Trump Effect: Central American migrants want asylum in Mexico, not moving on to U.S.

And, that is how asylum is supposed to work.

Anyone who meets the legal definition of a refugee*** is supposed to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach—not go asylum-shopping throughout the continent as we saw in yesterday’s report on the rush to the Canadian border by many migrants illegally in the US.

For probably a couple of decades the open borders left has been trying to expand the definition of ‘refugee’ (fleeing violence or looking for better economic conditions does not make one a refugee!) and to condone the practice of asylum-shopping (seeking the best deal!).

The Left wants you to believe that anyone on the move, anywhere in the world, is a legitimate refugee!

Here is a sob-story about how Mexico is being increasingly saddled with Central Americans who would normally be simply passing through to a better deal in the US.

From Buzzfeed News (hat tip: Joanne):

Fleeing violence in their home countries, more Central Americans are seeking asylum in Mexico instead of making the trip north to the US, according to the United Nations.

More Central Americans are seeking asylum upon reaching Mexico, rather than attempt to make it into the US, where the Trump administration has been clamping down on immigration.

Mark Manly (UNHCR)

The number of Central Americans applying for refugee status in Mexico has been steadily increasing since 2011, but applications surged in 2016 by 156% compared to the year prior, according to Mark Manly, a representative in Mexico for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

“What we have seen is more people arrive in Mexico, not because they’re in transit for a better future in the United States, but they are fleeing for their lives and see in Mexico a country that can offer protection and asylum,” Manly said in an interview released by the UN.

As in previous years, many Central Americans continue to flee violence in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, but instead of passing through on their way to the US, many of them are looking to make a new home in Mexico, Manly said. [That is how asylum is supposed to work!—ed]

From November 2016 to March, Mexico’s commission for refugee assistance, known as COMAR, received 5,421 asylum applications. During the same five-month period in 2015, the agency received 2,148 applications, Reuters reported.

As applications for refugee status mount, the Mexico government and United Nations have had to beef up border resources to handle the strain on resources.  [Good! Not our problem!—ed]

More here.


Obama began processing Central Americans to the US as ‘refugees’ directly from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala last year.  The practice continues under Trump.  We have admitted (directly from their home country) over a thousand (1,106 as of today) mostly fake ‘refugees’ from El Salvador to the US in FY2016 and 2017.

*** Refugee definition (do you see anything in here about violence or economic need?)

(42) The term “refugee” means:

(A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion….

For the zillionth time, a legitimate refugee is supposed to be able to prove he or she will be PERSECUTED!  Anyone looking for economic well-being is an “economic migrant.”  Fleeing gangs and violence does not make one a refugee! Notice that war isn’t mentioned either!

marine le pen quote

Marine Le Pen: ‘Give us France back, for God’s sake’

Marine Le Pen said:

The choice on Sunday is simple: It is a choice between a France that is rising again and a France that is sinking.

She is right. Far too many Westerners are still licking old (now gangrenous) wounds from eons ago. Europeans and white people are deemed inherently or inveterately evil because of colonialism and racism, and so deserve to be punished, no matter how the global situation has changed since colonial days. This punishment, moreover, is without limitations.

Buzzwords such as “globalization,” “diversity,” and “tolerance,” which may once have had relatively benign meanings, have been warped and manipulated as part of the larger endeavor to destroy Western civilization from within. Unscrupulous Islamic supremacist warriors play the victimhood ploy with proficiency. They would have us all turn a blind eye to the history of Islamic jihad conquest prior to the era of colonialism, as well as to present-day slavery in some Muslim countries, the general Islamic intolerance and abuse of religious minorities and infidels, and the sickening treatment of women that is sanctioned by Sharia law.

Le Pen also said:

Mass immigration is not an opportunity for France, it’s a tragedy for France…Give us France back, for God’s sake.

Marine Le Pen

“Front National’s Marine Le Pen attacks the ’savage globalisation’ of rivals”, by Jon Rogers , Express, April 17, 2017:

FRONT National presidential candidate Marine Le Pen has told a rally in Paris that French voters have a choice between the “savage globalisation” promoted by her rivals and her patriotism.

She said: “The choice on Sunday is simple: It is a choice between a France that is rising again and a France that is sinking.“

In an attack on her rivals such as Francois Fillon and Jean-Luc Melenchon she said they advocated “savage globalisation” compared to her “camp of patriots”.

She added: “Give us France back, for God’s sake,” which sparked the 5,000 supporters who had filled the Zenith concert hall in the French capital to chant: “This is our home.”

Ms Le Pen also played on her familiar topics of the party being anti-European Union and anti-immigration.

She said: “I will protect you. My first measure as president will be to reinstate France’s borders.

“Mass immigration is not an opportunity for France, it’s a tragedy for France,” she said, adding that she would immediately impose a moratorium on immigration.”

She continued: ”We can’t decide who is allowed to come here any more. The French sometimes have fewer rights than foreigners – even illegal ones.”

Scuffles with police erupted outside the Zenith concert hall in north-east Paris earlier this evening with around 60-80 anti-Front National protestors taking to the streets of the French capital for the second night running.

Police fired teargas at the protesters, some of whom threw chunks of wood. The protesters then left, followed by a small group of police.

The French presidential contest is seen as being very close and none of the candidates can be assured of making it through to the second round with the polls being volatile and too close to call with certainty.

All the main candidates are making a concerted effort as the campaign enters the final week for the first round of voting which takes place on Sunday.

According to the latest poll, the centrist Emmanuel Macron is marginally in the lead and is expected to gain 23 percent in the first round of France’s presidential election.

Ms Le Pen is only just behind on 22.5 percent with Francois Fillon and Jean-Luc Melenchon on an equal footing, both on 19.5 percent.

Mr Macron would bet Ms Le Pen in the second round by 60 percent to 40 percent, according to the Fop-Fiducial poll.

A separate daily Opinionway poll showed on Monday that Macron was tied with Le Pen in the first round of voting at 22 percent, with Fillon at their heals on 21 percent followed by Melenchon on 18 percent.

Mr Macron was seen beating Ms Le Pen in the runoff by 64 percent to 36.

There are a total of 11 contenders for the presidency but only four are seen as serious contenders.

There was chaos on the streets of Paris yesterday as activists took the streets with flares as they protested about the rise of Ms Le Pen.

Protestors shouted: “This is Paris! Paris is antifascist.”

Eye witnesses said that around 400 people had taken part in a march. Most protestors were peaceful but a small group were said to have formed an angry mob, throwing flares…..


Saudi dad tells daughter hijab is her choice, Western media thrilled, Saudi women still face arrest for taking off hijab

“EU leaders terrified” Turkey will soon send three million Muslim migrants to Europe

victims of communism memorial

Radicals flip off Victims of Communism Memorial

Marion Smith, Executive Director of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, in an email states:

A group of radicals on their way to a protest organized in part by the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which believes “the only solution to the deepening crisis of capitalism is the socialist transformation of society,” recently descended on the Victims of Communism Memorial in Washington, DC.

For some reason they thought it would be a good idea to give the middle finger to our Memorial—literally—and then had the audacity to brag about it all over social media.

I am livid and I expect you are too.

The Memorial was built to honor the more than 100 million people around the world who were persecuted, oppressed, and murdered by communist dictators including Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Fidel Castro. It is a 10-foot bronze replica of the papier-mâché statue made by peaceful pro-democracy students in Tiananmen Square in June 1989. The students had themselves modeled their statue after the Statue of Liberty.

This Memorial is a powerful reminder of the human cost of communism—and a symbol of hope for those still living under communist regimes.

A famous Cuban dissident, El Sexto (which means “The Sixth”) visited the Memorial in February, shortly after he’d been released from prison in Cuba for daring to celebrate the death of a dictator.

Here he is paying his respects.

I was there and I am struck by the contrast of how he responded to the Memorial. They showed ignorance and disrespect. He was moved to tears.

That’s why the work of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation is so important.

Because of the generosity of patriots like you, we are doing something about the crisis of education facing our nation. In 2016, we hosted our first high school teacher seminars and launched our first college programs. In just a few months, we’ve reached thousands of college students nationwide and we’re rapidly building on this momentum.


In 1994, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation was legally incorporated with the mission: To educate this generation and future generations about the ideology, history, and legacy of communism.

RELATED ARTICLE: Berkeley vandals call for beheading of College Republicans

pbs logo

FAKE NEWS: PBS tells tall tale from U.S. to Canada border-crosser!

You’ve heard the news, we’ve reported it for months, that fearing President Trump, migrants are flooding to the Canadian border into Prime Minister Trudeau’s waiting and welcoming arms.

Here we have PBS interviewing a couple of Africans who feared if they stayed in the US, Trump would be rounding them up to return them to Africa. Their tales of woe are transparently and obviously fishy!

The Somali woman, we are first introduced to, risked a winter trek across the US/Canada border with a small child even though we are told she was in the US LEGALLY.  There are only a few possibilities: She was NOT in the US legally; she is shopping for a better welfare deal in Canada; or she is a nut.  In any case, Canada can have her!

Lisa Desai hides face of Somali woman for her “safety”? Why is she unsafe in Canada? She clearly has escaped the grasping arms of President Donald Trump’s Justice Department.


LISA DESAI: Much of the four thousand mile American border with Canada is wide open and unsecured. In the first three months of this year, a steady stream of immigrants from all over the world braved the bitter cold to reach a country where they believe there’s less risk of detention and deportation. [Lisa doesn’t report that the upward trend of border crossers began while Obama was still President and the expectation was that Hillary would be the next one, so this isn’t a new phenomenon—ed]

Just north of Minnesota and North Dakota lies the Canadian province of Manitoba. The town of Emerson is a main entry point. An hour’s drive north is the provincial capital, Winnipeg, a city of 700-thousand. That’s where I met this woman from Somalia.

For her safety, we agreed to shield her face and call her “Nasra.” She settled in Minneapolis on a U.S. medical visa to get treatment for her six-year-old autistic son. Her family is part of a minority clan persecuted in Somalia’s civil war.  [So, if she would be persecuted, why didn’t Nasra apply for asylum in US?—ed]

NASRA: I faced a lot of problems in Somalia. During the war, my father and my brother were attacked, and my mother and I endured so much pain — we left and never went back.

LISA DESAI: After President Trump listed Somalia as one of the countries whose citizens would be blocked from entering the U.S. Nasra decided that although she was legal, it wasn’t safe to stay.

NASRA: I heard that they were going to arrest people and take them back to Somalia and that they were going into people’s homes and they were going to separate families, mothers from children.

LISA DESAI: What would happen if you were deported back to Somalia?

NASRA: If I go back to Somalia I won’t stand a chance there, I would be killed.

LISA DESAI: In February, she left Minneapolis and became one of nearly 1,000 migrants, according to the Canadian Government, to cross from the U.S. into Canada this year. She paid a driver to take her and her son most of the way.

NASRA: We walked for hours, the snow was falling, we couldn’t see. It was cold, it was dark and if it wasn’t for God we would have died.

LISA DESAI: Under Canadian law, people like Nasra, who cross the border illegally, are arrested and taken in for a background check. If they don’t have a criminal record, they are often released within 24 hours. They’re appointed a government lawyer to represent them in their asylum hearing which usually takes place in two months. They are also connected with nonprofits that provide food and housing.

Go to the report, here, and don’t miss the story of the FAILED asylum seeker from Ghana. He failed to be granted asylum in Ecuador and in the US, so he took a trip to Canada to shop for a better deal.  How convenient that PBS can blame Trump for scaring him to Canada?

Then it appears that the ‘welcoming’ Canadians are getting sick of it!

LISA DESAI: A poll last month found Canadian support for welcoming refugees is slipping. 48 percent said Canada should send these migrants back to the U.S. 36 percent said Canada should accept them.

See our previous posts on Trump and the Canada border by clicking here.

female military flag

Female Veterans Unite, Inc. Partnering with BMW of Sarasota for their Bimmer-Con Event on Saturday, April 29th

Female Veterans Unite Inc. was the new kid on the block approximately four years ago, networking with thousands of other not-for-profit organizations, who were all striving to help out female veterans in Sarasota County and the surrounding areas. Initially, their board of directors thought that they would attempt to get a few women veterans together for a “retreat” and then have them all go their separate ways and just call it a “fun time” that was had by all. But something much more magical happened at that September 2014 Retreat, and it has been re-occurring every September since then.

And recently, Mr. Victor Young, Owner of BMW of Sarasota also took notice. Mr. Young has always been supportive of the veterans in our community, but this time he took it one step further. On Saturday, April 29th, 2017, at BMW of Sarasota (5151 Clark Rd., Sarasota) BMW is giving away a $40,000.00 motorcycle formerly owned by Norman Reedus of the ride community and “aka” Daryl Dixon of The Walking Dead and Female Veterans Unite will be the recipient of all that is fund-raised at this major event. Beginning at 6:00 pm and going until 10:00 pm, there will be food, fun, and zombie-fighting at this special event. There will also be a Walking Dead Costume Contest, free BMW giveaways throughout the evening, and tickets will be sold to win a 4 hour cruise for 23 of your friends on Mr. John Saputo’s Gold Eagle 62’ yacht AND an opportunity to win a free weekend rental of a BMW convertible. Now these are pretty special, high end prizes. Wouldn’t you agree?

How Did Female Veterans Unite Originate:

The founder of Female Veterans Unite Inc., Ms. Georgie Alfano-Cronk was not prepared for the surveys that she received at the end of the retreat that encouraged her; (no, the proper wording here would be, “demanded of her”) to hold “ADDITIONAL” sessions for more of our women veterans. Approximately 25 women did not want to leave the premises at Day Spring after 4 days and 3 nights of group sessions, team building activities, sharing their stories, laughing through stories of combat and broken relationships, and crying enough tears to fill a river basin. But as Ms. Alfano-Cronk explains to the novice non-veteran; “it was all therapeutic and even curative in nature. These were the same women who went from being trained to kill during war times, to coming back home and becoming wives, mothers, daughters, and employees once again”. Where would they ever find the time to take care of themselves and their own needs, let alone to be able to seamlessly blend back into their own communities? And then they discovered that they needed to address various issues and concerns that affected them, but not necessarily their military male counterparts. The Veterans Administration (VA) did not, or would not address many of the women veterans concerns that had any type of liability issues attached to it; but the women veterans at “Female Veterans Unite” didn’t mind taking on the task! After all; it takes a Sister to know a Sister.

The facilitators at FVU say that they are now willing to admit that they have discovered the secret formula for bringing female veterans to their retreats in droves. They have been able to create not only a very safe environment for the Women Warriors to express themselves, but also encouraged the necessary amount of trust that is required for women veterans to build lasting bonds. Their current Board of Directors: (Amy Spears-Nordhausen, Carol McBride, Elizabeth Cereska, and Georgie Alfano-Cronk) are all female veterans themselves so they know exactly what is necessary to move each retreat forward and make each veteran feel comfortable enough to reveal her deepest and inner most soul. “We encourage the women to be respectful, understanding, compassionate and to embrace each other’s differences, and they definitely have done all of them. These women rock!”

Over the next couple of months, Female Veterans Unite committees will be holding fundraisers and will be asking the people and the local veteran organizations for their financial support. FVU is a 501 (c) (3) and so all contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent of the law. The cost to sponsor each women warrior is $400.00, but that price includes their room, board, professional facilitators, an activities package, water & snacks, and many more freebies that are provided for them by businesses in our community. This event is FREE for the Women Veterans, but they must go online now to and fill out an application to attend this event as space is limited. The retreat is scheduled for Sept. 14th – 17th inclusive and is held at Day Spring Episcopal Center in Parrish, Florida.

Many people seem to know that men have served our country, but they seem to forget that women have also served in our military armed forces. In fact; the most recent statistics from the Center for Women Veterans are that there are nearly three million women serving in the armed forces and they make up 20 percent of the military workforce. Women are one of the fastest growing segments of the Veteran population”. (03/02/2016)

So as I see this; it would be beneficial that Female Veterans Unite Inc. continue to do exactly what they have been doing all along, plus plan on incorporating some of their newly developed programs into action. Our female veterans need our assistance and attention too. If you liked my message, comment to me here. If you like what FEMALE VETERANS UNITE represent, go to their face book page and LIKE them there and please SHARE their message.

If you are even the least bit curious about what they are doing or if they might need some additional volunteer staff to help them to reach their goals, please feel free to call them at (941) 266-2769 (Georgie) or (941) 302-5496 (Amy). Donations are now being accepted at their GO FUND ME Page: or you may write a check to: FEMALE VETERANS UNITE INC., P.O. Box 5403, Sarasota, FL 34237-5403. Female Veterans Unite Inc. is a 501 (c) (3) and all donations are tax deductible to the full extent of the law.

men with hammer

Where is the outrage over the millions of Americans ejected from their jobs?

On April 10, 2017, The New York Times reported: United Airlines Passenger Is Dragged From an Overbooked Flight.

A followup article included this paragraph:

The video of Dr. David Dao, 69, of Kentucky, being bloodied as he was pulled off the flight in order to make room for four United employees has ignited conversation and outrage around the world. The three Chicago aviation police officers who removed Dr. Dao from the plane have been placed on administrative leave.

You may wonder what this news report has to do with the enforcement of America’s immigration laws and the way that our immigration laws have become politicized through the use of a false and pernicious narrative.

While people around the United States and, indeed, around the world, were angered to see a paying passenger physically yanked out of his seat and dragged down the airliner’s aisle and removed from the airliner, so that a “deadheading” United Airlines crew member could take his seat, the media did not delve into the political orientations of those who were upset by this report or the troubling images.

There were no polls asking if political “Liberals” or political “Conservatives” felt differently about the story.

All Americans, irrespective of political orientation, should be similarly united in being outraged about the failures of effective immigration law enforcement that have failed to protect the lives and livelihoods of Americans.

To understand my perspectives, I ask that you consider that today advocates for secure borders and effective but fair immigration law enforcement are generally identified as a position adopted by “extreme Conservatives,” while the media generally identifies advocates for Sanctuary Cities, massive amnesty programs for unknown millions of illegal aliens, as being “Liberals.”

Metaphorically, because of multiple failures of the immigration system and immigration policies promulgated by both the federal government as well as local governments, over the past several decades, millions of Americans have been, in effect, yanked from their desks at their jobs and displaced by foreign workers. This is because corporations were able to game the visa process whereby high-tech American workers have been displaced by foreign workers whose only claim to being “exceptional” is their willingness to work for exceptionally substandard wages under exceptionally substandard conditions — and by foreign students who have been granted authorization for Optional Practical Training (OPT) by USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services).

The Democratic Party of decades ago was seen as the party of working Americans.  Democratic leaders falsely still insist that they represent hard-working Americans. It is the Democratic Party, however, that has aligned itself with the push to displace American workers with foreign workers.

Today the Democratic Party exploits the economic principle of “Supply and demand” to seek to achieve “wage equality” by forcing highly skilled American workers to compete with ever increasing numbers of lower paid foreign workers to lower wages.

We will delve into this betrayal shortly but the obvious question is why would any American worker support immigration policies that undermine national security, public safety and result in the decimation of the middle class and opportunities for poor Americans, especially among the minority communities to climb the economic ladder out of poverty?

Where is the righteous indignation over this?

America’s immigration laws are utterly and completely blind about race, religion and ethnicity.  Our immigration laws were enacted to prevent the entry and continued presence, in the United States, whose presence poses a threat to national security, public safety and public health and the overall wellbeing of America and Americans.

Members of the news media accused United Airlines of failing to respect the rights of its passengers, yet ignore the far greater insult and damage caused to hard-working Americans by their corporate employers who have not only displaced them by hiring foreign workers, but demand that these loyal, experienced and talented American workers train their foreign replacements if they want to receive their severance packages.

This insanity was reported in the January 25, 2016 NY Times report, “Lawsuits Claim Disney Colluded to Replace U.S. Workers With Immigrants” and in the March 19, 2017 CBS News program “60 Minutes” important investigative report on “How the H-1B visas have been abused since the beginning.”

Nevertheless the overall narrative provided by the majority of news media has focused on the rights of foreign workers, whether they are legally or illegally working in the United States while ignoring the impact this has on Americans.

There is a question that asks “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?”

Perhaps a more appropriate question is, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, how would anyone know that the tree fell in the first place?”

constrution workersWhen journalists fail to report on the plight of American workers and their families, the majority of Americans have no idea about this outrageous betrayal.

The only reason that so many people have become outraged by the forceful ejection of the American Airlines passenger was because the media reported on it.

These failures of the immigration system, it must be noted are, in reality, Immigration Failure – By Design.

Consider that mayors of Sanctuary Cities and other duplicitous politicians have pushed for providing illegal aliens with driver’s licenses because they openly state, these aliens need licenses so that they can safely drive to their jobs- jobs that under our immigration laws, they are  prohibited from doing.

Meanwhile the mainstream media supports these efforts to undermine American workers by referring to foes of effective immigration law enforcement as being “Pro-Immigrant” while branding anyone who would dare suggest that America’s borders must be secured and our immigration laws be enforced from within the interior of the United States as being “Anti-Immigrant.”

There have been precious few reports about how greedy corporate executives have not only shown contempt for American workers but have made it impossible for many Americans, especially young kids living in poverty to succeed by getting entry level jobs to help build a resume to ultimately enter mainstream economic America.
The unholy alliance of politicians, media and such anti-American groups as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) could not care less about the plight of these American and lawful immigrant workers, and their struggling families, who have forfeited their livelihoods and opportunities for success to foreign workers.

In point of fact, it is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other corporate interest groups that have been behind the push to import a virtually limitless army of foreign workers to drive down wages and working conditions.

Not long ago I wrote an article, “The Wage Equality Deception: The veiled attack on the middle class” in which I contrasted the position of then U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions and Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank on the issue of H-1B visas.

Sessions was crystal clear on how these visas undermine middle class American workers either costing them their jobs or their wages.

Greenspan, on the other hand, stated in his prepared testimony when he testified before a hearing on Comprehensive Immigration Reform conducted by the Senate Immigration Subcommittee on April 30, 2009, at the behest of Subcommittee Chairman Chuck Schumer, had the unmitigated chutzpah of referring to American middle class workers as the “Privileged elite.”

Greenspan advocated for the importation of ever increasing numbers of foreign high-tech workers a means of reducing the “wage premiums” paid to high-skilled American workers to ultimately, “… reduce at least some of our income inequality.”

Finally, with the exception of the occasional tragedy of a victims such as Kate Steinle who was, in a manner of speaking, brutally yanked from the bosom of her loving family when she was shot to death by an illegal alien with an extensive criminal history who had been previously deported from the United States multiple times, the thousands of other such senseless deaths each year, attributed to illegal aliens goes largely unreported.

The terror attacks of 9/11, the Boston Marathon attack of April 2013 and the San Bernardino terror massacre all resulted from failures of the immigration system.  Yet many journalists downplayed or flat-out ignored the obvious nexus between those attacks and the failures of the immigration system.

However, when any Americans speak out against the failures of the immigration system, the media and politicians have turned to the tactic of intimidation by bullying and accusing these understandably concerned Americans of being racists, xenophobes, haters and nativists.

The false narrative that has been carefully crafted over a period of decades by the open-borders/immigration anarchists and has become a part of the political landscape to the point where sensible Americans have been convinced of the outrageous lie that the sensible and necessary immigration policies of the Trump administration should be equated with racism, xenophobia and bigotry.

The only bigotry to be found in the immigration debate is the anti-American bigotry of the immigration anarchists.

If anyone should be yanked out of their seats, it is the politicians who refuse to make Americans workers and their families their true priority.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in FrontPage Magazine.

Male equals female concept with businessman hand holding against blackboard background.

IRONY: Twaddle About the Gender Pay Gap Actually About Women’s Choice

You can find this particular slice of ironic baloney everywhere in liberal ideology. It always raises its fraudulent head during a political campaign because that is when it is most valuable.

Women make 77 cents on the dollar compared to men. Or 79 cents. Or 80 cents. It moves about a little. This is cited as evidence of the ongoing patriarchal oppression that American women suffer under. That’s the claim and that’s the cudgel with which to bash opponents and raise money.

Naturally, running as the XX-chromosome candidate, Hillary Clinton droned on about the gender pay gap on the campaign trail. President Obama, speaking at the 2016 Equal Pay Day, said, “Today, the typical woman who works full-time earns 79 cents for every dollar that a typical man makes.” Of course everything with Obama was about systemic discrimination, even when neither the specific system nor the specific discrimination could be identified.

The media duly “reports” the gender pay gap myth, and it is repeated with great dramatic flair by  endless streams of intellectually isolated celebrities. The picture with this article represents hundreds of such memes playing on the uninformed and not the reality.

Equal Pay Day is a part of this great political theater. It is in early April and is meant to symbolize how long a woman must work into the next year to make as much as a man from the previous year. Every April, Democrats crank up their reliable demonstration/protest mode to call attention to this terrible injustice in which the American patriarchal system oppresses women.

Democrats even push annually for the Paycheck Fairness Act because, of course, women making personal choices that may result in them making less money is “unfair.” There oughta be a law! (The Democrat solution for every problem.)

The real pudding proof on this fib is that if it were true, money-grubbing capitalists everywhere would be hiring women to save 21 percent on their labor costs. Duh. But of course, that is not happening. Because this is not true.

Why it’s mythological bunk

The thing is, there is actually no evidence of discrimination here. Even liberal economists cannot find it. It is simply rendered as true, and millions of people swallow it and react angrily at the wrongdoing. But there’s nothing wrong.

Here’s how this hokum is produced:

Using the most generalized data set from the Census Bureau, you take full-time working men’s median annual earnings and full-time working women’s median annual earnings and you find that, on the broadest of averages, there is a pay differential of 20 to 21 cents. That’s it. No glaringly obvious variables. No common sense applications. Just the two rawest data points because part of every feminist assumption is that men and women are exactly the same.

And then conclude discrimination.

But without an ounce of research from smart folks — who we’ll get to in a minute — anyone giving it actual thought knows that men and women approach jobs and careers differently when marriage and children are in the equation. A mother is likely to take time off from work, oftentimes months or even years. She will frequently seek out part-time work or jobs with flexible hours because her maternal drive prioritizes the time needs of her children. The man’s paternal drive prioritizes providing for the entire family.

Obviously, that puts those women — in the millions — at a slower career growth pace and therefore earning less than men. That pulls down the average woman’s pay and that is all the gender gap looks at. That is one huge variable that falls under the category of freedom.

We also know from observation that women tend to choose lower wage careers such as teachers and nurses while men tend to choose higher wage careers such as engineering and MBAs. That too drags down women’s salaries compared to men’s and as we will see, these variables explain almost the entire difference. And all of them fall under what one might call “a woman’s right to choose.”

Not discrimination.

It could be argued in the broadest terms that women’s career choices are more noble than men’s — if they must be compared — because they often involve serving others while men’s often involve building things. But the liberal feminist ideology clings to the pay gap myth because every movement needs an enemy, and for the feminist, that enemy is men.

Women choose children over careers

The first obvious variable is most women do double-duty as moms, and this impacts their careers and long-term earnings. Most women also find this an acceptable trade-off, hence they choose it. Secondary to this one is that women tend to be the primary caregivers when elderly parents need it. Both obviously affect careers and earnings.

Instead of going deeply into the numbers that back up all this common sense, and they are legion, let’s use the conclusions from those numbers of two liberal, feminist, Ivy League academics.

Claudia Goldin was the first tenured professor of economics at Harvard University in 1990. Goldin has done extensive research on the issue of women in the workforce and concludes almost the entire gap deals with women’s choices.

“Some of the best studies that we have of the gender pay gap, following individuals longitudinally, show that when they show up right out of college, or out of law school, or after they get their MBA — all the studies that we have indicate that wages are pretty similar then,” she said on the Freakonomics podcast. “But further down the pike in their lives, by 10-15 years out, we see very large differences in their pay. But we also see large differences in where they are, in their job titles. And a lot of that occurs a year or two after a kid is born, and it occurs for women and not for men. If anything, men tend to work somewhat harder.”

So it is the choices women freely make.

Princeton public-policy scholar Anne-Marie Slaughter wrote in “Unfinished Business” about what she called the “care penalty” as the primary driver of gender pay inequity. Understand, she does not like this or even think it right, but she also does not find gender pay discrimination in the workforce. Slaughter wrote:

“If you take women who don’t have caregiving obligations, they’re almost equal with men. It’s somewhere in the 95 percent range. But when women then have children, or again are caring for their own parents or other sick family members who need care, then they need to work differently. They need to work flexibly, and often go part-time. They often get less-good assignments because their bosses think that they’re not going to want work that allows them to travel, or they’re not going to be able to stay up all night, or whatever it is. And so then you start — if you’re working part-time, you don’t get the same raises. And if you’re working flexibly your boss very typically thinks that you’re not that committed to your career, so you don’t get promoted.”

I’m purposely choosing liberals and feminists who have studied this, but are approaching it academically, not for its raw political value. Neither Goldin or Slaughter necessarily approve of this reality in women’s choices, and encourage women to change their decisions and even believe in programs directing them to. But their conclusions are rock solid.

It’s not discrimination. It’s women’s choices.

Women’s choose serving careers

Looking at the spread of career choices, something becomes obvious. Women tend to take lower-wage jobs that often involve serving others while men tend toward higher paying jobs that involve creating things.

A Georgetown University study on the income values of different college majors showed that nine of the 10 most lucrative majors  — such as petroleum engineering, naval architecture and aerospace engineering — were dominated by men. At the same time, nine of the 10 least lucrative majors  — such as education, social work and early childhood education — were dominated by women.

Well this is a sticky wicket, because women are not choosing rightly for the feminist social engineers. American Progress, a large, influential liberal think tank, suggests women aren’t really making these career choices but that the patriarchy “trains” them to think certain ways. American Progress writes:

“…there are several factors that lead women to traditionally female-dominated roles, including the gendered socialization that trains girls from childhood to embody the sorts of traits that translate well into traditionally feminine jobs centered on nurturing, service, and supporting other people in their jobs.”

This seems particularly insulting to women as it suggests they really are not making good choices — by the tens of millions. They are being tricked by wily men. And it further suggests that there is no natural nurturing in a woman, only what a patriarchal society inculcates in them.

This reflects a total detachment from reality that continues the thread that most women are not naturally more nurturing and caring of others but that that is a societal construct.

The reality is that women are different from men inside and out and they therefore frequently make different choices. In fact, for a culture to be strong, that is a necessity.

But the feminists despise that reality and will always work to change it. And because that is reality, there will always be a “gender pay gap” for Democrats to exploit come election time.

And really, that mixed with social engineering is the whole point of it.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.


BUILD THE WALL: Why? To Reduce Murders and Rapes, for Starters

Some horrific stories are just too common, and incensing. They do not need to be happening, but occasionally we need to be faced with the raw, brutal reality of an issue too often talked about in anti-septic terms.

In a New York City suburb an illegal immigrant, who has been deported four times and is a known member of the barbaric MS-13 street gang, sexually assaulted a two-year-old girl and then felt so little remorse he went out stabbed two women in a New York City suburb — including the girl’s mother.

A two-year-old girl. Deported four times. Tommy Vladim Alvarado-Ventura, 31, was in the country illegally for at least the fifth time.

But this is not unusual. Let’s look at several specific, heart-breaking stories that never should have happened and make a decent person’s blood boil.

The avoidable tragedies individually

  • The man who murdered Kate Steinle in San Francisco was an illegal immigrant (CNN uses the obfuscating milktoast phrase “undocumented immigrant”) and a repeat felon who has been deported five times to Mexico. Steinle’s last words to her father as she bled to death were “Help me, Daddy.”
  • An illegal immigrant transgender was arrested by federal agents in El Paso after the “woman” went to the courthouse to file charges for domestic abuse. Turns out the “woman” is actually a man, Irvin Gonzalez, who is a transgender involved with a man and that he/she is in the country illegally for the eighth time and has a lengthy criminal record including domestic violence and assault.
  • Illegal immigrant Tomas Martinez-Maldonado brutally raped a 13-year-old girl on a Greyhound bus in Kansas last September. He had previously been deported 10 times.
  • Illegal immigrant Eduardo Gonzalez-Rios, who had been previously deported three times over the past 11 years, ran over a police officer.
  • Illegal immigrant Guaymar Cabrera-Hernandez was previously deported from the country, returned, was arrested again and immediately after being released from jail allegedly carjacked a woman with a knife.
  • Illegal immigrant Javier Antonio Martinez was first deported from the United States in 1992 after a felony drug conviction. He returned to the U.S. and accumulated several additional convictions in Florida under aliases without ever being detected as a deportable alien. He ended up being sentenced to 65 years in Federal prison and is still waiting to be tried in Alaskan state court for the shooting death of his boss. He should never have been here.
  • Illegal immigrant Edgar Vargas Arzate: He was charged with attempted burglary, battery of a police officer, resisting arrest and tampering with a vehicle in 2014. Prior to that he had been deported twice before and had prior felony convictions. Arzate should have been surrendered to federal ICE agents but Orange County police twice refused to honor detainer orders.
  • Illegal immigrant Prudencio Fragos-Ramirez, who was deported in 2013 is accused of fatally shooting and burning a Washington woman and her son.
  • This could go on and on. Mercifully, here’s a final example that points to an ancillary breakdown. A 29-year-old illegal alien charged with raping and murdering a 64-year-old Santa Maria woman in her home had been arrested four times previously, and federal ICE officials issued a detainer to deport him. But local law enforcement released him because Santa Maria is a sanctuary city. In this case, he never even had to turn around and come back. He was just set free.
ms13 gang members

MS 13 gang members.

You see the pattern. The problem. And it is totally unnecessary.

We can and do deport illegals, but they just turn around and come back over. If they commit small-time crimes, it’s cheaper to send them back south of the border than house them in our expensive prisons. Except, of course, they come right back. For serious crimes, we have a duty to the American victims and sense of justice to try them and imprison them here.

These crimes are heart-breaking and they should enrage every decent person.

But so can the statistics, because there is a story behind every number.

The avoidable tragedies by statistics

No, Mexico does not “send” its worst people, as Trump said during the campaign. But in a very practical sense by policy, it does allow some of its worst people to come to the United States by having virtually no border protection on its border with us (but very tight border protection along its southern border) and by tacitly encouraging the crossings.

Mexico’s poorest and most needy residents come across illegally, taking a weight off the bottom end of the Mexican economy and the Mexican government. And yes, a disturbingly large percentage of them are criminals, some escaping sporadic Mexican justice and others expanding their crime syndicate here.

About 15 percent of the federal prison population are Mexican citizens, but only 3.4 percent of the people in the United States are illegal immigrants, not all Mexican, if you take the standard media metric of 11 million illegals here. So they are more than four times over represented in the federal prison system, although many of those may be immigration-related crimes.

But if we look at national crime statistics, illegal immigrants make up:

  • 14 percent of those sentenced for all committed crimes in the country
  • 12 percent of those sentenced for murder
  • 16 percent of those sentenced for trafficking

Those numbers are all many times higher than the percentage of illegal immigrants here, meaning that we are indeed getting a high percentage of Mexico’s criminals. Those are just undeniable numbers.

The wall is an essential tool

We have to build the wall.

It is not a silver bullet, but it is an absolutely essential tool to get ahold of our costly immigration mess. The expenses we are constantly paying associated with crimes by illegal immigrants and deportation must be counted against the cost of a wall and the personally devastating losses. It does not need to be the Great Wall of China, but it does need to be physical and all but impossible to scale. Multiple levels of protection. It is too important to not do right.

And as I said on ABC last week, if we do not, Trump is a one-term president and Republicans probably lose Congress. (This is all the more true with the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare.) Too many Americans have realized the danger of at least one element of the triple threat of illegal immigration — depressing low-end wages, running up service costs for governments, crime.

Opponents are throwing everything at stopping the wall. It’s disturbing.

It’s long been “racist” they claim self-righteously — although Mexicans are not a race. It has long been said that such a wall is “not who we are.” But actually we are indeed a nation of laws, and laws to mean anything require enforcement, and enforcement requires the necessary tools. So actually, it is exactly who we are. We are built on — apologies for doing this — LEGAL immigration, because we are a nation of laws.

These are all easy arguments.

So now the final big argument is that the wall could cost up to $34 billion! How are we going to pay for that? Entitlement programs in the United States cost about $2.6 trillion last year, out of a budget of $3.9 trillion. So that is less than nine-tenths of a percentage point of the federal budget — and it would be spread out over years.

A recent NAS study estimated the lifetime net cost — taxes paid minus services used — of immigrants by education. Taking the average cost estimates from that study and cross-tabbing them with the education levels of illegal border-crossers shows a net financial drain of $74,722 per illegal immigrant.

That adds up in a hurry when talking millions of illegal immigrants crossing the border, meaning the wall would start racking up savings quickly.

And the sorrow upon sorrow laid out above.

RELATED ARTICLE: Fresno shooting rampage – 3 people killed, suspect yelled ‘Allahu Akbar,’ made posts against white people

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.


Jesus: Man, Myth, Son of God?

Jesus Christ died.  He died quivering on a cross, after receiving a horrific public thrashing that would have killed any other human.  He died after carrying His own instrument of death, the top part of the cross, to Golgotha where He was brutally and efficiently nailed to the beam He carried. He died after hanging between heaven and earth for about six hours in unexplainable agony.

To make certain of His death, the order was given to pierce His side with a spear which released the very last drops of His blood.  The professional soldiers who carried out the crucifixion detail were seasoned veterans with many crucifixions on their resumes; these hardened men were so certain of Jesus Christ’s death they did not even take the time to break His legs, as it was quite plain to see He was dead, He was finished.  Pilate, the Temple High Priest, and all of the religious leadership in Jerusalem were also certain of this fact, and rested in the knowledge that they had successfully killed an uprising, as well as this so-called King of the Jews, this Son of God.  It is done!  It is finished!

As the afternoon sun faded and the late day shadows began to grow so did the shadows of hopelessness and utter dismay and gloom by Christ’s disciples.  Such brooding sadness appeared that only dazed looks with puzzled grief that knew no words were exchanged among those who had been the closest followers, and may I say, “Believers.”  Utterly crushed, beaten, and most likely Wanted Men…these men had just hours prior sat at table with the man they came to know as The Son of God; the long awaited Messiah!  These men now scattered in an attempt to pick up any remaining pieces of their lives interrupted a little over three years before.

Jesus was confirmed dead, but Pilate was reminded that this strange, troublesome religious Dreamer (Nut) claimed He would rise on the third-day.  So to make certain that no theatrics could be accomplished a Roman Guard was set at the tomb.  The tomb was sealed with the Official Roman Seal to make certain no one would enter (or leave) the burial chamber thereby beginning a new round of zealotry.  Even if an attempt was made to tamper with the seal, the soldiers standing post would prevent a successful conclusion, as well as bring instant death to anyone attempting such an act.  There would be no more talk about His kingdom being established.  There would be no more statements that He could summon twelve legions of angels to His assistance.  There would be no more Messiah…He will trouble us no more!

Then came Sunday morning.

Sometime prior to dawn, in a borrowed burial tomb that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, there was a stirring, a fluttering of unseen forces…the presence of angels, and the unexplainable breath of God moving through the garden and into the tomb.  Immeasurable forces poured life back into the dead body that laid on the cold stone slab in that tomb; and the dead man rose and came out of the grave, and out of the grave clothes, and into life just prior to Mary’s arrival as she came to grieve and stand watch.  But Mary stood in shock and awe in front of the tomb as the massive stone had been rolled away, and now the sepulchre was empty except for the two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

As Mary cried-out asking, “What have you done with Him?” she heard her name spoken as only her dear, dear friend, Jesus could speak it, only this time all of heaven was in His tone.  And she knew.  She simply replied to Him, “Rabboni,” which is to say, “Master.”

Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary, the mother of James, and a few other women then ran and got the disciples, but they ran with the news that “Christ has Risen…He has Risen indeed!”  The disciples did not expect this to happen no matter how much they wanted it to be true.  How about you?  Would you have expected this, regardless of Jesus spending a little over three years sharing and revealing His purpose on earth, and the will of His Heavenly Father?  How about today?  Right now?

Do you believe Jesus of Nazareth died for you, was buried for your sins and deeds, and then rose on the third-day?  Do you believe?  The disciples will understand your doubts, your hesitancy.  So does the Lord who was actually in that tomb, but came out!  He understands.

Eight days passed, and the disciples were together.  Suddenly Jesus was with them.  These men, who just a very short-time prior were in deep mourning and bewilderment were reported by thousands to be “lights to the world” with their faces and manner, joyous and rejoicing in the good news of Christ’s Resurrection.  Ignorant men?  Self-serving?  An invention by a group of men hoping to cash in?  And would you or anyone you know invent such a story so as to be crucified upside down, like Peter?  How about stay with such a story causing your head to be chopped off, like Paul, or to be stoned to death like Steven?

Each of the disciples, save John, met with a horrible death at the hands of church and government authorities who years later still could not afford to have the Resurrection Story of Jesus Christ shared, much less believed by the masses.  Today the forces of darkness, division, confusion, and humanism do NOT want you to learn, much less accept the truth of Christ’s Resurrection from death.  Maybe even more today than thousands of years ago, the powers aligned against God’s Word do NOT want you to come into the saving knowledge and grace of the Risen Christ, the Begotten Son of God who surrendered His Crown in Heaven for a Crown of Thorns on earth; His Seat at the right hand of the Heavenly Father for the rugged and splintered wooden cross that became His seat of death on earth.

cross risen

Luke 23:44-47 NIV: 44 It was now about noon, and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon, 45 for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. 46 Jesus called out with a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” When he had said this, he breathed his last. 47 The centurion, seeing what had happened, praised God and said, “Surely this was a righteous man.”

Look at the picture above.  You are looking from inside an empty tomb across the land to an empty cross.  The same cross and tomb Jesus Christ occupied for a short-time before ascending into Heaven for all time, for all eternity.  Jesus is not dead!

The tomb is empty!  Jesus has risen from the dead…He has Risen indeed!

EDITORS NOTE: A Barna study released days before Easter, looking at how U.S. adults see and relate to the central figure of Christianity, shows that almost all Americans believe that Jesus Christ was a real person who actually lived, and that the majority of Americans have made a commitment to Him.

Ninety-three percent of Americans say they believe Jesus is a real person who lived on earth, according to the survey, whose results were released Thursday but was conducted between Aug. 25 and Sep. 10 of 2014 among a representative sample of adults over the age of 18 in each of the 50 United States.

Sixty-three percent of U.S. adults say they have made a commitment to Jesus that is still important in their lives today, shows the study, which included 2005 web-based and phone surveys.

Less than half (43 percent) believe Jesus was God living among humans; 31 percent believe He was uniquely called to reveal God’s purpose in the world; 9 percent say Jesus embodied the best that is possible in each person; and 8 percent say He was a great man and a great teacher, but not divine.

The survey, whose sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points and at the 95 percent confidence level, also found that 59 percent of Americans have no doubt that Jesus will return to earth someday.

A separate, recent Barna study found that while an increasing number of Americans are reportedly abandoning the institutional church and its defined boundary markers of religious identity, many of them still believe in God and practice faith outside its walls, meaning those who “love Jesus but not the church.”

Their beliefs about God are more orthodox than the general population, even rivaling their churchgoing counterparts, that study showed. “For instance, they strongly believe there is only one God (93 percent compared to U.S. adults: 59 percent and practicing Christians: 90 percent); affirm that ‘God is the all-powerful, all- knowing, perfect creator of the universe who rules the world today’ (94 percent compared to U.S. adults: 57 percent and practicing Christians: 85 percent); and strongly agree that God is everywhere (95 percent compared to U.S. adults: 65 percent and practicing Christians: 92 percent).”

While many Christians in the U.S. hold orthodox beliefs, the religious trend in Western Europe appears to be different.

In England, for example, one in four people who identify themselves as “Christians” say that they believe that the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ did not happen, according to a recent poll.

The former chaplain to Queen Elizabeth II argued that those who identify themselves as “Christians” but do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus cannot really be Christians. “Those people who neither believe in the resurrection nor go anywhere near a church cannot be ‘Christians,’” the Rev. Dr. Gavin Ashenden said, according to The Telegraph. “As with so many things, the key is in the definition of terms. Discovering the evidence for the resurrection having taken place to be wholly compelling is one of the things that makes you a Christian; ergo, if you haven’t, you are not.”

target mistake

Target CEO Admits Transgender Bathroom Policy a Huge Mistake

A very damaging article just out from the Wall Street Journal clearly shows that Target CEO Brian Cornell regrets his company’s policy announcement welcoming men to use women’s restrooms and dressing rooms.

According to the article, Mr. Cornell expressed frustration about how the bathroom policy was publicized without his permission or knowledge, and told colleagues he wouldn’t have approved the decision to flaunt it with a public statement that is still on Target’s website today.

“Target didn’t adequately assess the risk, and the ensuing backlash [AFA boycott] was self-inflicted,” he told staff.

You can read the entire WSJ article here, but be aware that it requires a subscription. Copyright laws prohibit AFA from providing the entire article to you.

The WSJ article explained that Target headquarters sent an internal memo to store managers reiterating its official stance on men using women’s facilities. On April 15, 2016, a group Target calls its “risk committee” emailed executives informing them of a plan to post that message publicly. Mr. Cornell wasn’t among the recipients of that email.

At least two of Mr. Cornell’s lieutenants approved the post, including Target’s chief risk officer, Jackie Rice, and its chief external-engagement officer, Laysha Ward.

AFA agrees with Mary McCandless, a shopper in Winston-Salem, N.C. who told the WSJ, “Target picked a side and pretty much said to the rest of us that we don’t matter.” The 56-year-old financial analyst said she quit using her Target credit card and shifted most shopping online. “At least I don’t have to worry about using the bathroom on”

Inside the company, executives predicted the backlash would die down. It didn’t, and foot traffic inside stores declined significantly in the months following AFA’s boycott announcement.

Since the boycott started, Target’s stock has lost 35% of its value, and shuttered plans for major expansion projects.

Together we are making an unprecedented financial impact on a corporation whose policy is to allow men to use women’s restrooms and dressing rooms. Target’s decision is unacceptable for families, and their dangerous and misguided policy continues to put women and children in harm’s way.

It is urgent the Target boycott reach 1.5 million signers by the end of April.

Help us reach the 1.5 million signature mark.

If you haven’t signed the boycott pledge, please sign it today!

If you have signed the pledge, please forward this email to your family and

At that point, AFA will personally return to Minneapolis with an additional 500,000 names. AFA will then discuss how Target can invite 1.5 million AFA supporters back to their stores by having a common sense bathroom and dressing room policy that links use of these rooms to a person’s biological sex.

RELATED ARTICLE: The ACLU Is Disregarding the Rights of Millions of Children


CAPITALISM: The Shockingly Successful War on Poverty

Counter to practically everything you will read or watch in news coverage, it is the philosophy of conservatism and the practice of capitalism that has done the most to pull millions of people out of poverty.

News coverage tends to focus on the government programs aimed at helping the poor. Some of these include Medicaid, food stamps, WIC, housing assistance, nutrition assistance in schools, for adults and for the elderly — basically cradle to grave safety nets and more. Spending on these, cuts to these, effects of cuts to these, all dominate news coverage, with media organizations making a beeline to find an example of an individual who might be hurt if a cut is made.

These massive anti-poverty programs that, combined, are larger than the entire national budgets of almost every country in the world, provide mere stopgap measures at best. At worst, they create a highway for generational dependency on government largess that strips people of all hope of pulling out of poverty and creating a brighter future. They are taught to be content drifting along the bottom of society.

There are better ways, proven again and again and again, but they are ways that involve politicians and organizations getting out of the lives of people. That dilutes their power, influence and political longevity. And these better ways involve the mass media understanding the basic principles of capitalism and freedom — principles that seem lost to most journalists.

More freedom, more capitalism, better living

Capitalism gets a bad rap on the left, particularly in the fevered safe spaces of academia, because it will inevitably make some people astonishingly wealthy. All boats are raised, but some soar, creating inequalities. In their ivory tower minds filling the young, mushy minds stuck in their classrooms, academicians see capitalism as tycoons and robber barons,  pollution-belching smokestacks and sweatshops — all heaved on the backs of the Charles Dickens-like poor.

They don’t see Apple and Google and Ford and Merry Maids and Publix and Super Cuts and Starbucks and the millions of small businesses making almost everyone’s lives better — starting with their employees, but including their products.

At the turn of the 20th century, we were riding in horse-drawn buggies, using outhouses and being warmed by fireplaces. There was no air conditioning and no screened windows. Our diets were often not healthy, particularly through the winter months. Today, a mere historical blip in time, most families own two cars, live in climate-controlled houses multiple times larger than previous generations, enjoy flat-screen TVs, stream shows on-demand, use smart phones, eat all the fresh food we want and work less.

Not one iota of this improvement in living that the cloistered university professors enjoy came from income redistribution schemes. Every bit came through capitalism in some form.

The fact that capitalism breeds income inequality for the feverish folk who worship at the altar of equality overshadows what it actually accomplishes for the poor. And as journalists are fellow-travelers with just a lower-grade fever, they tend to just look at the microscopic aspect and miss the big picture, not realizing that you cannot have capitalism without income inequality. It’s just part of it. To change that means eliminating capitalism and its overwhelming benefits — not least of which, to the poor.

Capitalism in the free market

When capitalism is unleashed, it’s a beautiful thing — if you don’t mind some boats being lifted higher than others on a tide that is lifting them all.

Many will point to the problem of greed in capitalism. But greed is a problem with human nature. As is envy. Capitalism works because it takes advantage of the good, the less good and the bad in human nature.

The good in human nature is the creative, inventive, problem-solving part that can build anything. The less good is that usually happens only if there is a profit to be made. And the bad is that some of the most financially successful are also the most ruthless and heartless. Human nature.

These human forces however, acting in a sea of free markets of free choices, propel innovations, improvements and efficiencies on a daily basis. Technology layered over top of free markets means that land-line phones become clunky wireless phones become Nokia cell phones become Motorola Razr flip phones become Apple iPhones become…whatever next leap is made.

Whatever that leap is, it will not be brought to you by government or by income redistribution or any other form of socialism.

Examples make the case

Venezuela and Brazil are two examples of what happens when fairly free, capitalistic societies bringing themselves out of the destitute third world see uneven income distribution as their major problem. And that can be particularly apparent in the early stages of successful capitalism, which is where these countries were.

They turned to socialism, which requires government-dictated markets and taking money from the capitalists and giving it to the least productive in dribble amounts. Venezuela went further and faster and has all but collapsed economically. Brazil is also traveling the path and is declining rapidly. This, despite the fact that both of these countries are rich in natural resources the world wants, including oil reserves.

In the other direction, we have the Soviet Union, which left the entirety of its sphere of influence impoverished in places that have since improved the standard of living for their people under a capitalist economic structure.

These include Poland, former East Germany, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, Slovakia — countries that do not have the natural resources of Venezuela and Brazil. Some former Soviet countries have not fared as well, but those also have not embraced the free markets necessary to capitalism.

Capitalism’s shockingly successful war on poverty

Too many people think that capitalism is either irrelevant to poverty or the actual cause of it.

Let’s take New York Magazine writer Jesse Singal, who tweeted out “I actually do think ‘poverty can be solved through capitalism’ is a pretty heinous view. Capitalism is not designed to do that.”

Well, it’s not actually “designed” to do anything. It is simply a system existing upon the reality of the laws of nature and man. And we can demonstrate empirically that Singal is 180 degrees wrong, but very representative of the modern liberal.

So let’s first establish the bona fides of capitalism in lifting people out of poverty. The numbers may shock the reader because they are so rarely disseminated. You’ve been warned.

In 1820, when capitalism began taking hold in some western countries, poverty worldwide stood at 94 percent of the world’s population. As the capitalistic system took hold and grew through the 19th and 20th centuries, poverty plummeted worldwide. By 1981, it was down to 53 percent, according to Max Roser, a fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at Oxford University’s Martin School. But large parts of the world were still under the boot of Communism.

Since 1981, with the fall of the Soviet Union seven years later, capitalistic liberalization in China, expansion of capitalism in Asia and South America and the globalization of the economy, only 17 percent of the world’s population was living in poverty by 2011, according to Roser’s study. (The poverty measurement is based on the monetary value of a person’s consumption in constant dollars. Consumption is a better gauge than raw dollars because a dollar can buy so much more in some countries than others.)

“In the past only a small elite lived a life without poverty,” Roser says. “Since the onset of industrialisation – and as a consequence of this economic growth — the share of people living in poverty started decreasing and kept on falling ever since.”

In another metric that partially coincides with the fall of Communism and completely coincides with the expansion of capitalism, the number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide declined by 80 percent from 1970 to 2006. Extreme poverty in this case is measured by people living on a dollar a day or less, so it is using the raw dollar adjusted value, but still makes the point.

Nearly 27 percent of the global population was in extreme poverty in 1970. By 2006, that was down to 5.4 percent — from more than 1 in 4 people to about 1 in 20. These are astonishing accomplishments, but they get virtually no media coverage and so most people do not know about them. It’s entirely possible that most members of the media are unaware of them, too, as they progressed through socialist-dominated higher education without ever being exposed to these truths.

“It was globalization, free trade, the boom in international entrepreneurship. In short, it was the free enterprise system, American style, which is our gift to the world,” American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks said in 2012.

But wait, there’s more!

According to Steven Horwitz, analyzing data for the Foundation for Economic Freedom, the world is economically 120 times better off today than in 1800 as a direct result of the explosion of capitalism.

That estimate comes from multiplying the improvement of the average person’s consumption of goods, by the gain in life expectancy worldwide, by seven (the increase in global population.)

Horwitz explains that this has improved the quality of life also in immeasurable ways:

“The competitive market process has also made education, art, and culture available to more and more people. Even the poorest of Americans, not to mention many of the global poor, have access through the Internet and TV to concerts, books, and works of art that were exclusively the province of the wealthy for centuries.”

Further, thanks to capitalism increasing the value of labor while extending lifespans, people now spend a much smaller percentage of their lives needing to work for pay.

Capitalism has even played a critical role in cutting mortality rates in half globally for children under five by both improving medical equipment, medicine and delivery systems. All of those things being used by charitable organizations were created by for-profit companies under the capitalistic system. It’s safe to say this was not happening and would not have happened under the Soviet Union’s government-directed system.

Conservatism undergirds capitalism

So why is conservatism’s philosophy integral to successful capitalism? In short, because conservatism calls for individual freedom, free markets, the rule of law and its enforcement, and the freest trade possible.

Again, liberal writer Jesse Singal demonstrates the thinking of the left. He tweeted that the “whole philosophy” of conservatives is to be mean to poor people. This tied to Trump’s proposed budget that includes cuts to Meals on Wheels.

Actually, this is precisely what horror writer Stephen King thinks. He tweeted that “A Salon headline articulated a question I’ve been asking myself for years: Why are Republicans so mean to poor people?”

This is ignorance on display, but in part explicable ignorance in that probably every media organ that Singal and King imbibe is put out by people of the same liberal worldview and unaware — or unwilling to accept — the facts of capitalism and conservatism’s role.

So let’s look at how conservative principles undergird capitalism and allow it to thrive.

The primary ingredients required to cook up a capitalistic economy include private property, private control of production, accumulation of capital, competition and free markets.

  • Capitalism requires the right to private property. People cannot buy and sell things if they cannot own them in the first place. They cannot accumulate capital if they are not allowed to own something that they can sell for a profit, or others can buy for a need or in hopes of turning their own profit. Conservatism favors protections for private property rights while modern liberalism consistently works to erode those rights.
  • Capitalism requires that private companies and people control production — including land, labor and capital. In a Communist country, the government owns and controls these production factors and sets production levels and prices. Thousands or millions of private companies in capitalism control these production factors to create efficiencies and maximize profit. Conservatism favors limited government involvement and modern liberalism seeks to extend government’s role in virtually every area of an individual’s life.
  • Capitalism requires the accumulation of capital by private enterprises, which provides an incentive to work harder, innovate and produce more so individuals and companies can increase their personal capital. Access to this capital can be made available through banks and investors to other individuals and companies. Conservatism believes in companies and individuals keeping as much of their personal capital (earned income) as possible while liberals believe government should get ever more private money to use on government programs.
  • Capitalism requires competition in industries. Companies compete to provide people with the goods and services they want at the price they are willing to pay. This drives companies to create better and cheaper goods and services — something that a government system simply cannot do. Conservatism and liberalism are similar on this count, with both understanding that monopolies are bad for capitalism.
  • Capitalism requires the free market forces of supply and demand — millions of individuals making billions of decisions in their own interests, driving production amounts and prices. Conservatism believes the free market will generate what people want and need at prices they can afford, while liberalism increasingly believes that government should be controlling these elements.

The future must always be fought for

There are no guarantees that what we have today we will have tomorrow. The quality of life most Americans enjoy — and by all world and historic standards, it is an amazing quality of life right down to poor Americans — we have because of the freedoms we enjoy.

Those freedoms are the foundation upon which a thriving capitalistic economy is built. The abundant American middle class is a result of the freedom and capitalism combination. The extensive infrastructure of roads, airports, parks, schools, law enforcement and so on is built with the money gleaned from capitalism — and by capitalists.

That politicians have misspent trillions of dollars over generations is not capitalism’s fault, nor the fault of the philosophy of conservatism (apart from the Republican and Democratic parties.)

For instance, the more that government takes out of the economy to pay for stuff, the more it restricts access to capital and the slower companies can grow and add goods and jobs.

Liberalism is philosophically fine with doubling our national debt to $20 trillion over eight years. But that is money not available to be loaned to companies. In fact, it’s not available at all. Liberalism always wants higher tax rates on companies. But that too is money that then cannot be spent on expanding and innovating and adding jobs. Conservatism believes in living within financial means and fiscal responsibility, which creates prosperity generationally in part by assuring plentiful capital available to entrepreneurs and businesses.

The case for capitalism improving the quality of life across the board, and reducing poverty worldwide, is undeniable in the data. By understanding the linchpin that is conservatism’s protection of freedoms and individual rights, we can see the way forward to maintaining a strong and prosperous nation, and continuing to be that bright shining city on a hill.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.


Enough with the Black Lives Matter Nonsense

Okay, so I am in Georgia with the Conservative Campaign Committee team working to defeat far-left-radical Democrat Jon Ossoff in the special election for the GOP congressional seat. Our CCC team was standing on a street corner waving “Defeat Ossoff” signs.

A black woman pedestrian approached one of our team members to say she likes Ossoff because he believes Black Lives Matter. She asked our white team member if he supports Black Lives Matter. Our guy politely replied that he believes all lives matter. The woman seemed okay with his response.

But folks, I have got to tell you, her questioning my patriot brother annoyed me. It is absurd to be running around in 2017 America polling about whether or not black lives matter. For crying out loud, a black guy ran our country for the past 8 years. Oprah is worth over a billion dollars and so on.

It is absurd to say Americans do not cherish blacks lives. And yet, this stupid divisive narrative continues to grow; watered, fertilized and nurtured by Democrats and the fake news media. Disgusting!

I am a black guy. But I hate the Left relentlessly slandering and beating up on my fellow Americans who are white. Beginning in kindergarten, poor white kids are being taught in government schools to hate themselves for being born white

Folks, that is just plain nuts. When will parents begin saying no to these Government Leftist Indoctrination Camps disguised as public schools? Can you say “homeschooling” boys and girls?

The Black Lives Matter organization is a bunch of lawless, evil, racist and hate-generating scum, extremely bad for America. They must be defeated rather than pandered to Mr. Ossoff.

Remember the kids song from Sunday School, “Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight.”? In other words, God says all lives matter. I say, “Amen!”


America’s Top Civic App, Countable

countable iphoneSAN FRANCISCO, California /PRNewswire/ — Since the inauguration of Donald Trump, America’s top civic app, Countable (, has seen a boom in growth, even attracting the attention and use of a celebrity following, the company is announcing, today.

Countable exists to update users on key political developments with the issues they care about with nonpartisan summaries of legislation and complex news events, and to empower them to take action by holding their elected lawmakers accountable. Users can send video messages, text messages or call their reps from the app – including force touch on the home screen icon to quick access their reps.

Members of the House and the Senate are even mentioning Countable, in their replies to constituents’ messages.

In the app’s most up-to-date numbers, released today, Countable has:

  • Sent 8 million messages to Congress from voters all around the country
  • Delivered 3 million messages sent since the election alone
  • Seen huge growth in millennials and women since the election, and over 2000% growth overall

Among these engaged Americans are celebrities who have sung the praises of Countable on their social media feeds.

George Takei tweeted, “Want to stay on top of Congress? And an easy way to call/write your representatives? I’m trying out the “Countable” App. Just downloaded it.”

“Yes. I have it. Love,” Alyssa Milano responded to a follower asking if she was using Countable.

And Sophia Bush told her Twitter followers, “Want quick action items at your fingertips to be an active constituent? Know when to call Congress? Here ya go!”

Reviews in the App Store are even more enthusiastic.  With hundreds of thousands of installs, the app has maintained a 4-star rating.

“This app is amazing!! I’m so glad that someone finally came up with a simple, user friendly, and mobile way to check up on what your government is doing and then let them know what you think. And from what I can tell this far it seems fair and unbiased in its content. This could be one of the most powerful platforms for nurturing and informed public that can force change,” said one review.

“I’ve been using Countable for several weeks now, and I’ve got to say that it is the best political app I’ve ever seen,” another reviewer wrote.

Another added, “This app is fantastic. I love the civility in forums. It is a breath of fresh air to hear divergent opinions without all the hair pulling and meanie-pantness.”

About Countable

Founded in 2014, Countable ( presents users with easy-to-understand summaries of bills and issues in the news, and a means to immediately, quickly, and easily tell their lawmakers where they stand. Users can choose to have their opinion delivered via email, phone call, or video message. Countable’s advisory board includes former Senator Evan Bayh, former Congressman Jon Runyan, former Howard Dean campaign manager, political consultant Joe Trippi, political consultant Amanda Crumley and legendary news chief Rick Kaplan.


Why Black Families Are Rejecting Public Schools by Annie Holmquist

Because of their long-fought battle for equal access to education, it is generally assumed that black families are big fans of public schooling.

That assumption, however, is beginning to show its datedness, as evidenced by the research of University of Georgia College of Education professor Cheryl Fields-Smith. In a recent interview with The 74, Dr. Fields-Smith suggested that black families are abandoning public schools because said schools exhibit:

1. A hyper-focus on race

According to Dr. Fields-Smith, pioneering black homeschoolers were not always interested in having their children integrate the public schools. Today’s black homeschoolers see a different problem. They are choosing to bring their children home because schools have resegregated, and they don’t want them to have such a black-centric view of the world.

2. Safety issues

As with many other homeschoolers, one of the big motivations for black families to homeschool revolves around instances of violence in school. But black parents are also concerned that classroom stereotyping will negatively affect their children:

“One of the predominant themes was a sense of wanting to protect their children from being labeled a troublemaker, or suggestions that they should be in special ed, or even [schools not] acknowledging the intellect of their child because they are so focused on the behavior.”

3. A narrow vision of diversity

Although public schools pride themselves on embracing diversity and emphasizing the history of minorities, black families feel their children need a broader vision than the one currently fed to them:

“I know I had to supplement that with my kids, had to make sure that they knew their black history, because it’s not really being taught in public school. We get one month, and usually it harps on the same people. We have a very rich legacy of contributing to this country, and more than just in entertainment and sports.

4. Poor education

As Dr. Fields-Smith explains, public schools offer a “basic education” to every child. Homeschoolers, however, are able to help their children rise above the label of average. Evidence of this was revealed in a 2015 report by Dr. Brian Ray, who found that homeschooled black children register in a percentile above the national average and far above their black public school peers:

Dr. Fields-Smith goes on to say:

“My families expressed empathy for the public schools; they want the public schools to succeed. It’s just that their particular children weren’t thriving in that environment.”

Is it possible that such a sentiment could be expressed by more than just black families? Have the public schools lost their savor to the American public because they can no longer offer an environment in which children of all ages, races, and abilities can thrive?

Republished from Intellectual Takeout.

Annie Holmquist

Annie Holmquist

Annie is a research associate with Intellectual Takeout. In her role, she writes for the blog, conducts a variety of research for the organization’s websites and social media pages, and assists with development projects. She particularly loves digging into the historical aspects of America’s educational structure.

RELATED ARTICLE: How Political Correctness Holds African-Americans Back

cnn nbc sarin gas mask

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer right about Syria, Sarin Gas and the Nazis

Daily we are bombarded with fake news. The latest is about what White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said about the use of sarin gas in Syria and the Nazis. You would think that by now the fakestream media would know about Google search and the internet.

While Hitler did use Zyklon B, a cyanide-based pesticide invented in Germany in the early 1920s, to kill millions of Jews and other enemies of the Nazis, he did not use Sarin gas during the war.

But there is a connection between Assad’s Ba’ath party and the Nazis.

al-AssadGeorge Kerevan in an article titled The Syrian-Iraqi Baath party and its Nazi beginnings reported:

In Arabic, baath means renaissance or resurrection. The Baath Arab Socialist Party, to give the organisation its formal title, is the original secular Arab nationalist movement, founded in Damascus in the 1940s to combat Western colonial rule. But since then, the Baath Party has undergone many chameleon-like twists in belief and purpose. Even the young men in Iraq who today claim its discredited banner might be surprised at the party’s real origins.

[ … ]

But the rise of German fascism also played a role. Many in the Arab world saw Hitler as an ally. In 1941, the Arab world was electrified by a pro-Axis coup in Baghdad. At that time, Iraq was nominally independent but Britain maintained a strong military presence. An Arab nationalist by the name of Rashid Ali al-Kailani organised an army coup against the pro-British Iraqi monarchy and requested help from Nazi Germany. In Damascus, then a Vichy French colony, the Baath Party founders immediately organised public demonstrations in support of Rashid Ali.

[ … ]

Like the Nazi and Communist parties, the Baath is organised through small cells in a rigid hierarchy. [Emphasis added]

Read more…

Like Zyklon B, Sarin gas was created by a German. The Times of Israel reported on April 8th that sarin gas was discovered in Nazi Germany and was the chemical agent was used by Saddam Hussein’s regime to gas thousands of Kurds in 1988.  The Times of Israel stated:

Originally conceived as a pesticide, sarin was used by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s regime to gas thousands of Kurds in the northern town of Halabja in 1988.

[ … ]

“Sarin is 26 times more deadly than cyanide gas. Just a pinprick-sized droplet will kill a human,” according to the World Health Organization.

[ … ]

The name sarin comes from the [German] chemists who discovered it by chance: Schrader, Ambros, Ruediger et Van der Linde. The scientists had been trying to create stronger pesticides but the formula was then taken up by the Nazi military for chemical weapons.

adolf hitler

Adolf Hitler

In a column titled Hitler refused to use sarin during WWII. The mystery is why. by Washington Post reporter Michael S. Rosenwald notes:

Adolf Hitler gassed and killed 6 million Jews during World War II — a genocide that makes his reluctance to use sarin against his military adversaries an enduring mystery.

[ … ]

White House press secretary Sean Spicer on April 11 said Adolf Hitler didn’t use chemical weapons during World War II. Hitler’s regime exterminated millions of Jews in gas chambers. (Reuters)

And it wasn’t because Hitler didn’t have sarin. A German scientist had stumbled onto sarin while experimenting with compounds in an attempt to kill beetles. The German military built a sarin factory in 1943. Officers pleaded with Hitler to use it.

He didn’t.


Over the years, historians (armchair and scholarly) and psychologists have speculated that maybe Hitler didn’t use sarin because he was a victim of a mustard gas attack in 1918, during World War I, and knew the misery of such weapons.

“He and several comrades, retreating from their dug-out during a gas attack, were partially blinded by the gas and found their way to safety only by clinging on to each other and following a comrade who was slightly less badly afflicted,” Ian Kershaw wrote in his critically acclaimed Hitler biography.

Read more…

It is also important to note that the United States and Great Britain planned on using mustard gas during WWII. According to

Both the USA and Great Britain planned and meant to use gas during WWII. Germany as a consequence of the Versailles dictate of 1919, was forbidden to produce and import any kind of gas or liquids that could be used to produce such gasses, Article 171.

The Reich kept strictly to the requirement of the Versailles dictate regarding chemical warfare equipment. Even the Weimar Republic kept to the dictate. During the Sea Disarmament Conference, 1921/22, in Washington, the following nations did not agree to gas or any chemical weapons being dangerous weapons: USA, England, France, Japan and Italy. The use of chemical weapons were discussed, but without an agreement being signed.

In June 1925 in Geneva the question was once again discussed, one reached the so-called Geneva Gas-War Protocol. Out of the 44 nations attending the Geneva conference 38 had, by the end of 1935, signed the protocol. 21 nations took reservation, 17 were reluctant. By the end of 1935, 28 nations had ratified the convention. But 10 refused, among those were USA, Japan, Czechoslovakia, Luxemburg, and various nations in South America. The Reich signed without any reservations.

Read more…

RELATED ARTICLE: Nazi poison gas: Gas, Gas, Already yet! FAEM April 1995