In Eric Schneiderman’s Fall, Trump Resistance Loses ‘Ringleader’

Just two weeks ago, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was coming off a legal victory against the Trump administration’s deregulatory agenda for fuel efficiency standards.

“As we’ve proven again and again, when the Trump administration puts special interests before public health and our environment, we’ll take them to court—and we will win,” Schneiderman said April 23.

And Saturday, Schneiderman boasted about taking on the Trump administration in a tweet with comic book art presenting him as a superhero.

But Monday evening, the Democrat resigned as New York attorney general amid allegations that he had beaten and physically abused four women.

The sudden fall came just hours after he announced plans to lead eight state attorneys general in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency.

First elected to his post in 2010 after eight years in the state Senate and seen as a contender for governor, Schneiderman made himself a leading figure among states challenging some of Trump’s biggest initiatives.

Touting his lawsuits against the Trump administration on the travel ban, environmental issues, immigration, and other matters, Schneiderman embraced his stature as a “resistance” figure. In a February video made for the leftist MoveOn.org to encourage voting in local elections, he said: “If you really, truly want to be part of the resistance, this is where the fight lives.”

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, chairwoman of the Republican Attorneys General Association, called Schneiderman the “ringleader” of anti-Trump activists fighting the president in the courts.

“As Schneiderman leaves office in disgrace, his impact and influence with activist Democrat state attorneys general and candidates cannot be overstated,” Rutledge told The Daily Signal in a prepared statement.

Schneiderman filed 100 lawsuits or administrative actions against the Trump administration in 2017, The Daily Caller News Foundation reported in December.

“Schneiderman was the ringleader of the activist attorneys general that sought to use the courts to pursue their liberal political agenda,” Rutledge said. “While there will be a reckoning for those who directly benefited from his political power, unfortunately there remain plenty of activist Democrat attorneys general who will push each other down to lead the charge against the rule of law.”

In its 2017 year-end report, the Democratic Attorneys General Association heralded Schneiderman’s work in opposing Trump administration policies on abortion, contraception, student loans, and net neutrality.

In a public statement Tuesday, the group’s executive director, Sean Rankin, saidit opposes “any and all” forms of domestic and sexual violence.

“Our state attorneys general have a special and powerful responsibility in creating that culture—we must hold them to the highest standards of accountability,” Rankin said. “We will continue to support our Democratic attorneys general in their commitment to stand with survivors of domestic and sexual abuse, in addition to their ongoing work in protecting civil rights, keeping our communities and families safe, and serving as the people’s lawyers.”

Schneiderman announced his resignation Monday in one statement and in another, denied the four women’s allegations of physical abuse, first reported by The New Yorker magazine.

“While these allegations are unrelated to my professional conduct or the operations of the office, they will effectively prevent me from leading the office’s work at this critical time,” Schneiderman said in a statement from the attorney general’s office. “I therefore resign my office, effective at the close of business on May 8, 2018.”

In a tweet that night from his private twitter account, Schneiderman asserted: “I have not assaulted anyone. I have never engaged in non-consensual sex, which is a line I would not cross.”

Track Record With Trump

Schneiderman, 63, routinely took credit for “leading” lawsuits among other attorneys general against the Trump administration—and in many cases, they filed such litigation in a federal court in New York.

The legal standoff between Schneiderman and Trump predates the 45th president’s taking office.

In 2013, Schneiderman sued the businessman and real estate developer, alleging fraud in the case of Trump University. In late 2016, after the presidential election, Trump settled for $25 million. A federal court finalized the settlement last month.

The president was noticeably silent on Twitter about Schneiderman after the announcement. But citizen Trump predicted in 2013 that Schneiderman would suffer a fate similar to two other New York politicians, former Gov. Eliot Spitzer and former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, both Democrats who resigned over sex scandals.

After Trump took office, Schneiderman became the face of state litigation against Trump policies, usually joined by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra.

In early April, Schneiderman announced he would lead a coalition of attorneys general from 17 states and the District of Columbia, plus mayors, to sue to block the Trump administration from asking about citizenship status in the 2020 census.

“With immigrant communities already living in fear, demanding citizenship status would drive them into the shadows, leading to a major undercount that threatens billions in federal funding for New York and our fair representation in Congress and the Electoral College,” Schneiderman said in announcing the lawsuit. “I’m proud to lead this coalition in the fight for a full and fair census.”

More plaintiffs joined the suit by early May.

In March, Schneiderman teamed with Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey to lead 17 other Democratic attorneys general in filing comments to oppose the Labor Department’s association health plans. The plans would allow small businesses and sole proprietors to band together to create employee health plans, which officials said would expand coverage options for 11 million uninsured Americans.

Schneiderman announced in February that he would lead a multistate lawsuit to prevent the Trump administration from rolling back the Waters of the United States regulation promulgated by the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency.

“Over the last year, we have not hesitated to fight back against the Trump administration’s assault on the law and New Yorkers’ fundamental right to clean water, air, and environment. We won’t stop now,” he said in the announcement.

In December, Schneiderman sued to stop the rollback of net neutrality regulations of the internet by the Federal Communications Commission.

Also in December, he led a coalition of 12 attorneys general in a statement supporting a lawsuit to protect the right of women who are illegal immigrants to get abortions.

That same month he joined 13 other states to sue the Environmental Protection Agency for not designating more areas as having unhealthy air by missing an Oct. 1 deadline.

Last fall, the Trump administration announced plans to phase out former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which shielded from deportation an estimated 800,000 persons brought to the country illegally as children by their parents or others.

Schneiderman called the decision “cruel, inhumane and devastating.”

He announced he would lead 16 state attorneys general to sue the Trump administration to maintain DACA, an action filed in federal court in New York.

Schneiderman consistently put politics before the law, said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow with The Heritage Foundation.

“He clearly has, not just in the resist Trump movement and the lawsuits against the administration, but also in the absurd lawsuits filed against Exxon and other companies supposedly saying they’re responsible for global warming,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “So his being gone may take some of the energy and enthusiasm out of that movement.”

California’s Becerra hasn’t shown himself to be the type of lawyer to take the lead in Schneiderman’s absence, von Spakovsky added.

“This probably won’t make any difference in the litigation itself, but it may make a difference behind the scenes, where the folks behind all of this are doing their planning and coming up with their strategies and tactics,” von Spakovsky said. “He’s not going to be there.”

COMMENTARY 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:

BDSM community angry at Schneiderman’s ‘role-playing’ depiction

BREAKING: NY Attorney General Resigns Amid Major Sexual Assault Allegations

Ex: Schneiderman called me ‘brown slave,’ slapped me until I called him ‘Master’

‘I Am the Law’– Schneiderman was abusive in his public and private conduct.

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 former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman speaking on Sept. 6, 2017, about plans to sue the Trump administration to reverse its decision to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. (Photo: Erik McGregor/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Same Policies That Failed to Stop Florida Shooter Exist in School Districts Nationwide

Critics of President Donald Trump said his response to the Florida school shooting earlier this year was ill-conceived and a failure.

Yet a new startling revelation from school district officials in Broward County, Florida, shows the White House’s response was indeed appropriate—more than even the Trump administration knew.

On Feb. 14, Nikolas Cruz, a student with a long history of problems in and out of school, allegedly opened fire and claimed the lives of 17 students and adults at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Following the shooting, the Trump administration created a new school safety commission. One of the commission’s assignments is to consider the repeal of student discipline guidelines that the Obama administration issued in 2014.

Cue the negative spin: “Yet again, the Trump administration, faced with a domestic crisis, has responded by creating a commission to study an unrelated issue,” the NAACP told The New York Times.

Broward County Superintendent Robert Runcie also dismissed the move, telling Politico, “It goes with the whole narrative that anything under the Obama administration is no good and we have to get rid of it.”

Critics denied that there was a connection between the Parkland shooting, the district’s student discipline policies (called the “PROMISE” program), and federal student discipline guidelines. Cruz was never referred to PROMISE, officials said, so PROMISE couldn’t be to blame.

Runcie said at a press conference, “[Cruz] was never a participant in the PROMISE program” and “[there’s] no connection between Cruz and the district’s PROMISE program.”

As recently as a few weeks ago, Runcie said, “Let me reiterate this point: Nikolas Cruz, the shooter that was involved in this horrific accident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas, had no connection to the PROMISE program.”

But last Sunday, Broward officials admitted Cruz had in fact been referred to PROMISE. To make matters worse, school officials cannot say whether Cruz actually attended the required sessions or if anyone tried to account for his absence.

The school district should clarify whether officials referred Cruz again to PROMISE based on his behavior in high school, and if not, why.

Cruz’s first referral was for vandalizing a bathroom in middle school, but The Washington Post reports that Cruz continued to display troubling behavior in high school. He made a threat and committed assault while a student at Stoneman Douglas—both offenses that would make him eligible for PROMISE.

The news that Cruz had been referred to PROMISE is critical because the PROMISE program and the Obama administration’s 2014 federal guidelines were announced with much fanfare and take similar approaches to dealing with student behavior.

At the PROMISE launch, Education Week reports, “Community members lauded the board and Runcie for their work, and its passage received a standing ovation.” NPR said, “Civil rights and education activists say the policy can be a model for the nation.”

Central to both documents is the idea that school personnel and law enforcement should limit student interaction with the justice system. Both documents also say school personnel and law enforcement should use exclusionary discipline such as suspensions and expulsions as a last resort.

Earlier this year, my research documented these and other philosophical and practical similarities between the 2014 federal guidelines and PROMISE.

Runcie went as far as to say that PROMISE inspired the federal guidelines in the first place. In a 2014 interview, he said, “Some of my staff joke that the Obama administration might have taken our policies and framework and developed them into national guidelines.”

Runcie was later featured at a 2015 White House event on school discipline.

Broward County officials must now explain to grieving families that the school discipline strategy they called “the most comprehensive thinking available to address socially unacceptable or illegal behavior” failed to stop a school shooting.

Meanwhile, dozens of school systems around the country are following the federal guidelines. This widespread adoption and the terrifying failure of PROMISE makes the White House’s call to rescind federal guidelines that mirror PROMISE a timely and fitting response to Parkland.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jonathan Butcher

Jonathan Butcher is a senior policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy and a senior fellow for the Goldwater Institute and the Beacon Center of Tennessee. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Parkland Shooter Was Assigned To Obama-Era Program, Superintendent Lied, Report

Reports Show Obama-Era Policies May Have Eroded School Safety in Broward County

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 Broward County Sheriff Steve Israel speaking before the start of a CNN town hall meeting on Feb. 21, 2018. (Photo: Michael Laughlin/TNS/Newscom)

Alienage Discrimination Is Now A Thing. And It’s Really Bad

“Alienage discrimination” is exactly what is sounds like; the discrimination against people specifically based on them being in the country illegally. It’s little known, but it is fatally dangerous for America.

Right up front, the threat here is that if alienage discrimination gains the same legal civil rights protections as, say, racial discrimination, then we can shut down ICE and any deportations. Once someone slips into the United States they will have essentially the full legal protections of any legal resident. Which is approximating insanity.

But traveling the remaining distance into the nationally insane, there would be standing and precedent to ultimately require “undocumented residents” the actual right to vote. If you are looking for the signs of America’s ultimate downfall from within, this would be in flashing neon.

Not surprisingly perhaps, this affront to legal, rational reasoning and national sovereignty comes courtesy of President’s Obama’s pen when he created DACA after Congress would not do what he wanted. Also not surprising, it is finding some foothold with Obama-appointed judges who act solely as policymakers, not arbitrators of law. (If political leaders are seeking appropriate places to use impeachment, these judges are prime targets.)

This is not a one-off.

Twice now in the past few years, a federal court has ruled that illegal immigrants have legal standing to sue American employers that won’t hire them because they are here illegally. The companies require their workers to be U.S. citizens or legal residents such as green card holders. Not that long ago, this was seen as the responsible way to limit illegal immigration; by businesses not hiring them.

The latest blow to the rule of law was delivered by an Obama-appointed federal judge in South Florida, who handed an open-borders group a huge victory in a case accusing a giant U.S. company of alienage discrimination against an illegal immigrant by not hiring him because he was in the country illegally.

The lawsuit was filed by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a radically leftist, anti-American group that launches lawsuits on behalf of illegal immigrants. MALDEF has an extensive political agenda, including pushing for free college tuition for illegal immigrants and lowering educational standards to accommodate new illegal immigrants. MALDEF officially labels American immigration enforcement as racist and xenophobic, going so far as to charge that it is racist for English to be the country’s official national language. And naturally, it violates civil rights to wall off the southern border.

Judicial Watch has been following these cases. It reports:

In the recent Florida case a Venezuelan immigrant, David Rodriguez, living in Miami is suing consumer goods corporation Procter & Gamble for refusing to give him a paid internship because he is not a legal resident or citizen of the United States. MALDEF filed the lawsuit last year in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Procter & Gamble requires citizenship and immigration status information on its applications and warns that candidates “must be a U.S. citizen or national, refugee, asylee or lawful permanent resident.” Rodriquez is neither and he quickly played the discrimination card after getting nixed as a candidate. In a statement MALDEF’s president reminds that “work-authorized DACA holders are valuable contributors to our economy” and “should not have to face arbitrary and biased exclusions from employment, especially by large and sophisticated corporations like Procter & Gamble.”

In 2014, MALDEF filed a lawsuit against Northwestern Mutual insurance company in New York because the company required a Mexican illegal alien protected by DACA to have a green card. MALDEF claimed that requiring Ruben Juarez, a Mexican national, to provide proof of legal residency resulted in “alienage discrimination.” The judge ruled in favor of Juarez.

In the most recent case, Judge Kathleen Williams, a 2011 Obama appointee, cited that 2014 ruling in her ruling in favor of Venezuelan Rodriguez. In denying Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss Rodriguez’s lawsuit, Judge Williams ruled the Venezuelan immigrant’s claims are “strikingly similar” to Juarez’s.

What this means is that DACA is clearly not seen as a temporary measure to help the “kids” — although Rodriguez is 34 years old, meaning he was nearly an adult when he slipped illegally into the United States. It’s obviously being used to create a pathway for permanent, legally-protected status and citizenship-level rights for people who came here illegally. And it’s being accomplished without any elected official ever taking a vote or making a decision. It’s all through activist judges.

But this alienage discrimination method/precedent has vaster implications. First, it could — and will with legal successes — turn into class action lawsuits against every major U.S. corporation that has policies in place for only hiring people in America legally. That would likely include all Fortune 500 companies plus thousands of others who have high training costs for new employees. It’s unknown what the total financial costs of that would be, but unarguably deep into the billions of dollars that American companies following American laws might be required to transfer to people who are in America illegally.

Second and most serious, establishing the concept of alienage discrimination would cripple America’s efforts to maintain internal order among its citizens. A nation that cannot regulate or deport people who come to the country illegally, or overstay illegally, is a country that is quickly enroute losing its sovereignty.

If “undocumented residents” are given special civil rights discrimination protections currently afforded to certain minorities — which is what MALDEF is asking for and these rulings are beginning to confer — then they have a case for proportional representation in employment, university acceptance and so on; againstalienage profiling by law enforcement; and ultimately a case for voting rights. If it is illegal to discriminate against blacks, for instance, in voting rights and illegal aliens are protected by the same civil rights, then voting must follow.

If that sounds absurd and extreme, please see the history of the past few years.

This is not how the United States continues as a functioning, sovereign nation. Many have long said that America will not fall from without, but from within. This would be a pathway in accomplishing that fall.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please subscribe to our Revolutionary YouTube channel.

A Government Loan Program for Auto Manufacturers on Road to Repeal

Among programs on the chopping block in the White House’s new plan to cut more than $15 billion in wasteful government spending is the Department of Energy’s loan program for certain automakers. Congress should drop the guillotine and rescind the $4.3 billion remaining in this Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing loan program.

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 authorizes the president to rescind funding previously enacted into law.

Established by Congress under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program illustrates why the federal government should not finance energy investments.

In handing out only five loans, the program has wasted taxpayer dollars by subsidizing economic losers, promoted corporate welfare by subsidizing well-off companies, and distorted market decisions by steering private capital toward politically proffered projects.

One loan recipient and failure of the program is Fisker Automotive, an electric car company that received $529 million in April 2010 to develop and produce two lines of hybrid plug-in vehicles at a plant in Delaware.

Fisker’s inability to meet performance targets prompted the Energy Department to cap the money lent at $192 million. Fisker filed for bankruptcy in November 2013. The federal government recovered $28 million, and then recovered another $25 million by selling the loan at auction, leaving a loss of $139 million.

Red flags should have made it apparent that Fisker was not credit-worthy for a government loan. Fisker spent $600,000 per car, which was sold to auto dealers for an average of $70,000, and had a CCC+ credit rating.

After the Fisker failure, the head of the loan program office, Peter Davidson, explained why the government sank money into the project, writing: “Early on, Fisker Automotive looked very promising—raising more than $1.2 billion from leading private sector investors who believed in the company and its business plan, and also attracting strong support from both Republicans and Democrats.”

If a company can attract $1.2 billion from the private sector, it should not need help from the federal government. The question is, would Fisker have generated that much investment absent the government’s loan?

The Energy Department loan artificially made this dubious investment appear more attractive and lowered the risk of private investment. For instance, private investors sank $1.1 billion into Fisker, but much of the private financing came after the department approved and closed the loan.

Another company, Vehicle Production Group LLC, received a $50 million direct loan through the program in March 2011 to develop and produce vehicles that were powered by natural gas and wheelchair-accessible. The company failed to make loan payments, the Energy Department discontinued the project, and the company ceased operations in May 2013.

The government recovered $3 million by selling the loan and recovered $5 million from an escrow payment, leaving a loss of $42 million.

In addition to picking losers, the federal government doled out billions in what is blatant corporate welfare and effectively an auto bailout by another name.

The DOE also issued the loans to both Ford Motor Co. and Nissan North America to retool factories to produce more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles.

In September 2009, the department loaned $5.9 billion to Ford to upgrade facilities in Illinois, Kentucky, New York, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio. In January 2010, it loaned Nissan a $1.45 billion loan to build a battery manufacturing plant and retool existing factories to expand development of its electric vehicle, the Nissan LEAF.

Ford and Nissan are well-established companies. Drivers value energy efficiency and saving on fuel costs. If Ford and Nissan thought these investments and retooling of manufacturing plants were a way to meet market demand, they should have been completely privately financed outside the government.

The real economic question mark of the loan portfolio, however, is Elon Musk’s Tesla Inc., the California-based company that specializes in electric vehicles, energy storage, and solar panel manufacturing.

The Energy Department and proponents of government-backed loans and loan guarantees advertise Tesla as a success of the loan program. The department loaned Tesla $465 million in January 2010 to reopen a former plant in California to produce electric vehicles and to develop a manufacturing plant to produce battery packs.

Tesla fully paid back the loan in May 2013. But whether Tesla continues to be profitable remains to be seen. Both federal and state governments are doing a lot to help—using taxpayers’ money to subsidize consumption of electric vehicles, which disproportionately benefits the rich.

A recent Bloomberg article headlined “Tesla Doesn’t Burn Fuel, It Burns Cash” warns that the company could run out of money this year. The article notes that Tesla spends $7,430 every minute and features a nifty little calculator that shows you how much money Tesla has spent since you started reading the story.

Regardless, if companies like Tesla promise to be the wave of the future, they should secure investment and loans through the private sector. A system that privatizes the profits and socializes the losses does much more damage than put hard-earned taxpayers’ money at risk.

Government interventions distort free enterprise and allow Washington to direct the flow of private-sector investments. This is not a recipe for more innovation and economic growth. It’s a recipe for ever-expanding cronyism.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Nicolas Loris

Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES: 

White House Rolls Out Agenda for More Deregulation to Boost Business

Podcast: Trump Becomes First President in Nearly 20 Years to Ask Congress to Cut Spending This Way

The Left’s Chilling Refusal to Stop Flirting With Marxist Ideas

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

DACA Ruling: Judicial Travesty Obstructs Presidential Authority

Fed. Judge Bates’ ruling ignores facts and national security.

The April 24, 2018 headline of the New York Times articleU.S. Must Keep DACA and Accept New Applications, Federal Judge Rules summed up Judge John D. Bates’ outrageous decision to force the Trump administration to continue the DACA program created by the Obama administration.

The judge has given the Trump administration 90 days to substantiate President Trump 90 days to justify his claim that DACA is illegal.

Judge Bates’ ruling ignores the indisputable fact that DACA was created by Obama’s Executive Order and not by legislation.  Judge Bates apparently believes that Exeuctive Orders must extend beyond the administration of the president who issued those Executive Orders, even when the new president disagrees with them.  Bates’ ruling obstructs President Trump’s ability to implement his policies.

In order to understand the issue we must begin by considering the origins of DACA, an acronym for Deferred Action – Childhood Arrival.

First of all, the action that is being deferred by DACA is the required departure of illegal aliens from the United States.

Prior to the Obama administration’s claim of exercising “prosecutorial discretion” to justify the creation of DACA, immigration authorities did use the notion of “deferred action” for humanitarian purposes in a case-by-case basis, to provide nonimmigrant aliens, that is to say aliens who had been admitted into the United States for a temporary period of time, with permission to remain in the United States beyond their authorized periods of admission.

If, for example, a family member of an alien visitor in the United States had fallen seriously ill or became seriously injured, nonimmigrant family members would be allowed to remain in the United States for a finite additional period of time, to tend to their stricken family member.

As an INS special agent I was, on occasion, tasked with interviewing medical professionals to verify the medical condition of such individuals to make certain that fraud was not being perpetrated.  Generally doctors were required to provide periodic documentation that reported on the medical status of the ill or injured family member.

Once the situation was resolved, hopefully with that family member making a sufficient recovery, the alien beneficiaries of that temporary deferred action were required to depart from the United States.

Obama however, exploited this humanitarian program, that was supposed to be used in a limited case-by-case basis, to achieve a political goal by enabling potentially millions of illegal aliens to remain in the United States as quasi-lawful immigrants for an initial two year period, even though there is no provision in the immigration laws for this action.

Under current immigration law, the U.S. generously, provides approximately one million aliens are granted lawful immigrant status for a number of circumstances that do not begin as a reward for violating our immigration laws.  That number of new immigrants surpasses the number of immigrants admitted by all of the countries on earth, combined.

On June 15, 2012 President Obama delivered a statement from the White House Rose Garden in which he announced his plans to create DACA via an Exeuctive Order.  His statement made it clear that DACA was an end-run, around the legislative process, to provide illegal aliens with immigration benefits contained in the DREAM Act, which failed to pass in the Congress.

The DREAM Act is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act.  It is more than a bit confounding that under the guise of “Political Correctness” actually an exercise of Orwellian Newspeak, the term “alien” has been expunged from discussions about immigration.  That term has come to be referred to as “hate speech” by immigration anarchists

Yet  that word is included in the acronym “DREAM” and illegal aliens who participate in this wrong-headed program have come to be known as “DREAMERS.”

Hypocrisy is alive and well in the immigration debate.

Furthermore, the claim that the “DREAMERS” were all children when they were brought to the United States and hence too young to have control over their circumstances, is yet another artifice and one repeated by the media every time this issue is discussed.

In reality, aliens were eligible to apply to participate in Obama’s program if they had not yet attained the age of 32 when they filed their applications and claimed that they entered the United States prior to their 16 birthdays.

With so many applications and so few resources, there were virtually no interviews and no field investigations to verify the claims made in the applications that, thus far, have been filed by nearly 800,000 illegal aliens.

This creates an open invitation to fraud.

Imagine, for example, how effective law enforcement would be in stopping speeders if police officers had no radar units and could only issue a speeding tickets if drivers admitted to exceeding the speed limit.  This is, in essence, how these DACA applications were processed and continue to be processed under Judge Bates’ ruling.

Today, six years after Mr. Obama’s DACA program was created, aliens as old as 37 years of age could apply for DACA- provided that they claim to have entered the United States before they turned 16.

An alien who lies on that application would be committing a serious crime, immigration fraud. However, given the scarce resources, if Judge Bates gets his way, unknown millions of illegal aliens could easily game this program.

Adult illegal aliens who have not yet entered the United States could easily falsely claim to have been present in the United States for decades, justifiably confident that their fraudulent claims would not only go undetected but rewarded.

What could possibly go wrong?

The answer that that question can be found in my article, Immigration Fraud: Lies That Kill wherein I quoted from the official report “9/11 and  Terrorist Travel:

Once terrorists had entered the United States, their next challenge was to find a way to remain here. Their primary method was immigration fraud. For example, Yousef and Ajaj concocted bogus political asylum stories when they arrived in the United States. Mahmoud Abouhalima, involved in both the World Trade Center and landmarks plots, received temporary residence under the Seasonal Agricultural Workers (SAW) program, after falsely claiming that he picked beans in Florida.

[ … ]

Terrorists in the 1990s, as well as the September 11 hijackers, needed to find a way to stay in or embed themselves in the United States if their operational plans were to come to fruition. As already discussed, this could be accomplished legally by marrying an American citizen, achieving temporary worker status, or applying for asylum after entering. In many cases, the act of filing for an immigration benefit sufficed to permit the alien to remain in the country until the petition was adjudicated. Terrorists were free to conduct surveillance, coordinate operations, obtain and receive funding, go to school and learn English, make contacts in the United States, acquire necessary materials, and execute an attack.

Obama falsely claimed that “Congress had failed to act,” blithely ignoring that when Congress votes down legislation it is, indeed, acting- just in this instance, not the way he wanted Congress to act.

On June 17, 2012, Fox News published my Op-Ed, Obama Invokes Prosecutorial Discretion to Circumvent Constitution and Congress, in which I stated that, given all of the facts, what Obama had referred to as “Prosecutorial Discretion” should, actually, be referred to as “Prosecutorial Deception.”

Prosecutorial discretion is often used by government and law enforcement agencies to not squander limited resources but to use them most effectively, not unlike the concept of a medical triage whereby in an instance of mass casualties, the most seriously injured are treated before those with relatively minor wounds.

In creating DACA, the Obama administration did not simply ignore illegal aliens not deemed essential to arrest, but created an expensive program that required that limited resources were diverted to provide huge numbers of illegal aliens with lawful status without legal authority.

This disingenuous, supposed justification for creating DACA caused me to describe Obama’s claims as an example of “Prosecutorial Deception” in my Fox News commentary.

Furthermore, the Obama administration’s use of the term “Deferred Action” was clearly another artifice.  DACA was not intended to postpone the eventual departure of the huge number of illegal aliens who were dealing with personal emergencies, but rather serve as a stop-gap measure to enable them to remain in the U.S. until, Obama had hoped, Congress would pass legislation that would permanently legalize their immigration status by creating a massive amnesty program.

This, in and of itself, runs contrary to the principles that underly the concept of “Deferred Action.”

News coverage about DACA has failed to report on that which I have noted in my commentary, but has become a conduit for the dissemination of propaganda and the disingenuous claims made by the Obama administration, parading those falsehoods as supposed facts.

Mainstream media coverage and discussions about DACA have ignored how the Obama administration perverted the discretionary authority inherent in deferred action, for humanitarian purposes, to create a de facto temporary amnesty program, conferring lawful immigrant status on nearly 800,000 illegal aliens, who may not even be children but actually middled-aged.

By denying President Trump the right to terminate DACA, Judge Bates apparently seeks to legitimize Obama’s DACA Executive Order, treating it as law, when in reality DACA co-opted Congress’ unique legislative authority.

America is a nation of laws, not Executive Orders.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

The Humanitarian Hoax of the Muslim Brotherhood

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Ikhwan, Arabic for Muslim Brotherhood (MB), is an organizational humanitarian hoax being perpetrated on the American people to bring Islam to America. Islam in America would not be problematic if it was a religion like Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism – it isn’t. Islam is a comprehensive socio-political, military, religious way of life with its own governing supremacist religious sharia laws that are antithetical to Western cultural norms and America’s governing secular Constitutional laws.

The Muslim Brotherhood is an enemy of the United States.

The goal of Islam is to convert the world to Islam. The purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood in America is SETTLEMENT not assimilation. Settlement is the incremental process of making Islam familiar, acceptable, normative, and ultimately replacing secular American laws with supremacist religious Islamic sharia law.

The treasonous conspiracy of the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots is fully documented in its 1991 Explanatory Memorandum that details the strategic goal for the group in North America and the necessity for organizational acceptance. The Muslim Brotherhood understood that America is structured by organizations so the parent organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, has spawned hundreds of offspring organizations with the same subversive settlement goal and the same deceitful operating principles.

The Explanatory Memorandum explicitly states, “The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

The Muslim Brotherhood mission statement is crystal clear – Islam intends to subjugate (settle) host populations in North America and replace host religions and cultures with supremacist Islam and Islamic sharia law. So where is the hoax?

The Explanatory Memorandum was a secret strategic document for internal use only and certainly not intended for public consumption by its targeted society – the United States of America. The Memorandum describes in chilling detail the overarching deceit required to present the Muslim Brotherhood and every one of its hundreds of offshoots as peaceful organizations when their stated objective is to destroy Western civilization and replace it with Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood disguises itself as the compassionate advocate for peace and Muslim tolerance when in fact it is America’s existential enemy – the Muslim Brotherhood is a dangerous humanitarian hoax.

Saul Alinsky instructed his followers to cut their hair, blend in, and destroy the American capitalist system from within – so did the Muslim Brotherhood. In Arabic there is a word for this deception – taqiyyah – lying in the service of Islam. There is no equivalent word in English – only the equivalent deceit. Like Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum details the seditious steps necessary to overthrow the American government from within by blending in, keeping a low profile, and becoming part of the organizational/political structure.

Former radical Muslima Isik Alba describes the 8 types of Islamic jihad currently being waged against Western countries in its campaign to rule the world under Islam – it is the Muslim Brotherhood’s treasonous conspiracy in action:

  • Population jihad – open borders and mass migration of Muslims into Western countries.
  • Media jihad – buying media channels and directing content to promote the deceit that Islam is a religion of peace.
  • Education jihad – buying university chairs and directing curriculum content to promote the deceit that Islam is a religion of peace.
  • Economic jihad – investing in Western banks, properties, businesses, and stocks to buy cultural influence promoting the deceit that Islam is a religion of peace.
  • Physical jihad – killing non-believers until everyone left is either Muslim or recites the Muslim declaration of faith.
  • Legal jihad – bringing sharia tribunals, councils, and courts to the West.
  • Humanitarian jihad – Muslim “humanitarian” organizations requiring registration as a Muslim to receive humanitarian aid and then further requiring prayer meetings and enrollment in Muslim schools to continue receiving humanitarian aid.
  • Political jihad – Muslim politicians in office downplaying the role of Islam in violence and terror.

The Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni Islamist organization founded in Egypt in 1928 has been declared a terrorist group by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Kazakhstan, and the United Arab Emirates. Why not in the United States?

The biggest criticism after 9/11 was that the security services failed to connect the dots. In 2001 President George W. Bush disingenuously tried to separate Islam from terrorism by announcing that Islam is a religion of peace. Fifteen of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers were Saudi yet Bush allowed Saudi nationals to fly back to Saudi Arabia when no other airplanes were allowed to fly. WHY?

America has a complex connection to Saudi Arabia and so does the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabian oil was first discovered in commercial quantities by Americans in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia in 1938. The US went into business with Saudi Arabia and in 1943 the Arabian American Oil Company (ARAMCO) was formed. Oil revenues became the primary source of wealth for Saudi Arabia replacing its tourist income derived from pilgrimages to Mecca. Oil made Saudi Arabia rich – very rich. America needed a guaranteed source of oil and Saudi Arabia needed its oil wells protected – a deal was made with exceptions to every rule.

The Muslim Brotherhood came to Saudi Arabia in the 1950s when thousands of Egyptian teachers were recruited to work in Saudi Arabia’s new public schools. The Brotherhood used religion for political purposes but the Saudis refused to allow that platform because it posed a threat to the Saudi royal family. The Brotherhood stayed quiet for years but eventually tried to influence Saudi society. In 2011, the Muslim Brotherhood celebrated the election of Mohammad Morsi in Egypt and stunned the Saudis by openly supported uprisings in other Arab countries. In March, 2014 Saudi Arabia declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization.

The discovery of the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum in 2004 was shocking and should have been enough to declare the Muslim Brotherhood and every one of its offshoots a terrorist organization in America including the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Student Association (MSA) but that did not happen. WHY NOT?

Pro-oil President George W. Bush protected the Muslim Brotherhood throughout his presidency by repeating the deceit that Islam is a religion of peace. Even after 2004 when the discovery of the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum left no doubt that the Islamists intended to settle America and replace the US Constitution with religious sharia law – Bush protected the Brotherhood at the expense of America’s homeland security.

Pro-Muslim President Barack Obama went much farther by welcoming the Muslim Brotherhood into America and seeding the government with seditious MB operatives. Together Obama and the Brotherhood with CAIR scrubbed any mention of Islam, jihadis, or the stated ideological goals of Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood to conduct civilization jihad and destroy America from within.

Pro-Muslim huckster-in-chief Barack Obama successfully conned America into believing that the Muslim Brotherhood was a peaceful moderate voice in Islam. Americans were so enamored with Obama that they actually believed his subversive lies. Rachel Ehrenfeld has written a comprehensive article supporting the argument for President Trump to classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Cynthia Farahat, a Fellow at the Middle East Forum, has written an expose about current Islamists with ties to terrorism lobbying Congress.

It is time for America to equate terrorism with treason. The Muslim Brotherhood and every one of its vile offshoots are terrorist organizations and should be classified as such. Every member of Congress should be required to read the Muslim Brotherhood Explanatory Memorandum which clearly states the purpose of the MB in America – to destroy America from within and settle it under supremacist Islamic sharia law. Any member of Congress, after reading the Explanatory Memorandum, who refuses to reclassify the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization is either too corrupt or too indoctrinated to hold office. Terrorism is treason. It is that simple.

The Humanitarian Hoax of the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be allowed to continue in the United States. Reuters 3.21.18 article “Saudi Arabia Purges Muslim Brotherhood Influence From Schools” reports Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman is revamping its educational curriculum to eradicate any trace of the Muslim Brotherhood.

It is time for the United States to reverse Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood infestation and follow the Prince’s lead to eradicate the Muslim Brotherhood from America. Let’s begin by scrubbing Obama’s pro-Muslim training manuals from all security and law enforcement training. Eventually we can remove Obama’s treasonous stain on America.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on Goudsmit Pundicity.

VIDEO: Debunking Communism from ‘The School of Life’ — A Rebuttal of Karl Marx

Steven Crowder presents a rebuttal to the ever-popular School of Life’s defense of Communism and Karl Marx.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EXCLUSIVE VIDEOS and PHOTOS: Communists Celebrate Their Failed Ideology in NYC on May Day 2018

Why Is the EU Celebrating Karl Marx’s Birthday?

EDITORS NOTE: The original The School of Life “Political Theory – Karl Marx” video:

Why Florida is a Magnet for Illegal Alien Workers

In 1986, 32 years ago, Congress agreed to implement a mandatory system in the U.S.A. To protect American workers jobs by verifying that all workers were legal workers. Obviously that did not happen as all attempts failed.

In 2010 Governor Scott ran promising to make E-Verify mandatory in Florida. He lied. In 2012 he said it was a Federal not state matter. Another lie.

In 2017 the Miami Herald reported:

South Florida is home to nearly half a million immigrants who are in the country illegally, making it the metropolitan area with the fifth-largest undocumented population in the United States, according to a new analysis by the Pew Research Center.

About 450,000 unauthorized immigrants reside in the greater Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach area, Pew found, based on 2014 estimates from government data. About 55,000 live in the city of Miami alone.

In 2007 the cost to Floridians was $1.85 Billion, in 2017 it was more than triple 2007 at $6.3 Billion. Unchecked, will it triple again in another decade to $20 Billion?

Meanwhile, seven states around us in the South passed what Scott said wasn’t their responsibility and so today we are the only state in the Southeastern part of the country that does not have mandatory E-Verify.

A campaign was launched by Floridians for E-Verify Now to get on the 2018 state ballot to be voted on to become a Constitutional Amendment. Early votes by the Commission were favorable but the final vote was negative. The Chamber of Commerce, Ag owners and criminal illegal alien employers exerted pressure to kill it.

So what some would ask?

The answer is as illegal aliens invade the country looking for jobs they will come to Florida where their legality won’t be checked.

Currently Chairman Bob Goodlatte has a bill, HR 4760, in Congress with 95 co-sponsors that includes mandatory E-Verify. We need to support the bill to protect Florida’s workers and our wallets.

Florida has 27 Representatives in Congress. ONLY FIVE representatives are currently co-sponsors. They are: Rep. Rutherford ®, Rep. Yoho ®, Rep. Posey ®, Rep. Rooney ® and Rep. Bilarakis ®. They are all Republicans and should be applauded for trying to protect Florida’s workers.

That leaves 22 Florida Representatives who either don’t care to protect Florida workers or are being compensated in some way to not support HR 4760.

Give them a call and ask them their reason for not wanting to support Florida’s legal workers. Encourage them to join Goodlatte and get the legislation passed.

Congressional Delegation from Florida

SENATE

Name Room Phone
Nelson, Bill 716 HSOB 202-224-5274
Rubio, Marco 284 RSOB 202-224-3041

HOUSE

District Name Room Phone
1 Gaetz. Matt 507 CHOB 202-225-4136
2 Dunn, Neal 423 CHOB 202-225-5235
3 Yoho, Ted 511 CHOB 202-225-5744
4 Rutherford, John 230 CHOB 202-225-2501
5 Lawson, Al 1337 LHOB 202-225-0123
6 DeSantis, Ron 1524 LHOB 202-225-2706
7 Murphy, Stephanie 1237 LHOB 202-225-4035
8 Posey, Bill 2150 RHOB 202-225-3671
9 Soto, Darren 1429 LHOB 202-225-9889
10 Demings, Val 238 CHOB 202-225-2176
11 Webster, Daniel 1210 LHOB 202-225-1002
12 Bilirakis, Gus M. 2112 RHOB 202-225-5755
13 Crist, Charlie 427 CHOB 202-225-5961
14 Castor, Kathy 2052 RHOB 202-225-3376
15 Ross, Dennis 436 CHOB 202-225-1252
16 Buchanan, Vern 2104 RHOB 202-225-5015
17 Rooney, Tom 2160 RHOB 202-225-5792
18 Mast, Brian 2182 RHOB 202-225-3026
19 Rooney, Francis 120 CHOB 202-225-2536
20 Hastings, Alcee L. 2353 RHOB 202-225-1313
21 Frankel, Lois 1037 LHOB 202-225-3001
22 Deutch, Ted 2447 RHOB 202-225-9890
23 Wasserman Schultz, Debbie 1114 LHOB 202-225-7931
24 Wilson, Frederica 2445 RHOB 202-225-4506
25 Diaz-Balart, Mario 440 CHOB 202-225-4211
26 Curbelo, Carlos 1404 LHOB 202-225-2778
27 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana 2206 RHOB 202-225-3931

RELATED ARTICLE: More than 56 per cent of crimes in German town are committed by asylum seekers

The SPLC File — An Exclusive Report on the Southern Poverty Law Center

James Simpson is an investigative journalist, businessman, and author. Mr. Simpson has published an extensive report on the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which appeared in the Spring Edition of The Social Contract. The investigative report is titled “The Southern Poverty Law Center – Institution of weaponized hate.”

According to Discover The Networks:

Founder, Chief Trial Attorney for SPLC Morris Dees

SPLC was founded in 1971 by two young Alabama lawyers, 35-year-old Morris Dees and 28-year-old Joseph Levin Jr.  The latter served as the Center’s legal director from 1971-76, but it was Dees who would emerge as the long-term “face” of the organization. A leftist who views the U.S. as an irredeemably racist nation, Dees, upon launching SPLC, joined forces with an African American who would serve as a perfect complement to him ideologically — the civil-rights activist Julian Bond, who served as SPLC’s first president from 1971-79.

SPLC’s work of “fighting hate and bigotry” while “seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society,” is rooted in the premise that the United States is perpetually “seething” with “racial violence” and “intolerance against those who are different.”Hate in America is a dreadful, daily constant,” says the Center, and violent crimes against members of minority groups like blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, and Arabs/Muslims “are not isolated incidents,” but rather, ubiquitous “eruptions of a nation’s intolerance.” [Emphasis added]

Dees and the SPLC see themselves as doing good by exposing evil. However, Simpson shows that the SPLC uses its power to demonize those who disagree with it. Simpson notes:

To reconcile the SPLC’s often contradictory and usually false narratives, one must understand that its constant vilification of political enemies is entirely tactical. The terms “hater,” “bigot”, “racist,” and so forth are frequently misunderstood as a spontaneous, visceral reaction to policies the Left opposes. Those with more political savvy recognize such narratives as an application of Saul Alinsky’s Rule Number 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.17

But this rule actually comes from a very specific tactic first articulated 100 years ago by Vladimir Lenin, the first leader of the Soviet Communist Party, who said:

We must be ready to employ trickery, deceit, law-breaking, withholding, and concealing truth… We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.18

SPLC spokesman Mark Potok.

Simpson quotes former Senior Fellow and SPLC spokesman Mark Potok:

In an interview with NBC’s Chris Matthews, SPLC spokesman Mark Potok stated:

Well, let me say for starters that our—when we name groups “hate groups,” that has nothing to do with any allegation of criminality or some kind of measure of expected violence.It’s purely about ideology.14

At a public speaking event, Potok was even more pointed:

Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate crimes and so on … I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, to completely destroy them…15

Simpson masterfully traces the history of political correctness from the Frankfurt School’s German Communist Herbert Marcuse to Angela Davis, the black American Communist, to Critical Theory, an intellectual tool to deconstruct the West through constant criticism, to today what is commonly referred to as Cultural Marxism or Political Correctness. 

Timothy Dionisopoulos in a Campus Reform article titled “[VIDEO] Director at Southern Poverty Law Center tells students parts of Tea Party are filled with ‘racists’” wrote:

Parts of the Tea Party group are “filled with racists,” a prominent director from the Southern Poverty Law Center told a group of university students late last month.

Heidi Beirich, the Intelligence Project Director, at the left-leaning organization, made the claim in a speech to students at the Middle Tennessee State University (MTSU).

A video sent to LI’s Campus Reform reveals Beirich making a number of statement’s affiliating the Tea Party with racism and violence.

Beirich also suggested Obama’s Presidency had pushed many conservatives to engage in acts of violence.

“So there’s that, there’s the populism, the reaction against Obama that has helped drive up the number of hate groups,” she said. “It has fueled this movement, fueled a lot of domestic terrorism… This was about that black man with those liberal policies.”

Here is Beirich speaking in a video titled: Hate Groups Are Growing Under Trump. Beirich follows the SPLC ideal of demonizing those that it disagrees with.

Simpson writes:

Our First Amendment allows for the free exchange of ideas, even radical ones. Marcuse claimed that despite this apparent “tolerance,” an oppressive imbalance exists in Western societies, which he said, “favors and fortifies the conservation of the status quo of inequality and discrimination.”28 To correct this imbalance, he [Marcuse] followed Lenin’s lead, suggesting that leftists had a special right to lie, suppress truth, and engage in violence and law-breaking to get their way:

Under the conditions prevailing in this country, tolerance does not, and cannot, fulfill the civilizing function attributed to it by the liberal protagonists of democracy, namely, protection of dissent… I believe that there is a “natural right” of resistance for oppressed and overpowered minorities to use extralegal means if the legal ones have proved to be inadequate… If they use violence, they do not start a new chain of violence but try to break an established one.29

Simpson makes this critical observation about SPLC:

Unlike most of its targets, the SPLC is the organization that genuinely expresses hate. In fact, hatred is its stock-in-trade.

Simpson concludes:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is an extreme Left, communist-inspired, if not communist-led, influence operation designed to rationalize demonizing and silencing critics of the far Left’s agenda for America. This agenda is no less than a fundamental transformation of our Constitutional Republic into a Soviet-style, one-party Socialist state. The SPLC’s tax-exempt status should be immediately revoked, its assets seized under RICO statutes, and its leaders investigated for participating in a continuing criminal enterprise to subvert America.

RELATED ARTICLE: Social Contract magazine devotes entire issue to educate readers about the Southern Poverty Law Center

SOURCE: The Southern Poverty Law Center – Institution of weaponized hate By James Simpson 

EDITORS NOTE: In October 2017 Gonzaga University hosted its the 4th International Conference on Hate Studies. One of the keynote speakers was the co-founder of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) Joe Levin. The conference was titled “Engaging with Communities for Justice.”  According to the description, “Levin has worked with Morris Dees to shut down some of the nation’s most violent white supremacist groups, reformed juvenile justice practices, shattered barriers to equality for women, children, the LGBT community and the disabled, protected low-wage immigrant workers from exploitation, and more.”

Here is a short video of the history of SPLC.

The Consequences of Historical Ignorance

America is suffering through a crisis in education, especially when it comes to history.

Many were horrified when a poll, released in April, showed that two-thirds of millennials don’t know what Auschwitz is, despite the fact that it was the most notorious Nazi death camp in World War II.

That was hardly the only worrisome poll of late.

Americans should be outraged that our schools have failed to teach even the most basic historical facts to the younger generations. Worse, the education they receive has often only turned into a justification for superficial social activism, lacking in depth and veracity.

David Hogg, the teen survivor of the February school shooting in Parkland, Florida, who became a gun-control activist, exemplifies this worsening problem. He recently tweeted:

This is little more than bumper sticker history, demonstrative of Hogg’s historical illiteracy.

For one thing, it’s unlikely that Gandhi’s pacifism would have been of much use against the Nazi war machine. People willing to put other humans in ovens are unlikely to be moved by passionate pleas for peace.

It should be noted, too, that Hogg’s two examples of nonviolent movements succeeding—Gandhi’s Indian independence movement and the U.S. civil rights movement—were not exactly nonviolent.

The Partition of India was incredibly violent, and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of people. And the civil rights movement certainly wasn’t an entirely nonviolent affair, either. The rights of many black Americans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were secured almost entirely by gun ownership.

These so-called nonviolent movements occurred in countries with a tradition of respecting the rule of law and individual rights, giving them an actual chance to succeed through ballots instead of bullets.

In China, nonviolent student protests in the 1980s were crushed by the state—literally in the case of the Tiananmen Square protest. Historically, repression has been the norm, not the exception.

For Americans, the right to speak freely and protest was only secured because young men, mostly teenagers, were willing to take up arms—arms that Hogg and others have so relentlessly crusaded against—and risk their lives to fight for their God-given liberties against the British Crown.

At one time, every American would have known this and would have acknowledged the blood and suffering of the Revolution that secured our freedom and independence.

War is a terrible thing, but it is often just and necessary, and it has certainly served to stop tremendous evil in this world.

To deny that is absurd.

Despite the clear gaps in his historical knowledge, Hogg hasn’t shied away from insulting the civic acumen of others and hectoring them. He once said, “Our parents don’t know how to use a f—ing democracy, so we have to.”

Not content to simply insult his parents’ generation, he then followed up in a later interview claiming that those who were against him were on the wrong side of history—a history that his generation would presumably be writing.

“Regardless of what your opinions are or where you come from, you need to realize we are the future of America,” Hogg said in an NPR interview. “And if you choose not to stand with us, that’s OK, because you’ll be on the wrong side of the history textbooks that we write.”

If that’s so, then future history textbooks will look more ideological and baseless than accurate portrayals of the historical record. But perhaps that’s because many current textbooks are, too.

Americans are free, regardless of their education or knowledge level, to use a public platform to espouse their views. At the same time, it’s hard to have a substantive and productive debate on the issues of the day when even the most basic facts of history are unknown to those doing the debating.

Platitudes begin to sound like profound insights when one has an extremely narrow view of history and world events.

It would be nice to see a little more humility from those who have such an incomplete understanding of that history.

Nevertheless, we have only ourselves to blame if we are not doing more to fix the increasingly deplorable state of American schools.

We must admit that the public school education model is failing our youths, despite how much money we’ve pumped into the system.

We should take it upon ourselves to improve our republic through better schools—perhaps charter schools, or even better, private schools funded by caring parents who increasingly can use vouchers or education savings accounts to escape the current institutions that have failed them.

Currently, many of our schools don’t meet even the basic requirements of what Americans need to be informed citizens. Worse, the education students are receiving, especially in civics, is heavily skewed toward left-wing politics.

As my wife, Inez Stepman, wrote for The Federalist:

If education reform is going to be about more than ticking up the United States’ score on international exams, and if school choice is also our only opportunity to break a left-wing ideological monopoly on public education, we must deliver meaningful, universal education choice to parents now, while Generation X parents are still the majority of those with school-age children.

We must give all parents the opportunity now to choose education options that align with their values, or the values we cherish will continue their slide into extinction.

Historical ignorance and cultural disintegration are only going to become more pronounced until we find a way to expand the net of education that works for the youngest generation.

School choice can no longer be treated as a back-burner issue.

Our future and our freedom depend on it.

COMMENTARY BY

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 MEMBER

PODCAST: Why This New Lawsuit Could Finally End DACA Program

The Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky joins us to discuss why a new lawsuit, spearheaded by Texas and including six other states, could succeed. Plus: The Boy Scouts are dropping the “boy” part of their name.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Katrina Trinko

Katrina Trinko

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

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: @JDaniel_Davis.

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 Cyrille Gibot /agefotostock/Newscom.

Boy Scouts Nix the Word ‘Boy,’ Showing They No Longer Believe in Masculinity

It seems the Boy Scouts of America would prefer not to exist.

On Wednesday, the Boy Scouts announced that their signature program known simply as the “Boy Scouts”—which serves ages 10 to 17—will no longer bear the word “boy.” Beginning in February, it will be known as Scouts BSA.

This change comes only months after the Boy Scouts announced girls would be allowed into the program. Chief Scout Executive Mike Surbaugh said they wanted to choose a name that “evokes the past but also conveys the inclusive nature of the program going forward.”

This name change, and the “inclusive” policy change that preceded it, indicates a fundamental shift away from the mindset that first gave rise to the Boy Scouts in the early 20th century. One can’t shake the impression that if the Boy Scouts were starting from scratch, they’d ditch even the acronym “BSA” and go completely gender-neutral.

It’s worth probing that fundamental shift in mindset.

The very existence of Boy Scouts, as separate from Girl Scouts, suggests a belief that boys and girls are fundamentally different, and that some good could be achieved by separating them for certain purposes. Otherwise, we would have simply had the “Scouts.”

The Boy Scouts emerged out of a culture that valued boyhood and girlhood as distinct realities, rooted in maleness and femaleness. Each gender had its own unique set of virtues that our culture sought to cultivate in the next generation.

Those virtues are captured in the Boy Scouts’ 1916 congressional charter, which read:

The purpose of this corporation shall be to promote, through organization and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in Scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods which are now in common use by Boy Scouts.

Courage. Self-reliance. Virtues accessible to all, no doubt, yet which were considered integral to the masculine ideal.

The Girl Scouts came into being just two years after the Boy Scouts. Their motto was even more explicitly tailored to a single gender: to train girls “first as good women, then as good citizens, wives, and mothers.”

If the founders of these organizations believed men and women are essentially the same, and that the same ends could be achieved by mixing Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts together, then again, we would simply have inherited the “Scouts of America.”

But instead, two years after the Boy Scouts were founded, Juliette Gordon Low founded the organization that became the Girl Scouts. Though she took inspiration from Sir Robert Baden-Powell, who founded the Boy Scouts, she wanted to start a different organization.

So the legacy we have is two separate institutions premised on the idea that masculine and feminine identities actually matter—that they are unique, special, each worthy of celebration in their own right, and worth cultivating in the next generation.

Yet today, the Boy Scouts organization is perpetually at war with itself—at war with the very premise of its own existence.

The Boy Scouts rightly recognize that male and female are inherently equal. But equal doesn’t mean the same. The Boy Scouts seem to have conflated the two. If boys and girls are essentially the same, what’s to be gained from keeping them separate? That would be arbitrary and perhaps even wrong.

But if boys and girls are in fact different, and generally oriented toward their own unique masculine and feminine virtues, then it makes perfect sense to nurture them in separated settings—at least for discrete activities like scouting.

Yet the Boy Scouts have jettisoned that thinking in favor of radical inclusion. They may have achieved greater inclusivity, but at what cost? Their very definition is exclusive, just as so many other groups are exclusive (think of AARP, the NAACP, or the National Organization for Women). The Boy Scouts have sacrificed their identity to the left’s absolutist vision of inclusion.

That vision will be the death of any group that seeks to define itself by any unique trait.

Definitions are by necessity exclusionary, and any group that defines itself as A and not B will face pressure from the left to embrace B as well.

Except then, there’s no point to having a group at all. We’ll all just be absorbed into the left’s all-consuming impulse to “include” everyone. The left’s crusade for inclusion will redefine and un-define every group it touches.

Ironically, such radical inclusion is the death of any real diversity, because without real difference, there can be no diversity.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis is the commentary editor of The Daily Signal and co-host of The Daily Signal podcastSend an email to Daniel. Twitter: .

The Calamity That Was Obama’s Foreign Policy Is On Full Display

That President Barack Obama’s foreign policy was weak and destructive has been evident to most non-partisan observers for a long time.

But with Israel’s bombshell announcement on Iran’s ongoing nuclear weapons program, the scale of the failure is coming into full light. Only his most ardent and blinded supporters can still be defending the Iran deal and the rest of his foreign policy disasters.

We knew the Iran deal was bad for regional safety and good for an expansion of terrorism. But there was still the thin thread of hope that it could work for at least delaying Iran’s nuclear weapon program. That hope is now revealed as a fool’s errand.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented 55,000 pages of documents and 183 CDs during his blockbuster news conference, outlining Iran’s duplicity and threat. His presentation of the evidence (verified by U.S. intelligence services) found that Iran lied repeatedly to the IAEA about its weapons program before and during the Iran deal. It showed how after the deal, Iran continued and continues to pursue nuclear weapons research under the fiction of scientific research. And he showed that Iran maintained its atomic research archives for when it could continue building its nuclear weapons program full-scale.

Netanyahu said: “The mission statement is to design, produce and test five warheads with 10 kiloton of TNT yield for integration on missiles.”

So as suspected and now proven, the Iranian nuclear deal was a sham from the beginning. But the deal is just one piece of the disastrous puzzle of Obama’s foreign policy. Here’s the rest of the calamities that must be dealt with.

➙ Syria. When Syrian President Assad crossed Obama’s red line on the use of chemical weapons and Obama did nothing, that emboldened Assad to be more aggressive and let ISIS know that the United States was toothless under Obama. They were free to slaughter at will and they did. Further, it was an invitation to Putin’s Russia to return to Syria with military force.

➙ Iraq. The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. troops after finally stabilizing the country at the cost of considerable amounts of American blood, opened the door to ISIS’ bloody expansion from northern Syria into Northern Iraq, and Iran’s movement into the country from the east. Iran’s cash windfall from the nuclear deal has helped fund its aggression in Iraq, along with Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. The cost in lives has been staggering.

➙ Libya. Obama, leading from behind with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, used American air power to help overthrow the only dictator who had voluntarily given up his nuclear weapons program after 9-11. Learning nothing from Iraq, Obama and Clinton amazingly had no plan for what would come after the overthrow. So what the world got was another failed state and haven for ISIS and other terrorist groups, and a launching point for Muslim refugees into Europe.

➙ Israel. The one free, democratic ally of America in the Middle East was abysmally treated by Obama as one of several key relationships with our allies he degraded. Further, and ironically, he meddled in an Israeli national election with the goal of defeating Netanyahu and created a toxic taste in this vitally important relationship.

And this was all just in the Middle East.

➙ North Korea. The kick the can down the road, do-nada approach to foreign policy with North Korea allowed for the continued expansion of a new generation of nuclear weapons and missile delivery options that has put America’s West Coast under a nuclear threat. This should never have been allowed, but a weak president with no foreign policy plan and no will to do anything difficult or risky, just ignored it.

➙ Russia. The Russian reset is one of the most spectacular, high-profile failures of the Obama administration. There was the infamous red button that the Russian foreign minister and Hillary Clinton jointly pushed that was supposed to reset the supposedly terrible relationship left by Bush (and tweak Bush in the process.) Instead, it opened the door to Russian aggression in Eastern Europe and in the Middle East. It’s not even clear if that was just incompetence as Obama’s also infamous 2012 “more flexibility after the election” comment to Russia’s president was caught on a hot mic and indeed, his flexibility apparently meant let Russia do whatever it wanted.

➙ China. Obama’s do-nothing foreign policy with America’s enemies continued in Asia where he acquiesced to China’s military expansionism and failed to respond in any real way to China cheating on trade agreements and blackmailing American companies at the cost of billions of dollars and who knows how many American jobs. This one doubles as a foreign and domestic policy failure.

➙ Venezuela and Cuba. Cuddling up to, and praising Cuba and Venezuela as the Socialist/Communist countries spiraled into economic chaos and even starvation showed a certain cluelessness, or socialist sympathy. Obama did not cause their disasters — socialism and tyranny did that — but he seemed blind to this reality. His admiring speeches and gestures towards the Castros and Hugo Chavez enabled the strongman regimes to continue to oppress their people and sustain the grueling and unnecessary poverty.

This is hardly an exhaustive list, but large enough to make the case painfully clear that the Obama administration was an abysmal failure on the foreign policy stage. As we saw in the Jimmy Carter years, the world cannot afford such incompetence and miserable worldviews from America.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. Please visit The Revolutionary Act’s YouTube Site.

VIDEO: Union President Admits to Protecting ‘Teacher Who Had Sex With’ Teenage Girl – Willing to Cover up Abuse of ‘Scumbag’ Student

UPDATE: NJ.com is reporting that Hamilton Township Education Association President Dr. David Perry has been suspended as a result of the related video we released yesterday. 

(New York) Project Veritas has released undercover footage of Union City Education Association President, Kathleen Valencia, explaining that the union has helped a teacher who allegedly had sex with a teenage girl keep their job, and would do the same for a teacher who physically abused student.

On March 27th 2018 at the Union City Education Association office, Valencia, the union’s president, explains why a teacher who bruised a student in school would not be reprimanded.

Did the kid’s parent come in? No? Nothing happened… There’s no video? Nothing happened… [The teacher] is fine.

Valencia expresses dismay at the idea of the student speaking out about being abused:

“God forbid the kid decides to tell the principal. It happened two weeks ago, he’s not [going to tell.] Let’s say the kid does. [The teacher] is going to be like… ‘kid tripped and fell.’

When the Project Veritas undercover journalist asks if unions normally help teachers who abuse students, Valencia says, “it happens, yes it does!”

Valencia then details the steps the union will take to make sure the teacher who abused a student in school keeps his job:

“I’m going to get your brother a lawyer. Your brother’s not going to admit anything happened. The only witness is the scumbag kid… he’s got a record.

When pressed about what the teacher should do to protect his job, Valencia says “keep [the teacher’s] mouth shut,” and adds plottingly, “nothing happened.”

The Project Veritas journalist asks Valencia if other teachers have gotten away with doing worse things to students than hitting them, Valencia points to a document:

“This file right here is from a teacher who had sex with a student. This file is about whether or not the teacher gets to keep his pension. Is he going to jail? No. How come? Because the child’s not pressing charges. There’s no proof.

Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe said of the video: “The Union City Education Association must reveal the identity of the teacher the union is protecting. Any and all parents should be paying attention. This union would rather protect their teachers than their students.”

View the video:

This video is second in a series of Teachers Union investigations by Project Veritas, in which Hamilton Township Education Association President David Perry aided an undercover journalist in covering up a child abuse scenario.

After the first video was released, Sean Hannity posed the question, “Who are they protecting, unions or children?”

The NJEA responded the first video, falsely claiming “This video that they released has something like 26 edits and cuts in it. They should not be given any credibility whatsoever. There should be no credibility given to this organization.” In reality, the video had six cuts.

Project Veritas responded to the NJEA: “We challenge the NJEA to explain in what possible context they find the statements ‘I’m here to defend even the worst people,’ or ‘I need to know the truth, so that we can bend the truth’ acceptable.”

The Mayor of Hamilton Township, Kelly Yaede, responded to the video via email:

“I viewed the video and was quite frankly disturbed by it. There is no place in our school system for this philosophy.  I trust this matter will be dealt with by a very capable Superintendent and Board of Education.”

This is not the first time that Project Veritas has investigated teachers unions. In 2016, investigations exposed Robert Klein, a teacher at Howell Township Middle School in New Jersey offering drugs to undercover journalists, as well as Patricia Puleo, YFT President in Yonkers, who told a teacher that claimed he had abused a student “don’t f*cking tell anybody anything.” In 2011, investigations exposed teacher Alissa Ploshnick admitting that a fellow teacher who used the N-word in class was not fired, and stating you “basically have to be in the hallway f***ing somebody” in order to lose tenure.

Veritas will be releasing more undercover videos of teachers unions from ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY in the coming days and weeks. To be alerted as soon as they are published, sign up for our newsletter here and check in to www.projectveritas.com frequently for any updates.

RELATED ARTICLE: High Public School Spending in DC Hasn’t Produced Desired Outcomes

Sex Ed Subtracts from Subjects like Math

America’s test scores are falling like a brick, Terry Jeffrey writes in a new CNSNews.com column. According to the latest National Assessments, a whopping 65 percent of eighth graders weren’t proficient in reading in 2017, and another 67 percent weren’t competent in math. But does that honestly surprise anyone, considering what our kids are really studying in school? Maybe if we put as much emphasis on reading as we put on sex, students might actually learn something!Just last week, parents in Albemarle County, Virginia were furious to hear that their ninth graders were watching a sexual how-to video that would have qualified as adult entertainment. The P.E. teacher responsible, Frank Lawson, was put on administrative leave once school officials learned that a group of 14-year-old girls had been exposed to a Laci Green lesson. Green, who calls herself a “sex educator,” is a proud partner of Planned Parenthood who mocks abstinence and spends most minutes of her instruction covering topics that most grown-ups would find disgusting. (If you want to know exactly how graphic Green’s content is, check out LifeSite news’s coverage. But, brace yourself.)

When girls told their parents what they’d seen, a firestorm erupted across the town. Local news outlets streamed into Western Albemarle High School, trying to determine who was responsible. Principal Darah Bonham told NBC29 that the video hadn’t been screened. “What we did not do was vet that [material] as we should have. We just assumed that what was provided was the same” as past lessons, she said. “I’m embarrassed that this occurred,” she went on. “I’m upset about it and I know it’s been the same way for our kids and for our families.”

Kate Acuff, chairwoman of the Albemarle County School Board sent an email to families in the district, insisting the video “was highly offensive, entirely inappropriate for a student audience” and promised that school administrators had called each family on April 13 to apologize for its use. “The video was not previously screened by the school, which was a violation of our standard practice.” Unfortunately for the district, the damage had already been done. And while the apology was the right response, it may not be enough. Attorneys at Liberty Counsel say Albemarle may be in more hot water, since this kind of perversity “could be considered ‘predatory grooming'” under state law.

“The law is clear that parents, not agents of the state like teachers, and not outside radical groups, have the right to direct the upbringing and associations of their children,” Liberty Counsel lawyers argued. A local agency replied that the lesson on various sex acts was part of its “bystander intervention curriculum” but won’t be used anymore. That’s a positive first step, but a better one would have been to not partner with extremists like Green and Planned Parenthood to begin with. Let’s hope more school districts get the message parents have been trying to send with protests like the Sex Ed Sit Out: stick to educating and leave the child-rearing to us! If your children are in the public schools, make sure you know what they’re being taught, who’s doing the teaching, and what organizations produced the curriculum.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Bases Loaded against Army Chaplain

Pompeo’s Pep Talk Kicks off New Day at State

High Public School Spending in DC Hasn’t Produced Desired Outcomes