Tag Archive: politics

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark wants U.S. internment camps for ‘radicalized’ Americans
Posted on July 20, 2015 by Personal Liberty News Desk Views: 3,433
Wesley Clark, a retired general and former Democratic presidential candidate, suggested during a recent interview that the U.S. should set up World War II-style internment camps to house “radicalized” Americans separately from ordinary citizens.

The remark came during an MSNBC interview focused on the killing of four U.S. Marines and a sailor in Chattanooga last week.

Host Thomas Roberts asked, “So how do we fix self-radicalized lone wolves domestically?”

Clark responded:

We have got to identify the people who are most likely to be radicalized. We’ve got to cut this off at the beginning. There are always a certain number of young people who are alienated. They don’t get a job, they lost a girlfriend, their family doesn’t feel happy here and we can watch the signs of that. And there are members of the community who can reach out to those people and bring them back in and encourage them to look at their blessings here.

But I do think on a national policy level we need to look at what self-radicalization means because we are at war with this group of terrorists. They do have an ideology. In World War II if someone supported Nazi Germany at the expense of the United States, we didn’t say that was freedom of speech, we put him in a camp, they were prisoners of war.

So if these people are radicalized and they don’t support the United States and they are disloyal to the United States as a matter of principle, fine. It’s their right and it’s our right and obligation to segregate them from the normal community for the duration of the conflict. And I think we’re going to have to increasingly get tough on this, not only in the United States but our allied nations like Britain, Germany and France are going to have to look at their domestic law procedures.

Clark’s remarks are surprising considering his previous positions against Bush-era civil liberties abuses following the 9/11 terror attacks. They are also dangerous, considering that the broad and ever-changing nature of deemed potential threats by the U.S. government.

The foundation

View online at: http://patriotpost.us/digests/36410
The Patriot Post: Voice of Essential Liberty

“In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature.” —James Madison, Federalist No. 51, 1788

Planned Parenthood Sells Baby Parts After Partial-Birth Abortions
Alternate Leftmedia headline: “Planned Parenthood targeted by undercover video.” That’s courtesy of CBS, which has a serious problem confusing the victims here. Just when you thought depravity couldn’t get any worse, along comes another surreptitious video of someone at Planned Parenthood discussing appallingly evil things. It will be the first of several videos taken and released by The Center for Medical Progress. In this one, Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical research, discusses with “buyers” the practice of essentially performing a partial-birth abortion followed by selling harvested organs. While sipping wine and eating salad, Nucatola boasts, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver … so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.” What kind of depraved and despicable person talks like this about a baby? Note also the sick irony that, to Planned Parenthood, unborn babies aren’t human unless their organs are useful.

The video is all too clear, but that didn’t stop Planned Parenthood from complaining about being victimized by a “heavily edited, secretly recorded videotape that falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research.” They’re just trying to help, right? But considering Planned Parenthood gets half a billion dollars in taxpayer money every year, this deserves some serious investigation followed by defunding the abortion mill. Louisiana governor and presidential candidate Bobby Jindal has already ordered an investigation in his state. We’re with Michelle Malkin, who wonders, “When you’ve recovered from your nausea, ask yourselves this: What kind of country do we live in where law-abiding businesses are fined, threatened and demonized for refusing to bake gay wedding cakes, but barbaric baby butchers are hailed by feminists, Hollywood and a president who asked God to ‘bless’ them?”

God have mercy on this nation.

Big Brother Trumps Little Sisters
Little Sisters of the Poor, a missions-based Catholic organization strongly opposed to ObamaCare’s contraception requirement, suffered a legal setback on Tuesday after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit refused to grant it an exemption. The court ruled, “Although we recognize and respect the sincerity of Plaintiff’s beliefs and arguments, we conclude the accommodation scheme relieves Plaintiffs of their obligations under the Mandate and does not substantially burden their religious exercise under RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] or infringe upon their First Amendment rights.” What’s baffling is how badly the opinion clashes with the Supreme Court’s Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling last year. In that case, the Court found that “HHS and the principal dissent [are] in effect tell[ing] the plaintiffs that their beliefs are flawed. For good reason, we have repeatedly refused to take such a step.”

Here’s the problem, as explained by University of Tennessee professor Glenn Reynolds: “The court seems to have no recognition of the fact that the Obama Administration’s regulatory ‘accommodation’ is a sleight of hand, allowing the insurer/third party administrator to move the contraceptive coverage ‘off the books’ and ‘pay’ for it themselves. But of course burdening the insurer/administrator in this fashion is merely a shell game, and the cost of contraceptive coverage is ultimately borne by the employer and individual beneficiaries. The coverage is not magically free, no matter how hard the Obama Administration tries to make it ‘look’ free via regulation.” This case may end up in the Supreme Court — something it could have prevented had its ruling in Hobby Lobby not been so limited.

Comment | Share

More Carry Permits, Fewer Murders
It’s long been a truism that more guns means less crime. That may seem like a paradox, but when criminals have to wonder if potential victims are armed, it decreases the likelihood they’ll commit a crime. Now, according to a new report set to be released by the Crime Prevention Research Center, we learn that murder rates have fallen at the same time concealed carry permits have skyrocketed. We don’t think that’s a coincidence. Since 2007, the number of people with concealed carry permits has nearly tripled — from 4.6 million to 12.8 million. And 2014 enjoyed a 15.4% increase over 2013 in permit applications, while seven states don’t even require a permit. According to The Washington Times, we can thank Barack Obama, in a manner of speaking: “Between 1999 to 2007, the number of permits increased by about 240,000 per year. But in the next four years, during Mr. Obama’s first term in the White House, the number of new permits issued jumped to 850,000 per year. From 2011 to 2013, the number increased by 1.5 million, rising to 1.7 million last year.” Meanwhile, both the murder rate and violent crime rate dropped 25%. That doesn’t in any way belittle the tragic loss of life caused by bad guys with guns, but the solution isn’t to take guns away from the law-abiding.

Comment | Share

Transgender Nation
By Nate Jackson
In December 2010, Barack Obama signed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the Pentagon policy (signed by Bill Clinton) prohibiting open homosexuals from serving in the military. Stay tuned, because the next victory for the Rainbow Mafia will be the end of the ban on transsexuals among the ranks of America’s Armed Forces.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter released a statement on the policy Monday, saying, “The Defense Department’s current regulations regarding transgender service members are outdated and are causing uncertainty that distracts commanders from our core missions. At a time when our troops have learned from experience that the most important qualification for service members should be whether they’re able and willing to do their job, our officers and enlisted personnel are faced with certain rules that tell them the opposite. Moreover, we have transgender soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines — real, patriotic Americans — who I know are being hurt by an outdated, confusing, inconsistent approach that’s contrary to our value of service and individual merit.”

Not to paint with too broad a brush, but is that how Carter explains the traitorous actions of Pfc. Bradley Manning? He was convicted of espionage and is serving a 35-year sentence — as a “woman.”

According to UCLA’s Williams Institute, the military is full of transsexuals. Color us skeptical. Carter has ordered a review of the ban with the almost sure aim of eliminating it after six months, because, as he said, “[W]e must ensure that everyone who’s able and willing to serve has the full and equal opportunity to do so, and we must treat all our people with the dignity and respect they deserve.”

We certainly agree that all humans have inherent, God-given dignity and should be treated with respect, but that doesn’t mean celebration of such mental illness and sin. And make no mistake: This debate isn’t about dignity, and it’s most certainly not about what makes our military a more effective fighting force. It’s about making the normalization of homosexuality a matter of law in regard to Defense Department personnel, practices and policy.

Leftists are pushing hard to normalize dysfunction, not just in the military but all over.

Consider the case of Bruce Jenner, the former decathlon champion who decided he was really a woman trapped in a man’s body. Worse is the growing number of children whose parents enable rather than treat gender dysphoria — they help their children live the lie.

One of the primary jobs of parents is to mold their children into responsible members of society and to help them through personal struggles, not to encourage them to turn every fantasy into reality. Yet here we are, about to witness a “reality” show on TLC about Jazz Jennings, a 14-year-old Florida boy who has been “living as a female” since he wore a rainbow swimming suit at his five-year-old birthday party. Jennings was named one of Time magazine’s 25 most influential teenagers last year.

“Jazz may be known as an author and activist,” cooed TLC general manager Nancy Daniels, “but she’s first and foremost a teenage girl with a big, brave heart, living a remarkable life.” Does “she” have biological girl parts? No, but he plans to disfigure his body at age 18 and has been taking hormone blockers since age 11 to prevent nature from taking its course. Is TLC — not to mention his parents — aiding and abetting a serious mental disorder? Yes.

But he’s not alone in being a child victim. In June, NBC ran an exclusive interview with Liam, a 10-year-old boy who lives as a girl. His parents have already legally changed his name to Lia, and he will soon begin taking hormone blockers as Jazz does.

Also in June, The New York Times profiled Caden Boone, who underwent reassignment surgery in April and now goes by Kat, or Katherine, all because he was troubled and found “answers” on the Internet. The Times informs us that his “new vagina needs constant care or it will close off like a wound.” A wound indeed. How tragic.

In fact, tragic might undersell the trouble transgendered people face. In the same article, the Times also reports, “A large-scale Swedish study at the Karolinska Institute found that starting about a decade after gender reassignment surgery, transgender people were still more than 19 times as likely to die by suicide as the general population.”

If such statistics applied to guns, the Left would be pushing even harder for an outright ban. Instead, Oregon is allowing children as young as 15 to receive taxpayer-subsidized sex-change operations — without parental notification.

As we asked recently, how many children will end up making the worst decision of their entire lives because they have been marinated in a toxic environment at an age when they are utterly incapable of defending themselves against their progressive indoctrinators?

“At the heart of the problem is confusion over the nature of the transgendered,” writes Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital. “‘Sex change’ is biologically impossible. People who undergo sex-reassignment surgery do not change from men to women or vice versa. Rather, they become feminized men or masculinized women. Claiming that this is a civil-rights matter and encouraging surgical intervention is in reality to collaborate with and promote a mental disorder.”

McHugh also says Bruce Jenner is one thing, but in these other cases “we’re talking about children with a future ahead of them.” One might call it child abuse.

This is the generation being raised to perhaps one day serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, which the Left has decided must be a reflection of our dysfunctional culture, not a capable protector of our Liberty. Indeed, no institution is safe from the Left’s social engineering.

Walter Williams: “The victors of war write its history in order to cast themselves in the most favorable light. That explains the considerable historical ignorance about our war of 1861 and panic over the Confederate flag. To create better understanding, we have to start a bit before the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. … During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made that would allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected it… The Constitution never would have been ratified if states thought they could not regain their sovereignty — in a word, secede. On March 2, 1861, after seven states seceded and two days before Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration, Sen. James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that read, ‘No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States.’ Several months earlier, Reps. Daniel E. Sickles of New York, Thomas B. Florence of Pennsylvania and Otis S. Ferry of Connecticut proposed a constitutional amendment to prohibit secession. Here’s a question for the reader: Would there have been any point to offering these amendments if secession were already unconstitutional? On the eve of the War of 1861, even unionist politicians saw secession as a right of states. … The War of 1861 brutally established that states could not secede. We are still living with its effects. Because states cannot secede, the federal government can run roughshod over the U.S. Constitution’s limitations of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. States have little or no response.”

Comment | Share

Insight: “Weak eyes are fondest of glittering objects.” —Scottish author Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Alpha Jackass: “The fact is that [Benjamin Netanyahu has] practically been making comments that are way over the top. … [The nuclear deal] is under attack by people who really don’t know the terms of the agreement, and they don’t offer an alternative. Their alternative is what, perpetual state of sanctions? Not going to happen.” —John Kerry

Village Idiots: “I don’t understand [economics] very well.” —Pope Francis (Which is exactly why he shouldn’t be dictating environmental policy.)

Hot air: “As secretary of state, I logged tens of thousands of miles and twisted a lot of arms to build a global coalition to impose the most crippling sanctions in history [on Iran]. That unprecedented pressure delivered a blow to Iran’s economy and gave us leverage at the negotiating table, starting in Oman in 2012. I know from experience what it took to build a global effort to get this done; I know what it will take to rally our partners to enforce it.” —Hillary Clinton

And last… “Obama won’t be satisfied until our inspectors are told by Iran that there’s not a smidgen of enriched uranium around. The nuke deal is based on trusting untrustworthy leaders. And that goes for the Iranians too.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

The future costs of politically correct cultism
Posted on July 14, 2015 by Brandon Smith Views: 6,374
I rarely touch on the subject of political correctness as a focus in my writings, partially because the entire issue is so awash in pundits on either side that the scrambling clatter of voices tends to drown out the liberty movement perspective. Also, I don’t really see PC cultism as separate from the problems I am always battling against: collectivism and the erasure of the individual in the name of pleasing society. Political correctness is nothing more than a tool that collectivists and statists exploit in order to better achieve their endgame, which is conning the masses into believing that the group mind is real and that the individual mind is fiction.

Last year, I covered the PC issue in my article “The twisted motives behind political correctness.” I believe I analyzed the bulk of the issue extensively. However, the times are changing at a pace that boggles the mind; and this is by design. So, it may be necessary to square off against this monstrosity once again.

In order to better examine the true insanity of what many people now term “social justice warriors,” I must study a few aspects separately. First, let’s take a brief look at the mindset of your average social justice circus clown so that we might better understand what makes him/her/it tick.

Rebel without a legitimate cause

I spent several years (up until 2004, when I woke up from the false paradigm madness) as a Democrat. And before anyone judges that particular decision, I would suggest they keep in mind the outright fascist brothel for the military-industrial complex the Republican Party had become at that point and remains to this day. Almost every stepping stone that Barack Obama is using today to eradicate the Constitution was set in place by the Bush dynasty, including the Authorization Of Military Force, which was the foundation for the National Defence Authorization Act and the legal precedence for indefinite detention without trial of any person (including an American citizen) accused of terrorism by the president of the U.S., as well as the use of assassination by executive order.

But, hell, these are real issues — issues that many of my fellow Democrats at the time claimed they actually cared about. Today, though, liberal concerns about unconstitutional actions by the federal government have all but vanished. Today, the left fights the good fight against flags on the hoods of cars from long-canceled television shows and battles tooth and nail for the “right” of boys wearing wigs and skirts to use the girl’s bathroom. Today, the left even fights to remove the words “boy” and “girl” from our vocabulary. Yes, such noble pursuits as these will surely be remembered as a pinnacle in the annals of societal reform.

Maybe I realize the ideological goals of the social justice machine are meaningless on a surface level; and maybe you realize this, too. But these people live in their own little universe, which doesn’t extend far beyond the borders of their college campuses, the various Web forums they have hijacked and a trendy Marxist wine-and-swinger party here and there in New York or Hollywood. They actually think that they are on some great social crusade on par with the civil rights movements of the mid-1900s. They think they are the next Martin Luther King Jr. or the next Gandhi. The underlying banality and pointlessness of their cause completely escapes them. The PC cult is, in many respects, the antithesis of the liberty movement. We fight legitimate threats against legitimate freedoms; they fight mostly imaginary threats and seek to eradicate freedoms.

Don’t get me wrong; sometimes our concerns do align. For instance, liberty proponents fight back against the militarization of police just as avidly as leftists do, if not more so. But our movements handle the problem in very different ways. Look at Ferguson, Missouri, where anyone with any sense should be able to admit that the government response to protests was absolutely a step toward tyranny, ignoring violent looters while attacking peaceful activists. Leftists and PC cultists decided to follow the Saul Alinsky/communist playbook, busing in provocateurs from Chicago to further loot and burn down businesses even if they belonged to ethnic minorities. In the meantime, the liberty movement and Oath Keepers sent armed and trained men to defend those businesses regardless of who owned them and defied police and federal agents who tried to stop them.

The left gave the police and government a rationale for being draconian, while we removed the need for police and government entirely by providing security for the neighborhood (killing two birds with one stone). Either their methods are purely ignorant and do not work, or their methods are meant to achieve the opposite of their claims. In the end, the PC movement only serves establishment goals toward a fully collectivist and centralized society.

Your average PC drone does not understand the grander plan at work, nor does he want to. All he cares about is that he has found a “purpose” — a fabricated purpose as a useful idiot for power brokers, but a purpose nonetheless.

People must be forced to bake gay cakes

I personally do not care if two people of the same gender want to be in a relationship, but I do find the issue of gay marriage (and marriage in general) a rather odd conflict that misses the whole point. Marriage has been and always will be a religious institution, not federal; and I find government involvement in this institution to be rather despicable. When the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage came down, I felt a little sorry for all the joyfully hopping homosexuals on the marbled steps of the hallowed building, primarily because they essentially were fighting for the state to provide recognition and legitimacy for their relationships. Frankly, who gives a rip what the state has to say in terms of your relationships or mine? The state is an arbitrary edifice, a facade wielding illusory power. If a relationship is based on true and enduring connection, then that is a marriage of sorts, whether the Supreme Court says so or not.

The only advantage to solidifying gay marriage in the eyes of the state is the advantage of being able to then use the state as an attack dog in order to force religious institutions to accept the status of gays in the same way the government does. And unfortunately, this is exactly what the PC cult is doing.

Should an individual, organization or business be allowed to refuse service to anyone for any reason? Should the state be allowed to force people into servitude to one group or another even if it is against their core values?

PC champions desperately try to make these questions a matter of “discrimination” alone. But they are more about personal rights and property and less about “hate speech.” Under natural law, as well as under the constitution, an individual has every right to refuse association with any other person for any reason. If I do not like you, the government does not have the authority to force me to be around you or to work for you. But this line has been consistently blurred over the years. As I’m sure most readers are familiar, the issue of gay cakes seems to arise over and over, as in cases in Colorado and Oregon in which religiously oriented business owners were punished for refusing to provide service for gay customers.

Punishments have included crippling fines designed to put store owners out of business and have even included gag orders restricting the freedom of businesses to continue speaking out against the orientation of customers they have refused.

In order to validate such actions, leftists will invariably bring up segregation as a backdrop for the gay cake debate. “What if the customers were black,” they ask. “Is it OK for a business to be whites only?”

My response? First, to be clear, I am talking specifically about private individuals and businesses, not public institutions as in the argument explored during Brown v. Board of Education. Private and public spaces are different issues with different nuances. I personally believe it is ignorant to judge someone solely on the color of his skin, and sexual orientation is not necessarily an issue to me. But it is equally ignorant for someone to think that the state exists to protect his feelings from being hurt. I’m sorry, but discrimination is a fact of life and always will be as long as individualism exists. The PC cultists don’t just want government recognition of their status; they want to homogenize individualism, erase it and force the rest of us to vehemently approve of that status without question. This is unacceptable.

Your feelings do not matter. They are not superior in importance to the fundamental freedom of each individual to choose his associations.

If a business refuses to serve blacks, or gays, or Tibetans, then, hey, it probably just lost a lot of potential profit. But that should absolutely be the business’s choice and not up to government to dictate. And in the case of “gay discrimination,” I think it is clear that the PC crowd is using the newfound legal victim group status of gays as a weapon to attack religiously based organizations. Make no mistake, this will not end with gay cakes. It is only a matter of time before pressure is brought to bear against churches as well for “discrimination.” And at the very least, I foresee many churches abandoning their 501(c)(3) tax exempt status.

If a group wants fair treatment in this world, that is one thing. I believe a gay person has every right to open his own bakery and bake gay marriage cakes to his little heart’s content. I believe a black person has every right to dislike white people, as some do, and refuse to associate with them or serve them if that’s what he/she wants. I also believe that under natural and constitutional law, a religious business owner is an independent and free individual with the right to choose who he will work for or accept money from. If he finds a customer’s behavior to be against his principles, he should not be forced to serve that person, their feelings be damned.

This is fair.

What is not fair is the use of government by some to gain an advantage over others based on the legal illusion of victim group status. PC cultists want us to think that choice of association is immoral and damaging to the group. I have to say I find them to be far more intolerant and dangerous than the people they claim to be fighting against, and this attitude is quickly devolving into full bore tyranny under the guise of “humanitarianism.”

Gender bending does not make you special

A man shaves his head and eyebrows, straps a plastic bottle to his face, and has his feet surgically modified to resemble flippers: Does this make him a dolphin, and should he be given victim group status as trans-species? I’m going to be brief here because I covered this issue in a previous article, but let’s lay everything on the table, as it were.

PC cultists are clamoring to redefine the fact of gender as an “undefinable” and even discriminatory social perception. No one, no matter how dedicated, will ever be able to redefine gender, unless they have the ability to change their very chromosomes. Nature defines gender, not man; and a man who undergoes numerous surgeries and body-changing steroid treatments will always have the genetics of a man even if he gives the appearance of a woman. Take away the drugs, and no amount of make-up will hide the chest hair growth and deepening voice.

This might be deemed a “narrow” view of gender, and I don’t care. Nature’s view of gender is the only one that counts. Psychological orientations are irrelevant to biological definitions. Are you a man trapped in a woman’s body? Irrelevant. A woman trapped in a man’s body? Doesn’t matter. If we are talking about legal bearings, then biological definitions are the only scale that makes sense. I realize that gender bending is very trendy right now, and Hollywood sure seems to want everyone to jump on that freaky disco bandwagon, but there is no such thing as gender-neutral people. They are not a group, let alone a victim group. There are men, and there are women; these are the only gender groups that count. Whether they would like to be the opposite does not change the inherent genetic definition. Period. To make such foolishness into an ideology is to attempt to bewilder man’s relationship to nature, and this will only lead to disaster.

There is no such thing as ‘white privilege’

A person determines his success in life by his character and his choices. Color does not define success, as there are many people of every color who are indeed successful. Do you have to work harder to gain success because you are brown, or black, or neon green? I’ve seen no concrete evidence that this is the case. I know that people who identify as “white” are still around 70 of the American population, thus there are more white people in successful positions due to sheer numbers.

I know that I personally grew up in a low-wage household and had little to no financial help as I entered the working world. Everything I have accomplished in my life to this point was done alongside people of color, some of whom had far more advantages than I did. I cannot speak for other people’s experiences, but I can say that being white was never more important in my life than being stubborn and dedicated.

I also find it a little absurd that most PC cultists who harp about so-called white privilege are often white themselves and haven’t the slightest experience or insight on what it is to be a person of color anyway. White privilege seems to be the PC cult’s answer to the argument that racism is a universal construct. Only whites can be racist, they claim, because only whites benefit from racism. I defy these jokers to show any tangible proof that an individual white person has more of a chance at success than a person of color due to predominant racism. Or are we just supposed to have blind faith in the high priests of PC academia and their morally relative roots?

The cost of social Marxism

Marxism (collectivism) uses many vehicles or Trojan horses to gain access to political and cultural spaces. Once present, it gestates like cancer. Younger generations are highly susceptible to social trends and are often easily manipulated by popular culture and academic authority, which is why we are seeing PC cultism explode with the millennials and post-millennials. In my brief participation on the left side of the false paradigm, political correctness was only beginning to take hold. A decade later, we have a bewildering manure storm on our hands. The result is a vast division within American society that cannot be mended. Those of us on the side of liberty are so different in our philosophies and solutions to social Marxists that the whole carnival can end only one way: a fight. And perhaps this is exactly what the elites want: left against right, black against white, gay against religious and straight, etc. As long as the PC movement continues to do the bidding of power brokers in their efforts toward the destruction of individual liberty, I see no other alternative but utter conflict.

–Brandon Smith


On July 7 the Memphis City Council voted unanimously to exhume the body of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest from its 110 year resting place and move it to another location.

The body of Forrest’s wife will be exhumed as well.

According to Local Memphis, the council voted to exhume Forrest’s remains from Health Sciences Park on Union Avenue. They plan to sell a statue of Forrest as well–they are thinking of “selling the statue to anyone who wants it.”

Forrest was a businessman who become wealthy in the cotton trade prior to the Civil War. He abandoned that to fight federal forces once the war commenced, eventually becoming a lieutenant general in the Confederate Army. He was known for waging brutal warfare against federal forces in Mississippi and Tennessee.

The Forrest family has made clear that they are “solidly opposed to digging up the graves and moving them any place.” They are opposed to moving the statue as well.

Some believe the Memphis City Council vote is another example of the anti-Confederacy hysteria that swept parts of the country after a photo surfaced of alleged Charleston gunman Dylann Roof posing with a Confederate flag. But city council member Janis Fullilove asked if the move has something to do with a rumored “$500 million [University of Tennessee] expansion” that would use the land where Forrest is currently buried.

Congressmen Push to Get Us Out of United Nations – Is Your Representative On Board?
Rep. Michael Rogers (R-AL) has put forth legislation to repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and has several supporters in favor of the bill.

Currently Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY), Jeff Duncan (R-TN) Westmoreland (R-GA), and Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) has co-sponsored the bill.
According to the bill, it would:
The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law 79–264; 22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is repealed.
Termination of membership in United Nations
The President shall terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.
Closure of United States Mission to United Nations
The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out.
The bill would also agree to withdraw from the agreement between the United States of America and the United Nations regarding the headquarters of the United Nations.
It would also terminate fund that are “authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the United States contribution to any United Nations peacekeeping operation or force.”
Additionally, it would not allow for funds to be used to “support participation of any member of the Armed Forces of the United States as part of any United nations military or peacekeeping operation or force” nor would it allow for any “member of the Armed Forces of the United States” to “server under the command of the United Nations.”
On top of that, the US government would basically kick the United Nations out of New York as it would not allow the UN to “occupy or use any property or facility of the United States Government.”

Diplomatic immunity would also go away with this bill and UN officials, employees and anyone associated with the UN would lose such status, making them subject to the laws of the land in which they are in.
It would also repeal the following:
Repeal of United States membership and participation in the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization
Repeal of United Nations Environment Program Participation Act of 1973
Repeal of United States participation in the World Health Organization
Repeal of involvement in United Nations conventions and agreements
There are many reason for the United States to remove itself from the United Nations. Among those are five things that Jim Fitzgerald had pointed out:
The complete text of the UN Charter’s Article 25 states: “The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter.” That clearly stated requirement supersedes adherence to the US Constitution. That any US government official would agree to that is incredible. When the UN’s Security Council decides to act, our nation’s membership requires the United States to “accept and carry out” what the Security Council wants done.
When the UN Security Council decides to send military forces to carry out its decisions, all member nations are required to participate.
In 1990, a UN Security Council resolution was sought and obtained by President George H. W. Bush for the first invasion of Iraq and that was in line with advancing a “New World Order.” This was summarily the same proposition pitched by Bush, Jr. for the second unconstitutional invasion of Iraq.
Articles 52-54 of the UN Charter permit nations to form “Regional Arrangements” to conduct military operations. Under these three articles in the Charter, NATO and SEATO were created, which have gotten us into more unconstitutional wars.
Article 2 of the UN Charter states: “nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state…” But the UN meddles in an array of matters, which are certainly within the jurisdiction of individual states (countries), including our own.
Take time to contact your representative and senator at every office they have and demand that they support HR 1205 for the future of our posterity and for the survival of America!

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/07/congressmen-push-to-get-us-out-of-united-nations-is-your-representative-on-board/#V69Xg61qPdH95RFh.99

Trey Gowdy Calls Out Hillary Over Subpoena Lie
By Guardian Web July 9, 2015 6:49 am

Hillary Clinton has been accused of lying about receiving a subpoena from the House select committee on Benghazi by the committee’s chair, Trey Gowdy.
In a statement on Wednesday, the Republican congressman accused the former secretary of state of making an “inaccurate claim” in an interview on Tuesday afternoon. In response to a question about the controversy surrounding her use of private email server while at the State Department, Clinton had told CNN’s Brianna Keilar: “I’ve never had a subpoena.”

Gowdy said: “The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not sought to make them public. I would not make this one public now, but after Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy.”

Gowdy also posted a copy of the subpoena on the Benghazi committee’s website.

According to Gowdy, “the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them.”
Special Headline: Guess Who’s About To Go Bankrupt in America will Shock you

Although originally set up by Congress to investigate the response to the 11 September 2012 attack on the US consulate at Benghazi, the committee’s remit has since expanded to probe the controversy around Clinton’s use of a personal email address while serving as secretary of state. In her CNN interview, Clinton insisted that the issue was “being blown up with no basis in law or in fact” that she went “above and beyond” her legal obligations in cooperating with the committee.

A spokesman for the Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a question about how the former secretary of state’s statement on Tuesday squared with Gowdy’s accusation.

The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/36294
Daily Digest

Jul. 9, 2015


“No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty than that on which the objection is founded. The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” —James Madison, Federalist No. 47, 1788


Political Winds Shift Against Obama’s Immigration Policies1

The death of Kathryn Steinle2 has galvanized the political opposition to Barack Obama’s non-enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws. Congressional Republicans are heavily criticizing the Obama administration’s tolerance of sanctuary cities that protect illegal aliens from deportation. In going after these “safe” havens, GOP lawmakers are going after the culture in the upper levels of the administration. In March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Sarah Saldana was asked in congressional testimony if she would support a law requiring local governments to cooperate with ICE. “Thank you — amen,” was her reply. But she must have received a call from the White House, because the next day ICE released a statement3 “clarifying” her remarks to say she supported sanctuary cities.

Meanwhile, in the suit against the federal government over Obama’s executive actions on immigration, Judge Andrew Hanen ordered4 Obama’s bureaucrats to court Aug. 19. He wrote, “Each individual Defendant must attend and be prepared to show why he or she should not be held in contempt of Court. … The Government has conceded that it has directly violated this Court’s Order in its May 7, 2015 Advisory, yet, as of today, two months have passed since the Advisory and it has not remediated its own violative behavior.” Say, here’s a novel idea: What if there were sanctuary cities from the federal government?

Hillary: Check Your Subpoena Folder5

In her first interview on national television news since she announced her candidacy, Hillary Clinton told CNN6 Tuesday, “I think it’s kind of fun” that she’s releasing 50,000 pages of her emails. When interviewer Brianna Keilar pressed Clinton about Congress’ subpoena of her emails, Clinton responded by attacking the reporter and catching herself before she gave us a really juicy quote: “You’re starting with so many assumptions that are — I’ve never had a subpoena. There is no — Again, let’s take a deep breath here. Everything I did was permitted by law and regulation” There are two lies right there. In response to the interview, Benghazi Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy wrote7, “[S]he was personally subpoenaed the moment the Benghazi Committee became aware of her exclusive use of personal email and a server, and that the State department was not the custodian of her official record. For more than two years, Clinton never availed herself of the opportunity, even in response to a direct congressional inquiry, to inform the public of her unusual email arrangement designed to evade public transparency.” Either Clinton doesn’t care when she’s caught in a lie, or her web of lies have become so complex that she can’t keep her story straight anymore.

Racist Republicans Hate Children8

“GOP has knives out for school lunch rules,” headlines The Hill9. “First lady Michelle Obama’s signature school lunch regulations are … a pillar of the first lady’s initiative to curb childhood obesity in the United States,” The Hill informs us. And who could be against healthy kids? Or the first lady? Evil Republicans, that’s who. Never mind that top-down regulation virtually never works, or that kids universally hate the new lunches10 to the point that schools are dropping them and/or demanding changes. The bottom line is that the 2010 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act (HHFKA) expires on Sept. 30, and Republicans are holding hearings to determine if it’s worth more than the $3 billion already spent to dump unwanted food in the trash. In 2014, Michelle lectured, “The last thing that we can afford to do right now is play politics with our kids’ health.” But playing politics is the name of the game. The first lady — an honorary and not official position, by the way — can’t federalize school lunches and then insist it’s not political.



Having spent years perfecting the art of inciting race warfare, Barack Obama and his administration released new housing rules that will define, qualify and categorize every community across the country by race, with the aim of forcing every neighborhood to comply with government race quotas.

It sounds ominous because it is. But it’s hardly surprising from the narcissist who pledged to “fundamentally transform” America.

Under the new Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule14 (AFFH), announced by Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Julian Castro this week, the federal government will amass and centralize nationwide public data on communities, including “patterns of integration and segregation, racially and ethically concentrated areas of poverty, disproportionate housing needs, and disparities in access to opportunity.” Big Brother doesn’t just want to look over your shoulder; he wants to move into your home.

HUD claims the rule will “equip communities that receive HUD funding with the data and tools that will help them to meet long-standing fair housing obligations.” In truth, however, AFFH is a stealth move to socially engineer every street in America and to force compliance with what Obama thinks communities should look like — namely, more “affordable” housing in affluent neighborhoods.

But as political analyst Marc Thiessen noted, “[W]e believe in diversifying communities, too, as conservatives. The way you do that is through economic opportunity. … It’s not by building more affordable housing in the affluent communities. It’s by helping more Americans afford housing in affluent communities. And right now the problem is that people at the bottom of the Obama economy can’t get ahead.”

Still, Washington wants to take over local zoning authority to impose racial quotas on communities. And as Ethics and Public Policy Center Senior Fellow Stanley Kurtz warns15, “Once HUD gets its hooks into a municipality, no policy area is safe. Zoning, transportation, education, all of it risks slipping into the control of the federal government and the new, unelected regional bodies the feds will empower.”

Nevertheless, Liberty aside, The Washington Post’s Emily Badger heralded16 the new rules as a way to “repair the [Fair Housing Act’s] unfulfilled promise and promote the kind of racially integrated neighborhoods that have long eluded deeply segregated cities like Chicago and Baltimore.” Funny she mentions those particular cities. While she points to Chicago’s “decades” of segregation as evidence that AFFH is needed, Badger fails to note those same decades were spent under solely Democrat leadership. Similarly, Baltimore has been led by the Left since Lyndon Johnson was president. Coincidence? We think not.

Also not coincidental is the way the government and media have remained largely mum on what the administration’s real plan is. Kurtz notes, “Obama has downplayed his policy goals in this area and delayed the finalization of AFFH for years, because he understands how politically explosive this rule is. Once the true implications of AFFH are understood, Americans will rebel.”

And rebel they should. As if Washington putting on a lab coat and stethoscope weren’t bad enough, now Obama wants to become zoning authority, landlord, realtor and public transportation chief combined. He’s is leaving no racist rock unturned in his quest to undermine Liberty.

Making matters worse, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling17 in the Texas Fair Housing case — in which a liberal majority said groups claiming housing discrimination no longer need to prove their case on the merits but only to claim “intent” to discriminate — means the real implications of AFFH will be a racially charged free-for all, with no gray areas and everything defined in black and white (pun intended).

Forget Martin Luther King’s noble notion of judging people by the content of their character. Obama wants to judge entire neighborhoods by the speciously calculated color of their skin. This is not the way of Liberty or of opportunity; it’s another giant leap down the road to statism, and it has no place in a nation that promises equal opportunity, not equal results, for all.


Victor Davis Hanson: “Barbarians at the gate usually don’t bring down once-successful civilizations. Nor does climate change. Even mass epidemics like the plague that decimated sixth-century Byzantium do not necessarily destroy a culture. Far more dangerous are institutionalized corruption, a lack of transparency and creeping neglect of existing laws. … Mexico is a much naturally richer country than Greece. It is blessed with oil, precious minerals, fertile soils, long coastlines and warm weather. Hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens should not be voting with their feet to reject their homeland for the U.S. But Mexico also continues to be a mess because police expect bribes, property rights are iffy, and government works only for those who pay kickbacks. The result is that only north, not south, of the U.S.-Mexico border can people expect upward mobility, clean water, adequate public safety and reliable power. In much of the Middle East and Africa, tribalism and bribery, not meritocracy, determine who gets hired and fired, wins or loses a contract, or receives or goes without public services. Americans, too, should worry about these age-old symptoms of internal decay. … Ultimately, no nation can continue to thrive if its government refuses to enforce its own laws.”


Insight: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” —Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Politically correct national security: “Here in the United States we have seen all kinds of homegrown terrorism, and tragically, recent history reminds us how even a single individual motivated by a hateful ideology with access to dangerous weapons can inflict horrendous harm on Americans. So our efforts to counter violent extremism must not target any one community because of their faith or background.” —Barack Obama on the Islamic State (So he’ll just target Christians who oppose same-sex marriage.)

Braying Jenny: “When people diss the government, we’re really dissing ourselves and dissing our democracy.” —Hillary Clinton

The BIG Lie: “I didn’t have to turn over anything. I chose to turn over 55,000 pages because I wanted to go above and beyond what was expected of me because I knew the vast majority of everything that was official already was in the State Department system. And now I think it’s kind of fun. People get a real-time behind-the-scenes look at what I was emailing about, and what I was communicating about.” —Hillary Clinton

Race bait: “As a nation — I don’t think as a president — but as a nation, we have got to apologize for slavery.” —Bernie Sanders

And last… “A Mexican national shot a 32-year-old woman in San Francisco. It’s a gun free zone and a sanctuary city. I know — let’s focus on banning the Mexican flag.” —Twitter satirist @weknowwhatsbest

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.




This Is How Hillary Loses the Primary
Bernie Sanders will never be president. But unless Clinton changes her strategy—and soon—he can still wind up toppling her.
Something remarkable is happening in American politics. For the first time in our history, a socialist is running a close second and gaining ground on the front-runner in a presidential race.

Anyway you look at it, Senator Bernie Sanders is making history and may very well play a deciding role in who will be the next president. How real is the Sanders movement? Well, at this point in his campaign in 2007, Barack Obama had 180,000 donors on his way to setting records with low-donor contributions; Bernie Sanders has 250,000.

How’s he doing with voters in early states? “The next time Hillary Rodham Clinton visits New Hampshire, she need not look over her shoulder to find Bernie Sanders; the Vermont Senator is running right alongside her in a statistical dead heat for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, according to a CNN/WMUR poll,” wrote The New York Times on June 25.

But lest the Sanders surge in New Hampshire be dismissed as neighboring state advantage, the Clinton campaign seems even more worried about losing Iowa. In a carefully orchestrated bit of expectation lowering, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook recently said, “the caucuses are always such a tough proving ground” and Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmeri said, “We are worried about [Sanders].”

Here’s what we know has happened so far in the Democratic primary for president. Since Hillary Clinton started spending money, hiring staff and campaigning, she has lost votes. In Iowa and New Hampshire, she was doing better in the polls in January than she is today. Heck, she had more votes last month than she has today.

Politics is about trends and the one thing we know is that trends escalate in speed as elections near. Even starting out with the huge lead that she did, Clinton can’t allow Sanders to keep gaining votes while she loses votes in the hope that the bleeding won’t be fatal in the long run.

Thinking that little tricks like getting an “organizer” to introduce the candidate at a rally will change an image built over four decades in politics is like McDonald’s thinking they can take on Starbucks because they now sell espresso.
So far Clinton’s approach has been to try to demonstrate to the element of the party that finds Sanders so appealing that she is really one of them. This seems like an extremely flawed strategy that plays directly to Sanders’s strengths. If the contest is going to come down to who can be the most pure liberal, the best bet is on the guy who actually is a socialist. Particularly when running against someone with Hillary Clinton’s long record of being everything that the current left of her party hates.

The truth is, Hillary Clinton has supported every U.S. war since Vietnam. She supported not only DOMA, which her husband signed, but a travel ban on those who were HIV positive. She supported welfare cuts (remember her husband’s efforts toward “ending welfare as we know it”?). She supports the death penalty and campaigned in her husband’s place during the 1992 New Hampshire primary when he left to oversee the execution of an African-American man whose suicide attempt left him brain damaged.

And if “mass incarceration” is a problem today, keep in mind she has long advocated for the criminal justice policies that called for locking up more people for longer periods. She supports—and, as Secretary of State, participated in—the U.S. policy of targeted assassinations, including when the targets were American citizens.

In a political environment in which income inequality is a rallying cry, she makes $300K plus expenses an hour. In fact, she would be the wealthiest person elected president in the modern era.

We can debate the merits of each of these positions but it’s hard to argue it’s not exactly the dream résumé for the 2016 progressive candidate. And guess what? The politically active, motivated voters of Iowa and New Hampshire know the difference between someone who got to the White House with a DLC-backed president and a guy who went mainstream when he started calling himself a socialist and not a revolutionary.
Like him or hate him, Bernie Sanders is the real deal. He’s the most left-wing candidate to emerge as a serious threat to a front-runner in modern history and the faithful love him. Will he be the next president? No. But if Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, it is likely to set off a chain reaction that will topple Clinton.

Hillary Clinton’s greatest strength—more than being a woman, more than being a Clinton—is the fact that polls show her consistently beating Republicans. Democrats see her as someone who can hold the White House. If she loses to Bernie in Iowa or New Hampshire, most likely the subsequent polls will show her losing to a handful of top Republicans.

And then what happens? Will the Democratic Party rally around her?

Perhaps. But more likely party voices, with great and solemn regret (masking their deep panic), will begin to say that Hillary had her chance, she fought a good fight, but we can’t lose the White House.

Who would get in? I still think Elizabeth Warren could be drawn in under this scenario. It’s very different to get into a race to challenge the inevitable Hillary Clinton versus getting into a race to save the party from a wounded Hillary Clinton. John Kerry could get in. Who knows? Perhaps Martin O’Malley does emerge as the viable alternative.

So how does Hillary Clinton avoid the danger of this scenario? Easy. She has to win Iowa and New Hampshire. She should win Iowa and New Hampshire, and handily. She’s running against an obscure 73-year-old socialist from a tiny state that has few minorities and little organized labor, two of the longtime power centers in the Democratic Party.

But to beat Sanders, Clinton has to stop trying to be Sanders-lite and get about the business of explaining why he’s wrong and she’s right. That’s how every race is won or lost. She has to lay out the case that Sanders has bad ideas—and most of his are—that will kill jobs and hurt people. She has to run as Hillary Clinton, not some new creation that a bunch of thirtysomething operatives put together as a poli-sci project.

She has been involved in political campaigns for longer than most of her staffers have been alive. Thinking that little tricks like getting an “organizer” to introduce the candidate at a rally will change an image built over four decades in politics is like McDonald’s thinking they can take on Starbucks because they now sell espresso.

One of life’s truths is that we all tend to become more like ourselves the older we get. If you’re marrying someone over 65 with the hope they will change, the odds for success are slim.

Hillary Clinton, who has collected vast fortunes in campaign donations from Wall Street and hasn’t driven a car in over a quarter of a century, can’t win a progressive primary. So if she doesn’t change the terms of the race, she’s going to lose. Again.


Peanut Butter & Jelly Sandwiches Are Now…. RACIST?
By TPIWriter

With so many sensitive “politically correct” problems now, we’re now living in a society where even FOOD can be deemed racist. I’m not kidding!

Principal Verenice Guiterrez, who certainly voted for Obama, runs the Harvey Scott School (K-8) in Portland, Oregon. And she has made an announcement that peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are racist!

Why? Because, as Principal Guiterrez explained, this effort was made to, “improve education for students of color.” She noted that some students – such as those from Mexico or Somalia – haven’t eaten bread in their culture. Instead, they eat pitas, tortas, and other bread substitutes.

Therefore, the serving of delicious PB&Js is a brazen display of white privilege. The Principal wants to cancel out this supposed racial privilege and “change their teaching practices to boost minority students’ performance.”

How is this possible? Food can’t make racial comments… And a sandwich can’t even watch The Dukes of Hazzard. It is two slices of bread, with your favorite jelly and crunchy or creamy peanut butter. Most children think they are delicious, and I bet you probably still eat them.

They are nutritious, full of energy, and are cheap. That’s why millions of people eat PB&Js every day!

I wonder if I should rush to the store and buy whole grain wheat bread. Perhaps that would boost my kitchen’s racial diversity?

This has gone too far. Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are not racist and children should be allowed to eat them.
Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/peanut-butter-jelly-sandwiches-are-now-racist/#ixzz3fKOiFpSr

The Patriot Post · http://patriotpost.us/digests/36236
Daily Digest

Jul. 7, 2015


“Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us.” —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Francis W. Gilmer, 1816


Obama Plans to Debate Islamic State Into Submission1

Barack Obama should be more up front with what he’s trying to do to the Islamic State. Why doesn’t he just say he’s practicing a strategy of non-intervention? On Monday, Obama touted the “success” of his strategy to “degrade and ultimately destroy” the Islamic State. Still, he had one caveat2: “Our strategy recognizes that no amount of military force will end the terror that is ISIL unless it’s matched by a broader effort — political and economic — that addresses the underlying conditions that have allowed ISIL to gain traction. … Ultimately, in order for us to defeat terrorist groups like ISIL and al-Qaida, it’s going to also require us to discredit their ideology. This broader challenge of countering violent extremism is not simply a military effort. Ideologies are not defeated with guns; they’re defeated by better ideas — a more attractive and more compelling vision.” Clearly, we didn’t win independence from Britain with superior debating skills, nor did we defeat the Nazis or Soviets with speeches. Debate works amidst a civil society, but not when one side is enslaving minorities, burning prisoners alive and beheading others, while vowing further violence against people with whom it disagrees. On the flip side, if Obama believes no further debate can be had and the gloves must come off, there’s always the IRS.

South Carolina Nears Removing Confederate Flag3

The nation is one step closer to finally solving the racism Rubik’s cube once and for all. No, not really, but the South Carolina Senate did just vote 37-3 to remove what’s commonly known as the Confederate flag from the capitol grounds. After a formality of a third vote, the measure moves to the state House, and what Republican Gov. Nikki Haley recently said was not “going to be easy” or “painless” will have turned out to be rather easy and relatively painless. The debate over the flag4 began with the horrific murders of nine blacks at a church in Charleston by a racist thug who took a picture with a Confederate flag. As far as public debate was concerned, that cemented the connection between the flag and racism. It’s one thing to remove the flag from state grounds — a flag put there by a Democrat governor, by the way, and kept there in a compromise supported by slain Rev. Clementa Pinckney. But it’s something else entirely to try to purge the flag from every store shelf, TV show or NASCAR race, while leaving untouched symbols of Nazism and Communism — ideologies that still exist and are still killing people. The bottom line is that the Left is intent on blaming all Southerners — especially Republicans — for slavery and all racism.

No, Polar Bears Won’t Face Existential Threat Within 10 Years5

In 2009, then-Sen. John Kerry said, “Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013.” In that same year, Al Gore reiterated the claim: “Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” Without ice, polar bears have a tough time surviving, and sadly we had to bid farewell to this wonderful creature a few short years ago because we failed to heed the warning. Actually, no, that’s not at all true. Not only has the Arctic retained a considerable amount of ice in recent summers, but polar bears are thriving6. Earlier this year, Dr. Susan Crockford of the Global Warming Policy Foundation discovered, “On almost every measure, things are looking good for polar bears. Scientists are finding that they are well distributed throughout their range and adapting well to changes in sea ice. Health indicators are good and they are benefiting from abundant prey.” With roughly 25,000 polar bears estimated to be roaming the Arctic, up from 5,000 in the ‘60s, the alarm should over. But it’s not.

According to a new report from the U.S. Geological Survey, computer models suggest nearly one-third of polar bears could be wiped off the planet in 10 years as greenhouse gas emissions rise. Let’s get this straight: The same scientific lobby that warned decades ago polar bears would be extinct by now — but which instead grew in population — are now telling us that a significant percentage of bears could face eradication within a decade based on computer models. The same computer models that utterly failed to forecast the current 18-year-old global warming hiatus. That kind of logic is enough to make even a polar bear do a facepalm.


Sanctuary Cities and Obama’s Failed Immigration Policies9

By Paul Albaugh

Last Wednesday in San Francisco, an illegal immigrant named Francisco Sanchez murdered Kathryn Steinle. While Sanchez alone is responsible for his crime, Steinle just might be alive had it not been for bad immigration policy from the Obama administration, and likewise the city of San Francisco.

The fact is Sanchez should not have been in the United States at all. Sanchez had already been convicted of seven felonies and deported five times10 before this murder. Yet he chose San Francisco as his dwelling because it’s a “sanctuary city.”

Sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants, that is. Cities like San Francisco that adopt such policies typically don’t necessarily seek out undocumented immigrants, but they also don’t enforce deportation, which yields the same result. These cities — primarily run by Democrats — have a policy in place that benefits illegal aliens at the expense of citizens. Such a policy is detrimental to these communities, as evidenced by this recent killing, and the politicos responsible for this terrible policy should be held accountable.

Democrats, of course, claim creating sanctuary cities is good policy. One such enlightened progressive is Hillary Clinton, who claimed in a 2007 speech at Dartmouth College that sanctuary cities help to ensure the “personal safety and security of all the citizens.” (Note the particular irony of using the word “citizens.”) Furthermore, she claimed that if local police officers acted like immigration enforcement officers, then people would be hiding from the police instead of reporting crime.

We’re still waiting for the Leftmedia to question Hillary on her continued support of this policy, but the noise from Donald Trump’s recent bombast on immigration seems to be drowning that out. It would be a prime opportunity for serious conservative candidates to say something about the failed policy of sanctuary cities, but so far most of them are missing it.

Sanctuary cities aren’t the only problem with immigration policy. There is a massive problem at the federal level too, which is one of the reasons Sanchez wasn’t kept out of the U.S. for good. Yet he is just one of the many illegal immigrants who remain in or return to the U.S. because of a faulty deportation process.

Recent documents11 from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) show that “about 900,000 undocumented immigrants, including 170,000 criminals, have been ordered deported ‘in absentia,’ meaning a judge kicked them out without them even knowing it.” How can someone be deported for being here illegally when they don’t even know they have been ordered to leave?

Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at CIS, notes, “[E]ven those immigrants who are in court to receive their removal orders are not immediately removed. Instead, they are often told to report in with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement — but often vanish.”

Certainly there could be more and better detention centers to hold these illegal aliens. After all, does anyone really think that someone who is here illegally would turn themselves into Immigration and Customs Enforcement? Apparently the Department of Homeland Security doesn’t see the need for more detention facilities, as it has sought new rules that will loosen detention policies.

According to a recent DHS release, “[O]nce a family has established eligibility for asylum or other relief under our laws, long-term detention is an inefficient use of our resources and should be discontinued.” Can the Department of Homeland Security explain how this bolsters homeland security?

Not surprisingly, Obama spokesman Josh Earnest took to the stage Monday to not only defend the administration’s immigration policies but to blast Republicans for blocking “common-sense” immigration reform.

Of course, Obama’s version of common-sense immigration reform12 was nonsense. Democrats have made the issue of immigration a divisive one for their own political benefit. Forget security, they are worried about votes.

Republicans, on the other hand, need to do a better job at explaining how they are going to fix immigration policy. And there are basically four points to drive home:

First, the “immigration reform” pledges by Obama and his Democrat lackeys are disingenuous because they would undermine the Left’s entire “living wage” platform. Allowing 5-10 million immigrants to compete for low-wage jobs is certainly not consistent with that agenda.

Second, Obama is willing to trash the Constitution in order to advance his ruinous policies. Republicans need to use his abject abuse of power and the threat it poses to Liberty as a constitutional teachable moment.

Third, any debate about immigration is useless unless it begins with a commitment to securing our borders first. That includes eliminating sanctuary cities. As Ronald Reagan declared, “A nation without borders is not a nation.” Likewise, it must address the issue of so-called “birthright citizenship,” which is a gross misinterpretation of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

And last, Republicans need to embrace the fact that Liberty is colorblind. It’s not a “white thing.” Essential Liberty is timeless. And because it transcends all racial, ethnic, gender and class distinctions, it will appeal to all freedom-loving people when properly presented.

In the end, Americans like Kathryn Steinle shouldn’t pay the ultimate price for Democrats’ vote-buying schemes.



Cal Thomas: “The ‘culture wars,’ while well-intentioned, were a mistake from the beginning. Evangelical Christians, whose Leader said, ‘My Kingdom is not of this world,’ thought they could organize people of like mind and like faith and create a voting bloc to elect people who would impose something resembling that other kingdom on people who do not see themselves as members of that kingdom. Given the number of politicians who seem to have difficulty imposing a moral code of any sort on themselves, such a strategy was doomed from the start. Why didn’t they learn from previous ‘moral improvement’ movements that if one wants to change culture, one must first change individuals? For evangelical Christians that can only be done by the transformation of the heart, soul and mind, something that is beyond the power of secular — or even religious — politicians. … The country grows increasingly secular in part because conservative evangelicals gave the impression that being born again means instant adoption into the Republican Party. … [T]his isn’t about surrender; it is about enlisting in a different ‘army,’ using more powerful nonpolitical weapons. Google ‘Beatitudes’ and see what I mean. Practice them and observe the impact they have on the culture.”


Insight: “All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land.” —English philosopher William Kingdon Clifford (1845-1879)

Upright: “Today the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race. Even the leading moral and religious thinkers in different societies accepted slavery as just a fact of life. … What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage. That was not yet a majority view among Americans in the 18th century, but it was not even a serious minority view in non-Western societies at that time.” —Thomas Sowell

Gun rights: “The discussion over the debate to own a gun is just ridiculous. As Americans we have the right to bear arms and as humans the right to protect ourselves. I’m sure that the man who shot my husband did not have a gun permit. Criminals will always have guns. The rest of us legally obtain our gun permits. If you don’t want to carry, please don’t. Then, shut the f— up about it.” —former CNN anchor Lynne Russell, whose husband killed an armed assailant last week25

And last… “Solution to Supreme Court is make it like jury duty. Grab people off the street to rule based on plain meaning of language in Constitution. The Constitution is a frick’n six page document. Doesn’t require years as a judge to understand anymore than rules to Monopoly.” —Frank Fleming

Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis!
Managing Editor Nate Jackson

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform — Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen — standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.




Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 178 other followers