Poverty in the U.S. Was Plummeting—Until Lyndon Johnson Declared War On It [+Videos]

/in , , , , /by

One of the more elementary observations about economics is that a nation’s prosperity is determined in part by the quantity and quality of labor and capital. These “factors of production” are combined to generate national income.

I frequently grouse that punitive tax policies discourage capital. There’s less incentive to invest, after all, if the government imposes extra layers of tax on income that is saved and invested.

Bad tax laws also discourage labor. High marginal tax rates penalize people for being productive, and this can be especially counterproductive for entrepreneurship and innovation.

Still, we shouldn’t overlook how government discourages low-income people from being productively employed. But the problem is more on the spending side of the fiscal equation.

In Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, John Early and Phil Gramm share some depressing numbers about growing dependency in the United States:

During the 20 years before the War on Poverty was funded, the portion of the nation living in poverty had dropped to 14.7% from 32.1%. Since 1966, the first year with a significant increase in antipoverty spending, the poverty rate reported by the Census Bureau has been virtually unchanged…Transfers targeted to low-income families increased in real dollars from an average of $3,070 per person in 1965 to $34,093 in 2016…Transfers now constitute 84.2% of the disposable income of the poorest quintile of American households and 57.8% of the disposable income of lower-middle-income households. These payments also make up 27.5% of America’s total disposable income.

This massive expansion of redistribution has negatively impacted incentives to work:

The stated goal of the War on Poverty is not just to raise living standards but also to make America’s poor more self-sufficient and to bring them into the mainstream of the economy. In that effort the war has been an abject failure, increasing dependency and largely severing the bottom fifth of earners from the rewards and responsibilities of work…The expanding availability of antipoverty transfers has devastated the work effort of poor and lower-middle income families. By 1975 the lowest-earning fifth of families had 24.8% more families with a prime-work age head and no one working than did their middle-income peers. By 2015 this differential had risen to 37.1%…The War on Poverty has increased dependency and failed in its primary effort to bring poor people into the mainstream of America’s economy and communal life. Government programs replaced deprivation with idleness, stifling human flourishing. It happened just as President Franklin Roosevelt said it would: “The lessons of history,” he said in 1935, “show conclusively that continued dependency upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.”

In another WSJ column on the same topic, Peter Cove reached a similar conclusion:

America doesn’t have a worker shortage; it has a work shortage. The unemployment rate is at a 15-year low, but only 55% of Americans adults 18 to 64 have full-time jobs. Nearly 95 million people have removed themselves entirely from the job market. According to demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, the labor-force participation rate for men 25 to 54 is lower now than it was at the end of the Great Depression. The welfare state is largely to blame… insisting on work in exchange for social benefits would succeed in reducing dependency. We have the data: Within 10 years of the 1996 reform, the number of Americans in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program fell 60%. But no reform is permanent. Under President Obama, federal poverty programs ballooned.

Edward Glaeser produced a similar indictment in an article for City Journal:

In 1967, 95 percent of “prime-age” men between the ages of 25 and 54 worked. During the Great Recession, though, the share of jobless prime-age males rose above 20 percent. Even today, long after the recession officially ended, more than 15 percent of such men aren’t working… The rise of joblessness—especially among men—is the great American domestic crisis of the twenty-first century. It is a crisis of spirit more than of resources… Proposed solutions that focus solely on providing material benefits are a false path. Well-meaning social policies—from longer unemployment insurance to more generous disability diagnoses to higher minimum wages—have only worsened the problem; the futility of joblessness won’t be solved with a welfare check… various programs make joblessness more bearable, at least materially; they also reduce the incentives to find work… The past decade or so has seen a resurgent progressive focus on inequality—and little concern among progressives about the downsides of discouraging work… The decision to prioritize equality over employment is particularly puzzling, given that social scientists have repeatedly found that unemployment is the greater evil.

Why work, though, when the government pays you not to work?

And that unfortunate cost-benefit analysis is being driven by ever-greater levels of dependency.

Writing for Forbes, Professor Jeffrey Dorfman echoed these findings:

…our current welfare system fails to prepare people to take care of themselves, makes poor people more financially fragile, and creates incentives to remain on welfare forever… The first failure of government welfare programs is to favor help with current consumption while placing almost no emphasis on job training or anything else that might allow today’s poor people to become self-sufficient in the future… It is the classic story of giving a man a fish or teaching him how to fish. Government welfare programs hand out lots of fish but never seem to teach people how to fish for themselves. The problem is not a lack of job training programs, but rather the fact that the job training programs fail to help people… The third flaw in the government welfare system is the way that benefits phase out as a recipient’s income increases… a poor family trying to escape poverty pays an effective marginal tax rate that is considerably higher than a middle class family and higher than or roughly equal to the marginal tax rate of a family in the top one percent.

I like that he also addressed problems such as implicit marginal tax rates and the failure of job-training programs.

Professor Lee Ohanian of the Hoover Institution reinforces the point that the welfare state provides lots of money in ways that stifle personal initiative:

Inequality is not an issue that policy should address… Society, however, should care about creating economic opportunities for the lowest earners… a family of four at the poverty level has about $22,300 per year of pre-tax income. Consumption for that same family of four on average, however, is about $44,000 per year, which means that their consumption level is about twice as high as their income… We’re certainly providing many more resources to low-earning families today. But on the other hand, we have policies in place that either limit economic opportunities for low earners or distort the incentives for those earners to achieve prosperity.

I’ve been citing lots of articles, which might be tedious, so let’s take a break with a video about the welfare state from the American Enterprise Institute.

And if you like videos, here’s my favorite video about the adverse effects of the welfare state.

By the way, it isn’t just libertarians and conservatives who recognize the problem.

Coming from a left-of-center perspective, Catherine Rampell explains in the Washington Post how welfare programs discourage work:

…today’s social safety net discourages poor people from working, or at least from earning more money… you might qualify for some welfare programs, such as food stamps, housing vouchers, child-care subsidies and Medicaid. But if you get a promotion, or longer hours, or a second job, or otherwise start making more, these benefits will start to evaporate—and sometimes quite abruptly. You can think about this loss of benefits as a kind of extra tax on low-income people… Americans at or just above the poverty line typically face marginal tax rates of 34 percent. That is, for every additional dollar they earn, they keep only 66 cents… One in 10 families with earnings close to the poverty line faces a marginal tax rate of at least 65 percent, the CBO found… You don’t need to be a hardcore conservative to see how this system might make working longer hours, or getting a better job, less attractive than it might otherwise be.

To understand what this means, the Illinois Policy Institute calculated how poor people in the state are trapped in dependency:

The potential sum of welfare benefits can reach $47,894 annually for single-parent households and $41,237 for two-parent households. Welfare benefits will be available to some households earning as much as $74,880 annually… A single mom has the most resources available to her family when she works full time at a wage of $8.25 to $12 an hour. Disturbingly, taking a pay increase to $18 an hour can leave her with about one-third fewer total resources (net income and government benefits). In order to make work “pay” again, she would need an hourly wage of $38 to mitigate the impact of lost benefits and higher taxes.

Agreeing that there’s a problem does not imply agreement about a solution.

Folks on the left think the solution to high implicit tax rates (i.e., the dependency trap) is to make benefits more widely available. In other words, don’t reduce handouts as income increases.

The other alternative is to make benefits less generous, which will simultaneously reduce implicit tax rates and encourage more work.

I’m sympathetic to the latter approach, but my view is that welfare programs should be designed and financed by state and local governments. We’re far more likely to see innovation as policymakers in different areas experiment with the best ways of preventing serious deprivation while also encouraging self-sufficiency.

I think we’ll find out that benefits should be lower, but maybe we’ll learn in certain cases that benefits should be expanded. But we won’t learn anything so long as there is a one-size-fits-all approach from Washington.

Let’s close with a political observation. A columnist for the New York Times is frustrated that many low-income voters are supporting Republicans because they see how their neighbors are being harmed by dependency:

Parts of the country that depend on the safety-net programs supported by Democrats are increasingly voting for Republicans who favor shredding that net… The people in these communities who are voting Republican in larger proportions are those who are a notch or two up the economic ladder—the sheriff’s deputy, the teacher, the highway worker, the motel clerk, the gas station owner and the coal miner. And their growing allegiance to the Republicans is, in part, a reaction against what they perceive, among those below them on the economic ladder, as a growing dependency on the safety net, the most visible manifestation of downward mobility in their declining towns… I’ve heard variations on this theme all over the country: people railing against the guy across the street who is collecting disability payments but is well enough to go fishing, the families using their food assistance to indulge in steaks.

It’s not my role to pontificate about politics, so I won’t address that part of the column. But I will say that I’ve also found that hostility to welfare is strongest among those who have first-hand knowledge of how dependency hurts people.

P.S. If you want evidence for why Washington should get out of the business of income redistribution, check out this visual depiction of the welfare state:

P.S. The Canadians can teach us some good lessons about welfare reform.

P.P.S. The Nordic nations also provide valuable lessons, at least from the don’t-do-this perspective.

P.P.P.S. Last but not least, there’s a Laffer-type relationship between welfare spending and poverty.

This article was reprinted with permission from International Liberty.

COLUMN BY

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell

Daniel J. Mitchell is a Washington-based economist who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review.

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

Thomas More Law Center Thwarts Muslim Attempt To Silence Disturbing Truth About Islam

/in , , , /by

Chances are, if you speak boldly about the truth of Islam and Sharia Law you’re bound to run into resistance and conflict. Steve Amundson, the courageous and dedicated founder of the Counter Jihad Coalition (CJC) knows this all too well. He experienced a particularly disturbing incident recently that temporarily prevented him from setting up his booths and getting his message out.

The CJC exists to educate people on the truth about Islam. They do this by setting up tables at different venues, such as the shopping mall shown in the photo above, and pass out factual, truthful brochures. On a given day, they can give out as many as 1,000 brochures.

Although most people are grateful for the information on Islam, Amundson is always on high alert for potential backlash. This past July was no exception.

Amundson and his team, including a pastor, set up their booth at the Los Cerritos Center in Cerritos, California, on July 7. At one point, two men began snapping pictures of the booth, then getting on their phone.

Soon after, two Muslim women approached the booth and began cursing and causing a scene. Mall security was nearby and began speaking with the women. In the meantime, a white haired Muslim man walked over to the CJC booth and slid a backpack he was carrying under the CJC table. He then began speaking with the pastor from CJC.

After a short conversation, the Muslim man walked away from the pastor.

When Amundson found out that the man was an irate Muslim complaining about CJC’s activities, he became concerned for their safety and called security.

According to Amundson:

“I told security he left a backpack underneath our booth. The Muslim refused to take the backpack. We started to take cover behind cement pillars and told security to either call the bomb squad or have the guy pick up the backpack. He finally agreed to very carefully pick it up and security escorted him away. Security will not say at least right now if he was arrested, if the bomb squad was called or what. Was this a dry run or the real thing?”

Amundson’s subsequent application to place his table at the Mall was denied, citing security reasons.

That’s when Amundson reached out to the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC).

Thomas More Law Center attorneys wrote a letter to the Mall concerning its denial of CJC’s constitutional rights to free speech. A few weeks after the Mall acknowledged receipt of the letter, CJC was approved.

Amundson was so grateful to have his First Amendment rights restored, that he recently sent an email out to his large group of supporters and thanked TMLC directly, and kindly encouraged his friends to donate to us.

Your ongoing support of TMLC ensures we have the resources to provide immediate legal assistance, to individuals like Steve Amundson and the CJC team. Thank you for your continued support of the Thomas More Law Center.

Hotel USSR: a new book by Oleg Atbashian, former citizen of the former Soviet Union

/in , , , , /by

I’m happy to report that I’ve just published my second book, Hotel USSR. It’s a story of а young man coming of age in a totalitarian state. He wants to be an artist but he isn’t authorized to buy paints. He wants to see the world but the authorities brand him as politically unreliable. He wants to get married but the system separates him from his bride. He listens to Hotel California and wishes he had their problems: he himself is stuck in a real-life trap that he “can never leave,” and he calls it Hotel USSR. To check out, he must break every rule in the book.

This young man is me and this is my real life story. People have often asked me what growing up in the USSR felt like. This book is my answer. It’s illustrated with my own drawings and paintings, which I did in my twenties before I quit drawing. The reason for quitting is in there as well.

In addition to it being humorous and entertaining, I hope this story can be an eye-opener for younger people who may naively believe in the false promise of socialism. Rather than debating Marxism directly, I demonstrate how it fails in practice and what absurdities ensue when the entire state lives in denial of its failures, forcing people not to trust their own eyes. The book describes socialism as an attempt to regulate human existence in cumbersome ways that defy human nature, leaving no doubt that to build “real socialism that works” is no more possible than to build a house based on an optical illusion.

I hope you enjoy my story and help me to spread the word. Amazon allows a short preview – please rate it and leave a comment:

Art from this book can also be found in Oleg’s Art Gallery. Prints on demand at RedBubble.com.

Book description on Amazon:

As a child, he was promised abundance and freedom in a communist paradise. In that bright future, he dreams of being an artist. But as he grows up, he discovers that his dream is based on a fraud and that his country is really a dictatorship governed by bullies, liars, and thieves. He and the girl he loves find themselves trapped in a labyrinth of a dysfunctional utopia they call “Hotel USSR,” where every aspect of life is regulated by improbable rules that override human nature. To live their dream, they decide to break the law. This takes him on a series of tragicomical adventures that feel like acts in the theater of the absurd: a worker in Siberian oil fields, an army conscript, an inmate at a forensic psychiatry facility, a visual propaganda artist, a Soviet dissident, and an immigrant to America. And everywhere he goes he draws pictures…

Bongino Breaks Down Trump’s 289 Accomplishments Since Taking Office

/in , , , , , /by

Are you tired of winning yet? Bongino’s not and he’s covering Trump’s list of 289 accomplish. #MAGA. Plus, Don Lemon turns bitter and the media goes cray over YE! Bongino exposes the insanity. And, Senator Bob Cassidy gives a master class in owning the libs.

Dan Bongino on NRATV

Country, service, the Second Amendment, the Truth and every Big R God-given Right. This is what WE STAND for and these are the American foundations Former Secret Service Agent and NYPD Officer Dan Bongino will defend every weekday at 4:30 p.m. CT/5:30 p.m. ET on NRATV.

Dan Bongino joins NRATV’s lineup, rounding out the most experienced and patriotic team of journalists and conservatives on the air today. Together, they are on a mission to Take Back The Truth.

Smart. Tough. Extraordinary background in law enforcement. In other words, enemy number one in the eyes of progressives. And what’s worse for those elitists? Dan welcomes Grant Stinchfield for each episode. So radical socialists—bring your best. We dare you to join that cage fight.

ACLU Attacks Border Wall and Kate’s Law: Sacrificing national security and citizen liberties.

/in , , , , , /by

Border Security is national security.

Illegals

The preface of the official government report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel began with the following paragraph:

It is perhaps obvious to state that terrorists cannot plan and carry out attacks in the United States if they are unable to enter the country. Yet prior to September 11, while there were efforts to enhance border security, no agency of the U.S. government thought of border security as a tool in the counterterrorism arsenal. Indeed, even after 19 hijackers demonstrated the relative ease of obtaining a U.S. visa and gaining admission into the United States, border security still is not considered a cornerstone of national security policy. We believe, for reasons we discuss in the following pages, that it must be made one.

That report was authored by the federal agents and attorneys who were assigned to the 9/11 Commission.  The 9/11 Commission was created and tasked with conducting an exhaustive investigation into how the 9/11 terrorists were able to carry out the most deadly terror attack in the history of the United States.

Indeed, the 19 hijacker-terrorists slaughtered more innocent victims on September 11, 2001 than did the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 and the death toll continues to rise as still more people, including valiant first responders succumb to illness directly attributable to the toxins they were exposed to when the World Trade Center Complex was reduced to rubble.

Today more than 10,000 people are being treated for illnesses directly related to those terror attacks.

The mission for the 9/11 Commission was not simply to document that which had transpired on that horrific day, but to identify the vulnerabilities that enabled those attacks to be carried out so that remedial measures could be implemented to prevent future attacks.

The 9/11 Commission determined that multiple failures of the immigration system, including failures of border security and a lack of interior enforcement of our immigration laws, undermined national security. These failures enabled, not only the 9/11 terrorists to enter the United States and embed themselves as they went about their deadly preparations, but also other terrorists that the 9/11 Commission studied.

Since the terror attacks of 9/11, additional deadly terror attacks have been carried out by aliens who, in one way or another, managed to enter the United States, commit immigration fraud and/or violate other immigration laws and then commit mass murder.

Other foreign terrorists were thwarted, either by law enforcement, by courageous civilians, by dumb luck or by their own ineptitude.

My recent article, Congressional Hearing: Iranian Sleeper Cells Threaten U.S. included the Congressional testimony of national security experts who warned of the presence of large numbers of terrorists in Latin America who are supported by Hamas and Hezbollah—funded by Iran in Latin America—who are increasing their cooperative efforts with drug trafficking organizations to move large quantities of narcotics and individuals into the United States across the highly porous U.S./Mexican border.

That hearing was conducted on April 17, 2018 by the House Committee on Homeland Security, Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee on the topic, “State Sponsors of Terrorism: An Examination of Iran’s Global Terrorism Network.”

How then could any rational individual or organization oppose securing our nation’s borders against the entry of international terrorists and/or transnational criminals?

That is the question that the executives of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) should answer.

On October 12, 2018 the ACLU issued a press release: ACLU Responds To Introduction Of McCarthy Immigration Bill.

Here is what the press release contained:

WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy introduced a bill today that includes provisions to violate the constitutional rights of immigrants and inflate the Department of Homeland Security budget.

The bill would allocate $23.4 billion for a border wall, which even members of the Republican party have referred to as a “quantum leap” in funding. The sweeping bill also includes several bills previously introduced in the House that raise serious constitutional concerns.

Lorella Praeli, deputy political director at the American Civil Liberties Union, had the following response:

“Let’s be clear: this bill is blatant political posturing ahead of the election and a total disregard for how voters want the government to use their taxpayer dollars. It rewards Trump for his brutal deportation force crackdown and family separation policy. Moreover, the bill is riddled with constitutional violations that completely disregard the civil and human rights of immigrants.

“The true intent of these bills is to empower Trump’s deportation force and anti-immigrant agenda. It’s inhumane, unacceptable, and voters will remember it in November.”

A border wall would not stop the lawful entry of even a single alien into the United States, or prevent anyone from having access to a U.S. port of entry.

All that a border wall would do is funnel all traffic destined to the United States into ports of entry where inspectors of CBP (Customs and Border Protection) would interview them, examine their documents and make law-based decisions as to whether or not to admit those aliens into the United States.

The grounds for excluding aliens from entering the United States are enumerated in one of the sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)- Title 8, United States Code, Section 1182.  Among these classes of aliens who are to be prevented from entering the United States are aliens who suffer from dangerous communicable, diseases or extreme mental illness.

Additionally, convicted felons, human rights violators, war criminals, terrorists and spies and aliens who were previously deported are to be excluded, as well as aliens who would seek unlawful employment thus displacing American workers or driving down the wages of American workers who are similarly employed and aliens who would likely become public charges.

It is vital to note that our immigration laws make absolutely no distinction in any way, shape of form as to the race, religion or ethnicity of any alien.

Opponents of border security would undermine national security and the integrity of the immigration system itself, leading America to anarchy.

Additionally, the above-noted ACLU press release made note of “several bills.”  The link that was provided in the press release related specifically to “Kate’s Law” named for murder victim, Kate Steinle who was killed by an illegal alien who had previously been deported multiple times by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents and repeatedly reentered the United States in violation of federal law.

Criminal aliens who are deported from the United States and then unlawfully reenter the United States face a maximum of 20 years on prison.  Kate’s law would mandate that such aliens who are deemed “aggravated felons” would face a minimum of 5 years in prison for committing the crime of unlawful reentry.  Aggravated felons are particularly dangerous criminals who have committed specific felonies for which they were convicted.

The enhancement in punishment for such criminals are intended to act as a deterrence against such threats to public safety from returning to the United States, thereby threatening innocent lives.

As I noted in a recent article, Sanctuary Policies Protect Sex Offenders, this section of law is of particular interest to me.  In the early 1980’s I approached then U.S. Senator Al D’Amato with the proposition that the federal law that addressed the unlawful reentry of aliens who had been deported be amended. At the time, the section of law in question, 8 U.S. Code § 1326 provided for a two year maximum penalty for aliens who had been previously deported from the United States and subsequently reentered without authorization. Because the penalty for this crime was so low and because so many aliens who had been deported from the United States returned, the U.S. Attorneys, particularly in major cities such as New York City, rarely prosecuted aliens for that crime. Back then the law made no distinction between aliens who had been convicted of committing serious crimes and those who did not.

I suggested that a clear distinction be made for aliens who had been convicted of serious crimes, were deported and then reentered the United States.  I suggested that they be subjected to a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison as a means of deterring such threats to public safety and possibly national security from returning to the United States where they might harm more victims.

Working with the Senator and his staff and with my colleagues at the former INS including Walter Connery, who headed up the Investigations Branch of the NYC District Office of the INS, the law was amended.  Consequently, the crime of unlawful reentry of “aggravated felons” as specified in section b of 8 U.S. Code § 1326, is the most frequently prosecuted federal crime.

However, the ACLU adamantly opposes efforts to protect innocent victims from aliens who are convicted felons.  The American justice system operates via the principle of deference through enforcement.  Penalties are imposed on those who are convicted of crimes to not only punish the guilty but to deter future crimes.

Deporting criminal aliens and preventing their return, protects public safety.

Would that the ACLU be concerned about the civil liberties of the victims of alien criminals and terrorists.

Those who lose their lives to criminals and terrorists also lose their civil liberties.

RELATED ARTICLE: Will the migrant caravan headed north from Honduras have implications for U.S. midterm elections?

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

Why Don’t All Women Vote Democrat?

/in , , , , /by

The Democrats desperately want the world to believe they have a monopoly on the female vote; that a vote for a Democrat candidate is the only logical choice. They further contend any woman voting for a Republican is either a fool or being controlled by their spouse. It is simply beyond their comprehension that women would support President Trump, a Republican running for election, or Brett Kavanaugh. They just don’t get it.

The reality is this is their way of manipulating women through intimidation. They are hoping women will vote in accordance with their gender. I guess this means men should only vote for male candidates, right?

They are also hoping women will say something like, “I better vote for the Democrats so I don’t appear stupid. What would my friends say if I voted Republican?” Even worse, Democrats assume Republican women are not smart enough to make their own decisions and if they vote for a GOP candidate, they are being unpatriotic.

This is political brainwashing at its best. The Democrats honestly believe such intimidation works, and maybe it does for the unsophisticated, but I believe women are smarter than this, at least the ones I’ve met in my journey through life. I have found most women do not like to discuss politics among themselves in social settings as they do not want to alienate anyone, but they do indeed possess opinions and vote accordingly.

In the 2016 election, the Democrats believed women would overwhelmingly support Mrs. Clinton. They were aghast that President Trump won white women votes by 52% to 43%. Mrs. Clinton won the minority female vote but this may very well change in the upcoming midterm elections as the economy has improved dramatically for African-Americans, Asians, and women (the unemployment rate for Women fell to its lowest level in 65 years). Instead of working to change the economy for the better for women, Democrats do nothing more than perpetuate the myth that women are non-thinking robots who must vote for liberal causes. I’m sorry, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

If the Democrats honestly believe this, they are making a “huge” mistake with women voters. This suggestion women should only vote for “the party of feminism” is insulting to many, causing women to push back and vote Republican.

The Democrats’ attacks on Justice Kavanaugh during his recent hearings did not go unnoticed. Young liberal women might have been offended, but older women, more in tune with what is happening economically and politically in this country, did not buy it. In fact, they were more offended by the female protesters demonstrating on the Supreme Court steps, and in the gallery of the U.S. Senate. Their obnoxious behavior was more of a turnoff to women as opposed to causing them to embrace the demonstrators’ position. As one female friend told me, “Democrat Women are shrill, toxic and no lipstick!” What the Democrats do not seem to realize is civility is still preferred over boisterous and repugnant protests.

This presumption that women should only vote for Democrats has been going on for quite some time, and frankly, it is not taken seriously anymore. By trying to brow-beat women into voting for their candidates, as opposed to developing legislation to help women, the Democrats have put themselves on a path of self-destruction.

It will be interesting to see the voter demographics when this midterm election is concluded. If more women vote for Republicans than Democrats in the midterms, then we’ll know the tactics of the Democrats no longer work.

Keep the Faith!

EDITORS NOTE: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies. The featured photo is by Chris Murray on Unsplash.

BREAKING NEW VIDEO: Senator McCaskill exposed; “People just can’t know that”

/in , , , , /by

Missouri: Project Veritas Action Fund has released a third undercover video from campaigns during this 2018 election season. This report exposes how incumbent Senator McCaskill and her campaign staff conceal their liberal views on issues in order to court moderate voters.

  • Senator McCaskill on Tape: “Of course!” She Would Vote Yes on Gun Bans.
  • Campaign Staff Says: McCaskill supports “a semi-automatic rifle ban.”
  • McCaskill is Quiet on Gun Views “because she has a bunch of Republican voters,” Secretly Supports Gun Control Group.
  • Campaign Staff: Wait Until After Election to Bring up Trump Impeachment; to Voters: “Get over it.”
  • “People just can’t know” McCaskill and Obama “essentially have the same views on everything.”
  • Staffers Reveal in Undercover Video it “could hurt her ability to get elected.”

View the video HERE:

6 Big Moments in Trump-Stahl Rumble on ‘60 Minutes’

/in , , , , , /by

Much of President Donald Trump’s “60 Minutes” interview Sunday consisted of responding to veteran CBS News reporter Lesley Stahl’s questions on what have been Democrats’ talking points for months.

During one exchange, Trump described to Stahl how the media treated his predecessor, President Barack Obama, much differently.

“I disagree, but I don’t want to have that fight with you,” Stahl replied. “All right, I’ll get in another fight with you.”

Trump responded: “Lesley, it’s OK. In the meantime, I’m president—and you’re not.”

Here’s a look at six of the biggest topics discussed and Trump’s responses.

1. Separating Illegal Immigrant Families

Stahl pressed Trump on his administration’s suspended policy of separating children and parents who illegally cross the southern border.

“Well, that was the same as the Obama law. You know, Obama had the same thing,” Trump said.

Stahl shot back: “It was on the books, but he didn’t enforce it. You enforced it. You launched that, the zero tolerance policy, to deter families with children coming.”

Trump defended his position, saying: “When you allow the parents to stay together, OK, when you allow that, then what happens is people are going to pour into our country.”

Stahl asked: “So are you going to go back to that?”

After some back and forth, Trump said: “No, I want all the laws changed.”

2. A Lecture on Climate Change

Although it began as a question, Stahl seemed to be lecturing Trump on climate change by saying she wished he would travel to Greenland to see the melting ice.

“Do you still think that climate change is a hoax?” Stahl asked.

Trump answered in the negative, adding:

I think something’s happening. Something’s changing, and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference. But I don’t know that it’s man-made. I will say this. I don’t want to give trillions and trillions of dollars [to counter climate change]. I don’t want to lose millions and millions of jobs. I don’t want to be put at a disadvantage.

Stahl then talked about some presidential travel to prove her point.

“I wish you could go to Greenland, watch these huge chunks of ice just falling into the ocean, raising the sea levels,” Stahl said, without a question.

She went on to tell Trump that scientists with the federal government contend climate change is man-made.

“We have scientists that disagree with that,” Trump said, later adding: “I’m not denying climate change. But it could very well go back.”

Stahl: “But that’s denying it.”

The exchange then devolved into Trump and Stahl challenging each other to name a scientist who backs up their point.

“They say that we had hurricanes that were far worse than what we just had with Michael,” Trump said.

Stahl: “Who says that?”

Trump: “People say.”

Stahl: “But what about the scientists who say it’s worse than ever?”

Trump challenged her to name some scientists.

“You’d have to show me the scientists,” he said, “because they have a very big political agenda, Lesley.”

Stahl conceded: “I can’t bring them in.”

3. Kavanaugh and Ford

Trump said Democrats acted “horribly” during the confirmation battle over new Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was accused by a California woman at the 11th hour of sexually assaulting her when they were teens in the early 1980s.

Stahl, however, questioned whether Trump had created more divisions and asked him about a speech in Mississippi where he specified the gaps and contradictions in research psychologist Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the incident she alleged occurred about 36 years ago.

“You go out and you go to Mississippi and you mimicked Professor Blasey Ford. You mimicked her,” Stahl said.

Trump said of his remarks: “Had I not made that speech, we would not have won [the confirmation fight]. I was just saying she didn’t seem to know anything, and you’re trying to destroy a life of a man who has been extraordinary.”

“Washington, D.C., is a vicious, vicious place,” @realDonaldTrump says.

Stahl asked in a shocked tone: “Why did you have to make fun of her?”

Trump: “I didn’t really make fun of her.”

Stahl: “Well, they were laughing.”

The CBS reporter recalled Ford being asked by a senator about “the worst moment” during the alleged incident.

“And she said, ‘When the two boys laughed at me, at my expense,’” Stahl said, paraphrasing, then telling the president: “And then I watched you mimic her and thousands of people were laughing at her.”

Trump pushed back, saying: “The way now Justice Kavanaugh was treated has become a big factor in the midterms. Have you seen what’s gone on with the polls?”

He told Stahl that he believed he treated Ford with respect.

“But you seem to be saying that she lied,” Stahl said.

“You know what?” Trump shot back. “I’m not going to get into it, because we won. It doesn’t matter. We won.”

4. Russia, China, and Election Meddling

When Stahl asked whether Russian President Vladimir Putin was involved in assassinations, Trump replied: “Probably he is, yeah.”

During the segment aired on “60 Minutes,” Stahl noted that 32 people have been charged, convicted, or pleaded guilty in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian election interference

The network showed images of Trump’s short-term campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who was convicted for unrelated financial crimes, and of Trump’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying on a government disclosure form, also unrelated to the Russia probe.

However, Stahl didn’t mention that her 32 number includes two dozen Russians indicted for meddling in the presidential campaign, largely through social media.

Trump told Stahl: “They [Russians] meddled, but I think China meddled too.”

Stahl looked shocked, asking: “Why do you say China? The Russians meddled.”

Trump replied: “Because I think China meddled also.”

Stahl seemed to break into an admonishing mood.

“This is amazing,” Stahl said. “You’re diverting the whole Russian thing.”

She later asked: “Will you pledge that you will not shut down the Mueller investigation?”

Trump was noncommittal.

“Well, I don’t pledge anything,” Trump said. “I don’t want to pledge. Why should I pledge to you? If I pledge, I’ll pledge. I don’t have to pledge to you.”

5. Trusting White House Staff

First lady Melania Trump said in a recent interview with ABC News that she doesn’t trust some people in the White House.

“I feel the same way. I don’t trust everybody in the White House, I’ll be honest with you,” Donald Trump told Stahl.

Stah asked whether Trump ever wonders about White House staffers, “Is he wearing a wire?”

“Not so much a wire. I’m usually guarded,” Trump said. “I think I’m guarded anyway. But I’m not saying I trust everybody in the White House. I’m not a baby. It’s a tough business.”

“This is a vicious place,” Trump said. “Washington, D.C., is a vicious, vicious place. The attacks, the bad mouthing, the speaking behind your back. You know, and in my way, I feel very comfortable here.”

6. Relations With NATO

Trump has warmed up to NATO, made up of the United States and Western allies that assure one another of mutual defense, largely because more NATO members have agreed at his insistence to spend 2 percent of their annual GDP on defense.

But Stahl pressed the president as if he were still hostile to NATO.

“Are you willing to get rid of that Western alliance?” Stahl asked.

Trump said he likes NATO.

“But you know what? We shouldn’t be paying almost the entire cost of NATO to protect Europe and then on top of that, they take advantage of us on trade,” the president added. “They’re not going to do it anymore. They understand that.”

Stahl: “Are you willing to disrupt the Western alliance? It’s been going for 70 years. It’s kept the peace for 70 years.”

Trump: “You don’t know that.”

Stahl asked whether Defense Secretary James Mattis had warned Trump to stick with NATO.

“Is it true Gen. Mattis said to you, ‘The reason for NATO and the reason for all these alliances is to prevent World War III?’”

Trump denied this.

“Frankly, I like Gen. Mattis,” Trump said. “I think I know more about it than he does, and I know more about it from the standpoint of fairness, that I can tell you.”

After more back and forth, Trump asserted: “I will always be there with NATO, but they have to pay their way. I’m fully in favor of NATO, but I don’t want to be taken advantage of.”

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

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

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with photos and videos is republished with permission. The featured image is of President Donald Trump talking to reporters as he departs Monday with first lady Melania Trump to tour hurricane damage in Florida. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/Newscom)

The Daily Signal Podcast: Betsy DeVos on Giving States More Power in Education

/in , , , /by

Betsy DeVos received heaps of scorn from the left when she became education secretary, but since taking office last year, she’s accomplished much—and given a good deal of power back to the states. In this episode, Rob Bluey, our editor-in-chief, sits down with DeVos to talk about the progress being made. We also talk to Morgan Walker about what it’s like to be at a major Trump rally.

Also on today’s show:

  • Saudi officials prepare to admit to the killing of a missing journalist, as the U.S. considers punitive options.
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., takes that long-awaited DNA test and finds she’s only 1/1024th Native American. But that doesn’t stop her from asking President Donald Trump to cough up $1 million for charity.
  • Florida Panhandle struggles in the aftermath of Hurricane Michael.
  • A case of fetal homicide raises the question: Is it life, or isn’t it?
  • A biological male claims the championship title in women’s track cycling, giving us a glimpse into what transgenderism means for female athletes.

The Daily Signal podcast is available on the Ricochet Audio Network. You also can listen on iTunes, SoundCloud, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts.

If you like what you hear, please leave a review or give us feedback. Enjoy the show!

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

EDITORS NOTE: This podcast is republished with photos with permission. The featured image is of education Secretary Betsy DeVos. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

Yes, Democrats, It’s a Mob

/in , , , , , /by

Former Attorney General Eric Holder believes that Michelle Obama was wrong when she famously advised, “When they go low, we go high.” Rather, he told Democrats at a gathering in Georgia, “When they go low, we kick them.”

If Holder had been honest, he would have said, “When they win a presidency via the constitutionally mandated route and the duly elected president nominates a Supreme Court justice with a 12-year exceptional record on the bench and then the duly elected Senate follows all the rules and precedents set by Democrats—offering numerous hearings and investigations along the way—and confirms that nominee, we kick them, because we’re frustrated.”

There’s nothing wrong with “fighting” in politics. We don’t need to be hypersensitive about every metaphorical overindulgence (unless it’s Donald Trump; then we must take it literally, seriously, and hysterically). But the problem is that Democrats have a bad habit of acting as if every political setback they experience is caused by some act of criminality. This instigates a lot of people to act like a bunch of children—or worse.

When Democrats lose the House, it’s because of mythical unilateral gerrymandering or mythical mass voter suppression. When they lose the Senate, it’s because the system suddenly became an antiquated relic of the 1700s. When they lose the Supreme Court, there is a “legitimacy crisis.” When they lost the 2000 election, it was because it had been stolen by the Supreme Court. When they lost in 2004, George W. Bush had rigged the election in Ohio. When they lost in 2016, omnipotent Russians and the unfair Electoral College had snatched the office from its preordained owner.

And every legislative action that fails to comport with liberal thinking is to them an apocalyptic event and the end of “democracy.”

If all of this were true, the question would be: Why aren’t more people joining a mob? If your government is stealing your country, why wouldn’t you embrace boorishness or even violence?

“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Hillary Clinton recently explained, egging on one of those mobs. If you allow politics to become a stand-in for religion, the apostates don’t deserve decency. “Civility can start again,” Clinton went on to helpfully inform us, when Democrats run Congress.

Of course, it’s easy to embrace fake magnanimity when you hold power. Michelle Obama’s “when they go low, we go high” came during her 2016 speech at the Democratic National Convention, and it was aimed at Trumpian rhetoric when nearly everyone in power believed that Clinton would triumph.

Obama offered her axiom after liberals had spent eight years trying to use executive power to coerce, demean, and morally micromanage the deplorables—yet those clingy God-loving gun nuts stubbornly refused to accept the progressive reinvention of patriotism.

They went low all the time. It was Joe Biden, not Trump, who accused Republicans and their presidential candidate, a man who had dutifully engaged in civic life for quite some time, of betting against America.

Yet Democrats still act perplexed by the backlash. Even now the mob within their ranks is being cast, predictably, as a conservative fiction. “Republicans Seize On ‘Angry Mob’ Mantra To Keep Their Midterm Base Fired Up,” says NPR. CNN insists that it’s a normal, everyday demonstration of free expression to chase politicians’ wives out of public places. You may not use the word “mob” in their presence.

No, it’s not the Parisian mob. Not yet. It’s more like one of those illiberal campus mobs that attempt, often successfully, to shut down debate. A mob is a disorderly crowd of people who have the intent of causing trouble or violence.

So, for example, that means people who interrupt lawful proceedings or people who wildly bang on the Supreme Court doors when a vote doesn’t go their way or people who surround politicians (and their families) and chase them out of restaurants or people who join groups that smear other Americans without evidence—those who try to undermine the rule of law through intimidation.

As a First Amendment absolutist, I say yell at politicians in public spaces all you like. That just means you’re a buffoon. But once you surround people and restrict their movements, you are engaging in more than incivility. Those actions will almost surely compound and become dangerous. And should I even mention that if any of this were directed at Democrats, the nation would be plunged into an overwrought discussion about the importance of civility in American life?

“This is what happens,” Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, said this week. If you act as if every traditionally conservative policy position and legal appointment to the court portends the Fourth Reich, this is indeed what happens. For now, though, partisan incivility isn’t really a mainstream problem. But some Democrats seem to want to change this.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of David Harsanyi

David Harsanyi

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

So I Guess the New Democratic Party Platform Is Violence?

Someone Sent a Threatening Letter, Allegedly Laced With ‘Ricin,’ to Sen. Collins’ Home in Maine 

Why O’Rourke’s Rhetoric on Police Shootings Is Wrong—And Dangerous

RELATED VIDEO: Sheriff David Clarke Breaks Down Antifa Violence in Portland, Oregon

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

EDITORS NOTE: This column with photos is republished with permission. The featured image of Eric Holder is by Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom.

Values Bus Gets Voters into Gear before November [+Video]

/in , , , , /by

The Values Bus isn’t just catching other drivers’ attention — it’s catching the media’s! In Montana, where conservatives are in another tight race, the FRC Action team made stops in Billings, Bozeman, and Helena. Patrina Mosley, our Director of Life, Culture, and Women’s Advocacy was on hand, along with FRC’s Director of Church Ministries, Dr. Kenyn Cureton.

At the Yellowstone Christian College and a rally at the local Harley-Davidson in Billings, local news outlets were on hand to talk with the FRC Action team to talk about the motivation for a nationwide bus tour. “Helping people get out to vote,” Patrina told KULR8. “Putting voter guides in their hands, putting resource in their hands about religious freedom, about life and so [on]… [W]e’re helping people get out to vote saying, ‘Hey, we want you to do three things: We want you to pray, we want you to vote, we want you to stand. Pray for our country, pray for our leaders, and then vote.'”

Both crews, the east and west coast buses, have gotten a great response rolling through states. “This is an opportunity to say ‘Hey, we’ve seen what difference just one election has made in the last two years where we’re actually seeing religious liberty thriving,'” Patrina pointed out. “So, an election makes a difference. From the president on down to the senators on down to your House of Representatives and on down to the local level.”

To keep up with the Values Buses and where they’re headed in a state near you, click over to the website. And while you’re there, take the pledge to Pray, Vote, Stand!

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Pastor Brunson: Home, Free

Weathering the Storms

Ron DeSantis Statement on James Madison Institute Study

/in , , , , , /by

Ron DeSantis released the following statement following the James Madison Institute’s “Election 2018: Platforms, Proposals, Projections” analysis of Florida Governor Candidates’ Economic Platforms:

“Today’s report from the James Madison Institute, a non-partisan, well-respected economic think-tank, proves what we’ve been saying all along—Andrew Gillum’s policies would be an economic disaster for every person in our state,” said Ron DeSantis. “Gillum’s proposals would cost Florida taxpayers $2.6 billion. Additionally, per the study, Florida would lose 150,000 jobs and $28 billion per year. My policies, on the other hand, would create over 200,000 jobs and add $25 billion in annual economic output. Floridians deserve a Governor who will work to ensure they get to keep more of their hard-earned money, create more jobs, and build on the economic success of our state, and that’s exactly what I will do as Governor.”

The James Madison Institute partnered with two of the nation’s leading and most widely respected econometric firms, The Washington Economics Group and Arduin, Laffer, and Moore, to produce this objective and non-partisan analysis of the economic platforms of each of the two major candidates vying to be Florida’s 44th Governor.

“Election 2018: Platforms, Proposals, Projections” dives into the central elements of each candidate’s economic agenda, analyzes the fiscal implications of major proposals, and projects the overall impacts from each on the economic climate of Florida.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Florida faces a once-in-a-generation election in 2018. The confluence of term limits, macro-economic outlook, and the political environment have combined to place Florida as ground zero in the economic policy debate being waged nationwide.

The two candidates running for Governor of Florida could not have more diametrically opposed agendas.

In such a hyper-politicized atmosphere, it is imperative that Floridians become educated on the data and facts that will inform the choice they make on November 6.

Florida currently possesses the 17th largest economy on the planet – one trillion dollars of goods and services will be produced, distributed, and consumed in 2018. Our population has boomed over the past 20 years to more than 20 million residents – an increase of more than 1,000 every single day. Florida’s employment growth over the last two decades has been one of the strongest in the U.S., despite the 2007-2008 recession.

Florida’s economic policy agenda of low and stable taxes, combined with a pro-growth private sector oriented strategy, has led to a top business climate ranking among the 50 U.S. States. This has attracted, retained and expanded business activities, resulting in strong employment expansion among most industry sector categories.

The policy agendas of both principal candidates for governor are radically different, impacting economic activity and employment expansion. Every single sector of our economy will either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of the decisions our elected leaders make.

Candidate Andrew Gillum’s policy agenda – to increase the corporate tax rate significantly, almost double the minimum wage, sharply expand government-controlled health insurance, and mandate a $50,000 starting salary for teachers – would adversely impact the business climate of the State through higher taxes, a sharply higher minimum wage and State mandates to expand government-controlled health insurance.

All told, the policy agenda Candidate Gillum proposes would require an increase in the corporate tax rate to the 2nd highest in the United States, an increase in Florida’s sales tax to 39 percent, or the imposition of a state income tax as high as 37 percent.

Consequently, the economic impacts of abandoning the current low tax/top business climate rankings of Florida, based on the experience of the higher tax states presented in this brief, would ultimately cost Florida direct employment losses of 155,000 jobs and $28.2 billion in economic losses per year.

Candidate Ron DeSantis agenda – to largely maintain the pro-growth-oriented strategy of Florida through low and stable taxes, would preserve and strengthen the state’s business climate, which supports the attraction, retention and expansion of employment-generating business enterprises. This agenda also includes investing in the “classroom” the savings from lower educational administration costs, and in technical/vocational programs to improve workforce development. Ultimately, this agenda would lead to the creation of 215,000 jobs annually and $26.6 billion in annual economic output.

Elections have consequences, and policy agendas have costs and benefits to them. Ultimately, it is up to Floridians to weigh the costs of each candidate’s agenda and determine what policies will bring about Florida’s more prosperous future.

On November 6, 2018 we will have our say. [Emphasis added]

To read the full report, CLICK HERE.

Pastor Freed by Turkey Kisses American Flag, Prays for Trump

/in , , , , /by

Andrew Brunson’s first stop en route to the U.S. after being freed from house arrest in Turkey was Ramstein Air Base in Germany. There, the pastor from North Carolina was greeted by U.S. Ambassador Richard Grenell and a folded American flag.

Fresh off of the airplane and with his wife Norine by his side, Brunson grabbed the flag and kissed it, as captured in a photo that Grenell shared on Twitter.

Before long the Brunsons were meeting President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House, where the pastor dropped to one knee and prayed for the commander in chief,  Associated Press reported.

Brunson had been in jail or on house arrest in Turkey for more than two years before his release. He was arrested in October 2016 and accused of aiding terrorists through a small Christian church that he and his wife operated in the coastal city of Izmir.

The Brunsons had worked in Turkey for 23 years without incident until his  arrest.

Brunson was ultimately freed through high-pressure diplomatic negotiations overseen by Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Trump has said he believed in July that he had a solid deal with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to free the pastor,  who was said to be in poor health while in jail.

After Erdogan reneged on the deal, the Trump administration responded with a round of economic sanctions against the Turkish government.

Brunson’s court hearing Friday was his first since the sanctions took effect.

At the hearing, four government witnesses recanted their testimony that the pastor was aiding terrorist organizations.

In an apparent face-saving measure, the judge presiding over the case convicted  Brunson and slapped him with a three-year sentence. The judge also lifted a travel ban against the pastor, allowing him to leave Turkey.

After leaving Ramstein Air Base in Germany, Brunson landed Saturday aboard a military jet at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.

“From a Turkish prison to the White House in 24 hours, that’s not bad,” Trump quipped at the White House meeting with Andrew and Norine Brunson, Associated Press reported.

When the president agreed to Brunson’s suggestion that he pray for him, the pastor got up from his chair next to Trump, kneeled, and put his left hand on the president’s right shoulder.

As Trump bowed his head, AP reported, Brunson asked God to “give him supernatural wisdom to accomplish all the plans you have for this country and for him. ”

“I ask that you give him wisdom in how to lead this country into righteousness,” the pastor prayed, adding:

I ask that you give him perseverance and endurance and courage to stand for truth. I ask that you to protect him from slander from enemies, from those who would undermine. I ask that you make him a great blessing to this country. Fill him with your wisdom and strength and perseverance. And we bless him. May he be a great blessing to our country. In Jesus’ name, we bless you. Amen.

COLUMN BY

Chuck Ross

Chuck Ross is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @ChuckRossDC.

RELATED ARTICLE: Hugh Fitzgerald: Pastor Brunson’s Deed of Derring-Do

EDITORS NOTE: This column with photos is republished with permission. The featured image is of Pastor Andrew Brunson praying for U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on October 13, 2018 in Washington, DC. Photo Credit: Olivier Douliery/CNP/AdMedia.

Will Incoming Republican Leaders in the Florida Senate/House Continue Gun Control Trend?

/in , , , , /by

Mr. Oliva,

Many of us conservative, law abiding gun owners are very concerned about the recent trend of gun control shown by Republicans in the Florida Legislature especially the incoming leaders of both the House and Senate.

It is my understanding that you, as incoming Speaker of the House and incoming Senate President Bill Galvano led the charge to compromise with Democrats in the House and Senate to pass the SB 7026 Marjory Stoneman Douglas Public Safety Act which is also a gun control act.  As you know, it passed overwhelmingly in the House 67-50 with 57 of the YES votes by Republicans  but only passed by 20-18 vote in the Senate.

Although the NRA and other 2A advocacy groups are concerned about the infringement of 2A rights under this law, they should also be concerned about violations of Due Process (5th and 14th Amendments)  with the Risk Assessment Order piece.  A person suspected of being a threat can have all of his/her firearms & accessories and carry permit seized for up to a year unless they prove in a hearing they are not a threat.  They must prove their innocence not the court/prosecutor.  Furthermore their property can and most likely will be seized prior to the hearing even being conducted.

This has already started with 121 seizures in Polk County since Sep. 14.  We don’t know how many of these were overturned and guns & accessories returned by the results of the hearing but seizure before the hearing and the burden being placed on the accused to prove they are not a threat rather than the court proving they are a threat is a clear violation of Due Process.   Please see attached article.

If the court rules on behalf of the accused, they have no recourse to recoup expenses if they hired an attorney; no recompense of potential loss of reputation nor compensation for their the time & effort required to go thru bureaucratic process of recovering their seized property nor payment for any damages to seized property.

This law will allow liberal courts and prosecutors to weaponize the Risk Protection Order based on their anti-gun agendas.  This breach of Constitutional rights is a travesty of the law and should not be allowed to stand.

Only one piece of this law should have been passed before the end of the 2018 session and that is Sheriff Grady Judd’s Guardian/Sentinel Program to insure at least one armed, highly trained security person is placed in every school before the start of 2018-19 school year.  The rest of the 105 page law is full of gun control, additional bureaucracy, and unclear procedures open to differing interpretations all at great expense to FL taxpayers and violations of the rights of legal, law abiding Florida gun owners.

The Florida Legislature must revisit and either invalidate or at least change the bad parts of SB 7026, one of which is the Risk Protection Order under the open to interpretation and unclear procedures presently established.

Sincerely,

Royal A. Brown III
V.P. Winter Haven 912
www.WH912.org

Galvano, NRA clash Over Political Contribution

By Jim Turner

News Service of Florida  – TALLAHASSEE

Incoming , Senate President Bill Galvano  is not backing down after finding himself in the crosshairs of the National Rifle Association for receiving a sizable political contribution from a.group that backs gun restrictions and has ties to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Galvano, a Bradenton Republican who is slated to become Senate president after the November elections, pointed Monday to’the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman , Douglas High School that killed 17 people. After the shooting, , lawmakers passed a bill (SB 7026) that included raising the minimum age from 18 to 21 to purchase rifles and other long guns – a restriction the NRA has challenged in federal court.

(Even more damaging provisions of this new law are the Risk Protection Orders which allow seizure of all firearms, accessories & even concealed carry permits from a person deemed a threat before a hearing is conducted which is a violation of Due Process under the 5th and 14th Amendments – RABIII).

“I will make no apologies for the responsible steps we took in a bipartisan manner in the wake of the worst school shooting in our state’s history,” Galvano said.

Galvano’s comments came  after NRA Tallahassee lobbyist Marion Hammer, a former national president of the gun – .rights organization, called him out for accepting a $200,000 contribution from Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, which has been heavily backed by Bloomberg.The contribution went to a political committee known as Innovate Florida, which is chaired by Galvano.

Hammer, a longtime powerful lobbyist in Tallahassee, sent out an “alert” Monday to members of the NRA and Unified Sportsmen of Florida about the Sept. 4 contribution to Galvano’s committee.

“Incoming Florida Senate President Bill Galvano calls himself a Republican but is rumored to be the one who colluded with anti-gun Democrats to engineer the gun control package included in SB-7026 this past session,” Hammer wrote to members of the groups. “SB-7026 contained three major gun control provisions and was rammed down the throats of Senate and House Republican legislators.”

“Looks like our Second Amendment Rights were sold for a large contribution from anti-gun former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg,”Hammer wrote. “All of this while the anti-gunners keep accusing legislators of taking money from NRA. In reality, no Florida Senate or House member or candidate for the Florida Senate or House has received a direct contribution from NRA in almost 20 years.

The NRA filed a federal lawsuit against the state in .March immediately after Gov. Rick Scott signed into law the bill that include a wide range, of school-safety and gun related  measures. Along with ‘the age requirement for gun purchases, it also included imposing a three-day waiting period on buying long guns and banned what are known as”bump stocks,” which allow semi-automatic rifles to mimic fully automatic weapons. The lawsuit remains pending.’

“I have made it clear that as Senate president, I will continue to advocate for  increased safety ,and security in our schools. I am grateful for the support,” Galvano said Monday.’

The alleged shooter in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas case, to-year-old Nikolas Cruz, legally purchased a semiautomatic rifle that was used in the massacre .

Gun-rights supporters have been frustrated in recent years by the Senate, which has blocked proposals such as allowing people with concealed weapons licenses to carry firearms on college campuses (and in non-secure parts of airports-RABIII). Bills have stalled after years of the Republican –dorninated  Legislature generally being supportive ‘of positions backed by groups such as the NRA, Florida Carry and Florida Gun Rights.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Florida Senator Galvano’s Facebook page.

Secret Service foiled Islamic State assassination plot against Trump in the Philippines

/in , , , /by

How the Left would have rejoiced if the Islamic State plot had succeeded.

“How the Secret Service Foiled an Assassination Plot Against Trump by ISIS,” by Marlow Stern, Daily Beast, October 12, 2018 (thanks to Ken):

In November 1996, President Clinton visited Manila for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum. Protests raged in the streets, with American flags being burned, so local police closed down many roads, allowing the Secret Service to chart a specific route for the president’s motorcade. As the president and members of his cabinet traveled from their hotel to the first venue of the day, “There was intelligence that came in, and we at the last minute decided to change the motorcade route,” a former Secret Service agent recalls. “It was determined that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden had placed a bomb along the route in anticipation of the motorcade coming that way.”

Bin Laden had indeed placed a bomb under a bridge, and just before the president’s motorcade was due to cross it, the Secret Service re-routed the vehicle down a side road. President Clinton (codename: “Eagle”) was safe.

Twenty-one years later, there was a plot against President Trump’s life in Manila—a shocking fact revealed in United States Secret Service: On the Front Line, a two-hour special airing on the National Geographic Channel Sunday night that—for the first time—provides viewers with a behind-the-scenes glimpse of the workings of the Secret Service, and the complex measures they take to protect the president of the United States.

President Trump (codename: “Mogul”) was due to arrive in the bustling city to meet with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and other South Asian leaders at the ASEAN 50 summit in November 2017. Chad Ragan, a special agent in the Presidential Protective Division, was the Secret Service agent in charge for the trip; Audrey Gibson, a special agent in the Protective Intelligence & Assessment Division (aka “The Bubble”), served as his eyes and ears….

“There is credible information that an incident could occur during ASEAN,” says Special Agent Gibson, leading the Secret Service’s personnel brief in Manila. Pointing to a map of ISIS and ISIS-affiliated threat actors, she adds, “As of this week, the Philippines has escalated to a critical threat level.” (Days before the president’s visit, ISIS issued a series of threats—via video—that featured a picture of the president filled with bullets, and a message urging jihadists to “lie in wait” and “ambush” POTUS in the Philippines.)

Prior to President Trump’s arrival on Air Force One, a PID agent informs Special Agent Gibson that he’s come across a credible threat against POTUS—in the form of a tweet reading, “Gonna be in Manila the same time as Trump… I’ll take one for the team lads,” accompanied by a mugshot of Lee Harvey Oswald. And on his Instagram, they find a photo of the male suspect wielding a copy of the book How to Kill: The Definitive History of the Assassin. The PID agents then track his IP address and discover that the man is indeed located in downtown Manila, kilometers away from the president’s hotel, and his social media posts reveal that he is traveling in the direction of the president’s hotel. They continue to monitor him….

If that weren’t enough, Special Agent Gibson and her team learn that an ISIS operative is somewhere in downtown Manila, and is targeting President Trump. And 20 minutes before touchdown, the Secret Service still isn’t sure where the ISIS operative is. “What is going on proactively to track this guy down?” Special Agent Ragan is seen shouting into a phone. “I need an update. Now.”

Special Agent Gibson and her fellow PIC agents soon track down the ISIS operative to Luneta Park, about a mile north of the president’s hotel, where the suspect is reportedly convening with “an associate.” They inform Special Agent Ragan, who then informs the Philippine National Police (PNP), whose officers swarm the park and apprehend the suspects. Crisis averted….

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Jihad Watch. The featured image is the flag of the U.S. Secret Service by Wikimedia Commons.