Unions Keep Deducting Dues Without Consent, Teachers Say

/in , , , , /by

Just a few weeks before school let out last May, unexpected visitors showed up in Bethany Mendez’s classroom.

They didn’t come to discuss the nuts and bolts of education or the work the teacher was doing to assist young students with learning disabilities.

Instead, the visitors wanted to know why she was leaving the teachers union, and if she fully understood the ramifications of resigning her membership.

“This made me very angry and upset to actually have them come to my classroom during instructional time during the day,” Mendez told The Daily Signal in an interview. “I thought the meeting was regarding a student who might have to go into one of my classes. But these were union representatives who showed up in my classroom to question me as to why I was leaving the union.”

Mendez teaches elementary school students with learning disabilities in California’s Fremont Unified School District.

Since she had her own bouts with dyslexia when she was roughly the same age as her students, Mendez explains, she became motivated to become a teacher and devote herself to assisting children who require specialized instruction.

For union officials to interrupt her instructional time, Mendez thought, was inappropriate and overly intrusive.

“I struggled with dyslexia when I was little, and that was due to a vision problem,” Mendez, 35, said. “But I was able to have surgery to fix it. For a lot of these kids, it’s a brain-wiring issue and it involves how their brain interprets visual information. My goal is to help children learn and to avoid the embarrassment of not being able to read in the third and fourth grades. I’m passionate about helping kids to bridge that gap.”

“It would be fine to have a friendly conversation outside of class, but to actually have two people come to my class while I was teaching and ask these questions I thought was a little offensive,” she said. “They asked if I knew what I was doing and if I knew what I would be giving up. My answer is I think everyone should have a choice to either opt in or opt out of joining the union.”

Suit Claims Unions Circumvent High Court

Last June, in a 5-4 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down mandatory union dues and fees for public sector workers.

In their decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, the justices said “agency shop” laws requiring nonunion government workers to pay union fees violate the First Amendment rights of workers who object to the political agenda of public employee unions.

In March, Mendez, joined with four other teachers to file a class-action lawsuit in federal court against the California Teachers Association and several local affiliates, alleging that the teachers unions continued to deduct dues from their paychecks in violation of the Supreme Court’s Janus ruling.

The lawsuit also names the National Education Association, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, local school districts, and local unions as defendants.

Contrary to what union officials have argued, the teachers who signed union membership cards last year did not provide the California Teachers Association or local affiliates with “affirmative consent” to deduct dues, Mariah Gondeiro, a lawyer with the Freedom Foundation who represents the suing teachers, told The Daily Signal.

“These membership forms don’t include sufficient waiver language as required under Janus,” Gondeiro said, adding:

The unions are arguing they can lock people into these contracts because they signed these forms. But they don’t tell employees that they have an option to not fund the union. They don’t tell people that they are leaving out important facts. The teachers can’t consent to something they didn’t know about, and they did not know their rights.

The Daily Signal sought comment on the lawsuit from the California Teachers Association and the National Education Association.

Frank Wells, a communications official with the California Teachers Association, responded in an email.

“This is just another lawsuit from the Freedom Foundation to continue their attack on public education and public employees,” Wells said. “Their backers have a lot of money to spend so it’s likely these and other attacks will continue. I’d follow the money. That is the real story here.”

The National Education Association did not respond to requests for comment.

The Daily Signal also sought comment on the lawsuit and specific allegations from two local unions, the Fremont Unified District Teachers Association and the Hayward Education Association, by phone and email.

Hayward union officials referred a reporter to the state union, while the Fremont local acknowledged the request for comment and said it would be forwarded to the local’s president.

The Daily Signal also asked the California Teachers Association’s Wells whether he would like to respond on behalf of the local unions. He had not commented further at publication time.

Supreme Court and ‘Affirmative Consent’

Under the high court’s Janus ruling, teachers and other public employees must offer “affirmative consent” before a union may withhold fees from their paychecks, Gondeiro said.

In his opinion for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said automatic deduction of union fees from a nonmember’s wages without consent violates free speech rights.

Freedom Foundation, a free market think tank based in Washington state, filed an amicus brief in the Janus case asking the Supreme Court to outlaw “opt out” arrangements that put the burden on nonmembers to halt collection of union fees from their paychecks.

Public employees must make a deliberate choice to “opt in” to paying union fees, Alito said on behalf of the court majority, writing:

Neither an agency fee nor any other payment to the union may be deducted from a nonmember’s wages, nor may any other attempt be made to collect such a payment, unless the employee affirmatively consents to pay. By agreeing to pay, nonmembers are waiving their First Amendment rights, and such a waiver cannot be presumed.

The Janus ruling affects about 5 million government employees in 22 states who no longer are required either to join a union or pay related fees as a condition of employment.

Mark Janus, a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit and gave the case its name.

“The opt-in requirement is something the Freedom Foundation really advocated for before Janus was decided,” Gondeiro said, adding:

The reason why is because unions are in a powerful position, and history shows they take advantage of vulnerable workers. So we wanted to make sure that the court put the burden on these powerful entities to obtain workers’ affirmative consent. Because if we didn’t, then they would just have taken advantage of workers, which they have done in the past. What’s remarkable is that even with the burden being put on the unions, they are still trying to circumvent the law.

‘All About Janus’

“I didn’t know anything about the Janus case and didn’t know that it was a possibility,” Mendez said. “I also didn’t understand why we needed to reconfirm membership. The forms didn’t make sense to me, because the dues already came out of our paychecks. But now I see that this was all about Janus.”

Union officials eventually persuaded Mendez to sign the “membership recommitment form,” which she did on June 4, 2018, just a few days before the end of the school year and a few weeks before the high court’s Janus ruling.

She had received a text message from local union officials urging her to sign up until the last few days of school.

“I was told we needed to stand 100% together to defeat a law that would destroy unions,” Mendez said:

That’s the information I got. I’m not anti-union. I think they do some good, especially my local union. I’m pro-individual rights and pro-teacher. But what I was told was not the truth. Janus does not destroy all unions. They [union leaders] did not provide us with an opportunity for informed consent, and that’s what this case is about.

Mendez says she attempted to opt out last fall from the California Teachers Association and her local union.

But there was a catch. Because Mendez signed the membership recommitment form, union representatives informed the teacher that she was locked in until this coming June. The form contained “fine print” and “a clause” that said teachers could withdraw from membership only during a 30-day window beginning when they signed the form.

$10 Refund for Political Activity

Audrey Stewart, a fellow plaintiff who teaches in Hayward Unified School District, says she is familiar with the tactics unions use to keep dues and fees flowing in from teachers who prefer not to be members.

Stewart said she also has a hard time believing that her union spends only about $10 a year on politics.

Stewart, a teacher for 30 years, told The Daily Signal that she often has found herself in a hostile work environment because she differs with the political stance of teachers unions on a range of issues.

“I don’t want to pay for the unions’ politics,” she said. “I always said they could represent me as far as employment is concerned, but they shouldn’t have a place in my political life.”

Although unions were required to refund nonchargeable political expenditures that weren’t part of the collective bargaining process even before the Janus ruling, Stewart isn’t convinced the amount of her refunds measure up with what the unions actually spend on politics.

“They have been issuing this $5 bill to me twice a year, and I have to go down to the office of my local union and pick it up because that’s what they are claiming is the [refundable] amount spent for political purposes,” Stewart said. “So, they are saying it’s basically $10 a year they spend on politics. This is really a joke. This has been going on for 30 years, and I find it odd that it’s never increased either. It’s always a cash payment in an envelope.”

Stewart says she signed her membership recommitment form on May 9, 2018, at the behest of union officials. The form said it was necessary for her and other teachers to sign to support colleagues.

“There was no rhyme or reason to these recommitment cards,” she said. “I signed it because I was told it was to support my fellow teachers. But I later told my union representative that I found this recommitment form awfully suspicious because they front-loaded this knowing this [Janus] case was coming and it might not go in their favor, and they have locked these teachers in. I don’t even know if this recommitment form was a legal membership document.”

Gondeiro, the lawyer with Freedom Foundation, told The Daily Signal that the forms signed by teachers last year should not pass legal muster.

“What we are doing with the class-action suit is we are trying to illustrate what affirmative consent looks like,” she said, adding:

We are trying to take Janus to an extra step because apparently the unions can’t abide by the law. So, we want to put in plain text what type of notice they have to give workers, because they need all the direction they can get. We want in the contract that they have a right to not financially support the union, and [that] by signing the agreement they are waiving their First Amendment rights. If they don’t include that type of language in the contract, there is no affirmative consent.

Gondeiro also said the unions are making it difficult for teachers who have become aware of their rights to opt out, using restrictive window periods and other cumbersome requirements that involve writing letters to union representatives and payroll personnel saying they want to leave the union and stop automatic deduction of dues.

“I sent letters to the California Teachers Association and to my local telling them I was going to opt out,” Stewart said. “They wrote back to me to thank me for my inquiry. But I wasn’t inquiring, I was telling them I was leaving.”

Stewart, who teaches at both the elementary and high school levels, told The Daily Signal that “strange incidents” took place after she made it clear she wanted to leave the union.

Her elementary school classroom was “ransacked” several times after hours in February, Stewart said, and around this time she was “verbally attacked” by a union leader while walking up a path to the high school.

The lead plaintiff in the teachers’ lawsuit says she wants to make a clean break.

Mendez, who is entering her 13th year as a teacher, says she had wanted to withdraw from the California Teachers Association, but until recently was content with her local union.

“The CTA has always misrepresented me, but I was willing to stay in the local union,” she said. “But after they [the local union] withheld information, misled us, and accepted poor salary and benefits in my district, I wanted out of both the state and local union.”

The local unions and school districts named in the lawsuit include Fremont Unified District Teachers Association, Valley Center-Pauma Teachers Association, Hayward Education Association, Tustin Education Association, and the Fremont, Valley Center-Pauma, Hayward, and Tustin unified school districts.

COLUMN BY

Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kevin. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC.

RELATED ARTICLES:

This Mom Is Fighting Her Kids’ School District’s LGBT Indoctrination

California Bill Would Turn College Health Centers Into Abortion Clinics

Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

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

New York Is Illegally Targeting the NRA, Trump Says

/in , , , , /by

President Donald Trump on Monday called the New York state attorney general’s newly announced probe of the National Rifle Association illegal, and an expert on laws regarding nonprofits contends that the probe is at minimum improper.

Trump said it was a concerted effort to “take down and destroy” the NRA.

“When a state attorney general uses the power vested in the attorney general’s office to improperly use [it] against organizations for political purposes, it could be illegal,” Cleta Mitchell, a Washington lawyer who advises nonprofits and was co-counsel to the NRA in a 2002 Supreme Court case, told The Daily Signal.

“The NRA, in court, would have a good predicate to argue political bias against the organization to show that hostility toward the organization’s existence,” Mitchell said.

Over the weekend, the attorney general’s office announced it commenced an investigation into the NRA’s nonprofit status and would be subpoenaing financial records.

The announcement came in the midst of turmoil in the organization, after the NRA ousted Oliver North as president in what became a public dispute between North and NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre. North reportedly said he was forced out because he alleged financial improprieties.

New York state has taken separate action against the finances of Carry Guard, the NRA’s branded insurance program.

Even the liberal American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief on behalf of the NRA last year that argued New York “indisputably targeted the NRA and similar groups based on their ‘gun promotion’ advocacy.”

The ACLU brief continued: “It is important to note that, however controversial it may be, ‘gun promotion’ is core political speech, entitled to the same constitutional protection as speech advocating for reproductive rights, marijuana legalization, or financial deregulation.”

New York Attorney General Letitia James pledged as a Democratic candidate for the office to “use the constitutional power as an attorney general to regulate charities, that includes the NRA, to investigate their legitimacy,” it noted.

The new probe could be entirely legitimate, but it faces questions because of New York’s past actions, said Amy Swearer, a senior legal policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation.

“State AGs certainly have a duty to investigate credible allegations of financial misconduct by nonprofits incorporated in their states,” Swearer told The Daily Signal. “At this point, it’s unclear what evidence exists that might threaten the NRA’s nonprofit status, but this type of investigation is not in and of itself unlawful.”

She continued:

Unfortunately, as the president alluded, New York has a long history of taking actions against the NRA to silence the organization’s pro-Second Amendment voice, and even the ACLU has come to the NRA’s defense over recent unconstitutional attempts by New York to stifle the organization financially.

Because of the state’s history of taking unconstitutional and bad-faith actions against the NRA, a dark cloud of suspicion will justifiably continue to hang over what might otherwise be a justified and good-faith investigation.

The NRA is clearly working through some internal problems, and the president is right to suggest that this distracts the organization from what it does best—working to strengthen the Second Amendment against those who would rather destroy its protections.

Trump tweeted on Monday that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and the attorney general “are illegally using the state’s legal apparatus to take down and destroy this very important organization.”

The president said the NRA “must get its act together quickly, stop the internal fighting.”

An NRA spokesman did not respond to phone and email inquiries for this article.

The New York attorney general’s office responded to the president Monday.

“Attorney General Letitia James is focused on enforcing the rule of law. In any case we pursue, we will follow the facts wherever they may lead,” the office said in a public statement. “We wish the president would share our respect for the law.”

The New York attorney general’s office has subpoenaed banks for financial records related to the Trump Organization, the president’s business, and is suing the Trump Foundation charity.

“This is the same office that has gone after the Trump Foundation,” Mitchell said. “The attorney general obviously has a pattern and practice of going after an organization it does not like.”

COLUMN BY

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

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

Islamist Terrorism Remains the World’s Greatest Threat to Peace

/in , , , , , /by

After the horrific mass murder of 50 Muslim worshippers in Christchurch, New Zealand, there was widespread coverage and a torrent of mainstream news networks contemplating the threat of white supremacy.

These conversations, completely reasonable and necessary in the face of violent attacks from a racist gunman, soon began deteriorating into politically motivated and specious claims contending that “white supremacy” had become the predominate terror threat in the world.

Well, the coordinated bomb blasts aimed at Christian worshippers on Easter Sunday, which killed at least 290 people and injured hundreds more, demonstrates the kind of meticulous planning, funding, resources, and support that is still exclusively the domain of radical Islamic terrorism.

It’s not merely that the act was planned to maximize the death toll, but that it is a continuation of long-standing efforts by Islamists to destroy the Christian communities left in Asia.

Those who kill in the name of Islam are part of a worldwide, historic, ideological, and political movement that includes, to various degrees and various reasons, radicalized men and women from both great factions of the faith.

Then again, terrorist groups—as well as their recruitment and propaganda outfits—are often functioning in Islamic regimes, which either actively sustain terror, tolerate these groups, or pay them off to engage in terrorism elsewhere.

The Christians who remain in the Islamic world are often oppressed in other ways. In a number of these nations, publicly praying in any faith but Islam is forbidden and, in many, converting to Christianity is still punishable by death.

“Islamic extremism remains the global, dominant driver of persecution, responsible for initiating oppression and conflict in 35 of the 50 countries on the list,” according to Open Doors, a worldwide Christian group.

The idea that a similar threat exists in the West is risible. There’s not a single Western country that doesn’t afford Muslim citizens the same rights it does as all other citizens. No government on Earth supports white supremacy.

There is no funding infrastructure for those who support white power. There is no Christian or Jewish denomination, or any notable political factions, in those nations that imbue white supremacy with any theological or ideological legitimacy. There is no white supremacist government trying to obtain nuclear weapons, and none sending its terrorists to other countries. In the world’s free nations, where any political party can participate in the process, the power of racist groups is minimal.

Yet the American left continues to downplay the danger, first by arguing that Islam has nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, and then by lumping every white-skinned person who commits a terrorist act into one imaginary coherent political movement to contrast against it.

It’s true that Americans have been spared much Islamic terror since 2002—a year that, curiously, nearly every graph media uses to measure domestic terrorism starts—but only because we’ve spent billions of dollars each year and immense resources, both in lives and treasure, keeping it out of the country and fighting it abroad.

Another reason the majority of Americans might not comprehend Islamic radicalism’s reach is the skewed intensity of the media coverage. Political correctness and a chilling fear of being labeled “Islamophobic” makes it difficult to honestly report on terrorism around the world.

In addition to the massacre this Easter in Sri Lanka, at least 200 Christian civilians have been murdered in Africa by Islamic militants thus far in 2019—many of them killed by machete, some by bombings. Many more Christians have been murdered during the past calendar year.

In November 2018, for example, 42 people were slaughtered in an attack on a Catholic mission in the Central African Republic. In October, 55 Christians were murdered by a group of Islamists in Nigeria. Another 29 were killed when 10 churches were burned down in Ethiopia last summer. Another seven Coptic Christians were gunned down in Egypt—and others spared only because of the good work of police.

There are pockets of racists in the world, and individuals who engage in terrible acts of violence against innocent people. These are dangerous men, capable of doing tremendous damage. But no group threatens global peace the same way that political Islam does. None has its reach or material and theological support. None has created more mayhem and death in the world since the end of the Cold War. The Sri Lankan massacre is just another harrowing reminder.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

David Harsanyi

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Should the Muslim Brotherhood Be Labeled Terrorists?

Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

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

VIDEO: 4 Keys to the Immigration Reform We Need

/in , , , , , /by

Immigration is one of the fundamental building blocks that help make America the unique nation that it is.

But the debate over border security and immigration has become toxic because politicians have put politics before principles. And reasonable Americans find themselves trapped between zealots on both sides.

For over two centuries, the United States has welcomed millions of people from every corner of the globe. And today, we lawfully admit over 1 million people every year. That is more than any other country in the world.

The debate is not about whether we should allow immigration—it’s about how we do so in a way that protects American sovereignty, respects the rule of law, and is beneficial to all Americans.

So what does a thoughtful agenda for American immigration reform look like?

Here are four guiding principles:

1. We must respect the consent of the governed—that is, the will of the people.

Individuals who are not citizens do not have a right to American citizenship without the consent of the American people. That consent is expressed through the laws of the United States.

Through those laws, we the people invite individuals from other countries, under certain conditions, to join us as residents and fellow citizens.

2. We cannot compromise national security and public safety.

Every nation has the right, recognized by both international and domestic law, to secure its borders and ports of entry and control what and who is coming into its country.

A disorganized and chaotic immigration system encourages people to go around the law and is a clear invitation to those who wish to take advantage of our openness to harm the nation.

Secure borders, especially in a time of terrorist threat, are crucial to American national security.

3. Becoming a citizen means becoming an American. We must preserve patriotic assimilation.

The founding principles of this nation imply that an individual of any ethnic heritage or racial background can become an American. That’s why we have always welcomed immigrants seeking the promises and opportunities of the American dream.

Patriotic assimilation is the bond that allows America to be a nation of immigrants. Without it, we cease to be a country with a distinct character, becoming instead a hodgepodge of different groups.

If we are to be a united nation, living up to our motto of e pluribus unum—out of many, one—we all must understand and embrace a common language, history, and civic culture.

And that not only benefits America, but also those immigrants and their families who aspire to prosper here.

4. Our lawmakers must respect the rule of law, and immigration is no exception.

Failure to enforce our immigration laws is unfair to those who obey the law and follow the rules to enter the country legally.

Those who enter and remain in the country illegally should not be rewarded with legal status or other benefits. When politicians condone such behavior they only encourage further illegal conduct.

Based on these principles, immigration reform should include transitioning to a merit-based system. We should end practices like chain migration, birthright citizenship, the visa lottery, arbitrary per-country immigration caps, and any form of amnesty for those here illegally.

We must close loopholes that prevent enforcement of our laws and have overwhelmed immigration courts, allowing illegitimate asylum claimants and other lawbreakers to remain in the U.S. indefinitely.

And we must take on these issues one by one. A comprehensive “deal” subjects the fate of policies with universal appeal to the fate of the most controversial topics. The key is to begin by working on the solutions on which most Americans agree.

We must and can address this issue in a manner that is fair, responsible, humane, and prudent. This is too important an issue to not get right and too important an issue to be driven by partisan agendas.

Let’s stay focused on what is best for the welfare of all Americans, both those of today and those of the future.

COMMENTARY BY

Genevieve Wood

Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Genevieve. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Former Border Patrol Chief Explains Why Border Crisis Is Worst It’s Been in US History

Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

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

The Vortex — The Gates of Hell

/in , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

I’m Michael Voris coming to you from Caesarea Philippi about an hour north of the Sea of Galilee, where Our Lord made Simon Peter the visible head of the Church, as recorded for us by St. Matthew, who was an eyewitness.

When you travel the countryside, you get an appreciation for the time and effort travel on foot must have taken back in the day, and getting here would have been no different.

Even the geography tells you something of the importance of Our Lord’s purpose. It would have been an arduous trip here and back to Capernaum, yet the Son of God brought His Apostles to this spot specifically.

He could have changed Simon’s name to Peter and made him head of the Church sitting in Peter’s house in Capernaum.

In fact, in some ways that might have made more sense, humanly speaking. But, unlike what people such as Fr. James Martin suggest, Jesus Christ was not just a human with access to the Divinity or some divine knowledge from time to time. He was God Incarnate, and He knew it.

So God brings the band of Apostles up here, to the base of Mount Hermon, for a specific reason: to directly challenge the established world order and make clear the mission of His Church.

First, this was, at the time, an area with a long history of pagan worship of many, many gods. That worship frequently included human sacrifice. Victims would be tossed alive into a pool in this giant cave, the waters of which are one of the main supplies of the River Jordan.

Caesarea Philippi was, in fact, a kind of microcosm of the existing understanding of theology — that there were many gods worth worshipping and all worship to whatever god was pretty much fine.

Call it the ancient version of “all paths pretty much lead to God” — or in this case, gods, plural.

This is intolerable to the one true God that man be deprived of knowledge of Him because of a flawed ethos foisted on the world. So He came here, to this plot of earth, to overturn that apple cart. There was only one God and the world order needs to be changed.

He also made clear to His Apostles that the mission of His Church — to which He would give His own power and authority — would be to storm the gates of Hell and defeat Satan.

For the moment, it was Satan who ruled the world, through men’s hearts, and that status quo could not be allowed to stand.

So the Church would go on the offensive against the demonic. Its mission laid out in stark militaristic terms. Take no prisoners. Tear down the gates of the diabolical kingdom and overrun it; the Church Militant — aptly named.

Man He had created for Himself, made even in His own divine image, and God wanted man back. And for this, He established His Church — the Catholic Church — not any other, because, in truth, there is no other Church. There can’t be. What was established here was the reality of Christ’s bride, for whom He would travel to Jerusalem in short order and give His life for.

God, the author of marriage, does not have multiple brides. He has one: the Catholic Church and She alone. So He comes here to this region, establishes His Church right on the very spot representing all in the world He came to conquer.

Then He issues the orders to His followers and tells their leader that he will be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, the keys to forever lock and seal the gates of Hell.

Nothing the Son of God did or said was ever without meaning and significance to our salvation. And making the arduous journey to this spot was meant to convey a message and a mission.

It isn’t politically correct today to talk about one religion being superior to all others. It isn’t kosher to insist on the objective rightness of Catholic teaching compared to any and all other religions.

But Catholics do not answer to the world on matters of morality or theology or things divine. There is nothing that the world can teach the Church in these areas.

The Church was established by the Son of God to extend Him and His sacrifice throughout out all time and space for the sanctification of men’s souls so that they might be saved.

The mission of the Church is to announce that God loves unconditionally, but He does not save unconditionally. As the normal routine, as He Himself said, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life within you.”

Church Militant is here in Israel on production for what we hope will be a very instructive and meditative documentary on the heart of the Faith, the Holy Eucharist, produced in the land where it all began.

If you’d like to preorder your copy of Church Militant’s The Eucharist, you can do so by clicking on the provided link.

Please keep our travel and work here in the Holy Land in your prayers.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission.

New York Times Publishes Cartoon Worthy of Nazi Propaganda

/in , , , , , /by

The New York Times has sunk to the level of anti-Semitic Nazi propaganda which served to incite the Germany during the years of the Third Reich.

A political cartoon run by the “venerable” newspaper’s International Edition, which hit the newsstands on April 25, depicted a dog with the head of Israel’s newly-reelected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leading a blind President Trump wearing a Jewish skullcap. Dangling from the dog’s leash is a Star of David.

More classic anti-Semitic tropes couldn’t have been drawn by Joseph Goebbels himself and his crew of German propagandists, who systematically prepped an entire continent not only to accept, but abet the mass extermination of the Jews of Europe.

This propaganda, which culminated in the Holocaust, served to turn an entire group of people into subhuman vermin, despised by the masses and deserving of extinction. In the Times’ current version, the meaning is clear (and complete with the classic Nazi-era used of the Star of David): Netanyahu (i.e. Israel, i.e. all Jews) calls the shots of the leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

Putting aside all the outrage of publishing such a cartoon, one thing we can say is that the paper has finally shown its true colors. Instead of hiding behind news stories that are deliberately inaccurate and present a skewed depiction of the “facts” when it comes to reporting about Israel, as well as about Orthodox Jews, this cartoon (which certainly went through a number of editors for approval) says it all.

This we can tell by the “apology” run by the paper when called out for running the cartoon. Pulling the item from further publication, the paper admitted the cartoon “included anti-Semitic tropes” and stated, “The image was offensive, and it was an error of judgment to publish it.” View image on Twitter.

Far from an apology, this should be considered, at best, an explanation. Notice in the statement there is no acknowledgement of the fact that publishing the cartoon was morally wrong (not to mention factually wrong, as there is nothing politically to suggest that Israel has any such power over the U.S.).

Rather, the reason The New York Times, by its own admission, pulled the cartoon was because “the image was offensive.”

Yet plenty of political commentary is offensive, especially in today’s “safe space” era. Discourse deemed offensive is usually because it doesn’t conform to the accepted dogma, or it presents facts that are true but inconvenient (i.e., politically incorrect).

Yet, offensive is not the same as immoral. Offensive is not the same as inaccurate.

More likely, the Times realized post facto that the “offense” caused by the cartoon might be so great as to have long-standing negative financial effects on the paper and was thus deemed not worth it.

For years, particularly since 1992, watchdog organizations have called out The Gary Lady for its systematic and deliberate publishing of misinformation about the Jewish state and its inhabitants. However, this cartoon goes beyond the pale, even in today‘s post-Trump era of self-avowed advocacy journalism by the mainstream media.

(We will forget the irony at the moment of that self-same media which accuses Trump of being anti-Semitic.)

As we have seen from those jumping on the bandwagon to deflect criticism of Representative Ilhan Omar’s blatant and offensive anti-Semitism (“Islamophobia!’ cried Senator Cory Booker and most of the new Democrat party), this type of propaganda serves to create one more step in cementing the normalization of anti-Jewish sentiment among the chattering classes.

The last time that happened, those classes managed to convince the masses. For the Jews, not to mention the entirety of Europe, Russia and America, which all suffered terribly from Hitler and World War II, it didn’t end well.

RELATED STORIES: 

German Intelligence Issues Taboo-Breaking Report on Muslim Antisemitism

New York Times Prints Another Anti-Israel Cartoon Amid Antisemitism Scandal Rocking Newspaper

CAIR: Defending the Right to Be Anti–Semitic

Rep. Tlaib Requests Taxpayers Fund Her Anti–Semitism

Linda Sarsour Uses Latest Women’s March to Spew Anti–Semitism

Ilhan Omar Rages Anti–Semitism; Pelosi Whimpers ‘Apologize’

America Is Still Highly Religious. So Why Do We Keep Liberalizing?

/in , , , , /by

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once declared that “God is dead … and we have killed him.”

That famous statement rocked Europe nearly 150 years ago. His point was not that God actually died, but that people in the Western world no longer believed in God, and that this loss of faith would only spread.

Nietzsche’s prediction largely has panned out in Western Europe, where only 15% say they believe in God with absolute certainty. But America has been an exception to this trend, and remains so today.

A whopping 63% of Americans say they believe in God with absolute certainty, according to Pew Research. And although only 11% of Western Europeans say religion is very important in their lives, 53% of Americans say it is for them.

What’s more, new data shows that Americans actually want religion to play a larger role in society than it currently does. According to a new Pew study released Monday, roughly half of Americans say they favor a greater role for religion in society, compared to only 18% who say they oppose that.

That’s a surprising number, particularly when compared with countries in Western Europe, which are not so hot on religion.

But before we start cheering for American exceptionalism, we need to recognize something is deeply awry.

Yes, America is much more religious than Western Europe, but that doesn’t seem to be making much difference on the big-ticket cultural issues of the day. Despite our religiosity, we continue drifting in Europe’s direction on issue after issue.

Despite our religiosity, we continue drifting in Europe’s direction on issue after issue.Consider marriage. Same-sex marriage took hold in 13 European countries before it reached the United States. The U.S. lagged, but not for long. Public opinion in the U.S. has flipped in the last 20 years, from 60% opposing same-sex marriage in 1998 to 67% now supporting it, according to Gallup.

Or consider gender. Americans are becoming more accepting of transgenderism as pop culture, media, and schools promote the idea that gender is based on feelings, rather than an objective standard tied to biology. The result: 46% of millennials now say gender identity is a matter of choice.

Most Americans also are fine using transgender pronouns. An Ipsos survey from 2017 found that only 1 in 5 Americans would use the pronoun of a transgender person’s biological (real) sex, and even fewer would do so in Canada and the United Kingdom.

This cultural change has come at a dizzying pace, and it raises the obvious question: If America is so religious, why does it keep liberalizing on all the hot-button cultural issues? To put it crassly, what good is our religion?

The answer, it would seem, is not much good at all.

Bad Religion Is Almost Like No Religion

This is the argument that columnist Ross Douthat has made in pointing out the rise of “bad religion” in America. He notes that while we aren’t secularizing like Europe, we also aren’t strictly adhering to traditional forms of religion. Instead, we are “a nation of heretics.”

Americans increasingly view religion as a subjective thing with no bearing on the actual world. A recent study by Ligonier Ministries and Lifeway Research found that 6 out of 10 Americans say they think religious belief is a matter of personal opinion, not objective truth. Perhaps most shockingly, one-third of those identified as evangelical Christians also take this view.

This is the core problem, and it explains the paradox of America as a country with both vibrant religion and a liberalizing culture.

What we have in America is a radical separation of God from “reality”—the real world that we claim to live in. It’s not that we reject “God” per se, but we reject a God who comes with a certified worldview package—a God who orders the universe, sets moral norms, defines our being, and binds our consciences to a moral code in this world—today.

It’s not that we reject “God” per se, but we reject a God who comes with a certified worldview package.

We’ve kept God, but jettisoned the traditional package.

The problem is, this is almost the same as rejecting God completely. If believing in God has no impact on the way we view realities in this world—whether they be gender, marriage, or who counts as a person worthy of dignity and respect—then what God are we even worshipping?

Could it be that the atheists are right when they accuse us of worshipping a God of our own making?

The Tremors to Come

Nietzsche predicted that the spread of atheism in Europe would shake Western civilization to its core. He understood quite well that his culture had been shaped at every turn by Christian belief, and that pulling the rug from under that belief would send society tumbling like a Jenga set.

Nietzsche illustrated this in his “Parable of the Madman,” in which a prophetic figure—the Madman—hails the death of God. But the Madman goes further. He warns that tumult and chaos will emerge when people finally realize the consequences of their unbelief. Almost in pain, he says:

“What did we do when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing?”

But then, realizing his listeners have no idea what he’s talking about, the Madman takes a step back.

“I have come too early,” he said them; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves.”

It took more than a century, but the West is now feeling the tremors of unbelief. The lightning and thunder are raging as realities once known and cherished are lost—dissolved by the acids of secularism.

This secularism is more pronounced in Europe, no doubt. Yet it wields extraordinary power in America because so many of us—even religious believers—have conceded vital ground, saying that divine truth has little or nothing to do with this world. In relegating “belief” to the realm of private opinion, we have made our bed and are now living in it.

There will be many more tremors yet to come. The unborn, gender, and marriage are just the first to come under attack. In so many more ways than we realize, we continue to live off the remnants of a Judeo-Christian worldview that has set sail.

In relegating “belief” to the realm of private opinion, we have made our bed and are now living in it.

We would do well to remember Europe before the coming of Christianity. In Plato’s Greece, pederasty was widely practiced and accepted. Dignity was not recognized to be universal. Slavery was accepted. Might, very often, made right.

Nietzsche knew that the “death of God” meant such things would be back on the table in the West. And so they are.

Consider these questions: Without God-given dignity for each individual, what happens to consent as the basis for modern sexual ethics? The right of the strong over the weak already is granted as the basis for abortion—why not to the stronger party in bed?

What about the human-animal distinction? Without real value differences between the species (we’re all the same stuff, anyway), why not blur the lines between species? Why not create hybrid human species in the lab?

A Way Back?

The questions we face are more serious than we can fathom. America’s high levels of religiosity are cause for great hope, but also caution.

Many of our religious communities have not yet compromised with the cultural left on the major issues of the day. These communities offer a vital connection to the past and the resources for cultural recovery and renewal, should our culture become disillusioned with its current direction.

The surprising fact is that Americans actually want a greater role for religion in society, per the Pew study. Perhaps this may signal the beginnings of cultural regret—or at the very least, a yearning for something that’s been lost.

But if Americans return to traditional religion out of disillusionment, they will have to accept the strings that come attached—the package deal. This will mean allowing the divine to speak directly to our daily, real-world affairs, to matters of gender, marriage, the nature of the person, and more—to live as a nation, really and truly, under God.

Is that a bargain America will soon make? One can hope and pray.

COMMENTARY BY

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcast. Send an email to Daniel. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: I’m a College Student. Here’s Why I Oppose Socialism.

Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

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

Trump Just Ditched a UN Arms Treaty, and He Was Right to Do It

/in , , , , , /by

On Friday, at the annual meeting of the National Rifle Association, President Donald Trump announced that he was un-signing the Arms Trade Treaty. As he put it, “The United Nations will soon receive a formal notice that America is rejecting this treaty.”

He then pulled out a pen and, in front of the entire audience, signed a message asking the Senate to end its consideration of the treaty.

I have followed the Arms Trade Treaty closely since 2009, before the formal negotiations for it even began. The treaty purports to require nations to regulate the conventional arms trade. President Barack Obama signed it in 2013, but the U.S. never ratified it.

I have no doubt that the president has made the correct decision—and no doubt that he will be hammered for it by the progressive left, who loves to praise the treaty as much as it enjoys blaming the United States.

If you would like to read my argument against the treaty, it’s here. More importantly, the White House has released a short statement explaining the president’s decision. It is a model of clarity and accuracy. I doubt that the treaty’s friends will have any time for it, but that is their loss. I would love to see them try to rebut it.

A few points about the White House’s statement:

  1. It notes that the Arms Trade Treaty is “being opened for amendment in 2020 and there are potential proposals that the United States cannot support.” That is correct. The main such proposal was floated last summer at another U.N. gathering on conventional arms. It involves bringing ammunition fully into the Arms Trade Treaty, meaning that the U.S. would have to track or trace the billions of bullets that are sold internationally. The U.S. opposed this last summer because it is utterly impractical.
  2. The White House states that the treaty provides “a platform for those who would seek to constrain our ability to sell arms to our allies and partners.” That is true. Virtually every activist supporting the Arms Trade Treaty proclaims, at the top of their lungs, that it is about stopping U.S. arms sales.
  3. It points out that the treaty has “a track record of … being used by groups to try and overturn sovereign national decisions on arms exports.” That is quite right. The statement notes that the British government—which, idiotically, led the push for the Arms Trade Treaty—has gotten its just desserts by being repeatedly sued by activists in the name of the treaty.
  4. In its only mention of the Second Amendment, the White House states that, by un-signing, the president has ensured that the treaty “will not become a platform to threaten Americans’ Second Amendment rights.” The treaty’s supporters love to argue that it has nothing to do with curbing the Second Amendment. What they don’t mention is that many opponents of the treaty—myself included—urged them privately to make that clear in the treaty text. They refused to do so. The treaty is not a gun grab, but it is precisely what the White House says it is: a platform that gun control activists could potentially do great damage with.
  5. Finally, the White House notes that major arms exporters like Russia and China are not in the Arms Trade Treaty, and that “[t]he [treaty] cannot achieve its chief objective of addressing irresponsible arms transfers if these major arms exporters are not subject to it at all.” That is precisely what the Obama administration said as far back as 2010. It is also indisputably true.

I could not have written the White House’s statement any better. It is a slam dunk. I commend the White House for its decision, and for explaining it effectively and correctly.

This is not the end of the story of the Arms Trade Treaty. It still has 101 state parties around the world. The U.S. needs to follow up this decision to un-sign by pulling all U.S. funding from the treaty. And there are other bad treaties and institutions of the same type as the Arms Trade Treaty. We should quit them, too.

Most fundamentally, while it’s excellent to quit bad treaties, it’s even better not to let them get made in the first place. Far too often, the U.S. finds itself in the position of a hockey goaltender, who just has to stand there and stop shots. If you just let the other guy keep shooting, sooner or later you’re going to get scored on.

We need to take hold of the puck, skate down the ice, and put some pressure on the other side.

But first things first. The White House has made the right call on the Arms Trade Treaty, and it’s made the right call for the right reasons.

COMMENTARY BY

Ted Bromund

Ted R. Bromund, Ph.D., is the Margaret Thatcher senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

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

VIDEO: Watch OPEN BORDERS the Movie

/in , , , , , /by

Every Democrat Presidential candidate supports Open Borders, Sanctuary Cities and unlimited illegal immigration. Florida just passed legislation sponsored by Senator Joe Gruters that requires every city and county to abide by requests from ICE. All local governments and police agencies would have to cooperate with federal authorities who enforce immigration law under a bill passed by the Florida Senate. Governor Ron DeSantis is expected to sign the legislation. It is timely that a film about open borders would be made by a Floridian,

According to the OPEN BORDERS Movie website:

“OPEN BORDERS” is a cautionary tale of open borders in the futuristic United States.

What would happen if the borders were opened up? What would America look like? This dystopian thriller shows what could happen. Bronson leads his family in a fight for survival against their globalist enemies. He’s joined by his sidekick Jam, and a young woman named Missle, in this action adventure as they fight for freedom in an ever changing world.

Watch the trailer:

OPEN BORDERS was written, directed, and produced by Floridian Mark Saunders. Mark grew up in Central Florida and in 1987 received degrees from the Valencia and University of Central Florida Film programs. He was the Producer- Director for several music videos and corporate commercials, before turning his interests to private real estate investing.  In 2016, he returned back to his passion of film as Associate Producer for “On your Street” a social conscious film about sexual trafficking. Mark is passionate about political consciousness, and film making that makes people think.

Visit OPEN BORDERS Movie on Twitter @OpenBordersMovi

VIDEO: President Donald J. Trump’s full speech in Green Bay — NBC News

/in , , , /by

NBC News published President Donald J. Trump’s full remarks at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin.

VIDEO: Fake News Advocating the Overthrow of the U.S. Government

/in , , , , /by

So the long awaited declassification has just begun. President Trump has been announcing on FOX NEWS and in other appearances that FISA will be released to the pubic within perhaps four to six weeks. We can also look forward to the IG report perhaps in less than two more weeks. Then there are the hearings soon to be conducted by Lyndsey Graham, along with the criminal referrals from Devin Nunes to AG Barr, Huber intel, Judicial Watch findings and much more. Then there is a bit down the road, Julian Assange and let us not forget the 93,000 sealed indictment that are now beginning to be unsealed.  I will further comment on this and other intel to be released along with behind the scenes data as these unprecedented historic events begin to unfold. Things are about to get real. Very real and very soon. What a great (but dangerous) time to be an American. I will briefly focus here in this post on the Fake News Advocating the Overthrow of the US Government.

Fake News Advocating the Overthrow of the U.S. Government

President Trump is on the pathway of resurrecting America by restoring our Constitutional Republic and restoring power to the people. You could describe these efforts perhaps under two broad banners. One: The Global Financial Reset, restoring sound money to the people. And two: The Rule of Law Reset (which includes draining the swamp). This brings us to the Fake News, a controlled apparatus of the Deep State, the government media complex. You see there are things called laws. 18 US Code Sec. 2384 & 2385 which addresses seditious conspiracy and advocating the overthrow of a government. They are in deep S*%t! So who may you ask? Here is a potential short list.

Stay tuned folks. It’s happening.

18 US Code Sec 2385

The code in part states. “Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 2, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 87–486, June 19, 1962, 76 Stat. 103; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Sudanese Military Thanks Arab Allies

/in , , /by

In a report aired on the Saudi-owned, Dubai-based, al-arabiyya TV channel on 27 April 2019, Shams ad-Deen al-Kabashi, a spokesman for the Sudanese Military Council (TMC) that has assumed control of the country, has thanked Egypt, Saudi Arabia (KSA), and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) for their “support.”

In previous reporting the TMC has claimed that their discussions with the leaders of the popular civilian protests (which have led to the arrest and imprisonment of former president al-Basheer and some of his supporters) have been fruitful (although Egypt’s al-Ahram is reporting that the protesters are still protesting because they want an immediate transfer of power to civilian rule).

This Arab Spring 2.0 coup has been accomplished with minimal bloodshed in contrast to the Arab Spring 1.0 of 2011-2012.  Turning power over to “civilian” rule immediately sounds to me like a one-way ticket to Muslim Brotherhood rule like we saw in Egypt in 2012.

The singling out of Egypt, KSA, and the UAE for praise by the TMC raises some interesting questions.  Such as:

Did Egypt, KSA, and UAE engineer the protests and dethronement of al-Basheer?

Or, did they simply offer advice on how to quell the protests and engineer a change of personnel at the top without resorting to violence, and/or a radical change in the system of government?

Or, are Egypt, KSA, and UAE only offering “congratulations,” and “recognition” of the TMC as the “sovereign” authority in Sudan?

What ever the real answers to those questions are, the interest of these three Arab countries in the Sudan equation is a positive development regardless of the level they actually played in terms of the outcome.  Here is why:

The former ruler, al-Basheer, was a prancing, preening, thug, a caricature in a Sacha Baron Cohen comedy, and an embarrassment to the entire Arab world.  Certainly, the neighboring moderate Arab states had plenty of reason to want to deep six him.

Also, during the Arab Spring 1.0, though many of these uprisings were popular and spontaneous, once under way the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) assumed control of the movements.  This has led to much bloodshed in most of those countries, the collapse of governments, and contributed to the rise and expansion of ISIS.  In Egypt the MB actually got itself elected to power (with a little help from its friends in the Obama administration).

The “moderate” Arab states of Egypt, KSA, and UAE do not want to see a repeat of that catastrophe, so they may well have stepped in to influence events in one way or another.

In addition, the MB clone and world’s number one state sponsor of terrorism Turkey has been showing interest in East Africa for several years.  There was a real danger that the Arab Spring 2.0 in Sudan could have easily been taken over by Turkey and the MB, had the three “moderates” not moved in to head it off.

It still remains to be seen whether or not the alleged “understandings” between the TMC and the protestors will hold, and whether or not there will be a peaceful transition of power, or whether or not the MB actually ends up gaining control of the situation in Sudan.  However, the involvement of Egypt, KSA, and the UAE should be seen as a positive for the international interests who want to see stability in the M.E. and Red Sea region, and a curtailing of MB and other radical influences.

VIDEO: President Donald J. Trump’s Speech to the National Rifle Association

/in , , , , /by

President Donald J. Trump addresses the crowd at the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum, an event of the 2019 NRA Annual Meetings in Indianapolis, Indiana.

MOVIE REVIEW: ‘Avengers Endgame’ has redeemed itself! A film that is pro-family, pro-humanity & patriotic

/in , , , , , /by

In May, 2017 I did a column titled “Avengers ‘Infinity War’: Teaching children that mass slaughter is okay for all the wrong reasons.” I wrote:

I used to be a fan of Marvel comics. Not anymore. The reason is the latest edition of 18 films in Marvel studios Avengers series titled “Infinity War.” After watching the film I was very disturbed by the message. Here is a key exchange between Thanos, the alien invader/protagonist, and Dr. Strange, one of the Avengers:

Thanos: When we faced extinction I offered a solution

Dr. Stephen Strange: Genocide?

Thanos: But random, dispassion is fair for rich and poor a like. They called me a mad man. What I predict came unannounced.

Dr. Stephen Strange: Congratulations, you’re a prophet

Thanos: I’m a survivor

Dr. Stephen Strange: Who wants to murder trillions

Thanos: With all the six stones I can simply snap my fingers, they will all cease to exist. I call that… mercy.

Dr. Stephen Strange: Then what?

Thanos: [I] finally rest, watch the sunrise on an ungrateful universe. The hardest choices require the strongest will.

In the end Thanos wins and trillions of people in the universe are slaughtered. The final scene is of Thanos in a green pasture admiring his work.

REDEMPTION

After watching “Avengers Endgame” I give credit to Marvel Studios for redeeming itself. While the film lasts 3 hours I was riveted to my seat.

Marvel Studios’ Avengers: Endgame – Official Trailer.

The film picks up where “Infinity War” left off. The opening scenes are compelling. The film personalizes the catastrophic losses suffered by those who Thanos did not slaughter, the survivors. This reminded me of those who lost family and loved ones during the Holocaust, during the reigns of Joseph Stalin and Mao, the Armenian genocide and in the killing fields of Pol Pot.

Of course there really are no super heroes with super powers. But we have witnessed over our brief American history the actions of real heroes who have done extraordinary things. This is the lesson of mankind.

As English writer, poet and philosopher G.K. Chesterton wrote, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.”

What is behind mankind are the memories of those who were taken away from them by pure evil. Thanos, evil incarnate, slaughters half of all living creatures in the name of saving the universe from itself. This is not unlike those who today want to enslave all of mankind in the name of saving the planet earth (e.g. environmentalism, Green New Deal, One World Order).

MANKIND’S GOD GIVEN ABILITY TO THINK

As University of Maryland economist Julian Simon noted in his 1981 book that the human brain is the “ultimate resource.” And so it is in “Avengers Endgame.” We have seen the idea of time travel repeatedly in films. The fantasy of going back in time to stop evil is just that, a fantasy. “Avengers Endgame” pokes fun at  this fantasy and shows how, in part, how this is folly.

Of course this is Hollywood and all things are possible, even time travel to get a human redo.

The key to this film is redemption. The surviving Avengers know they failed in their quest to protect humanity. Their losses, on a personal level, drive them to use their own ultimate resources, their brains, to redeem themselves and put things right.

AVENGERS AS CRUSADERS

At the end all but two survive their quest for redemption. It reminded me of the Christian Crusades.

Thomas F. Madden, professor of Medieval History and Renaissance Studies as Saint Louis University, is a recognized expert on the Crusades. Professor Madden in his book “The Crusades Controversy: Setting the Record Straight” notes,

“Pope Urban II called the knights of Christendom to push back the conquests of Islam at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war.” Why did they do it? For two reasons:

  1. The first was to redeem [free from oppression] the Christians of the East.
  2. The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ.

Professor Madden writes:

The word crusade is modern. Medieval crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims to the Holy Sepulcher.

[ … ]

The re-conquest of Jerusalem, therefore, was understood by Christians as an act of restoration and an open declaration of one’s love of God.

Perhaps we as humans need to turn to the God Abraham for our redemption and not to Hollywood?

In Defense of Kate Smith

/in , , , , /by

The long arm of the PC police has reached back to the ’30s and arrested, prosecuted, and sentenced the late singer Kate Smith. Smith, who popularized Irving Berlin’s song “God Bless America” and was a female pioneer in early television, recorded songs that today in hindsight are viewed as racist.

An old friend, Harry Covert, writes to recall the early days of black-and-white TV when he (and I) watched Smith’s television program. Covert remembers one show interrupted by a news bulletin announcing the attempted assassination of Harry S. Truman by militant Puerto Rican activists. He notes that today’s Puerto Ricans are not smeared by that incident, so why is Smith being figuratively tarred and feathered?

In 1940, Berlin, the Russian-born composer, established the God Bless America Fund “for the benefit of the youth of America,” donating the proceeds from the song’s royalties to the Boy and Girl Scouts of America. Yankees baseball great Joe DiMaggio was a trustee on the GBA Fund.

Smith, along with many other celebrities, donated her time to entertain troops during World War II. The PC crowd gives her no credit for that. The New York Yankees, an organization that should be proud of such history and DiMaggio’s association with it, stopped playing “God Bless America” at its games. The Philadelphia Flyers, which at one time asked Smith to sing the song live at its hockey games because when she did the team usually won, has also banned her voice.

As in so many cases with political correctness, the standard is unequally applied. What about Southern Democrats who approved of slavery and Jim Crow laws, poll literacy tests, and opposed civil rights legislation? One of them, Sen. Richard Russell, D-Ga., has a Senate office building named for him.

Then there is Sen. Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia. Not only was Byrd a member of the Ku Klux Klan, rising to the level of Exalted Cyclops in the bigoted organization, he spoke favorably of the Klan during the early stages of his political career. In 1956, Byrd wrote to the organization’s imperial wizard: “The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.”

During his 1958 Senate campaign when he was 41, Byrd said his membership in the Klan was “the most egregious mistake I’ve ever made.” Still, in a 2001 interview on “Fox News Sunday,” in response to a question about race relations, Byrd, then 83, said, “I’ve seen a lot of white n—–s in my time.” He later apologized for the remark.

When it comes to naming buildings and other projects after politicians, The Daily Gazette in Schenectady, New York, editorializes against the practice:

There’s a state park on Long Island and a parkway near Niagara Falls named after Robert Moses. Moses was a 20th-century urban planner who was later revealed in the Pulitzer Prize-winning biography, ‘The Power Broker,’ as a ruthless abuser of political power with racist tendencies who pushed through many major infrastructure projects that New York City residents now revile. Should his name be on public highways and parks?

How far are we willing to take this retro-cleansing of American history? The Arlington County, Virginia, Board may decide as early as this week to rename Jefferson Davis Highway, which runs through Arlington and Alexandria. Davis’ offense was being the president of the Confederacy. They have already renamed Washington-Lee High School, because of Robert E. Lee.

As for Kate Smith, when these imposers of the present on the past accomplish anything benefiting America, as did the singer and Irving Berlin, then we can talk. In the meantime, why not focus on efforts that will significantly help the poor and disenfranchised, such as school choice? Meaningless symbolism improves nothing.

(c) 2019 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

COMMENTARY BY

Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist, author, broadcaster, and speaker with access to world leaders, U.S. presidents, celebrities, educators, and countless other notables. He has authored 12 books, including his latest, “What Works: Common Sense Solutions for a Stronger America.” Readers can email him at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

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