Bank of America (BoA) has taken a uniquely un-American position on the peoples right to keep and bear arms. It appears that BoA does not believe in the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Anne Finucane, Vice Chairman of the Bank of America.
In a letter to a BoA client Anne Finucane, Vice Chairman of the Bank of America, writes:
We operate in and support communities throughout the United States. Our employees have been touched directly and indirectly by mass shootings from military style firearms in many of those communities.
[ … ]
Firearms with military characteristics have been used in many of these recent tragedies, including in schools in Florida and Connecticut.
[Emphasis added]
Bill Little explains how this false narrative impacts every American’s civil right to self-defense:
BoA is focused on the weapon of choice of the criminal rather than the facts. The most recent FBI data shows that knives, clubs, fists and feet account for 75.8% of all the weapons used during “aggravated assaults.” The BoA and VP Finucane don’t have their facts straight, nor are they focused on actually reducing crime in communities. Disarming law abiding citizens in “the communities throughout the United States” they serve is a disservice.
Finucane goes on to state in her letter:
We have firearms industry clients who do not manufacture this type of firearm. But we are engaging the limited number of clients who do, to learn their plans to keep this type of firearm from being used in mass shootings. In those discussions, we have indicated it is our intent that we will not finance the manufacture of this type of firearm for non-law enforcement, non-military use. We want to understand what those clients are doing to end mass shootings, and what we can do to help. [Emphasis added]
Manufacturers of firearms are not responsible for the misuse of their products in criminal activities. Just as auto manufacturers are not responsible for the use of their cars in a bank robbery, hit and run or use in a terrorist attack.
The responsibility lies with the individual who commits the crime. That is why we have laws against murdering others.
So who is really responsible for planning to keep others from murdering? Where was the real breakdown?
Broward County officials must now explain to grieving families that the school discipline strategy they called “the most comprehensive thinking available to address socially unacceptable or illegal behavior” failed to stop a school shooting.
Meanwhile, dozens of school systems around the country are following the federal guidelines. This widespread adoption and the terrifying failure of PROMISE makes the White House’s call to rescind federal guidelines that mirror PROMISE a timely and fitting response to Parkland.
So government, not manufacturers, created this culture of mass murder. But you see government never wants to take the blame. They are happy when companies like BoA shift the blame and blame the blameless.
A sign has been posted on the border that separates the United States from one of its two geographical neighbors. Its message is clear and unmistakeable. It reads simply:
Stop
It is illegal to cross the border here or any place other than a Port of Entry.
You will be arrested and detained if your cross here.
That sign was not posted on the border that is supposed to separate the United States from Mexico on the southern U.S. border.
You may also be surprised to know that the sign was not erected by President Trump or Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
It was not erected by any official of the DHS such as the Director of the U.S. Border Patrol, nor was the sign posted by any official of any government agency in the United States on the federal, state or local level.
That sign was not posted by any civilian group in the United States angered and frustrated by the decades old failures of the United States to secure its borders against the entry of international terrorists, transnational criminals, and foreign workers who routinely displace American and lawful immigrant workers and suppress the wages of those Americans and lawful immigrants who are fortunate enough to not lose their jobs to the foreign interlopers.
That sign was, however, posted by Canadian authorities on Canada’s southern border to deter aspiring illegal aliens in the United States from entering Canada illegally.
The Star report noted that while in a typical month an estimated 1,500 illegal aliens enter Canada from the United States (without inspection) in April 2,479 had arrived in Quebec.
The Canadian response, according to that news report, was provided in this excerpt from the article:
Last month, Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said he intended to travel to Nigeria in an attempt to spread the message that people who arrive in Canada and to not meet the threshold required for obtaining political asylum will be returned to their countries.
Nigeria is currently one of the largest source countries for refugee claimants entering Canada. Ottawa has previously dispatched ministers to spread similar messages in the Haitian and Central American diaspora communities in the United States.
It is important to note that Canadian officials were admitted into the United States to warn members of ethnic immigrant communities in the United States that if members of those communities were to enter Canada illegally they would face deportation.
Could you imagine how Mexico would react if the Trump administration sought permission to have U.S. government officials enter Mexico to warn Mexicans and members of Mexico’s ethnic immigrant communities that they should not seek to enter the United States without inspection because they would face arrest and deportation if they made that attempt?
Could you imagine the riots that would likely be orchestrated by the Mexican government to protest the notion of America not welcoming in anyone and everyone no matter who they are or what their backgrounds are?
In fact, let’s not forget what Nancy Pelosi had to say in numerous speeches in which she castigated immigration law enforcement officers and those who support efforts to secure America’s borders and enforce U.S. immigration law.
Consider Pelosi’s record-setting 8 hour speech on immigration on February 7, 2018 from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as reported by ABC News.
On March 13, 2018 Fox News reported on Acting ICE Director Tom Homan’s response to Pelosi’s outrageous slander against ICE agents, accusing them of carrying out “cowardly attacks against immigrants” for doing their job.
Going back to that sign warning about illegal entry into Canada, not one member of the mainstream media has accused the Canadian government of posting that sign out of hatred for America or Americans for discouraging illegal immigration from the United States.
President Trump has not accused the Canadian government of demonstrating hatred or bigotry the way that a succession of Mexican presidents have accused the U.S. government for enforcing U.S. immigration laws or making any effort to secure America’s southern border.
However, any time anyone in the United States suggests that America should seal its borders by whatever strategy is deemed effective is unhesitatingly castigated and charged with being racists, nativists or xenophobes by all too many politicians, pundits and supposed “journalists.”
Here is a particularly disgusting case in point.
New York Magazine’s April 11, 2017 edition contained an article, Sessions Calls for Prosecution of Those Who ‘Harbor’ Undocumented ‘Aliens,’ which included the following infuriating excerpt:
On Tuesday, Sessions issued a memo calling on federal attorneys to ramp up the prosecution of undocumented immigrants (or “aliens,” as he calls them in the memo) for identity fraud, document theft, and fraudulent marriages. He also implored federal prosecutors to crack down on those who “harbor” undocumented immigrants, and instructed the Justice Department to pursue felony charges against immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally on more than one occasion.
To celebrate the DOJ’s draconian new guidance, Sessions took a trip to the border town of Nogales, Arizona. There, he broke the bad news to your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.
The title of the New York Magazine article placed quotation marks around the terms “harbor” and “aliens” as though they were slang terms. In point of fact, the term harbor is a legal term. In fact, a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) includes (8 U.S. Code § 1324) a section of law that specifically addresses the felony known as harboring:
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
As for the term “Alien,”
Section 101 of the INA contains legal definitions. This section of law defines “Alien” as follows:
(3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.
There is no insult in the term alien, only clarity, the clarity that the open borders/immigration anarchists seek to avoid at all costs.
Finally, the additional crimes of identity fraud, document theft, and fraudulent marriages are felonies no matter who commits those crimes and, as I have written in numerous articles and in my testimony before a number of Congressional hearings, those crimes were frequently committed by international terrorists, including the 9/11 hijackers, to enter the United States and embed themselves in communities around the U.S. as they went about their deadly preparations.
The deceptive use of language employed by Eric Levitz, the “journalist” who wrote that article for New York Magazine to paint a false and very misleading picture, should properly earn that malfeasant “journalist” the title of “propagandist.”
Actual journalists are supposed to be as objective and dispassionate as possible, particularly in reporting on issues that may engender emotions. Propagandists, on the other hand, take sides on controversial issues.
It is clear that, at least on the immigration issue, that Mr. Levitz is incapable of being objective and even-handed. He has betrayed his professional responsibility.
Unfortunately, Levitz is hardly unique. There is no shortage of other supposed “journalists” who frequently resort to Orwellian use of language substituting “Newspeak” for English.
However, if these supposed “journalists” are all about open borders, why have they not attacked Canada’s Prime Minister Trudeau for Canada’s current opposition to illegal immigration?
Since Nancy Pelosi has made clear her disdain for valiant American law enforcement officers who enforce our nation’s immigration laws, the obvious question is why has she not spoken out against Canada’s policies aimed at securing its borders against illegal immigration?
New York’s Governor Cuomo has promised to protect “immigrants” from immigration law enforcement authorities and at a raucous news conference recent beat his chest declaring “I am undocumented- arrest me!” This outrageous incident was ably discussed in a recent NY Post editorial, Andrew Cuomo’s ‘undocumented’ imagination.
If Governor Cuomo is so outraged with the notion of enforcing immigration laws and securing international borders against unlawful entry, why didn’t he chastise Canada’s Prime Minister for being unfair for literally and figuratively drawing a line against illegal immigration?
After all, New York State lies along the U.S./Canadian border.
Consider the indignant statements made by globalist U.S. politicians who have attacked President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions when Sessions declared that he would send prosecutors to the U.S. Mexican border to prosecute aliens who enter the United States without inspection.
Consider the mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” who harbor and shield illegal aliens from detection by ICE and, in so doing, undermine national security and public safety.
Consider the demonstrations staged by hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who somehow routinely emerge from the mythical shadows in which they are supposedly hiding, to denounce the government of the United States for insisting on creating secure borders to insure U.S. sovereignty.
National borders are far more than mere “lines in the sand.” All too many national borders were drawn, not in ink or crayon, but blood.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/us-vs-canada.jpg360640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2018-05-21 07:55:002018-05-21 07:57:27Illegal Immigration: A Tale of Two Countries [Canada vs. U.S.] Hypocrisy thrives in the immigration debate.
The left is sleepless in Seattle, working overtime to squander years of economic success.
Seattle is, by many measures, one of the fastest-growing cities in America, if not the fast-growing city.
A few big tech companies, including Amazon and Microsoft, plus other large, successful businesses such as Boeing and Starbucks, have fueled this explosive rise.
But prosperity hasn’t necessarily bred contentment, as the traditionally left-wing city turned on the elements that made it rich.
In the latest move to soak the productive part of the city’s economy, the Seattle City Council voted 9-0 to approve a new “head tax” imposing a $275-per-worker charge on companies making over $20 million a year.
According to The Seattle Times, advocates of the tax said it “will have a meaningful impact on addressing our homelessness crisis by building housing and providing health services.”
Companies such as Amazon and Starbucks, which generally have had no problem kowtowing to the demands of social justice warriors, lashed out when their bottom line was threatened.
Amazon announced that it would continue to build in the city despite a previous halt in construction.
Amazon said in a statement: “While we have resumed construction … we remain very apprehensive about the future created by the council’s hostile approach and rhetoric toward larger businesses, which forces us to question our growth here.”
This may seem like a reasonable measure by a company that expects a financial shakedown, but activist groups weren’t about to let these corporate cash cows take their business elsewhere.
The labor group Working Washington called for criminal prosecution of businesses that threaten to leave the city. They argued that this constituted an illegal threat against public officials, a felony.
As libertarian law professor Eugene Volokh noted, such an expansive view of the law would also criminalize activities such as union strikes and boycotts.
This method of intimidating businesses into accepting predatory government action may not have been well considered, but it does reveal the impulses of the hard left.
If you aren’t willing to accept the left’s measures willingly, you will be forced to accept them through punitive government action. There will be no escape.
This is hardly the first Seattle policy to take aim at businesses.
In 2015, Seattle increased its minimum wage to $15 an hour, which, according to one study, decreased employment and hurt low-income workers.
In 2017, the City Council voted unanimously to stop using Wells Fargo & Co. bank due to its investments in the Dakota Access Pipeline and a fraud scandal.
Kshama Sawant is an American democratic socialist politician and economist, a member of Socialist Alternative who sits on the Seattle City Council.
“Take our government back from the billionaires, back from [President Donald] Trump and from the oil companies,” Councilmember Kshama Sawant, who is openly socialist, said at the time of the vote, according to The Seattle Times.
Sawant, also a strong backer of the head tax, hasn’t just received opposition from “billionaires.”
At a recent press conference she hosted in Seattle, a group of construction workers showed up and began chanting, “No head tax! No head tax!”
Ditching Wells Fargo likely would have cost the taxpayers a significant amount of money, but they were saved by the fact that no other bank would take the city’s business.
Hilariously, Seattle had to go crawling back to Wells Fargo.
It apparently was a surprise to Seattle’s government officials that companies don’t like to be shaken down.
Instead of finding ways to drive down the cost of living, cities such as Seattle and San Francisco have embraced policies that continue to drive up costs.
Their solution is what The Seattle Times called an “eat the rich” strategy.
That is, simply tax the productive businesses and citizens as much as possible and use this to subsidize the poor.
Despite the fact that Seattle’s tax revenues have shot up dramatically in this boom, it isn’t enough to pay for the ever-expanding list of demands from the city’s ascendant hard-left activists.
There will never be enough to satisfy those who believe they can remake the world as a perfectly equal and fair place through the levers of government.
It’s hard to believe that a tax on jobs is going to solve Seattle’s homelessness problem, which has actually skyrocketed in the past 10 years despite higher levels of revenue and spending by the city.
This has occurred while homelessness around the state of Washington generally has gone down.
The reasons for the surge in Seattle homelessness are many. Some argue that the presence of the rich simply increased the ranks of the poor as everything naturally becomes more expensive. But this misses the fact that government policies, such as extremely restrictive building codes and low-growth housing plans, have forced prices upward.
According to a Heritage Foundation study on poverty:
Policies that drive up housing prices—and there are many—have a disproportionate impact on low-income households. Based on 2015 data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the lowest-income households spent 58.2 percent of their income on housing, compared to 25.8 percent for the highest-income households.
Instead of addressing the squeezing out of the middle class and the underlying costs of life in the city, though, Seattle’s leaders focus on meliorating the circumstances of the poor and homeless.
Creating another expensive program, if that’s even what this tax is really about—City Journal’s Steven Malanga speculates that it’s actually an excuse to bail out the city’s strained public pension system—won’t solve the underlying problems.
The more the planners plan, the more the plans fail. When the newest scheme doesn’t produce the desired utopia, they will again blame the “rich” and take a little more.
The planners will turn to increasingly punitive schemes to remake the world as they see fit.
They will strangle and kill the goose that laid the golden egg and end up with nothing but misery and dysfunction.
Beautiful and desirable places such as Seattle and San Francisco can withstand a certain amount of dysfunction before people bail on those cities.
Such cities may very soon be testing those limits, as big companies and productive citizens look to greener pastures and local governments that don’t use them as an ATM for their failed schemes.
The amount per employee the new head tax imposes has been corrected in this article.
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Seattle City Councilmember Kshama Sawant speaking at a protest demanding that the city tax large corporations to help fight homelessness. (Photo: Lindsey Wasson/Reuters /Newscom)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/180517_Seattleedit-1250x650-e1526899332579.jpg376640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-05-21 06:42:212018-05-21 06:46:36The Left’s War Against Prosperity in Seattle
Born near Port Tobacco, Maryland, around 1789, Henson’s first memory was of his father being whipped, having his ear cut off, and sold south—all as punishment for striking a white man who had attempted to rape his wife. He never saw his father again.
Henson was later separated from his mother and sold to a child trafficker, but soon fell deathly ill. The slave trader offered the boy to Henson’s mother’s owner, an alcoholic gambler named Isaac Riley, for a bargain: free of charge if the young Henson died, a barter of some horseshoeing work if he survived.
But he did recover, and Henson and his mother were enslaved about 12 miles from Washington, D.C., on Riley’s plantation. He endured countless beatings as a child—especially after an ill-fated attempt to learn to read.
Henson had great physical strength and leadership ability, and eventually became Riley’s market man in the nation’s capital. As the person in charge of selling all his master’s farm produce, he rubbed shoulders with eminent lawyers and businessmen and learned the skills of running a business.
Despite the fact that he wouldn’t learn to read until much later in life, Henson also became a great preacher, memorizing verses and relying on his eloquence and natural sense of humor to connect with parishioners. A white minister convinced him to secretly raise money to purchase his own freedom while traveling between the Riley family’s farms. The minister arranged for churches to host Henson, and he raised $350 towards his emancipation, but Riley swindled him out of the money and tried to sell him south to New Orleans. Henson narrowly avoided that harsh fate through a highly providential twist of events: Riley’s nephew Amos, the young man tasked with selling Henson, contracted malaria. Rather than letting the son die, Henson loaded him on a steamship and returned north. In 1830, Henson ran away with his wife and two youngest children; they walked more than 600 miles to Canada.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Josiah-Henson-e1526864074444.jpg393640Bill Finlayhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngBill Finlay2018-05-20 20:54:532018-05-21 07:27:20Uncle Tom American Hero
If liberals were animals, if would be a marked improvement. For one thing, animals don’t lie.
Ever since President Trump characterized MS-13 gang members as “animals,” Democrats have been playing dumb (when they haven’t actually been dumb) for political gain. What started with some fake news outlets purposely misrepresenting Trump’s remarks and others sloppily parroting the deception, has degenerated into the comical: leftists trying to save face and gain votes by cynically claiming they’re offended that anyone would do violence to the principle of the dignity of all human persons. Why, Nancy Pelosi, a poo-bah of prenatal infanticide posing as a latter-day St. Thomas Aquinas, actually lectured us about how every person has a “divine spark.”
Question:
Does anyone really think Trump’s remarks were a theological statement about the nature of man or, even, about the worst among his number? Are we analyzing political comments or a seminary lecture?
Not to be outdone, CNN commentator Ana Navarro wasn’t deterred in her condemnation of the president by the fact that two years ago she herself had characterized Trump as an animal; she furthermore said that he “should drop out of the human race.” But, hey, children do tend to live in the here and now.
Speaking of which, a corollary of Democrats’ situational values is, obviously, situational interpretation: All of a sudden they’ve conveniently developed an inability to recognize, or to accept, figurative speech. Any conservative who doesn’t talk like Mr. Spock is to now be reviled.
We’ve seen this before. After the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.), Sarah Palin was condemned for using crosshairs imagery in a political ad. Yet nothing was said about how Barack Obama stated that he talked to certain people so he’d know “whose a** to kick”; he also advised in 2008, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”
This is all figurative speech, of course. Yet Democrats, the first to condemn and mock fundamentalism, have done William Jennings Bryan one better: They insist on literalism when interpreting spoken words.
Ironic (and pathetic) here is that Democrats’ violent and vulgar tongues have led to actual crimes against traditionalists, such as the 2012 attack on the Family Research Council’s offices and the 2017 congressional baseball shooting.
The truth is that umbrage over the animals remark is posturing and delusion. Leftists will do anything to attain power, and this is another way to play the identity politics card. “Trump means all Hispanics!” is the narrative. (Now we just have to wait for the solidarity driven chant, “I am MS-13!”) Some liberals, though, have no doubt really convinced themselves that such talk is wrong; never forget that leftists live in the moment and in a world of rationalization.
In the former but not the latter, they are a bit like animals. But what beasts would they be? Would Ana Navarro be a weasel? Would Pelosi be a kookaburra (also known as a laughing jacka**)? Chris Cuomo a peacock? Hillary a Tasmanian devil and Bill a horny toad?
The final irony here is that liberals tend to embrace godless evolution and generally believe that people are nothing but animals. Yet as the brilliant G.K. Chesterton put it, “Man is an exception.” He “is always something worse or something better than an animal[.]” So true. And I think we know which free-will-abusing people are keeping MS-13 gangsters company in the worse category.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/nancy-pelosi-ms-13-e1526862729165.jpg376640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2018-05-20 20:32:182018-05-22 04:48:12If Liberals Were Animals, it Would be an Improvement
Europe is committing suicide. How did this happen?
The civilization born of ancient Greek philosophy, Judeo-Christian values, and the discoveries of the Enlightenment is staring at the abyss, brought there by its own hand. To put it starkly: Europe is committing suicide. How did this happen? In this week’s video, Douglas Murray, author of The Strange Death of Europe, explains the two major causes of Europe’s impending downfall.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Strange-Death-of-Europe-BOOK-COVER-e1526816656130.jpg360640Prager Universityhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPrager University2018-05-20 07:44:582018-05-20 07:44:58VIDEO: The Suicide of Europe
There is a dirty little secret that the information gatekeepers of the Left block from Americans: modern feminism is slicing a path of destruction through the lives of men, women, families and society.
This is not the equal pay for equal work feminism. That has long been resolved legally and culturally. This is the anti-patriarchy modern feminism. But there is essentially no patriarchy left in America. CEOs and most other leadership-count disparities are a function of women’s individual choices — countercultural choices, at that — and even then may be temporary as women are pressured by the increasingly feminized culture to battle against their innate natures that lead toward motherhood and child nurturing.
By most studies and polls, women living the lives of the major tenets of modern feminism are distinctively less happy and less fulfilled. And they live in more danger. But where we see the real destructive success of the modern, radical feminist movement — which has worked to tilt the field in favor of women while supporting the government replacing the father in the home — is in the increasingly dire plight of the American male.
Consider the following:
⇒ American men fail and drop out of school at much higher rates than American women;
⇒ American men are far more likely to die of a drug overdose than American women;
⇒ American men are far more likely to drop out of the workforce because of addiction;
⇒ American men commit suicide at a rate several times higher than American women;
⇒ American men live on average six years shorter than American women.
⇒ American men are incarcerated at far higher proportions and are more likely to commit a felony and go to prison (although this has always been the case)
⇒ American men have lost out on tens of thousands of college scholarships because the federal law called Title IX demanded equality of all sports in universities, which resulted in the elimination of many male-only sports and the accompanying scholarships.
None of this exactly paints a picture of a patriarchal society where women are oppressed and men are triumphant as the angry feminists on or recently out of college campuses keep telling us. Not at all. The only “oppression” is nature, for which oppression is the wrong word.
“There isn’t a shred of hard evidence to support that Western society is pathologically patriarchal; that the prime lesson of history is that men, rather than nature, were the primary source of oppression of women,” writes Jordan Peterson in his blockbuster book, 12 Rules for Life.
American women, particularly professionals with college degrees, are putting off marriage and finding fewer eligible men when they are ready to settle down and get married in their 30s. This is being written about frequently now as many of these women lament that lack of marriable men at that age.
American women are having fewer children (a feminist and leftist goal) and having them later in life. Sadly, many are finding that when they finally decide they want to start a family, they either cannot find any quality men of husband potential or their biological clock has run out.
But as horrible as that may be, it is hardly the end game. Let a feminist leader put it in her own words.
“Feminism means dismantling society’s toxic ideas about what fatherhood looks like,” Emma Roller recently wrote in Splinter. “Ultimately, it means dismantling gender completely.”
Exactly. Credit Roller with honesty, although with ongoing radicalization of feminism, the activists and leaders of the modern feminist movement are pretty open about their intent to destroy, or “dismantle,” as Roller puts it.
The no-commitment sexual revolution pushed by earlier feminism combined with the “rape culture” sham and gender fluidity poison from modern feminism has virtually killed romance and the potential for healthy, monogamous relationships between husbands and wives along a wide swath of America.
Destroying the joys of motherhood and loosing the restraints on men through marriage and fatherhood, has made no one happy or fulfilled. Actually, it has increased anger and depression in both sexes.
Dennis Prager recently wrote: “The left has made innumerable women unhappy, even depressed, with its decades of lying about how female sexual nature and male sexual nature are identical — leading to a “hookup” culture that leaves vast numbers of young women depressed — and its indoctrinating of generations of young women into believing they will be happier through career success than marital success.”
Interestingly, and in line with the actual natures of men and women — natures the left and modern feminists deny or blame on the largely non-existent patriarchy — multiple studies from the European Union Eurostat arm to Australia’s Cowan University to numerous American studies have found that women (and men) who have large families are the most happy.
Harry Wallop, recently wrote in the London Telegraph about the Eurostat report on happiness among European nations, but found one element of the research to be a surprise: “… one of the most intriguing details to emerge is that families with three or more children are far more likely to be very happy than families with just one or two children, than single parents and also spinsters and bachelors.”
Wallop, who has four children and in the U.K. that is considered scandalously big, went on: “My only serious theory as to why large families may be happier is because instances of selfishness should be lower. Me, me, me can not flourish in such a crowded environment. Sharing is a daily activity you just have to get used to.”
He’s right. Selfishness does not bring about happiness. It just breeds more selfishness. Sharing, giving and sacrificing for others does produce happiness. But modern feminism is the promotion of selfishness uber alles. It’s what the woman wants, when the woman wants it and all must bend to her will — including the convenience of unborn babies.
At bottom, feminism is determined to both prove men and women are the exact same and can do all the exact same things while at the same time insisting gender is just a patriarchal cultural construct that must be abolished. It is a movement that is as inconsistent as most of modern liberalism, but perhaps more destructive, because men and women are different. And no amount of feminist theory college degrees can change that.
Despite this growing disaster for men and society as a whole, feminists, the Left, Democrats and the media continue to play the hysterically false “war on women” card. For the ideologues, it’s their identity. For the politicians, it’s a power card. For America and the West, it’s a long-term funeral procession.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/women-pink-pussy-hats-e1526815248559.jpg350640Rod Thomsonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRod Thomson2018-05-20 07:21:052018-05-22 06:20:02Feminism Is Winning; Destroying Boys, Gender, Family and Society
It’s a big day in Washington where an injustice a quarter of a century in the making is finally being corrected. It was January 22, 1993 — the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade -when then President Bill Clinton suspended President Ronald Reagan’s regulation preventing federal Title X funds from going to family planning clinics where abortions are performed. Unbelievably, Clinton even went so far as to require every provider to refer for abortion, which disqualified pro-life and faith-based groups that have religious and moral objections to abortion from participating in the program. Since then, Planned Parenthood and other abortion centers have used these federal family planning programs as a slush fund to pay overhead expenses including staff salaries, facility rent, and even furniture. Sadly, no president over the past 25 years has stopped this co-mingling of taxpayer funds with the abortion industry — that is until today.
Under President Trump’s rule announced today, like Reagan’s, Planned Parenthood and other abortion centers will have to choose between dropping their abortion services from any location that gets family planning dollars and moving those abortion operations offsite. Either way, this will loosen Planned Parenthood’s grip on more than $60 million in taxpayer dollars. The new regulations will draw a bright line between abortion centers and family planning programs — just as the federal law requires and the Supreme Court upheld in a 1991 ruling.
Praise for the president is pouring in from pro-life leaders and Members of Congress. Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) who serves as Co-Chair of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus applauded the new rule noting that it “at long last reinstates principles first put forward under the Reagan administration, and upheld by the Supreme Court nearly three decades ago…Abortion is not family planning — in sharp contrast, the violence of abortion wounds families.” Rep. Robert Aderholt (R- Ala.) also offered praise and explained, “we only have to look to Planned Parenthood’s activities in our own state to see why they do not deserve federal funds. Just within the last few years, the clinic in Mobile performed two abortions in less than a year on a 14-year-old girl. She was clearly being sexually abused, but no one at Planned Parenthood notified authorities, as is required by law. For them, it was another routine abortion.”
And remember, it was David Daleiden and his undercover videos that uncovered Planned Parenthood’s horrific routine of selling baby body parts. Thanks to President Trump, their routine — at least when it comes to treating the taxpayers like an ATM machine — is beginning to change. President Trump has teed up Congress to take the step toward the ultimate goal of ending taxpayers’ forced partnership with the abortion industry. That includes an end to Planned Parenthood’s federal gravy train in multiple federal programs in which they get over $400 million each year. The House has already voted to redirect tax dollars away from the abortion giant and the Senate came within one vote last year of sending the measure to President Trump’s desk to be signed into law.
With hundreds of millions at stake, Planned Parenthood’s PAC announced last month that they will spend $ 30 million dollars on the midterm elections. Obviously, it’s illegal for Richards to use even a cent of federal funds on the group’s political activities. And while her accountants use every possible trick to keep the monies separate, it is hard to separate the fact that $30 million is available to influence elections because the outcome of those elections has produced nearly a half a billion dollars of government money to fund their Leftist mission. In the meantime, President Trump is following through on his campaign promise that his administration will advocate for mothers and their unborn children every day he occupies the White House and take important steps to ensure taxpayers are not subsidizing the abortion industry. Join me in thanking the president by sending him an email of appreciation via the White House comment page.
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/051818_ultrasound_770x400-e1526690240888.jpg367640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-05-18 20:38:302018-05-21 06:32:27Trump’s New Regs Move Tax Dollars away from Abortion
“Taharrush,” or “collective harassment,” is an Arab phenomenon that defines an horrific form of rape, both physically and psychologically.
Originating as a weapon against female protestors in Tahrir Square in Egypt, May 2005, it became commonplace by 2012, and it has reached Europe. It takes the form of a group of male aggressors who encircle the female in a public setting and simultaneously grope, molest, beat and rape her, while a second, outer circle of men diverts the attention of strangers. While they continue to scream Allahu Akbar, the outer ring prevents the victim from being heard or accessed by police, who might also be fewer than required and inadequately armed.
Islamic rape is steeped in hatred and vengeance. These jihadis have been trained to hate and dehumanize women, and inflict great physical harm on the female, who may be as young as a toddler or as old as Lost Horizon’s Lo-Tsen. There are also Muslim gangs, criminal organizations that kidnap young girls for sexual slavery, rape and torture.
The vulnerable young preteen girl may be kidnapped near her school or approached by a 17-year-old “Romeo,” the bait. He plies her with drugs and/or alcohol, emotionally isolating her from her family to lure her where she’ll be simultaneously raped by ten men in a room. The men’s behavior is mandated by Islam; she is forced into prostitution. Just as FGM (female genital mutilation) destroys the woman’s sexuality, so these gang rapes completely destroy these girls, an ongoing phenomenon for 25 years in England, yet protected by fearful law-enforcement agencies.
Deceptively identified as Asian, they are devout Muslims who follow sharia law, praying in mosques by day and preying on women by night, reaching extreme intensity in Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Scandinavia. The Koran decrees, “Women are your fields; go, then, unto your fields when and how you please.” 2:223; “We will put terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, 3:151; and Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them,” 9:123.
In civilized, diverse Germany, where women might expect government protection, Angela Merkel has invited, since 2015, 1.2 million invaders who are responsible for 90 percent of the increased violent crimes. Two thousand Muslim migrants assaulted 1,200 women on New Year’s Eve 2015/16; few were apprehended and punished. Accusations of Islamophobia deter the population from redress. With 600,000 able-bodied “asylum seekers” on welfare, and poverty at an all-time high, they are free to indulge in violence.
Although the UK’s voters are distressed about homeland security, PM Theresa May recently announced her favoring trade, and unlimited immigration until the end of 2020, despite a 15 percent increase in rapes, a record-breaking 65,000 child sex-abuse cases registered last year, an average of 177 cases per day. In nearly 14,000 cases, the victim was under age 10, and 2,788 were age four and under.
Sweden has become the rape capital of the European continent, 95 percent of the rapes committed by “foreign” men. Political analyst Nicolai Sennels alerts that Sweden is in collapse, under violent Islamic control, destined to endanger all of Scandinavia. The Swedes can no longer shield themselves from their “self-inflicted misery.”
Western multiculturalism facilitates the increase of Muslim rape and violence. In America, violence is increasing as we lose our survival instinct. Somalis drove their trucks through a Minnesota neighborhood, broadcasting sounds of women being raped, screams of jihad. Weeks later a 5-year-old girl in Twin Falls, Idaho, was brutally raped. The media withheld the stories. The State of Maine’s democrats support FGM, a precursor to the sharia laws that are encroaching upon our own civilized society.
A disturbing question emerges. Where is our survival instinct? Where are the men, the traditional strong defenders and protectors of women and children? Our adults of tomorrow are being demoralized by the Left’s disastrous teaching standards, both in America, as Common Core, and in Europe. If we do not address the crisis, we must prepare for a deteriorating situation.
The assault is confined not to curricula alone, but to altering the children’s psychology. (Schools are altering the children’s psychology and support system, as I explained in “Good Morning, Little Comrades.”) We find gender-free pronouns encouraged in our schools, enforced by law in Canada. Today, the excitement of belonging to a masculine group, Boy Scouts, has been officially diminished to accepting girls whose interests and physical prowess differ. Scouts BSA’s equalization and identity destruction for older children has begun.
Students are overwhelmed with readings deliberately assigned beyond their maturity level. Phonemes, necessary for reading comprehension, have been discontinued. Cursive writing, essential for visual recognition, learning of letters, motor skills and creativity, has been withdrawn. Students cannot tell time on an analog clock and will be unable to read our Founding documents, requiring them to be explained by all-too-obliging politicians. Math courses have been proven academically inferior to other standards, making eventual college entry more grueling. History textbooks are revised with socialist and Islamic propaganda and Christians are labeled racist; our Judeo-Christian heritage is under destruction. A new textbook, “By the People,” by James Fraser, which slams President Trump and his supporters, is planned for use in the upcoming school year.
Our schools are teaching that Americans are evil racists, guilty of historic victimization of all “people of color,” warranting the replacement of white-skinned by darker-skinned people, capitalism by socialism, our Constitution by activism, and our Judeo-Christian morality by sexual freedom and abortion. Novels of adventure, discovery and heroism have been replaced by depressing dystopian stories, a possible contributing factor to a steadily rising suicide rate for adolescents, doubled for ages 15 to 19 from 2007 to 2015.
These changes particularly affect the psychology of the boys. From a very early age, they are deprived of their usual interests and toy selections, their book preferences of exploration and valor, their innate eagerness and energy. This social engineering is designed to alter their sexuality and their identity. In fact, boys’ testosterone levels and cognitive abilities have been decreasing, their weight and lethargy increasing.
By destroying their masculine get-up-and-go, they are not only less likely to protect the females in the community, but also unlikely to reject and reverse the new social order. They are being emasculated, learning to eschew confrontation and challenges, to not bite the bullet, but to run from life into the nearest safe space, complete with hot chocolate, or to a Cry Closet, or to a Yale University emotional-support animal, to further their snowflakery.
The left wants to incapacitate the masculine spirit, its natural assertiveness, its instincts of hunter, breadwinner, and protector, and create, instead, “grown children” who will cower and quaver for the rest of their lives. And all this has been implemented under the name of equality, that boys and girls be conformed, reduced in intelligence, reasoning and ability – a compliant population subservient to the triumphant regime. Since rape is taking advantage of somebody’s vulnerability, clearly there is rape of both body and mind – a way of destroying the spirit of both.
“The Feminization of Boys,” by Dr. Leonard Sax, reveals that more boys than girls in America are in special education classes, and more often prescribed with mood-managing drugs. They do not read well, are more likely to drop out of school and shun college, more apt to wind up in prison, and five times more likely than girls to die by suicide. A February 13, 2018 report discloses that 75 percent of US youths (17-24 years old) are ineligible for military service due to lack of education, criminality, and obesity.
Here, the blame goes to the Obama administration, academia and their supporters. These students may never hold decent jobs, marry or become responsible parents. They will live in dread, never venture out, take chances or create anything for the good of mankind. The traumatized will become welfare recipients, mentally unstable, perhaps a danger to society. Paradoxically, the young in a multicultural society are taught to belong to categories (race, religion, ethnicity). As a result, they are losing their individual identity to the group’s defining characteristics, and sacrificing the hope of personal merit, achievement, and excellence. An even greater cost will be the loss of freedom, prosperity, and the historic derring-do of the American character.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/What-is-Taharrush-gamea-Arab-rape-game-spreads-to-Europe-from-Middle-East-e1526655937117.jpg359640Tabitha Korolhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTabitha Korol2018-05-18 11:05:472018-05-18 11:10:21VIDEO: Rape, of body and mind
I suppose the great majority of people who have ever lived have believed in life after death in some form or other. It may not have been a happy life after death they believed in. For instance, Christians and others have believed in an absolutely miserable place where many of us (but not all) will be punished for our sins. Homeric Greeks believed in a dark underworld where almost everybody will go: not a place of punishment but simply a place where the spirits of the dead reside after their earthly lives end. The shade of Achilles gives Odysseus some idea of the misery of Hades by telling him, “I’d rather be a servant in the house of the poorest man on earth than be a king in the underworld.”
Christians used to believe that some of us (the bad ones) will go to hell while others among us (the good ones) will go to heaven. But in modern America, as far as I can tell, not many people believe in hell. I often read newspaper obituaries that say something like this: “On Wednesday of this week Mr. John Doe, a longtime resident of this city, went to be with Jesus.” I never read anything that says, “On Monday of this week Mary Roe, a local woman who was no better than she had to be, went to live with Satan and other evil spirits.”
And those who believe in hell don’t think it is densely populated. Hitler and Stalin may be there, and perhaps Charles Manson and Attila the Hun. But not many others. Americans seem to be mostly universalists. We find it hard to believe that God, a really nice guy, could be so hard-hearted as to condemn anybody to an eternity of punishment.
I have sometimes thought that if, when I die and approach the seat of judgment, I learn that Hitler and Stalin have gained entry to Paradise thanks to the infinite mercy of God, I will shout “not fair!” and refuse to pass through the heavenly gates. I like it that God is merciful, but I don’t want him to be that merciful.
In our skeptical age, many people do not believe in life after death. When you’re dead, they contend, you’re dead. That’s the end of the story. But how can this be? How can they dissent from the ancient and almost-universal opinion of their fellow human beings that our souls (or ghosts) live on after bodily death?
One reason they offer to justify their disbelief is that this world, the world of material objects, of atoms and molecules and stars and planets, is the only world there is; and if you’re dead in this one and only world, you no longer exist. This seems to me a preposterous belief. Of the billions and billions and billions of possible worlds, why should only one actually exist, the one we happen to live in? That our universe is the only one, that there are no other universes either material or nonmaterial – can anything be more improbable?
Another reason offered by those who disbelieve in life after death is that such a belief is merely wishful thinking. We would, of course, like to think that we ourselves live after death, and even more we’d like to think that our friends and family members live after death. And we’d like to think that Abraham Lincoln and Elvis Presley live after death. Such wishes are only natural, like the wish to win the lottery. But they are only wishes. No more than that.
But wishes often come true. I have wished to have food to eat, a house to live in, a wife to live with, money in my bank account – and many more things. And these wishes have come true. Why shouldn’t my wish for life after death also be realized?
The strongest argument against survival, it seems to me, is that the dead never get in touch with us. Over the years I myself have lost many persons who were very dear to me: my grandparents, my mother and father, my sister, and some of my very best friends. But not one of them has ever contacted me after death. Wouldn’t they get in touch with me to assure me that they are okay? Wouldn’t they from time to time offer me advice and guidance? Wouldn’t they try to push me in the direction of good or hinder me when I was drifting in the direction of evil?
Who can be sure, however, they are not doing this? Below the level of our conscious minds, we have unconscious minds. And below the level of my personal unconscious there may be (as William James once suggested) an impersonal unconscious. My dead family and friends may not be “talking” to me at the level of my conscious mind, but why can’t they be “talking” to me at the level of the unconscious mind?
Many other things happen at the level of unconscious mind. Not just Freudian fears and wishes, but all sorts of creativity – artistic, scientific, mathematical, political, commercial. I read the other day that Mark Twain, in his belief that a novel would write itself (so to speak), took long intermissions in his writing of Huckleberry Finn. Finally, his creative unconscious gave birth to a literary classic.
If one’s unconscious mind can write poetry, paint pictures, solve scientific and mathematical puzzles, etc., why can’t it be the place where we receive messages from the great beyond? For that matter, why can’t God Himself talk to us in our unconscious?
I’m fully aware that this is a dangerous hypothesis. For madmen and fanatics have often imagined that they hear voices. All the same, the hypothesis may be true. Perhaps we really do hear voices – including, quite possibly, the voice of God. At all events, I don’t know how to rule the hypothesis out. God and other spirits may be closer than we think.
David Carlin
David Carlin is professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.
Men and women who identify as LGBT have any number of health concerns depending on each individual.
[ … ]
Cancer is another big health risk for Americans in general, but there are some specific risks for LGBT people. For example, lesbians are at a greater risk of developing breast cancer than heterosexual women. This may be explained by the fact that lesbians are less likely to have full-term pregnancies, are more likely to be overweight, and are less likely to get mammograms and other cancer screenings.
Gay men are at a greater risk than their heterosexual counterparts for developing testicular, colon, and prostate cancers. Gay men and bisexual men who have sex with men are also at a greater risk for developing anal cancer because they are at a greater risk for being exposed to HPV, the human papilloma virus, which can cause cancer.
[ … ]
Both lesbian women and gay men report more harassment and physical abuse from family members. Lesbians, gay men, and bisexual men and women are all more often victims of domestic partner violence than heterosexual men or women. Gay men are both more likely to be victims of domestic abuse and criminal physical violence based on sexual orientation.
Walt Heyer, who used to live as a transgender woman, now travels the country speaking about his experiences and reaching out to those who regret their own gender change.
The Daily Signal spoke with Heyer on camera about his story, as well as the lies he says society and the media tell young people today about gender.
David Carlin, professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, in a column titled “The Oddity of the LGBT Alliance” writes:
For some time now these rejections of nature have been celebrated, or at least condoned, on TV, in movies, in classrooms, in legislative chambers, and in law courts. What in particular?
Homosexuality. It used to be called “the unnatural vice.” Now, according to the masters of our popular culture, it is a perfectly respectable form of love.
Child abandonment. It used to be thought that only an unnatural parent would abandon his/her children, the parent-child bond being the most fundamental of all human connections. But for decades now American society has allowed fathers (though not yet mothers) to beget children and then walk out on them.
Bodily mutilation. If you spend a lot of time among young people (as I myself do in my capacity as a community college professor), you will observe the relatively new fashion of making nickel-or-quarter-size holes in ear lobes or cheeks or elsewhere. That’s minor-league mutilation. More advanced advocates of mutilation (I have not, thank God, come across any of these at my college) go further, defending the amputation of fingers, hands, and limbs – either as a way of being “different” or as a way of maintaining solidarity with disabled (differently abled) persons.
Suicide. It used to be that suicide was thought of as the most unnatural thing in the world. What could be more unnatural than to renounce life itself, the most fundamental of all natural goods? But now suicide or voluntary euthanasia is considered by truly “progressive” people to be a fine thing. To be sure, they don’t consider all suicide to be good. It is good that suicide or euthanasia should be chosen by very old people who are now (allegedly) incapable of getting any significant enjoyment out of life; or by terminally ill people who wish to shorten life by a few weeks or a few months; or by people whose life involves severe physical or mental suffering; or by mature (but not necessarily old) people who now find life boring. But it is not good (not yet, but stay tuned) if a 17-year-old girl commits suicide because her boyfriend dropped her.
Transgenderism. In the other cases listed, nature gives us strong hints as to the correct way to proceed – e.g., “have sex with persons of the opposite sex only,” “don’t abandon your children,” “don’t mutilate your body,” and “don’t kill yourself.” But in the case of sexual/gender identity, what nature gives us is something more than a hint. It used to be thought that the question of whether a newborn is a boy or a girl could be answered by taking a quick glance at the baby’s genitalia. Now we are told that the question shouldn’t be answered by other persons (doctors, nurses, mothers, fathers) who “assign” a gender to the child.
Unnatural behaviors leads down a dangerous road that few travel. Even one person lost to the LGBT life style is one too many.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-flag-burning-e1526593542623.jpeg364640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-05-17 17:45:532018-05-17 17:49:48WARNING: Being LGBT is Hazardous to Your Health
More than half a million illegal immigrants of several dozen nationalities have been apprehended on John Ladd’s sprawling cattle ranch in southeastern Arizona. Ladd has also found 14 dead bodies on his 16,500-acre farm, which has been in his family for well over a century and sits between the Mexican border and historic State Route 92.
The property shares a 10 ½-mile border with Mexico, making it a popular route for human and drug smugglers evading a meager force of Border Patrol agents in the mountainous region. “As big as that number sounds, many more got away,” said National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd of the hundreds of thousands arrested on Ladd’s parcel. Judd spent a chunk of his decades-long career with the agency patrolling the area and he knows it well. “It’s gotten more violent. It’s gotten worse.”
As part of an ongoing investigation into the critical security issues created by the famously porous southern border, Judicial Watch visited frustrated ranchers and residents in Sierra Vista, a Cochise County town located 75 miles southeast of Tucson with a population of around 44,000.
The town sits in the picturesque Sonoran Desert and is surrounded by the scenic Huachuca Mountains. Illegal immigrants and drug smugglers are devastating the area and many longtime residents live in fear. Some are too scared to enjoy a simple pastime—horseback riding on their own land. “I can’t guarantee there’s not a dead body somewhere in my ranch right now,” said Ladd pointing to his property as he stood in front of the U.S. government’s border fence, an area known as the “shit ditch” because illegal immigrants use it as a toilet and trash can.
Sporting a thick gray mustache and a dapper cowboy hat, Ladd said 200 to 300 illegal aliens are caught daily passing through his property. “We don’t have any control of the border,” he said. “I see it every day.”
A 60-foot wide dirt road, known as a federal easement, separates Ladd’s ranch from Mexico. Some portions have an 18-foot iron fence along the border that Ladd says illegal immigrants “easily climb with a pack of dope.” Other sections have a laughable wire fence that has been repeatedly penetrated with vehicles speeding through from Mexico.
Some areas have been visibly patched where holes were carved out for passage. The fence is such a joke that the Border Patrol installed concrete barriers along a busy two-mile stretch across the 60-foot dirt road, right in front of the barb wire barrier on Ladd’s property line to stop smugglers. “Smugglers even put a hydraulic ramp, so a car or truck could blow through,” Ladd said.
He estimates that around 70% of the traffic that comes through his ranch is human smuggling and 30% is drug smuggling. In the last three years most of the illegal border crossers have been central American, Ladd said. The veteran rancher first became concerned with the unprotected border decades ago because sick Mexican cows threatened his herd.
The problem became more serious over the years. “First it was Mexican cows, then people, then dope,” Ladd said. “Now it’s really bad.” Ladd has traveled to the nation’s capital seven times to bring attention to the crisis in Sierra Vista, but Washington bureaucrats have failed to take any action.
Instead, the federal government has placed ineffective or faulty surveillance equipment in the region that smugglers easily evade. “The smugglers know the radio range and avoid it,” Judd said, adding that cameras are installed in the wrong spot and don’t have great resolution.
Judicial Watch staffers pictured with John Ladd
On a hill adjacent to Ladd’s ranch stands an imposing camera tower that could never capture illegal border crossers because its view is completely blocked by a sea of lush trees below. The government spent $1.3 million on the useless equipment and never bothered to study the terrain’s impact on the technology.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) simply installed the equipment based on a predetermined formula that separates the cameras by a fixed number of miles without considering the landscape, according to Judd. “They didn’t do any research on the topography,” he said. These kinds of failures frustrate local ranchers, who feel increasingly threatened by the barrage of illegal crossers rampaging through their property. With both thumbs resting on his thick, bronze belt buckle, Ladd looked up at the pointless camera tower smiling and quipped: “Now that’s a big boondoggle right there, a total waste of taxpayer dollars.”
Another troubled property owner, John Guerrero, took Judicial Watch on a nighttime tour of a nearby smuggling route that is inexplicably unprotected. The dirt road runs through the Coronado National Forest and Guerrero, a retired U.S. Army Ranger and intelligence officer who served in Iraq and Somalia, has felt the impact of the government’s failure to adequately guard it.
Five strands of barb wire serve as the physical boundary between the U.S. and Mexico in a remote portion of the park, which is closed to the public at night and is heavily transited by drug and human smugglers. Illegal immigration has had such a devastating impact on the area that Guerrero wrote a book offering detailed anecdotes of what he and his family endure because they live near the Mexican border. This includes drugs and illegal immigrants piling into vehicles on the road adjacent to his four-acre property and ultralight aircraft flying near his rooftop, just above the trees, en route to make a drug drop. “Local residents are increasingly fearful,” Guerrero said.
The event that has most impacted Guerrero occurred when smugglers burned down a beloved chapel, Our Lady of the Sierras, situated on a hill across the road from his home. A 75-foot Celtic cross outside the chapel remains lit through the night and serves as a navigational tool for smugglers and the grounds are regularly used to transfer drugs.
In 2011, illegal immigrant smugglers started the fire along the border to escape the Border Patrol during a pursuit. Besides the chapel, which has since been rebuilt, the fire destroyed nearly 30,000 acres and dozens of homes. Guerrero and his family were forced to evacuate. Widespread media coverage omitted that illegal immigrants were responsible for the fire, but a local news station finally reported that the Cochise County Sheriff confirmed the fire started 200 yards north of the Mexican border in an area known as Smuggler’s Gulch. “There was absolutely no mention by the federal government as to the true origin of the fire,” Guerrero said.
Judd, who heads the union that represents some 16,000 Border Patrol agents nationwide, says the border can be secured. “There has to be political will to secure the border,” he said. The frontline agency had tremendous faith that the Trump administration would finally get the job done, but the stats tell a different story.
Shortly after Trump became president there was a dip in the number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. through Mexico, Judd said. However, “by April 2018 we were back to the Obama high of illegal border crossers,” Judd confirmed. Sierra Vista residents like Ladd and Guerrero continue to suffer the consequences of anemic border control and worry about the crime that has infested their once-idyllic town.
The problem is so rampant that Ladd often sees smuggling spotters from his property on the nearby mountains in the Mexican side. “They’re right there every day,” he said. “They live in camps and have solar generators. Their job is to look out.” Residents in Sierra Vista feel no one is looking out for them.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ladd-az-state-route-92-sign.jpg360640Judicial Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJudicial Watch2018-05-17 17:01:052018-05-17 17:16:14Arizona Border Ranchers Live in Fear as Illegal Immigration Crisis Worsens
Need more evidence that there are two Americas? Here: Left-wing hatred of Melania Trump is inversely proportional to flyover admiration for the first lady.
In just the last month, late-night clown Jimmy Kimmel mocked Trump’s Slovenian accent, CNN contributor April Ryan attacked her as “not culturally American,” former Hillary Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines derided her genteel presence at former [first lady Barbara Bush’s] funeral, and horror writer Stephen King snickered at her hospitalization this week for kidney surgery.
Yet, while partisans in the political press and entertainment media work hard to stoke division against and resentment of the Trump administration, “Melania” is now among the fastest-growing baby names in the nation, according to recently released Social Security data. And a new poll by anti-Trump CNN released on Monday reported a 10 percent jump in the first lady’s favorability ratings—from 47 percent in January to 57 percent last week.
That’s nearly 6 in 10 Americans with a positive view of FLOTUS. Uh-oh!
Imagine how much higher those impressive numbers would be if the same celeb tabloid reporters and TV hosts who slavered over the Obamas in Us magazine and on “The View” afforded Melania Trump the same courtesies. Imagine if the same couture divas who organized “Runway to Win” Obama campaign fundraisers and published breathless weekly reports on “Michelle Obama’s Best Looks Ever” harnessed their influence to promote Trump’s style and fashion sense.
Despite Trump’s successful career as an internationally photographed model featured in Harper’s Bazaar, GQ, Vanity Fair, and Vogue, lib-dominated fashion and celebrity magazines have shunned her. Pop culture editors and producers—who turned Barack and Michelle Obama into the Beltway Brangelina, promoting their election campaign, re-election campaign, books, and every last pet project—have ghosted her.
Why? Fear.
The first lady is not just strikingly beautiful. She is worldly, well-traveled, and well-read. She speaks English, French, German, Italian, and Serbian, in addition to her native Slovenian—more languages than any other woman who has served as America’s first lady. Her devotion to son Barron is exemplary. Her aversion to limelight and lack of political ambition are refreshing. So is her ability to refrain from public grievance-mongering over “sacrifices” and trade-offs made between work and home life (looking at you, Hill and ‘Chelle O).
The hostile White House press corps blames Trump’s own reticence for the publicity vacuum around her. But I believe there’s something deeper at work:
More exposure to this interesting and remarkable woman would mean more familiarity with her. More familiarity with her might mean more popularity. And God forbid there be more Republican women in the public eye who can compete with—and win against—the usual parade of militant kvetchers and moaners who pass themselves off as feminist role models.
Doubling down, both Clinton and Michelle Obama have assailed all women who didn’t vote for their political agendas as brainwashed by their husbands or selfishly unenlightened. “In light of this last election, I’m concerned about us, as women, and what we think about ourselves and about each other,” Obama complained at the United State of Women summit in California last week. “What is going on in our heads where we let that happen?”
It’s called choice. It’s called rejecting the tired old ideas that some women are more equal than others or that one party has a gender-based monopoly over the other. Smug Democratic divas who unleash their contempt for independent-minded women instead of working to win them over have learned nothing from the 2016 election.
So Trump, like so many prominent GOP women before her, will continue to be snubbed, humiliated, and demonized by narrative control freaks because women on the right threaten the cultural hegemony of the left. Black or white, rich or poor, centrist or “far right,” native-born or naturalized, Republican mothers, wives, and daughters must be otherized and forced to stay in media-manufactured lanes.
When leftists can’t win on their ideas, they resort to marginalizing the messengers of ideology they abhor—and their mates. It’s not an attractive look.
Michelle Malkin is a columnist for The Daily Signal, senior editor at Conservative Review, a best-selling author, and Fox News contributor. Twitter: @michellemalkin.
Dear Readers:
With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.
However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.
If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.
This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.
We are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associated benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.
Something struck me reading that New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has been accused of violent physical and verbal assaults against several women. He choked and slapped them and made racist comments during sex. (He claimed that is was all sexual play but the women tell a much different story.)
It wasn’t just the hypocrisy of Schneiderman that struck me – he had been a vocal advocate of the #MeToo movement and was using his office to sue Harvey Weinstein for conduct in which he himself was engaged.
No, it was something more that moved me. As I was reading the article about Schneiderman I felt I was reading the porn film offerings from the cable TV companies. Those offerings by mainstream cable companies like Verizon feature hardcore sex with humiliation, violence, and racial stereotypes. In fact, these are some of the MOST popular themes of porn movies and porn websites today.
Eric Schneiderman didn’t become a serial abuser of women because of what he studied in his constitutional law class at Harvard. No, there can be no doubt that he was schooled by the porn industry and its promoters, like Verizon and like Game of Thrones and The Deuce on HBO, and by Twitter and Facebook porn so easily accessible to all, and by Instagram and Snapchat photo collections, hotel/motel porn, 50 Shades of Gray books and movies, etc. etc. – all the targets of the Dirty Dozen List here at the National Center on Sexual Exploitation year after year.
How do I know this? Because his is a story we hear every day from the wives and girlfriends of the Eric Schneidermans all across the U.S. and beyond. The potent power of porn destroys countless men, women, and children every day. It’s no secret.
The #MeToo cultural phenomenon will likely soon fade but will the results be measured merely by the number of boorish and criminal-minded men who have been removed from office or will we see an authentic, positive change in culture? That change can only come about when we as a society face the fact that there is a seamless connection between all forms of sexual exploitation and that connection is PORNOGRAPHY. You can see this in the attached research summary on the public health harms of pornography.
I am thankful to report that because of your support we are making a difference.
Patrick A. Trueman, Esq.
CEO & PRESIDENT
As president, Patrick Trueman spearheads efforts to change corporate policies that facilitate sexual exploitation through the Dirty Dozen List. This aggressive project, educates executives, galvanizes public attention, and spurs popular actions to defend human dignity. Under his leadership, NCOSE has produced policy improvements at a wide range of notable institutions, including Google, Wal-Mart, the Department of Justice, Verizon, the Federal Communications Commission, and more.
In 2015, Mr. Trueman established the NCOSE Law Center, which serves as a resource for legal efforts to combat illegal pornography, sexually oriented businesses, and to bring innovative lawsuits against public institutions facilitating sexual exploitation. In 2010, he founded PornHarmsResearch.com to provide peer-reviewed research and talking points on the harms of pornography.
On a global level, Mr. Trueman leads NCOSE’s Coalition to End Sexual Exploitation, an international coalition, which boasts nearly 300 organizations and academic experts who are committed to sharing strategies and resources for combating public & private harms caused by pornography.
Patrick Trueman is a former Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, Criminal Division at the U. S. Department of Justice from 1988 to 1993. While there, he supervised the prosecution of child sex crimes, child pornography, and obscenity. He managed an office of twenty of prosecutors and support staff, and worked with the nation’s ninety-three United States Attorneys to initiate and coordinate federal prosecutions.
During his 41 years as a lawyer, he litigated cases at all levels of the federal system, including in the United States Supreme Court. He has been an advisor to many municipalities on First Amendment law and has helped draft ordinances to end or curb the impact of sexually oriented businesses such as pornography shops, strip clubs, and related establishments. A recognized international expert, Mr. Trueman has traveled to Europe, South American, the Middle East, and other areas to speak about human trafficking or the effects of television sex and violence on the family.
Mr. Trueman served as chief of staff to a Member of the United States Congress. From 1976 to 1982, he was Executive Director and General Counsel to Americans United for Life, a national public interest law firm in Chicago. He lives just outside Washington, D.C., and is married to Laura Clay Trueman. Laura and Pat Trueman have three children, Patrick, Claire, and Elizabeth.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/eric-schneidermanjpg-6b720d0fce4b47c2-700x400-e1526554086376.jpg366640National Center on Sexual Exploitationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngNational Center on Sexual Exploitation2018-05-17 06:48:252018-05-17 06:50:52Why Did Eric Schneiderman Assault Several Women? The Question No One Asks
A sign has been posted on the border that separates the United States from one of its two geographical neighbors. Its message is clear and unmistakeable. It reads simply:
Born near Port Tobacco, Maryland, around 1789, Henson’s first memory was of his father being whipped, having his ear cut off, and sold south—all as punishment for striking a white man who had attempted to rape his wife. He never saw his father again.
More than half a million illegal immigrants of several dozen nationalities have been apprehended on John Ladd’s sprawling cattle ranch in southeastern Arizona. Ladd has also found 14 dead bodies on his 16,500-acre farm, which has been in his family for well over a century and sits between the Mexican border and historic 
