DOJ Appeals and DOD Prepares on Trans Order

/in , , , /by

By Travis Weber, Director of FRC’s Center for Religious Liberty

The latest in the saga on transgendered individuals serving in the military is that a federal judge is forcing DOD to have them serving by January 1st.

Earlier this year, President Trump tried to return the military to the status quo after President Obama radically departed from longstanding policy and sought to socially engineer the military by forcing inclusion of those identifying as transgender.

But as usual, activists once again sued President Trump and once again, a federal court put a hold on the administration’s policy. In addition to unconstitutionally intruding into executive authority to govern the military (and in even concluding there was a violation of some right here), federal district court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly has now compounded the problems she created.

After her October 30 opinion was issued, and she ordered the administration to change its policy by January 1st, the Trump administration (which is charged with actually running the military, unlike Kollar-Kotelly, who has the luxury of sitting in her chambers in the District of Columbia and pontificating on how it should be run), had sought more time to respond to her demands but the judge denied it. Now, in addition to having to appeal to the D.C. Circuit, the DOJ has also asked Kollar-Kotelly to put on hold part of her order that transgendered recruits be allowed to serve until the litigation is completed.

This is a quite reasonable request. The entire saga has already yanked the DOD to and fro far too much, micro-managing the agency which should be left to military professionals — not judicial professionals — to run. Compounding the problem, another judge even interjected himself into the issue by ordering the administration to not even deny funding for sex-reassignment surgeries. The military’s job is to win wars, not engage in social experimentation, something the Obama administration seemed to miss. This is why it has (and has had for a long, long time) such strict requirements on who can serve, and has excluded people for a host of medical conditions.

Life is not fair, and serving in the military is not a “right.” It is a calling, and one which must be protected to keep our nation safe. It’s not child’s play. It’s not a joke. And it’s not a playground for political correctness — despite seeming, at times, like politically correct politicians and bureaucrats (who’ve often never served themselves) want to toy with it like it’s their own fifth-grade social studies experiment. It’s even more shameful that they endanger our troops in the process.

The Trump administration should continue to vigorously appeal this activist judge’s orders and do what’s best for our military and our country — not the political class’s contest to see who’s most politically correct.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

The SCOTUS Sweet Stakes: Baker’s Freedom in the Balance

Moving the U.S. Embassy Was a Capitol Idea

Prediction: In 2018 other countries will quietly move their embassies to Jerusalem

/in , , , /by

Three reasons why the Embassy move is great for the United States and the world!

YES, Leaders lead and others follow, so indeed, more countries will move their Embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2018. Here are three reasons why this “apocalyptic” decision by President Trump will NOT cause world disorder but more stability in the Middle East.

  1. MUSLIM RAGE IS ETERNAL – Muslim rage, or insane behavior like blowing yourself up to please God is part of historic Islamic doctrine, it ain’t going away folks! Therefore it must NEVER be a factor in constructing principled public policy. Why has the USA deferred moving OUR Embassy for 22 years because of “Muslim Rage?”  This was a perfect time for the Trump move.
  2. MUSLIMS LEADERS REALLY HATE “PALESTINIANS” – The worst kept secret in the world is that the Saudi’s can’t stand the “Palestinians.” In fact most “advanced” Muslim countries hate the people who call themselves palestinians and have carried on this nonsense of “rage, terrorism and right of return” for 70 years! BUT, the countries like Saudi, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan have to play to their insane Jew-hating populations and these leaders make a lot of noise for public consumption but then call Bibi for help from his IDF when they need it, like EVERY DAY!  These leaders will scream and yell at Israel and Trump for a couple of months and then Muslims will get used to the new normal of a stronger Israel. The Sunni Arab countries need Israel’s help against the Iran more than they care for the theatrical Palestinians and their fat-cat, Ritz Carlton-living billionaire leaders!
  3. ISRAEL IS THE STRONG HORSE OF THE MIDDLE EAST – The Arab world, even pre-Mohammad, lived by the tribal doctrine, Strong Horse, Weak Horse. Darwin called this “survival of the fittest.” In the Middle East, Israel is the fittest, which is another evidence of the miracles of God in the life of the Jews. How else can a country a mere 70 years old surpass the strength of the complete 1400 year-old Muslim Umma?  In spite of all the deadly comical “protesting” of the Muslims, which has become a cottage industry for the fat-cat leaders, there is real fear and respect for the Israelis. This move by President Trump has dramatically increased Israel as the STRONG HORSE of the Middle East.

מזל טוב

Mazel Tov President Trump!

RELATED ARTICLES: 

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

Following Trump, These Countries Also May Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

PM Netanyahu’s Remarks on U.S. President Trump’s Statement

U.S.-Based Israel Bashers’ Fury and Disapproval Over Trump’s Jerusalem Recognition

Debunking the Left’s Myths on Net Neutrality

/in , , /by

The end of the world is nigh.

That at least is the message being spread by last-ditch defenders of the Obama-era “network neutrality” rules, which Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai has scheduled for elimination later this month.

The imminent repeal of these rules has sent red tape supporters into rhetorical overdrive. The internet as we know it is threatened, they say, as is democracy itself, with the digital world descending into a nasty, brutish, and unregulated existence.

Don’t believe it. Imposed in 2015 by the Obama-era FCC, these rules richly deserve to be tossed.

Based on public utility-style regulatory schemes from the days of Ma Bell’s monopoly, net neutrality prohibits internet service providers (such as Verizon and Comcast) from offering differentiated service to content providers (such as Google and Facebook) using their networks.

In other words, every bit and byte must be handled the same as every other bit and byte.

This sounds fair enough, until you look at what such government-enforced equality means in real life.

First, discounted and premium service offerings—essential elements of just about every functioning market in the U.S. economy—are banned. Imagine a law that says you have to pay sticker price for a new car, and you’ll get the idea.

But wait, there’s more. The internet is a complex place, and that is reflected in the rules.

Network efforts to provide security or intellectual property are OK if “reasonable.” Network-to-network traffic is not covered, nor is cable television programming.

A “general conduct” provision bans other disfavored activity not explicitly listed, on a case-by-case basis. No definition is provided, and everything from caps on the data you use to free content on your cellphone have been suggested as practices to ban. All you have to do is ask the FCC for permission in advance.

The commission could not have found a surer way to discourage innovation if it tried.

Investment in broadband—which had been the largest of any industry—has also taken a beating, going down for the first time ever in a non-recession year.

But what of the dire warnings of the supporters of net neutrality? Without neutrality regulation, big internet service providers will increase costs and drive little firms out of the market, the rule’s defenders say.

Similarly, supporters argue that big firms could use their market power to stifle political views with which they disagree.

But there is no evidence such anti-competitive behavior ever took place before the present rules were adopted in 2015. Moreover, the largest (and presumably most dangerous) firms in the world, including Google and Facebook, are leading advocates of neutrality regulations.

The proponents of regulation, in fact, have the effects of enforced neutrality exactly backward. Rather than driving new small players out of the market, differentiated service gives these small players a means by which to compete with their larger rivals.

The best way to compete is to offer something your competitor does not. Premium services or low-cost services can provide that edge. A website might optimize its business with premium broadband connections, or cut its costs with bare bones internet service. But the FCC neutrality rules take away that possibility, further entrenching big content providers in place.

Lastly, it should be noted that elimination of neutrality rules will not leave the broadband marketplace unregulated. Rather, the marketplace for broadband will be regulated by the same rules that apply to most other parts of the economy: antitrust. The antitrust laws, while not perfect, can provide an important backstop should any anti-competitive practices take hold.

Americans should ignore the Chicken Little squawking of neutrality supporters. The real threat to the internet comes not from too little government interference in its management, but from too much.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of James Gattuso

James Gattuso

James Gattuso handles regulatory and telecommunications issues for The Heritage Foundation as a Senior Research Fellow in its Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. 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 a man protesting outside the Los Angeles federal building ahead of a December FCC vote to roll back net neutrality rules. (Photo: Jim Ruymen/UPI/Newscom)

4 Highlights From Christian Baker’s Wedding Cake Case at Supreme Court

/in , , , , , , /by

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday [November 5, 2017] in a closely watched case dealing with free speech, religious liberty, and same-sex marriage.

Specifically, the justices considered whether the state of Colorado can force Jack Phillips, a Christian baker, to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding against his deeply held religious beliefs.

Attorneys for Phillips clearly explained that he seeks to exercise his freedom only to speak messages that he agrees with, while still welcoming all customers into his store. The First Amendment’s free speech and religious liberty clauses protect his freedoms to do just that.

In a lengthy and charged oral argument, the nine justices wrestled with how Americans who hold different views on marriage in our post-Obergefell society can continue to live with each other in mutual respect.

Here are some highlights of the argument.

1. Mutual Tolerance Is Essential in a Free Society

In one of the most charged exchanges of the day, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy questioned Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger about whether a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who compared Phillips to a racist and a Nazi demonstrated anti-religious bias—and that, if he did so, whether the judgment against Masterpiece should stand.

After disavowing the commissioner’s comments, Yarger argued that the ruling should still stand. But Kennedy returned to the issue again, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.”

Kennedy also pointed out there were other cake shops that would have accommodated Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the same-sex couple who requested a cake for their wedding.

In a similar line of questioning, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the state of Colorado had failed to demonstrate mutual tolerance when it only protected the freedom of cake artists who landed on one side of the gay marriage debate—namely, the state’s side.

When three religious customers went to cake artists to request cakes that were critical of same-sex marriage, those cake artists declined—yet Colorado did not apply its anti-discrimination statute to punish the artists. But when Phillips declined to create a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage, Colorado imposed a three-pronged penalty that drove him out of the wedding cake business, causing him to lose 40 percent of his business.

2. Compelled Speech for Everyone

The irony of the comparison of Phillips to a Nazi is that both the ACLU lawyer representing the gay couple (David Cole) and the Colorado solicitor general admitted the state could rightfully force cake artists to celebrate the racist ideals of white supremacy, or one of the most infamous events in world history, the Holocaust.

At one point, Justice Stephen Breyer followed up on a question from Justice Neil Gorsuch about whether a cake artist could be forced to create a cross-shaped cake for a religious group that shared the beliefs of the KKK. Cole responded that if the cake artist did so for the Red Cross, then yes, the artist would have to do so for the religious group as well.

Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito asked Colorado if a cake artist who created a cake with words celebrating Nov. 9 for someone’s anniversary could also be forced to create the same cake to celebrate Nov. 9, 1938.

On that infamous night, known as “Kristallnacht,” the Nazis launched their pogrom against Jews by burning over 1,000 synagogues and damaging more than 7,000 Jewish businesses.

In the exchange with Alito, the Colorado solicitor general said that cake artists could not discriminate on the basis of identity, but could discriminate on the basis of messages. Gorsuch later responded, saying that’s exactly what Phillips has argued.

Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom argued Jack Phillips’ case before the Supreme Court. (Photo: Jeff Malet/The Heritage Foundation)

3. Disagreement Does Not Equal Discrimination

Kennedy also challenged Colorado and the ACLU on their argument that Phillips discriminates on the basis of identity, rather than his idea of what constitutes a marriage. In an exchange with the ACLU attorney, Kennedy called the repeated attempts to characterize Phillips as discriminating on the basis of identity “too facile.”

During the oral arguments, the court appeared to recognize what is patently obvious from the facts. Phillips welcomes all people into his store, encourages them to buy off-the-shelf items, and will make custom-designed cakes for them provided they don’t ask for items that violate his beliefs.

He has served gays for the 24 years his store has been in operation and welcomes their business to this day. He does not discriminate against anybody because of their identity.

So comparisons to shopkeepers in the Jim Crow South who sought to keep the races “separate but equal” are a smear that divert attention from the real issue: Phillips simply disagrees with the state on the issue of marriage.

Roberts appeared to recognize this when chiding the ACLU for lumping in supporters of traditional marriage with racists, noting that in Obergefell, the court had said support for traditional marriage is rooted in “decent and honorable” premises.

Jennifer Marshall of The Heritage Foundation holds a sign outside the Supreme Court. (Photo: Jeff Malet/The Heritage Foundation)

4. Orthodoxy Determined by the State

Finally, the oral arguments revealed the scope of how far the state of Colorado is willing to go to impose its views of marriage on citizens. In one line of questioning from Roberts, Colorado admitted that it would force Catholic Legal Services to provide a same-sex couple with legal services related to their wedding even if it violates Catholic teachings on marriage.

And in questioning from Alito, the ACLU answered that the state could force a Christian college whose creed opposes same-sex marriage to perform a same-sex wedding in its chapel.

Like many Americans, Phillips seeks to work in a manner consistent with his deeply held religious beliefs, including on marriage. In order to follow his conscience, he has turned down requests for cakes that contain messages expressing certain ideas: Halloween and divorce, anti-American themes, and even anti-gay messages.

What he has never done is turn away anyone because of who they are.

The Supreme Court should uphold the rights of all Americans to work according to their religious beliefs and to be free from government intrusion that would force them to speak messages in violation of their deeply held beliefs.

After its decision in Roe v. Wade, the court respected the freedoms of Americans on both sides of the abortion debate. It rejected the argument that opposition to abortion is rooted in animus toward women because it recognized that there are many other rational reasons why people oppose abortion.

This is no different. There are many Americans who support traditional marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with animus toward gays. All Americans will benefit when free speech and religious liberty are robustly protected.

The court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop can help foster more civil dialogue on marriage so that we can all live according to our consciences and in peace with one another.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Emilie Kao

Emilie Kao

Emilie Kao is director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Wedding Cake Baker’s Backers Say Fight Is for Everyone’s First Amendment Rights, Not Just His

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

Does William Wilberforce Make the Case for Roy Moore?

/in , , , , /by

William Wilberforce was a 19th Century English political leader, devout Christian and the driving force behind Great Britain’s ban on slavery. He employed a principled Biblical understanding of the inherent value of every person and a practical willingness to compromise and take very small steps at times.

He is revered — by those who know his story. He was as morally upright as they come, although he would have decried such a description. His Christian life was the central focus of his life and he was a relentless fighter for what he believed was right — despite being barely five feet tall and sickly his entire life.

So for the voters of Alabama, including many Christians who are unsure if they can vote for Roy Moore, perhaps Wilberforce provides a way of measuring the decision by a man who more than understood the dilemma. It’s not as simple as maintaining total purity in whom one will support, or the end justifies the means.

Wilberforce was at once both a moral immediatist in abolishing slavery — he believed it must be 100 percent dismantled immediately — and a strategic incrementalist with a long-term view to take each necessary step to reach abolishment. His style and exhortations could in a sense be used to argue against a vote for Moore. But his actions tended more towards a vote for Moore.

Clarke Forsythe, M.A. in Bioethics from Trinity International University, wrote of Wilberforce in Politics for the Greatest Good:

“Although Wilberforce sponsored a motion for general and immediate abolition annually for several years, abolition came not immediately and totally, but in intent and in effect, incrementally. The slave trade was incrementally reduced by regulations and partial prohibitions, and those incremental reductions were tied, in public debate, to issues of national interest rather than strong arguments of morality – “justice” and “humanity” – which were reserved until the final stroke. The incremental reductions served to eliminate the fears raised by the claims of the slave traders. Though Wilberforce and his allies had the strongest moral motivations, they exhibited strategic, tactical and rhetorical flexibility in their actions and arguments in large part because they stayed focused on the end result and did not confuse the goal with their motivations.”

Compromise and sacrifice

Wilberforce’s choice to introduce a bill every year for the immediate abolition of slavery was a decision that politically eliminated him from ever becoming Prime Minister, which many thought he could probably obtain. But after going nowhere a few rounds, he began a more long-term approach that some refer to as incrementalism.

He was able to pass a bill banning the slave trade in certain parts of Africa and to certain parts of the colonies. It was a tiny step to slow the trade. He passed a bill limiting the number of slaves that can be shipped on British ships and a series of proposals called “amelioration bills” for better living conditions for slaves. This was argued on the basis of creating “humane” conditions on slave ships. Clanging words to our ears, but another step in reigning in some of the suffering by reducing the total trade.

These and other bills acted to reduce the profit and value of slavery. That, in turn, reduced the political support for the slave trade until it finally reached the point that Wilberforce and his allies in Parliament could bring the hammer to the cracking institution and finally destroy slavery in Great Britain and throughout the British Empire.

To accomplish this, Wilberforce not only compromised on immediate abolition, but he worked consistently on the incremental bills with members of Parliament who supported the slave trade and even participated profitably in it. He could be criticized for cooperating with slaver interests and not fighting to get full abolition sooner. And it was surely distasteful at times. But historians generally agree that without the incrementalism that reduced the political support, there was too much power in the slave trade to get full abolition passed.

The Wilberforce model has served as a bit of a guide — although not unanimously — for those who believe abortion is as morally abhorrent as slavery. Laws such as banning abortions once a baby in the womb is pain capable, waiting periods and requirement on mothers to see an ultrasound are in line with incrementalism even though the two issues are not completely analogous.

Tying these together a bit, the difference between Roy Moore and his opponent, Doug Jones, on the issue of abortion could not be more stark. Moore is pro sanctity of life from conception while Jones favors a woman’s right to kill her baby until the moment of birth.

Where would Wilberforce stand on this option, when Moore has a more questionable moral past than what is known about Doug Jones?

If Wilberforce had maintained a personal purity on who he would work with and what he would compromise — and stuck with total immediacy regarding the end of slavery rather than taking some bad to get more good — it seems unlikely he would have led the abolishment of slavery and that wicked institution would have continued to destroy lives for years or decades.

Can the same argument be made for Moore regarding abortion and federal judges who would rule more strongly in favor of personal freedoms — and possibly overturn Roe v. Wade and expand religious freedom? Is that an acceptable trade? Alabama voters will have to decide that one.

RELATED ARTICLE: Roy Moore’s lead over Doug Jones increases in new poll

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

DACA Is Not What the Democrats Say It Is. Here Are the Facts.

/in , , , , , /by

Some members of Congress are threatening to block government funding unless Congress provides amnesty to so-called Dreamers—the illegal aliens included in President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which President Donald Trump is ending.

Responsible members of Congress should not give in.

Such an effort would be fundamentally flawed and would only encourage even more illegal immigration—just as the 1986 amnesty in the Immigration Reform and Control Act did.

Democrats portray the DACA program as only benefiting those who were a few years old when they came to the U.S. illegally, leaving them unable to speak their native language and ignorant of their countries’ cultural norms. Therefore, the reasoning goes, it would be a hardship to return them to the countries where they were born.

Obama himself gave this rationale when he said DACA beneficiaries were “brought to this country by their parents” as infants and face “deportation to a country that [they] know nothing about, with a language” they don’t even speak.

While this may be true of a small portion of the DACA population, it certainly is not true of all of the aliens who received administrative amnesty. In fact, illegal aliens were eligible as long as they came to the U.S. before their 16th birthday and were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012.

DACA also required that beneficiaries enroll in school, graduate from high school, obtain a GED certificate, or receive an honorable discharge from the military; have no conviction for a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more other misdemeanors; and not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

However, the Obama administration appeared to routinely waive the education (or its equivalent) requirement as long as the illegal alien was enrolled in some kind of program. Only 49 percent of DACA beneficiaries have a high school education—despite the fact that a majority of them are adults.

How thorough was Homeland Security vetting? In February 2017, after the arrest of a DACA beneficiary for gang membership, the Department of Homeland Security admitted that at least 1,500 DACA beneficiaries had their eligibility terminated “due to a criminal conviction, gang affiliation, or a criminal conviction related to gang affiliation.”

By August 2017, that number had surged to 2,139.

In fact, based on documents obtained by Judicial Watch, it is apparent that the Obama administration used a “lean and light” system of background checks in which only a few, randomly selected DACA applicants were ever actually vetted.

Additionally, DACA only excluded individuals for convictions. Thus, even if a Homeland Security background investigation—which apparently was almost never done—produced substantial evidence that an illegal alien might have committed multiple crimes, the alien would still be eligible for DACA unless Homeland Security referred the violation to state or federal prosecutors and the alien was convicted.

DACA had no requirement of English fluency either. In fact, the original application requested applicants to answer whether the form had been “read” to the alien by a translator “in a language in which [the applicant is] fluent.”

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that “perhaps 24 percent of the DACA-eligible population fall into the functionally illiterate category and another 46 percent have only ‘basic’ English ability.”

This is a far cry from the image of DACA beneficiaries as all children who don’t speak the language of—and know nothing about the culture of—their native countries.

In fact, it seems rather that a significant percentage of DACA beneficiaries may have serious limitations in their education, experience, and English fluency that negatively affected their ability to function in American society.

Providing amnesty to low-skilled, low-educated aliens with marginal English language ability would impose large fiscal costs on American taxpayers resulting from increased government payouts and benefits, and would be unfair to legal immigrants who obeyed the law to come here.

Any congressional amnesty bill providing citizenship for DACA beneficiaries could significantly increase the number of illegal aliens who will benefit unless Congress amends the sponsorship rules under federal immigration law. Providing lawful status to millions of so-called “Dreamers” will allow the extended families of those aliens to profit from illegal conduct.

The U.S. accepts about a million legal immigrants every year. According to a recent study, of the 33 million legal immigrants admitted over the last 35 years, about 61 percent were chain migration immigrants.

The average immigrant has sponsored 3.45 additional immigrants, but for DACA beneficiaries, that number is likely to be much higher. This is because, according to an analysis by the Department of Homeland Security, 76 percent of the DACA beneficiaries were from Mexico. Mexican immigrants sponsor an average of 6.38 additional legal immigrants—the highest rate of any nationality for chain migration.

Providing amnesty would simply attract even more illegal immigration and would not solve the myriad of enforcement problems we have along our borders and in the interior of the country. Congress should concentrate on giving the federal government (with the assistance and help of state and local governments) the resources to enforce existing immigration laws to reduce the illegal alien population in the U.S. and stem entry into the country.

Until those goals are accomplished, it is premature to even consider any DACA-type bill.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Hans von Spakovsky

Hans von Spakovsky

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Why Congress Should Not Legalize DACA: The Myths Surrounding the Program

Podcast: Liberal Rhetoric on DACA vs. Reality

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 New Mexico Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham who is a prominent Democrat pushing for a DACA-style amnesty deal. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom)

VIDEO: On 12/6/2017 President Trump declares Jerusalem Eternal Capital of Israel

/in , , , /by

Jerusalem, capital of the State of Israel.

On May 14, 1948 at 6:01 p.m. EST in Washington, D.C. President Harry S. Truman made the historic and heroic decision to recognize the state of Israel. President Truman faced strong opposition from his Secretary of State George Marshall, his closet advisers, the United Nations and allies across the globe. Clark M. Clifford, Special Counsel to President Truman, wrote:

From our many talks over the past year, I knew that five factors dominated Truman’s thinking. From his youth, he had detested intolerance and discrimination. He had been deeply moved by the plight of the millions of homeless of World War II, and felt that alone among the homeless, the Jews had no homeland of their own to which they could return. He was, of course, horrified by the Holocaust and he denounced it vehemently, as, in the aftermath of the war, its full dimen­sions became clear. Also, he believed that the Balfour Declaration, issued by British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour in 1917, committed Great Britain and, by implication, the United States, which now shared a certain global responsibility with the British, to the creation of the Jewish state in Palestine. And finally, he was a student and believer in the Bible since his youth. From his reading of the Old Testament he felt the Jews derived a legitimate historical right to Palestine, and he sometimes cited such biblical lines as Deuteronomy 1:8: “Behold, I have given up the land before you; go in and take possession of the land which the Lord hath sworn unto your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.”

Nearly seventy years later another President makes a similar historic and heroic decision.

At 1:07 p.m. EST on December 6, 2017 President Donald J. Trump declared Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and orders the moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Trump’s Jerusalem Power-Play Leads from the Front

10 Biblical Reasons Behind Trump’s Jerusalem Decision

Why the ‘Arab street’ didn’t just explode

Statement by President Trump on Jerusalem

Diplomatic Reception Room

1:07 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. When I came into office, I promised to look at the world’s challenges with open eyes and very fresh thinking. We cannot solve our problems by making the same failed assumptions and repeating the same failed strategies of the past. Old challenges demand new approaches.

My announcement today marks the beginning of a new approach to conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

In 1995, Congress adopted the Jerusalem Embassy Act, urging the federal government to relocate the American embassy to Jerusalem and to recognize that that city — and so importantly — is Israel’s capital. This act passed Congress by an overwhelming bipartisan majority and was reaffirmed by a unanimous vote of the Senate only six months ago.

Yet, for over 20 years, every previous American president has exercised the law’s waiver, refusing to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem or to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city.

Presidents issued these waivers under the belief that delaying the recognition of Jerusalem would advance the cause of peace. Some say they lacked courage, but they made their best judgments based on facts as they understood them at the time. Nevertheless, the record is in. After more than two decades of waivers, we are no closer to a lasting peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. It would be folly to assume that repeating the exact same formula would now produce a different or better result.

Therefore, I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

While previous presidents have made this a major campaign promise, they failed to deliver. Today, I am delivering.

I’ve judged this course of action to be in the best interests of the United States of America and the pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This is a long-overdue step to advance the peace process and to work towards a lasting agreement.

Israel is a sovereign nation with the right like every other sovereign nation to determine its own capital. Acknowledging this as a fact is a necessary condition for achieving peace.

It was 70 years ago that the United States, under President Truman, recognized the State of Israel. Ever since then, Israel has made its capital in the city of Jerusalem — the capital the Jewish people established in ancient times. Today, Jerusalem is the seat of the modern Israeli government. It is the home of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, as well as the Israeli Supreme Court. It is the location of the official residence of the Prime Minister and the President. It is the headquarters of many government ministries.

For decades, visiting American presidents, secretaries of state, and military leaders have met their Israeli counterparts in Jerusalem, as I did on my trip to Israel earlier this year.

Jerusalem is not just the heart of three great religions, but it is now also the heart of one of the most successful democracies in the world. Over the past seven decades, the Israeli people have built a country where Jews, Muslims, and Christians, and people of all faiths are free to live and worship according to their conscience and according to their beliefs.

Jerusalem is today, and must remain, a place where Jews pray at the Western Wall, where Christians walk the Stations of the Cross, and where Muslims worship at Al-Aqsa Mosque.

However, through all of these years, presidents representing the United States have declined to officially recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. In fact, we have declined to acknowledge any Israeli capital at all.

But today, we finally acknowledge the obvious: that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital. This is nothing more, or less, than a recognition of reality. It is also the right thing to do. It’s something that has to be done.

That is why, consistent with the Jerusalem Embassy Act, I am also directing the State Department to begin preparation to move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This will immediately begin the process of hiring architects, engineers, and planners, so that a new embassy, when completed, will be a magnificent tribute to peace.

In making these announcements, I also want to make one point very clear: This decision is not intended, in any way, to reflect a departure from our strong commitment to facilitate a lasting peace agreement. We want an agreement that is a great deal for the Israelis and a great deal for the Palestinians. We are not taking a position of any final status issues, including the specific boundaries of the Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem, or the resolution of contested borders. Those questions are up to the parties involved.

The United States remains deeply committed to helping facilitate a peace agreement that is acceptable to both sides. I intend to do everything in my power to help forge such an agreement. Without question, Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive issues in those talks. The United States would support a two-state solution if agreed to by both sides.

In the meantime, I call on all parties to maintain the status quo at Jerusalem’s holy sites, including the Temple Mount, also known as Haram al-Sharif.

Above all, our greatest hope is for peace, the universal yearning in every human soul. With today’s action, I reaffirm my administration’s longstanding commitment to a future of peace and security for the region.

There will, of course, be disagreement and dissent regarding this announcement. But we are confident that ultimately, as we work through these disagreements, we will arrive at a peace and a place far greater in understanding and cooperation.

This sacred city should call forth the best in humanity, lifting our sights to what it is possible; not pulling us back and down to the old fights that have become so totally predictable. Peace is never beyond the grasp of those willing to reach.

So today, we call for calm, for moderation, and for the voices of tolerance to prevail over the purveyors of hate. Our children should inherit our love, not our conflicts.

I repeat the message I delivered at the historic and extraordinary summit in Saudi Arabia earlier this year: The Middle East is a region rich with culture, spirit, and history. Its people are brilliant, proud, and diverse, vibrant and strong. But the incredible future awaiting this region is held at bay by bloodshed, ignorance, and terror.

Vice President Pence will travel to the region in the coming days to reaffirm our commitment to work with partners throughout the Middle East to defeat radicalism that threatens the hopes and dreams of future generations.

It is time for the many who desire peace to expel the extremists from their midst. It is time for all civilized nations, and people, to respond to disagreement with reasoned debate –- not violence.

And it is time for young and moderate voices all across the Middle East to claim for themselves a bright and beautiful future.

So today, let us rededicate ourselves to a path of mutual understanding and respect. Let us rethink old assumptions and open our hearts and minds to possible and possibilities. And finally, I ask the leaders of the region — political and religious; Israeli and Palestinian; Jewish and Christian and Muslim — to join us in the noble quest for lasting peace.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless Israel. God bless the Palestinians. And God bless the United States. Thank you very much. Thank you.

(The proclamation is signed.)

END 1:19 P.M. EST

ملاحظات بشأن عاصمة إسرائيل

شكرا،

عندما تسلمت مقاليد الحكم، وعَدتُ بالنظر في تحديات العالم بعينين مفتوحتين وذهن نقي جدا، ونحن لا نستطيع أن نحل مشاكلنا من خلال نفس الافتراضات الفاشلة وإعادة نفس الاستراتيجيات الفاشلة في الماضي. تحتاج التحديات القديمة نهجا جديدا.

إن إعلاني اليوم يمثل بداية لنهج جديد تجاه الصراع بين اسرائيل والفلسطينيين.

ففي عام 1995، إعتمد الكونجرس قانون سفارة القدس حثَّ فيه الحكومة الفدرالية على نقل السفارة الأمريكية إلى القدس والاعتراف بأن تلك المدينة – وبشكل هام جدا – هي عاصة اسرائيل. وقد تم إقرار القانون في الكونجرس بأغلبية ساحقة من كِلا الحزبين، وقد أُعيد تأكيده بالاجماع من قبل مجلس الشيوخ قبل ستة اشهر فقط.

ومع ذلك، ولأكثر من عشرين سنة، مارس كل رئيس أمريكي سابق الإعفاء الذي يسمح به القانون – رافضا نقل السفارة الأمريكية إلى القدس أو الاعتراف بالقدس كعاصمة لإسرائيل.

لقد اصدر الرؤساء هذه الإعفاءات ظنا منهم بأن تأخير الاعتراف بالقدس من شأنه أن يعزز قضية السلام. ويقول البعض بأنهم كانت تنقصهم الشجاعة، غير انهم اتخذوا ما اعتقدوا أنه القرار الصائب على أساس حقائق فهموها في حينها. ومع ذلك فإن النتيجة تتحدث عن نفسها. فبعد اكثر من عقدين من الإعفاءات، نحن غير قريبين من تحقيق اتفاق سلام دائم بين اسرائيل والفلسطينيين. وسيكون من الحماقة ان نفترض بأن تكرار نفس الصيغة بالضبط من شأنه أن يأتي بنتيجة مغايرة أو افضل.

لذلك، فقد قررت أن الوقت قد حان للإعتراف رسميا بالقدس كعاصمة لإسرائيل.

وفي حين جعل الرؤساء السابقين من هذا الأمر وعدا رئيسيا في حملاتهم، إلا أنهم لم يفوا بذلك. وأنا اليوم أوفي بذلك.

لقد قررتُ بأن مسار العمل هذا يخدم المصالح العُليا للولايات المتحدة والسعي لتحقيق السلام بين الإسرائيليين والفلسطينيين. إن هذه خطوة طال انتظارها للدفع بعملية السلام قدما والعمل نحو التوصل إلى اتفاق دائم.

إن إسرائيل دولة ذات سيادة، ولها الحق – كأي دولة اخرى ذات سيادة – بأن تحدد عاصمتها. وإن الاعتراف بأن هذا الأمر يُعد حقيقة هو شرط ضروري لتحقيق السلام.

قبل 70 سنة مضت اعترفت الولايات المتحدة، برئاسة الرئيس ترومان، بدولة اسرائيل. ومنذ ذلك الوقت، جعلت اسرائيل عاصمتها في مدينة القدس – العاصمة التي اسسها الشعب اليهودي في الأزمنة القديمة. واليوم القدس هي مقر الحكومة الإسرائيلية الحديثة. فهي موطن البرلمان الإسرائيلي، الكنيست، فضلا عن المحكمة العُليا الإسرائيلية. وهي محل الاقامتين الرئيسيتين لرئيس الوزراء ورئيس الدولة، وتضم مقرات العديد من الوزرات الحكومية.

وقد التقى الرؤساء ووزراء الخارجية والقادة العسكريين الأمريكيين القادمين في زيارة بنظرائهم الإسرائيليين في القدس ولعقود – كما فعلتُ أنا في زيارتي لإسرائيل في وقت سابق من هذا العام.

إن القدس ليست مجرد قلب لثلاثة أديان عظيمة، بل هي ايضا الآن قلب لأحد اكثر الأنظمة الديمقراطية نجاحا في العالم. ولقد بنى الشعب الاسرائيلي لسبعة عقود مضت بلدا يتمتع فيه اليهود والمسلمون والمسيحيون وأتباع جميع الاديان بحرية العيش والعبادة وفقا لما يمليه عليهم ضميرهم ومعتقداتهم.

تُعد القدس اليوم مكانا يصلي فيه اليهود عند الحائط الغربي، ويمشي فيه المسيحيون في محطات درب الصليب، ويصلي فيه المسلمون في المسجد الاقصى، ويجب ان تبقى كذلك.

ومع ذلك، وعلى مدى كل هذه السنوات، رفض الرؤساء اللذين كانوا يمثلون الولايات المتحدة الاعتراف رسميا بالقدس كعاصمة لإسرائيل. وفي الحقيقة، فقد رفضنا الاعتراف بأي عاصمة إسرائيلية على الإطلاق.

ولكننا نعترف اليوم أخيرا بما هو واضح – بأن القدس هي عاصمة إسرائيل. وهذا ليس أكثر، أو اقل، من الاعتراف بالحقيقة. بل هو ايضا الشيء الصحيح الذي يجب فعله. وإنه شيء يجب القيام به.

ولذلك، وتماشيا مع قانون سفارة القدس، فأنا اوجه وزارة الخارجية ايضا ببدء التحضيرات لنقل السفارة الأمريكية من تل أبيب إلى القدس. وسوف يبدء هذا الشيء على الفور عملية توظيف المهندسين المعماريين والمهندسين الآخرين والمخططين لتكون السفارة الجديدة بمثابة إشادة رائعة بالسلام عند اكتمالها.

ومن خلال إصدار هذه الإعلانات، أرغب ايضا أن أوضح نقطة بشكل كبير: إن هذا القرار لا يُقصَد به، بأي شكل من الاشكال، أن يعكس خروجا عن التزامنا القوي بتسهيل التوصل إلى اتفاق دائم للسلام. نريد أن يكون هناك اتفاقا يكون بمثابة صفقة عظيمة للإسرائيليين وصفقة عظيمة للفلسطينيين. ونحن لا نتخذ موقفا تجاه أي قضايا تتعلق بالوضع النهائي، بما في ذلك الحدود المُعينة للسيادة الإسرائيلية في القدس، أو حل قضية الحدود المتنازع عليها. حيث ان هذه المسائل تعود إلى الطرفين المعنيين.

وتظل الولايات المتحدة ملتزمة التزاما عميقا بالمساعدة في تسهيل اتفاق سلام مقبول لدى كلا الطرفين. وأعتزم أن أفعل كل ما بوسعي للمساعدة في صياغة مثل هكذا اتفاق. إن القدس هي إحدى القضايا الاكثر حساسية في هذه المحادثات وبدون اي شك. وستدعم الولايات المتحدة حل الدولتين إذا وافق عليه كلا الطرفان.

وفي هذه الاثناء، أدعو جميع الاطراف إلى الحفاظ على الوضع الحالي في المواقع المقدسة التابعة للقدس، بما في ذلك جبل الهيكل، الذي يُعرف أيضا بالحرم الشريف.

وفوق كل شي، فإن أملنا الأكبر هو تحقيق السلام – المُبتغى العالمي الذي يتوق إليه كل إنسان.

ومن خلال الإجراء الذي نتخذه اليوم، أؤكد من جديد التزام إدارتي الثابت لمستقبل يعمه السلام والأمن في المنطقة.

سيكون هناك بالطبع خلاف ومعارضة بشأن هذا الإعلان – ولكننا واثقون من أننا في نهاية المطاف سوف نتوصل الى السلام ونصل إلى أرضية فيها تفاهم وتعاون اكثر، في الوقت الذي نعمل فيه على حل هذه الخلافات.

وينبغي على هذه المدينة المقدسة أن تبعث إلى ماهو افضل في الانسانية – توجيه رؤيتنا إلى ماهو ممكن، وليس جرنا وإدخالنا في المعارك القديمة التي اصبح من السهل جدا لتنبؤ بها. إن السلام ليس بعيدا عن متناول الذين يرغبون الوصول اليه.

لذلك ندعوا اليوم الى الهدوء والاعتدال وإلى أن تسود اصوات التسامح على حساب موردي الكراهية. وينبغي أن يرث أطفالنا حبنا، وليس صراعاتنا.

وأكرر الرسالة التي ألقيتها في القمة التاريخية والاستثنائية في المملكة العربية السعودية في وقت سابق من هذا العام: إن الشرق الأوسط هي منطقة غنية بالثقافة والروح والتاريخ. وإن الناس فيه رائعون وفخورون ومتنوعون ونشطون وأقوياء. غير أن المستقبل المذهل الذي ينتظر هذه المنطقة محجوب بفعل سفك الدماء، والتأخر، والرعب.

سوف يسافر نائب الرئيس/ بنس إلى المنطقة في الأيام المقبلة للتأكيد من جديد على التزامنا في العمل مع الشركاء في كل انحاء الشرق الاوسط لهزيمة التطرف الذي يهدد آمال واحلام الأجيال المقبلة.

لقد حان الوقت للكثير من اللذين يرغبون بتحقيق السلام أن يطردوا المتطرفين من وسطهم.وقد حان الوقت لجميع الأمم والشعوب المتحضرة أن يردّوا على الخلاف من خلال نقاش منطقي – لا من خلال العنف.

وحان الوقت للأصوات الشابة والمعتدلة في جميع انحاء الشرق الأوسط بأن تطالب لنفسها مستقبلا مشرقا وجميلا.

إذا دعونا اليوم نعيد تكريس انفسنا لمسار من التفاهم والاحترام المتبادلين. ودعونا نعيد التفكير في الافتراضات القديمة ونفتح قلوبنا وأذهاننا لاحتمالات جديدة. وأخيرا، أطلب من قادة المنطقة – من السياسيين والدينيين، إسرائيليين وفلسطينيين، يهودا ومسيحيين ومسلمين – بأن ينضموا إلينا في السعي النبيل نحو تحقيق سلام دائم.

.شكرا لكم، وبارك الله فيكم، وبارك الله في اسرائيل، وبارك الله في الفلسطينيين، وبارك الله في الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية. شكرا جزيلا لكم. شكرا

RELATED ARTICLES: 

What Trump’s Decision on Jerusalem Means for Israel and the Middle East

Trump Makes His Move on Jerusalem

Trump to Recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital Based on Historical and Current Reality

President Truman’s Decision to Recognize Israel

Following Trump’s Lead, Czech Republic Recognizes Jerusalem as Israel’s Capital

“The Dictator Pope”

/in , , , , /by

Note: This is an all too brief account of a remarkable new book on the pope, which is causing waves in Rome and around the world. Fr. Gerald Murray, Raymond Arroyo, and I will discuss this and other matters in greater detail tomorrow evening on EWTN’s “The World Over,” 8 PM East Coast time (Check local listings for rebroadcasts and postings on YouTube). We began our year-end funding drive on November 8, and I’d like to end it this Friday, December 8, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. You’ve already heard more than enough on this from me. There’s still time to click the button. Just do it and do your bit for The Catholic Thing. – Robert Royal

The title above is the name of a book that appeared Monday in English (after earlier publication in Italian) by a writer who has assumed a grand Renaissance pseudonym: Marcantonio Colonna (an admiral at Lepanto). He evidently could not publish under his real name, for fear of reprisals. But the case he lays out is largely convincing: that Pope Francis has carefully cultivated an image in public as the apostle of mercy, kindness, and openness; in private, he’s authoritarian, given to profanity-laced outbursts of anger, and manipulative in pursuing his agenda.

This is hardly news, least of all in Rome. This volume, however, is far more probing and detailed than anything that has previously appeared. It sometimes stretches evidence, but the sheer amount of evidence it provides is stunning. About 90 percent of it is simply incontrovertible, and cannot help but clarify who Francis is and what he’s about.

The parts of this story I know best – the Synods on the family that I reported on daily from Rome for TCT – are absolutely reliable. We know, for example, that Pope Francis was quite willing to openly manipulate the Synods by personally appointing supporters of the Kasper Proposal and that he even intervened personally at key points, changing procedures and instructing the bishops about where their deliberations should start – and end.

When Francis cares about something – as Colonna shows – he makes it happen, whatever the opposition (at the Synods, it was considerable). There’s a clear pattern of behavior, whatever uncertainties remain. On the divorced and remarried, the environment, immigrants, “Islamophobia,” the poor, the pope is relentless. But he was not elected to revolutionize marital doctrine or “discipline.” Nor was he chosen to be a player in international politics. He was elected to be a “reformer” who would mainly clean up Vatican finances and deal with the gay lobby, two things that played a role in Benedict’s resignation.

On the financial front, there was a strong start: The council of cardinals, Cardinal Pell’s effort to inject Anglo-Saxon transparency, a new special secretariat on the economy, hiring PriceWaterhouseCoopers to do an external audit. The momentum stalled as the old guard slowly regained control over Vatican finances – and oversight. A series of Vatican Bank presidents, officials, accountants, etc. – probably getting too close to the truth – have been fired without good explanations. (Something similar played out in the Knights of Malta controversy.) Pell had to return to Australia to deal with sexual abuse charges from forty years ago that, suspiciously, resurfaced after being earlier examined and dismissed.

And where was the pope during all of this? He didn’t seem very interested. If he had been, he’d be at least as dogged in dealing with financial reform as he is, say, about global warming. Austen Ivereigh, a British writer and papal fan, entitled his biography The Great Reformer, in part because of Jorge Bergoglio’s alleged role in curbing abuses in Buenos Aires. Colonna doubts the truth of that account, and not only because of Francis’s lack of action in Rome. He thinks the Argentinian stories should be re-examined.

Then there’s the gay mafia. People forget that the occasion for Francis’ famous remark “Who am I to judge?” was not a general comment about homosexuality. It was in response to a question about Msgr. Battista Ricca, who was involved in several notorious homosexual scandals, some right across the river from Buenos Aires in Uruguay. Nonetheless, right after the 2013 papal election, he became the pope’s “eyes and ears” at the Vatican Bank and director of the Casa Santa Marta, where Francis resides.

And then there’s the troubling, casual resurrection of figures like Cardinal Gottfried Daneels, once thoroughly discredited for his support for contraception, divorce, gay marriage, even euthanasia and abortion – and outrageous mishandling of priestly abuse. But he stood with Francis on the balcony of St. Peter’s right after the conclave and read the prayer for the new pope at his inauguration. He was also one of the ringers Francis personally invited to bolster his case at the Synods.

Then there’s the appointment of another radical, Archbishop Paglia, to head the “reformed” John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family. In a remarkably naked authoritarian move, the pope substituted himself for Cardinal Sarah for the institute’s opening academic address in 2016, and spoke of “a far too abstract and almost artificial theological ideal of marriage.” You have to believe that Cardinal Marx was expressing the truth when he said, at the end of the synods, that it was just the beginning.

The least satisfactory part of this book for me is the account of how the “St. Gallen Group” – one of its own members called it a “mafia” – which met to plan opposition to St. JPII and Joseph Ratzinger, identified Jorge Bergoglio as a future papal candidate. He had no global visibility until he gave the concluding address at the 2001 Synod on the role of bishops. NYC’s Cardinal Edward Egan was supposed to do that but stayed home because 9/11 had just happened. The address impressed the synod fathers for its fairness to both sides. Colonna reveals, however, that it was entirely the work of a Synod secretary/speechwriter, Msgr. Daniel Emilio Estivill. We need to know more about how things went, from then to now.

Colonna also weakens his credibility somewhat by repeating rumors that Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Parolin convinced Francis to use money from Peter’s Pence to support Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign. No footnotes appear to support this claim, nor does Colonna offer a plausible account of how and why Rome would think Mrs. Clinton – Hilary Clinton? – worth such a risky bet and potential scandal.

Despite a few lapses, the most disturbing element remains: the abundant evidence – confirmed by many particular instances now over years of this papacy – that the pope has little use for established procedures, precedents, even legal structures within the Church. These are not mere trivial rules, Pharisaic legalism, resistance to the Holy Spirit, etc. They are the means by which the Church seeks to be clear, fair, and orderly – and to address unjust actions or abuses by those in power.

When the head of the Church himself does not much feel bound by the tradition or impartial laws he has inherited, what then? That the question even has to be asked is disturbing. Any answer will have to reckon with the eye-opening material in this compelling book.

Robert Royal

Robert Royal

Robert Royal is editor-in-chief of The Catholic Thing, and president of the Faith & Reason Institute in Washington, D.C. His most recent book is A Deeper Vision: The Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Twentieth Century, published by Ignatius Press. The God That Did Not Fail: How Religion Built and Sustains the West, is now available in paperback from Encounter Books.

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.

Are We Being Propagandized? How To Resist Getting Sucked In

/in , , /by

As I scroll through my Twitter feed and Facebook, looking at trending topics, it’s easy to look at the media outlet originating the article, and assume how they will come down on a certain topic. Being a normal human being, you automatically zero in on the media outlets that support your way of thinking.

It’s kind of funny (not funny ha-ha, but funny strange) that there are two outlets covering the exact same incident and tweak a few words or add/delete a certain detail and the news story says something totally different. It can be infuriating to see such polar opposites in the news. Meanwhile, everyone claims they are right. And if you dare express an opposing option…option mind you…not necessarily an opinion, you get slammed down and shouted down until you either shut up and shut down, or just go away.

Propaganda is a tricky business; and people on all sides of the issues are slinging it around. Many of these people are well meaning, and some are clearly not. Some news outlets are so sure they are being righteous and truthful, and so afraid that the general population, often referred to as a clump, “‘The American People’ are concerned…or aware…or like this…or think this… or that,” will be mis-led, so they take the responsibility upon themselves to lead them into a certain way of thinking.

I don’t know about you, but sometimes I listen to a statement about what concerns the “American People” and I think, “How dare they speak for me? They don’t even know me.” What these people are doing is stating their opinion as fact and use inflammatory statements intended to make the “American People” feel left out or stupid or in the minority if they disagree.

OK, I get it. It’s about ratings and free speech and being the first to present the facts. Of course. That is what it is. We have to stop blaming the media, the politicians, and the advertisers and get informed. It’s a contest, a race for who’s on top, who’s got the best ratings and that’s all part of a capitalistic society. But if we, the “American People,” want to avoid getting caught up in the vortex of a propagandized agenda, we must be the ones to stop the reactivity. We must be the ones to slow down the rate at which we listen, think and respond. We are really the ones who have the power to change the culture to what we want it to be, not what some politician or news source wants it to be. But we have to stop being lazy in our listening.

Blaming and finger pointing is lazy and reactive. We need to accept what is and embrace it. If we are seeing a divided society or propaganda-slinging, we need to stop resisting it and hoping it will go away, but we need to see it for what it is and ask ourselves, “So what do we do about that?” Awareness is the beginning of change. When we are aware of what we are dealing with, we can develop a plan of action. Blaming and finger pointing is not a plan of action.

If different media outlets are spouting totally different stories, then we need to hear what’s out there. We need to dig through the rubble and find facts, and differentiate them from opinions. It may be painful to listen to an outlet that doesn’t necessarily sing to your tune, but it’s a great chance to learn how to sing harmony.

As a therapist, I am constantly aware that one side sounds correct and credible until you hear another perspective, then when you hear all perspectives, it can get pretty messy with blaming and name calling and mudslinging. But if you make a judgment based on one side of the story and start jumping on the bandwagon to oppose, (Can we even say, destroy?) the opposition, we will never find the truth. We will never find a solution. We will just continue to get more and more divided, and factionalized. When a country or a society is divided and factionalized, it is weakened. It begins to crack. Then remember earlier we talked about how some of this is done by well meaning people? OK, but there are those out there that would utterly destroy our community, society, or country. They will take advantage of our naivety, our emotional reactivity and lack of intestinal fortitude to do the real work of searching for truth.

So how do we protect our society and ourselves? We need to each, personally make sure we are grounded and connected to the source of truth. Many studies have been done showing how meditation changes the brain. It helps you process toxic emotions; it reduces anxiety and depression; it helps you think clearer and increases empathy and compassion. Those that would divide us know that if they can get us stirred up to stop thinking and just react on our triggered emotions, our capacity for empathy decreases. We are no longer able to hold conflicting thoughts in our minds and process them. We become sheep being led to the slaughter of someone else’s agenda based in power and control. That is a dangerous place for a society to be.

I am not advocating any one type of meditation because there is a place in every belief system or faith to define it as you will, but the truth is we all, every single one of us, need to slow down the reactivity and learn to take a breath and detach from the drama and propaganda (from all sides) and learn to listen to the wisdom within. It’s there. It’s just waiting on you to breathe.

VIDEO: Demographic Winter — the decline of the human family [Full Movie]

/in , , , , , /by

In the Spring 2008 edition of The Harvard Divinity Bulletin, Kathryn Joyce did a review of the film Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family. Joyce wrote:

Settling in to watch the counterintuitive “depopulation threat” documentary, Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family, feels disorientingly like life imitating art, or more specifically, social science imitating apocalypse cinema. Above an ominous, skeletal piano score, telegraphing a claustrophobic sense of impending doom, an assembly of prominent conservative researchers and pundits, including Nobel laureate Gary Becker and academics from conservative think-tanks, ruefully predicts a new end-of-days. Everywhere throughout the film, there is a plague of disappearing bodies, particularly children’s bodies, literally vanishing from the screen.  The children, classrooms full of them, become translucent and fade from dens, swing sets, teeter-totters, bikes and shady suburban walkways as flurries of snowflakes start to fly.  Over it all a voiceover, read by a female narrator, lends the film an eerily automated calm, recalling a familiar science fiction juxtaposition: humanity rendered impotent beside an unflappable computerized countdown. The effect is a clear arrow pointing to mankind’s culpability in its downfall, having tampered with the established order to the point of self-destruction: a timeworn morality tale science fiction lifted from religion.

The same moral is intended in Demographic Winter, but the original sin isn’t the creation of tyrannical artificial intelligence, or the destruction of the environment, but rather the failure of people worldwide to have enough children to replace their old and dying, a cultural shift in family planning and size that has led to falling birthrates globally, but particularly in the affluent, developed nations of the West. The sin that preoccupies the entire documentary – though such morally-infused terms are assiduously avoided throughout the film – is birth control and the sexual revolution, and the widespread cultural decision of women to limit their fertility. But you have to listen hard to identify that agenda, because instead of laying that argument out, the movie is a projection of social conservative fears about what changes to traditional family structures will bring, a vivid dystopia illustrated with both futuristic doomsday imagery and a catalogue of historical horrors: the disappearing bodies a gentle rendition of nuclear flash incineration; the snow that replaces them at once evoking atomic and crematorium ashes, as well as emblemizing the frostier demographic death the filmmakers envision. Either way, it signals massive dying, and in case the rhetorical stakes for the demographic winter theory aren’t high enough, the filmmakers declared, in a banner at their Heritage Foundation premiere in mid-February, that the film’s topic is, “the single most powerful force directing the fate and future of society.”

The argument put forth in Demographic Winter is a familiar one to those who have been watching conservative strategy develop over the past several years: that with birthrates falling globally over the last half-century, and in most developed nations falling below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 children per woman, the ratio of young to old will shift dramatically and wreak havoc upon existing social security and healthcare systems. The economy at large may also suffer, as the elderly cease spending and a smaller generation of workers is crippled by the taxes needed to support their parents. And the reasons why it’s occurring is a litany of culture-war complaints: women working, the “divorce revolution,” the sexual revolution (including cohabitation and the pill), worries, or what the filmmakers call “inaccurate presumptions,” about overpopulation and limited resources, and an affluence that leads to fewer children. It’s a massive failure to be fruitful and multiply, writ large, but again, such religious cues are kept off-screen.

The world this will bring about, according to the filmmakers, is bleak: grandparents left untended and alone in the streets of Europe as intergenerational bonds are shattered; the potential desolation of small countries such as Latvia, and a worldwide depression that will touch even those countries that don’t disappear under the sheath of snow that the film shows blanketing the entire globe. So argues Harry S. Dent, Jr., an economist who specializes in “demographic-based economic forecasting,” and who predicts that the West will follow Japan’s aging population bust.

Read more.

Perhaps it is time to re-look at what was said in this film.

One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree — we are headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe.

This ground breaking film draws upon experts from many different disciplines and reveals in chilling soberness the dangers facing society and the world’s economies, dangers far more imminent than global warming and at least as severe.

Rebuilding Faith in Egypt

/in , , , /by

If terrorists hoped to intimidate Egyptian leaders with their deadly mosque attack, it didn’t work. After the brutal murder of 235 worshippers – first with explosions, then gunfire – Cairo isn’t about back down from its promises to protect religious minorities like the ones mowed down late last month.

The grisly scene has become all too familiar here in the U.S., where Sutherland Springs is still trying to piece together their lives from a similar rampage. Now, a half a world away, in a land without the same freedoms, President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is doing his best to reassure his people that Egypt won’t back down from its promise to come to the aid of faith communities.

The latest proof? Egypt’s sudden approval of 21 churches’ applications to “restore, expand, and rebuild.” The Christian Post’s Anugrah Kumar reports that the el Sisi government is giving the green light to area pastors and clerics after a 20-year hold on some permits. “A local source was quoted as saying that Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi is keen to “show the U.S. that Egypt is standing with the Christians and that there is no persecution in Minya governorate.” The decision is an about-face in some areas, where churches had been closed to help “ease tensions” with Muslims. In other places, it’s an act of defiance in the face of ISIS’s growing threats.

No one who met President el-Sisi in our delegation to Cairo last month would doubt his commitment to greater religious freedom in his land. And while our conversations continue with his administration on behalf of Christians and others, it’s encouraging to see Egypt take bold steps like this one. The U.S. needs to do all it can to help support these transformation religious freedom reforms in the Egypt and the Middle East. The first step would be for the Senate to confirm President Trump’s nominee for Ambassador at Large for Religious Liberty, Governor Sam Brownback. We have a window of opportunity with governments like President Sisi’s. Now is the time to move.

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

Putting a Bow on Tax Reform

SCOTUS Arguments Take the Cake

Understanding the NFL’s Problems — It goes well beyond disrespect for patriotism.

/in , , , /by

TRANSCRIPT

The brouhaha surrounding the NFL player protests during the playing of the national anthem is slowly fading from view, just as the NFL had counted on, knowing the fans addicted to professional football couldn’t stay away forever. Unless the Main Stream Media keeps it in the public’s eye, the fans have the attention span of a gnat and are slowly beginning to tune back into the league. So, after hitting a few speed bumps, the NFL money machine continues on its way. The commissioner and owners refuse to discipline their players, in fact they appear to be downright intimidated by them, but is everything truly back to normal yet?

Not so fast. During the recent Thanksgiving holiday, the Detroit game saw its ratings fall 12.3% since last year, and the Dallas game was down nearly 20%. The NFL may try to put a positive spin on this, but the fact remains the protests turned a lot of patriotic Americans off. Even though the fans believe the players to be wrong, they are not so insulted anymore and the NFL will continue on its merry way.

The reality though is if you attended a game or tuned in, you are siding with the players, plain and simple. You are overlooking their disrespect for the country and believe we are suffering from racial injustice. Either that or you have no scruples whatsoever. Personally, I find it rather ironic that the American system the players are protesting, is the same system that has made them incredibly rich.

My problem with the NFL goes way beyond disrespect for the flag and anthem. For a long time, the NFL has been willing to overlook the indiscretions of the players, be it for battery, domestic violence, assault, guns, drugs or whatever, and give them nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Whereas NFL players in the past were held in high esteem as role models of sportsmanship, now it is fraught with thugs and criminals, people we should not respect. Yet, the NFL allows them to keep playing, making millions, and allowing the NFL money machine to continue unabated. They may have to pay a nominal fine now and then, but it would be better for the character of the sport if they were banned from the league instead, thereby giving a clear sign such behavior is not acceptable. By not properly disciplining the players, the NFL is condoning their behavior.

Banishment will likely never happen as the players now set the terms for the NFL, not the owners. Whereas the players represent employees who should follow the policies as prescribed by management, they now know they are untouchable as their athletic skills are sorely in demand and the owners want to win. As Houston Texan owner Bob McNair correctly observed recently, “We can’t have the inmates running the prison.” However, in fact, they are, as evidenced by McNair being forced to issue an apology for making the comment.

The NFL is now the model for corrupt athletic competition; they may know how to make money, but they also know how to sabotage the morality of the country. It is not that the owners or commissioner know what should be done, they are just scared to change the goose who lays the golden egg.

In addition, the media is hesitant to criticize the league as they have also hitched their wagon to the NFL money machine. Without them reminding the public of the indiscretions of the players, the topic slowly disappears. Instead of just producing an injury report prior to a game, I would like to see a crime report. Since the television media refuses to mention this, we are left to discover it ourselves. Fortunately, some outlets, such as USA Today, maintain an NFL Arrest Data Base which clearly lists player indiscretions, both current and in the past (click HERE).

In a way, we should thank former San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick for starting the protest last year. From it, we have discovered the true character of the players, their new role in setting team policy, and the greed motivating the league.

“Alas, poor football! I knew it well.”

Keep the Faith!

Pro-Life Students Sue Miami University Because It Won’t Let Them Erect a Cross

/in , , , , /by

Students at the Miami University in Ohio are suing the school after it wouldn’t let them erect a cross on its campus to express their pro-life message.

Filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of Miami University’s Students for Life, the lawsuit alleges that the university violated their rights to free speech and expression because it wouldn’t let them erect a cross on it’s Hamilton campus, which recently hosted an event on the “Perspectives of Free Speech,” according to WLWT5. The suit also asks the university to change its policies regarding campus postage and seeks monetary damages.

dcnf-logo

Miami University’s Students for Life has displayed its cross every year in an appeal to Christians and pro-lifers to protect the life of the unborn for both religious and moral reasons, but campus officials said the students couldn’t erect their symbol this year, according to WLWT5. They added that the cross would only be permitted if the students included “warning” signs around campus explaining why they had erected the cross.

The university plans to “address any potential mistake,” said school spokeswoman Claire Wagner, who indicated the lawsuit may have resulted from a miscommunication or misunderstanding between the students and campus officials.

Other universities have also faced run-ins with events regarding free speech, including Ryerson University, which canceled a panel dedicated to discussing the silencing of free speech on college campuses, citing “campus safety.”

Not long ago, the Berkeley mayor also advised the University of California, Berkeley to cancel conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos’ planned September Free Speech Week, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Grace Carr

Grace Carr is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @gbcarr24.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of a cross is by Wagner Santos/Photoshot/Newscom. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

As Christian Baker Heads to Court, Hundreds of Artists Speak Out to Defend Free Expression

/in , , , /by

The Supreme Court is gearing up to hear one of the most important cases of the 2017 term.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court will consider whether the state of Colorado may compel cake artist Jack Phillips to create custom wedding cakes for same-sex weddings in violation of his religious beliefs.

The court’s decision in this case won’t just affect Phillips. It will affect other artists who may want to decline to use their creative talents on projects that violate their own consciences.

To highlight just how broadly this decision will be felt, 11 cake artists and 479 other creative professionals filed amicus briefs at the Supreme Court. Here’s what these groups said in the briefs.

Cake Artists

The 11 cake artists who came together for this amicus brief note that cake design is a form of art. They explained to the court that they “create images of beauty that evoke ideas and emotions in deliciously edible form.” And if you don’t believe them, they included plenty of pictures in the brief.

While these artists did not write for or against any party in their brief, they explain that the creative process involved in making cakes is just as intricate and expressive as songwriting, painting, or web design.

Cake artists must use visual-art skills such as painting, drawing, and sculpting, and they must be able to create a unified whole from a series of individual artistic elements, such as textures, photographs, three-dimensional objects, and color.

In fact, custom cake design is so artistic that artists’ designs can be protected under federal intellectual property law. As the brief points out, the Library of Congress has thousands of custom cake designs in its copyright record.


The cake artists also explain why wedding cakes are unique and are often “the most iconic examples of the artists’ craft.” Unlike birthday cakes or “get well soon” cakes, wedding cakes often incorporate elements that reflect the couple’s personality.

These cakes are often themed, matching the pattern of the invitations or the couple’s fine china. Or they can feature hand-drawn characters from “Alice in Wonderland,” paying tribute to the bride’s favorite childhood story.

Wedding cakes can also reflect the ethnic heritage of the couple, incorporating colors and shapes from a shared cultural background.

The cake artists also point out that same-sex wedding cakes “can be especially artistic.” They often utilize rainbows both on the exterior and interior of a cake, and the cake artists have “found that cakes for same-sex weddings are frequently far more open to displays of personality and vivid expression, allowing the cake artist a decidedly freer hand in creation.”

The cake artists emphasize that they “merit as much protection for their expressive work as artists using other mediums,” and they note that the court’s existing free speech framework already includes symbolic nonverbal expression.

In two famous cases, Texas v. Johnson (which recognized burning of the American flag as expressive conduct) and West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (which recognized the right not to salute the American flag), the court recognized that the First Amendment protects symbolic expression, not just verbal or written communication.

Wedding cakes, these artists say, should qualify, too.

Other Creative Professionals

In another amicus brief specifically supporting Phillips, 479 creative professionals from all 50 states, D.C., and Puerto Rico highlight their concern that a ruling against Phillips will threaten their expressive freedom in the workplace.

These cake designers, musicians, florists, photographers, journalists, videographers, poets, songwriters, calligraphers, graphic designers, cartoonists, bloggers, website designers, authors, actors, writers, sculptors, and painters have differing views on gay marriage. But they come together here for one purpose: “They do not want the state forcing them to convey objectionable messages through their art.”

They tell the stories of creative professionals in the wedding industry—other cake-makers, filmmakers, custom website designers, creators of printing and marketing material, and photographers—who “face crippling fines, loss of business, government re-education, and even jail time” for declining to participate in a same-sex wedding.

They highlight this dangerous trend in state court and urge the Supreme Court to reverse course and protect each of their rights to “create freely.”

“It is difficult to imagine,” they write, “a more onerous and effectual compulsion to speak.”

Finally, the creative professionals propose that while this case is limited to the same-sex wedding context, “creative professionals of all stripes stand to suffer from undue compulsion” in other areas, should the court rule against Phillips.

They ask:

Should an African-American supporter of ‘Black Lives Matter’ be required to make and design a cake for white nationalist function? Must a graphic designer who supports gun control create advocacy literature for the National Rifle Association? Is an atheist photographer obliged to take and publish pictures of a Christian baptism?

These creative professionals believe that under the First Amendment, the answer clearly is no. They hope the government will not compel them or anyone else “to utter messages—through art of their own making—that betrays their values, wills, and consciences, as well as their tongues.”

COMMENTARY BY

Zachary Jones

Zachary Jones is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Larry Brett

Larry Brett is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Portrait of Tiffany Bates

Tiffany Bates

Tiffany Bates serves as legal policy analyst in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Watch Ryan Anderson Spar With LGBT Rights Advocate on Christian Baker Case

Meet the Lawyer Who’ll Argue at Supreme Court for Christian Baker’s Right to Free Speech

Podcast: Why Free Speech Is at Stake in Christian Baker Case

VIDEO: President Trump endorses Judge Roy Moore for the U.S. Senate

/in , , , , , , /by

In an email to supporters Judge Roy Moore wrote:

This afternoon I had a great conversation with President Trump.

He called from Air Force One to offer his full support for me and my campaign in our all-out battle against Doug Jones and the forces of evil on December 12.

And earlier this morning, President Trump officially endorsed my campaign for U.S. Senate — slamming my opponent as just another “Pelosi/Schumer Liberal Puppet” who flat-out hates our conservative values.

If elected as the next U.S. Senator from Alabama, I pledge to fight with everything I’ve got to help President Trump Drain the Swamp in Washington — including repealing ObamaCare and building the wall!

I’m honored to have President Trump’s support.

And I’d be honored to know I’ve earned your support, too.

President Trump tweeted the following:

One America News published an exclusive two part interview by OANN journalist Emerald Robertson with Judge Moore.

One America Exclusive Interview with Alabama Senate Candidate Roy Moore: Part One

One America Exclusive Interview with Alabama Senate Candidate Roy Moore: Part Two

RELATED ARTICLES:

Roy Moore’s lead over Doug Jones increases in new poll

CBS News Poll: As Majority of Alabama Republicans Believe Allegations Against Roy Moore False, Judge Takes Commanding Lead

Trump’s Roy Moore endorsement triggers million dollar ad buy from official super PAC