More Pay for Unionized Teachers Is the Wrong Solution to the Wrong Problem

/in , , , , /by

Daniel J. Mitchell The real issue at hand is why more and more money never produces better outcomes.

by Daniel J. Mitchell

Education spending and teacher pay have become big issues in certain states.

Unfortunately, not for the right reason. In an ideal world, taxpayers would be demanding systemic reform because government schools are getting record amounts of money (higher than any other nation on a per-student basis) while producing sub-par results.

Instead, we live in a surreal parallel universe where teacher unions are pushing a narrative that taxpayers should cough up more money because teachers supposedly are underpaid.

 

Let’s look at the data.

An article in City Journal debunks the claim that teachers are underpaid.

…protests across the country have reinforced the perception that public school teachers are dramatically underpaid. They’re not: the average teacher already enjoys market-level wages plus retirement benefits vastly exceeding those of private-sector workers. Across-the-board salary increases, such as those enacted in Arizona, West Virginia, and Kentucky, are the wrong solution to a non-problem. …At the lowest skill levels—a GS-6 on the federal scale—teachers earn salaries about 26 percent higher than similar white-collar workers. …The average public school teaching position rated an 8.8 on the federal GS scale. After adjustment to reflect the time that teachers work outside the formal school day, the BLS data show that public school teachers on average receive salaries about 8 percent above similar private-sector jobs. …Data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation show that teachers who change to non-teaching jobs take an average salary cut of about 3 percent. Studies using administrative records in Florida, Missouri, Georgia, and Montana showed similar results. …public-employee retirement and health benefits are bleeding dry state and local budgets. Neither the public nor teachers fully appreciates the costs of these programs. We forget the value of benefits when considering how teacher pay compares with private-sector work.”

And keep in mind those lavish pensions are woefully underfunded, so taxpayers are paying too much now and they’ll have to pay even more in the future.

But I think the key factoid from the above article is that teachers take a pay cut, on average, when they leave the profession. Along with the “JOLTS” data, that’s real-world evidence that teachers are getting paid more than counterparts in the economy’s productive sector.

Allysia Finley of the Wall Street Journal also punctures the false claims of the union bosses.

Teachers unions… They’re using misleading statistics… They conflate school funding and state education spending. In Oklahoma, unions proclaimed that per pupil school spending fell by 28.2% over the past decade. That refers to the inflation-adjusted state’s general funding formula. But total per pupil outlays increased by 16% in nominal terms between 2006 and 2016… They use elevated spending baselines. Teachers unions nearly always compare school spending and teacher salaries today with peak levels before the great recession, which were inflated like housing prices. Between 2000 and 2009, average per pupil spending across the country increased 52%…per pupil spending ticked up by 7.5% between 2012 and 2015. School spending growth…increased faster than the consumer price index. …They don’t account for other forms of compensation. Since 2000, per pupil spending on employee benefits has doubled. …pensions and health benefits are the fastest-growing expenses for many school districts, and most of the money goes to retired teachers. …the unions are lying with statistics.”

In a column for the Denver Post, a parent showed that his state’s teachers are getting above-average compensation.

Teachers are…mostly paid via a union “salary schedule,” meaning they get pay raises based on only two factors: the number of college degrees and certificates they earn, and how many years they’ve been on the job. That makes a pretty lousy incentive structure… We keep hearing Colorado is 49th in the country for educational spending. That lie is repeated so often it becomes legend. Funding for Colorado schools are split between the local school district and the state. So, if you compare only the state funding part to states that have no local match, yep, ours looks low. But when you look at total funding, which can be counted in different ways, the picture doesn’t look so dire. …According to the Colorado Department of Education, the average salary for teachers here is $52,728. But that’s only one piece of the compensation. The school year is about 180 days, or 36 weeks. So, the pay is $1,465 for every week a teacher is teaching. Vacation time? Well, 52 weeks in a year, minus 36 weeks in the classroom, that’s 16 weeks off, roughly 4 months! Compare that to someone who only gets 2 weeks off but still gets paid $1,465 a week when working, that’s the equivalent of $73,233. And let’s count the present-cost value of their retirement benefits. …Not bad for a system where you can retire at 58.”

Let’s close with some excerpts from Jason Riley’s column in the Wall Street Journal.

The nation’s K-12 schools are…turning into hotbeds of political activism. …teachers are demanding higher pay, better benefits and more education funding overall. …The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association have thousands of state and local affiliates. They are among the richest and best-organized pressure groups in the country. And they are on a roll. That’s good news for their members but not necessarily for children, parents and taxpayers. …Teachers unions support work rules that prevent the most capable teachers from being sent to low-performing schools, that shield teachers from meaningful evaluations, and that require instructors to be laid off based on seniority instead of performance. …those rules do nothing to address the needs of students. …politicians love to highlight education outlays. It helps them win votes and ward off union agitators. But the connection between school spending and educational outcomes is tenuous. …total spending per pupil at the state level rose, on average, by an inflation-adjusted 18%. During this period, it fell in Arizona… Yet on 2015 federal standardized exams, Arizona made more progress than any other state. New York, by contrast, boasts the highest spending per pupil and teacher pay in the country, but you wouldn’t know it from the test results.”

For what it’s worth, the final few sentences in the above excerpt should be the main issue being discussed in state capitals. Lawmakers should be asking why more and more money never produces better outcomes.

But that’s really not the problem. It’s the symptom of the problem.

Our primary challenge in education is that we rely on government monopolies that are captured by special interests. We need school choice so that competitive forces can be unleashed to generate better results. There’s strong evidence that choice produces good outcomes in the limited instances where it is allowed in the United States.

And in that kind of system, we may actually wind up with better teachers that are paid just as much. Or maybe even more.

P.S. There’s also strong evidence for school choice from nations such as Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands.

P.P.S. Needless to say, eliminating the Department of Education is part of the solution.

Reprinted from International Liberty.

VIDEO: How Liberal Activists Are Shutting Down Choice for Birth Moms

/in , , , , /by

For birth moms who want to place their children with married moms and dads, that option is now at risk.

Across the country, liberal activists are accusing faith-based adoption and foster care agencies of discrimination because they prefer placing children with married moms and dads. The situation has left faith-based agencies with a difficult choice: violate their religious beliefs about sexuality and marriage, or shut down.

“I would never tell a gay couple, ‘Oh, because you two are in love with each other and you’re not a heterosexual couple, don’t even think about adopting a child.’ That’s not what I’m saying,” Kelly Clemente, a birth mother who placed her son for adoption, told The Daily Signal. “What I’m saying is that birth mothers have the right to choose.”

In at least four states, birth mothers don’t have the right to choose because faith-based agencies were pressured to close. In Illinois, after serving the community for more than 50 years, Catholic Charities was forced to stop its adoption and foster care services. At least 2,000 children were disrupted, and thousands more foster parents were lost as a result.

In all of these states, plenty of agencies exist that will facilitate adoptions to same-sex couples. But still, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are moving forward with lawsuits trying to force all adoption providers, including those of faith, to facilitate adoptions to same-sex couples.

As a result, some are turning to the federal government to pass the Child Welfare Provider Inclusion Act, a bill that would protect the rights of birth moms, and the rights of faith-based adoption and foster care agencies to continue operating in accordance to their religious beliefs.

“Birth mothers already sacrifice so much,” said Clemente. “I don’t think that they should have to sacrifice their faith, too.”

Learn more in the video above.

VIDEO TEAM

Portrait of Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness

Kelsey Harkness is a senior news producer at The Daily Signal and co-host of “Problematic Women,” a podcast and Facebook Live show. Send an email to Kelsey. Twitter: @kelseyjharkness.

RELATED ARTICLE: I Had an Abortion. Here’s the Message I Want to Share With Other Women.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

The Obama Legacy Deserves to Be Destroyed

/in , , , /by

It’s strange that a president who had such a transformative effect on our national discourse will leave such a negligible policy legacy.

But Barack Obama, whose imperial term changed the way Americans interact and in some ways paved the way for the Trump presidency, is now watching his much-celebrated and mythologized two-term legacy be systematically demolished. This, in many ways, tells us that American governance still works.

When President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, he was able to do so without much difficulty because the agreement hinged on presidential fiat rather than national consensus. Obama’s appeasement of Iran was only one in a string of unilateral norm-busting projects that deserve to be dismantled.

You’ll remember the panic-stricken coverage we endured when the United States withdrew from the faux international Paris climate agreement last year. It’s true that the deal was oversold as a matter of policy (by both parties for political reasons), but it was symbolic of how the Obama administration concerned itself more with international consensus than domestic compromise.

We know this because the president would never have won ratification for a deal remotely similar to the one he entered—nor did he attempt to. Obama, despite the hagiographic framing of his scandal-ridden presidency, had about as much interest in genuine concession as his political adversaries did.

Obama allies at home incessantly pointed to poll numbers as a justification for his executive abuse, mostly because the only polls that really mattered, congressional elections, continued to soundly reject his agenda.

The defense rested on the idea that the Republican-led Congress had failed to “do its job” and act on issues Democrats had deemed vital. But Congress, of course, “acted” all the time by checking the president’s ambitions. This was not only well within its purview but also in many ways the reason the electorate handed the GOP Congress in the first place.

Even if you substantively supported Obama’s actions—as I do on legalizing the children of immigrants who are in the country illegally, for instance—the reasoning that girded these supposedly temporary executive decisions was soon revealed to be abusive.

In 2012, Obama told the nation that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which by any standard was a stand-in for legislation, was merely a “temporary stopgap measure.” By the time Trump overturned it, the measure represented “who we are as a people.” That’s because by “temporary,” Obama always meant “until Democrats can make it permanent through the courts or electoral victories.”

Even when implementing laws Congress could pass, Obama and his allies relied on coercing participation through mandates. But when it became inconvenient, they began arbitrarily implementing parts of laws. Administrative discretion became administrative abuse. When the president decided Obamacare’s employer mandate was politically inconvenient, for example, he simply skipped it for expediency.

The Constitution doesn’t say, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law unless liberals tell us it’s super important.” Yet shortly after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration realized it would need more subsidies and asked for an appropriation from Congress.

When Congress, then teeming with politicians elected on the promise of overturning Obamacare, refused, then-Treasury Secretary Jack Lew ordered the administration to begin making “cost-sharing reduction” payments anyway, without any public legal justification.

Obama created a $7 billion per year appropriation for insurance companies participating in the supposedly self-sufficient and competitive state health care exchanges. Not a single liberal pundit that I know of concerned himself with this norm-breaking.

One federal court found the Obamacare subsidy unconstitutional, and the case was working its way toward the Supreme Court. But then again, no administration in memory was stopped more often by courts, often by unanimous Supreme Court decisions. Whether it was ignoring the Senate in making appointments or claiming to rewrite employment law, Obama tried to function without constitutional restraints.

None of this even breaches the unprecedented regulatory regime Obama built to circumvent the legislative branch. Even The New York Times characterized his governing as “bureaucratic bulldozing, rather than legislative transparency.”

Fortunately, it is also unsustainable. As we now see, this kind of governance not only corrodes constitutional order but also undermines stability, as new presidents busy themselves overturning the executive actions and international agreements enacted by the previous.

While most Americans aren’t sticklers for process, it seems they are content with destroying legacies built on the rickety foundation of unilateralism for political reasons.

That’s fine, too. It means that if Trump engages in similar legislative efforts through the executive office, his agenda will also be dismantled one day. That’s as it should be.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of the forthcoming “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of former President Barack Obama, who is now watching his much-celebrated and mythologized two-term legacy be systematically demolished. (Photo: Leigh Vogel/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

How State Government fanned the flames of Hawaii’s volcano disaster

/in , , , , /by

Government fanned flames of volcano disaster

by Joe Kent, Grassroot Institute, May 9, 2018

As lava engulfs the homes of many unfortunate Hawaii Island residents, it’s important to remember that the state originally encouraged the building of homes in this dangerous area by offering lava insurance where no private company would.

In the 1990s, the town of  Kalapana was destroyed by lava, and soon afterward, private insurance companies, after suffering millions of dollars in losses, stopped insuring land in Lava Zones 1 and 2.

Lava Zones on Hawaii Island

In response to the absence of private insurance, the state Legislature  created the  Hawaii Property Insurance Association (HPIA), whose job is to provide coverage for homes in areas that private insurance won’t touch.</span

The law  requires private insurance companies to pool their money to subsidize the expense of offering insurance in high-risk lava zones.

HPIA describes itself as a nonprofit association, created to provide basic property insurance for persons unable to purchase homeowners coverage in the private market due to the ongoing volcanic eruption in Lava Zones 1 and 2 on the Island of Hawaii.

Its members are all licensed insurers that write property and casualty insurance in Hawaii, each required to be a member of the HPIA as a condition of their authority to transact business in the state. Together they participate in the writings, expenses, profits and losses of the HPIA, in proportion to their market share of property and casualty insurance written in Hawaii, according to the association.

It adds, “There is no public funding or taxpayers’ monies involved,” but certainly any losses incurred by the HPIA members are passed along to their broader base of Hawaii customers, resulting in an indirect tax.

In any case, ignoring the obvious risks of building homes in active lava zones, the  law stated that any person “who has been unable to obtain basic property insurance from a licensed insurer may apply to the association for coverage.”

This resulted in a boom in the housing market below the active Kilauea volcano.

By 2008, there were more than  2,400 HPIA policies in the area, providing more than $700 million worth of insurance statewide to the highest-risk lava zones on Hawaii Island. At the time, the  Honolulu-Advertiser said Leilani Estates resident Douglas Pase could not find any private company willing to insure the building of his house in the area:

“Pase called various insurance companies to price coverage and said HPIA was the only willing insurer he could find. That was critical because ‘without some way of insuring the house that we would build, building in Leilani would not be an option for us,’ he said. ‘Since no one else would cover it, that becomes really, really important.’”

In economic terms, this created a “moral hazard,” a term which economist Paul Krugman described as “any situation in which one person makes the decision about how much risk to take, while someone else bears the cost if things go badly.”

The moral hazard of this new insurance program gave a false sense of security to homebuilders in Leilani Estates, some of whom were  disappointed to find a gap in their coverage when HPIA issued a  moratorium on new insurance following another lava flow in 2014.

A Pahoa home burns down in a lava flow in 2014.

At the time, Pahoa homeowner Corinne Traylor in  testimony to the Legislature said that she and her husband could no longer refinance their house, and she couldn’t sell it either, “due to the sudden lack of insurance.”

Others said the moratorium was a “market failure” and urged the government to step in to help. Soon afterward, Gov. David Ige signed  Act 32 in 2015, which mandated that the HPIA lift its moratorium and provide lava insurance, further fanning the flames of the moral hazard.

Today, that hazard is very real for families watching their homes be engulfed by magma. What was seen as a “market failure” was really a warning sign to those building in Lava Zones 1 and 2.

If the state had stayed out of the situation, probably fewer families would have built in the area, and today there might be less housing destruction.

After this disaster is over, Hawaii leaders should get out of the way and let the insurance market’s natural price mechanisms work to provide the valuable, even humanitarian, information needed regarding the areas in Hawaii that are simply too dangerous to build in.

RELATED ARTICLE:

2008: Red Hot Lava Menaces Old-boy Scam

The Downside of Regulating Facebook

/in , , , , , /by

James L. GattusoThe end result would likely be a shift to a fee-based system, where users would have to pay to use Facebook and other platforms.

 by James L. Gattuso

In congressional testimony last month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said he would support regulation of his own company.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and John Kennedy, R-La., have now taken him up on the offer, introducing a bill, S. 2728, to impose broad new restrictions on how Facebook and other social media companies can collect and handle consumer data.

Taking Facebook to Task

The legislation—dubbed the Social Media Privacy Protection and Consumer Rights Act—was no surprise. Klobuchar and Kennedy had made clear weeks ago that they were planning to propose federal intervention in social media markets.

As Kennedy succinctly put it to Zuckerberg: “Your user agreement sucks.”

The goal was to address privacy concerns raised by the acquisition and use of consumer data from Facebook users by Cambridge Analytica data firm.

“We can do it the easy way or the hard way,” Kennedy bluntly stated regarding his regulatory plans, adding, “I do not want to regulate Facebook half to death, but we do have … problems we’ve discovered.”

The bill is a grab bag of mandates and restrictions on how social media networks operate. The most widely discussed provision is a requirement that social media platforms use “plain English” in their user agreements, so consumers can better understand them.

That line was memorable and garnered quite a bit of attention for the Louisiana lawmaker. But the irony is that Congress is hardly in a position to lecture private companies on the plain use of the English language, as anyone who has ever read congressional legislation can attest.

It’s About the Data

The meat of the bill, however, is not linguistics, but limits on the collection of consumer data by Facebook and other social media platforms.

Among its provisions, the bill would require social media networks by law to disable consumer data tracking and collection (when so requested by a user); to provide notice of a data breach within 72 hours; to delete user data when asked; and to provide copies of what has been collected about them.

The end result would likely be a shift to a fee-based system, where users would have to pay to use Facebook.

The bill avoids the most extreme restrictions that have been proposed. It doesn’t ban the use of consumer data, nor does it require an affirmative “opt-in” for such data to be used as a general rule.

But consumers should not celebrate. The Klobuchar-Kennedy plan is likely only the first volley in a probable bidding war over regulating social media networks. Even the mandates in the current bill could threaten the benefits consumers receive from social media platforms.

For instance, by making data more difficult to acquire and to use, advertising revenue may no longer be able to support social media platforms. The end result would likely be a shift to a fee-based system, where users would have to pay to use Facebook and other platforms.

That would be a net loss for most users, who—based on their usage habits—like the free access to social media made possible by advertising revenue.

So far, Facebook has not made a fuss over the proposed new rules. In fact, it has openly supported some of the provisions, including notifications of breaches within 72 hours and the “plain English” requirement.

We Don’t Need a New Law

But this should create no free pass. Regulations making it more difficult to use consumer data often make competition more difficult because smaller rivals may find it harder to absorb the regulatory costs.

The impact of regulations varies, of course, based on the specific regulation, but it’s a danger policymakers should always keep in mind.

Robust laws are already on the books addressing breaches of commitments to consumers.

This doesn’t mean government should do nothing to ensure that an internet-based company such as Facebook complies with its promises to consumers.

If data has been used in violation of commitments made to the users of a platform, the firm should be held accountable for the violation. But that does not necessarily require new regulation.

Robust laws are already on the books addressing breaches of commitments to consumers. Moreover, agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission already have rules that can—and often are—used to enforce privacy commitments.

Consumers can also use state contract law to sue Facebook for any breach of its commitments. No new rules should be imposed without a clear showing that the many existing tools are not already adequate to protect consumer privacy.

This may not be the “easy way” or the “hard way” of making markets work, but it is the right way.

Reprinted from the Daily Signal.

EDITORS NOTE: Many former Facebook users are go to new social media platforms. One of them is MeWe.com.

Wow. Vanity Fair Displays Astounding Ignorance About The Right

/in , , /by

Most journalists live in insular bubbles of liberal LeftThink. But this was never more apparent than in a recent Vanity Fair article explaining the red-pilling of Kanye West.

That they seem utterly blind to their culturally provincial ignorance while writing with such grave authority is what makes it hilarious. Otherwise, it’s just tragic.

Of course it all starts because Kanye tweeted that he likes the way Candace Owens, a black conservative, thinks. Owens believes in personal responsibility and that blacks should not be stuck on the Democratic Party plantation. So naturally she is considered radical and controversial by the insular media.

Kanye has since gone on numerous tweet storms of independent thought, MAGA hats, Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams, liberal artist John Legend and all sorts of strange nonsense, i.e. sharing “dragon energy” with Trump. It’s not that Kanye is suddenly a conservative or even a big Trump supporter. He’s clearly not.

Kanye’s real sin  — or contribution to broadened thinking — was independent, non-Democratic-approved thought by a black man. As we pointed out here, that is philosophically and electorally not allowed.

There have been many attempts by the insular media to discredit, attack and explain away Kanye’s independent thinking. But none rise to the level of sheer detachment from any understanding of the right, Trump supporters or the alt right (which has very little to do with the conservative right) as Tina Nguyen’s Vanity Fair article, “He’s Never Been Happier: Inside The Red-Pilling of Kanye West.”

For those who do not know, red pill and its less popular opposite, blue pill, are memes derived from the movie The Matrix. They represent choices. Red pill represents choosing knowledge, freedom and sometimes brutal reality. Blue pill represents choosing security, happiness and blissful ignorance. Red pill is used in various forms on the right, but got a big push on Reddit and the alt right. But it is an ultimately conservative view.

The article is illustrative of the total lack of association with conservatives by so many in the national media.

Tina writes in regards to the Kanye tweets, “West’s liberal fans wondered if he was having a public breakdown, or was merely misinformed.” See, those are the only two options. Kanye needs to be re-educated in the correct way a black man should think.

Tina nonsense:

“According to sources I spoke to, West is a fan of Jordan Peterson, the controversial Canadian professor who has attracted a cult following of disaffected young men, and whose self-help philosophy has become something of a gateway drug for those flirting with the far right.”

Throughout this article, Tina lumps together under the “far right” Peterson, anti-Trumper Jonah Goldberg, atheist, mostly liberal Sam Harris, libertarian Steve Forbes, white supremacist Richard Spencer, former Google engineer James Damore, alt-right Trumper Mike Cernovich, Conservative Ben Shapiro, flamingly gay Milo, talk radio host Dennis Prager and anti-Tumper Bret Stephens. Wow. Obviously Tina does not know conservatives or Trumpers or the alt right. They all look about the same from her isolated perch. She just never rubs shoulders with them. (Granted, this is an assumption, but a pretty safe one.) They are oddities skulking around the hinterlands and the dark web.

Jordan, who is hardly a doctrinaire conservative, is a proponent of personal responsibility and self-help. So while Canadian, that is about as historically archetypically American as possible. And, by the way, good parenting too. But to insulated leftist journalists such as Tina Nguyen, that is a “gateway drug for those flirting with the far right.”

First, personal responsibility is only “far right” if you are very far left. She clearly means it pejoratively. Personal responsibility and self-help, as opposed to government handouts, is a bad thing to a modern progressive leftist because they have fully embraced socialism. (As a concept, that is, not something to practice personally.)

Most Americans not on the far left see personal responsibility as a positive, something noble and right to be taught and sought after. So this is not necessarily about “disaffected men” but about seeking a higher way of living than suckling at the teets of government largesse. The detachment in the hall of Vanity Fair — and the rest of media — on this point is stark. But it gets worse.

More Tina nonsense:

“…the dragon energy in the far right has been supplanted by a nebulous ‘intellectual dark web’ comprised of right-wing pundits, agnostic comedian podcasters, self-help gurus, and disgruntled ex-liberals united by their desire to ‘red pill’ new adherents—breaking the spell of political correctness, as Neo’s eyes are opened in The Matrix.”

She sees this as a rag-tag band of disaffected misfits. Another way of looking at it is a broad, forming coalition pushing back against smothering, one-box-fits-all political correctness. PC is antithetical to free speech and free association. It is anti-Constitutional, anti-Founders and profoundly anti-American.

This nebulous intellectual dark web is just a scare phrase. They are all right out there in the bright sunlight, except where the PC police on the left seek to quash their voices on social media, in normal media, on college campuses, in Silicon Valley, throughout government and everywhere else they can. Leftists really just cannot brook any disagreement. Stifling and totalitarian.

More Tina nonsense:

“‘I take it all back rap is great now,’ conservative pundit Ben Shapiro tweeted last week, reveling in the absurdity of the reversal.”

Of course, Shapiro was referring to Kanye’s free-thinking tweets. Shapiro is pretty well-known for despising rap. And he is tweeting this while laughing out loud. Guarantee it. It’s a joke! But when you are totally insulated from conservatives, or even moderates, you miss a lot. A lot.

Hilarious Tina:

“What unifies these disparate voices on PragerU, my sources tell me, is a sense that P.C. politics are fundamentally divisive and restrictive.”

She needed sources? She could just check Twitter, or Facebook, or Youtube or, shoot, just Google. But she had to use her sources to figure out the haps with the right. Work the shoe leather. Work the phones. Get those sources to explain this situation. This further goes to the isolation. She can’t just talk to conservative friends, or acquaintances or colleagues, because she obviously doesn’t know any. She actually has to develop sources and then secretly meet with them deep-throat style in a Washington parking garage to get the skinny.

Oy!

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please visit and subscribe to The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube channel.

John McCain — A Once Great Man Made Very Small in Washington

/in , , , /by

Washington, D.C. does not create great men and women. It can sometimes reveal greatness. But for those who stay too long, Washington makes great people small and petty; and small, petty people unsightly shells.

In Lord of the Rings terminology, it is the one ring to rule them all. And John McCain has worn the ring too long. It has distorted the courageous and selfless airman and POW he once was into a mere shadow of that man, driven to maintain the power, influence and affirmation of the entrenched power structure in D.C. — and in doing so undermining the country.

It is tragic to have watched. And it’s a cautionary tale.

The latest revelations will unfortunately cement McCain’s status for many Americans as one submitted to the demanding lure of D.C.

McCain, who is 81 and dying from an aggressive brain tumor, has invited former presidents Obama and Bush to his funeral, along with many of Washington’s leaders, but pointedly not the current President of the United States, who is even from his own party. McCain hates Trump, and while it is his prerogative to invite who he wishes to his own funeral (people do that?) this reveals how small Washington has made him.

Trump has been accomplishing amazing successes for Americans and around the world, from the booming economy to North Korea, Israel, Iraq and so much more, Trump has made America stronger, more respected and safer. But McCain does not like the way he comports himself, his personal life, his unpresidential tweeting or his insults. In a sense, he does not like the way Trump refuses to conform to the the ways of Washington.

Second, and far worse, McCain proudly admits in his new book coming out that he was the person who gave the now-infamous Steele dossier to FBI Director James Comey. The dossier was opposition research funded by the Clinton Campaign and Democratic National Committee and was mostly tawdry fiction from a guy who also possesses a deep dislike of Trump. This ungrounded smear job apparently formed part of the basis for the FBI surveillance on the Trump team and for the now-fizzling Trump-Russia investigation.

That McCain passed that attack piece on — and was seen by the DNC operatives as just the man to do their dirty work — speaks volumes of how far he has fallen after 35 years as a D.C. politician, 30 of those as a U.S. Senator. The power, the attention, the “ways of Washington” are intoxicating.

Finally, its been clear for quite some time that McCain was not up to being a functioning Senator — which, frankly, is not that high a bar. But rather than step down and allow a special election to likely put in a Republican who could make votes, he hung on to his seat. But he could not attend votes. So basically, he reduced the Republicans numbers by one, putting them at the barest 50 required to pass a bill. This had the affect, likely intended, of making passage of any Trump-supported bills (also supported by fellow Republicans) even harder.

This is, again, tragic to watch.

Because it’s worth remembering at this point that John McCain was a bona fide war hero. His opponents of today don’t like that, but it’s the truth. On his 23rd Vietnam War bombing mission over Hanoi in 1967, his A-4T Skyhawk was shot down by a Soviet-made ground-to-air missile. He fractured both arms and a leg when he ejected, was captured by the North Vietnamese, who crushed his shoulder with a rifle butt and stabbed him with a bayonet.

He was imprisoned in the infamous Hanoi Hilton without being treated for his injuries by his captors, and tortured daily. He did not get medical treatment until his captors discovered he was the son of an Admiral. When his father was made commander of all Vietnam forces, the North Vietnamese offered to free him for propaganda purposes. McCain refused unless they released all those Americans captured before him. Needless to say, that did not happen and he was thrown into solitary confinement and the torture was ramped up. This went on until his release in 1973. He spent more than four more years being tortured as a POW when he could have been freed. More can be read here.

This all bears remembering, because those were the acts of a great and honorable and brave man — even though he later broke under the torture. Virtually every POW officer did and no person of caliber would hold that against him.

But everyone changes over the years and McCain seems to have lost the largeness of his vision of sacrifice for the nation, for Americans, and fell into the attention-seeking pettiness of Washington. Sure, Trump may bring that out more easily, but McCain had become a media darling for repeatedly undermining Republican agendas long before Trump came down the elevator to announce his presidency. McCain seemed to lose his way over the decades. The last two developments make that plain.

His legacy is deeply tarnished as being one that concluded with the petty politics of division, personal ambition and desire for positive media attention — even when that meant undermining his own party repeatedly when it was working to do positive things for Americans.

And the primary influence on his life after his POW years was Washington, D.C. It seems to have come to own him, just as the One Ring eventually does all those who possess it too long.

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

Podcast: The Influence Netflix, Other TV Has on Kids

/in , , , , , /by

Joining us today is Tim Winter, president of the Parents Television Council. Winter explains how Netflix and other new media technologies have made it harder than ever for parents to monitor their kids’ media consumption. Yet now media is promoting, in addition to sex and violence, suicide, making it crucial for parents to be involved. Plus: President Trump floats the idea of taking away the media’s credentials.

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.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of the Netflix show, “13 Reasons Why,” which has been accused of romanticizing suicide. (Photo: Mike Blake/Reuters/Newscom)

VIDEO: The Two Wrongs of The Right

/in , , , /by

Two issues that conservatives often get wrong – Liberalism is a mental disease and Islam is not a religion:

RELATED ARTICLE: The Left’s Chilling Refusal to Stop Flirting With Marxist Ideas

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by D.T. Devareaux.

VIDEO: Fighting the ‘Violence of Lies’ with the ‘Belt of Truth’

/in , , , , /by

In April of 2018 the National Rifle Association (NRA) released the below video titled “Violence of Lies.” The video features Dana Loesch who is a gun owner and member of the NRA. Those opposed to the Second Amendment took issue with Ms. Loesch’s use of the phrase “fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth.”

David Hogg, leader of the anti-Second Amendment “We Call BS” movement.

The clenched fist has been used as a symbol by various groups including: the Black Panthers, The New Black Panthers, the Resistance, ANTIFA, Occupy Wall Street, the anti-Second Amendment We Call BS and Black Lives Matter movements.

It appears using the “clenched fist” metaphor is only permissible for those who actually do violence.

Perhaps the NRA should redo this ad and use the words found in Ephesians 6: 10-17:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

You see with belt of truth buckled around your waist you cannot lose.

We are fighting against “the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

It is time to pick up the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. Oops, we just like Ms. Loesch committed a thought crime.

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

They use their media to assassinate real news. They use their schools to teach children that their president is another Hitler. They use their movie stars and singers and comedy shows and award shows to repeat their narrative over and over again. And then they use their ex-president to endorse the resistance.

All to make them march, make them protest, make them scream racism and sexism and xenophobia and homophobia. To smash windows, burn cars, shut down interstates and airports, bully and terrorize the law-abiding — until the only option left is for the police to do their jobs and stop the madness.

And when that happens, they’ll use it as an excuse for their outrage. The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth. I’m the National Rifle Association of America, and I’m freedom’s safest place.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

The Top 20 Uncontested Absurdities of Today

So They’re Not Coming for Our Guns, Eh? We call BS.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Dan Carlson. Twitter: @dan_carl5on.

FBI Acknowledges Life-Saving Potential of Armed Citizens

/in , , , , /by

“Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents. Their selfless actions likely saved many lives. The enhanced threat posed by active shooters and the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold support the importance of preparation by law enforcement officers and citizens alike.”

Those are the final lines in the conclusion of the FBI’s Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2016 and 2017. The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Gang and drug-related shootings are excluded. “The active aspect of the definition inherently implies that both law enforcement personnel and citizens have the potential to affect the outcome of the event based upon their responses to the situation.”

Ten active shooters were confronted by citizens. In four incidents, the responding citizens were unarmed; these heroes include school staff, the shooter’s girlfriend, and a man who intentionally struck the shooter with his car. Six shooters were confronted by armed citizens. Four shooters were stopped by lawfully armed citizens. One citizen was wounded as he confronted the shooter. “In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit exchanged gunfire with the shooter, causing the shooter to flee to another scene and continue shooting.” Unsurprisingly, it seems that these criminal cowards preferred targets incapable of defending themselves.  “Armed and unarmed citizens engaged the shooter in 10 incidents. They safely and successfully ended the shootings in eight of those incidents. Their selfless actions likely saved many lives. The enhanced threat posed by active shooters and the swiftness with which active shooter incidents unfold support the importance of preparation by law enforcement officers and citizens alike.”

Anti-gun politicians, celebrities, and organizations deride the idea that citizens can successfully defend themselves, their families, or those around them. They prefer that law-abiding gun owners be disarmed – a position they advocate from behind the safety of armed security. We’re fortunate to have real leaders who understand that Americans should be trusted to take responsibility for themselves, their families, and their communities, and that the quickest way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

The FBI’s latest report affirms that ability.

RELATED VIDEO: Violence of Lies.

Hard Times for Dick’s as Second Amendment Supporters Respond to Company’s Anti-Gun Bent

/in , , , /by

We have recently been reporting on the bizarre anti-gun activism of one of the nation’s larger firearm retailers, Dick’s Sporting Goods and its affiliated Field & Stream stores. First, the company announced it would stop selling most centerfire semi-automatic rifles at its stores, carry only limited capacity magazines for semi-automatic guns, and ban firearm sales to certain legally eligible adults. It then took the further step of declaring it would destroy its inventory of the newly-restricted firearms at company expense. And if that weren’t enough, the news also recently broke that the company had hired expensive D.C. lobbyists to push for gun control measures on Capitol Hill.  

Dick’s, in other words, was positioning itself as a rising star in the field of corporate gun control activism, in obvious contradiction of its own financial interests. 

Now, however, the pro-gun community is parrying Dick’s gun control thrust with their own countermeasures, while customers appear to be eschewing Dick’s to search for bargains elsewhere.

Last week, the Board of Governors of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and shooting sports industries – voted unanimously to expel Dick’s Sporting Goods from membership in the organization. While the NSSF noted it supports the rights of its members to make individual business decisions, it determined that Dick’s new polices do not “reflect the reality of the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners” and constitute “conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Foundation.” Law-abiding gun owners, the company added, “should not be penalized for the actions of criminals.”

Meanwhile, members of the firearms industry have also begun withdrawing their products from Dick’s and Field & Stream outlets. 

First, Illinois-based Springfield Armory – maker of several lines of highly-popular rifles and pistols — announced early this month that was “severing ties” with the two retailers. In announcing the decision, Springfield Armory stated, “we believe in the rights and principles fought for and secured by American patriots and our founding forefathers, without question.” It concluded, “We will not accept Dick’s Sporting Goods’ continued attempts to deny Second Amendment freedoms to our fellow Americans.”   What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Dick’s has inserted itself into a tight spot from which it might not emerge unscathed, if it manages to survive at all. Its business with Second Amendment supporters in particular may well grind to a halt.

Iconic shotgun maker O.F. Mossberg & Sons followed up this week with its own announcement that it will “not accept any future orders from Dick’s Sporting Goods or Field & Stream” and is “in the process of evaluating current contractual agreements.” Mossberg’s press release on the decision cited its own “staunch support[] of the U.S. Constitution and our Second Amendment right” and its disagreement with “Dick’s Sporting Goods’ recent anti-Second Amendment actions.” 

MKS Supply, marketer of Hi-Point Firearms and Inland Manufacturing, LLC, has now become the latest supplier to cut off Dick’s and Field & Stream. Its president, Charles Brown, justified the decision on the basis that “Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, have shown themselves, in our opinion, to be no friend of Americans’ Second Amendment.” He went on to cite several “wrong” moves by Dick’s in recent months, including “villainizing modern sporting rifles in response to pressure from uninformed, anti-gun voices” and “hiring lobbyists to oppose American citizens’ freedoms secured by the Second Amendment.”  

This industry pressure on Dick’s comes at a sensitive time for the company. Its shares took a steep 6.3% dive in March, amid what analysts described as a “downbeat outlook.” Indeed, its own CEO Edward Stack admitted his new investment in gun control “is not going to be positive from a traffic standpoint and a sales standpoint.”

How that assessment squares with his own obligations to the company and its shareholders is unclear. Profits, after all, are where the rubber meets the road in any business enterprise. 

What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that Dick’s has inserted itself into a tight spot from which it might not emerge unscathed, if it manages to survive at all. Its business with Second Amendment supporters in particular may well grind to a halt.

Should that happen, Dick’s will have no one to blame but itself, and especially Mr. Stack. Dick’s example should serve as a warning for other businesses in the firearm sector that would hope to find common cause with activists who are seeking nothing so much as to put gun sellers out of business for good.

Migration Madness Syndrome

/in , , , , , /by

Europe’s Elite want their citizens to believe open borders and migration from Islamic countries will solve their need for a future workforce due to a shrinking population. I call their bluff. If they need workers, why not get them from the poorer parts of the EU–Romania, Bulgaria, Greece? This isn’t about guest workers. This is about the Left securing a voting block so they can be voted into office in perpetuity.  Islam makes for a perfect partner in their endeavor to achieve political dominance. Both conspire to tear down society and rebuild their Utopian ideal. What the Left doesn’t realize is when Islam ultimately takes power, as it tends to do, the last laugh will be on the them, just as it was with the Tudeh Party in Iran. In the end, Islam has no loyalty to Kafirs, only to Allah and Mohammed.

To understand Islamic migration today, it is imperative to understand the concept of hijra. The hijra dates to the time of Mohammed when he left Mecca and moved to Medina where he became a warlord and politician. Mohammed’s migration, or hijra, is so important to the success of Islam that it is the basis for the Islamic calendar.

Hijra is a form of soft jihad and is quite effective for spreading Islam.

Al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki stated, referring to doctrine: “Jihad today is obligatory on every capable Muslim…it is your duty to find ways to practice it and support it.” He then lists 44 ways to support jihad. In #36 Preparing for Hijrah, al-Awlaki quotes Mohammed: “Hijrah does not stop as long as there is an enemy to fight”.  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Al Qaeda 9/11 mastermind, said, “the practical way to defeat America is through immigration and “outbreeding non-Muslims”.  These jihadists are not creating new ideas. They are repeating 1400 year old doctrine.

The bottom line: Hijra is a tactic to pave the way for Sharia.

Ultimately, the danger of migration is not that there will be too many unemployed workers draining welfare dollars from the state, but it’s that Sharia supremacists will keep Islamicizing the EU.  These guest workers aren’t going home. They have a religious duty to stay and fulfill the doctrine. Their loyalty is to Allah and Mohammed, not to the Kafir countries of the West. History has shown that once a nation is invaded by Islam, it will become 100% Islamic, unless driven out.

What is the solution?

We must wake up to the true nature of the problem. The doctrine of the Left says we aren’t nice enough, we need more programs, we need to integrate migrants better–the fault is always ours. I happen to agree that the fault is with us, but it is due to our ignorance, not our lack of virtue.

Once we understand the problem is the Islamic doctrine, then we can make proper plans for solutions, like changing migration laws, citizenry laws, instituting zero tolerance for Sharia, etc. In the meantime, churches and everyday people need to push back. We can’t wait for the government Elite.

Society can use social pressure like a weapon. We need to make fun of Sharia, use shame and humor. Islam reacts to shame and humor like a weed to poison. When a society can make Mohammed jokes, we win. It’s that simple. As soon as we become a citizenry of blasphemers, the problem solves itself.  This is key: to reverse Islamization, it must entail mass civil disobedience against censorship and oppression of freedom of thought, not just a few brave souls.

We must never give up. We must come out of the closet and face our fears. We can prevail and must because our civilization and freedoms are too precious to lose. Stand up Europe. Do not let North Africa and Arabia be your destiny.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Fiscal Cost of Resettling Refugees in the United States

Minnesota Somalis: You’re old and we are taking over

RELATED VIDEO: To learn more about hijra, watch video Hijra: Islamic Migration

Congressional Hearing: Iranian Sleeper Cells Threaten U.S.

/in , , , /by

It has been said that the first step to solving a problem is to acknowledge the existence of the problem.  It has also been said that where there is a will, there is a way.

The nexus between immigration and terrorism is well established, however, the currently fashionable denial of that nexus by globalists from both parties has prevented the application of remedies to address the vulnerabilities in the immigration system that terror sleeper cells are known to exploit — particularly the lack of resources for the interior enforcement of our immigration laws.

On April 17, 2018 the House Committee on Homeland Security, Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee, chaired by Congressman Peter King of New York, conducted a hearing on the topic, “State Sponsors Of Terrorism: An Examination Of Iran’s Global Terrorism Network.”

The Subcommittee’s website posted this paragraph in announcing the hearing:

Iran, a State Sponsor of Terrorism, continues to invest in proxy terrorist and militant organizations that threaten the Homeland and US interests and engage in activities that impede US counterterrorism goals. This hearing will examine trends in Iran’s external operations and capabilities and consider the near-term and long-term security implications of Iranian support for Shia militants and terrorist groups operating in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Latin America.

The prepared testimony of one of the witnesses, Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, included this excerpt:

In recent years, Hezbollah’s Latin American networks have also increasingly cooperated with violent drug cartels and criminal syndicates, often with the assistance of local corrupt political elites. Cooperation includes laundering of drug money; arranging multi-ton shipments of cocaine to the United States and Europe; and directly distributing and selling illicit substances to distant markets. Proceeds from these activities finance Hezbollah’s arms procurement; its terror activities overseas; its hold on Lebanon’s political system; and its efforts, both in Lebanon and overseas, to keep Shi’a communities loyal to its cause and complicit in its endeavors.

This toxic crime-terror nexus is fueling both the rising threat of global jihadism and the collapse of law and order across Latin America that is helping drive drugs and people northward into the United States. It is sustaining Hezbollah’s growing financial needs. It is helping Iran and Hezbollah consolidate a local constituency in multiple countries across Latin America. It is thus facilitating their efforts to build safe havens for terrorists and a continent-wide terror infrastructure that they could use to strike U.S. targets.

I urge you to watch the video of the hearing and read the prepared statements of all four expert witnesses, although you should not do this before bedtime, if you value a good night’s sleep.

The Washington Free Beacon published a report about the hearing with the unambiguous and disconcerting headline, Iranian-Backed ‘Sleeper Cell’ Militants Hibernating in U.S., Positioned for Attack.

Generally “sleeper cells” are comprised of “sleeper agents,” that is to say, foreign nationals (aliens) who enter the United States either legally or illegally maintain a very low profile while they go about their deadly preparations and await instructions to carry out deadly terror attacks inside the United States.

While the four expert witnesses at this hearing were not in complete agreement about all of the issues discussed, particularly expressing somewhat divergent perspectives on U.S. participation in the Iranian nuclear agreement, they all agreed about the threats posed to U.S national security by Iranian sleeper agents and the ability for additional enemy combatants to easily infiltrate into the U.S. to carry out deadly terror attacks.

Now that President Trump has, understandably, withdrawn from the Iran agreement we can’t ignore the possibility that at some point, Iran may activate its sleeper cells in the United States.

However, concerns about terror sleeper cells poised to strike in the United States are anything but new.

Shortly after the terror attacks of 9/11 politicians and journalists frequently made reference to the threat posed by sleeper agents.  However, as efforts mounted by various globalist organizations and immigration anarchists ramped up, the term “sleeper” disappeared almost as quickly as the term “alien” had been expunged from the vernacular in the immigration debate, along with any reference to the 9/11 Report.  The obvious goal has been to obfuscate the nexus between immigration and terrorism. Hence, the disingenuous term “homegrown” frequently describes alien terrorists who, since entry into the United States, acquired lawful immigration status, including United States citizenship.

Page 263 of the 9/11 Commission Report contained references to concerns that al-Qaeda sleeper cells were likely embedded in the United States.

Here is the relevant paragraph:

Clarke mentioned to National Security Advisor Rice at least twice that al Qaeda sleeper cells were likely in the United States. In January 2001, Clarke forwarded a strategy paper to Rice warning that al Qaeda had a presence in the United States. He noted that two key al Qaeda members in the Jordanian cell involved in the millennium plot were naturalized U.S. citizens and that one jihadist suspected in the East Africa bombings had “informed the FBI that an extensive network of al Qida ‘sleeper agents’ currently exists in the US.” He added that Ressam’s abortive December 1999 attack revealed al Qaeda sup- porters in the United States. His analysis, however, was based not on new threat reporting but on past experience.

Not only did Richard Clarke make note of the presence of “sleeper agents” agents in the United States, but also that “two key al Qaeda members in the Jordanian cell involved in the millennium plot were naturalized U.S. citizens[.]”

That naturalized citizens had been involved in terror plots illustrates failures of the vetting process and background investigations that, by law, are supposed to demonstrate that applicants for U.S. Citizenship possess “Good Moral Character.”

In the years after the attacks of 9/11 we have seen other naturalized citizens participate in terror attacks, including one of the Tsarnaev brothers who committed the savage attacks at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013.  They had all likely committed fraud in their applications for visas and various immigration benefits that went undetected.

The 9/11 Commission Report and the companion report, 9/11 and Terrorist Travel warned about how international terrorists used immigration and visa fraud as primary methods of entry and embedding into the United States.

A succession of hearings conducted in both the Senate and House of Representatives have also focused on the threats posed to America and Americans by international terrorists.  I have testified before a number of those hearings and I have raised concerns about sleeper agents and how they have exploited vulnerabilities in the immigration system.

My recently published booklet, Immigration Fraud, Lies That Kill explores the issue of immigration fraud in great detail, particularly where such fraud undermines national security and public safety, facilitating the entry and embedding of sleeper agents.

My recent article, Jihadis and Drug Cartels At Our Border focused on the threats posed to American national security by the presence of terrorists in Latin America primarily in terror training camps in the Tri-Border Region of Brazil operated by Hamas and Hezbollah and likely includes members of al-Qaeda and perhaps ISIS and by the constant flow of Iranian Quds Forces into Caracas, Venezuela from Tehran.

According to information provided by expert witnesses at the hearing, globally, Hezbollah and Iranian Quds Forces are comprised of more than an astounding 200,000 well-trained, well-equipped and “battle-hardened” members.

Yet, inexplicably, America’s borders still serve as little more than “speed bumps” to human traffickers and drug smugglers (often these criminals are one and the same).  We continue to have an ever-expanding Visa Waiver Program that should have been terminated the afternoon of September 11, 2001 and an abject lack of resources to enforce the immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, while Sanctuary Cities Endanger – National Security and Public Safety.

Even after the publication of the 9/11 Commission Report and other such reports, even after a seemingly endless succession of hearings about the sleeper agents and an extensive list of failures of the immigration system, and even after deadly terror attacks around the United States, nothing of consequence has been done to fix the dysfunctional immigration system.

America still has yet to hire more ICE agents and other personnel to conduct investigations and field operations from within the interior of the U.S. even though the 9/11 Commission identified a lack of effective interior enforcement of the immigration laws as vital to combat terrorism.

Congress has yet to provide funding for construction of a wall to secure our southern border to stop the flow of drugs and international transnational criminals and gang members into the United States.

The only conclusion that can today be reached, is not that our “leaders” are not aware of the threats- but they obviously don’t give a damn!

Since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 I have testified before more than 15 Congressional hearings on immigration and have often thought that Congress should stop holding “hearings” and begin holding “listenings!”

My mom used to say, “Actions speak louder than words.”

Election Day is coming and with it, the opportunity for us to act, in our own best interests and those of our nation.

RELATED ARTICLE: Walking Away From Iran Deal Could Be Trump Card for Success in North Korea Talks, Experts Say

RELATED VIDEO: Cyrus Moment: Mullahs’ Assassins Arrested in America.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

6 More Judicial Nominees Advance in Trump Bid to Reshape Judiciary

/in , , , /by

President Donald Trump is completing a strong week, and is set to kick off a strong next week, in his push to reshape the federal courts, with Senate Republicans forcing votes on six more of his judicial nominees.

Despite the Democrat minority in the Senate using procedures to delay many confirmation votes, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, have prioritized pushing through appeals court judges, and 2017 was a record year for confirmations.

“This week, the Senate will consider another slate of extremely well-qualified nominees for seats on the federal bench,” McConnell said in a statement Monday. “A thoughtful, independent, and expert judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitutional order. It’s been the case since the very beginning.”

Moreover, six of the 16 of the Trump-nominated circuit court judges confirmed have replaced Democrat appointees, Axios reported.

That’s important because circuit courts are the final stop for a case before it reaches the Supreme Court. In cases the high court declines to hear, the circuit courts are the last word.

Several of the nominees to be voted on this week have has distinguished careers, including working for the White House or for one-time independent counsel Kenneth Starr in the 1990s. Others were federal prosecutors or lower court judges.

“The president is having a particularly significant impact on the 7th Circuit,” Carrie Severino, chief counsel for the Judicial Crisis Network, told The Daily Signal, referring to the Chicago-based federal appeals court. “He’ll almost have a Trump class of appointees on that court.”

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals hears cases arising in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.

“Only one circuit, the 3rd Circuit, is shifting the balance of power” from a Democrat majority to a Republican majority, Severino said, referring to the Philadelphia-based appeals court, which handles cases from Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Still, Severino noted that other circuits are seeing considerable movement.

For example, the New York-based 2nd Circuit, currently with a 7-4 Democrat appointee advantage would move to a 7-6 Democrat edge if all of Trump’s nominees are confirmed, she said. The 2nd Circuit covers Connecticut and Vermont, as well as New York.

The famously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, could go from a 16-6 Democrat advantage to a 16-13 Democrat edge if all of Trump’s nominees are confirmed, Severino said.

The 9th Circuit has jurisdiction over cases arising from not just California, but also Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington.

Here are the six judicial nominees expected to be confirmed by the end of the week.

1. Bush White House Lawyer

Senate action is pending this week on Michael Y. Scudder to be a judge on the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago. Trump nominated him in February.

The vote on his nomination was scheduled to Monday.

Scudder has worked at the Washington-based law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP since 2009.

Scudder spent two years in the White House Counsel’s Office during the administration of President George W. Bush, serving as associate counsel and then as senior associate counsel to the president and legal adviser and general counsel to the National Security Council.

Before that, Scudder spent four years at the Justice Department, first as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and later as counsel to the deputy attorney general on a national security team.

A graduate of Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law,
he previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

2. Whitewater Prosecutor

As of Thursday, Amy J. St. Eve’s nomination to be a judge for the 7th Circuit in Chicago is still pending. Trump nominated her in February.

Her confirmation vote was also bumped to Monday, but she will bypass a cloture vote.

A Bush appointee to the bench confirmed by the Senate in 2002, St. Eve is currently a U.S. district judge for the Northern District of Illinois.

Before becoming a federal judge, she served as senior counsel for litigation at Abbott Laboratories after a stint as a federal prosecutor for the Northern District of Illinois.

St. Eve served for two years as an associate independent counsel for the Whitewater independent counsel’s investigation in Little Rock, Arkansas, where she helped oversee the successful prosecution of former Arkansas Gov. Jim Guy Tucker and Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal for fraud.

She is a graduate of Cornell Law School.

3. Chief Judge in Louisiana

The Senate voted 62-34 on Wednesday to confirm Kurt Engelhardt to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Trump nominated him in September to the court, which hears appeals arising from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

Engelhardt, who has served as the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, was a 2001 appointee of Bush.

While serving as a federal judge, Engelhardt was a member of the Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction, first named to the panel by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2004 and reappointed for a second term by Chief Justice John Roberts in 2007.

He was also president of the New Orleans chapter of the Federal Bar Association from 2011 to 2012.

Before becoming a judge, he was in private practice first at the Metairie, Louisiana-based Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann & Papale LLP. While in private practice, he served on the Louisiana Judiciary Commission, which adjudicates statewide ethics complaints against judges, and became chairman of the commission in 1998.

He is a graduate of Louisiana State University.

4. Federal Judge From New Mexico

The Senate voted Thursday to end debate over the nomination of Joel M. Carson III to be a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. Trump nominated Carson in December to the court, whose jurisdiction encompasses Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming.

His confirmation vote is scheduled for Tuesday.

Carson has served as a part-time magistrate judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico since 2015 and as a partner in the Roswell, New Mexico-based law firm of Carson Ryan LLC.

Carson previously served for five years as general counsel for Mack Energy Corp. Before that, he was in private practice for nine years with the firm Hinkle Shanor LLP with offices in Roswell, Santa Fe, and Albuquerque, New Mexico.
He is a graduate of the University of New Mexico School of Law.

5. Former Milwaukee Prosecutor

The Senate on Thursday confirmed Michael B. Brennan in a 49-46 party-line vote to be a judge on the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. Trump nominated him to the bench in August.

The controversy was largely over the “blue slip” rule that gives home state senators effective vetoes. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., opposed the nomination.

Brennan is a partner in the Milwaukee law firm Gass Weber Mullins LLC, where he tries cases involving commercial and tort disputes. He also serves as a mediator and an arbitrator.

Before private practice, Brennan served nine years as a judge on the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. Before serving as a judge, he prosecuted cases as an assistant district attorney in Milwaukee County.

Brennan is a graduate of Northwestern University School of Law.

6. State Justice Reformer

The Senate also moved to end debate on John B. Nalbandian to serve on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. Trump nominated him in January to the court, which covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee.

The Senate is expected to vote on Nalbandian’s nomination Tuesday.

Nalbandian is a partner in the litigation practice group of the Ohio-based Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, where he has worked since 2000, specializing in appellate cases.

In 2010, the Senate confirmed him to serve as a board member of the State Justice Institute, a nonprofit organization established by the federal government to improve the administration of justice in state courts.

In 2007, then-Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher named him as a special justice to the Kentucky Supreme Court in a case where a sitting justice had to recuse.

He has also served on the Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, as a board member of the Northern Kentucky Tri-County Economic Development, and as a member of the Telecommunications Board of Northern Kentucky.

Nalbandian is also a board member of the Greater Cincinnati Minority Counsel Program and of the Asian Pacific Bar Association of Southwest Ohio.

He is a graduate the University of Virginia School of Law.

COMMENTARY 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.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY