Black Church Leaders Defend Baker in Wedding Cake Case

A Colorado baker has a right not to make a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage that is against his faith, and the LGBT agenda is not a new civil rights movement, black Christian leaders said Monday outside the U.S. Supreme Court.

The nine leaders spoke in support of Jack Phillips, whose lawyers will ask the high court Dec. 5 to affirm that his free speech and religious liberty rights under the First Amendment allow him to turn down a request by two male customers to create such a cake.

“The First Amendment gives us the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion,” Garland Hunt, senior pastor at The Father’s House, a nondenominational church in Atlanta, said at the press conference in defense of Phillips, who was not there. “The freedom of religion is an inalienable right that comes from God.”

In 2012, Phillips declined the business of two men who visited his bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, and asked him to create a cake celebrating their wedding in Massachusetts.

His Christian faith, Phillips has said, teaches that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. He also has said he doesn’t design and make cakes that go against his faith in other ways, such as being sexually suggestive or depictingSatan.

Persecution of Christians is real and “coming for America,” Hunt said.

View image on Twitter

View image on Twitter

Amazing civil rights leaders at #SCOTUS standing with Jack Phillips of #MasterpieceCakeshop #JusticeForJack. Photo: Brianna Herlihy @briher10 on Twitter.

Dean Nelson, co-founder of the Frederick Douglass Foundation of North Carolina and senior fellow for African-American affairs at the Washington-based Family Research Council, said Phillips is being attacked because he is a Christian.

“Jack is an honorable man who has served his community through his business for all people, regardless of their race, creed, color, gender, or sexual identity,” Nelson said. “Jack as a Christian is compelled to love all people, and this is what he has done for decades.”

The press conference was organized by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group that defends religious liberty and represents Phillips, and sponsored by the Frederick Douglass Foundation, which promotes Christian and Republican values. The foundation also has launched a website in support of Phillips called We Got Your Back, Jack.

Janet Boynes, author of “Called Out: A Former Lesbian’s Discovery of Freedom,” said the civil rights movement started to help blacks gain their rights and sexual behavior is not the same as skin color.

“I resent having my race compared to what other people do in bed,” Boynes said.

LGBT activists want special rights, she said, and she is concerned that people are falling for the idea that homosexuality is not a choice. American culture is in a “downward spiral,” she said.

“God only condones and blesses sex between a man and a woman in marriage,” she said.

William Avon Keen, president of the Virginia chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, an organization co-founded by civil rights hero Martin Luther King Jr., said activists for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans have hijacked civil rights.

Unlike many LGBT activists, Keen said, he dealt with separate and unequal public facilities when he was growing up.

Keen said the Bible calls homosexuality a sin.

“We as Christians, we feel that murder is a sin. … We feel that marriage is ordained by God between a man and a woman,” Keen said. “We don’t believe in the third gender.”

He said the civil rights movement of the 1960s was “anti-sin,” and that today Christians are “too quiet” on societal issues and need to speak up.

“It is an injustice for our nation or anyone to try to force an individual to deny their faith,” Keen said.

The Special Ops Mission in Niger was Routine and Common — Stop Politicizing It!

The loss of four special operations soldiers in Niger is a tragedy. We grieve as a nation, rightly, whenever we lose any of the brave young men and women who serve in uniform.

That said, politicians and news media are turning the event into a farce.

Having served as an Army Green Beret for 28 years, I cannot let the mischaracterizations—many by leaders who clearly know better—continue without a comment.

The mission in Niger, which began in 2013, was a classic special operations operation. The type of operation is called foreign internal defense.

That’s an old school term for the most fundamental task we give our Green Berets. A small team of them goes into a foreign country to work with that nation’s military to better prepare it to deal with its own problems.

This is done during the period the military calls “phase zero,” which is prior to when a bigger conflict emerges. It is done in coordination with the host nation civilian government, and the entire country team at the U.S. Embassy, which is led by the U.S. ambassador and supported by the intelligence community station chief.

This is not a clandestine Hollywood commando mission, or a suicide raid. It is overt and open. Its purpose is to build rapport with the host nation military, to improve its capabilities, to gather open source intelligence, and to get to know both the lay of the land and the local players.

The U.S. has conducted these kinds of missions around the world since the 1950s. At times we have had as few as a dozen of these operations, and at others several hundred in as many as 80-plus countries simultaneously.

These missions are routine and have short-circuited conflicts on nearly every continent in the world at one time or another.

They are also inherently dangerous. The teams are small, ranging from a pair of operators up to a few dozen. There are seldom more than 100 U.S. troops.

Some might ask, why do we put such small teams at risk?

The answer is simply that the return is worth it. Often, the use of a small, mature, and low-profile group of quiet professionals can have greater success than a large, high-profile deployment on a massive scale.

Particularly today as terror groups like the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda move to numerous small or underdeveloped countries, these phase zero special operations missions allow the U.S. to mitigate the threat before it grows—and they do so without making the U.S. the “world’s policeman.”

Instead of fighting the terrorists everywhere ourselves, these missions help our friends to better police their own backyards.

These missions have been extremely common since 9/11, so it is ludicrous that legislators now claim ignorance of both their existence and purpose.

Were these legislators asleep during the last 10 years that they were briefed by the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command and the combatant commanders of U.S. Africa, Central, Pacific, or Southern Commands?

Nothing about these missions is new, little is “hidden,” and none of it should surprise anyone who has spent more than a week on Capitol Hill.

To repeat, these missions are dangerous. The teams that execute them lack the huge support mechanisms Americans have come to associate with military operations. Our troops know this, and regularly volunteer for the opportunity to participate in the missions simply because they know they work.

They also know these are the kinds of missions they have trained for, and which they execute with greater skill than anyone in the world.

They know that if trouble occurs, support is further away than in conventional operations. Intelligence is superb, often better than in regular military activities, but the logistical and response functions are thin and distant.

That’s why we only send professionals on such missions. These are not “kids” who just joined the military six months ago. They are hardened professionals who, yes, “know what the risks are,” and go without hesitation.

Yes, we need to know what happened in Niger. Any time military members die in action, a full investigation occurs. The Department of Defense does not need Congress or the media to “provoke” that.

The military is always working to make our troops as safe as accomplishing the mission will allow. A full post-mortem of the deadly ambush in Niger needs to take place so that we can do better on the next mission.

That would have happened if no one in Washington had said a word.

The media and politicians should stop the showmanship and game-playing. Let Defense Secretary James Mattis do his job, and let the brave men and women of the U.S. military do theirs.

Grandstanding senators and talking heads don’t help make America safe, but missions just like the one in Niger do.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Steven Bucci

Steven Bucci

Steven P. Bucci, who served America for three decades as an Army Special Forces officer and top Pentagon official, is a visiting research fellow at The Heritage Foundation. 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 U.S. Special Forces trainer conducting a drill with a unit of the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. (Photo: Andreea Campeanu /Reuters/Newscom)

My Bill Would Stop Tax Dollars from Subsidizing the NFL

NFL players have protested the national anthem for a little over a year now.

First, they kneeled for Black Lives Matter, then against “police brutality.” Now, they’re kneeling to protest racial injustice.

But has kneeling helped them raise awareness? Has their weekly spectacle changed any policies or laws? No. If anything, their protest has backfired spectacularly—it’s simply made a lot of Americans stop watching football.

No one should be surprised—kneeling during the national anthem isn’t a good way to focus attention on a topic. The gesture is a broad, overgeneralized indictment of America. It is not a critique of injustice, nor does it pave the way for meaningful reform.

There are better ways to protest, and better venues for protest than football games.

It’s easy to have strong, visceral feelings about disrespecting America. It’s harder to get passionate about tax law. But if there was ever a time to feel outraged over the tax code (other than Tax Day), that time is now.

Section 501 (c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code provides a list of tax-exempt trade organizations: business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, boards of trade, and professional football leagues. Which one of these things is not like the others?

I call a brief timeout for a history lesson.

The NFL was first granted tax-exempt status in 1942. When the NFL and AFL merged in 1966, Commissioner Pete Rozelle wanted the NFL’s tax exemption made permanent. Meanwhile, two Louisiana Democrats wanted a football team, and an only-in-Washington opportunity presented itself.

In a swampy tit-for-tat, House Majority Whip Hale Boggs, D-La., and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Russell Long, D-La., permanently codified the NFL’s tax exemption.

According to Michael MacCambridge, author of “America’s Game: The Epic Story of How Pro Football Captured a Nation,” Rozelle was so delighted to hear the tax news that he said, “Congressman Boggs, I don’t know how I can ever thank you enough for this.”

Boggs immediately countered with, “What do you mean you don’t know how to thank me? New Orleans gets an immediate franchise in the NFL.”

Sure enough, one year later, the Saints came marching in.

To be clear, the tax exemption does not apply to teams. Teams and players both pay taxes. The status applies solely to the NFL League Office.

This special treat would be a little more palatable—though still unfair—if the League Office simply handled paperwork and pensions. Unfortunately, the NFL League Office’s main duty is negotiating stadium deals.

Stadiums are funded primarily by taxpayer dollars, brought in through increased taxes and municipal bond financing schemes. Over the past decade, $7 billion in taxpayer dollars were spent on stadiums. In some egregious cases, cities built new stadiums even while their citizens were still paying off old stadiums that had since closed.

This is corporate welfare run amok, and a gross misuse of American citizens’ tax money—something the government must treat with respect.

As many pundits have noted, the NFL League Office voluntarily gave up its tax-exempt status in 2015. Until the tax code changes, however, it can revert to being tax-exempt whenever it chooses.

Equally importantly, the NHL, PGA Tour, and LPGA are also currently tax-exempt, despite earning over $2 billion per year in gross revenue.

These are truly “tax breaks for billionaires,” to quote Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and the textbook definition of a special-interest loophole. It’s time to revoke this unnecessary, undeserved tax break. Why should “big sports” get tax breaks that businesses and families across America don’t get?

That’s why I’ve decided to be the lead sponsor of H.R. 296, the PRO Sports Act, a bill that would end the tax-exempt status for sports leagues making over $10 million annually.

I’ve sent a letter to Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, asking for this to be included in the tax overhaul.

With tax reform currently one of the highest priorities of Congress, it’s time to end this unjustified, unjustifiable provision.

In 2016, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the PRO Sports Act would bring in over $150 million in new revenue. With America $20 trillion in debt, every dollar helps—and, more importantly, it restores some fairness to the tax code.

If players choose to protest, then I can choose not to watch. It’s as easy as turning off the television. But the tax code means that all taxpaying Americans are financially supporting pro sports, whether they want to or not.

Ending this tax break would change things. If players want to protest, let them do it on their own time, and on their own dime. The American people shouldn’t have to pay for it.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Rep. Matt Gaetz

Rep. Matt Gaetz is the U.S. representative for Florida’s 1st congressional district. He serves on the House Budget Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, and the House Armed Services Committee. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: New York Post: Saints in public feud with disabled veteran over anthem protests

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

RELATED ARTICLE: Justice Thomas Denounces Anthem Protests

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of New Orleans Saints players kneeling down before the national anthem prior to playing the Miami Dolphins. (Photo: Hugo Philpott/UPI/Newscom)

Apathy is the Greatest Insult to the Memory of Fallen Soldiers

KYIV, Ukraine—I’ve experienced our country’s wars both as a combatant and a witness.

I deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq while I was an Air Force special operations pilot, and I’ve been back to report on both of those wars as a journalist.

I’ve also reported on U.S. military operations at other places in the Middle East and across Eastern Europe. And this summer I visited the USS George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier off the coast of Syria, from which warplanes launched around the clock to wage the air war against the Islamic State terrorist group, also known as ISIS.

Throughout my time on the front lines, both as a combatant and a journalist, I’ve heard a common, troubling refrain among America’s military personnel.

Their general impression is that most people back home have either forgotten about or become apathetic to the fact that we still have soldiers deployed in combat zones around the world. This perception of indifference has entrenched an already growing divide between military and civilian societies in America.

The author, second from left, is hoisted aboard a U.S. Air Force helicopter in Iraq in 2015. (Photos: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)

White House chief of staff John Kelly, a retired Marine general, evoked that sentiment during a solemn press conference last Thursday.

“We don’t look down upon those of you who haven’t served,” said Kelly, whose son, 2nd Lt. Robert Kelly, died in combat in 2010 in Afghanistan. “In fact, in a way, we’re a little bit sorry because you’ll never have experienced the wonderful joy you get in your heart when you do the kind of things our servicemen and women do. Not for any other reason than they love this country.”

Kelly’s right—even for those journalists who have been in combat. Because combat feels a lot different when you’re not just worried about your own life, or getting a good story. It’s a lot different when your actions decide the fate of your comrades in arms, as well as whether innocent civilians caught in harm’s way will live or die.

The recent combat deaths of four U.S. Army Green Berets in Niger laid bare America’s entrenched civilian-military divide, as well as the contemporary reluctance of some media outlets to dutifully cover American combat operations unless there is a more “newsworthy” hook to the story.

Some journalists have acted like the recent combat deaths in Niger illuminated some sort of shadow war going on.

Then-President Barack Obama sent U.S. troops to Niger in 2013—and it was never a secret. It just didn’t make the headlines. The story disappeared, like many others related to our military’s combat missions, into the unending maelstrom of the modern news cycle.

U.S. Army soldiers man a sniper position in Afghanistan in 2013.

Media outlets that have their priorities straight should prioritize stories not by the amount of page views, likes, or retweets they generate, but by their ultimate importance to our civil discourse. Sadly, however, that’s not typically the case. It took the deaths of four Special Forces soldiers and a political feud to make U.S. military operations in Niger newsworthy. It shouldn’t be that way. But it is.

Yet, call me naïve, but I still think my new profession is equally as important as my old one. Journalists, after all, have a unique and solemn duty to perform in a democratic republic that fields an all-volunteer military force.

The limited participation of the American population in the armed forces, the physical remoteness of the battlefields, and the technological advances in war-fighting technology have made war largely an abstract burden to the overwhelming majority of Americans. Therefore, it’s the responsibility of journalists to make the cost of war real and relevant to people’s lives. We have to make war personal.

We have to educate citizens about the costs of war to maintain societal hesitations to the application of deadly force. And we must hold our leaders to account by demanding that they thoughtfully and wisely make the case for war when it is just and necessary—without resorting to populism or warmongering.

Educated citizens aren’t so easily hoodwinked into simplistic, reductive visions of the threats facing their nation, or the reasons for their misfortunes. That’s why good journalism matters.

Operations aboard the USS George H.W. Bush to support the air war against the Islamic State over Syria.

Unequal Burden

The volunteer fighting force represents less than 1 percent of the total U.S. population. Consequently, the trauma and sacrifice of combat is shouldered by only a small, select slice of our country.

And only a small minority of Americans can truly relate to the experience of combat. Less than 8 percent of the U.S. population has ever served in the armed forces and only 1 in 5 members of the U.S. House and Senate is a veteran, compared with 3 out of every 4 in 1969.

A U.S. Army soldier in Khost Province, Afghanistan.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are quarantined from the real-life consequences of war. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates summed it up well when he said: “Whatever their fond sentiments for men and women in uniform, for most Americans the wars remain an abstraction. A distant and unpleasant series of news items that do not affect them personally.”

When the troops return we dutifully call them heroes. Some old vets might give them a handshake and a few candy bars when they step off the plane on their return. That’s how it was for me when I got back from my first combat deployment to Afghanistan.

I arrived at Baltimore-Washington International Airport late at night. The arrival hall was almost empty, except for some janitors polishing the floor with an electric floor buffer, and a group of about two dozen Vietnam War veterans handing out paper bags filled with cookies and candy bars to those of us in military uniforms streaming out from baggage claim.

One man with a gray mustache who wore a black hat that said Vietnam on it handed me a goodie bag. He then shook my hand. “Welcome home, son,” he said. “We’re all proud of you.”

I tried hard, and unsuccessfully, not to tear up. My war had been nothing like this old man’s. I spent it in the relative sanctuary of the cockpit where the enemy was usually nothing more to me than glowing black and white amoebas on a digital screen. I wanted to tell that Vietnam veteran that he was the real hero; he had endured a very different kind of war and had come home to a much less appreciative nation. But all I could muster at that time was a lame, “Thanks a lot. It feels good to be home.”

The old man smiled at me, then patted me on the shoulder. And that was it. A week later, I was back at work preparing for my next deployment.

A U.S. Air Force pararescueman in northern Iraq in 2015.

To be clear, the overwhelming majority of troops and veterans—myself included—don’t want special treatment, and they don’t want your praise. In fact, sometimes all the “thank you for your service” comments, while well intentioned, can make a soldier feel uncomfortable. Since, at the back of his or her mind are the constant memories of friends who made a much greater sacrifice, making us feel unworthy of the accolades. Still, the offers of thanks do send an important message—that the soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine hasn’t been forgotten. And that’s more important than anything else.

All our troops and vets want is for people to pay attention. Many don’t really care what you say, or how you say it. They just want to feel like the country hasn’t forgotten about them, or their friends.

They want to feel like their sacrifices were worth it. That the unrecoverable currency of their youths went toward a just and noble cause that, in the end, made our country and the world a little safer.

Reality Check

When I began a graduate journalism program at Northwestern University in 2011, just a couple months after I had left the Air Force, I couldn’t believe how unfamiliar many of my classmates were with military issues and the ongoing wars.

One student asked me if I had “caught” post-traumatic stress disorder. Like it was the flu.

Sixteen years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, U.S. military forces are still deployed in Afghanistan.

Some of my cohort couldn’t even locate Iraq or Afghanistan on a map. And these were graduate students at one of the most prestigious journalism programs in the country—they were the cream of the crop.

I entered the military when I was 18 years old to attend the Air Force Academy. So my time at Northwestern University as a 29-year-old was basically my first taste of civilian life as an adult. Once out of the bubble of military life, I was shocked to learn how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which had consumed a decade of my life, had been practically forgotten by the rest of the country.

In some ways, returning to civilian life felt like walking alone in a foreign country.

And that feeling hit a tipping point for me when my little brother, Drew Peterson, who was an Air Force captain at the time, deployed to Afghanistan in 2013.

The author, right, with his brother, Drew Peterson, together in Afghanistan in 2013.

In the days leading up to my brother’s deployment and while he was downrange, I remember feeling so frustrated, bitter even, about seeing life going on uninterrupted around me back in America. It was like I wanted to grab everyone by the collar, look them in the eye, and say, “My brother is in a war. Why don’t you care?”

The Killers

In September 2015 I visited a U.S. Air Force A-10 “Warthog” attack squadron stationed at an undisclosed location in the Middle East. Unexpectedly, I ran into two old friends of mine. I had gone through pilot training with them in Columbus, Mississippi, way back in 2007 when I was an Air Force lieutenant.

My old friends were now combat-tested A-10 pilots. Over dinner at the base’s chow hall they told me about the carnage they were inflicting on the Islamic State every day. They used all the familiar lingo and clichéd expressions common to military aviation. But there was a word they used a lot, which seemed to stand out from the rest: “hunting.”

Many U.S. soldiers have never served in peacetime.

In Afghanistan they had maintained a defensive mindset, they told me. The priority in that war was to defend U.S. troops on the ground with close air support. But in the air war against the Islamic State over Iraq and Syria, the pilots described their mindset as offensive.

In addition to close air support and bombing missions, the A-10 pilots also flew air interdiction missions in which they patrolled for targets of opportunity—essentially they went out looking for Islamic State militants to kill.

And they killed a lot. Sometimes one pilot would kill dozens of Islamic State militants in a single mission. Often, by strafing the fleeing enemy with the A-10’s 30 mm Gatling cannon.

What struck me the most as I talked with my old friends in that desert chow hall was how casually and humbly they talked about the killing they did. They interwove stories about wives and children back home with macabre stories about the war.

The pilots’ eyes seem to focus on mine a half-beat longer than normal as they matter-of-factly described strafing an enemy checkpoint, or killing Islamic State fighters one by one as they attempted escape. Sometimes, the pilot would lean back in his chair with eyes open wide, slowly shaking his head as he described the carnage he inflicted on the enemy.

But there was no remorse, not even the hint of it. And there was no questioning the justice of the war. The barbarity of Islamic State had reinvigorated the sense of mission for many deployed troops, who might have been dismayed by the hamster wheel wars we had been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The author, right, greets his brother upon returning home from Afghanistan.

The Islamic State’s snuff videos gave their mission a special sense of justice and urgency, which we had all felt in those early years after 9/11, but somehow lost over time.

That same mindset echoed in the attitudes of many other U.S. servicemen and women I’ve met in the intervening years. Our troops might not necessarily believe that the wars will be won anytime soon, but they all seemed to believe in what they were fighting for.

And, although those A-10 pilots had absolute faith in the justice of their cause, they also suspected people back home didn’t understand the seriousness of the threats that face our nation, as well as the scale and ferocity of our military’s unending operations to keep those threats at bay.

“People back home have no idea,” one pilot told me. “But maybe it’s better that way. Reality would scare the shit out of most people.”

Force for Good

In February 2015, I joined a U.S. Army Stryker convoy as it traveled 1,100 miles from Estonia, down through Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and into the Czech Republic.

The convoy was called Operation Dragoon Ride; it was meant to show U.S. resolve to defend NATO’s eastern members from Russian aggression.

Citizens of NATO’s Baltic countries warmly greeted U.S. soldiers during Operation Dragoon Ride in 2015.

Along the way, thousands of people lined the roadside waving U.S. flags. Fathers had children on their shoulders. Young women blew kisses to the U.S. troops. At each stop, no matter how small the village, hundreds of people gathered to meet the soldiers and get selfies with them.

I wish you could have seen it; it would have made you proud to be an American.

Maintaining a dominant military with a global presence is not just about national defense or international stability. Our military is also the torchbearer for our country’s values, and a beacon of hope for people fighting for their freedom around the world.

That’s what our men and women in uniform fight for. That’s what they’re willing to die for.

It shouldn’t take a tragedy or a political feud to remind us of that.

Portrait of Nolan Peterson

Nolan Peterson

Nolan Peterson, a former special operations pilot and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is The Daily Signal’s foreign correspondent based in Ukraine. Send an email to Nolan. Twitter: @nolanwpeterson.

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

VIDEOS: The Rise and Fall of the ‘New World Order’ — From George H.W. Bush to Donald J. Trump

On October 19th, 2017  former President George W. Bush in New York at a forum put on by the George W. Bush Institute stated, “Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication.” Former President Bush in his speech referred to “the norms and rules of the global order.”

It is prophetic that former President George H.W. Bush is not only the father of George W. and Jeb Bush but he is also the father of the “New World Order” in America.

Lawrence Freedman in his 1991 Foreign Affairs article, “Order and Disorder in the New World” interprets the phrase New World Order in two ways:

“The first [interpretation] is that the slogan reflects a presumption that international institutions and, in particular, the United Nations, will be taking a more active and important role in global management… [T]he second interpretation…[is] that the phrase ‘New World Order’ is merely descriptive, requiring no more than acceptance that the current situation is unique and clearly different in critical respects” from the past.”

Today the New World Order is best defined as “globalism.”

It is prophetic that then President George H.W. Bush unveiled the New World Order to America in a speech before a joint session of Congress on September 11th, 1991. This speech was ten years before the attack on the World Trade Center in New York city in 2001. Listen to former President George H.W. Bush’s remarks carefully:

Candidate Trump defeated 16 opponents to obtain the nomination as the Republican candidate for President of the United States. One of his opponents was Jeb Bush. It is prophetic that Donald J. Trump was not only defeated Jeb Bush in the Republican primary race but he’s also the unraveler of Jeb’s father’s New World Order, which has changed its name to “globalism.”

Now listen to then candidate Donald J. Trump’s remarks aimed directly at the New World Order known as “globalism”:

The media has portrayed former President George W. Bush’s speech as anti-Trump. Rather, it appears that G.W. Bush is on the side of President Trump. Bush said, “We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism [identity politics]… To renew our country, we only need to remember our values [belief in God not government].” Bush went on to say this about two of the Trump administration’s major initiatives, “First, America must harden its own defenses [increase military spending]. Our country must show resolve and resilience in the face of external attacks on our democracy [vetting of immigrants and border security]. And that begins with confronting a new era of cyber threats [President Trump’s May, 2017 Executive Order on cyber security].”

Globalism and the New World Order is dying. Elections in Austria, Germany, England, the Netherlands, Czechoslovakia and even in France, as well as BREXIT, have shown the rise of national sovereignty over what Robert Royal has labeled “authoritarian liberalism.” Royal in his column “Something Stirring in the West” notes:

We’re seeing a remarkable if disorganized reaction in the developed world to the ways that what might be called “authoritarian liberalism” has come to dominate us. Trumpism, of course, is the most obvious example. But even in Europe, the place that seems to have gone the furthest down the liberal path, something remarkable is underway.

The decline and fall of the New World order’s globalism is happening. It appears the globalists cannot stop it because they cannot stop the human spirit, as former President George W. Bush said, “We should not be blind to the economic and social dislocations caused by globalization. People are hurting. They are angry. And, they are frustrated. We must hear them and help them.”

This is why Donald J. Trump is now President of the United States, he heard the American people and is now helping the American people.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Ran an Independent Campaign From the Start

Who Deserves the Drug Cartels’ MVP Award? The growing list of those feeding the opioid crisis.

There has been a long-standing debate as to whether or not marijuana is a “gateway drug” to hardcore drugs.  However, there is no such debate about whether abused prescription opiates are gateway drugs to heroin and fentanyl — they are.

Today America finds itself suffering from the worst heroin epidemic in history.

The unprecedented numbers of Americans who have become addicted to prescription opiates provide the drug cartels with more potential “customers” than ever before and, as I noted in an article awhile back, Obama’s border failures have only made their business easier.

There are other parties who bear blame for the creation of this crisis as well. On Sunday, October 15, 2017 the CBS News program, “60 Minutes” aired an infuriating report, “Ex-DEA agent: Opioid crisis fueled by drug industry and Congress.”

That “ex-DEA agent” is Joe Rannazzisi who headed the DEA’s Office of Diversion Control, the division that regulates and investigates the pharmaceutical industry. According to the 60 Minutes report, “Rannazzisi tells the inside story of how, he says, the opioid crisis was allowed to spread — aided by Congress, lobbyists, and a drug distribution industry that shipped, almost unchecked, hundreds of millions of pills to rogue pharmacies and pain clinics providing the rocket fuel for a crisis that, over the last two decades, has claimed 200,000 lives.”

A subsequent Washington Post editorial detailed how the situation unfolded:

A DEA effort was undertaken in the mid-2000s to target drug distribution companies that were shipping unusually large volumes of opioids. For example, one midsize distributor had shipped 20 million doses to pharmacies in West Virginia over five years; 11 million doses went to one county alone with a population of 25,000 people. Some pharmacies in Florida were nothing more than illicit drug dens, with streams of customers arriving in vans from Appalachia. “Back home, each 30-pill bottle of oxycodone was worth $900,” The Post reports. By going after the distributors, the DEA hoped to stanch this deadly trade. The DEA brought at least 17 enforcement cases against 13 drug distributors and one manufacturer under a hard-charging head of the Office of Diversion Control, Joseph T. Rannazzisi.

Then the rules changed. The DEA originally could freeze drug shipments that posed an “imminent danger” to the community, giving the agency broad authority to act. In 2014, the industry launched an effort to slow enforcement by changing the standard. The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Tom Marino (R-Pa.) and aided by former DEA officials who went through the revolving door to help the drug companies.

The 60 Minutes report and a parallel eye-opening investigative report published by the Washington Post sent shockwaves around the country and resulted in Pennsylvania  Congressman Tom Marino issuing a statement requesting that President Trump withdraw his name from consideration to lead the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) as the so-called “Drug Czar.”

Although I was an INS special agent, I had a front row seat to America’s purported “War on Drugs.” In 1988 I became the first INS special agent to be assigned to DEA’s Unified Intelligence Division (UID) in New York City.  In 1991 I was promoted to the position of Senior Special Agent and assigned to the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) where I remained for the balance of my career, working with the DEA, FBI and other federal and local law enforcement agencies and the law enforcement agencies of other governments.

I did not generally participate in DEA investigations into so-called “diversion” cases because those investigations rarely involved foreign nationals.  However, what the excellent 60 Minutes report did not discuss was how, all too often, hapless patients who became hooked on prescription opiates were either unable to get more prescriptions for those drugs or were unable to continue to pay for those expensive drugs and, consequently, some of these desperate addicts have resorted to committing violent robberies at local pharmacies. Others resorted to cheaper street drugs such as heroin.

Heroin is not produced in the United States.  Every gram of heroin present in the United States provides unequivocal evidence of a failure of border security because every gram of heroin was smuggled into the United States. Indeed, this is precisely a point that Attorney General Jeff Sessions made during his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on October 18, 2017 when he again raised the need to secure the U.S./Mexican border to protect American lives.

Immigration laws provide important weapons that can and must be used against transnational gangs, drug trafficking organizations and international terrorists and their organizations.  This was made abundantly clear to me during my assignments with UID and then OCDETF.  Yet this commonsense fact is willfully discounted and denied by politicians from both political parties and at all levels of government.

Smugglers are smugglers.  Brutal human traffickers often engage in drug smuggling and, in fact, often force smuggled aliens to carry drugs on them, earning such aliens the nickname “mules.”  They are literally used as beasts of burden.  This is not only the case along the violent and porous U.S./Mexican border but at our nation’s international airports and seaports as well.

Because the smugglers are engaged in moving contraband into the United States from foreign countries, most of the smugglers are aliens, as are those who hold the highest positions within the drug trafficking organizations.  Immigration laws could be brought to bear with great success against these smugglers, yet the number of immigration law enforcement officers has always been very low, further hampering efforts to use immigration laws to maximum advantage.

I began my career with the INS in 1971 as an Immigration Inspector at JFK Airport.  Back then I became aware of individuals who attempted to smuggle narcotics into the United States by swallowing balloons and condoms which had been stuffed with narcotics.  A ruptured balloon or condom would almost always cost the life of the person who had swallowed it.

Drug money enriches the coffers of the banks and money remitters that transmit the proceeds of narcotics transactions.  They are the “silent partners” in this hugely profitable criminal enterprise.  Yet while banks often pay huge fines, few bankers are ever prosecuted.

Furthermore, drug money washes through Wall Street, the real estate industry and permeates our economy.

On September 10, 2012 the New York Times reported that HSBC was forced to pay $1.92 billion to settle charges of money laundering.  No one could argue that they paid a huge fine, until you consider the final paragraphs in the report:

Congressional hearings exposed weaknesses at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the national bank regulator. In 2010, the regulator found that HSBC had severe deficiencies in its anti-money laundering controls, including $60 trillion in transactions and 17,000 accounts flagged as potentially suspicious, activities that were not reviewed. Despite the findings, the regulator did not fine the bank.

During the hearings this summer, lawmakers assailed the regulator. At one point, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, called the comptroller “a lap dog, not a watchdog.”

The July 11, 2016 report by the House Republican Staff of the Committee on Financial Services on the topic, “Too Big To Jail:  Inside the Obama Justice Department’s Decision Not To Hold Wall Street Accountable” focused on failures of the Obama Justice Department to effectively deal with massive violations of laws pertaining to money laundering and other crimes that have national security implications.

It is my contention that not unlike the way that DEA lost its authority to block the shipments of opiates when it is apparent that community safety is jeopardized, we have seen, for decades, parallel efforts to prevent the effective enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws and the securing of our nation’s borders in, what I have come to refer to as, Immigration Failure – By Design.

“Sanctuary cities” and now “sanctuary states” have crippled efforts to use immigration laws to combat violent transnational gangs, drug trafficking and human smuggling and even undermining national security.

On August 11, 2017 Fox News posted the incredible article, “Los Angeles Targets Contractors Who Might Work on Border Wall.”  The city of Los Angeles and the state of California have become sanctuaries and are now seeking to “blacklist” American companies that accept contracts from the federal government — particularly when such companies have worked to help stem the flood of heroin and other dangerous drugs into the United States along with aliens engaged in criminal and/or terror-related activities.

The drug trade and drug addiction are synonymous with death and violence.  Drug money is “blood money” funding criminal and terrorist organizations.  Our leaders must be made to accept that effective immigration law enforcement is a vital element of the “War on Drugs.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Who Wants To Divide America?

Thus, what seems like a minor event, a few players knelling in protest of the American flag and national anthem, is part of a much larger movement linked in an ideology well ensconced in some of the country’s leading institutions, an ideology that wants all Americans to be on their knees in submission to a New World Order alien to everything the United States has ever known. Directing protests at the national anthem or the American flag crosses the line of proper debate by casting the country itself as a negative object. And when the flag is burned, it implies a desire to destroy the country for which it stands.

blue_logo
By William R. Hawkins

The narrative in the mainstream media is that President Donald Trump is dividing the country. This harkens back to the 2016 presidential campaign when this line was a mainstay of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. She had to counter Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan of national unity. After several false starts, she finally settled on “Stronger Together” as her campaign slogan in an attempt to also express a nationalist sentiment. The actual context of her platform, however, was still the standard liberal-left dogma of class and racial conflict and sub-national identity politics based on the notion that interest groups can only gain at the expense of other interest groups; the drumbeat of “redistribution.”

Since the election, the Left has gone ballistic with an explicitly anti-nationalist campaign of “resistance” meant to frustrate the Trump administration at every turn. If the President is successful in pulling the country together behind common goals, then the political future of the Left is bleak. Liberal strategists are thus caught in a bind. They know that the American people want unity and effective government; they want the “sovereignty, prosperity and security” that President Trump spoke of at the United Nations; but leftist ideology cannot provide these public goods because it aims at revolution and the “transformation” of society. History shows such movements always produce chaos, followed by tyranny as they attempt to pound the square peg of humanity through the perfect round hole of their radical theories. So, the Left must transfer the image of disorder and strife to the Right so that they can claim that their agenda will restore order; their order. Thus, riots and terrorist acts are always “provoked” by those in authority, not planned by self-styled revolutionaries who have declared war on society.

The mainstream media, which has always been liberal, is now trending towards the far Left. “Fake news” is a tactic, known as disinformation in the world of covert operations, which is working all too well. For example, a new ABC News poll found in regard to President Trump, “The public by 66-28 percent says he’s done more to divide than to unite the country, considerably worse than the highest ‘divide’ scores for his two predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush, both 55 percent.”

Reuter’s poll gave a more in-depth look at opinion that was more favorable to the conservative side, but was still headlined by Reuters as “A majority of adults disagree with Trump on firing athletes who kneel during anthem.” This was true, but the same poll found that 58 percent of respondents thought “Professional athletes should be required to stand during the national anthem at sporting events.” So, the real issue is what to do if they don’t obey? A more positive indication of how people feel was that 84 percent said they stand when the anthem is played at an event they are attending, a number that was fairly constant whether one identified as a Democrat, Republican or Independent. Seventy-four percent added that they also put their hand over their heart when hearing the anthem. So, the problem of showing disrespect for the symbols of the United States is not with the majority, but with a minority who hate the country as a whole for what it stands for. The United States was built on different principles than the ones they hold, so America’s success is illegitimate and the nation must be brought down in disgrace.

President Trump ran on a platform of nationalism.

That aligns him with traditional conservatives, but not with all elements of the Republican Party which also includes libertarians who reject any collective identity, and those politicians who cannot see anything beyond Corporate America. These splits have frustrated the White House repeatedly, especially in contrast to the solid liberal block across the aisle. The media, of course, wants to blame the man who is preaching unity rather than the factions that have crippled Congress, with the ABC News poll claiming that 59 percent believe “Trump has not brought needed change.”

In his UN speech and elsewhere, Trump declared his focus is on results, not ideology. It is this sentiment that separates the conservative-nationalist mindset from the rest of a political spectrum that draws inspiration from intellectual constructs of what an ideal world should look like. Such “idealists” are given a favorable nod that is not warranted. Experience has repeatedly shown, often at great cost, that when their ideologies are implemented the results are disastrous; not an ideal outcome.

The connection between the delusions of left-wing ideology and the NFL protests is presented by Colin Kaepernick, the San Francisco quarterback who started the uproar. He attended a press conference wearing a t-shirt with the image of Fidel Castro meeting Malcolm X. “Over a teleconference call, Kaepernick reportedly praised Castro for investing in Cuba’s education system, as opposed to the American investment in the prison system, according to [Armando] Salguero” a Miami Herald columnist. On his website, Kaepernick claims he is out to “fight oppression of all kinds globally.”

Hatred of one’s own country often leads to a shift in allegiance to foreign lands and leaders based on a supposedly shared ideology. This was common during the Cold War since Marxism is the core of Left-wing thought. But this phenomenon continues even after the collapse of Soviet Communism because the Left is still motivated primarily by hatred for “capitalist-imperialist” America. Thus, there is an embrace of any rival power or foreign movement that shares hostility to the U.S. Take for example Vjay Pashad, a self-described Marxist who holds the endowed George and Martha Kellner Chair in South Asian History at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. His PhD is from the University of Chicago. He is a very privileged member of academe. Yet, he is also an example of someone who wants to bring down the society within which he has enjoyed success.

On September 6, Pashad was the keynote speaker on a program celebrating the centennial of the Russian Revolution. The event was held at the University of Illinois-Urbana, my undergrad alma mater. It was sponsored by some 22 university departments, colleges and study centers. The theme was “The Russian Revolution as the Mirror of Third World Aspirations” and was an echo of the old Soviet line about being the vanguard of a global “anti-colonial” movement even as the Red Army built a new empire in Eastern Europe and in satraps around the world. The USSR was also the mortal enemy of the United States. Pashad would like to see a resurgent Russia along with other powers threatening America again. Vladimir Putin is not the only one to lament the fall of the Soviet Union; he has fellow travelers in faculty lounges all across America. And we are worried about radicalization from Internet messages sent from caves in the Middle East?

In a recent interview, Pashad said “When the BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa] alliance emerged in the 2000s, I looked at the emergence favorably, not because I thought these powers would save the world, but, my hope was that the emergence of the BRICS project would rebalance world power and create a multi-polar world” which would undermine U.S. “hegemony.” He has turned pessimistic, however, because “right-wing” parties have taken power in India and Brazil. Thus, the coalition originally formed by Russia and China to combat the U.S. (under the rubric of promoting economic development) is losing its cohesion. Indeed, India has threatened to withdraw from BRICS because it needs American support against a two-front war with China and Pakistan. Pashad, whose heritage is Indian, might understand this if he had any allegiance to anything beyond his ideology. He is all too typical of those who dominate discussion on college campuses today, intent on squeezing any patriotic sentiments out of their students. It is a completely unnatural endeavor, but then ideology is not about human nature or human history; it is about fantasies that turn into nightmares.

Ryan Harvey, the author who interviewed Pashad, argues “There are very few signs that a collapse or weakening of US hegemony will, by itself, lead to a more peaceful or just period for the world. The question is, ultimately, what powers will fill these voids, and how will they relate to the needs and desires of people?” So, it is not enough to protest or subvert America, knocking society off balance, gutting its military or crippling the economy; other powers must be built up to take America’s place. In the end, the U.S. must lose to its enemies and fall under the dominion of those with a very different agenda for the future. Thus, what seems like a minor event, a few players knelling in protest of the American flag and national anthem, is part of a much larger movement linked in an ideology well ensconced in some of the country’s leading institutions, an ideology that wants all Americans to be on their knees in submission to a New World Order alien to everything the United States has ever known.

This does not mean that all dissent is treason; motivation and intent are the determining factors. There is plenty for people of good will to discuss about what will make us more prosperous, secure and happy. But debating within a framework of what is best for America is fundamentally different from what those are doing who advocate for causes and movements that are meant to make us weaker and to aid our enemies.

Directing protests at the national anthem or the American flag crosses the line of proper debate by casting the country itself as a negative object. And when the flag is burned, it implies a desire to destroy the country for which it stands. There are those who do want to see that happen, but they are a minority even among those who criticize current policy. Those who want to play a constructive role in making America a better place need to consider what is the appropriate way to do so and not allow themselves to be drawn into the illegitimate mob of anti-Americans. If we don’t stand for and by our country, we will be dragged down by our enemies.


ABOUT WILLIAM R. HAWKINS

William R. Hawkins, a former economics professor and Congressional staffer, is a consultant specializing in international economics and national security issues. He is a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis, of the Conservative-Online-Journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

RELATED VIDEO: President George H.W. Bush “New World Order” speech given before the U.S. Congress on September 11, 1991.

Something Stirring in the West? Global rejection of ‘authoritarian liberalism’

Robert Royal on Europe’s immigration crisis: we cannot allow a proper Christian appreciation of welcoming to value all cultures except our own.

In the past week, the Czech Republic elected an anti-establishment billionaire, Andrej Babis, as prime minister. The New York Times called that step a “new threat” to European unity. Accurate, in a way, because there have been several other recent steps in the same direction. The irony in this way of viewing things, however, is that the Times and many of its readers think of the European Union as a kind of Holy European Empire. Europeans and others who see the EU bureaucracy – whatever good the EU may have otherwise done – as arrogant and lacking in “democratic transparency” are viewed as dangerous renegades and “authoritarian.” (Babis’ party ANO, by the way, is an acronym meaning “Action of Dissatisfied Citizens”).

Meanwhile, a day later, in nearby Austria, Sebastian Kurz, a 31-year-old, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Integration (and a practicing Catholic), became prime minister in what the Times called a further “rightward lurch” within “Europe’s new normal.” So strong is the rejection of the open borders and pro-Muslim policies of Europe that voters gave this relatively inexperienced young man (an otherwise strong supporter of the European Union) and other Austrian rightist parties nearly 60 percent of the vote.

Something is stirring in the Old West.

We’re seeing a remarkable if disorganized reaction in the developed world to the ways that what might be called “authoritarian liberalism” has come to dominate us. Trumpism, of course, is the most obvious example. But even in Europe, the place that seems to have gone the furthest down the liberal path, something remarkable is underway.

Brexit, the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, is the least surprising part of these developments. The Brits have only been half-hearted EU members and never entered the monetary union. There’s something in the pragmatic Anglo-American mind that doesn’t sit easy with the kind of irresponsible bureaucracy that has come to dominate Brussels. Lax immigration policies while London has been repeatedly hit by terrorist attacks were the last straw. In a way, Brexit is unfortunate because, as an Italian friend said to me recently, “Without the British we Europeans are mostly just ex-Fascists, ex-Nazis, ex-Communists.”

In France, mother of dirigiste government, with a people used to being managed from Paris, the Front Nationale – once thought too far-right and tainted by earlier anti-Semitism – received one-third of the popular vote in an odd election earlier this year. Emmanuel Macron, the current president, was not so much a popular choice as a tolerable alternative. The Front Nationale may or may not succeed in the future, but a large segment of the French – much larger than the actual pro-FN vote – is seeking for something that will turn back France’s own terrorist threats and, perhaps more importantly, will secure French identity.

Click here to read the rest of Robert Royal’s column . . .

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image taken of the burning Muslim migrant camp in Calais, France known as “the jungle” is by REUTERS/Pascal Rossignol.

Why has Facebook removed this photo titled ‘Victory’?

The featured image titled “Victory” is of a soldier in Raqqa, Syria holding the Polish flag billowing in the wind in his left hand, while holding a burning ISIS flag in his right hand.

This photo was removed from Facebook for violating its “community standards.”

It was one of several photos posted on Facebook by Wrath of Euphrates after the battle to retake the Syrian city of Raqqa, the last strong hold of ISIS. This was a victory for President Trump, the U.S. military and coalition forces. The battle was the demise of ISIS in Syria.

According to Wikipedia:

The 2017 Battle of Raqqa was the fifth and final phase of the Raqqa campaign (2016–2017) launched by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) against the de facto Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) capital in the city of Raqqa. The battle began on 6 June 2017, and was supported by airstrikes and ground troops from the US-led coalition. The operation was named the “Great Battle” by the SDF. The battle concluded on 17 October 2017 with the SDF fully capturing the city of Raqqa. It ran concurrently with the Battle of Mosul, which started six months earlier, as part of an effort by the CJTF–OIR and its allies to strip ISIL of its regional centers of power and to dismantle it as an organization controlling territory.

Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg has come under increasing criticism for his company’s “censorship” of certain groups and causes.

FYI published on Feb 23, 2017 a video of a discussion between Zuckerberg and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Now in October 2017 social media sites are reporting that Facebook is “censoring” those who oppose the Muslim migration to Europe and targeting the nation of Poland.

The International Business Times’s Jason Murdock in a November 6th, 2016 article titled “Poland’s far-right groups protest Facebook ‘censorship’ after social accounts removed” reported:

A number of far-right groups in Poland have carried out a protest outside Facebook’s Warsaw office after the social networking giant blocked their profiles ahead of the nationalist marches scheduled for the country’s Independence Day on 11 November.

Roughly 120 people gathered in Poland’s capital city on Saturday 5 November, publicly accusing Facebook of censoring free speech. Groups at the rally included the National Radical Camp and All-Polish Youth, reported the Associated Press (AP).

The groups in attendance called on Facebook to respect freedom of expression and to abide by the Polish legal system.

According to AP, Krzysztof Bosak of the National Movement said during the rally: “What Facebook does is not in line with our constitutional rights.”

On the social network, a group that claims to “monitor for racist and xenophobic behaviour” published a statement that indicated it was behind the reporting of the far-right profiles – all of which have since been restored.

The social network group that led to Facebook censoring these Polish populist groups is the Center for Monitoring Racist and Xenophobic Behavior. On February 5th, 2017, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported:

Police raided the offices of the Center for Monitoring Racist and Xenophobic Behavior in Warsaw as part of a fraud investigation.

The search Friday came at the request of the Bialystok prosecutor’s office as part of its probe into fraud, counterfeiting of documents and other offenses, Lukasz Janyst, a spokesman for prosecutors in Bialystok, told reporters.

The anti-racism center said on Facebook that it operates legally and accused Poland of “turning into a police state.”

Janyst said the investigation involved the theater opened by the center.

[ … ]

“The Prosecutor’s Office in Bialystok is leading an investigation into the falsification of dozens of documents, making a series of scams and attempted scams that took place in connection with the activities of the Association of Trzyrzecze Theatre based in Warsaw,” and previously based in Bialystok, Janyst said in a statement.

There appear to be various groups that target conservative, populist, anti-immigration and pro-national sovereignty groups and individuals and report them to social media sites like Facebook. Facebook appears to take groups like the Center for Monitoring Racist and Xenophobic Behavior at their word, at least initially.

Nation states like Poland are in Facebook’s crosshairs.

It this wrong? The answer is yes.

Can Facebook do this? The answer is yes.

Should Facebook do this? The answer is no.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Michael Barone: Google and Facebook run for Censors-in-Chief

Facebook Censors His Conservative Posts, Retired Accountant Contends

EDITORS NOTE: This e-Magazine has been repeatedly blocked by Facebook from adding links to our columns to other Facebook pages. The reason given for this blocking is that our re-posting on other Facebook sites, that have befriended us, violates Facebook’s community standards. We have asked repeatedly what community standard(s) we have violated. Facebook has yet to give us an explanation.

Gold Star Widow Natasha De Alencar releases audio from phone call with President Trump

Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar

This video released by a Gold Star widow Natasha De Alencar is especially touching to me because her husband was assigned to the 7th Special Forces Group as indicated by the red shield worn on his black beret. I served in the 7th Special Forces Group in the late 1970s. Each man knew what he signed up for, each man was prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice in defense of the Constitution and the nation.

The Special Forces crest has the Latin phrase “De Oppresso Liber” which translated means “To Free the Oppressed.” The motto of the 7th Special Forces Group is the Spanish phrase “Lo Que Sea – Cuando Sea – Donde Sea” which translated means “Whatever – Whenever – Whatever.” The U.S. Special Forces soldiers are the tip of the spear and they know it.

May God bless and comfort the De Alencar family.

The Washington Free Beacon’s Conner Beck in a column titled “Gold Star Widow on Call With Trump: ‘It Felt Like I Was Talking to Another Regular Human’“reported:

Natasha De Alencar returned home on April 12 after making t-shirts and pillowcases in her husband’s memory when the Army casualty assistance officer told her that President Donald Trump was on the phone for her.

De Alencar’s husband, Army Staff Sgt. Mark R. De Alencar, had been killed during a firefight with Islamic State fighters in eastern Afghanistan on April 8, the Washington Post reported Thursday night.

He left behind five children, one of whom recorded the conversation with Trump.

Trump opened by saying he was sorry about the “whole situation” and called Mark De Alencar “an unbelievable hero.” Natasha De Alencar thanked Trump for the call and told him about her family. She noted that her oldest son, Deshaun, is playing college football at Missouri Valley College in Marshall, Mo. on an academic scholarship.

Read more.

NewsThisSecond Published the full video on YouTube released by Gold Star Widow Natasha De Alencar of her phone call with President Trump.

VIDEO: A Retired Marine Corps Colonel’s Open Letter to the NFL Commissioner

Marine Corps Colonel Jeffery Powers challenges the NFL over their despicable disrespect of the American flag.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Petty Officer 3rd Class Dustin P. McCann shows Marines the proper technique for a fireman’s carry during casualty evacuation rehearsals at the Combine Arms Training Center on Camp Fuji, Japan, Nov. 9. The Marines learned several ways to carry victims to an evacuation helicopter. The Marines and corpsmen are from 3rd Battalion, 12th Marines.

#BoycottSuperBowl2018

NRA Doesn’t ‘Buy’ Politicians, but Gun Controllers Do

The gun control movement often exhibits a dearth of critical thinking skills. Nowhere is this more apparent than in much of the gun control community’s insistence on claiming that NRA has the resources and ability to “buy” politicians.

Whenever gun control enters the national spotlight anti-gun activists and the media level this lazy charge. Editorial pages are replete with cartoons depicting unscrupulous politicians being swayed by NRA cash. Following the tragedy in Las Vegas, the New York Times and Washington Post produced lists of politicians who had received NRA donations. In a recent error-filled monologue, late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel claimed that NRA had some lawmakers’ privates “in a money clip.”

Aside from the silliness of such arguments from a movement that is in large part bank-rolled by a single billionairemore sophisticated observers from across the political spectrum understand that lavish donations to lawmakers is not how NRA influences public policy. In a recent piece addressing this topic, National Review Editor Jonah Goldberg took issue with the Washington Post’s list of NRA donees, which claimed, “Since 1998, the National Rifle Association has donated $4.23 million to current members of Congress.” Putting NRA’s contributions in context, Goldberg explained,

In terms of lobbying and political contributions, the NRA and the gun industry generally spend next to nothing compared with the big players. According to OpenSecrets, the NRA spent $1.1 million on contributions in 2016 and $3 million on lobbying. The food and beverage industry has spent $14 million on lobbying in 2017 alone. Alphabet, Google’s parent company, spent $9 million on contributions in 2016.

Goldberg went on to note,

The simple reality is that the NRA doesn’t need to spend a lot of money convincing politicians to protect gun rights. All it needs to do is spend a little money clarifying that a great many of those politicians’ constituents care deeply about gun rights.

An October 2015 New Yorker article by James Surowiecki came to a similar conclusion. The piece quoted UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, who explained why NRA is able to influence politicians without spending as much as other interest groups, stating, “N.R.A. members are politically engaged and politically active. They call and write elected officials, they show up to vote, and they vote based on the gun issue.”

A few of the more honest gun control advocates acknowledge this reality. In 2016, the president of Global Strategy Group, who was hired to consult for gun control group Americans for Responsible Solution, said to Politico, “[NRA’s] money isn’t that big… It’s not what they do. Their power rests in their stupid postcards and their ability to terrorize members on the Hill and have them panicked about their rating.”

Gun control supporters who peddle the myth about NRA money aren’t only wrong, they are ignoring team gun control’s own sordid history of buying politicians. And forget Michael Bloomberg for the moment, gun control supporters have purchased lawmakers using taxpayer dollars.

In a recently published Daily Beast podcast, Patrick Griffin, who served as assistant to the President for legislative affairs during the Clinton Administration, shed light on how government resources were used to secure votes for the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which included the federal “assault weapons” ban.

Gun control supporters who peddle the myth about NRA money aren’t only wrong, they are ignoring team gun control’s own sordid history of buying politicians. And forget Michael Bloomberg for the moment, gun control supporters have purchased lawmakers using taxpayer dollars.

Explaining how the process worked, Griffin told the interviewer, “The candy store was a little more open back then… There were earmarks. There were things that were in the pipeline that you could loosen up. There were plane rides on Air Force One…. We sold anything.”

Getting more specific, Griffin recalled that in exchange for voting for the crime bill one lawmaker “wanted us to invite him to a state dinner with his daughter.” Clarifying, Griffin added, “But he had no daughter… Yes, he wanted to take his girlfriend.” At another point in the podcast, Griffin recalled acquiring another lawmaker’s vote for the crime bill by getting the Secretary of the Interior to advance the approval process on a Native American casino in the member’s district.

Griffin’s account is similar to one offered in April 2013 by an individual Politico described as “an official with one of the major gun-control groups” following the failed Manchin/Toomey/Schumer background check vote. The gun control official told the publication, “Bribery isn’t what it once was… The government has no money. Once upon a time you would throw somebody a post office or a research facility in times like this. Frankly, there’s not a lot of leverage.”

Sadly, given that mounting evidence of the invalidity of the myth about NRA buying influence hasn’t been enough to deter gun controllers from repeating this fallacy, it’s unlikely that exposing their rank hypocrisy will either.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Everytown and Hollywood Launch New Campaign Against Pro-gun Legislation

Anti-Gun Congresswoman Introduces Magazine Ban, Aims Slippery Slope at the Gun on Your Hip

Anti-Gun Billionaire George Soros Pumps $18 Billion into His Political Apparatus

Bad News For “Universal” Background Check Supporters

Oregon: Governor Signs Anti-Gun Bill into Law

Europe’s New Official History Erases Christianity, Promotes Islam

The new Europe, apparently, will be one that erases Christianity and all its benefits, and bolsters Islam.

That’s according to the talk of the intellectual world, many members of which just met to issue the “Paris Statement,” rejecting “the false Christendom of universal human rights” and the “utopian, pseudo-religious crusade for a borderless world.”

Here, German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere proposed a new policy that embraces and recognizes the Muslim holidays as part and parcel of Europe-wide celebrations.

Europe is undergoing a massive fight for cultural identity, and as certain intellectuals would have it, Islam — not Christianity — is going to be the religion that guides.

The Gatestone Institute reports:

A few days ago, some of Europe’s most important intellectuals — including British philosopher Roger Scruton, former Polish Education Minister Ryszard Legutko, German scholar Robert Spaemann and Professor Rémi Brague from the Sorbonne in France — issued “The Paris Statement”. In their ambitious statement, they rejected the “false Christendom of universal human rights” and the “utopian, pseudo-religious crusade for a borderless world”. Instead, they called for a Europe based on “Christian roots”, drawing inspiration from the “Classical tradition” and rejecting multiculturalism:

“The patrons of the false Europe are bewitched by superstitions of inevitable progress. They believe that History is on their side, and this faith makes them haughty and disdainful, unable to acknowledge the defects in the post-national, post-cultural world they are constructing. Moreover, they are ignorant of the true sources of the humane decencies they themselves hold dear — as do we. They ignore, even repudiate the Christian roots of Europe. At the same time they take great care not to offend Muslims, who they imagine will cheerfully adopt their secular, multicultural outlook”.

In 2007, reflecting on the cultural crisis of the continent, Pope Benedict said that Europe is now “doubting its very identity”. In 2017, Europe took a further step: creating a post-Christian pro-Islam identity. Europe’s official buildings and exhibitions have indeed been erasing Christianity and welcoming Islam.

One kind of official museum recently opened by the European Parliament, the “House of the European History”, costing 56 million euros. The idea was to create a historical narrative of the postwar period around the pro-EU message of unification. The building is a beautiful example of Art Deco in Brussels. As the Dutch scholar Arnold Huijgen wrote, however, the house is culturally “empty”:

“The French Revolution seems to be the birthplace of Europe; there is little room for anything that may have preceded it. The Napoleonic Code and the philosophy of Karl Marx receive a prominent place, while slavery and colonialism are highlighted as the darker sides of European culture (…) But the most remarkable thing about the House is that.as far as its account is concerned, it is as if religion does not exist. In fact, it never existed and never impacted the history of the continent (…) No longer is European secularism fighting the Christian religion; it simply ignores every religious aspect in life altogether”.

The Brussels bureaucracy even deleted the Catholic roots of its official flag, the twelve stars symbolizing the ideal of unity, solidarity and harmony among the peoples of Europe. It was drawn by the French Catholic designer Arséne Heitz, who apparently took his inspiration from the Christian iconography of Virgin Mary. But the European Union’s official explanation of the flag makes no mention of these Christian roots.

The European Monetary and Economic Department of the European Commission then ordered Slovakia to redesign its commemorative coins by eliminating the Christian Saints Cyril and Methonius. There is no mention of Christianity in the 75,000 words of the aborted draft of the European Constitution.

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, of Angela Merkel’s ruling Christian Democratic Party, recently suggested introducing Muslim public holidays. “In places where there are many Muslims, why can’t we think about introducing a Muslim public holiday?”, he said.

“The submission is moving ahead,” replied Erika Steinbach, the influential former chair of the Federation of Expellees — Germans expelled from various Eastern European countries during and after World War II.

Beatrix von Storch, a leading politician from Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), just tweeted: “NO! NO! NO!”.

De Maizière’s proposal shows that when it comes to Islam, Europe’s official “post-Christian” secularism is simply missing in action.

A few weeks ago, a European Union-funded exhibition, “Islam, It’s also our history!”, was hosted in Brussels. The exhibition tracks the impact of Islam in Europe. An official statement claims:

“The historical evidence displayed by the exhibition – the reality of an old-age Muslim presence in Europe and the complex interplay of two civilisations that fought against each other but also interpenetrated each other – underpins an educational and political endeavour: helping European Muslims and non Muslims alike to better grasp their common cultural roots and cultivate their shared citizenship”.

Isabelle Benoit, a historian who helped design the exhibition, told AP: “We want to make clear to Europeans that Islam is part of European civilisation and that it isn’t a recent import but has roots going back 13 centuries”.

The official European establishment has turned its back on Christianity. The establishment appear unaware of the extent to which the continent and its people still depend on the moral guidance of its humanitarian values, especially at a time when radical Islam has launched a civilization challenge to the West. “It is simply a problem of a packing that tends to fill a ‘void’”, just wrote Ernesto Galli della Loggia in the Italian daily newspaper Il Corriere della Sera.

“It is impossible to ignore that behind the packing are two great theological and political traditions — that of the Russian Orthodoxy and Islam — while behind the ‘void’ there is only the fading of the Christian consciousness of the European West”.

That is why it is hard to understand the “logic” behind the official European animosity toward Christianity and its attraction to a basically totalitarian Islam. Europe could easily be secular without being militantly anti-Christian. It is easier to understand why thousands of Poles just took part in a mass protest along Poland’s borders to voice their opposition to “secularization and Islam’s influence”, which is exactly the same as the official crazy EU credo.

During the Second World War, the Allies avoided bombing Brussels, because it was to be the site of European rebirth. If the European elite continue with this cultural repudiation of their Judeo-Christian-Humanistic culture, the city could be its grave.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

The Value in Being Unreasonable

Paraphrasing my buddy, British playwright George Bernard Shaw, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world, the unreasonable man adapts the world to himself; therefore, all progress is dependent upon the unreasonable man.”

Jesus Christ was unreasonable enough to think that by challenging the social and class norms of his day, he could draw all men unto God; Samuel Cornish and John B. Russwurm, the founding editors of the Freedom’s Journal, were unreasonable enough to fight the vicious stereotypes about freed and enslaved Africans using the Black Press nearly 40 years before the Civil War; Martin Luther King, Jr. was unreasonable enough to believe that, through non-violence, he could melt the hatred in mankind.

Because of their unreasonableness, all four of the above-mentioned people had a global impact on the world, with their effects still being felt to this very day.

In a similar manner, President Trump, Steve Bannon, Congressman Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), Congressman Ken Buck (R-Colo.) and Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), will have a similar impact, specifically on the Black community.

Transformative change rarely comes from expected quarters.

Jesus Christ was a lowly carpenter; Cornish and Russwurm were upstart journalists; King was a wanna be preacher plucked out of obscurity. Yet, their lives are still relevant to our world long after their deaths.

Trump’s presidential campaign was all about transformative change and totally upending the status quo and the establishment, globally.

Trump shifted the conversation about the Black vote from, “Will he get any Black votes?” to “How many Black votes will he get?” This type of paradigm shift is a marketer’s dream.

Trump’s recently departed senior adviser, Steve Bannon, is likewise transforming the Republican conversation about engagement with the Black community from “Why bother?” to “Let’s work together on common goals.”

A few weeks ago, I took about twenty, very successful Black and Hispanic entrepreneurs, some of them hard-left Democrats, to meet with Bannon, and without exception, they all expressed their willingness to join forces with Bannon to focus on creating a more conducive economic environment for the small and minority business community to thrive in. I will have a major announcement in this regard coming soon.

Reps. Gosar, Buck, McMorris Rodgers and I have all become fast friends based on a common belief that the Republican Party needs to do a much better job cultivating relationships within the Black community, especially with Black entrepreneurs.

They, along with their respective staffs, went all in with their support last month of my 527 Super PAC’s first annual economic policy forum. Black Americans for a Better Future gathered one hundred top Black entrepreneurs from across the country under the theme, “A Republican Vision for Creating Opportunities for Black Entrepreneurs.”

Gosar and Buck’s respective chiefs of staff, Tom Van Flein and Ritika Robertson, were invaluable in making our event a great success. Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers sent her staffer, Rachel Barkley, to announce to our group that she [McMorris-Rodgers] wanted to begin a long-term conversation with these minority entrepreneurs and invited us to work with her, as a member of House leadership, to actively be part of the legislative process on the president’s tax reform bill.

Barkley, along with her office colleagues, Molly Drenkard and Nate Hodson have been such a joy to work with. We will have a major announcement to make with their office by the end of this week.

The fascinating thing about Gosar, Buck, and McMorris Rodgers is that even though they don’t have many Blacks in their congressional districts, they recognize that recruiting more Blacks into the Republican party is incredibly important and the right thing to do; and it’s also good for America.

So, while many are looking for change to come out of Republican institutions like the Republican National Committee (RNC); the transformative change that Blacks are screaming for will more than likely come from the likes of Gosar, Buck, and McMorris Rodgers.

The reason they will be at the forefront of this change is because they are unreasonable people. They also encourage their respective staffs to be just as unreasonable as they are.

They are unreasonable enough to ignore people like famed Republican pollster Frank Luntz, who never misses an opportunity to pontificate about the futility of even paying attention to the Black vote.

So, to my readers, don’t believe the hype from the media and “establishment” Republicans about people like Bannon or Corey Lewandowski, Trumps former campaign manager, that they somehow are bad people.

Remember, these same establishment folks said Ronald Reagan would never be president nor would Donald Trump. These same consultants who go from losing campaign to losing campaign never will see any value in the Black voter. Their electoral track record proves it.

So, now I have built serious relationships with a group of unreasonable elected Republicans, consultants, staffers, and operatives, who are just unreasonable enough to believe that Black voters have value and are worth cultivating relationships with.

They believe that Black voters should have a voice and input into legislation that effects all Americans and are willing to provide that forum and opportunity.

So, why am I so optimistic? Because, I am very unreasonable.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

Copyright © 2024 DrRichSwier.com LLC. A Florida Cooperation. All rights reserved. The DrRichSwier.com is a not-for-profit news forum for intelligent Conservative commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own. Republishing of columns on this website requires the permission of both the author and editor. For more information contact: drswier@gmail.com.