It’s Democrats who have embraced the policy of death and thousands of people are dying!

As Republicans in the U.S. Congress are debating the pluses and minuses of their repeal and replacement legislation for Obamacare, the Democrats are accusing their colleagues of  wanting “thousands of people to die.”

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

It was The Agenda Project Action Fund that in 2011 released the video of a “Republican” pushing an old woman in a wheel chair off of a cliff. The Agenda Project Action Fund in 2016 endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders for President of the United States. The “thousands of people to die” rhetoric has been repeated on major news channels most recently by Senator Sanders and other Democrats, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.

The scheme is to paint Republicans as murderers. It’s the “big lie.”

Master propagandist of the Nazi regime and dictator of its cultural life for twelve years, Joseph Goebbels wrote,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Watch the below video to understand how a variety of Democrats, and media pundits, are repeating the “big lie” that “thousands will die”:

TRUTH: It’s Democrats who have embraced the policy of death and thousands of people are dying.

Here are a few examples of policies and legislation supported by Democrats that are causing people to die:

In an LA Times article titled “111 terminally ill patients took their own lives in first 6 months of California right-to-die law”, Soumya Karlamangla reports:

A total of 111 people in California took their own lives using lethal prescriptions during the first six months of a law that allows terminally ill people to request life-ending drugs from their doctors, according to data released Tuesday.

A snapshot of the patients who took advantage of the law mirrors what’s been seen in Oregon, which was the first state to legalize the practice nearly two decades ago. Though California is far more diverse than Oregon, the majority of those who have died under aid-in-dying laws in both states were white, college-educated cancer patients older than 60.

The End of Life Option Act made California the fifth state in the nation to allow patients with less than six months to live to request end-of-life drugs from their doctors.

Five states and Washington, D.C., have “Death with Dignity” statutes:
  • California (End of Life Option Act; 2016)
  • Colorado (End of Life Options Act; 2016)
  • District of Columbia (Death with Dignity Act; 2017)
  • Oregon (Oregon Death with Dignity Act; 1994/1997)
  • Vermont (Patient Choice and Control at the End of Life Act; 2013)
  • Washington (Washington Death with Dignity Act; 2008)

These five states and the District of Columbia are controlled by Democrats.

Illinois is in a fiscal meltdown, the state is bankrupt. In 2016 the Illinois Obamacare co-op became 16th to collapse. Americans for Tax Reform reported:

Sixteen Obamacare co-ops have now failed. Illinois announced that Land of Lincoln Health, a taxpayer funded Obamacare co-op, would close its doors, leaving 49,000 without insurance. The co-op now joins a list of 15 other Obamacare co-ops that have collapsed since Obamacare has been implemented.  Failed co-ops have now cost taxpayers more than $1.7 billion in funds that may never be recovered.

Co-ops were hyped as not-for-profit alternatives to traditional insurance companies created under Obamacare. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) financed co-ops with startup and solvency loans, totaling more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars. They have failed to become sustainable with many collapsing amid the failure of Obamacare exchanges.

Since September, 13 Obamacare co-ops have collapsed, with only seven of the original 23 co-ops remaining.  Illinois’ Land of Lincoln co-op faced losses of $90 million last year and is suing the federal government for the deficit caused by Obamacare.  Co-ops across the country have struggled to operate in Obamacare exchanges, losing millions despite receiving enormous government subsidies.

Tens of thousands of people in the Land of Lincoln are without healthcare. Illinois is controlled by Democrats.

In an article titled “Break the Baby’s Neck if Born Alive” Debra Braun reports:

St. Paul, MN, June 27, 2017 – Planned Parenthood abortionists in St. Paul, Minn. would “break the baby’s neck” if the child was born alive, according to a new video just released by Pro-Life Action Ministries. This would be a violation of both federal and Minnesota law.

Braun notes:

In the video, a former Planned Parenthood client says that when she went to Planned Parenthood earlier this year for a late-term abortion (at 22 weeks, 1 day), she asked the two abortionists, “If you guys were to take him out right now while he’s still, his heart rate is still, you know, going, what would you guys do?” According to the woman, one of the abortionists looked at the other one, then looked back at the client, “and she told me that we don’t tell women this, and a lot of women don’t even ask this question, but if we was to proceed with the abortion and the baby was to come out still alive and active, most likely we would break the baby’s neck.”

Read more.

Democrats fully support Planned Parenthood aborting the unborn, and now killing the born.

So who supports a culture of death? Who wants thousands of people to die? You be the judge.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Transgender Agenda vs. the Science

Free Speech in The West on Life Support

America and Europe are under full frontal assault, but it’s a silent war; attacking every vestige of Free Speech.  MSM news outlets have been eerily silent; because they’re supplying the ammunition through their promotion of political correctness.

Americans have, for too long, taken their liberties and the right of freedom of speech for granted.  The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights was created by our founding Fathers for the purpose of equipping its populace with all of the freedoms that had been deprived of themselves; that they fought and died for.

Our European counterparts, unfortunately were never granted the same rights and opportunities as delineated in our Bill of Rights, therefore attacks on freedom of speech under the guise of ‘hate speech’ have reached a tipping point.

Recently, German police raided 36 homes over ‘hateful’ Face book posts. The NYT reports that the raid comes as the country debates a new social media law, cracking down on ‘hate speech.’  Prime Minister, Merkel, had previously met with Face book’s Zuckerberg to discuss cracking down on the criticism of Islam on social media and now citizens are being fined for their ‘hateful rhetoric.’ In Europe, at the present, has become illegal to criticize the migrants or Islam, resulting in fines or detainment.

The U.N., Organization of Islamic Conference, a group of 57 Muslim states has been attempting to enforce global blasphemy laws, as delineated in The Istanbul Process, has been working for over 15 years to prevent or limit criticism of Islam and the Prophet.

Now the enforcement of ‘blasphemy laws’ are closer than we would have imagined. Canada, recently detained a Christian, conservative author, lecturer, social media blogger, and Tea Party Patriot, ‘Wild Bill for America;’ and confiscated his I-pad upon arrival at their airport. Wild Bill was on his way to speak at an anti-Islam conference.  He was arrested and detained for seven hours, the authorities read his I-Pad, retreated behind closed doors and concluded that he was ‘smuggling hate speech on his I-Pad!’  Therefore, he was arrested for hate speech that he never spoke.  His I-Pad was being sent to Ottawa for forensic examination and possible tariff violation.  The actions of the Canadian officers clearly were supporting Sharia Law, where there can be no criticism of Islam.  Furthermore, their actions set a very dangerous precedent for their citizens and foreigners travelling to Canada.  Will their laptops, books and briefcases be confiscated because of their religious or political beliefs based upon suspicion or notoriety?

America has been under censorship for ‘hate speech’ just like our counterparts, but to a lesser degree   Face book and Twitter has blocked, shut down or taken posts down when the blogger’s rhetoric was interpreted as being hateful, especially toward Islam.  On our universities conservative speakers have been boycotted and shut down by anarchy groups such as Antifa, BLM and Muslim Brotherhood front groups, SJP and MSA. Universities have even created ‘Free Speech Zones’ designed to regulate freedom of speech or expression.

The regulation of Free Speech through legislation is perhaps the most dangerous of all.  In April, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious, or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence or animus targeting a minority in the US.” What is disconcerting about this legislation is that it was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmagageUSA, formerly EmergeUSA, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, MPAC.

Most recently, the House has introduced a bill, H Res. 257, “condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence or animus targeting a minority in the U.S.  This bill urges that the DOJ, FBI, Sate Dept. become involved in these efforts, therefore, law enforcement could enforce an alleged criminal act.  Could this bill be a precursor to ‘Blasphemy Laws,’ where criticism of Islam could be punishable?

Americans must oppose any legislation that will result in the punishment of Free Speech.

Hungary leads Central European countries against mass migration

An alliance of Central European countries led by Hungary has pledged to work together to stem the flow of illegal migrants into Europe.

It is refreshing to see countries in Central Europe finally stand up and defend their borders, and reject the suicidal immigration policies that have led other European countries into massive crime, debt and escalating jihad attacks.

Delegations to the Central European Defence Cooperation have declared themselves “united against mass illegal migration”; which is tantamount to saying that they are “united against the hijrah.”

An additional difficulty with unvetted migrants swarming Western borders has been contagious illnesses. A Yemini asylum seeker with tuberculosis who visited a kindergarten class in Germany several times is said to have possibly infected up to “18 children and four adults with the disease.”

“Hungarians Declare: ‘Central Europe Stands United Against Mass Illegal Migration’”, Jack Montgomery, Breitbart, June 21, 2017:

An alliance of Central European countries led by Hungary has pledged to work together to stem the flow of illegal migrants into Europe at a meeting in Prague.

Delegations to the Central European Defence Cooperation (CEDC) group from Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic were, according to a report on the Hungarian government’s official website, “united against mass illegal migration”.

Defence ministers at the summit agreed to “facilitate the quick and joint mobilization of civilian, police and military capabilities” in defence of the European Union’s external borders.

Elaborating on the reasons behind Hungary’s robust anti-mass immigration stance, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán explained: “What we want is a Hungarian Hungary and a European Europe.”

The Fidesz leader said his government “won’t participate in experiments aimed at changing Hungary or Europe, in which Europe’s cultural traditions would be swept aside to be replaced by a mixture of other cultures, religions and worldviews, allowing masses to enter without control”…..

RELATED ARTICLES:

UK: Two burqa-clad women force way into apartment, attack occupants with knives and hammer

Indiana: Muslim threatens Goodwill store customers to convert to Islam, attacks police

Random thoughts on the Supreme Court decision yesterday…

See my post yesterday immediately following the surprising announcement by the Supreme Court on the Trump ‘travel ban’ from six terror-producing countries and the ceiling/moratorium on refugee resettlement across all countries and ethnic groups.

This morning I thought I might find an article or two that sounded reasonably informed about what is going to happen in the coming days and weeks.  I didn’t find anything (yet) that looks very useful. Everyone seems confused.

There is an LA Times story with a juicy nugget where they say 50,500 refugees (yikes!) are waiting in the wings from the six targeted ‘travel ban’ countries. And, a Buffalo News story is representative of the myriad stories from across the country where refugee contractors are scratching their heads about what it all means for them.  Those that get mostly refugees with “family ties” believe they will be getting their full quotas of paying clients.

Random thoughts!

So, as much as I would like to give readers guidance on what is going to happen, I can’t.  But, here are some thoughts I have in random order. Some are comments, others are questions.

  • The issue of bona fide relationships is going to be a huge mess.  Already the contractors and subcontractors are thinking that if they have some refugees on the way from any country, they, the contractor, will be a bona fide “entity” and therefore their refugees will get in.
  • Apparently a 120-day MORATORIUM on refugee resettlement (90 days for those 6 countries is a separate part of the EO) will go into effect, except for those who can claim a relationship of some sort. If it begins on Thursday (as most are predicting), 120 days ends on or about October 26th which is 26 days in to  FY18.  It then makes me wonder what Donald Trump will do with his ‘determination’ for that fiscal year which by law he will present to Congress in September.
  • After wandering in the weeds about numbers, will the Trump Administration have any will to reform the whole US Refugee Admissions Program?  It is now or never!
  • Even if the Supreme Court hears the case in October, it could be months later for a decision (well in to election year 2018).
  • BTW, as several news articles yesterday pointed out, there was and probably still is, a huge amount of fraud in the Refugee Admissions Program as it relates to who is, and who isn’t, a family member.  Long time readers may remember the discovery in 2008 that literally as many as 20,000 Somalis entered the US fraudulently as part of the P-3 Family Reunification program. The Dept. of State shut down the P-3 for parts of Africa for years.  The Supreme Court has now further increased the incentive for fraudulent claims of family connections.
  • The Supreme Court ruling is troubling to me, actually on many levels, but they suggest that refugees with family ties get priority, while perhaps more persecuted people are left behind.  Heck, every Somali probably has a family tie to someone in the US (since way over 100,000 are here already), while a truly persecuted Syrian Christian may have no ties because so few Syrian Christians have been admitted  to the US. How did the Supremes let themselves get into this quagmire?
  • The Dept. of State, with the likes of Brian Hook working with Sec. of State Tillerson, will be making critical decisions about how choices will be made about who gets in here between now and October 26th. They will be forced to depend on career bureaucrats (because Trump has moved too slowly to get people loyal to him placed in agencies across Washington) who have long-time personal relationships with the contractors.
  • Although, as I said yesterday, I’m glad the Supreme Court put to rest the issue of whether Trump had the authority to reduce the refugee CEILING that he inherited from Obama (from 110,000 to 50,000), I am extremely troubled by the Supreme Court writing refugee law. The Refugee Act of 1980 is very specific about what steps must be taken for a President to go above the CEILING. The steps involve the President consulting with Congress in the case of an emergency. The court here is saying they have now stepped in to allow an increase over 50,000 (for relatives!).  What is Congress going to do—continue to hide on the subject of refugees—and give up their Constitutional power to the courts?
  • Congress actually appropriated enough money for 75,000 refugees to be admitted by September 30th, so what happens to that money as the number surely won’t come in anywhere near the 75,000 level (how on earth did Tillerson/Hook get out on that limb back in May telling contractors 1,500 would be admitted every week?).
  • Representatives of the nine federal contractors*** are in a tizzy (as I read many news stories this morning), some trying to put a positive spin on what the Court has done. I wondered if they wouldn’t have been better off just letting Trump’s EO go in to effect months ago and get the review over with. It would have been done by now and some normalcy returned.  Instead we are all looking to many more months of chaos, confusion and lawsuits.  So maybe we can say, that the contractors are responsible for those “vulnerable” refugees left in limbo now.
  • On that point about being in a tizzy, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) is organizing a briefing call on Thursday so you can find out what they think of the decision and what they will do going forward.

From an e-mail:

To learn more about the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision for refugees and non-citizens, join HIAS for a briefing call on Thursday, June 27 at 4:30 pm EST. Click here to RSVP and receive a call-in number.

[Update!  A reader has pointed out that Thursday is the 29th! So, I expect there will be an e-mail correction coming from HIAS—ed]

I’m sure I’ve forgotten some things, and if I find some great legal mind who can predict what is going to happen beginning on Thursday, I’ll send it your way.  In the meantime, send story links that you think add to the discussion to the comments here at RRW.

More later…..

***Federal contractors in a tizzy.  Since the vast majority of their annual income is from the US Treasury based on the number of refugees admitted each year, their budgets have again gone to hell. Not that  I am sympathetic about their financial mess, but this is why Congress has to get the middlemen contractors out of the refugee business!

Seattle’s Minimum Wage Has Been a Disaster, as the City’s Own Study Confirms by Alex Tabarrok

The Seattle Minimum Wage Study, a study supported and funded in part by the Seattle city government, is out with a new NBER paper evaluating Seattle’s minimum wage increase to $13 an hour and it finds significant disemployment effects that on net reduce the incomes of minimum wage workers. I farm this one out to Jonathan Meer on FB.

This is the official study that was commissioned several years ago by the city of Seattle to study the impacts of raising the minimum wage, in a move that I applauded at the time as an honest and transparent attempt towards self-examination of a bold policy. It is the first study of a very high city-level minimum wage, with administrative data that has much more detail than is usually available. The first wave (examining the increase to $11/hr) last year was a mixed bag, with fairly imprecise estimates.

These findings, examining another year of data and including the increase to $13/hr, are unequivocal: the policy is an unmitigated disaster. The main findings:

– The numbers of hours worked by low-wage workers fell by *3.5 million hours per quarter*. This was reflected both in thousands of job losses and reductions in hours worked by those who retained their jobs.

– The losses were so dramatic that this increase “reduced income paid to low-wage employees of single-location Seattle businesses by roughly $120 million on an annual basis.” On average, low-wage workers *lost* $125 per month. The minimum wage has always been a lousy income transfer program, but at this level you’d come out ahead just setting a hundred million dollars a year on fire. And that’s before we get into who kept vs lost their jobs.

– Estimates of the response of labor demand are substantially higher than much of the previous research, which may have been expected given how much higher (and how localized) this minimum wage is relative to previously-studied ones.

– The impacts took some time to be reflected in the level of employment, as predicted by Meer and West (2016).

– The authors are able to replicate the results of other papers that find no impact on the restaurant industry with their own data by imposing the same limitations that other researchers have faced. This shows that those papers’ findings were likely driven by their data limitations. This is an important thing to remember as you see knee-jerk responses coming from the usual corners.

– You may also hear that the construction of the comparison group was flawed somehow, and that’s driving the results. I believe that the research team did as good of a job as possible, trying several approaches and presenting all of their findings extensively. There is no cherry-picking here. But more importantly, without getting too deep into the econometric weeds, my sense is that, given the evolution of the Seattle economy over the past two years, these results – if anything – *understate* the extent of the job losses.

This paper not only makes numerous valuable contributions to the economics literature, but should give serious pause to minimum wage advocates. Of course, that’s not what’s happening, to the extent that the mayor of Seattle commissioned *another* study, by an advocacy group at Berkeley whose previous work on the minimum wage is so consistently one-sided that you can set your watch by it, that unsurprisingly finds no effect. They deliberately timed its release for several days before this paper came out, and I find that whole affair abhorrent. Seattle politicians are so unwilling to accept reality that they’ll undermine their own researchers and waste taxpayer dollars on what is barely a cut above propaganda.

I don’t envy the backlash this team is going to face for daring to present results that will be seen as heresy. I know that so many people just desperately want to believe that the minimum wage is a free lunch. It’s not. These job losses will only get worse as the minimum wage climbs higher, and this team is working on linking to demographic data to examine who the losers from this policy are. I fully expect that these losses are borne most heavily by low-income and minority households.

Reprinted from Marginal Revolution

Alex Tabarrok

Alex Tabarrok

Alex Tabarrok is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He blogs at Marginal Revolution with Tyler Cowen.

Florida Ranks 33rd on Best Places to Make a Living List

Governor Rick Scott, the Florida Congressional delegation and the Florida legislature has been touting how many jobs have been created in the Sunshine state. As we have written jobs are not created by government, rather a job is created by one thing only, a profit. Allow companies to make a profit and that company will hire more people to meet demand. The question is are we creating jobs that allow our workers to make a living? A good living?

Government can help companies by cutting their taxes, reducing the regulatory burden on companies and get government out of the way of entrepreneurs.

But more is needed. New research gives Florida, and each state, an idea of the quality of jobs created in their state in 2017. Many of our contributors have argued that Florida needs to diversify its job market and attract high paying jobs. Florida’s job market is built on sand, with the majority of workers in service industries. Tourism, agriculture and construction are the top three job creators. What Florida lacks is high paying jobs in manufacturing, energy exploration, and high tech industries. A recent study shows why Florida must look beyond tourism, agriculture and construction.

Richard Barrington, Senior Financial Analyst MoneyRates.com, in an article titled, Best Places to Make a Living: MoneyRates.com Ranks the Top States wrote:

This nation has come a long way since the Great Recession, but some state economies are coming ahead farther than others. Unemployment nationally is down below 5 percent, and wages are finally starting to rise.

However, some states are grappling with unemployment rates more than twice as high as in others. The highest-paying states have median wages that are about $15,000 above those of the lowest-paying states. There are some areas where it’s not low wages that drag down the standard of living but expenses that drain savings accounts, as costs of living and/or state income tax rates are much higher than the national average. In still other cases, the risks are more tangible – a couple states have work-related health incident rates that are three times the national average.

Best and Worst States to Make a Living 2017

Best states are in blue, worst states in red.

All of these financial factors are especially important if you are thinking of moving to another state, or finding a way to jump-start your career. Are things likely to be tougher or easier if you relocate? To help you look before you leap, MoneyRates.com has assembled a list of the best and worst states to make a living.

This list is based on the following factors:

  • Cost of Living
  • Workplace safety
  • State tax burdens
  • Median wages
  • Unemployment rates

Based on a combination of the above five factors, these are the best and worst states to make a living in 2017:

Full Ranking of All 50 States

Rank State Cost of Living Index Median Income Tax Rate on Average Income Unemployment Rate Incidents/100 Workers
1 Washington 107.0 43,400 0.00% 4.7 6.6
2 Minnesota 99.8 40,100 4.15% 3.8 6.2
3 Illinois 95.2 38,270 3.54% 4.9 6.1
4 Texas 90.8 35,480 0.00% 5 7.1
5 Colorado 101.0 39,710 4.63% 2.6 6.3**
6 Wyoming 91.6 38,710 0.00% 4.5 15.5
7 Virginia 100.1 39,070 4.51% 3.8 5.4
8 Ohio 92.9 35,760 1.91% 5.1 6.8
9 Michigan 93.5 36,030 3.78% 5.1 6.5
10 Kansas 90.3 34,460 3.07% 3.8 7.6
11 Nebraska 91.2 34,890 3.19% 3.1 8.8
12 Indiana 88.8 33,790 3.13% 3.9 7.7
13 Utah 92.6 35,010 4.57% 3.1 6.7
14 Wisconsin 96.8 36,250 3.52% 3.4 7.2
15 Delaware 102.5 37,960 4.04% 4.5 4.6
16 North Dakota 94.0 39,160 0.81% 2.8 15.9**
17 Iowa 91.6 34,790 4.66% 3.1 7.8
18 Tennessee 89.7 32,800 0.00% 5.1 6.9
19 Missouri 90.7 34,230 3.86% 3.9 7.4
20 Massachusetts 127.4 46,690 4.62% 3.6 5.1
21 Arizona 98.6 35,470 2.25% 5 5.5
22 Oklahoma 88.5 33,140 3.32% 4.3 8.9**
23 Georgia 91.5 34,330 4.57% 5.1 7.4
24 Idaho 89.6 32,800 4.29% 3.5 8.2**
25 New Jersey 120.8 41,950 1.84% 4.2 5.3
26 North Carolina 94.0 33,920 4.08% 4.9 6.2
27 Alaska 131.5 47,170 0.00% 6.4 8.1
28 Pennsylvania 102.7 36,680 3.07% 4.8 6.6
29 Kentucky 90.7 33,190 4.81% 5 9.2
30 Connecticut 130.5 45,090 2.89% 4.8 6.1
31 Maryland 124.8 43,010 4.05% 4.3 5.6
32 Alabama 90.2 32,100 4.88% 5.8 6.7
33 Florida 98.3 32,790 0.00% 4.8 6.5**
34 New Hampshire 119.1 38,270 0.00% 2.8 6.1**
35 Nevada 104.4 34,510 0.00% 4.8 7.4
36 Rhode Island 122.0 39,730 2.59% 4.3 4.6**
37 Arkansas 88.4 30,130 3.56% 3.6 8.6
38 New Mexico 95.6 32,900 2.50% 6.7 7.6
39 Louisiana 94.3 32,080 2.66% 5.7 7.9
40 South Dakota 98.2 31,590 0.00% 2.8 8.3**
41 Mississippi 85.9 29,590 3.09% 5 10.2**
42 New York 130.1 42,760 4.45% 4.3 5.7
43 Maine 111.9 35,380 3.23% 3 7.4
44 South Carolina 99.4 32,140 3.19% 4.4 8.5
45 Oregon 115.3 37,990 7.82% 3.8 6.4
46 Vermont 122.3 37,920 2.58% 3 7.5
47 West Virginia 95.6 30,760 3.48% 4.9 8.4
48 Montana 100.7 32,750 3.73% 3.8 11.9
49 California 143.5 40,920 2.19% 4.9 6.0
50 Hawaii 167.1 40,030 5.80% 2.7 6.1

**Data was not available for these states for non-fatal work-related injuries and illnesses, per equivalent of 100 full-time workers so the average of all other states was used.

President Trump Proposes Solar Panels on Top of Border Wall — Greenpeace and Sierra Club outraged!

President Donald Trump tells supporters in Cedar Rapids, Iowa that he is considering mounting photovoltaic panels atop his proposed Mexican border wall would allow the project to pay for itself.

President Trump stated, “We’re thinking of something that’s unique, we’re talking about the southern border, lots of sun, lots of heat. We’re thinking about building the wall as a solar wall, so it creates energy and pays for itself. And this way, Mexico will have to pay much less money.”

If approved this would be the largest alternative energy project in the world. But wait…

You would think that organizations who favor alternative power sources such as solar panels and wind power would be pleased with this unique and innovative idea. You would think that they would encourage companies to bid on the Department of Homeland Security contract to build the wall and give those living along both sides of the wall access to renewable energy. Well you would be wrong.

Proposed section of green border wall with solar panels submitted by Thomas Gleason, a Las Vegas construction materials supplier.

In The Daily Signal article titled How Environmental Groups Are Responding to Trump’s ‘Solar Wall’ Pitch Fred Lucas reports:

President Donald Trump’s idea of putting solar panels on his long-promised border wall hasn’t gained a lot of support among top environmental lobbying groups—even though the organizations have long backed solar power as a key renewable energy.

“The problem with talking about solar panels on Trump’s border wall is that it’s science fiction,” Travis Nichols, a spokesman for Greenpeace, a liberal environmentalist group, told The Daily Signal. “Just like clean coal does not exist and will never exist, Trump’s wall with solar panels won’t exist, so it’s irrelevant to discuss climate issues.”

A spokesman with the Sierra Club referred to a tweet storm by the Sierra Club executive director, Michael Brune, reacting to Trump’s proposal for solar panels on the border wall.

Read more.

If solar panels on the border wall is “science fiction” then isn’t the same true for all uses of solar panels?

Here’s a discussion on President Trump’s new green border wall with solar panels designed by Thomas Gleason. He is a construction materials supplier up in North Las Vegas. He says he has submitted a bid for President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall with Mexico.:

President Trump is a builder and entrepreneur. He also keeps his promises. Building the wall is one of those promises. Time for environmentalists and Democrats to jump at this chance to build some big and bold. As President Trump has said, “If your going to think might as well think big.”

It appears those opposing this unique opportunity are small thinkers, or maybe politically motivated?

RELATED ARTICLE: Homeland Security Will Start Building Border Wall Prototypes This Summer

The Left has one more argument: Kill them!

The Left, and its Muslim allies, have never been open to rational discussion or debate. And now they’re growing increasingly thuggish and violent.

“Ann Coulter: The Left Has One More Argument: Kill Them!,” by Ann Coulter, Breitbart, June 21, 2017:

After a Bernie Sanders supporter tried to commit mass murder last week – the second homicidal Bernie supporter so far this year — the media blamed President Trump for lowering the bar on heated political rhetoric by calling his campaign opponents cruel names like “Crooked Hillary” and “Lyin’ Ted.”

As soon as any conservative responds to Trump’s belittling names for his rivals by erupting in a murderous rage, that will be a fantastically good point. But until then, it’s idiotic. Unlike liberals, conservatives aren’t easily incited to violence by words.

What we’re seeing is the following: Prominent liberals repeatedly tell us, with deadly seriousness, that Trump and his supporters are: “Hitler,” “fascists,” “bigots,” “haters,” “racists,” “terrorists,” “criminals,” and “white supremacists,” which is then followed by liberals physically attacking conservatives.

To talk about “both sides” being guilty of provocative rhetoric is like talking about “both genders” being guilty of rape.

Nearly every op-ed writer at The New York Times has compared Trump to Hitler. (The conservative on the op-ed page merely called him a “proto-fascist.”) If Trump is Hitler and his supporters Nazis, then the rational course of action for any civilized person is to kill them.

That’s not just a theory, it’s the result.

A few months ago, 38-year-old Justin Barkley shot and killed a UPS driver in a Walmart parking lot in Ithaca, New York, then ran over his body, because he thought he was killing Donald Trump. During his arraignment, Barkley told the judge: “I shot and killed Donald Trump purposely, intentionally, and very proudly.”

In the past year, there have been at least a hundred physical attacks on Trump supporters or presumed Trump supporters. The mainstream media have ignored them all.

Schoolchildren across the country are being hospitalized from beatings for the crime of liking Trump. In Pasco, Oregon, a 29-year-old Trump supporter was stabbed in the throat by a Hispanic man, Alvaro Campos-Hernandez, after a political argument.

Last month, the anti-jihad scholar Robert Spencer was poisoned in Iceland by a Social Justice Warrior pretending to be a fan, sending Spencer to the hospital.

It’s become so normal for leftist thugs to assault anyone who likes Trump that, in Meriden, Connecticut, Wilson Echevarria and Anthony Hobdy leapt out of their car and started punching and hitting a man holding a Trump sign, rolling him into traffic right in front of a policeman.

If any one of these bloody attacks had been committed by a Trump supporter against a Muslim, a gay, a Mexican, a woman, or a Democrat, the media would have had to drop its Russia conspiracy theory to give us 24-7 coverage of the epidemic of right-wing violence.

The liberal response to this ceaseless mayhem toward conservatives is to produce a single nut, who fired a gun in the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C., last December (hurting no one) to “rescue children,” after reading on obscure right-wing blogs that the restaurant hid a Democratic pedophilia ring. (They’ve also hyped a long list of “hate crimes” that were utter hoaxes.)

Congratulations, liberals! You got one. And some tiny number of girls raped men last year. QED: Both sexes have a rape problem.

Liberal aggression has ratcheted up dramatically since the dawn of Trump, as has the dehumanizing rhetoric, but epic violence from the left is nothing new.

We don’t have to go back more than century to note that every presidential assassin and attempted presidential assassin who had a political motive was a leftist, a socialist, a communist, or a member of a hippie commune. (Charles J. Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, Giuseppe Zangara, Lee Harvey Oswald, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, and Sara Jane Moore.)…

Liberals know damn well that their audience includes a not-insignificant portion of foaming-at-the-mouth lunatics, prepared, at the slightest provocation, to smash windows, burn down neighborhoods, physically attack, and even murder conservatives. But instead of toning down the rhetoric, the respectable left keeps throwing matches on the bone-dry tinder, and then indignantly asks, “Are you saying conservatives don’t do it, too?”

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hypocrisy: Maajid Nawaz suing SPLC for naming him “anti-Muslim extremist”

Germany: Newspaper editor calls Muslims who went on anti-terror march “Uncle Toms”

Government Does Not Belong in Our Showers by Daniel J. Mitchell

When I write about regulation, I usually focus on big-picture issues involving economic costs, living standards, and competitiveness.

Those are very important concerns, but the average person in American probably gets more irked by rules that impact the quality of life.

That’s a grim list, but it’s time to augment it.

Showering with Disapproval

Jeffrey Tucker of the Foundation for Economic Education explains that the government also has made showering a less pleasant experience. He starts by expressing envy about Brazilian showers.

…was shocked with delight at the shower in Brazil. …step into the shower and you have a glorious capitalist experience. Hot water, really hot, pours down on you like a mighty and unending waterfall… At least the socialists in Brazil knew better than to destroy such an essential of civilized life.

I know what he’s talking about.

I’m in a hotel (not in Brazil), and my shower this morning was a tedious experience because the water flow was so anemic.

Why would a hotel not want customers to have an enjoyable and quick shower?

The answer is government.

…here we’ve forgotten. We have long lived with regulated showers, plugged up with a stopper imposed by government controls imposed in 1992. There was no public announcement. It just happened gradually. After a few years, you couldn’t buy a decent shower head. They called it a flow restrictor and said it would increase efficiency. By efficiency, the government means “doesn’t work as well as it used to.” …You can see the evidence of the bureaucrat in your shower if you pull off the showerhead and look inside. It has all this complicated stuff inside, whereas it should just be an open hole, you know, so the water could get through. The flow stopper is mandated by the federal government.

The problem isn’t just the water coming out of the showerhead. It’s the water coming into your home.

It’s not just about the showerhead. The water pressure in our homes and apartments has been gradually getting worse for two decades, thanks to EPA mandates on state and local governments. This has meant that even with a good showerhead, the shower is not as good as it might be. It also means that less water is running through our pipes, causing lines to clog and homes to stink just slightly like the sewer. This problem is much more difficult to fix, especially because plumbers are forbidden by law from hacking your water pressure.

Bureaucratic Design

So why are politicians and bureaucrats imposing these rules?

Ostensibly for purposes of conservation.

…what about the need to conserve water? Well, the Department of the Interior says that domestic water use, which includes even the water you use on your lawn and flower beds, constitutes a mere 2% of the total, so this unrelenting misery spread by government regulations makes hardly a dent in the whole. In any case, what is the point of some vague sense of “conserving” when the whole purpose of modern appliances and indoor plumbing is to improve our lives and sanitation? (Free societies have a method for knowing how much of something to use or not use; it is called the signaling system of prices.)

Jeffrey is right. If there really is a water shortage (as there sometimes is in parts of the country and world), then prices are the best way of encouraging conservation.

Now let’s dig in the archives of the Wall Street Journal for a 2010 column on the showerhead issue.

Apparently bureaucrats are irked that builders and consumers used multiple showerheads to boost the quality of their daily showers.

Regulators are going after some of the luxury shower fixtures that took off in the housing boom. Many have multiple nozzles, cost thousands of dollars and emit as many as 12 gallons of water a minute. In May, the DOE stunned the plumbing-products industry when it said it would adopt a strict definition of the term “showerhead”…

A 1992 federal law says a showerhead can deliver no more than 2.5 gallons per minute at a flowing water pressure of 80 pounds per square inch. For years, the term “showerhead” in federal regulations was understood by many manufacturers to mean a device that directs water onto a bather. Each nozzle in a shower was considered separate and in compliance if it delivered no more than the 2.5-gallon maximum.

But in May, the DOE said a “showerhead” may incorporate “one or more sprays, nozzles or openings.” Under the new interpretation, all nozzles would count as a single showerhead and be deemed noncompliant if, taken together, they exceed the 2.5 gallons-a-minute maximum.

You’ve Got to Be Kidding

And here’s something that’s both amusing and depressing.

The regulations are so crazy that an entrepreneur didn’t think they were real.

Altmans Products, a U.S. unit of Grupo Helvex of Mexico City, says it got a letter from the DOE in January and has stopped selling several popular models, including the Shower Rose, which delivers 12 gallons of water a minute. Pedro Mier, the firm’s vice president, says his customers “just like to feel they’re getting a lot of water.” Until getting the DOE letter, his firm didn’t know U.S. law limited showerhead water usage, Mr. Mier says. “At first, I thought it was a scam.”

Unsurprisingly, California is “leading” the way. Here are some passages from an article in the L.A. Times from almost two years ago.

The flow of water from showerheads and bathroom faucets in California will be sharply reduced under strict new limits approved Wednesday by the state Energy Commission. Current rules, established in 1994 at the federal level, allow a maximum flow of 2.5 gallons per minute from a shower head. Effective next July, the limit will fall to 2.0 gallons per minute and will be reduced again in July 2018, to 1.8 gallons, giving California the toughest standard of any U.S. state.

Though “toughest standard” is the wrong way to describe what’s happening. It’s actually the “worst shower” of any state.

P.S. I forget the quality of shower I experienced in South Korea, but I was very impressed (see postscript) by the toilet.

Reprinted from International Liberty.

VIDEO: The One True Faith: Are Catholics Really Christians?

Is the Catholic Church the only true church, the one true faith?

The Vortex—Make Church Great Again

EDITORS NOTE: Please sign up for a Church Militant Premium Membership: http://www.churchmilitant.com/user/su…

INTERSECTIONALITY: Leftist Politics Designed to Fail

America is a divided nation and supports two distinct narratives – the narrative of survivors and the narrative of victims.

The survivor mentality created America and is defined by its core values of independence, equality, and freedom. It is supported by institutions promoting growth, independence, sovereignty, and the common denominator of American nationalism. The survivor narrative is the narrative of President Donald Trump.

The victim mentality was created to deconstruct America and is defined by its core values of dependence, inequality, and escape from freedom. It is supported by institutions promoting regression, dependence, internationalism, and the common denominator of globalism. The victim mentality is the narrative of the Left and Liberalism – America’s newest religion. Nationalists and Globalists have irreconcilable differences because their fundamental premises are diametrically opposed to one another. Americans must choose between them.

Liberalism disingenuously presents itself as tolerant because it crosses all racial, ethnic, gender, religious, and socio-economic boundaries. But Liberalism only tolerates those who look differently – Liberalism is completely intolerant of anyone who thinks differently. Liberalism, like any orthodoxy, is tyrannical in its demand for conformity. Its adherents pursue Liberalism’s tenets of political correctness, moral relativism, and historical revisionism with religious zeal and narrow-mindedness.

Liberalism’s intolerance explains its inability to debate or discuss opposing ideas – Liberalism demands censorship and safe spaces instead. Liberalism’s intolerance explains its inability to withstand rational scrutiny – Liberalism provides the echo chamber of fake news instead. Liberalism’s intolerance explains its inability to have civilized discourse or follow the rule of law – Liberalism foments anarchy instead. Liberalism’s sinister goal is the destruction of American democracy and its transformation into Socialism. Socialism is the hope and change that radical socialist Barack Obama promoted when he was elected. Most Americans had no idea what hope and change meant to the man who was the most anti-American lawless president in United States history.

So, what did Barack Obama need to fulfill his dream of destroying American democracy? He needed the politics of intersectionality. He needed Hillary Clinton’s “unaware and compliant public.” He needed the empty promises of sloganism.

Intersectionality, the preferred designation of the Left, is simply a descriptor for self-defined group victimhood based on feelings not facts. If you feel life is not fair – you are a victim. If you feel you have been marginalized in any way – you are a victim. If you feel your maleness or femaleness is threatened in any way – you are a victim. If someone says something you don’t like – you are a victim. This is a child’s view of the world.

Victimhood by definition lacks power – identifying oneself as a powerless entity is a self-sabotaging catastrophic strategy that only leads to more powerlessness – childish whining about victimhood perpetuates the status of childish powerlessness.

Self-actualization and a survivor attitude are the strategies for growth and empowerment. Achievement is the mother of self-esteem – actual achievement in objective reality not the sloganism or fiction that “trying is the same as achieving” promoted in the subjective reality of intersectionality.

The escape from victimhood and powerlessness comes from individual achievement – it does not derive from demanding that the environment change to meet the ever increasing inappropriate demands of chronological adults behaving like children. Lowering standards is not equivalent to achievement – it is just lowering standards.

Intersectionality demands are the demands of children that the environment change to meet their needs. It is the wrong answer to the right problem. Achievement is what propels a child toward adulthood. Consider the child who first feeds himself with his fingers and feels empowered – then he wants to feed himself with a fork – then he wants to drink from a cup. Success encourages success and failure encourages failure.

Intersectionality says “I feel victimized because my sister can feed herself with her fingers and I cannot.” “Don’t feel bad,” says the enabling mother, “I will always feed you.”

Intersectionality says “I feel victimized because my sister can feed herself with a fork and I cannot.” “Don’t feel bad,” says the enabling mother, “I will always feed you with a fork.”

Intersectionality says “I feel victimized because my sister can drink from a cup and I cannot.” “Don’t feel bad,” says the enabling mother, “I will always hold your cup for you.”

The enabling mother is co-dependent and destructive. She presents herself as the child’s advocate but really she is keeping the child dependent on herself for her own selfish needs. She is a destroyer. So it is with governments. Governments that incentivize their citizens to remain dependent do so for their own benefit – the votes that will keep them in power. The victimhood and dependence that intersectionality incentivizes is extremely destructive. Just as the enabling mother cripples her child so does the enabling government cripple its citizens.

Intersectionality results in perpetual childhood, dependence, powerlessness, and angry feelings of victimhood over lack of accomplishment and jealousy for those who have actually achieved. Intersectionality that promotes victimhood and socialism’s cradle-to-grave dependence on the government is as crippling to society as the co-dependent mother is to her child. A survivor mentality results in adulthood, independence, empowerment, self-respect, and the self-esteem that achievement produces. A survivor mentality is what made America great and the most powerful nation in the world.

Intersectionality and the culture of victimhood is the flawed strategy of dependence, collectivism, and death because when Mama dies there is no one there to feed the baby. As Margaret Thatcher so succinctly remarked “Socialism cannot work because eventually you run out of other people’s money.” A productive society requires its children to become productive adults. A society of children will necessarily extinguish itself.

Socialism, the goal of intersectionality, is a political system designed to fail.

Social policy based on the self-defined group victimhood of intersectionality cannot succeed in the real world because the cycle of life requires achievement – eventually the child must grow up and learn to eat and drink on his/her own. The noisy cry-bullies on campuses who graduate with useless degrees in fields of “feelings” not facts will find themselves unemployable. What can they do? They have learned nothing useful for work in the real world and their attitudes make them unemployable. The universities may tolerate their tantrums while their mommies and daddies or the government is paying their tuition but employers are not going to pay for the privilege of their childish outbursts.

Restraint, discipline, and self-control are hallmarks of adulthood – the cry-bullies and anarchists that graduate college have nothing to offer in the workplace but infantile tantrums when they do not get their way or are expected to work and produce something. Effort and achievement are not the same in the workplace. If colleges and universities are supposed to be preparing young people for life as adults they have failed their mission – unless of course their 21st century mission under Liberalism is to deliberately graduate unproductive dependent angry individuals who are “unaware and compliant” – exactly what Hillary Clinton described.

Unaware and compliant are the hallmarks of childhood. Why do the Democrats want a population of dependent children who are easily manipulated and controlled? Because the Democrats know that socialism requires a completely dependent population. As long as the Democrats have the population “hooked” on government handouts they will remain dependent, unaware, compliant, and voting Democratic.

Governments that incentivize the growth and independence of their citizens are builders. They incentivize jobs, self-respect, and the self-esteem that gainful employment supplies. President Donald Trump is a builder – his narrative is that of the survivor and his message is to be an empowered adult. Ex-president Obama continues to be a destroyer – his “resistance” narrative is that of the victim and his message is to be a dependent child.

The questions that Americans must answer are these, “Do I want to live as a dependent powerless child under socialism or as an empowered adult in a democracy?” “Do I want to be a victim or a survivor?” The answers to these two questions will determine the course of America.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Some People Love to Call Names

Circuit Court Win for Religious Freedom on Gay Marriage

RELATED VIDEO: Victimization Mentality of the Left

What you can say, when they say ______

I’m asked all the time: What can I do?  What can I do?

This is an excellent example of the kind of thing you can do.  This is a list of talking points thoughtfully prepared by Brenda Arthur of the Charleston, WV Act for America chapter.  As a citizen activist, she put some serious time into preparing this point/counterpoint and made it available for all of you!

PROPONENTS OF REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT WILL SAY :

1. Your town is losing population. Bringing refugees will revitalize your city.

  • Truth: Saying that Importing third world poverty into our city or state revitalizes it just defies logic and commonsense.
  • The educational level of many refugees is low. They will only qualify for minimum or low wage jobs. Therefore, they will continue to qualify for some form of government assistance such as Medicaid and/or Food Stamps aka SNAP.
  • Big Business uses refugees for cheap labor thereby depressing wages for Americans with low education levels.
  • The cost of educating a refugee child is apprx $10,000+ per year not to mention the additional cost of English language assistance/interpreters and additional tutoring due to a lack of previous education.
  • Refugees often send some of their money out of the country to family left behind. Those remittances that leave the country are dollars unavailable to the local economy. This is never factored in.
  • As the refugee population grows more languages will be required to be provided by the school system. This erodes the quality of the schools and reduces teaching time for American kids whose parents are paying the bill.
  • In towns where the refugee population has grown, parents are finding 17-20 year-olds in class with their children.
  • Some school districts across the country have as many as 81 languages for which they must provide ESL teachers and interpreters.

2. Another selling point by the proponents is that “It is our moral obligation. That’s who we are as a country.”

  • Our tax dollars were never meant to be someone else’s charity .
  • We should aid refugees where they are. For every one brought here we can help 12 people there. The administration of mercy belongs to each of us individually—-not to the government.
  • Our first moral obligation is to our own people.

Arthur created this refugee crimes poster to use as a visual aid when she speaks to groups in West Virginia. You can do this too!

3. OVER 800,000 REFUGEES (since 9/11) HAVE BEEN ADMITTED TO THE U.S. AND NO TERRORIST PROBLEMS:

  • Proponents will present the picture that everything is “sweetness and light.” Not true. Many problems are occurring with refugee populations in towns all across America: Gangs, increased drug trafficking, sex slave trade, domestic violence, crime, drug resistant strains of TB, female genital mutilation, and more.
  • Cultural differences are often great and cannot be bridged. Some refugee cultures believe that “honor killing” and rape of non-Muslim women is acceptable.
  • In addition, there have been terrorist acts committed by refugees as well as many crimes. Taxpayers pay for expensive trials, and for those who are sentenced we must bear the cost of imprisonment for many years.

4. NO STATE MONEY IS INVOLVED.

  • Yet another selling point of the proponents is that THERE IS NO STATE MONEY INVOLVED. IT’S ALL FEDERAL MONEY. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, FEDERAL MONEY IS OUR MONEY.  SECONDLY, LET’S DISCUSS THE STATE COSTS: MEDICAID , STATE EMPLOYEES, EDUCATION, INTERPRETERS, AND LIKELY CASH WELFARE PAYMENTS.
  • DON’T TELL ME OR ANYONE ELSE THERE IS NO STATE MONEY INVOLVED WITH THIS PROGRAM. It’s a matter of how much.

TO RECAP:

  • Medicaid–Unreimbursed cost to the state
  • TANF–Cash Welfare payments –Unreimbursed costs to the state
  • Interpreters–Provided to students and other refugees as needed
  • Education–Cost for educating children K-12
  • State Employees’ salaries and benefits who work w/refugees

5. The vetting is very, very rigorous.

  • Former FBI Director, James Comey, Obama’s Special Envoy to the Middle East to fight ISIS, General John Allen, Former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, Mike McCaul, Chairman of Homeland Security in the Congress , and now we know from the leaked Wikileaks documents that even Hillary Clinton herself said at a private meeting in 2013 that the refugees cannot possibly be vetted.
  • Further, Leon Rodriguez, former Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, reluctantly told former Senator Jeff Sessions’ Senate Committee in September 2016 that some of the refugees get in based solely on their testimony alone.
  • Fraud is rampant in the refugee program. Many refugees come from failed states. They have no documentation. We are supposed to believe the lie that everyone is who they say they are.
  • ISIS has sworn to infiltrate the refugee population. They already have.

6. The refugees become self-sufficient within 5 years.

  • The fact is that the Office Of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) defines self-sufficiency in a way that is contrary to the common understanding of the word. A household is considered self-sufficient if it is not receiving “a cash assistance grant”. But other welfare programs do not count under the ORR definition. Thus, ORR considers and reports them as self-sufficient even if they are receiving other forms of government assistance such as: Food Stamps (SNAP), Housing subsidies, or Medicaid .
  • Don’t be fooled. Make them define their terms.

7. Refugees pay taxes.

  • Consider that the average educational level of a Middle Eastern refugee is 10.5 years. That is not even a high school diploma. This means that the likelihood of them earning more than $9-$12 /hour is pretty unlikely. Having a low wage job is most likely. Further, even if they work and pay taxes the fact that the earnings level is low will often make them eligible for continuing government subsidies. There are other points to consider:
  • Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is available to people whose income is low. Many, if not most, refugees would likely qualify for this.
  • Child Tax Credit up to $1000 per child would apply based on income guidelines. This credit is IN ADDITION to deductions for dependent children.
  • Once the Tax Credits are applied it is possible that they are getting back all or most of the taxes that were paid and potentially more than they paid.

So, there we have it for those of you looking for something to do.  Use Arthur’s points for letters to the editor, arguing with ‘friends’ on Facebook, or when corresponding with your elected officials.

This post is filed in two categories here at RRW:  ‘Comments worth noting’ (here) and in my new category ‘What you can do’ (here).

And, for all of you interested in Arthur’s home state of West Virginia, go here for my archive on the state.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Crooks, thieves and fraudsters: You will never be told their immigration status

Human Rights Watch badgers Japan to take refugees

Anti-Trump ‘Resistance’ Aims To Make America ‘Ungovernable’

We know this but they are saying it, they are telling us with impunity.

They want a civil war or surrender.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: ANTI-TRUMP ‘RESISTANCE’ LEADERS SAY THEY WANT TO MAKE AMERICA ‘UNGOVERNABLE’

By Peter Hasson, Daily Caller, June 22, 2017:

Behind the mass protests, choreographed chants and acts of violence, leaders of anti-Trump “resistance” efforts are communicating the same simple but dark message: they want to make America “ungovernable” for the president of the United States.

These protesters say they will do whatever it takes to keep Trump from enacting his agenda, and many of them have shown a willingness to destroy public property, assault law enforcement officers and inflict violence upon their fellow citizens.

In the days and weeks leading up to the inauguration, DisruptJ20 publicly advertised an invitation to “Join us in refusing to normalize Trump’s presidency, smashing his facade of legitimacy.”

Protestors throw rocks at police during a protest near the inauguration of President Donald Trump in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston

Protesters throw rocks at police during a protest near the inauguration of President Donald Trump in Washington, DC, U.S., January 20, 2017. REUTERS/Bryan Woolston

DisruptJ20 advocates using “direct action” tactics, which the group describes as taking “collective action to make social change without giving power over to an authority or middle person.”

“We don’t ask permission or put our faith in electoral politics, instead, we use our bodies to stop the smooth operation of the system we oppose,” the group’s website states, citing Black Lives Matter’s efforts to shut down highways as an example of the kind of disruption they have in mind. The group is open about its aim to become “an ungovernable force this winter.”

A website called Ungovernable 2017 helped coordinate DisruptJ20’s DC efforts with anti-Trump protests around the country. Some groups endorsed a pledge to never give Trump the “chance to govern.”

“As we resist, we will create new governing institutions, new economic relationships, and new ways of being human,” the pledge reads.

The pledge was endorsed by a number of left-wing figures including: the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, a black nationalist organization with chapters in eight cities across the country; activist and 2008 Green Party vice presidential nominee Rosa Clemente; and Lamis Deek, lawyer and a New York board member for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Mass demonstrations against Trump have continued around the country in the weeks since his inauguration. ver a week ago featured an activist calling for murder over a megaphone. The activist, reportedly associated with the Black Lives Matter movement, said that protesters “need to start killing people” and “start killing the White House.”

Milo Yiannopoulos, an editor at pro-Trump website Breitbart, was forced to cancel a speech at UC Berkeley last week after mobs of protesters started fires, assaulted bystanders and pepper sprayed suspected Trump supporters as part of an organized effort to shut down the speech.

Those protests were spear-headed by a national group calling themselves Refuse Fascism. The group is open about its apparent alliance with Princeton professor and DNC platform committee member Cornel West, who is listed as one of Refuse Fascism’s “initiators.” A spokesperson for West did not return a request for comment.

Video posted to Refuse Fascism’s Facebook page last week features one of the group’s leaders whipping a throng of protesters into a frenzy with calls of revolution. “We need to make this country ungovernable,” she declares. “We need to do what the German people should have done when Hitler was elected.”

Far-left activist group Occupy Oakland also took part in last week’s Berkeley riots. The group, a local spinoff from the 2011 Occupy Wall Street protests, declared victory after Milo’s speech was cancelled due to their mob-like tactics. The group circulated a picture on Twitter of two of its banners from the protest reading, “Become ungovernable” and “This is war.”

“We won this night. We will control the streets. We will liberate the land. We will fight fascists. We will dismantle the state,” Occupy Oakland captioned the photo. “This is war.”

RELATED ARTICLE: 15 Times Celebrities Envisioned Violence Against Trump and the GOP

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report.

Trans-Canada

Carnival in Berlin by Jeanne Mammen, c. 1930 [MOMA, NY]

David Warren on Canadian craziness: if you’re a member of a protected class, you may still say anything; but if you are not, God help you.

One is left speechless by some government legislation. That would be its intention, for it is designed to prevent, or gravely discourage, persons with views other than the Zeitgeist’s from expressing themselves.

The Zeitgeist demands. And what it demands, Courts and Parliaments deliver.

It began as a malicious game among liberals and progressives, to tar their political opponents through a mechanism we call “political correctness,” on college campuses and in other environments over which they were able to wrest control.

It was a “trend” of the late twentieth century. The Berlin Wall came down, to much celebration; but new psychic walls were erected to advance the old project of human engineering, towards the New Soviet Man, placidly obedient to the revolutionary authorities.

Then it launched, like Sputnik, into outer space. For while the bright lights in French, then American, intellectual circles remained instinctively loyal to the old Party Line, their ambitions went beyond it. They did not wish to stop at “worker’s control of the means of production,” or anything so humble. They wanted everything changed.

The Leninists, and their politburos through three generations, did not question so many of the old bourgeois assumptions, inherited from centuries of Christian civilization. To them, for instance, a man was still a man, a woman still a woman, the child was still their child. They made “advances” on such fronts as divorce, and abortion, declared the sexes “equal” – but there were still two sexes, and in Communist societies quite old-fashioned, normative attitudes were maintained.

In many ways, the Communists were among the most “conservative” of rulers. Their movement went back before Marx, to the invention of “workers” in the Industrial Revolution, and to the French bloodbath of Robespierre, in which “the masses” were first organized as a kind of battering ram against the anciently established institutions of Church and State.

Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Ho, Pol Pot, were caught in a European time capsule. All of their adaptations assumed a conventional anthropology (“a man was a man for all that”). You could shoot him, or otherwise twist him to turn against the interests of his own person or family, but you still subconsciously knew what you were twisting.

Click here to read the rest of David Warren’s column . . .

ABOUT DAVID WARREN

David Warren

David Warren is a former editor of the Idler magazine and columnist with the Ottawa Citizen. He has extensive experience in the Near and Far East. His blog, Essays in Idleness, is now to be found at: davidwarrenonline.com.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau waving a LGBT flag with a new trans rights bill today. Photo by Justin Ling.

Class and Race Are Never an Excuse to Gloat over State Atrocities by Jeffrey A. Tucker

Even with all the news of terrorism around the world, there is something especially chilling and horrifying about the case of 22-year-old Otto Warmbier. Hearing the news of his death wounded me, and, I admit, more so than the usual litany of suffering around the world.

If there is anything redeeming to come of this, it should be a wake-up call to all of us to change the way we think about human rights and stop a terrible trajectory of public rhetoric.

Here was a remarkable young man, an outstanding student, and, by all accounts, an exuberant and warm person. Even if none of this were true, he still had a right not to be kidnapped and killed by an extraordinarily evil government, one of the last surviving full-blown totalitarian states in the world, one run by a leadership cult of the most disgusting type. But this is exactly what happened.

He was on a student trip to China and decided on his own to take a side trip to North Korea. The ad was posted by Young Pioneer Tours, promising “budget travel to destinations your mother would rather you stayed away from.” All seemed fine until he was boarding a plane to return to China. Suddenly, North Korean officials arrested him, accusing him of stealing a propaganda poster from the hotel.

According to NPR, he was trying to bring back a memento of his trip which he planned to take back to Wyoming in exchange for a used car. He tried to remove a sign but it proved too unwieldy and left it on the floor.

It tells you all you need to know that the regime believed that this was a high crime. After an hour-long trial, the government posted this apology video, which is one of the most heart-wrenching things you will ever watch. It is a forced confession straight out of the worst dystopian novel you have ever read.

He was sentenced to 15 years of hard labor. His parents could do nothing. Not even the US government could intervene. There was no jurisdiction. Otto was trapped in a horrid prison state.

Something terrible happened while he was there. The government eventually released him to his parents, citing “humanitarian” concerns. When he arrived for the reunion, he was essentially brain dead. He died two days later. The autopsy showed the North Korean government’s explanation that he had contracted botulism to be a lie.

The Disgrace of the Left

The news of this case first came out more than a year and a half ago, and I distinctly remember a strange schadenfreude emerging from the political left. Almost like this kid had it coming. Actually, not almost. That is what some people said.

Nick Gillespie at Reason dug up the archives to find the evidence.  On Comedy Central’s The Nightly Show, host Larry Wilmore said: “Frat Bro Privilege not valid in totalitarian dystopias.” “North Korea isn’t a playground for college pranks, Kim Jong-un isn’t a fictional character from a Seth Rogen movie, and Pyongyang isn’t some game you play with Coors Light and Solo cups… It’s just tough for me to have much sympathy for this guy and his crocodile tears.”

Then there is this from Ebony: “I’m willing to bet my last dollar that he was aware of the political climate in that country, but privilege is a hell of a drug. The high of privilege told him that North Korea’s history of making examples out of American citizens who dare challenge their rigid legal system in any way was no match for his alabaster American privilege.”

This is incredibly wicked rhetoric, and probably both writers have some regret in retrospect. And yet: what is it that would possess anyone to express such sentiments based on class and race alone, as if this young man, who had never flaunted some imagined privilege, deserved his fate, and that it should be a lesson to all people of his class and race?

The Torture State

As dreadful as this Warmbier case is, it is paradigmatic of the totalitarian behavior of states at war. Legally, the US and North Korea are still at war. Thus does everything become justified. This is true not just in this terror state. Every state uses war as the reason to trample human rights.

New details are emerging from the CIA’s torture program that was active from 2002 to 2009, along with the testimony of two psychologists who ran the program out of a secret prison. Their private company was paid $81 million to apply “enhanced interrogation techniques” to detainees.

This too sounds like a scene from dystopia. What immediately came to my mind when hearing of the techniques (which included the use of insects) was the trained psychologist/torturer known as Scarecrow from Batman Begins.

Waterboarding is only the most famous. Techniques included this one for sleep deprivation, in the words of one of the psychologists:

“There is a tether anchored to the ceiling in the center of the detention cell. The detainee has handcuffs and they’re attached to the tether in a way that they can’t lie down or rest against a wall. They’re monitored to make sure they don’t get edema if they hang on the cuffs too much.”

What useful information came out of this program, which US taxpayers paid for? Nothing, so far as anyone knows, but it is likely that hundreds of lives were ruined, to say nothing of the countless lives lost in the wars of those years. The blowback of a growing army of dedicated terrorists is not hard to predict.

And yet you don’t have to look for small-time pundits to find a defense of these actions. They were overtly defended at the highest levels by Dick Cheney, John McCain, the head of the CIA itself, and the sitting President of the United States.

Their statements are backed by partisan supporters who believe that being from the wrong country and holding to the wrong religion is sufficient reason to rob a person of basic human rights. It’s a form of identity politics taken to a different level. It’s a game everyone plays.

No More

At some point we must say: enough. And this applies not only to the left but also to the alt-right, which daily fills up Twitter with rhetoric placing all blame for all that is wrong with the world on blacks, women, Muslims, intellectuals, or whatever.

There is always someone to cast into the outer darkness, human beings deemed unworthy of rights, people who should be gassed or tossed out of helicopters or exterminated. Every month for several years now, it has gotten worse.

And the problem afflicts not only these extremist voices. Even mainstream politics these days consists mostly of accusations of how the bad group is hurting the good group, how the bad class or race needs to be brought down so that the good class and race can be raised up. Elections are no longer peaceful transitions of managers but contests of will to gain access to the levers of power to use against your enemy.

Harmony Be Gone

Whatever happened to the old liberal ideal that people can and should live in harmony? This ideal gave rise to freedom as the enabling political and social template of a flourishing life. Every human being matters. Everyone has rights. Everyone has value. Dignity should belong to all.

The seeming loss of this dream – at least as regards politics – is the outgrowth of how government serves to divide and conquer. As in The Hunger Games, the players are so wrapped up in playing the game they are given that they forget to look up and out and see that there is a common enemy that is responsible for all this division in the first place.

Which brings us back to Otto. the egregious crime that led to his death had one cause: totalitarian government power. Anyone, regardless of race or class or gender etc., who suffers under such an evil deserves every bit of sympathy from every civilized person. It is true all over the world and even in your home town.

Whenever the violence of the state is brought to bear against the innocent, it surely qualifies among the peccata clamantia, sins that cry out to the heavens for vengeance.

In such divided times, it is incumbent on all decent and civilized people to lay down the weapons we wield against each other and recognize a truth that so many want to ignore: it is only the power of the state that can legally commit such crimes and expect acquiescence from its subjects. The government that did this to this man operated under the cover of its own legal apparatus of compulsion and coercion.

The young generation today looks around to find the source of evil in the world. One side says it is inequality and hence the state is the answer. The other side wants to blame foreigners and deviants and hence the state is the answer. But look more carefully at this case, or any case of torture and death.

What you see is that the state is not the answer at all, but the cruelest possible monster that masquerades as the solution to the problems of its own making.

Otto is a martyr in so many ways. May his death be a reminder to us all that we are all united in a common interest in freedom from the forces extant in the world that took away his life.

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education. He is also Chief Liberty Officer and founder of Liberty.me, Distinguished Honorary Member of Mises Brazil, research fellow at the Acton Institute, policy adviser of the Heartland Institute, founder of the CryptoCurrency Conference, member of the editorial board of the Molinari Review, an advisor to the blockchain application builder Factom, and author of five books. He has written 150 introductions to books and many thousands of articles appearing in the scholarly and popular press.