Paris under siege: Dozens killed and injured in series of coordinated terrorist attacks after Kalashnikov-wielding gunman goes on the rampage in the capital, 100 hostages are killed at concert hall and explosions are heard near national stadium

• 118 people said to have been killed in terror attacks in central Paris tonight
• Two attackers reportedly had suicide vests near Stade de France stadium
• Hostages taken from rock metal concert at Bataclan music hall, police said

What initially looked like a disaster for Ben Carson is now a major black eye for Politico.

On Friday, Politico reported that Carson had “fabricated” his application and acceptance into West Point, and that his campaign had acknowledged as much in an interview.

That story was initially headlined “EXCLUSIVE: Ben Carson admits fabricating West Point scholarship.” It seemed like the sort of story that had the potential to ruin Carson’s ambitions for the presidency.

But the Politico story was not accurate on some key points.

And in the wake of pushback from the Carson campaign — which called the story an “outright lie” — Politico softened its headline, removed the “fabrication” language, and changed some key details — even as it said it was “standing by its story.”

Politico’s updated story does not include an editors note or correction.

In a statement, Politico said, “We stand by our story which is a powerful debunking of a key aspect of Ben Carson’s personal narrative. The story online includes additional details now as well that bolster this account.”

But Carson’s campaign sees the matter differently: “It’s clear that what the Politico writer, with what he was trying to gain with the headline, did not substantiate it with his article,” Armstrong Williams, Carson’s business manager, told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

Politico’s initial story began by stating that Carson’s campaign had admitted “that a central point in his inspirational personal story was fabricated: his application and acceptance into the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.”

In fact, there is no evidence in Politico’s story that Carson ever claimed to have applied to West Point.

The Politico story does show that Carson said several times that he was “offered a full scholarship to West Point.” He made that claim in his book, “Gifted Hands,” and in several media interviews, including during an appearance on Charlie Rose last month.

Carson acknowledged Friday that he was never offered a full scholarship to West Point, and sought to clarify that he had instead been given an informal offer or “nomination” to attend West Point.

“Because I had done so extraordinarily well you know I was told that someone like me — they could get a scholarship to West Point. But I made it clear I was going to pursue a career in medicine,” Carson told The New York Times. “It was, you know, an informal ‘with a record like yours we could easily get you a scholarship to West Point.”

Politico also claims that West Point “has no record of Carson applying, much less being extended admission.” But West Point told CNN on Friday that it does not keep records of decades-old applications, and would not be able to know if Carson was offered an appointment because he did not attend.

Finally, Politico’s story seeks to cast doubt on Carson’s claim that he was introduced to General William Westmoreland during Memorial Day of his senior year at high school.

In “Gifted Hands,” Carson writes that his high school ROTC director “introduced me to General Westmoreland, and I had dinner with him and the Congressional Medal winners.”

Politico says official U.S. Army records show Westmoreland did not visit Detroit around Memorial Day in 1969 or have dinner with Carson. “In fact,” Politico reports, “the general’s records suggest he was in Washington that day and played tennis at 6:45 p.m.”

But Politico goes on to note that there was a similar banquet event in Detroit in February of that year that the General did attend, and that “Carson, a leader of the city’s ROTC program at the time, may have been among the invited guests at the $10-a-plate event.”

Following pushback from the Carson campaign, Politico softened its headline and changed its lead and various details in the story. The story is now headlined, “Exclusive: Carson claimed West Point ‘scholarship’ but never applied.”

A Politico spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment regarding the absence of an editor’s note or correction on the story.

Carson’s campaign, meanwhile, seemed unfazed by the report. Barry Bennett, Carson’s campaign manager, said in an email to CNN that the story had been “debunked.”

“Ben was offered a nomination which he declined,” Bennet wrote.

Editor’s note: The author of this story was a reporter for Politico from 2011 until September 2015.

Faisal Mohammed, an 18-year-old male University of California Merced student stabbed four people with a large hunting knife on the campus Wednesday morning before he was shot and killed by university police, authorities said.

A construction worker who ran into the California university classroom to break up what he thought was a fight is being hailed as a hero for preventing a student armed with a hunting knife from possibly killing his intended target.

Byron Price, 31, was working on remodeling a waiting room at the University of California, Merced campus when he heard a commotion Wednesday and rushed to check on it.

The violence left Price and three others badly injured, but all are expected to survive. The assailant, described as a college student in his 20s, was shot and killed by campus police as he fled the scene.

Authorities are investigating a motive. Warnke said the knife blade was eight to 10 inches long.

Incidents of campus violence are becoming rampant. Stabbings involving multiple victims on college campuses have not raised as much alarm as mass shootings, although several U.S. colleges have been the site of violent attacks involving bladed weapons.

A student at Morgan State University in Maryland was charged in March with slashing two other students with a pocket knife outside a campus dining hall. In 2013, a 20-year-old student at a Texas community college wounded at least 14 people during a building-to-building attack.

Speaking from the oval office, a visibly shaken and obviously disturbed President Obama decried the escalating violence with knives in the nation as “public enemy number one,” adding that “We should not rest until we’ve rounded up every sharp blade in this nation and melted it down into a spoon.”

Amen, Mr. President. Amen.

PUBLIUS ;~}

Citizens of Houston overwhelmingly voted down a controversial measure that would have created legal protections in 15 categories, including sexual orientation and gender identity.

For months, opponents waged a war on the so-called “bathroom ordinance” that would allow transgender individuals use the bathroom of their choice. On Tuesday, their work paid off, with more than 60 percent of voters rejecting the measure.

“We are very pleased, obviously, with the incredible results,” said Dave Welch, executive director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, a group that’s been fighting against the ordinance since 2014.

“From the very beginning, this really was our position that this was not a good fit for Houston—this was not something that was consistent with what the the people [wanted]. It took eight months to get here and half a million dollars in legal fees—it was a very expensive campaign—but we are very pleased with the outcome.”

In a joint statement to press, supporters of the legislation, including the Houston Unites campaign, the ACLU of Texas and the Human Rights Campaign, said in light of Tuesday’s results, they won’t back down from the fight.

“We’ve learned some important lessons,” the statement said. “We have to continue sharing our stories so that more Houstonians know what HERO is really about and aren’t susceptible to the ugliest of smear campaigns run by the opposition.”

The ordinance, named the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance (HERO), originally passed 11-6 last year in the Houston City Council, but opponents forced the measure to a public vote by obtaining 55,000 signatures, well beyond the 17,269 needed to force a referendum.

Yet, the city claimed that only 15,000 of the signatures they obtained were valid and refused to place the issue on the ballot.

That’s when Welch and his fellow pastors fought back, filing a lawsuit against the city of Houston.

As the dispute played out, Welch and four other local pastors had their sermons and other communications subpoenaed by the city’s attorney.

Houston Mayor Annise Parker, who first introduced HERO, eventually withdrew the subpoena. This summer, the Texas Supreme Court ruled the city must either bring the initiative to a vote or withdraw it completely.

HERO applies to city employment and city services, city contracts, public accommodations, private employment and housing.

In addition to sexual orientation and gender identity, the ordinance protects 13 other classes including sex, race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, familial status, marital status, military status, religion, disability, genetic information, and pregnancy.

The drawn-out dispute pit Houston at the center of the latest battle between LGBT and religious liberty advocates.

Supporters of the ordinance call it “sensible” and say it’s a good policy for Houston businesses. More than 60 local companies came out in support of the measure, along with seven big businesses.

HERO advocates also accused opponents of running a “fearmongering” campaign by arguing the measure could allow sexual predators into women’s restrooms.

“Houston residents should not succumb to that ugly fearmongering,” wrote the New York Times editorial board. “Those who vote ‘yes’ to retaining the ordinance will be affirming the city’s most valuable asset: its longstanding culture of inclusiveness.”

But opponents of HERO say they have legitimate concerns about its implications for bathrooms, locker-rooms and other sex-specific facilities.

“The proposed law defines gender identity as ‘innate identification, appearance, expression, or behavior as either male or female, although the same may not correspond to the individual’s body or gender assigned at birth,’” wrote Ryan T. Anderson, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation and author of the new book “Truth Overruled.” “No legal change of name or gender, and no surgery or hormone treatment is required to identity as transgender—simply one’s self-professed and chosen identity, appearance, mannerisms, or behavior.”

Furthermore, critics cite concerns about HERO threatening the freedom of citizens to carry out their religious or moral beliefs about marriage and human biology.

At the polls, more than 60 percent of voters rejected the measure.

“Thankfully, it was a strong turnout and the results were very decisive,” Welch said.

By Kelsey Harkness / @kelseyjharkness

As we wrote in our article NEA Report Card: F, the education problem has been growing in America for decades, as the costs of educating our children skyrocket and students are churned out of the public education system and universities with less and less actual education.

Man-on-the-street interviews reveal that college age Americans have little or no understanding of American history or the political process. They appear to be focused on leftist political issues, like man-made global warming, and if any of them question their leftist professors or the nonsense they spew in classrooms, they are automatically flunked from the course.

A decades-long growing battle between liberals and conservatives over education is culminating in conservative calls to either get the government and unions out of education altogether, or to entirely overhaul the system.

Of course, Democrat Party presidential candidates are upping the ante in votes-for-handouts campaigning, offering free college educations to all young Americans in exchange for making them president. None of the Democrats inform the electorate who will pay for all of that free education in the face of a $20 trillion debt, and it fails to solve the problem of churning armies of knuckleheads out of our universities.

The major problems with the current system are:

1) costs have artificially skyrocketed and the taxpayer is left holding the bag for much of it while students incur decades of debt; and

2) Anti-American leftists dominate the university system and classrooms, leaving indoctrinated students with little usable education and mush for brains.

The Federalist Press editors propose a new higher education option, patterned somewhat after the current online degree or CLEP and DANTES higher education programs being utilized by a handful of students.

In this age of digital access it is feasible to launch a program that provides students with online classes, with lectures by top experts in every field and stunning graphics, videos and demonstrations of the principles and concepts being taught. A basic 2 year core curriculum will ensure that all students receive across-the-board instruction in math, science, English, history, American politics, etc. Then specialization will occur in 3^rd and 4^th year online courses. This is essentially how colleges and universities are supposed to offer classes now, but they have strayed far from their mandate, with tragic results.

Third and fourth year specialization courses in the government-offered online university should emphasize productive degree programs initially; science, engineering, language, history, chemistry, education, pre-medicine, pre-law, etc., with some liberal arts programs being added as the system is more fully developed to accommodate their greater need for interactivity.

To help reduce cheating on exams, a major problem in the current system as well, testing centers should be established for this online university system with certified proctors to administer standardized, computerized tests.

Students can take online courses at their own pace, and show up to take the exams at proctored centers as soon as they have completed each course.

Costs, which will be only a fraction of the current $500 billion, can be shared by students and the taxpayers. Students can pay a low flat fee for each course, and the federal government can dramatically cut its higher education budget and finance the remaining cost of the online university system.

This will replace the current Student Loan program, which essentially supports a bloated, ineffective higher education system that is little more than a propaganda arm of the global leftist movement. It will also eliminate the current hurdle of student debt, hanged around the neck of most graduating students in America.

This proposal will provide higher education for anyone who wants it, and anyone who is self-motivated enough to do the work. It doesn’t get any easier, cheaper or better than this.

PUBLIUS

BREAKING: House Republicans are huddling on Capitol Hill to nominate the next speaker, as Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy grapples with an 11th-hour challenge to his bid to succeed John Boehner — after a conservative bloc threw their support elsewhere.

In a stunning turn of events, McCarthy just announced he will withdraw from the race for House Speaker.

The story is developing.

PUBLIUS

In an article in Politico, Mark Rozell, acting dean of the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs at George Mason University, and Paul Goldman, a weekly columnist for the Washington Post, point out a fact that should greatly concern all Americans: that the presence of millions of noncitizens, both legal and illegal, could tilt the presidential election toward the Democrat Party and decide the election in favor of the eventual Democratic nominee.

Voter Fraud Happens

As I have outlined in many different articles and a recent book on voter fraud, illegal voting by noncitizens is a growing problem. Most election officials are not taking the steps necessary to detect or stop it, and many prosecutors including the current Justice Department seem reluctant to prosecute it.

A study released in 2014 by three professors at Old Dominion and George Mason Universities in Virginia concluded that 6.4 percent of the noncitizen population voted illegally in the 2008 election, enough to have changed the outcome of various contests in a number of states.

That includes the winner of North Carolina’s electoral votes, which went to Barack Obama by a relatively small margin, since a majority of foreign-born residents favor the Democratic Party. That may also be why Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the governor of a battleground state, vetoed a bill that would have required jury commissioners to provide local election officials with the names of individuals called for jury duty from the state’s voter registration list who were excused for not being U.S. citizens.

Some States Have Congressional Districts They Shouldn’t Have

But as Rozel and Goldman accurately point out, noncitizens may be changing the outcome of presidential elections even without voting illegally. This is related to the problem of some states having more representatives in Congress than they should, and others being shortchanged unfairly due to the huge—and growing—population of illegal aliens whom the Obama administration and its political allies want to provide permanent amnesty.

All of this stems from the way apportionment is conducted. There are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Under Sec. 2 of Article I of the Constitution and Sec. 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, every ten years, after the “Enumeration” (the Census), we redistribute those 435 seats based on the “whole number of persons in each State.” In other words, the number of members of the House that each state gets is based on the total population of each state relative to the total population of the U.S., which includes noncitizens. Thus, the upwards of 12 million illegal aliens present in the U.S., combined with other aliens who are here legally but are not citizens and have no right to vote, distort representation in the House.

Various studies have been done on the effects of this distortion, including by Leonard Steinhorn of American University and scholars at Texas A&M University and the Center for Immigration Studies. If you calculate the results based on the latest Census numbers, according to Steinhorn, ten states each are short a congressional seat that they would otherwise have if apportionment were based on citizen population: Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.

States with large numbers of illegal aliens and other noncitizens have congressional seats they otherwise would not have (and should not be entitled to): California (five seats), Florida (one seat), New York (one seat), Texas (two seats), and Washington State (one seat).

This is fundamentally unfair, because these states are benefiting from illegal conduct and gaining political representation for individuals who have no entitlement to such representation or to even be present in the country.

How Noncitizens Affect The Electoral College

This also twists our presidential election process. Under our Electoral College system as laid out in Article II, Sec. 1, the number of electors that each state receives is a combination of its two senators and the number of representatives it has in the House (the one exception is the District of Columbia, which gets three votes courtesy of the Twenty-Third Amendment). Thus, states like California have more Electoral College votes than they should, while other states like Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio are shorted in their Electoral College votes.

As Goldman and Rozell say, this “math gives strongly Democratic states an unfair edge in the Electoral College.” When you look at the makeup of the states that have lost/gained Electoral College votes and what would happen if apportionment were based on citizen population, then:

[T]hree of the states that would gain electoral votes are Democratic. The remaining seven are fairly put in the GOP column. Combining the two halves of the citizens-only population reapportionment, states likely in the Democratic column suffer a net loss of four electoral votes. Conversely the must-win Republican leaning states total a net gain of four electoral votes. These are the four electoral votes statistically cast by noncitizens.

Four electoral votes may seem minimal, but we have had a number of presidential elections in our history decided by a very small margin, such as the 1876 race between Rutherford Hayes and Samuel Tilden, which was decided by one electoral vote: 185 to 184. The 2000 race was decided by only a slightly higher margin: Bush (271) vs. Gore (266).

Goldman and Rozell point out that Romney won 24 states in 2012. Three battleground states important to Obama’s victory were Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, which have 60 combined electoral votes. If Romney had won these states, too, he would still have had only 266 electoral votes, four short of the 270 needed to win. But according to Goldman and Rozell, if the Electoral College were apportioned according to citizens, then if Romney had won Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, the electoral votes of those states combined with the other 24 Romney won would have given him the 270 votes needed to be president.

The misallocation of electoral votes in apportionment gives Democrats a clear advantage. “This is why counting illegal immigrants and noncitizens significantly reduces the chances of the GOP winning the presidency.”

No one doubts that we should count noncitizens, whether they are here legally or illegally, in the Census, so that we have an accurate count of the population of the U.S. for a myriad of sound public policy reasons. But as Goldman and Rozell say, there is no “persuasive reason to allow the presence of illegal immigrants, unlawfully in the country, or noncitizens generally, to play such a crucial role in picking a president.”

It is a felony under federal law for a noncitizen to vote in our elections because voting is a right given only to American citizens. It is a precious right that must be earned by becoming a citizen. Giving aliens, particularly those whose first act was to break our laws to illegally enter the country, political power in Congress and allowing them to help choose our president strike at the very heart of our republic and what it means to be an American.

By Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky

An Ivy League professor said that Ben Carson should win the “coon of the year” after the 2016 hopeful supported allowing Confederate flags at NASCAR events.

In a tweet sent out last Tuesday, University of Pennsylvania religious studies professor Anthea Butler, wrote “If only there was a ‘coon of the year’ award …” when responding to Daily Beast editor-at-large Goldie Taylor’s tweet containing a link to a Sports Illustrated article on the issue.

“Swastikas are a symbol of hate for some people too … and yet they still exist in our museums and places like that,” Carson said during an event with Richard Petty in North Carolina last Monday. “If it’s a majority of people in that area who want it to fly, I certainly wouldn’t take it down.”

Obviously, Butler disagreed with the famed neurosurgeon, who currently sits second in the Washington Examiner‘s latest power ranking, behind only Donald Trump.

Butler deleted the tweet after she was contacted by Campus Reform for comment. In addition, Butler has a protected account on the social network, meaning she would have to accept a request from a user to follow her account.

Prof. Justin McDaniel, who chairs of the religious studies program at UPenn, called Butler a “valued colleague and faculty member,” but did not offer any direct comment on the tweet itself.

“Professor Butler is on sabbatical and not regularly on campus as she is writing a book on African-American religious history,” McDaniel told the Examiner via email Tuesday. “She will be back on campus teaching regularly in the spring. She is a valued colleague and faculty member, but I have no comment on the tweet, because I have not seen it nor know the context of the comment.”

When presented with the tweet, McDaniel simply said “no comment.”

Carson spokeswoman Deana Bass told Examiner said that Butler’s tweet “does not merit a response.”

By Al Weaver (@alweaver22)

It is usually liberals who sit around wringing their hands about contrived issues. Recently, we see many Christian conservatives impaled on the horns of a dilemma, a position in which they find themselves more frequently in past decades.

Here is the problem. Conservative Catholics are at odds with a church and its leadership that are very left-leaning in their views of the world. We hear them daily now that the Pope is in town, trying to explain away the serious controversies caused by the Catholic Church leadership, from the very top all the way down to its army of pedophile priests.

Let me help you out here. The Pope is NOT God’s representative on earth.

How about a quick history lesson. Jesus Christ was indeed the Son of God, sent to atone for the sins of humanity, offering them a path back to His Father, if we so choose. Following his death and resurrection, he appointed Peter to preside over the Apostles and disciples of the church. Yes, Peter was the head Apostle—not a Pope.

The Roman Empire murdered the Apostles, including Peter, and the early Christian church died out, awaiting restoration before Christ’s second coming, as prophesied. In the mean while, heathen Roman emperors appointed themselves as head of the very church their predecessors had murdered, mixing their own Roman heathen superstitions with the Gospel of Christ, creating a religion partly and only loosely based on Christianity, but focused mainly on accumulating power.

The Roman leadership of that new organization plundered and murdered its way through the Dark Ages, including robbing gold and virtue from the innocent peoples of the New World. Hundreds of millions of peasants have been extorted and exploited by the Catholic Church and its “celibate” priests for many hundreds of years. The abuses have mounted to intolerable levels recently, with the membership of the church becoming vocal in reporting many of those violations.

Now, Catholic Church members wonder why their current church leadership seems to lack a Godly compass—why the Pope and other leaders seem to get a few things right (abortion, family) while getting other things so wrong (socialism, man-made global warming, etc.). The truth is that no matter how good or how bad a particular Catholic Pontiff (ultimate position of power in ancient Rome—the bridge keeper) may be, that person is nothing more than a person—voted into his position through a political process in the church’s hierarchy. God has nothing to do with making a man the Pope, and He has nothing to do with the Catholic Church—except to the extent good individuals seek to do good in the world, like any other organization or religion.

So Catholic Conservatives, my advice to you is rethink your devotion to a man and his underlings who are manifestly uninspired by God, and who wear very impressive robes and fancy hats, but whose souls are as empty as the magic spells they sell to the poor for money.

PUBLIUS

House Speaker John Boehner told lawmakers Friday that he plans to resign at the end of October, in a stunning development that comes amid mounting friction with the conservative wing of the party.

He plans to step down as speaker, and resign from Congress.

The 13-term Ohio Republican shocked his GOP caucus early Friday morning when he informed them of his decision in a closed-door session. One lawmaker told Fox News he was “stunned,” and that there was “some anger” in the room “against the people who caused this to happen.”

The announcement came one day after the high point of Boehner’s congressional career, a historic speech by Pope Francis to Congress at Boehner’s request. To the backdrop of that day’s pageantry, though, Boehner was facing an internal battle in the House GOP caucus over Planned Parenthood funding and threats by some in the conservative wing to challenge his speakership.

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said Boehner “just does not want to become the issue. Some people have tried to make him the issue both in Congress and outside.”

Conservatives have demanded that any legislation to keep the government operating past Wednesday’s midnight deadline strip Planned Parenthood of his funds, a move rejected by more moderate lawmakers.

Boehner took over the speakership in January 2011. The decision to step down was closely held; Fox News is told House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., was only informed of Boehner’s decision “one minute” before Boehner told the GOP conference.

McCarthy said in a statement Friday: “He will be missed because there is simply no one else like him. Now is the time for our conference to focus on healing and unifying to face the challenges ahead and always do what is best for the American people.”

A Boehner aide noted the speaker’s original plan was to serve “only through the end of last year,” yet former House GOP leader Eric Cantor’s primary loss last year “changed that calculation.” But the aide seemed to make clear reference to the internal turmoil.

“Speaker Boehner believes that the first job of any Speaker is to protect this institution and, as we saw yesterday with the Holy Father, it is the one thing that unites and inspires us all,” the aide said. “… The Speaker believes putting members through prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable damage to the institution.”

The aide added: “He is proud of what this majority has accomplished, and his Speakership, but for the good of the Republican Conference and the institution, he will resign the Speakership and his seat in Congress, effective October 30.”

The House will need to hold an election to select a new speaker. The last speaker to resign in the middle of a Congress was Jim Wright, D-Texas, amid an ethics scandal in 1989.

Boehner’s decision removes the possibility of a damaging vote to strip him of his speakership, a scenario that grew more likely amid the conservative clamor over a shutdown.

While the news Friday roiled Boehner allies, some conservatives welcomed his announcement.

Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas said “it’s time for new leadership,” and Rep. Tom Massie of Kentucky said the speaker “subverted our Republic.”

But more mainstream Republicans said it would be a pyrrhic victory for Tea Party-aligned lawmakers.

“The honor of John Boehner this morning stands in stark contrast to the idiocy of those members who seek to continually divide us,” said Rep. David Jolly of Florida.

Boehner was first elected to the House in 1990 and soon established a strongly conservative record. He was part of former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s leadership team when Republicans took over the House in 1995 for the first time in four decades but was ousted from his leadership role in the wake of the GOP’s disappointing performance in the 1998 midterms.

He won a 2006 race to succeed Tom DeLay as the House’s No. 2 Republican when DeLay stepped aside as majority leader. He took over as the top Republican in the House in 2007 after Democrats retook the chamber.

As speaker, his tenure has been defined by his early struggles to reach budget agreements with President Obama and his wrestling with the expectations of Tea Party conservatives who demanded a more confrontational approach.

In 2013, conservatives drove him to reluctantly embrace a partial government shutdown in hopes of delaying implementation of the new health care law.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram, Mike Emanuel and Rich Edson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

I can hear the howls from the left already, because they don’t believe that there is anything special about America. They don’t see America’s exceptionalism. They don’t even see that it is a particularly nice place to live.

They are wrong.

America is a “beacon on a hill,” as described by Ronald Reagan. Don’t like Ronald Reagan? How about Bono? “America is an idea. That’s how we see you around the world, as one of the greatest ideas in human history.”

The idea of America is based on its democratic-republic form of government, where all power lies in its citizens, and the states that they constitute, and only a certain limited number of powers are delegated to a “federal” system of government, and all other powers are retained by The People. This has provided the historically best, most successful fertile environment for lifting the masses out of poverty, and spreading democracy and higher standards of living throughout the world. Unchecked, much of the world could have been living in what futurists envision as a nearly Star Trek lifestyle, where people are fulfilled and have resources to pursue their dreams. Left unchecked.

Many of you may be laughing by now. I know. Leftists have done everything in their power to undermine our form of Constitutional government and turn it into just another two-bit European style semi-socialistic egalitarian nightmare. We’ve all stood by and watched as these enemies of personal liberty have twisted the Constitution until it no longer has much meaning or protection against burgeoning centralized government and bureaucratic excess. We have watched as leftists in our own ranks have reduced our economy and quality of life to international standards, and reduced our educational and health care systems to third-world, last-class standards, notwithstanding the heftiest price tags by far on the planet.

What’s next for America?

We are at a crossroads. Truly.

In the vacuum created by America’s withdrawal from the world stage, enemies of freedom are overrunning the “free world.” Islam is overtaking Europe, and is squeezing its deadly grip on the Middle East, Africa and Asia. With Islam at the helm, all of those leftists will find that they are the first to lose their heads, because Islam abhors everything that is near and dear to the Democratic Party–gays, abortionists, free speech, women’s rights, freedom from religion, etc. Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton can get themselves fitted for their burkas if America fails to stand up and flex its muscles–and very soon.

I am convinced by every indicator that as leftists soften everything that is right and good in our Western life based on Judaeo-Christian ethics, and undermine the family, and turn every group and denomination against one another, a monster is waiting in the wings, just beyond the curtain, ready to take its place on the stage.

Communists are making a comeback, in the vacuum created by America’s left. There are a couple of billion of them. Islam has expanded its borders and appetite, and is sweeping across Europe, devouring everything in its path. American leftists are flooding our own nation with poorly educated, big government supporting aliens, and are looking to the Middle East for backup aliens to take up the slack.

We are fast-approaching the point of no return. We must make a decision, and take a stand. In our efforts we will be assailed by enemies of our Constitution with epithets of Islamophobia, Xenophobia, Imperialism, Colonialism, etc. They will do everything in their considerable power to stop America from throwing off the shackles they have forged for us. They will attempt to thwart our every convulsion against the inevitable demise of America and the human dream of liberty.

We must act now. We must act decisively. Some Republican candidates for president are saying that we must close our borders against incursion, and a few even recognize the necessity of escorting interlopers to those borders and pushing them back through to where they came from. That is not enough.

The sad truth is that America and everything it stands for is under global attack–because the idea of America is completely incompatible with Islam, Communism and Socialism–the powers that are drawing a dark cloud over the world, and trying to destroy us from within. America is the last line of defense for the weak and poor in the world, the prime targets of Islam, Communism and Socialism. Without America, these totalitarian governments will finally have free reign in the world, unobstructed by the idea of personal liberty and individual rights.

It is no longer enough to stop despots at our borders. Because we allowed them to grow too much and grow too strong, we cannot now merely put up a No Vacancy sign. We will now have to wipe out the plague, the cancer, which is spreading its malignancy through the earth. There is no longer the option of surgical removal of small tumors, but the requirement of wholesale obliteration, through widespread fire.

Peace through strength has its opposite: War through weakness.

The left has made America weak in the world, leaving the masses vulnerable, and they are dying at the hands of savages by the thousands daily. Bullies are pushing their way around the world at a pace not seen since Hitler’s National Socialist Party (Nazi). There comes a point when you can no longer appease or negotiate. We are long past that point. So while Obama and his Keystone Cops are “negotiating” with our enemies around the world, emboldening them and empowering them, Americans are left with little choice than to prepare for a great conflict.

And when that conflict is over, assuming that America is victorious, how shall we rebuild the world? In our own image–this time. We must learn–from history and common sense–that not all creeds are worthy of inclusion. Savages and enemies of liberty have no more place in the modern world. Yes, it’s come to that.

PUBLIUS

Last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., told an audience at Liberty University that the United States was founded “on racist principles.” He added, “That’s a fact. We have come a long way as a nation.”

The principles on which on our country was established are articulated with clarity in the Declaration of Independence. On the matter of race, the Declaration has one simple but profound teaching: “all men are created equal.” That’s it. There are no qualifications or subtractions.

Nowhere does the Declaration or the Constitution, for that matter, classify human beings according to the color of their skin.

Far from the principle of equality being a product of racism, it actually struck at the heart of slavery. By making equality the defining principle of the nation, the Founders hoped to put slavery on the course of its ultimate extinction.

While some of the Founders held slaves, they all knew that blacks were human beings.

In a rough draft of the Declaration, Jefferson charged King George III with waging “cruel war against human nature itself” by keeping “open a market where men should be bought & sold.” By calling slaves men, Jefferson clearly recognized their humanity.

Not only did the Founders think that blacks were human beings, but they also acknowledged the wrongness of slavery in principle.

Benjamin Franklin succinctly stated his opinion on slavery: “Slavery is…an atrocious debasement of human nature.” George Washington argued that “there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.”

The Founders knew that slavery was wrong in principle, because it violated the rights of slaves to enjoy their natural liberty—the very same liberty the colonists fought for in the American Revolution.

But a problem emerges: Why did the Founders not simply prohibit slavery in the Constitution? And didn’t the Constitution actually condone slavery?

The Founders were well aware that the institution of slavery blatantly violated the principles of the Declaration. But without a strong union that included the Southern states, which would have never ratified a constitution that abolished slavery, the new nation would not have existed.

Of the several compromises made over slavery in the original Constitution, perhaps the most egregious one from our vantage point is the three-fifths clause.

Contrary to common opinion, however, the three-fifths clause did not mean that the Founders thought that blacks were three-fifths of a human being. First of all, the text refers to “other persons”—the term persons meaning human beings. In fact, in 1790 there were approximately sixty-thousand free blacks, who possessed all the same rights as whites.

Secondly, the three-fifths clauses was a compromise between the North and South in which three-fifths of slaves were counted for purposes of taxation and representation. Southerners in fact wanted to count slaves as full persons, thus magnifying their political power. Northerners did not want slaves to be counted at all specifically because they thought it was wrong to further encourage the importation of more slaves.

Though arguments could be made that the Founders made too many compromises, their overall project was to set anti-slavery principles in place so that they could be enforced at some point in the future.

The anti-slavery character of the Declaration and Constitution was grasped by the great civil rights leaders of the past two centuries, Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Douglass, a former slave, called the Constitution “a glorious liberty document.”

In his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, Dr. King likened the “magnificent words” of the Declaration and Constitution to a “promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”

King continued: “This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the ‘unalienable Rights’ of ‘Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’”

Our exceptionalism as a nation is not measured by how far we have separated ourselves from the principles laid out in the Declaration.

It instead derives from how closely we live up to those principles.

By Michael Sabo 

LIBERALS HATE IT.

One common criticism of billionaire businessman and presidential candidate Donald Trump is that he far too often speaks in vague generalities and rarely offers specifics about where he stands on the issues.

That is no longer the case, at least regarding his stance on gun rights and the Second Amendment, as Trump just released his official policy position on his campaign website.

“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period,” the position paper began.

Trump went on to explain that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that pre-exists both the government and the Constitution, noting that government didn’t create the right, nor can it take it away.

He also rightly denoted the Second Amendment as “America’s first freedom,” pointing out that it helps protect all of the other rights we hold dear.

In order to protect and defend that right, Trump proposed tougher enforcement of laws that are already on the books, rather than adding new gun control laws.

Citing a successful program in Richmond, Virginia, that sentenced gun criminals to mandatory minimum five-year sentences in federal prison, Trump noted that crime rates will fall dramatically when criminals are taken off the streets for lengthy periods of time.

Trump also proposed strengthening and expanding laws allowing law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves from criminals using their own guns, without fear of repercussion from the government.

Noting that many of the recent high-profile shooters had clear mental problems that should have been addressed, Trump proposed fixing our nation’s broken mental health system by increasing treatment opportunities for the non-violent mentally ill, but removing from the streets those people who pose a danger to themselves and others.

Trump would do away with pointless and ineffective gun and magazine bans and suggested fixing the current background check system already in place, rather than expanding a broken system.

Furthermore, Trump proposed a national right to carry, a national concealed carry reciprocity law that would compel states to recognize the concealed carry permits of any other state, exactly as drivers licenses from anywhere are accepted by all states today.

Finally, Trump would lift the prohibition on military members carrying weapons on military bases and in recruiting centers, allowing trained military members to carry weapons to protect themselves from attacks by terrorists, criminals and the mentally unstable, as we have seen recently.

This is great, and those who cherish our right to keep and bear arms should be pleased by Trump’s stated position on the Second Amendment.

Of course, liberal anti-gunners will hate this, but their opinion on the matter is of little concern to us “people of the gun,” of which Donald Trump is apparently one.

Conservative Tribune

The U.S. Census Bureau has released its annual poverty report. Conventional wisdom holds that the U.S. has a small social welfare system and far more poverty compared with other affluent nations. But noted liberal scholars Irwin Garfinkel, Lee Rainwater, and Timothy Smeeding challenge such simplistic ideas in their book “Wealth and Welfare States: Is America a Laggard or Leader?”

Garfinkel and his colleagues examine social welfare spending and poverty in rich nations. They define social welfare as having five components: health care spending, education spending, cash retirement benefits, other government cash transfers such as unemployment insurance and the earned-income tax credit (EITC), and non-cash aid such as food stamps and public housing.

The authors find that in the U.S., social welfare spending differs from that in other affluent countries because it draws heavily on both public and private resources. By contrast, in Europe, government controls most of the resources and benefits. For example, in the U.S., government health care spending is targeted to elderly and low-income persons; the American middle and working classes rely primarily on employer-provided health insurance. The U.S. government health care system is, therefore, more redistributive than the systems of most other developed nations.

Elderly middle-class Americans are also more likely to have private pensions than are Europeans. Middle-class parents in the U.S. pay for much of the cost of their children’s post-secondary education; in Europe, the government pays. Overall, in Europe, the upper middle class is heavily dependent on government benefits; in the U.S., it relies much more on its own resources.

But even setting aside the private sector, the U.S. still has a very large social welfare system. In fact, among affluent nations, the U.S. has the third highest level of per capita government social welfare spending. This is striking, given that government spending in the U.S.  is more tightly targeted to benefit the poor and elderly.

When private-sector contributions to retirement, health care, and education are added to the count, social welfare spending in the U.S. dwarfs that of other nations. In fact, social welfare spending per capita in the U.S. rises to nearly twice the European average. As Garfinkel, et al. conclude:

For those who believe the absolute size of the US welfare state is small, the data presented … [in the book] are shocking and constitute a wake up call. Once health and education benefits are counted, real per capita social welfare in the United States is larger than in almost all other countries!

Only one nation (Norway) spends more per person than the U.S. spends.

How much of this spending reaches the poor? The left often claims that the U.S has a far higher poverty rate than other developed nations have. These claims are based on a “relative poverty” standard, in which being “poor” is defined as having an income below 50 percent of the national median. Since the median income in the United States is substantially higher than the median income in most European countries, these comparisons establish a higher hurdle for escaping from “poverty” in the U.S. than is found elsewhere.

Measuring the poverty-fighting success of the United States versus Europe according to this uneven standard is like having a race in which the European sprinters run 100 meters and the American runner runs 125 meters. The Europeans reach the finish line first and are declared faster. Using such non-uniform standards to compare countries is obviously misleading.

A more meaningful analysis would compare countries against a uniform standard. To their credit, Garfinkel and his co-authors do exactly that. They measure the percentage of people in each country who fall below the poverty-income threshold in the U.S. ($24,008 per year for a family of four in 2014). The authors reasonably broaden the measure of income to include “non-cash” benefits such as food stamps, the earned-income tax credit, and equivalent programs in other nations. They also subtract taxes paid by low-income families, which are heavy in Europe. (Their poverty comparison does not include health care and education.)

By this uniform measure, the U.S. was found to have a poverty rate in 2000 that was lower than the United Kingdom’s but higher than the poverty rates of most other West European nations. But the differences in poverty according to this uniform standard were very small. For example, the poverty rate in the U.S. was 8.7 percent, while the average among other affluent countries was around 7.6 percent. The rate in Germany was 7.3 percent, and in Sweden, it was 7.5 percent. Using a slightly higher uniform standard set at 125 percent of the U.S. poverty-income thresholds, the authors find that the U.S. actually has a slightly lower poverty rate than other affluent countries.

Misperceptions about the extent and severity of U.S. poverty are, in part, driven by the Census Bureau’s consistently flawed poverty report. Census defines a family as poor if its income falls below certain thresholds. But in counting income, Census ignores almost all of the trillion dollars per year that government spends on means-tested welfare aid. Census pretends that programs such as food stamps, the refundable EITC, and housing vouchers do not exist. No surprise, then, that other government reports show that poor people spend $2.30 for every $1.00 of income Census claims they have.

The actual living standards of the poor differ greatly from conventional perceptions. The government’s own data show that the typical poor family in the U.S. has air-conditioning, a car, and cable or satellite TV. Half of the poor have computers, 43 percent have Internet, and 40 percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that only 4 percent of poor children were hungry for even a single day in the prior year because of a lack of funds for food.

Only 7 percent of poor households are over-crowded. The average poor American has more living space than the average, non-poor individual living in Sweden, France, Germany, or the United Kingdom. By his own report, the average poor person had sufficient funds to meet all essential needs and was able to obtain medical care for his family throughout the year whenever needed.

It is, of course, a good thing that left-wing claims of widespread deprivation in the U.S. are inaccurate. But government welfare policy should be about more than shoveling out a trillion dollars per year in “free” benefits. When President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty, he sought to decrease welfare dependence and increase self-sufficiency: the ability of family to support itself above poverty without the need for government handouts. By that score, the War on Poverty has been a $24-trillion flop. While self-sufficiency improved dramatically in the decades before the War on Poverty started, for the last 45 years, it has been at a standstill.

A decent welfare system would return to Johnson’s original goal of reducing poverty by increasing self-sufficiency. It would require able-bodied recipients to work or prepare for work if they are to receive benefits. It would reward, not penalize, marriage. In other words, it would be the exact opposite of the welfare behemoth we currently have.

by Robert Rector 

A debate over Islam — first sparked by Donald Trump not correcting a town hall questioner who called President Obama a non-American Muslim, and now Ben Carson saying a Muslim should not be president — has unexpectedly shifted the conversation in the Republican presidential race.

So far, neither candidate at the center of the furor is backing down. Trump has said he had no obligation to correct the man who wrongly called Obama a Muslim. And Carson is doubling down on his remarks from Sunday.

Carson, a Christian and retired neurosurgeon, initially commented on whether a Muslim should be president on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation,” Carson said. “I absolutely would not agree with that.”

He later told The Hill that the next president should be “sworn in on a stack Bibles, not a Koran.” He explained, “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country.”

Carson’s comments were attacked by Democrats, while fellow Republicans gave a more careful answer to the same question. In a primary race that so far has been as unpredictable as it is unruly, the Muslim debate marks the latest sharp turn — after previous heated debates over illegal immigration and other issues.

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Sunday, “It’s hard to understand what’s so difficult about supporting an American citizen’s right to run for president.

“But unsurprisingly, this left Republicans scratching their heads. Of course a Muslim, or any other American citizen, can run for president, end of story.”

In a separate appearance on NBC, fellow 2016 GOP candidate Ohio Gov. John Kasich, was asked whether he would have a problem with a Muslim in the White House.

“The answer is, at the end of the day, you’ve got to go through the rigors, and people will look at everything. But, for me, the most important thing about being president is you have leadership skills, you know what you’re doing and you can help fix this country and raise this country. Those are the qualifications that matter to me.”

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who taped Sunday an episode of Iowa Press, an Iowa Public Television program, was asked if he agreed with Carson’s statements on Muslims being president.

“The Constitution specifies that there shall be no religious test for public office, and I am a constitutionalist,” Cruz said.

Fellow GOP contender and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio suggested the entire matter is a distraction.

He told ABC News: “This has nothing to do with the future of our country. These issues have been discussed ad nauseam over the last few years. It’s a big waste of time. Barack Obama will not be president in a year and a half. It’s time to start talking about the future of America and the people that are at home.”

Carson, a top-tier 2016 candidate and popular among the GOP’s evangelical wing, made the statement Sunday after fellow Republican candidate Trump was addressed by a man during a rally Thursday in New Hampshire who said President Obama is a Muslim.

“We have a problem in this country,” the unidentified man said. “It’s called Muslim. … You know our current president is one.”

Obama is a Christian. But Trump has declined to address the issue, saying he is not “morally obligated” to set straight the record.

Carson also described the Islamic faith as inconsistent with the Constitution. However, he did not specify in what way Islam ran counter to constitutional principles.

Carson said he believes Obama is a Christian and has “no reason to doubt what he says.”

He also said he would consider voting for a Muslim running for Congress, depending on “who that Muslim is and what their policies are.”

Carson also made a distinction when it came to electing Muslims to Congress, calling it a “different story” from the presidency that “depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says.”

Congress has two Muslim members, Democratic Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota and Andre Carson of Indiana.

“If there’s somebody who’s of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I’m with them,” Carson said.

FOXNEW.COM/The Associated Press contributed to this report.