Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Archive for the ‘Opinion’ Category

OPINION: Here’s What Tolerance For Sexual Deviancy Has Reaped


Last Sunday on Fox News’ “The Next Revolution,” referencing the effluvia of slander and histrionics being doled out by prominent leftists, host Steve Hilton stated that the Washington, D.C., political and media establishment have “lost their minds.”

While this may sound like hyperbole, some of the rhetoric coming from the left does have elements of clinical insanity. The insistence on the part of prominent Democrats that President Donald Trump colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election despite having been cleared of this charge certainly qualifies. Claims that restrictions on abortion being considered in some states will kill black women (an abject fallacy in itself) whilst ignoring the black babies being killed by abortion in the absence of such measures also qualifies.

The most bizarre and incoherent ideas currently being advanced by the left have to do with gender. Only 20 years ago, the idea of same-sex “marriage” was considered ridiculous by a majority of Americans. Similarly, biological males competing in sporting events as females would have been considered not only absurd, but grossly unfair to biologically female athletes.

Today, these “institutions” are practically commonplace, and they’ve become so largely because those who considered them ridiculous remained silent rather than being labeled as bigots.

The most recent incarnation of the left’s efforts to promote sexual ambivalence has to do with the nature of gender itself. Not only does a segment of the tiny but extremely vocal LGBTQ lobby advocate for biological males and females being able to “choose” a preferred gender with which to identify, this bunch also contends that there are multitudes of genders, perhaps even hundreds.

Who knew?

I remember quite well during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s and ’70s, when the political left was pushing sexual permissiveness with all the urgency of avoiding the next planetary extinction-level event, catty, mincing liberals accused those who resisted going along with the program of being prudes. As far as they were concerned, a prude was just as bad as a segregationist – and if you ran afoul of their budding doctrine, they certainly let you know it.

Also during this period, court cases and discussions in the public square arose with regard to how these “new sensibilities” would be represented in media and education. Oh, the controversy over sex ed in schools! Many will recall the liberal argument that sexual function and reproduction were “only knowledge,” and that keeping this valuable knowledge from our youth was simply wrong. Further, that argument added that an ignorance of sexuality and reproduction would lead to young people getting into trouble should they become sexually active.

There was a great deal of concern about sexuality being represented in films and TV, and particularly its effect on children, as well as concern over the proliferation of pornography and its effects on society at large.

In November of 1968, the first voluntary Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) film rating system took effect, not so much because the public was concerned about sexual content in movies, but because the MPAA brass deemed the Hays code (in place since 1930) archaic. Movie makers had been increasingly pushing the envelope in this area anyway; the new ratings code actually gave filmmakers more license to produce explicit material.

While millions of Americans possessing traditional values were alarmed at these emergent sensibilities, there was a certain congruity in the disposition of courts and regulatory agencies, which decided that if a segment of the population wished to expose themselves to smut, it was not the role of the Christian majority or those or secular folks who held to traditional values to dictate mores to them.

Unfortunately, like our Constitution itself, this has become a double-edged sword. Fast-forward 50 years and any child with a computer, tablet or smartphone can navigate to the most aberrant and disgusting pornographic fare ever conceived. American consumers are hard-pressed to find movie and TV offerings that do not aggressively promote leftist sexual orthodoxy, and even TV shows featuring comic book superheroes are peppered with gratuitous pro-LGBTQ messages.

As is occurring today, back in the ’60s and ’70s, the perceived “rights” of individuals to engage in sexually deviant behavior superseded any consideration of how propagating sexually deviant behavior might impact society at large.

Well, at this point, I think that the jury is in, and it’s apparent that we’ve pretty much screwed ourselves (pun intended).

An interesting perspective comes from Christine Caine, an Australian activist who has firsthand experience with sexual abuse and trauma. Caine founded A21, a global anti-trafficking organization that operates in 15 countries and aids in prosecuting sex traffickers and rescuing victims.

Now, one could claim that the increasing incidence of sex trafficking, especially that involving children, has nothing whatsoever to do with the phenomenon of an increasing sexual permissiveness in Western culture – but I think that most reading this will know better. Ms. Caine asserts that the proliferation of pornography and other sexually ambivalent materials has fueled human trafficking, and I tend to agree. We’re human beings, and, by our nature, the only ones who’ll find themselves immune to morally ambivalent materials of any kind are those who do not partake in them.

So, we have confirmation that the atmosphere of sexual permissiveness we’ve cultivated has severely compromised us culturally. Also, we can now see that the left (via the LGBTQ lobby) has no intention of exhibiting the same tolerance to people who hold traditional values as was shown them. Indeed, having been extended an olive branch, they continue to cry “oppression” amidst calls for traditional values to be relegated to criminal status.

So much for tolerance.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR/COMMENTATOR:

Erik Rush

Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who writes sociopolitical commentary, and host of the FULL-CONTACT With Erik Rush LIVE! streaming radio show. He is also the Founder and Chief Editor of the Instigator News Network. In February of 2007, Erik was the first to break the story of Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level. His book, “Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal ~ America’s Racial Obsession,” has been called “the definitive book on race politics in America.”

Is The President Causing Hate Crimes?


Written by Allan Erickson on April 30, 2019

Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson says President Trump’s rhetoric is hateful, causing violence, resulting in an increase in hate crimes.

Eugene wrote a brilliant column right after 9/11, but haven’t seen the like since.

This President is a fighter. He is tough. Playing to win is in his DNA. He took on this responsibility and he is serious about restoring the country to greatness, saving it from the malaise of the Obama years. In order to take on and prevail against the vast forces marshaled against him (Democrats, Leftists, Communists, Jihadists, assorted anti-Americans, and the MSM) he has to confront every lie and every attack, head on.

He believes, as do about half the voters, that this country will go under unless we fight hard to restore some measure of traditional values and founding principles of the Republic.

I for one am glad we have a fighter in the White House. I’m glad he is keeping our enemies off balance, redoing trade deals, aggressively fighting the war on terror, doing all he can to secure the border, stoking the economy, and putting an end to various collectivist schemes as well as the tiresome and counterproductive apology tours.

People who criticize him for being aggressive are just looking for a way to undermine him and that is because he is so successful it irks them no end.

Eugene and others never said boo when Obama was talking about bringing a gun to knife fight and other such nonsense. Nobody objected when he urged people to get up in our faces. Did you ever hear a Democrat complain when Obama encouraged street demonstrations based on lies, goading BLM and ignoring the resulting violence? But now, some flimsy allegation about hate crime increases is sufficient to attack this President as an instigator. BS.

The vicious Left never relents and now an aggressive conservative is beating them at their own game without being vicious and all they can do is double down on viciousness. Not smart. Not effective. Not acceptable.

ABOUT THE AUTHTOR:
Allan Erickson

Allan Erickson—Christian, husband, father, journalist, businessman, screenwriter and author of The Cross & the Constitution in the Age of Incoherence, Tate Publishing, 2012, serves on the board of http://www.RestoreAmerica.org. He is available to speak in churches addressing the topics of faith and freedom. Register & Vote! Contact: allanlerickson@gmail.com

This Weeks Ann Coulter Letter: Hold the Pulitzers


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 27, 2019 7:27 PM

Hold the PulitzersSource: AP Photo/Chris Pizzello
The only people surprised that the special counsel’s investigation of Russian collusion did not confirm a lunatic conspiracy theory are consumers of the modern American media. For two years, our constitutionally protected guardians of the truth put out a stream of misinformation, promising viewers that Robert Mueller was going to reverse the outcome of the 2016 election.

Everyone at fake news MSNBC, marginally less fake news NBC, and totally fake news CNN — hosts, guests, legal experts and national security analysts — should be told, Clean out your lockers. Put all your things in cardboard cartons. If you need to go back, you will be escorted by security.

Instead, they are adamantly refusing to take back their years of lies about Trump and Russian collusion. This is not a time to let bygones by bygones. The boot should not be lifted from the media’s throat.

In case you’ve forgotten what needs to be taken back, here is a random selection, from a single network for simplicity:

“Hi Nicolle, and if it is Monday, the Russian conspiracy is so much worse than we knew … The Russian conspiracy to help get Donald Trump elected was apparently wider, deeper, dirtier, more sophisticated and more pervasive than we thought.”

— Katy Tur, MSNBC, Dec. 17, 2018

“Well, this demonstrates that Robert Mueller is focusing on exactly what he is supposed to be focusing on, and that is Russia … We already have clear evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russian agents.”

— Richard Painter, lawyer, MSNBC, May 1, 2018

“You see all of these Russian connections — there’s a new one every single day, and increasingly benign explanations for what the Trump, for what they’re up to, benign explanations are just not credible.”

“We have the most immoral president perhaps in American history particularly because of the foreign influence of Russia … it is hard to believe that a prosecutor of Mueller’s testing and experience would come to the end of this and not have something to say about these terrible offenses.”

— John Flannery, lawyer, MSNBC, March 18, 2019

“I’ll tell you something, if (Russia’s ‘inside man’ is) not George Papadopoulos, then we’ve got a mystery person inside the Trump campaign who theoretically could still be in place.”

— Frank Figliuzzi, former assistant director for counterintelligence, FBI, MSNBC, Jan. 9, 2018

“I believe that what we have here is a very broad-based criminal conspiracy. … And Donald Trump is a walking example of how any intelligence officer can turn someone against their own nation. As John Brennan said, most of the time, they don’t even know that they’re committing treason.”

— Malcolm Nance, counterterrorism intel analyst, MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2018

“This is the linkage between Donald Trump and Russia in crimes.”

— Jill Wine-Banks, assistant Watergate prosecutor, MSNBC, Dec. 7, 2018

“It’s going to be so clear that this has been a criminal enterprise from day one with the Russians and Trump …”

— Rep. Steve Cohen, MSNBC, Dec. 7, 2018

“Were these gun rights folks potentially a conduit for Russian money alongside other forms of Russian government influence on our 2016 campaign?”

— Rachel Maddow, MSNBC, July 25, 2018

“And what about Trump’s ring leadership of his people, including family members and their efforts to win this award of a foreign power, Russia, to win the presidency?”

— Chris Matthews, MSNBC, March 8, 2019

“And the Russians’ investment in (Trump) goes back decades. … It may have been the situation where (Trump) decided, look, what Russia is giving us in terms of political help here and undermining Hillary Clinton’s candidacy may be way bigger than any deal we could ever get in Russia.”

— Natasha Bertrand, The Atlantic, MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2018

“So, with this whole real estate deal and the claws that the Russians had into (Cohen), and what he was doing with that in terms of dealing with the Russians was all part and parcel of this conspiracy that resulted in their assistance in the campaign.”

— Nick Akerman, assistant Watergate prosecutor, MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2018

“An American president who has been compromised by the Russians faces the world.”

— Chris Hayes, MSNBC, Nov. 30, 2018

 

Political Arrogance And Stupidity Go Hand In Hand


Written by Bill Thomas on March 19, 2019

Albert Einstein once said, ‘Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.’ There have been so many stupid acts and comments made in the past week in the world of politics, that it makes you wonder about the future of humanity.

Leen Dweik, a college student at NYU, and NYU senior Rose Asaf confronted Chelsea Clinton at a vigil for the fifty Muslims killed in an attack on a New Zealand mosque and accused her of being a cause of the massacre because she criticized an anti-Semitic tweet by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN).

In an essay in BuzzFeed published March 16, 2019, the two of them wrote, ‘Just weeks before this tragedy, we bore witness to a bigoted, anti-Muslim mob coming after Rep. Ilhan Omar for speaking the truth about the massive influence of the Israel lobby in this country.’

So, let’s not misunderstand. The two college students have a 100% monopoly on what’s right. Rep. Omar’s remarks were ‘truth’ and Clinton’s comments ‘fanned the flames of bigotry.’ I’m rarely a defender of Chelsea Clinton, but this arrogance is mind-blowing. This is the method, though, of the new Democrat party. They are all about intimidation, bullying and believing that they are one hundred percent right and the rest of us are just ignorant and wrong.

We see it with former Vice President Joe Biden. On February 28, 2019, in Omaha, NE, Biden referred to current Vice President Mike Pence as a ‘decent guy’ in a speech. The thought police on the Left rained down mercilessly on the former vice-president. Among them was actress and activist, Cynthia Nixon, who tweeted, ‘.@JoeBiden you’ve just called America’s most anti-LGBT elected leader ‘a decent guy.’ Please consider how this fall on the ears of our community.’

What did Joe do? He did what all good Democrats today do. He apologized. ‘You’re right, Cynthia… there is nothing decent about being anti-LGBTQ rights, and that includes the Vice President.’ Biden has to repent at the altar of the new Democrats. There’s no room for a variety of opinions. You must hate those you’re told to hate.

Not to be outdone in the arrogance and intimidation department, we see Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI). In an interview that aired on March 10, 2019, she said, ‘I know this will be somewhat shocking for some, but I think Islamophobia is very much among the Democratic Party as well as the Republican Party.’

Rep. Tlaib believes that the Democrats and Republicans are bigoted against Muslims. It’s hard for me to wrap my mind around the gall that it takes to accuse both major parties in the freest land in the world to be bigoted against a group of people.

It wasn’t the United States that detained the Muslim population. That was China. It isn’t the United States that is at the bottom of nations who mistreat women. According to USA Today, November 29, 2014, that would be the Islamic nation of Yemen. In what country can three Muslim individuals be elected to represent constituencies in the most powerful halls of debate and ideas? Only in the United States.

Just to refresh your memory, Tlaib is the freshman congresswoman who, hours upon being sworn in, vowed to impeach the president using vile curse words. She is not so much interested in fairness or equality. She is part of the new Democrat party whose motto is ‘my way or no way.’ She believes her ideas are right and, if you disagree, you’re wrong.

Not wanting to be left out, the deep state decided to unveil some arrogant stupidity as well. Quin Hillyer, in the Washington Examiner on March 13, 2019, reported, ‘Newly released testimony by disgraced FBI attorney Lisa Page makes former U.S. attorney general Loretta Lynch look blatantly dishonest and makes her infamous ‘tarmac meeting’ with former president Bill Clinton look even sleazier than it already had.’

Hillyer continues, Specifically, despite sworn assurances to the contrary from Lynch, Page testified that Department of Justice officials repeatedly dissuaded the FBI from building a criminal case against Clinton for ‘gross negligence’ in her handling of classified information.’

Let’s understand here. The Obama Department of Justice prevented the FBI from a criminal case against Hillary Clinton, is that right? Even before it was popular, the Obama administration Democrats practiced the art of ‘we’re never wrong.’

The New Democrats are signaling clearly who they are. They are about bullying into submission those that disagree with them. They are convinced that they, and they alone, are one hundred percent right. If you disagree, you’re a bigot or just stupid. They are about hating the right people and they never, ever admit to doing wrong. They believe they’re above it.

That’s who’s opposing us in 2020.

Bill Thomas

Bill Thomas lives in Washington, Missouri and has been in local church ministry for over twenty-five years. He is also an adjunct instructor in history, Bible and education for two different Christian colleges. He’s authored two novellas, From the Ashes and The Sixty-first Minute published by White Feather Press of MI and three Bible studies, Surrounded by Grace, The Critical Questions and More and The Road to Victory published by CSS Publishing of OH.

Media Magic: How a Democrat Pedophile Became a ‘Trump Scandal’


Commentary by: Ann Coulter | Posted: Mar 06, 2019 6:17 PM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com of WhatDidYouSay.org.
Media Magic: How a Democrat Pedophile Became a 'Trump Scandal'

Source: AP Photo/Palm Beach Post, Uma Sanghvi, File

Strangely, the media have suddenly taken an intense interest in the case of pedophile and major Democratic donor Jeffrey Epstein.

In 2005, the Palm Beach police were told by the mother of a young girl in West Palm Beach that her daughter had been brought to the Democratic donor’s mansion and asked to have sex with him for money. This kicked off an intensive, one-year undercover investigation.

The police sifted through Epstein’s garbage and interviewed 17 witnesses, including the housemen, who told of sex toys and dildos left behind after the underage girls left. One of Epstein’s procurers, a 20-year-old local woman named Haley Robson, who was paid $200 for every teenaged girl she brought to Jeffrey, was cooperating with police, telling them she was like “Heidi Fleiss.” They obtained statements from five of Epstein’s young victims, who said they’d been paid $200 to $300 to engage in various sex acts with him. Police raided Epstein’s home, finding explicit photographs of teenaged girls, incriminating phone records — and one girl’s high school transcript.

But when the police chief brought this mountain of evidence to Palm Beach County’s Democratic prosecutor Barry Krischer, he punted, charging the Democrat child molester with only one count of soliciting prostitution — yes, the child victims were labeled “prostitutes” — and offered Epstein probation.

Perhaps Krischer was exhausted, having just spent three years hounding Rush Limbaugh for abusing back pain medication.

Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter exploded in rage. (Meanwhile, Epstein claimed to be the victim of an anti-Semitic conspiracy on Palm Beach.) Chief Reiter wrote an open letter to Krischer asking the Democrat to remove himself from the case. Then he turned to the Bush administration to seek justice against a Democratic donor/accused child rapist.

As stories go, a child sex case involving a Palm Beach billionaire was pretty big. It was covered in the British press, in Florida media, at The New York Post and at Fox News. Bill O’Reilly led with the story on his Fox News show. But CNN and MSNBC did not breathe a word about a Democratic prosecutor refusing to hold a Democratic child rapist accountable.

Epstein had given more than $145,000 to Democratic candidates and causes, including Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. He was a big Israel backer. Bill Clinton and Democratic activist Ron Burkle were frequent guests on Epstein’s private plane, dubbed the “Lolita Express.” And Krischer was a hero for his dogged pursuit of Rush Limbaugh! Why bring up all this unpleasantness?

Thanks to Chief Reiter, President Bush’s U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alex Acosta, did take the case, despite the fact that only Epstein’s child rapes on his plane, on his private island or with girls brought across state lines would make it a federal case.

As a result of the (Republican-led) federal investigation, Epstein was finally required to plead guilty to two state felony charges, accept a sentence of two years in prison, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to his victims.

Still no coverage by MSNBC or CNN.

Inasmuch as Epstein was pleading guilty to a state charge, the matter of his confinement was out of the U.S. attorney’s hands. It was Democratic county prison officials — not the feds — who placed Epstein in a private wing of the county jail and allowed him to spend 12 hours a day, six days a week at his Palm Beach mansion throughout his 13-month “imprisonment.”

In 2014, the brilliant conservative lawyer Paul Cassell and Bradley Edwards brought suit against the federal prosecutors for violating the Crime Victims’ Rights Act in the Epstein case.

As bad as the U.S. attorney’s office was, at least it did something. Democrat Krischer gave Epstein a walk. But no matter how appalling Krischer’s behavior was, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act only applies to federal prosecutions.

When Cassell and Edwards filed their case, they included the claims of various Epstein victims, who reported that the men at “Orgy Island,” where underage girls were being used as “sex slaves,” included Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew.

CNN gave extensive coverage to the celebrity-filled allegations, inviting Dershowitz on to defend himself and lavishing attention on the irrelevant prince. Amazingly, but characteristically, not once did CNN mention that Bill Clinton was named in the pleadings.

Only one show on MSNBC, “All In With Chris Hayes,” so much as acknowledged the bombshell case, also without letting on that Clinton had been named as a frequent Epstein guest by the child victims.

But recently, the very news outlets that spiked any news about this case for the past 13 years are suddenly hot on the trail of Jeffrey Epstein. Why the newfound sense of decency?

The answer is: Because they found a Trump connection. There’s a 2002 quote from Donald Trump saying nice things about Epstein and photographic proof that Epstein was one of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been to Mar-a-Lago. (There are rumors he has also been to the Grand Canyon and the Empire State Building.)

This is how the modern American media work: I’ll tell the same story that we’ve been frantically suppressing for a decade, connect it to Trump — and win a Pulitzer Prize!

Here is MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell describing Epstein a few weeks ago in a single segment:

“… a friend of Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein …

“… child sex trafficker and child rapist and friend of Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein …

“… a billionaire friend of Donald Trump’s …”

Epstein was a “friend” of Donald Trump’s the same way he is a “friend” of Pinch Sulzberger by virtue of reading The New York Times. He’s been to Trump’s club. (That is, until Trump barred him for propositioning the underage daughter of a member.)

But pay no attention to Jeffrey Epstein and his roster of Democratic enablers — this is a Trump scandal!

It seems that the U.S. attorney who oversaw the federal prosecution, Alex Acosta, is currently Trump’s Labor secretary. Trump didn’t know Acosta’s name during the Epstein prosecution, but liberals think they’ve unraveled Trump’s decade-long scheme to reward Acosta for being lenient on Epstein — aka “friend of Donald Trump’s.

The silver lining is that we finally have a way to make Hillary Clinton pay for her crimes. Trump has to appoint her to his Cabinet. Then we’ll see the entire American press corps chanting, “Lock her up!”

Today’s Ann Coulter Letter: “Crazed Zealot Jeff Sessions Attempts to Enforce Law!”


Commentary by Ann Coulter  | 

The New York Times recently published a snippy attack on Attorney General Jeff Sessions, portraying him as a single-minded zealot pursuing crackpot ideas that were putting the Trump administration “on track to lose in court and prompting high-level departures.” The Times’ sources were “current and former career department lawyers.” In other words, Trump-hating Democratic zealots weeks away from their book contracts.

One attorney who left the Department of Justice during its descent into madness under Sessions was Stephen J. Buckingham. (Why not “Astor” or “Carnegie”?) As at any federal agency, 99 percent of “career” attorneys at DOJ are left-wing. Social activists move effortlessly from the ACLU, the Democratic Socialists of America and the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force to government jobs. Thus, one entry on Buckingham’s resume is that he “created a program to amend the immigration status of unaccompanied Sudanese refugee minors.”

During Democratic administrations, these selfless career employees sell guns to Mexican drug cartels and run around the country making sure local police forces can’t do their jobs. During Republican administrations, they spend their time quietly, relentlessly sabotaging the administration they allegedly serve.

In addition to being a nonstop source of critical remarks about the Trump administration, “career” DOJ employees also lead mob assaults on Cabinet members, as Allison Hrabar did to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in June. Along with a dozen of her friends from the Democratic Socialists of America, DOJ paralegal Hrabar surrounded Nielsen’s table at a Washington, D.C., restaurant, shouting: “Kirstjen Nielsen, you’re a villain!” “If kids don’t eat in peace, you don’t eat in peace!” “The f—ing gall!” “Shame on you!” “Shame! Shame! Shame!” “Fascist pig!” — which Nielsen eventually realized was not the evening’s special.

(And it still didn’t occur to Gen. John Kelly’s special friend Nielsen why voters wanted a wall.)

It took months of complaints about the DOJ not firing Hrabar — and her own arrogant claim that she couldn’t be fired — for her to finally lose her job.

In Buckingham’s case, he told the Times that his conscience was shocked when Sessions asked him a legal question. (God forbid the attorney general question one of the lawyers working at DOJ!)

The Times reports: “In one instance, Mr. Sessions directly questioned a career lawyer, Stephen Buckingham, who was asked to find ways to file a lawsuit to crack down on sanctuary laws protecting undocumented immigrants. Mr. Buckingham, who had worked at the Justice Department for about a decade, wrote in a brief” — and presumably his forthcoming memoirs — “that he could find no legal grounds for such a case.”

Anyone else remember Arizona being denounced for two years during the Obama administration for trying to enforce immigration laws that the federal government wouldn’t? Hey, idiots! The feds have total control over immigration.

Didn’t Khizr Khan give Buckingham a copy of his Constitution?

I have been not practicing law longer than “Buckingham” was at the Justice Department, but I found possible legal grounds to go after sanctuary cities in approximately eight seconds on Google.

Title 18 of the U.S. Code is the federal criminal code. Section 3 states: “Accessory after the fact. Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.”

It’s hard to miss Section 3. Section 1 was repealed in 1984, and Section 2 consists of only 52 words. But Buckingham must have exhausted himself reading Section 2 and didn’t have the energy to shove ahead to Section 3.

Even if a couple sentences is your maximum reading limit, the crime of “accessory after the fact” has gotten a lot of airtime since Trump became president. It is one of the literally millions of laws Trump has probably broken, demanding his impeachment.

Before Trump was even inaugurated, Democratic Rep. Steve Cohen of Tennessee was claiming on MSNBC’s Chris Matthews’ show that Trump could be an “accessory after the fact” to the (nonexistent) Russian collusion. Earlier this year, Frank Figliuzzi, the former assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, elaborated on this theory on MSNBC’s “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell,” explaining that the president may have helped Vladimir Putin avoid punishment for his felonious act of taking out Facebook ads (or something).

By contrast with the (nonexistent) felony of (nonexistent) Russian collusion, the whole point of a “sanctuary city” is to shelter known criminals from arrest and deportation. Sanctuary cities like Philadelphia expressly prohibit officials from giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement advance notice before releasing illegal alien inmates to the public. In California, even if ICE shows up asking for a specific criminal alien, state and local government officials are instructed to refuse to comply, except in cases of certain violent felonies.

Prosecutors in “sanctuary” jurisdictions throughout the country are dropping criminal charges against immigrants — or allowing them to plea to minor offenses — for the sole purpose of preventing their deportation. In practice, this means less punishment for noncitizens than U.S. citizens. Talk about the “new Jim Crow.”

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf not only refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement, she actually warned illegal aliens of an impending ICE raid.

These government officials are threatening the lives and safety of their own constituents by actively assisting known criminals escape apprehension by federal law enforcement. As Democrat Sheila Kuehl, chair of the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, put it, Californians should “lie, cheat and steal” to ensure that no immigrant be deported.

It’s hard to think of a more fundamental betrayal of the public trust.

Yes, you’re right, New York Times. Poor career attorneys are being asked to do horrible things under Jeff Sessions. Such as enforce the law.

Commentary: “You don’t support Trump? Neither did I, until …”


Commentary by Dr. Michael L. Brown – Guest Columnist | Monday, October 15, 2018 | http://www.askdrbrown.org/

Michael BrownWhat’s changing the minds of some formerly Never Trumpers? How is it that today, despite my ongoing concerns about some of the president’s message and methods, I’m hoping for a red wave in the midterms?


I’m reading about more and more former people like Erick Erickson. They were once Never Trumpers, but they would vote for him in 2020 if he runs again. What’s changing their minds?

I too once opposed Donald Trump. I didn’t like his past. I didn’t trust his intentions. His character, to me, was highly suspect. I had no idea what he really believed or stood for. And I certainly questioned if his outreach to evangelical Christian leaders was sincere. Wasn’t he just using them, as others had in the past?

To be totally honest, I had actually forgotten just how deeply I disliked him when he was a Republican primary candidate. But when editing my new book on Trump, which includes 90 Trump-related articles from August 2015 to August 2018, I realized just how much of a problem I used to have with this highly controversial figure.

You see, most of us remember the past through the filter of the present. It’s like the man who says to his wife after 30 years of marriage, “I want a divorce. The truth is, I never really loved you.”

His present attitude has clearly distorted the facts of the past.

It was the same with me and Donald Trump. It was only while re-reading my articles written about him during the primaries that I remembered just how much I did not want to see him win.

And, to be brutally honest, since I had endorsed Ted Cruz and Trump was his main opposition, on some level, even subconsciously, I must have looked at Trump as the competitor. So, just like you root for your home team and against the opposition, I rooted for Cruz and against Trump.

How did I go from that attitude to rooting for him and voting for him? How is it that today, despite my ongoing concerns about some of the president’s message and methods, I’m hoping for a red wave in the midterms? (For the record, I’m registered as an Independent but consistently vote Republican, especially because of key social issues.)

Let’s think about what is changing the minds of some formerly Never Trumpers:

  • The Kavanaugh hearings revealed just how intense and ugly the opposition can be.

  • The Democrat-inspired mobocracy is deeply disturbing.

  • The radicality of the pro-abortion movement has been unveiled for all to see, along with the radicality of the extreme feminist movement.

  • The outright hostility of the leftwing media has revealed their depth of antipathy, not just to Trump but to conservative values in general.

  • The emergence of die-hard socialist candidates has made our choices more stark.

  • It’s even increasingly hard to deny that some kind of “deep state” exists.

On the positive side, Trump has done a great job with the economy. He is doing better against ISIS and Islamic terrorism. He has proven to be a true friend to Israel. He has made some positive progress with hostile countries. He is absolutely keeping his promises about Supreme Court and federal court nominees. And he has proven sincere in his commitment to stand with evangelical Christians.

In my case, there were several factors that led to a change of thinking, all of which can be followed in the chronological reprinting of the 90 aforementioned articles included in my book.

  • First, I always said that if it was Trump vs. Hillary, I would reevaluate my opposition to him.
  • Second, prophetic words from friends of mine saying that God had raised up Trump like a Cyrus-type figure (a foreign king who was not a worshiper of Yahweh) had me asking the whole time, “Am I wrong here?”
  • Third, the fact that he struck a chord with so many Americans got my attention.
  • Fourth, the fact that he beat so many fine Republican candidates suggested strongly to me that there was a supernatural wind in his sails.
  • Fifth, close friends of mine who were respected evangelical leaders spent lots of time with him and assured me that he was open and listening.
  • Sixth, his positions became more consistent, leading me to believe (or at least hope) that he would keep his word, hence my vote for him.

Now while I certainly do not support his every word and deed, I must say as president he is doing the things I hoped he would do if elected.

Would it be great if he would be a good role model too? Absolutely.

Do I often wish that he could unify more people behind him? Certainly.

But am I glad I voted for him? Without a doubt.

And, as I’ve often said, if it were Trump vs. Hillary today, I’d vote for him without any hesitation.

Perhaps this analogy will prove helpful.

There are a bunch of pit bulls with rabies terrorizing a neighborhood and biting the children. But there is no town dog catcher, and kids are suffering and dying.

Two candidates emerge.

One is the nicest guy in the world. He’s happily married with great kids, and you’ll never hear a foul word from him. But he can’t even catch a fly. The guy is hopeless.

The other candidate is as nasty as they come. His three ex-wives hate him. He curses like a drunken sailor. But the guy can catch a dog with his teeth.

For whom would you vote?

That’s where many formerly Never Trumpers are today. The stakes are that high, and he’s the man for the job. A great role model would be a wonderful plus. It’s just not in the cards right now.

So, let’s keep standing with President Trump, both in prayer and in face-to-face support, helping him become a better man. And let’s make our voices and votes heard for the good of the nation. The political stakes are really that high.


Dr. Michael Brown is the host of the nationally syndicated Line of Fire radio program. His latest book is “Donald Trump Is Not My Savior: An Evangelical Leader Speaks His Mind About the Man He Supports As President.”

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: