Open Letter to Breitbart News re: Gorsuch Opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County

Dear Mr. Pollak:

I read your article about the supposed co-existence of LGBT "rights" and religious liberties.

There are so many problems with this analysis, that I must push back on this.

Joel Pollak

First of all, the whole concept of homosexuality and transgenderism as "rights" because they are fixed genetic identities is deeply flawed, and fundamentally false.

Individuals are not born gay, nor are they born in the wrong body based on hormonal or biochemical differences.

Why should any government, let alone a court, recognize these behaviors as identities?

Secondly, Justice Gorsuch clearly departed from the doctrine of Originalism promoted by his predecessor Antonin Scalia. The word "sex" means ... sex. It does not mean "sexual behavior", it does not mean "sexual identity", and it does not mean "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" for that matter.

This is the grossest abuse of judicial power and authority yet, and with this ruling the Supreme Court, for all intents and purposes, has turned itself into a lawless laughingstock. It was no joke or statement of hyperbole when former Justice Scalia warned that that the Supreme Court was turning into one of the greatest threats to American democracy.

Furthermore, your statement towards the end of the article requires a rigorous challenge:

There is room for disagreement in this case, which will likely affect relatively few people. Few employers, even those who are religious, care about employees’ private sexual lives.

This judicial decision can and indeed will affect countless numbers of people. Consider what has already been happening to the baker in Colorado, Mr. Jack Philipps. How about the bakers in Oregon, or the florist in Washington State? The challenges to individual liberty and freedom of conscience because of the legal fiction to prevent discrimination against so-called homosexuals and transgenders will become more prevalent and manifest because of this decision. The Court arrogantly took the position that they could redefine words in a statute, which in effect war against reality itself.  The truth is that natural rights like religious liberty cannot coexist with unnatural perversions like a predilection for sodomy and transvestism.

Perhaps Breitbart should be called "Bi-Bart"?

Also, I must remind you that one of the cases connected with the Bostock decision involved a man pretending to be a woman, who was working at a funeral parlor in Michigan. His insistence on going along with the mentally delusional notion that he could become a she was not a "private" matter, at all. He insisted on this perverse, false recognition being made in public, and being accepted by others in public. 

For the record, private behavior of all kinds, including sexual conduct between consenting adults, does indeed have public consequences. For that reasons, nations and governments have routinely criminalized incest, prostitution, as well as homosexuality. The spread of venereal disease, the long-standing harms to public health and public safety, and now the cultural demise which has been imposed on us in the wake of militant LGBT advocacy, have widespread, far-reaching consequences. In Singapore, the court wisely struck down attempts to remove Section 377a, the statute which criminalizes gross acts of indecency between men. The inhabitants of Singapore are well-aware of the horrific political, moral, cultural, and even biological consequences which ensue one homosexual conduct becomes decriminalized and normalized.

Former liberal, now conservative British historian Paul Johnson wrote about the inevitable threat of militant LGBT advocacy in his autobiographical work The Quest for God.  I would urge you to read it.

Paul Johnson

Joel, I know and believe you to be an educated and erudite journalist, but this article you wrote abandons many of these timely insights and intellect that you have displayed in other articles. I am astounded that Breitbart News continues to embrace this pro-LGBT stance, when clearly accommodation for such anti-family policies and ideas are as anti-populist, anti-nationalist, pro-globalist, and pro-establishment as they get.

Sincerely,

Arthur Schaper, Organization Director

Website: MassResistance.org

Dick Morris, Election Strategy, and 2018

Dick Morris, a former Clinton appointee now on the Trump Train, submitted that the Republican Congressional majority needs to pivot from focusing on the strong economy and talk about the smaller legislative victories which they have accomplished in the last 18 months.

Dick Morris

He posted on Breitbart about the advice he had given to then President Clinton to help Democrats hold onto their majority:

My survey came to an odd conclusion that should be heeded by Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell as they prepare for their own midterms.

President Clinton insisted that his party should keep Congress because he had created eight million new jobs, cut the federal deficit by $600 billion, and achieved the lowest combined rates of inflation and unemployment in twenty-five years. The economic statistics of the day confirmed these facts.

No they didn't. The economy started roaring back into power when Clinton had to work with strong Republican majorities post 1994. What was probably helping the economy then was the very low price of oil. It had plummeted to around $20 a barrel, most likely in the wake of the economic recession which followed because of Bush 41's tax hikes.

But my survey revealed that this message would not work in the 1994 elections. Many voters did not believe the president and others refused to attribute the achievements to his leadership, much less that of his partisans in Congress.

There wasn't much of an economic gain taking place in the early 1990s.

What was happening in Congress which soured voters on the Democrats and brought in a massive wave of Republicans?

1. Massive corruption scandals. There was check-kiting, Congressmen were writing themselves big money, and those checks bounced. After 40 years of Democratic rule in the House of Representatives, the Democratic Majority had gotten way too comfortable with pilfering the public purse for their own gain.

2. Democrats divided into two different factions. Clinton had billed himself as a "New Democrat" going into Election 1992. The former Governor of Arkansas had accomplished a rarity in Presidential politics: ousting an incumbent President. 

Clinton wanted to governor as a hard-core liberal once in office, and the Southern Democrats, who were by and large conservative and worked closely with President Reagan on tax cuts and and military responses to the the Soviet Union.

3. Hillarycare. The Democrats were pushing a massive nationalization of health care, and the voter didn't want it. 

One video features Hillary Clinton facing vocal booing from one audience as she pushes the government program. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8RYoKjbOZA

Notice that she was giving a stump speech in Seattle at the time, too: not exactly a conservative enclave even then.

Morris suggests that the Republican majority should talk about the following:

However, the survey did offer a way to win the election. Voters did agree that Clinton and his party had accomplished many things of lesser magnitude including the passage of family and medical leave, the confirmation of good Supreme Court justices, the creation of Americorps – a domestic equivalent of the Peace Corps, strengthened sentences for crime, and cutting the size of the federal workforce. These and other “bite size” achievements, the poll found, were good enough to let Clinton keep control of Congress.

The Republicans running for US Senate this cycle should talk how they will help President Trump confirm excellent, constitutional conservative justices to replace the current cadre of elderly, ailing judges on the highest court. Word has it that Justice Anthony Kennedy will be stepping down soon. Justice Sotomayor isn't in the strongest health, either, having suffered a recent arm injury. She may retire sooner than expected.

The Trump administration has already maintained the conservative shape of the court with Neil Gorsuch. With liberal-leaning Kennedy removed,

And so, now, the Republican Congress can claim credit for many accomplishments of lesser magnitude including giving terminally ill patients the right to try experimental medicines, eliminating the requirement of buying health insurance, funding of the military, appointment of Gorsuch to the Court, increased tariffs to force fair trade, tearing up the Iran deal and many others. Voters will believe that Trump has accomplished these things and are likely to vote to keep Republicans in power as a result.

The Republican incumbents should make lots of noise about the repeal of the individual mandate, and how they want to work with the President for the next cycle to get rid of the rest of the terrible law. In fact, the GOP Congressional majority should work hard during the August recess to repeal the rest of the Obamacare mess.

Yes, I think that Republicans should focus on many of their electoral successes, and they need to pay close attention and give stronger praise for President Trump's incredible leadership. I don't think that Republicans should ignore or downplay the incredibly strong economy, though. President Trump's aggressive regulatory rollback, coupled with unprecedented plunges in unemployment for black and Hispanic voters, is a huge with for the Republican majority. The tax reform legislation has been a comprehensive victory, too.

Final Reflection

House GOP incumbents and new candidates must focus on the plenary victories of the President as well as the legislation which they have passed:

1. VA Choice

2. Right-to-Try

3. Dodd-Frank Rollback

4. Tax Reform

They should talk about the appointment of Neil Gorsuch and then share about the massive obstruction of the Democratic Party against every reasonable reform available.

Then Republicans should talk about how Democrats champion MS-13, illegal aliens, and welfarism. They could even share about the #MeToo controversies which have enveloped more Democrats than Republicans.

Last of all, they should remind voters that San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi will become Speaker of the House in November if Democrats take back the House. She will put illegal aliens first, and she has promised to raise taxes rather than lower them.

What more do Republicans need to do? Besides, they are going into an election cycle in which the voter turnout will be significantly lower than in 2016. In California, the voter turnout was lower than in 2014, and that turnout was considerably lower.

Republicans need to keep fighting for President Trump's MAGA agenda. Paul Ryan needs to step down right away, too, since he's a lame-duck Speaker more interested in pushing cheap labor, bad trade deals, and open borders rather than ensuring secure borders, good trade, American First policies.

Breitbart Covers LA County for Trump Taking Down Jimmy Kimmel on TV

Thanks, Joel Pollak, for getting the word out! It's time to climb the walls of media and TAKE OVER!

Jimmy Kimmel Tries, Fails to Embarrass Amnesty Opponents

2737

Christopher Polk/Getty

by JOEL B. POLLAK5 Feb 20181,974

Late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel hosted a panel discussion last week featuring people who oppose the idea of amnesty for illegal aliens who currently benefit from the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The purpose of the panel was evidently not to give their views a dispassionate hearing, but rather to challenge and ridicule them. But Kimmel was in for a surprise, as amnesty opponents held their own.

Trump supporter and DACA opponent Arthur Schaper recalled at Townhall.com how ABC had approached him and other Trump supporters. “At first, I was reluctant. Kimmel uses every shame-inducing prop imaginable to attack President Trump and conservatives in general,” he wrote. But in the end, he agreed to participate in the show.

Kimmel introduced the segment by mocking the debate: “All of a sudden, [DACA] has become a polarizing issue, become a bargaining chip for this stupid wall he [Trump] wants to build.”

But the first interviews proceeded evenly, with Celeste — a Latina, legal immigrant conservative — setting a serious tone. Kimmel waited until the fourth guest, a man with a white beard, before going for his first laugh: “You don’t play Santa at the mall?” he jested.

Schaper anticipated Kimmel’s next move:

After the interviews, our team waited in the Green Room. I pondered who Kimmel was going to have us meet. “He’s going to present a child who is in this country illegally,” I imagined. Lo and Behold, Kimmel introduced us to Esmeralda, a DACA recipient brought into this country by her law-breaking illegal parents. She was seated with a baby girl in her lap.

Kimmel then asked who would like to deport Esmeralda. Half of the hands were raised.

Celeste, who did not raise her hand, said that Esmeralda should go back to Mexico and apply just as she had. Kimmel acknowledged, “That’s a fair point,” but then introduced Michael, Esmeralda’s American fiancé, who serves in the National Guard. Kimmel went on to ask whether it was right for Esmeralda to face deportation while Michael was deployed abroad.

The bearded man then pointed out that the baby girl was a U.S. citizen and should not be deported, and added that he believed Esmeralda should go back to Mexico and work on immigrating legally, with Michael’s help. Kimmel pointed out that it could take Esmeralda ten years to return.

Then came an exchange so striking that it is amazing ABC did not leave it on the proverbial cutting room floor:

Celeste: Jimmy?

Kimmel: Yes.

Celeste: We can agree to disagree, but I know that you will concur with me that we live in the most loving, compassionate, and exceptional country.

Kimmel: No, I don’t. I don’t agree with that. I think that this country has become cruel.

Michael then pleaded his case. When Schaper tried to respond, Kimmel said, coldly: “I’m trying to imagine you as a little boy. Yeah, I think I can.”

After more back-and-forth, Kimmel addressed Celeste: “You think they should just get married right now, right?”

“That’s a pathway to citizenship that’s already available,” Schaper pointed out.

Kimmel then pronounced Celeste the “defector” in the group, which she resisted, though she said she would make an exception in Esmeralda’s case. He then physically pulled her over to the opposite couch to take his place next to Esmeralda, Michael, and the baby.

Schaper’s account at Townhall suggests that Kimmel was rude and intolerant during parts of the discussion that did not make the final cut. He notes that Kimmel left out the impassioned views of the panel’s sole African-American participant:

Chanell gave the most impassioned statements, declaring how her husband was an immigrant, that she had waited in line with him for years before finalizing his naturalization status. “You are playing on our compassion! You didn’t let us bring our children!” Chanell then showed a picture of her daughter on her phone. She died at 5 years old, unable to get adequate health care. “Why won’t the federal government pay more attention to Americans?” Chanell asked. During the earlier individual interview segment, Chanell had railed against illegal aliens for stealing the civil rights movement forged by black Americans to assert their rights in the South. Chanell schooled Kimmel on the amnesty movement’s misuse of the term “Dreamer” for young illegals. “Our children are dreamers, too!”

Chanell also described the devastation which illegal immigration has wrought in black communities. In another disgusting display, Kimmel looked over to Esmeralda: “You’re not going around killing black people, are you?” It is amazing to me to what extent white liberals will dishonor the plights of the very minority communities which they virtue-signal about to the press and the public.

Schaper is urging ABC to release the raw video of the discussion.

Regardless, however, the participants stood up for their views and broke the template Kimmel tried to impose on them.

When a late-night talk-show host who fancies himself more intelligent than any conservative stooped to making fun of the way his guests look, there can be no doubt as to who prevailed in the debate.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named to Forward’s 50 “most influential” Jews in 2017. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

BREAKING: "Sloppy Steve" Bannon Steps Down at Breitbart News

Steve Bannon seemed to have a real grasp of the political undercurrents which helped get President Trump elected. While it is true that Bannon didn't join the Trump team until after his nomination victory, it seemed that his work with the conservative, populist leaning Breitbart News network made all the difference.

Then Bannon's attacks against Donald Trump Jr., the meeting with Russians over campaign strategy, plus the fact that he allowed a left-wing journalist into the White House all spilled out for the world to know. What was Bannon thinking?

Then the bombshells that came out of the Michael Wolff "expose", followed by the denunciation from President Trump cascaded forth. In reality, though, I never doubted that Bannon was a populist who cared about the American experiment and national identity. He appeared to be a thoughtful, erudite man with a grasp for history.

His 1 hour interview with Charlie Rose was informative, although looking back it's hard to take in teh fact that this long-time interviewer would be taken down by the #MeToo wave of allegations which overwhelmed Congress, the media, and the entertainment industries:

Then he spoke with Maria Espinoza and immigration enforcement activists at the Remembrance Project celebration:

Now, former Breitbart staffer had slammed Steve Bannon as a self-serving political opportunist who looks for any rising star to strap onto for his benefit.

I wasn't too interested in Ben's take, since his attacks are mired in personal animus.

Then there was Jonah Goldberg of The National Review, who also pounced on Bannon's penchant for jumping on bandwagons rather than leading the charge:

A Washington lobbyist once told me that the first rule of rainmakers is: "If it starts to rain, dance!"

In other words, if you're hired to get something done, by all means take credit for it if it happens, even if you had nothing to do with it.

Another version of the same principle is Ferris Buellerism. In the movie "Ferris Bueller's Day Off," the precocious teen sees a parade in downtown Chicago and proceeds to run in front of it as if he'd been leading it all along.

Fired White House aide Steve Bannon is a quintessential Ferris Bueller. My late friend Andrew Breitbart created the media empire that regrettably still bears his name. When he died, Bannon took over the parade Andrew launched.

Even in this article, which was published in October last year, references Trump's affirmation that his strategies and decisions helped his final victory in November 2016, and Trump reminds the public that he had defeated 16 well-funded, established, and connected candidates for the nomination before Bannon ever showed up.

President Trump cleared up any misconceptions about Bannon's brilliance and influence shortly after the former White House strategist went ballistic on the White House:

Steve Bannon has nothing to do with me or my Presidency. When he was fired, he not only lost his job, he lost his mind. Steve was a staffer who worked for me after I had already won the nomination by defeating seventeen candidates, often described as the most talented field ever assembled in the Republican party.

Now that he is on his own, Steve is learning that winning isn't as easy as I make it look. Steve had very little to do with our historic victory, which was delivered by the forgotten men and women of this country. Yet Steve had everything to do with the loss of a Senate seat in Alabama held for more than thirty years by Republicans. Steve doesn't represent my base—he's only in it for himself.

Steve pretends to be at war with the media,which he calls the opposition party, yet he spent his time at the White House leaking false information to the media to make himself seem far more important than he was. It is the only thing he does well. Steve was rarely in a one-on-one meeting with me and only pretends to have had influence to fool a few people with no access and no clue, whom he helped write phony books.

We have many great Republican members of Congress and candidates who are very supportive of the Make America Great Again agenda. Like me, they love the United States of America and are helping to finally take our country back and build it up, rather than simply seeking to burn it all down.

Donald Trump Jr. let Steve have it on Twitter:

Andrew Breitbart would be ashamed of the division and lies Steve Bannon is spreading!

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 3, 2018

Then Don Jr. shared the following from Drudge Report:

DON JR:  BANNON TIME AT WHITE HOUSE WAS 'NIGHTMARE... BACKSTABBING, HARASSING, LEAKING, LYING'... https://t.co/k9qta8clsz

— DRUDGE REPORT (@DRUDGE_REPORT) January 4, 2018

And there's more:

Of course he was going to pull it. It was BS like all the other nonsense I'm hearing is in the book, but really, who cares its a shiny object for the media to grab onto rather than focusing on all @realdonaldtrump's wins! https://t.co/J5ukzPyfTX

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 5, 2018

President Trump was a media, marketing, and branding genius from the moment that he rode down the escalator to announce his presidential bid to his Election Day victory. Steve Bannon jumped onto the populist uprising which was sweeping the country while serving as Chairman of Breitbart, then launched himself into the White House following his merger with the Trump campaign team after the primaries.

As long as any man out there wanted to get in line with helping President Trump, stopping illegal immigration and bad trade deals in the process while reasserting American civic culture and sovereignty, I was completely on board with the man and had no problems with him.

The moment he outed himself and allowed others to do the same to him--that he was just a self-serving opportunist basking in the glory of another man's gain--I had no problem seeing him go. His mistakes and his inadvertent self-exposure threatens the Breitbart News brand and experiment.

Realizing the pressure he faces, particularly since the Mercer donors no longer want to associate with him. Taking the hint, Bannon has stepped down as Chairman.

Bye-bye, Sloppy Steve!

Schadenfreude: Ben Shapiro on Trump's Take-Down on Steve Bannon

                     

Ben Shapiro goes off on Steve Bannon.

He also goes off on Breitbart, and still has strong, unsound reservations about President Trump.

Oh well ...

Still, these damning revelations about Steve Bannon are disturbing and unfortunate.

What are your thoughts?

Of course, you can tell that Shapiro is dancing on the grave of Bannon's public profile.

Redlands Tea Party Patriots: Breitbart Senior Editor Joel Pollak

                        

The Redlands Tea Party Patriots invited an incredible guest to be their keynote speaker.

Joel Pollak, the Senior Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart News.

I really wanted to meet this guy, but more importantly, I wanted to learn about the inner workings of Breitbart News.

Most importantly, though, Pollak intended to discuss Election 2016, and how Donald Trump trumped the experts, the pundits, and the political class to become the next President of the United States.

His talk was very informative. He commiserated with the epic loss that Angel Moms have endured--because of illegal immigration. He made a point about Breitbart's coverage of Kate Steinle's murder, which forced the mainstream media to cover it--which in turn shocked the nation and forced Congress and all Presidential candidates to take illegal immigration and sanctuary cities seriously.

The entire speech is in the clip above.

After his speech, Pollak sold copies of his book "How Trump Won". Someone in the Redlands Tea Party group graciously purchased every single copy! I was able to get my own autographed copy!

He even told me: 'I watch your videos on YouTube!"

That opened up the window for me to give him my resume, then I told him: "I want to work for Breitbart."

Let's see what happens!

All in all, Pollak's speech was great, but he also offered somber concerns about the future of the country, and how vigilance on the part of the people is more important than ever!