Parents Just Lost Custody of Teenage Daughter Who Wants to ‘Transition’ to a Boy: What You Need to Know

Parents in Ohio lost custody of their 17-year-old daughter Friday because a judge ruled that she should be allowed to receive therapy, including testosterone therapy, to identify as a boy.

Without commenting on the specifics of this case just outside Cincinnati, Americans can expect to see more cases like it as government officials side with transgender activists to promote a radical view of the human person and endorse entirely experimental medical procedures. At stake are not only parental rights, but the well-being of children who suffer from gender dysphoria.

Here’s what you need to know.

Transgender activists maintain that when a child identifies as the opposite sex in a manner that is “consistent, persistent, and insistent,” the appropriate response is to support that identification. This requires a four-part protocol, as I painstakingly detail in my new book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment”:

First, a social transition: giving the child a new wardrobe, a new name, new pronouns, and generally treating the child as if he or she were the opposite sex.

Second, a child approaching puberty will be placed on puberty blockers to prevent the normal process of maturation and development. This means there will be no progression of the pubertal stage, and a regression of sex characteristics that have already developed. Puberty-blocking drugs are not FDA approved for gender dysphoria, but physicians use them off-label for this purpose.

Third, around age 16, comes the administration of cross-sex hormones: Boys will be given feminizing hormones such as estrogen, and girls will be given masculinizing hormones such as androgens (testosterone). The purpose is to mimic the process of puberty that would occur in the opposite sex.

For girls, testosterone treatment leads to “a low voice, facial and body hair growth, and a more masculine body shape,” along with enlargement of the clitoris and atrophying of the breast tissue. For boys, estrogen treatment results in development of breasts and a body shape with a female appearance. These patients will be prescribed cross-sex hormones throughout their lives.

Finally, at age 18, these individuals may undergo sex-reassignment surgery: amputation of primary and secondary sex characteristics and plastic surgery to create new sex characteristics.

To summarize these procedures (described in detail in my book “When Harry Became Sally”): Male-to-female surgery involves removing the testes and constructing “female-looking external genitals.” It may include breast enlargement if estrogen therapy has not produced satisfactory growth of breasts.

Female-to-male surgery often begins with mastectomy. The uterus and ovaries are often removed as well. Some patients will undergo phalloplasty, the surgical construction of a penis, but many do not because the results are variable in quality and functionality.

This four-stage course of treatment is the current standard of care promoted by transgender activists. But the ages for each phase to commence are getting lower. In July 2016, The Guardian reported that “a doctor in Wales is prescribing cross-sex hormones to children as young as 12 who say they want to change sex, arguing that if they are confident of their gender identity they should not have to wait until 16 to get the treatment.”

No laws in the United States prohibit the use of puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones for children, or regulate the age at which they may be administered.

Activists claim that the effects of blocking puberty with drugs are fully reversible. This turns things upside down, for virtually every part of the body undergoes significant development in sex-specific ways during puberty, and going through the process at age 18 can’t reverse 10 years of blocking it. The use of puberty-blocking drugs to treat children with gender dysphoria is entirely experimental, as there are no long-term studies on the consequences of interfering with biological development.

Activists claim that blocking puberty allows children “more time to explore their gender identity, without the distress of the developing secondary sex characteristics,” as the Dutch doctors who pioneered this treatment put it.

Another Perspective

This is an odd argument, write three American researchers, all physicians.

“It presumes that natural sex characteristics interfere with the ‘exploration’ of gender identity,” Drs. Paul Hruz, Lawrence Mayer, and Paul McHugh note, “when one would expect that the development of natural sex characteristics might contribute to the natural consolidation of one’s gender identity.”

The rush of sex hormones and the bodily development that happens during puberty may be the very things that help an adolescent come to identify with his or her biological sex. Puberty blockers interfere with this process.

Normally, 80 to 95 percent of children will naturally grow out of any gender-identity conflicted stage. But every one of the children placed on puberty blockers in the Dutch clinic persisted in a transgender identity, and they generally went on to begin cross-sex hormone treatment at around age 16.

Perhaps the Dutch doctors correctly identified the kids who naturally would persist in a transgender identity, but it’s more likely that the puberty blockers reinforced their cross-gender identification, making them more committed to taking further steps in sex reassignment.

Contrary to the claims of activists, sex isn’t “assigned” at birth—and that’s why it can’t be “reassigned.” As I explain in “When Harry Became Sally,” sex is a bodily reality that can be recognized well before birth with ultrasound imaging. The sex of an organism is defined and identified by its organization for sexual reproduction.

Modern science shows that this organization begins with our DNA and development in the womb, and that sex differences manifest themselves in many bodily systems and organs, all the way down to the molecular level.

Secondary differences between the two sexes—attributes that may be visibly altered by hormone treatment and surgery—are not what make us male or female. As a result, cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones don’t change the deeper biological reality. People who undergo sex-reassignment procedures do not become the opposite sex, they merely masculinize or feminize their outward appearance.

As the philosopher Robert P. George puts it, “Changing sexes is a metaphysical impossibility because it is a biological impossibility.”

What the Evidence Shows

Sadly, just as “sex reassignment” fails to reassign sex biologically, it also fails to bring wholeness psychologically. The medical evidence suggests that it does not adequately address the mental health problems suffered by those who identify as transgender.

Even when the procedures are successful technically and cosmetically, and even in cultures that are relatively “trans-friendly,” people still face poor psychological outcomes.

Notwithstanding the media hype over supposed differences in brain structure, no solid scientific evidence exists that transgender identities are innate or biologically determined, and some evidence shows that other factors are most likely involved. But in truth, very little is understood about the causes of discordant gender identities.

Starting a young child on a process of “social transitioning” followed by puberty-blocking drugs was virtually unthinkable not long ago, and the treatment is still experimental. Unfortunately, many activists have given up on caution, let alone skepticism, about drastic treatments.

A more cautious therapeutic approach begins by acknowledging that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria will grow out of it naturally. An effective therapy looks into the reasons for the child’s mistaken beliefs about gender, and addresses the problems that the child believes will be solved if the body is altered.

As I document in “When Harry Became Sally,” mental health professionals liken gender dysphoria to other dysphorias, or serious discomfort with one’s body, such as anorexia, body dysmorphic disorder, and body integrity identity disorder. All of these involve false assumptions or feelings that solidify into mistaken beliefs about the self.

McHugh finds that other psychosocial issues usually lie beneath the false assumptions. Children with gender dysphoria may have  anxieties about “the prospects, expectations, and roles that they sense are attached to their given sex.”

Much like patients with anorexia nervosa, these children mistakenly believe that a drastic change of their bodies will solve or minimize their psychosocial problems. But adjusting the body through hormones and surgery doesn’t fix the real problem, any more than liposuction cures anorexia nervosa.

A Different Message

An effective treatment strategy would “strive to correct the false, problematic nature of the assumption and to resolve the psychosocial conflicts provoking it,” McHugh says. In the case of gender dysphoria, unfortunately, the mistaken belief is often encouraged by school counselors who, “rather like cult leaders, may encourage these young people to distance themselves from their families and offer advice on rebutting arguments against having transgender surgery.”

What these young people need, McHugh advises, is to be removed from this “suggestive environment” and be presented with a different message.

The proliferation of gender clinics in America and gender identity programs in the schools makes it less likely that children will get the help they need to work out their issues. Instead, these children find “gender counselors” who encourage them to maintain their false assumptions.

This is contrary to standard medical and psychological practice, as McHugh, Hruz, and Mayer emphasize. Normally, a child is not encouraged to persist in a belief that is discordant with reality. A traditional form of treatment for gender dysphoria would “work with and not against the facts of science and the predictable rhythms of children’s psycho-sexual development.” A prudent and natural course of treatment would enable children to “reconcile their subjective gender identity with their objective biological sex,” avoiding harmful or irreversible interventions.

The most helpful therapies do not try to remake the body to conform with thoughts and feelings—which is impossible—but rather to help people find healthy ways to manage this tension and move toward accepting the reality of their bodily selves. This therapeutic approach rests on a sound understanding of physical and mental health, and of medicine as a practice aimed at restoring healthy functioning, not simply satisfying the desires of patients.

Biology isn’t bigotry. And as I explain in “When Harry Became Sally,” there are human costs to getting human nature wrong.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Ryan T. Anderson

Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., is the William E. Simon Senior Research Fellow in American Principles and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation, where he researches and writes about marriage, bioethics, religious liberty and political philosophy. Anderson is the author of several books and his research has been cited by two U.S. Supreme Court justices in two separate cases. Read his Heritage research. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Planned Transgenderhood

The Sex-Change Revolution Is Based on Ideology, Not Science

Transgender Ideology Hurts Kids

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Jed Share/Kaoru Share Blend Images/Newscom.

VIDEO: What You Need to Know About Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood bills itself as one of “the nation’s leading providers of high-quality, affordable health care” and claims that federal defunding of the organization would leave millions of women “without a place to go for needed care.” Do these claims accurately reflect what Planned Parenthood does? Or does it have another reason for being?

In this week’s video, Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action, lays out the differences between the way Planned Parenthood presents itself and the reality.

Conservative, Pro-American Policies Are Winning

President Trump’s approval ratings are at their highest level ever, and Republicans have totally erased the 15-point lead in the generic congressional ballot Democrats held just two months ago.

This is telling on a couple of levels, and I hope Republicans are paying attention. Democrats may continue on their merry intersectional way.

First, polls taken on immediate issues are almost always driven by the media coverage. So the tax reform that passed in December was “deeply unpopular” with Americans. All the polls showed it. But what they really showed was how the media was covering the tax package — big tax cuts for the rich and corporations, regular Americans losing deductions — a big giveaway to “others.”

Of course that’s not what it was. That was a total misrepresentation driven by Democrats’ talking points. Americans are now seeing what the tax reform package is actually doing — real news as opposed to you-know-what news — and they are liking what they see. It’s not surprising, as many middle income Americans are taking home a couple thousand dollars more per year — what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi infamously called crumbs in her ever so out-of-touch way.

Priorities USA, the most influential Democratic super PAC, recently released a memo noting the rise in popularity of the tax law. It urged Democrats to message more consistently against the tax law by taking the big picture class warfare tactic of the rich getting more tax money and the irresponsibility of increasing the national debt — a laughably untenable position for people who supported President Obama’s doubling the national debt in just eight years.

“It’s tougher to win when people are seeing more money,” said Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth, of Kentucky, the ranking minority member on the House Budget Committee. “That’s big money for a lot of people.”

Well, yes. So why are Democrats fighting that? They are literally saying the government should have that money — not working, middle-income Americans. Totally out of touch.

But good for Republicans and Trump.

The second lesson is that conservative issues are winners with the American people. Republicans must stop listening to the mainstream media, and listen to the American people. This is a lesson that apparently requires relearning every few years. The problem is that they are too influenced by the cultural elites. But the national media and celebrity class are as out of touch with Americans as the Democratic leadership.

But despite the overwhelming, negative public onslaught by the media and celebrities, the American people eventually see through the cultural nonsense to the real issue. But this is only beneficial when Republicans actually pursue and implement conservative policies with a pro-American attitude.

And the policies of President Trump and the GOP Congress have been overwhelmingly conservative (with the exception of the two-year spending agreement, in part because of the requirement for 60 votes and in part because of desire for re-election first.)

So Trump has been deeply unpopular in his first year, but of course, given the hysterically negative onslaught of media coverage, that is not too surprising. However, his approval ratings have been rising steadily since the tax reform package and the strengthening economy. In fact, his approvals are now equal or better than President Obama’s at the same time in his presidency at 48 percent approval, according to the most recent Rasmussen tracking poll.

What’s truly shocking is that Trump has received close to 90 percent negative media reporting in his first year and Obama had about 20 percent negative media coverage. Again, the American people eventually see through the smokescreen of old media coverage to the actual policies and their effectiveness. And conservative policies are effective and popular.

And the GOP has caught and maybe passed Democrats in the generic congressional ballot polls. Politico reports:

“Republicans have erased the Democratic advantage on the generic congressional ballot in a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll that, for the first time since April, also shows President Donald Trump’s approval rating equaling the percentage of voters who disapprove of his job performance.

Fully 39 percent of registered voters say they would support the GOP candidate for Congress in their district, while 38 percent would back the Democratic candidate. Nearly a quarter of voters, 23 percent, are undecided.”

What has changed? Certainly not the media reporting.

Largely, it has been the tax reform package, ongoing deregulation helping the broad economy, a breakthrough in the logjam blocking originalist judges, winning the government shutdown issues by not caving in and standing firm on building the wall and ending chain migration. There may also be a side help as more and more revelations show that there isn’t much to the whole Trump-Russia story, but there may be something to the FBI-DNC-Clinton-Russia story.

The bottom line remains the bottom line. If Trump and Republicans will stick to conservative principles, voice them confidently and expose liberal nonsense, they will win.


Today’s news moves at a faster pace than ever, and a lot of sources are not trustworthy. Whatfinger.com  is my go-to source for keeping up with all the latest events in real time from good sources.

The Ash Wednesday Massacre: What have ‘we done wrong’ to allow this slaughter of our children?

The Ash Wednesday Massacre

Since the slaughter of 17 faculty and students on February 14th, 2018 by 19-year old Nikolas Cruz at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Broward County, Florida the political discourse has been focused on fixing blame rather than fixing the fundamental problem. Please let me explain.

Many media outlets portrayed this as the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre. What many missed, as portrayed in the above photo of a crying woman with an ash cross on her forehead, is that February 14th was also Ash Wednesday. This is prophetic.

For you see Ash Wednesday in the Catholic Church is the first day of Lent marked by services of penitence. Penitence is sorrow for one’s sins.

The fundamental problem resulting in the “Ash Wednesday Massacre” is not government policy. The fundamental problem is not in the slaughterer’s choice of a weapon. The fundamental problem is not which political party is in control of the White House or Congress. The problem is not law enforcement or the lack thereof. The problem is not how the media commentators portray it in their routine fixing blame ways.

The fundamental problem is we are all sinners. The only solution is penitence.

Penitence requires a belief in God, the Father. It requires living a moral life. It requires dedication to not just doing good but being good in the image of Jesus of Nazareth. Penitence requires faith!

Each of us is to blame for the Ash Wednesday Massacre.

It is prophetic that the Ash Wednesday Massacre occurred in a public school. For you see the Supreme Court of the United States in the 1962 case Engel v. Vitale ruled the public recitation of Christian prayer in public schools is illegal.  In the 1963 case Abington School District v. Schempp the Supreme Court ruled corporate reading of the Christian Bible in public schools is illegal.

Ash Wednesday is the first day of lent. Six weeks after Ash Wednesday Catholics and Christians will celebrate Easter Sunday.

QUESTION: Given the Ash Wednesday Massacre, why is the date Easter 2018 falls upon important?

Wikipedia notes this about Easter:

Easter, also called Pascha (Greek, Latin) or Resurrection Sunday, is a [Christian] festival and holiday celebrating the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, described in the New Testament as having occurred on the third day of his burial after his crucifixion by the Romans at Calvary circa 30 AD. It is the culmination of the Passion of Jesus, preceded by Lent (or Great Lent), a forty-day period of fasting, prayer, and penance.

Easter falls on April 1st, 2018, also known as April Fools Day. 

Easter Monday is the day after Easter Sunday. It is not a federal holiday in the United States of America. Some Easter traditions continue on the Easter Monday, such as the egg rolling race at the White House.

Joe Zevuloni weeps in front of a cross placed in a park to commemorate the victims of the shooting at nearby Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. Photo by CNS photo/Carlos Garcia Rawlins, Reuters.

In the New International Version of the Holy Bible 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 reads:

Christ Crucified Is God’s Power and Wisdom

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called,both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Those who are fixing blame are the foolish.

They are foolish because they do not believe in “the message of the cross.” Man cannot save mankind from himself. Only the “power of God” can save mankind from himself.

The Ash Wednesday Massacre is yet another example of the foolishness of our “wise” politicians, teachers of the law and philosophers.

The following dialogue appeared on social media after the Ash Wednesday Massacre:

Dear God,

Why do you allow such violence in our schools?

A Concerned Student

Dear Concerned Student,

I’m not allowed in schools!

God

American theologian, ethicist, commentator on politics and public affairs, and professor at Union Theological Seminary Karl Paul Reinhold Niebuhr wrote:

Nothing which is true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context in history; therefor we must be saved by faith.”

On Sunday, April 1st, 2018 there will be those who celebrate April Fools Day. On Sunday, April 1st, 2018 there will be those who will be celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The fools will remain foolish. The faithful will remain penitent.

RELATED ARTICLE: At Least 20 Students Told Police Nikolas Cruz Threatened To KILL Them—Police Did Nothing

Establishment media slams Clint Eastwood film for not portraying Radical Islamic terrorist sympathetically

The reviewer for the National Post wrote: “15:17 to Paris overly simplifies the attack and its aftermath. The terrorist (Ray Corasani) snarls and wears sneakers, but there’s little more to him.”

Yes, of course. The movie should have dwelt on all the terrible things that racist, “Islamophobic” Westerners did to the poor fellow to drive him to misunderstand his peaceful religion.

The reviewer for the Daily Mail, the worst paper in the Western world, opted for some repulsive moral equivalence between the jihadi and those who stopped him: “In that sacred American way, incidentally, their Christianity is not incompatible with an obsession with firearms…The ­narrative throbs with Eastwood’s ­conviction — shared, as we know, by President Trump — that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Better still, a good guy with a gun and a bible.”

Of course. Every right-thinking person knows that the best way to stop a bad guy is to shower money and special accommodations upon him until he is love-bombed into pacifism.

“Hollywood Elites Blast Clint Eastwood’s Film for Not Portraying ‘Sympathetic Terrorist,’” by Ben Marquis, Conservative Tribune, February 16, 2018:

Islamic terrorist Ayoub El-Khazzani boarded a train headed from Amsterdam to Paris in 2015, wielding an AK-47 rifle, handgun and box-cutter, with the goal of murdering innocent passengers in a jihadist attack.

Little did he know, there were three Americans on that train — Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos and Spencer Stone. When the jihadist experienced difficulties operating his rifle, these brave men sprang into action, thwarting the attack and saving countless lives.

The heroic actions of those three friends was recorded in a book that was then adapted into a film by conservative Hollywood actor and director Clint Eastwood. Eastwood cast the three friends to play themselves in a movie portraying their bravery.

Despite all this, elitist Hollywood liberals have found reason to hate it, as was evidenced by numerous reviews of the film by left-leaning media outlets, according to Hollywood In Toto.

Liberal film reviewers had already made their opinions of Eastwood and American patriotism known following the 2014 release of “American Sniper,” but they have reiterated their anti-Americanism and sympathy toward Islamic extremists in their reviews of “The 15:17 To Paris.”

The reviewer for the National Post complained that the movie was akin to sitting through somebody else’s vacation, and lamented that the terrorist didn’t receive enough screen time. He wrote: “15:17 to Paris overly simplifies the attack and its aftermath. The terrorist (Ray Corasani) snarls and wears sneakers, but there’s little more to him.”

The reviewer for Slate also griped about feeling like he was watching a slideshow of another person’s vacation in Europe, and took up too much of the film too boot, and wrote, “The sense of wheelspinning only underlines the movie’s failure to make its antagonist more than a cartoon scowl with a Kalashnikov. The geese in Sully (a Tom Hanks film about a passenger jet which crash landed on the Hudson River) were more well-rounded characters.”

The Slant Magazine reviewer, when not sneering at conservatives, Christianity, the military and Eastwood’s method of film-making, took issue with the film’s departure from the “surprisingly visceral and nuanced book,” and wrote, “One misses the prismatic structure of the 15:17 to Paris book, which fuses multiple points of view—including El-Khazzani’s—and which is reduced by (screenwriter) Dorothy Blyskal’s script to cut-and-pasted bromides.”

Over at The Daily Beast, the reviewer stated that the film was “more mind-numbing than his empty chair speech” and called it a “stunning misfire.” Of the terrorist, he wrote, “As for the villain in question, Eastwood primarily films his hands, sneakers, arms, and back, all as a means of making him some sort of faceless existential threat — a symbolic vehicle for Stone’s ‘greater purpose.’ Mostly, though, it’s just another example of The 15:17 to Paris’ regrettable blankness.”…

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette review, which did lament the exclusion of “any hint of the terrorist’s motivation,” led the way with an open bashing of American patriotism combined with a not-so-subtle shot at Trump, and wrote, “There’s a certain repellent hubris about (Eastwood’s) patriotic formula: Make America grate again, on the rest of the world, in paint-by-numbers (red, white and blue), which happen to be the same as the Tricouleur — not that Mr. Eastwood makes any use or reference to that.”

The reviewer for the The U.K. Daily Mail wrote of the three heroes, “In that sacred American way, incidentally, their Christianity is not incompatible with an obsession with firearms,” and continued with, “The ­narrative throbs with Eastwood’s ­conviction — shared, as we know, by President Trump — that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Better still, a good guy with a gun and a bible.”

Last, but certainly not least, we have the review from The New Yorker, in which the reviewer called the film a “reactionary fable” and described a scene in which a young Sadler and Stone play with an “arsenal” of toy guns, about which the reviewer wrote, “As I watched the scene, I thought, You could cut it out of this movie and paste it, unchanged, into another one, about a nice suburban kid who grows up and carries out a mass shooting.”

That New Yorker reviewer also criticized the lack of answers to questions about the terrorist, and wrote, “Was this not an ideal opportunity to trace the paths — whether of grievance, paranoia, faith, or wrath — that lead a young man to dreams of slaughter? Was he not, in his way, catapulted toward his purpose no less firmly than Stone and his companions were, and with an equally fervent belief that he was obeying the decrees of his God?”…

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Jihad Watch.

Humans face a far greater threat from one another, rather than from climate change.

Welcome to the latest Energy and Environmental Newsletter.

A superior observation I recently heard: “Humans face a far greater threat from one another, rather than from climate change.”

The corruption going on in our education system is simply stunningly bad.Nothing we do today regarding energy or environmental matters will make any difference if this is not fixed shortly. Please carefully read these important articles (here and here) by two different professors, at two different US colleges.
On a closely related matter, please consider The Decline and Fall of the Media and Will Journalism Destroy Science?  We live in troubled times, where survival depends on getting educated (see prior paragraph), paying close attention,and then defending our rights.
Some of the more informative Global Warming articles in this issue are:

Apocalypse Not
Crucial Climate Verdict, Naked Conflict-of-Interest
Roy Spencer on the Unsettled Science of Climate Change: A Primer
Peer Review: the Publication Game and “Natural Selection of Bad Science”
Short video: Can Computer Models Predict Climate Change?
Short video: EPA’s Scott Pruitt re Climate Change, etc.
Science or silence? My Battle to Question Doomsayers
Survey: US Christians Less Susceptible to Climate Alarmism
Report: Sea Level Rise Acceleration (or Not)
Overheated claims on temperature records

Some of the more interesting Energy related articles in this issue are:

End of federal wind industry handouts is long overdue
Wind projects are disrupting our way of life
Research into mountain wind projects: major risk to visitor economy
Wind project under criminal investigation for bat and eagle deaths
Minnesota: Company helps protect real farms from wind projects
Oklahoma: America’s No. 2 wind producer, sours on the industry
Nebraska: A proposal to remove wind power’s ‘renewable’ designation
Maine: A proposed law amending wind energy regulation
Evaluating a Wind Energy Agreement: A Brief Review
Putting fossil fuel “pollution” into perspective
Environmental Illusion and a Public Swindle
The Legal Shakedown Of US Energy Industry Is Flagrant Abuse Of Courts
Solar giants getting stronger as opponents struggle to fight back

PS: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

BREAKING: Mueller investigator Andrew McCabe altered his summary of the Mike Flynn interview

It has always been painfully obvious that disgraced FBI special investigator Andrew McCabe didn’t resign over some cheezy anti-Trump texts to his adulteress mistress. Now it all makes sense.

FYI: A FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to “report or summarize the interviews that they conduct” and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary agent. It consists of information taken from the subject, rather than details about the subject themselves.

Freeper:

There has been rumors ‘independently’ from Sara Carter and others that FD-302s May have been altered and she pointed out it may be McCabe that told others to do it. This was heard right on the day he stepped down. They didn’t say to whom they were altered against if it was true but this possibly lines up with this! If true then Flynn plea will be rescinded and charges dropped and possibly Mueller team will be in trouble if they KNEW that these 302s were changed and didn’t informed Flynn until they were forced to by the new judge, Sullivan

Conservative Treehouse:

Corrupt FBI Officials Fight Back Against Intelligence Oversight Memo…

House Intelligence Committee Releases Transcript of Monday Night “Memo Meeting”… 

Robert Mueller Requests Postponement of General Mike Flynn Sentencing…

Posted on by sundance

Against a newly discovered likelihood the Robert Mueller investigation began under false pretenses; and against the backdrop that FBI surveillance and wiretaps were obtained through materially (intentionally) false representations to the FISA court; and against the backdrop the original Flynn plea judge (Contrereas) was also the approving FISA judge; and that judge ‘was summarily recused’ from the case; and against increasing evidence that Mike Flynn was set up by a terminal animus, and politically-motivated investigative rogue unit, operating within the FBI; and against surfacing IG Horowitz evidence that FBI investigators manipulated (lied on) their FD-302 interrogation documents; and understanding those falsified 302’s were used in the Mueller/Flynn charging document…

…Special Counsel Robert Mueller now asks for postponement of sentencing:

(pdf link)

Both parties did not ‘request‘ a postponement; both parties ‘agreed‘ to a postponement.  The motive for the request (Mueller) is entirely divergent from, yet complimentary to, the motive to agree to the request (Flynn).

This is all beginning to go backwards.

It is not coincidental that Brandon L Van Grack is the signatory to the delay request by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s request to the new Judge, Emmet G Sullivan.

If, as has been reported, Inspector General Michael Horowitz now has evidence the FBI manipulated their FD-302 (interrogation and questioning) documents, as also admitted by FBI agent Peter Strzok in related matters regarding Clinton…

…. and those manipulated or falsified FBI 302’s (containing FBI investigative notes of Michael Flynn’s questioning during the January 2017 interview), were used in the actual Flynn charging documents.

Michael Flynn FBI Charge Lying to Investigators by The Conservative Treehouse on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

Well, then the underlying evidence presented to the initial judge, Ruben Contreras, in the December 1st plea hearing, were materially misrepresented.

With the IG exposing falsified and manipulative investigative practices by the FBI, Mueller would have no alternative but to throw the brakes on.  This whole thing is turning into a sh*t-show of epic proportions. EARLIER WE DISCUSSED

The Robert Mueller lawyer, the Special Counsel attorney that signed General Flynn’s Statement of Offense filed in U.S, District Court 12/1/2017 was “Brandon L Van Grack”. [See page #5]

When Trump transition team lawyer Kory Langhofer (Trump for America transition organization) contacted the special counsels office about the illegal and unethical way they retrieved transition team emails from the GSA. Who was he put in contact with?

It was Brandon L Van Grack who was in communication w/ the Trump for America transition organization; and, according to the documents on this topic (attached), misrepresented (ie. lied about) the Special Counsel access to the GSA emails on 12/12/2017. (Pdf Link)

Questions: A) What reason would Van Grack have for taking the call from the transition attorney in the first place? and then, B) what reason would he have for lying about the information that was requested?

It is my belief, based on mounting evidence, a specific cast of characters -within the Mueller “Russia Election Interference” probe- were placed there to protect the people behind the FBI’s 2016 counterintelligence operation against Trump.

I suspect the same FBI and DOJ “small group”, the team who worked diligently to ensure Hillary Clinton was never found culpable in the 2015/2016 email investigation, later worked on the 2016 Trump counterintelligence operation (FISA wiretapping surveillance etc).

That same “small group” within the FBI and DOJ were then given the task in 2017 of covering both prior operations: A) *Clear Hillary Clinton, and B) *Counterintel op on Trump.

To cover, cloud and protect the DOJ and FBI officials engaged in both operations, the “small group” is now assembled within Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel team.

Inside Mueller’s crew, the “small group” essentially works to watch over what information the Trump officials or congress could possibly be discovering…. under the auspices of investigating ‘Muh Russia’ etc.

If the “small group” comes across a risky trail being followed, they work to impede, block, delay or deflect anyone from that trail.

That’s why the Special Counsel attorney that signed General Flynn’s Statement of Offense filed Dec. 1, 2017, was the same attorney who responded to the Trump transition team inquiry. Brandon L Van Grack.

This “small group” are essentially career DOJ and FBI staff lawyers behind and beside the visible names we have recently become aware of: Peter Strzok, Bruce Ohr, Lisa Page, Bill Priestap, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates, James Baker etc.

RELATED ARTICLES:

REPORT: FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND CLINTON COLLUDER ANDREW MCCABE “RESIGNS”

By  – on 

Long, long overdue.

THE BOMBSHELL #MEMO: READ THE FULL TEXT OF THE EXPLOSIVE FISA MEMO HERE

Aliens Who Didn’t Register Under DADA: ‘Lazy’ or Committing Fraud?

The President’s Chief of Staff, Gen. John Kelly, recently raised some eyebrows when he postulated that many illegal aliens who could have applied to participate in the Obama administration’s illegal DACA program may have simply been too lazy to apply for temporary lawful status when the program was in effect.

Although General Kelly had a highly successful and laudable record of service to our nation in the United States Marine Corps, he never enforced nor administered our nation’s immigration laws.  His lack of experience and subsequent lack of understanding about the challenges that confront those who enforce and administer our immigration laws have apparently caused him to come to a very wrong and, indeed, dangerous conclusion, which may have influenced President Trump’s decision to provide lawful status and a pathway to United States citizenship to three times as many aliens as were covered by the Obama administration’s DACA program.

Gen. Kelly may not realize that many of those applicants may be successfully gaming the immigration system by committing immigration fraud.  They didn’t enroll not because they were lazy but because they weren’t present in the United States during the enrollment period and would falsely claim they were if a new program were to take effect.  Indeed, if this program is created, many applicants might enter the United States in the months ahead, but claim they have been here for years.

On February 7, 2018 Politifact posted an articleIn Context: John Kelly’s remarks on ‘lazy’ immigrants and DACA, that included this paragraph that was critical of Kelly and the President:

Kelly’s remarks drew criticism from lawmakers and advocates for immigrant rights who countered that the DACA population is hard-working and that the Trump administration is attempting to demonize immigrants.

That brief paragraph contains a major falsehood that, for decades, has permeated discussions and news coverage about the immigration crisis.  The article referred to “advocates for immigrant rights” who were angered by Kelly’s statement, however, illegal aliens are not immigrants.  That bit of semantic “sleight of language” of referring to all aliens as “immigrants” was devised during the Carter administration, as I noted in a previous article.  The misuse of language is not about being “politically correct,” but about being Orwellian, employing Newspeak tactics to alter understandings and thoughts by altering language.

True immigrants already have “rights” in the United States. They are lawfully present and were placed on the pathway to United States citizenship the day that lawful immigrant status was conferred upon them.  In order to qualify to become naturalized citizens, should they desire to do so, they would have to meet certain other requirements such as meeting time requirements in the United States and possessing “good moral conduct” as established in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The reporter who described the motivation behind Gen. Kelly’s statement as seeking to “demonize immigrants” was so eager to hurl criticisms at the Trump administration that she ignored that Gen. Kelly was likely simply being naive and, in that naivety, Kelly overlooked the real problem: the fact that many of these aliens may be committing fraud and were not actually present in the United States during the enrollment program during the Obama administration.

General Kelly lacks understanding about immigration, not because he isn’t intelligent, but because he lacks the experiences in immigration that my 30 years with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have provided me.  This includes a one-year assignment to a pilot program with the unit that adjudicated the petitions U.S. citizens and resident aliens file for their alien spouses to receive lawful immigrant status in the United States.

To provide a bit of background, management at the INS in 1973 found that the number of such petitions had sky-rocketed and there were serious concerns about high levels of fraud being behind the surge in applications.  The idea behind the pilot program was to make certain the petitioners and their spouses were actually living in a marital relationship.  Aliens who were found to have been engaged in marriage fraud were immediately taken into custody and detained for deportation hearings.  Within a few months the numbers of applications plummeted as the aliens came to the understanding that there would be consequences for participating in a fraud conspiracy.  You could call this deterrence through enforcement.  Laws only matter when those who violate the law know that they will face severe consequences.

Today, however, the number of such aliens and hence the applications are so great, no in-person interviews would be possible.  No field investigations would be possible.  The Adjudications Officers would have to make their decisions solely by reviewing applications and supporting documents provided by “undocumented” aliens.  The veracity of these documents may be impossible to determine and, since nearly all of these documents do not include any biometric identifiers, it wold be all but impossible to know if the documents even actually relate to the alien applying for lawful status.

These aliens may well be imposters.

On May 20, 1997 I participated in my first congressional hearing.  The House Immigration Subcommittee conducted a hearing on the issue of Visa Fraud and Immigration Benefits Application Fraud. When the Chairman of the subcommittee, Rep. Lamar Smith, asked me if I had encountered a common problem during my tenure as an Immigration Inspector, Immigration Examiner (the position now referred to as Adjudications Officers) and as an Immigration Special Agent, I replied by stating that imposters were a major concern.

Here we are more than twenty years after that hearing and we still have a huge and deadly problem created by our inability to always be certain as the true identities of applicants for visas and immigration benefits.

Incidentally, that hearing in 1997 was predicated on two deadly terror attacks carried out in the United States in 1993.  In January 1993 a Pakistani national gained entry into the parking lot of  CIA Headquarters in Virginia and opened fire with an AK-47, killing two CIA officers and wounding three others.  The next month a bombing at the World Trade Center killed six innocent victims and injured more than one thousand people and inflicted an estimated half-billion dollars in damages and nearly toppled one of the 110-story buildings.

Both attacks were carried out by aliens from the Middle East who had gamed various elements of the immigration system.  The apparent ringleader of the World Trade Center attack, Mahmud Abouhalima, as the Los Angeles Times reported on March 25, 1993, was the beneficiary of the 1986 Reagan amnesty. He gained lawful status under the Special Agricultural provisions of that massive amnesty program, which as principally authored and ram-rodded through Congress by then-Congressman Chuck Schumer.

These aliens may be in their mid-30’s, hence, there would be no way of knowing if they actually entered the United States before they were 16 years of age or entered the United States recently and are simply lying about their dates of entry.  No record of entry is created when aliens evade the inspections process at ports of entry.

President Trump was absolutely spot-on in his insistence that the United States not admit aliens who cannot be vetted.  This was the fundamental concern behind his Executive Order that came to be labeled a “Travel Ban,” which should have been referred to as an “Entry Restriction.” Furthermore, these aliens are citizens from countries around the world, as reported by the DHS.

Let us not forget that aliens who run our borders do not enter “undocumented,” a term that could have been devised by Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.  These aliens enter the United States without inspection and without vetting.  Their presence in the United States remains unknown to our government until perhaps they commit a crime or participate in some other nefarious act.

Finally, an application for an immigration benefit can be approved in just minutes while the denial of an application can take days or longer.  Denied applications may be subject to an appeal and therefore denials require extensive paperwork, reviewed by government attorneys, in anticipation of such challenges. This creates a huge incentive to approve nearly all of these applications to keep up with the flood of applications.

All factors considered, as I noted my recent article, any DACA solution must heed the 9/11 Commission findings, which pointed out how our immigration system’s vulnerabilities were exploited in the 2001 terrorist attacks. Fraud that will likely be committed by future DACA applicants, especially those who mysteriously failed to take advantage of the program while it was originally in effect, is a very serious concern that must be addressed with open eyes.

RELATED ARTICLE: Immigration as a Left-Wing Political Strategy

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Front Page Magazine.

Five Paradoxes of the Sexual Revolution: Part II

Note: This is a slightly edited version of the second half of a paper that our colleague Mary Eberstadt gave at Hillsdale College’s conference, “The Sixties,” on January 30. The first half, explaining the overall thesis and the first two paradoxes may be read here. – Robert Royal

A third paradox has become the dominant social media soap opera of our time, a story that goes like this: The revolution was supposed to empower women. Instead, it ushered in the secular sex scandals of 2017 etc., and the #MeToo movement. In addition to the fact that it made marriage harder for many women to achieve, it also licensed sexual predation on a scale not seen outside of conquering armies.

Take Hugh Hefner, founder of Playboy, who died last year. His commercial empire was founded, of course, on pornographic photos of a great many women. He made himself an exemplar of his own supposed philosophy – the Playboy philosophy of sophisticated drinks and music and, naturally, easy sex. It was an idea that caught on quickly, and it seems safe to guess that most people didn’t know the sordid truth, which would later emerge from the Playboy mansion and elsewhere, about the exploitation behind the slick advertising.

Nonetheless, when Hefner died, many progressives, including self-styled feminists, glowed with praise for the apostle of the revolution. Why? Because he cloaked his predatory designs in the language of sexual progressivism. As a Forbes writer summarized the record, “Playboy published its first article supporting the legalization of abortion in 1965, eight years before the Roe v. Wade decision that permitted the practice – and even before the feminist movement had latched onto the cause. It also published the numbers of hotlines that women could call and get safe abortions.”

In other words, Hefner’s support for these causes appears inextricably tied up with his desire to live in a way that exploited women. This same Siamese twinning joins many of the secular sex scandals that have been exploding in the news. The Weinstein etc. stories revealed the same strategic role occupied by abortion for numerous men who objectify women and disdain monogamy. Without the backup plan of fetal liquidation, where would such men be? In court, of course, and paying lots of child support.

More and more thinkers, even outside the religious sphere, have come to the same conclusion. The sexual revolution did not deliver on its promises to women; instead, it further enabled men – especially men without the best of intentions. Francis Fukuyama, a non-religious social scientist, wrote almost twenty years in his 1999 book The Great Disruption: “One of the greatest frauds perpetrated during the Great Disruption was the notion that the sexual revolution was gender-neutral, benefiting women and men equally. . . . In fact the sexual revolution served the interests of men, and in the end put sharp limits on the gains that women might otherwise have expected from their liberation from traditional roles.”

With that observation, Fukuyama joins a long and growing list of non-religious thinkers who can now grasp more clearly, in retrospect, what some religious leaders have been saying all along. The revolution effectively democratized sexual predation. No longer did one have to be a king, or a master of the universe in some other realm, to sexually abuse or harass women in unrelenting, serial fashion. One only needed a world in which many women would be assumed to use contraception, and would further be deprived of male protectors. In other words, all one needed was the world delivered by the revolution.

A fourth paradox has barely been studied, at least not systematically, and needs to be: the effect of the revolution on Christianity itself. To look back over the decades is to understand that the revolution has been, simultaneously, polarizing the churches within, and creating tighter ties among some different denominations than ever before.

For decades now, commentators have argued over what “the Sixties” meant for the churches. Some have welcomed the innovations of Vatican II, for example; others have hailed the radical theological transformations of Mainline Protestantism. Still others deplored these changes. Wherever they have stood, though, observers of Christianity today have come to find one central fact unavoidable. The sexual revolution is the single most divisive issue now afflicting faith itself.

And this is true whether one’s Catholic or Protestant. In 2004, A Church at War, by Stephen Bates, a book about the Anglican Communion, summarized the argument on its back cover: “Will the politics of sex tear Anglicans and Episcopalians apart?” A few years later, writing of the same subject in Mortal Follies: Episcopalians and the Crisis of Mainline Christianity, William Murchison concluded with this observations: “For Episcopalians, as for large numbers of other Christians, the paramount issues are sex and sexual expression, neither viewed by the culture as means to a larger end but as the end.”

In his 2015 book Onward, Russell Moore reflected on the tension between evangelical progressives and traditionalists thus: “when it comes to religion in America at the moment, progress always boils down to sex.”

As in our other examples, it seems safe to say that today’s divisiveness wasn’t anything that Christians of the 1960s wanted to embrace. Those voices within the churches decades ago who just wanted Christianity to “loosen up” didn’t know what they were starting, which is today’s figurative civil war, across denominations, within the faith itself.

A fifth, and for now, final paradox: The sexual revolution didn’t stop at sex. What many people thought would be a private transformation of relations between individuals has gone on to radically reconfigure not only family life, but life, period.

Perhaps the least understood of the revolution’s effects are what might be called the macrocosmic implications – the way in which it continues to transform and deform not only individuals, but society and politics as well.

Some of these changes are demographic: across much of the developed world, families are smaller and more splintered from within than ever before in history.

Some effects are political: Smaller and more fractured families have put unprecedented pressure on the welfare states of the West, by reducing the tax base required to sustain it.

There are also social effects that are only beginning to be mapped, like the sharp rise in people living alone, or reporting greatly reduced human contact, or in other measures that make up the burgeoning field of “loneliness studies” – and this too takes place across the countries of the West.

Then there’s the spiritual fallout, which also couldn’t have been foreseen in the Sixties – especially by those arguing that something about a changed moral paradigm for Christians would somehow help them to be better Christians.

I have argued elsewhere that the revolution has also given rise to a new secularist, quasi-religious faith – the most potent such body of rival beliefs since Marxism-Leninism. According to this new faith, sexual pleasure is the highest good, and there is no clear moral standard beyond consenting adults and whatever they choose to do with one another. Whether they are conscious of it or not, many modern people treat the sexual revolution as religious bedrock – off-limits for revision, no matter what consequences it has wrought.

These are just some examples of the new world that needs mapping, and that will absorb intellectual attention for a long time to come. We should be hopeful about those future efforts. After all, it’s taken over fifty years for opinion to re-align about just some of the revolution’s negative legacy. It may take fifty more, or a hundred, for a full and honest empirical and intellectual accounting. Revisionist thinking about the revolution’s effects in the world has only just begun.

In summary, one parting thought. The great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy was once sent out by a journal to report back on what happened in a local slaughterhouse. What he saw there moved him deeply. His subsequent description included an immortal line that I think applies widely to us today. After relaying the facts, Tolstoy observed with devastating simplicity, “We cannot pretend we don’t know these things.”

That is exactly where humanity is in 2018 with respect to the sexual revolution. We can no longer pretend we don’t know these things – these things that the revolution has done.

In the heady 1960s, many could plead ignorance, in good faith, about the fallout to come. Few could have suspected how many millions of children in coming generations would grow up without fathers in the home, say; or how many more millions would be aborted; or how many men and women alike from fractured homes would go on to suffer in diverse ways, such as turning to drugs – surely there’s more going on in the opioid epidemic than mere marketing – and other self-destructive behaviors.

Many people, just half a century ago, hoped that the revolution would incur no collateral human damage. And in fairness to them: who, back then, could have foreseen the library of social science created over the fifty years since, demonstrating just some of the human damage out there among men, women, and children of the revolution?

Some people fifty years ago even hoped that the new freedoms, and technological controls, would stabilize marriage itself. The 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, which also reaches its 50th anniversary this year, went on to become widely despised across the decades precisely for predicting otherwise – precisely for insisting that the revolution would hurt romance and family, and end up licensing predatory men and malignant governments.

It is a paradox within a paradox right now that a great many people, including inside the Catholic Church itself, have ferociously resisted Humanae Vitae’s rejection of the revolution – or for that matter, any rejection of the revolution – despite all this evidence, even in some pretty high places.

By 2018, can any of us really, in good faith, pretend we don’t know these things that empiricism itself has documented? The answer has to be no.

In 1953, when the first issue of Playboy arrived on newsstands, many people might have wanted to believe its hype about enhancing the sophistication and urbanity of American men. By 2018, we can’t pretend that the mainstreaming of pornography has been anything but a disaster for romance, and a prime mover of today’s divorces and other breakups.

In 1973, even supporters of Roe vs. Wade could not have imagined the evidence to come: some 58 million never-born micro-humans in the United States; and gender-cide, or the selective killing of micro-girls for being girls, in various nations around the world, also numbering in the millions. Nor could supporters back then have imagined the technological leap that would unveil the truth about abortion once and for all: the sonogram.

Can today’s advocates for Roe possibly claim the same unknowing?

To face facts squarely, and use them to tell a truthful story, is not merely to deliver a jeremiad: it is to empower. To reject living under the falsehoods about the revolution, even if they have become the dominant narrative of the age, is to embrace the freedom to write a new narrative – and a truer one.

Just one step is needed toward revising the revolution’s legacy in the direction of truth: ceasing to pretend that we don’t know the empirical and historical record, when every year just reveals it both to science and human reason, more and more.

Mary Eberstadt

Mary Eberstadt

Mary Eberstadt is a Senior Research Fellow at the Faith and Reason Institute. Some of her previous The Catholic Thing columns (and columns by others in which her work is discussed) can be found here. She is the author of several books including It’s Dangerous to Believe and How the West Really Lost God.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Sharon Tate (murdered by Charles Manson’s “family”), Hugh Hefner, Barbi Benton, and Roman Polanski (accused of statuary rape of a 13-year old girl). in 1968. © 2018 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.

Facebook’s Use of Personal Data Ruled ‘Illegal’ by German Court

The tide is turning — the forces that are arrayed against these giants are growing.

The US government has used anti-trust laws to break up monopolies. They ought to break up Facebook. Section 2 of the Sherman Act highlights particular results deemed anti-competitive by nature and prohibits actions that ‘shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations.’ Couldn’t the same be applied to information? The United States government took down Standard Oil, Alcoa, Northern Securities, the American Tobacco Company and many others without nearly the power that Facebook has.

Read my latest over at The American Thinker. We are seeing an unprecedented erosion in our First Amendment rights, increasingly prohibiting the flow of ideas and free expression in the public square (social media). Run by left-wing self-possessed snowflakes, social media giants are indulging their worst autocratic impulses. And because they can, it is getting worse. “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Mark Zuckerberg

“Facebook’s Use of Personal Data Ruled Illegal by German Court,” by Lucas Nolan, Breitbart, February 13, 2018:

A German court recently ruled that Facebook’s use of users’ personal data is illegal.

Reuters reports that a German court has ruled that Facebook’s use of user personal data is illegal as the company did not sufficiently secure consent from users. The Federation of German Consumer Organisations (VZVB) that Facebook’s terms of service and its default user settings breached consumer law. Heiko Duenkel, the litigation officer at VZVB stated: “Facebook hides default settings that are not privacy-friendly in its privacy center and does not provide sufficient information about it when users register.”

Facebook stated that they had made significant changes to their terms of service and data protection guidelines since the case was brought against them in 2015, and promised to appeal the ruling saying, “We are working hard to ensure that our guidelines are clear and easy to understand, and that the services offered by Facebook are in full accordance with the law.” The company also plans to update their data protection guidelines and terms of service to comply with new rules introduced by the European Union that are set to take effect in June 2018.

Germany’s Federal Cartel Office (FCO) has also taken issue with Facebook and has begun their own investigation into the social media platform. The FCO said in December that they objected to the method Facebook uses to access third-party data when an account is registered on their site. Facebook collects information from both WhatsApp and Instagram — both companies owned by Facebook — when a new user registers. The FCO also took issue with an element of Facebook’s mobile app which automatically revealed users locations to other users on the app….

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

It’s time to repeal the ‘Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990’

Rep. Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4] on January 3rd, 2017 introduced H.R. 34 – Safe Students Act. H.R. 34 repeals the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.”

H.R. 34 would allow schools to properly train and authorize faculty, staff, teachers and school resource officers to be armed to protect their students nationwide.

115th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 34

To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 3, 2017

Mr. Massie (for himself and Mr. Gohmert) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL

To repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 and amendments to that Act.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1.SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Safe Students Act”.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES ACT OF 1990 AND AMENDMENTS TO THAT ACT.

(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (q).
(b) Related Amendments.—

(1) Section 921(a) of such title is amended by striking paragraphs (25) through (27) and redesignating paragraphs (28), (29), and (32) through (35) as paragraphs (25) through (30), respectively.
(2) Section 924(a) of such title is amended—

(A) in paragraph (1)(B), by striking “(k), or (q)” and inserting “or (k)”; and
(B) by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating paragraphs (5) through (7) as paragraphs (4) through (6), respectively.

(3) The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (18 U.S.C. 921 note, 922 note; section 1702 of Public Law 101–647; 104 Stat. 4844–4845) is repealed.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

FBI Failed to Investigate Florida Shooter Despite Long History of Concerning Behavior

Florida School Mourns Football Coach Who Sacrificed His Own Life to Save Others in Mass Shooting

6 Common Media Myths About Gun Control

After Atheist Group Got Prayers Before Sports Canceled, Students Are Fighting Back

6 Common Media Myths About Gun Control

The latest mass shooting, this time at a Florida high school, was one of the deadliest school shootings since the Columbine massacre in 1999.

So far, there have been 17 confirmed deaths in the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and the alleged shooter is in custody.

Americans are understandably searching for answers to stem this terrible epidemic.

Unfortunately, as always, many jump immediately to the conclusion that guns and protection of gun rights are what’s fueling the recurrence of these crimes. Some suggested that any opposition to gun control legislation is outright immoral.

But the often sincere and certainly passionate claims made by those calling for gun control frequently don’t add up.

As columnist David French wrote of the recurring shootings in a brilliant column for National Review, “It’s horrifying, and governmental solutions are hard to find. Twitter’s fondest wishes to the contrary, the unique characteristics of mass shootings mean that they often escape the reach of public policy.”

After the Parkland shooting, a number of old and new myths about the Second Amendment and gun control became media narratives. Here are just a few of the more common ones.

1. There Have Already Been 18 Mass Shootings in 2018

While school shootings are a serious problem, there have been frequent exaggerations about just how common they are.

One story that has gained widespread traction is that the Parkland shooting is the 18th school shooting since the beginning of 2018. This statistic was originally cooked up by Everytown for Gun Safety, a pro-gun control nonprofit.

Yet, as The Daily Wire noted, this statistic is highly misleading.

Several of these “shootings” were individuals committing suicide on campus and many others were of stray bullets passing through classroom walls with no injuries taking place. In only a few cases were people other than the shooter actually harmed.

“[O]f the 17 ‘school shootings’ before Wednesday’s shooting; three students died; roughly 30-35 were injured,” according to The Daily Wire.

Even The Washington Post said the Everytown number was “a horrifying statistic. And it is wrong.”

“Everytown has long inflated its total by including incidents of gunfire that are not really school shootings,” according to The Washington Post.

2. Trump Signed a Bill That Makes It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Get Guns

This story spread rapidly after President Donald Trump tweeted out that the Parkland shooter was “mentally disturbed” and that more vigilance was necessary to stop these people before they engage in mass killings.

However, this stretched the truth.

Last year, Trump and Congress used the Congressional Review Act to overturn an Obama-era regulation that among other things could prevent those who received disability payments from Social Security from purchasing firearms.

The rule brought up serious charges that it was not just a violation of the Second Amendment, but Fourth Amendment due process rights.

“No administrative process and no administrative law judge should be able to take away a constitutional right,” Heritage Foundation senior fellow Hans von Spakovsky said when the rule was repealed. “This should exclusively be a regular court of law to determine if someone is disabled enough to pose a hazard with a gun, not a federal bureaucrat.”

As Reason editor Scott Shackford wrote, the rule did not specifically prevent mentally ill people from getting guns. Instead, it threw a wide, potentially unconstitutional net over people who may be no threat to themselves or others.

“[T]he regulation was opposed not just by National Rifle Association (NRA) but by several mental health and disability groups and by the American Civil Liberties Union,” Shackford wrote.

3. More Guns Means More Crime

One of the most frequent and persistent myths about guns is that the increase of guns in society leads to more crimes or violence in general. However, this hasn’t been the case. Studies demonstrate that gun control laws have not had a noticeable impact in reducing murder rates and violent crime.

I wrote in October:

As numerous studies have shown, gun ownership is not necessarily connected to crime rates, and may make crime go down. A 2016 report from the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action noted that:

As gun ownership has risen to an all-time high, the nation’s total violent crime rate has fallen to a 44-year low and the murder rate has fallen to an all-time low. Since 1991, when violent crime hit an all-time high, the nation’s violent crime rate and its murder rate have decreased by more than half, as Americans have acquired over 170 million new guns, roughly doubling the number of privately owned guns in the United States.

Furthermore, concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding of any demographic group in America.

For these reasons and many others, gun control has fizzled as an issue even as its proponents continue to push the narrative.

There is simply no evidence that gun owners are more likely to commit crimes, violent or otherwise.

4. It’s Easy to Buy a Gun

In 2015, former President Barack Obama caused a stir when he said, “It’s easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable.”

Obama doubled down in 2016, saying, “We flood communities with so many guns that it is easier for a teenager to buy a Glock than get his hands on a computer or even a book.”

Even The Washington Post fact-checkers cast doubt on this wild claim.

Sean Davis at The Federalist explained the wide gap between the effort required to buy simple produce and pretty much any firearm. Davis Wrote:

There are no federal laws requiring onion dealers to register with the federal government prior to selling onions. There are no state laws requiring that you apply for and receive an onion purchase permit, complete with background check, prior to purchasing an onion. There are no onion waiting periods or limits on how many onions you can purchase within a certain period of time. Nor are there, to my knowledge, any state or local laws prohibiting the possession of onions in schools or government buildings.

The fact is, there are numerous hurdles to gun ownership. It’s not something that can be done on an immediate whim.

5. Gun Control Works in Other Countries

A frequent claim by gun control advocates is that other countries have stemmed gun violence through strict gun control laws.

Australia, in particular, is used as an example for the U.S., as Obama did in 2015.

“We know that other countries in response to one mass shooting have managed to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours, Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours,” he said.

Of course, this comparison doesn’t calm the fears of many who believe that so-called moderate, “commonsense” gun control solutions are merely a Trojan horse leading to mass confiscation as happened in Australia.

Even so, the evidence that the law made a huge impact in gun violence is unclear. As a University of Melbourne report concluded in 2008, according to National Review, “There is little evidence to suggest that [the Australian mandatory gun-buyback program] had any significant effects on firearm homicides.”

The report said:

Although gun buybacks appear to be a logical and sensible policy that helps to placate the public’s fears the evidence so far suggests that in the Australian context, the high expenditure incurred to fund the 1996 gun buyback has not translated into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths.

While Australia experienced a dip in firearm deaths after passing the 1996 law, so has the U.S. since the early 1990s, even as we moved in the opposite policy direction.

6. The Second Amendment Is Obsolete and Doesn’t Apply Today

Many gun control advocates acknowledge that the Second Amendment is a serious impediment to heavy-handed restrictions on firearms and confiscations and have advocated a repeal of this part of the Bill of Rights.

Others, however, have insinuated that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply today because the firearms used by the Founding Fathers were muskets, and that they couldn’t possibly have conceived of the devastating effectiveness of modern weaponry.

But the Founders did not design the Constitution to be an ephemeral document that would lose its applicability over time. They were quite aware that technological changes would come long after they were gone. They designed the Second Amendment to preserve the individual right to self-defense, just as they created the First Amendment to protect free expression.

William Blackstone, a British legal theorist whom the Founders often relied on for guidance, wrote, “Self-defense … as it is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the law of society.”

It was this reasoning that prompted the Founders to include the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Just as the rise of the internet and new communication technologies do not make the First Amendment invalid, the principles of the Second Amendment apply today, even as firearm technology has advanced.

Many studies show that news coverage and publicity surrounding school shootings only serve to increase their frequency. As Reason’s Robby Soave pointedly asked on Twitter, does this mean that it’s time to crack down on the First Amendment? A form of “news control,” so to speak.

It is reasonable for Americans to be wary of policy proposals that would likely be ineffective, yet would negate our most precious individual rights.

This article has been updated to correct the year in which the Columbine massacre occurred.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

Hitler Returns to France and Europe to Support Islam: The Horror Returns

It is unfortunate for Europe and the World that so many countries have decided to support antisemitism and ‘Judenrein‘ and are substituting their Jewish population for a Muslim population. Israel is the only ‘safe harbor’ for Jews in a sea of rising antisemitism.

The last time Hitler, Nazi Germany and Europe exploded with antisemitism it didn’t turn out well. It will be worse this time.

Islamic Anti-Semitism in France: Toward Ethnic Cleansing

Politicians also see that the country’s 600 “no-go zones” are growing; that radicalized Muslims may kill, and that violent riots can break out at any time. In France, more than 500 people were murdered or maimed by Islamic terrorists in less than four years.

Six years ago, the author Renaud Camus published Le Grand Remplacement (“The Great Replacement”), a book noting that Jews and Christians are not only being replaced by Muslims, but that they are often harassed and persecuted. He lamented the destruction of churches and described attacks on Jews as a “slow pogrom”. He was condemned for “inciting hatred”.

Recently, journalist Éric Zemmour observed that in Muslim neighborhoods, Muslims are now living “according to their own laws” and forcing non-Muslim people to leave. He was found guilty of “incitement” and fined.

A reporter who recently made a documentary about French Muslim neighborhoods, concluded that the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamist organizations are quickly taking hold of French Muslim communities while spreading hatred towards the Jews and the West, and that they own many schools where jihad is taught .

The French government, he added, is financing these schools and is therefore complicit in sowing the seeds of a devastation that could easily go beyond the destruction of France’s Jews. “The occupation of the West,” he said, “will be done without war but quietly, with infiltration and subversion.” No French television station has broadcast it, nor plans to. The documentary was aired only in Israel.

Anti-Israel demonstrations support terrorism. People shout, “Death to the Jews,” but those people are never arrested for “hate speech”.

Polls show that the unhindered dissemination of Muslim anti-Semitism and the violence that results from it has led to the rise of widespread anti-Semitism that clearly recalls dark periods of history.

growing percentage of the French say that the Jews in France are “too numerous” and “too visible.”

Read the full article by clicking here.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of French soldiers guarding  a Jewish school in Paris. Photo by Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images.

VIDEO: Communist Manifesto or Democratic Party Platform!

It’s no secret The Democratic Party has a tendency to cozy up to socialists, but how far left have they really become? To find out, Ami Horowitz took to the streets of New York to debut America’s most exciting (and disturbing) game show: Communist Manifesto or Democratic Party Platform!

How Chain Migration Will Create a Permanent Democrat Majority

Republicans who want to kill chain migration — and it’s no wonder.

Democrats see chain migration as their most powerful tool in the war on conservatism.

The logic is that if they bring in enough migrants, they’ll be able to secure a Democrat voting base for generations to come. And they’ve been largely successful in winning this war in recent years.

Conservative Review has more:

Our Founders were very clear that they intended naturalization to be controlled by the federal government instead of by the states, as it had been under the Articles of Confederation, because they wanted stricter standards, not looser standards. While there were several motivations for this principle, the overarching reason was that they wanted to ensure the voting populace would consist of those who shared our democratic-republican values.

Even though immigrants back then were all from the same European stock as the current Americans, Theodore Sedgewick said during the debate on the 1790 naturalization bill that “their sensations, impregnated with prejudices of education, acquired under monarchical and aristocratical Governments, may deprive them of that zest for pure republicanism, which is necessary in order to taste its beneficence with that gratitude which we feel on the occasion.” Madison spoke of admitting only those “who are attached to our Country by its natural and political advantages.”

Jefferson feared they would “bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth…These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.”

The solution to this problem is having a gradual and balanced immigration system based on merit and shared values. Instead, the endless cycles of illegal immigration, amnesties, and back-door amnesty-style programs (asylum, temporary protected status, refugees), in conjunction with chain migration, has made our immigration system work for foreigners, not for citizens, realizing the worst nightmares of our founders.

Look no further than California to understand how immigration done wrong can lead to a permanent majority of anti-life, pro-big-government Democrats. The problem is that many other states are headed down the same path, in a slower but inexorable trajectory. If the same policies continue, if chain migration is not immediately halted, conservatives will find themselves in the minority nationwide, and no other issue will matter. Even though the Republican Party is not conservative, it is perceived as such and should take heed of the obvious warning signs.

No, this is not like the great immigration wave of the last century

There has been a lot of focus in recent years on the number of green cards issued each year, but not on the number of people becoming citizens. Over the past 20 years, the U.S. has admitted roughly 700,000-800,000 citizens into our voting population every year, with a few years reaching one million. Most of them have come from countries with dramatically different worldviews on issues such as guns, health care, and the size of government. Many deniers within the GOP of the political problems of mass migration point to past history and saying our previous large wave of immigration didn’t create a permanent liberal majority. But that is because we are now dwarfing the previous great wave in numbers.

Even during the highest naturalization years of the great wave, we admitted anywhere from 100,000 to 250,000 new citizens to our electorate. In other words, even during the great wave, when there were some years we admitted roughly as many annual immigrants as we do today, that era of immigration didn’t result in as many people becoming citizens. Some of this had to do with life expectancy, but either way, the wave didn’t result in nearly as many naturalizations. And even the peak period of naturalization was not only much smaller but only lasted for a short period of time.

From 1996 to 2013, 12,609,174 new immigrants became citizens. During the actual great wave, the number of naturalizations was still very low because it took time for them to go through the system and become citizens. But even if you take an equivalent 18-year period with the highest level of naturalizations, which was from 1928 to1945, just 3,835,758 immigrants were naturalized. In other words, while the immigration wave of the modern era was 66 percent larger than the great wave, the “naturalization wave” was 329 percent greater.

Moreover, we have not even actualized the full extent of this wave of immigration, which is still growing.

Finally, let’s not forget that because of the shutoff in the ’20s, the peak of naturalizations resulting from the great wave coincided with a cool-off in new immigration. Contrast that to today’s wave of naturalizations that are coinciding with an even larger wave of new admissions from similar areas. This ensures a lack of assimilation into our constitutional values. Although immigrants have always voted for more liberal politicians, enough of them were moving on to the second generation and becoming conservatives. The ’30s and ’40s, when the highest numbers of great wave immigrants were becoming voting members of society, was the lowest of our new immigration levels. As noted immigration historian Maldwyn Allen Jones observed, “With reinforcements no longer arriving from across the ocean, ties with Europe were gradually weakened and memories of the old life grew dimmer with each passing year.” This dynamic “accelerated the Americanization of those groups which had come earlier.”

That is changing because the numbers are too great, the welfare state too expansive, and the immigrants dramatically and disproportionately coming from impoverished lands.

Let’s explore the results of this wave as it relates to critical states electorally, and you will see why it is so hard for Republicans to crack the blue firewall. This is somewhat old data, and the trajectory is growing every year:

What is self-evident from this data is not only the danger of Republicans losing places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona. It’s not only an explanation of why Republicans lost Virginia, Colorado, and Nevada. It also foreshadows what will happen to North Carolina, Georgia, and beyond. As late as 1990, the foreign-born population of Virginia was just five percent. It swelled to 11.4 percent in 2010 and is still surging, as high as 12.3 percent in 2016. While Virginia has experienced an influx of already-American liberals over the past two decades, that would only explain why it’s a marginal red state or even a purple state, not why it’s become a blue state.

Now take a look at the numbers and recent trajectory from Georgia. Again, there is an influx of American white liberals from other states as well as a general increase in black turnout. But immigration is what is going to paint those states purple.

Trump talks about shutting off chain migration 10 to 15 years from now, but the reality is that just the existing trajectory will paint the map blue.

While not every state will become as blue as California, the lessons of the Golden State should be a stark warning for what happens with salad-bowl rather than melting-pot immigration. Orange County, California, was once the bread basket of GOP dominance in California. As late as 1988, George H.W. Bush won more than twice as many votes as Democrat Michael Dukakis there. As late as 2004, when the broader state was long gone, George W. Bush won it by 20 points. Republicans narrowly carried it for the next two elections, until they downright lost it by 8 points in 2016.

What happened? In 1980, 12.7 percent of the county was foreign-born. In 2016, an estimated 30 percent of the county was foreign-born, and 45.6 percent of its residents speak a foreign language at home. Orange County, California, will now be blue forever.

Although California is lost forever, Texas and Florida are both independently vital to the GOP’s relevance. Dallas County, Texas, for example, has gone from 5 percent foreign-born in 1980 to 23 percent in 2016. Reagan won the county by 59.2 percent in 1980, while Trump lost it by a whopping 26 points in 2016. Sure, some of this has to do with Trump’s particular weakness with some college-educated urban/suburban white voters, and he has compensated for it by running up margins elsewhere. But the influx of unprecedented immigration has gradually and relentlessly shifted a number of counties to the Democrats over the past few elections.

One cannot escape the conclusion that unless there is a cool-off on overall immigration, the unprecedented size and duration of this wave, constantly reinforcing itself, will ensure that there are not enough second-generation voters assimilating into constitutional values to offset the new influx voting for big government. This is a clear distinction from past waves of immigration.

Of course, conservatives need to reach out to all new voters from all parts of the world to sell their message. But numbers and time matter greatly. Constitutional values can be sold to a melting pot of Americans; it will not resonate with a salad bowl.

The bottom line is this: There are many good policy reasons to cool down mass migration at this point. We need a more balanced immigration system for cultural, economic, and security reasons. But for Republicans who don’t care about policy and only care about political survival, they must understand that unless they change their tune on immigration and do so immediately, they and their party will become completely irrelevant.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here. The featured image is from a CNN video on chain migration.