PODCAST: The Witch Hunt Continues?!

TRANSCRIPT

The Mueller investigation was wrapped up and delivered to Attorney General William Barr’s office this past Friday. As we all know, the charter of the probe was to see if any collusion existed between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Now, after 22 months, $25.2 million, 2,800 subpoenas, 500 search warrants, and 500 witnesses, employing 40 FBI agents and 19 lawyers, the investigation found no evidence of collusion and obstruction. This is based on the summary released by the Attorney General’s office which also claims they will release full details soon. In a nutshell, “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.” Further, the A.G.’s office determined there was no evidence of obstruction of justice.

This was a thorough investigation which was instigated at the insistence of the Democrats and further politically polarized the country following a contentious election. Beyond that, let us not forget, the House investigation found no collusion, nor did the Senate investigation, nor did the FBI according to Lisa Page. All exonerated the President of collusion, but this will not stop the Democrats from chasing the President further for any petty impropriety. In fact, now that the Mueller investigation found nothing, the Democrats are ramping up to investigate anything and everything associated with the President.

Normally, a person is innocent until proven guilty, but under the Democrats mode of operation, a person is guilty until they have gotten their way (or have been voted out of office). This never was about justice, it has always been about politics and the 2020 election. The big question though is how this will play in Poughkeepsie, meaning how will most Americans view this attack on the President’s character?

The Mueller investigation alone was followed carefully for nearly two years and preoccupied the main stream media. Regardless of the story of the day, be it the Tax Reform, North Korea, a booming economy, immigration, the elimination of ISIS, etc., their focus remained on Russia. Frankly, the American public is tired of the story, admits Mr. Trump is the legitimate President, and simply wants to move along. They want to see the Congress tackle real issues as opposed to endless inquisitions. Unfortunately, this will not happen any time soon.

The Democrats are going to accelerate their investigations of the President to satisfy their far-left base and hope to discredit the President as we approach the 2020 election. This “get Trump at all costs” approach is an admission they have no viable platform other than to attack the President. This is also an attempt to push the Democrats’ Socialist agenda as they are trying to discredit everything the President represents, namely Christianity, Capitalism, and Conservative Values.

Basically, the continuation of the Democrats’ Witch Hunt is a smoke screen to distract the public from the radical changes the Democrats are proposing, such as the number and makeup of Supreme Court justices, elimination of the Electoral College, lowering the voting age to 16, giving Social Security to illegal immigrants, and undermining the Constitution of the United States.

If the objections of the Democrats sounds like sour grapes, it is. It also speaks volumes in terms of how power-hungry they are and how far left they have turned. No, this is not your grandfather’s Democrat party, nor your father’s.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right column is republished with permission. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

PODCAST: ‘I Was Almost a Victim of Abortion’ — Star of ‘Unplanned’ Wants Movie to Change Hearts, Minds

Ashley Bratcher, star of the new movie “Unplanned,” recently sat down with The Daily Signal to talk about the film, which opens Friday. It tells the true story of Abby Johnson, a Planned Parenthood clinic director who left the nation’s largest abortion provider in 2009 after a conversion experience. You can listen to the interview with Bratcher on the podcast or read a lightly edited transcript below.

Rachel del Guidice: We’re joined on The Daily Signal Podcast today by Ashley Bratcher. She’s the lead actress in the movie “Unplanned.” The movie tells the story of Abby Johnson, the youngest Planned Parenthood clinic director who in 2009 left Planned Parenthood due to a change of heart. Ashley, thank you so much for being with us today.

Ashley Bratcher: Yes, thank you for having me.

del Guidice: First off, I want to start off to ask you what it was like to be a lead role in a film that tells such an incredible story about not only the horrors of the abortion industry, but also the beauty of the pro-life movement?

Bratcher: Yeah, playing a real person, especially someone like Abby Johnson, is a huge responsibility. She’s just so charismatic and fun and witty. To be able to be the storyteller of her transformation was such an honor.

What’s so powerful about her story is that she made the complete 180. She was an insider at Planned Parenthood and she was able to say, “I was wrong.” To come out and tell her story, which it was very courageous and brave because she faced a lot of backlash from Planned Parenthood. Being able to really share what she went through, and the grace that she found along the way and forgiveness has been just incredible.

del Guidice: You’ve recently spoken about how this film became very personal for you, when you found out in the early stages of filming “Unplanned” that you were almost aborted. Could you tell us a little bit about how that revolution happened?

Bratcher: When I first got cast for “Unplanned,” it all happened really quickly. I’m talking four hours was the notice I got. They said, “Can you be on the plane?” And I said, “Yes.” Without hesitation. I landed in Oklahoma, hit the ground running. I didn’t have a lot of time to tell people where I was or explain.

When my mom called me on the fourth day of filming, I was a little hesitant to share with her the story because she had shared with me when she was younger that she’d had an abortion. I didn’t want her to think that I judged her or that I thought any less of her or that this was even a movie about condemnation, because it certainly isn’t. It doesn’t point fingers at anyone.

I was really proud to tell her Abby’s story. As I did, she became undone more so than I expected. She was weeping through the phone. She said, “Ashley, I need to tell you something that I never told you before.” I could just tell that this was breaking her heart. She said, “Actually, what you don’t know is that when I was 19, I was at the clinic for the second time and I had my name called back, I was being examined by a very pregnant nurse. I was on the table and I got very sick to my stomach. I told her I couldn’t go through with it. I got up, I walked out, and I chose to have you.”

It was such a profound moment because I never knew that. It was incredibly shocking and overwhelming, and so many other words I can’t even create right now in my mind, because I was here telling Abby Johnson’s story, one of the greatest pro-life voices of our time, never realizing that I was almost a victim of abortion. I was almost never here on this earth to share this story. It was definitely something that put life into perspective for me.

del Guidice: Well, that’s beautiful. Thank you so much for sharing that. This movie is coming at a particularly intense time for the pro-life movement. We’ve seen New York recently legalizing abortion up to the time of birth and similar legislation being pursued in states like Virginia and Rhode Island. How do you hope this movie might play a role in the current debate we’re seeing?

Bratcher: Well, I think the timing of the movie is absolutely divine. I would love to say that we’re marketing geniuses, but that is just not the case. This just all happened to come out at a time that I think our country desperately needs it. I think that there is a lot of misinformation out there, and people are just wrapped up in the lie that it’s just a clump of cells, or it’s just tissue, it’s just fetal matter. But that is just not the case.

Science backs the pro-life movement in the sense that a unique individual human life is created at the point of fertilization. We need a face to the victim. This is a movie that actually gives the victim a face. Because for so long, there has been a silent Holocaust happening, if you will. This is something that’s done in secret behind closed doors. For the most part, women don’t even see their ultrasounds. For the first time, we are taking people behind those closed doors to reveal what is really happening in the abortion industry.

del Guidice: What is your take on “Unplanned” receiving an “R” rating? I think I saw a report saying that “R” rating was going to stay unless all the abortion scenes were removed. What’s your take on this whole rating that its been given?

Bratcher: I think it’s completely accurate. We didn’t receive the “R” rating for nudity because there’s no nudity. There’s no sex, there’s no language. The only reason we received the “R” was for violence and disturbing images.

Well, unfortunately, that is exactly what abortion is. It’s a disturbing and violent act. The NPAA actually agrees with us, which is ironic. I think that the “R” rating is warranted because we don’t hold back. We don’t do it for the blood and gore, but we do it to reveal the truth.

I think that parents who do take their children need to have a very serious conversation about what abortion really is, this is going to definitely wake them up.

I do think that there is a serious issue in our country with the law. Because a girl as young as 13 can be pregnant and go in many states across the nation and have an abortion, but she can’t go see the movie without parental consent. She can have an abortion without parental consent, but she can’t see the movie. That to me says more about protecting women in our society than we are. Just to be able to see a movie is a lot different than going and being able to take a life.

del Guidice: Exactly. No, you’re so right. It’s no secret that pro-life movies, we rarely see them over at the box office. How has your involvement in this movie been received by those in the film industry and the media?

Bratcher: I think other people have been way more concerned than I have about where my career is headed after this. I already have offers on the table. I am a part of some projects that are in the works. It’s not really hurting my career, so to speak.

I think that anyone who is wise enough and honest enough in the film industry, any critic, any artist can look at this role and see the artistic value. Because no matter where you stand on the subject, Abby is an incredibly dynamic character. The role is challenging physically, mentally, emotionally, but it’s an incredible stretch for any actor to be able to have a role like this.

It’s just a really great story. The film industry has to acknowledge that, and if they don’t, that says more about where they stand on their political agenda than I do.

del Guidice: Speaking of the political agenda, and just the attacks we’ve seen on people who do get involved in films like this that are antithetical to what Hollywood produces, what would you say to other people who might have an opportunity like this, but they may be too caught up in their own career or the future? You’re in this movement, and you’re making a profound difference, what would you say to people who are straddling that choice?

Bratcher: I’d say that you being true to yourself is the most important thing you can do in this industry. Because this is an industry that will eat you up and spit you out if you don’t know who you are. Knowing who you are, and what the mark is that you want to leave in this industry and on the world is incredibly important. Because if you know that, and you can root yourself in your purpose, no matter what you do, you can always stand on that.

I know that in 40 years, I’m not going to look back on this project and regret it. I’m going to be very proud of my work. That’s something that I’ve always taken pride in is knowing that I only do projects that I feel moved to do. If I’m a part of that, I’m going to be able to stand behind it and back it and say, “Yeah, I did it, and here’s why.”

I think that people really need to be able to say that. They need to know why they’re doing what they’re doing regardless of what someone else thinks. You’re going to live without regret if you do what is true to you, and people are going to respect you more for being honest and authentic about it.

del Guidice: What was the hardest part about making this film as well as the best part about making it?

Bratcher: The hardest part, I would say, was the 24/7, nonstop commitment to the film. It’s definitely the hardest I’ve ever worked because it didn’t stop when the cameras turned off. It was so labor intensive, as far as research is concerned that it was go, go, go.

I would be eating dinner listening to Abby’s audio book, looking at YouTube videos. I wasn’t even taking a shower without having something playing in the background. It was intense because I was so committed to a truthful performance that I wanted to know the ins and outs of everything that she experienced.

My favorite part about making the film is that these people have truly become my family. I know that people say that all the time, but this is just different than anything I’ve ever been a part of.

I know that these are people that will be in my life for the long haul. They’re friends that call me up regularly and check on me and say, “How are you doing?” And we can have conversations outside of just the movie industry. We really developed a close sense of family because we were all gathered together for a unified purpose, and we knew that.

del Guidice: How do you hope that this film will impact society and specifically the pro-life and pro-abortion movements in particular?

Bratcher: I think this film is going to start a conversation. This is something we desperately need to talk about. I heard one of the Georgia House representatives say last week that abortion is so outside the scope of polite conversation that we can’t even bear to look at it. We can’t even come face to face with the ripping apart of a human being.

He’s right. We have to face this as a society, we have to talk about it. We have to acknowledge it. Because if we don’t, we’re turning a blind eye and nothing is happening to move this forward and progress.

This is a movie that, like I said, is going to put a face to the victim. For the first time, America is going to have to recognize that. They’re going to have to look at what’s being done and say, “Am I OK with this?” You can’t walk out and be ambivalent anymore. You’re going to have to make a choice.

del Guidice: Ashley, thank you so much for being with us today. We really appreciate it.

Bratcher: Yes, thank you for having me.

COLUMN BY

Rachel del Guidice

Rachel del Guidice is a reporter for The Daily Signal. She is a graduate of Franciscan University of Steubenville, Forge Leadership Network, and The Heritage Foundation’s Young Leaders Program. Send an email to Rachel. Twitter: @LRacheldG.


Dear Readers:

Just two short years after the end of the Obama administration’s disastrous policies, America is once again thriving due to conservative solutions that have produced a historic surge in economic growth.

The Trump administration has embraced over 60 percent of The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations since his inauguration. But with the House now firmly within the grips of the progressive left, the victories may come to a screeching halt.

Why? Because they are determined more than ever to give the government more control over your lives. Restoring your liberty and embracing freedom is the best thing for you and the country.

President Donald Trump needs all of the allies he can find to push through the stone wall he now faces within this divided government. And the best way you can partner with him is by becoming a member of his greatest ally in Washington: The Heritage Foundation.

Will you activate your membership with a tax-deductible gift today?

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column with podcast is republished with permission.

Fox News Leans Left and Caves to Islamic Shariah Law

Within the government, within the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, you have practically eliminated any training or any use of the term ‘radical Islam.’ That’s what we’re facing. LTG Michael T. Flynn

I will not abridge my freedoms so as not to offend savages, freedom of speech is under violent assault here. Pamela Geller

It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law (sharia) on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet. Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan Al-Banna

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.  Voltaire


Fox News is no longer run by CFR member Rupert Murdoch.  It is now being controlled by Rupert’s eldest son, 47-year-old Lachlan Murdoch.  Although Lachlan says his politics closely resemble his father’s, Fox News and Fox Business are unarguably leaning to the left. Though Lachlan hired West Wing stalwart Hope Hicks, staffers believe he is likely to nudge the network away from its close marriage to Trump, and they have lost many of their famous male hosts to #MeToo claims against them.

Bill O’Reilly left the network in April of 2017 after numerous claims of sexual harassment lawsuits against him.

Roger Ailes, Chairman and CEO of Fox News had several women make charges against him.  He died shortly after he resigned.

Eric Bolling was accused of sending lewd pictures to female colleagues at the Network.

Unfortunately, none of these charges ever went to court.  The alleged perpetrators just resign.  Even black host Charles Payne was charged with sexual innuendos, but returned to his scheduled program after a month of absences.

Were all guilty?  We don’t know, and never will, but having a Y chromosome doesn’t make someone a lousy human being.

If sexual innuendos do not remove hosts, charges of racism often work, two things the left loves to use against their enemies.  But a guaranteed removal is telling the truth about Islam.  As Pamela Geller has said, “Truth has become the new hate speech.”

Fox News and Censorship

Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch used to be featured on Fox programs every week.  However, in October of 2018, Chris was on Lou Dobbs show regarding the southern border migrants and made the statement, “A lot of these affiliates are getting money from the Soros occupied State Department, and that is a great concern.  If you want to start cutting money, cut there.”

He was subsequently banned as being anti-Semitic for stating that Soros was funding the migrant affiliates.

Congressman Louie Gohmert was on Stuart Varney’s Show December 6, 2018, and he made this statement, “George Soros is supposed to be Jewish, but you wouldn’t know it from the damage he’s inflicted on Israel, and the fact that he turned on fellow Jews and helped (the Nazis) take the property that they owned.”

Representative Gohmert was undoubtedly supporting Chris Farrell and exposing Soros for what he really is…someone strictly interested in the globalization of America.

Attorney Sidney Powell, author of the book, Licensed to Lie, was on Lou Dobbs Show last November 2018 and made the statement, “We simply cannot tolerate continued invasion of this country when Americans suffer every day, national debt is exploding, we have diseases spreading that are causing polio-like paralysis of our children.”  Lou Dobbs immediately took her to task and cut her off.

We are in the midst of an invasion from people of various backgrounds, from various countries in Central America and South America, and just independently (with some days of separation apart), there’s a story of a shockingly unforeseen increase in polio cases in the United States.

No one can seemingly figure this out or where it’s coming from. Then there’s another story of mass numbers of people from various parts of the world, South America and Central America having this polio like disease. Common sense tells you there’s a relationship here.

The CDC and others have established the fact that new cases of polio and other diseases America previously cured and stamped out, are now showing up again.  There is official linkage to undocumented people arriving in the country and being released.  How can we not make the connection?  Sidney Powell is right.

Fox News Caves to Sharia

The recent outrage surrounding Judge Jeanine Pirro’s remarks concerning the hijab is a reflection of the abysmal degree to which common sense is under assault in America.

While discussing Muslim Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s anti-Israel remarks with Nancy Pelosi, Pirro said, “This is not who your party is. Your party is not anti-Israel. She is. Think about this, she’s not getting this anti-Israel sentiment doctrine from the Democratic Party, so if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from? Think about it. Omar wears a hijab which according to the Koran 33:59 tells women to cover so they won’t get molested. Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?”

There was nothing wrong with Judge Jeanine’s question.  Islamic “fashion” has political consequences.  The hijab is a symbol and it is a symbol of the fact that the woman wearing it is fully committed to the sharia.  It is a symbol that says to infidels that they are kafirs. Kafir is an Arabic term meaning “infidel.”  The term refers to a person who rejects or disbelieves in Allah or the tenets of Islam.  When you see a woman with a hijab, you are looking at the politics of Islam as it has operated for over 1400 years.  There has been jihad against the kafirs for 1400 years; it is a history of annihilation, death and suffering.  They are antithetical to freedom.

Terrorism became much more frequent in such societies as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, and the U.K. after the hijab became prevalent among Muslim women living in those communities.  Link

The reason for this correlation is clear: Islamic sharia commands jihad (terrorism) against unbelievers no less than it commands Muslim women to don the hijab. Where one proliferates—evincing a societal adherence to sharia—so too will the other naturally follow.

So just why is it that with any other politician we are allowed to ask personal and religious questions.  When John Kennedy ran for president, everyone was concerned that his Catholic faith would interfere with his political decisions and he was constantly questioned, but we are considered Islamophobic if we ask questions like Judge Jeanine asked?  Ilhan Omar should be asked the following questions regarding her visceral hatred of Israel and the Jewish people:

  • Will you repudiate the Koranic teaching that Jews are “ descendants of apes and pigs“?
  • Will you repudiate the attacks upon Israel by Hamas and Hezbollah?
  • Do you believe Israel has a legal and moral right to exist behind safe and definite borders?

Don Boys recent article asked many more legitimate questions, but Omar’s vitriolic diatribe against Jews needs to cease or she should be expelled.  She was neither reprimanded nor censored for her deeply ingrained bias.  The only consequence of her bigotry has been an innocuous resolution against hate speech.  She has not been removed from any Congressional committees.

And now of course, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is calling on all advertisers to drop Fox News until the network fires hosts Jeanine Pirro and Tucker Carlson due to comments by both hosts that CAIR called “Islamophobic.”  This is sharia and how Islam conquers and controls.

While Iranian women rip the hijabs from their heads in defiant protest of oppressive Islamic law, our Congress changed a 181-year law to allow Muslim women to wear the hijab.

Ilhan Omar’s district in Minnesota is where almost all of the 70,000 imported Somali immigrants were located by Obama.  That district was recently identified by the FBI as America’s terrorist capital and their Congresswoman is calling for the dissolution of America’s Homeland Security.  The Muslim Brotherhood has a plan for world domination and North America is their next target.

Oaths Sworn on Koran

None of the Muslims in Congress have sworn allegiance to the Constitution on the Bible.  This tradition of being sworn into office to swear on the Bible is because our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, states that our rights are given to us by the God of the Bible. Anyone who swears on any other book, like the Koran, is swearing an illegitimate oath.  Congressmen Andre Carson (D-IN) and Keith Ellison (D-MN) both used the Koran.  Congresswomen Ilhan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) took their oaths of office on the Koran.

The reason their oath is illegitimate is that the book upon which they swore teaches that the only acceptable religion is Islam, and they can lie (Taqiya) in order to advance Islam. When they swear on the Koran they are lying, knowing that the law of Islam does not allow freedom of religion.

Fox Muslim Attacks Pirro

Hufsa Kamal is a Pakistani American, born in England and raised in Tennessee. She is a producer for Bret Baier on Fox News, and has a long history of vicious attacks on conservatives including Michelle Malkin, Candace Owens, Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk.

She took to twitter to excoriate Judge Jeanine for asking Speaker Pelosi if Ilhan Omar’s allegiance is to the Constitution or the Koran, and claimed that many Muslims work at the Fox Network.

The Gateway Pundit exposed this story and listed many of Hufsa Kamal’s vile tweets.

Fox found it necessary to condemn Pirro’s remarks and said they have “addressed the matter” with Pirro. It appears that Fox will continue to cave to sharia.

New Hires at Fox

Former Speaker Paul Ryan and Formula One Group executive chairman Chase Carey will join Rupert Murdoch, Lachlan Murdoch, and Jacques Nasser as members of the powerful Fox board.  Paul Ryan is married to Janna Little a liberal, left wing progressive, anti-Constitutional, big government George Soros supporter who voted for Barack Hussein Obama twice.  Ryan was the VP candidate with neo-con Trotskyite and pro-abort, Willard Mitt Romney in 2012.  During his time as Speaker of the House, he fought President Trump at every turn, and it became obvious he was pro-amnesty and pro-open borders.

Donna Brazile is joining Fox News as a contributor.  She was the former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.  When former Fox host Megyn Kelly asked Brazile about passing debate questions to Hillary Clinton so she’d be one-up during debates against Donald Trump, she blatantly lied to Kelly.  Now she’s going to work for the very network she lied to.

The Jew Who Died for Ilhan Omar

Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism belies the fact that if not for a Jew who gave his life, she may not be in America and in politics.  Lawrence Freedman went to Somalia in 1992 as part of the U.S. led relief effort to help relocate tens of thousands of Somali refugees to escape starvation, famine and civil war that turned Somalia into a failed state in the early 1990s.

Freedman was a U.S. Army veteran from Vietnam, and original member of the Green Beret. He reached the rank of sergeant major and eventually became an instructor.  In 1990 he joined the Central Intelligence Agency and in 1992 he was sent as part of an advance team to prepare the way for American troops in Somalia.  On December 23, two weeks after the troops had arrived, Freedman became the first American killed as part of the relief effort.  Thousands of Somali refugees who live in Omar’s district had their freedom and security paid for with the blood of American soldiers – 22 of them, including Lawrence Freedman.

Conclusion

The Number One Cable Network is no longer teetering toward the left but is now an active part of it.  Brazile’s arrival in the aftermath of Fox News suspending Judge Jeanine Pirro, all for asking questions about radical Somalian activist Ilhan Omar on her “Justice” show, is not only a slap in the face to Pirro and her many followers, but a slap in the face to the network’s many conservative viewers.  Link

Biggest Political Scandal in US History Conclusion No Collusion

So special counsel Robert Mueller concludes and submits his investigative report to the AG. The biggest political scandal in US history, conclusion no collusion and no further indictments (at least not against the President and his supportive allies). The subpoenas and indictments will now be served to all those who have engaged unlawfully in this unprecedented witch hunt. God bless you Mr. Trump. This is a pendulum shifting moment in the Trump presidency. What follows now will be earth shattering. The plan is unfolding as it should as we go from dark to light. Three things cannot long be hidden. The sun, the moon and the truth. Let the show begin.

Day of Reckoning

Alas! The day of reckoning is knocking on Mueller and Comey’s doors along with a really long list of other bad cops and co-conspirators. The media is further exposed and has not one shred of credibility. Many people will begin to awaken and join us in truth. All roads eventually will lead up to Clinton and Obama which we have all been waiting. The plan is unfolding as it should. Trust the plan. No one will escape justice under President Trump’s re-institution of the rule of law. They’re all in the soup and they are all going down. The precedent will now be set to help prevent this from ever happening again. The hammer of justice will show no mercy. Thank you Lord.

Trump Goes to War with the Deep State

President Trump is at war with the deep state. Check out my raw unedited and very recent interview which will be edited and up on INFOWARS any day now. This now begins a reversal of the false narrative as Trump goes to war with the deep state. For the next six years of the Trump presidency en route to MAGA and the resurrection of America, the evil treasonous acts of the deep state and its operatives across the globe will now come to light. The truth about the Mueller witch hunt, voter fraud and election theft, the 33,000 e-mail scandal, Benghazi, 911, the central banking system, pedophilia and so much more will be exposed for all the world to see as President Donald J. Trump gains global support.

We have now officially entered steps six, seven and eight on the scale of discovery and action.  The deep state and its pathetic puppets are shivering in their shorts and running for the hills. Things will get nasty. Truly, the battle has just begun. Buckle down as false flags will escalate as the desperate acts of the deep state will be shocking. We are fighting for the survival of our country and we are indeed winning. And as to the election of 2020 (should we have an election), just know that the Democrat party is gone and has been replaced with socialist-communists along with Sharia law focused terrorists.

Informed – Connected – Grounded

Read through my books and nearly 400 articles here on this website. Sign up for the JMC Report. I have a pretty good track record for over two decades. It’s either us or them. Mark my words. They are all going down. The global financial reset and the rule of law reset are the underlying policies of which our brilliant and brave President is operating. President Trump is restoring power to the people and re-directing the course for humanity. We are on God’s side. May the force remain with us.

Podcast: JMC Report

RELATED ARTICLES:

The American Media Destroyed Themselves over the Mueller Investigation

I Want to Be Investigated by the FBI By Alan M. Dershowitz – WSJ

The “Equality Act” Is a SOGI Accommodation Mandate at the Federal Level

Legislation recently (re)introduced in Congress could be the LGBT-left’s most ambitious agenda goal, and it has the support of many major corporations.

The Equality Act is essentially a sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) accommodation mandate at the federal level. If implemented, sexual orientation and gender identity would be given special protection status under federal civil rights law. However, the impact would be disastrous for the First Amendment and Religious Liberty.

The Heritage Foundation has outlined seven ways the Equality Act would affect Americans:

  1. It would penalize Americans who don’t affirm new sexual norms or gender ideology.
  2. It would compel speech.
  3. It could shut down charities.
  4. It would allow more biological males to defeat girls in sports.
  5. It could be used to coerce medical professionals.
  6. It could lead to more parents losing custody of their children.
  7. It would enable sexual assault. 

SOGI accommodation mandates at the state and local level have often been labeled “bathroom bills” because they would compel business to allow individuals to use private facilities like bathrooms and changing rooms based on how they identify, not biological sex. While this would present considerable safety concerns as biological men would have unfettered access to women-only spaces, the “bathroom” aspect is just the tip of the iceberg regarding SOGI measures.

Business owners, like Colorado’s Jack Phillips, have suffered persecution for refusing to affirm same-sex marriage with his artistic talents. Ruling in his favor, the Supreme Court found the Colorado Civil Rights Commission used the state’s accommodation law to act with hostility towards Phillips’s religious beliefs.

But, it is not just business owners who would be devastated by Equality Act’s passage. Faith-based adoption agencies would lose their ability to determine where children should be placed, schools would have to allow biological boys to compete on girls’ athletic teams, surgeons would be forced to perform sex-change operations, and parents could be sued by their children for not supporting gender transition.

Yet, big business, at the behest of the liberal activists at the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), has openly endorsed the Equality Act. The Business Coalition for the Equality Act is a collection of major corporations that support this legislation’s attempt to promote the LGBT agenda while undermining protections for religious liberty and the freedom of conscience.

Members of the Business Coalition for the Equality Act

Abercrombie & Fitch
Accenture
Adobe
Advanced Micro Devices
Airbnb
Alcoa
Amazon
American Airlines
American Eagle
American Express
Apple
Arconic
Automatic Data Processing
Bank of America
Best Buy
Biogen
Boehringer Ingelheim
Booz Allen Hamilton
Broadridge Financial Solutions
Brown-Forman
CA Technologies
Caesars Entertainment
Capital One
Cardinal Health
Cargill
Chevron
Choice Hotels
Cisco Systems
Coca-Cola
Corning
CVS
Darden
Delhaize
Diageo
Dow Chemical
Dropbox
EMC
Facebook
Gap
GE
General Mills
Google Inc.
Hershey
Hewlett-Packard
Hilton Worldwide
HSN Inc.
Hyatt Hotels Corp.
IBM Corp.
Intel Corp.
InterContinental Hotels Group
Johnson & Johnson
JPMorgan Chase
Kaiser Permanente
Kellogg Co.
Kenneth Cole Productions
Levi Strauss & Co.
Marriott International Inc.
MasterCard Inc.
McGraw Hill Financial
Microsoft Corp.
Mitchell Gold + Bob Williams
Monsanto Co.
Moody’s Corp.
Nike Inc.
Northrop Grumman Corp.
Office Depot Inc.
Oracle Corp.
Orbitz Worldwide Inc.
PepsiCo Inc.
Procter & Gamble Co.
Pure Storage Inc.
Qualcomm Inc.
Replacements Ltd.
Salesforce
SAP America Inc.
Sodexo Inc.
Symantec Corp.
T-Mobile USA Inc.
Target Corp.
Tech Data Corp.
TIAA
Twitter Inc.
Uber Technologies Inc.
Unilever
WeddingWire Inc.
The WhiteWave Foods Co.
Williams-Sonoma
Xerox Corp.


Help us continue providing valuable content like this by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


RELATED ARTICLES:

HRC to Host Debate, Demand Dem Adherence to LGBT Policy Agenda

Nancy Pelosi’s ‘Equality Act’ Would Be Disastrous. Here Are 5 Likely Victim Groups.

EDITORS NOTE: This 2ndVote column is republished with permission.

Falsely Shouting FIRE in a Crowded Theater

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s opinion in the 1919 United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States held that speech that is dangerous AND false is not protected, as opposed to speech that is dangerous but also true.

Holmes wrote:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting FIRE in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Today the legal definition of free speech is, “The right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed buy the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”

Members of Congress have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. This means that Congress has a duty to protect America from the substantive evils of those attempting to replace our Constitution with religious supremacist Islamic sharia law.

The question is not, “Is it irrational to fear Islam?” The question is, “Is it irrational to fear Islamists?”

Islamists are sharia compliant Muslims who advocate or support Islamic militancy and/or Islamic fundamentalism. Islamists target any nonbeliever – Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and non-sharia compliant Muslims who are all considered infidels.

Islamic militancy is seen in jihadi terror attacks on soft targets – infidels in pizzerias, nightclubs, airports, on beaches, and in train stations. Islamic militancy is seen in organized military jihadist groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, and in their military attacks on infidels like the slaughter of Christians in South Sudan and the catastrophic September 11th attack on American soil. Islamic militancy is easily identified and must be resolutely opposed.

Islamic fundamentalism, the non-military component of Islamism, is far more insidious but has the same goal of replacing our Constitution with sharia law to “Make America Muslim” in its quest to establish a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

That brings us to Islamophobia – a term that has been successfully weaponized in America to silence any criticism or discussion of Islamism.

Islamophobia is defined as an unwarranted irrational fear of Islam, and an Islamophobe is an individual who experiences this fear. So, is it irrational to fear Islam? The question appears simple but its answer is complex.

Guns don’t kill people – people do. So it is with Islam. Islam doesn’t kill people – Islamists do. Who are these Islamists and is it irrational to fear them?

The Muslim Brotherhood represents Islamic fundamentalism in America. Its propaganda arm is the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR). The singular objective of the Muslim Brotherhood was defined by its founder Hassan Al-Banna in Egypt in 1928. It was and continues to be the establishment of an Islamic caliphate that will make the world Muslim – including America.

Muslim fundamentalism requires strict adherence to religious supremacist sharia law. Islam is a replacement theology when practiced by sharia compliant Muslims because they only recognize the authority of religious sharia law – they do not recognize the authority of the United States Constitution.

Americans are being deliberately confused by politicians and the mainstream media still insisting that Islam is a religion like any other. It isn’t. Sharia compliant Muslims like Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are Muslim fundamentalists whose objective is to make America Muslim. They do it with their votes and by screaming Islamophobia anytime they are criticized or exposed for their seditious views.

The recent suspension of Judge Jeanine Pirro for questioning the symbolism of Ilhan Omar’s hijab is a case in point. The Judge made her 3.9.19 opening remarks in response to several outrageous antisemitic comments made by Rep. Omar. Her infamous tweet, “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken people and help them see the evil doings of Israel,” expresses the anti-Israel bias and antisemitism of Omar’s Muslim Brotherhood affiliation. The flaccid response of the Democrat party that did not censure her by name was described by Steve Emerson as, “a watered-down resolution condemning multiple forms of bigotry after many on the left came to the defense of Omar.”

What is defensible about Ilhan Omar’s antisemitism? The Judge was asking if Omar’s hijab symbolized her adherence to antisemitic supremacist Islamic sharia law. It is a valid question.

In a free society where freedom of speech is only restricted by things like falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater, the response to the Judge’s legitimate and important question was absolutely stunning yet unsurprising.

The predictable shrieks of Islamophobia were echoed across the mainstream media and Muslim Brotherhood’s CAIR demanded the permanent removal of Judge Jeanine Pirro. Of course he did – Rep. Ilhan Omar fund-raises for CAIR. Judge Jeanine Pirro posed a threat to the Muslim Brotherhood as one of the few conservative voices still on the air questioning and exposing creeping sharia law in American society.

Islamophobia has become the politically correct metric that determines what is protected free speech. How did this happen? What about Oliver Wendell Holmes?

Accusations of Islamophobia made during Obama’s tenure became the bludgeon used to silence any oppositional voices to the Muslim Brotherhood’s advancing agenda of making America Muslim. Writers, journalists, politicians, and political analysts who began to identify the stealth jihad being waged against America by Islamists in suits were silenced by Obama and his gang. Just like the accusation of “Racist” was used to silence anyone questioning or criticizing the behavior of a black person, so is the accusation “Islamophobe” being used to silence anyone questioning or criticizing the behavior of a Muslim.

Here is the problem.

The accusation of Islamophobia concerns itself exclusively with the WHO and ignores the WHAT of behavior. The accusation of Islamophobia focuses on who is being accused and ignores what the person did. So, if a non-Muslim (Jeanine Pirro) questions the actions of a Muslim (Omar) wearing the symbol of sharia compliance (hijab), the non-Muslim is accused of Islamophobia and the meaning of the Muslim wearing the hijab is ignored.

Accusations of Islamophobia are powerful weapons being used to conceal the Muslim Brotherhood’s stealth civilizational jihad against America. This is how it works.

Judge Jeanine Pirro’s question about Omar’s hijab is the dangerous but also true speech that Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes identified as protected free speech. Cunning accusations of Islamophobia are then used to deliberately silence the Judge and deprive her of the Constitutional rights that Congress is sworn to protect.

What can be done?

Americans must inform themselves and become aware of the Muslim Brotherhood’s propaganda arm CAIR and its powerful influence in Washington. The Washington swamp is infested with leftist creatures, Islamist creatures, and globalist creatures all relying on the swamp’s dark murky waters to stay concealed from public view. Most people are afraid of swamps and the dangerous creatures that inhabit them. The Washington swamp is unique – the creatures it protects are just human and the dangers it hides only require an informed public protected by free speech to be neutralized.

Falsely shouting FIRE in a crowded theater and accusations of Islamophobia are both dangerous and false. The Muslim Brotherhood poses a clear and present danger to the United States in its support for Islamic supremacy, Islamic militancy, Islamic fundamentalism, and their clearly stated objective to replace the U.S. Constitution with sharia law and make America Muslim.

So, is it irrational to fear Islamists?

Fear is the natural human response to danger and it is extremely rational to fear those who wish to destroy you. Once the threat is acknowledged and the decision made on how to protect oneself, fear is no longer necessary. The courage to confront the threat is what is required.

The Muslim Brotherhood and every one of its seditious organizations must be declared terrorist organizations and be expunged from American society.

What America needs now is the courage to confront the Muslim Brotherhood.

EDITORS NOTE: This Goudsmit Pundicity column is republished with permission.

Maryland/Virginia: Three of Five MS-13 Gang Members Arrested in Horrific Murder are ‘Refugees’

“Sadly, the American people pay for the rope to hang ourselves with by resettling these people as refugees.” – (Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review)

“The suspects allegedly stabbed the victim 100 times and set the body on fire.”

You probably heard something about this case in the days following the arrest last week of five gang members (New Americans!) for the murder of another gang member.

Maybe you didn’t pay attention because they were killing their own, but thanks to reader Joanne for directing me to this story yesterday by Daniel Horowitz at Conservative Review where we learn that we actually supported these creeps with our tax dollars.

And, now of course your tax dollars—hundreds of thousands of dollars!—will be spent to try them in our courts and incarcerate them!

Editor: You should make it a point to read Horowitz’s work.  He gets his facts straight and knows the law.

Here is how Horowitz begins his sordid tale,

One of the biggest scams being perpetrated against the American people as part of this mass migration from Central America is the fact that we are treating those who engage in self-trafficking as victims of trafficking and those who commit heinous violence in our country as refugees from violence.

Nowhere is this more evident than with those who come here from Central America as teens by having their families pay to traffic them here, get resettled as refugees, and then join gangs and fuel violence in our cities greater than the violence in their home countries.

On Friday, police in Prince George’s County, Maryland, announced the arrest of five members of an MS-13 cell based in Fairfax County, Virginia, for the gruesome murder of a fellow gang member across the state line. The suspects allegedly stabbed the victim 100 times and set the body on fire, a hallmark of the Latin American gangs and cartels. All five suspects – Jose Ordonez-Zometa, 29; Jonathan Castillo Rivera, 20; Kevin Rodriguez Flores, 18; Cristhian Martinez Ramirez, 16; and Jose Hernandez-Garcia, 25 – are being charged with first-degree murder.

I’ve noticed a pattern of so many heinous crimes committed by young males from Central America and how many of them came in to the country as “unaccompanied alien children” several years ago. Under that rubric, we automatically treat them as refugees to be resettled, not illegal aliens to be deported. I reached out to ICE and was told that at least three of them were indeed resettled under the UAC program. Here is the information they sent out on the record:

Go to Conservative Review and read about each of the three ‘refugees.’  Then this…

Notice the common thread here? They were all released into the custody of other family here, most likely themselves illegal aliens who, based on what DHS officials have testified before Congress in recent years, most likely paid for them to be smuggled into the country.

Our laws aren’t broken. It’s our policies contorting the laws that are broken.

The relevant statute (Sec. 235(a) of the Wilberforce Act) authorizes the resettlement program only for those children who are 1) indeed children under 18; 2) have no parent or guardian present in the country; and 3) have been victims of “a severe form” of human trafficking. In the overwhelming majority of cases, these teens have legal guardians in America who themselves are here illegally. Yes: 80 percent of the UACs were settled with other illegal aliens, most often family members, and in almost all cases, they are self-trafficked, not victims of kidnapping. Thus, they are not unaccompanied.

Read it all! 

He goes on to explain that our crime rate is rising as more ‘unaccompanied children’ come here from Central America and the crime rate there drops—-because the criminals are coming here!

BTW, in addition to Central Americans, El Salvadorans like these gang members, Maryland has a large enclave of Salvadorans here on Temporary Protected Status. Many came here as well through the “Sanctuary movement” of a couple of decades ago.  Look for an upcoming post on “Sanctuary.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Somalis Stage Walkout at Amazon Fulfillment Center in Minnesota

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

VIDEO: President of Venezuela Juan Guaidó — Names Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar As Moguls of Socialism

The dealership that services my car has a number of young men working for them. One is named Christian, he is from Venezuela. Each time I see him I ask him about his family, who are still there. He explains to me how bad it is but he has hope that the dictator Nicolás Maduro will be gone and that the new government under President of Venezuela Juan Guaidó will take over soon.

On February 4, 2019 Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo wrote:

We welcome the decision today by Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Finland, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom to recognize Juan Guaido as the Interim President of Venezuela. We are also heartened by the European Parliament’s January 31 resolution recognizing Juan Guaido as Interim President. They join the United States and more than 23 other countries in recognizing Juan Guaido as Interim President, in accordance with Venezuela’s constitution.

We encourage all countries, including other EU member states, to support the Venezuelan people by recognizing Interim President Guaido and supporting the National Assembly’s efforts to return constitutional democracy to Venezuela. We repeat our call to the Venezuelan military and security forces to support their country’s constitution and protect all Venezuelan citizens, including Interim President Guaido and his family, as well as U.S. and other foreign citizens in Venezuela.

To date the over fifty countries have recognized Juan Guaidó as the acting President of Venezuela.

Resistencia Venezuela posted the interview below with President Guaidó on its YouTube channel titled “Venezuela’s Guaidó mulls foreign military intervention for humanitarian aid“:

It is time to free the people of Venezuela from their socialist dictator. It is time for Americans to fully realize that socialism has never, and will never, work. It is the big lie.

Pro-Gun Senators Introduce Bill to Prohibit Discrimination in Financial Services

On March 14, pro-gun Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and John Kennedy (R-LA) introduced S. 821 the Freedom Financing Act, a bill to prohibit discrimination against the firearms industry in the provision of financial services.

We have long been reporting on how anti-gun activists are seeking to use access to financial services as a means to punish and suppress lawful firearm-related commerce.

First came Operation Choke Point, a supposed “anti-fraud” effort during the Obama administration that morphed into a campaign by federal regulators to intimidate banks and payment processers into refusing business with politically disfavored clients, including firearm-related businesses. That program was officially repudiated by the Trump Administration, but for some businesses, the damage had already been done.

Anti-gunners next turned directly to the financial service providers themselves, extorting them with “social justice” condemnation for “financing” mass shootings and insisting they drop their firearm industry clients or impose gun control-like conditions on doing business with them. Several national banks did just that.

Activist institutional investors in publicly-traded gun companies also tried to embarrass those companies with proxy actions designed to portray the businesses in a negative light. To date, those efforts have been largely unsuccessful.   The Freedom Financing Act aims to put a stop to this discrimination by ensuring that banks participating in certain federal programs – as well as credit card companies, credit unions, and users of the Automated Clearing House Network — cannot refuse business with law-abiding federal firearm licensees for political or “reputational” reasons.

More recently, anti-gun members of Congress have reverted to Choke Point-like tactics in a continuing effort to intimidate banks and marginalize law-abiding businesses in the firearm sector. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) went so far as to berate the president and CEO of Wells Fargo Bank during a public oversight hearing for refusing to buckle to the pressure of the anti-gun lobby’s demands.

“How bad does the mass shooting epidemic have to get before you will adopt common sense gun safety policies like other banks have done?” Maloney demanded to know.

To his credit, the Wells Fargo executive stood firm, replying, “We just don’t believe that it is a good idea to encourage banks to enforce legislation that doesn’t exist.”

The Freedom Financing Act aims to put a stop to this discrimination by ensuring that banks participating in certain federal programs – as well as credit card companies, credit unions, and users of the Automated Clearing House Network — cannot refuse business with law-abiding federal firearm licensees for political or “reputational” reasons.

It is important to keep in mind that the national banks targeted by this legislation owe their very existence in large part to government and taxpayer largesse. Among other things, they benefit from public bailouts and federally-subsidized loan programs, as well as from infrastructure financed or subsidized by the government.

Private businesses generally enjoy broad discretion in setting their own policies and objectives, as is appropriate in our free market system. But exclusionary politics in the financial services industries hearken back to some of the most shameful episodes in American history. They are rightfully condemned, and have long been rightfully prohibited in other contexts.

The NRA thanks Sens. Cramer and Kennedy for their leadership in this important effort and commends the bill for swift action by the Senate.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Illinois Court Throws Out Deerfield Gun Ban

U.S. Politicians Cheer New Zealand Gun Confiscation

Alaska State Commission for Human Rights Director Attacks Human’s Rights

Legacy Media Push New Zealand Gun Confiscation Using Lies about Australian Ban

NRA Praises Vermont Superior Court Decision on Magazine Bans

Grassroots Spotlight: NRA New Mexico FAL Couple — Fighting Bloomberg Gun Control

EDITORS NOTE: This NRA-ILA column is republished with permission.

The Democrats Missed Their Moment – What Now?

Democratic leaders have been cynical and slow in addressing Jew-hatred within their party, perhaps because they believe most Jews will remain Democrats regardless of how the party treats them or regards Israel.


Despite indignant denials, the Democratic Party has enabled anti-Semitism as progressives have embraced ancient stereotypes and asserted them against Israel.  Haters who push claims of undue Jewish influence, divided loyalties, and even blood libel are accepted under the mantle of inclusiveness, and partisan apologists sanitize bigotry by calling it political speech, mendaciously distinguishing contempt for Israel from hatred of Jews, and tolerating slanders against the Jewish State.

When challenged for permitting such conduct, they invoke free speech to defend those who make ridiculous accusations – e.g., that Israel engages in ethnic cleansing, controls international finance, or practices apartheid. But after the election of a few high-profile extremists last November, some Democrats finally began to admit they had a problem, although they failed to seize the moment, acknowledge responsibility, and pledge genuine change.

Not all Democrats can agree on whether a problem even exists; and those who do are divided over whether to punish the offenders or issue denunciations that specifically mention anti-Semitism.  The glaring hypocrisy is that Democrats would not tolerate such moral ambiguity from across the aisle. If Congressional Republicans were to repeatedly malign African Americans, gay people, or women, Democrats would demand that the offenders be publicly chastised as racists, homophobes, and sexists; and they would be outraged at any attempt to dilute the message to appease party extremists.

When it comes to anti-Semitism, however, too many Democrats seem to be ethically challenged and morally blind.

Their inability to condemn anti-Semitism without qualification should not be surprising, given their failure to confront the tide of Jew-hatred that surged during the Obama administration.  Or their tendency to deflect by blaming Republicans for intolerance that today comes predominantly from the left. The inconvenient truth is that the skyrocketing rate of bias incidents against Jews is not primarily the fault of conservatives or the political right, but increasingly of progressives and their constituencies.

The conduct of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D. Minn.) highlights the ethical ambivalence of her party.  Representative Omar has repeatedly insulted Israel and her supporters using traditional anti-Semitic tropes and stereotypes.  For example, she accused the Jewish lobbying organization AIPAC of using money to influence American Mideast policy, thus evoking the classical myth of disproportionate Jewish wealth and influence.  And during the 2012 Gaza War instigated by Hamas, she tweeted that Israel had “hypnotized” the world, implicitly raising the timeworn slander of Jewish mind control (which was often associated with the blood libel).  Despite issuing an empty apology at the insistence of others, she has continued to assert ugly stereotypes against the Jewish State with the apparent encouragement of party progressives.

The Democratic response to Omar’s outrageous words was a proposed resolution to condemn anti-Semitism.  Though there should be no dissension within a party that claims to stand against all forms of prejudice, the resolution could not be approved until its focus on anti-Semitism was watered down, allusions to Omar and her remarks were deleted, and references to racism, white supremacism, and Islamophobia were added to render any condemnation of Jew-hatred contextual.  Clearly, the party could not make anti-Semitism the focal point without enraging progressive members who have antipathy for Jews and Israel. As insulting as this moral cowardice was, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made it worse by denying that Omar’s comments were biased, stating: “I don’t think our colleague is anti-Semitic. I think she has a different experience in the use of words, doesn’t understand that some of them are fraught with meaning, that she didn’t realize.”

Would Speaker Pelosi have been so charitable if a white supremacist had used traditional racial slurs to refer to any African nation?  Would she have absolved an unrepentant sexist for using his legislative platform to slander the character, talents, and abilities of women?  Would she have excused a right-to-life advocate for disagreeing with liberal abortion policy? The answer is certainly “no” on all counts.

Although a number of Republicans voted against the Democrats’ final resolution, they did so primarily because it eliminated the singular focus on anti-Semitism and failed to mention Omar by name.  They refused to endorse a resolution that was rewritten to avoid offending those who deny Israel’s right to exist or defend anti-Jewish stereotypes as political speech. In addition, Republicans were incensed that Rep. Omar was allowed to retain her seat on the influential Foreign Affairs Committee – unlike Rep. Steven King (R. Iowa), who was stripped of his Committee assignments for comments deemed racist by fellow Republicans.

Progressives often engage in historical revisionism to suit their political needs and seem to believe it is better to be morally correct (assuming one agrees with their morals) than factually accurate.  However, past history should bear on current events; and the conservative record of acknowledging anti-Semitism and seeking corrective change should inform the Democrats’ present situation.

Twenty-six years ago, the late William F. Buckley purged the “National Review” of contributors whose criticisms of Israel he came to believe were motivated by anti-Semitism.  He then wrote a magazine-length piece (republished in book form) entitled, “In Search of Anti-Semitism,” which represented a significant moment in political self-analysis and accountability.  Buckley did not deny the history of anti-Semitic bigotry, nor did he blame Jews for their troubles or offer revisionist justifications.  Rather, he recognized the existence and political impact of anti-Jewish prejudice and the role of partisan ideologues and intellectuals in shaping public thought and opinion.

Through this literary endeavor, Buckley provided a forum for discussion and analysis that made anti-Semitism a relevant and important subject for non-Jews.

Thereafter, conservatives became more sensitized to an issue that many had never before cared about, and the legacy is a Republican Party today whose support for Israel puts Democrats to shame and which is generally more vigilant against anti-Semitism and supportive of Jewish historical rights and values.  It is noteworthy that Republicans do not condition their Israel policy on Jewish support for their party, inasmuch as most Jewish voters have remained registered Democrats. In contrast, Democratic leaders have been cynical and slow in addressing Jew-hatred within their party, perhaps because they believe most Jews will remain Democrats regardless of how the party treats them or regards Israel.

Whatever the reason, liberals and Democrats have yet to engage in the kind of soul searching that conservatives did in the 1990s.  Rather, they continue to excuse progressive anti-Semitism as political speech and protect its purveyors – especially those legitimized beyond reproach through identity politics.  Whereas apologists try to attribute Democratic anti-Semitism to the “hard left,” it has clearly infected the party’s mainstream. This is illustrated by rank-and-file Democratic support for the BDS movement, rejection of Jewish historical rights, embrace of anti-Zionism, and refusal to ostracize compatriots whose venom clearly sounds in traditional anti-Semitism.

Though most Democrats believe liberalism is inherently more tolerant of Jews and Judaism than conservatism, such presumptions are nonsense.  Liberal tradition is fraught with anti-Semitic excess – starting with Voltaire himself, running through the European progressive, socialist and communist movements, and festering in a modern left-wing that rationalizes Islamism, justifies terrorism, and opposes the existence of a Jewish State.  It was no coincidence that Theodor Herzl’s quest for Jewish national revival began in response to the anti-Semitism that permeated liberal France at the time of the Dreyfus affair. The very hatred that Herzl encountered in nineteenth century Europe is currently playing out in twenty-first century America.

The Democrats had their moment to acknowledge and renounce anti-Semitism in their midst but failed to rise to the occasion.  They instead bowed to extremist pressure and let the opportunity slip by. But if there are truly any moderates left in the Democratic party – and if they wish to reclaim the classical values of free speech and equal treatment for all – they would do well to emulate the vision displayed years ago by conservatives who recognized anti-Semitism as a political and moral dilemma and dealt with it through honest discourse and intellectual analysis.  So far, they haven’t come close.

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel National News column is republished with permission.

Planned Parenthood’s Political Juggernaut Is Meeting Its Match

By Peter B. Gemma

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider and a powerful multi-million-dollar political machine. Hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding go for its non-profit “family planning services.” In truth, however, that facilitates Planned Parenthood’s political activities, underwritten by private donations, in support of politicians who keep the federal funding flowing.

Fortunately for the pro-life side, the Susan B. Anthony List has reached parity in political fundraising and organizational operations on the ground. Of course, it gets no tax dollars. And the Trump administration has been a great restrictor of the abortion giant with executive guidelines.

Recently, the Trump administration enacted a rule that would require family planning clinics to be housed in separate buildings from abortion clinics, a move that would cut off Planned Parenthood from some federal funding. The new guidelines apply to a $286 million-a-year grant, known as Title X, that pays for birth control and testing of sexually transmitted diseases for four million of its low-income clients. It requires the “physical and financial” separation of family planning services and abortion referrals. Planned Parenthood clinics will be able to talk to mothers about abortion, but not where they can go to get one. The organization receives between $50 million and $60 million from Title X.

Of course, the new federal rule is being challenged in court. Several state officials, including Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and presidential candidate/Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, have announced an intent to sue over the new policy.

Legal battles may not be good news because right to life advocates have not fared well in the courts lately.

In June 2017, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Medicaid Act “authorizes a private right of action,” allowing Medicaid recipients to challenge the disqualification of a health care provider. Louisiana and Kansas, which had stripped Planned Parenthood of state Medicaid funds after evidence that the abortion provider was harvesting and selling fetal body parts, proceeded to appeal the ruling to the U. S. Supreme Court. On Dec. 10 2018, by a vote of six to three, the High Court declined to hear the appeal, letting the lower court ruling stand. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented. Instead of supplying the fourth vote needed just to allow for a hearing, Chief Justice Roberts and, in a surprise to many (not all) pro-lifers, Justice Kavanaugh, sided with the four liberals on the Court.

Meanwhile for Planned Parenthood, it’s business-as-usual and business is good as it is cashing in on the Trump era. In 2018, taxpayers were charged for a $20 million increase in federal funding according to the organization’s annual report – a total of $564.8 million in government subsidies. Planned Parenthood also received $100 million more from private contributions and bequests in 2018 than it did in 2017, with Warren Buffett, the investment guru, leading the way. He has donated $63.5 million to Planned Parenthood since 2014 through his family’s foundation. Planned Parenthood’s total net assets have increased from $1.6 billion last year to nearly $1.9 billion in 2018.

And Planned Parenthood has now ramped-up its abortion services. They are providing travel expenses and financial assistance for clients in states where abortion is restricted and regulated, to states where controls are loose to non-existent.

Curiously, despite receiving regular increases via taxpayer dollars and boosts in their private fund-raising efforts, Planned Parenthood’s services have declined. The organization’s 2015-2016 report revealed that Planned Parenthood served 100,000 fewer women in 2015-2016 as compared to 2014-2015. But their abortion machine is in high gear: 323,999 abortions performed two years ago, 328,348 last year, and 332,757 in 2018. Planned Parenthood has cornered 35 percent of the abortion market.

In 2015-2016, Planned Parenthood performed 83 abortions for every one adoption referral. The abortion giant referred about 3,000 women to adoption services during 2018, one thousand less than the year before.

Planned Parenthood’s new president, Dr. Leana Wen, has acknowledged that abortion isn’t just a service the organization provides, but the bottom line of their business: “First, our core mission is providing, protecting, and expanding access to abortion and reproductive health care. We will never back down from that fight.”

What is the secret of Planned Parenthood’s success? The organization’s previous CEO, Cecile Richards, put it simply: “We have the potential to swing the vote and that’s a lot of power. The question is, what are we going to do with it? We’re going to be the largest kickass advocacy organization in the country!

Planned Parenthood and its political arms are separate on paper (because taxpayers are forced to give the abortion chain over $500 million a year for health services). However, private and corporate donors direct their money into Planned Parenthood’s political agenda – and abortion business – rather than to fund the other services the organization provides. In 2018, donors invested $532.7 million dollars in Planned Parenthood, including $21 million from left-wing billionaire George Soros.

Planned Parenthood has some 40 corporate backers, including:

  • American Express
  • Levi Strauss
  • AT & T
  • Macy’s
  • Avon
  • Microsoft
  • Bank of America
  • Nike
  • Bath & Body Works
  • Pepsi-Co
  • Clorox
  • Starbucks
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Verizon

Federal law prohibits government funding “to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion” (except in cases of rape, incest, or an amorphous ‘danger to the life of the mother’). That’s where Planned Parenthood’s private donors step in. Last year they bankrolled the organization’s $160 million expenditure on “public policy” (lobbying) and “movement building to engage communities” (grassroots organizing; there are more than 50,000 student members on 350 campuses.)

In addition, Planned Parenthood poured over $20 million directly into the 2018 midterm election. And there’s more. Because of its partnership with the Win Justice Coalition (which includes the Service Employees International Union, the Center for Community Change Action, and the Color of Change PAC), Planned Parenthood’s 2018 war chest actually topped $28 million.

In 2016, according to the Federal Election Commission, Planned Parenthood invested $12.6 million into independent expenditures – nearly all of it to support Democrats or oppose Republicans. That figure includes $2.8 million to attack Donald Trump and $2.4 million to back Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid.

George Soros and his family are major donors to Planned Parenthood Votes, giving a combined $4.75 million in two election cycles. Last year, Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire and former mayor of New York City, contributed $1 million to one of Planned Parenthood’s political operations.

On the positive side, the largest pro-life political action committee that is a muscular match for Planned Parenthood, the Susan B. Anthony List, has matched the abortion giant’s financial clout politically along with its organizational skills. The group raised and spent some $28 million in 2018, which matches Planned Parenthood and its partnership organizations combined. The Susan B. Anthony List also marshaled enough troops to knock on the doors of some 2.7 million pro-life households as part of its grassroots efforts to get out the vote.

The Susan B. Anthony List has become a force to be reckoned with and one that, while largely ignored by a medial that is slavish in producing pro-abortion puff pieces, is making its presence known in political elections.

Of course, the newest and biggest asset of the right to life movement is the Trump administration.

Scores of federal judges who, by-in-large, have pro-life records have been nominated and appointed and the impact is now being felt. This month, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Ohio’s right to defund Planned Parenthood, asserting that there is no “Fourteenth Amendment right to perform abortions.” It reversed a lower court’s decision by an 11–6 vote, with all four Trump appointees ruling against Planned Parenthood.

Many federal government agencies and departments are creating pro-life policies.

For example, President Trump has expanded policies to ensure American tax dollars are not used to fund the abortion industry in all global health programs. The new Trump policy protects over $8.8 billion overseas aid from funding abortion. Recently, the Department of Health and Human Services  established the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division within the Office for Civil Rights that will work to protect health care professionals who do not want to participate in abortion.

And the Trump administration has hired pro-life personnel.

Bethany Kozma, senior adviser for the Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment at the U.S. Agency for International Development, told the annual U.N. Commission on the Status of Women meeting that the “U.S. is a pro-life nation.” An overstatement for certain, especially considering the strengthening political clout of Planned Parenthood, but it rings truer than it has in a long, long time.

ABOUT PETER B. GEMMA

Peter B. Gemma is a freelance writer whose articles and commentaries have appeared in USA Today, AmericanThinker.com, and the DailyCaller.com.

EDITORS NOTE: This Revolutionary Act column is republished with permission.

Shame on Bob Moser and all the Others who Kept the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Secrets (until now)

Who is Bob Moser you ask?

He is a writer at The New Yorker who tells us over a decade later what he learned about the frauds at the Southern Poverty Law Center when he worked there in the early 2000’s.

Moser told his story yesterday about how much of the staff (mostly former staff now!) was well aware of the hypocrisy of the organization that was driven more by a desire to make its leaders rich than doing good for the down and out.

I don’t know why he even wrote this article (clearing his conscious maybe), but I am glad he did.

What most outraged me was the fact that all of these employees he references knew what was going on, yet many stayed and worked there for a time with apparent total disregard for what their ‘good works’ could do to regular Americans who have opinions—people like me!

Frankly, the SPLC’s money-generating “hate-group list” puts my safety in jeopardy!

It is long, but the New Yorker story is a must-read and a must-send to everyone you know!

Here is how Moser begins,

The Reckoning of Morris Dees and the Southern Poverty Law Center

(How about a subtitle:  And the reckoning of all the gullible libs who worked there, saw the truth, and kept their mouths shut till now!)

In the days since the stunning dismissal of Morris Dees, the co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center, on March 14th, I’ve been thinking about the jokes my S.P.L.C. colleagues and I used to tell to keep ourselves sane. Walking to lunch past the center’s Maya Lin–designed memorial to civil-rights martyrs, we’d cast a glance at the inscription from Martin Luther King, Jr., etched into the black marble—“Until justice rolls down like waters”—and intone, in our deepest voices, “Until justice rolls down like dollars.”The Law Center had a way of turning idealists into cynics; like most liberals, our view of the S.P.L.C. before we arrived had been shaped by its oft-cited listings of U.S. hate groups, its reputation for winning cases against the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations, and its stream of direct-mail pleas for money to keep the good work going. The mailers, in particular, painted a vivid picture of a scrappy band of intrepid attorneys and hate-group monitors, working under constant threat of death to fight hatred and injustice in the deepest heart of Dixie. When the S.P.L.C. hired me as a writer, in 2001, I figured I knew what to expect: long hours working with humble resources and a highly diverse bunch of super-dedicated colleagues. I felt self-righteous about the work before I’d even begun it.

The first surprise was the office itself.

Continue here.

Hate-group list was a masterstroke by Dees!

Then this after a lengthy discussion about how it was more about raking in money especially from gullible northerners who would read about the “hate groups” in stories written by biased and uninformed reporters.

By the time I touched down in Montgomery, the center had increased its staff and branched out considerably—adding an educational component called Teaching Tolerance and expanding its legal and intelligence operations to target a broad range of right-wing groups and injustices—but the basic formula perfected in the eighties remained the same. The annual hate-group list, which in 2018 included a thousand and twenty organizations, both small and large, remains a valuable resource for journalists and a masterstroke of Dees’s marketing talents; every year, when the center publishes it, mainstream outlets write about the “rising tide of hate” discovered by the S.P.L.C.’s researchers, and reporters frequently refer to the list when they write about the groups.

Read the whole article.

Then send it to every local newspaper that uses the annual “hate-group list.”

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission.

The Sinister Side of the Gender War

“But it’s just a phase!” How many parents have made that same desperate plea to a teacher, a counselor, or doctor? Deep down, they know their children weren’t born in the wrong body. They know the confusion about their teenager’s identity is coming from somewhere else — a struggle that doesn’t have to be permanent. But in a culture that’s determined to indulge these fantasy, at any cost, who will believe them?

The stories from parents are real-life nightmares. On a panel about gender ideology at the Heritage Foundation, attorneys shared one heart-wrenching testimony after another. Jennifer Chavez, a liberal with liberal clients, explained that she may disagree with conservatives on abortion or taxes, but the transgender movement is a place where every Americans can come together. Why? Because this ideology is no respecter of persons. It will haunt families — and rob futures — on both sides.

Chavez told the story of a 13-year-old girl, who came home and told her parents she was “transgender” after watching a presentation about it at school. “Without evaluation or therapy, the mother was told by a ‘gender therapist’ to buy her child a breast binder and put her on puberty-blocking drugs. If she didn’t comply, she was told, her child would face a high risk of suicide. She only realized later how inaccurate and baseless this clinical advice had been.” Furious, the liberal mom wrote, “Why are physicians medicalizing children in the name of an unproven, malleable gender identity? Why are lawmakers enshrining gender identity into state and federal laws?”

National Review’s Madeleine Kearns horrified people with the testimony of a family, whose 14-year-old girl accused her parents of “child abuse” because they wouldn’t use her male name. “Without my knowledge, a pediatric endocrinologist taught my daughter, a minor, to inject herself with testosterone. She then ran away to Oregon where state law at the age of 17 allowed her… to undergo a double mastectomy and radical hysterectomy… The level of outrage and rage I’m experiencing as a mother is indescribable. Why does Oregon law allow children to make life-altering medical decisions? …Why are doctors who took an oath to first do no harm allowed to sterilize and surgically mutilate mentally ill, delusional children?”

Why? Because America is being hijacked by an aggressive, take-no-prisoners LGBT agenda that doesn’t care about your rights as parents — or your children’s wellbeing. If they did, they’d know that “98 percent of gender-confused boys and 88 percent of gender-confused girls accept their biological sex after puberty.” Suggesting that these kids are anything other than their biological gender, the American College of Pediatricians argues, is “child abuse” that will scar them for life.

Fortunately, a brave group of young adults is coming forward to make that case themselves. As teenagers, they identified as transgender. Now, they want the world to know what a mistake that was. The founders of the Pique Resilience Project talk about their journeys in an interview with NRO, each drawing the same conclusion: transgenderism is a false and dangerous ideology.

“Helena had a history of not fitting in and feeling uncomfortable with her body. She had been badly bullied and was feeling very low when she turned to transgenderism. She took high doses of testosterone, which has altered her voice. At the age of 18, she wasn’t thinking about her long-term future. She wasn’t thinking about the serious risks and possible infertility. Now, she has some advice for other young people who think they might be transgender:

‘Step back from the activism, the ideology, the community — think about the reasons why you might feel this way about your body. Because there’s just a lot of people with just glaringly obvious reasons why they don’t like their body…'”

Read Helena’s story and powerful testimonies at National Review. Then, make sure you download FRC’s “A Parent’s Guide to the Transgender Movement in Education.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Speech Righter: Trump Tackles College Censorship

A Day to Celebrate Life

Female HS student files civil rights complaint: ‘I felt very violated’ changing in locker room when transgender student was ‘looking at me’

RELATED VIDEO: The Inequality of the Equality Act: Concerns from the Left – Heritage Foundation.

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

Speech Righter: Trump Tackles College Censorship

Going to college is tough for any teenager. But for conservatives, it can be downright dangerous. These days, parents are sending their kids off to six-figure war zones, where even moderate speakers need armies of protection — if they’re allowed to speak at all. Christians brave enough to talk about their views are stigmatized if they’re lucky, and physically attacked if they’re not. We’ve wiped campuses clean of so many words, ideas, and values that an entire generation is leaving college completely unprepared for the cruel world from which higher education is “sparing” them.

Like a lot of parents, Donald Trump is fed up. College campuses are so toxically liberal today that conservatives have gotten everything from death threats to docked grades. We’ve watched Christians like Isabella Chow lose her student government sponsorship. Even a simple act like recruiting for a college club is an excuse to throw punches. That’s not education — it’s state-sponsored hazing. And this administration has decided to do something about it.

Today, the president had a warning for liberal incubators like Berkeley: shut down free speech and the government will shut down your federal funding. Under a new executive order, the penalties for schools censoring students will be, in Trump’s words “very costly.” “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view – NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” the president tweeted. So far, no one has had the nerve to hit higher education where it hurts. But then, not everyone is President Trump.

Charlie Kirk, who heads the group Hayden Williams was attacked for promoting, thinks it’s about time someone stepped in and stopped the First Amendment’s death spiral on college campuses. But how, he wonders, will the liberal media take it? After all, they’re “an ideologically homogeneous group, need to thread the needle of wanting to appear to be in favor of free speech while arguing that the president requiring free speech is somehow dangerous. That isn’t easy…” After all, he points out:

“Burn an American flag on campus or stand on a bench and decry the Constitution as racist and you will be allowed to speak. Wear an American flag on your shirt or hand out copies of the Constitution and you will be accused of triggering and sent off to the campus equivalent of the broom closet, called ‘Free Speech Zones,’ in order to continue to express your thoughts.”

And that intolerance has never cut both ways. Liberals used to care about the free exchange of ideas — until theirs became impossible to defend. Now, they’ve decided they don’t want to try to win the debate. They want to stop the debate from taking place. After years of policing speech and punishing speakers, the Left’s brainwashing is paying off. Thirty-percent of college students think shouting down people like Ben Shapiro is acceptable. Another 10 percent said it was okay to use violence to stop students like Hayden. And where did these extremists-in-training learn how to bully conservatives? From their adult counterparts, of course. They’re just mirroring what they’ve seen from the leaders of “get-up-in-their-face,” “tell-them-they’re-not-welcome,” “we-kick-them” liberalism.

This new army of young radicals thinks they’re on the “morally righteous side” in this culture war, Hayden says, “and in order to win, they must silence any form of dissent.” Now, thanks to President Trump, that silence will hurt any college who encourages it. “For an industry that loves to preach against capitalism, they sure do love their money,” Kirk points out. “This will hopefully start to get their attention. Unlike their students, if they don’t like it, they are certainly free to speak out.”


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s Executive Order to Colleges: Protect Free Speech or Risk Billions in Federal Grants

The Sinister Side of the Gender War

A Day to Celebrate Life

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column is republished with permission.

Israel’s High Court–When Legality Loses its Legitimacy

In overturning a previous decision of the Knesset’s Central Elections Committee, the High Court took another giant step towards further undermining the already dwindling public confidence in the Israeli judiciary.


In Israel, the negative impact of the judicialization of politics on the Supreme Court’s legitimacy is already beginning to show its mark. Over the past decade, the public image of the Supreme Court as an autonomous and impartial arbiter has been increasingly eroded… [T]he court and its judges are increasingly viewed by a considerable portion of the Israeli public as pushing forward their own political agenda… – Prof. Ran Hirschl, Towards Juristocracy, Harvard University Press, 2004.

The public is further losing its faith in…the legal system, with only 36 percent of the Jewish public expressing confidence in the courts…– “Public’s faith in Israel’s justice system continues to plummet,” Haaretz, August 15, 2013.

A candidates’ list shall not participate in elections to the Knesset, and a person shall not be a candidate for election to the Knesset, if the objects or actions of the list or the actions of the person, expressly or by implication, include one of the following: 

  1. negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state;
  2. incitement to racism;
  3. support of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel. – Basic Law Knesset– Article 7A

This week, the High Court took another giant step towards further undermining the already dwindling public confidence in the Israeli judiciary.

Eroding confidence in judiciary

On Sunday (March 17) it overturned a previous decision by the Knesset’s Central Elections Committee, and ruled to prohibit the participation in the upcoming elections of the hardline Right-wing candidate, Dr Michael Ben Ari, while permitting that of the undisguisedly anti-Zionist list “Balad” and the self-professed anti-Zionist candidate, Ofer Cassif. In doing so, High Court once again underscored the growing divergence between the average man-in-the-street’s perception of common-sense and sense of justice, on the one hand, and many judicial rulings, on the other. But more on that a little later

Over the last two decades, there has been a dramatic erosion of the public’s faith in the Israeli judiciary, in general, and in the High Court, in particular. Thus, according to an ongoing study at Haifa University, the confidence of the Jewish population in court system plunged from 61% in 2003 to a mere 36% in 2013.

A later study found that, overall, public confidence in the High Court plummeted from 80% in 2000, to 61% in 2014, to just 49% in 2017. Commenting on these findings, Einav Schiff, of the mass circulation daily Yedioth Aharonot, wrote “This isn’t a slip or a drop, it’s a collapse.”

He warned: “Needless to say, the High Court’s image among the public cannot remain as it is now. Eventually, there will be a political constellation that could enable another constitutional revolution.”

“…crass and misguided interference in Israeli democracy”

Schiff’s diagnosis proved a prescient prognosis of Justice Minister Ayalet Shaked’s outraged reaction to the High Court’s decision, which she labelleda crass and misguided interference in the heart of Israeli democracy”, and pledged to revolutionize the method by which High Court judges are appointed. At the top of her list of planned measures was the elimination of the judicial appointments committee for the High Court, in which sitting justices have, in effect, veto power over new appointments to the High Court.

Instead, according to her proposed reform, justices would be appointed at the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, who would bring a candidate for approval by the cabinet and the Knesset, with a public hearing being conducted for High Court justices.

Clearly, if implemented, this measure could go some way towards addressing the kind of perceived disconnect, described by Prof. Hirschl in the introductory excerpt (see above), between the world views of the judiciary and the democratically elected bodies of government.

Elsewhere in his book, Hirschl articulates precisely the process of judicial override of decisions made by elected bodies, as reflected in the verdict to overrule the Knesset’s Central Elections Committee. He writes: “…political representatives of minority groups [such as the anti-Zionist Arab factions and their members – MS] have come to realize that political arrangements and public policies agreed upon in majoritarian decision-making arenas [such as the Knesset’s Central Election’s Committee—MS] are likely to be reviewed by an often hostile Supreme Court.

Clear contravention of the letter of the law

Clearly, the recent ruling of the High Court was the outcome of “minority political groups” inducing review—indeed, reversal—of “majoritarian decisions” by a contrary judicial body. But in several important aspects it was a particularly striking case of court intervention in the democratic process.

For while the rationale for barring the anti-Zionists candidates, Balad and Cassif, was, in effect, almost self-evident—and indeed un-denied by them, the rationale for barring the Right-wing candidate, Ben Ari,  was largely a matter of inferred interpretation, which was disputed by him.

Thus, the Balad platform openly rejects Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, explicitly declaring its aspirations to convert into it into a “state of all its citizens”—which, one might have thought—given stipulation of Article 7A (1) of the Basic Law: Knesset (see introductory excerpt above)—should, on its own, be enough to disqualify it from participation in the Knesset elections. Yet for some reason the Justices of the High Court chose to disregard the unequivocal letter of the law.

Moreover, with regard to Ofir Cassif, the candidate for the “non-Zionist” Hadash list, it is not only his blatant self-professed anti-Zionism that should have prevented his candidacy, but his support for armed conflict against Israel. Indeed, even the judges—or at least some of them—seem to acknowledge this.

Thus, when Justices Noam Sohlberg, David Mintz and Neal Hendel pressed Cassif’s attorney on Cassif’s statements approving attacks on IDF soldiers, he tried to rebut them by claiming his client was discussing the matter on an academic philosophical level and not on an operational one. In response, Justice Hendel retorted that it was unrealistic to expect average readers to understand Cassif’s articles as if he does not support armed conflict.

Arab enmity not Arab ethnicity

Yet despite these incontrovertible violations of Article 7A of Basic Law: Knesset, the High Court—almost inconceivably—overturned the Knesset Central Elections Committee decision, ruling that Cassif could participate in the upcoming elections.

However, when it came to the far Right candidate, Ben Ari, things were very different. Accused of racism because of his harsh denunciation of the Arab sector in Israel and his blanket allegation of pervasive lack of Arab loyalty to Israel as the nation-state of the Jews, Ben Ari explained that that his attitude was not determined by the Arabs’ ethnic origins but by the Arab’s political enmity to Israel. Indeed, this point was made by Ben-Ari’s representative who declared that his client had “no problem” with Arab Israelis who are loyal to the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

Without going in the debate of whether Ben-Ari—himself of Afghan-Iranian origins—were inappropriate or in poor taste, it does seem a bit of a stretch to brand them as racism—particularly as Ben-Ari has served in the Knesset previously (2009-13) without any charges of racist conduct being brought against him. Indeed, if charges of racism, a crime punishable by up to ten years imprisonment by Israeli law, could be substantiated, one can only wonder why Ben-Ari has not been prosecuted for them!

Yet, despite his denial of any racist intent in his recriminations against the Arab population, the High Court ruled to interpret Ben-Ari’s declarations as racism and to prohibit his participation in the elections, overturning the decision of the Knesset Central Elections Committee to permit it.

Saving the judiciary from itself

The High Court decision produced outrage among Right-wing Knesset members who vowed to take action to curtail judicial intervention in the decision-making process of elected bodies.

For example former Defense Minister of Yisrael Beitenu  fumed: “it is absurd that the court would intervene in decisions of the Central Election Committee, to allow Ben-Ari to run, and to ban those who hate Israel…I will propose a law in the next Knesset to ban the court from intervening in committee decisions. We will do everything we can to prevent the Arab fifth column from getting into the Knesset altogether.”

Echoing similar sentiments was the newly appointed head of the Jewish Home party, Rafi Peretz, who issued a statement saying: “In the State of Israel, there is democracy in appearance only. The judiciary has taken the  Right to choose for Israeli citizens in an unprecedented manner. Kassif and Tibi [who served for years as advisor to arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat] are in, but Ben Ari, a Zionist Jew whose sons serve in the IDF, is out.

The judicial system will disregard these rumblings at its peril. For when judicial rulings are overwhelmingly at odds with public perception of common sense and justice, it cannot but lose the very credibility imperative for it to function

Indeed, two talkbacks, on a well-trafficked news-site, reflect this danger:

Ahmed Tibi is a champion of Yasser Arafat, the worst mass murderer of Jews since Adolf Hitler. Disqualifying Ben-Ari and not Tibi exposes a very alarming anti-Jewish bias in the High Court.”—Jacob

…by approving [C]assif but banning Ben Ari, our esteemed judges just ensured more votes for the Right. Are they on the payroll of Bennett/Shaked campaign?–Alexander

High Court justices would be well advised to heed the caveat that when legality loses its legitimacy, the entire edifice of the rule of law is imperiled.