President Donald Trump is making welfare reform a major priority and will sign an executive order laying out the administration’s goals while also urging action by Congress, a White House official said Thursday.
Trump’s executive order will be twofold, said Paul Winfree, director of budget policy at the White House. The order will state the Trump administration’s principles for welfare reform of empowering individuals and learning from state and local initiatives, and then direct federal agencies to come back to the president with recommendations for implementing the principles.
“Welfare reform is something that is very important to the president,” Winfree said during a panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation’s anti-poverty forum on Thursday. “It’s something that excites him. It’s something that he has a lot of energy about.”
The White House is also working with Congress on reform proposals, Winfree said, but in the short term is looking at what federal agencies can do unilaterally. The federal government has 89 different welfare programs spread across 14 departments and agencies.
Winfree explained the two priorities of Trump’s upcoming executive order.
The first thing it does, it sets out a series of principles for welfare reform that we would like to be a message to Capitol Hill and the direction we want to take. … We want to empower people. We want to learn from the states. We want to learn from local communities.
One of the messages is that I’ve been driving to essentially our staff and our agencies on welfare reform and the direction we are taking is this message that it’s people that help people. It’s not governments that help people.
So, how do we learn from people who are actually in the communities actually helping people and then ultimately empower them by either getting out of the way or redirecting the resources in their direction to essentially reward successes without a unilateral approach or without just kicking it to the states and transition [to] what is essentially a federal role into a state role.
The second half of the executive order, which is yet to be signed, essentially directs agencies to take a look at the principles and then figure out what they can do on their own to start meeting some of the objectives that are out there through changes in regulation and guidance and then to ultimately submit those recommendations to the president for an evaluation.
The last sweeping welfare reform package came more than two decades ago, passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. However, Robert Rector, who helped shape some of the 1996 bill, said new improvements are needed.
“The current welfare system harms the very poor that it’s trying to help,” Rector, a senior research fellow for domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, said. “We need a reformed welfare system that promotes work and marriage, and rewards outcomes rather than simply greater spending.”
The Heritage Foundation is supportive of the principles in several proposals in Congress now.
A bill by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and companion House bill by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, would require all welfare programs to strengthen existing work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program; and establish a real work requirement in food stamps. Separately, a bill by Rep. Garrett Graves would require work requirements for the food stamp program.
Other members of Congress have talked about saving $15 billion annually by eliminating fraud, waste, and excessive benefits in the earned income tax credit, while making the program more encouraging of work. Others call for removing the marriage penalty with regards to welfare programs.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-welfare-e1511197551226.jpg391640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2017-11-20 12:06:392017-11-20 12:06:39Trump Administration’s 2 Priorities for Welfare Reform Executive Order
Talk of amnesty deals are making the rounds again in Washington. Here’s what you need to know.
Apparently, the battles over tax reform, Obamacare, and the looming spending bill aren’t enough to keep Congress busy. There are increasing rumblings that some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are looking for ways to give legal status to illegal aliens currently in the United States.
When President Donald Trump was candidate Trump, he promised that if elected he would end the program known as DACA—the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals that gave legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors.
The program was one of President Barack Obama’s most famous and arguably unconstitutional runs around Congress. He couldn’t get lawmakers to do what he wanted so he took it upon himself to create a new law via unilateral executive action.
Not exactly what the Framers likely had in mind if you read Articles I and II of the Constitution on the roles of the legislative and executive branches of government.
Which is why the Trump administration’s Department of Justice was absolutely right earlier this year to announce a six-month wind-down of the program with an end date next March. And because Congress, not the president, has the power to make or alter our laws, the ball is now back in its court.
Unfortunately, the only actions many in Congress seem interested in taking when it comes to immigration reform are the tried and true failed policies of the past.
Give amnesty now to those here illegally with a promise of later securing the border and doing the hard work to improve our country’s immigration system.
Democrats are threatening to shut down the government if so-called “Dreamers” aren’t given a “pathway to citizenship” in the end-of-year spending bill Congress must pass in early December.
Meanwhile, some Republicans are also considering various legislative amnesties, including a Senate proposal dubbed SUCCEED, the Solution for Undocumented Children Through Careers, Employment, Education, and Defending Our Nation Act.
Here’s the deal: Whether it’s granting amnesty outright—as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and a host of other Democrats want to do—or whether it’s granting amnesty to those here illegally if they agree to jump through some additional loopholes, it’s still amnesty and it is still unfair to the millions of people trying to come here legally.
And, oh, by the way, it does not solve our illegal immigration problem. History and previous flawed actions by Congress prove it makes it worse.
We tried in 1986 when we gave legal status, supposedly a one-time deal, to 2.7 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S. Fast forward to 2017, and we have 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants now living here.
And all the border security and serious enforcement measures promised in 1986 that were going to come later? They never materialized.
More recently, there was the surge in illegal border crossings during Obama’s second term as the president handed out promises of amnesty through executive orders and his administration did little to enforce our immigration laws.
Proponents of amnesty and those who don’t want to do the hard work of real immigration reform are likely to dangle smaller and unpopular measures like getting rid of diversity visas in exchange for granting amnesty to the DACA population.
There’s no doubt that the Diversity Visa Lottery Program needs to go, but we shouldn’t trade one bad policy for another.
The same goes for debates over family, or what is popularly referred to as chain migration, workplace visa programs, sanctuary cities, border security measures, and how to improve the legal immigration process itself. All of these policies should be debated on their individual merits and whether they benefit America.
Immigration, both legal and illegal, impacts our country’s culture, economy, and security.
Some in Congress may be tempted to play “let’s make a deal” on amnesty and pretend they are doing something about our broken immigration system.
Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Genevieve. Twitter: @genevievewood.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/donald-trump-amnesty-dreamers-e1511196594928.jpg355640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2017-11-20 11:50:192017-11-20 11:50:19VIDEO: Why Amnesty Should Not Be Part of any ‘Deal’ on DACA
On Friday, President Donald Trump announced the addition of five individuals to his outstanding list of potential candidates for a future Supreme Court vacancy.
As was the case with the lists Trump put out during his presidential campaign, these new additions to the list are conservative men and women who are committed to interpreting the Constitution according to its original public meaning.
While there are currently no vacancies on the Supreme Court, rumors abound that Justice Anthony Kennedy may retire in the near future. Here’s a look at the new names.
Amy Barrett
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
Age: Approximately 45
Barrett, a former University of Notre Dame law professor, was recently confirmed to the 7th Circuit. After graduating from Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the D.C. Circuit and Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
She then worked in private practice (where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore) before starting her career in academia, teaching briefly at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002.
Barrett is a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court.
In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed her to the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, where she served for six years.
At her confirmation hearing in September, Senate Democrats chided her for her writings as a law student in 1998 and asked inappropriate questions about her Catholic faith. But Barrett received robust bipartisan support from the legal community, including from Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.
Britt Grant
Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia
Age: Approximately 39
Appointed to Georgia’s highest court by Gov. Nathan Deal in 2016, Grant previously served as the state’s solicitor general and in other capacities in the state attorney general’s office. She also worked in the George W. Bush administration, serving on the Domestic Policy Council and the Office of Cabinet Affairs.
Grant began working at the White House weeks before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and after that horrific day, her mission became making government “as effective as it can be and as protective of liberty as it can be.”
Earlier in her career, she served as an aide to then-Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., on Capitol Hill, clerked for Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit, and worked in private practice at Kirkland & Ellis, one of the top appellate law firms in Washington, D.C.
She is a graduate of Stanford Law School and Wake Forest University.
In a letter recommending her appointment to the state’s high court, Kavanaugh praised Grant’s “superb” writing, which is “[o]ne of the most important duties” of judges. In her 11 months on the bench, she’s heard numerous cases and displayed her excellent writing abilities.
In a recent decision reinstating criminal charges against a woman who secretly filmed her boss in the nude, Grant wrote a special concurrence agreeing with the judgment but not the reasoning of the majority. The majority analogized a state law criminalizing “hostile intrusion or surveillance” by a private party with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She explained, “[t]he statute cannot bear the weight that the Fourth Amendment puts on it when addressing the behavior of private parties and not of the government” and that it “addresses a privacy interest quite different than the one that we all share against government search and seizure.”
Brett Kavanaugh
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Age: 52
A former clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy and graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, Kavanaugh worked as a senior associate counsel and assistant to President George W. Bush and as an associate independent counsel.
He was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2003 but not confirmed until 2006.
Former Attorney General William Barr stated that Kavanaugh “quickly established himself as one of the key outside lawyers I went to on some of my toughest legal issues. He has a keen intellect, exceptional analytical skills, and sound judgment. His writing is fluid and precise. I found that he was able to see all sides of an issue and appreciate the strengths and weakness of competing approaches. He was particularly effective in dealing with novel issues which required some original thinking.”
Kavanaugh recently delivered the annual Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at Heritage—joining the ranks of Justice Clarence Thomas and many other renowned federal judges. He spoke eloquently about the judiciary’s essential role in maintaining the separation of powers.
Kevin Newsom, former all-star appellate lawyer, was confirmed to the 11th Circuit in August. After graduating from Samford University and Harvard Law School, Newsom clerked for Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain on the 9th Circuit and Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. He then worked in private practice before serving as Alabama’s solicitor general.
After five years of government service, Newsom went back to private practice where he became a partner at Birmingham’s Bradley Arant.
Before joining the bench, Newsom had an extensive Supreme Court practice, arguing four cases at the high court and authoring dozens of cert. petitions and amicus briefs. Newsom has won countless awards for his work, including the National Association of Attorneys General’s Best Brief Award four times.
He has argued more than 30 cases in federal appellate courts across the country as well as in Alabama’s appellate courts. In 2011, Roberts, the chief justice, appointed Newsom to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules.
Patrick Wyrick
Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Age: 36
Patrick Wyrick is the youngest person on the Trump list, at 36 years old. Then again, Joseph Story was only 32 when he was nominated by President James Madison to serve as an associate justice to the Supreme Court, a position in which he served with great distinction for nearly 34 years.
Wyrick was appointed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court last February, after serving as the state’s solicitor general for six years.
As solicitor general, Wyrick argued cases before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and also successfully argued Glossip v. Gross (a case challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection) before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A graduate of the University of Oklahoma and that school’s College of Law, Wyrick clerked for U.S. District Court Judge James Payne.
When Wyrick was nominated to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, then-State Attorney General Scott Pruitt described Wyrick as “a superb lawyer” and “a constitutional scholar well-versed in both state and federal law … ” He added that Wyrick’s “wisdom, compassion, and integrity are unparalleled among the many public servants with whom I’ve had the pleasure of working.”
In his short time on the bench, Wyrick has written some noteworthy opinions, including the majority opinion in a case striking down a fee that the Oklahoma Legislature imposed on cigarette companies for violating a provision in the Oklahoma Constitution that sets forth the procedures that must be followed before enacting a “revenue raising” measure.
Although young, Wyrick’s meteoric legal career could ultimately land him on the high court.
We commend the president for taking the utmost care in continuing to identify outstanding individuals to serve on all levels of the federal bench.
John G. Malcolm oversees The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law as director of the think tank’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research. Twitter: @malcolm_john.
Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read her research. Twitter: @EHSlattery.
Tiffany Bates serves as legal policy analyst in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @TiffanyHBates.
A Note for our Readers:
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-at-podium-1-e1511179638176.jpg379640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2017-11-20 07:06:052017-11-20 07:08:31Meet These 5 Stellar Conservatives Trump Just Added to His Supreme Court List
The purpose of this article is to examine the current and rapidly developing trends in the Middle East, and attempt to project likely scenarios in the near to middle-term future. Only time will tell if what we are projecting as possible is a utopia, or will in fact become reality.
Background
In June 2009, then U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama went to Cairo and delivered a speech at Cairo University. It was co-hosted by Al-Azhar University, the preeminent theological seminary in the Islamic world. Observing this speech from the front rows – specifically requested by Obama – were members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the umbrella organization of Islamic terror, from which groups like Al Qaeda, the Abu Sayaff Group, and ISIS are ultimately derived.
This speech, entitled “A New Beginning,” was the thematic basis for the Obama presidency. Ultimately, the administration would back the Muslim Brotherhood (and other, aligned terrorists groups) in the so-called Arab Spring to overthrow the existing governments in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya (while ignoring a genuine uprising in 2009 in Iran, see here). Syria and Jordan were also targets of these Arab Spring uprisings. Fast-forward to 2015, and the Obama administration had completed what they consider their crowning foreign policy achievement: a “nuclear deal” with Iran, that the administration claimed would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the requisite rocket technology to deliver the warheads. In praxis, however, the deal legitimized Iran internationally, increased their regional prestige, and emboldened their territorial ambitions – see Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
The net-net result of Obama’s backing of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist regime in Tehran was a reckoning between several regional powers who had, and have, an interest in containing Iranian influence. In particular, Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia – notably, all historically American allies – are coordinating and acting to check the expansion of Iranian power while simultaneously attempting to contain the spread of terrorism, which routinely reaches the shores of Europe and America. Moreover, the struggle today largely breaks down into a Sunni (led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia) vs. Shiite (led by Iran) confrontation.
Saudi Arabia
Probably the most visible and promising changes to the region are happening in Saudi Arabia, under the rule of its young and reform-minded Prince, Mohammed bin Sultan (aka “MBS”).
When President Donald Trump traveled to Riyadh on his first-ever trip abroad, he famously placed his hands on a glowing purple globe, alongside King Salman and President el-Sisi of Egypt. At the time, the symbolism was not completely understood. Today, however, we can put it simply: with that act of pageantry, he signaled to the world that he would reverse Obama’s failed “diplomacy” and embrace the new alliance that had already formed. In recent weeks, evidence is overwhelming:
Saudi Arabia and Israel regularly and routinely share intelligence on their mutual enemy, Iran. This level of cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel is truly revolutionary, to say the least, for the region.
Last week, Israel and Saudi Arabia co-sponsored a resolution in, yes, the United Nations condemning the human rights abuses in Iran and Syria.
The Chief of Staff of Israel’s IDF granted an unprecedented interview to a Saudi newspaper, identifying Iran as the region’s chief troublemaker, and declaring officially the willingness of Israel to share intelligence.
In a truly stunning development on Friday, Saudi Arabia publicly announced they would compensate Israel $1 billion plus to strike Hezbollah as quickly as possible in southern Lebanon. This follows the departure of Lebanon’s Prime Minister, Saad Hariri, for his native Saudi Arabia. In the meantime, he flew with his family to Paris, France on the invitation of President Macron.
Finally, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdulaziz Al Sheikh, the top Saudi cleric just “issued a ruling forbidding war against the Jews and proclaiming that Hamas a terrorist group.”
Israel
Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu undoubtedly recognizes the historical import of the moment, as the Arab world, led by Saudi Arabia, seems likely to reach a lasting peace with the Jewish state. The opportunity also presents a unique chance to finally settle the Palestinian problem in Judea and Sumaria (i.e., West Bank).
In addition to the developments above, Israeli policy can be observed through the lens of the following events and trends:
Sandwiched between Hezbollah in the north (in Lebanon) and Hamas to the south (in Gaza), Israel is working with its Arab allies to root out the terrorists on its borders (see proposed Saudi action above).
Since assuming the Presidency in Egypt, el-Sisi has been coordinating intelligence and military operations with Israel in the Sinai Peninsula. Egypt is expected to take the lead in “cleaning” out Hamas (i.e., the Muslim Brotherhood) from Gaza.
The political fate of Judea and Sumaria remain the most significant obstacle to long-term peace between Israel and the Arab States. Recent Saudi-led initiatives signal an eagerness to finally settle this challenge.
Polling suggests that a majority of Israeli Arabs do not want to live in a Palestinian state.
A potential solution could take this form: recognition of a Palestinian federation in Judea and Samaria and localized rule for the Arabs, with input and assistance from Jordan. On the other hand, the IDF would be responsible for security in the Jordan Valley.
Resolution of this issue could realistically enable normal diplomatic relations between Israel and the Gulf States, ending nearly 70 years of political turmoil and unpredictability.
Egypt
As president of the most populous Arab country, el-Sisi has led the calls for reform of Islam since his coming into power. Not only did he call out the Imams at Al-Azhar for promoting murder of non-Muslims, but he has remained dedicated to eradicating the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence within Egypt. In conjunction with aggressive military operations against neighboring terrorists, this puts el-Sisi in a serious security dilemma.
In neighboring Libya, Egypt leads ongoing airstrikes against Islamist militias including ISIS, which are leftovers from Syria and Iraq. This has the added benefit of stemming the so-called “refugee” flow into southern Europe (Italy and Greece).
As mentioned above, Egypt and Israel are cleaning out the northern Sinai, a route through which weapons flow into Gaza.
El-Sisi’s hardline stance against the entrenched Muslim Brotherhood, combined with his friendly and cooperative stance with Israel, put him at high risk of assassination. One merely must recall the price that Anwar al-Sadat paid for his visit to Jerusalem and 1979 peace treaty with Israel.
Jordan
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has, for decades, worked with Israeli and western security services. King Abdullah Hussein of Jordan, a western-educated Arab ruler who dresses in a suit, faces an extremely delicate internal political situation. The Muslim Brotherhood, and lately Hamas, are powerfully represented in Jordan’s government, and as such the King’s friendly stance with Israel is muted out of concern for domestic unrest.
Palestinians, who are actually Arab Jordanians, have significant political sympathy within Jordan. This, despite the fact that Abdullah’s father, King Hussein, killed thousands of Palestinians aligned with the PLO during the “Black September” operation (1970-71).
Security in the West Bank is as much a concern to Jordan as it is to Israel. Therefore, resolution on this issue is very much in the interest of Jordan.
With terrorists in his government, King Abdullah faces a challenging personal security situation, similar to President el-Sisi. It is not unlikely that he may be targeted for assassination, like his own great-grandfather Abdullah I.
Yemen
Yemen, to Saudi Arabia’s south, is in the midst of a civil war/insurrection. The Houthi rebels, located in former North Yemen, are being armed by Iran. Tensions escalated with Riyadh when a second rocket was fired at King Khalid airport from Yemen.
Due to their border to the south, the Saudis view Yemen as the primary proxy war with Iran.
Does the future of Yemen look like its past? Will Yemen again break into North and South, with Aden as the capital of North Yemen and Saana the capital of South Yemen? This potential outcome is consistent with a broader trend of secession movements across Europe and the Middle East.
Syria
Bashar al-Assad, with the aid of Russia, remains in control of much of Syria including Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs. The war will enter its seventh year this January, and Assad will likely remain in control. Israel and Egypt are not opposed to Assad’s rule, and the Russian footprint means that the territory under government control will not be surrendered.
Assad is an Alawite, an ancient people whose culture predates Islam. Although Tehran’s ambition remains a land route through Iraq and Syria directly to the Mediterranean, Assad clearly wishes to remain independent of Iran.
To the North, parts of Syria may eventually be ceded to Kurds for the formation of an independent Kurdistan.
Although discussed in foreign policy circles, a new Sunni state within Syria would mean Assad surrendering territory that he currently controls. This scenario remains unlikely under present conditions.
Iraq
With Iran-friendly Shiite rule in Baghdad, it is difficult to consider eastern Iraq an independent country. Iraq is effectively divided into three territories today: a Shiite dominated center east, with Kurds in the North, and Sunnis to the west and south.
As ISIS is consistently decimated and systematically cleared from the land, regional powers Iran and Saudi Arabia will continue to vie for influence.
The Kurds, who control much of Iraq’s oil, are negotiating their independence with Baghdad, although the likely outcome of these negotiations remains murky.
Will Baghdad, under firm Iranian influence, remain in nominal control of all of Iraq’s territory? A status quo of this nature would undoubtedly translate into several insurgencies to disrupt Tehran’s influence.
Or is the future of Iraq partition – Shiite dominated Baghdad and east, an independent Kurdistan to the north, and the formation of a Sunni state, that includes part of Syria?
Kurdistan
The Arab Spring, the rise and fall of ISIS, and a long and distinct history make the formation of an independent Kurdistan more likely than ever. The United States should finally step up in this discussion, and back the creation of an independent Kurdistan.
The Kurds have been the absolute fiercest fighters against ISIS. Kurdish Peshmerga have aided in the liberation of key cities, including Mosul and Kirkuk.
Many Kurds have given their lives to defeat the most barbaric army in modern times. Their justification for the creation of Kurdistan is therefore very compelling.
In pursuit of a Kurdish homeland, the Kurds have the unequivocal backing of Israel.
The most powerful obstacle to statehood is Ankara, which under Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood President Erdogan seemingly views all Kurds as “terrorists.”
UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain
These tiny Gulf States have effectively lined up firmly behind Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Sultan. With the exception of Qatar (see below), they are de facto aligned with Egypt and Israel.
Bahrain, with a 70% Shiite population, intends regardless to remain independent of Iran’s (Shiite) influence.
The United Arab Emirates previously declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, and remain dedicated to interrupting financial support to terrorist organizations.
Although complicated by internal politics like Jordan (see above), in the years since the Arab Spring, powers within Kuwait are firmly encouraging the recognition of Israel.
Qatar
The outlier on the Arabian Peninsula, Qatar, is defiant in the face of sanctions and diplomatic isolation by the Gulf Cooperation Council. Qatar’s network Al Jazeera was instrumental in promoting the Arab Spring, and their insistence on maintaining excellent relations with Iran are unacceptable to their Gulf State neighbors.
Qatar and Iran share the massive South Pars/North Dome gas field, in the Persian Gulf. This presents a fundamental reason for Qatar to maintain a friendly relationship with Iran.
Qatar has welcomed exile terrorist from Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Taliban.
To cope with the crippling blockade imposed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar has moved closer to Turkey and now imports food to keep their population from going hungry.
Finally, the United States has thus far appeared reluctant to take sides, as the Al-Udeid Air base near Doha is one of the largest American bases outside the continental United States.
This obstacle could be easily overcome by upgrading existing U.S. bases either Saudi Arabia or any other willing country in the Middle East.
Conclusion
Following World War I (1918) and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (1924), the borders of the Middle East were redrawn, largely arbitrarily, creating several nations with natural flash points among and within themselves. The history of last century in the Middle East is the story of these flash points, resulting from religious, ethnic, and linguistic divides.
An unintended consequence of Barack Hussein Obama’s support for terrorist groups during the Arab Spring, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and the terrorist regime in Iran, is an opportunity for stable allies to force a redrawing of the map. While a lasting peace remains elusive, it is not altogether unrealistic to expect that one outcome of this turmoil may be the Arab recognition at large of Israel, and the isolation/trimming down to size of Iran and its wide support of international terrorism.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/middle-east-chrystal-ball.jpg359640Wallace Bruschweilerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngWallace Bruschweiler2017-11-19 19:40:362017-11-19 19:40:36Look Ahead in the Middle East: 6-12 Months in a Crystal Ball
Unless the “Palestinians” get serious about making peace with Israel. So watch for a massive “War is Deceit” initiative from the “Palestinians” in the coming months.
“Trump Admin Threatens To Shut Down Palestinian Office In DC,” by Jonah Bennett, Daily Caller, November 18, 2017:
The Trump administration said Friday it will shut down the Palestinian Liberation Office (PLO) in Washington, D.C., unless the Palestinians get serious about peace talks with Israel.
The State Department has determined that the PLO has violated a law stating that the PLO cannot push for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to prosecute Israelis. Violation of this law means that the State Department could force the PLO to close its mission, The Associated Press reports.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas stated in September that the Palestinians have called for the ICC to “open an investigation and to prosecute Israeli officials for their involvement in settlement activities and aggressions against our people.”
Given the PLO’s violation, President Donald Trump has 90 days to assess whether the Palestinians are engaged in meaningful negotiations with Israel. If Trump decides that the negotiations are meaningful, the Palestinians can keep their D.C. office. But if not, the office will be shut down. It’s also possible that the Trump administration could close the office down before the 90-day window, but even if the office is closed, that doesn’t mean peace efforts have collapsed.
Trump’s team has already started working on a plan to bring peace to the Middle East 10 months after taking office. For Trump, achieving peace in that region is the “ultimate deal.” The plan will likely discuss Jerusalem and settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinians have expressed some amount of skepticism because of how Trump’s loud, unabashed support for Israel and the fact that several Trump staffers heading the plan are Jews, like Jason D. Greenblatt, chief negotiator, David M. Friedman, ambassador to Israel and Jared Kushner….
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/PLO-OFFICE-WASHINGTON.jpg359640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2017-11-19 06:07:502017-11-19 06:07:50Trump administration threatens to shut down Palestinian office in Washington, D.C.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/tax_republicans_770x400-e1510356223188.jpg349640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-11-18 16:51:472017-11-18 16:52:31INFOGRAPHIC: Comparing the House and Senate Tax Bills
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) — FBI agents arrested a Portland man Thursday for reportedly producing child pornography after a criminal complaint filed against him alleged that he approached 2 young girls via an app.
Juan “Carlos” Ramon
According to the criminal complaint, Juan “Carlos” Ramon is accused of contacting 2 Louisiana girls, ages 6 and 8, via an app called “Musical.ly.”
The complaint alleges Ramon convinced the children to send him sexually explicit photos and videos of themselves. According to the complaint, Ramon contacted multiple other minors for explicit material.
[ … ]
Due to previous jobs Ramon has held, investigators believe he may have had opportunities to be in direct contact with children over a period of years.It’s believed Ramon is currently employed by El Programa Hispano Católico (Catholic Charities) in Gresham. It’s also believed he worked for Metropolitan Family Service’s SUN school program in Gresham.
[ … ]
KOIN 6 News reached out to El Programa Hispano Católico and they provided the following statement,
This afternoon, El Programa Hispano Católico and Catholic Charities were notified that an employee was arrested by the FBI on charges related to allegations of child pornography involving two minors in Louisiana. Our organizations are fully cooperating with the FBI and law enforcement officials in this investigation.
This post is filed in RRW’s ‘crimes’ category, see a couple of thousand other posts in that category by clicking here.
Multiple media outlets are reporting that Alabama Governor Kay Ivey told reporters that she will vote for Judge Roy Moore in the December Senate election to replace Jeff Sessions.
Governor Ivey said:
Yes, I’m proud to vote [for the Republican nominee Judge Roy Moore]. And I hope every Alabamian will be proud to cast their vote… Everybody needs to make sure they vote on December 12th. I’ll cast my ballot… The United States Senate, in my opinion, has to have a majority of Republican votes to carry the day when they have to consider other major decisions.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Alabama-Governor-Kay-Ivey.jpg359640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-11-18 15:13:462017-11-19 19:23:56VIDEO: Alabama Governor Kay Ivey voting for Judge Roy Moore in Senate Race
DETROIT (ChurchMilitant.com) – As sexual harassment allegations sweep the American entertainment industry, some notice that many of the alleged harassers are active supporters of the Left.
The overhaul of sexual misconduct allegations began on October 5 with a New York Times exposé targeting Hollywood film mogul Harvey Weinstein.
A number of the celebrities being accused are outspoken supporters of leftist causes. This is unsurprising, given Hollywood’s propensity for progressive politics.
Weinstein, for instance, had longstanding ties with the Democratic Party and the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton was slammed in the media for how slowly she responded to the allegations against Weinstein.
Weinstein is known for his activism against gun-rights group the National Rifle Association (NRA). Breitbart‘s John Nolte commented that Weinstein, Hollywood and the mainstream media are “anti-gun” because they are “pro-rape.” In other words, they oppose gun rights because they don’t want their potential victims to be able to defend themselves.
Another big-name celebrity whose reputation is tarnished by harassment allegations is actor Kevin Spacey. He is accused of trying to force himself onto underaged boys.
Spacey is a friend of former president Bill Clinton and a donor to the Democratic Party. In Netflix drama House of Cards, the actor played a Democratic congressman who manipulates, adulterates and (occasionally) murders his way into the White House. After the allegations of harassment, the actor was fired, and producers announced the show would go on for only more season — with Spacey’s character removed.
Reports say Spacey was also removed from upcoming film All the Money in the World, which is being reshot with Spacey’s character now being played by Christopher Plummer. Netflix also canceled a future film starring the accused celebrity.
Spacey and Weinstein are not alone in being outspoken leftists who have been accused of sexual misconduct.
Actor Jeremy Piven supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary, while Ben Affleck endorsed Hillary Clinton. Both of these men have been accused of sexual harassment.
Actor Alec Baldwin, a professed Catholic, was an outspoken Obama supporter. He is a longtime “animal rights activist,” same-sex marriage advocate and enthusiastic gun-control supporter. He too has been accused of harassment.
E! News reporter Ken Baker has been accused and is removed from broadcasting, pending a company internal investigation. He is a lax Protestant who advocates for Eastern meditation and attends the same “church” as the Kardashians.
Hamilton Fish V from left-leaning The New Republic was recently booted from his position owing to sexual misconduct allegations. In the 1990s, his same-named grandfather and father — the third and fourth generations of Republican politicians in the family line — opposed him when he ran for a U.S. Senate seat as a Democrat. He lost the election and never held office.
Church Militant has compiled a list of individuals accused of sexual misconduct in the wake of the Weinstein scandal. Similar lists have been compiled by The New York Times and Breitbart.
Our list includes all manners of celebrities connected with the entertainment and information media industries. We chose not to include government officials.
We tried to avoid linking reports with excessively graphic details. Our list has 53 entries, naming a total of 55 individuals:
New Orleans chef John Besh (stepped down and issued an apology)
Actor Jeremy Piven (denies the allegations: Late Show appearance was canceled)
Vox editorial director Lockhart Steele (fired on October 16)
Comedian Louis C.K. (admitted guilt and apologized)
Physician Lawrence G. Nassar, team doctor for U.S. Olympic gymnasts (already in jail for other sexual misconduct but now two Olympic gymnasts have accused him of harassment)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/2017-11-13-Clintons__Spacey_and_Weinstein-e1511028806544.jpg356640Church Militanthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChurch Militant2017-11-18 13:16:412017-11-18 15:05:26VIDEO: Ties between Hollywood Sex Abuse and the Left
PARIS (ChurchMilitant.com) – Faithful Catholics were forcibly removed and arrested for praying the Rosary in a Catholic church in Paris.
In response to an ecumenical service held in the Parish of Our Lady of White Mantles commemorating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, about a dozen young Catholic men made reparation for what they deemed a sacrilege by praying French and Latin prayers and hymns during the service. After jeers from Catholics and Protestants in attendance, the men were arrested, some carried out of the church.
Caroline Bretones, the “pastor” of the United Protestant Church of the Marais, was invited to speak in the Catholic parish, dressed in clerics and appearing as a female “priest.”
Medias-Presse-Info, a French speaking site, posted the video, noting, “The madness being without limit, these young Catholics were evacuated manu militari [with military aid] by the police for having prayed the Rosary in a Catholic church!”
“Young Catholics have expressed their opposition to seeing Protestantism, fought and condemned by the popes and the Council of Trent for centuries, to infiltrate the Catholic Church today,” the article continues.
While the organist tried to drown out the men’s voices, it was clear many of those in attendance were angered by the men’s presence. Some argued with the men and harassed them, one lady even smacking one of them in the face with a piece of paper. They continued kneeling in prayer until police arrived and forcibly removed them.
While much of what is being said is unintelligible owing to the the loud organ music, you can hear them singing Christus Vincit, “Christ Victorious,” when police remove them from the church.
Father Benoît-Marie Roque, the parish priest of Our Lady of White Mantles, wrote about the event on the parish website, noting that just over 150 people attended and they had “a celebration, obviously not eucharistic, whose stakes were strongly emphasized by different events.”
Father Roque explained that preparations for the event took a long time. Leaders of different parishes met with groups led by video “reflections” from the various clergy. Together, they developed “95 Reasons to Hope,” a collection of biblical passages to counter Martin Luther’s 95 theses.
Interior of the church from 1808
The vast majority of comments on Medias-Presse-Info are supportive of the young men. One comment left by a man named Patrick reads:
I see a lady dancing in the church, young people who are being attacked by another lady who hits them with leaves and treats them as “[expletive]”. Then the police intervene to brutally expel young people who are praying. One of the police officers holds one of the youngsters firmly by the collar to talk to him. Is this the way for a representative of the order [to behave]? Then,as they continue to pray, they are lined up against a wall. The police take them out one by one as if they were going to the scaffold.
Our Lady of the White Mantles has been “a sanctuary dedicated to the Virgin (Aunnunciation) since 1258.” A number of church buildings have stood on that spot, with construction of current one started in 1685. The history of the parish explains, “Notre-Dame des Blancs-Manteaux is, presumably, in Paris, with the Cathedral and after it, the oldest sanctuary dedicated to [Our Lady].”
This event follows a similar protest at the cathedral of St. Michael and St. Cudula in Brussels in late October. The cathedral was the site of an attack by Protestants in the 16th century where Protestants destroyed sacred images they called “idolatrous.”
There, 12 men linked arms while reciting the Rosary to make reparations for an ecumencial service commemorating the Protestant Reformation. The protestors were heckled by people there to “celebrate,” while the organ and choir attempted to drown out the sound of their prayers before police arrived to remove them from the church.
One of the men spoke with Church Militant, who asked to remain anonymous, explaining his inspiration.
“We didn’t do it in a spirit of polemics towards faithful priests,” he clarified, “just in a spirit of reparation and resistance against profanation and celebration of a revolt against the Holy Catholic Church.”
He added, “We were in part inspired by The Catholic Gentleman, and I also listen to your Resistance podcasts for some good advice, of course. I’m a regular viewer of ChurchMilitant.com content.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/2017-11-14-2017-e1511028231415.jpg387640Church Militanthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngChurch Militant2017-11-18 13:04:092017-11-18 13:04:09VIDEO: French Catholics forcibly removed, arrested for praying Rosary in Church
COP 23, the UN climate conference in Bonn, Germany, ended with a coal-powered whimper.
The point of the meeting was to write the rule book for the Paris Climate Agreement that President Obama signed the U.S. onto.
President Trump then declared that the U.S. would exit Paris and make no future payments to the UN’s Green Climate Fund upon which President Obama lavished $1 billion on his way out the door.
Paris calls for developed nations such as the U.S., Europeans, Japan, Canada and Australia to redistribute $100 billion starting in 2020. That doesn’t seem very likely. China and India don’t have to pay, by the way.
The island nation of Fiji chaired the COP and joined a host of poor countries in calling for the cash to start flowing. They wanted “accelerated payments” even before Paris begins. That money is, after all, the reason the poor nations signed on.They also want the developed world to assume liability for their “loss and damage” when they experience weather-related losses. It is important that we never agree to pay compensation for what, in reality, are naturally occurring weather events. President Trump and the U.S. team were effective here in leading Europe and the rest in once again keeping loss and damage out the Paris Agreement. COP 23 agreed to create a panel to “study” the issue and to make much smaller amounts available to developing nations. That line must be held going forward.
Another key issue is the degree to which national reporting of emissions efforts will be transparent and verifiable. The COP adopted some language on this, but China, the largest and fastest growing CO2 emitter, continues to resist verifiable standards. They claim verification would be “too expensive.” The satirical news site The Onion posted a brilliant headline on this a few years ago, “China Vows To Begin Aggressively Falsifying Air Pollution Numbers.” Satire has a way of becoming all too real.
The level at which the rhetoric at COP 23, even from official negotiators, heads of state and elected officials, is divorced from the scientific facts on climate continues to astound.
When the President of Fiji tells the world that his island is already hard hit by global warming, and that last year’s Cyclone Winston was a product of climate change, he is way off. It is tragic that 42 people lost their lives last year in Fiji. However, they did not die because we drive cars and use electricity.
When disaster strikes the U.S. helps, not because, we are to blame, but because we are good neighbors. Attributing natural weather to climate change as a rationale for redistribution of wealth needs to stop.
Climate pressure groups put out this nonsense, left-wing climate campaigners chant it in the halls, an unquestioning press prints it, and it ends up part of the official UN climate dialogue. These narratives are unsupported by facts. Check out Climate Depot’s extreme weather report for substantial details.
Next year’s COP 24 will be in Katowice, Poland. The Poles underbid and won the right to host the COP. We couldn’t think of a better venue. Katowice is in the heart of Poland’s vital coal mining industry. Local Poles are keenly aware that the UN is targeting their livelihood and Poland’s energy independence for extinction. Like the coal miners in The Hunger Games District 12, they are ready to revolt.
Poland has a unique perspective. The Poles experienced the tragedy of Socialist central planning up close and personal. They’ve had enough and are shocked when spoiled westerners come back for more. They certainly don’t want to depend on Russian natural gas to keep their lights on.
We look forward to ensuring the UN hears the real facts on global warming from CFACT and the Poles loud and clear.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/COP24-in-Katowice-e1511026866575.jpg360640Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2017-11-18 12:41:352017-11-18 12:42:20From COP23 in Fiji to COP24 in Katowice the heart of Polish coal country
A few weeks ago I was joined by my favorite energy economist, Michael Lynch, for a fireside chat hosted by Harvard Business School. It was a great discussion and the audience asked a lot of thoughtful questions. You can now view the video of that event:
Mr. Epstein Goes to Washington
I’ll be in DC the week of November 27 to share my approach to reframing the energy debate with some high-level officials. It looks like I’ll be speaking to the Congressional Coal Caucus on Wednesday, November 29. On November 30, I’ll be speaking at the Crossroads IV: Energy and Climate Policy Summit in Washington, D.C. The event is presented by the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Heritage Foundation and includes some of the world’s leading scientists, policy makers, entrepreneurs, and energy experts. I will be speaking on the moral case for fossil fuels. The event is nearly sold out, but there will be a waiting list. You can find more information at https://www.crossroads-summit.com.
ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.
Hire me to speak at your next event.
Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications. Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.
Hold a Constructive Conversation workshop.
For the last two years I have been testing and refining an approach to one-on-one conversations that anybody can use. I call it the Constructive Conversation Formula. If you have between 5-20 people who interact frequently with stakeholders and want custom guidance on how to win hearts and minds, just reply to this email and put “Workshop” in the subject line.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/epstein-harvard-e1511023096328.png347640Alex Epsteinhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAlex Epstein2017-11-18 11:38:452017-11-18 11:41:44VIDEO: Alex Epstein — Harvard Business School Fireside Chat
Less than three hours after the tragedy at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was looking to score political points. As is his custom, Murphy fired off a tweet admonishing his colleagues for their refusal to submit to the gun control lobby’s agenda. However, in the following hours, as more information about the shooting became available, it became clear the event didn’t fit so neatly into Murphy’s preconceived anti-gun narrative.
Reports began to come out that an armed citizen, later identified as NRA Member and former NRA Instructor Stephen Willeford, had engaged the shooter with his own firearm, prompting the killer to flee the scene. With little information and no qualms about denigrating the brave actions of an American hero, the omniscient Murphy tweeted, “Let’s be clear – nobody ‘stopped’ this shooting…” At the time Willeford engaged the shooter, there were at least 20 people still alive inside the church. A heart-rending account provided to the Washington Post by David Brown, son of wounded churchgoer Farida Brown, made clear that Farida Brown feared the shooter was not finished killing when Willeford came on the scene.
Murphy’s attempt to dismiss Willeford’s courageous response to the shooting is in keeping with gun control advocates’ longstanding messaging efforts and shows the depths anti-gun activists will sink to bury the facts. According to these gun-control proponents, good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns.
In order to justify this position, gun control activists ignore cases where armed civilians have put a halt to mass violence. Like a perverse Goldilocks, gun controllers will discount cases where a criminal was stopped before they were able to carry out sufficient carnage, and, as in the case of the shooting in Southerland Springs, dismiss a case where the killer was able to exact significant violence before an armed citizen could arrive.
When you look past gun control advocates and much of the media’s biased filtering, there are a number of documented cases where armed citizens have confronted these types of killers and likely saved lives. Here are just a handful:
On August 1, 1966, a madman went to the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin Tower and began firing at those on the ground, eventually killing 14. During the shooting, several citizens retrieved their personal firearms and returned fire. According to a university effort to compile a complete historical record of the incident, “The ground fire did pin down Whitman, most likely keeping him from killing more people.” One eyewitness told Texas Monthly in 2006, “It seemed like every other guy had a rifle. There was a sort of cowboy atmosphere, this ‘Let’s get him’ spirit.”
On January 16, 2002, a disgruntled former student returned to Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va. and shot two school officials. According to an account from student Tracy Bridges printed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, he and fellow student Michael Gross retrieved firearms from their vehicles and went to confront the shooter. Along with two other students, Bridges and Gross were able to subdue the killer until police could arrive. In his book, The Bias Against Guns, Economist John Lott pointed out that “out of 208 news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just four stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.”
On December 9, 2007, a man entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. after having killed two people earlier in day at a Christian center in Arvada, Colo. The killer was met by volunteer armed church security guard Jeanne Assam. Describing her actions, Assam said, “I took cover. I identified myself. I engaged him. I took him down.” Following the incident, Church Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam a hero and explained, “Three people are needlessly dead, but many more lives could have been lost.”
On April 17, 2015, a man fired into a crowd of people in Chicago’s Logan Square. John Hendricks, an Uber driver and Right-to-Carry permit holder, drew a handgun and shot the assailant, who collapsed onto the sidewalk. Recalling his experience for the Chicago Tribune, Hendricks explained, “There was a threat to me and I helped somebody in the process as well… It’s a positive feeling.”
On May 5, 2015, a deranged man drove into the parking lot of a fire station in New Holland, S.C. According to a report from WIS-TV, several children and firefighters were in the lot. The man then exited his vehicle with a firearm and shot into the air and at his own automobile. Firefighter Gary Knoll and one of his colleagues, both Right-to-Carry permit holders, drew firearms and confronted the man. Knoll and his colleagues were able to disarm the man and detain him until police could arrive. Speaking to the local media about the importance of exercising the Right-to-Carry, Knoll said, “It saved a life, if not multiple.”
On May 3, 2017, a man entered the Zona Caliente sports bar in Arlington, Texas, began speaking incoherently, and opened fire. At the time of the shooting, there were more than a dozen people inside the restaurant. A patron, who was also a Right-to-Carry permit holder, shot and killed the shooter, ending the incident. Arlington Police Spokesman Christopher Cook told the Dallas Morning News that the armed citizen was a “hero,” and noted that he “prevented further loss of life.”
In an interview with NRA, Willeford recalled the moment when he became aware of the gunfire at the church and said, “I kept hearing those shots and I knew every shot might be representing another person getting hit by a bullet.” Acting as fast as he could, Willeford retrieved his rifle, grabbed a handful of ammunition, and raced out his door barefoot towards the church. Anyone who has seen the NRA video, or Willeford’s other interviews, can see the anguish of a man who wishes he could have done even more to protect his community. Maybe Willeford’s heroic response wasn’t enough for Murphy to consider him a good guy with a gun, but the survivors in Sutherland Springs and the decent portion of America likely disagree.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ignore-key-e1511006797982.jpg360640NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2017-11-18 07:12:292017-11-26 07:31:12Gun Controllers Choose to Ignore Cases of Good Guys with Guns
Most Americans consider Stephen Willeford a hero for bravely ending the rampage of a crazed murderer at a Texas church … but not former Vice President Joe Biden. During a national television appearance on Monday, Biden dismissed the Texan’s valorous actions, going so far as to say he shouldn’t have been carrying the AR-15 he used to stop the killer.
A young woman named Brianna asked him, “So with the tragedy that just happened in Texas, my question is, how do you justify the Democratic view on gun control when the shooter was stopped by a man who was legally licensed to carry a gun?”
It’s a fair question, given that the Democratic Party Platform labels AR-15s like the one Mr. Willeford used to defend his community “weapons of war” that must be taken “off our streets.”
And true to form, Biden completely ignored the fact that Willeford used his rifle to save innocent lives.
“Well, first all,” Biden replied without hesitation, “the kind of gun being carried, he shouldn’t be carrying.”
Biden then went on to explain how he himself wrote the federal “assault weapons” ban in effect from 1994 to 2004.
Yet Willeford himself has stressed that the type of firearm he used was a key factor in stopping the threat. “If I had run out of the house with a pistol and faced a bulletproof vest and kevlar and helmets,” he said in an interview, “it might have been futile.”
“Number two,” Biden continued, “it’s just rational to say, certain people shouldn’t have guns. Now the fact that some people with guns are legally able to acquire a gun, and they turn out to be crazy after the fact, that’s life, and there’s nothing you can do about that. But we can save a lot of lives, and we’ve stopped tens of thousands of people who shouldn’t have guns from getting guns.”
Biden’s second point, given the question asked, was incoherent or non-responsive. Either Biden was suggesting Stephen Willeford was crazy and shouldn’t have had a gun, or he was simply pivoting to a familiar gun control talking point to deflect the uncomfortable fact that he had just suggested that Willeford shouldn’t have had access to the AR-15 that he used to end the Sutherland Springs shooting.
Biden’s more general point – that even some legal gun owners can later resort to bad behavior – has no relevance to the situation in Texas. The murderer was not a legal gun owner, and he did not obtain his crime guns legally. Thanks to a bureaucratic screw-up – exactly the sort of human fallibility that no law can cure – the criminal history information that would have disqualified the killer was never reported to the background check system. In other words, the very system that gun-control proponents seek to expand to all firearm transfers failed in exactly the situation where it might have done some good.
It says something about Joe Biden and his brand of politics that he is incapable of recognizing American heroism and goodness when it conflicts with his preordained agenda.
Two men had similar firearms on that awful day in Sutherland Springs, Texas. The assailant had obtained his gun in defiance of the law, as bad men usually do. If Joe Biden had his way, the good guy who stopped him wouldn’t have had his gun at all.
And make no mistake, if Stephen Willeford can’t own a gun in Joe Biden’s America, none of the rest of us would make the cut, either.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/joe-biden-2-e1511006031546.jpg360640NRA Institute for Legislative Actionhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNRA Institute for Legislative Action2017-11-18 06:54:282017-11-18 06:57:39Joe Biden: Hero Who Ended Texas Rampage Shouldn’t Have Had His Gun
Raymond Cardinal Burke gave a powerful interview to Edwin Pentin of the National Catholic Register earlier this week. He explained why he continues to seek authoritative clarity on the meaning of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) by asking Pope Francis to respond to the five dubia that he and three other cardinals submitted well over a year ago.
Cardinal Burke spoke about a problem with AL’s opening up of exceptions (footnote 351) to the Church’s refusal to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to the reception of Holy Communion. The main problem, he believes, concerns our understanding of the nature of the sacraments:
The decisive criterion for admission to the sacraments has always been the coherence of a person’s way of life with the teachings of Jesus. If instead the decisive criterion were now to become the absence of a person’s subjective culpability – as some interpreters of Amoris Laetitia have suggested – would this not change the very nature of the sacraments? In fact, the sacraments are not private encounters with God, nor are they means of social integration into a community. Rather, they are visible and effective signs of our incorporation into Christ and his Church, in and by which the Church publicly professes and actuates her faith. Thus, by turning a person’s subjective diminished culpability or lack of culpability into the decisive criterion for the admission to the sacraments, one would endanger the very regula fidei, the rule of faith, which the sacraments proclaim and actuate not only by words, but also by visible gestures.
The worthy reception of Holy Communion presupposes that one believes what the Church teaches about the nature of the Holy Eucharist, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Hence, it is God’s gift of Himself to his chosen friends.
Also presupposed for worthy reception of Holy Communion is that one is living one’s life according to the law laid down by Christ and taught by His Church. The Lord said: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” (Lk 16:18) The only faithful and morally praiseworthy response of a believer to this divine teaching is never to do that.
If, however, a Catholic were for some reason to enter into such an adulterous public union by attempting a second marriage, the Church in her charity must remind him of his grave violation of the word of the Lord. Any claim by the civilly remarried Catholic that his conduct is not gravely sinful because he “cannot at this time” live up to the demands of Christ’s law should be greeted with a charitable and unwavering reminder that no one is obliged to commit mortal sin – that God calls him to refrain from sin, and gives him the grace to do so.
It is up to him to cooperate with that grace. If he continues to commits acts of adultery with someone he civilly married after ceasing to cohabit with his wife, knowing that God does not want him to do so, he is responsible before God and the Church for public defiance of God’s will in a grave matter.
For anyone in the Church to countenance, tolerate, or in any way approve of that man’s continued living in a state of sin, in which he knowingly commits acts of adultery, is a monumental betrayal of the Lord’s call to admonish and assist sinners to “go and sin no more.” (Jn 8:11) The Church’s shepherds must never tell the wandering sheep to keep wandering in fields of grave immorality, but rather draw them back to the green pastures of truth and holiness where sin is rejected, not somehow justified.
Cardinal Burke identifies another troubling aspect of the debate about AL, namely that the Holy Eucharist is treated by some as a “means of social integration into a community.” Holy Communion is not a token of public recognition as a member of the Church by the Church’s shepherds. If that were the case, then any denial of Holy Communion to anyone would be equivalent to throwing someone out. One enters the Church by baptism, and that can never be undone. Thus a baptized Catholic is always a member of the Church, his membership cannot disintegrate or end because his baptism cannot be undone.
The canonical penalty of excommunication does not involve throwing someone out of the Church, but rather penalizing him by depriving him of certain goods that the Church administers in order to call him to repentance. Membership in the Church includes the obligation to live in communion with God by living according to God’s law. Those who live that law more perfectly are holier than other believers, but they are not in some way more a member of the Church.
Likewise, those who fail to live a holy way of life are still members of the Church. Those who turn themselves away from God’s law in serious matters need to know that they are failing in their primary duty to God, which is to worship him “in spirit and in truth.” (Jn 4:24) They do not need to be told that perhaps they can invoke in advance a claim of inculpability for grave sin by virtue of a supposed inability to do what God asks them to do.
The Christian life is about living in the truth that sets us free. (Jn 8:32) Christ’s truth about divorce, remarriage, and adultery sets us free from a sinful way of life. The duty of the Church is to proclaim that truth by all available means. Any pastoral approach that would encourage people to continue to live in contradiction to that truth by claiming that some sinners cannot stop sinning is profoundly erroneous. Rather, we must in charity say to those in adulterous unions: cease such behavior, and until you do so, the Church will not give you Holy Communion. That is the most loving thing we can do for those caught in the web of sin.
Fr. Gerald E. Murray
The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. is pastor of Holy Family Church, New York, NY, and a canon lawyer.
Friends: Even in these troubled times for the Church and the world, faithful bishops and priests are many, but not as publicly visible as they ought to be. Today’s column brings you two who are both faithful and visible: Cardinal Raymond Burke (who needs no introduction) and my now-longtime colleague in the EWTN Papal Posse, Fr. Gerald Murray. I think I first crossed paths with Fr. Murray in 1998 when we had dinner together in Havana during JPII’s visit to Cuba. In 2013, along with Raymond Arroyo and Fr. Roger Landry (now part of the Holy See Mission to the U.N.), we renewed the acquaintance over the two weeks we all spent together covering the papal conclave that elected Pope Francis. If there is a more straightforward, levelheaded, courageous and candid priest/canon lawyer, I haven’t met him. We’ve done all that EWTN work without compensation – or rather, a part of the support we receive from you helps towards preparing those television appearances, our reports from Rome (we did several together during the synods on the family), and related columns on this site. Many of you tell me that is some of the most important work we are doing and that’s why we both make room in our schedules for it whenever necessary. If you value all that, please, now is the time to show it by making a generous contribution to The Catholic Thing. – Robert Royal
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/RULE-OF-FAITH-JESUS-e1511004825611.jpg359640The Catholic Thinghttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Catholic Thing2017-11-18 06:33:532017-11-18 06:34:07Cardinal Burke on the Rule of Faith
Trump Administration’s 2 Priorities for Welfare Reform Executive Order
/in Budget and Finance, Culture War, Featured, Policy, Politics, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily SignalPresident Donald Trump is making welfare reform a major priority and will sign an executive order laying out the administration’s goals while also urging action by Congress, a White House official said Thursday.
Trump’s executive order will be twofold, said Paul Winfree, director of budget policy at the White House. The order will state the Trump administration’s principles for welfare reform of empowering individuals and learning from state and local initiatives, and then direct federal agencies to come back to the president with recommendations for implementing the principles.
“Welfare reform is something that is very important to the president,” Winfree said during a panel discussion at The Heritage Foundation’s anti-poverty forum on Thursday. “It’s something that excites him. It’s something that he has a lot of energy about.”
The White House is also working with Congress on reform proposals, Winfree said, but in the short term is looking at what federal agencies can do unilaterally. The federal government has 89 different welfare programs spread across 14 departments and agencies.
Winfree explained the two priorities of Trump’s upcoming executive order.
The last sweeping welfare reform package came more than two decades ago, passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton. However, Robert Rector, who helped shape some of the 1996 bill, said new improvements are needed.
“The current welfare system harms the very poor that it’s trying to help,” Rector, a senior research fellow for domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, said. “We need a reformed welfare system that promotes work and marriage, and rewards outcomes rather than simply greater spending.”
The Heritage Foundation is supportive of the principles in several proposals in Congress now.
A bill by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and companion House bill by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, would require all welfare programs to strengthen existing work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program; and establish a real work requirement in food stamps. Separately, a bill by Rep. Garrett Graves would require work requirements for the food stamp program.
Other members of Congress have talked about saving $15 billion annually by eliminating fraud, waste, and excessive benefits in the earned income tax credit, while making the program more encouraging of work. Others call for removing the marriage penalty with regards to welfare programs.
VIDEO: Why Amnesty Should Not Be Part of any ‘Deal’ on DACA
/in Culture War, Immigration, National Security, Policy, Video, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily SignalTalk of amnesty deals are making the rounds again in Washington. Here’s what you need to know.
Apparently, the battles over tax reform, Obamacare, and the looming spending bill aren’t enough to keep Congress busy. There are increasing rumblings that some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are looking for ways to give legal status to illegal aliens currently in the United States.
When President Donald Trump was candidate Trump, he promised that if elected he would end the program known as DACA—the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals that gave legal status to illegal aliens brought to the U.S. as minors.
The program was one of President Barack Obama’s most famous and arguably unconstitutional runs around Congress. He couldn’t get lawmakers to do what he wanted so he took it upon himself to create a new law via unilateral executive action.
Not exactly what the Framers likely had in mind if you read Articles I and II of the Constitution on the roles of the legislative and executive branches of government.
Which is why the Trump administration’s Department of Justice was absolutely right earlier this year to announce a six-month wind-down of the program with an end date next March. And because Congress, not the president, has the power to make or alter our laws, the ball is now back in its court.
Unfortunately, the only actions many in Congress seem interested in taking when it comes to immigration reform are the tried and true failed policies of the past.
Give amnesty now to those here illegally with a promise of later securing the border and doing the hard work to improve our country’s immigration system.
Democrats are threatening to shut down the government if so-called “Dreamers” aren’t given a “pathway to citizenship” in the end-of-year spending bill Congress must pass in early December.
Meanwhile, some Republicans are also considering various legislative amnesties, including a Senate proposal dubbed SUCCEED, the Solution for Undocumented Children Through Careers, Employment, Education, and Defending Our Nation Act.
Here’s the deal: Whether it’s granting amnesty outright—as Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and a host of other Democrats want to do—or whether it’s granting amnesty to those here illegally if they agree to jump through some additional loopholes, it’s still amnesty and it is still unfair to the millions of people trying to come here legally.
And, oh, by the way, it does not solve our illegal immigration problem. History and previous flawed actions by Congress prove it makes it worse.
We tried in 1986 when we gave legal status, supposedly a one-time deal, to 2.7 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S. Fast forward to 2017, and we have 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants now living here.
And all the border security and serious enforcement measures promised in 1986 that were going to come later? They never materialized.
More recently, there was the surge in illegal border crossings during Obama’s second term as the president handed out promises of amnesty through executive orders and his administration did little to enforce our immigration laws.
Proponents of amnesty and those who don’t want to do the hard work of real immigration reform are likely to dangle smaller and unpopular measures like getting rid of diversity visas in exchange for granting amnesty to the DACA population.
There’s no doubt that the Diversity Visa Lottery Program needs to go, but we shouldn’t trade one bad policy for another.
The same goes for debates over family, or what is popularly referred to as chain migration, workplace visa programs, sanctuary cities, border security measures, and how to improve the legal immigration process itself. All of these policies should be debated on their individual merits and whether they benefit America.
Immigration, both legal and illegal, impacts our country’s culture, economy, and security.
Some in Congress may be tempted to play “let’s make a deal” on amnesty and pretend they are doing something about our broken immigration system.
It’s time lawmakers know that game is over.
COMMENTARY BY
Genevieve Wood
Genevieve Wood advances policy priorities of The Heritage Foundation as senior contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Genevieve. Twitter: @genevievewood.
Meet These 5 Stellar Conservatives Trump Just Added to His Supreme Court List
/in Commentary, Courts & Law, Culture War, Policy/by The Daily SignalOn Friday, President Donald Trump announced the addition of five individuals to his outstanding list of potential candidates for a future Supreme Court vacancy.
As was the case with the lists Trump put out during his presidential campaign, these new additions to the list are conservative men and women who are committed to interpreting the Constitution according to its original public meaning.
While there are currently no vacancies on the Supreme Court, rumors abound that Justice Anthony Kennedy may retire in the near future. Here’s a look at the new names.
Amy Barrett
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit
Age: Approximately 45
Barrett, a former University of Notre Dame law professor, was recently confirmed to the 7th Circuit. After graduating from Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School, Barrett clerked for Judge Laurence Silberman on the D.C. Circuit and Justice Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court.
She then worked in private practice (where she was part of the team that represented George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore) before starting her career in academia, teaching briefly at George Washington University and the University of Virginia before joining the Notre Dame Law faculty in 2002.
Barrett is a prolific writer, having published in leading law reviews across the country on topics including originalism, federal court jurisdiction, and the supervisory power of the Supreme Court.
In 2010, Chief Justice John Roberts appointed her to the Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, where she served for six years.
At her confirmation hearing in September, Senate Democrats chided her for her writings as a law student in 1998 and asked inappropriate questions about her Catholic faith. But Barrett received robust bipartisan support from the legal community, including from Neal Katyal, a prominent liberal who served as President Barack Obama’s acting solicitor general.
Britt Grant
Justice, Supreme Court of Georgia
Age: Approximately 39
Appointed to Georgia’s highest court by Gov. Nathan Deal in 2016, Grant previously served as the state’s solicitor general and in other capacities in the state attorney general’s office. She also worked in the George W. Bush administration, serving on the Domestic Policy Council and the Office of Cabinet Affairs.
Grant began working at the White House weeks before the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, and after that horrific day, her mission became making government “as effective as it can be and as protective of liberty as it can be.”
Earlier in her career, she served as an aide to then-Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., on Capitol Hill, clerked for Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the D.C. Circuit, and worked in private practice at Kirkland & Ellis, one of the top appellate law firms in Washington, D.C.
She is a graduate of Stanford Law School and Wake Forest University.
Listen to SCOTUS 101: Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates bring you up to speed on their Supreme Court podcast.
In a letter recommending her appointment to the state’s high court, Kavanaugh praised Grant’s “superb” writing, which is “[o]ne of the most important duties” of judges. In her 11 months on the bench, she’s heard numerous cases and displayed her excellent writing abilities.
In a recent decision reinstating criminal charges against a woman who secretly filmed her boss in the nude, Grant wrote a special concurrence agreeing with the judgment but not the reasoning of the majority. The majority analogized a state law criminalizing “hostile intrusion or surveillance” by a private party with the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She explained, “[t]he statute cannot bear the weight that the Fourth Amendment puts on it when addressing the behavior of private parties and not of the government” and that it “addresses a privacy interest quite different than the one that we all share against government search and seizure.”
Brett Kavanaugh
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Age: 52
A former clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy and graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, Kavanaugh worked as a senior associate counsel and assistant to President George W. Bush and as an associate independent counsel.
He was nominated to the D.C. Circuit in 2003 but not confirmed until 2006.
Former Attorney General William Barr stated that Kavanaugh “quickly established himself as one of the key outside lawyers I went to on some of my toughest legal issues. He has a keen intellect, exceptional analytical skills, and sound judgment. His writing is fluid and precise. I found that he was able to see all sides of an issue and appreciate the strengths and weakness of competing approaches. He was particularly effective in dealing with novel issues which required some original thinking.”
Since joining the bench, Kavanaugh has distinguished himself as a thoughtful, apolitical jurist, who is not afraid to stake out bold positions on complex issues. We included him on The Heritage Foundation’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Kavanaugh recently delivered the annual Joseph Story Distinguished Lecture at Heritage—joining the ranks of Justice Clarence Thomas and many other renowned federal judges. He spoke eloquently about the judiciary’s essential role in maintaining the separation of powers.
Watch Judge Kavanaugh’s Speech at The Heritage Foundation:
Kevin Newsom
Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
Age: Approximately 45
Kevin Newsom, former all-star appellate lawyer, was confirmed to the 11th Circuit in August. After graduating from Samford University and Harvard Law School, Newsom clerked for Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain on the 9th Circuit and Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. He then worked in private practice before serving as Alabama’s solicitor general.
After five years of government service, Newsom went back to private practice where he became a partner at Birmingham’s Bradley Arant.
Before joining the bench, Newsom had an extensive Supreme Court practice, arguing four cases at the high court and authoring dozens of cert. petitions and amicus briefs. Newsom has won countless awards for his work, including the National Association of Attorneys General’s Best Brief Award four times.
He has argued more than 30 cases in federal appellate courts across the country as well as in Alabama’s appellate courts. In 2011, Roberts, the chief justice, appointed Newsom to the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules.
Patrick Wyrick
Justice, Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Age: 36
Patrick Wyrick is the youngest person on the Trump list, at 36 years old. Then again, Joseph Story was only 32 when he was nominated by President James Madison to serve as an associate justice to the Supreme Court, a position in which he served with great distinction for nearly 34 years.
Wyrick was appointed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court last February, after serving as the state’s solicitor general for six years.
As solicitor general, Wyrick argued cases before the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and also successfully argued Glossip v. Gross (a case challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection) before the U.S. Supreme Court.
A graduate of the University of Oklahoma and that school’s College of Law, Wyrick clerked for U.S. District Court Judge James Payne.
When Wyrick was nominated to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, then-State Attorney General Scott Pruitt described Wyrick as “a superb lawyer” and “a constitutional scholar well-versed in both state and federal law … ” He added that Wyrick’s “wisdom, compassion, and integrity are unparalleled among the many public servants with whom I’ve had the pleasure of working.”
In his short time on the bench, Wyrick has written some noteworthy opinions, including the majority opinion in a case striking down a fee that the Oklahoma Legislature imposed on cigarette companies for violating a provision in the Oklahoma Constitution that sets forth the procedures that must be followed before enacting a “revenue raising” measure.
Although young, Wyrick’s meteoric legal career could ultimately land him on the high court.
We commend the president for taking the utmost care in continuing to identify outstanding individuals to serve on all levels of the federal bench.
COMMENTARY BY
John G. Malcolm
John G. Malcolm oversees The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law as director of the think tank’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research. Twitter: @malcolm_john.
Elizabeth Slattery
Elizabeth Slattery writes about the rule of law, the proper role of the courts, civil rights and equal protection, and the scope of constitutional provisions such as the Commerce Clause and the Recess Appointments Clause as a legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read her research. Twitter: @EHSlattery.
Tiffany Bates
Tiffany Bates serves as legal policy analyst in the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @TiffanyHBates.
A Note for our Readers:
Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.
Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.
Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.
Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.
The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.
Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.
Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.
You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.
Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.
SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL
Look Ahead in the Middle East: 6-12 Months in a Crystal Ball
/in National Security, Policy, Politics/by Wallace BruschweilerIs it Utopia or Reality?
By Wallace Bruschweiler and William Palumbo
The purpose of this article is to examine the current and rapidly developing trends in the Middle East, and attempt to project likely scenarios in the near to middle-term future. Only time will tell if what we are projecting as possible is a utopia, or will in fact become reality.
Background
In June 2009, then U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama went to Cairo and delivered a speech at Cairo University. It was co-hosted by Al-Azhar University, the preeminent theological seminary in the Islamic world. Observing this speech from the front rows – specifically requested by Obama – were members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the umbrella organization of Islamic terror, from which groups like Al Qaeda, the Abu Sayaff Group, and ISIS are ultimately derived.
This speech, entitled “A New Beginning,” was the thematic basis for the Obama presidency. Ultimately, the administration would back the Muslim Brotherhood (and other, aligned terrorists groups) in the so-called Arab Spring to overthrow the existing governments in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya (while ignoring a genuine uprising in 2009 in Iran, see here). Syria and Jordan were also targets of these Arab Spring uprisings. Fast-forward to 2015, and the Obama administration had completed what they consider their crowning foreign policy achievement: a “nuclear deal” with Iran, that the administration claimed would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and the requisite rocket technology to deliver the warheads. In praxis, however, the deal legitimized Iran internationally, increased their regional prestige, and emboldened their territorial ambitions – see Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
The net-net result of Obama’s backing of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood and the terrorist regime in Tehran was a reckoning between several regional powers who had, and have, an interest in containing Iranian influence. In particular, Egypt, Israel, and Saudi Arabia – notably, all historically American allies – are coordinating and acting to check the expansion of Iranian power while simultaneously attempting to contain the spread of terrorism, which routinely reaches the shores of Europe and America. Moreover, the struggle today largely breaks down into a Sunni (led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia) vs. Shiite (led by Iran) confrontation.
Saudi Arabia
Probably the most visible and promising changes to the region are happening in Saudi Arabia, under the rule of its young and reform-minded Prince, Mohammed bin Sultan (aka “MBS”).
When President Donald Trump traveled to Riyadh on his first-ever trip abroad, he famously placed his hands on a glowing purple globe, alongside King Salman and President el-Sisi of Egypt. At the time, the symbolism was not completely understood. Today, however, we can put it simply: with that act of pageantry, he signaled to the world that he would reverse Obama’s failed “diplomacy” and embrace the new alliance that had already formed. In recent weeks, evidence is overwhelming:
Israel
Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu undoubtedly recognizes the historical import of the moment, as the Arab world, led by Saudi Arabia, seems likely to reach a lasting peace with the Jewish state. The opportunity also presents a unique chance to finally settle the Palestinian problem in Judea and Sumaria (i.e., West Bank).
In addition to the developments above, Israeli policy can be observed through the lens of the following events and trends:
Egypt
As president of the most populous Arab country, el-Sisi has led the calls for reform of Islam since his coming into power. Not only did he call out the Imams at Al-Azhar for promoting murder of non-Muslims, but he has remained dedicated to eradicating the Muslim Brotherhood’s influence within Egypt. In conjunction with aggressive military operations against neighboring terrorists, this puts el-Sisi in a serious security dilemma.
Jordan
The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has, for decades, worked with Israeli and western security services. King Abdullah Hussein of Jordan, a western-educated Arab ruler who dresses in a suit, faces an extremely delicate internal political situation. The Muslim Brotherhood, and lately Hamas, are powerfully represented in Jordan’s government, and as such the King’s friendly stance with Israel is muted out of concern for domestic unrest.
Yemen
Yemen, to Saudi Arabia’s south, is in the midst of a civil war/insurrection. The Houthi rebels, located in former North Yemen, are being armed by Iran. Tensions escalated with Riyadh when a second rocket was fired at King Khalid airport from Yemen.
Syria
Bashar al-Assad, with the aid of Russia, remains in control of much of Syria including Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs. The war will enter its seventh year this January, and Assad will likely remain in control. Israel and Egypt are not opposed to Assad’s rule, and the Russian footprint means that the territory under government control will not be surrendered.
Iraq
With Iran-friendly Shiite rule in Baghdad, it is difficult to consider eastern Iraq an independent country. Iraq is effectively divided into three territories today: a Shiite dominated center east, with Kurds in the North, and Sunnis to the west and south.
Kurdistan
The Arab Spring, the rise and fall of ISIS, and a long and distinct history make the formation of an independent Kurdistan more likely than ever. The United States should finally step up in this discussion, and back the creation of an independent Kurdistan.
UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain
These tiny Gulf States have effectively lined up firmly behind Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Sultan. With the exception of Qatar (see below), they are de facto aligned with Egypt and Israel.
Qatar
The outlier on the Arabian Peninsula, Qatar, is defiant in the face of sanctions and diplomatic isolation by the Gulf Cooperation Council. Qatar’s network Al Jazeera was instrumental in promoting the Arab Spring, and their insistence on maintaining excellent relations with Iran are unacceptable to their Gulf State neighbors.
Conclusion
Following World War I (1918) and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (1924), the borders of the Middle East were redrawn, largely arbitrarily, creating several nations with natural flash points among and within themselves. The history of last century in the Middle East is the story of these flash points, resulting from religious, ethnic, and linguistic divides.
An unintended consequence of Barack Hussein Obama’s support for terrorist groups during the Arab Spring, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and the terrorist regime in Iran, is an opportunity for stable allies to force a redrawing of the map. While a lasting peace remains elusive, it is not altogether unrealistic to expect that one outcome of this turmoil may be the Arab recognition at large of Israel, and the isolation/trimming down to size of Iran and its wide support of international terrorism.
Trump administration threatens to shut down Palestinian office in Washington, D.C.
/in National Security, Policy, Politics/by Jihad WatchUnless the “Palestinians” get serious about making peace with Israel. So watch for a massive “War is Deceit” initiative from the “Palestinians” in the coming months.
“Trump Admin Threatens To Shut Down Palestinian Office In DC,” by Jonah Bennett, Daily Caller, November 18, 2017:
RELATED ARTICLES:
French academic: Create an Islamic state within France to avoid civil war
“Palestinian” vehicular jihadi had “big smile on his face” as he rammed Israelis
INFOGRAPHIC: Comparing the House and Senate Tax Bills
/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Taxes/by Dr. Rich SwierCatholic Charities employee arrested for allegedly producing child pornography
/in Commentary, Culture War, Immigration, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Ann CorcoranThe story is here at KOIN.com: (Hat tip: Michael)
This post is filed in RRW’s ‘crimes’ category, see a couple of thousand other posts in that category by clicking here.
Ramon’s immigration status is unknown. Gateway Pundit has a more explicit story here.
RELATED ARTICLES:
CAIR Minnesota to host scare tactic propaganda event today in St. Cloud
The Tent Foundation hires Lutheran refugee contractor to write refugee hiring guide
Another Somali stabbing, Minnesota this time (again)
VIDEO: Alabama Governor Kay Ivey voting for Judge Roy Moore in Senate Race
/in Culture War, Elections, Featured, Politics, Video/by Dr. Rich SwierMultiple media outlets are reporting that Alabama Governor Kay Ivey told reporters that she will vote for Judge Roy Moore in the December Senate election to replace Jeff Sessions.
Governor Ivey said:
RELATED ARTICLES:
Report: Roy Moore Fundraising Surges Since Attacks – Breitbart
Alabama Senate President Del Marsh: Roy Moore Allegations Could Be Part of a ‘Washington Conspiracy’
VIDEO: Ties between Hollywood Sex Abuse and the Left
/in Culture War, Politics, Religion, Video, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Church MilitantDETROIT (ChurchMilitant.com) – As sexual harassment allegations sweep the American entertainment industry, some notice that many of the alleged harassers are active supporters of the Left.
The overhaul of sexual misconduct allegations began on October 5 with a New York Times exposé targeting Hollywood film mogul Harvey Weinstein.
A number of the celebrities being accused are outspoken supporters of leftist causes. This is unsurprising, given Hollywood’s propensity for progressive politics.
Free clip from CHURCH MILITANT Premium
WATCH MORE LIKE THIS
Weinstein, for instance, had longstanding ties with the Democratic Party and the Clinton Foundation. Hillary Clinton was slammed in the media for how slowly she responded to the allegations against Weinstein.
Weinstein is known for his activism against gun-rights group the National Rifle Association (NRA). Breitbart‘s John Nolte commented that Weinstein, Hollywood and the mainstream media are “anti-gun” because they are “pro-rape.” In other words, they oppose gun rights because they don’t want their potential victims to be able to defend themselves.
Another big-name celebrity whose reputation is tarnished by harassment allegations is actor Kevin Spacey. He is accused of trying to force himself onto underaged boys.
Spacey is a friend of former president Bill Clinton and a donor to the Democratic Party. In Netflix drama House of Cards, the actor played a Democratic congressman who manipulates, adulterates and (occasionally) murders his way into the White House. After the allegations of harassment, the actor was fired, and producers announced the show would go on for only more season — with Spacey’s character removed.
Reports say Spacey was also removed from upcoming film All the Money in the World, which is being reshot with Spacey’s character now being played by Christopher Plummer. Netflix also canceled a future film starring the accused celebrity.
Spacey and Weinstein are not alone in being outspoken leftists who have been accused of sexual misconduct.
Actor Jeremy Piven supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary, while Ben Affleck endorsed Hillary Clinton. Both of these men have been accused of sexual harassment.
Actor Alec Baldwin, a professed Catholic, was an outspoken Obama supporter. He is a longtime “animal rights activist,” same-sex marriage advocate and enthusiastic gun-control supporter. He too has been accused of harassment.
E! News reporter Ken Baker has been accused and is removed from broadcasting, pending a company internal investigation. He is a lax Protestant who advocates for Eastern meditation and attends the same “church” as the Kardashians.
Hamilton Fish V from left-leaning The New Republic was recently booted from his position owing to sexual misconduct allegations. In the 1990s, his same-named grandfather and father — the third and fourth generations of Republican politicians in the family line — opposed him when he ran for a U.S. Senate seat as a Democrat. He lost the election and never held office.
Church Militant has compiled a list of individuals accused of sexual misconduct in the wake of the Weinstein scandal. Similar lists have been compiled by The New York Times and Breitbart.
Our list includes all manners of celebrities connected with the entertainment and information media industries. We chose not to include government officials.
We tried to avoid linking reports with excessively graphic details. Our list has 53 entries, naming a total of 55 individuals:
Have a news tip? Submit news to our tip line.
VIDEO: French Catholics forcibly removed, arrested for praying Rosary in Church
/in Culture War, Policy, Politics, Religion/by Church MilitantPARIS (ChurchMilitant.com) – Faithful Catholics were forcibly removed and arrested for praying the Rosary in a Catholic church in Paris.
In response to an ecumenical service held in the Parish of Our Lady of White Mantles commemorating the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, about a dozen young Catholic men made reparation for what they deemed a sacrilege by praying French and Latin prayers and hymns during the service. After jeers from Catholics and Protestants in attendance, the men were arrested, some carried out of the church.
Caroline Bretones, the “pastor” of the United Protestant Church of the Marais, was invited to speak in the Catholic parish, dressed in clerics and appearing as a female “priest.”
Medias-Presse-Info, a French speaking site, posted the video, noting, “The madness being without limit, these young Catholics were evacuated manu militari [with military aid] by the police for having prayed the Rosary in a Catholic church!”
“Young Catholics have expressed their opposition to seeing Protestantism, fought and condemned by the popes and the Council of Trent for centuries, to infiltrate the Catholic Church today,” the article continues.
While the organist tried to drown out the men’s voices, it was clear many of those in attendance were angered by the men’s presence. Some argued with the men and harassed them, one lady even smacking one of them in the face with a piece of paper. They continued kneeling in prayer until police arrived and forcibly removed them.
While much of what is being said is unintelligible owing to the the loud organ music, you can hear them singing Christus Vincit, “Christ Victorious,” when police remove them from the church.
Father Benoît-Marie Roque, the parish priest of Our Lady of White Mantles, wrote about the event on the parish website, noting that just over 150 people attended and they had “a celebration, obviously not eucharistic, whose stakes were strongly emphasized by different events.”
Father Roque explained that preparations for the event took a long time. Leaders of different parishes met with groups led by video “reflections” from the various clergy. Together, they developed “95 Reasons to Hope,” a collection of biblical passages to counter Martin Luther’s 95 theses.
Interior of the church from 1808
The vast majority of comments on Medias-Presse-Info are supportive of the young men. One comment left by a man named Patrick reads:
Our Lady of the White Mantles has been “a sanctuary dedicated to the Virgin (Aunnunciation) since 1258.” A number of church buildings have stood on that spot, with construction of current one started in 1685. The history of the parish explains, “Notre-Dame des Blancs-Manteaux is, presumably, in Paris, with the Cathedral and after it, the oldest sanctuary dedicated to [Our Lady].”
This event follows a similar protest at the cathedral of St. Michael and St. Cudula in Brussels in late October. The cathedral was the site of an attack by Protestants in the 16th century where Protestants destroyed sacred images they called “idolatrous.”
There, 12 men linked arms while reciting the Rosary to make reparations for an ecumencial service commemorating the Protestant Reformation. The protestors were heckled by people there to “celebrate,” while the organ and choir attempted to drown out the sound of their prayers before police arrived to remove them from the church.
One of the men spoke with Church Militant, who asked to remain anonymous, explaining his inspiration.
“We didn’t do it in a spirit of polemics towards faithful priests,” he clarified, “just in a spirit of reparation and resistance against profanation and celebration of a revolt against the Holy Catholic Church.”
He added, “We were in part inspired by The Catholic Gentleman, and I also listen to your Resistance podcasts for some good advice, of course. I’m a regular viewer of ChurchMilitant.com content.”
From COP23 in Fiji to COP24 in Katowice the heart of Polish coal country
/in Energy, Environment/by Committee For A Constructive TomorrowCOP 23, the UN climate conference in Bonn, Germany, ended with a coal-powered whimper.
The point of the meeting was to write the rule book for the Paris Climate Agreement that President Obama signed the U.S. onto.
President Trump then declared that the U.S. would exit Paris and make no future payments to the UN’s Green Climate Fund upon which President Obama lavished $1 billion on his way out the door.
Paris calls for developed nations such as the U.S., Europeans, Japan, Canada and Australia to redistribute $100 billion starting in 2020. That doesn’t seem very likely. China and India don’t have to pay, by the way.
The island nation of Fiji chaired the COP and joined a host of poor countries in calling for the cash to start flowing. They wanted “accelerated payments” even before Paris begins. That money is, after all, the reason the poor nations signed on.They also want the developed world to assume liability for their “loss and damage” when they experience weather-related losses. It is important that we never agree to pay compensation for what, in reality, are naturally occurring weather events. President Trump and the U.S. team were effective here in leading Europe and the rest in once again keeping loss and damage out the Paris Agreement. COP 23 agreed to create a panel to “study” the issue and to make much smaller amounts available to developing nations. That line must be held going forward.
Another key issue is the degree to which national reporting of emissions efforts will be transparent and verifiable. The COP adopted some language on this, but China, the largest and fastest growing CO2 emitter, continues to resist verifiable standards. They claim verification would be “too expensive.” The satirical news site The Onion posted a brilliant headline on this a few years ago, “China Vows To Begin Aggressively Falsifying Air Pollution Numbers.” Satire has a way of becoming all too real.
The level at which the rhetoric at COP 23, even from official negotiators, heads of state and elected officials, is divorced from the scientific facts on climate continues to astound.
When the President of Fiji tells the world that his island is already hard hit by global warming, and that last year’s Cyclone Winston was a product of climate change, he is way off. It is tragic that 42 people lost their lives last year in Fiji. However, they did not die because we drive cars and use electricity.
When disaster strikes the U.S. helps, not because, we are to blame, but because we are good neighbors. Attributing natural weather to climate change as a rationale for redistribution of wealth needs to stop.
Climate pressure groups put out this nonsense, left-wing climate campaigners chant it in the halls, an unquestioning press prints it, and it ends up part of the official UN climate dialogue. These narratives are unsupported by facts. Check out Climate Depot’s extreme weather report for substantial details.
Next year’s COP 24 will be in Katowice, Poland. The Poles underbid and won the right to host the COP. We couldn’t think of a better venue. Katowice is in the heart of Poland’s vital coal mining industry. Local Poles are keenly aware that the UN is targeting their livelihood and Poland’s energy independence for extinction. Like the coal miners in The Hunger Games District 12, they are ready to revolt.
Poland has a unique perspective. The Poles experienced the tragedy of Socialist central planning up close and personal. They’ve had enough and are shocked when spoiled westerners come back for more. They certainly don’t want to depend on Russian natural gas to keep their lights on.
We look forward to ensuring the UN hears the real facts on global warming from CFACT and the Poles loud and clear.
VIDEO: Alex Epstein — Harvard Business School Fireside Chat
/in Culture War, Economy, Energy, Policy, Politics, Science/by Alex EpsteinA few weeks ago I was joined by my favorite energy economist, Michael Lynch, for a fireside chat hosted by Harvard Business School. It was a great discussion and the audience asked a lot of thoughtful questions. You can now view the video of that event:
Mr. Epstein Goes to Washington
I’ll be in DC the week of November 27 to share my approach to reframing the energy debate with some high-level officials. It looks like I’ll be speaking to the Congressional Coal Caucus on Wednesday, November 29. On November 30, I’ll be speaking at the Crossroads IV: Energy and Climate Policy Summit in Washington, D.C. The event is presented by the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Heritage Foundation and includes some of the world’s leading scientists, policy makers, entrepreneurs, and energy experts. I will be speaking on the moral case for fossil fuels. The event is nearly sold out, but there will be a waiting list. You can find more information at https://www.crossroads-summit. com.
ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.
For the last two years I have been testing and refining an approach to one-on-one conversations that anybody can use. I call it the Constructive Conversation Formula. If you have between 5-20 people who interact frequently with stakeholders and want custom guidance on how to win hearts and minds, just reply to this email and put “Workshop” in the subject line.
Gun Controllers Choose to Ignore Cases of Good Guys with Guns
/in Commentary, Gun Rights, Policy, Politics, Science/by NRA Institute for Legislative ActionLess than three hours after the tragedy at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was looking to score political points. As is his custom, Murphy fired off a tweet admonishing his colleagues for their refusal to submit to the gun control lobby’s agenda. However, in the following hours, as more information about the shooting became available, it became clear the event didn’t fit so neatly into Murphy’s preconceived anti-gun narrative.
Reports began to come out that an armed citizen, later identified as NRA Member and former NRA Instructor Stephen Willeford, had engaged the shooter with his own firearm, prompting the killer to flee the scene. With little information and no qualms about denigrating the brave actions of an American hero, the omniscient Murphy tweeted, “Let’s be clear – nobody ‘stopped’ this shooting…” At the time Willeford engaged the shooter, there were at least 20 people still alive inside the church. A heart-rending account provided to the Washington Post by David Brown, son of wounded churchgoer Farida Brown, made clear that Farida Brown feared the shooter was not finished killing when Willeford came on the scene.
Murphy’s attempt to dismiss Willeford’s courageous response to the shooting is in keeping with gun control advocates’ longstanding messaging efforts and shows the depths anti-gun activists will sink to bury the facts. According to these gun-control proponents, good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns.
In order to justify this position, gun control activists ignore cases where armed civilians have put a halt to mass violence. Like a perverse Goldilocks, gun controllers will discount cases where a criminal was stopped before they were able to carry out sufficient carnage, and, as in the case of the shooting in Southerland Springs, dismiss a case where the killer was able to exact significant violence before an armed citizen could arrive.
When you look past gun control advocates and much of the media’s biased filtering, there are a number of documented cases where armed citizens have confronted these types of killers and likely saved lives. Here are just a handful:
In an interview with NRA, Willeford recalled the moment when he became aware of the gunfire at the church and said, “I kept hearing those shots and I knew every shot might be representing another person getting hit by a bullet.” Acting as fast as he could, Willeford retrieved his rifle, grabbed a handful of ammunition, and raced out his door barefoot towards the church. Anyone who has seen the NRA video, or Willeford’s other interviews, can see the anguish of a man who wishes he could have done even more to protect his community. Maybe Willeford’s heroic response wasn’t enough for Murphy to consider him a good guy with a gun, but the survivors in Sutherland Springs and the decent portion of America likely disagree.
RELATED ARTICLE: GUN CONTROL FAIL: Terrorists Use BANNED Guns To Murder 235 Egyptians, Media Fails To Report
Joe Biden: Hero Who Ended Texas Rampage Shouldn’t Have Had His Gun
/in Culture War, Gun Rights, Politics, Religion/by NRA Institute for Legislative ActionStephen Willeford
Most Americans consider Stephen Willeford a hero for bravely ending the rampage of a crazed murderer at a Texas church … but not former Vice President Joe Biden. During a national television appearance on Monday, Biden dismissed the Texan’s valorous actions, going so far as to say he shouldn’t have been carrying the AR-15 he used to stop the killer.
Biden, who is eyeing a presidential run in 2020, appeared on the Today show and took questions from the audience.
A young woman named Brianna asked him, “So with the tragedy that just happened in Texas, my question is, how do you justify the Democratic view on gun control when the shooter was stopped by a man who was legally licensed to carry a gun?”
It’s a fair question, given that the Democratic Party Platform labels AR-15s like the one Mr. Willeford used to defend his community “weapons of war” that must be taken “off our streets.”
And true to form, Biden completely ignored the fact that Willeford used his rifle to save innocent lives.
“Well, first all,” Biden replied without hesitation, “the kind of gun being carried, he shouldn’t be carrying.”
Biden then went on to explain how he himself wrote the federal “assault weapons” ban in effect from 1994 to 2004.
Yet Willeford himself has stressed that the type of firearm he used was a key factor in stopping the threat. “If I had run out of the house with a pistol and faced a bulletproof vest and kevlar and helmets,” he said in an interview, “it might have been futile.”
“Number two,” Biden continued, “it’s just rational to say, certain people shouldn’t have guns. Now the fact that some people with guns are legally able to acquire a gun, and they turn out to be crazy after the fact, that’s life, and there’s nothing you can do about that. But we can save a lot of lives, and we’ve stopped tens of thousands of people who shouldn’t have guns from getting guns.”
Biden’s second point, given the question asked, was incoherent or non-responsive. Either Biden was suggesting Stephen Willeford was crazy and shouldn’t have had a gun, or he was simply pivoting to a familiar gun control talking point to deflect the uncomfortable fact that he had just suggested that Willeford shouldn’t have had access to the AR-15 that he used to end the Sutherland Springs shooting.
By all accounts, Stephen Willeford is an exemplary gun owner. He is an NRA member and has been certified as an NRA instructor, and his ability to deliver a precise, crime-ending shot in a high-stress encounter was the result of regular training and target practice. A neighbor described him as “a very good guy, very big Christian … the nicest man on the planet” and a person who “would do anything for anyone around here.” Nothing indicates Stephen Willeford is “crazy” or the type of person who shouldn’t lawfully be able to own any sort of firearm he wants.
Biden’s more general point – that even some legal gun owners can later resort to bad behavior – has no relevance to the situation in Texas. The murderer was not a legal gun owner, and he did not obtain his crime guns legally. Thanks to a bureaucratic screw-up – exactly the sort of human fallibility that no law can cure – the criminal history information that would have disqualified the killer was never reported to the background check system. In other words, the very system that gun-control proponents seek to expand to all firearm transfers failed in exactly the situation where it might have done some good.
It says something about Joe Biden and his brand of politics that he is incapable of recognizing American heroism and goodness when it conflicts with his preordained agenda.
Two men had similar firearms on that awful day in Sutherland Springs, Texas. The assailant had obtained his gun in defiance of the law, as bad men usually do. If Joe Biden had his way, the good guy who stopped him wouldn’t have had his gun at all.
And make no mistake, if Stephen Willeford can’t own a gun in Joe Biden’s America, none of the rest of us would make the cut, either.
Cardinal Burke on the Rule of Faith
/in Culture War, Religion/by The Catholic ThingRaymond Cardinal Burke gave a powerful interview to Edwin Pentin of the National Catholic Register earlier this week. He explained why he continues to seek authoritative clarity on the meaning of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) by asking Pope Francis to respond to the five dubia that he and three other cardinals submitted well over a year ago.
Cardinal Burke spoke about a problem with AL’s opening up of exceptions (footnote 351) to the Church’s refusal to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to the reception of Holy Communion. The main problem, he believes, concerns our understanding of the nature of the sacraments:
The worthy reception of Holy Communion presupposes that one believes what the Church teaches about the nature of the Holy Eucharist, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ. Hence, it is God’s gift of Himself to his chosen friends.
Also presupposed for worthy reception of Holy Communion is that one is living one’s life according to the law laid down by Christ and taught by His Church. The Lord said: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery.” (Lk 16:18) The only faithful and morally praiseworthy response of a believer to this divine teaching is never to do that.
If, however, a Catholic were for some reason to enter into such an adulterous public union by attempting a second marriage, the Church in her charity must remind him of his grave violation of the word of the Lord. Any claim by the civilly remarried Catholic that his conduct is not gravely sinful because he “cannot at this time” live up to the demands of Christ’s law should be greeted with a charitable and unwavering reminder that no one is obliged to commit mortal sin – that God calls him to refrain from sin, and gives him the grace to do so.
It is up to him to cooperate with that grace. If he continues to commits acts of adultery with someone he civilly married after ceasing to cohabit with his wife, knowing that God does not want him to do so, he is responsible before God and the Church for public defiance of God’s will in a grave matter.
For anyone in the Church to countenance, tolerate, or in any way approve of that man’s continued living in a state of sin, in which he knowingly commits acts of adultery, is a monumental betrayal of the Lord’s call to admonish and assist sinners to “go and sin no more.” (Jn 8:11) The Church’s shepherds must never tell the wandering sheep to keep wandering in fields of grave immorality, but rather draw them back to the green pastures of truth and holiness where sin is rejected, not somehow justified.
Cardinal Burke identifies another troubling aspect of the debate about AL, namely that the Holy Eucharist is treated by some as a “means of social integration into a community.” Holy Communion is not a token of public recognition as a member of the Church by the Church’s shepherds. If that were the case, then any denial of Holy Communion to anyone would be equivalent to throwing someone out. One enters the Church by baptism, and that can never be undone. Thus a baptized Catholic is always a member of the Church, his membership cannot disintegrate or end because his baptism cannot be undone.
The canonical penalty of excommunication does not involve throwing someone out of the Church, but rather penalizing him by depriving him of certain goods that the Church administers in order to call him to repentance. Membership in the Church includes the obligation to live in communion with God by living according to God’s law. Those who live that law more perfectly are holier than other believers, but they are not in some way more a member of the Church.
Likewise, those who fail to live a holy way of life are still members of the Church. Those who turn themselves away from God’s law in serious matters need to know that they are failing in their primary duty to God, which is to worship him “in spirit and in truth.” (Jn 4:24) They do not need to be told that perhaps they can invoke in advance a claim of inculpability for grave sin by virtue of a supposed inability to do what God asks them to do.
The Christian life is about living in the truth that sets us free. (Jn 8:32) Christ’s truth about divorce, remarriage, and adultery sets us free from a sinful way of life. The duty of the Church is to proclaim that truth by all available means. Any pastoral approach that would encourage people to continue to live in contradiction to that truth by claiming that some sinners cannot stop sinning is profoundly erroneous. Rather, we must in charity say to those in adulterous unions: cease such behavior, and until you do so, the Church will not give you Holy Communion. That is the most loving thing we can do for those caught in the web of sin.
Fr. Gerald E. Murray
The Rev. Gerald E. Murray, J.C.D. is pastor of Holy Family Church, New York, NY, and a canon lawyer.
Friends: Even in these troubled times for the Church and the world, faithful bishops and priests are many, but not as publicly visible as they ought to be. Today’s column brings you two who are both faithful and visible: Cardinal Raymond Burke (who needs no introduction) and my now-longtime colleague in the EWTN Papal Posse, Fr. Gerald Murray. I think I first crossed paths with Fr. Murray in 1998 when we had dinner together in Havana during JPII’s visit to Cuba. In 2013, along with Raymond Arroyo and Fr. Roger Landry (now part of the Holy See Mission to the U.N.), we renewed the acquaintance over the two weeks we all spent together covering the papal conclave that elected Pope Francis. If there is a more straightforward, levelheaded, courageous and candid priest/canon lawyer, I haven’t met him. We’ve done all that EWTN work without compensation – or rather, a part of the support we receive from you helps towards preparing those television appearances, our reports from Rome (we did several together during the synods on the family), and related columns on this site. Many of you tell me that is some of the most important work we are doing and that’s why we both make room in our schedules for it whenever necessary. If you value all that, please, now is the time to show it by making a generous contribution to The Catholic Thing. – Robert Royal
EDITORS NOTE: © 2017 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.org. The Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.