The Press As The Enemy Of The People.

/in , , , /by

During the past few days, I have heard some of the most unpalatable utterances from renowned, national news outlets. Following a week where a foolish and hateful idiot sent over ten bombs, (fake or real) to various Democrat leaders; where a demonic lunatic in Pittsburgh mauled down some of the most peaceful, loving people in our society; and where a man with a gun prevented another massacre from being perpetrated by an armed gunman, some in the press are making the case that these acts, unlinkable as they may be, are primarily due to the political utterances of the President of the United States.

To these people facts have no bearing in the formulation of their opinion.  To them, if the perpetrator of the injustice worships the President, his actions are the fault of the President of the United States.  If, on the other hand, the perpetrator hates the President of the United States, his actions are still the President’s fault.  And if there is no identifiable political slant to the perpetrator, the defender, or the victims the President is still equally to blame.

Make no mistake, the President of the United States can no more be blamed for the illegal and violent acts of a crazed lunatic than can my dog’s mere existence.

The President has fired back by once again calling the fake press the enemy of the people. I, for one, think the President has a point, as does a substantial portion of the electorate.

Let’s start by acknowledging that calling out the press’s hypocritical and reckless conduct is just as valid a political observation, when true, as any other; and perhaps even more necessary.

In a panel discussion on CNN, Julia Ioffe of GQ Magazine actually said, “This President has radicalized so many more people than ISIS ever did.”  ISIS, the evil, vial, and murderous organization that almost radicalized a whole continent.  ISIS, the organization that owes its success at radicalizing hundreds of thousands of individuals to the passive and permissive posture of President Barack Obama.  ISIS, the organization whose radicalization consisted of justifying the decapitation of thousands and the capture and rape of countless women.  And ISIS, the organization whose existence was essentially terminated by the actions of President Trump.

That such patently and absurdly unjustifiable comments are allowed to fly without admonition from CNN nor sanction from GQ is utterly atrocious, yet the comments flow through the airwaves and the internet, decorated with CNN’s and GQ’s stamps of authenticity.

During the same weekend, Joe Scarborough said that for the President to have tweeted comments about baseball and his hair “was done intentionally to send a message to white nationalists; ‘this doesn’t bug me that much.'”  Again the comment represented a despicable, open, and wholly unsubstantiated attack, not just on the President’s actions, but also on his intent.  What scintilla of evidence does Scarborough have that the President was sending a signal to anyone, much less white nationalists?  Of course, he has none.  The allegation was completely fabricated by one whose animus against the President of the United States is so intense he can’t see straight.  And predictably, there was no correction from MSNBC.

And on Sunday, on MSNBC, Malcolm Nance said about the President, “He uses megaphones to tell these tribes that they belong to him, and this is leading to violence,” a purely hysterical, hateful, and wholly unsubstantiated comment that was once again allowed to persist by a network without retort or correction.

Then there’s John Heilemann, who charged during an appearance on MSNBC, “The President is obviously a racist.  He’s obviously a demagogue.  He obviously condones anti-Semitism. Stokes up nationalist hatred.” (emphasis added)  Yet no president has shown greater support for Israel nor has done more to support Jewish rights and the Jewish Community than President Donald J. Trump.

When outlandish charges such as these are recurrently allowed entry into the national forum under the guise of serious political discussion by news outlets that neither provide substantiation, reprimand, or correction the presence of an underlying biased, political agenda is revealed.  And when such a bias commands a greater priority than truth in reporting, the reporter or networks stop serving the needs of the people and start working against them.

Clearly, the press has an immeasurably important role to play in a democracy, and in particular, in the United States of America. That role is centered upon the delivery of information regarding the events of the day, inclusive of thoughtful, substantiated, and well-researched analysis.  Yes, the news is biased, but that is to be expected, as we are all biased. But we expect the press to be responsible and fair.

Make no mistake, when the press is delivering stories and opinions on a national level with the primary purpose of undermining the President of the United States regardless of the truth of the matter asserted, it is acting against the interests of the people. When it spreads lies, or paints stories in a deceitful light so as to forward an institutionalized political agenda at the expense of the truth, it is acting against the interests of the people. When it purposefully conflates hyperbolic political rhetoric delivered during a campaign despite the office holder’s actual performance demonstrating the contrary, it is acting against the interests of the people.   When the press stops acting as an objective deliverer of facts and instead acts as a propaganda machine, it acts against the interest of the people.  When the press allows its news programs to be used as platforms by political hacks to foment vitriol and lies without retort or correction from the network, it acts against the interests of the people.  And when a person or institution consistently and recurrently acts against the interest of the American people, it becomes the enemy of the people.

In either case, as demonstrated by its disgraceful performance this week, the disservice the press is presently providing our Republic and our democracy vastly outweighs its benefit.  It is clearly time for the press, as an institution, to reassess the job it is doing on behalf of the people of the United States.  If it does, and if it were to provide more objective and substantiated coverage of the day’s events, I am certain it would stop being viewed as an enemy of the people by nearly half the country and will reassert its position as the indispensable ally to our republic that it needs to be.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Fake News Threatens Our National Health and Wealth

Media Should Examine Itself Before Blaming Trump for ‘Climate of Hate’

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Elijah O’Donnell on Unsplash.

The American Victim

/in , , , , /by

It was a late October night when my best friend Heather and I made the pilgrimage to school to meet the bus after a long day of footballing with our boys. Two Southern Belles giggling and recapping the day’s experience, we were an inseparable pair of wives and moms without a care in the world as we navigated the dark rural highway where we had not seen a car for miles.

“What’s the speed limit?” I kept asking Heather, but we had no clue. Cruising along at a safe 65 MPH in the middle of nowheres-ville, I was completely shocked to see the blue lights that appeared behind us.

“Step out of the car!”

This was the scariest moment of my life. As I stepped out, there was nothing but darkness. I was overwhelmed and blinded by the brightest white light I had ever seen. It hurt to look at it.

The ominous voice behind the light continued to give me aggressive orders that bordered on angry, while Heather sat in the car and did not move a muscle. I knew that this is what people were referring to when I had seen them on television chanting Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!  I instinctively put my hands up just to make double sure the officers knew I was not wielding a weapon. As the orders continued, I knew that these were going to be my last moments on earth and I could already feel the hot lead penetrating my chest.

In a final attempt at life, I cried out in my Mom voice, “You are scaring me!!!”

There was a brief pause when a form of a man begin to break the barrier of the white light to reveal scarcely more than a boy, acting alone. The young man was shaking, more afraid than I. He put his police voice back on and demanded to know just WHERE was I going at ten miles an hour over the speed limit.

We gave him our day’s story and things seemed to calm down once he recognized our naiveté.

“Well, don’t let this happen again!” he said, and we were on our way.

I wondered what might have happened had I not been a white, educated woman with roots in Southern charm, realizing that this same fear is truly more than just a perceived notion in some communities. That there is a type of injustice when innocent men die without cause or understanding is not a myth.

I need to make that point clear before I pen what I have to say at the risk of being inflammatory without intent or incurring misdirected accusations of racism or gender bias. Sometime before writing this column, I got into my car and drove to Selma where I spent a few hours at the Lowndes Interpretive Center. The park ranger, a young woman of color, invested in speaking with me from a place of wholeness. I took the time to cross the Edmund Pettus bridge. I abhor the heart of the actions that occurred on Bloody Sunday and would hope to think I would not have remained silent had I been there.

Having now established my point that injustice DOES exist at times and that it, along with the most unjust events of American history, should not be overlooked, my story begins.

In the late summer of 2018, the stage was set for one of the most intriguing US Open women’s tennis grand slam finals of all times. The aging champion verses the new generation held the potential for a regime change that would not be the first of its kind. Federer had once dethroned Sampras and captured five consecutive Wimbledon titles only to be dethroned, albeit briefly, by Nadal in 2008 during one of the most thrilling matches of the open era. Nobody left pouting. It happens. It’s part of sports. Somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. It’s a casualty of the game. Sportsmanship is expected.

In basketball, if you or your coach curse or yell at the referee, you get a technical foul. Nobody protests. There is a respect for authority and the system of rules. In tennis, a gentlemen and ladies’ sport, players give their all in a hushed reverence after being presented with a bouquet of flowers, and when in England, are expected to curtsy to the royal box.

Ladies wear skirts. There is a dress code defined by the particular stadium. Tennis is a sport of highest etiquette, defined by a code of ethics, both written and unwritten.

I watched the horrific 2018 US Open finals twice in full, not just the advantageous clips presented by the media to promote the sexism/victim theory. I am and have always been a huge Serena fan, but the sexism discussion following her loss was a diversion tactic for what actually happened in that match—a narcissistic abuse tactic called deflection and a huge disappointment to all of us that love Serena, the girl who was WINNING in the second set.

Nobody was preventing her from taking the trophy. It was hers to lose on her own and she did. Osaka, a woman of color, beat the aging champion fair and square. BIG. Not just by a hair. This, just before Serena had a public meltdown.

Does there need to be a discussion regarding sexism and abuse of chair umpire? Perhaps. But THIS is not what cost Serena this match. Yet THIS is what was played ad nauseum in the media to the tune of Serena’s $180 Million voice. THIS was what the highlight reel steered the uninformed public to believe.

I did not write this article because of the color of Serena’s skin, rather I wrote it for the content of her character in those isolated moments of despair. I wrote it as an athlete and a woman who feels strongly that her actions did not speak for many of us. Serena, a woman to whom much has been given, was the real thief who stole the glory of an inaugural championship moment from the young girl who beat her. She played the American victim game:

I can buck authority. When rules are imposed, deflect, and make a claim that I have been victimized. In order to boost belief in my platform and detract attention from my bad behavior, I will make sure to select some sensitive area such as gender or race in order to attract a celebrity activist who will likely garner attention for their own cause by making me a poster child. Get the media to buy in as their marketing executives enjoy champagne toasts about the boost in ratings, and pretty soon the civil war I have created will be such a maelstrom that no one will have remembered to check me in my bad behavior.

This is a cancer in the heart of some Americans that will not be addressed until a few brave souls teach our current generation to walk in the ways of God while embracing both justice AND mercy.

I am not only calling out all Mama lionesses to get in the face of our own young and address any rebellion, but also to all people to choose honesty, admitting mistaken claims of injustice when rebellion has occurred within the communities we call our own.

Take American journalist Jonathan Capehart, a man of color who likely identifies with the LGBTQ movement courageously stepped forward to admit that the Hands Up, Don’t Shoot movement was based upon a lie. Upon the release of the facts regarding the Ferguson response that resulted in the killing of Michael Brown, Capehart names Brown nothing more than an inappropriate symbol for the movement, challenging his own readers to continue standing against institutionalized hardship and injustice, but to first get the facts straight.

Again, Capehart exhibits journalistic integrity when he called out Bernie Sanders for placing himself in photos at a civil rights rally, a place where in truth he existed only in spirit.

In addition, more houses of worship than ever are stepping up to lead reconciliation events in their communities, but have not defined what reconciliation IS and IS NOT. Leaders need to cease calling reconciliation the act of NOT speaking about issues. What our communities need is a reconciliatory process that includes leaders who can put the venom aside while pursuing understanding, considering others better than ourselves, and that if tolerance is good for one, it is good for all.

The American victim game, whether based on race, gender, or moral character assaults needs to be called into account by honest leaders among our respective tribes. In the current geopolitical climate, it is time to slow down and quit solely looking to the national media as the source of truth. We need to bring back the Golden Rule and truly mean it, seeking not only to be understood, but also to understand.This is the first step toward healing the wounds of every willing man and putting an end to the American victim mentality for good, irregardless of perspective.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Alex Iby on Unsplash.

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

/in , , , , /by

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.

Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.

Originally published by Fox News in 2011

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

On the Street: What Americans Think About Birthright Citizenship

The True History of Millstone Babies

By the Numbers: 4 Key Points About Birthright Citizenship

Podcast: The History of Birthright Citizenship in the US

Birthright Citizenship: What You Need To Know

RELATED VIDEO: Former Senator Harry Reid’s 1993 “No Sane Country” remarks on birthright citizenship – CSPAN.

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Twitter list of 653 violent attacks by leftists against Republicans

/in , , , , /by

The National Review reported:

CNN anchor Don Lemon said on his show Monday that he sees only “right-wingers,” not Democrats, committing murders over their political beliefs.

National Review quoted CNN’s Lemon saying, “I don’t see Democrats killing people because of political — yeah, there may be democratic operatives who are out there.”

Well one man Peter D’Abrosca decided to take to Twitter to list 653 violent attacks by leftists against Republicans.

Here are the most recent listed by D’Abrosca (click here for the full list).

CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL LIST

VIDEO: Democrats Want Convicted Felons to Turn Florida Blue!

/in , , , , , /by

Jeremy Ring, the Democrat candidate for Chief Financial Officer of the state of Florida, wants to restore voting rights to 1.6 million convicted felons, in order to turn the state Blue, permanently!

In the column “Do Floridians really want to grant full amnesty to 1.5 million felons by giving them a right to vote? Dr. Rich Swier wrote:

Under the Florida Constitution, a convicted felon cannot vote, serve on a jury, or hold public office until their civil rights have been restored. When a person is convicted of a felony in Florida, he/she loses the right to vote, sit on a jury, hold public office, and possess a firearm. Felonies in Florida are punishable by death or imprisonment in state prison and classified as capital or life felonies; or felonies of the first, second, or third degree.

Under current Florida law a convicted felon can have their full civil rights (including voting rights) restored.

This is done by the Florida Commission on Offender Review, which was established in 1941.  The Commission on Offender Review may grant a felon a full pardon, pardon with firearm authority, pardon for misdemeanor, commutation of sentence, remission of fines and forfeitures, specific authority to own, possess and use fire arms, restoration of civil rights and restoration of alien status under Florida law. The Commission’s website under the category Restoration of Civil Rights in Florida reads:

The Restoration of Civil Rights restores to an applicant all of the rights of citizenship in the State of Florida enjoyed before the felony conviction, except the specific authority to own, possess, or use firearms. Such restoration shall not relieve an applicant from the registration and notification requirements or any other obligations and restrictions imposed by law upon sexual predators or sexual offenders. [Emphasis added]

If their is already a pathway to restore the full civil rights of a convicted felon in Florida why is there a need for full amnesty?

Logic would tell Floridians that a convicted felon must prove his/her worthiness after serving their sentences before his/her civil rights (e.g. voting rights) are restored. Is the person actually worthy on a case by case basis to be granted any level of restoration without a thorough review by the Florida Commission on Offender Review?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Ye Jinghan on Unsplash.

Greece, Prostitution, and the Sad Consequences of Democratic Socialism

/in , , , , /by

The moral of the story is that socialism (however defined) has never worked in any form at any time in history.

My left-leaning friends periodically tell me that there’s a big difference between their benign policies of democratic socialism and the wretched track records of Marxist socialism, national socialism, and other forms of totalitarianism.

I agree. Living in a European welfare state, after all, is much better than living in a hellhole like Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, or Venezuela.

Not only do you enjoy the rule of law (no Khmer Rouge-style concentration camps!), but you also enjoy considerable prosperity compared to the rest of the world.

But there are two things to understand about that prosperity:

Let’s consider the case of Greece. I’ve written many times about the debilitating impact of high tax rates and wasteful spending in that nation. It has the least economic freedom of all nations in Western Europe, so it’s no surprise that it is falling further behind.

But sometimes a compelling example is the best way of helping people understand the harmful impact of big government. From The New York Times:

We were on Filis Street — a warren of alleyways and dingy two-story houses — which has been home to Athenian brothels for most of the past century. The trade is more desperate now because of Greece’s lost decade since the 2008 financial crisis, which has left no profession unscathed. The collapsed economy and the arrival of tens of thousands of migrants have pushed even more women into prostitution — even as prices have fallen through the floor…“I had a flower shop for 18 years — and now I’m here out of necessity, not out of joy,” said Dimitra, a middle-aged woman who lost her shop in the crisis and now works as a madam…the number of prostitutes in the city had increased by 7 percent since 2012, yet prices have dropped drastically, both for women working on the streets and in brothels. “In 2012, it would require an average of 39 euros” for a client to hire a prostitute in a brothel, Mr. Lazos said, “while in 2017 just €17 — a 56 percent decrease.”

The saddest part of the story is the commentary of the prostitutes:

“I hate sex,” Elena said. “I like the money, not the job.” Anastasia…has worked as a prostitute since she was 14. She’s now 33, and says the work is harder than ever. “People don’t have money anymore,” she said… Monica, a 30-year-old Albanian prostitute…spends six to eight hours a day trying to entice clients, but most do not stay. “They don’t have money,” she said. “They haven’t had money for the past seven years.”… Many Greek men are simply too poor to pay anymore.

I support legal prostitution, in part because the alternative of pushing these unfortunate women even further into the underground economy would be worse.

But that doesn’t change the fact that these women don’t have good lives. And the misery of democratic socialism in Greece is making their lives even sadder.

The bottom line is that I now have three awful anecdotes from Greece to help illustrate the wretched impact of big government. In addition to the price-cutting prostitutes we discussed today, let’s not forget that Greece subsidizes pedophiles and requires stool samples to set up online companies.

Needless to say, I hope we never go that far in the wrong direction.

The moral of the story is that socialism (however defined) has never worked in any form at any time in history.

This article was reprinted with permission from International Liberty.

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

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

PART TWO: Trevor Loudon Releases Mini-Doc on Florida’s Andrew Gillum #EnemiesWithin [Video]

/in , , , , /by

Originally published on trevorloudon.com:

This week, Trevor Loudon presents Part Two (See Part One) of a series exposing the radical ties of Florida Gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum. Gillum, the current mayor of Tallahassee, Florida, has a long history with hard-core socialist activists.

Andrew Gillum is a threat to national security.

WATCH THE VIDEO BELOW!!

In 2016, New Zealand author and film-maker Trevor Loudon released his full-length documentary The Enemies Within, which exposed a shocking number of United States Senators and members of Congress who pose a security risk to America. These elected officials were all tied to hostile foreign powers, anti-American Marxist groups or fronts for the pro-terrorist Muslim Brotherhood.

The radical group “Dream Defenders” endorses Andrew Gillum (Screenshot of tweet)

Please embed these videos on your blog, tweet them to your followers, post them to Facebook, or personally email them to friends, relatives and colleagues. Every American voter needs to see these videos. If more Americans understand how badly they are being betrayed by their own elected representatives, they can help “drain the swamp” themselves, directly through the ballot box.

Part Two:

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

10 Reasons Why The Democrat Will Lose Big on November 6th, 2018

/in , , , /by

There has been much speculation and polling done since the midterm elections of 2018 began. The legacy media has pushed two narratives: 1. Trump is evil and 2. There will be a blue wave on November 6th, 2018.

Here are 10 reasons why both narratives are hurting Democrats and the issues that truly count with the majority of voters:

  1. “It’s the economy stupid!” as James Carville pointed out to former President Bill Clinton during the 1992 election. Clinton won. The economy is booming under President Trump. People vote in their self interests. There are more working class Americans who are benefiting from the Trump administration policies than not. Win Republicans.
  2. The illegal alien invasion. Immigration remains a hot button issue with Americans, especially those who immigrated to the United States legally. Americans do not want to see their jobs taken by illegals nor do they want to pay welfare to those coming in the “caravan.” Win Republicans.
  3. #JobsNotMobs is a winning slogan. The attacks on individuals have soured the American people on the lawlessness exhibited by individuals and groups. For women a key factor is security. A safe home and community are key issues. Fear is not a winning strategy. Accosting people in public places hurts Democrats. Win Republicans.
  4. Saying what you mean and then doing what you say. President Donald J. Trump is the gold standard for making and keeping promises made during his campaign. A series of videos by Project Veritas has shown key Democrats running for election are saying anything to get elected. Lying is bad policy and worse politics. Win Republicans.
  5. The radicalization of the Democratic Party. Two movements are making an impact on bringing key Democrat constituencies to the Republicans. The first is the #WalkAway campaign. The second is the #BLEXIT movement. Both ask Democrats and Independents to think for themselves. These two campaigns, that are just getting started, will have an impact on the minority vote in 2018 and bigger impact in 2020. Win Republicans.
  6. The legacy media and fake news. The media did not learn from the 2016 presidential election. Rather than taking the win of Donald J. Trump in stride and reporting on his policies and positions in a rational and fair way, they went in the opposite direction. The legacy media now makes up news in the hopes that people will just trust them. Trust in the media is at an all time low. Fake news did not work in the presidential election of 2016 and will not work for them in the 2018 midterm election. Bias is obvious, lying is obvious and the hate for those who voted for President Trump is obvious. Win Republicans.
  7. The blame game doesn’t win hearts and minds. The Democrats and the media have since November 2016 blamed President Trump for everything from causing Hurricane Michael to the slaughter in a Pittsburgh synagogue. President Trump is a man of action. The Democrats are running on blame the other guy at all cost. Win Republicans.
  8. The Democratic Party’s growing list of socialist candidates. The Democratic Party, in order to appease the most radical part of its base, has chosen to run socialists in key races. Perhaps the most note worthy of this neo-Socialist Democrat movement are Andrew Gillum, running for governor in Florida, Julia Salazar, running for New York state senator and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, running for the U.S. Congress in New York District 4. Socialism sucks (see 1 above). Win Republicans.
  9. The Kavanaugh hearings. The lingering effect of the animus shown during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on now Associate Justice Kavanaugh still hangs like a cloud over the Democrat Party. Win Republicans.
  10. Finally, the lack of ideas. The Democratic Party is running against President Trump. That is their entire message. As Tip O’Neil said, “All elections are local.” Republicans are running on the booming economy, lower taxes, secure borders, law and order, support for ICE, support for minorities by improving their lives, legal immigration, fair trade and less government control. The Democrats aren’t saying what they really stand for but they are the opposite of what the Republicans stand for. Win Republicans.

In a article titled “Trump Campaign Blitz Will End With The GOP Winning Big” Michael Busler writes:

President Trump, who constantly reminds us of his zest for winning, is about to embark on a campaign blitz.  He will visit eight states and his campaign will spend millions on advertising.  This will begin on Wednesday and last until election day.

The result of the Trump campaign blitz will be big wins for the Republicans on election day.  The GOP will maintain a majority in the House of Representatives and increase their majority in the Senate to 56 or 57, but perhaps as high as 60. [Emphasis added]

We agree. Winning is the new mantra of the Republican Party. The proof will be in the primary pudding served up on November 6, 2018.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Black Voters Will Save America With The #WalkAwayCampaign And BLEXIT

Oregon Could Elect Its First Republican Governor In Nearly Four Decades

179 Death Threats Against President Trump Are Live On Twitter…Real Time Updated List

Accusing Trump of fostering violence is incitement

The Political Miscalculations of the Democrats

Billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer Runs Facebook Ad Comparing President Trump To Saddam Hussein

GQ Writer Julia Ioffe: Trump Has Radicalized Many More People Than ISIS

RELATED VIDEO: Loesch: Democrats lack substantive policy proposals

New Brazil President to close ‘Palestinian’ embassy: “You do not negotiate with terrorists”

/in , , , /by

A refreshing dose of reality from a country that has supported the “Palestinian” jihad for a considerable period.

“Brazilians elect first ardently pro-Israel president,” by Marcus M. Gilban, JTA, October 29, 2018:

RIO DE JANEIRO (JTA) — Brazilians elected a president who is a far-right, ardently pro-Israel veteran pol who once declared “My heart is green, yellow, blue and white,” in a reference to the colors of the Israeli and Brazilian flags.

“Far-right”: i.e., hated by the political and media establishment.

Jair Bolsonaro, a 63-year-old seven-term congressman who built his campaign around pledges to crush corruption and crime, secured over 55 percent of the vote, an 11 percent lead over his far-left rival Fernando Haddad.

“We cannot continue flirting with socialism, communism, populism and leftist extremism … We are going to change the destiny of Brazil,” said Bolsonaro in his late Sunday night acceptance speech broadcast from his home in Rio, which showed a Jewish menorah in the background of the video.

Highly divisive among Jewish voters, the Conservative lawmaker — whose middle name, Messias, literally means “messiah” — won the ballot after a drama-filled election that looks set to radically reforge the future of the world’s fourth biggest democracy, leaving nearly 15 years of far-left governments behind….

For many Jewish voters, Bolsonaro has always been a dream president. He has declared he will move the Brazilian embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv. His first international trip as president, he said, will be to Israel, with which he will seek to broaden the dialogue. And he promised to close the Palestinian embassy in Brasilia.

“Is Palestine a country? Palestine is not a country, so there should be no embassy here,” Bolsonaro said weeks ago. “You do not negotiate with terrorists.”…

“Bolsonaro stood out among the many candidates for including the State of Israel in the major speeches he made during the campaign,” Israel’s honorary consul in Rio, Osias Wurman, told JTA last week. “He is a lover of the people and the State of Israel.”…

RELATED ARTICLE: Como o Poder das Ideias Está Libertando Mentes no Brasil by Rafael Ribeiro

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with images with permission. The featured photo is by sergio souza on Unsplash.

The Left Goes Full Open Borders

/in , , , , /by

It wasn’t long ago that both sides of the aisle believed America’s border laws should be enforced.

As President Donald Trump pointed out on Twitter, even former President Barack Obama, at least rhetorically, said that illegal immigrants couldn’t be let into the country en masse and without restrictions. (He said that as a senator.)

“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants into this country,” Obama said.

This dynamic has dramatically shifted, as the American left now increasingly sees any level of border enforcement as beyond the pale.

The migrant caravans originating in Honduras and heading north to the U.S. border are testing just how far the left will go in embracing this new narrative.

The position Obama held just over a decade ago is now considered offensive in some circles. Some are even demanding that the U.S. let the caravan into the United States.

“Every one of these people are coming from a real fear. These are refugees,” Cambridge, Massachusetts Mayor Marc McGovern said, according to the Boston Herald. “These are people who really are facing real problems and we have to let them through.”

The left is sending a message that concern over unchecked immigration is illegitimate.

Yet this is out of step with the American people in general.

Americans are clearly divided when it comes to the issue of immigration. Some want more high-skilled immigrants, others don’t. Some think a wall is necessary for border security, others don’t.

But one thing that Americans tend to agree on, strongly, is the idea that we have a right to control our border and determine who comes into the country. This belief flows from the concept that we are a sovereign nation that must maintain law and order for the safety of everyone.

The idea that thousands of people can just arrive at the border, demand entrance to the United States, and possibly force their way in by overwhelming U.S. authorities offends our idea that America is a nation of laws, and it undermines the idea that the American people have the right to set their own immigration policies.

America has very specific laws regarding legal immigration and asylum—which generally only applies in cases of state-based repression. Allowing a gaggle of thousands of people into this country with little oversight and little legal standing would only encourage more of this sort of tactic.

This worry is fueled by an increasingly aggressive left-wing stance that any level of border enforcement is tantamount to racism and nativism. This view is no longer held by just a few radicals. It is increasingly the stance of more mainstream progressives and Democrats.

Earlier this year, the call to abolish U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, morphed into a mainstream movement embraced by prominent Democrats like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y.

One can see how this public position actually encourages more illegal immigration, including the massive caravans.

As The Heritage Foundation’s senior policy analyst for Latin America, Ana Quintana, noted, many of these migrants have been manipulated by South American left-wing parties into believing this is their path to the United States.

It’s a political tactic used to sow chaos, and unfortunately puts lives at risk—including the migrants who travel thousands of miles through dangerous locations to get to the U.S. border.

“This caravan antic is right out of the left’s disorder and chaos playbook,” Quintana wrote. “The timing before the U.S.’s midterm elections and the change of presidency in Mexico is not coincidental. It is also clear the caravan organizers are more interested in creating turmoil than the well-being of the migrants.”

We are paying the price of the world believing we won’t enforce our border laws.

The issue now at stake with the caravan is not merely immigration, but whether the United States is in fact a sovereign country—whether the American people have the power to decide their immigration laws, and whether our government will enforce those decisions.

All of this shows just how far progressives have moved away from the mainstream when it comes to immigration.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Military to Deploy 5,000 Troops to Border

VIDEO: America has no room for the ‘vile, hate-filled poison of anti-Semitism’

/in , , , /by

The White House is an email noted:

The American flag is flying at half-mast above the White House today as our Nation grieves the 11 victims of a despicable act of mass murder Saturday at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

“Anti-Semitism and the widespread persecution of Jews represents one of the ugliest and darkest features of human history,” President Donald J. Trump said from Indiana on Saturday. “The vile, hate-filled poison of anti-Semitism must be condemned and confronted everywhere and anywhere it appears.”

What unites Americans is our common destiny, President Trump continued. “We mourn for the unthinkable loss of life that took place today, and we pledge in their name to fight for a future of justice, safety, tolerance, morality, dignity, and love. We must all rise above the hate.”

President Trump and the First Lady will visit Pittsburgh tomorrow to meet with family members of the victims and mourn with the entire Pittsburgh community. The 11 Jewish-Americans killed “represented the very best of our Nation,” Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said from the White House today. The President “adores Jewish-Americans as part of his own family,” which includes his daughter, son-in-law, and several grandchildren, she noted.

As always in moments such as these, America’s heroes in law enforcement do some of the most difficult work. Four of these brave officers were wounded while confronting the attacker this weekend. “They do so much for us,” President Trump said. “And they’re really unsung heroes. They don’t get the credit they deserve.”

Watch President Trump’s response to the tragedy in Pittsburgh.

More: Press Secretary Sarah Sanders delivers an update this afternoon.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Pittsburgh Synagogue, Anti-Semitism and Trump

America Has Always Been a Safe Haven for Jews. An Evil Killer Won’t Change That.

Podcast: DC Chair of Young Jewish Conservatives Discusses Pittsburgh Shooting

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of the American flag at half staff is courtesy of the White House.

BREAKING NEW VIDEO: Arizona Senate Race: “We can’t be talking about” that

/in , , , , /by

UPDATE

Arizona U.S. Senate candidate, Kyrsten Sinema, has almost immediately responded to our undercover investigation exposing her staff saying she is a fake moderate.

Sinema was shown the undercover tapes LIVE on KTAR 92.3 radio in Arizona and fumbled when she was asked if she was really a progressive trying to trick moderate voters.

Here’s the transcript of Sinema being questioned on Arizona radio:

HOST: Now there’s something that just came out yesterday. Project Veritas which is known for using hidden cameras.

SINEMA: And those guys are convicted criminals.

HOST: Well, they do go and they capture people saying things that sometimes they wouldn’t say in public, they say in private instead. The video they put out yesterday this is not great, it’s Lauren Fromm which Project Veritas says is a field organizer for your campaign, here’s a little bit of that video…

[PLAYS VIDEO FOR SINEMA]

HOST: Okay so first off, is Lauren Fromm part of your team and second, is she telling the truth? Are you a progressive and are you just acting moderate to get elected?

SINEMA: Well I don’t know who Lauren is, so I can’t answer that question.

HOST: They say she’s a field organizer for your campaign.

SINEMA: Well let’s take everything they say with a grain of salt.

The Senate candidate is asking us to take it with a grain of salt that Lauren Fromm, the field organizer, works for her. Sinema can say whatever she wants, but when I walked into Sinema’s field office, Lauren Fromm was standing right there!

And when Sinema says that she doesn’t know Lauren, just take a look at this picture of the two of them together:

Fromm and Sinema

This all comes on the heels of the video being shown on primetime cable news, on Sean Hannity’s program! And it’s being covered by Arizona media as well.

The largest newspaper in Arizona has already covered this story, quoting the field organizer Madison Snarr facetiously stating, “She’s going to stand up and protect Arizona values, whatever the f*** that means.”

I was in Arizona yesterday to get comment from Snarr and received the following response:

James: Could you explain —

Madison: I believe what I said. I believe she’s going to stand up and protect Arizona’s values.

James: You said whatever the ‘f’ that means.

Madison: I mean that – that um… changes. As time goes on… Arizonans have evolved throughout the years. Sinema has as well. I think she’s a great candidate.

James: Whatever the “F” that means though. Isn’t that mocking the idea that a senator would represent the state she is from?

Madison: That was a glib statement . . .

Arizona: Project Veritas Action Fund has released undercover video from current Congresswoman and US Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema’s campaign.

This new video exposes the campaign’s belief that in order to win Arizona, Sinema must appear more moderate than she really is and must hide her progressive views from voters in the process. This is the sixth undercover video report Project Veritas has released in a series revealing secrets and lies from political campaigns in 2018.

  • Campaign Staff mocks Sinema platform: “She’s going to stand up and protect Arizonans values. Whatever the f**k that means.”
  • Sinema’s immigration proposal: a “path to citizenship” for all non-criminals.
  • Sinema Campaign Manager: “We can’t be talking about an assault weapons ban.” Describes an incremental approach to gun control.
  • Top donor says gun control “couldn’t be a platform issue…” But Sinema would still vote for it.
  • Campaign staff explains: “… she is pro-choice. She is very liberal, she’s progressive.”

Judge Bans Enforcement of California Law Requiring Pro-Life Groups to Promote Abortion

/in , , , , , , , /by

A federal judge in San Diego has permanently barred enforcement of California’s Reproductive FACT Act, which requires pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to disseminate information about abortion.

The Friday order follows a June 26 Supreme Court decision that found that the FACT Act likely violates the First Amendment.

“The government has no business forcing anyone to express a message that violates their convictions, especially on deeply divisive subjects such as abortion,” said the Alliance Defending Freedom’s Michael Farris, who represented a coalition of pro-life groups challenging the law.

“California disregarded that truth when it passed its law forcing pro-life centers to advertise for the abortion industry. The district court’s order puts a permanent end to that law in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June, which rightly found that ‘the people lose when the government is the one deciding which ideas should prevail.’”

“The outcome of this case affirms the freedom that all Americans have to speak—or not to speak—in accordance with their conscience,” Farris added.

There are some 200 pro-life pregnancy clinics in California, many of which have a religious orientation. The FACT Act required clinics licensed by the state to post a bulletin relaying information about abortion access in a “conspicuous place” within the facility. Unlicensed clinics—which provide various support services but do not offer advanced medical care—must disclose that they are not credentialed to practice medicine on site and in all advertisements.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) challenged the law on constitutional grounds, arguing it violated the First Amendment because it forces a private speaker to spread a message with which they disagree.

California countered that it has a legitimate interest in ensuring its citizens are well-informed about the range of reproductive health options available to them. The state also feared many pro-life clinics conceal their anti-abortion mission from unwitting patients.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, a five-justice majority led by Justice Clarence Thomas found the law likely violates the First Amendment. The case then returned to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, which entered final judgment against the FACT Act. The plaintiffs may also ask to recoup the cost of the litigation.

In one of his last opinions on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurrence “to underscore that the apparent viewpoint discrimination here is a matter of serious constitutional concern.”

“Governments must not be allowed to force persons to express a message contrary to their deepest convictions,” Kennedy wrote. “Freedom of speech secures freedom of thought and belief. This law imperils those liberties.”

COLUMN BY

Inside The SPLC/Media Matters/MSM Machine Smearing Republicans

/in , , , /by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLE: NBC Journalist: Stop With the False Equivalencies. It’s ‘Plain as Day’ That Republicans Are Just Worse.

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

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: 96.1 percent of University of Texas administrators, 93.5 percent of faculty donated to Dems

/in , , , /by
  • A Campus Reform analysis has found that an overwhelming majority of faculty and administrators at University of Texas schools contributed financially to Democrat candidates and causes from 2017-2018.
  • System employees donated a grand total of $642,693.43 during this time frame, 94.7 percent of which went to Democrat candidates and causes.

Campus Reform analyzed the 2017-2018 political donation records of employees at the University of Texas (UT), using publicly available records from the Federal Election Commission, in order to determine the political leanings of faculty and administrators at the college.

According to the Campus Reform analysis, 96.1 percent of all UT system administrators who donated to political candidates or causes gave a total of $36,852.20 to Democrat politicians or Democrat organizations, such as Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke and New York congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

“In total, UT employees donated $642,693.43 from 2017-2018. Of that amount, 94.7 percent went to Democrat politicians or Democrat organizations…”    

In total, UT employees donated $642,693.43 from 2017-2018. Of that amount, 94.7 percent went to Democrat politicians or Democrat organizations, while just 5.3 percent of the donations were made to Republican politicians or Republican organizations.

In total, 917 faculty members, specifically, donated a total of $481,853.56 to politicians or political organizations. They contributed 93.5 percent of the money to Democrat politicians or organizations, such as the Texas Democrat Party and End Citizens United. Just 6.5 percent of donations went to Republican politicians or Republican causes.

Of 140 UT administrators, 137 donated $36,852.20 to Democrat political candidates and politicians. Three UT administrators gave a total of $1,500 in donations to Republican politicians or organizations from 2017-2018.

Act Blue and It Starts Today received the highest amount in donations in the Democrat and Democrat category while Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and Ted Cruz for Senate received the highest amount in donations in the Republican category.

For the purposes of this data, Campus Reform defined “faculty” as employees of the college that have direct instructional contact with students, such as professors, teachers, and instructors. “Administrators” were defined as employees who manage programming or are responsible for students and faculty, such as department chairs, deans, presidents, and provosts.

Campus Reform sorted individual donors using their self-stated position at the college. For example, if the individual donor noted that they were a “professor of literary theory,” they were designated as a faculty member. If an individual noted that they were employed as an “executive director,” they were designated as an administrator.

In the event that an employee’s title was ambiguous and could not be confirmed, they were marked as a general employee, but not sorted into faculty or administration categories. Campus Reform did not account for retired UT System employees who made political donations. Campus Reform used 180 variations of keyword searches to cull data specific to UT employees at all 14 institutions listed on the University of Texas System’s website.

Campus Reform used the most recent FEC donor records from Jan. 1, 2017 to Oct. 22, 2018.

COLUMN BY

Grace Gottschling

GRACE GOTTSCHLING

Investigative Reporter

Grace Gottschling is the Investigative Reporter for Campus Reform. She is a recent graduate of The College of New Jersey and has experience traveling across the country to engage and train others in pro-life apologetics. Grace manages research and Freedom of Information Act records requests for Campus Reform.

RELATED ARTICLES:

100 percent of Univ. of Oregon admin, 99.95 percent of faculty donate to Dems

EXCLUSIVE REPORT: 100 percent of SMU administrators, 98.8 percent of faculty donate to Dems

VIDEO: Beto O’Rourke supporters can’t name any of his accomplishments

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

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.