VIDEO BY: ‘The Unsilent Minority’ on Leaving the Democratic Party #WalkAway

The Unsilent Minority posted the commentary and video below on its Facebook page:

Today I’m kicking off the #WalkAway campaign by releasing my video about why I am walking away from liberalism and the Democratic Party. It is my sincere hope that you will join me in this campaign and that we may start a movement in this country- which not only encourages others to walk away from the divisive left, but also takes back the narrative from the liberal media about what it means to be a conservative in America. It is up to all of us to make our voices heard and reclaim the truth.

The Democratic Party has taken for granted that it owns racial, sexual, and religious minorities in America. It has encouraged groupthink, hypocrisy, division, stereotyping, resentment, and the acceptance of victimhood mentality. And all the while, they have discouraged minorities from having independent thought, open dialogue, measured and informed opinion, and a motivation to succeed.

Please like and share my video, and please post your own #WalkAway video!! If you are a former liberal who has walked away from the left, please share your story, or your message, or your thoughts in a video on the WalkAway Campaign Facebook Page.

If you are a lifelong conservative or non-Democrat, please share your story, message, or thoughts on what it truly means to be a conservative. Right now, the liberal media continues to perpetuate a false narrative about the “hateful” and “bigoted” right. Use your voice to let people know who conservatives really are. Be sure to use the hashtag #WalkAway.

The Unsilent Minority wrote:

Since my video was released 3 weeks ago I have gained over 20,000 followers. And yet, the#WalkAway Campaign group Page has less than 4,000 members. And of that less than 4K members- probably about 10 have created #WalkAway videos. The purpose of this campaign is not only to provide encouragement and support for people on the left were ready to walk away, but for people on the right to change the narrative that has been stolen by the left about what it means to be a conservative. It’s an opportunity for the silent majority to become unsilent and tell minorities on the left that they are welcome on the right. 

Are you waiting for somebody else do do it for you? Are you more worried about how you look on video than you are about losing America? 

If the blue wave comes, and America is lost, will you be happy that you didn’t speak up???

Is There Emerging Support For Trump Tariff Policies Toward China?

I was on an ABC panel last night debating President Trump’s tariff policies with a Democratic politician and a left-of-center university economist when something very interesting emerged: They both agreed that China is a bad player in trade and that it should be forced into more fair trade with the U.S.

All three of us agreed on a major Trump policy. That left the moderator a bit bewildered, and for good reason. It’s a pretty amazing development considering getting agreement on the sky being blue is nearly impossible in today’s environment. But just as surprising and largely uncovered, it is supported by a substantial majority of Americans, if you move past the media spin.

An April poll by Luntz Global Partners found that 62 percent of Americans agree with Trump’s attempt to use tariffs, believing that the risks are worth it to get better trade deals. That includes more than one-third of Democrats and a huge majority of Republicans.

“Voters don’t buy the ‘fear-factor’ that jobs are at-risk, instead agreeing that Trump’s tariffs are both ‘necessary,’ and in the words of Senator Sherrod Brown, ‘long overdue,’” said Alyssa Salvo, president of Luntz Global Partners. Brown is a Democrat from Ohio — a state that stands to gain a lot from better trade policies with China.

Showing a more shrewd understanding of tariffs than a lot in the media, the Luntz poll found that 56 percent of Americans expected that the tariffs would have some negative effects — because of course they will, short-term, at least on consumers on certain products.

The media insists that Trump’s tariffs are launching a terrible and dangerous trade war and wonder why Republicans no longer support free trade. As I mentioned at that point on the ABC panel, we do not have free trade with China and have not for decades. Too many presidents paid minimal lip service to the Chinese tariffing cars at 25 percent among most other products, blackmailing American companies to give up trade secrets to enter the Chinese market and just flat out stealing American technology.

They have not been a trade partner, but a trade enemy.

Trump has rightly identified this problem that a broad cross-section of Americans also identify, and is trying to fix it, of which Americans also largely approve. President Obama didn’t really give a fig about American industry; his attention was elsewhere focused on destructive identity politics and socialized health care.

What is surprising is that perhaps a growing number of Democrats (not in Washington, that’s a lost cause) are coming to see the problem with China. Only forceful actions will change it. Talk alone will not.

Tariffs are neither good or evil. They just are. If they are used to protect certain industries or companies in perpetuity, then they are bad. China does that as well as several European Union countries and Canada — just on much smaller scales than China. But if tariffs are used as a short-term leveraging tool  — particularly when done by the bigger importing country — then they are good.

Of course, the U.S. can and likely will win any trade skirmish with China, or Europe, for that matter. Remember, the U.S. is not just the biggest economy, its the biggest shopper — by far. That means in every trade war with countries with which we have a trade deficit, we have the upper hand in a tariff war. The bigger the deficit, the bigger the upper hand.

The U.S. has the largest trade deficit with China, by far, and China cannot come close to matching us tariff for tariff because they already have high tariffs that have kept a lot of U.S. companies out. Which means, their companies and economies get hurt much more than ours, because they have largely been either gaming the system or downright cheating.

This emerging reality has one more meaning: It’s good politics. Tariffs on steel, cars can help heavy manufacturing states, particularly in those that Trump swung from the Democrat column, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. There may be a mix of short-term pain and gain, but should be long-term gain. And it demonstrates he’s actually fighting for blue-collar American workers, voters that identity-poisoned Democrats have walked away from.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured image is by Gage Skidmore / CC BY-SA 2.0.

SPLC Settles for Intolerance

You know a radical sea change is underway when the headline of the Washington Post is: “The Southern Poverty Law Center Has Lost All Credibility.” But a change is exactly what this week’s bombshell demanded after the SPLC admitted to a gross defamation of character. One of the few, unfortunately, that it’s actually being held accountable for. Marc Theissen is the latest to take the extremists at SPLC to task after including a Muslim reformist on its list of anti-Muslim radicals. Much to SPLC’s chagrin, Maajid Nawaz wasn’t about to sit back and watch the labeling affect his fundraising and personal safety — as the group’s false smear campaigns have done to others. He sued, insisting (rightly) that, “They put a target on my head. The kind of work that I do, if you tell the wrong kind of Muslims that I’m an extremist, then that means I’m a target.”

That’s not a situation, as Theissen points out, to take lightly. “In 2010, it placed the Family Research Council (FRC) — a conservative Christian advocacy group that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage — on its “hate map.” Two years later, a gunman walked into the FRC headquarters with the intention to ‘kill as many as possible and smear the Chick-fil-A sandwiches in victims’ faces.’ He told the FBI that he had used the SPLC website to pick his target.”

After being linked to two shooters (including SPLC Facebook fan and congressional baseball gunman, James T. Hodgkinson), you’d think the mainstream media would get the hint. The FBI, U.S. Army, and Obama Justice Department did, backing away from the group’s resources after complaints that it was simply smearing individuals and organizations who didn’t agree with SPLC politically. Finally, that practice of reckless labeling came back to haunt them. SPLC was forced to fork over nearly $3.4 million in a legal settlement to Nawaz, but the price to its legitimacy is much steeper.

“Unfortunately, the settlement that the SPLC reached with Nawaz is not likely to deter it from smearing others — $3.4 million is a drop in the bucket for the center, which raised $132 million between November 2016 and October 2017 and has a $477 million endowment, including a reported $92 million in offshore accounts. Sliming conservatives is big business.

The only way to stop the SPLC is if people stop giving it money and the media stop quoting it or taking it seriously. The SPLC once did important work fighting the Ku Klux Klan. But when it declares Maajid Nawaz, the Family Research Council, Ben Carson and Charles Murray as moral equivalents of the Klan, it loses all integrity and credibility.”


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

After SPLC Apology, Conservative Groups Demand Media “Dissociate” From Radical Leftist Group

Media Separated from Reality at Border

Victory Is Sweet for Colorado Baker

VIDEO: McCain’s Subcommittee Staff Director Urged IRS to Target Conservative Groups

Little is as unnerving as trouble with the IRS, especially if you haven’t done anything wrong. That happened repeatedly during the Obama administration, as his IRS enthusiastically targeted conservative groups.

We’re now understanding why the Congress didn’t do much of anything about it.

We just released internal IRS documents revealing that Sen. John McCain’s Former Staff Director and Chief Counsel on the Senate Homeland Security Permanent Subcommittee, Henry Kerner, urged top IRS officials, including then-director of exempt organizations, Lois Lerner, to “audit so many that it becomes financially ruinous.”  President Trump, presumably unaware of these new facts, appointed Kerner as Special Counsel for the United States Office of Special Counsel.

The explosive exchange was contained in notes taken by IRS employees at an April 30, 2013, meeting between Kerner, Lerner, and other high-ranking IRS officials. Just ten days following the meeting, Lois Lerner admitted that the IRS had a policy of improperly and deliberately delaying applications for tax-exempt status from conservative non-profit groups.

Lerner and other IRS officials met with select top staffers from the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in a “marathon” meeting to discuss concerns raised by both Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that the IRS was not reining in political advocacy groups in response to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Senator McCain had been the chief sponsor of the McCain-Feingold Act and called the Citizens United decision, which overturned portions of the Act, one of the “worst decisions I have ever seen.”

In the full notes of an April 30 meeting, McCain’s high-ranking staffer Kerner recommends harassing non-profit groups until they are unable to continue operating. Kerner tells Lerner, Steve Miller, Nikole Flax, then chief of staff to IRS commissioner, and other IRS officials, “Maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous.” In response, Lerner responded that “it is her job to oversee it all:”

Henry Kerner asked how to get to the abuse of organizations claiming section 501 (c)(4) but designed to be primarily political. Lois Lerner said the system works, but not in real time. Henry Kerner noted that these organizations don’t disclose donors. Lois Lerner said that if they don’t meet the requirements, we can come in and revoke, but it doesn’t happen in a timely manner. Nan Marks said if the concern is that organizations engaging in this activity don’t disclose donors, then the system doesn’t work. Henry Kerner said that maybe the solution is to audit so many that it is financially ruinous. Nikole noted that we have budget constraints. Elise Bean suggested using the list of organizations that made independent expenditures. Lois Lerner said that it is her job to oversee it all, not just political campaign activity.

We previously reported on the 2013 meeting. Senator McCain then issued a statement decrying “false reports claiming that his office was somehow involved in IRS targeting of conservative groups.” The IRS previously blacked out the notes of the meeting, but we found the notes among subsequent documents released by the agency.

We separately uncovered that Lerner was under significant pressure from both Democrats in Congress and the Obama DOJ and FBI to prosecute and jail the groups the IRS was already improperly targeting. In discussing pressure from Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat-Rhode Island) to prosecute these “political groups,” Lerner admitted, “it is ALL about 501(c)(4) orgs and political activity.”

The April 30, 2013 meeting came just under two weeks prior to Lerner’s admission during an ABA meeting that the IRS had “inappropriately” targeted conservative groups. In her May 2013 answer to a planted question, in which she admitted to the “absolutely incorrect, insensitive, and inappropriate” targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups, Lerner suggested the IRS targeting occurred due to an “uptick” in 501 (c)(4) applications to the IRS but in actuality, there had been a decrease in such applications in 2010.

On May 14, 2013, a report by Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration revealed: “Early in Calendar Year 2010, the IRS began using inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status” (e.g., lists of past and future donors). The illegal IRS reviews continued “for more than 18 months” and “delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications” in advance of the 2012 presidential election.

All these documents were forced out of the IRS as a result of an October 2013 Judicial Watch Freedom of Information (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the IRS after it failed to respond adequately to four FOIA requests sent in May 2013 (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (No. 1:13-cv-01559)). Judicial Watch is seeking:

  • All records related to the number of applications received or related to communications between the IRS and members of the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate regarding the review process for organizations applying for tax exempt status under 501(c)(4);
  • All records concerning communications between the IRS and the Executive Branch or any other government agency regarding the review process for organizations applying for tax exempt status under 501(c)(4);
  • Copies of any questionnaires and all records related to the preparation of questionnaires sent to organizations applying for 501(c)(4) tax exempt status and;
  • All records related to Lois Lerner’s communication with other IRS employees, as well as government or private entity outside the IRS regarding the review and approval process for 501 (c)(4) applicant organizations.

The Obama IRS scandal is bipartisan – McCain and Democrats who wanted to regulate political speech lost at the Supreme Court, so they sought to use the IRS to harass innocent Americans. The Obama IRS scandal is not over. We continue to uncover smoking gun documents that raise questions about how the Obama administration weaponized the IRS, the FEC, FBI, and DOJ to target the First Amendment Rights of Americans.

JW Sues for Mueller Deputy Andrew Weissmann’s Text Messages

This week we learned that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein hid from Congress a text message by FBI official Peter Strzok declaring that Trump wouldn’t become President:

“No. No he’s not. We’ll stop it.”

The highly partisan Strzok became a lead player in Robert Mueller’s Russian collusion investigation of Donald Trump. Also, and still, in the lead is Andrew Weissmann, a senior deputy for Special Counsel Robert Mueller and a former chief of the Justice Department criminal Fraud Division.

Now the question is: What was Weissmann saying about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton? We will find out.

Our legal team just filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit asking the court to compel the Department of Justice to produce “all text messages to or from DOJ official Andrew Weissmann” regarding President Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-01356)).

We sued after the DOJ failed to respond to our December 15, 2017, FOIA request for:

  • All text messages sent to or from DOJ official Andrew Weissmann regarding Donald Trump and/or Hillary Clinton between August 8, 2016 and the present.
  • All calendar entries, whether in physical or electronic form, for Weissmann from January 1, 2015 to the present.

We’re not at all surprised that the Justice Department didn’t respond, given its deplorable record of transparency.

Weissmann’s objectivity in Mueller’s investigation was called into question in December 2017 when a separate JW FOIA lawsuit uncovered an email Weissmann wrote praising former acting Attorney General Sally Yates for defying Trump on enforcement of the President’s so-called travel ban.

Weissmann wrote to Obama appointee Yates in the email: “I am so proud. And in awe. Thank you so much. All my deepest respects.” President Trump fired Yates over her refusal to defend the policy. Yates was appointed by President Obama and was serving in an acting capacity as Attorney General for President Trump.

Also in December 2017, the Wall Street Journal reported that Weissmann had been in attendance at Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election night party. According to the Washington Post, Weissman contributed more than $4,000 to the Obama Victory Fund in 2008 and $2,300 to the Clinton campaign in 2007.

Weissmann, described by The New York Times as Mueller’s “pit bull,” is the lead prosecutor in the Mueller team’s case against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.

Weissmann is demonstrably an anti-Trump/pro-Clinton activist. And it is suspicious that the Justice Department refuses to turn over any Weissmann text messages, especially given the anti-Trump bias documented in the FBI”s Strzok-Page texts.

Judicial Watch Seeks Obama-Era Records on Refugee Resettlement Sites

While the professional Left has successfully diverted everyone’s attention to a manufactured crisis involving illegal alien children on our Southern border, we are investigating other ways people flow into our country.

In particular, we continue to look at the UN-sponsored refugee program that has brought dangerous people across our borders. During the Obama administration, pro-refugee officials in several places gamed this system to disguise their intent.

We have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for records on sites that were considered for the resettlement of refugees in the United States during the last two years of the Obama administration. (Judicial Watch vs. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:18-cv-01244))

We sued after the State Department failed to respond to our February 23, 2017, FOIA request for:

  • All records reflecting the locations within the United States that were considered as possible sites for refugee resettlement under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) in 2015 and 2016.
  • All records reflecting the criteria used to determine suitability of locations as refugee resettlement sites in 2015 and 2016.
  • All records reflecting the names of local organizations promoting any of the locations identified above for consideration as refugee resettlement sites.

In October 2016 we made public 128 pages of documents we obtained from the mayor of Rutland, Vermont, showing a concerted effort by the mayor and a number of private organizations to conceal from the public their plans to resettle 100 Syrian refugees into the small southern Vermont town. The mayor and resettlement organizations shrouded the plan in such secrecy that not even the town’s aldermen were informed of what was taking place behind closed doors. The aldermen eventually wrote to the U.S. Department of State protesting the plan and opened an investigation into the mayor’s actions.

The State Department says it currently works with nine nonprofit organizations to resettle refugees. Those nonprofits have about 315 affiliates in 180 communities throughout the U.S.

According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the U.S. admitted 84,994 refugees during fiscal year 2016, just short of the 85,000 target set by the Obama administration. The U.S. admitted 16,370 refugees from the Democratic Republic of Congo, 12,587 from Syria, 12,347 from Myanmar, 9,880 from Iraq and 9,020 from Somalia. Pew Research reports that nearly 39,000 Muslim refugees entered the U.S. in fiscal year 2016, the highest number on record, according to analysis of data from the State Department’s Refugee Processing Center.

In fiscal year 2015, the U.S. reportedly admitted 70,000 refugees. The Obama administration also proposed admitting 110,000 refugees for fiscal year 2017.

President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017 issued Executive Order 13769, which included a suspension of the USRAP for 120 days. There were 29,022 refugees reportedly admitted to the U.S. in 2017 – the lowest number since 2002.

In a July 2017 report on the refugee applicant screening process and associated fraud risks, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that, “Increases in the number of USRAP applicants approved for resettlement in the United States from countries where terrorists operate have raised questions about the adequacy of applicant screening.”

We are suing to find out which towns across America were, without input and over the objections of residents, targeted for refugee settlements by the Obama administration.

And to make sure the Deep State isn’t up to its usual tricks, we are investigating to make sure now that the current State Department is being more transparent and honest in its placement of refugees.

The Strange Case of McAuliffe & McCabe — Another Clinton/FBI Scandal

You won’t hear from this from the liberal media, but the IG report is chock full of facts and scandal leads that go way beyond Clinton emails and the “get Trump” fever that overtook the FBI leadership. As our own Micah Morrison points out in his latest Investigative Bulletin piece, raises more questions about other players in the Clintons’ orbit:

Every student of American politics knows that Terry McAuliffe is that swampiest of swamp creatures, the cool cat with the big bucks. Al Gore called him “the greatest fundraiser in the history of the universe.” In 1996 alone, as national finance chairman of the Clinton-Gore re-election team, McAuliffe raised $50 million, but plunged the Democratic Party into a sweeping campaign-finance scandal involving the sale of sleepovers in the Lincoln Bedroom, coffee klatches at the White House, a vast cast of sketchy characters and rivers of money. The Clintons loved the ebullient money man and he loved them back. By 1999, McAuliffe claimed to have raised nearly $275 million for the Arkansas couple—and that’s before he joined forces with the Clinton’s 21st century money machine, the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. In 2000, he was named chairman of the Democratic National Committee. In 2008, he chaired Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. In 2013, with enthusiastic support from the Clintons, he ran for governor of Virginia and won.

By 2015, Governor McAuliffe already was “shaping a significant role for himself” in Mrs. Clinton’s second try at the presidency, Politico reported. A “consummate political animal, [McAuliffe] just can’t keep his fingers away from the flame. Despite the daily demands of running the state…he’s emerging as Hillary’s informal liaison to governors and the party’s biggest donors, while also keeping a finger on the pulse of the camp’s central operations in Brooklyn.”

By contrast, even today, in the wake of hundreds of media stories and last week’s Office of Inspector General report on alleged wrongdoing in the 2016 election, few people will recognize the name Andrew McCabe. He’s a swamp inhabitant too, though many would put him on the right side of the swamp, on dry land, chasing the bad guys. Except that’s not quite how it turned out.

Many of the McCabe details in the OIG report will come as no surprise to Judicial Watch followers. We’ve been uncovering facts about the McCabe affair for over a year. Read about our efforts herehere, and here.

A useful timeline in the OIG report sketches the McCabe-McAuliffe saga—a swamp tale of a particular sort. In 2014, McCabe, a rising star at the FBI, is assistant director of the bureau’s Washington, DC, field office. His wife is a pediatrician in Virginia. Terry McAuliffe is governor.

In February 2015, Dr. McCabe receives a phone call from Virginia’s lieutenant governor. Would she consider running for a state senate seat?

Less than two weeks later, in March 2015, McCabe and his wife drive to Richmond for what they thought was a meeting with a Virginia state senator to discuss Dr. McCabe’s possible run for office.
In Richmond, according to the OIG report, they are told there had been “a change of plans” and that “Governor McAuliffe wanted to speak to Dr. McCabe at the Governor’s mansion.”

It’s around this time that a veteran FBI agent’s radar might start blinking.

McCabe and his wife meet with McAuliffe for 30 to 45 minutes, according to the OIG report. Fundraising was discussed. “Governor McAuliffe said that he and the Democratic Party would support Dr. McCabe’s candidacy.” McAuliffe asked McCabe about his occupation and “McCabe told him he worked for the FBI but they did not discuss McCabe’s work or any FBI business.” McCabe later described it to an FBI official as a “surreal meeting.”

After the meeting, the couple rode to a local event with the governor, then returned to the mansion with the governor to retrieve their car.

McCabe informed FBI ethics officials and lawyers about the meeting and consulted with them about his wife’s plans. No one raised strong objections. McCabe recused himself from all public corruption cases in Virginia and Dr. McCabe jumped into the race.

In July 2015, the FBI opened an investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email practices.

Let’s pause to note here that while the official FBI investigation was opened in July 2015, Mrs. Clinton was known to be in hot water as far back as March 2015, when the State Department inspector general revealed her widespread use of a private, non-government email server.

Swamp cats will notice that March 2015 is also when Andrew and Jill McCabe got their surprise audience with McAuliffe, the longtime Clinton money man.

The McCabe fortunes rose in the autumn of 2015. Mr. McCabe was promoted to associate deputy director of the FBI. Dr. McCabe received $675,000 from two McAuliffe-connected entities for her state senate race. They were by far the biggest donations to her campaign.

In November 2015, Dr. McCabe lost her race.

In January 2016, the FBI opened an investigation into the Clinton Foundation.

On February 1, Mr. McCabe was promoted again, to deputy director of the FBI.

Despite the McAuliffe connection, the OIG report notes, there was no FBI re-evaluation of McCabe’s recusals following his promotions. Although recused from Virginia public corruption investigations, he retained a senior role in Clinton-related matters.

In May 2016, news broke that McAuliffe was under FBI investigation for campaign finance violations. CNN reported that investigators were scrutinizing “McAuliffe’s time as a board member of the Clinton Global Initiative” and Chinese businessman Wang Wenliang, a U.S. permanent resident who made large donations to both the McAuliffe 2013 gubernatorial campaign and to the Clinton Foundation.

On October 23, the Wall Street Journal revealed the McAuliffe-linked donations to Dr. McCabe’s campaign. At FBI headquarters, McCabe resists pressure from senior executives to recuse himself from all Clinton-related matters.

Finally, on November 1—a week before the presidential election — McCabe recused from the Clinton email and Clinton Foundation investigations.

Following James Comey’s dismissal in May 2017, McCabe was briefly acting director of the FBI—the most powerful law enforcement position in the land. Following the appointment of Chris Wray as director, McCabe returned to the deputy director position and, as controversy engulfed him and the FBI, he went on paid leave. Attorney General Jeff Sessions fired him in March, 2018. The Justice Department inspector general has referred a possible criminal case against McCabe to federal prosecutors for lying to internal investigators in an earlier probe of the Wall Street Journal story and leaks.

One of the strangest claims in the OIG report is that the senior leadership of the FBI was not aware of — or perhaps simply did not care about — McAuliffe’s long history with the Clintons. “We were troubled,” the OIG report notes, “by the fact that the FBI ethics officials and attorneys did not fully appreciate the potential significant implications to McCabe and the FBI from campaign contributions to Dr. McCabe’s campaign and did not implement any review of those campaign donations. Thus, while the same factual circumstances that led to McCabe’s recusal on November 1, 2016, were present at the time McCabe became deputy director on February 1, 2016, the FBI ethics officials, McCabe, and Comey only learned of them as a result of the October 23 WSJ article.”

It seems likely now that the McCabe chapter of the larger battle in Washington will end with a whimper, not a bang. The beasts—investigative, media, political—move on. But what are we to make of Terry McAuliffe’s role in the episode?

Swamp aficionados will note the sudden “change of plans” that elevated the trip to Richmond from a meeting with a low-level political operative to an encounter with the governor. McAuliffe is charming and charismatic. Money is (vaguely) discussed, and oh by the way, McAuliffe asks McCabe, what is your occupation?

Now, Terry McAuliffe’s connections are legendary. His devotion to the Clinton ambitions is unswerving. He knows everybody, particularly anybody who has any business with the Clintons (remember, the email controversy is about to metastasize) and certainly he knew that Andrew McCabe worked for the FBI before he asked that question. But now McCabe knows that the governor knows. Next, money—a lot of it—flows to Dr. McCabe’s campaign.

Things might have turned out differently, after all. Jill McCabe might have been in the state senate. Hillary Clinton might have been in the White House. And Andrew McCabe was in line to be the next director of the FBI. Some of the best swamp plays are not about greed but ambition.

Here’s How Trump Wants to Streamline Government

The Trump administration proposes to reform and reorganize government by streamlining food regulation, merging two Cabinet departments, and consolidating housing programs.

Combining the Education and Labor departments is among 32 proposals in a plan released Thursday by the Office of Management and Budget in response to a charge President Donald Trump issued 14 months ago.

“We wanted to change the dialogue in Washington, to say it’s not acceptable to have things that just don’t make sense,” Margaret Weichert, OMB’s deputy director for management, told The Daily Signal.

Weichert did not provide an estimate of savings, but said it would be clear in the administration’s next budget proposal.

Mick Mulvaney, director of the Office of Management and Budget, lauded the report’s recommendations Thursday during a Cabinet meeting convened by the president.

The OMB’s 132-page plan also would merge the food component of the Food and Drug Administration, now part of the Department of Health and Human Services, into a Department of Agriculture entity to be known as the Food Safety Agency.

The report notes that the USDA regulates chicken, but the FDA oversees eggs—if the eggs are in shells. If the eggs are processed and in a carton for pouring, then it’s the USDA’s job.

What’s more, the FDA regulates cheese pizza but the USDA regulates pepperoni pizza.

“Our favorite one is an open-face roast beef sandwich is regulated by the Department of Agriculture,” Weichert said. “If you stick a layer of bread on top of it, and you add new bureaucracy, it switches to FDA. That just doesn’t make sense.”

Since the Labor Department and the Education Department both are responsible for learning and skills for Americans, the Trump administration wants to create a single Department of Education and the Workforce.

The merger, if approved by Congress, would put the United States in line with most other developed nations that are part of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Weichert said.

“When it comes to education and labor, most OECD countries managed education and labor missions in an integrated fashion. It’s actually part of the kind of competitive advantage dialogue that you can see in Europe and China,” Weichert told The Daily Signal, adding:

Lifetime learning and whatever form of education is needed to both drive the needs of society broadly, but also to drive the economy, is integrated. The House committee itself that has jurisdiction over these two agencies is a single committee.

Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, called the proposed change a long overdue recognition of the connection between the two missions.

“We welcome the administration’s focus on education and workforce issues together, and as we continue our oversight over the Department of Education and the Department of Labor, we look forward to working with the administration on the proposal and how the new department could function to best serve American students, workers, job creators, and families,” Foxx said in a public statement.

The merger idea already is getting pushback, though, including from unions.

“The proposed merger of the departments of Labor and Education is yet another attempt by the Trump administration to weaken programs that serve and protect working families and to concentrate even more power in the hands of large corporations,” Chris Shelton, president of the Communication Workers of America, said in a formal statement.

In general, the OMB report calls for combining the functions of several departments and agencies and largely eliminating duplication.

Between a quarter and a third of the recommendations may be done through executive action, but the bulk of them would require congressional action, Weichert said.

In April 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13781, which directed the Office of Management and Budget to propose a plan that would reorganize governmental functions to limit duplication.

The resulting plan contains solid ideas, said Paul Winfree, who was director of budget policy at the White House when Trump asked for the reorganization plan. Winfree since has returned to his position as director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

“The Heritage research team started thinking through a reorganization proposal more than three years ago,” Winfree said in a statement provided to The Daily Signal. “Early in the administration, I drafted the executive order that established the plan for assembling the proposal, which the president signed.”

“OMB worked closely with the Heritage team,” Winfree said, “and it’s obvious from reading the administration’s proposal that everyone is moving in the same direction.”

The federal government spends about $250 million a year for education programs on financial literacy across more than 20 agencies. The report recommends consolidating programs to save time and taxpayer resources.

The plan also calls for moving programs providing rural housing loan guarantees and rental assistance out of the Agriculture Department and into the Department of Housing and Urban Development, locating all federal housing programs in a single Cabinet department.

“To be sure, there’s going to be a lot of good public-sector drama around some of these proposals,” Weichert said, adding:

But I hope underneath all of that, we can find a spirit of willingness to actually do the right thing for the American people. Frankly, all of us know we need to do something. That’s why this president was elected. That’s why the American people wanted a businessman to come to Washington, was the fact that so much business as usual in Washington doesn’t make sense.

Past presidents, going back decades, have tried to reorganize and reform government but haven’t reached the desired effect, said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan research group.

“No one can reasonably dispute that our government needs reform, but structural reorganizations are rarely the most effective way to improve service to our citizens,” Stier said in a public statement.

The OMB report notes that President Warren Harding created the Bureau of the Budget in 1921 in one of the earlier reorganization attempts of the 20th century.

President Jimmy Carter carried out a personnel reform agenda that was fully implemented under President Ronald Reagan. And Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama all pushed efforts to reduce duplication and increase public-private sector cooperation.

“For the administration’s reorganization plans to succeed, the president and members of his administration must articulate a government-wide vision for reform, the rationale for each proposal, and how the administration will implement changes and measure progress,” Stier said. “The White House also must get congressional buy-in and bipartisan support, make substantial, upfront investments, and plan for sustained attention over many years.”

Still, Weichert contends now is a time for action.

“Our system was designed after World War II, addressing legacy problems that in many cases are not problems today, and, we are 20 years into the 21st century, fundamentally. We have no time to waste,” she said.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

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

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney presenting proposals to consolidate the work of executive agencies during a meeting Thursday of President Donald Trump’s Cabinet. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/Newscom)

New Yorker’s ‘Fact-Checker’ Defamed a Combat Veteran. She Hasn’t Even Apologized.

Confirmation bias damages reputations. It ruins credibility. It destroys lives.

When researchers ignore contradictory data that undermines their assumptions, junk science prevails. When police conduct investigations with predetermined outcomes, wrongful convictions abound. And when reporters cherry-pick facts and distort images to serve political agendas, media outlets become dangerous weapons of mass manipulation.

Talia Lavin

Take Talia Lavin, a young journalist who has enjoyed a meteoric rise. Her pedigree appears impeccable on its face: She graduated with a degree in comparative literature from Harvard University six years ago. After graduation, she won a Fulbright Scholar fellowship to study in Ukraine. She “worked in all realms” of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency news agency and wire service, copy-edited for the feminist Lilith magazine, and contributed stories and translations for the Huffington Post.

Lavin has held the coveted position of “fact-checker” for the revered New Yorker for the past three years. The publication brags that its “fact-checking department is known for its high standards.” It demands the ability “to quickly analyze a manuscript for factual errors, logical flaws, and significant omissions.” The editorial department requires “a strong understanding of ethical reporting standards and practices” and prefers “proficiency or fluency in a second language.”

Impressively, Lavin speaks four languages (Russian, Hebrew, Ukrainian, and English). Her abdication of ethical reporting standards, however, raises fundamental questions not only about her competence, but also about her integrity—not to mention The New Yorker’s journalistic judgment.

With a single tweet, The New Yorker’s professional fact-checker smeared Justin Gaertner, a combat-wounded war veteran and computer forensic analyst for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Lavin, the professional fact-checker, rushed to judgment. She abused her platform. Amid the national media hysteria over President Donald Trump’s border enforcement policies, Lavin derided a photo of Gaertner shared by ICE, which had spotlighted his work rescuing abused children. Scrutinizing his tattoos, she claimed an image on his left elbow was an Iron Cross—a symbol of valor commonly and erroneously linked to Nazis.

The meme spread like social media tuberculosis: Look! The jackboots at ICE who hate children and families employ a real-life white supremacist.

Only it wasn’t an Iron Cross. It was a Maltese Cross, the symbol of double amputee Gaertner’s platoon in Afghanistan, Titan 2. He lost both legs during an improvised explosive device-clearing mission and earned the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal with Combat Valor and the Purple Heart before joining ICE to combat online child exploitation.

When actual military veterans, whom Lavin failed to consult before defaming Gaertner so glibly, pointed out that the image looked more like a Maltese Cross, Lavin deleted her original tweet “so as not to spread misinformation.”

Too late. The harm to Gaertner’s name and honor is irreparable and cannot be unseen, unread, or unpublished.

The New Yorker issued an obligatory apology and acknowledged that “a staff member erroneously made a derogatory assumption about ICE agent Justin Gaertner’s tattoo.” But what consequences will there be for her journalistic malpractice? Who is supervising her work at the famed publication? What other lapses might she be responsible for during her present and past stints as a checker of facts and arbiter of truth?

The magazine editors claim “we in no way share the viewpoint expressed in this tweet,” yet the abject ignorance of, and knee-jerk bigotry against, law enforcement, immigration enforcement, and the military underlying Lavin’s slime run rampant in New York media circles. And they all know it.

Lavin has not commented on the matter and instead turned her Twitter account private. But we can infer her attitude about her present troubles from a defiant piece she published just last week in The Forward magazine, where she pens a regular column. Titled “No, We Don’t Have To Be Friends with Trump Supporters,” the piece, laden with Nazi allusions, decries asylum reform, strengthened borders, and ICE agents enforcing the law.

Rejecting calls for decency in public debate over these contentious matters, she spat: “[T]ough nuts, sugar. When they go low, stomp them on the head.”

She further raged:

It is high time, when you find yourself next at a dinner party with someone who has gone Trump, to smash your glass to shards and leave. It is time to push yourself away from the table. It is time to cease to behave with subservient politesse toward those who embrace barbarity with unfettered glee.

Better “gone Trump” than gone mad. In her unfettered haste to condemn those with whom she disagrees, The New Yorker’s professional fact-checker failed to check her own toxic biases.

Lavin’s act was no innocent gaffe. Like the journalists-turned-propagandists who have falsely spread Obama-era photos of immigrant detention centers to attack the Trump White House, Lavin engaged in mass manipulation under the guise of resistance journalism.

Truth is collateral damage.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Michelle Malkin

Michelle Malkin is a columnist for The Daily Signal, senior editor at Conservative Review, a best-selling author, and Fox News contributor. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Justin Gaertner who lost both legs after being hit by an IED in Afghanistan. (Photo: Kathleen Flynn/Zuma Press/Newscom)

Trump Orders Fix to Family Separation on Border, Calls for ‘Comprehensive’ Immigration Solution

President Donald Trump signed an executive order Wednesday to halt separating families that illegally cross the border, but also said he wants to sign a “comprehensive” immigration bill from Congress.

In signing the executive order, Trump said, “We are going to have a lot of happy people.”

“It’s about keeping families together while at the same time being sure that we have a very powerful, very strong border,” the president said. “Border security will be equal, if not greater, than previously. So we are going to have strong, very strong borders, but we are going to keep the families together. I didn’t like the sight or the feeling of families being separated.”

Trump added, “It continues to be a zero tolerance. We have zero tolerance for people who enter our country illegally.”

“Zero tolerance” marked a tougher approach by the Trump administration in enforcing existing immigration law by arresting those who enter the country illegally.

The order is a temporary fix, and is titled “Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation.”

The executive order says:

The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary), shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, maintain custody of alien families during the pendency of any criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings involving their members. … The Secretary shall not, however, detain an alien family together when there is a concern that detention of an alien child with the child’s alien parent would pose a risk to the child’s welfare.

Trump was accompanied in the Oval Office Wednesday by Vice President Mike Pence and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen

“This is a situation that president after president hasn’t dealt with for decades,” Nielsen said. “This one is willing to stand up and fix it. We ask Congress to do their part.”

Pence called it a “false choice between being a country of law and order and a country that demonstrates compassion and heart of the American people.”

Trump said that Congress must act, not only to address the minors situation but also for a “comprehensive” bill to address immigration.

“We are also wanting to go through Congress. We will be going through Congress,” Trump said. “We are working on a much more comprehensive bill.”

Past “comprehensive” proposals have awarded legal status to illegal immigrants, while increasing border security.

Trump met with 11 Republican senators and five GOP House members earlier Wednesday in the Cabinet Room of the White House where he first announced he would be signing the order, and also called for a broader measure.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., asserted that immigration has “bedeviled” lawmakers for 40 years.

“You’re the president who can help us solve the immigration problem with your leadership,” Alexander said. “You may be able to do for immigration what Nixon did for China and Reagan did for the Soviet Union and a lot of us would like to work with you on that.”

At least two bills have some GOP support in the House.

House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., sponsored a more conservative bill that requires employers to use E-Verify, to check immigration status of employees, gives renewable legal status to beneficiaries of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for three years, authorizes a border wall, and ends chain migration.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has a “compromise bill” that gives DACA beneficiaries a pathway to citizenship and includes $25 billion for a border wall.

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., told Roll Call of the two bills, “We don’t like any of them,” and said that “Immigration is kind of my sacrosanct. You’ve got to do this the right way. You just can’t do this badly.”

The detention of children has been a raging controversy as the administration increased enforcement.

According to immigration experts, under the federal government’s Flores settlement of 1997, the federal government would release unaccompanied minor illegal immigrants after no more than 20 days of detention. A separate 2008 law required unaccompanied minors be transferred out of custody of the Department of Homeland Security to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Then, a 2016 judicial interpretation expanded the Flores settlement to include minors brought into the country with their parents. So, conforming to the expanded interpretation of the settlement and the existing law, the DHS enforcement agencies, after arresting illegal immigrant parents, have transferred minor children to the custody of the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement, which tries to place them with relatives or a caretaker.

During the meeting with members of Congress, Pence told lawmakers the administration was limited.

“We don’t want children to be taken away from parents, but, right now under the law, and we sit with these lawmakers, we only have two choices before us,” Pence said. “No. 1 is don’t prosecute people who come into our country illegally, or prosecute them and then under court cases and the law, they have to be separated from their children.”

The executive order references the Flores settlement.

The Attorney General shall promptly file a request with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to modify the Settlement Agreement in Flores v. Sessions, CV 85-4544 (“Flores settlement”), in a manner that would permit the Secretary, under present resource constraints, to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.

The order is not a policy departure for the president, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow for The Heritage Foundation.

So to the extent the 1997 Flores settlement and the 9th Circuit’s misinterpretation of it prevents DHS from holding juveniles for more than 20 days, this language gives DHS the exception they need to still separate families if they have to in order to comply with Flores.

As I expected, the [executive order] also tells the AG in Sec. 3 (e) to file a request with the court in the Flores case to allow DHS to detain families together “throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings.”

So the president is not backing down from prosecuting all illegal aliens who cross the border, which is what the critics wanted.

Pence reiterated the president’s call for a comprehensive measure when talking to lawmakers.

“The president’s vision, as articulated in his State of the Union address, was let’s solve the whole problem,” Pence said. “Let’s build a wall, let’s close the loopholes, let’s solve the problem for 1.8 million people that were brought into this country through no fault of their own, and let’s deal with law and order and compassion with this issue of family separation at our border.”

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Immigration Officials Cooked the Books and Fooled Congress for Years

Who’s Responsible for Separating Alien Kids From Their Parents? Many People, but Not Trump

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY<

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of President Donald Trump holding a signed executive order to keep families together at border in the Oval Office of the White House, in Washington, D.C., on June 20, 2018. Photo by Olivier Douliery/ Abaca Press (Newscom TagID: sipaphotoseight258174.jpg) [Photo via Newscom]

U.S. Makes the Right Call to Quit UN Human Rights Council

The United States announced Tuesday that it will leave the United Nations Human Rights Council.

This is hardly surprising. As Ambassador Nikki Haley explained in Geneva last year, the Human Rights Council remains beset by three fundamental problems.

1. Bias against Israel.

According to UN Watch, the council had adopted 169 condemnatory resolutions on countries as of the end of May. Of those, nearly half (47 percent) focused on Israel. In addition, the council has convened 28 special sessions to address human rights violations or related emergencies. Of those 28 sessions, eight focused on Israel.

Moreover, Israel is the only country subject to a separate agenda item: Item 7, labeled “Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.” Every other country is examined under Item 4, “Human rights situations that require the council’s attention.”

The council’s fixation on Israel is absurd. By spending exponentially more time on Israel than on North Korea or Syria, the council only underscores the politicization and bias of its agenda.

2. Human rights abusers sit on the council.

Governments deemed “not free” and “partly free” by Freedom House historically have comprised a majority of the council’s members. Not even the world’s most repressive regimes have been excluded.

Currently, 14 of the 47 members of the council (including Burundi, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela) are ranked “not free” by Freedom House. This is the highest number of “not free” countries in council history, indicating that the majority of the world’s governments see no problem with electing human rights violators to the U.N.’s highest human rights body.

Even defenders of the Human Rights Council acknowledge this problem. As Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, noted, “[T]he Trump administration is correct that [membership] is suboptimal … . To make matters worse, some abusive governments try to join the council in the hope of protecting themselves and their kind from condemnation.”

3. Consistent failure to address serious human rights situations equally and objectively.

In stark contrast to its obsessive focus on Israel, the council is notably incurious about the human rights situations in some of the world’s most oppressive counties.

For instance, the Human Rights Council has never passed a condemnatory resolution on China, Cuba, Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Zimbabwe, despite their terrible records of religious persecutionpunishment of political dissenthostility to freedom of the pressunequal rights for women, and use of force against civil society and government opponents, respectively.

One can also look at the Universal Periodic Review, a process under which every country undergoes a review of its human rights practices and receives recommendations for improvement. According to UPR Info, the country that has received the most recommendations for improvement is the United States.

That’s right. The Human Rights Council’s process has concluded that the U.S. has more need of human rights advice than Cuba, Iran, and Sudan. Israel is also in the top 25, naturally, right ahead of China.

For over a year, the U.S. has tried to rally support among other member states to reform the council to address these problems. Unfortunately, most governments either prefer a weak, biased council or are unwilling to devote the effort needed to reform it.

This is not a recent development in response to the Trump administration. The Obama administration met similar resistance when it proposed reforms at the mandatory 2011 review of the council.

Nonetheless, over the past year, the U.S. has tried again. Led by Haley and strongly supported by U.S. diplomats in Geneva, New York, Washington, and around the world, the U.S. has engaged bilaterally and multilaterally to promote reforms to address anti-Israel bias, membership quality, and improve the council’s efficiency.

They have been met with disinterest and hostility. Even European governments and human rights groups have opposed the U.S. reform effort out of fear that countries hostile to human rights might seize the opportunity to weaken the council.

This is a self-fulfilling prophesy that condemns the council to its current gravely disappointing status quo. Worse, as long as this fear exists, any future reform effort will be stillborn.

Supporters of the Human Rights Council will criticize the U.S. decision as another example of the Trump administration’s rejection of multilateral engagement. This is wrong. The administration could have left the council any time in the past year, but it did not. Instead, it sought to work within the U.N. to fix the council. Only when other member states rebuffed these efforts did the U.S. pull back.

Sadly, the U.S. seems to be the only government that seriously wants the Human Rights Council to promote universal respect and protection of human rights, and to confront fundamental freedoms in a fair and equal manner. Unless other member states commit to fixing the council’s problems, the U.S. is better off focusing its time and effort on advancing human rights through other venues and means.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Brett Schaefer

Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at The Heritage Foundation. Schaefer analyzes a broad range of foreign policy issues, focusing primarily on international organizations and sub-Saharan Africa. Read his research.

RELATED ARTICLE: U.N. Human Rights Council: Win, Lose, or Withdraw

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley. (Photo: Albin Lohr-Jones/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Leftist Ideas That Keep Black People Down

For several decades, a few black scholars have been suggesting that the vision held by many black Americans is entirely wrong.

Shelby Steele, a scholar at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said:

“Instead of admitting that racism has declined, we [blacks] argue all the harder that it is still alive and more insidious than ever. We hold race up to shield us from what we do not want to see in ourselves.”

John McWhorter, professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, lamented that “victimology, separatism, and anti-intellectualism underlie the general black community’s response to all race-related issues,” adding that “these three thought patterns impede black advancement much more than racism; and dysfunctional inner cities, corporate glass ceilings, and black educational underachievement will persist until such thinking disappears.”

In the 1990s, Harvard professor Orlando Patterson wrote, “America, while still flawed in its race relations … is now the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protection of minorities than any other society, white or black; [and] offers more opportunities to a greater number of black persons than any other society, including all those of Africa.”

During an interview in December with The Daily Caller, Steele said the anti-Americanism that started during the 1960s and has become mainstream and visible in the black community is “heartbreaking and sad.” That anti-Americanism that so dominates the American black identity has been “ruinous to black America, where we are worse off than we were under segregation by almost every socio-economic measure.”

Some people might challenge Steele’s assertion that in many measures blacks are worse off than during segregation. How about some numbers?

As late as 1950, female-headed households were only 18 percent of the black population. Today 70 percent of black children are raised in single-parent households.

In the late 1800s, there were only slight differences between the black family structure and those of other ethnic groups. In New York City in 1925, for example, 85 percent of kin-related black households were two-parent households. According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year 11 percent of black children were born to unwed mothers. Today about 75 percent of black children are born to unwed mothers.

From 1890 to 1940, a slightly higher percentage of black adults had married than white adults. Today about twice as many blacks have never married as whites.

The bottom line is that the black family was stronger the first 100 years after slavery than during what will be the second 100 years.

What about the labor market?

In every census from 1890 to 1954, blacks were either just as active as or more so than whites in the labor market. During that earlier period, black teen unemployment was roughly equal to or less than white teen unemployment. As early as 1900, the duration of black unemployment was 15 percent shorter than that of whites; today it’s about 30 percent longer.

Would anyone suggest that there was less racial discrimination during earlier periods?

White liberals and the Democratic Party are the major beneficiaries of keeping black people fearful, angry, victimized, and resentful. It’s crucial to both their political success and their efforts to change our nation. Racial harmony would be a disaster for leftists, be they politicians, academic liberals, or news media people.

As for black politicians and civil rights hustlers, Booker T. Washington long ago explained their agenda, writing:

There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs—partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a columnist for The Daily Signal and a professor of economics at George Mason University. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of A member of Black Lives Matter Greater NY speaking at a rally in New York City, April 4, 2018. (Photo: Erik Mcgregor/Zuma Press/Newscom)

Fact-Checking 4 Claims About Detaining Children at the Border

The Trump administration is taking heat from Democrats and Republicans for separating parents and children after they illegally crossed the southern border.

Over the six weeks from April 19 through May 31, federal officials separated about 2,000 children from their families at the U.S.-Mexican border, the Associated Press reported last week.

President Donald Trump blamed the procedure on Democrats in Congress.

“They’re obstructing. They’re really obstructionists and they are obstructing,” Trump said Monday at the White House. “The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility. It won’t be.”

“If you look at what’s happening in Europe, if you look at what’s happening in other places, we can’t allow that to happen to the United States—not on my watch,” he said.

During the White House press briefing Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said: “This is a very serious issue that has resulted after years and years of Congress not taking action.”

Here’s a look at four of the more questionable claims made about the enforcement action.

1. Democrats’ Law or Trump Policy?

“The Democrats forced that law upon our nation,” Trump asserted last week.

Democrats, backed by some media commentators, counter that it’s not the law but a Trump administration policy.

Actually, experts say, the situation is a combination of a bipartisan law and a Clinton administration policy.

In 1997, the Clinton administration entered into something called the Flores Settlement Agreement, which ended a class action lawsuit first brought in the 1980s.

The settlement established a policy that the federal government would release unaccompanied minors from custody to their parents, relatives, or other caretakers after no more than 20 days, or, alternatively, determine the “least restrictive” setting for the child.

In a separate development, in 2008 the Democrat-controlled Congress approved bipartisan legislation to combat human trafficking and President George W. Bush, a Republican, signed it into law.

Section 235 (g) in that law, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, states that unaccompanied minors entering the United States must be transferred to the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement rather than to the Department of Homeland Security.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit expanded the Flores settlement in 2016 to include children brought to the country illegally by their parents.

For consistency between the provision of the anti-trafficking law and the 9th Circuit’s interpretation of the Flores agreement, children who came into the country illegally with parents had to be taken into HHS custody, said Art Arthur, former general counsel for Immigration and Naturalization Services (now known as Immigration and Customs Enforcement) as well as a former federal immigration judge.

“As soon as their parents are detained, the children are classified as unaccompanied,” Arthur, now a resident fellow for law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Daily Signal.

2. Unprecedented Action by Trump Administration?

Some media outlets have called the practice of separating children from parents at the border “unprecedented” or a “new low” for the United States.

What’s different under the Trump administration, though, is a “zero tolerance” approach to enforcing existing immigration laws and policy.

On May 7 in Scottsdale, Arizona, Attorney General Jeff Sessions directed federal prosecutors to prosecute all adults who illegally enter the country, including those accompanied by their children, under a provision of federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1325(a)) that covers illegal entry.

“If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law,” Sessions said. “If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally. It’s not our fault that somebody does that.”

Since it takes more than 20 days to adjudicate an asylum claim, the 9th Circuit’s interpretation of the Flores Settlement Agreement essentially provides three options, said David Inserra, a homeland security policy analyst for The Heritage Foundation.

“The Trump administration currently faces two options: Either release every family that crosses the border and claims asylum and know that most of them will never show up at their immigration court hearing; or release the child as required by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the Flores settlement while holding the parents while awaiting trial,” Inserra told The Daily Signal.

“A third, better solution is to fix the loophole created by the 9th Circuit with regard to Flores and improve the asylum process to discourage frivolous asylum claims, while also better serving those with legitimate asylum cases,” Inserra added.

Proposed legislation by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C.; and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. would reverse the 9th Circuit’s interpretation.

“This would mean only a brief period of separation while the parents are prosecuted,” Arthur said.

Depending on the outcome, the family would be reunited and either be released or deported together.

3. ‘Concentration Camps’?

Much of the criticism of separating children from parents at the border has been from Democrats.

However, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, who served under President George W. Bush, and former Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who was once lieutenant governor of Maryland, both compared the practice to Nazi concentration camps.

The Department of Homeland Security rejected the comparison, noting that most children caught crossing the border illegally are not detained by federal officials.

“We have high standards,” Nielsen said during the White House press briefing Monday. “We give them meals and we give them education and we give them medical care. There are videos, there are TVs. I visited the detention centers myself.”

In the last fiscal year, 90 percent of apprehended children were released to a sponsor who was either a parent or close relative, according to the department.

Homeland security officials also say they work with HHS to improve and ease communication between detained parents and their children in HHS care.

Sponsors may be “a parent, adult sibling, relative, or appropriate home that meets criteria for the safety of the child and continuation of any immigration proceedings,” according to DHS. Also, a parent who is prosecuted and later released can be a sponsor and ask HHS to restore custody of the child.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement has dedicated a facility to operate primarily as a family reunification and removal center. ICE staff who interact with parents will receive training in trauma-informed care, and the agency will assign staff trained in mental health care to detained parents who have been separated from children, according to DHS.

4. Taking Babies From Nursing Mothers?

CNN reported last week on an illegal immigrant from Honduras who claimed her nursing daughter was pulled away from her before she was handcuffed. CNN cited a lawyer from a liberal legal group called the Texas Civil Rights Project.

In a conference call with reporters last week, a senior Department of Homeland Security official said this was not the case.

“We do not separate breastfeeding children from their parents. That does not exist. That is not a policy. That is not something that DHS does,” an official told reporters Friday. “We believe that that is false.”

An estimated 14,500 to 17,500 individuals are smuggled into the United States each year. For perspective, that number constitutes about 5.7 percent of total apprehensions of illegal immigrants in 2017, though apprehensions don’t account for all border crossings.

This article has been modified since publication.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Left Is Spreading Misinformation About Our Border Crisis. Here’s What’s Really Happening.

House ‘Compromise’ Immigration Bill Fails to Adequately Address Broken System

Trump Is More Right Than Wrong About Migrant Crime in Germany

Here Are Horrifying Photos Of Obama’s Illegal Alien Facilities The Media Refuses To Show You.

13 Facts the Media ‘Pros’ Don’t Want You to Know About ‘Family Border Separation’

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen is by Leah Millis/Reuters/Newscom.

TMLC Agrees To Help Father In Fight With School Over Islamic Indoctrination Of 13-Year Old Daughter

ANN ARBOR, MI – The Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, announced today that it has agreed to represent Richard Penkoski in his fight with the Mountain Ridge Middle School, located in West Virginia, over the Islamic indoctrination of his 13-year old daughter.

​Mr. Penkoski, an evangelist who hosts an online Christian ministry, “Warriors for Christ,” with an estimated 200K-300K followers, discovered the astonishing extent to which his daughter and her fellow classmates were being subjected to Islamic indoctrination under the guise of teaching about world religions.

On May 14 of this year, his seventh-grade daughter brought home a packet of lessons and assignments which included the following:

  • Write the Shahada, the Islamic conversion creed, “There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah,” in Arabic as part of “calligraphy” practice.
  • Fast for 24 hours and give lunch money and food to a food bank, to sympathize with Muslims going through Ramadan.
  • Read chapters from the Koran.
  • Learn the Five Pillars of Islam.

The lessons and assignments propagandized the students by downplaying the violent nature of Islam.

When his daughter brought home the packet of information, Mr. Penkoski told her she was not going to do the assignment and he immediately complained to the principal. He also asked the Thomas More Law Center to look into the legal aspects of the matter.

Mr. Penkoski felt that his daughter’s teacher dedicated much more time on Islam than any other religion.  He said “most of the faith aspects of Christianity and Judaism were stripped from the lesson plan by the teacher. Students were not given calligraphy writing assignments in Judaism, or Christianity, only Islam.”

Mr. Penkoski and his wife Amanda and 6 children refuse to shy away from the controversy. While it would be easy to remove his daughter from the school, Penkoski says, “We don’t back down during persecution.”

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s President and Chief Counsel, commented:

“This is typical of the public-school systems across the country.  Witless school officials have turned classrooms into Islamic indoctrination centers. They promote Islam in ways that would be unthinkable for Christianity or any other religion because they fear a lawsuit by the ACLU.”

Continued Thompson, “Teachers sugar coat Islam.  They don’t tell students about Islam’s barbaric brutality, where women and young girls are sold into slavery and used as sex-slaves, where men and women are stoned to death and burned alive—all in the name of Islam and the Koran.”

The case involving Mr. Penkoski’s daughter is one of several cases that the Thomas More Law Center has agreed to take on concerning Islamic indoctrination in American public schools.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Reuters.

Lying, Spying, Propagandizing – OH MY!

The Obama administration has been caught lying, spying, and propagandizing. In a cosmically outrageous attempt to defend the indefensible, the radical leftist Obama lemmings have decided that lying, spying, and propagandizing are not only acceptable – they are desirable – for our own good of course. OH MY!

In an astonishing display of arrogant disregard for the Constitution and its protections, James Clapper unapologetically announced that he spied on President Trump to protect him – REALLY?? Just how stupid do Obama’s sycophants think we are?

The entire Mueller investigation designed to destroy President Trump has boomeranged onto its blatantly anti-Trump team of “investigators” exposing their malice, contempt, and staggering improprieties. Their malfeasance is a continuation of Obama’s egregious politicization of the DOJ, FBI and State Department.

The question for America is “Should we be surprised?” I don’t think so.

When Obama promised to transform America most Americans imagined a better life of peace and prosperity in our republic. They did not envision the foundational principles of the Constitution being shattered in an unprecedented power grab to replace our national sovereignty and Constitutional infrastructure with collectivism and global governance. Lying, spying, and propagandizing are not the tactics American citizens expect the US government to use on Americans! Foreign enemies? Yes. American citizens? ABSOLUTLY NOT!

In a stunning 6.8.18 article KrisAnne Hall describes how Obama changed all that. Richard Stengel, Obama’s head of the office for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs at the State Department from 2013-2016 supports the use of “fake news.” WHAT??? Stengel unapologetically announced to the Council on Foreign Relations Forum that he is not against propaganda. “Every country does it, and they have to do it to their own population, and I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful.” Really Mr Stengel?? Most Americans would disagree with you. Most Americans do not want or expect to be propagandized by their government. Most Americans expect honesty and transparency from those elected to serve them.

Stengel’s egregious condescending attitude was part of Obama’s transformation-of-America policy. In 2013 Congress passed the mendacious Smith-Mundt Modernization Act that overturned the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act prohibiting the domestic dissemination of US government-produced propaganda. The “modernization” was disingenuously hidden in the National Defense Authorization Act Fiscal Year 2013 as if it was protective of Americans!

Jeff Powers explains, “Let’s be clear, the original law prohibited US organizations from using state resources, including the intelligence community, to influence public opinion of United States citizens. Obama’s reform to the Smith-Bundt Act allowed the American public to be a target audience of US government-funded information campaigns.” Government-funded information campaigns are just another name for government-produced propaganda.

So, Fake News not only exists – it was launched, legitimized, and legalized under Barack Hussein Obama! KrisAnne Hall writes, “The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act not only legitimized the heinous manipulation of mainstream media, but also allowed Congress to fund it with taxpayer dollars.”

The fact that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act was a bipartisan success is irrelevant because RINOs in Congress, led by John McCain, are globalists and as hostile to government transparency as Obama’s minions.

The current Mueller investigation has revealed that the US entered a new period in American history on November 8, 2016 launched by the inability of the Obama/Clinton Democrats to accept the results of a presidential election. This is no small thing. What distinguishes our republic from tyrannical governance in the world is the public acceptance of election outcomes. We play by the rules. Without rules there is only anarchy and violence. Coups are for other countries – not for America.

So what is Obama’s disingenuously labeled “Resistance” movement? It is the aftermath of a lost election and is Obama’s “soft” coup attempt to destabilize and overthrow duly elected President Donald Trump. It is an egregious anti-American movement by Obama and his sycophants using weaponized legalized propaganda for the kill – brute force without bullets. This is how it works.

The Smith-Bundt Modernization Act directly affected the US government broadcasting and its oversight agency the Broadcasting Board of Governors. According to its website “The mission of the Broadcasting Board of Governors is to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy. The agency’s mission is reinforced by those of the individual broadcasters that are overseen by the BBG.” BBG broadcasters include the Voice of America Charter, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

Here is the problem, Obama’s “modernization” of the Smith-Mundt Act in 2013 legalized overseas BBG broadcasting in America. In clear violation of its charter stipulating accurate, objective, and comprehensive news Voice of America vilified President Trump and Bernie Sanders in partisan support for Obama’s legacy candidate Hillary Clinton. Obama’s modernization politicized the BBG to use for his personal political advantage. In 2017 Barack Obama replaced the 9 member board of the Broadcasting Board of Governors with a CEO appointed by Obama and allowed VOA to broadcast its politicized messages directly to American audiences.

The Voice of America (VOA) website self-describes as “a dynamic international multimedia broadcaster with service in more than 40 languages. Serving an estimated weekly global audience of 236.8 million, VOA provides news, information, and cultural programming through the Internet, mobile and social media, radio, and television. VOA is funded by the US government through the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The VOA began broadcasting in 1942 to combat Nazi propaganda with accurate and unbiased news and information. Ever since then, VOA has served the world with a consistent message of truth, hope, and inspiration.”

That was then. This is now. The original Smith-Mundt Act understood the possibility for propaganda abuses and its prohibitions protected Americans. Obama understood the possibility for propaganda abuses and exploited them by removing the prohibitions of the original Smith-Bundt Act. In a 2016 BBG Watch Commentary the partisan bias of Obama’s modernization is evident under his political appointees Amanda Bennet and John Lansing.

“U.S. President-elect Donald Trump was not the only presidential candidate vilified with hit pieces and biased, one-sided reporting at U.S. taxpayers’ expense on U.S.-taxpayer-funded ($224M FY2017) Voice of America (VOA) in violation of VOA’s own Charter. Under the leadership of Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) CEO and director John F. Lansing, who lacks experience in U.S. international broadcasting, U.S. government operations, and U.S. public diplomacy, and Voice of America director Amanda Bennett, who in her post-election note to VOA staff would not even acknowledge Trump’s victory or mention his name, the Voice of America also produced anti-Bernie Sanders programs during the primaries.”

It is chilling to understand the depth of Obama’s abuse of power while in office. America’s community organizer-in-chief kept his treasonous promise to transform America. He transformed the State Department, FBI, DOJ, Treasury, and broadcasting communities into politicized enforcers of his radical left wing narrative. He transformed real news into fake news and non-partisan government agencies into partisan institutions. Obama obliterated broadcasting oversight by replacing the Broadcasting 9-member Board of Governors with his own appointed CEO.

The election of President Donald Trump crippled Obama’s “transformative” power grab. As President Trump continues to erase Obama’s destructive legacy and Make America Great Again, he must reinstate the protections of the original Smith-Mundt Act that protected Americans against state-sponsored propaganda. The Broadcasting Board of Governors must be returned to the 9-member panel it was before Obama’s “modernization” destroyed its integrity to help restore a standard for real news.

Lying, spying, and propagandizing may be Obama’s way but it is most definitely not the American way!

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity.

Harvard’s Oppression of Minorities

In 2015, the nonprofit group Students for Fair Admission filed a lawsuit against Harvard University that alleged Harvard directly discriminates against Asian-American applicants during the university’s top-secret admissions process. On Friday, documents previously reserved for attorneys’ eyes only were made public, providing substantial evidence of Harvard’s discriminatory practices.

In addition to pages of statistical evidence that show how Harvard’s admissions process is heavily biased against Asian-Americans, the documents show Harvard was aware of this discrimination for some time and deliberately chose to do nothing about it.

Harvard initiated an investigation into the accusations, but before these studies were even completed, members of its admissions staff, including Dean of Admissions William Fitzsimmons, contributed to a three-paragraph article that denied the school discriminated against Asian-Americans.

But evidence to the contrary soon emerged. In the first of two studies done by Harvard’s Office of Institutional Research, statistical models were created to predict what demographic admissions would look like under a varying set of circumstances.

In all models where race and ethnicity were not considered as factors for admissions, projected acceptance rates for Asian-Americans were substantially higher. In fact, in the model where only academic performance was considered, Asian-American applicants were projected to make up 43 percent of the school’s admissions, dominating all other demographic categories. When the current admissions model was applied, Asian-Americans made up only 19 percent of the school’s admissions.

When this information was presented to Fitzsimmons, he decided to neither share nor discuss the findings with anyone. When the second report from the Office of Institutional Research made abundantly clear that “being Asian American was negatively associated with the chance of being admitted to Harvard,” Fitzsimmons again neither shared nor discussed the findings.

The fact that race plays such a substantial factor in Harvard and other Ivy League schools’ admissions processes is alarming but far from surprising. Since 1989, there has been suspicion that Harvard and other Ivy League schools were actively limiting the number of Asian-Americans accepted into their institutions. Throughout the years, Asian-Americans have been instructed to avoid conforming to racial stereotypes in their extracurricular activities (regardless of their interests), and have even felt it necessary to refuse to disclose their race on applications.

For years, Asian-Americans have been cowed into hiding their race to improve their chances at attending an Ivy League school. Any serious advocate of civil rights should be outraged at such a blatant injustice. Aside from the fact that discrimination on the basis of race is patently illegal, it should be noted that schools such as Harvard often function as “pipelines” to positions of influence and political power.

As such, direct attempts to limit the number of Asian-Americans accepted into Harvard also are indirect attempts to limit their influence in the public sphere. Rather than being inclusive and fostering diversity, Harvard has decided to intentionally hide policies that play into a long history of political oppression of minorities.

Regardless of whether they are indicted in a court of law, the court of public opinion should hold our nation’s premier educational institutions to a higher standard, one that reflects the ideals of liberty and equality upon which America was founded.

COMMENTARY BY

Joseph Natali is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage Foundation.

Portrait of Mike Gonzalez

Mike Gonzalez, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is a widely experienced international correspondent, commentator, and editor who has reported from Asia, Europe, and Latin America. He served in the George W. Bush administration, first at the Securities and Exchange Commission and then at the State Department, and is the author of “A Race for the Future: How Conservatives Can Break the Liberal Monopoly on Hispanic Americans.” Read his research. Twitter: .

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.

ACTIVATE YOUR MEMBERSHIP TODAY

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Brian Snyder/Reuters/Newscom.

VIDEO: Remembering the Day Tommy Robinson was Banned from Twitter

On March 29th, 2018 Tommy Robinson was banned from Twitter. Twitter uses its platform to ban anyone it deems inappropriate. Tommy speaks truth to power. For that his speech has been restricted by Twitter.

You know your message is having a positive impact when any social media site bans you outright or secretly shadow bans you.

Watch how Tommy responded to being banned by Twitter:

RELATED ARTICLE: France: $40M walls, fences built around Eiffel Tower to stop Muslim terrorists

Tommy Robinson’s Full Letter from Prison

Before being moved from HMP Hull to HMP Onley, Tommy Robinson wrote this heart wrenching, though inspiring letter from prison.

Tommy’s Team has transcribed it below, in full, for you to read and share.

If you would like to send Tommy and email please go to: emailaprisoner.com.

TOMMY ROBINSON’S LETTER FROM HER MAJESTY’S PRISON ONLEY

So here we go again! Its Sunday night 10/6/18, the news of the amazing scenes yesterday in London are just filtering their way to me.

But before I start on the positives of yesterdays demonstration let me 1st start with some negatives. Let me share with you part of my wife’s letter I received yesterday:

“School rang me today though, before I went to work and said Spencer was really upset at school, to be honest he isn’t managing mate. Sam said to him ‘I’m doing a 5k run with my dad’, and Spencer said well I can’t do it with my dad and ran off crying. He cries himself to sleep. Sleeps with your pillow and ask me 50 times a day what day is dad coming home? I can’t even give him a rough date yet because you haven’t been give any! Just hope to keep telling him its not for long, nothing will change and he needs to be brave to make you proud. He said to me last night ‘I’m going to go and do something bad so I can be put in jail with dad at least then I will be with him’.”

I’m not going to lie, reading this broke my heart. The prison removed my wife’s phone number over a week ago so I have not even been able to speak with my children, it also upsets me that in my son’s head he must think his dad has done something bad to end up in prison.

Before I sit and feel too sorry for myself I should put it into perspective. I’m away from my family for a short duration. Members of our armed forces’ children must go through this all the time which is why I admire the sacrifices they make, past and present.

I’m not going to go too much into my case as my appeal is just being lodged. What I will talk about is the difference you have all made to me. When I landed in this prison I was totally gutted. Gutted about what my family were about to go through. Gutted for those who I was in discussions with who rely on me to tell their stories. I was also adamant I would be killed on this prison sentence.

When I was leading the [English Defence League] I waas sentence to 10 months in prison in 2012, I was separated from everyone for my own protection and kept on solitary confinement for 22 weeks. I believe this was because the government feared what may happen on the streets if I was murdered in prison.

Lee Rigby was beheaded in 2013 and our government witnessed that a soldier can be beheaded and no one will really react. I was then sent to prison in 2014 for 18 months. I was literally fed to the wolves. I was lucky to escape alive, fighting my way through violent beatings at the hands of Muslim inmates.

The government knew I could be killed and no one would really do anything. It was a sad moment for myself, realising that if I’m murdered my death wouldn’t make much difference or change. I also realised my family would not be looked after and would go on to struggle for safety and stability.

OH WHAT A CHANGE 4 YEARS MAKES!

In the first few days here I began to hear that thousands are protesting outside 10 Downing Street. This was within 24 horus of my abduction by the state. I was told ‘your petition has 100,000’, then ‘hey its now at 300,000’ and then half a million. I heard people were climbing the gates of Downing Street.

I thought the people telling me must be getting it wrong. They must be confused with our Day for Freedom demo. I was completely unaware what was unfolding outside of the prison was a world wide FREE TOMMY movement.

I was in danger in my first days in this prison, housed with Muslim prisoners, then something changed. I was whisked from my cell and wing and taken and separated to safety. I believe now this was the moment Lord Pearson spoke up about my safety. His actions could have literally saved my life.

I then heard protests were spreading across the globe. I heard politicians, police and barristers were speaking out. I’ve heard so many people who have sat on the fence for years were now speaking out. To hear that 20-30 thousand people travelled to London this weekend to stand in solidarity with me is an amazing feeling. I truly am gobsmacked at the reaction from the public. I feel so loved!! Loved and appreciated.

I receive a bag of letters and emails every day. I read every one. I’m so grateful, I want to say a thank you to every single person who has supported me.

I understand how difficult it is to speak out. I understand hat many people would have faced a backlash from friends, or even from work for speaking out on my behalf and I am truly grateful to people for standing with me.

Free speech is not free when it has social consequences. I sit here happy, happy that this sentence has backfired on the establishment. Happy that the public reaction has sent a message of the consequences if they have me murdered on this sentence.

I have said for so long that there will be a moment in our country, none of know what that moment will be but it will change the direction of our nation.

I think deeply about this and for a while now I’ve been sure that I will be murdered for opposing Islam. A scary thought. But not as scary as thinking it will make no difference. Although now I sit here smiling with the belief that my murder would start a revolution, I’m standing laughing out loud — that may seem mad — but knowing this is so satisfying.

I’ve always said I’d sacrifice my life tomorrow if it would end the Islamic takeover of our beautiful land. Our battle is not as simple as against flesh and blood, but we battle a system! A corrupt system. Sitting here gives you so much time to think. We can no longer be looking from the outside in. We must involve our voice and our movement into politics. I have so many plans on what I want to do when I get out. To hear that Geert Wilders travelled and spoke in London is so exciting for me.

When I started my activism I looked to Geert and the life changing decisions he made to speak out against Islam. He has been an inspiration to me. I can’t list all the people I need to thank as there are so many but I know Alex Jones at InfoWars would be leaidng the shout for my freedom. I love him, he cracks me up.

Gerard Batten of UKIP, Lord Perason, Raheem, Ezra, Katie Hopkins, my cousin Kevin Carroll jumping straight in with the demo. Danny for organising it. DONALD TRUMP JUNIOR for tweeting. I’d have done 6 months just for that recognition.

The list could go on and on. I’ll do my proper thank yous upon my release. One person I have to thank, my wife!

When I finally got through to her on the phone from prison I asked her, “Have you had enough yet?” Ha ha. I’ve not been a great husband but she has been a perfect wife and an amazing mother.

I simply couldn’t get through any of this without my family.

So Jenna, if you are reading this letter online then know I LOVE YOU and I MISS YOU.

My mates will ruin me for this soppy shit ha ha.

Lots of people say I give them hope, but I want you all to know that your reaction, whether it be supporting my family, paying for legal costs, or even just sharing videos or tweets, you have all given me hope and an absolutely priceless feeling.

Please excuse my handwriting but my hand is failing me. I’m using my time to put pen to paper and detail out my next book. I was already working on it before this sentence. Working title: “The Battle for Britain”. Basically bringing Enemy of the State [Tommy’s first book] up to date and also looking into the future.

So I’d like to thank Her Majesty for giving me the time alone on my own to work on it. Knowing that there are more plans for demonstrations unil my release is great. It’s great to know that I’ve not been forgotten and their attempts to silencce me won’t work. It’s now Monday evening and I’ve just watched LOVE ISLAND ha ha.

My wife’s number was put back on the system so I have spoke with my children today so I’m less stressed and more relaxed. My children will come to visit me in the near future.

Thank you all for the support. It’s your outcry and reaction that will keep me safe. Please know how inspired and grateful I am. I’m hoping Lord Pearson and Gerard Batten will also be visiting me here and lads if you are reading this ask Geert to pop into HMP Hull with you. My appeals have gone in, appeal sentence, appeal conviction and bail app.

Oh yeah thank you Pauline Hanson, thank you AFD for the offer of asylum.

The establishment thought this would close the book. Instead the public have just turned the page to continue the next chapter.

I love and thank you all.

Mum and dad sorry about the stress I give you ha ha.

Thank you to the free world.

It’s Tuesday, I’m being moved prison so my kids won’t see me this weekend.

ENDS

RELATED VIDEO: #FreeTommy Protest

EDITORS NOTE: Copyright © 2018 Tommy Robinson, All rights reserved.