Facebook Suspends Account For Posting That Officer Ronil Singh Was Killed By Illegal Alien


Via Blue Lives Matter:

Menlo Park, CA – Blue Lives Matter has confirmed that Facebook is taking actions against Facebook accounts that call a cop-killer an illegal immigrant.

Corporal Ronil Singh was murdered within 100 miles of Facebook’s headquarters, but the company appears to be concerned about anybody pointing out that his killer was in the country illegally.

Gustavo Perez Arriaga, 32, fatally shot Cpl. Singh during a predawn traffic stop on Wednesday, leading to a massive multiagency manhunt. He was captured Friday morning.

Arriaga is an illegal immigrant, has self-promoted his status as a member of the Sureno street gang, and has two prior drunk driving convictions in Madera County, Sheriff Christianson said.

“This suspect, unlike Ron – who immigrated to this country lawfully and legally to pursue his lifelong career of public safety, public service and being a police officer – this suspect is in our country illegally. He doesn’t belong here. He’s a criminal,” Stanislaus County Sheriff Adam Christianson said during a press conference on Thursday afternoon.

A sheriff’s deputy whom I personally know posted the following picture on Facebook on Friday:

Keep reading…

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Trump Flips Script, Tears Into ‘Pathetic’ Democrat Policies That Killed Children at Border


Donald Trump has become a convenient punching bag for most of the left, especially on the issue of immigration. Whether it’s mass caravans of migrants demanding asylum or adults trying to illegally cross the border carrying children, the liberal narrative has become rather predicable: It’s all Trump’s fault.

A prime example might be liberal Hollywood actress who Anne Hathaway, who breathlessly shrieked about the government “gassing children” after non-lethal tear gas was used by Border Patrol. Like much of the media, Hathaway ignored the many times that Obama-era officials did the exact same thing, while pinning all blame on Trump.

But on Saturday, the president pushed back against that narrative. Posting to Twitter — where else? — Trump declared that Democrats owned much of the blame for the border situation after years of mis-management.

“Any deaths of children or others at the Border are strictly the fault of the Democrats and their pathetic immigration policies that allow people to make the long trek thinking they can enter our country illegally,” he posted. “They can’t. If we had a Wall, they wouldn’t even try!”

TRENDING: NBC’s Christmas Attack on Trump Backfires Hours Later

He didn’t randomly decide to talk about the deaths of children. Trump was referencing several recent incidents in which kids who were brought up through Mexico by adult border-crosses ended up having serious health complications after being found by Border Patrol.

“Felipe Gomez Alonzo, eight, died this week after being apprehended by border agents in Texas,” reported Fox News. Was it Trump’s fault? The facts suggest not.

“After an agent noticed Alonzo coughing, father and son were taken to an Alamogordo (New Mexico) hospital, where Felipe was diagnosed with a common cold and found to have a fever of 103 degrees,” Fox continued. “But after being released with medication, he fell ill and died in the hospital.”

Do you think Trump has a valid point with these tweets?

It’s worth pointing out that in that case, hospital staff with no political agenda signed off on the boy being released from the hospital before he ended up getting worse.

In another instance, a young girl died after she went for several days without food or water — a sad situation that happened well before Border Patrol found her and tried to help.

“The two children in question were very sick before they were given over to Border Patrol,” President Trump acknowledged on Twitter.

“The father of the young girl said it was not their fault, he hadn’t given her water in days. Border Patrol needs the Wall and it will all end. They are working so hard & getting so little credit!” he added.

Trump’s tweets will likely do nothing to quell the anger of liberals, and there’s no denying that from a public relations standpoint he sometimes needs to step away from the keyboard. But the thing is, he has an interesting point.

RELATED: Trump Throws Down Ultimatum if Border Wall Doesn’t Receive Funding

It appears to be true that Central American migrants were told falsehoods about how arduous the journey across Mexico would be, or what would happen once they reached the U.S. border.

Interview after interview with migrants, not to mention the evidence of their own actions, supports the claim that they were expecting to be let into the United States with seemingly no questions asked.

Would the tragic deaths of young migrant children have happened if they hadn’t been dragged thousands of miles without proper food, water, or medical care? Probably not.

And who has been promoting open borders and mass immigration? Who has been encouraging the migrants to make that dangerous trek? It hasn’t been Trump. It hasn’t been conservatives.

It has been the left, both in the United States and in places like Honduras.

If one group keeps encouraging people to try to swim across a dangerous river where many people drown, who is at fault for the deaths: lookouts on the other side of the rapids, or the voices who keep urging more and more people to jump into the deadly water?

That’s essentially what’s happening right now with mass migration across unsafe areas like central Mexico. Liberals can point fingers at the president all they want, but they are the ones who keep encouraging it. Reality speaks for itself.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct

Leftists Recoil in Horror After Trump Signs Military MAGA Hats


Media and Hollywood leftists predictably reacted in horror after President Donald Trump signed several Make America Great Again campaign hats owned by members of the military.

Trump made a surprise trip to visit the troops in Iraq and Germany on Wednesday, spending time greeting the troops, snapping selfies, and giving autographs. Some of them brought Trump their MAGA hats for the president to sign.

“Just awful,” wrote actress Mia Farrow on Twitter in response to the news.

CNN analyst and former member of the Obama administration John Kirby warned the troops that having a Trump campaign hat could be breaking military guidelines.

“It is, in fact, a campaign slogan, that is a campaign item, and it is completely inappropriate for the troops to do this,” Kirby said.

CNN continued to air segments about the “controversy.”

“It’s just not appropriate in front of a military audience,” Ret. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling said on CNN Thursday morning.

Trump also signed a soldier’s arm patch that read ‘Trump 2020.’

In Germany, several soldiers brought their MAGA hats during their meeting with the president. Another soldier was spotted carrying a Trump flag.

Philippe Reines, a former adviser for failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton doubted whether the troops even purchased their own hats.

Trump’s opponents continued to complain on social media.

“As a former Navy JAG, I can tell you that engaging in partisan political activity such as flying a Trump flag or wearing a MAGA hat, while in uniform is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and its implementing regs,” wrote Pam Keith, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Florida.

“That’s a Art 32 offense for conduct unbecoming of an officer,” wrote MSNBC analyst Malcolm Nance.

 

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

‘Open Borders’ Advocates Are Pushing Immigration System to ‘Breaking Point,’ Says DHS


Following the death of a second migrant child in federal immigration custody in the past month, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says systems for dealing with border security and migrants are being pushed to the “breaking point.”

“Our system has been pushed to a breaking point by those who seek open borders,” DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a written statement. “Smugglers, traffickers, and their own parents put these minors at risk by embarking on the dangerous and arduous journey north. This crisis is exacerbated by the increase in persons who are entering our custody suffering from severe respiratory illnesses or exhibit some other illness upon apprehension.”

“Given the remote locations of their illegal crossing and the lack of resources,” the secretary explained, “it is even more difficult for our personnel to be first responders.”

Border Patrol agents apprehended 139,817 migrants in the past two months, she explained. This compares to 74,946 during the same period the year before. Of those apprehended, 68,510 were family units and 13,981 unaccompanied minors. The secretary said the problem has only “become starker in December.”

Nielsen blamed the massive increase in migrant crossings, particularly family units and unaccompanied minors, on several “draw factors.” Among those, she listed:

  • an immigration system that rewards parents for sending their children across the border alone,
  • a system that prevents parents who bring their children on a dangerous and illegal journey from facing consequences for their actions,
  • an asylum process that is not able to quickly help those who qualify for asylum,
  • a system that encourages fraudulent claims, and a system that encourages bad actors to coach aliens into making frivolous claims.

“The bottom line is that 9 out 10 asylum claims are rejected by a federal immigration judge,” Secretary Nielsen stated.

The DHS secretary announced some additional precautions that will be taken moving forward to make sure holding facilities and detention centers are as safe and healthy as possible:

At my direction, all children in Border Patrol custody have been given a thorough medical screening.  Moving forward, all children will receive a more thorough hands on assessment at the earliest possible time post apprehension – whether or not the accompanying adult has asked for one.

I have also spoken with our partners in Mexico to ask that they begin to investigate the causes of these illnesses on their side of the border and to provide medical assistance in shelters as needed.

I will be travelling to the border later this week to see first-hand the medical screenings and conditions at Border Patrol stations.

Nielsen said that additional Border Patrol agents trained in emergency management will be assigned to remote areas along the border. Currently, there are 1,500 medically trained Border Patrol agents and CBP officers along the border.

“As a result of bad judicial rulings from activist judges and inaction by Congress, we are seeing a flood of family units and unaccompanied alien children,” Nielsen concluded. “The unprecedented number of families and unaccompanied children at the border must not be ignored.  I once again ask – beg – parents to not place their children at risk by taking a dangerous journey north. Vulnerable populations – including family units and unaccompanied alien children should seek asylum at the first possible opportunity, including Mexico.”

“To those in Congress who continue to refuse to take action to address the loopholes that cause a flood of humanity to travel north and place children at risk, I once again call on you to do your job, protect vulnerable populations, secure our borders, and provide the men and women of DHS the authorities and resources we need to address this crisis,” the secretary said.

Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for the Breitbart Border team. He is an original member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook.

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

7 Presidents Who Were Tougher Than Trump on the Media


The president was frustrated with the media coverage of him and his policies, swearing that 85 percent of all newspapers were against him.

“Our newspapers cannot be edited in the interests of the general public,” the president griped. Then, almost derisively, he said: “Freedom of the press. How many bogies are conjured up by invoking that greatly overworked phrase?”

So, he opted to bypass the traditional media he was convinced was unfair and speak directly to America.

And President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats on the radio, beginning in 1933, proved to be a successful political move.

The verdict is still out on President Donald Trump’s tweets, though.

Trump regularly tweets about “fake news.” He has doubled down on the view that overly critical news outlets are the “enemy of the American people.”

He talked about more stringent libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations, threatened the broadcast license of certain networks, and the Trump White House pulled the press pass for CNN personality Jim Acosta after a confrontation at a press conference.

But so far he hasn’t taken government action, as Roosevelt and other past presidents have.

A Trump-appointed federal judge sided with CNN on the Acosta press pass. Congress is unlikely to enact new libel laws, as Supreme Court precedent sets a high standard for a public figure to sue a news outlet.

The Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to pull a license of a network (which aren’t licensed), having purview only over individual stations that operate on the public airwaves (which are licensed). Cable news outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News Channel also are not licensed and not subject to FCC regulation.

Past presidents have taken tangible actions to undermine a free press. Trump has so far taken only a more negative rhetorical tone toward the press, said David Beito, a history professor at the University of Alabama.

“Would he like to do something? He probably would, but a change of tone has been the biggest difference,” Beito told The Daily Signal, characterizing Trump’s rhetorical attacks on the press as more aggressive than most of his predecessors.

Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were among the biggest presidential offenders during the 20th century, he added.

“Wilson was extremely hostile to any sort of criticism, but it was couched in terms of wartime and the red scare,” Beito said. “Everyone knew Wilson was doing this. FDR was very subtle. Roosevelt was effective working through third parties. It was hard tying him to anything.”

Here are seven examples of presidential administrations that went well beyond rhetoric in going after the press.

1. ‘Thank’ Obama

The Obama administration’s Justice Department launched more leak investigations under the World War I-era Espionage Act than any other administration in history, according to then-New York Times reporter James Risen, writing in a December 2016 op-ed.

The Obama administration targeted Risen with a subpoena to force him to reveal his sources.

In a separate case, the Obama Justice Department named then-Fox News Channel reporter James Rosen as an unindicted co-conspirator. The Justice Department also seized the phone records of Rosen’s parents.

The Obama administration also seized the phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors, seizing records for 20 separate phone lines, including cellular and home lines.

Risen, now with The Intercept, wrote in his op-ed in The New York Times:

If Donald J. Trump decides as president to throw a whistle-blower in jail for trying to talk to a reporter, or gets the FBI to spy on a journalist, he will have one man to thank for bequeathing him such expansive power: Barack Obama. …

Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the FBI have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.

“With Obama, the press often gave him cover,” Beito told The Daily Signal. “Obama often did do things against reporters that were concerning.”

If the Trump administration imposes regulations on social media and internet giants, he added, it could set a precedent for future Democratic presidents who want to regulate more sectors.

A 2013 report from the nonprofit Committee to Protect Journalists compared Obama to former President Richard Nixon for his aggressive probes of leaks to reporters.

2. LBJ on ‘Challenge and Harass’

Talk radio was not a conservative phenomenon in the 1960s, as it became in the 1990s. But President Lyndon B. Johnson—and the Democratic National Committee—took action to suppress the format during his 1964 presidential race.

The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC rule, required broadcasters to air both sides of a controversial issue.

A former CBS News president, Fred Friendly, broke the story in his 1977 book, “The Good Guys, the Bad Guys and the First Amendment,” of how the Democratic National Committee used the rule to target unfriendly broadcasts.

Friendly wrote that “there is little doubt that this contrived scheme had White House approval.”

The DNC delivered a kit to activists explaining “how to demand time under the Fairness Doctrine.” It also mailed out thousands of copies of an article against conservative talk radio published in The Nation, a liberal magazine.

The Democrats also sent thousands of radio stations a letter from DNC counsel Dan Brightman warning that if Democrats are attacked on their programs, they would demand equal time.

Democrat operative Wayne Phillips was quoted in the Friendly book as saying, “the effectiveness of this operation was in inhibiting the political activity of these right-wing broadcasts.”

Bill Ruder, an assistant secretary of the Commerce Department in the Johnson administration, recalled: “Our massive strategy was to use the Fairness Doctrine to challenge and harass right-wing broadcasters and hope that the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.”

3. Nixon and the Fairness Doctrine

Johnson’s successor as president, Richard Nixon, would use similar tactics, particularly in the heat of the Watergate investigation.

The Nixon administration’s FCC threatened the licenses of TV stations owned by The Washington Post Co. and CBS Inc. over aggressive coverage of the Watergate scandal that eventually led Nixon to resign.

Nixon’s White House chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman, targeted individual stations with Fairness Doctrine complaints, according to the Poynter Institute, a journalism research group.

Nixon also kept an “enemies list” that largely included journalists.

The Reagan administration’s FCC did away with the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and Reagan vetoed subsequent legislation to put the policy in law. This led to the flourishing of conservative talk radio.

4. FDR and ‘Overworked Phrase’

The Roosevelt administration frequently targeted major newspapers, publishers, and journalists for tax audits. The common factor was that these publications or individuals opposed FDR’s New Deal programs, Beito said.

The chief targets included Col. Robert McCormick, owner and publisher of the Chicago Tribune, and press barons Frank Gannett and William Randolph Hearst.

Beito wrote about Roosevelt’s tactics in a piece for Reason, a libertarian magazine.

Roosevelt, during his re-election campaign in 1936, complained that 85 percent of newspapers were against him and the New Deal. In 1938, the president vented:

Our newspapers cannot be edited in the interests of the general public, from the counting room. And I wish we could have a national symposium on that question, particularly in relation to the freedom of the press. How many bogies are conjured up by invoking that greatly overworked phrase?

Sen. Hugo Black, D-Ala., a staunch FDR ally whom the president later would name to the Supreme Court, was chairman of the Special Senate Committee on Lobbying.

The lobbying committee began investigating utility companies, banks, and businesses that opposed the New Deal. Its work eventually turned into a fishing expedition, issuing subpoenas to critics such as Hearst and unfriendly media outlets, Beito wrote in the Reason article.

A court decision in Hearst’s favor short-circuited the Black committee’s investigation into the telegrams of major businesses that opposed the New Deal, he wrote.

5. Woodrow Wilson’s Committee on Public Information

Not long after the country entered World War I, Wilson wrote the Democratic-controlled House, asking for “authority to exercise censorship over the press to the extent that that censorship is embodied in the recent action of the House of Representatives is absolutely necessary to the public safety.”

Congress turned down Wilson, so the president issued an executive order creating a Committee on Public Information.

The agency employed 75,000 in its speaking division alone, and had separate divisions overseeing foreign language newspapers and films, according to Smithsonian magazine.

This was part of Wilson’s larger effort to control news coverage, Christopher B. Daly wrote last year in the Smithsonian magazine article:

In its crusade to ‘make the world safe for democracy,’ the Wilson administration took immediate steps at home to curtail one of the pillars of democracy—press freedom—by implementing a plan to control, manipulate and censor all news coverage, on a scale never seen in U.S. history. … He waged a campaign of intimidation and outright suppression against those ethnic and socialist papers that continued to oppose the war. Taken together, these wartime measures added up to an unprecedented assault on press freedom.

The federal propaganda agency also established a government-run national newspaper called the Official Bulletin, Daly wrote: “In some respects, it is the closest the United States has come to a paper like the Soviet Union’s Pravda or China’s People’s Daily.”

6. Lincoln and the Civil War

The Civil War was an unparalleled test of the nation and civil liberties. Press freedom not surprisingly took a hit.

President Abraham Lincoln didn’t order the military to shut down pro-Confederate and anti-war newspapers, but turned a blind eye when the Union army did so, according to the magazine Civil War Times.

In the midst of war, pro-Union newspaper publishers generally didn’t speak up for their fellow newspapermen, who were sometimes jailed.

Chiefly, the Union army targeted newspapers in Kentucky, a border state with split loyalties; Virginia, a Confederate state; and Maryland and Missouri, both Union states.

According to the article in the Civil War Times:

At their most unobjectionable level, the safeguards were initially meant to keep secret military information off the telegraph wires and out of the press. But in other early cases censors also prevented the publication of pro-secession sentiments that might encourage border states out of the Union. …

Eventually the military and the government began punishing editorial opposition to the war itself. Authorities banned pro-peace newspapers from the U.S. mails, shut down newspaper offices and confiscated printing materials. They intimidated, and sometimes imprisoned, reporters, editors and publishers who sympathized with the South or objected to an armed struggle to restore the Union.

For the first year of the war, Lincoln left no trail of documents attesting to any personal conviction that dissenting newspapers ought to be muzzled. But neither did he say anything to control or contradict such efforts when they were undertaken, however haphazardly, by his Cabinet officers or military commanders.

7. Adams and the Sedition Act

President John Adams signed the Sedition Act of 1798 to ban “false, scandalous and malicious writing” against Congress or the president and to make it illegal to conspire “to oppose any measure or measures of the government.”

This could be the oldest, most well-known clash between a president and the press.

Adams and the Federalist Congress were not tyrants, but rather passed the series of four laws known as the Alien and Sedition Acts out of fear of a pending war with France that never occurred.

Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont, who wrote letters to Democratic-Republican newspapers, was the first person tried under the law.

Acting as his own lawyer, Lyon argued that the law wasn’t constitutional. He was convicted nonetheless, and sentenced to four months in prison and a $1,000 fine.

One publisher of a Democratic-Republican newspaper, James Callender, was convicted and jailed for nine months for “false, scandalous, and malicious writing, against the said President of the United States.”

The law expired in early 1801. President Thomas Jefferson, leader of the Democratic-Republican Party, pardoned everyone convicted under the law.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

WRONG AGAIN: Obama and Gore Said Global Warming Would Cause More Severe Tornadoes – 2018 Was First EVER with NO VIOLENT TORNADOES


WRONG AGAIN: Obama and Gore Said Global Warming Would Cause More Severe Tornadoes – 2018 Was First EVER with NO VIOLENT TORNADOES

Jim Hoft
by Jim Hoft
December 27, 2018

Remember this?
Back in January 2013, Barack Obama blamed climate change/global warming for “raging fires, crippling drought and more powerful storms” during his second Inaugural speech.

Peace award winner Al Gore supported his comments.

But Obama and Gore were wrong again.
According to the NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center the total number of tornadoes during 2012 was just 936a ten year low.

And 2018 was the first year ever with no violent tornadoes in the United States.
LMT Online reported:

In the whirlwind that is 2018, there has been a notable lack of high-end twisters.

We’re now days away from this becoming the first year in the modern record with no violent tornadoes touching down in the United States. Violent tornadoes are the strongest on a 0 to 5 scale, or those ranked EF4 or EF5.

Obama, Gore and fellow junk scientists were wrong again.
Will the liberal mainstream media point this out?

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Islamist Migrant Causes Panic During Christmas Mass Screaming “Allah!” During the Gospel


Young men in the congregation jumped on the Moroccan man and dragged him from the Italian church.

Police were called and arrested the Islamist migrant.

A Moroccan migrant caused panic by entering a church in Maclodio, Italy, and screaming “Allah” and sentences in Arabic during the Christmas evening mass.

While the 35-year-old was shouting during the gospel reading, he was holding one arm behind his back, panicking churchgoers who believed he was armed, reports La Repubblica.

The town mayor and some young men managed to push the man, who turned out not to be armed, out of the church. The mayor then called the Italian military police, the Carbinieri, who arrested the Moroccan and took him to a local police station.

According to a gendarme, the migrant had moved from Maclodio, in Lombardy, north west Italy, to nearby Travagliato six months ago, and appeared to make the four mile journey just to pay a visit to the church.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning. Guest posting is disabled for security reasons.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Dem senators to judicial appointee: Why did you join the extremist … Knights of Columbus?


Nearly 160 years after the party disbanded, Know-Nothingism lives surprisingly well in the Democratic Party. Last year it emerged when Sen. Dianne Feinstein expressed her fear that Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholic “dogma lives loudly within you” in Barrett’s confirmation hearing. Now two other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have demanded to know why another Catholic judicial nominee joined a group with “extreme positions,” a story first picked up over the weekend by Catholic News Agency’s Ed Condon:

Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Kamala Harris (D-CA) raised concerns about membership in the Knights of Columbus while the Senate Judiciary Committee reviewed the candidacy of Brian C. Buescher, an Omaha-based lawyer nominated by President Trump to sit on the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

Senators also asked whether belonging to the Catholic charitable organization could prevent judges from hearing cases “fairly and impartially.”

In written questions sent to Buescher by committee members Dec. 5, Sen. Hirono stated that “the Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions. For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage.”

Hirono then asked Buescher if he would quit the group if he was confirmed “to avoid any appearance of bias.”

The Knights of Columbus are about as extremist as your average Rotary Club, as Paul Mirengoff noted last night. It’s a community service organization within the Catholic laity, whose forays into politics are in support of traditional Catholic teachings. Its individual members are probably likely to be regular Mass participants and more engaged in living those teachings as well. That, of course, is the point of social organizations in a church.

What were those “extreme positions,” by the way? Proposition 8 codified in the California constitution that marriage was between a man and a woman, a position publicly held by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as late as 2012. The referendum also received around 53% of the vote in California four years prior to that, which doesn’t necessarily make it right but sure as heck doesn’t make it extremist. Its other “extreme positions” are in opposition to contraception and abortion, and opposition to federal support for organizations that provide the latter.

Ramesh Ponnuru sniffs out the scent of Know-Nothing anti-Catholicism, and a broader hostility to Christianity in general, in the letter from Hirono and Harris:

Buescher joined the Knights in 1993, at age 18. Senator Harris has asked Buescher whether he was aware when he joined the Knights that they “opposed a woman’s right to choose” and “marriage equality” (which was not even a term in general circulation, let alone a going debate, at the time).

Among the many stupidities of this campaign against the Knights is its superfluity. Buescher is voluntarily affiliated with two even larger organizations that are on record in opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage: the Catholic church; the Republican party. When running for attorney general of Nebraska in 2014, he called himself “an avidly pro-life person.” If Harris and Hirono want to maintain that all judicial nominees must support abortion, beyond just saying that they will respect existing law, then they should just say that there are scores of millions of Christians they would never allow on the federal bench on account of their beliefs. There is no need to launch an attack on the Knights.

Ponnuru hits the nail on the head. The letter’s demands for answers about (and demands for denouncement of) the K of C aren’t really about that organization at all. It’s an attempt to sidestep Feinstein’s faux pas of attacking a nominee’s Catholic faith directly, using the Knights as a body shield. We’re not attacking the Catholic Church, they will claim, we’re just asking questions about an “extremist” group! Not only is this an unconstitutional religious test from two Democratic senators, it’s a particularly gutless attack at that.

Even more basically, this shows who the extremists really are. It’s not the group that organizes charitable efforts at the parish level and raises money with pancake breakfasts in the social halls. It’s the party who demands that anyone entering public service show fealty to the abortion-on-demand regime they want to impose on everyone else.

Oh, and just for the record: I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Knights of Columbus. I dig the uniforms, though. All kidding aside, they’re a great group of men who do really good work in our communities. They deserve a lot better treatment than this. Hirono and Harris should be ashamed of themselves.

Addendum: This is a classy move by the local K of C chapter in DC:

A Washington council of the Knights of Columbus has invited two U.S. senators to join them in charitable service, after those senators objected to a federal judicial nominee’s membership in the organization.

The Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle Council 11302 of the Knights of Columbus published this week an open letter to Sens. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, and Kamala Harris, D-Calif., addressing the senators’ recent objections to social and political positions affiliated with the Knights of Columbus.

The letter said the council had “read about statements which expressed the fear that the Knights of Columbus held many extreme beliefs. It is our great pleasure to assure you that this fear is not grounded in any truth. The Knights of Columbus in general, and the O’Boyle Council in particular, are dedicated to the three fundamental principles of charity, unity and fraternity.” …

The local Knights’ letter invited the senators to join the group at its February Polar Plunge, during which participants will jump into cold water to raise money for the D.C. Special Olympics.

“We hope this list of activities helps to assure you that we are simply a group aiming to do God’s work while building friendships,” the letter said.

If nothing else, perhaps it’ll cool off the poisonous partisanship around the Senate Judiciary Committee these days.

via Hot Air

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://hotair.com