Tuesday on Fox News Channel’s “America’s Newsroom,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) said he approved of President Donald Trump’s tactic of levying a 5% tariff on Mexico until there was a noticeable improvement on lowering the influx of illegal immigrants into the United States through the U.S.-Mexico border.
Tillis said if Mexico secured its southern border, 80% of the influx from the southern border would be eliminated. Therefore, he said Trump was right to use every device at his disposal.
“The president is trying to get done in a couple of years what administrations, both Democrat and Republican administrations failed to do over the past couple of decades,” Tillis said. “He’s using a lot of devices that were considered taboo in the past. I’m a free trader, but I do think we have to make it very clear: When you take advantage of our open economy, when you steal our intellectual property, when you don’t cooperate with us on things that are also important — like securing the border — then the president has to have those tools available to come to a good solution for the American people and our trading partners.”
Donald Trump may be the most hated president in Hollywood since…well…ever. In the last month celebrities from Bill Maher to Cher have wished the worst, most vile things on the current president. The following is just a sampling of the worst outbursts (this past month) from Hollywood:
A Catholic bishop has ignited a controversy by reiterating traditional Catholic doctrine. He claims that homosexuality is harmful for children. Children appear to be the main target of the homosexual community.
Bishop Thomas Tobin, in Rhode Island, recently tweeted, “A reminder that Catholics should not support or attend LGBTQ ‘Pride Month’ events held in June. They promote a culture and encourage activities that are contrary to Catholic faith and morals. They are especially harmful for children.” This is Catholic doctrine and common sense.
For this, Tobin was severely attacked. Martina Navratilova claimed, “Catholic clergy has been a lot more dangerous to kids than LGBT.” Tobin has been described as a “hate-filled hypocrite” spreading “poisonous thinking.” Mia Farrow tweeted, “This is pure ignorance & bigotry.” British comic Julian Clary said, “May God strike you down Bishop, at His earliest convenience.” The Boston Globe proclaimed in a headline that Tobin is guilty of sending out a “homophobic tweet.” Joe Lazzerini, the president of Rhode Island Pride, said, “He is like the Donald Trump of the Catholic Church, he goes on Twitter and spews out hate.” Lazzerini further said he ”calls on Bishop Tobin to do some self-reflection as the majority of Catholic Rhode Islanders in this state reject the idea that to be Catholic is to be complicit to intolerance, bigotry and fear.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was asked if it would make a statement of support for Bishop Tobin, but it chose not to comment. The U.S. bishops’ silence in effect supports Tobin’s critics. The Church has been silent on this issue with the exception of Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas. Strickland tweeted, “Please stop labeling bishops who speak the truth of the Gospel as homophobic. Stating this truth is not homophobia, it is simply reality.”
The homosexual mafia knows that a massive reaction to any criticism will result in its critics backing down. In all, the bishop’s tweet has so far received more than 65,000 responses. This induced Bishop Tobin to offer something of an apology. He wrote, “I regret that my comments yesterday about Pride Month have turned out to be so controversial in our community, and offensive to some, especially the gay community. That certainly was not my intention, but I understand why a good number of individuals have taken offense. The Catholic Church has respect and love for members of the gay community, as do I. Individuals with same-sex attraction are beloved children of God and our brothers and sisters.”
Critics of Bishop Tobin have commented on the extensive abuse of children by clergy in the Catholic Church as if he were responsible for this. Tobin obviously opposes this behavior. The Church has been infiltrated by homosexuals. Any organization that has access to young children is attractive to these individuals. The Boy Scouts and the Big Brother organization have been compelled by the courts to accept homosexual leaders. Abusers of children are not Catholics or Christian. They are more likely Satanists.
In many circles, the three sentences of Bishop Tobin’s original tweet are considered “hate speech,” “poisonous thinking,” ”ignorant and bigoted,” and “homophobic.” These formerly unremarkable sentences are grounds for being ostracized, fired from your job, and even sentenced to prison in some locations.
Children are the primary target of the homosexual movement. One of their tactics is named some variation of Drag Queen Story Time. This is an international program where libraries and bookstores have men in drag read stories to children. The stated purpose of this program is to “instill a sense of love and acceptance in our children while encouraging them to be true to themselves.” Drag Queen Story Time organizer Matthew Humphrey has said previously that the event aims to let children know that it’s OK to be different and it’s OK for other kids to be different. However, drag queen Dylan Pontiff admitted that drag queens at these story hours “are trying to groom the next generation.”
Drag Queen Story Time has had a problem with a number of drag queens convicted of sexually assaulting children. Two drag queens from Houston represent only those known to have been convicted. ”William Travis Dees was convicted in 2004 of sex crimes against four young children (ages 4, 5, 6, and 8), was jailed, and is listed as a ‘high risk sex offender.'” Alberto Garza was convicted of assaulting an 8-year-old boy in 2008. Protecting children from such people is not hateful.
John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing). He has a Master of Arts degree in international relations from St. Mary’s University. He is retired from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.
A Catholic bishop has ignited a controversy by reiterating traditional Catholic doctrine. He claims that homosexuality is harmful for children. Children appear to be the main target of the homosexual community.
Bishop Thomas Tobin, in Rhode Island, recently tweeted, “A reminder that Catholics should not support or attend LGBTQ ‘Pride Month’ events held in June. They promote a culture and encourage activities that are contrary to Catholic faith and morals. They are especially harmful for children.” This is Catholic doctrine and common sense.
For this, Tobin was severely attacked. Martina Navratilova claimed, “Catholic clergy has been a lot more dangerous to kids than LGBT.” Tobin has been described as a “hate-filled hypocrite” spreading “poisonous thinking.” Mia Farrow tweeted, “This is pure ignorance & bigotry.” British comic Julian Clary said, “May God strike you down Bishop, at His earliest convenience.” The Boston Globe proclaimed in a headline that Tobin is guilty of sending out a “homophobic tweet.” Joe Lazzerini, the president of Rhode Island Pride, said, “He is like the Donald Trump of the Catholic Church, he goes on Twitter and spews out hate.” Lazzerini further said he ”calls on Bishop Tobin to do some self-reflection as the majority of Catholic Rhode Islanders in this state reject the idea that to be Catholic is to be complicit to intolerance, bigotry and fear.”
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was asked if it would make a statement of support for Bishop Tobin, but it chose not to comment. The U.S. bishops’ silence in effect supports Tobin’s critics. The Church has been silent on this issue with the exception of Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas. Strickland tweeted, “Please stop labeling bishops who speak the truth of the Gospel as homophobic. Stating this truth is not homophobia, it is simply reality.”
The homosexual mafia knows that a massive reaction to any criticism will result in its critics backing down. In all, the bishop’s tweet has so far received more than 65,000 responses. This induced Bishop Tobin to offer something of an apology. He wrote, “I regret that my comments yesterday about Pride Month have turned out to be so controversial in our community, and offensive to some, especially the gay community. That certainly was not my intention, but I understand why a good number of individuals have taken offense. The Catholic Church has respect and love for members of the gay community, as do I. Individuals with same-sex attraction are beloved children of God and our brothers and sisters.”
Critics of Bishop Tobin have commented on the extensive abuse of children by clergy in the Catholic Church as if he were responsible for this. Tobin obviously opposes this behavior. The Church has been infiltrated by homosexuals. Any organization that has access to young children is attractive to these individuals. The Boy Scouts and the Big Brother organization have been compelled by the courts to accept homosexual leaders. Abusers of children are not Catholics or Christian. They are more likely Satanists.
In many circles, the three sentences of Bishop Tobin’s original tweet are considered “hate speech,” “poisonous thinking,” ”ignorant and bigoted,” and “homophobic.” These formerly unremarkable sentences are grounds for being ostracized, fired from your job, and even sentenced to prison in some locations.
Children are the primary target of the homosexual movement. One of their tactics is named some variation of Drag Queen Story Time. This is an international program where libraries and bookstores have men in drag read stories to children. The stated purpose of this program is to “instill a sense of love and acceptance in our children while encouraging them to be true to themselves.” Drag Queen Story Time organizer Matthew Humphrey has said previously that the event aims to let children know that it’s OK to be different and it’s OK for other kids to be different. However, drag queen Dylan Pontiff admitted that drag queens at these story hours “are trying to groom the next generation.”
Drag Queen Story Time has had a problem with a number of drag queens convicted of sexually assaulting children. Two drag queens from Houston represent only those known to have been convicted. ”William Travis Dees was convicted in 2004 of sex crimes against four young children (ages 4, 5, 6, and 8), was jailed, and is listed as a ‘high risk sex offender.'” Alberto Garza was convicted of assaulting an 8-year-old boy in 2008. Protecting children from such people is not hateful.
John Dietrich is a freelance writer and the author of The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (Algora Publishing). He has a Master of Arts degree in international relations from St. Mary’s University. He is retired from the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Department of Homeland Security.
The father of an 11-year-old autistic boy was shocked at a luncheon honoring his son’s fifth grade class when his son was given an award dubbing him the “most annoying male."
The Fort Worth ISD school board voted unanimously on Tuesday to fire a teacher for her tweets to President Trump and warnings about drugs on the school campus.
The school board fired her for her offensive tweets about immigration.
Teacher Georgia Clark was upset about the huge number of illegals in the school and the drugs on campus.
It was a unanimous vote.
Ms. Clark should have known better to complain about illegals in the school.
BREAKING: FWISD Board votes unanimously to terminate the contract of teacher Georgia Clark following tweets about immigration. @fox4pic.twitter.com/wzXBjeSeGn
The Fort Worth ISD school board voted to fire a teacher accused of posting a controversial tweet about illegal immigration.
In a Tuesday afternoon hearing, the school board heard from parents asking the district to fire Carter-Riverside High School English teacher Georgia Clark.
The district began investigating Clark after she apparently sent a tweet under a clandestine Twitter handle to President Donald Trump asking if anything could be done to “remove illegals from Fort Worth.”
Facebook has become so big that even one of its initial founders says it’s time for government to break it up. But what if the market solved the problem — and offered users better free speech protection? Enter AllSocial — a new social media platform designed for everyone, with minimal censorship. Read the interview, posted below, or listen to the interview with Rolfe Carawan, who runs business development for AllSocial, on the podcast:
We also cover these stories:
President Donald Trump talks about Brexit’s future.
The Trump administration announces major new restrictions on travel to Cuba.
Virginia’s Gov. Ralph Northam is calling a special session of the state legislature to consider a package of gun control bills.
Daniel Davis: I’m joined now by Rolfe Carawan. He runs business development for AllSocial, which is the newest social media company in America, launched in April of this year. Rolfe, thanks for joining me on the podcast.
Rolfe Carawan: Ah, thrilled to be here Daniel. Thank you for having me.
Davis: So, AllSocial, this is a new social
media platform-
Carawan: Exactly.
Davis: [AllSocial]
has some similarities to Facebook and Twitter, but some key differences. Before
we get into those, tell me what was the main motivation for starting this new
social media platform.
Carawan: Well, thank you for asking. You know,
back after President Obama was so successful at using social media to engage
the public, the owners of our company saw how this could really engage the
country in a conversation, and we wanted to build our own platform, and build
our own business to reach them. And so, we’ve got two parts of our business.
We have Allelu, which is the nonprofit part, and then we have Strategic Media 21, which is a for profit. Building large communities, between those two, we’ve got 30 million people worldwide.
We’ve got some publications that have been very successful, that we’ve been really happy about, and we do a lot of marketing for individuals, groups–either promotion or lead-generation, or things like that–that we’ve done through social media.
And so the
whole antecedent and the vision was to create a social media company that would
really be able to reach all of America and to be able to have a conversation
with America so that our views and our ideas and our beliefs could be in the
social media realm.
Davis: Yeah, and of course a lot of folks, a lot of conservatives have had their content taken down. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen the screenshot somebody posts [of the]”Community Standards Violation” at Facebook, and then once they go public about it, they get a little email that says, “Oops, that was an accident, sorry, you’re back on.”
So, none of that with AllSocial. Do you
have any standards that censor anything beyond obviously inappropriate material?
Carawan: Absolutely. What we’re doing is
basically trying to create a platform that would be between PG-13 and little
PG-13+, if some people have salty language. We don’t want to be the speech
police, if you will. We don’t want to have to sit there and nickel and dime it
and everything.
But here’s the
thing, there will absolutely no pornography, no incitement of violence, or
direct threat to somebody. And any kind of thing that you would see that was
recruiting people for, say, jihad and maybe showing some of the graphic videos
and things along those lines.
Basically, the company that has done Disney’s filtering is the company that we’ve hired, plus we have a back-up company that has about, at any given time, about 20,000 eyes to see the content and to flag.
And then the best protection we have is our audience themselves and our members themselves. The AllSocial people who have created and see it and then they can report it and block it immediately. So…
Davis: Right.
Carawan: Nothing’s going to be perfect.
Davis: Sure.
Carawan: And you’re not going to satisfy
everyone, but we really are trying to make this a winsome place where people
can share their thoughts and their ideas and really express their conscience
without fear of being banned.
Davis: Yes.
Well, one of the things that Facebook is taking so much flack for is selling
people’s data. That really is built into their revenue model. They make money
from that. How is AllSocial different? What is its revenue model?
Carawan: Well, thank you for asking. First of
all, we want to protect people’s privacy, so there will be no selling of
anyone’s data. And so we’re going to do everything we can to protect that.
And the
revenue model that we’re coming up with is very simple. It’s about every sixth
or seventh post in someone’s stream would be an advertisement. They can just
pass on by or maybe take a look at it and so, God-willing, we will be funding
this thing through advertisements that will generate enough revenue to keep us
going and growing.
Davis: And
I also understand that folks won’t have to boost their content.
Carawan: Exactly. See, we feel like that
AllSocial is close to the way that social media should be and should have been.
With some other social media platforms right now, we saw them becoming
increasingly hostile to people’s messages, which you have mentioned.
We also saw
that the organic reach, or the free reach that people were getting by sharing
their material, was decreasing. Four or five years ago, you would have 20 to
25% of what you shared be seen by your people. So if you posted enough, the
majority of people would see it, at least that’s what logic says.
But the algorithms now have been tightened down so much that these social media platforms have become pretty much a pay-to-play system. We decided that’s not right.
What we are going to do is basically, you’ll build your audience and we will share 100% of every post that you put out there, in sequence, and in a timely manner. We’ve had complaints with people before that missed announcements or missed writings because the algorithm kicked it back and it didn’t show up for days, right?
Davis: Right.
Carawan: So you’re going to see a much
different product and a different experience with us than maybe some of these
other programs.
Davis: Well,
you mentioned that you’ve already got 30 million people using the platform, but
you only launched in April. How did you get those people so quickly?
Carawan: Let me be really clear. In our Allelu
and Strategic Media 21, we’ve built communities on these other social media
platforms of 30 million. We don’t have that many right now. But we are growing
exponentially, which is exciting.
The whole idea
is to get the word out to friends and people who are open and who are just
looking for an alternative who would share with their family and friends. Large
organizations that are going on–The Daily Signal is a prime example–to be
able to have a platform to communicate with your fans and with your audience,
and once they are a part of it, they’re going to see what you have and it cost
you nothing.
Daniel: Right.
Carawan: Right. And to be honest with you, because you guys are early adapters and early adopters, we’ve got a revenue share program that we want to use to help you. So as your people join in, it’s a way for them to, in essence, contribute to The Heritage Foundation and The Daily Signal, just by using the platform.
We decided we are going to be the platform that shares and pays our devoted followers, rather than requiring you to pay us.
Daniel: Great, well, tell me a little
bit more about the user experience because I know there’s some similarities to
Facebook and to Twitter, but as you’re on the platform, what’s it like? What
are the key features of it?
Carawan: One of the things we’ve tried to do is make it real simple. And so you go up and you can create your profile and you can also, when you log on, you’ll create areas, just three areas that you may be interested in. And then that will help inform us about what you might want to see or make some suggestions for you.
When you first log on, you just hit the “plus” button and you make a little post. It could be something that you’re reposting from another platform or originating there. The goal is to get HootSuite up, squared away, and locked into it so people can put everything on that and then go out to all of their social media platforms.
Daniel: Oh yes, sync everything.
Carawan: Yes, sync it all up. We’re just going to make it when you see the feed, it’s real clean and it’s real nice, and you just make your comments or your likes.
And when I talked to the engineers, I said, “It’s kind of like Facebook, right?” and they said, “No, it’s more like Twitter in that regard.” And so, it’s friendly to every single one of the current platforms.
You can post to YouTube. Matter of fact, right now, it has to go through some kind of filtration before it can go on our site, and until we get that system setup, we’re requiring that you can post to YouTube, you can come and put on your AllSocial account.
Davis: Well,
if folks are interested in signing up, how would they do that?
Carawan: Very simple. “AllSocial” is one word
and you can go to AllSocial.com if you’re online and sign up. Put in your
username, your password, your email address. They’ll send you an email–let’s
you go ahead and verify that you are a real person and not some robot–and
they’ll send it back to you. Open it up and put in your email address, and
password, and start posting.
The other part
of it is with your phone. Go to your app store, and [type] one word, “AllSocial”–if
you divide [the word] it up you are going see some crazy stuff with all
social–and it will come up to the beautiful icon that has two pillars with
multiple colors on it. It’s very beautiful.
The other part of it is, not only are you just posting like you would and sharing your pictures or your stories or whatever you want to share, inviting your friends is super easy.
If you go into your profile and you hit the little icon that shows your face, it’ll pull down “Go Profile” and “Go Invite Friends,” and you can just go in there and if you give access to your friends, then you just click them off, and you create a little email and hit it and it’ll invite them and say, “Come join me on AllSocial.”
So we’ve tried
to make it easy for everybody to be a part.
Davis: Well,
it’s such an exciting project and [we] look forward to seeing where it goes in
the months ahead. Rolf, really appreciate your time and thanks for sharing
about it.
Carawan: Thank you, Daniel. I really
appreciate it.
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is, once again, under attack.
And, once again, the attacks are from liberals who cannot tolerate Thomas’ consistent, unyielding and faithful commitment to America’s founding principles.
The latest concerns Thomas’ 20-page opinion offered up in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, recently considered by the Supreme Court.
Planned Parenthood challenged Indiana law prohibiting abortion for reasons of sex, race or non-life threatening deformity.
The challenge was upheld in district court and the law overturned. However, the Supreme Court chose not to rule on the matter for procedural reasons, turning it back to be heard on appeal at the district level.
But Justice Thomas used the occasion to write an extended opinion on this important abortion case because the principles involved are too important to ignore for America’s present and for our future.
According to the Indiana law as enacted, doctors must inform women that “Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.”
What liberal would ever tolerate American law protecting this type of discrimination?
Yet these same liberals are adamant that abortion for these same reasons is just fine.
Thomas seized on what is obvious, writing, “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th- century eugenics movement.”
The eugenics movement advocated public policies to manipulate the population to produce what is deemed to be a public that is genetically superior.
In other words, bureaucrats decide the value of human beings — who’s worthwhile to have around and who’s not.
You would think that such ideas would produce outcries from liberals.
But what is producing outcries from them is that Clarence Thomas suggests that abortion based on these criteria makes abortion a tool for eugenics.
Thomas documents the sympathies of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, for the eugenics movement. And although Thomas notes that Sanger’s sympathies for abortion were less clear, he points out that the sympathies of later Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher for abortion as a eugenics policy tool were clear.
And he gets to the heart of the matter at the conclusion of his opinion: “Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to abortion, this Court is dutybound to address its scope. … The constitution itself is silent on abortion.”
The nation’s founders explained in the preamble to the Constitution that we “do ordain and establish this Constitution” to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
Our Constitution was conceived to protect our liberty, not invent it.
In his dissenting opinion in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which the Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage, Thomas wrote: “Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. … the majority … rejects the idea — captured in the Declaration of Independence — that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government.”
Liberals cried “foul” when Thomas rightly observed that abortion based on race, sex or disability amounts to giving constitutional protection to the eugenics movement because he struck the highly sensitive note that liberals want to stand in God’s place.
Liberals defining life inevitably leads to them deciding who lives and who dies.
America’s founders were more humble. They saw the source of our right to life, liberty and property as God.
This strikes at the core of what divides our nation today.
Are we a nation under God, as Clarence Thomas believes, or a nation defined and run by liberals and bureaucrats?
This past weekend, Americans learned of another mass shooting, this time by an employee who decided to murder as many of the people he had worked with for years as possible. As of this writing, the murder toll is 12 people.
Every American asks why. What was the killer’s motive? When we read there is “no known motive,” we are frustrated. Human beings want to make sense of life, especially of evil.
Liberals (in this regard, liberals’ views are essentially as the same as leftists’) are virtually united in ascribing these shootings to guns. Just this past weekend, in a speech in Brazil, former President Barack Obama told an audience:
“Our gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon any time — without much, if any, regulation. They can buy (guns) over the internet. They can buy machine guns.”
That the former president fabricated a series of falsehoods about the United States — and maligned, on foreign soil, the country that twice elected him president — speaks to his character and to the character of the American news media that have been completely silent about these falsehoods. But the main point here is that, like other liberals and leftists, when Obama addresses the subject of mass shootings — in Brazil, he had been talking about the children murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 — he talks about guns.
Yet, America had plenty of guns when its mass murder rate was much lower. Grant Duwe, a Ph.D. in criminology and director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, gathered data going back 100 years in his 2007 book, “Mass Murder in the United States: A History.”
Duwe’s data reveal:
In the 20th century, every decade before the 1970s had fewer than 10 mass public shootings. In the 1950s, for example, there was one mass shooting. And then a steep rise began. In the 1960s, there were six mass shootings. In the 1970s, the number rose to 13. In the 1980s, the number increased 2 1/2 times, to 32. And it rose again in the 1990s, to 42. As for this century, The New York Times reported in 2014 that, according to the FBI, “Mass shootings have risen drastically in the past half-dozen years.”
Given the same ubiquity of guns, wouldn’t the most productive question be what, if anything, has changed since the 1960s and ’70s? Of course it would. And a great deal has changed. America is much more ethnically diverse, much less religious. Boys have far fewer male role models in their lives. Fewer men marry, and normal boy behavior is largely held in contempt by their feminist teachers, principals and therapists. Do any or all of those factors matter more than the availability of guns?
Let’s briefly investigate each factor.
Regarding ethnic diversity, the countries that not only have the fewest mass murders but the lowest homicide rates as well are the least ethnically diverse — such as Japan and nearly all European countries. So, too, the American states that have homicide rates as low as Western European countries are the least ethnically and racially diverse (the four lowest are New Hampshire, North Dakota, Maine and Idaho). Now, America, being the most ethnically and racially diverse country in the world, could still have low homicide rates if a) Americans were Americanized, but the left has hyphenated — Balkanized, if you will — Americans, and b) most black males grew up with fathers.
Regarding religiosity, the left welcomes — indeed, seeks —
the end of Christianity in America (though not of Islam, whose robustness it
fosters). Why don’t we ask a simple question: What percentage of American
murderers attend church each week?
Regarding boys’ need for fathers, in 2008, then-Sen. Obama told an audience: “Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools; and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.”
Yet, the Times has published columns and “studies” showing how relatively unimportant fathers are, and more and more educated women believe this dangerous nonsense.
Then there is marriage: Nearly all men who murder are single. And their number is increasing.
Finally, since the 1960s, we have been living in a culture of grievance. Whereas in the past people generally understood that life is hard and/or they have to work on themselves to improve their lives, for half a century, the left has drummed into Americans’ minds the belief that their difficulties are caused by American society — in particular, its sexism, racism and patriarchy. And the more aggrieved people are the more dulled their consciences.
When you don’t ask intelligent questions, you cannot come up with intelligent answers. So, then, with regard to murder in America, until Americans stop allowing the left to ask the questions, we will have no intelligent answers.
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., unleashed a scathing statement on the House floor on
May 22, in which she attacked conservatives and pro-life Americans, accusing
them of hypocrisy and inconsistency, among other things.
She was responding to the wave of pro-life bills that have
recently swept state legislatures. And she was wrong, point after point.
Here are threee ways she showed she doesn’t understand pro-life Americans and religious liberty.
1. Pro-Life Americans are not theocrats.
Omar began:
Religious fundamentalists are currently trying to manipulate state laws in order to impose their beliefs on an entire society, all with complete disregard for voices and the rights of American women. The recent efforts like those in Alabama and Georgia are only the latest in a long history of efforts to criminalize women for simply existing. To punish us, when we don’t confirm to their attempts to control us. But because it’s happening here, with the support of the ultra-conservative religious right, we call it religious freedom.
Omar here is saying that people who advocate for the unborn through legislation (like the abortion bans passed in Alabama and Georgia) are simply religious people trying to impose their beliefs on society under the guise of religious freedom. It’s unclear if the attack here is mostly on pro-life advocates or religious liberty advocates.
While these groups overlap, they aren’t always one and the same.
I know pro-life folks who are pro-life because of science, not religion, and I
know religious freedom advocates who aren’t religious at all themselves.
What is clear is that
she was attacking religious freedom, smearing it as a crusade aimed at
discrimination and misogyny against women.
We’ve seen a bevy of cases in recent years stemming from religious liberty—whether it be a cake baker wishing to obey his conscience, or the effort to dismantle a WWI veteran’s memorial simply because it is shaped like a cross. These are hardly efforts to “control” women. Rather, they are rooted in the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
Religious liberty is a hot topic today, but it is a core element of our nation’s founding. In fact, it’s why America began in the first place: because Puritans wanted a place to worship freely.
But Omar didn’t even see fit to give a nod to that heritage.
2. Pro-life Americans have a huge track record of caring for mothers and children.
Omar went on to impugn the motives of religious conservatives,
accusing them not only of not caring for the unborn, but for mothers and
children:
Let’s just be honest. For the religious right, this isn’t simply about their care or concern for life. If they cared about or were concerned about children, they would be concerned about the children who are being detained and dying in camps across our border, or the children who are languishing in hunger and facing homelessness.
This is a lie the left has perpetuated for decades. While it is
true that Roe v. Wade ignited a wave of activism that created optics centered
on defending the unborn, the fact is that pro-life Americans care about the
whole life—born and unborn. And the data prove it.
In 2018, 2 million women were served through pregnancy resource centers, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. These centers exist not just to keep a woman from aborting, but to help a woman should she decide to raise the baby or put the baby up for adoption.
When the Supreme Court heard NIFLA v. Becerralast year—a case dealing with pregnancy
resource centers—the Catholic Association filed a briefshowing how the lives of 13 women had been
transformed because of the aid they received from pregnancy centers in
California.
As far as children “languishing in hunger and facing
homelessness” go, research shows that faith-based adoption
agencies “have been a cornerstone of the child welfare
system for decades.” Aid organizations like the Red Cross, Compassion International,
and Bethany Services all have religious roots, showing that religious people
have cared for the neediest, most helpless among us for decades.
Also, consider that Alabama—the state that just banned abortion—recently set a new record in adoptions.
3. Pro-life Americans are not forcing religion on anyone.
Finally, Omar accused religious liberty advocates of being
duplicitous.
I am frustrated every single time I hear
people speaking about their personal faith and pushing that onto other people
because we know those so-called religious politicians when it comes to their
life, their choices, they want to talk about freedom. But when it comes to
other people’s lives and other people’s choices, they want to talk about
religion.
People who passionately advocate for the unborn are often accused of trying to push their faith onto others, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Omar suggested pro-life legislators are passing six-week
abortion bans in the name of religious freedom. But this is also untrue. The
right to “free exercise” of religion is, of course, vitally important, but a
six-week abortion ban is not dependent upon religion. Science itself makes the
case against abortion. Life is a right, and if life begins at conception, these
unborn babies deserve legal protection afforded to them by the state.
Furthermore, Christian conservatives do not enter the political arena for selfish reasons. They don’t advocate for their own liberties and no one else’s, so that they can reap the benefits and pass down punitive measures to everyone else who isn’t religious. That’s simply not true, and it would be unchristian.
There are multiple organizations peppered across the United States—the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Alliance Defending Freedom, and First Liberty, to name a few—which go to bat for religious people in court, not because their rights are preeminent but because they are often marginalized and discriminated in our day (see the Masterpiece Cakeshop case).
In fact, here’s a comprehensive list from 2011-2017 of discrimination cases against religious people, not the other way around.
Omar has the right to represent her constituents in Minnesota,
but the arguments she made in this brief speech are horrendously flawed,
unsubstantiated, and for the most part, plain smears against conservatives
meant for show.
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Monday ruled against House Democrats who tried to block the Trump administration from reallocating Defense Department funds for a border wall.
U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden said the House of Representatives does not have standing to bring the challenge, calling it a political fight between two branches.
“While the Constitution bestows upon members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the executive branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress’s legislative authority,” McFadden’s decision reads.
President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border in February, and reprogrammed almost $6 billion to build a border wall. In addition to the $1.4 billion appropriation Congress authorized for border barriers, the administration sequentially reallocated $600 million from the Treasury Department’s forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion from Defense Department counter-narcotics activities, and $3.6 billion from military construction.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats challenged the latter two reallocations, saying the administration’s move harmed Congress’s institutional power. They accused Trump of violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution’s appropriations clause, which gives Congress the power of the purse.
Though courts have allowed legislatures to bring cases alleging an institutional injury before, McFadden said those few instances involved episodes in which legislative power was effectively nullified. The judge said precedent, historical practice, and current conditions show Congress has many tools to block whatever steps the administration takes to reprogram money for the border wall.
First and foremost, McFadden noted, Congress could override Trump’s veto of a resolution overturning his national emergency declaration. Similarly, it could hold hearings on administration spending priorities, amend appropriations laws to prohibit the use of federal dollars for border wall construction, or expand remedies for private parties who sue the government to block the project. (RELATED: Supreme Court Turns Down Trump Administration Bid To Accelerate DACA Appeal)
“The availability of these institutional remedies shows that there is no ‘complete nullification’ of the House’s power,” McFadden wrote.
“Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power,” McFadden explained elsewhere in the decision. “These tools show that this lawsuit is not a last resort for the House. And this fact is also exemplified by the many other cases across the country challenging the administration’s planned construction of the border wall.”
The Department of Justice welcomed Monday’s decision, and promised to vindicate the president’s efforts to secure the border.
“The court rightly ruled that the House of Representatives cannot ask the judiciary to take its side in political disputes and cannot use federal courts to accomplish through litigation what it cannot achieve using the tools the Constitution gives to Congress,” a DOJ spokesman said. “The Department looks forward to continuing to defend the administration’s lawful actions to address the crisis at the southern border.”
