Trump Puts U.S. On The Moral High Ground In The Golan Heights

/in , , , , /by

On Monday, while flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Donald J. Trump reversed decades of foreign policy by declaring that the United States was recognizing Israel’s autonomy over the Golan Heights. Like so many of his decisions regarding Israel, Trump’s position is one that is as positive as it is bold — and one that is long overdue.

In fact, not only is it standing with our only free, democratic ally in the region, it actually is a moral imperative.

It’s imperative to understand the historical context that you will never, ever get in the media coverage.

The plight of the Jewish people and their relationship with the land adjoining the Mediterranean Sea dates back to the antiquities. Before the 8th century B.C., there was a Kingdom of Israel. In the 8th century B.C., it was conquered by the Neo-Assyrian Empire, thus ending Jewish self-rule in the area. The region exchanged hands numerous times between the Persians, the Romans, the Arabs, and the Crusaders, among others. However, through it all, the Jewish people never abandoned their faith, and they never abandoned their ties to the land.

Fast forward to the nineteenth century AD. Many Jews had been kicked out of their land and were living throughout Europe. The 1800s saw the growth of the Zionist movement by the diaspora (Jews living away from the homeland), called for a renewal of Israeli independence and self-rule.

In 1894, Baron Edmond de Rothschild, a French Jew, bought a large tract of land in Golan for settlement.  When the Jews tried to settle it, hostility from surrounding Arabs frustrated their efforts.

In 1918, the League of Nations adopted the Balfour Declaration heralding the support of a Jewish state in lands then held by Palestine. Many Jews responded by moving back to the area known as Israel.

After the First World War, Golan became part of the French mandate of Syria, and in 1941 it was passed to independent Syria. WWII saw the unprecedented slaughter of Jews by Nazi Germany, which led to the swelling of the Jewish population in Palestine.

In 1947, following the end of World War II, the United Nations recommended that the area east of the Mediterranean Sea be partitioned into independent Arab and Jewish states. Although the Jewish Agency was elated, Arab elements were adamantly opposed to the idea. In 1948, David Ben-Gurion, head of the Jewish Agency, declared the creation of a Jewish state, and on that same day, the United States of America recognized the provisional Israeli government as the State of Israel. The announcement was met with immediate hostilities from Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq, and the Arab-Israeli War began. Finally after fighting for its existence, in 1949, the State of Israel was admitted into the United Nations, officially validating its existence. But Israel’s relationship with its regionals neighbors was not to be a peaceful one.

Enter the Golan Heights again.

Almost immediately, the emerging State of Israel was attacked by the Palestinian Fedayeen, and in 1967, hostilities from Syria and Egypt led to the Six-Day War of 1967. That war saw Israel take the Golan Heights. They won that area like so many other countries had gained territories before them; they fought for it and kept it.

Never, in the history of the world has there been a situation where a country forcefully annexed a territory only to have the rest of the world attempt to renounce its claim. It is interesting that Israel should be the lone example of such diplomatic hostilities.  Regardless, between 80,000 and 131,000 Syrians fled from the area.

The attacks would continue upon Israel. During the 1970s, it fended off multiple attacks from the newly established Palestinian Liberation Organization, which quickly devolved into a fomenter of terrorism. And in 1972, the world reeled in horror when Jewish athletes were murdered by Palestinian terrorists at the Olympic games in Munich, Germany.

The conflicts would not cease — but were not started by Israel.

In 1973, the year after the horrific attack on innocent Israeli athletes, the Yom Kippur War began with Egyptian and Syrian armies launching an invasion into Israel. In one of the most brilliantly executed military responses in history, Israel repelled the attackers inflicting significant losses upon its vastly superior enemies while minimizing its own casualties.

The 1980s saw continued attacks from surrounding countries and terrorists upon Israel while Iraq worked to develop a nuclear reactor while Iran worked to develop a nuclear arsenal. In response, in 1981 Israeli military planes attacked and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor. The following year, Israel responded to continued attacks by the PLO by destroying its bases in Lebanon.

As Israel forged into the 1990s, Iraq, under the control of Saddam Hussein, launched countless missile attacks upon Israel. Eventually, the United States would invade Iraq and unseat Hussein, while Israel stayed away from the hostilities.

An attempt was made to address the controversies regarding the West Bank and the governance of Palestinians living in Israeli territories through a negotiated solution with the signing of the Oslo Accords with the PLO in 1992, implementing self-rule by Palestinians living in portions of the West Bank.

But perhaps no more poignant a moment occurred in Palestinian-Israeli relations than when Yasser Arafat unilaterally walked away from the table without a commitment after being offered almost unbridled concessions by the Israeli Prime Minister, Erud Barak. The failure of the Camp David Summit led to the displacement of Prime Minister Barak by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who, in 2001, still unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip.

But these actions would not lead to a peaceful Israeli existence. Instead, another terrorist organization, Hezbollah, largely supported by Iran, carried out open hostilities against Israel, which have continued to this day.

Today, Israel continues to be harassed and threatened by organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, with support from Iran, and although the State of Israel has grown into a strong independent nation and a regional power, its security is not guaranteed under the open hostilities from neighboring countries voicing their intent to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea. Through this time, Israel maintained control of the Golan Heights because it gave such a military advantage to its enemies who could see and attack most of northern Israel from it.

So why didn’t the United States recognize Israel’s jurisdiction over the Golan Heights?

When Israel took control of the Golan Heights in 1967 and subsequently annexed them in 1981, its actions were met with condemnation from Egypt, Syria, and other Arab nations. Not a single country recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. Instead, most nations, the United States included, and the United Nations claimed that they preferred a peacefully negotiated solution to the issue, and opted not to choose sides on the matter. Consequently, for more than 35 years, Israel has stood alone on this issue, the object of active hostilities from its neighbors who would use the Golan Heights to attack Israel again.

The fact is that the Golan Heights are of fundamental importance to Israel and its security. It acts a buffer against one of its mortal enemies, Syria. With its high topography, the Golan Heights serves as an excellent reconnaissance venue under Israel, and a strategic value launching site under its enemies. And not to be dismissed. the Golan Heights provide 30% of the nation’s water supplies.

Moreover, to pretend that a negotiated peace agreement regarding this strip is even possible is a nonsensical position and one that flies in the face of reality; a reality that for thousands of years has represented only aggression against Jews and their homeland.

So given all of this history and current reality, President Trump was absolutely correct in discarding the deceitfulness of political correctness that has thus far enveloped America’s position regarding Israel. Indeed, Israel is our greatest regional ally and the United States should unabashedly stand behind it in the world stage.

If the Golan Heights is important to Israel, then it is important to the United States. President Trump’s proclamation on Monday merely affirmed an unmistakably obvious fact — and an undeniably moral position.

RELATED ARTICLE: Recognition by the US Administration of Israel’s Sovereignty over the Golan Heights: Political and Security Implications

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

Gaza – Disaster foretold

/in , , /by

What has unfolded in Gaza should not really surprise anyone willing to face up to the inclement realities. After all, it was not only entirely foreseeable, but easily foreseen

The nightmare stories of the Likud are well known. After all, they promised Katyusha rockets from Gaza as well. For a year, Gaza has been largely under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. There has not been a single Katyusha rocket. Nor will there be any Katyushas. – Yitzhak Rabin, Radio Interview, July 24, 1995.

I am firmly convinced and truly believe that this disengagement… will be appreciated by those near and far, reduce animosity, break through boycotts and sieges and advance us along the path of peace with the Palestinians and our other neighbors. – Ariel Sharon, Knesset address, October 25, 2004.

These two excerpts—from addresses made almost a decade apart—indicate just how grievously the Israeli public has been led astray for years by its elected leaders.

Distressing record of misjudgment

Indeed, there is a distressing record of documented evidence, underscoring the gross misjudgment of the senior echelons of Israel’s leadership on the “Palestinian” issue, in general, and the Gaza one, in particular.

Sadly, time and again, we have elected leaders seemingly willing to jettison every shred of prudence and principle to preserve their positions of power and privilege, even if it meant defending the most absurd policies; even if the ruinous consequences of their actions were not only eminently foreseeable, but explicitly foreseen.

The introductory citations by two past prime ministers, both with rich military backgrounds, are startling in the magnitude of their mistaken assessments.

Indeed, Rabin’s disdainful dismissal of clear and present dangers, and Sharon’s massively misguided prognosis of the political benefits that would ensue from abandoning Gaza, can hardly instill confidence in Israelis as to the competence of their leaders.

No less troubling is the display of inane imbecility seen in the debate that followed Sharon’s previously cited Knesset address, in which the disengagement plan was approved.

Indeed, some of the more embarrassingly erroneous assessments were exposed in a Channel 2 review of the vote, four years later, during Operation Cast Lead. It recorded for posterity the “pearls of wisdom” of many of the nation’s then-senior politicians – who, all at some stage, have held ministerial positions in the Israeli government.

Embarrassingly erroneous

The English-language transcript – in order of appearance—reads as follows:

Meir Sheetrit (at the time Likud transportation minister), with a marked tone of disdain: “Some claim that there will be a danger, a danger in retreating [from Gaza], a danger to the Negev communities. I have never heard such a ridiculous claim.”

Ran Cohen (Meretz, previously served as minister of industry and trade), in a voice both pompous and patronizing: “The disengagement is good for security. Right-wing representatives warned about Kassam rockets flying from here and from there. I’m telling you, if you really care about both Sderot and Ashkelon – both of them…we have to understand that if we don’t pull out of the Gaza Strip, in two to three years or even a year, the range will reach Ashkelon.”

(To Cohen’s “credit”, as someone belonging to the Left, his position did not comprise betrayal of his political credo – something the Likud MKs could not claim. His words do, however, reveal much about the “sagacity” of the Israeli Left.)

Orit Noked (subsequently agriculture minister for Ehud Barak’s Independence Party): “I want to believe that as a result of the evacuation of Gaza, the moderate Palestinian factions will be strengthened. Terrorism will be reduced. [Yeah, Right—MS.]”

Shaul Mofaz (then Likud defense minister): “I am convinced the [disengagement] process is necessary and correct. It will provide more security for the citizens of Israel, and will reduce the burden on the security forces. It will extricate the situation from its [current] stagnation and will open the door to a different reality, which will allow talks towards achieving coexistence. [And we all know how splendidly that worked out to be—MS. ]”

Embarrassing (cont.)

Ophir Paz-Pines (served as interior minister for Labor): “Before I arrived at the Knesset, I took my son to Tel Hashomer [the IDF induction center]. He received his call-up papers. I wish to thank Ariel Sharon, because he has given me and my wife hope that my son, when recruited, will not have to serve the People of Israel in the Gaza Strip.”

(Ironically, at the time of the Channel 2 broadcast, Paz- Pines’s son was in fact in Gaza, taking part in Operation Cast Lead – despite his father’s heartfelt thanks to Sharon.)
 
The program even caught Binyamin Netanyahu in a moment he would perhaps like to forget. For although Netanyahu is perceived as opposing the disengagement – and in fact often expressed his reservations—to his credit eventually resigning because of it – the Channel 2 camera tells a different story, or at least records a temporary lapse.

In an exchange from the Knesset floor, with the National Union’s MK Uri Ariel at the podium, Netanyahu, then finance minister, declared: “Let there be no mistake. In a referendum I will support the disengagement plan.”

The final speaker featured was Yuval Steinitz (Likud, then chairman of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, later Finance and Energy Minister). He stated: “I think this plan, given these restrictions, is appropriate. It’s not an easy plan, but it has a good chance of improving our geostrategic position.”

Then came the vote and the disengagement plan was approved by a substantial margin, 67-45. All the Likud ministers – including Netanyahu – supported it, despite being elected on a platform that urged voters to oppose an almost identical proposal, put forward by Labor chairman, Amram Mitzna, who was overwhelmingly defeated at the polls.

The myth of managing the conflict

It is with this dismal history in mind that the Israel public should evaluate the declarations and decisions of its government in the present and the future.

This is true with regard to what appears to be the underlying rationale of the current policy—or lack thereof—of “managing the conflict”.

While in some conflictual contexts, “conflict management” may have some merit, this is certainly not so in the case of the conflict with the Palestinian-Arabs in general, and in the case of Gaza in particular.

After all, the underlying rationale of conflict management is the belief that, at some unspecified time, the Palestinian-Arabs of Gaza will, for some unspecified reason, and by some unspecified process, morph into something they have not been for over 100 years—and show no signs of morphing into in the foreseeable future. (Indeed, it would be intriguing to discover just how “conflict management” enthusiasts envision dealing with Gaza in 20 years time—if no such miraculous metamorphosis occurs.)

With its threadbare intellectual underpinnings, it is little wonder that “conflict management”—aka “kicking the can down the road”—has been a monumental failure. In this regard see: “Mowing the lawn” won’t cut it and “Conflict management”: The collapse of a concept.

After all, while Israel has been “managing the conflict” with Hamas in Gaza (and even more so with Hezbollah in the North), we have seen what was essentially a terrorist nuisance evolve into a strategic threat of ominous proportions. Perversely, after every military clash with Israel, designed to debilitate their military capabilities, the terror organizations have eventually emerged with those capabilities greatly enhanced!

Indeed, if when Israel abandoned the Gaza Strip in 2005, anyone had warned that Hamas—and its more radical affiliates—would acquire the offensive arsenal they have in fact acquired, they would have doubtlessly been dismissed as unrealistic scaremongers.

Gaza: Disaster foretold

But of course, what has unfolded in Gaza should not really surprise anyone. Indeed, as mentioned previously, for anyone willing to face up to the inclement realities, it was not only entirely foreseeable, but easily foreseen.

Indeed, as I have pointed out before, as early as 1992—more than a quarter century ago and well over a decade before Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005—I published, in both English and Hebrew, a detailed prognosis, predicting precisely what the security, socio-economic and diplomatic ramifications of Israel abandoning Gaza would be. Sadly, my ominous forecast proved accurate in almost every detail!

But perhaps more significantly—and certainly more disturbingly—in the same year (1992), Arik Sharon himself, the driving force behind the 2005 Disengagement, wrote a very similar article himself in the Hebrew daily, Maariv, explicitly elaborating the perils of the very policy he later so resolutely endorsed—and enforced.

In the article, Sharon recounts how the proactive measures undertaken in Judea-Samaria in the 1970s quelled the terrorist violence there. He then goes on to write: “These experiences prove not only that terror can be eradicated, but also the principle by which this is to be accomplished. It is imperative not to flee from terrorism, and it will be smitten only if we control its bases and it engage its gangs on their own territory.”

Disaster foretold (cont.)

He then turned to Gaza: “And Gaza is the prime example. The populated sections of Gaza had become in 1970 an area controlled by the terrorist organizations because the Defense Minister [Yitzhak Rabin] decided to evacuate the towns, villages and refugee camps. Fortunately we returned to the correct policy before the Gaza Strip exploded like festering abscess, which could have poisoned the entire surroundings. But because of mistaken policy—of fleeing from the population centers and refraining from eliminating the danger in its early formative stages – we had to conduct a much more difficult and lengthy campaign.”

Sharon warned against repeating the same mistake: “If now we once more fall into the same mistake, the price will be much heavier than before—because now the terrorists and the means they have at their disposal are different and more dangerous than before.”

He accurately predicted: “If we abandon Gaza, it will be taken over by the terror organizations. Palestine Square [in Gaza] will become a launching site for rockets aimed at … Ashkelon.”

He then asked: “…what will the IDF do then? Will it once again recapture Gaza? Shell and bomb the towns and refugee camps in the Gaza Strip?”

Finally, noting that, “We all aspire to a political settlement…” he prescribed :“…but we not will reach it by way of surrender but only after crushing terrorism and we can only eliminate terrorism if we control its bases, and fight its gangs there and destroy them.”

Time for a paradigm shift: Evacuation-Compensation for Gazan Arabs

Albert Einstein was attributed as saying “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.”

The problem of Gaza was—indisputably—created by the patently ill-advised attempt to foist self-governance on the Gaza Strip. Accordingly, it is not a problem that can be solved by persisting with the same level of thinking that created it—i.e. by persisting with the attempt to foist self-governance on the hapless enclave and its inhabitants.

Accordingly, then, that paradigm must jettisoned and replaced by another.

As recent history has demonstrated, Israel can only determine who rules Gaza if it rules it itself. For even if Hamas is toppled, there is no guarantee that its successor will be any less irksome. Moreover, if it is significantly weakened, there is no guarantee that it would be able to withstand challenges from more radical rivals—especially given the involvement of Iran in the region and the presence of Jihadi forces in adjacent Sinai.

However, the only way for Israel to rule Gaza without imposing that rule on “another people” (i.e. the Gazan-Arabs) is to remove that “other people” from Gaza. The only non-violent way to remove that “other people” is by installing a robust system of material incentives for leaving and disincentives for staying.

Accordingly, the current paradigm, envisioning a two-state/land-for-peace outcome, must be replaced by one entailing incentivized emigration for the Gazan population, which will allow the non-belligerent civilians to find a more prosperous and secure life in third party countries.

None of this is “rocket science” and one can only wonder why the Israeli leadership has not embraced it—instead of pursuing the two-state pipe-dream which they knew—or should have known—was predestined for disaster.

Epilogue

The fact that the incentivized immigration paradigm may be immensely difficult to implement does not make it any less imperative. Indeed, the alternative of not doing so is far worse.

It is, after all, the only level of thinking that can solve the problem, in which two-state/land-for-peace thinking has tragically embroiled both Jew and Arab—for over a quarter-century. The sooner Israeli policy-makers come to terms with this grim reality, the better.

Socialism Is The Opium Of The People

/in , , , , , /by

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.”  Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right 1843.

What is Marxism?

Socialism is based upon the ideas put forth by Karl Marx and Joseph Engels in the books The Communist Manifesto and Das Capital. Their idea was to make, by state mandate, everyone equal. The Utopian ideal of a classless society with the state controlling all means of production, either directly or indirectly. In America and Europe this is known as: socialism, Democratic Socialism, Marxism and Communism.

Here is a short analysis of Marxism narrated by Paul Kengor, Professor of Political Science at Grove City College for Prager University:

In The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd Kenneth Francis wrote:

Many years before the Year Zero slaughter of millions began in the mid-1970s in Cambodia, a well-mannered, polite Mr [Pol] Pot left Cambodia and went to Paris to study radio technology. While there, he was deeply influenced by Sartre and Marxism. According to historian Paul Johnson, it was Sartre’s ideas that that had inspired Pot’s murderous foot soldiers, the Khmer Rouge.

[ … ]

The Marxist regime [of Pol Pot], between 1975 and 1979, was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million Cambodians through execution, disease and starvation.

Karl Marx never saw his ideas fully implemented in Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist North Korea, Cambodia, Cuba and now in Venezuela.

What is Socialism?

In For the New Intellectual, 43, Ayn Rand defined socialism as, “[T]he doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.”

In “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 68, Ayn Rand wrote,

“There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism—by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”

Socialism is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of the heartless socialist society, and the soul of the soulless bureaucrat.

The Big Lie

Socialism is based upon a big lie. As Joseph Goebbels wrote,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The big lie must be told and re-told and re-told until people begin to believe it. The biggest lie is that religion is the opiate of the people.

The truth is that socialism in all of its forms becomes the opiate of the people. That is until the people learn the “political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.”

The Big Lie in America

We have seen the Russian collusion/obstruction of justice “big lies” played out over 2 years. America became a theatre of the absurd, played over and over again on MSNBC, CNN, and in the pages of the New York Times.

The big lie is in full view with the Green New Deal and its full intent to take over America politically, economically and militarily. The Democratic Party is now committed to the big lie. A lie that they must keep alive in order to gain power.

I conclude with this quote from Ayn Rand,

“The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Each uncontested absurdity starts with a big lie.

Voltaire said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

VIDEO: President Trump Meets With First Lady of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

/in , , , /by

President Trump Participates in a Bilateral Meeting with the First Lady of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The White House:

Venezuelan Interim President Juan Guaido is a tremendous leader working hard to free his country from the grips of a socialist dictatorship. Today, President Donald J. Trump welcomed his wife, Interim First Lady Fabiana Rosales, to the White House.

Venezuela’s story is unfathomable. Once the wealthiest country in South America, years of massive wealth confiscation, suppressed free speech, and rigged elections have brought the country to the brink of ruin. Today, nearly 90 percent of Venezuelans live in poverty. In 2018, hyperinflation in Venezuela exceeded a staggering 1 million percent.

“Everything’s broken,” President Trump said today of the Maduro regime’s destruction. “They have no water . . . The lights are out.”

First Lady Rosales thanked the United States today for its leadership on the world stage. In January, Venezuela’s National Assembly invoked its constitutional right to declare Guaido, President of the Assembly, as the country’s legitimate leader. Within 30 minutes, America was the first nation in the world to officially recognize President Guaido.

“To see [President Guaido] and his courageous wife stand before the crowds and take that oath of office under the constitution of Venezuela was inspiring not just to people across our hemisphere and across this country, but all over the world,” Vice President Mike Pence said before today’s bilateral meeting between U.S. and Venezuelan officials. In the days that followed that oath, the Maduro regime unleashed untold horror—blocking humanitarian aid, killing innocent civilians, and burning medical supplies.

“Eighty percent of the population in Venezuela has no power. They are trying to break our morale,” Ms. Rosales said today. “They want to submerge us in eternal darkness. But let me tell you that there is light, and the light is here.”

America and the rest of the world are watching closely. The Venezuelan people do not stand alone.

Race Relations: If Democrats Would Get Out of Our Way

/in , , , /by

To keep blacks feeling like victims in an forever racist America, Democrats keep the flames of racial division burning. Blacks are only 12% of the population. This means white voters gifted the first black president two terms. Despicably, Democrats continue to tell blacks, “Keep voting for us to keep racist white America off your backs.” Contrary to Democrats’ lie, we have come a long ways baby in race relations in our country. Living, working and playing together, a majority of Americans work out their racial issues. We need race-baiting Democrat politicians to get out of our way.

In 1952, Dad was among a handful of blacks who broke the color barrier to become Baltimore City firefighters. Dad was stationed at 6 Engine. Filled with hate and resentment over his presence, the white firefighters humiliated Dad at every turn.

Outrageously, Dad was assigned separate eating utensils, bathroom and sleeping area. Dad kept a jar of Sanka instant coffee because he was forbidden to drink from the same coffeepot as the white firefighters.

Dad was also the assistant pastor of an east Baltimore storefront church. To escape the constant harassment by the white firefighters, Dad retreated to the firehouse storage room to pray and study his Bible. Sarcastically, the firefighters named the storage room “Marcus’ Chapel”.

One day, Dad could not find his assigned spoon. He grabbed a spoon and placed it in his coffee and went to get cream. When Dad returned, John was holding the spoon from Dad’s cup of coffee. Angrily, John ordered, “Keep your black hands off our spoons”. Then, John threw the spoon into the sink. Dad let the incident go.

On another occasion, John verbally attacked Dad for putting his foot on the edge of a chair to shine his shoes. This was the last straw for Dad. He challenged John to settle their differences outside after work. The captain caught wind of the scheduled duel of fists. He ordered both men to go home after their shift.

Dad told me that he went to the storage room and prayed about John. He prayed, “God give him to me.”

After two years, a new young white firefighter was assigned to 6 Engine. He came upstairs to Dad’s bunk and invited Dad to have coffee with the other firefighters. It was Dad’s first coffee from the main coffeepot.

Dad won Firefighter of the Year two times. When Dad was 90, I asked him to explain how he won. A lieutenant firefighter panicked in a burning building and jumped out a window. Dad grabbed his legs and held him until help arrived. Dad passed away before telling me what he did to win Firefighter of the Year a second time.

On one occasion, the captain ordered all the firefighters out of a raging burning building. Dad’s mask malfunctioned. He could not breath or see. Dad said the devil spoke to him saying, “Everyone has to go sometime and you’re going to go by fire.” Dad prayed, “Jesus” and passed out.

Safely outside, a firefighter asked, “Where’s Marcus?” John flew back up the ladder into the inferno. Dad said he regained consciousness hearing someone yelling his name, “Marcus! Marcus! Marcus!” He saw the light of John’s flashlight and yelled, “Over here!”

John and another firefighter carried Dad out of the building. Dad said he will never forget the peace and safety he felt hearing John’s voice, “We got you. You’re okay. We got you!”

Dad’s body and clothing were so filled with smoke that the emergency room staff had to open windows. Dad made a full recovery.

Dad and John became lifelong friends. When John passed away in later years, Dad spoke at his funeral. God answered Dad’s prayer. He gave John to Dad.

Racism will exist along with every other sin until Jesus returns. Thanks to pioneers like my dad, blacks are thriving in every area of American life. We just need Democrats to stop scheming to divide us.

Watch the Countdown to Lloyd’s Dad’s Legacy.

On The Mueller Report: Time to Investigate the ‘Investigators!’ [VIDEO]

/in , , , , , /by

“Russian collusion wasn’t just a hoax, it is a criminal abuse – which is why Judicial Watch has fought and will continue to fight for Russiagate documents in federal court. It’s time to investigate the ‘investigators.’” – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, Inside Judicial Watch Special Edition video

Robert Mueller has finally brought his bogus, politically motivated assault on Donald Trump – and everyone around him – to an end…

But only after spending more than two years — and tens of millions of tax dollars — chasing his tale (pun intended) and doing Hillary Clinton’s bidding.

Not so surprisingly, the conclusion at which Mueller arrived is precisely what Judicial Watch has said all along: There was no collusion.

In fact, Judicial Watch filed dozens of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuits to prove it…

And had the Deep State not fought every one of them, the phony case against Trump could have been closed before it was even opened.

Now, in the riveting Inside Judicial Watch interview video below, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton puts the entire Mueller witch hunt into perspective…

And he explains why the collusion delusion hasn’t really ended –

Because now, Judicial Watch intends to investigate the “investigators”!

This is one 20-minute video you won’t want to miss.

RELATED VIDEO: Now To Investigate Mueller.

Science and God

/in , , , /by

An award-winning scientist recently told the world that science and religion are not incompatible.

The Agence France-Presse (AFP) reports (3/19/19), “The annual Templeton Prize, which recognizes outstanding contributions to ‘affirming life’s spiritual dimension,’ was awarded Tuesday to Brazilian Marcelo Gleiser—a theoretical physicist dedicated to demonstrating science and religion are not enemies.”

Gleiser, a professor at Dartmouth College since 1991, said, “Science does not kill God.”

Although he is described as an agnostic, the AFP reports that Gleiser “refuses to write off the possibility of God’s existence completely.” He said, “Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method…Atheism is a belief in non-belief. So you categorically deny something you have no evidence against…I’ll keep an open mind because I understand that human knowledge is limited.”

I agree with this man’s sentiments. How is it that science and God are somehow viewed as enemies?

The great British jurist, Sir William Blackstone, whose four-volume set of Commentaries on the Laws of England were of great value to our founding fathers, put it this way: “Thus, when the Supreme Being formed the universe, and created matter out of nothing, He impressed certain principles upon that matter, from which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be. When He put that matter into motion, He established certain laws of motion, to which all moveable bodies must conform.”

I think it is fascinating that virtually all the early scientists historically were professing Christians. They were, in the words of Johannes Kepler, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” in their scientific explorations. Modern science arose near the end of the medieval period. The early scientists believed that a rational God had made a rational universe, and it was their job—using the words of Kepler, “as priests of the highest God”—to try and catalogue what laws of the universe He had created.

Consider some of the thoughts of scientists who were Christians through the ages.

Blaise Pascal was a brilliant mathematician in 17th century France. He is credited with discovering principles that would ultimately lead to the creation of the computer.

Pascal said, “Faith tells us what senses cannot, but it is not contrary to their findings. It simply transcends, without contradicting them.” Pascal also said, “Jesus Christ is the only proof of the living God. We only know God through Jesus Christ.”

Isaac Newton, the discoverer of gravity and one of the greatest scientists who ever lived, wrote more about the Bible and about Christian theology than he did science. Said the great Newton: “I have a foundational belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily.”

The father of modern chemistry was Oxford professor Robert Boyle, born in 1627. Boyle was not only a diligent student of chemistry, but a diligent student of the Bible. In his will he left a large sum of money to found the “Boyle lectures” for proving the Christian religion.

19th century American Matthew Fontaine Maury is credited as the father of oceanography. He got his idea that the sea has “lanes” and currents from a verse in the Bible. Psalm 8:8 speaks of “the fish of the sea that pass through the paths of the seas.”

One time Maury gave a speech at the inauguration for a college in which he said, “I have been blamed by men of science, both in this country and in England, for quoting the Bible in confirmation of the doctrines of physical geography. The Bible, they say, was not written for scientific purposes, and is therefore of no authority in matters of science. I beg your pardon: the Bible is authority for everything it touches.” That includes, he said, “physical geography, the earth, the sea and the air.”

Maury added, “[W]hen, after patient research, I am led to the discovery of any one of [the physical laws the Creator has built into His creation], I feel with the astronomer of old [i.e., Kepler], as though I had ‘thought one of God’s thoughts,’— and tremble. Thus as we progress with our science we are permitted now and then to point out here and there in the physical machinery of the earth a design of the Great Architect when He planned it all.”

Indeed, as science professor Marcelo Gleiser points out, “science does not kill God.” Far from it.

The late Dr. Robert Jastrow was an astronomer and a planetary physicist with NASA, and he wrote a book called, God and the Astronomers.

Jastrow noted, “The scientist has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; and as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

BREAKING VIDEO EXPOSE: Florida Voters Furious Over Votes Cast In Their Names

/in , , , , , , , /by

These are the victims of voter fraud. 

Project Veritas has uncovered a group of Florida voters whose identities may have been unlawfully used to cast ballots in their names in their former state of New York.

Here are the facts:

  • Each individual claims to be a resident of Florida who moved there from New York.
  • Each voter says they did NOT vote in New York in 2018.
  • The elections offices in New York & Florida have confirmed someonevoted in their names in both states.
  • Each resident says they have not lived in New York or voted there in “years.”

These aren’t the culprits of voter fraud.  These are the victims.  

View the latest video HERE.

When our investigators told these individuals that a ballot was cast in their names in Florida and New York, they were outraged.

Here’s what they told our journalists:

Florida Voter #1: Yeah, someone’s voting with my name in New York . . . I haven’t voted in New York, I mean let’s face it, I was what 25, 26 when I moved out here . . .

Florida Voter #2: Well, we’ve been residents in Florida, that’s our old address.

Florida Voter #3: It wasn’t me.  It was voter fraud apparently.

This second video in our series of voter fraud investigations shows that the real victims of voter fraud aren’t politicians and campaigns, but normal and unknowing people.

Who voted in their names?   Is this yet another systemic voter fraud problem?  How many hundreds or thousands of ‘extra votes’ were cast under the same scam?

You might recall our 2016 investigation where our journalists was offered the ballot of top a Clinton ally, Huma Abedin, in New York City.

Can anyone walk into a New York polling place and vote, using the identity of another person?

Stay tuned . . .  more on voter fraud soon.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Church Militant Lies

/in , , , , /by

Make sure your enemies list is really long.

TRANSCRIPT

My father — God rest his soul — used to say to me that you can tell the quality of a man by who is on his enemies list when he dies.

Anyone who dies without enemies led a purposeless life, totally selfish, concentrating all their effort at never committing to anything sufficiently to earn them enemies — gliding through life concerned about nothing more than human respect.

But all of this goes much further than that. It’s not just getting enemies that matter, but that you acquire the correct enemies. And we recall, Our Blessed Lord had an extensive list of correctenemies — they crucified Him.

If you don’t have enemies owing to your faith and zeal and love of Our Lord, then you don’t have enough faith, zeal or love. In our go-along, never-give-offense-type culture, the most detestable thing in the judgment of men is to give offense — wrong. The most detestable, un-manly thing you can do is to never give offense.

Be careful when the whole world celebrates you. It’s a mark of impending doom and probable damnation. You have not loved Our Blessed Lord sufficient to warrant any enemies.

This is all inspired by a little encounter a Church Militant supporter told us about that they had very recently with San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy. In a pretty benign manner, the Church Militant supporter brought up Church Militant and instantly McElroy shot back: “Church Militant lies.”

As usual, no specific example of anything was given to support his spurious claim, just the usual episcopal claptrap by those in mitres who don’t like their nefarious deeds being talked about publicly.

McElroy is a disgrace to his office, but then again, since he was promoted into that office because of the machinations of Mr. Theodore McCarrick, that can’t come as a surprise.

McElroy has lied about the Faith, deceived the souls entrusted to him and has been part of the entire “revolution” inside the Church. That’s why the commie McCarrick boosted him up the ladder.

So here we have the case of a bishop and layman each saying the other is lying. We give specifics; he blurts out emotional nonsense. But the dividing point is the issue of truth. Truth is what creates enemies — those who accept it and those who reject it become enemies.

That’s why the man with no enemies has never been a lover of truth. Likewise, it’s why you want to make sure that your enemies are the “correct” enemies, the ones who hate the truth.

No one, absolutely no one, attains salvation without being a lover of truth, and it is impossible to pass through this life loving the truth and not accumulate a string of enemies.

Given the cultural mindset, this needs emphasizing because people not liking you, or you being perceived as someone who gives offense, is deemed by many the most egregious thing on the planet.

It isn’t. You aren’t trying to give offense. You aren’t consciously going around trying to create and increase your enemies list.

If you are being a faithful Catholic, you won’t need to do any of that — it will all happen naturally, all on its own.

A necessary ingredient to salvation is an extensive list of enemies, with all the correct names on it.

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

Court Kicks CAIR Out of San Diego School District

/in , , , , , , /by

In a landmark case, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been forced out of the San Diego Unified School District.

A lawsuit was brought against the district for partnering with CAIR and allowing the Islamist organization to run a discriminatory, unconstitutional propaganda program in its schools.

The court agreed with this assessment.

The program in question gave Muslim students special privileges and gave CAIR the power to change the district curriculum to make sure Islam was looked upon more favorably.

Students and parents were made to watch biased videos, CAIR officials were allowed to teach students and teachers about Islam and students were trained “how to become allies with Muslims students.”

The program, which began in April 2017, was based on false evidence that, in the wake of President Donald Trump’s electoral victory, Muslim students were subjected to “Islamophobic” bullying. However, state records indicated there was no evidence of such bullying in the district’s schools.

The court ruled that the program was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause by favoring one religious group over another and mixing government with religion.

Under the terms of the ruling, the school district is required to permanently drop the program and prevented from allowing CAIR to be involved in school activities in the future.

Further, school officials must correct the pro-Muslim student bias and disproportionate emphasis on Islamic history in its curriculum, which were both instituted through the program.

The court further gave the following guidelines to the schools:

  • “Educators should treat each religion with equal respect, with the time and attention spent discussing each religion being proportionate to its impact on history.”
  • “Educational material on religious subjects must be neutral and may not be presented in a manner that promotes one religion over another.”
  • “Educators or other staff sponsoring guest speakers at District events must ask them not to use their position or influence on students to forward their own religious, political, economic or social views and shall take active steps to neutralize whatever bias has been presented.”
  • “Guest speakers from religious organizations are not permitted to present to students on religious topics.”

“This is a tremendous victory, because CAIR intended this plan to be a pilot program for a nationwide rollout,” said Daniel J. Piedra, executive director of the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund (FCDF), the organization which brought the suit against the school district.

The FCDF said that other school districts similarly affected by CAIR are Seattle Public Schools, Minneapolis Public Schools, Cajon Valley Unified School District and Gilroy Unified School District.

“This settlement agreement will serve as a warning to politically correct school boards nationwide to think twice about partnering with CAIR,” said Charles LiMandri, chief counsel for FCDF.

LiMandri called the court’s decision a “victory against radical Islamic indoctrination in America’s schools.”

The FBI and the Justice Department have both banned CAIR as an outreach partner because of its Islamist agenda and ties to Hamas and terror funding.

In 2007, the U.S. government labeled CAIR an unindicted co-conspirator in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation for financing the Hamas terrorist group.

In November 2014 CAIR was designated as a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates.

CAIR was listed by the U.S. government as being among “individuals/entities who are/were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestine Committee and/or its organizations.” The Palestine Committee was a secret body set up by the Brotherhood to advance the Brotherhood/Hamas agenda in America.

A secret meeting of the committee held in Philadelphia in 1993 was wiretapped by the FBI. Nihad Awad, co-founder and executive director of CAIR participated in that meeting where members agreed that a new “neutral” entity for influencing U.S. policy and opinion was agreed upon.

Awad founded CAIR the following year.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Judge Disallows References to CAIR-Hamas Ties in Suit 

Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)

CAIR Is Suing Texas — You’ll Never Believe Why

16 Likely Democratic Presidential Candidates Endorse CAIR

The Opiate of the Masses: My Visit to Cuba

/in , , , , /by

Randall Smith visited Cuba, a nation with lively nightlife in which daily the people awaken to the dull realities of a failed socialist worker’s “paradise.”

I had the privilege of visiting Havana, Cuba, recently.  I probably won’t be allowed back anytime soon for reasons that will shortly become clear.  While I was there, someone emailed to say, “You have a ‘Catholic Thing’ article up today on clericalism.”  When I finally got Internet access, I found that The Catholic Thing is blocked by the government in Cuba.  You cannot read it there.

When I mentioned this fact to Robert Royal, he told me he had been in Cuba when John Paul II visited and afterward had written an article critical of the government.  He has not been able to get a visa to return ever since. “Be very careful,” he advised.

I found the Cuban people to be ceaselessly kind and generous, always willing to give directions or help you find your way.  Havana is an amazing city with so many houses that are architectural gems, it is hard to believe that they all existed in one city. Architects and designers who specialize in classical architecture would have high-quality work in Havana to keep them occupied for the next forty years.

The reason traditional architects and designers would have so much work in Cuba, however, is because the government has done absolutely no maintenance of the architectural heritage in sixty years. The city of Havana is literally crumbling. Glorious houses with stately Corinthian columns and marble hallways are now dilapidated tenements with collapsed floors and pillars.  Most of the prime waterfront property along the Malecón, the wonderful waterfront esplanade in Havana, looks as though it came through a war.  But war did not cause this destruction. It was sixty years of authoritarian rule of a Marxist government claiming to be “for the people” and “for the workers.”

That’s an interesting concept given that the one new building we toured, a luxurious waterfront hotel, was financed by the Cuban military, designed by a French firm, and built by workers imported from India – in the great “worker’s paradise” the Cuban revolution was supposed to bring about.

An interesting tourist spot is the house Che Guevara was given to live in after the revolution, the man on all those T-shirts. It’s large, on the top of a hill, looking down on the city from across the harbor. Che didn’t live down among “the common people.”  He looked down on them, from above.

And the stories!  One man’s father who dealt with public infrastructure was called in one day to meet the new Minister of Industries.  Like most Cubans, he usually dressed in a light shirt without a tie because of the heat. But since he was meeting the new minister, he put on a coat and tie, as a sign of respect.  When he walked into the office, he saw a man from Argentina sitting behind a desk in a green army uniform, smoking a cigar, with his bare feet up on the desk, something the Cuban found disgusting and disrespectful.  The new minister glanced at him in his suit and said, “You are bourgeois.  You have three choices.  You can leave the country in a week, stay and be thrown in jail, or you will be shot.” He fled.

You learn many things in Cuba about living under a totalitarian government. There isn’t room to detail them all here, but many are things you might expect. “Life in Cuba,” as one Cuban employer who hires actual Cuban workers told me, “is …” – and here he paused searching for the right word — “hard.”

But I also learned something I hadn’t expected.  Movies and television shows make you expect that tyrannical governments force the people to be puritanically conservative, stifled, and repressed. What I discovered in Cuba to my surprise is that avant-garde art and bohemian lifestyle liberalism can co-exist quite comfortably with an authoritarian regime.

Cuban women are quite the opposite of “buttoned up.”  And the music and art in Cuba are superb. Havana may have crumbling houses, but the clubs and bars are lively. The parks are filled at night with people staring blankly at lighted cell phones screens, enjoying the public Internet service the government has installed around the city.

Our group had lunch every day at a parador, one of the private restaurants cropping up in Havana that the government no longer seeks to shut down because they need the tourist dollars. Each day on the television there was a show called “Cuban Clips,” which showed Cuban music videos.  There are a lot of them, it seems, and like all music videos, they are filled with young people dressed in the latest fashions, driving the nicest cars, dancing in the streets, in a bar, or on the beach, no scene over two seconds long, the lead singer gesturing directly into the camera the way all singers in music videos do.

Watching young Cubans in a club gyrate for hours to Cuban and American music videos (the line to get in the club stretched around the block) made me wonder whether Marx, if he were alive today, might have to re-think his comment about religion being the opiate of the masses. An honest assessment now would be that music videos are the opiate of the masses.

Then again, given the drug problems in America and elsewhere, perhaps we should simply say that opium is the opiate of the masses – opium and alcohol and music videos and “bohemian” clubs where kids can dance the night – and any concern they might have had for the common good of the society – away.

The Cuban government doesn’t care if you dress sensually, drink profusely, urinate on the street, make indecent art, or use half-naked women painted blue in your music videos as long as you don’t oppose the government.  And when you’re busy partying and dancing and being a “bohemian” rebel in your Che t-shirt, you don’t.

Randall Smith

Randall B. Smith is the Scanlan Professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. His most recent book, Reading the Sermons of Thomas Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide, is now available at Amazon and from Emmaus Academic Press.

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.

Tina Tchen Takes Center Stage again, this Time in the Jussie Smollet Hoax on America Case

/in , , , , , , /by

I have to admit I had never heard of Tina Tchen until this past week when we learned she had been brought in to try to clean up (cover up?) the misdeeds at the largest hate group in the country—the Southern Poverty Law Center.  (See my story here)

So my ears perked up when I heard her name again, this time because of her involvement in helping to get charges dropped against the very privileged Jussie Smollett.

Frankly, it is special deals for special people that conservative voters won’t forget in 2020.

First thing this morning I hit the computer to see if anyone was pointing out Tina Tchen’s rising star among the Democrat elite and sure enough the intrepid Michelle Malkin posted a great piece overnight!

Crony State: Obamas’ Chicago Fixer Tina Tchen

Here is a some of what Malkin said today at Townhall (emphasis is mine),

How did hate crime huckster Jussie Smollett get away with it? All crooked roads in Chicago lead back to the Obamas.

On Tuesday, as part of a sealed deal, the Illinois state attorney’s office dismissed 16 felony charges brought by a grand jury against the Trump-hating actor, who blamed phantom white MAGA supporters for a brutal racist “assault” that left him with a teensy-weensy scratch under his eye. The day before the “attack,” Smollett’s two bodybuilding friends were caught on surveillance tape buying costumery (red hat, ski masks, bandanas, sunglasses and gloves) that just happened to match Smollett’s descriptions of what his still-fugitive assailants were wearing.

But I guess there’s no use crying over spilled bleach.

Continue here to read more about the case and a litany of Jussie’s connections to the Obama machine.  Then this,

Given Jurnee Smollett-Bell’s [Jussie’s sister] hand-holding friendship with Tchen, Tchen’s intimacy with the Obamas, and Michelle Obama’s chumminess with Jussie Smollett (she hosted him at a musical event at the White House in 2016 and danced with him on stage at a College Signing Day Event in 2018), it is not unreasonable to wonder how much direct knowledge the Obamas themselves may have had about Tchen’s role as Smollett’s fixer.

[….]

Tchen has made quite the career out of exploiting her Obama connections, including cushy spots on VICE’s Diversity and Inclusion Board, Uber’s #MeToo advisory board, and the Grammys’ task force for inclusion and diversity. But those plum jobs and her role in Smollett’s Folly all pale in comparison to her newest gig: playing watchdog over the crumbling Southern Poverty Law Center.

After decades of manufacturing “hate” against peaceful, law-abiding conservatives, sharia opponents, Christian activists and immigration enforcement hawks, the junk mail order house that grifter Morris Dees built is in chaos amid long-brewing strife over internal gender and racial discrimination — not to mention a slew of outside defamation lawsuits. Fresh off assisting one celebrity hate crime huckster, Tchen will now be doing damage control for the granddaddy of all racial hoax rackets.

Go here to read the whole thing, it will be well worth your while!

What should you do?  Keep an eye on Tchen (make her’s a household name!) because first and foremost she will be working to hide every bit of dirty linen at the Southern Poverty Law Center. My recommendation is to find a story every day about the SPLC’s hypocrisy and internal chaos and post the story to your social media networks!

Oh and be sure Michelle Malkin’s piece today is disseminated widely! 

RELATED ARTICLES:

In Smollett Case, Justice Sacrificed on the Altar of Politics and Race

Why We Don’t Trust Our Institutions?

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

VIDEO: Prime Minister Netanyahu Addresses the AIPAC 2019 Policy Conference

/in , , , /by

דברי ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו בוועידה השנתית של AIPAC בוושינגטון. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the AIPAC 2019 Policy Conference.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hamas: Iran was Behind Rocket Attack on Central Israel

Netanyahu Praises Trump, Stresses Bond Between US, Israel in AIPAC Speech

WATCH: IDF Prepares for War with Hamas, Calls Up Reserves

EXCLUSIVE: Who’s Bankrolling the National Popular Vote Movement

/in , , , , /by

The nonprofit organization building a coalition of states that favor choosing the president by popular vote promotes itself as nonpartisan, but is financed by millions of dollars from left-leaning groups.

Some of the leaders of the movement are prominent Republicans, and most of the funding for the nonprofit, National Popular Vote Inc., has come from a wealthy Democrat and a billionaire independent.

However, many large, liberal organizations back the movement, according to the Capital Research Center, a conservative investigative think tank that monitors nonprofits. It gathered donor information on National Popular Vote Inc. using a commercial database.

The Jennifer and Jonathan Allan Soros Foundation, for example, gave $1 million to the nonprofit in 2011.

Jonathan Soros, 49, heads an investment firm and is the son of George Soros, a hedge fund manager known for financing left-leaning causes around the world. Although the Soros Foundation does not publicly list contact information, The Daily Signal sought comment through the George Soros-backed Open Society Foundations.

The Stephen M. Silberstein Foundation made donations totaling $1 million to National Popular Vote Inc. from 2008 to 2012, according to the most recent data. The Silberstein Foundation gave $350,000 in 2008, $250,000 in 2009, $250,000 in 2010, and $150,000 in 2012. The Daily Signal unsuccessfully sought comment from the Silberstein Foundation.

In 2015, an article in Inside Philanthropy reported: “Nearly every major progressive policy and advocacy group in the U.S. has received money from Silberstein in recent years.”

“We’re not going to relitigate or redo the results of this election. This election was run under a set of rules,” Silberstein, a board member for National Popular Vote, said on liberal activist Ralph Nader’s podcast in late 2016, after Donald Trump’s election as president.

“It’s not useful to change the rules of the game after the game is over with so that you can get a different result,” he said. “If you really want to do something, change the rules now in time for the next election.”

Seeking a Compact Among States

Trump is the fifth president in American history to win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote. Although Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by 304 to 227 votes in the Electoral College, Clinton rolled up about 2.9 million more votes in big states such as New York and California.

The nonprofit is lobbying states to adopt what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The compact requires a member state to cast its electoral votes for the winner of the national popular vote—regardless of which presidential candidate wins the state.

The interstate compact would snap into place only when the number of member states adds up to 270 electoral votes, the total required under the Electoral College to win the presidency. The initiative is about two-thirds of the way there.

“We could find no conservative institutional donors to the organization,” Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center, told The Daily Signal. “Did Charles Koch write a personal check? We don’t know. But we found 16 instances of  grants from institutional donors, and none were conservative.”

American presidents never have been elected by a strictly popular vote across the nation. In presidential elections since 1804, under the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, voters actually vote for electors who are pledged to support their candidate in a later Electoral College vote.

Proponents contend this system ensures that every state, no matter how small, has a voice. Opponents, including many Democrat presidential candidates, contend that rural areas get disproportionate power under the Electoral College.

Colorado’s Democrat governor signed a bill making that state part of the compact, and the legislatures of New Mexico and Delaware recently sent similar bills to Democrat governors who said they would sign. That will set the movement at 189 electoral votes out of the 270.

Another major donor to the compact was the Sandler Foundation, which contributed $100,000 in 2010. The organization’s 2015 filing with the Internal Revenue Service shows it gave millions to liberal groups, including the Center for American Progress, the American Civil Liberties Union, EarthJustice California, and the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The Sandler Foundation did not respond to inquiries from The Daily Signal for this story.

The Tides Foundation, a major funder of left-leaning causes, contributed $25,000 to the popular vote group in 2009. The organization has donated to the ACLU Foundation, the Center for American Progress, Media Matters for America, Sierra Club, and Planned Parenthood, among other liberal groups.

The George Soros-backed Open Society Foundations has given millions to the Tides Foundation, according to the Capitol Research Center. The Tides Foundation did not respond to The Daily Signal for this story.

Big Spenders

National Popular Vote’s 2015 filing with the IRS, the most recent publicly available, shows it had revenue of $2 million.

The bulk of the group’s budget doesn’t come from other organizations, said Saul Anuzis, former chairman of Michigan’s Republican Party and a longtime GOP operative who advised Sen. Ted Cruz’s 2016 presidential campaign.

“As for the funding, two individuals have put up over 95 percent of all the money,” Anuzis, a national spokesman for the effort, told The Daily Signal. “A liberal progressive, John Koza, and a conservative, pro-life tax protester, Tom Golisano. My guess [is that] several hundred others have given to one of the organizations behind the effort.”

Koza, chairman of National Popular Vote Inc., is a California businessman who was an inventor of the scratch-off lottery ticket. He then marketed the idea to states—similar to what he’s doing with the popular vote compact.

Koza has been a donor to Democratic candidates in federal elections. Politico reported that Koza spent $14 million promoting the popular vote compact among states by 2014, and that he planned to budget $2 million per year from then on.

“John Koza regularly maxes out in donations to Democratic candidates, and he has not been an insignificant Democratic donor,” Capital Research Center’s Walter said. “He is on the record saying that the re-election of George W. Bush [in 2004] inspired him to start this.”

Koza contributed the maximum amount of money, $2,700, to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.; Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn.; Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.; the re-election campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.; the 2016 presidential campaign of former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee, a Democrat; and the 2016 presidential campaign of Democrat Hillary Clinton. He has written checks for tens of thousands to the Democratic National Committee and its fundraising arms for House and Senate races.

Golisano, who founded the payroll and benefits services company Paychex, has spent $10 million of his own money to promote the compact. Last year, however, Politico reported that Golisano had pulled back from the effort.

Golisano also is the founder of the New York Independence Party and a three-time unsuccessful candidate for governor.

His political contributions don’t entirely reflect a conservative viewpoint. He gave to the presidential campaigns of two Democrats, John Kerry and Dick Gephardt, in 2004, and to the Senate campaign of Charlie Crist, a Florida Republican who became an independent, in 2010.

‘Never Partisan’

“The National Popular Vote movement has never been a partisan movement. It is a bipartisan coalition of Republicans, Democrats, and independents who believe that every American voter should feel politically valued in every presidential election,” Anuzis said.

The former Michigan GOP leader noted that related legislation passed Republican-controlled legislative chambers in Arizona, Oklahoma, and New York. Of those states, only New York has joined the compact so far.

The president of National Popular Vote is Barry Fadem, a California election lawyer who like Koza also contributes to Democrat candidates in congressional and presidential races, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Fadem contributed to John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign and to the re-election of former Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, among others.

According to tax filings, the organization’s secretary is Chris Pearson, a Vermont state senator affiliated with the state’s Progressive Party. Pearson is the former director of presidential election reform for FairVote, a left-leaning voting rights and good government group. He was an aide to Sanders when the senator was in the House of Representatives.

As a specific kind of nonprofit under the tax code, National Popular Vote is allowed to lobby state lawmakers to join the interstate compact. Koza also established an educational nonprofit, the Institute for Research on Presidential Elections, that is prohibited from direct lobbying. It had $550,504 in revenue, according to its 2016 IRS filing.

“National Popular Vote is indeed a 501(c)(4) and focused on advocacy efforts in the states,” said Patrick Rosenstiel, a spokesman for the organization, referring to the tax code. “IRPE is indeed a 501(c)(3) and 100 percent committed to education efforts surrounding the Electoral College, the current system, and potential Electoral College reforms.”

Rosenstiel, a Republican, is chairman of the Institute for Research on Presidential Elections, the educational nonprofit.

‘Woeful Ignorance’

But the compact should be a tough sell as a bipartisan effort, particularly since it “is mostly funded by the left,” said Hans von Spakovsky, manager of The Heritage Foundation’s Election Law Reform Initiative.

The recent movement of three states toward the compact is worrisome for von Spakovsky.

“Legislators in those three states have displayed woeful ignorance about the good and rational reasons for having the Electoral College,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “Delaware and New Mexico are even more puzzling. These are small states most protected by the Electoral College. A national popular vote will give them less influence.”

The recent successes for the movement are likely to boost awareness and the potential for fundraising, Rosenstiel said.

“Recent success certainly drives awareness about both the substantial shortcomings of the current system and the state-based plan to address those shortcomings,” Rosenstiel told The Daily Signal. “Momentum certainly drives awareness and awareness always results in a steady uptick in political and financial support. We are grateful to all who contribute their voice, talents, and dollars to make this happen.”

The other states that joined the interstate compact earlier include Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The District of Columbia also signed up.

Although Trump won the presidency through the Electoral College while losing the popular vote to Clinton, he previously indicated he favored elections being decided by the popular vote.

“I would rather see it where you went with simple votes,” Trump said in a “60 Minutes” interview on CBS after he won the election. “You know, you get 100 million votes, and somebody else gets 90 million votes, and you win. There’s a reason for doing this, because it brings all states into play.”

Trump on ‘Brilliance’ of Electoral College

Trump last week said on Twitter that he had a change of heart.

Other presidents who won the office without the popular vote were George W. Bush in 2000, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876, and John Quincy Adams in 1824.

Nearly every Democratic presidential candidate and many congressional Democrats have called for eliminating the Electoral College.

Asked whether Democrats’ dominance of the movement makes it a tougher bipartisan sale, Anuzis, the spokesman who is a former GOP chairman in Michigan, stressed that what Democrats want isn’t what the compact does.

The compact, he said, keeps the Electoral College intact while allowing states to choose their method of awarding electors who ultimately vote for one of the candidates for president.

“It’s not that simple, and it’s important not to mix the two proposals,” Anuzis said. “National Democrats favor the elimination of the Electoral College and using a direct national popular vote to elect the president.”

“[The compact] is a bipartisan proposal that takes a federalist approach, which creates an … agreement between the states that preserves the Electoral College, therefore states’ rights to regulate, administer, and determine how electors are chosen to the Electoral College by using the national popular vote.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

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

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.

Democratic Presidential Contenders’ Demeaning View Of Americans

/in , , , , /by

When Democrat Sen Kamala Harris announced her run for the presidency, she vowed to be a “tireless advocate of men and women who lack power and wealth.” Sen Harris, you and your fellow Democrats are obsessed with removing power from We the People. Removing parent’s power to raise their child, Democrats implemented mandatory LGBTQ indoctrination in public school. Parents are forbidden to opt out their child.

Sen Harris, your party seeks to remove more power from the people by disarming them. Students have been brainwashed into absurdly believing law abiding gun-owners are responsible for school shootings. Democrats are pushing to lower the voting age to 16 so kids will naively vote to repeal their parent’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. 

Power to freely worship is under attack by Democrats. They want to ban the Bible, criminalize quoting the Bible and mandate that Christians betray biblical teachings. 

Sen Harris said she will advocate for those who lack wealth. Between her party’s obsession with oppressive taxation and outrageously high death taxes, everyday Americans are blocked from acquiring wealth. 

“A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children.” (Proverbs 13:22) Democrats make this biblical principle impossible. Cruelly, they rush to confiscate and redistribute children’s inheritances. Children are forced to sell their parent’s life’s work (home and business) to pay the death taxes.

Sen Harris said, “I knew I wanted to protect people. And I knew that the people in our society who are most often targeted by predators are also most often the voiceless and the vulnerable.” This exposes Sen Harris’ demeaning view of America and Americans. There are no masses of Americans supposedly targeted by predators. This is another Democrat tactic of creating an enemy which does not exist.

Former US presidents did not view Americans as weaklings, needing a president to be their parent. President John F. Kennedy believed in the strength and greatness of Americans. He said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” When I was a young black man, President Reagan inspired me to be all I could be; to proudly contribute to the greatness of my country.

Sen Harris and her fellow Democrat presidential contenders are campaigning on their standard lowbrow rhetoric; creating victims and bogus enemies. They instill entitlement mindsets, class envy and hatred for the wealthy. Disgusting. Blacks have bought Democrats’ garbage for 50 years. Blacks are still suffering in poverty stricken hellholes run by Democrats. 

As a kid living in the East Baltimore projects, Dad drove me through white neighborhoods with beautiful homes. Dad said, “If you get an education, you can live like this.” He never taught me to hate wealth or white people. Dad did not fill my head with the Democrats’ lie that white America was scheming 24/7 to prevent me from achieving my American dream. Democrats’ lies about America have crushed far too many black youth’s hopes, dreams, and ambitions.

In my late 20’s, I became a born-gain Christian. Excited, I visited prisons to share the good news of Jesus. To my surprise, most of the inmates were black. Many were gifted and talented. Their major hindrance was negative attitudes, hopelessness, victim and entitlement mindsets. Many thought, “Whitey is gonna stop me, so why even try.” Who filled these young black men heads with such destructive nonsense? The answer is Democrats. America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for “all” who choose to pursue their dreams. Period.

Tragically, dumb-down millennials believe it is morally just to punish the rich and redistribute their wealth. A disturbingly high number of millennials embrace socialism.

Here’s my parable illustrating Capitalism v. Socialism. Mary and I celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary over dinner. Our waiter was fantastic, enthusiastically going the extra mile to make our special occasion truly special. I rewarded him with a generous tip. Capitalism allows our waiter to pocket my tip, giving him incentive to increase his wait skills. Socialism would require him to put my tip into a jar to be distributed between all the waiters at the end of the shift. So, slacker waiter Randy who takes excessive smoke-breaks, repeatedly monitors his phone and screws up food orders would get the same amount of tip money as my excellent waiter. This is the demoralizing consequence of socialism.

In truth, every Democrat presidential contender wants to remove as much power as possible from We the People. Democrat presidential candidate Cory Booker wants to force Americans to stop eating meat. 

American families save $2,500 a year shopping at Walmart. Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wants to stop Americans from shopping and working for Walmart. 

Democrat presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren has built her campaign on the sin of covetousness (class envy). She seeks to demonize and punish wealth. 

Every Democrat presidential contender signed on to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal which mandates that in 10 years, we must end air travel, stop using fossil fuels, every new job must be unionized, nuclear plants must be closed and every building must be rebuilt for state-of-the-art energy efficiency. AOC’s deal also demands that deadbeats receive government funding. 

Each Democrat presidential contender emits a foul odor of arrogance and superiority. They believe they are our betters, extremely qualified to dictate how we should think and live our lives. Contrary to Sen Harris’ presidential announcement speech, she and her fellow Democrats seek to remove our power by repealing our constitutional rights and block us from acquiring wealth. We are far better, much smarter and much stronger than Democrat presidential contenders think we are. We are Americans. 

RELATED ARTICLES:

Here Are 4 Egregious Ways the Left Wants to Transform American Politics

Liberals’ Reaction to Mueller Report Shows They Prioritize Politics Over Truth

How Leftist Ideology Ruins College Students