Anyone wondering what Donald Trump would do to fill the pro-life promises of his campaign didn’t have to wait long to find out! In his first weekday on the job, the new White House started turning the page on eight deadly years of the Obama administration. After two terms of shipping American dollars to overseas groups like International Planned Parenthood, this president wasted no time pulling the plug, flipping the script on the pro-life Mexico City policy that Obama suspended.In a policy dating back to every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan’s, Donald Trump continued the tradition of blocking even a single U.S. cent from going to foreign groups that perform or promote abortion in other countries. But the administration wasn’t done. To the cheers of pro-lifers, this White House took a giant leap forward from even Presidents Bush and Reagan. For the first time ever, the administration didn’t just bring $600 million in taxpayer funding under the authority of the pro-life rule, but $8.8 billion from the Departments of State, Health and Human Services, and Defense. That’s almost 15 times more money flowing through the abortion ban than President Bush’s policy!
Liberals were apoplectic. The U.S. is ending its global health outreach, they cried! People are going to die without America’s help. As usual, it was fake news. President Trump didn’t zero out international aid — he expanded it. For once, hurting, sick people don’t have to compete with the abortion lobby to get real care. Dollars that would have been spent propping up the culture of death are finally going to projects that improve lives – not take them. But don’t take our word for it. Take the State Department’s.
A year into the Left’s sky-is-falling predictions, this new approach to foreign aid is working. And well. In a report just released by Secretary Rex Tillerson’s agency, the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance is having the desired effect. Not only is it helping to tear down the financial stronghold that groups like Planned Parenthood have on other nations, but it’s sending a message to the world that America recognizes that all human beings have inherent worth and dignity. If President Trump wanted to discourage international abortion, liberals say he has. A former member of USAID’s population fund, lamented the “huge, huge chilling effect” the White House’s policy is having on abortion activism. “I would say, yeah, unfortunately, it does work.”
If there’s one thing both sides can support, it’s that the Trump administration has managed all of this without any disruption to our aid — one of the Left’s biggest (and unfounded) complaints. Liberals were sure that organizations all around the world would end their partnership with the U.S. government if they had to abide by the new pro-life rules. Hardly. Out of the 733 groups that provide foreign aid, only four refused to comply – including (not so surprisingly) abortion giants Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes International. So far, they’re the only ones more interested in destroying humans than helping the ones in need.
Meanwhile, if anyone’s opinion matters, isn’t it the people we’re trying to serve? After two terms of hitting other countries over the head with abortion propaganda, a lot of nations are relieved by the change. From the Philippians to Latin America, our neighbors have cheered the move. Carmel Nisha Pius Franco, director of a pro-life organization in India, pointed out:
“Indian women need life, dignity, education and empowerment, not abortion. We have been exploited through decades-long population control propaganda which has resulted in at least 300 million abortions (16 million abortions being performed in India in just one year) and dangerous sub-replacement fertility rate. Americans do not want their hands in the blood of innocent children killed in India. Yes, we need to deal with development issues, but not by killing our children. Thanks to President Trump for setting things right …”
The message from this White House is simple: promoting health means protecting life. And years from now, who knows how many children will be alive to prove us right?
Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/trump-signing-legislation-e1518139439115.png366640Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2018-02-08 20:26:432018-02-08 20:28:01Eight Billion Reasons to Like Trump’s Agenda
Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, was asked a question about using the label “white privilege” on college campuses and in the public square. His answer is powerful and worthy of listening to.
Mr. Kirk takes less than 2 minutes to explain “white privilege.”
Turning Point USA is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization founded on June 5, 2012 by Charlie Kirk. The organization’s mission is to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government.
Since the founding, Turning Point USA has embarked on a mission to build the most organized, active, and powerful conservative grassroots activist network on college campuses across the country. With a presence on over 1,000 college campuses and high schools across the country, Turning Point USA is the largest and fastest growing youth organization in America.
National Field Program
Turning Point USA achieves its mission of identifying, organizing, and empowering free market activists through the National Field Program, which aims to:
Launch, organize, and support student groups that exist to educate students about the benefits of limited government, capitalism, and freedom
Build and maintain the largest national database of students who believe in capitalism and free markets
Unite like-minded campus organizations in an effort to increase impact and activism collaboration
Educate students about the importance of free market values through well-planned, effective activism initiatives
Re-brand free market values on college campuses through student-driven messaging efforts and face-to-face conversations
Effectively push back against intolerance and bias against conservatives in higher education
Empower and train students to join the movement and become activists on their campuses and within their communities
Turning Point USA’s National Field Program is the largest and most powerful campus activist program in America. For years, the left has dominated college campuses with paid field organizers, daily activism initiatives, and endless waves of leftist propaganda. With a presence on over 1,000 college campuses nationwide, Turning Point USA has a stronger, more organized presence than all of the left-wing campus groups combined.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/white-privilege-2.jpg360640Turning Point USAhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngTurning Point USA2018-02-08 17:59:022018-09-16 08:26:14VIDEO: Why the ‘White Privilege’ Label is by Definition Racist in Less than 2 Minutes
Some people have called for a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution as a means of reining in a big-spending Congress.
That’s a misguided vision, for the simple reason that in any real economic sense, as opposed to an accounting sense, the federal budget is always balanced.
The value of what we produced in 2017—our gross domestic product—totaled about $19 trillion. If the Congress spent $4 trillion of the $19 trillion that we produced, unless you believe in Santa Claus, you know that Congress must force us to spend $4 trillion less privately.
Taxing us is one way that Congress can do that. But federal revenue estimates for 2017 are about $3.5 trillion, leaving an accounting deficit of about $500 billion. So taxes are not enough to cover Congress’ spending.
Another way Congress can get us to spend less privately is to enter the bond market. It can borrow. Borrowing forces us to spend less privately, and it drives up interest rates and crowds out private investment.
Finally, the most dishonest way to get us to spend less is to inflate our currency. Higher prices for goods and services reduce our real spending.
The bottom line is the federal budget is always balanced in any real economic sense.
For those enamored of a balanced budget amendment, think about the following. Would we have greater personal liberty under a balanced federal budget with Congress spending $4 trillion and taxing us $4 trillion, or would we be freer under an unbalanced federal budget with Congress spending $2 trillion and taxing us $1 trillion?
I’d prefer the unbalanced budget.
The true measure of government’s impact on our lives is government spending, not government taxing.
Tax revenue is not our problem. The federal government has collected nearly 20 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product almost every year since 1960. Federal spending has exceeded 20 percent of the GDP for most of that period.
Because federal spending is the problem, that’s where our focus should be.
Cutting spending is politically challenging. Every spending constituency sees what it gets from government as vital, whether it be Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid recipients or farmers, poor people, educators, or the military.
It’s easy for members of Congress to say yes to these spending constituencies, because whether it’s Democrats or Republicans in control, they don’t face a hard-and-fast bottom line.
The nation needs a constitutional amendment that limits congressional spending to a fixed fraction, say 20 percent, of the GDP. It might stipulate that the limit could be exceeded only if the president declared a state of emergency and two-thirds of both houses of Congress voted to approve the spending.
By the way, the Founding Fathers would be horrified by today’s congressional spending. From 1787 to the 1920s, except in wartime, federal government spending never exceeded 4 percent of our GDP.
During the early 1980s, I was a member of the National Tax Limitation Committee. Our distinguished blue-ribbon drafting committee included its founder, Lew Uhler, plus notables such as Milton Friedman, James Buchanan, Paul McCracken, Bill Niskanen, Craig Stubblebine, Robert Bork, Aaron Wildavsky, Robert Nisbet, and Robert Carleson.
The Senate passed our proposed balanced budget/spending limitation amendment to the U.S. Constitution on Aug. 4, 1982, by a bipartisan vote of 69-31, surpassing the two-thirds requirement by two votes.
In the House of Representatives, the amendment was approved by a bipartisan majority (236-187), but it did not meet the two-thirds vote required by Article 5 of the Constitution.
The amendment can be found in Milton and Rose Friedman’s “Tyranny of the Status Quo” or the appendix of their “Free to Choose.”
During an interview about the proposed amendment, a reporter asked why I disagreed with the committee and called for a limit of 10 percent of GDP on federal spending. I told him that if 10 percent is good enough for the Baptist church, it ought to be good enough for Congress.
Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.
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/Cash8-1-1250x650-e1518093803280.jpg376640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-02-08 07:43:312018-02-08 07:44:59The Constitutional Amendment That Would Rein in Spending
Sometimes it’s good to have a little historical perspective when reacting to the news of the day.
The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that President Donald Trump was working with the Pentagon to host a military parade in the District of Columbia after he was so impressed by France’s Bastille Day parade, which he witnessed in July.
“It was a tremendous day, and to a large extent because of what I witnessed, we may do something like that on July 4th in Washington down Pennsylvania Avenue,” Trump said last year, according to CNBC. “We’re going to have to try to top it, but we have a lot of planes going over and a lot of military might, and it was really a beautiful thing to see, and representatives from different wars and different uniforms.”
Numerous pundits immediately hit the administration with accusations of behaving like a dictatorial regime.
“We have a Napoleon in the making here,” said Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif.
Twitter was in rare form.
Regardless of the utility of a military parade, the practice is nothing new in American history. Though it’s been a while since a military parade has been hosted in Washington, D.C., it used to be far more common.
Some of America’s first presidents attended military parades in the nation’s capital for the Fourth of July, including John Adams in 1798 (held in America’s then-capital of Philadelphia) and Thomas Jefferson in 1803 and 1804. Of course, these parades were much smaller than anything that could be expected today.
The largest military parade in American history was in 1865 at the close of the Civil War. To celebrate a Union victory over the Confederacy, President Andrew Johnson and Gen. Ulysses S. Grant presided over the Grand Review of the Armies in Washington, D.C., that included over 200,000 soldiers.
It was an impressive display of perhaps the greatest army ever assembled in the Western Hemisphere. Historian Ronald C. White called it a “never-to-be-forgotten sight” in his biography of Grant.
“Grant stood near the White House in a reviewing stand, which was festooned with star-studded flags inscribed ‘Shiloh,’ Vicksburg,’ and ‘Wilderness,’ watching his men,” White wrote.
Military parades continued to be thrown during and after World War I and World War II. The practice continued throughout the Cold War.
Even President John F. Kennedy had a parade at his inauguration in 1961 that featured various military hardware, including nuclear warheads.
The military parades came to a halt during the Vietnam War as anti-military attitudes began to rise.
Unlike the case in previous conflicts, there was no national parade to welcome American soldiers home after fighting in Vietnam. Vietnam vets had to wait until 1982 to have one thrown in their honor, a muted affair due to the still lingering anti-military attitudes in the country.
The last military parade in Washington occurred in 1991 at the close of the first Gulf War in Iraq.
It was hosted as a sign of thanks to troops for a job well done and was seen as an important healing moment for the country and the military.
President George H.W. Bush delivered brief remarks at Arlington National Cemetery, saying:
We meet today to remember the men and women who gave their lives to their nation and to the ideal of freedom during Operation Desert Storm. All across America people celebrate our victory in that war, and there’s a new and wonderful feeling in America.
Questions over the need for a large display of military might and how to deal with the logistical cost of such a venture are certainly up for debate. What isn’t debatable is the fact that demonstrations of this type are nothing new under the sun.
James Carafano, a national security and foreign policy expert at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that there are clear differences between a military parade thrown by the U.S. and one thrown by an authoritarian regime.
“Democracies hold parades because they are proud of their armed forces and the role they play in defending freedom,” Carafano said. “Anyone who can’t tell the difference lacks a sense of proportionality and common sense.”
The fact is, military parades are a tradition as old as the republic.
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.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of President Trump is by Oliver Contreras/Sipa USA/Newscom.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/180207_Paradeedit-1250x650-e1518092777962.jpg365640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-02-08 07:27:552018-02-08 07:35:35America’s Long History of Military Parades
George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
With the ongoing revelations that Americans were the targets of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) surveillance during the 2016 presidential primary process and after the presidential election, this quote deserves to be repeated. Why? Because this is the second case of an administration run by a President from the Democratic Party that has done this.
The first example happened 63 years ago when the FBI spied on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. At that time the President was John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert was the Attorney General.
The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began monitoring Martin Luther King, Jr., in December 1955, during his involvement with the Montgomery bus boycott, and engaged in covert operations against him throughout the 1960s. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover was personally hostile toward King, believing that the civil rights leader was influenced by Communists. This animosity increased after April 1964, when King called the FBI ‘‘completely ineffectual in resolving the continued mayhem and brutality inflicted upon the Negro in the deep South’’ (King, 23 April 1964). Under the FBI’s domestic counterintelligence program (COINTELPRO) King was subjected to various kinds of FBI surveillance that produced alleged evidence of extramarital affairs, though no evidence of Communist influence. [Emphasis added]
Fast forward to today. There are numerous reports of animosity and open hostility toward President Donald J. Trump by senior members of the FBI during the administration of former President Barack Obama. These senior members to date include: former FBI Director James Comey, former Chief of the Counterespionage Section Peter P. Strzok II, Strzok’s mistress former FBI senior council Lisa Page, former Deputy Associate Attorney General Bruce Ohr and former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe.
The FBI spying on Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Donald J. Trump, both Republicans and both critical of the FBI, was done for “political” reasons. Both cases involved “suspicion” of Russian collusion.
History has vindicated Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr of any Russian collusion. The investigation against President Trump is ongoing.
The Permanent House Committee on Intelligence is conducting an ongoing investigation into the possible misuse and abuse of FISA warrants and the secret FISA court system. According to RedState.com:
The Permanent House Committee on Intelligence voted unanimously to release a second memo written by Rep. Adam Bennett Schiff (D-CA District 28) the committee’s minority chairman. This second memo, like the first, is going through the process of being reviewed to insure no intelligence procedures and sources are reveled. President Trump has five days to review and release it. There are already expectations that a third memo is being prepared for release.
The more memos released the more Americans will learn about how Americans can be swept up into a system of domestic spying, legally and illegally.
It is important that once this episode is over that we do not repeat it, ever again.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Trump-MLK-750x399.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-02-07 07:09:022018-02-08 20:19:04How Democrats Used the FBI to Spy on Two Men accused of Russian Collusion: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Donald J. Trump
Some in the crowd cheered when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau corrected a woman’s usage of the word “mankind” to “peoplekind” — a word more politically correct, but not found in either the Merriam-Webster Dictionary or the Oxford English Dictionary.
Had he been there, Dr. Jordan Peterson, a Canadian clinical psychologist, would not have been one of those cheering.
“We like to say ‘peoplekind,’ not necessarily ‘mankind,’ because it’s more inclusive,” Trudeau said at a town hall meeting in Edmonton, Alberta, on Feb. 2, interrupting the woman, who had asked him about Canadian laws on volunteering with religious organizations.
Peterson weighed in on TV’s “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday on the prime minister’s interjection. Besides being a psychologist, he is a professor at the University of Toronto and a best-selling author.
Peterson has been an outspoken critic of the government compelling individuals to refer to others by their “preferred” pronouns and making it illegal to “misgender” someone.
An example of “misgendering” someone is the act of referring to a man who “identifies” as a woman as “him” or even calling a man “him” when he uses the artificial pronoun “ze.”
“It’s completely inappropriate of the government to decide which language the citizenry should speak,” Peterson said.
He described Trudeau as someone only capable of “running his ideas on a few, very narrow ideological tracks.”
The “most egregious example,” Peterson said, occurred when Trudeau assembled his Cabinet in 2015 and mandated that it be made up of 50 percent women and 50 percent men, despite the fact that only “about 22 percent” of the elected members of the Canadian Parliament are women.
“It was easier for him to do that than it was for him to screen people for the sort of competence that would actually be necessary to be Cabinet members,” he said.
When Trudeau, who took office in November 2015, was asked why he chose to make his Cabinet 50 percent women and 50 percent men, he replied, “because it’s 2015.”
“It’s quite the performance,” Peterson said. “I think we’re really going to pay for it in Canada in ways that we can’t yet imagine.”
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.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Dr. Jordan Peterson who took issue with the Canadian prime minister’s recent claim that “peoplekind” is a more “inclusive” term than “mankind.” (Photo: Carlos Osorio/ZUMA Press/Newscom)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/JordanPeterson-1250x650-e1518001375435.jpg385640The Daily Signalhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Signal2018-02-07 06:03:282018-02-07 06:04:50VIDEO: Watch Jordan Peterson React to Justin Trudeau’s Telling a Woman to Say ‘Personkind’
The following interview was conducted by The Christian Post and has been republished with permission.
How did we get to this point in our country where a child decides what gender they should be? In your opinion, what was the pivot point?
The immediate pivot point was Obergefell v. Hodges. After LGBT activists had redefined marriage, they immediately turned to redefining sex and gender. It’s no coincidence that the Obama Department of Justice/Department of Education “Dear Colleague” letter on bathrooms and locker rooms was issued when it was.
The longer-term pivot has its roots, oddly enough, in second-wave feminism. Chapter 7 of my book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” goes through this intellectual history. It explains how first-wave feminism was a campaign to liberate women from an overly restrictive concept of gender, so they could be free to fulfill their nature, but it gave way to a movement seeking to make women identical to men.
From the error of inflexible sex stereotypes, our culture swung to the opposite error of denying any important differences between male and female. The result is a culture of androgyny and confusion.
An agenda of nullifying the distinction between men and women might seem opposed to the insistence on the absolute reality of transgender identity—i.e., an inner sense of being truly male or female—yet both start by severing gender from biological sex.
“It’s the children who are now leading us,” the director of mental health for the Childand Adolescent Gender Center at the University of California, San Francisco said in an interview with The Washington Post. The Child and Adolescent Gender Center treats children as young as 3. Have we become so numb as a country and as a people to not see anything wrong [with] this scenario?
I cite that quote in my book. It’s truly amazing. It entirely ignores the reality that children need assistance in the difficult process of sexual maturation. They need parents.
As new gender ideologies are promoted throughout America, the lies will impact not only those who suffer from gender dysphoria, but all children who need to mature in their self-understanding as a boy or girl, man or woman, a potential husband or wife, father or mother.
We should be tolerant—indeed, loving—toward those who struggle with their gender identity, but also be aware of the harm done to the common good, particularly to children, when transgender identity is normalized.
Transgender activists are not merely asking for tolerance or kindness. They are demanding affirmation, not just from adults but from children and adolescents who are already challenged by the process of sexual development.
In a culture where transgender identities are not only affirmed but celebrated, everyone will be compelled to construct their own gender identity, unaided by a common understanding of sex differences and why they matter.
A 2-year-old boy who transitioned in Australia told his mother he changed his mind. Isn’t this a prime example that children should not be allowed to make these decisions?
Children develop best when parents and professionals help them understand and accept their embodied selves as male or female. Chapter 6 of “When Harry Became Sally” focuses on gender dysphoria in children and the experimental therapies that have rapidly become commonplace.
As recently as 2012, The Washington Post reported that “the very idea of labeling young children as transgender is shocking to many people.” Starting a young child on a process of “social transitioning” followed by puberty-blocking drugs was virtually unthinkable not long ago, and the treatment is still largely experimental.
Unfortunately, many activists have given up on caution, let alone skepticism, about drastic treatments. They assert that puberty blockers are safe and reversible, but in fact these drugs carry long-term health risks, and development occurring at age 16 that usually happens around age 10 cannot be considered normal.
There are psychological consequences, too, since blocking puberty may interfere with the developmental mechanism that normally helps children accept themselves as male or female.
A more cautious therapeutic approach begins by acknowledging that the vast majority of children with gender dysphoria will grow out of it naturally. An effective therapy looks into the reasons for the child’s mistaken beliefs about gender, and addresses the problems that the child believes will be solved if the body is altered.
Many physicians have found that other psychosocial issues usually lie beneath the child’s false assumptions, and thus effective therapy focuses on remedies for those issues. Chapter 6 of my book concludes with case studies of children who received effective therapy that offered strategies for accepting themselves.
Gender-confirmation surgeries are on the rise, but so are reversals, according to Newsweek. What are your thoughts?
The most difficult chapter of the book for me to research and write was the chapter on people who have detransitioned. Chapter 3 presents the stories of several people who found that transitioning didn’t bring the peace and wholeness they sought, but only new problems.
The stories of detransitioners complicate the sunny picture frequently presented in the media. Many of these people recall a feeling of being pushed into transitioning, as if there were no other options, and they wish that medical professionals had made an effort to help them understand the deeper psychological issues that alienated them from their body.
Many regret the permanent damage done to their bodies, and some who transitioned as teenagers believe they were not mature enough to make such consequential decisions. Some feel that their dysphoria resulted from social hostility to people who don’t conform to gender norms or who have same-sex attractions.
In this light, social conservatives (including myself) should take care to be respectful and compassionate toward people who we may disagree with. We should also call on transgender activists to stop trying to silence detransitioners.
As the book went to press, The Telegraph (based in the United Kingdom) ran a report with the headline: “Sex change regret: Gender reversal surgery is on the rise, so why aren’t we talking about it?” The answer to the question is political correctness. But it’s better to be correct than politically correct where human lives are concerned.
You said sex changes are based [on] ideology, not science. How so?
The simple reality is that you can’t change your sex. There is no way to “reassign” sex because sex isn’t “assigned” in the first place. The best biology, psychology, and philosophy all support an understanding of sex as a bodily reality, and of gender as a social manifestation of bodily sex. Biology isn’t bigotry.
The most effective therapies for gender dysphoria do not try to remake the body to conform with thoughts and feelings—which is impossible—but rather to help people find healthy ways to manage their tension and move toward accepting the reality of their bodily selves.
Contrary to the claims of activists, sex isn’t “assigned” at birth. It’s a bodily fact that can be recognized well before birth with ultrasound imaging. The sex of an organism is defined by its organization for sexual reproduction. Secondary differences between the two sexes—attributes that may be visibly altered by hormone treatment—are not what make us male or female.
As I explain in “When Harry Became Sally,” it’s impossible even to make sense of the concept of sex apart from the ways our bodies are organized for reproduction. That organization starts to develop well before birth.
Chromosomal and hormonal pathologies may disrupt normal development, though in fact these abnormalities have essentially nothing to do with transgender ideology—except insofar as activists want to relabel such abnormalities as mere “differences,” in an effort to normalize disorders.
You mentioned that “America is in the midst of what has been called a transgender moment.” What do you mean by this?
The subtitle of my book, “When Harry Became Sally” is “Responding to the Transgender Moment.” Some people think that’s a typo, that it should be “movement,” not “moment.” But I chose “moment” intentionally.
I use “moment” because transgender ideology is not here to stay. It’s a moment that will eventually pass. So, while transgender ideology may appear to be establishing a firm place in our culture, there are signs of defensiveness among its advocates. Activists have to keep patching and shoring up their own beliefs, policing the faithful, coercing heretics, and punishing apostates, because transgender dogmas are so contrary to basic, self-evident truths.
The transgender moment may turn out to be fleeting, but that doesn’t mean we should expect it to fade away on its own. We need to insist on telling the truth, and on saving lives from being irreparably damaged.
As I explain in the book, there is work for everyone to do. We need scholars willing to defend the truth in a loving way. We need medical professionals willing to provide effective alternatives to the transgender clinics. We [need] religious leaders willing to minister to those in need. We need civic leaders willing to stand up to the activists.
What’s at stake in the transgender moment is the human person. If trans activists succeed in their political agenda, our nation’s children will be indoctrinated in a harmful ideology, and some will live by its lies about their own bodies, at great cost to themselves physically, psychologically, and socially. Lives will be ruined, but pointing out the damage will be forbidden. Dissent from the transgender worldview will be punished in schools, workplaces, and medical clinics. Trying to live in accordance with the truth will be made harder.
This doesn’t have to happen. Everyone can play a role in bearing witness to the truth and ministering compassionately to people in pain. For anyone who takes part in this important work, Dr. Paul McHugh offers some advice: “Gird your loins if you would confront this matter. Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle.”
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.
The man suspected of killing Indianapolis Colts linebacker Edwin Jackson and Uber driver Jeffrey Monroe in a roadside crash is an illegal immigrant who has been deported two times in the past, Indiana State Police said Monday.
The driver is 37-year-old Guatemalan national Manuel Orrego-Savala. He gave police the alias Alex Cabrera Gonsales after being arrested for slamming into Jackson and Monroe as they stood on the shoulder of Interstate 70 early Sunday morning.
“Orrego-Savala is in the United States illegally and has previously been deported on two occasions, in 2007 and again in 2009,” Sgt. John Perrine said in a statement, according to the Indianapolis Star. “State police investigators are working with U.S. Federal Immigration Officials and they have placed a hold on Orrego-Savala.”
Jackson, 26, and Monroe, 54, were standing near a stopped vehicle when Orrego-Savala drove his Ford F-150 pickup onto the emergency shoulder and struck both men, according to police reports. Investigators believe Monroe had pulled over and exited the car to assist Jackson, who had become ill.
Manuel Orrego-Savala
Orrego-Savala tried to run away from the scene, but was apprehended on a nearby exit ramp, police said. He remains in custody in the Marion County Jail on charges of drunk driving, causing a death while driving intoxicated, and driving without a license.
EDITORS NOTE: Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org. The featured image is by Ian Johnson/Icon Sportswire DCD/Ian Johnson/Icon Sportswire/Newscom.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/180205_ColtsDeath_Racke-1250x650-e1517916813891.jpg381640The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2018-02-06 06:33:422018-02-06 06:45:21Suspect in DUI Death of Colts Player Is Twice-Deported Illegal Immigrant
According to Exodus in the Old Testament, God issued his own set of laws (the Ten Commandments) to Moses on Mount Sinai. In Catholicism, the Ten Commandments are considered divine law because God himself revealed them. And because they were spelled out specifically with no room for ambiguity, they’re also positive law. Hence they’re also known as divine positive law. [Emphasis added]
Divine positive law is the law given by God to man in addition to the natural laws.
Dummies.com goes on to state this about the Eighth Commandment of God’s divine positive law “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”:
The Eighth Commandment condemns lying. Because God is regarded as the author of all truth, the Church believes that humans are obligated to honor the truth. The most obvious way to fulfill this commandment is not to lie — intentionally deceive another by speaking a falsehood. [Emphasis added]
Sadly, Pope Francis lied to not only all Catholics, but to the entire world.
When asked about Juan Barros, the bishop of Osornos, Chili, and reported sexual abuses of under-aged children, Pope Francis in January, 2018 said to reporters:
“You, in all good will, tell me that there are victims, but I haven’t seen any, because they haven’t come forward. No one has come forward. They haven’t provided any evidence for a judgment. This is all a bit vague. It’s something that can’t be accepted.” [Emphasis added]
At that moment Pope Francis violated God’s divine positive laws by not telling the truth.
A victim of a paedophile priest in Chile has revealed he wrote to the Pope in 2015 about an alleged cover-up after Francis denied getting evidence.
Juan Carlos Cruz, a victim of cleric Fernando Karadima in the 1980s, accused fellow priest Juan Barros of witnessing the abuse and doing nothing.
[ … ]
Mr Cruz sent the text of his letter (written in Spanish) to BBC News, showing it was addressed personally to Pope Francis and dated 3 March 2015.
[ … ]
In that letter, Mr Cruz accuses Bishop Barros of “doing all the dirty work of Fernando Karadima”, and describes the abuse he suffered and which Bishop Barros allegedly witnessed.
BBC News quotes from the letter written by Juan Carlos Cruz:
“When we were in a room with Karadima and Juan Barros, if he [Barros] wasn’t kissing Karadima, he watched as one of us, one of the younger ones, was touched by Karadima and forced to give him kisses,” he writes.
“Karadima would say to me: ‘Put your mouth next to mine and stick out your tongue.’ He’d stick out his and kiss us with his tongue. Juan Barros witnessed all of this on countless occasions, not just in my case but in the case of others as well.”
Addressing himself to Pope Francis, Mr Cruz says: “Holy Father, Juan Barros says he saw nothing and yet, there are dozens of us who can testify to the fact that not only was he present when Karadima abused us, but that he, too, kissed Karadima and they touched each other.” [Emphasis added]
Pope Francis knew this in 2015 but still made Barros a Bishop of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Pope Francis broke God’s divine positive law. Barros and Karadima broke God’s natural law which condemns men who love men.
Pope Francis famously said when asked about homosexuality, “whom am I to judge?” As the Holy See he is required to judge those who violated God’s laws for man and nature.
If the Holy See can violate God’s laws, why not all of mankind? What now?
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of Pope Francis celebrating the Assumption Day mass in the Castelgandolfo’s central square on August 15, 2013. AFP PHOTO / POOL/ ALESSANDRO BIANCHI.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/pope-francis-facebook-e1456052437658.jpg376640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-02-05 18:05:492018-04-06 09:27:18Pope Francis Violates God’s Divine Positive Law — Now what?
I write with regards to growing foreign influence operations of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the United States, particularly in our academic institutions. There is mounting concern about the Chinese government’s increasingly aggressive attempts to use “Confucius Institutes” and other means to influence foreign academic institutions and critical analysis of China’s past history and present policies. Additionally, the PRC continues its efforts to interfere in multilateral institutions, threaten and intimidate rights defenders and their families, and impose censorship mechanisms on foreign publishers and social media companies. For reasons outlined below, I respectfully urge you to consider terminating your Confucius Institute agreement.
Confucius Institutes are Chinese government-run programs that use the teaching of Chinese language and culture as a tool to expand the political influence of the PRC. In November 2011, Li Changchun, a former member of the Standing Committee of the Politburo, the highest body of the Chinese Communist Party, stated in a speech at the Beijing Headquarters of the Confucius Institute:
“The Confucius Institute is an appealing brand for extending our culture abroad. It has made an important contribution toward improving our soft power. The ‘Confucius’ brand has a natural attractiveness. Using the excuse of teaching Chinese language, everything looks reasonable and logical.”
There are presently more than 100 Confucius Institutes, in addition to Confucius Classrooms at the K-12 level in the United States, including several in the state of Florida. These institutes are overseen by a branch of the Chinese Ministry of Education, and are instructed to only teach versions of Chinese history, culture or current events that are explicitly approved by the Chinese Government and Communist Party. As the American Association of University Professors noted in a June 2014 report:
“Confucius Institutes function as an arm of the Chinese state and are allowed to ignore academic freedom. Their academic activities are under the supervision of Hanban, a Chinese state agency which is chaired by a member of the Politburo and the vice-premier of the People’s Republic of China. Most agreements establishing Confucius Institutes feature nondisclosure clauses and unacceptable concessions to the political aims and practices of the government of China. Specifically, North American universities permit Confucius Institutes to advance a state agenda in the recruitment and control of academic staff, in the choice of curriculum, and in the restriction of debate.”[1]
Moreover, Confucius Institute instructors are almost always hired in China and trained by the Chinese Ministry of Education without any of the same employment and hiring protections that exist in the United States. Much more difficult to measure but no less insidious, however, is the self-censorship that often takes place in academic settings where there is a Chinese government presence in the form of a Confucius Institute. University of Chicago professor Marshall Sahlins has called Confucius Institutes “academic malware” because they represent and reflect decidedly illiberal views of education and academic freedom. We know from multiple reports that topics, such as the status of Tibet and Taiwan, the fourth of June 1989 at Tiananmen Square, Falun Gong, and universal human rights, are off-limits at these institutes.
In a 2017 report titled, “Outsourced to China: Confucius Institutes and Soft Power in American Higher Education,” the National Association of Scholars found that “to a large extent, universities have made improper concessions that jeopardize academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Sometimes these concessions are official and in writing; more often they operate as implicit policies.”[2]
In turn, a growing number of universities have already cut ties with Confucius Institutes:
In 2014, the University of Chicago suspended negotiations to renew its agreement to host a Confucius Institute following a petition signed by more than 100 faculty members raising concerns.
Days later, Pennsylvania State University cut ties with its Confucius Institute, noting: “Several of our goals are not consistent with those of the Office of Chinese Languages Council International, known as the Hanban, which provides support to Confucius Institutes throughout the world.” [3]
Ontario’s McMaster University shuttered its Confucius Institute in 2013 after a former instructor alleged that the university was “giving legitimization to discrimination” because her contract with Hanban prohibited her participation in Falun Gong.[4]
Indeed, as Politico reported in “How China Infiltrated U.S. Classrooms” (January 16, 2018): “The American Association of University Professors, America’s leading professorial guild, also recommended in 2014 that ‘universities cease their involvement in Confucius Institutes unless the agreement between the university and Hanban is renegotiated,’ so that the universities have unilateral control over the curriculum and faculty, Confucius faculty have the same rights of free inquiry as their fellow teachers, and contracts between Hanban and the partner universities are made public.”
I remain deeply concerned by the proliferation of Confucius Institutes and Confucius Classrooms in the United States. Given China’s aggressive campaign to “infiltrate” American classrooms, stifle free inquiry, and subvert free expression both at home and abroad, I respectfully urge you to consider terminating your Confucius Institute agreement. Should you have any questions or concerns please do hesitate to contact my office for further discussion.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.
In his economic dreamland of surrealist juxtapositions and non-sequiturs, with visions free from conscious rationality, General Castro believes that improved state management is the way to save Cuba’s communist system. The hostility toward individual freedoms and success embodied in his economic reform program signals its inevitable failure. The desire for control by the military and the Party of every aspect of Cuban life is the antithesis of the individual freedoms and empowerment necessary to bring about an economic renaissance.
With his characteristic intellectual wit, Cuban writer Carlos Alberto Montaner defines communism as “the time countries waste between capitalism and capitalism.” By this account, Cuba has now wasted six decades of economic development and appears incapable or ignorant of how to change course. The economic platform for the VI Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba, revealed ideological bewilderment manifested in absurd and incongruous policymaking.
The Draft Guidelines for Economic and Social Policy – the 32-page document that proposes to chart Cuba’s economic future – affirms that:
“The new economic policy will correspond with the principle that only socialism [i.e. Cuban communism] is capable of conquering the difficulties… and that central planning and not the market will be supreme in the actualization of the economic model.”
The document persistently emphasizes General Castro’s militaristic themes of increased efficiency, discipline, and control. It insists, for example, on setting prices according to the dictates of central planning and insuring that any new “non-state” economic activities (apparently the term “private sector” is not to be spoken) do not lead to the accumulation of wealth. The General is not interested in introducing Deng Xiaoping’s market socialism with Deng’s pronouncement that “to get rich is glorious.”
In Cuba, central planning will be extended to include not only the state and mixed enterprises, but also the allowed forms of non-state activities with “new methods of planning and state control over the economy.”
It is not surprising that Raul Castro and his generals are more comfortable with the chain of command of a centrally planned economy than with the vicissitudes of a market economy. What is baffling is the failure to understand core principles of economic development. They appear to be clueless as to what to do.
To make the point, it is instructive to examine a representative handful of the 205 trades and professions authorized by the state for self-employment (of non-state sector activity) as a centerpiece of General Castro’s “bold” economic reforms to rescue the country’s economy. After much debate and with trepidation the Cuban economic reformers have decided to allow the 500,000 Cubans being fired to solicit permits to become self-employed in activities such as:
# 23 Purchases and sale of used books
# 29 Attendants of public bathrooms (presumably for tips)
# 34 Trimmers of palm trees (apparently other trees will still be trimmed by the state)
# 49 Wrapping buttons with fabric
# 61 Shoe shinning
# 62 Cleaning of spark plugs
# 69 Typists
# 110 Box spring repairs (not to be confused with #116)
# 116 Mattress repairs
# 124 Umbrella repairs
# 125 Refilling of disposable cigarette lighters
# 150 Tarot cards fortune telling
# 156 Dandy (technical definition unknown, male escort?)
# 158 Natural fruits peeling (Separate from #142, fruit sale in kiosks)
Clearly, this bizarre list of permitted private service sector activities will not drive the economic development of the country. Equally revealing is the fact that the Cuban technocrats find it necessary to list the economic activities that will be permitted with such degree of regulation and control.
An impediment to real reforms is simply that without inspired democratic leadership, the set of long-held Marxists economic assumptions will not be swapped for another set of economic beliefs. These are not reforms to unleash the market’s “invisible hand,” but rather to reaffirm the Castros’ clenched fist.
One does not have to be an economist to appreciate, for example, that the refilling of disposable cigarette lighters (permitted occupation # 125) is not an industrial activity that will contribute in any measure to the economic development of Cuba. Measures designed to encourage the domestic manufacturing of disposable lighters would come closer. Continuing with the example, what is needed are economic empowerment measures to encourage the entrepreneurial manufacturing of disposable lighters of high quality and low cost so as to be competitive exporting to world markets. This will not be allowed in Cuba.
In his economic dreamland of surrealist juxtapositions and non-sequiturs, with visions free from conscious rationality, General Castro believes that improved state management is the way to save Cuba’s communist system. The hostility toward individual freedoms and success embodied in his economic reform program signals its inevitable failure.
The desire for control by the military and the Party of every aspect of Cuban life is the antithesis of the individual freedoms and empowerment necessary to bring about an economic renaissance.
General Castro ignores what José Marti emphasized in 1884. During the struggle for Cuban independence from Spain, in a letter rebuking his military commander Máximo Gómez, Marti wrote: “A nation is not founded General, the way one commands an encampment.” The same holds true for the building of a successful economy.
ABOUT JOSE AZEL
José Azel arrived in the U.S. in 1961 from communist Cuba as a 13-year-old political exile with Operation Pedro Pan, the largest unaccompanied child refugee movement in the history of the Western Hemisphere. Dr. Azel earned a Masters Degree in Business Administration and a Ph.D. in International Affairs from the University of Miami, and is author of Mañana in Cuba: The Legacy of Castroism and Transitional Challenges for Cuba, and Reflections on Freedom. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis of the online-conservative-journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Surrealism.png394639Selous Foundation For Public Policy Researchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelous Foundation For Public Policy Research2018-02-05 06:29:312018-02-05 11:07:12Cuba’s Economic Surrealism by José Azel
“As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like the leaders of other countries should put their country first also,” Trump declared at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The numbers don’t lie, the Trump economy is the best America has had in years.
At the close of Trump’s first year in office the economy will likely have seen three percent growth for three successive quarters, which we haven’t seen for 13 years. The Dow hit 25,000 which we’ve never seen before. Wages and employment are rising, most significantly at the bottom end of the income distribution scale with most concentrated in the blue state heartland.
Moreover, the confidence of small businesses as measured by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, is the highest it’s been since they started doing the survey 45 years ago.
There has predictably been a lot of grumbling: “This is Obama’s policies finally kicking in!”
After eight years of assuring us that two percent growth is the new normal, he never achieved it.
“Almost a-quarter-million employees have been notified of plant closings and layoffs!”
That may be true – but so what?
Sorry, I know that sounds callous for those going through job loss – been there, done it; but the fact remains when the economy is expanding and employment increasing, layoffs in certain sectors means the economy is changing, not static. The slack will be taken up in new more dynamic sectors and Americans will do what we always have; move somewhere else, learn new skills, and get a new job.
So why has this happened and what does it mean? Because a great many of the ‘Wise and Wonderful’ on both the right and left predicted gloom, doom, and disaster.
In the past, when we’ve seen the economy improve with a new and more business-friendly administration, there has usually been a year’s lead time before Americans have seen improvement — but this has been immediate.
Some have proposed the first effects were largely psychological, and there is something to this. The Democrat Party is more than ever before dominated at the national level by hard leftists ferociously hostile towards free enterprise.
A change to an even tepidly pro-capitalist administration is like a shot of espresso to the economy.
And this change has been more than token. Trump promised to remove two business regulations for every one passed. At last count, 22 regulations have been removed for every single regulation imposed.
It’s not just that the regulatory burden on business is difficult and expensive, we could live with that – in fact, we have. It’s that it is so complex that it’s nearly impossible to understand.
Want to start a business or move yours into a new market? If you don’t have lots of lawyers and accountants on your payroll to navigate the regs – good luck! Complex regulations and tax laws favor “Big Business” over the little guys, and that’s how the big guys like it.
Nonetheless, “Regulation is stealth taxation,” Trump stated clearly in his Davos speech.
Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act on top of massive deregulation will provide larger paychecks for American workers along with unanticipated company bonuses and pay raises that will boost the economy even more.
The White House highlighted these economic gains for American workers:
USA TODAY: Starbucks Boost Worker Pay, Gives Bonuses After Tax Cut CNBC: 125,000 Disney Employees to Receive $1,000 Cash Bonus Due to Tax Reform FT: Verizon To Give Most Employees Stock in Anticipation of Tax Savings REUTERS: JP Morgan Rolls Out $20 Billion Investment Plan After Tax Gains BLOOMBERG: Whirlpool Says It’s Adding Jobs After Trump Tariff Decision
During Trump’s first year, the Dow climbed 31 percent, according to CNBC, surpassed only by FDR, reporting that the “30-stock index has surged more than 31 percent since Trump’s inauguration.”
CNBC: The Dow’s 31% Gain During Trump’s First Year Is the Best Since FDR
“Donald Trump lifted the Dow Jones industrial average in his first year in office more than any other president since Franklin Roosevelt. The Dow has surged more than 31 percent since Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2017. That marks the index’s best performance during a president’s first year since Roosevelt. The Dow skyrocketed 96.5 percent during Roosevelt’s first year in office….Trump quickly moved to cut regulations enacted by previous administrations. He also successfully pushed to overhaul the U.S. tax code. That revamp included slashing the corporate tax rate to 21 percent from 35 percent.”
Right, after the 1929 Wall Street Crash followed by the Great Depression, there really wasn’t anywhere else for the stock market to go but up. Elected in 1932, becoming the 32nd President of the United States, FDR saw the Dow Jones Industrial Average rise during his first year in office from 1933 to 1934. In fact, it took the market 25 years to fully recover from the Wall Street Crash.
He served from 1933 to 1945.
And then there’s the hot button issue, climate change.
Whatever your opinion of climate change, the fact is the proposals for addressing it these days consist almost entirely of political theater. The least burdensome proposals cripple the economy and accomplish nothing. The most radical proposals amount to dismantling industrial civilization resulting in impoverishment and mass starvation.
If we are going to find alternatives to fossil fuels the only thing that can accomplish this is a rich and dynamic economy that can support the research, development, and large-scale implementation of new technologies.
That’s a job for businessmen and engineers, not bureaucrats.
Probably the biggest thing the Trump administration has done is to remove a lot of the uncertainty of doing business. A thriving economy can stand a lot of stupid regulation, if they are consistent from day-to-day.
What the economy can’t stand is the uncertainty of a business environment where regulations are imposed capriciously by a chief executive who overturns settled law to pick winners and losers, decides who has to obey, and who gets special exemptions.
And, I must say, I did not see this unshackled vibrant economy coming. Trump seemed like the archetypal crony Capitalist, leveraging political influence for his own advantage, even to the point of trying to use eminent domain for private projects.
It never occurred to me that a player skilled in that game could still realize it is horribly bad for the U.S. economy, and once in power act on that knowledge. As a businessman, Trump has learned the economic lessons taught by Eastern Europe in their transition from socialism to market economies. And if you’d told me, I wouldn’t have believed you. What a pleasant surprise!
“As President of the United States, I will always put America first, just like the leaders of other countries should put their country first also,” Trump declared at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
ABOUT STEPHEN BROWNE
Stephen Browne has been a sewage treatment plant worker, a truck driver, an English teacher and a journalist. In 1991 he received his MA in anthropology and set out for Eastern Europe, which was to become his home for the next 13 years. While teaching English and working with local dissidents abroad he began to write professionally about the tremendous changes happening after the collapse of the Soviet empire. In 1997, he was elected Honorary Member of the Yugoslav Movement for the Protection of Human Rights. In 1998, he co-founded the Liberty English Camps in Lithuania, which teach the principles of free markets and political liberty through English-language instruction, and eventually became the Language of Liberty Institute. He returned to the U.S. to study journalism on a graduate fellowship and pay some dues in rural newspapers in the Midwest. At present he lives in his native Midwest with his two children Jerzy Waszyngton and Judyta Ilona. Mr. Browne is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis of the conservative-online-journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/America-First-e1517829431658.png377640Selous Foundation For Public Policy Researchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelous Foundation For Public Policy Research2018-02-05 06:17:512018-02-05 06:17:51Trump’s ‘America First’ Economy by Stephen Browne
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/schumer-trump-hillary.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2018-02-04 16:33:282018-02-04 16:33:28VIDEO: Remembering what Bill, Hillary, Barack, Michelle and Chuck Schumer said about illegal aliens
The Collier County School District voted in November to join a lawsuit alongside other Florida county schools board, claiming that the Florida Legislature violated the constitutional rights of the school boards to “operate the free public schools.”
Specifically, the School Board challenges the Florida Legislature’s right to create a system of “schools of hope” during the 2017 session, whereby failing public schools may now be converted into charter schools so that the students of this state have a better chance of receiving a quality education through new leadership. Apparently, the Legislature has found that “schools of hope” have actually worked elsewhere throughout the United States, and wants to give students of failing schools that same chance here in Florida.
In a carpetbagging Motion to Intervene, the Collier County School Board asserted a right to now join the lawsuit previously filed by the Alachua County School Board and other school boards, sanctimoniously regurgitating legal arguments already made by other lawyers. The Motion to Intervene is linked here:
The lawsuit pits a battle between the competing but co-equal constitutional authority of the school boards and the Florida Legislature:
Florida Constitution Art. IX, Sect. 4(b) empowers the various school boards to “operate the free public schools.” This has been construed to mean grades K-12.
Florida Constitution Art. IX, Section 1(a) empowers the Florida Legislature to create a “uniform…high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain a high quality education.” it also empowers the Legislature’s “establishment, maintenance, and operation of institutions of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the people may require.”
The battle before the court is whether the establishment of “schools of hope” intrudes upon the School District’s right to “operate the free public schools,” or alternatively whether the Legislature can critically analyze the various school districts’ failure to meet the educational needs of all students of this state, and thus legislatively create a statewide “schools of hope” option under its constitutional authority to create a “uniform high quality system of free public schools” so that all students have a chance to “obtain a high quality education.”
This will be an interesting legal debate, since the law provides that different sections of the Florida Constitution are to be construed “in pari materia,” meaning “equally.” The court will have to balance these overlapping constitutional powers. Expect this one to end up before the Florida Supreme Court.
What is interesting to this author, though, is the hypocrisy of the Collier County School Board.
In its Motion to Intervene, the School Board argues that its constitutional rights are violated because the Legislature’s new “schools of hope” create a “dual or even multiple system of public education.” But nothing in the Florida Constitution or Statutes prohibits a dual system of public education. Rather, the Legislature is constitutionally empowered to create a “uniform” system of public education. “Uniformity” does not necessarily prohibit having a “dual” system, as long as that dual system is uniform statewide.
So here’s where the school board’s hypocrisy is on display…..One area of Florida’s Education Code where there is clearly a strict requirement for a “single system” of education is with Florida’s colleges. The Florida Legislature has provided that there shall be a “single Florida College system.” Fla. Stat. 1001.60. It then defines by name all of the 28 state colleges. Fla. Stat. 1000.21(3). For instance, for Collier County, the designated state college is Florida Southwestern State College. The Legislature then provides that the term “college” can only be used in those state colleges’ name if they meet certain criteria. Fla. Stat. 1001.60(2)(b). And lest there be any remaining doubt, the Legislature states that no other institutions may use the term “college,” individually or in combination with any other letters or words. Fla. Stat. 1005.03.
Despite these clear directives from the Legislature, in 2015 the Collier County School Board changed the name of its “institutes of technology” to “technical Colleges”:
Lorenzo Walker Institute of Technology became “Lorenzo Walker Technical College.”
Immokalee Technical Center became “Immokalee Technical College.”
The Florida Legislature has the sole authority to legislate requirements for the establishment “state colleges” and “postsecondary institutions” because they fall within the Legislature’s constitutional authority to create “institutions of higher learning and other public education programs that the needs of the people may require.” The Collier County School Board has no constitutional authority here because these are tuition-charging institutions and thus do not fall within the “free public schools” operated by school boards under their constitutional authority. Thus, the Florida Legislature alone has the authority to create a “single Florida College System,” and the Collier County School Board must abide by the Legislature’s statutory mandates.
The Collier County School Board — alongside many other school boards throughout the state — have effectively thumbed their noses at the Legislature, establishing an illegal “dual Florida College system,” by creating a statewide system of “technical colleges” which are not really colleges at all.
So note the irony here. The Collier County School Board wants to sue the Florida Legislature for creating a “dual or multiple system of public education” despite no specific prohibition against that; but the Collier County School Board is operating a “dual Florida College system” in direct contravention of the Legislature’s statutory prohibitions.
That, my friends, is hypocrisy.
Might the Collier County School Board also be committing fraud?
Students attending these career centers may think they are getting a college education, but they are not. When the Collier County School Board voted to change the name of its technical centers to “technical colleges” back in 2015, it was with the specific stated intent to have post-secondary students now go to a “college.” The school district presented a Powerpoint showing how more students will enroll if it is called a “college.” They posted a video testamentary about a student who was pleased that her hard work at the career center is more recognized now that she is attending a “college.”
Steve Bracci, of B&B, has repeatedly placed the School Board on notice about this “technical college” issue, and thus the district cannot deny its knowledge and intent. These notices include:
Public comment to the School Board on January 22, 2018:
Powerpoint presentation to the School Board, asking by what authority the District is operating “technical colleges” [Click here for Powerpoint]
It is the opinion of this author that the Collier County School Board may want to gird its loins for a possible class action lawsuit for “fraud” or “deceptive trade practices” when these students realize that they were deceived into paying tuition to the Collier County School Board for a “college” education at a so-called technical college, which is really no college at all.
Huh…so Erick Carter has now retroactively become a “college graduate?” Does that mean the Collier County School Board created decades-worth of college grads in one day, simply by changing the name of its career centers to “technical colleges” in contravention of Florida statutes?
What say you, Board?
And how about you, Mr. Carter? Are you now a college grad?
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/collier-county-school-logo.jpg394639Bolduc & Braccihttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngBolduc & Bracci2018-02-04 07:28:442018-02-04 07:29:10The Hypocritical, Sanctimonious Indignation of the Collier County School District
I am a 69 year old proud American who happens to be black. The American Left (Democrats, Hollywood and fake news media) exploit Black History Month as an opportunity to further their lie that America is eternally racist and a hellhole for blacks. BHM should feature the truth that America is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it; regardless of race, color, creed or gender. Blacks are only 12% of the U.S. population. Therefore, black millionaires and billionaires like Oprah, Samuel L Jackson, Colin Kaepernick and countless others confirm my point; white America made these blacks extremely wealthy.
And yet, sadly, most millennial blacks believe the Left’s lie that their opportunities for success are limited. They believe white cops murder black men on sight. They believe white America is obsessed with conceiving dirty tricks to keep blacks down.
It is interesting that the American Left which includes the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus despises and seeks to destroy successful blacks who bear witness to the greatness of America. I am talking about blacks like world renowned retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, businessman extraordinaire Herman Cain and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Without lowered standards or special concessions due to their skin-color, these blacks achieved success the old fashion way. They earned it.
Imagine driving down a dusty country road on a spring day in the 1950s. You see a dirty little black boy in a field picking cotton. Only in America could that black boy grow up to become one of the most powerful men in the world, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. You will never see the American Left using Justice Thomas’ remarkable American story during BHM to inspire black youths. Leftist only feature blacks whom they claim achieved success in spite of America’s rabid racism or sexism.
The American Left strives to convince all Americans that they are victims of either Christians, conservatives, Republicans, the rich or straight white men. Individuality and self-reliance are as repulsive to Leftists as crossing Dracula the cross. Leftists’ dream is for all Americans to be dependent upon and thereby controlled by big tyrannical government. Leftists want government to force their agenda items down our throats that would never be approved by voters.
A glaring example of Leftists not really giving a rat’s derriere about blacks is the Congressional Black Caucus’ response to Trump announcing in his SOTU that black unemployment is at a record low. Wouldn’t that good news be cause for applause from people who supposedly represent blacks? And yet, the CBC sat stone-faced refusing to applaud with others in the capital hall. It was stomach turning seeing Leftist operative CBC members wearing their little African clothes draped over their shoulders. These clothes are suppose to show CBC members’ super commitment to black Americans. These people (CBC members) are shameless traitors to their fellow black Americans.
Despite Trump reaching out and implementing policies helpful to blacks the evil CBC is hellbent on deceiving black Americans into believing their lie that Trump is racist. One of my brothers is an outspoken black Christian conservative Republican. In his mostly black community and church, my brother boldly challenges blacks to tell him one thing Trump has said or done to prove Trump is racist. They can not. Like Sheep-ple, blacks in my brother’s church and community believe Trump is racist solely because Democrats, Hollywood and fake news media have told them Trump is racist.
Democrats must keep blacks believing America is a hellhole for blacks; believing their lie that Trump and all conservatives/republicans are racist. Democrats must keep their lie alive that blacks’ only hope is to continue monolith voting for Democrats. The problem is blacks’ brain-dead loyalty to Democrats has reaped direr consequences. Blacks murder each other in record numbers in cities controlled by Democrats for decades. Blacks are engaged in self genocide due to disproportionate high numbers of abortions. High numbers of fatherless households births epidemic numbers of blacks joining gangs, school dropouts, black on black crime, incarcerations and poverty.
Democrats are insidious enablers; nurturing problems in black communities by lowering cultural, moral and intellectual standards for us in the name of compassion. After all, according to Leftists, we black folks ain’t too bright. Democrats relieve blacks of any accountability or responsibility for their failure or success; claiming our fate rest solely in the hands of white America. Notice how Democrats/Leftists are always advocating lowering the bar and giving us free stuff; addicting us to government freebies.
I am applauded by the Democrats’ bigotry of lowered expectations regarding my fellow black Americans. As a black man I can say this. Our problem is not whitey persecuting us. Our problems are rooted in blacks allowing their loyalty to Democrats to morally bankrupt our communities. It was amazing seeing many black clergy abandoning the Bible’s view of sex same marriage because Obama was for same sex marriage.
If Leftists were honest, they would really call BHM their “America Still Sucks for Blacks Month”. Every February, Leftists use BHM to guilt-trip a new generation of whites and convince blacks to continue sleeping with their enemies by voting for Democrats.
Blacks like me who love their country and realize the obvious blessing of being born an American are excoriated by Leftists. Leftists call us Uncle Toms suffering with Stockholm Syndrome.
But here is the truth.
American is the greatest land of opportunity on the planet for all who choose to go for it. To my fellow blacks, reject the American Lefts’ daily-you-are-a-victim excrement. Pursue your American dream via education, hard work and right choices. Pure and simple.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/africanamericanhistorymonth2018.jpg360640Lloyd Marcushttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngLloyd Marcus2018-02-04 07:17:132018-02-04 07:17:13Sadly, Another Black History Month
