September 2018
« Oct   Oct »
PAYPAL Donations

< If you don’t stand behind our troops, why don’t you stand in front of them.

Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.

Proud to be an American.

Salute a Veteran!

Please consider a monthly donation; Click on the PayPal Button to contribute with PayPal

Donating by PayPal is Safe and Convenient

Send Checks to: The Highlands Tea Party 4196 Smoke signal Sebring, FL 33872

All donations are greatly appreciated, Thank You & God Bless

Donations are not tax-deductible.

My God! How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy! ~Thomas Jefferson P>

General information

Archive for September, 2018

If the Democrats can flip Florida in 2018/2020, they will almost certainly win the White House. WAKE UP FLORIDA VOTE REPUBLICAN RED NOT SOCIALIST RED!

Who is Steve Phillips and why is he backing
Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida?

In a column titled “The Rainbow Conspiracy Part 12: Steve Phillips And Democracy Alliance Team Up To Flip Florida” Trevor Loudon reports:
Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in Florida by just under 113,000 votes. For the left, Florida’s 27 Congressional Districts and 29 Electoral College votes are a tempting prize indeed.

If the Democrats can flip Florida in 2018/2020, they will almost certainly win the White House.

San Francisco lawyer and key Democratic Party operative Steve Phillips is targeting the Sunshine State. Florida has an open gubernatorial race this year and Phillips wants to use this election to inspire the state’s black and Latino voting base to vote all the way down to the bottom of the ballot. Phillips realizes that if he can steer his chosen candidate into the governor’s mansion this year, Florida will likely go blue in 2020.
If that happens – no more President Trump.

Who is Steve Phillips?

Loudon’s research found the following about Steve Phillips:  Steve Phillips has known Andrew Gillum for years. Gillum has served on the board of Phillips’ PowerPAC+ since at least 2012.
Steve Phillips wrote in July 2013:

At PAC+, we will continue to work to identify and back candidates in strategic races and states across the country. In Florida, for instance, our Board member Andrew Gillum is running for Mayor of Tallahassee next year, and candidates such as Andrew, who is just 33 years old, can comprise the nucleus of a new group of political leaders who can methodically take power and reorder the state’s policies and priorities in coming years.

Andrew Gillum is an extreme radical. Part of Florida’s existing “political nucleus,” former Florida State Sen Tony Hill endorsed Gillum for Governor, November 9 2017.

“I am extraordinarily excited to endorse Mayor Andrew Gillum for Governor today. I have known him since his days on Florida A&M University’s campus as a student leader and activist — long before he became Mayor of Tallahassee. Back then you could tell he had a special quality that inspired his peers and elders, and he carries that spirit and passion with him in this race to take back Florida. He will deliver solutions to our most pressing challenges and be a true champion for Jacksonville.”

Replied Gillum:

“Senator Hill has long been a mentor and friend to me, and it’s humbling to receive his endorsement today. .. I can’t wait to campaign with him in Jacksonville and all over the state.”

Gillum has an ally, a semi-secret nest of billionaire leftist donors known as the Democracy Alliance.
Gillum’s long-term mentor Steve Phillips was involved in the Democracy Alliance from its very beginning. In 2004, billionaire socialists Herb and Marion Sandler established America Votes in partnership with even richer socialist donor George Soros “to coordinate various get-out-the-vote drives during the 2004 election.” When the Democracy Alliance was formalized the following year, the Sandlers sent their son-in-law Steven Phillips as their representative to the October 2005 meeting at the Chateau Elan near Atlanta, Georgia.

Who is Andrew Gillum?

Trevor Loudon found the following about Democrat Socialist Gillum:
Andrew Gillum, while serving as director of Youth Leadership Programs for People for the American Way, graduated from the same Rockwood Social Transformation Project program in 2012.  Unsurprisingly New Florida Majority endorsed Andrew Gillum over his Democratic competitors.
Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum released the following statement, June 13 2018:
“I’m honored to receive New Florida Majority’s endorsement! They’re on the front lines of taking back our state for working people, and I’m proud to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them in fighting for our families, jobs with living wages and dignity, a thriving public education system that pays teachers what they’re worth, and quality, affordable health care as a constitutional right for every Floridian.”
Andrew Gillum had previously met with New Florida Majority in April of 2018.

Of the NFM activists named above, Gihan Perera, Valencia Gunder, Renee Mowatt and Dwight Bullard all are affiliated in some way with Freedom Road Socialist Organization.
Loudon concludes, “Lifelong revolutionary Steve Phillips is backing Abrams, Gillum and Jealous for good reason. Phillips’ purpose is to realize a goal set back in his student Maoist days – the New American Majority. Phillips understands that ‘candidates of color’ at the top of the ticket will lift the minority vote. That will help flip Congressional and Senate seats in several key states – including Florida.”
EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured image is courtesy of Trevor Loudon’s New Zeal Blog.

Sooner or later Republicans have to recognize all of this for the political charade it is. Democrats don’t want to find the truth.

Another Kavanaugh Flakeout

The American Bar Association
president tries to sandbag
another nominee.

Sen. Jeff Flake speaks with reporters after meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in the Capitol, Washington, D.C., Sept. 28.

Sen. Jeff Flake speaks with reporters after meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in the Capitol, Washington, D.C., Sept. 28.PHOTO: ANDREW HARNIK/ASSOCIATED PRESS
Democrats must be secretly delighted, not that they’ll admit it. A couple of GOP Senators fell on Friday for their ruse of seeking an FBI investigation of an assault accusation against Brett Kavanaugh, and now this Supreme Court nomination ordeal will continue for at least another week. Who knows what new dirt against the judge they can throw on the Senate wall?
On Friday the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Supreme Court nominee in an 11-10 party-line vote, with Arizona Senator Jeff Flake the last convert. That should have sent the nomination to the Senate floor and a vote early next week.

The mystery is what new evidence Mr. Flake and Ms. Murkowski expect the FBI to find. The Senate this week heard six hours of public testimony from Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.

The potential witnesses Ms. Ford has named have given statements under penalty of perjury saying they don’t recall the 1982 party she describes. No corroboration has materialized, leaving Democrats and the media to pick over high-school yearbook entries from 1983. Ms. Ford said Thursday that she is “100%” certain Judge Kavanaugh assaulted her. He told the Senate that he is “100%” certain of his innocence.

Now the FBI will spend a week redoing all these interviews. To what end? FBI background investigations aren’t criminal probes. They reach no conclusions. The agents conduct interviews, record what the subjects say, and put the summaries in a nominee’s file. The Senators are then expected to draw theirconclusions and vote. After a week Mr. Flake and Ms. Murkowski may find themselves in the same place, since Ms. Ford’s charge is too imprecise in date, place or recollections to corroborate.

Not that even this extra week will satisfy Democrats—or Ms. Ford’s Democratic handlers. Debra Katz, Ms. Ford’s lawyer who was recommended by Democrat Dianne Feinstein, said Friday after news of the delay that “no artificial limits as to time or scope should be imposed on this investigation.”

Look for Democrats and the party’s media wing to repeat this like the Rockettes. They’re already floating that FBI Director Christopher Wray attended Yale a couple of years after Mr. Kavanaugh did, so, you know, the FBI probe they demanded may also be tainted.

The truth is that no amount of investigating by the FBI or anyone else will change a single Democratic vote. And if more accusations arise, no matter how preposterous, Democrats will demand another investigation and more interviews.

*Meanwhile, Democrats also received an in-kind political contribution Friday from the head of the American Bar Association, who sent a letter to the Senate calling for an FBI probe and delay. “The basic principles that underscore the Senate’s constitutional duty of advice and consent on federal judicial nominees require nothing less,” wrote Robert Carlson. Surely it’s a coincidence that Mr. Carlson, according to campaign-finance records at, was a donor to Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Carlson wants to give the impression that the ABA is walking away from its previous expansive praise for Judge Kavanaugh. The ABA has a Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary that reviews nominees, and on Aug. 30 it gave Judge Kavanaugh its highest rating.

This included a glowing report on his character and competence. Dozens of law professors reviewed his writings. Comments were solicited from 471 judges, lawyers and academics. This material was collated into 1,635 pages.

The ABA committee then voted unanimously that Judge Kavanaugh is “well qualified” for the Supreme Court. Its final report quotes unnamed colleagues and observers: “His integrity is absolutely unquestioned.” “He is what he seems, very decent, humble, and honest.” “He is just the best—brilliant, a great writer, fair, and he is open-minded.”

Mr. Carlson is not a member of that committee, and he is not supposed to speak for the ABA unless the legal group has made a policy decision. In this case he is trying to sandbag his own ABA colleagues. Paul Moxley, the Utah lawyer who chairs the ABA’s judicial committee, made that clear on Friday when he wrote to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Mr. Carlson’s letter “was not received” by his ABA committee “prior to its issuance.” Mr. Moxley added: “The ABA’s rating for Judge Kavanaugh is not affected by Mr. Carlson’s letter.”

In other words, Mr. Carlson is free-lancing for partisan purposes and the Senate should ignore him. For the rest of us, however, this is one more reason to bar the ABA from any judicial vetting. Some of us still remember the ABA’s shoddy treatment of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.

Sooner or later Republicans have to recognize all of this for the political charade it is. Democrats don’t want to find the truth. They want to delay a vote, destroy Judge Kavanaugh’s reputation in the meantime, win Senate control in November and then leave the Supreme Court with an empty seat through 2021.

If the Senate now wants to give the FBI one more week, Mr. Flake and Ms. Murkowski should spend it getting used to the idea that Mr. Kavanaugh can’t prove that something didn’t happen. They’ll have to vote anyway.

Appeared in the September 29, 2018, print edition.


Confirm Brett Kavanaugh

The Judge rightly called out the
politics of ‘search and destroy.’
rather than “Advise & Consent”

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill, Washington, U.S., Sept. 27.

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill, Washington, U.S., Sept. 27. PHOTO: JIM BOURG/ZUMA PRESS
Thursday’s Senate hearing on Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination was an embarrassment that should have never happened. Judge Kavanaugh was right to call the confirmation process a “disgrace” in his passionate self-defense, and whatever one thinks of Christine Blasey Ford’s assault accusation, she offered no corroboration or new supporting evidence.
Ms. Ford certainly was a sympathetic witness—by her own admission “terrified” at the start and appearing to be emotionally fragile. Her description of the assault and its impact on her was wrenching. She clearly believes what she says happened to her. Her allegation should have been vetted privately, in confidence, as she said she would have preferred. Instead ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein held it for six weeks and it was leaked—perhaps to cause precisely such a hearing circus.
Yet there is still no confirming evidence beyond her own testimony, and some of what she says has been contradicted. The female friend Ms. Ford says was at the home the night of the assault says she wasn’t there. The number of people she says were there has varied from four to five and perhaps more, but every potential witness she has cited by name says he or she doesn’t recall the party.
She still can’t recall the home where the assault took place, how she got there or how she got home that evening. She has no witnesses who say she told them about the alleged assault at the time—until she first spoke of it at a couples therapy session 30 years later in 2012. Mr. Kavanaugh’s name doesn’t appear in the notes of her therapist.
As for Judge Kavanaugh, his self-defense was as powerful and emotional as the moment demanded. If he was angry at times, imagine how you would feel if you were so accused and were innocent as he says he is. To deny the allegations as he did—invoking his children and parents and so many others who know him—and be lying would mean that he is a sociopath. If he were found to be lying, he would be impeached and probably prosecuted. Nothing in his long record in public life betrays the kind of behavior he is accused of against women.
Had he not been as forceful, his opponents would have said he looked guilty. Because he called the Democrats out for their character assassination, the critics now say he lacks the right temperament. The truth is that there is no answer, and no demeanor, that Brett Kavanaugh could offer that the left would credit. Their goal isn’t the truth. They want to destroy Judge Kavanaugh.
Republican Senators turned over their questioning of Ms. Ford to a trained prosecutor from Arizona, who attempted to clarify facts and fill holes in her testimony. Democrats showed zero interest in getting any facts from Ms. Ford. They spent their question time saying they believed Ms. Ford while badgering Republican Chairman Chuck Grassley to call other witnesses.
Yet those potential witnesses have all given sworn statements to Senate staff under penalty of felony that say they don’t recall the party or the alleged assault. Hauling them before the Senate wouldn’t illuminate the truth any more than Thursday’s hearing did.
Incredibly, Democrats spent their time with Judge Kavanaugh asking about drinking games and lines in his high school yearbook. Once Senator Lindsey Graham made that look foolish (see below), Democrats focused on their only other argument, which is that the FBI should investigate. But they well know the FBI would merely repeat the interviews they and the Senate Judiciary staff have already done.
The real Democratic goal is to push a confirmation vote past Election Day. They can then spare their incumbents running for re-election from taking a difficult vote. If they win the election, they will then try to block any confirmation until they take over the Senate in January. No nominee to the right of Merrick Garland would then be confirmed in the final two years of the Trump Presidency. The Supreme Court would be divided 4-4 until 2021 at least.
Senate Republicans should understand that these are the real political stakes. This nomination isn’t only about the fate of a single man whose reputation can be discarded like some tabloid celebrity. This is about the future of the Supreme Court and who will control the Senate. If Republicans reject Mr. Kavanaugh based on what we know now, millions of voters will rightly be furious.
But as important, a rejection will bring dishonor to the Senate. It will validate the ambush and smear politics that Democrats are using. And it will turn Supreme Court nominations over to the justice of the social-media mob and the politics of accusation. It’s time for Senators to stand up and confirm Brett Kavanaugh.

Appeared in the September 28, 2018, print edition.

People who dare to disclose the true nature of Islam run the risk of being castigated as bigots and hatemongers.

Is Islam Misunderstood?

According to a Pew Research Center study published in 2009, public perceptions depend heavily on a few key factors. Pew’s Gregory Smith explained: “One of the most powerful factors shaping views of Islam is education,” he said. “Those Americans who have more education tend to be more favorable toward Muslim Americans and Islam than Americans with less education. Interestingly, age was also a good predictor of views of Muslim Americans and Islam, with young people tend to be more favorable than were older people.”
Decades ago, Professor Marshall McLuhan observed, “The medium is the message.” As the print and electronic media enter more and more into every aspect of life, their influence increases greatly in shaping the views, deeds and behavior of the public. The power of the media is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, it can serve to expose injustices, wrongdoings, and flaws. On the other, it is able to propagate misinformation and outright disinformation and fake news. Manipulation and control of the media is of critical importance to the rule of totalitarian states. Free societies, although less subject to laundered information, are still at considerable risk of being selectively informed or misinformed outright. The public can be deceived more easily by the overlords of the media when political correctness is used as subterfuge for promotion of certain ideas.
A case in point is the media’s portrayal of Islam, articulated by politicians and pundits — the talking heads on television and radio, as well as the analysts who write for newspapers and magazines. Time and again we hear and read that Islam is a religion of peace, in spite of the fact Islam has been a religion of violence from its inception to the present. This mantra, “Islam is a religion of peace” is repeated so often that it has become an indisputable statement of fact in the minds of many. Former President George W. Bush on several occasions repeated the mantra and attributed the horrific violence committed under the banner of Islam to a small band of extremists. The President’s assertion was either based on ignorance of the facts about Islam or was an attempt at political correctness. Perhaps the President’s reticence to speak on the true nature of Islam was due to his desire to avoid inflaming the already charged feelings of many about Islam. In any event, truth was and is sacrificed, and the public continues to be fed the false notion that Islam is a peaceful religion.
People who dare to disclose the true nature of Islam run the risk of being castigated as bigots and hatemongers. Yet even a cursory examination of Islam’s history and Islamic texts conclusively proves the exact opposite of peacefulness. Islam was and continues to be a movement of unbridled violence. Islam was forced upon every people at the point of the sword and the imposition of backbreaking jaziyah (poll taxes) levied on those who were spared death and allowed to retain their religious beliefs. In addition to paying heavy jaziyah, the non-Muslims were treated, at best, as second class in their own homelands.
The abominable persecution of non-Muslims in Islamic countries is a standard operating procedure. In many Islamic countries, non-Muslim marriages are not recognized as legal unions, and the children of such couples are stigmatized as bastards. Never mind the fact that Saudi Arabia, the cradle of barbarism, and even Egypt, the more civilized Islamic country and recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. aid, treat non-Muslims as second class and deprive them of their legitimate human rights. The pundits, the analysts and the politicians are doing a great disservice to the public, each for its own expedient reasons, by parroting the mantra regarding the peaceful nature of Islam. In reality, the so-called small band of Islamic extremists is the true face of Islam.
Admittedly, from time to time and place to place, Muslims have shown a degree of tolerance for the non-Muslims. This tolerance dates back to the very early years of Muhammad himself. Early on, Muhammad proclaimed, “For you, your religion, and for me, my religion.” This assertion lasted but a few years, until Muhammad’s movement gathered strength and Islam became the only alternative to death or heavy taxation. The imposition of jaziyah was a clever ploy for filling the Islamic coffers to support its armies and to finance its further conquests.
A longstanding Islamic practice is to appear to be meek while weak and to assume despotic intolerant power when strong. The recent migration of Muslims to non-Islamic lands began as a seemingly harmless, even useful, trickle of cheap and much-needed labor. Before long, greater and greater numbers of Muslims deluged the new territories, and as they grew in numbers — by means of a high birth rate as well as new arrivals — Muslims began reverting to their intolerant ways, demanding legal status for Sharia (Islamic law), the draconian laws that resemble the laws of humanity’s barbaric past.
Islam is indeed misrepresented. But Islam is not misrepresented by its “detractors.” It is misrepresented by Islamic mercenaries: organizations and individuals generously funded by states as well as wealthy believers, who are making billions of dollars pumping and selling oil at astronomical prices. Prestigious universities in the West, always looking for handouts, are tripping over one another to establish Islamic studies programs staffed by professors who sing the praises of Islam. Newspapers are routinely intimidated by complaints by Islamic associations if they dare to print the truth about Islam. Legions of lawyers, Muslims as well as hired guns, are on the lookout to intimidate and silence any voice speaking the truth about Islam.
The media that falls in line may receive generous advertising revenue and other incentives from Islamic lobbyists. Hence it is a fact that Islam is misunderstood. It is both misunderstood and misrepresented very effectively by non-Muslim individuals and institutions who are generously rewarded by the modern-day Islamic conquerors. This time around, the Muslims are using the  petrodollars they extract from oil-addicted non-Muslims. The sword is temporarily replaced by just as deadly a weapon — the petrodollar. Before long, the Muslims aim to add a deadlier modern version of the sword — the Islamic bomb. With the bomb in one hand and the other hand on the oil spigot, the Muslims hope to bring the non-Muslim world to its knees before the religion of peace and brotherhood.

The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal

Six Ideas to De-Politicize the American Campus

The politicization of higher education is a huge societal problem. Even though there is an overwhelming consensus that universities’ ultimate purpose should be a search for the truth and that it is imperative that inquiry and dialogue be kept free and open, this is increasingly not the case. In many departments, acknowledged communists outnumber registered Republicans. Speakers who dissent from the campus orthodoxy are routinely shouted down or chased off campus, faculty hiring committees weed out all dissent, left-wing dogma makes its way into classrooms, and administrations seem increasingly hesitant to resist academia’s most vocal and radical voices.
But that doesn’t mean we have to submit to this assault on the open society. There are also hopeful signs: state legislatures are enacting laws that guarantee free speech and freedom of association, a wide variety of organizations have emerged to combat politicization, and campus goings-on are coming under greater public scrutiny. It may be that the politicization of academia is bottoming out.
And it certainly can’t hurt to keep the pressure on to restore open dialogue and the pursuit of truth. So we asked representatives of some of the leading academic reform organizations for ideas on how to build on recent successes.
Here are their solutions:

To Depoliticize Our Universities, ‘De-Nationalize’ Higher Education
By Tom Lindsay
Director of the Center for Education Innovation at the Texas Public Policy Foundation

Most college graduates above the age of 55 remember that their best teachers refused to allow themselves to be pigeonholed as mere hawkers of one political agenda over another. They refused to do this not because they were politically indifferent, but because they knew that their job was to teach, not indoctrinate. And they knew that teaching and indoctrination are mutually exclusive.
But that was then. Now, ideology disguised as scholarship has attained Delphic Oracle status on a growing number of campuses. (No surprise, then, that surveys find 40 percent of millennials today favor denying the First Amendment’s protections to those whose speech is “offensive.”) If affirmative action for conservative faculty is not the answer (and I do not believe it is the answer), what can be done to reduce the politicization of our campuses?
The only solution that appears consistent with a free society is this: On both constitutional and prudential grounds, what is required to depoliticize our schools are measures that reduce the federal role in higher education. The main way to accomplish this is by making state accreditation sufficient for receipt of funding authorized by Title IV (of the Higher Education Act). Doing so would break the grip of the regional accrediting bodies, which too often have acted as gatekeepers for the higher-education cartel—blocking the entrance of alternative modes of education and therewith stifling needed innovation.
With states in control of Title IV authorization and free to experiment without the federal government imposing conformity on them, the states would become again the laboratories of democracy that the Constitution intends them to be. As a result, innovation would flower again, as states pick and choose from among the pioneering projects conducted by other states.
By returning to a higher education model based on federalism, college students would be able to capitalize on the different offerings that would flower in the 50 states and to receive funds to attend the school and program that best fit their needs.
To be sure, empowering the individual states to certify their schools for receipt of Title IV federal funding would lead some states to adopt less-than-optimal arrangements. When this happens, the other 49 will take heed and not repeat the mistake. A continuous cycle among the states of trial, error, correction, and imitation stands a better chance of yielding needed reforms than top-down edicts from Washington, D.C. In even the worst-case scenario—where a prospective college student lives in a state whose higher education system is fatally politicized—the student is free to attend a more academically serious institution in another state, one that has capitalized on the opportunities provided by a return to state authorization of schools.
The point here is that there will still be other states with genuine universities if they are allowed to forge their own paths. Currently, with higher education increasingly under federal control, all schools, regardless of their state, are becoming ideological echo chambers. With a restoration of constitutional federalism, more students will be empowered to vote with their feet and pocketbooks. Moreover, the states from which they are fleeing will be forced to take note and reform themselves, if only out of economic self-interest.

Making Higher Ed More Accountable Will Lead to a Better Campus Political Climate
By David Randall
Director of Communications at the National Association of Scholars

The one thing legislators should do to depoliticize higher education is to make colleges and universities co-responsible for student loans—the so-called “skin in the game” policy. If these institutions were responsible for some significant amount, say, 30 percent of each student loan—as the National Association of Scholars recommends—they would acquire several incentives to change in positive ways. None of these incentives are directly political, but each of them would reduce the opportunities for the politicization of higher education.
The main incentive is that, if colleges and universities were responsible for loans, they would be encouraged to admit only well-prepared students. Students who aren’t prepared for college are also bad risks for being able to repay a college loan down the road, as they tend to drop out without improving their chances for well-paid employment. And even those who graduate often do so in majors that aren’t much help in the labor market.
So how does that affect politicization? For one thing, colleges that admit fewer badly prepared students—often in need of serious remediation—won’t need to come up with ideological rationalizations to justify the presence of students who shouldn’t be in college.
Secondly, if you decrease the number of remedial students, you also decrease the number of bureaucrats dedicated to retaining unqualified students. First-Year Experience, Student Life, Residential Life, Office of Sustainability, Office of Diversity—all the “co-curricular” bureaucrats justify themselves in good measure as necessary to help retain unqualified students. Since these bureaucrats are heavy drivers of politicization on campus, pruning their numbers—or at least removing the pressure to increase their numbers even further—will reduce the politicization dynamic.
Reducing the number of unqualified students also reduces the incentive to create hollow politicized courses for unqualified students to take. Identities studies courses, civic engagement courses, and the like, all give students credit for saying I Am My Identity—not least to provide a gut course for unprepared students. The faculty who teach such courses are often the most actively radical; their disappearance from the campus will have a positive effect on the intellectual climate.
Additionally, reduce the number of remedial students, and you also reduce the need for communications departments, heavily politicized bastions that smuggle left-wing propaganda into teaching basic writing.
Make colleges and universities co-responsible for student loans and they will also have an incentive to have students learn skills that actually qualify them for well-paying jobs in the workforce. Junk politicized courses, or junk politicization of solid courses, will run up against the incentive of colleges not to lose money. Colleges will also have an incentive to hire competent professors who teach solid skills, rather than politicized faculty or administrators who only offer ideological catechism.
Making colleges co-responsible for student loans won’t be a cure-all. But I can’t think of a single other measure that can do more.

Inoculate Students Against Indoctrination with Proactive Parenting
By Jennifer Kabbany
Editor at The College Fix

Higher education is past the point of no return. Proactive parenting is the only solution.
Anyone who thinks significant higher education curriculum reform is a real possibility hasn’t been paying attention. The inmates are running the asylum. To be sure, there are some good professors doing good work. But they are few and far between, and the humanities are all but lost.
The older generation of leftist professors is retiring, replaced with younger scholars who are even more radical. Indoctrination has replaced teaching in many classes, and entire schools are prioritizing identity politics. The goal of many courses today—whether history, English, political science or any other—is to set young hearts and minds against the principle that America is an exceptional land of opportunity. (Indeed, that expression is a microaggression on most campuses!)
What is to be done? The ultimate solution is not by legislation or trustee strong-arming. And while vocational schooling, tech opportunities, independent entrepreneurship programs, the military, and other pathways offer strong alternatives to the kindergarten-to-university pipeline, they do not fill all of society’s training needs.
Therefore, the postsecondary academic institution will remain a societal backbone, fractured and infected as it is, in the foreseeable future. So we must prepare our youth for the intellectual battle they will face when they enter the higher education arena. That means that proactive parenting is essential. We may not be able to altogether reform higher education, but we can arm our children with facts, awareness, and logical reasoning that will counteract the half-truths and bias lobbed at them by professors.
I can offer a personal anecdote on what arming our kids with knowledge looks like. My son is 18 and a United States Marine. But before he went out to serve and protect this great country, it was my job to be his teacher. No, I didn’t homeschool him. But my husband and I made sure his public-school teachers were not the only ones influencing his intellectual development. Together we watched PragerU videos, Dinesh D’Souza documentaries, and online Hillsdale College lectures. We listened to conservative talk radio. We studied subjects at home such as intelligent design, conservatism, and free-market economics. We connected him with groups like Young America’s Foundation, which offers right-of-center educational high school retreats. Over dinner, we’d ask him what he learned in school and offered counterpoints.
We supplemented his education so he will not be easy prey for a professor with an agenda, if and when the time comes. All parents must do this. We cannot let public schools—and in effect, the government—be our children’s first and only educators.
It’s not just about higher education. The fate of our great nation is at stake. And maybe de-politicization of higher education can start from the bottom up, with students who have been intellectually inoculated by their parents against the academic left’s designs on their minds and souls.

Empower Alumni to Be Independent Voices
By Jay Schalin
Director of Policy Analysis at the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal 

One way to push back against politicization is to empower alternative alumni groups. Currently, most official alumni organizations are controlled by their administrations. As a result, some of the most important voices are missing from the governance of the Ivory Tower.
As academia has great influence on society, society should have some say about the direction that influence will take. Too often in recent years, academia leads in a direction that is antithetical to what the nation stands for. Independent alumni organizations are needed to correct this one-sided movement, as they are more connected to the nation as a whole; their diverse ways of engaging the general society can provide a valuable and differing perspective to university governance.
But such independence is not the case today; instead of influencing their campus, they are managed by the school administration. They are fed propaganda (ever look at your alumni magazine?), encouraged to send money and moral support, and kept in the dark about controversial issues.
A few alumni make it onto their school’s governing boards, but often they are handpicked in some political process that ensures they will be subordinate to the administration. (You can see here what happened at Dartmouth when alumni tried to assert themselves). And school surveys of alumni opinions are essentially push-polls intended to produce the results desired by the administration.
As a result, graduates lack any meaningful input into the way their alma mater is run. Which is a problem since they tend to reflect the nation’s true values much more than the faculty or administration. Alumni who are concerned about the direction the administration is taking at their school have little recourse except to make futile individual gestures, such as writing angry letters or withholding donations.
But, imagine if those angry letters or withheld donations were multiplied a thousand-fold? That could be enough to make schools mend their errant ways, at least to some degree.
Furthermore, enabling alternative alumni groups to thrive could disrupt the administration’s control of information. Since individual alumni (or small groups of them) often have deep inside knowledge of the college, they would be able to spread the word rapidly through the alumni network—and from there enter the public arena. In this way, corruption and politicization could be countered.
The process would be simple; any graduate could gather a fair number of alumni signatures and register the group with the school, with reasonable rights and responsibilities spelled out for both parties. Any concerns, such as privacy issues stemming from providing alternative alumni groups with graduates’ contact information, could easily be worked out. For instance, the school could control the contact information for all graduates—but once or twice a year permit the alternative groups to contact them through a listserv. Alumni who wish to be part of the group could provide contact information to the group’s officers.
To see just how beneficial this idea would be, present it to some high-level college or university administrators and watch their heads explode.

Cultivate Capacity for Constructive Disagreement
By Debra Mashek
Executive Director of Heterodox Academy 

Those of us in academia must work to change campus culture from the bottom up to ensure that there is a free and open exchange of ideas. We can best accomplish this by helping students, faculty, and others develop the skills for “constructive disagreement.”
In constructive disagreement, perspectives are raised, considered, and challenged with a shared commitment to mutual inquiry. It is typified by fearless, respectful engagement with others and their ideas. While essential to learning and strong research, constructive disagreement is not easy. It requires a range of cognitive, emotional, and social skills, including intellectual humility, curiosity, resilience, respect, perspective taking, and empathy.
In a world as complex as ours, it is unlikely that any one person holds a full and accurate understanding of problems, much less solutions. Intellectual humility compels us to at least question the completeness of our understanding while curiosity compels us to seek out and to try to understand the views of others. Resilience, in turn, helps individuals depersonalize difference. Resilient individuals are well-practiced at questioning and reframing their initial reactions to critique and challenge, and finding ways to read people and their actions with generosity and compassion.
Respect short circuits the impulse to dehumanize—and thus delegitimize—those who see the world differently. It sets the stage for understanding other perspectives, compelling us to ask how a fellow worthy, reasonable, and well-intentioned person could come to a different conclusion. Understanding how others’ lived experiences have shaped their views results in deeper empathy.
What can those of us charged with realizing the mission of the academy do to cultivate these capacities? Professors can craft their syllabi to signal their expectations that students practice these habits of heart and mind throughout a course. When curating lists of readings, discussion topics, assignments, and guest speakers, instructors should take care to represent a range of viewpoints and to do so with a commitment to depth and accuracy, as opposed to relying on caricatures or generalizations of divergent views. When feasible, co-teach with others who see things differently—both to expose students to viewpoint variance and to model for them how to navigate that variance with aplomb.
Concurrently, campus leadership must be vocal advocates and visible models for constructive disagreement. Sponsor lecture series that explore heterodox ideas. Fund initiatives designed to promote virtuous discourse across constituencies. Include in job ads language that explicitly states viewpoint diversity is welcomed. Hold campus conversations about the values and limits of viewpoint diversity—and do so soon, before your campus experiences a meltdown.
If this seems like too much to tackle, explore the OpenMind Platform, a free, web-based tool based on psychological research that invites users to practice, and thus develop, many of the capacities described above. Adopt it as a common experience for entering first-year students or assign it in any course that explores social and political issues.
While policy interventions may help depolarize campuses, developing the capacity for constructive disagreement among those who make up our complex college communities offers a localized, durable solution.

Focus on Excellence in Education Rather Than Ideological Diversity
By Karen Hyman
Senior Vice President of Policy and Programs at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni

The phrase “viewpoint diversity” has become the locution du jour for what was long called “ideological diversity.” When it comes to the serious ills besetting our universities, calling for any brand of diversity—be it racial, class, gender, or viewpoint—is a common response. But, as a curative for education’s ills, focusing on creating viewpoint or ideological diversity is bound to come up short.
Higher education reformers need to seek practical ways to solve university problems with a return to the liberal arts: the pursuit of truth, the self-critical and self-reflective use of reason, and humane learning balanced by a sense of humility about human limits.
Professor Robert George’s voice reminds us why we need to look beyond viewpoint diversity. His successful Princeton-based James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions is exemplary. At ACTA’s Fund for Academic Renewal (FAR) conference in June 2017, he talked about how the James Madison Center has helped true dialogue flourish at a school which, like most major schools, is predominantly liberal in its faculty and student body.
To cite but one example, Brother Cornel West and Brother George (as these ideological opposites call themselves with genuine warmth) have come together across their ideological divide for intellectual dialogue. In his remarks to the FAR participants, he emphasized that the Madison Center and similar programs whose aims are commonly thought to be about welcoming more diverse viewpoints were not designed to provide “affirmative action for conservatives.”
That is exactly right. What is needed most is not affirmative action or mandates for viewpoint diversity embracing conservatives, libertarians, Marxists, and free-market thinkers. Instead, we need to build frameworks that will promote the best of the liberal arts, such as more centers like George’s that encourage the free exchange of ideas and help cultivate the kind of education that bolsters truth-seeking activities.
Finally, educators and students should take heart in how educational entrepreneurs are developing innovative ways to help students conduct civil, intellectual dialogue on serious political issues. For example, ACTA has begun working with Better Angels, founded in 2016 as a non-partisan organization dedicated to reuniting our divided country. Together, we are working to help the “better angels of our nature” flourish on college campuses through student-led debates that maintain civility on highly polarizing topics. As a perennial student of the liberal arts, and now as an ACTA leader helping universities flourish in ways well beyond mere diversity, I’m pleased to join with the Martin Center and other education leaders to look at liberal education with fresh eyes for its eternal relevance and practical import on our campuses.
Copyright and Restrictions on Use of Materials
The contents of our site are protected by copyright and trademarks laws, and are the property of their owners. Unless stated otherwise, you may access the materials located within solely for noncommercial use, so long as you neither change nor delete any author attribution, trademark, legend, or copyright notice. When you download copyrighted material, you do not obtain any ownership rights in those materials.

Becoming a Supreme Court justice is an attorney’s dream. It’s getting there, Brett Kavanaugh will tell you, that’s a nightmare.

Conservatives Looking for Justice in Kavanaugh

September 26, 2018

Becoming a Supreme Court justice is an attorney’s dream. It’s getting there, Brett Kavanaugh will tell you, that’s a nightmare. The father of two girls has endured more than his share in a vicious confirmation fight that ought to scare everyone about the state of American politics.
Senate Democrats have resorted to mudslinging, harassment, and now lawsuits to get their way on a confirmation pick that the American people knowingly handed to the president in the election of 2016. Kavanaugh’s family has had to sit through horrible allegations about a man who’s been widely considered one of the most respected people in the legal profession. Still, liberals, still angry about the courage Majority Leader Mitch McConnell showed in not considering Merrick Garland, are out for blood — and they’ll do anything to stop Kavanaugh from becoming the court’s next justice.
Earlier today, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) took the circus to a whole new level, announcing his intent to sue the Democrats’ way to success in stopping the Kavanaugh vote. “The unprecedented obstruction of the Senate’s advice and consent obligation is an assault on the separation of powers and a violation of the Constitution.” It’s the latest in a series of ridiculous stunts the Left is willing to try in blocking a good judge from the promotion he deserves.
Yesterday, on “Washington Watch,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) could only shake his head at the absurdity of it all. “I’ve been a lawyer most of my adult life,” he told our listeners. “I’ve been a judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney, and here’s what I can say without any doubt: The allegations against Judge Kavanaugh are 35 years old. They can’t identify the time they happened or the location, and the people who were supposedly there denied that it happened. And with that fact pattern, you couldn’t get a warrant, much less take this to court.”
Like most Republicans, he’s promising an open mind when Kavanaugh’s accuser comes to testify this week.

“I will take the allegation, scrutinize it, and be respectful of the accuser — but [h]ere’s what I’ve learned. If you’re a creep, you’ve abused women, if you’re a sexual predator — it happens a lot throughout your life. You don’t just do it for a little period of time and quit… Kavanaugh… has been in legal circles at the highest levels of government for 20 years. Not one woman has said he’s done anything inappropriate toward them when he was in charge of their careers… There would be more accusations about his workplace behavior [if this were true] and it’s not.”

But, he warned, just look at what happened to Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. “There’s a pattern here,” he warned. “If you want to destroy someone, it doesn’t matter what you do and how you do it.” What’s more outrageous, Senator Graham points out is the Democrats’ double standard. “I voted for Sotomayor and Kagan because I thought they were qualified. I would not have chosen them if I’d been president. But elections matter — except when it comes to us. When we win, it doesn’t matter. You can do anything to our people. I’ve never been more disgusted with the committee than I am right now. The games they play to put us in this box are unconscionable.”
But if it’s voters Democrats are trying to appeal to with these shenanigans, strategist Chris Wilson explained later, they’re blowing it. “This entire situation has become a net-plus for Republicans,” he said. “The sheer audacity of the Democrats… what it is showing the American people and voters is exactly who the modern Democratic party is… What it’s doing is putting one of the biggest drivers of 2016 — [the courts] — back into play as a key issue.” They see it as a manufactured controversy — the same kind the media uses against President Trump. They’re sick of it. If anything, Chris said, it’s “creating a turnout enthusiasm for Republicans.”
“Democrats have seriously overplayed their hand on this.” But unfortunately for Brett, the Kavanaughs are paying the price.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


NUKE TIMELINE GONE: At a freewheeling, hour-and-20-minute-long news conference to close his time at the U.N., Trump indicated he has no deadline for when he wants North Korea to denuclearize.  Trump said he does not want to “play the time game” with North Korea, adding he doesn’t care if it takes years for the rogue country to denuclearization.
“I don’t want to get into the time game,” Trump said at a press conference in New York as he ended his visit to the United Nations General Assembly. “We’re not playing the time game. If it takes two years, three years or five months, doesn’t matter. There’s no nuclear testing and there’s no testing of rockets.”
The difference: Administration officials have previously said they were aiming for North Korea to take major steps toward denuclearization by the end of Trump’s first term.  In a statement last week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the goal is to have a denuclearization deal by January 2021.  On Monday, though, asked how long it would take to know whether negotiations were working, Pompeo said that “to set a date certain would be foolish.”
On Wednesday, Trump said he told Pompeo not to “get into the time game.”
Pompeo visit: Earlier Wednesday, the State Department announced Pompeo will travel to Pyongyang next month to plan a second summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.  Pompeo accepted invitation from Kim during his Wednesday meeting with North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York.
“Secretary Pompeo accepted Chairman Kim’s invitation to travel to Pyongyang next month to make further progress on the implementation of the commitments from the U.S.-DPRK Singapore summit, including the final, fully verified denuclearization of the DPRK, and to prepare for a second summit between President Trump and Chairman Kim,” State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement, using the acronym for North Korea’s official name.
Military exercises: In his news conference, Trump also touched on the canceled military exercises that a top general said Tuesday has caused a “slight degradation” in readiness.  Critics have slammed Trump for giving North Korea unilateral concessions, including canceling the joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises.  Trump said Wednesday he was looking at canceling the exercises for a while, reiterating his criticism that they were too costly. The Pentagon has said the exercises would have cost about $14 million, a fraction of its $700 billion budget.
“If you asked [Defense Secretary] Gen. [James] Mattis, for a year and a half, I said, ‘Why don’t we stop these ridiculous, in my opinion, the military games,” he said. “Frankly, I told South Korea you should be paying for these games.”

Trump caps UN visit with wild presser

Trump Accuses China of election meddling

Overnight Defense — Presented by Raytheon — Trump caps UN visit with wild presser | Accuses China of election meddling | Pentagon spending bill clears House | Hawks cheer bill | Lawmakers introduce resolution to force Yemen vote

President Trump ended his visit to the United Nations on Wednesday with China in his crosshairs.

At a Security Council meeting that was officially about nonproliferation that Trump said was going to be about Iran, Trump made the biggest headline by accusing China of meddling in the upcoming midterm elections.
Without presenting any evidence, Trump said China was attempting to interfere in the election to prevent Republicans from winning because of Trump’s actions on trade.
“Regrettably, we found that China has been attempting to interfere in our upcoming 2018 election,” Trump said the meeting, which he was chairing. “They do not want me or us to win because I am the first president ever to challenge China on trade.”
Attempting to explain: A senior administration official later told reporters that China is “actively interfering in our political system,” accusing Beijing of trying to use tariffs to hurt farmers in states and districts that voted for Trump.
When pressed on the scope of China’s efforts to meddle in U.S. politics, the official said the activities “go beyond” targeting farming districts with tariffs but offered few details. The official described the activity as “covert” and involving propaganda, cyber activity, and corruption, adding that the administration would share more “over time.”
On Twitter, Trump also highlighted four-page insert in Sunday’s Des Moines Register that a Chinese government-backed media company purchased taking aim at Trump’s trade policies in the corn- and soy-producing state.
China denies: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who sat near Trump at a round table inside the Security Council chamber, later denied the president’s assertions.
“We did not and will not interfere in any country’s domestic affairs. We refuse to accept any unwarranted accusations against China,” Wang said through a translator.
Also from the meeting: In his opening remarks, Trump thanked Iran, Syria and Russia for their “restraint” in Idlib province, even as he warned of impending, “tougher than ever before” sanctions against Tehran.
“I want to thank Iran, Russia and Syria for, at my very strong urging and request, substantially slowing down their attack on Idlib province and the 3 million people who live there in order to get 35,000 targeted terrorists,” Trump said Wednesday, referring to the last rebel stronghold in Syria. “Get the terrorists, but I hope the restraint continues. The world is watching.”
A pending offensive in Idlib province, which many feared would be a bloodbath, has slowed after Moscow made a deal with Turkey for a demilitarized zone around the area.
Trump also continued a trend of flattery toward North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, describing him as “a man I have gotten to know and like” who wants “peace and prosperity” for his country.


Protesters cheer at the Women&#39;s March on Washington during the first full day of Donald Trump&#39;s presidency, Saturday, Jan. 21, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)

 – The Washington Times – Thursday, September 20, 2018


My gosh, but the left has got itself in a tizzy. A desperate tizzy, to be more accurate. A desperate, costly tizzy that pulls out all the funding stops, to be even more accurate.
The money trail is never wrong.
You’ve got George Soros‘ Open Society Policy Center funding the likes of Sixteen Thirty Fund, and then this Sixteen Thirty Fund, as the Daily Caller initially reportedsiphoning off money to a group called Demand Justice aimed at stopping Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. The ties are tough to discern — but they’re there.
Here’s how it’s all linked: Tax filings from Soros’ Open Society Policy Centershow tens of thousands of dollars have been granted to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a 501(C)4 initiative that provides money for left-leaning social and environmental issues. In 2015 tax filings, for instance, the Soros OSPCrevealed it funneled $550,000 to the Sixteen Thirty Fund — an amount that put this initiative at the top 10 of OSPC contributions that year.
In 2018, Demand Justice burst on the scene to “stop Trump’s SCOTUS nominee, Brett Kavanaugh,” as it wrote on its own website. What’s Demand Justice? As the Center for Responsive Politics on its site put it, Demand Justice is a “newer liberal ‘dark money’ group” that “launched a digital ad campaign against Trump’s judicial picks in May 2018.”
Who funds it? Very good question. Key phrase: “dark money.” goes on: “The group announced that it expects to raise $10 million in its first year and spend on digital ad campaigns in the mid-five figures. However, the group’s structure keeps the actual amounts raised and spent hidden. … According to a May 2018 addition to the list of trade names on file with the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, Demand justice was organized by a fiscal sponsor called the Sixteen Thirty Fund.”
Don’t expect much more transparency than that with this Demand Justice group, though.
Demand Justice, because it’s sponsored by Sixteen Thirty Fund, doesn’t have to fill out an IRS Form 990 listing its sources of money. And donors who want to spread their cash to Demand Justice don’t have to reveal they’re giving to Demand Justice — they only have to report donations to the Sixteen Thirty Fund.
But the tie between Soros and the Oppose Kavanaugh At All Costs crowd is there. Want another? Debra Katz, the attorney representing Christine Blasey Ford, a woman accusing Kavanaugh of a high-school era, decades-old sexual attack, is the vice chair of the Project on Government Oversight — which is listed on this same 2015 Form 990 as having received $30,000 from the Soros-tied OSPC the previous year. Interesting, yes?
Here’s one more notable tidbit about Demand Justice: Paige Herwig, currently working as the deputy chief counsel at Demand Justice, served for deputy general counsel for none other than — drumroll please — Sen. Dianne Feinstein, ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, and yes, the same Dianne Feinstein who brought us the famous Ford letter. Herwig says as much on her LinkedIn page; it’s also been reported by Paul Sperry, the previous D.C. bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, on his Twitter page. She worked for Feinstein January 2017-February 2018; she started at Demand Justice this March.

But back to Soros.

The Soros money tie is just one prong on this massive leftist wave aimed at taking down President Donald Trump — taking down Republicans in the midterms — and ultimately, putting a stop to conservative agendas.  Another? GovPredict — which just found that nearly 90 percent of political donations made by Alphabet employees, including those who work for Google, YouTube, Verily and others, have gone, between the years of 2004 and 2018, to Democrats — has a new report on Amazon.
And the findings about political donations are equally interesting.
Since 2004, Amazon employees donated $610,805 to Hillary Clinton; $413,763 to Barack Obama; $128,750 to Democrat Patty Murray; $106,965 to Democrat-Socialist Bernie Sanders; $95,345 to Democrat Maria Cantwell; and $57,098 to Democrat Jay Inslee. Republicans on that list? Mitt Romney received $62,400; Jason Chaffetz, $39,000; and Trump, $17,436.
GovPredict wrote that “310 Amazon employees contributed to Hillary Clinton, 275 contributed to Bernie Sanders, 171 to Barack Obama, 55 to Jay Inslee, 54 to Maria Cantwell, 42 to Patty Murray, and 20 to Mitt Romney. … Trump received $17,436 from 42 contributors.”
Lean left much?
That’s Google; that’s Amazon — two of America’s largest employers. The money trail, once again, speaks volumes.  Then comes this, an announcement from singer-actor John Legend — with more anti-Kavanaugh ties to Team Soros.
“A diverse coalition of social justice organizations today unveiled a new digital ad featuring singer-songwriter actor John Legend that urges viewers to contact their senators and tell them to vote ‘no’ on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh,” a statement from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights read. Interesting that it’s a “digital ad” campaign — the exact type of campaign Demand Justice launched in May to oppose Trump’s court pics, yes?
Anyhow, among the social justice groups that have banded to oppose Kavanaugh are these: The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc. The Human Rights Campaign. Color of Change. The National Urban League. Oh, and Planned Parenthood — listed in 2015 IRS Form 990 filings as the recipient of $1.5 million from the Open Society Policy Center. Color of Change, meanwhile?
This hybrid PAC/Super PAC reported donations in October of 2016 from Soros to the tune of $150,000 and $250,000; in May of 2018 from Soros in the amount of $50,000; and in January of 2018 from Jonathan Soros, George Soros‘ son, in the amount of $5,000.
That’s just a quick glimpse. But it’s George Soros, once again. The money trail, once again.
The numbers, the dollar signs — the sneaky, semi-hidden funding mechanisms for the opposition — speak volumes. And what they’re saying is this: The left is well-funded, well-organized, globally connected, and both intent and bent on pulling out all the stops to stop this president, stop this Supreme Court nomination, and stop conservatism and capitalism and constitutionally based freedom, as we know it, in this country.
It’s a cultural and political clash conservative cannot afford to downplay or ignore.
• Cheryl Chumley can be reached at or on Twitter, @ckchumley.

Foot Note: Christine Blasey Ford’s GOFUNDME account has already topped $$$One Million Dollars, think she is not getting rich on this?


PJTN educates, advocates, and moves to activate Christians, Jews and all people of conscience in building a global community of action and prayer in support of Jews and Israel. We are engaged in winning the ideological, social, moral and spiritual battle for the mind of this generation.
Dr. Laurie Cardoza-Moore is a businesswoman, wife of two-time Emmy Award winning director, Stan Moore, mother of five, founder/President of Proclaiming Justice to The Nations (PJTN) and Special Envoy to the UN for the World Council of Independent Christian Churches (WCICC). As an accomplished veteran of the many facets of ‘media”, Laurie is an award winning producer who has been part of over 500 film and video productions as a spokesperson, actor and/or producer.
Proclaiming Justice to The Nations’ (PJTN) global mission is to educate Christians about their biblical responsibility to stand with their Jewish brethren and all Israel against the rise of anti-Semitism. In her capacity as UN Special Envoy for the WCICC, her main focus is advising Christian Ambassadors, Delegates, NGO’s and staff of their biblical responsibility to stand with Israel at the UN.
Her duties also include addressing human rights abuses against Jewish, Christian and Muslim women and children. In 2012, Laurie initiated a campaign to expose the anti-Semitic, anti-Judeo/Christian, anti-American and anti-Israel propaganda in history, social studies and geography textbooks adopted in Tennessee schools. Her story went global as she appeared on FOX & friends and was featured in articles published in the Washington Times and on, among others.
Her research uncovered the bias and disinformation in many of the textbooks and linked them to the most controversial education initiative in U.S. history, Common Core. As a result, Laurie has been invited to speak in communities across the U.S. to educate and mobilize Christians, Jews and people of conscience to expose this subversive agenda in America’s schools.
Laurie recently received an Honorary Doctorate Degree from the Latin University of Theology for her outstanding mission worldwide and at the UN to educate Christians about their biblical responsibility to the Jewish people and Israel and her biblical teaching about the Hebrew roots of the Christian faith. Additionally, Laurie was ordained as a Deacon with the WCICC in 2015.
With over thirty years experience in private enterprise, grassroots mobilization and community leadership, Laurie is an accomplished advocate who has represented issues related to families, women, children, faith and country.






Trump brushes off laughing UN audience,
doubles down on ‘America First’

President Trump was met with awkward laughter from a U.N. General Assembly audience on Tuesday while boasting of successes under his administration, but brushed off the response as he doubled down on an “America First” agenda at the globalist body.
Trump prompted laughter and gasps from the audience when he claimed that “in less than two years, my administration has accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.”  “I didn’t expect that reaction, but that’s OK,” he chuckled in response.
But as Trump stood in the symbolic heart of global governance, he espoused an unashamedly nationalist doctrine that underscored his administration’s tensions with the U.N.
“We will never surrender American sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable global bureaucracy. America is governed by Americans,” he said. “We reject the ideology of globalism, and we embrace the doctrine of patriotism.”  He later added that “America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination.”
He echoed a similar theme from his 2017 address, when he called on all countries to put their own interests first: “The United States will not tell you how to live, work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”  Trump not only hailed U.S. economic achievements under his leadership, but also achievements on the international stage. He cited developments with North Korea and victories over the Islamic State, and called on the international community to join the U.S. in cracking down on Iran and Syria.
But Trump also warned that he would act only in the interests of the U.S., particularly when it came to funding.“We are only going to give foreign aid to countries who respect us, and frankly, are our friends,” he told the audience, which consisted of a number of world leaders of countries that receive U.S. aid.


Call Out for TNT Reviewers Please read below and respond by writing to tnt.textbook – (Best copy I can put of with their tabled format.

Call Out for TNT Reviewers

Please read below and respond by writing to



Texas State Board of Education Testimony

Truth in Textbooks representatives testified at the Texas State Board of Education on Sept 11 where the SBOE heard testimony on removing items from the  Texas Essential Knowledge Skills.

There were many recommendations that were strongly opposed to by TNT and other groups.  Here are just a few:
1. Removal of the term “Judeo-Christian” from the standards
2. Removal of any references to Moses and the influence of Mosaic law into the forming of America’s legal system
3. Removal of the term “religious” from the list of influences on America’s founding
4. Removal of Arab countries resistance in recognizing Israel as a country as the major contributor to the current Israel-Arab conflict
5. Removal of the term “concept” and replaced with “theory” when it comes to describing “a free market system”
6. Removal of any references to the Verona Papers related to the McCarthy hearings in the 50’s
7. Removal of the identifying Taiwan and replacing it with the term that the Chinese have forced countries/companies to use, Republic of China (Taiwan). 
8.  Removal of multiple Founding Fathers that have been traditionally taught to students. 
9. Removal of the term “heroic” in Texas history books when discussing the men of the Alamo. 
10. Removal of the term “identify the positives and negative effects of cultural diffusion” (this allows multiculturalism to go unchallenged)
….and much more.  
Over 60 individuals testified during the hearing. Many progressive groups were represented speaking in support of some of the changes that would remove all references to Christianity. 
I’m pleased to report that so far the items addressed by TNT and other conservative groups may survive this first review and the items that were to be removed will remain…at this time.   
The SBOE is making changes to the proposed changes (adding back items that were removed) and will have one more public hearing on November 13 before any permanent changes are made. 
TNT will continue to monitor this and ask for support in making sure items of interest remain within the TEKS. 
 With Texas textbooks being purchased by other states, this victory will benefit children in many other states that choose Texas textbooks as their standard in the future.

Lt Col (ret) Roy White, President/Founder
Truth in Textbooks
Boerne, TX

Florida Seeking Help – Please Respond


TNT  will be reviewing 5 social studies textbooks covering elementary school social studies, middle school U.S. History, world history, u.s. government, and High School U.S. History.   

We need 20-25 reviewers to begin reviewing the online books.  We would hope to begin the review by the end of September and will complete the reviews by the end of October.   

If you are hesitant to sign up because you haven’t reviewed textbooks for awhile or are afraid you have forgotten our procedures, the information below will allow you to review the TNT protocols and regain your currency and familiarity via YouTube videos with how to conduct the training.  

TNT is providing the Florida Citizens Alliance with this information in order to push back against the progressive agenda found in many of these textbooks.  Because of past efforts, a lawsuit has been brought against one of the Florida school districts for failing to abide by Florida state standards.  Without the effort of past TNT reviewers, this would not be happening.    

If you can help out, please email and indicate your particular area of interest and we will send out a Basecamp invitation to get everyone organized.   

Exciting News – Truth in Textbooks Moves Training to YouTube 

TNT is excited to announce a new training regime that will allow volunteers to complete their training in a far more efficient and expeditious manner. 

If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, this video will tell you how.  

 Click the YouTube video below.    

 TNT has been training volunteers as textbook reviewers since 2014 using conference calls primarily with assigned readings between each call.  

These conference calls occurred over a period of 2 months which stretched out the training which led to many people dropping out.

Audio problems, inevitable technical problems along with scheduling issues such as availability (along with my flying schedule)  added to the frustration felt by some. It was less than perfect but it was all that we had.  

Thanks to Dr Alfonsi who traveled to Texas earlier this month to record the videos, a series of 18 YouTube training sessions totaling a little under 5 1/2 hrs of instruction, TNT is now happy to rollout this training. 

At the conclusion of the self-paced training each person will still conduct a “mock review” as has been our practice in the past which will consist of 4 weeks. This will allow persons to condense the training from the previous 3 months to as little as 5 weeks or less!
We believe the quality of the training is superior to what was done before so we urge you to share this video with your friends who maybe interested.  Overview and FAQ about Truth in Textbooks (click on)   


If you attended any our training in the past and are considering volunteering again in the near future, please consider writing to TNT at to request the list of video links to the training.  This list is only available to those who have gone through the training previously so please indicate in your email when you attended training.    

We apologize for the delay in getting back to those who have expressed interest in becoming a volunteer or who wanted to start training in July.   We will be in touch with you personally and will send you the first link to begin the training.  You do not need to complete another survey to start your training.   


Public Schools Giving Children Access To Hardcore Porn

Thousands of government schools across America are giving children direct access to hard-core pornographic images and content through a third-party vendor, sparking outrage among parents. But more than a year after the scandal first erupted surrounding giving porn to kids, just one public school out of thousands has put a stop to it, according to WND.
The firm in question, EBSCO Information Services, has been pumping graphic porn into schools across America — material that includes “group, anal, public, and BDSM sex,” according to the National Center on Sexual Exploitation. Listing EBSCO on its sexual-exploitation “Dirty Dozen List,” the watchdog group accused the company of helping “normalize sexual violence.”
One of the problematic examples depicted the rape of a woman using the barrel of a gun, the NCSE said. The material includes promotion of homosexuality, homosexual pornography, information on “sex toys,” instructions on how to have oral, anal, and vaginal sex, masturbation, and more. “Just say yes,” reads the headline on one of the pages urging pre-pubescent children to engage in sodomy. One page encourages children to insert vegetables or fists into each others’ orifices, tie each other up, and cross-dress.


Children as young as 10- and 11-year old middle school students were exposed to the filthy, perverted, and demented sexual content, screenshots captured by parents and activists confirmed. Parents, by contrast, were barred from inspecting it. “The material is omitted from the parents’ accounts and is only available through the children’s’ accounts,” explained Mass Resistance, a pro-family group that helped expose the obscene material being pumped into government middle schools.
And this is hardly an isolated phenomenon — it has been happening in government schools across America. Indeed, some 55,000 schools are confirmed as working with the obscenity-peddling company, according to watchdogs. All of it is potentially in violation of criminals laws prohibiting the provision of obscene materials to children.
Under pressure from parents and the Thomas More Society, though, at least one district, the Denver-area Cherry Creek School District, has officially stopped giving this filth to children. That leaves many thousands of schools all over the country that continue to maintain some sort of relationship with the company providing porn and promoting perversion to youngsters.
Parents are deeply misinformed if they think they can trust the government schools with the care and protection of their children. In fact, instead of protecting the children, government schools are doing everything possible to deliberately sexualize them and indoctrinate them, with catastrophic consequences for the individuals and society at large. This is criminal. It should not be tolerated.


         The Liberal Democrat Party (AKA The New American Progressive Socialist Party)

By Capt Joseph R. John, September 24, 2018: Op Ed # 403
The below listed1944 quote by the 6 time Presidential candidate of the Socialist Party of America, Norman Thomas, is an accurate prediction that today’s Liberal Democratic Party (AKA The American Progressive Socialist Party) will support Socialism:
 “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism.  But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist Program, until one day, America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.  I no longer need to run for the Socialist Party of America, the Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” 
 Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson would not recognize the actions, policies, and leadership of the once honorable Patriotic Democrat Party.  Today’s Democrat Party leaders do not support the US Free Enterprise System, that built the most effective economic engine in the history of mankind, nor do they support a Republic governed by the US Constitution. The Democratic Party has  been compromised by radical zealots who support a “Progressive” Marxist philosophy; they’ve taken control as explained below.  
 In the 2000 Presidential election campaign, a coalition of Radical Leftists, “Progressives”, Socialists, Marxists, Communists,  and Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups, who do not support or protect the US Constitution, joined forces to defeat Texas Governor George Bush; they were unsuccessful in a hard fought campaign, the conflicts that resulted in that campaign linger to this day.
 Americans must be informed who “Progressives” are.  The “Progressive” philosophy was created in the 1840s  by Karl Marx and German Philosopher George Wilhelm Hegel.  Their “Progressive” Marxist philosophy can be summarized by a simple statement “Everything is formed by the process of change.”  Since the 1960s, left leaning public schools teachers and radical college professors, have adopted the “Progressive” Marxist philosophy, and  have been indoctrinating their immature American students in Marxism. 
 Radical teachers and professors have been seeding doubt in the minds of American students about the relevance the 231 year old US Constitution.  By teaching students that although the US Constitution was compatible and relevant to govern when adopted by Congress 231 years ago, but because it has remained relatively unchanged since 1787, with only 27 Amendments, it has not been in “the process of change” to remain effective, “Progressives” believe the US Constitution is no longer current to bed able  to govern the United States.  
 Public School teachers and college professors, who identify themselves as “Progressives”, have been teaching students, that the US Constitution is no longer relevant and current to govern; they encourage their students to accept Socialism.   Socialism is an economic system where everyone in the society equally owns the factors of production; it promotes support for the collective.  Socialism does not promote individual success, or the “Inalienable right of man” that the Founding Fathers emphasized in the US Constitution, and gave  to posterity.  “Progressives” don’t support being governed by the US Constitution, they support Socialism and the Marxist philosophy.    
 In the 2004 Presidential election campaign, that same 2000 radical left coalition, strengthened by many more student who had been indoctrinated in the “Progressives” Marxist philosophy, by support from La Raza, the Socialists Party of America, and financial support of George Soros’ Pro-Communist “Open Society Foundation”; they again tried to defeat President George Bush, but they fell short.   
 In 2008 Presidential election campaign, the same 2004  radical left coalition that tried to unseat President Bush in 2004, was further strengthened by the Weatherman Underground, Black Lives Matter, Micha, the Revolution Communist Party, the New Black Panther Party, the Nation of Islam, Answer, Antifa, The World Workers Party, the National Action Network, Any Means Necessary, Act Blue, Casa de Maryland, Ultra Violet, Color of Change, Indivisible, SIEU, and the Progressive Unity Fund.  Five days  prior to Barrack Hussein Obama’s election, he said “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
 For 8 years, the left of center liberal media establishment, covered up the Obama administration’s “Progressive” Marist philosophy, and the hid the makeup of the radical left coalition that elected Obama’s  from American citizens.  The liberal media establishment promoted the “Progressives” Marxist philosophy, as an forward thinking philosophy, only designed to improve government. 
 Immigrations Laws passed by Congress weren’t enforced, the Social Experiment On Diversity weakened the “Combat Effectiveness” of the US Armed Forces, revised fake US History books were required to be used in the “Progressive” Common Core curriculum in order to obtain educational financial aid to the states from DOE, new & dangerous Rules Of Engagement resulted in heavy casualties in Afghanistan, heavy taxes coupled with new oppressive business & environmental  regulation crippled the economy, oppressive identity policies divided Americans by races, religion, and gender, law enforcement officers was repeatedly vilified and attacked.
 The same coalition that re-elected Obama in 2012, campaigned for Hillary in 2016.  That radical leftist coalition was joined by Obama’s “Organization For Action”.  Millions of millennials who had been indoctrinated in the “Progressive” Marxist philosophy, cast more votes in the 2016 primary elections for the Bernie Sander’s Socialist campaign, than for the combined Clinton Democrat and the Trump Republican Campaigns.  The “Progressive” Marxist indoctrination that continues in public schools and colleges today, is projected to result in increased millenniums support for Socialist candidates in the 2018 midterm elections, their numbers will increase in 2020.  
 Over the last 25 years, the left of center liberal media establishment has covered up the dramatic shift in the Liberal Democrat Party to the left, and how it was being aggressively radicalized by Leftist and Marxists inserted in the Democrat Central Committee during the 8 years of the Obama administration, and how the “Progressive” Marxist philosophy was instilled and adopted by the Democrat Party.
 Obama selected Tom Perez as Chairman, and Congressman  Keith Ellison (D-MN) as Deputy Chairman of the Democratic Central Committee.  They are both radical Anti-Semitic, Pro-Muslim Brotherhood, and “Progressive” Marxists party leaders.  By selecting Perez and Ellison, Obama put the Constitutional Republic under siege “Within The Wire”, and continued to drive the Democratic Party toward Socialism, knowing that Socialism is Marxist inspired, and that for over 100 years, Socialism has never worked in any country.
 Tom Perez was Obama’s radical left Labor Secretary.  He has a long history of anti-white views, including making the declaration that “White people should not be entitled to protection under the Voting Rights Act.” Perez was the longtime leader of Cas de Maryland, a militant Communist, pro-Illegal Alien rights group.  When Perez was the leader of Casa de Maryland, Hugo Chavez, the Communist President of Venezuela, and protege of Fidel Castro, was sending Perez $1 million each year, while directing Perez to use those funds to keep the US Southern Border wide open, to allow Iranian Terrorists, and Cubans & Venezuela Communists to enter with Illegal Aliens.
 Tom Perez previously served as Assistant Attorney General, under Attorney General Eric Holder.  In 2008, he dropped charges filed against New Black Panther Party thugs, armed with clubs, who were intimidating white voters trying to cast ballots in Philadelphia.  He supported Holder’s policies of refusing to enforce US Immigrations Laws.  In the “Fast and Furious Operation”, he supported Holder’s massive illegal sale of weapons to Mexican Drug cartels, resulting in the murder of US Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.  Perez supported Holder’s refusal to allow an investigation of massive voter fraud charges that were filed during the 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections.  Those actions, led Congress to vote Holder, as the first Attorney General in 240 years, to be held “In Contempt of Congress.”
 Ambassador Armand Valladares, the former US Ambassador to the UN for Human Rights, identified Perez as a racist who hates the Bible, and is Anti-Semitic.  He stated that Perez’s goals are to destroy the US Free Enterprise System, the Christian Society of the US, and wants to turn the US into a Marxist nation. 
 Six term Cong Keith Ellison, the Deputy Chairman of the Democratic National Committee is Anti-Semitic, Pro-Muslim Brotherhood, has been openly supporting  ANTIFA on the Internet, and is a member of the Nation of Islam; he is currently running for Attorney General of Minnesota.  As a member of the Muslim faith, Ellison believes in Shariah Law, and stated that he does not respect the US Constitution, because “Its wording was inspired by the Bible.”  For many years, Ellison has been working very closely with Louis Farrakhan, the rabid Anti-Semitic and anti-white leader of the Nation of Islam.  For over 10 years, Ellison has been closely associated with CAIR and The Muslim Brotherhood International Terrorist Organization; they paid for Ellison’s pilgrimage to Mecca in 2008.
 Ellison declared himself a supporter, ally, and defender of Communist Terrorists,  He organized a fundraising event for Communist Terrorist, Sara Jane Olson, a member of the Communist Movement, Symbionese Liberation Army.  Ellison defends Joanne Chesimard (AKA Assata Shakur), who is wanted by the FBI for murdering a police officer, and is is currently opposing extradition from her safe haven in Communist Cuba.  For many years, Ellison has been close to the Communist Party USA—even holding fundraising events in the home of Erwin Marquit, The Chairman of Minnesota’s Communist Party.  
 The Democrat Party continues to ignore and refuses to investigate live-in girlfriend, Karen Monahan’s, repeated accusation that Ellison sexually harassed and physically assaulted her, over a 2 year period.  Karen’s son, Austin Monahan, wrote on a Facebook Post that Ellison abused his “mama”, and that he watched a video of Ellison dragging his mother out of bed by her feet, screaming and calling her a F______ Bitch, and telling her to get the F___ out of his house. 
 The refusal by Democrat Party to investigate Ellison assaults is an example of the Democrat Party’s double faced approach to sexual abuse.  Compare it with the 36 year old groping allegation against Judge Kavanaugh by a Resist Trump Activist photographed in a pink hat during one of her many Never Trump street demonstrations.  She said the groping happened in an unknown location, on an unknown date, in an unknown year, and said there were 4 witnesses, who all said it never happened at all.
 Ambassador Valladares stated that “The  two leaders of the Democrat National Committee are both racist, Anti-Semitic, ignore the US Constitution, and ignore the US History.”  Ambassador Valladares said “They both have been allies of terrorists movements,  They have shared the hatred for the United States and its laws.  They complement each other in their hatred of the Bible.”  Ambassador Valladares said, “They wish to sweep away this American society, with ideological  street mobs, terrorists, communists, radical Muslims, and the scum of the country, whose goal it is to destroy the nation; with the complicit silence of the former Democrat Party leaders, they took possession of the party.”
 Prior to the 2012 Presidential campaign to re-elect Obama, for the first time in history, Perez and Ellison took “God” out of the Democrat Party Platform.  Perez and Ellison have been colluding with “Progressives”, Leftists, Socialists, Marxists, Communists, and the Muslim Brotherhood International Terrorist to oppose the Judeo/Christian philosophies, upon which the Republic was founded.  They degrade family values, and have been aggressively promoting the initiative to eliminate the gender of children on birth certificates. 
 Today’s Democrat Party is not the same Democrat Party of members of the Greatest Generation, or of my father and grandfather, it is strongly Socialist—-much worse,  If the Democrats take control of Congress, they would assault some basic liberties given to Americans for posterity by the Founding Fathers, liberties that are unique and vital to the survival and good order of the Republic,  like support for the 2nd Amendment, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, The Free Enterprise System, closing the wide open Southern Border, Congress to actually obey the laws it passed, the American Flag and the Pledge of Allegiance, funding a budget to rebuild the hollowed out US Armed Forces, Freedom of Speech (not for Political Correctness), voter IDs to defeat massive voter fraud, etc. 
 Approximately 80 members of the 435 member House of Representative have formed a “Progressive” Democrat Caucus,  founded in 1991 by Bernie Sanders.  When the Pledge of Allegiance is supposed to be recited in Congress by all 435 members, the members of the “Progressive” Democrat Caucus  refuse to rise and participate in the Pledge.  There are plenty of photos on the Internet showing them sitting, while hundreds of members of Congress are standing with their right hands over their hearts reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
 The Democrat Party has moved dangerously to the far left in support of Socialism and Marxism.  If the Democrat Party (AKA the New American Progressive Socialist Party) takes control of Congress in the 2018 midterm election, Perez, Ellison, Pelosi, Schumer, Obama, and Valerie Jarret, will continue to try to “Fundamentally transform the United States of America” to a “Progressive” Marxist Socialist State, while trying to accomplish their oft repeated threat to impeach of President Donald J. Trump.
 All Americans who care about  the stability of Republic must vote against the election of radical “Progressive” Marxist candidates.
 Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John.  All Rights Reserved.  The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author.  It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author   


Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt    USNR(Ret)/Former FBI

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108


Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8


People Nowadays

This eye-opening video about our addiction to the Internet might just leave you speechless. I make my living on the Internet and for that reason, I try to limit the time that I spend online because I realize after a certain point it becomes a mindless activity. I can promise you that life does exist if you aren’t checking your phone every fifteen minutes for the latest updates or sitting in front of your computer all day long. My advice would be to step away from your Device of Delusion and get outside where you can Live, Love, Laugh, and Enjoy Life!




John Nelson -
Bob Gilmore
Dick Fankhauser