Turkey’s President Erdogan is up to his usual Islamist antics. He said yesterday that he will ask the Turkish government to give the head of the country’s religious directorate, the Diyanet, a private jet.
The pope has one, so Turkey’s religious leader deserves one too. After all, he’s just as important as the pope, isn’t he?
“[Religious Affairs Directorate President] Mr. Mehmet Görmez is not only the religious leader of Turkey. In fact, he is the respected religious leader of this geographical area in the Islamic world,” Erdoğan said.
The president also stressed that Görmez is a respected Islamic religious leader who deserved the same conveniences as the pope. Slamming critics while comparing the situation to that in Christian parts of the world, Erdoğan claimed the pope “has a private jet, private cars and armored vehicles.” “That’s the situation at the Vatican and our religious leader will take scheduled [commercial] flights?” he asked.
Of course there’s one minor difference. The head of the Diyanet is not supposed to be the official leader of Sunni Islam. In fact, the religious directorate was created by Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, to make sure that there would never be a new caliph. He wanted to separate religion from politics and push it back to where it belongs; in people’s private lives, not in public life.
Erdogan has dedicated his life to undoing everything Atatürk has done – he created the Republic of Turkey out of the ashes of the Islamist Ottoman Empire – so it’s no surprise that he wants to build up the position of Mr. Görmez, but the timing is shocking nonetheless. He’s taking quite a risk: the elections for parliament are coming up in Turkey and if the polls are to be believed, Erdogan’s Islamist AK Parti is set to lose a significant amount of seats. Some experts even suggest a coalition government may have to be formed; quite a change from the current situation in which the AKP controls two-thirds of parliament.
Although this possibility scares the living daylights out of the AKP, everybody else can only hope (and, ironically, pray) that this is exactly what happens. If the AKP can go on governing Turkey by itself, next month’s elections may very well be the last free elections in Turkey, because Erdogan is determined to change the secular republic into an Islamic sultanate.
Our friends from Prager University have released another great video. The subject (for Memorial Day): is America the world’s policeman? And if so, is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and foreign affairs expert Bret Stephens weighs in:
Let me share my Dutch perspective on this matter: I thank God every day that the United States is the world’s only superpower and that it behaves like an international policeman.
Think about it: what’s the alternative? If the United States withdraws, Russia and China will immediately expand their sphere of influence. These countries are ruled by authoritarian regimes who literally torture and kill critics… and who want to dominate other countries by the use of force. Just look at what China has done in Tibet, and what Russia has done in the Krim and the country of Georgia, and what it’s trying to do in Eastern Ukraine. You want that to happen to the rest of the world? Great: just force the U.S. to withdraw within its borders and China and Russia will take over in no time.
That’s a troubling thought, but it becomes downright scary if you think about the many radical Islamic forces that are trying to turn earth into one big battle zone. If you’re concerned by what’s going on in the Middle East now, just wait until the U.S. goes isolationist again; the current situation will look downright utopian in comparison.
What’s more, historically, superpowers went to war to build an empire. They’d conquer entire nations and then subjugate them to slavery. When the U.S. goes to war, however, it does so to protect foreign peoples. It doesn’t occupy, it liberates. See World War II: America sent millions of soldiers overseas, some to Asia, many others to Europe. When they beat the Nazis, they could’ve done what the Soviets did: occupy the newly liberated countries and make them part of a new empire.
Instead, the United States withdrew most of its forces — and the ones that were left behind were only there to protect Europeans against Stalin. Next, the U.S. gave European (and Asian!) countries billions and billions in aid and helped them build up democratic institutions. Because of this, Europe is now — once again — one of the most prosperous regions on earth.
If that’s what all “international policemen” do, give us one or two more!
Sadly, America’s magnanimity is the exception, not the rule. And that’s precisely why not only Americans, but all non-Americans too should thank the almighty every single day that the U.S. is the most powerful country on earth and that it’s not afraid to use that power.
It’s clear that Jeb isn’t a conservative, but it’s mighty kind of him to be honest about it. He could also do what the Mitch McConnells of this world like to do: lie about it until they get elected, after which they “suddenly” become as progressive as Nancy Pelosi.
That’s what Senator Ted Cruz recently said on Megyn Kelly’s show on Fox News.
Well, OK, I admit I added the last part about Mitch McConnell myself, but I’m sure you get my drift.
I’m a fan of Jeb Bush. I’ll give him credit for candor and consistency. He is running based on his views, his views are different from an awful lot of Republican primary voters, but he’s honest about it and I think we’re going to have a clear straight-up debate about what’s the right direction for the Republican Party to go.
I think it’s important for someone to stand by what they believe.
He’s right, of course; this way, Republican voters can’t possibly say Bush deceived them if they nominate him and he suddenly seems to be as far to the left as Hillary on many issues. You know what you get if you vote for Jeb: more government spending, as well as more expansive government programs that increase the power of the federal government and that undermine the individual states.
I think we should repeal every single word of Common Core. The reason is I think education is far more important for it to be governed by unelected bureaucrats in Washington. It should be at the state level or better the local level…
Now, Bush and his ilk (I call them Theodore Roosevelt Republicans — they’re populist and decidedly progressive on many issues) pretend that individual states have the opportunity to bail out if they want to in theory, but sadly it’s an entirely different matter in practice:
Well sure they can, but there are a lot of dollars connected to it. The federal government, it’s sort of like the drug dealer that goes to junior high and gets the kid hooked saying “just try it once.” The federal government has offered the states these dollars and there’s so many strings attached.
Although Cruz is trailing Bush and candidates like Marco Rubio and Scott Walker in the polls at the moment, I can see the primaries boiling down to a horse race between Cruz and Jeb. The reason is simple: Bush is the most progressive Republican candidate (with an enormous amount of money to spend) while Cruz is the most conservative. Republican voters want to have a real choice; they’ll get that when these two take each other on.
If that happens, we can only hope (and pray) that Cruz pulls it off and becomes the Republican nominee. Jeb may be honest about his big-government ideology, but that’s also his only redeeming quality.
Ah. That’s just great: ISIS terrorists don’t have to “sneak” into the West, they’re able to move around freely. The reason? They’ve stolen passports and other ID-documents from average Westerners and are using them as travel documents.
When will President Obama take the threat these radical-Islamic butchers pose seriously and destroy them? If nothing is done, it’s only a matter of time before these genocidal maniacs commit a massive terrorist attack in the West. And by massive I mean a second 9/11.
On his increasingly popular radio show, Mark “The Great One” Levin lashed out at liberals yesterday for trying to politicize the Amtrak disaster. He played several audio files of Democratic politicians and pretend-journalists who didn’t even wait until the victims’ bodies were cold before they started playing their usual political games, and rightfully responded with great outrage:
Almost since last night, but since early this morning — while emergency personnel are at the crash scene trying to find bodies, trying to save people, trying to get them to the hospital — early this morning, within hours of the accident, the media, the Democrats, the liberals … in front of the microphones … all of a sudden it’s a spending issue. It’s a spending issue!
Levin then continued to play audio files from MSNBC and other leftist media proving his point. One after the other, liberals — journalists and politicians — said the disaster was caused by too little spending. If the government had just spent a bit more, this tragedy would never have occurred.
The only problem with that? There isn’t enough information out yet to conclude anything, except that the train was going 106 mph on a part of the track where the maximum speed was 50 mph.
But hey, we’re talking about liberals here; famous for “never let a good crisis go to waste.” And so they wasted no time putting blame on the shoulders of those darned Republicans, while the victims’ bodies were still warm and rescue workers were trying to save lives.
It’s all because of conservatives who hate to spend! If it was up to Democrats, this would never have happened! May those cold-hearted Republicans be damned for their willingness to put lives in jeopardy, just to save a few bucks.
Levin went on:
They want to spend more, so anyone who doesn’t is now against safety. In fact, they’re part of the problem with Amtrak.
Of course, “billions and billions of taxpayers’ dollars have been poured into Amtrak.” But it didn’t make the slightest difference. In fact, if anyone — at all — is to blame for possibly underfunding Amtrak, it’s Democrats, not Republicans:
Ladies and gentlemen, when Obama controlled the Senate and the House, and the entire Congress, they passed an over $800 billion stimulus program, and you may recall that when Paul Ryan came on this program — he doesn’t come on anymore — but a few years ago, he said $9 billion of the over $800 billion went to infrastructure.
So they stole that money, they were greasing palms, they were sending it to their community interests’ front groups. They didn’t use it for infrastructure, bridges and railroad tracks and all the rest. And so they’re pushing hard once more — once more! — they want massive spending; not for infrastructure — to spread the wealth yet again.
As usual, Democrats and their cronies in the media brush aside inconvenient facts. After all, much easier to blame everybody else and argue for spending increases, with money that simply doesn’t exist, at the same time.
Here’s the audio from the show:
Ah. It looks like Bill Clinton is in da house:
Bill Clinton hopes to be Hillary Clinton’s First Man in the White House, but there’s a big “if” … if she invites him to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. ”If she wins the election, the chances are 100 percent that I’ll move back,” the former president told David Letterman Tuesday night on “The Late Show.” ”By the way, if I’m asked!” he added with a smile.
Ha-ha! Cracking jokes about cheating on your wife (because that’s what this all refers to of course): hilarious! Oh man, I can’t stop laughing. Especially because people in their position should try to be great role models for young generations. It’s killing me! Great fun!
Morality and the Clintons. They just don’t go together, do they?
In any case, of course Hillary wants Bill to join her. After all, it’s not about love and faithfulness with the Clintons, but about politics. Americans want a First Couple, not just a president. The U.S. has its first black president now. If Hillary wins it’ll have the first woman president. But the first single mom president? No, I don’t see that one happening anytime soon — and neither does Hillary, which explains why she never divorced her lying, cheating husband.
Besides, the two are a born power couple. Bill pretends he only told his wife to “have fun” on the campaign trail, but anyone who knows anything about the Clintons also knows that they most certainly are loyal political allies. They have always supported each other politically (Hillary even stood by Bill when the Lewinsky scandal broke; of course not out of love for him but because she had great plans for her own career) and rely heavily on each other for strategic advice.
In other words, Bill is full of it and he proves himself to be a utterly and completely immoral.
What else is new?
Cuba has eased its persecution of religion in the last 23 years, but there have been few overtures suggesting the country’s executive office might be finding its faith.
That changed Sunday when President Raul Castro said the teachings of Pope Francis had persuaded him not only to take a softer line on religion, but perhaps to return to the Catholic Church and begin worshipping again as he once did, growing up in Jesuit schools.
Now, you could interpret that to mean that Raul Castro has suddenly seen the light and decided that Marxism is not his cup of tea, but somehow I doubt that’s the case. He’s no better than his older brother and previous communist dictator Fidel; they share the same radical ideology and have, together, changed Cuba into one of the most totalitarian nations on earth, where religious people are persecuted and those with different opinions are arrested, locked up in prison camps, tortured and even killed.
So why, then, would Raul consider rejoining the Catholic Church? The answer, I believe, can be found in Pope Francis’ obvious Marxist leanings:
Liberation Theology is taking over the Vatican a quarter of a century after John-Paul II systematically sought to stamp out the “singular heresy” in the radical parishes and dioceses of Latin America, a task carried out with dutiful efficiency by Cardinal Ratzinger at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The “preferential option for the poor” is back. The doctrine that so inflamed controversy in the 1970s and 1980, famously wedded to Nicaragua’s Sandinista cause, now has a Papal imprimatur. It is close to becoming official doctrine for the world’s 1.2bn Roman Catholics under “Evangilii Gaudium”, the Pope’s first apostolic exhortation. This will have consequences.
One of those consequences is, apparently, that one of the world’s leading Marxists — a dictator! — thinks his time has come to join the Church again. And the Left celebrates him for it. That would be shocking if not for the fact that progressives have tried to destroy Christianity for years now. Changing Catholicism into some kind of “spiritual communism” will undoubtedly help them achieve that aim, so it’s little wonder they’re so enthusiastic about Raul’s statement.
Actual religious Catholics should be worried by this, however. Marxist dictators like Raul Castro should fear the Church, not say they’ll rejoin it because the current pope is one of them.
Just for Raul, Pope Francis and all Catholics out there, here’s pastor Rafael Cruz — Senator Ted Cruz’s father — on the Castro regime:
As regular readers of PJ Media know, I’m a Ted Cruz guy. He’s the best conservative candidate out there; he is anti-establishment and actually believes in conservative values. Next year’s elections are of vital importance for the future of the United States: either a real conservative like Ted puts the country back on track, or corruptocrat Hillary Clinton takes over and continues to destroy America as President Obama has done for the last 6.5 years.
Some conservatives believe it’s not that bad, and that there are many other good Republicans out there who can a) defeat Hillary and b) fix the country. One of the candidates they point to is Jeb Bush, who’s doing well in most national polls.
I’ve been pointing out for the last couple of months, however, that there’s one major problem with this member of the Bush family: like his father and brother, Jeb isn’t a conservative, but a corporatist.
Corporatist policies may be “conservative” every now and then, but overall they’re anything but. They’re anti-free markets (they fear competition) and anti-small government (they need handouts and costly deals with the federal government). When a corporatist like Jeb wins, Big Business will use Big Government to enrich itself. The only people who profit from that are members of the establishment — people like the Bushes. As far they’re concerned, the rest of the country — the conservative base included — can to go to hell.
One of the main tools corporatists use to enrich themselves while destroying the country is mass immigration. Having millions of illiterate poor people moving to America is bad for the country, but it’s great business for major corporations. That’s why Jeb (and other members of his family) constantly repeats the mantra that Republicans have to provide a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants and allow even more uneducated immigrants into the country.
Mark “The Great One” Levin has been talking about that very same subject for months if not years, but kicked it up a notch yesterday. He took Jeb and the rest of his family to task for being the crony capitalists (or corporatists) they are.
We have a family in this country, that’s the Bush dynasty, that’s hell bent on more and more open immigration. This is almost their single focus. This is their obsession. And the reason is, ladies and gentlemen – and I’m going back to the Reagan versus the George H.W. Bush time – the Bush family, they’re corporatists. This is who they are, this is what they are. They’re not conservatives, they’ve never been conservatives. That doesn’t mean they don’t do conservative things from time to time when they’re in office, but they’re corporatists, they’ve always been corporatists. They’re part of the establishment, they’re part of the ruling class.
Note: this family is not just unconservative, they’re anti-conservatives. They do everything in their power to destroy real conservative candidates; if they had their way, even Ronald Reagan himself wouldn’t have won in 1980. Levin:
If they had succeeded in 1980 Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have been president. And if Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have been president, imagine! The Soviet Union wouldn’t have collapsed and I could go on and on and on. But this is who they are: they’re corporatists.
Jeb Bush is nothing more or less than “a mouthpiece for these major international corporations,” Levin added. “I don’t mind major international corporations, except when they seek to destroy the country.” And yes, that is what they’re trying to do with their project to smuggle as much cheap labor into the country as possible. They want to make higher profits. If America has to be “radically transformed” in order for them to do so, so be it.
Levin Destroys Republicans Opposing Commonsense Iran Amendments: ‘Lying, No Good for Nothing, Preposterous and Pathetic!’
On his radio show yesterday, Mark “The Great One” Levin did something he usually doesn’t — or at least not to this degree. He truly blasted, if not utterly destroyed, Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate for opposing amendments to the now notorious Iran bill, which grants President Obama the power to do whatever he wants to do in order to get a deal with Iran.
To require a certification that Iran has not directly supported or carried out an act of terrorism against the United States or a United States person anywhere in the world.
You’d think that’s a rather low threshold to hold a country to, but for Republican leaders – not just for Democrats – it was “a bridge too far.” Eight of them voted against it.
It’s shocking to the extreme, which is why Levin went off on an epic rant. He called out every single one of the eight Republican senators voting against it:
“We have eight Republicans who voted ‘no’ on this amendment. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Just got reelected. Had gone back to Tennessee promising Tea Party groups he’s a real conservative… He’s a lying, no good for nothing. Dan Coats of Indiana who has announced he’s not running for reelection. So this man feels he’s as free to be as irresponsible as he chooses. The preposterous, pathetic egomaniac Corker, of Tennessee… The absolutely absurd Jeff Flake of Arizona. Lindsey Graham, who has the nerve to attack Rand Paul – he has the nerve to attack Rand Paul on foreign policy, when Lindsey Graham is helping to lead the way against this amendment! Orrin Hatch, an absolute unmitigated fraud. John McCain, who is up for reelection Arizona! – but you have an open primary system and he’s relying on non-conservatives and non-Republicans to get him the nomination the way Lindsey Graham did in South Carolina. And Senator Perdue from Georgia; I don’t get it, hopefully he’ll put out a statement and explain himself.”
Being “the good little communists they are,” Democrats will vote for whatever bill President Obama wants them to support, but what about these eight Republican sellouts? They’re supposed to be conservative, to stand up for the Constitution and America’s national security. What excuse do they have? None. They have nothing.
The above is awful enough, but it becomes even worse. Levin pointed out that Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has agreed to block another proposed amendment from even coming to a vote. This “controversial” amendment put forward by Senator Marco Rubio would force Iran to recognize and accept Israel as a Jewish state. In other words, to accept reality. What happened next is that “leftwing kook” Democratic Senator Ben Cardin from Maryland went over to McConnell and insisted he wouldn’t allow a vote on the Rubio amendment. It’s almost unbelievable, but McConnell caved in.
Democrats have political reasons to oppose such an amendment (they don’t want to be put in the middle between Israel and President Obama), but how about McConnell? He’s in the Senate to represent conservatives, which means he’s supposed to defend Israel against its many radical enemies. His failure to do so means he’s made himself obsolete, if not a downright danger to the conservative movement.
That’s why Levin rightfully concludes that “your Republican Senate is a disaster. And unless we get a new Republican Party, it’ll continue to be.” At this moment, the sad fact is that it doesn’t matter which party is in power; leaders of both parties are more than prepared to sell out America and its allies if they think it’ll get them some extra votes from low-information voters who only care about their “Obama phones.” It’s time to get rid of them and replace them with commonsense conservatives like Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Mike Lee.
Corruption Galore: Bill Clinton Raked in $2.5 Million in Speaking Fees from Companies that Lobbied the State Department
Former president Bill Clinton reaped more than $2.5 million in speaking fees from 13 companies that lobbied the State Department while his wife was secretary of state. Ten of those companies paid him within the same 3-month reporting period covered by the government documents that disclosed the lobbying activity.
Now, don’t get me wrong. This kind of behavior is completely acceptable in the average banana republic. If you’d do this in, say, Haiti, nobody would say anything.
In the States, however, there are some basic rules of conduct for government officials and their families. One of them is (strange as it may sound to the Clintons): you don’t do business with companies that lobby the government agency your wife runs.
But these corruptocrats – these leaders of the criminal organization known as the Democratic Party – don’t care about any of that. To them, government is one big ‘get rich quick’ scheme. That’s why Bill became president, that’s why Hillary’s running for president now, and that’s why Bill desperately wants to become America’s First
Crook Lady Gentleman.
And then Hillary ‘Rotten’ (as Mark Levin calls her) Clinton has the gall to say she and Bill were “dead broke” when they left office. No they weren’t, and no, they never will. They’ve got too many connections and too few ethics to ever let something like that happen to themselves.
A British Muslim politician is on the receiving end of things after she told her social media followers that she would never support Labour leader Ed Miliband because he is “a Jew.”
A few years ago, something like this quite simply could not have happened. That was back when anti-Semites understood that society didn’t want to have anything to do with them. So what did they do? They hid, pretending they were open-minded and tolerant.
In the last couple of years, however, everything has changed — in Europe, at least. Now, European anti-Semites — most of them Muslim immigrants or their children — believe it’s perfectly fine for them to spew their hatred.
Case in point, Tory (that’s a conservative!) council candidate Gulzabeen Afsal. She’s a supporter of conservative Prime Minister David Cameron, but was recently challenged by one of her Facebook followers as to why she didn’t support the Labour Party led by Social Democrat Miliband. Afsal’s response? No way she could ever support that Jew!
The exchange began when Afsal wrote on her Facebook page: “Just can’t take Mr Ed Milliband seriously!! DC (David Cameron) has what it takes to be the future PM.”
When a respondent suggested that Afsal should have some respect “for the future PM”, she responded: “Nah bro! never ever will I drop that low and support the al yahud [Arabic for Jew] lol.”
The worst part? Instead of forcing her to withdraw, the supposedly conservative Tory Party has responded by stating that this blatant anti-Semite has “apologized” and “removed” her offensive comment, which should suffice for everyone.
As Robert Spencer writes at JihadWatch, this proves that “the Conservative Party, the party of David Cameron and Theresa May, … are just as desperate to appease Islamic supremacists and pander for Muslim votes as” Labour is. In fact, since Labour blasted Afsal, it’s perfectly fair to say that the Tories are now officially worse.
There’s only one party in Britain that doesn’t play this game: Nigel Farage‘s UKIP. Let’s hope his party will win the coming elections in Britain so something can be done about immigrants like Mrs. Afsal.
Instead of trying to calm everybody down, President Obama doubles down on his “America is racist!” rhetoric. In his comments the last couple of days about the killing of Freddie Gray and the riots in Baltimore, the president repeatedly said that these “incidents” (of young black men being shot by white police officers) happen too often, implying that there is a structural problem, which is of course utter nonsense.
Yes, there are some African American men who get shot by police, but the same goes for young white men, as Ben Shapiro explained on his radio show yesterday. In fact, he said, the ratio of whites being shot by police is higher than that of blacks being shot by police. The reason for this is two-fold:
1. Police working in black neighborhoods are more used to violence than those working in majority white neighborhoods so they don’t panic easily.
2. Police officers know they’ll get in trouble when they shoot a black man, but not when the target is white, so they’ll pull the trigger more easily when confronted with an aggressive white man.
Mark Levin also touched upon this subject yesterday. He rightly blasted the president for pretending there’s a deeper problem (there isn’t) and added that “there’s no excuse for this rioting.”
No there isn’t, and the president should say so. Sadly, he won’t. You see, this isn’t about “civil rights” or “racism,” it’s about certain groups and individuals trying to provoke civil unrest hoping it’ll give them the excuse they need to make the federal government even more powerful than it already is. They want to federalize the police force in every single big city in America so Obama can reach his goal of “fundamentally transforming” the country. If Baltimore has to be burned down in order for him to do so, so be it. He won’t lose one night’s sleep over it.
Video via our friends from The Right Scoop.
Senator Marco Rubio has been criticized by many Tea Party activists for his stance on illegal immigration, but that doesn’t seem to hold him back in the polls. Look at these results from CNN’s latest poll among Republican voters:
Overall, 17% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents back Bush for the GOP nomination, while 12% support Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. Paul and Rubio stand at 11% each, with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee at 9% and Cruz at 7%…
Remarkable: Bush and Rubio both poll at 18% when respondents are asked which candidate best represents the future of the Republican Party. In Florida, his home state and one of the states the Republican nominee will have to win, Rubio even beats Hillary, which is in no small part due to his popularity among Hispanic voters:
Bush is still at the top of the polls, but Rubio is getting closer. If he keeps this up — and I see no reason to believe he won’t — he isn’t merely a contender, but one of the top favorites. Yes, this could very well be his breakout moment, especially if he beats Bush for the Hispanic vote.
On March 24, cannabis oil activist Shona Banda‘s life was flipped upside-down after her son was taken from her by the State of Kansas. The ordeal started when counselors at her 11-year-old son’s school conducted a drug education class. Her son, who had previously lived in Colorado for a period of time, disagreed with some of the anti-pot points that were being made by school officials.
The school called the police. Coppers showed up at Shona’s home, searched everything, and ended up finding two ounces of cannabis oil which she uses to treat her Crohn’s disease. The result? She could lose her child — her ex has already been granted temporary custody of her son — and Shona faces the battle of her life.
If this horrendous story doesn’t convince you that marijuana should be legalized, I don’t know what will. It’s absolutely insane that Shona and many others like her are treated like psychopathic mass murderers, just because they use cannabis to treat an illness and because they believe others should be allowed to do the same.
Here’s the video of this ridiculous search:
Jeb Bush’s candidacy has a problem, says brother George.
“It’s an easy line to say, ‘Haven’t we had enough Bushes?’ After all, even my mother said, ‘Yes,’” the former president told an audience of 7,000 health IT experts here on Wednesday.
I’ve heard many other people say similar things in recent weeks. Americans “don’t like” dynasties, so Jeb has an uphill battle to fight.
Baloney. Americans love dynasties.
If they didn’t, the Kennedys would have disappeared decades ago from the political scene, Hillary wouldn’t stand a chance of winning, and Jeb would’ve been too busy painting with big brother George to run for office. And let’s not even mention (OK, we will mention him) Rand Paul, who’s only supported by hipster libertarians because he’s Ron Paul’s son.
Dynasties sell, especially in America. And George W. knows it.
Oh no, he shouldn’t have said this:
We either adopt it all or die, they’re not big enough. I tell people they need to look like the rest of America. That means tattoos, without tattoos, with earrings, without earrings, black, white, brown. You go to a Republican event, it’s all white people.
What nonsense to focus on race. Race is purely a social construct, it doesn’t actually exist. Different skin colors exist, but that doesn’t mean anything in itself. If I see grass in different shades of green I don’t conclude that they’re different “races of grass,” that one color is better than the other, or that one is overrepresented in a particular field. I’m guessing neither do you.
I refuse to accept the entire concept of race as reality — because it’s not. If Rand would follow this approach, he would foster a healthier debate and spare himself embarrassments like this one two years ago:
Who’s right (and wrong) here? The cab driver? The two ladies who kissed each other and filed a report about the cab driver? Or the policeman who gave the cabby a $15,000 fine?
A cabby who claimed he had a “no-kissing policy” in his yellow taxi was hit with $15,000 in fines for ordering two female passengers to stop smooching — and then shouting vulgar epithets at them when they got out. TV producer Christina Spitzer and her actress girlfriend, Kassie Thornton, said they barely exchanged a peck in the back seat early into their ride when hack Mohammed Dahbi became enraged.
As John Hawkins points out, liberals will undoubtedly be torn in this case because the driver is a Muslim (and therefore supposedly deserving of preferential treatment) while the women are gay (and therefore also supposedly deserving of preferential treatment). However, that isn’t what this issue is really all about.
The question is: whose rights triumph in this particular case? Do the women have the “right” to do as they please, to show affection to each other wherever they go and whenever they want? Or can a cabbie say that he doesn’t want any kissing in his car? Would he have dealt differently with them if one of them was a guy? If so, does that matter?
As I see it, this boils down to property rights. When the women entered Dahbi’s taxi they had to adhere to his rules, no matter how bigoted and backwards they are. He’s clearly a fundamentalist who deserves no sympathy whatsoever, but that doesn’t mean his right to property doesn’t exist. Don’t like it? Get out of his taxi and find another one — preferably one driven by a man (or woman) with at least something approaching a modern worldview.
At the NRA’s annual convention yesterday, Senator Ted Cruz once again presented his vision for America… and for his presidential campaign. The biggest take-away isn’t that he’s pro-Second Amendment (we already knew that), but that he’s determined to run a positive campaign. Just watch the video:
Of course Cruz criticized President Obama and other Democrats for implementing horrendous policies that do tremendous damage to America and the rest of the world, but his message was — overall — very positive. He emphasized time and again that he’s inspired and motivated to fight “for your constitutional rights” and that he still believes that “the promise of America” can be reignited.
He already promised he’d run a positive campaign shortly after he announced his candidacy.
The question is whether such a campaign can produce a winner. Many modern-day experts believe it can’t, which is why we’re seeing attack ad after attack ad when elections are close. However, there are some success stories of mostly positive campaigns that aimed to inspire. Think about Ronald Reagan in 1980 and especially in 1984. He, too, had a clear vision for America and tried to rally people behind it.
Cruz is taking a risk — winning a negative campaign is easier — but if it pays off, it’ll pay off big time. After all, he’ll then have won the nomination without having made a lot of enemies, which will make it likelier that they and the grassroots will throw their support behind him if he’s the last man standing (against Jeb).
When Ted Cruz announced he’d run for president, there were some self-declared experts who said he’d have a hard time competing because he wouldn’t be able to raise enough money. Well, think again:
Ted Cruz’s presidential effort is getting into the shock-and-awe fundraising business.
An associate of the Texas senator, a recently announced presidential candidate, tells Bloomberg that a cluster of affiliated super-political action committees was formed only this week, and among them they are expected to have $31 million in the bank by Friday.
That’s $31 million in less than a week. We already know that the eventual Republican nominee will have to raise as much as $1.5 billion; by raising more than thirty million in a few days, Cruz and his supporters prove he’s not merely the Tea Party’s sweetheart, but also a fundraiser extraordinaire.
Twitter users have already responded to the SuperPACs’ performances thus far. Some, like me, believe it’s fantastic and inspiring, others call it “grotesque.” In all cases, however, it’s clear that everybody is very impressed — if not shocked.
Cruz hauls in $31 million in Superpac cash. Grotesque and unprecedented. http://t.co/2UK9o9Dsrd
— Steve Brodner (@stevebrodner) April 8, 2015
Call it whatever you want to call it, but the fact of the matter is that it’s extremely impressive. As this Twitter user points out, it proves that Cruz is, indeed, a viable candidate — despite the establishment pretending he has no chance whatsoever of winning this race.
Ted Cruz shows he can hang: His new super PACs are expected to have $31 MILLION in the bank by Friday http://t.co/jNoUHhP1cM
— Rebecca Nelson (@rebeccarnelson) April 8, 2015
Did I already say “eat that, Jeb”? I think I did. In any case:
— Stubbornly Me. (@lybr3) April 8, 2015
In other words:
That’s exactly right. And the best news? Everybody’s aware of it.
Bloomberg.com has published an interesting and often hilarious article about the most curious items in Rand Paul’s online store. Now, it’s all fun and games when he’s trying to sell folks a Rand Paul Webcam Blocker, but the follow item has me a tad bit concerned:
This is ridiculous.
Rand Paul, to raise money for his quixotic presidential campaign, is selling autographed copies of the U.S. Constitution for $1,000. WHAT?!
— Filippellius (@Filippellius) April 7, 2015
I’m aware that presidential candidates have to raise an insane amount of money just to compete, but they should try to be at least somewhat ethical about it. You’re abusing the Constitution to raise funds? Seriously? You don’t have any qualms about using that most sacred document? What’s next? Putting your autograph on a Bible and selling it for $1,000 more?
Apparently, “Constitutional conservative” means candidates willing to sell the US Constitution for $1,000. Rand Paul http://t.co/0ZLpM0jZcS
— David of LosferWords (@LosferWords) April 7, 2015
If Paul respected the Constitution, he’d sign some pocket editions and sell them for the cost price. Instead, he’s acting like a pimp, telling America’s founding document to “show me the money!”
I’d laugh if it wasn’t so darned embarrassing.
CNN seems to be losing the liberal rivalry (or death battle) against MSNBC:
Breitbart believes CNN’s troubles are caused by its “hatred” for “Christians”:
CNN’s week-long misinformation campaign that used the Indiana and Arkansas religious freedom bills to gin up hate against Christians by dishonestly portraying them as fiery bigots, did little to help the left-wing network in its ongoing death struggle with MSNBC for last place. Monday thru Thursday of last week, the height of CNN’s anti-Christian Hate Campaign, saw the embattled network lose handily to MSNBC in total viewers during the all-important primetime hours.
I don’t think CNN’s hatred is limited to Christians, as such. Rather, they want to destroy everything related to conservatism. Traditional Christianity is evil, and the same goes for traditional marriage. Federalism? Terrible! How dare you even mention it?! Personal responsibility! Brr, begone!
As Breitbart points out, the network is clearly “driven by a desire to destroy” these values and ideas. Apparently, they think that this strategy will help them win the battle against MSNBC. The problem? Viewers don’t just want to hear what’s wrong (with others’ views), they also want to hear alternatives. If you don’t have any to offer, you’ll end up destroying yourself rather than your opponents.
That’s what’s happening to CNN right now. MSNBC also hates traditional family values, but Rachel Maddow and co. at least have an alternative vision for the future. CNN doesn’t.
This is the most hilarious interview with Ted Cruz I’ve seen thus far. Thank you CNN, for delivering this epic bit of blowback:
Please, somebody, help me, I can’t stop laughing. Bash tried to smack Cruz around by comparing him to Obama (funny, she didn’t have a problem with the current president having no executive or much political experience when he ran for the White House in 2008), hoping it would silence and embarrass the senator from Texas.
She got a healthy dose of “you’ve got to be kidding” me instead.
Two years in the Senate, not much experience … yeah, but “I wasn’t a community organizer” and Obama was “basically a backbencher,” which you obviously can’t say about Cruz. He has made a name for himself by standing for his principles, even if he has to take on his own party’s leadership. The result? It was Bash who didn’t know what to say and who was reduced to a pathetic pile of hackery.
Love it. Here’s to CNN inviting Cruz on more often so he can continue to humiliate their partisan hacks.
Apple CEO Tim Cook isn’t happy with Indiana’s new bill to restore religious freedom. He explains why in an op-ed for the Washington Post:
There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.
A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors. Some, such as the bill enacted in Indiana last week that drew a national outcry and one passed in Arkansas, say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law.
There’s certainly an argument to be made for the view that discriminatory practices towards gays are morally unacceptable. I believe, for instance, that people should be able to live the life they want to live, whether others think it wrong or not. As long as they aren’t hurting anyone else, leave them alone. If gays, therefore, want to marry or live together: have fun.
However, that isn’t the real subject here. In its very essence, this is about religious freedom: the very foundation of liberty in general. You can’t pretend to be a free society and take the freedom of religion away at the same time. It’s either/or: either you allow people to live according to their religious views, or you establish a know-it-all, oppressive government. There’s nothing in between.
So Cook is wrong. We shouldn’t sacrifice the freedom of religion in order to shove “tolerance” down people’s throats (it isn’t even possible to force people to be tolerant, but that’s neither here nor there). If we do, we end up living in a society that’s considerably less free and eventually even less tolerant than the one we currently have. Cook’s probably fine with that, but rational human beings are not.
Luckily, federal law already agrees with that. Indiana’s so-called “controversial law” is based on SCOTUS’ Hobby Lobby decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that religious employers can choose not to provide certain services if they are in breach (a “substantial burden”) with their religious views. Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act builds on that decision; it’s not a new law, but an affirmation of SCOTUS’ ruling.
The awesome Ben Shapiro – one of the best young radio talkers in America, and a great writer to boot – has just released another terrific video. The subject? Obama’s negotiations with Iran. The question he tries to answer is: can Islamonazi-in-Chief ayatollah Khamenei be trusted?
Obama believes that you can negotiate with everybody. Something about “smart power” and “smart diplomacy.” There’s just one minor problem with that line of thinking: you can’t. For example, it was a major mistake of the British to negotiate with Hitler; their diplomatic agreements with him actually allowed Hitler to rebuild his army and, later, to invade large parts of Europe. None of that would have happened if Neville Chamberlain had a little something called “a spine.”
Ayatollah Khamenei may not be German, but he’s a nazi nonetheless – an Islamonazi that is. He lets crowds chant “death to America” (and they mean it), he’s busily trying to develop nuclear weapons that will actually enable him to attack Israel and the U.S. and, oh yeah, he’s a believer in a Shiite version of Radical Islam, whose sole aim it is to conquer and dominate the entire world. The only thing he wants to negotiate about is how long it’ll take him to reach his goals, not whether he’ll be able to commit the genocide on all non-believers he dreams of.
Or, as Dr. Evil would say:
So, a question to Obama-supporters who do think you can negotiate in good faith with the ayatollah: have you learned nothing from history? On what do you base your assumption that he can be trusted? On his hatred for America? His support for terrorist organizations everywhere? Or his calls to wipe Israel off the map? Please tell me.
Bill Whittle is awesome. No. That’s an understatement and too generic. He’s the greatest videoblogging conservative the world has ever seen. Case in point? This hilarious, spot-on and intelligent video about the hardcore Left’s new idea to let 16 year olds vote.
In short: no. Just no. In fact, it could very well be the most horrific idea of the last ten years. Yes, that includes Obamacare and the president’s plans to negotiate with the Islamonazis in Iran.
Whittle says that he considers voting a “civic duty,” but I disagree with that. It’s a civic privilege. We’ve made a major mistake in the West — in both Europe and America — by allowing people who live on the dole to vote. General voting rights — without any requirements except for being a citizen — have enabled the lazy and incompetent to live entirely off of people who actually try to be successful and take care of their families. Considering man’s natural inclination to do as little as possible to get by, it isn’t exactly illogical that most Western countries have become social democracies, if not downright socialist.
Sixteen year olds aren’t capable of taking care of themselves (which is why their parents do it for them). Letting them vote would undoubtedly result in more unaffordable government programs that will, in the years to come, bankrupt the country. I understand Obama and his ilk don’t have a problem with that, but those of us who actually love America beg to differ.
So Senator Harry Reid is set to retire. Apparently he wants to enjoy the rest of his life with his wife and children, which won’t be difficult to do since he’s worth an estimated 10 million dollars nowadays. How he did that as a career politician is anyone’s guess, but that’s neither here nor there.
He says he’ll be in the Senate for 22 months more, promising to continue to do as much damage to the country as he can. Apparently, he’s quite proud of that.
Well, I have a slightly different take on the senator’s career. He started out as a supposedly conservative Democrat who was all about fiscal responsibility, but over the years he has (d?)evolved into a liberal hack who’s one of the main reasons that America is currently on the brink of bankruptcy. I can’t wait for this guy to go home and spend “more time” with his family.
Good riddance! Let’s hope he’s privately more principled than he was in the Senate. Because if he isn’t, his wife will have her hands full with him and the many problems he’ll create.
What’s your fare thee well message for Senator Reid? Leave it here, in the comment section.
European media report that German authorities have found “importance evidence” in Andreas Lubitz’s home. Lubitz was the co-pilot of Germanwings Flight 9595, which he purposefully crashed in the French Alps.
Although the German police don’t want to share any details at this moment, they say that the evidence explains why he committed this horrendous mass murder.
In the meantime, it has become clear that Lubitz had serious psychological issues. He was hospitalized in a mental hospital back in 2009. When he was 27 years old, Lubitz apparently suffered from regular panic attacks. He was still being treated by a psychiatrist and had to pass “special psychological tests” by his employer. He received his last treatment only weeks before he purposefully flew the plane into the ground, thereby killing himself and all other 149 people on board.
Our social media manager asked our followers on Facebook whether they are better off today than before Barack Obama took office and, more precisely, passed Obamacare. Their answers leave little room for doubt about the negative effects of this president’s horrendous policies:
Ah well, Mary’s probably the exception to the rule, isn’t she! After all, Obamacare was supposed to help Americans. It’d improve their health care, without it hurting their jobs. Yup!
So is there nobody who’s willing to defend Obamacare? Well, there’s this one guy who has to admit that nothing has actually improved, but hey, it may one day!
So how about you? Are you better off because of Obamacare, or do you agree with 99% of our Facebook followers who say that Obamacare has been “a disaster” for the country and for themselves? Let us know, here in the comment section and on Facebook!
On yesterday’s episode of The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck clashed with each other about Beck’s statement that he no longer supports the Republican Party. It was an interesting debate, although O’Reilly didn’t appear to grasp Beck’s point about defunding the Republican leadership and supporting individual candidates instead:
Beck’s point is well-taken. Why fund the Republican Party itself if you only support certain conservative candidates — and those candidates are being attacked by their own party’s leaders?
Increasingly, voters try to find candidates they support, not a specific party. Parties played a major role in organizing campaigns on every level (local, state, federal) in the past, but that’s increasingly less the case nowadays. Also, when you donate your hard-earned dollars to a party rather than to an individual, part of your donation ends up helping candidates you don’t support or even actively hurting the ones you do.
Both the Democratic Party and the GOP are “big tents” now, with people who often have conflicting views. See how Elizabeth Warren Democrats think compared to Hillary supporters, or how Cruz supporters think compared to Mitch McConnell and his ilk. They often have opposing — not complementary — goals.
Political parties are outdated, so why not stop supporting them?
The newly announced Republican presidential candidate told CNN’s Dana Bash on Tuesday that he will sign up for health care coverage through the Affordable Care Act — a law he has been on a crusade to kill.
It’s a deeply ironic development for the Texas conservative firebrand, who vaulted to fame during his few years in the Senate in large part by denouncing President Barack Obama’s landmark health care law. He led an effort to defund the law that contributed to the 2013 government shutdown.
“Deeply ironic?” Please explain how, dear liberal hacks at CNN. He explains that he believes in obeying the law even when he disagrees with it. That’s not “ironic,” that’s a man living by his beliefs.
Besides, unlike some in Congress — who exempted themselves from Obama’s horrendous health plan despite having voted for it — he shows that he’s actually willing to live a life similar to that of most Americans. He fights to ease their burden of a horrendous health plan — but as long as they have to live with it, so will he.
It’s not that difficult to comprehend, but CNN’s leftist propagandists are having none of it. It’s way too much fun to “freeze” Cruz, “isolate” him, and “polarize” him. Just like Saul Alinsky taught.
On his radio show yesterday, Mark Levin criticized his “friends from Fox News” for secretly supporting Jeb Bush and attacking real conservative candidates like Ted Cruz:
As you all know I’m a huge fan of the Fox News channel. Particularly certain hosts. But I have to wonder: if Ronald Reagan was running in 1976 starting in ’75 against Gerald Ford, how most of the people at Fox would treat him. Because to my great dismay – as I was preparing for the program, I had my favorite cable network on – and a number of the people were trashing Ted Cruz. Not enough experience, he’s too young, too conservative, needs a bigger tent, he’s down in the polls… These people are neophytes. Neophytes. They’ve never fought in Republican primaries for conservative candidates. They don’t even take the time to learn the history of this country or the Republican Party. And I am convinced that if Reagan were alive today and Gerald Ford were live today, and we were doing a rerun of 1975-1976, Reagan would be trashed all over our favorite cable channel.
The question isn’t whether Reagan would be supported by conservatives today – he most assuredly would – the question is whether he’d be supported by several people on our favorite cable channel. And the answer is no.
Levin added that those people probably support Jeb Bush.
The question is, of course: is he right? Well, he followed his criticism up with these Facebook updates:
So, yes, every single thing Levin said yesterday is correct. Fox News does indeed oppose Cruz — and any other real conservative candidate like him. The reason is that Fox isn’t conservative, but corporatist. They support candidates who are pro-amnesty (because it supposedly means cheap labor for businesses) and pro-corporate welfare. Cruz isn’t, Jeb is. So it’s a no-brainer for them.
A good question:
— Chuck Woolery (@chuckwoolery) March 24, 2015
Chuck Woolery was quickly answered:
It’s sad, but all of those answers are right. Believing in the system and rights promoted by the Constitution is now “extreme.” The worst part? We not only have the Obama administration and their lapdogs in the media to thank for that, but establishment Republicans as well.
The Internet Goes Berserk: Why People’s Heads Are Exploding Over Ted Cruz’s Speech Announcing His Candidacy
There’s something interesting going on online. Just go to Facebook, Twitter, and Google+ and search for “Ted Cruz,” “#TedCruz2016″ or “Ted Cruz candidate.” Do you notice something?
That’s right, people’s heads are truly exploding.
Many conservative activists are celebrating Cruz’s official announcement that he’ll run for president. They believe he’s just what they and the rest of America need: a principled, small-government conservative who sticks to his guns no matter what.
— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 23, 2015
Popular radio talk show host Mark “The Great One” Levin’s also impressed:
Ted Cruz’s terrific speech today – must watch! http://t.co/mdTbmWzHz8
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) March 23, 2015
One conservative hero praises another: this tweet basically says it all.
And there’s more – much more:
— Joel C. Rosenberg (@JoelCRosenberg) March 23, 2015
Cruz truly touched a chord with conservative voters:
Listening 2 Ted Cruz speak (w/o a TelePrompter) at Liberty University about God, Our Constitution & his Love of America is so refreshing!
— Amy Mek (@AmyMek) March 23, 2015
See also this tweet:
— Barbara W (@sassybarbara12) March 23, 2015
And this one:
— Zep (@mightyones1968) March 23, 2015
Twitter also seems to be hit by all kinds of (pro-Cruz) memes, most of them focusing on his status as an outsider and rebel:
Those memes aren’t only extremely popular on Twitter, but also on Facebook, where pro-Cruz groups are exploding; they’re literally adding hundreds if not thousands of people today, who are all happy to show their support for Cruz:
Glenn Beck’s followers on Facebook are also thrilled, both with Cruz’s speech and his candidacy:
Meanwhile, progressives have a slightly different take on Cruz’s upcoming announcement. They go all in, some by making jokes at his expense:
— Chelsea Anarchy (@chelseasuddon) March 23, 2015
Note that they’re not explaining why his political views are wrong — they just attack him personally:
#TedCruz for president is the best joke of the year
— Bassem Masri (@bassem_masri) March 23, 2015
There are also those who are going all-out birther on Cruz:
— Ofay Mayo (@blunted215) March 23, 2015
In fact, birtherism is more popular than ever:
i can’t wait to see republicans try to explain throwing support behind canadian ted cruz yet demanding to see obama’s birth certificate.
— crissle (@crissles) March 23, 2015
Some even pull out the racist and birther cards at the same time:
— Danny Zuker (@DannyZuker) March 22, 2015
See this one, too:
Donald Trump: “Wait, Ted Cruz isn’t white? Maybe I want to see that birth certificate…” pic.twitter.com/S1OJdWskWr
— teresa lo (@teresalo_tweets) March 23, 2015
It’s the same on Facebook:
CNN’s followers are extremely dismissive and even aggressive:
The last ones (but I could go on and on):
Now, it’s perfectly clear why conservative Twitter and Facebook users are so happy. They rightfully believe that he’s one of them and that he could very well be Ronald Reagan’s real successor.
But why are leftists’ heads exploding as well? I’ve got no doubt I know the answer: they fear him. Tremendously even. He is everything they oppose: a true, small-government conservative. And that’s not all; he’s also articulate, has a spine, and is highly educated. On top of all that, he’s one of the few Republican politicians who are able to energize the conservative base. That’s the same group of voters who stayed home in 2012 and 2008, thereby handing the presidency to Obama.
That’s why they’ve started to ridicule and humiliate him, and they’ll undoubtedly continue doing so in the days, weeks and months ahead. It comes straight out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
So, what do you think? Why are progressives responding so aggressively to Ted Cruz’s announcement? Am I right, do they fear him? Another question: what do you think of Cruz? Many conservative icons have already endorsed him (Michelle Malkin and Glenn Beck among others). Are you as excited as they are?
“(Not So) Happy Anniversary, Obamacare!,” writes Ron Fournier for National Journal. He continues: “White House lies sold it. Republican lies soiled it. Most Americans don’t like it.”
On the fifth anniversary of Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act stands as an ugly reflection of today’s political culture: partisan, short-sighted, and flawed.
You’d think that he would then go on to blast it for being the mess it is. But no. Ron adds the following:
—[A]nd yet, better than the alternatives.
Better than the alternative whats exactly? Better than HillaryCare? Perhaps, I don’t know. Both plans were severely flawed and should, therefore, never have been passed. This is government, we’re talking about. It’s serious business. If a plan is “short-sighted and flawed” Congress shouldn’t approve it. End of debate.
Having said all that, I’m still pretty happy with this anniversary. The reason? Nothing has done more to educate Americans about the perils of a federal government run by progressives. They now realize – and no, I’m not just talking about conservatives, but about moderates and even some liberals as well – that big, wasteful programs cause more problems than they solve.
And that’s not all. On top of all that ObamaCare has caused conservatives to finally unite and rally around the flag. In both 2012 and 2014, they were more passionate than ever before; more involved than in a long, long time (at least since the Reagan years). Chances are that’ll spill over into the presidential elections, perhaps enabling a true small-government conservative to win the Republican nomination and the presidency itself.
So yes, let’s wish ObamaCare a happy anniversary. It’s the best thing that happened to promote good governance in decades.
Well, at least Senators Ted Cruz and James Lankford are going to try:
With only three weeks remaining for Congress to overturn two Washington, D.C., laws that violate the religious freedom of Catholic schools and colleges—as well as other religious and pro-life organizations—Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and James Lankford of Oklahoma have done the “right thing” by introducing joint resolutions this week, said The Cardinal Newman Society’s Bob Laird.
Senator Cruz comments:
“The D.C. Council is attempting to force religious institutions to provide services, make employment decisions, or participate in activities that directly violate their faith. No government entity should be able to coerce organizations—whether they be non-profits or religious schools—into funding abortion services or promoting gender policy that is contrary to the organization’s fundamental mission.”
The freedom of religion is at the very core of individual liberty and, therefore, of America’s system. Many believe that the freedom of speech was the foundation, but that’s not true: the acknowledgement of that natural right grew out of the freedom of religion (reading tip: Thomas Hobbes). That’s why it’s so important that the Catholic Church — supported by Cruz and Lankford — wins this battle. You can’t preserve liberty in general when you abolish the freedom of religion, as dictators very well know. Why do you think Mao Zedong and old Joe Stalin declared war on religious institutions shortly after they seized power?
The result of D.C.’s plans will be catastrophic. This is how tyranny starts — by tearing apart the right of citizens to practice their beliefs. Let’s hope that a miracle happens and the Church triumphs. If she doesn’t, I fear not only for her and D.C., but for America in its entirety.