventions by Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Phyllis Schlafly Eagles.  These Senators are some of the “Kingmakers” Phyllis spoke about in her book, A Choice Not an Echo.  They are not Constitutional Conservatives.

Sen. Roger Wicker (Mississippi) Wicker said in a statement earlier this week: “The precedent we set this year might empower a future liberal President to declare emergencies to enact gun control or to address ‘climate emergencies,’ or even to tear down the wall we are building today.” Wicker, an Air Force veteran, won re-election comfortably last fall in a state Trump carried by nearly 20 points in 2016.

Sen. Marco Rubio (Florida) Marco used the same excuse as Wicker.  However, in 2011, Rubio hoped to polish his foreign policy credentials for an eventual presidential campaign, and so he thoroughly backed Hillary Clinton’s War on Libya. Following the murder of Gaddafi, Rubio, McCain and Graham celebrated with the rebels they helped to arm, just a year before these rebels attacked the embassy in Benghazi. We know the rest of the story.  And Rubio loved the H-1B Visas for foreign aliens who replaced American workers at Disney World, after they had to train them!  He actually has proposed that we triple the Visas.  Of course, Disney is one of Rubio’s biggest financial boosters.

Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio) Portman had worked with Mike Lee on the compromise resolution. The two-term senator said that while he supported Trump’s request for border wall funding, an emergency declaration is not necessary to secure those funds, and that the declaration would set a “dangerous precedent.”  Sure, protecting Americans from criminal illegals is beyond your understanding.  His association with Mike Lee lets us know Portman is another NeverTrumper.

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) Ahhh yes, Susan Collins who voted for Justice Kavanaugh, and was applauded.  However, this pro-abort Senator has close ties to both of the Bush presidents.  And now, National Collins-mania reached a frenzy after a recent appearance on Maine Public Radio, in which she seemed to endorse the idea of the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaing Trump’s tax returns as part of its investigation into ties with Russia.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) Lisa Murkowski is another pro-abort Senator.  The Republican platform is pro-life, but you’d never know it by some of the Republicans in the House and Senate.

Sen. Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania) Toomey replaced Arlen Spector in the Senate.  He is an anti-gunner, he wants laws tightened, as though the guns and the second amendment are the problems.  Democrat Joe Manchin and Toomey joined in a proposal for universal background checks for gun purchases, which failed. He has disagreed with Trump many times, and like the rest of these 12, he claims the National Emergency is a “separation of powers issue.”  It didn’t seem to bother him when used by previous presidents.

Sen. Roy Blunt (Missouri) Blunt claims he too is concerned about the precedent Trump’s National Emergency would set.  Apparently, it didn’t bother Blunt when Presidents Clinton, Bush or Obama used the National Emergency Act which was signed by President Gerald Ford in 1976.  Senator Blunt was a Congressional Representative from 1977 to 2011 when he became a Senator.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tennessee) Good old Lamar, the man who joined with our corrupt “Christian Conservative” Governor Bill Haslam, owner of the FBI raided Pilot Oil/Flying J to promote state internet sales taxes.  Senator Alexander agreed with Obama Education Czar Arne Duncan regarding common core standards, and Skinnerian behavioral training in our government schools.  For more information on Alexander, read my four-part article on this neo-con Trotskyite.

Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) Willard Mitt Romney absolutely hates Donald Trump, despite the fact that Trump endorsed and funded Romney when he ran against Obama in 2012.  Romney’s running mate was former Speaker Paul Ryan, another NeverTrumper.  While Governor of Massachusetts, Romney was ahead of Obama in promoting government-controlled healthcare, which financed abortion with a $50 co-pay and funded abortion statewide through taxpayer monies.  He opposed a Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Constitutional amendment, and said homosexuals should be allowed in the boy scouts.  Governor Romney officially celebrated “Gay-Straight Youth Pride Day,” and sat on the board of directors for a leading purveyor of pornography without opposing the corporation’s exploitation of women.  As for Smart Growth and UN Agenda 21, Romney is all for it.  Link

Sen. Rand Paul (Kentucky) “What is underappreciated is their passion for freedom, and their commitment to ideas.  Unlike many crony capitalists who troll the halls of Congress looking for favors, the Kochs have consistently lobbied against special-interest politics.” The Senator said this right after he announced he was running for President in April of 2015.  I believe Rand’s comments stem from the fact that he may have received Koch funding for his presidential run.

Like the Kochs, Rand Paul is a libertarian, but Rand claims to be pro-life, yet he finds no problem with pro-aborts like the two brothers.  Koch-sponsored libertarianism means open borders, legal dope and prostitution, abortion and gay rights, extreme pornography, an American military withdrawal from the rest of the world, and “free trade” with Russia and China. Link

Senator Paul is promoting a Constitutional Convention as are the Kochs who massively fund American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization who has promoted a con-con for decades, and which was founded by the first President of Heritage Foundation. Link

Sen. Jerry Moran (Kansas) Moran is just like the rest of the neo-cons, he believes the law passed by Congress giving the President National Emergency powers is unconstitutional. Senator Moran voted against President Trump’s 2017 executive order imposing a temporary ban on entry to the U.S. to citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries.  Moran only announced his support for Trump after he became the presumptive nominee.

Sen. Mike Lee (Utah) Lee has never supported Trump and tried his best, along with Ken Cuccinelli, to derail him from becoming the nominee.  Now, Lee has introduced legislation to curb the president’s power to declare a national emergency.  Under Lee’s proposal, if a president were to declare a national emergency, Congress would have to approve it within 30 days or it would automatically expire.

The Senator loves free trade, loves H-1B Visas, and supported legislation that would bring more Muslims into America.  Link  Lee has joined with democrats like Durbin and Schumer to vote against mandatory prison sentences for deported illegal aliens who enter our country again. This bill was in response to the illegal who killed Kathryn Steinle and had re-entered the U.S. five times.

Not a single one of these Republicans are true Constitutional conservatives. Trump vetoed their vote, and this is what he said about his first veto.

Illegal Immigration

President Trump is fighting to protect American citizens from criminal illegal aliens, and from the destruction of this country via the Islamic refugee resettlement programs.  The Socialist Democrat Party fights him at every turn, and many Republicans join with them to derail the President’s promises to the American people.

There is nothing immoral about protecting America’s citizens although the Democrat Party claims it is.  Congress passed the National Emergencies Act during the Ford administration, and nothing in the law says the President can’t use his own judgment in declaring an emergency.

President Trump has publicly warned the governments of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala that if they don’t take steps to stop the latest caravan of bogus asylum invaders, he will cut off aid to the countries. While this is a good first step, it won’t deter the invasion unless we stop admitting the invaders and implementing catch-and-release under orders from illegitimate court rulings, as we did with the previous caravan and countless tens of thousands of others coming in with less pomp. And that would hold true even with a border wall. They just come to our points of entry, surrender themselves, get released into our communities, and never show up to their hearings until and unless they wind up committing crimes.

Our Sovereignty at Risk

Anyone who tells you that the president doesn’t have the authority to exclude anyone for any reason doesn’t deserve to live in a sovereign nation. Sovereignty trumps everything. There is nothing in our statutes that forces the president to admit anyone he feels is a problem. In fact, as Conservative Review has previously noted, he has inherent executive powers from Article II, as well as delegated authority from Congress under existing law, to stop taking in immigrants at the border or through visas for as much time as he deems necessary.

It all boils down to bogus asylum and catch-and-release. Either Trump ends those, or everything else is just talk. While Trump is right to ask Congress to step in, we’ve noted before that the statute is already clear that these people do not qualify as asylees and that the unaccompanied teenagers do not qualify as refugees

As the Supreme Court said in a landmark 1950 case, “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty. The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation.”

This is why for the first 100 years of our country, immigration was entirely controlled by diplomatic correspondence through the State Department. The president was clearly using this authority when communicating with the leader of the country of origin of this caravan.

Trump can simply shut the door and demand that any legitimate asylum claims be processed through our 10 or so consulates in Mexico.  The president needs to threaten not just Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, but Mexico with diplomatic sanctions.

As Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, told Daniel Horowitz in an email, “The president should be leaning on Mexico and the sending nations that their facilitation of this problem is immoral, shameful, and will adversely affect our bilateral relationship.”  Link

In declaring a state of emergency pursuant to the NEA, President Trump is using pre-existing statutory authority to address a legitimate crisis created by lawless conduct at and beyond our southern border. Our president is protecting our country’s borders through means contemplated by Congress and used many times by past presidents for matters less directly threatening than those present on the southern border.  Link

Let the Congress critters know what you think and that you support our President!

Foreign National Attempts Entry To Ft. Bragg, N.C.: Why So Little Media Attention?

/in , , , , , /by

The incident that caused the Special Operations Facility to briefly close its gates happened a week ago today and according to the Fayetteville Observer the illegal alien arrested that day is expected in court today.

A week ago and we just learn about it this week! 

And, as of this morning the only media outlets reporting are the Fayetteville Observer and now Big League Politics.  Very strange!

The Observer has a very thorough report on the incident (thanks to reader Cathy for directing our attention to the puzzling news).

Here is a bit of what the Observer said about the suspicious incident,

The man who caused Fort Bragg’s All American gate to be closed for several hours Tuesday has been arrested and will have a detention hearing at 9 a.m. Tuesday in Raleigh to face charges related to obstruction of justice.

Nouran Ahmad Shihab Sueidan was seen by a magistrate of the U.S. District Court of North Carolina on Wednesday.

An affidavit presented to the judge from the investigator of Fort Bragg’s Military Police Investigations and Provost Marshal Office states at about 10:30 a.m. Tuesday that Sueidan attempted to access Fort Bragg.

Sueidan allegedly refused to provide identification to gate guards.

“The gate guards informed Sueidan that he could not enter Fort Bragg without producing identification, at which point he insisted that he needed to enter Fort Bragg,” the investigator said in the affidavit.

Sueidan later provided an expired Jordanian passport, an expired Texas driver’s license, expired vehicle registration and no proof of vehicle insurance.

[….]

“When Sueidan was informed that he would not be able to enter Fort Bragg, he insisted that he had a foreign military identification and that he needed to make entry to the installation to “take a tour of the Special Operations facility to identify if it was worth his time,’” the investigator wrote in the affidavit.

The investigator said Sueidan became agitated and insisted that all he wanted to do was tour the special operations facility.

Officers at the scene detained him for his safety and the safety of others, the investigator said.

He said some very strange things and resisted efforts to handcuff him.

Continue reading here.

ICE has lodged a detainer against Sueidan signalling that he is in the country illegally.

Readers need to know that North Carolina has been attractive to Muslim migrants for decades (KSM went to college there!) and it is also consistently a top refugee resettlement state.  See my extensive North Carolina archive here at Refugee Resettlement Watch with stories going back a decade.

What do you do? As we continue to note, the mainstream media is not doing its job and so it is up to you to send stories like this out widely to your social media networks.

LOL! By the way, I just saw news yesterday about how Facebook and Twitter identify you as a conservative to be watched on social media.  They have buzz words and phrases that they set algorithms to flag.  One phrase we use that tags us as America Firsters is “mainstream media.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

Democracy vs. Republic

/in , , , , /by

One of my pet peeves involving politics is when people misstate our form of government. Normally, I would claim this as the fault of uneducated young people, but many politicians, members of the press, as well as grown-ups are also guilty of this faux pas. No, we most definitely do not live in a “democracy,” but a “constitutional republic” instead, as does most of the governments in the world.

In its truest sense, democracy means “Rule by the People,” meaning a system of government whereby the populace votes directly on each and every issue. When you consider the voluminous number of bills and candidates to be voted upon, this is simply not feasible, regardless if we had the most sophisticated computer software to do so. Time should be allotted to deliberate on each piece of legislation and, to do so, would require citizens to devote most of their time to such study, and not tend to their own business.

This is why we elect politicians, to represent our interests so the populace doesn’t have to vote on every bill, large or small, and explains why we refer to this as a “representative democracy,” aka “republic.” Here, the elected representatives are governed by a rule of law, such as a constitution, which defines the structure and responsibility of executive, legislative, and judicial tasks. Consequently, we call this form of government a “constitutional republic,” which is a more accurate description of our government than “democracy.” It should also be noted that under this form of government, the head of state is not a monarch, such as a King or Queen, which lends itself more to being a “monarchy” as opposed to a free-standing “republic.”

Every now and then, we hear a politician or member of the media proclaim, “This (or that) is a threat to our democracy.” This tells me they haven’t a clue as to what they are talking about. Instead, they should have said, “This is a threat to our republic.” Alas though, they do not.

The Democrats also have a problem with the name, particularly when they refer to themselves as the “Democratic” party. This too is incorrect. However, it is often difficult to describe the party, audibly or in writing, without making this common mistake. The term “Democracy” is so imbued in our culture, the Democrats try capitalizing on it to confuse the public, portraying the word “republic” as a constitutional threat to the country. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is now the largest socialist organization in the United States and aside from their far-left agenda, it is difficult to discern if they truly embrace democracy or a constitutional republic, I suspect the former.

Another commonly misunderstood area is the concept of the Electoral College in presidential elections, which is indirectly tied to the concept of “republic” as opposed to “democracy” by electing electorates (representatives) as opposed to a popular vote. By doing so, it provides parity between the interests of rural and metropolitan America. Frankly, the Electoral College is a testament to the sheer genius of our founding fathers as it encourages everyone to vote, not just large metropolitan areas.

Liberals believe the Electoral College is a threat to democracy, and it is reported as such by the press. In reality, they are correct as the College is intended to be used in a republic, not a democracy.

So, in a nutshell, No, we do not live in a democracy, in the truest sense of the word. We live in a “constitutional republic” and it is important all citizens understand the differences.

Following the writing of the U.S. Constitution, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the delegates and authors, and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a republic or a monarchy?” He coyly replied, “A republic — if you can keep it.”

Keep the Faith!

RELATED: Legal Dictionary – Constitutional Republic.

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

Attack on Tucker Carlson’s Home: ‘Suspected Hate Crime’

/in , , , , , , /by

(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch today released a police incident report from the November 2018 attack on the home of Fox News host Tucker Carlson by the Antifa-linked group Smash Racism DC.

Judicial Watch obtained the Metropolitan Police Department incident report in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

According to the Washington Metropolitan Police Department report:

On the listed date, [Susie Carlson] heard loud banging and pounding on her front door. [Susie Carlson] went to investigate and saw a large group in front of her home. They had a bull horn and were chanting loudly. She retreated to a room in the rear of her home and summoned police. MPD arrived on scene and found a group of approximately 20 people. It was discovered that unknown persons spray painted an anarchy symbol on the driveway. There were also signs left on the vehicles parked in the driveway as well as a sign left on the front door of the home. The signs made reference to [Tucker Carlson’s] political affiliation.”

The report classifies the incident as “suspected hate crime” with the “hate bias/motivation” being “anti-political.” Also, the report says that six “hand-written posters” were seized as evidence. A handwritten note included with the report says that the “suspected group is Smash Racism DC.”

Tucker Carlson told The Washington Post that the mob had blocked off both ends of his street and carried signs that listed his home address:

“Tucker Carlson, we are outside your home,” one person could be heard saying in the since-deleted video. The person, using a bullhorn, accused Carlson of “promoting hate” and “an ideology that has led to thousands of people dying.”

“We want you to know, we know where you sleep at night,” the person concluded, before leading the group to chant, “Tucker Carlson, we will fight! We know where you sleep at night!”

[…]

Carlson said the protesters had blocked off both ends of his street and carried signs that listed his home address. The group called Carlson a “racist scumbag” and demanded that he “leave town,” according to posts on Twitter. A woman was also overheard in one of the deleted videos saying she wanted to “bring a pipe bomb” to his house, he said.

“Tucker Carlson wasn’t merely ‘targeted by protesters,’ as some media reported. His family was terrorized by a mob of 20 people who vandalized his property,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Judge Jeanine Pirro Suddenly Silenced – Can You Hear Me Now?

/in , , , , /by

Cross the line? Your gone. Those that have seen me speak or have read my books and blogs perhaps now have a greater affirmation about FOX NEWS. FOX news was created to give us the illusion that we have a voice in the media. An overwhelming majority of the media serves the left wing globalists agenda. After all the government media complex is owned, run and controlled by six major corporations. GE, NewsCorp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. Did you know that according to Breitbart News, that Fox News Corp Is a Major Donor to the Clinton’s?

Ex CIA Kevin Shipp will tell you that there are hundreds of thousands of people in the private corporate sector who have signed the same secrecy with immunity agreements as the intel. organizations such as the CIA, FBI and NSA. Why? So they can carry out the deep states’ deeds, that is why. Cross the line? You end up like Judge Jeanine Pirro, suddenly silenced. You wait and see. There is a plan and perhaps Tucker then Sean are next. Keep in mind, as a related topic, that advertisers are pulling away in a coordinated orchestrated plan to strike yet another blow to the rights voice. If you are a World Net Daily or a Breitbart for example, between censorship, Google and FB algorithms, and corporations pulling revenue from sites and programs, the battle rages on.

Back to FOX. Those of us who have been at this a long time recall when FOX NEWS did this to Judge Andrew Napolitano back about ten years ago. The Judge began discussing the Federal Reserve and the rigged elections and in a flash, he was gone. Fast forward to the new media purge and silencing of the voice on the right, we saw Alex Jones of INFOWARS, and then Bill O’Reilly vanish in the night. If you read the blueprint for deligitimizing Trump and any of his supporters in the scathing once confidential report by media matters (Soros and Brock), this will come as no surprise.

FOX NEWS in My Opinion

FOX NEWS. FOX was created to give us the illusion that we have a voice in the media. FOX was created back in the day so that they can drip out opposing views to the left but only so they can keep us engaged, enraged and fighting based upon their spoon fed talking points to us. FOX operates insidiously. There are far too many methods they use in their programming. As we argue among our selves they destroyed America. Slowly but surely FOX has shifted to the left over the years yet increased its “conservative” viewership. They got you! Of course they always feature the left lunatics like Alan Combs, Juan Williams, Shepard Smith, Megan Kelly and many others which have come and gone. But watch carefully. Here is what they do.

Sure we like Judge Pirro, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, Jesse Waters, Greg Gutfeld, Laura Ingram etc. In the main, it is my opinion that these individuals care about America and are truly supportive of Trump. So here is what they subject us to each night on the evening news. After the monologue, they begin by running segments from the left media (CNN,  MSNBC etc.) showing you all the lies, hate, propaganda, half truths and attacks against President Trump and this great nation.

They report the tragedy du jour, without ever labeling it as FALSE FLAGS, which many of them are. In fact two Ex-CIA members Kevin Shipp and Robert David Steele to name but two, will tell you events like the recent New Zealand, Synagogue in PA,  the recent mosque massacre, school shootings, Sandy Hook, La Vegas, 911 and so on are indeed all False Flags. So watching “newstainment” (or better yet “entrainment” (look that one up) by FOX perhaps does more harm than good. How does that daily does of insanity make you feel? Not so good. You are under the illusion that we are in fact losing and not winning. You have been bombarded with propaganda and kept void of any real truths. We are winningand promises are being kept. I am not glib. I get it. I understand quite well the battles and extreme danger that we as Americans (and all of humanity) are facing as America’s second revolution heats up as we try to restore our Constitutional Republic with God and Trump on our side. I wrote all about this in my book “Trump and the Resurrection of America”.

Let’s get back to FOX programming. So then, the FOX NEWS commentator after running the clips from the left will bring on someone from the left and argues about the “issues” mostly talking over one another. You accept this as news? I for one do not. Then you may watch the next FOX NEWS commentator and are pretty much fed the same platform. Then you go to bed not feeling so well and believing we are losing the fight to resurrect America. Change the Channel.

Don’t get me wrong here, I like many of the names on FOX that I just mentioned but remember they work for the big six listed above. They have signed contracts. Cross the line and they smear your reputation. You cross the line you get sued. You cross the line, you get fired (Napolitano, Pirro, O’Reilly etc.). You cross the line they can do far worse as we have seen a lot of dead bodies that had dirt on the Clinton’s as well as dead bodies of truth revealers in the health care industry. Garbage in – garbage out. Wake up. Watch the four videos posted on the right side of my blog page here on my website. Get the news behind the news in the age of Trump. In the Trump era, real change is underway but not without a battle. Get grounded. Stay grounded.

The Future Looks Bright From Here

FOX is good for partially right leaning entertainment and to see what they are injecting into the masses at large. In today’s world, intel. rules. Citizen journalism. Alternative sources for data. Yes this is the wild wild West as we are only in the beginning stages of exposing then seizing control over news and media. Zuckerberg of FB is under investigation now by the Federal Government. Google too was called in by congress for a hearing. These and other silicon companies are censoring our free speech. Their days are numbered. This battle will go on for years. So we have 95% of news being reported to us by the enemies of freedom and then we have censorship of what little voice we have taking place by FB, Google and many others. So where to go for news?

Intel? Start with Q. That’s right QANON. In addition to Q, there are some very good Q de-coders like X22 Report, Prayingmedic for example. Or citizen journalist’s like Dr. Dave Janda.  Follow Ex CIA Kevin Shipp and Ex CIA Robert David Steele as additional sources of Intel and commentating. Steele for one, is working on procuring the funds for a “Truth Channel” to give FOX News and NBC a run for their money. Learn more here.There are scores and scores of existing and emerging alternative sources in our quest for truth. I have written about this in the FREE E-BOOK you can request below. Venezuelans are starving for food. Americans are starving for truth.

There is a great awakening taking place. There are three things cannot long be hidden, the sun, the moon, and the truth. Seek and ye shall find. WWG1WGA. Get on board!

RELATED VIDEO: They are out to destroy Judge Jeanine and Tucker Carlson America First with Sebastian Gorka – America First with Sebastian Gorka

RELATED ARTICLE: Donna Brazile Joins Fox News, Immediately Launches Vicious Attack On Viewers

My Media Archives

Change the Channel

Ethics, Justice and the Media

When the News becomes the News

De-legitimizing Trump

We are going to Resist the Normalization of Donald Trump

Media Matters Fighting to Destroy Trump

The Devil’s Radio

I’m Running Against the Media

Propaganda Hyperbole Regurgitations Facts

A Nation Led by Lies Dies

Common Sense Commentator

Scalia, JFK And The Government Media Complex

Media Circus

Young People’s Embrace of Socialism Shows Why We Shouldn’t Lower the Voting Age

/in , , , , , /by

The left really wants to give kids the right to vote.

This idea is so popular on the left that a majority of House Democrats voted in favor of lowering the voting age to 16.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., endorsed the idea as well.

Why would Pelosi and others on the left want to give high school children—hardly known for deep wisdom and sound judgment—a vote?

A new poll perhaps demonstrates why.

The Harris Poll, released exclusively by Axios, shows that roughly half of young Americans say they would prefer living in a socialist country.

It also reveals that many young Americans think the government should provide free health care, education, and medicine, among many other things.

This is very much in line with a poll released in late 2017 by the Victims of Communism Memorial Fund that found similar support for communism among young people, along with widespread ignorance about what communism is.

Most of those surveyed couldn’t define communism or socialism. Many believed, for instance, that President George W. Bush killed more people than Josef Stalin, the ruthless Soviet dictator whose regime murdered tens of millions.

The fact is, socialism attracts widespread support from millennials and members of Generation Z who at the same time are ignorant about socialism.

It’s no wonder that left-wing groups are desperately trying to find ways to get children to vote or be used as useful tools for their agenda, which now appears to include outright socialism.

While young people embrace at least the word “socialism” in disproportionately high numbers, Americans as a whole find the term toxic, as far as who they’d be willing to vote for.

According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, just 25 percent of respondents found “socialist” to be a desirable trait for a presidential candidate. It was among the least-liked traits in the entire poll.

Perhaps America’s older cohorts simply have a better understanding of what socialism is, having lived through the Cold War and faced the existential crisis of the Soviet threat to our country.

Young people, born after the fall of the Berlin Wall, have less of a real-world example to draw on in relation to the evil that socialism creates for a society that adopts it in total.

It’s clear that in the debate over socialism, education is where we have failed. A generation or generations of young Americans are falling under the impression that socialism, whatever they think it is, will bring more prosperity.

History, of course, demonstrates the opposite.

The reason America is so prosperous, and why it remains a place where so many people around the globe aspire to live, is because it rejected these ruthlessly collectivist doctrines.

Our nation held tightly to the ideas of the rule of law, private property, and the Constitution, all of which do far more for the common citizen than the doctrines of socialism, which put absolute power in the hands of a few.

Yet, our education system is failing to transmit those basic ideas to upcoming generations, a failure that this country desperately needs to change if we are to remain a free country.

In a recent survey of how Americans perform on a basic citizenship test, most failed and young people fared by far the worst.

This ties back into the the current debate over voting age.

It’s a good thing that young people participate in politics, develop an instinct for informed citizenship, and take the future of the country seriously.

However, we shouldn’t fetishize youth as itself an advantage, especially when it comes with such a disturbing lack of understanding about history and civics.

The left has a sort of Rousseauian concept of young people as being free from the shackling norms of civilization, as being capable of drawing from wisdom unclouded by the built-up prejudices of experience.

But the demands of citizenship are not fulfilled by mere youthful energy. They require an education in civics, an understanding of our institutions, a certain independence of thought and action.

At the same time progressives demand the lowering of the voting age, we increasingly infantilize young Americans, who are not really seen as “adults” until the age of 26, long after most graduate college.

From smoking to gun ownership, progressives are stripping the rights and life choices of young adults.

Meanwhile, they demand that we put increasing power in the hands of 16-year-olds to determine our leaders and laws.

This has things entirely backward.

Noah Rothman said it best in Commentary magazine:

At a time when society seems inclined to indulge young people’s desire to languish in an extended twilight childhood, it’s revealing that voting is the only adult responsibility for which Democrats think children are prepared. When it comes to just about any other condition of maturity, Democrats seem to think the proper course is the exact opposite.

So lowering the voting age is both reckless in its ethos to put voting power in the hands of people who are not ready for responsible citizenship, yet also is reduced to a mere palliative.

“Democracy” is expanded as liberty recedes, making democratic participation worth little more than a pat on the back.

While this may seem fine for generations raised in the milieu of the “self-esteem” movement, it’s hardly a recipe to strengthen the republic or produce better leaders.

Further lowering the voting age—which at 18 is already quite low—degrades the positives of democracy in America and turns it into the sad caricature of mob rule that the Founders feared.

Let us do more to create responsible adults and citizens rather than perpetually apply “democracy” in places where it is unwarranted.

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: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

House Democrats Block 19 Times Vote on Bill to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortion

Senate Democrat Says He Can’t Support Equality Act in Current Form

Dear Readers:

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.

The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

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.

President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

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

I Supported You, Jeb, For A Long Time. It’s Over

/in , , , /by

I was one of the first newspaper reporters to interview Jeb Bush in his first run for Florida Governor in 1994 — which he narrowly lost largely due to a last-minute dirty-trick push poll from the campaign of incumbent Democratic Gov. Lawton Chiles. I later became a big supporter and defender of Jeb as a competent, relatively conservative governor.

That all seems like ancient history now as Jeb makes himself more irrelevant than ever after being humiliated by Republican primary voters in 2016. Yet he clings to the impression that he is germane to Republicans.

Bush is the man whose most memorable moment from the primary, aside from standing gob-smacked on the stage over and over, was forlornly pleading “somebody please clap” to a group of carefully selected attendees who did not get the cue — because he really had nothing to say. Nonetheless, he still stands more than ready to tell Republicans the importance of primarying President Trump in 2020 — the most successful if controversial conservative president since Reagan.

Sigh. As a former fan and supporter when governor of Florida, I implore you to please just go quietly into the setting sun, or do something productive with your education think tank. You were great on vouchers and those remain incredibly important.

If you want to do something for the good of the country — which does not involve improving the likelihood that the newly radicalized Democratic Party takes the White House — make the case for school choice, for parental choice, for vouchers. Raise a ton of money from your friends like you did during the primary, but use it for the good of the nation, of the next generation. Stop helping Democrats because the impolite man beat you.

Jeb went on David Axelrod’s show The Axe Files on CNN — a decision that should tell you a lot — and spoke very highly of Maryland Gov. Hogan’s potential to be an alternative to Trump in 2020. He told Axelrod — the top Democratic operative in Obama’s campaign for the presidency — that the Republican Party needs to “offer a compelling alternative” to Democratic ideas rather than just calling their ideas “bad.”

First, let’s remember he is doing this on the opposition network that has long given itself over to anti-Republican mediaship. And he’s doing it on the show of one of the best Democratic operatives in modern times. Presumably he will go on George Stephanopoulos’ Sunday show This Week on ABC — seeing as how Stephanopoulos was Clinton’s top strategist and it’s best to undermine the Republican Party’s political chances with its political enemies.

But most importantly, what is he even talking about? Just calling Democratic ideas bad. Well that would have been a good start for his dad and his brother. That would have been refreshing if President George W. Bush would have done that occasionally rather than just stand there like a Democratic fun-punching bag while many of us were trying to defend him. That polite “bully me” attitude is one of the streams that led Republicans to Trump.

But Jeb is unaware of this. And, probably because he gets his news from CNN, he is unaware that Trump has pursued a more conservative agenda than did W. — to the happy surprise of many of us.

Want a compelling alternative to Democratic ideas? Here are a few:

  • Cut taxes and reform the tax code to grow the economy and allow Americans to keep more of their money. DONE.
  • Deregulate, deregulate, deregulate to grow the economy and expand American freedoms. DONE.
  • Appoint strong Constitutionalist judges to the federal Courts, starting with the U.S Supreme Court. DONE.
  • Build a strong military to protect and expand human liberty. BEING DONE.
  • Negotiate more free and fair trade agreements, such as the USMCA, which actually has net more freedoms on trade regarding un-tariffed flow of goods. DONE.
  • Repeal the odious individual mandate in Obamacare. DONE.
  • Create and strengthen work requirements for welfare programs. DONE.

And that’s just the beginning of a list.

In fact, after his first year in office, President Trump had embraced nearly two-thirds of the policy recommendations from the Heritage Foundation’s “Mandate for Leadership. He even favors Jeb’s school choice vouchers philosophies.

Trump and Republicans have put forth serious alternatives and enacted very conservative policies. If you were more of a principled conservative than you are a Trump hater, you would see that. I imagine Axelrod nodded right along in agreement with you. Stephanopoulos would, too.

I thought a lot of you, Jeb, at one point. But alas, you are leaving the legacy of a petty man.

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