The left’s (liberal’s) war on Christianity and why they hate Trump

The left’s (liberal’s) war on Christianity and why they hate Trump

July 9, 2017

    Do you remember the video that was played at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, “Government is the Only Thing We All Belong To”?  The title of that video is the crux of the beliefs of the left, not just in the U.S., but everywhere.   In contemporary America, Democrats have become congruent with the left, and the belief that the government owns us is a pervasive sentiment.

    Why is this?  Democrats, as a political party, have literally denounced religion, particularly Christianity.  At that same Convention in 2012, the delegates filled the arena with loud booing during the attempt to reinstate the word “God” into the Democratic Party platform.

    Persecution of Christians was practically Obama administration policy, including lawsuits of Christians refusing to subordinate their beliefs to government mandates.  Even the Little Sisters of the Poor were made to suffer for refusing to be a party to forced distribution of contraceptives .

    In her book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” Ann Coulter writes:

    Liberalism is a comprehensive belief system denying the Christian belief in man’s immortal soul.  Their religion holds that there is nothing sacred about human consciousness.  It’s just an accident no more significant than our possession of opposable thumbs.  They deny what we know about ourselves: that we are moral beings in God’s image.

    In the absence of belief in a higher power, government naturally becomes the almighty deity.  Without God, humans are soulless creatures no better than wild animals, and it stands to reason that they should not be trusted with personal freedoms.  We must therefore belong to the government.

    Then along came Donald Trump.  He does not believe in big government.  He dislikes politicians, regulations, and bureaucracy.  The people he has hired in his administration have similar beliefs.  The Republicans, who hold majorities in both houses of Congress, also believe in smaller government (for the most part).

    Imagine, if you will, that your religion has been usurped by priests or ministers that do not share your beliefs.  Imagine that Satan has been elected Pope.  (No, I’m not comparing Pope Francis to Satan.  But there are a lot of strange things happening at the Vatican lately).  This is the gut-wrenching horror that the left is currently experiencing.  Their god is slowly dying, trampled on by heretics and blasphemers.

    President Trump is not your typical politician.  His penchant for prolific Tweeting is decidedly not presidential, at least to the true believers in government.  Trump is a heretic in the Church of State.  He does not take his role as secular Pope of the nation with the proper solemnity.

    Trump says that he is “modern day presidential”.  As such, the modern day president has set up his own rules.  If these new rules failed him, it would be painfully obvious to him and his administration.  But they haven’t, at least not to this point.

    His Tweets have successfully driven his sworn enemies, the left and the leftist media, absolutely crazy to the point of making them lose focus on their mission to “resist” and sabotage his agenda.  Instead they have become obsessed with his impropriety as the leader of their government religion.  As a consequence, he deserves secular excommunication, aka impeachment.

    Trump’s strategy is winning.  He needs to continue to use social media to isolate and completely cut the leftist media out of the loop.

    The American left has shown itself to be dangerously unstable.  For them, politics is not a trivial pursuit, it is a deadly serious bloodsport, and they play to win.  On the other side, Trump is playing political “rope-a-dope”.  Like Muhammad Ali bouncing against the ropes to dodge George Foreman’s powerful roundhouse blows in the “Rumble in the Jungle,” he is fending off the relentless attacks of the left with stealth and cleverness.

    American politics can be distilled down to whether or not you believe in a higher power than government.  “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….”  Thus wrote Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

    Are human rights endowed by our Creator, or bestowed by government?  That is the basic question and conflict in America. In order to resurrect their government god, the libs and Dems must destroy our Creator.   But first, they must destroy our President.

What Really Happened on July 4th — Stephen McDowell

What Really Happened on July 4th

Stephen McDowell

    During the first days of July in 1776 the Continental Congress was considering one of the most significant events of all time — the declaration by thirteen colonies to become the new nation of the United States of America.

    On the issue of independence all the colonies were agreed, but a few of the most cautious delegates still were not sure about the timing. Rev. John Witherspoon, a delegate from New Jersey, answered their concerns as he said:

    “There is a tide in the affairs of men. We perceive it now before us. To hesitate is to consent to our own slavery. That noble instrument should be subscribed to this very morning by every pen in this house. Though these gray hairs must soon descend to the sepulchre, I would infinitely rather that they descend thither by the hand of the executioner than desert at the crisis the sacred cause of my country!”[1]

    The delegates went on to approve the Declaration of Independence. After the announcement of the vote, silence moved over the Congress as the men contemplated the magnitude of what they had just done. Some wept openly, while others bowed in prayer. After signing the Declaration with unusually large writing, the President of the Continental Congress, John Hancock, broke the silence as he declared, “His majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can also double the price on my head.”[2]

Adding to the solemnity of the tense moment, Hancock said, “We must be unanimous; there must be no pulling different ways; we must all hang together.” Benjamin Franklin responded in his characteristic wit, “Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately!”[3]

On August 1, the day before an engrossed copy of the Declaration was signed (the copy now displayed in the National Archives in Washington, D.C.), Samuel Adams, whom men of that day ascribed “the greatest part in the greatest revolution of the world,”[4] delivered an address in which he proclaimed regarding the day of Independence: “We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and… from the rising to the setting sun, may His kingdom come.”[5] The men who helped give birth to America understood what was taking place. They saw in the establishment of America the first truly Christian nation in history.

Franklin suggested, they did “hang together,” but even so, many of these signers as well as tens of thousands of colonists lost their lives, families, reputations, and property in order to purchase liberty for themselves and their posterity.[6]

What was it that motivated these people to risk everything in order that they might have freedom? What was it that brought about the events leading to the colonists declaring their independence? John Adams, our second President and a leader in the cause of independence, revealed what he and many others thought as he wrote at the time that the colonies declared their independence:

    “It is the Will of Heaven, that the two Countries should be sundered forever. It may be the Will of Heaven that America shall suffer Calamities still more wasting and Distresses yet more dreadful. If this is to be the Case, it will have this good Effect, at least: it will inspire Us with many Virtues, which We have not, and correct many Errors, and Vices, which threaten to disturb, dishonor, and destroy Us. – The Furnace of Affliction produces Refinement, in States as well as Individuals…. But I must submit all my Hopes and Fears to an overruling Providence, in which, unfashionable as the Faith may be, I firmly believe.”[7]

    John Hancock echoed the reliance upon God and the belief that the destiny of nations is in the hand of God as he said:

    “Let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe…. Let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of Him who raises up and puts down the empires and kingdoms of the earth as He pleases.”[8]

    Thomas Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence contained a recognition of God, in particular: the laws of nature’s God, the existence of a Creator, the equality of all men before God, Creator-endowed rights,[9] and the purpose of government to protect the God-given rights of God-made man. However, the reliance upon God was so universally adhered to among those in America that the Continental Congress insisted it be made clear in this seminal document. When the draft of the Declaration was debated before Congress, they added the phrase, “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World, for the rectitude of our intentions,” as well as the words “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.”[10] Thus, we see the Continental Congress declaring to the entire world their Christian convictions.

Not only does the Declaration of Independence reflect our Founders’ faith in God, but this document only came into being as a result of Biblical ideas that had been sown in the hearts of the colonists for over one hundred and fifty years. The American Revolution was a revolution of ideas long before it was a revolution of war. As the clergy and other leaders taught the colonists their God-given rights as men, Christians, and subjects, the inevitable result was a nation birthed in liberty.

Samuel Adams recognized the importance of educating everyone throughout the colonies so that they could reason out their rights and political convictions based upon Biblical principles. For this reason he began establishing “Committees of Correspondence” in 1772.[11] His desire was for the colonists to be united “not by external bonds, but by the vital force of distinctive ideas and principles.”

This unity of ideas and principles helped to promote union among the colonists. The common ideas sown within the colonists’ hearts by Samuel Adams and many other Christian thinking men of that and earlier generations, resulted in the Declaration of Independence and the external union of the colonies into the United States of America.

Our celebration of the birth of the nation on July 4th must surely place God at the center, for without His guiding hand our nation would have never come into being. As did the Founders of this nation, so should we recognize this fact. John Adams wrote that the day of independence “will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. — I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty … from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”[12]


[1] Samuel Davies Alexander, Princeton College During the Eighteenth Century (New York: Anson D.F. Randolph & Co.), p. ix.

[2] This is an anecdotal story reported by many sources using varying terminology. This quote is in Robert Flood, Men Who Shaped America, Chicago, 1968, p. 276. Another records Hancock said: “There, I guess King George will be able to read that” (The Annals of America, Vol. 2, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968, p. 449). This and the other comments could have been made on July 4 or perhaps on August 2 when the engrossed copy was signed by most of the delegates.

Jefferson records that on July 4 the Declaration was “signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson” (The Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson in The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, ed. Adrienne Koch and William Peden, New York: The Modern Library, 1944, p. 21). Historian Benson Lossing concurs, writing that after approving the Declaration all the delegates signed their names on a paper that was attached to a copy of the Declaration (Benson J. Lossing, Our Country, A Household History of the United States, New York: James A. Bailey, 1895, Vol. 3, p. 871). However, some people do not think that the delegates signed on this day (citing various indirect remarks from delegates, in addition to the fact that such an original copy of the signees is not known to exist), but rather that all would not sign until an engrossed copy was made. Soon after approval of the Declaration on July 4, with the oversight of the committee, printer John Dunlap prepared and printed copies, perhaps during the night of July 4, which were sent to the governors of several states and to the commanding officers. These broadsides were authenticated by the signatures of John Hancock, the President, and Charles Thomson, the Secretary. On July 19 the Congress ordered the Declaration engrossed on parchment (Julian P. Boyd, The Declaration of Independence, The Library of Congress, 1999, p. 36). This engrossed copy was signed by 54 delegates on August 2 and two others afterward, one in September and the other later in the autumn (Lossing, Our Country, A Household History of the United States, Vol. 3, p. 871).

[3] The Annals of America, Vol. 2, Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968, p. 276.

[4] George Bancroft, History of the United States, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1878, Vol. VI, p. 355.

[5] Samuel Adams, An Oration Delivered at the State-House, in Philadelphia, to a Very Numerous Audience; on Thursday the 1st of August, 1776; London, reprinted for E. Johnson, No. 4, Ludgate-Hill, 1776. See also Frank Moore, American Eloquence: A Collection of Speeches and Addresses, New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1858, Vol. 1, p. 324. (Some historians do not think Adams made these remarks, but even if this is so, the content is consistent with his beliefs and writings.)

[6] These men were prepared to give their lives for the cause of liberty, and thought this was a very real possibility. Signer Benjamin Rush would later write to signer John Adams: “Do you recollect your memorable speech upon the day on which the vote was taken? Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the house when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe what was believed by many at that time to be our own death warrants?” (Letter of Benjamin Rush to John Adams, July 20, 1811, Letters of Benjamin Rush, edited by L.H. Butterfield, Vol. 2: 1793-1813, Princeton University Press, 1951, pp. 1089-1090.)

[7] The Book of Abigail and John, Selected Letters of the Adams Family, 1762-1784, ed. L.H. Butterfield, March Friedlaender and Mary-Jo Kline, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1975, p. 140. Letter from John to Abigail Adams, July 3, 1776.

[8] John Hancock, “Oration, Delivered at Boston, March 5, 1774,” in Hezekiah Niles, Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America, New York: A.S. Barnes & Co., 1876, p. 42.

[9] Jefferson’s original wording for this point was, “that all men are created equal and independent; that from that equal Creation they derive Rights inherent and unalienable.” The committee assigned to oversee the drafting of the Declaration changed it to, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” See Julian P. Boyd, The Declaration of Independence, Washington: The Library of Congress, 1999, pp. 31, 60.

[10] See Julian P. Boyd, The Declaration of Independence, p. 35.

[11] See William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865, Vol. 1.

[12] Letter from John to Abigail, July 3d. 1776, in The Book of Abigail and John, Selected Letters of the Adams Family, 1762-1784, p. 142. The Congress voted on July 2 for independence, while they approved the Declaration of Independence (which states the reasons for their action) on July 4. Adams was referring to the July 2 vote in this letter to Abigail.

Tragedy Magnified – On Escaped Convicts, Dangerous Criminals, and Armed Citizens

Tragedy Magnified


    Following the shooting of the Republican congressman in Alexandria, the malevolent and hating evil of those choosing to believe what they choose to believe rather than the truth escalated their injustice and crimes indiscriminately against citizens including the innocent and righteous wanting America to reclaim the heritage intended by the Framers and Founders. As always, after any incident involving guns, the irrationality of the liberals began spewing forth their groundless diatribes advocating gun control as a solution to the evil arising from the ideologies or religions contrary to the worldview enacted as the “supreme law of the land” in 1787. An analogy calling to the same bankrupt reasoning must blame the fork for the obesity affecting the health of nearly a third of Americans. Somehow, the cry of the liberal media to ban forks from Americans satiated by the blessings paid for by the sacrifices we should celebrate this coming 4th of July is conspicuously absent.


America is at war against enemies, foreign and domestic, who advocate the violent overthrow of this republic whose government is intended to “secure the blessings of liberty” — “justice for all” in “Life,  Liberty, and the the pursuit of Happiness”. Whether the arsonists and looters in Ferguson, the protestors blocking I-94 in St. Paul, Hodgkinson, or ISIS, evil and injustice must be confronted and defeated. “[D]omestic tranquility” accompanies “justice for all”.


The following article describes the conflict between reason and reality versus lies and deceptions.




On Escaped Convicts, Dangerous Criminals, and Armed Citizens

Miguel A. Faria, M.D

17 June, 2017


    The story of the leftwing hatred-spewing activist, James Hodgkinson, who shot three people — including the third highest ranking Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Steve Scalise, at a Republican baseball practice for a charity event in Alexandria, Virginia  — has understandably overshadowed another tragic incident that began close to home in Baldwin County, Georgia. The episode is worth recounting because there are many lessons to be learned about the misuse of guns in the hands of criminals and the defensive use of guns in the heads of law-abiding citizens.

    In the early morning hours of Tuesday, June 13, 2017, two convicts, Donnie Rowe and Ricky Dubose, escaped after subduing, disarming, and then allegedly shooting in cold blood two guards who were transporting them along with 31 other prisoners in a Baldwin State Prison system bus. The convicts shot dead correctional officers Sgt. Christopher Monica and Sgt. Curtis Billue. Escaping with the guards’ 9 mm pistols, the two convicts carjacked a series of vehicles until they reached Madison, Georgia, where they ransacked a home, stole food and clothes, and abandoned their prison uniforms.

According to an AP report, on Tuesday night the convicts seized a Ford pickup truck from a rock quarry a few miles away from the burglarized home and fled. State police, and later the FBI, provided photos of the convicts and implemented a tip line, promising a reward that rapidly climbed to $160,000. According to the Georgia Department of Corrections, “Both escapees were serving sentences for armed robbery and other crimes. The Department of Corrections said Rowe, 43, had been serving life without parole since 2002, and Dubose, 24, began a 20-year sentence in 2015.”

After the seizure of the Ford pickup truck, the authorities lost track of the escapees and we heard nothing for nearly 48 hours. Judging the uncertain situation in the neighborhood by the conversations my wife and I had with our postal delivery lady and a landscaping crew next door — citizens in Georgia and later those of surrounding states as well, remained apprehensive but also alert and vigilant. In the South, most of us are familiar with guns and the need for self and family protection.

Then, on Friday morning the police near Shelbyville, Tennessee, “responded to a call about a home invasion, where a couple had been held captive.” The AP report went on to say that the convicts fled in the couple’s vehicle and fired on sheriff deputies chasing them about 50 miles southeast of Nashville, Tennessee. The deputies did not return fire. Rowe and Dubose crashed the stolen vehicle and ran into the woods. The stolen guns were later found there. The convicts then approached a house at the end of a long driveway. And here comes the most interesting part:

“The [Tennessee State] trooper said the homeowner looked outside and saw the two allegedly trying to steal his car. The man held the two at gunpoint with a neighbor he called for help until the sheriff’s department could get there to arrest the fugitives.” The names of the hero and his neighbor (who called police) have not been released, but the fugitives are now in custody.

This Associated Press reporting is highly unusual from the standpoint of the media acknowledging what many of us have known for years — that law-abiding citizens use guns successfully to protect themselves, their families, and their property much more frequently than cited by the press.

Much can be learned from this tragic but illustrative incident: The fact that two dangerous convicts ended up being apprehended by an armed citizen underscores several facts about guns, criminals, and law-abiding citizens:

Hundreds of law enforcement and correctional officers die serving the public each year. Those officers, such as Sgt. Christopher Monica and Sgt. Curtis Billue, who are killed by criminals in the line of duty, should be especially honored, and it is their names that should be remembered, not the murderers. I extend my sincerest condolences to their families, as did Governor Nathan Deal soon after the tragedy.

Criminals, including prison escapees, obtain their guns illegally. By definition criminals do not obey the laws, but they are (and should be) fearful of armed citizens. In a survey of 1,800 prison inmates, “81% agreed that a smart criminal tried to find out if his potential victim is armed; 74% said that burglars avoid houses when people are home because they fear being shot; and 34% admit to having been scared off, shot at, wounded, or even captured by armed citizens.”

Professor Gary Kleck of Florida State University has noted, “Citizens acting in self-defense kill about three times more assailants and robbers than do the police.” In the United States, the defensive uses of firearms by citizens surpass their criminal uses because many Americans own guns for self and family protection. And contrary to what you are led to believe by mainstream media reporting, firearms are used more frequently by law-abiding citizens to repel crime than by criminals to perpetrate a crime. The majority of murderers are career criminals. The typical murderer has a prior criminal history of at least 6 years with 4 felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder. 75% of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by 6% of hardened criminals.

These two convicts were serving sentences for violent crimes and armed robbery. Rowe was serving life without parole and Dubose a 20-year sentence — before they killed the two officers while escaping justice. But as the lawful Tennessee rural homeowner showed, the gun is the great equalizer for citizens when encountering hardened criminals and protecting lives and property. And it should not be left unsaid that less than 2% of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed law-abiding citizens.

We should also reiterate that the often-cited study claiming that “persons who keep guns in their home are themselves more likely to be victims of homicide than those who don’t,” and that “rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance” — has been thoroughly discredited.

Instead, criminologists have concluded:  “The defensive uses of firearms by lawful citizens, at up to 2.5 million per year, dwarf the offensive gun uses by criminals. Between 25 and 75 lives are saved by a gun for every one life lost to a gun, whether by an unintentional shooting, homicide or suicide. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. Gun safety programs for children, particularly the NRA’s Eddie Eagle program, have resulted in a steady decline in unintentional injuries over the last several decades.”

So then why have firearms become so demonized that some citizens are now subject to a new psychosomatic ailment — namely hoplophobia? Because common crimes with firearms and rampage shootings are sensationalized, and thoroughly and repeatedly reported, while the beneficial aspects and defensive uses of firearms by citizens are seldom if ever reported in the mainstream media. As this tragic but illustrative case shows, criminals do not obey the laws, but they do obey determined and armed citizens, who are protecting their lives and property.

Science fights back against the global warming fraud

Science fights back against the global warming fraud
Thomas Lifson

June 11, 2017


    It has taken far too long, but the self-correcting mechanisms of science finally are contradicting the global warming fraud. Despite billions of dollars of grants for those who support the so-called “consensus” (itself, a lie), and the fear of retaliation, scholars interested in the truth are publishing a wave of scientific papers contradicting the orthodoxy.

    Best of all: President Trump’s EPA chief has signaled that he sees that questioning of scientific hypotheses (and all scientific knowledge ultimately is a hypothesis, awaiting a possible correction based on new information) is legitimate.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt reignited a long simmering debate over a method of scientific inquiry that could upset the supposed “consensus” on man-made global warming.

In an interview with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak on Monday, Pruitt said he supported a “red team-blue team” set up to test climate science. Pruitt was inspired by an op-ed by theoretical physicist Steven Koonin, but others have been pushing this idea as well.

The team that will question the orthodoxy is seeing a wave of evidence come its way.

Kenneth Richards writes: Just in the last few weeks alone, another 20 scientific papers were identified which link solar variations to climate changes, which means 58 papers have already been published in 2017.

Since solar activity does vary, it kind of makes more intuitive sense that this might affect climate more than the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Occam’s Razor favors this explanation. Check out this graph that Richards highlights:

It’s at least as convincing as the phony, uncorrected Hockey Stick that had to “hide the decline.” Sure, it is one study, and it is Finland (very far north), but there are 58 papers this year, already. I am guessing that it might be easier to make the case that the sun has the major influence on climate than to make the case for CO2.

The No Tricks Zone has catalogued 650 skeptic scientific papers already, and as we see, the wave is growing larger.

The huge problem for the Warmists is that “cutting edge research” now works against them.

Integrity — The Inseparable Corollary To Truth


The Inseparable Corollary To Truth

House Turns over a New Relief

Tony Perkins, FRC

June 07, 2017

    The thousands of Middle East families living in tattered refugee tents barely have food — let alone televisions — but you can bet they were cheering the news of Donald Trump’s election.

    Driven out of their villages if they were lucky (and hunted if they weren’t), local Christians have been hanging on for survival by a thread. As ISIS marches across the dusty roads of biblical times, believers of our ancient faith are desperate for help from the United States. For seven years, Barack Obama wouldn’t even acknowledge the crisis, let alone do anything about it. But that only meant that Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J.) worked harder. After seeing the conditions of these camps, he was absolutely determined to get the U.S. government to act.

And three years, nine hearings, and one new president later, he may finally get his wish. Yesterday, after one of the longest paths to passage, New Jersey’s longtime human rights advocate watched as the House passed his Iraq and Syrian Genocide Accountability Act, giving fresh hope to the suffering Christians in filthy, dangerous, and starving camps in the heart of ISIS country. Rep. Smith is hoping to right the wrong of the Obama administration, which intentionally withheld government aid from faith-based aid groups. Powered exclusively by private donations, a lot of these organizations still managed to meet the need of the 12,000 families in Iraq and Syria. But their bank accounts are almost empty — along with the camps’ cupboards. As Rep. Smith told me on Tuesday’s “Washington Watch,” the relief groups are almost completely out of meals because the American government bypassed them for funding.

    “I’ve [spent so much time on the] issue of genocide and the fact that so many Christians have not gotten assistance. This ensures that they get it. And I went there right before Christmas, and I went to the displaced persons camp, one of them in Erbil, Iraq, and I was shocked to see all of these kids and all of these families and no U.S. assistance. Private charities stepped up to the plate, but we know that church leaders have been triaging the money over the last several years, including right now in terms of food, aid, and medicines because the U.S. government has refused to assist them.”

     When Rep. Smith landed in Iraq last December, he was shocked to learn that U.S. officials were so disinterested in the plight of these families that they hadn’t made the 10-minute drive to visit the closest camp. Unfortunately, the only thing President Obama seemed passionate about was letting other Syrians stream into the country unchecked, slamming the door in the face of the thousands of Christians desperate for a safe place to start over.

Like us, Congressman Smith is anxious to seize the moment and shrug off the indifference of the last eight years. The bill, he explains, “is a blueprint for how to assist Christians and other genocide survivors and hold perpetrators accountable.” Among other things, it would jump start the asylum process for religious minorities — but not in a way that would leave the U.S. vulnerable. “Everyone will have to go through a vetting process,” the congressman reassured people. But in a big departure from the past, the U.S. would cut through the red tape of the U.N. and actually conduct the first interview for refugees overseas. Not only would H.R. 390 speed up the application process, but it would also prosecute those committing war crimes against Christians and fund relief efforts for survivors of Middle East genocide.

Despite the horrors they’ve seen, Rep. Smith is amazed by their perseverance. “We heard repeatedly from Christians themselves… how their faith is undiminished. They are strong, they’re resilient. They love the Lord. They’ve been traumatized by beheadings and rapes, loss of loved ones. Their churches [have] been firebombed, exploded, even booby trapped if they try to go back and yet their faith like persecuted Christians in the First Century [is] stronger than ever.” Let’s hope the United States Senate puts feet to those prayers and sends a bill to the president that helps who his predecessor would not. Contact your senators here and urge them to move quickly on the Iraq and Syrian Genocide Accountability Act.

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

Hold politicians accountable!!!

    Vote on election according to their voting record, their platform, and what they stand for!!! Not what they say, but what they do!!!

  • Not lies and deceptions, but truth validated by real science and uncorrupted history!!!
  • Not the false propaganda of the liberal media, but reality!!!
  • Not guided by false religions, but the original intention of the Constitution!!!
  • Not by human standards and invention, but the Framers’ and Founders’ political worldview!!!

    ” I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State . . . . Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

     This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.”

— President George Washington’s, the “father of our country”, Farewell Address, American Daily Advertiser, September 19, 1796


Media and Political Hypocrisy Magnified


     In reacting to accusations that President Trump leaked classified information to the Russians in a White House meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lazrov, former defense secretary Leon Panetta suggested Trump needed some adults around him to reign him in. As Yahoo News reported:

     Former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta branded President Trump a “loose cannon” Tuesday and slammed the “yes people” surrounding him, saying, “This president needs to have some grownups around him.”…

     Panetta praised the White House national security team, but said Trump’s unpredictable nature requires them to “make very clear to the president what he can and cannot do.”

    “He’s got to have some lines here,” Panetta said. “He’s got to have some guardrails. The president of the United States cannot just do or say or speak whatever the hell he wants.”

     As National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster pointed out Tuesday, nothing President Trump told Lazrov was classified or endangered sources and methods. Of course, this matters not to those who thinks it wrong to share information with the Russians but okay to share that same information to the Washington Post.

    It was the kind of general information and concerns that the Russians tried to share with President Obama about the Tsarnaev brothers before the Boston Marathon bombings. If President Obama had “colluded” with the Russians the way Trump is said to have done, the Boston Marathon bombing would never have happened. As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized:

     It boggles the mind that we didn’t listen to the Russians when they warned about the Tsarnaev brothers in part because, well, they’re the Russians. But we want to preserve the records of every housewife in Des Moines because data mining that arguably invades the privacy rights of innocent Americans might reveal something.

     One person whose privacy was not invaded by U.S. intelligence was Tamerlan Tsarnaev, as he repeatedly visited the al-Qaida online magazine Inspire for its recipe “Build a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom.”

     The NSA’s blanket surveillance did not detect Tsarnaev’s interest in building the pressure cooker bombs he would use to devastating effect at the Boston Marathon. The massive databases that we are building a massive facility in Utah to store also failed to uncover the online communications that Tsarnaev had with a known Muslim extremist in Dagestan.

    Collusion with the Russians in this case would have saved American lives, but Obama refused Russian assistance in fighting these terrorists. Is Trump “colluding” with the Russians to save lives from ISIS terrorists a bad thing? Did we forget that the Russians had a plane blown out of the sky over the Sinai by terrorists?

    Panetta himself, it would seem, is the one who needs to be surrounded by adults to keep his loose lips in check, having put the lives of those who took out Osama bin Laden at risk. As Breitbart reported:

    Former CIA Director Leon Panetta, for example, told CNN on Tuesday that Trump “cannot just say whatever the hell he wants and expect it doesn’t carry consequences.”

     Panetta should know, because it was his loose talk after the Osama bin Laden raid that exposed a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi, who helped locate the Al Qaeda leader.  As a result, Afridi was imprisoned on fabricated charges and will live under fear of assassination for the rest of his life.

    As Breitbart News noted in 2013, a Pakistani report on Dr. Afridi reportedly concluded “Dr. Afridi was implicated by a ‘statement by the U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who was the CIA Director when May 2 happened, confirming the role of Dr. Afridi in making the U.S. assassination mission a success.’”

     Panetta did not reveal that critical intelligence in a private meeting with a foreign emissary, but to the entire world, on CBS News’ 60 Minutes.

     Then there is Joe Biden, whose loose lips got members of Seal Team 6 targeted for revenge in an Afghan mission known as Extortion 17. As Investor’s Business Daily recounted on May 28, 2013:

   Extortion 17 was the call sign of a special operations mission in Afghanistan on Aug. 6, 2011, that responded to an Army Ranger unit engaged in a firefight with the Taliban and in need of backup.

    The Chinook helicopter carrying the rescue team was shot down by a Taliban-owned rocket-propelled grenade over the Wardak Province on Aug. 6, 2011, killing 38, including 30 Americans and 15 members of Navy SEAL Team 6, the unit that killed Osama bin Laden just three months prior.

     The shoot-down was described at the time as a “lucky shot,” but the families of the dead SEALs believe that, like Benghazi, it was a pre-planned operation of revenge facilitated by a government that put them in harm’s way without adequate support and with a bull’s-eye painted on their backs.

    At a Pentagon briefing on Monday, May 2, 2011, a senior defense official was asked if it was a Navy SEAL team that found and killed the world’s most wanted man. The terse and proper response was: “Not going to comment on units or numbers.”

    Then on May 3, Vice President Joe Biden got up to speak at a dinner at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel marking the 50th anniversary of the Atlantic Council to spill the beans about Adm. James Stavridis and “the incredible, the phenomenal, the just almost unbelievable capacity of his Navy SEALs and what they did last Sunday.”

    From that moment, the families believe, the Taliban looked for an opportunity for revenge, and a government more concerned with politically correct rules of engagement than victory helped them get it.

     Biden skated on the leak that got SEAL Team 6 targeted for revenge. Those who now condemn Trump for trying to save American and, yes, Russia lives, were silent, especially Leon “loose lips” Panetta. Panetta and Biden, like Hillary Clinton at Benghazi, put lives in jeopardy and got men killed.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.   

Restoring 1st Amendment Executive Order

Trump’s  1st Amendment Executive Order

Congratulations Are in (Executive) Order!

Another Campaign Promise Kept, Restoring 1st Amendment

May 04, 2017

    It’s not just the National Day of Prayer. It’s the national day of answered prayer for many conservative Christians! After an eight-year war on faith, President Trump finally called a ceasefire on the conflict started by Barack Obama with an executive order on religious freedom. The measure, which was celebrated in a signing ceremony at the White House, was the fulfillment of one of the most significant promises made by the long shot candidate: “to preserve and protect our religious liberty.”

    For evangelicals, whose support propelled Trump to a historic win last November, this was one of the most meaningful returns on that investment. Although the order didn’t make it in under the 100-day wire, the quickness of it showed just how committed this administration is to bringing the government back in line with the First Amendment.

Among other things, the directive checks another big box on the White House’s to-do list — lifting the gag order on churches and other nonprofits under the Johnson Amendment. Since the first days of his candidacy, Donald Trump has railed against the 60-year-old piece of tax code that liberals have turned into a club to punish pastors with. For too long, the Left has used the IRS to threaten the charitable status of churches who dared to speak out on the moral issues of the day.

Of course, the irony of this whole debate is that pulpits are free to do exactly that under the U.S. Constitution. It was only when liberals seized on this twisted interpretation of the Johnson Amendment that pastors came under fire for exercising their God-given rights. To the phony claim that churches would somehow turn into mini-PACs, the White House was clear: “Nobody is suggesting that churches are allowed, or it’s legal, for tax-exempt organizations to take out ads endorsing candidates. That’s illegal now,” said an administration spokesman. “We’re not changing what’s legal, we’re not changing what’s illegal…” Instead, the nation’s tax agency is directed to use “discretion” in enforcing the language named after JFK’s successor.

Medical professionals, charities, businesses, and even nuns who’ve suffered under the outrageous mandate of Obamacare will finally have the relief they need to say no to insurance coverage that violates their conscience. After years of court battles, they’ll be free from regulatory harassment of including contraception and abortifacients in their health care plans. But that’s not all the order does. It sets in place a multi-step process that will provide some long-overdue protections by directing the Attorney General Jeff Sessions to develop guidelines for every federal agency to ensure they protect and promote religious freedom. This includes members of our military, who, under the Obama administration, have been systematically silenced and even purged. Men and women like Chaplain Wes Modder (U.S. Navy-Ret.) and Monifa Sterling, who stared down the ends of their careers for their deeply-held beliefs, can finally come out of hiding and live out their faith openly.

Finally, for our friends like Barronelle Stutzman and Don Vander Boon, who’ve suffered for their biblical views on marriage, there’s hope. As President Trump said, “No American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the federal government and the tenets of their faith,” President Trump told those of us gathered in the Rose Garden for today’s ceremony. “We will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied or silenced anymore,” the president said. “We will never ever stand for religious discrimination.”

Thanks to this White House, the open season on Christians and other people of faith is coming to an end. And Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) looks forward to building on White House’s progress. “On this National Day of Prayer, I commend the Trump administration for taking action and will continue to make fighting for religious liberty a top priority of my speakership.” As we work with the Trump administration to address the problems created by Obama, it’s that they understand the dangers of the anti-freedom policies of the last administration. But, more than that, they’re committed to undoing those policies and restoring true religious freedom for everyone.

This step today starts the process of reversing the devastating trends of the last decade to punish charities, pastors, family-owned businesses, and honest, hard-working people simply for living out their faith. On behalf of FRC and the hundreds of thousands of families we represent, we offer our deepest thanks to the president and look forward to assisting him in returning America to the land of the free.

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

Gorsuch Confirmed By Scalia and the Constitution In His First Criminal Cases

Gorsuch Confirmed By Scalia and the Constitution In His First Criminal Cases

John-Michael Seibler

3 May, 2017

    It is only Neil M. Gorsuch’s first month as an associate justice on the Supreme Court, but he is already showing just how similar his judicial philosophy is to that of his predecessor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

    In several difficult criminal law cases, Gorsuch has asked sharp questions from the bench and cast one of his first votes to deny a stay of execution—moves that echo Scalia’s approach to the law.

The Death Penalty in Arkansas

First, in McGehee et al. v. Hutchinson, Gorsuch voted to deny several Arkansas death row inmates’ requests to halt their executions.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor would have granted their request. Breyer wrote a two-page dissent questioning “whether the death penalty is consistent with the Constitution” (he clearly believes it isn’t).

While the majority did not state their reasons for denying the inmates’ request, it seems clear that they relied, at least in part, on the reasoning set out by Scalia in his concurring opinion in Glossip v. Gross (2015), in which he wrote that “not once in the history of the American republic has this Court ever suggested the death penalty is categorically impermissible.”

“The reason is obvious: It is impossible to hold unconstitutional that which the Constitution explicitly contemplates.”

Scalia continued, “The Fifth Amendment provides that ‘[n]o person shall be held to answer for a capital … crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury,’ and that no person shall be ‘deprived of life … without due process of law.’”

The Washington Post describes votes on stays of execution as “a time when the responsibility of the role crystallizes.” In McGehee, Gorsuch held firm, silently adopting Scalia’s constitutionalist reasoning.

No ‘Linguistic Somersaults’

Second, Gorsuch demonstrated his adherence to textualism through some of the questions he posed to the advocates during oral argument in Maslenjak v. U.S.

At issue in the case is whether the government was justified in removing the U.S. citizenship of Divna Maslenjak, an ethnic Serb from modern Bosnia. Maslenjak, who came to the United States in 2000 and was subsequently naturalized as a citizen, was convicted of lying to a U.S. immigration official. During an interview in 1998, she told the immigration officer that she and her husband were seeking asylum because they feared persecution in Bosnia because her husband had evaded conscription into the Serbian army.

In reality, he had served as an officer in a Serbian militia unit which was subsequently accused of war crimes.

In 2006, Maslenjak falsely stated on an immigration form that she had never lied to an immigration officer, and was subsequently convicted of making false statements on a government document.

A key issue before the Court is whether that lie was “material” enough to affect the original immigration decision, which would, in turn, be sufficient to uphold her conviction and her subsequent denaturalization.

As Amy Howe writes at SCOTUSblog, “ruling for the government” in this case “would give U.S. officials boundless discretion to take away citizenship based on even very minor lies.”

In the midst of this high stakes argument, Gorsuch’s questions focused on one issue in particular: The text of the law itself.

The statute, Gorsuch noted, “doesn’t contain an express materiality provision,” and Gorsuch was concerned about having to do “a lot of linguistic somersaults to add” such a provision into the law.

That harkens back to Scalia’s dissenting opinion in King v. Burwell (2015). There, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act’s “tax credits are available to individuals in states that have a federal exchange.”

In signature prose, Scalia wrote that “[t]he somersaults of statutory interpretation” that the majority “performed (‘penalty’ means tax … ‘established by the state’ means not established by the state) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

The late Justice Antonin Scalia was known for his combination of colorful prose and staunch originalism. (Photo: Gary Fabiano/Pool via CNP/Newscom)

    Gorsuch appears sympathetic to Scalia’s disapproval of “linguistic somersaults” and the idea that judges are empowered to rewrite laws that they may disagree with.

The Big Picture

Third, Gorsuch showed a keen awareness of how the Supreme Court’s rulings carry far-reaching implications for future cases in Weaver v. Massachusetts.

That case involved a man named Kentel Weaver, who in 2006 was convicted of unlicensed possession of a firearm and premeditated murder of 15-year-old Germaine Rucker. Weaver was 16 at the time of the murder. In 2011, he sought a new trial, claiming that his counsel was ineffective because they did not object to the courtroom being closed during jury empanelment, when the defendant, judge, and jury first meet. Weaver argued that this was a procedural irregularity that violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

But as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out at oral argument, the reason the courtroom was closed was that it was full. Ninety members of the public were in attendance as prospective jurors, and they all needed seats.

Weaver objected to this reasoning, saying that while prospective jurors were seated, his mother and his other supporters weren’t able to enter the courtroom during the early stage of the proceedings.

At this point, Gorsuch entered the fray with a big picture question.

He asked whether a “triviality exception” might apply here, or whether the Court should consider the potential unintended consequences that can arise when it tries to prevent every injustice—no matter how small—by imposing new procedural requirements across the entire criminal justice system.

Gorsuch asked whether ruling for Weaver would create a “Professor Stuntz” problem, whereby in “perfecting procedure, we actually result in its denial…”

This reference was to the late Harvard criminal law professor, William J. Stuntz, who argued that by following the Warren Court’s “fetishization of so many formalistic procedures,” the criminal justice system is now overburdened by an excess of procedural technicalities at play.

Berkeley law professor Andrea Roth summed up Stuntz’s argument, saying that these rules “at best indirectly ensure fairness of trial and sentencing outcomes” but have “rendered trials too expensive” and complex for anyone but elite lawyers to tackle.

In turn, writes Roth, this “has driven prosecutors and lawmakers to seek ways to avoid trial and force pleas through draconian sentencing schemes, a skewed focus on easily detected urban drug crimes mostly committed by racial minorities, and ever-expanding substantive criminal law.”

Scalia worked to constrain some of the Warren Court’s excesses in this regard during his time on the Court.

In Hudson v. Michigan (2006), for example, Scalia, writing for the majority, refused to extend the “exclusionary rule” (which requires the suppression of incriminating evidence, notwithstanding the fact that a defendant may be guilty) to technical violations of “the knock-and-announce rule,” which establishes that, absent extenuating circumstances, police officers must knock on the door and announce their presence before entering a suspect’s home.

He also asserted, in a noteworthy University of Chicago Law Review article, that there is a “dichotomy between ‘general rule of law’ and ‘personal discretion to do justice’”—that is, to rule as a judge personally desires rather than as the law instructs—and that the latter may lead to “unfortunate practical consequences.”

So far, Gorsuch is modeling this Scalia-esque approach and honoring the rule of law.

This is the exact approach he espoused in a dissent in A.M. v. Holmes (2016) while sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. There, he wrote, “[a] judge who likes every result he reaches is very likely a bad judge, reaching for results he prefers rather than those the law compels.”

A Fitting Successor to Scalia

Throughout his nomination and confirmation process, Heritage Foundation legal scholars noted Gorsuch’s striking similarities to Scalia, which include a shared sensitivity to over criminalization, textualism, and the separation of powers.

In these first few cases, Gorsuch is showing just how well he fits the Scalia mold of being a committed constitutionalist and textualist on the High Court.

The Failure of Government

The Failure of Government
    Globally governments fail because they ignore the fundamental requisite for any successful government – justice for all. In the American political tradition, the Framers and Founders recognized the absolute necessity of justice being the immutable indelible foundation of all enduring human interactions. If their original intentions embodied in the Constitution and ideologically defined in the Declaration of Independence are not being fulfilled, the question of what went wrong must be answered. The California drought, the bankruptcy of cities tied to the lost jobs in the auto industry, the unfathomable Federal debt, the sacking and torching of Ferguson, huge energy reserves left untouched by miners begging for work to feed their families, the safety of our children compromised by judicial activism giving sexual deviants access to their innocence, to name but a few of the hundreds of local, state, and national issues plaguing our nation, are robbing us of liberty and denying us justice.
    Healthcare in America, once held to be a world standard, now lags behind other countries in many areas. Ever increasing taxes are unavoidable without a balanced budget, to say nothing of the undeserved burgeoning public debt being left to our children. So much for “securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. From coast to coast, border to border, America is under attack by the governments we have erroneously empowered. Every branch – legislative, judicial, and executive, along with the unauthorized tyranny of the administrative state –  the bureaucrats and bureaucracies – unchecked by those elected to represent us, attack America from within. Successful as no foreign enemy has been, these “domestic” enemies remain unaccountable to an electorate duped by the lies and deceptions of those violating the Constitution. Continuing the onslaught, they rely on a public satiated by a standard of living that continues to improve as science advances.
    Many of those stealing freedom and subverting justice, aided by the false propaganda of a media conveying the untruths they choose to believe, put forth a smokescreen obscuring or denying the tragedies and disasters they cause. Whether the loss of families’ entire retirements to the financial meltdown of 2008, or the out of control costs of healthcare thrust on working Americans, the politicians exempting themselves from the afflictions they inflict upon those trapped in the morass of government rules and regulations they enact  or enable, the myriad evidences of government betrayal remain and continue. If Congress had to endure the exploding deductibles and escalating insurance premiums for healthcare rather than having their own unjust undeserved benefits of public office paid for by their constituents, the plight of those granting them the opportunity to serve would not be ignored. Justice for all defined by immutable Law and the Constitution do not permit or authorize the creation of a ruling government class with special rights and privileges of their own invention.
  As alluded to earlier, the fault and blame cannot rest on the politicians alone, for it is we, the people, who elect them. But, in this republic, the Framers envisioned a government where those constituting the legislative branch would rise above the majority and guide with justice and reason. Replacing those in the late 1700s sacrificing their individual economic successes to engage in public service are politicians holding office as a job. Unlike President Washington who never wanted to leave his beloved Mount Vernon, the primary focus of many now violating their oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution is their reelection. As a case in point, at the state level, California is considered by some economists to have the 28th largest economy in the world. Yet, as a state failing to address the unconscionable burden of the undeserving willing to exist on the work of others, the debt of the state with such economic resources is mounting without legislative responsibility. With a large proportion of the state’s domestic product coming from agriculture, California has just gone through a devastating drought. Now, an abundance of rain is overflowing reservoirs, and even exceeding the capacities of outdated out-of-repair dams. Still, faced with the past reality, California legislators are considering a “bullet” train rather than increasing the numbers and the size of reservoirs.
    Similarly, on the national front, with enough coal reserves to fuel power plants for centuries, coal miners are out of work as mines have been dormant because legislators have succumbed to the lies of false science and false scientists in the pockets of those supporting their next run for office. Any hydrocarbon, from natural gas to diesel fuel to coal, produces the same amount of CO2 per breaking of the hydrocarbon bond and the oxidation of hydrogen and carbon as any other.
    Ferguson was looted and burned by thieves and arsonists imported and paid for by our enemies who obtained their riches because of the very blessings they are seeking to deny their fellow countrymen. These same traitors of wealth and position enable and support the “protestors” disrupting the “domestic tranquility” to which loyal Americans are entitled. Sitting by as the flames consumed the businesses of the innocent seeking only to provide for their families, a governor did not deploy the activated ready and positioned National Guard completely contrary to to right and justice.
    Violating common sense, decency, and morality, judicial activism and executive order pervert justice exposing the innocent to an ultimate corruption of the laws of nature. By legislative failure alone, those robed in black remain on their thrones of injustice.
    Seeing the response to a President elected promising to “drain the swamp” of political corruption, and the mandate of all but 19% of counties in the United States voting to “make America great again”, our Nation appears to be embroiled in a great new civil war pitting justice for all, equal opportunity, and freedom against the establishments of governments. Let us “be here dedicated to the great cause remaining before us . … tak[ing] increased devotion to that cause …. that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom,  and that government of the people by the people for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Franklin and the Free Press

Franklin and the Free Press

Arthur Milikh


    Many Americans today have an ambivalent stance toward the free press. On the one hand, nearly all citizens assent to the idealism that originally justified its creation: We value the discovery and circulation of the truth, and the prevention of governmental tyranny. As such, the press is meant to serve both intellectual and political liberty. Yet, on the other hand, few citizens directly experience this idealism, feeling instead the press’s forcefulness, flattery, vehemence, and sometimes fanaticism — often akin to warfare directed at their minds and sentiments. Rather than heading off intellectual and political dogma, the press often creates or disseminates it. A great disparity thus exists between the press’s ideals and its practice today.

    As originally understood by many of America’s founders, the open circulation of the truth through the press would serve both society and the individual. As Thomas Jefferson explains,

No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press.

In addition, many of America’s founders also understood the press as an essential bulwark against government for the securing of individual rights. Jefferson, again, summarizes:

     I am…for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the Constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents.

     The press, and especially the mass press, is a means by which to enforce accountability and responsibility in the government, and to thereby compel government’s virtue.

Moreover, newspapers even help “maintain civilization,” as Alexis de Tocqueville observes in Democracy in America. By giving democratic citizens common opinions, common sympathies, and a resource for common action, newspapers can help prevent the individuation and isolation of citizens to which democracy disposes them.

These idealistic aims markedly diverge from the mass press’s actual behavior and its effects on republicanism. And that is not a new problem. During America’s founding, as historian Leonard Levy observes, an “extraordinary partisanship, vitality, and invective had become ordinary” in the press. Indeed, today’s press has similar inclinations, often imposing onto the public its taste for derision and ridicule, which it substitutes for depth and thoughtfulness. Examples abound, but consider the Huffington Post‘s editor’s note, added to nearly every article referencing Donald Trump during the 2016 election:

     “Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.”

Not stopping at public figures, the press also satisfies its penchant for crushing the will of private citizens and groups through shame and fear, making them feel their smallness and brittleness. Its behavior, in sum, often discloses the press’s tacit opinion concerning America’s moral hierarchy: that the press is not merely a fourth estate, but the judge of would-be rulers, and therefore the master, or at least the kingmaker. Yet it remains unclear whether the press rules with the spirit of humanity and prudence, or whether it is animated by the desire to dominate the public mind. It frequently vacillates between these extremes.

By contrast to the early Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin had no illusions about the character of the press in America. Few serious thinkers have reflected with as much clarity on the nature of the press as Franklin. And no other thinker has had so much experience and commercial success in it. A lifelong defender of the freedom of the press, Franklin was nevertheless not uncritical of its effects.

Franklin’s short but rich essay, “An Account of the Supremest Court of Judicature in Pennsylvania, viz., The Court of the Press,” written a year before his death in 1790, lays out a comprehensive analysis of the press: its effects on politics and the democratic mind, its mode of rule, and the origins of its power. His study is, in a sense, an examination of the effectual truth of the principle underlying freedom of the press. His reflections are urgently needed today.

The press, Franklin argues, unlike any other republican institution, has a power that does not fall under any constitutional check. It is motivated to act viciously by its very principle (created to attack dogma, false knowledge, and political corruption), though in practice it is neither limited nor moderated by either its own idealism or by any institution. While the press claims to rule like a court — passing all things before its judgment — it may rule tyrannically because it is liberated from considerations of justice or precedent. Thus unchecked, the press can subvert rational habits of mind among citizens and reverence for the law while flattering public resentments and antagonizing citizens’ pride. Franklin was consciously witnessing the birth of a new class, a kind of press corps, created by this new principle, and his assessment of the human content of this class is contrasted with the powers it wields. For Franklin, a free press must be checked by a vigilant and jealous public, which he hopes to energize against abuses of liberty.

Franklin’s literary style differs from that of the other founders. As University of Chicago professor Ralph Lerner has observed, Franklin often “works on us through indirection and insinuation. But he leaves it to us to catch his drift.” In his analysis of the press, Franklin tacitly points out both the problems with our idealism (so as to soften their deleterious effects) and the conflicts in our motives and hopes (so as to encourage a liberating skepticism). He does so with a view to protecting democratic self-respect while exposing and ridiculing the ability of the press to undermine the host democracy’s institutions.


In order to get at Franklin’s perspective on the press in America, we need to take a step back to get a sense of its powers. According to Franklin, the press’s powers resemble those of a “court,” a term he uses in several ways. In the first sense, the press resembles a conventional court of law: It has the power to “judge, sentence, and condemn to infamy” citizens both public and private. The press even carries out court-like powers by conducting what look like hearings and inquiries. And since in a republic none can claim superiority to the law, “all persons” and “all inferior courts” are subject to its jurisdiction and judgment. In this way, the press claims to imitate the majesty, objectivity, and moral authority of a court of law.

The press does these things, however, without being “governed by any of the rules of common courts of law.” Unlike a legal court, the press is not part of the judicial system and is therefore not subject to the institutional checks that moderate political power and authority. While the claims to equity and justice authorize such powers in a court of law, the press is neither restrained by legal precedent nor by evidentiary standards that assure the maintenance of those claims. Thus, for example, rather than relying on witnesses sworn to truthfulness, it may use anonymous sources, who suffer no consequences for dishonesty. In fact, as it often rules through mere “accusation,” no limits seem to exist on the nature or extent of the accusations, just as there are no limits on who can be accused.

The press’s proceedings occur “with or without inquiry or hearing, at the court’s discretion” (emphasis in original). The press acts on its own initiative, rather than through citizen or executive complaint. It can pick and choose its own cases — selectively closing its eyes to some, while opening them to others — not with a view to satisfying justice or the law, but in accordance with its own prejudices or interests. Since the press follows its own discretion, its operations and methods are not fully knowable, and one therefore cannot appeal to it rationally. The press is conscious of this supremacy, Franklin contends.

The press also resembles a religious court, Franklin half-jokes, the “Spanish Court of Inquisition,” in its moral authority to force and shape belief through fear and intimidation. Like the Spanish Inquisition, the press enforces its pre-eminence by reaching into individual souls and compelling belief. When the press acts against individuals and institutions:

The accused is allowed no grand jury to judge of the truth of the accusation before it is publicly made, nor is the Name of the Accuser made known to him, nor has he an Opportunity of confronting the Witnesses against him; for they are kept in the dark, as in the Spanish Court of Inquisition.

The open presentation of evidence of wrongdoing corroborated by facts shows respect for rational and transparent procedures that embody the spirit of justice. Such proceedings presume citizens’ intellectual capacity to be convinced by the force of facts and arguments. With the Inquisition, to the contrary, assent is founded on fear and intimidation, as one would expect from despotism. Here there is darkness, mystery, and anxious anticipation. In its practice, Franklin contends, the press contradicts the principles by which it justifies its authority: It claims that belief stems from the free and rational persuasion of the mind, but in its deeds it insists that belief should be compelled through its own powers of insinuation, intimidation, and accusation.

The press has a despotic inclination for making citizens experience its overwhelming power: It takes an “honest” and “good” citizen who, through what is almost a miraculous transformation, “in the same Morning” is judged and condemned by the press to be a “Rogue and a Villain” (emphasis in the original). Its rapidity and forcefulness appear to be almost irresistible. Though the press does not burn individuals at the stake, nonetheless, like tribunals of the Spanish Inquisition, Franklin sees in the press the capacity for fanaticism originating in complete confidence in its ability to judge.

This unrestrained power can even willfully direct public opinion against the law itself, perhaps despite the public’s interests. We witness one contemporary example of this power. Whatever one’s view of immigration policy might be, the press, by relentlessly calling “illegal aliens” “undocumented immigrants” for years, has subtly altered public sympathies against would-be enforcers of the law. The press can make the law appear weak and its authority questionable in comparison to its own power.

Although prepared to subvert the law at times, the press relies on the law’s protection when using it for its own advantages:

[I]f an officer of this court [the unchecked untruthful press] receives the slightest check for misconduct in this his office, he claims immediately the rights of a free citizen by the Constitution, and demands to know his accuser, to confront the witnesses, and to have a fair trial by a jury of his peers.

In sum, the press sometimes reveres and sometimes subverts the law; sometimes it guides public opinion toward the law, sometimes against it. But the press always seems to know its interest in maintaining its superiority over the public mind.


Franklin asks us to contrast this remarkable power with the character of the members of the class wielding it. The freedom of the press creates a new human type that dominates the liberal-democratic landscape to this day. This new type is “appointed to this great Trust” of guiding the public intellect, deciding upon citizens’ fates, and sometimes even determining the future of the nation.

This new class, Franklin notes, is open to anyone. The officers of the press corps are not appointed by an executive authority on the basis of their virtue. Nor is the press a hereditary institution governed by and therefore subordinated to considerations of honor or tradition. (Franklin is not in favor of such alternatives, of course.) As such, he observes that under the new democratic conditions, this class is self-created, so to speak:

     [A]ny Man who can procure Pen, Ink, and Paper, with a Press, and a huge pair of Blacking Balls, may commissionate himself; and his court is immediately established in the plenary Possession and exercise of its rights.

    The effect of this, for Franklin, is the creation of a class requiring neither “Ability, Integrity, [nor] Knowledge.” Surely these qualities sometimes exist — look at Franklin! — but just as surely they are not necessary prerequisites. Franklin chooses his words carefully, subtly leading us to ask whether, in practice, these virtues often become their opposites: Sensationalism will often be mistaken for ability, contempt for all those inferior to it mistaken for integrity, and pedantry mistaken for knowledge. Franklin suggests that the public mind may come to imitate this confusion of virtue and vice under the press’s influence.

This class of unelected opinion makers is also unified by a specific motive, Franklin contends. It is a community that shares the “privilege of accusing and abusing the other four hundred and ninety-nine parts at their pleasure.” These numbers are invented, of course, but Franklin is pointing to the hidden motive unifying this community — the mutual indulgence in feigned superiority, the pleasure of punishing, and a taste for contempt for one’s fellow citizens and for would-be rulers. Can one serve the public if one has contempt for it?

Furthermore, Franklin observes that the powers granted to the press, through the principle authorizing its existence, often culminate in the appearance of principled courage. Feeling its superiority to individual citizens or other public institutions, the press rebels against inquiries into its authority and the modes of its rule: “For, if you make the least complaint of the judge’s conduct, he daubs his blacking balls in your face wherever he meets you.” What at first glance may seem like dignified courage in carrying out its duties is perhaps merely the protection of its own superiority coupled with vengeance against those questioning it.

Indeed, the press, Franklin argues, may use its capacity to “[mark] you out for the odium of the public, as an enemy to the liberty of the press,” in order to suppress dissent against its authority. This has the effect of crushing the voice of reason in citizens along with the self-confidence necessary for them to voice their thoughts publicly. Franklin tacitly suggests that, over time, citizens may lose their habits of reason through this kind of rule.

One barely needs to add that this class serves for its own “Emolument.” Franklin draws our attention to a dual unity in motive: Satisfying the pleasures of ruling citizens and indulging its own taste for contempt become financially lucrative under these new democratic circumstances. In an era of egalitarianism, most human beings are born without genuine wealth, the security of inherited social class and standing, or special destiny. Individuals therefore to a greater extent than ever before become their professions.

It’s important to point out that during Franklin’s time, owners of printing presses printed all kinds of things for profit: newspapers, books, and pamphlets, encompassing every subject, sometimes including the printing of the libelous and scurrilous as well. Our newspapers no longer do precisely this, of course (though it is subject to debate whether appearing to praise oneself for alleged objectivity, as newspapers do today, while printing what is essentially partisan, has polluted the moral and intellectual waters more than when, as during Franklin’s time, all citizens knew that the press was for hire). Nevertheless, the problem Franklin draws our attention to is still with us. When intermixed with the self-serving powers to command public opinion, merely aspiring to uphold a principle for one’s livelihood rarely results in independence of mind or judgment. In fact, the appearance of acting on principle can be lucrative.

As Franklin makes clear, it is not entirely obvious whether the press’s belief in its guiding principles is sincere, as it does not apply them equally to all other individuals or institutions. Today, for example, much of the press class is in favor of campaign-finance laws that regulate the expression of candidates, parties, and interest groups, but is uninterested in applying similar regulations to itself. Taken to its logical extreme, this may suggest that this class has a secret motive, aiming to limit free speech by making only its own speech acceptable. Its unwillingness to subject itself to the same standards of law and regulations as other authorities is suspect.


Franklin also sees in the press a tendency to deform and undermine the idealism necessary for republicanism. Republicanism presumes that citizens are willing, at times, to sacrifice a great deal for liberty, like the signers of the Declaration of Independence who mutually pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Yet it is difficult to love liberty if it is experienced as moral chaos, which the press can infuse into democratic life. In fact, Franklin fears that political liberty, as redefined by the press, may come to mean the “Liberty of affronting, calumniating, and defaming one another.” In such an environment, liberty may come to be experienced as burdensome, tedious, and ugly, encouraging citizens to “cheerfully consent to exchange [their] Liberty of Abusing others for the Privilege of not being abus’d [themselves].”

In theory, the freedom of the press presumes that what is most crucially common to all human beings is each individual’s rational faculty, on the basis of which modern republicanism is created and defended. Thus, for Franklin, among the highest manifestations of the freedom of the press is the “Liberty of discussing the Propriety of Public Measures and political opinions.” By this definition, he seems to mean the publication of works like the Federalist Papers (which appeared as a series of newspaper columns) or his own writings — though he is of course aware that this standard is rarely achieved in practice. Such writings elevate and deepen citizens. One should contrast Franklin’s understanding to the recently developed public view of speech which considers dignified any spasmodic effusion of half-formed feeling, obscenity, or agitation subversive of republicanism.

These powers to abuse rather than bolster republican idealism and rational habits of character, Franklin contends, find their “natural Support” in human resentment. Resentment, a “depravity” of the human character, is a powerful though hidden source of the press’s power over the mind. Franklin quotes Juvenal’s Satires to explain:

There is a Lust in Man no Charm can tame,
Of loudly publishing his Neighbour’s Shame.
On Eagle’s Wings immortal Scandals fly,
While virtuous Actions are but born and die.

Resentment is an ugly, double-sided passion. It leads one to assert moral superiority over others, thereby demanding superior desert for oneself, while simultaneously desiring that harm befall others so as to protect one’s own inflated self-appraisal. As Franklin politely puts it, “Whoever feels pain in hearing a good character of his neighbour, will feel a pleasure in the reverse.” Resentment does not even depend on one’s own faring well, for one can be resentful and at the same time prosperous.

Franklin is being neither flippant nor pedantic regarding the central importance of resentment. He is pointing to the deeper problem which resentment reveals — human confusion about desert. As Jerry Weinberger has argued in Benjamin Franklin Unmasked, among the central premises of Franklin’s philosophical thought is that human beings want more for themselves than they deserve. This desire deludes our judgment, distorts our opinion of ourselves, and to a great extent accounts for the human comedy of errors. It also accounts for our jealous hatred of others’ success.

This passion, in conflict with republicanism, is flattered by the press, Franklin argues. In amplifying and dignifying resentment, the press cultivates its own popularity and reach. There are always many “who, despairing to rise into distinction by their virtues, are happy if others can be depressed to a level with themselves.” In flattering the public’s resentment, the press blinds it to its own mediocrity, Franklin suggests. Today, this psychology follows a predictable pattern: tacitly or overtly belittling or ridiculing human greatness, cutting it down to a digestible size, while exposing and laughing at private vices — or, alternatively, encouraging indulgence in feigned great moral feeling without the requirement of sacrifice or sincerity. The steady stream of examples of baseness, greed, and dishonesty teach the lesson that such individuals are no better than you — in fact, they are worse, because you can look down upon them. By implicitly calling resentment high-mindedness in flattering its audience, the press often both ridicules virtue and avoids making mediocrity appear contemptible.

Franklin sees the formation of a community of mutual flattery between the press’s desire to rule and the public’s resentment. On the one hand, fostering resentments maintains the press’s power over the public — for in satisfying the public in such a way, it is allowed to govern the public’s tastes and passions. And the public, on the other hand, in showing its gratitude for not being targeted or undone by the press, redoubles rewards by showing obliging subordination.

Thus, in a final sense of the press’s playing the role of a “court,” it is akin to a monarchical court, for it serves a monarch — the public. Yet in serving its monarch, does the press play the role of the French revolutionary, re-enacting the guillotine by beheading individuals or institutions in order to satisfy the public’s resentments? Oddly, the press, originally conceived as an essential means by which to preserve political and intellectual freedom, may become a mechanism through which the public oppresses itself.  In suggesting that the lust to satisfy resentment guides “such minds, as have not been mended by religion, nor improved by good education,” Franklin is goading us to consider more closely the kind of education he is providing his readers, which can correct this natural defect. His wit makes us aware of our defects, while his humor attempts to shame us out of them.


Is it possible to correct for these abuses of the free press? Unlike the other powers enumerated in the Constitution, Franklin observes that the press has no corresponding check against it:

     [S]o much has been written and published on the federal Constitution, and the necessity of checks in all other parts of good government has been so clearly and learnedly explained, I find myself so far enlightened as to suspect some check may be proper in this part also; but I have been at a loss to imagine any that may not be construed an infringement of the sacred liberty of the press.

    Franklin jokes that the only check he can find is the “liberty of the cudgel.” In other words, the press is free to print as it pleases so long as citizens are free to go to an authentic offender “and break his head.” Franklin’s ludicrous solution points to a contradiction in republican laws.

Self-government presumes a certain measure of self-respect and pride among citizens. Republicanism depends on the conviction that individuals have the psychological and physical ability to order their lives and to legislate for themselves and their community on the basis of their judgment.

Individual pride, of course, cannot be given full reign in a republic, nor can its demands be fully satisfied. When carried to its extremes, pride points to absurd self-importance and tyranny. In republics, individual pride must be restrained to some degree for the protection of others’ rights, for too much of it can destroy a republic. Yet republican law puts man in an odd state: On the one hand, man desires the full security of his pride and therefore his reputation — loving his reputation perhaps more than his life, as Franklin observes — while the law constrains his ability to defend it fully against its attackers. Defending one’s self-respect, Franklin implies, is perhaps a right as much as any other. On the other hand, however, “the right [of the press] of abusing seems to remain in full force, the laws made against it being rendered ineffectual by the liberty of the press” (emphasis in original). Citizens cannot fully protect their self-respect while the press is given broad authorization to abuse it. For Franklin, the effect of this may be the weakening of citizens’ pride and the diminishing of their attachment to self-government, which correspondingly grows the space for the press’s influence over the mind.

What is to be done, according to Franklin? He jokes, “[L]eave the liberty of the press untouched, to be exercised in its full extent, force, and vigor; but to permit the liberty of the cudgel to go with it pari passu” (emphasis in the original). Franklin wants the vindication of republican pride — not just because he honors such sentiments, but because he thinks that such a counterbalance or check, like the checks employed in other parts of the Constitution, is necessary against the press’s powers, too. In fact, the public can unite if it is affronted, “as it ought to be,” by the press’s abuses (emphasis in original). The public can show its “moderation,” he jokes, by “tarring and feathering, and tossing them in a blanket.” Franklin is of course not advocating such actions, but he does want the public to recall its power to humiliate.

Franklin concludes by emphasizing the need to secure citizens’ reputations:

    If, however, it should be thought that this proposal of mine may disturb the public peace, I would then humbly recommend to our legislators to take up the consideration of both liberties, that of the press, and that of the cudgel, and by an explicit law mark their extent and limits; and, at the same time that they secure the person of a citizen from assaults, they would likewise provide for the security of his reputation.

    Balancing both liberties, for Franklin, ought to be among the highest considerations of legislators and statesmen — the liberty of the press and the liberty to defend one’s pride. One wonders whether Franklin here explicitly means only libel laws, or is also referring to citizens who are jealous of their liberty and who know their power.


The press exists as an institution to protect and strengthen republicanism, resting on the idea that human beings and public institutions must be made good, or, as we say today, made responsible. But the press can also exceed its limits, becoming over-powerful and therefore no longer serving the interests of the society that hosts it. Franklin’s solutions to the problems created by the press are partly comical, both because they are exaggerated and because relatively little, it seems, can be done about the effectual truth of this principle.

To some degree, the conservative oppositional press begun a few generations ago has addressed what is among the worst diseases of a republic: the centralization of the press. As Tocqueville observes:

When a large number of organs of the press come to advance along the same track, their influence becomes almost irresistible in the long term, and public opinion, struck always from the same side, ends by yielding under their blows.

The press’s powers (as analyzed by Franklin), combined with centralization, may be lethal to a republic. In this regard, America’s conservative oppositional press — which has no parallel anywhere else in the Western world — has greatly contributed to breaking up centralization. Yet having guided us away from the shoal of centralization, the oppositional press has created new problems.

With the help of new media technologies, the oppositional press has ushered into existence the parallel universes that American citizens now construct for themselves by choosing which press better flatters their prejudices. Alarmingly, citizens who inhabit each of these monolithic realities are more than merely at partisan ends of a political spectrum — they have become to some degree almost different kinds of beings, given the extent of their differences in sentiments, passions, habits of character, and tastes. Indeed, the new multiplicity of news sources, despite some obviously healthy effects, can create a greater and greater cacophony of similar sentiments while reducing genuine thoughtfulness. This need not, however, be our nation’s final situation.

The quality of our press will decide the fate of our civilization. We might try to follow Franklin’s general lessons in order to facilitate public discourse: bolstering citizen pride as a means of preventing the press’s excesses; diminishing the public’s resentment by ridiculing rather than flattering it; all while recalling that the press must serve republicanism rather than weaken it. For this to be possible, the press must renew its self-understanding. And the public ought to demand it. On the side of the press, this would mean a new devotion to elevating political debate — while consciously avoiding self-flattery, dogmatism, and partisan dishonesty — about important political questions facing the nation. On the side of the public, this means deepening its understanding of the stakes to the nation, and showing a new willingness to speak freely and rationally, despite the obstacles of political correctness or fear of intimidation.

Finally, lessons in moderating the press’s power and reach may be seen in Franklin’s own activity. Perhaps lampooning and parodying the press — that is, exposing it, its inferior personages, and its interests, through film, books, and on stage, as Franklin himself did — can liberate the democratic mind to some degree from its power. Also following Franklin, we see that democratic resentment — though exploited by the press — can be harnessed and directed toward useful ends. For example, resentment can despise and envy the great, or it can satisfy itself through the prosecution of corruption, both governmental and that of the press itself.

Arthur Milikh is associate director of the Heritage Foundation’s B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics.