The Space Force Is Coming. Here’s Why the U.S. Needs It.

One of the issues that will face the new Congress is the creation of a new military service: the U.S. Space Force.

Recently, Vice President Mike Pence chaired the fourth meeting of the National Space Council. The council is comprised of key elements of the U.S. government that are involved with space, and includes not only the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretaries of state and defense, but also the secretaries of commerce, transportation, and homeland security, as well as the director of national intelligence, the director of the Office of Budget and Management, the head of NASA, and the national security and homeland security advisers.

The venue was significant—Roosevelt Hall at the National War College. Established in 1946, the National War College seeks to train the next generation of senior officers and national security civilians in the ways of grand strategy, including how to balance resources available against requirements. Thus, the announcement that the National Space Council would unanimously endorse the creation of the new Space Force was intended to send a strategic signal.

To this end, the vice president in his remarks specifically noted the six recommendations that would be made to President Donald Trump:

  1. Creation of a new unified combatant command: the United States Space Command. This would elevate command of space operations to the level of U.S. Special Operations Command.
  2. Creation of a new organization, the Space Development Agency. This new agency will accelerate the development of new space capabilities.
  3. Reorganizing the resulting bureaucracy, and laying out a path for rapid fielding of that new space technology.
  4. Altering the current rules of engagement for space to allow more effective responses to potential space threats.
  5. Reviewing and revising the legal authorities associated with the employment of space forces. While this appears to simply be more legalese, in reality, establishing which organizations have what legal authorities is a massive part of how the U.S. military operates. Because of the need for U.S. forces to operate within the law—international laws and treaties as well as domestic laws and regulations—laying out the authorities is vital to ensure that military responses are smooth and unencumbered by legal challenges.
  6. All this is to lay the foundations for the creation of a new service, the United States Space Force, which the vice president made clear would be proposed in the next National Defense Authorization Act.

While late-night comedians found the whole idea of the Space Force hilarious, the reality is that the United States faces growing threats from space. These include not only anti-satellite missiles that can shatter satellites into thousands of pieces of debris, but lasers capable of “dazzling” and blinding satellite systems, as well as cyber and jammer threats. The range of potential space adversaries includes not only Russia and China, but, as the vice president noted, also Iran and North Korea.

Nor is the U.S. the first nation to create a service dedicated to space operations. In 2015, the Russians established the Russian Aerospace Forces, merging the Russian air force and the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces. This entity has control over Russia’s air force, Russian missile defense forces, and key parts of the Russian space infrastructure, such as the Plesetsk Cosmodrome (launch facility).

Meanwhile, at the end of 2015, the People’s Republic of China established the People’s Liberation Army Strategic Support Force. This new force marks a very different path than the Russian Aerospace Forces.

Under the People’s Liberation Army Strategic Support Force, the Chinese have brought together their electronic warfare, network (cyber) warfare, and space warfare forces. Thus, where the Russians see space as an extension of the air, the Chinese see space as an extension of information space. This difference explains why the Russians created a single aerospace force, while the Chinese created a single information warfare force.

Since such massive reorganizations take time, this means that both China and Russia were undertaking significant analyses and preparations long before the announcement in 2015. Thus, the United States, far from militarizing space, is in fact likely to be years behind our Russian and Chinese counterparts.


Portrait of Dean Cheng

Dean Cheng

Dean Cheng brings detailed knowledge of China’s military and space capabilities to bear as The Heritage Foundation’s research fellow on Chinese political and security affairs. Read his research.

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Aubrey Gemignani/Zuma Press/Newscom.

12 Potential Trump Nominees for Attorney General

Attorney General Jeff Sessions resigned Wednesday, creating a vacancy in President Donald Trump’s Cabinet and the opportunity to confirm a new leader at the Department of Justice.

The question facing Trump is whom he might pick as the next attorney general. The Heritage Foundation’s John Malcolm, vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, discussed the following dozen possible candidates for the position during recent TV interviews.

1. Pam Bondi

Bondi, 52, is Florida’s attorney general, a position she has held since 2011. Previously she served as an assistant state attorney. She was a part of a 2018 lawsuit by 19 states to overturn the Affordable Care Act and has also served as a Fox News co-host.

Malcolm called Bondi “terrific and outgoing,” “very, very bright,” and a “rather dynamic personality,” noting he thinks she served her state well and is often a speaker at conservative events.

“I have no doubt that she’d do an excellent job if she got the nod,” he added.

2. John Ratcliffe

Ratcliffe, 53, is the representative for Texas’ 4th Congressional District, a position he has held since 2014.

In 2004, former President George W. Bush appointed him to serve as the Justice Department’s chief of anti-terrorism and national security for the Eastern District of Texas.

3. Trey Gowdy

Malcolm said Gowdy “would receive a serious look” for the position of attorney general because he was the federal prosecutor in the District of South Carolina from 1994 to 2000 and was later the district attorney for the state’s 7th Judicial Circuit.

Gowdy, 54, currently serves as the representative for South Carolina’s 4th Congressional District and rose to national prominence for his role in leading the U.S. House select committee established by Republicans to investigate the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

In January, he announced he would not seek re-election to the House and instead restart his legal career.

4. Janice Rogers Brown

Brown, 69, is a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She was appointed by Bush in 2003 and confirmed in 2005. She retired in August 2017.

Brown was also an associate justice of the California Supreme Court from 1996 to 2017. She is known for her conservative judicial philosophy.

5. Lindsey Graham

Graham, like Gowdy, hails from South Carolina, having served as its senator since 2003. Graham, 63, is a retired U.S. Air Force Reserve colonel and has also served in his state’s House of Representatives and the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Lindsey Graham would also do an excellent job. He knows the Department of Justice extremely well,” Malcolm said.

Even though he often criticized Trump during the 2016 election and at the beginning of his term, “he certainly did a tremendous job during the Kavanaugh hearings and has been very supportive of the president,” Malcolm added.

Graham recently said he would not accept an offer by Trump to succeed Sessions, noting he was happy serving as a senator for the time being.

6. Edith Jones

Jones, 69, has been a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit since her appointment by former President Ronald Reagan in 1985. She served as that court’s chief justice from 2006 to 2012.

7. Michael Luttig

Luttig was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit from 1991 to 2006 when he resigned to work for Boeing Co. He has served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and once clerked for now-deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when Scalia was a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

During his time in the Bush administration, he worked in the Justice Department and assisted then-Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas through his confirmation hearings in 1991.

Luttig, 64, is considered to be conservative in his judicial philosophy. He was once on President George W. Bush’s shortlist for the Supreme Court, and many of his law clerks have clerked at the Supreme Court.

8. Alex Acosta

Acosta, 49, currently serves as Trump’s secretary of labor. Before his appointment to that position in 2017, he served as the assistant attorney general for civil rights and federal prosecutor for the Southern District of Florida.

Acosta is the only Hispanic in the president’s Cabinet.

9. Matt Whitaker

Whitaker, 49, is the current acting attorney general in the wake of Sessions’ departure.

He was the Senate-confirmed U.S. attorney general from Iowa, where Malcolm said he “served with distinction” from 2004 to 2009. He also served as a U.S. attorney under former President George W. Bush.

Malcolm noted that for the last year Whitaker has served as Sessions’ chief of staff, so he knows the political appointees at the department and has a relationship with the president himself.

10. Alex Azar

Azar, 51, is the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services under Trump. He previously served in the George W. Bush administration.

11. Chris Christie

Malcolm said Christie has a “lot of executive experience and knows the Department of Justice very well.”

Christie, 56, was appointed to be the U.S. attorney for New Jersey by Bush, and served in that capacity from 2002 to 2008. He later served as the state’s governor and presided over the Fort Lee closure scandal, during which he was accused of shutting down a major highway as a form of political retribution.

Malcolm said that while Christie and Trump have known each other for a long time, it remains to be seen whether the president will find Christie attractive for the job of attorney general given his high public profile and “larger than life” persona.

12. Rudy Giuliani

Giuliani, 74, is a former U.S. attorney general and mayor of New York City. He currently serves as the president’s outside legal counsel and has made frequent (and oftentimes newsworthy) media appearances defending the president on the Mueller investigation and adult film actress Stormy Daniels’ lawsuit against him.


Troy Worden

Troy Worden is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom.

12 Times Florida County’s Elections Supervisor Has Been ‘Incompetent and Possibly Criminal’

As both parties scrutinize the vote count in Florida’s Broward County, with the state’s gubernatorial and senatorial races closing in on a tie, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said the county’s elections office has a history of malfeasance.

“This is at a minimum a pattern of incompetence. Voters deserve better,” the Florida Republican said Thursday on “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” “This is not even a partisan thing. This is a county that apparently cannot even count votes as well as a county that just got wiped out by a hurricane.”

The state’s Republican Gov. Rick Scott filed a lawsuit Thursday against Broward Elections Supervisor Brenda Snipes for allegedly refusing to tell them about votes she has not yet counted.

The vote totals Snipes tabulated two days after the election would have readers believe that more people cast votes for agricultural commissioner than for U.S. senator.

Additionally, lawyer Marc Elias of Perkins Coie—who hired Fusion GPS for the Democratic National Committee to investigate Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election—has been hired to litigate a recount on behalf of Democrats.

The Republican National Committee also pointed out 12 times news stories, using its own headlines, where Snipes has “been outright incompetent and possibly criminal”:

  1. Illegally destroying ballots (Sun Sentinel, May 14, 2018)
  2. Absentee ballots that never arrived (Miami Herald, Nov. 6, 2018)
  3. Fellow Democrats accused her precinct of individual and systemic breakdowns that made it difficult for voters to cast regular ballots (Miami Herald, Nov. 4, 2014)
  4. Posted election results half an hour before polls closed – a very clear violation of election law. (Miami Herald, Nov. 2, 2018)
  5. Sued for leaving amendments off of ballots (Miami Herald, Oct. 20, 2016)
  6. Claiming to not have the money to notify voters when their absentee ballot expired (Sun Sentinel, November 8, 2018)
  7. Having official staffers campaign on official time (Broward Beat, July 20, 2016)
  8. Problems printing mail ballots (Miami Herald, Nov.2, 2018)
  9. Accusations of ballot stuffing (Heritage, Aug. 1, 2017)
  10. Voters receiving ballots with duplicate pages (Miami Herald, Nov. 2, 2018)
  11. Slow results and piles of ballots that cropped up way after Election Day (The Capitolist, Nov. 8, 2018)
  12. Opening ballots in private, breaking Florida law (Politico, Aug. 13, 2018)


Luke Rosiak

Luke Rosiak is an investigative reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @lukerosiak.


What You Need to Know About Florida Recount, Georgia Vote Tallying

A Replay of 2000? Florida Recount Stirs Concerns.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email

Environmentalist Policies Are Exacerbating Wildfires. It’s Time to Rethink Forest Management.

Massive wildfires continue to rage out of control in Northern California, causing historic loss of life and billions of dollars in damage.

The images coming out of California towns, which look like bombed-out cities from World War II, are a sobering reminder of man’s occasional futility in the face of nature unleashed.

Stopping these huge blazes is, of course, a priority. The firefighters who have been battling these infernos have at times done a miraculous job under extremely difficult circumstances.

However, policymakers should also look at ways to curtail the long-term trend of growing numbers of major wildfires. While some argue that climate change is to blame for the uptick in fires, it’s also worth grappling with the drastic alterations in forest management that have occurred over the last four decades.

Many have argued that this is driving the surge in huge fires.

As a Reason Foundation study noted, the U.S. Forest Service, which is tasked with managing public wildland, once had success in minimizing widespread fires in the early 20th century.

But many of these successful methods were abandoned in large part because of efforts by environmental activists.

The Forest Service became more costly and less effective as it increasingly “rewarded forest managers for losing money on environmentally questionable practices,” wrote Randal O’Toole, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Spending on the Forest Service has risen drastically, but these additional resources have been misused and haven’t solved the underlying issues.

“Fire expenditures have grown from less than 15 percent of the Forest Service budget in [the] early 1990s to about 50 percent today. Forest Service fire expenditures have increased from less than $1 billion in the late 1990s to $3.5 billion in 2016,” O’Toole wrote.

Perhaps now, Americans will begin to re-evaluate forest management policies.

In a May congressional hearing, Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., said, “Forty-five years ago, we began imposing laws that have made the management of our forests all but impossible.”

He went on to say that federal authorities have done a poor job of implementing methods to reduce the number of deadly fires, and that this has been devastating for America’s wildlands.

“Time and again, we see vivid boundaries between the young, healthy, growing forests managed by state, local, and private landholders, and the choked, dying, or burned federal forests,” McClintock said. “The laws of the past 45 years have not only failed to protect the forest environment—they have done immeasurable harm to our forests.”

In a recent House address, McClintock pinned the blame of poor forest management on bad 1970s laws, like the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. He said these laws “have resulted in endlessly time-consuming and cost-prohibitive restrictions and requirements that have made the scientific management of our forests virtually impossible.”

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has promoted a change to forest management policies, calling for a more aggressive approach to reduce the excess vegetation that has made the fires worse.

Congress is also moving to address the problem.

Members of the Western Caucus have proposed legislation to dramatically change the way forests are managed. If passed, this bill would give power back to local authorities and allow for more aggressive forest thinning without subjecting them to the most onerous of environmental reviews.

While state and federal governments can take measures to enhance forest and wilderness management, private management can also get involved to improve conditions.

One idea is to adopt a policy popularized by the school choice movement: create charter forests that are publicly owned, but privately managed. This would allow forest management to move away from top-down, bureaucratic control to a decentralized and varied system that may better conform with local realities.

As professor Robert H. Nelson wrote for The Wall Street Journal, the charter forest “would be exempt from current requirements for public land-use planning and the writing of environmental impact statements. These requirements long ago ceased to perform their ostensible function of improving public land decision making.”

Similar privatizing efforts have succeeded in the past.

No measure can truly prevent all fires, but reasonable steps can be taken to reduce the incidence of huge blazes like the ones currently engulfing California.

It’s time for lawmakers to redouble their efforts to protect American lives and property from nature’s most devastating ravages.


Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

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


Trump Is Right: Poor Land Management Is Leading to Bigger California Fires

23 Photos of the Wildfires Burning Through California

House Lawmakers Push Legislation to ‘Stop the Spread of Catastrophic Wildfires’

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images and video is republished with permission. Photo: Barbara Munker/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom.

Breaking Up The Media/Political Vicious Circle

The 2018 mid-term elections was the largest campaign of its kind in history, both in terms of votes cast and campaign money spent, which was in the billions of dollars. Perhaps it is time to reflect on why this happened. We now live in a 24/7 news cycle. Whereas back in the 1960’s we would read morning newspapers, watch evening news, and skim through weekly news magazines (e.g., Time, Newsweek, Life, etc.), news is now offered on a non-stop basis, not just on one television channel, but several, as well as the Internet. Forget reality TV and sports, news is now the #1 entertainment medium and there are millions of news junkies around to prove it.

What we are now faced with is the diabolical manipulation of the American psyche, much more persuasive than anything invented by Joseph Goebbels during World War II. Let me be brutally frank, the news media is not concerned with reporting reliable news and accurate information, it’s about making money, and this includes all of the news sources. They have sacrificed “fair and balanced” for the political agenda they believe will cause the most angst among the American public. This includes the major television networks, cable, the Internet, and printed press. Their influence is so pervasive, it explains why the country is polarized and people suffer from such things as Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

To illustrate, during the election, the news media was quick to quote the latest poll du jour. All of these polls were just as inaccurate as they were in 2016 when they confidently predicted Mrs. Clinton would win the presidential election. Instead of examining early voting data as provided by the various state board of elections, they preferred to quote some cockamamie poll instead. Please understand, the early voting data is far more accurate and insightful than any poll, yet the news media refuses to quote them as it doesn’t create as much drama as a skewed poll does.

This overt attempt to whip the public into a frenzy is shared by the news media, the polls, and fact checkers. They are all on the take, which is why they encourage upheaval, cast doubt on politicians, and lack professional courtesy. Their job, as they see it, is to make the news, not report on it.

The question thereby becomes, what can be done about it? The answer is actually simple. Since the source of energy for the media is money, we should minimize the amount they can earn. For example, our electoral cycles have fallen into the rut of creating campaigns lasting as long as two years. This includes campaigns for federal, state, county, and municipal politicians. I just witnessed a campaign here in Florida where I saw state and county politicians, who earn approximately $30,000 a year, spend ten times that amount to be elected, some much more than that. From a business perspective, this represents a lousy return on investment. Again, the only group profiting from this is not the politicians, but the news media who reaps the reward.

As an aside, in 2018, politicians spent in excess of $2 billion for campaigning, a new record. This money was not used for charitable purposes, or to update our infrastructure, or to cure cancer. It was used to line the pockets of the media and create multimillionaire celebrity news personalities.

The end of the 2018 election marks the official beginning of the 2020 campaign, and the vicious circle starts all over again. The pumping of huge sums of money into the coffers of the news media only encourages them to persist in irresponsible news reporting. But what if the gravy train was interrupted; what then?

To curb spending and obnoxious campaigning, we should do as other countries do and reduce our electoral cycle to a defined period, such as 90 or 120 days. For example, there are several countries who have less than a 90 day election period, such as Argentina, Canada, France, and Japan. Further, some countries do not allow the purchase of TV ads, such as Brazil, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Such policies dramatically inhibit the media money machines and causes them to take the histrionics out of their broadcasts.

The symbiotic relationship between the Media and Politics is so imbued in our culture, getting the two parties to agree to my proposal is out of the question. To implement such a program requires changes in our electoral process which must be driven by the citizenry, not politicians. This cannot happen unless the country becomes aware of the problem and expresses outrage over it, but since the media controls communications it is doubtful voters will ever learn of it. In fact, watch this column be torpedoed and sunk.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats demand removal of Illinois election judge after she reported fraud

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Elijah O’Donnell on Unsplash.

Presidential Proclamation Addresses Massive Illegal ‘Migrant’ Caravan — A dire national security threat.

The United States is about to be inundated with thousands of foreign nationals heading up through Latin America to the U.S./Mexico border. The media, nearly unanimously, have described them all as “migrants” purportedly fleeing poverty and violence in their home countries in Central America. The President, however, has stated that among them are criminals and individuals from other than Latin America.

President Trump is determined to discourage as many of these individuals from entering the United States illegally as a matter of national security.

As I have noted in previous articles about this “Caravan of Migrants,” talk show hosts and others have blatantly accused the President of being a liar who does not care about poor migrants. Of course, they are blithely ignoring that the President has access to intelligence that is not made available to anyone else.

They have also failed to make any effort to do a bit of research, to determine if perhaps there is evidence that is available in the public domain that would support Trump’s assertions.

My article “Trump Connects The Dots On Dangers Of Illegal Immigration” contains compelling evidence about the potential for Iranian involvement in large-scale human trafficking and hence the potential that they and other adversaries of the United States would be eager to inundate the United States with huge numbers of aliens that would overwhelm the already beleaguered immigration system.

That article and others that I have written recently included evidence that has been furnished by expert witnesses at Congressional hearings and in various reports prepared by experts that Iran has been steadily increasing its influence in Latin America through its client Hezbollah, to partner with Latin American drug trafficking cartels and human traffickers – often one and the same – to send huge quantities of narcotics to the United States along with illegal aliens in order to generate huge amounts of ill-gotten funds and to embed sleeper agents here.

The June 8, 2017 DOJ report Two Men Arrested for Terrorist Activities on Behalf of Hizballah’s Islamic Jihad Organization focused on the arrest and prosecution of two naturalized U.S. citizen “sleeper agents” who had been born in Lebanon. One of the two alleged terrorists was additionally charged with committing naturalization fraud; he purportedly used his ill-gotten U.S. citizenship to apply for a U.S. passport that facilitated his international travel in support of Hezbollah. Both had been conducting preparatory surveillance of military and law enforcement facilities and airports in Michigan and New York.

I addressed the case of two other Iranian sleeper agents in my September 2018 article, “Iranian Agents Charged With Targeting U.S. Locations: Sleeper Agents/Assassins in Our Midst?”

The President has decided to act proactively to head off what could well be a national security / public safety catastrophe in the making.

On November 8, 2018 the Justice Department issued a press release, jointly announcing with the Department of Homeland Security, that President Trump had issued a proclamation under which the administration would not process asylum applications filed by illegal aliens who had entered the United States without inspection after November 10, 2018, the date that the proclamation went into effect. It would not apply to unaccompanied alien minors nor would it prevent aliens from making an application for Withholding of Removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture.

Withholding of Removal is similar to asylum but imposes a higher burden of proof upon that alien who files for that protection from deportation (removal) and imposes additional restrictions.

The proclamation will expire either 90 days after taking effect or when a safe-country agreement is entered into with Mexico, whichever occurs earlier. Finally, within 90 days of the proclamation taking effect, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security are required to provide the President with their recommendations as to whether or not to extend the proclamation.

President Trump’s proclamation is a direct response to the massive numbers of foreign nationals heading to the U.S./Mexican border. Consider the title of the proclamation: Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States.

In recent years massive numbers of illegal aliens have come to exploit the asylum policies of the United States to circumvent the lawful entry process by which aliens enter the United States. They have found in America’s long history and tradition of kindness a weakness that can be easily exploited.

In point of fact, 80% of these applications have reportedly been denied. Furthermore, the administration will continue to accept and process asylum applications that aliens who attempt entry into ports of entry file. The obvious goal of the proclamation is to discourage enormous numbers of aliens who are members of the massive “caravan of migrants” from running our borders, evading the inspections/vetting process at ports of entry and then using fatuous asylum claims as “plan B” for aspiring illegal aliens if apprehended by the Border Patrol. On the other hand, when not stopped by the Border Patrol, these illegal aliens who evaded the inspections process simply head to towns and cities across the United States and hide in plain sight.

The 9/11 Commission describes that effort made by terrorists to “hide in plain sight” as the embedding process that incidentally is made far easier by “sanctuary policies” implemented by mayors and governors of Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary States, who have utter disdain for America’s borders and immigration laws and refuse to cooperate with ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) even when the aliens in question are convicted felons. Incredibly, they have released aliens who were convicted of committing violent crimes rather than turn them over to ICE for deportation from the United States, all too frequently with tragic but preventable results.

Consider the most recent case highlighted in a November 9, 2018 ICE news release, “Mexican national released from local custody facing murder charges.”

According to that press release, 23 year-old illegal alien Luis Rodrigo Perez, a citizen of Mexico, was being held on domestic violence charges in the Middlesex County Jail in New Jersey when ICE issued a detainer that the jail did not honor, releasing Perez into the community without notifying ICE.

After his release from the jail in February of 2018, Perez eventually made his way to Missouri where he has now been charged in a triple murder that recently occurred in Springfield, Missouri.

Business Insider’s article “Trump’s new move to limit asylum challenged in court” noted that the intention of the proclamation was to funnel all of these aliens through ports of entry so that they can be vetted, but the resources at many of the ports are inadequate to handle the workload and aliens are often told to come back days later.

However, all aliens who do show up at ports of entry will, even under the proclamation, be able to file applications for asylum. The obvious goal of the proclamation is to enable DHS to vet every alien and create a record of the entry or attempted entry of each alien.

The only aliens who would potentially be adversely impacted by the proclamation are those who enter without inspection.

Incidentally, as I noted in another of my recent articles, “ACLU Attacks Border Wall And Kate’s Law,” the purpose for the wall on the U.S./Mexican border would not be to stop legitimate commerce or movement of people into the United States but to make certain that all such traffic is also funneled through ports of entry.

For decades, even in the wake of the terror attacks of 9/11 and subsequent terror attacks, the immigration system has been chronically underfunded and understaffed so that the only way for the adjudications officers of USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services) to keep up with the avalanche of applications for various immigration benefits, that include granting political asylum and conferring lawful immigrant status and United States citizenship upon aliens, is to approve as many of those applications as possible.

This leads to rampant levels of fraud. As a consequence, terrorists such as the naturalized citizen Iranian sleeper agents I noted earlier, as well as the Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the deadly terror attack at the Boston Marathon and Faisal Shahzad, the “Times Square Bomber,” are a few examples of many where terrorists were granted lawful status and even, in some instances, citizenship not long before they carried out or attempted to carry out deadly terror attacks in the United States.

9/11 and Terrorist Travel is an official report that was prepared by the federal agents and federal attorney who were assigned to the 9/11 Commission. Here is a quote from that report worth considering; it specifically addressed political asylum fraud:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.

I wrote about this nexus between immigration fraud and terrorism in my extensive article, “Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill.”

Through his proclamation and other initiatives, President Trump is following the dictum by which all sensible people live their lives, “Safety first.” All rational Americans should be grateful for it.

RELATED ARTICLE: Filmmaker Travels with Caravan, Gets Stunning Footage Proving Media’s Lying to Us

EDITORS NOTE: This column and images originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine. It is republished with permission.

Hillary Clinton Will Run In 2020, and We’ll Regret It!

A quick look at the stars reveals that Hillary Clinton will run again for President of the United States in 2020. If you can’t see it, look closer, it’s there.

The reason why isn’t just because it’s in the stars. It’s because she’s an egomaniac that will do anything in support of her fantasy of being President of the United States, no matter what the negative repercussions of pursuing it may be to her message, her party, or her country.  (You can hear more about my reasoning in my podcast from today.)

In an article by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein appearing in the Wall Street Journal, the authors predicted that Clinton would run for President because she would not allow her career to be ended by a rank amateur, namely Donald J. Trump.  And she’s going to do it by concentrating on universal health care.

Undoubtedly, a Hillary Clinton run for President would be a calamity.  Consider all the bad things have happened to Mrs. Clinton since she lost her race to President Trump.  First, she actually proposed and defended the position that Bill Clinton should not have stepped down as President even though he infamously had sex with a White House intern in the Oval Office.  She said this despite calling for President Trump to step down because he uttered disparaging comments about women in a private conversation in a private recreational vehicle while not being President.  And when asked how she could defend her husband’s actions, she said, in the midst of the Me Too Movement, that it was okay because Monica Lewinsky was an adult, and she knew what she was doing.

Clinton also purposefully said in an interview that non-Republicans could not be civil with Republicans because they were trying to destroy everything she stood for.  As a matter of fact, according to Mrs. Clinton, civility could not return until the Democrats assumed power.  How do you think, that video will play out in the general election?

If that wasn’t bad enough, there’s the matter of her book, What Happened,where she appears as a sore loser and blames everyone else, including women and the press, for her loss rather than reflecting on her shortcomings as a candidate.  Notably, it is in this book where Mrs. Clinton infamously spoke about the press being against her when in fact, few candidates have found a more favorable press than Mrs. Clinton did in her 2016 run.

Moreover, as time passed and people had the opportunity to view her conduct through the clarity of hindsight, many, including some of her more ardent supporters, have warmed up to the idea that Mrs. Clinton and her Clinton Foundation were engaged in inappropriate dealings with foreign entities for her own personal enrichment.  Many now believe that her mishandling of classified and non-classified emails was done in an effort to provide cover for her activities related to the Clinton Foundation.  And don’t forget, the nexus between her dealings with Uranium One and her personal enrichment has become a radioactive issue for her.

Overall, it appears that there are just too many scandals involving Mrs. Clinton to make her a viable candidate.  But she is not the first candidate with seemingly insurmountable problems that have gone on to win an election.  Just look at President Donald Trump.  But the final dagger to Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy is also the most effective: Clinton is simply not liked.

Even if Mrs. Clinton tried to explain away her discrediting issues, which she is a master at doing, she will ultimately be unsuccessful because of her lack of interpersonal skills.

In short, Mrs. Clinton is not likable.  From her high-pitched voice, to her witchlike laugh, to her arrogant demeanor, Hillary lost and will lose again because she does not resonate with non-elites.  They simply don’t like her.  She appears uncaring and judgmental to everyone outside of her inner circles in the high-rises of New York City, and that, as in times prior, will be her downfall.

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

Collectivism and the 8th Commandment

In the 18th century our Founding Fathers fought the War of Independence to escape the tyranny of the British monarchy. Our Founding Fathers envisioned a New World where citizens of the United States of America would be bound by the Constitution and live as free individuals in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

The 10 Commandments were foundational to the Judeo-Christian tradition of the United States and to its ordered liberty. The Commandments provided the infrastructure and moral basis for the secular laws written to govern American society.

The separation of church and state was an acknowledgement that different religious doctrines existed within the Judeo-Christian tradition. The Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was a defense against the tyranny of an official state religion.

What our Founding Fathers did not envision was the secular tyranny of collectivism – collectivism is a late 19th century political ideology.

“Thou Shalt Not Steal” is the 8th Commandment that strictly forbids stealing. So, let’s talk about stealing – the taking of another person’s property.

Stealing assumes a separation between self and other and is an acknowledgement of property rights. That is, one person cannot take another person’s property unless both parties acknowledge that each person has a separate existence and that property belonging to one is not the property of the other.

There would be no moral injunction against stealing and no Commandment or secular law against stealing without this fundamental acknowledgement.

The problem with collectivism, whether it is socialism or communism, is that it defies this most fundamental acknowledgement. Collectivism denies the property rights of an individual and, therefore, that individual’s existence as a separate entity.

Collectivism says that what is yours belongs to the state and the state is the entity that determines its distribution. Theoretically, without property rights there are no human rights because if what I produce is not mine and the fruits of my labors belong to the state, then I do not belong to myself. I am without human rights.

Collectivist ideology is antagonistic to the Judeo-Christian tradition because it denies the existence of the self. In collectivism the individual’s life belongs to the group.

This most fundamental and critical issue of property rights and its connection to human rights and the self is denied by the humanitarian hucksters selling socialism. When Obama tells business owners “You did not build that” he is denying their human rights and misappropriating them to the state. Obama is the prime time humanitarian huckster disingenuously selling socialism as the provider of social justice and income equality. He is the consummate con man deceitfully selling “resistance” as freedom fighting.

What Obama and his sycophants are not saying is that first socialism steals your property and then socialism steals your freedom. Ask the good people of Venezuela who were duped by the humanitarian hucksters selling socialism in their once beautiful and prosperous country. The ruling elite in Venezuela stole the private property of its citizens by socializing the country. Without private property the government had complete cradle-to-grave control of the population – the population ceased to exist as individuals – they had forfeited their freedom to socialism.

The Leftist Democrat Party is the party of collectivism in America that envisions a New World order similarly antagonistic to the individual. The Left denies the property rights of the individual (You did not build that) and, therefore, that individual’s existence as a separate entity. President Donald Trump is the existential enemy of the Leftist Democrat party because he rejects collectivism entirely. POTUS believes in Americanism, the sovereignty of the United States, equal opportunity, and the freedom of the individual.

Decades of insidious educational indoctrination of America’s youth toward collectivism has made socialism and anything anti-Trump fashionable today.

The recent midterm election was a referendum on socialism and the ongoing contentious battle between individualism and collectivism.

Craig Biddle’s clarifying article explained the divide in 2012, Individualism vs Collectivism: Our Future, Our Choice.

Ayn Rand articulated the implications of the choice in the 1960’s:

  • “Whoever claims the ‘right’ to ‘redistribute’ the wealth produced by others is claiming the ‘right’ to treat human beings as chattel.”
  • “Both [communism and socialism] negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government – and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects.”
  • “There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism – by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide.”

The Leftist Democrat party of collectivism wants open borders, sanctuary cities, illegal immigration, birthright citizenship, and chain migration so that illegal aliens can VOTE!

The Leftist Democrat party has embraced the tyranny of collectivism in defiance of the 8th Commandment. Leftist Democrats are stealing your liberty with every socialist policy that redistributes your private property, your voting privileges, and your tax dollars to illegal immigrants who will then vote the leftist Democrats into power. Incentivizing illegal immigration to vote themselves into office will eventually award your private property and your individual freedom to the government which is precisely how socialism enslaves the population by vote.

Open borders and the importation of illegal immigrants is a humanitarian hoax. It is a power grab by Leftist Democrats designed to install themselves as rulers of a socialized America. Venezuela is a cautionary tale. A commitment to socialism is what Obama pledged when he deceitfully promised to fundamentally transform America.

Capitalism provides equal opportunity for the American dream in our constitutional republic. Socialism provides equal outcome as promised – eventual shared national poverty because as Margaret Thatcher so wisely remarked, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” The choice is ours – individualism vs collectivism.

Our 18th century Founding Fathers could not envision the tyranny of collectivism but we 21st century Americans can.

We cannot allow the Left to steal America – remember the 8th Commandment – Thou Shalt Not Steal.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity. The  featured photo is by Ryan Loughlin on Unsplash.

America’s Red Green Education System

It has become increasingly apparent that the “Red” (Communists, Socialists, Progressives, etc.) and “Green” (Islamic activists, Jihadists, etc.) are collaborating effectively against the “Right” (Constitutionalists, Conservatives, Nationalists, etc.) on political and cultural issues. What is not as well-known, but is at least as troubling, is the collaboration they exhibit in the accreditation of each other’s schools.

According to the U.S. Department of Education “Accreditation in the United States is a voluntary, nongovernmental process, in which an institution and its programs are evaluated against standards for measuring quality.” The Department further states that “The U.S. Department of Education does not have the authority to accredit private or public elementary or secondary schools, and the Department does not recognize accrediting bodies for the accreditation of private or public elementary and secondary schools.”[1]

It is important here to note that this leaves the accreditation (whether termed “Registered”, “Recognized” or otherwise designated) completely up to the state or county education/school entity. This local independence, a deliberate feature of the U.S. educational system, nevertheless here in the context of mutually-reinforcing, reciprocal accreditation by identifiably “Red” and “Green” accreditation organizations, gives rise to concern.

Although there are numerous other organizations involved in Pre-K-12 educational accreditation, such as the Montessori Association[2]and International Baccalaureate (IB) program[3], the primary “Red” accreditation organization is “AdvancED”.[4]AdvancED was formed through a 2006 merger of the Pre-K-12 divisions of the North Central Association Commission on Accreditation and School Improvement (NCA CASI) and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement (SACS CASI)—and expanded through the addition of the Northwest Accreditation Commission (NWAC) in 2012.

AdvancED states that it comprises “the largest community of education professionals in the world” and that it is “non-profit and non-partisan”.[5]The organization also states that “Combining the knowledge and expertise of a research institute, the skills of a management consulting firm and the passion of a grassroots movement for educational change, we serve as a trusted partner to 36,000 educational institutions—employing more than four million educatorsand enrolling more than 20 million students—across the United States and 70 other nations.”[6]

When AdvancED accredits a “non-public school,” that evaluation is based on four elements, one of which is “Cultural Competence”. It states that this is established by “staffing the team with a critical mass of individuals who have understanding and experience with the cultural realities existing in any given school. Cultural competence can be mission specific as in the case of independent schools, special purpose schools or faith-based schools, such as Christian, Catholic, Islamic, Lutheran, etc. Cultural competence also is related to school type and school location such as K-12, elementary, middle, high school, post-secondary, distance education, corporation, career technical, Department of Defense, boarding, day, single sex, or international schools in Latin America, Asia, Middle East and Europe.”[7]

AdvancED further states that “The observations and evidential insights provided through cultural competence of team members are experiential and intuitive. Written evidence provided to the team that is mission specific or culturally relevant, while valuable, is practically irrelevant in the hands of a culturally incompetent team. The cultural competence of the team is one of the most critical components needed to experience a transformational visit for the school.”[8]

While AdvancED in and of itself accomplishes a necessary mission in the accreditation of educational institutions, the concern arises when realizing that the field of U.S. academia long has been dominated by leftist, Marxist, and Progressive influences. This is especially true at the college and university level. That “Cultural Competence” is one of the four elements AdvancED uses to accredit “non-public schools” inevitably does give rise to legitimate concern about the pervasive spread of just such influences across the entirety of the U.S. educational system.

On the “Green” side, there are several organizations that accredit U.S. Islamic schools (or madrassas), which are often attached to Islamic Centers that include a mosque and other facilities. Primary among these is the Council of Islamic Schools in North America (CISNA).[9]

CISNA was formed at an educational symposium hosted by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) in 1989. ISNA is one of the largest Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the country and was named by the Department of Justice an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial.

CISNA describes its mission as follows:[10]

  • Its vision is “To be a leading and unifying organization striving for the advancement of Islamic schools and Islamic education respectively.”
  • Its structure is “an association of Islamic schools and educational organizations working to improve Islamic schools through accreditation, consultation, and professional development; advocating for Islamic education; and fostering professional relationships with educational institutions and agencies relevant to Islamic education.”
  • Its goals are to:
    • Promote Islamic schools and Islamic education on a global level
    • Provide accreditation services
    • Provide professional development at a global level
    • Foster professional relationships among Islamic schools and other organizations
    • Provide consulting services relevant to Islamic education

CISNA has accredited a total of 31 Islamic schools across the U.S.,[11] most of which are also accredited through AdvancED. This conveniently reciprocal accreditation arrangement—between AdvancED, the leading (and decidedly leftist-leaning) accreditation authority in the U.S., and ISNA, one of the most influential Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the country—surely must give rise to at least a measure of concern.

CISNA is currently in close collaboration with ISNA to plan its 20thAnnual Education Forum in April 2019 with the theme of “Integrating Social Justice in Islamic Education”.[12]

Islamic Schools League of America (ISLA)[13]

ISLA was founded in 1998 by four parents whose own children received an education in a U.S. Islamic school. Their satisfaction with that Islamic education and a desire to see Islam-based schooling expand in the U.S. led to an interest in the general condition of Islamic K-12 education across the country. A year of research convinced the parents that the status of Islamic education nationwide was encouraging because Islamic schools were expanding rapidly in Muslim communities across the country.

Today, ISLA serves as a non-profit advocacy hub to promote Islamic education in the U.S. It works with educators, organizations, parents, and universities around the U.S. to provide professional pedagogical training, offer educational resources, and facilitate networking among Islamic educational institutions in the U.S. ISLA also accredits Islamic schools (41 to date), some of which have received additional accreditation from other organizations such as AdvancED.[14]

The ISLA Facebook page[15]shows girls from a very young age as well as female teaching staff completely covered in hijabs and enveloping robes, links to ISNA (Islamic Society of North America) and CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), both Brotherhood front groups, Zaytuna College (a Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamic university in Berkeley, CA) and an ad for Shariah Compliant Financing (SCF), all problematic indicators. The ISLA Twitter page[16]is similarly troubling, with multiple links to Nation of Islam and Malcom X, SCF, more little girls in hijabs, and links to AdvancED and CISNA.


CISNA was formed directly by ISNA, a Muslim Brotherhood front group. ISLA may be somewhat more independent, but still openly displays its Brotherhood connections and shariah-adherent identity. Also, like CISNA, there is significant overlap between it and AdvancED in accreditation and a more limited overlap with CISNA. Whether this could indicate that CISNA is targeting ISLA or vice versa for absorption is not clear. The concern, though, arises because of the interlinked and mutually legitimizing relationships among educational accreditation organizations here identified as respectively, leftist and jihadist in nature.

Whether that veneer of legitimacy is warranted or not is the question, at a time when a traditional American curriculum that focuses on traditional subject matter but also encourages civic responsibility and patriotism seems on the wane. In view of the indoctrinating influence the Progressive left has inflicted on the U.S. educational system over the last century, to see now the expansion of a jihadist influence within American academia that is not only openly affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood but operating in collaboration with that hard-core left is deeply disturbing.


Timothy White

Timothy White has been affiliated with American law enforcement and military for over thirty years. He has trained and advised several agencies in law enforcement, criminal intelligence, counter-insurgency and other related fields. He is currently advising a government agency in modernizing their law enforcement and criminal intelligence program.





[4]AdvancED website:



[7]AdvancED website:


[9]Council of Islamic Schools in North America (CISNA) website:

[10]CISNA website, About tab:







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

Student gov VP faces calls to RESIGN after political Facebook post

  • A student leader at Emporia State University in Kansas faced impeachment and is now facing calls to resign after using the phrase “illegal alien.”
  • The student leader told Campus Reform on Monday that she will not cave in to those demands because she is committed to a “diverse” campus.

A student leader at Emporia State University in Kansas used the phrase “illegal alien” on her personal Facebook page and is now facing a wave of backlash, including calls for her to resign from her student government position.

Prior to Election Day on Nov. 6, Michaela Todd, vice president of the student government a staunch supporter of Kansas gubernatorial candidate Kris Kobach, posted a message of support for her candidate of choice. In it, she described how she believed Kobach was the best choice because of his views on abortion, taxes, and illegal immigration.

“Put Kansas first, not illegal aliens. The millions of dollars spent on public welfare for illegal aliens in Kansas hurts Kansas taxpayers every single day.”    

“Put Kansas first, not illegal aliens,” Todd wrote. “The millions of dollars spent on public welfare for illegal aliens in Kansas hurts Kansas taxpayers every single day.”

But the phrase “illegal alien” didn’t sit well with some students, who took screenshots and shared them across social media, calling Todd’s comments “racist” and “ignorant.”

“It has come to our attention that the VP of @EmporiaStateASG has made incredibly hurtful, racist, and, frankly, ignorant remarks,” the Multicultural Greek Council at ESU tweeted Wednesday, adding that Todd “does not represent us and we hope that @EmporiaState takes the measures needed to show us that she does not represent ESU either.”

“I am so disgusted at the fact the VP of @EmporiaStateASG promotes these racist and revolting ideas,” another student tweeted.

And Kayla Gilmore, whose Facebook profile lists her as an Emporia State University alumna who now works for the college, posted on Facebook, calling on student leaders to “hold themselves accountable” and for the administration to “hold them accountable should they fail.”

Following the backlash, Todd told Campus Reform that she edited her post and removed the phrase “illegal alien.”

“After I heard that there were some of my constituents who were upset with what I posted, I edited it and took out the part that had the term in it,” the student leader told Campus Reform. “I left the rest of the post there, though. It was a caption to go along with my updated profile picture, which had a Kobach banner on it, which is why I think people who weren’t my friend on Facebook were able to see it. I didn’t realize that was possible.”

But the backlash didn’t stop there.

The ESU Bulletin student newspaper reported Thursday that the student senate tried but failed to impeach Todd over her remarks. The paper also reported that ASG’s Diversity and Inclusion Committee is now calling for Todd to resign.

In a statement to Campus Reform on Monday, Todd made clear that resigning is not her plan.

“I was apologetic to the students who[m] my post [a]ffected negatively because I never want to inflict pain on others,” she said. “Now, I am still dedicated to representing the ESU students. I am not going to step down because I am committed to creating a diverse campus at ESU, not only in culture but in thought as well.”

Emporia State University did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.


Jon Street


News Editor

Jon Street is a news editor for Campus Reform. Six years ago, Jon cut his reporting teeth fresh out of college as an intern at Media Research Center’s, where he interviewed multiple members of Congress and former presidential candidates. From there, he went on to complete a stint at, where his exclusive, investigative work was picked up or cited by the New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, National Review, and the Drudge Report, among others. More recently, Jon spent three years as an assistant editor at In his free time, Jon enjoys trying new coffeehouses around the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area and traveling back to his home state of Missouri to spend time with his family.


UC Berkeley group disavows own student senator over conservative Christian views

EXCLUSIVE: Berkeley student senator disavowed over Christian beliefs responds to calls to RESIGN

VIDEO: Calif College Republicans’ signs stolen

Cornell lecture to focus on ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’ in Trump era

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

If Trump Ended Birthright Citizenship by Executive Order, He’d Be Enforcing Existing Law

President Donald Trump’s critics have found something else to rend their garments over: his determination to end so-called “birthright citizenship.” Why, they thunder, it’s unconstitutional. And even if it could be changed, it can’t be by executive order.

They’re wrong on both counts.

That probably comes as a surprise to many Americans, including some who consider themselves Trump supporters. Haven’t we all been told for years that if you’re born here, you’re automatically a U.S. citizen? It’s all right there in the 14th Amendment. No matter who your parents are or what their status is, you’re an American. Simple as that.

Or is it? Consider the actual wording: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.”

Seems pretty cut and dry, but check out that crucial clause: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It’s easy to mumble over it, but we shouldn’t. The Senate included it there for a reason when it passed the amendment in 1868: to make it clear that not everyone born here is automatically a citizen.

Being born here is only half the equation. You also must be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The original proposed wording of the amendment did not include that phrase. It was inserted specifically to make it clear that the law did not, in fact, confer citizenship on everyone born here.

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction and a strong supporter of the Citizenship Clause, noted that Congress intended to exclude “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.” Supreme Court cases decided in the years soon after the amendment’s passage confirm this view.

Moreover, says constitutional scholar Edward Erler:

“It is hard to conclude that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended to confer citizenship on the children of aliens illegally present when they explicitly denied that boon to Native Americans legally present but subject to a foreign jurisdiction.”

Notes Hillsdale College’s Matthew Spalding:

“Few developed nations practice the rule of jus soli, or ‘right of the soil.’ More common is jus sanguinis, ‘right of blood,’ by which a child’s citizenship is determined by parental citizenship, not place of birth.”

In short, it was wise of Congress to limit the scope of the amendment. And those who misinterpret it are wrong. Trump should be commended for trying to bring current understanding back in line with the original intent of the framers.

That leaves us with the question of whether he would be right to set this issue straight via an executive order. Some people who agree with him on birthright citizenship, such as National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy, believe that he shouldn’t. They argue that it should be done by the same body that issued the amendment in the first place: Congress.

In other words, this is a job for Congress, the branch of government that creates our laws, not the executive, which enforces them.

According to McCarthy, a president cannot “unilaterally change an understanding of the law that has been in effect for decades under a duly enacted federal law.”

Granted, but as constitutional scholar Hans von Spakovsky points out, “that assumes the ‘understanding’ is the correct one. If that understanding actually violates the plain text and intent of the law, the president as the chief law-enforcement officer can, and indeed has an obligation, to direct the federal government to begin applying and enforcing it correctly.”

To put it another way, the president here would not be attempting to make a new law, but to enforce the correct view of an existing law.

Sure, his order would be immediately challenged. Perhaps we’d even wind up with Congress clarifying the original intent of the law.

All the more reason to do it. Fairness demands that we get this issue settled—and soon.

Originally published in The Washington Times


Portrait of Ed Feulner

Edwin J. Feulner’s 36 years of leadership as president of The Heritage Foundation transformed the think tank from a small policy shop into America’s powerhouse of conservative ideas. Read his research. Twitter: .

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

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

Why Do We Have The Electoral College? Because More People Live in New York City Than in 40 of the 50 States.

The Democrat Party and its leaders want to do away with the Electoral College. The argument is that the President should be elected based upon the “popular vote.” Democrat Socialist Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez tweeted after Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed:

Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez gets a number of things wrong in her tweet.

  1. The Electoral College is not a “shadow of slavery’s power on America.”
  2. America is not a democratic republic, rather America is a Constitutional republic.
  3. To eliminate the Electoral College would require amending the U.S. Constitution. Amending the Constitution requires 2/3rd majority of both Houses of Congress and 2/3rds of the states voting for the amendment.

The elimination of the Electoral Collage has become the clarion call of the Democrat Party, repeatedly voiced by its leadership, including Hillary Clinton.  What is important to understand is that the Electoral College is, in fact, based upon the popular vote.

History of the Electoral College

According to the National Archives and Records Administration:

The Electoral College is a process, not a place. The founding fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.

The Electoral College process consists of the selection of the electors, the meeting of the electors where they vote for President and Vice President, and the counting of the electoral votes by Congress.

The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators. [Emphasis added]

How Are the Electoral College Votes Allocated?

The National Archives states:

Electoral votes are allocated among the states based on the Census. Every state is allocated a number of votes equal to the number of senators and representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation—two votes for its senators in the U.S. Senate plus a number of votes equal to the number of its members in the U. S. House of Representatives.

Under the 23rd Amendment of the Constitution, the District of Columbia is allocated three electors and treated like a state for purposes of the Electoral College.

The allocations below are based on the 2010 Census. They are effective for the 2012, 2016, and 2020 presidential elections.

Total Electoral Votes:  538;   Majority Needed to Elect:  270

Here is the current allocation of Electoral College votes:

State Number of Electoral Votes
Alabama 9
Alaska 3
Arizona 11
Arkansas 6
California 55
Colorado 9
Connecticut 7
Delaware 3
District of Columbia 3
Florida 29
Georgia 16
Hawaii 4
Idaho 4
Illinois 20
Indiana 11
Iowa 6
Kansas 6
Kentucky 8
Louisiana 8
Maine 4
Maryland 10
Massachusetts 11
Michigan 16
Minnesota 10
Mississippi 6
Missouri 10
Montana 3
Nebraska 5
Nevada 6
New Hampshire 4
New Jersey 14
New Mexico 5
New York 29
North Carolina 15
North Dakota 3
Ohio 18
Oklahoma 7
Oregon 7
Pennsylvania 20
Rhode Island 4
South Carolina 9
South Dakota 3
Tennessee 11
Texas 38
Utah 6
Vermont 3
Virginia 13
Washington 12
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin 10
Wyoming 3

Source:   U.S. Census Bureau    Last Update:  12/10/2010

Therefore the Electoral College is based upon the census, the number of people per state!

This is why Democrats want to give illegal aliens the right to vote and keep them on the census.

If the Electoral College was eliminated, what would happen?

If the Electoral College was eliminated then the United States would no longer be a Constitutional Republic, it would become a democracy or even a monarchy. published the below chart comparing the differences between the Electoral College and popular vote:

Comparison chart

Electoral Vote versus Popular Vote comparison chart
Electoral Vote Popular Vote
Political Structure Representative republic Direct democracy
Progression of Vote Citizen votes for delegate or representative, generally in accordance with their allegiances/party affiliation. Delegates convene and vote. Winner of that vote is elected for the position in question. Citizens vote for their choice of official for the position being elected. Votes are counted. Majority of votes is elected to that position.
Bureaucracy Requires formation of some form of committee, college, or council to vote after they’ve been elected. May also have government oversight organizations. Requires no formation of such groups, nor the election of such groups. May also have government oversight organizations.
Establishment of Voting Districts Mandatory, regional delegates run for given district’s delegate locations via their party or individually. Not required.
Gerrymandering Present and created as a result of voting districts. Not created due to lack of need for voting districts.
Party Benefits Favors majority parties, as they can concentrate resources, change bureaucracy, establish and gerrymander voting districts. Favors no party size in particular, though greatly improves potential for minority parties e.g., a third political party in the U.S.
Modern History Does not allow higher populated areas (say, CA or NY) to take advantage of being able to always vote for the candidate, thereby underrepresenting the other rural areas of the nation. Harder to accomplish beyond geographically-close groups prior to modern transportation and communication. These hindrances are no longer in place for developed nations. notes that Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation—in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention was asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin responded, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Doing away with the Electoral College will inextricably lead at best to a democracy and at worse to a monarchy. John Adams wrote,

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: ‘Eliminate’ Electoral College, It ‘Undermines’ Democracy

Macron Insults Those Who Died To Give Him The Right To Deliver His Offensive Speech In His Native French

When attacking President Trump, his opponents love to say that words have meaning.  Well, it seems that their superhero, President Emmanuel Macron, doesn’t either, or worse yet, is shameless in his use of them.

Last week signaled the run-up to Armistice Day, the date marking that fateful day 100 years ago when World War I came to a halt. It was on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day on the eleventh month of 1918 when the guns went silent in Europe. By the time all was said and done, 20 million people died in the war to end all war.

The United States, as a result of its entry into the war in defense of France, lost over 116,000 men.  And let’s not forget, World War I did not end all wars, as an even worse evil arose a mere 20 years later against which the world, once again, was engaged in mortal battle.  During that epic war, France once again was overrun, and once again, the United States came to her defense.  This time, 419,000 Americans died, amongst which were 29,000 in Normandy and 19,000 more in the Battle of the Bulge.  Unquestionably, French soil is saturated with American blood.

The run-up to the 100-year anniversary of Armistice Day was a time for somber reflection for many world leaders, and Macron was no exception.  Unfortunately, though, his insights were telling of his selfishness and of his disregard for the gratitude his country should display towards its ally from across the pond.  During one interview, Macron noted the continued threat to European stability that is Russia and used that as his foundation to call for the creation of a European army.  Among other reasons, Macron said such an army was necessary because Europe needs to be able to defend itself against Russia, China, and the United States.

The thought that a French leader would entertain the mere possibility of defending his or her nation against the United States, which has been, until this day, the primary defender of France is amazingly arrogant and inherently offensive to the United States.  Adding to the slight is that it was delivered mere days prior to the 100 years anniversary of Armistice Day signaling, in part, the colossal sacrifice the United States undertook in the name of France.

To add injury to the insult, Macron then went on the offensive during his remarks at the commemoration of that most solemn day. Instead of maintaining a conciliatory tone laced with gratitude and humility, he instead chose to go on the attack against the American President by saying that Trump’s nationalistic philosophy is an evil that led to the deaths of millions in Europe.  Macron said, “In saying ‘Our interests first, whatever happens to the others,’ you erase the most precious thing a nation can have, that which makes it live, that which causes it to be great and that which is most important: Its moral values.”

His comments shine in disingenuousness.  No one who objectively observes President Trump can rightfully conclude that Trump’s call for nationalism includes a disregard for others to the point of assuring their destruction.

Trump’s nationalism is a call for pride in one’s country.  It is an acknowledgment that if each country fights for its own interests and promotes its uniqueness and diversity in its negotiations and in its interactions with others, then the outcome of those interactions will be a benefit to all.   To claim otherwise is to cast Trump’s words in a false light and to give them a meaning they were never meant to have.

Macron then promulgates his lack of candor by transitioning from disingenuousness to outright falsehood when he said, “Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism.  Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.”

Here, Macron defies reality since patriotism can only proceed from a sense of nationalism.  Clearly, there would never be a single act of patriotism if it weren’t for an underlying sense of nationalism.

Let’s be perfectly clear.  Macron is a socialistic, collectivist globalist who despises and envies the United States.  Moreover, in his anti-nationalistic views, he has declared that even the very existence of his native France is of little concern to him, which may explain why he is polling so poorly there.

Even more tragically, in his disregard for his allies and for the qualities of French nationalism, he has made a mockery of a most solemn occasion that could have been marked by unbridled unity amongst the different member nations of a fighting force that ultimately accomplished an incredible good for humanity.  In doing so, he disrespected not only the first ally he will run to should he ever be attacked in the future, but the memory of all those who defended France so he could utter his offensiveness in his native French.

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

The Vortex—’Sodomitic Filth’

RELATED ARTICLE: Vatican, US bishops face class-action lawsuit from victims of clergy sex abuse


What the latest crisis in the Church has caused is the dropping of all pretenses.

Just like Trump’s presence on the political scene has caused all issues and agendas to be brought into the light, so too the newest scandal of cover-ups and lies has focused the white-hot spotlight exactly where it needs to be burning: the sodomitic filth in the ranks of the clergy.

And if you find that phrase a little disquieting or off-putting, then take it up with St. Peter Damian, who wrote to the Pope in the 11th century imploring him to save the Church from “sodomitic filth that insinuates itself like a cancer in the ecclesiastical order, or rather like a bloodthirsty beast rampaging through the flock of Christ.”

The phrase was recently used again, this time by Cdl. Walter Brandmüller in an interview where he lays the blame for the corruption in the clergy squarely at the feet of sodomite clergy.

In so doing, he echoes exactly what Abp. Viganò declared in his first testimony back in August that there is a homosexual current in the Church strangling the life out of the Church, with far-reaching tentacles, like an octopus — his analogy.

Cardinal Raymond Burke has openly said the same thing and that’s not surprising. But what may give a good many people pause is that none other than Fr. James Martin — clerical gay cheerleader himself — has openly admitted that first: there are loads of gay priests — he says thousands.

But add to that, he is now on record at talks and conferences as publicly stating that Pope Francis is deliberately appointing sodomy-friendly bishops and cardinals and even names Cupich in Chicago and Tobin in Newark as two examples.

In so doing, Martin legitimizes another of Viganò’s main points and names the same names. Martin deftly avoids the pressing issue of whether the men themselves are actually same-sex attracted.

Viganò names them as part of the homosexual current, which can be understood in two ways: either being homosexual themselves or allying themselves with the homosexual agenda or both.

That Martin would just come right out with it and add that the reason they were appointed by Francis was precisely to push this new acceptance of homosexuality by lay Catholics and clergy is a bombshell, which of course got tremendous downplay in the usual bought and paid for establishment Catholic media.

So let’s step back shall we — big picture here.

This infestation of gay men into the clergy was first spoken of by Communist Party USA leader Bella Dodd, who claimed to have planted over a thousand Communist agents into American seminaries back in the 1920s and 30s at the prompting of Joseph Stalin to begin a destruction of the Church. Stalin insisted that many of them be homosexual, owing to their immorality.

Undoubtedly, a sizable number of these men rose to positions of authority over the intervening years, and by the time the 1960s rolled around, they were firmly ensconced in the power structure.

They would have been appointing seminary rectors and religious house leaders and so forth who, in turn, would have begun a generational cycle of deliberately recruiting other homosexual men into the priesthood.

The timing here lines up perfectly. That second generation of priest recruits lines up almost identically with the explosion of child sex abuse cases in the 1970s through the 1990s, which came to full light in the early 2000s owing to The Boston Globe reporting and other secular outlets.

Sodomite clergy raping young men — physically mature males in their teens — and homosexual bishops covering it all up. And if the bishops involved in the cover-up weren’t homosexual themselves, they nevertheless played along with it extremely well.

And yet, in the face of all these facts, lying prelates like Blase Cupich — although he certainly isn’t alone — have the gall to say none of this crisis has anything to do with homosexual men in the clergy.

Cupich, being a cardinal and all, is sure to have a larger-than-life presence at the bishops’ meeting in Baltimore because, despite what many other bishops think of him personally, they know he is anointed by Pope Francis to turn the Church gay, and none of them will challenge him.

Many of these men have no supernatural faith; if they ever did have it, they don’t now. Their mission is destroy, plain and simple, and they are legion.

Some of the more good-willed bishops, extending a little too much good will in fact, just can’t seem to comprehend that there are enemies of Christ in their midst sitting right next to them in their meetings — priests of Satan.

It’s like the Last Supper when Judas was doing his thing, and the Apostles were absolutely clueless, thinking when he left to go spring the trap, that he had instead gone out to get something for the meal.

The men of good will among the bishops better wisen up and realize what’s at stake here. Many of them were recruited by this wicked cabal precisely because they were seen as weak men who could easily be manipulated and fooled and would never confront the evil.

Back in their own seminary days, they were being watched and studied and determinations were made that they would go along with whatever they were told. They were handpicked because of their lack of confrontational spirit. They would ensure the status quo would remain in place so the work of destruction could carry on out of site.

Weak men are the best allies of evil men. So here we have sodomitic filth in the clergy, for successive generations now, a hapless group of good-willed but incredibly naive clergy who are, for the most part anyway, unwittingly complicit and a laity being ravaged by all of it.

And now, the moment arrives for the laity to stand up and be counted and call for an end to the episcopal sodomy, and the bishops hire extra security, try to move venues at the last minute and then lie about us to the cops — painting us as violent Antifa-type protestors.

Thank God it’s not a massive, massive crisis where the bishops can investigate themselves and conclude it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

We’ll be keeping you updated on the goings on here in Baltimore in the coming days, and please remember to tune in to the live-stream of the Silence Stops Now rally beginning at 1:25 p.m. ET tomorrow, Tuesday the 13th.

EDITORS NOTE: This video was first published in The Vortex.

Florida Media Is Adjusting Recount Expectations Downward

Several major Florida media outlets are running stories today explaining that the likelihood of the contentious Florida election recount changing the results of Tuesday’s elections are very small. That is good news for Republicans, bad news for Democrats, on a couple of fronts.

The state’s largest paper, the Tampa Bay Times, reported:

“…a recount that reverses an initial margin of more than a few hundred votes would be unprecedented in the recent history of American elections.

According to an analysis by the nonpartisan group FairVote, which advocates for electoral reforms that make it easier to vote, out of 4,687 statewide general elections between 2000 and 2016, just 26 went to a recount. Of those 26, just three recounts wound up changing the initial result of the race: The 2004 Washington governor’s race, the 2006 Vermont state auditor’s race and the 2008 Minnesota U.S. Senate race. The average swing in those three elections after the recounts? About 311 votes.”

The state’s second largest newspaper, the Miami Herald, ran essentially the same story and statistics. Expect more to follow.

Remember, Republican Gov. Rick Scott has a 12,500-vote lead over Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson and Republican Congressman Ron DeSantis has a 34,000-vote lead over Democrat Andrew Gillum in the governor’s race after official tallies were in. While those are tiny leads in such a big state, they’re huge leads for a recount.

For a recount that does not find a major “error” or corrupted system (Broward County?) there is nothing remotely suggesting that this week’s recount will do more than change a few hundred votes. But even if it changes a few thousand votes, the results would still remain the same.

The difference between this time and 2000 in Florida — and the 2008 Minnesota race for U.S. Senator — is that the margins now are much larger and there are no more votes being added to the total. The uproar raised by Republicans and Republican lawyers to stop Broward and Palm Beach counties from continuing to “find” votes well past the legal deadline were successful in both the courts and the eyes of the public.

So unless some court wrangling and a liberal judge allows Broward to manufacture some more Democrat votes — yes, that sounds cynical but it’s pretty hard not to be — then these are the vote totals. The recount will just find anomalies.

That’s why Gillum was in church Sunday politicking away and demanding every vote be counted, because he knows without more votes added to the total, the recount won’t give him the election.

The fact that the media is running these stories this Monday morning is also an important sign. Their readership is heavily Democratic for obvious reasons, and this acts to adjust expectations as those reporters who actually understand Florida voting laws and history realize the chances of changing the outcome of the two big races are very tiny.

If the recount does maintain these results, the left will still fly into hysterics and rage and march and protest and generally throw a tantrum. But they’ve been doing that almost every day since Donald Trump was elected president anyway.


Democrats demand removal of Illinois election judge after she reported fraud

Illegal Ballots Mixed in w/ Broward County Election Results

Yes, Florida Elections Have Had Their Moments, Like 200,000 Non-Citizens Possibly Voting In 2012

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