Left progressive antisemitism must be a US electoral ‘wedge’ issue

As the Democratic primaries approach, leading candidates seem to be reinforcing their anti-Israel credentials to appease their progressive base. Antisemitism already is a ‘wedge’ issue – although Democrats are urging voters to ignore it.

The left’s anti-Israel agenda has been energized recently by radical politicians using their Congressional visibility to slander the Jewish State and its supporters with classical slurs and stereotypes.  Simultaneously, there has been an increase in antisemitic agitation among progressives invoking blood libel imagery and repugnant myths of disproportionate Jewish wealth, influence, and disloyalty.

Such is the backdrop against which Democrats are urging Jewish voters not to treat Israel as a “wedge issue” during the 2020 election season, though what they are really asking is for Jews to ignore the pro-BDS, anti-Israel, and antisemitic vitriol being spewed by reactionaries who influence party doctrine and to overlook party leadership’s appeasement of the left and disregard of hateful prejudice.

By lamenting the use of Israel as a “wedge issue,” Democrats are acknowledging that it already is and that their base’s hostility towards the Jewish State is motivated not by policy concerns, but by antisemitism.  And just as they did in 2016, they are enlisting Jewish party loyalists to promote the fiction that conservatives pose a more serious threat to fellow Jews, despite public opinion research indicating that antisemitic sentiment is prevalent among radicals, progressives and left-wing Democrats.  The same surveys suggest conservative Republicans are more likely to support Israel and condemn Jew-hatred.

The antisemitic Squad

These trends help explain some recent disturbing Democratic behaviors, including the failure to censure Representatives Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for their inflammatory rhetoric and for validating antisemitic public figures like Louis Farrakhan.  Examples of moral disingenuity abound, as when Democrats criticized the Netanyahu government for blocking Tlaib and Omar from a planned trip to Israel that was to be sponsored by an anti-Israel organization. Supporters of the congresswomen were unconcerned that their proposed visit was neither planned as part of an official Congressional delegation nor intended to serve any legitimate governmental purpose.

The Israeli government had initially agreed to allow Tlaib and Omar entry into the country, but withdrew its approval after determining they would not be part of the scheduled Congressional delegation and that their itinerary was intended to disparage Israel and promote boycotts.  The purpose of the trip was no surprise considering it was to be partially sponsored and coordinated by Miftah, the anti-Israel organization founded by Hanan Ashrawi, a PLO Executive Committee member and outspoken Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions advocate, who was barred by the State Department from entering the United States last May.

It seems incongruous that Democrats who express concern about Jewish voters could defend Tlaib or Omar in light of their aspersions against Israel and sponsorship of House Resolution 496, a bill essentially supporting the antisemitic BDS movement.  Though that bill was defeated in a rare display of bipartisanship, its limited support came mainly from progressive Democrats, including Tlaib, Omar, and Ocasio-Cortez. Liberal support for such politicians – or for any who express contempt for Israel, condone violence against Israelis, or spread loathsome stereotypes – suggests that party loyalty and disdain for President Trump often outweigh any sense of Jewish fealty or recognition of antisemitism on the left.

Despite progressive hostility regarding Jewish national rights and affinity for traditional conspiracy theories, Democrats argue their support for Israel and opposition to prejudice are unshakable; and when mentioning leftist antisemitism at all, they chalk it up to aberration or misunderstanding.

Anti-Jewish bigotry is not limited to the “hard left,” however, but rather has infected the party’s mainstream:

  • Congressman Ted Lieu of California, for example, evoked the ancient canard of Jewish disloyalty with a tweet questioning the allegiance (and demanding the resignation) of David Friedman, US Ambassador to Israel;
  • Democratic presidential hopefuls, including Corey Booker, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris, implicitly impugned Israel’s integrity when they snubbed last year’s AIPAC conference.
  • Not a single Democrat vying for the party’s nomination criticized Bernie Sanders (who has falsely accused Israel of killing thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza) for using Linda Sarsour as a campaign shill
  • None have defended Israel against apartheid claims that are facially absurd.

According to the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute of 2002, apartheid is a humanitarian crime “committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.”  Considering the freedoms that characterize Israeli society – where Arabs are professionals, judges, and legislators and have a higher standard of living than anywhere in the Arab-Muslim world – it is unconscionable when Democrat politicians refuse to defend Israel against spurious charges of racist oppression.

As the Democratic primaries approach, leading candidates instead seem to be reinforcing their anti-Israel credentials to appease their progressive base.

  • The Warren campaign, for example, brought aboard Max Berger, founder of the liberal group IfNotNow, whose members have attempted to infiltrate Taglit Birthright and Jewish summer camp programs to indoctrinate youth against Israel.
  • And Pete Buttigieg stated his intention to cut aid to Israel (though as a foreign policy neophyte he articulated no credible reason for singling out Israel)
  • Warren, Sanders and other prominent Democrats made similar statements at this year’s J Street conference.

It is important to note that:

  • Whereas most potential nominees did support an anti-BDS resolution in the Senate, they have uniformly failed to sanction antisemites within their party, who have instead been rewarded with prestigious appointments to influential committees.
  • Furthermore, the refusal of House Democrats to pass a resolution specifically condemning antisemitism or sanctioning Omar’s outrageous remarks indicates an odious tolerance for bigotry, as long as it targets Israel and comes from the left.

Discomfort regarding Israel is systemic because most Democrats continue to cling to the two-state paradigm, though it is based on revisionist Palestinian mythology that denies Jewish history and is rejected by most Israelis.

Sadly, Jewish liberals are often willing to ignore progressive antisemitism and instead direct their outrage at Mr. Trump (who despite his foibles is the most pro-Israel president ever to occupy the White House), while criticizing Israel for supposedly occupying “Palestinian” lands and oppressing Palestinian-Arabs.  However, “occupation” exists only in the minds of revisionist zealots and propagandists, who must ignore historical and geopolitical reality to justify their position.

Falsified history and ignorance

Progressives’ knowledge of Israeli history is typically sketchy and exhibits little understanding of (or respect for) the Jews’ unbroken connection to their homeland, which is supported by the historical, archeological, and scriptural records.  Moreover, their anti-Israel criticisms are characterized by a refusal to acknowledge Jewish history or the pedigree of lands comprising the modern Jewish State and territories. Instead, liberal angst focuses on the rights of Palestinian-Arabs, whose history is a contemporary political invention of questionable foundation.  The two-state fantasy seeks to restore Palestinian-Arabs to a country that never existed in a land where they never established cultural institutions, exercised political sovereignty, or exhibited any indicia of nationality or statehood.

This historical awareness is crucial for countering the revisionism embraced by progressives who impute ancient stereotypes to the Jewish State – including modern reworkings of the Blood Libel, classical global conspiracy theories, and the myths of disproportionate Jewish influence, power and perfidy.  It is also necessary for dispelling ridiculous and apocryphal claims that Palestinians are descended from ancient Phoenicians or Canaanites – assertions that are intended to imply aboriginal validity but which crumble under the weight of objective scrutiny.

The role of Jewish progressives

For generations, Americans have been rejecting normative Jewish values in favor of progressive ideals that contravene traditional Judaism.  Though most liberal Jews profess support for Israel, their true feelings should be judged not by self-serving affirmations, but by their political priorities and alliances.  Their proclamations of fidelity to Israel are contradicted by the endorsement of candidates who delegitimize the Jewish State, staff campaigns with anti-Israel activists, or snub Jewish organizations like AIPAC.  Moreover, they cannot claim fairness to Israel if they tolerate BDS, support organizations like J Street, or provide forums in their synagogues for Israel-hating artists, activists, and politicos. Or, if they believe hatred of Jews and Israel is merely a partisan “wedge issue.”  Such thinking betrays the elevation of temporal politics over authentic Judaism and concern for cultural survival.

What would Jewish liberals say if Democratic leaders were to ask African-Americans, feminists, or gay activists to disregard racism, misogyny, or homophobia as “wedge issues”?  Certainly, they would denounce such pleas as offensive and lambaste those with the temerity to make them. And liberal rabbis would be shouting from the rooftops about cultural insensitivity and beseeching their congregants to hit the streets in protest.

So how can they accept Democratic condescension that exhorts them to ignore antisemitism within their party and excuse party leadership for trivializing the problem and protecting the perpetrators?

Whether their obsessive political loyalties arise from ignorance, delusion, or self-rejection, the end result is always the same – the abandonment of Jewish kith and kin, the denial of history and heritage, and the devaluation of the Jewish spirit.

EDITORS NOTE: This Israel National News column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How Big Government Hurts Women

Government-mandated employee perks might sound like a good way to help out working women, but, in reality, these programs do more harm than good. European women are already paying the price, and American women might be next. Carrie Lukas, President of Independent Women’s Forum, explains how keeping the government out of the workplace goes a long way toward keeping women in it.

For more information on Independent Women’s Forum visit IWF.org


The bigger the government, the better for women.

Is that statement true or false? Well, if party affiliation is any indicator, most women under the age of 40 would say “true.”

Young women, especially single women, are among the left’s most loyal supporters. This isn’t surprising given that programs like government-subsidized childcare and government-mandated paid family leave sound like things that make life better for women. But do they really?

Most European governments provide subsidies that allow women to stay home for months—even years—following the birth of a child. And some European countries require employers to offer female employees part-time and flexible work arrangements.

So have European women benefited from these programs? The answer is no—unless you think lower wages, fewer jobs, and fewer management opportunities benefit women.

Why is this the case? Because these supposedly women-friendly government mandates change the way businesses evaluate female employees. It encourages companies to assume that women will not only cost them more, but they’ll be less productive than men.

Spain is a good example. In 1999, that country passed a law giving women with young children the right to work reduced hours. But a study by economists at the IE Business School in Madrid and at Queens College of the City University of New York found that women paid a big price in lost opportunities: Companies were less likely to hire women of childbearing age, less likely to promote them, and more likely to dismiss them compared with men.

When Chile tried similar policies, similar outcomes resulted. In the words of Maria Prada, an economist for the Inter-American Development Bank: “[The purpose of the law was] to help [women] participate in the labor force and achieve more work-family balance, and it’s doing the opposite.”

A study of 22 countries by two Cornell economists showed that in countries with the most extensive benefits for women, women are more likely to be in dead-end jobs, and less likely to become managers or top executives. This is because once the government mandates additional benefits for women, employers place them on the “mommy track,” meaning they assume women will want to work fewer hours whether that’s true or not.

This might explain why in the United States, where these benefits are not mandated, women account for more than 40 percent of senior managers while in more “progressive” Europe, that number is a little over 30 percent.

But Big Government doesn’t throw obstacles only at women trying to get ahead. It throws obstacles at women struggling to get by. Here, we don’t have to go to Europe to find examples; there are plenty in the United States.

Take the issue of occupational licenses—government regulations requiring a license to pursue particular professions. Sure, people operating dangerous and complex equipment should have to get special training, take tests, and be licensed. But why are occupational licenses required for hair shampooers and braiders?

In some states, licenses are even required for interior designers and florists. Getting licenses can require hundreds of hours of schooling and entail major fees. That’s not about protecting consumers or public safety. That’s a source of revenue for city and state governments, and a way for some politically powerful lobby groups to keep out competition. And since more women obtain occupational licenses than men, women are disproportionately hurt.

So what’s the solution? Less government, not more.

Since 2017, a combination of tax cuts and deregulation (meaning less government) have been a boon for women. Women’s weekly median earnings have gone up by almost 5 percent. The unemployment rate for women has fallen to 3.4 percent—a historic low. And more women are starting businesses than ever before.

Between 2017 and 2018, women started almost two thousand businesses a day! Right now, there are an estimated 12.3 million women-owned businesses—a 6% increase since 2016. And here’s the topper: Since 2017, more and more businesses have voluntarily offered family benefits to employees. Why? Because the more companies have to compete for workers, the more benefits workers receive. That’s how the free market works—and the opposite of how big government works.

The free market, it turns out, does a much better job at creating opportunities for women than big government does. This not only means better jobs and better pay for women, but also the chance to craft the lives they actually want. After all, not every woman needs or values a generous childcare package.

But when the government mandates benefits, they become, in effect, taxes that every woman—and man—has to pay.

The bigger the government, the better for women? You might want to rethink that one.

I’m Carrie Lukas, president of Independent Women’s Forum, for Prager University.

EDITORS NOTE: This PragerU video is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Another Coup Bites the Dust [Video]

I’m not going to invest my time and write an in depth analysis of the latest coup to bite the dust. Watch this clip below. I enter at time marker 8:45. In this interview with a former Obama Ambassador, I called it way back then. There is no whistle blower and there is nothing to whistle blow. Watch my final comments as they had a chuckle on me. I was right and I will be back and make sure they hear me again.

Watch This Clip at 8:45

On impeachment hearing eve, I joined Will Johnson on INFOWARS at Firepower. All of my views about what was to come once the impeachment hearing began are in this discussion. I nailed it. I enter at 1:06:37.

Whats Next?

This will drag on for a bit but another coup will bite the dust. Want to know what’s next? Indictments will be served against the deep state and its operatives more than likely before 2019 plays out. This process will soon begin. Read this important article titled “I Caught The Swamp”.

Clarion Call

This battle will rage on for the rest of our lives. Pray for our President and his family. No Trump-no hope. What we do right here, right now is for posterity. So when your children and grandchildren ask you “What were you doing when the global governance was being thrust down the throat of America and the world, what will your answer be? Freedom, it’s up to U.S.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: It’s democracy — not Trump — that’s on trial on Capitol Hill

FBI Data: Anti-Muslim hate crimes under Trump are below Obama levels in 2014

The media has put out numerous pieces based on bad data and hate crime hoaxes claiming that President Trump was responsible for a rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes. Now the FBI data is out and it actually shows that anti-Muslim hate crimes under Trump are below Obama levels in 2014.

Does that mean that Obama was actually responsible for anti-Muslim hate crimes while Trump is a beacon of tolerance? If the media were logically consistent, instead of narratively consistent, then sure. But since the media is narratively consistent, that’s not the conclusion it will draw.

 By the numbers: Of 4,571 reported attacks the bureau tracked, aggravated assaults were up 4%, simple assaults up 15% and intimidation up 13%. The report also shows that assaults targeting Muslims, Arab Americans and African Americans have gone down, while violence against Latinos has risen.

The report says 485 hate crimes were reported against Latinos in 2018, compared to 43 in 2017.

270 hate crimes were reported against Muslims and Arab Americans — the lowest since 2014.

1,943 hate crimes were reported against African Americans — the lowest since 1992.

Guess which one of those numbers the media will play up and blame on President Trump?

Hint: It’s the negative one of the three.


Inside Mosques: Savannah and Statesboro, Georgia

New York Times called Baghdadi a “terrorist,” but scrubs “terror” from article about killing of “Palestinian” jihadi

RELATED VIDEO: Subtitled video of the Koran burn in Norway.

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

PODCAST: New Program Aims to Help Young Adults Grow in Faith, Maturity Before College

Should students go straight to college after high school? Tommy Nelson, senior pastor of Denton Bible Church, would argue no. “If they are Christian kids [in college], they are ganged up upon by their seniors and they’re now in a survival mode. I mean, you lose your faith, you lose your virginity, you lose your liver in time, and then you can lose your life,” Nelson says. To combat this problem, the Texas pastor created the GAP Program, a nine-month leadership course where high school graduates can learn theology, life skills, job skills, and more before attending a university.

On today’s podcast, Nelson discusses why he started the leadership program, how it operates, and how we can prepare young people to stand against the rise of secularism on college campuses. Read the lightly edited transcript below or listen to the podcast:

Virginia Allen: I am joined by Tommy Nelson, senior pastor of Denton Bible Church in Denton, Texas, just about 40 miles north of Dallas. Tommy, thank you so much for joining me.

Tommy Nelson: Thank you. Delighted to be with you.

Allen: All right. So, Tommy, you are telling young people not to go to college—or at least not right away.

In fact, your church has created a program called GAP that is specifically for young men who have just graduated from high school. And the GAP Program, as I’ve seen kind of described on your website, is essentially a nine-month leadership training program to teach theology, life skills, job skills, and so forth.

So why do you think that it’s so important for young people to not go straight to college after high school and maybe to consider a program like GAP?

Nelson: Well, I’m now 69 years old and when I was young, college was the ticket. You had to go to college. That was how you were going to rise. Well, college is a lot different now than what it was then. I can never recall in college, I went to North Texas State University, and I can never recall God, my faith, the Bible being attacked. It was considered rude. Maybe they did it at [University of California,] Berkeley, but nobody did it there.

And yet, I have worked with college students for almost 50 years now, and now when a kid goes to college, you have the secular worldview that has set up shop, and secularism says there is no final truth. It is found subjectively within you and how you feel to make you happy and no one can judge you. That’s secularism.

And so, when somebody comes with an uplifted Bible, the response is like Nebuchadnezzar to people who will not bow to his image. And so scientifically, psychologically, morally, that faith is attacked and you just see kids, Virginia, that go to college and if they’re not set up yet, which a lot of 18 [year olds] aren’t, they are swept away.

If they are Christian kids, they are ganged up upon by their seniors and they’re now in a survival mode. I mean, you lose your faith, you lose your virginity, you lose your liver in time, and then you can lose your life.

Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>

Colleges now are not simply trying to make you a living but not a life, they’re trying to get you a living and destroy what you thought was life, and the fear of God, the image of God and man, the absoluteness of moral absolutes that they’re out for you.

We don’t try to keep kids out of college, but we say, “Before you go to college, let us take you in a GAP, God’s Alternative Plan, and let’s take you and we’ll teach you Bible. We’ll teach you apologetics. We’ll teach you about where secularism came from.”

America’s gone from Calvinism to Arminianism to liberalism to secularism. Secularism was where nobody cares if there’s a God. Agnosticism doesn’t believe that you can know. Secularism just doesn’t care. And man is now exalted in humanistic secularism.

We just take you and we train you in life skills. We show kids how to dress, how to have etiquette. We show them how to work on their car, how to do blacksmithing. We show you how to do carpentry, we show you how to garden. And you take a college nine months and we bring in people, excellent men from all over, and we just teach it. We’re doing it with men now.

In a couple of years we hope to go to women. We’re kind of building the airplane as we fly it. You know what I’m saying? No one’s ever really done this that I know of, and so we’re kind of building it as we go.

Allen: Oh, it’s so practical to take both that theology side and then just those life skills, those jobs skills.

Nelson: Right, yeah. And a kid today, Virginia, can live in a room with a smartphone and never get out of it. I mean, he’s got access to the Library of Congress. And so a lot of life skills, a lot of people skills, social skills, moral skills, domestic skills, workplace skills. Kids have just so much today that have them removed.

There’s a verse in Proverbs, it says, “An inheritance gained hurriedly at the beginning will not be blessed in the end.” Meaning, when you give a kid too much too quick, it’ll ruin him. It’s not giving him a chance to struggle.

So we’ll take boys, Virginia, we want them to be able to do 50 push-ups, 10 pull-ups, and be able to run a 10K. My son who is in a home, what do they call it? Secret Service, home—

Allen: Homeland Security.

Nelson: Homeland Security. He told me that they’re getting guys now that their femurs give way, their hips give way. Their bones just are not hard because they hadn’t been stressed, they’ve sat around so long.

It’s been found that kids, something like 70% of the kids in the United States, couldn’t get into the military because of their lack of physical fitness. And so, we make them physically fit, socially adept.

… [It’s] like in the South. They would take a kid and put him down, make him eat in the basement until he was instructed by a servant on how to conduct himself and how to be apropos in public. Then they’d let him come up to the adults.

And kids now just don’t have any life skills. As I talk with a lot of them, young guys now, they’re not really interested that much in college, but they are just about learning how to live, how to [develop] life skills.

I think men in our country have been so condescended upon that a man is just afraid to assert himself in a home. They’re all desperately looking for a male figure with authority and love to set up shop and say, “This is the way it is.” It’s kind of like in the Bible when you read the Book of Proverbs.

Solomon will say, “My son,” and he’ll say, “Don’t do that. Be aware of this, do this.” And he’ll give you little two-line sermons over and over and over just to help you make it through life. That’s what we try to do in the GAP Program.

I had more response to it than anything we’ve ever had in 40-some odd years, 47 years of Denton Bible Church. More response by the adults saying, “We want to get behind this and do whatever we can.” I’ve never seen that big a response from kids and from adults saying, “Yes, that’s what we’ve got to have.”

Allen: Wow.

Nelson: We’re going with six [boys], as kind of a trial run. Then next year, we’re going to go to 20. Then we’re going to open it up to girls and go 40. I would like some day, Virginia, to see churches, everywhere there’s an evangelical church, to have part of their staff … do the GAP Program.

I mean, it’s a blinding flash of the obvious. I mean, you, Virginia Allen, you could do it. You could take a bunch of girls that are 18 years oldand you take them and start talking to them about morality, about God, about how to be a daughter, about parents, about authority, about being skilled, and the person you select to look at for your life partner. You can make a whole lot of difference in a young girl’s life.

Well, you just have to get a guy that knows his Bible and that knows how we got from the Puritans to same-sex gender assignment, and how we got from inalienable truths that are self-evident through nature’s God to where a judge can be censored by the ACLU for handing a Bible to a convicted murderer and show him John 3:16, which is what we had just recently in Texas.

How did we get here?

So somebody has to be able to show him [the] Bible, and history, and the devolution of Western philosophy, and get the kid ready for the chipper that he’s about to back into. You know what I mean?

Allen: Yeah, absolutely.

Nelson: When he graduates, he’s backing into a chipper and it’s going to grind him up if he’s not ready.

Allen: And you say that you roughly modeled the program after the L’Abri Fellowship, which was started by Francis and Edith Schaeffer.

Nelson: Yeah, there’s been a lot of places that did this. Princeton University was begun by what was called the Log College of a fellow named William Tennent and it became Princeton, where he took about 18 young guys and just tutored them as young men because he didn’t want to send them to Harvard or Yale that had gone liberal, and so he trained them.

L’Abri means “the shelter” in French, and Francis Schaeffer would take young men and women from Europe that had been devastated through secular humanism that reached Europe ahead of us. He would take them and walk them through it.

In Colorado Springs, the Summit Ministry by David Noble, the same thing. He looked up in ’62 and he says, “We’re sending kids to college to get threshed.” He would take them and train them. So there has been things like this all around the country starting to pop up.

It’s kind of like whenever America pressed to the West in the late 1800s, mid- to late 1800s, and gosh, I guess before because it was realized that we were going to the West, but we had no churches. So we would try to have a courthouse, a school, but there weren’t any churches.

We started what was called the Sunday School Alliance, to where the men and women would go out and on Sunday they would take the children in an hour and they would begin to train them in the Bible because they recognized that there was such a big gap, a big dearth of knowledge.

It got so well-known that pretty soon the Sunday School Association disappeared and local churches took it upon themselves to say, “We can do this.” … All of us grew up in Sunday school to some degree. That’s where it started, was just a bunch of adults said, “We got a problem here. We got kids growing up with no moral guidance.”

And when America was urbanized and industrialized, you had all kids. Daddy would now go to the factory and kids were loose, and you had gangs beginning. And out of that came YMCA, Boys Club, Boy Scouts, things like this, sports, baseball, football, to try to get kids under coaches to try to give them some guidance before the system ground them up.

And so this is an old, old idea. For that matter, heck, Virginia, the synagogue in Israel, when they were surrounded by the pagans, when they were dispersed, they would come together in a common place of instruction, [the] synagogue. They would instruct the kids on how to be Jews in the midst of Rome, and in midst of Greece, in the midst of Persia.

So that’s kind of what this is, it’s an old, old idea that kind of needs to be reborn. Every church can take some guys, some girls, some couple, and take kids and parent them, and get them ready to step into the chipper that has become the American worldview now.

Allen: And you started with six young men in September, correct?

Nelson: Right.

Allen: How’s it going?

Nelson: Like I say, we’re building the plane as we fly.

Allen: OK, great. [Do] those young men seem to be enjoying the program so far?

Nelson: They have said, “I am changed,” and we’ve only been doing it now for two months.

Allen: Wow.

Nelson: They are saying, “My life has changed,” because they were taken from a theological, philosophical, intellectual, physical two and confronted with an eight. …

The guy that I have is called Drew Anderson. He’s a former Midland, Texas, all-state Linebacker and 185 pounds, so you better be tough. A Texas A&M Aggie, a guy who did the stock market and real estate before he went into the ministry. He’s just a man’s man. He loves his wife. He loves his daughters. And he takes these young men four hours a day and he orchestrates people coming in and him instructing them.

So they’re at school, there four hours a day in our own life college. And they’re absolutely loving it because we’re exposing them to financial planners, to bankers, to master gardeners, to military men, to surgeons who are Christians that are showing them the way the big boys do it.

Allen: Yeah.

Nelson: And their lives are being changed.

Allen: Have you received any pushback from parents saying, “No, my child needs to go straight to college after they graduate high school”? And if you do have parents saying that to you, what are you saying to them?

Nelson: I say there’s maybe a few kids that could go straight to college today. There’s maybe a few. I’ve seen a couple that are so grounded by their parents, Bible theology, life, and social skills that they can do it, but very few. And so we have had zero pushback from parents.

We had one kid come in the program because his mother filled out the entrance form unknown to him just to get him in.

All that we ask from a kid, a young man, and [in] two years from a young woman, is that they have a motor, they have to be self-motivated. It’s not a recovery program. We’re not taking drug addicts and trying to rehab them. We’re taking kids. If you’ve been a drug addict, that’s OK, but we’re taking kids that want desperately to be successful in life and are not quite sure how to do it.

We can’t spend our time trying to parent a disobedient child, and so we’ll send them home. If they don’t show up to class, if they can’t show up on time, if they can’t get along with people in it, we’ll have to send them home. It costs like $2,500 a year to do it, which would be the lowest junior college education you could get, and so it’s not a great fee, but we want them to make a commitment and to stay with us.

We have had no pushback. What we have had is we’ll have up to 150 parents come together in a meeting with their particular life skill to say, “I want to be able to be used. If you can use me in any way, use me.”

We’ve had guys that are recovering drug addicts that came to us and said, “Can you can use me?” We said, “Yes we can,” and we get you in there.

We have people that will come and teach them about STDs and say, “This is what you’re looking at if you become immoral, this is going to happen.”

So we have had huge response from the parents.

Allen: And is the program at Denton Bible Church, is it only for your students in your congregation? Or could a young person in Florida apply, for example?

Nelson: Anybody, anybody. Now, if you’re in there, you got to go to Denton Bible Church.

Allen: OK.

Nelson: You go to the first service and you don’t just get to sit, you become a greeter, or you become a usher, or you become someone that serves communion, or you become someone that sits in and helps with the infants and plays with the squalling kids.

We’re not going to let you just sit. You’re going to be in the commons group at our church, and you’re going to be a servant in that group. So it’s not a time that you’re going to sit and vegetate for a year. You’re going to be busy and you’re going to serve within the church.

Allen: Now, if churches want to find out more about duplicating your model, or if students want to apply, how can they find out more?

Nelson: I’m not an expert on a computer machine, but they can just go to Denton Bible on the computer and then look at Denton Bible, and then look for the GAP. … We’ve made a video because we would get a huge number of calls saying, “What are you doing?” And so, we’re having people call and we show them.

And, Virginia, in time, if it works, we got to wait and see if it works—it’s great on paper and it looks great after two months, but we’re waiting to see—we would like in time to write on it and to say, “Here’s how you do it.” Because any church can do this and it’s a blinding flash of the obvious. It’s falling off a log. Young guys are all looking for old guys. Old guys are longing to invest in the next generation.

Psalm 71, “Do not forsake me, O God, until I make thy name known to the generation to come.” All you got to have is an intelligent, loving, communicable person that can be funded by a church to say this is your position, is to develop the GAP Program.

We would like to have, in time, I’d like to have 500 kids a year coming and going in this, to where it becomes something that every evangelical church in our country does—taking the kids in the church and around the church because they’re not just kids in our church. We got a kid from Chicago, we got kids from all over that have come to do this, so we’re thinking any church can do it and every church ought to do it.

Allen: Well, Tommy, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it and learning more about the GAP Program. So exciting to hear.

Nelson: Thank you, Virginia.


Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5.

A Note for our Readers:

As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.

We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.

The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?

The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

7 Things to Know About Rep. Jim Jordan as He Leads GOP’s Defense of Trump

As impeachment hearings took the spotlight on Capitol Hill, Rep. Jim Jordan, one of President Donald Trump’s fiercest defenders, is temporarily reassigned to the House committee driving the process, where the Ohio Republican already is questioning witnesses sharply and voicing his party’s frustration with the partisan process.

As recently as a week ago, Jordan was the top Republican on the House Oversight and Reform Committee, where he took part in closed-door depositions of witnesses before this week’s public hearings.

The change that placed Jordan on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence signals congressional Republicans’ faith in him as a capable communicator tasked with combating the attack strategy of Democratic lawmakers.

That’s exactly what Jordan sought to do during the first public impeachment hearing Wednesday with initial witnesses William Taylor, acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>

Here are seven things to know about the fiery Ohio lawmaker as he takes a leading role in the Republicans’ defense strategy for Trump in the impeachment inquiry.

1. He was founding chairman of the House Freedom Caucus.

As a staunch conservative who often butted heads with Republican Party leadership in Congress, Jordan helped to found the House Freedom Caucus in 2015.

Jordan, together with several other prominent congressional conservatives sympathetic to the tea party movement, started the caucus to consolidate support for strongly conservative policies and pressure then-House Speaker John Boehner, a fellow Ohio Republican, to take up more conservative legislation.

The Freedom Caucus was instrumental in Boehner’s resignation as House speaker when several members withdrew their support, and Boehner found it increasingly difficult to unify the right wing of the party with more moderate lawmakers.

Jordan served as the first chairman of the caucus from 2015 to 2017, and the group now has more than 30 members, all Republicans, in the House.

2. Boehner called him a “legislative terrorist.”

In case it wasn’t already clear, Jordan isn’t shy about undermining Republican leadership.

In an interview with Politico in 2017, Boehner recalled Jordan’s role in resisting his more moderate agenda.

“Jordan was a terrorist as a legislator going back to his days in the Ohio House and Senate,” Boehner said. “A terrorist. A legislative terrorist.”

3. He was a collegiate championship wrestler.

Jordan competed as a wrestler while attending the University of Wisconsin at Madison, winning two NCAA Division I championships in 1985 and 1986.

Even though he’s left his athletic career behind, Jordan still has a reputation as a fierce combatant, only this time it’s in the House instead of the gym.

4. He faced criticism surrounding his time as a wrestling coach.

Jordan was an assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State University from 1987 to 1995.

After numerous male athletes accused a team physician, Dr. Richard Strauss, of sexual abuse, Jordan came under fire for doing nothing to protect students at the time. He has said he was unaware of the abuse.

“The idea I’m not going to defend our athletes when I think they’re being harmed is ridiculous,” Jordan said on Monday, when asked about a college wrestling referee who claimed he told Jordan about allegations against Strauss, according to LimaOhio.com.

“This is just, this is someone making a false statement,” he added.

Democrats will likely continue to accuse Jordan of wrongdoing, especially as he takes a more visible role in the impeachment proceedings.

5. He argued for opening a special counsel probe (just not the Russia one).

In 2014, Jordan introduced a resolution calling on then-Attorney General Eric Holder to open a special counsel investigation into revelations that the IRS targeted the tax-exempt status of a number of conservative nonprofits.

Holder ordered an FBI investigation into the issue, and what was then called the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on which  Jordan served, found that conservative groups were targeted more often than liberal ones.

But with the appointment of a special counsel into Russian interference in the 2016 election, Jordan gained a new reputation as a fierce opponent of the investigation. He worked to undermine special counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein by questioning their impartiality, defining himself as a staunch defender of Trump in the process.

6. He ran for House speaker after Paul Ryan’s resignation.

Jordan took advantage of his position as one of the president’s closest allies to run for House speaker in 2018, when Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who had succeeded Boehner, retired.

Although House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., ultimately won the GOP conference’s vote, he didn’t become House speaker because Democrats recaptured the majority in the 2018 elections.

Jordan’s attempted push into party leadership in the House, however, secured his name among the upper echelons of Trump-era Republican power brokers.

McCarthy is now House minority leader, and put Jordan on the Intelligence Committee for the impeachment inquiry.

7. He has a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union.

Jordan is one of only three current lawmakers with a perfect lifetime score from the American Conservative Union, an organization that ranks members of Congress based on their voting records on conservative issues.

It should come as little surprise that Jordan has a perfect 100 rating. As a leading conservative in the House, he’s driven the conversation about conservative policies for years.

Now that he’s front and center for the impeachment hearings, Jordan is getting the chance to bring his fiery brand of conservatism to bear on witnesses in the inquiry.


Aaron Credeur

Aaron Credeur is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.


What You Need to Know About Impeachment

Jim Jordan: ‘No One Has Testified That There Has Been a Quid Pro Quo’

What If They Gave an Impeachment and Nobody Came?

You’ll Be Surprised Who Is Trying to Empower the Deep State at EPA

This Web Designer Shouldn’t Have to Wait to Be Free to Create

New Program Aims to Help Young Adults Grow in Faith, Maturity Before College

A Note for our Readers:

As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.

We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.

The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?

The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Another hijab hate hoax. This time in Denver

Posted by Eeyore

There’s been an unexpected twist in the story of a metro Denver Muslim mom who says she faced “blatant racial profiling” after being stopped at a Pepsi Center entrance because of her hijab. Argus, the company that handles security for the Pepsi Center, is defending the actions of its employee and has released security footage of the incident.

The woman at the center of the episode is Gazella Bensreiti, who arrived at the Pepsi Center on November 5 with her daughter, whose school was scheduled to sing the national anthem before a Denver Nuggets-Miami Heat game.

On Facebook, Bensreiti wrote that “upon entering, a woman named Dorothea put her hand to my face and told me that I would have to ‘take that thing off’ of my head. I told her that I would not take it off due to religious reasons. I was wearing a turban/cap. I explained to her that it was my hijab and that I would not be taking it off, to which she responded, ‘I don’t care, you can’t come in with it on.’ I then asked if she’d be willing to take me to the side so that I could remove it and show her my entire head in private. Again, she told me no.’” […]

(The article continues with allegations etc. etc. and CAIR joins in of course. The truth of the incident can be seen in the video below)

The Human Tragedy of the Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs by Joshua Winston

Everywhere Muslims settle, rape and grooming gangs spring up. Whether it be a town, city, village or a new land, rape is what many Muslim men become known for in the West. Every race and culture produce rapists, but none so flagrant and voluminous as Muslims (Pakistanis in particular). There is a new documentary released just now called “Why dad killed mum, my family’s secret.” Tasnim Lowe, the daughter of a young girl who was impregnated at a young age by a Muslim man and then killed along with her family in a fire that he deliberately started, is now seeking answers as to why her mother (Lucy Lowe) was killed. She is asking what red flags should have been set off by an adult man impregnating a 14-year-old girl at that time (roughly two decades ago). She is also asking what more her mother’s family could have done to prevent the deaths of her mother, aunt and grandmother at the hands of this violent Muslim man. After all, her mother started dating the 24-year-old man when she was only 13. Why was no one objecting to that? Why weren’t police and children’s services not going after a man who had raped a child in the eyes of the law?

In March, 2018, 18-year-old Tasnim (on Mother’s Day) saw her own dead mother’s face on the front page of a daily newspaper, coupled with an article stating that she had been the victim of a Muslim grooming gang. Her mother’s face is young in the picture, innocent and happy. Hard to believe that she should be involved with a grown man and having sexual relations, harder still to believe that such a young girl could be viewed as being sexually desirable by any man. Even harder to comprehend an adult wanting to terrorise her or manipulate her mind with a view towards raping and controlling her before finally murdering her. The sight of her mother’s face in relation to such a claim was a shock to Tasnim, and the reason was because another Muslim grooming gang in the area were acting in the exact same way as the Muslim man who killed her mother did. They were raping girls and threatening to burn down their victims’ houses with their family inside if they alerted the police or their parents to the fact that they were being raped and trafficked. An investigative journalist had been working for three years on a story that centered around the grooming of white girls at the hands of hundreds of Muslim men. The terrified girls were showing the journalist pictures of Lucy Lowe. Her death was being used as a warning to the girls of what would happen to them if they told anyone about what the Muslim men were currently doing to them.

The grooming, rape, beating, and trafficking of young white girls in the UK coupled with death threats is a pattern that Muslims follow the length of the country from Glasgow to Bristol. If something is a pattern, then it’s not random. Scientists (depending on the project), physicists, and astronomers look for patterns in order to prove their theories and to predict the behaviour of any particular organism, or equation, or planetary body. The rapes committed by Muslim men is a pattern unlike anything the West has ever seen, and the carnage provides the data that lays the blame at the feet of Muslim men. The obsession with virginal underage white girls drives them to commit atrocities that should have been resigned to the Medieval period, or confined in and contained to the barbaric lands of their birth.

The grooming and rapes committed by Muslim men consist of the same story that is sadly all too familiar at this point, and all too soul-numbing to recount: “a horrendous grooming ring that had been going on for decades, with girls raped, beaten, sold and some even killed…Survivors explained how the abuse worked; the groomers were nice to them at first – buying them takeaways or presents – before taking them to…be raped, or to people’s houses and passed around to friends…McKelvie kept hearing about one street where there was a row of seven or eight houses, “where there was pretty much a rapist in every house”. She also heard how underage girls were taken to rooms above takeaways to be assaulted and raped with the perpetrators selling them and making thousands of pounds.”

Tasnim’s Muslim father was called the “house blaze killer” and “the country’s worst ever murderer.” No mention was made that he is a Muslim, and no thought was given as to why he was behaving in that manner. Failings and neglect and incompetence by every safeguarding agency in the UK, from police right through to social workers, has allowed Muslim men to continue raping and grooming non-Muslim girls with impunity. And yet the number of Muslim rapists and groomers continues to swell in the UK, in spite of there being a spotlight now shining on them after a revolt from a very vocal public. Every week and month reveals a new Muslim grooming gang and the exact same horrors inflicted on a new bunch of girls who are already in or who are about to enter their teens. All of the Muslim gang members come from Muslim communities that Muslims have built. All of them are friends and neighbours, and a shockingly high number of them are related, with a granddad participating in the rape of a child tied to a bed at one point with his sons and grandsons. But do allow Muslims and imams and the media to tell you that the rapists’ families and their communities and their mosques had no idea what was going on. Lie down to the untruths that they spin if your brain can’t deal with the horrors. The shocking thing to me is that I find myself weary in the retelling of these tales. How many more times will I or anyone else have to type out the exact same stories with the only thing to have changed in the ensuing years being that of the next victims of Muslim rape gangs? The men’s religion and names won’t have changed. They’ll still be Muslims, and most of them will be called Muhammad (or a variant spelling), with the occasional Ali being thrown into the mix.

Of course it doesn’t help that police and media tend to forever be on the side of the Muslim rapists here in the UK. All of these agencies are prepared to lay sacrifices on the altar of multiculturalism. We think we live in a modern society, but these rapes and killings hearken back to the Aztecs and the blood sacrifices they offered to their Gods. Today the Gods that we offer up our sacrifices to are those Muslim men whose satanic impulses must be met and sated regardless the cost. In all these millennia, we haven’t really travelled that far after all. We still tolerate a bloodlust, and those who swear oaths to protect us are high priests who assist with the procuring and killings. With the Muslim male gangs in our society, the devil truly does walk among us.


Scotland: A Further Slap in the Face for Victims of Muslim Rape Gangs

U of Florida prof: “Islamic State tries to boost its legitimacy by hijacking a historic institution,” the caliphate

France is target of more Islamic jihad attacks than any other EU state, French Leftists denounce “Islamophobia”

Germany: Muslim migrants harass and strike women at bachelorette party

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Women Priests?

Bevil Bramwell OMI: Why is the priesthood male? Because Christ is male, and the men are there to represent Christ, in persona Christi.

The issue of women priests comes up every so often, but the questioner rarely asks simply to know the truth about the matter and then commit his/her mind to it. Instead, it becomes clear that the questioners have a really odd idea of the Church.

They think of the Church the way the Left views social institutions. For the Left, institutions exist mainly to realize political goals. So, for example, a government department exists to help members of the party find employment, to extend the power of the party, and only last to fulfill the department’s stated functions. Is there time for all these things? Similarly, marriage is all about power and so is every other relationship. So, in their eyes, the Catholic priesthood is all about politics and power, not grace and communion.

Clearly, the Left’s power framework offers no way to describe the Catholic priesthood. It is like trying to describe the space shuttle, but only using words that start with the letter A. What the revolutionaries forget is that no human organization – not even an ambitious political party – can design a totally valid religion.

The best that such a party can come up with is the party itself (and in many countries their secret police). For example, when Martin Luther designed a new religion, he took pieces of Catholicism, violated others, e.g., his vows; married a nun; dropped tradition; dropped the priesthood, etc. What he created was very much a political entity – he chose popular teachings and was protected by the emperor against the pope.

A better explanation about the why’s of the male priesthood, one that is true, comes from what God has done, and is doing in our history. We learn what religion is from God. We do not instruct God on what religion we will tolerate.

After all, God reminds us, “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9) God does not say that once you have joined the “right” political party you can dispense with my ways. The party may think that way, but that is because it’s just a political party.

Our terms come from the Scriptures and the tradition, where God reveals himself to us and interprets what he is saying and doing. The terms come to us. We cannot “re-imagine” them or subject them to “paradigm shifts.” We do not have that kind of standing.

Vatican II taught that: “The Lord established ministers among his faithful to unite them together in one body in which, ‘not all the members have the same function’ (Rom 12:4).” Jesus chose his ministers – the apostles. They were all men even though there were dozens of religions with priestesses at the time of Christ.

Yet Jesus did change other, merely cultural things like eating on the sabbath, eating with sinners, having women among his followers, etc. So the old chestnut that Jesus was bound by the culture of his time simply does not wash.


The punch line is that “Jesus chose his ministers. They were men.” There you have it in a nutshell. There is a male priesthood because Christ did it that way. Jesus is God and so does nothing accidental or based on a prejudice. Not allowing him the sovereign freedom of God means your Christology is off. When Jesus walked the earth, there was no debate about political correctness. There was no polling of believers.

Moreover, “the Sacred Council teaches that bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles as shepherds of the Church, and he who hears them, hears Christ, and he who rejects them, rejects Christ and Him who sent Christ.” (Vatican II)

By these words, the Council fathers meant a particular kind of personal presence, an embodied presence – otherwise there would have been no hearing of the Word – and that means a gendered presence. In this case, a male presence.

It is male because Christ is male, and the men are there to represent Christ. The priest’s natural imaging of the male Christ through embodied interaction is used by Christ’s supernatural power and the priest becomes the instrument of the Lord.

This is so because “only God can offer worthy sacrifice to God,” in the brilliant formulation of the priest/philosopher Robert Sokolowski. By ordination, male priests participate in his crucified and glorified presence, so that they can act in persona Christi (in the person of Christ), within his Bride the Church, as the perfect sacrifice is offered to God.

As St. Thomas Aquinas explained: “[Holy] Orders are about relationship.” So we have what is spiritually “spousal” in nature where the spiritual takes up the temporal for its purposes. Highlighting the marital language of the Scriptures, the Council said Jesus “unceasingly ‘nourishes and cherishes’ [the Church] whom, once purified, he willed to be cleansed and joined to himself, subject to him in love and fidelity, and whom, finally, he filled with heavenly gifts for all eternity.”

Not a word about political power anywhere in sight. Lots of mention of Jesus and his spousal relation with his spiritually feminine Church community.

Welcome to God’s religion.


Bevil Bramwell, OMI

Fr. Bevil Bramwell, OMI, PhD is the former Undergraduate Dean at Catholic Distance University. His books are: Laity: Beautiful, Good and TrueThe World of the SacramentsCatholics Read the Scriptures: Commentary on Benedict XVI’s Verbum Domini, and, most recently, John Paul II’s Ex Corde Ecclesiae: The Gift of Catholic Universities to the World.

EDITORS NOTE: This Catholic Thing column is republished with permission. © 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

The film ‘JoJo’ Rabbit’ and the Brainwashing of Children Today

“For that reason we must insist that all organs of education which may be useful for the instruction and training of the people have to fulfill their duty towards the community. Such organs or organizations are: Education of the Youth, Young Peoples Organization, Hitler Youth, Labor Front, Party and Army–all these are institutions for the education and higher training of our people.” – Adolf Hitler, Speech before the Reichstag on January 30, 1937.

“The book press and the newspaper press, lectures and art, the theatre and the cinema, they are all organs of popular education.”Adolf Hitler, Speech before the Reichstag on January 30, 1937.

Today in America children are being brainwashed to “fulfill their duty towards the community [collective]” from kindergarten to the 12th grade. From the Community College to the Colleges and Universities education has become an “organ” of the state. If you don’t believe me then just ask any student what they know about Fascism, Socialism, Communism, or Marxism. Then ask them what they know about America and her role in stopping each of these ideologies.

To understand how a brainwashed 10-year old boy can create his own fantasy world go see the satirical film JoJo Rabbit by Fox – Searchlight. Watch the trailer:

JoJo Rabbit is about the life of a 10-year old boy named JoJo who lives in a small town in Nazi Germany during WWII. The little boys and girls in the film are brainwashed to believe that they must do what the state wants them to do. For the little girls their purpose is to bear children for the Motherland. For the boys it is to die for Der Fuehrer.

The film begins with JoJo and his fellow Hitler Youth attending a training camp where they learn how to think, fight and be faithful to the Fuehrer. This leads, in the end, to these children being used as Nazi soldiers to fight and die as the onslaught of the American and Russian forces entering their town, a stark symbol of the collapse of Nazi Germany.

JoJo Rabbit shows the dark side of socialism, its ultimate brutality and bloody end.

JoJo and his mother, who apparently is part of the underground, walk past people who have been hanged in the town square as a warning to others. There are tense moments like when the Gestapo enters JoJo’s home in search of enemies of the Nazi state. There is a tragic moment when JoJo is walking through the town square and finds his mother hanged by the Nazis.

JoJo has been indoctrinated to believe that all Jews are evil. He even has a notebook with graphic drawings showing his contempt for all Jews.

Then the film throws JoJo a curve ball. JoJo accidentally learns that his mother has been sheltering a Jewish girl, who is hiding from the Gestapo, in a secret room in their home.

This reminded me of people today who are persecuted because of their beliefs. The Jews continue to be persecuted, as are Christians.

Certain ideas and beliefs are forbidden by the intelligentsia.

Today the the intelligentsia promote: homosexuality, are the followers of Mohammed, promote the myth that blacks are still in slavery, and are most likely Communists, Socialists, or Democratic Socialists. The Democrat Party has become the new Fascists. These protected classes have infiltrated our school system to further their agendas. For example: if you are white you are labeled a racist, if you are straight you are homophobic, and if you support the U.S. Constitution you are an imperialist. Get the picture?

In a January 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag Adolf Hitler stated,

It is nonsensical to think that obedience and discipline are necessary only for soldiers, but have little useful meaning in the rest of the peoples’ lives. On the contrary, the disciplined and obediently popular community is capable of mobilizing forces that facilitate an easier assertion of the peoples’ existence and thus serve the successful representation of the interests of all. However, such a community is primarily not created by the compulsion of violence, but only by the compelling power of an idea and thus by the efforts of a continuous education.


Our children are being indoctrinated to be obedient and submissive to the state. Our children have become, via a continuous indoctrination process, the new socialists who hate America because they haven’t been taught about America. America has always been great. Understanding America’s greatness requires understanding American history.

Today America is filled with “disciplined and obedient” children of the state.

Obedience to the state is the primary lesson being taught in our schools, colleges and universities. Safe spaces, microaggressions, and any thought not considered proper (the First Amendment be dammed) trigger immediate and devastating responses from students, faculty and administrators in our schools.

Our children are being taught what to think, not how to think.

Media Bias Is Corporate Bias

Liberal activists often claim that the media has a “corporate” bias. In their belief system, the fact that corporate-owned media outlets often report favorably about the wildly successful free market system, slowing the growth of government spending, and keeping taxes low are “corporate” biases instead of common sense.

In fact, the media’s real corporate bias is in taking slanted positions which are more activist than journalist. For example, the Media Research Center recently discovered that ABC, CBS, and NBC used language and angles in favor of the House liberals’ impeachment probe 96% of the time that they were evaluating the ongoing political circus.

That’s right. The alleged stalwarts of the “fourth estate” have decided that neutrality is so last century. Liberal condemnation of “big money” in politics goes silent when corporate leaders have their hands in the media pot at outlets like The New York Times. The Times raises billions more annually than conservative candidates across the country between 2015 and 2018, in part thanks to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim’s bail-out of the outlet in 2009.

We bet that the Times had no problem with “big money” or “foreign money” then. The company ended up using its money to support left-wing race-baiting.

Whether we call it “big money” or “corporate bias,” the facts are the same. Liberal outlets say they want corporations to have limited power even as they use their money and influence to sway voters throughout the country.

From guns to abortion to religious liberty and marriage, corporate-owned media has a bias the size of Texas. Liberals slam Fox News, but it’s the only major outlet providing the other side of the coin. In the meantime, House liberals continue to play politics as your rights are whittled away.


The Company Contrast – Victoria’s Secret

This Week’s Scores At-A-Glance, 11/15/19

Lies, Lies and More Lies: Trump and His Critics

The Fake News Media Celebrates the Fall of the Berlin Wall—But Also Celebrates Stalinist Cuba

EDITORS NOTE: This 2nd Vote column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Brad Johnson summarizes the impeachment proceedings so far and predicts the near future

Posted by Eeyore

Direct link

Brad Johnson

Brad Johnson retired as a Senior Operations Officer and Chief of Station with the Central Intelligence Agency’s Directorate of Operations. He has served domestically and abroad with numerous assignments often during periods of armed conflict. He has served overseas in direct support of the War against Terrorism. Mr. Johnson is a certified senior expert in Counterintelligence issues with extensive direct experience in the field. He is a senior expert in surveillance and surveillance detection issues. He has proven expertise in dangerous operational environments with the highest level of training and extensive direct experience in tradecraft for dangerous areas. His proven expertise also extends to denied operational environments (most difficult and restrictive) with the highest levels of training offered anywhere in the USG or the world and extensive direct experience. Mr. Johnson managed the overseas portion of the Persons Indicated For War Crimes (PIFWC) program and has served overseas as Chief of Station multiple times. He is an enrolled member of The Cherokee Nation, a Federally Recognized Tribe. Since his retirement from the CIA, Mr. Johnson has run a successful intelligence related training company.

The Origins of the Thought Police—and Why They Scare Us

In a sense, “1984” is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power.

There are a lot of unpleasant things in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984. Spying screens. Torture and propaganda. Victory Gin and Victory Coffee always sounded particularly dreadful. And there is Winston Smith’s varicose ulcer, apparently a symbol of his humanity (or something), which always seems to be “throbbing.” Gross.

None of this sounds very enjoyable, but it’s not the worst thing in 1984. To me, the most terrifying part was that you couldn’t keep Big Brother out of your head.

Unlike other 20th-century totalitarians, the authoritarians in 1984 aren’t that interested in controlling behavior or speech. They do, of course, but it’s only as a means to an end. Their real goal is to control the gray matter between the ears.

“When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will,” O’Brien (the bad guy) tells the protagonist Winston Smith near the end of the book.

We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him.

Big Brother’s tool for doing this is the Thought Police, aka the ThinkPol, who are assigned to root out and punish unapproved thoughts. We see how this works when Winston’s neighbor Parsons, an obnoxious Party sycophant, is reported to the Thought Police by his own child, who heard him commit a thought crime while talking in his sleep.

“It was my little daughter,” Parsons tells Winston when asked who it was who denounced him. “She listened at the keyhole. Heard what I was saying, and nipped off to the patrols the very next day. Pretty smart for a nipper of seven, eh?”

We don’t know a lot about the Thought Police, and some of what we think we know may actually not be true since some of what Winston learns comes from the Inner Party, and they lie.

What we know is this: The Thought Police are secret police of Oceania—the fictional land of 1984 that probably consists of the UK, the Americas, and parts of Africa—who use surveillance and informants to monitor the thoughts of citizens. The Thought Police also use psychological warfare and false-flag operations to entrap free thinkers or nonconformists.

Those who stray from Party orthodoxy are punished but not killed. The Thought Police don’t want to kill nonconformists so much as break them. This happens in Room 101 of the Ministry of Love, where prisoners are re-educated through degradation and torture. (Funny sidebar: the name Room 101 apparently was inspired by a conference room at the BBC in which Orwell was forced to endure tediously long meetings.)

Orwell didn’t create the Thought Police out of thin air. They were inspired to at least some degree by his experiences in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), a complicated and confusing affair. What you really need to know is that there were no good guys, and it ended with left-leaning anarchists and Republicans in Spain crushed by their Communist overlords, which helped the fascists win.

Orwell, an idealistic 33-year-old socialist when the conflict started, supported the anarchists and loyalists fighting for the left-leaning Second Spanish Republic, which received most of its support from the Soviet Union and Josef Stalin. (That might sound bad, but keep in mind that the Nazis were on the other side.) Orwell described the atmosphere in Barcelona in December 1936 when everything seemed to be going well for his side.

The anarchists were still in virtual control of Catalonia and the revolution was still in full swing … It was the first time that I had ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle, he wrote in Homage to Catalonia. [E]very wall was scrawled with the hammer and sickle … every shop and café had an inscription saying that it had been collectivized.

That all changed pretty fast. Stalin, a rather paranoid fellow, was bent on making Republican Spain loyal to him. Factions and leaders perceived as loyal to his exiled Communist rival, Leon Trotsky, were liquidated. Loyal Communists found themselves denounced as fascists. Nonconformists and “uncontrollables” were disappeared.

Orwell never forgot the purges or the steady stream of lies and propaganda churned out from Communist papers during the conflict. (To be fair, their Nationalist opponents also used propaganda and lies.) Stalin’s NKVD was not exactly like the Thought Police—the NKVD showed less patience with its victims—but they certainly helped inspire Orwell’s secret police.

The Thought Police were not all propaganda and torture, though. They also stem from Orwell’s ideas on truth. During his time in Spain, he saw how power could corrupt truth, and he shared these reflections in his work George Orwell: My Country Right or Left, 1940-1943.

…I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an ordinary lie. I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories; and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.

In short, Orwell’s brush with totalitarianism left him worried that “the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.”

This scared him. A lot. He actually wrote, “This kind of thing is frightening to me.”

Finally, the Thought Police were also inspired by the human struggle for self-honesty and the pressure to conform. “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe,” Rudyard Kipling once observed.

The struggle to remain true to one’s self was also felt by Orwell, who wrote about “the smelly little orthodoxies” that contend for the human soul. Orwell prided himself with a “power of facing unpleasant facts”—something of a rarity in humans—even though it often hurt him in British society.

In a sense, 1984 is largely a book about the human capacity to maintain a grip on the truth in the face of propaganda and power.

It might be tempting to dismiss Orwell’s book as a figment of dystopian literature. Unfortunately, that’s not as easy as it sounds. Modern history shows he was onto something.

When the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, it was revealed that the Stasi, East Germany’s secret police, had a full-time staff of 91,000. That sounds like a lot, and it is, but what’s frightening is that the organization had almost double that in informants, including children. And it wasn’t just children reporting on parents; sometimes it was the other way around.

Nor did the use of state spies to prosecute thoughtcrimes end with the fall of the Soviet Union. Believe it or not, it’s still happening today. The New York Times recently ran a report featuring one Peng Wei, a 21-year-old Chinese chemistry major. He is one of the thousands of “student information officers” China uses to root out professors who show signs of disloyalty to President Xi Jinping or the Communist Party.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution, fortunately, largely protects Americans from the creepy authoritarian systems found in 1984, East Germany, and China; but the rise of “cancel culture” shows the pressure to conform to all sorts of orthodoxies (smelly or not) remains strong.

The new Thought Police may be less sinister than the ThinkPol in 1984, but the next generation will have to decide if seeking conformity of thought or language through public shaming is healthy or suffocating. FEE’s Dan Sanchez recently observed that many people today feel like they’re “walking on eggshells” and live in fear of making a verbal mistake that could draw condemnation.

That’s a lot of pressure, especially for people still learning the acceptable boundaries of a new moral code that is constantly evolving. Most people, if the pressure is sufficient, will eventually say “2+2=5” just to escape punishment. That’s exactly what Winston Smith does at the end of 1984, after all. Yet Orwell also leaves readers with a glimmer of hope.

“Being in a minority, even a minority of one, did not make you mad,” Orwell wrote. “There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.”

In other words, the world may be mad, but that doesn’t mean you have to be.


Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has appeared in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, and Fox News.

RELATED ARTICLE: 10 Terrifying Facts about the East German Secret Police

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column with images is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Trump Impeachment Not Justified by Evidence and Testimony Made Public So Far

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., hasn’t yet produced most of his witnesses in the public impeachment hearings regarding President Donald Trump. But if the State Department’s George Kent and acting Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor are representative of the testimony Democrats are relying on, future historians may label this episode “The Big Impeachment Blowout.”

The House impeachment inquiry is not a criminal proceeding. But as I listened to the hearsay and speculation that Kent and Taylor were offering Wednesday at the opening public hearing on impeachment, I couldn’t help thinking of REO Speedwagon’s song “Take It on the Run.”

One line of the song says: “Heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another you been messin’ around.”

Both Kent and Taylor admitted they never talked to Trump and only heard thirdhand what supposedly occurred in the president’s July 25 telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Congress is moving to impeach the president. But will their plan to remove him from office succeed? Find out more now >>

Democrats seem to have dropped the quid pro quo claim, since there was no evidence of it in the rough transcript the White House released of the call. The claim does not seem to be playing with the American public.

Taylor admitted in the hearing that Zelenskyy had no idea that U.S. aid was being delayed, and Zelenskyy himself has said there was no quid pro quo.

Democrats have now switched to using the terms “bribery” and “extortion,” no doubt because those terms sound more sinister, despite the fact that they’ve produced no evidence—so far—that would come even close to showing a violation of the federal laws defining bribery and extortion.

Both witnesses expressed their opinions disagreeing with the way Trump has conducted diplomatic relations with Ukraine and the handling of U.S. aid to the country.

But the president is not a postman for Congress or the State Department. His job is to faithfully execute the law. As the chief diplomat of the United States, he defines our foreign policy, not George Kent or William Taylor.

Our country doesn’t give money or aid to other countries for no reason. We give it with specific conditions attached.

The president has a duty to make sure that our money is going to countries that will use it as we intend and not divert it into profiteering and personal corruption. State Department bureaucrats have never been good at ensuring that countries prevent such corruption.

The priority of our diplomats is to maintain their access to government officials in the countries in which they are stationed. This too often overrides their duty to guard against corruption. The president has the final responsibility for ensuring U.S. aid is not improperly diverted in other nations.

It was widely known that Ukraine had, and still has, a corruption problem. It would have been irresponsible for Trump not to look into corruption and demand changes before our money went there.

Even Kent admitted in his testimony that Burisma, the Ukrainian company that employed former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden as a highly paid board member, was part of the “pervasive and longstanding corruption in Ukraine.”

Of course, we will not hear any facts about that because Schiff has refused to allow the Republicans to call Hunter Biden as a witness, which would enable the younger Biden’s possible self-dealing in Ukraine to be investigated.

If everything Hunter Biden and his father Joe Biden did was ethical and above board when it came to Ukraine, why wouldn’t Democrats want Hunter Biden to testify?

And why has Schiff’s committee blocked the Republicans from being able to call the so-called whistleblower who started this whole show trial that Democrats call an impeachment inquiry? What are they afraid will come out about this government employee that might damage his credibility and the claims he is making?

Apparently, Schiff doesn’t want any testimony that would support the legitimacy of the president’s corruption concerns about Ukraine or would somehow detract from the impeachment narrative Democrats are trying to weave into the minds of the American public.

We certainly won’t have an objective, bipartisan inquiry into all of the relevant aspects of what happened here—and why it happened. Schiff even interrupted Republican questioning to tell witnesses they should not answer questions based on “facts not in evidence,” a bizarre statement given the nature of a congressional hearing and how it is normally conducted.

Schiff used to be an assistant U.S. attorney—a federal prosecutor. Like all people in that position, he had to follow the U.S. Attorneys’ Justice Manual.

Before taking a case to a grand jury, much less to trial, Schiff had to convince his boss, in writing, that he had evidence establishing a case. He couldn’t just wing it and submit a case, however weak, based entirely on hearsay, to the grand jury on the off-chance it would indict.

Yet that is exactly what Schiff is doing here—throwing witnesses into closed and now open hearings hoping that he can stir the political pot into an impeachment boil.

It would undermine our system of government for a duly elected president to be removed through impeachment for partisan reasons.

Impeachment should only be used when there has been serious, substantial misconduct of such a nature that we can’t wait for the next election. As far as is publicly known at this time, that standard has not been met regarding Trump.

Originally published by Fox News


Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research. Twitter: .


Adam Schiff, Founding Father: The chief impeacher tries to redefine ‘bribery’ under the law.

Here Are the Backgrounds of 4 Lawyers for Impeachment Witnesses

Everything You Need to Know About What’s Happening in Impeachment Process

A Note for our Readers:

As we speak, Congress is moving to impeach the president.

We do not have all the facts yet, but based on what we know now, there does not seem to be an impeachable offense.

The questions stand: In drafting the Constitution, how did America’s founders intend for impeachment to be used? How does the impeachment process work, and what can history tell us about whether or not President Trump faces the real threat of being removed from office?

The Heritage Foundation is making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

PODCAST: “It’s Their Fear.” Hong Kong Protesters Persevere.

“It’s their fear.” That’s what’s motivating the young protesters of Hong Kong to continue demonstrating after months of mounting threats from the Chinese government, according to Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). As Hawley told me on Washington Watch this week, “Beijing promised the people of Hong Kong when they took back over the city that they would protect the basic liberties of the Hong Kong residents — their right to worship, their right to speak, their right to assemble, free press. And now they’re trying to take those things away.”

Hong Kong protesters have continually appealed to the United States for help in the face of Chinese oppression. They often wave American flags or carry Captain America shields, hoping that the land of the free will be sympathetic to their own demands for freedom and democracy. As the demonstrations continue and the police violently crackdown, protesters are becoming more desperate and more afraid of Beijing’s encroachment into Hong Kong.

One request of the protesters is that the U.S. Congress pass the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019. This legislation would require the U.S. Secretary of State to determine whether Hong Kong remains sufficiently autonomous from Beijing to justify its unique treatment under U.S. law. Thus, incentivizing China to maintain Hong Kong’s unique “one country, two systems” arrangement under which Hong Kong has thrived. Sen. Hawley says this bill will give the U.S. government new foreign policy tools to use with China. “It also gives our government the power to reassess our trade status with Hong Kong if Beijing decides to try and do something truly foolish, like overrun the city.”

Hawley has been an ardent supporter of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, because he knows just how real the threat of losing their freedoms is to the people there. “The people of Hong Kong realize that if Beijing succeeds, they’ll never get their rights back. And so they’re standing up.”

While Hong Kong residents make their stand, Hawley had some advice for how U.S. leaders should deal with China. “Beijing only understands pressure… They’re a bully. So, they only understand if you stand up to them. You can’t you can’t be passive.” Indeed, facing off with the world’s most powerful authoritarian country requires courage. Such courage is shown by tireless protesters in Hong Kong and the U.S. politicians willing to spend political capital to send a powerful message to Beijing.

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


The Bible Versus Secular Elites

As Kanye Takes The Stage, Let’s Encourage His Growth In Faith

EDITORS NOTE: This FRC column with podcast is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.