VIDEO: Radical Islamic Organization joins ‘F**K Capitalism’ Rally in Orlando, FL

/in , , , , /by

Well folks, here you have it, video proof positive – the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a radical Muslim supremacist organization, joining with Marxists to “F**k Capitalism,” impeach Trump and destroy America (by the way, my use of terrorist means the inner struggle, self-improvement type of terrorist).

Right about now, “Capo dei Capi” of CAIR National, Nihad Awad (not his real name) is on his hotline to the up-and-coming jihadi Wunderboy, Hassan Shibly in Florida and screaming at him – ماذا اللعنة! (Arabic translation – WTF!)

You see, the ikhwanul muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood) wants to fly under the counter-terrorist radar and implement their civilization jihad through the Democrat Party and political process, not through unhinged Marxists talking about the benefits of Palestinian tear gas experiences!

Up until November 2016 the Brotherhood was on-track and experiencing Islamic chills up and down their Armani suit legs, prematurely thanking Allah for delivering such a useful idiot infidel as Hillary!

Truth be told, the Brothers are still pissed at Huma for dropping the ball!

Somehow in God’s Providence in November 2016, He chose a failed, flawed, blue-collar billionaire to be a roadblock or maybe stop sign in the Brotherhood’s quest to Islamize the United States of America.

Nihad’s plan was to have his Green team (Islam) join with the Red team (Marxists) and form an unstoppable Alliance to usher in the next phase of Islamic domination but that ball-buster from New York was having none of that!

Of course, millions of American Patriots were also having none of that Alliance. 

Therefore stay tuned for at least three more years of Muslims going Wild, publicly saying insane stuff, joining with more and more anti-American crazies and watch for Nihad to dye his gray hair blacker and black as he tries to maintain control of his Islamic movement in chaos.

Yes. The United West will bring you all this entertainment in living-color, with surround sound, on a regular basis!

Now, sit back and break out the haram popcorn!

People of Florida 2, Lobbyists 0. School Board Term Limits Advance Again!

/in , , , , /by

Today we learned once again that the power of the grassroots here in Florida can overcome any special interest, no matter how entrenched.

The Local Government Committee of the Constitutional Revision Commission just passed School Board Term Limits by a 5-1 vote, meaning we are one step closer to letting Florida voters decide in 2018 whether eight years is enough for all school board politicians.

The School Board remains one of few areas in Florida government where there are no term limits yet, except for a single county (Duval).

I have to tell you, the way we passed the committee today was great. First, our sponsor — Collier School Board member Erika Donalds — gave an awesome pitch for term limits. Then, like clockwork, the biggest and most powerful lobbyists in Tallahassee got up one by one to bash term limits. These guys were angry. They know they stand to lose a lot of influence over incumbents if we succeed.

Erika handled their flimsy objections with no problems. Then, one commissioner, Bob Solari of Indian River, announced he would oppose term limits. At this moment, the gallery full of lobbyists and special interests gave Solari an ovation! They were so proud that someone stood up for their swamp.

However, one minute later, the committee voted and term limits WON, 5-1. Solari and his influence-peddling friends were crushed.

So how did the lobbyists lose? It’s simple. For the last few weeks, you and people like you have been making calls and sending emails nonstop to this Commission to let them know the people want term limits. Lobbyists have no such army behind them. They have deep pockets, sure, but they lack real citizens taking action to get things done.

Citizen energy is term limits’ secret weapon.

We’ve come a long way, but School Board term limits still aren’t on the 2018 ballot yet. This measure has to pass a drafting committee and then be elevated to the full Commission level for a final vote. But today’s action brings us one big step closer.

The Commission will even be touring Florida before taking a final vote, so you’ll have an opportunity to appear in person and make the case. I’ll email you when it comes to your town.

Thanks for your continued support,

Nick Tomboulides
Executive Director
U.S. Term Limits

VIDEO: Judge Roy Moore’s Statement on the Alabama Special Election & What Lies Ahead

/in , , , , /by

Judge Roy Moore has released the following video on his campaign and what lies ahead:

EDITORS NOTE: The feature photograph is by Mark Peterson / Redux.

Misandry Rises: In Defense of Men

/in , , , , /by

“Don’t vote for men!” is the message of a recent campaign ad.  Issued by Dana Nessel, Democratic attorney general contender in Michigan, what she literally says is, “Who can you trust most not to show you their [sic] penis in a professional setting?”

She answers that it’s the candidate who doesn’t have one.

Now, a person could easily go tit for tat (not that I’d ever consider such a thing!). Noting how some voters, addressing politicians’ pusillanimity, lament how we need leaders with “a pair,” one could ask “Who can you trust most to have a pair?” and answer “The candidate who by definition has one.”

But the anti-male bias animating Nessel has long been brewing. In 2004, Sweden’s Left Party (yeah, that’s its actual name) proposed a “Man Tax,” a special levy on men designed to compensate society for the cost of male violence. I always answer that I’ll be happy to pay my man tax — as long as I also get royalties for all of history’s man-birthed inventions and innovations. I’ll then use what’s left over to self-fund a presidential run.

Of course, responding to Nessel’s claim that sexual misconduct is a male domain, we could highlight the continual stories about female teachers having relations with young male students or the NYC juvenile-detention center where female guards were allegedly using the teen boy inmates as “sex slaves.” And man-tax misandrists should note that women are actually more likely than men to initiate domestic violence.

Yet, in reality, sound bites and simple facts don’t truly illuminate this issue. For there is some truth in Nessel’s nitwittedness, man-tax twittering and in my responses to both.

USA Today recently ran the headline, “’Guns don’t kill people; men and boys kill people,’ experts say,” which is about as insightful as stating “Men are taller than women.” Of course, even though blacks and Hispanics commit 98 percent of all gun crime in NYC, we’d never see the headline “Big Apple Crime: Guns don’t kill people; blacks and Hispanics kill people, experts say.” That said, it has always been known that men commit the bulk of major violence; it’s also not news that men are the more lustful sex and are more likely to commit sexual misconduct.

Yet crime doesn’t completely tell the tale — because the sexes sin differently. Consider: When a little boy gets upset, he may have a temper tantrum and explode like a volcano, creating quite a scene. Yet 10 minutes later he may act as if the event never happened. A little girl is more likely to not boil over but simmer for a long time, even perhaps holding a grudge. Thus, the amount of negative energy expended may be the same; only the intensity and duration vary. But which trespass is far more likely to bring punishment?

This is evident throughout life: Men’s sins are more overt, women’s more covert. Boys are more prone to get into fistfights, but girls may be more apt to bully peers to the point of suicide. In this case, the trespass more likely to bring punishment is the less severe.

And so it goes. Male violence is matched by female emotional manipulation and vindictiveness; male lust by female vanity; male gluttony, sloth and anger by female pride, envy and avarice. (Yes, there is overlap; I’m speaking of characteristic faults.)

Which set is worse? It may all balance out, but I certainly would rather endure a firm slap in the face than a 10-minute, emotionally abusive harangue. The point is that just as something’s value doesn’t always correspond to its price, something’s wickedness doesn’t always correspond to the worldly price you have to pay for it.

However visible men’s sins, though, they are today, as they’ve always been, recognized. What’s new is that while men are, again, virtually all history’s inventors and innovators, this is minimized. Men’s faults are now treated as innate — or, at best, as a function of deeply ingrained “toxic masculinity” — while their triumphs are written off as nurture, the result of mere opportunity.

Feminist Camille Paglia once noted, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts” (a naturally imposed grass ceiling?). Paglia was getting at an age-old truth: Men are the actuating sex, the wilder one, which accounts for both their dynamism and their dangerousness. They’re two sides of the same coin, giving men the capacity to be a Churchill or a Hitler, to write the Communist Manifesto or the Constitution. Yes, most murdered women are killed by men, but women only now outlive men (they once died younger) because of male-born medical science. Men have been killers — but many more lives have been saved because they’ve also been curers.

There are two reasons, one more politically incorrect than the other, why men are the groundbreakers: inclination and ability. Ivanka Trump has been on a crusade to get women into scientific and high-tech fields. She ought to watch the excellent documentary “The Gender Equality Paradox,” which points out that women are more likely to enter non-traditional fields (e.g., computer tech) in relatively patriarchal India than in über-egalitarian Norway. Why? Because India’s poverty forces women to go where the money is; in rich nations, however, they can afford to follow their hearts. As for where this takes them, there’s a reason boys would play with erector sets and girls with dolls — and, no, it’s not conditioning.

Dr. Larry Summers lost his job as Harvard University’s president in 2006 for saying that there may be few women in top science positions because of “issues of intrinsic aptitude.” When analyzing this, one could point out (not that I’d ever consider such a thing) that, contrary to popular myth, men have somewhat higher IQs than women do (and brains approximately 11 percent larger). Moreover, the gap in intrinsic scientific aptitude is likely even greater than that I.Q. gap of five points would indicate.

Yet none of this matters. You see, it isn’t the average person, or even the average intelligent person, who makes the great breakthroughs. It is the genius, the fantastically gifted.

And such people are virtually always male.

For example, “[A]t the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one,” wrote Professor Richard Lynn in 2010. Of course, the ratio varies depending on what data you use, but the pattern is unmistakable, consistent and finds no disagreement among experts: As you move up the I.Q. scale, the ratio becomes more skewed in men’s favor until (according to the study here) the category “I.Q. over 176,” where there is no ratio — because no woman scored that high.

Why this disparity? I’d theorize that it’s for the same reason why males are more likely to develop X-linked chromosomal abnormalities (such as color-blindness or hemophilia): because, put simply, the Y (male) chromosome increases the chances of anomalies’ emergence. And, well, genius is an anomaly.

Of course, this phenomenon would apply to other abilities as well, whether in music, art, athletics, cooking, chess, writing or, well, most anything else under the sun.

This is why virtually all history’s inventors and innovators have been men. It’s why, barring some bizarre, nature-rending genetic engineering (which would also be birthed by men), they always will be.

What implications does this hold for society and policy? First, it’s a fool’s errand and highly destructive to try to equalize the number of men and women in the STEM fields. After all, if we ever instituted what the Bill Clinton administration desired — applying Title IX “proportionality” mandates to STEM — it would not magically breed female geniuses or even spark women’s interest in STEM.

But it might result in denying some brilliant men the opportunity to exploit their potential.

Now, China already produces 10 times as many scientists as we do (with just four times the population). Do we want to make that ratio 20 to 1? Thirty to one? Then just keep it up with the political correctness.

Second, as wise parents have always understood, boys must be given outlets for their boundless energy. As someone I knew once put it, “Boys always have to be doing something — even if it’s the wrong thing.” It will more likely be the wrong thing (e.g., gangs) if we rob them of right things, which is what happens when in the name Equality™ we remove their necessary outlets (e.g., applying Title IX and eliminating boys’ athletic opportunities).

Remember, again, the choice is dynamism or dangerousness, whether that dangerousness is violence or the self-destructiveness of drinking or drugs. The same thing causing little boys to explore, sometimes where they shouldn’t, motivates them to later explore all manner of arenas, pushing back frontiers in science and medicine, creating and innovating, building and breaking through. Active little boys become actuating grown men, for genius without impetus goes as far as an engine without fuel.

Returning to anti-male insanity, years ago feminists in Sweden, Germany and Australia adopted a new cause — compelling men to sit down while urinating — and did succeed in getting the urinals removed from a Swedish elementary school. They claimed that the typical way men tend to a nature call is symbolic of, as Dr. Walter E. Williams related it, “triumphing in their masculinity.” Of course, it’s triumphant masculinity that created the whole modern world and that made arguments over urination technique possible. Because, yeah, men invented the flush toilet, too.

Speaking of which, that’s precisely where feminism and equality dogma ought to be put.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Political “Science” – in Good Faith

/in , , , , /by

Few contemporary political science students know the checkered history of their discipline, which has principally become an empirical field devoid of metaphysical questions. Aristotle, the “father of political science,” argued, however, that, in a properly and prudently governed polis, the good citizen will be coincident with the good man.

The nature of goodness was thus an essential matter of political inquiry. That simple idea is profoundly significant, for it captures a key element of genuine political science, which aims at developing and inculcating virtue. “The main concern of politics,” Aristotle writes in the Nicomachean Ethics, “is to engender a certain character in the citizens and to make them good and disposed to perform noble actions.”

St. Thomas Aquinas thought that political administration was good if, and to the extent that, it was ordered to holiness. Good people would lead good governments; without virtuous leadership, the citizens would largely fail in the cultivation and practice of virtue. In fact, Aquinas quotes from Proverbs 28:12, 15, 28 and 29:2, the theme of which is that oppressive rulers are ravenous beasts who impair virtue and the common good.

By “virtue,” Aristotle meant excellence of the soul (as did Aquinas), so that “the student of politics must obviously have some knowledge of the working of the soul.” Obviously? Today’s academics?

When almost two millennia later Machiavelli taught that rulers required virtù (not virtue), he argued for might over right, and for the acquisition of power regardless of divine consequences. If Solomon, in Proverbs, warned against oppressive princes, Machiavelli exalted them as effective, contending that the love of power was greater by far – and much more practical – than the power of love.

Since then, political science had become more concerned with what is, than with what ought to be. Cynics argue that we have no reliable measurements of what virtue is, but we have a warehouse of tools for measuring more “useful” matters (such as voter tabulations and public opinion polls).

Lenin defined politics as Kto/kovo (or Who/whom – who does what to whom?) Harold Lasswell (1902-1978) described politics as “who gets what, when, how.” And systems theorist David Easton (1917-2014) said that politics is “the authoritative allocation of values.” Nothing there about virtue, rectitude, or nobility. Nothing there, either, consistent with the Catechism’s observation that “ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action, and morals” (#407).

The American man of letters Russell Kirk (1918-1994), however, struggled to restore the Aristotelian-Thomist understanding that politics is “the application of ethics to the concerns of the commonwealth.” There is a necessary connection, Kirk and his students would say, between Athens and Jerusalem, between the virtues of love and of prudence, between Ought and Is. In conscientiously and continuously seeking that connection between the Perfect and the Possible, one finds both the purpose and the pity of politics.

Philosopher Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) saw clearly the danger of our day, warning of the evil sure to result from “the degradation of political science to a handmaid of the powers that be.” Genuine political wisdom proceeds, from knowledge that “the truth of man and the truth of God are inseparably one.” There is a measure, after all, for determining right and wrong in political life. If Protagoras and all subsequent positivists or secularists proclaim, “man is the measure,” they are grievously mistaken, for, as Plato told us, “God is the measure.”

In the absence of proper diagnosis – that “the whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil” (Gaudium et Spes 37) – the medicine of politics curdles and corrupts. Politics is seen either as messianic (with would-be political saviors in the political arena) or as despicable (with debauched despots vying for power and attention).

Here, then, is modern politics: a political convention in Charlotte which boos God and a raft of politicians who, as Walter Lippmann once put it, “advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle, or otherwise manage to manipulate” the public, to whom they present themselves as servants of the people.

When we scoff at the true, the good, and the beautiful; when we worship the false and fleeting and call the profane sacred; when we conflate what is noble with what is noisome; when fraudulent education creates, as C. S. Lewis said, “men without chests” – then we will continue to look for solutions to problems in all the wrong places and by all the wrong means. We will create hell and call it heaven; we will kill babies and the elderly and call it mercy (cf. Is 5:20). We will cheer what is filthy and loathsome and call it sublime. We will not know that we do not know. And we will not care, for a drugged and decadent society will divert us.

And what of those who seek to restore virtue in public policy and to remind us that we are creatures of a loving God? What of those who speak faithfully of the moral law and of a political science which tells us – against those who boo God – that we are neither angels nor beasts but beings made in His image and His likeness, trying to work out our salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12)?

Political science, wisely taught and wisely practiced, tells us always that we must know, first, Whose we are (1 Cor 7:6:19, 7:23). Remembering that, we might heed Churchill’s advice: “The day may dawn when fair play, love for one’s fellow men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forward serene and triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair.”

James H. Toner

Deacon James H. Toner, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Leadership and Ethics at the U.S. Air War College, and author of Morals Under the Gun and other books. He has also taught at Notre Dame, Norwich, Auburn, the U.S. Air Force Academy, and Holy Apostles College & Seminary.

EDITORS NOTE: © 2017 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

President Trump receives Friends of Zion Museum Award

/in , , , , /by

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire/ —

Friends of Zion Award presented to President Trump joined by Dr. Mike Evans Vice President Pence, Senior Advisors Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump and global faith leaders (PRNewsfoto/Friends of Zion Museum)

President Donald Trump received the Friends of Zion Award from Dr. Mike Evans founder of the Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem.

The event was attended by Vice President Pence, Senior Advisors Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump and faith leaders representing over 150 million Christians globally.

During the ceremony Dr. Evans declared that:

“No president in history has ever built such an alliance for the State of Israel and the Jewish people, and no president has courageously stood up for the State of Israel on the global stage as you had Mr. President. President Trump’s historic recognition of Jerusalem will secure his place in history as the first American president to take that step since the founding of the State of Israel in 1948.”

President Trump’s historic declaration regarding Jerusalem takes its place as one of Israel’s historic millstones from the Balfour Declaration to President Truman’s acceptance of Israel into the family of nations. These heroes presented in the Friends of Zion Museum in Jerusalem tell the stories characters throughout history that have stood by the Jewish people and helped establish the State of Israel. These non-Jewish Zionists are engraved in history and millions of people worldwide have learned of their heroism thanks to the groundbreaking work of Dr. Evans and the Friends of Zion Museum.

The Friends of Zion Award was bestowed on world leaders such as President George W. Bush, Prince Albert II of Monaco and President Rosen Plevneliev, 4th President of Bulgaria. Dr. Evans presented these awards with the 9th President of Israel the late President Shimon Peres former Chairman of Friend of Zion Museum, to honor their courageous support of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

The Friends of Zion Heritage Center has become one of the central institutions in the State of Israel influencing the world and strengthening Israel’s relations globally while fortifying the pillars of the State of Israel. In addition to more than 31 million members globally the museum has hosted over 100 diplomats such as US Amb. David Freedman, President Rivlin, tens of thousands of Christian and Jewish leaders, NBA and NFL superstars, leading Hollywood actors and singers and has become a must see site in Jerusalem.

Friends of Zion Museum, 20 Yosef Rivlin Street, Jerusalem. A reservation is recommended for museum visits. Website: http://www.fozmuseum.com, email: reservations@fozhc.com, or phone: +972-2-532-9400.

For USA based media enquiries please email: johnnie@thekcompany.co For Israel based media enquires please email: hofit@pr360.co.il

RELATED ARTICLE: India, China and Russia Refuse to Recognize ‘East Jerusalem’ as Capital of ‘Palestine’

Trump Gets under the Media’s Spin

/in , , , , /by

There may be fake news, but there’s no making up the media’s loathing of Donald Trump. The press has been unrelenting toward this president since day one — and Media Research Center’s data proves it. Even the 89 percent negativity from his early months almost seem benevolent now, with numbers in the 91-93 percent range (the latter, according to Harvard).

“Our latest numbers show that coverage of Trump on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts in September, October and November was more than 90 percent negative (our methodology counts only explicitly evaluative statements from reporters or non-partisan sources)” MRC explains. “In September, there were just 31 pro-Trump statements on the Big Three vs. 359 negative. In October, the number of positive statements grew to 41, while the negative statements swelled to 435.”

The hostility is tough to ignore, spilling over into fiery White House press briefings and a line of questioning more combative than most Hill hearings. “Add it all up,” MRC reports, “and coverage of Trump has been 91 percent negative during the past three months. Our study of news in June, July and August found an identical rate of 91 percent negative, which means TV news is unchanged in its hostility toward the president.”

And the bias isn’t just in conservatives’ heads. Former President (and Democrat) Jimmy Carter knows a little something about dealing with the press as the leader of the free world. Even he agrees: “I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” he told the New York Times. “I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

The reality is that to date the president has systematically gone about fulfilling his campaign promises — and that’s what’s driving people opposed to a conservative, pro-American agenda crazy.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Military on the Polarized Express with Trans Training

Chai Tees up Debate over EEOC

Podcast: The Effects of Roy Moore’s Loss

Secret Government Settlement in Democrat Rep. Hastings’ Sexual Harassment Case Filed

/in , , , , , /by

It turns out the government secretly paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to resolve a sexual harassment case filed by Judicial Watch against a Florida congressman with a long history of unscrupulous behavior. The veteran Democrat, Alcee Hastings, is most famous for getting impeached by Congress as a federal judge following a scandal involving the solicitation of a $150,000 bribe in return for “favorable treatment for defendants in a racketeering case before him.” The disgraced judge was an unindicted co-conspirator, but there was enough evidence against him for Congress to boot him from the bench. Hastings is one of only six federal judges to be impeached by Congress and removed from the bench.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuit against Hastings was on behalf of a female employee that he regularly harassed. Her name is Winsome Packer and she was repeatedly subjected to “unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome touching” and retaliation by Hastings when he chaired the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. For over two years, from January 2008 through February 19, 2010, Packer was forced to endure unwelcome sexual advances, crude sexual comments, and unwelcome touching by Hastings while serving as the Representative of the Commission to the United States Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Although Packer repeatedly rejected Hastings’ sexual attention and complained about the harassment to the Commission Staff Director, Fred Turner, Hastings refused to stop sexually harassing her. Instead, the congressman and Turner retaliated against Packer—including making threats of termination—because she continued to object to Hastings’ conduct.

Filed in 2011 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit got dismissed a year later but led to a House Ethics Committee investigation of Hastings. Not surprisingly, the notoriously remiss panel absolved the congressman after a laughable, two-year probe. Charged with investigating and punishing corrupt legislators, the committee instead has a long tradition of letting them off the hook. In Hastings’ sexual harassment case, the panel found that the most serious allegations were not supported by the evidence, though Hastings “admitted to certain conduct that is less than professional.” For instance, the lawmaker admitted hugging Packer, asking her about her underwear and telling her he doesn’t sleep well after having sex.

For all these years, the American taxpayers that unknowingly doled out the cash to settle the case believed it was over. Hastings was absolved by a federal court and the Ethics Committee. Turns out there was an undercover deal in which the Treasury Department paid Packer $220,000 to settle the sexual harassment lawsuit against Hastings, who represents Florida’s 20th District, which includes portions of south Florida’s Broward and Palm Beach counties. A Washington D.C. news outlet dedicated to covering Capitol Hill broke the story last week after obtaining documents about the covert arrangement. “The 2014 payment to settle the case involving Hastings was not apparently included in a breakdown of payouts to settle discrimination complaints against House lawmakers from the past five years released last month by the Office of Compliance, which approves the payouts,” the article states. “That total included only one payment to resolve a sexual harassment claim — $84,000 paid to settle a complaint against Texas GOP Rep. Blake Farenthold.”

This indicates that there’s no telling how much the government, through various accounts and agency divisions, is spending to settle sexual harassment cases. The public may never know the magnitude of the problem, especially since most politicians will never come clean. Even after his secret settlement was exposed, Hastings denied harassing Packer and told a newspaper in his south Florida district that he knew nothing about the settlement. “I am outraged that any taxpayer dollars were needlessly paid to Ms. Packer,” the congressman says. In the meantime, the legislator’s unscrupulous behavior hasn’t changed. Earlier this year Hastings was in hot water after a watchdog revealed he gave his girlfriend the maximum taxpayer salary for five consecutive years to work in a field office. Top congressional salaries are supposed to go to the Washington D.C.-based chief of staff.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Four Congressmen Remaining In Congress Despite Sexual Misconduct Accusations

How Hollywood Whitewashes Islam and Muslims

/in , , , /by

Have you noticed that movies, TV shows and documentaries whitewash Islam and Muslims? It may not be obvious at first. I first noticed it when the 2002 movie “Sum Of all Fears” based upon the Tom Clancy novel. I read “The Sum Of All Fears” written in 1991 before seeing the movie. I was shocked how far off it was from the book.

In the book a small group of Islamic terrorists from the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (a Marxist-Leninist organization founded on December 11, 1967, six months after the end of the Six Day War with Israel), enraged at the looming failure of their crusade against Israel, come across a lost Israeli bomb and use it to construct their own weapon, using the bomb’s plutonium as fissile material. The terrorists enhance the weapon and turn it into a thermonuclear device, smuggle it into the United States and put at a Super Bowl game attended by the President of the United States.

The movie was scrubbed of any reference to Israel, Muslims, Islam or the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The Islamic terrorists in the book were replaced with white neo-Nazis. Get the picture?

I recently watch Ridley Scott’s the movie “Kingdom of Heaven.” In the film the evil doers are the Christian Crusaders with the oppressed being the Muslim ummah (community). If you wonder why this happens it is not by chance or trying to be politically correct. It is because of a Hollywood industry panel.

An article titled “Industry Panel Suggests Ways to Better Whitewash Islam and Muslims in Film and TV” reports:

Muslim Public Affairs Council president Salam Al-Marayati

An industry panel convened by a jihad-approving Muslim group that has infiltrated Hollywood to ensure that anything but the reality of Islam makes it to your viewing screen. via Industry Panel Suggests Ways to Better Represent Muslims in Film and TV | Hollywood Reporter

An industry panel discussed ways to avoid Muslim stereotypes in film and TV while also offering suggestions to ensure more authentic representations of Islam and Muslims in Hollywood at a recent event presented by the Writers Guild Foundation and the Hollywood Bureau of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

The MPAC’s Hollywood Bureau consults with production companies on authentic portrayals of Muslims and connects companies with Muslim creatives in writers rooms to tell their own stories to ensure that the stories told on the screen are accurate.

Here is Muslim Public Affairs Council president Salam Al-Marayati talking about President Trump on CNN before his first trip to the Middle East:

So who are Muslim stereotypes?

Just as Christians pattern themselves after the life and example of Jesus, Muslims pattern themselves after the life and example of Mohammed. The followers of Mohammed have committed greater atrocities in the past 1400 years than any other political/religious group.

So why does Hollywood portray Christian Crusaders as evil doers?

Because of the Muslim Public Affairs Council not only wants Muslims presented in a positive light, it wants the enemies of Islam, i.e. Jews and Christians, presented as evil, oppressors and Islamophobes.

As Creeping Shariah notes:

“It’s no secret that the industry has a knack for vilifying marginalized communities,” said Sue Obeidi, director of the MPAC’s Hollywood Bureau told The Hollywood Reporter. “However, we did notice that before Trump got into the White House, before he was even elected, representatives of the entertainment industry, television executives and creatives, reached out to us about creating Muslim characters, not your traditional ‘bad-guy Arab villain Muslim,’ but more authentic narratives.”

The Hollywood Bureau is currently consulting for Disney’s Aladdin (the upcoming live-action version), ABC’s Grey’s Anatomy,  Hulu’s The Looming Tower, NatGeo’s The State, Paramount/Amazon’s Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan and Nickelodeon’s Glitch Techs.

The MPAC’s ultimate goal is to get more Muslim creatives involved in the corporate structure.

You see it doesn’t matter what the truth is about “marginalized communities” whether black, Muslim, Hispanic or gay. The truth about these communities must be presented as positive and those playing roles as black men, Muslims, Hispanics or gays be whitewashed. After watching the 2016 film “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” on Netflix I noticed that all drug dealing the bad guys were white collar businessmen, not Mexican drug cartel members. The protagonist assassin is a former special forces soldier and the company bringing in heroin from Afghanistan are neither Hispanic nor Muslim but a  white retired general officer.

What message is Hollywood sending to us? Not a pro-American good guy defeating a foreign bad guy. We Americans are the enemy.

If you really want to see a good film about the drug trade watch the 2015 film “Sicario.” In this film the FBI and CIA are the good guys and the Mexican drug cartels are the really bad guys. Here’s the trailer:

EDITORS NOTE: PFLP was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization by the State Department in 1997, and it has retained that designation ever since.

VIDEO: Quinton Jefferson, Another Nail in the NFL Coffin

/in , , , , /by

I caught the below video of NFL player Quinton Jefferson trying to climb into the stands to attack a fan who threw food at him.

Jefferson was so enraged that it took 3 huge security guys to restrain him. Obviously, the fan is an idiot and should suffer consequences for his action.

Regarding Jefferson, I thought, dude you’re a millionaire pro-athlete. Why would you risk throwing away your career over the stupid act of a nobody? Jefferson came across like an out-of-control brainless beast. Jefferson kept yelling, “You don’t disrespect me!” “You don’t disrespect me!”

Jefferson’s intolerance with anyone “dissing” him comes from the gang culture mindset embraced more and more by pro-athletes over the years; particularly black pro-athletes. Jefferson behaved like a common street thug. Thank God security restrained Jefferson, preventing him from stupidly possibly ending his football career or worse over something so trivial.

Jefferson’s unprofessional thuggish behavior was another nail in the coffin with growing disrespect and repulsion for the NFL. Folks, I love pro football. But these guys’ arrogant lack of respect for fans, our military, our police and the country which has made them millionaires turns my stomach.

Even more disgusting is watching Leftists media and power-brokers lining up to kiss NFL players’ derrieres who give America and football fans their middle finger. Colin Kaepernick who started pro-athletes kneeling during our National Anthem was named GQ magazine’s Citizen of the year.

NFL player Michael Bennett is also being rewarded for kneeling during the National Anthem, expressing his disdain for his country. Bennett has been nominated for the NFL’s Walter Payton Man of the Year award. 

NFL Hall of Fame superstar Walter Payton’s bravery and integrity made him a profile in courage. Payton lost his battle with a rare liver disease, dying at age 45. Gifting Mr Payton’s Man of the Year award to Bennett for simply disrespecting our country, behaving like an anti-American Leftist operative is a disgraceful insult to Mr Payton’s legacy. Leftists find a way to urinate on and politicize every good and decent thing we hold dear in our country.

Clearly, if you want rock-star status and be promoted as a hero by the American Left, simply say, “Screw you America!” You’ll receive extra credit; overwhelmingly favorable press if you include saying, “Screw you Trump!”

Make no mistake about it folks. Leftists showering anti-American millionaire NFL players with praise and awards is the American Left’s way of giving us the finger.

Leftist media portrays Trump voters as mostly minority-hating white supremacists. In reality, we are America-loving hard-working everyday people who have been shackled in chains by political correctness; locked up in the deep dark dungeon of tyrannical Liberalism for the past 8 years.

But here is the good news. Trump opened the heavy door, liberating us. As we slowly emerged from our dark imprisonment, we shielded our eyes; sensitive to the beautiful bright sunlight of freedom. Emboldened by our new leader, Americans have begun no longer putting up with Leftists’ attacks on who we are as a people; our principles, values and Godly traditions.

Though under-reported, the NFL is paying a huge price for coddling players who behavior like criminals, anti-American activists and street thugs. Fans are tuning out the NFL on TV and not using their tickets for the games. During Monday Night football, announcer Jon Gruden unintentionally exposed the truth when he said there was not a lot of people in the stadium.

Sadly, it is becoming increasingly challenging to find NFL players parents can point their finger at and tell their kids to be like him.

In my day, I loved Baltimore Orioles shortstop, Cal Ripken; a super class act on and off the field. I even wrote a song about him titled, “Ironman.”

One thing about Leftists is they never retreat. Despite the destruction of the NFL as a business, NFL management will continue allowing its employees to dis fans, cops and America until the NFL, in essence, dies. I pray I am wrong because I love pro-football.

The Upside to Moore Loss for Trump and Republicans

/in , , , , /by

There is plenty of Republican hand-wringing and media gloating this morning over the dramatic loss of a Republican-held U.S. Senate seat in the deepest red Alabama yesterday — the first time since a conservative Democrat won in 24 years.

It is mostly much ado about nothing.

It had nothing to do with the very liberal Democrat running, Doug Jones, who was originally just a “D” set up as a lamb to the slaughter in a state Republicans typically win by 25 to 30 points. Trump won Alabama by 28 points.

It had everything to do with Republican Roy Moore being plagued by late accusations of sexual abuse 40 years ago and his own poor handling of the accusations. Republicans stayed home and Democrats were energized at the sudden and unexpected opportunity. Most importantly, the minority turnout was very large — undoubtedly the key to Jones’ victory and the only real concern for Republicans.

So as far as indicating any sort of wave election for Democrats in 2018, it is not remotely an indicator because of the universe of unique circumstances surrounding the race. Remember Moore lost statewide election twice before and was polling as the weakest of the Republican primary field when facing the Democrat in the general election — before the wave of debilitating accusations.

Moore loss insulates Trump on sexual misconduct accusations

One line of worries among Republicans is that last night’s election is going to give Democrats and the media more ammunition to go after President Trump, and that they will redouble their efforts on that front as the Russian “collusion” investigation seems to be faltering. Yes, Democrats will harp on it and the media will report it some, but it has no real legs without new “news.” Even the media requires news pegs — although they make them up sometimes nowadays.

No, the comparison between Trump and Moore is this: Both candidates had late and unconfirmed accusations of sexual misconduct against them before their elections. The Moore accusations seemed credible enough to enough Alabama voters that it flipped the election for the Democrat.

But voters had the same chance to weigh the accusations against Trump and found them less credible than Moore’s. Quite a bit less credible, and this was reflected in media coverage. Even the anti-Trump mainstream media could not find enough leverage in the accusations to keep them newsworthy in the 2016 general election.

With such accusations that are not only unconfirmed, but unconfirmable, the only jury available if a candidate or sitting official does not voluntarily step down, is the electorate. The electorate chose last night in Alabama against Moore. And it chose in November 2016 in favor of Trump. Democrats will try, but they will not get any real legs from rehashing what the voters already decided.

Knocking down talking head shibboleths

A second line of worries is that this could portend an anti-Trump, anti-Republican electoral wave. Naturally, the media is going off the deep end in trying to extrapolate yesterday’s election to the national stage because that is what they do and because it is an opportunity to attack Trump — and that is an opportunity they never miss.

Here are a few being spewn about last night and today in that regard which are almost too easily knocked down.

• The Alabama results are a direct rejection of Trump. Nonsense. Trump supported Moore’s Republican opponent in the primary, Luther Strange, and worked for him. He supported Moore at the last second and it was not the normal resounding Trump. His base knew he was not fond of Moore, only that he was a Republican in the tight Senate, and that was not adequate when weighed against the accusations.

So let’s be clear, there were zero issues involved in this campaign, just the sexual misconduct allegations against Moore. None of the Make America Great Again agenda was on ballot — not border control, not tax reform, not deregulation, not Obamacare repeal. None of it. So this really had very little to do with Trump or Doug Jones, and everything to do with what voters thought about the accusations against Moore.

• Alabama and Virginia show voters oppose what Trump is doing. More nonsense. Media commentators have been trying to create a “trend” starting with Virginia rejecting Republican Ed Gillespie in the governor’s race a few months ago because — again, late in the game — Trump supported Gillespie, an establishment Republican.

But Virginia is clearly a blue state now as the ever burgeoning D.C. area blossoms further into Northern Virginia and brings with it more Democrat voters, which is shown in statewide offices. Further, Hillary Clinton won Virginia by five points. She lost Alabama by 28 points. The two states are in no way comparable except on one point: Both Moore and Gillespie had previously lost statewide elections in their respective states and both had only tepid support from Trump. So there is no actual trend on this point.

• This could point to a wave election for Democrats in 2018. The most nonsense. Particularly in the Senate, the 2018 electoral map is overpoweringly in favor of Republicans, who may actually pick up a seat or two as they are defending only 10 seats while Democrats are defending 25 seats, including vulnerable seats in Indiana and Missouri.

Remember, this Senate seat in Alabama is only for two years, as that is what is left in the term of Jeff Sessions, who stepped down to become Trump’s Attorney General, creating this special election. The Virginia-Alabama trend talking point is a non-starter as Trump’s policies were not on the table.

However, Democrats will use the Alabama election to fundraise and to spur their base and build momentum. That is real. It will certainly be a weapon in the 2018 midterms to get out voters. The House could be at some risk of Republican loss, but that was already the case before Alabama because of the number of Republicans in vulnerable districts in a midterm election.

And minority voters were huge in Alabama, where they are a large percentage of the population. They turned out in almost record numbers as virtually every major black Democrat in the nation campaigned in the state, from Barack Obama and Joe Biden to Alabama sports stars such as NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley. This all undoubtedly goosed turnout.

That sort of intense focus is possible in the right circumstances in one race, but it not duplicatable nationally. Still Republicans need to do more of what Trump did in 2016 — go to black neighborhoods and tell them directly that the conservative agenda is better for them and their children and why. It is. Talk to them directly, and bypass the media filter.

The conservative message is still a winner with the American people.

RELATED ARTICLE: Liberal Doug Jones (D-AL) narrowly won the special election in Alabama yesterday and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has now helped elect yet another Democrat to the U.S. Senate.

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

VIDEOS: The Swamp Comes to Alabama and a Democrat Wins!

/in , , , , /by

The Daily Signal’s Rachel del Guidice reports:

Democrat Doug Jones beat Republican Roy Moore in Tuesday’s special election in Alabama’s U.S. Senate race.

Prior to the allegations of sexual misconduct Moore faced, the state was seen as an almost sure win for a Republican candidate. President Donald Trump won Alabama by almost 28 percentage points in 2016 and there has not been a Democrat senator in 25 years representing the solidly red state.

With 93 percent of the precincts reporting, Jones had 49.6 percent of the vote, or 602,515 votes, while Moore had 48.8 percent, or 592,729 votes, according to The New York Times.

A Jones win will hurt the conservative agenda, Brian Darling, a former staffer for Sen. Rand Paul, said in an email to The Daily Signal.

“This development empowers the moderates in the Senate in a way that will halt progress on a free market conservative agenda,” Darling, president of Liberty Government Affairs, said. “It is sad that the Republican leadership has proven so incompetent in implementing an agenda promoting free markets, lower taxes and a limited government [and] that has now become even harder to pass.”

After Jones is sworn in, there will be 49 Democrat senators and 51 Republican senators.

[ … ]

Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah, [Jeff Flake, R-AZ, Richard Shelby, R-Alabama] and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, also withdrew support.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Moore would face an ethics investigation if elected.

According to Gateway Pundit:

Republicans (Roy Moore) lost 667,819 votes — or 50% of 2016 vote

Democrats (Doug Jones) lost 58,396 votes — or .08% of 2016 vote

Additionally, there were a total of 22,819 write-in votes or 1.7% of the total votes cast.

Bill Finley published a video titled “The Lynching of Roy Moore”:

Judge Moore has not conceded the race until the absentee ballots are counted. According to Section 17-16-20 of Alabama state law:

When, in a general election, the election returns for any public office, including a judicial office, reflect that a candidate is defeated or any ballot statewide measure is defeated by not more than one half of one percent of the votes cast for the office, or the ballot measure, as certified by the appropriate election officer, a recount shall be held unless the defeated candidate submits a written waiver for the recount…

According to RedState.com, “[T]he Moore campaign could contest the results and pay for a recount. But the Republican Alabama Secretary of State said during an interview with CNN election night that it’s “highly unlikely” the outcome of the election would change, even with a recount.

President Trump tweeted:

The swamp came to Alabama and won.

We will be watching how Republicans and Democrats use this race as a referendum for their policies in other key races for governorships in southern states like Florida and Georgia.

In an email titled “What Happened in Alabama’s election” Michael Williams, Republican candidate for the Governor of Georgia wrote:

Mitch McConnell and his establishment buddies in DC went after Roy Moore. It was obvious to those watching. They secretly hoped pro-abortion, anti-Trump Democrat Doug Jones would win in deep red Alabama. Not because they were convinced Moore was guilty of the allegations against him, but because they knew he would be a lock vote for conservatives.

Now my Democrat opponent Stacey Abrams is tweeting up a storm that Alabama’s results are a prediction of what is to come in Georgia! She will be correct if we nominate a Mitch McConnell/Jeff Flake establishment Republican. Georgia Democrats are invigorated by the Alabama election, we need to fight harder now more than ever!

Two of my establishment Republican opponents, Casey Cagle and Hunter Hill, refused to even discuss Roy Moore, let alone support his conservative agenda or President Trump. Their liberal Atlanta donors would stop lining their pockets if they supported a conservative. So they remained silent as Alabama voted blue tonight. I’m sure they’ll have some Monday morning quarterback analysis now that the election is over. But weak establishment Republicans like them is exactly why we lost the Alabama senate seat to a pro-abortion Democrat.

Establishment politicians cut funding to Moore and it helped cost him the election. But it’s not Roy Moore I’m concerned about. It’s the Trump America First agenda that I’m worried about. We now have a razor thin margin in the U.S. Senate. This means getting the Trump agenda passed will become even more difficult.

To learn more about Michael Williams click here.

PODCAST:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Donald Trump: ‘Deck Was Stacked’ Against Roy Moore

Evidence of Voter Fraud in Alabama As Mobile County Results Come In Late

5 questions for evangelicals in the aftermath of Roy Moore’s defeat

Jones wins Senate race, but Moore’s not conceding yet

Liberal Doug Jones (D-AL) narrowly won the special election in Alabama yesterday and Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has now helped elect yet another Democrat to the U.S. Senate.

MASSIVE DEMOCRAT TURNOUT In Alabama — GOP Turnout 50% of 2016; Democrat Turnout 92% of 2016

Sexual Hypocrisy in Politics: 1963, 1998, and Today

Why the fuss over adolescent relationships? My grandmother was 15 when she married – USA Today

RELATED VIDEO: Doug Jones Beats Roy Moore In Alabama Senate Election | True News

Contra Activist Judges, It’s Not Discriminatory to Prohibit Transgender Individuals From Joining Military

/in , , , , , /by

On Dec. 11, a federal lower court judge in Washington, D.C., refused to stay her earlier Oct. 30 order blocking President Donald Trump’s Aug. 25 directive regarding transgender military service.

That directive, transmitted to the departments of Defense and Homeland Security, put to a halt the Obama administration’s June 2016 plan to allow transgender individuals to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces, beginning in July 2017 (but put on hold until Jan. 1, 2018, by Defense Secretary James Mattis).

If allowed to stand, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly’s decision—coupled with similar Nov.  21 and Dec. 11 holdings in separate case by federal judges in Maryland and Seattle—would have enormous negative consequences.

It would mean that effective Jan. 1, 2018, the U.S. armed services would have to begin admitting transgender individuals, subject to certain guidelines. The armed services also (based on the ruling by the Maryland judge) would have to fund sex reassignment surgical procedures for military personnel—on the taxpayer’s dime.

As a legal matter, these federal court decisions are deficient. Judges have no business displacing the reasoned decision of the president, under his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief, to promote military readiness by establishing sound principles for eligibility to serve in the armed forces.

The lower court decisions acknowledge this presidential authority, but nevertheless claim that, by being prevented from serving in the military, transgender individuals would be denied “equal protection of the law” guaranteed by the Constitution.

But equal protection prohibits invidious discrimination based on immutable characteristics such as race—discrimination lacking any rational justification. It does not apply to rationally based noninvidious differentiation among classes of individuals needed to advance national goals, such as a strong military.

Rules denying military service opportunities to individuals who have serious medical problems (for example, heart disease, chronic asthma, or cancer) are not invidious discrimination—they are fully rational efforts to promote well-run and effective military services. Because individuals suffering from significant medical difficulties drive up costs and tend to impair combat effectiveness, it is perfectly rational to bar them from military recruitment.

These medical considerations apply directly to transgender individuals, who often must cope with serious physical and psychological problems. As Heritage Foundation scholar Thomas Spoehr, a retired three-star general, has explained, transgender individuals allowed into the military “would need medical treatments—hormone therapies and often surgeries and the accompanying recovery times—throughout the duration of their service.” Moreover:

Some studies report that transgender individuals attempt suicide and experience psychological distress at rates many times the U.S. national average. To be clear, this is self-reported data, not data gleaned from rigorously controlled, clinical tests. But at this time, these survey results are the best available data. It would be both irresponsible and immoral to place such individuals in a position where they are exposed to the additional extraordinary stresses and pressures of the battlefield.

In short, admitting transgender individuals into the armed forces, even with the best of intentions, is highly problematic.

As Trump’s Aug. 25 directive explained, the Obama administration “failed to identify a sufficient basis to conclude that terminating the [Defense and Homeland Security] Departments’ longstanding policy and practice [regarding transgender service] would not hinder military effectiveness and lethality, disrupt unit cohesion, or tax military resources[.]” Thus, Trump concluded that “there remain meaningful concerns that further study is needed to ensure that continued implementation of last year’s policy change would not have those negative effects.”

Heritage Foundation scholars have detailed the problems service by transgender individuals poses for military preparedness here and here.

Summing up their concerns in a July 25 announcement, Heritage analysts Spoehr, director of the Center for National Defense; Emilie Kao, director of the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society; and Ryan Anderson, senior research fellow in the DeVos Center, stated:

At a time when growing foreign threats are stretching our military’s resources, our priority should be on maintaining military readiness and directing taxpayer funds towards mission-critical purposes. Respecting the dignity of all people does not mean subjecting taxpayers to the tremendous medical costs of sex reassignment and allowing the enlistment of individuals whose resilience to the rigors of combat is uncertain.

Let us hope that the federal courts of appeal—and, if necessary, the Supreme Court—expeditiously reverse the lower court decisions and make it clear that the president has full authority to establish the terms, if any, under which transgender individuals are given (or denied) the opportunity to serve in the United States armed forces.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Alden Abbott

Alden Abbott

Alden Abbott is deputy director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and the John, Barbara, and Victoria Rumpel Senior Legal Fellow. Read his research. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Trump at a press conference in August announcing a directive put to halt the Obama administration’s June 2016 plan to allow transgender individuals to serve openly in the U.S. armed forces. (Photo: Ron Sachs/CNP/AdMedia/SIPA)

Podcast: Is Facebook Destroying Our Culture?

/in , , , , , /by

Is a former Facebook executive right about the evils of social media? We debate. Plus we talk about transgenderism and children, the Democrats’ attempts to get the Dreamers legalized, Lois Lerner’s ongoing fight, and whether Netflix shamed Christmas movie fans.

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today’s Board of Contributors. Send an email to Katrina. Twitter: @KatrinaTrinko.

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

New York attempted terror attack: Luck is not a policy

/in , , , , /by

Luck is not a policy. That’s the mantra we’ve been hearing today on the cable news shows. Even politically-correct New York mayor Bill de Blasio and Governor Andrew Cuomo agreed this morning as they addressed the media that New York had been lucky.

There’s no way you can prevent this type of thing from happening, they suggested. It’s just a fact of life. So let’s all get together and praise our first responders.

Well, sure. The NYPD and the transit police responded admirably and deserve praise, after a wannabe jihadi from Bangladesh tried to blow himself up in Port Authority in an attempt to murder scores of innocents, all in the name of Allah.

Lucky for us he was incompetent and his bomb was either a fizzle or prematurely detonated.

But Mayor Bill de Blasio and his police commissioner, William J. Bratton, deserve a portion of blame, for dismantling effective preventative tools used by the NYPD since 2003 to identify potential Muslim extremists through a sophisticated threat-warning matrix developed in conjunction with the Central Intelligence Agency.

Eventually formalized into a 2007 document called “Radicalization in the West: the Homegrown Threat,” the 90-page primer on jihadi Islam and its telltale outward signs was banned by de Blasio and Bratton in 2014, following an extensive lobbying campaign led by Muslim activist Linda Sarsour and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a group closely associatedwith the Muslim Brotherhood.

Among the mosques previously under surveillance by the NYPD’s since-disbanded “Demographics Unit,” was the Bangladeshi mosque in Paterson, N.J., that was attended by Sayfullo Habibullaevic Saipov, the jihadi terrorist who mowed down innocents along Manhattan’s West Side highway in October, killing eight and wounding at least a dozen more.

As of this writing, we do not know whether this morning’s Bangladeshi terrorist went to that particular mosque. But we do know this: If he attended any mosque in the metropolitan area, De Blasio and Commissioner Bratton have banned the NYPD from keeping it under surveillance or even communicating with mosque leaders to identify potential threats.

And that’s why the NYPD had no warning signs. Mayor de Blasio forbid it. DeBlasio and his politically-correct administration have been focused like a laser on defeating “Islamophobia,” a creation of Islamist activist groups that have successfully shamed Americans from identifying and eradicating Islamic extremism in our midst.

The watchword today from the PC police in New York is “see something, say something.” But that is completely cynical and an outright lie.

Well-meaning Americans who “say something” about Muslim clerics chanting before settling into their seats on domestic airliners, or about a Muslim youth building a clock that resembles a bomb, regularly get excoriated on the national media, and at times, even prosecuted or accused of “hate” speech.

Former Department of Homeland Security officer Philip Haney revealed in a recent memoir that this politically correct “see nothing” culture infected his own agency, where he was ordered to purge immigration records on Muslim green card holders with known ties to jihadi networks.

Rather than “see something, say something,” Haney said the prevailing culture during the Obama administration that continues until today is “see something, say nothing.” The alternative is lose your job, public shaming, prosecution, or all three.

ISIS has been defeated on the ground in Iraq and Syria. That is good news. But as the recently appointed Chief Strategy Officer at the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Haroon K. Ullah reveals in a new book, ISIS has morphed into a worldwide virtual terror organization that uses the Internet to recruit, instruct, and organize terror attacks, even without holding territory.

We will not defeat it by pretending Islam has nothing to do with motivating young Muslim men to commit jihad and kill innocents. Instead, we need to motivate Muslim scholars to repudiate that ideology and to promote alternate “narratives” for young Muslims in their own countries.

The de Blasio option of sticking our heads in the sand and pretending Islam has nothing to do with the jihadi terrorists seeking to murder us, is irresponsible — and deadly.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill.