6 Things to Know About AG Nominee William Barr

/in , , , /by

William Barr is a former U.S. attorney general, an advocate of investigating Hillary Clinton, and a bagpipe player for 60 years.

President Donald Trump announced Friday that he would nominate Barr, 68, to serve again as attorney general.

He previously served in the position from November 1991 to January 1993 under President George H.W. Bush, who died Nov. 30 and was laid to rest Thursday.

In confirming to reporters outside the White House that he would nominate Barr, Trump called the lawyer and former business leader “one of the most respected jurists in the country,” a “highly respected lawyer,” and “a terrific man, a terrific person, a brilliant man.”

Already, some Democrats are criticizing Barr for comments he has made in media interviews and op-eds.

If confirmed by the Senate, Barr would succeed acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, who took over after Trump fired Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

“I did not know him until recently when I went through the process of looking at people, and he was my first choice from Day One,” Trump said of Barr. “Respected by Republicans and respected by Democrats, he will be nominated for the United States attorney general.”

Here are six things to know about the president’s pick to run the Justice Department.

1. Senators Choose Sides

Barr’s first stop is the Senate Judiciary Committee, the scene of brass-knuckles partisanship this fall over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Trump’s hope is that the Barr confirmation will not be nearly so fraught with partisan rancor.

The senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, didn’t come out with guns blazing, but indicated he had questions. Leahy tweeted:

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., slated to become chairman of the Judiciary Committee in January, tweeted that he will do all he can to push through the nomination:

William Barr (Photo: Kirkland & Ellis LLP)

2.  Confirmation and Praise from Joe Biden in 1991

Barr’s first run at a confirmation hearing was anything but controversial.

In 1989, the elder Bush named Barr as an assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Bush promoted him to deputy attorney general in 1990.

Like Whitaker, Barr also served as acting attorney general. Just days into that assignment, he impressed Bush with his handling of a hostage crisis at a federal prison in Talladega, Alabama, The Wall Street Journal reported in 1991.

More than 100 Cuban inmates who were awaiting deportation to Cuba took nine hostages. Barr ordered an FBI hostage rescue team to take control of the prison, resulting in the rescue of the hostages without any deaths.

After Bush nominated Barr for attorney general in 1991, the Judiciary Committee unanimously confirmed him, with the approval of then-Chairman Joe Biden, a Democrat from Delaware. (Biden, of course, would go on to become Barack Obama’s vice president in 2009.)

On one of the most contentious issues, Barr was asked about the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that legalized abortion across the nation. Barr replied that he didn’t believe the right to an abortion was part of the Constitution.

Biden said he disagreed with Barr, but said it was “the first candid answer” he had heard on the topic.

“It’s astounding to me,” Biden said to Barr. “You should be complimented.”

Biden later said: “I know of no one on the Democratic side asking for a roll call vote [by the committee]. I see no need for one.”

The Senate confirmed Barr as attorney general by a voice vote in November 1991.

Barr is a strong choice by Trump and “eminently confirmable,” said John Malcolm, who was an assistant U.S. attorney working in Atlanta when Barr was deputy attorney general and attorney general.

“He is an excellent pick,” Malcolm, now director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal. “He is smart, independent, and knows the Department of Justice’s mission well.”

No one should expect this nomination to go as smoothly as the last time, Malcolm said.

“Very few Trump nominations get through without resistance,” Malcolm said. “The Democrats will want to extract promises from him that he will protect the Mueller investigation.”

For nearly two years, a team led by special counsel Robert Mueller has looked for evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia to secure Trump’s election as president in 2016.

3. Tenure as Attorney General

While serving as the nation’s 77th attorney general, Barr presided over significant events and investigations.

Andrew McCarthy, who was an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York when Barr was attorney general, had high praise. McCarthy tweeted:

According to his biography on the website of the Kirkland & Ellis law firm, where he works in private practice, as attorney general Barr “set significant new enforcement policies in a wide range of areas, including financial institutions, civil rights, and antitrust merger guidelines.”

The bio continues:

At the Department of Justice, [Barr] established innovative programs to combat violent crime and set significant new enforcement policies in a wide range of areas, including financial institutions, civil rights, and antitrust merger guidelines. He led the department’s response to the S&L crisis; oversaw the investigation of the Pan Am 103 bombing; directed the successful suppression of the Talladega prison uprising and hostage taking; and coordinated counter-terrorism activities during the first Gulf War.

4. Views on Independent Investigators

Barr hasn’t directly criticized Mueller’s investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. However, he has raised questions about Mueller’s vetting of prosecutorial staff.

Mainly, Barr has raised questions about why the staff includes so many donors to Democrat candidates, including Hillary Clinton.

“In my view, prosecutors who make political contributions are identifying fairly strongly with a political party,” Barr told The Washington Post for a story that ran in July 2017.

“I would have liked to see him have more balance on this group,” Barr said of Mueller.

Among the issues that Mueller is believed to be investigating is Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey in May 2017.

Shortly after the FBI director’s dismissal, in a Washington Post op-ed with the headline “Former attorney general: Trump made the right call on Comey,” Barr wrote:

Comey is an extraordinarily gifted man who has contributed much during his many years of public service. Unfortunately, beginning in July, when he announced the outcome of the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state, he crossed a line that is fundamental to the allocation of authority in the Justice Department.

Barr told journalist Bob Woodward, in an interview for the 1999 book “Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate,” that he considered removing Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh for “misconduct” in 1992.

He said he believed that Walsh was overtly political.

But, Barr told Woodward, he opted against removing Walsh.

5. The Clintons and Uranium One

Barr has said the Justice Department should investigate the Uranium One scandal, which involves both Bill and Hillary Clinton. He noted that he sees more evidence to warrant an investigation there compared with the suspicion of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

“There is nothing inherently wrong about a president calling for an investigation,” Barr told The New York Times in November 2017, referring to Trump.

“Although an investigation shouldn’t be launched just because a president wants it, the ultimate question is whether the matter warrants investigation,” he said.

The Times reported: “Barr said he sees more basis for investigating the uranium deal than any supposed collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia.”

“To the extent it is not pursuing these matters,” Barr is quoted as saying about the Justice Department, “the department is abdicating its responsibility.”

The mining company Uranium One contributed $2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s four-year tenure as secretary of state under Obama, The New York Times reported in 2015.

Figures associated with the company also paid $500,000 to former President Bill Clinton to speak in Moscow.

In a 2010 deal approved by a committee including Hillary Clinton and eight other members of Obama’s Cabinet, a Kremlin-connected entity obtained 20 percent of America’s uranium production by acquiring Canada-based Uranium One.

6. Bagpipes, the CIA, and More

Barr has been a bagpipe player since he was an 8-year-old boy, and he was a notable member of the City of Washington Pipe Band.

After leaving the Justice Department in 1993, Barr built a career in corporate law, serving as general counsel and executive vice president of Verizon Communications Inc. from 2000 to 2008.

He was general counsel for GTE Corp. from 1994 until 2000, helping to negotiate a merger of GTE and Bell Atlantic Corp. that produced Verizon Communications. He also argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and the European Commission.

After graduating from Columbia University, he went to work for the Central Intelligence Agency from 1973 to 1977. While at the CIA, he attended law school at George Washington University and was a clerk to Judge Malcolm Wilkey of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Barr also served President Ronald Reagan from 1982 to 1983 as a member of the White House’s domestic policy staff.

Barr and his wife, Christine, were married in 1973. Their daughter, Mary Daly, works in the deputy attorney general’s office as the Justice Department’s point person on the opioid drug crisis.

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

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Ron Sachs/SIPA/Newscom.

Did Judge and Prosecutor Shield Criminal Illegal Alien From ICE?

/in , , , , , , /by

My article today is predicated on the December 2, 2018 Boston Globe report, “ICE agent was in courthouse. Did judge and others help man flee?”

Incredibly, a district court judge is now being investigated by a federal grand jury into her actions earlier this year, when she is believed to have acted, in concert with a prosecutor, to enable an illegal alien from the Dominican Republic to escape justice. As it turned out, the alien was using a false name, had falsely claimed to be a United States citizen at the time of his arrest and had been previously twice deported from the United States.

A detainer had been lodged by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and, at the time, an ICE agent was present in the courthouse waiting to take the alien into custody.

We will get into the details of this outrageous case but first I want to remind you how we have gotten to this point, to set the stage for this latest example of immigration anarchy.

The globalists have worked long and hard to convince politicians from both political parties and judges alike that it is somehow heroic to obstruct the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws that were enacted to protect national security, public safety, public health and the jobs of American workers.

Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission made it crystal clear that first and foremost, multiple failures of the immigration system not only permitted the 19 hijacker-terrorists who launched the savage attacks on September 11, 2001, but other terrorists the Commission studied as well, to enter the United States and embed themselves.

In spite of this, a growing list of so-called “Sanctuary Cities” and even “Sanctuary States” have openly declared their opposition to the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Members of the Democratic Party have even called for disbanding ICE and have even vilified ICE agents. New York’s Governor Cuomo has publicly referred to ICE agents as “thugs”!

There has been no shortage of reports of judges overstepping their authority and, as has come to be known, have “legislated from the bench” particularly where the enforcement of our immigration laws are concerned.

Since his election, President Trump has had his efforts to enforce our immigration laws stymied and blocked by a number of federal judges, particularly regarding DACA and the supposed “Travel Ban.”

I addressed these examples of judicial overreach in a number of my recent articles:

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Asylum Ban On Illegal Aliens  

Judge’s ruling ignores Constitution, 9/11 Commission Report and common-sense.

DACA Ruling:  Judicial Travesty Obstructs Presidential Authority

Fed. Judge Bates’ ruling ignores facts and national security.

Courting Disaster: Supreme Court Decides Against Homeland Security

Court guts presidential authority to prevent the entry of terrorists.

Incredibly, some judges have also attempted to prevent ICE agents from making arrests in courthouses.  The safest place to take an individual into custody is often in a courthouse because all who enter there are carefully screened to make certain that they are unarmed. This protects the public, the agents and even the alien who is to be arrested. I speak from direct experience; when I was an INS agent I frequently arrested aliens in courthouses.

Let us remember that our immigration laws were duly enacted the very same way that all federal laws were enacted. Judges are supposed to enforce our laws dispassionately and objectively.

Our laws are not to be regarded the way a patron of a restaurant peruses the menu of offerings picking and choosing the items that appeal to that patron.

Time and again the globalist immigration/anarchists fatuously claim that our immigration laws are “Unconstitutional.”

They need to read Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Now we come to the case that prompted me to write this article.

The newspaper report I cited above began by describing the conversation purportedly conducted at the sidebar among Newton District Court District Judge Shelley M. Joseph, the defense attorney representing Jose Medina-Perez an illegal alien from the Dominican Republic and Middlesex County prosecutor Shannon Jurgens.

Their conversation focused on how they should deal with the fact that Medina-Perez was facing deportation from the United States, a detainer had been lodged by ICE and, in fact, an ICE agent was in the courthouse waiting to take the defendant into custody.

Medina-Perez was arrested by Newton Police on drug charges and he also faced a fugitive warrant incidental to having been previously stopped for drunk driving in Pennsylvania.

Here is an excerpt from the news article:

“ICE is going to get him,” the judge told the attorneys during the April 2 sidebar conversation. “What if we continue [the case]?” she suggested, before instructing a clerk to turn off the courtroom’s audio recorder. Whatever was said during the next 58 seconds went unrecorded.

Minutes later, Medina-Perez was escorted downstairs, released from custody, and allowed out a back door, according to two people briefed on the episode. He scaled a fence and took off, leaving the immigration agent behind, the people said.

The following excerpt from the news report that includes the conversation among the judge the defense attorney and the prosecutor is particularly disturbing.

Their conversation — only occasionally audible on the recording — focused on the defendant’s immigration issue and whether he was the same person wanted on the fugitive warrant from Pennsylvania.

“ICE is convinced that this guy . . .” his lawyer, Jellinek said, his voice trailing off. “ICE will pick him up if he walks out the front door. But I think the best thing for us to do is clear the fugitive issue and release him . . . ”

The prosecutor chimed in: “There is a detainer attached to my paperwork, but I felt like that’s separate and apart from what my role is.”

“ICE is going to get him,” the judge said, before asking the clerk to go off the record, and halting the courtroom recording.

The defendant in this case, Jose Medina-Perez, was identified as a fugitive who had failed to appear for a court appearance previously, demonstrating that he was a flight risk a risk that was demonstrably increased when it was discovered that he had allegedly used two false names and had reportedly made a false claim to U.S. citizenship at the time of his arrest.

Making a false claim to U.S. citizenship is a felony under federal law (18 U.S. Code § 911) that carries a maximum penalty of 3 years in prison.

The judge, with the apparent assistance of the prosecutor, both of whom were so determined to shield him from deportation that they apparently decided to postpone his criminal case and found a way to dispose of a fugitive warrant issued by authorities in Pennsylvania. He was then surreptitiously hustled out of the courthouse and freedom, short-lived as it turned out to be.

Shortly after Medina-Perez made his “great escape,” with the apparent assistance of the judge and the prosecutor, he was arrested again in Roslindale in April but was once again released on bond by an immigration judge despite the fact that he was reportedly deported in January 2003 and June 2007 and had used a false name. According to immigration records his real name is Oscar Manuel Peguero.

Additionally, he had reportedly claimed to be a U.S. citizen when he was arrested and charged with possession of drugs. Finally, at the time of his arrest, the federal database showed that he had used an additional false alias, Julio Alexis Rios.

There is absolutely nothing sympathetic about this individual. He has shown utter contempt for the borders and the laws of the United States of the United States, yet a judge and a prosecutor are alleged to have committed potential felonies to assist him in evading immigration law enforcement.  Such actions not only may constitute obstruction of justice but a violation of

8 U.S. Code § 1324 which, in part states:

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation

The newspaper report also noted that this is not an isolated case but that there have been previous instances where illegal aliens have been shielded from detention by ICE by other judges.

Consider this excerpt from the article:

Last year, the court’s presiding judge, Mary Beth Heffernan, freed a previously deported immigrant from the Dominican Republic accused of raping a Boston College student. The man, Luis Baez, drove for Uber using a fake name. Heffernan rejected prosecutors’ request for $100,000 bail, setting a bail of $2,500, which the accused paid, and then fled.

Each and every such case must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law possible, with serious jail time imposed.

Obstructing immigration law enforcement undermines national security and public safety and the punishment must fit the crime.

RELATED ARTICLE: Supreme Court Rejects Environmentalists, Gives Border Wall the Green Light

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission. Photo Courtesy of ICE

VIDEO: Am I a “White Supremacist?”

/in , , , /by

Red Ice TV published the following commentary and video on YouTube:

If you agree with any of these points, you might be a White supremacist.

ABOUT LANA LOKTEFF

Lana was born of Russian American ancestry. She is the host of Radio 3Fourteen and contributes political/social commentary in the form of articles and videos. Additionally, she offers her view on current news & entertainment in Red Ice TV’s livestream show on Saturdays. Lana also owns her own organic clothing line called Lana’s Llama. She is passionate about European identity politics, ancestral traditions and health. She lives with her husband in Sweden and part time in America.

Defending The Second Amendment — Must View 5 Minute Video

/in , , , , /by

The 5 minute video below is a must view for everyone who loves the U.S. Constitution and realizes how important the 2nd Amendment is to defending it and our way of life against TYRANNY! We must also realize how much our 2nd Amendment and other rights are under constant attack by the left.

The gentleman in the video justifiably lambastes members of his outgoing City Counsel who have imposed socialism and gun control on his bankrupt city outside Los Angeles, California.

This man has great Courage to speak his mind and is an example for all of us in the Winter Haven 912 currently involved in trying to change the bad gun control portions of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS Public Safety Law (SB 7026) which contains violations of our 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendment rights to keep and bear arms without infringement; to prohibit unlawful search and seizures and to provide Due Process. We must stop this chipping away at our rights or we will loose them entirely.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Kyle Johnson on Unsplash.

Thomas Jefferson And His “Wall of Separation Between Church And State.”

/in , , , , /by

During the years following the ratification of the Constitution, the new government embraced religion.  George Washington, at his first inauguration, placed his hand on the Bible and spontaneously added the words, “So help me God,” to the oath of office. Congress hired chaplains to attend to the religious needs of the members and led them in daily prayers.  The first two presidents declared national days of fasting and prayer for various purposes, not the least of which was to show the nation’s appreciation to its Creator for the favorable outcome of the Revolutionary War and the freedoms that sprang from it.  Even the Thanksgiving observance was undertaken, not as a standing tradition as is done presently, but at the behest of a presidential order calling for the national observance.

In 1801, Jefferson became the nation’s third president, bringing with him views regarding religion that were quite distinct from those of his predecessors.  Jefferson did not benefit from the nation’s formative debates on religion.  During the Virginia Convention of 1776, when the Virginia Bill of Rights was drafted, Jefferson was serving in Congress. During the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson was in France.  And during the First Amendment debates, Jefferson was serving as Secretary of State. Of all the major public discussions taking place during the country’s founding regarding religion, Jefferson was only present for the Madison-Henry debates in the Virginia Assembly.

Despite this, history would hand Jefferson an opportunity to formally present a position on church and state by way of a letter.

At the time of the nation’s establishment, the Congregationalist Church was Connecticut’s official church, a title that continued after the Constitution’s ratification.  Other churches residing in Connecticut, such as the Baptist church, were therefore subject to substantial disadvantages, including unequal taxation and fees, merely because of their religious positions.

Frustrated with their persistently unequal treatment despite the ratification of the new federal Constitution, the leaders of the Danbury Baptist Association wrote a letter to the President of the United States, then Thomas Jefferson, sharing with him the difficulties they were facing. Their letter, dated October 7, 1801, read as follows:

SIR,

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoy’d in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Magistracy in the United States: And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.

Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty—That Religion is at all times and places a Matter between God and Individuals—That no man aught to suffer in Name, person or effects on account of his religious Opinions—That the legetimate Power of civil Goverment extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbour: But Sir, our constitution of goverment is not specific. Our antient charter, together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted as the Basis of our goverment. At the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, & such still are; that religion is consider’d as the first object of Legislation; & therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expence of such degrading acknowledgements as are inconsistant with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondred at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretence of goverment & Religion should reproach their fellow men—should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dares not assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the united States, is not the national Legislator, & also sensible that the national goverment cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine & prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cal’d you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermin’d opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom throug Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association

NEHH. DODGE
EPHM. ROBBINS             The Committee
STEPHEN S NELSON

Interestingly, although the letter had been written in October, 1801, there is no evidence Jefferson received it until December 30, 1801.

At the time he received the letter, Jefferson was facing some political turmoil. Jefferson and his Republicans had just survived a very tumultuous election against Adams and his Federalists.  Not the least of Jefferson’s difficulties was the problems he had developed from his strict views on the separation of church and state dating back to his days in the Virginia State Assembly.

Among other charges, Jefferson was accused of being an atheist, no small charge in that day.  Evidence to that claim was his refusal to proclaim times of thanksgiving and national fasts in contrast to the habits of Washington and Adams. Having faced such ardent and continuous attacks regarding the role of government in religious worship and of his personal convictions, Jefferson saw the Danbury letter as an opportunity to discuss his views on religious worship and freedom.[1]  So anxious was Jefferson to respond that he immediately crafted a draft and submitted it to Postmaster General Gildeon Granger and Attorney General Levi Lincoln. By December 31, Granger had responded to Jefferson.  The next day, Jefferson sent the letter with a cover note to Lincoln who also immediately responded. Jefferson, despite a busy New Years day, finalized his answer and sent it on January 1, 1802.  His final letter read as follows:

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.  Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson, Jan. 1. 1802.[2]

It is important to clarify what Jefferson said and what he didn’t say in his letter.  First, Jefferson agreed with the Baptists that religion is strictly a matter between Man & his God.  As a matter of fact, says Jefferson, “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions. . . ”

But, he clarifies, his job as President was to uphold the Constitution of the United States.  And as such, he acknowledged that the legislature could make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus “building a wall of separation of Church and State.” Therefore, Jefferson said, he would continue to pursue “those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

Jefferson’s subsequent actions speak volumes of the intent and meaning of his letter.  First, Jefferson did nothing to undo the Connecticut statute making the Congregationalists its official church.  Unquestionably, he agreed that this was wrong; he said it in his letter.  But he took no action because his greater duty at that time was to the Constitution, and although not expressed in the letter, the Constitution did not allow the President or Congress to keep a state from enacting the legislation that Connecticut had passed.

Instead, Jefferson engaged in a host of activities broaching his “wall of separation between Church and State,” implying that his “wall” was actually quite porous.  On the same day that he finalized his letter to the Danbury Baptist Associations, Jefferson publicly met with John Leland, a Baptist minister whom he had invited to deliver a sermon at the House of Representatives.  In a public demonstration of friendship, Leland presented Jefferson with a 1,250-pound cheese produced by his parishioners.[3] That Sunday, January 3, 1802, Jefferson personally attended the sermon at the House of Representatives that his friend delivered. How many of these actions were specifically due to political expediency will never be answered. However, it is said that subsequent to this letter Jefferson ‘constantly’ attended House services.[4]

Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association had some limited, initial and regional play largely due to the actions of the Association itself.  The letter, as well as Jefferson wall would disappear from the national conscience for more than seventy years, until it reappeared in the writings of a Supreme Court Justice.

But that is the topic of another Sunday Thought.

RELATED ARTICLE: Christian groups win Obamacare birth control battle

REFERENCES:

[1] James Hutson, “‘A Wall of Separation’ FBI Helps Restore Jefferson’s Obliterated Draft,” (Library of Congress: June 1998) accessed Aug. 21, 2015, http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html.
[2] The various incarnations of the language of his drafts have been reconstructed as follows: “confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that. . .” (There now appear some crossed out lines followed by:) “concurring with”; (which he also crossed out, then continued) “Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience” (he crossed out these words and then wrote) “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.” [“Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists; The Draft and Recently Discovered Text” (Library of Congress: June 1998) accessed Aug. 21, 2015, http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html]
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Kyaw Tun on Unsplash.

GQ’s Luke Darby reveals Left’s totalitarian agenda, calls for ‘taking megaphones’ from dissenters of Leftist line

/in , , , , /by

This lengthy article is mostly just one long victory dance over the apparent fact that Milo Yiannopoulos is deeply in debt. But along the way, Luke Darby of GQ (which is supposed to be a fashion magazine, as far as I know, but today the Leftist agitprop is everywhere, with no letup) makes some revealing statements about the Left’s mindset and agenda.

“He also owes money to a rogue’s gallery of other right-wingers, including the anti-Muslim zealot Pamela Geller.”

Why is Pamela Geller an “anti-Muslim zealot”? Because she opposes jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others. Luke Darby, if pressed, which he never will be, would probably admit that he also opposes jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, gays, and others, but he would claim that Pamela Geller “hates” Muslims and he doesn’t, or tars “all Muslims” as jihad terrorists and/or Sharia supremacists, and he doesn’t. She doesn’t do those things, however, and it is reflexive now among Leftist “journalists” to smear as “anti-Muslim” any and all opposition to jihad and Sharia, and to try to discredit and marginalize it as “racism,” “bigotry,” and “Islamophobia.” If the jihadists and the influence of Sharia continue to advance in the West, Darby may someday regret that he jumped on this particular bandwagon without a moment’s thought, but by then it will be far too late.

“Liberals who buy into Yiannopoulos’s bad-faith arguments for free speech, that the only way to defeat his punchy bigotry is to validate it with debate, should take note: When Yiannopoulos made his pedophilia-friendly comments, his conservative patrons and audiences didn’t invite him to a public forum to weigh the pros and cons of what he said.”

It is Darby who is in bad faith here. There was nothing for Milo’s “conservative patrons and audiences” to debate, because Milo immediately apologized and backtracked. It wasn’t as if he was out there calling for debate on the pros and cons of pedophilia.

Note also Darby’s phrase, “Yiannopoulos’s bad faith arguments for free speech.” Darby is referring to Milo’s calls to Leftists to debate him, not about pedophilia, but about political issues. Darby, however, simply labels Milo’s views “punchy bigotry” and wants him silenced. This is increasingly how the Left deals with dissent. Leftists, like Muslim spokesmen, appear to know that they can’t win debates, so they simply want those whom they hate to be shut down. Darby doesn’t contemplate the possibility that once he and his allies have opened this door, their own views could be shut down if they fall out of favor with the elites; apparently he doesn’t think that could ever happen.

“Media personalities like Jones and Yiannopoulos don’t just rely on attention to ideologically thrive. They also need it just to financially survive. Taking their megaphones remains the best way to mitigate the damage they’ve already done.”

Darby here openly endorses the deplatforming and silencing of those whom he hates. He appears to have full trust in the social media giants that they will wield this power in a way of which he will approve. Once again, it doesn’t seem to occur to him that if Milo and Alex Jones can be deplatformed, so can Luke Darby. He is a totalitarian, and totalitarians don’t contemplate being out of power, for power is their god, and they will do anything to attain it and keep it.

“Milo Yiannopoulos Is Millions of Dollars in Debt,” by Luke Darby, GQ, December 3, 2018 (thanks to Vikram):

…Now Yiannopoulos is reportedly $2 million in debt….He also owes money to a rogue’s gallery of other right-wingers, including the anti-Muslim zealot Pamela Geller….

Liberals who buy into Yiannopoulos’s bad-faith arguments for free speech, that the only way to defeat his punchy bigotry is to validate it with debate, should take note: When Yiannopoulos made his pedophilia-friendly comments, his conservative patrons and audiences didn’t invite him to a public forum to weigh the pros and cons of what he said. They dropped him without hesitation. With no platform, he was no longer a provocative, popular figure with even a slight bit of influence. It’s the same hole that Alex Jones is falling into now that Infowars is off of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. All that Jones can do to get attention these days is literally yell at Marco Rubio in public.

Media personalities like Jones and Yiannopoulos don’t just rely on attention to ideologically thrive. They also need it just to financially survive. Taking their megaphones remains the best way to mitigate the damage they’ve already done.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured photo is by Clem Onojeghuo on Unsplash.

Scale of Discovery & Action — They are on the Run

/in , , , , /by

There is a great awakening taking place inside the human spirit in this paradigm shift of consciousness. Albert Einstein said we must acquire a substantially new way of thinking if mankind is to survive. That time has come and hopefully not too little too late. This Scale of Discovery & Action They are on the Run relates to the state of affairs with regards to the corruption within the broken controlled political system. We must discover what is REALLY going on beneath the surface and stop listening to the regurgitating media pundits – so that we can initiate and support the correct action steps vs. being confused scared or pissed off. And so the Scale of Discovery and Action is listed below in what I will call a twelve step program.

Twelve Step Program

  1. We discover that something is not quite right and not quite good.
  2. Ask ourselves – Why all this havoc and chaos?
  3. Who is creating this?
  4. How are they creating it?
  5. Where are they geographically located?
  6. Expose their crimes and transgressions.
  7. Convene probes, investigations, grand juries and hearings.
  8. Conduct trials and or military tribunals.
  9. Enforce the law and the Constitution.
  10. Charge the individuals with their crimes.
  11. Hold them accountable to the fullest extent of the law including execution if necessary for high crimes and treason.
  12. Eliminate and take all powers away from the Deep State and put in measures to prevent this from ever occurring again.

What’s Next?

And so where are we at on this scale? Step six, exposing their crimes and transgressions. We must remember Trump is playing 3D chess with the world and we are dealing in truths – the enemy is dealing in deceitful lies – we are on God’s side – they are under the clutches of Satan. In the end, we may not be around to see it, but in the end they lose. Either Jeff sessions is part of Trump’s 3D chess game or he is a compromised deep state operative and must go. I fear it is the latter.

In the beginning of 2017, I wrote a blog titled “Nuremburg Style Trials Coming Soon”, check it out. As well as another important blog title “It’s either Us or Them”. I believe soon perhaps in 2018 – in my estimation certainly in 2019 we will enter steps 7-12 on this scale of discovery and action. This will awaken America and the rest of the world gaining global support for Trump. Remember the opposite of love is not hate, it is fear, so don’t go there. The more truths we obtain and with positive action applied, surrounding ourselves with like-minded people who understand the times then expanding those circles, the fear subsides

This is Trump’s calling as he serves under the light of God that never ever fails. Trump’s whole life has led him to this precise moment by no accident. He was meant for such a time as this. We have a gift. We have the right man, in the right place, at the right time. Trump needs your help. Don’t squander this opportunity

“I am asking you to believe in yourself again and I am asking you to believe in America. And if we do that then all together we will make America strong again, we will make America wealthy again, we will make America safe again, and we will make America great again.” –  Donald J. Trump.

Pray for our President and let’s give this man Donald Trump a round of applause for his incredible bravery and service and give him all the support he needs. I hope this Scale of Discovery and Action” is helpful to you in some way. When your children and grandchildren ask you – “What were you doing when the global governance was being thrust upon America and the world”, what will your answer be? Freedom, it’s up to us. Stay safe and God bless.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The edited featured photo is by Carles Rabada on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Arkansas Governor Says No Mandate Needed on Armed Presence at Schools

/in , , , , /by

NRATV’s Cam Edwards joins Dana Loesch to weigh in.

Tanzanian Cardinal: Better to Starve Than to Embrace Homosexuality

/in , , , , , /by

DAR ES SALAAM, Tanzania (ChurchMilitant.com) – An African prelate is warning his people that it’s better to starve than to embrace homosexuality.

In an appeal to Tanzanian lawmakers last month, Cdl. Polycarp Pengo of Dar es Salaam lashed out at Western aid programs that force poor countries to promote LGBT ideology in exchange for development aid.

At a thanksgiving Mass celebrating the November harvest, Cdl. Pengo denounced the threat by post-Christian Western nations to choke off economic and humanitarian aid to Tanzania unless the country decriminalizes homosexual acts and rallied government leaders to stand firm against secularist coercion.

“It is better to die of hunger than to receive aid and be compelled to do things that are contrary to God’s desire,” he declared.

“We cannot accept such displeasing things to God; and if we are starving because we have refused to engage in such acts, then we would rather die with our God.”

Increasingly, Western activists and their allies are injecting LGBT and pro-abortion ideology into foreign policy, pressing developing nations to overthrow traditional religious and cultural norms in favor of post-Christian social re-engineering.

But as Cdl. Pengo demonstrated, multiple Catholic leaders are fighting back.

Pope Francis frequently slams coercive development programs, warning they represent a corrosive “ideological colonization.” In an address to the United Nations earlier this year, the Pope denounced emerging “new rights” that disrespect “social and cultural traditions” and ignore developing nations’ “real needs.”

“Somewhat paradoxically, there is a risk that, in the very name of human rights, we will see the rise of modern forms of ideological colonization by the stronger and the wealthier, to the detriment of the poorer and the most vulnerable,” Francis warned.

Likewise, Culture of Life Africa founder Obianuju Ekeocha is a fierce critic of the new imperialism.

In an interview with the National Catholic Register last year, the Nigerian-born pro-family advocate observed: “The western world has been — and is still — undergoing rapid and radical moral shifts especially with regards to human sexuality, marriage, family and of course the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death.”

Image

Obianuju Ekeocha, founder of Culture of Life Africa.

“These changes have been toxic to society,” Ekeocha reflected, “as casual sex, abortion and contraception have become acceptable in many western countries, just as gender fluidity, same-sex ‘marriage’ and homosexual lifestyles are being supported and normalized by the same wealthy and powerful western leaders who hold and control the purse strings of foreign aid.”

In 2015, 45 prelates from more than three dozen African countries came together to issue a “Common Declaration of the Bishops of Africa and Madagascar,” demanding an end to foreign efforts to cultivate a Culture of Death across Africa under the guise of economic and humanitarian aid.

“By what right do Western NGOs, who only represent their own ideological interests, claim to legally bind African states to their world vision?” they asked. “Why such a programing and will to pollute and pervert, extending throughout the African continent?”

“This is a new type of slavery!” they exclaimed. “We want the dignity of our people to be respected.”

Speaking to his congregation in Dar es Salaam last month, Cdl. Pengo reminded his flock that the stakes involved in their fight run very deep.

“The sin of homosexuality,” he warned, is “contrary to God’s plan in creation,” and was “the cause of destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.”

COLUMN BY

STEPHEN WYNNE

Stephen hails from the City of Fountains, Kansas City, Missouri. He holds a B.A. in Creative Writing from Pepperdine University, and an E.M.B.A. from the University of Missouri.

His interests include international relations, cultural diplomacy, and theology; he is fascinated by Church history, particularly crisis points such as the Protestant revolt and the rise of modernism. Particular sounds — the crashing of waves, the wind in the trees, the pealing of bells — turn his thoughts toward God.

Stephen likes bullet trains, BBQ, and the works of Hieronymus Bosch. His favorite places include Iceland, Britain and above all, the Netherlands.

He is fueled by prayer and Red Bull, in that order.

RELATED ARTICLES:

This Teacher Was Fired for ‘Misgendering’ a Student. Who Could Be Next?

Child “Drag Queen” Dances At Brooklyn Gay Bar For Money

EDITORS NOTE: This column by Stephen Wynne with images originally appeared on Church Militant. It is republished with permission.

Time for Some Good News

/in , , , , /by

My wife Mary sent me links to the following three articles. “Dear Hollywood: Stop Gaying All the Things, Especially Straight Characters.” The article talks about how Hollywood is making everything about homosexuality, selling the lie that everyone is a closet homosexual. According to Gallop, homosexuals are 3.4% of the population. Leftists have scammed Americans into believing homosexuals are 23 percent and more. Some in Hollywood are campaigning to transform traditional heterosexual characters like Captain America and James Bond into homosexuals. Don’t laugh. It could happen folks.

“Forcing Churches to Hire Homosexuals, Transgender Ministers Will Go National” Austin, Texas city council introduced an ordinance forcing churches to hire homosexual and transgender ministers on the grounds that not to do so is discrimination. Other cities are pushing the same ordinance. A few years ago, Houston’s city council attempted the same ordinance. It was defeated. Praise God.

Texas Pastor Council President Dave Welch said, “In the past, we have too often waited and watched from the sidelines, silent. We decided that that is not possible anymore, that’s not acceptable.”

This statement from Pastor Welch is particularly strong, “Forcing churches to violate core convictions is not acceptable. Once government does so, all of our Constitutional protections are essentially gone – all gone, for all of us, across all America.”

It is thrilling to see courageous Christians in Texas fighting back in truth and love. Real Christian love is letting people know when they are going in the wrong direction; telling them that Jesus is the answer. As my late preacher dad said, “You shouldn’t pat people on the back to hell.” Dad instructed his five kids, “Don’t make my funeral about me. Tell people about Jesus.”

When the Supreme Court, in essence, made same sex marriage the law of the land, a millennial family member said to me. “I don’t care if two men want to sleep together. What difference does it make?” I tried to explain to him that SCOTUS’ ruling was a veiled leftist attack on religious freedom, reaching far beyond guys sleeping together. The glazed look in my young relative’s eyes told me he thought I was paranoid, conspiratorial and outdated.

This third article has sane people outraged. “Father Says 6-Year-Old Son Refuses Mom’s Demand to Dress Like a Girl – Now He’s being Charged with ‘Child Abuse’.” Texas father, Jeffery Younger could lose his son for not going along with his wacko ex-wife’s decision to raise their son James as a girl.

James’ father has been legally prohibited from talking to his son about gender or sexuality. Meanwhile, James’ mother plans to start the process of chemically castrating their 6 year old son when James turns 8 years old. 

Everyday we are confronted with outrageous attacks from leftists (fake news media, Democrats and Hollywood) on our culture, morals, freedoms and values. Sometimes I just don’t feel like talking about it. I am not advocating that we stick our heads in the sand and not deal with it. Passivity has gotten us into this mess; pushed around by aggressive leftist bullies. I am saying that sometimes it is wise to take a break from all the negativity and focus on good things.

The tiny town in West Virginia that Mary and I moved to a year ago had their annual Christmas parade. While Santa and Mrs. Claus waved from their beautiful float equipped with a snow machine, a strong theme of the parade was Jesus is the reason for the season. That was truly refreshing. Support for Trump is high in my tiny town.

My wife Mary enjoys watching Hallmark Christmas movie marathons. As leftists fight to remove Christ from Christmas, I appreciate Hallmark Christmas movies prominently featuring hymns. The movies are predictable. Everyone is well dressed. The settings are beautiful. The boy gets the girl and Mary says it always snows at the end. As corny as that sounds, the movies are a pleasant refreshing safe haven from all the vile garbage shoved into our faces at every turn on TV. So much of TV promotes people behaving badly. Producers are relentless in their mission to normalize deviancy.

Extremely popular, an all-time high of 37 Hallmark Christmas movies will air this holiday season. Their ratings keep rising. That’s good news.

Like many of you, Facebook, censored my articles and even closed down my account right before the midterm election. After jumping through hoops, Facebook restored my account. Mary excitedly signed me up on Trump Town, the new social network Facebook alternative. 

Addison Riddleberger, the founder of the new platform posted on his site. “Welcome to Trump Town – where you won’t be censored, ghosted or banned for supporting the 45th president of the United States.”

This site is great news for conservatives.

More people are beginning to realize that America’s political arena has become a battle of good vs evil. Everyday I remind myself, “Be not afraid nor dismayed by reason of this great multitude; for the battle is not yours, but God’s” (2 Chronicles 20:15). Our duty as loving Christians and patriots is to remain diligent and faithful; spreading truth while courageously and legally pushing back against evil.

I close with wonderful news – a brief video of president Trump’s bold unapologetic biblical speech pushing back against leftists’ war on Christmas. All praise and thanks to God.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Jon Tyson on Unsplash.

Getting Our Creation Wrong

/in , , , /by

Anthony Esolen: The sick need mercy, especially a man at odds with his own body.  But compromise principles? Never.  Jesus never did.

When the Pharisees came to Jesus to ask for what reasons a man might put away his woman, Jesus does not refer to the opinions of Hillel or Shammai, the titans of the previous generation of rabbis – the one liberal, the other conservative.  He goes even behind the law of Moses, which he says does not express the intention of the Creator from the beginning, but which was, in this matter, a concession to the hardness of men’s hearts.

“From the beginning of creation,” he says, echoing the first word of Scripture, “he made them male and female.  And for this reason, a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his woman, and the two shall be one flesh.  So they are no more two, but one flesh.  Then what God has yoked together, let man not put asunder” (Mark 10:6-8; translation mine).  When the disciples, stunned, ask Jesus about it privately, he does not soften his judgment: “Whoever puts away his woman and marries another, commits adultery with her.”

That is as stunning a condemnation as you can find. The Greek verb moichaomai is used in the Septuagint to refer also to unfaithfulness to God, as in the worship of idols.  The association is common in the Old Testament.  If you worship Baal or Moloch or Dagon, you are like a man going after whores.

We must not think that the authors have in mind only an attitude of unfaithfulness.  Baal and Moloch and Dagon are not gods: they are not the Creator.  It is an offense to the Creator to worship them, and stupid to boot, because they are the works of man.  You might take a block of wood and carve an idol or a chamberpot; it does not matter to the wood.  You might take your idol and toss it into the fire to warm your fingers.  How stupid, to worship a thing like that!

To get creation wrong, to fall in adoration of your chamberpot, is as filthy a thing, then, as to go a-whoring, and as stupid and self-destructive; but to go a-whoring, which is what Jesus says a man does when he puts away his woman and marries another, is to get creation wrong, and the Creator.

Here we see the apostasy of our time, tumescent and foolish, in broad daylight.

The Pharisees were seeking a good social custom. Jesus does not refer to custom. He refers to creation, and the intent of the Creator as manifest in the creation.  He points out the plain fact: we are made male and female, and male and female are what they are so that they will come together and become one flesh.

The word one and the idea it expresses are central to Jewish and Christian faith: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord, the Lord your God is one,” not two, and since that is so, we must love the Lord our God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength, not parceling out our love, some to God, and some to Baal or the chamberpot. Because the Lord our God is one and not two, we must love our neighbor as ourself; the same God who made us made him too.

The Kiss by Gustav Klimt, 1907-8 [Österreichische Galerie Belvedere, Vienna]

In none of this do we hear anything about a man’s feelings.  For we are not talking about interior dispositions, but about bodily beings, obvious to all.  The man is for the woman, the woman is for the man.  Indeed, there is no special word, in Hebrew or Greek, to denote “husband” and “wife,” because a man is to be a man for a woman, and a woman to be a woman for a man.

Many languages reflect that ontological fact: in German, a woman who refers to her “Mann” means her husband, and a man who refers to his “Frau,” his “woman,” means his wife.  Early modern English too: the word “wife” in “I now pronounce you man and wife” meant “woman” in the general sense; a “fishwife” is not the wife of a fish, but a woman who sells fish.

That being-for, in the mutuality of sexual distinction and sexual congress, is inscribed in the forms of our bodies. Every sexual sin is in some way an attack on the body and its objective meanings, which are conferred not by man but by God.

If I believe, however, that I am the one who endows my body with its meaning, even if I appeal to feelings over which I think I have no power, I have displaced the Creator.  Nowhere does Scripture suggest that God has created our passions, and nowhere does Jesus suggest that our passions are justified because we happen to have them.

To commit fornication, even with the best will in the world, is to deny the obvious, that the child-making thing is for making a child.  To commit adultery is to tear the one flesh in two.  To riffle through a porn magazine, one-handed, is to turn sex into a disembodied and lonely passion.

Sodom now forges the artillery of attack against the body created by God.  Soon it will be scientists in the grip of ennui and ambition, denying a meaning to “human,” and longing to merge us with the beast or the machine.

The intermediate term between Sodom and the Borg is the madness of the “transgender,” replacing natural sex with the mechanical and pharmaceutical, all to be dictated by the individual will, which says, as in all sins, “I am my own.”  Beneath it all lies a hatred of created reality.  It is either evil or meaningless, mere stuff for our manipulation.

Persons warrant our mercy, especially the sick, and who is sicker than a man at odds with his own body?  Principles, never.  Jesus never gave up one inch to an evil principle.  It is hard for us wretches to be both merciful with men and merciless with evil principles.  Too bad; it is our task.

COLUMN BY

Anthony Esolen

Anthony Esolen

Anthony Esolen is a lecturer, translator, and writer. His latest books are Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child and Out of the Ashes: Rebuilding American Culture. He directs the Center for the Restoration of Catholic Culture at Thomas More College of the Liberal Arts.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. © 2018 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. The featured photo is by Benjaminrobyn Jespersen on Unsplash.

High-End Retailer Nordstrom Has Low-Brow Standards for Life and Values

/in , , , /by

Nordstrom is one of America’s leading retailers of high-end clothing. Their values, however, are very low-quality. On life, guns, marriage, and religious liberty, Nordstrom is a low-quality store which should be avoided by 2ndVote shoppers this Christmas season.

Nordstrom backs a number of groups with values opposed to those of 2ndVote consumers. The YWCA, for example, opposes your Second Amendment rights, backs a redefinition of marriage, and supports abortion. Nordstrom is a financial supporter of the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights and Girls Inc., which back abortion, and Susan G. Komen and United Way — both of which are financial backers of Planned Parenthood.

Finally, Nordstrom opposes your religious liberty rights. They have created a corporate structure which ranks 100 percent on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. They back the Equality Act, which if enacted will undermine First Amendment rights related to religious liberty.

This Christmas season, be sure to go high-end for clothing gifts and your values…by avoiding Nordstrom.

Many of our better Christmas alternatives have online retail options and all the items in our 2018 Christmas Gift Guide are linked to vetted online retailers. Sign up for our newsletter below to receive a free copy of the guide:

PODCAST: On Gender, the Science Is Deafening

/in , , , , , /by

Reading the headlines this week is like taking a trip to an alternate universe. Ten years ago, if you’d have said that in 2018 teachers would get fired for calling a girl a girl, most people wouldn’t have believed you. Unfortunately, that’s the ridiculous world Americans are waking up to every morning. But to most people’s relief, not everyone is playing along with this charade. And that includes President Trump.

Almost two years in, this administration is still trying to mop up the mess made by Barack Obama. And considering the huge disaster they inherited, it’s amazing how much progress the White House has already made rolling back the absurdity of Obama’s LGBT legacy. After squashing the government’s gender-free bathroom mandate, President Trump moved on to the military. Now, he’s directed his agencies to make one of the most important changes of all: protecting the 54-year-old Civil Rights Act.

Barack Obama chose to read the law the way he wanted — not how it was written by Congress. For the last few years of his administration, he started using his own interpretation of the Civil Rights Act to give special protections to people who identify as transgender. There’s just one problem: that’s not what the 1964 Congress meant — and it’s not what the statute says. So, President Trump issued his own memo. For the purposes of his administration, the Justice Department explained, “sex discrimination” would not include “gender identity.”

That was music to the ears of a lot more than conservatives. In the medical community, experts were relieved to see that the president’s policy matched what was wise and prudent for patients. In a letter to the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services, a coalition of doctors, bioethicists, therapists, academics, and policy groups all praised the president for taking a scientifically-sound approach.

Dr. Michelle Cretella, head of the American College of Pediatricians, explained why that’s so important in an interview on Thursday’s “Washington Watch.” The letter, she points out, represents the views of more than 30,000 physicians who all understand that gender identity is a very real threat to modern health care. “Transgenders are saying, ‘I think and feel this way, therefore, I am.’ And it’s one thing for us to, as physicians, treat the person with respect and honor their name change, but it would be a complete malpractice to treat them as the opposite sex.”

As she explains, there is nothing any of us can do to change our binary, biologically-determined-at-conception sex. “A man on estrogen is not a woman. He is a man with a male physiology on estrogen, and that’s how a physician must approach him.” The very serious problem, she points out, is that people are so ideologically-driven that they want to ignore the medical research. More than ever, Dr. Cretella says, “Medicine is at the point now where we understand that men and women have — at a minimum — 6,500 genetic differences between us. And this impacts every cell of our bodies — our organ systems, how diseases manifest, how we diagnose, and even treat in some cases.”

Treating a person differently based on their feelings isn’t just harmful, she argues, but deadly. In cases like heart disease, certain drugs can endanger women and not men. Even diagnoses present differently in men and women. The symptoms for certain diseases, she explains, can manifest themselves in completely opposite ways. “And these are nuances that medicine is finally studying and bringing to light. And it’s actually ironic that the transgender movement [is] so anti-science.”

“There is absolutely no rigorous science that has found a trait called ‘gender identity’ in the brain, body, or DNA. Now sex — I can show you that. It’s in our chromosomes. It’s in the body. It’s in the reproductive organs. Over 99.98 percent of the times, our sexual development is clearly and unambiguously either male or female.” The sex differences, she explains are real and consequential.

If she had one message for America, Dr. Cretella said, it would be this: “Stick with science.” Thank goodness for us, the president has.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

This Teacher Was Fired for ‘Misgendering’ a Student. Who Could Be Next?

In the Line of Fired

You’re Making an Impact

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

Federal Judge Opens Discovery Into Clinton Email Usage [+Video]

/in , , , , , /by

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that, in a ruling excoriating both the U.S. Departments of State and Justice, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth has ordered both agencies to join Judicial Watch in submitting a proposed schedule for discovery into whether Hillary Clinton sought to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a private email system and whether the State Department acted in “bad faith” by failing to disclose knowledge of the email system.  The decision comes in a FOIA lawsuit related to the Benghazi terrorist attack.

Specially, Lamberth ruled:

… the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to plan discovery into (a) whether Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA; (b) whether the State Department’s attempts to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and (c) whether State has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests.

Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:

… his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?

[ … ]

At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.

Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Lamberth wrote:

The current Justice Department made things worse. When the government last appeared before the Court, counsel claimed, ‘it is not true to say we misled either Judicial Watch or the Court.’ When accused of ‘doublespeak,’ counsel denied vehemently, feigned offense, and averred complete candor. When asked why State masked the inadequacy of its initial search, counsel claimed that the officials who initially responded to Judicial Watch’s request didn’t realize Clinton’s emails were missing, and that it took them two months to ‘figure [] out what was going on’… Counsel’s responses strain credulity. [citations omitted]

The Court granted discovery because the government’s response to the Judicial Watch Benghazi FOIA request for Clinton emails “smacks of outrageous conduct.”

Citing an email (uncovered as a result of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit) that Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Benghazi was a terrorist attack immediately after it happened, Judge Lamberth asked:

Did State know Clinton deemed the Benghazi attack terrorism hours after it happened, contradicting the Obama Administration’s subsequent claim of a protest-gone-awry?

[ … ]

Did the Department merely fear what might be found? Or was State’s bungling just the unfortunate result of bureaucratic redtape and a failure to communicate? To preserve the Department’s integrity, and to reassure the American people their government remains committed to transparency and the rule of law, this suspicion cannot be allowed to fester.

“The historic court ruling raises concerns about the Hillary Clinton email scandal and government corruption that millions of Americans share,” stated Judicial Watch Tom Fitton.  “Judicial Watch looks forward to conducting careful discovery into the Clinton email issue and we hope the Justice Department and State Department recognize Judge Lamberth’s criticism and help, rather than obstruct, this court-ordered discovery.”

Read more about benghazi, Department of Justice, DOJ, fbi, foia, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton email scandal, Royce Lamberth, State Department

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

Guns and Taxes

/in , , , , , /by

David Hogg wants a federal tax on firearms and ammunition. He has repeatedly broached the idea, including multiple times on Twitter, and only sometimes suggests a use for the tax revenue. Hogg’s tweets on a federal gun tax include references to implementing the same sort of licensing and permitting requirements as the government requires to drive a car or funding “gun violence” research.

We’ve previously addressed the problem with comparing “gun violence” and motor vehicle accidents or smoking, and the problem with anti-gun research, so we’ll focus exclusively on Hogg’s tax idea.

Except it isn’t Hogg’s idea. The idea of a tax on firearms and ammunition predates Hogg by about a hundred years. A moment on Google would have shown Mr. Hogg as much.

The Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) was first imposed in 1919. In 1937, the Pittman-Robertson Act directed all revenue from FAET and related excise taxes to be used for hunting-related activities. The FAET includes a 10% tax on the sale price of pistols and revolvers and 11% of the sale price of other firearms and ammunition, and 11% tax on archery equipment. The tax is applied whether or not the equipment is likely to be used for hunting. The U.S. Department of the Treasury Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau provides an informative reference guide, and the Congressional Research Service compiled a report on the tax and relevant legislative proposals just this past March.

The Pittman-Robertson Act funds acquisition and improvement of wildlife habitat, introduction of wildlife into suitable habitat, research into wildlife problems, surveys and inventories of wildlife problems, acquisition and development of access facilities for public use, and hunter education programs, including construction and operation of public target ranges.

More than $12 billion has been collected under the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937, including more than $761 million in fiscal year 2017 alone. Revenues from the tax are placed into the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund and distributed to the states and U.S. territories.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, put together an informative video about how the excise tax supports conservation efforts and an infographic showing how the money collected from under the Act has impacted species.

Spoiler alert: the white-tailed deer population went from 500,000 in 1900 to 32 million today, and the waterfowl population grew from few to 44 million. There are similar success stories for other species, all made possible through the excise tax on firearms and ammunition.

The Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax is public information, as is the distribution of funds. Awareness of the tax may be low, but that doesn’t make the tax any less real. More than three-quarters of a billion dollars was collected last year; such an amount does not go unnoticed, particularly by the state wildlife agencies that depend on that funding for research and conservation efforts.

Mr. Hogg and others who want a federal tax on firearms and ammunition, would be well-served by spending a bit of time researching an idea before they start issuing demands.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Now Dick’s Is Facing Actual Store Closures After Selling Out Gun Buyers

Washington: Anti-Gun Group Announces 2019 Agenda

Warning to New Mexico Gun Owners: Expect Unprecedented Attacks On Your Second Amendment Rights During The 2019 Legislative Session

Ohio: Self-Defense Legislation Passes Senate Immediately Heads to House for Concurrence

California: Firearm Excise Tax Legislation Introduced

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