Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage.com  March 27, 2017

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.  

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.  READ the REST

by George Neumayr  April 4, 2017  American Spectator.org

Once the story starts hurting, the media drops it.
  
The media’s biased coverage of Obamagate continues to shift. First, reporters feigned outrage that Trump would dare to say that the saintly Barack Obama had spied on him. Never mind that Trump’s assertion sparked off their own reporting — reports clearly based on criminal leaks from Obama aides spying on Trump. But now reporters are pursuing a new line of attack against Trump, which can be translated as: Yes, Obama spied on you — and good for him. Take a look at this headline from a column at Slate magazine hastily run after the revelation that top Obama aide Susan Rice had snooped on Trump and his associates: “I Hope Susan Rice Was Keeping Tabs on Trump’s Russia Ties.”

Look how far the progressive champions of “civil liberties” have fallen. These are the same liberals who call Nixon a monster for having justified political espionage on specious national security grounds. Could anyone imagine Slate running a column lauding Richard Nixon for spying on Daniel Ellsberg?

How did we find out about Susan Rice’s role in Obamagate? Not from the mainstream media at first, but from a pro-Trump blogger named Mike Cernovich, who says he found out about the Rice story from a disgruntled staffer at a publication unwilling to publish it. In other words, he pulled a Matt Drudge. On Sunday night, Cernovich wrote that he had “been informed that Maggie Haberman has had this story about Susan Rice for at least 48 hours, and has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama.”

Haberman works at the New York Times. Now that the story is out, what is Haberman tweeting and re-tweeting? One links to a Max Boot tweet, which says, “Are Trump aides breaking the law by rooting around in intel database for political purposes?” Another links to a “meaty explainer” saying that Rice’s spying on Trump was justified. READ it HERE

W is for Who, What Where When & Why -- for the KIDS!

This Tuesday, April 4, residents of Wisconsin have the opportunity to change the direction of education in our state. Never in the history of the state have we had a conservative Superintendent of the Department of Public instruction. Under the leadership of the current Superintendent, Wisconsin has fallen to the WORST in achievement and graduation gaps. That’s right #50 out of 50! We have failed a generation of students in this state.

Here is some information to inform your vote:  CLICK HERE

 Debate took place at Marquette University Law School, March 30, 2017

Click HERE to watch it.

Dr. Lowell Holtz used the final debate in the race to be Wisconsin's top education official on Friday to accuse incumbent Tony Evers of failing to close the state's achievement gap during his eight years in office, while Evers defended his record.

By SCOTT BAUER, Associated Press  Madison, WI.  March 31, 2017,

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Lowell Holtz used the final debate in the race to be Wisconsin's top education official on Friday to accuse incumbent Tony Evers of failing to close the state's achievement gap during his eight years in office, while Evers defended his record and said there have been improvements at narrowing the gap.

Evers and Holtz offered differing visions on everything from Common Core academic standards to concealed weapons during the debate just four days before Tuesday's election. Holtz also defended his sending of campaign-related emails to his wife on his school email account when he was superintendent of the Whitnall School District, just two days after the board notified parents it would not attempt to pursue any lost wages for the political work done on the school's time.

Holtz was the most aggressive on blaming Evers for failing to improve Wisconsin's worst-in-the-nation ranking in the achievement gap — the difference between the performance of white and black students in Wisconsin public schools.

"We have to do better," Holtz said. "We're failing way too many kids. ... Every single state in the union does a better job than we do? That's not acceptable."

He said the key to addressing the issue is to make schools safer so that learning can more easily occur.

Each candidate was allowed to ask the other one a question. Holtz asked Evers why he let Wisconsin's achievement gap get so bad during his tenure. Evers bristled at the question.

"I didn't let it happen," he said curtly. "It was caused by external things."  READ the REST.

Learn about the disastrous teacher evaluation software purchased by DPI for $3+ million, under Evers direction. 

Listen Here

State Superintendent Candidates Debate at Marquette

By David Ade, March 28, 2017 News at 5

Milwaukee -

State Superintendent Tony Evers, and challenger Lowell Holtz had several heated exchanges in a debate Tuesday.

The two candidate are vying to run Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction.

Evers is seeking his third straight term in that role, while Holtz is trying to ascend to that position after running districts in Beloit and a Milwaukee suburb.

Tuesday's debate was hosted by Marquette University, and the candidates showed their differing opinions on school choice, funding for public schools, and how to address a statewide teacher shortage.

Holtz criticized Evers for a lack of results, while Evers touted state A.C.T. scores.

Tensions rose as Evers challenged Holtz' integrity.

The incumbent blasted his challenger over an accusation Holtz bribed primary opponent, John Humphries, to drop out of the race in exchange for a six-figure job.

Earlier this month, the Wisconsin Elections Commission said Holtz did NOT violate any state laws, and tossed a bribery complaint brought by a liberal advocacy group.

Evers and Holtz will meet again, Wednesday, at a forum in Madison.  Video Clip here

by Theo Keith, Fox6.com  March 28, 2017

MILWAUKEE -- One week before Election Day, things physical between the two candidates for state superintendent during a debate at Marquette University Law School.

As incumbent Tony Evers and challenger Lowell Holtz attacked each other for alleged corruption in the race, Evers clutched at Holtz's wrist for a few seconds.

"Do you want to hold my hand?" Holtz reacted.

"No, but I want to finish talking," Evers shot back, as the two talked over each other. "I want to finish talking."

Evers ripped his opponent over an alleged deal between Holtz and another candidate during the primary. Under the terms, one candidate would drop out and would get a $150,000 taxpayer-funded job and a driver if the other candidate won office. The person who exited the race would also get broad control over several major Wisconsin school districts, including Milwaukee Public Schools.

Holtz has confirmed bringing the proposal up at a meeting with then-opponent John Humphries in December, but has said the ideas came from unnamed businessmen and there was never an agreement.

"We had two of my opponents on the back of a napkin -- in your handwriting -- talking about (the deal)," Evers said.

"False. False. False," Holtz responded. "I never wrote anything down. Not a thing. Tell the story the right way or don't tell it at all."

It was the most heated exchange of a race that has gotten personal, and it comes one week before the April 4th election.

Holtz is supported by Republicans and school-choice advocates, while Evers is backed by unions and Democrats. They disagreed for much of Tuesday's debate, including over President Donald Trump's budget, which both candidates said would cut funding for teacher training.  READ the Rest and see video clips here.

by Benjamin Bull, Public Discourse March 24th, 2017

Benjamin Bull is chief counsel and executive director of ADF International, an alliance-building legal organization that advocates the right of people to freely live out their faith.

Despite conceding crucial legal and political ground for decades to organizations such as Planned Parenthood, opportunities abound for defenders of religious freedom to gain that ground back. The last two decades have witnessed a growing clash between European secularism and rising Islamic immigration, which has brought an increasingly aggressive Islamic voice to the politics and culture of the continent. This surge poses a double threat to Christian religious freedom in Europe and North America.

The first threat is that Islamic (Sharia) law restricts the ability of Christians to evangelize or even speak critically on the topic of Islam. The second is that radical secularism’s counteroffensive to Islam proposes to eradicate all religious distinctions in favor of the primacy of the state’s interest in assimilated citizens. This, too, has produced increasing limitations on the free exercise of religion in Europe—including Christian religious freedom.

If either of these versions of intolerance ultimately wins the battle for Europe, American courts will probably give credence to their diminished views of religious freedom. In the United States, we’re already seeing Canada’s version of this clash play out, as that country’s growing statism forces all religious faiths to conform to the lowest common state-sanctioned secular denominator. READ it HERE.

We also know the secular left has worked diligently to promote the globalization of law and cultural values and to centralize international governance through institutions like the United Nations, the UN Human Rights Council, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organization of American States, and the European Court of Human Rights. These institutions have been able to remove governance from—and overcome limitations and constraints imposed by—individual nations’ constitutions, legislative bodies, and democratic processes.  READ it HERE

Vicki's podcast on Friday, March 24:  interview with Rep. Glenn Grothman and Sen. Ron Johnson following Ryan's pull of the healthcare bill.

Listen HERE