Israel strikes back at Iranian aggression, while Iran lies and pretends it won a victory

/in , , , /by

Israel responded forcefully early Thursday to about 20 Iranian missiles launched from Syria just after midnight local time against the Jewish state – and handed Iran a painful lesson in strategic deterrence.

Israeli warplanes and missiles hit about 70 Iranian military targets in Syria and killed an undetermined number of Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps fighters and Syrian soldiers, according to early reports.

Iranian boasts about the invincibility and power of their forces were exposed as one more lie in the long series of lies by the Islamic Republic.

Targets of the Israeli counterattack against the unprovoked Iranian aggression included the main Iranian Revolutionary Guards base near Damascus, military positions of Hezbollah terrorist fighters, Syrian air bases used by Iran to launch drone and missile attacks against Israel, and much more.

As far as we know so far, no Israeli aircraft were hit, nor did Syria launch its Russian-supplied S-300 air defense missiles against Israeli jets. That may have been the result of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s trip to Moscow on Wednesday, where he spent 10 hours with Russian President Vladimir Putin, ostensibly to commemorate the allied victory over the Nazis in World War II.

When the smoke clears, Israel’s coordinated strike will be compared to its June 1982 pre-emptive strike against Syria’s air force and air defense systems in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley.

That earlier battle was the first time Israel used the F-4 “Wild Weasel” and was the first modern air battle using electronic warfare. The result: Israel destroyed Syria’s air defenses and shot down 85 Syrian aircraft, while losing none.

For weeks, Iran has been threatening military strikes on Israel. In mid-April, the commander of Iran’s regular army, Brig. Gen. Kioumars Heydari, proclaimed that “the date has already been set” by the Iranian leadership for the destruction of Israel.

Many Iran “experts” typically dismiss such warmongering bombast, since Iran’s leaders have been making empty boasts about their military might for years.

But given the enormous military buildup over the past two years by Iran in Syria, Lebanon, and in Gaza – resulting in Iranian-backed forces and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards now bracketing Israel on all three sides – Israel’s leaders have been taking such warnings seriously.

Over the past few days, Israel picked up indications of unusual Iranian and Hezbollah military activity in Syria, and rushed additional missile interception systems to the Galilee and the Golan Heights.

The Iranians were warning that they intended to strike back against Israel in retaliation for isolated Israeli strikes against Iranian positions in Syria over the past two weeks.

On Tuesday Israel issued a partial call-up of reservists, a move it rarely takes unless it believes hostilities are imminent.

When the Iranian missiles struck Thursday morning, Israel was well-prepared. According to the Israel Defense Force, Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system intercepted several of the Iranian missiles, while others fell harmlessly to the ground inside Syria.

So far, the reaction in Tehran to the new outbreak of fighting has been strangely muted.

There is always the possibility that Iran could strike out massively against Israel – unleashing the 150,000 rockets it has supplied to Hezbollah in Lebanon and ordering its proxies in Gaza to launch waves of children to assault Israel border posts in the hopes of provoking a massacre. However, I suspect that fear of a massive Israeli attack on Iran itself will keep the Iranians in check.

Why? Because Israel has been laying the groundwork through strategic deterrence well before this latest skirmish.

The astonishing intelligence coup of Israel’s Mossad foreign intelligence service in spiriting away Iran’s Atomic Archive from highly secure vaults in downtown Tehran spooked Iran’s leaders. That Mossad could strike in Tehran itself, at the most carefully guarded secrets of the regime, has shaken Iran’s leaders to the core.

The intelligence triumph also made Iranian leaders appear weak in front of their own people. Israel’s new strikes inside Syria have accentuated that impression of weakness.

Iranian Quds Force commander Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleymani is trying to spin the attacks on Israel as a great Iranian victory. This is absurd.

An artistic rendering on his Instagram page, which is very popular in Iran, shows Suleymani punching Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the face while carrying an Iranian flag.

I believe the fantasy cartoon is a tell. And what it shows is that the Iranian regime is desperately looking for ways to declare victory, cover up its weakness and go home.

Iranian government leaders understand that they remain in power for one reason only: the Iranian people believe they are powerless to overthrow them.

Israel has struck Iran where it is most vulnerable. The Mossad coup, coupled to the Thursday morning Israeli strikes in Syria, have sent an unmistakable message to Iran’s leaders and to the Iranian people: the Iranian regime is weak. It is vulnerable. It can be toppled.

So how will the Iranian regime respond? Will it lash out in a desperate attempt to show that it retains its power, that it remains invincible? Or, fearing Israel’s military might, will Iran’s leaders cower in fear?

If I were a betting man, I’d put my money on them cowering. After all, no Iranian leader has yet to die from committing suicide, even though they have urged others to do so. They are survivors.

EDITORS NOTE: This op-ed column first appeared on Fox News.

Tennessee Refugee Resettlement Decision Appealed — A Fight For State Sovereignty

/in , , , , /by

ANN ARBOR, MI – Informed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts’ observation that, “The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it,” Tennessee has authorized the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) to appeal the dismissal of its lawsuit which challenged the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program. Although Tennessee officially withdrew from this federal program in 2007, the federal government continues, to this day, to commandeer state tax dollars to fund it.

The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has filed an appeal of the federal district court decision which dismissed its case. The lawsuit, filed on behalf of the State of Tennessee, the Tennessee General Assembly, and state legislators Terri Lynn Weaver and John Stevens, challenged the constitutionality of the federal refugee resettlement program as a violation of the principles of State sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. The Notice of Appeal was filed this morning with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The appeal will be heard by a panel of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, stated: “We are grateful to the designated representatives of the General Assembly, State Representatives Terri Lynn Weaver and William Lamberth and State Senator John Stevens, for authorizing us to continue this significant legal battle. This case involves critical constitutional issues regarding the appropriate balance between the powers of the federal government and the states. The district court decision dismissing this case conflicts with several U.S. Supreme Court opinions upholding State sovereignty against overreach by the federal government.”

TMLC’s original lawsuit, which sought to permanently ban the federal government from forcing Tennessee to fund the refugee resettlement program out of its own treasury, was filed in March 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The lawsuit was authorized by Senate Joint Resolution 467, which passed both the House and Senate by overwhelming majorities. On March 19, 2018, a federal district court judge granted the Department of Justice motion to dismiss the case. State Representatives Terri Lynn Weaver and William Lamberth and State Senator John Stevens, as the designated representatives of the General Assembly, after consultation with the Thomas More Law Center lawyers, authorized an appeal of the decision. All the Law Center’s legal services are without charge.

Tennessee has a history of supporting the Tenth Amendment and State sovereignty.  In 2009, House Joint Resolution 108, which passed in the Senate 31-0 and in the House by 85-2, demanded that the federal government halt its practice of imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the U.S. Constitution.

As Tennessee’s own President Andrew Jackson declared in his March 4, 1837 Farewell Address: “[E]very friend of our free institutions should be always prepared to maintain unimpaired and in full vigor the rights and sovereignty of the States and to confine the action of the General Government strictly to the sphere of its appropriate duties.”

When Congress enacted the Refugee Resettlement Act of 1980, the explicit intent was to assure full federal reimbursement of the costs for each refugee resettled and participating in benefit programs provided by the states. Eventually, however, federal reimbursements to the states for these benefit programs were reduced and, by 1991, eliminated entirely.  The states thereby became responsible for the immense costs of the programs originally covered by the federal government.

Tennessee officially withdrew from participation in the refugee resettlement program in 2007. However, instead of honoring Tennessee’s decision to withdraw from the program, the federal government merely bypassed the State and appointed Catholic Charities of Tennessee, a private, non-governmental organization to administer the program. Catholic Charities receives revenue based upon the number of refugees it brings into the State.

Currently, Tennessee State revenues that could otherwise be used for State programs to help Tennesseans are appropriated by the federal government to support the federal refugee resettlement program. This arrangement displaces Tennessee’s constitutionally mandated funding prerogatives and appropriations process.

EDITORS NOTE: Copyright © 2018 Thomas More Law Center, All rights reserved.

U.S. says no to Iranians and Somalis in refugee deal with Australia

/in , , , , , /by

I’ve been having computer problems so this is going to be a quickie update on the “dumb” Australia refugee deal that we should never have entered in to with the Australian government.
Trump and Turnbull

In January of 2017, Trump should have said NO! to the outrageous Obama arrangement for us to take off the Australians’ hands 1,250 of their detained refugee wannabes.

So now this is all dragging out with the Lefty press taking shots at the US each step of the way.

Here is the latest at The Guardian:

Australia’s refugee deal ‘a farce’ after US rejects all Iranian and Somali asylum seekers

Donald Trump’s Muslim travel ban is influencing Australia’s offshore processing system – with all Iranian and Somali refugees rejected for resettlement in the US.

The third version of Donald Trump’s travel ban bars or limits entry to citizens of five Muslim-majority countries – Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen – as well as North Korea. The ban’s constitutionality is currently being considered by the supreme court but is currently in effect.

About 150 refugees held in offshore processing on the island of Nauru have appointments with US officials this week, where they will discover final assessments of whether they have been accepted by America. So far, every Iranian and Somali applicant has been rejected.

But, remember dear readers the fake refugees we are taking in the Australian deal are mostly single men from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Burma (Rohingya Muslims).

The Australian government has promoted the US resettlement deal as its solution to offshore processing but, for more than a year, it has conceded that the US deal cannot clear the camps.

Thus far, 85 refugees have been resettled from Manus and 162 from Nauru. US officials hope to finalise the resettlement deal by October, when its annual resettlement quota restarts.
ian Rintoul.jpgMore than 500 refugees are expected to be left on the island of Nauru even if the US fulfils its entire commitment of 1,250 places.

[….]

Ian Rintoul from the Refugee Action Coalition said the US resettlement had been “revealed to be a farce”.

“Iranian refugees account for around a third of all refugees on Nauru,” he said. “It is just not possible for all Iranians to be rejected on any legitimate basis.

“While Trump says there is no official ban on Iranians and Somalis, it is now very clear that the US administration is imposing an unofficial ban. It is not a coincidence that all Iranians are being rejected.

“Turnbull’s phone call to Trump is coming back to haunt him. Turnbull told Trump that he didn’t have to accept anyone; now Trump is taking him at his word.”

That phone call is haunting all of us!

Continue reading here.

See my archive on the “dumb” Australia deal by clicking here.  If anyone is interested in following this topic to its very beginning, you will find the information archived here at RRW.

What you can do!

You have probably done it already, but it can’t hurt to let the President know again that he can still shut this down! He is setting a terrible precedent with this highly unorthodox arrangement for refugee resettlement, plus he isn’t keeping us safe by simply blocking the Iranians and Somalis while taking the Afghans, Pakistanis and Rohingya Muslims!

And, to top it off, just as this article makes clear, the media is going to use this whole dumb deal to further bash Trump!

See how to contact the White House in the upper right hand column of RRW.

RELATED ARTICLE: Organization of Islamic Cooperation wants international pressure on Burma over Rohingya Muslims

Three Americans Free! Free at last!

/in , , , /by

President Donald J. Trump, First Lady Milania, Vice President Pence and Mrs. Pence greeted three Americans freed by North Korea at 3:00 a.m. EST on Thursday, May 10, 2018.

Below is biographical information about the three American citizens released by North Korea courtesy of The Daily Mail. Who are the Americans freed by North Korea today? The common trait is all are devout Christians.

Kim Dong Chul

Kim Dong Chul weeping while being held by North Korea in 2016

Kim Dong Chul. Kim Dong Chul weeping while being held by North Korea in 2016.

A naturalised US citizen born in South Korea, Kim Dong Chul was seized in North Korea on October 2, 2015, and accused of spying.

Though a resident of Virginia – he became a US citizen in 1987 – Kim had been living with his wife in Yanji, China since 2001.

He worked just across the border in North Korea at the Rason-Sonbong special economic zone, where he ran a hotel services company. He was also a pastor.

Very little was known about his status until, in January 2016, he was interviewed by a CNN news crew that was visiting Pyongyang.

Two months later, he told reporters at a news conference organised by the dictatorship that he was a spy, explaining that he ‘apologised for trying to steal military secrets in collusion with South Koreans’ and calling his actions ‘unpardonable’.

The North accused him of receiving a USB drive as well as various papers containing nuclear secrets during a meeting with a defector from the regime.

After a one-day trial in April, he was sentenced to 10 years of hard labour for his supposed espionage.

But previous victims of the regime have explained that they were forced to make similar public declarations of their guilt after being tortured, despite being innocent.

Kim Hak-song

Kim, who is in his mid 50s, was born in Jilin, China, and educated at a university in California

Kim Hak-song. Kim, who is in his mid 50s, was born in Jilin, China, and educated at a university in California.

Kim Hak-song – also known as Jin Xue Song – had been working for the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology (PUST), undertaking agricultural development work with the school’s farm.

He was arrested at Pyongyang railway station in May 2017 on suspicion of committing ‘hostile acts’ against the government, as he was boarding a train headed for his home in Dandong, China.

Kim, who is in his mid 50s, was born in Jilin, China, and educated at a university in California, CNN reported, citing a man who had studied with him.

He said Kim returned to China after about 10 years of living in the US, where he is a citizen.

PUST was founded by evangelical overseas Christians and opened in 2010, and is known to have a number of American faculty members.

Pupils are generally children from the North’s elite.

It is not known whether Kim was sentenced for his supposed ‘hostile acts’.

Kim Sang-duk

Kim is a former professor at Yanbian University of Science and Technology in China, close to the Korean border

Kim Sang-duk. Kim is a former professor at Yanbian University of Science and Technology in China, close to the Korean border.

Korean-American Kim Sang-duk, or Tony Kim, was arrested in April 2017 at the capital’s main airport as he tried to leave the country after teaching for several weeks as a guest lecturer, also at PUST.

Kim is a former professor at Yanbian University of Science and Technology in China, close to the Korean border.

Its website lists his speciality as accounting.

He graduated from the University of California Riverside in 1990, gaining a master’s degree in business administration.

South Korea’s Yonhap news agency has reported Kim as being in his late 50s and said he had been involved in relief activities for children in rural parts of North Korea.

It cited a source who described him as a ‘religiously devoted man’.

He was detained with his wife at Sunan International Airport in Pyongyang on April 22 last year while waiting for a flight.

Police later arrested Kim but did not explain why – but his wife was allowed to leave the country.

PUST said the arrest was not related to his work at the university.

In a Facebook post, Kim’s son said since his arrest his family has had no contact with him.

His family said Kim will soon become a grandfather.

Read more…

RELATED ARTICLE: North Korea’s Prisoner Release: 3 Down, 119,997 to Go

RELATED VIDEO: Trump Welcomes Prisoners Home from North Korea – Agenda-Free TV.

Socialism Is Slavery

/in , , , , /by

Robert Heller in a column titled “Communism’s attack on America never died — It just changed tactics” wrote:

The West thought they had defeated Communism with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Nothing could be further from the truth. What changed was the Left’s tactics.

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation published the following commentary and video:

What’s the fundamental design flaw within socialism that makes creating equality impossible? Why does socialism’s quest for equality always end in slavery?

As Ms Melanie Phillips clearly points out in her column “The Tory Jacobins“:

“What they [leaders in the West] never understood – at least, most of them – was that the left-wing war to destroy the west had not in fact ended but merely shifted its strategy. Instead of the workers seizing control of the levers of the economy, the left would now seize control of the levers of the culture – the universities, media, civil service, churches, the legal profession – and subvert them from within”.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

VIDEO: Debunking Communism from ‘The School of Life’ — A Rebuttal of Karl Marx

The Right Side of History: The Media Continues to Whitewash the Legacy of Communism

Trump White House Recognizes 100 Years of Victims of Communism [+Podcast]

Even by Its Own Standards, Communism Has Failed Miserably

 

What Can We Expect From Generation Z?

/in , , , /by

For far too long we have belabored the strengths and weaknesses of the Millennials (a.k.a. Generation Y), but what about their successors, Generation Z?

This is the Generation born between the late 1990’s and the middle of this decade. This is a generation who is now getting ready to graduate from High School and enter college, but what can we expect from them?

Whereas the Baby Boomers were responsible for the Millennials, Generation X begat Gen Z, and hopefully they will do a better job than the Boomers who, frankly, dropped the ball along the way.

Generation Z has no recollection of Bill Clinton or the scandals surrounding him, or George W. Bush for that matter. They were also too young to truly remember 911. They primarily remember Barack Obama, Donald Trump, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. More recently, they have heard about North Korea, Iran, and Cuba, but have no recollection of the events surrounding them, such as the Korean Armistice, the American hostages in Iran under President Carter, or the Cuban Missile Crisis and Bay of Pigs under President Kennedy. They have also heard of numerous terrorist attacks and school shootings. In terms of academics, they have grown up in an age of testing and technology. Just about all of them are intimate with smart phones, social media, eCommerce, and other features of the Internet, much more so than the Millennials.

In school, they have excelled in the areas of math, science, and foreign language (primarily Spanish). Unfortunately, they are weak in terms of their knowledge of government, history, and speech. Their sense of socialization is different than their predecessors, as the media has been highly influential in their lives since infancy. I am also concerned about their interest in reading as paper books, newspapers, and magazines are disappearing. They may not be too informed about current events or history, but they are perhaps the most educated generation to date.

Whereas prior generations were hungry and understood the value of a dollar and an education, it is yet unclear the priorities Generation Z possesses. The recent shootings in Parkland, Florida triggered an outburst of outrage, but it is uncertain how much of this was sincere, and how much was orchestrated by politicians. Nevertheless, it was the first such political reaction by high-schoolers since the 1970’s.

The proof in the pudding will be in November which represents the generation’s first opportunity to vote in a major American election. If the turnout is low, we will know we have produced another generation of apathetic voters, but I am not yet convinced it will turn out this way.

I have been reading there are significant differences between the Millennials and Generation Z. From what I’ve heard, Gen Z looks upon the Millennials as irresponsible and foolish. Whereas, the Millennials have shown signs of embracing liberal doctrine, Gen Z is more conservative in nature.

According to a 2015 report from Goldman Sachs, “Gen-Z is more conservative, more money-oriented, and more entrepreneurial than the millennials were.”

This was echoed by another report in 2016, “My College Options and the Hispanic Heritage Foundation (HHF) today presented the results of a new national survey of approximately 50,000 ‘Generation Z’ high school students (ages 14-18) attitudes on the 2016 presidential election which found that the majority identify as Republicans – in sharp contrast to Millennials – and overall would vote for Donald Trump.”

If this is true, it is likely Generation Z will become more politically and economically influential than the Millennials.

Maybe Generation Z represents a correction in society, just as we experience in the stock market. Whereas the Millennials may have gone too far left, it appears Generation Z is turning to the right instead.

Keep the Faith!

RELATED ARTICLE: Generation Z and The Next Wave

USA: Leader of the Freed World

/in , , , /by

He’s only been on the job 13 days, but there aren’t a lot of people making more history than Mike Pompeo. In just two weeks, the new secretary of state has made some blockbuster headlines — and even more admirers. Today, he’s on an Air Force jet with three of them: American hostages released yesterday from North Korea.

“We have been asking for the release of these detainees for… 17 months,” Pompeo told reporters, who were as surprised as the rest of the world to hear that he was on his way to meet with Kim Jong Un. Like his April visit, this one was kept under wraps. While he was in the air, President Trump was on air, making the announcement that he was withdrawing America from the Iran nuclear agreement. Outlets like the New York Times wondered why Pompeo wasn’t there for the press conference. Now they know — he was bringing our prisoners home.

For the Trump administration, it was a busy day — shredding one deal and inching closer to another. For the president and Pompeo, the last 24 hours were significant ones in cementing America’s resolve, not only in holding Iran accountable but in bringing North Korea to the table. As far as the White House is concerned, Kim’s gesture of goodwill — releasing three innocent Americans — is another sign that their tough approach is working. “I am pleased to inform you that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is… on his way back from North Korea with the 3 wonderful gentlemen that everyone is looking so forward to meeting,” the president celebrated. “They seem to be in good health. Also, good meeting with Kim Jong Un. Date & Place set.”

For the prisoners, who were grabbed and detained for supposed crimes against the North Korean government, the sight of Mike Pompeo must have been emotional. U.S. doctors gave all three men the green light to travel but hinted that their captivity had taken a toll. Kim Dong Chul, who was arrested in 2015, was accused of espionage and sentenced to a hard labor camp. The image of him wiping his eyes at his sentencing is still heartbreaking. Tony Kim and Kim Hak-song were snatched by North Korean officials two weeks apart. Both of them were charged with “hostile acts” while working at a university that’s run by a Korean Christian. After years of wondering whether they would ever see him again, the family of Tony Kim rejoiced in the news that he was finally coming home. “We also want to thank the President for engaging directly with North Korea. Mostly, we thank God for Tony’s safe return,” they said in a statement.

While the plans for a Trump-Kim meeting move forward, the Iranian backdrop is a meaningful one. “The message to North Korea,” national security advisor John Bolton said, “is [that] the president wants a real deal.” In both cases, President Trump has made it clear that he won’t let up until the two nations — who share information and a nuclear physicist — agree to “full denuclearization.” The countries’ close ties make Tuesday’s announcements a warning shot to both.

In the meantime, security experts continue to cheer the administration’s decision to pull the plug on a pact that did more to encourage Iran’s nuclear program than deter it. Thanks to Israeli intelligence, the White House had tens of thousands of pages of proof that President Hassan Rouhani has been lying about the country’s activities for years. “At the heart of the Iran deal was a giant fiction that a murderous regime desired only a peaceful nuclear energy program,” the president told the press. “Today, we have definitive proof that this Iranian promise was a lie.”

Over at NRO, Andrew McCarthy says that Americans everywhere should be thrilled that this White House is canceling the blank check Obama gave to a nation of terrorist-backers. “President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal is the greatest boost for American and global security in decades,” he wrote jubilantly.

Obama said the mullahs would use the windfall to rebuild their country (while Kerry grudgingly confessed that a slice would still be diverted to the jihad). Instead, billions of dollars poured into Iran by Obama’s deal promptly poured out to Syria, where it funded both sides of the war. Cash flowed to the Taliban, where it funded the war on the American-backed government. It flowed to Hamas and Hezbollah for the war on Israel. It flowed to Yemen, funding a proxy war against Saudi Arabia…

The [deal] made Iran better at war than it has ever been — and that’s saying something.

President Trump isn’t isolating the U.S., he points out. He’s proving that America “is the indispensable nation.” Other countries will be put to a choice: “You can have access to the U.S. economy or you can have commerce with Iran — not both. Our European allies know this is not a real choice: They can’t isolate us — they need us, our markets, and the umbrella of our protection. They’re angry because they’d like to pocket the benefits they get from us while cutting profitable deals with our enemies. That’s not ‘isolating us;’ that’s a tantrum. They will get over it…”

When they do, America will be ready to move forward — not from a position of weakness, like the last eight years, but of strength.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

A Readiness Ready-Mess for U.S. Soldiers

Turnout: The GOP’s Primaries Objective

Family of Prisoner Freed From North Korea Thanks God and President Trump for His Release

Podcast: Trump Should Keep Up the Tough Rhetoric on Human Rights in North Korea

Understanding Trump’s ‘America First’ Foreign Policy

Turnout: The GOP’s Primaries Objective

/in , , , /by

The build-up to November’s midterms got its latest jolt yesterday in a string of races across the Midwest. Tuesday was the biggest day so far of the 2018 primaries, and conservatives had plenty to be happy about. For all the talk about Democrats’ enthusiasm, Republican turnout in Ohio, Indiana, West Virginia, and North Carolina seemed to tell a different story.

In positive news for concerned GOP leaders, the base is engaging at just the right time. Tuesday’s primaries were a major reversal in the turnout trends earlier in the year. To a lot of people’s surprise, Republican turnout was up 61 percent in West Virginia from 2014, compared to the Democrats’ modest 14 percent jump. In Indiana, the trend continued, with GOP turnout 43 percent higher than four years ago. In Ohio, the GOP actually outperformed Democrats in every single statewide race, which is saying something in a state as evenly divided as the Buckeyes’. Turnout there also jumped 48 percent from the last midterm election.

Three of the states heading to the polls yesterday had primaries for U.S. Senate seats that are currently held by Democrats – and all three (West Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana) are states that Trump won. So it’s significant that the GOP has finally solidified who their candidates will be in the race against Democrat incumbents. In West Virginia, state Attorney General Patrick Morrisey defeated the establishment’s Rep. Evan Jenkins (R) and coal businessman Don Blankenship, which was a huge victory for values voters. Hoosiers picked businessman Mike Braun in the Indiana Senate Republican primary over two current GOP congressmen. In North Carolina, Rep. Walter Jones (R) escaped a challenge by Scott Dacey.

Obviously, both parties understand the significance of these senate races. If President Trump wants to continue his record-setting pace on judges, he’ll need all the Republican votes he can get. In a chamber where the margin of control is razor-thin, the GOP would be in a much better position for things like defunding Planned Parenthood and repealing Obamacare if it had even one more conservative.

Of course, there were also a lot of primaries for open House seats. Interestingly, voters’ exasperation with the current Congress seemed to have played a big role in North Carolina, where a competitive race between Mark Harris and Rep. Robert Pittenger (R) went down to the wire. Harris, one of FRC’s Watchmen pastors who was critical in FRC Action’s highly successful effort in the 2016 general election, prevailed. Interestingly, in a pattern that might play out elsewhere, reporter Katie Glueck tweeted, “On the ground in #NC9, I heard a lot of Mark Harris voters express frustration over the omnibus spending bill/that it didn’t defund Planned Parenthood, something national evangelical leaders have worried about, including how it affects conservative turnout.”

If House and Senate leaders want to keep their majority, they’ll have to prove their sincerity on these issues and more leading up to November. Voters don’t want talk — they want action on Planned Parenthood and out-of-control spending. Let’s hope that message was received on Capitol Hill, where there’s a lot of work left to be done.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

USA: Leader of the Freed World

A Readiness Ready-Mess for U.S. Soldiers

In Eric Schneiderman’s Fall, Trump Resistance Loses ‘Ringleader’

/in , , , , /by

Just two weeks ago, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was coming off a legal victory against the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda for fuel efficiency standards.

“As we’ve proven again and again, when the Trump administration puts special interests before public health and our environment, we’ll take them to court—and we will win,” Schneiderman said April 23.

And Saturday, Schneiderman boasted about taking on the Trump administration in a tweet with comic book art presenting him as a superhero.

But Monday evening, the Democrat resigned as New York attorney general amid allegations that he had beaten and physically abused four women.

The sudden fall came just hours after he announced plans to lead eight state attorneys general in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency.

First elected to his post in 2010 after eight years in the state Senate and seen as a contender for governor, Schneiderman made himself a leading figure among states challenging some of Trump’s biggest initiatives.

Touting his lawsuits against the Trump administration on the travel ban, environmental issues, immigration, and other matters, Schneiderman embraced his stature as a “resistance” figure. In a February video made for the leftist MoveOn.org to encourage voting in local elections, he said: “If you really, truly want to be part of the resistance, this is where the fight lives.”

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, chairwoman of the Republican Attorneys General Association, called Schneiderman the “ringleader” of anti-Trump activists fighting the president in the courts.

“As Schneiderman leaves office in disgrace, his impact and influence with activist Democrat state attorneys general and candidates cannot be overstated,” Rutledge told The Daily Signal in a prepared statement.

Schneiderman filed 100 lawsuits or administrative actions against the Trump administration in 2017, The Daily Caller News Foundation reported in December.

“Schneiderman was the ringleader of the activist attorneys general that sought to use the courts to pursue their liberal political agenda,” Rutledge said. “While there will be a reckoning for those who directly benefited from his political power, unfortunately there remain plenty of activist Democrat attorneys general who will push each other down to lead the charge against the rule of law.”

In its 2017 year-end report, the Democratic Attorneys General Association heralded Schneiderman’s work in opposing Trump administration policies on abortion, contraception, student loans, and net neutrality.

In a public statement Tuesday, the group’s executive director, Sean Rankin, saidit opposes “any and all” forms of domestic and sexual violence.

“Our state attorneys general have a special and powerful responsibility in creating that culture—we must hold them to the highest standards of accountability,” Rankin said. “We will continue to support our Democratic attorneys general in their commitment to stand with survivors of domestic and sexual abuse, in addition to their ongoing work in protecting civil rights, keeping our communities and families safe, and serving as the people’s lawyers.”

Schneiderman announced his resignation Monday in one statement and in another, denied the four women’s allegations of physical abuse, first reported by The New Yorker magazine.

“While these allegations are unrelated to my professional conduct or the operations of the office, they will effectively prevent me from leading the office’s work at this critical time,” Schneiderman said in a statement from the attorney general’s office. “I therefore resign my office, effective at the close of business on May 8, 2018.”

In a tweet that night from his private twitter account, Schneiderman asserted: “I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in non-consensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.”

Track Record With Trump

Schneiderman, 63, routinely took credit for “leading” lawsuits among other attorneys general against the Trump administration—and in many cases, they filed such litigation in a federal court in New York.

The legal standoff between Schneiderman and Trump predates the 45th president’s taking office.

In 2013, Schneiderman sued the businessman and real estate developer, alleging fraud in the case of Trump University. In late 2016, after the presidential election, Trump settled for $25 million. A federal court finalized the settlement last month.

The president was noticeably silent on Twitter about Schneiderman after the announcement. But citizen Trump predicted in 2013 that Schneiderman would suffer a fate similar to two other New York politicians, former Gov. Eliot Spitzer and former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, both Democrats who resigned over sex scandals.

After Trump took office, Schneiderman became the face of state litigation against Trump policies, usually joined by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

In early April, Schneiderman announced he would lead a coalition of attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia, plus mayors, to sue to block the Trump administration from asking about citizenship status in the 2020 census.

“With immigrant communities already living in fear, demanding citizenship status would drive them into the shadows, leading to a major undercount that threatens billions in federal funding for New York and our fair representation in Congress and the Electoral College,” Schneiderman said in announcing the lawsuit. “I’m proud to lead this coalition in the fight for a full and fair census.”

More plaintiffs joined the suit by early May.

In March, Schneiderman teamed with Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to lead 17 other Democratic attorneys general in filing comments to oppose the Labor Department’s association health plans. The plans would allow small businesses and sole proprietors to band together to create employee health plans, which officials said would expand coverage options for 11 million uninsured Americans.

Schneiderman announced in February that he would lead a multistate lawsuit to prevent the Trump administration from rolling back the Waters of the United States regulation promulgated by the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency.

“Over the last year, we have not hesitated to fight back against the Trump administration’s assault on the law and New Yorkers’ fundamental right to clean water, air, and environment. We won’t stop now,” he said in the announcement.

In December, Schneiderman sued to stop the rollback of net neutrality regulations of the internet by the Federal Communications Commission.

Also in December, he led a coalition of 12 attorneys general in a statement supporting a lawsuit to protect the right of women who are illegal immigrants to get abortions.

That same month he joined 13 other states to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for not designating more areas as having unhealthy air by missing an Oct. 1 deadline.

Last fall, the Trump administration announced plans to phase out former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which shielded from deportation an estimated 800,000 persons brought to the country illegally as children by their parents or others.

Schneiderman called the decision “cruel, inhumane and devastating.”

He announced he would lead 16 state attorneys general to sue the Trump administration to maintain DACA, an action filed in federal court in New York.

Schneiderman consistently put politics before the law, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation.

“He clearly has, not just in the resist Trump movement and the lawsuits against the administration, but also in the absurd lawsuits filed against Exxon and other companies supposedly saying they’re responsible for global warming,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “So his being gone may take some of the energy and enthusiasm out of that movement.”

California’s Becerra hasn’t shown himself to be the type of lawyer to take the lead in Schneiderman’s absence, von Spakovsky added.

“This probably won’t make any difference in the litigation itself, but it may make a difference behind the scenes, where the folks behind all of this are doing their planning and coming up with their strategies and tactics,” von Spakovsky said. “He’s not going to be there.”

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.

RELATED ARTICLES:

BDSM community angry at Schneiderman’s ‘role-playing’ depiction

BREAKING: NY Attorney General Resigns Amid Major Sexual Assault Allegations

Ex: Schneiderman called me ‘brown slave,’ slapped me until I called him ‘Master’

‘I Am the Law’– Schneiderman was abusive in his public and private conduct.

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 New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman speaking on Sept. 6, 2017, about plans to sue the Trump administration to reverse its decision to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. (Photo: Erik McGregor/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Same Policies That Failed to Stop Florida Shooter Exist in School Districts Nationwide

/in , , , , , , /by

Critics of President Donald Trump said his response to the Florida school shooting earlier this year was ill-conceived and a failure.

Yet a new startling revelation from school district officials in Broward County, Florida, shows the White House’s response was indeed appropriate—more than even the Trump administration knew.

On Feb. 14, Nikolas Cruz, a student with a long history of problems in and out of school, allegedly opened fire and claimed the lives of 17 students and adults at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Following the shooting, the Trump administration created a new school safety commission. One of the commission’s assignments is to consider the repeal of student discipline guidelines that the Obama administration issued in 2014.

Cue the negative spin: “Yet again, the Trump administration, faced with a domestic crisis, has responded by creating a commission to study an unrelated issue,” the NAACP told The New York Times.

Broward County Superintendent Robert Runcie also dismissed the move, telling Politico, “It goes with the whole narrative that anything under the Obama administration is no good and we have to get rid of it.”

Critics denied that there was a connection between the Parkland shooting, the district’s student discipline policies (called the “PROMISE” program), and federal student discipline guidelines. Cruz was never referred to PROMISE, officials said, so PROMISE couldn’t be to blame.

Runcie said at a press conference, “[Cruz] was never a participant in the PROMISE program” and “[there’s] no connection between Cruz and the district’s PROMISE program.”

As recently as a few weeks ago, Runcie said, “Let me reiterate this point: Nikolas Cruz, the shooter that was involved in this horrific accident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, had no connection to the PROMISE program.”

But last Sunday, Broward officials admitted Cruz had in fact been referred to PROMISE. To make matters worse, school officials cannot say whether Cruz actually attended the required sessions or if anyone tried to account for his absence.

The school district should clarify whether officials referred Cruz again to PROMISE based on his behavior in high school, and if not, why.

Cruz’s first referral was for vandalizing a bathroom in middle school, but The Washington Post reports that Cruz continued to display troubling behavior in high school. He made a threat and committed assault while a student at Stoneman Douglas—both offenses that would make him eligible for PROMISE.

The news that Cruz had been referred to PROMISE is critical because the PROMISE program and the Obama administration’s 2014 federal guidelines were announced with much fanfare and take similar approaches to dealing with student behavior.

At the PROMISE launch, Education Week reports, “Community members lauded the board and Runcie for their work, and its passage received a standing ovation.” NPR said, “Civil rights and education activists say the policy can be a model for the nation.”

Central to both documents is the idea that school personnel and law enforcement should limit student interaction with the justice system. Both documents also say school personnel and law enforcement should use exclusionary discipline such as suspensions and expulsions as a last resort.

Earlier this year, my research documented these and other philosophical and practical similarities between the 2014 federal guidelines and PROMISE.

Runcie went as far as to say that PROMISE inspired the federal guidelines in the first place. In a 2014 interview, he said, “Some of my staff joke that the Obama administration might have taken our policies and framework and developed them into national guidelines.”

Runcie was later featured at a 2015 White House event on school discipline.

Broward County officials must now explain to grieving families that the school discipline strategy they called “the most comprehensive thinking available to address socially unacceptable or illegal behavior” failed to stop a school shooting.

Meanwhile, dozens of school systems around the country are following the federal guidelines. This widespread adoption and the terrifying failure of PROMISE makes the White House’s call to rescind federal guidelines that mirror PROMISE a timely and fitting response to Parkland.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jonathan Butcher

Jonathan Butcher

Jonathan Butcher is a senior policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy and a senior fellow for the Goldwater Institute and the Beacon Center of Tennessee. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Parkland Shooter Was Assigned To Obama-Era Program, Superintendent Lied, Report

Reports Show Obama-Era Policies May Have Eroded School Safety in Broward County

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 Broward County Sheriff Steve Israel speaking before the start of a CNN town hall meeting on Feb. 21, 2018. (Photo: Michael Laughlin/TNS/Newscom)

On an Illiberal Education: Where each color only sees its own color.

/in , , , /by

James V. Schall, S.J. on the decline of open inquiry on college campuses. A recent example: Reed College, where each color only sees its own color.

A Wall Street Journal editorial (April 20) commented on Reed College’s capitulation to student “bullies,” as it called them: “This (campus protest)) is about blocking the study of core texts of Western civilization. That Reed would agree to this, and, especially under political pressure, is an insult to the meaning of a liberal arts degree.”

The situation recalls Allan Bloom, Walter Berns, and others leaving Cornell in the 1960s for much the same reasons – administration/faculty fecklessness, intolerant students.

In universities today, a student can find more classes in Buddhism, Islam, or African tribal culture than he can find courses on Plato, Cicero, St. Paul, or Boethius – let alone Aristotle, Aquinas, and Augustine. It is not just that classic and Christian texts have a central place in a “liberal” education. No liberal education is possible without them.

The tired objection that the classical writers are not men of “color” implies the very illiberal principle that only men of one color can understand men of the same color. On these premises, all men are evidently not created equal. They are created so differently that they cannot understand each other.

In effect, we can talk to no one but our color-mates. The corollary of this view is that men of color, because of their color, cannot understand the classical writers. The classical writers, because of their color, supposedly had no clue about what the men of other colors were talking about.

Today’s protesting undergraduate students, even with a semester or two of classics classes, have really read little themselves either of the classics or of the philosophic literature of other lands.

Likewise, if a white man cannot understand a man of color, men of various other hues – yellow, brown, red – cannot understand each other either. The great intellectual enterprise of knowing what man is – and is about – collapses at the bar of color, which determines what we can think.

I was once in Kenya where I came across a paper that maintained that Plato and Aristotle were really Africans, or, at least, that they pirated their knowledge from African sources. If somehow it were proved that Plato and Aristotle were in fact Africans (like Augustine), would we stop reading them? Hardly. Logically, if Plato and Aristotle were themselves men of color, it would follow, on this hypothesis, that the Greeks back home could not understand them on account of their color.

The word “liberal” in “liberal education” refers the habits and self-discipline necessary to control our passions and prejudices in such a way that we can see the truth of something when we examine it. Of course, if our color – white, black, yellow, red – leads us to conclude that no truth can be found anywhere, then we are “free” to do whatever we want, whatever our color. But if we can do whatever we want, we do not need much of an education except a Machiavellian one that teaches us how to live among scoundrels.

Josef Pieper, in his many discussions about leisure, was bold enough to tell us that education for utility or pleasure, worthy occupations, was not what a liberal education was about. Newman made the same point in The Idea of a University. They both touched the perplexing question of whether everyone can handle a liberal education.

The protests at Reed sound more like the complaints of those who do not understand what it is all about. If we turn to Chinese or Indian culture, it becomes quickly evident that the intellectual classes, for better or worse, often separate themselves from the great mass of their citizens.

The American notion that anyone can be learned in any area, that everyone has a “right” to a doctoral degree or two, does not correspond to the reality. Some basic things everyone can and should know. But a liberal society will have places, once called universities, where the learned can spend their whole lives on issues well beyond the comprehension of most others. It is part of the common good that such scholars also exist and flourish. They are, we hope, also liberally educated specialists.

An illiberal education seems to be the kind of education that most graduates of most colleges, including now Reed, receive. And a “liberal” education does not mean merely reading the classic authors. The classic authors often contradict themselves. We must, then, have also an education that recognizes that we can know the truth of things.

We read Plato and Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, because they deal with truths necessary to become human beings who understand what our existence is for, whatever be our color or era. We can choose not to know what is, but it is not a virtue. It is indeed an illiberal education that closes us off from what we are. When we choose not to know, we end up, not surprisingly, not knowing.

James V. Schall, S.J.

James V. Schall, S.J.

James V. Schall, S.J., who served as a professor at Georgetown University for thirty-five years, is one of the most prolific Catholic writers in America. Among his recent books are The Mind That Is Catholic, The Modern Age, Political Philosophy and Revelation: A Catholic Reading, Reasonable Pleasures, Docilitas: On Teaching and Being Taught, and Catholicism and Intelligence.

RELATED ARTICLE: San Diego Schools Still Give Terror-linked CAIR Preferential Treatment

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.

Attempted Assassination of Iranian Dissident in New York

/in , , , , , /by

If confirmed, this is the first time since 1981 that the Iranian regime has targeted a defector on U.S. soil.

Iranian dissident Mansoor Osanloo, the exiled former head of the bus driver’s union in Tehran, was savagely attacked on Tuesday, May 1, while traveling on a PATH train into New York City, and left for dead.

Multiple assailants sprayed him with a corrosive chemical, then clubbed him in the back of the neck with what appears to have been a tire iron. He lay in a coma for several days and required 17 stitches in his neck.

I spoke with Osanloo on Monday, not long after he awoke from a coma.

Mansoor Osanloo

“I don’t remember anything,” he said. “But you can see from the pictures that I was sprayed with some kind of a chemical weapon and smashed in the head.This was a terrorist attack.”

Photographs taken at the hospital show a horribly-disfugured Osanloo. The burns to his skin are reminiscent of mustard gas attacks.

Osanloo has been instrumental in planning mass protests across Iran in recent months, and is the most prominent Iranian labor leader, in Iran or in exile. He was traveling to the New York studio of Iran International Television for an interview at the invitation of broadcaster Askar Ramazanzadi.

It remains unclear who funds the new “exile” TV based in London. But it has attracted many former broadcasters from Voice of America, such as Mohammad Manzapour, who were forced to resign from VOA because of alleged ties to the Islamic State of Iran authorities.

“They knew what time I was supposed to go to their studio,” Osanloo told me. “They knew what route I had to take. And then their studio published lies about what happened, claiming it was a car accident.”

An initial report on the Telegram channel of Amadnews, a website that boasts of close ties to “dissidents” within the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in Tehran, cited a U.S.-based “associate” who claimed that Oslanloo had been the victim of an “attempted assassination.”

That report appeared on May 2nd at 2:54 pm, before any public information had been released on the attack and while Osanloo himself was still in a coma. It begs the question of whether Ahmadnews had inside information from the attackers themselves.

Amadnews next claimed that its initial information of an assassination attempt had been “confirmed” by Iran International TV, the same channel that had invited Osanloo for the interview in New York. That report appeared at 5:09 PM.

Later, Ahmadnews cited the television as claiming that Osanloo had been injured in a car accident and had hit his head on the steering wheel.

That later Iran International TV report quoted Osanloo’s wife as saying he had been injured in a car accident.

“That is absurd,” Osanloo told me. “I don’t even drive. Everybody knows this. I always take public transit.”

The obvious chemical wounds Osanloo suffered attracted the attention of the FBI, who visited him in the New York hospital where he was taken after he was found by transit police.

“They took my clothes, my vomit, and my blood for testing in the FBI lab,” Osanloo told me.

The FBI had warned Osanloo prior to the attack that he was at risk in the United States from an attack by Iranian-regime agents. Once he was admitted to the hospital, they made sure his name was not entered into the hospital registry, so Iranian government agents couldn’t find him.

So far, the FBI has refrained from making any public statement. Osanloo was not robbed, nor was there any apparent motive for the attack other than a political assassination.

This apparent assassination attempt against a prominent Iranian dissident living in the United States, if confirmed, would be the first time the Iranian regime has targeted an Iranian dissident on U.S. soil since the July 22, 1981 assassination of Ali Akbar Tabatabai, a former press spokesman for the Iranian embassy in Washington, DC under the shah.

Tabatabai was killed by an American convert to Islam, David Belfield, who was associated with the Islamic Center in Potomac, Maryland, owned and controlled by the Alavi Foundation, an Iranian government entity whose assets have been forfeited to the U.S. government on money-laundering charges.

Until 1996, the Iranian regime regularly sent hit teams around the globe who killed more than 200 prominent dissidents in gangland-style killings. It wasn’t until the German government prosecuted the killers of Kurdish dissidents at the Mykonos restaurant in Berlin that the Iranians called off their killers in Europe.

“This was an attack not on me, but on the United States,” Osanloo told me. “I am a green card holder, so I am an American first, then an Iranian. I am just like you.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Alienage Discrimination Is Now A Thing. And It’s Really Bad

/in , , , , /by

“Alienage discrimination” is exactly what is sounds like; the discrimination against people specifically based on them being in the country illegally. It’s little known, but it is fatally dangerous for America.

Right up front, the threat here is that if alienage discrimination gains the same legal civil rights protections as, say, racial discrimination, then we can shut down ICE and any deportations. Once someone slips into the United States they will have essentially the full legal protections of any legal resident. Which is approximating insanity.

But traveling the remaining distance into the nationally insane, there would be standing and precedent to ultimately require “undocumented residents” the actual right to vote. If you are looking for the signs of America’s ultimate downfall from within, this would be in flashing neon.

Not surprisingly perhaps, this affront to legal, rational reasoning and national sovereignty comes courtesy of President’s Obama’s pen when he created DACA after Congress would not do what he wanted. Also not surprising, it is finding some foothold with Obama-appointed judges who act solely as policymakers, not arbitrators of law. (If political leaders are seeking appropriate places to use impeachment, these judges are prime targets.)

This is not a one-off.

Twice now in the past few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants have legal standing to sue American employers that won’t hire them because they are here illegally. The companies require their workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents such as green card holders. Not that long ago, this was seen as the responsible way to limit illegal immigration; by businesses not hiring them.

The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in South Florida, who handed an open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a giant U.S. company of alienage discrimination against an illegal immigrant by not hiring him because he was in the country illegally.

The lawsuit was filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a radically leftist, anti-American group that launches lawsuits on behalf of illegal immigrants. MALDEF has an extensive political agenda, including pushing for free college tuition for illegal immigrants and lowering educational standards to accommodate new illegal immigrants. MALDEF officially labels American immigration enforcement as racist and xenophobic, going so far as to charge that it is racist for English to be the country’s official national language. And naturally, it violates civil rights to wall off the southern border.

Judicial Watch has been following these cases. It reports:

In the recent Florida case a Venezuelan immigrant, David Rodriguez, living in Miami is suing consumer goods corporation Procter & Gamble for refusing to give him a paid internship because he is not a legal resident or citizen of the United States. MALDEF filed the lawsuit last year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Procter & Gamble requires citizenship and immigration status information on its applications and warns that candidates “must be a U.S. citizen or national, refugee, asylee or lawful permanent resident.” Rodriquez is neither and he quickly played the discrimination card after getting nixed as a candidate. In a statement MALDEF’s president reminds that “work-authorized DACA holders are valuable contributors to our economy” and “should not have to face arbitrary and biased exclusions from employment, especially by large and sophisticated corporations like Procter & Gamble.”

In 2014, MALDEF filed a lawsuit against Northwestern Mutual insurance company in New York because the company required a Mexican illegal alien protected by DACA to have a green card. MALDEF claimed that requiring Ruben Juarez, a Mexican national, to provide proof of legal residency resulted in “alienage discrimination.” The judge ruled in favor of Juarez.

In the most recent case, Judge Kathleen Williams, a 2011 Obama appointee, cited that 2014 ruling in her ruling in favor of Venezuelan Rodriguez. In denying Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s lawsuit, Judge Williams ruled the Venezuelan immigrant’s claims are “strikingly similar” to Juarez’s.

What this means is that DACA is clearly not seen as a temporary measure to help the “kids” — although Rodriguez is 34 years old, meaning he was nearly an adult when he slipped illegally into the United States. It’s obviously being used to create a pathway for permanent, legally-protected status and citizenship-level rights for people who came here illegally. And it’s being accomplished without any elected official ever taking a vote or making a decision. It’s all through activist judges.

But this alienage discrimination method/precedent has vaster implications. First, it could — and will with legal successes — turn into class action lawsuits against every major U.S. corporation that has policies in place for only hiring people in America legally. That would likely include all Fortune 500 companies plus thousands of others who have high training costs for new employees. It’s unknown what the total financial costs of that would be, but unarguably deep into the billions of dollars that American companies following American laws might be required to transfer to people who are in America illegally.

Second and most serious, establishing the concept of alienage discrimination would cripple America’s efforts to maintain internal order among its citizens. A nation that cannot regulate or deport people who come to the country illegally, or overstay illegally, is a country that is quickly enroute losing its sovereignty.

If “undocumented residents” are given special civil rights discrimination protections currently afforded to certain minorities — which is what MALDEF is asking for and these rulings are beginning to confer — then they have a case for proportional representation in employment, university acceptance and so on; againstalienage profiling by law enforcement; and ultimately a case for voting rights. If it is illegal to discriminate against blacks, for instance, in voting rights and illegal aliens are protected by the same civil rights, then voting must follow.

If that sounds absurd and extreme, please see the history of the past few years.

This is not how the United States continues as a functioning, sovereign nation. Many have long said that America will not fall from without, but from within. This would be a pathway in accomplishing that fall.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please subscribe to our Revolutionary YouTube channel.

Trump to Iran: No Deal

/in , , , /by

“The Iran Deal was one of the worst and most one-sided transactions the United States has ever entered into.” That was President Trump’s frank assessment of what may have been Barack Obama’s biggest foreign policy mistake. Today, the White House did something about it — finally pulling the United States out of the deal that’s been a disaster for U.S. and global security.

Starting today, America will be on a 90-day track to re-impose sanctions on a regime that continues to fund terrorist activities and secretly pursue a nuclear program. It also goes a long way to dismantling another one of the Left’s proudest accomplishments: cozying up to a nation that has neither the interest nor the intention of operating on the world’s terms.

Unfortunately, some of the damage has already been done. Obama’s failure gave the Iranians a windfall of cash and access to the international financial system for trade and investment. Until President Hassan Rouhani agrees to several conditions — including ending its public quest to destroy Israel and its alliance with terrorists — this White House isn’t giving Iran an inch.

In a press conference announcing the administration’s decision, President Trump wanted the world to know: “The United States no longer makes empty threats. When I make promises I keep them. Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States.”

FRC’s Lt. General Jerry Boykin wasn’t surprised that President Trump was withdrawing from the deal, since he campaigned on it. And if there’s one thing this president does, it’s keep his word. “It’s disgraceful that the U.S. lead the effort to get the Iran deal in the first place,” he said, “and now it’s just as significant that the U.S. is leading the movement to abandon what this very bad agreement.” It also sets an important tone heading into talks with North Korea. President Trump couldn’t meet with Kim Jung Un and expect any sort of real progress if America was still a part of this deal. “It would be contradictory and counterproductive to do so,” General Boykin insists.

We’re grateful for the administration’s courage in righting the wrongs of the last administration. It’s a relief to have bold leaders who are willing to stand up for America’s best interest — even if it means standing alone.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Return to Spender, Address Known…

‘The Worst Humanitarian Crisis No One’s Talking about’

Trump Ends Iran Nuclear Deal, Leaving Ball in Iran’s Court

A Government Loan Program for Auto Manufacturers on Road to Repeal

/in , , , , /by

Among programs on the chopping block in the White House’s new plan to cut more than $15 billion in wasteful government spending is the Department of Energy’s loan program for certain automakers. Congress should drop the guillotine and rescind the $4.3 billion remaining in this Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 authorizes the president to rescind funding previously enacted into law.

Established by Congress under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program illustrates why the federal government should not finance energy investments.

In handing out only five loans, the program has wasted taxpayer dollars by subsidizing economic losers, promoted corporate welfare by subsidizing well-off companies, and distorted market decisions by steering private capital toward politically proffered projects.

One loan recipient and failure of the program is Fisker Automotive, an electric car company that received $529 million in April 2010 to develop and produce two lines of hybrid plug-in vehicles at a plant in Delaware.

Fisker’s inability to meet performance targets prompted the Energy Department to cap the money lent at $192 million. Fisker filed for bankruptcy in November 2013. The federal government recovered $28 million, and then recovered another $25 million by selling the loan at auction, leaving a loss of $139 million.

Red flags should have made it apparent that Fisker was not credit-worthy for a government loan. Fisker spent $600,000 per car, which was sold to auto dealers for an average of $70,000, and had a CCC+ credit rating.

After the Fisker failure, the head of the loan program office, Peter Davidson, explained why the government sank money into the project, writing: “Early on, Fisker Automotive looked very promising—raising more than $1.2 billion from leading private sector investors who believed in the company and its business plan, and also attracting strong support from both Republicans and Democrats.”

If a company can attract $1.2 billion from the private sector, it should not need help from the federal government. The question is, would Fisker have generated that much investment absent the government’s loan?

The Energy Department loan artificially made this dubious investment appear more attractive and lowered the risk of private investment. For instance, private investors sank $1.1 billion into Fisker, but much of the private financing came after the department approved and closed the loan.

Another company, Vehicle Production Group LLC, received a $50 million direct loan through the program in March 2011 to develop and produce vehicles that were powered by natural gas and wheelchair-accessible. The company failed to make loan payments, the Energy Department discontinued the project, and the company ceased operations in May 2013.

The government recovered $3 million by selling the loan and recovered $5 million from an escrow payment, leaving a loss of $42 million.

In addition to picking losers, the federal government doled out billions in what is blatant corporate welfare and effectively an auto bailout by another name.

The DOE also issued the loans to both Ford Motor Co. and Nissan North America to retool factories to produce more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.

In September 2009, the department loaned $5.9 billion to Ford to upgrade facilities in Illinois, Kentucky, New York, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio. In January 2010, it loaned Nissan a $1.45 billion loan to build a battery manufacturing plant and retool existing factories to expand development of its electric vehicle, the Nissan LEAF.

Ford and Nissan are well-established companies. Drivers value energy efficiency and saving on fuel costs. If Ford and Nissan thought these investments and retooling of manufacturing plants were a way to meet market demand, they should have been completely privately financed outside the government.

The real economic question mark of the loan portfolio, however, is Elon Musk’s Tesla Inc., the California-based company that specializes in electric vehicles, energy storage, and solar panel manufacturing.

The Energy Department and proponents of government-backed loans and loan guarantees advertise Tesla as a success of the loan program. The department loaned Tesla $465 million in January 2010 to reopen a former plant in California to produce electric vehicles and to develop a manufacturing plant to produce battery packs.

Tesla fully paid back the loan in May 2013. But whether Tesla continues to be profitable remains to be seen. Both federal and state governments are doing a lot to help—using taxpayers’ money to subsidize consumption of electric vehicles, which disproportionately benefits the rich.

A recent Bloomberg article headlined “Tesla Doesn’t Burn Fuel, It Burns Cash” warns that the company could run out of money this year. The article notes that Tesla spends $7,430 every minute and features a nifty little calculator that shows you how much money Tesla has spent since you started reading the story.

Regardless, if companies like Tesla promise to be the wave of the future, they should secure investment and loans through the private sector. A system that privatizes the profits and socializes the losses does much more damage than put hard-earned taxpayers’ money at risk.

Government interventions distort free enterprise and allow Washington to direct the flow of private-sector investments. This is not a recipe for more innovation and economic growth. It’s a recipe for ever-expanding cronyism.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Nicolas Loris

Nicolas Loris

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES: 

White House Rolls Out Agenda for More Deregulation to Boost Business

Podcast: Trump Becomes First President in Nearly 20 Years to Ask Congress to Cut Spending This Way

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

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