VIDEO: Ex-Muslim Woman Warns, “Do not vote for Abdul El-Sayed For Michigan Governor!”

/in , , , , , /by

Investigative journalist Laura Loomer traveled to Michigan with The United West to investigate Abdul El-Sayed, a Muslim candidate running for Governor in Michigan as a Democrat Socialist.

El-Sayed is a Sharia compliant Muslim, but his political platform and talking points directly contradict Islamic law.

Farrah Prudence is an ex-Muslim. Loomer sat down with her and asked her about El-Sayed. According to Farrah, El-Sayed is Sharia compliant and his policies pose a direct threat to women in America given his devout practice of Islamic law, which is inherently misogynistic.

Adam Putnam Lies about the FairTax — Putnam looks more and more like a Charlie Crist republican

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

Adam Putnam launched the below ad titled “23% More” on July 24th, 2018. The ad attacks his Florida gubernatorial opponent Congressman Ron DeSantis for his support of the FairTax.

NewsMax reports in an article titled “New Adam Putnam Ad Hits DeSantis on 23% Sales Tax Plan” that the ad states:

“What would a 23 percent sales tax do to Florida’s economy?” asks the ad now on YouTube, dubbing DeSantis as “D.C. DeSantis.”

“If Congressman DeSantis had his way, everything would cost 23 percent more — groceries, gas, home purchases.”

“Congressman DeSantis sponsored legislation to increase sales taxes by 23 percent, hurting families, destroying jobs, devastating tourism. Washington is full of bad ideas and phony politicians. Ron DeSantis and his huge tax increase fit right in,” the ad continues.

Read more.

The problem is Putnam is lying.

Libertarian radio host Neal Boortz, who co-wrote “The FairTax Book,” responded to Putnam’s ad with a tweet: “If you are having trouble understanding the FairTax, perhaps you ought to comment me. I wrote the book.” He followed up, “The Adam Putnam campaign is LYING THROUGH ITS TEETH … and they know it.”

What Putnam doesn’t tell you is that Floridians will benefit from the FairTax because it will eliminate all federal taxes (income, estate, payroll, gift and business). Florida has no state income tax, which is a reason many people relocate to the Sunshine State. Let’s look at the chart below showing the current income tax brackets and rates to understand why Putnam is lying.

You will notice that individuals making more than $38,000 will actually see a tax decrease. Also note that the FairTax gives those below the federal poverty level (FPL) a quarterly refund of estimated sales taxes paid under the FairTax.

Here is the a table of percentages of the FPL guidelines.

Size of
Family Unit		 48 Contiguous
States and D.C.		 Alaska Hawaii
1 $12,140 $15,180 $13,960
2 16,460 20,580 18,930
3 20,780 25,980 23,900
4 25,100 31,380 28,870
5 29,420 36,780 33,840
6 33,740 42,180 38,810
7 38,060 47,580 43,780
8 42,380 52,980 48,750
For each additional
person, add		  4,320  5,400  4,970

The FairTax also eliminates all small business and corporate federal taxes. This saves Florida’s individuals, small business and corporations money by neither having to file tax returns nor hiring tax lawyers and accountants. In its annual survey of Tax Return Preparation Fee Averages, the National Society of Accountants reports the following average fees its members charged to prepare 2014 tax returns: 1040 with state return with no itemized deductions: $159. 1040 with Schedule A (itemized deductions) and state return: $273.

Additionally, Congress will lose its power to use taxes to reward and punish individuals and companies. Congress and career politicians will lose their ability to weaponize the IRS.

When your factor in all of these items it appears that the title of “D.C.” belongs to Putnam, not DeSantis. Putnam wants Floridians to continue to pay federal income taxes. Sounds like Putnam is still part of the swamp.

When the FairTax is implemented Florida will truly become an Income Tax Free state.

RELATED ARTICLE: Misleading Putnam ad twists DeSantis stance on taxes – PolitiFact

For the ‘Sake of the Church’ — Drain the Swamp of Clerics who Commit Sexual Sins

/in , , , /by

Brad Miner hopes the McCarrick scandal will benefit the Church. It’s time to drain the swamp of clerics who commit sexual sins, priests and bishops alike. 

A prediction: The McCarrick revelations will turn out to be a good thing. How so? Well, a part of the priest sex-abuse fairy tale is the cover-up.  We know this – and that the cover-up always magnifies the crime.

When a good priest has discovered the homosexual sins of a bad priest (let alone of a bishop), and if that good priest has gone to his pastor or to a bishop (let alone an archbishop), it’s likely that he will hear a version of this:

Thank you, Father. We must do something about this, and we will! But, for the sake of the Church, you must tell no one else. The media will pounce on such a story to discredit Catholicism itself. You’re brave to come forward. But I wouldn’t want you to risk your career by becoming the focus of an ongoing and sensational investigation.

That’s a high hurdle to jump in a Church that values hierarchy and discipline. But my prediction is that a great many priests who know of homosexual (and instances, too, of heterosexual) sins by priests (let alone bishops) will now begin to come forward.

I hope they will – every last one of them. Because the drip, drip, drip of scandal is really hurting the Church. If there’s a levee that needs bursting, we should welcome that: a torrent to cleanse the swamp.

Let the flood come: of resignations and laicizations – perhaps hundreds of them. It will be destabilizing, and as a conservative I shudder at the prospect. But the miasma is now intolerable. The stench of suspicion is falling on every bishop, if not also every priest.

It must also be recognized that clergy engaging in sex-abuse is just a part of the problem. The 2004 John Jay College of Criminal Justice report to the USCCB contains some good data on the crisis. But its purview was limited to the abuse of kids, 17 and under. No research was done about the sexual escapades of priests with men, 18 and older.

Those data would likely reveal a much, much larger scandal – one that would explode a key conclusion of the John Jay researchers as well as the Spotlight team at the Boston Globe and the likes of Fr. James Martin, S.J., namely that the scandals “have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality.” This simply cannot be true.

I’ll now tell a tale I’ve alluded to before at TCT. But first I’ll repeat what I’ve said to close friends, some of whom contribute to this website. Had I known in 1973 when I was about to enter the Catholic Church what we all know now about the extent of predatory homosexuality in the priesthood and the numbers of, by definition, sinful homosexual encounters among priests, boys, teens, and men, I would not have become Catholic. Thank God I didn’t know, because – despite these scandals – I cannot imagine any other spiritual home.

Former Vatican official Krzysztof Charamsa “came out” and was fired and defrocked

So . . .

Shortly after I made my profession of faith (I can’t recall the season because it was in California), I came home late from work and missed the 5 PM Mass at the church I attended. The celebrant, shaking hands outside, told me there was a 6 PM at a church a few miles away, so I drove there.

At the end of that Mass, a priest approached me in the parking lot. He said he’d never seen me at Mass before. I explained, an he said:

“I want to ask you something, but I don’t want to shake your faith.”

“How would you do that?”

“It’s something private.”

I held up my hands: Huh?

Short story shorter, he said he wanted to have sex with me.

“You’re under a vow of chastity,” I said.

“No, no. You’re a new Catholic. My vow is celibacy – not to marry – not chastity, yes?”

I went on to my car.

A few months later, back home in Ohio where I grew up, I went again to an evening Mass, and as I was receiving Communion, the priest whispered: “Come see me in the sacristy, okay?”

I’m embarrassed to admit the alarm bells didn’t go off. This guy was subtler. He asked if I’d come with him to say the blessing before a high-school basketball game a few days on.

At the end of the first quarter, he said, “Thanks for the company. I owe you a drink.” So we drove to a bar I’d never seen or heard of in the middle of downtown Columbus. When we got out of the car, he opened the trunk, took off his clerical collar, and put on a jacket that matched exactly the one I was wearing.

I got that sinking feeling. And, yes, the bar was a gay hangout.

“What’ll you have?” he asked.

“Any old beer,” I said, and he went to fetch it.

The bar was five miles from where I lived. I quickly exited, jogged a couple of blocks, and then walked the rest of the way home.

Then I visited a seminary, still considering a vocation to the priesthood. (I’d also visited another seminary and two monasteries.) The vocations director took me to dinner, and it happened again. I won’t repeat now what I said to him then.

At this point, I’d been a Roman Catholic for less than six months. The upshot was: I steered clear of priests for the next fifteen years, pretty much until I met Fathers Neuhaus, Rutler, and Schall.

This anecdotal evidence proves nothing. And I would qualify the meme in L’Affaire McCarrick that, “Everybody knew.” Lots did, but most people had no clue. Unless you were party to the rumor mill, you knew nothing about it.

But I’m not the only adult who was “hit on” by priests. I’m probably not the only guy to whom it happened thrice.

Let’s drain the swamp – for the sake of the Church.

Brad Miner

Brad Miner

Brad Miner is senior editor of The Catholic Thing, senior fellow of the Faith & Reason Institute, and Board Secretary of Aid to the Church In Need USA. He is a former Literary Editor of National Review. His new book, Sons of St. Patrick, written with George J. Marlin, is now on sale. The Compleat Gentleman, is available on audio.

EDITORS NOTE: © 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 image of Pope Francis is by Stefano Rellandini/Reuters.

RELATED ARTICLE: More Fiddling while the House is Burning

VISA Overstays make up 2/3rds of the Annual Increase of Illegal Aliens

/in , , , , , /by

Florida politicians have promised to implement e-Verify statewide. They have not. A recent study shows that Florida ranks third in the number of VISA overstays. Mandating e-Verify in the sunshine state would help solve this problem by eliminating the job magnate, which leads to the largest annual increase of illegal aliens.

In a study titled “The 2,000 Mile Wall in Search of a Purpose: Since 2007 Visa Overstays have Outnumbered Undocumented Border Crossers by a Half Million” Robert Warren
and Donald Kerwin from the Center for Migration Studies found:

  • In 2014, about 4.5 million US residents, or 42 percent of the total undocumented population, were overstays.
  • Overstays accounted for about two-thirds (66 percent) of those who arrived (i.e., joined the undocumented population) in 2014.
  • Overstays have exceeded EWIs [entries without inspection] every year since 2007, and 600,000 more overstays than EWIs have arrived since 2007.
  • Mexico is the leading country for both overstays and EWIs; about one-third of undocumented arrivals from Mexico in 2014 were overstays.
  • California has the largest number of overstays (890,000), followed by New York (520,000), Texas (475,000), and Florida (435,000).
  • Two states had 47 percent of the 6.4 million EWIs in 2014: California (1.7 million) and Texas (1.3 million).
  • The percentage of overstays varies widely by state: more than two-thirds of the undocumented who live in Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania are overstays. By contrast, the undocumented population in Kansas, Arkansas, and New Mexico consists of fewer than 25 percent overstays. [Emphasis added]

Download the full study.

In a Washington Post article titled “Most immigrants who enter the country do so legally, federal data shows” Christopher Ingraham reports:

A September 2017 Office of Immigration Statistics data brief estimated that in fiscal year 2016, the latest year for which complete data is available, there were 170,000 successful illegal border crossings occurring outside of authorized ports of entry. That’s down roughly 90 percent since 2000, and it’s about one-seventh of the roughly 1.2 million immigrants who obtained lawful permanent resident status via a green card, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

The number of successful border crossings doesn’t include illegal entries that happened via border checkpoints (people smuggled in via vehicles, for instance) or over sea. That number is not available for 2016, but in previous years it added anywhere from 10 to 20 percent to the total number of illegal entries, according to a 2016 Institute for Defense Analyses report commissioned by the Department of Homeland Security.

The Florida legislature and Florida’s Congressional delegation must take seriously the use of VISA overstays. They need to understand that, while a border wall is necessary, so to is the need to pass legislation to deport those who overstay their VISAs.

RELATED ARTICLE: British woman caught overstaying visa by 160 days slaps immigration officer

I’ve seen what Open Borders can do. Stop them at any cost!

/in , , , , , , /by

The noise coming out of the Presidents Trump-Putin Singapore summit, and the furor—both real and manufactured—about family separation, has pushed aside critical debate that will determine our country’s future.  The pressures moving us toward the brink, however, have not stopped; and that must change.

A recent Fox News show explored whether the “abolish ICE” movement is becoming mainstream Democratic Party policy.  Partisans from both sides of the debate weighed in, and while the Democrat activist pushed back on that notion, he just as vehemently opposed ICE’s border enforcement activities.  I wished the moderator asked him if, as his arguments implied, he and others believe that those who came to this country illegally have a legitimate role here, including the right to vote; and that any activity by the United States to prevent others from coming here illegally would be morally wrong and outside the scope of our rights; because this is in fact the effect of the positions he and other Democrats are taking.

As someone who has seen the impact of open borders and lack of border enforcement, I can state unequivocally that nothing less than our national integrity is at stake.  Anyone who favors the sort of open border policies that find excuses for individual incursions in the name of some false human rights claim needs to come on my next mission along India’s borders with Nepal and Bangladesh.  And I should know about human rights as I have been placing my personal safety on the line for them since the turn of the century.  Anyone who believes that policies abetting open borders are not a dagger in our national heart should see the damage they caused and the international conflicts that they enable.

My education began in February 2008.  I was in Panitanki, a small village on the Indian side of the India-Nepal border, less than 50 miles south of Darjeeling—where they grow the famous tea.  I was taking a much needed break from my fight to stop the ethnic cleansing of Hindus in Bangladesh; and my local associates brought me there so I could see India’s challenges firsthand.  Not unlike streets in border towns elsewhere, those in Panitanki were lined with small shops and itinerant peddlers hawking every sort of ware, legal and otherwise.  One shop was selling a plastic tote bag with the words Mazel Tov in Hebrew.  How it got there is anyone’s guess since I was probably the only Jew ever to visit the town.  Panitanki’s main road ends in a bridge over the Mechi River, which forms the border between India and Nepal.  As we got closer, the goods got more expensive, and the incoming traffic got more transparent.  A steady stream of trucks, covered wagons, and men carrying large packages on their heads crossed freely into India.  My Bengali colleagues would point to one and say “Arms,” to another and say “Drugs.”  “That other one,” they‘d say, “has counterfeit banknotes.  A big smuggling business.”  We were in the Chicken’s Neck, a 15 mile wide strip of Indian territory, bordered by Nepal, Bhutan, and Bangladesh.  The area is notorious for the sort of smuggling we observed, and it is a known entry point for Islamist and Communist terrorists into India.

The illegal activity is so open that it did not raise so much as an eyebrow among the armed members of India’s Border Security Force—until, that is, they saw me with my video camera.  As we passed a pile of sandbags, two soldiers emerged brandishing their rifles.  “Put away your camera,” they ordered, and said they were confiscating it.  But I refused, asking them what they were afraid I would find.  We went back and forth for a time, knowing that they did not want this to end up on CNN or on the Foreign Minister’s desk; and we eventually worked out a deal.  They agreed not to take my camera, and I agreed not to take any more pictures.  We moved toward the bridge, but there was a problem.  Indians and other South Asians passed freely across the border but as an American, I needed a visa from the Nepalese government.  So the soldiers refused to let me pass, though third country nationals frequently take rickshaws or other conveyances across the border without any difficulty.  A discussion ensued, and we established that the border was in the exact center of the bridge and that if I kept my camera packed and did not go “even one millimeter” into Nepal; we could proceed.  But the soldiers made sure to tell me that if I violated either of those conditions, they would arrest me and confiscate my camera.

So we moved forward under the soldiers’ watchful eyes, which were decidedly more concerned with us than with the open flow of contraband into their country.  As we did, it became clear why they were, and also why the soldiers did not want me taking pictures.  The flow of dangerous contraband across the border was heavy, continuous, and apparent to anyone with eyes, as was their lack of response to it.  It was also the dry season, and from the middle of the bridge, I saw people crossing the dried river bed on either side of the bridge, most carrying large parcels with them.  They were in no hurry and did not seem to fear any official intervention.

But what I saw in Panitanki is only the tip of the iceberg.  When I first started coming to West Bengal, the ruling party was the Left Front, or the Communist Party of India.  Its heavy-handed administration of the state’s economic life had been progressively crushing it for three decades—so badly that it ignored the threat from Bangladesh.  There were very few effective control points along the more than 2,500 mile border, and I should know because I tested it myself.  In 2011, the people of West Bengal ended thirty years of communist rule, electing the Trinamol Congress Party (TMC) and its strongwoman, Mamata Banerjee, who continues as the state’s undisputed leader today.

But if anything, matters on the border with Bangladesh grew worse.  A significant element in Mamata’s coalition is the Muslim vote, including illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.  For the past seven years, the TMC has protected that vote bank by preventing effective action on the border and enabling large numbers of Bangladeshis to settle in India.  I have been shown a hotel in downtown Kolkata, the state’s capital, where new illegal migrants are brought to rest a few days before receiving their “assignment.”  I have watched while illegals cross the border both day and night, often with the connivance of local police; and talked with small voluntary organizations whose missions have been overwhelmed by the lawlessness these policies have made routine.

I have watched villages that had been inhabited by Hindus and Muslims for decades now become devoid of Hindus who were forced out or merely “convinced” to leave.  Every year, as I made my rounds through the villages, I would see more Temples closed and Hindu residents exiting.  I have been in areas like Deganga, where Hindus were victims of sustained violence; and I spent time at the last Hindu home in the Diamond Harbor area, where a lone young woman and her disabled brother fight both attackers and the West Bengal authorities.  In the past three years, I have seen ersatz ISIS headquarters in Kolkata; and the radical religious party, Jamaat e’Islami, from Bangladesh now operates openly in Kolkata and even can boast that none other than Mamata Banerjee has appeared publicly to support it.

Further north in the Indian state of Assam, Bodo tribesman prepare for battle against Bangladeshi “infiltrators,” who they claim have degraded the natural environment, created a black market, and helped drive their children from the area.  Bodos also described skirmishes over the past several years that started with attacks on their people by illegal immigrants.

In fact, anti-Hindu violence has become a regular feature of life in these states that abandoned any attempt to control their international borders.  Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has told them to expect more.

India’s physical integrity suffers from a deadly combination of poor laws that create an open border, and massive corruption that makes pretty much everything possible for those who aim to undermine that nation.  The India-Nepal border is a conduit for illicit activity, including arms and drug smuggling, illegal and impoverished Nepalese immigrants, “mules” for the smuggling enterprises, and for terrorist infiltration.   Bangladeshi terrorists and illegal immigrants have changed the demographics and way of life in northeast India.  And not unlike our own situation here in the United States, illegals have become a political force that one party caters to as its own.

I do not sit with those who are concerned that our country might become “less white” or culturally different from what we were.  It’s always been that way, and is part of who we are.  Even Members of Congress raised both those fears a century ago as they tried to stop (legal) immigration from Eastern and Southern European; a wave that brought people who in fact changed the definition of culturally who was an American; a change for the better.  I do, however, stand to defend our territorial integrity, the rule of law, and our right to enforce it; which the eastern Indian states seem to have abandoned to their existential detriment.

Americans need to look at what open borders have done to India before it’s too late and we awake to wonder when we lost our country.

RELATED VIDEO: America’s Great Wall

The American Left’s Never Ending Selective Outrage

/in , , , , /by

Repeatedly pointing out the American left’s obvious dishonesty, hypocrisy and selective outrage seems pointless. And yet, I feel compelled to do so.

For example: Fake news media created a 24/7 media firestorm over Trump’s alleged affair with porn star Stormy Daniels “before” he became president. Due to recordings by Trump’s lawyer, CNN has excitedly gone 24/7 in making the case that Trump is unfit to serve because of his private life “before” he was elected.

Hypocritically, CNN told us Clinton’s private life was none of our business “while” he was president. The American left did everything in their power to downplay president Clinton’s affair with an intern “while” he was president; using cigars as sex toys, hiding a semen stained dress and lying about his adultery. The American left (democrats, Hollywood and fake news media) trashed the character of all men to minimize president Clinton’s reprehensible behavior. They said no man could resist a young woman coming on to them.

The left’s lie was particularly offensive to me. At that time, my Dad was pastor of a large congregation and my brother was county commissioner of a youth football league. When approached with similar opportunities, neither my dad or brother behaved like president Clinton.

Minimizing president Clinton’s shameful behavior, leftists promoted the absurdly lie that oral sex is not really sex. Cosmetic queen, the late Mary Kay Ash said, “The speed of the leader is the speed of the gang.” President Clinton was our nation’s leader. His bad behavior trickled down; igniting a rise in oral sex among students. 

The American left always portrays Republican wealth as ill-gotten-gain. They ignore Democrats’ wealth to portray them as sympathetic to the common man. There was no leftists’ outrage over their Democrat president Clinton and Monica using Gurkha cigars which cost $25,000 a box ($1000 each) for their sex play. 

Ken Star was assigned to investigate suspected perjury by Bill Clinton regarding his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. The American left launched a 24/7 shock-and-awe campaign to destroy Star’s life by branding him a pervert obsessed with sex. I knew leftists’ smear of Star was working when my low-info voter Dad chuckled while repeating Ken-Star-is-a-pervert jokes he heard on late night TV. Fake news media, Democrat talking heads and Hollywood insidiously redirected the public’s attention. President Clinton was the adulterer performing sex acts with an intern in the Oval Office and lying about it. And somehow, the American left successfully branded investigator Ken Star the bad guy sex-addict.

Here’s another example of the American left’s selective outrage and glaring hypocrisy. Everyone and their brother knows Hillary Clinton sold access to power and undermined our national security in numerous ways. Can you say “Clinton Cash” boys and girls? This movie exposed Bill and Hillary Clinton as the self-serving money hungry criminals they truly are. 

The book, “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillary Clinton and Frame Donald Trump” exposes more Clinton corruption. It also exposes the American left’s and Deep State’s joint efforts to overturn the 2016 election of our president.

The American left has been ignoring scandals and treasonous acts by the Clintons for decades. The same leftists are frantically waving their arms into the air accusing Trump of treason. They are demanding Trump’s head on an impeachment platter because he did not get into Putin’s face during their press conference. Really? Aren’t these the same media and Washington DC elites who said Trump was an unsophisticated thug who would start a war by being rude to foreign leaders?

Far too many women and blacks have been deceived into believing leftists are their greatest advocates. The truth is leftists pounce upon blacks and women with furious anger who do not share leftists’ hatred for America, straight white men, conservatives, republicans and Christians.

During the 2016 presidential debates, leftists practically demanded that Trump’s manhood be removed for supposedly brutishly invading Hillary’s space. When convenient, Hillary is a fragile abused female. When convenient, Hillary demands equal treatment.

After big Hillary supporter and fundraiser Harvey Weinstein was exposed for sexually assaulting numerous actresses, Hillary was caught having dinner with him. Why isn’t the American left outraged that their supposed champion of women is hanging out with the poster-pervert of the #MeToo Movement?

Leftists were outraged when Trump supposedly stepped too close to Hillary on stage. And yet, leftists had no problem with Bill Maher calling conservative Republican Sarah Palin a “c***”. Keith Olbermann called conservative Republican Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

The American left thought it was funny when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin and former Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann MILFs (“Moms I’d Like to F***“). 

Leftists pretty much agreed with their social media minions calling Laura Ingraham a “Fox News C***.”

As a black American, it is particularly repulsive watching leftists get away with portraying themselves as great defenders of blacks. These people have attacked me with death threats and racial slurs for simply loving my country and not viewing myself as a victim.

Republican Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele became the first black person elected to a statewide office in Maryland. Leftists had no problem with a white blogger defacing Steele’s photo to make him look like a minstrel. Posted under the despicable photo was this caption, “Simple Sambo Wants to Move to the Big House”. 

Leftists did not care when white talk show host John Sylvester called black Republican former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Aunt Jeremiah. 

Nor did leftists express outrage on behalf of a black woman when white cartoonist, Ted Rall portrayed Secretary Rice as president Bush’s “house nigga”. 

Do you see the pattern folks? Leftists are never outraged when their operatives use sexual and racial smears to punish and silence conservative republican women and blacks.

The American left is filled with angry bitter people without a Godly moral compass. Insidiously, leftists divide Americans into supposed victimized voting blocs. Leftists consider their duped voter’s to be useful idiots, mere pawns in furthering the American left’s anti-Christian and anti-America agendas.

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Are Obsessed With Trump’s Downfall

RELATED VIDEO: Bill Bites News

University of Minnesota on Redefining Gender: Gopher It!

/in , , , , /by

What’s “misgendering?” Students at the University of Minnesota might want to look it up, seeing as they could be kicked out of school for doing it! In the race for the most outrageous campus policy, the Gophers took a big lead when the school’s Equal Opportunity Office introduced a new rule that would punish people for using the wrong pronoun to address someone — even if that person hasn’t changed their sex or their name!

University officials say the idea is supposed to protect students who identify as transgender. As part of the rule, students are “invited to choose their personal pronoun [which includes bizarre configurations like ‘Ze’] and gender identity on the school website, and fellow faculty and students will be expected to follow those personal choices.”

Anyone caught referring to someone by the wrong pronoun would be charged with “harassment” or “discrimination.” The punishment? “…Disciplinary action up to and including termination from employment and academic sanctions up to and including academic expulsion.”

Even more astounding, UM would use this policy to open the door to gender-free “housing, restrooms, locker rooms, recreation services and activities, and camp programs.” Imagine pulling up to college with your son or daughter and finding out their roommate is a “Zir.” Ian Smith can’t. The member of UM’s student senate wants everyone to know that if the university goes ahead with this rule, it’s not because students want it.

In a bold op-ed for the Star-Tribune, Ian speaks up and says the policy shouldn’t be enacted. “First, it’s unconstitutional to compel certain speech, but as a representative in the Student Senate, I also must worry about the inevitable unintended consequences.” Like forcing someone to say something they don’t believe. “I represent thousands of students at the University of Minnesota, and to vote for a policy that would force any of them to say anything would not only be supporting an unconstitutional policy, but also contrary to the principles that universities across the nation were founded on.”

As FRC’s Peter Sprigg pointed out, the school is basically compelling students to lie. Ian agrees, arguing that “There is something wrong with a policy that kicks a student out of its school and essentially ruins their lives over their not uttering a one-syllable word.” What if, one professor asks, you slip up and use the wrong word? “Is that harassment or discrimination? Does everybody get one free pass and after that, it’s harassment?” According to a fellow faculty member who identifies as a woman, no one would be punished right away. But, he insisted, it’s “really saddening” when people don’t call you the right pronoun.

You know what else is really saddening? That this is where we are as a nation. It’s mind-boggling that we’ve allowed a handful of extremists to take us to this point of moral and cultural confusion. Every day, there’s another University of Minnesota in the news, trying to force its dangerous ideology on students. And those are just the ones we hear about. We can either keep addressing the symptoms — or we can treat the cause. More Americans need to take their cues from students like Ian and find the courage to speak out!

** The Washington Update is taking its regular August break, but we’ll keep you informed of important developments in the Senate and elsewhere in our alerts. You can also keep up with what’s happening by tuning into “Washington Watch” Monday through Friday at 5:00 p.m. (ET). For station listing, visit TonyPerkins.com — or, better yet, download FRC’s Stand Firm App and listen live from anywhere. The daily Update will return after Labor Day. **

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

House of Bill Repute: GOP Heads into August at Record Pace

Trump, Congress Play Hardball on Brunson

Wind Turbines, the Military, National Security and Sausages

/in , , , , /by

There’s a well-known observation that close inspection of how legislation is made, is very much like watching sausage being created. In both cases it’s very unappetizing.

This process was on display recently with the machinations going on with the annual federal legislation for our military: the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). To understand the missed opportunity here, one needs to have a bit of background as to how we got to where we are today.

It would be nice to be able to convey this whole story in a single sound-byte sentence, but that’s not possible. If you care about our national security, it is important to understand some related information. Let me summarize it as simply as I can, by identifying the key points, in approximate chronological order…

#1: There has been several years of conflict between military operations (in the US and elsewhere) and industrial wind energy. There have been multiple conflicts, ranging from tall structures obstructing low-level flight paths, to weather and navigation radar interferences, to specialized cases (like deteriorating the important ROTHR facility).

#2: Initially the COs of affected military facilities simply voiced their objections, and in most cases the proposed offending wind project was not approved.

#3: This was unacceptable to the powerful wind industry, and some of their well-connected allies. Their plan was to get military base COs basically out of the equation — while simultaneously giving the public the impression that military concerns were being fully addressed. That might seem like a tall order, but we’re dealing with expert marketers here. Their end result was to create the DoD Wind Siting Clearinghouse (2011: during the Obama administration).

#4: The Clearinghouse was all about expanding US industrial wind energy, not protecting our military or our national security. The rules and regulations for the Clearinghouse were written to assist the wind industry. If that wasn’t enough, the initial people in charge of the Clearinghouse were unabashed wind energy promoters. (Upon retiring, the first head-person was quickly hired as a wind energy lobbyist!)

#5: Not surprisingly, numerous conflicts continue to exist between wind energy and our military. The public has little awareness of these issues, due to classified agreements, carefully enmeshed in bureaucratic double-speak. The wind industry repeatedly trumpeted that everything was just peachy. For those who didn’t bother to closely look behind the curtain, things may well have seemed to be OK.

#6: Effectively what happened was that military defenders had to now look for some protection from state level legislation.  Of course the wind lobby has infiltrated state politics as well, so this was no easy solution. That said there have been some major victories — e.g. Texas passing S277, and North Carolina passing a two year statewide moratorium (see here, Part XIII) while they did an investigation of the wind energy military interference issue.

#7: Ultimately the defense of our military, and our national security, is a federal matter. Towards that end, in early 2017 I sent to some key legislators an outline of this problem, which included three simple but effective solutions to this serious matter to be incorporated into the current year NDAA: a) substitute a better word for “mitigate” (like “remediate”) as this can result in no meaningful change being made,  b) require that the developer pay for all costs incurred [not the taxpayer, which is the case now], and c) broaden the allowable reasons for denying a permit — e.g. to include if the lives of military personnel were put at risk.

#8: Both the 2018 House and Senate bills actually did endorse a part of the third (“c”) recommendation. The Clearinghouse rules basically say that to reject a proposed wind project, that there has to be substantial proof that it is an “unacceptable risk to national security.” (How that is defined has evolved, and is still subject to interpretation.) This has to be then endorsed by the DoD Secretary, etc. In other words, the bar was purposefully set very high, so that it was almost impossible to turn down a proposed wind project. (Reference: only one project out of over 15,000 has been so terminated via the Clearinghouse process over many years now.)

#9: One of my three recommendations was to reasonably expand the allowable reasons to deny a wind project. For example, if a wind project could be shown to threaten the lives of our military personnel, that this (by itself) would be an acceptable justification to deny it a permit to be built. The 2018 NDAA (see section 311) improved the wording in this regard from the original 2011 legislation, but further clarification and more conditions are recommended. [For example, military lives could be at risk due to the deterioration of the ROTHR signal from wind energy interference, and the current words do not seem to address that.] In this session both the House and Senate NDAA bills, approved improving the Clearinghouse rules, to add some words to that effect.

#10: In later July 2018, this change was removed from the NDAA conference legislation (see page 1951 of 2019 NDAA). An experienced DC lobbyist told me that he could not recall a single case, where an important bill provision agreed to by both House and Senate, was then eliminated from the final conference legislation. What is of even more concern, is that during all this research and negotiation, that neither of the other two important deficiencies of the Clearinghouse (see #7 above), were fixed.

#11: As an apparent compromise, our legislators added a new last-minute provision to the NDAA: Section 318 (page 179). Basically it authorizes the DoD to engage the National Weather Service (NWS) to do a study about the impact of wind turbines on weather radars and military operations. It seems like the intent here is to convey the impression that legislators are serious about our military safety, and national security.

#12: Of course the devil is in the details. From all appearances, this provision amounts to more delays. Furthermore, nothing in the study will be about protecting the lives of pilots from wind turbine obstructions. Nothing in the study will be about assessing the impact of wind turbines on navigation radar. Nothing in the study will be about protecting the exceptionally important ROTHR facility or the military lives impacted by it. Lastly, who knows what will happen when the study is finished? In the meantime our military and national security is being compromised.

#13: What’s disappointing is that several good reports have already been generated on this issue. For example, here is a detailed NWS explanation of the problem. For example, earlier this year the NWS wrote a blistering report about how wind development in upstate NY was compromising FIVE (5) different important NEXRAD radar facilities! For example, Fort Drum issued this official statement about wind energy interference. What else do legislators need to know? Oh, they want more pertinent studies? How about: this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. We already have solid studies. We already know what the problems are and what some good solutions are.

#14: The reason we are procrastinating, is that the wind industry has done a superior job in creating the deception that wind energy is a good thing (i.e. a societal benefit). However, the fact is that industrial wind energy is a technical, economic and environmental net liability. Once that understanding is fully absorbed, no reasonable legislator would agree to allow such a detriment to interfere with our military, or national security.

#15: The bottom line here is that the protection of our military (and our national security) is being compromised by powerful special-interest lobbyists — who have undue influence on the government, and our lives. (For more info on that, see here.)

Please contact your federal legislator and insist that the Clearinghouse wind energy siting rules be fully and properly fixed (via the NDAA or otherwise):

Starbucks Isn’t Alone: Straw Panic is Spreading Through Corporate America

/in , , , /by

Last week, we used Starbucks’ new anti-straw policy to highlight better coffee options for second vote advocates. Little did we know that anti-straw hysteria is spreading through corporate America and internationally.

According to several media reports, the below companies already graded by 2ndVote have taken stands against straws. Some of them did so in other countries; some are doing it domestically. All of them are overreacting, potentially making life more difficult for some disabled people and jumping on a bandwagon which was created by a nine-year old who made up a number after calling a few straw companies.

We’re serious. Major corporate policies are based upon a nine-year old’s phone calls. Cities such as San Francisco and Seattle have likewise implemented ban policies.

The hysteria abounds because of a third-grader using what we have to guess is Common Core math to say 500 million straws are used each day in America. As The Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh mockingly noted this week, issues such as drugs on city streets must be made secondary to straw prevention — or, at least, that seems to be the message from San Francisco and Seattle. Per Walsh:

Many cities and corporations are following suit. Another city in California will now hand out possible jail sentences to straw dealers. 15 seconds ago nobody worried about straws. Now there is a straw crisis and an anti-straw movement to answer it. Ordinances are being passed. Laws are being written. Hashtags are being hashtagged. Celebrities are recording PSAs. Straws are a scourge on the Earth, it has been decided randomly. And who could dispute this assessment? After all, Americans use 500 MILLION STRAWS A DAY.

Likewise, it seems as though corporations have solved all other corporate practices which affect the environment. American Airlines and Alaska Airlines must have found the perfect renewable fuel! Likewise, Disney must have discovered how to run all of those rides without using oil to keep them running. Marriott and Hilton have clearly found a way to recycle every bit of trash from their guests and — like the airlines — found the perfect renewable oil for thousands of airport shuttles. The new McDonald’s kiosks have to use no electricity, right?

And we can’t forget to praise Carnival Cruises for ensuring none of its boats ever run over a single aquatic animal or leak any waste into the water. One hundred percent sustainability, indeed!

Like Walsh, we are mocking. What’s not so humorous is that these policies are just another example of knee-jerk leftism being adopted by major corporations. Please tell them to stop at the links below:

Starbucks
McDonald’s
Hyatt
American Airlines
Alaska Airlines
Diageo
Hilton
Disney
Carnival Cruises
Marriott International

RELATED ARTICLES:

Crisis: Just eight countries are responsible for most ocean plastic.

Boycott Starbucks (They Hate You!) Drink Red Bull Instead

Help us continue providing resources like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Shutterstock.

Planet Fitness’ Refusal To Protect Women’s Privacy Encouraged Man’s Indecent Exposure

/in , , , , /by

A New Hampshire Planet Fitness did right by its members this week by having police arrest a man who said the company’s “Judgement Free Zone” let him do yoga poses naked. The man is being hit with multiple charges, and will go to trial in September.

A “Judgement Free Zone” shouldn’t be controversial at a gym. Working out, building muscle, getting in better shape, losing weight — all judgement-free. Walking around nude outside of the men’s locker room? Definitely illegal and shockingly inappropriate.

However, it appears that Planet Fitness gender ideology convinced this one man that he could expose himself to who knows how many women — and that would be just a-okay with gym staff.

Planet Fitness has created a reputation for itself as a haven for men who take advantage of the company’s policies which allow men to use women’s locker rooms. In 2015, staff cancelled the membership of a woman who reported to local and corporate staff, as well as members, that a man used the female locker room. Her efforts to raise awareness were problematic, according to Planet Fitness:

“The manner in which this member expressed her concerns about the policy exhibited behavior that management at the Midland club deemed inappropriate and disruptive to other members, which is a violation of the membership agreement and as a result her membership was canceled,” Gosselin said in a statement on behalf of Planet Fitness.

“Planet Fitness is committed to creating a non-intimidating, welcoming environment for our members. Our gender identity nondiscrimination policy states that members and guests may use all gym facilities based on their sincere self-reported gender identity.”

Another woman claims she faced similar treatment earlier this year. The conservative legal group Liberty Counsel is representing a woman whom they say reported a man who was intentionally taking up space and time in a female locker room. The man was asked to finish whatever he was doing — according to Liberty Counsel’s complaint, their client says the man pretended to apply makeup “for at least an hour,” intentionally preventing their client — a prior rape victim who asked him to leave the locker room — from changing, using bathroom facilities, etc. in peace and safety. He then reported her to police for alleged harassment, and Planet Fitness cancelled her membership.

Liberty Counsel’s complaint cites several Florida laws, Planet Fitness’ own policies, and basic human decency. However, none of this would be a problem if Planet Fitness’ policies reflected biological reality instead of its own Starbucks-like decision to put left-wing ideology over running a business.

Leftists frequently say it’s important to avoid “triggering” people — unless it’s women in restrooms and locker rooms who want to feel safe. Little girls and sexually abused women apparently don’t count. Well, here at 2ndVote, they do. And we suspect they do for our readers and members. Be sure to let Planet Fitness know where you stand by going elsewhere for your fitness needs.

Send Planet Fitness an Email!

Help us continue providing resources like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Shutterstock.

Follow The Money: Will NFL Owners Choose George Soros or Millions of Their Fans?

/in , , , /by

The National Football League is at it again. Just weeks after team owners and the league agreed to try to win back millions of fan by having players stand for the anthem, the NFL Players Association, the same organization 2ndVote exposed funding organizations tied to liberal billionaire George Soros, has forced the league to delay implementation of the rule. Via NPR:

They announced what they’re calling a standstill agreement. Now, last week, the union filed a grievance against the NFL’s new anthem policy. And as part of this standstill agreement, the union agreed to put the grievance on hold. Now, the NFL agreed to put its new policy on hold, meaning no new rules relating to the anthem will be issued or enforced for the next several weeks. And what they’re doing – they’re doing this while they engage in what they call confidential discussions to try to resolve the issue.

To put it another way — the same players who are funneling $90 million from last year’s “settlement”/shakedown to left-wing activists have forced the owners back to the negotiating table. These are the team owners who saw a 10 percent drop in viewership last season, eight million fewer Super Bowl viewers this year, and advertisers threaten to leave.

From a purely business perspective, capitulating to the players is clearly a bad idea. The fans have identified the anthem protests for what they are: the promotion of a false narrative that America is a racist country. And they have made themselves heard loud and clear by simply tuning out. Will owners actually listen, and stand up to the political chicanery at work behind the anthem protests? Or will they continue to let themselves be shaken down by the activist players?

The answer should be obvious to any team owner: follow the money. The NFL Players Association is a left-wing activist group that financially supports other left-wing activist groups. The NFL’s fans are the league’s financial driver and represent a broad swath of America that turns to sport for what it is–entertainment, not politics.

They can only choose one.

Help us continue providing resources like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Shutterstock.

LIES OF THE SOROS-BACKED IMMIGRATION LOBBY: Why Americans should worry about their dishonest agenda.

/in , , , , , , /by

The George Soros-backed American Immigration Council is the latest group hell-bent on “resisting” commonsense immigration enforcement in the U.S. Several in this group are, themselves, practicing immigration attorneys who should know the truth about the dangers of open borders policies in communities across the U.S.  However, however, many lawyers at the American Immigration Council gloss over facts and, instead, promote dangerously false information about the legal aspects of the immigration issue.

One such example of the white-washing lawyers at the American Immigration Council is Joshua Breisblatt, the group’s Senior Policy Analyst and an immigration attorney with an extensive background in immigration law and the lobbying efforts mounted in the Halls of Congress to push the open borders agenda.  His bio notes that he had worked for Former Congressman Harry Mitchell of Arizona. Breisblatt penned an outrageously deceitful article on the group’s website titled: “USCIS Is Slowly Being Morphed Into an Immigration Enforcement Agency.” 

The article begins with these three paragraphs:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued new guidance to initiate deportation proceedings for thousands of applicants denied for any immigration benefit. This policy change will have far-reaching implications for many of those interacting with the agency, but also signals a major shift in how USCIS operates.

USCIS was never meant to be tasked with immigration enforcement. Their mandate has always been administering immigration benefits. With its distinct mission, USCIS was created to focus exclusively on their customer service function, processing applications for visas, green cards, naturalization, and humanitarian benefits.

The new USCIS guidance instructs staff to issue a Notice to Appear (NTA) to anyone who is unlawfully present when an application, petition, or benefit request is denied. This will include virtually all undocumented applicants, as well as those individuals whose lawful status expires while their request is pending before USCIS.

In other words, Breisblatt opposes the Trump administration’s sensible policy of removal (deportation hearings) for illegal aliens whose applications for immigration benefits are denied.

Generally, such applications are denied if an alien is ineligible for the immigration benefit – for whatever reason.  But the main reason many denials of benefits is that the alien committed immigration fraud by lying on their application.

In fact, it appears Breisblatt objects to the necessary adjudications process altogether, referring to it as simply “processing applications”were providing service for the aliens being the key issue.

What Breisblatt and the American Immigration Council advocates for, instead, is a policy where fraud would be encouraged and enabled.

I wrote recently wrote about how the Trump administration’s New USCIS Mission Statement Puts Americans First, is making America safer.

I am intimately familiar with the adjudications process.  Early in my career with the former INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) I was assigned in the mid 1970’s for a one year period, as an Adjudications Officer- then known as an Immigration Examiner, to a pilot program to combat immigration fraud by interviewing aliens and their U.S. citizen or lawful immigrant spouses who had filed petitions to provide the aliens with lawful immigration status.

The program was created when a sudden and massive influx of applications for lawful immigrant status flooded the New York District Office.

It appeared that many of the “loving couples” were likely not living together but had entered into a sham marriage wherein the U.S. citizen or lawful immigrant petitioning spouse was paid to marry the alien.

When major discrepancies were discovered during the interview (the husband and wife were interviewed separately) the case was immediately assigned to a team of INS investigators.  If the couple conceded that they were not living together, the illegal alien was immediately taken into custody and was put before an immigration judge within a day or two.

In cases where the couple denied committing fraud, a team of INS investigators would conduct a field investigation.  If evidence was found that the couple was not living together, the alien was arrested per an administrative warrant and held for a deportation hearing.

Within just a few months, the number of petitions that were filed plummeted as the aliens came to realize that if they would face consequences for committing fraud.

Immigration fraud involves several federal laws such as 18 U.S. Code § 1546 which includes this excerpt which notes that immigration fraud committed in connection with terrorism carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison:

Whoever knowingly makes under oath, or as permitted under penalty of perjury under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, knowingly subscribes as true, any false statement with respect to a material fact in any application, affidavit, or other document required by the immigration laws or regulations prescribed thereunder, or knowingly presents any such application, affidavit, or other document which contains any such false statement or which fails to contain any reasonable basis in law or fact—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both.

This is certainly an extremely serious crime.

Yet the American Immigration Council would have you believe that the best way to deal with immigration fraud is to just approve all of the applications so that we don’t add more cases to the already overflowing backlog of applications for benefits or clog the overcrowded immigration courts.

Incredibly, Breisblatt provided a link to an official document issued by the Immigration Ombudsman of the administration of George W. Bush, that purportedly supports his claim that previous administrations opposed the issuance of NTA’s to illegal aliens whose applications for immigration benefits were denied.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  That document includes this excerpt:

Recommendation to USCIS that its policy on issuing Notices to Appear be standardized to provide that NTAs be issued and filed with the immigration court in all cases where, as a result of adjustment of status denial, the applicant is out of status.

For the government, failure to place a removable alien before an Immigration Judge creates a perception that the government tolerates violation of immigration laws;

For USCIS, if an NTA is not issued, (a) an applicant can file a new adjustment of status application which must be processed; (b) along with the new adjustment application, an applicant can also file for employment authorization. Thus, some applicants who are ineligible for adjustment of status can continue to file for it and receive employment authorization despite the knowledge that they will be denied at some point;

For applicants who wish to have an Immigration Judge review their adjustment application, USCIS failure to issue an NTA precludes such an opportunity;

For the public, USCIS failure to issue an NTA to a removable alien can be seen as neglecting a duty to ensure compliance with the immigration laws; and

For ICE, DHS’s enforcement branch, retaining removable aliens in USCIS processing prevents a true assessment of the number of cases pending and, thereby, precludes accurate resource planning and allocation.

As an INS special agent, I spent years investigating immigration fraud.  Indeed my very first fraud investigation led me to uncover a terror plot in Israel.  Fortunately, working with the Israeli National Police and the FBI a bombing at an oil refinery was averted.

The second largest contingent of federal agents who are assigned to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) are immigration law enforcement agents because international terrorists generally commit multiple immigration law violations- often beginning with visa fraud and/or immigration benefit fraud.

The official report of the 9/11 Commission staff, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel focuses considerable attention on the issue of immigration fraud and included these statements:

“Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud.

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

Last month I wrote an article, Trump Administration Opens Office To Find Naturalization Fraudsters in which I lauded the same efforts that American Council on Immigration adamantly opposes.

Given their backgrounds, these far-left American Immigration Council lobbyists clearly know the risks that immigration fraud creates in American communities and to average Americans.  Yet, they are determined to obfuscate the truth and leave our nation vulnerable to Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.

Efforts by these opponents of fair and effective immigration law enforcement are succeeding in sparking subversive protests across the United States, under the banner of “Occupy ICE.”

From Portland, Oregon to New York City and towns and cities and states in between, demonstrators have been convinced or, more properly conned, into resisting immigration laws that protect national security, public safety and the livelihoods of American and lawful immigrant workers.

For those who think they are demonstrating compassion by obstructing immigration law enforcement, a bit of advice is in order, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Dem’s latest genius idea: Pay illegals.

Democrats Electoral Strategy: Open Borders and Let Non-Citizens Vote

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. The featured image is by Fibonacci Blue.

Why We Fight Islamic Indoctrination In U.S. Public Schools

/in , , , , , , /by

Watch an Imam teach Dutch children how to pray as Muslims – The first step to Islamic conversion.

All you have to do is look at what’s happening in the Netherlands to understand why the Thomas More Law Center is so zealously fighting against Islamic indoctrination in public schools across the United States.

Parents in the Netherlands can’t stop their children from being subjected to Islamic indoctrination.  In fact, parents who refuse to let their children attend mosque trips, are subject to fines and are often bullied by their schools. Such bullying also happens here in the United States as witnessed by Libby Hilsenrath when she made the public aware of Islamic indoctrination in the Chathams Middle School.

But, parents in the United States have the Thomas More Law Center and our Constitution to stop this indoctrination. Hugo Bos, investigating Islamic indoctrination in Dutch schools, is aware of the lawsuits fighting Islamic indoctrination being filed by the Thomas More Law Center in the United States.

The Church Militant website contains a disturbing article on how Dutch Children are being forced to submit to Islam.

Read the entire article on the Church Militant’s website by clicking here.

Please contact the Thomas More Law Center here if you become aware of Islamic Indoctrination in your child’s public school.

Help us with our continuing battle to stop Islamic indoctrination in our public schools by donating to the Thomas More Law Center. Your donations are tax-deductible.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim Siraj Ibn Wahhaj Was Training Abused Kids at New Mexico Shelter to Commit Mass Shootings at Schools

Rashida Tlaib Is Set to Become the First Muslim Woman in Congress

Trump, EU Leader Agree to Work Toward ‘Zero Tariffs’

/in , , , /by

In what President Donald Trump called “a very big day for free and fair trade,” he and the leader of the European Union agreed Wednesday to work to end tariffs on nonautomotive products.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Trump met at the White House, then went to the Rose Garden to announce not only a cease-fire but disarmament in what was turning into a trade war.

“Together, we are more than 50 percent of trade. If we team up, we can make our planet a better, more secure, and more prosperous place,” Trump said, later adding: “This is why we agreed today to, first of all, to work together toward zero tariffs, zero nontariff barriers, and zero subsidies on nonauto industrial goods.”

The two leaders’ agreement included resolving the tariffs on steel and aluminum imposed by the Trump administration, which the EU has retaliated against.

“I had the intention to make a deal today, and we made a deal today,” Juncker said. “We have identified a number of areas on which to work together. Work towards zero tariffs on industrial goods, that was my main intention, to propose to come down to zero tariffs on industrial goods. We’ve [also] decided to strengthen our cooperation on energy.”

At this point, the audience, including several members of Congress, began to applaud.

“The announcements today from President Trump and EU President Juncker were an encouraging first step to put the brakes on the trade war,” Tori Whiting, a trade economist at The Heritage Foundation who has written extensively on tariffs, told The Daily Signal in an email.

“The White House should immediately follow up its promises to eliminate tariffs on steel and aluminum for the EU and work to establish similar deals with other allies,” Whiting said. “The president should also suspend the national security investigation into automobile imports.”

The Rose Garden event was not initially on the president’s schedule, suggesting it was likely contingent on the outcome of talks between the two leaders.

Trump said the U.S. and EU would work to reduce trade barriers and increase trade on chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical products, and soybeans.

Trump drilled down on soybeans after objections from farmers to several of the tariffs the administration has pushed.

“Soybeans is a big deal, and the European Union is going to start immediately to buy a lot of soybeans,” Trump said. “There is a tremendous market, [and the EU will] buy a lot of soybeans from our farmers in the Midwest primarily.”

The president continued:

This will open markets for farmers and workers, increase investment, and lead to greater prosperity for both the United States and the European Union. It will also make trade fairer and more reciprocal—my favorite word—reciprocal.

Trump and Juncker said the EU wanted to import more liquified natural gas from the United States, reform the World Trade Organization, and establish a joint working group to evaluate tariff measures. The two leaders agreed not to violate the spirit of the agreement before the final deal is reached.

“As far as agriculture is concerned, the European Union can import more soybeans from the U.S., and it will be done,” Juncker said. “And we have also agreed to work together on the reform of the WTO. Of course, it is on the understanding that as long as we are negotiating, unless one party stops the negotiations, we hold off further tariffs.”

Neither leader took questions from reporters.

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.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker preparing to make a joint statement on trade Wednesday in the Rose Garden of the White House. (Photo: Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Newscom)

Podcast: More Proof Colleges Have Become Insane

/in , , /by

As taxpayers continue to back student loans, The Heritage Foundation’s Mary Clare Amselem joins us to talk about how a college professor co-wrote a research paper with her dead cat—and what can be done on the higher ed front. Plus: Republicans accuse Twitter of treating them differently than Democrats.

The Daily Signal podcast is a 25-minute weekday podcast that shares the news highlights conservatives need to know and features an in-depth interview. Subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud.

PODCAST BY

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. She is also a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. Send an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

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

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of a Duke University student is by Andy Mead/YCJ/Icon Sportswire 918m.