• Google’s Internal Audit Bucks the Narrative on Gender Pay Gap

    Google’s Internal Audit Bucks the Narrative on Gender Pay Gap

    Whether it’s the result of political pressure or wanting to stay ahead of progressive trends, a number of larger companies are conducting internal audits to investigate whether they could be accused of having a so-called pay gap between men and women.

    Google conducts such an audit every year, and this year produced a surprising result. According to The New York Times, Google’s analysis found that more men than women were being underpaid.

    As a result, Google will award $9.7 million out of a compensation fund, the majority of it going to men. The fund was established to remedy compensation gaps revealed by the annual study. READ MORE...

  • 'People Are Starting to Realize Just How Dangerous the Socialist Agenda Really Is,' Says Former NY Lawmaker

    ‘People Are Starting to Realize Just How Dangerous the Socialist Agenda Really Is,’ Says Former NY Lawmaker

    Former Rep. Claudia Tenney, who represented New York’s 22nd Congressional District in the 115th Congress, spoke to The Daily Signal at the Conservative Political Action Conference last week. Tenney narrowly lost re-election to Rep. Anthony Brindisi, D-N.Y., last November. An edited transcript of the interview is below.

    Rob Bluey: Looking back on your time in Congress with President Donald Trump in the White House, what stands out most to you?

    Claudia Tenney: History will prove the 115th Congress was one of the most successful Congresses in many decades. The president drove through a very strong agenda, and we delivered on nearly all of the Trump agenda except for a few items.

    In the House, sadly, we couldn’t get all those things through the Senate, but I think it was very successful when you look at tax reform. I was the only freshman member of the House Financial Services Committee to have two of my bills added to the Senate’s partial repeal of Dodd-Frank, protecting our community institutions, community banks, community credit unions, small institutions, and small businesses.

    A number of initiatives—whether it was on opioid funding, protecting our small business community, the tax cuts—there’s so many things that we did for the 22nd District. We secured record funding for the Air Force Research Lab [in Rome, New York], which is a really important institution, including a $14 million allocation for the perimeter fence that was mandated by the secretary of the Air Force 10 years ago.

    It was a very successful year. Unfortunately, we couldn’t outmatch my opponent’s super PACs. We did pretty well with fundraising, but they had a lot of money, a lot of resources, and they had the energy. The socialists were out in full force, even in our community.

    Unfortunately, a lot of people weren’t paying attention. I got more votes in 2016 than my opponent got in 2018. We had a harder time with turnout. And I think Republicans should be looking at 2020 as a dire wake-up call as to what they let happen in 2018 and how we lost the House and who is taking over.

    Bluey: You mentioned some of the accomplishments. What stands out in your mind during your service in Congress that you’re most proud of?

    Tenney: Tax reform in my district was really important. It helped our small business community. They produce almost 70 percent of the new jobs or more, especially in our area. I visited over 100 businesses, heard from many more, did numerous business roundtables, and the No. 1 thing they were praising was the tax reform.

    Our citizens have been victims of Albany’s tax-and-spend regime. That’s really chased record numbers of people and businesses out of New York, especially in New York’s 22nd District. Some of the most dramatic declines are in the Utica, Rome, and Binghamton area, and everything in between. We did provide funding to restore some of that, but standing up for our defense installations, like Rome Lab, was really important.

    Bluey: Last year was the first time a U.S. president visited the Utica area in decades.

    Tenney: It was the first time a sitting U.S. president has been to Utica, New York, since 1948, so it was 70 years. In 1952, my grandfather, Robert Roberts, brought candidate Dwight Eisenhower to Hamilton, New York. He was a candidate for president. Did you know that 75 percent of the students polled at the time supported Eisenhower at Colgate University. I would say that would probably be 5 percent today, but I thought it was just interesting. I found the article in our family newspaper, which my grandfather founded in 1946, and it was interesting to see the column and how things have changed.

    Bluey: What was it about your own life that inspired you to run for Congress and seek public office? Certainly it’s not always glamorous and a lot of hard work goes into it.

    Tenney: It’s not glamorous. A lot of people think it is. There’s a lot of myths out there about Congress and what people get. It’s a privilege and an honor to serve our country, also to represent the 22nd District in our capital and be able to fight for what we have been through.

    Our region in New York is where the Industrial Revolution started along the Erie Canal, and the first shovel was put in the ground in Rome, New York. As a small business owner, this is important to me.

    Paul Revere started his business here, Remington Arms was started here, IBM was founded in my district—all kinds of small businesses that rose to really worldwide acclaim and worldwide recognition. But the entrepreneurial spirit of our region needed to be revived, and I’m a small business owner—my business was started by my grandfather. First we had a newspaper and printing operation; now we specialize in pharmaceutical packaging.

    I could see it on a day-to-day basis most of my customers on the newspaper side were small business owners and they were getting hurt by crushing regulations, high taxes, and just really not having a chance to compete with the national chains or the big box stores and the big companies who were getting all these subsidies, and all these benefits from government.

    You’re seeing a lot of this playing out in New York today with billions of dollars being spent by Andrew Cuomo to lure these big companies, and it’s now one of the worst places to do business in the nation, one of the worst economies in the nation.

    From my experience in the New York State Assembly, I thought that as a minority member it would be an opportunity to jump onboard and go to Congress and try to help our small business community. I’ve always maintained a 100 rating from the National Federation of Independent Business, and I’ve been a member for almost 30 years. They’ve been tremendous advocates to help the small businesses, which is really the heart of America.

    This is how our country was made great—it’s because of entrepreneurship, small businesses, freedom, and the ability to really create a life for yourself and create a product and a service, and also help your community. And that’s what I saw as my opportunity in Congress.

    Bluey: You mention some of the economic challenges that New York faces, and of course with all-Democrat rule, they’re not the policies the conservatives like to see implemented. One of the things that has caught the nation’s attention is the abortion law that Gov. Cuomo signed. We’ve seen significant shifts in public opinion since that happened, particularly among people under the age of 45 and those of who are Democrats. There was a 17 point swing overall in people who are now saying they are now pro-life. What does this mean and do you think those shifts in public opinion are a result of the left’s overreach?

    Tenney: That’s part of it. In New York City, all these things that we’re seeing coming out of the famous [Rep.] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the things that she stands for, they have been battered around in the New York State Assembly, they’ve been voted on numerous times.

    This abortion bill has been sitting around for a long time, and my opponent in 2018 was a co-sponsor and voted for it four times. It’s on the floor all the time. The Medicare for All bill has been on the menu many years in New York, but you don’t hear any coverage of that in my region or any other parts of the state.

    Socialism has been going on for a long time in New York and it’s very dangerous. Gov. Cuomo unwittingly brought all of this to the forefront and now people are starting to realize just how dangerous this socialist agenda really is.

    Socialism is a mild word for what this is. It’s a form of extremism and government control that will take over our lives. A lot of people didn’t realize it. And I think the governor’s cheering, and everybody making such a big deal about this late-term abortion bill really shocked the conscious of people and said, “Wait a minute, now that’s a step too far for me.”

    People have been moving more and more toward the pro-life stance because of science and because they’re starting to realize the moral nature of it and how important it is to be pro-life.

    Bluey: So what does the future hold for Claudia Tenney?

    Tenney: I have a lot of opportunities. I’ve served in public office for eight years. I’m obviously disappointed to lose because I feel like we just had an amazing two years, and I wish we could have made that more clear to the voters.

    I’m not ruling out the possibility of running again. I’m looking at every option. There are a lot of options out there. Whatever I do, I’m going to always advocate for my community and always advocate for our nation.

    It’s so important to preserve our constitutional republic, and make sure people understand that we need to preserve it. Whatever I can do to help in the cause, that’s what I’m going to continue to do.

    Bluey: Thank you for your service, and best wishes in the future.

    Tenney: Thank you.

    Source link

  • North Carolina Election Fraud Should Be a Wake-Up Call for the Left

    North Carolina Election Fraud Should Be a Wake-Up Call for the Left

    Widespread fraud by a political operative working for a Republican is forcing a redo of the 2018 midterm race for North Carolina’s 9th Congressional District.

    The news confirms just how vulnerable our elections are to voter fraud, and how profound the consequences can be.

    That should be the takeaway. Yet many on the left and in the media seem far more interested in spinning the situation for partisan gain than finding genuine solutions to the election insecurities that enabled this fraud in the first place.

    They focus on the fact that this is “Republican” voter fraud, and accuse conservatives of “deafening” and hypocritical silence. They even refuse to call it “voter fraud” to avoid embarrassment after years of denying that voter fraud is a problem.

    These claims debase the political process. They are cynical, politically motivated, and miss the point entirely. Election integrity is about much more than partisan politics—it is about preserving faith in the democratic process itself.

    That’s why Heritage Foundation analysts were quick to condemn this instance of “Republican” voter fraud and called for an investigation, writing: “It is incumbent on conservatives and Republicans to resist the urge to circle the wagons or reflexively support the outcome in North Carolina as it stands today merely because of who won.”

    While some on the left were busy arguing over whether to call it “election fraud” or “voter fraud,” we made no distinction: Securing elections isn’t a semantic game, it’s about taking voter fraud seriously, adopting election integrity reforms, and holding responsible parties accountable—regardless of their political persuasion.

    That holds true in North Carolina, where four days of dramatic testimony and the recent indictment of the operative in question, Leslie McCRae Dowless—made clear the 9th District race was tainted by deliberate, coordinated fraud.

    The hearing by the State Board of Elections probed the nature of Republican candidate Mark Harris’ relationship with Dowless, the man at the center of an apparent absentee ballot fraud ring that intercepted, altered, or destroyed large numbers of ballots, and who had been retained by the Harris campaign in 2018. Harris has maintained he perceived no red flags about Dowless or his alleged illegal activities.

    Yet Harris’ own son, John, warned him that Dowless had likely been involved in prior absentee ballot malfeasance. Indeed, the State Board of Elections had referred Dowless to federal prosecutors for alleged fraud in the 2016 election, but no action was taken at that time.

    Absentee ballot collection by anyone other than a family member is a felony under North Carolina law, and this case clearly demonstrates why.

    Harris should have heeded his son’s advice. In 2018, two counties targeted by Dowless—Bladen and Robeson—saw an abnormally high percentage of absentee ballots go unreturned. While 24 percent of ballots were not returned district-wide, that figure shot up to 40 percent in Bladen County and 64 percent in Robeson County.

    Dowless refused to testify at the hearing unless granted immunity, which the elections board refused to do. He was later indicted on three felony counts of obstruction of justice, two counts of conspiracy to commit obstruction of justice, and two counts of possession of absentee ballots.

    Dowless’ stepdaughter, Lisa Britt, did testify, however, indicating that she filled out blank or incomplete ballots for Republicans.

    Additional evidence collected by the board indicated that Dowless and his co-workers gathered unsealed and unwitnessed ballots directly from voters. Blank or incomplete ballots were then filled out in Dowless’ office, whereupon they were taken in small batches to the post office nearest to the voters’ addresses to avoid the typical warning signs that indicate a harvesting operation.

    Ultimately, the Board of Elections unanimously voted to hold new elections for the U.S. House and for two local offices in Bladen County.

    The Democratic governor of North Carolina thanked the board for overturning the election, saying that people need “confidence that their vote matters” and that “this action sends a strong message that election fraud must not be tolerated.” The state Democratic Party also stated that this attempt to “steal an election” undermines people’s faith in democracy.

    It’s almost as though Democrats have been reading The Heritage Foundation’s website.

    Unfortunately, if that is the case, they have missed one important point we make time and time again: Election integrity is a nonpartisan issue. The perpetrator’s politics should not dictate the level of our commitment to securing free and fair elections.

    As proof of that, Heritage’s voter fraud database counts among its 1,177 proven instances of fraud, cases from people on both sides of the political aisle, including many cases of Republican-orchestrated voter fraud.

    In 2000, for instance, a massive ballot-buying scheme was uncovered in Alabama involving the county sheriff and other municipal employees who rigged the Republican primary with bribes of cash, beer, and liquor.

    In 2006, two Republican petition gatherers were sentenced to three years’ probation after it was discovered that more than 100 people who thought they were signing petitions to cure breast cancer and punish child molesters were instead registering as Republicans in an elaborate vote flipping scheme.

    And in 2013 and 2016, Toni Hill Newland of Colorado voted in her deceased father’s name both in the general election and again in the Republican primary.

    Heritage will now add the 2018 9th District midterm as an example of an election that had to be redone because of fraud. Any eventual criminal convictions will be added as well.

    These cases make one thing clear: Some people on both sides of the aisle are plainly willing to exploit electoral vulnerabilities, or turn a blind eye to nefarious tactics, in order to win. In fact, Dowless himself has consulted for both Republicans and Democrats.

    Whenever someone exploits electoral vulnerabilities, the integrity of the electoral process is compromised, and voters’ faith in the ballot box is undermined.

    That’s why it is crucial for states to adopt election integrity measures, and in particular to address the vulnerabilities and other problems associated with absentee and mail-in voting.

    Amazingly, the tactic which Dowless and his cronies used to commit their alleged crimes—known as ballot harvesting, or the practice of taking possession of someone else’s ballot—was just made legal in California.

    It is difficult to take liberal activists seriously when the very activities they are outraged by on the one hand are being legalized and touted by liberal politicians on the other.

    This incident also shows why prosecutors must take voter fraud allegations seriously, and investigate and prosecute them where warranted. Dowless’ activities were flagged to prosecutors in 2016, yet no action was apparently taken. Had it been, this entire incident may have been avoided.

    Voter fraud requires effective bipartisan solutions, but first, we must candidly acknowledge that the problem exists—and not only when it is politically expedient to do so.

    The Heritage Foundation has always and will continue to report on cases of voter fraud regardless of the political ideology of those who perpetrate it. One hopes that groups on the left will do the same.

    Source link

  • Putting Government In Its Place

    Putting Government In Its Place

    What is the role of government?

    Well, that depends on whether we’re talking about self-government, family government, church government, or civil government.

    But we don’t even seem to know that there are such things as self government, family government, and church government these days; at least not in the sense that these areas of government are every bit as legitimate as state or civil government. Instead, we tend to default to “government” as relating to the State, with individuals, churches, and families all subservient and absorbed under the authority of civil government.

    Yet nothing could be further from the truth – or more dangerous in practice, as we see more plainly with each passing day of State power grabs and cultural decline here in the “land of the free” and the home of the NSA.

    So what do we do to right this ship?

    What do we do to correct our misconceptions?

    What do we do to reform and restore our dying culture?

    These are some of the questions that we’ll be diving into in this week’s Tennessee General Assembly Bible Study in Nashville, which I’d like to share with you here (especially because my prep time in writing and laying out the print material pictured below substantially cuts into my blogging time during Session, which runs from early January to April or May).

    For those of you supporting the Bible study as we head into our second year: Thank you!


    For those interested in following along, here are some images of the print material accompanying this week’s study.

    Page 1:

    Here are pages 2 and 3, which I’ve included together here for layout reasons (if you want a .pdf so that you can read content more easily, just let me know):

    And here’s Page 4:

    Your prayers and support are greatly appreciated!

    In His grip,


    Article posted with permission from Scott Buss

    Source link

  • Colorado Drops Second Case Against Christian Baker

    Colorado Drops Second Case Against Christian Baker

    Colorado baker Jack Phillips is 2-0 now after state officials dropped their second attempt to coerce him into baking products that violate his beliefs.

    Phillips, in turn, dropped a federal lawsuit.

    “I have and will always serve everyone who comes into my shop; I simply can’t celebrate events or express messages that conflict with my religious beliefs,” Phillips said in a statement Tuesday.

    “Today is a win for freedom,” he added. “I’m very grateful and looking forward to serving my customers as I always have: with love and respect.”

    On the same day Phillips won a 7-2 decision in the U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, that he did not have to bake and design a cake for a same-sex wedding, a lawyer asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to bake a gender transition cake that was pink on the inside and blue on the outside.

    The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which had previously targeted Phillips for fines regarding the same-sex wedding cake, again found probable cause that state law required him to bake and design the gender-transition cake.

    Phillips, in turn, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

    “Colorado was relentless in seeking to crush me and my shop for living consistently with my deeply held religious beliefs,” Phillips said.

    On Tuesday, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, announced the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was dropping its action and Phillips would drop his federal lawsuit.

    “After careful consideration of the facts, both sides agreed it was not in anyone’s best interest to move forward with these cases,” Weiser said in a statement. “The larger constitutional issues might well be decided down the road, but these cases will not be the vehicle for resolving them. Equal justice for all will continue to be a core value that we will uphold as we enforce our state’s and nation’s civil rights laws.”

    The members of the state’s commission could have been held “personally liable” for harassment if the matter continued, said Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

    “It’s probably because they may have finally gotten scared that they were going to get hit with sanctions for, in essence, directly thumbing their nose at the Supreme Court and the court’s decision in this issue,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “It could make them personally liable for damages if they abuse their positions to try to harass an individual.”

    In the 7-2 majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote: “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated [Phillips’] objection,”

    Colorado Civil Rights Commissioner Diann Rice compared Phillips to those who supported slavery and the Holocaust. She said in 2014:

    I would also like to reiterate what we said in … the last meeting [concerning Jack Phillips]. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust … I mean, we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination.

    Phillips, the son of a World War II veteran, shared with The Daily Signal in 2017 how he felt about Rice’s comparison:

    After the high court ruling, Jessica Pocock, a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, later called Phillips a “hater.” Commission members Rita Lewis and Carol Fabrizio agreed with the Rice comparison in 2018, according to Alliance Defending Freedom.

    This concludes the state’s six-and-half years of hostility toward Phillips’ Christian beliefs, said Kristen Waggoner, the senior vice president of U.S. legal division for Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued his case before the high court.

    “This is the second time the state has launched a failed effort to prosecute him,” Waggoner said in a statement. “While it finally appears to be getting the message that its anti-religious hostility has no place in our country, the state’s decision to target Jack has cost him more than six-and-a-half years of his life, forcing him to spend that time tied up in legal proceedings.”

    The seven-member Civil Rights Commission is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. The commission’s duties include “conduct[ing] hearings regarding illegal discriminatory practices” and “advis[ing] the governor and general assembly regarding policies and legislation that address illegal discrimination.”

    Source link

  • Why the Peace Cross Case Represents the Best of America

    Why the Peace Cross Case Represents the Best of America

    One of the most profound differences between the American and French views of religious freedom is our treatment of religious symbols in the public square.

    America’s Founders envisioned a public square that is neither secular nor sacred. In contrast, France has enacted policies that advance radical secularism.

    French law has erased religious symbols from public view under a policy of secularism known as laïcité. In 2004, the French government banned students from wearing religious symbols such as yarmulkes, crosses, and hijabs (Muslim headscarves) in classrooms.

    Last year, the French government relocated a statue of Pope John Paul II, which included a cross, from public to private land after a humanist organization sued.

    The goal of laïcité was to foster social harmony between different groups in a multicultural, multifaith society. But in practice, the policy failed. Empowering the government to investigate and suppress religious expression has only exacerbated religious division.

    Now the U.S. Supreme Court is faced with the same issue–whether to allow a cross-shaped memorial to World War I soldiers to survive on property that is maintained by an agency created by the state of Maryland.

    In 1923, The American Legion worked with Gold Star mothers to erect the Peace Cross memorial with private funds on private property in Bladensburg, Maryland. The memorial bears the American Legion’s symbol, a plaque with the names of 49 local soldiers who gave their lives, and the words “Valor, Endurance, Courage, Devotion.”

    Over the years, as the town of Bladensburg developed, the Peace Cross ended up in the middle of a traffic circle in Veterans Memorial Park alongside other commemorative symbols.

    Then, the American Humanist Association filed a lawsuit in 2014 on behalf of three plaintiffs who regularly drove by the Peace Cross and said they were psychologically offended by its presence. A lower court granted “standing” to the humanists, despite Supreme Court precedent that rejected the “offended observer” test.

    During oral argument Feb. 27 at the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also highlighted the potential for the Peace Cross to “offend” those of other faiths. She pointed out that Americans are different now than we were during World War I, noting that at least 30 percent of Americans are now non-Christians.

    The American Humanist Association’s lawyer described the Peace Cross as “too loud” and “too offensive,” stating that when Jews, Muslims, and humanists saw the war memorial, they “processed” it as a message that they are inferior and that their military service is not valued.

    But when Chief Justice John Roberts reminded the lawyer that one of the fundraisers for the Peace Cross was Jewish, she dismissed his view as that of only one person.

    Justices Stephen Breyer and Neil Gorsuch both reminded the courtroom of America’s legacy of religious pluralism.

    “All our liberties come from freedom of religion,” Breyer said. “You have your religion. I have mine. We are not going to kill each other.”

    Gorsuch noted that in America other people’s views must be tolerated, and
    people must learn to deal with offense. He warned that involving the government in censoring offensive speech would be to “dictate taste.”

    Roberts pointed out the existence of diverse religious symbols on public property throughout the country, describing Native American totem poles with spiritual meaning on public lands.

    In New York City, public schools display both the Jewish menorah and the Muslim crescent. And of public schools’ observance of Muslim religious holidays, Mayor Bill de Blasio said it was “a commonsense change and one that recognizes our growing Muslim community and honors its contributions to our city.”

    Other cases invoking the Constitution’s Establishment Clause have involved Jewish eruvs on public utility poles. An eruv demarcates an area where an adherent of Judaism may walk on the Sabbath to get to synagogue and is allowed to carry certain objects.

    Additionally, public servants have won the right to wear religious dress as they carry out their duties. Recently, the House of Representatives changed its rules on head coverings to accommodate Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., who wears a hijab.  Similarly, Sikh soldiers have won the right to wear a turban.

    As the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty noted, when the government allows offense to limit the public presence of religious symbols, religious minorities are the most likely to suffer. The public’s unfamiliarity with the symbols of religious minorities are more likely to feed “distrust, suspicion, and even hostility” toward them.

    The totem pole, the eruv, the crescent moon: Each of these symbols could cause offense to someone. According to the historic American understanding of freedom, however, the government doesn’t take anything away from anyone by allowing a symbol (secular or religious) merely to exist in the public square.

    But when the government censors symbols just because they are religious, pluralism necessarily suffers.

    The Founders recognized that we are not a country of irreligious people. Nor are we a people who follow one religion. We are a people who follow many religions.

    And although the Establishment Clause prevents the government from elevating one religion above all others through coercion or exclusion, that’s not what the Peace Cross in Bladensburg does.

    Our history, our pluralistic identity, and the future of both majority and minority faiths are at stake in this case. America’s unique path has enabled peaceful pluralism to flourish as our country has become more religiously diverse.

    The Supreme Court should honor our constitutional tradition by allowing the public square to be full of symbols that reflect our diversity.

    Source link

  • Video Shows Minneapolis Muslims Believe Sharia Law Is Better Than American Law

    Video Shows Minneapolis Muslims Believe Sharia Law Is Better Than American Law

    As I have pointed out time and again, the first states of America had laws based on Biblical law, not Sharia.  I have had to clear up the misunderstanding of ignorant Christians and others that Biblical law is not Islamic law.  Still, over and over, we are inundated with the claims of Islamists in our society that they are either above the law since they are Muslim or that Sharia is either constitutionally compliant or even superior to American law.  In a forgotten report by Fox News from 2016, Minneapolis Muslims declare that they believe Sharia law is better than American law, and you must realize that these people are not here to assimilate but to conquer.

    In 2016, Satirist Ami Horowitz asks Minneapolis Muslims if they prefer Sharia law over American laws, and if it right to kill someone for depicting the prophet Muhammad.

    While these Muslims admit to enjoying America for its freedoms, they still believe that Sharia is better than American law, even though Sharia does not afford them the very protections of law for which they rave about freedoms in America, which come from our Creator, the God of the Bible, not the Koran.

    Additionally, these people, who claim they are all for “freedom of speech,” want to have laws in place that would make it a crime to speak out against Muhammad, the non-prophet.  They would love for Sharia to be imposed upon the American people, in which case the penalty of death would be imposed upon anyone who called Muhammad what he was:  a lying, deceiving, demonically controlled pedophile, false prophet.

    That would get me a beheading in other countries and this is what Minneapolis Muslims say on camera they wish would occur in the US.

    On top of that, these Muslims believe it is right and a good thing to kill those that insult the non-prophet Muhammad.  What’s ironic is one of the men claims that it becomes so frustrating to live among such “hate” that it drives you to kill others.  Say what?  Yep, they get so angry because of what they perceive as hate that they will hate others to the point of not pointing out the truth or even mocking, but be willing to kill themselves as well as those “insulting” Muhammad.

    Can you say, hypocrite?

    Even more hypocritical is the fact that these same Muslims declare that though they love America, they would rather live in a Muslim country like Somalia among their own people than in America, just like Rep. Ilhan Omar.  Perhaps we should be looking to provide these people a one-way ticket to Somalia where they can indeed live under the oppressive tyranny and rid ourselves of such people in our own culture.

    It’s long past time that Muslims in the US abandon Islam and Muhammad and assimilate into the culture, or get themselves on a plane to a Sharia compliant country of their choice and live in that environment rather than force their ungodly, demonically inspired beliefs on the rest of us.

    Furthermore, it isn’t just going on in Minneapolis.

    According to the leader of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Muslims living in America should not be bound by U.S. law. “If we are practicing Muslims, we are above the law of the land,” said Herman Mustafa Carroll, executive director of the Dallas-Fort Worth CAIR branch.

    Muslims have tried to undermine the US court system to enforce Sharia law.

    They have sought to illegally set up Sharia tribunals on American soil, push social media giants to enforce Sharia law, and establish Sharia cops in the Big Apple.

    Now they are being elected to positions of representation and sitting on court benches in America because Americans have turned their backs on the One, True God.

    If Americans don’t repent, God will continue to use these people to judge us, but if we will repent, they will either submit to the Lordship of Jesus the Christ or they will have to be dealt with according to the law.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Cuba Sanctions Are a Solid Step in Cracking Down on Maduro Regime’s Enablers

    Trump’s Cuba Sanctions Are a Solid Step in Cracking Down on Maduro Regime’s Enablers

    The Trump administration on Monday took the historic step of implementing Cuba sanctions.

    Specifically, the administration is temporarily permitting U.S. citizens whose property was stolen by the Castro regime to pursue legal action.

    From March 19 to April 17, Americans will be able to sue 205 Cuban companies that are owned and/or operated by the Cuban military, intelligence, and security services.

    Penalizing the Cuban regime serves two purposes right now. It addresses the longstanding issue of uncompensated claims, and it also punishes the regime for the destabilizing role it has long played in Venezuela.

    The Cuba sanctions were originally codified in 1996 under the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, but since its enactment, U.S. administrations have suspended enforcement of the sanctions component of the law, known as Title III.

    Full enforcement of the law would permit Americans whose property was seized without compensation by the Castro regime to bring legal action against any foreign company operating inside of Cuba.

    Monday’s actions constitute a partial enforcement, as legal action can only be brought against Cuban regime companies on the U.S.’ Cuba Restricted List.

    According to the State Department, every one of these companies is “under the control of, or acting for or on behalf of, the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services or personnel with which direct financial transactions would disproportionately benefit such services or personnel at the expense of the Cuban people or private enterprise in Cuba.”

    Valued at nearly $8 billion, Cuba’s illegal confiscation of American property and assets is considered to be the “largest uncompensated taking of American property by a foreign government in history.”

    The total value of assets stolen by the regime is even higher, as those figures don’t include American citizens who were Cuban nationals at the time their property was taken.

    The timing of Monday’s announcement should send a strong message to the regimes in Cuba and Venezuela, and to the international community working to resolve Venezuela’s crisis.

    Havana has played a key role in Venezuela’s collapse. In exchange for oil and other resources, Cuba has provided Nicolas Maduro’s regime in Caracas with a world-class police state.

    Throughout Venezuela, Cuba has protected Maduro with a network of intelligence officers, political advisers, and security officials. The Cubans have shared their “best practices,” which have enabled their own regime’s longevity.

    Some falsely believe that the slow trickle of defections from the Venezuelan military indicates continuing strong support for Maduro. The more probable explanation is rooted in Cuba’s extensive counterintelligence system within Venezuela.

    Defections and betrayals come at a high cost, not only to the military officials, but to the families left behind. Venezuela currently has the most political prisoners of any country in the Western Hemisphere—even more than Cuba itself.

    Despite the danger in doing so, nearly 600 soldiers and 11 diplomats have defected. They now publicly recognize the legitimacy of interim President Juan Guaido.

    Getting Maduro to step aside requires making it more costly for Cuba to continue enabling his dictatorship.

    The recent U.S. actions demonstrate U.S. policy is correct in linking both issues. It’s now time for international partners and allies to ratchet up the pressure as well.

    Source link

  • Without Capitalism, You're Venezuela

    Without Capitalism, You’re Venezuela

    Capitalism versus socialism. We can sum up each economic system in one line: Capitalism is based on human greed. Socialism is based on human need. Right?… No. Wrong! So wrong, it’s exactly backward! And I’ll prove it to you.

    Been on Amazon lately? Each of the thousands of products Amazon offers represents the work of people who believe they have something you want or need. If they’re right, they prosper. If they’re wrong, they don’t.

    That’s how the free market works. It encourages people to improve their lives by satisfying the needs of others. No one starts a business making a thing or providing a service for themselves. They start a business to make things or provide services for others.

    I speak from personal experience. When I was the CEO of the company that owns Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s restaurant chains, we spent millions of dollars every year trying to determine what customers wanted. If our customers didn’t like something, we changed it, and fast! Because if we didn’t, our competitors would (pun intended) eat us for lunch.

    The consumer (that’s you) has the ultimate power. In effect, you vote with every dollar you spend.

    In a socialist economy, the government has the ultimate power. It decides what you get from a limited supply it decides should exist.

    Instead of millions of people making millions of decisions about what they want, a few people (government elites) decide what people should have and how much they should pay for it. Not surprisingly, they always get it wrong. Have you ever noticed that late-stage socialist failures always run out of essential items like toilet paper?

    Of course, this isn’t a problem for those who have the right connections with the right people. Those chosen few get whatever they want. But everyone else is out of luck.

    Venezuela, once the richest country in South America, is the most recent example of socialism driving a prosperous country into an economic ditch. Maybe you think it’s an unfair example. I’m not sure why, but okay. We’ll ignore the fact that leftist activists celebrated it as a great socialist success, right up until it wasn’t.

    But what about Western European countries? Don’t they have socialist economies? People seem pretty happy there. Why can’t we have what they have: free health care, free college, stronger unions? Good question. And the answer may surprise you.

    There are no socialist countries in Western Europe. Most are just as capitalist as the United States. The only difference, and it’s a big one, is that they offer more government benefits than the U.S. does.

    We can argue about the costs of these benefits and the point at which they reduce individual initiative, thus doing more harm than good. Scandinavians have been debating those questions for years. But only a free-market capitalist economy can produce the wealth necessary to sustain all of the supposedly “free stuff” Europeans enjoy. To get the “free stuff,” after all, you have to create enough wealth to generate enough tax revenue to pay for everything the government gives away.

    Without capitalism, you’re Venezuela.

    In a 2015 speech at Harvard, Denmark’s Prime Minister took great pains to make this point: “I know that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with… socialism, therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”

    So when you point to Denmark as a paragon of socialism, you’re really singing the praises of capitalism.

    The more capitalism, the less “socialism” you need. Look at America since 2017. A policy of lower taxes and less government regulation (that’s more capitalism) has led to a robust economic expansion, something thought impossible just a few years earlier. Unemployment, notably among minority groups typically most at risk for poverty, is at a generational low. Economic expansion gets people off welfare and into work (that’s less “socialism”).

    None of this requires a degree in economics. Common sense is all you need. That’s why it’s so frustrating to see young people praising socialism and criticizing capitalism. It’s bad enough that they’re working against their own interest: better job prospects, better wages, personal freedom; but they are also working against the interest of the less fortunate.

    Capitalism leads to economic democracy. Socialism leads to the economic dictatorship of the elite. Always and everywhere.

    So beware what you ask for. You just might get it.

    Andy Puzder is an attorney, author (latest book:  The Capitalist Comeback) and businessman. Published with permission, Prager University. 

    The Language of Liberty series is an outreach project of the Center for Self Governance, a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization, dedicated to training citizens in principles of liberty. The views expressed by the authors are their own and may not reflect the views of CSG. CenterForSelfGovernance.com

    Source link

  • Virginia Democrats Elect Their First Anti-Semitic Islamist

    Virginia Democrats Elect Their First Anti-Semitic Islamist

    While Virginia Democrats were debating whether to oust Governor Northam for wearing blackface, Lt. Governor Justin Fairfax over alleged rape and Attorney General Mark Herring for also wearing blackface, a much more blatant example of contemporary bigotry by a Virginia Democrat had come to light.

    It received virtually no coverage by the media.

    Ibraheem Samirah, running in a special election for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates, had his social media history exposed. Aside from the usual rants about Israel, Samirah had posted that the Jews had stolen his grandfather’s land and “washed off as the Promised Land for Jews only (using the Torah and Zionist ideology, a 3000 yo religious book and a 100 yo Jew-only philosophy.)”

    Samirah’s hatred for Israel wasn’t news. The Jordanian Muslim BDS activist had co-founded a chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace (a misnamed pro-terrorist hate group that is neither peaceful nor Jewish), had served as a spokesman for Students for Justice in Palestine, a hate group whose chapters had been involved in numerous anti-Semitic incidents ranging from hate speech to acts of violence, and had spoken at an American Muslims for Palestine conference: an organization accused of supporting Hamas.

    But in his 2014 Facebook post, Ibraheem Samirah had trafficked in blatant anti-Semitism, attacking not only Israel, but Judaism and Jews. And had received a pass for his anti-Semitism from Virginia Dems.

    Democrats stuck by Samirah and he won with 59% of the vote making him the second Muslim in the Virginia House of Delegates, beating out Gregg Nelson, an Air Force vet who had condemned Samirah’s anti-Semitism. “Racism has no place in our Commonwealth,” Nelson said.

    Ibraheem Samirah and his fellow Democrats proved him wrong.

    But there are even bigger problems with Samirah than an anti-Semitic post from 2014 whose hateful attacks on Jews and Jewish people he had dismissed in his ‘apology’ as merely “ill-chosen words”.

    To understand the true nature of the anti-Semitism being mainstreamed by the Democrats, we have to go back to a field trip by a class of seventh and eighth-grade girls in the spring of 1997.

    The Island of Peace was territory that Israel had gifted to Jordan in a peace treaty. And that Jordan had agreed to lease back to Israel (before it broke that agreement last year).

    On a warm spring day, the high school girls had come to see peace in action.

    Instead, they were gunned down by Ahmad Daqamseh: a Jordanian soldier wielding an M-16.

    Seven Jewish teenage girls, 13 and 14 years old, were murdered in cold blood while they were looking at the bright flowers blooming on the formerly Israeli island.

    The Muslim terrorist chased the girls as they ran and fired at their heads at close range.

    “I saw a girl who was hit in the shoulder. She rolled over in the bushes and stopped breathing,” a 14-year-old survivor described.

    While the deceased King Hussein’s publicity stunt of meeting with the families has eclipsed what followed, other Jordanian soldiers failed to stop him until he was no longer shooting. They assaulted one of the teachers and waited 40 minutes before letting Israeli ambulances in to care for the wounded girls.

    The dead included Karen Cohen, 14, who couldn’t wait for her new baby sister to be born, Natali Alkalai, 13, who had enjoyed helping the elderly, Shiri Badayev, 14, who had escaped with her parents to Israel from Muslim Uzbekistan , Sivan Fathi, 13, who enjoyed playing basketball, Yala Meiri, 13, who lost her father to cancer and rescued stray dogs, and Adi Malka, 13, who had helped her deaf-mute parents communicate with the world.

    Ahmad Daqamseh was sent to prison and became a hero and role model to millions of Jordanians.

    His most vocal supporters were Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood. The Islamic Action Front, the local political branch of the Islamist movement, turned the murderer of 7 Jewish girls into a celebrity.

    And when the murderer was released, the Brotherhood party declared, “We congratulate Jordan and the family of the hero Ahmad al Daqmaseh on his release from prison.”

    The Muslim Brotherhood believes that murdering Jewish 13-year-old girls makes you a hero.

    In 2017, Dima Tahboub, the spokeswoman for the Islamic Action Front, was asked about the movement’s support for murdering Jewish teenage girls.

    “You’re a mother. And you’re quite happy to have 13 and 14-year-old girls, just because they are Israelis, killed? Unprotected children, killed?”

    “Because they are enemies, they are enemies,” she replied.

    Another spokesman for the Islamic Action Front was Ibraheem Samirah’s father.

    Sabri Samirah had chaired the Islamic Association for Palestine, a Hamas offshoot. The IAP had published material on its website cheering attacks on America before 9/11.

    Sabri had come to the United States on a student visa before losing his legal status. After he left to visit his native Jordan, he was banned from returning in 2003 as a “security risk to the United States”.

    Under Obama, he, along with other Islamists, was allowed to reenter the United States and took a leading role in Brotherhood groups while still running for public office in Jordan under a Muslim Brotherhood umbrella group.

    During his time in Jordan, Al Jazeera described Sabri as a “leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan”. He had also been described as a spokesman for the Islamic Action Front.

    Ibraheem Samirah had called his father as a role model who inspired his “Palestinian” activism. His own statements suggest that he identifies with the Muslim Brotherhood.

    When Ibraheem was elected, Sabri appeared to post on his Facebook page that his son and Rep. Omar had been attacked over anti-Semitism and that the Democrats were trying to please their Jewish electoral base. During the race, Sabri had been highly active on social media in support of his son.

    Anti-Semitism had won in Virginia.

    While the media condemned Governor Northam for wearing blackface thirty-four years ago, it gave the anti-Semitism and radicalism of Virginia’s newest Democrat a pass.

    In the nineties, a year before the Islamic of Peace massacre, the Islamic Action Front had sent a threat to the U.S. Embassy in Jordan over the detention of a Hamas figure.

    “If you hand him over to the Jews, we will turn the ground upside down over your heads,” it warned.

    “You will lament your dead just as we did to you in Lebanon in 1982 when we destroyed the Marine House with a boobytrapped car, and there are plenty of cars in our country. You also still remember the oil tanker with which we blew up your soldiers in Saudi Arabia.”

    As Americans continue to lament our dead at the hands of Islamic terrorists, the son of the spokesperson for the Islamic Action Front has become an elected Democrat official in Virginia.

    Article posted with permission from Daniel Greenfield

    Source link