PODCAST: Unhinged MSNBCers Keep Comparing Trump to Hitler! And more . . .

GUESTS AND TOPICS

GEOFFREY DICKENS

Geoffrey Dickens is the Deputy Research Director at the Media Research Center. He currently writes for all of the MRC’s publications and outlets including MRC.org, Newsbusters.org, Notable Quotables and has contributed to past projects including MediaWatch and MagazineWatch. He also authored the MRC’s Outgunned Special Report that examined the media’s bias against gun rights. Dickens has made several appearances on radio talk shows around the nation.

TOPIC: Unhinged MSNBCers Keep Comparing Trump to Hitler

SETON MOTLEY

Seton Motley is the president of Less Government, an organization dedicated to, well, less government. Including protecting the First Amendment from governmental assault. He is a writer, television and radio commentator, political and policy strategist, lecturer, debater, and activist.

TOPIC: The Left Is Confused

TRACY BEANZ

Tracy Beanz is an investigative journalist who places a strong focus on politics. While writing for UncoverDC, she has brought the intricate details of several major stories to light, including corruption between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Andrew McCabe, who threatened the NY Office of the FBI during the Clinton Email investigation. Tracy has also worked at a high level on several grassroots political campaigns, including Ron Paul’s 2012 run for the presidency, Rand Paul’s first Kentucky senate run, and most recently, the campaign for Donald Trump for President in 2016. In addition editor at UncoverDC.com.

TOPIC: Jeffrey Epstein: What they aren’t talking about!

Did anti-bullyism kill 12-year-old Tristan Peterson?

Psychologists should consider the harm caused by anti-bullying policies.


Thanks to anti-bullying laws, schools are now routinely being sued for the death of bullied kids who commit suicide. Another lawsuit has just made national news, this time against a school in New Jersey which prided itself on having the toughest anti-bullying law in the country.

According to the lawsuit, Tristan Peterson, a boy of 12, committed suicide in 2017 because he was “bullied and harassed repeatedly by his classmates” at Woodruff Middle School in Bridgeton after he came out as gay. As reported by NBC news,

The suit accuses the school, the Upper Deerfield School District and staff of negligence, and of violating the state’s discrimination law, wrongful death and creating a hostile learning environment. Several district staff and the state of New Jersey are also named in the suit, which seeks damages and a jury trial.

Judaism instituted the ritual of Bar-Mitzvah, in which a boy, upon reaching the typical age of puberty–13–has responsibility for his actions transferred from his parents to himself. Thus, it is appropriate to be asking, Who or what killed 12-year-old Tristan Peterson?

The answer provided by anti-bullyism, as reflected in the lawsuit, is his school and the governmental bodies that oversee it.

But could it be that something else is responsible for his death, something no one is considering?

Psychology is a branch of science. The purpose of science is to figure out how nature works and to use that knowledge to solve problems and make the world a better place. The most basic tool of science is questioning. We don’t just assume that our inventions and interventions will yield only positive results. As that magnificent old saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Anti-bullyism is founded on the good intention of creating a society in which no one is made miserable by anyone else. Unfortunately, anti-bullyism has been a grand failure. After two full decades of anti-bullyism being championed by psychology, education and law, bullying is considered a growing epidemic, the suicide rate among young children has been skyrocketing, and lawsuits against schools for failing to make bullying stop are proliferating.

Psychology, as well as all systems of wisdom, advise us to take personal responsibility for the results of our actions–at least when we reach adulthood. Bar-Mitzvah boys are not exempted, and neither should researchers be.

It is high time for researchers to ask why we they failed to conquer the bullying problem and to take responsibility for any harm caused by their policies.

If medical researchers were discovered to be promoting a drug despite knowing that their research finds it to be largely ineffective and often harmful, the researchers would get sued.

Yet many of the leading bullying researchers continue promoting the same policies year after year despite their research showing they are minimally effective and often counterproductive. Because Professor Dan Olweus, the “father” of the psychological field of bullying, insisted that we fight for anti-bullying laws, and because the legions of bullying researchers who treat him with religious reverence have heeded his call, they have created a draconian situation in which schools get sued for the failure of the Olweus-generated policies they foisted upon them.

To accurately locate responsibility for Tristan Peterson’s suicide, we need to think like psychological scientists rather than religious zealots. Suicides by bullied kids have been escalating during the very period that society has been legislating policies against bullying. We would be grievously irresponsible to ignore the possibility that anti-bullying policies have contributed to the rise in these suicides.

Until the sexual revolution enabled by the invention of “the pill,” sexual activity was recognized to be dangerous and was strongly discouraged among teenagers. To this day, we consider reduction in teen sexual activity as a positive development, as reflected in an article in The Atlantic:

To the relief of many parents, educators, and clergy members who care about the health and well-being of young people, teens are launching their sex lives later.

And prior to the gay rights movement, homosexuality was widely considered aberrant or sinful, as it still is in much of the world. A 12-year-old like Tristan would never have announced that he was gay, and unless he had obviously effeminate mannerisms, he wouldn’t have been a target of gay bashing.

In recent decades, schools have been mandated to promote diversity, so they have been educating students from the youngest grades to recognize, accept and appreciate the gamut of sexual preferences and gender identities. Additionally, because of schools’ mandate to eliminate bullying, students have been bombarded with the messages that they have a right to attend school without being bullied and that bullying will not be tolerated.

Thus, Tristan felt encouraged to come out as gay, possibly even expecting the admiration of his peers for his courage.

Then Tristan was hit with reality: children are human beings, not computers that can be programmed to think and act the way social engineers would like them to. Like the rest of us, kids are titillated by the subject of sex, most are biologically attracted to the members of the opposite sex, and despite their indoctrination that all sexual orientations are “normal,” many relate to homosexuality as funny, weird, or even repulsive.

Thus some kids in school made fun of Tristan. He naturally got upset by the taunting, not realizing that getting upset actually fans the flames of taunting.

Tristan and his mother were also taught that they must inform the school about bullying. So that’s what they did. As the NBC article reports:

The boy [Tristan Peterson] and his mother complained multiple times about the bullying, but staff “failed to properly and/or prevent the abusive behavior,” the suit claims, adding, “The defendants had a duty to provide for the safety and security of students.”

What the authorities failed to inform students and parents is that there is no good reason to believe schools can fulfill such a duty. In fact, recent research has confirmed what is obvious even to most teenagers: the kids who get bullied the most are those who inform the authorities the most. But can we blame Tristan and Mrs. Peterson for trusting the school authorities when even the researchers that have discovered this damning correlation continue to advocate for informing?

Informing the school was probably the clincher for Tristan. Kids may enjoy making fun of others for being gay, just as they may enjoy making fun of kids for being fat, skinny, tall, short, red-haired, Black, Jewish or bespectacled. But they don’t necessarily hate them. What truly makes kids hate others and want to hurt them is when they inform on them to the authorities. Examine the news stories about bullying that led to serious violence or suicide. You will discover that the tragedies almost always occurred after the school was informed of the bullying.

Imagine what it’s like to be Tristan. First the adult authorities instruct you to be proud of your sexual orientation, and that other kids are required to treat you with respect for it. Then you discover it was a lie, and you get repeatedly ridiculed for coming out. Then you trust the authorities’ promise that they will solve your problem if you inform them, only to discover that that they lied to you about this as well, and your life has become an absolute nightmare. You see no way out of your misery. Is it any wonder that so many bullied kids resort to suicide out of desperation?

And how about the lawyers suing schools? Do they really believe their accusations? Haven’t they discovered that when people complain about each other to the authorities, that’s when they really want to kill each other? But truth is not the concern of lawyers. Their aim is to earn money representing their clients. Fortunately for lawyers, the anti-bullying laws psychologists fought for have given them a new revenue stream by assaulting schools.

But scientists are not lawyers and money is no excuse for being unethical. Our goal is to find the truth no matter how politically incorrect the truth may be.

Until we psychological scientists consider the hypothesis that the anti-bullying policies we promote can be responsible for the death of kids like Tristan, we will continue to anguish over the sky-high youth suicide rate, and schools will continue being sued for our own irresponsibility.

Closing note: Does this mean there is nothing to be done about kids getting ridiculed for being gay? Not at all. Good psychology can help. First, they can be taught that their sexual orientation is a private matter which they need not disclose to anyone other than their person of romantic interest. Second, they need to be warned not to inform the school when kids pick on them unless they are certain the school has a reliable way of making them stop.

Third, and most importantly, they deserve to be taught what to do when kids make fun of them for being gay (or for any other reason). The way they respond will determine whether their peers end up despising or admiring them.

COLUMN BY

ISRAEL C. ‘IZZY’ KALMAN

Izzy Kalman is the author and creator of the website Bullies2Buddies.com and a critic of the anti-bully movement.

VIDEO: ‘Moderate’ Fatah to Trump: ‘Shove the deal up your… ‘We’ll declare a war only Allah can extinguish’

The talk about Allah extinguishing wars is derived from one of the Qur’an’s innumerable denunciations of Jews: “And the Jews say, ‘The hand of Allah is chained.’ Chained are their hands, and cursed are they for what they say. Rather, both his hands are extended; he spends however He wills. And that which has been revealed to you from your Lord will surely increase many of them in transgression and disbelief. And We have cast among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. Every time they kindled the fire of war, Allah extinguished it. And they strive throughout the land corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters.” (Qur’an 5:64)

Once again we see a “Palestinian:” organization framing its opposition to peace in Islamic terms. Once again all mainstream analysts ignore this aspect of the conflict.

“Fatah: ‘Trump… shove [the deal] up your [ass]’ or ‘we’ll declare a war only Allah can extinguish,” by Nan Jacques Zilberdik and Itamar Marcus, Palestinian Media Watch, February 9, 2020:

Abbas’ Fatah posted a video threatening US President Trump that Palestinians will launch a war that “only Allah will be able to extinguish” if Trump continues to promote his peace plan. Fatah’s video ended with the words: “Trump… roll up [the deal]… and shove it up your ‘ass’.”

“We’ll redeem Palestine with blood… Over our dead bodies, we won’t let it pass, and if you want to overstep my limit, Trump, we’ll blind you; and if you want war – we’ll declare it and only Allah will be able to extinguish it. We’ll drive your Israel crazy and turn it upside-down. Trump, gather up this deal quickly, fold it and roll it up, you idiot, put it in the center, and shove it up your ‘ass’ (lit. in Arabic “tinak” meaning “your mud”, a play on the word “tizak” meaning “your ass”).”

[Official Fatah Facebook page, Feb. 4, 2020]

Thursday and Friday’s four terror attacks against Israelis in which 14 were wounded didn’t appear out of nowhere. Palestinian Media Watch has documented that the PA and Fatah continuously encourage Palestinians to see the use of violence and terror as a legitimate and even the preferred way to “resist the occupation” and “the deal of the century.” Accordingly, they have urged Palestinians to fight and die as “Martyrs” in response to Trump’s peace plan.

The following is the full text of the video:

Palestinian poet Adnan Balawneh: “We’ll redeem Palestine with blood, it’s not a toy you can play with, and it’s not your father’s inheritance, you idiot, so that you can divide it and give it as a gift, and nonchalantly hold your summit and summon the traitors to you. At whose expense do you flatter and placate Zionism, and sign, sell, and give [it] as a gift? Is it your land or did you find it? I’ll tell you something on my behalf, and my entire people says this: Listen to us, you worthless man, open your ears, this deal will never pass! This deal will never pass! This deal will never pass!

Over our dead bodies, we won’t let it pass, and if you want to overstep my limit, Trump, we’ll blind you; and if you want war – we’ll declare it and only Allah will be able to extinguish it. We’ll drive your Israel crazy and turn it upside-down. Trump, gather up this deal quickly, fold it and roll it up, you idiot, put it in the center, and shove it up your ‘ass’.”

Text on screen: “Shove it up your ‘ass’”

In the expression “shove it up your ‘ass’,” the poet used the word “tinak” in Arabic, which means “your mud” and rhymes with the word “tizak” meaning “your ass.”

[Official Fatah Facebook page, Feb. 4, 2020]…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Ex-Qatari PM: Israel and Gulf states to sign non-aggression pact soon

Sweden: Muslim migrant gets 75 hours community service for rape of 13-year-old girl

France: Teen hunted for criticizing Islam moves to new school “to allow her to continue her life”

Belgium: Two Catholic universities to offer programs to train Muslim imams

India: Director of Malala biopic gets death threats, fatwa for poster of her seeming to hold Qur’an next to a blast

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Jewish Harvard Club member says Muslim Harvard prof called her a whore and bruised her arm

And she was expelled from the lecture. That’s the state of academia today.

“Jewish Harvard Club member assaulted during pro-Palestinian lecture, lawsuit says,” by Kathianne Boniello, New York Post, February 8, 2020 (thanks to the Geller Report):

A Jewish member of the Harvard Club claims she was assaulted by a professor during a pro-Palestinian lecture at the swanky venue — and then was booted by the Ivy League institution.

Vanesa Levine is suing to get reinstated to the prestigious Midtown club, whose notable present and past members include Michael Bloomberg, John F. Kennedy and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Levine, 28, a marketing manager in Brooklyn, said she was a newly minted member of the 154-year old club when she and her mom attended a February 2019 lecture called, “The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine” by Rashid Khalidi, a former press officer for the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

She said she “peacefully” asked during a question-and-answer session how Mideast peace could be achieved if Palestinians are taught “to support terrorism against Jews and Israelis.”

The audience erupted in “mob-like” fury at her query, according to the lawsuit.

Harvard finance professor Faris Mousa Saah, 53, called her a whore in Arabic and grabbed her by the arm, bruising it as he tried to take the microphone, according to court papers.

“I’ve been to hell and back ever since the Harvard Club incident,” Levine told The Post.

Though she was eventually able to ask her questions, Levine and her mom, who was born and raised in Israel, were asked by security to leave — with angry audience members following them into the hall, photographing her and chanting, “We’re going to get you expelled,” she charges.

Once on the sidewalk, Levine filmed herself talking about the incident and posted it to Facebook, where the video was viewed more than 50,000 times.

Saah later claimed he had feared Levine would hurt Khalidi and that she had been “aggressively and maniacally” dancing around with the microphone, according to court papers….

“I don’t remember having been at the lecture,” Saah told The Post. “There’s not a single word of accuracy in any of that,” he said of Levine’s charges.

A spokeswoman for the Harvard Club claimed Levine “disrupted a Club program. She was subsequently removed from membership in accordance with the Club’s bylaws.”

RELATED ARTICLES:

France: Teen hunted for criticizing Islam moves to new school “to allow her to continue her life”

Belgium: Two Catholic universities to offer programs to train Muslim imams

India: Director of Malala biopic gets death threats, fatwa for poster of her seeming to hold Qur’an next to a blast

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Top Picks of the World’s Deadliest Guns

There are guns that everybody has heard of and there are guns that nobody wishes to encounter in real life. Naturally, we don’t talk about Glock or Makarov handguns – you’ll soon see that those are babies compared to what we’re about to present you.

Namely, today we’re going to talk about some of the deadliest guns in the world, as well as about the features that make them so deadly – besides the fact that they can be used to hunt any kind of game and not fail the hunter, ever!

  • Accuracy International AS50 Sniper Rifle

This particular rifle is made from a lightweight titanium frame and a floating barrel and can fire .50 BMG rounds – five of them in roughly 1.6 seconds!

The gun itself weighs around 14kg and is manufactured by Accuracy International Ltd., a British firearm producer. Why is it on our list?

Well, it has an effective range of 1800m and a caliber of 12.7mm. On top of that, it is specially designed to hit long-distance targets with increased precision and accuracy.

  • M4 Carbine

Naturally, we couldn’t have a top of the world’s deadliest guns without mentioning the M4 carbine. This particular model is a shorter version of the M16. However, the M4 comes with the same firepower as the traditional assault rifles.

As such, given its portability and firepower, it is known as a very dangerous and effective firearm. It can fire up to 950 rpm and has an effective range of 500m.

  • Desert Eagle Mark XIX

Even though we said that handguns won’t have an entry in this article, we can’t ignore the almighty Desert Eagle!

It was first produced in 1982 and it is a semi-automatic, gas-operated handgun with an effective range of 200 meters.

The most recent model, namely the Mark XIX, can be chambered for different cartridges. The largest – and probably the deadliest for a handgun – is the .50 AE. Obviously, Mark XIX can kill with a single shot.

  • Heckler and Koch HK416 Assault Rifle

The HK 416 model is an assault rifle believed to be a modernized version of the M4. It comes with an effective range of 600 meters and fires 5.56mm rounds.

Speaking of rounds, the assault rifle can fire up to 900 rounds per minute – an aspect that is both impressive and deadly. Obviously, the cartridge size and the sheer power of this Heckler and Koch gun make it one of the deadliest in the world!

  • Kalashnikov AK-47

The infamous AK-47 is known as one of the most used weapons during the Second World War. It can fire up to 580 rounds per minute and has an effective range of up to 800 meters.

Nowadays, the AK-47 is extremely popular due to its weight, as well as its incredible effectiveness in various weather conditions. After all, the Kalashnikov is known as the weapon that can be fully submerged in water and still work seconds after.

Moreover, it is one of the cheapest guns to manufacture – as it contains only eight moving parts.

  • FN FAL

The FAL, also known as Fusil Automatique Leger, is a battle rifle known as the most dependable gun that the military uses.

The weapon features a gas-operated action and can fit 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges. In terms of power, it can fire up to 700 rounds per minute when set on fully automatic – however, due to its very strong recoil, FAL users avoid this particular model.

The FAL is known by many as one of the most widely used guns in history – with more than 2 million units produced since its creation.

  • Uzi

The Uzi is, without any doubt, a rather curious entry on this list of the world’s deadliest guns. However, most of you probably already know that one should never underestimate the Uzi.

This small weapon is capable of firing up to 600 rounds per minute – on top of that, it packs accuracy as well, besides sheer firepower. Moreover, due to its size and weight, it’s the preferred weapon when it comes to personal defense – used by either military personnel or criminals.

  • DSR-Precision DSR 50 Sniper Rifle

Last but not least, it’s time we talked about another sniper rifle – but a more powerful one than our previous entry.

This particular gun is, clearly, one of the deadliest there can be – and here’s exactly why. First of all, it is worth noting that the DSR-precision is manufactured as an ­anti-material rifle. This makes it capable of puncturing vehicles – even armored ones.

It comes with an effective range of 1500m and, as its name implies, fires .50 caliber rounds. Obviously, it is equipped with free-floating barrel technology.

Among some of its peculiar characteristics, we have to mention its rather short length that doesn’t affect the rifle’s power at all. In fact, the manufacturer made it highly adjustable and capable of great precision.

Then, to make it even deadlier, the gun was also equipped with a front holder that decreases the gun’s reloading time!

The Bottom Line

As you can see, a weapon is not deadly simply because it is very large or fires the largest caliber possible – thinking of the Uzi, in this case.

For a weapon to be the deadliest in the world, it must come with firepower and accuracy first. Then, some versatility would be helpful too – for example, there are guns that can be chambered for different bullets.

Then, in the end, it is very important that the gun is made from durable materials and that it’s manufactured properly. As mentioned above, the AK-47 contains only 8 moving essential parts and, because of this, the weather will not affect it at all.

This is, basically, what makes a weapon deadly – the fact that multiple generations can use it without major failure and that you can rely on one even if it sat in your attic for the last five years!

© All rights reserved.

Pelosi Attacks Trump For Protecting American Lives

Does expansion of entry restriction for aliens strengthen or weaken national security?


On January 31, 2020 the Department of Justice issued a press release, Fugitive Wanted by Iraq for Murder of Iraqi Police Officers Arrested in Arizona began with this passage:

A Phoenix-area resident, who is alleged to have been the leader of a group of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Al-Fallujah, Iraq, appeared today before a federal magistrate judge in Phoenix, Arizona in connection with proceedings to extradite him to the Republic of Iraq.  He is wanted to stand trial in Iraq for two charges of premeditated murder committed in 2006 in Al-Fallujah.

The arrest was announced by Assistant Attorney General Brian A. Benczkowski of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Michael Bailey for the District of Arizona.

An Iraqi judge issued a warrant for the arrest of Ali Yousif Ahmed Al-Nouri, 42, on murder charges.  The Government of Iraq subsequently requested Ahmed’s extradition from the United States.  In accordance with its treaty obligations to Iraq, the United States filed a complaint in Phoenix seeking a warrant for Ahmed’s arrest based on the extradition request.  U.S. Magistrate Judge John Z. Boyle issued the warrant on January 29, 2020, and Ahmed was arrested the following day.

Subsequent news reports have indicated that Al-Nouri entered the United States as a refugee some ten years ago, was recently married and has been operating a driving school in Arizona.

That an alleged al-Qaeda terrorist and Iraqi fugitive, wanted for murder would enter the United States gives rise a long list of questions that includes the obvious and disconcerting question- was he here to participate in or support a terror attack?

That Al-Nouri was able to enter the United States as a refugee calls into focus the apparent failure of the vetting process that enabled him to legally enter the United States, provided the allegations made by the Iraqi government about him are true.

In point of fact, for decades, a long list of other terrorists were able to game the vetting process and the immigration benefits program to enter the U.S. and embed themselves in preparation for a deadly terror attack.

This brings us the fact that on the very same day that the DOJ announced the arrest of a suspected terrorists and international fugitive by the FBI, ICE and the U.S. Marshals Service, on January 31st, perhaps coincidentally, The Hill reported, Trump administration restricts travel from Nigeria and five other countries.  Here is an excerpt from that report:

The government will curb the ability of citizens of Nigeria, Myanmar, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Sudan and Tanzania to get certain immigration visas, according to officials with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and State Department, but it is not a blanket travel ban.”Because we have higher confidence that these six countries will be able to make improvements in their system in a reasonable period of time, we did not feel it would be proportionate to impose restrictions on all immigrant and non-immigration visas,” a DHS official said.

The official cited national security concerns as the reason for the restrictions, saying the governments of the six countries do not meet requirements for information-sharing and passport security.

President Trump was expected to sign a proclamation approving the restrictions on Friday afternoon, and it will go into effect on Feb. 22.

The actions of President Trump to tighten up the vetting process for alines entering the United States are, in reality, consistent with standing law and with the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

However, just hours after The Hill reported on the Trump administration’s expansion of the entry restriction for citizens of certain countries, The Hill reported, Pelosi: Trump’s expanded travel ban is ‘outrageous, un-American’ and threatens ‘rule of law’ and began this way:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Trump’s expanded travel ban after he included six other countries to the list of those that will face increased travel restrictions.

“The Trump Administration’s expansion of its outrageous, un-American travel ban threatens our security, our values and the rule of law. The sweeping rule, barring more than 350 million individuals from predominantly African nations from traveling to the United States, is discrimination disguised as policy,” Pelosi said in a statement.

In reality the so-called “travel ban” is actually an “entry restriction” and, far from being illegal is actually one of many authorities provide to the President of the United States to protect national security and public safety.  Nevertheless, Speaker Pelosi falsely and recklessly claimed that somehow the President’s decision to use standing law to control the entry of aliens whose presence would pose a national security threat would do the precise opposite and supposedly threaten national security and the rule of law.

As I have noted in previous articles and testimony, under one of the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Specifically 8 U.S. Code § 1182: (f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President the President has wide-ranging authority to suspend the entry of any and/or all aliens if he determines that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.  The term “detrimental to the interests of the United States” is as low a bar as could be imagined.

Here is that section of the Immigration and Nationality Act:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

This then raises the obvious and unavoidable questions that the mainstream media would never ask Ms Pelosi, how could she claim that is it illegal for the President of the United States to impose a restriction on the entry of aliens, when long-standing federal law provides that very authority to the President?

How does President Trump’s decision to prevent the entry of aliens who might pose a threat to national security threaten national security?

In point of fact, the preface of the official report, 9/11 and  Terrorist Travel begins with this unambiguous paragraph:

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

This is hardly the first time, and I suspect will not be the last time, that Pelosi and her fellow immigration anarchists will attack the President and immigration law enforcement personnel who are dedicated to protecting national security and the lives of innocent Americans.

Indeed, she has frequently alleged that the President has acted “Unconstitutionally” when he insists on securing our nation’s borders against the illegal entry of aliens and/or enforcing our immigration laws.

In anticipation of that bogus claim Ms Pelosi and her fellow radicals should read Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Facts are, indeed, stubborn things!

EDITORS NOTE: This FrontPage Magazine column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Scotland: The Most Popular Name for Rapists is Mohammed by Joshua Winston

The most popular name for male rapists in Scotland is Muhammad (or Mohammed, or variant spellings thereof). You could be forgiven for thinking that in such a land, the most popular names for any kind of criminal might by Angus or Archie or Donald, etc. This is quite an accomplishment by Muslims, whose population density in Scotland is allegedly hovering around the 2% mark. We always see in the newspapers that the most popular boys’ name for any given year in London or England as a whole is Mohammed, but the headline ends there and it doesn’t develop into any kind of substantive story. We’re never told what these Mohammeds come to be known for, or what they achieve. It’s probably because their tales are mostly to do with rape, drugs, and jihad. It wouldn’t do to tell the reader that there’s a new litter of jihadis and jihad enablers growing in our midst.

These Muslim rapists are non-discriminatory when it comes to having their libidos’ needs met. They are not ‘ableist’, to use a ‘woke’ word that has been recently coined by today’s liberals. Oh no, they will rape anyone regardless of physical or mental disability, as in the case of this woman who has Down’s Syndrome. On the plus side, you can rest assured that regardless of your age, race, gender or physical or mental condition, there is a Mohammed out there who will absolutely not be prejudiced or bigoted against you when it comes to having his sex needs met.

Another serial rapist called Mohammad, a father if you please, doesn’t stop to bother with such silly little things as consent. No, he’ll take it wherever he can find it. Lie down for a nap? That’s not a problem for Mohammed. He doesn’t need your permission or your interaction. Seems pretty versatile also, he can rape victims in their houses or his car.

Another family man and father called Mohammed pounced at the chance of luring a teenage girl into his car when he saw her leaving the pub drunk. He raped her and then kicked her into the street half naked. Probably thought he had done her a favour, he’d driven her halfway home after all. Makes me wonder what qualities he is instilling into his own children if that is the way he treats other people’s children.

Escaping life in the ‘open air prison’ that we are told is Palestine was probably too much too soon for this Muslim rapist named Mohammed. He was probably light-headed on the fumes of free Scottish money and free social housing as he raped a sex worker, probably thinking that unlimited non-Muslim women were also included in his asylum application, and that as a Muslim man he did not need to pay the girl.

And over in Falkirk, where Braveheart’s very own William Wallace once fought and was defeated by that most ancient of foes, the English, a ‘burly beast’ of a Muslim named Mohammed raped an underage schoolgirl. These rape wars are not the kind of battles that Scots should be fighting in their historic landscapes. The ‘Battle of Falkirk’ now seems to be one in which schoolgirls fight for their right to keep their virginities intact, and to not be raped in night-time parks by Mohammeds.

These Mohammeds consistently show us that they are industrious and can work as part of a team. Nor are they homophobic, and they show us that they can dispense of their desert ways when they come to civilised lands by using apps on smart-phones. Technology opens up new avenues for these Mohammeds by which they can rape people. These Muslims used the gay app Grindr to arrange meets with gay men in their houses, where they would rape and rob them.

The list is endless, and does not incorporate all of the Mohammeds who have participated in grooming and rape gangs. And the reader should keep in mind that this article has been written with a slightly satirical overtone to it, but it should be read as being appalling. The subject of rape is not a funny one, and it is not my intention to trivialize the act of rape or to mock any victims of sexual assault. I find the over-representation of Mohammeds in Scotland in relation to rape, given their percentage of the population, to be astounding. The fact that no one is curious about this phenomenon is, to my mind, mind-blowing, and it is the people who are ignoring and denying what is going in Scotland whom I am mocking here. No one seems to be connecting the religious and cultural dots. How many more women and children and men need to be raped by more Mohammeds before people start talking about the problem? At this late stage in the game, the wilful ignorance is farcical, and it is my hope that the tone of the article reflects that.

COLUMN BY

RELATED ARTICLES:

Afghan soldier opens fire on his US “allies,” murdering two and injuring six

Hezbollah: The Noose Tightens

Iranian Regime Cracks Down on ‘Indecently Dressed’ Mannequins in Shops

Iran’s Theocrats Mix God and Country

Muslim State Department ex-employee sues Pompeo for $500,000 for discrimination over eye-rolling and dirty looks

Germany: doctor warns female genital mutilation on the rise because of mass Muslim migration

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Dems Propose Radical Immigration Act

A proposed Democrat immigration bill called the New Way Forward Act takes an extreme and radical approach toward immigration to America. If passed, the New Way Forward Act would grant greater rights to illegal residents, including violent criminals, at the expense of taxpaying American citizens.

The legislation is sponsored by 44 House Democrats including Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

In a stunning speech explaining the New Way Forward Act (see video below), host Tucker Carlson singles out the most devastating aspect of the New Way Forward Act:

“The [New Way Forward] bill would entirely remake our immigration system, with the explicit purpose of ensuring that criminals are able to move here, and settle here permanently, with impunity.” – Tucker Carlson

Carlson argues that the New Way Forward Act dwarfs the Green New Deal when it comes to ripping up our laws and traditions by the roots. He adds that while Democrats claim the New Way Forward Act looks to break the “prison to deportation pipelines.” Carlson cautions American voters that these are not individuals in prison over parking tickets; they’re in prison over felony convictions.

The New Way Forward Act forces America to become a sanctuary nation, including for those who have committed violent crimes here or abroad before they came to the United States. Under the law, illegal immigrants are protected from deportation even if they’ve committed sex crimes against children.

“If this bill passes, there will no longer be any crimes that automatically require deportation … A Mexican drug cartel leader could be released from prison, then freely come to America immediately And if he wants, he could come here illegally, and it wouldn’t be a crime.” – Tucker Carlson

Rise of extremist narratives in the American landscape is not a new occurrence, but it being leveraged by lawmakers is a dangerous precedent. In our Preventing Violent Extremism (PVE) Training Program, Clarion Project is vigilant of various forms of extremism.

We are noticing the same pattern of radicalism that exists elsewhere again making its way into U.S. politics. This is in part happening because there isn’t a serious good-faith inquiry by certain leaders into the connective tissue of extremist ideologies.

“Democratic ring-leaders like Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez take a very serious issue like White Supremacy and weaponize it as a political attack against their opponents. They have a responsibility to be tempered, studied, responsive to cracks in society that we have the power to address.

Instead — not that different from recruiters of extremist ideologies — they’re feeding on human vulnerability to push their radicalized world view.” – Shireen Qudosi

Last summer, Clarion Project PVE co-director and a cohort of the USC Civic and Digital Culture Program Shireen Qudosi drew attention to Ilhan Omar’s identity politics as a “gateway drug” to radicalization.

Qudosi called Omar a “failed American experiment,” raising the question of how the U.S. should place value on incoming immigrants and refugees.

At the same time, Tucker Carlson noted that Ilhan Omar is “living proof” that immigration is “dangerous to this country.” He added, “A system designed to strengthen America is instead undermining it. Some of the very people we try hardest to help have come to hate us passionately.”

Some of those people, like Ilhan Omar, are now in positions of power and able to draft and pass extremist laws. The New Way Forward Act would be the most devastating piece of legislation in a century — reinforcing the narrative of a politically radicalized group that sees America as a white supremacists nation.

That view isn’t based on reality, but then again, neither is any other radicalization narrative.

RELATED STORIES:

Majority in new poll says they would not vote for socialist: Gallup

The Interview Ilhan Omar Refused to Accept

AOC Links White Supremacy to Climate Change

Focus on White Supremacist Violence Doesn’t Explain NYC Attacks

Did Free Women Beat ‘World Hijab Day’ This Year?

This year’s World Hijab Day faced stiff competition from the counter movement, “Free From Hijab” and “No Hijab Day.”

World Hijab Day was started on Feb. 1, 2013 by New York resident Nazma Khan. According to Khan’s bio, she promoted a single day of focused awareness to “foster religious tolerance and understanding by inviting women (non-Hijabi Muslims/non-Muslims) to experience the hijab for one day.”

Over the years, the movement got pushback from women’s rights activists who champion the rights of women who are forced to wear the hijab against their will. Their argument is rooted in the idea that the hijab further reinforces an honor/shame dynamic that puts undue pressure and burden on them — not only to control their own representation in the world but also be “responsible” for how others will gaze at them.

In 2018, Canadian human-rights campaigner Yasmine Mohammed started #NoHijabDay joining Iranian journalist Masih Alinejad, who has been the chief campaigner for “Free From Hijab.” Alinejad is the founder of White Wednesdays and My Stealthy Freedom — both of which advocate for women’s rights in Iran and elsewhere to be free from coercion to wear the hijab.

Who Won the Hijab War This Year?

The hashtag #FreeFromHijab was trending on Twitter this February 1, while #WorldHijabDay was not. It was clear who was the winner was: #FreeFromHijab. However, Twitter isn’t the only social outlet; it’s just the social outlet most activists are on.

The place most women and influencers go to is Instagram, where #WorldHijabDay outperformed #FreeFromHijab by a wide margin:

  • #WorldHijabDay yielded 63,495 posts on Instagram.
  • #FreeFromHijab yielded only 730 posts on Instagram.

What’s clear is that there is a world of women outside of the activists’ sphere, and they’re a low-hanging opportunity to reach out to and partner with against forced hijab. To draw in more allies against forced hijab, we will have to be more broad-thinking about how we see the issue.

Well intended as it is, #FreeFromHijab implies that all women wearing the hijab are not free. Of course, that’s simply not true.

Many women cover their hair out of a sense of modesty, while others do it in an increasingly sexualized culture to clearly communicate they’re “not available” for casual sexual encounters. Others wear hijab as a soft protest against the commodification of women’s beauty. Still others wear it as a marker of Muslim identity.

The hashtag #FreeFromHijab works well with people who are already like-minded, but it is not going to draw in a new audience let alone our hijab sisters- in-faith, if we start from the premise that hijab is de facto oppression, or if we confuse all forms of covering as the same as hijab.

To win this war, we can be passionate as human rights activists, but we also have to be accurate and inclusive.

RELATED STORIES:

Iranian Regime Cracks Down on ‘Indecently Dressed’ Mannequins in Shops

US Public School Teacher Threatens Muslim Girl for Taking Off Hijab

Why I’m Sick of Talking About Hijab

Sports Illustrated: Halima Aden Poses in Burkini

At Least 3 Federal Agencies Investigating Ilhan Omar

With President Trump acquitted of impeachment charges, the focus is back on at least three federal agencies investigating Ilhan Omar.

David Steinberg, who has been closely tracking Ilhan Omar’s legal controversies offers a breakdown on the latest investigations against the freshman congresswoman. Steinberg reports that Omar is under investigation by at least three federal agencies: the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Education (DOE) Inspector General, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

  • In 2019, the FBI held a formal meeting to discuss the evidence against Omar. It has since found this evidence compelling enough to share with the other agencies
  • The DOE is evaluating evidence that Omar married a UK citizen in 2009 with the possible intent to commit student loan fraud
  • ICE is looking at the marriage to a UK citizen through the lens of immigration fraud. This is in reference to the widely circulating rumor that Ilhan Omar married her brother

Possible crimes by Ilhan Omar date back to 2016 when there was already enough evidence to formally look into her background. Publicly available state records plus her own social media posts were significant first-hand evidence. Most were saved before Omar began scrubbing the evidence.

Throughout the investigations, Omar has sailed through media scrutiny because she was packaged and presented by liberals as an opportune foil against President Trump.

The most recent controversy around Omar includes accusations that, while married, she is was having an affair with her political consultant Tim Mynett, which resulted in a divorce for the Mynetts. Despite Omar denying the affair, Mynett’s wife pointed to the affair with Omar as grounds for the divorce.

In January 2020, it was also confirmed that 40 percent of Omar’s campaign fourth-quarter spending in 2019 went to Mynett’s political consulting group. Total amount to Mynett at the tail end of 2019 comes out to $216,564.64.

The only media outlets that challenge Ilhan Omar’s identity-based narrative and are doing their job as journalists are independent personalities and outlets. Those include Scott W. Johnson, Preya Samsundar, PJ MediaJudicial Watch, and Laura Loomer.

Omar’s 2020 re-election for Minnesota’s 5th district is being challenged by Dalia Al-Aqidi.

Al-Aqidi represents the same diverse identity markers the Left loves: She’s a refugee; she’s an immigrant; she’s escaped a war zone; and she’s a Muslim American. Dalia is also a journalist, bringing the same grit to the race to challenge Omar on the one thing that matters most: ideas, service to constituents and community.

Clarion Project spoke with Dalia Al-Aqidi on the issue of multiple law enforcement branches looking into Ilhan Omar’s history. Dalia shares,

“While the FBI does its job, I will continue to do my job as a congressional candidate in Minnesota’s 5th district. The constituents need someone to work for them and that’s what I’m doing. I’m here but where is she?”

While the race is on, journalists with integrity like David Steinberg continue to do the heavy lifting that mainstream media outlets have long abandoned in favor of agenda-driven journalism.

As Steinberg warns Americans of Ilhan Omar’s conduct, he underscores that, “The facts describe[d] perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.”

RELATED STORIES:

Ilhan Omar Asks for Protection of a Somali Company Linked to Terror

Dalia Al-Aqidi: The Interview Ilhan Omar Refused to Accept

Ilhan Omar Forces New Conversation Around Somali Refugees

EDITORS NOTE: This Clarion Project column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Trump Budget Cuts Size of Federal Government, but Bolder Reforms Needed

>> Note: This live blog no longer is being updated by Heritage Foundation policy experts.


President Donald Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2021 would reduce the size and reach of the federal bureaucracy significantly by shifting government responsibilities back to constitutional priorities and empowering state and local governments.

These reforms, contained in the request Trump sent Monday morning to Congress, would put the budget on track to balance and represent a significant first step toward reducing spending and stabilizing the nation’s unsustainable debt.

However, the president’s proposal represents a missed opportunity in other areas. Namely, it fails to propose significant reforms to Social Security and health care entitlement programs, the main drivers of spending and debt growth.


In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance. Find out more now >>


The president’s annual budget proposal should serve as a road map to Congress for how the executive and legislative branches can work together to increase individual freedom and economic prosperity for all Americans.

Out-of-control federal spending is a threat to that freedom and prosperity. The president must continue to lead the way and propose bolder reforms that not only will balance the budget in the short term but also put the government on a long-term path to sustainability.

Trump’s budget request would:

1. Cut spending by $4.4 trillion and put the federal budget on a path to balance. The president’s budget includes $4.4 trillion in proposed spending cuts. According to the administration, this is the highest number of spending cuts a president ever has proposed.

In a sign of how unsustainable federal spending has become, even with over $4 trillion in cuts the budget does not balance in 10 years.

The proposal does provide a path to balance though, reducing deficits from nearly 5% of gross domestic product to less than 1% of GDP by 2030. The administration projects a surplus by 2035.

With the gross national debt already surpassing the size of the economy, there is no time to waste. The Trump administration should strive to balance the budget within 10 years.

2. Significantly reduce the federal bureaucracy. Over the past century, the size and scope of the federal government has expanded well beyond the constitutional priorities envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The president’s 2021 budget makes significant progress in reducing the government’s reach and returning power to the people.

The budget proposal includes $1.9 trillion in cuts to nondefense discretionary programs. Much of the nondefense discretionary budget includes waste, duplication, or overlap, or funds programs that have no proper federal role.

To address these problems, the president’s budget proposes a 5% cut to nondefense programs, rejecting the irresponsible Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019. The budget proposes a 2% annual cut from 2022 to 2030.

Nondefense discretionary reforms alone won’t balance the budget, but they will help to ensure that the federal government focuses on truly national needs.

3. Prioritize national defense. The president’s budget proposes $740.5 billion in national defense spending, consistent with the level provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019. This is a $2.5 billion (0.3%) increase compared to 2020.

The budget realizes over $5 billion in savings within the operations of the Department of Defense, which the administration reinvests in higher priorities, such as nuclear modernization, missile defense, and increased readiness.

The security of Americans at home and abroad is perhaps the greatest responsibility of the federal government. Providing appropriated national defense funding should remain a top priority.

What’s Needed in the Budget

To stabilize spending and debt growth, lawmakers must pursue bolder reforms. One area where the president’s budget falls short is in addressing the growth of entitlement spending.

Last month, the Congressional Budget Office projected that annual Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security spending will nearly double in the next decade, consuming 59% of federal revenues by 2030.

Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable and both are on a path to insolvency. The budget should propose fundamental reforms to these programs that will lower costs and return control over health care and retirement needs to the American people.

This proposal does not achieve that goal, providing only modest reforms to health care programs and Social Security’s disability insurance program. It will be impossible to reduce spending and stabilize debt over the long term without reforming entitlement programs.

President Must Lead Way

Trump’s budget would reshape the federal government and refocus it toward constitutional priorities, significantly reducing spending and balancing the budget in 15 years.

Nevertheless, there is much more work to be done. The nation’s long-term debt trajectory is unsustainable and will negatively impact current and future generations.

The president’s budget provides the groundwork to avert that future; however, he must continue to lead Congress toward bigger and bolder reforms.

In the space below, Heritage Foundation analysts dig into some of the specific aspects of the president’s budget request.

Individual Tax Cuts Extended, Other Pro-Growth Reforms Left Out

Trump’s budget proposal would keep taxes from automatically increasing on working Americans, as is currently scheduled for 2026.

By extending the individual tax cuts from 2017, the budget would cut taxes by $1.4 trillion. Keeping taxes low for individuals is rightly a key priority for a taxpayer-focused budget.

But the budget does not include similar protections for new business investments in American workers, which begin to phase out at the end of 2022.

First, let’s look at the individual protections that the budget would extend. These are the same changes that cut taxes for 9 out of 10 taxpayers in 2018 and had significant benefits for Americans in every income group. The average American got a $1,400 tax cut in 2018, or $2,900 for a family of four.

To keep these benefits from reversing, the budget would retain the federal income tax rates at the lower levels, the larger standard deduction, the doubled child tax credit, and the capped deductions for state and local taxes, among many other important reforms.

For businesses and their employees, the budget would maintain the permanently lower corporate tax rate at 21%, down from the 2017 global high of 35%. This stands in contrast to leading Democrats who want to increase the federal business tax rate as high as 42%—about 10 percentage points higher than any other major country.

Paired with lower rates, the most pro-growth reform of the 2017 tax cuts allowed businesses to write off many new investments immediately. These rules for immediate expensing are left out of the budget proposal.

Without the protections of expensing, it will be more expensive for new businesses to open and for mature businesses to upgrade and expand operations—resulting in fewer jobs and slower wage gains. Making expensing permanent is a crucial component of meeting the Trump administration’s target of 3% growth.

As the administration develops a formal proposal for tax cuts 2.0, reforms such as expensing and universal savings accounts are crucial components.—Adam N. Michel, senior policy analyst, Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget

A Flat Future for Defense

The Trump defense budget request follows the cap set by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019, at $740.5 billion. It would be a 0.3% increase over last year’s appropriated defense budget.

This is not enough to cover inflationary cost growth for the coming year, let alone reach the 3% to 5% annual real growth that Defense Secretary Mark Esper stated was necessary to meet the challenges of the National Defense Strategy just last Thursday.

The budget describes some cuts that were made by the Defense Department as it sought to find savings in accounts such as health care or defense logistics. This effort freed $5 billion that had been reinvested in higher priority items such as our nuclear deterrent and cutting-edge technology research.

Hopefully, Congress will support those changes.

The budget also describes essentially a flat trajectory for defense spending in future years, in marked contrast to what was deemed as necessary by multiple secretaries of defense and by the bipartisan Commission on the National Defense Strategy.

In the budget document, defense raises at inflationary levels from fiscal 2021 to fiscal 2025 and then is literally flat until fiscal 2030. A clear disconnect exists between what senior Pentagon leaders have expressed as necessary and what the White House has outlined.

A flat budget for the Defense Department would mean that every year, the department will have to find around $14 billion of savings in order to maintain its purchasing power. Even in the context of a $740 billion budget, it is going to be a tall task.—Frederico Bartels, policy analyst for defense budgeting, Center for National Defense

Optimistic, but Not Impossible, Economic Projections

Fast economic growth and low interest rates are key assumptions that would help the president’s budget proposal balance in 15 years. These projections are certainly optimistic, but not inconceivable in an aggressively pro-growth policy environment.

The assumed average growth rate of 3% is not comparable to other projections, such as the recently released Congressional Budget Office economic forecast of a 1.7% annual growth rate.

CBO assumes that things stay on their current trajectory, taxes increase in 2025, deregulation efforts stop, and federal programs keep growing out of control. The president’s budget assumes many of the opposite policies, and thus can count on better economic conditions.

The assumed growth rates are certainly close to the upper bound of pro-growth optimism, but also represent a simple return to historical trends. Sustained high growth does not follow automatically from enacting the president’s agenda. Many other things outside the control of Washington also must go right.

Economic growth of 3% would be easier to achieve if the budget also included a concrete path to reduce tariffs, quiet trade uncertainty, and extend the business expensing tax reforms set to expire at the end of fiscal 2022.—Adam N. Michel, senior policy analyst, Hermann Center for the Federal Budget

Government Shouldn’t Run Paid Family Leave

The president’s budget calls for more government intervention in paid family leave, extending paid parental leave benefits to all new parents.

The mechanism appears to be small grants to states to help them set up programs that work best for their workforce and economy, but state-level politicians and bureaucrats still are not better equipped than business owners and workers to know what works best for them.

It turns out that employees value flexible work schedules by a margin of 6-to-1 over more paid parental leave. Including other means of granting more flexibility to workers, such as through telecommuting, increases the ratio to 11-to-1.

Although paid parental and paid family leave are valuable, they are not without cost and consequence. Some of those costs and consequences are playing out with existing state-based programs of paid family leave.

Both California’s and New Jersey’s programs increased the unemployment rate and the duration of unemployment for young women. And in California, the program resulted in 7% lower employment and 8% lower annual earnings for mothers, as well as reduced fertility rates.

These programs also are regressive, taxing everyone but primarily benefiting middle- and upper-income earners. In California, workers in the highest income bracket file more than five times as many paid family leave claims as those in the lowest-income bracket.

And although the taxes may start out low, they already have grown and will continue to grow over time. Economists estimate that a national paid family leave program would cost the average worker an extra $1,500 to $2,900 per year in additional taxes.

With tremendous growth in the number of new and expanded employer-provided policies, now is not the time to sideswipe more flexible and accommodating policies with one-size-fits-all, rigid, and bureaucratic government programs.

Most workers and families would prefer to be able to choose how to spend their money in ways that meet their particular needs than to have it taken from them and be told what types of government programs they are eligible to receive. It turns out that although paid parental leave is important to employees, there are better ways to help them balance work, family, and health needs.

The Working Families Flexibility Act would give lower-wage workers the option to accumulate paid time off; universal savings accounts would help families save for all kinds of life events; and fewer regulations would free up business resources to help employers provide paid family leave.

None of these would subject workers and their families to the mercy of government programs and bureaucrats to meet their needs.—Rachel Greszler, research fellow in economics, budget, and entitlements, Hermann Center for the Federal Budget

Education Spending Smartly Trimmed; Tax Credit Scholarship Remains Pitfall

The Trump administration has requested $66.6 billion for the Department of Education, which would be a 7.8% (or $5.6 billion) reduction from the $72.2 billion enacted for fiscal 2020.

Although the proposed reductions are slightly lower than those proposed last year, the top line for the agency goes in the right direction. And overall, the budget would save $124 billion over 10 years through reductions in mandatory program spending at the department.

Moving in the right direction. In the K-12 space, the budget would establish the Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant, consolidating 29 existing programs into a single $19.4 billion formula-funded block grant.

The budget includes few details about the proposed block grant, but the funds would be distributed through the existing Title I formula; states and school districts then could “decide how best to use” funds.. This approach appears to mirror that of the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (APLUS) Act, a longstanding goal of conservatives.

The APLUS proposal, introduced by Rep. Mark Walker, R-N.C., and Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., would allow states to opt out of the existing, labyrinthine structure of Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs, and put their federal K-12 dollars toward any lawful education purpose under state law.

The budget wisely calls for elimination of subsidized student loans (saving $18 billion from 2021 to 2030), along with the elimination of Obama-era public service loan forgiveness (saving $52 billion from 2021 to 2030). It also would cap the Graduate PLUS loan program, saving $27.5 billion over 10 years, as well as the Parent PLUS loan program.

The administration wisely would eliminate Public Service Loan Forgiveness—which passes the tab for public employees’ student loans onto taxpayers after 10 years. But is also would reduce from 20 years to 15 years the length of repayment for undergraduate students under the proposed Income Driven Repayment plan—a step in the wrong direction.

Profligate federal spending through subsidized student loans has fueled tuition inflation, driving up college costs and burdening families. Student loan forgiveness policies have exposed taxpayers to $1.6 trillion in outstanding student loan debt.

This budget recognizes those realities and makes some important course corrections in the right direction. But it should go further in ensuring that no taxpayer should have to pay for someone else’s loan that they didn’t agree to take out.

Policy shortfalls. Although there is much to celebrate in the president’s budget request, one major misstep is the proposed $5 billion Education Freedom Scholarships program, which would cost $45 billion from 2021 through 2030.

This new program would leverage the federal tax code to create a scholarship program for eligible students to attend a private school of choice. As my colleague Adam Michel and I recently wrote:

The administration’s support of school choice is praiseworthy, but a federal tax credit scholarship program poses a threat to education choice in the states, and undermines the goal of a streamlined federal tax code.

Moreover, the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to create such a program, which would establish massive new federal spending and would likely subject private schools to future regulations from an administration and Congress less friendly to education choice.

The budget also includes significant new spending in another area reserved to the states: vocational education. Although career and technical education is an important tool for climbing the ladder of upward economic mobility and pursuing careers in the trades, it is the job of local high schools to provide for vocational classes, not the federal government.

Yet the proposed budget would increase spending by nearly $1 billion on career and technical education “to help ensure that every high school has a high-quality vocational program.” This is despite the fact that 98% of public school districts already offer career and technical education to high schools students.

Finally, over at the Department of Health and Human Services, funding for the failed Head Start program is maintained, and the budget proposes a new $1 billion “investment for states to build the supply of care and stimulate employer investment is child care.” It is long past time for Congress and the administration to restore revenue responsibility for Head Start to the states.—Lindsey M. Burke, director, Center for Education Policy and Will Skillman fellow in education policy

A Critical Reform to School Meals

The budget proposal would fix an egregious and likely unauthorized expansion of school meals to middle-class and wealthy families.

Nearly a century ago, federal lawmakers created the National School Lunch Program to help children in need who couldn’t afford to buy food at school. Yet in 2010, Congress expanded eligibility for school meals through the Community Eligibility Provision, allowing some schools and districts to provide free meals to students from middle-class and wealthy families.

As if this weren’t bad enough, the Department of Agriculture then improperly interpreted the provision to allow even more schools to provide free meals to children who are not in need.

The Community Eligibility Provision allows schools or districts to offer “free” meals to all students if 40% or more of the students in the school or district are eligible for means-tested welfare programs such as food stamps.

The Agriculture Department has gone beyond the scope of the law and is allowing districts to group schools together in order to meet this 40% threshold.  As a result, a district could group a school that doesn’t enroll a single student from a low-income family with another school that does have a high percentage of children living in poverty. If together these two schools meet the 40% threshold, the school without a single low-income student can provide free meals to all of its students.

The budget proposal clarifies that districts cannot group schools together in this way. Each school would have to meet the 40% figure to participate in the Community Eligibility Provision.

If this change is made, children in need would still be able to access free and reduced-priced meals, but the federal government will begin the process of returning these school meals to the original purpose: helping children from low-income families.Jonathan Butcher, senior policy analyst, Center for Education Policyand Daren Bakst, senior research fellow in agricultural policy, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

Protecting Private Union Pensions Without Taxpayer Dollars

The president’s budget once again calls for protecting workers with multiemployer—or union—pensions by keeping the government entity that provides pension insurance, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, solvent for at least the next 20 years.

The PBGC’s multiemployer program it expected to run out of funds to pay insured benefits in just five years, at which point workers could receive mere pennies on the dollar in promised benefits.

At stake is a massive $638 billion shortfall between what private sector employers and unions promised to their workers and what they actually set aside to pay them. Of the roughly 11 million workers with multiemployer pensions, more than 75% are in plans that are less than 50% funded.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation provides a backstop to pension losses, but its revenues are nowhere near sufficient to provided needed benefits.

The president’s fiscal 2021 budget calls for an additional $26 billion in the PBGC’s multiemployer program premiums, including adding a risk-based component to discourage plans from overpromising and underfunding.

Notably, this is an $8 billion increase from last year’s proposed $18 billion increase to accomplish the same goal of keeping the PBGC solvent for another 20 years. That increase came despite Congress’s unprecedented bailout for the United Mine Workers of America’s $6 billion in broken pension promises, a large portion of which otherwise would have been the PBGC’s liability.

This dramatic one-year increase emphasizes the high price of failing to enact commonsense multiemployer pension reforms. The longer congress waits, the higher the risks of another taxpayer bailout become.—Rachel Greszler, research fellow in economics, budget and entitlements, Hermann Center for the Federal Budget

Reforming Agricultural Subsidies

Once again, the Trump administration should be commended for trying to bring commonsense reform to agricultural subsidies.

The budget request explains: “The budget proposes to maintain a strong safety net for farmers while achieving savings by: eliminating subsidies to higher-income farmers; reducing overly generous crop insurance subsidies to producers and companies; and eliminating some programs that have no federal purpose or are duplicative.”

Proposed reforms include:

—Limiting the crop insurance premium subsidy for farmers to a reasonable and more defensible number. Currently, taxpayers pay on average 62% of the federal crop insurance premiums for farmers.  The budget would maintain a very generous subsidy, but reduce it so that taxpayers would on average pay 48% of premiums. Congress should embrace this widely supported bipartisan reform.

The Government Accountability Office has recommended this reform and the Congressional Budget Office listed reducing premium subsidies as one of its options to reduce the deficit. (The CBO option would be more ambitious, lowering the subsidy to 40%). This change would save about $21 billion over 10 years.

—Limiting specific subsidies to agricultural producers with an adjusted gross income of less than $500,000. This change still would allow subsidies to go to producers who are doing very well financially (as measured by adjusted gross income), but would bring some limits to the federal government’s generosity with taxpayers’ money.

As explained in the budget:

The budget proposes to eliminate premium subsidies, commodity payments, and conservation program eligibility for farmers with AGIs [adjusted gross incomes] over $500,000. It is hard to justify to taxpayers why the government should provide assistance to farmers with incomes over half a million dollars. Doing so undermines the credibility and purpose of farm programs. In 2013 (a year of record-high farm income), only 2.1% of farmers had AGIs in excess of this amount.

Additional reforms in the budget proposal include tightening payments limits, eliminating loopholes, and ending excessive assistance to crop insurance companies.—Daren Bakst, senior research fellow in agricultural policy, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

Preserving the Health Care Safety Net

The president’s budget highlights the need to preserve and protect the health are safety net for those who need it. The Medicaid program, which serves the most vulnerable in our society, is overstretched and overburdened.

Right now, 1 in 5 Americans use Medicaid, and federal and state spending on the program is nearing a trillion dollars. This creates significant pressure on federal and state budgets, squeezes other important priorities, and leaves those on the program at risk.

The budget builds upon current administrative actions and lays out additional reforms for the Medicaid program. Specifically, it highlights new efforts to provide states with additional flexibility to care for those with mental illness, recommends new measures to ensure only those eligible for the program are enrolled, and extends welfare work requirements to the Medicaid program to continue to help Americans move up and out of poverty.

These policies are headed in the right direction. The budget recognizes the importance of instituting changes that will improve the management and oversight of the program. It also recognizes, through its broader health reform vision, that more should be done to meet the needs of those who need it most.—Nina Owcharenko Schaefer, senior research fellow, Health Policy Center

Reducing the Cost of Prescription Drugs

The president’s budget rightly calls on Congress to address high prescription drug costs. Government policy contributed to this problem through flawed regulations and subsidies that drive up costs.

The budget would address these flawed policies by supporting bipartisan congressional reforms to the successful Medicare prescription drug benefit. The Heritage Foundation has outlined a road map with details of such reforms, which would provide relief for patients and taxpayers.

At the same time, policymakers must reject heavy-handed solutions, such as those proposed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, because they would limit access to lifesaving medicines and impede access to new cures.

Lawmakers should focus on addressing the underlying problems in public programs rather than layering on additional administrative and regulatory schemes such as international reference pricing.—Edmund F. Haislmaier, Preston A. Wells Jr. senior research fellow in domestic policy studies

Strengthening the Medicare Program

The president’s budget will strengthen Medicare by providing for a more rational payment system, improving choices and care options for America’s seniors, and combating the waste, fraud, and abuse that has historically plagued the program.

Trump is proposing to change the way Medicare pays for medical benefits services and procedures. Currently, Medicare reimburses medical services performed at hospitals at a higher rate than the rate paid to physicians or clinics providing medical services outside of the hospital setting. Under the president’s proposal, the Medicare payment for several procedures or services would be the same regardless of the setting of the care delivery.

Long championed by The Heritage Foundation, this change to the “site neutrality” payment system not only would reduce excessive costs but also create a level playing field between hospitals and other care delivery systems. This would strengthen competition and increase physician independence while expanding choices and lowering costs for Medicare patients.

From 2021 to 2030, these site neutrality proposals—for post-acute care, hospice care and care in physician offices—are projected to save an estimated total of $270.3 billion.

With these and other Medicare payment adjustments, the administration estimates that the total set of Medicare changes would extend the life of the Medicare hospitalization trust fund for the next 25 years. Under current law, the Medicare hospitalization trust fund faces insolvency in 2026.

The president’s budget also includes several proposals to expand the choices of Medicare patients. The proposed budget would allow Medicare beneficiaries with high-deductible health plans the right to make tax-free contributions to health savings accounts and medical savings accounts.

In accord with another longstanding Heritage Foundation policy recommendation, the president’s budget also would allow Medicare beneficiaries the right to choose a comprehensive private health plan, if they wish to do so instead of enrolling in the Medicare hospitalization program (Part A), without losing their Social Security benefits.

Moreover, in an effort to strengthen cancer screening, Trump’s budget would end coinsurance requirements for Medicare patients who undergo colonoscopies with polyp removal.

The president’s budget also includes initiatives that he offered last year, including significant reforms of graduate medical education and uncompensated hospital care payments. To beef up the administration’s continuing campaign to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare program, the budget would provide an additional $13.7 billion to that effort over 10 years.—Robert E. Moffit, senior fellow, Health Policy Center

Shrinking Energy Cronyism, Unleashing Energy Abundance

Similar to the Trump administration’s previous budgets, the proposal for fiscal 2021 would shrink the federal government’s unnecessary meddling in energy markets.

The president’s budget also proposes to repeal special tax credits for renewable energy technologies, which eliminate a major source of government favoritism in energy markets and relieve taxpayers of a $16 billion burden over 10 years.

The budget also would eliminate energy loan programs—in particular the Title XVII loan guarantees for “advanced technologies” and the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loans. These programs put taxpayers’ money at risk, leading to notorious bankruptcies such as Solyndra, and the current underwriting of the multibillion-dollar Vogtle nuclear reactors in Georgia. These programs distort risk and private-sector investments, not to mention that the government shouldn’t be an investor in energy projects anyway.

The budget also would reduce spending in applied research and development energy programs.  Whether it’s basic or applied, taxpayers shouldn’t foot the bill for activities best left to innovators and private investors.

In contrast to some calls to nationalize more of the energy sector, the president’s proposal would sell off transmission assets of the Power Marketing Administrations—four quasi-federal electric utilities serving the South and West. It also would reduce their access to taxpayer-subsidized borrowing authority and require them to sell power at market rates.

These are good stepping stones to privatizing these assets—something the Reagan and Clinton administrations both recommended and was done successfully under Bill Clinton with the Alaska Power Administration.

Importantly, the Trump administration would continue to right- size burdensome regulations that have tied up energy development in years of red tape.  As the president’s budget emphasizes:

Energy companies across the world are ready to build in our nation, and permitting reform that cuts red tape shows that we welcome their investments. My administration continues to support growth in the energy sector by removing unnecessary regulations and unleashing America’s vast natural and human resources.

The administration’s commitment to open access to America’s wealth of energy on federal lands is a welcome reversal from the previous administration’s “keep it in the ground” mentality.— Katie Tubb, senior policy analyst for energy and environmental issues, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studiesand Nicolas Loris, deputy director, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Herbert and Joyce Morgan research fellow

Yucca Mountain: Complicated Invitation to Reopen Debate

Up to now, Trump’s budgets have requested just enough funds to finish the licensing review of a repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Tonopah, Nevada.

But for 10 years, Congress has failed to either to pass legislation or appropriate funds so the administration could follow the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which designates Yucca Mountain as a national repository.

This negligence has cost constituents $8 billion in lawsuits already—exactly what the law was designed to prevent—and is on track to cost tens of billions more in the years to come.

So, the president’s frustration is deeply merited.

Unfortunately, the administration’s budget request does not include funds to finish the license review of a potential repository at Yucca Mountain. Instead, it proposes $27.5 million to begin an “Interim Storage and Nuclear Waste Fund Oversight” program.

Importantly, the administration cannot strike out on its own to develop new policy; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is quite clear that the administration cannot pursue an interim storage program without progressing on a permanent waste repository. The courts swatted down the previous administration’s attempt to disregard the law unless and until Congress changed it.

Finishing the Yucca Mountain review is a relatively small step that would inform decisions, no matter what long-term nuclear waste disposal options ultimately are pursued. It does not inescapably commit Congress to building the repository without further appropriations—something Congress has been quite adept at withholding.

It also would let the voices of all Nevadans be heard. Most of the state’s congressional delegation opposes a Yucca Mountain repository. But funding completion of the review, and review only, is consistent with their demands for a thorough process with state input, and for further adjudicating concerns in a formal setting that the Department of Energy must address.

Despite this noticeable absence, the budget proposal also assumes the nuclear waste fee—an arbitrary fee on nuclear power plants set by the Department of Energy—will be reinstated in fiscal 2023. But this fee is one of the deep, fundamental flaws plaguing nuclear waste management policy that need to be reformed.

Trump is right to want to look for solutions, and his budget provides an opportunity to reopen the conversation. Nuclear waste management policy and the roles of industry, states, and the federal government need to be reimagined. The first step is finishing the review of Yucca Mountain.

Ultimately, a real solution comes from giving the nuclear industry responsibility and introducing market forces into waste management solutions.—Katie Tubb, senior policy analyst for energy and environmental issues, Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

Wrong Way on Transportation

The president’s budget envisions a significant increase in federal spending on infrastructure, proposing $1 trillion in funding over 10 years. This is the wrong way to improve the nation’s roads, bridges, and other valuable physical assets.

Federal involvement makes infrastructure projects more expensive, more time consuming, and more vulnerable to political manipulation.

For example, federal spending on mass transit far exceeds its actual use by Americans when compared to highways. However, congressional Democrats historically have demanded that transit receive a too-generous amount of funding as a percent of overall transportation spending. Trump’s budget does nothing to meaningfully change this politically driven calculation.

Although the administration has made progress on regulatory reform such as the “One Federal Decision” rule and streamlining the National Environmental Policy Act, this does not change the fact that the federal government is a cumbersome and inefficient partner for infrastructure projects.

Red tape such as the Davis-Bacon Act and project labor agreements drive up costs by forcing state government contractors to pay union wage rates and use union-style work rules. The process of submitting proposals for federal subsidies delays the start of projects that normally should be the sole responsibility of state and local governments.

Just as important, more federal activity would crowd out private infrastructure activity. Private financing avoids many wasteful federal regulations and reduces the burden on taxpayers.

It is vital to understand that there are only two ways to pay for spending increases: more taxes or more debt. The president’s budget does not call for a gas tax increase or a new transportation revenue source, which means that the infrastructure proposal reduces the amount of deficit reduction in the budget.

Rather than increasing the federal infrastructure role, Congress and the administration should go the opposite direction. A policy of reducing the federal gas tax, lowering infrastructure spending, and further eliminating red tape would enable more activity and value from state and local governments and the private sector, enhancing America’s prosperity.—David Ditch, research associate, Hermann Center for the Federal Budget

Waste Cut in Higher Education, but New Repayment Options Leave Taxpayers on Hook

The president’s budget takes meaningful steps in reducing or eliminating wasteful spending on higher education. Most notably, changes to the federal student loan program such as eliminating Public Service Loan Forgiveness, ending subsidized loans, and placing caps on both the Parent and Graduate PLUS loan programs meaningfully insulate taxpayers from risky loans made by the Department of Education.

The president’s budget also calls for consolidation of loan repayment plans into one income-driven repayment plan. Although the overly complicated federal student loan repayment options are badly in need of simplification, the budget proposes reducing the number of years a student must pay off their loans from 20 years to 15 years for undergraduate students. The remaining balance after that time would be “forgiven” and absorbed by taxpayers.

This moves federal policy in the wrong direction. Instead, the budget should prioritize insulating taxpayers from the financial risk for students who are unable to pay off loans.

However, the budget’s constraints on duplicative or ineffective higher education programs is praiseworthy. The budget puts guardrails in place to reduce improper payments in the Pell Grant program. Additionally, it calls for eliminating the redundant Federal Supplemental Education Opportunity Grants, as well as reducing funding for the federal TRIO and work-study programs.

Such programs have little evidence of success, at significant cost to American taxpayers.—Mary Clare Amselem, policy analyst, Center for Education Policy

Defending Free Speech on Campus

The administration’s budget proposal draws national attention to the repeated shout-downs, disinvitations, and other forms of censorship on college campuses.

The proposal says that colleges that receive federal research grants “must adhere to the requirements of the First Amendment to the Constitution,” a reminder for schools that allow students to shout down invited lecturers or chase the college president off a stage that such actions interfere with and may even violate individuals’ freedom to listen and be heard.

Last year, the president raised the profile of this issue with a broadly worded executive order. Similar to the language in the budget proposal, the order said colleges that receive federal grants should “promote free inquiry” and enforce the First Amendment.

Although both the budget and the executive order appropriately emphasize that disruptive protests threaten expressive rights on campuses around the country, Washington should be careful with any additional actions. The Department of Education should not enlarge the federal footprint in higher education by assuming new investigative responsibilities.

Generally, state policymakers and university governing boards are responsible for public university systems. Policymakers around the country are taking action to protect speech when college administrators fail to do so.

State officials in AlabamaArizonaGeorgiaNorth Carolina, and Wisconsin have adopted provisions that reinforce the rights of anyone lawfully present on a public college campus. The provisions are based on the idea that individuals and groups should be allowed to protest or demonstrate in publicly accessible areas (such as on sidewalks or lawns).

Furthermore, public university leaders should be prepared to impose consequences on individuals—including students—who violate someone else’s right to speak while closely adhering to due process protections for the accused. Such policies already are having their intended effect: In Wisconsin, one group of protesters said the university’s new policies prevented them from shouting down a speaker in 2017.

The Justice Department should continue to defend free speech on campus through statements of interest in appropriate cases. In 2018, after the group Speech First filed a suit against the University of Michigan over the school’s so-called Bias Response Team, the department issued a statement saying the university’s policy “chills protected speech.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued a ruling with a similar statement, and the school settled with Speech First and revised its policies.

The White House should emphasize that public colleges must protect the First Amendment, but officials should beware of the potential for unintended consequences from federal administrative actions. State policymakers should guard expressive rights on campus and direct public college governing boards to adopt proposals that do the same.—Jonathan Butcher, senior policy analyst, Center for Education Policy

COMMENTARY BY

Justin Bogie is a senior policy analyst in fiscal affairs at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump’s Budget Totals $4.8 Trillion, Projects Deficits Until 2035


A Note for our Readers:

This is a critical year in the history of our country. With the country polarized and divided on a number of issues and with roughly half of the country clamoring for increased government control—over health care, socialism, increased regulations, and open borders—we must turn to America’s founding for the answers on how best to proceed into the future.

The Heritage Foundation has compiled input from more than 100 constitutional scholars and legal experts into the country’s most thorough and compelling review of the freedoms promised to us within the United States Constitution into a free digital guide called Heritage’s Guide to the Constitution.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET ACCESS NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Attorney General William Barr Vows Lawsuits And ‘Significant Escalation’ Against Sanctuary Jurisdictions

Attorney General William Barr vowed Monday to escalate the fight against sanctuary jurisdictions and announced a round of lawsuits that target states and localities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

The top attorney for the Trump administration announced that the Department of Justice (DOJ) would be slapping several states and localities with lawsuits over their sanctuary policies while delivering remarks at the National Sheriffs’ Association in Washington, D.C., on Monday. DOJ later on announced complaints with California; New Jersey; and King County, Washington, over various policies that hinder the work of federal immigration authorities.

The moves were the latest in the Trump administration’s escalating crackdown against sanctuary jurisdictions across the country.

“This evening, I am announcing further actions the Department of Justice will take to protect the American people and allow for the proper and lawful functioning of our nation’s federal immigration system,” Barr said Monday while giving his address.

Barr announced that the DOJ was filling a complaint against New Jersey for a directive that limits what information state and local law enforcement can share with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The directive — an order the attorney general of New Jersey launched in 2018 — also forbids local and state law enforcement from participating in ICE operations and includes other restrictions.

The GOP attorney general also said his department would file a complaint with King County, which encompasses the liberal city of Seattle, for not allowing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to use the King County International Airport to remove illegal aliens ordered to be deported from the U.S.

The DOJ isn’t stopping there. Barr said his department will be conducting reviews of sanctuary jurisdictions across the country

“Further, we are reviewing the practices, policies and laws of other jurisdictions across the country,” he said. “This includes assessing whether jurisdictions are complying with our criminal laws, in particular the criminal statute that prohibits the harboring or shielding of aliens in the United States.”

Shortly after his address, the DOJ announced the two lawsuits against New Jersey and King County. Additionally, the department lodged a complaint against California that challenges a state law, A.B. 32, which prohibits the operation of private detention facilities. Barr said the law was intended to forbid the detention of aliens in its state.

“Today is a significant escalation in the federal government’s efforts to confront the resistance of ‘sanctuary cities.’ But by no means do the efforts outlined above signify the culmination of our fight to ensure the rule of law, to defend the Constitution, and to keep Americans safe,” Barr said.

“We will consider taking action against any jurisdiction that, or any politician who, unlawfully obstructs the federal enforcement of immigration law,” he added. 

The lawsuits follow DHS revocation of Trusted Traveler Programs for New Yorkers in response to the state barring DMVs from sharing information with ICE and Custom and Border Protection (CBP). ICE has also begun issuing subpoenas for information with jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal officials.

COLUMN BY

Jason Hopkins

Immigration and politics reporter. Jason Hopkins is a sci-fi reader, runner, coffee addict and an immigration reporter for the Daily Caller News Foundation.

RELATED ARTICLES:

A NYT Writer Said Trump’s Immigrant Crime Stories Were ‘Bogus’ – Then DHS Provided Him Examples

Barr: Justice Department Handling Giuliani’s Ukraine Information With Caution

Bill Barr Shocks Entire Nation – He Just Signed The Order

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.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 of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

FAITH: We Are All Spiritual Beings Having a Human Experience [Video]

“You are not a human being in search of a spiritual experience. You are a spiritual being immersed in a human experience.” – Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ, French idealist philosopher, paleontologist and Jesuit priest.

“This is the way.” – The Mandalorian

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” John 14:6


Faith

I came across a Bent Tree Bible video of an 11-year old boy named Josiah Willis proclaiming Jesus Throughout the Bible.

Watch:

After listening to Josiah I began thinking about how Jesus has touched my life and that of my family. I began thinking about how there are people in the world who are of the world and not of the spirit of Jesus who is the Son of God. I began thinking about what makes mankind different from any other creature on this earth – FAITH!

I began thinking that every human has faith in something or someone. But not faith in the most important thing, faith in our innate spiritual being.

After watching the Universal Pictures film “1917” all I could think of is how it was a profile is courage. I also felt that Hollywood may have returned to an era where courage, faith and manhood reigned supreme.

After watching the Disney+ Channel’s Mandalorian I took note of their creed, “This Is The Way.” I also noted a quote from the Mandalorian Armorer who said:

“A foundling is in your care. By Creed, until it is of age or reunited with its own kind, you are as its father. This is the way!”

As the longtime pastor of Houston’s First Baptist Church John Bisagno wrote:

Faith is the heart of life. You go to a doctor you know little about. He gives you a prescription you cannot read. You take it to a pharmacist you have never seen. He gives you a medicine you do not understand and yet you take it.

So it is with Jesus. You know you must take his medicine in order to be well, to be fulfilled. That medicine is called FAITH. FAITH has the power to heal everything both spiritual and physical.

The Holy Bible is the Book of Life

There is nothing that has been written, put on film, discussed on television, radio or on the internet that has not already been told or foretold in the Holy Bible.

If you want to understand how not to live your life. If you want to understand how to live your life you must read and understand the Holy Bible. As John 10:10 notes:

The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

We are all humans of “the way.” There is a good way and a bad way. God gave all His spiritual beings the ability to choose their own way. Like the Mandalorian sometimes the way is cast upon us, and it becomes our destiny.

As Neeraj Singhvi, from the Temple of Destiny wrote:

“God has devised ways for all of us to live, but it is for us to choose how.”

Jesus was born for a cause, a way, greater than any before or since his crucifixion. His death gave us all the way to life everlasting if we just will embrace it by faith in Him. Jesus had FAITH in his Father.

John 3:16:

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Belief requires faith. Have faith and you will receive the greatest gift ever given to mankind.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Liberty and the Claims of Truth

Ten Movies Earn an American Values Award for 2019

VIDEO FROM JEWS CHOOSE TRUMP: ‘The Best is Yet to Come’

Jews Choose Trump sent out the following comments and  video titled The Best is Yet to Come in an email:

We Support Trump because We Love America

We do not usually send out videos, but this one so well expressed our love of America and why we support President Trump for re-election, we decided to share it…

Hat tip to Joe M who posted this video on YouTube.

© All rights reserved.

Iowa: Muslims unite behind Bernie to screams of ‘Allahu Akbar’

He is close to Linda Sarsour. He hates Israel. He wants to drastically weaken the U.S. He uncritically buys into the victimhood propaganda. What’s not to like?

“US election 2020: At one Iowa mosque, almost all caucus votes went to Bernie Sanders,” by Ali Harb, Middle East Eye, February 4, 2020 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

“Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar.” The Muslim call for prayer, known as adhan, echoed through the Muslim Community Organization in Iowa as voters stood in a registration line outside the prayer hall, waiting to attend the Democratic Party’s caucuses at the mosque.

Rows of worshippers, surrounded by campaign signs, performed evening prayer before the electoral process began late on Monday.

The Muslim Community Organization was one of five mosques in the Des Moines area to turn into a caucus site, as the Democratic Party kicked off its contest to pick the nominee who will try to unseat President Donald Trump in November.

“This is truly a historic moment for you as Muslims in Iowa and Muslims across the country,” Ghazala Salam, president of the Muslim Caucus of America, told voters midway through the process.

“They’re watching you. You’re laying the path forward on how Muslims should be engaging in the political process in this country.”

Near unanimous support for Sanders

In caucuses, participants vote publicly by standing – or sitting in the case of the mosque – in a designated area for the supporters of their favoured candidate. The procedure also involves convincing other caucus-goers to join one’s group.

But there wasn’t much wooing to be done at the Muslim Community Organization on Monday.

Almost all caucus-goers were supporters of Senator Bernie Sanders.

When the caucus chair asked Sanders’ supporters to sit in an area to the left of the mihrab – a hollow section in the wall that points towards Mecca – every attendee moved towards that section.

The initial vote was: 115 for Sanders, two for Andrew Yang, two for Elizabeth Warren and one for Pete Buttigieg….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Next Democrat Gambit: Trump Too Crazy to Be President

Georgetown University’s Hamas-linked Bridge Initiative wants to re-litigate trial of Hamas-linked charity

RELATED VIDEOS:

Christ Matthews on Socialism.

Bernie’s Commie Craze

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.