“Everytime I read about Hitler, I fall in love all over again” and “Hitler should have took you all” are among scores of offensive comments flooding the social media pages of current and former students at McMaster U, Canada.
The Canary Mission December 2017 McMaster Report identifies 39 current and former students who posted over 280 bigoted comments on social media.
“How long does it take a zionist woman to take out the trash?…………Nine months.” — Nadera Masad
“I honestly wish I was born at the time of the second world war just to see the genius, Hitler, at work.” — Rawan Qaddoura
“falastine ibladna wel ya7ood eklabna [palestine is our land and the jews are our dogs].” — Walid Abdulaziz
>“Where is hitler when u need one?’ I literally ask this every day.” — Esra Bengizi
“I’m actually going to the rule the world and get rid of anyone who doesn’t have basic common sense or if you’re yahoodi [Jewish]” — Esra Bengizi
On Tuesday the Algemeiner ran an article on the report. The response from the McMaster community was rapid.
It became a heated discussion point on Spotted at Mac, a McMaster community chat forum on Facebook with over 29,000 members,
The anti-Zionist Mac SPHR released a statement on their Facebook page that condemned the anti-Semitic comments posted by the numerous members and officers within their organization.
On Wednesday the McMaster university administration released a statement condemning the anti-Semitic posts and asserting that they are “actively reviewing” them.
The Algemeiner published a follow-up article that included a statement from the McMaster chapter of Hillel and one from B’nai Brith Canada, decrying the hateful posts and calling on the university to take action.
However, the response was not all positive.
“The only good Zionist is a dead Zionist. Add that to my profile.”
This was the shockingly unrepentant tweet sent out by Nadera Masad within a day of being exposed for promoting violence against Jews and praising Hitler. Since over 6.4 million Jews currently reside in Israel, her statement is nothing short of a call for a genocide — in greater number than even her hero Hitler.
A few hours later she tweeted, “I keep saying, we need to cleanse the world of creatures such as these dirty white Americans,” with the note, “Add this to my canary profile.” A day later, after having her fill of bigotry, she deleted her Twitter account.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/mcmaster-university-e1513427487295.jpg370640Canary Missionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCanary Mission2017-12-16 07:31:552017-12-16 07:38:53VIDEO EXPOSE: Support for Hitler at Canadian University
As I mentioned yesterday, when I reportedthat true-believer, Lawrence Bartlett, Director of Refugee Admissions at the U.S. State Department, had been reassigned to Puerto Rico (voluntarily we assume), resettlement contractors are in a panic.
At Jewish Telegraphic Agency (hat tip: ‘badboylookout’) we learn that the State Department is in talks with its contractors about which sites to close—the smaller ones first.
This is a far cry from the heyday (Hillary on the horizon!) in mid-2016 when the State Department was reportedly working on a secret list of 40-plus NEW sites. (emphasis below is mine)
(JTA) — HIAS, the Jewish refugee aid agency, will be closing resettlement programs in several cities due to a sharp reduction in the total number of refugees let into the country in the next fiscal year.
The group’s Chicago chapter announced in an email Friday that it would be shuttering its refugee resettlement program.
The same day, HIAS President Mark Hetfield told JTA that programs in other cities would likely follow, though nothing has been finalized. HIAS runs refugee resettlement programs in 21 large to midsize metropolitan areas.
“It is true that smaller resettlement sites are being closed, and we’re in negotiations with the State Department right now as to which those will be,” he said. “We want to keep open as many sites as we can. Chicago has a lot of resettlement agencies there, and that was a smaller site.”
Just think about that above—negotiations with the US State Department—once again confirming that state and local opinions are not considered (when opening or closing sites). A non-profit group accountable to no voters and the US State Department are making decisions about your home town!
For the fiscal year 2017, HIAS resettled about 3,300 refugees after being approved to resettle nearly 4,800 refugees. The organization has been approved for about 3,300 this year, but Hetfield expects to resettle fewer. He said the reduced number will make it a challenge to engage 380 synagogues nationwide that had signed up with HIAS to help with welcoming refugees to their cities. [Of course no mention of the loss to their wallets!—ed]
Here is an idea for the 380 synagogues: Have we run out of needy people? Why not help the poor people where you live! And, if it’s refugees you want to help, then find the ones who came in previous months and years who are STILL STRUGGLING to find housing, food, jobs, etc. Are only the newest ‘Americans’ more attractive to you, more worthy of your charity?
Go here to see my entire Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) file.
These are the nine resettlement contractors (six are ‘religious’ charities) that can’t survive without federal funding (your tax dollars). They work jointly with the US Dept. of State to change America by changing the people. Maybe it’s time they shifted their focus and take care of poor, homeless, needy Americans! Wouldn’t that be refreshing this holiday season!
Judicial Watch Sues FBI for Records About Removal of Alleged Anti-Trump FBI Official From Mueller Team
The FBI and Justice Department are engulfed in a rule of law crisis because of new revelations of evident bias among FBI officials and key DOJ prosecutors. Recently, we exposed how Andrew Weissmann, a top Mueller special counsel deputy has anti-Trump bias. And this week, we’re in the forefront of a related scandal about an anti-Trump bias infecting the top echelons of the FBI.
Just yesterday, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI for records about the removal and reassignment of Peter Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, from the special counsel’s investigative team led by former FBI director Robert Mueller. Strzok also was the FBI’s chief of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illicit email server, interviewing Hillary Clinton himself on July 2, 2016.
All records regarding the assignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok to the special counsel’s investigation led by former Director Robert Mueller.
All records related to the reassignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok from the special counsel’s investigation to another position within the FBI.
All SF-50 and/or SF-52 employment forms, as well as all related records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the FBI and any other individual or entity.
According to reports (here and here) Strzok was reportedly removed from the Mueller investigative team in August and reassigned to a human resources position after it was discovered that he and an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, who worked for FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and with whom Strzok was allegedly carrying on an extramarital affair, “exchanged text messages during the Clinton investigation and campaign season in which they expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.”
Strzok reportedly oversaw the FBI’s interviews of former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn; changed former FBI Director James Comey’s language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her illicit email server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless;” played a lead role in the FBI’s interview of Clinton and is suspected of being responsible for using the unverified dossier to obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on President Trump’s campaign.
It is disturbing the FBI has stonewalled our request about Mr. Strzok’s demotion for four months. One can only conclude the FBI and Justice Department, including Mr. Mueller’s operation, wanted to hide the truth about how Strzok’s and Page’s political biases and misconduct have compromised both the Clinton email and Russia collusion investigations.
Agent Strzok’s texts about Hillary Clinton and President Trump are responsive to another Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit but have not yet been produced by the FBI.
We worked the airwaves hard this week to educate Americans on the anti-Trump rule of law crisis. You can view our important Fox hits here and here. We also have been highlighting our battles on OANN here and here.
Obama State Department Cut Deal with Hillary to Keep Call Log, Schedules Secret
It has been clear all along that Hillary Clinton was doing things at the State Department that she doesn’t want anyone to know about. Judicial Watch already exposed her email scandal, but the secrecy went beyond emails.
Judicial Watch just released Obama State Department documents showing former Secretary Hillary Clinton and her then-Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin were permitted to remove electronic and physical records under a claim they were “personal” materials and “unclassified, non-record materials,” including files of Clinton’s calls and schedules, which were not to be made public. Outrageously, the documents show the Obama State Department records would not be “released to the general public under FOIA.”
Curiously, the new records also show that Huma Abedin was allowed to take five boxes of “physical files” out of the State Department that include records described as “Muslim Engagement Documents.” (We recently found how Abedin’s controversialIslamistactivist mother advised Clinton speechwriter to exclude references to “democracy/elections/freedom” and “empowerment of women” for Clinton speech in Saudi Arabia.)
We found the info about the secret Clinton-State Department deal thanks to our two-year-old Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for:
Any and all DS-1904 (Authorization for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Materials) forms completed by, or on behalf of, any of the following individuals:
Former Secretary Hillary Clinton
Former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills
Former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin
Former Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan
The documents include a list of official and personal calls and schedules that Clinton removed, which carry a special notation that the documents were not to be made public records. The notation is on an addendum to a DS-1904 signed by Clarence N. Finney Jr., then-director of the Office of Correspondence and Records, who was the reviewing officer:
NOTE: The Secretary’s call log, grid and schedules are not classified, however, they would not be released to the general public under FOIA. They are being released to the Secretary with this understanding. [Emphasis in original]
Electronic copy of “daily files” – which are word versions of public documents and non-records: speeches/press statements/photos from the website, a non-record copy of the schedule, a non record copy of the call log, press clips, and agenda of daily activities
Electronic copy of a log of calls the Secretary made since 2004, it is a non-record, since her official calls are logged elsewhere (official schedule and official call log)
Electronic copy of the Secretary’s “call grid” which is a running list of calls she wants to make (both personal and official)
16 boxes: Personal Schedules (1993 thru 2008-prior to the Secretary’s tenure at the Department of State.
29 boxes: Miscellaneous Public Schedules during her tenure as FLOTUS and Senator-prior to the Secretary’s tenure at the Department of State
1 box: Personal Reimbursable receipts (6/25/2009 thru 1/14/2013)
1 box: Personal Photos
1 box: Personal schedule (2009-2013)
(JW has a pending request for the deposition of Finney in separate litigation concerning Clinton emails and the Benghazi terrorist attack.)
The originals of some Clinton documents were retained, such as the call logs and schedules. For other records, including material that predates Clinton’s tenure, there is no indication that a copy was made. The most significant of these are her personal correspondence and gift binders, which could reflect Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative ties.
Through our previous investigations we made public numerous examples of Clinton’s schedule being broadcast via email through her unsecure, non-government server (for example, see here, here, hereand here).
The records also contain a list of materials removed by Clinton accumulated by Robert Russo, Clinton’s then-special assistant, including PDFs of Clinton’s “correspondence in response to gifts … thank you and acknowledgements,” as well as other records.
The documents indicate that Clinton removed a physical file of “the log of the Secretary’s gifts with pictures of gifts.”
The receipt of gifts by federal employees in the Executive Branch is regulated:
A “prohibited source” [of gifts] under the regulations is one who seeks official action from the employee’s agency; one who does business or seeks to do business with the agency; one whose activities are regulated by the employee’s agency; one whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties; or an organization a majority of whose members fit any of the above categories.
A gift is given “because of” the employee’s official position if it would not have been offered “had the employee not held the status, authority or duties associated with his Federal position.” Gifts that are “motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship” may therefore be accepted without limitation.
We already know the Obama State Department let Hillary Clinton steal and then delete her government emails, which included classified information. But these new records show that was only part of the scandal. They show that the Obama State Department had a deal with Hillary Clinton to hide her call logs and schedules, which would be contrary to FOIA and other laws. When are the American people going to get an honest investigation of the Clinton crimes?
Judicial Watch Sues California and Los Angeles Over Dirty Voter Registration Rolls
Judicial Watch is the nation’s leader in the legal effort to ensure the integrity of our elections.
To that end, we took a big step forward with the filing of a federal lawsuit against Los Angeles County and the State of California over their failure to clean their voter rolls and to produce election-related records as required by the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (Judicial Watch, Inc.et al. v. Dean C. Logan, et al.(No. 2:17-cv-08948)).
We filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s Western Division on behalf of Judicial Watch, Election Integrity Project California Inc., and Wolfgang Kupka, Rhue Guyant, Jerry Griffin, and Delores M. Mars, who are lawfully registered voters in Los Angeles County.
We argue that the State of California and a number of its counties, including the county of Los Angeles, have registration rates exceeding 100%:
Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.
Los Angeles County has more voter registrations on its voter rolls than it has citizens who are old enough to register. Specifically, according to data provided to and published by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112% of its adult citizen population.
The entire State of California has a registration rate of about 101% of its age-eligible citizenry.
We point out that this is due in part to the high numbers of inactive registrations that are still carried on California’s voter rolls:
About 21% of California’s voter registrations, or more than one in five, are designated as inactive.
California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country…. Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country.
Although these inactive registrations should be removed after a statutory waiting period consisting of two general federal elections, California officials are simply refusing to do so.
We explain that, even though a registration is officially designated as “inactive,” it may still be voted on election day and is still on the official voter registration list. The inactive registrations of voters who have moved to a different state “are particularly vulnerable to fraudulent abuse by a third party” because the voter who has moved “is unlikely to monitor the use of or communications concerning an old registration.” Inactive registrations “are also inherently vulnerable to abuse by voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same election day.”
We sent a written request for public records on November 16, 2017, and another on November 29, 2017, seeking information about “the number of inactive registrations on the voter rolls in Los Angeles County,” but we were told each time that there were no responsive records.
Last summer, we sent a broader request for voter roll records that Los Angeles County and the State of California are required by the NVRA to keep and to make publicly available. Nothing was produced in response to this request. We point out that it is impossible to believe that there were no responsive records:
Los Angeles County, with over five million active voters and massive list maintenance responsibilities, and the Secretary of State of California [must] have exchanged emails responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] request for “all email or other communications between the Secretary’s Office and all California County voter registration officials concerning . . . [i]nstructions to the counties concerning their general list maintenance practices and obligations” and “[n]otices to the counties concerning any failure to comply with their voter list maintenance obligations.” Such emails should have been produced.
Federal law is clear. Section 8(a)(4) of the NVRA requires states to implement a program to remove ineligible registrants; and to turn over relevant records and information. We argue:
Los Angeles County is failing to properly conduct the list maintenance required by the NVRA by failing to properly train employees, failing to require and enter registrants’ birthdates, and failing to timely process reports that registrants have died, have committed disqualifying felonies, are mentally incompetent, or have registered twice.
Our lawsuit asks the court to enjoin Los Angeles County and the state of California from further violating the NRVA and to compel them to “develop and implement a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove from Los Angeles County’s rolls the registrations of ineligible registrants.” We also want to inspect and copy the requested voter roll records.
We sent a notice-of-violation letter in August 2017 threatening to sue California and certain of its counties over their violations of the NVRA. California was one of 12 states to receive such letters from Judicial Watch.
Bottom line is that California may have the dirtiest election rolls in the country. Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. This lawsuit aims to ensure that citizens of California can have more confidence that their elections are fair and honest.
Judicial Watch Senior Attorney and Director of its Election Integrity Project Robert Popper recently provided testimony to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity concerning the NVRA. Popper was formerly Deputy Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.
We sent notice-of-violation letters threatening to sue 11 other states having counties in which the number of registered voters exceeds the number of voting-age citizens, as calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011-2015 American Community Survey: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee. Judicial Watch informed the states that should they fail to take action to correct violations of Section 8 of the NVRA, it would file suit.
We previously filed successful lawsuits under the NVRA against Ohio and Indiana that resulted in those states taking several actions to clean up their voting rolls. We are currently suing Kentucky over its failure to remove ineligible voters as required by the NVRA, and we are suing the State of Maryland and Montgomery County over their failure to release voting-related records.
We are being assisted by Charles H. Bell Jr., of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP; and H. Christopher Coates of Law Office of H. Christopher Coates.
Judicial Watch Asks Supreme Court to Restrain FCC Ability to Impose Government Control Over the Internet Through “Net Neutrality”
President Obama and his minions spent eight years illicitly drawing as much power as they could to Washington D.C., and we’re doing our part to rectify that.
We have joined the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) in submitting an amici curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the court to hear the appeal of the 2015 case regarding an Obama-era FCC decision that reclassified broadband Internet as a public utility so that it could impose its restrictive net neutrality rules (United States Telecom Association, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (No. 15-1063)).
We argue that the circuit court’s decision “undermined the constitutional separation of powers” by allowing the FCC to directly intervene in the broadband Internet economy.
Our amici brief also argues that the lower court’s ruling will expose the FCC to undue influence from politicians and lobbyists now and in the future:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit gave an administrative agency like the Federal Communications Commission extended future powers to destroy enormous amounts of national wealth by reclassifying and regulating broadband Internet service… The result will be constant risk of damage to a major portion of the American economy and a simultaneous increase in wasteful rent-seeking behavior and agency lobbying. Amici are additionally concerned that unless this Court acts to rein in an unchecked administrative state, federal separation of powers doctrine will be badly undermined.
Additionally, we and AEF argue that the D.C. Circuit’s decision “is blessing Congress’ evasion of its constitutional responsibility to make laws. This will lead the executive branch to continue to usurp this authority with bolder and more inventive interpretations of decades-old statutes until eventually all real lawmaking power will lie in the executive and the judiciary.”
In May 2017, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FCC seeking records of the Obama White House’s influence in the FCC’s decision to reclassify broadband Internet as a public utility so that it could impose its restrictive net neutrality regulatory rules (Judicial Watch v. Federal Communications Commission (No. 1:17-cv-00933)).
On May 18, 2017, the FCC voted to propose a new review of the Obama-era net neutrality regulations passed in 2015 on Internet service, which greatly increased the FCC’s management of Internet content delivery and operations. In July, we and AEF submitted comments to the FCC:
[T]he prior FCC was not content to merely protect Internet openness. Rather than adopt simple rules toward that end, the prior FCC adopted a raft of economic regulations that serve little purpose other than to bring a thriving and successful industry to heel, placing it under the control of federal regulators. This was a simple power grab, taking decision-making authority away from entrepreneurial businesses and putting it in the hands of the FCC.
Judicial Watch/AEF also highlighted the political motivation behind the Obama FCC “power grab” that produced this “politically corrupted decision” to regulate the Internet:
The prior FCC’s adoption of the net neutrality regulations was a politically corrupted decision, which will do far more to increase the wealth of Washington DC power-brokers and lobbyists than it will to protect consumers… These net neutrality rules are a far-left, base-appeasing federal power grab. The regulations as written are certain to increase the amount of rent-seeking behavior already present in a usually smoothly functioning industry. As industry players position themselves to curry favor with federal bureaucrats possessed of far-reaching adjudicatory powers, Internet innovation, investment and consumers all will suffer.
The Judicial Watch/AEF comments were quoted twice in the FCC’s recent order:
Should the hypothetical harms that proponents of Title II imagine eventually come to pass, application of the antitrust laws would address those harms. fn. 517 … Judicial Watch Comments at 12 (asserting that “most of the potential or imagined future violations of net neutrality principles are already illegal under antitrust laws, including acts like website blocking, charging monopoly rents, collusion between industry players, and unfair competition. The existing antitrust laws can already be enforced against broadband providers by the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission, and the 50 State Attorneys General.”)
And to the extent an ISP has market power, antitrust law would only allow such ISPs to engage in pro-competitive paid prioritization practices. fn. 910 Judicial Watch Comments at 9-10 (“Allowing a two-sided market to flourish is more effective than regulation for keeping consumer prices low even in true monopoly provider cases, which broadband Internet is likely not, given the ubiquity of wireless broadband.”)
The Obama FCC’s attempted takeover of the Internet under the fake guise of “net neutrality,” which was blessed by the D.C. Court of Appeals, must be stopped and not allowed to serve as a precedent for further expansion of unconstitutional actions by the federal bureaucracy.
The Trump-controlled FCC just voted this week to undo Obama’s Internet takeover. But this court battle could determine whether a future administration could come back with another government power grab of our Internet freedoms.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/doj-fbi-logos.jpg360640Judicial Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJudicial Watch2017-12-16 07:04:372017-12-16 07:14:27VIDEO: Growing Number of Obama DOJ/FBI Anti-Trump Abuses
Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons: The sex-abuse crisis presents a moment for the Church to communicate more fully the Lord’s liberating truth about human sexuality.
The current revelations of an epidemic of sexually aggressive behaviors (SAB) against women, particularly by men in the media over many decades, has led to calls to address this highly prevalent “disease” in our culture.
An aging Catholic priest suggested to a friend that all this was inevitable. “Contraception degenerates men,” he said, as does abortion. Once you separate sex from its seriousness, once you separate it from its life-changing, life-giving potential, men will come to see it as just another want, a desire like any other. Once they think that, then they’ll see sexual violations as less serious, less charged, less full of weight. They’ll be more able to rationalize. It’s only petty theft, a pack of chewing gum on the counter, and I took it.
The crisis provides an opportunity to acknowledge the full extent of SAB and, especially, its enablement by the culture, families, and schools because of the failure to take seriously the dangers and harm of using persons as sexual objects.
This crisis is not limited to adult males. The troubling reality is that this epidemic is prevalent in adult females, as well as in singles and in adolescents of both sexes.
A recent clinical experience with an adolescent male demonstrates this reality. When he refused the request of a female high school classmate to have sex, she responded with the hostile, insulting comment that he must be homosexual. This was followed that night by a telephone call from her irate mother to his mother, claiming that he was harming her daughter’s self-esteem and her right to have good sexual relationships.
Another example: a college freshman told her mother that the only reason she refused to date anyone in the Catholic high school she attended was because the males expected sex on the first and all following dates.
Many Catholic parents and educators do not recognize or are in complete denial about the extent of SAB in young people, its support by the contraceptive mentality, and its enablement, particularly by females, who crave acceptance and affirmation.
Over the past forty years as a busy psychiatrist, on many days I have felt like an army medic on a battlefield littered with severely wounded adults, teens, and children who have been used as sexual objects by other adults or by their peers. Their symptoms are similar to those with posttraumatic stress disorders.
A number of psychological conflicts are present among those who engage in SAB – the leading problem being severe selfishness/narcissism. This personality disorder is widespread in our time and results in the belief that one has the right to use others as sexual objects.
Many young people have absorbed this model through exposure to the same personality weakness in one or both parents – or were never taught by parents how to grow in virtues of generosity and self-control to overcome it.
Other important psychological origins of SAB include severe lack of confidence (most often, from rejection experiences in the father relationship and to a lesser degree with mothers); dominating and controlling compulsions; intense loneliness; strong anger that is misdirected sexually; abusive treatment by a spouse, parent, or peers; mistrust of one’s spouse and severe stress.
These factors regularly lead to compulsive pornography use and later SAB.
Such psychological conflicts can be addressed by a commitment to grow in forming and maintaining a healthy personality. This requires a decision to engage in the hard work of pursuing virtues such as respect for control issues, self-denial for selfishness, forgiveness for anger, trust for emotionally distant behaviors, hope and cheerful self-giving for loneliness, and faith for severe stress and anxiety.
The leading cultural factor in this epidemic is the media – particularly television shows and movies whose goals are celebrating sexual “freedom.” Hostility toward Judeo-Christian morality among politicians, educators, celebrities, and public figures is also a contributing factor to SAB.
St. John Paul II’s writing can be an important place to begin in countering SAB in the culture, especially his Letter to Women, which provides strong guidelines for appreciating how women should be valued and treated.
He also offers a crystal clear understanding God’s plan for sexuality in Familiaris Consortio (The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World). He wrote there:
. . . husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae Vitae as indicating the norm for the exercise of their sexuality and they should endeavor to establish the conditions necessary for observing that norm. 
Less well-known, but also quite important is The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality,which was released by the Pontifical Council on the Family during the pontificate of St. John Paul II, and can point us towards the cultural purification process needed to reduce the epidemic of sexually aggressive behaviors.
This current sexual-abuse crisis presents an important moment for the Church to communicate more fully – and without fear – the Lord’s liberating truth about human sexuality by placing it, finally, on a lampstand where it can shed some light in a darkened age. It is time to bring to an end the decades of silence about this much-needed truth, beginning with responsible and conscientious parents who, further, can count on support and backup from Catholic educators, priests, and bishops.
As the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Of course, such a record would be an improvement for the Washington Post’s gun coverage. However, over the past year, the Post’s Fact Checker column has provided readers with a handful of well-researched pieces challenging the ridiculous assertions made by some gun control advocates. This week brought their latest, where writer Glenn Kessler admonished House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for her recent comments on H.R. 38, or the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.
Specifically, the article targeted a December 6 tweet from the former House speaker, where she stated,
Inviting violent criminals to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives
Inviting domestic abusers to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives
Inviting convicted stalkers to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives
Yet the @HouseGOP just voted to do exactly that #StopCCR
Earlier that day, the House passed H.R. 38 with bipartisan support by a 231-198 vote. The legislation would require states that issue Right-to-Carry permits to recognize the Right-to-Carry permits of all other states. Under the House legislation, law-abiding individuals from states where a permit is not required would also be able to carry in other states so long as they carry valid photo identification.
In relation to the tweet, a Pelosi spokesman told Kessler that the “information [was] provided by Everytown for Gun Safety.” Pelosi’s office also told Kessler that “the bill is terrible.”
Going to the heart of the matter, Kessler pointed out that the categories of individuals Pelosi listed are already prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) prohibits possession by any person,
who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
who is subject to a court order that—
(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;
who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
States have small variations on the scope of individuals they prohibit from carrying firearms, but federal law targets the broad categories Pelosi mentioned. Explaining this fact, Kessler noted, “the differences among most states may loom larger in the gun debate than in reality.” Moreover, Pelosi should be well aware of the federal prohibition concerning those convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; in 1996 she voted to approve the final version of H.R.3610, which contained this restriction.
Kessler went on to note that some form of Right-to-Carry reciprocity is already the law for the vast majority of states. In fact, a majority of states already either recognize carry permits from all other states, or recognize the permits of any state where their permit is recognized – without any further conditions.
Pelosi’s dishonest tweet earned her a well-deserved three out of four Pinocchios from the Post. However, there is a solid case for a fourth.
It is Pelosi’s central thesis that H.R. 38 poses a public safety risk. Kessler addressed this by pointing to a letter to congressional leadership in support of H.R. 38 from Missouri Attorney General Joshua D. Hawley and signed by 23 other state attorneys general. Kessler cited a passage that stated, “Concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding members of society, and those States that allow for reciprocal concealed-carry permits have not encountered any significant safety issues.” However, other information in the letter and data and research on Right-to-Carry further refute Pelosi’s contention.
Elsewhere in the letter, Hawley, citing a law review article on the subject, explained,
In Texas, for example, state data on permit holders shows that, compared to the general public, they are “ten times less likely to commit a crime, eleven times less likely to commit an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and seven times less likely to commit deadly conduct with a firearm.”
A similar scenario has played out in Florida. As of June 30, 2017, there were 1,784,395 valid Concealed Weapon Licenses in the state. From July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, the state revoked or suspended 6,739 permits for any reason; a rate of 377.6 per 100,000. If limited to just license revocations, the rate is 83.6 per 100,000. FBI data shows that there were 726,396 arrests in Florida 2016, which is 3,524 arrests per 100,000 in population. Clearly, permit holders are far more law-abiding than the general public.
Moreover, violent crime has fallen by half since the early nineties, and at the same time, the popularity of Right-to-Carry has exploded. Since hitting an all-time high violent crime rate in 1991, 26 states have enacted “shall-issue” Right-to-Carry laws. In addition to this simple analysis, the vast majority of social science research on Right-to-Carry laws has found that these laws either have no effect on crime or have caused a modest decrease.
Throughout 2017 there has been mounting pressure among Democrats for Pelosi to relinquish her role as House minority leader. The concern is understandable. For years Pelosi has had poor favorability numbers, but now it appears she can’t even rely on the Democrat-friendly Post for fawning coverage. At least four times this year the Post has highlighted Pelosi’s lies about major legislation or the Trump administration. We’ll leave it to House Democrats whether they are comfortable being led by a politician who tells lies the left-wing media won’t even tolerate.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/pelosi-1-e1513421066744.jpg360640NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2017-12-16 05:44:352017-12-16 05:44:35The Washington Post Exposes Pelosi Lie on National Reciprocity
The humanitarian hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.
Relativism is defined as the belief that there is no absolute truth, only truths that a particular individual or culture happen to believe. People who believe in relativism accept that different people can have different views about what is moral and immoral. So far so good – society can tolerate multiple opinions on the relative merits of a thing or an idea. Here is the problem – civilized society requires consensus on the existence of that thing or idea – it requires agreement on what is real.
Objective reality is the foundation for the laws and rules that regulate public behavior in society.
In a previous article I introduced the problem of multiple realities inherent in Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory with the example of a man walking down the street.
Let’s review. A man is walking down the street. There are four people nearby. The first person says there is a man walking down the street. The second person says there is a person walking down the street. The third person says I’m not sure who is walking down the street. The fourth person says there is a woman walking down the street.
The objective reality is that there is a man walking down the street regardless of what the observers perceptions are. Objective reality is rooted in facts and exists independent of the perceptions of those facts. Subjective reality tolerates conflicting multiple realities because it is rooted in perceptions and informed by opinions. So, in subjective reality the fourth person’s observation that it is a woman walking down the street is accepted. The consequence, of course, is that societal acceptance of multiple realities ultimately creates chaos because there is no agreement on what is real.
Joseph Backholm is director of Family Policy Institute of Washington and is factually a 5’9” white male. In April, 2016 he interviewed students on campus at University of Washington to see if they would accept or reject his self-identification as a 6’5” Chinese woman or a seven-year-old child. The answers were shocking.
Backholm asked, “What if I said I was 7 years old?” A young woman answered if he felt like he was seven years old at heart then so be it – good for you. She actually accepted an adult male’s self-identification as a seven-year-old child. When asked if it would be okay for him to enroll in a first grade class another student answered that as long as he wasn’t hindering society and causing harm to other people it should be okay. Not hindering society? Not causing harm to other people? Backholm continued, “What if I told you I was 6’5” what would you say?” One student answered that it is not her place as another human to say he is wrong and to draw lines or boundaries. Another said that if he believes he is taller than he is it is not harmful so it is not a problem for her – but she would not tell him he was wrong. Only one student rejected Backholm’s self-description as 6’5″ saying he is not 6’5” even though she accepted him saying that he is a Chinese woman. These students demonstrated that their reality testing is firmly rooted in subjective feelings and opinions not in objective facts. Why is this a problem?
The students interviewed demonstrate the Leftist narrative that says all opinions are equal has moved beyond differences of opinion and debates about the merits of ideas into the realm of different realities. Leftist relativism is presented as humanitarian and respectful. These students do not consider accepting a 5’9” white adult male as a 7 year old child or as a 6’5” Chinese woman to be hurtful to another person or a hindrance to society. They live in the dreamworld of subjective reality where time, space, and factual reality are entirely absent. In dreams anything goes. In the conscious world the destruction of our societal standard of objective reality is beyond hurtful it is catastrophic because without consensus on what is real there is no infrastructure for laws and rules that regulate public behavior. Eventually there is only chaos.
Consider the shift in the definition of mental health. Historically mental health was a metric of being in touch with objective reality. Any student accepting a 5’9” white adult male as a 7 year old child or a 6’5” Chinese woman would be diagnosed as delusional because he/she is clearly out of touch with reality. Today the World Health Organization, an agency of the United Nations, defines mental health as a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his/her potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his/her community. No mention of being in touch with objective reality. So, students who accept a 5’9” adult white male as a 7 year old child or a 6’5” Chinese woman are considered mentally healthy as long as they reach their potential, cope with stress, work productively, and contribute to society.
What is the purpose of this change? Who benefits from the shift?
The Culture War on America is a war between subjective reality and objective reality. The Leftist narrative based in feelings and opinions seeks to collapse the established authority of objective reality based in facts. The Left has already unfrozen established American cultural norms that required consensus and objective reality through its educational and media indoctrination. Society is being indoctrinated to willingly accept multiple realities as normative and embrace feelings over facts. America is currently in a state of transition – the puddle of water – when college students, our future leaders are comfortable accepting unreality as reality.
The Left is using Lewin’s model to fundamentally transform the infrastructure of America from objective reality into subjective reality. The Leftist pressure to accept subjective reality is their primary weapon of destabilization. The Left is driving society crazy by demanding people accept unreality as reality.
Let’s review. Lewin’s three-step change theory can be visualized as:
1. UNFREEZE – a block of ice that melts
2. CHANGE – into a puddle of water.
3. REFREEZE – and is then reshaped into a cone.
The Left seeks to refreeze America into a cone of subjective reality based on feelings not facts where the entire population, not just college students, will accept a white 5’9” male as a 6’5” Chinese woman. Why? Because the Culture War on America is a political a war between objective reality and subjective reality that will determine the course of our country. Why?
The end game of the cone of subjective reality is social control. This is how it works. Social chaos is always followed by government suppression that restores order. Civil liberties are suspended and the government acquires total control. This endgame of the Leftist Culture War on America is total government control.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/reality-check-ahead-road-sign.jpg362640Linda Goudsmithttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLinda Goudsmit2017-12-15 18:35:292017-12-15 18:35:29The Humanitarian Hoax of Relativism: Killing America With Kindness
Net Neutrality is aflame again as the FCC voted today to repeal Obama-era net neutrality regulations. This decision was heavily opposed from such internet giants as Facebook, Google and Twitter, causing the internet to be chock full of statements opposing the FCC’s decision.
However, what really is Net Neutrality, and is this reversal of the decision really the “End of the Internet” as many of these sites are claiming?
In the end, the answer to that question will depend on whether you believe government regulation of the internet is the best solution to keeping it open, innovating and competitive — as was the philosophy behind the Obama regulations — or whether you believe that private enterprise responding to market demands is best situated for accomplishing that — as had been the case the previous 20 years.
It’s worth understanding both sides to really grasp what is at stake.
At its core net neutrality means that your Internet Service Provider (ISP), should not be able to filter or give preference to any website or content on the internet and should remain “neutral” to whatever is passing over its network. This means that regardless of the ISP’s business, political or religious leanings; the content to a conservative news site, a porn site, the ISP’s own services, or a competitor’s services; all content should be treated exactly the same.
This idealistic viewpoint is not one that most people disagree with. Just like most people agree with the idealist comment that we should “Save the environment”, most people believe that the internet should remain as neutral as possible. The disagreements center around how this should best be accomplished, and what should be required to make it happen. Essentially, these debates center around a couple of big questions.
Who do you trust more, the government or private telecommunication companies?
Who do you think should have to pay for faster access to a service; the consumer of the service or everyone who has internet access?
Trust of the government vs. private telecommunications companies
On February 26, 2015, under the leadership of Obama-appointed Chairman Tom Wheeler, the FCC reclassified broadband Internet providers as “Common Carriers” as designated in Title II of the Telecommunications Act as amended in 1996 and stated they would be selectively applying the Title II provisions to allow the promotion of an “Open Internet”. This Title outlines everything from the required licensing for broadcasting, to provisions that require a telecommunications provider to provider access to their networks to competing entities in order to lower the barrier of entry and encourage innovation. The administration never stated which provisions of Title II would be enforced, and which would not be enforced; which leads to a lot of questions. Google is hopeful that some provisions could increase broadband availability, but other areas such as licensing, if applied; could very much stifle its growth.
Chairman Wheeler believes that an Open Internet must be obtained by government regulation, and states that ISP’s cannot be trusted:
“We know from the history of previous networks that both human nature and economic opportunism act to encourage network owners to become gatekeepers that prioritize their interests above the interests of their users.”
Ajit Pai on the other hand believes that the private sector has been doing a good job from 1995 to 2015 of providing an Open Internet, and it is in fact government regulation that will prevent this from continuing to happen:
“For twenty years, there’s been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and Open Internet… today, the FCC abandons those policies. It reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, to direct where Internet service providers put their investments, and to determine what service plans will be available to the American public. This is … a radical departure from the bipartisan, market-oriented policies that have served us so well for the last two decades. “
If you follow former Wheeler’s train of thought, the private sector is always going to make decisions in its own self-interest and we need a larger government control of the internet to protect the consumer and make sure everything is dealt with fairly. The best way to support an Open Internet is to have the FCC regulate it.
If you follow current Pai’s train of thought, the government consistently stifles innovation and growth with regulation, and this should never be applied to the internet. The best way to support an Open Internet is to require the private sector to disclose anything they might do to prioritize, or inhibit traffic to individuals; and let the consumer enforce an open internet with where they buy internet access.
There is a lot of data that can go into supporting either of these viewpoints, but this all boils down to; which do you trust more to do the right thing, the government or the private sector?
Who should pay for faster access to a service?
Stating that the internet should be neutral to the content it is delivering sounds great in concept, but depending on how you interpret what this can create some pretty large technical hurdles to overcome. Internet speeds can be impacted by how far away the server is from your physical location, how many connections to the internet backbone your ISP has, where those connections are, how big those connections are, the amount of traffic flowing on each one of these connections, which traffic is prioritized, and even which traffic is completely blocked. These all come at a cost, and there is a big question on who should pay for this cost, and what is actually required for a “neutral internet”.
Pro-FCC Regulated Net Neutrality advocates state that there should not be “Fast Lanes” or “Pay-To-Play” allowed by ISP’s. Essentially what they’re saying is that if Netflix wants its content to reach Comcast subscribers faster, Netflix shouldn’t be able to pay Comcast for their content to arrive faster than competitor Amazon Video; and likewise, Comcast can’t require Netflix to pay in order for their content to be delivered to their users. Doing so, supporters state, would be anti-competitive since it would give one provider an upper hand over another provider.
Anti-Regulation individuals would argue, however, that it costs Comcast quite a bit of money to expand their network in order to handle the bandwidth-intensive requirements of Netflix or any video provider, and so who should bear the cost of that? If they charge Netflix reasonable fees for Netflix to put a server on the Comcast network, Comcast subscribers can get Netflix much faster and at a lower cost to Comcast and only Netflix users will pay for it via possible increases in Netflix dues. If they expand their network so that every single plan they have can benefit, they have to increase the prices for every single subscriber across the board to cover the costs, both video and non-video users; or they need to start filtering plans so that only higher costs plans get the higher speeds; delivering the Netflix speeds to only a certain class of user. Requiring Netflix to pay would be considered “Fast Lanes”, and filtering traffic to video on some plans would definitely be considered not net neutral.
As a result, based on these viewpoints; supporters of FCC regulated Net Neutrality tend to support the concept that every single end-user of a service should help pay the costs of everyone having a neutral internet, regardless of how much of the internet an individual actually consumes.
Anti-FCC regulation individuals on the other hand tend to believe that those individuals who consume a service should have to pay the costs associated with delivering that service. This either means that the service, like Netflix, may need to pay for their content to be put in a place where it can be delivered faster; or there may need to be special plans that allows access to certain content while other plans do not. This creates the most fair and Open Internet as costs are more user-based, and some are not subsidizing others.
Net neutrality conclusion
The American public generally agrees that we should have an open, and neutral internet, where no provider should be able to filter or block content in order to promote their own financial gain or ideological viewpoints.
The question is: Should government regulate the internet to maintain innovation, growth or creativity? Should the cost of this free and Open Internet be distributed among all who use it? Would failure to have the government step in now result in an internet that ISPs take advantage of for their own financial gain at the expense of competition and freedom of ideas?
Or would government’s involvement stifle innovation and limit competition, and risk someday the government filtering internet content like it now does TV content. Is the best way to promote a free and Open Internet to require ISP’s to disclose how they filter/prioritize their networks; and let the demands of the consumer force the internet to remain open? This means that the consumers of the services will be the direct individuals responsible for the costs of obtaining those services.
ABOUT DOUG LOGAN
Doug Logan is a long-time cyber security expert and Founder and CEO of Cyber Ninjas. He is also the Chief Technologist at U.S. Cyber Challenge.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/net-neutrality-e1513376778961.png355640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-12-15 17:26:472017-12-15 18:58:51On Net Neutrality: Do You Trust Government or the Private Sector?
“[A]pplauded the House for passing two crucial measures to save and protect American lives. These were bills I campaigned on and that are vital to our public safety and national security. The first bill, Kate’s Law, increases criminal penalties for illegal immigrants who repeatedly re-enter the country illegally.”
“The second bill, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, restricts taxpayer grant money to cities that prevent their police from turning over dangerous criminal aliens to federal authorities. Sanctuary cities are releasing violent criminals, including members of the bloodthirsty MS-13, back onto our streets. Innocent Americans are suffering unthinkable violence as a result of these cities’ reckless actions. The House bill also includes what is known as Grant’s Las and Sarah’s Law. These provisions, which prevent the release of dangerous criminals awaiting removal proceedings, are named for two slain Americans whose parents I was able to spend time with during the campaign”
This battle over enforcing federal immigration law has now reached Orlando, Florida where the Mayor has chosen to make it an unsafe pseudo sanctuary city. I refer you to an article that was published in the “Orlando Rising” on Oct. 30th, 2017.
This article refers the Trust Orlando Coalition having made inroads to convert Orlando into a city where people of all races, backgrounds, religion, and IMMIGRATION status, are welcome!
To quote Mayor Dyer when speaking to a female DACA recipient:
“You have nothing to worry about – the Orlando police officers do not detain immigrants or inquire about their immigration status. The city and its legal department will continue to work with the Trust Orlando Coalition to show they are willing to step forward on this issue. The City will not focus on immigration enforcement but on making Orlando the best place in America to live, work, play, and raise a family”.
Ivan Velazques, a DACA recipient and activist who heads the “Florida Immigration Coalition” is responsible for the defeat of 9 anti-Sanctuary bills in the Senate back in May. They are seeking the TRUST Act from Mayor Dyer that sends a clear message to the “migrants” (illegal aliens) that they are welcome and protected in Orlando.
Legal Immigrants for America got involved to form a coalition of our own: The No Sanctuary City Coalition, to write a Resolution, and present it to Mayor Dyer and the Orlando City Commissioners to enforce and cooperate with federal law and deny the codifying of Orlando as a pseudo-Sanctuary City. The Resolution reads:
To: Mayor Buddy Dyer and Members of the City Council
Re: Resolution affirming that the City of Orlando, Florida shall continue to enforce Federal Immigration laws and regulations and shall not adopt Sanctuary City Policies
WHEREAS, certain municipalities and counties in the United States have adopted or implemented sanctuary city policies that limit cooperation with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration laws and regulations; and
WHEREAS, sanctuary city policies may prohibit the sharing of immigration information between local law officials and federal agencies; restrict the authority of local police officers to make arrests for federal immigration violations; restrict local police responses to federal immigration detainers; and implement other policies intended to limit cooperation with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); and
WHEREAS, failure to cooperate with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration laws and regulation may bring financial repercussions that will harm our lawful resident, both immigrant and native born, in particular the neediest and most vulnerable among us; and
WHEREAS, the City of Orlando is committed to enforcement of federal immigration laws and regulations; and
WHEREAS, The Orlando Police Department will send a notification to the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) upon reasonable suspicion that a person arrested for, or suspect of criminal activity, is not legally present in the United States as per ICE Detainer Form (1-247A) implemented April 2,2017; and
WHEREAS, the proper authority will respond to an ICE detainer until the end of an inmates’s scheduled release date. During this time, ICE may arrange to assume custody of any undocumented immigrants; and
WHEREAS, Purchasing requires that any City contractor or vendor rendering services or goods in an amount of $3,500 or more must provide a sworn certification of compliance with all federal immigration laws, including the Federal Immigration Reform and Control Act; and
WHEREAS, The City of Orlando will abide and enforce all federal and local immigration laws equally amongst all people showing no favor or bias towards anyone group over another, end ‘Bias Free Policing’; and
WHEREAS, ICE and Customs Border Protection (CBP) will have full access to city facilities or person(s) in custody without a warrant; and
WHEREAS, The City of Orlando, Mayor, or by any Executive Order will not prevent Orlando police officers and city employees from asking about immigration status “except as required by federal or state statute or court decision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Orlando, Florida:
1. The City of Orlando, Florida has no intention of adopting policies intended to restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws and regulations; and
2. The City of Orlando, Florida, under the direction of the City Manager, will continue to uphold all federal, state and local immigration laws, and cooperate with ICE, CSP, and other agencies in the enforcement of the same.
On the 11th of December about 20 of The No Sanctuary City Coalition representatives appeared in front of the Mayor to present our Resolution and defend it. The Trust Orlando Coalition had many representatives in the room. CAIR, La Raza, the local AFL-CIO, and organizations from UCF, unions, etc.
We will be publishing the u-tube video on LIFA’S Facebook Page. To watch it, go to: www.golifa.com and then to Facebook.
LIFA believes that we need to emulate Governor Abbott or Texas and make our state immune from the Sanctuary City threat and aberration. Such a bill (HB-9) has already passed the Florida House, but has been held up in the Florida Senate. We all need to contact them
The Trust Orlando Coalition has about 34+ organizations that have joined to disrespect the laws of our country. They believe the higher the number of anti-American organizations they have the greater the chances for them to prevail.
We, The No Sanctuary City Coalition believe that we are on the right side of the issue. We believe that by illuminating the unfairness and biases of our politicians giving preference to the illegal criminal aliens over and above Americans and legal immigrants, that they should be considered in dereliction of duty and suffer consequences.
The open borders have attracted people from as many as 70 countries hostile to America. If they won’t obey the law, perhaps they will listen to We The People. I ask that you help us become greater in number as well.
Thank you and God Bless the United States of America!
Amapola Hansberger was born and raised in Managua, Nicaragua. She attended a French Roman Catholic Academy. At the age of 18 she entered the United States as a US Resident. Studied English and Secretarial Sciences at UC Chatsworth. Went to work for Gene Autry’s TV station KTLA-5, Hollywood, Ca. as Executive Secretary for the Chief Engineer. Three years later, she went to work for NBC-4, Burbank, Ca. as Executive Secretary and Assistant to the CFO of Technical Operations. In 1973 she went to work for Pan American World Airways as a Spanish qualified Flight Attendant. She has been a licensed Realtor in California, Hawaii, and Florida and a real estate investor. She became a US Citizen in 1975. In 1979 she lost her country of birth to Communism. Amapola and her husband, James, founded Legal Immigrants for America. The voice of the voiceless legal immigrant, in Oct. 2014.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/sanctuary-city-blood-stained-warning-sign.jpg373640Legal Immigrants For Americahttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLegal Immigrants For America2017-12-15 16:42:132017-12-15 17:09:28The Battle between the Trust Orlando Coalition and the No Sanctuary City Coalition
Next week, the House and Senate will take their final votes on tax reform. The president’s goal is to sign the legislation into law before Christmas.
Although there are still some unknown details, the important parts of the bill for most Americans are already known and would greatly improve our current, woefully out-of-date tax code.
The bottom line is that taxpayers across America can expect a tax cut. The bill would lower tax rates for individuals and businesses, double the standard deduction, and significantly increase the child tax credit.
The bill is also pro-growth and pro-American worker. The economy could grow to be almost 3 percent larger at the end of 10 years. That translates to more than $4,000 dollars per household, per year. American families could finally get a real raise.
Americans deserve to know the truth about the proposed tax reform packages. There are several myths going around about what the proposed plan would do.
Here are a few of them, and why they’re wrong.
Myth 1: This is just a tax cut for the rich, and it will actually raise taxes for everyone else.
The truth is in fact the opposite. The Senate tax bill increases the amount of taxes paid by the rich and, according to the liberal Tax Policy Center, 93 percent of taxpayers would see a tax cut or no change in 2019. It found similar results for the House bill.
Both tax bills would actually increase the progressivity of the U.S. tax code. That means fewer people at the bottom will pay income taxes, and people at the top will see their share of taxes paid increase.
The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards notes that the Senate tax bill cuts income taxes for people making $40,000 to $75,000 a year by about 37 percent. People making over $1 million see a cut of only 6 percent.
In two recent Daily Signal pieces, we calculated how 12 different taxpayers would fare under each of the tax plans. The results show that almost everyone will see a tax cut, and only the wealthiest families are at risk of their taxes going up.
Under the current tax code, the top 10 percent of income earners earn about 45 percent of all income and pay 70 percent of all federal income taxes. The U.S. tax code is already highly progressive, and these tax reforms will only increase the trend of the wealthy paying more than their share of income earned.
Myth 2: Repealing the individual mandate will raise taxes on the poor, raise insurance premiums, and kill 10,000 people a year.
Only in Washington can removing a tax penalty be considered a tax increase.
Tax reform will likely repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate, which imposes a tax penalty anywhere from $695 to upward of $10,000 for not purchasing the type of health insurance mandated by the federal government.
Depending on income and available health insurance options, the federally mandated health insurance comes with subsidies paid to the insurance company that can range from no more than a few dollars to over $12,000 a year per individual, and upward of $20,000 per year for families.
Repealing the mandate would not force anyone to give up their coverage or forego their current tax credits. It would just make the Obamacare insurance optional, and thus increase health care choices.
Eliminating the Obamacare individual mandate will not reduce any taxpayer’s income by a single cent. It will, however, reduce the tax bills of many individuals and families—based on their own choices—by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.
The individual mandate with its penalties is also not the “glue” that holds Obamacare together, as some have claimed. It never was.
“The lifeblood of the law is the generous taxpayer insurance subsidies, which attract and maintain the historically sluggish enrollment,” explains senior Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffit. Repealing the mandate will not precipitate doomsday for insurance premiums.
While it is extremely difficult to predict how insurance premiums would change without the individual mandate penalty, we do know that eliminating the penalty will prevent low- and middle-income individuals and families from having to subsidize the high medical costs of others.
One particularly outrageous claim is that due to people voluntarily choosing alternative health care solutions, 10,000 people will die each year because the government is no longer forcing Americans to buy health insurance.
Two economists reviewed these claims and found the exact opposite. They found that there is “poor evidence linking insurance coverage to mortality” and that “the mandate may in fact be elevating death rates in some populations.”
When you factor in the economic growth and higher wages from tax reform, the tax bill could actually save lives.
Myth 3: Corporations and their rich owners will receive a huge windfall.
Politicians who don’t want tax reform claim that cutting taxes for business will only help the rich.
Despite the name—“corporate” tax reform—the burden of the corporate income tax falls almost entirely on workers in the form of lower wages. Americans are undoubtedly skeptical about this claim, but the realities on the ground are actually quite simple.
When business taxes go down, workers’ wages go up.
That’s not just the result of corporate benevolence. Rather, wages rise because higher profits translate to additional investments that make workers more productive, and businesses that don’t pay workers what they are worth will lose them to competitors who do.
American corporations pay a federal income tax rate of 35 percent—one of the highest in the world. If tax reform can lower that rate to 21 percent, American businesses and the workers they employ will be globally competitive again. Businesses will invest more, hire more workers, and be forced by the laws of supply and demand to raise wages.
This is exactly what happened over the past decade and a half in neighboring Canada. In 2007, Canada began lowering its corporate tax rate. And guess what? Wages grew significantly faster in Canada than other comparable countries.
Most economic researchers agree. A recent review of 10 separate studies published between 2007 and 2015 concluded that when governments cut corporate taxes, workers receive almost all of the benefit through higher wages.
Myth 4: Tax reform will be bad for seniors.
Retirees may be the most concerned about what tax reform will mean for them, as most rely on relatively fixed incomes.
But, the proposed reforms are good news for retirees. For the most part, they would be less affected than other Americans, as the proposed reforms would not change the way Social Security and investment income are taxed.
Many retirees would in fact benefit from the tax bills’ doubling the size of the standard deduction.
While seniors’ earnings and pension income would be subject to new individual income tax brackets and rates, those changes would actually mean tax cuts—not increases—for an overwhelming majority of seniors and retirees.
Myth 5: Tax reform won’t grow the economy, it will only add to the debt.
Congress rightly allowed the tax reform bill to decrease revenues over 10 years by $1.5 trillion—about 3.5 percent of projected revenue. But such “static” budget scores provide zero useful information about how the reform will actually affect the deficit.
Properly designed tax reform will lead to a larger economy and higher wages. Each of these economic benefits can result in more tax revenue.
A recent Heritage Foundation analysis shows that the Senate tax reform bill could boost the size of the U.S. economy by almost 3 percent over the long run.
Other estimates are even more optimistic. Nine leading economists recently described how the economy could see a boost of up to 4 percent due to tax reform. The President’s Council of Economic Advisers believes the economy could grow between 3 and 5 percent, a range that was independently verified by three economists from Boston University.
Tax reform that grows the economy could result in more than $130 billion of new federal revenue in every year outside the current budget window. And that’s using the most conservative of the estimates above.
More optimistic estimates would bring in well north of $200 billion, making up most—if not all—of the static tax cut once the economy reaches its new larger potential.
Congress’ spending addiction shouldn’t stop tax reform, but the tax cuts will be short lived if Congress continues to increase spending every year.
The fact remains that our deficit cannot be eliminated with tax increases. Believing it can denies the fundamental problem: The deficit is driven by out-of-control spending. Spending is where congressional deficit hawks should turn their attention.
It is true that the proposed tax reform packages would mean big changes for individuals, families, and businesses across the United States. Overwhelmingly, however, these changes would be resoundingly positive.
Lower- and middle-income families would receive the largest tax cuts, and they would be the primary beneficiaries of business tax reforms that would generate higher wages and more job opportunities across America.
The American Founding Fathers gave much thought to the proper relations between church and state. They did this when they put the “no religious test” provision into the U.S. Constitution. They did it again when, a few years later, they drafted the First Amendment with its two religion clauses pertaining to “free exercise” and “no establishment.” Earlier, Jefferson and Madison did it when they drafted the Virginia statute of religious liberties.
If you had asked the Founders for a general definition of religion, they would probably have given examples: Christianity is a religion, or rather that the many branches of Christianity are so many religions. Islam is a religion, as are Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. And then there were the pagan religions of ancient Greece and Rome, the many religions found among American Indians, and many other religions around the world and throughout history.
They might have disagreed with one another if asked, “Is Deism a religion?” Some would have said no, arguing that Deism, while it includes a system of belief and even a system or morality, lacks a system of worship; and worship is an essential element of religion. What’s more, the objectors might add, the Deists of the world don’t constitute a sacred community, whereas all genuine religions are felt by their adherents to be sacred communities.
Some of the Founders, on the other hand, would have said yes to the question of whether Deism is a religion. Some (e.g., Jefferson) might even have gone so far as to say that Deism is the world’s one true religion. And to the objection that Deists don’t have a system of worship, they could answer that Deists do indeed worship God, not by wasting an hour or two in church on Sunday mornings, but by promoting the happiness of God’s human creatures.
As for the objection that Deists don’t constitute a sacred community, a Deist could reply: “We are a sacred community, not indeed a structured, hierarchical community, but a kind of invisible church – as befits free men and women.”
Now, let’s say our Founders had the ability to look ahead to the 20th century. What would they have said about the Communist and Nazi parties? Would these count as religions in their eyes? After all, they provided their faithful members with some of the important psychological satisfactions that conventionally religious persons received from traditional religions. If you were a Communist in the heyday of that movement, you had the feeling that your life was meaningful.
You as a mere individual, a speck of human dust floating in this immense universe, may not be of any importance. But who can doubt that the CP is a thing of importance? And so you, as part of the CP, are important – just as a person’s finger, unimportant and meaningless all by itself, is important and meaningful as part of a living body.
Further, as a member of the Party you are given a moral code. It tells you how to conduct your life. It tells you what’s right and what’s wrong. It is right to fight against capitalism and in support of the hundreds of millions of victims of capitalism both at home and abroad. It is wrong to co-operate with the police in their defense of the capitalist-imperial regime, or to nod your agreement with journalists who defend the capitalist ideology and its pseudo-democratic political parties. It is right to violate the rules of conventional morality when these violations advance the noble Communist cause, which is the cause of mankind.
And if you were a German Nazi in the heyday of Nazism, you were able to obtain similar quasi-religious satisfactions – a feeling that your life is meaningful plus a code of ethics, even though the Nazi code happened to be somewhat different from the Communist code.
Do we have similar phenomena in the USA today – I mean thoroughly secularized ideological movements that function very like a religion? Yes, I think so. For many women, feminism has become a quasi-religion, and for many gays and lesbians, the homosexualist movement has been a quasi-religion.
I think feminism-as-a-religion, while not yet dead, is over the hill; its heyday was the 1970s and 1980s. But the LGBT movement is still going strong. My guess is that it has not yet reached its peak.
More generally, we have what is often called secular humanism: a comprehensive worldview that includes, as subsections of itself, the two movements just mentioned. This larger movement is characterized by (1) atheism or near-atheism, (2) a disbelief in life after death, (3) moral relativism, (4) a great belief that individual persons should be free to do whatever they wish, provided they don’t harm others in a tangible and obvious way, (5) a great belief in sexual freedom, and (6) a confidence that the state – properly staffed, organized, and funded – can guarantee a high degree of average human happiness.
It is clear that our Founding Fathers didn’t want the state to promote, for example, the views of the Episcopal Church to the detriment of the views of Baptist or Presbyterian churches. But would the founders be okay with the promotion of secular humanism to the detriment of old-fashioned Christianity? Yet that’s exactly what happens when the state promotes the values of secular humanism to the detriment of the values of traditional Christianity – for instance, when public school teacher A is free to tell his/her pupils that same-sex marriage is a good thing while public school teacher B is forbidden to tell his/her pupils that abortion is wrong.
I will be told that secular humanism is a philosophy, not a religion, and that the state, which has no right to promote a religion, has every right to promote a philosophy if it judges this philosophy to be true. I reply that that is a distinction without a real difference – and confusion on this point is doing great damage to our constitutionally protected religious liberty.
Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:
Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.
In the video clip below, David Horowitz unveils The Progressive Delusion, revealing the leftist romantic fantasy that leads to earthly hell.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/progressive-delusion-e1513335885638.jpg388640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-12-15 06:04:592017-12-15 06:27:42VIDEO: The Progressive Delusion is a Romantic Fantasy that Leads to Earthly Hell
Well folks, here you have it, video proof positive – the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a radical Muslim supremacist organization, joining with Marxists to “F**k Capitalism,” impeach Trump and destroy America (by the way, my use of terrorist means the inner struggle, self-improvement type of terrorist).
Right about now, “Capo dei Capi” of CAIR National, Nihad Awad (not his real name) is on his hotline to the up-and-coming jihadi Wunderboy, Hassan Shibly in Florida and screaming at him – ماذا اللعنة! (Arabic translation – WTF!)
You see, the ikhwanul muslimin (Muslim Brotherhood) wants to fly under the counter-terrorist radar and implement their civilization jihad through the Democrat Party and political process, not through unhinged Marxists talking about the benefits of Palestinian tear gas experiences!
Up until November 2016 the Brotherhood was on-track and experiencing Islamic chills up and down their Armani suit legs, prematurely thanking Allah for delivering such a useful idiot infidel as Hillary!
Truth be told, the Brothers are still pissed at Huma for dropping the ball!
Somehow in God’s Providence in November 2016, He chose a failed, flawed, blue-collar billionaire to be a roadblock or maybe stop sign in the Brotherhood’s quest to Islamize the United States of America.
Nihad’s plan was to have his Green team (Islam) join with the Red team (Marxists) and form an unstoppable Alliance to usher in the next phase of Islamic domination but that ball-buster from New York was having none of that!
Of course, millions of American Patriots were also having none of that Alliance.
Therefore stay tuned for at least three more years of Muslims going Wild, publicly saying insane stuff, joining with more and more anti-American crazies and watch for Nihad to dye his gray hair blacker and black as he tries to maintain control of his Islamic movement in chaos.
Yes. The United West will bring you all this entertainment in living-color, with surround sound, on a regular basis!
Today we learned once again that the power of the grassroots here in Florida can overcome any special interest, no matter how entrenched.
The Local Government Committee of the Constitutional Revision Commission just passed School Board Term Limits by a 5-1 vote, meaning we are one step closer to letting Florida voters decide in 2018 whether eight years is enough for all school board politicians.
The School Board remains one of few areas in Florida government where there are no term limits yet, except for a single county (Duval).
I have to tell you, the way we passed the committee today was great. First, our sponsor — Collier School Board member Erika Donalds — gave an awesome pitch for term limits. Then, like clockwork, the biggest and most powerful lobbyists in Tallahassee got up one by one to bash term limits. These guys were angry. They know they stand to lose a lot of influence over incumbents if we succeed.
Erika handled their flimsy objections with no problems. Then, one commissioner, Bob Solari of Indian River, announced he would oppose term limits. At this moment, the gallery full of lobbyists and special interests gave Solari an ovation! They were so proud that someone stood up for their swamp.
However, one minute later, the committee voted and term limits WON, 5-1. Solari and his influence-peddling friends were crushed.
So how did the lobbyists lose? It’s simple. For the last few weeks, you and people like you have been making calls and sending emails nonstop to this Commission to let them know the people want term limits. Lobbyists have no such army behind them. They have deep pockets, sure, but they lack real citizens taking action to get things done.
Citizen energy is term limits’ secret weapon.
We’ve come a long way, but School Board term limits still aren’t on the 2018 ballot yet. This measure has to pass a drafting committee and then be elevated to the full Commission level for a final vote. But today’s action brings us one big step closer.
The Commission will even be touring Florida before taking a final vote, so you’ll have an opportunity to appear in person and make the case. I’ll email you when it comes to your town.
Thanks for your continued support,
U.S. Term Limits
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/term-limit-florida-school-boards.jpg368640Philip Blumelhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPhilip Blumel2017-12-14 18:26:232017-12-14 18:27:03People of Florida 2, Lobbyists 0. School Board Term Limits Advance Again!
“Don’t vote for men!” is the message of a recent campaign ad. Issued by Dana Nessel, Democratic attorney general contender in Michigan, what she literally says is, “Who can you trust most not to show you their [sic] penis in a professional setting?”
She answers that it’s the candidate who doesn’t have one.
Now, a person could easily go tit for tat (not that I’d ever consider such a thing!). Noting how some voters, addressing politicians’ pusillanimity, lament how we need leaders with “a pair,” one could ask “Who can you trust most to have a pair?” and answer “The candidate who by definition has one.”
But the anti-male bias animating Nessel has long been brewing. In 2004, Sweden’s Left Party (yeah, that’s its actual name) proposed a “Man Tax,” a special levy on men designed to compensate society for the cost of male violence. I always answer that I’ll be happy to pay my man tax — as long as I also get royalties for all of history’s man-birthed inventions and innovations. I’ll then use what’s left over to self-fund a presidential run.
Of course, responding to Nessel’s claim that sexual misconduct is a male domain, we could highlight the continual stories about female teachers having relations with young male students or the NYC juvenile-detention center where female guards were allegedly using the teen boy inmates as “sex slaves.” And man-tax misandrists should note that women are actually more likely than men to initiate domestic violence.
Yet, in reality, sound bites and simple facts don’t truly illuminate this issue. For there is some truth in Nessel’s nitwittedness, man-tax twittering and in my responses to both.
USA Today recently ran the headline, “’Guns don’t kill people; men and boys kill people,’ experts say,” which is about as insightful as stating “Men are taller than women.” Of course, even though blacks and Hispanics commit 98 percent of all gun crime in NYC, we’d never see the headline “Big Apple Crime: Guns don’t kill people; blacks and Hispanics kill people, experts say.” That said, it has always been known that men commit the bulk of major violence; it’s also not news that men are the more lustful sex and are more likely to commit sexual misconduct.
Yet crime doesn’t completely tell the tale — because the sexes sin differently. Consider: When a little boy gets upset, he may have a temper tantrum and explode like a volcano, creating quite a scene. Yet 10 minutes later he may act as if the event never happened. A little girl is more likely to not boil over but simmer for a long time, even perhaps holding a grudge. Thus, the amount of negative energy expended may be the same; only the intensity and duration vary. But which trespass is far more likely to bring punishment?
This is evident throughout life: Men’s sins are more overt, women’s more covert. Boys are more prone to get into fistfights, but girls may be more apt to bully peers to the point of suicide. In this case, the trespass more likely to bring punishment is the less severe.
And so it goes. Male violence is matched by female emotional manipulation and vindictiveness; male lust by female vanity; male gluttony, sloth and anger by female pride, envy and avarice. (Yes, there is overlap; I’m speaking of characteristic faults.)
Which set is worse? It may all balance out, but I certainly would rather endure a firm slap in the face than a 10-minute, emotionally abusive harangue. The point is that just as something’s value doesn’t always correspond to its price, something’s wickedness doesn’t always correspond to the worldly price you have to pay for it.
However visible men’s sins, though, they are today, as they’ve always been, recognized. What’s new is that while men are, again, virtually all history’s inventors and innovators, this is minimized. Men’s faults are now treated as innate — or, at best, as a function of deeply ingrained “toxic masculinity” — while their triumphs are written off as nurture, the result of mere opportunity.
Feminist Camille Paglia once noted, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts” (a naturally imposed grass ceiling?). Paglia was getting at an age-old truth: Men are the actuating sex, the wilder one, which accounts for both their dynamism and their dangerousness. They’re two sides of the same coin, giving men the capacity to be a Churchill or a Hitler, to write the Communist Manifesto or the Constitution. Yes, most murdered women are killed by men, but women only now outlive men (they once died younger) because of male-born medical science. Men have been killers — but many more lives have been saved because they’ve also been curers.
There are two reasons, one more politically incorrect than the other, why men are the groundbreakers: inclination and ability. Ivanka Trump has been on a crusade to get women into scientific and high-tech fields. She ought to watch the excellent documentary “The Gender Equality Paradox,” which points out that women are more likely to enter non-traditional fields (e.g., computer tech) in relatively patriarchal India than in über-egalitarian Norway. Why? Because India’s poverty forces women to go where the money is; in rich nations, however, they can afford to follow their hearts. As for where this takes them, there’s a reason boys would play with erector sets and girls with dolls — and, no, it’s not conditioning.
Dr. Larry Summers lost his job as Harvard University’s president in 2006 for saying that there may be few women in top science positions because of “issues of intrinsic aptitude.” When analyzing this, one could point out (not that I’d ever consider such a thing) that, contrary to popular myth, men have somewhat higher IQs than women do (and brains approximately 11 percent larger). Moreover, the gap in intrinsic scientific aptitude is likely even greater than that I.Q. gap of five points would indicate.
Yet none of this matters. You see, it isn’t the average person, or even the average intelligent person, who makes the great breakthroughs. It is the genius, the fantastically gifted.
And such people are virtually always male.
For example, “[A]t the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one,” wrote Professor Richard Lynn in 2010. Of course, the ratio varies depending on what data you use, but the pattern is unmistakable, consistent and finds no disagreement among experts: As you move up the I.Q. scale, the ratio becomes more skewed in men’s favor until (according to the study here) the category “I.Q. over 176,” where there is no ratio — because no woman scored that high.
Why this disparity? I’d theorize that it’s for the same reason why males are more likely to develop X-linked chromosomal abnormalities (such as color-blindness or hemophilia): because, put simply, the Y (male) chromosome increases the chances of anomalies’ emergence. And, well, genius is an anomaly.
Of course, this phenomenon would apply to other abilities as well, whether in music, art, athletics, cooking, chess, writing or, well, most anything else under the sun.
This is why virtually all history’s inventors and innovators have been men. It’s why, barring some bizarre, nature-rending genetic engineering (which would also be birthed by men), they always will be.
What implications does this hold for society and policy? First, it’s a fool’s errand and highly destructive to try to equalize the number of men and women in the STEM fields. After all, if we ever instituted what the Bill Clinton administration desired — applying Title IX “proportionality” mandates to STEM — it would not magically breed female geniuses or even spark women’s interest in STEM.
But it might result in denying some brilliant men the opportunity to exploit their potential.
Now, China already produces 10 times as many scientists as we do (with just four times the population). Do we want to make that ratio 20 to 1? Thirty to one? Then just keep it up with the political correctness.
Second, as wise parents have always understood, boys must be given outlets for their boundless energy. As someone I knew once put it, “Boys always have to be doing something — even if it’s the wrong thing.” It will more likely be the wrong thing (e.g., gangs) if we rob them of right things, which is what happens when in the name Equality™ we remove their necessary outlets (e.g., applying Title IX and eliminating boys’ athletic opportunities).
Remember, again, the choice is dynamism or dangerousness, whether that dangerousness is violence or the self-destructiveness of drinking or drugs. The same thing causing little boys to explore, sometimes where they shouldn’t, motivates them to later explore all manner of arenas, pushing back frontiers in science and medicine, creating and innovating, building and breaking through. Active little boys become actuating grown men, for genius without impetus goes as far as an engine without fuel.
Returning to anti-male insanity, years ago feminists in Sweden, Germany and Australia adopted a new cause — compelling men to sit down while urinating — and did succeed in getting the urinals removed from a Swedish elementary school. They claimed that the typical way men tend to a nature call is symbolic of, as Dr. Walter E. Williams related it, “triumphing in their masculinity.” Of course, it’s triumphant masculinity that created the whole modern world and that made arguments over urination technique possible. Because, yeah, men invented the flush toilet, too.
Speaking of which, that’s precisely where feminism and equality dogma ought to be put.
http://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/man-up-2.jpg360640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2017-12-14 13:31:002017-12-14 13:34:31Misandry Rises: In Defense of Men
Few contemporary political science students know the checkered history of their discipline, which has principally become an empirical field devoid of metaphysical questions. Aristotle, the “father of political science,” argued, however, that, in a properly and prudently governed polis, the good citizen will be coincident with the good man.
The nature of goodness was thus an essential matter of political inquiry. That simple idea is profoundly significant, for it captures a key element of genuine political science, which aims at developing and inculcating virtue. “The main concern of politics,” Aristotle writes in the Nicomachean Ethics, “is to engender a certain character in the citizens and to make them good and disposed to perform noble actions.”
St. Thomas Aquinas thought that political administration was good if, and to the extent that, it was ordered to holiness. Good people would lead good governments; without virtuous leadership, the citizens would largely fail in the cultivation and practice of virtue. In fact, Aquinas quotes from Proverbs 28:12, 15, 28 and 29:2, the theme of which is that oppressive rulers are ravenous beasts who impair virtue and the common good.
By “virtue,” Aristotle meant excellence of the soul (as did Aquinas), so that “the student of politics must obviously have some knowledge of the working of the soul.” Obviously? Today’s academics?
When almost two millennia later Machiavelli taught that rulers required virtù (not virtue), he argued for might over right, and for the acquisition of power regardless of divine consequences. If Solomon, in Proverbs, warned against oppressive princes, Machiavelli exalted them as effective, contending that the love of power was greater by far – and much more practical – than the power of love.
Since then, political science had become more concerned with what is, than with what ought to be. Cynics argue that we have no reliable measurements of what virtue is, but we have a warehouse of tools for measuring more “useful” matters (such as voter tabulations and public opinion polls).
Lenin defined politics as Kto/kovo (or Who/whom – who does what to whom?) Harold Lasswell (1902-1978) described politics as “who gets what, when, how.” And systems theorist David Easton (1917-2014) said that politics is “the authoritative allocation of values.” Nothing there about virtue, rectitude, or nobility. Nothing there, either, consistent with the Catechism’s observation that “ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action, and morals” (#407).
The American man of letters Russell Kirk (1918-1994), however, struggled to restore the Aristotelian-Thomist understanding that politics is “the application of ethics to the concerns of the commonwealth.” There is a necessary connection, Kirk and his students would say, between Athens and Jerusalem, between the virtues of love and of prudence, between Ought and Is. In conscientiously and continuously seeking that connection between the Perfect and the Possible, one finds both the purpose and the pity of politics.
Philosopher Eric Voegelin (1901-1985) saw clearly the danger of our day, warning of the evil sure to result from “the degradation of political science to a handmaid of the powers that be.” Genuine political wisdom proceeds, from knowledge that “the truth of man and the truth of God are inseparably one.” There is a measure, after all, for determining right and wrong in political life. If Protagoras and all subsequent positivists or secularists proclaim, “man is the measure,” they are grievously mistaken, for, as Plato told us, “God is the measure.”
In the absence of proper diagnosis – that “the whole of man’s history has been the story of dour combat with the powers of evil” (Gaudium et Spes 37) – the medicine of politics curdles and corrupts. Politics is seen either as messianic (with would-be political saviors in the political arena) or as despicable (with debauched despots vying for power and attention).
Here, then, is modern politics: a political convention in Charlotte which boos God and a raft of politicians who, as Walter Lippmann once put it, “advance politically only as they placate, appease, bribe, seduce, bamboozle, or otherwise manage to manipulate” the public, to whom they present themselves as servants of the people.
When we scoff at the true, the good, and the beautiful; when we worship the false and fleeting and call the profane sacred; when we conflate what is noble with what is noisome; when fraudulent education creates, as C. S. Lewis said, “men without chests” – then we will continue to look for solutions to problems in all the wrong places and by all the wrong means. We will create hell and call it heaven; we will kill babies and the elderly and call it mercy (cf. Is 5:20). We will cheer what is filthy and loathsome and call it sublime. We will not know that we do not know. And we will not care, for a drugged and decadent society will divert us.
And what of those who seek to restore virtue in public policy and to remind us that we are creatures of a loving God? What of those who speak faithfully of the moral law and of a political science which tells us – against those who boo God – that we are neither angels nor beasts but beings made in His image and His likeness, trying to work out our salvation in fear and trembling (Phil 2:12)?
Political science, wisely taught and wisely practiced, tells us always that we must know, first, Whose we are (1 Cor 7:6:19, 7:23). Remembering that, we might heed Churchill’s advice: “The day may dawn when fair play, love for one’s fellow men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forward serene and triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair.”
James H. Toner
Deacon James H. Toner, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Leadership and Ethics at the U.S. Air War College, and author of Morals Under the Gun and other books. He has also taught at Notre Dame, Norwich, Auburn, the U.S. Air Force Academy, and Holy Apostles College & Seminary.